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 ... 55  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?
« on: September 21, 2018, 08:51:57 PM »
Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.
There is nothing wrong with your method. But it does assume a flat earth.
If the earth isn’t flat (spoiler: it isn’t) then you will get a very different result. I don’t even know if it’s possible to calculate the distance to the sun with your method on a globe earth.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?
« on: September 21, 2018, 02:26:06 PM »
First, you need to know the distance between you and the Sun. This can be found at timeanddate.
OK, you're going to need to talk me through this part.
How can I use timeanddate to determine the distance between me and the sun?

This will show you the latitude and longitude of the Sun.

Thank you.

The flaw in your method is you are assuming a flat earth.
So you're calculating the black dotted line when actually you can see that the sun is far more distant in reality:

Obviously this is not to scale at all. If you imagine a far more distant sun in that diagram then you should be able to see that the error is orders of magnitude more than shown in that picture. That's why you're getting thousands of miles rather than millions.

Can you explain Step 5 in more detail?
I don't understand how to use to establish the distance to the solar noon.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?
« on: September 21, 2018, 12:37:24 PM »
First, you need to know the distance between you and the Sun. This can be found at timeanddate.
OK, you're going to need to talk me through this part.
How can I use timeanddate to determine the distance between me and the sun?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?
« on: September 21, 2018, 11:39:46 AM »
I have personally measured the altitude of the Sun over the flat plane of the Earth and have found it to be approximately 5600 miles.
Can you share your method of doing this and the results of your experiment where you did it?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Universal or Only on Earth?
« on: September 18, 2018, 08:03:48 AM »
I'm interested to know what the theory about UA is.
I guess it must affect the earth, the sun, the moon and all the stars? If it didn't then we'd have crashed into them by now.
But it doesn't affect anything on earth, if it did then we'd be accelerating along with the earth and would effectively be weightless.
So what are the rules about what is affected by UA and what isn't, and what is the reason for that?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« on: September 16, 2018, 05:53:51 PM »
This is great work, Bobby.
I don’t know what close range perspective effect means. The original question was how come the terminator of the moon doesn’t line up with where the sun is. If the moon is being lit by the sun then it should. Your experiment proves that even though it may look like there is no alignment, a straight line between the moon and the sun does line up and the apparent lack of alignment is in fact an optical illusion. This is another good example why the FE premise of trusting one’s senses is flawed. Our senses our limited and they can be tricked.

Also, if this WAS a problem then it would be a problem for the FE moon too which is also lit by the sun in most FE models.
Just to add, I saw this illusion for myself this evening. I could see a crescent moon to my left, fairly high in the sky. The sun was setting to my right so was fairly low in the sky and to the naked eye it didn’t look like a line perpendicular to the terminator would point at the sun. So I got a piece of string and stretched it between them and, sure enough, it lined up perfectly

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?
« on: September 16, 2018, 10:29:18 AM »
You guys have had several thousand years to figure out how reality works, and you still can't come up with a model that explains the mechanics of the solar system, galaxies, universe, or even the round earth itself since we continue to see observations and experiments which contradict the predictions.

FET is relatively new. What kind of math was provided for the round earth system a few years after it started to catch on world-wide?
You need to understand that the "you guys" is "humanity". That includes you, and me. Yes, we as a species have had thousands of years to figure things out. Interesting to think about where the clock starts - when did we first start trying to figure out how reality works rather than just trying to survive - but I would certainly agree with thousands. But it should be taken into account that for much of that time we didn't have the tools necessary to understand things properly. How do you understand about pathogens if you don't have microscopes? How do you understand the universe if you don't have telescopes? In the context of those thousands of years the tools we've needed to really understand stuff have only been available for a short time. It's only in the last 60 years or so we've had the ability to launch stuff into space which has helped us explore the other planets, visit the moon, launch Hubble and learn all kinds of new things. In some ways our understanding of things is quite mature, in other ways we're just getting started.

You're right, we as a species do not have a complete model of how everything works. If we did then we wouldn't need to do science, we'd have it all worked out. The fact our model is incomplete is partly because the more we look the more complicated reality seems to be - quantum theory is a good example from the last century, how could people hundreds of years ago have had any idea that crazy stuff like that was going on. And it's partly because we've only recently had the tools to really discover what is going on. A few hundred years ago Newton thought he'd figured out gravity and how things move. His model passed a lot of tests and stood the test of time, it got us to the moon. It is still for most practical purposes a very useful model. But Einstein came along and showed that Newton wasn't quite right, Einstein's model is more complete, it works in more scenarios and has also stood the test of time and passed a lot of experimental tests - GPS wouldn't work if relatavistic effects weren't accounted for. Maybe someone will come along one day and give us an even more complete model of how things work. That is how things work in real science. Models are developed which explain things and can predict things, if the model is shown to fail then it is either modified or - in the example of the geocentric model - abandoned completely. Various ways were tried to fix the geocentric model to take account of the movement of planets, in the end the only way of fixing it so that it matched observations was to abandon it and realise that the heliocentric model was correct.

And that is also what happened with FET. It is not new, it was the model which the ancients believed. And why wouldn't you? If you just go about your day to day business why wouldn't you think that you live on a flat plane and the sun and stars go around it (by "around", most people would have assumed that the sun goes under the flat earth at night because you see the sun going down below the horizon). But then Eratosthenes came along and showed that if we're on a flat plane then the shadows would be of consistent length across it at a certain time of day, but that wasn't the case. A curved surface explains that. Things like that saw the flat earth model rejected. As you note in your Wiki, an alternative explanation is a small, near sun. But were that the case you would be able to measure the distance to it by measuring the angle of the sun in different places a known distance apart at the same time and triangulating. I have seen no evidence that FE has done this. So much for empiricism. You can't just provide an altenative explanation for the experiment result without some evidence that that explanation is correct.

Our current model of the solar system is pretty good. I don't know what your "observations and experiments which contradict the predictions" are but looking at your posts most of your problems with mainstream science are you just not understanding things, despite repeated explanations. And you refuse to do any experiments which would help you understand things when they are suggested. So you don't learn anything. Several experiments to measure horizon dip have been outlined, you refused to do any. You lament you have no budget but nor does Bobby and he showed horizon dip very clearly. You laments about a lack of budget make as much sense as someone on a modern day alchemy forum lamenting that there is no budget for research into alchemy. No, there isn't. And for good reason. When alchemy was a big thing loads of people tried to do it and no-one succeeded. In the end it was concluded it was impossible. We now understand why it's impossible - I'm getting to the limit of my understanding here but it's something to do with the sheer amount of energy required to turn one element into another, it's something which generally only happens in stars. If someone there said "be fair, alchemy is quite new" it would be a ridiculous statement, as is yours. Alchemy isn't new, the idea of a flat earth isn't new, both were rejected when they were shown not to work.

I asked you previously in this thread on what basis you were satisfied that the earth is flat. You never replied. Care to share with the class now?

Here is an answer to that question:

Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

A. The earth is not a planet. The earth very large and unlike the characteristics of the wandering stars called "planets" in numerous ways. This is like asking why basketballs are round, but not the basketball court. The basketball court is a fundamentally different kind of entity than the small balls which may bounce upon its surface.
Why is that question asked so much? I mean come on it is not reliable to the Earth and should not be a question, it’s an annoyance
It's an obvious question because we are all brought up being taught that there are 8 (when I were a lad it was 9) planets in the solar system and the earth is just one of them.
If that is true then why would earth be different?
The FE response has to explain why mainstream science has got it wrong and what evidence there is that the earth is indeed special - as the ancients believed and modern science has come to conclude is not true.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?
« on: September 13, 2018, 09:29:52 AM »
The Wiki covers that. You are assuming a distant sun. If the sun is smaller and close then you'd get the same result on a flat earth:

Obviously if the sun were closer you'd also be able to show that by taking measurements of the angle of it from different locations and triangulating.
The angle would be measurably different if the sun is as close as FE supposes. I've seen no evidence that any FE person has done this

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race
« on: September 13, 2018, 08:53:29 AM »
...but is there anyone who can tell me more about a flat earth model that allows for space travel.

I stand by my dichotomous statement that an FEr must believe that the moon landing was a hoax. Perhaps not must, but an overwhelmingly high percentage. Out of everything I’ve watched and read, I have yet to find an FE Apollo believer. 

As for space travel in general, the vast majority of FE stuff I’ve seen is that no, it is not plausible; ISS is all CGI, underwater or in some sort of electromagnetic tube that simulates weightlessness on earth - Satellites are balloons or planes or just don’t exist - Rockets seen launched don’t go anywhere, they just plop down into the ocean, etc., All is faked in one manner or another.

So yes, DrVN, I too would very much like to hear from an FEr who:

Believes that the Apollo moon landings occurred
Believes space travel is real

And then explanations as to how they reconcile said beliefs with FE Theory.

I’m betting there will be no takers.
I literally have no idea how you would reconcile a mainstream view of space travel with belief in a flat earth. The whole premise of spaceflight is you need to get into an orbital path round a globe earth. If the earth is flat then sure, you could go up but you couldn't have a stable orbit.

While we're here, I never understand the "those are just composite images" FE argument because:
1) No they aren't, or certainly not all of them and
2) So what? A panorama photo you take on your phone or camera is a composite, the camera takes a load of images and stitches them together. That doesn't mean the end result doesn't represent what you see. You still need to be in space to take the images which are then composited.

I've mentioned "A Man On The Moon" bu Andrew Chaikin before. A brilliant book about the Apollo missions and Mercury and Gemini which preceded them. I defy anyone to read the level of detail in there and tell me it was all faked.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?
« on: September 12, 2018, 08:14:53 AM »
So you are just completely incapable of actually acknowledging a word I say.
Math tells you the what. My problem is with the how. You don't get to move the goalposts to just completely ignore my statements.
Math is the language of science.  If you don't have the math, then you don't have a theory.  Newton and Einstein had plenty of math to support their theories.  Where's your math?

Newton provided the math, not the mechanism. His math is attributable to any theory of gravity.
FE doesn't provide either the math or the mechanism for many of its ideas of course...

And while we're here, Newton's math isn't correct. In most normal cases it's close enough but Einstein provided a more complete explanation of gravity with different math - Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's for most practical purposes.

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Just Saying...
« on: September 07, 2018, 01:39:41 PM »
If I ruled the world, which it’s becoming clear that inexplicably I don’t, I’d let stuff like this go on both sides. I know you guys want to keep the upper fora pure but a bit of fun here and there is no bad thing in my view.
Just my 2 cents, I appreciate I don’t get a vote and having some experience in this matter I also appreciate there is no way of moderating a forum in a way which keeps everyone happy.

I actually agree with Thork too, long term posters actually have earned a bit more latitude than noobs.

Suggestions & Concerns / Just Saying...
« on: September 07, 2018, 07:36:43 AM »

normally if we are right about something, it gets ignored.
So, all the time? ;)

Is a good example of a post which I’m pretty sure had it been posted by a RE poster would have resulted in a warning.

Not having a go, but it does feel like there is some inconsistency in how things are modded. I’m not actually sure that’s entirely a bad thing but I personally think there should be consistency when it comes to jokey posts like that. My view is that consistent line should be to allow them, within reason.

“A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men...”

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 05, 2018, 06:18:07 PM »
Where have you proven him wrong on anything he has ever said? You have not shown or demonstrated anything.
You're right. I can't prove that Stephen Hawking wasn't really replaced by an impostor years ago.
Because I can't prove a negative.
I'd suggest however that it's a pretty extraordinary claim which requires some pretty extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof is very much on him and all he's come up with is a load of supposition and allegation.

And sure, it could be that all the other crazy shit he believes is wrong (John Lennon faked his own death was a good one) and he just happens to be right about the Cavendish experiment.
But has his paper about that been published in a serious scientific journal? Has it been peer reviewed?
If not and, as I suspect, is only on his own website then he's just another crazy person who before the internet would have been shouting crazy things on a street corner. Now he's shouting them across the internet but that doesn't give him any credibility. Anyone can set up a website and use it to pontificate.

What are his credentials which mean he should be taken seriously on this subject?
Has his paper about this been peer reviewed and published in any serious scientific forum?
It is telling that I have posted a video about the Cavendish experiment several times and this is the first attempt I've seen from any FE person at a refutation and it comes from a person whose jam seems to be to claim that most of mainstream science is incorrect and whose ideas have not been accepted by any serious scientist as far as I know. It is either confirmation bias writ large or just trolling that you try and use this as a serious refutation of it.

Why are you more credible than he is?

Because I don't believe all this crazy shit

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Importance of Context
« on: September 04, 2018, 09:21:45 PM »
Right about the time I first became aware of the rise in flat earthism, I saw this clip used an illustration for an article about "reasoning with a flat earther":
I read the same thing - a while after I joined this place.
It's interesting because in theory it's correct to say that - unless you're an astronaut - you don't know the earth is a globe. I guess you could go further and claim the astronauts are being fooled too and are really in an elaborate simulation - although the more common FE claim is they are all "in on it".
Ultimately it comes down to how do you "know" anything? What is the difference between "thinking" something and "knowing" it? Really the only difference is your own perception of how certain you are. If you say you "think" something it implies you are not certain, if you say you "know" something then you are certain.
But that means you can "know" something which isn't true - you may be absolutely certain about something but that doesn't mean you're correct.

In real life no-one goes around with the attitude that we don't really know anything and we must verify everything for ourselves. FE people may claim to, but if they did then they'd never get out of bed in the morning without testing that the floor would bear their weight - sure, it did yesterday but how do we know a load of termites haven't eaten away at it overnight? Actually they only apply this logic to FE, they have to because there is such a huge mountain of evidence backing a globe earth the only way of rationalising that we could all be mistaken is to go down the "we don't really know anything for certain" route.

For the earth to be flat thousands of years of science has to be wrong, the entire global space industry must be fraudulent, satellite TV, GPS and all kinds of other technology which relies on satellites must really work some other way. Is it possible? I guess by the strictest definition of the word it is, but you could extend that argument to pretty much anything. It's an extraordinary claim though which requires extraordinary evidence and despite being on here for a while now I've yet to see any.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 04, 2018, 03:40:44 PM »
If you are not going to actually address arguments and instead resort to attempted attacks on character, then you should not bother to debate.
I'm not attacking his character, I'm sure he's lovely to his mother.
What I'm questioning is his credentials to weigh in on the Cavendish experiment or any other topic.
What are HIS credentials to do so?
Look at his website and all the crazy things he claims - an example I was looking at early was another one about Stephen Hawking being "replaced" years ago. Is this someone we are supposed to be taking seriously?
You repeatedly do this, Tom. You just cherry pick quotes or articles from anyone who you think backs up your views. Some of those articles you clearly don't understand yourself and this one is from someone who sounds seriously mentally ill.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the space mission failed?
« on: September 04, 2018, 08:49:56 AM »
To be fair, going vertically is quite a lot trickier than going horizontally - otherwise space tourism would be much more of a thing right now.
But we do have the technology to go into space and I haven’t seen a coherent argument why we wouldn’t have.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 04, 2018, 08:01:21 AM »
Tom. I seriously can’t believe you referenced this dude to refute the Cavendish Experiment

I see that that’s also where you got the pi = 4 nonsense from.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the space mission failed?
« on: September 04, 2018, 07:22:44 AM »
I presume he means space travel generally. And he has a point.
The FE idea is that space travel isn’t possible and the whole thing is a hoax. Of course there is no hard evidence of this. Lots of speculation and supposition but that’s about it.
But if you’re going to believe in a flat earth then you can’t really go around believe that we’ve been to the moon or that there are people right now on the ISS orbiting the globe earth, so a space travel conspiracy is part of the FE package.

There is something on the Occam’s Razor page of the Wiki about this but it’s really just an argument from incredulity.

So the original post asks a good question. Whatever the shape of the earth why wouldn’t we have the technology to go into space? Rockets demonstrably work, I have witnessed a space shuttle launch. Why couldn’t the technology exist to get us into space?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55  Next >