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 - Max_Almond

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 17, 2019, 06:31:45 AM »
Maybe he did mention the experiment. I personally haven't been able to find a reference of the $20k RLG experiments other than what's in the documentary.  If you have the link please share it. I would like to see how he explains himself.

Watch from 32:17 in this video to see Bob spinning the results of his gyroscope faux pas:

The part that follows that is interesting also, where he gets called out for lying about his piloting and engineering credentials, and quickly removes the claims from his websites.

Alludes or eludes?

Gravity is incompatible with the flat earth belief: that's why it has to be dismissed, as do all things that are incompatible with the belief.

Notice that aspects of science that aren't incompatible with flat earth belief aren't attacked and dismissed.

Ok so here's the theory. Because mathematically, a flat surface is just a sphere of infinite radius, let's assume that the Earth is a sphere of infinite radius which would make it flat.

Yeah, but...flat earthers don't propose that the Earth is an infinite sphere; and they don't believe in gravity; and we know without question that the Earth isn't an infinite sphere.

Everything following that, then, based on assuming that the Earth is an infinite sphere is bound to be in error.

That probably explains why your model doesn't work. :)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 16, 2019, 09:00:25 AM »
To summarise: when the experiments are done properly and carefully, the draining water effect corresponds to the expected results; and when they're not, it sometimes does and sometimes doesn't.

The moral of the story? Do your experiments properly.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon
« on: February 15, 2019, 07:50:18 PM »
Tourist tricks aside, these guys did it a bit more carefully and repeated it three times:

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« on: February 14, 2019, 08:44:21 PM »
You can use Walter Bislin's very excellent globe earth/flat earth simulator to see what the horizon would look like from a given altitude and field of view.

The attachments show what the horizon would look like for the two lenses from 328 feet. It's not a massive curve from that altitude, hence why even more is better.

How did you fake that?

In this case, the simplest answer is also the correct one: I didn't. :)

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« on: February 14, 2019, 05:37:53 AM »
However, it is clear that the center is not affected by any barrel/pincushion distortion, although I got a little slant on it.

Nice one Bill, thanks for posting those.

The slant is actually the hardest bit of it, for me. What looks level to the eye can be massively slanted when stretched/compressed.

When I take the picture with the (levelled) metal frame I'll measure from camera to each edge, and hope that sorts it out.

Hmm, what if we used a pinhole on the camera instead of a lens? Would that eliminate the barrel distortion?

Yes. But, at the same time, as long as Bill gets it near the middle of the frame it's clear his lens isn't going to make straight lines curved.

I wonder where he'll be in Florida that'll give him 400 feet or more elevation?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« on: February 13, 2019, 02:25:03 PM »
Thanks. I've clicked on the links now. :)

The grid above might be better though, or one similar. The more lines, the easier it is to see where distortion is present, and where the lens is shooting true. Plus, it'll show us your actual personal lens, which is a bonus.

In the meantime, I've knocked up a little frame with some bits I found lying round:

The ties are to squeeze it together a little to get the two edges as straight and parallel as possible. I've a little more work to do on it but the results are pretty nice:

As we can see, the two edges close to the centre remain pretty much straight, while the ones above and below reveal significant pincushion distortion.

Locate the horizon in the very centre of the image, between the two straight edges, and we can show that it retains its shape, which is a curve.

I'll be trying it out soon, from the 1500 foot hill nearby.

Vanishing point is always at eye level, [added for clarity] for an observer looking straight ahead/perpendicular to down. Clouds might converge there, but they can't be below it. ;)

I just noticed something in pictures like this one:

The clouds are also below eye level.

This does a number of things, but mainly what I want to point out is that it falsifies the claim that the horizon would rise to eye level if we could actually see it: obviously the sea level horizon can't appear higher than clouds for a guy 600 feet above it.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« on: February 13, 2019, 06:05:30 AM »
That sounds very good. You could also take a photo of this grid, and make that available for us to analyse:

That is a lovely sunset.

I guess about the only thing I have to say in response is that NASA is fake and perspective.

My hope is that before I die I will have found two more solid proofs to support my shaky and insubstantial belief, and then I can rest at peace in my soul - assuming we Pythagorean Satanist Freemasons have one. ;)

I guess. I've always thought of the dip to the horizon being measured as an angle rather than in feet, but I suppose 8 inches per mile squared could occasionally have some practical purposes. Like if you and I were stood in the location of one of my recent shots of the Spanish coast:

We could say: those mountains are about 80 miles away, and 80 squared is 6400, multiplied by 8 inches is...gee whizz, let's just convert it to feet: multiply by two - 12800 - and divide by three - 4270ish and...

How high are the mountains again?

The one on the left's about 4600 feet. The one on the right's 5100 feet.

And how high are we?

About 600 feet.

So with a drop of 4300ish, the peaks of those mountains should be right at our eye level, if the earth's a globe, and massively above it - like 80-90% of them - if the earth is flat.

Whaddya know: it can be quite useful. :)

As for Tom being confused as to why something can be "accurate enough for purpose", it's occurred to me that perhaps it's a simple and even forgiveable misunderstanding.

Maybe this will help clear it up. Here's a photo of a water level showing the dip to the horizon from 1500 feet:

And here's the same water level with the camera raised so that the water in the far bottle is level with the horizon:

I think maybe he was confused because he was thinking that a millimetre here or there would make a significant difference. Whereas in reality it's much more clearcut than that, and not possible to receive ambiguous results.

Hope that helps. :)

I think that's an admirable pursuit, to try to bring credibility to the flat earth side of things. I've generally reached a stage where I don't mind people believing something incorrect - but I do like it if they at least try to use the correct calculations. ;)

I actually think most flat earthers do believe there is mathematics to describe a sphere, but just that many of them don't know how to apply it properly, or which equation they should use for which measurement.

That's probably why I describe "8 inches per mile squared" as, for all intents and purposes, as far as the flat earth discussion is concerned, "useless".

I mean, when would you actually use that?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Did FE YouTuber Unwittingly Provide RE Evidence?
« on: February 12, 2019, 06:04:53 AM »
For those interested, here's a download link to the calculator I made in order to calculate predicted hidden amounts for distant landmarks that are obscured by nearer landmarks:

And this is what it outputs when the figures for JTolan's Malibu to San Jacinto shot are inputted:

The sphere earth predictions are very close to that which was actually observed. The flat earth predictions are more than 300% wrong.

I'm really not sure who uses that, other than confused flat earthers. Or who says its used to calculate "drop beyond horizon".

It's used to calculate the "drop", full stop, whether beyond, before, or at the horizon - which is almost never a useful thing to know.

Distance to the horizon is calculated by sqrt((r+h)*(r+h)-r^2)

Also not sure who uses the same kind of math as "8 inches per mile" on a football.

Can you clarify please?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« on: February 12, 2019, 05:33:00 AM »
What camera was that photo taken with, Tom? Was the horizon centred in the frame? How does its distortion look when tested with a grid?

My suspicion is that you didn't take this photo, and that you purposefully chose one with a horizon located well below the centre of the frame, which we all know will significantly distort.

That aside, how about you go and do the test yourself? Do you have a camera? Can you find a place to photograph the horizon from above 400 feet?

If so, take the photo with the horizon perfectly centred, then do the vertical stretch and see what it shows. Then take a photo of a grid, such as this one, and do the same thing, to see how your camera is distorting.

Then compare the two images and also compare your stretched photo with the mathematical prediction for both flat earth and globe earth models.

Pure zeteticism. What possible reason could there be not to do it?

To clarify, eight inches per mile squared calculates the drop below a hypothetical horizontal plane measured from a hypothetical observer's feet. The reason I say it's not very useful is because, in general, we want to measure the predicted hidden amount of things. And the reason I say it confuses people is because flat earth believers often use it when what they really want is the predicted hidden amount.

In a nutshell, I'm not saying it's inaccurate, I'm just saying there's rarely a reason to apply it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23  Next >