### 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 - stack

Pages: < Back  1 ... 152 153 [154] 155  Next >
3061
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Greenland as big as Africa?
« on: August 24, 2018, 08:56:01 PM »
It's actually the other way around. There's no such thing as globular maps. Any globes you see are simply globular projections of a flat earth.

Curious. Then why are all Flat Earth maps Globe projections?

3062
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Greenland as big as Africa?
« on: August 24, 2018, 07:49:03 PM »
Assuming the earth is flat, google maps is not accurate and shouldn't be used by flat earthers.  Why not use Gleason's map, for example?

It’s my understanding that all FE maps are globe projections. This includes the mono-polar, bi-polar and Gleason maps, as well as others. In essence, there’s no such thing as an FE map.

3063
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 24, 2018, 05:39:33 PM »
I'm not trying to move into the debate aspect of this. But simply, to Bobby's point, create a baseline. If the FE distance calculations are different, then we need to know what they are to further the baseline.

3064
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 24, 2018, 05:27:54 PM »

The solution is to attack the data.

-the distance you are from the tower was calculated using globe tools which will only give globe distances.
-the distance between the camera and the tower is unknown
-Any measurements based on a longitude/latitude globe system will give round earth results.

I could also say that atmospheric refraction on the flat earth is greater than it is in flat earth calculations which would account for the difference.

These are good starting point.

I think RE questions would consist of:

How is FE distance calculated? Given the RE distances, what would the FE distances actually be. Given FE recalculated distances are the deltas lessened/removed?

Is refraction ever a factor existent in the FE model? For F2 I had the refraction needed to close the FE delta at 0.90. RE needed 0.189. The standard is 0.17. What makes FE’s so extreme?

I've started to go through that thread - Need some time - It's a mere 24 pages.

3065
##### Flat Earth Projects / Re: A frequently asked question: Does the rotundity of other planets clash with FET?
« on: August 24, 2018, 08:14:29 AM »
Yes, that's what I was referring to when I called the entire page "abysmal". I don't think there is a current consensus on planet sizes, so the best thing to do might be to just erase that non-answer.
If there isn't consensus, good call to ditch it.

3066
##### Flat Earth Projects / Re: A frequently asked question: Does the rotundity of other planets clash with FET?
« on: August 23, 2018, 06:20:38 PM »
While you’re at it, you may want to fix this one:

Size and Magnitude

Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?

A. Pretty small.

A. Flat Earth researchers have estimated the sun to be at about 3000 miles above the surface of the earth, with the stars and planets at about 100 miles above that. Further research has concluded that the diameter of the celestial bodies above Earth are as follows:

Sun      =   32 miles
Moon           =   32 miles
Mercury   =   ?
Venus   =   ?
Mars           =   ?
Jupiter   =   ?
Saturn   =   ?
Uranus   =   ?
Neptune   =   ?

I couldn’t find anything in the wiki or in threads that speaks to the planets sizes.

3067
##### Flat Earth Projects / Re: A frequently asked question: Does the rotundity of other planets clash with FET?
« on: August 23, 2018, 05:25:36 PM »
How do we phrase the question?

1)  Q. The planets appear to be visually round. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

Just seems redundant and not how I would ask it.

2) Q. The planets appear to be visually round, why isn't the earth?

A hybrid I don't particularly care for. It's asking a different question, "Why isn't the earth visually round?"

3) Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

I like this one (I think it's the original). It's definitely how I would ask it. It's short, direct, succinct. An the "If" still leaves the out as to whether the planets are round or not.  It's not, "Since the planets are...".

3068
##### Flat Earth Projects / Re: A frequently asked question: Does the rotundity of other planets clash with FET?
« on: August 23, 2018, 04:02:27 AM »
I think stack's version is good. Maybe get in that the planets are small and close to the earth? If our goal is to be less vague, here is a more direct version:

Q. The planets appear to be visually round. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

A. The earth is unlike the planets in a number of ways. The planets are small bodies which circle the sun, while the earth is a terrestrial plane which sits just below the celestial bodies and is so much bigger than everything else. The question is like asking why basketballs are round, but not the basketball court. The basketball court is a fundamentally different kind of entity than the small balls which may bounce upon its surface. To this point, the earth is not a planet.

For the more direct version, however it is phrased, should get in:

- The earth is big
- The planets are small and close to the earth
- Perhaps not directly stating by us that the planets are round, which I saw was a concern by some. In the version of the Q. above, it is the reader who believes that the planets are visually round.
- Does not imply a heliocentric model or traditional solar system
- Finishes with disassociating the planets with the earth

"The planets are small bodies which circle the sun"
I think you kinda lose the thread right there. It implies that the planets are smaller than earth (which may be the case in FET, idk, I haven't seen that - I've seen moon/sun sizes, but not planets) B/c most people will simply default to, "Ah, no, some are, but Jupiter and Saturn sure aren't." In essence, the earth's size seems sort of neither here nor there.

"The planets are small and close to the earth"
Same as above, but specific to "close to earth", I haven't seen any distances for planets - Same caveat as above, I may have missed it. All in all, distance doesn't seem to be as compelling as position/orientation. At least for an FAQ answer. Big difference when you dive in deeper.

"Perhaps not directly stating by us that the planets are round..."
You're on your own on this one. This leads to a whole different thing. The reader is definitely coming from that position (existent planet rotundity) and then you have to sashee to "The planets are not round..." If that's an FET thing, good on you. But I wouldn't want to be you.

"Does not imply a heliocentric model or traditional solar system"
See Boydster's point above. I agree, just wasn't sure how to do that.

"Finishes with disassociating the planets with the earth"
Yes, the crux of the biscuit.

But all in all, Tom, I think your proposed answer is sound, just that "The planets are small bodies which circle the sun, while the earth is a terrestrial plane which sits just below the celestial bodies and is so much bigger than everything else." doesn't really support "The earth is unlike the planets in a number of ways.". I think I'm hung up on the "small" and "bigger" part as being put forth as the definitive decider. But, again, if that's FET, I am no one to argue.

3069
##### Flat Earth Projects / Re: A frequently asked question: Does the rotundity of other planets clash with FET?
« on: August 23, 2018, 03:03:03 AM »
This might be nit-picky, but I think "solar system" is probably a poor phrase as it implies a heliocentric model. Perhaps replacing "solar system" with "universe" or something to that effect would be a little more clear?

Fair point. I didn't go with Universe b/c I'm not sure how FET views our solar system within the Universe. I was trying to keep it 'local' to what RE'rs would default to; the 8 or 9 'planets' we're all taught from birth.

3070
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 22, 2018, 10:11:23 PM »
A refraction value of 0.189 is greater than the standard value of 0.17 so that means light would have to have been a little super-refracted, meaning the bending toward earth of the light a little more extreme.

Using the std 0.17 would put F2 at 212 with a -68 delta

For FE the challenge is different because I don't know how you account for atmospheric refraction over a flat plane. Bilsin's tool doesn't apply refraction to its FE model. Light propagation can certainly be affected by changing air (atmolayer) conditions across the line of sight, but since there is no curve on a flat plane, the air doesn't curve according to a "standard" that follows the curvature of the earth, so there's no standard index as such. There is thus 0' hidden target for all distances and observer elevations for a FE model, no matter the refractive index in a GE model. You need some other tool or set of explanations to work out the delta in predicted vs observed hidden heights for FE.

Got it.

I guess a next step might be to compare the Turning Torso height calculations in the theodolite video to yours and then maybe factor in the atmospheric values he gathered to derive a refraction value. Though those values were most likely from a different day as the first video. I can take a look at the height calcs.

3071
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 22, 2018, 07:15:17 PM »
Just trying some things out:

Using F2 in the illustration above, we have an RE delta of calculated hidden versus measured hidden of -75 ft.

If refraction were calculated, according to the Walter Bislins earth curvature calc, we would need to factor in approximately 0.189 of a refraction value to erase the -75 foot delta.

What I’m missing are the values that would comprise a 0.189 refraction value.

_______________

Using F2 in the illustration above, we have an FE delta of calculated hidden versus measured hidden of 205 ft.

If refraction were calculated, according to the Walter Bislins earth curvature calc, we would need to factor in approximately 0.90 of a refraction value to erase the 205 foot delta.

What I’m missing are the values that would comprise a 0.90 refraction value.

_______________

I could be doing this all wrong, let me know.

3072
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: August 22, 2018, 06:59:18 AM »
The observed values fall between the lower flat earth values and the higher round earth values. Before we try to argue for why they are more or less than a baseline prediction, try to look objectively and see if these observed estimates are at least correct so that the real contest isn't over what we're seeing but why.

Great stuff Bobby. The data estimates look about as accurate as you can get for a baseline. I'd say we should start examining the why. Seemingly RE would start to factor in refraction to close the delta gap. I'm not sure what an FE factor would be.

3073
##### Flat Earth Projects / Re: A frequently asked question: Does the rotundity of other planets clash with FET?
« on: August 22, 2018, 05:59:43 AM »
Here is an answer to that question:

Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

A. The earth is not a planet. The earth very large and unlike the characteristics of the wandering stars called "planets" in numerous ways. This is like asking why basketballs are round, but not the basketball court. The basketball court is a fundamentally different kind of entity than the small balls which may bounce upon its surface.

I think it would be great to really beef up the wiki/FAQ. I thought I'd toss my 2 cents in from an RE perspective, probably the perspective most will read it with.

"The earth is not a planet."

This is like a welcome mat for mockery and an immediate turn-off and kinda not well supported by:

"The earth very large and unlike the characteristics of the wandering stars called "planets" in numerous ways.”

This to me is too vague and leaves too many holes, people will race to things like: So earth is large, Jupiter is large, larger in fact… What are these wandering stars you speak of, they are not stars, they're planets…etc.

A. Planets (from Ancient Greek (astēr planētēs), meaning "wandering star”) are orbiting astronomical objects. Therefore the earth is not a planet by definition as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the sun revolve. The earths uniqueness, fundamental differences and centrality makes any comparison to other nearby celestial bodies insufficient - Like comparing basketballs to the court on which they bounce.

I don't know, something like that, ease in the reader a bit more.

3074
##### Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items
« on: August 18, 2018, 11:23:55 PM »
The NHS, as Tom pointed out, are basically saying clinical trials are on going, garlic does kill the cancer cells in the lab ... but there is no drug that can be sold for masses of profit at this time.

Quote from: https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/garlic-study-raises-hopes-for-rare-brain-cancer/
The researchers found that all three compounds caused more glioblastoma cells to die (by a method known as apoptosis) than was observed in the untreated control cells. The higher the concentration of the compound used, the more cells died.

Those are the results. Garlic kills cancer.

It did kill some cells, in a lab. So do other compounds. I look forward to more research on the matter. In the mean time, Cancer is NOT easily cured with common grocery store items.

3075
##### Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items
« on: August 18, 2018, 10:39:00 PM »
So the NHS are just having a wild stab in the dark about garlic, are they? Maybe there is another entry where they suggest leeches or holy water?

I don't claim to know what NHS' motivations are. You cited the report, I read it, and simply pointed out what the NHS said about the study.

3076
##### Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items
« on: August 18, 2018, 10:26:35 PM »
But to claim that garlic “cures” cancer. That is an out-and-out fallacy.
Maybe you should take that up with Britain's NHS?

https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/garlic-study-raises-hopes-for-rare-brain-cancer/

Quote from: https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/garlic-study-raises-hopes-for-rare-brain-cancer/
Garlic may be used to treat brain cancers, The Times reported on September 1 2007. The newspaper reported that scientists had found that certain organic compounds in garlic kill tumours. The type of tumour in question, glioblastoma, tends to kill people soon after they are diagnosed.

From the link you provided above:

"What does the NHS Knowledge Service make of this study?

This was a laboratory study, and no conclusions about the effects of garlic on human health can be drawn from it.

This study did not look at the effects of eating garlic in people who have glioblastoma; it also did not look at whether eating garlic prevents people developing cancer. In addition, this study did not look at the effects of these garlic compounds on healthy human cells; therefore it is possible that these compounds also kill healthy cells.

Based on this studies findings, we shouldn’t believe that eating garlic will prevent or cure cancer."

3077
##### Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items
« on: August 18, 2018, 09:26:06 PM »
We could go back and forth ad nauseam. My only point is that I take great issue with the OP: "Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items"

It’s incredibly negligent, misleading, and disingenuous.

Cancer is not “easily cured” by anything.

Now as far as staving the prospect of getting cancer, sure, eating a healthy diet certainly aids in this as well as for other diseases and ailments. Also does abstaining from smoking, drinking and other known harmful activities.

But to claim that garlic “cures” cancer. That is an out-and-out fallacy.

3078
##### Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items
« on: August 18, 2018, 08:31:05 PM »
However you are much less likely to get cancer in China, due to all the garlic you likely eat.

"Conclusion

The most commonly found cancers vary between China and the USA. Cancers of the lung, breast, and gastrointestinal region, including those of the stomach, liver, esophagus, and colorectum, are more commonly seen in China than in the USA."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3643656/

3079
##### Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items
« on: August 18, 2018, 08:07:45 PM »
One cannot maintain that herbs do not cure when entire countries, such as China, have medical systems based around herbs.

"China's cancer survival rate less than half that of US, new study finds

The five year survival rate of all cancers in China is 30.9 per cent - compared to 66 per cent in the US"

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1633419/chinas-cancer-survival-rate-just-half-us-new-study-finds

"Cancer survival rate disparities between China and developed nations

There is a large gap in rates of survival between China, and Western countries including European nations and the United States. Associate researcher at China’s Cancer Registration Center Zhang Siwei said that the overall survival rate is much higher for patients in developed countries. In the United States, the five year survival rate for all cancers is about 70 percent. This is about 40 percent higher than the overall rate in China."

https://www.echinacities.com/china-media/Cancer-in-China-Survival-Rate-Much-Lower-Than-In-Developed-Countries

There is no “cure” for cancer. There is remission and there is survival. Herbs, etc. may definitely aid in the fight. But I’d be very careful about using the word “cure”.

3080
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax
« on: August 18, 2018, 01:42:54 AM »
They just draw them ...
https://www.maxonmotor.co.uk/maxon/view/application/Artificial-stars-created-with-laser-technology

That's the guidance assistance for a telescope in Chile. What if someone is watching satellites from, say, Japan, or India? They can't be seeing the lasers from this.

That's not the only laser.
https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/laser-guide-star/

And those are only the ones we know about. Not the ones we don't know about.

"Frickin' Lasers"

The “satellites are fake” thing in FET has always been a conundrum for me. I have read through this post and other material on the subject, but I’m unclear as to the bother of whether satellites do or do not exist.

In FET, why not satellites? You’ve got theories about the sun and moon circulating around a unipolar or bi-polar disc. Why not embrace satellites doing the same? Why buck up against a preponderance of evidence that satellites exist and just simply absorb it and explain it out into FET. Seems like an easy fix.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 152 153 [154] 155  Next >