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 - GiantTurtle

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« on: November 16, 2017, 10:53:18 AM »

FET does not seem to have ANY explanation (certainly none that I've seen posted) for how there can be a high tide in the middle of the night after the moon has set.

Other than the curves in space time shifting the waves of Gravity the same as it does with perspective.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproofs - a summary of progress so far.
« on: November 14, 2017, 10:29:26 AM »
Have you considered adding these to the lists.
CERN fired neutrinos from Switzerland to Northern Italy, The speed travelled would have been faster than the speed of light if they were traveling the ground distance rather than going under the curve of the earth.

Relativity experiments disprove UA by showing that time travels faster the higher up you are, this is the opposite to expected under UA because celestial gravity should slow clocks as they get higher up.

The Hafele Keating experiments of flying atomic clocks show that a clock flying east is faster than one travelling west. This can also prove that the globe distances and earth rotation and orbit produce the correct readings for a number of flights within 1.6%, including north and south hemispheres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

3
This type of phenomenon is normally explained by you having changed and broadened your perspective lines at higher altitudes to restore the sun, but this particular case is explained by the existence of waves.
So do things look bigger from higher up or is the component of perspective that transforms the eye's images down effected separately to the perspective that scales the eye's image?
Surely if the sun was thousands of miles high then a six foot difference in height would have a tiny effect on perspective.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
« on: November 12, 2017, 03:19:42 PM »
Arguing against the RE hypothesis isn't the same as arguing for something else.
Well the earth must be a shape, discarding Columbus pear shape hypothesis an argument against a round earth is an argument for a flat earth. But do you mean you are not arguing for one shape of the earth or another?
But it doesn't change the fact that when explaining the twilight, your definition was given in a diagram of the sun descending past the horizon of a round earth.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
« on: November 12, 2017, 01:29:11 PM »
Douglips, why are you posting this in multiple threads? I have already responded to you in the other thread you posted.

You are ignoring the existence of twilight and believe that any light seen is from direct sunlight.
Am I the only one who saw that Douglips just got Tom Biship to post a round earth diagram. >.<

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
« on: November 12, 2017, 11:38:23 AM »
Here are free online logs from dutch sailors observing the green flash over a period of five years, the flash is the green light at the exact moment the sun sets with time date and location of each sighting. As you can see the observations from the log book match the predictions of time and date.com for the day and month despite the year being no longer calculated.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40670728?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
« on: November 11, 2017, 07:07:23 PM »
Tom, why don’t you check the times for sunrise and sunset at your own location, and verify them for yourself ?  You’ll find the predictions accurate.
He wants the records from people who read clocks for an official body.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration debunked
« on: November 11, 2017, 05:17:26 PM »
Quote
So it doesn't matter whether the disk is infinite or finite - there could still be no air (or water) in the habitable part.
Actually no, there would be infinite air there as well.
Infinite space, infinite mass, pushed to near light speed an infinite force, this is the only place where finite exists and only finite exists.

9
It seems that your criticism of the data rests on the claim that solar panels can operate during twilight (ie they can operate at night). Which seems unlikely but I will concede that point to you and I assume the assumption that each model will behave the same to the same light regardless where on earth it is.
So can we agree that on the equinox every sample point receives a roughly equal number of hours of sunlight to each other sample point?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 100 Proofs - Rowbotham uneducated?
« on: November 11, 2017, 10:15:56 AM »
If I see two spaceships fly towards each other at 0.9C my experience on earth would tell me that if I was on one of those ships I would see the other  approach at 1.8C would you say that is empirically correct?
I would say not as I have not experienced any situation close to it I have no empirical view to back that claim. On the other hand I do know of the existence of empirical evidence that light cannot pass you faster than the speed of light which backs the claim that I will not see the ship approach at 1.8C.

11
People claim to see meteor showers around the world.
If they exist does this disprove the UA model as they are, under the model, accelerating upwards at 9.81m/ss until they enter the atmosphere where they start to stop?

12
Yes, the ephemeris contains predictions.
However the 1797 and 1941 editions contain the raw data tables used for the verification.

However this is now irrelevant since round the world data has been found by douglips which confirms both the time and dates given are correct and that days are twelve hours long on the equinox.

13
I ask for basic evidence and you ask me to prove you wrong? That is a lousy debating strategy.
I provided evidence and you are claiming the evidence is wrong and refusing to give an explanation of why. As you do with evidence such as whether passenger jets can fly supersonic, whether cable laying ships know how much they use, whether people know how long roads are and more.

Here is a list of observations taken from 1767 that match the predictions of the round earth model, a 12 hour day on the equinox.
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-NAO-01767/119
Do I need evidence that the sun is not over the poles on the equinox in addition to this? I see it is accepted within the wiki and elsewhere on the forums.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 100 Proofs - Rowbotham uneducated?
« on: November 10, 2017, 08:45:02 PM »

I don't see that claim.

The idea that up is up and down is down is our human experience.

The globe concept of up and down is contradictory to this and, while "possible", is unemperical. The author is spot on to call out this absurdity.
That is not empirical as it is not viewing a situation anything like what he is calling into question anymore than observing a fly walking on the ceiling is an empirical view of the globe.
The empirical view would be to observe a storm cloud on the 'underside' of another planet.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 100 Proofs - Rowbotham uneducated?
« on: November 10, 2017, 07:59:09 PM »
"Empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience."
So he had a sensory experience of a ship falling from the underside of a globe?

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
« on: November 10, 2017, 07:42:50 PM »
Those are predictions, not observations. We don't even know whether the predictions are created based on a Round Earth model, let alone how accurate they are.
They would have to be several hours off for the data to not prove the hole in your theory.....

But if you would like an independent review of the data, you and I are independent, we could do that. We could either stand outside or use webcams of anywhere in the world.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The 100 Proofs - Rowbotham uneducated?
« on: November 10, 2017, 07:30:30 PM »
Proof #15:
The idea that, instead of sailing horizontally round the Earth, ships are taken down one side of a globe, then underneath, and are brought up on the other side to get home again, is, except as a mere dream, impossible and absurd! And, since there are neither impossibilities nor absurdities in the simple matter of circumnavigation, it stands without argument, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

The author is empirically correct,

How is it empirical unless he saw a ship sailing underneath a globe and falling?

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
« on: November 10, 2017, 07:08:03 PM »

When did the UK invent the time machine?

Is that not evidence? Claims from multiple observatories within two major organisations, not disputed anywhere but here and samples personally verified by eight people around the world on a fundamental fact.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.
« on: November 10, 2017, 06:10:20 PM »
Tom, Would a webcam of these locations be sufficient?

Squirrel, is it possible your friends are lying about seeing twelve hour days so they don't have to share their Nobel prize with you?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >