161

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Tapatalk forum app

« on: July 06, 2014, 11:18:55 AM »

Well there you have it. It works. Thanks!

162

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Tapatalk forum app

« on: July 05, 2014, 03:48:34 PM »

I have no idea what kind d of problems exist on a mobile browser for you.  I use opera mobile on this forum constantly and have no problems or difficulties. 

Supes, why is smaller bad?  Can't you just zoom in?

There is nothing stopping you from enjoying the site in the unmodified state that you do even if this is enabled. For those that are interested there are advantages, otherwise, why would anyone bother making mobile versions of anything? Furthermore, its massively convenient to have a powerful app where all the fora that you use across the internet are can be accessed. It's as easy, if not easier than using the site on the desktop.

I can't wait til you guys make this available if you do. I use it all the time for many other forums and it works massively well. I get notifications when discussions I'm in have new comments and replying to them is so much easier from the app than it would be otherwise, especially on the go.

163

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Tapatalk forum app

« on: July 05, 2014, 06:21:24 AM »

The licence for this plugin doesn't seem to permit redistribution of the plugin:

https://tapatalk.com/forum_owner_license.php

Since we push all our code to GitHub to permit visibility into and reuse of our modifications to SMF, I'm afraid we can't use that plugin as that would violate the licence.

This doesn't make sense. Every forum I use, many of which also push their code to github, also use the Tapatalk plugin.

164

Suggestions & Concerns / Tapatalk forum app

« on: July 04, 2014, 10:17:10 PM »

Tapatalk is a forum app available for all major mobile operating systems. Many popular forums can be used in the app. You can monitor, post, and add photos to all your favorite forums, all in a single app. You can even elect to receive push notifications on your favorite threads.

Tapatalk can be activated for just about any forum very easily.

Just go to https://tapatalk.com/activate_tapatalk.php and follow the instructions. It only takes 15 minutes.

Tapatalk can be activated for the FES forum because FES uses the SMF 2.0 which is compatible with Tapatalk. The plugin can be found here. There is simple instructions there on how to install the plug-in so that people can easily view and participate on these forums from a mobile app.

You can even easily build your own forum app with a personalized app icon, look and feel, branding, plus additional features including Google AdSense, Google Analytics, Admob, DoubleClick for Publisher, iAd, Push Notifications and more - 100% under your own brand with full control. In other words the Play Store and App Store can have a personalized FES forum app and it can even be a money making opportunity for the administrators of this site.

Click here for more info on how to build a personalized Tapatalk app.

I strongly urge the administrators to enable tapatalk for the FES society so that users can enjoy FES while on the go.

165

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether

« on: February 02, 2014, 06:29:15 PM »

Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you imply that it is established that the earth is flat?

The insistence that such a thing is ridiculous is how I define an 'angry noob' on this forum. So, yes, but only to some.

If you say so. Enjoy those delusions and your mountain of evidence that nobody has seen, ever.

166

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether

« on: February 02, 2014, 06:20:01 PM »

Well, the body of evidence that the Earth is flat, as well as the evidence of things falling, proves that UA exists. If gravity was a thing the Earth would be squished into a ball.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you imply that it is established that the earth is flat?

167

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether

« on: February 01, 2014, 02:38:40 PM »

Tintagel, I've kind of already mentioned the following but here is how I would answer the question if it were asked to me about Dark Energy:

1. Newton notices that things fall and as such we call the force that causes this gravity.

2. He makes gravitational laws which seem infallible.

3. Astronomy improves and we notice anomalies in space which seem to contradict laws of inertia concerning the acceleration of galaxies.

4. Knowing gravitational laws still hold true locally, DE is theorized to account for the strange behavior of accelerating galaxies.

5. Evidence pops up that supports DE:

a. Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law.

Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.

b. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.

c. The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.

d. Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.

1) Don't call non-dark matter baryonic matter. RET research shows that some, if not most, dark matter may also be baryonic, and not all regular matter is baryonic. Depending on which theory you believe in, Dark Matter could literally just be a bunch of brown dwarfs and black holes that we can't see because there's not enough light being emitted.

2) Genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter whether Einstein was a globularist. The Equivalence Principle still stands.

1) We are talking about Dark Energy. You do know the difference right?

2) Actually it does matter in the context of this conversation. We are talking about the events/observations that led up to a hypothesis. UA hypothesis is not possible without Einstein's legwork on the Equivalence Principle. A concept which was never meant to illustrate (as it does for you) that the earth is an elevator but who's purpose was to conceptualize how light and time are affected by gravitational fields.

1) I was being pedantic in reference to your inaccurate usage of the term 'baryonic matter'. It had nothing to do with the argument at hand. No need to be rude about it.

2) This continues to be the Genetic Fallacy. It doesn't matter why Einstein came up with the idea. What matters is that it is true. Unless you plan to argue that on a flat Earth the Equivalence Principle cannot work, your argument is irrelevant.

On number 2,

I'd agree that what matters is what is true. The problem is that there are no premises that lead to the conclusion of aether or UA to be true. In fact, observations do just the opposite and give us every reason to reject those unoriginal hypotheses.

168

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether

« on: January 22, 2014, 05:18:09 PM »

Tintagel, I've kind of already mentioned the following but here is how I would answer the question if it were asked to me about Dark Energy:

1. Newton notices that things fall and as such we call the force that causes this gravity.

2. He makes gravitational laws which seem infallible.

3. Astronomy improves and we notice anomalies in space which seem to contradict laws of inertia concerning the acceleration of galaxies.

4. Knowing gravitational laws still hold true locally, DE is theorized to account for the strange behavior of accelerating galaxies.

5. Evidence pops up that supports DE:

a. Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law.

Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.

b. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.

c. The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.

d. Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.

1) Don't call non-dark matter baryonic matter. RET research shows that some, if not most, dark matter may also be baryonic, and not all regular matter is baryonic. Depending on which theory you believe in, Dark Matter could literally just be a bunch of brown dwarfs and black holes that we can't see because there's not enough light being emitted.

2) Genetic fallacy. It doesn't matter whether Einstein was a globularist. The Equivalence Principle still stands.

1) We are talking about Dark Energy. You do know the difference right?

2) Actually it does matter in the context of this conversation. We are talking about the events/observations that led up to a hypothesis. UA hypothesis is not possible without Einstein's legwork on the Equivalence Principle. A concept which was never meant to illustrate (as it does for you) that the earth is an elevator but who's purpose was to conceptualize how light and time are affected by gravitational fields.

169

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether

« on: January 22, 2014, 02:18:31 PM »

Tintagel, I've kind of already mentioned the following but here is how I would answer the question if it were asked to me about Dark Energy:

1. Newton notices that things fall and as such we call the force that causes this gravity.

2. He makes gravitational laws which seem infallible.

3. Astronomy improves and we notice anomalies in space which seem to contradict laws of inertia concerning the acceleration of galaxies.

4. Knowing gravitational laws still hold true locally, DE is theorized to account for the strange behavior of accelerating galaxies.

5. Evidence pops up that supports DE:

a. Supernovae are useful for cosmology because they are excellent standard candles across cosmological distances. They allow the expansion history of the Universe to be measured by looking at the relationship between the distance to an object and its redshift, which gives how fast it is receding from us. The relationship is roughly linear, according to Hubble's law.

Recent observations of supernovae are consistent with a universe made up 71.3% of dark energy and 27.4% of a combination of dark matter and baryonic matter.

b. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies indicate that the universe is close to flat. For the shape of the universe to be flat, the mass/energy density of the universe must be equal to the critical density. The total amount of matter in the universe (including baryons and dark matter), as measured from the CMB spectrum, accounts for only about 30% of the critical density. This implies the existence of an additional form of energy to account for the remaining 70%.

c. The theory of large-scale structure, which governs the formation of structures in the universe (stars, quasars, galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters), also suggests that the density of matter in the universe is only 30% of the critical density.

d. Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.

170

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether

« on: January 22, 2014, 02:06:50 PM »

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here. You're aware that DE is just a placeholder name, right? It has nothing to do with RET. It's just a placeholder name. So is Aether, for that matter.

Did my comments fly right over your head? I brought up the fact that both are placeholder names. The differences I commented on were about them not being placeholder names for the same thing and the very fact that DE, despite being a theory, is hypothesized in light of actual observations, unlike aether.

Aether and FE-DE are both hypothesized in light of actual observations, I don't know why you would suggest otherwise.

And what observations lead one to hypothesize about Aether or UA?

Are you sure that UA was not actually hypothesized because of the Equivalence Principle which in turn was hypothesized because of gravity?

Last time I checked, observations support this.

Yes, WHAT OBSERVATIONS?

171

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether

« on: January 22, 2014, 01:51:42 PM »

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here. You're aware that DE is just a placeholder name, right? It has nothing to do with RET. It's just a placeholder name. So is Aether, for that matter.

Did my comments fly right over your head? I brought up the fact that both are placeholder names. The differences I commented on were about them not being placeholder names for the same thing and the very fact that DE, despite being a theory, is hypothesized in light of actual observations, unlike aether.

Aether and FE-DE are both hypothesized in light of actual observations, I don't know why you would suggest otherwise.

And what observations lead one to hypothesize about Aether or UA?

Are you sure that UA was not actually hypothesized because of the Equivalence Principle which in turn was hypothesized because of gravity?

172

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether

« on: January 22, 2014, 12:35:45 PM »

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here. You're aware that DE is just a placeholder name, right? It has nothing to do with RET. It's just a placeholder name. So is Aether, for that matter.

Did my comments fly right over your head? I brought up the fact that both are placeholder names. The differences I commented on were about them not being placeholder names for the same thing and the very fact that DE, despite being a theory, is hypothesized in light of actual observations, unlike aether.

173

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 21, 2014, 08:44:59 PM »

I can't possibly make this whole thing easier to understand and he still doesn't get it, so the conclusion logically follows.

An ad hominem that logically follows (at least in your view - I'm not gonna waste my time discussing that) is still an ad hominem, and it still does not contribute to the conversation. Just don't be that guy.

I'll concede to the rule but for your information the point of it was not to attack him but make him consider that he just doesn't get it.

174

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 21, 2014, 05:06:29 PM »

Did you miss math class or something?

Please, argue against the argument, not the person. Ad hominems are not welcome here.

It was an apt question. He seems to not want to understand my arguments or he is incapable. I can't possibly make this whole thing easier to understand and he still doesn't get it, so the conclusion logically follows.

175

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 21, 2014, 03:52:29 PM »

I used the Pythagorean Theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) to calculate the drop over 4.4 miles.



Suppose that the earth is a sphere of radius 3963.1676 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangel as in the diagram.

3963.1676^2 + 4.4^2 = 15706716.7857

When we square root that figure we get 3963.17004249

Thus your position is 3963.17004249 - 3963.1676 = 0.00244248999 miles above the surface of the earth

Converting to feet, 0.00244248999 miles = 5280 * 0.00244259 = 12.8963471472 feet

Hence after 4.4 miles the earth drops approximately 12.9 feet, or over 1 story of a building.

Tom, please don't post other people's work as your own.

http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.97/dyck2.html

176

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 21, 2014, 03:28:52 PM »

You have to think of the total distance, don't divide it up to 2 different distances. If you do divide it, you will get the wrong answer.

Incorrect.  You must divide the total distance into two different distances to get the correct answer.  First there is the distance from the observer to the horizon, then there is the distance from the horizon to the house.

Marrrrkjo. That how to get the wrong answer.
That is why the drop over 3 miles is 6' = 72".              Correct
 Not a drop of 1 mile(8") +(8") + (8") = 24"                Incorrect

That isn't what Markjo is saying. When you raise the elevation of the observer. You get a new distance to the horizon. Then you measure the drop from that horizon to the target. You don't just divide things to your liking in the same way as your crude example. You have to try and think about this.

Have a good look at 29silhouette's picture again:



For a distance of 4 miles there should be a drop of 10.7 ft
The top of the image shows the observers horizon (when viewing from an elevation of 6 ft) to be 3 miles.

From this point we can use Rowbotham again because NOW we are at 0 elevation for the remaining mile giving us the 8 inch drop.

177

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 21, 2014, 03:17:43 PM »

Even your calculator gave the same answer as Rowbotham's chart.

Yes, because Rowbotham's chart is completely correct for an elevation of 0 FT.

Just because I move the camera up 2' feet doesn't change the drop over 4.4 miles. So the end of the drop is going to 10.9' instead.

It absolutely does change the drop. It isn't a matter of simple subtraction.

Think of it like this, if the drop over a distance was 10', and blocked the entire view of a 10' bldg sitting right at the water. If you climbed a 10' ladder you would be able to see the entire building.

Yes because climbing to 10 ft in elevation would account for the entire height of the building but the problem is that between the elevation of 0 and 10 ft there is an exponential curve.

I have made 2 charts representing the relationship in Rowbotham's chart between height and distance. \

HERE THEY ARE

One of them shows the relationship for elevations 0-10 and the other shows relationship for elevations 0-20. In both examples distance grows exponentially. For what you are saying to hold true... that we simply subtract a number then the growth in distance should not be exponential but linear. This should tell you that there is more involved that just subtracting the height.

I hope this clears things up.

178

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 21, 2014, 02:40:40 AM »

We even drew you pictures which clearly explain why. If you think you just subtract then show a good diagram about why. I can tell you now it is impossible.

179

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 21, 2014, 02:34:41 AM »

Hoppy the new drop at 32 inches in elevation is 3.47 ft while the 8 ft elevation shot is .589 ft.

You figure this out by using this calculator.

You use the first calculator by putting in your elevation. It gives you distance which you subtract from your 4.4 miles.

Then you take that distance and put it in the second calculator which gives you your drop.

I already told you what the drop should be on RE, 12.9 feet across 4.4 miles. Then you can subtract the nearly 3' elevation of the camera = Total drop of 9.9'.

Problem is that that is completely incorrect. Did you miss math class or something?

180

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 21, 2014, 01:43:23 AM »

Hoppy the new drop at 32 inches in elevation is 3.47 ft while the 8 ft elevation shot is .589 ft.

You figure this out by using this calculator.

You use the first calculator by putting in your elevation. It gives you distance which you subtract from your 4.4 miles.

Then you take that distance and put it in the second calculator which gives you your drop.