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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: < Back  1 ... 445 446 [447] 448 449 ... 491  Next >
8921
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight
« on: August 04, 2015, 07:52:49 PM »
Actually, I did describe the sun as an omnidirectional light source:

Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.
Omnidirectional light sources don't cast spotlights.

Sure they do. Even in RET omnidirectional light sources cast a spot of light upon the earth's surface. A candle does not illuminate the entirety of the earth

8922
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight
« on: August 04, 2015, 06:21:42 PM »
A spotlight is a spotlight is a spotlight.
A spotlight  shines in only one  direction and its beam is in the form of a circle.

Answer to the question:
If the sun is a spotlight and shines down on the earth how is the moon illuminated ?

Nobody said the sun is a spotlight. ::)

It has been said "The sun acts  like a spotlight." And therein lies the confusion from the flat earthers.

Of course the nature of the sun is well known in the real world. The sun is definitely neither a spotlight or even "acts like a spotlight." The sun shines in all directions.To the earth, to the moon, to the planets.

Again, the sun does shine in all directions.

8923
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight
« on: August 04, 2015, 03:47:30 PM »
Actually, I did describe the sun as an omnidirectional light source:

A spotlight shines light in one direction. The sun shines light in all directions, which is limited in its extent by the opacity of the atmosphere and certain limits to human perspective across a plane earth. Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.

8924
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight
« on: August 03, 2015, 11:09:32 PM »
No Tom, a candle illuminates an area, not a spot.  Spots are small.  The area illuminated by the sun is not small, especially when compared to the size of the FE sun.

If a foreigner circled their finger at an area of a map and said that they live in that spot, that they may be pointing at an entire country is not an incorrect usage of the word spot.
Yes, it is an incorrect usage of the word spot.  An area is not a spot.  A spot is a specific location.  An area is a general region.  Do you honestly not understand the distinction or do you just want to play the semantics game again?

A spot is a small mark. It may be a map of the galaxy pointing out the earth, but a spot is a spot. It matters not if it's a spot on your face, or a spot on a map. A spot may be a dimensionless point, or a circular area. A spotlight does not radiate a dimensionless point, but a circular area, a relatively small spot of light on a vast scenery. A spot is a spot, is a spot.

8925
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight
« on: August 03, 2015, 07:45:07 PM »
No Tom, a candle illuminates an area, not a spot.  Spots are small.  The area illuminated by the sun is not small, especially when compared to the size of the FE sun.

If a foreigner circled their finger at an area of a map and said that they live in that spot, that they may be pointing at an entire country is not an incorrect usage of the word spot.

A spotlight shines light in one direction. The sun shines light in all directions, which is limited in its extent by the opacity of the atmosphere and certain limits to human perspective across a plane earth. Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.

How does the sun act on other planets and the moon ?

There is no atmosphere in space.

8926
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight
« on: August 02, 2015, 04:29:45 PM »
Does a candle illuminate the earth infinitely into the distance? Therefore it is casting a "spot of light" upon the earth.

8927
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance From The Earth And The Size Of The Moon
« on: August 01, 2015, 08:48:57 PM »
It was determined via triangulation that the celestial bodies are about the same height as the sun. We have documentation of our method of triangulation, but it is mostly in specific regards to the sun. It was found that the celestial bodies behave similarly, and so they were lumped into the same altitude of the sun. For specifics of the triangulation method, look for the article on the Sun's Distance on the Wiki on the front page.

What evidence is there that the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth?

8928
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun Is A Spotlight
« on: August 01, 2015, 08:19:03 PM »
A spotlight shines light in one direction. The sun shines light in all directions, which is limited in its extent by the opacity of the atmosphere and certain limits to human perspective across a plane earth. Since the light does not propagate infinitely, due to the fact that the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent, its light is limited to a spot of light upon the plane earth. Hence, the sun is casting a spotlight without itself literally casting light in only one direction.

8929
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hello world
« on: July 31, 2015, 08:28:41 PM »
We don't need any further evidence beyond that because there is no compelling evidence that the earth is any other shape.

If you bring up sinking ships, we will bring up reports that ships have been restored by looking at then through a telescope, proving that the ship cannot be behind a "hill of water".

If you bring up NASA we will bring up many of the inconsistencies and lies that organization has perpetuated.

Whatever you bring up will be shown to be incorrect or flawed, leaving us no reason to consider that the earth is a globe. The earth is directly observed to be flat, and so that is what it is, no appeals to authority required.

8930
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hello world
« on: July 31, 2015, 07:01:56 PM »
I looked out my window and saw that the earth was flat. You  were told that the earth was a globe. You don't "know" anything. You were "told". I know that the earth is flat because I saw it myself.

8931
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hello world
« on: July 31, 2015, 06:09:38 PM »
Quote from: geckothegeek
What is the basis and evidence that you believe that the earth is flat ?

Look out your window for direct first hand evidence. You should be asking yourself why you believe that the earth is round, based on third hand evidence by an honest and incorruptible source such as the government.

8932
In ancient times garlic was used as a treatment for cancer:

http://www.all4naturalhealth.com/garlic-and-cancer.html

And they put disease-carrying leeches and bled you out to cure diseases. Their medicine sucked.

Except that garlic and peppers are not a medicine of man's creation, but the medicine of nature and evolution.

A bird will happily eat the hottest of peppers. A cat will eat bitter grasses from instinct. Animal and plant have evolved to complement each other in health and nutrition. To compare the medicines in natural foods to unnatural medicines or medical procedures, is unjust. One type of medicine has a creator with billions of years of experience in trial and error and the other does not.

8933
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« on: July 24, 2015, 08:33:44 PM »
That footage is not continuous. The video cuts out many times through the scene.

8934
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« on: July 23, 2015, 12:04:00 PM »
Changes in lighting and atmospheric conditions will change how things look when you photograph them

Please explain what is happening then. The colors of the ship clearly are not being washed out by the sun, considering that it is in shadow.

Personally, my completely speculative guess is that something like this is happening.

The orange gets lighter and darker. But colors don't just disappear or pop out of nowhere. You're going to have to explain why the rocket would be completely white in the shade, hiding it's colors.

The whitest parts of the an object under varying light conditions are when the light is shining directly on it, and the white value in the photograph are very high. But this rocket ship is in the shade. You will have to explain how a body, in the shade, can be so blinded by the light around it that its colors are hidden by overexposure. The fact that it is in shade contradicts the idea that the object is receiving an intense amount of light from the environment. The white of the rocket ship is very dull, is obviously in shade, and does not scream overexposure from any environment sources at all.

The example of the orange does not get white washed when placed in the shade and, therefore, does not qualify as an example of this phenomena.

8935
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
« on: July 22, 2015, 09:36:40 PM »
I will use my common sense and choose the candidate that I believe will do the best job... and that sure isn't the hag Hillary. There are other candidates that could do the job, but they are already in someone's pocket. Republicans and Democrats on both sides are corrupt, and I don't believe anyone can argue with that. Powerful and wealthy friends contribute to their campaigns and get them media coverage all while ensuring their backs are scratched if they win.

If both sides hate Trump and he is financing himself, he has my attention. Trump is the only one I can see that is 'his own man'.

8936
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« on: July 22, 2015, 04:49:36 PM »
Changes in lighting and atmospheric conditions will change how things look when you photograph them

Please explain what is happening then. The colors of the ship clearly are not being washed out by the sun, considering that it is in shadow.

8937
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« on: July 22, 2015, 11:12:45 AM »
Lets go back to the overexposure explanation. How is this rocket "overexposed" if much of it is in the shade:

How can you tell it is in shade?  Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.

Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.


Simple.  It's the rocket exhaust plume reflecting off of the booster.

The "rocket exhaust" down below is illuminating the upper lips of the rims facing the camera. Please explain.

8938
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« on: July 21, 2015, 09:01:57 PM »
Lets go back to the overexposure explanation. How is this rocket "overexposed" if much of it is in the shade:

How can you tell it is in shade?  Rockets are launched when the sky is clear so your notion seems exceedingly unlikely.

Nearly the entirety of the rocket is in shade except for the far left side where the sun is coming in.



8939
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« on: July 21, 2015, 08:59:27 PM »
The Apollo missions passed through the belts very quickly and through an area of low concentration. Maybe they want to test for prolonged exposure?

Why would they put the astro-nots through more radiation than necessary?

If NASA were keeping its story straight, it should be claiming that the radiation belts are safe for any man or machine.
When did NASA claim that the Van Allen belts are "safe for any man or machine"?

Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. Did they forget about those?  They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now. Either way, whether the speaker is talking about man or machine, the segment goes against the official story.
No, NASA did not "forget" about those other unmanned craft, it's just that those other unmanned craft are not Orion.  The Orion capsule has different mission objectives than those other unmanned craft and therefore must be tested separately.  If anything, Orion is probably being tested to a much higher safety standard than unmanned craft.

NASA has been hardening electronics from the Van Allen Radiation Belt and the general dangers of space for over 55 years. This segment hyping the dangers and the new technologies needed is hardly accurate, or consistent with the official story, considering that NASA has been claiming that the shielding to take computer chips and electronics into those areas has existed for a very long time.

8940
Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA's Orion/Ares Program is Fake
« on: July 21, 2015, 05:27:56 PM »
They can't even get their story straight.

Listen carefully at around 3:36 to where the one of their engineers says: "We must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space” (the Van Allen radiation belt).

Cheery-picking quotes is not the same as reading carefully.  What the video actually says:

"My name is Kelly Smith, and I work on navigation and guidance for Orion...Before we can send astronauts into space on Orion, we have to test all of its systems, and there’s only one way to know if we got it right; fly it in space.
[...]
As we get further away from Earth, we’ll pass through the Vann Allan Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of Space."

The video is clearly describing a danger to the onboard electronics and not to the astronauts themselves.

The video calls the Van Allen Radiation Belts a place of dangerous high radiation, a thing that we shouldn't be sending people though right now, when this is contradictory to the official story. The Apollo astronauts allegedly received a very minimal amount of radiation exposure when traveling through the radiation belt.

From the Van Allen Belt Wiki page:

Quote
The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[29] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.[30] The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.

If NASA were keeping its story straight, it should be claiming that the radiation belts are safe for any man or machine.

Yes, claiming that electronics need "further testing" is contradictory too. Your idea that NASA knows the belts are safe for humans but thinks it is not safe for computer chips is in opposition to NASA's previous claims of having sent many unmanned ships through the belts when conducing exploration of the solar system. Did they forget about those? They have been claiming to have developed the electronics shielding technologies to handle that for many years now. Either way, whether the speaker is talking about man or machine, the segment goes against the official story.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 445 446 [447] 448 449 ... 491  Next >