Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - 3DGeek

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:58:49 PM »
The trouble with the new map: even more severe than with the old one.

Suppose it's summer in Antarctica - and you're standing on the south pole.

At some point during the months of continuous sunlight, the sun is going to be shining from the direction of the Ross Ice Shelf (the "bottom" of the new map).    (You want to say "South" - but directions are so screwed up at the poles...!)

So the actual FE sun is somewhere between the Ross Ice Shelf and the "edge of the world" at the Ice Cliff.

Which means that for anyone in (say) South Africa - the sun is setting (or rising?) on the SOUTHERN horizon...yeah - that's a bit odd isn't it.

Then, for NewZealanders - their little islands have been smeared out over some ungodly large distance - which way does a compass point?   Both North and South poles are "above" them on the map (again, putting compass directions on things is hard).

I had a small amount of grudging respect for the original FE map - it's not without it's faults, but it's quite a clever interpretation - but this new one is must batshit-crazy!

It's so badly screwy, you can't easily get your head around just how screwy it really is!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:45:08 PM »
Unless you are suggesting the "graviton" has been discovered. If so, then please provide evidence and I will retract my claim.

Now that's a tempting offer!

Wave-duality says that for every force-carrier there is a corresponding particle.   Electromagnetic waves have the photon, Strong and Weak nuclear force have the Gluon, Mass has the Higgs particle.  Gravitational waves (if they exist) have the graviton.   Even electrons (normally seen as a particle) have an associated wave function (see Schrodinger's equation).

In fact, there isn't really a distinction between a force as a wave or as a particle - they are merely aspects of the same exact thing that show themselves up under different experimental situations.   So some experiments with light can count photons where others diffract and focus light as a wave.   This duality is a hard thing to wrap our minds around - but we've seen it in enough physical situations to know that it's true.

So - for gravity,  the only experiment that would reveal a "particle-like" nature would require a particle accelerator about the size of the orbit of the moon  (er, sorry FE'ers...I mean "MUCH BIGGER THAN THE ICE WALL CIRCLE").

However, we don't need to do that - we only need to detect a gravity WAVE - and the existence of the dual particle can either be assumed or ignored.

So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves.  For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO.   A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.

We don't need to directly detect a graviton because we've detected gravity waves...and they provide PRECISELY the same level of proof as their particulate dual.

So yeah - we know gravity is a thing that's carried by a wave - that things as far distant as a pair of orbiting black holes in another galaxy have the power to transmit a gravity wave that can be detected here on Earth.

Feel free to retract your claim at any time.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fake Photo Fest
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:23:39 PM »
But no, you can't just adjust the aperture and get a perfect photo.

I have used composite layers from bracketed exposures many times.  That does not make a fake image.

I agree - but many here would not.   Some here have been complaining that images are "photoshopped" - but that's a common tool for adjusting lighting to account for exposure issues (and also for something called "Gamma Correction" which makes images look more realistic by accounting for the differences in brightness sensitivity curves for camera, screen and human eye).

My point is that any "digital" image has inherently been "processed" if only by the act of displaying it on a particular type of display.

At what point "correction" becomes "fakery" is a matter of opinion.

To my mind "The Blue Marble" is very, very close to the "fake" end of the spectrum - and I'm happy to dismiss it as evidence.  But the Apollo 8 "Earthrise" photo is right at the "correction" end, and should be believed.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: High Places
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:17:46 PM »
Curvature is a tough thing to see in a three dimensional situation because you have curvature in the left-right direction (which you'd have if FET was true) as well as in the near-far direction (which you only have with RET).   The consequences of these two things are hard to wrap your head around.

What IS noticeable in RE but not FE is that from higher altitudes, you can see much further and that the percentage of the 360 degree view that is sky gradually increases with altitude.   (Pilots call this "Horizon Depression").   The ability to see further from the height of a ferris wheel should be easily enough to be obvious - but in most situations, there is enough nearby ground clutter to make accurate visible range measurements difficult when close to the ground.

Flat Earth General / Re: London Documentary on Flat Eart
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:12:35 PM »
Are you also interested in talking with seasoned veterans at the Flat Earth debunking game too?

I naturally assume a balanced view in your work.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:11:10 PM »

The coriolis force does not influence the navigation directly, but the weather and, with that, the wind direction, which, in turn influences the navigation. However, if you argue that the flat earth is spinning (which I don't know if the flat earthers claim that it is), then you would indeed have coriolis force. On the real earth the coriolis force makes low pressure systems rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere - that can be seen from the ground, sometimes. That would be non existing on a flat earth. Even if the flat earth was spinning, the pressure systems would all be rotating in the same direction.

No - I don't think the FE'ers generally believe that their flat planet spins.   I can't guarantee that none of them believe that - because there are always multiple FE theories for everything.

If it doesn't spin - then there can be no coriollis force - and multiple observations (eg the way long range snipers take account of it when adjusting their aim point - or the reason that hurricanes don't cross the equator and spin in opposite directions either side of it) show that the coriolis effect exists.

If it does spin then the coriolis force would have the wrong magnitude - and it would operate in the wrong direction in the southern hemiplane.

So no matter whether the flat earth spins or not - the coriolis effect is a problem for them to explain away.

For every problem, there are generally at least three or four competing FE theories.  For "gravity", I'm aware of three:

1) The "density" theory is no longer popular...especially amongst the FE'ers on this forum.  It's ridiculously easy to debunk...put any object from a feather to a bowling ball into a bell jar, pump out the air with a vacuum pump and see if it floats.   Nope - it does not.  Theory busted.

2) The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s because of...magic pixie dust...whatever.   This would indeed reproduce all the effects of gravity.  Albert Einstein was kind enough to prove that equivalence in his General theory of relativity.   The first complaint of most RE'ers about this is that after a billion years of this acceleration, the world would be going faster than light and that's not possible...but enter Albert Einstein again - and because time/length and mass change for the people inside the moving Earth - any outside observer would see the earth's acceleration being slowed by the slowing passage of time as it goes faster - so it never exceeds light speed...and for people on the accelerating earth, there is no problem whatever.   The reason this theory cannot be true is that gravity is measurably different at the equator compared to the poles - and the earth can only accelerate at one rate without tearing itself apart.   So although this is by far the most popular FE theory on this forum, it's also BUSTED.

3) Gravity is present in the Flat Earth...this would be busted if the Earth were a neat little round disk because people close to the rim would be attracted towards the center...but members of this forum seem to believe that the Earth is infinite in extent - and if that's the case then gravity works just like in RE theory and all is well.   Moreover - the issues of gravity varying with altitude, at the poles and equator and near tall mountains all work perfectly providing the earth has a bit of a dimple where the pole is and a subtle bulge around the circular equator...but gravity works as an FE theory.   I'm not sure why it's not liked.
There are people here who believe that it's a mixture of acceleration and true gravity...which is messy.

All of them have trouble explaining tides.   These are caused in RET by the moon's gravity - but in FET, the moon is too small for that...but hey, maybe water likes the moon and gathers towards it or something.   Sadly, that idea doesn't explain why there are TWO high tides every day. others here have said - it's wise to read ALL of the Wiki before jumping in with criticisms of things that the FE community don't actually claim.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fake Photo Fest
« on: July 18, 2017, 04:16:16 PM »
Why not just adjust the width of your aperture? Any amateur photographer would be able to capture this in one shot. Bring the right tool to do the job. This excuse is particularly poor for an organisation the size of NASA.

The problem with adjusting the aperture is that it affects all of the image at once.   So if you have one part that's over-exposed and another that's under-exposed, no amount of fiddling with the aperture (or the film speed or anything else for that matter) will get you a well-lit photo.

Human eyes have dynamic apertures that change without conscious thought - so as soon as you concentrate on a particular spot in your field of view, it appears well-lit...but cameras are only just becoming able to do that.

I believe I mentioned the Google Pixel phone that can do this by taking a bunch of pictures at different exposure settings and compositing them appropriately to get everything in the scene to be well lit.   When NASA do this, you accuse them of faking the image...which is semi-justifiable.

But no, you can't just adjust the aperture and get a perfect photo.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 18, 2017, 04:07:34 PM »
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

...that and the fact that your photo on the Wiki is a "fake".  It's not a picture of the coast of Antarctica *or* the Ice Wall (if those are different things) - it's a photo of an iceberg.

Just saying - for a group who routinely accuse people of making fake photos - let those who live in glass houses not cast stones!

I'm not saying that there are no gigantic ice cliffs along the coast of Antarctica - I'm quite sure there are - I'm just saying that this isn't a photograph of one - and you should go fix your Wiki.

Of course there are also some very gentle beaches - places where intrepid explorers wishing to travel beyond the Ice Wall could easily gain access...even those without helicopters capable of reaching the dizzying altitude of 150 feet!

Flat Earth General / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 18, 2017, 03:53:55 PM »
In proving whether or not the Earth is flat can't we just do a simple distance test, assuming that any direction towards the perimeter of the Antarctic Ice Wall is south?


What do you guys think about that? Is this a feasible idea?

You don't really need to go to all that trouble.   Do this:

* Go to Google Maps.
* Type in "Santiago, Chile", hit enter.
* Click "Directions"
* Type in "Sydney, Australia", hit enter.

It tells you that Qantas airlines will fly you direct (4 flights per week) taking 12h 15min...and it draws you a map, showing you'd be flying West-to-East.

Now (just for grins) click the up/down arrow icon up where you entered your start and end point.  Now it tells you that to get from Sandiago, back to Sydney takes 13hr 45 min...but the route is the same.

OK, so I could tell you how to get onto the Qantas site and confirm all of this - but I'm sure you can figure that out if you're mega-sceptical.

Now - go to a regular Google search window and type: "distance sydney to sandiago chile"  (make sure it's "sandiago chile" and not "san diego"!) 11340 km.

So the plane is flying West/East at a speed of 11,340/12.25 = 925 kph...which is 575mph.  On the East/West return trip, it's 824kph or 512mph.  The difference is because the prevailing winds in the southern hemisphere blows west-to-east, so there is a tail-wind on the outbound leg and a head wind on the way back.

Phew.  OK - so we can look up the data for a 747-400 (that's what Qantas fly on that route)...the Wikipedia page says with maximum payload it can fly 14,200km non-stop (so it can make the 11,340km trip with a healthy safety margin)...and it's cruise speed is 933kph...which is a little faster than we calculated - but commercial flight times are always padded by a little bit to allow for takeoff and landing times, etc.

This all seems very self-consistent doesn't it.

Trouble is, in the FE map - the distance from Sydney to Sandiago Chile is a lot more than that.   FE map distances are the same as RE map distances on North/South routes - but differ wildly from RE distances on East/West routes - and increasingly so the further south you go.

So on both a round and a flat earth map, 11,300 km is about the distance from Johannesburg (South Africa) to Venice (italy).

 Now...from the Wiki (with some overlays of my own):

So - each red line (pretty much North/South from Venice to Johannesburg) must be about 11,000 km on both RE and FE maps.
The green line represents the 14,200km range of a 747-400 airplane.

It's rather clear that if the airplane takes the route that Google says it does - and how the flight would go if the pilot uses a compass or a GPS to follow what he believes to be the shortest RE distance, then on the FE map, the curved route is over three and a half times the distance he'd have to fly if the Earth is round.

Even if he takes a "short cut" over North America - he needs three times the distance.

Clearly he can't be taking that short cut because I'm quite sure people on the plane would look out of the window and notice that nearly half of the trip was over land...and every air traffic controller along the way would be surprised at a Qantas flight over their airspace at that time!

Qantas also fly non-stop to South Africa - and almost the exact same problem happens there.

So the FE map on the Wiki simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny...and you don't need to do the experiment you describe because Qantas airlines do eight flights (four each way) every week.

The ONLY semi-plausible answers from FE'ers on this is are:

1) That the jet stream speeds the aircraft up...but that's ridiculous because it can't possibly speed it up in BOTH directions.
2) That this map is only an approximation, and...meh.  But there isn't a way to fix this...either this distance is wildly wrong - or some other distance is off by a similar amount.
3) There is a "new" map - which includes antarctica as a separate continent - basically, this one:
This actually makes the West-to-East route for Qantas even longer - and the short-cut takes them over antarctica...but Australians are going to have to learn all new geography.

So...yeah...a bit of googling around and the problem for the FE'ers is clear.   How can you POSSIBLY explain your way out of this one?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation
« on: July 18, 2017, 02:06:32 PM »
I am a pilot. I just flew from NY to Hong Kong. I looked at the flat earth map. If the earth was flat, navigation like we do it on every flight would be impossible.
We have discussed this problem here before - the FE'ers are generally reluctant to respond to these issues.

There is one response I got.

We'd been talking about the Qantas airlines' published travel times around the Southern Hemisphere (er: "Hemiplane").   The distances you see on the "standard" FE map (the one mostly shown on the Wiki) says that the 747 would have to be traveling at 2.1 times the speed of sound to meet their schedule to non-stop destinations in either South Africa or South America...and that they'd run out of fuel about halfway to their destination.

The SINGLE meaningful response (sorry, I forget who said it) was that the Jetstream carries their aircraft to the destination.

(I'm not defending that answer - I merely pass it along!)

To my mind:

* It doesn't explain how they make it back again - the jetstream doesn't blow in both directions!
* It doesn't explain how Qantas could be unaware of this effect and blindly go on assuming the earth is round...despite seeing odd islands and ships whizzing past the window at unreasonably large speeds.
* It doesn't explain how large surface shipping companies (without the benefit of the jet stream) don't discover that their ocean trips routinely take three times as long as they "should".

So it wasn't exactly an acceptable answer...but it was the only one we got that actually addressed this perfectly reasonable question.

But maybe you, as a long haul pilot, could point out additional flaws in that response?

I also have a question:  Does the effect of the coriolis force have a practical bearing on how pilots navigate long-haul north/south routes?    The FE model cannot reproduce the coriolis effect - and maybe there is yet another avenue of disproof (or perhaps PROOF!) that can be found by considering that?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 17, 2017, 10:13:01 PM »
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE.  He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.

Yeah, very much weasel words:  "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat" means "concave".

They are not weasel words. Some of Rowbotham's experiments may be used in favor of a concave earth theory. Morrow references Robotham's experiments in his work as a proof against convexity and adds some of his own which suggest that the earth may be concave.

The Flat Earth is a logical conclusion from the results of Rowbotham's investigation and from a multitude of many other points Rowbotham brings up in the book. Experiment 2 and 3 in particular seems to suggest that the earth is flat and not concave, and are slightly different experiments than the basic convexity experiment.

The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.

You guys bring up 3000 year old sinking ship effects and lunar eclipse proofs on a daily basis. What does that make you?

There is an FET answer for eclipses (the "shadow object") - which although seemingly implausible to me - doesn't appear to violate any reasonable principles of geometry or logic.

The "sinking ship effect" is a bit like the Rowbotham experiments - while under carefully controlled conditions, it can reveal the true nature of the world, it's FAR too easy for ikky refraction issues to derail any simplistic demonstration of it.   So while I do believe that ships sink below the horizon in the right circumstances - there are enough mirage/Fata Morgana type of effects to make that approach to deciding between RET and FET become more trouble than it's worth.

My go-to arguments are relating to sunrise/sunset, moonrise/moonset, and also to moon phases, how the sun lights the world, how the stars appear to move, the orientation of the moon - how gravity varies from place to place - how the coriolis effect comes about - how travel times across the southern hemisphere are entirely implausible in FET.

Those things have yet to be answered to any satisfactory degree - either in the Wiki or in conversations here on the Forums.

I'm also horrified by the size of the conspiracy theory you need to hide all of the dirty little secrets.

So FET is still very seriously lacking.

It it entirely on-topic.  I was explaining how in the Zetetic method, one is (evidently) allowed to cherry-pick just the experiments you want to prove your pet theory - ignoring the others that have been performed since...where in the Scientific method one must explain ALL of the experiments...not just the ones you like the results of.

It it entirely on-topic.  I was explaining how in the Zetetic method, one is (evidently) allowed to cherry-pick just the experiments you want to prove your pet theory - ignoring the others that have been performed since...where in the Scientific method one must explain ALL of the experiments...not just the ones you like the results of.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 17, 2017, 08:50:38 PM »
Pictures... Let me get that for you.

Oh - but no!   Surely not?

So let's look at the first image from that search (it's also on the Wiki here at :

If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.   It takes a little more digging to discover that not only is this NOT a photo of any kind of ice wall - it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart.  It was an astounding 3,100 square kilometers in area at the outset - and the last large piece of it was last spotted floating just off the coast of New Zealand in 2006.

It took me all of four minutes to find this out...yet hundreds upon hundreds of Flat Earther's posted this as a true photo of the ice can find the photo right here on this website - titled "The Ice Wall surrounds 95% of the Antarctic coast" :

...and they complain about NASA faking images??!

This is no more a photo of the great ice wall than "the blue marble" is a photo of the Earth.

Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites
« on: July 17, 2017, 08:28:11 PM »
It makes you wonder why Dennis Tito, Mark Shuttleworth, Gregory Olsen, Anousheh Ansari, Charles Simonyi, Richard Garriott and Guy Laliberte didn't demand their money back!

Each one of these private individuals paid between $20 and $40 million dollars for a 7 to 10 day trip to the ISS.   One presumes that if the ISS doesn't exist, they'd have been pretty pissed at the Russians for taking their money.    Instead, they all seemed very happy about their visit there.

In 1990, TBS (a Japanese TV station) paid $28 million to send one of their reporters to Mir.   Toyohiro Akiyama was a 20 year veteran reporter at the time, with a reputation for honest reporting.  He was later promoted to deputy director of TBS.   He never mentioned a thing about the whole affair being a fake.  Which is odd because he'd have had nothing to lose and everything to gain by telling the truth.

Flat Earth General / Re: Paradox Moon
« on: July 17, 2017, 08:13:30 PM »
That's probably the case, however, I wonder if that's true of other forms of light.
Like if you were to place some semitransparent objects around a lantern, would the ones in between you and the lantern appear more lit up than other objects, which're just as close to the lantern as the ones in between the lantern and your line of sight?

Like this?

Yes, the part of paper that is towards the photographer looks brighter than those parts that are more towards the sides (or that part that is behind the flame, which we can forget when talking about the sun).

All of the light that hits an object ends up with one of three fates:

* It may be absorbed and turn into heat.
* It may be reflected.
* It may pass through the object and out the other side.

...and for almost all objects, it's a mixture of those three things.

In the case of those lanterns, we have a material that transmits light fairly well, but reflects it quite glass, for example.

So the paper that's between us and the lamp is bright (because the lamp light is passing right through it) and the paper that's on the far side of the light is darker (because the light is passing right through it, and not much is being reflected by it).

Hence the paper on the far side looks darker.

No mystery.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 17, 2017, 08:01:50 PM »
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE.  He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.

Yeah, very much weasel words:  "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat" means "concave".

The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.

Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? ... Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations?

I have to agree with Nirmala on this.  Tom Bishop has done an excellent job condemning the basis of Flat Earth Theory.  Namely that the bulk of Flat Earth thought is based on observations and thought experiments, not on actual Zetetic laboratory experimentation.

Incorrect. Rowbotham conducts a number of experiments in his work, and references experiments all throughout his work to support his model.

Rowbotham did his work a very long time ago (180 years!)...and it's been refuted, explained and debunked numerous times since then.

Why continue to quote an entirely dubious observation when much more up to date results are available?

Why ignore perfectly reasonable explanations of the results Rowbotham obtained?

Why also ignore (for example) Wallace's duplication of the experiment - which produced the opposite result - or Oldham's similar work?

Just picking the one result you like and then carefully pretending that the others don't exist is a clear violation of your Zetetic methods.  What you should be doing is:

1) Look at ALL of the experiments that are similar to the "Bedford level" experiment.   There are at least half a dozen well-documented example.  A couple do indeed agree with Rowbotham.   At least a few come out with "Round Earth" results - and at least one decided that the earth must be concave.

2) On the basis of ALL of the evidence - try to form a conclusion.   My conclusion would be: "These kinds of experiments are not very reliable indicators of the curvature of the Earth".

So since the evidence is contradictory - we must either ignore it or explain it.   You do not - you pick just one version of that experiment and promote it to the level of unassailable truth...which is just ridiculous.

Flat Earth General / Re: Where are the earth pictures?
« on: July 17, 2017, 04:09:46 PM »

Dear Round Earthers:

It's really rather pointless arguing with FE'ers using photos taken by NASA.

They don't trust NASA.  NASA (and the UN) are claimed to be in an enormous conspiracy.

So why bother.   You can't debate a blanket "They're lying" just can't.

What makes FET fail - is things like the observations that any human can make for themselves, very easily, just looking at the Sun and Moon and spending a few minutes thinking carefully about what they see.

There is (as yet - that I've seen) no FET explanation whatever for the phases of the moon that actually works.

The Wiki says that the sun shines on the moon to make phases...just as in RET.   Unfortunately, the Wiki also says that the sun casts a beam of light downwards onto the earth, like a flashlight...which means it can't illuminate the moon - which the Wiki tells us is at the same height as the Sun.

If it's noon in summer in Indonesia (so the sun is more or less vertically overhead) and at the same instant, the moon is more or less vertically overhead at roughly midnight on the opposite side of the planet, in Brazil - then (even ignoring the "cone of light" problem) the moon would have to be in 50% shadow...but what we ACTUALLY observe in that situation is that the moon is full.

The Wiki attempts to explain this by the moon and sun "exchanging altitude"...aside from the obvious issues of them having to change size due to perspective...for the moon to be full, when the sun is above a point 12,000 miles away - the moon would have to be (effectively) infinitely far away above the earth.   If it were merely (say) twice it's normal 3,000 miles altitude - then it would be only just barely more than a half moon.   If the moon were to move up to 12,000 miles above the earth, there would be an isocelese right-triangle with apoint 3,000 miles above Equador at the right angle and the sun and moon at the other two points...that would let the sun shine on the moon at a 45 degree angle...still not REMOTELY anything like a full moon.   Put the moon out at 100,000 miles above the Earth, and now it might maybe look almost full...good enough maybe.  But now the moon is 30 times further away than it "normally" is - and would look like a pin-prick in the sky instead of a big, round disk.

Other FE websites claim that the moon glows by the light of luminous creatures like fireflies that migrate over the surface over a period of a month, and this creates the moon phases (Yes!  Really!) - yet others claim that the moon is projected onto the sky as a hologram...which doesn't really explain how people have talked about the moon and it's phases in documents going back thousands of years before holograms were invented...and doesn't explain how it is that this is possible given that holograms simply don't work like the do in StarWars.


Add to that how the moon appears to be upside down in the southern hemisphere - and rotated 90 degrees (compared to, say North America or Europe).

Mr Bishop's ad-hoc explanation requires that the moon is a flat disk laying parallel to the surface of the earth - but then goes oddly quiet when it's pointed out that it would appear as a squashed ellipse from some places - and in any case, this doesn't explain what you see at the equator.


Then ask about how lunar and solar eclipses RET, you can see the curved shadow of the Earth laying onto the moon in a partial lunar eclipse.  This can't happen in FET, so they magically add another object that somehow gets between Earth and Moon to cause this darkening.  The Solar eclipse in FET ought to cause the moon to crash into the sun (it's claimed that they are at the same height - and they'd have to be to avoid having the moon cast inconveniently oddly shaped shadows) again, the mystery object intervenes between sun and earth.   Because at the (RET) moment of totality, you can see 'beads' of sunlight shining through deep valleys in the moon - the FET mystery object would have to have valleys and mountains in the exact same places as the actual moon.    But unfortunately, this explanation can't explain why solar eclipses are visible through such a narrow band of the Earth's surface.

Busted. goes on and on.   So forget the NASA faked photo/moon-landing stuff - yes, to any reasonable degree of belief, it's impossible for such a wide ranging conspiracy (across at least four space-going nations and half a dozen independent businesses - about a million amateur and professional astronomer, etc).

You can't argue with a "They are all lying to us to cover up the truth" just can't.  So give up on this one.

There are MUCH easier ways to disprove all of the nonsense that said about FET.  Things that the FE'ers cannot deny - which require them to simply ignore offending posts.

Flat Earth General / Re: Rescuing flat earth with Refraction
« on: July 17, 2017, 03:30:40 PM »
The outside heat shield isn't even properly sealed together. There are gaps everywhere in the white exerior. Its terrible. It looks like a middle school art project. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that the heat shield of a space craft which kick up plumes of dust should be so flimsily secured and held together.

This kind of nonsense makes me quite angry.

I think it's very poor form to criticise a design from a position of total ignorance.   You clearly didn't understand about the Kapton tape thing - I don't believe you know the first thing about how the LEM was designed.

I don't pretend that I understand all of the details either - but if I don't KNOW something is wrong - I'm not going to seek education on the subject and not just jump in and criticise it without understanding.  Intellectual honesty is important - and there have been several times here when I've even defended parts of FET against incorrect accusations.

But if you're just going to jump in - as a complete ignoramus on the subject and start telling us how the LEM is put together so shoddily...then you get no respect as an intellectual debater.

If I had to guess (and it's only a guess) as to why the sheets of insulation are layered and crumpled like that - I'd say that they probably couldn't pull it tight because the massive temperature variations over the vehicle as the sun tracks across it might result in it tearing.  It's a very thin material (has to be super-lightweight) - so it's probably not very strong.

But I'm happy to admit that I don't know the answer on that one.

For sure, I'm not going to just jump in and tell people that some of the best engineering minds on the planet made a botched up lander.   That shows no respect and is frankly beneath you.

You have no EVIDENCE that the thing is not in fact a piece of clever design that's beyond your ability to're guessing (actually, more like "hoping") that it's an easily detectable fake...and it's definitely not that.   It's either real - or it's an extraordinarily clever and hugely sophisticated fake.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >