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 - Roger G

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7  Next >
41
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET
« on: December 16, 2017, 11:14:21 PM »
And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?
You could always just read a book of two on FET and find out for yourself. Cause Of Sunrise & Sunset
I have read all that the conman Rowbotham has said on the subject. Unfortunately, constantly quoting a pseudo scientist with very flawed methods and who was proven to be unstable and dishonourable, is not going to get any serious thinkers falling for that nonsense. His experiments and ideas were formulated 150 years ago and none have stood up to serious examination. Try reading up on some of the more advanced scientific investigation and research carried out since. or better still carry out some research and experimentation of your own in the real world. My own experiences as a pilot and offshore sailor have already shown me beyond any doubt that Rowbotham's pseudo science is tongue in cheek humour to baffle the masses. In modern terms 'He's having a laugh'.

Roger

42
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Russia and China to the moon and beyond.
« on: December 16, 2017, 10:53:10 PM »
I see this all the time when using my 8" refractor to view the moon, it's most noticeable on warm nights due to convection and atmospheric disturbance a CS pointed out. It's also very common when observing ground objects with high magnification on a warm day.

What I don't understand is how people making these sort of videos have zero knowledge of what they are seeing and look for ridiculous and nonsensical explanations, all jumped on and gloated over by fanatical know nothings. As a professional videographer and photographer for nearly 35 years, I can only shake my dead in disbelief at these types of videos 'proving' or 'disproving' various crackpot ideas.

Roger

43
According to Eric Dubay, some early modern sailors tried to circumnavigate Antarctica, and it took them a lot longer than it should have, so for this reason, among others, he figures Antarctica is the periphery of our plane, not the center.
He also said the south pole is a lot colder, darker and lifeless than the north pole, which would be the case if the south pole was the periphery, because the sun would be further away from it than the center.
He and other flat earthers may have other reasons, but those're the ones I'm familiar with.
Eric Dubay says a lot of things, however there are no early modern sailors. Early sailors attempting to explore further afield, attempted to circumnavigate Antarctica with varied findings. However, modern sailors and ships have frequently circumnavigated Antarctica and not only produced accurate maps and charts, but also confirmed it is the same size as they expected. Antarctica has also been traversed on foot and vehicles as well as by aircraft and there are currently research facilities belonging to around 40 countries established there. There can be as may as 4000 people of all nationalities and various walks of life working there at different times of the year.

Roger


44
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET
« on: December 16, 2017, 01:08:18 PM »
@OP

Quote
If gravity doesn't exist than what did Isaac Newton discover?
People always knew what goes up from the earth must come back down to the earth, barring buoyancy, what Newton did, was extrapolate this.
He supposed that all matter possessed this power to attract objects to it, not just the earth, it's just that the earth's attraction was so great, the earthbound objects attraction was nearly impossible to observe.
Later some socially stunted fellow by the name of Cavendish supposedly proved Newton's theory correct by employing some sort of experiment.

Newton also said that the moon was attracted to the earth and the earth the sun, in exactly the same way a penny thrown off a rooftop is attracted to the earth, it's just that the moon happened to have just the right forward momentum, that it would continuously miss the earth it was falling towards, and this forward momentum would curve, kind of like the forward momentum of a tether ball curves as the ball moves around the pole.

And with that, it was possible to leave our stable and steady cosmos, where the earth was the earth, the moon the moon, and the sun the sun, forever and ever.
With that, for later scientists, who supposedly observed super novas, and sought naturalistic, evolutionary explanations for the origin and destination of everything, it became possible to think the sun may have formed from bits of matter clumping together over time.

Some of these bits of matter, being supremely lucky, eventually formed the planets, or so they thought, due to their forward motions, forward relative to the sun.
Somehow their forward motions were always just fast enough to keep them from colliding away from the sun, and just slow enough to keep them in the solar system, while the vast majority of the matter in the solar system was not so lucky, and either was thrown out, or collided with the sun.

And so the clockwork precision, order and harmony we have in our solar system today, was born of blind chance, chaos.
Dumb, dead gravitationally charged matter, unable to finish her job of devouring everything within range.

That's pretty much how it is, with the omission that scientific research is followed by setting up a hypothesis that seems to allow for what is observed, then experimenting and researching to see if it can be disproved. Which is why scientific ideas and explanations change and develop as ideas are either proven through experimentation and observation or disproved and an amended hypothesis developed.

Roger

45
Sorry to disagree, but you are only spouting your own prejudices and beliefs much of which has been gleaned by trawling through the internet and recycling other people's ideas which fit your own particular vision of life. Look at this example of your narrow thinking:
Gone are the days when the common man with a few coin, some binoculars, a measuring tape and a pencil could confirm many a scientific theory for himself.
Science has become so compartmentalized, so esoteric, and so very far removed form laypeople, especially when it comes to astrophysics, and so all the more easy to manipulate by the powers that be.


Again you are are just talking the talk without walking the walk. There are a huge number of experiments that you or anybody else can do with just the tools you have described. Many will confirm the basis of the theories that scientists with access to more advanced equipment can investigate further. You could join those more advanced research projects if you gained just some of the basic knowledge and experience required to get involved. Unfortunately like so many others, it is easier to trawl the internet agreeing with others, rather than actually getting out there and trying some of the real world experiments for yourself. Those that get out there, investigate, study and learn are the real pioneers that question what we know and push the boundaries of knowledge. You on the other hand are quick to categorise those hard working folks as 'Sheople', when in fact it is you and others that don't or won't think for themselves that have become the 'Sheople'.

Here is another example of your lack of informed thinking:
Scientists have caught themselves and have been caught by others lying many times in the past.
Tip of the ice berg: Sugar and Tobacco companies paid scientists to withhold data that would damage their products marketability.
Now eventually these lies were uncovered, after decades and millions dead of cancer and diabetes, but if they lied in the past, what makes you so sure they're not lying to us today?

I can remember in the late 1950s and early 1960s when scientists started publishing papers on smoking and the risk of lung cancer and the fact that too much sugar dependency in our food was damaging to our health. There has never been any shortage of easily available and widely publicised evidence for both of these problems, but most of the general public who enjoyed smoking and sugary foods, decided to ignore the warnings and listen instead to their favourite tobacco and food companies who denied the health claims. Scientists are not to blame here, it is the greed of big manufacturers and the general sloth and disinterest of the majority of the public. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard ' My Grandfather smoked 60 cigarettes a day and died at 85, it never hurt him!' or 'You only live once, might as well enjoy it while you are here'. I assume you live in the US, the most self indulgent country in the world when it comes to eating, addicted to fast food and sweet drinks and with the highest level of obesity in the world. This is inspite of dire warnings over the last half century and easy access to all the available scientific research and warnings. Don't blame science, blame the greedy corporations and the greedy lazy public who only hear what they want to hear.

You can apply all the above to the conspiracy theories, it's easier to jump on the bandwagon of blaming things we don't understand on conspiracy and lies than it is to find out for yourself.

Roger

46
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: December 16, 2017, 11:51:12 AM »
I did not suggest that the railroad tracks physically met. They meet in perspective. Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.

What you actually said was 'Lines meet in the distance. This is an empirical observation.' Now you are saying that they don't physically meet, so can I assume that you now agree that lines appearing to meet in perspective is an optical illusion?

You also stated 'Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.'  This is also incorrect as clearly shown in Tom H's sketch. Only smaller objects that the eye can no longer resolve appear to merge in perspective on the horizon. Objects that are much larger and higher will be visible far beyond the smaller objects, true in both flat and spherical earth models. The difference with a flat earth being that large objects such as mountains or large celestial objects would be visible hundreds of miles away, but clearly are not on a spherical earth.

Roger

47
Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 16, 2017, 10:24:23 AM »
Roger, that was a great hypothetical. (Now why doesn't Simple Machines Forum just add a "Like" button so I don't have to clutter the thread?)

It just makes me angry Tom that people use the 'freedom of speech' get out, to justify abuse, indoctrinating and bullying of others,some of whom may be very vulnerable.

Roger

48
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: December 16, 2017, 01:24:53 AM »
Tom you keep asking for proof so I will repeat what I have said previously.

Find a length of straight railroad track several miles long and measure the distance between the rails. Make a note of the point in the distance where they appear to meet and either go to that point, or send a helper there. Measure the distance between the rails at that point, then proceed the same distance again once more measuring the distance between the rails at each stopping point.

After repeating this a few times have a look at the measured distances between the rails and you will see that the difference between the measurements is zero. If you then add up the total distance travelled and then check over that distance the convergence of the rails, you will see that it is still zero. If you have a long enough track and enough time on your hands you will still get the same result no matter how far you travel. If you then multiply the difference between the rail distance variation and infinity, you will still get ZERO! It's a simple fact of observation which you keep going on about and any people here who subscribe to your or rather Rowbotham's ridiculous perspective theory can try it for themselves.

Perspective is an optical illusion not a reality, so just as a reminder, here is a definition of optical illusion again:-
'Something that tricks your eyes and makes you think you see something that is not really there, or see it differently from how it really is'

Roger

49
Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed
« on: December 16, 2017, 12:55:11 AM »
It's a matter of degree and how much is acceptable as free speech and stating an opinion, as against making false claims and faking evidence as the truth and spreading it globally. There seems to be some sort of idealistic idea that people can make up their own minds, but clearly that is frequently not the case as people can and do band together in mindless groups following the herd.

Just supposing you stopped in the street to ask your neighbour's 8 year old daughter if she was enjoying her new school and could your own 8 year old daughter play with her as you have just moved into the area? Another neighbour saw this exchange from the window and started telling other residents that you could be a paedophile. The rumour spreads around the neighbourhood and soon your picture appears on an anti paedophile website hate mail arrives in your mailbox, then groups of people with placards start to gather outside your house chanting 'Get the Paedophile' and very other hate slogans.

You could of course smile and say that there is freedom of speech and they are entitled to their opinion, but like I said there are degrees of freedom of speech and sometimes it can be very dangerous.

Roger

50
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Lunar Nature
« on: December 16, 2017, 12:39:14 AM »
Hello again Antithecystem,

If I understand you correctly, your position is that you don't believe the reports of others regarding things that you haven't experienced for yourself. Well I have lived a lot longer than you and have experienced a lot more, so I have also learned that the best way to move forward is to learn from the experience of others and to build upon those experiences with your own explorations. If we only believed what we had experienced ourselves, then we would constantly reinvent things that had been invented thousands of times before. Sometimes groups of people need to get together and work in teams to develop ideas and investigate theories. They need to accept the work of others whilst monitoring the veracity of the experiments. Sometimes the equipment required is beyond the reach of individuals like yourself, so you gain an education in to the basics that allow to join one of these teams and work as part of a higher level of research and investigation.

Let me give you some simple examples of trusting the experience and investigations of others:-

1) Have you ever run across a busy road with your eyes shut to see if you get hit or not?
2) Have you ever tried staring at the midday sun for 60 seconds with no eye protection to see if you go blind?
3) Have you thrust your hand into burning embers to see if they are hot?
4) Have you ever jumped off a cliff to see if you can fly?
5) Hydrochloric acid looks like water, have you tried drinking a glass to see what effect it has on you?

If you haven't tried any of those things, then you have no personal experience that any of them are harmful, so you either need to try them, or trust the experience of someone else. I don't know what your total life experiences are, but when you have lived as long and varied life as I have, come back and tell us what you have learned and more importantly what you have learned from those who went before and what you have PROVEN to be incorrect.

Roger



51
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earth not a globe - floating Earth
« on: December 15, 2017, 04:06:28 PM »
Roger, some questions about Bedford Levels:

1. Does the canal have any slope/flow in either direction?

2. Have you checked the Geoid contours at that location to be sure that gravity vectors approximate a round earth?
Hi Tom,

The Bedford Levels river is basically an overflow and flood channel. It has very little actual flow apart from during floods, when it is used to divert water from the nearby River Ouse. There will be a slight incline towards the east where any outflow would be released through sluices to drain towards the Wash and North Sea.

I haven't checked for Geoid contours as I wouldn't have even thought of it. The entire region though is reclaimed marshy land on very peaty soil, so whether that has any bearing on Geoid contours I wouldn't know. I do though have a friend who is a survey that I will rope into taking part, so I'm sure he would have access to that information.

Roger

52
Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset
« on: December 15, 2017, 03:33:17 PM »
Some of Tom's experiment report seems to be a bit contradictory. He talks about a clear and chilly day, but at the same time talks about people sunbathing on the beach and children splashing in the water and running into the sea. They must be very hardy people who use lighthouse beach, sunbathing on chilly days while letting their children play in the water in chilly conditions. Either that or Tom's nose has grown a little longer and there is some artistic license. I'm also surprised that he could see over the tops of all the waves whilst laying on the chilly beach!

Roger

53
Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Earth is Flat...
« on: December 15, 2017, 01:55:09 AM »
I'm happy to accept existing data, but FEs will require empirical observation. ;)
Roger

The point I'm trying to make here is simply that FEers MUST accept the data because their earth IS FLAT, hence all data MUST be that of a flat earth. The logic is irrefutable.

I totally agree with your point that any data that has been recorded about the earth, was taken from the world we live on so if it is flat then that is what the data refers to and of course the same if the earth is spherical. The logic is irrefutable to logical folks but there seems to be a preponderance of illogical folks amongst FEs. In other words they won't accept the data unless they took the readings themselves or unless it proves the world is flat within their own hypothesised field of reference. That is where it will break down for them as they will not be able to construct an accurate map that matches the data.

Roger

54
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: December 15, 2017, 01:35:01 AM »
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.


If this was a five year old child giving this explanation, I would pat it on the head and say "oh yes very clever dear, now it's time for bed". Coming from a grown man, I find it highly embarrassing that he may actually believe this garbage!! If the distant lamp post was looking up at my hand it would have shrunk to below my hand height. As Tom is about the only FE poster that bothers to get regularly involved in technical discussions and can only quote Rowbothams outrageous tongue in cheek pseudo science babble as fact, I think that there is no chance of any serious progress after statements like the above.

The distant lamp post did shrink below your hand height. A moral of Earth Not a Globe is that the nature of perspective does not operate according to an Euclidean rule set, and there is really no reason to assume that it does. Perspective operates as it is observed to operate, not according to an ancient mathematical model of reality.
Break perspective down into intersecting lines, angles, or anything else you want, but the fact is that perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the actual size of real life objects and is merely a word describing the limitations of our own viewing ability giving the impression that objects get smaller the further away they are. It is an OPTICAL ILLUSION. If you are unsure of what an optical illusion is, here is a definition:- 'something that deceives the eye by appearing to be other than it is.
an experience of seeming to see something which does not exist or is other than it appears.'


Perhaps you and Rowbotham are confusing real life with art, as an object depicted as being distant in a painting or drawing will indeed be drawn much smaller than the same object drawn to appear closer. I can assure you that in real life, if you stand next to a lamp post at the limits of your visibility, you will still be the same relative height to it as you would if it was at your starting point.

You really must let go of Earth Is Not A Globe and get out into the real world to avoid making yourself look foolish by religiously following the false teachings of a pseudo scientist.

Roger



55
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« on: December 15, 2017, 01:07:47 AM »
Explain how a sun 3000 miles up can cast a shadow of Mt Rainer onto a layer of clouds?? This mean the light HAS to be BELOW the level of the mountain. Try to create a shadow on your ceiling with a light shining down or even level - you can not do it without angling the light source up.


This is proof! Can we put the matter to rest?

As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.
If this was a five year old child giving this explanation, I would pat it on the head and say "oh yes very clever dear, now it's time for bed". Coming from a grown man, I find it highly embarrassing that he may actually believe this garbage!! If the distant lamp post was looking up at my hand it would have shrunk to below my hand height. As Tom is about the only FE poster that bothers to get regularly involved in technical discussions and can only quote Rowbothams outrageous tongue in cheek pseudo science babble as fact, I think that there is no chance of any serious progress after statements like the above.

[/quote]
You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.

[/quote]
Oh Noooo not again!!!  :o I think I'm stuck in Groundhog day! The last 6 pages of totally debunking the whole perspective nonsense has arrived back at the start of the endless loop! Either that or Tom has had a breakdown.

Roger

56
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with Governmental Cover-up
« on: December 14, 2017, 03:00:32 PM »
They [airliners] would also have to be constantly climbing to keep from being caught by the earth while it is accelerating at 9.8 m/s.

Here's another scenario I have not seen addressed as yet. The earth accelerates upward. Do all objects associated with the earth, or in the vicinity of the earth, accelerate similarly? The sun, moon and planets which circle above the earth remain in place (save for the curious vertical variations in their orbits required to explain seasons, eclipses, etc.), relative to the earth, causing one to infer that they are under the influence of the same "unknown force".
 
My dad had the same question!  Thank you so much for bringing this up!  And Tom, I get that they continuously climb, but they would have to climb at a much higher rate.

They don't have to climb at a higher rate as in an FE world the air would be moving upwards at the same rate as the earth, so to maintain height an aircraft has to move through the air at a sufficient speed for the lift created by the wing's forward movement, to counteract the opposing forces of drag and weight and the engines will provide the thrust to do that. The requirements are the same in RE or FE.

Roger

57
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon
« on: December 14, 2017, 02:51:13 PM »
FEs generally assume the moon to be spherical, so what evidence do you have to support your hypothesis?

Roger

EDITED TO SAY THAT THE POST I WAS RESPONDING TO HAS BEEN REMOVED!

58
Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset
« on: December 14, 2017, 12:18:41 PM »
All of this twaddle about perspective is a red herring started by our old conman and jokester Rowbotham. The resolution of the human eye is the only relevant major factor in determining the distance that we can see with the naked eye, unless we take the curvature of the earth into consideration. If we take something the size of a snooker ball and move it to a distance that it is no longer visible to the naked eye, that will be down to the eye's resolving ability and will have absolutely nothing to do with lines of perspective or angles to the vanishing point. It will also make no difference how elevated the eye is in relation to the ball, it will still become invisible at the same distance. However, if we then apply a telescope to the eye, the ball will become visible to the eye once more. This of course is exactly how things should work on a flat earth, if the object is large enough to be within the arc of resolution of the eye, then it should be visible from any distance at ground level. A smaller object would be visible will a suitable magnifying instrument. Just as we can see the light of a star from billions of miles away, we would also be able to see any light source of suitable magnitude, such as the sun or moon, from any point of a flat earth at any time.

The reason we cannot view these things is because the earth is a sphere!

Roger

59
Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Earth is Flat...
« on: December 14, 2017, 11:32:22 AM »
It would be quite straight forward to check the accuracy of gps coordinates by travelling in a number of different directions from a fixed point on straight roads and compare the distances shown on the oddometer with those shown on the gps. Having established that the points are accurate, points further away could be plotted for map making. Bearings can also be taken during the journeys of relevant landmarks, then using basic navigational trigonometry those plotted points can be used to further test the accuracy of the other readings. The average should give an accuracy good enough to start making FE maps.

Roger

They don't need to go to the bother of doing all or any of that. All the pertinent data already exists.
I'm happy to accept existing data, but FEs will require empirical observation. ;)

Roger

60
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I have a question about 2 photos I took today
« on: December 14, 2017, 10:41:59 AM »
Ah but Tom's perspective has been described as "magic perspective" meaning that the dictionary definitions used in the (for want of a better world) REAL world cannot be applied to it. The reason is that Tom has rejected certain assumptions (from my understanding of his numerous posts on the subject) as there is a lack of proof-the railway lines example is the big one here, can YOU prove that two parallel lines will continue for INFINITY to appear to converge but never actually meet?

No, because you cannot follow these two lines for infinity within your finite lifetime. We all know that they would never meet but as we cannot ever show Tom the proof he can continue to use his own version of perspective.

This one's a lost cause guys, it's a philosophical riddle that can never be solved. As such Tom has moved out of science/observation/logic and rationality and taken a Faith stance. Can you convince a religious convert god does not exist?

Unfortunately Not.

You can use very basic maths to prove that railway lines don't meet at infinity. Stand on a long straight railway line and measure the distance between the rails, then travel along to the point where they appear to meet from a perspective point of view. Let's say 5 miles for arguments sake, then travel the same distance a few more times measuring the distance between the rails at each stop. After taking a few measurements, compare them and you will find that the reduction is separation is zero. Therefore over the finite distance you have travelled, although the tracks look as though they are converging, they are not. Simple maths will tell you that if you multiply zero by infinity. you will still have zero, so there is no meeting of the tracks possible. QED

Roger

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7  Next >