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 - xenotolerance

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earth does not preclude the full moon
« on: April 16, 2018, 08:02:00 PM »
yeah it looks a bit different



bear in mind of course that copying and pasting in MS Paint and drawing lines is not an accurate process. if you come back and are like 'it's actually a 57.2 degree angle see, DEMOLISHED' that will be boring

you can discuss OP's actual argument any old time by the way

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earth does not preclude the full moon
« on: April 16, 2018, 07:24:48 PM »
made another set to clarify the side view w.r.t. area vs circumference. the circumference of the left side in the side view maps to the center of the front view





Tom's position has officially been

GENTLY CARESSED

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earth does not preclude the full moon
« on: April 16, 2018, 06:48:21 PM »
How is that 15% of the left half of the moon?

it isn't, and how much of the left side of the moon's area is lit is not the point. at all. luminosity is how much of the left edge is lit

if you've been confusing area with circumference the whole time, that explains a lot

***

I double-checked my image, and the way I tried to draw a 60­° angle actually resulted in roughly a 64° angle after all. It's a 1:2:rt5 triangle.

so the image I put up compares 15% and 5% darkness, instead of 15 and 6.7

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« on: April 16, 2018, 06:42:57 PM »
just about everything is wrong with Rowbotham's explanation of the horizon

not a one of his observations is accurate, his math is garbage, his reasoning is built all but entirely of leaps and fallacies...

that's why, I imagine, he's asking you to explain it in your own words. Rowbotham is too broad and too wrong to easily identify a single point of debate.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earth does not preclude the full moon
« on: April 16, 2018, 06:29:03 PM »
the angles you've labeled 50% dark and 25% dark do not have the relationship to luminosity you think they do. luminosity is the word for what percentage of the moon's area is seen as lit, so in math terms, 'dark' is the Y coordinate of the end of the line between light and dark expressed as a percentage. i.e. 100 * (y + 1)/2, or (y+1) * 50



A 45 degree angle from the center of the moon, aka your claim of 25% dark, would actually appear to be 15% dark. (-rt2/2 + 1) * 50 = 14.6447%

The angle required for 5% dark / 95% luminous is 64 degrees down from the center of the moon.


(after double checking my drawing, this angle is more like 64 degrees than 60.
the 6.7% for 60° numbers are correct, but what's actually seen is closer to 5% and 64° instead)

Tom can't do math QED

Also

saying 'I win' isn't the same as winning, right? so when I write, 'his argument was pretty finely ground up,' I know that doesn't prove he lost. but I find it worth pointing out that Tom felt the need to respond in kind but with STRONGER LANGUAGE

DEMOLISHED

go ahead, look at the numbers in that thread. tom doesn't know what he's talking about

one hopes some of the smarter flat Earth believers here can do trig. CS PhD Dr. Pseudonym can barely help himself from jumping to nitpick and correct people - pete where you at with helping Tommy B do math

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earth does not preclude the full moon
« on: April 16, 2018, 05:12:11 PM »
Everyone reading through, please take a few minutes to review the thread that Tom linked. It's stunning to me that he would bring that specific thread back to the forefront, as his argument was pretty finely ground up and destroyed.

The last pertinent post was this:



The illustration in the middle is not 95% luminosity.

            *** I apologize for my rather approximate English. I'll try my best! ***

 Why is it not 95% luminosity? the best way to know is to calculate! And it's so easy I wonder why you did not do it yourself already.

If alpha is the angle between the directions Moon-Observer and Moon-Sun, the illumination ratio of the moon is given by :  r = (1+cos(alpha))/2  (this is an approximate formula, assuming the light rays coming from the moon are parallel, but the error is very small, and in any case in the right direction...)
Taking into account the data from the Naval Observatory you quoted on your post of Aug. 10, 01:16:53 AM (reply#10), we find that alpha = 26°. This gives an illumination ratio of... 0.9494.  Hence the 0.95 given by the National Obervatory.

So I think everything is ok :  contrary to your feeling, the moon phase in the video at the begining of the thread is perfectly compatible with Round Earth Theory.

Now the next question from me would be : is it compatible with Flat Earth Theory?...
I would very much appreciate if you - or any other authoritative flatearther - post a similar demo for the case of FET, of course with the same parameters (sun and moon altitudes and azimuts, same place and date,...). Is it possible? I don't know enough FE theory to be able to do it myself (in fact I know nearly nothing concerning FET...)

7
That map is used for illustration purposes only. You wasted your time. No one put effort into designing it.

Also, if you read the writings of the early Flat Earth research society, the Universal Zetetic Society, they believed that there were two poles and that light on large scales didn't behave according to Elucid's ancient predictions.

We try to tell you these things, but you aren't listening or reading any of the material we tell you to read. The wiki says this too. I guess we need to start spelling out these disclaimers in capital letters in the material?

These objections are already covered in the OP.

it doesn't actually matter what the map is; there is no possible flat Earth where the distances between the terminus line and places seeing high noon work out.

the specific claim refuted in the OP is Rowbotham's explanation of sunsets. it's a fair representation.

It's time to accept that your opponents have studied your material, and found it lacking. You can whine about it, but the fact is that we have studied your library.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The ultimate proof that the Earth is ROUND...
« on: April 16, 2018, 02:37:51 PM »
That tells us everything we need to know.

How?

You are rationalizing. You don't know what the writing process was. You don't know who was involved, or how they reached that figure. You don't know if it was pulled from the calculator, or if the pilot reported one number and the producers asked for a different one, or if the real figure was actually 24 feet.

Everything we need to know is: The helicopter disappears over the horizon from the bottom up. All your posts are, are obtuse derailing

9
Per your illustration of the street lights, shrinking, that is a false representation. The far end of those lights are pretty constant in size.

no, they really are not. measure them yourself, if you doubt the annotations I made. the corona and the orb of the farthest light are less than 1/2 the size of the closest.

I leave it to other readers to decide for themselves if the tiny lights in the background are also streetlights. they are positioned in a line above the road, continuing from the line of the lights in the foreground. to me, it's obvious. to you, denial is obvious.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
« on: April 16, 2018, 02:35:42 AM »
Specifically, Rowbotham explicitly predicts that everything should disappear by its smallest regions first.

11
I searched for the quote in OP, but the only exact match is a post on page 2 of this Metabunk thread.

It's similar but different from the abstract of this report.

Tom do you mind sharing your source?

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of The Sun
« on: April 15, 2018, 05:58:24 AM »
a Poe is someone who is faking a viewpoint and is indistinguishable from the real thing

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The ultimate proof that the Earth is ROUND...
« on: April 14, 2018, 05:16:09 PM »
If Tom can find an example of bad scientific writing on a reality television show, in a segment that demonstrates the curvature of the Earth regardless of what numbers the actors are saying, how does that prove anything? The clip of the helicopter disappearing over the horizon is evidence that Rowbotham's sinking ship effect doesn't exist. Add it to the pile from the OP.

but oh man, the writers forgot or didn't know to use the right numbers. it's not fraudulent, at worst it's just incorrect math. and it isn't even that. the actual results we can work with are the videos. those are not fraudulent.

and y'all definitely don't want to introduce 'if the results are fraudulent, none of it can be trusted' when you refer to Rowbotham as much as you do

14
can we keep discussion of that thread in that thread please, no reason to rehash it here. WP referred to it to rebut pizaavarrior's comment, which was off topic enough already

the last on-topic comment was this:

The only point of discussion that has been offered is Toms assertion that nothing was known about magnetism before Enag was published, and a claim that magnetic theory was changed because it was too inconvenient.

I would love to hear how the lines of force fit in with the flat earth, if there is a bar magnet, a radial magnet, and the lines of force, but while charts showing dip, variation and intensity have all been provided so far to support the RE theory, not a jot of Empirical evidence has been presented by anyone.
...
I have posted details of experiments which can be tried simply, and cheaply that can be replicated, so can i suggest they are actually tried. It wont take you more than 5 minutes, and no money if you have a little compass and magnet, and would be fascinated and genuinely thrilled if anyone were able to produce alternate results.

I'm also interested in exploring Tom's suggestion that a flat Earth could act like a radial magnet, since radial magnets have an open area in the center that is completely surrounded by the inner pole. I think compasses would behave erratically inside that area, in ways not observed in the real world, so some experimentation could clear that up.

15
can we just all agree to ignore parallax, this is getting old. the obvious troll 'Sam Birley said it so it's true shut up' shtick is dumb af

16
I think you'll find that when Parallax claimed that a set of well-known power cables didn't even exist, he was applauded by Tom Bishop for his insight.

in fairness to Parallax, it was Thork who made that claim

point stands imo

17
The lights in the street light example in the wiki do not shrink to pinpricks.

Other pinprick light may be found in the background of the streetlight photo, the headlights photo, and headlight video from the examples in the wiki, but that is not a disproof since we don't know how intense those are.

the thread has developed so I won't belabor this too much. but, the lights in the street light example do clearly shrink to pinpricks. I circled them in the annotated example in my previous post. they can be seen shrinking in the middle distance of <1 city block, and shrink to tiny pins in the way back.

it is a disproof because you do know how intense they are: equally intense to the street lights in the foreground.

therefore, two cases are possible: the streetlights in general are not intense enough to show the effect, so the picture is moot; or, Rowbotham's atmospheric magnification is not a real thing

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few more bases to cover…
« on: April 14, 2018, 04:55:32 AM »
I guess that means you're backing down from the invitation to demonstrate that you have studied neutrino interactions at all, and instead use a misinterpretation of a picture to deny the results of experimentation.

Here are some questions to help you or any other curious reader get started in understanding what this is:

How are neutrino beams formed?

How are neutrinos detected?

What kinds of neutrino interactions have been observed? Under what conditions?

How much variation is expected from the path of a neutrino beam?

What is 'neutrino scattering?' When has it been observed?

Tom hasn't bothered asking of these questions, and backed away from a chance to learn something, because it would mean admitting the Earth is not flat.

don't let it happen to you

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few more bases to cover…
« on: April 14, 2018, 04:08:49 AM »
Not really, you're assuming a source of potential error that doesn't really exist. 'Perhaps uncontrollably so,' is not the language of a Zetetic. You're treating an explanatory diagram like a technical blueprint. High-energy neutrinos do not scatter like that; nothing can make them scatter like that. If you want to state it as a claim of evidence, and show an understanding of particle physics, please do.

20
No, that's not what I meant to ask.

I wrote: "Which part of the picture is the far field? Is it the lights that are tiny pinpricks way back behind the overpass? that have, in fact, shrunk in size consistently, as they should?"

You wrote: "The wiki article describes that only light sources of a certain intensity magnifies."

I wrote: "The lights in the far field are the same intensity as the closer lights. I mean to say, they're all streetlights. If the streetlights are not intense enough for magnification to occur, what's the point of the picture? Why would close streetlights exhibit magnification but not distant streetlights?"

I mean, that last bit is literally, 'why A and not B,' and you've repeated it back as 'I think you're asking, why B and not A.' embarrassing for both of us

Here is a picture to clarify.


The point is that those tiny pins in the background are also streetlights. The premise of the picture is that it shows magnification of distant light sources. However, those streetlights in the far distance are just as you said, tiny pinpricks. No magnification of the light source is seen.

also

9/10 has correctly pointed out that the only variable that matters with photons is frequency. A light source might radiate lots of photons, or few, but the amplitude of an individual photon does not affect its interaction with the atmosphere. From a physics point of view, there is no sensible way to describe Rowbotham's atmospheric magnification, without allowing for other effects such as diffusion.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >