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 ... 90  Next >
The ones which support your model are correct, and the ones which contradict your model are wrong and errors? Very interesting.
Wow. I mean, you’re right that one shouldn’t cherry pick but that is literally all you do so it’s a bit rich you raising your eyebrow at it.

From what I understand (admittedly I’m no expert in this field) the parallax for distant stars should be so close to zero that the error inherent in taking these measurements means you’ll sometimes get a negative and sometimes get a positive. Actually neither are right. For closer objects the amount of parallax is big enough compared with the error that the measurements can be used to estimate the distance to them

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Gravity Conundrum...
« on: August 16, 2019, 05:40:07 PM »
What do you mean “no gravity to speak of”?
The gravity on the moon is about one sixth of that on earth. That means you’d weigh about a sixth of what you do here, as would everything else.
So apart from you being able to lift more and jump higher and throw things higher (check out Alan Shepherd playing golf on the moon), and you’d fall more slowly, everything would work exactly the same as it does here.

Edit: some clips of things being thrown on the moon.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 16, 2019, 05:10:33 PM »
The space shuttle took 8 and a half minutes to reach about 8,000m/s. That’s a long time to accelerate, if the acceleration were constant it would be less than 2g. As it is, when the shuttle is on the pad, that’s when it’s mass is highest so the acceleration initially the lowest. There’s a table here which shows the speed and acceleration over time

It never has to go over 3g to reach the speed needed for orbit simply because it accelerates over a fairly long time.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 16, 2019, 03:37:31 PM »
Look at the video recordings.

Those things are not traveling anywhere near the speeds reported.
Can you give an example? The rocket/shuttle launch videos I've seen generally focus on the rocket/shuttle and obviously zoom in as they get further away.
As they get high the background is just sky, I've no idea how you think you can assess how fast they've travelling without context.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 15, 2019, 08:06:00 PM »
Please go ahead and demonstrate how they "do not reach speeds necessary to lift the weight they claim to the heights they claim and are never observed to do so".
Yes, I was interested in that comment. Care to elaborate, lackey?
Also, I'd like to respond to more of your post but you really do suck at using the quote feature, lackey. Can you edit your post and sort that out so I can see what I'm supposed to respond to.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 15, 2019, 02:56:25 PM »
There is no distinguishable difference between the instances of acknowledged (RE and FE alike) video fiction and those purported to be of video reality in this instance.
That is called evidence.

I'd dispute they're indistinguishable but I'd admit I'm not an expert in this area. But OK, let's agree that CGI is very good these days and can pretty much be used to fake anything.
But that is NOT evidence of fakery, it's just stating that it would be possible to fake it. That's very different to presenting evidence that footage from space is being faked.
Evidence would be some detailed analysis of the footage indicating it's CGI from some expert in the field.
Or a whistleblower from the team who do the CGI or the "actors/astronauts", or the camera men, costume department, set builders etc.
Or finding some evidence that the space shuttle really secretly landed somewhere while it was supposed to be in space and then took off from that place to arrive on cue at the time and place it was supposed to return from space (if that's what you believe the Shuttle did)
Given the number of people of people who have been to space (over 550 from over 35 countries so far, 7 of whom were space tourists) and the number of people who would have had to be in on it, it's weird we've have no whistle blowers so far.

If you read my posts earlier, I do not deny the reality of an object labeled the ISS. I do not know what that object is.

What makes it hard for you to believe it isn't what NASA and the Russians claim it is?
If your line of reasoning is "I believe the earth to be flat, therefore the ISS can't be what they claim it to be"
Then I would suggest that is faulty logic. The ISS a chance for you to examine your FE beliefs - if it is what they claim then the earth cannot be flat. So isn't it worth investigating the matter rather than just dismissing it as fake because if it isn't then it would change your world view? Every space mission, ever rocket launch is another chance for you to examine your beliefs.
As I said, rocket technology has been available since the 1940s, why is it such a reach to believe that missions to space, whether manned or not, are possible?
The technology which makes this possible is not new and you surely don't dispute rockets exist? I've said on here before, I saw a Shuttle launch myself.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 15, 2019, 11:54:30 AM »
lackey, all you're doing is speculating about how things could possibly be faked.
Do you have any evidence that it is being faked.
And why do you find the concept of space travel so implausible?
Rocket technology demonstrably exists, we've have powerful rockets since the 1940s
Laika was put into low earth orbit in 1957, Gagarin. This technology isn't even that new. Why is the ISS so implausible to you 50 years later?

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something
« on: August 14, 2019, 10:04:32 AM »
This attempt at an explanation fits FE , not saying it precludes GE theory but it shows that upward shadows of mountains does not preclude FE .
Could you show a diagram indicating how you think a sun 3,000 miles above the surface of a flat earth (or however high you think it is, I know that FE theories vary on this point) can cast a shadow pointing upwards like a mountain on to clouds? I'd like to see what you think the path of the light rays is.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 14, 2019, 07:08:52 AM »
Can you honestly write you believe there are astronauts on the ISS?
If yes, why?
Yes. As for why...
Because you can see the ISS from the ground. It's definitely up there. There are websites where you can find out when and where to see it.
I've even see a video from a flat earther (Jeranism, possibly?) showing the ISS doing a transit of the moon. Even he conceded it was up there.
I've seen a Shuttle launch so I know that the Space Shuttle was a thing. No, I didn't see it go all the way into space but neither did I see it land anywhere.
I've not seen a scrap of evidence that the shuttle secretly landed anywhere. I have no reason to think that the Shuttle didn't operate exactly as NASA claimed. Hundreds of people have been to space. Am I to believe they are all lying? 7 of those were "space tourists" who paid a huge sum to spend time on the ISS. Are they lying too or have they been fooled somehow? In the space race in the 60s Russia got many of the initial "firsts" then the US started pumping huge amounts of money into it and managed to overhaul them. Neither site ever called the other out as faking anything. Why wouldn't they?
Jodrell Bank in the UK was tracking the Apollo 11 mission and Luna 15, a Russian unmanned probe that crashed on to the moon not long before the Eagle landed.

Are these guys lying too?
My Satellite dish is pointing at something in the sky. I know this because a neighbour did some work on his house and the scaffolding blocked the signal, he had to move the dish for me so my TV worked again. My GPS works, I have no reason to think it works in any other way than the way I've been told.

Do you believe have the ability to discern the difference between the videos presented as originating from the ISS and those of the movie Gravity

I don't. But do you? All the "evidence" I've seen claiming that the footage is faked is from people who are clearly not experts in the field. Vague assertions from people with an agenda isn't strong evidence of fakery.

Further, even camera shots from the ISS have been shown to present way more curve than would be mathematically expected.
So what's your claim here? Someone else has explained to you about different lenses and the effects of them.
Are you claiming that NASA are smart enough to fake footage from space well enough to fool most people in the world but also dumb enough to get the curve wrong? Or did they deliberately put a fish-eye effect on their CGI to help out the conspiracy theorists? Why on earth would they do that?

Bottom line: I can't go to space right now. I can't go to Antarctica. I could go to Australia, but it's a long way. My beliefs about anything I can't directly experience have to be based on other people's accounts, as do yours. I know you're all about what you personally witness but that isn't always possible. Do you have an opinion about the Kennedy Assassination? Unless you were there, your opinion has to be based on things you've read and seen as does mine. Unless we witness an event, that's all we have. We have to look at evidence and balance of probabilities. What is your evidence that makes you think space travel isn't a thing and is all a big hoax? Powerful rockets demonstrably exist so why is it so hard to believe?

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something
« on: August 13, 2019, 07:15:18 PM »
Spending much time in Florida a while back and contacting friends in the uk !! You soon work out how does the sun bend around the ball !! It’s impossible
Can you elaborate on this?
The sun doesn’t “bend around the ball”, the balk rotates on it’s axis and orbits the sun.
What makes you think this is impossible?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!
« on: August 13, 2019, 04:06:57 PM »
I always took science to be the interpretation and analysis of data obtained through empirical methods. Empirical meaning either through observation or experiment.  If you only count experiment and not observation then surely that would mean you can't count meteorology (the study of weather patterns) as a science because that is almost entirely done through observations.
I'd be interested to know what Tom makes of claims like

"When we observe the sun, we are observing its projection upon the atmolayer."

What experiment or empirical evidence is that claim based on?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 13, 2019, 03:36:29 PM »
The shape of the sun and what you perceive to be rising and setting has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Actually true. The sun could rise and set on a flat earth. But the ancient flat earth model was based on their local perspective. So they would have believed that the sun went under the disc of the earth at night and came up over the edge of it and went over it during the day. And that does match our observations of sunrise and sunset, but it means that when it's day it's day everywhere and when it's night it's night everywhere. With global transport and communication networks we now know that is not the case so that ancient flat earth model doesn't work.

That is like stating a creature the size of an ant, possessing the visual acuity of a human, would be able to perceive the light from a flashlight a proportionate distance away as it circled above and about him.

The sun rising and setting is not consistent with a sun disappearing and appearing because of the limits of our vision. It's not how perspective works. EA might work but where's the evidence for that effect existing? The sun's angular size and velocity remain constant throughout the day. When the sun sets it does so from the bottom upwards and slowly sinks. This is all consistent with a sun a fixed distance away moving in a circular path (or a rotating earth) and the sun going over the side of the edge of the earth. That could be a flat earth - but then the sun would be under the disc of the earth and it would be night everywhere. Given that we know that not to be the case another explanation which works is the sun is going over the edge of a curve.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 13, 2019, 01:07:29 PM »
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?
I would say it is demonstrably proven that humanity, while living a normal, day-to-day life, does not witness any curvature of the earth.
Agreed. In the same way that, while living a normal, day-to-day life, we don't see bacteria.
That doesn't mean bacteria don't exist. It just means our senses are limited and are not sufficient on their own to determine the nature of reality.
But we do have other ways of determining reality. This image illustrates the folly of looking at a horizon, not seeing any curve and making conclusions about the shape of the earth:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 13, 2019, 10:24:30 AM »
Well, considering you have admitted the actual heliocentricity of the so-called solar system is, in fact, not proven...I think the "pretty good idea," is, in fact," more accurately described as "imagination."

What would you say has been proven in your FE model, and how was it proven?

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Round earth" conspiracy
« on: August 13, 2019, 10:09:07 AM »
I can see you are having a difficult time digesting the fact that surveyors/civil engineers do not account for curvature and consider , not assume , earth to be a plane up to some arbitrary 100 square mile area .

Do you regard that as significant? One thing people seem to struggle understanding is that models can be simplified and still be useful. In A-Level mechanics you don't take things like wind resistance into account when calculating the path of bodies falling under gravity. For most objects of a certain mass you're still going to get results close enough to be useful. For some applications you might need to take other things into account of course, it depends what you're doing. The scale of the earth is such that for many practical things one can consider it flat in calculations and still get results which can be used, just like for most calculations relativistic effects are ignored because it just complicates the calculations and the results from Newton's equations are accurate enough to be usable.

The methods of plain survey do not find curve . Gravitational survey uses the assumption that some magical force acts towards the centre of mass of an assumed spherical body .

I'm always bemused that gravity is sneered at as some "magical force" by people who believe in UA which is presumably powered by some "magical force"...

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 12, 2019, 10:17:33 AM »
Sort of like of Ptolmy used numerical computations and epicycles to predict the location of the planets?
Actually yes, exactly like that.
But that model was later replaced with a better, heliocentric one. That's how science works.
You seem to struggle with this concept.
And Ptolmy wasn't a flat earther...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« on: August 08, 2019, 10:37:53 AM »
Interesting, so we should assume then that you have given up on your youtube experiment
The experiment looks pretty good to me. They've explained how they did it, what they did to mitigate the possibility of the movement being caused by the way the water was put into the pool and they even mitigated the risk of a vortex being introduced when the water was drained by using a valve rather then a plug. They got results consistent with a globe earth so, of course, you have to desperately try to discredit what they found. As I said, strange how you take experiment results which appear to back up your ideas at face value.

There is no dispute that the Coriolis effect is weak and hard to detect on the small scale, there's also no dispute that the science behind the Coriolis effect which causes storm systems to rotate in different directions in the different hemispheres is well understood and caused by the fact we live on a spinning ball. Both of the articles you posted back that up as does the new link you've provided:

But while it is certainly true that this rotation controls the direction of the giant atmospheric vortices of cyclones, which rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern, the influence of the Earth’s rotation on a micro-cyclone in the bath should be extremely weak

Why do you keep providing links to articles which back up the globe earth? ???

But yes, the effect on the small scale is hard to detect. The experiment these guys did looks like a pretty good attempt to do so.
As an empiricist and a zetetic I'm sure you are working on repeating these experiments to investigate this matter for yourself.
I look forward to seeing your results.

There is a powerful group bent on eroding the very Constitution this country was founded upon, in particular the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, there is a powerful group bent toward keeping those Bill of Rights safe.

Your Bill of Rights sucks:

The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out. Women were second-class citizens, essentially the property of their husbands, unable even to vote until 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed and ratified.

Native Americans were entirely outside the constitutional system, defined as an alien people in their own land. They were governed not by ordinary American laws, but by federal treaties and statutes that stripped tribes of most of their land and much of their autonomy. The Bill of Rights was in force for nearly 135 years before Congress granted Native Americans U.S. citizenship.

And it was well understood that there was a "race exception" to the Constitution. Slavery was this country's original sin. For the first 78 years after it was ratified, the Constitution protected slavery and legalized racial subordination. Instead of constitutional rights, slaves were governed by "slave codes" that controlled every aspect of their lives. They had no access to the rule of law: they could not go to court, make contracts, or own any property. They could be whipped, branded, imprisoned without trial, and hanged. In short, as one infamous Supreme Court opinion declared: "Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."


Thankfully we live in more enlightened times now and amendments have been made to address some of these issues. The "right to bear arms" comes from the late 18th century, long before powerful weapons were available. It could do with a bit of an update now those powerful weapons are available with the obvious problems they are causing in your country.

If we are trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill, then we need to regulate them, not prohibit them. Prohibiting something removes the states ability to regulate because there won't be anything to regulate - only a crime to punish. There won't be checks and balances, it will be a free, black market.
Guns are prohibited in many countries and you don't get huge gun crime statistics. Gun control legislation has also demonstrably worked in other countries.
You should regulate them of course, but that won't stop a black market existing if people want to own them "unofficially", so what problem does that solve?
The real issue you guys have is that so many guns are out there in circulation. And very powerful weapons too, more powerful than anyone would reasonably need in their home.
This is not a problem which has an easy fix although better background checks and bans on the more powerful weapons would be a start. I cannot overstate how crazy it seems to most Brits that many of you guys can walk into a shop and buy very powerful weapons with the minimum of fuss.
Agree with lackey about the culture, that's a hard one to change. There aren't many countries where gun culture is so ingrained.

When people demonstrate irresponsibility, then of course they became restricted.
I run a bunch of red lights or speed in an auto, I get my license to drive taken away.
Prior to that, I am granted a license to drive and keep the license.
When I demonstrate irresponsibility here, I become restricted.
Until then, free to roam and own.
Sounds like a good system. The dude in Ohio...well, he's dead now but were he alive I bet they'd revoke his licence.
He certainly demonstrated irresponsibility. Sure, he killed 9 people and wounded 27 but don't worry, he won't be doing that again.
The system works!
Stop me if you see the problem here...

Yeah, there is.
That is why police have them.

The police have a specific job which does necessitate firearms in certain situations. Even some police in the UK have firearms. But they are well trained in their usage.
No-one needs a weapon that powerful in their home. Wants, maybe. Needs, no.

Unfortunately, you cannot prevent all bad things from happening.

Correct. But you can and should take measures to make them less likely.

Yes, they do have a different culture.
One that demonstrates that cultural change in the US is necessary.

Vaguely agree with this although I don't really know how you change a culture, a culture grows up organically.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 90  Next >