8481

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of the Sun in the Bi-polar Model of the Earth.

« on: June 14, 2016, 06:31:31 PM »

Another problem with the bipolar model, and the figure 8 path of the sun:

Let's look at Alaska during the Spring Equinox, when the sun supposedly switches from circling the North pole to the South pole.

Day before equinox: The sun is rotating around the North pole. In Alaska, the sun will supposedly set somewhere to the West, curving around to the North.

Day after the equinox: The sun turns South instead of North, and never comes near Alaska.

How in the world has this never been noticed by anyone before?? Am I picturing it wrong? Perhaps you can draw the path of the sun before and after the equinox on the bipolar map so that I can understand better?

You do know that there are places near the polar circle where the sun can set and then not return for months, right?

Yes, but it doesn't happen on the equinox. The sun is visible every day around the equinox in Alaska. Try again.

When the sun is south of the equator Alaska and the Arctic circle will only have a few hours of daylight, or none at all.

8482

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 14, 2016, 06:19:33 PM »

Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

No Tom, the burden of proof clearly lies with you.
The 5th post in this topic:

Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.

They even claim that the photons can bounce between the atmosphere and the ground several times, and then back again to the receiver, with no significant scattering!

You claim that a body of science is "made up", yet you provide no proof that the science does not work, is made up or fails.
Clearly the optimum "Zetetic" approach would be to disprove this with some form of evidence, not just saying it is Ridiculous.

If I just said that

Flat Earth believers have to make up mysterious Shadow Objects to explain lunar eclipses, no matter how absurd.
Consider the height of the moon, the sun & moon somehow are suspended above a flat-disc-earth without crashing/falling back down again, yet everything else falls back down. Ridiculous

You wouldn't let me get away with that without providing demanding some form of proof?
Would you?

The burden of proof is on the claimant, and never the skeptic.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition.  Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.  The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of  the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition.  These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.

Burden of Proof

From  X, which is the assertion, is not yet disproved. Therefore, X.

This is a Fallacy.  If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided or secured to establish the proof or high probability of the claim being true..

 Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

(3) Of course Santa Claus exists. No one has ever proved, to my knowledge, that Santa Claus does not exist. And if one were to fly to the North Pole and say: Well, look, there's no toy factory there. A believer could argue: Well, Santa Claus knew you were coming and moved his operations to the South Pole. So you fly down to the South Pole. No Santa Claus factory, toy factory there. So the believer would say: Oh, he moved it back up to the North Pole.

(4) Of course  leprechauns exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(5) Of course  ghosts exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(6) Of course yellow polka dotted aliens exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(7) Of course  X  exist. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

8483

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 14, 2016, 06:16:40 PM »

Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

i have twice now posted such evidence for your perusal.  that you pretend it doesn't exist speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

Math != proof

Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

Your skepticism is so unreasonable in this case that it is absurd. You obviously did not read my post anyway, because I referred to a form of Skywave that depends on a near vertical angle of incidence to broadcast over obstructions at distances not achievable via Skywave.

So, unless you have a reasonable position, other than, "it's absurd", there is nothing more to be said. Your skepticism is founded on nothing more than personal incredulity, and ignores reams of pages devoted to the topic. You obviously have not investigated a jot in to it or you would know this. Your objection to the existence of Skywaves is feeble. Please come back when you have a position of substance. In the meantime read this or this or contact them. If you can't be bothered to learn what are you doing trying to pursue knowledge?

I see some links containing some refraction math. A lot of people can write some math for hypothetical phenomena. Where is the proof that the phenomenon is actually occurring?

8484

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 14, 2016, 02:52:24 AM »

Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.

There are no "magical fairies" in the real world (globe, round, etc.) . There are facts and evidence of such things as line--of-sight, skip and all forms of electro-magnetic science.Radio signals and laser beams can and have been bounced off the moon for approximate or accurate measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon is just one example of facts and evidence of something that flat earthers deny. It can get a bit complex, too.

 No, there are no "magical fairies" in the real world, but there are plenty of "magical fairies" in the flat earth world....flat discs, universal accelerations, ice rings, et cetera, et cetera and so forth. If you don't take flat earth seriously it can get so absurd that it can get hilariously funny.....And at least some people have a lot of reasons to do so and do so.LOL.

You have already embarrassed yourself quite enough in this thread with the EM-is-not-photons thing. I would suggest developing a sense of shame and refrain from posting in this thread ever again.

8485

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 14, 2016, 02:51:44 AM »

Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

8486

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 13, 2016, 07:13:54 PM »

You claimed it is absurd... Back up that claim. Show that radio cannot bounce off the ionized portion of the atmosphere at high fidelity. You have said it is impossible, a positive claim which you dodge by restating it is absurd to argue it. Feeble.

Actually, skepticism is a negative claim.

The positive claim is the claim that photons can bounce off of the ionosphere and ground and the ionosphere and the ground several times, hit a target beyond the horizon, and ricochet back against the ground and sky back to the transmitter. This is your ridiculous positive claim to prove. It is not my responsibility to prove or disprove the existence of your magical fairies. I'm the skeptic here. You're the claimant. It is your responsibility to prove it.

You may as well ask me to disprove your theory on the spiritual existence of ghosts.

Alternatively, demonstrate how one can send a radio signal across the Atlantic by aiming it towards the sky?  This was achieved almost 100 years ago. Is radio like a long fly ball?

How far above the horizon is it aiming above? Even lasers will spread out.

8487

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of the Sun in the Bi-polar Model of the Earth.

« on: June 13, 2016, 07:01:52 PM »

Another problem with the bipolar model, and the figure 8 path of the sun:

Let's look at Alaska during the Spring Equinox, when the sun supposedly switches from circling the North pole to the South pole.

Day before equinox: The sun is rotating around the North pole. In Alaska, the sun will supposedly set somewhere to the West, curving around to the North.

Day after the equinox: The sun turns South instead of North, and never comes near Alaska.

How in the world has this never been noticed by anyone before?? Am I picturing it wrong? Perhaps you can draw the path of the sun before and after the equinox on the bipolar map so that I can understand better?

You do know that there are places near the polar circle where the sun can set and then not return for months, right?

8488

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 13, 2016, 05:00:08 PM »

Please show its unproven. You have been claiming these mechanisms do not exist for pages, time to support that claim. If you cannot do so, and wish to continue to say, "it's not true because it sounds crazy to me!", we have no reason to take you seriously.

Burden of proof is on the claimant. I don't need to prove that your magical fairies don't exist. You need to prove that your magical fairies do exist.

8489

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 13, 2016, 04:56:19 PM »

You really should look at some of your own earlier posts on this topic!

Microwave relay stations are usually spaced about 30 miles apart because they rely on line-of-sight between them . (Antenna to horizon distance according to the height of the microwave antenna towers). It would seem that on a Flat Earth there would be no need for relay stations since everything is in line-of-sight ? Why don't the microwave engineers know this ? It certainly would cut down on costs ?  Just one microwave station in New York and one in Los Angeles for example would be all that was necessary ?

Everything is not line-of-sight. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

Really? The Red Sea between Jebel Erba (at 20°44'46.17"N 36°50'24.65"E, in the Sudan) and Jebel Dakka (21° 5'36.89"N 40°17'29.80"E, in Saudi Arabia) is a 360 km hop, no 30 mile limit here!

Again, some ranges are more transparent to the atmosphere than others.

That's great, Tom, but you need to stop debating the details with people who work with this every day, when you're only able to tackle this on a high-level.

Everything from your understanding of radio waves to your details about how light works and our atmosphere is simply wrong. You have people who work with this telling you one thing, and you yourself telling them they're wrong.

It's so frustrating to read all your assumptions and you correcting people who work with this in the daily. Where's your manners?

It's so utterly stupid that I have a hard time believing you're not just a troll. It's like me telling a surgeant that he's wrong about where the heart is, while he's pulling it out of a patient.

That coming from a guy who didn't know that HAM radio receivers could pick up signals hundreds or thousands of miles away?

8490

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 13, 2016, 04:47:37 PM »

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

So now you are trying to give excuses as to why your only piece of evidence doesn't support your theory? If it doesn't support your theory, it can't be used as evidence. Find different evidence that you don't have to provide excuses for.

It supports the theory. Those headlights are pretty consistent.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

No one denies that the size of the lights don't stay proportional to the size of the car. It is called glare. It is a well understood, noncontroversial photographic phenomena. However, in order to be evidence for your theory, it needs to appear more than just "slightly bigger than expected". It needs to:

1. Appear the same size regardless of distance.

The headlights in the distance are pretty consistent.

2. Details of the object being "magnified" must be preserved.

I see details. Those headlights in the last image aren't perfect circles. They have detail to them.

None of your "evidence" shows this. Therefore, you have no evidence to support your theory. You don't even have a logical reason as to WHY it would happen.

The Wiki page explains the reason why.

8491

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 12, 2016, 08:16:02 AM »

Arguments from personal credulity are feeble. That's all you have. You cannot address the actual mechanisms so you resort to feeble arguments. End of story.

I cannot address the mechanisms because they are so absurd. An image bouncing off of the surface of the earth? Ridiculous. An image bouncing off of the atmosphere itself? Ridiculous. Multiple times in both directions, while staying intact? Outrageous.

The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

Which is more absurd, over the horizon radar/communication or magical magnification because light (only of a certain intensity and angle though) "catches on the atmosphere"? 

In fact, why don't we expand on "light catching on the atmosphere and being magnified" and apply it directly to the conversation at hand.  If your magical magnification idea holds true, it only stands to reason that radio and radar frequencies can be bounced over the horizon, without loss of signal integrity simply because it is (as you pointed out yourself) all photons.

Before you try to argue too much about intensity keep in mind that the average headlight operates between 60 and 150 watts whereas radio/radar operates across a spectrum of 100 mW up to 50 kW (depending on use/purpose).  If a headlight operating somewhere between 60 and 150 watts is enough to "catch on the atmosphere" and be magnified, it follows that any radio/radar operating at or above this range would be subject to the same magnification.

In the short time I've been part of this site I've never seen you address anything, even your own ideas, in any way that lends credibility to anything you say let alone offers any type of proof for what you say is true or false.

My washing machine is about 500 Watts, should it magnify in the atmosphere too? 

The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.

I am SO happy to hear you say this!  I look forward to reminding you of this post every time you try to tell us how the photons from the sun do not travel in a straight line, at sunset for example.

The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

You have clearly never worked with radar.  I have (Navy) and you are simply wrong.  You can pick up aircraft at much greater distance than ships on the surface, because ships at distance X are over the horizon while aircraft in the air at distance X are not (distance X being a function of the height of the radar dish).  And because, in your own words "photons simply travel in a straight line", they don't reach an over-the-horizon ship.

The surface near the sea is a lot denser than the altitude airplanes may fly at. Of course some types of radar more susceptible to atmospheric opacity may see an airplane easier than a ship.

8492

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 12, 2016, 07:07:27 AM »

I would appreciate a post relevant to the topic.

8493

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 12, 2016, 04:24:00 AM »

The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

The fact of the matter is that the earth DOES NOT APPEAR FLAT to certain frequencies and systems used in radar. Some of the surface search radars are prime examples of range limiitations due to the curvature of the earth,

I think Tom Bishop should have a talk with a ham radio operator or a radar or microwave repeater technician about "skip" or "line of sight.". LOL.

This was already addressed.

Restating the same feeble argument does not make it a stronger objection. You can't even say what makes the mechanism absurd, you just declare it on its face. Deal with the actual mechanism or just admit that you can't and move on.

Deal with a unproven hypothesis? Isn't it your job to demonstrate that the hypothesis is true, if that is your position?

Can I just say that little invisible fairies did something and expect you to deal with that mechanism and rebut it?

It is clearly you who is making mumbling excuses to avoid the issue, not me. These absurd claims are not mine.

8494

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 12, 2016, 03:50:38 AM »

Arguments from personal credulity are feeble. That's all you have. You cannot address the actual mechanisms so you resort to feeble arguments. End of story.

I cannot address the mechanisms because they are so absurd. An image bouncing off of the surface of the earth? Ridiculous. An image bouncing off of the atmosphere itself? Ridiculous. Multiple times in both directions, while staying intact? Outrageous.

The fact of the matter is, and apparent to all involved, is that the earth appears flat to the radar. All of these excuses are made up to justify it under RET.

8495

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 12, 2016, 03:45:13 AM »

Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it false. That's not how this works. If you can't properly address the mechanisms that make over the horizon communication possible, maybe you should display some humility and go learn about them first. Arguments from personal credulity, like the one above are just not acceptable.

The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line. This is a vastly more powerful explanation to the mental gymnastics the Round Earth scientists use to explain why a round earth looks flat.

8496

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 12, 2016, 03:36:28 AM »

The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see.

No matter how many times you say this, it won't magically become true. It has been pointed out to you MANY times already. The headlights are NOT the same size all the way down the highway. Please open up some image processing software and count the pixels yourself, so you don't keep posting false information. I recommend GIMP if you don't want to spend money on Photoshop.

It may be in some examples that the nearest object is so close that the bulb is bigger than its magnified image, such as would happen if a camera was placed right up next to the first bulb of a row of lamps extending into the distance.

It is clear and undeniable to me, however, that the lights in the distance of these examples are unnaturally enlarged and the lights are relatively consistent compared to other dimmer light sources in the pictures which are appropriately shrinking

8497

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of the Sun in the Bi-polar Model of the Earth.

« on: June 12, 2016, 03:08:25 AM »

Under the bi-polar model the biggest forks are out in the middle of the ocean. However, the landmasses near the equator do see forks in the road.

Consider the following images. If the earth is a globe and the stars are light years away and very distant, how is it that the stars can be physically seen to move away from each other over the course of the night? They seem to come closer together then spread away. The stars in the upper left are rotating one way and the stars in the lower right are rotating the other. The stars are moving in relation to each other! This is impossible if the earth is a globe.

A rotating globe should not cause the stars to physically separate from each other in the sky, and these stars would need to be moving light years through space if they were to actually travel this route. It is a proof that the earth is not a globe.

8498

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 12, 2016, 02:44:31 AM »

Incorrect? You were trying to enhance the likelihood of the Earth being flat by providing an example (read: generalizing) about amateur radio bands. It only takes one example to dismiss your claim, and that is what I gave you.

NB-UHF (70cm) is as line of sight as it gets. You rate the distance between a transmitter and a receiver to be about 500m because it takes nothing to disrupt the signal. However, if you send the transmitter upwards, there's no problem receiving over a distance of +40km. Besides, you cant just generalize AM frequencies like that. Low Frequency AM (300khz - 3MHz) have a wavelength range from 100-1000 meters. It's their "bouncing" properties, diffraction and their insensitive nature to be disrupted that allows receivers to decode a signal even with antennas below the horizon.

Some types of EM may be limited to line of sight because, like visible light, it is affected by the opacity of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere is so thick to that range that it can't go through, it is limited in duration.

The fact that there is some types of EM that can travel much further than a Round Earth should allow, is evidence against the globular model. The only way to believe that the earth is a globe under such a scenerio is to assume that the EM from an Over the Horizon radar device is bouncing off of the atmosphere and the earth several times (we must assume that it can do this), hit an object beyond the earth's curvature, and then bounce again between the earth and the atmosphere (often several times) back to the radar to register an image of that distant object to the Over the Horizon Radar unit, all without significant scatter. Ridiculous.

8499

Flat Earth Community / Airy's Failure demonstrates stars are moving, not the earth

« on: June 12, 2016, 12:51:13 AM »

Ignoring some of the religious references at the end, the following video is a good overview of Airy's Failure experiment and how it suggests that the stars are moving, not the earth.



Airy's paper on his experiment:
http://rspl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/20/130-138/35.full.pdf+html

Specifications for the equipment he was using:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1873GOAMM..33C..17A/0000132.000.html

8500

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect"

« on: June 12, 2016, 12:11:22 AM »

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/gc/516070745-row-of-illuminated-street-lights-on-wet-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=IU26s6mbpqZTxasplQY%2BRB2DaxsTLloZgZ5EKZ0Afba6jaZ17b97ttDmJ3ywyZBT

Funny how the lights in this picture get smaller as they recede into the distance.

Of course I'm sure you'll argue that this photo provides an example of absolutely zero atmospheric influence and therefore provides absolutely zero magnification to distant light sources.

As a side note, why does this magical magnification you speak of only relate to magnifying light?  Why does it not magnify everything?

Logic tells me that, since everything we see is due to the interaction of light bouncing off of any particular object and reflected into our eyes (to keep it simple), if light is somehow magically magnified then all objects would be magnified at the same rate.

As mentioned on our Wiki page, only light of a certain intensity is powerful enough to catch onto the atmosphere and magnify.

Come on Tom.  Answer the question.

How is it that light intensity and "catching on the atmosphere" relevant in one of your provided proofs yet doesn't seem to be relevant in the other of your provided proofs, even though they both contain images of automobile headlights, which you contend are of high enough intensity to "catch on the atmosphere".

This is not a difficult question to answer.  You provided two supposed proofs for the same concept yet they prove nothing (individually or combined) and one is directly counter to what you are saying is fact.

It's relevant in all images. If the light source isn't bright enough, it can't catch onto the atmosphere and enlarge. Different photographs at different angles or conditions may cause some light sources not to enlarge, such as when viewing the glow of a light house from its backside when it is shining its directed beam at the ocean.

A picture of a dim light which is not being magnified is not a counter-proof. In the image of magnified lights we see that the less intense light sources in the distance are not being magnified.

I thought this sight "worked on evidence" - so now being "mentioned on our Wiki page" is evidence?

Yes, the images in the Wiki are evidence. Some light sources, such as the headlights, are magnified, and some dimmer light sources, such as the light from the pavement and small objects in the distance, are not magnified.

Consider the following image from the Wiki:



 The headlights are all the same size down the highway, for as far as the eye can see. The headlights are bright, and therefore the magnification effect occurs. Other objects in this scene, are not as bright as the headlights, such as the tail lights of the cars moving away, and therefore naturally shrink. This is evidence that brighter light sources magnifiy and dimmer light sources do not.

Please present some physical mechanism (with evidence) that this effect (if it exists) could somehow magically magnify objects in such a way that they stay exactly the same size as they recede AND retain their detail.

We are only seeing examples of light bulbs in the distance, and therefore they do not much detail to them. Perhaps if a very bright and powerful projector were put in the distance and pointed at the camera, with enough lumens to cause the effects demonstrated in this thread, the effect would occur.