Of course what we choose to call something has nothing to do with science, but you knew that.
At least Pluto doesn't change its classification as often as Scott changes his avatar. That'll make your head spin faster than Jupiter 
Scott, Pluto was called planet based on science,not looking trough the crystal ball, you are waving into semantics...
If you said that it is not a planet 15 years ago you would be mocked hard!
I`m just saying that some areas of science are same as religion.
If you said that it is not a planet 15 years ago you would be mocked hard!
I`m just saying that some areas of science are same as religion.
Last edited:
Probably not as hard as claiming the aether exists or that the moon landings were faked. If you don't see the difference I can understand your problem. In fact it is semantics in a way, the definition of planet was not formalized until 2006. IAU definition of planet - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Do you think that means that Pluto was there, but now it's not?
Do you think that means that reality has changed?
Scientists know Pluto was there before there were were telescopes powerful enough to see it. Do you want to know how they knew, or are you going to use that fact to construct another semantic or non sequitur argument?
Your argument is entirely vacuous.
Scott, I`m one of those strange guys who don`t like the sound of opamps in audio 😀
I have yet to meet a flat earther who can suggest a model to show why the Great Bear constellation cannot be seen in Australia, and the Southen Cross cannot be seen in England
Nigel " ...the reason the Moon seems larger on the horizon is unknown..."
It is a known optical illusion, as one looking at the Moon on the horizon has a point of reference, buildings, Flora, landscapes. Gazing at the moon overhead or otherwise without any other references...the Moon seems tiny. Given that the Moon even at its closest approach, is not within Human eye precision parameters to discern an Apogee & a Perigee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick.........
It is a known optical illusion, as one looking at the Moon on the horizon has a point of reference, buildings, Flora, landscapes. Gazing at the moon overhead or otherwise without any other references...the Moon seems tiny. Given that the Moon even at its closest approach, is not within Human eye precision parameters to discern an Apogee & a Perigee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick.........
I accept the Moon looking larger is mostly easy to understand. However there are things which must be us and not the things a camera sees ( try it ). This link bellow tells the story I would. Allowing for the science and what I should know the Moon can seem much larger than my camera says it is. Somehow my brain makes the dark patches look very large with detail. An hour later my brain and my camera see it about the same when higher in the sky. That's the mystery. How we see many things has long been known to be false. This one is harder understand as to me my brain sees it 2.5 times larger than my camera subjectively. I notice also a landscape causes it to seem nearer to real size. Houses make it seem larger. One can see why, however mostly that's guessing. To really push the boat out using conjecture, the subjective size and detail is so large as to make me think the brain can zoom if it wants to. This is nothing to do with me wanting to. I have no button I can select.
Once or twice I would say the subjective size of the Moon seemed to be about a 1 x 1 foot picture at a normal reading distance of about 2 feet. As soon as I put my fingers up as in a film shoot the size collapsed. It's the detail I see which is so hard to understand. I only mention this as I am sure others have noticed this. You must use either the camera or the filiming finger square to realise how fragile this perception is. I can make my camera show a similar result using zoom. What I don't get is the detail. The camera also seems to see near monochrome whilst I see shades of pinks and black brown. That I don't need to explain.
I once found a place where I could see in near monochorme, Green was the detail that intruded first. It is surprising how well we see when almost no light. Science almost says we don't. Again I suspect the brain is filling in details. The place I did this was some fields near Horton cum Studly 5 miles from Oxford. Somehow it is darker at night than is typical. I suspect when we drive a car the reality of what we see and how we react is daunting, I suspect how we really do it and how we think we do it are vastly different. We are seeing how we expect to see things alone is how it is possible. Road layouts and conventions being largerly why we can. How modern digital data compression works for TV might have some clues. My guess is the landscape is slowly changed whilst danger signs are constantly updated. The result can allow some recall of the landscape for future trips. Perhaps the " Brain Zoom " is working?
Why the Moon Looks Bigger Near the Horizon
Since starting this look at the Flat Earth I've started to look more carefully at everything. One thing I try to do is filter the reason why the story is told away from the " facts ". Sometimes like filtering water some good comes of it. One way to do this is to see where both sides agree. That's no gaurantee of truth, just interesting when they do.
A young lad at the supermarket was closing up. He is going to university to study psychology. I said " that's good you will never have to prove that you are right ". I said do Systems psychology, he wasn't listening as I think I just planted a psychological timebomb in his head. I could tell it had punched a button and he was thinking it through. I met a Systems psychologist from NASA. He said right up to aircraft it's the pilots fault when something goes wrong. When a rocket it's too expensive to say that ( that's worth thinking about ). His job was to try every layout possible and then simulate trouble. I think he said only 10% of what NASA want is possible from a human pilot. Thus to find a way of get the best from humans was his job. He made it clear to me the interaction of man and computer is the best control system ( that was then, guess 1990 ).
One thing I find impossible about UFO's is the crashes they seem to have. We are now able to fly aircraft from here to there without drama on Autopilot. These advanced beings seem dumb when it comes to this small detail.
I don't want a world where my car drives itself. I don't mind a world where the danger is spotted for me. As far as I understood it NASA aimed for that.
Once or twice I would say the subjective size of the Moon seemed to be about a 1 x 1 foot picture at a normal reading distance of about 2 feet. As soon as I put my fingers up as in a film shoot the size collapsed. It's the detail I see which is so hard to understand. I only mention this as I am sure others have noticed this. You must use either the camera or the filiming finger square to realise how fragile this perception is. I can make my camera show a similar result using zoom. What I don't get is the detail. The camera also seems to see near monochrome whilst I see shades of pinks and black brown. That I don't need to explain.
I once found a place where I could see in near monochorme, Green was the detail that intruded first. It is surprising how well we see when almost no light. Science almost says we don't. Again I suspect the brain is filling in details. The place I did this was some fields near Horton cum Studly 5 miles from Oxford. Somehow it is darker at night than is typical. I suspect when we drive a car the reality of what we see and how we react is daunting, I suspect how we really do it and how we think we do it are vastly different. We are seeing how we expect to see things alone is how it is possible. Road layouts and conventions being largerly why we can. How modern digital data compression works for TV might have some clues. My guess is the landscape is slowly changed whilst danger signs are constantly updated. The result can allow some recall of the landscape for future trips. Perhaps the " Brain Zoom " is working?
Why the Moon Looks Bigger Near the Horizon
Since starting this look at the Flat Earth I've started to look more carefully at everything. One thing I try to do is filter the reason why the story is told away from the " facts ". Sometimes like filtering water some good comes of it. One way to do this is to see where both sides agree. That's no gaurantee of truth, just interesting when they do.
A young lad at the supermarket was closing up. He is going to university to study psychology. I said " that's good you will never have to prove that you are right ". I said do Systems psychology, he wasn't listening as I think I just planted a psychological timebomb in his head. I could tell it had punched a button and he was thinking it through. I met a Systems psychologist from NASA. He said right up to aircraft it's the pilots fault when something goes wrong. When a rocket it's too expensive to say that ( that's worth thinking about ). His job was to try every layout possible and then simulate trouble. I think he said only 10% of what NASA want is possible from a human pilot. Thus to find a way of get the best from humans was his job. He made it clear to me the interaction of man and computer is the best control system ( that was then, guess 1990 ).
One thing I find impossible about UFO's is the crashes they seem to have. We are now able to fly aircraft from here to there without drama on Autopilot. These advanced beings seem dumb when it comes to this small detail.
I don't want a world where my car drives itself. I don't mind a world where the danger is spotted for me. As far as I understood it NASA aimed for that.
I find it odd how good they sound when so many components are inside. They often are like using a power tool to do a simple screwdriver job. Although I can find no reference to it Bob Stewart circa 1974 is said to have given a lecture in Cambridge entitled " Distortion in audio amplifiers caused by loss of imformation" or a title much like that. What I was told was is that Bob said if a specification could be reached with fewer components it must sound better. Each time the signal is copied something is lost. The way we measure and the way we test will not find this as the equipement that measures is blind to some of it being that it copies and looses in the same way. As far as I know this drifted into lost time and is forgotten. Bob now controls patents for best ways in digital. Reading a little of them it seems the same thinking.
When at college I was taught Kirchoff laws and told to really listen hard at what they tell us. My Tutor told me to note that everything is in the signal path as in Kirchoff. I feel house keeping circuits and constant current sources do very little harm and often do good. Take your favourite valve designs and add some MJE350/340 CCS's. It should be better. It's using both devices in a way that gives their best. I guess it's like you are running a device at 1000 volts when it sits at 170 volts in reality. As a transistor is very perfect as a current amplifier it should sound more open and less coloured. Morgan Jones is the man to read.
Another bit of UFO trivia. Much is made about alien Moon bases. Quinn Martin show The Invaders shows a Moon shot filmed before 18 th April 1967. It shows what I take to be a Gemini rocket. There is discussion of alien bases seen on the Moon. I then realised it was in production about 2 years before Apollo 8. Surely this is where UFO fanatics get the story from?
Now, this *is* convincing, where do I sign up as a believer...
Flat earth,
Scientifically measured from a plane...
Flat earth,
Scientifically measured from a plane...
The guy doesn't even understand the gravity that makes the bubble work! What an ignoramus!
Jan
What I think he measured was the autopiliot working more than anything else. I suppose the reality is nothing in our day to day life proves it one way or the other. Setting up a satelite dish was my proof in 1985. It was an odd feeling to get that proof. No idea why. I just knew it was real. It is a very unreal concept of a pinhole in space sending me TV.
I remember in about 1969 being asked if the curved skyline seen from the school art block was the Earth's curvature. I said I thought it was. I was wrong. However that was some thought for two kids. I don't think it was topical at the time. I think one of us thought it would need to be a 22 mile view. I have no idea why we said that. Maybe my dad said it from his Radar days.
If you watch the pre Apollo ideas of Earth like Quinn Martin's The Invaders the detail is wrong ( just before in the Gemini era ). Apollo really gave us the real view. We should have known, seems for the detail we didn't. We could have faked it except we had no idea of the real look. The fakes were very different.
I remember in about 1969 being asked if the curved skyline seen from the school art block was the Earth's curvature. I said I thought it was. I was wrong. However that was some thought for two kids. I don't think it was topical at the time. I think one of us thought it would need to be a 22 mile view. I have no idea why we said that. Maybe my dad said it from his Radar days.
If you watch the pre Apollo ideas of Earth like Quinn Martin's The Invaders the detail is wrong ( just before in the Gemini era ). Apollo really gave us the real view. We should have known, seems for the detail we didn't. We could have faked it except we had no idea of the real look. The fakes were very different.
Does a flat earth experience day and night because it rotates or because the Sun orbits it, or do the Flat Earther's have a more sinister explanation?
If you rotate a globe there is one place over the Pacific where there is almost no land to be seen. The Flat Earth people I feel see the Earth much like the flat map on the schoolroom wall. Their version of the World would have some Pacific islands both to the left and right of the flat map if they consider the Pacific worth showing. That is if they were honest enough to say journeys of a few hundred miles takes them to a place a few thousand away or their version. I feel their motive is highly unlikely to be to further science. I bet money comes into it.
Well in either case a flat Earth would experience rapid changes from day to night and vice versa across the entire planet at virtually the same time. No time zones as we know them, no gradual progress from twilight to dark or dark to dawn progressing East to West, more like a window shade opening at sunrise and closing at sunset.
Hmmm...maybe it's a trick with banks of orbiting mirrors?
Hmmm...maybe it's a trick with banks of orbiting mirrors?
The Irish are sending a manned mission to the sun.
They wont get burnt as they are going at night.
They wont get burnt as they are going at night.
Bob Hoover could keep the bubble in the same spot while rolling the plane.
Physics isn't required in the US in high school and it shows.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.