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 - iamcpc

Pages: < Back  1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 41  Next >
561
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« on: October 24, 2018, 03:26:20 PM »
If the distance is short, you are right.
But if the distance is long, horizon is up to the eye level in your diagram.
and then, Add the waves to the horizon.
Can you please show a diagram? I'm still not understanding how the 1m wave, even if that wave was at your eye level, would block the 100m building just behind it.

In the diagram below someone is floating in the ocean and a wave comes crashing toward them. This wave could obscure an entire building if it was close enough to the eye. (much like cell phone when close enough to  my eyes can obscure an elephant)


The problem is that this does not apply to literally ANY of Bobby's observations because none of them were made while he was floating in the ocean.


562
Follow up question One: This is regarding sun rise and sun set again, as while you have linked a page referencing the Law of Perspective, and while yes the references to a flock of birds or planes makes sense, but this still does not make sense for the sun. I say this because well, simply put clouds. Have you ever watched the sunset or sunrise on a day when there is clouds and the clouds get all beautiful and glowie? You'll note that on such days the light from the sun is hitting the bottoms of the clouds, this would be impossible if the sun were in fact above said clouds, as the light from the sun is always being emitted from the sun, which you've stated is always above the Flat Earth.

The answer to this is simple. This is what is known as atmospheric refraction. Just because you perceive the sun light to be below the clouds simply means that your brain, did it's best to create some sort of image, based on the assumption that light travels in a straight line. The truth is that, depending on many different conditions, light can curve which creates things like mirages or refraction effects.


Question Two: Through what means does the sun manage to light only a finite area around it manage to maintain the correct time zones? The graphic displayed on your wiki alone would not result in the correct real world time zones, as it does not illuminate enough of the world, or would illuminate too much of the world. You're use of the word Orbit is also curious as in order for something to orbit something else there has to be a force keeping it in place. You say that the sun is like a light from a lighthouse that is constantly orbiting around the north pole, but what makes it orbit the north pole, through what means does this magical sun maintain the correct illumination to maintain the world's time zones.

The answer to this question will vary greatly person to person based on the flat earth model they believe in. The image you have seen only represents one version of one flat earth model.
Here is another model demonstrating how the atmosphere, dome, firmament and other things can create a day/night cycle on a flat surface. This is a totally different flat earth model one which likely includes a dome or firmament.





Here is another one



The flat earth model I can best relate to is an infinite repeating plane flat earth model as shown below which shows the sunrise and sunset direction and time for anywhere on earth.
http://suncalc.net/

Question three: The movement of the sun in the sky. In the first article you reversed me, it states that "Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west." But what force accounts for the June and December Solstice? On a Flat Earth your sun would have to change speeds and location in order to maintain 24 hour days and the correct movement of the sun through the solstices. On a Globe Earth its tilted axis is what would account for this movement, and also the Seasons.

Again this depends on your flat earth model. There could be a claim that the flat earth model in which the north pole is in the center is incorrect or inaccurate. There could be a claim that the sun does speed up/slow down with it's movement between the tropic lines.

There also have been claims that the sun does not move between the tropic lines in the seasons or that it only appears to based on seasonal atmospheric conditions.

Or with my model the sun does not move in the same way that it does in the way that you are discussing.



Question Four: So you're saying that Universal "Acceleration" is the force that keeps me on the ground? Okay, I'm still skeptical of that idea, because well, what controls the tides? Are you going to link me to a page about how the tides are somehow controlled through a magnetic field?(One theory I heard from YouTube), because if you are, don't bother, as anyone who's ever used at refidgerator magnet can probably tell you, water isn't magnetic, thus a magnetic field would have no effect on it.

Universal acceleration is only part of some of the flat earth models. I forgot what the exact phrase was but there was another view of gravity in which gravity accounted for things like the tides but didn't affect the shape of the earth.

There are also flat earth models in which gravity is real and does exist in the newton/Einstein way.

Well... I was going to make this a question... but you guys seem to not really understand how the Law of Perception works. The Sinking Ship Effect seems more like an attempt to explain something which you cannot explain, using the Law of Preception. The point at which parallel lines converge is known as the VANISHING point, do you know why its called the VANISHING point? I'll give you a slight hint... Its because things VANISH beyond that point, which means YOU CANNOT SEE ANYTHING BEYOND THAT POINT. Which means anything nearing the vanishing point of our vision will grow smaller until it well vanishes. But if the Vanishing point works as the Sinking Ship Effect would have me believe, the sails of a ship remain visible beyond the vanishing point of the hull? I'm not sure what to make of this. This use of the Law of Preception is laughable.

There are many posts which suggest that the sinking ship effect might be more optics, refraction, and chaotic atmospheric conditions instead of perception.


Notice in the video how, over the course of 15 minutes, the "sinking ship effect" has obscured entire buildings? 100% optics, refraction, and chaotic atmospheric conditions 0% curve.


563
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about flat earth
« on: October 23, 2018, 06:20:50 PM »
I just want an explanation for why Polaris is 90 degrees above the North Pole, decreases as you go south to below the equator only to have another polar axis in the south rise higher and higher.   Flat Earth has no explanation for this simple observation.

Yes they do. It's atmospheric refraction.The amount of atmosphere that the light from the star has to travel to hit your eye is much larger the further away from the star that you get making your perceived location of the star different than the real location of the star.

564
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« on: October 23, 2018, 03:57:19 PM »

I can help you.
Don't forget that you are an observer.
Now you are seeing it in the eyes of a third party, not as an observer.

The sea rises at an eye level to the observer's eye.
But the sea never rise at an eye level to the third party's eye.

I don't understand. a person is standing 10 feet above sea level and sees far building which is also 10 feet above sea level.

The bottom part of that building is obscured to the person. Even if the horizon rises to the level of person it seems that a  3 foot wave would not block the view of the building.


Could you correct my diagram?


565
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about flat earth
« on: October 22, 2018, 09:50:39 PM »
I think you're missing my point. If the scale has to change depending on how close you are to a certain point (points in this instance), then it is flawed.
Think of another object that would do this. You walk closer to a chair, and one of the legs gets shorter. Measurably so. That ain't normal.

I disagree 100%.

Assume that all the children in this picture are 3 feet tall. If you were going to display these on an interactive map there would be different scales based on where you were looking on this map.  If you zoomed in on the middle child the scale for the middle child would change based on where you were looking and how zoomed in you were to the kid. Because the scale changes based on what kid you zoom in on does not make the map any less or more accurate. If you are looking at the foreground child you can claim that, because the background child is only a few inches tall this map is inaccurate.

As I walk closer to the child in the background the scale changes




566
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 22, 2018, 09:30:43 PM »
Again, if you going to make statements that don't fit with accepted theory, you need to provide a substitute theory so that folks can continue to work things out.
I did provide a substitute theory for each point. I guess you missed them. let me provide them to you.

Two different travel distances for different frequencies alternate theory (they are based on the ability of the wave to travel through the atmosphere not the shape of the earth):
 
One does better at traveling through the air than the other. Therefore it travels farther.


Different radio signal travel distances based on time of day alternate theory (different atmospheric conditions are affecting the radio travel distances not the shape of the earth):
 
Since the signals are traveling through the air during the day the air molecules are warmed by the sun.




567
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 22, 2018, 09:26:16 PM »
One does better at traveling through the air than the other. Therefore it travels farther.

That's just wishful thinking. There is no evidence. What you're saying contradicts all experiments on radio transmissions.

On a flat Earth, increasing the height of a radio tower wouldn't increase the range of the transmission. In reality, it does.

The higher the radio tower the less dense the air is.

Flat earth can easily say that this is more evidence that supports the flat earth. The higher up the tower goes the less dense the atmosphere is which is exactly why it travels further!

568
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 22, 2018, 03:51:52 PM »
In the flat earth model, why would the frequency affect how far the signals travel?

I thought this was already answered but i'll answer it again.

One does better at traveling through the air than the other. Therefore it travels farther.

Why would the time of day matter?
Since the signals are traveling through the air during the day the air molecules are warmed by the sun.

How can I still make contacts over long distances even though I live in a valley?
The signal is traveling through the air. Since the air hits the valley the signal travels through that air.

569
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« on: October 19, 2018, 06:29:44 PM »
Anyway, I have shown that the Flat earth can explain why the building is covered.
It is difficult to get the exact figures.
Visual phenomena are influenced by many factors.
That's the reality.

I disagree strongly. Did you not look at my diagrams? The observer is standing 10 feet above sea level. The building that is being obscured is 10 feet above sea level. In both the horizon at eye level model and the flat horizon model there is not a situation where a 3 foot wave can obscure these things like you have claimed when both the observer and the obscured object are above sea level.

Can you help me understand by drawing a diagram of an observer 10 feet above sea level and a wave blocking the vision of something far away 10 feet above sea level?

570
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about flat earth
« on: October 19, 2018, 04:16:46 PM »
Round earth people refuse to accept these maps as accurate because the scale of the map changes based on the distance from the equator.
I'm confused by this, they are considered as inaccurate by round earth folk, as they are not the correct shape/size when further from the equator.
That is inaccurate... isn't it?

On yahoo maps the scale changes the further from the equator you go. Go ahead and test it. Zoom out and then zoom in on Alaska. You can see that the size of Alaska shown on the scale of Yahoo maps accurately matches the size of Alaska. Because parts of a map have different scales does not suddenly make the map inaccurate.

571
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about flat earth
« on: October 18, 2018, 07:35:19 PM »

I'm a little confused. You think the earth is a repeating series of identical continents? If so, are there multiples of people as well?

No. There is only one earth. One set of people.

Here are examples of an infinite repeating plane flat earth maps. Many of these maps are verified as accurate by hundreds of years of advancements in cartography and navigation. Yahoo maps is a very popular map an they represent the earth as a flat, infinitely repeating plane. I have personally driven and traveled across several continents and used flat infinite repeating plane maps such as apple maps, google maps, and yahoo maps to navigate accurately corroborating that they are accurate maps.

Please note that Google maps has very recently gone from an infinite repeating plane flat earth map to a globe map.

Round earth people refuse to accept these maps as accurate because the scale of the map changes based on the distance from the equator.

https://maps.yahoo.com/b/
suncalc.net
http://earth3dmap.com/


Go to yahoo maps and zoom all the way out. If you start a Russia and drag the map west you will wind up back at Russia. If you drag west 293857923875928739582739857 times you will still wind up back at Russia.

If you drag the map east from Russia 29837529837987 times the same thing happens. It's the same Russia one the same infinite repeating plane planet.


572
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about flat earth
« on: October 18, 2018, 05:24:33 PM »
Fair enough, although I wouldn’t have expected this from a site dedicated to finding/promoting the truth. All well though. My questions still stand.

Sorry I edited my previous response to try to answer some of your questions to the best of my ability. The only model of flat earth that i'm able to relate to is the infinite repeating plane flat earth model (no dome, no ice wall, no firmament). It's not very popular around here.

573
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about flat earth
« on: October 18, 2018, 05:12:12 PM »
Seems a little one sided. I thought it was encouraged to have a debate here. How can one do so if the admins move/delete responses?

It's highly possible that the person deleted their own response (I know I've done it several times). I agree that the moderation sometimes seems a bit one sided but generally I feel like they are somewhat fair.


Does anyone have proof definitive proof that the earth is accelerating upwards?

Depends on your definition of proof. Some people say yes. Some people say no. I'm personally in the no category.

Is there a reputable (Not Youtube) source to find peer reviewed scientific studies on the FE?

There have been a few books. The most popular being from samuel rowbotham.

Please explain the anti moon and cold light given off by the moon.
I've never heard of an anti moon.

Suppose the earth is flat why would governments that are at war with each other work to gather to deceive us?

The map of the earth is a closely guarded military secret like the plans for an atom bomb or super weapon. They are not working together to deceive us. They are working alone to guard their own military secrets.

How can i test the shape of the earth myself?

Here's 200 things you can test.


You can also stand on a beach and take a picture. The horizon is pretty flat.

Is the dome around the earth a solid dome or some sort of electromagnetic/energy field? got mixed answers in this.
There is a treaty for Antartica. Does anyone have the this documentation i cannot find it online?
Someone tell me how GPS works W/O satellites. All GPS antennas are on top of airplanes ruling out ground stations?

There are many different flat earth models.
-Some have a dome and some don't
-Some have an Antartica treaty and some don't.
-Some believe that Antarctica is a giant ice wall around the earth and some believe that Antarctica  is a continent
-Some Believe that GPS works off of balloons, towers, high flying aircraft
-Some believe that GPS works off of satellites from space.

574
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Carlsbad from La Jolla
« on: October 18, 2018, 04:10:42 PM »
According to my calculation,
0.5m waves cover about 63 meters at eye level 2m from 32km distance.
So Flat earth fits quite well.

I strongly disagree that waves or swells could be used to explain what is going on here.

Wave at eye level
(this only happens if you are floating in the ocean)



What is happening in Bobby's image where viewer and object are ABOVE sea level:






Also you should note that Bobby has made dozens of observations which strongly suggest that the horizon does not ALWAYS rise to eye level.
Even if you believe the horizon is rising to eye level it still does not work:

Please note that in this situation the horizon is rising to meet eye level. How is this wave, of someone standing on a beach, blocking the view of more than a few feet of the building?




575
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round
« on: October 17, 2018, 05:31:10 AM »
Please explain why VHF signals are short range and HF signals are long range.

I'm just gonna take a stab at this.



VHF signals are short range because they don't travel through the atmosphere that well.
HF signals are long range because they are better at traveling through the atmosphere.

576
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Out Hero and MCToon examine the AE Map
« on: October 16, 2018, 10:05:56 PM »
iamcpc, I believe you trust Google maps. Go to a place of your choice, right click and 'measure distance'. Select a place due North of it. Then place the cursor in the middle of the line created and pull to the left or right. See what happens to the distance, i.e. see whether there is a shorter distance between the two points.

You can do this anywhere. This suggests that lines of longitude are the shortest distance across the surface of the earth.

If you accept that, then it follows that the AE map is the only correct flat earth map.

Well based on your criteria the following map is accurate:

http://suncalc.net/#/-0.0263,109.3425,3/2018.10.16/16:41

Others would claim that it's not accurate because the scale of the map changes based on the distance from the equator. So I provide a map in which the scale of the map does NOT change based on distance from the equator and you claim that the map is inaccurate because longitude lines are not straight.

Even though many of these maps with a changing scale are widely accepted by hundreds of thousands of people who use them they are not accepted by round earthers because it has a scale which changes based on distance to the equator.
https://search.yahoo.com/search/?p=maps


577
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Out Hero and MCToon examine the AE Map
« on: October 16, 2018, 05:37:09 PM »

Straight? Well in the round earth model lines of longitude are curved as they would be drawn on the surface of a sphere shaped object. By your logic the only possible map of the earth could be a flat earth map.

To be clear, by 'straight line' I mean the shortest distance between two points on the surface of the earth. I not talking about properties of a map, but rather the earth itself.

I claim that for any three points A B C on the surface of the earth which have the same longitude, i.e. where the sun is observed to be at its highest at the same time at each point, the shortest journey between A and C must pass through B.

As an example, the shortest possible route (presumably by air) between Southampton and Newcastle must pass through Leeds.

That's a simple claim and easy to verify. Do you agree, or shall we perform an experiment?

I just did a simple experiment. Me and 2 of my friends went outside and stood in a triangle on the surface of the earth. About 3-4 feet from each other Points A, B and C.  Each of us observed the sun to be at its highest at the same time.

For each of us the shortest distance between the other did NOT pass through all three of us.


578
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Out Hero and MCToon examine the AE Map
« on: October 15, 2018, 10:05:36 PM »
The second one will not work.

Why not?  Is there something wrong with it?
Lines of longitude, see my comments above. Lines of longitude must be straight.


Straight? Well in the round earth model lines of longitude are curved as they would be drawn on the surface of a sphere shaped object. By your logic the only possible map of the earth could be a flat earth map.



579
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« on: October 15, 2018, 09:37:24 PM »
I don't understand this:

In this situation how could a wave or swell or whatever possibly be used to account for what is obscuring the building?

Quite. Not possible. I've provided similar diagrams.
This is also why explaining sunset by perspective doesn't work.
The idea is that perspective lines merge at a finite distance and you can't see beyond that, but then long distance photography is used to "prove" a flat earth. So why can you see those distant objects? Why can you see any of the island in Bobby's photos and video when it is 20km beyond the horizon?

The OP diagram does quite well to explain how a wave, at eye level (such as if you were floating in the ocean), which is closer to your eye could obstruct hundreds of feet from a far off building above sea level.

The problem that I see, quite clearly, is that with dozens and dozens of observations provided by Bobby these criteria simply don't hold true. Even if the horizon always rises to eye level as suggested previously the observations simply don't match.



580
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building
« on: October 15, 2018, 06:35:57 PM »
We have seen that sometimes bodies are hidden and that sometimes they are not hidden. Rowbotham reports that at various times the bodies he was observing were hidden and revealed. What are we to make of this?
That it's not waves? I've never seen that body (island) hidden by waves.  It's been hidden by fog banks and haze. That little spur becomes hidden when inferior mirage conditions are present.

I've seen waves and swells much larger than the 4-5' waves present on the day of that video. Never seen a single case of the horizon pulsing up even a little due to those waves to obscure even close to 100m of that island's elevation.


I agree with Bobby's confusion. I also REALLY struggle with understanding how waves or swells can explain some of the things that we have seen with objects being obscured behind "sea level" when both the observer and the object.

I understand refraction.
I understand chaotic atmospheric conditions.
I understand optics.


I don't understand this:


In this situation how could a wave or swell or whatever possibly be used to account for what is obscuring the building?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 27 28 [29] 30 31 ... 41  Next >