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.
mister bickles, it is common courtesy to at least make a comment about some of the points in the video.
I like your rational thinking babyhighspeed!
It's difficult as someone born in the 80's with a parent who believes most conspiracies but myself hold great regard for people in the scientific and mathematic field.
I'm trying to keep an open mind about all things in this flat earth debate. But I haven't seen or heard any evidence to suggest why it would be flat. The best I have seen would be photographic evidence. But like on the other side of the debate. Photographic evidence is likely faked. So how do we move on.
Or should we leave the debate to the learned folk and people who scraped through high school like myself should be happy to work 9-5 and retire at 70 and go cenile.
To me it feels like a religious debate. You can say God exists prove me wrong. And I can't. Like you can say the atmosphere is a dome and someone like me can't possibly prove it either way.
And I don't think an organisation like NASA who clearly knows its foundation for its research is going to ever come here and settle an argument.
This debate is hard because I myself like to question things. The moon landing too has never felt right to me (possibly due to my parents ideas about it)
But believing something that lacks evidence like ufo's or aliens and the flat earth is different to being open to new ideas of the logic behind it makes sense. Which for me most of the logic behind flat earth feels like the ufo debate too.
I wouldn't be surprised if it ever came out and NASA said they had to fake the moon landing to win the "race" for political and financial advantage.
But remember making that claim goes with it a massive MASSIVE world wide cover up of potentially thousands of not hundreds of thousands of people.
one other thing.
I said this to my mum when we got into an actual heated debate about flat earth which she now wholely believes.
I said
I think it's easier to watch a YouTube video where someone tells you that NASA faked it and the earth is flat look at these photos but disregard these ones,
Than it is to go to uni or study a subject and do your own experiments. Which we all could do if we REALLY wanted answers.
But it's easier and more fun to slide into YouTube and put on a conspiracy video and get riled up with many unconfirmed inaccuracies.
I know what it's like to be led by a crazy theory too. I went to church long enough and got sucked into its wormhole but started questioning everything about it and reading things amd talking to rational people about it all.
My mum also tried to say that movies and tv shows are putting the ideas I front of our faces like under the dome or game of thrones with the ice wall. But then I said well what about Stephen Kings other movies like the 99% of his low budget stuff that is terrible. That one with billy zane! Fuck me... Demon knight? I think it was called.
How far does this conspiracy actually go? Is it ingrained in every facet of life and history?
Except the distance between the rails of the track are 4ft 8.5" (USA/Canada).
Yes... I didn't claim otherwise. I just said it is constant, and that the ratio of width to distance is small. Why start the sentence with "except"?QuoteFE claims an Earth Sun distance of 3,000 miles. The Sun is moving over the Equator on a disk that measures approx 12,600 miles in diameter.
Geometry says that minimum angle of the Sun above the FE for an observer standing on the North Pole or the "Ice Wall" is 26.57 degrees. Figuring in the average refraction that 26.57 degrees is now 26.5 degrees.
Did you actually read my entire post? I also used the 3000 mile distance. I used someone standing at the equator instead of the poles since the equator is much more accessible. I also gave flat-earthers the benefit of the doubt by using the distance to the sun at midnight (long after it has actually set). A better distance would be the distance to the sun at 9pm, which would be 4000*sqrt(2), which gives a = arctan(3000/(4000*sqrt(2))) = 28 degrees.
Please use punctuation.http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/05/3746252/the-hilarious-story-of-how-satanists-trolled-a-major-city-into-submission/that's not good god says in the bible the earth is flat gods on our side satan is clearly in the side of NASA
Basically the Temple of Satan forced a city council to suspend praying before meetings because the alternative was allowing a Satanist to say a prayer at least once.
spectroscopy. That's how we know what it's made of.So can anyone actually answer my original question?
Nobody knows exactly how old the sun is, how much energy it has, how much more until it runs out. They can postulate (guess) those things. Hell, in my opinion, its more a less a guess what the sun even is.
The fact is it's just not something you can test from Earth, being 93 million miles away and all.
I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.I must have missed the lesson about "never appear to touch", all I saw was "never touch"!
Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
How remiss of me!
Of course receding parallel lines "appear to touch", who would query that (in Euclidean and I assume almost any space)?
But receding parallel lines might not appear to meet at the "horizon". Here is a ships wahe extending nice and straight to the horizon, but they don't converge ON the horizon.
That seems quite significant to me. But of course I know that a bit of magical "Rowbotham perspective will fix that".
P&O Ships wake to horizon
I'd hate to break it to you, but I actually traced the angle of perspective based on an actual level horizontal line. Seems to work out.
On another note, I glanced at the rest of your photobucket uploads, all dealing EXCLUSIVELY with flat earth debate illustration.
Look, you agree that perspective lines can appear to merge, but in actuality have not merged.
We agree. The sun can appear to merge with the horizon, but in actuality not have merged.
What do you disagree with?
Let's compare the train track scenario with the sun scenario.
Observations:
- The distance between the parallel train tracks appears to decrease, and eventually reach zero, as it recedes into the distance.
- The distance between the sun and the horizon appears to decrease, and eventually reach zero, as it recedes into the distance.
Since we know that the train tracks are parallel to each other, it seems plausible that the sun's path might also be parallel to the earth, right? Excellent! Flat earth for life!
Let's think about it a little deeper though. What determines the apparent distance between the train tracks? The deciding factor is the ratio of the actual distance between the tracks, to the distance to the point we are looking at. If we are standing on one of the tracks, the angular diameter of the tracks at a given distance is:
a = arctan(w/d)
a = angular diameter of the tracks at the specified distance. This decreases, approaching zero, as the tracks recede into the distance. Notice: a only becomes zero when w/d is zero.
w = physical distance between the tracks. This stays constant if the tracks are parallel.
d = the distance to the point on the tracks we are looking at. Notice: w/d is only zero when d is infinite. Of course, d can't actually be infinite in reality, so w/d is never actually zero. It can be very very small though, and appear to the human eye to be zero.
Now let's apply this to the sun scenario:
a = angular diameter between the sun and the horizon.
w = physical distance between the sun and the earth. 3000 miles seems to be the most quoted number by flat-earthers.
d = the distance between you and the spot the sun is hovering over the earth. For someone on the equator, during the equinox, the maximum this can be is the equatorial diameter of the earth. About 8000 miles.
Now, we want to see how small we can make the angle between the sun and the horizon be. To do that, we have to find the smallest possible value of w/d = 3000/8000. This gives a corresponding value for a = arctan(3000/8000) = 21 degrees.
Therefore, the SMALLEST angle possible between the sun and the horizon would be 21 degrees on a flat earth.
The difference between the train tracks and the sun is that the train tracks continues in a straight line. The ratio between the width of the tracks to the distance from the tracks continues to get smaller. The sun takes a circular path, and the ratio of the distance between the earth and the sun to the distance away from the sun never gets very small before the sun loops back around.
Therefore, a circular path of the sun above the earth is impossible. A similar argument can be made for the setting of Polaris behind the horizon as latitude decreases.
Pictures are not a valid form of evidence, folks. Pictures can be (and always are) doctored.
I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.
Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.
Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!
Our theory is backed up with observation.You mean the observation that the sun appears the same circular size in the sky and sets below the horizon casting light on the underneath of the clouds?
You mean the observation that as ships sail away they disappear from the bottom leaving only the top visible?
You mean the observation that the entire earth sees the moon in the same phase on the same day?
You mean the observation that a flight from Sydney to South America only takes 14 hours?
You mean the observation that laser ranging places the moon greater than a couple of thousand kilometres above the surface of the earth?
You mean the observation of photos from space that show the earth as a globe?
You mean the observation that shows satellites orbiting the earth?
You mean the observation that wireless communications have to take the curvature into the calculations to work?
You mean the observation that shows the horizon as a clear line instead of fading into the distance?
You mean the observation of solar flares interacting with the earth's magnetic field at night time?
You mean the observation that shows the stars circling in opposite directions in each hemisphere?
You mean the observation that the constellations are different in each hemisphere?
You mean the observation that shows rockets leaving the earth and not hitting any "firmament"?
You mean the observation that shows the moon and sun not to fall to the earth due to universal acceleration?
Should I continue?
Hmm... doesn't seem as absolute as your prior declaration. We went from "None (with a period)" to a minority. From "All of science," to well most of science.
A theory without observation is a hypothesis. Keep in mind, a lot of modern theories deal strictly with theoretical mathematics, which you can twist and twist and twist until it aligns with observation.
I mean look at this:
Seriously what the fuck.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)
I'm looking and I'm noticing that you never bothered to explain it. You posted it as though you knew what it meant, but ya don't.
I have no clue what it means, its from the Pressuron theory for gravity. I posted it to demonstrate just how detached from common sense this stuff has become. If this is the style of math you commonly refer to, then please be my guest and explain it to me.
In some cases: Yes.
Like what's keeping you on the ground: Gravity. There is no question there. None. All of science is unified in that.Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHerehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Modern_alternative_theories"this theory represents a minority"
"this theory fails to comply with observations"
That's what most of those references say. Please remember that a theory is an explanation. An observation is fact.
Hmm... doesn't seem as absolute as your prior declaration. We went from "None (with a period)" to a minority. From "All of science," to well most of science.
A theory without observation is a hypothesis. Keep in mind, a lot of modern theories deal strictly with theoretical mathematics, which you can twist and twist and twist until it aligns with observation.
I mean look at this:
Seriously what the fuck.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." (Nikola Tesla)
I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.
Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?
I have a unique view into aerospace from what I do. I have stated my feelings on the flat and round earth debate. However, even I will say it is strange they will zoom in on "foot prints and tracks" yet never once any left behind equipment anywhere. Let's instead try to find "disturbances" "foot wide tire tracks or show impressions". Though I don't know what orbit they are holding, so I can't speak with absolute certainly. I will say the moon landing never set right with me, I have had experience with too much aerospace propulsion systems, and their math of the mission bugs me.
However, this was in the 60s, still the old generation. People weren't argumentative little politically correct babies yet, spending all day whining and speaking about what could be done, but being too lazy and ignorant/arrogant (interchangeable) to do it. People of this time worked together and did what had to be done without excuse, still plenty of the world war 2 mentality was left when this happened. These are the people that made the country great and a success at the time. All bite, no bark. Also, NASA had a 20 billion dollar budget, and if requested more they would get it if it meant to win. So considering these two things, the moon landing is certainly plausible despite my doubts.
Also view it...with the old mentality and 160 billion dollars, what would NASA be able to do now?
Well as least you admit your proof of a fake Space Program is a fairy wand.
What I don't understand is why you're terrified of the truth to point that you believe just saying something is fake will make is so. It would seem some part of you, no matter how small knows your FE is fantasy.
I had the unfortunate job of having to deal with a brilliant engineer that one day just jumped off the sanity train. Stark raving nuts and when I had to deal with him, he'd been nuts for almost 13 years. But one thing that always struck me, he KNEW he was nuts and he'd tell you so. Some sane part of him, even after all that time was screaming to get out. Whats your problem?
Ironic for you to accuse someone of being terrified of the truth.
You do realize the phenomenon of confirmation bias is a lot stronger the longer someone holds a particular belief.
You've believed in the moon landing ever since you watched it in black and white on one of the three channels in 1969.
You can't possibly fathom such an obvious motive to fake it as 'winning' the space race against a nuclear arch enemy.
You so willingly accept any piece of information to support your belief, no matter how poorly written or factually wrong.
Space fantasy and patriotism is so core to who you are, you accept nothing that jeapordizes that. Who is terrified here?
