Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
maco144 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 5:51 am wrote:DrEvil » Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:06 pm wrote:maco144 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:17 pm wrote:I dont expect any of you to be able to recognize CGI passed as real. The ISS doesn't exist and is a hoax to perpetrate the globe. There are plenty of videos with the space actors caught in front of green screens and video artifacts that clearly show layering.
You still haven't explained why. Why are they fooling us into thinking we live on a sphere. What's in it for them, and who are they? What's the point?
This question eventually comes up and my interpretation of the questioner is they show a real lack of critical thinking and imagination coupled with severe cognitive dissonance. Before you read my thoughts on it you should really be attempting to answer it yourself.
If the Earth is flat and the universe geocentric immediately all mainstream science, religions and governments become untrustworthy and if the people are intelligent, disbanded. Each human immediately realizes that the big bang, cosmology, and evolution are all fraudulent while astrology has merit. We are no longer here by impossible chance but by design. Efforts to explore beyond Antarctica becomes a worldwide mission as is reclaiming the knowledge of our true history. How is that for just a start if you and others took the time to figure this out?
Atmospheric refraction is the deviation of light or other electromagnetic wave from a straight line as it passes through the atmosphere due to the variation in air density as a function of height.[1] This refraction is due to the velocity of light through air decreasing (the index of refraction increases) with increased density. Atmospheric refraction near the ground produces mirages and can make distant objects appear to shimmer or ripple, elevated or lowered, stretched or shortened with no mirage involved. The term also applies to the refraction of sound. Atmospheric refraction is considered in measuring the position of both astronomical and terrestrial objects.
Astronomical or celestial refraction causes astronomical objects to appear higher in the sky than they are in reality. Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they really are, although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they really are.
Refraction not only affects lightrays but all electromagnetic radiation, although in varying degrees (see dispersion in optics). For example, in visible light, blue is more affected than red. This may cause astronomical objects to be spread out into a spectrum in high-resolution images.
Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the time of culmination of an object when it is highest in the sky. Likewise sailors will never shoot a star which is not at least 20° or more above the horizon. If observations close to the horizon cannot be avoided, it is possible to equip a telescope with control systems to compensate for the shift caused by the refraction. If the dispersion is a problem too, (in case of broadband high-resolution observations) atmospheric refraction correctors can be employed as well (made from pairs of rotating glass prisms). But as the amount of atmospheric refraction is a function of the temperature gradient, the temperature, pressure, and humidity (the amount of water vapour is especially important at mid-infrared wavelengths) the amount of effort needed for a successful compensation can be prohibitive. Surveyors, on the other hand, will often schedule their observations in the afternoon when the magnitude of refraction is minimum.
Atmospheric refraction becomes more severe when there are strong temperature gradients, and refraction is not uniform when the atmosphere is inhomogeneous, as when there is turbulence in the air. This is the cause of twinkling of the stars and various deformations of the shape of the sun at sunset and sunrise.
In Defense of Flat Earthers
Rapper B.o.B’s theory may be ridiculous, but he’s motivated by the same questing spirit that gave us science.
When I first heard that rapper B.o.B apparently believes the Earth is flat, I sighed the weary sigh of a science writer facing down an anti-science culture. Evolution, climate change, vaccines, and now #FlatEarth? “Are you kidding me?” I thought. Will Americans insist on rejecting everything that 100 percent of scientists agree on? Aside from B.o.B’s delightful diss track aimed at Neil deGrasse Tyson (and Tyson’s equally delightful response), this latest dustup just felt like more of the same. But then I clicked through and read B.o.B’s original arguments, and they stirred my very soul.
No, he did not convince me that the Earth is flat, you dopes. You and I both know it’s round. NASA knows it’s round. It’s round. Ok? The Earth is round. But let’s take at look some samples from B.o.B’s #FlatEarth tweetstorm.B.o.B ✔ @bobatl
The cities in the background are approx. 16miles apart... where is the curve ? please explain this
7:05 PM - 24 Jan 2016No matter how high in elevation you are... the horizon is always eye level ... sorry cadets... I didn't wanna believe it either.
— B.o.B (@bobatl) January 25, 2016
y'all be like... "you're not high enough to see the curve...keep going" pic.twitter.com/dzgYpIIao3
— B.o.B (@bobatl) January 25, 2016
pic.twitter.com/mWW3Z3re2E
— B.o.B (@bobatl) January 25, 2016
You can regurgitate force fed information all day... still doesn't change physics.
— B.o.B (@bobatl) January 25, 2016
Take a look especially at the tweet that started it all: “The cities in the background are approx. 16 miles apart … where is the curve? please explain this.” There’s something touchingly genuine about this to me, some deep seated desire to work through confusion and toward truth. This isn’t a man who never learned science, or who has some fundamentalist objection to examining empirical evidence about the world. This is a man who has looked at the world around him and decided that mainstream science isn’t doing a good job at explaining what he sees. So he’s collecting evidence, seeking out literature by well-versed “experts,” and working out a better theory on his own.
This is the hallmark of people I’ve come to think of as outsider physicists. You might know them by other names: loons, kooks, crackpots. Most scientists and science writers consider them a nuisance, as they often clog up our inboxes and even (shudder) voicemails with their wacky theories, desperate for validation. I occasionally get those emails, and I almost always ignore them. But years ago, the physicist-turned-science-writer Margaret Wertheim decided to pay attention to the fringe theories that came her way. “The Big Bang theory accepted by a majority of scientists constitutes the greatest blunder and misinterpretation in the history of cosmology.” The universe is a “12 lobed Raspberry in a dodecahedral configuration.” And oh so many more. Some had an internal logic she could follow. Others made no sense at all. But as she wrote in her 2011 book Physics on the Fringe, their architects all shared a sense that physics had veered woefully off-track somewhere around the time it started relying on differential equations to describe invisible phenomenon, from magnetic fields to Higgs bosons.
In the last 150 years or so, physics has taken a turn away from the intuitive and toward the abstract. It’s not rolling balls and falling apples anymore; it’s quantum states and curved spacetime. (And let’s not even get into string theory, which might as well be an outsider theory itself for all the experimental evidence it has backing it up—i.e., none so far.) That turn has left some people—perhaps B.o.B included—extremely unsettled. Physics is supposed to be about understanding the world I live in, they think. But I don’t see any time dilation/entangled quarks/curvature of the Earth when I look around me. Why should I trust this math I can’t understand over what I see with my own eyes?
Most of us are content to passively swallow the harsh truth that the fundamental laws of the universe are too complicated to grasp without a graduate education in math. We trust that somewhere along the way, scientists smarter than we are actually did the calculations and got the right answers. The evidence is right there in our GPS satellites, our smart phones, our space station. I don’t need to check their work, we think. Not outsider physicists. They insist on figuring everything out for themselves, in ways they can understand. They are driven by the sense that their “own experience must be the starting point for [their] understanding of the world,” Wertheim wrote in her remarkably generous and empathetic book. So they come up with their own ideas, sometimes even designing and performing experiments to back them up.
Most of the current crop of outsider physicists are out to prove Einstein and/or quantum mechanics wrong; arguing that the Earth is flat is a fringe position in a fringe movement. But B.o.B’s Twitter crusade illuminates the best qualities of outsider physics: its skepticism, its curiosity, and its fierce desire to make sense of a confusing world in a rigorous way. These same values lie at the heart of mainstream science, too. They are what make science special. They are what make science science.
But theoretical physics isn’t just science. It’s also a creative pursuit, one that exists in parallel to and sometimes even ahead of experimental evidence. (Remember those string theorists?) One of Wertheim’s central arguments is that theoretical physics helps us feel at home in the universe in the same way that music, literature, and art do. Many professional physicists would agree, with their odes to the beauty of their formulas and the poetry of the deep symmetries they reveal. If you buy into that premise—and I do—there’s a corollary waiting for you: Anyone can make art. It won’t all be good, but for most people looking for a creative outlet, being good isn’t really the point.
That, to me, is what makes #FlatEarth fundamentally different from climate change denial, creationism, or the anti-vaxx movement. It’s not really about exposing a supposed scientific “fraud,” it doesn’t have a political or religious agenda, and it’s not out to stop professional scientists from doing their important work and applying what they learn to improve the world. It’s just a bunch of amateur theorists trying their best to feel at home in the universe, in a way many scientists might well recognize if they let themselves. Theoretical physics isn’t brain surgery; unless you are in charge of Soyuz reentry paths or something, no one is going to die if you do it wrong. At worst, you’ll irritate some mainstream scientists or become briefly infamous on social media. At best, you’ll blaze your own trail through the universe’s mysteries and end up somewhere wondrous—even if you’re the only one who knows it. So let a million theories flourish, including #FlatEarth. When they come from a place of such genuine curiosity and creativity, who cares if they’re wrong?
maco144 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 7:56 pm wrote:
This one comes hard and fast and if youre a NASA/Globe believer and it doesnt bring up questions I dont think anything will.
maco144 » Wed Sep 07, 2016 10:53 pm wrote:MacCruiskeen » Wed Sep 07, 2016 3:22 pm wrote:DrEvil wrote:You still haven't explained why. Why are they fooling us into thinking we live on a sphere. What's in it for them, and who are they? What's the point?
^^Quite.
And you haven't answered these questions either, maco:MacCruiskeen » Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:24 am wrote:maco144 » Tue Sep 06, 2016 5:22 pm wrote:
Flat earth clearly implies geocentric universe therefor Earth is different than what's in the heavens.
Right, thanks. The fog is clearing. So, in your cosmological model, the earth is a Unique Giant Quiche surrounded by lots of little spinning gobstoppers (NB: not other quiches).
[...]
So, next questions:
1. What happens when an airplane attempts to fly over the edge of the quiche?
2. What's to stop the pilot taking photos of the underside?
It's because they're dumb questions.
maco144 wrote:There is no edge and we don't know what lies beyond Antarctica. How does one get to the underside of a plane that we dont know where it ends? It is only in the ridiculous globe model that one can fly to the underside of something and still be upright.
maco143 wrote:There is no edge.
82_28 » Thu Sep 08, 2016 3:31 pm wrote:He/she's gone full circle.
Samuel Beckett wrote:And having heard, or more probably read somewhere, in the days when I thought I would be well advised to educate myself, or amuse myself, or stupefy myself, or kill time, that when a man in a forest thinks he is going forward in a straight line, in reality he is going in a circle, I did my best to go in a circle, hoping in this way to go in a straight line. For I stopped being halfwitted and became sly, whenever I took the trouble. And my head was a storehouse of useful knowledge. And if I did not go in a rigorously straight line, with my system of going in a circle, at least I did not go in a circle, and that was something.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests