[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
An abstract is expressly for the purpose of seeing if it is worth reading the paper. It saves academics countless hours.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ah ok, so you're refusing to read the paper because you don't like the way the abstract is worded. Not because you dishonestly refuse to look at any evidence that refutes your theory. It's not that at all. It's just that all the pictures of a round Earth are composite (except the thousands I showed you that aren't), the astronauts' accounts are not reproducible (except that every single person that has been to space has reproduced them) and the scientific paper is not worth reading because of some imaginary issue with the abstract. You sure come across like a very intellectually honest guy and definitely worth engaging seriously, Billy.
And there's the hand wave right on cue.
There are of course countless examples. It takes time to do this.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Per my post above, seems that you're the master of hand waving around here, Billy. You missed your calling as an orchestra conductor.
Ah ok, so you're refusing to read the paper because you don't like the way the abstract is worded. Not because you dishonestly refuse to look at any evidence that refutes your theory. It's not that at all. It's just that all the pictures are composite (except the thousands I showed you that aren't), the astronauts' accounts are not reproducible (except that every single person
The reason you are forgiven is because you don't know what science is and you are unwilling to learn.
But a team of researchers claiming to be scientific, sorry "not scientific" they say, but claiming an experiment (beyond funny) do not get a free pass.
I will ofc read the drivel. But not before berating these idiots, and anybody citing them, to an appropriate degree.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The reason you are forgiven is because you don't know what science is and you are unwilling to learn.But a team of researchers claiming to be scientific, sorry "not scientific" they say, but claiming an experiment (beyond funny) do not get a free pass.I will ofc read the drivel. But not before berating these idiots, and anybody citing them, to an appropriate degree.Sent from my
I look forward to your refutation of their drivel. From the brief look I had it seems that there is not much maths required beyond some basic understanding of trigonometry, so I should be able to follow along.
billy,
Before you read the article, just explain why you believe flight times are consistent with a flat Earth. And make it as simple as you can because I'm not a scientific genius like you. When you give your explanation, I think it would be helpful if you linked to whatever map you believe best represents the flat Earth. And to prove that I am willing to do what I am asking you to do, attached is an interactive link to a map that I believe to be accurate.
The flat-Earth model also of course fails to explain why cyclones and anticyclones each turn in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres, which is caused by the Earth's rotational speed gradient from pole to equator and the commensurate drag effect this has on the atmosphere as the Earth pulls it around.
Yeah "the flat earth model" (whatever that is) fails to explain hemisphere related phenomena. In other news, cats fail to explain polymerisation.
"The earth's rotational speed gradient"?
What kind of spinning ball do you have here?
Let's start simple. Explain what you think an inertial reference frame is.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
billy,Before you read the article, just explain why you believe flight times are consistent with a flat Earth. And make it as simple as you can because I'm not a scientific genius like you. When you give your explanation, I think it would be helpful if you linked to whatever map you believe best represents the flat Earth. And to prove that I am willing to do what I am asking
Knowing that a hypothesis test is an experiment, and that means doing physics, does not require scientific training. It requires completing school to about age 12.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
And there's the hand wave right on cue.
There are of course countless examples. It takes time to do this.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Why does it take time if there are countless examples? Surely if the earth is flat and there is no 3 mile horizon, there should be gajillions of these pictures. You should be able to step outside your front door and take one right now. It didn't take me too much time to find pictures of a round earth taken from space, I found thousands of them, showing all the different oceans and land masses just like they look on a globe. Why is this elementary proof of a flat earth so rare and time consuming to locate? You don't even need pictures from space, literally anyone can provide this proof with a picture taken with their mobile phone.
Perhaps it takes time because it requires some very specific atmospheric conditions that don't occur in very many places or very often?
Please provide a link to your map of the world.
10 seconds of googling explains this:More detail here:
Surely according to your theory we should be able to replicate (reproduce?) this phenomenon any time for any city skyline on Earth, thereby lending credence to your theory and refuting the idea that in this one particular location at a specific time there
Nobody show this to Billy
Has billy ever explained why relative flight times among major world destinations are what they are if the world is not spherical? Is it just a big aviation conspiracy?
I've heard that conspiracy theory from Flat Earther's themselves. All international pilots are part of the conspiracy apparently.
Showing how many miles it is from New York to London on a flat-earth map should be an easy task for a flat-earther with an 'accurate' map.
Is Bill O'Reilly a geocentrist or flat-earther? For years he had a TV program called The No-Spin Zone.
Why does it take time if there are countless examples? Surely if the earth is flat and there is no 3 mile horizon, there should be gajillions of these pictures. You should be able to step outside your front door and take one right now. It didn't take me too much time to find pictures of a round earth taken from space, I found thousands of them, showing all the different oceans
Just to add to this - nobody here doubts that mirages exist, or doubts that you can find some more carefully curated pictures of them. When you said that there was evidence that horizon dip didn't match calculations, I thought you meant this was a regular occurrence everywhere. I thought I could go stand on the nearest hill and confirm this for myself by seeing some far away tall landmarks on a clear day (that I shouldn't be able to see, per our dip calculations). Or that I could go find the nearest straight canal and put a large target 6 miles away at my own head height and see that.
Follow up questions:
1. Are you saying the above not the case?
2. If not, why not?
2. a). What causes this effect that we call a "horizon", whereby distant objects appear to be obscured from view, on a flat earth?
2. b). Why are these distant objects only sometimes visible, in select locations and at select times?
2. c). Are these distant objects ever visible in scenarios where there isn't an intervening large body of water or cold land/ice between the observer and the object?
Why does it take time if there are countless examples? Surely if the earth is flat and there is no 3 mile horizon, there should be gajillions of these pictures. You should be able to step outside your front door and take one right now. It didn't take me too much time to find pictures of a round earth taken from space, I found thousands of them, showing all the different oceans
It takes time to post together with calcs, using my phone, while travelling between work, home etc.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Perhaps it is not a legitimate journal. It cannot be, in fact, publishing this trash. It would never pass peer review.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Setting aside the wording of the abstract, what would be your feedback if you were asked to peer review this paper? Have you found any flaws with their methodology, their calculations, or their conclusion?
If down the road we were to discover that the Earth is flat, do you think we could uncover that within the next 30 years, or are we locked into the globe belief, at least for our lifetime?
Just to add to this - nobody here doubts that mirages exist, or doubts that you can find some more carefully curated pictures of them. When you said that there was evidence that horizon dip didn't match calculations, I thought you meant this was a regular occurrence everywhere. I thought I could go stand on the nearest hill and confirm this for myself by seeing some far away ta
You can do this. I have given you the fishing rod. How many do you need? If I post 1000 of these you can still claim special conditions.
1. Absolutely the case.
2. There is one other factor, obstruction. Occasionally the angular size of a small object can obscure a bigger more distant object.
2. A) the horizon is the vanishing line of perspective.
2. B) loaded question. See 2.
2. C) a large body of water is a relatively flat surface without too much obstruction. Necessary or else we cannot view objects with small angular size. And we cannot view the horizon. This is why both ball-tarders and flatties use large flat spaces.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You can do this. I have given you the fishing rod. How many do you need? If I post 1000 of these you can still claim special conditions.1. Absolutely the case.2. There is one other factor, obstruction. Occasionally the angular size of a small object can obscure a bigger more distant object.2. A) the horizon is the vanishing line of perspective.2. B) loaded question. See 2.2. C)
Follow ups -
1. Ok, so there should be plenty of easy ways for me to verify this for myself. I live in London, is there a particular spot where I can go and see, say, St Paul's, where I otherwise shouldn't be able to see it (or whatever landmark is easiest)?
If obstruction is the only problem there should still be plenty of ways to verify this where the target object is unobstructed. We can just go further and further from a very tall building, choosing our direction such that there are no obstructions, and note when it leaves our view, can't we?
2. I'm not too hot on perspective (I did mention I don't know much about optics), but my understanding of perspective was it was the point at which parallel lines seem to meet. Wouldn't this depend on how far apart they are to start with? If I stood on a set of railroad tracks and had a way to, say count the number of crossties between where I am standing and where the tracks appear to meet, would I count the same number of crossties as if the tracks were 10x further apart to start with, all else being equal?
3. Can you provide a calculation for how to calculate the distance to the horizon in the flat Earth model?
