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 - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 21, 2019, 08:14:00 AM »
When we looked into it further we found that there was no evidence for the effect at all. It's an unfounded claim.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect

https://wiki.tfes.org/Coriolis_Effect_(Weather)

From the wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Coriolis_Effect) referencing the “Coriolis” Correction Table H from the "The Production of Firing Tables for Cannon Artillery (1967)” doc, it states:

"When Coriolis Effect proponents are challenged on the accuracy or validity of this table, the proponents proclaim that if it were incorrect then artillery and artillerymen would be routinely inaccurate and miss their targets, and how could that be the case?
From the introduction of the above paper provided to us we read that military artillery, which is purported to require adjustments for the "Coriolis Effect," is indeed, routinely inaccurate. The first round generally misses its target. Only after missing a number of times, and then adjusting the alignment of the cannon to compensate, does the artilleryman hit his or her target.”


And it goes on to list a series of quotes regarding the accuracy of firing tables and how most first rounds fired are inaccurate.

So is the argument that because the Coriolis Table H is used but most first rounds are not accurate that the Coriolis Effect doesn’t exist?

If so, wouldn’t the same apply to Tables A-G and I-M. Things like table corrections for Elevation, Wind, Temperature/Density, Muzzle Velocity, etc? Meaning, do all of these things not exist as well because often the first round(s) fired are not accurate?

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect
« on: January 20, 2019, 11:02:11 PM »
It's simply a demonstration that water wants to travel in straight lines against the motion of the swinging.

It's the same sort of demonstration as putting a marble on the floor of a merry-go-round and seeing that the marble wants to travel against the merry-go-round.

Such experiments attempt to demonstrate the principle behind the idea of the Coriolis Effect, but not that the earth creates a Coriolis Effect.

Shall I point to my dinner plates as an example of flat objects when you ask me for evidence that the earth is flat? This is exactly what you guys are doing.

Does this still hold true:

The Coriolis Effect is caused by the stars, which are moving at a rate of one rotation per 24 hours.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Build Wall
« on: January 20, 2019, 10:30:39 AM »
Exactly. So if I were a poker player and offered up a DACA deal to give someone something of what they want that I don't want, I would say no. I've got time on my side. DACA works as is and if you want to hold out for 10 months I'll be sure to make this all looks like you holding out and not me.

4
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« on: January 20, 2019, 10:24:35 AM »
Yes there is. That point has been raised and addressed.

No, it hasn't. Quote the section of the book which says that it is using statute miles.

The whole notion of 'statute miles' v 'nautical miles' stuff was dispensed with pages ago. Neither here nor there. Not even a part of the argument. Catch up.

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Build Wall
« on: January 20, 2019, 08:11:29 AM »
My limited understanding of the issue is that I'm not quite clear on DACA as a bargaining chip. It's tied up in the courts and if the Supreme Court doesn't take up the Trump appeal this session then it kicks around for the better part of 2019 as is. So if all that is true, I wonder if Dems are rolling the dice and simply saying DACA is moot at the moment and will be until October, so this deal isn't really offering anything.

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 19, 2019, 09:58:23 AM »
In summary, the OP:

So, I tried to use the search function to find anyone talking about the former secretary of the Zetetic Society, Henry Ossipoff Wolfson. Apparently, he wrote a expose on Rowbotham positing that he was a snake oil salesman, in short. He claimed that Rowbotham went by the name of Dr. Samuel Birley, and that Rowbotham was merely using the Flat Earth theory as a cover to hoodwink people.  Is there any truth to this story being true, and is there any truth to the claims of Mr. Wolfson (if said story is true)?

I paraphrase what I posted before and gleaned from digging around before I too lost the thread of the thread. Here's what I think I know, feel free to correct.

- Henry Ossipoff Wolfson was appointed Secretary of the Zetetic Society at it's creation by Rowbotham himself, late in Rowbotham's life
- Wolfson, some six months later, contacted Proctor and the publication, Knowledge, to ask if he could write an expose, seemingly attempting to expose Robotham as I guess a fraud
- Subsequently, Wolfson wrote two essays/acts of what were to be perhaps more 'takedowns' of Rowbotham, in part, calling out his nom de plumes and capping on his elixirs and their efficacy for medical treatment of whatever
- Wolfson's essays I & II were published in 'Knowledge' in 1884 and are referenced here in the TFES repository of FE literature
- As a result of the published essays, representatives for Rowbotham threatened to sue 'Knowledge'
- Rowbotham dies, suits are not pursued and further writing on the matter by Wolfson are non-existent

That's about all I think I know.

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: Samuel Birley aka Rowbotham
« on: January 18, 2019, 11:31:20 PM »
At this point, we can argue it's a difference of semantics. Did it cure them of nerve pain? Ok, sure. Let's go with that. Did it cure a disease? No.

Did tylenol cure my headache? Yes. Did it cure my stress that caused the headache? No. Is a headache a disease? No. It is a symptom. Is it pain? Yes. Can pain be cured? In a sense of the word, sure.

Can pain be so debilitating that people cannot walk? Yes. But pain is still not a disease.
It has been established that, by the standards of the 19th century in which he practiced medicine, Samuel Birley Rowbotham was well within the mainstream of medical practice in prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain. 

Has it been established though?  That prescribing phosphorus to cure chronic pain was well within the mainstream of medical practice back then? So far presented here have been a half a dozen or so Dr's and a few 'studies'. I'm not sure that qualifies as making an argument that it was the norm or mainstream even back then.

8
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon
« on: January 18, 2019, 04:36:41 AM »
....actually there is a simple answer, the rockets tip over so as not to hit the firmament and explode. The nukes taught us that.

Interesting statement. What's your evidence for this?

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 18, 2019, 12:56:11 AM »
The altruism of Trump, so nobly working without pay on behalf of the American people.
As if altruism is a worthwhile aspiration?

Is selfishness, the antonym of 'altruism', the more worthwhile aspiration?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 17, 2019, 10:04:44 PM »
I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom.  Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?

Have you taken a course in astronomy in college? That's exactly how it works. Questioning is not encouraged.

What's that supposed to mean?  It's up to the student to be proactive and ask questions.  Are you suggesting that they actively discourage questioning in astronomy classes?  Did you take an astronomy course and had your questions denied?  Or did you just not like the answers because they went against your beliefs?


And again, your view on Jupiter.....flat or not?  Simple question.  I'll start.  I think it's round.
Ha! Took an astronomy class in college. I asked how it was demonstrably correct that stars are formed of gas. Instead of receiving an answer from the professor, I was mocked..."How could you ask such a stupid question?"

Never mind scientists continue to debate the reality of stars, just settle for the status quo and keep giving us your money.

Seems like you're complaining about the rather poor education you received. Instead of constantly relaying the result of the less than adequate schooling you are suffering from perhaps you might provide some evidence as to why Jupiter does not appear to rotate yet it does for most everyone else.

11
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flight Paths
« on: January 17, 2019, 09:01:48 PM »
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.
The globe is merely the extrusion of the azimuthal.

All maps, from the dawn of time, have been drawn on flat paper based on the person doing the drawing being on a flat earth plain.

As per usual, incorrect. Long haul airline pilots and ship captains take the shortest route between two points and that is called a straight line, on a globe it is technically referred to as a 'great circle'.

In case you are unaware what a great circle is, it's defined by the air, sea travel/navigation industry worldwide as: A circle on the surface of a sphere which lies in a plane passing through the sphere's center. As it represents the shortest distance between any two points on a sphere, a great circle of the earth is the preferred route taken by a ship or aircraft.

If you have a problem with the way all global travel/transport/navigation is carried out using the globe earth model I'd suggest you take it up with the folks who run, maintain and carry out all global travel/transport/navigation. I don't believe your "better way of doing things" notions are reaching the correct audience by posting here.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flight Paths
« on: January 17, 2019, 03:49:07 PM »
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.
You claim it is "odd," the plane, "...flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada." Then claim, "...flat earth flight rules..." dictated, "...a straight shot West."

Funny, all one needs to do is pull up Gleason's Azimuthal and see that is exactly what they did in flying over Greenland and Canada.

ANOTHER FE VICTORY!!!

What’s hilarious is that your claiming FE victory referencing a globe earth. You do realize the Gleason map is a globe projection?As in, you know, derived from a spherical earth. The irony is that FE uses globe maps. Kills me every time.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 17, 2019, 12:33:29 AM »
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.

We do, otherwise why would the question be raised in the OP that has yet to be addressed from an FE perspective:

"How are these observations explained on a flat earth? What drives the orbit of the moons if not gravity? What casts the shadow on the planet if not the moons coming between Jupiter and the sun?"

14
If you consider money to be secular in nature, I would list that.

Money has always been the lamest of arguments. A flat earth would be way more profitable. Just pick and industry/technology today that relies on a spherical model. Say, the airlines. If the earth was flat an enterprising airline would arise and not follow the spherical great circle routes we do today. They would just go in a straight line. The amount of fuel and time saved would be astronomical. Same for global shipping. No more need to waste money on 'fake' satellite launches and such. The list goes on. If a flat earth could actually be shown to be better it would be exploited for the maximum monetary gain it would provide.
Considering your argument eats its own tail, you would be better served just sitting quietly in the corner over there----->

Airlines are flying straight line routes , ships are taking straight line routes...all God's children take the shortest route between two points and that is called a straight line.

Correct, all God's long haul airline pilots and ship captains take the shortest route between two points and that is called a straight line, on a globe it is technically referred to as a 'great circle'.

In case you are unaware what a great circle is, it's defined by the air, sea travel/navigation industry worldwide as: A circle on the surface of a sphere which lies in a plane passing through the sphere's center. As it represents the shortest distance between any two points on a sphere, a great circle of the earth is the preferred route taken by a ship or aircraft.

If you have a problem with the way all global travel/transport/navigation is carried out using the globe earth model I'd suggest you take it up with the folks who run, maintain and carry out all global travel/transport/navigation. I don't believe your "better way of doing things" notions are reaching the correct audience by posting here.

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flight Paths
« on: January 16, 2019, 07:14:37 PM »
United used to have a nonstop from Milan to SFO. I flew it twice. Neither time did it stop. Crushingly long flight. About 11 hours. Oddly, both times it flew way out of the way up over Greenland and back down through northern Canada. Had they been following flat earth flight rules, they just would have done a straight shot West.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 16, 2019, 05:42:12 PM »
A well known and time worn and tested method (still utilized by current surveyors) in assessing height of objects above the surface of the Earth is suddenly qualified as, "...quite the stretch..."?

Yes, much like when a few of us used your method of measuring the distance to the sun a few months back and all got radically different results. Based upon that I would hardly take your word for how to measure anything.

It might perhaps be helpful for the OP to explain how the object known as Jupiter is related to the flat earth and its inhabitants.

That's the question for FET. If in FET all of the celestial bodies hover over the flat earth approximately 3000+ miles high, what is causing jupiter to rotate and what is causing its moons to rotate around it? RET has an explanation, we await FET's.

How do you know Jupiter is rotating, for one, and how do you know it has moons orbiting around it?

Does the spot pac-man, magically disappearing on one side then at an interval magically appearing on the other? Hardly seems logical nor realistic.

How do I know Jupiter is rotating?  Because I have seen it rotating through my telescopes.  I take it you don't have a telescope then otherwise you would be able to see the same thing I do.  I can send you images of the red spot moving across the disk if you wish.  Not a problem for me.  Images that I took by the way with my own equipment with no funding (sadly!) from NASA.
You see a red spot on the surface of any object and come to the conclusion that because you see the red spot moving the object must be moving?

I find this conclusion to be highly dubious.

I have observed Jupiter through a telescope in my astronomy class while in college. I wasn't able to ascertain any rotation.

Further, I doubt you are in possession of a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion.

Just because you weren't able to ascertain any rotation is hardly an argument against the the many, many who have and do. Coupled with what has been proven to be your somewhat suspect observational skills, I find you assertion dubious at best.

Further, one does not have to "possess" a telescope, one may simply peer through one of any quality or price given access.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 16, 2019, 10:31:49 AM »
The fact is that I can quote any number of sources on the web or books that quote a figure for the size and distance of Jupiter but Tom will only accept evidence from a single source that happens to agree with his beliefs on the subject.  Is that the zetetic way?

To demonstrate and to seek only by inquiry is the "zetetic way," and the subject matter of the book which goes into the validity of those numbers is far more demonstrative than just posting the numbers themselves.

If you are going to insist on a number in a book, and wish to look no further, then why are you even here? Find a book that will tell you that the earth is round and stop bothering us.
Why do you think this book is correct and recent measurements are wrong?

The book is correct because the author is showing us that the "triangulation" used does not make a triangle. See p. 18.

It's quite the stretch to just come right out and say "the book is correct because..." But fine, whatever. You still haven't addressed, at all, the OP and page 18 of your book doesn't do so either, if it, in fact, addresses anything. But that aside.

The OP is: "How do flat earthers explain the rotation of Jupiter and the orbit of it's moons?" Not their distance from earth, nor their size as you keep trying to argue with your book.

In FET, what causes Jupiter to rotate and it's moons to orbit around it?

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 16, 2019, 08:38:02 AM »
The question I had when making this post was essentially "How do flat earthers explain the rotation of Jupiter and the orbit of it's moons?".

Tom has yet again hijacked a thread with red herrings, this time with an evidence-less book he suggests reading that supposedly proves that we don't know the actual size of Jupiter, something that is actually irrelevant to the OP and, again, lacks any evidence to support it's claims in the first place.

Yes, the essence of the matter, "How do flat earthers explain the rotation of Jupiter and the orbit of it's moons?" has devolved into an examination of a fringe book from 100 years ago purporting that all astronomical measurements are incorrect. Which doesn't even remotely address the question at hand. So if we are to rely on this book as Tom wishes us to do, the question is, how does it, the book, the one cited as evidence of something, address "What drives the orbit of the moons if not gravity? What casts the shadow on the planet if not the moons coming between Jupiter and the sun?"

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 16, 2019, 01:23:31 AM »
Ok, let's back up here. If you are asserting that numbers printed in a book are not evidence, then I firmly reject your statement elsewhere that medical data you provided is solid evidence that phosphorus is a legitimate medical treatment for specific diseases. That's literally all that was.

Those papers did show how the numbers were derived. Quoting a book about how big or far away Jupiter is in miles is meaningless when we are questioning whether the method of coming up with that number is correct.

Exactly, and quoting one guy's book from 100 years ago asserting how he thinks the methodology is wrong based upon what he thinks is the right way, though he can't use his 'right way' to show us is dubious at best.

You would be very disappointed to learn that Astronomy is mostly a science of observation and assumption.

Not disappointed at all. Astronomy is mostly a science of observation, assumption, experimentation, calculation, theorizing, empiricism and conjecture. Rinse and repeat. Scientific method, much how we put a man on the moon and an iphone in your hand.

In his book he says that he would address the better methods in his sequel, which is not digitized online.

However, this has nothing to do with the fact that he demonstrates that astronomy is incorrect.

He asserts astronomy is incorrect. If he could demonstrate it, he would use his methodology to show such. Instead, he does not. I can find no reference to his later work, digitized or not. Seems to be a one off treatise.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter
« on: January 16, 2019, 12:55:45 AM »
Ok Tom I have several books which also quotes the same figures that these websites do.  I can take photos of the pages that gives these figures.  Would that be evidence enough for you?  Short of hiring a spacecraft equipped with a very long tape measure I can provide pretty much any evidence you want so just let me know.

In any case, numbers shown on a website or numbers shown on the page of a book.  What's the difference?

A number printed in a book wouldn't do it either. We are talking about how the numbers were originally derived. If that's wrong then it's all wrong.

Winning this matter should be easy. Just look up Dr. Halley's method of astronomical triangulation and show that it doesn't match up with the author of Kings Dethroned is talking about, and that the book is therefore all nonsense.

Right, and Hickson's Kings Dethroned simply asserts reasons why he thinks the measurements are wrong. But then doesn't apply what he thinks is a superior methodology to telling us what the numbers actually are. In other words, none of his assertions are backed up. They are just assertions.
Non-sequitur.  Also, Hickson doesn't "assert" that the measurements are wrong, he gives arguments as to why those methods are on shaky logical grounds.

I don't think it's a non-sequitur. Tom keeps bringing up Hickson's book as some sort of proof that all of modern astronomical measurements are wrong. Fast forward almost 100 years from the technology existent back when he wrote his treatise, I'm loathe to accept Hickson's assertions as pravda. He uses triangulation to make his point. Negates refraction (Tom uses it all the time to support his side as does RE equally) And then asserts that his triangulation methods are superior but still can't exhibit their use to provide a measurement or distance of celestial body. He's basically devoting 100 pages to "Here's why I think everyone is mistaken based upon my methodology that I actually can't use to show how they are mistaken..."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30  Next >