### 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 - Rayzor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water finding it's own level
« on: February 16, 2016, 12:44:25 AM »
Regardless of individual perspective, isnt there a scientific way to measure the supposed curvature of a body of water? I know of bedford level experiment, but shouldnt the curvature be detected even on a microscopic scale? It would really settle things if someone could detect it, instead of arbitrarily saying "youre too small to tell, just trust us"

You can get precision levels that  will measure the curvature over distances of a few meters.   Taylor Hobson Talyvel comes to mind,   Mahr differential levels are another.   Most often used to calibrate precision granite surface plates or align machine tools to sub micron precision.  Large precision machine tools sometimes need to take earth's curvature into account when setting up.

The curvature over a distance of 10 meters will be 8 microns.   Levels like the Talyval 6 can easily measure down to that sort of accuracy.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water finding it's own level
« on: February 15, 2016, 01:00:48 PM »
To me, this is one of the main phenomenon I can't rectify with a spherical earth. A standing body of water appears to have no curvature, and we have used water based levels to build very large structures with out flaw.

More so, it seems physically impossible water could ever exist on a curve as its tendency is to go from its highest elevation to the lowest. A spherical earth woud indicate that some rivers on earth would somehow have to flow up to reach the ocean.

Lastly, is it even possible to have a flat surface on a curved planet? Would there not be a way to measure a stretch of standing water to try to detect a curvature? I know mathmatically that a circle doesnt consist of a finite amount of flat lines, in fact there is never a flat line on a circle.

Would like some input from the community on this, thanks.

The accepted rate of the Earths curvature is about 8 inches per mile or 1 inch per 660 feet.

Is your vision (perception) sharp enough to allow you to resolve an item that is 1 inch long from a distance of 660 feet?  How about 8 inches long at 5,280 feet?

How are you equating a bubble level with the oceans of the world?  The volume of the Earth's oceans is around 1.4 billion cubic kilometers and is spread out over thousands of miles.  The volume of a bubble level (figuring at 2 inches long by 3/8 inch diameter) is 0.23 cubic inches (not allowing for the displacement for the bubble) and is constrained by the physical size of the vial.  I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue with this statement.

As far as water going from high to low.  Water does flow from high to low, without question, unless acted on by an outside force.

As far as flowing up to reach the ocean, implying flow from the lower portion to the upper portion of a sphere.  On a grand scale there is no up, down, left or right in space.  This holds true regardless of whether you believe in a FE or RE.  What are you basing your perception of up, down, left or right on?  More importantly what are you basing your perception of a lower portion on?

Why would it be impossible to have a flat surface on a curved planet?  Do you perceive a curve in everything around you except the earth?

Of course there is a method for measuring a stretch of standing water to detect a curvature, in fact here are the directions:  http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct.html .

What is your argument concerning flat lines on a circle?  Mathematically, no the line of a circle does not consist of a series of flat lines but, going back to the 8 inches per mile of curvature, it takes 7,920 inches (660 feet) of linear travel to accommodate 1 inch of curvature so from your perspective this is a flat line.

FE theory, as well as your argument/question rests on perception.  Perception implicitly relies on only that which you can see at any given point, at any given time.  At what point is that perception considered to be unreliable to describe an entire planet?

Your calculation is slightly wrong,   the formula is  h = 0.666 x m2    where  h is height in ft, and m is distance in miles,   so  660 ft is  0.125 miles,   so h = 0.666 x 0.125 x 0.125 =  0.010 ft,  or less than 1/8 of an inch.
If you want to take standard refraction into account use h = 0.574 x m2,   this formula is accurate only for values of m that are small compared to the radius of the earth.

3
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Gyroscopes
« on: February 14, 2016, 06:24:01 AM »
I'm currently working on a project that uses the Ti CC2650 BLE chip,   and there is a sensor tag  available for \$29 that has incorporated a 9 axis accelerometer/gyroscope,  you connect via blutooth to your mobile phone and you can read the various sensors,   light level, temperature, humidity, pressure, magnetic sensor,  x,y,z accelerometers,  x,y,z gyroscopes,  x,y,x magnetometers and microphone,  runs for a year on a lithium coin cell.

http://www.ti.com/ww/en/wireless_connectivity/sensortag2015/index.html

I doubt that the gyro specs are good enough for this application,  refer to the data for the 9 axis chip MPU9250  http://store.invensense.com/datasheets/invensense/MPU9250REV1.0.pdf

The first problem, I see is that the gyro's will drift with temperature,  so the experiment will need to be conducted in a temperature controlled environment,   second is the noise in the gyro output,  so some external software to average the gyro outputs over time.   The data is 16 bit  degrees/sec,   and we are looking for something less than 15 degrees per hour,  or 0.00417 deg/s,  while the noise is 0.1 deg/s rms.

With a bit of careful temperature control ( and correction ) together with some clever averaging, it just might work,  but I think it will be borderline.

4
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Magnetic Field Line Diagram Help
« on: February 13, 2016, 09:19:05 AM »
Only thing I see wrong, is that you have the south pole underneath the earth,  rather than around the rim,  like a speaker magnet.   The problem with the diagram as drawn, is that compasses in the southern hemisphere would be wrong.

5
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Magnetic Field Line Diagram Help
« on: February 08, 2016, 01:01:29 AM »

Can you show me what you mean? I couldn't find a type of disc magnet that would look how it would need it to.

Like this.

Dissassemble an old speaker and remove the magnet,  then you can sprinkle iron filings on a sheet of paper to visualise the field.

I think it more closely resembles the popular flat earth model.  ( albeit wrong )

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 07, 2016, 12:03:50 PM »

How is this change in direction explained in Round Earth Theory?

That pattern can be observed when you are far enough North  ( or South ) to see the sun following the horizon,    it was a solagraph taken with a pinhole camera pointed south.  And, as Enlightenmental noted  the film is curved    So it would be a very wide FOV.

More detail can be found here ...  http://paulinewoolleyartist.blogspot.com.au/search/label/PIN%20HOLE%20PHOTOGRAPHY

So you admit that the sun changes direction in the sky mid day in your model?

Here's another one:

I know what you mean, but, no the sun doesn't reverse direction,  but it rises and falls in an arc,  the lowest point of the arc being close to midnight,  the highest point being midday.   Those solar graphs are made with a pinhole camera that has a very wide field of view,  that might be confusing the issue.

7
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Magnetic Field Line Diagram Help
« on: February 07, 2016, 11:54:52 AM »
The flat earth magnetic field model,  I understood to be a disk magnet,   like a speaker magnet,  with the North Pole in the middle and the south pole around the edge?

Is this a new version?

8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 05, 2016, 03:23:20 AM »

How is this change in direction explained in Round Earth Theory?

That pattern can be observed when you are far enough North  ( or South ) to see the sun following the horizon,    it was a solagraph taken with a pinhole camera pointed south.    So it would be a very wide FOV.

More detail can be found here ...  http://paulinewoolleyartist.blogspot.com.au/search/label/PIN%20HOLE%20PHOTOGRAPHY

9
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Shills, trolls and psyops.
« on: February 04, 2016, 12:17:09 PM »
Well it seems his video is public again. All 29 minutes of it. Who would watch a 29 minute soliloquy of a guy holding a phone telling you how persecuted he is? I could watch a proper program on TV with decent actors and a good plotline. Youtube should always be under 7 minutes. Why won't these vain wannabes just make short factual content people want to see instead of trying to write themselves into the story as the main character?

I get the strong impression that he isn't at all genuine,  it feels more like performance art,   and very poorly executed.   He's at least as ego driven and mentally unhinged as Dubay.

10
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?
« on: February 03, 2016, 08:32:53 AM »
Lookup the bi-polar model.

I did, and the figure 8 movements of the sun and moon,  don't come anywhere near explaining the seasons, or the 24 hour daylight at the south pole, and 24 hour night at the north pole.

Has anyone done a proper bipolar model that works?

11
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Gullibility of the public
« on: February 03, 2016, 08:09:09 AM »
The most intuitive reason I can give that Space Exploration doesn't exist is because the general public, albeit, "wealthy" should be able to go to "space" by now.

I think you'll find that Mark Shuttleworth was a paying tourist.  He went on a mission to the ISS,  it cost him \$20 million for the experience.

As for comparing the composition of the sun with formation of the grand canyon,   two entirely different things,  with the sun we can look at the spectral lines and identify the elements with precision,  with the formation of the Grand Canyon the evidence is in the geology and history of the continental plates,  you can easily have multiple theories about how the Grand Canyon formed,  but there can be no argument about the spectral absorbtion lines in sunlight.

Apples and Oranges.

12
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Gullibility of the public
« on: February 02, 2016, 10:39:12 PM »
Still keeping in mind this is about hoaxes and the gullibility of the general public, how do math and sciences play a role?

Carl Sagan,  described what he called a "baloney detector"  basically,  it's a tool kit of questions that you can ask to determine if what you are being told is "baloney"

You can google it for more background,  but to save you some time, here is the main points.

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”

2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

5. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

7. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

8. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

9. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

Baloney is a peculiar American term,  in Australia,  I'd call it a bullshit detector.

13
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 02, 2016, 10:12:17 PM »
I'm not targetting you at all. I'm simply approaching a certain type of entitled RE'ers, of which you happen to be a prominent example.

What do you think the word "entitled" actually means?  I've seen you use it a number of times in this context,  but I don't think you understand the word.

14
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Gullibility of the public
« on: February 02, 2016, 10:10:33 PM »
Science and Maths leaves no room for lies.

You have continued to use this thread as a personally discussion about Flat Earth vs Round Earth.

That isn't the particular topic of this thread.

In regards to the conversation between you and I, only you have mentioned Flat Earth.

This topic is about Hoaxes and how the general public can be fooled so easily.

So let's forget FE for just a minute. Leave that aside.

That's very telling,   I never mentioned flat earth,   you inferred it from my comment  "Science and Maths leaves no room for lies."   why did you take that to mean I'm talking about flat earth?

And as far as "continuing to use this thread",   no, that was my first post in this thread.  I'm beginning to think your intuition is not as finely tuned as you seem to think,  you consistently make simple errors of fact.

15
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Gullibility of the public
« on: February 02, 2016, 12:11:29 PM »

So the question is how to you know it's a conspiracy? The government says its not, the mainstream media says its not, and the general public says its not. So how do you know?

It's called intuition.

Did you really just say that you decide what's a conspiracy and what isn't, purely based on "intuition"...

My wife uses what she calls "womens intuition",   and I can testify to the fact she is almost never right.

Don't let me give you the impression, that I don't believe in "gut feel" or "intuition" especially when it comes to dealing with people,  lots of sub verbal clues and subtle body language or facial expressions all combine to give you a "feel" of the person you are interacting with.  Some people are exceptionally good at "reading people" and it comes naturally,  also some professions are highly trained to pick up the clues as to when someone is lying.  Like some police investigators.

But when it comes to hard scientific evidence,  intuition is not a valid basis for deciding truth.  Science and Maths leaves no room for lies.

16
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 01, 2016, 12:56:53 PM »
This is comical.

NASA clearly themselves say that no actual photos were provided from 1972-2015.

This is their words not mine. So that means anything you guys are calling a photo isn't. NASA says so. Not me.

So all the images from satellites are NOT actual photos. So says NASA.

So if NASA tells you they only have a handful of actual photos, then I ask why?

And if don't believe what me or NASA tells you then go to their website and provide us with more than 5 actual photos.

So, you've discovered that  NASA don't operate weather satellites,  not all that surprising since they don't do weather forecasting.   They don't broadcast TV shows either.

Why do you expect NASA to do everything space related,   what about ESA,  JAXA,  ROSCOSMOS, CNSA, ASE, EWO, ISA, ASI, KCST, KARI, ISRO, CNES, HKAY, NSAU, RFSA....    all those agencies have launch capability...  wait  I think I missed one...   ah yes,  who could forget NASA.

I was going to list all the meteosat's and others,  but I got lazy,  you can find them yourself.  or not.

NASA does operate weather satellites, and yes they do even broadcast t.v. shows. Have you ever heard of the NASA channel?

You are now suggesting that NASA doesn't operate weather satellites... And don't broadcast t.v. shows...

It's getting deep in here...

Still yet to provide the actual photos I am asking for.

I've already given you the photo you asked for,  and you might have a valid point about NASA weather satellites,  I thought the satellites were operated by a separate agency NOAA,  but you might be right,  they certainly have strong links to NASA,   as to the NASA channel,  I wouldn't know whose satellites it is broadcast through.  I doubt they have their own,   I've only ever seen it online

http://www.noaa.gov/
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/

Here's the most recent GOES West, and East Full disk images  from NOAA,   I think these links will always show latest images.

If you look closely you will see that the South Pole is in 24 hour daylight, and the North Pole is 24 hour night.   ( in 6 months it will be reversed,  I'm writing this in Early February )

17
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 01, 2016, 12:31:54 PM »
This is comical.

NASA clearly themselves say that no actual photos were provided from 1972-2015.

This is their words not mine. So that means anything you guys are calling a photo isn't. NASA says so. Not me.

So all the images from satellites are NOT actual photos. So says NASA.

So if NASA tells you they only have a handful of actual photos, then I ask why?

And if don't believe what me or NASA tells you then go to their website and provide us with more than 5 actual photos.

So, you've discovered that  NASA don't operate weather satellites,  not all that surprising since they don't do weather forecasting.   They don't broadcast TV shows either.

Why do you expect NASA to do everything space related,   what about ESA,  JAXA,  ROSCOSMOS, CNSA, ASE, EWO, ISA, ASI, KCST, KARI, ISRO, CNES, HKAY, NSAU, RFSA....    all those agencies have launch capability...  wait  I think I missed one...   ah yes,  who could forget NASA.

I was going to list all the meteosat's and others,  but I got lazy,  you can find them yourself.  or not.

18
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 01, 2016, 12:06:22 PM »
The one above IS NOT an actual photo.

In what way is it not an actual photo?   I can verify cloud formations and weather events  that corresponds perfectly with the satellite images in real time.

You asked for a photo, then start back-pedalling,  asking for an image that is not a composite.

Show me a digital colour photo that is NOT a composite.   It can be a picture of anything,  even of your cat if you like.

Backpeddling? I clearly told you that the image you provided was not an actual photo taken from a camera. It is indeed a composite.

I cannot be any more clear than that.

You say those images are the same as a digital camera.

I say they are not. That image you posted was taken using a multispectral imager. Not a camera and not a digital camera.

And you are still using composite in the wrong context.

So let me try it. I just took a picture with my phone. It must be a multispectral image...

I daresay the imaging system in the Himawari-8 cost a bit more than your digital camera,  but the underlying principles are the same,    Lenses focus an image onto a sensor array via filters,   there are multiple sensor arrays in the Satellite,  but your camera has multiple RGB filters in front of the CCD sensors just the same.   Your camera then opens the shutter for whatever integration time, and then clocks out the pixels into memory for the cpu to process  the image,  doing colour correction,  gamma correction,  luminance correction,  white balance and combines the Red Green and Blue  pixels into a composite digital image.   Much the same as what happens on the satellite,  except yours probably doesn't have cryogenically cooled super sensitive IR sensors,  and their on board processing is probably a bit more sophisticated than a consumer grade Nikon.

But all that is irrelevant,  you've made up your mind to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your view of the world,  that's fine by me,  it won't change your life or mine.

Say hi to Sceptimatic for me.

19
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 01, 2016, 10:45:51 AM »
The one above IS NOT an actual photo.

In what way is it not an actual photo?   I can verify cloud formations and weather events  that corresponds perfectly with the satellite images in real time.

You asked for a photo, then start back-pedalling,  asking for an image that is not a composite.

Show me a digital colour photo that is NOT a composite.   It can be a picture of anything,  even of your cat if you like.

20
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?
« on: February 01, 2016, 09:25:47 AM »
In case you are too busy to actually read what NASA tells you I will post the part I am referring to:

"The color Earth images are created by combining three separate single-color images to create a photographic-quality imageequivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used to create the color images"

COMBINING IMAGES = COMPOSITES!!

Why so many composites?

Every digital camera does the much the same.  There are red green and blue CCD sensing elements,  so using your logic,  every digital picture ever taken is a composite, and therefore not **real**

The weather satellites use multiple portions of the em spectrum to identify different aspects of  atmospheric activity.

In total Himawari-8 uses  16 different spectral bands,  10 of which are in the infrared.   and 6 in the visible portion of the spectrum.

No. Not my logic. NASA's logic. It clearly says "by combining 3 seperate images". Using seperate images and combining them is the definition of COMPOSITE.

Here is a composite image from nasa. Not a photo. Don't let the word "high definition" fool you.

It clearly says it is a composite.

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/lro-earthrise-2015

As laughable as that picture looks, all other NASA images look the same.

NASA has provided us only 2 supposed photos from 1972 to 2015. How can this be?

Himawari-8 has nothing to do with NASA,   why do you keep referring back to them all the time?

The images from Himawari-8 and other weather satellites are just as valid as pictures taken with any digital camera.  Why the obsession with composite,  all digital colour images are composite.

I could reduce the size, but then I suspect you'd claim the image is not original size.
It takes one of the above images every 10 minutes, as well as all the other spectral bands.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >