281

Flat Earth Community / Re: Not a believer but have a question

« on: December 06, 2018, 05:56:02 AM »

With a satellite transceiver in one fixed point, I suppose you could be fooled into thinking you are on a flat earth with the way the satellite could be 'rigged'.  Now think about this.  The satellite transceiver I was operating was on a large oceangoing ship.  We would be traveling thousand and thousands of miles while going from port to port.  On every trip across the Pacific I could see the satellite signal more or less in front of the ship.  I would have the length of time it took the signal to get to the satellite and back, the azimuth, and elevation of the satellite.  The satellites were at a fixed longitude over the equator in geosynchronous orbit.  On every trip I would start out seeing the first satellite very high close to directly over the ship.  As the ship progressed on our route the satellite would get lower & lower towards the horizon. Soon the signal would be lost on the horizon and I would have to make the switch to another satellite further ahead.  On a flat earth I would expect the satellite to get lower in the sky as we progressed a couple thousand miles on our route but I would expect that we could easily use the same satellite for the entire trip from Long Beach, Ca to Shanghai, China via Honolulu and Guam.  If the satellite companies were trying to fool use somehow they would have to simultaneously fool countless ships in countless different locations along the route all at the same time.  Many years ago I used to be on another ship that traveled all around the world.  There were 4 INMARSAT birds up there and I could see as we progressed that each one was going out of range as we progressed.  I would have to manually adjust the dish antenna to it would automatically track the next bird along our route.  On a flat earth all you would need would be one bird above the North Pole to cover the whole earth.  If you look at the specifications for the INMARSAT birds you will see that there isn't much coverage at all above about 70 degrees North Latitude.  In fact when we were in the Bearing Sea on some of our trips our satellite coverage was shaky.  It's all because of the globe earth.   

282

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator

« on: December 05, 2018, 05:19:42 AM »

This is a quote from the Wiki:
Think about it: If, through the laws of inertia, a heavier mass has greater resistance to being moved, why should gravity accelerate both an elephant and a book at the same rate towards the earth?

Take a look a the following video:
Basically what this is saying is that since there is an inertial mass and gravitational mass equivalence the book and elephant will always fall at the same rate.  The equations are easy to see and I don't like to 'reinvent the wheel' so I just gave a link to the video.  The bottom line is:  Acceleration is independent of the mass according to the equations so it doesn't matter what the mass happens to be, it will always fall at the same rate.

Another quote from the Wiki:
To the rationalist the above experiments might appear to be futile, but to the empiricist, the fact that one mechanism is observed and not others is grave. While the proposed mechanisms of "graviton puller particles" and "bending space" versions of gravity in Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, which Scientific American describes as 'whooping coincidence', provide equivalent, if absurd, explanations to the results of the above experiments, those things are completely undiscovered and unobserved, and so, are decidedly less empirical

There is no doubt that some of the proofs of gravity are hard to measure and are subtle.  That alone does not make them less valid.  Imagine yourself alone in a swimming pool.  Focus your attention very, very intently on the level of the pool.  Now empty your bladder into the pool.  You know for an absolute fact that the level of the pool has just risen.  Can you measure it?  You would need very sensitive instruments to get a good reading.  There would be plenty of noise.  But if you did the experiment 1000 times and got a average reading wouldn't it give you a pretty good idea of the volume of your bladder? 

That's the problem faced by many scientists trying to measure gravity under certain conditions.  The theory matches the experimental evidence so the experiments are done many, many times.  You eventually end up with an average of the readings and you use that as a good indication that your theory is correct.  Why should that be a problem?

283

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a Flat-Earth map I can use to actually navigate from A to B to C?

« on: December 03, 2018, 10:09:26 PM »

How can I disprove "A" unless I know exactly what "A" is.  I could never prove that an animal inside a box was a cat if you were looking for a proof for a dog.  For FET to be anything but a farce you should  'square yourself in the hatch' and put out a map defining exactly what you consider the flat earth geography to be.  Otherwise it looks like you aren't really trying to get to the truth, but just trying to encourage more controversy.   

284

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a Flat-Earth map I can use to actually navigate from A to B to C?

« on: December 03, 2018, 09:58:23 PM »

It's impossible at the present time to make any navigation paths on a flat earth chart because there are no detailed paper charts available that I know of.  I can't even find a usable one on the FET website that I could download and print.  One is needed that shows accurate latitude and longitude lines on it.  Additionally it would have to have a good, accurate scale so distances could be determined.  If one becomes available please let me know.  Then I would be happy to show you that it would never work for any practical navigational purposes.

285

Flat Earth Community / Re: Not a believer but have a question

« on: December 03, 2018, 09:31:06 PM »

Your assumptions are incorrect.  I am a well trained and experienced engineer and wouldn't be fooled for long.  The combinations of the speed of light, azimuth, and elevation in combination with knowing where our ship is at all times would make it impossible to fake a geosynchronous satellite with any kind of a balloon, dome, or anything else.  I've been thru this argument before.  No one has ever been able to come up with a design of a system that would emulate a geosynchronous satellite system on a flat earth platform that would respond to all the combinations that I would see on a daily basis.  If you have a viable design than the FET folks would really like you to post it for everyone to see.  While you are at it, show all the professional seamen out there just how celestial navigation would work on a flat earth.  Yes, we use GPS just about all the time, but everyone has to know how to use a sextant and the navigation tables to fix our position in an emergency.  That whole system is based on spherical geometry on a globe.  it works, and has worked for 100's of years.  There's no theory there, it just works every time it's tried.

286

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a Flat-Earth map I can use to actually navigate from A to B to C?

« on: December 03, 2018, 09:17:48 PM »

Just keep in mind that we use WGS-84 or British Admiralty charts that are strictly based upon the Globe Earth paradigm.  A flat earth chart would quickly get us lost.

287

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic aspect of FET

« on: December 03, 2018, 08:58:49 PM »

I did many trips across the Pacific from Southern California to China and Japan.  The biPolar map would make that trip interesting.  It would be interesting to see how the waypoints could be laid out for that trip.  We never did see any walls at sea or anything that looked like an edge even after diverting all over the place to avoid getting into typhoons at sea.

288

Flat Earth Community / Re: Not a believer but have a question

« on: December 03, 2018, 08:51:29 PM »

When I was sitting in front of my computer on the ship I had a program where I could 'ping' the satellite.  I could measure the time it took to get from the ship to the satellite and back.  Also I had an indication of exactly where the dish was pointed.  There were readings of both azimuth and elevation.  All the data indicated that the satellite was a geosynchronous bird over the equator.  As the ship progressed the dish would indicate that it was pointing lower & lower in the sky until it was just near the horizon and at that point I would loose the signal.  Then I would command the system to point at another satellite at a different longitude to continue our service.  If you did all the calculations there was no way all the path lengths would work out unless the satellite were above a global earth.  On a flat earth the azimuth and elevation angles would have to be different.  QED (and so it is proved) 

289

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a Flat-Earth map I can use to actually navigate from A to B to C?

« on: December 03, 2018, 08:32:30 PM »

Again, you are way off.  Our weather maps usually come from the Japanese or American weather bureaus and we get them via the internet via our KVH satellite system aboard ship.  At sea you can be 1000's of mile from any land and satellite is the only form of communication other than HF radio.  Yes, we also get our weather maps via HF weatherFAX but we used that mostly for backup in case the satellite system went off line.

Weather prediction has nothing to do with maps, beyond the basic 'it's here.'

Simple question: do you simply use data saying a preprogrammed route and do that blindfolded, or do you constantly need to respond to new information and things, lite satellites, that let you know where you are relative to everything else?

We don't navigate anywhere 'blindfolded' we follow the best route to get from point A to point B based upon all the variables like weather and traffic conditions.  We always try to stay on a great circle route because that's the shortest distance between point A and point B.  We constantly respond to new information and use satellites to let us know where we are relative to everything else.

290

Flat Earth Community / Re: Not a believer but have a question

« on: December 03, 2018, 08:24:59 PM »

Just read the description of the launch today and all the different customers who think they have a satellite in orbit.  When those customers don't get the signals from the satellites then they will know that the launch was unsuccessful.  At that point they won't write a check to SpaceX.  Since SpaceX is a corporation it needs revenue to stay in business.  I've personally confirmed satellites are in orbit on a daily basis so I know that they are up there.  Of that, there's no doubt.  I idea that SpaceX could fail to get satellites into orbit time after time after time and not have customers publicly complain is not very likely.   

291

Flat Earth Community / Re: Not a believer but have a question

« on: December 03, 2018, 08:09:43 PM »

Don't forget SpaceX.  I believe that they just launched a rocket today.  According to what I read, most of the payload was from customers who paid to have their satellites put into orbit.  I believe that the total number was 64 different satellites.  Are all the customers in on the conspiracy as well?  If they aren't then how will SpaceX explain to them that their satellites didn't make it to orbit?  Why would those customers pay SpaceX for something they didn't receive?  How can SpaceX then remain in business?  It's starting to get like trying to think honey Bees are fake while in the vicinity of a hive.  Either you believe in the space program or you have to figure out how a company like SpaceX can get away with a huge deception involving customers from all over the world.

292

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a Flat-Earth map I can use to actually navigate from A to B to C?

« on: December 03, 2018, 07:34:51 PM »

Many times we must respond often with a course change due to weather and/or other factors.  Other times the course may be clear and we can navigate the whole distance using a pre-programmed route. We rely on accurate charts EVERY time.  Our speed can vary due to winds and waves and the weather may be foggy or cloudy for more than 90% of the trip.   

293

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a Flat-Earth map I can use to actually navigate from A to B to C?

« on: December 03, 2018, 06:56:17 PM »

Again, you are way off.  Our weather maps usually come from the Japanese or American weather bureaus and we get them via the internet via our KVH satellite system aboard ship.  At sea you can be 1000's of mile from any land and satellite is the only form of communication other than HF radio.  Yes, we also get our weather maps via HF weatherFAX but we used that mostly for backup in case the satellite system went off line.

294

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic aspect of FET

« on: December 03, 2018, 06:31:57 PM »

If you are going to believe in a flat earth where the North Pole is at the center of the plate then you also have to believe that the South Pole is at the outer edge of the disk and can't be a single point.  There have been expeditions that have arrived from the North, gone to the South Pole, and departed continuing in straight line.  So the question remains, just where is the edge of the flat earth?  Is is at the South Pole or somewhere else?   

295

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a Flat-Earth map I can use to actually navigate from A to B to C?

« on: December 03, 2018, 06:17:40 PM »

Your assessment of the necessity of maps at sea are totally incorrect.  Accurate maps are vital to the lives of the crew, the ship, and the cargo.  The trip from Shanghai, China to Long Beach, CA is more than 6000 miles.  You can have countless storms along the way that need to be avoided when possible.  It can be cloudy or foggy and you can't see any stars for a week at a time.  Often it is necessary to alter course to avoid a known storm that is visible on the satellite maps we get on a daily basis.  Do you really think that we turn left at the next wave and go 100 miles until we see a mermaid pointing us in the right direction?  Usually a container ship will carry 100's of millions of dollars worth of cargo.  Many shippers have their own trackers on top of the containers that can monitor the ship's progress.  They will immediately know if the ship has an incompetent navigation officer.  You can be sure that very little is left to chance.  There is a detailed voyage plan made out and check lists completed before the ship ever leaves the dock.  The trip is long, the weather can be bad, and very good detailed charts are vital to our very survival.  Our charts allow us to navigate a distance about the same as from going from New York to Los Angles and back again without ever seeing any kind of landmark and arrive at our destination safely and on time. 

296

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat earthers, how many of you believe in other conspiracy theories?

« on: December 03, 2018, 03:01:43 PM »

Is NASA guilty of murder?  Think about it.  If the space shuttle missions were all faked, then somehow all the shuttle mission crews must have been sequestered somewhere during the missions because obviously they couldn’t be at home while everyone thought they were in space.  The world witnessed the Columbia and Challenger disasters where the whole crew ‘died’.  If those NASA missions were faked, then either the whole crew on both those missions had to be murdered by NASA to enhance the conspiracy or at minimum somehow put into hiding somewhere.  I suppose that they all could have received some surgery to alter their appearance and moved to a hiding place somewhere else but then any contact with anyone outside the conspiracy would have to be prohibited. None of the astronauts could ever again be in contact with any family member who wasn’t an insider in the conspiracy. Maybe someday a company like 23andMe will discover something and bust the whole conspiracy wide open.  The other more obvious solution to the ‘problem’ would be that the NASA missions were all real. 

297

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat earthers, how many of you believe in other conspiracy theories?

« on: December 03, 2018, 04:59:55 AM »

All the people in the Mars lander control room celebrating the 'successful' landing on Mars must all be in on the conspiracy.  You can see that most of them are sitting in front on a computer screen intently watching something.  Maybe NASA screens their applicants not so much on any scientific abilities but on acting abilities.  If the people in the control room really are scientists and actually think the data that they are seeing really is from Mars then NASA must really have another 'back' room somewhere that feeds the scientists fake data and pictures from Mars.  Who knows what is really true?  Who are the real conspirators?  No matter where the real conspiracy really happens to be the amount of effort must be tremendous and take countless employees located somewhere.  All of them must be kept quiet or the whole thing would be bust wide open.  Is it possible that North Korea could be the real source of the NASA control room data?  That actually makes a certain amount of sense.  Any North Korean who tried to 'spill the beans' would just be promptly shot.  The other possibility is that the control room data could be coming from one of the permanent outposts in Antarctica.  Of course the bottom line is that there's either a big NASA conspiracy to defraud the public or the Mars mission actually happened as described.  Which is fact and which is just theory?

298

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator

« on: December 03, 2018, 04:39:17 AM »

It looks like there's only one kind of mass in the universe.  There is an equivalence between inertial mass and the gravitational influence that's inherent in any mass.  Since water has inertial mass then it also has a gravitational influence (gravitational mass)  that's even acknowledged by this web site in the wiki since the tides are the gravitational influence between the water and the heavenly bodies.  It has been said on the wiki that there is a gravitational force on the earth but in a greatly diminished form.  I've not seen any equations for that 'greatly diminished' force.  That must mean that the force is really just unknown.  There also has been no explanation for how the heavenly bodies can 'selectively' exert a gravitational force on the earth's water and not on anything else.  It sure looks to me that the whole thing is just made up.  There's no good descriptions of how things work and no equations of force that describes the selectivity of the gravitational force.   

299

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator

« on: December 02, 2018, 06:50:28 PM »

My quandary was the aspect of selective gravitation.  A heavenly body can have a gravitational effect on the earth's oceans, but does that also mean that the earth's oceans have the same attraction to the heavenly bodies?  Then if the earth's oceans have a gravitational effect on a heavenly body why doesn't it have a similar effect on the earth itself?  Then why doesn't the earth itself have a gravitational effect on everything else?  The FET model has one mass attracting another mass selectively.  What is the differences in those masses?  What is the property of the mass of the ocean's water that allows it to be attracted to the heavenly bodies but not to anything else? 

300

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator

« on: December 02, 2018, 05:26:29 PM »

The Wiki admits that the tides are caused by gravitational attraction to the heavenly bodies.  So gravity is possible under FET but just between unspecified heavenly bodies (including the moon, I believe) and the oceans on the surface of the earth. Where can I find an equation describing this force.  The RE folks have equations quantifying the strength of gravity.  In order to be taken seriously the FET folks will have to come up with some equations of their own.