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 - Longtitube

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: April 06, 2021, 02:22:20 PM »
The plotting boards did not need to have highly accurate measurements, any more than your travel atlas.

Get me within 10 or 20or even 50 miles and it will be just fine.

If you got back to within 10 miles of your carrier group you stand a chance of spotting them and landing back aboard. But at 20 or even 50 miles ;D you stand an excellent chance of missing them altogether at a 200+knot airspeed. They’re not going to talk you in either, strict radio silence is the order of the day lest others are listening too. Unless visibility is perfect and you have a peregrine falcon’s eyesight you’re due a long swim.

The ocean is a vast place, accurate navigation was essential and still is. FE maps are as useful as a jelly sandwich.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 21, 2021, 10:48:52 PM »
Tom, in your quest for mathematical completeness I would suggest you avoid travelling anywhere by aircraft. These machines are designed by engineers who lack a 100% complete mathematical solution to the design of the structures and instead use numerical solutions. This is obviously shoddy work, just like the lack of absolute precision in the problems you mention in the wiki.

For that matter, numerical solutions are also used in designing your car: better stop driving too. Even when a numerical solution approaches 99.95% accuracy it's not to be trusted? This is ridiculous, such ignorance of practical mathematics is embarassing.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: March 16, 2021, 07:45:40 AM »
Last time I looked the Moon was still a sphere, not a cone. The foreshortening of perspective makes it possible for a uniformly lit cone pointing to the right and slightly towards you look much the same as one pointing to the right and slightly away from you, but a sphere is symmetrical and will always look the same however it is turned. Look at a sphere from above, below or from anywhere else and it still looks the same.

A light directed at a sphere will cast a shadow on the sphere which can be used to tell where the light is, which is the whole point of this debate, and it doesn’t matter how the sphere is turned because a sphere itself cannot point. Only the shadow on the sphere indicates where the light is.

Just how does this help in determining whether the earth is round or flat? Are we only arguing this in circles for the sake of argument?

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Let's do ships again
« on: March 05, 2021, 11:00:51 PM »
@tumeni & longitube

How would you alter your understanding/description if you were given/took sufficient measurements to confirm that the ship WAS in fact beyond the visible horizon when this picture was taken?

It is my understanding that pictures like this are not unheard of and they are beyond the horizon.

It’s my opinion that the ship is nearer the observer than the horizon in the OP photo, that differing reflections in the water between ship and shore give rise in this case to the optical illusion where the ship appears to be floating in mid-air.

I too have seen examples of superior mirages where the subject of the mirage was beyond the horizon, but long experience leads me in Thork’s example to conclude this ship is relatively near to the photographer.

If someone has other information about this example I’ll happily re-evaluate that, so if you have then I’m all ears.

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Let's do ships again
« on: March 05, 2021, 08:49:57 PM »
Apart from the BBC explanation (much repeated elsewhere) you might find the local explanation interesting:–

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/ship-floating-clouds-cornwall-leaves-5070329

And I'll tell you a secret – the BBC don't get it right every time! You may remember another small mistake by a well-known BBC meteorologist: you might call it the Fish Effect.

You might also have seen another similar report from a Scot in recent days, with a similar explanation:–

https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/viral-man-spots-ship-floating-across-sky-heres-what-happened-2383287

I've seen similar things myself in light wind conditions over the years and it always causes a double-take until looking around at other clues solves the puzzle.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Let's do ships again
« on: March 05, 2021, 02:43:06 PM »
What fun! Unfortunately it’s not a mirage, it’s flat calm out near the ship and breeze stirring the water nearer the shore. Look carefully at the ship area and you’ll just make out the faint horizon, the real horizon.

Sorry!   ;D

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking for curvature is a fool's errand.
« on: March 02, 2021, 01:32:32 PM »

The boat and building thing is a given. This was meant to address those who think curvature alone prove sphericalness.

Equally, standing at the water’s edge or sitting in a boat with a clear 360 degree horizon is no proof that the world is flat. I watched the sunlight striking the mountain tops 20 miles away and moving down to sea level over the course of 10 minutes after sunrise. That’s more of a pointer to curvature of the earth to my mind.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: March 01, 2021, 06:05:20 PM »
I guess my ideas are so far out there that no one will even ....

It’s nothing to do with how far out there your ideas might be - you’re expected to produce evidence or references which back up those ideas. Perhaps lots of us would be interested in the map you “cannot describe” but if you can’t even tell where to find it then yawn, next please.  ::)

Try to back up what you’re saying first: the rest of us are expected to do it and so should you. There’s more than you with “out there” ideas.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Height of the Sun
« on: March 01, 2021, 11:58:56 AM »
Ah, but you haven’t taken account of Electromagnetic Acceleration or EA, according to which light bends up over large distances. This means your ordinary trigonometry doesn’t work to calculate the height of the sun above a flat earth. You’ll find this discussed in the wiki, as well as other attempts to calculate the height of the sun above a flat earth: they don’t work too because for some reason they don’t take account of EA either.

There’s an equation for EA given in the wiki but it’s not complete: one of its terms doesn’t yet have a value, so you can’t calculate the effect of EA to correct the trigonometry.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Height of the Sun
« on: February 28, 2021, 11:33:47 AM »
At the Equinox (coming soon) on the Equator, the Sun is vertically overhead. At the North Pole the Sun is at a constant angle of about 23.4 degrees above the horizon at the North Pole..

You should check that figure for the Pole, it’s wrong for the equinox. Probably correct for noon at the summer solstice.

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is the sun in daytime?
« on: February 27, 2021, 09:18:36 PM »
With some more investigation you'll find that on 20th March this year, the spring equinox, the sun can be seen setting due west over the Indian Ocean from Padang, the capital of West Sumatra, Indonesia. At the exact same time the sun is to be seen from Quito, capital of Ecuador, rising due east. Each of these places is within 60 miles north or south of the equator.

If you plot these directions on any of the speculative FE maps – there's a selection in the wiki – you'll struggle to explain how the sun is also simultaneously seen almost directly overhead in Libreville, capital of Gabon, also within 60 miles of the equator. However, these are speculative maps and you should also consider the Bi-Polar model, also in the wiki, and its suggested route of the sun on the equinox. This may help explain why you're not getting an FE answer to your map questions generally.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 23, 2021, 09:57:46 AM »
On the "Ball Experiment" -
.........
Next I moved my position to below the ball and the top of the post, to get the ball to point upwards via a close range perspective effect. I could have done a better job at getting the phase to match, by moving the camera around. But it was easy to move the camera downwards to get the illuminated portion to point upwards:

Marvellous, you’ve actually done something! Or tried to give that appearance: you didn’t really try to get the ball to line up with the Moon, did you? Probably because that’s what clowns do, in your own words.

Why all the emphasis on pointing the camera up to photograph the ball being a problem? Haven’t you noticed the Moon is also up in the sky and you need to point the camera up to photograph it too?

This is enormously entertaining, reading your efforts to discount what your own work nearly shows, but is just sufficiently clumsy to avoid. Next thing you’ll be filming ships sailing for Hawaii and disappearing slowly over the horizon.  ;D

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 22, 2021, 05:46:30 PM »

Also, the shape and size of Australia is different among all of the Flat Earth maps.

Since the size and shape of Australia does not change, this means that all but one of the models is wrong.

You’re missing another possibility: it’s impossible for all of them to be correct but they could quite easily be all wrong.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 21, 2021, 09:16:51 PM »
There are diagrams on how the Moon Tilt works with EA on the Wiki Moon Tilt Illusion page. It's right there in the second section:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion#Flat_Earth_Moon_Tilt

And this is precisely the problem. If someone discovers the Moon's shadow alignment is replicated at ground level with a common ping pong ball held between eye and Moon, then what need is there to explain this with Electromagnetic Acceleration? Tom created and has expanded and worked on the Moon Tilt Illusion page in the wiki since 2019 and it would make all his effort rather pointless when it turns out that the illusion is just that, an optical illusion.

It has nothing to do with FE, it neither explains nor is explained by special light-bending ideas like EA – they're simply not needed. Rather like imagining a complex distribution system to get presents from the North Pole to every kid's home in the whole world in a single night and then that snotty kid next door tells you it's just your Mom and Dad: rather galling, but true.

Grow up.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 21, 2021, 08:19:06 PM »
This is clearly a close range perspective effect that caused this to happen, no different than the previous examples in this thread

I do enjoy it when you talk balls; could you explain how a close range perspective effect works on a ball’s shadow and at what range a true representation would be seen?

It's a close range perspective effect because bodies at close range will appear to tilt and change orientation easier with smaller movement than bodies in the background. This effect is part of standard Euclidean Geometry.
....
I can move the camera around the closer object and create greater shifts in orientation than a background object.

Indeed you can, but can you explain how the closer the ball (not Rubix Cube, cone or other) is to being in direct line between eye and Moon, the more closely the ball's shadow line matches that of the Moon? If you troubled yourself long enough to try it yourself, you'd find this is the case, but you just don't do experiments, do you?

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth 100% ultimate proofs
« on: February 21, 2021, 08:09:10 PM »

They don’t: the stars rise from the east and set towards the west just like north of the equator. They do however pivot around the south celestial pole.

These time-lapse sequences show the difference between the two hemispheres...

Magnificent footage, I was especially taken with that of the two Magellanic Clouds. Thanks!

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 21, 2021, 05:10:00 PM »
This is clearly a close range perspective effect that caused this to happen, no different than the previous examples in this thread

I do enjoy it when you talk balls; could you explain how a close range perspective effect works on a ball’s shadow and at what range a true representation would be seen?

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth 100% ultimate proofs
« on: February 21, 2021, 03:29:37 PM »
Why do the stars rotate in the opposite direction if you are south of the Equator?

They don’t: the stars rise from the east and set towards the west just like north of the equator. They do however pivot around the south celestial pole.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 20, 2021, 08:22:06 AM »
This is all tremendously entertaining, Tom, I do hope this goes on a few more pages. What sort of experiment can the OP do with the Moon Tilt Illusion? And have you done as I have, have you actually tried the ping pong ball experiment yourself? Do let us know!

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 10:13:21 PM »
The Moon Tilt Illusion is a good one to look at in depth, and is easily accessible - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

Yes, the Moon Tilt Illusion is really easy to work with and all you need is a ping pong ball - cheap, simple, inexpensive. You also need a view of the Sun and the waxing or waning gibbous Moon in the sky at the same time, which is quite easy this weekend not long before sunset - it's a good time to demonstrate the illusion of the Moon's shadow line (called the terminator line - the transition from lit area to unlit area) appearing to be out of line with the direction to the Sun. The references quoted in the wiki article Tom mentions explain the appearance quite well.

So which way should the line show to the Sun? First of all, do a little investigation nearer home: stand with the Sun at right angles to where you're facing. Let's say the Sun is off to your left and you then hold the ping pong ball, between finger and thumb, in front of you at eye level: you will see the ball half lit and half in shadow and a right angle from the shadow line across the lit area will point back to the Sun at your left.



Next try facing the Sun and hold the ball between your knees so you're looking straight down at it: you will again see the ball half lit, half in shadow and a right angle from the shadow line across the lit area will point back to the Sun in front of you. Stand with your back to the Sun and hold the ball directly above your head: again the half-lit, half-shadowed appearance and you now know which way the shadow line indicates towards the Sun behind you.

Now the fun starts: stand with the Sun behind one shoulder and look at the shadow line on the ball at eye level: the ball now appears more lit than unlit but the shadow line still shows the correct direction back towards the Sun. Note that it's only your viewpoint that has changed, which is why you see more of the lit area than the unlit. Now move the ball down to about waist height and you'll see the shadow line seems to show the Sun is now lower in the sky, perhaps even showing the Sun is below ground level! Has the light suddenly changed direction? No...

With the Sun still behind your shoulder, hold the ball above eye level and the shadow line now indicates the Sun is higher in the sky than before. So has the light again changed direction? No: move the ball back to eye level and turn to face at right angles to the Sun and the shadow line will again show the correct direction!

So at what position will the shadow line on the ball match the shadow line on the Moon? Move the ball around and compare: up, down, left and right until the two match: move the ball closer and further away from your eye too to see if that makes any difference. spoiler: the ball's shadow line and the Moon's shadow line will match when the ball is in line between your eye and the Moon.




So is the Moon's shadow tilted away from where it 'should' be? Do we need an esoteric light-bending explanation for this? No, we don't. Feel free to draw your own conclusions about Electromagnetic Acceleration (EA) after you've done the experiment

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >