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 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40  Next >
741
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 04, 2021, 04:51:39 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.

742
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 04, 2021, 03:01:36 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.

743
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 04, 2021, 02:39:08 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.

744
These are good questions.  I attempted to reconcile these problems in the map below.  You'll notice that I shrunk all latitudes and longitudes below 30d north by 50% and increased latitude and longutudes by 150% above 60d north.  I also increased the distance between 60w to 30w and correspondingly150e to 120e.  This helps to modify and provide more accurate landmasses that we measure today,  identical in the most popular fly over areas.   Greenland, South America, Australia, and China are directly affected by this. 

I drew an exact map to size in another post called "new world map (south centered)".  This one is my best attempt at Photoshop on an android.

If your starting point is the 3D Globe Earth map and you are creating a 2D Flat Earth map, you will always face a loss of information. There is no way around it. You can do different projections to take different forms of the loss of information (distortion in distances, shapes, sizes etc) but there will always be a loss of information.
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.

All maps are flat.

Period.

When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.

The Flat Earth map is a projection of the 3D Globe map. There are many flaws with this projection as it should be expected because of the loss of information that is incurs. There is a lot wrong with the Flat Earth map as it is presented. A lot of the flight distances and times don’t match up with reality. There is no single South Pole (see my thread about the issue of Southern Celestial pole related to this).

None of these issues happen with the Globe Earth map because it reflects reality without loss of information.
There is no single verifiable map of the entire world of any kind, RET or FET.

All maps are flat, however.

There is no such thing as a "Globe" map.

Quit posting false information.

745
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 04, 2021, 12:18:00 PM »

I can see things around corners using a mirror, of course.

And I know the things can appear to shimmer due to refraction.

Where you are wrong is that things appearing to be visible due to refraction will not shimmer when viewed.

Those lights on the lake were not somehow reflected upward 29 feet and still maintain shimmer.

Sorry, I'm now not really clear what your point actually is. Are you saying the lights in the video are, or are not shimmering? And are you saying that mirrors can help you see round corners, but refraction can't?
You are not really clear is an accurate statement.

They are shimmering.

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

746
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Earth Flood and Flat Earth
« on: February 03, 2021, 06:32:10 PM »
Hi..
Its my first post here, I hope to enrich and enriched from you also.

We all heard about the flood that covered the whole earth. Was it on flat earth or rounded one?

If it was on flat earth,then we should believe that something blocked it from leaking outside as the ice mountains or other barriers.

It it was rounded then there the gravity theory has controlled water around the world so strictly.

 As a Muslim many Muslim scholar talked about that saying that it was rounded. Some may said else.  We also believe that there is above Kaaba in Makkah there is a place in sky called "Albiet Maamoor". and that mean in my perspective one of four:
- the earth is flat and "Albiet Maamoor" is above it.
-The earth is rounded but not moving. So this place is above it as well.
- The earth is moving with the sky also and that may corrupt many theories and have to be studied beyond our minds.
- There is something else we cant study it.

These are some verses from Holy Quran talk about Noah (peace be upon him) flood.



Hey try not to combine myths
He is not.

Try not to insult people about things of which you have no clue.

747
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 03, 2021, 06:30:47 PM »
No one has ever disputed that instances of fraud have occured. There have been multiple instances committed by both Biden and Trump voters. So what? What we are talking about is overturning a certified result. That cannot be done with a few small instances, only widespread fraud. This is all evident.

Similarly, Tom shifting the goal posts from election audits to machine audits is obviously missing the point. Regardless of what you think may have happened with machine voting in Antrim county, a recount of hand marked ballots matched the certified results, which matched the canvass. There hasn’t been any evidence of tampering with tens of thousands of hand marked ballots just bawwing about machines in an audit that appears to be sketchy at best. That isn’t evidence of election fraud. Fraud being plausible still isn’t the same as fraud being probable.
This is wrong.

You have no clue.

Fraud is targeted and abetted.

748
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 03, 2021, 06:03:48 PM »
Arizona is not over yet.

Quit writing as if the concept of help is something with which you are familiar.

Arizona ratified the results on Dec 1st.  Mike Pence accepted them on Jan 6th.  Biden was declared President on Jan 20th.

Last I checked, he's still there and Trump is pouting in Florida.

It certainly looks over to me.

The latest activity I can see is when the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed one of Trump's lawsuit on Jan 5th.

Are you aware of an existing lawsuit in pending Arizona?  Please provide a source, I'd be curious to watch yet another bogus Trump lawsuit get thrown out.

You lost. Get over it.
I lost nothing.

Arizona audit isn't over.

Lets imagine the best possible case.  Arizona performs yet another audit, and somehow determines that they counted all wrong and Biden lost Arizona.

Trump still lost the election, Biden won by far more electoral votes than needed.  He could lose Arizona's and still comfortably be ahead.

It's over.  Even if this fantasy were to happen, it wouldn't change the election.

Trump is a loser, you lost, deal with it.
I didn't lose anything. You keep writing that as if I was competing for something. I wasn't.

Your best possible case is completely off. Arizona is running an audit, not will run an audit. That audit comes up with errors, then other results will likely be called into question.

I expect as usual, you are completely wrong. The audit will go the way of every other audit this election: there might be a few minor elements to correct but no widespread fraud will be found. Unless, just maybe, sharpiegate was the plan all along and they missed it the first time!
Completely wrong about what?

Arizona is running an audit.

And your wordsmithing concerning widespread is just farcical.

Widespread was never the claim.

Fraud is generally targeted and easily abetted.

749
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 03, 2021, 05:44:48 PM »
Arizona is not over yet.

Quit writing as if the concept of help is something with which you are familiar.

Arizona ratified the results on Dec 1st.  Mike Pence accepted them on Jan 6th.  Biden was declared President on Jan 20th.

Last I checked, he's still there and Trump is pouting in Florida.

It certainly looks over to me.

The latest activity I can see is when the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed one of Trump's lawsuit on Jan 5th.

Are you aware of an existing lawsuit in pending Arizona?  Please provide a source, I'd be curious to watch yet another bogus Trump lawsuit get thrown out.

You lost. Get over it.
I lost nothing.

Arizona audit isn't over.

Lets imagine the best possible case.  Arizona performs yet another audit, and somehow determines that they counted all wrong and Biden lost Arizona.

Trump still lost the election, Biden won by far more electoral votes than needed.  He could lose Arizona's and still comfortably be ahead.

It's over.  Even if this fantasy were to happen, it wouldn't change the election.

Trump is a loser, you lost, deal with it.
I didn't lose anything. You keep writing that as if I was competing for something. I wasn't.

Your best possible case is completely off. Arizona is running an audit, not will run an audit. That audit comes up with errors, then other results will likely be called into question.

750
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.

All maps are flat.

Period.

This is just objectively false.

I have a globe map of the Earth right here, I'm looking at it now.

It's unmistakably a map, and it's round. Not flat.

You can claim it doesn't represent your reality, but it is very clearly a map.
What you have is a globe, it is not a map.

751

The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.

All maps are flat.

Period.

When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.

Except that maps put onto globes do the best job representing the shape, sizes and proportions of features on the earth...
That is just silly.

Captain Cook drew an almost exact layout of New Zealand (right down to position) on a perfectly flat map.

752
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 03, 2021, 03:12:02 PM »
Arizona is not over yet.

Quit writing as if the concept of help is something with which you are familiar.

Lol, even if this weren’t completely delusional and objectively false it would have any effect on the election.
Arizona isn't over yet.

753
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 03, 2021, 03:11:12 PM »
Arizona is not over yet.

Quit writing as if the concept of help is something with which you are familiar.

Arizona ratified the results on Dec 1st.  Mike Pence accepted them on Jan 6th.  Biden was declared President on Jan 20th.

Last I checked, he's still there and Trump is pouting in Florida.

It certainly looks over to me.

The latest activity I can see is when the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed one of Trump's lawsuit on Jan 5th.

Are you aware of an existing lawsuit in pending Arizona?  Please provide a source, I'd be curious to watch yet another bogus Trump lawsuit get thrown out.

You lost. Get over it.
I lost nothing.

Arizona audit isn't over.

754
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 03, 2021, 02:46:19 PM »
This is a fallacy. Plenty of people did think that there was a lot of illegal voting in the 2016 election, and that Clinton was receiving illegal votes.
OK. Plenty of people think they've seen a ghost.
I remember when Trump talked about millions of "illegal votes" set up this whole commission to investigate then had to disband it when they couldn't find anything.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission.html
How embarrassing :)

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 but won the electoral college by a "landslide", by his own judgement.
Never happened in history before. He must have stolen it.

Quote
I asked for strong positive correlation showing that Joe Biden was legitimately elected
No. You need to provide evidence that he wasn't.
They had 60 court cases to present some and failed miserably.
Every recount and audit reaffirmed the original result. All the little things you pinned your hopes on have fallen flat, just like we all told you they would.
And sure, you can Google and find sources which still back up your desperate beliefs. But as I keep telling you, not all evidence is created equal.
If you continue to believe all the little conspiracy sites whose claims have proven untrue after the last few months over and over again then I'm not sure there's much we can do to help you.
Arizona is not over yet.

Quit writing as if the concept of help is something with which you are familiar.

755
These are good questions.  I attempted to reconcile these problems in the map below.  You'll notice that I shrunk all latitudes and longitudes below 30d north by 50% and increased latitude and longutudes by 150% above 60d north.  I also increased the distance between 60w to 30w and correspondingly150e to 120e.  This helps to modify and provide more accurate landmasses that we measure today,  identical in the most popular fly over areas.   Greenland, South America, Australia, and China are directly affected by this. 

I drew an exact map to size in another post called "new world map (south centered)".  This one is my best attempt at Photoshop on an android.

If your starting point is the 3D Globe Earth map and you are creating a 2D Flat Earth map, you will always face a loss of information. There is no way around it. You can do different projections to take different forms of the loss of information (distortion in distances, shapes, sizes etc) but there will always be a loss of information.
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.

All maps are flat.

Period.

When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.

756
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: FE claim from Wisconsin pharmacist
« on: February 03, 2021, 01:01:07 PM »
The Wisconsin pharmacist who intentionally sabotaged hundreds of doses of the Moderna coronavirus vaccine because he thought COVID-19 was a hoax, also believes the earth is flat and the sky is actually a “shield put up by the Government to prevent individuals from seeing God.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/wisconsin-vaccine-saboteur-steven-brandenburg-is-a-flat-earther-fbi-document-reveals

Is this a real flat earth official idea, or is he just making stuff up?
Are you referring to the idea of the vaccine being sabotaged due to Covid-19 being a hoax?

Or are you referring to the idea of the sky being a shield?

If the Bible says God made the sky, and he says govt made it, is he a blasphemer, or just incorrect belief?
Aside from the fact (according to the Bible) things are not now as God created them, what is the issue?
Does FE endorse sabotaging the vaccine (which was given to people)?
I wouldn't endorse sabotage.
After reading the entire story, is he a good representative of FE thought and behavior? I think he is an archetype.
He could be representative of any school of thought, RE or FE.

757
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 03, 2021, 12:47:40 PM »

Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

I am not ignoring refraction. Refraction does make objects that are visible appear to shimmer.

It does not make invisible objects somehow visible.

Refraction is the bending of light when it passes between different media, caused by variations in the speed of light. The 'shimmer' you see is caused by variations in the atmospheric profile, causing different amounts of refraction to occur. You don't need an 8 mile lab to demonstrate how refraction can make things visible around corners, or in other situations when an observer wouldn't expect to have a straight line of sight - such as around the curved surface of the earth. It's no more impossible, or 'patently ridiculous', than a mirror, periscope or fibre optic cable at work - it's just another basic property of light passing through materials.   

Are you seriously, publicly challenging the basic physics of refraction?
I can see things around corners using a mirror, of course.

And I know the things can appear to shimmer due to refraction.

Where you are wrong is that things appearing to be visible due to refraction will not shimmer when viewed.

Those lights on the lake were not somehow reflected upward 29 feet and still maintain shimmer.

758
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 02, 2021, 07:56:48 PM »
This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?
Right. My point is in any large data set you can find data which if you have an agenda you can call an anomaly.

So in 2016 Trump got a bigger electoral college majority than anyone in history who lost the popular vote. Every other winning President either won the popular vote or had a narrow electoral college win despite losing the popular vote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote

1888 was the only other time in history someone won a big majority in the electoral college without winning the popular vote.

So explain that. Trump can’t possibly have won in 2016. He lost the popular vote and yet won the election by a landslide. Never happened in history. In fact since 1888 there has only been one US election before Trump where the winner lost the popular vote and that was Bush vs Gore which was on a knife edge.

Ergo, there’s no way Trump could have won. Do you expect me to believe he could have got 306 electoral college votes without even winning the popular vote? It’s never happened...

This is a fallacy. Plenty of people did think that there was a lot of illegal voting in the 2016 election, and that Clinton was receiving illegal votes.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/ - Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

Quote
But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.


Pointing at an anomaly in another election does nothing to support Joe Biden's anomalies, however, and just makes more assumptions.

You're still trying to justify the possibility of anomalies rather than simply showing strong correlation that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. Again, you have presented zero positive evidence, only excuses.

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

2020 saw a record number of votes and mail-in voting during a global pandemic, and was perhaps the most nasty race I've seen? But the voting data itself isnt all that weird.

I'd claim that Trump's 2016 win created a stranger data set. Winning the EC while losing the popular vote is a bigger 'anomaly' than any of the frivolous arguments TB et al. have put forward here. And he did it while stealing huge swaths of typically Dem votes by convincing Cuban ex-pats that Hillary wanted to establish communism, aided by external actors.

The 2020 election was the furthest from normal we've ever seen.  But is the data that came out of it any more irregular than a typical year?

I asked for strong positive correlation showing that Joe Biden was legitimately elected, not more excuses that ridiculous anomalies are possible. That is a pretty weak line of reasoning.

And in order to point at anomalies in the 2016 election you would first need to prove that the election was untainted. You have not. Fallacy.
Everyone knows that shitbag HRC didn't win the popular vote.

That is another lie foisted upon the public by MSM.

They have ceased all pretense of sanity and sound analysis.

759
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 02, 2021, 06:25:58 PM »

You claimed that lights 8 miles away are visible according to RET, which is false. And they were shimmering due to refraction.

Wobbly edges on visible things are certainly examples of shimmer due to refraction.

Lights that are 8 miles away on a frozen lake shimmer due to refraction only because they are visible on a flat earth.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not just talking about the objects themselves shimmering - everything shimmers. If you look out towards the horizon and you see things shimmering, such as straight edges being wobbly or things being misshapen etc, then you are highly likely to be seeing a lot of refraction going on, and you will get excellent visibility of objects beyond, and after far beyond, where you would expect to see them using simple curvature calculations. There's no mystery about that - you can prove it in a lab very easily.

If you agree that refraction happens, why don't you think it's possible for stuff to be visible beyond simple curvature range calculation expectations? Offering up videos, almost invariably shot in conditions that lend themselves to high levels of refraction (like frozen lakes), and then ignoring refraction in the calculations, and claiming the result proves the earth is flat, is just bizarre - it makes no sense at all.
Please do not even attempt to claim there is any lab on earth that is 8 miles long.

That is patently ridiculous.

I am not ignoring refraction. Refraction does make objects that are visible appear to shimmer.

It does not make invisible objects somehow visible.

760
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 02, 2021, 04:50:51 PM »

Something that cannot be seen can somehow "shimmer."

That is a ridiculous proposition.

Where did I claim that invisible things were shimmering? Let the straw man out of the headlock you've got him in and engage with the actual debate, not the one you're comfortable with.

Shimmer is indicative of a large amount of refraction going on - wobbly edges to the sun and moon, for example, are telltale signs that a lot of refraction is happening.
You claimed that lights 8 miles away are visible according to RET, which is false. And they were shimmering due to refraction.

Wobbly edges on visible things are certainly examples of shimmer due to refraction.

Lights that are 8 miles away on a frozen lake shimmer due to refraction only because they are visible on a flat earth.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40  Next >