[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
He is possibly pretending to think it's infinite and therefore without shape or dimensions, which conveniently means he can't be pinned down as to what his supposed model actually is.
Fine, it's flat and infinite. It's a pane of glass that cuts across the entire universe. Just show me a map of the part of the pane of glass that contains the known continents. That's all I'm asking for.
Fine, it's flat and infinite. It's a pane of glass that cuts across the entire universe. Just show me a map of the part of the pane of glass that contains the known continents. That's all I'm asking for.
Found where the conversation started, feel free to catch up:
Who do we suspect are the ones who know that the earth is flat? I assume there are some very good reasons to protect the little guy from finding this out. Do the higher ups in most countries know this as well?
Someone else's paper can't tell me what you think an accurate map of the world looks like. You clearly are unwilling to discuss the academic paper, so I am trying to move on to a common-sense discussion based on whatever you believe is the most accurate representation of Earth. We all know why you are refusing to provide a link to a map that that you believe accurately repres
The academic paper is the flight times thing or some other thing?
I have reviewed the abstract and intro above, for the flight times thing.
I plan to read on and review, for amusement you understand.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
He is possibly pretending to think it's infinite and therefore without shape or dimensions, which conveniently means he can't be pinned down as to what his supposed model actually is.
Hey 57 you have outstanding questions of your own son.
Like how the heck a spinning ball has a variable angular speed.
And how cyclones are said to be caused. You first need to define an inertial reference frame.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
To state the obvious, the amount of time required here isn't the impediment. billy has put in the time. I'm sure he has searched for maps that purport to solve for the question I am asking. He hasn't found anything that passes the red face test. And he's pretty sure he knows why. That's why he starts singing "la la la la la" with his fingers in his ears each time I ask for
I dont go searching for maps. I have never gone searching for maps.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
As you (57) probably recall, I tried to pin him down on a shape before, and also asked the same questions as Rococo before about other celestial bodies, which just ended up in semantic wrangling about "what is a shape?", "what is a planet?" etc. etc. I think we did establish that Billy is agnostic as to whether the sun is round but does not believe it to be as far away as the b
I said you cannot assume it is an object.
I also said that measurements (should they be believed) disprove thermonuclear. Electric sun is supported by measurements.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I'm trying to understand from reading this whether your issue is with them calling it hypothesis instead of a model or whatever, or you actually object to any of their findings. Can you hold your nose and separate the criticisms of the exact words they use from the actual substantive stuff? I want to know whether their calculations rule out 0 curvature as they claim, and if not
I have only read the intro so we will find out. It is pointless however, because they are "testing" a strawman, a model that nobody, to my knowledge, has claimed. Or else I would like to know what that is. Looking forward to it being referenced in the report...
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Who do we suspect are the ones who know that the earth is flat? I assume there are some very good reasons to protect the little guy from finding this out. Do the higher ups in most countries know this as well?
I no longer believe there is knowledge of this nor a conspiracy. There is no reason to believe that, imo.
The Beatles on the other hand...
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It is. Lat and long are parameters of a spherical coordinate system. You seem to want to beg the question of a polar system. Surely a cartesian system would be more appropriate. An interesting exercise in transforming the coordinates perhaps.
But to the rub of the matter. Lat and long are ultimately derived from the celestial sphere.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Do you ever intend to provide a link to a map of the Earth as you understand it? If your next response to this question is anything other than a link a to a map, a coherent explanation of why no such map can exist, or an explanation of what you believe the shape of the Earth is, then I will have my answer about whether you truly believe what you are saying, and I will exit the thread and quit bothering you.
I have only read the intro so we will find out. It is pointless however, because they are "testing" a strawman, a model that nobody, to my knowledge, has claimed. Or else I would like to know what that is. Looking forward to it being referenced in the report...
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
They say explicitly what they are testing when it comes to the flat-Earth model, to wit: "the polar azimuthal equidistant projection of the orthodox globe, centered on the North Pole." It is something many proponents of a flat Earth have claimed as their model of the Earth (notably The Flat Earth Society use(d) it among plenty of others).
If you have a different model of a flat Earth you could provide then I'm sure we could look at how that fits the known flight times between locations instead. Currently you seem reluctant to provide any model at all, which just makes it seem like you're scared of providing something that would be falsifiable without somewhat complicated physics (e.g. the variable refraction issues with the horizon stuff).
They say explicitly what they are testing when it comes to the flat-Earth model, to wit: "the polar azimuthal equidistant projection of the orthodox globe, centered on the North Pole." It is something many proponents of a flat Earth have claimed as their model of the Earth (notably The Flat Earth Society use(d) it among plenty of others).If you have a different model of a flat
Bolded is beyond obvious at this point.
They say explicitly what they are testing when it comes to the flat-Earth model, to wit: "the polar azimuthal equidistant projection of the orthodox globe, centered on the North Pole." It is something many proponents of a flat Earth have claimed as their model of the Earth (notably The Flat Earth Society use(d) it among plenty of others).If you have a different model of a flat
It should be quite obvious I do not have such a thing. I never claimed nor promised anything of the sort. I said horizon measurements refute the 3959 mile radius globe. I have also said the lack of observable Coriolis effect refutes the proposal of a spinning Earth.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Do you ever intend to provide a link to a map of the Earth as you understand it? If your next response to this question is anything other than a link a to a map, a coherent explanation of why no such map can exist, or an explanation of what you believe the shape of the Earth is, then I will have my answer about whether you truly believe what you are saying, and I will exit the
I am not familiar with how cartography is done. Perhaps that would be a next step to find out.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok. I have my answer. Have fun guys. I'm out.
Interesting wiki page.
Says that the original azimuthal equidistant projections were of the celestial sphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So are you saying that if I had, say, a pair of binoculars, the horizon would be further away than just looking with the naked eye? So I would count more railroad ties with a pair of binoculars?I think this is a pretty important point to focus on. You are saying that the magnification available to the observer can cause objects to come into view that are otherwise "beyond the h
Billy, can we lose not sight of this. Let's say we had railroad ties every 0.5 miles, big ones we can see with the naked eye. I think you'd be able to see 6 of them, maybe 7 with refraction. You agree on this part, but you're saying you'd be able to see more with binoculars, right?
Ok, so if you agree that St. Paul's should be visible from 210 feet at 41 miles, why did you suggest that I go look at it from a hill 3 miles away? Were you trolling?
Is there anywhere I can go in London to verify this effect for myself? You said there was, and you're from the UK, so I assume you know London reasonably well.
Yeah this one has been over for a long while. I'm amused at watching d2 toy with him, but that's about it.
I'll admit, it took me way longer and more scribbles than it should have to work out that formula, and I started off going down a completely dead end of trying to work out the slope of the line/tangent and then solving the equation for where it intersects the circle, which was a total mess because the slope itself was expressed as a bunch of sines and cosines. After messing about with it for about 20 minutes I took a step back and thought "no way it should be this complicated, there must be an easier way", and that's when it finally occurred to me just to drop down an altitude. Rusty.
That's my problem. All that stuff is much rustier for me, believe me. I'll let you play in the weeds on this one for sure. It's beyond obvious he's just going to handwave away anything concrete but it's probably mildly fun from your seat.
