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.

Topics - jimster

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
I saw a video where a man had a scale and a weight that he showed, then took went on an airliner a thousand miles away and showed the weight was slightly different. I googled "does gravity vary in different places?". I got results that said that due to different mass in different places, gravity does vary. Greater in mountains, less above trenches, which makes sense if gravity is attraction between masses as claimed by conventional consensus science.

Questions for FEs: Is this true, does gravity vary slightly in different places? Perhaps error or conspiracy? If gravity does vary, and gravity is due to universal acceleration (per the wiki?), does that mean that different places have slightly different acceleration? Seems to me that would distort the flatness over time. Places with less gravity would accelerate slightly slower, thus falling behind and so getting lower and lower compared to average, and mountains having more gravity would be accelerating. They would get continuously higher.

Should the universal acceleration theory be discarded, or is there an FE explanation for varying gravity?

Flat Earth Theory / Are the distances shown on google earth true?
« on: September 06, 2023, 12:56:51 AM »
GPS, google earth, celestial navigation, does any FE have an example of them not matching? If they are all correct, the shape of the earth is a geometry problem. They either match RE or FE. If they are not correct, please explain.

To put it another way, does the US Navy know where its ships are? Can they send a ship to Japan and order it mid course to go to Australia? Will it arrive? Will they know the distance and therefor whether they have enough fuel and when it will arrive? Does the US Navy know the shape of the earth?


If the earth is flat, and observations match RE/Newton/Kepler, and the calculations are consistent with each other, is this just a coincidence? Does any FE find it amazing that there is a whole coherent system of observations and calculations that matches RE when the earth is actually flat and covered by a dome with planetary motion unexplained by FE calculations and theory? If I believed FE, that would be amazing to me.

Does FE have a similar explanation that provides accurate answers to the future position of planets?

There are computerized telescopes that you can tell to point at Mars, Saturn, etc now or any point in the future. How does this work if FE is true? Do the people who wrote the programs that do this know the true shape of the earth? How, if not Newton/Kepler/RE do they do it?

Flat Earth Theory / Universal Acceleration
« on: July 11, 2023, 11:48:43 PM »
Is there some location, object, or ??? that FE is accelerating in relation to? How can I know about what is outside the FE/dome system? If astronomical objects are part of the dome, or on it, or whatever, then the dome is accelerating right along with FE. What is it that is not part of FE and dome that we are accelerating in relation to? How do we know where FE+dome is, or what it is moving in relationship to? Zetetically, can I believe there even is any movement until I can see or somehow know the thing or location FE is accelerating in relation to? If we can't know about anything outside the FE/dome system? Does UA demolish the "infinite plane" idea, could an infinite plane accelerate, having infinite mass?

Or maybe astronomical objects are not accelerating with FE? How do I know where they are?

When I drop something and it accelerates towards the floor, is that object continuing ti travel at the velocity FE was at when I dropped it and the entire FE/dome system continues to accelerate?Is this the only way I know the whole system is accelerating?

After reading the Electromagnetic Acceleration wiki page, attempting to understand and figure out the details, it has dawned on me what the EA wiki page is saying. It says that scientists decided the earth is round because they did not accounting for light bending over long distances. Does this mean that if light does not bend over long distances, RET makes sense, is consistent with itself and observations? Did the wiki confirm RET if there is no dome and light does not bend over long distances?

In the wiki page, it says that celestial objects are always curved, hence light must be curved, because it is on a dome. Where did the dome come from, winy would one think there is a dome?

Seems per the wiki, if there is no dome and light does not curve over long distances, RET works and is consistent. So to prove FE, one must prove there is a dome and light bends over long distances. Is there any equations, descriptions of mechanism, and repeatable experiments to nail down the long distance light bending?

So with straight light and no dome, RET has description, explanation, and repeatable experiment. FET has no description, no explanation, no proof of dome and long distance light bending. Yet some think the earth is flat. Fascinating.

The wiki page says that scientists have not thought of or proven that light might bend as it travels through space, they haven't even considered it.

1. In science class, they told me about refraction and reflection. Einstein's prediction that huge gravitation forces could bend light was famously observed 10 years after its publishing by multiple scientists. Does that count as having considered it?

The wiki page next says that scientists concluded RE because they assumed light travels in a straight line in a vacuum.

2. Does this mean that if light travels in straight line through a vacuum then RET is consistent with observations?

Next the wiki claims that light curves in celestial observations over long distances because the sky looks like a dome (maybe got this wrong, I found the writing unclear).

3. Are there any experiments, observations, or mathematics to confirm, describe, or quantify the curve other than the diagram of how the light curves to make sunset/sunrise on FE?

The wiki page seems to assume that the light bends however it needs to to make a sun high on the dome appear to rise and set on FE.

4. If the light is bending in unknown ways due to unknown forces without equations, how can we use any observation to know the shape of the earth?

The wiki page talks about the vertical component of the bending.

At noon in southern Egypt, it is dawn on the east coast of South America and sunset on the west coast of Australia. I have made a crude approximation of the problem in this image:

The white arrows are where the sun appears to be, while the red arrows point to where it really is in FET. Quite an amount of bend over what I make to be about 8000 miles. Also notice that the light does not bend horizontally when looking straight north or south. In fact the bend varies from 0 to more than 45 degrees as you move south, and when the distance is 4000 mi, the bend is zero. And it is symmetrical, bending opposite ways to east and west. Side note: RE distances and direction match FE along straight north/south longitude lines. Coincidence?

6. Does anyone have an explanation for this?

7. If this is due to acceleration, is that physical velocity or something else?

8. Same thing as Universal Acceleration, or two different simultaneous things?

9. What direction is the acceleration that accounts for both horizontal and vertical bending in the observed way it bends?

10. If light bends in due to unknown forces and unknown equations over long distances, how can we ever know where any far away thing is, or how the light bends, or how much, or anything, as seeing far away things is our only evidence and we can't rely on it being where it appears to be?

Flat Earth Theory / Possible FE demonstration
« on: June 04, 2022, 01:05:34 AM »
It occurs to me that a planetarium is a perfect miniature of FE. WHat would it take to demonstrate FE by projecting on the dome the correct visuals for any location, as though the floor had an FE map. The middle of the room would be the north pole, and the outer edge would be the ice wall. So someone halfway between would see the north and south pole stars in opposite directions on the horizon. At the outside edge, Sigma Octantus would appear directly overhead at all points around the edge. Entirely different set of stars depending on whether you are close to the middle or the edge.

As you walk from the center, the north star would move down to the horizon, then the south pole star would appear on the horizon and as you walked to the edge, it would move to directly overhead.

How would this be done?

The night sky is tough enough, but the appearance to some spots would be daylight over the entire dome with a large very bright sun, while other places, some not far away see dark sky with stars over the entire dome. Half of the room would be dark, other other half would be light while the dark side could not see that. Perhaps this room is too small, not enough distance for the light to fade out? Don't foget to include it being daylight around the edge of the room 24/7 in the northern hemisphere winter in December the whole room will be daylight 24/7 around the entire edge of the room. You actually can't do day/night because of raley's scattering, so just do the stars, that would be impressive.

Ideas on how to do this?

Interestingly, a RE 3d planetarium could be built to do this, at least in a vacuum to prevent raley's scattering. A globe held in the center with all the stars in their RE positions would yield the correct sky from any point on the globe.

The wiki says that one proof point of FE is that you can't see or feel movement, therefor the earth is stationary. I went on a cruise on a very big ship. In my cheap cabin (no window), there was no motion, sound, or visual indication of movement. Yet I am sure that it did move, as I went to sleep in one port and woke up in another, with no sense of movement. My question is whether it is possible for someone to be moving, yet because the movement is smooth, silent, and everything within my sight is moving the exact same way, is it possible for someone to be moving without being aware that they are moving?

Flat Earth Theory / What is going on with these observatories
« on: February 23, 2022, 10:16:19 PM »

He said there are 35 such observatories establishing the positions of satellites in 3 space. Are these part of the conspiracy? Or are they all just wrong? Bear in mind that this is part of the gps system, and it works.

Are all the web sites that say where the satellites are correct, if so they establish RE. If not, how does gps work so well? Giant conspiracy? They are all wrong, but somehow gps works in some supersecret way that is not RE?

Can we say anything about this other than the earth is flat, so the math must be wrong and/or conspiracy?

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?

Flat Earth Theory / Moons of Jupiter
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:29:09 PM »
Astronomers since Gallileo looked at Jupiter and saw moons orbiting it, going across the planet and appearing to circle around behind and appear at the other side of the planet. Jupiter is a wandering star, planets do no follow the star trails that the stars do, and it looks to have moons orbiting it.

My question is, is the dome flat (2d) or is there depth to it such that round things can orbit other round things, presumably at or near the dome? Can there be a sort of miniature RE thing going on at the dome, or is Jupiter and the moon flat and 2d? Perhaps the dome has miniature RE things, but earth is flat?

Flat Earth Investigations / NASA conspiracy questions
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:17:33 PM »
The wiki states that there is NASA is not an earth shape conspiracy and that they think the earth is round but understand space travel is impossible. The conspiracy is characterized as "small".

NASA has 4 satellites scheduled to launch in 2022. According to the faq, NASA thinks the earth is round. Do they think these will be orbiting the earth? Will they know where they are? Where will they actually be? WIll they be sending back pictures and data? Perhaps the data will be faked?

gps satellites work by calculating the distance to the satellite, the location of these satellites is published to your cell phone.

Does NASA know where the satellites are? If they do, then they know the shape of the earth. If not, how is this successful in any way? How can a small conspiracy fake the data and location? How can NASA have satellites and not know the shape of the earth? How can they fake this with a "small" conspiracy?

Hubble, DirecTV, weather satellites, gps, etc etc etc? How is all this not part of the conspiracy, and how is that conspiracy "small".

Flat Earth Projects / Opportunity for Texas FEs
« on: December 20, 2021, 09:41:32 PM »
A new law in Texas (HB 3979) requires educators to present “diverse and contending perspectives” on topics that are debated or controversial. Legally, TX has to let FEs present their case in science class. TX FEs should go to their school boards and demand they "teach the controversy". Perhaps print out hard copy of the faq and demand they use it as a textbook. Or maybe Rowbotham? After all, per the faq, there are 10s of millions of FE believers.

Plus, thousands of TX science teachers will learn the true shape of the earth. Perhaps their students can learn critical thinking skills by working out these controversies/unknown equations.

I would love to see TX school board meetings discussing the presentation of FET in TX schools. I think, by law, they have to.

Can't wait to see the final exam.

I may get in trouble, complete nonsense? Seems to me if FE is true, this is not nonsense at all, but a very good idea.

Flat Earth Theory / geostationary satellites
« on: December 16, 2021, 01:47:28 AM »
On RE, they are stationary in particular spot directly over the equator. They get shot up at the exact speed and direction to be in orbit at that spot. This is consistent with RET math and physics. The web site:

tells you where to aim the dish, thus giving you a pointer to the satellite. Point wrong, no tv signal. So we have multiple pointers at a satellite from different places, thus the point where the aiming lines cross gives the location of the satellite.

Where are these satellites on FE? if they are at the equator, how do they stay up? Will the lines intersect on FE? IF you take the elevation from San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, will the lines meet at the same point?

I submit that the lines will not cross with FE geometry, and this makes no sense. I wonder how FE explains geostationary satellites.

Flat Earth Theory / questions about day/night sky
« on: December 04, 2021, 10:59:55 PM »
At sunset in Denver, two people look at the sky directly above Denver. One is in Salt Lake City, where the entire sky appears to be light blue. The other is in St Louis, where the sky is dark all over, the exact same spot is black with stars. How can this be?

Just after sunset, we know the sun is still up there, just a little more distant. Yet if I look at the exact spot the sun would be in according to the faq, I see an unbroken field of stars, none are blocked by the sun or anything. They are much dimmer than the sun, yet something that is lighting up half the earth has disappeared. It can't be the distance, because I can see stars over the entire dome, so the relatively dim light of the stars can travel all the way across the dome. Why can't I see the sun when the stars are visible at even greater distance?

Why is the entire sky light blue all day, then suddenly over a period of 20 minutes it turns black. If the sun is still up there, just moving away, why the sudden darkness over the entire dome?

If one paints the dome black with stars over the night portion, and light blue with sun over the day portion, what would an observer see from the surface of FE? I see the entire dome all day and all night. Same dome, different place, sees the entire dome so different - day to night, southern hemisphere stars vs northern hemisphere.

When the sun sets, it appears to be directly on the horizon, apparently per the faq, it is still up quite a ways from the horizon. Why does the horizon appear to be in the same place all day, same horizontal angle consistent with the horizon in every direction. The light bends from the sun quite a bit to cause a > 20 degree distortion of position. Yet the light rays from the horizon right next to it are not bending? At that moment, the horizon looks to be at the same place as the sun. Are the rays from the sun bending > 20 degrees while the light from the horizon is traveling straight while the sunlight is bending? Or is the horizon moving up to the sun and both their light rays bending down to look lie they are on the horizon?

Flat Earth Community / The borders of the conspiracy
« on: September 26, 2021, 06:37:49 PM »
So if the earth is flat and space travel is fake, there must be some who are doing the fakery. Spacex, scientists, NASA, the actual astronauts, operations technicians. There must be either a giant conspiracy (thousands of people, billions of dollars), or most of the people involved have things faked for them. I have tried to think through the details of how this could work, but I keep having problems with plausibility. For instance, consider the passengers on Spacex Inspiration 4. EIther they are in on it and paid millions to not go and do a masterful job at lying about it, or "they" put together a way to have them in 0g and looking at a fake RE. Lots of people saw them get in and blast off, did they go down a chute instead of being in the rocket and went somewhere to wait to reappear, and act as though they really went? Or was there some way they went to a 0g simulator with fake video screens they thought were windows? Either way, many people know.

Is there an ever increasing supply of actors pretending to be astronauts, or do they have some amazing tech to make them think they were in space?  Perhaps it is impossible to know anything about what is really going on with space travel, one can only know the earth is flat and so space travel is false, just endlessly guessing at the details of how they fake it?

Does someone have a plausible explanation of the borders of the conspiracy? Who at Spacex and NASA knows FE is true? If they don't know, how do they put astronauts in the capsule and get them later? If they do know, how do they keep the giant conspiracy secret? How do you get billionaires to lie about it (convincingly, requiring acting skills and rehearsal to get the story straight), or how do you fake 0 g for them?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / different kinds of conspiracies
« on: May 25, 2021, 08:24:29 PM »
Uncontroversial conspiracies are historical, documented, court proven, consensus believed conspiracies. Examples are a coup, tobacco companies hiding the harm of smoking, organized crime, etc, many conspiracies have occured and been revealed. These Have a clear motivation, are plausible, consistent with all other known facts, and public evidence with consensus belief. The generals  really did take over, court case, crimes did occur, etc. Perhaps there are differences over who is the good guy or was it legal, but it did occur.

Controversial conspiracies have some evidence, but not enough to achieve consensus. Examples are Kennedy assassination not lone gunman or Trump conspired with Putin.

Absurd conspiracies have no evidence and make no sense, example Tom Hanks is a eats babies and sells them for sex.

But the kind of conspiracy that is most useful is the explanatory conspiracy. It makes no sense and there is no evidence, except for the thing being explained. Example is NASA promoting/enforcing RE belief and suppressing the FE truth. There is no plausible reason, no evidence other than that they say RE, so if the earth is flat, they must be liars, and it explains why everyone thinks it's round. No evidence, no motive, but plenty of FExplanation.

Flat Earth Theory / What happens when I fly west on the wiki map?
« on: May 25, 2021, 06:37:01 PM »
Suppose you are in an airplane flying at 50,000 feet at the equator on a clear night. The plane has a compass, a gyrocompass, gps, inertial navigation, and a device on each side for determining the direction of a star. You line up carefully so my direction is 270, the compass and gyrocompass say you are going west, and you sight on the north star out one side window and the southern cross from the other side at 90 degrees from your direction of travel (they will be visible just above the horizon). After 15 hours at 500 mph, 7500 mi west of your starting point.

Where will I be if:

I keep the southern cross at 90 degrees and ignore everything else?
I keep the north star at 90 degrees and ignore everything else?
If the southern cross and north star and southern cross are both kept at 90 degrees?

We know the north star is directly over the north pole. Where is the southern cross? Is it directly south of my starting point?

Now let;s try 2 planes flying opposite directions, one at 90 (directly east), the other at 270 (directly west). Both planes will be able to keep the north star at 90 degrees, but what happens to the southern cross? can they both keep it at 90 degrees as they travel? At 15,000 miles distance between the planes, what will be the angles of the north star and southern cross?

A diagram of where the two planes are and where the southern cross is would be nice.

RET predicts that both planes can keep north star and southern cross at 90 degrees, compass, gyro, inertial, and gps will all match up. What does FET predict?

Science & Alternative Science / FE and ICBMs
« on: May 23, 2021, 10:09:09 PM »
Do ICBMs exist? Who aims them? Do they know the distance to the target? What map do they use? FE or RE$, gonna hit in a very different place.

V-2s in WW2 certainly existed, works fine on FE, not precision guided and short range, so earth curve doesn't matter. Starting in 1946, Werner Von Braun at White Sands and the USSR started improving the V-2, gradually improving the range and guidance until precise over thousands of miles. Tested and pr'd, from Vandenburg to south Pacific test range. I see no reason why ICBMs would not work on FE, but the aiming equation would be very different.

I found a diagram of ICBM trajectory that I can't manage to link to, but if you extend the line from the launch site straight as in FE, the range error has got to be hundreds, maybe thousands of miles.

Do ICBMs exist?
Have they been tested for accuracy?
Does the equation use FE or RE math?

The details of this story on RE are well known. Can someone fill in the FE details? Programmers secretly know FE, but are under threat to keep it secret? ICBMs do not have accuracy? What's up?

Perhaps USSR, UK, USA, China, etc all know FE, all agreed to keep it secret, and all want to have ICBM credibility when no such thing exists?

Flat Earth Theory / FE and artillery
« on: May 23, 2021, 09:43:54 PM »
I was watching a battleship New Jersey youtube video that had a Viet Nam war vet talking about using the 5" inch secondary fire control computer.

The 16" guns fire control computer had earth curvature correction (explained in video below) The secondary fire control computer did not have earth curvature correction, range was too short. They came up with a rocket assisted round with 50% greater range. They had to correct for earth curvature manually.

Then I searched to find out more about how common is curvature correction for artillery, and I found that the US Army acknowledges flat earth!

Sorry, had to do it, but seriously ... here is a good explanation of why all countries with artillery with more than 10 miles know whether the earth is curved.

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >