The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:55 am

Left Seater wrote:Southern Hemisphere flights are waiting for your answer. You claim to have one but don't want to share it.

We are ready to laugh.

I made no such claim.

I said I could comment further, but will not do so until I research and verify more things.

At some point I will comment further.
That point is not now.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:59 am

An arch and an arc are not the same thing.

Carry on dumbfucks.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:08 am

poptart wrote:I've not posted any model which I claim is THE EARTH.

Jayne wrote:Except all of the flat Earth ones? Another lie to compound your multiple layers of duplicity. Ridiculous.

Post the pic I put up -- and my quote saying that it is THE earth.

You have lied throughout the thread, Jay.

To the contrary, we have many alleged pics which NASA claims is THE earth.

*FAIL*

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 am

Forked tongue.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:10 am

:wink:

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:20 am

Mikey wrote:An arch and an arc are not the same thing.

Carry on dumbfucks.

Which is which?

:wink:

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:25 am

pops, since you are unwilling to examine the offered explanations and examples in the last 32 pages, just stop. Nobody that is sane and educated has shifted their views toward yours. After 32 pages, you've said you haven't had time to examine anything other than to berate others and bring up bad math in an attempt to deflect.

You are in Korea for a reason.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:34 am

AP wrote:bad math

Link?

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:42 am

poptart wrote:
AP wrote:bad math
Link?

http://theoneboard.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=46345

BTW, reusing the Toronto skyline with differnt angles and not taking in consideration how high above sea level where the skyline starts, pretty much kicks your example in the ass. You are intentionally obtuse and most likely mentally ill.

You have not answered any educated person in science about anything presented. You aren't stupid. You are mentally ill. Not calling you names either because you are not right upstairs.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:56 am

AP wrote:BTW, reusing the Toronto skyline with differnt angles and not taking in consideration how high above sea level where the skyline starts, pretty much kicks your example in the ass.

LOL

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:28 am

poptart wrote:
88 wrote:
poptart wrote:Why do you lie?
Where is the Rogers Center in Wire Boy's picture, Poppy?

And weren't you the one who claimed that if the Earth was a sphere, you shouldn't be able to see any buildings in Toronto?
I've never claimed any such thing.

I've always used the basic math and referred to known curvature rate to determine what should be seen.

Wire boy's location is south and west of the above pic.

Since RC is lower than the surrounding buildings, it is obscured by them.

You can plainly look at the pic and see that buildings are in view which are supposed to be under the horizon.

Again, it's not even close.

The alleged curvature is not there.

I could pull up a dozen such pictures from the internet without even trying.

Wire boy is looking from this general direction -- but slightly further west.
Rogers Centre is clearly under the other buildings which would be in front of it, from his view.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:34 am

The fact that you don't listen to aviators and navigators and anybody having experienced traveling around the world is thrown out by you based on your unwavering false beliefs. If you don't listen to answers offered while not being objective, then kindly STFU and leave this topic alone. You are displaying yourself as much of a fraud as mstool and LTard. If you post those same pics again, it would tell me you have a serious mental disorder.

32 pages and you haven't taken the time to examine examples and explanations? Logically, you lack credibility just by that alone. You haven't taken the time and you won't.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:49 am

AP wrote:If you post those same pics again...

I posted them because 88 asked about it.

Beyond that, I'll post whatever I want.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:11 am

poptart wrote:
AP wrote:If you post those same pics again...
I posted them because 88 asked about it.

Beyond that, I'll post whatever I want.

Then we've seen those same pics for 32 pages. You are admitting to be a spammer with no real thoughtful responses Lpop2.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:15 am

This picture ruins the sheeple.

From St. Catharines, 31 miles away.
Clearly not taken from far above water level.

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

Plug in whatever numbers you think can make you feel good.

So sorry.

You lose.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:19 am

Atomic Punk wrote:
poptart wrote:
AP wrote:If you post those same pics again...
I posted them because 88 asked about it.

Beyond that, I'll post whatever I want.
Then we've seen those same pics for 32 pages. You are admitting to be a spammer with no real thoughtful responses Lpop2.

You know, suckaholic, on page 31, is still not even up to speed on curvature rate -- yet he continues to call me names and say I am wrong about the rate.

Why don't you berate him for being an incredible dullard?

Because you, AP, are BLATANTLY intellectually dishonest.
You are confused, you are dishonest, and on top of it all, you wear panties.

I've been cordial to you throughout, despite you not doing likewise.
You should come to grips with reality.

Just a tip.

Atomic Punk · Post by **Atomic Punk** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:08 am

IKYABWAI? Really? Then you introduce smackaholic as your source as a mathematician to discredit anyone? Good to see you then went with low ball .net "smack."

Whatever dude.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Sat Oct 10, 2015 10:57 am

Atomic Punk wrote: Then you introduce smackaholic as your source as a mathematician to discredit anyone?

I believe the term is smackaholis ad absurdum.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 12:50 pm

To AP, 'holic, 88, Lefty, a few others, and especially Jay (who actually seems to have gotten angered by all this, so 'tart gets BODE for that) - is there any point in continuing this? AP (ironically) claims 'tart is mentally ill, as I sorta did when I said you can't argue with a sick mind, and even tried to give the illness a name - willful ignorance. He doesn't want to know or accept the truth. It upsets his apple cart. We can present all the evidence in the (round) world, break out the indisputable math and science, make it clear as day, and nothing will convince 'tart of the truth, so why keep trying? I'm fine with allowing him to believe what he wants, and imo, so should you. God said it (even if he actually didn't), 'tart believes it, and that settles it. End of story.

Sure, it's fun to ridicule him and show him to be the buffoonish Klown in Korea that he is, but that's pretty much been done in this thread ad nauseum. He'll just keep bustin' out inanity from the lunatic fringe to try (and fail) to convince us that we're the krazy ones.

I admit, he's gotten me, too; he's made all of us look at something that just ain't there, so props to him for that. Basically, throughout this thread, he's the cop here:

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 1:42 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:even tried to give the illness a name - willful ignorance. He doesn't want to know or accept the truth. It upsets his apple cart.

The shrink-types already gave it a name, long ago -- cognitive dissonance.

It's what fuels the global warming crowd, as well.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:07 pm

KC Scott wrote:I put this up 15 pages ago - He suffers from Delusions with religious content a type of schizophrenia

http://www.currentpsychiatry.com/specia ... 0d3b9.html

Uhm... no, Dr. Scott.

But he is indeed suffering from a mental illness, just not that one.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:34 pm

You can fuck with him all you want but some of the math and science he has brought up has been pretty interesting, at least to me it has. I still find it strange that I know I can look across 20 some miles of Lake Tahoe and see the casinos on the other side when the math says I shouldn't. The science seems to explain it (Fermat's principle) but it's still a strange phenomenon and one shouldn't be called crazy for questioning it. I also find it strange that pilots fly thousands of miles to places that are on clearly on an arc and yet they don't take that arc into account when flying. Rocket scientists take the arc into account. Why not pilots? And many of the pics of earth don't match up. Sometimes N America is huge sometimes it's small. Now that is not really math, but a lot of the math people use comes from the same place as many of the pics (NASA). Why is that?
No, you people are crazy if you bumble through life with your head in the sand.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:47 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:even tried to give the illness a name - willful ignorance. He doesn't want to know or accept the truth. It upsets his apple cart.

The shrink-types already gave it a name, long ago -- cognitive dissonance.

It's what fuels the global warming crowd, as well.

CD isn't an illness dumbass. It is, if true, a human condition.

KCpurseswinger,
Put down the DSM4 and back away from all the Dr talk.

Sin,
DSM5

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 2:55 pm

Moving Sale wrote: CD isn't an illness dumbass. It is, if true, a human condition.

I dunno -- you seem to think you're cool, intelligent, and worthwhile, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In fact, this diminished mental state of yours is so severe, it actually makes others ill.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:10 pm

Nice white flag you whale porking empty suit.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:22 pm

Hey purseswinger,
The distance doesn’t matter because the circle is always the same size so the land and water should still be the same size relative to the circle. I think I learned that in 5th grade. Where were you? Shopping for heels?
As for orientation. That's also is a crock of shit because many of the pics have the same orientation and the land and water masses are still different. Go choke on a cock you street walking transexual ho.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:04 pm

Moving Sale wrote:I still find it strange that I know I can look across 20 some miles of Lake Tahoe and see the casinos on the other side when the math says I shouldn't.

Your math is fucked, your physics is fucked and you are fucked.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:39 pm

Thanks for showing your work you stupid racist cum fountain.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:52 pm

Moving Sale wrote:I still find it strange that I know I can look across 20 some miles of Lake Tahoe and see the casinos on the other side when the math says I shouldn't.

I'd be interested in pursuing that further to see what may be causing it. Without knowing where you were and where you were looking, how high your vantage point was, how tall the buildings are that you were viewing, where their heights are measured from, the elevation of their bases, etc, it's hard to determine much. But given a few pieces of information and making a few assumptions, we can maybe make a few guesses.

The maximum north-south diameter of Lake Tahoe is 22 miles, and east-west is 12 miles, so I assume you were looking from south to north since the southernmost part of the lake is in California and the northernmost part is in Nevada, where it'd be more likely to see casinos. There's an area near the southernmost side of the lake called Pope Beach, and its elevation is listed at 6,229'. Crystal Bay is near the northernmost side, and its elevation is 6,400'. Not sure if a predominant feature of the lake's surrounding area is that its elevation is higher on the north end than on the south, but this is one example of where that seems to hold true. If the horizon is to the north, and the landmarks you're seeing to the north start at a higher elevation than where you're standing, that has to be taken into account when doing the math.

Using the Earth Curve Calculator that pops linked to earlier, and using 20 miles as the distance and 5.5' for eye height, about 195' of what's being viewed should be below the horizon, assuming your feet and the base of what you're viewing are at sea level. But you're not at sea level, and what you're viewing may be at a higher elevation than where you're standing, meaning less of what you're viewing would be obscured by the horizon. Just using the elevations I cited of the two locations at the north and south ends of the lake, the difference is 171', which would significantly reduce how much is below the horizon. And if you're standing somewhere that's elevated from the ground, that would reduce it further, almost to the point where virtually nothing would be below the horizon.

Like I said, I don't know all the details, but these are some possibilities that could lead one to believe that what they're seeing contradicts the math.

I also find it strange that pilots fly thousands of miles to places that are on clearly on an arc and yet they don't take that arc into account when flying.

How would taking "that arc into account" be manifested? What would you expect the pilots to do to take it into account that they don't already do or that gravity/centripetal force do for them? Should they be doing something differently in flight? If so, what?

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 5:13 pm

And just as an aside to lend more credence to the Earth's curvature (as if more is needed), let's look at the engineering that went into the design and construction of the Verrazano–Narrows Bridge, which connects Staten Island to Brooklyn and has the longest bridge span in the Americas. Its two towers are 693' high and their distance apart is 4,260'. The curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8 inches farther apart at their tops than at their bases; they are not parallel to each other.

But what did those stupid heathenistic engineers know?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:00 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: Like I said, I don't know all the details, but these are some possibilities that could lead one to believe that what they're seeing contradicts the math.

You cant really see Stateline from the NV side of the north shore because it is around a point, but from Tahoe city and Dollar point you can. It's probably about 17 miles. Harvey's is a few blocks from the beach and at an elevation of 6283. The lake when full is 6223 and the was full back in the 80's when I lived there. So standing on shore that's 135 ft on the calculator, minus the 60 foot difference and you still have 75 ft. The building is 11 stories (the old one anyways) so only a few stories should be visible, but you can see the almost every story. So the math IS fucked up. The question is why? That answer appears to be Fermat's principle. And the other question is: why can’t you freaks just admit the math is fucked up and move on to the science of why? And how can you call Pop crazy when YOU don’t even understand the question let alone the science.

How would taking "that arc into account" be manifested? What would you expect the pilots to do to take it into account that they don't already do or that gravity/centripetal force do for them? Should they be doing something differently in flight? If so, what?

Well thank you for answering my question with questions of your own. No worries I will play. It would manifest itself in adjustments to the flight path just like rockets do and just like pilots do to adjust for altitude differences from takeoff airport to landing airport or when they burn fuel and have to adjust. And maybe you are right. Maybe there are scientific reasons why they don’t have to, maybe they do it when they adjust for fuel burn but just don’t know it. I just think it is an interesting anomaly.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:10 pm

KC Scott wrote:a picture taken from a different distance can be zoomed in to appear the same size as the picture it's compared to

So fucking what? The circle still has the same d and r and c so the things on the circle would all appear the same relative to each other and the edge of the circle.. Go get a globe, if you have one

. Make a square with your hands like a campy director. Now move around the globe anyway you want and then tell me what you saw looks, in any way, like those dumb pics. Good god you are dumb.

Orientation of a revolving object also changes the perspective of size relative the the location of the camera

Hey dumb ass. We already went over this. Pics taken from the same angle of the same part of the globe have the continents and oceans at different sizes. Are you actually retarded? Now take your stupid orientation argument and put it in your ragbag and shove them both up your transvestite ass.

Board Fodder is Fodder for a Reason

Yea claim bode while getting your ass handed to you. That's a good look, it matches your p u r s e you word filtering pansy.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:32 pm

Moving Sale wrote:So the math IS fucked up. The question is why? That answer appears to be Fermat's principle. And the other question is: why can’t you freaks just admit the math is fucked up and move on to the science of why?

The math is not fucked up. The math is precise. What may be fucked up are the numbers going into the computations, and as you mentioned, there may be other scientific factors like Fermat's Principle that explain what is observed. The math will adequately explain what is seen if the right numbers are provided and all relevant factors are considered.

GIGO

Well thank you for answering my question with questions of your own.

You didn't ask a question. You made a statement:

you wrote:I also find it strange that pilots fly thousands of miles to places that are on clearly on an arc and yet they don't take that arc into account when flying.

That's a period, not a question mark. Math and punctuation appear to challenge you.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:50 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:And just as an aside to lend more credence to the Earth's curvature (as if more is needed), let's look at the engineering that went into the design and construction of the Verrazano–Narrows Bridge, which connects Staten Island to Brooklyn and has the longest bridge span in the Americas. Its two towers are 693' high and their distance apart is 4,260'. The curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8 inches farther apart at their tops than at their bases; they are not parallel to each other.

But what did those stupid heathenistic engineers know?

A circle with a radius of 3959miles has a circumference of 24875.13miles.
693ft is .13125 miles
A circle with a radius of 3959.13125miles has a circumference of 24875.96 miles or 52,588.8 inches difference.
24875.13X 5280=131,340,686.4ft
4260/131,340,686.4=.00003243 or .003243%
.00003243X52,588=1.7 or about 1.5/8 in

How did I do?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 6:55 pm

I wrote:Well thank you for answering my question with questions of your own.

You wrote:You didn't ask a question. You made a statement:

I wrote:I also find it strange that pilots fly thousands of miles to places that are on clearly on an arc and yet they don't take that arc into account when flying.

You wrote:That's a period, not a question mark. Math and punctuation appear to challenge you.

I clearly followed that with "Rocket scientists take the arc into account. Why not pilots?", but go ahead and take things out of context to try and make me look stupid, because it only makes you look stupider.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:00 pm

Smackie Chan wrote: The math is not fucked up. The math is precise. What may be fucked up are the numbers going into the computations, and as you mentioned, there may be other scientific factors like Fermat's Principle that explain what is observed. The math will adequately explain what is seen if the right numbers are provided and all relevant factors are considered.

We are getting pretty far down the rabbit hole between math and science, but the rules of circles, as it were, says I should not be able to see most of Harvey's from the shore at Tahoe city and yet I can. The math says I should not be able to see it. Did I make that clear enough? FP, supposedly, explains why I can see most of it. Again if you think the "math" involving circles says I should be able to see it then you need to go back to 12th grade.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:17 pm

Moving Sale wrote:A circle with a radius of 3959miles has a circumference of 24875.13miles.
693ft is .13125 miles
A circle with a radius of 3959.13125miles has a circumference of 24875.96 miles or 52,588.8 inches difference.
24875.13X 12=131,340,686.4ft
4260/131,340,686.4=.00003243 or .003243%
.00003243X52,588=1.7 or about 1.5/8 in

How did I do?

You get an A for coming up with the right answer and using the right equations to get there, but a B- in writing it down:

you wrote:24875.13X 12=131,340,686.4ft

Actually, it doesn't. It equals 298,501.56. But that's not what you computed. You multiplied 24875.13 x 5280 to convert miles to feet, which is what you should have done, and what yields the product you cited.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:30 pm

Moving Sale wrote:the rules of circles, as it were, says I should not be able to see most of Harvey's from the shore at Tahoe city and yet I can.

Again, IF all relevant factors are considered, the math will bear out what should be seen. There are a lot of unknowns and assumptions being made that lead you to conclude there's a math error present. Knowing exact elevations, distances, vantage points, etc. would be helpful, as well as applying FP and perhaps other laws of light and refractivity, which also involve math. The rules of circles may not be the only math that needs to be considered, which I think is your point, so we may be in violent agreement. All I'm saying is that once everything relevant is known and factored in, math is how you would verify correctness.

if you think the "math" involving circles says I should be able to see it then you need to go back to 12th grade.

Probably closer to 9th grade since I took calculus in 12th, and all that's needed here is geometry and maybe a little trig.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:37 pm

Moving Sale wrote:go ahead and take things out of context to try and make me look stupid, because it only makes you look stupider.

Php protocol also seems to punk you, and while you did follow up your statement with questions, I clearly was responding only to the statement since that is what I included in the quotes. And let's be honest - you don't need help from me or anyone else to make you look stupid.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Sat Oct 10, 2015 7:43 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:A circle with a radius of 3959miles has a circumference of 24875.13miles.
693ft is .13125 miles
A circle with a radius of 3959.13125miles has a circumference of 24875.96 miles or 52,588.8 inches difference.
24875.13X 12=131,340,686.4ft
4260/131,340,686.4=.00003243 or .003243%
.00003243X52,588=1.7 or about 1.5/8 in

How did I do?
You get an A for coming up with the right answer and using the right equations to get there, but a B- in writing it down:
you wrote:24875.13X 12=131,340,686.4ft
Actually, it doesn't. It equals 298,501.56. But that's not what you computed. You multiplied 24875.13 x 5280 to convert miles to feet, which is what you should have done, and what yields the product you cited.

I actually fixed it 2 min before you posted