5621

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth at the Salton Sea

« on: June 27, 2018, 10:34:13 AM »

These two aren't the traditional water convexity experiments. Experiment 6 is about the tops of boats being level as they traveled. Experiment 7 is about the horizon being level with a long straight piece of wood.

I let you go with Experiment 7, although curve or "not level" is quite the same in my opinion.
But experiment 6 is truly a level experiment: Trying to prove, that two piers and the mast head of the ship traveling between those two is "level". But again, this experiment is very inaccurate. Valuable parameters are omitted: The Tide. There's no hint how long the experiment lasted and no hint what was the state of the tide, which is quite high in the English Channel!

We are talking about the Sinking Ship effect in Earth Not a Globe. The Sinking Ship Effect describes that the ship is hidden by an effect that obscures the hull with the ocean. The fact that the tops of the masts of ships don't sink or rise as they travel is different than an effect that obscures the hull.

You are going off of that topic with your tides comment. You picked out an example that has no bearing on the Sinking Ship Effect that Rowbotham describes, and in fact supports it.

Look at the bottom of this page and search for "Eddystone" -- http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

Rowbotham describes how the observation of lighthouses may be inconsistent at times, and depends on how calm the environment is. When the Eddystone lighthouse is visible from the location described it contradicts the Round Earth theory.

I cannot follow that deduction, that waves lower than the observer and the observed object will obscure significant parts of the object.
My opinion: The viewing distance in question is quite near the value, what is given by the curvature of the globe earth model.
Variations of atmospheric refraction may lessen or increase the viewing distance, so that depending on weather conditions Eddystone lighthouse may be sometimes visible.
As described in settled weather a density/temperature gradient may build up above the water, which gives high refraction values and so increasing the viewing distance. Where as in windy weather, with agitated sea, a temperature/density gradient will not build up above the water, so decreasing viewing distance.

You are talking about refraction now. We are talking about the Sinking Ship Effect in Earth Not a Globe and how the examples you gave do not invalidate it.

5622

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 10:06:19 AM »

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

People changing their mind isn’t hypocritical. Being hypocritical is not lying. I’m struggling to see how this post is relevant.

Of course they are lying. They have an agenda. They write the articles to fit the agenda.

Hillary Clinton says "guns don't keep us safe." Other leftist politicians say similar things and generally advocate to limit or abolish the second amendment. The liberal media parrots that.

Some articles from a quick google search on that phrase:

Guns Don't Make Us Safe: Debunking The Self-Defense Myth - Huffington Post
Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows - Scientific American
Does Gun Ownership Really Make You Safer? Research Says No - KQED News
Does owning a gun make you safer? - Los Angeles Times
Guns don't offer protection - The Guardian
Do guns make us safer? Science suggests no - Harvard
Professor John Donohue: Facts Do Not Support Claim That Guns Make Us Safer - Stanford

A favorite image from the media hypocrisy link I posted:

5623

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 10:00:39 AM »

If you are a liberal, you should be ashamed over what the liberal media is saying and how it is representing you:

[clip of leftists (not liberals) being biased and rhetorical in an inflammatory way]

Why should a liberal take any responsibility for what a stranger says, much less feel shame. I dont think you understand what shame is and generally your rhetoric is terrible Tom. Try making an argument.  Do you think that Fox News doesn't do similar hit jobs on liberals?  Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Tucker Carlson do similar things but you don't say a word about it, because you're a partisan hack.

If conservatives/the right was saying something rancid I would feel embarrassed to be a part of their movement.

Fox/Hannity/O'Reilly/Carlson generally just point out the hypocrisy and fake news, just as I have been doing. Where do you see them calling Hillary voters scum and communist killers or similar things?

5624

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE sun model cannot be correct

« on: June 27, 2018, 09:48:36 AM »

Don't be so cocky. In the Round Earth Theory figuring out how the temperatures of the sun makes sense has been a problem for a long time.

https://science.nasa.gov/news-articles/the-mystery-of-coronal-heating

For more than a half-century, astronomers have tried to figure out what causes the corona to be so hot.  It is one of the most vexing problems in astrophysics.

5625

Flat Earth Investigations / Stars Slowing as they Approach the Horizon

« on: June 27, 2018, 09:20:28 AM »

An interesting video about the stars slowing down as they approach the horizon. At the 1:15 mark the author states that "the stars get significantly closer together as they get closer to the horizon."

This contradicts the Round Earth Theory that says that the celestial bodies move at a constant speed across the sky as the earth rotates. The official Round Earth excuse is, of course, that there is a permanent mirage effect that slows down the stars, and which also reverses any observation that suggests a Flat Earth.

5626

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 27, 2018, 03:56:42 AM »

It's called perspective. A dime can obscure an elephant in the distance when you hold the dime out in front of you. The light rays of the elephant can't wrap around the dime.

Here it is again:

"The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is seen to be smaller than the earth at that distance. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely and the sun's rays meet. The shadow is now gone, yet the earth is still in front of the sun."

How do we see the sun through the earth?

5627

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 27, 2018, 02:59:53 AM »

Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

The earth takes up 2 degrees of the moon's sky. The sun takes up 0.5 degrees of the moon's sky. How does the sun wrap around the earth?

With those attributes, the shadow should be increasing.

That's a separate question. Are we done with the 100% illumination thing? Are you happy with the 99.7%? I'm currently working on putting together a presentation to explain exactly where that number came from. (Spoiler alert: my sample comes up with 99.8%.) Since the question of the full moon's illumination is about what the standard model predicts and has nothing to do with FET, I would hope you might accept the explanation as the valid RE interpretation and update your wiki accordingly.

The shadow thing is interesting too, and I'm happy to jump into that one as well, but first I want to wrap up the 100% illumination thing. The standard RE model predicts the "full moon" will actually be anywhere from 99.7% to 100% illuminated. Would you like to see the math? Would you like to try to determine whether we can measure that amount of difference? Or would you prefer to accept this now and move on?

That conversation is still in progress. The size of the earth's shadow does matter in the scenario. We are still talking about that subject.

That's not proof Tom.  Try again.

Of course it's a proof. It disproves the whole concept entirely.

How do we see the sun through the earth?

5628

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 27, 2018, 02:51:16 AM »

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.

Prove it, definitively.  Your assertions are totally meaningless.

Here:

The sun and earth and the observer are in a straight line. The sun is seen to be smaller than the earth. We are located at a point directly behind the earth, at the point where the earth's shrinking shadow disappears entirely and the sun's rays meet. The shadow is now gone, yet the earth is still in front of the sun.

How could the shadow be gone?

How do we see the sun through the earth?

Shrinking Shadow Debunked

5629

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 27, 2018, 02:42:57 AM »

Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

  You do realize the sun is much bigger than Earth, correct?

In RET, sure. But it's also very far away and very small in the sky.

For the sun to cause the earth's shadow to decrease in size the moon would need to see the sun to be bigger than the earth in its sky.

If the sun is seen to be smaller than the earth, the opposite should occur, and the shadow should widen.

5630

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 27, 2018, 02:11:23 AM »

Why is the earth's shadow decreasing in size?

The earth takes up 2 degrees of the moon's sky. The sun takes up 0.5 degrees of the moon's sky. How does the sun wrap around the earth?

With those attributes, the shadow should be increasing.

5631

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2018, 02:05:16 AM »

If you are a liberal, you should be ashamed over what the liberal media is saying and how it is representing you:

https://news.grabien.com/story-montage-media-turning-trump-voters-public-enemy-no-1

MSNBC's Donny Deutsch said Trump supporters are the "bad guy" in America and are akin to Nazis.

"If we are working towards November, we can no longer say Trump’s the bad guy," Deutsch said during a recent appearance on Morning Joe. "If you vote for Trump, you’re the bad guy. If you vote for Trump, you are ripping children from parents’ arms."

He continued: "If you vote for Trump, then you, the voter, you, not Donald Trump, are standing at the border, like Nazis going, ‘You here, you here.’ I think we now have to flip it and it’s a given, the evilness of Donald Trump. But if you vote, you can no longer separate yourself. You can’t say, ‘Well, he’s okay, but ...’ And I think that gymnastics and that jiu-jitsu has to happen.”

When news hit that some elderly Americans inadvertently shared a Facebook meme originally created in Russia, CNN tracked down one such senior citizen and harangued her on national TV. CNN likewise threatened to "dox" or publish the address, of another Trump supporter who had created a meme mocking CNN.

"All" Trump supporters are racist, CNN contributor Michaela Angela Davis, recently said: "Tens of millions of people voted for him after he showed his cards for years." When the anchor, John Berman, asked her to clarify if she's calling all Trump voters racist, she replied, "Yes, yes." Labeling almost half the country bigoted did not earn her a rebuke from the hosts or other panelist.

5632

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 26, 2018, 08:42:26 PM »

Here is a whole load of examples of media hypocrisy and fake news: https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

5633

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 26, 2018, 04:14:11 AM »

5634

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth at the Salton Sea

« on: June 25, 2018, 10:54:23 PM »

There is a large body of work in the Flat Earth literature which says that the study should not be conducted on the sea. So just don't conduct water convexity experiments on the sea, okay?

So also Rowbotham's experiments in EnaG are inconsistent?
Experiment 6 - on the coast between Brighton and Worthing
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm
Experiment 7 - The "bar not showing the curve"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za12.htm

These two aren't the traditional water convexity experiments. Experiment 6 is about the tops of boats being level as they traveled. Experiment 7 is about the horizon being level with a long straight piece of wood.

Experiment 9 - the Lighthouses seen from mid of St. George's Channel (Dublin - Wales)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm

Look at the bottom of this page and search for "Eddystone" -- http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

Rowbotham describes how the observation of lighthouses may be inconsistent at times, and depends on how calm the environment is. When the Eddystone lighthouse is visible from the location described it contradicts the Round Earth theory.

Experiment 12 - steamer sailing away from observer
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za17.htm

Like experiment 6, this one is actually about the top of the ship seen for longer than it should have been seen as the ship traveled away.

Experiment 15 .- the "clinometer" disproving dip of horizon
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za20.htm

Not the traditional water convexity experiment. It's an attempt to measure whether the horizon is at eye level.

5635

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 24, 2018, 06:50:44 PM »

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

5636

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 24, 2018, 06:42:42 PM »

If this 97% is a known thing, then link us to a website or study that shows this.

5637

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 24, 2018, 06:39:30 PM »

100% illumination of the moon's face means 100%.

Lets see evidence that contradicts those astronomers, showing that the full moon is only 97% lit.

5638

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 24, 2018, 06:26:47 PM »

Lets see evidence beyond an RET equation that the moon only gets 96 or 97% full as Edby states.

I can easily find a large number of quotes from astronomy and education websites that mentions the 100%.

5639

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 24, 2018, 06:17:56 PM »

Tell that to the astronomers at the University of Nebraska:

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/lunarPage1.html

A new moon is 0% illuminated (completely dark) and a full moon is 100% illuminated (fully lit)

Highline College:

https://people.highline.edu/iglozman/classes/astronotes/phases.htm

During the crescent phases the percent illuminated is between 0 and 50% and during gibbous phases it is between 50% and 100%.

Sonoma State University:

When 100% of the near side is illuminated, a full Moon is observed.

Etc etc etc.

5640

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 24, 2018, 04:49:11 PM »

Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.

So he continues with....

At first glance, it must be clear that the walls of Cavendish’s box and shed cannot be ignored. Even if we look at them only from a gravitational perspective, there is simply no way they can be ignored.

Which is exactly why Cavendish didn't ignore them!

....However, just before we dissect this can I just say.......how likely is it that this meticulous scientist, famed for his legendary attention to detail, even among scientists down through the ages...... What tiny chance is there that Cavendish had a 'bad day at the office' and his seminal experiment is actually bogus and masses DON'T actually attract each other.

Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Versus the chance that Miles Mathis, some dude who believes the value of Pi is 4, yup you heard right!!! Pi =4 people! Go get your circles out and measure 'em all again cause 2 x pi x r is no longer valid for calculating circumferences.

I've argued that Pi can be 4 or some value that is not 3.14... Pi assumes that it is possible for a perfect circle to exist, and that has never been demonstrated. In fact, according to QM, our reality is quantized rather than continuous.

Perfect circles are a HYPOTHESIS.

Aside from the fact the Miles refers to E/M fields which would indicate 'light' we will assume that he meant electrostatic and magnetic fields. We can immediately eliminate magnetic fields as lead is not a magnetic material so would be unaffected. It is unclear what precautions might have been taken to reduce the effect of static charge build up but given that lead is a conductor it would have been easy to discharge the balls with a simple wire to Earth before running the experiment. Miles cannot confirm that this was not done.

I encourage you to learn more about the world. Lead is affected by magnetism.

https://www.reference.com/science/lead-magnetic-63eae4007856bcb8

Ferromagnet is the typical name for a material that is naturally magnetic. This is in contrast to a material that simply becomes magnetic for a short while after contact with a magnet as a nail is wont to do after some time stuck to a ferromagnet. Lead has the opposite effect, where it actually repels the magnetic force of an object. This is called diamagnetism.