GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

  • 1592 Replies
  • 281587 Views
*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #180 on: December 03, 2014, 05:54:13 AM »
According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?

Can you entertain me by explaining why you think that? If rotation causes sunrise and sunset then it follows that sunrise should occur at the opposite side of the horizon from sunset. Given some variance depending on the time of year.

According to your logic, the Sun apparently goes up and down, because (due to tilt and rotation) an observer on the Earth changes an angle of observation. Right?

Now, doesn't Sun's apparent motion across the sky (heading in arc from East to West) depend on changing an angles of observation, also?

You even admit that there is a Zigging and Zagging of the Sun, only we cannot see it!

According to your logic, if we climbed up on the top of a hypothetical 1000 km high mountain, significant change of the perspective of the Sun would occur, so that we could easily observe such a dramatic change of angles (up & down), but if we travelled 1000 km towards the East or towards the West, we wouldn't be able to notice any change of the perspective of the Sun, because (according to you and Alpha2Omega) going West/East makes no difference at all, but in the same time going Up/Down makes huge difference in producing apparent motions of the Sun.

Would you be so kind to explain to our precious audience, what EXACTLY determines such a huge difference regarding "up & down" apparent motion of the Sun, and "Left & Right" apparent motion of the Sun?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #181 on: December 03, 2014, 06:01:35 AM »
Up and down as it pertains to the change of angle due to tilt, causes a change in angle which changes your FOV. Going up a mountain does not. How are you confused about this?

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #182 on: December 03, 2014, 06:13:31 AM »
I would rather say that you are confused, maybe Alpha2Omega will come up with better explanation, since your words explain nothing...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #183 on: December 03, 2014, 06:34:18 AM »
I would rather say that you are confused, maybe Alpha2Omega will come up with better explanation, since your words explain nothing...

I don't doubt that he could. He's seems to be the Einstein to my newton.

I wrote that quickly because it is the answer and the answer is simple. I will make a diagram for you when I get to work to show you how simple it is differentiate between a rotating (or rather tilting) FOV and a linear (or side to side/up and down) FOV.

Please respond to the questions I quoted from a2o earlier.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 06:35:55 AM by rottingroom »

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #184 on: December 03, 2014, 08:13:31 AM »


Well here it is.

Observer A will be compared with Observer B because that is the change as a result of rotation which illustrates how the tilt causes an up and down motion.

Horizon's illustrate that Observer A has a higher sun than Observer B, so the sun moves up down in addition to moving to the right due to rotation.

Observer A will be compared with Observer C as that is the change as a result of rising in elevation on a theoretical 1000 km mountain.

Notice that the angle of view for Observer C has not changed compared to Observer A. He is seeing the sun drastically higher in the sky (he's in space) simply because the horizon has significantly lowered and not because of a change in angle. While this is a drastic change in the sun's position due to a lowering horizon relative to Observer C's position, it is not an equivalent scenario to Observer B which I will discuss in the next section. Observer C isn't seeing the sun's position in the sky change. He is simply seeing more of it [the sky].

Observer B will be compared with Observer C to illustrate how B and C are not equivalent scenario's.

Observer C sees the horizon change because the horizon is lower relative to Observer C thanks to increased elevation. We see examples of this occurring with skyscrapers and mountains where observer's on the top floor of a skyscraper will experience sunset and sunrises seconds (and sometimes minutes) before an observer on the bottom floor. Observer B on the other hand has the same horizon as Observer A, the only thing that has changed is angular FOV. Yes, he is in a location "to the left" of where he was due to rotation and that location is "higher" just like in Observer C's scenario but unlike Observer C, Observer B's configuration, or his angular FOV has changed.

A to B
  • increased elevation relative to Observer A's location
  • new angle (new FOV causes sun to appear to go down)
  • same horizon
A to C
  • increased elevation
  • same angle (larger FOV)
  • larger horizon

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #185 on: December 03, 2014, 09:08:42 AM »
"rottingroom" got in with illustrations while I was composing my typically long-winded reply. Brief glance looks like his illustration shows very well the point about the horizon appearing well below level if you are observing from a very high mountain.

According to your logic, the Sun would rise and set at the same place...Have you ever observed such a fantastic phenomena?

Can you entertain me by explaining why you think that? If rotation causes sunrise and sunset then it follows that sunrise should occur at the opposite side of the horizon from sunset. Given some variance depending on the time of year.

According to your logic, the Sun apparently goes up and down, because (due to tilt and rotation) an observer on the Earth changes an angle of observation. Right?
Yes.

Quote
Now, doesn't Sun's apparent motion across the sky (heading in arc from East to West) depend on changing an angles of observation, also?
Yes.

Quote
You even admit that there is a Zigging and Zagging of the Sun, only we cannot see it!
If by "Zigging and Zagging" you mean parallax, then, yes. It's quite small and difficult to detect, but it's there.

Quote
According to your logic, if we climbed up on the top of a hypothetical 1000 km high mountain, significant change of the perspective of the Sun would occur,
Where did anyone say that?

Quote
so that we could easily observe such a dramatic change of angles (up & down), but if we travelled 1000 km towards the East or towards the West, we wouldn't be able to notice any change of the perspective of the Sun, because (according to you and Alpha2Omega) going West/East makes no difference at all, but in the same time going Up/Down makes huge difference in producing apparent motions of the Sun.
Aha! It looks like the term "up and down" is ambiguous. By "up and down" I'm referring to the Sun's Zenith angle (angle between "straight up" and the Sun) changing, not your height above datum changing.[nb]Zenith angle is easier to use here than elevation angle (the angle the Sun is above or below the local level), but they're simply complements of each other (one is 90° minus the other).[/nb]

Do note that climbing the hypothetical 1,000 km mountain would cause your sightline to the horizon to be lower since the horizon is nearby[nb]The horizon would be 30° below level from 1,000 km above the surface of a sphere with 6378 km radius[/nb]. Parallax against the distant stars would be affected only slightly - about 16% due to the lengthened baseline - so the Zenith angle would not be affected noticeably. Returning to the Parallax at the Equator analysis a few days ago, we expect about 18 arcseconds of solar parallax at the equator at perihelion, based on a radius of 6,378.1 km (baseline 12,756.2 km) and distance to sun of 147,098,290 km. If we're atop a 1,000-km high mountain on the equator, this will increase the baseline by 2,000 km, so the parallax will increase from about 18 arcseconds to about 21 arcseconds. This would still be hard to detect without very specialized equipment.

Did either of us say moving east and west wouldn't affect the Sun's position in the sky? It certainly would. Moving north or south would also have a similar effect. The change in position in the sky would be by an angle equal to the angular change in position on earth. Parallax against the background stars due to the changed position on earth would be negligible, though - maybe that's what you were referring to.

Quote
Would you be so kind to explain to our precious audience, what EXACTLY determines such a huge difference regarding "up & down" apparent motion of the Sun, and "Left & Right" apparent motion of the Sun?
"Precious". Love the editorializing!

"Left and right" (meaning parallax in this context, I presume) is dependent on the length of the baseline (sum of the diameter of earth (12,750 km or so) plus height above datum times cosine of the latitude) and the distance to the Sun (150,000,000 km give or take).

"Up and down" (meaning the Zenith angle) is the angle between a line from the center of rotation (center of the Earth) through the observer[nb]This establishes the local vertical (and, thus, the Zenith).[/nb] and a line from the observer in the direction of the Sun.  The lengths of these lines do not matter; only the angle between them.

The upshot is that the distances involved cause a very small parallax effect, and the angular position of the Sun relative to zenith is absolutely dominated by rotation, which is independent of the distances.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #186 on: December 03, 2014, 10:23:30 AM »


Our guy, all the time is looking towards the Sun, which means that he has to adjust his orientation every few hours, otherwise he wouldn't be able to see the Sun especially during SECOND HALF of the circle, that is to say, during SECOND HALF of the alleged rotation of the Earth (the Sun would be behind his back)!  Right?

So, what happens, when our guy reaches one out of two designated TURNING POINTs?

The Sun's path (alleged "apparent" motion of the Sun), by necessity, changes direction!!!

No doubt, about that!!!

Try it with a model of a globe and you will see, that after 12 hours, if we were on a spinning globe, and if we were somewhere in the proximity of the North Pole during northern summer, after the Earth accomplished it's alleged half of a circle (180 degree of one alleged rotation on it's axis), the Sun would BY NECESSITY have to start to change it's path in the sky, heading in opposite direction than before (during first 12 hours)!!!

The easiest way to check this out:

1. Stand in front of a light bulb, be at least two meters away from the bulb so that the bulb can be always ahead of you (not above you)!

2. Make one step RIGHT AND AHEAD

3. Make next step LEFT AND more AHEAD

4. Make next step LEFT AND BACK

5. Make next step RIGHT AND more BACK (to the starting point)

6. All the time look at the bulb

7. Repeat it as long as you need to, until you figure out what would really happen (what would our guy really see in the sky) if the Earth really rotated on it's axis, instead of being at rest!!!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #187 on: December 03, 2014, 10:50:31 AM »
Have we not expressed that this parallax (zig zag) does occur but at such large distances it is, as I put it, utterly slight? Do you not see that we have agreed that it should and does happen?

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #188 on: December 03, 2014, 11:49:32 AM »
What is "utterly slight"? Half a circle (which takes 12 hours (to be accomplished) in the proximity of the N.P. during Northern Summer) of the Sun's path across the sky is "utterly slight"? Are you nuts, or what?

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #189 on: December 03, 2014, 11:52:10 AM »
What is "utterly slight"? Half a circle (which takes 12 hours (to be accomplished) in the proximity of the N.P. during Northern Summer) of the Sun's path across the sky is "utterly slight"? Are you nuts, or what?

A rather negligible distance compared to 93,000,000 miles is it not? For your argument to gain any traction you'd need to prove that the sun is much closer and I'm afraid that trigonometry doesn't help your cause here.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #190 on: December 03, 2014, 01:26:20 PM »

Try it with a model of a globe and you will see, that after 12 hours, if we were on a spinning globe, and if we were somewhere in the proximity of the North Pole during northern summer, after the Earth accomplished it's alleged half of a circle (180 degree of one alleged rotation on it's axis), the Sun would BY NECESSITY have to start to change it's path in the sky, heading in opposite direction than before (during first 12 hours)!!!
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Arctic Midnight Sun


Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #191 on: December 03, 2014, 01:27:48 PM »


Our guy, all the time is looking towards the Sun, which means that he has to adjust his orientation every few hours, otherwise he wouldn't be able to see the Sun especially during SECOND HALF of the circle, that is to say, during SECOND HALF of the alleged rotation of the Earth (the Sun would be behind his back)!  Right?

So, what happens, when our guy reaches one out of two designated TURNING POINTs?

The Sun's path (alleged "apparent" motion of the Sun), by necessity, changes direction!!!

No doubt, about that!!!
Against the background stars, considering only parallax and and ignoring orbital motion (which is actually far, far, far greater), yes.

But why should we ignore orbital motion? By "far, far, far", I mean that in 12 hours the sun appears to drift eastward among the distant stars about 1/2 degree. In keeping with your earlier drawing where the dashed line through N.P. represents 1,000 km, parallax will be about 3/4 of one second or arc., smaller by a factor of 2400 (a.k.a. rottingroom's "utterly slight").

But the apparent motion with respect to the Earth, which is what we really notice, is a full 360° in 24 hours, which again swamps the eastward drift due to orbital parallax after that already really swamped parallax due to motion about the pole. In this drawing, at the beginning of the first half of the circle, our fellow is facing the Sun with North to his left, so he's looking East. Six hours later, halfway through the first half of the circle, the Sun has smoothly moved to his right and now North is to his back, so he's looking due South (the Sun will also be highest in the sky here).  Six hours after that, at the left "Turning Point", N is to his right, and the Sun has smoothly moved (still to his right as he faces it) to be due West of him. By the middle of the second half of the circle, he's facing due North, looking over the North Pole to where the Sun (which is at its lowest point) has smoothly moved (still to his right). Six hours later, the Sun has smoothly moved (to his right) to its original position and the cycle begins anew. Smooth left-to-right motion all the way around the tilted (because you're not exactly at the pole) circle the Sun traces through the sky as you face it.

Quote
Try it with a model of a globe and you will see, that after 12 hours, if we were on a spinning globe, and if we were somewhere in the proximity of the North Pole during northern summer, after the Earth accomplished it's alleged half of a circle (180 degree of one alleged rotation on it's axis), the Sun would BY NECESSITY have to start to change it's path in the sky, heading in opposite direction than before (during first 12 hours)!!!
This is not a good experiment because the distances can't be realistically simulated. See above and below.

Quote
The easiest way to check this out:

1. Stand in front of a light bulb, be at least two meters away from the bulb so that the bulb can be always ahead of you (not above you)!

2. Make one step RIGHT AND AHEAD

3. Make next step LEFT AND more AHEAD

4. Make next step LEFT AND BACK

5. Make next step RIGHT AND more BACK (to the starting point)

6. All the time look at the bulb

7. Repeat it as long as you need to, until you figure out what would really happen (what would our guy really see in the sky) if the Earth really rotated on it's axis, instead of being at rest!!!
The flaw with this experiment is you're standing about 2 m from the light bulb and taking steps, moving left and right by about 1/2 m each time. With a 1 m baseline, the parallax of something 2 m away is going to be huge. What do you think the results will be if, instead of 2 m from your bulb, you're 150,000 m from it? Tell you what... the  Moon is about 400,000,000 m from us. Scale the experiment up and move left and right by a total of 3 km. How much did the Moon appear to move relative to the distant stars?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #192 on: December 03, 2014, 04:26:37 PM »
This is not a good experiment because the distances can't be realistically simulated.

I took the liberty of coming up with an easily repeatable scaled simulation. If I can find the time I can even take a video of the simulation myself. All you would need is an American Football Field, a basketball and a camera. The ball will be the sun and the camera will be Earth's location. Earth's location will be at the endzone (0 yd line) and we can simulate parallax by moving the camera some amount of inches to the left.

Determine where to put the ball:

Sun distance = 93,000,000 miles
Sun diameter = 864,938 miles
Basketball diameter = 9.46972 inches = 0.000149459 miles
Basketball distance from camera = d

(d/.000149459) = (93,000,000/864,938)
d = .01607015416 miles = 84.504 ft = 28.2835 yds

So the basketball needs be placed on the 28 yard line.

Determine how much we need to move the camera.

Distance to ball = 28.2835 ft = .00535672 miles
parallax = p

(.00535672/p) = (93,000,000/864,938)
p = .0004981968 miles = 3.15 in

So roughly speaking:

« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 07:42:26 PM by rottingroom »

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #193 on: December 03, 2014, 06:40:49 PM »
I was in a hurry and I one calculation was wrong. 15 inches is incorrect. I will fix it when I get home from dinner.
That's not all...  29.75 is the circumference of a basketball, not its diameter.

Here's how I see it: cikljamas was proposing using a globe to illustrate his point. Let's say we use a standard 12" desk globe.

Earth's diameter is about 8,000 miles, represented by the 1-foot diameter of the globe. The Sun is at a distance of 93,000,000 miles, which is 11,625 times the diameter of the Earth, so, to be at scale, whatever represents the Sun must be well over 2 miles away from our 1' globe (and more than 100' in diameter to be at scale). In one day, the earth would progress almost 200 times its own diameter (200 feet to scale) in its orbit.

If you want to use the (roughly) 10" basketball as the Sun, then scale everything down by a factor of 120 or so, and the distance to the Sun is a more manageable 100 feet or thereabouts, but now the diameter of the scaled earth is about 0.1", and his 1,000-km baseline is about 1/12 of that.

The biggest problem, though, is you're proposing to bring a basketball onto an American Football field, of all things! That's like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters - you just don't do that!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #194 on: December 03, 2014, 07:28:53 PM »
The biggest problem, though, is you're proposing to bring a basketball onto an American Football field, of all things! That's like crossing the streams in Ghostbusters - you just don't do that!


[/quote]
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #195 on: December 03, 2014, 07:44:05 PM »
Oh cool a2o. You couldn't be patient and let me fix my own mistakes. Thanks a lot.

I used a basketball because it's something that people would be likely to have in their garage. Anyways, I've fixed all the math and the diagram, dick heads.

PS. Go pack
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 07:57:46 PM by rottingroom »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41867
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #196 on: December 03, 2014, 07:57:37 PM »
For those too lazy to do the math: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #197 on: December 03, 2014, 08:06:22 PM »
For those too lazy to do the math: http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/

Well according to that the camera should be moved .0433 inches for an earth radius for a basketball that is on the 28 yd line but that is for the entire earth radius. For the 1000 km baseline cikljamas suggested we'd need to move the ball 1/12 of that which is 0.00360833333 or roughly 4/1000 of an inch.


*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #198 on: December 03, 2014, 10:43:04 PM »
Why is it that cikljamas—whom I assumed was a flat earther—invariably uses a round earth model to illustrate the points he makes?

Or is my assumption about his flat earth status incorrect?

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #199 on: December 03, 2014, 11:47:38 PM »
Well, i became sure by now, it's not that you are THAT stupid, you are just bunch of gangsters who do this on purpose. So, enjoy your party for lunatics. Regarding FEs, it is absolutely amazing that not one of them came by to this thread (in last few days) to leave either their positive or negative feedbacks.

I will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?

You should call it : "Joke" forum!...or even better than that, why wouldn't you just shut it down?

It doesn't make sense at all to keep up this site in this manner, unless your intention is to make fun of the FET, also?
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28262
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #200 on: December 04, 2014, 01:38:33 AM »
Well, i became sure by now, it's not that you are THAT stupid, you are just bunch of gangsters who do this on purpose. So, enjoy your party for lunatics. Regarding FEs, it is absolutely amazing that not one of them came by to this thread (in last few days) to leave either their positive or negative feedbacks.

I will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?

You should call it : "Joke" forum!...or even better than that, why wouldn't you just shut it down?

It doesn't make sense at all to keep up this site in this manner, unless your intention is to make fun of the FET, also?
I didn't enter this thread because I was enjoying seeing the way you were putting your stuff forward against opposition. I'm 100% with you but I go about my global destruction in a different way. I am fully behind what you're trying to achieve but as you well know, as you said, you're not really up against people who are going to accept anything you say.
If you actually proved it where it actually couldn't be questioned in any way, it would be questioned because the goal isn't about those people being re-educated, it's all about them making sure that people don't gain a momentum in finding out the real truth. It's weird in one way, because not all of them are shills, just half of them.

If it helps you in any way, I'm as hated by the flat Earth theorists as much as I am with the globalists and simply cast off as a nut or a troll, but don't think nobody is enjoying your input - there are quite a few that will be. Me for one - I'm just not on your level where this stuff your putting out is concerned and that's how I learn.
I like to go my own way on the basics of stuff in other ways. Very few help me but I'm not bothered, because I will just keep plugging away.
Either way, we are both in the same boat - as in, no matter what we say, it will be instantly dismissed by those that are planted on here. I don't really need to tell you this, as I think you know the score on it all.

Keep plugging away because it's not these people you need to convince. It's the people looking in who have open minds and who want to question the bullshit they've been fed all their lives.
You are a big help on this matter as well as a few others on here. People like legion, yendor, hoppy, jroa, Earthisaspaceship and a good few others, so stick to your guns. I know it can be frustrating taking on so many at a time, but the ones that are trying to attempt ridicule all the time, just put them on the backburner and deal with the one's you feel are worth dealing with. That's what I do.

Just have a laugh with the others and type some utter crap to their questions - it helps to relax you.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #201 on: December 04, 2014, 03:08:58 AM »
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28262
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #202 on: December 04, 2014, 03:19:22 AM »
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Don't worry about it, it doesn't concern you.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #203 on: December 04, 2014, 04:14:36 AM »
Why is it that cikljamas—whom I assumed was a flat earther—invariably uses a round earth model to illustrate the points he makes?

Or is my assumption about his flat earth status incorrect?

Because he is trying to point out inconsistencies with the RE model. It would be impossible to do otherwise.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #204 on: December 04, 2014, 04:21:20 AM »
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Don't worry about it, it doesn't concern you.
But I am concerned for you scepti.  We all are.  We care deeply.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 28262
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #205 on: December 04, 2014, 04:35:29 AM »
Lot of words to say nothing much.
Don't worry about it, it doesn't concern you.
But I am concerned for you scepti.  We all are.  We care deeply.
Well no need to. I'm on the right medication. Unindoctrinated thinkerol, it's good stuff. Try some.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #206 on: December 04, 2014, 05:15:56 AM »
Well, i became sure by now, it's not that you are THAT stupid, you are just bunch of gangsters who do this on purpose. So, enjoy your party for lunatics. Regarding FEs, it is absolutely amazing that not one of them came by to this thread (in last few days) to leave either their positive or negative feedbacks.

I will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?

You should call it : "Joke" forum!...or even better than that, why wouldn't you just shut it down?

It doesn't make sense at all to keep up this site in this manner, unless your intention is to make fun of the FET, also?

That stupid? If your goal is to prove re wrong by showing the inconsistencies in it then you need to disprove the parts of it that constitute the model. This means your examples and visualizations need to be faithful to the scale that re claims but you haven't done that. You've attempted to point out flaws by misrepresenting the scale, which is either because you don't understand or because you're deliberately attempting a slight of hand.

Transversely, we'd like some "official" fe models to contend with ourselves. Some numbers that could be tested. There are some but they are sparse and where they don't exist there remains a stench of enlightened agnosticism. So because there is no confidence in a fe model our contentions with the slim pickings are easy to derive at. We can just say that if the earth was flat, then it would look different. We can just use the power of trigonometry to show that the numbers don't add up or the very basic principle that if the earth is flat then the sun cannot set.

It's too bad you are going though cikljamas, I enjoy arguing against flat earthers and with even more enthusiasm as long as their is some technical proficiency in the discussion.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41867
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #207 on: December 04, 2014, 06:29:03 AM »
will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
Because Daniel (the guy who owns this site) is a flat earther and he wanted to have a site where people could could come and discuss the good word of flat earthism.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

cikljamas

  • 2272
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #208 on: December 04, 2014, 07:19:05 AM »
@ Sceptimatic, you are such a nice guy, thank you very much for your kindness! You are one of a kind! As long as there are guys like you, there is some hope for this world! God bless you!!!

@ Rottingroom, after all arguments that i have presented here, i must admit that if you still believe that the Earth rotates on it's axis, or that there is any other kind of Earth's motion (which is even more preposterous than rotation, and which alleged motion NEVER HAS BEEN PROVEN IN ANY WAY (directly or indirectly)), then you are the stupidest guy in the world!

If and when you admit the truth that the Earth is at rest, then we can continue our conversation.

If anyone else want to contribute to this conversation, here is the question for you:

1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact!

2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!

Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528

Why don't you believe your eyes? DogCam flies to the edge of space 110,000ft on a balloon : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Flat Earther
2 months ago
 
Flat, flat, flat, no curvature, flat, flat and flat again.
NASA is lying. Open ur eyes.
Spherical earth is a lie to destroy religion.


will put this question (for FEs) here last time: Why do you call this site "Flat Earth" forum?
Because Daniel (the guy who owns this site) is a flat earther and he wanted to have a site where people could could come and discuss the good word of flat earthism.

You don't say!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #209 on: December 04, 2014, 07:36:22 AM »
After all the arguments presented it is clearer than ever that the earth is round, tilted rotating and orbiting the sun.

By the way london can get a long day because of earths tilt. That is 69% of the day and if you look at your tilted globe then you'll notice that in London's summer, roughly 69% of the time of one rotation is spent in light.