21

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)

« on: January 22, 2020, 04:40:27 AM »

Nice, I just got myself a wheel and chair recently to go with my Vive. Playing Project Cars 2 at the moment but I havent found time yet to try it with GT Sport. I really suck at driving powerful rear wheel drive vehicles. 

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/387675660396527627/611620599609163797/image0.jpg[

EDIT: strange that the image is sideways on this forum. o_O

That looks like a decent controller.  I need to get myself a better steering wheel controller (Haven't been on here in some time so this is the first I saw this reply).  It's tempting to get one with that clutch pedal plus a shifter add-on that I could mount down next to the seat like a real manual trans.  Over the last several months, I got Ace Combat 7 (which has VR) and set up a flight controller with the throttle and joystick positioned as they would be in an actual fighter jet.  I built it as a unit that mounts on two studs and is secured with two wingnuts for easy removal/installation.  The steering wheel also quickly attaches, but the pedals are more permanent.  I'll post up a pic in the next few days.  It's ugly, but functional.  The seat is the original driver seat out of my 89 Pontiac Firebird.

Flying in VR is a blast, I can look down at the in-game hands on the controls and it matches my physical positioning nearly exact, but the motion sickness can build up after a while.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....

« on: July 15, 2019, 10:29:53 PM »

At my latitude 55 degrees north equinox occurs 5 days prior to the corresponding southern latitude equinox.

The equinox happens at the same time for the planet.  Do you have a source stating there are 2 equinoxes 5 days apart?

The size of the lunar shadow cast onto our earth during solar eclipse varies from 70 - 100 miles we observe . This destroys the distant sun assumption since it is known by scientific experiment that electromagnetic rays propagate according to the inverse square law . The moon cannot be 240,000 miles distant , unless sunlight is focused by some means to shine on earth .

The eclipse shadow umbra (approx 70 miles) is just what we should expect with a sun 864k miles in diameter, 93 million miles away, shining on an object 2,100 miles in diameter and 240k miles away between the globe and sun.

23

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 26, 2019, 05:48:58 AM »

So Tom, do you at least understand why the shadow moves eastward?

Tumeni says that observations are experiments. This experiment proved the earth to be flat.

What experiment?

24

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: May 21, 2019, 04:42:44 AM »

Found out about these guys and have been going through their stuff recently.  I dig the visuals.

25

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 21, 2019, 03:59:46 AM »

Tom Bishop, why do you continue to fail at understanding this topic?

26

Flat Earth Media / Re: JTolens New IR Video

« on: April 21, 2019, 03:59:56 AM »

JTolens has a new video up with some more stunning near IR imagery:

Since only the top part of the mountain is visible and several thousand feet are below the waterline, he did a good job proving the globe.

27

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)

« on: April 14, 2019, 09:13:03 PM »

I bounce around between several games and systems.  Experimenting with this setup on a few driving games on the PS4.  Rather fun with the VR system on Gran Tourismo.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly

« on: March 19, 2019, 03:12:46 AM »

I would like to see this independently verified/disputed by folks on here who live on coasts. It is an easy measurement to take, and this would permit independent sources to weigh in.

Whether you are a FEer or REer, this type of test is your honey pot. If you want to see the truth for yourself, that is.

I am quite curious what folks will find, and would be snapping photos right now if I wasn’t smack dab in the middle of the country.

I'll try again next time I go to the dunes down in Oregon.  I've been meaning to get up on a small mountain nearby and line up a camera along a water-level at the horizon.  Simply lining up nearby hills against a farther mountain shows the mountain to be too low for a flat Earth.  Noticed this in a video I did debunking some youtube fe'r by the name Antonio Subirats.

29

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Zig-Zaging Sun

« on: December 29, 2018, 05:11:31 AM »

.... Look at the diagram.....

Indeed, let us do that. 

At the "top" of the globe in the diagram where a spot along the arctic circle is close to, or touching, the day/night terminator (Let us say 11:59 PM), is the sun hitting the surface at a shallower angle than at a spot "down and to the right" along the arctic circle in the diagram where it is 'noon'?

Yes or no.

30

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year

« on: December 09, 2018, 11:53:53 PM »

If the earth tilts etc through the year then why does polaris stay in the same place. This is very odd. Rers?

What I would love to know, how does FE explain a fixed southern celestial pole that is visible from the equator south, in every direction away from the center of the disk.

31

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The decline of critical thinking in the media, exemplified by That Everest Photo

« on: August 31, 2018, 09:21:48 PM »

The absence of critical thinking is astonishing here.

Just like that FE meme showing N. America appearing different sizes in images from different years.

32

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Observing The Sun

« on: August 20, 2018, 02:56:15 AM »

Just get a solar filter.  You can buy 4x4" thin flexible sheets and cut it to fit any number of applications.  Your eyes and camera sensor will thank you.

Or just observe the moon for the same results.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: August 10, 2018, 02:18:34 AM »

Tom, Can you show us why a "significant" (as it compares to the aforementioned distances involved) change in distance while in motion is necessary in order to have a perspective effect?

Geometry works in ratios. Look at the animation I posted in my previous post. If the laptop screen is far from the observer those same motions are not going to cause the same effect. The screen would not change at all.

Really?  Ok show us.

Look at the animation I posted on the last page. If the white surface were much further from the observer, those slight motions would not cause the same effect. The surface would hardly change in perspective at all.

Can you show us that one too?  Hold the camera the same distance away as when it starts, and only move down, remaining level left-right, and looking up and to the left.

In an example of a pencil pointed horizontally; in order to get a pencil to change perspective and point in a different direction you will need to move around it radically in comparison to your distance to that pencil.

You've taken the globe distances and scaled them down.  And?

If that pencil is 10,000 feet away from the observer, your movements would have to be of a much larger magnitude. Your same movements will not change the pencil to perspective. Bill agreed with that. Do you disagree?

I guess if you believe the (globe) distance from the sun to the moon is 239,000 miles, and Earth is roughly 7billion miles away from the two.  Is that what you believe the distances are in the globe model?  Do you have a source stating those distances?

The moon is only going to shift over you about 2 degrees due to the rotation of the earth/moon in the Round Earth system, and the sun much less than that.

And?  We're talking about perspective involving the angles the moon is view at during certain periods of its orbit.  Why are you attempting to derail and/or confuse yourself further?

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: August 09, 2018, 05:44:14 AM »

Tom, Can you show us why a "significant" (as it compares to the aforementioned distances involved) change in distance while in motion is necessary in order to have a perspective effect?

Had you actually performed any experiments related to this, you would have noticed that you can see this effect whilst remaining still.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: August 09, 2018, 05:04:18 AM »

What angle?

The same angle (roughly) as in the hallway, just on a bigger scale.  You do understand how 'scale' works correct?

How does this make sense if the moon and the sun are far away and don't change distance to the observer?

See above remark.  Here's another factor you apparently don't understand-  239k miles is "close range" compared to 93 million miles, and on a 'universe' scale, it is very "close range" perspective.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provides RE Evidence

« on: August 09, 2018, 03:15:45 AM »

10,834 foot mountain visible down to around 8,100 feet (approx 2,734 visible). Looks to be about 3,000 feet hidden behind the foreground hill down to the waterline. 5,100 feet are below the waterline.  Pretty much fits the globe.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: August 09, 2018, 02:33:24 AM »

These are clearly close-range perspective effects.

No, they're just perspective effects.

The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is to use close range perspective effects.

No, you just need to be viewing from the right angle.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Crescent Moon

« on: August 08, 2018, 01:41:51 AM »

Model it. Use the Round Earth Distances to explain it.

What is there to model?  If you tilt your head/camera 45 degrees to the right while looking at something (insert distance of your choosing here) away, and then tilt your head/camera 90 degrees to the left while looking at the same object, it will appear to tilt, or rotate if you prefer, in your field of view.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Crescent Moon

« on: August 07, 2018, 02:45:08 AM »

there are not many good sources of pictures of the moon taken simultaneously, to say what exactly happens.

Doesn't need to be simultaneously.  If the moon were close to a flat plain, different faces would be seen as it moved overhead.  Has this ever been observed?

Your Round Earth model does not explain it at all.

It does actually.  Anyone with a ball, camera, and an object with surface features can try it.  At 45N, when viewing the moon set, there is a 90 degree difference in viewing angle from viewing it when it rises.

If you have ever seen a desktop globe in real life, or perhaps any ball, have a think about it.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Crescent Moon

« on: August 07, 2018, 02:22:00 AM »

Thing is Tom, on your "close moon - flat Earth" diagram, completely different faces of the moon would be seen.  This is not observed.

Between the different latitudes on a globe however, the face of the moon rotates due to the different angles between different latitudes.  This is what is observed.