.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Comedy Time
-
Posts
794 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Comedy Time
-
-
1 hour ago, zArk said:
dude the query was
Exactly as quoted and avoided. How does the Sun set with no size change?
1 hour ago, zArk said:the Suns observed time in the sky does change throughout the year .... longer days in summer and longer nights in winter
Irrelevant to the point I made. I posited SPECIFIC Earth positions and the distances noted both on a planet and a flat Earth. The same. These are verifiable sunset times and are not subject to refutation. And those times change by hemisphere - explains everything.
1 hour ago, zArk said:horizon to horizon is not 360 degrees (i assume you are meaning a full circle of orthodox segments ) and therefore the 0.5 degrees is only applicable to the spherist model
Utter nonsense. Nowhere did I say the horizon to horizon was 360 degrees. To the actual observer it is 180 degrees. BUT irrelevant.
The 0.5 degrees that the Sun occupies in the sky is the exact distance it occupies when you capture an image regardless of the lens.
From zenith straight up to horizon has to be 90 degrees. The sun takes 0.5 degrees of that by angular distance. FACT on either model.
1 hour ago, zArk said:the Sun is observed to move between horizon and horizon today at the UK for 12 hours
at June 21st its around 16hrs 40mins
Irelevant.
1 hour ago, zArk said:so the sun slows down or gets smaller or moves further away or a combination of all during June and speeds up or gets bigger or moves closer in winter
NONSENSE!! It moves in an arc lower down from straight up. It always moves at the same verifiable speed. A lower arc occupies less distance, ergo less daylight.
1 hour ago, zArk said:the arbitrary 0.5 degrees is therefore incompatible with observed Sun movement throughout the year
Utter bollocks. The motion of the Sun has nothing whatsoever to do with its angular distance!
1 hour ago, zArk said:the distance between horizon and horizon is the same ?
Yes, but the Sun only follows this path on the plane of the ecliptic. The path it follows by latitude varies significantly, but always the same speed.
1 hour ago, zArk said:questions upon questions
And you aren't answering any of them.
How far away is the Sun straight above closest point?
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, zArk said:
i just want to begin with a fair framework
mixing observations and sphere models from the start is no good for either of us
if we can establish a baseline then approaching the issue can be a little easier imo
Ok. I am going to do that exact thing. It remains to be seen whether you respond.
-
Pick that last @zArk post up later. Too much gibberish to respond to on a phone.
-
18 minutes ago, zArk said:
there is no such thing in science and law
words are specific
This is deliberate tedium.
-
57 minutes ago, zArk said:
gregory -peccary i think there is different words for specific reasons
angular distance is different to width ... thats why there is different words
and lets be honest
CT was deliberately using the word width interchangeably with angular distance so it would be possible to flip-flop
its just soooooooooooooooooooo boring
Message to myself....don't use analogies or help tools.
To explain once again. The size of The Sun in the sky was used ONLY TO CONVEY THE SIZE OF THE ANGLE USED. IT WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE MATHEMATICS YOU ARE AFRAID TO ADDRESS. You clearly are using any means possible to obfuscate and evade.
-
49 minutes ago, zArk said:
orbital !!! lol
imperceptible.. or observational or 'dont believe your eyes, the science i dispense will tell you what you saw' !!! lol
epic fail! << fs feel like i am talking to a teenager trying to flame me over teamspeak while playing UT GOTY :S
Evasion once again. What is the sun doing? Some unknown bullshit sky dance that never sees its angular momentum change, or size, it always illuminates 50% of the earth like some ridiculous comedy spotlight and magically sets and rises when it is above eyeline.
Any chance you can answer this "evolving" thread?
-
33 minutes ago, zArk said:
apparent horizon to apparent horizon doesnt make a circle
you said sunset ...
Dude wtf are you talking about????
The Sun has 0.5 degrees of angular diameter to everyone on this planet!
-
17 minutes ago, zArk said:
width is a horizontal measurement taken at right angles to the length
so no its not angular distance
plus you are assuming the apparent width and width is a constant
so theres still an assumption
Epic fail. Seriously almost everything just written is useless diversion.
1. The Sun is The same size the entire time with imperceptible variations from orbital distances!
2. It is 0.5 degrees to the eye. ALWAYS.
3. It was used just as means to show the angle of 2 degrees is that 4 sun width distance
But hey....you can totally dismiss every reference to the sun. Just answer the post because NONE of the maths rely on the width of the Sun....it was used to assist the hard of understanding.
Clearly you are boxed in and know it.
-
20 minutes ago, zArk said:
@thread still chuckling about the 'space video' glitching images of the earth
Yeah, you chuckle and evade. Digital glitches - wow the power of conspiracy nonsense.
You are boxed in and running away from simple unavoidable mathematics.
-
21 minutes ago, zArk said:
@thread new issue please
wow 4 sun widths ... nice assumption
It isn't an assumption. DUH! The sun has an angular distance of 0.5 degrees. 4 widths is simply a way of saying 2 degrees and showing visually how far that represents.
-
5 hours ago, amy G said:
Are you familiar with the Earth's tensor of inertia and how we calculate it based on global gravity field solutions?
Are you familiar with how the paper collated the results!? It's like a comedy routine, with you suggesting that all of a sudden you are an academic and understand things when you have been presented with simple trigonometry detailing the motion of the Sun and ignored it.
Your paper written by suitably clever people uses SATELLITES that orbit the planet to derive data in gravity variations. They also use VLBI in BOTH hemispheres to establish milliarcsecond variations for time references. That would suggest they aren't glued on to a frickin' dome!! They also are building a gravitational global reference. That suggests they believe in gravity and understand it a little.
5 hours ago, amy G said:If you can get through the above work, I believe you will see one of the problems we are having with modeling this.
"We"? It's a problem of minutiae. The Earth is not an even planet and consequently gravitational variances alter its motion very slightly.
5 hours ago, amy G said:Another problem that might be easier to understand has to do with light refraction which we know varies based on multiple factors that no one can determine beforehand.
There is no problem at all. Astronomers all know about light refraction and the only detrimental factor involved is observation of stars closer to the horizon. I posted a number of resources that gave brilliant mathematical constants and formulae to adjust refraction amounts.
https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html
https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/std/std.html
https://aty.sdsu.edu/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html
5 hours ago, amy G said:The ancients knew these things for sure, but they knew they were on a plane that was fixed and they had already figured out that the celestial objects were moving above us.
They didn't have the technology available today. How ancient do you want to go? Copernicus established that things were how they are by simple observation!
https://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm
-
1 hour ago, zArk said:
absolute rubbish.
i went through all your brain issues trying to assist you in recognising the incompatibility of sphere science with the solar eclipse and you deny deny deny
but my point is validated by yourself
it is the sphere fanatics who consistently repeat the same question and ignore the responses they dislike
lets find a new issue. the sun size has been attended to many times in this thread, at least be bothered to go back and read the responses .. gah!
The questions are being repeated because not one of you people has the honesty to answer any of them! Your solar eclipse blunderings are hilarious and you have th audacity to claim that there is an invisible pizza causing it because you should be able to see a new moon, but strangely not the invisible pizza. How crazy is that!
Show me where you answered anything relating to no size change, a sun above eye-line dipping below the damn horizon. The distance involved!
The sun has NOT been attended to whatsoever. I entered this thread with some brainless youtube video that I tore apart - zero responses to that!
Answer that last post. You people are a bunch of comedians aren't you?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, zArk said:
same old questions are repeated with the addendum ..."and i still havent had an answer" ....
which in turn gets a repeated response
or
the same question is asked that was answered (in some way ) 90 pages before
How about you urinate or get off the pot! You've been asked hundreds of questions all avoided and large posts that you completely bypassed, despite numerous requests to answer them.
You are a flat earther.
How does the Sun set with no size change? It's fairly straight forward.
I did a quick analysis showing that the Sun according to flat earthers is 3000 miles up and MUST be 85,000 miles away when it is 2 degrees above the horizon, 4 sun widths.
But hey, let's do 1 sun width 1/2 degree - just touching the horizon (ignoring refraction):
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
a=3000
A=0.5
From observer to the sun is............................................ 344,000 bloody miles!!!!
Impossible at every level!!
Or maybe one of the new comedy posters thinks it isn't 3000 miles but is actually only something like 50 ludicrous miles (a million facepalms!!). As the sun dips three quarters over the horizon it's 1/8 degree to its top:
a=50
A=0.125
It's now 22,900 bloody miles away!!!!
How can any flat earther not see the major problem here. Not one will answer this....and everyone who knows it is a globe can see why!
OWNED - /THREAD
SHHHHHHH.
-
56 minutes ago, alexa said:
I do deny it's existence, like dollazNdiamond said, Antarctica is a wall of of ice that surrounds earth 360%. It is God's boundary that holds in all the oceans from spilling out.
Makes sense really when you think about it!
It makes no sense and the idea of you "thinking about it" won't happen. You picked up this utterly ludicrous claim and have absolutely zero concept of the implications.
-
7 hours ago, dollazNdiamond said:
I also find it astonishing that it was his behavior that locked the thread and not the nasa employee who was previously banned, yet has been allowed to return and has been spamming the thread with the exact long winded cut and pastes throughout both of his forays. This is a technique used to stifle debates like this.
You don't understand what the word "spamming" means. It isn't when somebody kicks your butt and you get all cross about it. It isn't when they tear your woeful arguments to shreds and you are afraid to respond. You can't even answer one single basic question.
See above. The Sun. Two questions. Answer either one with the collective "insight" of your "astronomy club"
-
3 hours ago, amy G said:
Good on you kids! I hope you have thick skin if you plan on being here long. Globe believers who post here (paid or not) really are angry. My globe believer friends in real life... not so much.
No, don't be silly. They're not angry. Just frustrated at the appalling evasion exhibited by you and the other flat earthers. If you were honest in your posting you would be able to let in poroper information and dig yourself out of the quagmire of nonsense you are in.
Now: which one of you flat earthers is kind enough to "educate" us all.
1. How far away is the Sun?
2. How can ANYTHING above the eyeline dip below the horizon without changing size?
Or you can all run away and pretend you know something when you are as far away from the truth as you could get.
-
2 hours ago, Basket Case said:
2 members - 1 account ?
And still nothing to say. Can you advise them both that I live in England and would love a job with NASA - so if they are connected could they put in a word. Or alternatively they could STFU about it because it is personal bollocks? This was the thread I meant btw.
-
Another gibberish post with a stupid meme.
Just now, dollazNdiamond said:the fes are handled by the same people who do you
Uhuh, personal implication noted. I am not handled by anyone. Sometimes the wife but that's another story.
Evasion noted. You're afraid dude. You armwave it away and fail to offer corrections.
Just now, dollazNdiamond said:you are arguing with yourself
Kind of true since you are running away from any debate. But fence sitters won't get influenced by this brand of lunacy.
Just now, dollazNdiamond said:stop baiting me to answer your posts from other threads
OK. Answer the posts from other threads.
@Basket Case Please open the flat earth thread. If it causes moderation work then so be it. This person needs to be shown they are wrong or at least others see that they are afraid to debate.
Just now, dollazNdiamond said:this thread is fake moon landing are you a boomer? did you watch on your tv nixon call the astronots on the moon?
again you only bring irrelevance
And? Nixon connected via a telephone network to an s-band radio transmitter that sent a signal to the Moon. What daft youtube video have you watched that says that can't happen?
Irrelevance? Dude you are just posting horseshit. When you get around to posting the same old same old that has the arse kicked out of it, you'll ignore all the replies. It is impossible to reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to.
-
1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:
no facts just attacks ways to stifle without a rifle as you deny whats in front of your eye
EVASION, EVASION, EVASION. Your post is gibberish.
1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:antarctica is a wall of ice that holds our ocean water
Hahaha, no it isn't. According to flat earth gibberish it would be 50,000 miles around. Who stops anybody from getting a boat and photographing it?
Do you have any evidence for any of this?
1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:how many posts will it take for someone to show otherwise?
You'll arm wave them all away dude, that's what flat earthers do because they are afraid to look silly.
https://www.documentarysite.com/2018/01/16/five-antarctica-documentaries-to-check-out/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mfl7n/episodes/player
https://www.bookmundi.com/t/how-to-get-to-antarctica-traveling-to-the-earths-southernmost
HOW MANY POSTS WILL IT TAKE FOR YOU TO SHOW YOUR CLAIM IS REAL. YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE INSANE CLAIM, YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF.
-
24 minutes ago, amy G said:
This was another large part of my awakening
Satellite denial is like air denial.
-
1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:
your denial of stars seen through the moon is comedy time
Provide evidence for this ridiculous claim!
1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:your maths are based on false assumptions
Name the false assumptions and correct them.
The flat earth society and the people who make all the online noise tell us the Sun is 30 miles across(guffaw) and 3000 miles away(ludicrous). If that is wrong what should it be!?
Sunrises and sunsets are logged online and verifiable by the people who actually live in the damn paces they reference! If you claim they are wrong prove it and tell me why.
I am anticipating further evasion from you since you are afraid to be proven wrong. You have invested so much energy on this it would be too much for your ego to contemplate.
1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:funny too how you constantly whine about ad homs
I don't "constantly" whine about anything. You don't know what an ad hom is do you? It isn't an insult it is where the content of a post is avoided and the target is the poster.
I do not do that. I ALWAYS address the content with an occasional whinge about people evading the posts. Since these are part of the available emoticons on this website I determine they are available to be used:
-
3 hours ago, alexa said:
Beats me how they can land in a place that doesn't exist
Gibberish. Everything appears to "beat" you. You must have some cloud cuckoo concept of the world if you are now denying a whole continent.
-
1 hour ago, dollazNdiamond said:
because of irrelevancy
you believe stars can be seen through something that spaceships have landed on hahahaha
You people are all the same. Not one of you has the integrity to respond properly. You're just making noise!
I posted numerous rebuttals to your daft claims and you come back with gibberish about seeing stars through the Moon. Comedy time.
I posted some simple maths putting the setting sun 85000 miles away. And you are afraid to answer. Flat earthers are the joke of the planet.
-
11 hours ago, dollazNdiamond said:
and an emergency landing in the ocean makes sense? that was an original thought that you were insulting flat earthers about?
I gave you the acronym to google it and broaden your knowledge vacuum on this subject. The routes need backup contingency for emergency situations. It is nothing to do with crash landing, it is the ability of the craft to land at an alternative place.
The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread
in Space & Universe
Posted
To me what these flat earthers are doing is undermining principles of decent debate. I don't necessarily agree with many conspiracy theories on this forum but I absolutely will not take anyone to task for expressing them......UNLESS.....like every single one of these flat earthers they refuse to acknowledge clear and incontrovertible counter evidence.
Or in this case EVERY single piece of the planet's daily reality.
1. How far away is the Sun?
2. How can an object above eyeline vanish below the horizon?
3. How can an object recede and disappear without shrinking to a tiny dot?
Why won't any single one of these flat earthers answer properly formatted observational questions? The answer has to be ego?
I mean why else would every one of them fail to answer the blatantly infant proof obvious?