Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

[MRC_Hans]

Thus the rays can be close to parallel without being parallel. The question then comes how dependent are the results on the rays being exactly parallel. Based on MRC_Hans post at just 0.5 degrees of arc that would account for just about 7% of the 7°12' arc difference calculated.

The sun exhibits what is called "black body radiation". A little counter-intuitive, but remember, this is a very HOT black body. Every spot in the sun radiates an equal amount of energy in all directions. Thus, every spot of the (visible) surface of the sun radiates energy both at the Earth and the Moon. The reason we consider the rays parallel is only that the sun is so far away.

Hans

 

[The Man]

The sun exhibits what is called "black body radiation". A little counter-intuitive, but remember, this is a very HOT black body. Every spot in the sun radiates an equal amount of energy in all directions. Thus, every spot of the (visible) surface of the sun radiates energy both at the Earth and the Moon. The reason we consider the rays parallel is only that the sun is so far away.

Hans

Right, but even Sirius, some 8.6 light years away, has a detectable angular size.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanbury_Brown_and_Twiss_effect


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter

Thus the angular diameter of the Sun is about 250,000 times that of Sirius (Sirius has twice the diameter and its distance is 500,000 times as much; the Sun is 1010 times as bright, corresponding to an angular diameter ratio of 105, so Sirius is roughly 6 times as bright per unit solid angle).

 

[Craig4]

Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy. The Argument is "GAS PRESSURE" as in: Atmospheric Pressure ... Not "Shark Bite Pressure". lol

smh


ps. Anything on the NATO Sea Sparrow, per adventure??

No, seriously. Why is it that when I'm say, Virginia or Florida, I can't see the Southern Cross but when I fly to South Africa and/or Botswana I can?

On the. Topic of Sea Sparrows, you know there's a standard computation for terrain masking by curvature of the earth right? We used to have a template to draw on the chart but now the computers just figure it out for you.

 

[alexi_drago]

No, seriously. Why is it that when I'm say, Virginia or Florida, I can't see the Southern Cross but when I fly to South Africa and/or Botswana I can?

And why does it rotate around a fixed point that isn't Polaris? And why can it be seen when looking south from south Africa and Australia simultaneously?

 

[EHocking]

Still avoiding your observations of compass behaviour I see.

EHocking

Originally Posted by Daniel
That's Interesting, thanks for bringing it up. How in the World can a Compass work in the Southern Hemisphere on a Sphere ?? Wouldn't the needle be buried in the ring?

yes.
That is exactly what happens. The variation is up to 20^o.

The needle of a compass that works in the SH is balanced differently than one that works in the NH, due to exactly this fact that the horizontal and vertical components of the earth's magnetic field vary considerably in different locations

The compass manufacturers use 5 global zones and 5 corresponding “magnetic balancing zones”.

You have correctly pointed out yet another Fact that demonstrates that the earth is a globe and not a platter.

Daniel?

Any thoughts on the fact that the compass needle weighted to work in the northern hemisphere would indeed "be buried in the ring" when used in the southern hemisphere?

It is your assertion that this would only happen on a global earth.

So do you have ANY explanation why, if by your assertion that this occurs only on a globe, that the earth is not a globe?

Or will you merely continue to ignore the phenomena that you have pointed out that is evidence (if not proof) of a spherical earth?

 

[davefoc]

Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy. The Argument is "GAS PRESSURE" as in: Atmospheric Pressure ... Not "Shark Bite Pressure". lol

smh

I've made a serious effort to understand what Daniel's point is with regard to the need for a container to explain atmospheric pressure. I have thought that at times I might have understood it a bit, but now it seems that I have no clue as to what he is talking about. He seems to agree that atmospheric pressure declines with altitude. Does anybody understand his theory beyond that a container is necessary for atmospheric pressure to exist?

ps. Anything on the NATO Sea Sparrow, per adventure??

I haven't participated in this part of the discussion. I will defer to others on that. ETA: See LSSBB's post below for a response to what I understand your point to be.

He doesn't deny that we have air pressure on the Earth; he denies that there is vacuum anywhere else. He also accepts that air pressure varies with altitude, but won't take any notice of the suggestion that it might vary over several orders of magnitude; at that point he fringe resets, repeats the mantra and hurls abuse.

Dave

Dave Rogers took a shot at answering this question earlier in this thread, but I wasn't sure that this represented Daniel's ideas about this. If there was an atmosphere everyplace then why would a container be required to keep Earth's atmosphere from escaping?

 

[LSSBB]

So since you can only "Whistle Past the Graveyard" by the NATO SEA Sparrow (Which "Debunks" the Spinning-Ball Religion by itself)

Your stupid Sea Sparrow point is dead, deceased, gone to meet it's maker, and is totally bereft of life. It's not even pining for the fjords.

Easy.

Surface target? LOS is to the horizon and a little past.

Air target? LOS can be to 35 miles (plus some) depending on elevation.

http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/ew-radar-handbook/radar-horizon-line-of-sight.htm

Plus common sense.

No, because a target can be above the horizon and be line of sight, at 50 km. Self-declared victory by you negated

Your only reply was moving the goal posts to get a citation which mentioned the Sea Sparrow, as if Line Of Sight means something different for the Sea Sparrow. It doesn't. If it did, it's on you to find a definition of Line Of Sight specific to the Sea Sparrow only.

An air target can be 35 miles out and above the horizon. Still a valid target for Sea Sparrow. Surface target would be limited by the horizon and it is not the only kind of valid target.

Your continued clinging to this point long past it's expiration date only serves to expose for all a lack of openness to valid criticism on your part.

 

[davefoc]

Hi Daniel, there has been a sub thread going on as to what the flat earth explanation is for the difference in the shape of Australia as it is normally believed to be and the flat earth theory about the shape of Australia. You'd think by now some airline pilot, Australian map maker, or just some Australian that happened to drive across Australia would have noticed that Australia is much wider than the maps show it to be.

Several people offered helpful ideas about what the explanation might be. A summary:
1. Unicorns
2. The existence of Australia is a hoax. Ehocking confirmed that Australia was a hoax because he was born there.
3. Fosters

What is the flat earth theory with regard to the fact that the sizes of southern land masses are much larger that are shown on a flat earth map than they are generally known to be? Have all the pilots that fly over Australia hidden the fact that Australia is about twice as wide on a flat Earth maps as it is normally reported to be? They also seem to be failing to notice that the shape of Australia as shown on a flat Earth map is much different than the shape of Australia shown in normal maps.

"Quick, look over there, unicorns" about covers it.

The actual existence of Australia is not a given to some of these folks, much less its shape. Of course, the only evidence of Australia they've ever experienced first hand is Fosters, so don't be too hard on them.

...

I wonder how a flat earther might react to this image:
...
...

Australia is a hoax.

Hans

It’s true.
I was born there

 

[Lurch]

I wonder what mental gymnastics a flattard would have to go through to retain his delusions if he were to spend a few days on ISS. How would he process:

- Earth perpetually spinning by beneath, the horizon remaining perpetually equidistant in all azimuths.

- The very perceptible curve of the Earth's limb, which moreover always presents as a parallel on a spherical surface with the observer at the center. As though one were instead *fixed in place above the center of a disk*, instead of flying along at 8 km/s.

- The Sun and stars wheeling by overhead, with Polaris oscillating between some 56 degrees up and 56 degrees down every orbit.

- The fact of familiar landmasses appearing over the horizon only when relatively nearby (on the scale of either a globe or a platter planet).

- The fact of the Sun radiating an unchanging incident intensity at all times when not dipping into the atmosphere.

To see these things occuring over a brief cycle of but 90 minutes should invoke *some* prodding against dogmatic belief that a surface-bound existence *might* be excused of fostering. We have quite a number of astronauts from several nations who can attest to direct witness, but I guess the flattards just discount them as deluded victims of a hoax, if not as outright liars.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy. The Argument is "GAS PRESSURE" as in: Atmospheric Pressure ... Not "Shark Bite Pressure". lol

smh


ps. Anything on the NATO Sea Sparrow, per adventure??

Explain pressure gradients.

Hans

 

[Dave Rogers]

Explain pressure gradients.

He won't. He's following the standard woo pattern of thought:

(1) Adopt an utterly idiotic belief that contradicts a particular body of knowledge.
(2) Find a fact that, when carefully misinterpreted, can appear incompatible with that body of knowledge.
(3) Insist dogmatically that the misinterpretation is the only possible interpretation.
(4) Insist equally dogmatically that the misinterpreted fact refutes the entire body of knowledge.
(5) Insist that this proves that the idiotic belief is correct.
(6) Abuse anyone who points out the obvious flaws in this logic.

Don't be fooled into thinking that this process involves communication.

Dave

 

[MRC_Hans]

He won't. He's following the standard woo pattern of thought:

(1) Adopt an utterly idiotic belief that contradicts a particular body of knowledge.
(2) Find a fact that, when carefully misinterpreted, can appear incompatible with that body of knowledge.
(3) Insist dogmatically that the misinterpretation is the only possible interpretation.
(4) Insist equally dogmatically that the misinterpreted fact refutes the entire body of knowledge.
(5) Insist that this proves that the idiotic belief is correct.
(6) Abuse anyone who points out the obvious flaws in this logic.

Don't be fooled into thinking that this process involves communication.

Dave

Oh, I know. Still, I like to think that somewhere under that shield of noise is a little gnawing feeling he is making a fool of himself.

Hans

 

[HSienzant]

He won't. He's following the standard woo pattern of thought:

(1) Adopt an utterly idiotic belief that contradicts a particular body of knowledge.
(2) Find a fact that, when carefully misinterpreted, can appear incompatible with that body of knowledge.
(3) Insist dogmatically that the misinterpretation is the only possible interpretation.
(4) Insist equally dogmatically that the misinterpreted fact refutes the entire body of knowledge.
(5) Insist that this proves that the idiotic belief is correct.
(6) Abuse anyone who points out the obvious flaws in this logic.

Don't be fooled into thinking that this process involves communication.

Dave

Fits equally well all the JFK conspiracy theorists I've ever debated online in the past 25 years.

 

[Daniel]

Ahh, thought you could resist returning.

I was busy, tired of repeating myself, and answering Red Herring Fallacies.

Sea sparrow, in short: Line of sight, ground to air. Maximum range is something different. Information is unclassified part, hence incomplete.

"The ESSM ANTI-SHIP MISSILE is powered by a high performance Mk 134 Mod 0 rocket motor dual-propellant propulsion system that develops high thrust. The motor can operate in temperatures ranging between -14°F to 133°F.
The propulsion system provides the missile with a speed of over Mach 4 and A RANGE OF MORE THAN 50km."
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/

And, are SHIPS in the Air?? lol

Experiment repeateable to everyone.

That's NOT an Experiment, for goodness sakes. You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

Sun height differs with altitude.

Profound!! Does length differ with distance?

Triangulation is impossible based on a flat surface.

Not with Plane Trig it's not.

Challenge:

Based on sun heights from at least there different latitudes, calculate the position of the sun.

You may use almanac data. Show your work.

1. For what Purpose?
2. It's a Begging The Question Fallacy on Multiple Levels.

a. Look up "Apparent Sun".
b. 'Latitude and Longitude' is merely a Convention...i.e., they're NOT REAL.

Mmm, no. Strawman.

Yes like Hydrogen is Straw Man to Water.

I have a revelation for you: Rays from the sun are not entirely parallel.

I have a revelation for you...this can be reconciled by a Third Grader.

"Crepuscular rays are Parallel!"
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...2/crepuscular-rays-are-parallel/#.WjgQ8FWnG02

'duh'


regards

 

[MikeG]

In what possible scenario, flat earth or round earth, are the sun's rays parallel?

 

[MRC_Hans]

I was busy, tired of repeating myself, and answering Red Herring Fallacies.

I can understand you get tired of repeating yourself. I would be if I did it as much as you do.

"The ESSM ANTI-SHIP MISSILE is powered by a high performance Mk 134 Mod 0 rocket motor dual-propellant propulsion system that develops high thrust. The motor can operate in temperatures ranging between -14°F to 133°F.
The propulsion system provides the missile with a speed of over Mach 4 and A RANGE OF MORE THAN 50km."
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/

And, are SHIPS in the Air?? lol

No, there are missiles from ships. The missile can't sink a ship. Too small.

The missile is equipped with an insensitive munitions (IM)-compliant, annular blast fragmentation warhead, weighing 40.5kg, and offers high lethality against anti-ship missiles.

It is against missiles. A 40kg fragmentation warhead is useless against any ship larger than a launch. Here is a hint for you: Instead of endlessly repeating yourself, try to actually read your own references, OK? Saves you the embarrassment of having them contradict you.

That's NOT an Experiment, for goodness sakes. You'd "FAIL" 5th Grade General Science.

They didn't have that 2,500 years ago. But you can make it an experiment now, if you will.

Not with Plane Trig it's not.

Cool, then solve the challenge I put to you.

1. For what Purpose?
2. It's a Begging The Question Fallacy on Multiple Levels.

a. Look up "Apparent Sun".
b. 'Latitude and Longitude' is merely a Convention...i.e., they're NOT REAL.

They are not? Then how do ships and planes navigate? (But thanks for that gem. I'll keep it )

I have a revelation for you...this can be reconciled by a Third Grader.

"Crepuscular rays are Parallel!"
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/b...2/crepuscular-rays-are-parallel/#.WjgQ8FWnG02

'duh'

Yeah, a third grader (what is your age?) would think that. But ... maybe a fourth grader will realize that rays from a .5 degree disk are not entirely parallel. Actually one of the photos in your link clearly shows that. (Again, actually do check your links.)

Hans

 

[Daniel]

Your stupid Sea Sparrow point is dead, deceased, gone to meet it's maker, and is totally bereft of life. It's not even pining for the fjords.

Translation: I have no coherent argument/position.

Your only reply was moving the goal posts to get a citation which mentioned the Sea Sparrow

How am I 'moving the goalposts' when my entire point was the Sea Sparrow's capabilities, for goodness sakes?

...as if Line Of Sight means something different for the Sea Sparrow.

Line of Sight is the same with the Sea Sparrow as it is with anything else.

It doesn't. If it did, it's on you to find a definition of Line Of Sight specific to the Sea Sparrow only.

What on Earth are you talking about?

An air target can be 35 miles out and above the horizon. Still a valid target for Sea Sparrow.

Correct.

Surface target would be limited by the horizon and it is not the only kind of valid target.

Factually Incorrect. As spoken about previously (about 10 Times, complete with Examples) ... If there was a Limitation(s) in Range, then it/they would be Identified.
It's NOT Identified anywhere, Ergo...Range is not limited by anything other than it's inherent ballistics.

Your continued clinging to this point long past it's expiration date only serves to expose for all a lack of openness to valid criticism on your part.

My "Clinging" to this point is because you (or anyone else in the past 2 years) have no coherent argument against it.



regards

 

[Daniel]

No, there are missiles from ships.

What on Earth sir?

The missile can't sink a ship. Too small.

So missiles can't sink ships, eh? So they make Anti-Ship Missiles for what purpose...just to piss the enemy off?? lol

They didn't have that 2,500 years ago.

The didn't have "WHAT" 2500 years ago?

But you can make it an experiment now, if you will.

For what?

Cool, then solve the challenge I put to you.

There's nothing to solve...you had no point.

Then how do ships and planes navigate?

For the Us Navy: Primary --- Gyros.

Yeah, a third grader (what is your age?) would think that. But ... maybe a fourth grader will realize that rays from a .5 degree disk are not entirely parallel.

I don't care how big it is. The "Alleged' Distance (93 Million Miles) is the compelling factor in the matter.


ps. I read all my References in depth.


regards

 

[DGM]

Translation: I have no coherent argument/position.

You're catching on.......................

 

[DGM]

Then how do ships and planes navigate? (But thanks for that gem. I'll keep it )

For the Us Navy: Primary --- Gyros.

How would that work on a "flat Earth"?