Flat Earth?

[Uhtred]

19 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

 My name is paul. Not a claim, a fact. 

Yeah, right. Like that guy in the so-called “Beatles”..the one one with the Bass “guitar”. 

[paul's got wright]

9 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Sphere porn ????

 Not creepy.

I don't know you, but I know others that do.

I was shown a clip of you on guitar. Simple as that

only teasing dill, glad you finally admitted it though. good luck with guitar man x

[paul's got wright]

8 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Yeah, right. Like that guy in the so-called “Beatles”..the one one with the Bass “guitar”. 

Think you mean faul, but tonight will go down as the meltdown nonetheless. 20.7.19 duly noted!

The musings of puty pie, the maniacal minnow. The mind game midget. The sorest of losers.

Another anonymous internet fantasist, fell foul to the fallacies.

Meanwhile, back in reality, still waiting for SCIENTIFIC evidence(chinahand!), of the spinning oblate spheroid you need x

[Chinahand]

On 7/19/2019 at 4:14 PM, paul's got wright said:

scientific evidence for the spinning ball. Not conjecture, presumption, etc, only scientific, demonstrable, evidence.

 Can you do that without presupposing the ball in the first place? That is the requirement.

This is where you, as per usual, show your total ignorance of what science is.

You can collect evidence just like stamps - that a Foucault's pendulum will rotate at different speeds at different latitudes and in different directions North or South of the Equator.  That you can't see the Southern Cross north of a certain latitude or Polaris south of a different latitude.  That storm systems behave differently in the north hemisphere compared to the south.  That you have to aim artillery differently depending upon your location. That you have to shift your telescope basically a constant amount for every 111 km (and a bit) you move on the earth.  I've directly, personally done all these things apart from the one about artillery! ;-)

These facts all exist, are known, repeated, verified thousands upon thousands of times every single day.

No presumption, no conjecture, just what is known.  You maybe ignorant of this, but this is reality you can check very very easily.  Being too lazy to do it, isn't an excuse.

Now what does this evidence tell you?

Science is about using evidence to build a better understanding of what goes on around us - does the evidence allow us to distinguish between competing ideas about what the world is like.  Is the world like this or that?  Does the evidence support this or that description of the world.  How can you devise an observation which allows you to distinguish this from that.

You turn a fundamental, but basically neutral occupation of collecting facts in just the same way you collect stamps, into the genius of science by using those building blocks to build a more complete picture of the world.

The nutter who ignored the rotation of the moon, and who thought boats in the mirage of refracting air inverting on the the horizon were materialising and dematerialising was incapable of using evidence to build a coherent view of the world.  Are you like him?

Does evidence allow us to distinguish.  Are the facts we observe about the world consistent with a flat earth or a spherical one.

Start at one latitude, set up your equatorial mounted telescope at one angle, find a star, rotate your telescope on its mount at a rate of 4.178 thousands of a degree per second and the star will stay basically constant in the field of view of the telescope - with known, bounded and repeatable corrections as the atmosphere refracts its light as it sets into the horizon, or rises above it.

Refraction is a minor, known, issue and hardly affects the position of the stars as the earth rotates on its axis - hence the circles in the picture above.

Now move a distance south - the stars will shift, but simply tip you equatorial mount based on a degree for every 111 km you move south and the same star will once again be found in your eyepiece and tracked through the sky.  

Repeat the same process until at a certain point the star will no longer rise above the horizon - you have moved too far south for this northern star.  You could now pick a different star and track it as you move north, until it sets again visible only from southern skies.

This is evidence - and maybe little Paul is too ignorant to say what is evidence of.  We shouldn't be embarrassed by ignorance - we all suffer from it and our world is improved by people struggling to understand what they are ignorant of, and working to reduce it, improving our understanding of the world.

People can pretend this evidence doesn't distinguish between a flat earth and a globe, but that pretence is wrong and based on ignorance - often a wilful ignorance, but sadly that is what people do and this ignorant and foolish thread will continue.

The mystery, the one geodesy and astronomy have spent centuries trying to understand is why do you have to set up your telescope this way, and why when you do it the star may not be exactly in the centre and how the offset from the centre is bounded by things like parallax, or the aberration of light.

Understand why the evidence is the way it is, is what science attempts to do, and is the meat to the broth of facts.  Why do we have to shift an equatorial mounted telescope by 1 degree for every 111 km we move north or south - because we live on a globe and not a flat earth.

Shit, I wrote basically exactly the same post 3 years ago.

 

 

[dilligaf]

9 minutes ago, paul's got wright said:

Think you mean faul, but tonight will go down as the meltdown nonetheless. 20.7.19 duly noted!

The musings of puty pie, the maniacal minnow. The mind game midget. The sorest of losers.

Another anonymous internet fantasist, fell foul to the fallacies.

Meanwhile, back in reality, still waiting for SCIENTIFIC evidence(chinahand!), of the spinning oblate spheroid you need x

eh ?

[Neil Down]

In the space of three pages, PGW has shown what a bell end he is. Maybe get your former tutors (if they ever existed) to confirm your educational prowess. Could be a long wait

[Chinahand]

1 hour ago, paul's got wright said:

Something very coincidental about the sun and the moon in your ball religion though, isnt there silly whimperer 

Chinahand knows exactly how coincidental x

What that the moon's penumbra on the earth is 270 miles across on average?  That's just a fact, so what.  Does it stop being a coincidence if it was 500 miles across?

What about Io's penumbra on Jupiter - that's 1940 miles across. Gosh what must God be telling us about Jupiter - the shadow is so much smaller compared to jupiter?

PGW - with a good telescope you could personally see Io's (and any of the other Galilean moons') shadow on Jupiter.  You should try it sometime - and using an equatorial mount - and a sextant.  They are far more useful pursuits than Youtube bollox, and you might actually learn something about the shape of the earth. 

It's all out there to be observed - oh Gosh the sun and the moon aren't exactly the same size in the sky, and both change size from month to month ... what must this be telling us.  Short answer - nothing.

 

[paul's got wright]

38 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

This is where you, as per usual, show your total ignorance of what science is.

You can collect evidence just like stamps - that a Foucault's pendulum will rotate at different speeds at different latitudes and in different directions North or South of the Equator.  That you can't see the Southern Cross north of a certain latitude or Polaris south of a different latitude.  That storm systems behave differently in the north hemisphere compared to the south.  That you have to aim artillery differently depending upon your location. That you have to shift your telescope basically a constant amount for every 111 km (and a bit) you move on the earth.  I've directly, personally done all these things apart from the one about artillery! ;-)

These facts all exist, are known, repeated, verified thousands upon thousands of times every single day.

No presumption, no conjecture, just what is known.  You maybe ignorant of this, but this is reality you can check very very easily.  Being too lazy to do it, isn't an excuse.

Now what does this evidence tell you?

Science is about using evidence to build a better understanding of what goes on around us - does the evidence allow us to distinguish between competing ideas about what the world is like.  Is the world like this or that?  Does the evidence support this or that description of the world.  How can you devise an observation which allows you to distinguish this from that.

You turn a fundamental, but basically neutral occupation of collecting facts in just the same way you collect stamps, into the genius of science by using those building blocks to build a more complete picture of the world.

The nutter who ignored the rotation of the moon, and who thought boats in the mirage of refracting air inverting on the the horizon were materialising and dematerialising was incapable of using evidence to build a coherent view of the world.  Are you like him?

Does evidence allow us to distinguish.  Are the facts we observe about the world consistent with a flat earth or a spherical one.

Start at one latitude, set up your equatorial mounted telescope at one angle, find a star, rotate your telescope on its mount at a rate of 4.178 thousands of a degree per second and the star will stay basically constant in the field of view of the telescope - with known, bounded and repeatable corrections as the atmosphere refracts its light as it sets into the horizon, or rises above it.

Refraction is a minor, known, issue and hardly affects the position of the stars as the earth rotates on its axis - hence the circles in the picture above.

Now move a distance south - the stars will shift, but simply tip you equatorial mount based on a degree for every 111 km you move south and the same star will once again be found in your eyepiece and tracked through the sky.  

Repeat the same process until at a certain point the star will no longer rise above the horizon - you have moved too far south for this northern star.  You could now pick a different star and track it as you move north, until it sets again visible only from southern skies.

This is evidence - and maybe little Paul is too ignorant to say what is evidence of.  We shouldn't be embarrassed by ignorance - we all suffer from it and our world is improved by people struggling to understand what they are ignorant of, and working to reduce it, improving our understanding of the world.

People can pretend this evidence doesn't distinguish between a flat earth and a globe, but that pretence is wrong and based on ignorance - often a wilful ignorance, but sadly that is what people do and this ignorant and foolish thread will continue.

The mystery, the one geodesy and astronomy have spent centuries trying to understand is why do you have to set up your telescope this way, and why when you do it the star may not be exactly in the centre and how the offset from the centre is bounded by things like parallax, or the aberration of light.

Understand why the evidence is the way it is, is what science attempts to do, and is the meat to the broth of facts.  Why do we have to shift an equatorial mounted telescope by 1 degree for every 111 km we move north or south - because we live on a globe and not a flat earth.

Shit, I wrote basically exactly the same post 3 years ago.

 

 

Who are you trying to convince china! Me or yourself? x

[dilligaf]

You. You just don't understand his point.

[paul's got wright]

20 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

In the space of three pages, PGW has shown what a bell end he is. Maybe get your former tutors (if they ever existed) to confirm your educational prowess. Could be a long wait

fetish feeding late into the midnight hour nelly, you're gonna get tummy ache.

Were you arguably one of the most talented students in your year? Anyone from your year go on to do anything interesting? 

It wont be a long wait for me, report was  22 yrs ago, still safely in my possession x

[paul's got wright]

Just now, dilligaf said:

You. You just don't understand his point.

.

[dilligaf]

Just now, paul's got wright said:

1 minute ago, dilligaf said:

You. You just don't understand his point.

.

Sorry, I can't hear you 

[paul's got wright]

If you weren't such a symbol snob you'd be in the know!

[paul's got wright]

So it turns out its you who didnt get the point!

Its like shooting fish in a congressional barrel in here, everydays a sunday for the glober ha ha

Night dil x

[Chinahand]

PGW is as likely to understand this paper as my neighbour's cat, and will likely insist it isn't science:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/H_Schuh/publication/225101548_High-resolution_atmospheric_angular_momentum_functions_related_to_Earth_rotation_parameters_during_CONT08/links/0deec52ce658b878b4000000/High-resolution-atmospheric-angular-momentum-functions-related-to-Earth-rotation-parameters-during-CONT08.pdf

I like this sentence:

Here, φ and λ denote latitude and longitude, dp is the positive pressure increment for vertical integration, R is the Earth’s mean radius, g is the mean acceleration due to gravity, and Ω is the Earth’s mean angular velocity. To determine the rotational perturbations of the Earth induced by the atmosphere, dimensionless effective AAM functions have to be deduced from Equation (1). Maintaining the distinction between pressure (superscript p) and wind terms (superscript w), the AAM functions are further split up into equatorial and axial components

Every flat earther's worst nightmare.

I have to be frank - I am in awe that they can break down the alterations in the Earth's orbit - leap seconds - due to angular momentum effects of the atmosphere out of the noise of glaciers melting, rocks eroding etc all of which I would have expected to have far larger contributions than the drag of the atmosphere on the earth's rotation.

All fake insist the idiots.  Ce sera, sera.