Suddenly, A Flat Earther Appears!

[LSSBB]

That's why they should come back at night when the Sun has gone down and it's dark outside.

Mike!, for the win.

 

[jaydeehess]

It's true that NASA currently has a problem with the Van Allen Belt. One benefit of 1960's analog technology is that it wasn't affected by the radiation - unlike the modern digital technology of today would be.

Um, no.
The reason that 60's tech was more resilient wrt particle radiation and EMP was that it was tube type technology. Solid state, around in ever increasing prevalence since the invention of the transistor (also in the 1960s) is what caused susceptibility to induced voltages.

In 1960 lightning could strike the phone lines and your rotary phone might give out a 'ding' as it causes the ringer to pull the clapper against the bell. Otherwise no issue at all. All that was in those phones were a few transformers, a mic, a speaker, and a bell, all of which could absorb a fair amount of transient overvoltage.
In 1990 lightning hits the telephone line and your solid state landline set may never work again. That phone needed to be plugged into not only the phone line but also powered to run the electronics on board.

BUT, note that the space race is one reason why solid state tech advanced quickly BECAUSE tube tech weighs a lot! Proper grounding and shielding isn't that hard to design in. If it were then those high tech fighter aircraft would still be using tube tech.

Here's another thing to keep in mind. Your computer before the turn of the century, had a clock rate that was in the neighbourhood of 30-40Mhz. Around 1990 that increased to 60Mhz and went up from there. So what? Well TV channel 2 is at 62 Mhz and the rest go up from there. Some TV stations were broadcasting at several Megawatts of video carrrier power and yet this did not confuse your computer.

 

[fuelair]

I wonder how NASA and others send unmanned probes to Mars when his 'dome' stops us getting to the moon.

Itz bez a skillz!!! The mad kind!!!!!

 

[Meadmaker]

Nasa knows because they've gone up & seen the earth is flat.

Eta: Haven't been to the moon though because of a dome. (Never heard that one before.)

You aren't up on your crazies:

God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the water; let it divide the water from the water.” 7 God made the dome and divided the water under the dome from the water above the dome; that is how it was, 8 and God called the dome Sky. So there was evening, and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1: 6-8)

I remember my father telling a story about his uncle. In the early fifties, the family was sitting around chatting. The topic of going to the moon had come up in conversation, when his uncle asked "How are they going to get through all the water?"

Unlike the man you met today, my great-uncle found out that the whole "dome" (KJV has "firmament") and "water" thing wasn't really 100% accurate.

 

[jaydeehess]

Um, no.
The reason that 60's tech was more resilient wrt particle radiation and EMP was that it was tube type technology. Solid state, around in ever increasing prevalence since the invention of the transistor (also in the 1960s) is what caused susceptibility to induced voltages.

In 1960 lightning could strike the phone lines and your rotary phone might give out a 'ding' as it causes the ringer to pull the clapper against the bell. Otherwise no issue at all. All that was in those phones were a few transformers, a mic, a speaker, and a bell, all of which could absorb a fair amount of transient overvoltage.
In 1990 lightning hits the telephone line and your solid state landline set may never work again. That phone needed to be plugged into not only the phone line but also powered to run the electronics on board.

BUT, note that the space race is one reason why solid state tech advanced quickly BECAUSE tube tech weighs a lot! Proper grounding and shielding isn't that hard to design in. If it were then those high tech fighter aircraft would still be using tube tech.

Here's another thing to keep in mind. Your computer before the turn of the century, had a clock rate that was in the neighbourhood of 30-40Mhz. Around 1990 that increased to 60Mhz and went up from there. So what? Well TV channel 2 is at 62 Mhz and the rest go up from there. Some TV stations were broadcasting at several Megawatts of video carrrier power and yet this did not confuse your computer.

Correction : TV channel 2 carrier is at 55.25 Mhz, Ch 3 carrier is at 61.25 Mhz

 

[threadworm]

Aaah flat Earthers, bless them. Here's a prize specimen from ATS:

It's called whatever is heavy falls down but whatever is lighter then air rises. That isn't gravity, that's bouyancy or something. Let me know when you prove gravity because there isn't any physical proof of it at all that anyone can reproduce it only exists in theory. Whenever you can put a bowling ball on a table and show me nearby dust particles flying over to stick to it or revolve around it in perfect continuous orbits.....then you will have proven gravity. But since that won't happe I won't hold my breath. The whole concept is idiotic. The only way it works is that they theorize a lot of mass bends the fabric of space time and that causes things to invisibly be pulled to it like there's a funnel shape around things. But if that were true at some point EVERYTHING would go around the funnel orbit enough times to collide with the object pulling it. That's isn't going to happen because nothing orbits anything. If gravity excerpted enough force to pull planets and moons it would pull them straight into it not cause they to orbit. And if they had forces that strong then how the hell would a comet or meteor be able to travel between them all without be sucked into one of them. It's all bull. But if you want to believe in fairy tales.. Go ahead...

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1078152/pg67#pid20730627

It's their superior intellect that marks them above the rest of us poor deluded fools...

 

[arthwollipot]

(sauce)

 

[jaydeehess]

Aaah flat Earthers, bless them. Here's a prize specimen from ATS:(grammar and spelling hilighted)

t's called whatever is heavy falls down but whatever is lighter then air rises. That isn't gravity, that's bouyancy or something.(which requires two forces, gravity and buoyancy.) Let me know when you prove gravity because there isn't any physical proof of it at all that anyone can reproduce it only exists in theory.(um, no there are several experiments that prove the existence of gravity) Whenever you can put a bowling ball on a table and show me nearby dust particles flying over to stick to it or revolve around it in perfect continuous orbits.....then you will have proven gravity.(Apparently this person has never actually looked at the formulae for the forces due to gravity) But since that won't happe(OK, that one is a typo) I won't hold my breath. The whole concept is idiotic.(that is ironic) The only way it works is that they theorize a lot of mass bends the fabric of space time and that causes things to invisibly be pulled to it like there's a funnel shape around things.(In its simplest form, ok) But if that were true at some point EVERYTHING would go around the funnel orbit enough times to collide with the object pulling it.(Again ignoring the true forces involved. He is expecting a friction force to slow the object. OTOH, yes eventually objects will 'fall' into the massive object, in billions of years) That's isn't going to happen because nothing orbits anything. If gravity excerpted enough force to pull planets and moons it would pull them straight into it not cause they to orbit. And if they had forces that strong then how the hell would a comet or meteor be able to travel between them all without be sucked into one of them. It's all bull. But if you want to believe in fairy tales.. Go ahead....(He should know. He believes in utter nonsense out of a demonstrable ignorance of the science he is trying to bring down)

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1078152/pg67#pid20730627

It's their superior intellect that marks them above the rest of us poor deluded fools...

Oy Vey!

 

[TheGnome]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/YU7WO7O.gif[/qimg]

Ah but you know that this is a bit of bull, no?

Didn't the chinese do the same experiment and conclude that the sun is just a few hundred kilometers above the earth?

 

[malbec]

Admiral Byrd went to Antarctica, found more gold, minerals, oil, etc... than anywhere else in the world. UN agreed that no one should go there because... reasons.

Also he found ice walls 2 miles high that they couldn't find a way around thus proving the Earth is flat.

UN flaunts this by their symbol.

Not the official story . Or the one sanctioned later .
Or what happened
But if it keeps you happy , so be it .

 

[frenat]

Ah but you know that this is a bit of bull, no?

Didn't the chinese do the same experiment and conclude that the sun is just a few hundred kilometers above the earth?

Not quite. you can do the same experiment and get a height for the sun if you assume the Earth is flat but if you use different locations then you get a DIFFERENT height.

 

[TheGnome]

Not quite. you can do the same experiment and get a height for the sun if you assume the Earth is flat but if you use different locations then you get a DIFFERENT height.

But they did not repeat the experiment for different locations as far as I know. Nor did the guy in these gifs hint at this possibillity.

So I stand by my post for the time being.

"The only answer ..." is bull.

 

[frenat]

But they did not repeat the experiment for different locations as far as I know. Nor did the guy in these gifs hint at this possibillity.

So I stand by my post for the time being.

"The only answer ..." is bull.

Eratosthenes didn't repeat for different location but they already knew the world was round. The experiment was actually used to calculate the circumference.
When you know the Sun is distant enough for the rays to be parallel then the only answer is the world is round. If you start with the position of ignorance that the sun is close and the world is flat then you'll get erroneous results.

 

[bruto]

Wait, I thought that was for hollow earth. I'm so confused.

It's both, like a giant pita.

Is it a metric car? I bet you could get him going on metric if he's old enough.

If it's a Jeep, it's probably both at once, and a few other things too, which should keep him going for a long time. I think it's a conspiracy by the tool manufacturers to sell more tools. I mean what the hell is with 18 millimeter bolts anyway?

 

[malbec]

I think you misspelled Hole cloth there!!

Misspelt , is definitely stylish .
Misspelled , for those with an arcane left hand bias .
Grubby individuals invariably . On the whole , that is .

 

[TheGnome]

Eratosthenes didn't repeat for different location but they already knew the world was round. The experiment was actually used to calculate the circumference.
When you know the Sun is distant enough for the rays to be parallel then the only answer is the world is round. If you start with the position of ignorance that the sun is close and the world is flat then you'll get erroneous results.

I don't question that what Erastothenes did was quite sound.

My issue is with the presentation in the gifs. This guy infers a curved earth from the different shadows which you just can't do IMHO. Not without using a few other facts.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't question that what Erastothenes did was quite sound.

My issue is with the presentation in the gifs. This guy infers a curved earth from the different shadows which you just can't do IMHO. Not without using a few other facts.

It is true that the earth could be a plane that is curved in only one dimension, much like the map he is holding. That would be consistent with the experiment as described.

Would that be a conclusion with equal weight to to the alternative conclusion that the earth is spherical, do you think?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I don't question that what Erastothenes did was quite sound.

My issue is with the presentation in the gifs. This guy infers a curved earth from the different shadows which you just can't do IMHO. Not without using a few other facts.

"The guy" is Carl Sagan. If you don't know who he is I suggest Google. He did not tell a unique story -he was merely providing a recitation of it as a segment of his show Cosmos while making a larger point.

"IMHO" is an opinion. Opinions are not facts. It is a fact that the shadows of identical length poles will cast different length shadows at the same time of the same day depending on latitude. In your opinion this is not possible; fine, but presenting your doubting opinion without supporting information is called "Argument From Incredulity," a form of logical fallacy. It is also a variant form of Argument From Authority in which you present yourself and your opinion as some form of authority on the issue of shadow length or something.

If you doubt the veracity of the story I suggest using references and calculations to prove to us just how much difference in shadow length results from difference in latitude and prove that this amount of data is insufficient. I think we could do it with solar data tables used by builders and architects, just on paper, with data easily found on the Internet.

Alternatively you could replicate the experiment on your own. If you know someone who lives substantially north or south of your location you could do it tomorrow using nothing more than a yardstick and email. You might be surprised how accurate your results are with even that rough data.

 

[TheGnome]

It is true that the earth could be a plane that is curved in only one dimension, much like the map he is holding. That would be consistent with the experiment as described.

Would that be a conclusion with equal weight to to the alternative conclusion that the earth is spherical, do you think?

No what I'm saying is that with the assumptions mentioned in the gifs a flat earth would be fully consistent with the facts about the shadows presented.

As a standalone presentation it is just not convincing to me. The conclusion just does not follow from the givens.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

No what I'm saying is that with the assumptions mentioned in the gifs a flat earth would be fully consistent with the facts about the shadows presented.

As a standalone presentation it is just not convincing to me. The conclusion just does not follow from the givens.

"Convincing to you" is not the metric by which we judge the validity of science. It's that Argument From Incredulity again. It doesn't prove what you think it proves.

The standalone presentation was a short description of a longer experiment done ages ago. If you doubt it can be done, prove it with numbers. As I said upthread, you could replicate the experiment yourself, strictly on paper or in meatspace. Our forum population spans the globe, we could probably do it tomorrow if we can organize a couple of people in the right places. I'm at latitude 40.17 North. You?