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 - rabinoz

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 68  Next >
41
Even RET apologists acknowledge: "On the top of Mt Everest, you could theoretically see for 339 kilometres (211 miles), but in practice cloud gets in the way."
Why can you only see 211 miles on a clear day from top Mt Everest?
Because of  the Scattering of Light. in the atmosphere.
The 339 kilometres that totallackey gives is quite correct and is an upper limit for perfectly clear air at sea-level.
The visibility distance near sea-level is usually much less due to fine particles in the air though it can be more at higher altitudes as in:
          Beyond Horizons, Pic de Finestrelles – Pic Gaspard (Ecrins) | 443 km. AUGUST 3, 2016 ~ MARK BRET.

42
Flat Earth Media / Re: 13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden
« on: November 06, 2018, 07:28:00 AM »
This was posted in Flat Earth Media but that is hardly to forum for further discussion so I have started this new topic.

Even with very strong atmospheric refraction, I don't think this should be possible on a globe:



I look forward to seeing this done again across greater expanses. I need to see if this is repeatedly under standard conditions. In fact, I want to do it myself. I have no answer for this and concede this strongly supports a flat earth...for the time being.

I can see globies are ignoring such a great visual scientific experiment. If the experiment does not prove a curve they want nothing to do with it.

I wonder what their argument will be?
To enable debate on this topic in a suitable forum,  I started this new thread More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

43
Flat Earth Investigations / More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« on: November 06, 2018, 07:24:05 AM »
This was posted in Flat Earth Media but that is hardly to forum for further discussion so I have started this new topic.

Even with very strong atmospheric refraction, I don't think this should be possible on a globe:



I look forward to seeing this done again across greater expanses. I need to see if this is repeatedly under standard conditions. In fact, I want to do it myself. I have no answer for this and concede this strongly supports a flat earth...for the time being.

I can see globies are ignoring such a great visual scientific experiment. If the experiment does not prove a curve they want nothing to do with it.

I wonder what their argument will be?
Now I'm no meteorologist but an explanation might be atmospheric ducting due to a temperature inversion. This is not uncommon in that region.
The following references might be useful:
Quote
Atmospheric duct

Fata Morgana of Farallon Islands with clearly seen duct


In telecommunications, an atmospheric duct is a horizontal layer in the lower atmosphere in which the vertical refractive index gradients are such that radio signals (and light rays) are guided or ducted, tend to follow the curvature of the Earth, and experience less attenuation in the ducts than they would if the ducts were not present. The duct acts as an atmospheric dielectric waveguide and limits the spread of the wavefront to only the horizontal dimension.

Atmospheric ducting is a mode of propagation of electromagnetic radiation, usually in the lower layers of Earth’s atmosphere, where the waves are bent by atmospheric refraction. In over-the-horizon radar, ducting causes part of the radiated and target-reflection energy of a radar system to be guided over distances far greater than the normal radar range. It also causes long distance propagation of radio signals in bands that would normally be limited to line of sight.

Normally radio "ground waves" propagate along the surface as creeping waves. That is, they are only diffracted around the curvature of the earth. This is one reason that early long distance radio communication used long wavelengths. The best known exception is that HF (3–30 MHz.) waves are reflected by the ionosphere.

The reduced refractive index due to lower densities at the higher altitudes in the Earth's atmosphere bends the signals back toward the Earth. Signals in a higher refractive index layer, i.e., duct, tend to remain in that layer because of the reflection and refraction encountered at the boundary with a lower refractive index material. In some weather conditions, such as inversion layers, density changes so rapidly that waves are guided around the curvature of the earth at constant altitude.
These are also relevant:
         Calculating Ray Bending This gives a simplistic calculation of the lapse rate  needed to cause ducting.
         Ducts More specific discussion of ducts,  with diagrams.
         Marine layer Discusses the "marine layer", common in the Monterey Bay area.
         Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Regional pressure and temperature effects.
Maybe someone can make something of that material.

44
Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:

Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason
Your video does not prove anything except that a stronger zoom lens is needed along with better atmospheric conditions.
  • A "stronger zoom lens"  can never "bring something back" if it is really hidden!

  • You didn't bother watching the video. It's about much more than the horizon hiding things.
This video might provide a more detailed explanation of why, when viewed from a low altitude, the horizon on the Globe should look flat.

Rob Skiba's Fuzzy Ball Logic, and the Eye Level Horizon - Flat Earth Falsities, VoysovReason

45
if the earth were accelerating at 9.8 meters per second per second that would be catastrophic! if light travels at 299792458 meters per second, it would take less than a year to reach relativistic speeds(light or near light speeds) the earth has clearly been around for more than one year. and we clearly arent going at light speeds! I want an explanation!
Incorrect! Learn a bit about Special Relativity.

46
Not so fast with your Checkmate!

Of course "the professional weather man was caught be surprise" because that much of Chicago cannot usually be seen across Lake Michigan.

I imagine that you mean this photo?

Which looks very like "Looking toward Chicago - Joshua Nowicki" taken about 91 km  (~56.5 miles) from Chicago.

Now Joshua Nowicki's photo was claimed to be a "mirage", though it's not really a mirage, just a bit more refraction than usual, called looming.
And please note the light band along the horizon - that's a pretty good sign of some unusual optical conditions.
But I wonder why the newsreader would bother even presenting such a photo if it could be seen at any time.
It is painfully obvious to anyone that it was featured on the evening TV news because it was a rare event.

So what about this photo showing most of Chicago hidden from 40 miles away? It has quite a sharp horizon and far more hidden.
Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)

. . . . . . .
Question is, what's hiding the lower part of the city?
Some of Chicago is hidden from 56.5 miles away and much more is hidden from 40 miles away so "something's going on".
Something is hiding the lower part of Chicago in both cases and none should be hidden if the earth were flat - so what is it?

Now when you come along with the height of the camera above the water when Joshua Nowicki took "Looking toward Chicago" I bother looking further ;).
The viewing height is extremely important in calculating "hidden distance".

PS I'm quite prepared to admit that more might be hidden than expected but if that weren't so, "Why would it have made the evening TV news?".
Quote from: Earthman
It doesn't matter if it made the news or not. I do know seeing Chicago from that distance is common.   

Joshua Nowicki was standing on shore at a park. The news reported this.

This is not an isolated event. There are many. The world record is 275 miles across water. (At later date)
I guess that you mean this one? Bring it on!
Beyond Horizons, Pic de Finestrelles – Pic Gaspard (Ecrins) | 443 km. AUGUST 3, 2016 ~ MARK BRET.
But please show your detailed calculations and be prepared to accept some extra refraction  because that is why those photographera were there at the time.

Quote from: Earthman
What is hiding more of the city at 40 miles is worse atmospheric conditions than from 56 miles away.
Not at all! It is quite obvious that the 40 mile photo has a far more sharply defined horizon.

Quote from: Earthman
Oh, yes, it's Checkmate because all of it should be under an alleged curve of a Ball with a 3959 mile radius, but I don't expect you to believe it nor do I care. I only care for those seeking truth.
But I asked you to calculate how much would have been expected to be hidden in Joshua Nowicki's photo but you refused as you have always done.

Quote from: Earthman
Do you know how to prove Earth has curvature with a curvature chart?  If you can, why haven't you or any other Globie done this already?
Bye for now.
You made the claim that "because all of it should be under an alleged curve of a Ball" so the onus is on you to prove your claim.
But the bottom line is that if the earth were flat nothing at all should be hidden.

Like it or not distant visibility is highly dependent on atmospheric conditions which can range from normal refraction, looming or more than normal refraction right though to superior and inferior mirages and Fata Morgana.

It's not my problem it you can't face reality and refuse to take any notice of anything said to you.

47
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video
« on: November 05, 2018, 01:55:05 AM »
Like I said, if one NASA video is fake there all fake. In the following ISS video, bubbles are seen again in space. This is from a NASA official video.
As I keep saying and you totally ignore,  if NASA wanted to deceive everybody they could do it easily!

Quote from: Earthman
I also find it amazing that NASA is advertising on Flat Earth YouTube channels. Please let the ad finish so the Youtuber gets paid from NASA. At least we can get some of our tax dollars back.
GET OUT OF THE POOL NASA! More Space Bubbles
And you believe Jeran Campanella? What a joke! He's a total ignoramus of the first order with no understanding of the Heliocentric Globe he tries to debunk.
But he picks up quite  few grand a month fro YouTube so he must have plenty of like-minded sycophants.

But tell your mad mate that if NASA were faking it there would be no "glitches" (artefacts due to noise in highly compressed video streams).

If this is the sort of rubbish you need to prop up your belief in a flat earth it doesn't say much for any real evidence you might have.

48
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video
« on: November 05, 2018, 01:39:01 AM »
That's right, Tesla also believed much like what we do. Imaging that! See the pic below.

I will get to the issue of a true Checkmate with you at a later time. Be prepared!
I will consider what you say after you remove you blatant misquote of that firm believer in the Heliocentric Solar System, Nikola Tesla!
That is not a quotation from Tesla, he did not say "The stars are attached to the Firmament!" He did say:
  • Though free to think and act, we are held together like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable. These ties cannot be seen, but we can feel them, each of us is only part of a whole.”
If you disagree show a reference in Tesla's writing to all of your quote!  And Nikola Tesla certainly did not believe much like you do! Read this!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
What I can't work out is why Tesla seems to be held up as a hero by so many flat earthers.  He certainly did not believe the earth to be flat or stationary! See this address by him:
          HOW COSMIC FORCES SHAPE OUR DESTINIES, ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake") by Nikola Tesla
also at
           — How Cosmic Forces Shape Our Destinies — ("Did the War Cause the Italian Earthquake"), New York American, February 7, 1915[/b]  in which he states:
Quote from: Nicola Tesla
NATURAL FORCES INFLUENCE US
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accepting all this as true let us consider some of the forces and influences which act on such a wonderfully complex automatic engine with organs inconceivably sensitive and delicate, as it is carried by the spinning terrestrial globe in lightning flight through space. For the sake of simplicity we may assume that the earth's axis is perpendicular to the ecliptic and that the human automaton is at the equator. Let his weight be one hundred and sixty pounds then, at the rotational velocity of about 1,520 feet per second with which he is whirled around, the mechanical energy stored in his body will be nearly 5,780,000 foot pounds, which is about the energy of a hundred-pound cannon ball.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The sun, having a mass 332,000 times that of the earth, but being 23,000 times farther, will attract the automaton with a force of about one-tenth of one pound, alternately increasing and diminishing his normal weight by that amount

Though not conscious of these periodic changes, he is surely affected by them.

The earth in its rotation around the sun carries him with the prodigious speed of nineteen miles per second . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
From the above address.
I have also read, though I cannot verify it right now, that one reason Tesla disliked Einstein so much is that he believed that Einstein destroyed "Newton's gravitation".

And if you read Tesla's own writings describing his inventions he refers explicitly to the Globe many times - he was not flat earth believer!

From what I can gather, Tesla did not deny Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, just differed with Einstein's "curved spacetime" explanation of it.

Sure, Nicola Tesla had a lot of "different ideas", but he most certainly did not believe in a flat stationary earth.
Come back when fix your deceptive comments and your misquoting of what Nikola Tesla said!

49
Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:

Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason
Your video does not prove anything except that a stronger zoom lens is needed along with better atmospheric conditions.
  • A "stronger zoom lens"  can never "bring something back" if it is really hidden!

  • You didn't bother watching the video. It's about much more than the horizon hiding things.
Quote from: Earthman
If you really want to talk about curvature or lack thereof, then chew on this.

Chicago can be seen from shore from almost 60 miles away. At that distance no part of the cities buildings should be seen. Did you understand that?

The tops of the buildings should not be visible, but be several hundred feet below an alleged curve if Earth were a Ball. Did you get this? Not seen at all. Zip.

The tallest building in Chicago is 1650'. Please do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball. Please enlarge the pic below.
Sorry, it doesn't work thst way. You're making the claim so you "do the math and tell the readers how far Willis Tower should be below the curve if Earth were a ball."!

Quote from: Earthman
That's a true Checkmate.
Not so fast with your Checkmate!

Of course "the professional weather man was caught be surprise" because that much of Chicago cannot usually be seen across Lake Michigan.

I imagine that you mean this photo?

[/quote]
Which looks very like "Looking toward Chicago - Joshua Nowicki" taken about 91 km  (~56.5 miles) from Chicago.

Now Joshua Nowicki's photo was claimed to be a "mirage", though it's not really a mirage, just a bit more refraction than usual, called looming.
And please note the light band along the horizon - that's a pretty good sign of some unusual optical conditions.
But I wonder why the newsreader would bother even presenting such a photo if it could be seen at any time.
It is painfully obvious to anyone that it was featured on the evening TV news because it was a rare event.

So what about this photo showing most of Chicago hidden from 40 miles away? It has quite a sharp horizon and far more hidden.
Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline)

. . . . . . .
Question is, what's hiding the lower part of the city?
Some of Chicago is hidden from 56.5 miles away and much more is hidden from 40 miles away so "something's going on".
Something is hiding the lower part of Chicago in both cases and none should be hidden if the earth were flat - so what is it?

Now when you come along with the height of the camera above the water when Joshua Nowicki took "Looking toward Chicago" I bother looking further ;).
The viewing height is extremely important in calculating "hidden distance".

PS I'm quite prepared to admit that more might be hidden than expected but if that weren't so, "Why would it have made the evening TV news?".

50
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia & Chile FET how far apart?
« on: November 04, 2018, 09:47:19 PM »
In the past when we have applied equal skepticism to the assertions made, we have found that Team Ball is assuming a whole littany of expectations and assumptions when presenting their data and methods, including the prevailing assumption that the earth is a globe.
The topic is "Australia & Chile FET how far apart?" and the air routes from Sydney to/from Santiago are flown non-stop.

So how about answering, "What is the distance from Australia to Chile according to FET?" A simple, very direct and very pertinent question.
If there is no answer I guess we'll just have to go with QANTAS flying that route in about 12 hours 10 minutes and covering about 11,400 km, though the flight of 2 years ago took only 11 hours 50 min.

51
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video
« on: November 04, 2018, 09:21:26 PM »
Why should I waste time on videos that are no more than ridicule when Earthman refuses to even acknowledge the points I raised.

And please tell the readers why you have ignored the evidence of NASA being exposed using harnesses on ISS.

Thanks,
Where did you prove "NASA being exposed using harnesses on ISS"?
All I see are videos so highly doctored by NASAphobes that no-one in their right minds would bother with them!
Show me some videos that are not cluttered with total idiocy and I might consider them.

Surely the Flat Earth Society has better standards of evidence and proof than the rubbish you deal up. Still, I guess your fans lap it up!

This makes as much sense as you highly doctored videos:



52
The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.

The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.

You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.



Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.
No, it doesn't!
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.

Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:

Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.
Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.

So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.

Is there anything else you like me to agree to?

Quote from: Earthman
You just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.
No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.

And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!

Are you good with puzzles? I bet you can't put any amount of these straight lined horizons together and come up with a 3959 mile radius, can you?.  See the picture below.
I think you will ignore it again.
What's to ignore? Don't you even read the posts you reply to?

I said that the horizon on the Globe from a 2 m eye-level was a circle of a bit over 5 km radius seen edge-on from within 4 m of the centre - of course it's going to look straight.
Your 3959 mile radius only comes into the picture when working out the 5 km (about 3.1 miles) radius and the dip angle of 0.045° to that horizon.

Where's your simple geometric proof? I'm waiting. In the meantime this might possibly explain "the horizon" better than I:

Proving the Earth is not Flat - Part 1 - The Horizon, VoysovReason

53
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?
« on: November 04, 2018, 01:06:39 PM »
The question in that link is "I got a question. In Cavendish experiment was used lead in both of spheres. Can we repeat that experiment with balls made from stone or anything else. Because lead could be a byproduct of radioactive decay and by that emit ionizing radiation. And by ionizing lead it can create positive charge and to be attracted."
You are correct in that freshly mined lead can contain traces of some radioactive isotopes with relatively short half-lives.
This is important when the lead is to be used as shielding for sensitive experiments and "aged lead" can be valuable even to using some found in old shipwrecks.
This reference gives some of the details: Chemistry StackExchange, Is lead radioactive?

Cavendish did use lead balls and I've no idea whether the results could have been affected but they were within about 1% of the current accepted value.

Measurements and demonstrations of gravitation have been performed with many materials.
The long post referred to below gives examples of some demonstrations using materials from rocks, bowling balls, iron and lead but these gave no numerical result.
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GRAVITY PROOF « Message by rabinoz on August 27, 2018, 08:56:40 AM ».
There is more detail on the BIPM measurements in this .pdf file: The BIPM measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G by Terry Quinn, Clive Speake, Harold Parks, and Richard Davis

That experiment used cylindrical copper–tellurium test and source masses.
The cylindrical shape was chosen because though the calculations are more difficult it is far easier to machine a precise cylindrical shape than a spherical shape.
And the copper–tellurium alloy was chosen because of its free machining quantities though other experiments have used tungsten because of its very high density.



54
The horizon is a circle centered on the observer. By definition, a circle is a figure in 2 dimensions, so inscribed in a plane.

The fact that the horizon is a straight line doesn't disprove Round Earth. On Round Earth the horizon is always a straight line.

You can take as many pictures of the horizon as you want, it doesn't help Flat Earth.

Oh, yes, a "straight line" does in-fact dis-prove Earth is a Ball.
No, it doesn't!
Suppose I'm on the Globe earth looking out over a calm sea with eye-level 2 m above sea-level.
Then, according to Metabunk's Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator the horizon is said to be 5.05 km away.
The same app claims that the horizon is 0.045° below eye-level and that horizon would be 4 m below my eye-level.
So I would be looking at the edge of a 5.05 km radius circle from a point 4 m above its centre. A circle look at so close to edge on looks so close to a straight line that one could not tell them apart.
I'll do the sums if you insist.

Even you must agree that the horizon line would look so straight that even with a straight-edge you could detect no curve.
This following photo was taken from about that height above a fairly calm sea on a camera with a standard 50 mm focal length (35 mm equiv) lens:

Scarborough Beacon 50 mm lens - higher res, cropped top and bottom.
Looks perfectly flat and quite sharp to me! Just as expected on a huge Globe.

So when flat-earthers say that the horizon looks perfectly flat and sharp they are quite correct.

Is there anything else you like me to agree to?

Quote from: Earthman
You just can't accept the fact that simply geometry proves you wrong. It's that simple. You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory.
No, I cannot agree to that one! Simply geometry does not prove me wrong. If you disagree show me your simple geometric proof.

And please desist in you inane and dishonest claims like, "You know I am right, you're just not going to openly say so because of your beloved fact-less theory."
Don't you dare claim that you know how I think!

55
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video
« on: November 04, 2018, 05:04:37 AM »
Globies will not tell you why NASA has to fake space. All they do is cover for those who have lied to them.
Before you are entitled to ask "why NASA has to fake space" you must prove that NASA does indeed fake space.and you yet to prove that.
You show and ridicule glitches and anomalies but refuse to entertain any other explanation than that "NASA has to fake space" and that is not what an honest investigator would do.

Quote from: Earthman
NASA Fail Compilation
Bye bye.  Come back when you are prepared to to debate with more than ridicule and attacks on the characters of those don't agree with you.

56
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video
« on: November 04, 2018, 04:50:33 AM »
There are many things pointed out in those videos that you have not explained, rabinoz. Why are you refusing to explain what is happening in those videos? Your ranting gives the impression that you are in denial over the matter.
And nobody has attempted to answer any points that I raised. So Maybe you can answer these questions?
  • If NASA wanted to fool people like they could and would do it without all the apparent anomalies.

  • What do you gain from "proving" that there are no people on board the ISS? There is almost unlimited photographic and personal evidence that the ISS and other satellites are orbiting the earth.

  • In the end, what  you gain even if you debunk the whole "space industry"?
    The earth would still be a Globe, there would be still no workable flat earth model and still no accurate flat earth map.

Why should I waste time on videos that are no more than ridicule when Earthman refuses to even acknowledge the points I raised.

57
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video
« on: November 04, 2018, 01:49:56 AM »

Truth seekers here, take notes.

Globies believe we are manipulating NASA’s own space footage to discredit it.  But the fact is, NASA is manipulating globies’ minds with high-tech equipment to maintain a brainwashed status over them.    Globies  don’t care for truth as long as they get their fantasy fed.

The fake NASA ISS interior - a technical breakdown by Mike Helmick - Flat Earth, GLOBEBUSTERS
In other words you are admitting that all this you beaut modern 3-D real-time simulation is a pile of crap? I don't believe that it is.
If NASA was using the best software available, and apparent they can afford it, there would be none of those glitches.

The sort  of artefacts you are showing would be familiar to anyone with any knowledge of MPEG-2 or H.264. The following video demonstrates artefacts in MPEG-2 under low bandwidth high noise conditions.



The glitches in your video are not unlike the artefacts expected when the signal is severely degraded.
In my opinion the existence of the artefacts followed by the drop-out is evidence that the video is genuine.
Were it produced by artificial reality there would be no artefacts and dropouts.
As you can see, Globies ignore the evidence against their beloved toy, “ISS”. No amount of enormous evidence proving ISS is fake is going to make a Globie say to a flat earther, “you are correct.”  They can’t have their fantasy toy taken away.
In other words, you have no rational answers to my claim so resort to the logically fallacious appeal to ridicule. That only detracts from your own credibility.

Quote from: Earthman
Proof NASA Fakes Being in Space, ThePottersClay
There's no proof there, just an apparent anomaly that you can't explain and I'm under no obligation to explain.

Your whole proof boils down to nothing more than the fact that you cannot or do not want to explain an anomaly and therefore that anomaly is evidence of fakery.
And that is not a proof in anyone's language!

You simply do not get the point.
According to anti-NASA people, like yourself, the organisation has almost unlimited resources to employ the best techniques to create fake videos and I don't doubt that they could now do it.
So if NASA and the other space agencies set out to deceive you there is no way that they would allow apparent anomalies like that pass through.

To some extent, these anomalies are more evidence of those videos being genuine than vice-versa.

But what do you gain from "proving" that there are no people on board the ISS? There is almost unlimited photographic and personal evidence that the ISS and other satellites are orbiting the earth.
If I was a brainwashed Globie, I would reject the mass evidence too and say as you have.
NASA is manipulating the minds of it's followers. WAKE UP!

NASA Fails Again & Again | Space is Fake | Glitch on the ISS, ODD Reality
No! You wake up and face the real issue!
If NASA wanted to fool people like they could and would do it without all the apparent "fake NASA ISS interior", apparent "NASA Fakes Being in Space" and "Glitches on the ISS".

But all you can resort to is more attempted proof by appeal to ridicule and ad hominem.
I'm afraid that doesn't work here, we're used to being called NASA fan boys, sheeples and far worse by the likes of Jeranism.

You claim that NASA has unlimited capabilities to fake these things using virtual and enhanced reality. If that is true then there would never be all these glitches an anomalies.
And, I for one, certainly agree that NASA has this capability when one sees the animations of interplanetary missions that could never have been videoed live.
But in these cases NASA does, I believe, state that they are animations.

Don't bother with a reply until you are prepared to answer the points that I raised!
  • If NASA wanted to fool people like they could and would do it without all the apparent anomalies.

  • What do you gain from "proving" that there are no people on board the ISS? There is almost unlimited photographic and personal evidence that the ISS and other satellites are orbiting the earth.

  • In the end, what  you gain even if you debunk the whole "space industry"?
    The earth would still be a Globe, there would be still no workable flat earth model and still no accurate flat earth map.

PS The term "TRUTH seekers" doesn't impress me in the slightest.
      True science does not pretend to know "THE TRUTH" but tries to find the best explanations (theories) for what we observe.
       for real onpbservations

58
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Cross from Australia
« on: November 04, 2018, 12:55:46 AM »
I almost became a Flat Earthers until I realized I couldnt see Polaris from Perth....solve that riddle.
Just for interest here's a video showing simple time-lapse and star-trails looking south from NSW, Australia:

Southern Skies - Star Trails. Callala Bay, NSW, Australia, Old DracO
It starts with the Southern Cross, Crux at about the 2 O'clock position an it can be seen rotating a bit like the hour hand of a 24 Hour clock.
By 1:10 in the video it is around to about the 2 O'clock position and the video changes to a "star-trails" display.

The night sky from Perth would be similar.
The following video shows the night sky from Coonabaran, NSW, looking in all four cardinal directions. It is taken with a very wide-angle lens (almost fish-eye) so is quite distorted.

The Moving Stars of the Southern Hemisphere, AmazingSky

59
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Cross from Australia
« on: November 03, 2018, 10:56:20 PM »
Mick West's lines get nearly twice as close to each other than the top of the screen. Hardly insignificant.
But only when quite close to the horizon and fitting well with the graph I showed of typical astronomical refraction in:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
"Well-known" != Proven.
No, "Well-known" as in known, studied and measured for centuries as in Observations on Atmospherical Refraction As It Affects Astronomical Observations, Author: S. Groombridge

Quote from: Tom Bishop
What you have presented is a hypothesis. It is this hypothesis which prevents a pure Round Earth model from being confirmed. We are treated with one hypothesis and explanation after the next.
No, it is no such thing. Where possible astronomical observations are made within a few tens of degrees of the zenith.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
It does not really matter if someone can create an equation which describes stars slowing down as they approach the horizon; such knowledge is not satisfactory knowledge at all, and does nothing to provide verification for this alleged mechanism.

But in all the cases we are looking at deviations far smaller than any difference between the Globe and any flat-earth predictions.

So, until you can come up with a model that better matches observations I think we'd better stick the model that does fit almost precisely.

Why throw out the model that is very close to observed reality for one known to fail entirely to match what we can see and measure?

60
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Cross from Australia
« on: November 03, 2018, 10:15:44 PM »
Astronomers claim that the reason the celestial bodies don't match theory in such examples is because there is a permanent refraction effect which can do many marvelous things such as
Astronomers do not "claim that the reason the celestial bodies don't match theory" because the atmospheric refraction has been studied for centuries and is part of said theory.
And your appeal to ridicule with statements like "can do many marvelous things such as" should have no place in a rational debate.

I fail to see why this "permanent refraction effect" is such a mystery to you. Air typically has a refractive index of about 1.00029 at sea level.

Whether the earth is flat or a Globe, light entering the atmosphere from outside is going to be bent slightly downwards.
The amount of bending depends on the incidence angle and an approximate calculation is not difficult.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
slow bodies down as they approach the horizon.

"As you can see the stars get significantly closer together as they get closer to the horizon" --Mick West

From the Wikipedia page on Atmospheric Refraction we read:

"Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the times of culmination, when celestial objects are highest in the sky."

This should give you an idea of the magnitude of refraction they are claiming.
Mick West's "significantly closer together" is really very small compared to the vast difference in the motion of stars observed and that expected from any flat earth model I've seen.

Yes, it certainly does "give you an idea of the magnitude of refraction they are claiming" and it is very slight except within a fraction of a degree of the horizon.
Please show any FE theory predicting the apparent motion of the stars as close to the horizon as that.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Any theoretical prediction based on uniform movement will likely not manifest in reality, considering all of this "refraction" necessary to salvage the Round Earth Theory.
"All of this 'refraction' "is not "necessary to salvage the Round Earth Theory"! It is a well-known factor that has been known and is simply accounted for by astronomers.

Are you denying that such refraction would occur on your flat earth?

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 68  Next >