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.
Soooooo, I'll prolly be logging on again now that it's free to play. I stopped because I bought Wildstar... which was just terrible. Never got back into TESO. It's a shame, I was having lots of fun with a nightblade tank.
what about the lore
I tweeted about this about 3 days ago.
Then again, refraction can be quite convenient for FE'ers when it makes a round earth appear flat.
i get the feeling that "refraction" is one of those convenient, throw-a-way "explanations" that TPTB trot out to try and dodge "the hard balls";
although "refraction" is a relatively simple concept/explanation, TPTB and their innumerable shills are quite content to spew out a barrage of meaningless scientific gobbly-de-gook to baffle and confuse the average punter...
most people haven't got the qualifications, the time or the inclination to penetrate these "smoke screens";
that's the way TPTB like it......keep every-one distracted with mindless entertainments and too busy working to earn a living to have any spare time to consider the fact that they're trapped in "the Matrix";
(the word "amuse", for instance, actually means "don't think" or "anti-think"....'muse' being the Græco-Roman term for "thinking" or "pondering"/"reflecting on some-thing"....an "a" prefix is its opposite!)
as for refraction making a RE appear flat....well....where is the evidence for this?
where are the laboratory experiments (that have been double/triple checked and, then, peer-reviewed) to demonstrate this?
what are the refractive indices of air and water.....how do they compare and how can they distort an object's appearance....
most people know that water has a certain refractive index that can distort objects under-water......
does air have the same sort of effect?
quite frankly, i doubt it!
if any-thing, it would be only of a minimal, marginal kind that would make no appreciable difference
Joshua, it should be clear: If gravity exists, something of the mass of earth would be round, for everything that deviates from this shape would behave like an oversized mountain: it would collapse to the direction of the center. So Gravity and FET cannot work together.
How do you presume to know the mass of the earth?
Well, she is huge and consists of heavy material. Don't know it's mass, but she's certainly heavy enough to require being round in case there is gravity in the sense of modern physics. Isn't that obvious?
Joshua, it should be clear: If gravity exists, something of the mass of earth would be round, for everything that deviates from this shape would behave like an oversized mountain: it would collapse to the direction of the center. So Gravity and FET cannot work together.
I rarely bring up FET outside of the Society. It's a pretty easy way to make yourself a social pariah. As for whether or not people are supportive, that's a definite 'no' for me. I find that people first think it's a joke, then either get angry or refuse to listen. Especially when they realize they can't disprove it as easily as they think they should be able to. It's not a comfortable topic for most globularists, in my experience.
So are there any land-based objects that can actually be seen from the CN tower that are 100 miles away?
So the tallest building in Niagara Falls, NY is the Seneca Niagara Casino Tower at 109 meters. Niagara Fall, NY has an elevation of 51 meters.
The horizon is there for 45kms away from the top of the tower.
The CN Tower is roughly 101 kms away from the Seneca Niagara Casino Tower, as determined by a triangulation on Google Maps. So in order to be able to see the Seneca Niagara Casino Tower from the CN Tower, you must have a horizon greater than (101-45)kms, or 56kms, away. So do we?
Well if the CN Tower observation deck is roughly 450m tall then the distance to the horizon is 75kms. It appears that you can see well past the bulge between the two towers.
Does anyone agree or disagree with this?
It doesn't look like the Earth is flat. You can't see the bottom of the building.
According to Markjo, "The image is following the curvature of the earth." So the image both follows the curvature of the earth AND cuts off at the bottom. Round-Earth theory does all the things at all the times! DO NOT QUESTION IT!
What? I am not really sure what you are referring to.
It doesn't look like the Earth is flat. You can't see the bottom of the building.
Again, wrong formula. Again, FEers ignore that Lake Ontario, the CN Tower, and the target object are not on the surface of the hypothetical sphere. They have altitude more than their height. Do you really think that Lake Ontario is at sea level? Please do try harder. Why do you believe that you can't see beyond the drop? Do you think the photons get too tired to travel over Lake Ontario? Please think.
Oh, and I've already produced attributed photographs showing that you can indeed see objects more that 41 miles away from the CN Tower, so, no, I will not claim that fact to be false. Integrity is important.
