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 - Tumeni

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 82  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Black Holes and Paper Cuts
« on: April 01, 2020, 09:44:10 AM »
From the Wiki - "What type of experiment do astronomers perform?" - even if we accept that the astronomers have done "None", that still leaves a continuous history of space flight since 1957, with Sputnik 1.

Explorations to; the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars and the other outer planets, with at least one craft heading out of our solar system, and still operating.

So whilst you might attempt to discard the observations of astronomers since the first use of the telescope, it's clear that many of their early, mid and late observations have subsequently been confirmed by physical means.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite sides viewing the same planet.
« on: March 31, 2020, 11:25:08 AM »
I need to understand what you are saying.
For instance, are you claiming that here:

residents on the west coast of South America and those on the East Coast of Australia would not be able to see the Southern Cross at the exact same time?

They may well be able to both see it, but their overall skies (not just one star in their sky) will be different.

Place a sphere, representing globe Earth, in a room. Call the four walls N, S, E and W. The ceiling is U for Up, the floor is D for down

Imagine observers at the equator, one nearest the N wall, one nearest the S.  Both can look up to see U. However, if N is looking up, he will have E to his right and W to his left. If S also looks up, he will have E to his left, and W to his right.

Different skies for different observers, even though both can see the pole star (which could be at U or D)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Opposite sides viewing the same planet.
« on: March 30, 2020, 05:02:00 PM »
The East Coast of residents of Australia are not at the same latitude as those of the South American countries you mention.

Yet even the term "latitude" has no meaning when applied to a flat earth.

It's measured in degrees, so there must be an angle drawn somewhere between two lines, such that the lines are separated by degrees of latitude.

In RE, the lines are radials from the centre of the globe to the surface.

Where would you draw them on a flat earth?

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."

Generally? So not always, then?

Seriously, what do you define as the difference between the two?

Are you expecting all pictures from space to be taken on roll film, sheet film, or glass plates?

Because going to space as a private citizen is hard.

So are a number of other endeavours, none of which seem to find a lack of acceptance from the FE community.

Photos from space are disbelieved without personal "private-citizen" verification, but when it comes to (for instance), the setting of a land-speed record, water-speed record, or other such, this is seen from afar, and third-party accounts, photos, video, even the reporting by Guiness, are all accepted at face value. I could name a host of other scientific achievements, all outwith the scope of the private citizen, which are also taken at face value, without verification. 

Yet the "I need to verify it for myself" attitude persists amongst the FEers...  Why is it this topic in particular that brings out this attitude?

Our FAQ ... (it over-focuses on how easy it would be to manipulate a photo, rather than how hard it would be to verify one) ...

Please explain, either here or there, why you think it is "hard" to verify them...

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

No, this is simply according to the textbook definition of how the Moon orbits the Earth. It shows a different phase when at 90 degrees to the Earth-Sun axis than when it is at 45. But there's approx 3.5 days between each.

For the Full Moon:
The view at 45 degrees shows a Moon which is shifted in orientation, and tilted upwards or downwards from the overhead view, as the perspective changes demand.

That's NOT a "full Moon".  There's also approximately 3.5 days between any single observer seeing the first phase, and then the other. The Moon cannot be in two places at once.

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:

NO. Each observer will see the first phase of the Moon at one time, THEN, 3.5 days or so later, they will see it in its second phase

Q1. If there is a difference in Moon phase when viewed at 90 degrees and 45 degrees for each observer due perspective changes, how can both observers, each with their own personal perspective, view the same Moon with the same phase at the same time?

There is no significant difference in the Moon phase as it moves across an observer's sky on any given day or night.

Q2. Further, if the observer moves from one position to the next, it would suggest that the phase would change, as the observer is observing the Moon at 90 or 45 degrees. A rotating earth would have observers moving from one position to the next.

NO. The phase changes only to the extent of the few degrees I showed above, which for the observer moving on the face of the Earth, viewing with the naked eye, on any one day or night, will be no visible change at all. Please refer to my earlier post

Even if we abandon the idea that there are two observers with their own personal perspective and say that the Earth as a whole is One Observer, and the Moon is shifting in perspective at it moves around the Earth, the Earth is still rotating faster than the Moon is moving, causing the Moon to be 90 degrees overhead or 45 degrees overhead over a span of hours.

If the Earth as a whole is "one observer", then it's rotational rate does not matter.

However, in actuality, the Moon has not moved to any significant extent in that time, so it still has essentially the same face illuminated by the sun. The same phase.

Once again, please show us a working system which can get these extreme perspective effects working in a coherent system.

Shown you that already. You were shown it in the previous thread wherein you raised the "moon tilt illusion". This isn't our first rodeo on this topic.

Once again - in the time that a single observer takes to move from E1 to E2, the Moon moves from the right-hand dotted line of sight to the left-hand one.

No significant change in phase. No 45 degree movement of the Moon. Just a few degrees in its orbit. Meanwhile, the observer on Earth has seen the Moon go from directly overhead to being on their horizon.

Tom; conventional wisdom holds that the movement of observers on Earth is appreciably faster, in rotational terms, than the movement of the Moon, so your diagrams which show a Moon moving around the Earth are misplaced;

Applying the same to the Moon's day and night, we see that the observation of the Moon at 45 degrees is the same at all distances:

So again, why don't different observers see different sides of the Full Moon?

What has the full Moon got to do with this illustration? But ...

Why? The different observers are not far enough apart.

E8, E7, and E6 should all see different parts of the Moon's day and night, as they are looking at Moon at different angles. They should see different parts of the Full Moon.

There is no "day and night" of the Moon when it is in Full Moon phase. But...

The diagram is not to scale. If it were, you would see that the movement of observer(s) between E6 and E8 would not be enough to give them a view of "different parts" of it ....

Distance has nothing to do with it. It will occur at all scales.

So, if distance has nothing to do with it, then pick a distance and illustrate that only, rather than placing a selection of dummy Moons at varying distances.

Note that the observer CANNOT see a 90 and a 45 Moon at the same time. In reality, the two will be separated by 3.5 days approx., and the phase will be consistent with that time difference, every time, month after month.

Your illustration shows both, but they cannot occur simultaneously

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Kyle Jurek
« on: March 27, 2020, 05:53:35 PM »
Well he's a Bernie 2020 Field Organizer, not really some random ass employee. And if you listened he says there are a bunch of people in their campaign who feel the same. Bernie himself is a fan of communism and has been to the Soviet Union partying with like minded individuals.

Who held a beauty pageant in Moscow?


Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 27, 2020, 11:03:37 AM »
A rocket cannot maintain a constant value of entropy.

Why not?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipse from a Plane
« on: March 27, 2020, 12:18:13 AM »
What do you see as the problem?

You have the photo, taken from a viewpoint of someone WITHIN the shadow. What do you see as an issue with looking out from within the shadow, to see sunlight area(s) around it?

Imagine it this way; go outside in the sun, at high noon, with a large golf umbrella. Hold it above you, such that you are in the shade, and the umbrella is between you and the sun.

Can you look out from under the umbrella and see sunlit areas around you?

If the observer is at 800-850 feet, with an intervening hill between him and the target buildings of 650 feet, and we know the distance between them, then simple school-level trig will tell us the downward angle from observer to intervening hill, and by extension from that, the height H at which that sightline should meet the buildings - IF the underlying plane and reference level for all the heights is perfectly flat.

Like this;

Storm, I invite you do the calcs for us ...

And for those who keep saying the observer should be looking UP, that is just a bunch more nonsense. You are looking at a city that is FORTY FIVE MILES AWAY! The tallest building is 915 feet, not nine THOUSAND feet.

What difference does the distance make? The city does not grow smaller with distance. The buildings have fixed heights, as does the land.

To further make the point, imagine you construct two towers of 100m tall, one at the ocean's edge, the other some distance out to sea. If you look from the top of one to the top of the other, the line of sight connecting the two is, assuming a perfectly flat sea, parallel to the sea. Each top is 100m above sea level

No matter what distance you put between the two towers, they do not shrink in size. They remain 100m tall. So your line of sight, regardless of distance between the two, is always parallel to the presumed flat surface of the sea.

And for those who keep saying the observer should be looking UP, that is just a bunch more nonsense. You are looking at a city that is FORTY FIVE MILES AWAY! The tallest building is 915 feet, not nine THOUSAND feet.

What difference does the distance make? The city does not grow smaller with distance. The buildings have fixed heights, as does the land.

The observer is at 800 to 850

The land at the city is 430, with the Reunion Tower a further 561 above this. That makes a total of 991.

Is 991 greater than 850? If so, the observer has an upward sightline to the top of the Reunion Tower. Eye level must be at 850. 

When last I checked, 991 was greater than 850.

Sundown -> Sunfar
Sunset -> Sunfar
Sunrise -> Sunnear

Explain, please

You are way off. The Reunion Tower is only 561 feet tall.

561 ft above the ground it stands on. So you need to add that ground level to the height of the tower for the tower's height above MSL. Mean Sea Level (or a similar reference level). Then consider the height of the observer above that level, and the height of the intervening hills, also measured from the same level. If all these are set out, on a flat plane, it can be seen that the hills inbetween cannot intrude on the observer's sightline to the Reunion Tower, such that only the ball of the tower can be seen. In fact, the whole tower should be visible if all this is set out on a flat plane... (EDIT correction; MOST OF the tower. The top 361 feet or so)

Now, look at it this way:
Observer = ~800-850 ft
Colleyville terrain obstruction = ~600-650 ft
Dallas = ~450 ft

If you consider the elevation of Dallas, ~450 feet, as simply 0 feet, then consider the point of the observer to be ~400 feet above that and the elevation in between, the Colleyville area, to be ~200 feet above that zero point of elevation, then the photo looks "EXACTLY" as it should look.

No, it does not, for the photographer states that most of the 561 feet of the Reunion Tower is HIDDEN BY THE HILL, and it is
561 ft ABOVE your zero reference level for Dallas.... so the photographer would be looking up from 450 to 561, with a 200 hill between - a hill which cannot intrude on his sightline

You are purposely ignoring the roughly 100 feet of trees and buidlings above the elevation of the Colleyville 600-650 foot elevation.

Just using the figures you quoted to start with. Now you want to change them? Makes no difference, anyway

And for those who keep saying the observer should be looking UP, that is just a bunch more nonsense. You are looking at a city that is FORTY FIVE MILES AWAY! The tallest building is 915 feet

So if the observer is at 800, and he's looking at something 915, he's looking up, isn't he? Makes no difference how far away, if it's all on a flat plane, and the city hasn't shrunk into the ground .....   

He would be looking level if he looked at something of 800, and down if he looked at something of 700. No?

The horizon is at eye-level. That is where the buildings are.

Eye level is the observer's height. At least one of the buildings is 561 feet high, so the whole of it cannot be AT eye level ...

I'd like to issue you a challenge.

Fire up your CAD diagram machine and create a diagram of your ROUND EARTH depiction of that photo, from the observer to the target city--using ACCURATE dimensions, showing ACCURATE curvature/drop for that distance (1350 feet), with the observer on the left and the target on the right - just like you've been showing with a FLAT ground line and make this one with a ROUND ground line. Wow us with your results.

Don't have CAD, but ... why should I? I've shown that it's totally inconsistent with a flat plane. You tried to redefine the reference level for the plane, such that Dallas = zero level, but even that does not fit with the photo.

What IS the reference level for all the heights you have quoted for the land? Are they consistently defined from one level? If so, what is that reference level?

That just doesn't cut it.

Venus' orbit is only 67 million miles around the sun, while Earth's orbit is 92.96 million.

From that page- "Mercury’s greatest elongation in the morning sky happens on the same date as Venus’ greatest elongation in the evening sky: March 24, 2020. "

Greatest elongation. Do you know what that means? That means that if you draw a line between Earth and Sun, and another between Venus and Sun, these lines are perpendicular. Venus is at 90 degrees to the Earth, with the Sun at the angular point. From a discussion I previously had on this subject, at another time;

Yet, in the southern U.S., Venus is visible at 45 degrees -- WAY up in the night sky, after sundown for at least two months STRAIGHT. Tonight, Venus is visible for as long FOUR HOURS after sunset. That means I can see it til ONE O'CLOCK in the morning.

How is this possible when the Earth is turned AWAY FROM THE SUN COMPLETELY at night time??

First, all the illustrations on the page you quoted show it low in the sky, and nowhere does it state it to be at 45 degrees elevation above the horizon.

Don't you get a clue from the specific time that it can be seen, just after sunset? A whole hemisphere of the Earth may be on the opposite side of the Sun, but  A - you're not at the farthest point from the Sun at all times, and  B - you are not obliged to look away from the Sun

Plug the distance and elongation figures into a simple pair of diagrams, and ...

The observer can be 36 degrees beyond sunset or 36 degrees before sunrise and still see Venus.

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: March 24, 2020, 03:39:50 PM »
If the environment is pressurized, then a plume forms.

What do you think stops a plume from forming in a vacuum?

The gas caused by the powder igniting is what causes the bullet to go forward.

I refer to the gun as a whole, when contrasting it to the rocket as a whole. Yes, a sub-part of the gun does this.

You need the overall whole system of the gun, same as you need the overall whole system of the rocket.

The barrel of the gun is a pressurized environment until the bullet leaves the barrel.

The combustion chamber of the rocket is also so, with the combustion product leaving via the nozzle. You don't see the similarity?

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 82  Next >