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 - rottingroom

Pages: < Back  1 ... 8 9 [10] 11  Next >
181
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.
« on: January 21, 2014, 01:38:40 AM »
Tintagel is correct, there does seem to be some sort of optical effect going on.

Why is the first story of the house compressed into the beach?



That tan sliver is not the beach and this can be verified from Hoppy's close ups and from Google Earth. The beach does not extend across the entire waterfront.

182
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.
« on: January 21, 2014, 01:37:05 AM »
I used the Pythagorean Theorem (a^2 + b^2 = c^2) to calculate the drop over 4.4 miles.



Suppose that the earth is a sphere of radius 3963.1676 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangel as in the diagram.

3963.1676^2 + 4.4^2 = 15706716.7857

When we square root that figure we get 3963.17004249

Thus your position is 3963.17004249 - 3963.1676 = 0.00244248999 miles above the surface of the earth

Converting to feet, 0.00244248999 miles = 5280 * 0.00244259 = 12.8963471472 feet

Hence after 4.4 miles the earth drops approximately 12.9 feet, or over 1 story of a building.

Nobody as been in dispute over what the drop would be from 0 elevation. Hoppy was at 2 ft making the drop significantly less at 4.75 ft.

183
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.
« on: January 20, 2014, 05:27:31 PM »
How about a Fe'er chiming in, what is with the 10' wall of water?..... Bishop? .....Thork?.... Anyone?

A couple of things at play - I don't see a ten foot wall of water, I see the lower section of the house sort of "compressed" - this is partially an optical trick which occurs close to the horizon (sunsets do it too, the sun sort of collapses into itself when its image is on the horizon, and partially due to the way light travels on a Flat Earth.  See the Electromagnetic Accelerator thread.  The lower areas of the house are hidden behind water because that light "dips" before bending upward again.

Oh boy, an actual experiment grinds against your world view and instead of taking this data and reconsidering your views, you treat your views as infallible and come up with an excuse.

Let's be clear, there is no such thing as bendy light. The closest real world example of such a thing is refraction, which, while nearly always present over water, it does not work in light of this picture.

First off, I'd like to mention that my job is refraction. I create atmospheric profiles for various locations around the planet and determine how those profiles will effect the propagation of radar signals and light. Over water there is ALWAYS an effective trapping layer that causes propagation for as much as 256 miles but the problem with your analysis is that this trapping layer in my experience doing literally 1000's of profiles is never less than 25 ft and 9 times out of 10 it is 30 ft. It is never 10 ft which is exactly what it would have to be for your suggestion to even have potential. Furthermore, if what we are seeing is compression then there would be a couple of things wrong with that. The index of refraction between a medium of air above the trapping layer and a medium of air in it would differ by small amounts causing changes that could not be as dramatic as what you are seeing. Secondly, compression suggests that the refraction would cause the refracted light to change direction at both the top and the bottom of the trapping layer but that is not how this works because the refracted light would be unaffected within the trapping layer medium. Refracted light is the effect that causes light to change direction from one medium to the next but not within the medium itself.

184
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Hebrew conception of Earth.
« on: January 20, 2014, 05:04:51 PM »
New atheism is still atheism.

185
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether
« on: January 19, 2014, 11:40:13 PM »
But WHY is the disc or infinite plane travelling upward @ 9.8 m/s/s & how?

Well earlier in this thread there were people claiming that it is the aether and they were saying that that is DE. Which is laughable because DE is dependent on a globular view.

All that matters for FEism is to have views that support a flat earth. Any observations that contradict that are put into the conspiracy pile regardless of their merits because they will never falter on the FE view. In any case, experiments that confirm gravity and the local experiences that seem to support a RE are disregarded but they don't deny that things fall, so somewhat cleverly a FE'r found the Equivalence Principle and put 2 and 2 together. Gee, Einsteins elevator is flat and Einstein says that experience is indistinguishable from gravity, therefore the world is an elevator.

186
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether
« on: January 19, 2014, 10:59:16 PM »
So, what exactly is Universal Acceleration? How does it work on a disc? How does it work on an infinite plane? If Earth IS an infinite plane, what lies beyond the parts we humans inhabit? I've read about UA from the FAQ, but still don't get it.

It's simple. The Earth is traveling upward at 9.8 m/s/s causing the phenomenon the world over calls gravity. The rejection of gravity inspires the idea and FE'rs cite Einstein's Equivalence principle to insist that it is just like gravity. Despite the obvious observations that completely dismiss the idea, FE'rs still hold onto it.

187
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether
« on: January 19, 2014, 05:46:50 PM »
I have stumbled upon a controversial subject.

Evidently. Although, this is FES. If a topic isn't controversial, there's something wrong.

This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?

No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.

In other words.  "No, it's OUR placeholder word for a force we don't understand.  It can't also be THEIR placeholder word for a force they don't understand."

Take your ball and go home, RR.

Yes, it's a placeholder for a force we don't understand. It's unlike aether for the reason I listed above. That reason being that aether describes local space while Dark Energy describes something on the galactic scale.

It's use is appropriate because it's based on an observation that actually happens (galaxies accelerating faster) instead of being based on nothing. By nothing I mean that no observation supports the idea of aether, at all. A placeholder word aether is for sure, but no observation leads to the hypothesis of aether other than the rejection of modern science.

Aether is assumed by FE'rs because of denialism of the facts that we already know. It is essential for FET because it's magical properties are necessarily invoked to explain what can already be explained by what is already understood in modern science.

DE describes the unknown force resulting in a Universal Acceleration. This is true in both RET and FET. I fail to see your problem.

No, because the observations for Dark Energy are derived from galaxies expanding from some point in the universe.

Let's look at this logically and suppose UA and DE are the same thing and that UA exists. This would suggest that we are accelerating away from some point underneath us. This means that there would be no Cosmic Microwave Radiation Background to observe because it would not be in the observable night sky. It would be inherently impossible for all observations that lead to the Big Bang Theory to have ever happened because our night sky would only be filled with galaxies heading a direction similar to our own. Yet it seems they are accelerating away from us in all directions.

Not to mention that for most FE'rs, the idea of a big bang flies in the face of FEism and without the big bang hypothesis in the first place there wouldn't be the DE hypothesis. So assuming that UA, Aether and DE are all part of the same soup goes against everything you stand for.

188
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's rays, and how they prove me right
« on: January 19, 2014, 05:03:12 PM »
What is an example if something you can directly observe that is conclusive evidence for Electromagnetic Acceleration?

Well, sunsets for one.  The eye extrapolates the image of the sun back according to the angle at which the light enters the eye.  As the sun moves farther away, the angle of its light approaches horizontal, so it appears to sink into the horizon.

I'm also well aware that it's possible to infer a spherical earth from this observation, but as other experiments (including Hoppy's pictorial illustrating a house visible at over four miles across a flat, level expanse of water) have shown sufficiently that the earth's surface is flat, the EA interpretation is, in my opinion, the more valid one.

For the record hoppy's picture is based on incorrect assumptions such as the 12.9 ft drop that he posted with it. The drop is 4.75 because of the height of the camera.

189
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.
« on: January 19, 2014, 03:41:23 PM »
Since Hoppy decided to repost this picture from .org depicting what he calls a 12.9 ft drop, I'm going to repost my response here:

Here we go: Using the calculator on this page we can determine how far the horizon is for a given elevation. So for 2 ft the distance to the horizon is 1.73 miles.

Which means you subtract the distance 1.73 miles from your 4.4 miles to get 2.67 miles.

Using rowbothams method for deriving the drop:

Quote
To find the curvature in any number of miles not given in the table, simply square the number, multiply that by 8, and divide by 12. The quotient is the curvation required.

2.67^2 * 8 / 12

This makes the new drop 4.75 feet.

And without a good image to indicate what that beach really looks like it is difficult to determine what is going on but I would guess that a typical beach like the one we see in the picture is at least over 5 ft.

Later on in the thread Silhouette29 posted a great picture to help hoppy understand why you don't simply subtract the height of 2 ft from Rowbotham's 12.9 ft to get the drop:

Like I said earlier with an example using 6 feet for the observation height.  At 4 miles, one doesn't simply subtract that height from the drop (10-6), as that would indicate a 4 foot drop over the distance of 1 mile.  It needs to be recalculated using the distance advantage of added height from the starting point.

Using Rowbotham's diagram:


The drop is 4.75 feet and the image he posted sucks.

Also, note that in the picture he took there are some stark differences in topography when compared with the octagon house on Google Earth.

On Google Earth there is clearly a walkway and a lot of shrubbery in the way. This makes the picture highly suspect.

190
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether
« on: January 19, 2014, 03:29:44 PM »
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?

No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.

In other words.  "No, it's OUR placeholder word for a force we don't understand.  It can't also be THEIR placeholder word for a force they don't understand."

Take your ball and go home, RR.

Yes, it's a placeholder for a force we don't understand. It's unlike aether for the reason I listed above. That reason being that aether describes local space while Dark Energy describes something on the galactic scale.

It's use is appropriate because it's based on an observation that actually happens (galaxies accelerating faster) instead of being based on nothing. By nothing I mean that no observation supports the idea of aether, at all. A placeholder word aether is for sure, but no observation leads to the hypothesis of aether other than the rejection of modern science.

Aether is assumed by FE'rs because of denialism of the facts that we already know. It is essential for FET because it's magical properties are necessarily invoked to explain what can already be explained by what is already understood in modern science.

191
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether
« on: January 19, 2014, 02:30:16 PM »
This aether theory stands in contrast to the dark energy theory, right?

No, Dark Energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe and has no scientific bearing on any local space phenomenon. The laws of gravity would have us expecting the acceleration of the universe to slow down but this is not the case and as such there is an unknown source of energy causing this acceleration that is simply dubbed "Dark Energy" as a mere placeholder name.


192
Flat Earth Community / Re: The earth is round
« on: January 19, 2014, 02:00:46 PM »
You claim that he was forced to say he went to space, or that he was tricked.  Do you have any proof?   ???

It's a simple process of deduction. He claims to have gone into space. One cannot actually go into space. Therefore, he is lying. Why is he lying? Well, he had a long phone call with a prominent world leader who was associated with the NASA conspiracy. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that he was in some way influenced by the conspiracy. Perhaps they threatened his family. Perhaps they offered him money. Perhaps they knew about what he did that time in Thailand. We can only speculate.

Bad premises in here. There is evidence you can go in to space. If a premises is false so is the conclusion.

Petitio principii. You're saying that people who claim to go into space must be telling the truth because people claim to go into space, and those people must be telling the truth because people claim to go into space?

No that is not what I am saying. I have previously mentioned independent methods of confirming space travel. However, you are just asserting space travel is impossible with no evidence.

Quote
Evidence shows that the Earth is flat. If the Earth is flat, spaceflight must be impossible. Ispo facto, spaceflight is impossible and supposed astronauts are simply lying.

You clarified a bad argument with a bad argument. The Earth being flat does not automatically preclude space flight being possible so your conclusion does not follow.

Nor is the implication that it is established that the Earth is flat. That certainly isn't the case unless you deny everything and only consider the weak evidence offered by FE.

193
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it possible to prove a negative?
« on: January 04, 2014, 05:18:01 PM »
There is a handkerchief in the pocket.    <--- a claim by which the claimant has the burden of proof.

There is not a handkerchief in the pocket   <--- a claim by which the claimant has the burden of proof. Not a skeptical statement. This is an assertion.

I don't know if there is a handkerchief in the pocket   <--- also a claim by which the claimant has the burden of proof but such a burden is easy to meet because the claimant is stating that they don't know if there is a handkerchief in the pocket. That itself, is the claim. There is no assertion in this phrase about whether the handkerchief is actually in the pocket, just the claim about not knowing, which the claimant is free to assert since the assertion proves itself. This is a skeptical statement.

A negative claim is an assertion.

194
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?
« on: December 22, 2013, 05:04:53 PM »
Well, Rotting, @ least that's honest. I can appreciate that, even while disagreeing w/ it.

I just require sound evidence and I haven't seen anything convincing. The part about god being a dick was me basically saying that if there was evidence, then sure... I'd believe in god, but he wouldn't get an ounce of respect from me. There are millions of human beings with better morals than the god's we've heard about in holy books.

195
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What Religion are you?
« on: December 22, 2013, 04:37:31 PM »
There is absolutely no good reason for me to think there is a God, and if he does exist then fuck him, he's a dick.

196
Technology & Information / Re: Chromecast
« on: December 21, 2013, 04:30:48 PM »
I have three chromecasts. One for each TV in my house and I love them.

Jroa, I noticed that you made a couple mentions about what your phone runs and were wondering if that had anything to do with the chromecast getting sluggish the couple times it did.

I can tell you that this is not how the chromecast works. The chromecast only uses your phone to receive commands for what to play and a few extra playback controls. The phone is not responsible for any streaming itself. The chromecast actually receives the video on its own from whatever server the video comes from (such as Netflix).

You can actually turn your phone off after playback has begun and the video will continue to play.

You went on to mention the difference between casting from your computer and your phone. Using the Google Cast chrome extension does not stream at 1080p. Casting from the computer is in beta and it is only possible to stream in 480p or 720p at this time. It is also highly unreliable and depends on both processing power and network speeds. In this case, your Chromecast is not doing the independent streaming from the internet that I mentioned before.

You can however us some apps on the internet using your desktop computer to get the same quality as you can from your phone. These apps have to have a cast button on the player itself. Currently, the apps that support this are Google Play Music, Google Play Movies and TV, Netflix and YouTube.


197
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data
« on: December 15, 2013, 11:31:54 PM »
Whatever dood.

198
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data
« on: December 15, 2013, 09:48:11 PM »
Seriously?

Be... to the point?

What does "go Google it" mean to you?

In modern times that means, "look for it". Does that need an explanation?

I even said "look for it". I couldn't possibly be more direct.

199
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data
« on: December 15, 2013, 09:24:52 PM »
You seem to have a better google than mine.

That isn't the point of what I said. If you can't find it then other people probably can't either. Since you want to know, then look for it.

200
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon shrimp data
« on: December 15, 2013, 06:50:20 PM »
Is your google broken? Go look for it.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 8 9 [10] 11  Next >