61

Flat Earth Community / Is FET Dangerous?

« on: July 10, 2018, 04:33:54 PM »

There's a growing anti-intellectual strain in this country.  It may be the beginning of the end of our informed democracy.  Ofcourse, in a free society, you can and should think what ever you want and if you want to think the world is flat, go right ahead.  But if you think the world is flat and you have influence over others, then being wrong becomes being harmful to the health the wealth and the security of our citizenry.

We want to make sure, that the next person who joins the board to ask questions about their newly found belief, aren't misinformed. That the social presence of TFES doesn't lead young people to believe what TFES is actually claiming. To me, that's just as dangerous as religious indoctrination.

People might be coming here because they aren't sure, and then they see your facile arguments and they might start believing in nonsense. Believing in nonsense gets people killed.

Is Flat Earth Theory dangerous?
Is tfes.org dangerous?
Is it harmful if a young person becomes convinced that the Earth is flat?
Is it harmful to our community for prominent figures to declare belief in the flat Earth?
What if you don't believe it? What if you're just messing around.  Is that dangerous?

What do you think?

62

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 09, 2018, 05:44:18 PM »

I don't get it. Thork is the one who can't read graphs, and then flips the table in frustration, saying I can't read graphs. Am I missing something?

A p-wave shadow zone is not a pp-wave shadow zone.

My advice is to not worry about the p-waves and s-waves and let this thread disappear into oblivion.  Just let it go.  I agree that Baby Thork is a frustrating guy, but he is right about one thing... 

From the time I discovered tfes.org I have loved it.  This site is fantastic.  It is time for me to assist in making sure new comers have the chance to enjoy it as much as I have.  Thanks Thork.

63

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: July 09, 2018, 04:13:31 PM »

I can't be a round earther on this forum. This thread shows why.

I get it Baby Thork.  You've convinced me.
I'll take it slow, but this is my pivot point.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 07, 2018, 03:41:34 AM »

Here is an image of the full moon with enough resolution to include "coarseness"

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 07, 2018, 03:34:02 AM »

I pointed out that he literally overlaid the full moon onto the crescent moon. He is drawing lines from an image of the full moon to an image of the full moon, why are you attaching significance to the fact that they match? What is it you imagine he did?

Overlaying your full moon image over your crescent moon image, and making it transparent so you could see how the moon features align was supposed to help. Instead, you saw it as a trick. I'm not trying to fool you. I was trying to help.

This is what I imagined he did.  He rotated and overlayed the images to help you see the similarities.

Why are you acting as though this is evidence?!

Because it is evidence.  When you overlay the images and the features line up, it is evidence.  Now that he has shown it without the overlay, can you see it?

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 06, 2018, 09:35:10 PM »

You are identifying and connecting features that do not exist on the crescent, and are only visible because you overlaid the two. You could do the same to argue that the moon is Kermit the frog.

Hahaha.  JRowe sees two picture of the same object in different conditions and can't detect the similarities.  The crescent moon picture was taken with higher resolution than the other and therefore shows more detail, but JRowe believes that the "coarseness at the edge of the underside" means that the moon shows different faces at different times.

To top it off, when a helpful person rotates the image and draws lines to make the matching feature obvious, JRowe calls foul with the typical flat-earth you used CGI on the image.  Classic!

JRowe, if you can't understand that the side of the Moon facing Earth is always the same, you're not going to generate credibility for your other viewpoints. Especially when you show us a picture of them looking the same and then claim louder that they are different.

67

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Thork's Mud Pie Theory

« on: July 05, 2018, 08:47:12 PM »

I like this video for visualizing plate tectonics.


It is a time-lapse video of a lava lake with cooled crust over the top of the liquid lava.  The parameters of this lava lake are just right to produce the effect of crust plates moving around just like what we learn in school about the continental plates of the Earth.  We can see expansion and subduction happening in the video.  It is really cool and a great small scale demonstration of what is believed to be happening with the continental plates of our Earth.

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of The Sun

« on: April 16, 2018, 10:16:33 PM »

A question for the FES members: has anyone directly (i. e. via radar, laser or so) measured the speed (or distance) of the Sun, the Moon or any other celestial body? If not, why?

The distance to the moon has been measured with lasers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

FE needs to grow now as fast as possible, because hand held technology available to all of us is becoming capable of proving Rowbotham's conclusions false.
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-distance-moon.html
This link gives instructions for how to measure the distance to the moon using your smartphone camera and accelerometer.  Pretty cool.

69

Flat Earth Community / Re: 1/3 of millennials not sure if earth is round

« on: April 16, 2018, 08:36:23 PM »

The numbers seem inflated on this poll,
I just don't meet FEers in real life, nobody seems interested in even discussing it.
I know one other person, that's it...

I agree.  The numbers are inflated.  I know zero flat earth believers among all my acquaintances. 

I have shown interest in the subject and invited discussion.  The best I can get is about an hour of confusion about the possibility that some experiments could show the Earth is flat.  But after that, they all realize that there are flaws in every flat Earth argument and won't believe it any more.  But it is a fun hour.

70

Flat Earth Investigations / NOAA Regulates Pictures From Space

« on: April 05, 2018, 11:37:40 PM »

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is limiting images of the Earth taken from space. #governmentconspiracy

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/5/17197742/spacex-falcon-9-rocket-launch-livestream-noaa-regulation

During the live stream leading up to the mission, a SpaceX employee explained that the company would have to cut off footage from the Falcon 9 rocket once the vehicle reached orbit. And the host said restrictions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were to blame.

71

Flat Earth Community / Re: The people of the flat earth society

« on: March 16, 2018, 10:04:18 PM »

If nobody replies with a direct answer, I recommend just reading through several topics.  You'll get the idea.

72

Flat Earth Community / Re: SpaceX BFR

« on: March 14, 2018, 11:22:31 PM »

Have you seen this video yet?
:BFR Markting Video:
Soon we will all be able to look out the window and see for ourselves.

I've seen it now and it looks faker than fake. Fake news fake video.
When will it end?

J-Man, It does my heart some good to learn that you can recognize actual fake videos and call them out as fake accurately.  What do you have to say about the Falcon Heavy/Roadster video?

73

Flat Earth Community / Re: SpaceX BFR

« on: March 14, 2018, 04:35:50 AM »

I agree. I made a few videos, including an analysis of the first hour of coverage, comparing the shots from the roadster with those from a Japanese weather satellite.



There's so much correlation between the two, that there's no way it could be a 'CGI' construction, as has been claimed. It was webcast live, how would SpaceX know enough in advance about the weather all around the planet to get it to correlate with the ongoing feeds from the weather sats?

This was awesome work.  The Falcon Heavy live stream video was amazing to watch.  With these cloud formation references, it is solid proof for a reasonable person that the Earth is a spherical shape; just like all the other planets.  Fantastic pictures and video from space with the 2nd stage and roadster far enough away to capture our planet in the frame with no editing.  This is what people will see with their own eyes from the windows of the BFR when it rockets to the moon.

74

Flat Earth Community / Re: Trump signs NASA bill today..

« on: December 12, 2017, 11:05:47 PM »

With today's technology we will be able to do it for millions instead of billions.  Time to go back.

A good reason for space travel investment is to help us develop technology that will make each community self-sustaining.  If we can pull off a community on Mars that recycles, renews and becomes self-sustaining with no carbon resources, we can then turn around and do the same thing here on Earth. 
Said another way, a civilization that can survive on Mars is a civilization that will not destroy Earth.  I say we go there.

75

Flat Earth Community / Re: Anti-gravity or Weightlessness

« on: October 06, 2017, 12:14:00 AM »

... this person doesn't believe it because they are dumbed down and conditioned to float. Ice cream float, float a check, Macys parade float, floaties

People are sheeple I tell you, waaay too much fluoride and chemtrail sniffing...

J-Man,  It is likely that your friend isn't angry about you believing in FE.  It is probably that you express your belief that this person is dumb, conditioned, floating, sheeple, and chemtrail sniffing.  Nobody likes that.

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 05, 2017, 11:57:52 PM »

Like Ga_x2 says in here, a 40% error is nothing compared to what the Flat Earth Society is claiming on their currently accepted maps.

I just printed sized a southern hemisphere globe projection to the same proportion of the tfes.org example flat-earth map and printed them.
The distance from the Southern tip of South America to the Southern tip of Africa is 3.4cm on the globe map and 10.0cm on the FE map.
The distance from the Southern tip of South America to the Southern tip of Australia is 4.4cm on the globe map and 14cm on the FE map.
When I printed the Northern Hemisphere of the globe map in the same proportion, the distance from India to Panama was 8.1 on both maps.

That is a difference of 294% for SA - Africa and a 318% for SA - Australia.

Remember that this passes as the most accepted map of the flat earth.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 05, 2017, 07:01:46 PM »

Well not so much- If you are accepting errors as high as they have stated- you could flatten anything out.

Its why you can draw North America on a cartesian projection and basically get away with it. 

If you allow 20-40% error- well thats well above a cartesian error except at the very very highest latitudes.  The math was tongue in cheek to show the absurdity of trying to make a valid measurement when you make assumptions on 95% of the dependent variables.  Especially when you start with fundamentally faulty beliefs.  I am not even getting into the shape of the world.  I am talking about basic assumptions that all planes are the same, they fly the exact same speed, along the exact same path, at the same altitude, in perfectly straight lines, and that error, if it did exist, could just get averaged away (instead of magnified, like it would here- by giving a false sense of accuracy).  When even 30 seconds on google would prove it otherwise.  But then again, you wouldn't expect much math or science here...  Which is why this is so fun.  Fact free zone!

I feel like a kid who cleaned his room and then mom came and said, "You call this clean!?".  I just want to say, "You should have seen it before I started!"

There's also another thing to keep in mind: some of the distances in any flat earth map are going to be 2-3 times bigger than what we would expect. No error bar in these flight times can make up for the fact that in the bipolar map, to fly from Tokyo to los Angeles you'd have to cross all Asia, Europe, the Atlantic ocean and North America or that in the unipolar map to go from Sidney to Rio De Janeiro you'd have to cross all Asia, the Antarctic and all North and central America. A 40% error is peanuts, compared to this...

altman42,  Like Ga_x2 says in here, a 40% error is nothing compared to what the Flat Earth Society is claiming on their currently accepted maps.
You said yourself, that 20-40% error is well above a cartesian error except at the very very highest latitudes.  That is a HUGE except.
Again.  I am not trying to make an exact map.  It is not to be used for navigation.  I am not submitting it as a scientific proof.  I am just trying to draw the continents in their place on the Earth.  A 20-40% error will be acceptable for that goal.  My error will be more like 7%.

All,  please remember the original premise of this topic.  If the world really is flat, drawing it on a flat piece of paper will be easy.  Flat to Flat = easy.
This is the main point of the exercise, not the actual map.

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 04, 2017, 02:56:55 PM »

Setting cable lengths and our abilities to search the internet aside....

Does anyone have anything else to add to the flight time map discussion?

• We have established that care needs to be taken when comparing short flights to long flights because a larger percentage of the flight is take up in ascending and descending from cruising altitude and speed.
• We have established that the purpose of the project is not to calculate distances, but to layout the general size and relative location of continents
• We have established that the margin of error is not great enough to change a flat earth into a globe or to change a globe into a flat earth.

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 03, 2017, 10:47:54 PM »

This won't work.

Lets look at this rationally.  Anyone who has ridden a plane knows that ....

Here are two take-aways from this for me.

• You have proved that the error will never  reach as high as 40% for any flight.  This is great news because it means that the flight time data can't make a flat earth appear to be a globe, nor can it make a globe falsely look flat.  I have been asking members of Flat Earth Society to join me in this assertion and you have created a very nice proof for this.  Thank you.
• I will see if it is feasible to limit my flight times to 6 - 8 hr flights.  If that's possible, my error goes down significantly.

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 03, 2017, 08:01:11 PM »

Please explain how we can know the distance between LA and New York by looking at the arrival times of airplanes without knowing anything about their speed.

We don't care about the distance.
We don't care about the speed of the plane.
All we care about is the average (or perhaps mean depending) time it takes to get from LA to NY by plane.
This can be used as a distance 'replacement' or analogue so long as we simply use the actual times taken.

I don't know how to make it any simpler than what Curious Squirrel is saying here.
I don't care about calculating distances.
I am not using V = D/T  or D = VT

I am making a very simple layout of the earth based on the times that people experience from liftoff to touchdown on commercial airliners.
It is simple.  It is easy.  It will produce a general picture of what the earth looks like.
It will not be precise, it will be an approximate representation.