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 - magic

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
rabinoz,
While I can understand how a person can "determine" this fluid substratum to be our atmosphere. However I am approaching this without embracing any wholesale ideology, including that of what is "known" about the composition of our "atmosphere". The reason for this is that embracing any part of what is "known" and distributed at an institutional level is to incorporate any falsehoods that may be inherent in the quality of the information.

Your response regarding relative size is welcomed as I've thought along the same rationale although I could not support it other than the relative size as you did. However, the ISS does not exhibit this fluid substratum behavior and acts as any terrestrial based light source does when out of focus and away from water. What I'm getting at is that it is, in my observations, at the same tier as the moon and sun that do not appear to exhibit the same visual qualities as the distant lights do (stars/planets to use relative terms).

Regarding the twinkling of stars, is something when they are in focus, does not exhibit, there is no deviation in their color or fluidity to their appearance they are simply a light with a consistent amount of luminescence, unaffected by any factor. However when out of focus it appears that the visual appearance of the same stars produce an entirely different quality. In my observation I would currently be biased to think that the stars twinkle because the human eyes are attempting to focus and it may go in and out of focus doing this and causes the "twinkling" we are familiar with.

Stars exhibit this behaviour only because their apparent size is so far below the resolution of our eyes, camera or even telescopes. One the closest stars to us is Alpha Centauri A which has an angular size of 0.007 seconds of arc. The human has a resolution of around 1 minute of arc (don't think mine are that good) - even best astronomical telescope on earth cannot resolve even that star.

Planets that we can see and the ISS appear far larger than that. The "twinkling" light from these larger objects can average out over adjacent pixels, or rods in your eyes.

Using relative terms, the same stars (all of them from what I've observed on my P900) and all the planets I've observed exhibit the same fluid appearance when the focus is set as specified in an earlier post. This observation is in conflict with any statement separating this visual phenomenon being apparent in stars and not planets.

I have also observed from great distances man made light sources through a humid night sky and cannot replicate this effect. Both the man made light source and the stars use the same focus setting and when applied to one another creates a completely opposite visual feedback. When the camera puts the star in focus, the same "in focus" setting applied to the man made light source afar results in a sharp image of the light. Focal length at extreme distances are relative.

I've also dabbled in macro photography and the resolution of light or chromatic aberrations do not exhibit this fluid effect when observed. Stars and planets are the only thing that I have seen do this, except for the youtube video with LED light in water I linked earlier.

2
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Debate
« on: May 30, 2016, 11:49:51 PM »
TotesNotReptilian,
Thanks for the correction regarding the misuse of the term Fluid Dynamics, I'm glad you received the intent of my message. As for that part of the discussion it will stop at the discussion of gravity because we will just grind gears on that we've both seen that plenty of times in a discussion on this topic and it won't be productive. Water in a large body as an ocean is difficult to properly observe as the level is being constantly disturbed by the motion of the currents creating peaks.

The comments I make regarding a management are my own and I'll leave it at that again as to not grind on something I cannot yet present with hard support (only speculative).

Regarding the comments relating to the scale of these official photos of the Earth an example is here. This has been discussed several times and I feel that this variance is an issue with determining if any of the photos are the genuine article.

Photo 1: http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/57000/57723/globe_west_2048.jpg

Photo 2: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/187_1003705_americas_dxm.png?itok=NWzaquaC

3
rabinoz,
While I can understand how a person can "determine" this fluid substratum to be our atmosphere. However I am approaching this without embracing any wholesale ideology, including that of what is "known" about the composition of our "atmosphere". The reason for this is that embracing any part of what is "known" and distributed at an institutional level is to incorporate any falsehoods that may be inherent in the quality of the information.

Your response regarding relative size is welcomed as I've thought along the same rationale although I could not support it other than the relative size as you did. However, the ISS does not exhibit this fluid substratum behavior and acts as any terrestrial based light source does when out of focus and away from water. What I'm getting at is that it is, in my observations, at the same tier as the moon and sun that do not appear to exhibit the same visual qualities as the distant lights do (stars/planets to use relative terms).

Regarding the twinkling of stars, is something when they are in focus, does not exhibit, there is no deviation in their color or fluidity to their appearance they are simply a light with a consistent amount of luminescence, unaffected by any factor. However when out of focus it appears that the visual appearance of the same stars produce an entirely different quality. In my observation I would currently be biased to think that the stars twinkle because the human eyes are attempting to focus and it may go in and out of focus doing this and causes the "twinkling" we are familiar with.

4
When using manual focus to induce the fluid effect on stars, a result of being out of focus, the same setting will make all celestial bodies except for the sun and moon have this fluid effect. I've tried this over many nights with varying weather conditions and the results are consistent.

I would love to see the actual pictures (with their corrosponding aperature/zoom/exposure settings), including the sun/moon pictures.

Until I feel like posting my own photos any Nikon P900 user can set their camera to Manual mode, Manual focus about 85% of the focus bar, and record video at 83x zoom will create the fluid effect.

Call me paranoid but I keep my signature lower by not posting content. Some of what I've posted before found itself as original content but I'm not here to keep score just to discuss any potential merits.

5
Technology & Information / Re: A Critique of Drones
« on: May 28, 2016, 02:45:28 AM »
Drones or any technology replacing man will cause an imbalance in the value of humanity, which I do not personally take value in but can understand how others would.

A drone eliminating targets abroad will remove several people from continuing their existence here.
A drone being eliminated will not remove the operator responsible for eliminating the aforementioned people.

This will create a inequity in which the only release for such is to come to the drone's domestic territory and eliminate soft targets until balance is restored.

It doesn't matter either way though but it is entertaining to think of how things can play out.

6
I'm only using relative terms for convenience.

rabinoz,
The P900 is capable of focusing on the stars/planets with manual focus with relative ease. In fact, it is interesting to note that the same manual focus setting at 83x optical zoom with the sun and moon as the subject also maintains focus on all other celestial bodies...

When using manual focus to induce the fluid effect on stars, a result of being out of focus, the same setting will make all celestial bodies except for the sun and moon have this fluid effect. I've tried this over many nights with varying weather conditions and the results are consistent.

This hypothesis is based on this observation that the sun and moon are closest to us followed by this fluid substratum followed by the stars/planets based on this.


model 29,
Here you go.


7
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Debate
« on: May 28, 2016, 02:04:32 AM »
TotesNotReptilian,
Quote
OP: Where is the proof that the Earth is flat?
magic: Fluid dynamics support a plane.
TotesNotReptilian: Fine, I'll bite. What does fluid dynamics have to do with the flat/round earth?
Everything from brine pools, water and the air above seems to be part of a layered system that comes to rest by self leveling.

Quote
OP: How would a flat Earth actually work?
magic: As it does now through a managed system.
TotesNotReptilian: Who manages it? People? Aliens? Reptilians? Amphibians?
I don't know the composition of the "managers" of this managed system. There is however a system that suppresses individuals by diverting them and following generations through their life cycle from determining any of the three elements of the haiku. The diverting is facilitated by the choices we make, all of which end with the result of being content with a solution to the 3 unknowns.

Quote
OP: What causes gravity in FET?
magic: FET is a wholesale ideology. On a plane, "gravity" could be be a function that is constantly being applied as static part of the environment in furtherance of management.
TotesNotReptilian: Word soup is confusing. Are you trying to say that the "managers" are controlling gravity?
Gravity may be an inherent part of the environment which is in turn part of the managed system we experience.

Quote
OP: What proof do you have that RET is wrong?
magic: A failure to provide a true view of the Earth as described by the RET ideology.
TotesNotReptilian: First, a lack of pictures doesn't prove the earth isn't round. It just proves no one has released pictures of it. Second, there ARE quite a few pictures of the entire earth:
Lots of new pictures almost every day
A few other pictures. <-- Article also contains a good explanation of why there aren't tons more pictures.
NASA had an opportunity but failed to provide consistent scale in the photos they presented as genuine articles depicting the Earth. There is some work by others showing this inconsistency in scale. Providing more work in the future could mean that they either now have objectively genuine photos, or have simply persisted with insisting everything they have released was genuine despite never answering to the anomaly regarding scale. I'm biased towards them failing to furnish a genuine article and everything following is in furtherance of managing this ideology supported by group think and other frailties we suffer.

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Debate
« on: May 27, 2016, 02:24:29 AM »
Ok, I am a relatively firm believer that the Earth is round, though I would be interested if somebody could explain to me their point of view. I have a few questions I would like to ask: Where is the proof that the Earth is flat? How would a flat Earth actually work? What causes gravity in FET? What proof do you have that RET is wrong?

My point of view in haiku.

Unknown origin
Unknown environment
No known purpose

My opinionated answers to your questions.

Where is the proof that the Earth is flat?
Fluid dynamics support a plane.

How would a flat Earth actually work?
As it does now through a managed system.

What causes gravity in FET?
FET is a wholesale ideology. On a plane, "gravity" could be be a function that is constantly being applied as static part of the environment in furtherance of management.

What proof do you have that RET is wrong?
A failure to provide a true view of the Earth as described by the RET ideology.

9
A number of you may be familiar with the out of focus videos of stars taken by the Nikon P900. We see a circular light with a fluid like visual affect, in some cases the focus can be manipulated to make the star appear amorphous. These videos are typically disregarded as not focusing the P900.

I too disregarded this phenomenon as a P900 owner but upon further thought, came to realize that when taking a photo of ANYTHING ELSE, anything from a bird, car, indoor lights the list goes on, neither of the two affects mentioned occur.

I've also taken photos of the moon at maximum optical and digital zoom and do not notice such an affect at any point during focusing, neither does the sun with the appropriate solar filter.

Disregarding the precepts of any particular wholesale ideology, would it be safe to conclude that both the moon and the sun are closer to us than the stars are, being in front of this fluid substratum?

10
Every time I see a baby animal I think about how horrible it is to eat them when they grow up. Every being is basically sharing the same experience, which is basically just trying not to die. Who are we to decide what lives and dies.

But then I think about Bacon.

We have observed that the lifeless corporeal husk of a piglet remains on this material plane after it has demonstrated a continuous lack of response to stimuli, turning into bacon.

Life begins its irrevocable bond with death the moment it begins. There is no exception for pigs.

Which came first the bacon or the pig?

11
All good points to consider regarding the further distribution of a truth one may find in their journey to seek answers.

Any time you add the requirement of distribution, you include a logistical burden that significantly increases all the requirements of the task.

If you want to find out, don't worry about telling everybody, even if you empirically possessed the truth, the current environment will not value it as you will have an equal amount of supporters and opposition to the information you have to offer.

Find your own truth, it is better this way, the path to enlightenment is truly a solitary affair.

A drone through Antarctica? A remote control drone is limited by its relative distance to the operator, to traverse a meaningful distance, the operator would have to move in lockstep with the remote drone which would only serve to act as a scout, which would improve the operators efficiency moving if there are obstructions that can only be navigated around.

Otherwise to assume that GPS even works in that area is a fallacy as you must remember that the GPS signal is managed by the US military, if your GPS is using the signal then you have just created a signature and assuming you aren't greeted by a QRF your GPS signal could be providing you false data, if your drone goes down, you may not be able to locate it if GPS is not available. Don't rely on GPS there, it is a luxury.

You go into a straight line until you find the answer you are looking for.

12
May I assume from your post above that you believe in BOTH a flat earth AND satellites?  If so, that will be unusual among flat earthers, which is why I ask.  Want to be sure I'm understanding correctly.

They usually refute the sattelites. But that depends on the route of the sattelites and the place of them. I'm thinking that "some of" sattelites are exist but not on a place estimated. And most of them aren't exist specially NASA and ESA sattelites aren't exist. But tv sattelites are exist because money opens every kind of door.
What holds the satellites up in your theory? Why don't they come crashing back down to your flat earth?

Hopes and dreams hold the satellites up. Plastering on a little bullshit helps too in case the hopes and dreams start to fall apart.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: questions
« on: May 07, 2016, 03:31:57 AM »
I have 4 important questions 1 what is beyond the firmament assuming it's not see through and the stars are hung there if you believe there is water then do you also believe there are fish

I don't know if there is a firmament, reason being is that by stating it is a firmament associates itself with the associated definition of which I cannot realize at the moment.

secondly if the sun is in our atmosphere then why do some people get a few month of darkness and how does it orbit

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UhKjHYKgzBs/Vb-NxB_j-YI/AAAAAAAAP_Y/sj2TxjsJSGQ/s400/Sun-MoonSmall.png

thirdly if the earth is flat why don't people fall off the edge

I haven't heard of anybody get to the edge before. There has been claims, but no evidence. This isn't to say we aren't on a flat plane, but that it hasn't been documented to a point where it is no longer a question. The question is a bit silly because if the edge was realized, the logical reason why people don't fall off is because they don't want to fall off, but I digress.

and finally  the round earthers have a globe other than maps what do we have

The current Flat Earth map is something that requires a belief to embrace, I do not have a belief in the ice wall "holding the water in" in my opinion this type of rationalization without representation is a subversive way to sell an idea wholesale knowing there are fallacies included, in order to dilute the answer to the question, where are we?

14
If the Earth is flat why can't someone standing on the coast of Antartica see Polaris at night?

Polaris would be 13.09 degrees above the horizon and being a less than 2 magnitude star, easy to see.

I haven't been to Antarctica, but once I get there and if I can see it, I'll post a photo.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How did continents form on a flat earth?
« on: May 07, 2016, 03:20:42 AM »
How did continents form on a Flat Earth?

The answer depends on what beliefs the person that answer has.

If you ask me, there were no continents that formed, they were that way already, this environment we play in hasn't been around for as long as people think it has.

16
I am convinced of intelligent design but cannot fathom the type of substratum this entity would exist in. I make no effort in attempting to describe of characterize this entity either.

However, while I believe the globe model is not correct, I believe that the wholesale of the flat Earth is also being marketed as a religion 2.0 with various aspects requiring blind faith I take the parts that make sense to me.

17


Kerbal Space Program does it just fine. Even to scale with the realism overhaul mod.

Kerbal Space Program also did not reproduce the round Earth as one would experience it, even modded made no difference. The common issue with this evaluation is that it is easy to accommodate things that appear close enough without being too critical about it.

Yes it did. Only thing it doesn't model is atmospheric refraction, from a perspective relevant to this debate. Check the SDK.

It doesn't, there is still a transition between planetside and space. This is currently unachievable or impossible.

18
Kerbal Space Program does it just fine. Even to scale with the realism overhaul mod.

Kerbal Space Program also did not reproduce the round Earth as one would experience it, even modded made no difference. The common issue with this evaluation is that it is easy to accommodate things that appear close enough without being too critical about it.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: End of the earth
« on: March 03, 2016, 06:22:32 AM »
Woody,
Any notion that it is impossible is your own as you've mentioned, I would have said so otherwise.

Simply going to a landmass that represents the "known" information is one thing. Continuing to make sense of it is what I was discussing.

This requires redoing everything that society dispenses as common sense without any effort.

If you simply plan on a touch and go trip that would represent a step larger than most have taken in this subject. However if you plan on making a trip dedicated to discerning the truth would be an even larger step.

However, coming back empty handed except for stories will set you no further apart then what we currently work with. It is a tough proposition.

20
TheTruthIsOnHere,
I've had the same results of your findings stated in your response.

This is significant in that if a program such as CAD produces "digital" designs that are then implemented in a "non-digital" environment governed apparently by the same limitations of the software.

This would presumably lead to our environment having a 3 axis orientation and would be subject to the same restraints as the purely digital environment, CAD. Plank Length comes to mind immediately and may be relevant as a 3 axis environment is would be based on a flat plane.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >