21

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 20, 2022, 08:00:13 PM »

There’s a small problem with the contention that the space station is anchored to the North Pole under the flat earth theory.  That’s the fallacy of the earth’s upward acceleration to ‘simulate’ gravity.  In order for the space station to maintain a tension on a rope attached to the North Pole there would have to be a rocket engine on the space station to also maintain an upwards acceleration.  I’ve never seen any evidence of a rocket exhaust in any of the pictures.  Clearly there’s humans aboard the space station because I’ve personally heard them on the HAM radio frequencies.   

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE

« on: January 20, 2022, 04:54:34 PM »

The problem that Bob Knodel had was the unexpected reading of a rotating earth from the ring laser gyro that was purchased.  It was hypothesized that there was some external force causing this, not the rotation of the earth.  I don’t know if they ever fabricated a metal cylinder to house the gyro and buried it to see if they could do some shielding to eliminate the unexpected readings they got, but I wouldn’t expect that to be published if they did because if it was done in an honest manner the results wouldn’t change.  In any event, I’ve personally seen large, heavy, mechanical gyros do the same thing and I wouldn’t expect  ‘aether’ to have any measurable influence on a heavy rotating metal disk.   

23

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

« on: January 20, 2022, 04:43:46 PM »

I believe that the flat earth beliefs involve the same thing that keeps the Sun and Moon orbiting and that is the barycenter argument.  Of course, this contention can’t be supported.  Even if it could there are all kinds of other difficulties that can’t be explained in a rational manner.  One would be the necessity for the ‘dark energy’ to provide the exact push necessary to keep all the satellites accelerating upwards and at exactly the correct rate independently of their mass and surface area.  This ‘dark energy’ would have to be extremely ‘smart’ in order to do this.  All these things have been discussed in previous posts and no answers have come out of the flat earth aficionados.  I don’t believe that there’s anything in the Wiki that could provide any detailed answers either. 

24

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Fortuna's Epic DoorDash Adventure

« on: January 20, 2022, 04:18:46 PM »

If you are going to make a significant amount of money doing some side gigs be sure to form some kind of LLC first and keep separate books on the money you receive.  Failing to do that will cause you all kinds of problems in the future.  When I started a business 50 years ago, I kept my incomes from that business in my personal checkbook.  My income increased significantly, and things got screwed up.  Eventually I earned an audit by the IRS and ended up paying some extra taxes and fines.  An accountant was hired, and I separated all my business finances from my personal ones.  That’s the real downside of all the side gigs people have.  There’s nothing wrong with doing that and indicates all kinds of good things in people but if the finances are not handled in a professional manner there can be some significant accounting (and IRS) problems down the road.  Take this from a boomer who has personally made these mistakes and ended up paying for them.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE

« on: January 20, 2022, 04:05:47 PM »

Your experiment would work but would assume that the earth was rotating.  My experiment would have to compensate for a rotating earth but also shows unambiguously that the earth is spherical because of the changes in the z axis during the trip.  If the trip is reversed and you return back to the original destination the changes in the z axis also reverse and you return to nearly the same readings.  I say ‘nearly’ because the earth is also rotating around the Sun so you would expect to see a small change in readings do to that.  A change back to the original readings wouldn’t be expected unless you waited a full year before you returned. 

26

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

« on: January 20, 2022, 01:12:21 PM »

Satellites above a flat accelerating upwards earth would not be practical.  A big supply of fuel would be necessary to keep them accelerating upwards to maintain a constant distance above the earth.  Extremely basic physics.  I would also think that all that burning fuel would distort pictures taken thru the hot exhaust gases. 

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE

« on: January 18, 2022, 04:26:11 PM »

There’s the gyroscope experiment.  It would be very difficult and expensive but indicates in a non-ambiguous way that the earth is a sphere.  Bob Knodel gave it a try and was surprised at the outcome however he was only trying to confirm that the earth was not rotating.  What he didn’t or couldn’t do was take the gyroscope on a trip around the world.  When I was working on cargo ships, we had multiple gyroscopes and I had the maintenance software on my computer.  If I logged the gyro readings at precisely noon (GMT) everyday I could see a progression of changes in the Z axis that you wouldn’t ever expect to see on a flat earth. The gyros in question were the large mechanical types.  These types of gyros were also used on submarines to allow them to navigate while underwater and out of contact with any other electronic navigation facilities.  It would be interesting to see what other explanations the FET has for what indicates a spherical earth when observing gyro readings.     

28

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 06, 2022, 05:24:45 PM »

Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false and that the angular diameter of Sirius is over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon, for example.

I'd also suggest that the constant angular size fits better with the RE model than a FE one. Your explanation is to invent a mechanism rather than accept the simplest explanation - that the consistent angular size is because of a consistent distance.

Yet the articles cited in page above explains that the sizes of stars do not represent their distance from the observer, and that they are not point light sources.

This system depends on a spherical earth and the positions wouldn’t be accurate if it were not.

Not sure about that one.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/book/export/html/1644

• “ Welcome to Lesson Six of this GPS course. And this time, we'll be talking about two coordinate systems. And I have a little bit of discussion concerning heights. We've touched on that a little bit. Now these coordinate systems that we're going to discuss are plane coordinate systems based upon the fiction that the earth is flat, which, of course, immediately introduces distortion. However, much of GIS work—and GPS work as well—is done based upon this presumption. ”

It’s not unusual for some concessions to be given to the guys in the field who can’t spend hours & hours making detailed calculations to be accurate to within an inch when it usually doesn’t matter much.  I would sometimes log the exact GPS position of the ship when we were at the dock in Japan and compare that figure with the one I logged months previously.  The readings were usually very close and usually plus or minus 10 feet.  Did this really matter that much on a ship that was 1000 feet long?  Many years ago when I was first experimenting with my sextant and learning navigation I started checking my work by using the known survey markers on my land.  I couldn’t get everything to correlate and spent an inordinate number of hours working out the details.  The results were that the survey markers were incorrect and the coordinates on my property deed were incorrect.  Eventually I went to my lawyer to get everything fixed.  We have known each other for 40 years and the other day he said “yea, you cost me $200 to get your deed fixed, with a smile”.  The geodetic system is an invention by man and as long as accurate maps can be made detailing arbitrary boundaries that everyone can agree with everything should work out OK.  If there’s a seamount in the middle of the ocean its precise position is good to know.  You wouldn’t want to run your ship aground and damage the hull costing the shipping company millions and the captain and navigator their jobs.   

29

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 06, 2022, 04:36:06 PM »

Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.

The only way to know your latitude is if it was somehow based on the stars or celestial bodies down the line. It doesn't just come from nothing.

Loran is based upon known locations on earth, that is true, but Loran hasn’t been in common use for many years.  Ship owners have uninstalled the Loran receivers years ago.  GPS is obviously a space-based navigation system and has no fixed location. Receivers on ships, or even in your cell phone, use the signal data transmitted by several GPS satellites to resolve the current position.  The GPS satellites use built in atomic clocks to provide the precise timing necessary.  This system depends on a spherical earth and the positions wouldn’t be accurate if it were not.  The same goes for the navigation procedures used ancient navigators using a sextant and the sightings of the Sun, Moon, planets, or stars. These days you wouldn’t need stars to establish your position because particular spots on the earth have agreed upon coordinates.  Ships are still required to carry sextants, navigation tables, and accurate maps based upon a spherical earth in case of a massive GPS failure.  It’s the law.   

30

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 06, 2022, 12:47:16 AM »

No, "navigation" doesn't imply that you are in a ship on the ocean.

Obviously, you could be on a sailboat, a life raft, or on an airplane.  A nice road map would even be handy if you were driving a car.  ‘Navigation’ implies operating and/or planning a trip on your relevant conveyance, between two, or more, points on the earth.  It’s obvious that to do that job safely and efficiently that you have an accurate map that can be used to determine distances and bearings between any two points on the map. 

31

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 06, 2022, 12:43:05 AM »

You don't need a map to go from one coordinate to the next and to navigate between two points. In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.

Wrong.
 When you are navigating a ship between two ports on the Pacific Ocean, for example, you always want to have an accurate map showing all the relevant land masses and sea mounts or other locations where there may be obstacles to navigation.  At any moment along the way you may be required to change course because of weather, or other factors.  It is always critical that a good voyage plan has been made before leaving the dock, but that plan is subject to change when factors change along the way.  Maps are updated on a regular basis as well.  The fact of the matter is that it would be illegal for a ship or an aircraft to depart without relevant maps showing the areas where they expect to go.  An accurate map is obviously a critical safety factor.   

32

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

« on: January 01, 2022, 09:32:24 PM »

Pilots always know exactly how fast over the ground they are flying.  They also know the exact distance between the two airports they are flying between.  What isn’t known is the exact optimal route they need to fly when winds are taken into consideration.  Airline companies have, or hire, flight planning personnel to design the optimal flight route.  Computers are used along with all the available wind & temperature data to plan the best route to minimize the flight times and/or fuel burn for the individual aircraft.  Once an aircraft departs conditions can change.  On a short flight the differences are insignificant.  If a flight is 15 hours long, then obviously things can change a lot while enroute.  New flight plans can be sent to the airplane and/or the pilot in command can make some alterations in the route.  An airliner flying at 40,000 feet on a 5000-mile flight would also need to fly an additional 9.5 miles more than the exact distance on the ground between the two airports.  When you add an additional 7.5 miles to the radius of the curve you will have a longer path.       

33

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

« on: January 01, 2022, 04:19:27 PM »

The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.

Incorrect. The technology is there today to make accurate distance measurements even in the middle of the worlds oceans.

I think you mean that there is technology to get your coordinate position. Actually physically measuring distances over long distances is a lot harder.

There are other technologies I’ve seen used on military ships (I can’t discuss) that can be used to measure the physical distances of the underlying land in the world’s oceans.  It doesn’t matter much to anyone because GPS is available, and it’s been shown that the two methods of measurement correlate exactly.  These days all you really need are the coordinates of two points on the earth and an accurate distance measurement can be determined.     
   

34

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

« on: January 01, 2022, 03:49:35 AM »

The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.

Incorrect. The technology is there today to make accurate distance measurements even in the middle of the worlds oceans.

35

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts

« on: December 31, 2021, 02:32:52 AM »

Before leaving a dock at a foreign country we had a weather map sent to us from a weather forecasting and weather routing service in the USA.  Then about twice a day we would get updates.  A recommended route was given with the expected weather and sea conditions posted for our route.  It wasn’t too bad.  We would always download the satellite weather maps as well for comparison.  The weather forecast was very important for our journeys of about 6200 miles across the Pacific.  Avoidance of the typhoons was always a good thing, so the weather forecasts was essential to our wellbeing. 

36

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts

« on: December 30, 2021, 09:03:58 PM »

Also remember that weather forecasters need weather observations to build their models.  About 70% of the earth’s surface is covered with water and the number of weather stations there is lacking.  Commercial ships carry weather stations aboard and transmit the readings about twice a day back to shore.  Unfortunately, the readings they provide don’t cover the whole ocean on a regular predictable basis.  Any readings obtained from ships are spotty. 

37

Technology & Information / Re: Pacific garbage patch

« on: December 26, 2021, 08:21:24 PM »

Yes, I have been thru the Pacific Ocean garbage patch countless times on my journeys aboard ships and have personally seen the garbage while on great circle routes to and from the West Coast of the USA.  I’m glad to see that there’s an attempt to clean it up.  Now if we could only start cleaning up the flat earth fantasy garbage patch that’s swirling around on the internet worldwide.  Everyone can start by cleansing their mind of the flat earth lies.  Start slowly, debunk them one at a time.  You can do it!

38

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: December 26, 2021, 02:51:25 AM »

I might have fallen for it but I can spot CGI and wires too. 

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites

« on: December 20, 2021, 04:57:40 PM »

The INMARSAT and KVH satellites try to remain stationary above a particular location above the earth.  If the earth were flat and accelerating at 9.81 m/s upwards towards the satellite then, in order to maintain a fixed altitude above a specified location, all the geosynchronous satellites would have to accelerate at the same 9.81 m/s.  The energy required to maintain the acceleration could come from fuel aboard the satellite or from the same ‘dark energy’ that powers the earth’s upward acceleration.  Both of these possibilities are not practical or likely. 

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: December 20, 2021, 05:04:21 AM »

Per the question of where the energy for comes from; since it is beneath the earth and inaccessible that is a question easily left as unknown. While we can directly see and experience the mechanical action of the earth's upward movement, we are ignorant of the energy source below. The phenomenon of "gravity" is as equally deficient in its explanation for where all of the energy comes from for matter to pull matter, and that usually gets glossed over.

There isn’t any energy necessary for the perception of gravity to occur.  Nothing has been ‘glossed’ over.  It’s well known that mass influences relative time.  If you step off the chair your clock moves a bit faster, and you traverse thru spacetime just a bit quicker than the earth does and very quickly you close the distance between you and the earth and your mass and the mass of the earth try to occupy the same place at the same time.  This is the point where you feel the force on your feet.  That force is what makes your journey thru space time, with your faster clock, the same as the earth as per the well know formula F=MA.  Therefore, inertial mass, and your measured mass are identical because you are effectively measuring the same thing.  If you want to solve a mystery why not think about how mass can slow down time relative to another clock on a different smaller mass?