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 - Action80

Pages: < Back  1 ... 62 63 [64] 65 66 67  Next >
1261
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up
« on: February 26, 2021, 11:44:10 AM »
I think you should publish your flat earth map, if the directions and distances are correct with constant scale. Many FE maps have been made, but all have problems with direction and distance.
Every map ever used by anyone on the face of the planet has been flat and the people using them have had great success.

According to the dictionary you are wrong.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/globe

Quote
1. Usually the globe . the planet Earth.
2. a planet or other celestial body.
3. a sphere on which is depicted a map of the earth (terrestrial globe ) or of the heavens (celestial globe ).

Maps do not have to be flat.  You can buy one here if you want proof that they actually exist.

"Replogle Odessa - Blue Ocean 2-Way Map, Illuminated World Globe, Raised Relief, Up-to-Date Cartography, Made in USA"

https://www.amazon.com/Replogle-85391-Odessa-World-Globe/dp/B06WWMYRNK/
A globe is not a map.

No one uses a globe to navigate.

I do.


No, you don't.

You do not use a globe to navigate.

You use either a flat map or Google Maps or another phone app to navigate.

1262
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up
« on: February 25, 2021, 04:17:12 PM »
If the map is flat and it shows the entire earth, it is a flat earth map.

It is a flat map of the Earth, not a map of the flat Earth.

There is no map of the entire flat Earth.
If the earth is flat and you can see all of it on a single depiction, then yes, it is a flat earth map.

1263
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up
« on: February 25, 2021, 01:32:24 PM »
I could use a single map of the entire earth if I needed to and find my way to wherever and be just fine.

No such map exists. There is no map of the entire flat Earth.
If the map is flat and it shows the entire earth, it is a flat earth map.

1264
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up
« on: February 25, 2021, 01:29:11 PM »

I could use a single map of the entire earth if I needed to and find my way to wherever and be just fine.

But we do not do that, as we can only physically occupy one space at one point in time.

Again, what does your map tell us about the size of North America and size of Australia. How long it would take to drive across Australia?
I cannot determine your interpretations of anything you view.

I can state for certain that every map I have ever used has been both flat and accurate.

1265
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up
« on: February 25, 2021, 12:34:24 PM »
I think you should publish your flat earth map, if the directions and distances are correct with constant scale. Many FE maps have been made, but all have problems with direction and distance.
Every map ever used by anyone on the face of the planet has been flat and the people using them have had great success.

We are talking about a single map of the whole Earth, not partial maps.
I could use a single map of the entire earth if I needed to and find my way to wherever and be just fine.

But we do not do that, as we can only physically occupy one space at one point in time.

1266
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up
« on: February 25, 2021, 12:29:53 PM »
I think you should publish your flat earth map, if the directions and distances are correct with constant scale. Many FE maps have been made, but all have problems with direction and distance.
Every map ever used by anyone on the face of the planet has been flat and the people using them have had great success.

According to the dictionary you are wrong.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/globe

Quote
1. Usually the globe . the planet Earth.
2. a planet or other celestial body.
3. a sphere on which is depicted a map of the earth (terrestrial globe ) or of the heavens (celestial globe ).

Maps do not have to be flat.  You can buy one here if you want proof that they actually exist.

"Replogle Odessa - Blue Ocean 2-Way Map, Illuminated World Globe, Raised Relief, Up-to-Date Cartography, Made in USA"

https://www.amazon.com/Replogle-85391-Odessa-World-Globe/dp/B06WWMYRNK/
A globe is not a map.

No one uses a globe to navigate.

1267
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: An Idea for the flat earth cover-up
« on: February 23, 2021, 11:47:43 AM »
I think you should publish your flat earth map, if the directions and distances are correct with constant scale. Many FE maps have been made, but all have problems with direction and distance.
Every map ever used by anyone on the face of the planet has been flat and the people using them have had great success.

1268
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: February 17, 2021, 11:59:27 AM »

What is political about getting a vacc? sorry.

1269
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: categories of truth
« on: February 16, 2021, 01:06:08 PM »
Sorry if I misattributed, I may have read another response re how easy it is to prove FE, and I acknowledge you did not even say FE.

Re my categories, in your first response you are right but I was not complete. A more complete definition:

#1 things known to people of different cultures through independent and repeatable verification, things which can be measured, testable.

#2 Things that are not measurable or repeatable or would not be true for most cultures.

Another way to say it is #1 - scientific method works, #2 scientific method either can't be applied of fails to prove.

Ask a Christian and a Hindu what temperature water boils at sea level. Then ask them if Jesus is the Risen Son of God.

That's what I meant originally. It is sometimes hard to make sure your words are not misconstrued without becoming wordy and obscure in the process.

Did God send hurricanes to Orlando Fl because Disney let gays in as famous preacher said and millions believe? No way to tell. Does water boil at 210 degrees? We can measure that and agree uncontroversially.

There are a billion people who think Shiva and Vishnu created the earth and have since at least the time of the Bible. A billion who believe in the Koran version. What relative truth values do I assign to these mutually exclusive possibilities? Perhaps majority vote, and so the Christuian church is true? Conflicting facts simultaneously true? Or the majority of people on earth holding completely imaginary and untrue belief?

If religion makes a claim that does not impact the physical world, we can't share any confirmation, just someone insisting they know something about God. If religion makes a claim that does impact the real world such that multiple independent people can verify repeatedly and shareably, then it isn't religion, it is science or history.

You can argue "what is truth" all day, no resolution. Better to discuss what can be in category 1 and 2, what that means. You obviously want to put religion in category 1 because you understand the implications of category 2.

Youe post:

When I say shareably, I mean you can't show others the vision of Jesus you had, I do not mean you are in the same room when you read a text.

"Religion has long been a place where a person's accepted conventional facts were first taught to them" - So what does the fact that for hundreds of years, millions of children have learned that Muhammed talked to ants mean? Did that happen?It is beyond the ability of a team of a Hindu, a Christan, a Buddhist, an atheist, and a zoroastrian to examine the evidence.

I am not talking about whether the people get information they believe is true. That they do. I am not even talking about what is true. I am talking about the difference between physics and religion. What it means to be "true" is different. I am pointing out that when you use the same word for true re F=MA and Jesus is Lord, you are talking about two very different ways of knowing with different charactreristics.

Would be interesting to see a religion with proof as convincing to all as physics and chemistry are (know anyone who think water is not H2O?). But then would it be religion?
If you expect me to agree that water boils at 210, I am sorry.

I refuse.

1270
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 15, 2021, 04:41:18 PM »
Why should determining the shape of the earth require blind faith in anything?  Are you saying we can't know the shape of the earth with certainty without blindly trusting data/sources we can't verify independently?

Good point.  I've driven and flown to enough places on the planet to verify that the distances reported are indeed accurate, by personal observation.  These distances are comparable with a round Earth, but don't fit any of the Flat Earth maps.

This entire statement is objectively false.

Any map you have used is flat.


1271
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 10, 2021, 11:48:24 AM »
Pleased you are finally admitting corporations do not need to employ people.

1272
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 09, 2021, 04:35:00 PM »
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.
I am aware that lights appear to be shimmer due to refraction, but the light is at its point of origin. Shimmer is NOT refraction.

If they only 'appear' to shimmer, what are they really doing?  I don't see anything but statements here with no references or explanations for these claims.

What experiments did you perform to determine that refraction does not cause shimmering?  Or can you reference someone else's to back up your claim?

Just thinking logically, differences in air temperature and pressure cause light to refract, so it seems quite logical that looking at a point light through turbulent atmosphere will make it shimmer and flicker. What else would you expect when you change densities randomly between you and the light source? Who WOULDN'T it shimmer?
I wrote," Lights appear to shimmer due to refraction." I have no clue why you would ask for an experiment I performed to determine refraction does not cause shimmering.

1273
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: February 09, 2021, 04:30:44 PM »
They got the $15 minimum wage in the relief bill. That’s pretty huge. Biden seems intent on maximizing his likely two years of productive time before mid-terms grind the country to a halt again.
Won't need to wait until midterms to grind the country to a halt. Companies - "Be a pleasure to pay 15 an hour to you Jimmy. Simmons and Jethro, we need to let you go."

1274
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 09, 2021, 11:58:35 AM »
First there was no fraud. Then no 'widespead' fraud. Now the election was manipulated and fortified top to bottom by an anonymous cabal of leftist elites to save us from ourselves.  ::)

Yes, we have to clarify with 'no widespread fraud' now because Republicans were pointing to literally 1 or 2 cases and saying "See, look, fraud! You said no fraud!"

So now we leftist elites have to be pedantic.

Also, apparently I'm part of a cabal now due to my cheating by voting for the wrong president. Or something.

Trump lost, deal with it.  There was no widespread fraud, and just because someone used a scary word like 'cabal' in an article is no reason to panic.  I can see 'cabal' is now going to be someones favorite word for a week or two.
The fraud that took place was specifically targeted.

1275
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 08, 2021, 08:07:42 PM »
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

What fact are you stating?  That you can't see a shimmer if light is refracted '29 feet vertical' over a 'distance of 8 miles'?  How did you come to determine this is a fact?  Do you have any evidence supporting lights inability to shimmer after being refracted?

Are you aware that shimmer IS refraction? You are claiming that if light is refracted enough it can't refract any more.  That makes entirely no sense at all.

It's on you to prove your assertion.
I am aware that lights appear to be shimmer due to refraction, but the light is at its point of origin. Shimmer is NOT refraction.

1276
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 08, 2021, 08:05:21 PM »
Look across Lake Michigan from The Michigan side towards Chicago or Milwakee. Some days you can see lights and/or part of the skylines. Some days you cannot. Refraction.
When you look across Lake Michigan, the reason you can or cannot see the Chicago skyline is because of fog or the height of the waves.

Waves. On the Great Lakes. Blocking view of a city skyline.

Some big waves can develop on the Great Lakes for sure - unrelated, but check out the info around the "White Hurricane" of 1913 : 35-foot waves!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913

But those are never going to be the reason someone cant see Chicago unless you're standing in the swash zone along the beach. The reason the skyline is transiently visible across that distance is from refractive effects producing a mirage.  Just google "Chicago skyline from Michigan" for some beauty pics and several articles
Actually, you write as if I would know nothing about it.

I live quite nearby and enjoy cycling along the southern tip of Lake Michigan from Chicago all the way to St. Joseph, MI.

Waves and swells can certainly block the view of of the city skyline and more often than not, do exactly that. I have no clue what you are writing about and that is due to the fact you have no clue about what you are writing.

As far as the weather is concerned (in the area between Chicago and Southwest Michigan) it is more often than not, cloudy over that area of Lake Michigan.

These are indeed the reasons for the skyline being out of view of observers.

1277
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 08, 2021, 04:51:23 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Fascinating.  What about refraction causes the light to be exempt from distortion?

I'm going to have to think for a while to come up with some way of testing this.  Would you accept refraction via water or glass instead of air as a test?
There would need to be a test under the same conditions.

So you are saying that we need to have an 8 mile long lab to test your theory, which clearly isn't going to happen.

Which makes it not a theory, since we can't actually test it to prove or disprove it either way.

You have an interesting hypothesis then, but no way to prove it.
I am stating a fact, until proven otherwise. Demonstrate a light that shimmers, then refract that light a distance of 29 feet vertical in order to be viewed from a distance of 8 miles. That is the claim being alleged by RET.

1278
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 08, 2021, 12:43:27 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Fascinating.  What about refraction causes the light to be exempt from distortion?

I'm going to have to think for a while to come up with some way of testing this.  Would you accept refraction via water or glass instead of air as a test?
There would need to be a test under the same conditions.

1279
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 08, 2021, 12:41:37 PM »
Look across Lake Michigan from The Michigan side towards Chicago or Milwakee. Some days you can see lights and/or part of the skylines. Some days you cannot. Refraction.
When you look across Lake Michigan, the reason you can or cannot see the Chicago skyline is because of fog or the height of the waves.

1280
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 04, 2021, 07:09:15 PM »

You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimming.

Refraction does not allow a bending of light to a distance of 29 feet and at the same time allow the appearance of shimmer.

Why can't things be both refracted and shimmering?
If you have an example of something in a lab that is being refracted a distance of 29 feet and still has a shimmering appearance, post it.

I'll gladly retract.

Can you please clarify the example you are discussing?  What does "refracted a distance of 29 feet " mean in this context?

Does it mean the light source is 29 feet away from the camera?  A diagram might help.
It means that a light is being refracted a distance of 29 feet upward so as to be visible. Bending around the supposed curve of the earth.

I am still unsure what '29 feet upward' means. Refraction is the bending of light, a bend being an angle but you are giving a measurement of 29 feet which is a distance. I could bend light 29 feet upward with a large amount of refraction in a short distance, or a tiny amount of refraction at a long distance.  I don't have enough information to know what you are asking here.

Can you draw a diagram of what you are describing?
29 feet is the distance the light is supposedly being bent.

Making the light visible to the viewer positioned 8 miles away.

Ok, now we have more data to work with.  So we have a triangle with one side being 8 miles, another being 29 feet.  SteelyBob calculated the angle at being 0.04 degrees.

So Action80, is your claim that with these parameters, light can not shimmer?  If it travels for 8 miles and is refracted 29 feet... there can be no visible shimmer?
If you are viewing the original light, there would be shimmer present due to temp gradients, etc.

Yes, there would be no shimmer visible the refracted image.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 62 63 [64] 65 66 67  Next >