The Conspiracy Theory

Manc33

Tilting 1,700 miles closer to the sun when the sun is 93,000,000 miles away is not going to be enough to cause seasons. As a percentage that's less than 0.00002% closer.

I don't think it quite works like that. If it did, how did a man stand on the moon without the instruments freezing completely? Fuel would freeze. You're not 1,700 miles away there on the moon - you're 238,855 miles away!

So you explain to me then how a tilt of 1700 miles causes seasons, but a man can stand on the moon thats 140 times further away than that and not freeze?

Take another look at what you're having to claim because it doesn't add up. If what you're claiming is true, the planet Mercury wouldn't be there as a solid object - it would have melted to lava.

If an orbiting space shuttle went 10,000 miles towards the sun from the Earth, it would just turn into lava? It has to if you're claiming a minuscule tilt can cause temps to go from around -60c (polar regions) to +40c (African desert).

If I get banned for explaining this then so be it, its not like I know what I am "allowed" to say anymore on here anyway, but you're saying I am talking utter ***** so I am explaining to you what you're going to need to believe to make your own claim work and how it doesn't work.

My original claim stands - the whole globe would be affected and experience the season as a whole, tilting can't really help that when it only makes up for 0.00002% of the distance. I know the sun is hot but it ain't that hot.

briantrumpet

Oh goody. The end of the world is nigh. Maybe this will be a saner place by tomorrow.

Manc33

It wasn't me that started this thread by the way.

The irony is that very first post is off topic. This is more like the "Poking Fun at Conspiracies" thread as opposed to one that talks about and outlines conspiracy theories. I don't care if the whole thread is deleted because pretty much no one listens anyway and off topic nonsense gets posted like stupid cartoons or a woman that is quite frankly, past it.

I am talking "utter sh1te" apparently, so I am bound to want to answer to explain why I'm not, so I answered the last thing about seasons/tilt.

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

It wasn't me that started this thread by the way.

The irony is that very first post is off topic. This is more like the "Poking Fun at Conspiracies" thread as opposed to one that talks about and outlines conspiracy theories. I don't care if the whole thread is deleted because pretty much no one listens anyway and off topic nonsense gets posted like stupid cartoons or a woman that is quite frankly, past it.

I am talking "utter sh1te" apparently, so I am bound to want to answer to explain why I'm not, so I answered the last thing about seasons/tilt.

The tilt is about light intensity not how close it is.

Shine a torch on a ball, it will be brighter where you or pointing it and not so bright as you move away from it.

Edit - here you go
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/c ... asons.html

It has pictures and everything, shouldn't be beyond your comprehension

city_boy

Manc33 wrote:

City Boy wrote:

Loads of land from 40 minutes onwards

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fyvE_B9RxgQ

Its the first one I have seen with any land.

I managed to match it up...



Its the Gulf of California, the line on the map is 481 miles:



Its the most convincing one I have seen up to now, mainly because Google Earth pretty much matches it for scale, which is all it was ever about. Even if it is genuine footage (which we have to assume, because it would be possible to fake this footage!) they could still just be doing the odd genuine mission and faking the rest. I mean you can't take away the fakery, the bubbles in space, the boingy hair, the gravity shifts in space and so on.

Its hard to debunk the footage but it could still be a fake. It depends which way you choose to believe.

So we're back to saying there's no images of Earth from space, yet earlier he accepted this as real. And his basis for accepting its legitimacy was (ironically) because it matched up with a cgi computer model of a spherical earth made up of composite images from space and high altitude photographs! :roll:

Velonutter

PBlakeney wrote:

So, the World is flat? :shock:

Don't you go agreeing with him now :-) 8) 8) 8)

Velonutter

Veronese68 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Velonutter wrote:

Manc33 go back and ride your bike, you are trolling on here and doing my head in.

As NorvernRob says you are spouting absolute Sh!te, rubbish, tosh, call it what you will, you are Trolling, go away and read the rules, one more post like the above and it is goodbye.

There is nothing wrong with discussing conspiracy theories and indeed there are many cover ups but claiming the world is round and the moon is transparent is rubbish, go away and play with the fairies, I don't mind if you actually contributed anything on here but you have been banned from other sites for talking rubbish, don't pollute this one.

This is your finally warning!

So, the World is flat? :shock:

I presume VN means claiming the world is round in a 2D sense, as in disc shaped, not spherical. If not the lunacy may be contagious which is a worry. To be fair reading too much of this could drive a person to insanity.

Yep I am going insane, totally insane, I could have sworn I said flat 8) :roll:

Manc33

The land matches up (on the above ISS image) but that doesn't mean the black circle part isn't a vignette. It is still possible that it too is a close up image with a wide angle lens and a near-solid vignette added.

My point was that it was the first image out of probably twenty images that had any land on. So that would suggest they are avoiding taking images of land if they can, but of course they can't all be of the oceans. At one stage I thought I was never going to even see one showing any land because I kept looking and not finding one. If the Earth is 75% oceans and 25% land then at least one in four images should have land on it. Plus no one wants to see the oceans anyway, we want to see our own country etc.

I wasn't admitting anything as such, like with the Krakatoa thing, it sounds good, but could easily be a fabrication. I mean what is there to prove the secondary "echo explosion" people heard even was Krakatoa? We just have to believe it was.

What about the points about lighthouses and statues and why they don't disappear behind a big curved body of water (where the 12% refraction is taken into account)?

Something like that is totally undebunkable because it physically shows us the curve is not there. If the curve is not there, obscuring what on a round Earth it has to be obscuring - the Earth obviously cannot be round. The fact that we have been taught it is round doesn't change what we can physically observe. If you say it does then you're off into some fantasy land and have thrown science and logic out of the window.

Science is based on observations in that science is secondary to observation. We have had it drummed into us that it is the other way around somehow, to the point where we don't even question it, where observations are assumed (never practiced) because of what some science book "teaches". Certain points are never explained like the lighthouses/statues thing and there it is, but I harp on about it because it is observable, demonstrable and physical. Stuff wrote down about Krakatoa over 100 years back, isn't. Neither is anything taught in any science book. You read it and have to just believe that was the outcome of their experiment, its all on paper, you can't really see it.

Other stuff you can debunk, like the "Coriolis effect". Its just BS like gravity - there isn't any "effect". People on the equator making water turn anti-clockwise then stepping over the equator and making it go clockwise are just flipping a lever and using a "magic plughole" that makes water flow each way depending how the lever is set. Without a magic plughole, if the metal were evenly machined to perfection, it would go anti-clockwise sometimes and clockwise other times, without any real "reason" except the water started getting momentum that way creating the vortex. No, its not the "spin" of the Earth causing that. Its a made up thing, to help bolster heliocentricity (whether that is the case or not, how should I know if Earth is flat or round lol, but there's more evidence to say it is flat, yep).

Chris Bass it doesn't matter if it is the intensity of the heat or the light, if it is tilting only 0.00002% of the distance closer to the sun, for either one. it won't increase much in temperature, or light intensity. It isn't about the light because this is about seasons and temperatures.

finchy

the seasons explained

pinno

I have been away for a day and come back to 3 pages of bollox!! This is worse than pro race. Can someone sum up the last 3 pages please because I am pretending to have a life.

I'm off to pro race. I bet Kangert doesn't think the world is flat.

pblakeney

Velonutter wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Velonutter wrote:

Manc33 go back and ride your bike, you are trolling on here and doing my head in.

As NorvernRob says you are spouting absolute Sh!te, rubbish, tosh, call it what you will, you are Trolling, go away and read the rules, one more post like the above and it is goodbye.

There is nothing wrong with discussing conspiracy theories and indeed there are many cover ups but claiming the world is round and the moon is transparent is rubbish, go away and play with the fairies, I don't mind if you actually contributed anything on here but you have been banned from other sites for talking rubbish, don't pollute this one.

This is your finally warning!

So, the World is flat? :shock:

I presume VN means claiming the world is round in a 2D sense, as in disc shaped, not spherical. If not the lunacy may be contagious which is a worry. To be fair reading too much of this could drive a person to insanity.

Yep I am going insane, totally insane, I could have sworn I said flat 8) :roll:

Deja vu.
Is this a glitch in the Matrix?

pinno

1010010101110101011100101001010101011111001010101010101001010101001000010111010100101111010010010101000101111010100111001010101011111001010010101010010000011110101010110010000100101010100101011101010111001010010101010111110010101010101010010101010010000101110101001011110100100101010001011110101001110010101010111110010100101010100100000111101010101100100001001010101001010111010101110010100101010101111100101010101010100101010100100001011101010010111101001001010100010111101010011100101010101111100101001010101001000001111010101011001000010010101010010101110101011100101001010101011111001010101010101001010101001000010111010100101111010010010101000101111010100111001010101011111001010010101010010000011110101010110010000100101010100101011101010111001010010101010111110010101010101010010101010010000101110101001011110100100101010001011110101001110010101010111110010100101010100100000111101010101100100001001010101001010111010101110010100101010101111100101010101010100101010100100001011101010010111101001001010100010111101010011100101010101111100101001010101001000001111010101011001000010010101010010101110101011100101001010101011111001010101010101001010101001000010111010100101111010010010101000101111010100111001010101011111001010010101010010000011110101010110010000100101010100101011101010111001010010101010111110010101010101010010101010010000101110101001011110100100101010001011110101001110010101010111110010100101010100100000111101010101100100001001010101001010111010101110010100101010101111100101010101010100101010100100001011101010010111101001001010100010111101010011100101010101111100101001010101001000001111010101011001000010010101010010101110101011100101001010101011111001010101010101001010101001000010111010100101111010010010101000101111010100111001010101011111001010010101010010000011110101010110010000100101010100101011101010111001010010101010111110010101010101010010101010010000101110101001011110100100101010001011110101001110010101010111110010100101010100100000111101010101100100001001010101001010111010101110010100101010101111100101010101010100101010100100001011101010010111101001001010100010111101010011100101010101111100101001010101001000001111010101011001000010010101010010101110101011100101001010101011111001010101010101001010101001000010111010100101111010010010101000101111010100111001010101011111001010010101010010000011110101010110010000100101010100101011101010111001010010101010111110010101010101010010101010010000101110101001011110100100101010001011110101001110010101010111110010100101010100100000111101010101100100001001010

andcp

Manc33 wrote:

What about the points about lighthouses and statues and why they don't disappear behind a big curved body of water (where the 12% refraction is taken into account)?

I'll ask the same question I asked several pages back (which you didn't answer) - 12% of what distance? 12% of what? please answer, I'm curious....

pinno

Syntax error

pinno

Manc33

"Refraction" (the excuse often bounded around for why we can see things way further out at sea than we should be able to) only covers 12% of the distance from you (the observer) to the object you're observing. Light coming off the object refracts 12% of the distance, not 100%. It would need to be refracting fully (100%) for you to see the base of a ship that is miles out to sea.

Swapping to discussing light when I was talking about temperature (regarding seasons). :roll:

On a round Earth the light spreads as shown above, on a flat Earth that same spreading effect happens if the sun goes in a wider and narrower circle.

June - sun is in the North, goes slower and in a smaller circle.
December - sun is in the South, goes faster and in a bigger circle.

You can't have dramatic temperature differences (like -40c to 60c on the same Earth on the same days) if the Earth only tilts 0.00002% closer (1700 miles) to the sun.

If that were true, if such small distances affected temperature as you're claiming with the 1700 mile tilt, you'd be a block of ice when you wake up and suffering unbearable heat at noon. The diameter of the Earth is about 8000 miles, so if you were at the equator at 6AM this means at noon you're 4,000 miles closer to the sun on a round Earth. So if a 1700 mile tilt causes a -40c to 60c change, what must a 4000 mile alteration do? You wouldn't survive one morning due to it being -100c or something and you wouldn't survive a day with it being 100c or whatever increase it would be over the 1700 mile tilt. Which is why I said the sun is hot but come on, its not that hot. Mercury wouldn't be able to exist that close to the sun for a start, what is it made from, Kryptonite?

"Although temperatures on the planet can reach as high as 801 degrees Fahrenheit (427 degrees Celsius), it is possible that the planet could boast water-ice on its surface in the shaded portions of some of its craters." - space.com

That was Mercury they were talking about by the way. Do you want me to pull up the distance it is from the sun or don't you want to know?

Tilting seems to be another BS answer then, oh it works - but only if you don't think into it at all and take it as the gospel truth, without really knowing. Unfortunately a lot of what passes for science is exactly that way. You're daft if you question it... sounds like a religion. A Christian thinks people are daft that don't believe in Jesus. In both cases it is laughing at someone because they don't believe something, which is a bit odd and stinks of collectivism/conformity, puke.

pinno

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

Chris Bass it doesn't matter if it is the intensity of the heat or the light, if it is tilting only 0.00002% of the distance closer to the sun, for either one. it won't increase much in temperature, or light intensity. It isn't about the light because this is about seasons and temperatures.

Didn't read the rest but to answer this, it has absolutely nothing to do with distance.

Because of the curve the same amount of light (which gives heat and so seasons and temperatures) hits on a smaller area on the bit facing the sun and a larger area on the bit tilted away. Do you see? Same energy, smaller area equals hotter, larger area equals colder?

As an extreme example you can burn things with a magnifying glass because you focus the light from the sun, the sun doesn't suddenly get closer

pinno

pinno

Manc33

Here's a flat Earther's answer... not my words, before you throw the chalk eraser at me!

"The heliocentric model claims seasons change based on the ball-Earth’s alleged “axial tilt” and “elliptical orbit” around the Sun. Their flawed current model even places us closest to the Sun (91,400,000 miles) in January when its actually winter, and farthest from the Sun (94,500,000 miles) in July when its actually summer throughout much of the Earth. They say due to the ball-Earth’s tilt, different places receive different amounts of direct sunlight and that is what produces the seasonal and temperature changes. This makes little sense, however, because if the Sun’s heat travels over ninety million miles to reach the ball-Earth, how could a slight tilt, a mere few thousand miles maximum, negate the Sun’s ninety million mile journey, giving us simultaneous tropical summers and Antarctic winters?"

Your answer of course would be "because it tilts". :P

To which I would have to say read it again.

I won't paste it all but he then continues to add that certain star constellations that are not possible on a tilting Earth are visible and have been recorded out at sea. If you know the month they were sailing and roughly the day, plus their location, then yes it isn't possible to "take tilt into account" unless you're going to then add on the absurd suggestion that you can see the stars through the Earth (and why not, if its claimed lighthouses and statues can be seen through the ocean).

ddraver

For the third one I got to the Coriolis effect before I burst out laughing

Fourth one - You ve tied yourself in knots so much you re making no sense. Distance to the sun is not important. John Finch has provided you with the explanation for that and you have ignored it

I have another request, which is a simple trick I ve learnt from geology, is can you please sketch the solar system as you see it. It doesnt have to be rigorously accurate but just an idea of how the earth and the sun move over a day/year. This is partly because I cannot visualise what you say but also because if you try and draw it out I strongly suspect that you'll run into the obvious issues that make it false

chris_bass

Shine a torch at the middle of a ball.

How big is the area it lights up?

Shine it near the top, how big is the area now?

Same amount of light, smaller area, more heat, same amount of light, larger area, less heat, what is so hard to understand? Even for you this is simple.

finchy

How heat changes according to angle.

I think that this might convince Manc33. Not so sure about Velonutter though.

briantrumpet

johnfinch wrote:

How heat changes according to angle.

I think that this might convince Manc33. Not so sure about Velonutter though.

That picture is obviously rubbish. The sun on the right hasn't got anything under it, so it's going to fall down, because of gravity. Oh, hang on...

Manc33

In the above image the light is coming out like a laser beam. The sun doesn't emit light that way, it emits 360 degrees of light. Light directly below isn't like that, it spreads out. The patch under the angled beam would have light bleeding into it in reality.

Light can also "scatter" in this way if the sun were 3,000 miles up and measured 32 miles, as in the flat Earth model.

You're explaining how seasons work in a heliocentric model and I am explaining them in a geocentric model - both work in both models to create seasons.

The point then isn't even about seasons, but how they are possible, well they are possible in both models. In the round Earth model you need to include a tilt. In the flat Earth model you need to include North/South movement of the sun as well as just around in a circle.

The deciding factor then is which model has physical/demonstrable/observable evidence and which doesn't.

No one wants to talk about the statues/lighthouses. Don't tell me I won one?

ddraver

No. You are/were using seasons as a suggestion that the heliocentric model cannot be true because the distance between a tilted earth and a non tilted earth were to small to explain temperature differences

John has shown you why that is not relevant

With regard to the sun releasing energy in 360deg, you are right but what you have missed is that the sun is so far away and the earth so small in comparison that the energy falling on the earth is actually very similar. The light has been polarised by distance just as if it had been sent through a lens. It's how polarised sun lenses work.

bompington

Pigeon chess DD, pigeon chess.

ddraver

Possibly so bomp, but it made me go and check it again and reminded me that the world really is interesting enough without having to make stuff up.

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

Don't tell me I won one?

That would be the pigeon strutting then... :roll: