2121

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET

« on: December 20, 2017, 12:48:25 PM »

1g flight is considered SnL. weight=lift. Please tell me, where is your nose pointing?

I could fly a 1g descending turn. Is that straight and level?

Do you know what a barrel roll is?


How about this? A 1g barrel roll.

Johnston calculated the 1g barrel roll maneuver, conducted twice, was perfectly safe and would prove to the world that the 707 was not only as strong as an ox but as agile as a fighter.

Straight and level? Tell me Einstein, where's your nose pointing?

2122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET

« on: December 20, 2017, 01:33:52 AM »

Sigh, only a FEer wouldn't understand the difference between a colloquial term and a dictionary definition. You are NOT flying straight and level. You lack a lot of understanding for someone who claims to be so educated.

I remember my first ever flying lesson. It was called "straight and level flight". I must of missed the bit when the instructor said "You are NOT flying straight and level".

Interesting that of all the lessons one has such as

Climbing
Descending
30 degree turns
45 degree turns
Slow flight
Stalling
Take Off and Landing

The only one you don't like is the one that pops your rotundity bubble. Or is climbing a 'colloquialism' when you are really losing altitude, slow flight really going extremely fast instead and takeoff an activity whereby your wheels don't actually leave the tarmac?

Straight and level is not a colloquialism. Its a technical description of the activity you perform.

2123

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)

« on: December 20, 2017, 01:04:54 AM »

@honk

They are the only things that bother you?

Laia being frozen in space, her blood boiling from the cavitation before her cells solidify, and then magically opening her frozen solid eyelids, moving her moist eyes to focus on the ship and floating in like Peter Pan. That was a very stupid scene.

The whole Rey/Finn romance and being reunited at the end. I know they really really want a multi-racial love story, but its just stupid. She'd have been better off having a Padme/Anakin style relationship with Kylo. Could have been way more complex and full of intrigue and torn emotion than being into the dumb Storm Trooper. as mentioned he didn't even do anything in this episode. He's just there to allow the liberal left to rub black men with white women into the faces of conservatives. They even kill rose off (a better character), to clear the way for the Finn/Rey thing that is just implausible.

Why don't any of the dark side ever come back as ghosts? Top Jedi's always do. Why didn't Snoke come back and haunt the living crap out of Kylo?

Why do the red guards then fight Kylo after Snoke is dead? What are they fighting for? That's got to be career limiting. Who do they think is going to take over? The wet ginger guy or the space wizard?

Why did the purple-haired woman who stays on the fleeing rebel ship have to be a hero? She's like every dumb female middle manager I've ever met. Threatened by anyone else making a suggestion, defensive, happy not to tell anyone else what her plans are and incompetent. And that was fine. That's a personality type I can get on board with. But yet again, politics ... no woman can ever be portrayed as having character flaws. Really she is a secret hero that knows best and saves the day. Why? She's a bit part character.

The anime penguin/puffin things. Merch. I get it, but they were a little over used.

Luke's new superpower of being somewhere he isn't. What is the point of being somewhere else so that you can't be harmed, when doing so kills you from the effort anyway? Why not just fight Kylo in person and die like a man, instead of pretending to be there and dying of exhaustion on a rock? Its the same outcome. You delayed Kylo and still lost and died. Also Kylo clearly has a bit of a blind spot for feeling Luke's presence. Doesn't he possess all the Jedi skills, or just a select bunch that give him convenient vulnerabilities?

I don't think Benicio del Toro's character needed to stammer. It was an unnecessary character flaw. Over acting if you like.

They have incredible technology in this galaxy. Why hasn't chewbacca got google translate on his mobile? He's like Sooty ... only Rey can understand him. In fact Chewy would make a great partner for Rey. Big strong wooky, plenty of fur to hold on to, warm to cuddle at night, the tall strong silent type and would tick the Disney multi-racial relationship box. I'll be he stinks when it rains, but love can see through stuff like that.

Anyway, despite lots of plot holes but you get them in all starwars films, this was still the best 'new' one I've seen.

2124

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET

« on: December 19, 2017, 09:08:37 PM »

My post was really just to clear up the misleading description of a trimmer for those that aren't familiar with it's use. Anyone that's flown a plane would understand the use of course and as you inferred, straight and level is maintaining the same altitude whether flat or round earth.

Straight and level does not say anything about maintaining curves for earth's surface.

straight
adjective
1.
extending or moving uniformly in one direction only; without a curve or bend.

level
adjective
1.
having a flat, horizontal surface.
synonyms:   flat, smooth, even, uniform, plane, flush, plumb, regular, true; More

Only Round Earthers could take a simple phrase like 'straight and level' and interpret it as 'curved and divergent'.

2125

Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed

« on: December 19, 2017, 08:55:59 PM »

roundtables ...

Elaborate on this one. What is a round table and what power do they wield?

2126

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET

« on: December 18, 2017, 10:58:40 PM »

Exactly the same as if a picture of a plane is positioned on top of a circle and then the circle rotated through 180 degrees. Same result in that the plane is now over the opposite side of the circle but no alteration of the plane required. Surely it's down to gravity's pull towards the centre of the sphere?

Rotating the earth would take quite a lot of energy to turn it around. You are getting something for nothing here. Imagine the gyroscopes on the aircraft. They provide resistance to being moved in such a way. And yet you are claiming an energy free reversal of position. No steering, no compensation ... just upside down in time and space.

2127

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET

« on: December 18, 2017, 10:30:49 PM »

Aircraft are trimmed to fly straight and level. They are neither designed nor trimmed to fly circles around a globe.

But the earth that they fly over is flat and level, even on our globe earth. Earth is too huge for the curve to be noticeable at such low altitudes. Would you also expect that when planes arrive at Australia they are upside down? (Not a dig, there is YouTube FE proof vid where this was cited)

If you fly half way round the world, you have to turn your aircraft 180 degrees so the sky is still above you on a round earth. Somehow this just happens, no steering or alterations required. You flew straight and level, and now your aircraft is flipped 180 degrees from where it started.

2128

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 10:25:55 PM »

And how do you move position and get any further from the centre, when the sun is 93 million miles away? No matter where you are, you are always in the centre on a round earth. You're just proving the earth to be flat with a nearby sun.

2129

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 10:11:36 PM »

On a flat earth yes. The sun will shoot overhead faster, its closer as we observe. But you are a round earther, remember? The sun is always 93 million miles away. You can't claim a slant angle. to you the sun is 93 million miles away when its overhead, and 93 million miles away at sunset. Travelling in a perfect circle. At a uniform pace. 15 degrees per hour. Every hour.

Imagine your road is a perfect circle around you 100 metres away. Now, does the car speed up when you look at 80 degrees or 20 or 170? Nope, it keeps laping exactly the same pace.

I just gave you all enough rope to hang yourselves.

BT you got a point!

It's a shame his point only works if you live at one of the poles.

Again, it only works for ROUND earth at the poles. FET covers all the bases. It is the superior theory.

2130

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 10:09:15 PM »

If on  around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.

Nope.

That isn't aligned with the polar axis, is it? That is aligned perpendicular to the polar axis. If that was a dish at that angle and not a curve, the sun would be under the dial. That is why your example is called an equatorial dial. The examples we were discussing are horizontal dials and they are aligned with the horizon. Polar dials tend to be bars on rectangular plates.

2131

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 09:47:02 PM »

No, go and look up the definitions yourself. Understand what those things are. I pasted a big blue diagram above already. Its not hard.

Get two nice straight garden canes and a sunny day.

Push one garden cane into the soil such that it has no visible shadow (pointing at the sun)

Wait 1 hour.

Push the second cane into the soil such that it has no visible shadow.

Measure the angle between the canes. It will be 15 degrees. If you prefer, wait two hours - it'll be 30 degrees. Or three hours - it'll be 45 degrees. It doesn't matter where you are on earth, and so long as the sun is shining at both ends of the experiment, it doesn't matter when you do it either.

The timings you are talking about, with the aid of your excellent diagram, are degrees measured vertically above the horizon, not the angle across the sky the sun appears to travel during a given time.

As for the sundial: you are quite correct that angled fins distort the path of the shadow. As I mentioned earlier: the other type of sundial, which is angled to align with the polar axis, has the hours spaced 15 degrees apart.

If on  around earth you aligned a sundial with the polar axis, and you lived North of the equator, you'd often never even get a shadow on your sundial. The sun would be underneath the dial 6 months of the year. Try harder.

2132

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 09:37:51 PM »

How are you going to argue earth is round, when I know more about round earth theory than you?

Haha I have never claimed to know anything dude that's why I love being here because it fills in the knowledge I declined during my mandatory education.

My stance has always been from a point of ignorance and whilst that is embarrassing I take the hit as it allows me to learn.

There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers (although why is a cucumber a penguins  IS a fuc***in stupid question but you get my point)

The trouble is that the RE geeks here provide better answers, often FE answers are nonexistent, rude or nonsense whilst FE provide continuous explanation. They don't just say- go read Hawkings etc

You are however providing hope BT that there is a FE prepared to explain using science (rather than biblical or magic perspective) so I thank you for that!

DA

I'm happy to play dumb as round earthers refuse to provide any evidence. They'll ask me for links and images all day and calculations and references. They tend to be lazy sods and rarely want to put their own necks on the line. Once I've eeked a bit out, then I'll use their assumptions against them. I've been a member of the flat earth society for about 8 years I think, maybe 9 and have well over 40,000 posts on these forums. I've had every conversation, I know your next objection before you post it and know my response. And I know all kinds of little nuggets like southern hemisphere clocks going backwards. Got to know all your RET stuff in case you surprise me with it.

2133

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 09:27:51 PM »

You are expecting 15 degrees per hour and you aren't getting it.

That's where you are wrong and thousands of years of sundials disagree with you. Give us a clear and repeatable experiment to run at our houses to falsify our assertion or yours.

I already showed you, sundials are not 15 degrees per hour marker.
Look at this bad boy.

Are you going to tell me the 1 and 12 are the same distance apart as the 8 and 9? That is not 15 degree increments. That thing is accounting for slant angles.

Hang on are we missing something obvious here.

I stand still facing a road that crosses my path left to right and is perfectly straight.
A car travels along it left to right at a uniform speed of 70mph.
I can see the car from 2 miles either side.

Surely the car will appear to move quicker when it is closer to me (directly in front if me it will whizz past)

Does this not show that an object moving at a uniform speed can appear to speed up and slow down?

On a flat earth yes. The sun will shoot overhead faster, its closer as we observe. But you are a round earther, remember? The sun is always 93 million miles away. You can't claim a slant angle. to you the sun is 93 million miles away when its overhead, and 93 million miles away at sunset. Travelling in a perfect circle. At a uniform pace. 15 degrees per hour. Every hour.

Imagine your road is a perfect circle around you 100 metres away. Now, does the car speed up when you look at 80 degrees or 20 or 170? Nope, it keeps laping exactly the same pace.

I just gave you all enough rope to hang yourselves.

2134

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 09:11:26 PM »

No, go and look up the definitions yourself. Understand what those things are. I pasted a big blue diagram above already. Its not hard.

2135

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 09:07:14 PM »

Look at your numbers again though. Even those show it progresses at a fairly standard rate along that axis of motion. ~40 minutes of each twilight period. This should not be the case for a flat Earth. Each section should take not insignificantly longer than the one before it when setting.

On a flat earth it would. We assume the sun to be relatively close and have a dramatic slant angle to contend with, stretching out the time it takes for the sun to travel through arc radians of the sky.

You are stuck with the Galilean bastardization that says the sun is so far away as to make that change negligible. To you the sun is always 93 million miles away. To us, it has to get some 40,000km away at its furthest and be just 3000 miles overhead at its shortest. We aren't the ones with an inconsistency here. We are observing what we expect for a flat earth. You are expecting 15 degrees per hour and you aren't getting it.

2136

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 08:58:54 PM »

Once again, you're confusing the planes of motion being discussed. If you can't figure out the difference between the one you keep mentioning and the one where the sun is moving 15 degrees an hour, I'm not sure how to help you.

I'm not confusing anything. I was told by you lot

the sun is always moving at 15 degrees per hour, always, for all observers.

And then told

We are asserting that the sun appears to orbit the earth at 15 degrees per hour as observed since the beginning of recorded observations.

Now having shown above an OBSERVATION that, disproves that using one's eyes and the ability to time something, how have people been able to OBSERVE this since the beginning of recorded observations? You are using a theory - the sun travels at a uniform speed 360 degrees, divide that by 24 and 15 degrees per hour. These assumptions are based on a round earth. I'm showing you there is no such observation, it is round earth theory, and telling you with real world proofs that the sun's speed isn't uniform over the sky as we all observe every day.

Where is your real world proof that the sun's speed is uniform?

2137

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 08:36:49 PM »

On a round earth, people in the southern hemisphere's clocks should go backwards! FET 4 the win.

I can't tell if you are serious here or this is an example of that great British wit?

The former. Southern hemisphere clocks are supposed to go the other way on a round earth.
Bolivia tried to swap their clocks around as they were sick of Northern-hemisphere hegemony.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-28013157

How are you going to argue earth is round, when I know more about round earth theory than you?

2138

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 08:22:42 PM »

We are not ignoring the fact that we have no idea what the sun is really doing. We are asserting that the sun appears to orbit the earth at 15 degrees per hour as observed since the beginning of recorded observations. This is not in dispute. Your next-door neighbors can corroborate it. This is not a NASA trick. Take the time to make your own sundial and record your observations.

Why is this so hard for you? Why do you keep asking about my maths and physics when you struggle with plain English?

The sun does not cross the sky uniformly at 15 degrees per hour.

Let that sink in. Now fully understand that before you try to wrap your head around the incredibly difficult proof of that assertation.

The sun's speed changes through out the day from the perspective of the individual observer. Wait for it. Wait for it. You can verify this by looking at sunrise and sunset times and the times it takes the sun each day to travel through 6 degrees.
http://www.ukweathercams.co.uk/sunrise_sunset_times.php

so in the case of London today ...

Sunset:   15:52:34
Dusk - civil twilight ends   16:32:42
Nautical twilight ends   17:15:52
Astronomical twilight ends   17:56:40



Please note, the sun doesn't do each 6 degrees in the same time period. It isn't linear. Ergo, the sun isn't doing 15 degrees per minute. In fact it took almost 1 hour and 43 minutes for the sun to do 15 degrees over London at sunset today. It took, two hours, 4 minutes and 6 seconds to pass 18 degrees. 

This is just simple addition and subtraction. I'm not trying to bamboozle you with numbers here.

2139

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 07:14:00 PM »

The wind doesn't effect the sun. This is a stupid analogy.

You are willfully ignoring the fact that the sun is not travelling a uniform 15 degrees per hour through the sky as we observe it. And that is evidenced by looking at 6 degree intervals and seeing they are not the same time frame apart.

Ergo we observe the sun climbing into the sky, gathering pace (crossing more degrees per hour) and then slowing down again at sunset. Its right there. Check the numbers with any weather station you like, any place in the world you like, on any day you like. The sun is not 'moving at 15 degrees per hour, always,  for all observers.'.

2140

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 05:56:30 PM »

Yes, so the sun taken every single day.

Now tell me. Is it going to cast the same shadow from all those positions? And if it is moving, how does it maintain a constant 15 degrees per hour no matter where you view it from?

Being as the very time of sunrise changes every day, how is that constant no matter where you are?
The declination also changes.

Lets consider twilight times. I'll do this in baby steps because you are all acting like babies.

• Dawn is when the sun comes up.
• Civil dawn is 6 degrees earlier.
• Nautical dawn is 12 degrees before dawn.
• Astronomical dawn is 18 degrees before dawn.

Now, if the sun was moving constantly at 15 degrees per hour through the sky, you'd expect the 3 times between those 4 points in the sky to all be the exact same time between them.

But they aren't
http://www.ukweathercams.co.uk/sunrise_sunset_times.php

We aren't moving on until you all accept that the statement

the sun is always moving at 15 degrees per hour, always, for all observers.

is completely erroneous and can be shown to be so multiple ways.