61

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Would you consider arguing in favor of a Flat Earth if this were a Debate Club?

« on: May 25, 2018, 02:14:02 PM »

Since you guys admit that the infinite perspective line concept probably has never been demonstrated, and that you could not do it, and that there are no experiments on infinite perspective lines, what just happened here?

The Rowbotham side is winning the debate! The fundamental assumptions of the Ancient Greek side was never truly demonstrated in the first place.

Bertrand Russel called. Said something about a teapot. Between Earth and Mars I think?

Euclidean perspective is demonstrable for all testable distances. Claims that they don't hold up over infinite distances would be unfalsifiable. You have the burden of proof.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Neutrinos

« on: May 24, 2018, 04:23:30 PM »

I hate to be the burster of bubbles here, but couldn't the neutrinos just curve up when inside the earth? How can we confirm they travel straight through matter, specifically the earth's insides whatever they may be?

They're traveling at close to the speed of light. If they were accelerating that much, then they would oscillate slower.

But yeah, it's almost like they rise at a rate modeled by y=sec(x/6667km+θ)!

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wu Experiment vs. Bedford Level Experiment

« on: May 23, 2018, 06:05:02 PM »

Yes, it was about P-asymmetry. The point I was making is that the experiment was subject to much more scientific scrutiny than the Bedford one, even though the shape of the world is even more basic.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Wu Experiment vs. Bedford Level Experiment

« on: May 23, 2018, 04:56:26 PM »

It was usually assumed that a perfect reflection of a system would have the same outcome. It's called P-symmetry, and it was accepted as fact for a while.

In 1956, the Wu experiment overturned this notion. Despite its near-maximal rejection of P-symmetry, the results were heavily doubted and it wasn't until a year later when it was repeated many times by many others that it was actually accepted.

And yet the Bedford level experiment, which has been criticized for not accounting for a well-understood effect, has been reproduced with contradictory results, and has only been reproduced affirmatively by one other, is supposed to irrefutably prove the world is flat? I think not.

65

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook wants your naked photos

« on: May 23, 2018, 02:25:31 PM »

Hashing it means the end result is safe enough, but it will have been sent in a way where the image is viewable.

Facebook's Global Head of Safety Antigone Davis told Newsbeat that photos will only be seen by "a very small group of about five specially trained reviewers"

Loads and loads of potential for this to go wrong.

Yep. They'll have to store the images in order for the team to work through them. They are going to store these images, no matter what they are telling people.

They hash them and remove them after this process. It's safer than private information on your profile page.

66

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook wants your naked photos

« on: May 23, 2018, 02:17:43 PM »

If a child purposely sends Facebook a picture, it's more like a minor stealing a beer rather than buying it legally.

No. FB is CONSENTING to you uploading the image to your account. They arent age verifying you. That's a bar selling (providing a service) to a minor that it shouldn't.

It's like a bartender that sells to minors illegally, but Facebook is the undercover cop that the minor requested in anticipation of that particular bartender trying to sell alcohol to them.

No. FB can't hold child pron with or without the child's permission. Nor can it claim to be 'blissfully ignorant' that they were children.

They don't hold on to the image though. It's stored as a hash.

This is the bit I don't believe. This is the type of thing that comes out in 7 years time and Zuckerberg stands before a panel of senators saying "lessons will be learned" ... meanwhile they have had 200 million child pron images stolen from them. FB has a lot of previous with this type of thing.

You're misunderstanding how a hash works and what the point is.

67

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook wants your naked photos

« on: May 23, 2018, 02:08:21 PM »

No. FB can't hold child pron with or without the child's permission. Nor can it claim to be 'blissfully ignorant' that they were children.

They don't hold on to the image though. It's stored as a hash.

68

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook wants your naked photos

« on: May 23, 2018, 02:04:54 PM »

If a child purposely sends Facebook a picture, it's more like a minor stealing a beer rather than buying it legally.

Which is actually a huge problem in the US.

69

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook wants your naked photos

« on: May 23, 2018, 02:00:50 PM »

You uploaded a .png? Fine, I'll resave it as jpeg. Or add an 80% compression. Or add a light filter. Or add noise. It isn't going to work in the slightest.

The first two would be trivial to stop, since I presume that they hash the actual raster and not the image file.

And yes, someone who is determined enough could get through any filter. But otherwise, if you tell them strongly to stop, they'll usually stop. Funny that.

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Six simple ways to measure whether the horizon is at eye level or not

« on: May 22, 2018, 11:28:00 PM »

I see that you yourself made a remark to Bobby on his latest experiment idea:

Be sure to calibrate it right: bloody difficult, I found.

Yet we are supposed to assume that all elements in the leveling devices in your examples are "good enough"?

There is a large difference between trying to measure something with a phone and measuring it with tools that architects have been using for centuries.

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Testable hypothesis for FET perspective model

« on: May 22, 2018, 06:39:03 PM »

Dr. Rowbotham postulates that disappearing due to perspective occurs at "the angular limits of the eye", asserting that the angular limit is around 1 arcsecond.

In Chapter XIV he writes "The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space."

Typo, now fixed.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 22, 2018, 06:37:32 PM »

Where did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate their idea that the perspective lines would recede for an infinite distance? No such thing was demonstrated. It is a hypothesis, and that is exposed in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Well, we know that light travels as a wave. Using the wave equation one can derive the rules of optics. By those rules, the vanishing point is infinitely far away.

Please submit proof that overturns the universally accepted theory of optics.

73

Flat Earth Theory / Testable hypothesis for FET perspective model

« on: May 22, 2018, 04:49:49 PM »

Dr. Rowbotham postulates that disappearing due to perspective occurs at "the angular limits of the eye", asserting that the angular limit is around 1 arcminute.

I disagree with Round Earthers that disappearing from perspective is completely ridiculous. I can actually name the Airy disk as a mechanism for it.

The Airy disk is a pattern of rings created by diffraction. For the human eye in bright light, the limit is about 1 arcminute. Additionally, multiple point sources of light can appear to merge like so:



Given this mechanism, I can hypothesize the following:

• An object close to disappearing due to perspective should be significantly blurred.
• There should be a pattern of rings, if it is indeed blurred from the Airy disk.

74

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Obvious Truth III

« on: May 20, 2018, 06:26:03 PM »

Arguing that it was just a situation where light refracted through some warm air does not cut it at all.

That's too bad because that's the explanation. Understanding refraction as but "chance mirage" is a key error on your part.

A permanent mirage that projects images of objects to the exact height they need to be at per RET curvature according the particular distance looked across in the experiment?

A rediculous, shameful, explanation.

I'd like to quote this Wikipedia article:

Although the straight line from your eye to a distant mountain might be blocked by a closer hill, the ray may curve enough to make the distant peak visible. A convenient method to analyze the effect of refraction on visibility is to consider an increased effective radius of the Earth R_eff … Under this model the ray can be considered a straight line on an Earth of increased radius.

It is not a "chance mirage" nor is it a "permanent mirage". It is merely "refraction". It is a well-understood effect that must be accounted for in low-altitude surveying.

Oh, and you mispelled "ridiculous".

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where are the documents from NASA that show it's all a hoax?

« on: May 18, 2018, 07:15:58 PM »

Well I guess this is the first time someone went against the requirement.

They would have been bankrolling an entire film crew, as well as purchasing some incredibly expensive apparatus to create those parallel shadows. They've also released classified documents for other missions they've done.

Why would this be any different?

Idk I'm not NASA, I do know there is many secrets the US Government is keeping from you, so why wouldn't NASA do the same?

NASA has their fair share of secrets. My point is that, for documents pertaining to the Moon landing, they can no longer keep them secret.

76

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered

« on: May 18, 2018, 06:42:48 PM »

Photoshopping was around long before you got your hands on it. What we get is things that are already out of date as far as they are concerned. Always a step ahead.

This isn't about Photoshop. It's about CGI. CGI wasn't even remotely a thing until the 80's.

The blue sky was behind it too.

Are you sure? I told you otherwise, and posed a question directly related to that conclusion that you didn't answer.

Unless you KNEW how big the satellite actually was you couldn't know the distant. Especially the number of miles you proclaim. Feet yes prehappens. But miles....naa.

First, the idea is to get a friend to take a second reading.
Second, the width of the ISS is well-established.
Third, have you any understanding of units at all? If you have the altitude in feet, then you can get it in miles simply by dividing by 5,280.

77

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered

« on: May 18, 2018, 04:19:10 PM »

You thinking the pictures of earth are not CGI doesn't mean they aren't. Its logical to think that if some have been proven frauds then the others MIGHT be as well.

Really? Even the pictures of Earth that predated CGI?

The day one you can see it's not in space. The blue sky is still behind it.

Funny thing, the blue sky is actually in front of it. How blue was the ISS in the picture?

One satellite crashed in Brazil I think it was. The local didn't know what it was. Pictures are on line. Satellite drone. There's a number on it to call and NASA has a team that goes and gets them. There's a balloon attach to it.

Sounds like it was never in space, was never intended to get to space, and NASA won't tell you that it was in space.

It would not tell you how many miles or exactly how far. You can't tell how far a plane is in the air only the position of where it's at. Not how far. I believe it's a satellite drone. Check out the picture of the one at day and the Brazilian one. Pretty cool stuff.

https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/math/geometry/triangles/congruent_asa_aas

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun and gravity

« on: May 18, 2018, 02:52:11 PM »

Please read the FAQ before making posts like this.

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about flight times

« on: May 17, 2018, 07:32:28 PM »

Did you book the flight? How do you know that you will be able to buy it, or that such a flight they end up giving you would be as advertised?

Are you suggesting that airlines routinely advertise flights which don't exist, or lie about their duration? 

I've had several flights that were rescheduled by airlines, even without notification, only finding out until trying to check in.

You'll need to prove that those flights were rescheduled specifically to hide that the world is flat then. There are tons of other reasons why they could have been rescheduled.

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 17, 2018, 04:32:05 PM »

Just looked on Marine traffic, and i recon the ship is the “sea passion” 333M long, and she is likely to have been in the area for about 36 hours.

I know this because i can see from your picture she is a large crude carrier, and believe me there are NOT that many in that part of the world. As i said I have worked on that operation and in that area.

Her AIS data shows she is fully loaded and would have a about 15 metres of hull above the waterline. She will also have instructions to remain a minimum of 25 miles off the coast at the headlands, so it is safe to say she is at least that distance away.

What is her mast height? Bobby seems to be measuring it from that.