3901

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook wants your naked photos

« on: May 23, 2018, 02:10:06 PM »

But this just... I mean, facial recognition is probably better.  Just whitelist who can share your face.  Anyone not on the list can't upload the picture.

It's not my face the algorithm would need to recognise 

3902

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook wants your naked photos

« on: May 23, 2018, 01:58:06 PM »

I'm going to have to take some now so I can send them to them

Send them to me instead. I absolutely promise they won't end up in CN.

Arts and Entertainment? 

3903

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook wants your naked photos

« on: May 23, 2018, 01:46:24 PM »

I'm going to have to take some now so I can send them to them

3904

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

« on: May 23, 2018, 10:01:28 AM »

Wouldn't concave refraction explain this? On the second stick man drawing with flat surface, suppose the light rays come down to touch the surface, then curve upwards gently to meet the eye. So it appears to stick man as though there is a visible horizon, whereas there really isn't.

Possibly in some conditions. I originally drew that to demonstrate that even if the earth were flat the horizon would dip - the red line is supposed to indicate the limit of visibility.

However I am struggling to reconcile that idea with Tom's claims in another thread that mountain peaks really appear flat. I.e. if all the observations look as though the earth were round, even though it is really flat, why would Tom argue that the view of the mountains is consistent with flatness. One of these has to give.

Tom often argues completely contradictory things depending on the circumstance, I find!

3905

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

« on: May 23, 2018, 09:07:11 AM »

At altitudes near sea level where the earth's horizon is sharp, it may be at eye level per Earth Not a Globe's explanation of finite perspective lines. This has not been disproven.

Well, you can't disprove it experimentally, to do so involves experiments over infinite distances which are a bit tricky...
I disproved it in the other thread using geometry and common sense though. Photons coming from two parallel lines going away from you will meet at your eye at an angle. That angle depends on how far you look into the distance. But it's a triangle, your eye is one corner, the other two corners are the points you're looking at on the two parallel lines. At which point does the angle at your eye become zero? It has to be infinity. The distance between the lines remains constant, that's what parallel means. The only thing that changes is the distance you look so the angle gets smaller but never zero. Obviously way before infinity the angle will be too small for you to distinguish the two lines but that is a limit of your vision. Optical magnification will resolve them.

We know that from an international flight the horizon is just a foggy mess.
At various other altitudes and atmospheric conditions, the situation is less clear; but you may keep trying. I can see in that video that it is not the clearest day.

Actually, the round earth explanation of this is quite simple. You are looking over a curve and the horizon is simply where you see the edge of the earth - quite poetic when you think of it that way, but that is what you are seeing:



From this diagram you can see that the higher you are the further you can see over the curve. That is why the horizon is further away the higher you go. I don't know what the FE explanation of that would be, if in your world the horizon is merging perspective lines, why would the distance they do so vary with your altitude?

Whether the horizon is sharp simply depends on whether visibility is good enough to see as far as the horizon is, that is more likely to be at ground level because the horizon is not as far away, but on a foggy day the horizon won't be sharp at ground level either:



So yes, on a flight the horizon is often hard to see because the distance to the horizon at that height is often further than clear visibility - and you're above clouds which can obscure the horizon.

In the picture used in that video the horizon was sharp enough, there was no gradual fading out as there would be if the real horizon was actually further away.
Your objections really are getting increasingly desperate and is lending more weight to my theory that you don't believe any of this and just enjoy debating from an impossible position.

3906

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

« on: May 23, 2018, 06:44:13 AM »

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.

What experiment could you do to demonstrate that? How do you do experiments over infinite distances?
But you don't need an experiment. All you need to do is understand that light travels in straight lines from an object into your eye - something I believe you accept - and geometry does the rest



If light travels in straight lines from the bottom of the person on the right and the top of the person on the right into the eye of the person on the left then it will do so at different angles because the bottom and top of the person are in different positions - this could be your two rail tracks.
It's a triangle, two of the corners are the bottom and top of the person, the 3rd is your eye.
It's obvious that as the person gets further away the angle at your eye gets smaller. That is why objects get smaller as they move away.
When does that angle become 0? At infinity, clearly. Otherwise it's not a triangle any more and you can see from the above diagram that it has to be one.

Now, obviously in real life that doesn't mean you can see the top and bottom of the person distinctly at any distance, the limits of our vision and sometimes the atmosphere prevent that. But in theory given perfect vision and a perfectly transparent atmosphere you would be able to, that is WHY optical magnification "restores" things. Restore is a misleading word, it implies the object had vanished but it hadn't, it is just a limitation of your vision. If you were with someone who had better vision than you then there would be distance when you could no longer see the object but they could. That proves that perspective lines don't merge at a finite distance - the perspective lines can't have merged for you and not for them.

Rowbotham didn't expose anything, clearly on a flat earth you'd be able to see the sun at all times, you wouldn't get buildings occluded by the curve of the earth and so on so he rationalised and made up a new version of perspective to attempt to explain these things. He started with the presmise of a flat earth and rationalised how things like perspective could be changed to explain observations which clearly can't be explained on a flat earth. But no-one else accepted his ideas because they are wrong, there's a reason he has pretty much been forgotten by history and his ideas have not become mainstream. They just don't reflect reality.

3907

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproving Rowbothams claim to distance of the sun

« on: May 22, 2018, 11:22:49 AM »

There are no email addresses on that Modern Mecahnics article. Where did those numbers come from? I am not them. The article was posted because it further describes the methodology.

OK, but you can see how that might confuse a stupid person.
On that Wiki page you quote two different sources with calculations, one says 2,000 miles, the other says 3,000.
Rowbotham says 800.

Which is it? If you claim Rowbotham is accurate then fine, but why not just quote his experiments on the Wiki, not two other articles which both give very different answers to both Rowbotham and each other.

3908

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproving Rowbothams claim to distance of the sun

« on: May 22, 2018, 08:13:37 AM »

Those NOAA/NAVY calculators are not accurate. There is the problem of trying to triangulate the Sun. See the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc

So you think Rowbotham's measurements were accurate and his calculated distance to the sun is accurate?
I'm confused then how here Rowbotham says:

Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles...it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm

But on your Wiki ot says:

[the height of the sun] is approximately 2000 miles

and

Modern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation, whereas on a globe earth those same angles can calculate the sun to nearly 93 million miles away

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

So which is it? Was Rowbotham right or not? If he was, why does your Wiki give such a different figure? If he wasn't, why are you arguing about it?

3909

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 8 Inches to a mile incorrect

« on: May 21, 2018, 11:52:12 AM »

Nevermind.

Please tell me you're not going to leave here without posting "the correct equation".

If my maths is right (highly questionable!) then the drop in inches over a distance of 'm' miles should be:

(1 - cos(360m/24938)) x 250,842,240

24938 = 2pi x radius of earth in miles
250,842,240 = radius of earth in inches

This gives 7.96 over 1 mile, 31.85 over 2. So I think it's pretty much right.

I do have some scribble where I derived this, can tidy it up and post it if anyone is interested.

3910

Flat Earth Community / Re: Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious

« on: May 21, 2018, 08:36:07 AM »

Hard to blame the education system. I mean, I'm sure it's far from perfect - but when was it ever so? Are people really less able to think critically or logically than they were in the past? Or are we just more aware and more exposed to our fellow humans' lack of intelligence and discernment?

That is a really good question. My general feeling is people aren't taught to think critically or logically. I see this kind of argument a lot:
A: "Smoking is really bad for you"
B: "My granddad smoked 20 a day from the age of 14 and didn't die till he was 90!"

B, you're an idiot. That is not a counter-argument. Yes, it is possible to do something very bad for you and live to a ripe old age, that doesn't mean it is probable to do so or that A's assertion is wrong. The old mixing up of possible and probably is a logical error which annoys me a lot!

I'm interested at flat earthers who are not religious. I don't agree with Dither's interpretation of scripture at all, I don't believe it should be understood scientifically. But I understand that he has a basis for believing a flat earth and that believing that the earth is special and set apart which we are increasingly coming to realise that from a cosmology point of view, it really isn't.

But if you don't believe that then I'm struggling to understand the mindset which would lead someone to reject all of modern science and think that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy to pretend that the ISS exists and space travel is real etc. etc. If you're not religious then what reason would you have for thinking the earth is different to any other planet? Yes there is life here but in many other regards it is the same to other planets with days and seasons and poles and mountains and geologic activity. We happen to be in the right position relative to our sun that life could develop here but otherwise there is nothing special about the earth at all. If you're not religious then why would you think there is?

3911

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

« on: May 21, 2018, 08:06:25 AM »

If I'd seen that video earlier, I might never have bothered with this topic.

I posted that video because I've been to Flaxton Gardens and seem Mt Coolum many times, but never personally thought to check this out.

It's a great video with solid analysis. Would be interested to hear what the rebuttal is, if any.
This is now the 5th way to show horizon dip.
I was at the seaside at the weekend and thought about downloading a theodolite app and seeing if I could get some pictures from a cliff but then I found you have to pay for the app!
It's not that expensive, but seemed like a waste for something I'd rarely use again. As it happened it wasn't the clearest day and the horizon wasn't that sharp anyway.

3912

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?

« on: May 20, 2018, 08:52:14 PM »

conditions for life is not [universal]

Please provide a verifiable alternative set of conditions for life, one substantially different from that present on Earth.

It is not possible to answer that question. We have very little data about the conditions on a planet or moon which mean it can support life. We only know of one object which has intelligent (and even that is debatable!) life on it. From that we can can conclude that planets with earth's properties - with an atmosphere, at the right distance from its sun so it is in the temperature range that liquid water can exist, with a certain mix of elements, are capable of sustaining life. We don't know how likely life is to arise on such planets though. Is it pretty much inevitable given enough time? Did we win the cosmological lottery and we're the only planet with life on? Is it somewhere in between? Right now we just don't know. We're only just starting to be able to detect exoplanets.
Is it possible that planets or moons which don't share earth's properties could harbour life? Some kind of life which is alien to us in every sense of the word? We don't know of any which do but, again, data is limited, we have studied our own solar system and not found any signs of life there but we've really only scratched the service - sent a few probes to do fly-bys, landed a few on Mars and Venus but that's about it.

TL;DR, we don't really have enough data to know what conditions on a planet or moon are able to support life as we only know of one which does. So the answer to:

If there the rest of the objects in the observable universe are devoid of life. How come earth has humans on it

is: We don't know if the rest of the objects are devoid of life because even within our own solar system we've only just started exploration of them, we've only been able to send craft to them for 40 years or so, exoplanets are only just being discovered now and are far too far away for us to explore with existing technology. We don't know whether there is life anywhere else. Early indications are that it is rare but we don't have enough data right now to be sure.

But the shape of objects. We have a lot more data about that. We haven't, as far as I know, observed an object above a certain size (more accurately mass) which is not spherical. All the stars, planets and moons (again, above a certain size) appear to be spheres. And we understand why that is, gravity naturally pulls objects of a certain mass into a sphere:

https://www.spaceanswers.com/deep-space/what-is-the-minimum-size-a-celestial-body-can-become-a-sphere/

Ergo, why wouldn't the earth be a sphere?

This actually raises a question about your Wiki which says that the other planets are "pretty small",
It doesn't state how small, but if they're less than a few hundred kilometres in diameter then they wouldn't be spherical - like that object you mentioned before, that object is too small to be pulled into a sphere by gravity and neither would the other planets be if they are as small as you suppose (I have assumed that "pretty small" means smaller than the flat earth sun which I believe is said to be about 30km across, correct me if I have that wrong).

3913

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are other objects in the Solar System Flat as well?

« on: May 19, 2018, 08:25:43 AM »

The rest of the objects of a certain size will be spherical, or roughly so, because gravity will pull them into that shape.
That is why the comparison with earth and other planets makes sense in terms of their shape.
The rest of the objects won't necessarily have life on them because certain additional criteria have to be met for that to be so - a planet being in the "goldilocks zone" where liquid water can be present is thought to be one.

Gravity is universal so that comparison is valid, conditions for life is not so it doesn't.

3914

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Debate Club: A fundamental change to how the public perceives the forums

« on: May 19, 2018, 08:03:57 AM »

I see a potential solution to Junker's problem in this as well. If people were actually attempting to debate both sides, people would naturally shout down any low quality posts when they appear in threads and ask that they create better arguments. That would be an easy win. The net result is social pressure for that user to make better quality posts. Then junker is less needed to meticulously scan every thread.

Also, I feel that many of the "You guys are so dumb," "prove it to me," etc., posts are because of the "we are the experts who know that the earth is flat, debate us" theme.

To need good debate you need
1) An interesting topic - well, we certainly have that
2) People who have differing opinions - we have that too. You lament sometimes how outnumbered you are but you're not really, there are round earthers like me signing up but there are plenty of FE posters here, it's just that most of them don't post in the upper fora.

If the reason for that is that the same debates happen over and over again, the same threads getting started then part of that is because the FAQ and Wiki aren't comprehensive. Thork mentions "what is on the other side" and the answer "we don't know". It's not a very satisfying answer, but it's an answer. So stick it in the FAQ. Might not stop people posting that, but at least you can point them at the FAQ, heck someone like me could do it to save you the bother. I'm quite happy to point new posters in the right direction about things like that if there's a direction to point them in.

But another reason that the same topics come up over and over is that you are not willing to concede any ground on any topic. A recent example is horizon dip. Now let's not get into that debate here, but you've been shown 4 different ways to demonstrate horizon dip, you refuse to accept any of them and you refuse to do any experimenting yourself so it becomes a frustrating conversation. There has to be some honesty in debates and that involves conceding some ground when shown to be wrong. The way progress has been made in science is by doing experiments and when the results show current models are wrong changing those models. Just blindly accepting any experiment which appears to show a result you believe in and dismissing or calling fake experiments which show the reverse isn't honest, it's just stubbornly sticking to dogma and doesn't make for interesting debate. How about thinking about why horizon dip might occur on a flat earth (hint, jelly beans!) and how your model might need to change to account for that. Rather than saying there is no flat earth map, that you don't know if there's one pole or two and so on, how about some discussions about how you would go about determining these things? If your model evolves then debate about it can evolve, if it doesn't then you're going to get the same discussions over and over.

Absolutely agree with Thork's comment about the upper fora being more light hearted. I said that some time ago and got shouted down. And fine, it's your place, you guys make it what you want it to be, but a bit of humour is no bad thing IMO.

Round Earthers who sign up to tell you that "earth is round, ur gay", just ban them and let the grown ups get on with discussing things.

3915

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

« on: May 19, 2018, 07:49:47 AM »

I do appreciate your honesty in your detection of this. This experiment, and others like it, are not easy or straight forward things like everyone believes. Surveying is difficult. Random public YouTubers can't just go off and perform experiments like in those videos.

Fine, and that's probably true. But when random YouTubers make a video which backs up something you believe you accept it unquestioningly.

3916

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

« on: May 18, 2018, 07:17:52 AM »

/qBut clearly in that experiment the tubes have different concentrations of...whatever that green stuff is, which affects the result.

Here is another device with more equally mixed dye:



The same sort of imprecision is seen:

For goodness sake, Tom!
In those you can clearly see the tubes are different shapes so they've produced the result in a different way.
That doesn't apply to Bobby's apparatus either. Why are you being so dishonest?

3917

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

« on: May 18, 2018, 07:16:26 AM »

If we apply the same level of nit picking and skepticism to EnaG, not a single one of his observations stand up to any scrutiny at all!

This. And this is where I question whether Tom is serious about FE research or a FE model which matches observations.

Any experiment described in ENaG or which seems to confirm a result in ENaG is accepted unquestionably.
Any experiment which shows that result to be wrong is either declared fake or analysed and analysed until any tiny speck of doubt can be found and it is dismissed.
It's a pretty dishonest way of working.

Tom produced a video of a drone which he claims showed the horizon staying the same as it rose. It didn't, you can clearly see the horizon dropping as the drone rises. When I pointed that out he just said that the video isn't stabilised...well, it's no good for proving the result then, is it?
Then he produced a video showing a camera on one building looking across another building which claimed that the horizon hadn't dipped. The problems with that were
1) The horizon actually was a couple of pixels below the roof of the other building
2) The buildings were 7 stories high and near the coast, so not high enough to clearly show the result
3) There was absolutely no way of calibrating or telling that the camera was the same height as the other building.

I know Tom likes the idea of a debating club and the idea of people arguing from a position they don't hold, I suspect that is what he is doing here.
And of course for a debate you need to have two people who take contrary positions.
But where it gets dishonest is if one side is clearly shown to be wrong just refusing to accept that or concede any ground.
Then it just becomes frustrating and pointless.

3918

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

« on: May 18, 2018, 06:59:03 AM »

The surface tension is at different levels different in the tubes of this single device. The whole claim that water is level in such devices is looking shakier and shakier.

But clearly in that experiment the tubes have different concentrations of...whatever that green stuff is, which affects the result.
In Bobby's experiment the tubes are connected, the concentration will be the same because of natural mixing so that won't be an issue.

I'm interested. Are you people serious about a FE model which matches observations, and taking observations yourself?
Bobby is doing a lot of work here and all you are doing is trying with increasing desperation to find problems with it.
Why don't you just take some observations yourself? You're an empiricist, aren't you?
And if your observations do match the 4 different ways you have been shown that prove that the horizon dips then you have to change your model.
That is how progress is made. You don't make progress by stating something as fact and then dismissing any experiment which shows that "fact" to be wrong.

3919

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Notes on The Importance of Empiricism

« on: May 17, 2018, 09:48:28 PM »

The rationalist/empiricist debate is a philosophical one.

As is truth.

What do you mean by that?

There are some things which cannot be determined absolutely, they are subjective:
"Trump is a bad president", "The Spice Girls are the greatest musical act of all time"
These are highly subjective statements, they may be interesting to discuss but ultimately there is no "absolute" truth about them.

Then there are things like "Brexit is the wrong decision for the UK".
Now, that is a complex topic which has been discussed ad nauseum over here. One aspect of it is the economy - some thing the sky will fall in economically if we leave, some think we'll be just fine. Let's say in 10 years time when we've left the economy is doing fine. People who wanted to leave will say "we told you so!". Or let's say the economy has done poorly, people who wanted to stay will say "we told you so!". The problem with those arguments is we don't know how the economy would have done had the other decision been made. In scientific lingo there is no "control". So while there might be an absolute truth about this, it is pretty much impossible to determine.

But with something like, say, the shape of the earth, there is a clear, absolute truth about that. Let's simplify things and say it's either flat or a globe...well, it can't be both. If you think it's flat and I think it's a globe then one of us is wrong. And while you can always claim there is some doubt the objections get increasingly desperate and spurious when, say, you're shown a load of photographs which clearly demonstrate horizon dip. So while yes, there is technically always some doubt about anything (outside of the fairly limited language of mathematics), the doubt about some things becomes increasingly theoretical and it's a weird way to live your life. You'd never get out of bed in the morning without checking to make sure the floor had not disappeared overnight or replaced by a replica which is brittle and you'd fall right through. No-one really lives their life doubting everything like that.

3920

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about flight times

« on: May 17, 2018, 07:22:03 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?