2121

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 08, 2019, 07:52:31 AM »

Very easy.

Here is the data for the B-2 bomber Biefeld-Brown effect.

At sea level the aircraft maintains a voltage differential of 57 million volts, while at an altitude of some 9 km, the voltage differential will measure 20 million volts.

It was Thomas Townsend Brown who also invented the flame-jet generator to extract power out of the ionized exhaust stream.

To get the engine ionizers started, the B-2 bomber has electric generators mechanically driven by the jet turbines.

How did you arrive at those figures?

In any case it wouldn't work for 2 reasons:
1) The increased heat signature defeats the entire point of the B-2's overall stealth design
2) At 9km it would be only 3km from the sun and would get melted like a block of velvetta in an oven

2122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter

« on: June 08, 2019, 07:17:11 AM »

The Gleason map is not the correct map at all. The correct FE map is the global Piri Reis map (bipolar map).

Why won't you answer Macarios' question using your preferred map/distance?

There is a huge distortion caused by the ether, that is why you cannot just use angles and simple trigonometry to reach a conclusion about the distance to the Sun: you need to know the index of refraction of the ether.

So then what is the index of refraction of the ether?

And while you're providing that, what is the diameter of the Sun (Which is the same as Jupiter according to you, if I'm not mistaken)?

2123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter

« on: June 07, 2019, 06:55:02 PM »

An altimeter actually includes an aneroid barometer which measures the atmospheric pressure (actually it measures the effect of the dextrorotatory ether waves). A radar altimeter uses radio signals. Both methods do not take into account the layers of aether which exist above 5 km in altitude which influence both the pressure reading and also the distance travelled by the radar waves.

You are faced with the very same problem that baffled Dr. Stuart D. Bale (UC Berkeley):



If you want anyone to believe you that Mount Everest measures 8.84 km, you must explain the huge temperatures in the solar corona:

No you don't. Dr Bale's study of solar wind produced by the Sun's corona has literally nothing to do with determining the height of Everest, or Jupiter. And there is no measurement of various 'layers of aether' above or below 5 km of altitude or wherever. You're mixing a whole bunch of random stuff together to create a bucket of slop psuedoscience.

2124

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette

« on: June 06, 2019, 10:46:35 PM »

Over on the other site they have a "Flat Earth Believers" forum where only approved FEr's or FE 'supporters' are allowed to post. Coincidentally there's a discussion right now about using that area for more FE2FE discussions/debates. Which, in theory, it already is. However, it's not really being used in that manner I guess due to a low number of participants. I'm not sure how it would play out anyway. One example to look to is maybe Dubay's http://ifers.123.st/ site. Only FEr's are allowed to post. Participation as a whole seems to be spotty at best there.

What do you propose?

2125

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: South Pole as the FE center?

« on: June 06, 2019, 08:32:49 PM »

I agree, most FE models don't really recognize Antarctica other than as an icewall. It's probably more of a legacy thing and perhaps hubris. Antarctica was still sort of an exploratory endeavor all the way through the turn of the last century. In Rowbotham's time, little was known about it. And for an FE model Antarctica's harsh environment and less known quantities makes for a good conspiratorial barrier to ring the flat disk.

There is one person over on the other site that has a south pole centered model, but I don't know what his reasoning is.

2126

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter

« on: June 05, 2019, 10:38:42 PM »

Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Sun, Moon, Black Sun, Shadow Moon. It is discoidal in shape, as are its satellites.

If the Sun orbits at some 12 km above the surface of the Earth, then Jupiter must orbit somewhat at a higher altitude, perhaps some 25 km, if not more.

The RE cannot explain the basic features of Jupiter: its angular momentum and its IR anomalous radiation.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55860.0

12km = 39k'. I've flown commercially at 42k' and the Sun was still well above me.

If the Sun orbits at some 12 km above the surface of the Earth, I have flown in a commercial flight above the Sun's orbital position? Yet the sun was still well above me? How does that work?

2127

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does GPS work?

« on: June 02, 2019, 04:28:45 PM »

GPS theory on flat earth:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79365.msg2175605#msg2175605

So GPS uses satellites on Flat Earth? They just don't work under the principles we think they work?

2128

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does GPS work?

« on: June 01, 2019, 12:25:23 AM »

I wonder what you consider the cellular towers every couple miles to be?

I think they are cellular towers. After all, it's in the name.

GPS is not from sats, no no its from ground based positioning for the most part. Balloons and aircraft contribute. Don't be swallowed by fiction, embrace facts.

Is this an opinion or do you have evidence that GPS is only ground based with a smattering of balloons and aircraft?

2129

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 31, 2019, 08:42:26 PM »

Here's a video.
with no observed miraging the the smoke stack "sets" beyond the horizon. Based on the round earth philosophy of things "setting" beyond the horizon being an indicator of the shape of the earth then do you see this video and firmly believe the shape of the earth is changing?

The operative word is "sets". The sun "sets" everyday (forget 24 hr sun for a moment) for every person on the planet. With the FE sun, we're talking a 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide object that "sets", disappears for 12 hours or so. You could set a watch to it and can predict the time of it's setting for any person on the planet. The smokestack is 400' tall, seemingly bobbing up and down. Not "setting", disappearing behind the horizon for 12 hours. Big difference.

2130

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 31, 2019, 06:38:13 AM »

FWIW, I'm within striking distance to go and repeat these observations myself, should the weather clear up. 100% cloud and rain at present.

However, in the aftermath of the first observer publishing on YouTube, the FE critics over there were full of;

He's not proved what height he was at
He didn't level his camera
He didn't ...
He didn't ...

So I asked, repeatedly, for FEers to tell me what they would expect someone to do, should they go to Traprain Law to repeat the exercise. I'm not going to climb a 200m hill, spend an hour or so photographing bridges, publish on YT only to have critics respond with "Shoulda done ....".  So I asked, what should be done? What method should I follow? I told everyone what equipment I had, emphasised that I would not be spending money on their behalf, and asked for input. How many responses did I get? Not one. Not a single one.

There's some local FEers who were VERY vocal on YT. Could they be persuaded to go there, to do it themselves, and prove him wrong? No, they could not. As far as I know, not one single FEer has gone there, and I know for a fact there's at least two prominent on YT who are within an hour of the place.

You're never going to make everyone happy. Tom would likely accept your evidence if you had some sort of atmosphere measuring station every 100 feet between the camera and the distant hills to ensure that air that the light is traveling through is consistent to minimize or reduce the amount of refraction. Same temperature, same wind speed, same humidity, same pollen count, same barometric pressure etc etc.

After you make the observation go out and make the same observation, same pressure, same wind speed, same pollen count, same temperature but this time have the humidity 50% higher and document how that has changed your observations.

Start trying to outline how these chaotic atmospheric conditions affect what you see.

If this were the criteria for all of these types of experiments, you would have to immediately throw out all that is in Earth Not a Globe and pretty much every other experiment/observation ever conducted in this realm. I can't conceive of a way to have, for example, the same pressure, same wind speed, same pollen count, same temperature but have the humidity 50% higher. Can you?

2131

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 30, 2019, 08:46:42 PM »

So what causes the sun to rise or set when no atmospheric effects/miraging are present?

All observations made are in the atmosphere so any light that any sort of photon detection device gets is under the influence of the atmosphere.

We have images which were taken at the same time, same day, same location, same altitude, same humidity, same barometric pressure of distant hills.

In one picture, with no observed miraging ,  the hill is totally visible.
In another picture half of the hill, with no observed miraging,  has "set" beyond the horizon.

Can you share these images? I am unfamiliar with them.

To see something (such as a hill) "set" behind the horizon means the earth is round then what happens when, 40 minutes later, that same something "unsets" and comes back into view? Does that mean that the hill must orbit the earth? I don't think so. Does that observation the earth must have gone from flat to round? I don't think so. I believe that observations means that before claiming that something "setting" behind the horizon is evidence that supports the round earth model only you must first account for (or attempt to account for) most atmospheric variables.

How do you get a 3000 mile high sun to disappear behind the horizon for 12 hours every day for everyone on the planet using variable atmospheric conditions? And do so in a down to the minute predictable manner for every day? Like clockwork. How do you do that for every place on the planet when atmospheric conditions are wildly different everywhere on the planet?

2132

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 30, 2019, 08:15:44 PM »

The table in your link shows just how irrelevant diffraction is to my question: even with rays parallel to the earth's surface (0 degrees), the diffraction is less than 0.5 degrees. My question asks how the sun can be seen to set if it is at least 3 degrees above the horizon. Also, of course, diffraction would make us see the sun "set" even higher in the sky. According to the table, diffraction would add about 15' my minimum elevation, i.e. the setting sun never "sets" less than 3.25 degrees above the horizon.

The problem is that the website does not address the hundreds, if not thousands, of chaotic variables which exist every day in the atmosphere.

"he underlying problem is achieving a suitable level of accuracy given the complex nature of the Earth’s atmosphere."

-90% humidity will have a different refraction than 0% humidity.
-80 degrees Fahrenheit will have a different refraction than 20 degrees Fahrenheit.
-100 kPA atmospheric pressure will have a different refraction than 20 kPA.
-A 2.8 pollen index will have different a refraction than a 4.1 pollen index.
-400 PPM CO2 will have a different refraction than 300 PPM CO2.
-The troposphere has different refraction than the stratosphere

We have images which were taken at the same time, same day, same location, same altitude, same humidity, same barometric pressure of distant hills.

In one picture the hill is totally visible.
In another picture half of the hill has "set" beyond the horizon.

Whatever optical trickery is causing half of the hill to disappear beyond the horizon could also be happening to the sun in the flat earth models.

In the video below notice how the opposite shore goes from being obscured to visible? The distance between this camera and the opposite shore is much less than the distance between someone on earth and the moon/sun on all flat earth models.

The problem here is variability. To say that "whatever optical trickery is causing half of the hill to disappear beyond the horizon could also be happening to the sun in the flat earth models" is to say the same optical trickery happens every time a sunrise/sunset occurs for everyone on the planet. Yet atmospheric effects are highly variable. And you have to take into account refraction still has to make the sun disappear, seemingly below the horizon for 12 hours straight, like clockwork, everyday without fail or variance. And then allow it to pop up behind you...For everyone. The Skunk Bay time lapse you posted shows things miraging up and down. Not setting for 12 hours nor rising for 12 hours, again, like clockwork.

And as variable as these atmospheric effects are, here are some Skunk Bay time lapses where no atmospheric effects/miraging are present:



And here’s a Skunk Bay Sunrise time lapse that shows no atmospheric effects/miraging:



So what causes the sun to rise or set when no atmospheric effects/miraging are present?

2133

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: May 30, 2019, 12:10:58 AM »

“If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,”

Robert Mueller


Not an exoneration...

Trumps tweet response post Mueller event today:

"Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you."
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2019

Personal favorite tweet retorts of the day:

- "Hold on. I thought it was complete and total exoneration? We’ve downgraded to insufficient evidence?"

- "I think “innocent on a technicality” will make a great 2020 campaign slogan"

2134

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 29, 2019, 04:04:52 AM »

It sounds like you didn't read it, because he tells you where the effect occurs and where it is less likely to occur.

Odd that you won't simply answer the question in support of your model.

A or B?

You can read about the sinking effect in the Wiki and Earth Not a Globe and other FE literature. It's part of FET. It would be better if you read more and post less.

Definitely odd that you won't answer such a straight forward question and punt to the wiki & ENAG. It's almost like you refuse to personally support your own model.

In ENAG, in the chapter titled, "Perspective on the Sea", SBR goes to great lengths to describe how when viewing objects over water, like a sinking ship, his 'Law of Perspective' reasoning for why ships go over the horizon doesn't always apply.  His 'Law of Perspective' can be found in the preceding chapter, 'Why a Ship's Hull Disappears Before the Mast-Head', aka, the Sinking Ship Effect.

In "Perspective on the Sea" he writes, "If the surface of the sea had no motion or irregularity, or if it were frozen and therefore stationary and uniform, a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, would at all times restore the hull to sight."

He goes on to write, "Upon the sea the law of perspective is modified because the leading condition, that of stability in the surface or datum line, is changed...because the water is always more or less in motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation and undulation, the "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken, operate to prevent the line of sight from passing absolutely parallel to the horizontal water line."

And he concludes with, "Thus have we ascertained by a simple Zetetic process, regardless of all theories, and irrespective of consequences, that the disappearance of the hull of an outward bound vessel is the natural result of the law of perspective operating on a plane surface, but modified by the mobility of the water; and has logically no actual connection with the doctrine of the earth's rotundity."

Now are we to conclude, from your refusal to give an answer, that the flat earth illusion that is causing 850' of that hill to disappear is due to the mobility of the water? The "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken are such that they reach 850' high into the sky from sea level obscuring our view? Or is there some other phenomena at work? Some other illusion, as it were?

You are so quick to call out RET for the use of refraction as an illusion. And here we can only guess upon your non-answer and rely on ENAG/Wiki's two illusions:
1) The atmospheric effects were so great that day that they erased 850' of a hill from view or,
2) An 850' tall "swell" rolled through obscuring our view

Which illusion was it that caused the 850' to disappear?

2135

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 29, 2019, 01:37:47 AM »

It sounds like you didn't read it, because he tells you where the effect occurs and where it is less likely to occur.

Odd that you won't simply answer the question in support of your model.

A or B?

2136

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 29, 2019, 01:35:39 AM »

Problem with the sun is that it's 3000 miles high in FET. Even if it were not, and actually on the surface, it still wouldn't "set" below the horizon as shown here:

Stark,

The problem with that demonstration is that it fails to account for the path that the light from the moon takes before hitting the eye of the observer. Refraction is real and it has a very real effect on what we see.

Sure, I agree. But swap that out for the Sun and refraction still has to make it disappear, seemingly below the horizon for 12 hours straight, like clockwork, everyday without fail or variance. And then allow it to pop up behind you. I don't see how variable refraction could do all that for every point/climate on the planet.

2137

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 29, 2019, 01:17:19 AM »

Looks exactly like what Rowbotham predicts what happens when observing the open ocean. Read Earth Not a Globe.

I have, it's not a very good read. Mostly anecdotal with little to no evidence for any of the claims or assertions. And woefully steeped in a scriptural bias.

Simple question, select A or B: You're admitting that some sort of flat earth illusion is causing the 850' of the hill to disappear when we should see all of it on a flat earth?

A) YES
B) NO

2138

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 29, 2019, 12:59:28 AM »

Looks to me like a bunch of sinking illusions are occurring here:

So you're admitting that some sort of flat earth illusion is causing the 850' of the hill to disappear when we should see all of it on a flat earth?

Where are the timelapses showing things rise from behind the horizon?

Here's a nice crisp one:

2139

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 29, 2019, 12:46:21 AM »

You're purposefully avoiding the question because I presume you have no clue how to answer it.

You answered it:

illusions

You self-admit that an illusion is occurring and think that this illusion proves your ball or something. RE is based on illusions. Illusions are there.

The sinking ship effect is an illusion in FET. Sometimes its flat, and sometimes there is sinking.

The sunken scenes constantly change in timelapses, falsifying your curvature due to earth sinking:

So you're admitting that some sort of flat earth illusion is causing the 850' of the hill to disappear when we should see all of it on a flat earth?

2140

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment

« on: May 29, 2019, 12:29:49 AM »

No Tom, I'm not. If the earth is flat I should see the 850 feet. But we don't. So there must be some Flat Earth illusion that is hiding 850' feet. Therefore, on flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You tell me. I'll let you explain it. You love illusions. Your model is all about illusions.

It's your model. You would know better than I. Why are you not supporting your model with an explanation? On flat earth what illusion has caused the 850' to disappear?

You said that an illusion did it and provided zero evidence for an illusion occurring, in which way, or in favor of which model. You already declared the issue.

Tom, why is 850' missing on the flat earth? It's a simple question to you about your model. If the earth is flat where is the other 850' of that hill?

You told us that illusions were occurring. We can take your word on that.

Illusions -- Needed to fix your model. Illusions that change every day an observation is made, and do not match the globe.

You're purposefully avoiding the question because I presume you have no clue how to answer it.

If the earth is flat, which I presume you think it was when the photo was taken, 850' of the hill is missing. According to your flat earth model, what is the explanation for that?