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 - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 110  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 03, 2020, 01:35:43 PM »
Wowzers. You can't say he's not a record-breaking president...

I take a photo with my phone and applying filters and making a composite or panoramic view is fundamentally based on my having a more firm grasp of the subject matter.
No. It's fundamentally based on you being in front of the object you're taking a photo of.
When I took panoramas at the Grand Canyon I was able to do that because I was at the Grand Canyon. My camera did the clever bit, stitching the images together, but I still had to physically be there.
And this is completely different from me digitally making an image of the Grand Canyon somehow without actually being there.
I believe you are accusing NASA of doing the latter when actually they're doing the former.

And we do have plenty of photos of the whole earth which aren't composites going back as far as the Apollo missions.

NASA stating the images are altered.
Right. But when you say altered. What do you mean and what do you see as the significance of that?
If you mean that the images they produce are not always what you'd see if you were where the craft they're taken from is then sure, that's true. Sometimes they're making images with only certain wavelengths for various reasons. Sometimes images are enhanced in various ways to make them clearer. You can do these sorts of things on your phone these days - you can apply a filter which means that if you take a selfie then it might look a bit airbrushed and wouldn't look like you. doesn't mean that you weren't there when the selfie was taken. An image with a filter applied still requires you to be there. This is where things like "Aha! See! They admit it's a composite" make no sense.
Yeah. It's a composite. Of pictures they took from space. Like the panorama you took is a composite of photos you took...wherever you took them. You still needed to be there to take the photos.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates
« on: April 02, 2020, 11:50:16 AM »
What was shown could be explained by earthquakes.
It is explained by earthquakes.
Now all you need to do is understand that earthquakes are (mostly) caused by the plates moving and we're there :)

Those pictures are not really evidence of anything at all.
Tom claiming photos that show something he doesn't like "aren't really evidence of anything at all".
How unusual :)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates
« on: April 02, 2020, 10:55:55 AM »
Migration. Across oceans? How do you think that would work?
Swimming and flying.
Swimming. Across the Atlantic ocean? :).
OK, dude!
You know we are talking about land animals here, right?

Who authored that dubious webpage?
I'm going to say it was someone at Leeds University. But you just arbitrarily declaring it dubious without any elaboration is not a rebuttal.
It was just one source I found, there are plenty of others.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates
« on: April 02, 2020, 09:32:20 AM »
There is nothing wrong with citing and insisting on that as evidence if you want to do that. I just find it interesting that the direct evidence on this topic requires a space agency.
It doesn't. Although if you're talking about entire plates moving, and moving slowly, then clearly something like GPS which has that global view is a good tool for measuring that. But there is other evidence, you were literally shown some pictures of things shifting over time and you said something silly about "well how do you know that isn't just because of earthquakes". Honestly a very silly statement when yes, it is because of earthquakes because those are caused by the plates slipping against each other. And it's particularly strange dismissal when you'd previously said:

There should at least be a screw which snapped on a fence on a fault line somewhere connecting the continents.

You were shown that exact sort of thing and then immediately went into full dismissal mode, your MO when you're shown something you don't like. I once again remind you how you accept at face value with no scrutiny whatsoever things which confirm your worldview.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 02, 2020, 09:10:28 AM »
Imagine thinking that chanting U-S-A, U-S-A, waving a little Stars and Stripes and saying "I'm doing a great job, it's all going to go away" makes any of that true.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates
« on: April 01, 2020, 11:46:37 AM »
The coastlines of the continents only vaguely fit together.

Well sure, there's hundreds of millions of years of erosion and changing sea levels. But they're close enough to indicate that it probably isn't just coincidence.

Fossil evidence could be explained by migration.

Migration. Across oceans? How do you think that would work?
And it's not just animal fossils, there are things like fern fossils which are found on both sides of what is now an ocean.
And mountain ranges continue across where we now think areas would have once been joined.

Have the continents ever been physically measured to move?


I would surmise the zetetic method as applied to pictures is to take note of the difference between the words, "picture," and "image."

NASA generally releases "images."
I'm interested to know what you see as the distinction between those things, do you regard one as more valid than the other and if so, why?

FE people often jump excitedly on NASA admitting they often make composite images which always seems strange to me. Every time you use the panorama function on your phone you are creating a composite image. That doesn't mean the image is fake.

Right. I’ve spent ages trying to understand what your confusion is here but I think I finally have.

According to the extreme perspective changes, there is a different view of the Moon when it is overhead, versus at a 45 degree angle.

I don’t know what you mean by “extreme”. As the moon orbits us then yes, we see different phases because of the way it is lit. Although note that because of the tidal locking the moon rotated as is orbits such that we always see the same face.

This image:

Shows two different moons at two different points in its orbit around the earth. You have shown one observer looking at two different moons.

Here is a to-scale diagram of the Earth-Moon system. There are two observers, Red and Blue. When one viewer views the Moon overhead, the other is viewing it at 45 degrees’ve shown two moons in that image too, as if red and blue are looking at two different moons! They are not.
The diagram Great A’Tuin did is a better representation of the reality. And the important angle is the one at which the red and blue lines meet at the moon.
THAT is what determines whether red and blue see different things. The fact they don’t is good evidence for a distant moon.
Were the moon as close as in your model red and blue would indeed see different things.

So the answer to Q1 is simply that there isn’t a difference in moon phase when two observers look at a single distant moon.
They would see different phases if they were looking at two different moons as in your diagrams although they would both see both moons.
I think that’s the answer to both questions.

Dude, this is you once again demonstrating that you do not understand things well. You don’t understand the model you claim can’t work.

A question for you is if the moon is close then why do we all see the same phase and face of it? By your own logic, we should not. It would only be an issue in RE if the two observers were looking at two different moons as you have inexplicably drawn. In reality we all look at the same moon and because it is distant we see the same thing, albeit the other way round in thr Southern Hemisphere.

None of the explanations above, or the video above, tell us how something can tilt to perspective
I don’t think the tilt is because of perspective.
Not in the same way that crepuscular rays appearing to emanate from a source is because of perspective.

The moon tilt illusion is...well, an illusion. It’s a failure of perception, just like in the video I posted the photo of the 3 cars is. We are used to things getting smaller as they get further away, if they don’t then our brain tries to understand what’s going on and we perceive the cars as getting bigger.

With the moon tilt illusion we perceive that the terminator points in a different direction to where the sun is. It looks like the line perpendicular to the terminator points upwards, but if you stretch string out in that direction you find it does indeed point at the sun.

Our brains often need context to make sense of things and with that missing we can perceive things incorrectly. That is what causes this illusion.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eötvös Effect
« on: March 26, 2020, 04:10:56 PM »
This is a different experiment, and not the effect you are talking about.
Correct. But the two effects are related in that they are both predicted results if we are living on a spinning ball. It's often said by FE people that there are no experiments which demonstrate that we live on a spinning globe. Here are two that do just that. Or, to be more precise, they add confidence to that hypothesis.

If we living on a spinning globe then you'd expect weight to vary by latitude because of the centrifugal force.
And you'd expect weight to increase as you're travelling East and decrease as you're travelling West because of the changes in that force.

These experiments clearly show those two effects. And neither of these effects make any sense on a flat, stationary earth.

The Wiki page about the weight changing by latitude and your responses in this thread show that you are not interested in anything which shows your world view may be wrong. First you tried to claim that the result he saw on the planes was far bigger than you'd expect. When you realised your mistake, you hastily edited your post. Unluckily for you, a couple of us saw the original post. :)
But in the edited post all you do is now claim that he was "trying" to get the results in the range of the calculated result.
So first the results aren't in line with expected amounts, then when you realise they are it's because he's "trying" to get those results, whatever that means.
It just shows you're not interested in results unless you believe them to back up your world view.

And I once again would like you, if you're honest with yourself, to compare and contrast your reaction to these experiments with the way you unquestioningly post videos of experiments which you do think match your world view. You don't seem to apply the slightest bit of scrutiny to those. It's a bit disingenuous, isn't it?

But anyway, as this YouTuber himself says, have a go yourself if you're really interested in the truth. Are you?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eötvös Effect
« on: March 26, 2020, 11:26:21 AM »
It is your responsibility to provide the evidence for your claim.
Which has been provided. Obviously because it shows something you don't like you are blundering around first trying to say "Aha, but the effect is far too small to get those results" and then, embarrassingly, you realised your mistake so hastily amended that. hoping we wouldn't notice, to say he was "trying" to get certain results which makes zero sense. He just took some readings and showed the results.
I'm sorry you don't like the results, but they are what they are.

I did not claim that this effect existed for scales. You did.
That sentence alone is another betrayal of your ignorance of things. The effect doesn't exist "for scales", it simply exists.

The hypotheses are simply this.
Firstly, if we are living on a spinning ball then a centrifugal force should be acting. The magnitude of that force should vary depending on your latitude. And if you do the maths you'll note that we shouldn't all go "flying off" like some of the sillier FE people claim, but there should be a measurable difference at different latitudes. And oh look, the same dude did another video which demonstrates just that:

And note that at the end of the video he urges people to do their own tests and not just take his word for it. So go on then, what's stopping you?

Secondly, if you're travelling going East then you are going with the rotation of the earth which would make the magnitude of that centrifugal force higher, if you're going West you're going against the rotation of the earth so the magnitude will be less.
Which is what the original video shows. You don't have to be on a plane but they go fast enough to mean the effect is easily measurable with the right equipment.

So yeah. We have two hypotheses, the two experiments test those hypothesis. The results don't prove the hypothesis, that's not how science works. But they are in line with what you'd expect if the hypothesis is true.

The effect was originally discovered by ships that were measuring the gravitational field of the earth. Which is a force.
Scales measure weight, which is also a force - it's actually the force acting on a body because of the gravitational field of the earth. So I'd absolutely expect an accurate scale to be able to detect this effect. I'm sorry if you don't understand that but I don't know what I can do about that.

I wouldn't expect there to be a huge body of scientific evidence on this because it's based on the premises that
1) The earth is a spinning ball
2) Centrifugal force is a thing.

Neither of these things are controversial. Repeat experiments were done - also with ships, I don't know if you'd get accurate readings on a scale on ships which rock and move far more than airplanes do, and ships are quite slow so the effect would be harder to measure. But given that the results are in line with a globe earth model which is known to be true, I don't think you're going to get a research grant to pursue the matter. It's an accepted effect, the reasons for it are understood.
What is the FE explanation?

If RE could actually show its claims, they would have done that long ago
Well, they have. All you're doing is either calling it fake, misunderstanding it or hand waving it away for various spurious reasons.
It's very easy to "prove" yourself right if you ignore or call fake all the evidence showing you to be wrong.

Luckily, these effects are relatively easy to test and as I said the guy actively encourages you to.
There's a bit of outlay but I'm sure the FE community could raise enough money for an accurate scale and a reference weight.
Then you can test this for yourself. I look forward to the results.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eötvös Effect
« on: March 25, 2020, 10:38:46 PM »
It does appear in the video that he was trying to get the results somewhat in the range of a calculator result. Nonetheless, irrelevant.

lol. Yeah, unfortunately I also saw your original post before you edited it. How embarrassing.
So your original claim was that his readings must be wrong because the effect isn't strong enough to cause that much difference.
Now you've realised that you got that wrong you're immediately doing a U-Turn and claiming that he was "trying" to get results within the expected range. What does that even mean?! He got the results he got. How do you "try" to get a certain result? He took measurements, that's what he found.
How strange you don't apply this level of scrutiny to experiments which you think back up your world view... :)

The Eötvös Effect in the gravimeter is generally credible as an effect because different science teams recorded it at different times. We know that the gravimeter can record this effect. Eötvös did this with a gravimeter. Not a scale. The nature of this effect relies on the nature of a gravimeter.[/url]

Not according to the Wiki page you references but have since deleted when you realised your mistake.

The Eötvös effect is the change in perceived gravitational force caused by the change in centrifugal acceleration resulting from eastbound or westbound velocity

This effect is about gravitational forces. Scales measure weight, which is the gravitational force felt by an object.
So you weigh less on the moon but your mass is the same as it is on earth.
You started this by claiming that the difference in readings he got were too big.
Then you realised your mistake so changed to claiming that he was "trying" to get readings within the expected values.
Now within the same post you're saying that it's not relevant because he used the "wrong" instrument, despite you agreeing above that the difference he got is within the range you'd expect from calculations.

And of course you then go down the "well, it was only one test" or "How do you know he's not lying/only cherry picking results which suit his agenda" roads. Again, it's interesting how often you post videos of one off experiments which you think back up your world view and how little scrutiny you apply to them.

But as an empiricist I am sure you're looking forward to repeating his experiment and I look forward to seeing your results. :)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eötvös Effect
« on: March 25, 2020, 11:33:20 AM »
How is this a poor experiment? AllAroundTheWorld gave a good analysis based on the video.
It's a "poor experiment" from Tom's point of view because it doesn't show what he wants it to show.
Of course there will be a bit of vibration on the plane so the measurement will bounce around a bit but there's a clear trend of the weight being different when flying in the two directions.

There are many different things affecting the weight here, causing it to bounce up and down. And you think that averaging it all out will tell you what the ultimate cause is here?

No, because that is now how science works. We have a hypothesis of a spinning earth. If the earth is spinning that means a centrifugal force should be acting. That force should counteract some of the force caused by gravity, by how much depends on your latitude. If you are in a plane going East then you are going with the spin of the earth so the force should increase. If you are going West you are going against the spin of the earth so the force should be less. The results of that experiment agree with what you'd expect to see IF the hypothesis is correct. It doesn't prove it is, it doesn't tell you the cause of the result. Again that is not how science works. It's all about experimental evidence adding weight to a hypothesis which the experiment is designed to test.

This is just like the experiment you posted of the swirl of a tub. A singular experiment that you think proves something because someone claimed to get the right direction, while ignoring the people who got a different result.

I'll let you think about the irony of you saying that in a post there you are literally ignoring someone who got a result you don't like.
And you posting videos of other singular experiments which you think prove a point.
But no, a singular experiment proves nothing. How strange that you think it does when it comes to Rowbotham's "experiments" which are all him literally saying "this is what I observed" with no evidence that he did observe that or that he even did the experiments.

The Eötvös Effect is a type of experiment historically performed by science with gravimeters - a different instrument.

Not clear what your point is. The hypothesis is simply that the force should vary when flying in different directions. A scale measures force so is a perfectly valid instrument to use

The effect does not bounce up and down wildly in the gravimeter, and has a clear trend

It might do if it was done on a plane with the inherent vibration which will mean varying results. But the trend was clear in the different directions.

And without extraneous repetition or control of the variables it's trash.
No, it isn't. Honestly, it's incredible you don't understand this stuff. The amount of things you reject while demonstrating that you clearly don't understand them is ridiculous. No experiment on its own should be thought to be conclusive. It just adds weight - or doesn't, depending on the result - to the hypothesis it's designed to test.

The Wiki article is word salad and explains nothing. This experiment tests the hypothesis and gives a clear result which adds weight to that hypothesis. It doesn't on its own prove anything, but it shows the result you'd expect from the hypothesis.

The Eötvös Effect is a consequence of us living on a spinning balls. As a Flat Earther you either have to
1) Show the effect doesn't actually exist or
2) Find some alternative FE explanation which actually has some merit.

Flat Earth Theory / Eötvös Effect
« on: March 24, 2020, 05:38:07 PM »
I saw this rather good video about the Eötvös Effect:

I thought I'd have a look to see if your Wiki has any thoughts on this matter and found this page

Which says:

It is found that a gravimeter is a low-frequency seismometer, and that the theory of gravimetry is based on a theoretical assessment of the background noise in the subseismic band. The patterns of the tides and other phenomena can be pulled out of the background noise, and are assumed to be due to "gravity".

In connection with the above, The Eötvös Effect is an effect which adds or subtracts anthropogenic and microseismic noises to the gravimeter when a vessel moves eastwards or westwards. Although the cause of the noise is unknown, the noise may be related to the stars, tides, or even the upper flow of the 'great ocean conveyor belt', all of which make regular westwards motions across the earth. A vessel going against this noise would pick up greater noise than a vessel which goes with the noise.

Due to the nature of the gravimeter, it is suggested that this effect seen in the gravimeter should be better classified under a category of seismology.

Honestly, this seems like complete word salad to me. I really have no idea what you're trying to say.
My point is, the explanation in RE is clear. You're either travelling with or against the spin of the earth, that affects the centrifugal force experienced by an object and thus the object's weight.
Wouldn't you say that the empirical observations better fit that model than a FE one where there is no real explanation?

You fail to understand that there is not really a "tilt". The Moon appears exactly the way it's supposed to appear. You intuitively expect to be able to draw a straight line from the Moon to the position of the Sun in the sky, perpendicular to the terminator. But this expectation, albeit intuitive, is false. Because of perspective.
Actually, far be it from me to argue with one of my RE brethren, but actually the moon tilt illusion is, as the name suggests, an illusion.#
When you observe the effect you can stretch a piece of string from the moon, perpendicular to the terminator, and you'll see that contrary to the way it appears there is a straight line between the moon and sun
It's well explained in this video.

It's a failure of perception caused by the lack of context when observing objects that far away and far apart.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: March 23, 2020, 04:32:09 PM »
Oh dear. Now you've "accidentally" made another mistake.
You started off by talking about the Washington post and now, silly you, you've gone and posted a load of articles from different papers.
And all of those articles are from January too.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: March 23, 2020, 04:28:24 PM »
Because maps of the whole world are not necessary.
And yet they exist. But they're not accurate. Why?

Adding a level of, "Ah, is easy because I say it is..." doesn't truly make it simple.

It's not easy because I say it is. It's easy, or at least possible, because geometry.
If the earth is flat and maps are flat then you should be able to represent the entire earth accurately on a flat map.
But I've yet to see one.

Why isn't it possible?
Who says it isn't?

Me. I'm saying it's not possible. And I've shown it's not possible. I've shown the Bing map of the earth and two lines of the same length and direction represent completely different distances. As you move the map the scale keeps changing.
Because the Bing map is a projection. All large scale maps are a projection. Because they are trying to represent the reality of a globe on a 2D surface which is not possible to do perfectly. Google Maps gets around this by representing the earth as a globe as you zoom out.
I wonder why they'd do that...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: March 23, 2020, 03:59:37 PM »
The point I'm trying to explain to lackey is that none of them are accurate.

You honestly believe after literally hundreds of years of navigating this planet and hundreds of years of advancement in cartography that there is no accurate map????
It's not a matter of belief. It's impossible to make one. If you disagree then can you please post one, if it exists?
All I'm asking for is a map of the earth which accurately portrays shapes and distances.
You mention "interactive scale" a few times. Why is that needed? As you move a Bing map when you zoom out the scale changes.
Why is that?
Flat earth. Flat map. Making an accurate map is just a matter of scaling.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 110  Next >