Are Hardcore Conspiracy Theorists Retarded?

[sloppypie]

i did about 3 posts ago. Keep up

so you can't prove it's fake. gotcha.

you still didn't answer my earlier question: who pays you to post this stuff? of course, if you deny it, it's clearly a hoax and a lie, so go ahead and just come clean.

 

[splendica]

I'm curious too, if a model earth was made, say, 200 miles in diameter (I believe the atmosphere is 300 miles high), how noticeable the curvature would be if you were standing on top of it. Without having the calculation of the curvature in inches per 100 feet and/or per mile in front of me, I wonder what the noticeable change would be as a person walks across the top toward what one might consider the side from a great distance.

 

[splendica]

You're being deceived by perception. The sun is moving straight overhead and disappears once it crosses the threshold in which it is physically impossible to see it from your position.
Just do me a favor and watch this sort video.

i did about 3 posts ago. Keep up

From the outset, I'd say that I highly doubt I'm being deceived. I've been through these conversations and watched many videos from both sides, plus straight old videos of people just filming sunsets and sunrises for aesthetic reasons alone - theirs are usually the best. Also, large ocean vistas eliminate structural interference of any sort. The only thing left is vapor interference.

I'll watch that 22 min video by the chief proponent of the theory, Mr. Dubay, later tonight and get back to you.

But take a look at these films utilizing proper equipment and no agendas in mind:





It seems to me, clearly, that there is no deception in how those are filmed. Rather, it seems to me deceptive to suggest that they are tricks of our eyesight or deception of nature.

 

[rj144]

I'm curious too, if a model earth was made, say, 200 miles in diameter (I believe the atmosphere is 300 miles high), how noticeable the curvature would be if you were standing on top of it. Without having the calculation of the curvature in inches per 100 feet and/or per mile in front of me, I wonder what the noticeable change would be as a person walks across the top toward what one might consider the side from a great distance.

Newton's third law is that all objects possess gravitational pull.

Maybe outside of the practical impossibility, the 200 mile diameter sphere couldn't overcome the pull of the earth, or, maybe it could? Perhaps if there was enough of a distance between the sphere and the earth?

I'm sure these ideas and formulas have been solved many a time. Regardless, the size of the large of the object and the converse size of the pulled object work together.

I'm on your side, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What do you mean the sphere could over come the pull of the earth?

Also, Newton's 3rd law does not say all objects possess a gravitational pull.

 

[JudasAnthony]

I'm curious too, if a model earth was made, say, 200 miles in diameter (I believe the atmosphere is 300 miles high), how noticeable the curvature would be if you were standing on top of it. Without having the calculation of the curvature in inches per 100 feet and/or per mile in front of me, I wonder what the noticeable change would be as a person walks across the top toward what one might consider the side from a great distance.

Newton's third law is that all objects possess gravitational pull.

Maybe outside of the practical impossibility, the 200 mile diameter sphere couldn't overcome the pull of the earth, or, maybe it could? Perhaps if there was enough of a distance between the sphere and the earth?

I'm sure these ideas and formulas have been solved many a time. Regardless, the size of the large of the object and the converse size of the pulled object work together.

Better yet, construct a normal sized school globe using rock water and flowers. Only you can't use glue.

The same math that determines that the sun in 93 million miles away can be used to prove the sun to be 33 thousand miles away. Newton himself said the sun could be only 33 thousand miles away and only thirty miles long for a working model, but that he disagreed on principle that the sun were so close..


On principle? Come on now

 

[rj144]

Better yet, construct a normal sized school globe using rock water and flowers. Only you can't use glue.

The same math that determines that the sun in 93 million miles away can be used to prove the sun to be 33 thousand miles away. Newton himself said the sun could be only 33 thousand miles away and only thirty miles long for a working model, but that he disagreed on principle that the sun were so close..


On principle? Come on now

What same math? Show me the math. Derive something.

 

[JudasAnthony]

From the outset, I'd say that I highly doubt I'm being deceived. I've been through these conversations and watched many videos from both sides, plus straight old videos of people just filming sunsets and sunrises for aesthetic reasons alone - theirs are usually are the best. Also, large views eliminate structural interference of any sort. The only thing left is vapor interference.

I'll watch that 22 min video by the chief proponent of the theory, Mr. Dubay, later tonight and get back to you.

But take a look at these films utilizing proper equipment and no agendas in mind:





It seems to me, clearly, that there is no deception in how those are filmed. Rather, it seems to me deceptive to suggest that they are tricks of our eyesight or deception of nature.

Let's say your walking through a long flat surface at night. In either side of the path are street lamps every 6 feet for as far as the eye can see. Now imagine you look forward each lamp will appear to sink with the last lamp being the lowest. This is just how human sight works.
What we perceive as the sun setting below the horizon is actually the sun escaping the threshold of our ability to see it, as it moves over and ahead

 

[JudasAnthony]

What same math? Show me the math. Derive something.

I'm not a mathematician. I don't need to be to formulate my view point.
Math is not your friend in this debate. I mean 8 inches of curverture per mile squared should be easily detected on mountains

 

[rj144]

Let's say your walking through a long flat surface at night. In either side of the path are street lamps every 6 feet for as far as the eye can see. Now imagine you look forward each lamp will appear to sink with the last lamp being the lowest. This is just how human sight works.
What we perceive as the sun setting below the horizon is actually the sun escaping the threshold of our ability to see it, as it moves over and ahead

Except you have it backwards. Suppose the difference in height between your eyes and the top of the lamp is called y and the distance between you and the lamp is d. The angle above your eye to the lamp is arctan(y/d). As d gets larger, the angle becomes zero, not negative or below your eyes. When, d is smaller, comparable to y, the angle becomes the largest positive number it can be and the lamp appears above your eyes.

So show me how this works with your math.

 

[BEER]

Except you have it backwards. Suppose the difference in height between your eyes and the top of the lamp is called y and the distance between you and the lamp is d. The angle above your eye to the lamp is arctan(y/d). As d gets larger, the angle becomes zero, not negative or below your eyes. When, d is smaller, comparable to y, the angle becomes the largest positive number it can be and the lamp appears above your eyes.

So show me how this works with your math.

He's not a mathematician.

 

[splendica]

I'm on your side, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What do you mean the sphere could over come the pull of the earth?

Also, Newton's 3rd law does not say all objects possess a gravitational pull.

Oops, good call. Too much phone posting is getting me in trouble. I'll get back to you about the other, hopefully later.

 

[rj144]

I'm not a mathematician. I don't need to be to formulate my view point.
Math is not your friend in this debate. I mean 8 inches of curverture per mile squared should be easily detected on mountains

Exactly you have no grasp of math or science to be able to think critically about anything. It's like me walking over to a master black belt in jiu-jitsu and telling him you're doing your jiu-jitsu all wrong.

And you also say by the same math, you can show the sun is 30 thousand miles away. But, you don't know that math? So, you're talking out your ass just like everything else then.

 

[JudasAnthony]

You have to understand first that gravity is a fraud, and the only reason it hasn't been thrown into the trash bin is because of Einstein and his theory of relativity.
Here's some math for you 1 theory + 1 theory = jack shit

 

[rj144]

You have to understand first that gravity is a fraud, and the only reason it hasn't been thrown into the trash bin is because of Einstein and his theory of relativity.
Here's some math for you 1 theory + 1 theory = jack shit

That math is as idiotic as you are and you really are an idiot.

 

[JudasAnthony]

Except you have it backwards. Suppose the difference in height between your eyes and the top of the lamp is called y and the distance between you and the lamp is d. The angle above your eye to the lamp is arctan(y/d). As d gets larger, the angle becomes zero, not negative or below your eyes. When, d is smaller, comparable to y, the angle becomes the largest positive number it can be and the lamp appears above your eyes.

So show me how this works with your math.

Sure I'll get to writing down the formula and working it out.
Good luck on constructing your Class room sized Globe made out of what the globe is made of.
I'm sure the gallon or two of water it will take will be no problem for gravity to keep attached to your rock and stuff

 

[JudasAnthony]

• That math is as idiotic as you are and you really are an idiot.

  Up to this point I have not yet insulted you. I however am going to now. You're a mental invalid who has offered nothing to this conversation. I hope the next time you look out in your telescope and look at the moon, gravity fails and the fucking rock lands on your house you fucking dim witted cock licking blowhard.

 

[rj144]

• 
  Up to this point I have not yet insulted you. I however am going to now. You're a mental invalid who has offered nothing to this conversation. I hope the next time you look out in your telescope and look at the moon, gravity fails and the fucking rock lands on your house you fucking dim witted cock licking blowhard.

That's really nice.

I was just being honest. If you believe what you're spouting and honestly not a troll, then you are a idiot.

 

[VivaRevolution]

• 
  Up to this point I have not yet insulted you. I however am going to now. You're a mental invalid who has offered nothing to this conversation. I hope the next time you look out in your telescope and look at the moon, gravity fails and the fucking rock lands on your house you fucking dim witted cock licking blowhard.

I want to try.

So if the earth is flat, it has an edge right?

Where is the edge?

What stops someone from going to the edge and taking a picture to prove your theory correct?

 

[splendica]

You're being deceived by perception. The sun is moving straight overhead and disappears once it crosses the threshold in which it is physically impossible to see it from your position.
Just do me a favor and watch this sort video.

i did about 3 posts ago. Keep up

I watched this through and have to say that it was quite amateur.

The moon is not a translucent luminaries as described with misleading shaky footage.

Here is a man with his own telescope, observing the moon from his deck.



Further to this, just because scientists struggled to learn the precise distance of the sun from earth, arriving at different conclusions over the centuries doesn't mean that a fairly accurate conclusion wasn't reached.

Finally, the idea of distance making objects further away move downward/smaller toward the horizon is fine in relatively small distances like a line of street lamps, but literally none of the pictures and attempts to characterize what the sun does, proved it - including the footage of the sun rising. Again, every single time the sun is shown, it doesn't shrink like a street lamp a mile away, the sun literally drops down, past the horizon. It doesn't behave like a marble rolling the length of a gymnasium floor.

 

[splendica]

I'm on your side, but I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What do you mean the sphere could over come the pull of the earth?

Also, Newton's 3rd law does not say all objects possess a gravitational pull.

I was speaking of Newton's law of universal gravitation. Not sure where I got third law from when I wrote that earlier.

This article talks about it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...3/oct/13/newtons-universal-law-of-gravitation

"It encapsulates the idea that all the particles of matter in the universe attract each other through the force of gravity – Newton's law tells us how strong that attraction is. The equation says that the force (F) between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses (m1 and m2), divided by the square of the distance between them. The remaining term in the equation, G, is the gravitational constant, which has to be measured by experiment and, as of 2007, US scientists have measured it at 6.693 × 10−11cubic metres per kilogram second squared."

I was just wondering aloud about how a model could mimic the earth's gravitational pull up to a certain point before the earth's pull overcomes it.

More or less ramblings. But, basically, a hemisphere 200 miles in diameter would feel earth-like up to a certain distance and it would be interesting how It's characteristics mimic earth up until fail point .