Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Bad Puppy

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 9  Next >
21
Flat Earth Community / Re: ISS Open For Business
« on: June 15, 2019, 12:44:56 AM »

Even if you went to space and saw a sphere earth that does not mean that the earth is a sphere.  it just means that the light warped so much when it left the atmosphere that your brain thought it was round.


At least three things will happen, though.
1. You would see the continental layout of the planet as it passes under you, and even if you believe it's distorted by an enormous amount of light warping you'll be able to map the planet more accurately than a flat earth has been mapped before.
2. You would watch the earth rotate beneath you and will be able to learn much about how the sun illuminates it.
3. You could see the sun set behind the earth without any magnification effect of an atmosphere and get a better idea of the size of the sun.

It may not definitively answer a round or flat earth question, but you would certainly be able to learn a lot more about the earth, moon, sun and cosmos from the ISS.

22
Flat Earth Community / Re: ISS Open For Business
« on: June 14, 2019, 06:56:35 PM »
Do you really think that would suddenly change everyone's mind?
What if the FE community all pooled together and sent up someone "trustworthy"? Yeah, I don't think this is super realistic, but let's imagine for a bit. Let's say that there was some FE paragon that went up there and relayed their experiences back to the rest of us. Maybe that could change some minds?

I would say fly up Tom and Sandokhan.  Both are well versed in their respective flat earths, and both have vastly different views on the cosmos.  Unless we've figured out how to simulate a zero-gravity environment for extended period of time I think that should be pretty convincing evidence of being out of the effects of gravity/UA.

To Tom and Sandokhan, if you were launched up into this breathable zero-gravity environment without any special outfits for an extended period of time, would you be able to accept that you might be in a structure located in space?

23
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think I can disprove everything
« on: June 14, 2019, 06:46:15 PM »
It sounds like you just demonstrated the point of the car analogy. The conditions to travel in a perfectly straight line without navigational aid are impractical.

Fair enough.  Now, if only we had a navigational tool which would aid us in maintaining a straight path regardless of the shape of the earth, we'd get somewhere.  Obviously a compass won't work here.

24
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think I can disprove everything
« on: June 14, 2019, 12:34:31 AM »
I think there is one thing that could throw everything away. If I can walk in a "straight" line from one point and eventually make it back to that same point, how is the Earth flat? If it is, I would fall of the Earth. That is just one. Please ask me more things to disprove.

First you'd have to get past the wiki's claim that you can't walk in a straight line without turning.

Quote
Q. Can't we just circumnavigate the earth by traveling in a straight line without a navigational aid?

A. It is not possible to travel in a perfectly straight line for very long without a navigational aid.

It's not even possible to drive down a long length of highway without turning the steering wheel left or right. Get in a car and see if you can drive down a long stretch of highway without turning the wheel left or right. It's a near impossible thing to do.

Of course, the second part is just a silly statement which is misleading.  If the road were absolutely level, straight and smooth, with no environmental or atmospheric effects such as wind, exact tire pressure, tread specifications, drag on bearings, perfect symmetry in a vehicle's internal parts including the driver (which isn't possible), etc.....the car will go straight....forever....without a navigational aid.  But, those conditions do not exist on a flat or round earth.  So, the car analogy is a terrible one and adds no value to the argument.

25
This same depiction of reflected sunlight has been discussed before. No one (not even Totallackey) provided real evidence of the sun casting a shadow from a reflection off of a surface on to the bottom surface of a cloud.  All he has done is provide a false equivalency. To cast a reflected shadow you would need a specular reflection - such as a mirror or water. Most surfaces provide only diffuse reflection - grass, trees, most things in nature. He once even suggested that there is possibly a body of water that cast that shadow without providing one shred of evidence.
Rainier is surrounded by numerous bodies of water and is located in the middle of the snowiest place in the contiguous 48.

False equivalency your tuckus...

Plenty of highly reflective surfaces that could easily generate specular reflection.

Yet, you provide no evidence of this phenomenon directly happening. Only pure conjecture and hypothesizing that it can happen.
This same depiction of reflected sunlight has been discussed before. No one (not even Totallackey) provided real evidence of the sun casting a shadow from a reflection off of a surface on to the bottom surface of a cloud.  All he has done is provide a false equivalency. To cast a reflected shadow you would need a specular reflection - such as a mirror or water. Most surfaces provide only diffuse reflection - grass, trees, most things in nature. He once even suggested that there is possibly a body of water that cast that shadow without providing one shred of evidence.
Rainier is surrounded by numerous bodies of water and is located in the middle of the snowiest place in the contiguous 48.

False equivalency your tuckus...

Plenty of highly reflective surfaces that could easily generate specular reflection.
I've gone over this with you before and you still say this. Can you give an example where snow or an ocean has reflected so perfectly to cause a sharp shadow at such a huge distance? I'm very curious to see.
I would state a shadow on the underside of a cloud is evidence it is directly happening.

Sharp shadow?

Nice try.

You just disagree with my interpretation of the cause.
Because your interpretation seems to be baseless assumption while I've studied the effects of lighting and surface materials for over a decade.
Everyone, regardless of profession, observes directly the effects of sunlight reflecting off of snow, ice, and water, over the course of their lives.

I have seen these effects directly.

Reflected sunlight off these surfaces is certainly capable of casting shadows.
      
I would state a shadow on the underside of a cloud is evidence of sunlight directly hitting the underside of a cloud, not ambient lighting. I'd agree with you if only there weren't a sharp shadow being cast on the underside as well. I could be wrong but can you provide more examples of this effect or some kind of study into the effect on a similar scale? Like I said, in the interest of knowledge I'd really like to see this kind of stuff. :)
Like I wrote, we disagree on the cause.

I don't necessarily agree with your perception of the shadow, categorizing as it "sharp," but that is neither here nor there.

Is there any way you can illustrate here how a this shadow can be created through surface reflections?  Do forests, rockbeds, cities have the same reflective properties as water?


26
You believe the surface is dark under the lit portion of the sky depicted in the picture?

Looks that way to me.

Like the areas in shadow here (sorry, link to page since Alamy won't allow direct linking to picture)

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-aerial-view-of-sunset-illumination-on-the-talkeetna-mountains-alaska-51952526.html

or like this

https://www.alamy.com/sunset-in-the-mountains-the-slopes-of-the-mountains-with-snowy-peaks-illuminated-by-the-last-rays-of-the-sun-image235121338.html
It is obvious the sky behind the mountain is lit.

It is obvious the ground behind the mountain would be reflecting that sunlight at different angles.

No, it is not obvious.  You have no evidence.  Besides, if there were any reflection of light off that mountain, you wouldn't have a shadow cast in the shape of the peak.  It would be the object reflecting the light, and therefore reflecting light - and not shadow - in the shape of the peak.

27
The problem with that demonstration is that it fails to account for the path that the light from the moon takes before hitting the eye of the observer. Refraction is real and it has a very real effect on what we see. Since we don't live in a vacuum and the atmosphere as well as it's composition can have a very dramatic impact on what we see.

Even in the round earth model when you see the sun "rise" it's well below the horizon. When it comes to optics and refraction what you see is not reality. It's your visual cortex's best attempt at making an image out of a cloud of electrical signals.

Refraction wouldn't bend light making it curve under the clouds:


The issue of a shadow of a mountain cast on the underside of clouds is simply a matter of reflected light from the surface of the earth.

Your evidence for this, please. With sources.

28
I have just recently found an interest in the Flat Earth Theory, and after a while of research about what it was, I couldn't understand it very well, or how it explained a lot of things, so I came to the Flat Earth Society forum to get a brush up on all the details as it seems that you guys have all the answers. So can I have a detailed explanation on this theory?

You'll probably find all you need looking through the forums and the wiki.  Evidence of such is another story altogether.

29
This is a pretty cool video.  In the comments he does explain that he could not make the sun to scale for one main reason:

"Unfortunately I did have to re-scale the sun to fit the diameter of my spotlight as the scaled sun would have been approx 4.35 meters diameter and a distance of 469 meters."


30
I see multiple contradicting explanations. You guys should have a pow-wow and figure out how your model works.

The irony in that statement is palpable.

Are you referring to the diagram which shows the sun moving relative to the observer?  The RE model is solid as have been the many explanations that you failed to understand.

31
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 11:05:42 AM »
A question regarding Oppolzer's map, Tom. Is this the flat earth map you believe is accurate in the layout and size of its land masses?  You are referencing his map for these paths as being accurate for a flat earth.

32
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 12:58:49 AM »
....and produce a path like a hill.

Based on your evidence of absolutely nothing?

Quote
Here's a link to a nice hill-type eclipse path with an animation in the middle of the page.  See "3D Eclipse Animation"

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2017-august-21

That's not a geometric model of the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Considering that I believe the Earth is a globe, that website which I linked contains accurate paths of past eclipses, and paths of future eclipses.  I've witnessed a number of eclipses which have crossed my path in the past and have matched to the minute the times and locations stated on the site.  That is evidence.

As to the 3D animation, I'm glad you can see the obvious.  It's not a geometric model of the Sun-Earth-Moon system.  It's an animation of the Earth, and the path the eclipse takes.  And look, it's a wavy line.  It's okay, Tom.

33
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 12:39:36 AM »
No, Tom.  On a globe Earth the paths are not perfect arcs because there are two independent movements involved: the Earth's rotation on its axis, and the moon's orbit around the Earth.

Both of those movements are constant, not erratic.

....and produce a path like a hill.

Here's a link to a nice hill-type eclipse path with an animation in the middle of the page.  See "3D Eclipse Animation"

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2017-august-21

Sorry Tom.  You're wrong.  I know you'll never admit it despite the evidence presented, but it's there.

34
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 12:23:39 AM »
Austrian astronomer Theodor von Oppolzer worked it out using a FE map and the Saros Cycle. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse

The paths make perfect arcs, unlike the Round Earth model.
The 2017 total solar eclipse is not a perfect arc. And most eclipses you look at aren't perfect arcs either. Look at future eclipses around the poles (well... North Pole) and you'll notice that it they aren't perfect arcs. The future eclipse spherical showed wasn't a perfect arc either. It was in the shape of a hill.

What are you talking about? On Flat Earth maps the paths are perfect arcs. They are distorted on other types of maps because they are not correct.



No, Tom.  On a globe Earth the paths are not perfect arcs because there are two independent movements involved: the Earth's rotation on its axis, and the moon's orbit around the Earth.  The combination of those two motions produce the hill-shaped shadow path of the eclipse.  Open any astronomy textbook or consult any astronomy source on the topic.

35
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 15, 2019, 08:00:45 PM »
If you guys want to know how prediction of the eclipses work, open any astronomy textbook or consult any astronomy source on the topic. That's how it is predicted. It's all there. If you are curious about the details, look into it. It has nothing to do with the Wiki.

Are you thinking of any specific textbooks, or are you willing to accept that ANY astronomy textbook will be correct?

36
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 15, 2019, 12:24:24 AM »
See these two links:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses

The path is not a perfect arc because as the earth rotates on its axis it is also moving around the sun.  There are two motions at play, so the globe paths for a solar eclipse is perfectly normal.

37
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Red Moon
« on: May 12, 2019, 08:12:59 PM »
Here's an explanation given by a flat earther on how the moon is red

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14695.0

Yeah, TLDR Sandy.  He also believes Jupiter is flat despite the eye's rotational pattern matching that of a spheriod planet.

38
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Red Moon
« on: May 08, 2019, 08:03:00 PM »
I haven't seen any evidence of a shadow object, so it would be helpful if some were presented.

39
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 12:46:30 AM »

Thork has a good point.  Even better, don't waste anyone's time and just use the search feature of the site to look up previous discussions on the 25 topics.  They most likely each have several threads each.

40
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctica shows 24 hours of sunlight.
« on: April 30, 2019, 12:45:29 AM »
If 24 hours of sun above the horizon during the summer solstice in Antarctica is a real phenomenon one wonders why the only available video of the event depicts what looks suspiciously like the sun was cut and pasted on the video, what with the completely static rays of light.


Because they're lens flares created by the camera lens filter, and there's a good chance that whatever lens filter is being used has consistent optics throughout its surface?

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 9  Next >