461

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round

« on: October 28, 2018, 05:13:22 AM »

There are equations out there that show the effects of the environment and show the effects of the curvature of the earth on a microwave signal.  Other effects are the topology of the earth.  Inland, the earth is not anywhere near flat.  There are lots of hills, valleys, trees and tall buildings that will obstruct a microwave signal.  If you are putting up an expensive microwave link you always start off with a path survey.  It involves looking at the path with a topographic map and you won't even see the curvature of the earth on it.  The curvature is usually built into the software that used to calculate the estimate of the total path loss that you should experience.   Of course things change during the seasons of the year, you can have storms or foggy days, ect.  The amount of signal strength margin you have can then be used to get an estimate of the percentage of time you may actually loose the path due to all the variables.  Curvature of the earth is only one of many variables to be considered.  At least it is known and doesn't change.  Many of the other variables can change a lot.  There are university papers available in the internet that outline all the theoretical equations that apply to microwave signals.  Some equipment manufactures also have a certain amount of that kind of information in their manuals that are sometimes available on line for anyone to look at.  I know that I'm poking the bear again, but take a look at Exalt Microwave.  They have installed a microwave link with a total length of 146 miles.  Certainly, that is possible and an actual system is said to exist.  There are flat earth videos claiming that this link proves their theory.  Exalt is a known company and has equipment installed all over the US.  The link I mentioned is between Cyprus and Lebanon.  Both countries have some small mountains on the coast and the distance between the countries is mostly the Mediterranean Sea.   I haven't found anything that tells me just where the link antennas are located, but that distance still could be doable even with a curved earth if the antennas were high enough.  The videos said that the antennas were on 50 foot towers, but didn't exactly say just where the towers were located.  I did take a quick look at Cyprus and found a 600+ meter hill on Cyprus.  There is a communications company in that location and a 50 foot tower at that distance above sea level could work out fine, if there was another site on the Lebanon side that was about the same.  Anyone that's interested can easily see all the same stuff that I have.  You could even call Exalt and tell them about the Flat Earth theory, and get them to install a system for you between Chicago and Des Moines.  It would probably be a money maker if you could get it to work.

462

Flat Earth Community / Re: RE believers - why are you here?

« on: October 28, 2018, 04:23:13 AM »

I came across this site in my quest for learning more about quantum mechanics.  That lead me to a bunch of on-line videos.  Somewhere a long the way I came up with a link to this site.  The thinking here is interesting.  It has made me take a look at some of my old math and physics books that are still in my bookcase.  All I can say is that I will never be able to 'prove' anything to a biased jury.  I would never be able to prove to my wife, with just words, that I went to the grocery store.  If I produce that quart of milk and a receipt, that's the 'game changer'.  The game changer for the round earth folks is the engineering, products, and services that are in everyday use that were developed using the theories of the round earth.  If the flat earth folks want to make a real impression, then just use that theory to better what's being done using the round earth model.  There are things out there that are limited by the 'curvature of the earth'.  If that theory is actually false, don't try to prove that it's false, just develop a product or service that is demonstratively better because of it.  Put your theory into action and produce something of value.  Then you will get the attention of everyone and most of the arguments will go away and the believers will be flocking towards FET.

463

Science & Alternative Science / Re: There is no such 'thing' as energy.

« on: October 28, 2018, 03:57:39 AM »

I believe that mass and energy are just two different phases of the same thing.  You can turn ice into water and then water into steam.  You can turn energy into mass and mass into energy.  The equivalence equation is well known and has been verified.  Light is interesting, it's said to have no mass, but does have momentum.  It obviously carries energy.  I get sunburned and a solar panel generates electricity.  What I don't get on this site is the avoidance of the earth having any mass.  I can pick up a part of that earth (a rock) and throw it thru a window.  I impart a certain amount of kinetic energy to that rock and it then imparts a certain amount of that energy into the window upon contact.  Since a tiny part of the earth (the rock) has a tiny mass, then the whole earth should have a big mass.  That big mass should be convertible into a tremendous amount of energy.  All that happens in a fusion reaction.  Mass converted to energy.   Are there different forms of mass and the energy that it can be converted into?  Since the gravitation equation has only mass and distance in the equation something must be different about the mass of the earth vs mass of the stars for instance.  The stars are said to be responsible for the tides.  You have the mass of the stars effecting the mass of the water on the earth causing tides.  Why doesn't the mass of my body get attracted to the mass of the earth, that has the capability of carrying kinetic energy and can be converted to pure energy?  You should be able to dispense with UA and just go with gravity to keep us all on the earth.       

464

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do you trust your senses?

« on: October 28, 2018, 03:19:47 AM »

I don't trust my hearing at all.  After an inner ear hemorrhage many years ago, I hear auditory hallucinations on a daily basis.  All my research on the subject, and confirmed by the doctors that checked me out, say that all the strange sounds are being generated by my brain.  My ear doesn't respond to sounds at all anymore and since all the normal auditory inputs are now gone the brain just generates random sounds.  It's maybe kind of like the process of interpolation where the brain is trying to make some sense out of nothing.  Kind of like I try to do here.  At least my 'disability' can be useful when communicating with my wife.  It's easy to claim that I didn't hear her say to 'take out the garbage'. 

465

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails

« on: October 28, 2018, 03:06:12 AM »

Short wave length radars can see water droplets in the atmosphere.  On the last ship I was on, we had two X-Band radars and a S-Band radar.  The X-Band radars were very good at picking up rain showers.  They were also very good at separating out a large fleet of small fishing boats.  If a rain shower came between us and that fleet of small fishing boats, we could loose sight of them on the X-Band radar, but could usually switch to the S-Band radar and see them because you could often see thru rain with that radar.  Unfortunately,  the fleet of small fishing vessels would often just look like a large blob on the screen.  Both types of radars had their strengths and weaknesses, that's why we had both types installed.  I didn't know anyone actually still believed in chemtrails anymore.  Recently I saw a video of a formation of B-17 WWII bombers.  Guess what?  They also were generating the same 'chemtrails'.  I mentioned what I saw to an old WWII veteran who flew bombers in the Pacific theater in WWII and wasn't surprised.  Just think vapor trails. 

466

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki - The Flat Earth Theory

« on: October 27, 2018, 02:42:22 AM »

The round earth theory provides for the gravitational attraction between the moon and the earth.  The wiki on this site shows the moon orbiting above the flat earth in a big circle.  I can see how the moon might keep it's distance constant by the UA force flowing around the sides of the flat earth.  That force couldn't be used to keep the moon in it's constant orbit.  To do that would require a vector component that was at a constant right angle to the surface of the moon and always pointed at the center of rotation.  You could also postulate some kind of force of attraction that could do the job as well.  In any event for FET to be believable you will need some theory that keeps the moon, as well as the sun, in orbit over the Earth.  It looks like the Sun would be an even bigger job because that orbit must vary in radius to account for the seasons. 

467

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Amateur radio shows the earth is round

« on: October 26, 2018, 09:34:21 PM »

It is known and has been observed by me that microwave signals arrive at the antenna on the ship I was on.  Since we were out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it was safe to say that there wasn't much else around.  I had a dish antenna pointed at a satellite that was believed to be in synchronous earth orbit.  That means that the path length was thousands of miles.  I could receive a strong microwave signal that was usable 24 hours a day.  Some attenuation was accounted for the atmosphere in the path.  Now the ship travels further away from that same satellite and the dish has to move further and further towards the horizon.  Eventually the signal strength falls off and becomes unusable.  At that point the microwave signal is going thru the maximum length of the Earth's atmosphere.  It isn't until the satellite disappears below the horizon that the signal is totally lost.  Transfer the whole thing to a land based system.  If the earth was flat you could easily postulate that the range of a typical microwave could be a whole lot farther than what is observed in the real world.  The average loss to atmospheric effects wouldn't be even close to what occurs when the signal has to dip over the curvature of the earth.  There are equations available that describe the sight horizon and the radio horizon. This can vary some due to the dynamic effects of the Earth's atmosphere.  If you could get everything to hold steady for a while you could get everything down to a 'gnats ass', but Mother Nature isn't so accommodating .  You can bet that there has been extensive research into the effect by both the microwave equipment manufacturers and universities.  If there was some way to get around the curvature of the earth problem other than building higher and higher towers the microwave businessmen would be all over it.  The accepted way is to use satellites, which is the only alternative for use at sea, but you have to hold on to your wallet, it's expensive.

468

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Heliocentric Speed Change Problem

« on: October 26, 2018, 07:11:44 PM »

It looks like everybody here as an education on Newton's 2nd law.  It really doesn't apply to the earth at all if, according to FET, the earth is not spinning.  You should feel the vertical acceleration force at your feet and that's about it.  It looks to me that Newton's 2nd law would be a critical factor for the moon under FET.   Acceleration is a change in velocity. Velocity is also a vector so acceleration could be either a change in speed or a change in direction, or it could be both at the same time.   Keeping the moon stationary over the flat earth requires a constant acceleration upwards (vertical relative to the surface of the earth).  Keeping the moon in a circular path would require a force sideways (horizontal relative to the surface of the earth).  What is the provider of that force?  The force must be there because you can see a constant change in the moon's velocity, AKA a circular motion. 

469

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moons - How?

« on: October 26, 2018, 06:33:06 PM »

In getting back to the first post on this tread, I made a 'back of the envelope' calculation.  I assumed a 5 meter sphere with a mass of 2,887,881 kg, and a pebble of 0.005 meters radius with a mass of 0.00288 kg.  I came out with a force of gravity deflection of less than a millionth of a newton.  That would mean that you would never be able to see or measure anything given the conditions of your experiment.  In order to see the force of gravity you will need much bigger masses and more sensitive measurement instruments.   

470

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moons - How?

« on: October 26, 2018, 06:01:42 PM »

It is possible to make a prediction 'down to the gnats ass' about things in the round earth theory just using well known equations.  What isn't possible is knowing 'down to a gnats ass' the value of all the variables.  Things about the total mass of the earth, it's density or it's exact radius are just 'best guesses' made over many years of measurement.  Even if you could hold a tape measure between the center of the earth and a point on the outer edge it would still only be an estimate because the sphere isn't totally round or smooth.  That means that there will always be a 'fudge factor' in any prediction you make.   In some of my college engineering classes we were always taught to include in all our equations an estimated error and factor that into the result calculation.  What's smaller than a gnats ass?  Many error factors are not constant at all.  That's where stochastic differential equations come into play.  Sometimes you make a prediction of an expected event and something goes wrong.  That doesn't necessarily mean that your theory, or equations, are wrong.  There are plenty of places where you could have made mistakes.  I once saw a total eclipse of the moon at sea that was predicted by the navigation officer based on the data in our nautical almanac. It happened just when expected. For other events that may only occur every 20 years or so, it can take a long time to completely verify a theory.  Things in life are mostly probabilistic.  A single observation can't really prove or disprove much of anything. 

471

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moons - How?

« on: October 26, 2018, 05:12:51 PM »

You can't get far about arguing about theory.  I would have a very difficult time 'proving' to my wife, just using words, that I actually went to the grocery store on my way home from work.  We could argue indefinitely, but if I pulled out that loaf of bread and the quart of milk, along with a receipt, that would quickly end the argument.  The simple act of producing the grocery sack & receipt would quickly convert the theory into fact.  The round earth people have developed a theory about the earth that's based on it being spherical and with gravity.  That theory is just ideas and words.  By itself it's mostly meaningless.  What's important is what you can actually do that is useful with your theory.  That effectively converts your theory to fact.  A mindless, soulless, piece of equipment has 'no dog in the fight', it just works or doesn't work according to it's design and the way it was built.  I contend that there is equipment out there that was designed and built with a spherical earth as an essential part of the design.  That equipment works as expected.  Doesn't that effectively convert any theory to fact?

472

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:

« on: October 26, 2018, 01:11:36 AM »

Things with UA are even worse.  You have to consider that the earth is being pushed on by a dark force field, along with at least the Sun and Moon.  I suppose that some of the stars are also being pushed, but there are other observed bodies that are moving at a different velocity relative to the earth.  You can see this with the red shift.  It can't really be a 'universal force' if other objects are effected differently.  All this because the concept of gravity is being abandoned for the earth.  The Earth's mass somehow shields the things on the top surface from the force of UA.    Gravity is an attractive force.  A very large object, like a star, keeps a much smaller object, like a planet in orbit because of the constant force of gravity is accelerating the planet.  Remember that acceleration is a vector and can either be a change in velocity, or a change in direction, or both.  The much larger object, like a star, is also being accelerated by the much smaller force of the orbiting planet. In fact astronomers have found the evidence of planets around distant stars because of the small perturbations of the star.  Also the planet Pluto was found because of the noticed perturbations of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus.  Yes, I know that if gravity is actually brought back in FET then there would be another problem.  Namely on a flat earth everything is attracted to the center of mass.  That would mean that at the edge of the planet, like near the South Pole the pull of gravity would not be anywhere near vertical.  The FET folks say they don't have to explain anything because that theory was the first.  It would be nice if a few workable equations were derived to explain all the anomalies that currently exist and can be seen and measured in observatories all over the world. Since the flat earth theory has been around longer, you would think that the equations and theories would be a lot more advanced.

473

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:

« on: October 25, 2018, 09:29:53 PM »

On the flat earth the earth is being pushed by the dark force from the bottom side, but you are being shielded by the earths mass.  That means that the dark force is pushing on the earth and the earth is pushing on you.  That way you feel the force on your feet due to the acceleration imparted by the earth to you.  In space where you are being influenced by the same dark force, you would indeed maintain a constant distance from the earth without propulsion, just like you said.  Yes, you technically would be just as heavy as you are on the earth, only you would have no way of telling as you would just be floating around without touching anything.  My contention is that on the side of the moon that faces the earth, you would be weightless.  On the opposite side of the moon you would weigh the same as on the earth since the mass of the moon would shield you from the dark force.  In the same manner, if you could actually travel to the opposite side of the earth, you would be weightless there as well.  Time to build an elevator, it would make a great place for a vacation, but bring an oxygen mask.   

474

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do you trust your senses?

« on: October 25, 2018, 07:45:15 PM »

There are some YouTube videos that show just how some of the common magic tricks are actually performed.  Everything makes sense once you see what the 'trick' is.  Don't get me wrong, a lot of the tricks take an extensive amount of practice to actually pull off.  In a lot of cases it's the diversion of your senses by something else that's behind the trick.  Now if the FET folks will take a few clues from the RET world, they can actually see how "Mother Nature" performs all her tricks.

475

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The beliefs on this board...

« on: October 25, 2018, 07:33:53 PM »

Yea, we all could be stuck in a recursive subroutine with ever higher entities in control...buckle up!

476

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is actually the definition of this "zetetic method" Flat-Earthers use?

« on: October 25, 2018, 06:22:18 PM »

A child can take a fresh look at the world and try to make sense of what is being seen.  Unfortunately, if that same child is watching a magician those senses can be polluted.  Even and older person who only sees things with a limited world view can get the wrong impression of how things really are.  Many facts are very subtle.  Unless it's your intention to make sense of those very subtle things by close and focused observation you will miss them.   

477

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The beliefs on this board...

« on: October 25, 2018, 06:11:44 PM »

Take a look at Tom Campbell on YouTube.  Your outlook is too narrow.  Yes, we could be living in a simulation, but NASA is too.  Everyone might be just a character in a video game being played by some unknown entity (not NASA).  According to Tom Campbell we all have free will and all our circumstances are probabilistic.  It's all just a roll of the dice.  If Tom Campbell's notion is true I don't know whether to be comforted or afraid. 

478

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is actually the definition of this "zetetic method" Flat-Earthers use?

« on: October 25, 2018, 05:39:19 PM »

If the zetetic definition is Theory - Hypothesis - Experiment - Comparison - Decision - Repeat, then I'm only seeing a partial success.   What you can see with you own eyes severely limits your outlook.  Isaac Newton has been attributed with saying 'I and only see so far because I'm standing on the shoulders of Giants'.  The other saying of 'No man is an Island' applies here.  Everyone must depend on someone else.  The Zetetic is only polluting it's own waters by trying to claim 'fake' for all the things that are purported to show something that goes against their standard theory.  If there is a claim, counter that claim by citing a long accepted and verified law or show a new equation that explains why the claim must be false.  Of course any equation will have to be backed up in all kinds of other circumstances, but it will hold up if it's a good one.   

479

Flat Earth Community / Re: Think I've proof the earth is not flat, like to know what you think (sincere).

« on: October 25, 2018, 05:01:41 PM »

The Flat Earth Theory postulates that the Sun and Moon go in circles around one surface of the earth.  Distances between the Sun, Moon, and the Flat Earth surface must remain relatively constant.  This means that the dark force must act on the Sun and Moon in the same manner and keep all three objects accelerating at a constant rate.  Now if you believe in Newton's 2nd law, there must be another force that also is keeping the Sun and Moon in a circular path above the Earth.  I first postulated that somehow the Sun and Moon were hung from a dome above the earth, but was chastised for the mention of a 'Dome'.  My next idea was to put a wire on the Sun and Moon and attach it to a pole going vertically from the North Pole.  Kind of like a tether ball setup.  Again, that idea was shut down because the Sun must change the diameter of it's orbit to produce the different seasons that we all experience here in the MidWest US.  The bottom line is, without the force of gravity, you need another force to keep the sun and moon in circular motion.  You will need some additional 'intelligence' to adjust that force to adjust the orbital diameters to product the seasons.  All of this just because of what Newton said a long time ago.  Maybe it's time to start the 'update' process to match what FET says.

480

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video

« on: October 25, 2018, 04:40:21 PM »

The shape of the earth has everything to do with the ISS.  The whole idea of the ISS and all the videos that have been taken is mutually exclusive with FET.  If one thing is true, then the other has to be fake.  In theory the ISS could orbit a global earth and use the force of gravity just like all the equations say. The whole idea is simple and has been known for 100s of years. Since with FET there is no gravity on earth and we are all held here by the force of UA then two other options are possible.   An attempt to go around the edge could happen, since there is no dome.  To stay in an 'edge to edge' orbit you would have to have a continuous fuel burn since you have no pull of gravity.  Since the ISS can only carry a finite amount of fuel it would have a short expected life span.  The other option would be to stay in a circular path around the top of the flat earth, just like the sun and moon.  Again, 'Houston, we have a problem'.   That would mean in order for the ISS to stay above a flat earth in a circle, the rockets would have to be going continuously.  I guess you could repeal Newton's 2nd law, but I fear that you just wouldn't be able to fool 'Mother Nature'.