61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 05, 2022, 01:20:34 AM »

I could write an equation to do a transform of globe to a single point. You keep saying it is all the same, but it isn't. You can figure out distances on FE with triangles. You can't do that on RE, you need trig. Your transform goes from a sphere to a plane, the very definition of FE. The distance equations are different on a sphere and a plane.

I guess you want to have your idea more than you want to do math right.

Australia is bigger east/west on AE map, but the same as RE for north/south. That is not possible.

Proof by contradiction: assume the earth is flat. Observe this leads to a map with wrong distances. QED, FE is falsw.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 05, 2022, 01:10:41 AM »

Troolon,

The curvature of a plane (FE) is zero. Whatever the curvature of a sphere is, it is not zero, that's all you need to know for Gauss. Draw a map on a piece of paper, then wrap it around a globe. You will have to tear or wrinkle it, that represents distance errors. If you draw the map on a paper wrapped globe without tears or wrinkles, then spread it out on a flat surface, again tears and wrinkles, thus distance errors because when you change the curvature, distances change. WHen you can peel an orange and then flatten the peel without tearing it, you will be able to make FE map. Never gonna happen.

Distance on RE vs FE/AE map. Consider Sydney (33°52′S 151°12′E) to Santiago (33°27′S 70°40′W), famous airline route much discussed in FE community.

RE, calculated using haversines or equivalent trig:

Google maps says distance is 7078 miles.
Lat/long distance calculator says 7153 (I didn't put in the exact lat/long).
Airline schedule says 7043 miles.

FE/AE:

Draw a line from north pole to Sydney, and a line from north pole to Santiago. then draw a line from Santiago to Sydney. Now you have a triangle with angle at the north pole of lat2 - lat1, in this case 139 degrees. Distance from north pole (one side of triangle) is angle between north pole and 33 degrees south, which is 123/180 * 12,500 or 8541 miles. Now we have a triangle with two sides = 8541 and the angle between these two sides is 139 degrees. the base is the distance between Santiago and Sydney. Using triangle calculator (lazy, remember?), I get 16,000 miles.

If the distance is about 7000 miles, the earth is round. If the distance is 16,000 miles, the earth is flat. There is an airline flight, they fly at 500 mph. On FE, this flight would be 32 hours long and far longer than the range of any airliner.

On RE, you need spherical coordinates and haversines (or equiv trig). On FE/AE, it is easy to make a 2d triangle and all you need is elementary 2d geometry. The same equations do not work on both, on FE there is no longitude angle because it is a straight line. No r is available on FE latitude, so not hversines. Say it with me, there is no r on latitude on FE, can't use haversines.

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 04, 2022, 10:59:34 PM »

Also, in your model, you show the light bending such that it crashes into the ground where sunset/sunrise occurs. Do you have an explanation why another light ray coming off the sun at slightly higher angle would not hit the ground beyond the sunset/sunrise line? What limits the direction the rays come off the sun? If nothing does, why is the whole earth not illuminated 24 hrs/day?

You need curved light AND a "lampshade" or directional beam sun.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 04, 2022, 10:46:16 PM »

Further thought re the location of Sigma Octatus in the FE dome model. Seems like it would be on the dome, so ...

For someone at the equator, Sigma Octatus appears on the horizon directly away from the north pole, which would put it on the ground everywhere along the edge. For someone at the south pole, it appears to be at the center of the dome, and directly above you.

So on the AE map, Sigma Octatus is everywhere on the dome from the center top to everywhere on the edge.

Looking forward to seeing how your model incorporates that. Where is Sigma Octatus? RE has consistent plausible location. FE does not.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 04, 2022, 10:11:37 PM »

Troolon says: In my model: express sigma octatis as (lat, long, distance) from the center of the earth

The RE position of sigma octatus: Directly over latitude 90 degrees south at a distance of 280 million light years Longitude makes no sense, since all longitude lines come together at the south pole. It is 280 million light years in the direction of the axis of rotation.

                * Polaris



              _|_
             /     \
            (-----)       Earth (sorry for crude graphics, not going to take the time to find and learn graphics etc
             \___/       Axis is vertical lines, equator is dashed line
                |




               * Sigma Octatus

In this model, Sigma Octatus is in one place, visible to all south of the equator, always appearing directly south to all.

On the AE map, Sigma Octatus appears to each person in the southern hemisphere as being directly away from the center projected out radially along the longitude line you are standing on

AE map:

                     * Sigma Octatus viewed from Australia

                   ____
                  /       \
                 (         )              * Sigma Octatus viewed from South Africa
                  \____/


                     * Sigma Octatus viewed from South America

Please explain where Sigma Octatus is.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 04, 2022, 05:20:44 PM »

Tom Bishop,

I have some questions about EA, will post soon, perhaps next since you brought it up. Star trails and the apparent motion of astronomical objects as observed by someone on RE which is spinning and tilted is not at all the same thing as the question of whether light travels in straight lines in a vacuum. You do not see the path of the light in a vacuum. The tail of a comet and the path of a comet could appear curved, but that is not the same thing as the light traveling in a curved path.

So where on the celestial dome is sigma octatus?

How does it appear directly south of all points in the southern hemisphere? When it is sunset in Denver, how do people in Salt Lake City see the entire dome as light blue, while people in St Louis see it as dark with stars? How does someone in St Louis see right through the daylight to the dark sky with stars past the Salt Lake CIty daylight? At that time, how can someone in Salt Lake City and someone in St Louis look at the same point in the sky over Denver and one sees daylight while the other sees dark with stars? How do people in the southern hemisphere see stars over the entire dome while someone in northern hemisphere sees completely different stars over the same dome, with startrails different from every point, while other people see light blue daytime sky, same time, same dome?

Seems to me, the bending must go every which way depending on where you are and what you are looking at. Can you diagram the light paths to account for St Louis seeing dark and stars over Denver at the same time that Salt Lake City sees daytime light blue at the same spot?

RET explains this, diagrams available in science textbooks. Is there a corresponding diagram and explanation for FE?

Where is sigma octatus?

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 04, 2022, 02:41:32 AM »

I am not assuming an orthonormal axis, and am sorry I brought up Gauss. Here is the explanation with high school trigonometry.

The AE map is a plane, not a sphere. If all you did was change coordinate system, you did not make a FE map. When you turn a sphere into a flat surface (assuming you don't want to map points on the sphere to the edge or bottom of FE, thus a cylinder), you are doing a projection of 3d onto 2d. Longitude lines stay the same (preserve distance), and latitude turns into radius, the angle turns into distance from north pole. If you take the north pole as 0 and south pole as 180, the formula is: Length of an Arc = θ × (π/180) × r. So (lat, longitude, radius) turns into (latitude, radius = arc length of distance from north pole). Radius and latitude turn into just radius through the arc length formula.

On RE, the longitude lines are widest at the equator and get closer together as you move towards the poles. On FE, they get farther apart in the southern hemisphere.

Fun fact: On the AE map, distance along the longitude lines is the same as RE. Distance along latitude lines gets bigger than observed south of the equator. So if you want to "fix" this by making distance flexible by latitude, you have to explain why the east/west distance gets bigger, while the north/south distance stays the same. North of the equator, the east/west distance gets smaller the farther north you go. So go to Australia with a ruler, turn it north/south, then easy/west. See if it changes length. Or car odometer? Surveyor transit? You are going to need a lot more explanation than stretchy bendy rulers.

Epistemology: Theoretically, you can never prove the earth is round. But you can 1. establish a working truth (the one that works for navigation is RE), and 2, prove that something is false.

Occam's razor: the true explanation is the simplest. For FE to be true, light has to bend due to "unknown forces with unknown equations", gravity is all messed up, a million things. For RE, all you need is the known behavior of light and physics.

So until you can place sigma octatus on your model such that it appears directly south everywhere in the southern hemisphere, show how the dome appears daylight for some, night for others at the same time, with different stars in northern/southern hemisphere, and completely different star trails from every point, I am concluding AE is falsified. Meanwhile, RE explains all that and more, consistent with known confirmed physics and observations.

Your models prove only that you can distort reality with mathematical transforms and make graphics showing anything, but none of them "work". Show me one where you see sigma octatus only in the southern hemisphere and polaris only in the northern hemisphere, both at an angle of inclination equal to your latitude, which is consistent with light traveling straight and the known laws of physics. RE works.

The only thing you can know in absolute terms is that you exist to have the thought. But for day to day life, RE works, FE doesn't.

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 03, 2022, 03:41:35 AM »

The haversine gives the correct distance over the surface of a sphere between two points. When you transform this onto a 2d circle as in the FAQ map, you can have each point on the same lat/long as on a sphere. But those points are no longer on a sphere where the lat/long are both polar coordinates. Latitude is now along a straight line, you can't do trig with a straight line. Lat/long no longer has the meaning that makes haversine valid. All you are ever doing is getting the same answer as you would on a sphere. But you are no longer on a sphere, haversine means nothing when it is not segments of a curved surface. Of course you get the same answer, all you did was plug the same numbers into the same formula, but the formula does not apply to the product of the transformation. The distance must be calculated as the distance between the endpoints of the arc.

It is as if you took a flat map and determined a distance  by d = sqrt( (x2 - x1)squared + (y2 - y1)squared ), map it onto a sphere, label each point with the x,y position and then use the same formula with the same numbers, you get the same answer. But it isn't right, because the formula is only valid on a plane.

Meanwhile, in the real world, if you stretch latex over a sphere and paint the land masses of the earth on it, you can make a map with correct distances (haversone works). If you peel it off from the south pole up and flatten it, the southern hemisphere will have to stretch out. This is why Australia is half again as wide on the FAQ map. Now it is flat, though, and you need (angle. distance) and use 2d polar coordinate trig. Then you will get a number that matches the appearance/physical measurement of your transformed flat map. No stretchy ruler needed, it is a different distance, per Gauss.

Once again, haversine works on a sphere. When you flatten it, you have to use polar coordinate trig. Distance is not maintained through your transform. Latitude on FE map is not degrees on a sphere, it is just the relative distance from the center.  The haversine formula needs the angle between both latitude and longitude, but there is no such angle for latitude on a flat map.

Again, using haversine on a flat surface does not produce a right answer. . This is the error of your logic re "distance is preserved". Gauss says it is not, so do the faq maps that clearly show Australia bigger and Greenland smaller on the flat map. So does your model.

Where on your model is Sigma Octatus? Can you show startrails valid from every point? Can you show the entire dome visible to everyone, some with stars and some with daylight and sun? The entire dome filled with stars, yet completely different stars northern vs southern hemisphere? RET can, that's why the earth can only be round.

Distance is not preserved through your transform, RET accounts for all these things. Any other shape needs the light to bend due to "unknown forces with unknown equations". That's why we know the earth is round.

Repeat with me, haversine only works on a 3d sphere, not a 2d disk. The correct formula produces the exact thing you see in the faq map and your model. No distance funny business needed.

Sorry if I repeated myself, it is the natural human tendency when people on this site can't or won't understand.

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 02, 2022, 09:09:11 PM »

Physics is looking at the world around us and developing a consistent explanation of what we see. Math is starting with some assumption and developing a logically consistent system. Physics is, math describes. The same physical object can be described in either cartessian or polar coordinates, but a sphere is still a sphere and a plane is still a plane. The coordinates are not bounded, 3 space to infinity is within both. The reeason locations on the globe are given as latitude and longitude, i.e. polar coordinates, is that the earth is round. If it were flat, we would use x/y coordinates, much easier.

If you transform a sphere into a plane or vice versa, points on the plane will be different distances, per Gauss. If you can make a flat map with constant scale, the earth is flat. If you can make a spherical map with accurate distance, direction, and scale, the earth is not flat, or Gauss' theorem is not true. There is no flexible measuring in geometry, the ruler is straight and constant. If you need to bend or stretch the ruler, you are proving Gauss' point.

When you flatten the globe into a disk as in the FAQ map, mathematically each latitude gets longer all the way to the south pole. Do car odometers in Australia measure distance differently from those in EU? Planes fly faster and have longer range? Do rulers stretch as they travel south?

Bending the light is, as the EA page in the FAQ says, "unknown forces with unknown equations". Making the ruler curved and the scale adjustable by location is fudge factor without any justification, what psychologists call "motivated reasoning". You get there by observing that assuming FE produces bad results, so you hypothesize fudge factor without proof in order to save your belief.

Your model shows how we could see sunset/sunrise and day/night on FE, assuming some directional phenomenon and the unexplained bending of light, coincidentally exactly the equations to transform RE into FE. But you're not done with explaining all phenomena we observe, we all see the dome, geometrically we all see all of it. Yet at the same moment, some see stars all over the dome, others see light blue all over the dome, they can be as close as perhaps 300 miles. Someone in the northern Hemisphere sees completely different stars than southern hemisphere.

Then there is Sigma Octatis, the southern (pretty close) pole star. At the summer (northern hemisphere) equinox, at midnight in South Africa it is just after sunset in western Australia and just before sunrise in South America. You can see Sigma Octatis directly south from all these places at that time. On FE disk map, Sigma Octatis is in directly opposite directions from South America and Australia.
 
So please show the dome appearance in your model. I will be interested to see: Where is Sigma Octatis and how do the light rays from it travel? How does the dome appear light blue for some, and for those who see it as dark, different stars. How do those stars appear to travel across the dome in different directions at the same time? Please show with your model.

Do you agree that flattening a sphere into a disk will geometrically distort the distances? Or is Gauss' theorem not true?

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: January 31, 2022, 03:05:28 AM »

My apologies, the graphics are small, but maybe you did take left/right into account.

You can't make Gauss Remarkable Theorem untrue by using polar coordinates. You still can't have 80 degrees north and south latitude both be smaller than the equator on a disk or a cylinder.

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: January 31, 2022, 02:56:36 AM »

Can you make a graphic with the sun 93 million miles away and straight light path? Can you make a graphic of a globe map where all the distances and direction match observed? There are many many of these, I think you can. RE geometry works with straight light rays to explain day/night. Works without unexplained light bending.

The circumference of 80 degrees north or south is much less than at the equator. How does this project/transform/??? to a cylinder? The circumference at every latitude would be the same as the equator. To a disk? That's why Australia is always too large on the FAQ maps. This is possible on a sphere, how can 80 degrees north circumference be so much smaller than 80 degrees south on a disk FE? They should be equal. Per Gauss, you can't project, transform or onto a cylinder or a disk and have both 80 degree circumferences be correct.

Your graphic of disk earth has Australia too big, just like the FAQ maps. Let's see your flat map with accurate size, distance, direction, and constant scale. You have math and graphics skills. Let's see it. Be the first!

Re day/night bendy light, do your equations account for the left/right bending? At noon on the equinox in Kampala, Uganda, the sun is rising in Rio De Janero. It appears to be directly east bearing 90 degrees, but on FE disk map, it looks like the bearing is actually about 45 degrees. And from Perth Australia at the same moment, looks like 270 degrees (directly west), but is actually 315 degrees.

Also interesting is that the light has no left right bending directly north and south. The amount of bend increases as you go south along the line of sunset until it gets to the far corner of the lighted area, where the discrepancy is maximum, then decreases until it is again 0 directly south.

So you need to add that to your model.

Interesting physical phenomenon, bends the opposite way on either side. As the sun moves around, this pattern moves with it. Apparently, the sun throws curveballs?

Now add the dome to your model. When it is sunset in Denver, in Salt Lake City it is still light blue over the entire dome. In St Louis, it is dark and there are stars over the entire sky, including the part of the dome beyond Salt Lake City. If someone in St Louis and someone in Salt Lake City look at the exact same spot over Denver, one sees light blue day sky, the other sees dark night with stars.

So let's see a model that accounts for left/right bending, and shows how someone can see either the entire dome of light blue at the same time as another person a few hundred miles east sees dark and stars, and has circumference of 80 degrees latitude both north and south much smaller than the equator on a flat disk, or cylinder, or anything other than a sphere.

You claim to have the ability to produce a FE map with accurate distance, size, direction, and constant scale. I await your post and will be astounded.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: January 30, 2022, 08:03:40 PM »

Unless you explain the curved light and the distortion of distances (per Gauss' Remarkable Theorem), can you really call it a "working model"?

That's why FE says nobody knows the distances over the oceans (per Tom Bishop), and the Electromagnetic Acceleration FAQ page cites "unknown forces with unknown equations" to explain the bending light. It is why all the maps in the FAQ have wrong distances.

So basically, the FE position is that light bends in exactly the way it needs to for FE but we don't know how or why and we can't know the info necessary to determine the the shape of the earth by distance measurements. Interestingly, this does not prove FE, the earth could be any shape, including round, and we can never know.

Oh, won't someone please figure out the exact way the light is bending and figure out how to measure the distances over the oceans? Perhaps we can never know?

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?

« on: January 30, 2022, 07:13:41 PM »

Not gonna take the time to link to the video, sorry. It was a young couple in a 30-40 foot sailboat. The man was navigating with sextant only, did a noon sun shoot and calculated his position. Then he showed it to his wife, who checked gps on her cell phone. She then confirmed he was right to him - he wanted to navigate across the ocean without ever looking at gps. They edited in a chart showing the calculated and gps locations showing a few miles.

I make no claim to precision, but it doesn't take much precision to confirm that Australia is 2700 mi wide and US is 3000 mi wide and the FAQ map has Australia much wider than US. People on FE web sites frequently fixate on precision and miss entirely the point. It serves only to distract from the main point that proves the earth is round. For example here we could go off the rails to argue "round" vs "oblate spheriod".

Clearly people have been navigating the world successfully since 1700s. I flew on an airliner from Sydney Australia to LA. If you know how to do this, you know what the distances are, and hence the shape of the earth.

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?

« on: January 26, 2022, 10:45:07 PM »

I saw a youtube video of a couple sailing across the Atlantic. They used a sextant to shoot the sun at noon and calculate their position. The calculation came within a few miles of what they saw on their cell phone gps. People have been doing this since the invention of the chronometer. Here is how to do it:

https://princetonastronomy.com/2020/05/01/solar-observations-with-a-sextant/

Basically, the angle of the sun above the horizon gives your latitude, and the time (related to GMT) gives your longitude. This works on FE or RE the same way, although the numbers in the chart would be different.

I know a man who was in the Air Force and was a flight engineer on MATS cargo flights all over the world. When I told him that someone said "no one knows the distance or where you are over the ocean", he laughed. They flew regularly to the Azores, tiny islands in a very big Atlantic, you really want to get this right, or you have to swim hundreds of miles. The flight engineer was responsible for engine settings and fuel load. He needs this right, or you run out of gas in the Atlantic. He was cross trained as pilot and navigator to some degree.

They had several ways of knowing where they were:

1. Dead reckoning, least accurate, subject to wind error, as Tom Bishop says.
2. Triangulation with known radio stations and a directional antenna. You may have seen military aircraft with a circular antenna sicking out above the fuselage, that is what it is for.
3. Loran, the ground based predecessor of gps. check youtube videos for how it worked.
4. Sextant, as explained above. That is what the plexiglass bubble on top of the fuselage of military aircraft of the 1940s, C-47, B-17, B-24.

He said they always knew where they were, always successfully found their destination, many many times, never ran out of gas. He said the wind had some unknown impact on them, hence the importance of knowing where they were. He also said they knew roughly what the wind would be, needed for fuel load planning. Amazingly to Tom Bishop, all methods gave the same answer to within a few miles. Otherwise, you are in the middle of the Atlantic, short of fuel, and no idea where you are?

If Tom Bishop is right, I am never going to vacation in Hawaii. Does the pilot of an airliner take off for Hawaii knowing he has no idea how far it is, just points the plane in the same direction as last time and it always seems to get there? Amazing, especially with unknown winds that must be hundreds of mph to make the Sydney to Santiago flights work, perhaps in both directions at the same time, or maybe the flights are on different days of the week because they experienced the winds one way on Wed and the other way on Fri? What if the wind blows you off course north and south, seems like the wind would have to blow exactly towards your destination, or north south error.

There is astral navigation, radio navigation, dead reckoning, but per Tom Bishop, the only possible possible technique is "worked last time, cross your fingers". Are the insurance companies aware of this? Of course, it seems to be 100% reliable method, airliners always find Hawaii. Pretty small dot in a very bog ocean, with hundreds of mph winds going unknown directions.

And none of the pilots know, and none of them tell anyone? The pilot and navigator faked it and pretended when they told the flight engineer where they were? They always found the Azores, he never ditched out of fuel.

75

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Coincidence investigation, possible FE clue

« on: January 26, 2022, 09:00:42 PM »

"I've never seen a camera with an equally powerful lens as an astronomical telescope. Who knew that telescope manufacturers were unnecessarily making their telescopes so large when they could pack it down into a small package and get equal results, as indicated by someone's claim on an internet forum. " - Tom Bishop

The Hale telescope at Mount Palomar has no eyepiece. It is impossible to look through it as a telescope, all you can do is take pictures. Is it a telescope or a camera?

The pictures it takes require long exposures, thus an EQ mount is necessary. A large "horseshoe mount" has a motor on ti to power it at 1 rev per day, aka 15 degrees per hour. The mount is aligned to be parallel to the earth's axis. Look it up, really fascinating 1935 tech. Still used today by CalTech, UC, Cornnell, and JPL. The FAQ says "small conspiracy", but if the earth is flat they must all be some combination of stupid and/or liars.

All major astronomical telescopes use cameras, for at least 3 reasons. 1 - permamnent record for sharing and further study, 2 - film/digital can do long exposure for dimmer objects, the human eye can't, and 3- time on these telescopes is valuable, you submit request to take pic of something, they stack them up one after the other to get the most out of the telescope. I expect there is close to zero astronomers putting their eyes to a telescope and staring. Besides, they probably use spectrographs, infrared, ultraviolet, etc, to study things that are outside the wavelengths the human eye can see.

When mars was unusually close and thus the largest it ever appears, a local astronomy club had a public meeting where they lined up their telescopes from small to large, all with EQ mounts and 1 rpd motors. We looked through the eyepieces, smallest to largest, and each one you could see mars a little better. The last one had no eyepiece, it had a CCD that connected to a laptop through usb. So that telescope, you looked at a laptop screen. It used eq mount to get exactly the same image as the eyepiece telescopes, although bigger and more detailed.

I doubt that modern telescopes use film cameras any more. Why bother with developing and cost, just get a shareable permanent image in a file. Here are a bunch of digital cameras made to screw on to telescope eyepiece mounts:

https://www.highpointscientific.com/telescope-accessories/astro-photography/ccd-cameras

Telescope/cameras that are physically larger collect more light and so can see dimmer objects. This is why owls and other night hunters have big eyes. The only part of the telescope that can't be miniaturized with adequate results is the optics. You can make a tiny telescope/camera, but it won;t see very much. Your cell phone is a telescope, just set it to magnify. It's not a good one, but you can buy an external lens and make it betterm or even better, mount your cell phone to a telescope:



A telescope is, or can be a camera. A single lens reflex camera allows the photographer to look through the same lens as the film (or CCD) will see, with a telephoto lens , it is literally both a telescope and a camera.

76

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Coincidence investigation, possible FE clue

« on: January 01, 2022, 03:33:49 AM »

When I was a kid, my father had an 8 inch Schmidt Cassegrainian telescope. It had an equatorial mount. It had a motor on it with constant speed of one rev/day. If you turned it off, whatever you looked at would move across and then out of the field of vision. One rev/day , 360 degrees, divide by 24, you get 15 degrees per hour. Worked all night while looking at various things. Works everywhere in the world. No speed control on the motor, it was always 15 degrees per hour.

Mostly we looked at night, as the only celestial body visible in daytime is usually the sun. Once the moon was visible and the equatorial mount worked to look at that, too, although you couldn't see it as well during the day.

Web sites and youtube explain this and state that is works everywhere, always 15 degrees/hour.

Refraction occurs when you look at things just above the horizon. For a couple minutes after a celestial body rises above the horizon and a few minutes before, indeed, the appearance will not be moving at 15 degrees exactly, but at 20 degrees or more above the horizon, 15 degrees, all night, every night, everywhere. The same as a ring laser gyroscope.

Do you have reason to believe that 20 degrees above the horizon, it is not 15 degrees/hr for all celestial bodies? Even if is only 75% of the sky and you don't believe refraction, seems to me like it is still a coincidence worth exploring. FE has lots of "unknown forces with unknown equations", I would think you would be eager to explore any possibility. Find the FE explanation for gyroscope 15 degrees and equatorial mount 15 degrees.

Do you think it is a coincidence, or is there a connection? Or perhaps celestial bodies are just all over the place and no one knows, much like "anomalous winds aloft" makes it impossible to know the distance across the oceans?.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?

« on: January 01, 2022, 02:04:18 AM »

Is this what you are talking about?

https://www.serviceobjects.com/blog/why-gps-coordinates-look-wrong-on-maps-of-china/



These errors will not explain FE.

Can you give me more than "China, find out", maybe just a sentence, a little bit specific?

Seriously, if google maps distances are wrong, such that the distance from Sydney to LA is off by a thousand miles as shown on the FE map, I really want to know. I flew LA to Sydney, the airline schedule, google, time/speed/distance all matched RE. If I am wrong, I want to know, but I need a little more direction to search. Please?

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?

« on: December 31, 2021, 11:36:41 PM »

Are China's borders correct on Google? I am aware that like USSR, they intentionally make their maps inaccurate for fear of foreign invasions.

If so, the error is contained in China and the rest is correct? That doesn't say anything about the shape of the earth.

If not, the borders are wrong, so the maps of the surrounding countries are wrong. Where does that stop?

India knows where the border is, they have an armed standoff there. Russia knows where the border is, they fought the Japanese there before WW2. Taiwan knows where China is, they are quite aware of the exact geography. North Korea and South Korea know where the border is. Viet Nam knows where the border is. Tibet knows where the border used to be.

Where is the error?

79

Flat Earth Investigations / Coincidence investigation, possible FE clue

« on: December 31, 2021, 11:12:43 PM »

For my FE friends, a suggestion on a possible way to investigate FE.

A telescope pointed at a celestial object must change its angle at 15 degrees per hour to keep that object in the center of view. Bob Knodel's ring laser gyroscope turned 15 degrees per hour.

Let's assume that's not coincidence for the sake of curiosity. What might explain the exact same number, one from a spinning object on the surface of earth, the other from light rays coming from the sky.

Any ideas? Just coincidence?

80

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts

« on: December 31, 2021, 11:01:49 PM »

Weather forecasting was invented by a guy in a trench in WW1, as I recall. He had the idea that if he knew the temp and air pressure of every cubic foot of the earth's atmosphere, he could predict the temperature and pressure in the next moment in each cubic foot. In practical reality, we don't have that, but we can come close enough for some useful approximation that is not 100% perfect, but way better than pure chance. Data processing power is also a limiting factor. At UCLA in 1970s, we had one of 10 IBM 360 Model 91 computers, for a brief moment, biggest in the world, certainly on the west coast. It had 4 MB of memory when 8 KB was common and 64 KB was big. You had to finish your programming lab by midnight, because then they used it to run the next day's weather forecast.

It also depends on where you live. I live on the west coast where our weather comes from the pacific ocean, thousands of miles of similar moderate temperature and no mountains. You can watch storms come in, they lok like multiple waves of commas or parenthesis moving in slowly changing formations. Very well organized. They break up somewhat at the coast, but after the storm crosses the continental divide, it whacks into the swirl of weather from north pole, atlantic, gulf of Mexico, and swirls. East coast is harder to be accurate.

They called the storm of the last 2 weeks here, pretty much nailed it, predicted record snow in the sierra, happened just when they said. Weather reports are not always accurate, but way better than wild guess. Weather in Tahoe is the weather from San Francisco, 12 hours later.

The forecast here is almost always close, often right on. The rain might be an hour early or an hour late, it night be a little less or more than predicted. If they spent the money to grid the pacific ocean with weather ships and spent much more supercomputer time running the model, it would be more accurate. Not done because $$$$$$. And the money gets bigger with more accuracy, diminishing returns.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Automatic_Weather_Stations_Project

Weather forecasters need to look at the weather around them and make global weather maps, using satellite photos, and matching that up with earthbound data. This extends everywhere in every direction, there is no edge.

If you postulate FE with an edge, either the weather forecasting system is part of a conspiracy, or they are actually complete morons, or there is a giant industry of faking data, which has to be continuous 24/7/365. The Antarctic weather stations and their data must be faked in a way that matches up with the fake satellite pics. The storm coming onto one side of the disk would have to match one leaving the other side. Weather forcasters fundamentally have to know the shape of the earth. Or they are either genius frauds, or morons making occasional lucky guesses.

That would be something, wish I could know more about how this works on FE. Perhaps a new branch of weather studies, what happens with weather up against the dome. We know only one thing - weather at the south pole works very differently on FE vs RE.