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: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 145  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 11:27:28 PM »
Wow! We can connect a string between them. The illuminated portion of the Moon must be pointed at the Sun. ::)
That continues to be a false equivalence.
Because light travels in straight lines, not in crazy U bends like it would have to for your example to be valid.
So in your diagram if the terminator was as you have it then the “sun” can’t be illuminating the moon, unless light is taking some crazy path which in real life it does not.
In real life light travels in straight lines so the line perpendicular to the terminator must point at the light source. The string experiment demonstrates that it does, contrary to how it appears. It proves that the apparent misalignment is simply an optical illusion.

Can you please explain the FE explanation for this illusion with a diagram and show how this is a prediction of EA as your Wiki claims.
Your inability to do this is telling.

Perhaps you could

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 07:30:37 PM »
Note how Tom is once again trying to change the subject.
He has failed to address his misunderstanding that the sun “points” anywhere and failed to explain how the illusion is a prediction of EA as the Wiki claims.

I continue to await his diagram that explains this.

Seeing as you've admitted that the size of the lights do not shrink linearly as they progress into the distance

Your claim is that the lights do not shrink at all at a certain distance. Incorrect.
Of course the difference in size between a light at 10m and one at 20m is much easier to discern than the difference at 100m and 110m.
One is double the distance, the other is 10%.
So of course the further away something is, the less a small difference in distance will make. But we are not talking about the sun changing from 3000 miles away to 3100 miles.
That would be hard to discern (although it could certainly be measured with the right equipment).
We are talking about a difference between 3000 miles and ~9000 miles. That would mean an apparent size 3 times greater at midday as at sunset - maybe more, I don't know exactly what your estimate for the distance to the sun at sunset is.

So which is more likely? You're an Occam's Razor kinda' guy. What's the simplest explanation for a constant angular size. Is it:
1) The sun really is 3 or more times further away at sunset than it is at midday, but there's an unexplained optical effect which means that no matter the distance the sun maintains the same angular size 2) The sun is actually a consistent distance from us

PS: I made a bit of a hash of that image above. Here's another go. I've used a fill tool with the same sensitivity to fill in the last few lights in the stock image:

And then overlaid them

The change in size is clear.

Addendum. Here's another photo of a row of lights

Lots of glare on this one too but, crucially, because of the angle it's taken from each light is distinct. And if you look at the last few lights:

The red lines I've drawn aren't parallel because the lights are getting smaller as they go into the distance. Just more slowly as they get further away.

The last five lights don't shrink as much as the first five lights. Therefore something else is occurring.
The video of the car is your friend in understanding what.
Something 10 meters away will appear twice as big as when it's 20 meters away.
To halve in size again it has to be 40 meters away.
To halve again then it's 80 meters.

So yes. Lights in the foreground will appear to change in size quickly because relative to you the difference in distance is marked.
As they get further away the difference in distance relative to you is much smaller.
As I said, the difference in distance between 10 and 20 meters is double. So if lights are spaced 10m apart then the second will appear twice as small as the first.
But the 10th and the 11th. That's the difference between 100m and 110m. Yes, there will be a difference but it's harder to discern, particularly in a low resolution image which is overexposed and has loads of glare. And taken from an angle where all the distant lights overlap anyway.

The sun in your model is 3 or 4 times as far away at sunrise and sunset as it is when it's overhead.
What does Occam's Razor and perspective tell you about the expected angular size at those two times?
What is the simplest explanation?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 05:14:57 PM »
The string experiment is unable to distinguish whether something is pointing at something else.
As has already been explained, the sun doesn't point at anything.
If there is clear line of sight between the sun and an object then the sun will illuminate that object.
And you can tell from which direction an object is being illuminated - if the object is not fully illuminated from your perspective then a line perpendicular to the terminator should point at the light source.
When the optical illusion occurs it appears that this is not the case. The string experiment demonstrates that this is merely an illusion.

Can you explain with a diagram how this effect is explained and predicted by EA?

Your explanation failed to explain why lights of various distances in the far field all stay the same size, and was summarily dismissed.

In the far field the lights are the same size:
You can't even distinguish the far away lights in that image, it's all an over-exposed mess.

But the change in apparent size is not linear. For the apparent size to half the distance has to double.
So as something close to you gets further away then initially the apparent size changes a lot.
As lights (or any other objects) recede into the distance the change in apparent size will become less.
And in that photo it's all such an low resolution over-exposed mess anyway that it's hard to draw any conclusions from.

Look at this film of a car driving towards the camera:

Note how for the first 8 seconds or so the apparent size of the car changes very slowly and then it starts to get bigger much quicker.
This is how perspective works.

And none of this changes that through a solar filter the sun's apparent size remains the same whether it's overhead (about 3,000 miles away), or on the horizon when it must be at least 2 or 3 times as far away. That is completely impossible.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 12:53:34 PM »
More good work, JSS.
I'd also be interested to know how this illusion, which as the name suggests is nothing more than an optical illusion, albeit an interesting one, is a "prediction" of EA as the Wiki claims.

I'd like to see a proper diagram which demonstrates this, the Wiki has one but the light in the diagram bends downwards which is the opposite of the EA claim so I don't understand how this illusion is a prediction of EA.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 19, 2021, 11:04:13 AM »
I can connect a string! The pencils must be pointing at each other.  ::)

That's a false equivalence, as is the tree, cabin example. The sun doesn't "point" at anything, it is simply a light source which radiates light in all directions.

The moon, in RET, is being illuminated by the sun. And light travels in straight lines - for the purposes of this conversation, there are Relativistic and refraction effects which mean that's not 100% true, but in the context of light from the sun hitting the moon it is true.

If light travels in straight lines AND if the sun is illuminating the moon then when you see the moon the line perpendicular to the terminator on the moon must point at the sun:

When you see the moon tilt illusion it looks like that isn't the case, but the piece of string demonstrates that it is and it's simply an optical illusion.

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 19, 2021, 10:40:04 AM »
Also, the shape and size of Australia is different among all of the Flat Earth maps.
Different shapes and sizes for land masses only make sense if the earth is a globe (or some other non flat shape). In that case some projection between the earth's true shape and a flat map is necessary which will inevitably distort sizes, shapes or distances.

Maps are flat. If the earth is flat too then it should be possible to make a map of Australia, indeed the whole earth, which accurately depicts the reality of landmass shapes and known distances between places. Why can't you?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 16, 2021, 02:42:12 PM »
Waves and swells can certainly block the view of of the city skyline and more often than not, do exactly that.
Depends on your viewer height, and the height of the waves. If you are looking from the same height as the tallest wave then only the height of the wave will be blocked:

If your eye is higher than the waves then you're looking over them and less than the wave height will be blocked.

Only if your eye height is lower than the wave height can the wave or swell block more than its own height.

(this is all assuming a flat earth of course)

According to this:,(2%20to%204%20feet).

Even in "favorable" weather conditions, waves on Lake Michigan can build to surprisingly great heights. Waves grow as the momentum of moving air is transferred to the water surface, and this process occurs much more effectively when air temperatures are low relative to the water temperature. At any given wind speed, cold air over warm water (the usual winter situation) builds larger waves than warm air over cold water (the summer situation). Therefore, on average, waves during the winter, typically 4 to 8 feet in height, are higher than summer waves (2 to 4 feet). The strongest winter storms can, on rare occasions, generate waves 20 to 22 feet in height on Lake Michigan.

So in winter with the 4-8ft waves then if you're standing right on the shore then it's possible that taller waves could block the view.
In a storm they definitely could. In the summer, not so much unless you're lying on your belly next to the water.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 15, 2021, 05:07:59 PM »
This entire statement is objectively false.

Any map you have used is flat.
Indeed. And therefore every map of the entire earth, or even large parts of it, is inaccurate.
Because there is no way of perfectly mapping a sphere onto a flat plane. Something has to give.
Were the earth flat of course then that wouldn't be a problem, you'd be able to make a map of the entire earth which accurately depicts shapes and distances.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 15, 2021, 04:14:16 PM »
If you have measured a variation in gravity, and if UA is true, then it is rather obvious that the variation you have measured did not come from UA, but rather gravitation.
Well, it comes from something. I'd suggest the starting point is that the something is unknown.

You may suggest Celestial Gravitation as the something. OK. But that's a hypothesis. That should be just the start. In order to find out whether that hypothesis has any weight you need to make the hypothesis a bit more useful than the single paragraph on the Wiki which basically just says "some people think this is a thing".

If "Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides" (quote from the Wiki) then that's a good start. The tides can be directly measured. So does that correlate with the movements of any known celestial bodies in a way that you can make predictions with it? Right now all you've got is that you think this is a thing. But it's a strange thing because if the claim is that the celestial bodies pull on things like oceans then why don't the celestial bodies pull on each other? If they did then surely they'd attract and hit each other. Unless this is part of a stable orbit of course like the earth-moon system in RE? And why don't the things, like oceans, pull back on the celestial bodies (if they did then surely they'd fall on us).

This is what makes it feels like an ad-hoc invention rather than a well rounded (pun not intended, but I'll take it now I've realised) theory

In RE gravity isn't just some vague hypothesis. It has a mathematical framework which is able to make predictions. Neptune was discovered because Uranus wasn't behaving as it should from the calculations. That indicated that another body beyond it was acting on it, and so it proved. And gravity has more practical applications on earth:

Like magnetic surveys, gravity surveys use precise instruments to measure the strength of gravity at various places. This allows geologists to create maps of the density of the crust below our feet. This method is particularly effective at accurately spotting oil deposits. However, they also have applications in mining.

Gravity surveys have been used, with great success, to locate diamonds. Diamonds typically are found in characteristic kimberlite pipes that are dense compared to nearby rocks, leading to a spike in the local gravity.

This is where the RE model wins. It has practical applications and can make predictions which validate the model.
In FE it seems like when observations don't match the model then either an ad-hoc explanation is invented or the observation is simply denied.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 15, 2021, 08:47:48 AM »
Trump to be re-inaugurated on March 4th. You heard it here first!

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 13, 2021, 09:58:45 AM »
Your claim that stars go in ovals goes against everything millions of people observe with their own telescopes and yes, cameras.
More to the point, it goes against a Wiki page on here which Tom wrote.
Which leads me to believe Tom is arguing in bad faith here and just arguing for the sake of arguing.
And I don’t see how this is a point for FE either way.

The original topic was how FE explains star trails. The way the stars circle around Polaris in the North, circle around a southern point in the south in the opposite direction and the trail picture I posted from the equator is explained - indeed predicted - by a model of us living on a rotating globe with distant stars. That model also explains the constant magnitude of stars and the constant positions in relation to each other.

FE can only explain this by inventing ad hoc mechanisms or just flat out denial.

Tom’s attempt to derail this thread and his unwillingness to make any observations himself shows the weakness of his position.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 11, 2021, 10:29:05 AM »
It's pretty telling that you are unaware that the size of the stars are illusions in RE, and do not follow the angular size with distance rule of perspective -

I like the fact that you quote part of an article on that page which includes this sentence:

Today, despite the advances in technology and knowledge, science faces rejection by those who claim that it is bedeviled by hoaxes, conspiracies, or suppressions of data by powerful establishments.

Sound familiar? :)

I'm also amused that you think that perspective is something which is optional and only some objects obey, as though perspective is a subscription service which not every object is signed up to. For ages on here you were arguing that sunset happens by "perspective", more recently you seem to have jumped on the EA bandwagon and now argue that the sun and moon randomly don't obey perspective. Yes, they're at vastly varying distances during the day/night but they maintain a constant angular size through the night because of some effect which I showed some time ago is debunked by the images on your Wiki page about it. And the effect is claimed to work for bright lights so wouldn't apply to the crescent moon.

There is some optical effect because stars are so distant they are effectively point sources, but in your model they aren't that distant. So why wouldn't they greatly vary in angular size?

And why are you arguing against the stars moving in circles when the Wiki page which you wrote claims they do? ???

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 10, 2021, 10:18:41 PM »
The cases weren't brought because they are technically complex
Trump claimed dead people voted.
That’s not technically complex, that should be easy to prove.
He also claimed that loads of people from out of state voted.
That’s not technically complex, that should be easy to prove.
I’ve heard claims that more people voted than were registered.
That’s not technically complex, that should be easy to prove.

Fact is, you can claim all these things on Twitter, on right wing blogs and YouTube but none of that is relevant. Evidence has to stand up in court. It didn’t. That’s why Biden is sitting in the White House right now.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 10, 2021, 04:59:10 PM »
I think Trump's defence lawyers should try this next

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 09, 2021, 10:19:59 PM »
I was talking about the particular cases that are being referenced, that Trump brought after the election. You are just mistaken that the focus was on fraud in those cases.
There were some cases which cited fraud. How many of those did Trump win?
None, that’s how many.
Weird isn’t it? There’s so much evidence...

There is plenty of evidence for fraud.
How many times?
Not all evidence is created equal.
You can cite as many conspiracy theory videos, right wing blogs and all caps Tweets as you like. In public Trump was shouting “fraud, fraud, fraud”. In court they had nothing.

This could easily blow up.

How many times are you going to be Charlie Brown kicking the ball while Lucy snatches it away as you kick the air and fall on your arse?
You’ve been pinning your hopes on one false hope after another for months while we’ve all been patiently telling you that Biden won and was going to be inaugurated on the 20th, which is exactly what happened.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: February 09, 2021, 04:05:23 PM »
I would suggest you look very closely at the data that this propaganda blogger has cited. It is the most saddest, most desperate cherries picked by a sad, desperate cherry picker.

It is a level of spin that Putin would be proud of.
Who needs to look at the details when you can cherry pick your source and bold the words which you think make your case?
Another excellent, reliable source from Tom.

I note that none of these "big wins" relate to dead people voting, people out of state voting, Dominion machines "flipping" votes etc, etc.
Almost like there's no evidence for these things which will stand up to any scrutiny...

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 145  Next >