Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?

  • 55 Replies
  • 6541 Views
?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2014, 03:43:18 AM »
So your sources are people like Duane Gish and Malcolm Bowden whose research comes down to "bible says". Got it.
What are all your learnings based on?

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2014, 04:14:06 AM »
So your sources are people like Duane Gish and Malcolm Bowden whose research comes down to "bible says". Got it.
What are all your learnings based on?

Experiment & evidence. "Debunking" of how seasons work going on in the above posts is a strawman attack, creationists misrepresenting the heliocentric model to show it's wrong. Well sure, it's wrong if you make it wrong.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2014, 04:20:04 AM »
So your sources are people like Duane Gish and Malcolm Bowden whose research comes down to "bible says". Got it.
What are all your learnings based on?

Experiment & evidence. "Debunking" of how seasons work going on in the above posts is a strawman attack, creationists misrepresenting the heliocentric model to show it's wrong. Well sure, it's wrong if you make it wrong.
What experiments have you done?

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2014, 05:30:17 AM »
So your sources are people like Duane Gish and Malcolm Bowden whose research comes down to "bible says". Got it.
What are all your learnings based on?

Experiment & evidence. "Debunking" of how seasons work going on in the above posts is a strawman attack, creationists misrepresenting the heliocentric model to show it's wrong. Well sure, it's wrong if you make it wrong.
What experiments have you done?
Exactly what are you talking about? I have made countless experiments, that's how people learn since from when we are born. If you are talking about more scientific, systematic experiments, I performed many chemical & electrical experiments in school, and in metrology-related work after that. In my free time I have made observations such as this. And I did not say that "all of my learnings", your words, would be based on experiments I conducted myself. Satisfied?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23789
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2014, 07:44:03 AM »
So your sources are people like Duane Gish and Malcolm Bowden whose research comes down to "bible says". Got it.
What are all your learnings based on?

Experiment & evidence. "Debunking" of how seasons work going on in the above posts is a strawman attack, creationists misrepresenting the heliocentric model to show it's wrong. Well sure, it's wrong if you make it wrong.
What experiments have you done?
Exactly what are you talking about? I have made countless experiments, that's how people learn since from when we are born. If you are talking about more scientific, systematic experiments, I performed many chemical & electrical experiments in school, and in metrology-related work after that. In my free time I have made observations such as this. And I did not say that "all of my learnings", your words, would be based on experiments I conducted myself. Satisfied?
So, basically you're nothing but a parrot. No problem.

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #35 on: November 15, 2014, 07:53:01 AM »
So your sources are people like Duane Gish and Malcolm Bowden whose research comes down to "bible says". Got it.
What are all your learnings based on?

Experiment & evidence. "Debunking" of how seasons work going on in the above posts is a strawman attack, creationists misrepresenting the heliocentric model to show it's wrong. Well sure, it's wrong if you make it wrong.
What experiments have you done?
Exactly what are you talking about? I have made countless experiments, that's how people learn since from when we are born. If you are talking about more scientific, systematic experiments, I performed many chemical & electrical experiments in school, and in metrology-related work after that. In my free time I have made observations such as this. And I did not say that "all of my learnings", your words, would be based on experiments I conducted myself. Satisfied?
So, basically you're nothing but a parrot. No problem.
You were going to tell us your qualifications. 

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2014, 07:54:56 AM »
So your sources are people like Duane Gish and Malcolm Bowden whose research comes down to "bible says". Got it.
What are all your learnings based on?

Experiment & evidence. "Debunking" of how seasons work going on in the above posts is a strawman attack, creationists misrepresenting the heliocentric model to show it's wrong. Well sure, it's wrong if you make it wrong.
What experiments have you done?
Exactly what are you talking about? I have made countless experiments, that's how people learn since from when we are born. If you are talking about more scientific, systematic experiments, I performed many chemical & electrical experiments in school, and in metrology-related work after that. In my free time I have made observations such as this. And I did not say that "all of my learnings", your words, would be based on experiments I conducted myself. Satisfied?
So, basically you're nothing but a parrot. No problem.
No problem at all. Beats making shit up on my own to explain things that already have been correctly explained and evidenced by others. See, it's not all that horrible to live without paranoia.

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2014, 08:11:29 AM »
"None written in this century or the last, I hope."

None written in this century, that is correct, what is written in this century is this: http://www.energeticforum.com/258318-post199.html (BELIEVE IT OR NOT!!!)

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (Joh 10:10)

Satan came, and stole your reason, killed your sanity, and destroyed your minds!

All of the following citations comes from a pen of deluded & insane heliocentrists:

1. If any one of these conditions were slightly higher or lower, life on Earth would cease to exist. For example, the Earth is at a very specific distance from the sun. Malcolm Bowden says, "If it were 5% closer, then the water would boil up from the oceans and if it were just 1% farther away, then the oceans would freeze, and that gives you just some idea of the knife edge we are on." Dr. Duane Gish says, "If the Earth's diameter were 7,200 miles, instead of 8,000, then almost the whole Earth, due to a lessening of the atmospheric mantle, would be reduced to snow and ice waste."  Source: http://www.creationencounter.com/space/finetuning.php
Mr. Bowden may have said that, but does he actually have any analysis? What I see is arm waving. If he's done any math to calculate these changes, please summarize and/or provide citations (for the math, not more arm waving, please). This is not a trivial problem, however, and answers from researchers who specialize in this sort of thing are all over the map. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstellar_habitable_zone

Quote
2. The most important factor affecting the surface temperature of the earth is obviously the distance from the sun.
While this certainly is a factor, it's only one among many. Local temperature depends more on the angle the sunlight strikes earth than the distance, as you've pointed out again and again with your southern summer at perihelion argument. Global average temperature will certainly be affected if the Earth's orbit were significantly changed, but is also highly dependent on the makeup of the atmosphere.

Quote
If the earth were moved a few million miles closer to the sun, the surface of the earth would become warmer causing our glaciers to melt. With a decrease in the area of ice the total reflectivity of our planet's surface would thereby decrease and more of the sun's heat would be absorbed. The melting of glaciers would produce a rise of sea level, and, apart from flooding most of our modern cities, would create a larger total ocean surface area.
Yes, this is one example of how complex this problem is. Effects like this make it very suitable for arm waving. Can you show or cite some analysis?

Quote
Since seawater absorbs larger amounts of solar radiation than equal area land masses, heating of the earth would again be promoted.
Hold it... water can absorb vastly more heat for a given rise in temperature than soil and rock - by a factor of 4 or 5 per unit mass. So, no, more seawater absorbing radiation will moderate the temperature rise, not amplify it. Is this an example of your analysis? It's wrong.

Quote
Furthermore, after increasing the temperature of the oceans, much of the ocean's dissolved carbon dioxide would be added to the atmosphere along with large amounts of water due to increased evaporation.
Increasing the water temperature will allow more dissolved CO2. I'm not sure how this will be balanced by increased evaporation. Have you modeled this?

Quote
The increased carbon dioxide and water vapor level of the atmosphere would again bring about a significant temperature rise. All things considered, a minor decrease in the sun's distance would have a drastic heating effect on the earth's surface.
Water is a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2, so the effect of added CO2 here may be minor. I don't doubt being closer to the Sun would have an effect. The question is how much?

Since the Earth's orbit is far less likely to abruptly shift than our atmospheric composition changing, I'd be more worried by anthropomorphic greenhouse effects than the orbit. This topic has become highly politicized, so rational discussion of the issue, especially in public, has become difficult. I'm not going to say whether I believe this is significant or not, but I do think it's far more likely than a significant change in the Earth's orbit - which is so vanishingly small that something with even a mere remote chance of happening is far more likely.

Quote
What would happen if the earth were a few million miles farther from the sun? The reverse of the previous situation applies. We would have more of our planet covered by ice, with associated increased reflectivity of the sun's heat. The ocean would cover less of the earth's surface and the important process of absorption of heat by seawater would be decreased. Since the ocean would be colder, evaporation would be less with less heat-trapping water vapor in the atmosphere. Much of the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would become dissolved in the colder ocean. Calculations show that a decrease of carbon dioxide in the air to just one-half of its present level would lower the average temperature of the earth's surface by about 7.0 degrees Fahrenheit! Thus, increasing the sun's distance would have a profound cooling effect on our planet.
Again, how much? As already noted, this is not easy to model, but is plenty suitable for arm waving.

Quote
3. Yes, its true if we were only slightly further away from the sun or only slightly closer that we would suffer massive climate change.
Look at the seasons. The change in the seasons is very clear to see and practically all life on Earth is tuned into them and has ways to survive them.
The seasons are a result of the Earth not being perfectly straight in its axis, it wobbles slightly "side to side" with the north being closer to the sun at one point and the south being closer at the other point in the year.
This is also why when its summer in the UK its winter in Australia for example.

So the change from summer to winter is just a simple wobble of the Earth on its axis... thats only a few thousand km difference in distance and yet it causes a large climate change.
The Earth doesn't "wobble" in its orbit. The axis is fixed with respect to (wrt) the orbit. Its orientation wrt the Sun changes through the year which causes the seasons, as has been discussed ad nauseum.

It's the angle the sunlight strikes your region that controls the seasons; the changed distance of a few thousand km is insignificant.

This is grade-school stuff.

Quote
Should the Earth move a sizable distance, say 1million km forward or backward, the effect would be catastrophic to life on Earth. Humanity could probably survive the harsher weather but the other animals would not... therefore we would have no food sources and would eventually die anyway.
Citation needed. No other animals? Or edible plants? Really?

Quote
<some undescribed youtube link>
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2014, 08:43:26 AM »
You were going to tell us your qualifications.

LOL.  Although he claims thirteen academic qualifications, poor old sceptimatic can't name even one, because... they simply don't exist other than in the fertile mind of a proven and inveterate liar such as he.

Over the course of time, he's now told so many lies, even he's having trouble keeping up with what he's said in the past!  It's actually quite funny to see him squirming now that all his fanciful scientific chickens have come home to roost.

He's also apparently forgotten that he was going to get back to us with the preliminary results of his expensive research with lasers and a 2km stretch of flat ice several months ago, that was going to prove unequivocally that the earth was indeed flat.  He'd allegedly also passed on his research paper to four other world-renowned scientists for their peer review, and subsequently was promising that once this had happened, the experiment would have earth-shattering consequences for our entire view of geophysics.

So..... 9 months down the track, have we heard even a single peep about his experiment and/or its research results?  Nope.  Anything about it in any of the professional science journals?  Nope.  Any papers published by any university science faculties?  Nope.

It's certainly about time sceptimatic gave us an update on all this surely?


*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2014, 10:35:55 AM »


It's the angle the sunlight strikes your region that controls the seasons; the changed distance of a few thousand km is insignificant.

This is grade-school stuff.

O.K. Columbo, now stick to the point and answer to this:

Quote
Bravo Columbo, now how come that despite a deadly synergy Southerners are still alive?

If you didn't understand, deadly synergy is about this:

1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

Get it?

If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...

1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy

2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!

HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!

No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!

Do you really think that this modern HC version adds up more than old one : The Earth is Hottest When It Is Furthest From the Sun On Its Orbit, Not When It Is Closest CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ??? http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/the-earth-is-hottest-when-it-is-furthest-from-the-sun-on-its-orbit-not-when-it-is-closest/

And if so, why?

The real truth is perfectly explained in FET:

When the Sun moves slower (in June) in inner circuit above the Earth there is more heating, because there is more time which Sun spends above the Earth, when the Sun moves faster (in January) in outer circuit above the Earth there is less heating because there is less time which Sun spends above the Earth.

If the Sun shined with the same intensity when circling in outer circuit as it shines while circling in inner circuit then Southerners would have great problems with heating, that is why the Sun heats the Earth with more intensity when moves faster in January!

In addition:

A letter from a correspondent in New Zealand, dated, "Nelson, September 15th, 1857," contains the following passages:

"Even in summer, people here have no notion of going without fires in the evening; but then, though the days are very warm and sunny, the nights are always cold. For seven months last summer, we had not one day that the sun did not shine as brilliantly as it does in England in the finest day in June; and though it has more power here, the heat is not nearly so oppressive. . . But then there is not the twilight which you get in England. Here it is light till about eight o'clock, then, in a few minutes, it becomes too dark to see anything, and the change comes over in almost no time."

The motion of the sun over the vast southern region, wherein lies Australia and New Zealand, would also give shorter days in the south than in the north, and this is fully corroborated by experience. In the pamphlet above referred to, by Mr. Swainson, the following words occur:

"The range of temperature is limited, there being no excess of either heat or cold; compared with the climate of England, the summer of New Zealand is but very little warmer though considerably longer. . . . The seasons are the reverse of those in England. Spring commences in September, summer in December, autum in April, and winter in June. . . . The days are an hour shorter at each end of the day in summer, and an hour longer in the winter than in England."

From a work on New Zealand, by Arthur S. Thompson, Esq., M.D., the following sentences are quoted:---

"The summer mornings, even in the warmest parts of the colony, are sufficiently fresh to exhilarate without chilling; and the seasons glide imperceptibly into each other. The days are an hour shorter at each end of the day in summer, and an hour longer in winter than in England."

It's the angle the sunlight strikes your region that controls the seasons; the changed distance of a few thousand km is insignificant.

Does this mean that the changed distance of a few millions km is insignificant also, bearing in mind that the angles are the same??? http://www.energeticforum.com/258318-post199.html
« Last Edit: November 15, 2014, 10:57:07 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2014, 12:21:10 PM »
When the Sun moves slower (in June) in inner circuit above the Earth there is more heating... when the Sun moves faster (in January) in outer circuit above the Earth there is less heating...

1) What evidence do you have that the Sun moves at different speeds during different seasons?  Please cite the measurements and the measurement method.

2) What mechanism makes the Sun move at different speeds at different times, given that flat earthers don't believe gravity exists? 
Sceptimatic is a proven liar - he claims to have authored several books but won't reveal their names.

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2014, 01:55:11 PM »


It's the angle the sunlight strikes your region that controls the seasons; the changed distance of a few thousand km is insignificant.

This is grade-school stuff.

O.K. Columbo, now stick to the point and answer to this:

Quote
Bravo Columbo, now how come that despite a deadly synergy Southerners are still alive?

If you didn't understand, deadly synergy is about this:

1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

Get it?

If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...

1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy

2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!

HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!

No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!

Do you really think that this modern HC version adds up more than old one : The Earth is Hottest When It Is Furthest From the Sun On Its Orbit, Not When It Is Closest CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ??? http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/12/the-earth-is-hottest-when-it-is-furthest-from-the-sun-on-its-orbit-not-when-it-is-closest/

And if so, why?
This sounds suspiciously like what I referred to in the previous reply. Remember this?
water can absorb vastly more heat for a given rise in temperature than soil and rock - by a factor of 4 or 5 per unit mass. So, no, more seawater absorbing radiation will moderate the temperature rise, not amplify it.
So, it sounds like I was right. Since most of the land is concentrated in the northern hemisphere and land becomes warmer than the oceans even with slightly less energy available, the northern summers get hotter than southern summers.

That's a great link! Thanks for posting it. This is why I stick around - to learn things.

Quote
The real truth is perfectly explained in FET:

When the Sun moves slower (in June) in inner circuit above the Earth there is more heating, because there is more time which Sun spends above the Earth, when the Sun moves faster (in January) in outer circuit above the Earth there is less heating because there is less time which Sun spends above the Earth.
Wait... where is the Sun if it's not above the flat Earth? Does it go behind the disc, leaving the whole world in darkness at the same time? There must be a problem with your idea because there's pretty good evidence that this doesn't happen.

I presume you mean the Sun spends more time above a given area in the northern hemisphere? Let's take a look at that.

The unipolar flat-earth "maps" typically discussed here have the north pole at the center of a disc-shaped earth, with the equator midway between pole and rim; this seems to be what you're describing here. If so, the "outside" part of your world (between equator and rim) has three times the area as the "inner" part (inside the equator).

If the Sun spends equal time on each side of the equator (actually it's little less south [outside], but let's ignore that for this part of the discussion), then, unless the intensity changes, it will have to spread the same amount of energy over three times the area outside the equator. So why isn't the southern hemisphere completely frozen?

Your "perfect" explanation seems to have a significantly major problem.

Why three times the area, you may ask? Great question!

Let's call the radius of our flat world (distance from pole to rim) R.
The area, A, of a circle with radius R is the well-known (if you didn't sleep through math for the last half of your education)
A = pi R2
where pi is, of course, the well-known (if you didn't sleep...) ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, approximately 3.14159265.

The radius of the equator is R/2 (one-half of R) because, remember, the equator is halfway out from the pole to the rim and the distance from pole to rim is R (since that's the radius of our flat world).
Still with me? Good!
Now, the area, call it a, of the smaller circle (with radius R/2) is
a = pi (R/2)2
From algebra, remember (if you didn't sleep...) that (R/2)2 = R2 / 4, so
a = pi R2/4
Now, since pi R2 is our old friend A, we can just substitute him
a = A/4
Which is exactly 1/4 of our value for A. Since the area inside the equator is 1/4 of the area of the entire flat world, the the part outside the equator is what's left.

1 - 1/4 = 3/4.

3/4 is three times 1/4. So that's where that came from.

Quote
If the Sun shined with the same intensity when circling in outer circuit as it shines while circling in inner circuit then Southerners would have great problems with heating, that is why the Sun heats the Earth with more intensity when moves faster in January!

If the Sun shined with the same intensity when circling in outer circuit as it shines while circling in inner circuit and the areas were the same, why would soutnerners have problems with heating? Wouldn't it have to be the same since the intensity and areas are the same?  Instead, according to your link, it should be 7%, greater. OK, but that 7% increase is vastly offset by a 67% reduction, so instead they have the opposite problem, since almost the same sun has to warm three times as much area. Brrr...

Quote
In addition:

A letter from a correspondent in New Zealand, dated, "Nelson, September 15th, 1857," contains the following passages:

"Even in summer, people here have no notion of going without fires in the evening; but then, though the days are very warm and sunny, the nights are always cold. For seven months last summer, we had not one day that the sun did not shine as brilliantly as it does in England in the finest day in June; and though it has more power here, the heat is not nearly so oppressive. . . But then there is not the twilight which you get in England. Here it is light till about eight o'clock, then, in a few minutes, it becomes too dark to see anything, and the change comes over in almost no time."

The motion of the sun over the vast southern region, wherein lies Australia and New Zealand, would also give shorter days in the south than in the north, and this is fully corroborated by experience. In the pamphlet above referred to, by Mr. Swainson, the following words occur:

"The range of temperature is limited, there being no excess of either heat or cold; compared with the climate of England, the summer of New Zealand is but very little warmer though considerably longer. . . . The seasons are the reverse of those in England. Spring commences in September, summer in December, autum in April, and winter in June. . . .
It gets darker more quickly in summer at lower latitudes once the Sun sets because the sun's elevation angle drops more quickly. This is an effect of the spherical earth. NZ is about 15° closer to the equator than England.

The climate at a given location depends on more than just its latitude. Ocean and air currents are caused by uneven heating of the surface and act to distribute heat around the globe. The climate of islands like Britain and New Zealand are heavily influenced by the temperature of the ocean, which depends in large part on ocean currents. The Gulf Stream keeps the British Isles warmer than they otherwise would be; New Zealand is affected, at least in part, by the large and cold Antarctic Ocean, so the climates can be expected to be different.

Quote
The days are an hour shorter at each end of the day in summer, and an hour longer in the winter than in England."
This is what you'd expect since Britain is at about 15° higher latitude than New Zealand - the higher latitude makes for a bigger change in length of day and night. Spherical earth.

Quote

From a work on New Zealand, by Arthur S. Thompson, Esq., M.D., the following sentences are quoted:---

"The summer mornings, even in the warmest parts of the colony, are sufficiently fresh to exhilarate without chilling; and the seasons glide imperceptibly into each other.
Oceans moderate the temperature. Ocean temperature depends to a great extent on the local currents.

Quote
The days are an hour shorter at each end of the day in summer, and an hour longer in winter than in England."
Yes, you already said that.

Quote
It's the angle the sunlight strikes your region that controls the seasons; the changed distance of a few thousand km is insignificant.

Does this mean that the changed distance of a few millions km is insignificant also, bearing in mind that the angles are the same??? http://www.energeticforum.com/258318-post199.html
This is easy enough to check.

Over the course of a year the average solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth's atmosphere at any point in time is roughly 1366 W/m2 [Wikipedia]

So, ignoring the atmosphere, when the Sun is directly overhead, 1 m2 of horizontal ground will receive 1366 Watts of power from the sun.

Your linked article says this varies about 7% over the year due to the changing distance to the Sun, so let's use that.

Meanwhile, at a latitude of 45° the amount of power would vary from a high of

1366 W/m2 cos(45°-23.5°) = 1366 W/m2 cos(21.5°)
 = (1366 W/m2) (0.930)
 = 1270 W/m2

To a low of
1366 W/m2 cos(45°+23.5°) = 1366 W/m2 cos(68.5°)
 = (1366 W/m2) (0.367)
 = 501 W/m2

This is a change of 153% going from lowest to highest. Which do you think will be more significant: 7% change due to a change of distance of about 5,000,000 km (OMG!!!!  That's five million km!!!), or a change of 153% due to the changing angle due to the seasonal angle of the sun? Me? I think the 7% change due to the changing distance is far less significant than the 153% change due to the seasons.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #42 on: November 16, 2014, 10:35:58 AM »
The sun is just the surface of "the converter" which transmits energy from another dimension, the sun is not a solid celestial body. However, there is a path of the Sun across the sky, but the Sun obviously must to regulate constantly (and precisely) the intensity of radiation which has to be emitted in different directions at any particular moment.

Nobody knows how it works : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Quote
This is a change of 153% going from lowest to highest. Which do you think will be more significant: 7% change due to a change of distance of about 5,000,000 km (OMG!!!!  That's five million km!!!), or a change of 153% due to the changing angle due to the seasonal angle of the sun? Me? I think the 7% change due to the changing distance is far less significant than the 153% change due to the seasons.

If the Sun were a solid celestial body of that size then you can bet that these 7 % would be of a much greater importance than any angle (that you can come up with) at which sun rays hit the surface of the Earth!

So, basically you don't have the answer! Of course, you don't! There is no answer or defence from such an obviously deadly blow that i inflicted to HC lie!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #43 on: November 16, 2014, 12:18:47 PM »
The sun is just the surface of "the converter" which transmits energy from another dimension, the sun is not a solid celestial body. However, there is a path of the Sun across the sky, but the Sun obviously must to regulate constantly (and precisely) the intensity of radiation which has to be emitted in different directions at any particular moment.

Nobody knows how it works : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
This is a new one to me. Can you describe what you think that youtube item says, please. If you don't understand what it means well enough to describe in your own words, then why do you think it's right?

You don't know how it works but somehow think it's a better explanation than comparatively well-understood nuclear fusion?

Quote
Quote
This is a change of 153% going from lowest to highest. Which do you think will be more significant: 7% change due to a change of distance of about 5,000,000 km (OMG!!!!  That's five million km!!!), or a change of 153% due to the changing angle due to the seasonal angle of the sun? Me? I think the 7% change due to the changing distance is far less significant than the 153% change due to the seasons.

If the Sun were a solid celestial body of that size then you can bet that these 7 % would be of a much greater importance than any angle (that you can come up with) at which sun rays hit the surface of the Earth!
What size? If the answer to that is in the youtube link, please summarize.

The apparent diameter of the sun is about 1/2 degree when viewed from earth. It's close to a point source of energy as a first-order approximation. So what about its size makes a 7% change in irradiance more significant than a 153% change?

Quote
So, basically you don't have the answer! Of course, you don't! There is no answer or defence from such an obviously deadly blow that i inflicted to HC lie!


You never waited for an answer, but we're just back to the old "HC lie" before the fact instead of an actual rebuttal?

Wouldn't your arguments be better if you gave a convincing, coherent alternative to the mainstream explanations? If you can't come up with a convincing (or even coherent) alternative, shouldn't you at least be thinking about the explanations offered instead of wildly flailing around for yet another completely different line of argument that itself utterly fails under examination? Just because something is accepted by mainstream science doesn't necessarily make it wrong.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #44 on: November 16, 2014, 12:59:08 PM »
If the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.

This is your last chance to refer DIRECTLY to these words of mine:

Quote
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

Get it?

If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...

1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy

2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!

HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!

No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!

The Earth is Hottest When It Is Furthest From the Sun On Its Orbit, Not When It Is Closest CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ???

Once more: PERIHELION: 147,093,602 KM
APHELION: 152,097,053 KM

DIFFERENCE: 5,003,451 KM

So, 5 000 000 km difference in Sun's distance from the Earth doesn't cause (according to idiotic scientists) any significant difference (better to say it causes NO difference at all - WE SHOULD EVEN BELIEVE IN OUTRAGE "COUNTER TEMPERATURE" EFFECT!!!???) in the Earth's temperature, but 3,200 km is the reason why one guy is freezing in Oslo while in the same time another guy is heaving very, very hot summer at the equator?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Yes, we heard it already, it is not about 3,200 km difference, it is about the angles....

Well, in above argument you can see that the angles are the same, the only difference is difference of 5 000 000 km between aphelion and perihelion. Bearing in mind that the angles are the same (northern summer - southern summer ; northern winter - southern winter), how come that the distance difference (perihelion-aphelion) of 5 000 000 km still doesn't produce any huge difference in temperatures between northern and southern summer (or/and winter)?  Is this what you are trying to say? Say it openly: Yes, these 5 000 000 km don't make any difference although the angles are the same! 

Answer it DIRECTLY, otherwise this discussion is over...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #45 on: November 16, 2014, 02:33:17 PM »
If the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.
What is this assertion based on? Do you understand how the angle of a surface receiving light affects the amount of light it receives?

Surely the angular size of the sun is not contended here. Or is it?

Being tilted towards or away is by far the deciding factor, as was shown recently. Change in distance has a very small effect on energy received from the Sun, five million kilometers is only a couple percent of the distance.

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #46 on: November 16, 2014, 06:33:45 PM »
If the sun were that big and at that distance there would be no change of seasons because the sun’s rays would reach both hemispheres with equal volume regardless of its position north or south in relation to the equator.
No, they won't.

Again, how big is "that big"? The Sun is a lot bigger than the Earth but far enough away that treating it as a point source at great distance is a good enough approximation for these purposes. The Earth presents less of one hemisphere than the other toward the sun at the two solstices, and the angles aren't the same for the two hemispheres at each solstice. This is simple stuff.

Quote
This is your last chance to refer DIRECTLY to these words of mine:
I'm quaking in my boots.

Quote
Quote
1. In January (southern summer) the Earth is allegedly :
A) closer to the Sun 5 000 000 km than in June
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

2. In June (southern winter) the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun 5 000 000 than in January
B) Southern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

Get it?

If you still don't get it, try to compare above "deadly synergy" theoretical (since it doesn't exist in reality) case with another theoretical case which concerns northern "hemisphere". Let's call it "moderate situation" case...

1. In January the Earth is allegedly:
A) closer to the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted away from the Sun

So B ("tilted away") cancels out A (closer to the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy

2. In June the Earth is allegedly:
A) farther from the Sun
B) BUT Northern "hemisphere" is tilted towards the Sun

So B ("tilted towards") cancels out A (farther away from the Sun) and there is no deadly synergy AGAIN!!!

HOWEVER, IN REALITY THERE IS NO SUCH DISCREPANCY (WHATSOEVER), BETWEEN NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN SEASONS!!!

No one can refute this striking argument against HC and RET!!!

The Earth is Hottest When It Is Furthest From the Sun On Its Orbit, Not When It Is Closest CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ???

Once more: PERIHELION: 147,093,602 KM
APHELION: 152,097,053 KM

DIFFERENCE: 5,003,451 KM

So, 5 000 000 km difference in Sun's distance from the Earth doesn't cause (according to idiotic scientists) any significant difference (better to say it causes NO difference at all - WE SHOULD EVEN BELIEVE IN OUTRAGE "COUNTER TEMPERATURE" EFFECT!!!???) in the Earth's temperature, but 3,200 km is the reason why one guy is freezing in Oslo while in the same time another guy is heaving very, very hot summer at the equator?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Yes, we heard it already, it is not about 3,200 km difference, it is about the angles....

Well, in above argument you can see that the angles are the same, the only difference is difference of 5 000 000 km between aphelion and perihelion. Bearing in mind that the angles are the same (northern summer - southern summer ; northern winter - southern winter), how come that the distance difference (perihelion-aphelion) of 5 000 000 km still doesn't produce any huge difference in temperatures between northern and southern summer (or/and winter)?  Is this what you are trying to say? Say it openly: Yes, these 5 000 000 km don't make any difference although the angles are the same! 
This has already been answered point by point here and here. If there is part of those answers you don't understand or don't agree with, then, by all means, ASK! Just tossing the whole set of questions back up and DEMANDING AN ANSWER isn't going to get you one you like any better than the last.

Quote
Answer it DIRECTLY, otherwise this discussion is over...
Demand all you want; they've all been answered already. If you don't like the answers, that's your problem.

Unfortunately, I think you're bluffing here, though.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #47 on: November 17, 2014, 12:57:39 AM »
Mumbo jumbo, that's all that your answers are!!!

From your first link:
Quote
Well, there are some "discrepancies", as you call them. The southern summer is slightly shorter than the northern summer, and  insolation is slightly greater during the southern summer. These two factors are related; earth moves fastest in its orbit when closer to the Sun. So if you have one, you must have the other. Get it?

So, if you think that your mumbo jumbo argument has any weight whatsoever, you should be aware that this stick has two ends (and the other (DEAD) END is LONGER SOUTHERN WINTER  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5335287), so if this was your try to evade my deadly blow, i must say that it was really funny! There is no way out of this, and you know it!

From your second link:
Quote
Quote
    Water can absorb vastly more heat for a given rise in temperature than soil and rock - by a factor of 4 or 5 per unit mass. So, no, more seawater absorbing radiation will moderate the temperature rise, not amplify it.

So, it sounds like I was right. Since most of the land is concentrated in the northern hemisphere and land becomes warmer than the oceans even with slightly less energy available, the northern summers get hotter than southern summers.

That's a great link! Thanks for posting it. This is why I stick around - to learn things.

So, if water moderates the temperature rise in southern summer and also moderates the temperature fall in southern winter (since water has a significantly greater heat capacity than land), then why Antarctica is NOTHING like Arctic???

http://www.energeticforum.com/264212-post368.html

Quote
"On the South Georgias, in same latitude as Yorkshire in the north, Cook did not find a shrub big enough to make a toothpick. Captain Cook describes it as 'savage and horrible. The wild rocks raised their lofty summits till they were lost in the clouds, and the valleys lay covered with everlasting snow. Not a tree was to be seen; not a shrub even big enough to make a toothpick. Who could have thought that an island of no greater extent than this (Isle of Georgia), situated between the latitude of 54 and 55 degrees, should, in the very height of summer, be in a manner wholly covered many fathoms deep with frozen snow? The lands which lie to the south are doomed by Nature to perpetual frigidness--never to feel the warmth of the sun's rays; whose horrible and savage aspect I have not words to describe.' The South Shetlands, occupying a corresponding latitude to their namesakes in the north, present scarcely a vestige of vegetation. Kerguelen, as low as latitude 50 degrees south, boasts eighteen species of plants, of which only one, a peculiar kind of cabbage, has been found useful, in eases of scurvy; while Iceland, 15 degrees nearer to the pole in the north, boasts 870 species. Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent, and the sea-bird is seldom observed flying over such lonely wastes. The contrast between the limits of organic life in arctic and antarctic zones is very remarkable and significant. Vegetables and land animals are found at nearly 80 degrees in the north; while, from the parallel of 58 degrees in the south, the lichen, and such like plants only clothe the rocks, and sea-birds and the cetaceous tribes alone are seen upon the desolate beaches." "M‘Clintoch describes heads of reindeer--a perfect forest of antlers, moving north in the summer. . . . The eider duck and the brent goose through the air; the unwieldly family of the cetacea through the waters; the arctic bear upon the ice; the musk ox and reindeer along the land--all wend their way northward at certain seasons. . . . Now these indications are absent from the southern zone, as is also the inhabitation of man. The bones of musk oxen, killed by the Esquimaux, were found north of the 79th parallel; while in the south, man is not found above the 56th parallel of latitude."

Angles are the same!!!

The point is that if HC were right, a perpetual frigidness which characterises southern regions in high southern latitudes would be at least 100 times worse than what is described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a globe". 

Not to mention what would happen EVERY YEAR with Arctic ice (and with Antarctic ice also) during northern/(southern) summers when Sun doesn't set  few months in a row, polar caps would melt and the different angles at which Sun hits surface of the Earth would be of no help...
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 01:19:28 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #48 on: November 17, 2014, 04:21:41 AM »
Mumbo jumbo, that's all that your answers are!!!

Wow... who could possibly argue with this sort of in-depth, deductive and well sustained rebuttal?

Seriously though... I'd expect this nonsensical response from a class-room of sixth-graders, but not from someone who claims to be an educated, mature adult.

Would you mind telling me how old you are?  Thanks.

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #49 on: November 17, 2014, 05:48:35 AM »
Let's not let Little Red Riding Hood that bothers us : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #50 on: November 17, 2014, 06:11:33 AM »
And I've obviously touched another raw nerve.    ;D


Although I'm not surprised that cikljamas would have all the kids' cartoons bookmarked.  At least we now know that Warner Bros taught him all the science he knows LOL.

Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #51 on: November 17, 2014, 01:15:34 PM »
Answer it DIRECTLY, otherwise this discussion is over...
Promises, promises...

And you call me a liar.  ::)

Mumbo jumbo, that's all that your answers are!!!
Maybe if you'd paid more attention in school you could understand them. Not everyone has this problem.

Quote
So, if you think that your mumbo jumbo argument has any weight whatsoever, you should be aware that this stick has two ends (and the other (DEAD) END is LONGER SOUTHERN WINTER  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5335287), so if this was your try to evade my deadly blow, i must say that it was really funny! There is no way out of this, and you know it!
"Deadly blow". Love it!

Slightly more energy in the summer (closer to the Sun and all that). Slightly longer winter (further from sun, so moves slower). Sounds like it balances out to me.

Quote
So, if water moderates the temperature rise in southern summer and also moderates the temperature fall in southern winter (since water has a significantly greater heat capacity than land), then why Antarctica is NOTHING like Arctic???
Because Antarctica is land surrounded by water and the Arctic is water largely surrounded by land. Why would you expect these to be the same? All those continents cause ocean currents to be quite different in the hemispheres. There's nothing in the southern hemisphere equivalent to the Gulf Stream carrying warm tropical water to high latitudes; instead, they get the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.

They're both cold, though, so they're similar in that regard, and what you'd expect at high latitudes on the spherical earth.

Quote
Quote
"On the South Georgias, in same latitude as Yorkshire in the north, Cook did not find a shrub big enough to make a toothpick. Captain Cook describes it as 'savage and horrible. The wild rocks raised their lofty summits till they were lost in the clouds, and the valleys lay covered with everlasting snow. Not a tree was to be seen; not a shrub even big enough to make a toothpick. Who could have thought that an island of no greater extent than this (Isle of Georgia), situated between the latitude of 54 and 55 degrees, should, in the very height of summer, be in a manner wholly covered many fathoms deep with frozen snow? The lands which lie to the south are doomed by Nature to perpetual frigidness--never to feel the warmth of the sun's rays; whose horrible and savage aspect I have not words to describe.' The South Shetlands, occupying a corresponding latitude to their namesakes in the north, present scarcely a vestige of vegetation. Kerguelen, as low as latitude 50 degrees south, boasts eighteen species of plants, of which only one, a peculiar kind of cabbage, has been found useful, in eases of scurvy; while Iceland, 15 degrees nearer to the pole in the north, boasts 870 species. Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent, and the sea-bird is seldom observed flying over such lonely wastes. The contrast between the limits of organic life in arctic and antarctic zones is very remarkable and significant. Vegetables and land animals are found at nearly 80 degrees in the north; while, from the parallel of 58 degrees in the south, the lichen, and such like plants only clothe the rocks, and sea-birds and the cetaceous tribes alone are seen upon the desolate beaches." "M‘Clintoch describes heads of reindeer--a perfect forest of antlers, moving north in the summer. . . . The eider duck and the brent goose through the air; the unwieldly family of the cetacea through the waters; the arctic bear upon the ice; the musk ox and reindeer along the land--all wend their way northward at certain seasons. . . . Now these indications are absent from the southern zone, as is also the inhabitation of man. The bones of musk oxen, killed by the Esquimaux, were found north of the 79th parallel; while in the south, man is not found above the 56th parallel of latitude."

Angles are the same!!!
Climate's not, though. Climate is determined by more than just the angle of insolation - as already discussed. See Gulf Stream and Antarctic Circumpolar Current. Land biodiversity also depends on climate (not necessarily latitude) and a large number of other factors.

"Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent". "certain tracts"? What does that mean? At any rate, citation needed; where did Rowbotham hear this? You'd be wise to treat everything he says that can't be independently verified with suspicion.

Quote
The point is that if HC were right, a perpetual frigidness which characterises southern regions in high southern latitudes would be at least 100 times worse than what is described in above excerpt from Rowbotham's "Earth not a globe". 
It does get pretty darn cold in high southern latitudes. I've been, but you can read about it, like, everywhere. Citation needed on that "100 times", though; it sounds like you just made that up.

Quote
Not to mention what would happen EVERY YEAR with Arctic ice (and with Antarctic ice also) during northern/(southern) summers when Sun doesn't set  few months in a row, polar caps would melt and the different angles at which Sun hits surface of the Earth would be of no help...
Citation needed.

So, you think the noonday summer sun is no hotter than the rising or setting sun? Really? You need to get out more.

Hey, if you can't believe The Old Farmer's Almanac, who can you trust?  ;)
Quote
The hottest time of the day is around 3 p.m. Heat continues building up after noon, when the sun is highest in the sky, as long as more heat is arriving at the earth than leaving. By 3 p.m. or so, the sun is low enough in the sky for outgoing heat to be greater than incoming. Sometimes the hottest time is earlier because a weather system moves in with cool air early in the day.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2171
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #52 on: November 18, 2014, 04:30:21 AM »
Previous calculations of the distance Earth-Sun:

Copernicus found:  3 000 000 km
Tycho Brahe found: 8 000 000 km
Kepler found:         20 000 000 km

Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly 100 000 000 of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"

So, what is "a mere detail" (5 000 000 km) for you, for Copernicus was almost double estimated length of the distance between the Earth and the Sun! OMG!!!!!!!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #53 on: November 18, 2014, 06:59:01 AM »
Why should previous generations being wrong have anything to do with the shape of the Earth?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #54 on: November 18, 2014, 10:02:57 AM »
Why should previous generations being wrong have anything to do with the shape of the Earth?
Obviously to anybody with at least a high-school education they don't have any bearing on the shape of the earth.  I'm guessing that cikljamas is unable to comprehend that science has advanced logarithmically over the past six hundred years.  I'm also guessing that because of the long-refuted theory of phlogiston (which was accepted as valid by the science world initially) he also refutes the current theories of oxidation and reduction.

He also says "Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly 100 000 000 of miles" which is erroneous.  Scientists—as time and the accuracy of instruments both increased—has allowed scientists to measure the earth to sun distance with ever-increased accuracy—they've definitely not "lengthened" it LOL.
   
And it's exactly this sort of sloppy scientific terminology that proves cikljamas has no in-depth comprehension of the sciences; he's just repeatedly making up—literally—immaterial and irrelevant "factoids" on the trot and which have no place in contemporary science.  I also noticed that earlier on, he brought up the topic of Wilbur Glenn Voliva, another in the lamentable cast of flat earth preachers.

For anybody interested in Voliva (for amusement's sake maybe?) you can check out his sad story HERE.


Re: Unvealing the truth: Is Flat Future a moot point?
« Reply #55 on: November 18, 2014, 10:54:09 AM »
Previous calculations of the distance Earth-Sun:

Copernicus found:  3 000 000 km
Tycho Brahe found: 8 000 000 km
Kepler found:         20 000 000 km

Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly 100 000 000 of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"

So, what is "a mere detail" (5 000 000 km) for you, for Copernicus was almost double estimated length of the distance between the Earth and the Sun! OMG!!!!!!!
Since you've abandoned the previous topic, I presume you're satisfied with the answers provided. Good.

Now we're back to this that's already been dealt with in detail. Why do you keep bringing this old crap up over and over?Are you hoping for a different answer? What was that definition of insanity (often attributed to Einstein)?

Quote
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.



"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan