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 - Tintagel

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23  Next >
41
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis effect in FET
« on: January 17, 2015, 12:40:16 AM »
The answer we've given in the past to this question is that the stars have a slight gravitational field. This is how the variation of g at high altitudes is explained. The stars are also rotating above the earth at one rotation per 24 hours. That bullets and artillery shells are are deflected is because the stars are pulling the bullet.
Interesting. This has a predictable consequence: if you stand at the equator and fire a canon either towards north (towards north pole) or towards south (towards the opposite direction), the coriolis effect would be stronger in the south direction than in the north direction.

Which is not what we observe so your theory is wrong.
How do you know?  I don't believe you have stood on the equator and fired a cannon north or south, so you cannot definitively say that this doesn't happen.

42
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses
« on: January 16, 2015, 06:33:33 PM »
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed.  If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?

And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.

I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth.  They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid.  "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.

43
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis effect in FET
« on: January 16, 2015, 06:27:55 PM »
Ok, enough. Read the wiki.
I'm sorry but I did a research for "Coriolis" on the wiki, and all I got was this: "The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line."

I'm actually used to read reality-based science, where an explanation is usually not contained in one sentence. There's not even a link to explain what are "Northern and Southern Celestial Systems"... But I see that others have responded in the rest of the thread, I'll read it later.

Those who claim to be into reality-based science are generally instead into internet-based science.  The google and wiki scholars who know everything there is to know about relativity because they follow Stephen Hawking on Instagram.  Your reliance on links to explain things betrays your true feelings as to where knowledge is kept.

My point is this: you do not know that the earth is a sphere.  You assume it is, because it is what you have been told.  What do your eyes tell you?  What do you know?

44
Flat Earth Community / Re: Fundraising Idea: Task-Based Micro Payments
« on: January 16, 2015, 03:49:52 PM »
How is offering two issues of Smithsonian Magazine with the copy of the new Earth Not a Globe book sleazy or backhanded? That's the least offensive form of advertising I can imagine. We would certainly get more interest than if we were to sell the book outright. We would be basically giving the book away for free, as well as a popular science magazine.

I would be more offended if I went to a Hollow Earth site and they were trying to push their books on me for profit, withholding research about a Hollow Earth unless I pay them money. My idea is a less sleazy way to fund-raise. The research is being given out for free. You want us to withhold research from the public unless we get paid in cash. That's terrible.

A disclaimer can be made that the "Smithsonian Magazine is partnered with the Flat Earth Society to bring you this offer." Anyone with an IQ above room temperature could figure out that money is somehow exchanging hands. It's not really that backhanded.

Of course they can "figure it out."  Saying that  "Smithsonian Magazine is partnered with the Flat Earth Society to bring you this offer" isn't just misleading, it's insulting.  It wouldn't lead to more interest, because most internet users (in my experience) hate that kind of advertising.  That is backhanded, and offensive.  It's an awful form of revenue generation.  Even if it isn't offensive to you, it's offensive to many users, myself included.

45
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth
« on: January 16, 2015, 04:06:07 AM »
So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.

Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Drop an apple. Apple falls down.
Incorrect.  The earth rises to meet the apple.

Markjo: converted!

46
Flat Earth Community / Re: Fundraising Idea: Task-Based Micro Payments
« on: January 16, 2015, 04:04:37 AM »
I would have to say that I would have to bow out of the society as a whole were this to happen.  I'm not at all comfortable supporting a group that resorts to the lowest common denominator methods of internet marketing.    The whole idea makes me sick to my stomach.

Here is another idea:

Instead of using low tier offers which are geared towards a general audience (ie, enter your zip code for a free box of Cheerios) we can take the time to pick out offers relevant to science and technology. It will be more time consuming to find these offers, and they sometimes need approval before running, but they exist. Right now Smithsonian Magazine is offering to pay $9 for signups for their 2 issue free trial. Users will receive 2 issues of their magazine and then have the option of signing up with Smithsonian for more.

We would get users to sign up with something like this:



Still a no, in my case.  It's backhanded and sleazy, the sort of thing I'd expect to find on a less-than-reputable website, and this kind of campaign really doesn't sit well with me.  I know it's your company and all, and I mean no offense, that's just the way I feel about it.  I'm not interested in being associated with a website with these practices at all.

I think the T-Shirts and the book(s) are much more in the direction we need to look for fundraising efforts, and I concur that registering as a nonprofit and supporting charitable organizations would be good for us.  I don't oppose ideas for fundraising in general, but this one, scientific focus or no, is just not something I'd recommend for any website who doesn't want to appear shady, and it's not something I can participate in at all.  I do this crap at work because I have to, and my employer graciously works around my school schedule.  Outside of that context, I want nothing to do with it.

47
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth
« on: January 16, 2015, 12:30:42 AM »
So much for thinking that someone would even to attempt to provide evidence that the Earth is accelerating... I guess I didn't expect much to begin with.

Until it's proven that the Earth is accelerating (upwards), the rest of the discussion about how it works is useless hypotheticals...
Drop an apple. Apple falls down.

Or, to spell it out for our friend AMann, the earth accelerates upward to meet the apple.

48
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses
« on: January 16, 2015, 12:25:22 AM »
My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?

Because they happen pretty regularly.  The moon phases are also more or less regular.  Neither of these things directly imply anything about the shape of the earth, because (as the round earthers are so fond of pointing out) just because you have an explanation doesn't constitute evidence.
Well, that maybe so but it's still better than no explanation at all...

And you actually completely evaded the question. The fact that lunar eclipses happen pretty regularly does not mean that you'd be able to predict exactly the date and time of the eclipse, and whether it would be a total or partial eclipse. I mean, can you?

Based on FE theory, can you predict the date, time and partial/total lunar eclipses for the next millenium?

Do you know what 'regularly' means?  Of course you can predict them, but this does not directly imply anything about earth's shape.

Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one.  Have you?  If not, how are you so certain your idea is the right one?"

49
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses
« on: January 15, 2015, 09:12:46 PM »
Hi,
I've searched the FAQ about eclipses but didn't see anything. I've found a brief mention of eclipses in another forum thread, but it's not complete and doesn't answer my question.

In reality-based science, moon eclipses are explained because the earth blocks light coming from the sun to the moon.
In FE theory, I've read that 1. the moon is self illuminated and 2. eclipses are caused by another object coming between us on earth and the moon.

Obviously, I couldn't have been the same explanation than in reality-based science, because that would require the sun to go to the other side of the flat earth, which is not what FE theory says.

My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?

Because they happen pretty regularly.  The moon phases are also more or less regular.  Neither of these things directly imply anything about the shape of the earth, because (as the round earthers are so fond of pointing out) just because you have an explanation doesn't constitute evidence.

50
Flat Earth Community / Re: Fundraising Idea: Task-Based Micro Payments
« on: January 15, 2015, 09:05:58 PM »
No need for awkwardness, it's the reality of internet marketing.   I work in internet marketing.  I'm also in school so I won't have to do it forever, because it's rife with crap like this and I hate every second.  I'm not going to hold Tom personally responsible (it's a living, I do it too), but I do reserve the right to call sketchy clickbait marketing tactics sketchy when I see them.  Doesn't mean I think any less of Tom.

51
Flat Earth Community / Re: Fundraising Idea: Task-Based Micro Payments
« on: January 15, 2015, 08:40:17 PM »
I am absolutely opposed to task based financing. I don't want this society to be a spam-producing, sketchy clickbait site. Regardless of whether or not that's how you see it, Tom, that's how visitors would see it if we had an offer wall on the site.

Absolutely.  This kind of crap gives any site a terrible reputation very quickly.

52
Flat Earth Community / Re: Fundraising Idea: Task-Based Micro Payments
« on: January 15, 2015, 04:39:30 PM »
I would have to say that I would have to bow out of the society as a whole were this to happen.  I'm not at all comfortable supporting a group that resorts to the lowest common denominator methods of internet marketing.    The whole idea makes me sick to my stomach.

53
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth
« on: January 14, 2015, 03:40:27 PM »
ok - I've been all through the wiki and something that seems to be severely lacking with the flat-earth idea is evidence.

Now, this idea of the Earth accelerating upwards intrigues me. I am looking for any evidence of it. Is there any?

The evidence for the acceleration, as indicated by the equivalence principle, is the force we experience as gravity. 

For it to be evidence for UA to t would have to exclude gravitation as a possibility. Your example does not do that and so it cannot be cited.

Those who support the UA agree with Einstein's reasoning that gravitation is indistinguishable from acceleration.  They simply assert that there is literally no difference between the two forces, rather than equivalence.  They cite it simply because it has been proven that the two forces are physically equivalent, and take the next logical step.

I use third person pronouns here for clarity, as I believe gravitation exists, and therefore do not support the UA model, personally.

54
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth
« on: January 14, 2015, 03:21:12 PM »
ok - I've been all through the wiki and something that seems to be severely lacking with the flat-earth idea is evidence.

Now, this idea of the Earth accelerating upwards intrigues me. I am looking for any evidence of it. Is there any?

The evidence for the acceleration, as indicated by the equivalence principle, is the force we experience as gravity. 

55
Flat Earth Community / Re: Shape of daylight on a disc
« on: January 14, 2015, 05:02:26 AM »
Also, I can find all sorts of research on the matter with Google. Did you need help with Google again? See, for example: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/the-equinox-see-it-for-yourself-this-weekend-46925476/?no-ist

The Google Scholar strikes again.  I can find google results to support anything I wish to believe as well.  Did you know that aliens built the pyramids?
The Forum's search function worked well for you before. See, for example: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1362.msg27674#msg27674

The observations recorded in that thread don't take place on the equinox.  You were, I recall, rather unforgiving of my full moon / sunrise reference because it was actually 24 hours past the full moon.  If approximations don't work for our observations, they don't work for yours either.  You can't have it both ways.

If you could do that Tintagel I would gladly accept your continuing participation in this thread. Otherwise please see yourself to the exit as you are only de-railing and distracting. My question is in the search for evidence and you are not contributing.

On the contrary, I will post in any thread I wish, and I don't need to fulfill your content requirements to do so.  This forum has its own moderators to police post content, and they do a fine job.  If you have further questions, please direct them to my ass before you kiss it.

56
Flat Earth Community / Re: Shape of daylight on a disc
« on: January 13, 2015, 07:06:32 PM »
You are making a false assumption, and then calling us liars when we can't prove your false assumption is correct.

Please explain where my assumptions are false, and provide explanation of the mechanism that produces different predictions.

You are assuming that exactly half of the disc is lit by the sun on the equinoxes.  You have no evidence that this is so.  In our model sunlight is diffused and propagated by the atmoplane, becoming an oblong spotlight.  Tom's illustrations summarize it rather well, I think.

57
Flat Earth Community / Re: Shape of daylight on a disc
« on: January 13, 2015, 04:29:09 PM »
The distribution of light on a sphere (from a single source) is not difficult to test. Any one can get a ball or globe, put it in a dark room, turn on a light source, and observe what areas are illuminated.

What you will find is an even distribution of illuminated area on all surfaces on the side of the sphere that is toward the light.

Conversely one could switch the sphere for a large plate or disk and see the entire disk lit up.

The point to my thread is in seeking a fleshed out explanation for why the shape of the illuminated area on a disk is more or less D shaped.

My assertion is that the D shape is a best case scenario when the sun's path is more or less directly over the equator.  Things get much trickier for FET when the case of northern or southern summer.

In the case of southern Summer the light has to get to the other side of the disk (without illuminating the night time side) in order to keep all of Antarctica/ice ring illuminated. On a flat earth this would look like back to back D's where the center of one D was dark and the rest were lit up.

Northern summer is much easier to explain but is still a version of a D shape with a lowercase d bulge on the back to illuminate the center pole constantly.

I am guessing the total coverage of light is significantly larger in the case of Southern summer. Probably by a factor of 2 but I am eagerly awaiting to hear how the basic shape is determined before we get too much further.

You are making a false assumption, and then calling us liars when we can't prove your false assumption is correct.

58
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides
« on: January 13, 2015, 04:27:31 PM »
First, the sun is much closer in FET and it still puts out the same heat ... obviously.

As mentioned Rowbotham has entire chapters devoted to tides in which he documents the maths in excruciating detail.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

LOL. You guys should really abandon SBR. He demonstrates within the first few paragraphs how little he ever understood.

In lieu of sufficient rebuttal, he sayeth, "LOL."

59
Flat Earth Community / Re: Shape of daylight on a disc
« on: January 13, 2015, 01:10:42 AM »
On the equinoxes, the sun illuminates everywhere on earth for 12 hours. Its "spotlight" covers exactly 50% of the earth.

Which scientist studied the earth from every point on its surface on this day to prove this?
Why would you require proof, especially from a single scientist's study? Did you hold Rowbotham to the same level of evidence?

I expected that RE'ers had some level of evidence behind their facts. Published studies, that sort of thing.
I assume Google searches work for you.

From Wikipedia article on Equinox:

References
1 United States Naval Observatory (2010-06-10). "Earth's Seasons: Equinoxes, Solstices, Perihelion, and Aphelion, 2000-2020".
2 Owens, Steve (20 March 2010). "Equinox, Equilux, and Twilight Times". Dark Sky Diary (blog). Retrieved 31 December 2010.
3 Montenbruck, Oliver; Pfleger, Thomas. Astronomy on the Personal Computer. Springer-Verlag. p. 17. ISBN 0-387-57700-9.
4 Meeus; Mathematical Astronomical Morsels; ISBN 0-943396-51-4
5 PIA11667: The Rite of Spring". Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. Retrieved 21 March 2014.

Once again Gulliver proves, for all his elocution, that his scientific credentials only extend to the ability to Google and Wikipedia whatever mainstream result he wishes to support.  Well done, Google Scholar.

60
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No gravity on Earth
« on: January 11, 2015, 11:13:18 PM »
If gravity is real then earth cant be flat. so on so forth.

This is also not true.  Some of us believe gravitation exists.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23  Next >