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.
Tintagel is correct, there does seem to be some sort of optical effect going on.
Why is the first story of the house compressed into the beach?
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.
How about a Fe'er chiming in, what is with the 10' wall of water?..... Bishop? .....Thork?.... Anyone?
A couple of things at play - I don't see a ten foot wall of water, I see the lower section of the house sort of "compressed" - this is partially an optical trick which occurs close to the horizon (sunsets do it too, the sun sort of collapses into itself when its image is on the horizon, and partially due to the way light travels on a Flat Earth. See the Electromagnetic Accelerator thread. The lower areas of the house are hidden behind water because that light "dips" before bending upward again.
But WHY is the disc or infinite plane travelling upward @ 9.8 m/s/s & how?
So, what exactly is Universal Acceleration? How does it work on a disc? How does it work on an infinite plane? If Earth IS an infinite plane, what lies beyond the parts we humans inhabit? I've read about UA from the FAQ, but still don't get it.
I have stumbled upon a controversial subject.
Evidently. Although, this is FES. If a topic isn't controversial, there's something wrong.This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.
In other words. "No, it's OUR placeholder word for a force we don't understand. It can't also be THEIR placeholder word for a force they don't understand."
Take your ball and go home, RR.
Yes, it's a placeholder for a force we don't understand. It's unlike aether for the reason I listed above. That reason being that aether describes local space while Dark Energy describes something on the galactic scale.
It's use is appropriate because it's based on an observation that actually happens (galaxies accelerating faster) instead of being based on nothing. By nothing I mean that no observation supports the idea of aether, at all. A placeholder word aether is for sure, but no observation leads to the hypothesis of aether other than the rejection of modern science.
Aether is assumed by FE'rs because of denialism of the facts that we already know. It is essential for FET because it's magical properties are necessarily invoked to explain what can already be explained by what is already understood in modern science.
DE describes the unknown force resulting in a Universal Acceleration. This is true in both RET and FET. I fail to see your problem.
What is an example if something you can directly observe that is conclusive evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration?
Well, sunsets for one. The eye extrapolates the image of the sun back according to the angle at which the light enters the eye. As the sun moves farther away, the angle of its light approaches horizontal, so it appears to sink into the horizon.
I'm also well aware that it's possible to infer a spherical earth from this observation, but as other experiments (including Hoppy's pictorial illustrating a house visible at over four miles across a flat, level expanse of water) have shown sufficiently that the earth's surface is flat, the EA interpretation is, in my opinion, the more valid one.
To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required.
Like I said earlier with an example using 6 feet for the observation height. At 4 miles, one doesn't simply subtract that height from the drop (10-6), as that would indicate a 4 foot drop over the distance of 1 mile. It needs to be recalculated using the distance advantage of added height from the starting point.
Using Rowbotham's diagram:
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.
In other words. "No, it's OUR placeholder word for a force we don't understand. It can't also be THEIR placeholder word for a force they don't understand."
Take your ball and go home, RR.
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked. Do you have any proof?
It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.
Bad premises in here. There is evidence you can go in to space. If a premises is false so is the conclusion.
Petitio principii. You're saying that people who claim to go into space must be telling the truth because people claim to go into space, and those people must be telling the truth because people claim to go into space?
No that is not what I am saying. I have previously mentioned independent methods of confirming space travel. However, you are just asserting space travel is impossible with no evidence.QuoteEvidence shows that the Earth is flat. If the Earth is flat, spaceflight must be impossible. Ispo facto, spaceflight is impossible and supposed astronauts are simply lying.
You clarified a bad argument with a bad argument. The Earth being flat does not automatically preclude space flight being possible so your conclusion does not follow.
Well, Rotting, @ least that's honest. I can appreciate that, even while disagreeing w/ it.
You seem to have a better google than mine.
