201

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My sunrise plane flight

« on: March 15, 2019, 04:11:07 AM »

Huh? Can you draw a diagram, your words do not communicate any possible way that flying a Cessna Cardinal could change your angle of view of something 3000 (or ?) miles away and far above you. At what angle will it ever be below the horizon?

202

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain this Phenomenon

« on: March 15, 2019, 04:06:10 AM »

That's what the faqs say. What do you say?

The atmolayer: a never observed natural phenomenon whose function is to turn the appearance of FE into RE, the filter through which all that accurate flatness evidence is transformed into the appearance of RE. No one knows what it is made of or how it works, but it bends light and radio waves to suit any need.

I would like to see a diagram of how the sun could be projected to get sun on western horizon at 0 longitude, directly overhead at 90 long, eastern horizon at 180, and no sun at all at 270.

How is a sun projected over the equator and not seen all over FE?

203

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain this Phenomenon

« on: March 14, 2019, 10:30:13 PM »

Vanishing point is a concept used in art to figure out how to render a 3d image in 2d with the appearance of 3d.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VanishingPoint.html

Theoretical vanishing point is at infinity, most use the edge of the paper. Your buildings will look slightly lopsided, better if you tape a second sheet of paper on and use a focal point farther away. Best is infinity.

An ant would see as far as an ant eye lens would view or until blocked by a closer object. A person would get the same view if he put his eye on the floor at the same spot. An ant eye at the same height as a person's eye would see the same view. Ditto them looking at a rendering that used perspective.

Imagine train tracks straight down a valley with a mountain at the and of it. The tracks get closer and closer in the distance, and disappear. That is not vanishing point, that is when they are so distant their image is narrower than the arc of a rod/cone in your eye. Just as a digital video camera or your screen can't depict something smaller than a pixel. The mountain is visible not because it is higher, but because it is bigger. We are used to thinking higher = see farther because the closer to the ground, the more obstacles.

Does it delight you that I answered this way? Do you honestly think altitude has something to do with how far you can see other than raising you higher above the horizon, as in RE explanation? Are you trolling me? Do you think vanishing point and perspective explain things on RE? Do you understand the RE meaning of these words, because many FErs do not understand the RE meaning. It is possible to disagree of disprove an RE explanation only if you understand it. Many FErs give wrong explanations of these things, and I suspect they do it on purpose. Odd way to enjoy life. I would like to explain this stuff to someone who doesn't know it. Do you understand sextant and equatorial mount on RE? I find them more amazing than the atmolayer.

I have never found a FEr who could explain how a sextant or equatorial mount work even if he didn't believe it. Many FErs present themselves as educated and intellectually skilled, but I don't think any of them are smart enough to understand sextant /north star/ latitude or equatorial mount. They lack the ability to understand these things, just not able.

204

Flat Earth Theory / radio waves as reliable straight line

« on: March 14, 2019, 08:58:01 PM »

We know that light diffracts, that it does not travel straight through an edge between different materials and that P900s don't give exact RE or FE results because the light is bending.

Do radio waves have the same problem?

On FE, if I sight something through a telescope and a radar set, could it be in some other position than where it appears due to bending of both radio and light waves in the same way?

205

Flat Earth Theory / My sunrise plane flight

« on: March 14, 2019, 08:49:15 PM »

In my twenties, a friend (Frank) was making a set of slides to be projected over a rock band for a show and he wanted a sunrise. My roommate (Ron) had a plane and offered to give him a spectacular shot, with custom sunrise amount and multiple tries.

So one morning before dawn, we got up and took off. As we climbed, the sky in the east got brighter. At 10,000 feet, the sun barely peeked over the horizon. Frank took some pictures, asking could he make it a little higher or lower, which Ron did be climbing or diving. As it came up, he went lower and lower, so Frank got many sunrise pictures over a time a lot longer than the usual sunset. When we landed, it was dawn at the airport.

This has a simple explanation on RE, how could I see multiple sunrises by going from 10,000 feet to ground level on FE?

206

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain this Phenomenon

« on: March 14, 2019, 08:42:25 PM »

From wikipedia:

A vanishing point is a point on the image plane of a perspective drawing where the two-dimensional perspective projections (or drawings) of mutually parallel lines in three-dimensional space appear to converge.

Seeing does not respond to gravity as mass does. Altitude has no bearing on vision, only diffraction and absorption.

You do not understand vanishing point. The reason we can't see things in the distance is they fill smaller and smaller arcs as they are farther. The rod/cone (think of it as a "pixel") has a certain arc of the eyeball it registers. When something is so far away it does not fill enough arc to register on enough pixels. Think of looking at a toothpicl a quarter mile away. You can see a house but not a toothpick. Put that house on the moon, and you can see the moon but not the house.

Interestingly, Your last sentence may be right, if you mean that although the sun is below the horizon for the guy taking the picture it is still above the horizon for the clouds, because they are west and higher altitude.

207

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)

« on: March 14, 2019, 08:30:54 PM »

So do I understand that you are creating a rigorous formalism for a world you know can't exist to explain why everything appears RE but if put through a math transform can actually be FE without specifying the composition and shape of how this transformation is physically implemented?

How would this be helping to lay a foundation for FE if the careful and valid formalism is based on a map that can't be right?

Is this an attempt to subtly mock FE? Or just pointless smarty pants showing off? Not that there's anything wrong with that, just curious.

208

Flat Earth Theory / Re: how does gps work on FE?

« on: March 14, 2019, 05:30:02 PM »

I wish some FE would explain how we have gps without having satellites where they are published as being.

I have heard one explanation. It required thousands of flying transmitters, high above the atmosphere each with many time delay spoofing transmitters and ultra sharp cutoff antennas, etc, many impossible things with any known technology.

209

Flat Earth Theory / how does gps work on FE?

« on: March 13, 2019, 09:08:45 PM »

GPS satellites have 4 atomic clocks and sends a very accurate time in its broadcast and gps receivers have a less good but adequate clock. The timestamp in broadcast is subtracted from receiver clock time and divided by the speed of light. The distance from 4 satellites intersects at only one place, your ocation, so some geometry math and you have your location.

There are open source gps receiver programs at sourceforge.net, so if you know c++, you can examine (or fix or dream up your own!) the calculations it makes and compile is yourself. We can truth check that that is the signal and that is how it works.

gps signals are at 12,500 miles, as you can confirm in the receiver code. You can also see how the satellites move and where they are with tracker software. It all matches.

If you don't have the transmitters where they say they are, the geometry will not work right. You can step through the code with a debugger and see the calculations yourself.

How does this work on FE?

210

Flat Earth Theory / Re: how does Australia in the flat earth theory?

« on: March 13, 2019, 08:42:14 PM »

The most amazing thing to me is there unawareness of their impact on others. I find it very hard to take when they essentially say my youth and my family was fake and they were all stupid or liars.

They are calling all REs stupid or liars. Everybody who believed their science teacher when they explained day/night, seasons, 24 sun at pole, etc.

211

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is your goal here?

« on: March 13, 2019, 08:34:31 PM »

FE, where efforts are redoubled when results are dismal.

212

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mount Everest?

« on: March 13, 2019, 05:19:00 PM »

"leaving a clear trail of breadcrumbs is essential to the scientific community to take this seriously."

When you say scientific community, do you mean professors from Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, etc., or do you mean D Marble and Jeranism?

Assuming you mean the conventional scientific community, I thought that publishing a paper was what the scientific community takes seriously. Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Special Theory of Relativity, etc.

Looking forward to Tom Bishop's submission and publication. If he's got a tight theory, why not? What would stop him?

Or do you mean the scientific community of FE web sites?

213

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is your goal here?

« on: March 12, 2019, 08:04:26 PM »

What if I had a proposed shape of the earth that I could give strong evidence was true?

My journey through FE started with, "okay, maybe the earth is flat" and I looked for evidence. The FE videos had problems with their understanding of RE geometry and physics, many were downright silly. Logic errors, some had evidence of RE in clear view. Don't consider Bible as way to determine RE.  Ring laser gyroscope netflix. D Marble and Jeranism are just not good. The evidence was dismal. Considering there was already an explanation that had been demonstrated to me, I call "truth" for RE.

Do you know how sextant and equatorial mount works on RE? I find the workings to be fascinating and awesome, that all the stars and planets could be flying around and spinning and orbiting, yet we figured out how to know your latitude with a simple gadget aimed at something 93M mi away. I find understanding why pointing a telescope at the moon on a stationary mount would result in the moon moving across your field of view, yet mounting that telescope on an axis parallel to the earth's axis and turning it at one rev a day makes things stay in view at all angles.

I wish I could get an FE to stay with me through understanding how these things work on RE and why they do not work on FE. I would let them explain where I was wrong. It is not impossible they would convince me.

214

Flat Earth Community / What is your goal here?

« on: March 12, 2019, 05:28:01 PM »

Is your goal to find the true shape of the earth?

Is your goal to make the case for flat earth?

My goal is to improve the quality of thinking in those I share the earth with. By quality of thinking, I mean finding the objective truth, not making myself feel good.

It does not matter to me whether the earth is flat. It matters to me that the methods to find out are effective and people understand them.

There is a long long list of things to explain if the earth is flat that make perfect sense on RE. Why think about FE until you have explained morth star/latitude/sextant?
 

215

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mount Everest?

« on: March 12, 2019, 05:14:47 PM »

If light rays travel almost straight (yes, they do refract in the atmosphere, there will be small errors due to refraction):

The sun on the most common FE model circles above the earth (3100 mi?) between the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn. At no point will anyone see it as "behind" any mountain.

If there is some major light bending in the atmoplane:

Until the bending is defined by equations and confirmed by experimental observation, we do not know exactly how the light is bending. Until that is nailed down, we don't know where anything is.

Thoise are the 2 FE choices. Impossible and don't know.

216

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)

« on: March 12, 2019, 04:58:32 PM »

Quote from QED:

================================================================================

And pointing out things that you think are wrong with it is not the same as “showing the proposal can’t possibly be correct.”

================================================================================

I pointed out the things you have to explain and the difficulties. If your theory is correct, it is more strongly proven after explaining these things. If it can't explain these things, we can't call it correct until it does. If there is a long list of such things, the probability they all have explanations is lower. If the probability of your explanation is low, why spend time?

Are you doing this as an exercise knowing the earth is round, but just a thought experiment, or do you think hundreds of years of science since Newton is wrong and the use of this science for gps and space flight, etc, is wrong and you and FEs have truth?

217

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can FE make a map?

« on: March 12, 2019, 04:43:41 PM »

I want to see the FE map where I can't sail into the edge. The polar projection/ice wall explanation is not available to a flat rectangular map. Any flat rectangular map has to explain what is up with the edges. The earth, to a sailor, has no edge. If flat map, must explain edge.

Do you have explanation for edges?

218

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The effect FE has on me

« on: March 12, 2019, 04:24:51 PM »

What do we know about airliner speed? Nothing?

Do we know it is about 470 on all schedules?

Can you find me a schedule that does not divide distance by time and get around 470? 

I am going to treat airliner speed = 470 as truth. I have many schedules, Boeing docs, and my personal experience as confirmatioon.

Do you have a reason to believe I am wrong that is stronger than my reasons to believe 470 mph?

219

Flat Earth Theory / Re: night time sky

« on: March 12, 2019, 04:20:33 PM »

I did not say FE was true or false because I like it, it doesn't matter whether I like it. The question is not which do you feel is right, I could feel that anything is right.

On RE, when you point a sextant at the north star, the angle is equal to your lattitude. At the equator, the north star is on the horizon, which means if FE, it is on the surface of the earth. If you put the north star at the top of a 3100 mi high dome, you should get an angle of 26 degrees. You don't. On FE, the angle is never right, unless you decide the light was bent in just the right way to make it appear to be round. No explanation or experimentation is offered to justify this, only that it must be because the earth is flat. Assuming the conclusion is not allowed in logic.

RE explains and is consistent with observations. FE has no explanation for these. Same is true of 24 hour darkness at south pole, satellites/gps/DirecTV, equatorial mount, etc etc etc. All explained by RE, all requiring conspiracy or explanation without observation and experiment.

220

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can FE make a map?

« on: March 12, 2019, 06:26:35 AM »

What happens when I sail east from New York on your map? Many people have sailed west from New Yrok and not run into the edge. Is your map a cylinder? If it is, we only have to tuck the ends in and we have a ball. If it is not, why can people sail east from NY and get to Europe?