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 ... 78  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: March 20, 2019, 10:38:35 PM »
He didn't exactly recreate the original experiment but his version is equally valid and gives the same result.
The version this dude did wouldn't have been possible at the time of the original experiment because it would have been difficult to synchronise over long distances.
But I agree this result doesn't by itself prove the earth is a globe, but the alternative explanation requires a close sun which is problematic for other reasons.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: March 20, 2019, 10:03:26 PM »
The experiment outlined in the OP was first done to show earth's size ASSUMING it is round.
No, it assumes a distant sun.
And you keep saying they needed to take the measurements at different times, that is you just not understanding the experiment that was done.
As has been pointed out, a local sun and a flat earth is a possible alternative explanation for the result - although that is you making an assumption about the shape of the earth - but if you do this experiment at 3 points then you'd expect different results on a FE or a Globe:

Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 20, 2019, 02:54:37 PM »
For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space
Why do you deem that an extraordinary claim? All the other bodies we observe are spherical, gravity explains why all bodies above a certain size (mass really) are spherical.
I'd suggest it's an extraordinary claim that the earth is somehow different from every other body we can observe.
Especially given our observations are indicative of being on a globe

Read the FAQ since it's clear you haven't or you would know by now why horizons look curved.
I do know. It's because we live on a globe.
But I do enjoy these pieces of "heads I win, tails you lose" FE logic.
One of your pieces of evidence is "The world looks flat". Except when it doesn't and you're all "A curve! Exactly as we predicted!"
As someone else said, this thread really belongs in CN.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: zetetic vs atmolayer
« on: March 19, 2019, 03:47:44 PM »
There is no coherent theory explaining why the atmolayer/atmoplane doesn't just leak over the sides.
There are a few halfhearted attempts here:

One idea is a massive ice wall but we would surely have observed that - and if we can't then the whole idea of empirically observing something goes out the window.
There's some mumbo-jumbo about dark energy which, had RE proposed that, would be dismissed as "magic"
And then there's the Lip Hypothesis which has it's own page:
But I don't believe there is any empirical evidence that declining temperatures and pressures could contain a higher pressure. The flow is always from higher pressure to lower pressure.

The only hope I see is an infinite plane or a physical dome - I know both these theories are involved in some FE models but the first seems preposterous and can't be observed so no evidence could be provided for it, the second - what material could the dome be made of that it wouldn't break and what evidence is there for it even existing?

And the rebel graphic designer seems to have made the horizon curved.

What does it all mean?!

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 16, 2019, 10:41:07 PM »
Are you arguing that the bible does not say and teach those things about the earth? It clearly does say some thing about the earth being flat

Does it, though? Clearly?
Personally, I’ve not been in or heard of a church which teaches a flat earth. Yes, there are verses like the “circle of the earth” one you lot love so much. You could go “Aha! Circle! You see? Flat!”. But what shape would you say the photos of the earth from space are? Forget whether they’re real photos, what shape do you see? If you’re looking down at a sphere what you see is a circle. If it was so clear that that verse was talking about a flat earth and scripture was so clear about this then why does the church not teach a flat earth?

The Bible is not a science book. People get so bogged down by early Genesis. Are the days literal 24 hour periods, etc. My take - honestly, it doesn’t matter. I don’t believe Genesis is trying to teach me science, it contains deeper truths - that we are a creation. It tells us who we were created by and what we were created for. That’s the important message of early Genesis, not the age of the universe.

Some of the language in the Bible is clearly poetic. I never understand why some Christians feel so threatened by science. If scientific ideas contradict their understanding of Scripture then they always assume it must be the science that is wrong rather than consider that their understanding of Scripture might be wrong.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: March 16, 2019, 09:40:16 AM »
You know what? You’re right.
I’ve used the KM distance for that one and miles for the others.
As you say, it shows how little anyone else bothered to check things!
Thanks for pointing this out.
I’ll have another look later and correct my mistake. Maybe I’ll accidentally prove the earth is flat after all!

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 16, 2019, 09:11:18 AM »
Rowbotham’s agenda is pretty clear in that chapter, he rails against science because he says it leads people away from scripture, but we’ve had that conversation. It’s ironic that he champions the idea of a method which doesn’t pre-suppose a theory but it’s clear that his starting assumption for the whole book is a literal and incorrect interpretation of Scripture.

As for Victorian experiments indicating cold moonlight, the Victorians did do some pretty impressive things but they did a lot of crazy stuff too and made some pretty wild claims:

(My favourite one is the bloke who claimed he’d taught his dog to read!)

Evolution works because changes which give an advantage are more likely to be copied and built on. Scientific progress is the same. Some of the ideas from the Victorian era (and before) were correct and have shown to be and have been built on, other ideas have been shown to be wrong and have been discarded.

I did physics up to A-Level and I never learned about “cold moonlight”. Because that isn’t how light works. The fact he didn’t know that and the people he was quoting didn’t just shows their collective ignorance and is another reason why the pontifications of this scientific illiterate religious zealot should be ignored.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 15, 2019, 10:43:22 PM »
Science also demonstrated the cooling effects of moonlight through experiment. In order to show those things to be incorrect, contradictory experiments to those of science would need to be given.
I like how you think science is a “thing”
But anyway, I’d be interested to see a link to a peer reviewed paper in a serious scientific publication which shows that moonlight is cold.

Light is a form of energy, as is heat. That’s why powerful lamps can heat things. If you discover a form of light which has negative energy and so can cool things down then congratulations on your Nobel prize.

This video explains the supposed result of cold moonlight. He gets the exact same result using sunlight and he explains why:

Is sunlight cold?

This is the trouble with cherry picking.
You can’t just look at the result in isolation, you have to understand the result.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 15, 2019, 06:07:48 PM »
It was science which claimed to have performed experiments that moonlight cooled thermometers through a telescope and that stars were seen to occult the moon. Rowbotham just reported on it. Look into what quotations and references are.
Science also claimed there were only 4 elements and that the earth was the centre of the universe and all kids of things we now know to be wrong.
Just cherry picking bits of science which back up your ideas and ignoring all the bits which don’t is disingenuous. Especially when the bits that don’t often supersede the bits which do.

My 8th graders have determined that you are using the Burden of Proof logical fallacy.
I humbly disagree with your 8th graders.
NASA are claiming they have landed on the moon. It’s a pretty extraordinary claim and the burden of proof is on them.
BUT, what SeaCritique is doing is operating in the sceptical context. More info here:

How do we know they went to the moon?
Well, 12 astronauts walked on the moon, most of them are still alive and none have ever confessed to fakery.
Ok, but they all could be lying as could all the people in mission control etc (although I guess those people could have been fooled, they might not have had to be “in on it”.)
But the whole thing is all on film, we have countless photos, hours of film footage of the Apollo missions.
But those could all be fake (you then get into sub arguments about shadow angles, flapping flags etc).
But they brought back lots of samples of moon rock.
Those could be from anywhere (from what I understand the rocks being on the moon and so in a vacuum for billions of years does actually make them distinct from earth rock, but that’s beyond my knowledge)
But the Russians were tracking them and they never called the Americans out on the fakery.
Maybe they were fooled too, or they knew that exposing the US would implicate themselves and their own fake space programs.
We could go on and on. The amateurs who tracked the Apollo missions, the fact Australia relayed signals to the moon, that recent missions launched by other counties have produced photos at high enough resolutions to see the original landing sites - the tracks of the lunar rover are clearly visible.
Every piece of evidence can be dismissed as fake or wrong or whatever.
If you operate in the sceptical context then you can refuse to believe anything which doesn’t fit your world view. FE does this with the moon landings and have to extend it to satellites and all space travel despite the number of people, countries and private countries involved and the fact that the technologies which use satellites demonstrably work.
The FE trick is to operate in this context selectively. Notice how things which purport to show a flat earth are accepted unquestioningly, when things do not it’s back to the sceptical context and the burden of proof is turned up to a level impossible to satisfy.

So while I do thing NASA has the burden of proof, they have more than met it to any reasonable strandard. If you call any evidence which doesn’t fit your world view wrong or fake then you can dismiss anything. For some people that’s easier than changing their beliefs.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: how does gps work on FE?
« on: March 15, 2019, 11:33:36 AM »
The satellites are most likely hot air balloons like Echo. It was for communication.
Echo was a satellite, not a hot air balloon. It was in the shape of a balloon but it was only inflated after it was launched into orbit. It orbited the earth every 2 hours

So, apart from the sophistication, it was exactly like GPS satellites which also orbit the globe.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« on: March 15, 2019, 11:30:33 AM »
Rowbotham's work on the topic is still much more detailed and systematic than any other studies so far.
But...he was wrong, wasn't he?
He's wrong about perspective, that isn't how perspective works at all.
He was wrong about the moon - he said it was translucent for goodness sake, and he said it emits its own light which it demonstrably doesn't.
He was wrong about pretty much everything, his ideas were not accepted by any serious scientists and he has been largely forgotten about by history.
I'd never heard of him till I found this place.

And his motivation for his book is clearly a misguided interpretation of Scripture.
He was not a man of science, he never worked professionally in a science relevant to his writings, I don't believe he has any published peer reviewed papers.

He is not an authority. If he is who your basing your beliefs on then you're in trouble.

Go to the meat of this video at 1:52:00
What does the balloon hit and scrap against before it pops?

Nothing. It just pops. As would any balloon when it gets high enough and the pressure outside is low enough that the pressure inside the balloon is enough to break the material the balloon is made of.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fossil Fuels
« on: March 14, 2019, 04:41:35 PM »
So why is oil so cheap if it is the building bock of life in modern times when they say its only a few decades left of it?
It's debatable whether it's cheap, countries made rich by oil have built things like Dubai. Have you been to Dubai? There's a LOT of money sploshing around.
And while there's decades left the economy isn't going to factor that in, they're banking on new reserves being found and it's too long term a problem to be considering now.

This better not be the yoyo despin.
Ugh, it is.

Doesn't explain rocket number 5 and on.
Please watch the other rockets, some explode.
I would love an explaination on those ones please.

Do you think all aircraft that crash have "hit the dome"?
Dude, rockets explode sometimes. They are literally full of explosive liquid so when things go wrong they go very wrong.
You need to explain all the ones that don't and seem to get into space just fine without hitting the Dome, because there isn't one.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: how does gps work on FE?
« on: March 14, 2019, 04:19:46 PM »
Note the words "launched" and "orbit"? These were satellites. Not as sophisticated as GPS ones but they were orbiting the globe earth, just like GPS ones do.
I don't really see how this helps your cause.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fossil Fuels
« on: March 14, 2019, 03:50:33 PM »

Come back to us when you’ve managed to burn wood and form more wood from the smoke it creates.

Already done.
Burning wood creates CO2 and plants die with out it so the more CO2 the more trees grow.
It's a little bit more complicated than that although by accident you have sort of stumbled upon something approaching truth.
But consider this. Can you burn a tree more quickly than a tree can grow?
(I'll help you out here, yes - yes you can)
So if you keep burning trees new ones aren't going to keep popping up to replace them. It's the same with oil. When you burn oil it's a chemical process, it doesn't just turn into oil vapour and later it rains more oil. So while the natural processes which led to oil being created will keep happening, those processes are very slow. We burn oil very quickly. It's not a stable cycle and the oil will run out. When it runs out depends on how much there is, and there's always possibilities for more to be discovered. But if you keep using a resource more quickly than the resource is replenished then it will run out.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Virgin Galactic
« on: March 14, 2019, 02:34:32 PM »
In late 2004 Richard Branson announced he would send the first paying customers into 'space' by 2007-2008.

Being as this 3 year project is now 15 years later, I'm not going to hold my breath.
After Boris's failed vanity Garden Bridge project which has now been scrapped having cost a huge amount of money do you now not believe in bridges? Or gardens?
When I were a lad it was all "we'll have flying cars by the year 2000". Some problems are just hard and expensive to solve.
Why are we not all zooming across the Atlantic faster than Concorde now? Because propulsion is costly. So aircraft have improved in other ways, notably comfort and entertainment options.
This is a hard problem to solve, making space travel accessible to the average Joe. It's disappointing we're not there yet, even Virgin Galactic if it ever gets off the ground won't do it, it will be for the super rich. But projects being delayed and problems being more complicated than anticipated doesn't imply anything "going on", necessarily.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78  Next >