4061

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: April 29, 2018, 07:17:51 AM »

there simply is no evidence for satellites.

 

What the f*** is my satellite dish pointing at then? And how does GPS work? And where do all those satellite photos used in weather reports come from.
And how come you can SEE the ISS if you know what you're doing, exactly where NASA say it's going to be and going at significant speed?
And where are all those rockets going which people keep witnessing the launches of?
No evidence? Behave.

Round earthers will often cite sources that list the time and location to track certain satellites. However, this doesn't prove that the objects seen are heavier-than-air objects floating around a spherical earth. These objects could very well be balloons that NASA routinely deploys into the atmosphere in order to give viewers the impression that satellites are real.

OK, to play your game...there is no evidence that they are balloons. I'm pretty sure it would be technically impossible to have balloons which float around in unpredictable ways depending on wind providing things like GPS, Satellite TV, meteorology photos and faking the ISS and all in locations accurate enough to do all this. 

4062

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observation of the ISS

« on: April 29, 2018, 07:00:41 AM »

A balloon.
That is the shape of the ISS.
Travelling at that speed.
In exactly the place that NASA says the ISS will be in.
Hmm. Sounds reasonable.

4063

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the reason for perpetuating the round earth?

« on: April 29, 2018, 06:59:22 AM »

I'm pretty new here, and I was just wondering what reasons people, companies, and governments have to continue perpetuating the round earth.

It began between the USA and ussr faking space travel to try to outdo each other in the space race. Earth images and descriptions had to be faked during these fictitious voyages into space. So, the ussr and USA used the earth model that was already popular and accepted: a spherical earth. Now, space agencies are used to embezzle money from tax payers for very powerful and greedy individuals. It's about greed for money.

And the evidence for all this is...?

4064

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 28, 2018, 09:18:27 PM »

The difference is with those “deceptions” is we know that we are being “deceived”.
I don’t quite agree about the ownership, I do own my home BUT the mortgage provider have a claim on it if I can’t keep up the payments.
Money is made up but you have to have some system now we have moved on from bartering.
Diamonds, like all commodities, are worth what people are willing to pay for them.

None of this is quite the same as a huge worldwide deception which must be going on to hide the truth of the flat earth from us, and why? Why is this such a terrible truth which must be hidden from us poor saps?

4065

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 28, 2018, 08:51:02 PM »

Response. The Solar Day, which is the rate the sun moves around a static earth (once per 24 hours), can also be thought of as the rate of the earth's rotation against a static sun (once per 24 hours).

Yes, a solar day is one rotation of the earth.

After 365 of those the earth is nearly back where it started in its orbit around the sun but not quite, it takes (roughly) another 6 hours to get there.
We start a new year at the end of the 365th day though which would mean, over time, the seasons would get out of sync with our calendar.
After 4 years it's a whole day out of sync - this is why the dates of the equinoxes and solstices vary from year to year. So to sort that out we add the extra leap day and we're back in sync again.

Except not quite, as you say it's 365.24, not .25, it' not exactly a quarter
So to sort that out there are some extra rules: If the year is a century then we do NOT have a leap year UNLESS the century also divides by 4.
So 1900 was NOT a leap year, 2000 was, 2100 won't be.

And more recently as we've got even more accurate measurements of earth's orbit they've started adding leap seconds to keep everything in sync.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

4066

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 28, 2018, 08:41:10 PM »

It does take some time for water to flow. It isn't instantaneously.

For a liquid that depends on the viscosity and water really isn't that viscous so it more or less is. It's close enough that you don't really have to give it any significant time to "settle".

Yes, it is all hand held although I'd say the result is pretty clear and I have provided the stills which show the result even more clearly.
And you have been shown two other methods of showing this, both of them gave the same result as this one.

But, as was said at the time, if you dispute the findings...do it yourself! This is an easily repeatable experiment.
You suggested an alternative experiment with two buildings. In theory that is equivalent but the problems with that are that buildings are, in general, not that high and it's only at significant altitude you see a decent horizon drop and it's next to impossible to be certain that the camera height and the building height are exactly the same. That's where the experiment with the two tubes of water wins, you can take the equipment to any height and, if they're connected, be sure that the water in the two tubes is the same

So...have a go. And if you do then agree that there is horizon dip then that doesn't mean you have to abandon belief in a flat earth, but you would maybe have to adjust your model accordingly. That's how pretty much all progress has been made. You lament the lack of funding and organisation in your movement but you don't need any funding to do this, the dude who made the original video just took it upon himself and did it one day. I tried to take a photo on a recent work trip when I was on a plane but I didn't have a window seat and it was a bit difficult. The horizon wasn't that clear either, there was quite a lot of cloud. I fly fairly regularly with work so will try again another time. Meanwhile, why not have a go yourself?

4067

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 28, 2018, 05:45:53 PM »

I actually agree that not everyone would. In fact maybe quite a few people wouldn't have to be.
But there would still have to be a LOT of people involved.

4068

Flat Earth Theory / Sunset At Altitude

« on: April 28, 2018, 03:20:42 PM »

"Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase  in height at the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant." - Tom Bishop

I did an experiment to explore the idea that waves could be an explanation for sunset or ships sinking below the horizon. This is the set up



So I built a tower 3 Jenga blocks high and a row of blocks which represent waves. Let's see how much of the tower is hidden behind the waves depending on the eye height. If the eye is below the level of the wave then the amount of tower hidden is more than the height of the wave. More than one block of the tower is hidden. Couple of pictures, the first slightly to the side so you can see that we are looking below wave level, the second looking straight along the row of blocks:





This is explained by this diagram:



You're looking up at the wave so more than the wave height is hidden. Although if the wave that is higher than your eye height is nearer the tower then less of it would be hidden because the angle is shallower:



This is also a demonstration that these side on diagrams don't need to "account for perspective" and do reflect the reality of what you see.
Now let's look at wave height. Here you can see that the amount hidden is the same as the wave height:



Which makes sense. You're looking across the level of the waves so only the height of the wave is hidden:



If you are above the wave level though then less than the wave height is hidden.
Jenga blocks are all the same height but you can clearly see that less than one block is hidden:



And that's because you are looking down over the waves:



Ergo, if you're at altitude you will be looking over the waves so the sun can't be hiding behind them.



Discuss.

4069

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 28, 2018, 11:51:09 AM »

Don't forget the airline industry, the shipping industry, the satellite TV industry etc, etc.

4070

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 28, 2018, 11:49:35 AM »

Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?

Wow. So you think that the water in the two connected tubes could be at different heights because "water flows down hill".
I think that's my new favourite Tom Bishop quote.

4071

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No sun

« on: April 28, 2018, 09:10:21 AM »

You are going to need to irrefutably  prove RET or irrefutably disprove FET. You have not met that level.

But that is only because "that level", in your mind, is summed up by a Wiki page which I see has now been deleted.
It was on this page, which is now blank:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET

I'm not sure why it has been removed because it perfectly summed up your mindset. It said:

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

You declare the flat earth as an obvious truth (you provide no basis for claiming that) and so all the evidence which shows you to be wrong has to be fake or wrong.
The laser and boat experiment you spent ages trying to prove fraudulent or wilfully misunderstanding it. You finally understood it and conceded that point but have declared it fake anyway because it shows you wrong.
You have been shown three different ways of measuring horizon dip and have dismissed all of them on spurious grounds because they show you to be wrong.
Worse, you refuse to conduct your own experiment even though the equipment to do so would cost you virtually nothing.

The level of proof you require doesn't exist. Or rather, it does but you repeatedly dismiss it because the flat earth is an "obvious truth" so everything contradicting it must be fabricated. You're not an empiricist, you're not a "free thinker", it's just denial. You can prove anything to yourself if you ignore or dismiss any evidence showing you to be wrong.

 

4072

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 28, 2018, 07:12:29 AM »

You CAN'T explain it.

Well, not in a way you can understand, apparently. But I honestly think that says more about you than me.
You are the only person in this thread who thinks there is anything to explain here.

The illuminated portion of the earth spins around 365.25 times in a Solar Year.

Correct. Well, close enough. The whole earth spins 365.25 (roughly) times in a Solar Year.
That is 365.25 Solar Days. That's what a Solar Day IS - it's a rotation of the earth.
And a Solar Year is how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun. It takes 365.25 times as long to do that as it does to rotate on its axis.

The illuminated portion needs to be pointing at the sun when it reaches the point it started from.

No it doesn't. That would only be true if there were exactly 365 solar days in a solar year, or some other integer. But there aren't.
So if the sun is exactly overhead, say, New York at the start of one solar year it will not be at the start of the next, it will have been overhead about 6 hours previously.
You are the only person who sees this as a problem.

This is the entire reason we have leap years, to keep things in sync.

4073

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 03:30:22 PM »

On a diagram of the earth going around the sun the problem is clear. The illuminated portion needs to be pointing in the same place.

Why?

The illuminated portion needs to point at the sun because it comes from the sun.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

The illuminated portion can't turn 365.24 times on a diagram that illustrates the earth going around the sun to its same spot on the oval path.

I've highlighted your problem. The diagrams you're looking at are for illustration only and don't exactly represent the reality. After a solar year the earth is in the same PLACE in its orbit but is not in the same orientation, it's a about a quarter turn different, there's your .24 days or 6 hours.

4074

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 02:50:43 PM »

On a diagram of the earth going around the sun the problem is clear. The illuminated portion needs to be pointing in the same place.

Why?

4075

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 02:42:41 PM »

The Solar Day is the illuminated portion of the earth rotating around the sun. It will be misaligned with the position of the sun on ANY diagram of the earth's oval path around the sun when the earth returns to the starting point.

It really is not a difficult concept.

No, it isn't.
But you are the only person on this thread who thinks that the earth spinning a non-integer number of times in a solar year is a "problem".
Or, more likely, you're just stringing people along for your own amusement.

4076

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 02:07:38 PM »

Yes, Tom. It's definitely me who is confused. Just like with the laser and the boat.
Jura is right, you've had your fun.
</thread>

4077

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 08:36:17 AM »

He already knows. Anyone past the 5th grade would have understood by now, and clearly Tom is not stupid.

You say that...he thinks that shadows change angle because of perspective and that spectroscopy is looking at something and thinking "ooh, that's a bit red".
There are a load of things he doesn't seem to understand but thinks he understands.

But...yeah, maybe he does understand and is having fun. Which is fine, other people will see the arguments for what they are.

Other people will also see the debate as some kind of validation for his nonsense assertion.

Isn't there a risk that debating nonsense makes everyone a little dumber.

I don't think nonsense should be left unchallenged but I do think we've indulged him for too long in this thread.
Quite how you can think that a year is 365.24 days and then be confused that the number of rotations of earth in a year is not an integer is beyond me.
I do suspect at times he's only in this for a laugh and does really understand all this.

4078

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 07:39:34 AM »

He already knows. Anyone past the 5th grade would have understood by now, and clearly Tom is not stupid.

You say that...he thinks that shadows change angle because of perspective and that spectroscopy is looking at something and thinking "ooh, that's a bit red".
There are a load of things he doesn't seem to understand but thinks he understands.

But...yeah, maybe he does understand and is having fun. Which is fine, other people will see the arguments for what they are.

4079

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 27, 2018, 07:13:32 AM »

At the point of September Equinox the sun is illuminating half of the earth.

Solar Time is 24 Hours. One Solar Day is 24 Hours.

After 365.24 Solar Days the earth has returned to the starting point on the earth's orbit around the sun, yet illuminated differently.

Yes. Because of the .24. 365.24 is a count of the number of times the earth has rotated. That's what a day is.
So the earth is in the same place but it isn't in the same orientation, it has done 365 complete rotations and then .24 of another.
Which is about a quarter. And what's a quarter of a 24 hour day? 6! There's your 6 hours.

Hooray! I've solved another mystery of the univers.

4080

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory

« on: April 26, 2018, 06:25:20 PM »

Those diagrams are only representative. They are not exactly what happens.
The solstice and equinox dates aren't even the same each year