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 - 9 out of 10 doctors agree

Pages: < Back  1 ... 8 9 [10]
181
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The "Google Maps background"
« on: April 17, 2018, 10:50:41 PM »
Ah, okay.

Now that the origin is confirmed, I can move to explanations that don't sound ridiculous.

Now that I think about it, the image is likely a zoomed-in shot from far away. I'd make a diagram if asked, but right now I don't have the time to.

182
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The "Google Maps background"
« on: April 17, 2018, 08:42:18 PM »
The Space Shuttles used to make trips to it quite regularly, could the photo not have been taken from one of those?
I don't think that would be possible, but I'll let the FE folks decide on what to do with that point.

183
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Egg Earth
« on: April 17, 2018, 08:30:37 PM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_earth_is_an_egg

I do not dispute that the Earth is far from circular in those photos. However, looking at the midground should make it abundantly clear that a fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

If this was made with CGI with the preconception of a sphere, then why would the world look so non-circular? It's not like animators can't draw circles.
Well a fisheye lens was used, its so obvious that you even acknowledged it.

The iss isn't real, its an underwater set. So the 'iss' you see is there (underwater), and the earth and darkness of space is simply cgi. Simples.
I fail to see the connection between those statements. How exactly does the use of a fisheye lens prove it's an underwater set again?

184
Flat Earth Theory / The "Google Maps background"
« on: April 17, 2018, 08:24:50 PM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/Google_Maps_background

I tracked down the original image, which I have attached.

It's a wide-angle shot of the entire station, and there is no obvious way that the shot could have been taken with a camera. This makes me think that it's an artist's conception of the station. For those who doubt that an artist could make it, see this image of ʻOumuamua and this animation of a Falcon Heavy launch.

Actually, what's the original source of it? All I can find from Google's reverse image search are conspiracy sites and a few more that are just selling posters.

185
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Any one here "in" on the "Conspiracy"?
« on: April 17, 2018, 06:54:58 PM »
Remeber what you see here has been editited by a moderator who is a Flat Earth believer.
If someone edits a post, it will leave a note about such below the post.
Quote
This makes the debate a moot point.
Really? Round Earthers still seem to get the upper hand most of the time.
Quote
No posts should be deleted, if they are irrelevent, they will be passed over and it shouldnt be for a Flat Earther to decide what is "relevent" to the discussion.
No posts? Not even spam?

186
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Egg Earth
« on: April 17, 2018, 12:58:27 PM »
Hold on. So the idea is that it was not CGI, but taken close to the ground, with the fisheye used to fake curvature?

Then why is there a black sky?

187
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Egg Earth
« on: April 17, 2018, 02:40:44 AM »
Quote
fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

Seems like that is the point of the article.
What purpose does it serve, then, other than to discredit Flat Earth? I can't understand.

188
Flat Earth Theory / Egg Earth
« on: April 17, 2018, 02:15:53 AM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_earth_is_an_egg

I do not dispute that the Earth is far from circular in those photos. However, looking at the midground should make it abundantly clear that a fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

If this was made with CGI with the preconception of a sphere, then why would the world look so non-circular? It's not like animators can't draw circles.

189
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earth does not preclude the full moon
« on: April 16, 2018, 06:46:28 PM »
The math earlier on in that thread demolishes the Round Earth Theory. We should not be able to see a 95% full moon during the day at the angles we discussed.
Your calculations determined that we should not be able to see a 100% full moon during the day. If the Moon was 100% full in the video, that would be different. But it's not; it's 95% full, meaning that it's 18.2° away from the full Moon's position.

No. Look at the numbers in that thread. That 95% illuminated moon should not have been seen.
Yes, it would have. According to your own numbers, it's about 25° or so off from opposite the sun. A phase angle of 25.8° plus 5° from inclination is enough for that, no?

(Also, could someone just post the link in this thread? It's somewhat difficult to find.)

190
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earth does not preclude the full moon
« on: April 16, 2018, 06:11:19 PM »
The math earlier on in that thread demolishes the Round Earth Theory. We should not be able to see a 95% full moon during the day at the angles we discussed.
Your calculations determined that we should not be able to see a 100% full moon during the day. If the Moon was 100% full in the video, that would be different. But it's not; it's 95% full, meaning that it's 18.2° away from the full Moon's position.

Edit: I made an error in those calculations in that I didn't convert the phase range of [0,1] into the cosine range of [-1, 1]. The actual phase angle here would be ±25.8°.

191
Flat Earth Theory / Round Earth does not preclude the full moon
« on: April 16, 2018, 03:53:44 PM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory

The logic in that page is flawed. It asserts that anytime the Moon is in a full Moon position, the light coming to it will be blocked by the Earth. That would be the circumstances for a lunar eclipse, and any astronomer on the Internet will happily explain to you why that doesn't happen every month.

Since I am also an astronomer on the Internet, I will explain it too. Since the article I'm battling says that I can't refute it no matter how much mental gymnastics I do with scale, I'll spite it by doing mental gymnastics with scale. I'll be using this table from NASA as a reference.

The Moon's orbit is angled about 5° from Earth's orbit around the Sun. At its closest approach, the Moon is about 28 Earth-widths from Earth. At tan(5°)*28 I get 2 1/2 Earth-widths from the center maximum. The eclipse zone, for comparison, is one Earth-width wide.

Furthermore, the components of the Moon's path are sinusoidal, so the centerline where the eclipse zone is happens to be the line that the path crosses the fastest. Even though the eclipse zone is 20% of the possible heights, it spends only 13% of its time in the right latitude.

Please ask an astronomer about this before jumping to conclusions.

192
The wiki article describes that only light sources of a certain intensity magnifies.
Sorry, not possible—light is a wave, and its amplitude has no effect on the geometry of the wavefront. The only thing affecting it is the wavelength; that's what makes rainbows appear.

193
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few more bases to cover…
« on: April 14, 2018, 01:19:15 AM »
The answer to the first query is that the stars exhibit a slight gravitational pull.
So then, tidal forces? I can see that, but what about the variance from latitude?
Quote
The answer to the second query is that the neutron beams spread outwards from the device. Even if pointed slightly downwards, many will spread out into a non-parallel direction. You can see the spreading beams in the illustration of the experiment: https://www.bnl.gov/today/body_pics/2013/03/lbne_main_011113_spreads-hr.jpg
Even in that image, the spread is obviously not enough to be above the tangent plane. The beam appears to be angled about 22° below the tangent plane, and neutrinos travel at close to the speed of light, meaning that you're suggesting that seldom-interacting particles are diverted by, as a conservative estimate, several thousand kilometers per second. What exactly is driving that?

194
Flat Earth Theory / A few more bases to cover…
« on: April 14, 2018, 12:54:49 AM »
First, gravity variance. There is a measurable difference (about .5%) in gravity between the equator and the poles, and between altitudes. In case you're wondering, I did find some actual data on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

It is Wikipedia, but they cite a book with a specific page number for the table that data comes from. RET of course explains this as centrifugal force from the Earth's rotational motion. However, it could be problematic for FET, which explains gravity as the Earth simply accelerating uniformly through space. I'm wondering how the FET model accommodates this data without distorting its proven flatness of the Earth.

Second, neutrinos. Neutrinos will basically pass straight through anything you put in their way, so neutrino beams used in expirements are usually aimed through the Earth at far-away detectors. Since the beams definitely reach their target, how would aiming with a Round Earth model reach the right target in a Flat Earth model?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 8 9 [10]