381

Flat Earth Community / Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?

« on: November 11, 2016, 02:45:13 PM »

I see none of you have taken the time to read the FAQ/wiki, then. No wonder you don't get any engagement from the FE side. It's cute how entitled you all are.

How exactly do you come to that conclusion? I most certainly did take the time to read the FAQ/Wiki. What I want to do is have a discussion with you about lunar eclipses, not the wiki. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts I cannot have a discussion with the wiki. I have read the wiki explanation and there are some things I don't understand about it. That is why I want to have a discussion with you.

One thing I don't understand about the wiki explanation is how can a five to ten miles in diameter "Shadow Object"  block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon and why has an object that size and distance not shown up on radar?

On the FAQ I found this:

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. 

Now could we have a discussion about what causes lunar eclipses?

Bump?

382

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Shadow Object Explanation of a Lunar Eclipse is Impossible!

« on: November 11, 2016, 05:45:18 AM »

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.

Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.

Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.

If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.

In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.

I want to pursue this a little farther. I actually did the experiment and got exactly the results posted above. (BTW If I had gotten different results I would gladly have posted them and challenged Rab to explain why I got results that were inconsistent with his claim. If I have a bias it is toward finding out how things really work. And you can't do that by posting false results just to prove a point.) Anyway, I did the experiment, so I can confirm first hand what the results of the experiment were. And I know you accept first hand observations as evidence because:

First hand observations are evidence.

So it appears to me the only issue here is your claim that in space you would get a different result because "there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light." If I had access to a vacuum chamber I would test this immediately. I am not able to do that, at least not yet. However, I want to confirm that if the same experiment were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it."If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.

383

Flat Earth Community / Re: I want to hear again the excuses why GPS cannot be ground based ?

« on: November 10, 2016, 04:18:40 PM »

I can agree with your earlier statement that painting a whole group of people with the same brush is nonsensical. Which is what you did here.

False.

LOL. I really tried to engage you in an actual discussion. It was clear that people who have been here much longer than me thought it was futile. Clearly I should have listened. BTW I have had discussions with FEers whom, though I completely disagree with their view, I can respect them and have a decent discussion with them. And there are GEers who are worse than you. It appears you define everyone by what their position is on the shape of the earth. When you accuse people of not knowing how to have a discussion or you accuse someone of painting a whole group with the same brush, that is practically the definition of hypocrisy. And just to save you the bother of responding to this post, I'll do it for you:

Incorrect. Irrelevant. False. Do you have evidence?

To everyone else: I apologize for being duped by the Lapwing defense and helping to derail various topics. I'll try to recognize it and ignore it from now on. Back to why GPS cannot be ground based:

384

Flat Earth Community / Re: I want to hear again the excuses why GPS cannot be ground based ?

« on: November 10, 2016, 07:50:00 AM »

I based this on the following:

Those altitudes doesn't comply with the calculations of GPS signals regardless, where even the precision of a simple reciever clock and it's drift can be used to calculate the distance to a GPS satellite.

Do you disagree with this? Why?

Irrelevant. What I am asking for is evidence. You have provided none. Repeating something that someone else posted, also without evidence, doesn't constitute evidence. If you have none, then simply say so.

First hand observations are evidence.

I am positing the question because I am quite sure they are accurate at higher elevations.

Fantastic. I am sure you can provide supporting evidence for this.

http://www.gps.gov/multimedia/presentations/2011/09/ICG/miller.pdf

Do you think this is correct or false?

Irrelevant.

Incorrect

I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons.

Cool story, who is talking about balloons?

You are:

"Project Loon is a research and development project being developed by X (formerly Google X) with the mission of providing Internet access to rural and remote areas. The project uses high-altitude balloons..."

Do agree with this or do you think they can achieve even higher altitude?

Irrelevant.

Incorrect

Also, why are you painting all REers with the same brush? When Gecko did that to FEers we concluded that this position was nonsensical and false.

I am glad you agree that Gecko is nonsensical.

I can agree with your earlier statement that painting a whole group of people with the same brush is nonsensical. Which is what you did here.

385

Flat Earth Community / Re: I want to hear again the excuses why GPS cannot be ground based ?

« on: November 10, 2016, 03:35:05 AM »

... GPS system is based on balloons at 18 - 40 KM why don't these altitudes comply with the calculations of the GPS?

Do you have any evidence to support this implication?

I based this on the following:

Those altitudes doesn't comply with the calculations of GPS signals regardless, where even the precision of a simple reciever clock and it's drift can be used to calculate the distance to a GPS satellite.

Do you disagree with this? Why?

And I'm not sure but I think you can get altitude or elevation information from positions higher than 18 - 40 Km. How is this possible?

If you aren't sure then why are you positing the question to begin with? Additionally, as I mentioned previously, it is possible that "similar versions" could be responsible. I didn't say this was unequivocal, but obviously these versions would be capable of higher attitudes. I get that you RE types aren't good at context or critical thinking, but please try to make an effort once in a while.

I am positing the question because I am quite sure they are accurate at higher elevations.Do you think this is correct or false? If you think it's correct then how is this possible?

I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons. Do agree with this or do you think they can achieve even higher altitude?What do you think would be the upper limit?

Also, why are you painting all REers with the same brush? When Gecko did that to FEers we concluded that this position was nonsensical and false.

386

Flat Earth Community / Re: I want to hear again the excuses why GPS cannot be ground based ?

« on: November 10, 2016, 02:19:31 AM »

Wrong.

Incorrect.

Right down to your usually completely uninformative answers, keep it up!

I'm sorry if my previous links were too hard for you to understand. If you need any help, please just ask and I'll do my best to explain in a more simple way for you.

I would really like that. One thing I am not understanding is if the GPS system is based on balloons at 18 - 40 KM why don't these altitudes comply with the calculations of the GPS? And I'm not sure but I think you can get altitude or elevation information from positions higher than 18 - 40 Km. How is this possible?

387

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Shadow Object Explanation of a Lunar Eclipse is Impossible!

« on: November 10, 2016, 01:59:12 AM »

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.

Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.

Do I really have to draw a picture? Your sun and moon are each some 32 miles in diameter and the "Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter".

Please explain how a 10 mile diameter object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from a 32 mile diameter moon.

It does no matter where the shadow object is located, it cannot block much light.

I don't know if Tom Bishop is coming back, but here is your answer:

Touche! We were mistaken. Since we can't see this shadow object it's hard to determine it's size. Our revised theory is that the shadow object is actually larger. We now estimate that it is similar in size to the sun.

388

Flat Earth Community / Re: I want to hear again the excuses why GPS cannot be ground based ?

« on: November 09, 2016, 04:22:25 PM »

Another thing that FE's do not seem to take into account is there are many frequencies of operation and many designs of operation of electronic equipment, each designed for its own special use.

False.

So enlightening and full of the specificity you demand of others.

Which part is false?  The part about the FE's?  There are many frequencies?  Many designs?  Designs for special/specific use?

That's a pretty broad statement to call 5 things false.

I'd suggest taking a minute to understand what context means and then try again.

What would be really nice is if you would explain what you meant by calling the statement false. Or if you think that should be obvious by the context, why you think so. Regardless of how obvious it is to you, it clearly wasn't that obvious to gecko, or me for that matter. This would be  a much more conversational approach. It is difficult to have a conversation with someone who gives so many one word answers and basically implies to anyone who doesn't understand what is meant, that they are kind of stupid. (Whether they are or aren't stupid, it would be nice if you would at least make an effort at having a decent conversation.)

389

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Shadow Object Explanation of a Lunar Eclipse is Impossible!

« on: November 09, 2016, 08:24:51 AM »

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.

Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.

Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.

390

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Shadow Object Explanation of a Lunar Eclipse is Impossible!

« on: November 07, 2016, 06:00:01 PM »

Whatever happened to giving FEers a week to answer?

Well, once the discussion began there was no point waiting...

OK. Just thought I would ask. 

391

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Shadow Object Explanation of a Lunar Eclipse is Impossible!

« on: November 07, 2016, 07:46:18 AM »

Whatever happened to giving FEers a week to answer?

392

Flat Earth Community / Re: Morons. Most*

« on: November 06, 2016, 11:47:04 AM »

I feel I must correct an earlier mistake in this thread.

After doing some digging I've found that Junker was correct, he truly isn't a pedant.  I have, I believe, found that which is a better fit in Sciolist and Delettante.

Thank you Junker for guiding me to the truth.

I've been thinking he is somewhat similar to the Wizard of Oz. And it makes sense because Oz is kind of a magical place where the impossible is possible and it's surrounded by a flat desert which cannot be crossed. This could easily lead one to believe the earth was flat.

393

Flat Earth Community / Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?

« on: November 05, 2016, 12:54:08 PM »

I see none of you have taken the time to read the FAQ/wiki, then. No wonder you don't get any engagement from the FE side. It's cute how entitled you all are.

How exactly do you come to that conclusion? I most certainly did take the time to read the FAQ/Wiki. What I want to do is have a discussion with you about lunar eclipses, not the wiki. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts I cannot have a discussion with the wiki. I have read the wiki explanation and there are some things I don't understand about it. That is why I want to have a discussion with you.

One thing I don't understand about the wiki explanation is how can a five to ten miles in diameter "Shadow Object"  block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon and why has an object that size and distance not shown up on radar?

On the FAQ I found this:

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. 

Now could we have a discussion about what causes lunar eclipses?

394

Flat Earth Community / Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?

« on: November 05, 2016, 05:20:28 AM »

While waiting for a substantive answer, I thought I would post a couple quotes I noticed which appear to demonstrate gecko's predictive capabilities.

So I guess we will just have fo wait for a FE to explain it. The best answer you usually get is usually "Look it up in the flat earth FAQ or the flat earth wiki."

Then about 32.5 hours later this:

I'd suggest reading the FAQ/wiki.

395

Flat Earth Community / Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?

« on: November 05, 2016, 01:41:32 AM »

This is post #36 and still no FE has explained the lunar eclipse on the flat earth in his own words.

I'd suggest reading the FAQ/wiki.

I'd suggest reading the question.  My OP asked for an FE willing to engage in discussion about lunar eclipse to "explain in their own words" how it works on the flat earth.  "In their own words" is the key part of the request.  I know what the wiki has to say, but I cannot hold a conversation with the wiki.

396

Flat Earth Community / Re: Scientific evidence that the Earth is a ball moving through space around the Sun

« on: November 03, 2016, 06:20:28 PM »

Please post any and all scientific evidence that the Earth is a ball moving through space around the Sun.

By scientific, I obviously mean something with the highest standard of scientific method, something with reproducible results from here on Earth. Not equations, hypotheses, or pictures from space, not just observations twisted to support any particular world-view. Something that involves an actual experiment, has been peer reviewed.

I'm looking for any scientific experiment that proves the Earth is actually moving, in particular. Thanks in advance.

Can you give your approximate location? The reason for this is, you want to be able to observe the evidence so it seems best to tailor a response specific to your location.

397

Flat Earth Community / Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?

« on: November 03, 2016, 12:57:18 PM »

<< irrelevant >>

<< Usual RE logic dictating that you must explain something that even they can not >>

To the OP... honestly, we may never know the truth about our world and our "solar system" if we keep on stacking assumptions upon assumptions instead of finding the right questions to ask, and the right experiments that have actual reproducible results. So far we have a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up to the scientific method accepted as dogma in the scientific community. The reason behind eclipses being one of those assumptions based on another assumption.

So the explanation I gave is based on the false assumption that the earth is a globe. Since the world is flat this explanation cannot hold. Now what I really want to know is what causes the lunar eclipses we observe from this flat earth of ours.

398

Flat Earth Community / Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?

« on: November 02, 2016, 07:00:29 AM »

Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.

Seriously though, here is a diagram describing what I believe to be causing a lunar eclipse on a global earth:



As you can see, the earth comes between the sun and the moon and casts a shadow over some or all of the moon. Even if the moon is completely in earth's shadow it still appears reddish-brown. This is because some of the Sun's light bends through the Earth's atmosphere and reflects off the moon. Is that enough to get us started?

399

Flat Earth Community / Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?

« on: November 02, 2016, 06:45:46 AM »

Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.

I subscribe to the theory that the earth is shaped like a wedge of watermelon. So I don't have that strong of an understanding of a lunar eclipse on a global earth. I do plan on posting my question on a global earth website as well. I hope they don't require me to explain my understanding of a lunar eclipse on a flat earth before they can tell me how a lunar eclipse is explained on a global earth. That would leave me in a real pickle.

400

Flat Earth Community / Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?

« on: November 02, 2016, 06:18:51 AM »

Any comments on the FE comments, Boots  ?

I have been offline for awhile. I'll make another post soon.