*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2018, 09:59:09 AM »
It really makes some good points.
No, it doesn't. CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions. He shares this quality with many unobservant RE-ers - if the information wasn't spoon-fed (or force-fed, in some cases) to them, they'll assume it doesn't exist and fill in the blanks with their imagination.

You're here because you choose to post all manner of stuff that people disagree with, or find so vague that they need to question you to find out what you actually MEAN.

If you want to step away from the computer and have a quiet life away from this questioning, just hit the Off switch and do so. But you keep coming back.
You're a bit confused. You're the guest here. You're not gonna be telling the hosts to go away. Unless you plan on no longer being lazy, actually doing your research, and becoming a contributing member of the community, then you'll be leaving shortly anyway. And that's fine by us.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 10:24:58 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2018, 02:07:23 PM »
If you read the Wiki it says that only lights of sufficient intensity are able to catch onto the atmosphere and enlarge. It does not apply to all light. Otherwise everything would be enlarged. In the headlight highway example on that link the tail lights of the cars in the opposite lane are not being enlarged.

Were you able to measure the intensity of the lights in your photo on the wiki then? Or did you just cherry pick a photo? The headlight example doesn't show enlarged lights, it simply appears larger because there are more cars in that area of the photo. More cars = more headlights = brighter.

Quote
The "Great Lakes" are actually inland seas, and have waves and swells on them. The rest of those images are on the sea. This is what is causing the sinking effect in many of those images.

And do these waves and swells reach several tens or hundreds of feet at all time, without ever going down?

Quote
Perspective is bringing them the horizon to your eye level

They are not being brought to eye level, because the horizon is not at eye level.

Quote
A small object can obscure a large object, much like if you hold a dime out in front of you it can obscure an elephant.

Correct, but only if the small object is MUCH closer to you than the big object. How much closer are the waves to the observer than the ships?

Quote
The evidence is that if you start at sea level and slowly increase your altitude the horizon will rise with you.

But you're only claiming this. Do you have any real evidence? Did you use any sort of tools to determine this?

Quote
The fact that the horizon rises to stay at eye level, rather than lowers, as you increase altitude, is evidence that there is an effect going on which keeps the horizon at your eye level.

This would be true if you could provide evidence that it is rising to eye level.

Quote
At a very high altitude you are looking through so much atmosphere the horizon just seems to be faded with fog. At that point the lands may seem to drop as you go higher -- but that is because of atmosphere.

So does this cause the horizon's position relative to your eyes to become un-measurable? How could one counter this so that they could determine where the horizon actually is? If it is un-measurable, how then do you know that the horizon rises as you rise?

Quote
Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day?

That's a very good question. ENAG is entirely claims, though. It's proponents made up by Rowbotham, no actual evidence. It's entirely hearsay.

This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2018, 02:09:41 PM »
It really makes some good points.
No, it doesn't. CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions.

He makes these assumptions based on the model that you push. He shows what reality would be like if Earth was flat, mainly using geometry for subjects like the sun's position, or the distances between two places, and then shows this doesn't match our observations. Instead, they match the math that is based on a spherical earth (or oblate earth).

Quote
if the information wasn't spoon-fed (or force-fed, in some cases) to them, they'll assume it doesn't exist and fill in the blanks with their imagination.

And that's why burden of proof exists.
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1060
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2018, 03:55:43 PM »
You're a bit confused. You're the guest here. You're not gonna be telling the hosts to go away. Unless you plan on no longer being lazy, actually doing your research, and becoming a contributing member of the community, then you'll be leaving shortly anyway. And that's fine by us.

Apart from Junker, whose profile clearly says "Moderator", how is one to recognise the hosts? Are you a host?

Tom's profile pic says he is a Zetetic Council Member. Does that mean he is a host, or not? How does one tell? I've looked in the FAQ, if I've missed something there, please advise. The member list is 60 pages, so you'll forgive me if I don't read it all ....
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2018, 05:22:03 PM »
how is one to recognise the hosts?
It's in the name - the Flat Earth Society. You don't need to be able to identify each and every member of the society to know that we'll expect you to follow the rules and simple conventions. If you can't do that, find a forum that's more suited to your, uh, posting habits. I'm always happy to recommend Reddit to the likes of you.

He shows what reality would be like if Earth was flat, mainly using geometry for subjects like the sun's position, or the distances between two places, and then shows this doesn't match our observations. Instead, they match the math that is based on a spherical earth (or oblate earth).
If you do not have anything to contribute to the conversation other than "Actually, the Earth is the shape I consider correct," please refrain from posting. Most everyone here thinks they're right, so there's no need to emptily state that.

He makes these assumptions based on the model that you push.
I'm sure he thinks he's doing that, but unfortunately he has yet to release a video "debunking" anything without grossly misrepresenting his opponent. His homeopathy videos are particularly illustrative of this issue. And no, I am not a proponent of homeopathy.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 05:28:43 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #25 on: March 02, 2018, 07:50:36 PM »
If you do not have anything to contribute to the conversation other than "Actually, the Earth is the shape I consider correct," please refrain from posting. Most everyone here thinks they're right, so there's no need to emptily state that.

I never said anything like this. I was refuting your claim that he cherry picks easy subjects. I never asserted that I believe it to be round. I was asserting that the evidence that CHL brings up show it to be round.

Quote
I'm sure he thinks he's doing that, but unfortunately he has yet to release a video "debunking" anything without grossly misrepresenting his opponent. His homeopathy videos are particularly illustrative of this issue. And no, I am not a proponent of homeopathy.

How does he grossly misrepresent the FE? His model uses the numbers you provide in the wiki.
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2018, 01:44:24 AM »
The effect only applies to the far field street lamps, not the near field street lamps. A street lamp once centimeter away from your eye ball will, of course, be much larger. The street lamps in the near field may be too close to catch on to the atmosphere or are larger than the projection.

The far field street lamps are all the same size, showing that there is an enlarging effect. The street lights in the distance are not appropriately shrinking.



by my very rough approximation, the lamps do get progressively smaller.  although measuring them is somewhat subjective basically impossible.  how did you measure them?  scattering + saturation are causing lots of flux to bleed into adjacent pixels, which is why it looks like one contiguous white blob.  this image is worthless for proving what you're trying to prove.

there's also no way for you to know how large the lamps "should" be.  you don't know how far they are from the camera or from each other; you don't know the pixel scale, so you don't know if you can resolve the change in angular size from lamp-to-lamp, so looking at adjacent lamps is worthless; you don't know the exposure settings, atmospheric conditions, or anything else about this image beyond "there are some white blobs here."

and that's to say nothing of the fact that the human eye is not a ccd sensor.  while i'm stating the obvious, it's worth pointing out that cameras are capable of producing many different sorts of images that do not represent physical reality.  cameras are actually kinda bad at representing reality as we see it.

Per your argument of "pixel saturation" as an explanation for these scenes, if the pixels were bleeding into the pixels near them, the lights should still shrink as they recede into the distance, not stay the same exact size. A smaller light would cause a smaller diameter of pixel bleed around it.

how did you determine that?  are you just assuming it?  flux drops off with the square of the distance.  surface brightness doesn't depend on distance at all.  it's not always a linear relationship.

btw have you not noticed that the only images you can find to support your hypothesis are dark/dimly lit?  that's not a coincidence.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2018, 08:43:47 AM »
I was refuting your claim that he cherry picks easy subjects.
That is not a claim I made, so good job. Perhaps try responding to things people actually say?

I never asserted that I believe it to be round.
Yeah, I'm gonna call BS on that one. The moment you pompously contrast your opponents' viewpoint with "reality", you make an assertion.

How does he grossly misrepresent the FE? His model uses the numbers you provide in the wiki.
And he ignores large chunks of the theory that make his claims inconvenient for him. This is just as bad as the FE'ers who say things like "if the Earth were spinning at 1000mph, people would get flung off into space!" Sure, it uses the opponent's numbers. It also uses them in wildly inappropriate ways, rooted in the lack of even a basic understanding of the subject matter. Simply by making this assertion we can clearly see that the video is [BOLLOCKS]
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2018, 05:58:29 PM »
That is not a claim I made, so good job. Perhaps try responding to things people actually say?

You said:
Quote
CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions.

Is this not saying he cherry picks easy subjects?

Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna call BS on that one. The moment you pompously contrast your opponents' viewpoint with "reality", you make an assertion.

Fair point

Quote
he ignores large chunks of the theory that make his claims inconvenient for him

such as?

Quote
we can clearly see that the video is [BOLLOCKS]

Why? His principles are still correct. The math is correct.
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Offline Frocious

  • *
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2018, 07:07:15 AM »
And he ignores large chunks of the theory that make his claims inconvenient for him. This is just as bad as the FE'ers who say things like "if the Earth were spinning at 1000mph, people would get flung off into space!" Sure, it uses the opponent's numbers. It also uses them in wildly inappropriate ways, rooted in the lack of even a basic understanding of the subject matter. Simply by making this assertion we can clearly see that the video is [BOLLOCKS]

This is probably a lost cause (as explanations are rarely handed out on this forum) but could you please inform me as to which chunks of the theory he is leaving out?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8345
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2018, 09:19:44 AM »
You said:
Quote
CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions.

Is this not saying he cherry picks easy subjects?
No, or at least this was not my intention. What I'm saying is that he strawmans his opponents, regardless of which opponent we focus on. He selects a subject (homeopathy, creationism, FE, whatever), and then he concocts a mix of things people actually propose, and things he made up on the spot, because he's too lazy to read on and would rather trust his intuition. When this is combined with his presupposed notion that his opponents are wrong, the results can often be... off the charts.

such as?
Electromagnetic acceleration, for one.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline Frocious

  • *
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2018, 03:07:52 PM »
You said:
Quote
CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions.

Is this not saying he cherry picks easy subjects?
No, or at least this was not my intention. What I'm saying is that he strawmans his opponents, regardless of which opponent we focus on. He selects a subject (homeopathy, creationism, FE, whatever), and then he concocts a mix of things people actually propose, and things he made up on the spot, because he's too lazy to read on and would rather trust his intuition. When this is combined with his presupposed notion that his opponents are wrong, the results can often be... off the charts.

such as?
Electromagnetic acceleration, for one.

One of the most convincing arguments that he presents (in my opinion) is the capability scientists have to predict things that work within the RE world and then prove them to be true later on. The exact time and path of totality of a solar eclipse, for example, or gravitational waves (discovered 100 years after they were hypothesized).

Are there any examples of FE scientists doing the same? 

And before you say it, I realize there is a post in the wiki regarding lunar eclipses. I am asking very specifically about solar eclipses for a few different reasons.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 03:16:26 PM by Frocious »

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #32 on: March 05, 2018, 03:22:44 PM »
No, or at least this was not my intention.
Then I apologize for my misinterpretation.

Quote
Electromagnetic acceleration, for one

You're going to have to explain this one. Is it like UA at all?
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Offline Frocious

  • *
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #33 on: March 05, 2018, 03:48:21 PM »
No, or at least this was not my intention.
Then I apologize for my misinterpretation.

Quote
Electromagnetic acceleration, for one

You're going to have to explain this one. Is it like UA at all?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

That doesn't explain much, but there are certain posters here that helpfully suggest you "check the wiki."

Pete, if you could kindly answer my question regarding predictions in a flat earth model it would be appreciated.

*

Offline nickrulercreator

  • *
  • Posts: 279
  • It's round. That much is true.
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2018, 12:18:07 AM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

Interesting. I'd love to know what this equation is saying, or how it was derived, what experiments were done to verify it, etc.
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2018, 07:15:18 AM »
All of these points are in Earth Not a Globe. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites. Its not like that book isn't one of the first things that comes up when one starts researching this subject.

Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day? The book is free and online. If you are going to make an attack you should address the actual source material, not your personal idea of what FET is.

Because we find huge flaws in observation and comprehension in 'the book' and unfortunately a book is unable to respond to criticism itself.

You appear to be pretty eager to jump in and waffle on, so why bother pretending it's a chore when it's clearly your self appointed mission?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5428
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2018, 12:33:48 AM »
All of these points are in Earth Not a Globe. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites. Its not like that book isn't one of the first things that comes up when one starts researching this subject.

Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day? The book is free and online. If you are going to make an attack you should address the actual source material, not your personal idea of what FET is.

Because we find huge flaws in observation and comprehension in 'the book' and unfortunately a book is unable to respond to criticism itself.

You appear to be pretty eager to jump in and waffle on, so why bother pretending it's a chore when it's clearly your self appointed mission?

The person who made the video in the OP isn't criticizing Earth Not a Globe. He apparently did not even read Earth Not a Globe.


*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8395
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2018, 02:21:16 PM »
Can we get a split, please

Done. Since there was debate going on (albeit off-topic), I have split/moved those posts to:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9257.0
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.