1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module

« on: July 15, 2018, 05:21:40 PM »

They don't have to live inside the LM, as I said. That is how things are said to be, not the necessary state. Given the lack of a lunar atmosphere, and so lack of danger from re-entry, on top of the weak gravity to minimise how much force is needed to escape it, the 'module' doesn't need to be any more than a frame with a couple of rockets attached for momentum control. Not only is this lighter, something of huge importance when it comes to space travel, but it's substantially simpler, and simpler is always going to be preferred by anyone on a mission far away from any repair shops and tools. There's less that could go wrong. The simple presence of spacesuits fulfil every other requirement of the module, and if they don't work there's no using the module anyway.
Instead of a separate module attacked to the ship, just make a room that can serve as an airlock and strap it down inside. It doesn't need to be airtight, it doesn't need to run the risk of something being knocked loose by the force of depressurisation. That gives you living space and substantially less in the way of weight to carry and elements to go wrong. Further, if there's a fault in the LM, that only prevents the moon landing rather than cutting off astronaut living space and resources. By every metric this is preferred.

Yes, as you say, no doubt they could plan to make the lunar module sturdy enough to take depressurisations, the astronauts be careful with how rarely they go through from one module to the other and so so less often, all of that, but the simple fact is you wouldn't want to take the risk. On any mission like this you would want to minimise how much could go wrong.
They added more, more and more moving parts prone to go wrong, even when it was unnecessary.

I have a hard time visualizing what you're talking about, especially when you say things that seem contradictory like

Instead of a separate module attacked to the ship, just make a room that can serve as an airlock and strap it down inside. It doesn't need to be airtight, it doesn't need to run the risk of something being knocked loose by the force of depressurisation.

What kind of airlock doesn't need to be airtight and doesn't need to be depressurized?

For the later Apollo missions the LM stayed on the surface for several days, so bring able to take off spacesuits is a requirement.

As for connecting up the LM and the CSM into one living space, there were several alternatives considered, including just having one big spaceship go all the way from Earth to the surface of the moon and back. Constraints of time, money, and engineering complexity led to the final design.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why Rowbotham's Old Bedford River experiment proves the earth is round

« on: July 15, 2018, 03:56:46 PM »

East-West roads curve on the globe Earth as well, except at the equator. Have you done the math to compare the two?

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: July 11, 2018, 01:30:59 AM »

My point is that there's a difference between someone honestly believing in FET and asking questions, and someone merely taking that side of the argument "for fun". If in the course of your argument you are misrepresenting facts, then people might believe your (false) statements.

Asking a question isn't dangerous - but making up answers, especially if those answers breed distrust of the scientific method, is dangerous. I don't have a problem with people making arguments in good faith, or even just-for-fun but based on real data. I have a problem with people deliberately lying (e.g. "The power lines don't exist on Lake Pontchartrain").

I have never seen Tom Bishop say something that I thought was an intentional lie (as opposed to a mistake or misinterpretation), but that's all I've ever seen from, um, certain other people I've been especially critical of recently. As a result, I respect Tom Bishop. I have yet to develop respect for some others.

My worry is someone coming here and learning that "NASA is lying - don't believe them" is one step closer to going to a vaccine forum and thinking "Gee - if they lied about the moon landing, maybe they're lying about vaccines too." I'm not saying you are killing babies, I'm saying you're not helping save babies. There's a difference.

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 11, 2018, 01:16:00 AM »

a) perfect
b) ... so where are the reports from 142 degrees to 180 degrees on the green line?

Answer (because you are taking all year) ... those are the cyan lines. PKiKP lines.



Soooooo ... why am I getting P-waves (the PKIKP in cyan) between 103 and 142 degrees when the theory says I shouldn't?

What theory says you shouldn't get those? The diagram you show with a shadow zone between 103 and 142 is referring specifically to "refracted P-waves". Those are PKP waves, and do not appear to be on your graph at all.

The cyan lines in your graph are PKIKP lines, which are different from PKP lines. The PDF I linked before explains it pretty well, here it is again:
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/Monitoring/Doc/Srr_2006/GUIDE.PDF

Specifically, here are the "refracted P-waves" which are PKP waves:
https://imgur.com/a/oYsDLFN



Here are the PKIKP waves:


I think I see the cause of our misunderstanding. In your original post, the shadow zone diagram says "refracted P-waves". But, all the words you posted were specifically for "direct" or "initial" P-waves. When you did mention "refracted" p-waves, you pointed to the red line which is NOT refracted p-waves. I was unable to unravel what you were talking about.

Now that you have pointed at the cyan lines, it's clear: Those lines do not correspond to what your shadow diagram refers to as "refracted P-waves" for purposes of the shadow zone. Cyan refers to the EVEN MORE REFRACTED waves, PKIKP, which are visible over a much broader range.

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 11, 2018, 12:18:17 AM »

a) The shadow zone is only for direct P-waves, as you have shown in all your quotes so far.
b) The only line on your graph that is direct P-waves is the green marks. Look at your key, and see that it says green marks are direct P-waves.
c) All other waves you see in the shadow zone are not direct P-waves. Look at your key, The types of waves you see in the shadow zone are PP, SS, and PKIKP (not originally quoted by you in your key, but in the graphic)

A PP-wave is a P-wave that is reflected off of a point on the surface at some distance from the epicenter. The new PP-wave radiates from that new reflection point.

Look, if you are casting a shadow in the sunlight, and then someone comes along and aims a reflector to shine sunlight into your shadow, this wouldn't be confusing, would it? Would you ask how sunlight can possibly get into your shadow? The reflected waves are coming from where they are reflected from. If the original P-wave goes to, say, 90 degrees and then is reflected as a PP-wave, the new PP-wave can go another 90 degrees again FROM THE POINT IT WAS REFLECTED AT.

You seemed to understand this in your OP, so it kind of feels like you are deliberately pretending to misunderstand now. From your OP:

Note how the yellow and orange s-waves and the green primary p-waves (not reflected) both terminate at 103 degrees as predicted by the round earth model.

Why when you made your OP did you understand the difference between primary p-waves and reflected pp-waves and you don't understand it now?

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 10, 2018, 11:50:14 PM »

I have quoted your post, and emphasized the words in your own post that you are either choosing to ignore, or don't understand.

No p-wave can enter that area ... not a p-wave, not a pp-wave, no type of primary wave can enter.

Look, here is a wiki page telling you ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-wave#P-wave_shadow_zone

no p-waves ... shadow zone ... why am i not seeing the shadow zone in the graph. If you can't understand why p-waves have a shadow zone, there is no point in trying to work out why the graph might be reporting them despite their not being there.

As a result, there is a P-wave "shadow zone" between 103° and 142°[5] from the earthquake's focus, where the initial P-waves are not registered on seismometers.

Not registered on seismometers. So, I want to see on the graph primary wave readings from 0-103 and some kind of p-waves from 142-180 degrees. I don't want any from 103-142. But that's not what I am seeing. Why Doug? Why? And if you don't know, let someone else have a go. Don't just keep saying I shouldn't have a shadow zone ... I should.

You have conflated P-waves with PP-waves. You absolutely don't get P-waves in the shadowzone, and you absolutely DO get PP-waves in the shadow zone - a PP wave is a P wave that has reflected off the surface. Do you see how it says "initial P-waves"? A PP-wave is reflected and is therefore not "initial".

Here again is the key to your diagram, with the relevant lines emphasized by me, and the definition of P-waves and PP-waves extra-extra-emphasized by me. You really don't have any excuse for not understanding that a PP-wave is not a direct P-wave.

KEY
green marks show the arrival of direct P-waves
orange marks show the arrival of direct S-waves
red marks show the arrival of PP-waves (reflected at the surface)
yellow marks show the arrival of ScS-waves (reflected at the boundary with the outer core)
pink marks show the arrival of SS-waves (reflected at the surface)

From this PDF file: https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/Monitoring/Doc/Srr_2006/GUIDE.PDF
Here's a diagram showing SS waves reflecting off the surface. The PP waves follow similar paths and therefore CAN GO ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET. No shadow zones for PP-waves.

https://imgur.com/a/uVoeFYW?

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 09, 2018, 09:33:51 PM »

You do not get p-waves, you get pp-waves - it says it right in your graph key.

A pp-wave is a refection of a p-wave - the reflection restarts the angle from the point of reflection, so you have no shadow zone for them.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 09, 2018, 09:19:54 PM »

Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day.

The side that is lit barely changes over the course of a day, but your orientation, or the orientation of any observer, does.

Here's a demonstration of diurnal libration, showing the face of the moon moving slightly over 4 hours.
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/530699-parallax-libration-or-both/

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 09, 2018, 05:13:25 PM »

I can't be a round earther on this forum. This thread shows why.

I get it Baby Thork.  You've convinced me.
I'll take it slow, but this is my pivot point.

I don't get it. Thork is the one who can't read graphs, and then flips the table in frustration, saying I can't read graphs. Am I missing something?

A p-wave shadow zone is not a pp-wave shadow zone.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: July 09, 2018, 07:14:38 AM »

An apple in a swimming pool is not an analogy for the earth and its atmosphere.

A swimming pool spinning on a turntable is a better analogy. Once the water is spinning with the pool, it doesn't slow down any faster than a solid object on the same turntable would.

Here's a video of that situation:


The air moving across the surface of the earth and needing to adjust velocities is exactly the coriolis effect, and you see pictures of it all the time, in any swirling weather system.

11

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 07, 2018, 03:23:01 AM »

All you have to do is read your own crap.

"Direct p-wave shadow zone"

does not equal

"refracted p-wave shadow zone"

and the line is "reflected p-waves".

Which one of us is the moron?

12

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 06, 2018, 10:30:47 PM »

People might be coming here because they aren't sure, and then they see your facile arguments and they might start believing in nonsense. Believing in nonsense gets people killed.

I'm responsible or the deaths of babies? How about you try to paint me as more of a monster. This is far too tame. 

My sister used to be a teacher. When she started her job, she was told "Some children will understand the first time you tell them something. Some will understand the second time. Some will never understand. Forget about them."
It is an important lesson in life. Some people are just dumb. You can't expect to hold the world back to cater for the stupidest individuals in it at the expense of everyone else. You don't hold your future brain surgeons back, because you want your future cleaners to learn at the same rate.

Does your teacher then tell these stupid children they should place plastic bags over their heads, or play in traffic?

This site does not cater for the stupid. If someone comes here 'believing nonsense' ... forget about them. We aren't advocating anything dangerous.

I see threads about using common grocery store items to cure cancer. That's dangerous.

But for those who want to use THEIR brains ... not your brain ... you don't need to 'save' anyone, for those who want to use their brains, this is the place. You aren't a shining white knight, defending the hoards of imbeciles from the malevolence of flat earthers. You are more like the kid who was held back a year at school and keeps shouting out all the answers. It doesn't help anyone.

Except - why are YOU the one who continues to be unable to demonstrate reading comprehension? You're the one who keeps shouting out the answers, but the best part is they are FREAKING OBVIOUSLY WRONG answers.

If the evidence points at something curious, I'll say that, and I won't blindly argue that it means round earth. I follow the evidence. I'm not on any side.

If you are unable to exercise your brain other than to repeat things parrot style, you play the game that way.

Yes, apparently you do.

So, please start doing that. Go back to the Lake Pontchartrain thread and retract your utterly ridiculous statement that the powerlines don't exist. Go back to the mountains casting shadows on clouds and retract "case closed". Come up with something less inane.

How about YOU come up with something less inane? How about YOU provide those people with some interaction? Or do you think we should just ignore people and not give them an opportunity to figure things out for themselves?

I did. If you had bothered to read, you would have seen that I found COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT PICTURES OF THE POWERLINES that demonstrated the curvature. Not inane, useful. And yet, you just walked away after sticking the queen up your bum and calling it checkmate.

Back to the thread ...
OK,

So ... if the ORANGE lines are s-waves and they still stop at 130 degrees as predicted (I should have said orange, not yellow), and the red line is still the one I want because I want the REFRACTED p-waves, not direct p-waves, I'm still getting data in the shadow zone. I shouldn't get readings everywhere as you say. I want to see the shadow zone. Where is it?

Oh for the love of Tom Freaking Bishop. READ YOUR FREAKING KEY. READ IT.

KEY
green marks show the arrival of direct P-waves
orange marks show the arrival of direct S-waves
red marks show the arrival of PP-waves (reflected at the surface)
yellow marks show the arrival of ScS-waves (reflected at the boundary with the outer core)
pink marks show the arrival of SS-waves (reflected at the surface)

You say you don't want direct p-waves, you want refracted p-waves, but then you point to the REFLECTED p-waves marks.


The shadow zone only applies to DIRECT P-WAVES.
https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?term=shadow%20zone

The shadow zone is the area of the earth from angular distances of 104 to 140 degrees from a given earthquake that does not receive any direct P waves.

(emphasis added).

Why are you looking for refracted or any other kind of non-direct p-waves? Why do you think this is somehow demonstrating your great intellect while completely failing to even read the things you are posting?

13

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 06, 2018, 03:36:51 AM »

*** Turning the tables ***

When I was a small boy, I used to play my father at chess.
...we'd play, and at some point the writing would be on the wall. I'd see things weren't going well and the tears would well up. As soon as he saw checkmate was unavoidable ... say check mate in 5 and nothing I could do about it, he'd make me an offer. "Would you like to swap the board around?". I'd agree and now with the odds pushed back we'd have a tight game where depending on how dominant his position when he made the offer, I might win the game ... but I could still lose and in those games in my head, at least I gave my dad a good game and wasn't annihilated.

I've told you round earthers many times ... arguing the earth is round is no challenge. You are already starting with the board set up 5 moves from checkmate. Its not hard to argue the earth is round. Any idiot can do that. What is hard, is making a fight of it the other way around. Within about 3 posts from me, you guys resigned. The tears were in your eyes, it was over.

A) This is not a game like chess where there are sides you can pick that are almost equal. There's an objective truth we are trying to get to.
B) When your father turned the tables, did you ever just start drooling on the pieces, or rectally inserting his pieces to prevent him from using them? Because that's what you're doing when you make inane arguments like "The powerlines don't exist."

I made this thread in response to Tom's plans for a debate club. To encourage you to improve your skills. To look at problems and make your best fist of trying to argue the hard side. To get you used to arguing the earth is flat, without feeling embarrassed about it. Honestly, I'd be embarrassed to come here and argue the earth was round. We wanted those of you who are better at debating, to become flat earthers, to engage those with weaker skills visiting for the first time and to take the load off me and Tom and Pete and all the other same old faces, using your experience. We wanted you to play each other, not always rely on us for a game.

People might be coming here because they aren't sure, and then they see your facile arguments and they might start believing in nonsense. Believing in nonsense gets people killed.

If the evidence points at something curious, I'll say that, and I won't blindly argue that it means round earth. I follow the evidence. I'm not on any side.

Being a flat earther is an exercise in mastery. You have to absolutely understand the topic, learn other people's misconceptions about it, and also spot things that others might struggle to explain or better yet, find a way to explain something 'incorrectly' in a way that makes sense at first glance.

So, please start doing that. Go back to the Lake Pontchartrain thread and retract your utterly ridiculous statement that the powerlines don't exist. Go back to the mountains casting shadows on clouds and retract "case closed". Come up with something less inane.

So that is what I'm going to do. I'm going to pick something from my OP that could muddy the water or if the science is bad (Spoiler: there are some pretty shitty scientists about), I'm going to utterly discredit the evidence removing your queen and making the game more even. This technique will make you a better scientist, because looking at your own work through 'flat earth eyes' encourages you to spot misconceptions others might have about your own work, or spot errors in your methodology and the data you present. How would a flat earther rip your thesis apart?

The premise of the OP, is that these waves travel through a molten core and can't be on a flat earth because they'd have to break the speed of sound to do it. And I kept using the same graph to beat you into submission.



So that graph is my problem. But it has a lot of data ... if you are using it against me, do you actually understand it, or are you just copy pasting something without understanding? If that's the case, I'm not going to let you win this debate.

So, *clears throat ... *

The OP mentions the use of shadow zones for s and p waves. And the OP showed the yellow line reading in the graph proves the s waves can only travel 103 degrees and come to a dead stop .... using this graphic to explain why.


But you also gave me this diagram.



In it, the p waves also have a shadow zone from 103 degrees to 150 degrees.

The yellow line perfectly demonstrates the shadow zone for s waves, with no readings after 103 degrees, but I'm expecting a gap in the p-waves - the red line on the graph. Why is it no less than 8 stations are reporting p-wave values between 103 degrees and 150 degrees on the graph? Where is the shadow zone for p-waves that the theory predicts and why are scientists making up data they can't possibly have? (now I'm going to bait you into a response ... a challenge) Your own data doesn't fit your model. You've only succeeded in proving the earth is not round. This is a fine example of round earthers ignoring evidence against their own theories and blindly championing rotundity. The very fact a p-wave travels unencumbered across the earth shows it must be of a uniform density like the surface of a flat earth.

Are you freaking kidding me? Read your original post again:

KEY
green marks show the arrival of direct P-waves
orange marks show the arrival of direct S-waves
red marks show the arrival of PP-waves (reflected at the surface)
yellow marks show the arrival of ScS-waves (reflected at the boundary with the outer core)
pink marks show the arrival of SS-waves (reflected at the surface)

So now you come here and say that the red marks are P waves, when they aren't - they are PP waves, which can be detected at any angle. You also say that the yellow waves are the S waves, but they are ScS waves.

Thanks for, once again, demonstrating your inability to comprehend even the most basic of text.

I'm going to add two further points. There is a reason flat earthers get bored of gravity and sunset threads. Its like you are using the same opening on us every game. You come at me with the Ruy Lopez and I'm going to respond with a standard defense myself.  I already know your objections, I know my responses, I've played that gravity game 14 moves deep a hundred times. Its why we moan at your to find innovative proofs ... like this OP. A new challenge.

You will notice that if some noob comes by and claims that the earth must have accelerated to greater than the speed of light, or some other nonsense, that people like me will correct them. This doesn't mean we're taking the flat earth side, it means we're correcting incorrect ideas, and seeking truth.

If you don't want to participate in the 80th sunset thread, great - but don't drive by the chess game and drool on the pieces. Let someone else who hasn't become so cynical respond, and the world will be a better place.

14

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 02, 2018, 06:02:01 AM »

Come on. This is the first one. It is easier than that. There is something obviously very weird about the data I gave you in the OP. Its real data ... but something isn't right.

I find it really strange that you are able to research seismology and come up with a reasonable looking argument for the round earth theory, when I haven't seen you do the same thing for flat earth theories. You've insisted that there are no power lines on Lake Pontchartrain, and never came back to that thread to acknowledge you were wrong. You've claimed that pictures of Mt. Rainier casting shadows on clouds is explained by the ocean near Mt. Rainier ("case closed"), and never came back after it was pointed out that many of these views are at SUNRISE, eliminating the "reflection off the ocean" idea.  You insist the sun doesn't move across the sky at 15 degrees per hour, and walk away from the discussion.

So, for this thread, did you take real numbers and reverse something as a gotcha? Did you invert something in a diagram somewhere? I don't know - at first glance, your argument seems quite sound. Or, do you just have some inane thing up your sleeve and plan to say "case closed" and walk away? I really don't know what to expect from you, or how to engage with you in a meaningful way.

If you want to engage in conversations like this thread, it would be helpful if you went back to threads where you erroneously declared victory and admitted you were wrong.

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 02, 2018, 05:37:17 AM »

Max and doug, this thread is not here for you to satirise your opponents (take that back to AR), it's here for you to play devil's advocate. If you don't want to play, that's fine, but leave the option open to others.

Hopefully this thread has sat long enough that I'm not stepping on any toes here.

The thing is, my post WAS my honest attempt at the best possible argument that could be made against this. Given that this is very similar to arguments Baby Thork has made, it seemed appropriate.

I honestly have no idea how to use any kind of logic or rational thought to counter the OP's argument.

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 30, 2018, 06:52:10 AM »

I do apologise, you're right - I did forget the forum this is in

On the original topic, I maintain that it will be impossible for AI to solve this problem, because you will either restrict the input to the AI to the point it's conclusions are useless, or it will come to the same conclusion that humans have come to after examining the same evidence.

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 30, 2018, 12:15:42 AM »

Very possible.

I was reminded of this ten years ago when articles started coming out about how a Coca-Cola executive named Steve Koonin had conceived a plan to use NASA laser technology to shoot colored beams into space in order to form the Coke logo on the lunar surface just in time for the Times Square Ball to drop. Shot down by the FAA, who pointed out that the lasers just might cut airplanes in half, Koonin reluctantly shelved the idea.

It is called moonvertising and it is illegal. But look who has the technology .... Not just any old laser company.


How is this

harder than


That tech is 20 years old. Coke were trying in 1999 to ping lasers off the moon.

How it's harder is there is no such thing as a black laser. I know there is a thing called a blacklight but you know that doesn't actually shine darkness, right? What technology are you aware of that shines a beam of darkness?

18

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 29, 2018, 08:56:42 PM »

How do you even know what you are seeing? If I projected a hologram onto a glass-like firmament, you'd see whatever shape I decided to put there. This is even easier than multiple vehicles. I just point a powerful light source at the firmament and you'll see whatever I show you. And I can turn the light off whenever I want a 'shadow of the earth'.

I'm curious how tall you are willing to build this tower of ad hoc fallacies.

How can you use lights to project a shadow on the face of the moon?

http://www.amateurastrophotography.com/how-to-see-the-iss-transit/4593536074

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Stars Slowing as they Approach the Horizon

« on: June 27, 2018, 10:11:05 PM »

Why do they only get closer together vertically and not horizontally?  Why would observers from other latitudes see the stars slowing in a different axis?

I'd like to remind you once again that you are wearing glasses in your profile photo and thus should agree that optics is a well understood field.

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 27, 2018, 05:38:09 AM »

You'd just need to agree on a dataset. Something everyone knows to be true and can prove themselves. Then let the computer iterate away, extrapolate and turn into a defined shape.

Humans did that, starting 2000 years ago. Why do you think that an AI would come to a different conclusion in, what, a month, than humans have come to in things of years? Computers are good at solving problems faster than humans, but when humans have a multi millennia head start, how could it come to a different conclusion?

You will need to fight tooth and nail to exclude all the evidence you wish to discount in our human discussions from consideration by the AI. It's the same exact problem this forum had been hashing out. AI isn't magic, it can't possibly solve this problem any better than humans already have.