Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 29. (Read 907211 times)
Some people here really couldn't handle being alone by themselves for Christmas
Hyena, and all you other hollow Earthers out there, this is for you.
It is the Holiday season, I'll bite.
I will try to explain to you why the concave Earth 'theory' is not scientific....
It is the Holiday season, I'll bite.
I will try to explain to you why the concave Earth 'theory' is not scientific....
What you just did is what every egomaniac would do. You want me to play your game by your rules so you could defeat me with your tricks. Not going to happen. You are a pawn of the corrupt system. You have your beliefs and if even the slightest part of these theories were to become widely accepted the whole domino chain of scientific studies would start collapsing. This would be too much for you personally and for all the other pawns of the corrupt system. So naturally, you try to defend it while believing that you represent the good guys.
It is you who is arrogant, can't you see it? You fight and ridicule any opposition, you are so insecure inside. There's nothing wrong with the concave earth theory, but it is you who has limited thinking. Your imagination works only in the direction of fortifying your current beliefs and demolishing any threats. Now I agree that your imagination is good and you are talented in what you do but you have one little flaw --- you are unable to use all that talent to seek for the possibilities of how the concave earth model would work out. You see how it wouldn't work out because that is what you want to see.
To you and every other shit scientist out there, here's what I propose: conduct the fucking rectilineator experiment independently and in different locations on Earth. This has only been done once in the history of man kind and it proved Earth to be concave. Here's your chance to get famous by being the second person in the history to conduct this experiment. I am happy to accept any outcome of that experiment because I am not trying to defend my ego or reputation in the scientific community but instead I am just seeking the truth.
^^
Ah, you're no fun at all...
Ah, you're no fun at all...
^^
It's because of a phenomenon called Apparent Magnitude (ie: the brightness that a celestial body presents when observed from Earth). There's a set of calculations that determine how "bright" a planet seems, you might want to take a look there.
It's because of a phenomenon called Apparent Magnitude (ie: the brightness that a celestial body presents when observed from Earth). There's a set of calculations that determine how "bright" a planet seems, you might want to take a look there.
I subsequently checked that the 1.2 m ball "Sun" has a temp of 6000°C so above the boiling point of metals. It heats the marble to 460°C by radiation. So this causes it to glow brightly. It seems that despite my initial suspicion, the thing might work after all. The temperature was a key point in opening my eyes.
(The molten metal 3 weeks after 9/11 has not opened the eyes of all to see that issue though, but I see the things both ways when they are pointed out)
I see a hot ball of metal or something
The most mind-blowing "co-incidence" in the sky, is the moon itself.
It is too massive to be caught in the earth's orbit while also being so far away. Yet it is located at exactly the same distance required so that its diameter (as seen from earth) will be the exact same diameter as the sun's, creating phenomena like the full eclipses. As far as I know, this is unheard of in the entire known universe.
The chance of the moon being ~400 times closer than the sun, but also being ~400 times smaller, to produce the full eclipse phenomenon, is ridiculously low (and if you factor the size of the moon and distance of its orbit, it becomes ...impossible).
NASA has this to say:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html
"The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. "
"wonderful coincidence"
"just happens"....
Yeah I mean, it just happened man. Just a coincidence. Sure thing.
It is too massive to be caught in the earth's orbit while also being so far away. Yet it is located at exactly the same distance required so that its diameter (as seen from earth) will be the exact same diameter as the sun's, creating phenomena like the full eclipses. As far as I know, this is unheard of in the entire known universe.
The chance of the moon being ~400 times closer than the sun, but also being ~400 times smaller, to produce the full eclipse phenomenon, is ridiculously low (and if you factor the size of the moon and distance of its orbit, it becomes ...impossible).
NASA has this to say:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html
"The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. "
"wonderful coincidence"
"just happens"....
Yeah I mean, it just happened man. Just a coincidence. Sure thing.
et tu...
Is there a point to distiguishing between different brands of lunatics?
What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.
What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.
What are you hoping to get? A "peer reviewed" and published mainstream science article?
Yes, please.
If you're too lazy to think for yourself then I cannot help you. Perhaps Admiral Byrd is reputable enough for you to take these theories seriously, if you insist on some authority telling you what's what.
Admiral Richard E Byrd - Hollow Earth Video Interview
As for different brands of lunatics, if you're the guy who would like to call the author of that hollow earth blog a lunatic, then I have no respect for you. The guy is igniting thought and explaining how it is plausible for the planets to form as hollow. You call open-mindedness lunacy? If you're not joking, you have serious problems with your expectation bias which forces you to think inside a really cramped box.
In situations like this I always like to provide a link to the following video:
NASA PROVES HOLLOW EARTH THEORY... PROOF EVIDENCE EARTH IS HOLLOW
Although the title of the video is a bit of an exaggeration, if this doesn't open your mind for the possibility of hollow planets, nothing will.
Admiral Richard E Byrd - Hollow Earth Video Interview
As for different brands of lunatics, if you're the guy who would like to call the author of that hollow earth blog a lunatic, then I have no respect for you. The guy is igniting thought and explaining how it is plausible for the planets to form as hollow. You call open-mindedness lunacy? If you're not joking, you have serious problems with your expectation bias which forces you to think inside a really cramped box.
In situations like this I always like to provide a link to the following video:
NASA PROVES HOLLOW EARTH THEORY... PROOF EVIDENCE EARTH IS HOLLOW
Although the title of the video is a bit of an exaggeration, if this doesn't open your mind for the possibility of hollow planets, nothing will.
There's a difference between independent thought and complete and utter detachment from reality.
As is perfectly exemplified here:
I don't believe in a magma filled ball Earth theory either. It simply has too many holes in it. When was the last time Copernicus'es model was proven with a physics experiment?
Every day I do research, in fact. I am an astrophysicist, and in my area of research we regularly have to exactly model the positions of all solar system bodies.Let me tell you something about science: we do not all conspire together. In fact, science is a free for all. We are all (underpaid) competitors, dying to make a name for ourselves. If someone can show that the entire scientific consensus is wrong, such a person would gain eternal fame. The thing is, you have to do it convincingly. Most people who think they have overthrown the entire scientific consensus, and who are subsequently being ignored, usually just have not shown what they are conjecturing (and usually they are, indeed, wrong). If you think we would all conspire together, you are completely misunderstanding how this world works.
You see what's happening to Europe due to sandnigger wererefugees swarming the whole place due to the activities of ISIS. They're destroying the Europe.
The most mind-blowing "co-incidence" in the sky, is the moon itself.
It is too massive to be caught in the earth's orbit while also being so far away. Yet it is located at exactly the same distance required so that its diameter (as seen from earth) will be the exact same diameter as the sun's, creating phenomena like the full eclipses. As far as I know, this is unheard of in the entire known universe.
The chance of the moon being ~400 times closer than the sun, but also being ~400 times smaller, to produce the full eclipse phenomenon, is ridiculously low (and if you factor the size of the moon and distance of its orbit, it becomes ...impossible).
NASA has this to say:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html
"The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. "
"wonderful coincidence"
"just happens"....
Yeah I mean, it just happened man. Just a coincidence. Sure thing.
It is too massive to be caught in the earth's orbit while also being so far away. Yet it is located at exactly the same distance required so that its diameter (as seen from earth) will be the exact same diameter as the sun's, creating phenomena like the full eclipses. As far as I know, this is unheard of in the entire known universe.
The chance of the moon being ~400 times closer than the sun, but also being ~400 times smaller, to produce the full eclipse phenomenon, is ridiculously low (and if you factor the size of the moon and distance of its orbit, it becomes ...impossible).
NASA has this to say:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-earth/moon-general.html
"The Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size. And when its orbit around Earth takes the Moon directly between Earth and the Sun, the Moon blocks our view of the Sun in what we call a solar eclipse. "
"wonderful coincidence"
"just happens"....
Yeah I mean, it just happened man. Just a coincidence. Sure thing.
Thank you Hyena for being the public face of bitcoin.
Is there a point to distiguishing between different brands of lunatics?
What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.
What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.
What are you hoping to get? A "peer reviewed" and published mainstream science article?
If you're too lazy to think for yourself then I cannot help you. Perhaps Admiral Byrd is reputable enough for you to take these theories seriously, if you insist on some authority telling you what's what.
Admiral Richard E Byrd - Hollow Earth Video Interview
As for different brands of lunatics, if you're the guy who would like to call the author of that hollow earth blog a lunatic, then I have no respect for you. The guy is igniting thought and explaining how it is plausible for the planets to form as hollow. You call open-mindedness lunacy? If you're not joking, you have serious problems with your expectation bias which forces you to think inside a really cramped box.
In situations like this I always like to provide a link to the following video:
NASA PROVES HOLLOW EARTH THEORY... PROOF EVIDENCE EARTH IS HOLLOW
Although the title of the video is a bit of an exaggeration, if this doesn't open your mind for the possibility of hollow planets, nothing will.
^^
It's because of a phenomenon called Apparent Magnitude (ie: the brightness that a celestial body presents when observed from Earth). There's a set of calculations that determine how "bright" a planet seems, you might want to take a look there.
It's because of a phenomenon called Apparent Magnitude (ie: the brightness that a celestial body presents when observed from Earth). There's a set of calculations that determine how "bright" a planet seems, you might want to take a look there.
I subsequently checked that the 1.2 m ball "Sun" has a temp of 6000°C so above the boiling point of metals. It heats the marble to 460°C by radiation. So this causes it to glow brightly. It seems that despite my initial suspicion, the thing might work after all. The temperature was a key point in opening my eyes.
(The molten metal 3 weeks after 9/11 has not opened the eyes of all to see that issue though, but I see the things both ways when they are pointed out)
@BMB You're right. This well is too deep.
Edit:
@Hyena I've been in a plane. The sun was above me all the time.
Is there a point to distiguishing between different brands of lunatics?
What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.
Edit:
@Hyena I've been in a plane. The sun was above me all the time.
I would recommend you browse this blog for more answers regarding the hollow earth theory:
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.nl/
It is written by a scientifically minded person rather than by some religious lunatic.
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.nl/
It is written by a scientifically minded person rather than by some religious lunatic.
Is there a point to distiguishing between different brands of lunatics?
What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference
It's an old method and quite accurate.
It's an old method and quite accurate.
The reason I ask about the Northern and Southern lights is because in conventional physics it is believed that these phenomena are the result of the interplay between the Earths EM field and massive particles slung out from the sun. It is quite well understood and basically means that you can use solar "weather forecasts" (since light moves faster than particles with mass) to tell you if/when there will be northern/southern lights appearing. But in order for this to be true, something needs to create the EM field. A spinning liquid metal core; which doesn't fit well with your hollow earth assumption.
the hollow earth theory has actually an answer for this. Inside the hollow earth there is a hot iron core which provides heat and light for the inner Earth and which also provides the protective magnetic field for the outer Earth.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/26/mind-blowing-research-suggests-that-earth-could-actually-be-hollow/
This central sun is not a conventional sun (there are no thermonuclear reactions taking place) but instead it is a hot ball of iron.
I would recommend you browse this blog for more answers regarding the hollow earth theory:
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.nl/
It is written by a scientifically minded person rather than by some religious lunatic.
Probably has something to do with the fact that when it is furthest it also is reflecting light most directly towards the Earth (being further means it is on the other side of the Sun).
EDIT: Galileo even documented the phases of Venus, IIRC.
EDIT: Galileo even documented the phases of Venus, IIRC.
^^
It's because of a phenomenon called Apparent Magnitude (ie: the brightness that a celestial body presents when observed from Earth). There's a set of calculations that determine how "bright" a planet seems, you might want to take a look there.
It's because of a phenomenon called Apparent Magnitude (ie: the brightness that a celestial body presents when observed from Earth). There's a set of calculations that determine how "bright" a planet seems, you might want to take a look there.
I did not catch sleep so I decided to think about Venus. As we know since we have been told and Wikipedia affirms, Venus is a spherical rock 12,000 km in diameter (about the size of the Earth) and it is between 38 and 261 million kilometers from the Earth.
It is easily visible by naked eye even in cities as its visual magnitude varies from -3.7 to -4.5, making it the 3rd most luminous object in the sky after Sun and Moon.
Now, the question is how can this be? Venus does not emit light of its own. Its relative size can be compared to having a marble of d=1cm in the distance of 32-216 m in the night. Venus' reflective index is 70% which is good, but it is still spherical, meaning that there are no reflective surfaces turned towards the observer (on Earth) and it anyway twists and turns, yet its visual magnitude stays roughly constant (which is also interesting given that the observed radiation from any other source decreases to 1:45 when it is taken 6.75 times further from the observer, yet Venus' brightness only changes about 1:2 in absolute terms).
The Sun in this example is actually no more than 90 m away (from Venus) so it can easily be introduced. It is 1.2 meter in diameter and for the sake of argument, you can select whatever luminosity and shield the "Sun" so that it cannot be seen from "Earth".
The next step is to give "Venus" the 70% reflection but you can do even better and give it 100% by wrapping it in tinfoil. Now you have the Earth, Venus and Sun in let's say triangular arrangement with Sun shining any desired amount of light towards Venus from 90 m distance and you watching it by naked eye from 200 m distance.
As you can see for yourself, no amount of "sunlight" is able to make the tinfoiled round marble Venus even visible from such a distance let alone so bright that it is surpassed only by Sun and Moon in brightness.
Surely there is an astronomer among you with an explanation to my riddle.
It is easily visible by naked eye even in cities as its visual magnitude varies from -3.7 to -4.5, making it the 3rd most luminous object in the sky after Sun and Moon.
Now, the question is how can this be? Venus does not emit light of its own. Its relative size can be compared to having a marble of d=1cm in the distance of 32-216 m in the night. Venus' reflective index is 70% which is good, but it is still spherical, meaning that there are no reflective surfaces turned towards the observer (on Earth) and it anyway twists and turns, yet its visual magnitude stays roughly constant (which is also interesting given that the observed radiation from any other source decreases to 1:45 when it is taken 6.75 times further from the observer, yet Venus' brightness only changes about 1:2 in absolute terms).
The Sun in this example is actually no more than 90 m away (from Venus) so it can easily be introduced. It is 1.2 meter in diameter and for the sake of argument, you can select whatever luminosity and shield the "Sun" so that it cannot be seen from "Earth".
The next step is to give "Venus" the 70% reflection but you can do even better and give it 100% by wrapping it in tinfoil. Now you have the Earth, Venus and Sun in let's say triangular arrangement with Sun shining any desired amount of light towards Venus from 90 m distance and you watching it by naked eye from 200 m distance.
As you can see for yourself, no amount of "sunlight" is able to make the tinfoiled round marble Venus even visible from such a distance let alone so bright that it is surpassed only by Sun and Moon in brightness.
Surely there is an astronomer among you with an explanation to my riddle.
Not an expert at all here, just food for thought:
- I would guess that the light density (something like "number of photons per angle of view and time") of venus is actually higher that that of the moon. The moon is just "brighter" because it's closer and thus perceived "bigger"). I may be wrong here, but maybe when people say "moon is brighter than venus", they talk about the aggregate amount of light received?
- Moon has reflectivity of 10%, venus of 70% (because of some kind of clouds in its athmosphere). You already mentioned the 70% value for venus.
- Why does received radiation decrease with distance? Seems to me the light coming from venus shouldn't be filtered by much at all on its way to our eye (except at the last couple of kilometers by earth's athmosphere).
Wait I have some questions.
If bitcoin becomes mainstream and the collapse of the fiat currency goes down, what are the implications of it? Do the poor get poorer, bitcoiners rich? Middle class and high class wealth transfers to the people who got into bitcoin?
Will there be food banks for the poorer or people who missed out on bitcoin, or just really late?
the gap between rich and poor are even worse?
What are the walmarts going to be used for? and fema camps?
Those with knowledge and expertise will excel those who leveraged work of others fall If bitcoin becomes mainstream and the collapse of the fiat currency goes down, what are the implications of it? Do the poor get poorer, bitcoiners rich? Middle class and high class wealth transfers to the people who got into bitcoin?
Will there be food banks for the poorer or people who missed out on bitcoin, or just really late?
the gap between rich and poor are even worse?
What are the walmarts going to be used for? and fema camps?
I did not catch sleep so I decided to think about Venus. As we know since we have been told and Wikipedia affirms, Venus is a spherical rock 12,000 km in diameter (about the size of the Earth) and it is between 38 and 261 million kilometers from the Earth.
It is easily visible by naked eye even in cities as its visual magnitude varies from -3.7 to -4.5, making it the 3rd most luminous object in the sky after Sun and Moon.
Now, the question is how can this be? Venus does not emit light of its own. Its relative size can be compared to having a marble of d=1cm in the distance of 32-216 m in the night. Venus' reflective index is 70% which is good, but it is still spherical, meaning that there are no reflective surfaces turned towards the observer (on Earth) and it anyway twists and turns, yet its visual magnitude stays roughly constant (which is also interesting given that the observed radiation from any other source decreases to 1:45 when it is taken 6.75 times further from the observer, yet Venus' brightness only changes about 1:2 in absolute terms).
The Sun in this example is actually no more than 90 m away (from Venus) so it can easily be introduced. It is 1.2 meter in diameter and for the sake of argument, you can select whatever luminosity and shield the "Sun" so that it cannot be seen from "Earth".
The next step is to give "Venus" the 70% reflection but you can do even better and give it 100% by wrapping it in tinfoil. Now you have the Earth, Venus and Sun in let's say triangular arrangement with Sun shining any desired amount of light towards Venus from 90 m distance and you watching it by naked eye from 200 m distance.
As you can see for yourself, no amount of "sunlight" is able to make the tinfoiled round marble Venus even visible from such a distance let alone so bright that it is surpassed only by Sun and Moon in brightness.
Surely there is an astronomer among you with an explanation to my riddle.
It is easily visible by naked eye even in cities as its visual magnitude varies from -3.7 to -4.5, making it the 3rd most luminous object in the sky after Sun and Moon.
Now, the question is how can this be? Venus does not emit light of its own. Its relative size can be compared to having a marble of d=1cm in the distance of 32-216 m in the night. Venus' reflective index is 70% which is good, but it is still spherical, meaning that there are no reflective surfaces turned towards the observer (on Earth) and it anyway twists and turns, yet its visual magnitude stays roughly constant (which is also interesting given that the observed radiation from any other source decreases to 1:45 when it is taken 6.75 times further from the observer, yet Venus' brightness only changes about 1:2 in absolute terms).
The Sun in this example is actually no more than 90 m away (from Venus) so it can easily be introduced. It is 1.2 meter in diameter and for the sake of argument, you can select whatever luminosity and shield the "Sun" so that it cannot be seen from "Earth".
The next step is to give "Venus" the 70% reflection but you can do even better and give it 100% by wrapping it in tinfoil. Now you have the Earth, Venus and Sun in let's say triangular arrangement with Sun shining any desired amount of light towards Venus from 90 m distance and you watching it by naked eye from 200 m distance.
As you can see for yourself, no amount of "sunlight" is able to make the tinfoiled round marble Venus even visible from such a distance let alone so bright that it is surpassed only by Sun and Moon in brightness.
Surely there is an astronomer among you with an explanation to my riddle.
Wait I have some questions.
If bitcoin becomes mainstream and the collapse of the fiat currency goes down, what are the implications of it? Do the poor get poorer, bitcoiners rich? Middle class and high class wealth transfers to the people who got into bitcoin?
Will there be food banks for the poorer or people who missed out on bitcoin, or just really late?
the gap between rich and poor are even worse?
What are the walmarts going to be used for? and fema camps?
If bitcoin becomes mainstream and the collapse of the fiat currency goes down, what are the implications of it? Do the poor get poorer, bitcoiners rich? Middle class and high class wealth transfers to the people who got into bitcoin?
Will there be food banks for the poorer or people who missed out on bitcoin, or just really late?
the gap between rich and poor are even worse?
What are the walmarts going to be used for? and fema camps?
I don't believe in a magma filled ball Earth theory either. It simply has too many holes in it. When was the last time Copernicus'es model was proven with a physics experiment? It's funny how they demand you to prove your theory but refuse to prove theirs.
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
I saw a hyena once. They're much bigger than I thought they were.
Oh, just curious. How do you explain the Northern and Southern lights (Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis)?
The sticks and shadows experiment was the only point I found interesting from that link. Is it really possible to calculate the circumference of the Earth like that? If so then it definitely kicks a hole into the flat earth theory. It doesn't puncture the concave earth theory though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference
It's an old method and quite accurate.
But unfortunately, many of the other ways listed there were crap. The webpage even lists some of the stuff that is used to prove that the Earth is not convex. So it's laughable. For example, ships that have disappeared behind the horizon are still visible with a telescope, NASA photos are fake, centre of gravity could very well be in the middle of the hollow earth's crust not in the centre of the planet.
Since I think flat earth theory is weaker than the concave earth theory, hollow earth theory and expanding earth theory, I would not bother to explain some northern and southern lights thing. I'm not a flat earth believer anyway. I'm just an opponent of the Copernican system.
Since I think flat earth theory is weaker than the concave earth theory, hollow earth theory and expanding earth theory, I would not bother to explain some northern and southern lights thing. I'm not a flat earth believer anyway. I'm just an opponent of the Copernican system.
The reason I ask about the Northern and Southern lights is because in conventional physics it is believed that these phenomena are the result of the interplay between the Earths EM field and massive particles slung out from the sun. It is quite well understood and basically means that you can use solar "weather forecasts" (since light moves faster than particles with mass) to tell you if/when there will be northern/southern lights appearing. But in order for this to be true, something needs to create the EM field. A spinning liquid metal core; which doesn't fit well with your hollow earth assumption.
Jump to: