3981

Flat Earth Theory / Re: It's only a matter of time when the Gilded-Aged Flat Earth belief is no longer

« on: February 18, 2018, 04:26:19 PM »

And where is your evidence that this is what is going on with, say, GPS or TV or weather satellites? The second linke says:

Stratollites can maintain position over specific areas of interest for days, weeks, and eventually months on end.

That wouldn't really cut it for things like TV satellites, or are you claiming that they're sending a new one up there every few months? Where is your evidence for any of this? You're just desperately reaching rather than considering that your world view may be wrong.

3982

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: February 18, 2018, 04:15:46 PM »

Yes. 
That's one word for it.
As I said at the time, it's the same level of reasoning as:
"I have shut my eyes so now I can't see anything and therefore nothing can see me and I have thus become invisible".
This is why it's a bit rich Tom picking someone up for making declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen when he says silly things like this which are clearly untrue and doesn't back them up with anything.

3983

Flat Earth Theory / Re: It's only a matter of time when the Gilded-Aged Flat Earth belief is no longer

« on: February 18, 2018, 03:34:12 PM »

I'm sure they didn't. But in the years following the invention of the airplane, technological advancements and innovations flowed at a natural rate. Commercial airlines sprang up throughout the 1910s and 20s. Flight quickly became a key element of warfare. The jumbo jet wouldn't come around for a long time, true, but thousands of people all over the world were still directly witnessing and taking part in the phenomenon, all within just a few decades of the invention.

In contrast, commercial space travel is stagnant. It's been over sixty years since the first man supposedly flew in space, and yet the prospect is still as extraordinarily expensive, risky, and tightly-regulated as ever. What progress have these space entrepreneurs made? How are they any closer to launching space tourism as a viable industry than when Hughes first hawked the idea?

I'm not really sure what point you're making. When I was a kid we used to dream about moon bases and flying cars. Hasn't happened.
There was talk of cold fusion which would produce limitless clean energy. That hasn't happened either.
We used to dream about robot servants and automated houses and that is closer to reality.

I guess my point is some technical problems simply turn out to be harder to solve than others and it's next to impossible to predict these things.
The aviation industry has gone backwards in terms of speed - Concorde was in the 60s and nothing since has been anywhere near as fast.
Why? Because it is fundamentally difficult and expensive to accelerate large things to high speeds.
F=ma
For an object with a large mass - like an airplane or rocket - you need a LOT of F to generate that a. And we still don't have a particularly efficient way of generating that.
Where the airline industry has progressed though is comfort and entertainment. Having a screen in the back of the seat in front of you on which you can choose to show a load of films, TV shows or play music was the stuff of dreams when I first started flying, now it's routine.

Technology often advances quickly in times of war when a lot of resources are put into research. The Space Race came out of the Cold War and two super-powers trying to gain dominance of space.

I don't entirely agree that commercial space travel is stagnant. 7 "space tourists" have now visited the ISS. Now companies like Virgin are in the race it will happen if it is commercially viable. I'd say it's closer to reality than it was when I was a kid.

3984

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: February 18, 2018, 02:20:47 PM »

Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective? 

You said this:

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

This is one of your declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen. You are claiming that a light source which is physically above an object can cast a shadow angled upwards and when I showed you how ridiculous that is you said I hadn't accounted for perspective. So you seem to think that perspective can affect how shadows are cast. I am looking forward to your demonstration of that. As I said in my "long shadows at sunset" thread, the only way for long shadows to be cast like that is with a light source physically close to the horizon (or the light bending so it appears to be). If you think you can demonstrate to the contrary then let's see it.

3985

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Analemma

« on: February 18, 2018, 08:36:08 AM »

I see the animation at 2:30 in that video shows a self illuminating moon.
So explain moon phases. And the fact that craters on the moon cast shadows which proves it is being lit from some light source.

If the first couple of minutes of the video are full of such gaping holes I'm not sure it's worth my time to watch the rest.

3986

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: February 18, 2018, 08:16:46 AM »

The point is that we can't just go around making declarations of what will happen without showing that it would happen.

Oh, cool.

I'm looking forward to your proof on shadows being affected by perspective then. That is something you simply "declared" would happen and not shown at all
(Because you can't, because it wouldn't happen). How are you getting on trying to produce long shadows without the light source being physically close to the ground?

I don't disagree that people should back up their assertions, but it's a bit rich coming from someone who pretty much never does.

3987

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Analemma

« on: February 18, 2018, 08:13:22 AM »

What an annoying video.
The Coriolis effect is proof of a rotating globe.

Also, the aforementioned Emma sounds fun...

3988

Flat Earth Theory / Re: It's only a matter of time when the Gilded-Aged Flat Earth belief is no longer

« on: February 17, 2018, 10:52:46 PM »

Right now all the evidence points to earth being flat ... and that's good enough for me.

That's only really true if you ignore the tsunami of evidence for a globe earth.

Where is your evidence that a rocket launch witnessed by thousands was somehow faked. Just declaring it fake because it doesn't fit with your world view isn't evidence

3989

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: February 17, 2018, 10:42:08 PM »

If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.

I have no idea what you are talking about but do you mean that would happen on a spherical earth?

If you mean on your imaginary disc earth then I guess you would if you could dig through to the bottom. Without gravity to stop you UA would accelerate the earth upwards as you remain stationary and the earth would fly upwards leaving you in space.

In real life we live on a globe and a universe which has gravity so even if you could bore through the globe you couldn't fall through the hole into space.

I feel a may have misunderstood your post, I have no idea which point you think you have scored here.

3990

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The International Space Station

« on: February 16, 2018, 06:47:28 PM »

Mid-air holograms 
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Honestly, for people who claim to value empirical evidence they sure do go out of their way to do everything they can to dismiss empirical evidence which doesn't fit in with their world view.

3991

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airplane Trajectory

« on: February 16, 2018, 02:09:55 PM »

Why would it go anywhere near the Indian Ocean? The current trajectory, according to this site, is across the Pacific Ocean.

http://www.travelstart.co.za/blog/worst-flights-for-jetlag/

As you'd expect on a globe, the path is a curve (as represented on a 2D map)

3992

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another person that just has a couple questions just because I'm curious. Thanks

« on: February 16, 2018, 10:20:16 AM »

Except a circumnavigation via both Poles has been done.

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-surface

That would not be possible on a flat earth.

You can call that fake of course but that isn't really an argument unless you have evidence it was faked, you could do that about anything otherwise.

3993

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ice Wall Must Be Very Tall

« on: February 16, 2018, 10:12:23 AM »

The only two arguments I've seen which would kinda work in terms of the "atmoplane" leaking out into space are a physical dome or an infinite plane.
These are two FE models - it's weird how they can't agree about fundamental differences like this and don't see that as a problem.
A very tall wall would also work but the you'd surely be able to see it.
Would a dome need supporting if we pretend gravity doesn't exist (sorry, Cavendish)?

3994

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Railroads, tunnels, canals.... bridges?

« on: February 16, 2018, 10:00:16 AM »

I saw a video where this very thing was done. It was quite interesting in that the same formulas used for RE to project the Moon's distance (I'm pretty certain it was the Moon) could also be used for the FE theory. The person was in the Eastern part of the USA and his mate was in the Western half, I believe. They performed the function and came out almost exactly as predicted. It came down to punching in the numbers on a 3rd party scientific calculator on a website that is not caught up in this debate. I'll try to locate the video and post it here.

Please do. I have suggested this numerous times on this site, yours is the only response and even then it's just "I saw a video once...".
If you could find it then it would be good to look at.

How would you explain the crepuscular Sun rays from the angular standpoint? They always seem to show a near rather than a distant Sun. No need to post any pics or vids, as I am certain you are familiar with this FE paradigm. I would like to read your thoughts and views on that.

I know I like to tease Tom when he shouts "Perspective!" in answer to everything but in this case that really is the explanation. Are these rail tracks parallel?



Parallel lines can appear to be emanating from a closer source because of perspective, that would be true if the sun was thousands or millions of miles away.
What can't happen because of perspective is long shadows at sunset or clouds being lit from below and shadows being cast upwards. That can only occur because of a sun which is physically on the horizon and disappearing below it as the earth rotates.

3995

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few questions about the Sun from a novice

« on: February 15, 2018, 10:49:04 PM »

Per your addendums, those perspective models rely on the Ancient Greek concept of a continuous universe. But no evidence for a continuous universe has ever been provided. It is questionable that perspective would behave in accordance to that model rather than in accordance to what we experience.

Still ignoring the long shadows at sunset point, I see.
You repeatedly show you don't understand how perspective works but I proved in this thread that the sun cannot be where your model claims at sunset

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.0

Your nonsense about whether the universe is continuous is an attempt at misdirection and to muddy the waters. If you have clear line of sight to a light source - as you would if an object was above the plane of the imaginary disc earth - then you would be able to see it unless it was occluded by a close tall object.

As I keep saying to you, all you have to do to prove your theory is take some measurements from a few locations known distances apart - they don't have to be that far apart if the sun is as close as you suppose. Do some triangulation and you can work out the distance to the sun. You keep ignoring it I suspect because you know that doing this will show you to be wrong.

3996

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The International Space Station

« on: February 15, 2018, 03:09:23 PM »

There's so much CGI fakery out there, can you blame anyone who questions the videos that have been released, im still waiting for stars in any of NASA's live streams.

You think stars are hard to fake?!
I'm laughing at the idea that there's a team in NASA desperately working on this "They're on to us, we have to start faking the stars too!"
That would be the easy bit to fake, it's only points of light. Go outside at night and take a photo of the street, see how many stars show in the photo.
If the street is lit then your camera will adjust its exposure to that and dimmer objects like stars will not show up.

3997

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ice Wall Must Be Very Tall

« on: February 15, 2018, 11:14:19 AM »

The firmament is defined as a crystalline material that enshrines the earth.

Where is that definition and what is your evidence for it existing?

3998

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another Gem from the Wiki

« on: February 15, 2018, 10:18:41 AM »

Yes, it's amusing that Tom is so ignorant that he doesn't realise that his video shows the exact effect he claims would not happen.
High pressure over the "disc" of the earth would leak into the low pressure outside it.
If you imagine cooling a rigid ball (as opposed to a balloon) filled with air at the same pressure as the atmosphere then the pressure inside the ball would drop. If the ball then had a hole punched in it which direction would the air move? From high pressure to low. In the video Tom posted that effect is shown by the balloon getting smaller as the higher pressure outside the balloon was able to press it into a smaller shape. The only way of fixing this in the FE model are some physical barrier to stop the "atmoplane" leaking or an infinite plane with a constant pressure throughout.

3999

Flat Earth Theory / Re: House of Cards

« on: February 15, 2018, 09:44:13 AM »

Making conclusions from this continuous universe model, such as the sun would never set on a plane, relies on many axioms of the continuous universe model being true.

Actually, all it relies on is some common sense.
How do I see something? Photons hit my eye. If that is from a light source then the photons leave the light source and travel to my eye along a straight path.
Or, the light travels from the light source, reflects off an object and travels from that in a straight line into my eye.
Either way if there is an unobstructed line of sight in between me and the light source/object then I will be able to see it. The only limitations to that are:
1) My visual acuity
2) Atmospheric conditions

So on a plane:



Clear line of sight, I can see the whole person.

On a curve:



The bottom of the person (or ship or sun) is occluded behind the hill so I can only see the top part.

And I see you have still ignored my thread about long shadows at sunset which prove conclusively that either
1) The sun is physically low in the sky or
2) The light is bending so it appears to be.

There are no other options but feel free to do some experiments and show how you can cast a long shadow of an object on the ground without the light source being physically close to the ground.

4000

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Railroads, tunnels, canals.... bridges?

« on: February 15, 2018, 09:12:31 AM »

Name for me any FE whistle blowers. You cannot. Why? Because FE truthers do not have the financial or scientific backing that globers do

Or, and this is just my own crazy theory, but maybe it's because there isn't a whistle...
Why would a flat earth be such a terrible truth that "they" (whoever they are) have to keep from us?

You want to prove a flat earth? If you believe the model as presented in this Wiki and the sun and moon are only a few thousand miles away then all you have to do is do some observations from a few locations known distances apart. If the moon and sun are as close as you supposed they don't have to be that far apart for you to get measurable differences in angles.
Do some triangulation and voila, there's your proof, there's your Nobel Prize.
That is literally all you have to do. I have said this numerous times on here, it is always ignored.

I await your results with bated breath...