241

Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and the atmosplane

« on: May 03, 2021, 03:11:31 PM »

There has to be some force working on the atmosphere, otherwise atmospheric pressure wouldn't be possible.

Agreed. The whole thing is nuts, but if completely falls apart unless you assume that the earth is being pushed up from below, as it were.

If the earth is being pushed up then that would create the force needed to make the air pressure gradient we observe. No idea what would create enough force to keep the entire earth accelerating upwards forever, but let’s assume that is what is going on. But even then there would be nothing to stop the atmoplane from simply leaking off the side. An ice wall isn’t going to cut it, that might provide some containment up to its own height but we have atmospheric readings for miles upwards. A physical dome would work but that’s not mentioned on the Wiki and there is no material we know of which a dome that big could be made of without falling apart under its own weight. An infinite earth would require an infinite force to accelerate it upwards. So we are just left with the meaningless word salad I quoted above which barely qualifies as a hypothesis let alone a theory.

Agreed on the pressure gradient thing but by the same token, if the Earth  is constantly accelerating, it wouldn't need to be all enveloping; just (!!) a wall roughly as high as the Karman Line, like a big baking tray. 

Here commenceth the Flat/Round/Cake-Tin debate.

242

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet

« on: May 01, 2021, 05:00:32 PM »

Not sure why you would think that UA would augment thrust. 

Thrust always acts along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft so, as the aircraft climbs it would have a vertical component driving the aircraft up.  Conversely, in the dive phase, thrust has a downward component.  A vertical force of some kind from UA could not augment both phases. 

On top of that, and I'm 100% not an advocate for FE here (perhaps someone from that camp could chime in), I don't think UA directly acts on any worldly matter apart from the planet (disc?) itself.  I think the only effect of UA on flight is that the atmosphere is supposed to be accelerating upwards at a rate equivalent to (what everyone else calls) gravity. 

243

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet

« on: May 01, 2021, 02:01:30 PM »

This is important; the plane is not in free-fall, although its occupants are.  The plane is in aerodynamic flight. 

Of the 4 forces, gravity is trying to pull the aircraft in free-fall, but it still has drag, so the pilot has to balance controls (ie lift), thrust and starting trajectory such that drag can be compensated for as if the aircraft was in free fall.  As I see it, the same would occur if the aircraft was in a rising mass of air in FE; the Earth/atmosphere's 1g acceleration would appear identical to RE gravity. 

Couple of other things to point out.  The algebraic multiple of time/g-force during the flight has to remain at 1g.  In very simple terms, for 1 minute at zero-g, you might need another minute at 2g, starting and ending the manoever.  Due to structural and aerodynamic limits on the size of aircraft needed for a workable weightless environment (eg an airliner), the zero-g duration is normally less than a minute. 

Remember the parachutist-guy leaving the plane and feeling zero-g for an instant?  He then immediately started feeling g due to drag as his airspeed increased.  All the Vomit Comet does is to provide him with that starting altitude, and then a cocoon of still air so that he is only affected by gravity, not drag. 

244

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet

« on: April 30, 2021, 11:41:16 PM »

A couple of posts ago I thought we were getting somewhere, but now I'm not so sure.  Part of the problem here, and I say this with the greatest respect, is that the whole FE/RE thing deals with many concepts which, in isolation, can take a career to get your head around, and you can't expect to get the same level of understanding from a few hours or days on the interweb.  I'm happy to concede that Einstein, relativity and bendy space are completely outside my comfort zone, so I don't even go there.  I do, however, have a background in aviation. 

First of all, what's the obsession with Terminal Velocity?  Its just a speed (downwards or upwards, depending on your take) at which the force of aerodynamic drag equals the accelerating force of gravity or UA.  (And please stop referring to gravity and suchlike as "drag"; drag is a specific force only caused by aerodynamics).  There is no single "Terminal Velocity", it is dependent on the mass, size, shape and orientation of the object, and upon air density.  So, for instance, in air;

  TV of a one Metre sphere of styrofoam is less than a one metre sphere of iron (mass)
  TV of a one kilogram sphere of styrofoam is less than a one kilogram sphere of iron (size)
  TV of a one kilogram cube of iron is less than a one kilogram sphere of iron (shape)
  TV of a 500lb Mk 82 bomb minus its fins, is less than that of one fitted with fins (orientation)
  TV of anything dropped from 1000 metres above the sea is less than the same object dropped from 1000 metres above Mount Everest (air density). 

So our typical human has a TV of around 300 kmph at typical skydiving heights, due to sea-level air density.  Felix Baumgartner on the other hand achieved over 1300 kmph on his dive from 39 km, due to the reduced air density at altitude.  The WW2 Tallboy bomb achieved a TV of around 1200 kmph, due to its shape and orientation.  So; TV is just a number. 

Lets look at the Wiki on TV;

"In the Round Earth model, terminal velocity happens when the acceleration due to gravity is equal to the acceleration due to drag. In the Flat Earth model, however, there are no balanced forces: terminal velocity happens when the upward acceleration of the falling object is equal to the upward acceleration of the Earth".

OK, happy with the RE bit.  FE part; why are the forces not balanced?  What is causing the "upward acceleration of the falling object"?   Wouldn't it make more sense to say that aerodynamic drag of the rising atmosphere is accelerating the falling object?  Therefore the forces are balanced. 

Everyone happy with the concept of a windtunnel?  You stick aerodynamic models in it and switch it on, and you can see how they will react in flight.  In other words, static-object, moving-air, gives identical results to moving-object, static-air.  Surely this is analogous to falling object-static air, and static-object, rising-air. 

Finally, lift, drag, thrust and weight.  Don't run away with the idea that all these forces are working at 90 degrees to each other; they aren't. 

Thrust is always aligned along the axis of the engine so, in conventional aeroplanes, can be considered (more or less) to be along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, regardless of its orientation. 
Weight is always vertically down, regardless of orientation of the aircraft. 
Drag is always in line with the relative airflow on the wings.  If the aircraft has an angle of, say, 15 degrees nose-up to the relative airflow, drag will not be aligned with thrust. 
Lift is always at 90 degrees to the relative airflow, so is only ever directly opposing weight if the aircraft is in straight and level flight, and almost never when flying a parabolic zero-g flight. 

The flight of a Vomit-Comet (and there are several), requires a complex balance of entry speed and orientation (typically at 45 degrees nose-up), thrust and lift-management by the use of flying controls to ensure that the aircraft follows the exact free-fall trajectory of its occupants. 

Terminal Velocity has nothing to do with it. 

(Oh yes, and acceleration does not cause drag.  Velocity causes drag). 

245

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Vomit Comet

« on: April 30, 2021, 07:15:59 AM »

@ Fisherman; Yes.

Putting aside the "celestial" objects (who's various FE philosophies I completely fail to understand), all "worldly" matter only feels the effects of UA either directly, or indirectly, from the acceleration of Earth.  If you sit on a chair, you are accelerated second-hand by the chair, which is being accelerated by the floor, which is being accelerated by Earth.  A plane in flight, by the atmosphere, because that it is supported by the Earth. 

The other thing that baffles me is this;

Everything on Earth is ultimately made from Earth.  You, me, the chair (wood is a biological product of Earth-bound elements, carbon, nitrogen and so on), the house the chair is in (sand, rock), the plane is made of aluminium (smelted from bauxite, mined from the Earth).  Why does all this crap stop feeling the direct effect of UA once we give it a name? 

Maybe the only things to feel UA directly are the turtle and the elephants. 

246

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make an FE map with accurate distances

« on: April 26, 2021, 09:35:44 AM »

Your assumed distances are fallacious for a few reasons:

- People aren't walking across the oceans
- Planes use jet streams to reach far off locations
- The calculated of speed is s = d/t and requires a known distance. Distances are fundamentally in contention in this discussion

The translation to a FE model may be attributable to a number of possibilities. For example; if the outer edges of the FE celestial system are moving at a quicker speed over the Earth like the outer extremities of a record on a record player, then it stands that the upper atmosphere may be as well. A plane traveling in a high region of atmosphere may move faster in certain regions of the Earth than another.

And indeed, the winds are said to be anomalous in the South - https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis

Ah, yes, the "said to be anomalous" winds. 

You may remember this thread from pre-Covid; 

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15877.0

LATAM, and Qantas, 2 commercial organisations that depend on knowing the distance from (for instance) Santiago, Chile, to Sydney, Australia, didn't seem to have any problem predicting the winds when they were operating their 3-times weekly return-service between the 2 cities.  Its stretching credibility somewhat to think that the winds would provide an anomalous advantage in both directions on demand. 

247

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: April 21, 2021, 08:21:28 AM »

Aerodynamic lift is maintaining the aircraft at a constant altitude, so it (and its occupants) are supported by the atmosphere (atmosplane - yuk!), which is supported by the Earth.  Thus, the aircraft and its occupants, by implication, have identical acceleration and instantaneous velocity as the Earth, so are accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s/s due to UA (also yuk!).

When you leave the aircraft you have the same instantaneous velocity as Earth and atmosphere, hence feel no windrush.  However, as you are now not being accelerated, the earth continues to accelerate towards you at 9.81m/s/s.  In a vacuum, you would remain at constant velocity until the Earth (because it is still accelerating) hits you. 

In practice because you are in the, still accelerating, atmosphere you start to accelerate upwards again and begin to feel windrush as aerodynamic drag takes effect, until you reach terminal velocity. (And that's terminal velocity downwards in RE, but terminal velocity upwards in FE!).   

At this point your body's acceleration is identical to Earth's but, because of the period when you had reduced acceleration, your velocity is less than Earth's so it still hits you.   

248

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: April 08, 2021, 07:38:18 PM »

So your interpretation of history then is that a Skyhawk of the Argentine armed forces didn't actually (for instance) attack the British RFA Sir Galahad, killing many of the troops on board?  The link is to the Wikipedia page on one of the survivors, Simon Weston:

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

I don't know your age, nationality or political affiliations, but I do know that I, and some of the posters on this thread, remember these events happening, and know some of the personnel involved. 

249

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: April 08, 2021, 01:31:33 PM »

As a former member of the UK's Royal Air Force, I'm sure my former comrades, and indeed their Argentinian adversaries, will be pleased to know that the Falklands War "only lasted a couple of months and not many sorties were flown".  I'm surprised by your breadth of knowledge on this subject, but you may want to note that Chile was not a belligerent. 

With regard to yesterday's LAN-Chile flight, which horse are you backing; either that it wasn't in Chile, or that it didn't go to Australia? 

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/cc-bbi 

250

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: April 07, 2021, 08:46:17 PM »

I do not see your pictures, for one.

Can't help you there. They show up for me, in several different browsers, whether I'm logged in or not. Anybody else advise on this one?

If you're interested, it's pretty easy to replicate. Just take a look at the UK and Argentina / the Falklands on google earth (or similar) and measure the distances discussed. Then cut the UK out of the FET monopole map, rotate through 90 degrees and lie it next to the Falklands, observing how big it is compared to the gap.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

Of course it matters. 50-100 miles is an awful long way if you're flying a jet that is low on fuel. Reports from the conflict suggest that the Argentinian pilots typically only had a minute or two of spare fuel, which equates to around 15-20 miles at the most. Furthermore, if you read my post again, you'll see that the difference appears to be far, far greater than 50-100 miles. I said:

Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm?

The notion that pilots on both sides of the conflict, and indeed the ships and submarines as well, were all using maps that had the location of the Falklands misplaced by hundreds of nautical miles is completely and utterly ludicrous.

You can also take a step back from discussing military conflict and just look at the shape of the southern part of southern america compared to a conventional map or globe - the difference is enormous. At the same latitude as the Falklands, the south american continental mainland, across Chile and Argentina, is around 250nm. The FET monopole map shows it as being wider east-west than the UK is north-south. So that map is suggesting that the people of Chile and Argentina live in countries that are twice as wide as they think they are. Does that sound credible to you? That means every journey on an east-west axis is supposedly out by a factor of two. Pop to the shops 10 minutes down the road, and it takes 20. That kind of thing.

I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.

Ok; so lets suppose the warmongers are content with sacrificing their aircrews in one-off suicide missions.  Civil airlines are generally a little more considerate of their passengers.  Pop across to the other side of South America for a moment and, whilst I have been reading this, I've also been tracking LAN-Chile flight LAN 9578 (aircraft Registration CC-BBI if you want to look it up) which is just touching down in Sidney after leaving Santiago this morning.  It took a little over 14 hours.  Google Maps shows a global-distance of just over 7000 miles; ie, around 500 mph.  Seems about right for a 787.  Its notional maximum range, incidentally, is 7355 miles. 

The Monopole Map suggest that the distance from Santiago, Chile, to Sidney, Australia, is about 4-times the North-South size of South America, around 18,000 miles.  Lets round it down to 14,000 miles to keep it simple.  Any thoughts on how it could travel twice its maximum range, at supersonic speed of 1000 mph?  (Remember this is a 2-way service, so today's "anomalous" tailwind would be tomorrow's headwind).

251

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: April 05, 2021, 03:21:13 PM »

To again try to get this back on track 

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0

Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.

Just off the cuff, how about the Battle of the Coral Sea, May 1942. 

And further to Bob's; the Battle of the Falkland Islands during World War 1, in December 1914.  A British fleet was hunting a German Naval squadron in the South Atlantic.  In the era before radar, satellites and radio aids, the British fleet not only had to find the Germans based on reports from merchant vessels, but when using high speed the capital ships typically needed to bunker (take on coal) every 3 days.  To do this, they had to rendezvous at sea with coal-carrying auxiliaries.  They could obviously only do this if they knew where they were. 

And yes, the plotting boards were flat.  Almost as flat as a computer screen. 

252

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Line

« on: April 04, 2021, 10:53:18 PM »

I can see a bend quite clearly on the great circle mapper.

At every reference to this project (and feel free to google away to prove me wrong), there are multiple mentions of a linear city and there isn't a single mention of great circles anywhere. This city is being built with the knowledge that earth isn't a ball.

   True...this debate has been over for years. The earth has been proven to be flat many times over. Only thing keeping globe earth spinning is the blindness of sci-fi lovers and mason lucifarian lies through out the internet. As they the masons own all msm and internet. It's truly a mason world. As they literally even own the minds of most people.
The exalt wireless test though for one is 100% proof of flat earth. Though many nasa mason shills flood the internet with deception with the help of Google to keep Satans lie pumping. They put up silly equations with even sillier artwork to prove exalt had line of sight. Which they do agree must be found to make this test a success. Its hillarious really that many blindly still defend Satan's lie as with just common sense and simple research proves this test could only have been done on a flat earth.
Exalt wireless test at 146miles.
All one needs to do it look up these simple facts and use the demons globe earth curvature calculator to figure it out.
The test was done from Cyprus to Lebanon.
The highest point in Cyprus is 6404ft. in Lebanon 10131ft. These highest points are closer too or over 300miles apart. But for sake of globe earthers lets call it 146miles and use no tilting away from eachother of the mountains or towers.
So with 146miles on the globe equaling 14213.5 ft till the horizon line from point A to point B. Using 2 towers at 2000ft in length with again no tilt at all. Just going straight up from points A & B with the horizon line drawn coming up from the center. While calling the highest points in each nation 146miles. Thats only 8404ft high in Cyprus and 12131 in Lebanon to the top of the towers.
Even with no tilt away and giving the highest point's of each nation half the distance they truly are. The highest tower is still over 2000ft short of seeing over the horizon line.
Don't need to be a rocket scientist to do this figuring. A kindergarten could figure this out. 😆 yet here we are years later watching glober earthers hate and ridicule the truth. For they won't let go of the lie they love dearly. Thier hopes of going to Mars have come crashing down. All thier love and hope for a star wars/star trek future has been destroyed.
Though many hate God or pretend there is no God. Which the globe lie helps them pretend as they feel they won't be judged in the end. As if Gods a liar and masons lies the truth. If they accept the truth they will then have to stop all the sinning they so enjoyed and or be better people. But its more fun for them to just pretend to be wise and copy n paste what mason lies they know as if educated themselves. Using equations they themselves can't understand or people use others finely worded arguments as thier own. When truly they never tested a thing. They're just out to hate for thier own enjoyment. Again to feel wise but are truly fools. As all masons are as well.

Even without transmitter towers, Qurnat as Sawda (Lebanon) is 3088 metres high.  Mount Olympus (Cyprus) is 1952 metres high.  Personally I think that's line-of-sight on the globe, but I'll let you do the math again. 

When you do, please notice that they are 300 km apart, not miles.  And for the record, I'm not a Devil worshipper. 

Or any kind of worshipper, actually. 

253

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 01, 2021, 05:47:14 PM »

At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

This is also untrue.  Their mass will be the same but not their weight.  If a parachutist were to take a scale with them and put it under their feet while they are at terminal velocity the scale would not measure the same weight as it does on the ground.  It's no different than a scale in water.  Wind resistance acts the same way as water's buoyant force.

Sorry WTF, but Bob is spot on. 

Your analogy with floating in the water is different; you, and the water you displace, have identical mass so are accelerated by gravity at the same rate.  Neither can move vertically, of course, because the body of water is supported by the seabed, bottom of the pool, or whatever. 

When the parachutist leaves contact with the aircraft, he is instantaneously weightless, but immediately begins accelerating vertically.  As his vertical speed increases, he becomes subject to the upward force of aerodynamic drag, which is related to his size, his drag-coefficient (his shape), air density, and his velocity-squared.  He continues accelerating, and his weight continues increasing, until the aerodynamic drag equals the force of gravity; terminal velocity. 

Float in a pool and you perceive no force acting on you.  Compare this with sticking your arm out the window of a moving car.  Feel the difference?

254

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: March 31, 2021, 08:03:28 AM »

So the Shuttle used to orbit the planet, and there was no deception?

255

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: March 30, 2021, 10:38:12 PM »

Do what? So the astronauts and space tourists who have been to the ISS just think they're orbiting a globe earth when they aren't really?

Something along those lines, yes.

. 

Now we're getting somewhere. 

So the (lets say) Space Shuttle crew ascend in the lift to board the Shuttle, which they have just seen from the launch pad.  They are familiar with the look, sound and smell of the craft from their many training sessions, and they've probably personalised it for the flight (packet of mints in the seat pocket, that kind of thing) so they've not been somehow diverted into some kind of simulator.  They can see the ground and the sky through the windshield and windows.  It launches, they feel the acceleration.  As it climbs, it pitches over onto its back and they can see the ground and ocean falling away.  The flight crew are test pilots, so they correlate the flight instrument displays with what their senses are telling them about acceleration, speed, altitude and attitude; they will smell a rat if things don't correlate.  The sky darkens, ground based features and clouds grow smaller.  Engines stop and they experience weightlessness; for several days.  As they orbit, the planet rotates beneath them, and within a few orbits they have observed the entirety of Earth from pole to pole.  At the end of the mission they decelerate, re-enter, transition to airborne flight and land. 

At exactly what point, and how, dose the deception occur?

256

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 27, 2021, 02:23:32 PM »

NASA announced this morning that a "possibility" of the Earth being struck by the asteroid Apophis in 2068 has now been dismissed following a most recent analysis of its current position and orbit: 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-analysis-earth-is-safe-from-asteroid-apophis-for-100-plus-years

In fact, they predict that there is no possibility of this particular asteroid hitting Earth for at least 100 years.  That's a relief. 

Would it be Tom's position that he concurs, on the basis that there is no previous evidence of this asteroid striking Earth?  How would FE predict an unprecedented event? 

257

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: March 23, 2021, 02:55:56 PM »

Or indeed using a video sequence, which you have just done to demonstrate the hologram on our 2D screens. 

258

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 22, 2021, 11:28:59 PM »

Does your research involve field trips, interviewing witnesses and so forth?  Or is it mainly google/YouTube based?

I do not conduct interviews, no.  I do, of course, study the anecdotes collected by other researchers.

I don't go on field trips with the express purpose of seeing ufos (though I frequently look up!).  In general, there is no reason to - they are too ephemeral (and are clandestine surveillance craft, besides).

So, mainly the internet then.  That's fine.  Lots of good stuff on the internet. 


Imagine, if you will, that Earth sends Mike Tyson, Kim Jong Un and Uma Thurman as emissaries to the home of the Grays (I know, its weird, but stay with me.  Its a McGuffin).  The average Gray-in-the-street is likely to think they represent 3 different species.  He/she has never visited Earth, as that kind of travel is the province (as on Earth) of a technically qualified and trained elite.  He/she obviously recognises the overall anthropoid form, but individual features of the visitors are diverse; dark/light skin, differences in overall stature, hair, sexual features and, of course, differing eye colour and shape.  Three different races.  Probably at least one of them scary (Uma Thurman would be my guess). 

The TV show Star Trek appeared in the 1960's and was in many ways groundbreaking in its depiction of the unified nations and races of Earth collaborating as part of a Confederation.  The famous prime-time-first interracial kiss, and so forth.  The stories developed, spinoffs appeared and by the mid 90's the Star Trek canon introduced us to the concept of a black character from the planet Vulcan, in the shape of Ensign Tuvok.  Familiar Vulcan brain, Vulcan ears, but now he's black.  Quite why Vulcan humanoids would have evolved in a parallel way to those on Earth I don't think was fully explained, but it did at least serve to increase the diversity in roles available to ethnic actors, and, as art follows society, illustrated the broadening acceptance of diversity in the population. 

I'm personally unconvinced by the prospect of Grays in reality but my point is, as a cultural icon in the collective consciousness, should Jack's 90's "Gray" just be seen as an ethnic variation of the same old "alien" species. 

And don't forget that none of the popular images are the product of witnesses or scientists, they are all drawn by graphic artists. 

259

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 22, 2021, 12:18:20 AM »

Does your research involve field trips, interviewing witnesses and so forth?  Or is it mainly google/YouTube based?

260

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 21, 2021, 02:14:08 PM »

I tripped on the stairs last week.  I'm 67.  Just thought I'd put it out there. 

"I am Spartacus"!