Revisiting 9/11?

[Scotty CTA]

1 hour ago, kumnio said:

Just read page 1 thinking this is the old TAMB back...

The person behind all the 9/11 stuff on the old TAMB would have been me so your complaint isn't valid.

41 minutes ago, BlueGaz said:

Our eyes have the ability to see further than the horizon, but we can't, because there is a ..... horizon.

Nope.

That's just our perspective because of the limited strength of our vision.

Look at the horizon with your eyes, then look through powerful binoculars, or a good zoom camera, or a telescope.

You will see further.

 

[Scotty CTA]

39 minutes ago, kumnio said:

Scotty, if the earth is flat, how come flights don't just go in straight lines, why are flight paths curvy based on flying around a globe?

The flights are straight.

Why don't they go (upside down) over the South Pole?

(Would it have anything to do with it not existing?)

[Ally Bongo]

4 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Look at the horizon with your eyes, then look through powerful binoculars, or a good zoom camera, or a telescope.

You will see further.

 

Alternatively you can run up a hill and see it with your eyes for a wee bit longer again ...

Wonder why that is

How do the stars in the sky move the way they do ?

[Guest BlueGaz]

10 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

The person behind all the 9/11 stuff on the old TAMB would have been me so your complaint isn't valid.

Nope.

That's just our perspective because of the limited strength of our vision.

Look at the horizon with your eyes, then look through powerful binoculars, or a good zoom camera, or a telescope.

You will see further.

 

With the distances we are discussing, these items do not give you the ability to see further, they give you the ability to see distant items in more detail, "because of the limited strength of our vision".  We can all see the moon, but with aids, we can see the moon in more detail.  Because the moon is in direct line of site.

However, if you stand on the west coast of Ireland, you cannot see America with aids.  Because it is not in line of sight.  

Edited September 11, 2017 by BlueGaz

[Parklife]

5 minutes ago, BlueGaz said:

With the distances we are discussing, these items do not give you the ability to see further, they give you the ability to see distant items in more detail, "because of the limited strength of our vision".  We can all see the moon, but with aids, we can see the moon in more detail.  Because the moon is in direct line of site.

However, if you stand on the west coast of Ireland, you cannot see America with aids.  Because it is not in line of sight.  

Sounds like pseudo-Science to me...  

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Parklife

[Scotty CTA]

1 minute ago, Ally Bongo said:

Alternatively you can run up a hill and see it with your eyes for a wee bit longer again ...

Wonder why that is

You think that you can see further by moving away from the horizon?

1 minute ago, Ally Bongo said:

How do the stars in the sky move the way they do ?

Around a stationary earth.

 

[biffer]

15 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

The person behind all the 9/11 stuff on the old TAMB would have been me so your complaint isn't valid.

Nope.

That's just our perspective because of the limited strength of our vision.

Look at the horizon with your eyes, then look through powerful binoculars, or a good zoom camera, or a telescope.

You will see further.

Nope

You see better because you're increasing the aperture through which you're looking and therefore changing the diffraction limit. I know this to be true because i have done the experiments, in the lab, myself. Just because you can see something you couldn't see before doesn't mean you can see further away. 

[biffer]

How does the sun set on a flat earth. I've seen the sun setting over the ocean in three different locations on the globe. 

Why is the Southern cross always in a southerly direction wherever you are in the southern hemisphere?

 

[Fairbairn]

Threads like this are exactly the reason why the TAMB needs to be saved.  I can't find this level of entertainment on any other medium!!

[Scotty CTA]

6 minutes ago, BlueGaz said:

With the distances we are discussing, these items do not give you the ability to see further, they give you the ability to see distant items in more detail, "because of the limited strength of our vision".  We can all see the moon, but with aids, we can see the moon in more detail.  Because the moon is in direct line of site.

However, if you stand on the west coast of Ireland, you cannot see America with aids.  Because it is not in line of sight.  

Nope.

'Ball' earthers claim that the ships sail over the 'horizon'.

They don't.

Seeing (something) the moon, and seeing (that something) the moon in more detail isn't what we are talking about.

We're talking about the illusion of something that seems to have sailed over the horizon because of our limited perspective.

[Scotty CTA]

3 minutes ago, biffer said:

Nope

You see better because you're increasing the aperture through which you're looking and therefore changing the diffraction limit. I know this to be true because i have done the experiments, in the lab, myself. Just because you can see something you couldn't see before doesn't mean you can see further away. 

The point is that we can see further with the aid of binoculars, zoom lenses, and telescopes than we can with just our eyes.

(Why would you even argue that?)

[Scotty CTA]

4 minutes ago, biffer said:

How does the sun set on a flat earth. I've seen the sun setting over the ocean in three different locations on the globe. 

The sun only seems to set because of our perspective.

4 minutes ago, biffer said:

Why is the Southern cross always in a southerly direction wherever you are in the southern hemisphere?

I'm still learning about the Southern cross (but will try and find out).

[Guest BlueGaz]

7 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

Nope.

'Ball' earthers claim that the ships sail over the 'horizon'.

They don't.

Seeing (something) the moon, and seeing (that something) the moon in more detail isn't what we are talking about.

We're talking about the illusion of something that seems to have sailed over the horizon because of our limited perspective.

No we're not.  You quoted some aids that can help you see further, in context of horizon and your flat earth.  I said we can see further in line of sight, but that doesn't work horizontally because the earth is round.

Staying on earth then, and not taking off into space, VHF waves will only work on line of sight.  However, without repeaters they only worked on line of sight and normally only had a workable range of approx. 30kms.  To get signals further, we had to use HF.  HF used different antenna's which had to shoot the signals at angles up against the ionisphere, bouncing it round the earth to its recipients.  The quality is lost when you do this, but it was necessary because the earth is round.  

It is not possible to send a VHF signal large distances, regardless of the power used to do so.

Edited September 11, 2017 by BlueGaz

[ParisInAKilt]

10 minutes ago, Fairbairn said:

Threads like this are exactly the reason why the TAMB needs to be saved.  I can't find this level of entertainment on any other medium!!

Haha stop enjoying yourself 

[kumnio]

26 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

The flights are straight.

Why don't they go (upside down) over the South Pole?

(Would it have anything to do with it not existing?)

I'm not sure if you're at it anymore. 

Ok, lets say the earth is flat, as with any conspiracy, lie, etc, someone wants to gain from it. Who gains from telling the masses that we live in a globe?

[ParisInAKilt]

While we're at it, 

Man made climate change, anyone else think it could be either complete nonsense or exaggerated? 

[Toepoke]

10 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

The sun only seems to set because of our perspective.

As I mentioned a few pages back, a sun which is only 3000 miles above the flat earth could never set. It would just get lower in the sky and dimmer. Inverse square law suggests that in Flatland if the sun was over Australia it would appear around 10% as bright as when it was above us, which is still pretty bright.

 

Also if we are not in orbit around a star how can the night sky change from month to month?

 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Toepoke

[Orraloon]

 

 

2 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

While we're at it, 

Man made climate change, anyone else think it could be either complete nonsense or exaggerated? 

I have an open mind on this one.

[kumnio]

6 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

I'm still learning about the Southern cross (but will try and find out).

Is this not the problem though, you are learning from fcked up sources. 

Like sad lonely s learning about Islam from lunatic preachers, who then blow themselves up for Allah, maybe the source material needs to be examined a bit more. Just a thought. 

[ParisInAKilt]

1 minute ago, Orraloon said:

 

 

I have an open mind on this one.

Same. 

Read some things about the IPCC changing how they calculate data to make the past cooler and the present warmer. 

And how the guy who worked out the original earths temperature has refused to share how he came to this figure. 

[Parklife]

4 minutes ago, kumnio said:

Is this not the problem though, you are learning from fcked up sources. 

Like sad lonely s learning about Islam from lunatic preachers, who then blow themselves up for Allah, maybe the source material needs to be examined a bit more. Just a thought. 

A source that doesn't back up his preconceived theory/notion will be dismissed. He finds "sources" that back up what he wants to believe, rather than looking at evidence and making up his mind based on it. 

[biffer]

17 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

The point is that we can see further with the aid of binoculars, zoom lenses, and telescopes than we can with just our eyes.

(Why would you even argue that?)

Because it isn't quite that simple. Every optical setup has a limit of the smallest separation between two objects that it can see. It's dependent on the size of the aperture and the wavelength of the light. With a pair of binoculars, because the aperture is bigger, you can distinguish between two objects at a distance at which you can't just with your eyes. I know this to be true because I've actually run experiments to measure and test it.

[kumnio]

2 minutes ago, biffer said:

Because it isn't quite that simple. Every optical setup has a limit of the smallest separation between two objects that it can see. It's dependent on the size of the aperture and the wavelength of the light. With a pair of binoculars, because the aperture is bigger, you can distinguish between two objects at a distance at which you can't just with your eyes. I know this to be true because I've actually run experiments to measure and test it.

Science heretic shiiiiite. 

[kumnio]

4 minutes ago, Parklife said:

A source that doesn't back up his preconceived theory/notion will be dismissed. He finds "sources" that back up what he wants to believe, rather than looking at evidence and making up his mind based on it. 

It's kinda to be pitied a bit. From one obsession to another.  

[biffer]

12 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

While we're at it, 

Man made climate change, anyone else think it could be either complete nonsense or exaggerated? 

Again, I know from having actually done the experiments, in the lab, that carbon dioxide absorbs and emits energies at different wavelengths in a way that other atmospheric gases (oxygen, nitrogen) don't. It's a reasonably straightforward piece of first or second year university maths to then work out that more heat will be retained than expelled over a given period of time with a constant input source. Equally it's straightforward physics to demonstrate that the earth is about 15C warmer than it should be - this is because of the natural greenhouse effect of the CO2 and water vapour in the atmosphere (again, not a hugely complicated thing to work out if you understand the maths). So if we're with the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere it doesn't take a rocket scienst to work out that there's going to be an effect.