101

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cartography and a flat earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 02:04:09 AM »

If the Earth really is flat, then it would be simple to map it on a flat paper.

Go ahead and map the world for us then, if you think it is so easy.

Tom, I believe that's the point. It apparently isn't easy, ergo how can the Earth be flat.

He just said that it's easy to map the world. Why not map it for us then and then tell us the results?

Actually, it is quite easy. Just look at a globe. All the land masses – Greenland, Africa, Australia, Alaska to name a few – are correctly shaped and appropriately sized. Distances between any 2 points are consistent with GPS, airline flight times, mathematical calculations using latitude and longitude.

That is why all two-dimensional maps have shortcomings. You cannot accurately plot out a three-dimensional sphere onto a two-dimensional sheet of paper.

Looking at a globe and then assuming that the earth is a globe is your way of mapping the earth?

Not really Tom.

We look for directions to get somewhere through the air, sea or by land and using the coordinate system of Latitude/Longitude works very well for getting us to our destination.  It has worked so reliably that I can do it with a map and compass or a fancy GPS and I will still get to my destination repeatably.  When the distances of the lines of Latitude and Longitude are plotted on a physical piece of media, they naturally curve and bend to form a sphere.  That sphere is the result of generations of empirical testing repeated with ever increasing degrees of sophistication and yet not once has it been wildly off target. 

By comparison, the FE community doesn't have even the most rudimentary map that is capable of being used for navigation over long distance in any southern continent.  The FE model can't explain flights in half of the known world without resorting to an explanation of magic to explain why the FE flights break the rules of physics.  I thought that the Zetetic Method was all about observable testable hypothesis, but I've yet to see anyone from the FE community even remotely consider testing their hypothesis against a null.  Unless the FE model is capable of physically measuring and plotting out the distances of the southern hemisphere accurately, I am forced to accept the overwhelming volume of evidence that suggests the earth is round.  When the test hypothesis is that the earth is flat, the null hypothesis must be that the earth is not flat.  So far there is no solid empirical evidence that the earth is flat so I must revert to the null.  That is the scientific method.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

102

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 10:21:03 PM »

[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]

I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...

Alright, considering that attachments are all too large, i had to resort to image address links.


This is an illustration I found on this video:
It doesn't deal exactly with what I am talking about here but it shows an astroplate above Earth and it would contain two sides, a top and bottom. It could be shaped more like a flying saucer like I said earlier (not completely flat), but "plate" describes it accurately.
Here is something else I found that would do better than I could do:

This is actually quite spot on, think of that dome as the concave mirror wrapping around you, and the top of the astroplate (that line with some blue around it) is reflected off of the dome around, and it even has lines to illustrate it. I don't think this picture even had this purpose (looks more like its modeling the december solstice), but it works as an illustration.

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?  With the single pole model the existence of the south pole is difficult to explain as it would theoretically not exist as a single location despite multiple visitors each year that travel to it.  I was specifically questioning star visibility in the dual pole model where both poles were single physical locations.  At that point they should be close enough that being on a high point in one hemiplane would allow you to see constellations from the other hemiplane.

Thank you for the images,

CriticalThinker

103

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cartography and a flat earth

« on: August 28, 2017, 07:17:45 PM »

If the earth is flat, why have cartographers spent so much time devising different mark-up methods for the Earth's terrain? The reason cartographers struggle, according to them, is because it is impossible to correctly depict landmasses situated on a spherical object on a flat plane. This is why Greenland looks so huge on most maps and Africa looks so small (compared to their actual, recorded sizes). Any ideas?

If FET were true then all cartographers would very soon discover for themselves that measured distances don't match the Round Earth and therefore would either make the information public - or they'd have to have been recruited into The Conspiracy.

If they are in the conspiracy then they'd simply be PRETENDING that it was hard to make a round earth map that can be spread out flat.

In truth, they are well aware that the world is round - and there is no way that all of the people who do this kind of thing could be silenced.

Is the conspiracy a widely accepted part of FET?  Cartographers have been making maps since long before the founding of the US.  How would a single massive global conspiracy even function?  The world hasn't even agreed that pollution is universally a bad idea.  When the distance between 2 cities could easily be confirmed through the routine measurements of any man or woman, wouldn't errors in Lat/Long have been easily discovered by now?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

104

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Summer solstice in southern vs. northern hemisphere

« on: August 28, 2017, 07:07:13 PM »

If you go north of the Arctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the summer solstice. This seems consistent with both round and flat earth models.

If you go south of the Antarctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the (southern) summer solstice. This seems inconsistent with a flat earth model. How can you see the sun 24/7 in the south, when the sun is so much farther away on any of the flat earth maps?

Douglips,

I'll save you the trouble for this one.  The first requirement that you will be asked to provide is a 24 hour continuous raw video showing the sun at the south pole not taken by any government agency, edited in any way, with some other verifiable proof of time, date, length of video etc.  If there has been even the slightest post production edit or time lapse, it will be dismissed as a fake.  For best results, if you can find one, it would be a video specifically shot for the purpose.  24 hours plus and additional hour for good measure, with a mechanical watch with date dial in the field of view at all times and a live person that attends it at regular intervals to show that it isn't fake.  Even then, they'll probably dismiss it as a conspiracy plot by someone.  The other possible response will be some alteration to the 2 pole model that states the sun moves in a continuous figure 8 or something along those lines and before you ask, at no point will any of these models theorized be substantiated by hard evidence.  They have essentially drawn their line in the sand and stated that we must prove to them that the earth isn't flat and then immediately dismiss any evidence that it isn't flat as fake, inaccurate or failing to take into account some magic that can't be measured.

Thank you and welcome,

CriticalThinker

Man, you got cynical fast!   But you speak the truth.

Maybe a bit cynical but also pragmatic.  I actually think that a continuous video could easily be done under constraints that would show constant time/date with no editing and a greater than 24 hour constant coverage.  I would hope that it would be accepted by the FE community as real.  Until we have one, I've seen the reactions to some of the time lapse videos and Douglips is brand new.

I'm still optimistic that conversions could happen and I enjoy polite and thoughtful debate.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

105

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS Video of Hurricane Harvey

« on: August 28, 2017, 03:55:23 PM »

It's amazing what they can do with special effects, isn't it?

Tau,

It really is impressive what can be done to a professional level with several months worth of continuous man hours and tens of millions of dollars in a budget.  Most movie post production happens for several months after the movie has been filmed.  You are proposing that the video is fabricated from scratch to match something that is happening today.  The movie in question that you are using to support your hypothesis took 4 years to make and cost $237 million to make.  Actors and actresses are allowed to discuss what being on the movie set was like.  You expect me to believe that the ISS is capable of having making professional grade special effects in days that match what took almost 4 years for Industrial Light and Magic & WETA Digital using a petabyte of storage and some of the largest server farms in the US?  Even then, how do you silence the hundreds of digital animation professionals, actors, actresses, directors and editors required to produce these fictitious highly believable works of art and never tell anyone about it for the rest of their lives?  Top notch digital special effects artists would be like any other employee and would look for interesting and lucrative projects to work on after completing one.  Once they are out of the workforce, they would be easily able to sell the rights to their story for billions of dollars to Hollywood alone.  Yet there's not one chink in the perfect armor of obscurity behind what must be the largest Hollywoodesque digital production facility all for the bargain basement price of $18 Million.  That wouldn't have paid for even 30 minutes of Avatar worthy footage and they are producing many more hours of high quality fictitious video?

Please explain how this miracle of ultra cheap super computing power exists hidden that renders NASA capable of doing months worth of work in seconds.

Thank you,

CritialThinker

106

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do passenger airplane windows distort camera photos?

« on: August 28, 2017, 03:26:54 PM »

The date of the book is stated clearly in the Wiki. The book is from our literature section archive. Do you expect the victorian-era Flat Earth Society books to have chapters about the ISS too?

Tom,

For those of us new to the Forum and Wiki, it might be helpful to know which flat earth resources are considered still valid by the community and the ones that are there specifically for historical purposes.  I wouldn't expect the book in question to address the ISS or space flight, satellites or any other technology that wasn't present upon its time of writing.  I would, however, expect that a modern flat earth society would be able to provide some clarity on which parts of the Wiki are still considered accurate for discussion today.  I believe that this would alleviate you and other members of the council from having to repeatedly answer questions about outdated models.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

107

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Summer solstice in southern vs. northern hemisphere

« on: August 28, 2017, 03:22:13 PM »

If you go north of the Arctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the summer solstice. This seems consistent with both round and flat earth models.

If you go south of the Antarctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the (southern) summer solstice. This seems inconsistent with a flat earth model. How can you see the sun 24/7 in the south, when the sun is so much farther away on any of the flat earth maps?

Douglips,

I'll save you the trouble for this one.  The first requirement that you will be asked to provide is a 24 hour continuous raw video showing the sun at the south pole not taken by any government agency, edited in any way, with some other verifiable proof of time, date, length of video etc.  If there has been even the slightest post production edit or time lapse, it will be dismissed as a fake.  For best results, if you can find one, it would be a video specifically shot for the purpose.  24 hours plus and additional hour for good measure, with a mechanical watch with date dial in the field of view at all times and a live person that attends it at regular intervals to show that it isn't fake.  Even then, they'll probably dismiss it as a conspiracy plot by someone.  The other possible response will be some alteration to the 2 pole model that states the sun moves in a continuous figure 8 or something along those lines and before you ask, at no point will any of these models theorized be substantiated by hard evidence.  They have essentially drawn their line in the sand and stated that we must prove to them that the earth isn't flat and then immediately dismiss any evidence that it isn't flat as fake, inaccurate or failing to take into account some magic that can't be measured.

Thank you and welcome,

CriticalThinker

108

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 02:35:19 PM »

If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole?  If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane.  Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Perspective. It's the go to from what I've seen for any of these questions. Perspective and thick atmosphere that doesn't allow you to see past a certain distance.

Hmm,

Yet the thick atmosphere doesn't prevent seeing the appropriate stars on a clear night?  Are the stars viewed from the northern hemiplane physically closer than the south pole itself or Cape Horn?  If I were to get up on the highest mountain in the northern hemiplane and look directly towards the south pole, surely I would have covered a significant distance vertically and be able to see further with a sufficiently higher power telescope but I still wouldn't be able to see the south pole or southern cross?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

The FE hypothesis would simply say you cannot because of perspective. How do we know it's perspective? Well the ancient Greeks never studied the limits of perspective, so obviously it has a convergence point closer than infinity. Thus the horizon, and how the sun and moon vanish. But that's just about all I recall seeing said on the topic. Oh, and the fact the reason we can't see across the ocean is because the atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, so it blocks the view of distant objects eventually, because of the accumulated particles etc.

Curious Squirrel,

Thanks for the highlights.  It can be hard to sum up the thoughts and ideas of others when you don't really get a consensus from them on any given topic so I appreciate it.  It would still be beneficial to know why you can see stars close to the horizon on a clear night, just not the right ones.  Is there a testable hypothesis somewhere in all of this perspective and atmosphere reasoning or just more unsupported proclamations of knowledge?  I would love to hear back from anyone in the FE community if they feel so inclined.

Thank You

CriticalThinker

109

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 02:06:46 PM »

If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole?  If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane.  Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Perspective. It's the go to from what I've seen for any of these questions. Perspective and thick atmosphere that doesn't allow you to see past a certain distance.

Hmm,

Yet the thick atmosphere doesn't prevent seeing the appropriate stars on a clear night?  Are the stars viewed from the northern hemiplane physically closer than the south pole itself or Cape Horn?  If I were to get up on the highest mountain in the northern hemiplane and look directly towards the south pole, surely I would have covered a significant distance vertically and be able to see further with a sufficiently higher power telescope but I still wouldn't be able to see the south pole or southern cross?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

110

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 01:39:07 PM »

If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole?  If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane.  Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

111

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 28, 2017, 01:29:22 PM »

Sorry, should have been more clear on what I was asking of him. Been reading and contributing since the start, but I was really curious about his comment that "Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real" and how he could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.

Yeah - that's weird.  According to Wikipedia, the Jet stream has been actively used by airlines since 1952.   They are very aware of where it is, what altitude it's at and the speed it's going at any given time.

The speed difference is typically about 50 to 60 mph...and it only blows west-to-east.

This can't possibly explain the discrepancies in the FE models.  On the Qantas Sydney-Santiago route, the FE maps that I've seen demand airplane speeds in excess of Mach 2....IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.   So not possible.

It appears that this thread is being abandoned by the flat earth community members.  Only a couple of members engaged in the conversation and it's not their job to do it.  I would hope that others would join in to support their cause by evaluating the evidence.  Perhaps Zeteticism isn't widely practiced within the FE community.

Thank you

CriticalThinker

112

Flat Earth Community / Re: depth of Earth

« on: August 28, 2017, 01:20:39 PM »

I'm not talking about through history. I'm talking right now. I only know of one. You have two distinct ideas for how gravity exists on the FE listed in your own wiki.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics propse two different mechanisms of Gravity. One asserts bending space and the other asserts graviton puller particles. Which one is true and why is there so much disagreement in your "known" model?

Hello! New here, been lurking for a while.
Even if the proposed mechanisms are different, the working equations are the same. There is a huge consensus on how gravity works at a basic level, and there has been for centuries. So comparing the theory of gravity to the mishmash of opinions on the depth of the flat earth is absurd.
And you don't happen to be willing to share your own opinion, it seems

Ga_x2,

I find that the reluctance to answer questions often relates to an intense fear of being wrong or having to say "I don't know."  You can see this in many settings like schools, healthcare facilities and even casual conversations at parties with friends.  We all want to be right and there's nothing wrong with that, it just isn't possible for any normal person to be right 100% of the time.  Being able to say that "I don't know for sure but here's my best guess," is very difficult for some.  I work in a private practice and there are times where I have to try to explain complex neurological functions that researchers and healthcare providers simply don't fully understand today.  I can't actually demonstrate that you perceive the color green the same way that I do, because we don't have the ability to experience the senses of others.  I can point at a green item and state that it is green and you will likely agree because that particular refraction of light has been taught to us as green.  However, if I were to be able to look directly through your eyes and brain, I might see what I would have otherwise labeled as red.  This inability to look through someone else's eyes or feel through their skin makes philosophical debates that much harder.  Our individual existence is filtered through the complex neurological collection and processing system of our consciousness and we take it at face value because we can't compare it to another's reality.

Tom,

I truly don't know enough about quantum mechanics to compare the two different hypotheses for inconsistencies.  I can say that the mechanism for calculating terminal velocity of a falling object towards the earth has remained consistent and repeatable.  While there may be two proposed underlying mechanisms to explain gravitational pull but the force of gravity on earth is not calculated two different ways.  There aren't exactly wars being fought over the two different frameworks.  While there may be unresolved ideas about the minute mechanics of it, there isn't a disagreement in the method of calculation, observation or application.

I would hope that flat earth scientists could come to at least some general consensus about how the earth functions.  You ask many questions of those of us that believe the earth is round, make very stringent demands of what you will accept and won't accept as evidence to back up our statements.  However, the flat earth community seems to disregard most questions, make unsupported declarations and turn to insulting others when they ask uncomfortable questions.  When I joined this forum, I had hoped to find a place for open and polite debate, but so far have been disappointed by the atmosphere.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

113

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Forget science, it's The Conspiracy...

« on: August 27, 2017, 05:36:54 PM »

Thinker, your question was silly and stupid.

You sir a clearly a troll.

By all means continue to ignore the teachings of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Continue to look down upon the Gentiles and Jews, cast stones at those you deem sinners and usurp the right of your God to hold final judgement upon the words and deeds of His flock.  I am sure you will be most justly rewarded for your efforts upon meeting St. Peter.

CriticalThinker

You should see my Bridge, I bought it from a guy who sells globes.

Based on your assumption that globes are the result of the shoddy workmanship of unbelievers, I would have thought that you would buy your bridge from a faithful carpenter instead.  I do hope that your bridge doesn't collapse.  It would be a shame for you to end up homeless.  Your manners would likely make you unwelcome in most places.  Finding another Troll to share a bridge with may be risky.  If rumors are to be believed, Trolls eat their own during times of low feeding.

Have a blessed day.

CriticalThinker

114

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Forget science, it's The Conspiracy...

« on: August 27, 2017, 05:09:07 PM »

Thinker, your question was silly and stupid.

You sir a clearly a troll.

By all means continue to ignore the teachings of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  Continue to look down upon the Gentiles and Jews, cast stones at those you deem sinners and usurp the right of your God to hold final judgement upon the words and deeds of His flock.  I am sure you will be most justly rewarded for your efforts upon meeting St. Peter.

CriticalThinker

115

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Forget science, it's The Conspiracy...

« on: August 27, 2017, 04:39:59 PM »

Same as it ever was.
Mr. Thinker you're questioning the word of your creator. If that stethoscope has anything to do with DR.ing, they sold out to big pharma. We believers never sold out. If you did 8 years of education you missed the part where human body is so complex and refined it is impossible to be anything but created by GOD> Common sense speaking.

Read a few snippys'

http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/preserve.asp

I believe that you may have misinterpreted my question. I was specifically asking if you knew for a fact that no translation errors had ever occurred since the initial writings took place. The book of Job was not written in English and even in the relatively brief history of the English language, meanings for words have changed.  During the early years of the Holy Roman Empire when Christianity became the official religion of Rome, most people did not know how to read. How can you be sure that figures of speech common to the translator were not substituted to help with comprehension in the new and mostly illiterate congregation?

I also see your half hearted attempt to discredit the worthiness of my question by accusing me of selling out to pharmaceutical companies. While I am indeed a doctor, I am not a physician and have not ever prescribed medication.

I would appreciate no attempts at character assassination as I have made no untoward gestures against your character.

Thank You,

CriticalThinker

116

Flat Earth Community / Re: depth of Earth

« on: August 26, 2017, 07:00:06 PM »

Yeah, no one knows for sure. It's hard to dig down there, and a fundamental tenant of Zeteticism is confirmation via direct observation. That said, we can speculate!

In AW theory, the aethric wind's push against the Earth would theoretically provide sufficient energy to melt the bottom of our Plane. Therefore, in this model the bottom of the Earth would probably be quite similar to the outer core in RET. This seems to be supported by available evidence, since there appears to be some mysterious heat source deep inside the Earth that is not fully explained by radioactive decay.

Looking past that (ignoring the fact that the Wind would melt your face off), you'd most likely see an abyss that stretches forever. That's not necessarily true; for all we know, there's a second Earth directly below us that thinks we're some kind of celestial ceiling. Or turtles. I've always been a fan of the turtle theory.

I believe there are some sects of FET who believe that Australia is actually on the other side of the plane (which they use as a probably racist explanation for the physical characteristics of Aboriginal peoples and the apparent mass psychosis that characterizes modern Australian society and governance).

That's very interesting.  Is there not consensus amongst flat earth theorists about what is or is not on the plane?  Do all members of the flat earth society subscribe to Zeteticism or is it not an agreed upon set of world values?

Thank You,

CritcalThinker

117

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Forget science, it's The Conspiracy...

« on: August 26, 2017, 06:27:16 PM »

Every question about the science of a flat earth seems to get answered.  And though I don't believe the answers are valid, I don't know enough about math and science to debate a FE'er on that level.  Instead, I trust the work of thousands and thousands of scientists, mathematicians, astronauts, and other professionals who work at jobs that require intimate knowledge of the shape of the earth.

In order for this conspiracy to be real, someone has to answer the question of how it's possible that all those people, from all different countries, with vastly differing politics and economic priorities, could all be kept in line. 

It's just not enough to pin it on the government or some collection of powerful people.  How could EVERY country that has put a satellite in orbit (and all the people involved) be forced to keep the secret?  How and why would ALL the people involved in space exploration, all over the world, be compelled to go along with this lie?

IF I give you a pass on the science (which is a huge pass), I still have not heard ONE reasonable explanation of how this could be pulled off.

Do you trust the 1.5 Billion Muslims, that a good portion of pray 5 times a day?

You believe in the majority rules right and in Allah?

It's just silly to get on the globe nonsense. Read Job 38:4 where my God asked Job “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? . . . Who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted with joy?”

Again that doesn't sound like some spinning ball, circling the sun as it circles the milkyway candy bar.

Interesting appeal to authority that you have there.  Could you please provide support that the holy book to which you are referring has never been edited from its original meaning or that the grammar of the quote you are specifically referencing doesn't have multiple meanings in its translation from Ancient Hebrew to English?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

118

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Alternative maps problems.

« on: August 26, 2017, 06:23:34 PM »

The two methods agree fairly well (although not perfectly because the "true" north pole and the "magnetic" north pole aren't perfectly aligned).

On 3DGeeks impossible magical ball, 500 kilometers is a small, almost insignificant distance.

Hilarious.

Please explain how it's impossible for the earth to be a ball.  I will accept all forms of peer reviewed scientific literature produced in the last 30 years as evidence of your claim.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

119

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 26, 2017, 06:06:30 PM »

But planes know when they end up in the jet stream. If the Aethric wind is the jet stream, then there's no issue because the majority of flights are not affected by it. It's actually a somewhat notable exception when a plane makes use of it, and it makes it take a not insignificant time longer/shorter than normal. If being caught in it makes the time different, that means we don't need to account for it's effects, because it doesn't have an affect on the majority of flights.

The aethric wind is not the jet stream. I am using the jet stream as an analogy for its effect, because similarly to the jet stream it has the effect of increasing or decreasing the speed of an airplane. Nobody knows whether the jet stream is real, and I do not feel qualified to speculate about it.

I'm sorry, what? Could you tl;dr that for me or something? I've never, ever heard speculation that we don't know whether the jet stream is real or not. Color me curious.

A few pages back 3dGeek, Inquisitor and myself used geometry as a proof that the Earth couldn't be a flat plane.  Airline flight time, speed and distance for nonstop flights was used as the data for the geometry calculations.  Tom Bishop called into question the variables distance and speed because he felt that GPS was too inaccurate and that Lat/Long was not valid on a flat Earth.  In response I provided evidence that speed of flight could be accurately calculated using Doppler Radar and that using algebra, you could solve for distance which backed up the original geometry proof.

Tau then claimed that the Aetherial wind was another variable that I had failed to take into account for my calculations along the lines of Speed = (Distance/Time) +/- Aether.

The claim is that Aether is a celestial force that affects all planets, stars etc but is somehow immeasurable.

That's the abridged version.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

120

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 26, 2017, 05:52:02 PM »

They were assuming that it was a Round Earth Radar Test, as opposed to a Flat Earth Radar Test. They were comparing the Round Earth coordinate devices (GPS) to the Radar Test values, without knowing which shape of the earth they were on. The distance of a mile would measure differently on a Flat Earth vs using a Round Earth lat/lon coordinate system.

TL;DR: there's no such thing as a "flat earth mile" vs a "round earth mile".  The mile is the distance covered by light traveling in a vacuum in the time span of 49,347.828 "ticks" of the atomic clock.

Long version: The mile was standardised at exactly 1,609.344 metres by international agreement in 1959.

So what is a meter?  Is it defined by a round earth feature?  Well, it used to be: originally the meter was one ten-millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the Equator.  Several refinements later, the meter is now defined in terms of the second and the speed of light: the metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. 

So what is a second?  Maybe it is defined by a round earth feature?  No, but it briefly was, between periods before and after where it was not.  From antiquity, time was measured against the day/night cycle, which is observational rather than theoretical.  (By which I mean that no matter what shape you think the earth is, we can all agree on the observed timing of the exact moment the sun is/appears to be at its zenith.)  The second became measurable with the advent of mechanical timekeeping (clocks) accurate enough to keep good time, and in the 1670s the spread of the grandfather clock effectively defined the second as 1/60th of the minute.  In 1862 the second was formally defined as 1/86,400 of the mean solar day, which was carried into the metric system when it was adopted.  Then, for nine brief years beginning in 1956, the second became tied to the round earth when it was defined as the fraction  1/31,556,925.9747 of the tropical year for 1900 January 0 at 12 hours ephemeris time.  I say "tied to the round earth" because nobody had measured the length of that year, it was calculated from heliocentric theory and the observed length of the contemporary year.  By this point, however, it was well known that the earth's rotation is not a constant over time, and is thus a poor standard against which to measure time.  So the atomic clock was born, and in 1967 the second was defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom

Thank you for the well placed backup to this discussion.  As both time and distance are currently variables that do not require a globed earth assumption, devices calibrated to measure speed after these two variables were standardized would fit the initial requirements set forth by Tom Bishop.  Tom was initially unhappy about the reported variability of modern GPS accuracy and challenged its face value as a methodology of measuring speed due to its basis on latitude and longitude.  The Doppler shift effect was chosen as a flat earth compatible system of measuring speed so that the speed and time data supplied by airlines would meet all of Tom's criteria for acceptance.  Since then, Tom has been suspiciously absent and has systematically ignored the majority of my responses or questions.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker