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 5 ... 73  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 18, 2020, 12:59:30 AM »
Back in 8 hours or so, Tom. Please don't talk about me when I'm gone.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 18, 2020, 12:51:51 AM »
In the NH after the March 21st Equinox the nights get shorter, not longer, until summer comes.

You appear to have drawn some arbitrary lines, making the night longer for May 10, in a vain attempt to salvage an explanation for your model. Not convincing.

The video author drew arbitrary lines, with the horizon line for Blunham in totally the wrong place.

I modelled it in 3D with a replica globe, and based the overlay onto his graphic on this 3D picture (upload tomorrow)

10 May is at roughly 2/3 of the timespan between equinox and solstice, so the axial tilt is 30 degrees away from the reference line to the sun. On the equinox it would be 90, 1/3 of the way is 60, and at the solstice it would be zero.

The black dot is the North Pole. 

The sun set on the 10th at 20.42, rose at 5.16 on the 11th. A night of 8h36m. Sunset to midnight = 3h18m, midnight to sunrise 5h16m. So midnight on the clock occurred nearer to sunset than sunrise. 3/8 of the way through the night. Which places Blunham nearer the Moon, as opposed to further round. Nearer the leftmost orange square. Making it easier to see the Moon

If you disagree the lines, let's see your modelling of it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 18, 2020, 12:31:35 AM »
I've modelled it in 3D with a tabletop globe, and here's an approximation, limited by 2D drawing.

A.T. = Axial Tilt

Blunham is in the vicinity of the three orange dots as it crosses midnight, not at the red line

I see no issue with Blunham having a sightline to the Moon at this point.

Talking of midnight, it's well after that in the UK. Back in 8 hours or so

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 17, 2020, 11:38:06 PM »
The author goes to lengths to explain that it doesn't really matter.

What "doesn't really matter"?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 17, 2020, 11:16:28 PM »
Tom, have you tried taking a standard desktop or table top globe, setting it up with model moon and sun, aligning it according to the correct axial tilt for that day of the year, and sighting manually from Milton Keynes (MK44 postcode) toward the Moon?

I know I can do this for myself, but before I do, I'd like to know if you, the author, or anyone else has done it yet. 

... or are we relying totally on the author's second diagram, which apparently attempts to show a visible horizon in an equatorial region, a region which is nowhere near Milton Keynes, thus rendering the diagram invalid?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 17, 2020, 10:59:15 PM »
The author provides observations and locations of it happening, it's in the link. It happens on as well.

So, if the author has the photos to prove it happened, and at least one moon calculator confirms it, why does it need to be explained?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 17, 2020, 10:58:08 PM »
"8 days after his acquittal, Trump openly admitted sending Giuliani to hunt for dirt on Joe Biden — reversing a key
part of his impeachment defense"

Highlight points;

The president made the claim in a podcast interview with the Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera, who had asked him whether it was "strange to send Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine" and whether he regretted the decision.

Trump previously said he did not direct Giuliani's efforts in Ukraine, seeking to distance himself from damaging information that emerged during his impeachment trial in the House last year.

The president told the former Fox News host Bill O'Reilly in November amid the House impeachment investigation: "No, I didn't direct him, but he's a warrior, Rudy's a warrior."

In Thursday's podcast, however, the president openly acknowledged that Giuliani had been acting on his orders.

"Here's my choice: I deal with the Comeys of the world, or I deal with Rudy," Trump said, referring to James Comey, who Trump fired as FBI director for refusing to quash the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

One of the claims Giuliani was sent to Ukraine to pursue was the theory — which has long been debunked — that Ukraine had helped US intelligence frame Russia for attempting to subvert the 2016 election.

The House impeached Trump last year on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in his quest to seek Biden dirt from Ukraine. He was acquitted by the Senate of both charges on February 5.

Trump also showered praise on Giuliani on Thursday and appeared to justify using his personal lawyer to conduct government business.


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 17, 2020, 10:36:23 PM »
Now tell us how it is possible that some people have seen the crescent moon at midnight:


Specify time, date, place of observation, and some evidence that it was actually seen at that time, date and place.

The author of that page above seems to have taken no account of observer location, nor axial tilt.

If he wants to disprove the globe model, he needs to account for all of it, not just cherry-pick the bits that suit him ....

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: February 17, 2020, 10:33:42 PM »
Think of it this way: First, you have a closed container, sitting in vacuum and containing a gas with some nonzero pressure P inside. The force on the walls is the same in all directions, no matter the shape of the container, but for simplicity you can picture it as a cube with side length s. Each wall will have a force Ps2 pushing on it.

Now remove one wall. There will no longer be any force acting on it (your "free expansion" principle), but until the gas is fully evacuated there will be a force on the opposite wall. So your container has a net force in the opposite direction from the gas expulsion lasting for some time. Momentum is conserved; rockets work."

I concur. I use a similar example over at YouTube;

Imagine the container, floating free in space; sealed, filled with rocket fuel and a means to ignite it remotely
Ignite the fuel
One of two things happens; the box is strong enough to contain the reaction, and holds, or - the expansion exceeds the strength of the box, which then ruptures at its weakest point
Debris is cast outward in the second scenario, showing the pressure exerted by the expansion on the inside surfaces, and showing all surfaces acted upon

Imagine the same fuel ignition with one side missing, and the result is as described above

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 17, 2020, 10:25:02 PM »
...  yet he’s done so much for the country.

He really hasn't done much positive.


Rolling back environment protection such that businesses can legally dump more waste into rivers than before.

Yeah, that's really doing something for the country....

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 17, 2020, 10:08:52 PM »
How can you see the moon at night when the moon is on the same side as the Sun

Like this. View from above. Green lines between Earth (larger circle below) are sightlines from observers in day and night who can see the Moon (smaller circle above).

Shall I draw something similar on your graphics above?  Green sightlines from night side of Earth to possible positions of Moon on day side....

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: February 17, 2020, 06:29:54 PM »
This article 'MAY' have actually been written at some point in history, but it was likely 'NOT' written by Tesla

Says who? You? Why is it "likely"?

AND there is absolutely NO record of it anywhere online.

So what? Honestly, trying to claim that something is not online, based on simply the results from search engines, is a lost cause...

My conclusion, based on 'STRONG' evidence to the contrary, is that it was written at a much later date, likely after his demise, and attributed to him for the purpose of supporting theories that he would 'NEVER' have affiliated himself with.

WHAT evidence?

Here is an 'ACTUAL' quote from Tesla, completely contradicting every part of that article...

Oh, so it's "My quote is BETTER than yours", even though you provide no source or context to it....

I have to say: The credibility of those posting in this thread is very much in question.

Why? Because you claim that you have better quotes than everyone else?

If you can't use factual information to debate the Flat Earth, you may as well bow out gracefully.

... but you haven't proven your quote to be the factual one.

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: February 17, 2020, 05:54:39 PM »
Just ask scientists.

Name one that agrees with you, or cite a reliable scholarly source authored by one.

the reality is you cannot see a GPS satellite in orbit.

Yes, you can. Here's two examples of astrophotographers capturing a selection of geostationary satellites. All that would need to be done is point the camera at the correct area of sky for a particular GPS satellite to get a similar result.

Further, all that is available on Google when a search is performed ("images of a GPS satellite in orbit") are artist renderings.

So what? It's nobody's fault but your own that you did a simple google search, then gave up.

I have no idea what your video is about or if it is even meant to address about the validity of my response to TomInAustin.

You asked for photos of GPS satellites without specifying the context in your request (yes, it was in the quote), so I showed you some photos. Yes, they are of satellites under construction, but again - why would anyone construct one if there was no possibility of launching and operating it?

But you can see GPS satellites with your own eyes and no balloon can cross the night sky that fast.  Right?
I scoured the internet for images of a GPS satellite and I found no photographs of a GPS satellite.

There is no possible way you can see a GPS satellite at a reported height of 22,000 miles above the earth.

1. Why would you expect to find one? In order to get a photo of one in orbit, one would need to fly a camera-carrying craft within camera range. I don't know if you realise it, but the safe way to operate spacecraft is to keep them away from each other, not fly them close.

Also, when you do cost/benefit on the exercise of photographing a GPS satellite, what IS the benefit?

2. You can see the reflected light from it, far beyond the range at which you can discern the object itself. The principles behind the Heliograph, wherein reflected light from a mirror can be seen far further than the mirror itself, is well known

Here's a picture of a 2018 GPS 3 sat, at 30s and beyond

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.
« on: February 17, 2020, 11:33:41 AM »
I never said that the rocket would "blow away the entirety of the atmoplane of the earth." Where did that come from?
You asked for more clarity concerning how air under 14.7 psi provides resistance to the thrust of a rocket engine.

I suggest you search the internet for that clarity.

So, after all this searching enquiry, back and forth, and your dogged insistence that you're the one in the right, you're down to telling others to "go do their own research"?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bernie 2020
« on: February 17, 2020, 11:31:52 AM »
Currently, Medicare provides Part A and Part B. ....

What do you actually WANT, though?

As a non-American, I know that my taxes have, in part, covered things such that I can get taken care of in cases of medical emergency without suffering financial ruin. Americans don't seem to have the same safety net.

Do you want the safety net? Are you American?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: February 17, 2020, 09:24:35 AM »
Which of these images most closely depicts the world that you inhabit?

Yes, we can all see that you think it's good fun to post comedic mockery in the guise of substantive analysis, but we all see right through the fact that you're glossing over the actual questions put to you, in favour of diversion to your comedic rants, and changes of subject. 

When you're ready to actually engage with other posters here, and treat the subject with some gravity ....

(see what I did there?)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: February 17, 2020, 09:20:52 AM »
Never in ALL my life have I seen anything like that in the real world.

I've never seen a shark, a whale, a kangaroo. But they still exist. Your disbelief is no proof of anything.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« on: February 17, 2020, 09:17:10 AM »
What are you talking about.

... could well ask you the same question, since you're mixing your FE and RE theory below, and can't seem to make up your mind which one you want to cite.

For 14 days the moon will be on the same side as the Sun. 

Yes, that would be, in RE, the hemisphere that faces the Sun. Which changes (for those on the surface) with every Earth day and night as the Earth rotates, so you move through that hemisphere.

Day will alway be on the same side as the sun and nights will always be on the opposite side of the sun.  FE rotates every 24 hours so everyone on a RE has a night and day and every night is on the same side.  Which is the opposite that the sun is on.

Yes. And those days and nights, for those on the surface, move under the Moon on RE, which only moves (24/360 = ) 7 degrees of its orbit for each Earth night and day, with the observers moving 360 degrees in the same time.

Take a quarter and run it from one side of the sky to the other and see how many stars you pass over. Thats how many stars the moon should pass over on the 14 nights the moon is on the opposite side of the sun. The other 14 days it’s on the same side as the Sun, shouldn’t even be seen at night.  But yet it is.

What does that tell you, since you think it "shouldn't be seen"? All the observational evidence of every human, ever, contradicts what you think should happen, but tallies exactly with the textbooks (which were written by a group of the millions of astronomers who have studied it as their life's work), the experience of everyone who has studied the Moon, travelled to it, or sent craft to it. It only took me half a minute to find the two videos above which show exactly the event that you claim is not happening ...

Is Astronomy your life's work? How long do you spend looking at the Moon, in comparision to professional astronomers?

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 73  Next >