6061
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?
« on: April 29, 2018, 02:48:59 AM »
Rowbotham spends a lot of time talking about great circle sailing and navigation and such in Earth Not a Globe.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
6062
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: April 28, 2018, 11:27:41 PM »An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?
Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
How on Earth do you verify that two markers are at exactly the same height? The only way to verify that two markers are at the same height is by calibrating devices and careful levelling.
I suspect that Rowbotham levelled his two markers by lining them up with the horizon, and then used them to verify that they were in line with the horizon.
This is another one of these situations where one starts to think that one is being made a fool of, and that this "Flat Earth" joke is just being pushed as far as it can go.
Why not read the book to find out?
See my guess - he lined them up with the horizon. Or he found a patch of ground that looked sort of level and stuck 'em in.
Incorrect. The markers are often natural in nature, that are a known altitude. There are numerous horizon experiments in Earth Not a Globe. Read the book.
6063
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the reason for perpetuating the round earth?
« on: April 28, 2018, 11:05:56 PM »So what? “I have not failed 10,000 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 10,000 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.” - Thomas Edison. The history of invention is littered with failures.
With that analogy we should expect many dead astronauts littering the moon's surface from failed missions.
Quote
Who's to say the Sputnik launch didn't provide them the insight they needed to get their own design working. Or any of another dozen reasons. Coincidence does not a conspiracy make.
There is something far worse than a Conspiracy Theorist. It is a Coincidence Theorist.
6064
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: April 28, 2018, 10:26:21 PM »An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?
Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
6065
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?
« on: April 28, 2018, 10:21:28 PM »The difference is with those “deceptions” is we know that we are being “deceived”.
I don’t quite agree about the ownership, I do own my home BUT the mortgage provider have a claim on it if I can’t keep up the payments.
If you have to make home mortgage payments then you don't own your home.
Do you own an apple if you have to make payments to someone?
Quote
Money is made up but you have to have some system now we have moved on from bartering.
Diamonds, like all commodities, are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
Money used to be backed by a gold system. And even in that old system it was still a scam -- the bank could lend out 10 times more money than the gold was valued at. These days there isn't a gold reserve at all in most countries.
Quote
None of this is quite the same as a huge worldwide deception which must be going on to hide the truth of the flat earth from us, and why? Why is this such a terrible truth which must be hidden from us poor saps?
They aren't "hiding a Flat Earth". They are perpetuating the idea that Space Travel is possible, which they had to do to win the Cold War. They are simply mistaken on the earth's shape.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
6066
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 28, 2018, 08:42:02 PM »Bobby says "yes."
Except we don't. We wait every fourth year and our clocks a whole day ahead then (4x6 hrs)
If we don't reset our clocks then what we thinks as 12pm at the beginning of the equinox start point is now at 6pm. Does that not seem like an issue?
6067
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?
« on: April 28, 2018, 08:33:52 PM »I'd have to be convinced that all of these (and more) experiences and observations were illusions, or deceptions, or misunderstandings on my part.
That is the norm in adult life.
Home 'Ownership' - If you have a mortgage you don't actually own your home. The bank does. And even if you did pay it off, the government still has the power to take the land at any time and re-purpose it for other uses.
The Money System - A highly orchestrated ponzi scheme in which the bank is giving you pretend money.
Diamond Wedding Rings and Diamonds - Diamonds are plentiful and worthless, only valued highly by an international monopoly which controls the mines and constricts the supply.
6068
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the reason for perpetuating the round earth?
« on: April 28, 2018, 08:05:27 PM »A little late to the draw here, but the rockets failed every time, right? And suddenly they worked perfectly? Have you heard of the invention called the lightbulb? Y'know, failed a thousand times then suddenly started working when the inventor had a working base model? Or are lightbulbs a conspiracy, too?-- PROOF?The "Evidence for the Conspiracy" section follows shortly afterwards.
After 12 years of Cold War starting at the end of WWII (and also before then), and constant rocket failure to get into orbit, the US was able to get Explorer 1 into orbit within 3 months of Sputnick.
What a coincidence. I guess all it took was for the managers to tell their engineers who consistently failed to get into to orbit was to "work harder!"
6069
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: April 28, 2018, 07:46:49 PM »Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
Wow. So you think that the water in the two connected tubes could be at different heights because "water flows down hill".
I think that's my new favourite Tom Bishop quote.
It does take some time for water to flow. It isn't instantaneously.
In the video you have provided, at the top of the mountain, he is just holding the water device in his hand, which appears to be wobbly, and a camera in his other hand.
The flow of the water is one concern. The other concern is that the camera is not perfectly level and that there is some room to where things appear "perfectly level".
In have dealt with this question and proved through measurements with a sextant (accurate and calibrated) that the arc of the sky is more than 180 degrees, by pretty much the same amount as is expected for the hieght of the observer.
What dont you understand about that Tom?
If the sky, from clear, sharp horizon, to the south, across the sky to a clear sharp horizon on the north is more than 180 degrees, then the bit below you is less, therefore the horizon is NOT rising to meet you.
I cannot really explain much clearer, and a young teenage child would likely understand that.
Surveying is always in error. Always. Every angle and vertical and position needs to be finely positioned. And even when it is to the best of our ability, it is still in error. There is also lens error, which is always present.
http://whistleralley.com/surveying/theoerror/
Quote
As any surveyor should understand, all measurements are in error. We try to minimize error and calculate reasonable tolerances, but error will always be there. Not occasionally; not frequently; always. In the interest of more accurate measurements, we look for better instruments and better procedures.
Also see Rowbotham's issues with measuring the horizon with devices that have lenses, as an example of device error.
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
6070
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 28, 2018, 07:34:49 PM »
Bobby and AllAround, you seem to have the same argument. This is how I have interpreted your argument. Correct me if I am wrong:
Response. The Solar Day, which is the rate the sun moves around a static earth (once per 24 hours), can also be thought of as the rate of the earth's rotation against a static sun (once per 24 hours).
At Day 365 the lit side of the earth is pointing at the sun. At Day 365.24, with a static sun, the lit side stays pointed at the sun and earth has simply rotates a quarter of the way around while the lit side remains pointing at the sun.
My Reponse. That would mean we would have to set our clocks to be 6 hours ahead every year, to keep Solar Time (which our clocks are based on) consistent.
Response. The Solar Day, which is the rate the sun moves around a static earth (once per 24 hours), can also be thought of as the rate of the earth's rotation against a static sun (once per 24 hours).
At Day 365 the lit side of the earth is pointing at the sun. At Day 365.24, with a static sun, the lit side stays pointed at the sun and earth has simply rotates a quarter of the way around while the lit side remains pointing at the sun.
My Reponse. That would mean we would have to set our clocks to be 6 hours ahead every year, to keep Solar Time (which our clocks are based on) consistent.
6071
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No sun
« on: April 28, 2018, 04:40:54 AM »
You are going to need to irrefutably prove RET or irrefutably disprove FET. You have not met that level.
Your self claimed surveying victory is a low bar, as all surveying has errors. All surveying methods and tools are in error in some manner. Yet you claim to be able to measure the furthest thing on earth that could possibly be measured accurately.
Your self claimed surveying victory is a low bar, as all surveying has errors. All surveying methods and tools are in error in some manner. Yet you claim to be able to measure the furthest thing on earth that could possibly be measured accurately.
6072
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Communication Satellites
« on: April 28, 2018, 03:12:40 AM »So, if the earth is flat, and accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s, why don't the amazing amount of the communication satellites come crashing down?
Their nature has not been determined.
6073
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No sun
« on: April 28, 2018, 02:18:22 AM »Unknown.
Rather unsatisfactory response, therefore no evidence offered for the defence, so the flat earth debate lost........
Rather much like all the other difficult questions that are posted here, either Unknown or no answer.
Occams Razor should be applied, (as suggested by the Wiki) which cuts out any possibility of a flat earth as there are so many assumptions or unknowns. I suggest practicing what is preached.
All of the above questions are easily answered by RE model.
Show me the real observational reports made which show that the sun matches up to what RET predicts.
Show me an RET calculator that verifies those observations.
Also show that that the calculator is truly based on RET and not on equations based on patterns and trends.
6074
Flat Earth Theory / Re: No sun
« on: April 28, 2018, 02:14:57 AM »Unknown.That's a major hole in your theory then, because RE has an explanation that can be explained to a 7-year-old.
The sun maintaining its size at different distances is explained in the Cosmos -> Sun section. What moves the sun and bodies in the sky is unknown.
6076
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« on: April 27, 2018, 11:43:40 PM »Define "eye-level".
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
The hand held camera's slight up down motion, in line with the black line of the water in the foreground affects the scene significantly in the far background, even if it is a pixel.
Everything needs to be perfectly leveled and aligned, and this water device is insufficient.
Furthermore, on a mountain or large hill, how do you know that the true horizon hasn't disappeared into an atmospheric fog that you can't see, thousands of miles away from you, and is squished beyond imperceptibility? This is clearly what happens when you get to high altitudes like from an international flight. The horizon is very foggy. What makes you think that the same is not true at lower altitudes, but the disappearance is more squished into the horizon by perspective?
6077
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The "Google Maps background"
« on: April 27, 2018, 10:50:44 PM »It's hard to find data on the FOV that would give, but the largest figure I could find was 55°. By my calculations, that makes the background somewhere around 200km on the horizontal edge. The agricultural fields are maybe 1/20 of the width, making them ~10km. That's very large, but it's not too large for a massive corporate farm.Ah, okay.
Now that the origin is confirmed, I can move to explanations that don't sound ridiculous.
Now that I think about it, the image is likely a zoomed-in shot from far away. I'd make a diagram if asked, but right now I don't have the time to.
The EXIF data of the image shows that the photo was taken with a NIKON D2Xs, using a standard 35.0 mm Focal Length. The Digital Zoom ratio is 1, showing that it is not zoomed in digitally either.
Meanwhile, an Earth curvature calculator gives me a horizon distance of ~1600km, plenty enough for the comparison photos which show entire countries.
Can you show your work? Why are you trying to find the biggest FOV possible?
Also,
http://www.fooddialogues.com/agriculture-101/
Quote
According to the USDA 2012 Census of Agriculture data: There are approximately 2.1 million farms in America; the average size is 434 acres. An acre, by comparison, equates to a little less than one 100-yard length American football field.
434 acres = 1.75634 sq km
What is the average size of a farm in a European country?
6078
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 27, 2018, 08:12:46 PM »Quote
Why what? Why is a different part of the earth pointing toward the sun and being illuminated by it compared to the start?
We are just talking about the day and night cycle, that has a period of 24 hours, not a "part of the earth."
Why what? Why is a different part of the earth pointing toward the sun and being illuminated by it compared to the start?
Overlaying your polar view image on a picture of static globe with the illumination side rotating around it...[/color]
http://oi67.tinypic.com/24xm4jq.jpg
...are you asking why the rotating illumination isn't over the same part of the earth as it was at the start?
This has little to do with the "same part of the earth" that needs to be lined up. The day and night cycle of 24 hours does not match up to the Solar Year. The illuminated portion in the day and night cycle is misaligned with the sun if, when the earth returns to the Equinox point on the earth's path, there has not been a full Solar Day.
6079
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 27, 2018, 07:58:47 PM »It's not the same side of the physical world. The earth needs to be lit from the same side side as in starts in the diagram.
For why? To satisfy what rule?
The Solar Day is in regards to illumination, not how fast the earth may be rotating or how fast a physical feature move or what they are aligned with on the earth's surface. It deals with Day and Night.
The Solar Day is defined by the sun moving around a static earth. It may also be spoken of as the rate the earth rotates from the earth's reference frame in regards to the sun, but the key here is "Sol," which means sun. It is sun time, and represents our day and night.
The earth is illuminated on the side facing the sun. It travels around the sun in 356.24 Solar Days. This does not make sense if it goes in a circle around the sun, back to its start point, and the Day/Night cycle is not in the same Solar Day.
6080
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Possible Issue with Solar Noon in Round Earth Theory
« on: April 27, 2018, 06:22:20 PM »Quote
You want to stop the solar year clock when the sun illuminates the same side of the earth as it did the previous year, but the earth doesn't stop rotating to wait for the orbit to complete.
It's not the same side of the physical world. The earth needs to be lit from the same side side as in starts in the diagram.
Refer to the last post I created for you.