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.
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations. Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:
QuoteThe sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?As real as Voliva's were!
My point is why did Voliva "happen" to chose 45˚ for his measurement and
you might have noticed that your Wiki contains"
Finding your Latitude and Longitude the Wiki says:QuoteLatitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
So this quote from the Wiki tells how far we would be from the equator and what the sun's angle would be at any latitude.If I took the measurements you would only doubt them, but surely you cannot doubt your own Wiki!
QuoteThe sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:
Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?
He is using angles of the sun from the horizon for various latitudes at noon on the equinoxes. These angles are well known, and easily observable. This is an easy to use website that you can get this data from. Do you have reason to believe that any of this data is wrong? If so, feel free to present it...
The only thing that is reasonably controversial from a flat-earther's perspective is the distance from the equator that he gives (since flat-earthers can't agree on an actual map). Do you have reason to believe that the distances from the equator are wrong? If so, feel free to present it...
The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:
Only if you completely ignore:The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
If you were answering my post (you may have noticed thebutton?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!
But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."
If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.
Satellites
Planets
The sun
The moon
Orbits in general
Maps
Satellite imagery
Videos of rocket launches
Basic physics
Anything having to do with NASA
All the other space programs
Third party evidence for NASA
Geodesy
Tides
Plane flights
Astronomy
Stellarium
Neutrino astronomy
Neutrinos in general
Particle accelerator measurements
Weather
Navigation
Surveying
Every single expert in each of these fields (including myself)
But yeah, the horizon is totally the most trustworthy piece of evidence.
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination. This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N. If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all.
Anything else?
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!
But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."
Please provide your evidence.Evidence of what?No, I didn't pace out each degree from the equator to the north pole!
No, I didn't pace out each degree around the equator!
How does it answer the question on how the full moon appears to be full for everybody though, from the peremiter of the night shadow to people standing directly beneath it?
The diagram on the right is how I interpret the geometry at the time of a full moon. Note that the distances are to scale, but the object sizes are exaggerated (though the sun and the moon are to scale with each other). The sun and moon are placed 180° apart on the equator as they must be for a full moon.
Now, could someone please explain:
How the moon gets any illumination from the sun at all[3]. Are we to postulate a "special ray of light" from the sun, just to illuminate the moon? With the geometry on the right the viewer directly under the moon would see a half-moon, the other view (the moon should be on the horizon) would see closer to (but not quite) a full moon.
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it full - as we know happens if real life?
How everyone (anyone actually) that can see the moon sees it the same size - as we know happens if real life?
[1] A "a shadow from the sun illuminating", a shadow illuminating, really? Some better wording is surely called for!
[2] The Wiki also says the moon "wobbles" up and down, but I fail to see how a "wobble" can help with the moon some 12,000 miles from the sun.
[3] Remember we are assured that "a natural shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time." So, presumably the moon gets its illumination from the sun.
Hello fellow truthseekers,
I have found the wiki to be of adequate explanations regarding the Earth, but what about the Sun? Do we know its origin? Its composition? And where does the light and heat come from?
Thanks! Hope this isn't a redundant post.
[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.
The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes. With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel. The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told. It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed. Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.
Iridium flares can be observed. They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's. You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.
You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.
You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/
IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth. My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.
Nothing about that tells us that they are obviously space ships in orbit around a globe earth.
I assume you still have access to the telescope you used for the Bishop Experiment. You have access to the internet since you can post in these forums. You got all the tools you need to find out the how, when and where to observe the ISS. Something is up there, moving faster then any plane I have seen. Viewing it through my binoculars I could make out the general shape and solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes using the same satellite are pointed can give you a pretty good idea of the altitude of the source of the signal. Same reason why almost since radio was invented the source of the signal could be located. If you are really meticulous and exact you should get a very good estimate of the location the satellite signal is coming from. Is there a flaw in my logic? Satellite dishes using the same satellite need to be set at different elevations and directions in different locations. If you get LOP's that show an altitude in the atmosphere then you have evidence that space flight is a lie.
Find reports for the Iridium flares prior to the late 90's? Reason I am using the Iridium satellites is they are usually the brightest things in the night sky.
You can combine the long exposure pictures with the SatTV suggestion. Do they at least reasonably coincide? Is there any documentation prior to spaceflight observations of these things not moving in the night sky?
You can not track a satellite and at least note the amount of time you were able to track it? You can not do this? https://amateurgeophysics.wordpress.com/earth-orbiting-satellites/the-doppler-shift-of-satellite-radio-beacons/
If I wanted to prove space travel is impossible I would not just say it is. I would look for ways to prove to myself or others I am right and if within my means would do so. The above are the cheapest and relatively easiest ways I could think of to gather data and evidence.
Edit: If you can determine that something man made is up there then at the very least it should help to refine the FE model. Like the altitude of what I will call the can not pass line. Not 100% sure where space starts on the FE model.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.
Correlation does not equal causation, Tom. There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.
Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.
Actually Hampden's referee signed off on a picture demonstrating that the middle marker was higher than the outside markers, indicated the Earth is round.QuoteThe experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.
So then I assume you will amend the wiki to say as much, in the interest of completeness? Also, the wiki should be amended because it says that Wallace cheated, which is patently untrue. He was forced to give the winnings back because those types of wagers were not permitted and nothing to do with cheating.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.
Correlation does not equal causation, Tom. There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.
It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.So you will now omit all reference to the Bedford Canal experiment!
You do realise that even an atmospheric refraction of 0.5° can make an object at sea-level visible at 30 miles.
The only way to check this sort of thing is to do repeated measurements at various times of the day.
The images in this reference show what can happen http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm.
[How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?
There are many observations that can be made with binoculars, a relatively cheap telescope, and using some math.
The ISS can be viewed with the naked eye, binoculars, and telescopes. With binoculars I have been able to make out the solar panels.
Figuring out where satellite dishes are pointed will give evidence of space travel. The dishes are directional antennas that are pointing towards a satellite in geostationary orbit, so were are told. It is not that complicated to figure out where two or more dishes receiving a signal from the same satellite are pointed. Where the imaginary lines intersect or get close to intersecting(if you are not too meticulous gathering the data) is evidence where the signal is coming from.
Iridium flares can be observed. They first started becoming visible around the late 1990's. You can find plenty of sources to tell you when and where to look.
You can take long exposures of the night sky where geostationary satellites are said to be.
You can try things like this:
http://makezine.com/2009/07/22/catching-satellites-on-ham-radio/
IMHO if the search for truth is TFES objective they really do not seem to be trying too hard to seek out that truth. My guess one reason not doing two or more of the above is that it will offer evidence that space travel happens, those pictures from space agencies are real and that is damning evidence against the Earth being flat.
There is the matter of the front legs. Seems I can see a shadow under the entire prairie dog. The only thing I can see that looks like a leg seems very, very short compared to the pictures I just looked at. It also seems more like being part of the cheek than a leg.
By the way I did this, because I got tired of seeing answer from FE's just basically saying because that is how it is. I actually researched and came up with locations that if it is a prairie dog where the picture could have been taken. I did not just say it looks like a rodent and 10 out of 10 people thought it was.
At least for me and I am sure others this is the kind of stuff we are talking about when we say evidence. It showed locations where prairie dogs live, places that and/or had limited vegetation, and pictures of those states that both prairie dogs lived and somewhat matched what we can see in the photo. I did not research any further to see if prairie dogs live in the areas the photos I posted.
I also assumed a prairie dog did not end up on an indoor set.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/trump-wine-is-built-on-acres-of-lies.html
Is that true? The wbsite does say that its not affiliated with Donald Tump...
