Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Suddenly, A Flat Earther Appears!
- Thread starter 332nd
- Start date
Argument to Age Fallacy !!! x 2.
Well it already has. It is documented there and here: books.google.com/books?id=oxRbAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=Captain+Edward+Gillett&source=bl&ots=j6oRJaKFsN&sig=e3gf2RqW1w3y9SL59CurknTgHFM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjciJrd6uTNAhXE5IMKHcfWCzkQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=Captain%20Edward%20Gillett&f=false
The "Observer" printed it and future letters to the opposition on the same subject offered no contest to the reliability.
Perhaps.
Why
confused, that's not my Argument 
; Ergo...Straw Man Fallacy. Seeing them both from the 12th and 13th South Latitude is MORE than enough to send your position to the bottom of the Atlantic!Your appeal here is tantamount to challenging the Chicago Bears to beat the Patriots by more in Super Bowl XX.... to PROVE their Victory.
regards
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Oh dear, what short memories we have. Perhaps you can point out in your reference where it says SOUTH??
Nowhere??
So you just made up that bit about South?
I think that's a bad bad thing. And tantamount as well. Bingo!!!
Nowhere??
So you just made up that bit about South?
I think that's a bad bad thing. And tantamount as well. Bingo!!!
Argument to Age Fallacy !!! x 2.
Well it already has. It is documented there and here: books.google.com/books?id=oxRbAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=Captain+Edward+Gillett&source=bl&ots=j6oRJaKFsN&sig=e3gf2RqW1w3y9SL59CurknTgHFM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjciJrd6uTNAhXE5IMKHcfWCzkQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=Captain%20Edward%20Gillett&f=false
The "Observer" printed it and future letters to the opposition on the same subject offered no contest to the reliability.
Perhaps.
Why
Your appeal here is tantamount to challenging the Chicago Bears to beat the Patriots by more in Super Bowl XX.... to PROVE their Victory.
regards
ArmillarySphere
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 829
I know it's shooting fish in a barrel, but I'm just going to point out a few errors in Daniel's calculations.
I'm not even sure where to start here. First of all, the so-called equation doesn't deal with units correctly and doesn't label any of the numbers involved.
The curvature of the Earth is approximately 8 inches per mile (1). However, this figure can't simply be multiplied; if you're interested in a longer distance the calculation needs to be redone.
If we constrain ourself to a one minute interval as above, the plane at 500 mph passes 8.33 miles. Using the same calculation as in the reference, we get a2 = 39592 + 8.332, giving us a = 3959.00877 miles, or a curvature of 46.3 feet over that distance.
This is quite a bit gentler than posted. Most of the other objections fall away if you've ever piloted a plane (I have). Planes will rise or descend depending on trim and atmospheric conditions, even if the nose is at a constant pitch. The effects can be very difficult to sense unless you're looking at the instruments.
I'm not sure where Daniel gets the "Line of Sight" weapon; this is not stated either in the linked article or the video. At maximum range this would of course be a ballistic weapon, and anyone with basic artillery training could aim it. The calculations posted seem fine to me, but are largely irrelevant.
Again, the figures are correct but more interesting is why on such a flat surface, you can't see the opposite side. The whole phenomenon of a horizon seems to be an obvious flaw in the flat Earth idea.
I'm not even sure where to start here. First of all, the so-called equation doesn't deal with units correctly and doesn't label any of the numbers involved.
The curvature of the Earth is approximately 8 inches per mile (1). However, this figure can't simply be multiplied; if you're interested in a longer distance the calculation needs to be redone.
If we constrain ourself to a one minute interval as above, the plane at 500 mph passes 8.33 miles. Using the same calculation as in the reference, we get a2 = 39592 + 8.332, giving us a = 3959.00877 miles, or a curvature of 46.3 feet over that distance.
This is quite a bit gentler than posted. Most of the other objections fall away if you've ever piloted a plane (I have). Planes will rise or descend depending on trim and atmospheric conditions, even if the nose is at a constant pitch. The effects can be very difficult to sense unless you're looking at the instruments.
I'm not sure where Daniel gets the "Line of Sight" weapon; this is not stated either in the linked article or the video. At maximum range this would of course be a ballistic weapon, and anyone with basic artillery training could aim it. The calculations posted seem fine to me, but are largely irrelevant.
Again, the figures are correct but more interesting is why on such a flat surface, you can't see the opposite side. The whole phenomenon of a horizon seems to be an obvious flaw in the flat Earth idea.
Whereas someone who thinks that a bullet fired horizontally will vary in the time it takes to hit the ground depending on muzzle velocity clearly lives in an embarrassment free zone.
Thought so. Thanks for offering your Scientific accuracy and precision
Well there's many issues, not limited to: Topography, Atmospheric Refraction, Atmospheric Extinction, Perspective ect.
Both Polaris and the Southern Cross have been observed simultaneously between the 12th and 13th degree South Latitude...
paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=TO18890720.2.8
Care to explain that?
of course we can explain that: it´s an error or a deliberate lie. This has NEVER been observed, by millions of people, except the people on that account.
Polaris can only be observed until the Equator. (already on the horizon)
The Southern Cross however is not on the south (Sigma Octantis is)
So it can be seen from latitudes up to about 20 degrees north.
as for you asking me to photograph Sigma Octantis, it´s magnitude is 5.4, it´s much fainter than the Polar Star and lies on the limit of human eye. As I live in a metro area with light pollution, it becomes impossible for me to photograph it. I could however go to an area without light pollution and do so.
question is: WHY? Would you stop believing in the Flat Earth if I did so? Or would you just ignore my photo as you do with every argument on this thread?
the southern cross is easier for me to photograph. And the Polaris, it´s impossible.
btw, Sigma Octantis is represented on the Brazilian flag as Brasilia. Just as all stars rotate around Sigma Octantis on the Southern Skies, so do "all brazilian states rotate around Brasilia".
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
of course we can explain that: it´s an error or a deliberate lie. This has NEVER been observed, by millions of people, except the people on that account.
Polaris can only be observed until the Equator. (already on the horizon)
The Southern Cross however is not on the south (Sigma Octantis is)
So it can be seen from latitudes up to about 20 degrees north.
as for you asking me to photograph Sigma Octantis, it´s magnitude is 5.4, it´s much fainter than the Polar Star and lies on the limit of human eye. As I live in a metro area with light pollution, it becomes impossible for me to photograph it. I could however go to an area without light pollution and do so.
question is: WHY? Would you stop believing in the Flat Earth if I did so? Or would you just ignore my photo as you do with every argument on this thread?
the southern cross is easier for me to photograph. And the Polaris, it´s impossible.
btw, Sigma Octantis is represented on the Brazilian flag as Brasilia. Just as all stars rotate around Sigma Octantis on the Southern Skies, so do "all brazilian states rotate around Brasilia".
It's a lot simpler than that. His source says nothing about it being 23.5 degrees SOUTH - that part is something that Daniel has slipped in.
Argument to Age Fallacy !!! x 2.
no, my dear Australopithecus.
the question here is you are trying to prove something that anyone can check ANYTIME based on two single 3rd hand testimonies from more than 150 years ago, when obviously, it was much more difficult for normal people to travel from one hemisphere to another and check the veracity of this fact. There are MILLIONS of people living in those latitudes, who CANNOT SEE THE DAMN NORTH STAR!
Salvador, Recife, Fortaleza... all cities with over 3 million people in metro areas, where nobody has ever seen Polaris.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Yep, I agree.
Thing is though, as soon as you attack the troll for doing what Rule 6 says he cannot do, you get jumped on.
Trolls, it seems, are allowed free reign to post walls of text, unsupported assertions, to wilfully not answer questions about their posts and to repeatedly fail to discuss the subject they are posting about.
No such freedom seems to exist for the rest of us
For clarity, the explanatory note to Rule 6
Erock
Muse
Dodged the point.
Are you just playing dumb here? Nope, you just dodged the point.
It's very simple, if the Sun is at zenith 2,500 miles up and 6,000 miles away it should be setting, it cannot possibly be a flat Earth. It cannot be a flat Earth because the Sun at that height and distance forms a 21 degree angle. If you claim perspective makes it disappear, how come it doesn't.
It does
There is so much wrong with that claim. The angular size of the Sun would change as pointed out to you. There could never be a sunset, the Sun MUST disappear to a dot.
It behaves exactly as it should and your diversion is once again noted.
How come it sets in the first place?
Yes.
I simply cannot fathom how you can make such an idiotic argument. Some youtube video shows something based on what they recorded on a camera and you think that dismisses clear scientific proof? You don't think the light increase might sway what the video captures
People have photographed the Sun through filters, it does NOT change size at all! In addition, full solar eclipses that occur at the horizon are no different ones occurring at zenith.
Major point dodged. The Sun does not change whatsoever. Go out and buy some eclipse glasses and watch it across the sky
In your own words, explain why the Sun does not change size at all
Yep, accurate ones though, not bovine excrement.
Dodged again. Basically you make a claim that every human being on the planet knows is baloney. It takes little to no effort at all to verify this.
Do try not to change the subject. So far your efforts are pathetic.
It's dumb, eh?
You just explained why the Moon would disappear before it set on a flat earth. It doesn't. You completely dodged the point in every way possible.
No. Elaborate please - that is another dodge.
Why do people in Australia see the Moon phases inverted to those in England. Please do not draw me some infantile diagram of the Moon on a ceiling, because I will just draw one slamdunk diagram of the Moon rising and an observer following it all around the "flat earth" at the same speed.
Yes. Only a real moron would say otherwise. Please don't go down that route.
Once again you are deliberately diverting attention away from what YOU claim keeps us on this planet to try and disprove gravity. Let's pretend that you have disproven it's gravity. Now answer the damn question.
See above. Assume it isn't gravity
Kindly furnish your captivated audience with your scientific explanation for how density and electrickery/dipole flabberjabbery keeps everything on the surface and makes everything fall at 9.8m s^2.
Also:
Now elaborate and explain why a man up a mountain where it is significantly less dense cannot jump significantly higher. Say Mexico City and "oh brother" isn't an answer but is in fact yet another dodge
Diversion and dodge. Answer the question.
Yes. Science is not your strong point is it. But that was a magnificent dodge.
Forget the light stuff. Let's talk about people and jumping off buildings. Explain the bolded bit just above. 9.8m s^2 etc.
Says observable reality. Say camera clubs, astronomers, software, numerous videos. Is this how to become a flat earther? Stick your head up your backside and just deny everything?
How come star fields rotate in opposite directions on opposite hemispheres?
Diversion and dodge. Post one then. Or are you saying the one provided by the flat earth community is wrong?
Your map should be able to show why Brazil facing south and Australia facing south both see the Southern cross at the same time.
If you do not have a map that does this, devise one. If you can't, go to the flat earth shop and demand a refund
You also completely failed to answer this:
Yeah, once the applause dies down, show WHY it loses x amount per year. That would be where you identify the density of atmosphere at that altitude, the drag and how that effects its speed. People will be stunned when you answer this. They will not be stunned when you draw figures from your backside without showing why
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
I'm sorry, but are you struggling under the illusion that Daniel has anything factual to present?
Prepare to be disappointed.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
what would be the point? You clearly would not listen.
I have customers spanning from SoCal to Japan, I have travelled to these locations. somehow, you are claiming that my colleagues all conspire to lie about time zones. Somehow you fail to see how plain flat out bonkers such claims are.So I need to provide Experimental Proof, right (??) but not you, eh?
I've already DONE that, here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11364725&postcount=191
I even gave you the VALID Formal Scientific Hypotheses, for goodness sakes!!
regards
Oh I can't wait!!!
The anticipations killing me!! Watch, you'll trip all over yourself.
1. If it was only 8 inches per mile 'shooter' it would be A SLOPE!!
2. Here's the follow up post to your link correcting the ERRORS: http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.02/shirley3.html
3. This sends the rest of your Trainwreck into an Unrecoverable six million dollar man style: "She's Breaking Up, She's Breaking Up" catastrophe.
Common Sense and these...
1. "The 6-inch guns that the Navy currently uses have a range of 15 miles; the 16-inch guns of World War II had a range of 24 miles, and could penetrate 30 feet of concrete. The 38-foot railgun, though, has a range of 125 miles, five times the impact, and can shoot through seven steel plates."
rare.us/story/the-navy-just-unveiled-the-first-video-of-their-new-railgun-in-action-and-it-is-awesome/
2. The Navy helps to use the railgun for multiple missions including precision surface fire support, land strikes, cruise missile and ballistic missile defense. The weapon will also be used to fight surface ships as well."
www.dailytech.com/Navy+Railgun+Fired+for+1000th+Time/article23163.htm#sthash.V3UOGECG.dpuf
3. Dr. Roger McGinnis is an executive in the railgun program, he said, "The weapon does all its damage because of its speed."
www.dailytech.com/Navy+Railgun+Fired+for+1000th+Time/article23163.htm#sthash.V3UOGECG.dpuf
An Indirect Fire Weapon (e.g., Artillery) uses HE (High Explosive)/Incendiary Rounds ect... the Navy Rail Gun "Projectile" is NON-EXPLOSIVE it's does all it's damage Due to SPEED!!!
As an Indirect Fire Weapon (lol), it will lose a TON of Speed and just plop a piece of Dead Weight (25 lbs LOL scary) wherever it lands.
4. "The weapon is called a railgun and requires neither gunpowder nor explosive. It is powered by electromagnetic rails that accelerate a HARDENED PROJECTILE to staggering velocity..."
www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194
5. "It uses no gunpowder or chemical propellants, eliminating the need to carry dangerous explosives on a warship."
www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21174/navy-electromagnetic-railgun/
6. "The 25-pound projectile is a non-explosive bullet filled with tungsten pellets inside an aluminum alloy casing, or sabot, that falls away after the projectile leaves the barrel."
www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21174/navy-electromagnetic-railgun/
7.
Section VI. NAVAL SURFACE FIRE SUPPORT
5-27. GENERAL
When naval surface fire support is available and the general tactical situation permits its use, naval firepower can provide large volumes of devastating, immediately available, and instantly responsive fire support to combat forces operating near coastal waters. These fires may be in support of amphibious operations within range of naval aircraft and gunfire, but they also may be made available to support land operations.
5-28. MISSION
The general mission of naval surface fire support is to support maneuver force operations by destroying, neutralizing, or suppressing enemy targets that oppose our forces. Naval surface fire support may be provided by NGF and naval air power. Usually, it is delivered in concert with support fires from other arms.
5-29. NAVAL GUNFIRE CHARACTERISTICS
Naval gunfire:
Has a flat trajectory that makes it effective against vertical-face targets, but ineffective against rear-slope targets.
fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/st100-3/c5/5sect6.htm
Do you get it NOW??
Artillery, eh ??
Yes, a 25 lbs piece of Non-Explosive Metal (Wooo, real scary!!)Errr: Topography, Refraction, Perspective/Vanishing Point, Atmospheric Conditions (Humidity/Weather) ect ect.
And Bill Nye called....he wants his argument back.
So who's the Fish and Who's the Shooter, again? Priceless!
oy vey
Well ok, bring them in here...along with a Notary Public
And wouldn't 'CITY BUILDINGS' and Topography be just a couple limiting factors in your exaggerated contrived appeal here??
regards
You're really starting to Bore me with your 3rd grade arguments...
What point...?
Ahhh, you 'believe' we live on a "Spinning Ball" rotating @ 1,000 mph, revolving around the sun @ 66,600 mph (axis 66.6 degrees from the ecliptic), with the sun traveling @ 500,000 mph around the Milky Way---which is itself moving @ 670,000,000 mph .....?
That's a grand total of 670,568,000 miles per hour in several different directions, simultaneously ( LOL ). In one year, the Earth traverses over 5.8 TRILLION MILES!!! All this without a microscopic remnant of Empirical evidence with nobody ONCE EVER seeing, feeling, measuring any such nonsense.
Who's playing dumb??
What in the world are you talking about? Go ahead a draw it out...? (Scratch that we're done)
I just showed you the EXACT Contrary with about 25 Examples!!
I don't do 'Willful Ignorance'.
ps. And "astronomy' (and Camera Clubs LOL) isn't "Science" professor
oy vey
What point...?
Ahhh, you 'believe' we live on a "Spinning Ball" rotating @ 1,000 mph, revolving around the sun @ 66,600 mph (axis 66.6 degrees from the ecliptic), with the sun traveling @ 500,000 mph around the Milky Way---which is itself moving @ 670,000,000 mph .....?
That's a grand total of 670,568,000 miles per hour in several different directions, simultaneously ( LOL ). In one year, the Earth traverses over 5.8 TRILLION MILES!!! All this without a microscopic remnant of Empirical evidence with nobody ONCE EVER seeing, feeling, measuring any such nonsense.
Who's playing dumb??
What in the world are you talking about? Go ahead a draw it out...? (Scratch that we're done)
It does
I just showed you the EXACT Contrary with about 25 Examples!!I don't do 'Willful Ignorance'.
ps. And "astronomy' (and Camera Clubs LOL) isn't "Science" professor
oy vey
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
The 20th Century called ... they want their lame joke back ...
Boom! Head Shot!
You're so full of fail you're down to Dane Cook Status
I'll have to re-calibrate my fail meter to go any lower.
Of course you do, it's the 'Last Port in The Storm' scenario and is invoked when all coherent substantive positions or arguments are exhausted. (In your case you didn't have a single one...so it was quick)
regards
Erock
Muse
You great fraud. You dodged every single one of those points. Every one.
Not you. I actually think you have some money making venture going on and need to generate some interest by capturing low hanging fruit.
Nobody is too thick to understand whata right angled triangle is.
Really? You're not going to answer all the tough questions?
No. You just showed a load of video where somebody doesn't understand how to tie their shoelaces.
You appear to be a gold medallist at it. You used it as a diversion and are using it now to avoid recognising and answering all my points. Anyone would think you were a big fat coward who has no answer.
Your alternate to gravity. The inverted Moon phases. Why the Sun sets with no size change. The drag on the ISS etc. Surely you can answer all these points as you KNOW the earth is flat
Really?? How much....?
Is it close to this...
a "Spinning Ball" rotating @ 1,000 mph, revolving around the sun @ 66,600 mph (axis 66.6 degrees from the ecliptic), with the sun traveling @ 500,000 mph around the Milky Way---which is itself moving @ 670,000,000 mph .....?
That's a grand total of 670,568,000 miles per hour in several different directions, simultaneously ( LOL ). In one year, the Earth traverses over 5.8 TRILLION MILES!!! All this without a microscopic remnant of Empirical evidence with nobody ONCE EVER seeing, feeling, measuring any such nonsense.
And please SCIENTIFICALLY Validate the distance to Polaris...?
regards
Erock
Muse
ps. And "astronomy' (and Camera Clubs LOL) isn't "Science" professor
But some dumb schmuck youtuber is?