61

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How UFOs and UAPs can explain how flat earth(s) works

« on: July 13, 2021, 12:37:03 AM »

One of the fundamental characteristics of any mass is it's ability to warp space and time.  It isn't the force of gravity that holds you on the surface of the earth it's the differences in the rates of the Earth's transit thru space time and yours.   Light in the presence of mass changes direction towards the mass.  This has been known for a long time and there was an experiment that proved it.  The earth goes thru time slower than you do.  When you are in contact with the earth your voyage thru time would be a bit faster than the Earth's but the earth is in the way so you feel the force of the earth slowing down your transit thru space & time.  You feel that force and call it your weight.  These properties of mass has been known for a while and perfectly explains how the orbits of the planets work.  If you want to deny gravity on a flat earth you will have to explain what is special about the mass of the Earth VS the masses of the other heavenly bodies.

62

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 19, 2021, 04:06:16 PM »

The fact that the rocket experiences less G forces at higher altitudes kind of blows up the UA argument here doesn't it?  It looks like the Wiki needs a whole lot of revisions.  Maybe someone could scam up a value for the Bishop Constant.

63

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 19, 2021, 01:32:44 AM »

Maybe A80 needs to ratchet up his math a bit to differential equations.  You have a rocket lifting off with a specific amount of thrust. Everything could be simple with a fixed amount of acceleration over a set time and you could do some quick calculations BUT; A rocket burns fuel at an enormous rate and the bulk of the rocket's mass is from fuel so every pound of fuel burned makes it easier for the rocket to accelerate.  This means that the rate of acceleration is accelerating.  The increase in speed per unit time (acceleration) will be much lower right after liftoff when the rocket is heavy with fuel.  Right before the rocket is empty of fuel and is much lighter, the acceleration rate peaks out.  The final velocity could be quite a bit higher than you might think.  Additionally as the rocket leaves the atmosphere the air drag decreases, and as the rocket gets further from the center of the earth the force of gravity decreases a bit as well.  Everything comes together to allow the rocket to accelerate at an ever increasing rate until burnout.   

Absolutely correct.
Bringing me back to this:
"   1) While serving as a US Merchant Marine officer aboard a cargo ship transiting between the Korean Peninsula and Japan there were numerous alarms and warnings going off on the bridge of our ship.
   2)  Several broadcast messages to all ships at sea were received from the Japanese Coast Guard  authorities regarding the immanent and later the actual launch of a North Korean ICBM.
   3)  Since the North Koreans don't tell everyone in advance what is happening all we can do is wait.
   4)  The missile launch in question was at night.  Skies were clear and a missile was clearly seen traveling upwards then over the top (forward of the bow) of our ship."
So, to be perfectly clear, you saw the NK ICBM, engine ablaze, already making a clear arc across the night sky?

Yes, that's what we believed we saw.

64

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 18, 2021, 08:16:03 PM »

Maybe A80 needs to ratchet up his math a bit to differential equations.  You have a rocket lifting off with a specific amount of thrust. Everything could be simple with a fixed amount of acceleration over a set time and you could do some quick calculations BUT; A rocket burns fuel at an enormous rate and the bulk of the rocket's mass is from fuel so every pound of fuel burned makes it easier for the rocket to accelerate.  This means that the rate of acceleration is accelerating.  The increase in speed per unit time (acceleration) will be much lower right after liftoff when the rocket is heavy with fuel.  Right before the rocket is empty of fuel and is much lighter, the acceleration rate peaks out.  The final velocity could be quite a bit higher than you might think.  Additionally as the rocket leaves the atmosphere the air drag decreases, and as the rocket gets further from the center of the earth the force of gravity decreases a bit as well.  Everything comes together to allow the rocket to accelerate at an ever increasing rate until burnout.   

65

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 04, 2021, 06:21:05 PM »

Or maybe:
There's been a bunch of news stories about a sniper.  The sniper has been doing some observed and documented quality tests on his rifle, scope, and bullets.  There have been a few test shots and so far and all those have fallen way short of expectations. Some time passes.  There's some articles in the newspapers and on TV saying that there's some rumors claiming that the sniper has been doing more research on guns & ammo lately and now has a new and improved system that is sure to be deadly and has a much longer range.  Then someone steps up and makes the claim, "its all propaganda and you are all being gullible".  That same person then says, "I'm so confident that I'm correct that I'm willing to have someone else stand there and be a test target".  In the mean time I'll just stand behind this bulletproof wall and give the sniper the finger.  When the sniper misses I get to say "told ya".   

66

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 04, 2021, 02:15:41 PM »

It's like a guy comes up to you on the street.  He says "give me some money, I have a gun in my pocket".  You look down and see a bulge there and say "I don't believe you have a gun, I'm not gullible and it's just propaganda."  Then the guy says "OK, I'll prove that I have a gun by shooting you between the eyes."  What's the smart thing to do?   On one side of your bet is your life and the other side is just some money. Do you feel lucky, Punk?  Well do ya?     

67

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 04, 2021, 02:45:04 AM »

Please do your research first. Your non-ICBM statement might possibly be a bit incorrect!
If I buy a Lamborghini and only drive it to the grocery store and someone says "That's a sub-100 mph vehicle"  I say "do some research". 
North Korean 'rocket man' has to be a bit careful doing his tests.  The exact capabilities of his missiles are not exactly public knowledge and nether are those of the missiles in USA's arsenal.  It's safe to assume, from the known results of all the previous tests, that these missiles could reach the USA.  That would make them an ICBM. 


Who would have thought that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack on Hawaii in 1941.  Do you blame Hawaiians for being cautious?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me!

Actually,  it is more safe to assume this renegade despot has no missile capable of reaching the US.

Two launches, neither coming close to defining an ICBM.

A wise man once showed me something about the word ASSUME.  It makes an ASS out of  U and ME.  We try to assume nothing while at sea.  King Neptune can and will come back and bite you, hard.  It's much better to prepare for what the potential facts could be.  You have no way of knowing what rocket man's hole card may actually be.  You don't think the missiles that were actually tested were fully fueled do you?  Perhaps you should just send an email saying that you are putting a bulls eye target in the middle of Jack London Square in Oakland, CA and say 'here you go, rocket man, here's your test target, give it your best shot'.  That way we will both know if you have an ICBM or just a toy. 

68

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 03, 2021, 05:56:26 PM »

Please do your research first. Your non-ICBM statement might possibly be a bit incorrect!
If I buy a Lamborghini and only drive it to the grocery store and someone says "That's a sub-100 mph vehicle"  I say "do some research". 
North Korean 'rocket man' has to be a bit careful doing his tests.  The exact capabilities of his missiles are not exactly public knowledge and nether are those of the missiles in USA's arsenal.  It's safe to assume, from the known results of all the previous tests, that these missiles could reach the USA.  That would make them an ICBM. 


Who would have thought that the Japanese could launch a devastating attack on Hawaii in 1941.  Do you blame Hawaiians for being cautious?  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me! 

69

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: June 03, 2021, 05:34:21 PM »

I never stated his/her testimony was bogus.

Quit lying.

You most certainly did.  After being given a firsthand account, you continued with your narrative of:

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"

with respect to any information regarding whether or not ICBMs exist.  That's a direct assertion that RonJ's testimony was bogus.

One
 
more

time.

When you can come up with something that actually proves an ICBM exists, I will gladly recant.

I never saw a post from from RonJ concerning the existence/use of a North Korean ICBM and if you can find a direct reply from me to RonJ concerning the existence/use of a North Korean ICBM then I will recant again.

Until then, I will leave it to your obviously challenged intellect to actually determine what the acronym "ICBM" stands for.

Bye now.

In an attempt to directly answer your question and provide a post, I will give the following first hand experiences:
   1) While serving as a US Merchant Marine officer aboard a cargo ship transiting between the Korean Peninsula and Japan there were numerous alarms and warnings going off on the bridge of our ship. 
   2)  Several broadcast messages to all ships at sea were received from the Japanese Coast Guard  authorities regarding the immanent and later the actual launch of a North Korean ICBM.
   3)  Since the North Koreans don't tell everyone in advance what is happening all we can do is wait.
   4)  The missile launch in question was at night.  Skies were clear and a missile was clearly seen traveling upwards then over the top (forward of the bow) of our ship.
   5) We later got a message that the missile had landed in the sea far off the coast of Japan in the Pacific Ocean quite a distance from our ship.


We knew the danger was over at this point.  Our voyage back to the USA from China was not interrupted and the North Korean ICBM test didn't cause us any difficulties.
This was my experience along with the experience of others who were performing their duties on the bridge of the ship when the event occurred. 


No one is telling me what to say and/or when I could say it.  This is all public record for those who wish to do their own research. 


That was an interesting voyage from the start.  The North Koreans were definitely saying that they could and might conduct a missile strike on Hawaii.  We were also at the dock in Hono loading cargo at that time.  Stress levels were a bit higher than normal.  Ask anyone living in Hawaii about that period of time and they will be glad to tell you.  I do believe that the tourist industry was hit some because why would someone want to be in Honolulu when 'rocket man' might get an itchy trigger finger?
 

70

Technology & Information / Re: Do any of you have an Apple watch/smartwatch?

« on: June 01, 2021, 05:58:19 PM »

I've been using a Fitbit Ionic for a couple of years now.  You can't really leave your iPhone behind when you have this kind of watch but there are some advantages.  If I get a text message, my watch vibrates for half a second and the message is displayed on the screen.  If the message is insignificant then I don't have to get my phone out.  When my iPhone rings the number who is calling me is also displayed.  Again, if it's someone I don't need to talk to I don't have to get my phone out.  This is particularly handy when I'm home and my phone is on the charger.  If someone calls my watch buzzes and the number is displayed.  I don't need to even get up if the call is insignificant.  My watch is used at many stores and I don't have to get my credit card out.  This way I won't ever leave my credit card behind.  Reminders of something on my schedule is often put in my iPhone and I'm given an alert 1 day before and 1 hour before an event by my watch buzzing and a reminder displayed.  The Fitbit Ionic can read the GPS receiver on your iPhone and can be used to keep track of how far you are walking. I've even used the Fitbit software development kit (SDK) to do a little tweaking of my display screen.  Fitbit is now owned by Google so they should have plenty of support. I've only scratched the surface of what these smart watches can do today.  The Ionic has a 16 bit microprocessor that's quite capable and it uses the same screen technology that's used by your flat screen TV sets and computer screens.  I didn't buy an Apple watch because the battery consumption is very high with that product.  A Fitbit can last at least 2 or 3 days before recharging but I usually recharge mine every night for about 30 minutes.  If I forget, my watch will still work fine for the entire next day.  Recently I did order a spare battery from iFixIT and changed out the old one.  My watch was purchased cheap on Ebay so I didn't really know the history of the battery when I got it.  I know this whole thing is crazy for a retired 'boomer' but some of us are really quite tech savvy.  I feel a bit envious of those who are starting out their careers or are a bit farther along and have access to all the nice tools available today.  These were the things of science fiction back in the 50's & 60's when I was just getting started.  Now the 'Dick Tracy watch' is no longer science fiction, but science fact.     

71

Flat Earth Community / Re: Add the Three Pole variants to the FE Maps Page?

« on: May 28, 2021, 04:41:59 AM »

Ends of an axis; 2.  North/South; 2.  Positive/negative; 2.  On/off; 2.  Matter/vacuum; 2.  Contents of my shorts; 2 (legs). 

Where do we find 3 in nature? 

This man found three poles:

No not really.  If you listen to the video the guy did say he thought that the magnet in question was dropped.  What you have was two magnets in the same physical metal bar arranged as N----SN-----S.  Nothing mysterious going on here.  Try it yourself with a couple of small bar magnets and you can get the same results.  I got that education in high school a long time ago.  Now you have it too! 

72

Flat Earth Community / Re: Add the Three Pole variants to the FE Maps Page?

« on: May 27, 2021, 06:46:50 PM »

You forgot about the 'Dual Earth' theory  http://dualearththeory.proboards.com/.  There's no limit to the imagination on this site.  The only problem is that they are all just theories that can't be demonstrated to be true in the real world.

73

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 27, 2021, 06:22:29 PM »

Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction.

No way to demonstrate it is actually performed.
Bye now.

How about if I testified based upon daily personal experience that "Great circle navigation is used every day aboard long haul cargo ships".  This is either true, or I'm a liar.  Assuming that you will accuse me of lying then how could you demonstrate that?  Have you ever been on the bridge of a cargo ship when the course to the next port was being planned?  To call me a liar then you must have been and in that particular instance a great circle route was not planned for some particular reason.  Have you witnessed more than 10 instances when a great circle course wasn't planned on a voyage of more than 5000 miles?   Now assuming that happened have you been on multiple ships, multiple times, operated by different companies?  Did they all refrain from planning great circle courses?  If that's true then it would be interesting to know just which companies those were.  Shipping is a competitive industry and knowing what the competition is doing would be an advantage.  I am, however, going to speculate that you have never actually been on the bridge of a ship, or on a long haul run of any kind, and are just trolling by throwing out inciteful rhetoric without actual knowledge. You degrade the flat earth theory every time you do that and that makes you look foolish.
Bye now.

I am accusing you of making an affirmative statement about something you have no independent way to demonstrate it to be true.

Not really a liar, per say.

Just a parroter of a common lie.

My affirmative statement can be verified by YOU, if you choose to take up the challenge.  Which other independent verification method would you believe?  I'm not parroting anything.  If I got aboard a ship as a passenger and went up to the bridge as a visitor and a ship's officer said "Yea, we will be taking a great circle route from China to the USA", and then I repeated that on here, you could say, 'parrot'.   That's not the case here, I was one of the ship's officers.  That fact would mean that my 'affirmative statement' was from personal experience and I would have to be lying if my ship didn't actually navigate a great circle course on a routine basis.  Again, I'm saying that ships I worked aboard as an officer, routinely use great circle routes between ports every time they could, it's the shortest distance.  Liar or not?
 


That brings up another question:  what is your independent way of verifying your affirmative statement "Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction"?
 

74

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 27, 2021, 04:32:40 PM »

Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction.

No way to demonstrate it is actually performed.
Bye now.

How about if I testified based upon daily personal experience that "Great circle navigation is used every day aboard long haul cargo ships".  This is either true, or I'm a liar.  Assuming that you will accuse me of lying then how could you demonstrate that?  Have you ever been on the bridge of a cargo ship when the course to the next port was being planned?  To call me a liar then you must have been and in that particular instance a great circle route was not planned for some particular reason.  Have you witnessed more than 10 instances when a great circle course wasn't planned on a voyage of more than 5000 miles?   Now assuming that happened have you been on multiple ships, multiple times, operated by different companies?  Did they all refrain from planning great circle courses?  If that's true then it would be interesting to know just which companies those were.  Shipping is a competitive industry and knowing what the competition is doing would be an advantage.  I am, however, going to speculate that you have never actually been on the bridge of a ship, or on a long haul run of any kind, and are just trolling by throwing out inciteful rhetoric without actual knowledge. You degrade the flat earth theory every time you do that and that makes you look foolish.
Bye now.

75

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 26, 2021, 04:47:00 AM »

Today a celestial navigator takes multiple sightings on some chosen heavenly bodies then uses spherical trig to break the sights down to arrive at a usable position.  The assumption is always based upon the fact that the earth is a sphere.  If that were not so then celestial navigation wouldn't work.  It does work.  I know from personal experience, so the earth must be a sphere.  This has been demonstrated in the Zetetic manner.

Celestial bodies and lights in the sky aren't the earth. Spherical trigonometry means that the sky is spread out around you and says nothing about the actual shape of the Earth. The bodies don't even move at a consistent speed, but speed up as they approach the horizon due to 'refraction'.

There are ways to get your latitude or longitude from the celestial bodies, such as from the angle of the Sun at noon, but all of the FE models also have a longitude and latitude.

I can see that you have NO idea of how celestial navigation really works.  No, all the lights in the sky are not the earth.  Those lights only provide a reference, called a zenith point, on the surface of the earth.  Once you have a number of zenith points you then have to use spherical trigonometry because you will end up with a bunch of triangles that are great circles on a globe.  Here is where it's important to consider the actual shape of the earth.  Failure to do so will have undesirable consequences for the safety of your ship.  All this is from personal experience.  Please do your own research so your answers can become more meaningful.  Right now your comments are mostly incorrect. 

76

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 06:22:22 PM »

Tom Bishop, do I correctly understand your position?

"Celestial navigation is allegedly based on the theory that the Round Earth is the center of the universe and that everything is revolving around it."

Where did you get that? Completely wrong. Please take a course in elementary astronomy.

It is you who needs to take some courses.

https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/01/satellite-nav-1.html

"Man has navigated across the globe by means of satellites for thousands of years – however, until the mid twentieth century, these were not GPS-satellites, but stars. In reality, the sun and the stars aren’t satellites of the Earth, but celestial navigation is based on a precopernican world view (the earth was believed to be the centre of the universe)."

Please do your research before you post nonsense.  Perhaps the first celestial navigators did have a pre-Copernican world view and perhaps many got lost doing so.  Today a celestial navigator takes multiple sightings on some chosen heavenly bodies then uses spherical trig to break the sights down to arrive at a usable position.  The assumption is always based upon the fact that the earth is a sphere.  If that were not so then celestial navigation wouldn't work.  It does work.  I know from personal experience, so the earth must be a sphere.  This has been demonstrated in the Zetetic manner.


I have worked aboard quite a few high tech computerized ships.  Every ship has always had 2 sextants and a full set of paper charts aboard.  This is done because it's a law.  If an official in some country wants to inspect the ships sextants and you don't have them then you won't be permitted to leave the dock.  If something happens to the GPS system or maybe the ship gets a serious lightning strike and knocks out all the electronics then the old fashioned sextants would be the fall back navigation system, even today.  Any navigational officer must also be proficient in using a sextant to obtain a license. 

77

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 06:05:03 PM »

@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.

In turn, we will wait for you to produce an accurate RE map.

I like any WGS-84 chart.  We used them at sea every day.  They were always accurate and always based upon a spherical earth.  If you can find an inaccuracy in one of them then PLEASE tell us.  We need to know to enhance the safety of the ship's & crews out there every day that depend upon them.  Thank You!

You have no clue whether the WGS - 84 chart was based on a spherical earth or not.

ZERO clue.

"Somebody told me they were," is a more accurate statement.

And for the final freaking time, as has been demonstrated in previous threads, long distance navigation of any sort is broken down into easier to manage short trips, with frequent stops to check systems and position.

Nothing, and I mean, NOTHING, has fundamentally changed concerning which routes are taken over long distances, either by sea or air, for over 100 years. That is fact. And none of it, I mean of NONE OF IT, requires RE to work.

Well, when WGS stands for 'World Geodetic System' and that system is based upon a globe then I could say that somebody told me that the navigational charts were based upon a global earth.  Since we used those charts each and every day while at sea to navigate and we always got to our destination safely then you could say that was a satisfactory demonstration of their accuracy and effectiveness. 


Your statement about 'frequent stops' is based upon ignorance, I see.  Just how many international trips have you made across the earth's oceans?  Do you have any navigational training?  I've personally been on countless trips across all the oceans on earth.  Typically we would make a trip from China to the USA and set up the entire voyage plan before even leaving the dock.  That plan would be put into the ships autopilot and once we are clear of the last sea buoy at the departing port we would not stop or even slow down once until we arrived at the destination's entry buoy.  This is how it works on ship's today.  Everything is computerized and all the maps are electronic.  International regulations still say we must have paper charts aboard (WGS-84) and our position is charted at least once an hour.  I don't know which ships make frequent stops to check systems and position, but not even one ship I worked on over the last 20 years ever did that.  This is from personal experience! 

78

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 05:27:36 PM »

@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.

In turn, we will wait for you to produce an accurate RE map.

I like any WGS-84 chart.  We used them at sea every day.  They were always accurate and always based upon a spherical earth.  If you can find an inaccuracy in one of them then PLEASE tell us.  We need to know to enhance the safety of the ship's & crews out there every day that depend upon them.  Thank You!

79

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 03:39:49 PM »

All more unfound claims from RE here.

All you need for any missile to be fired to any target is the right amount of fuel and a simple quadratic equation which works perfectly fine on any x/y coordinate surface.

In other words, FLAT.

End of story.

Source?  Or is this on your own experience.

Why do I need a source for a patently true statement?

V2 rockets work.

Santa Clause came down the chimney last Christmas and put a nice present under the tree for me.  The fact that a present was there is patently true.  Why would I ever need a source to believe it was Santa who delivered it?  Santa Clause delivers, and so does the Tooth Fairy. 


Anyone see a problem with the logical progression of this?  There is NO simple quadratic equation that will describe the targeting of an ICBM.  If that were so then that same mathematician would also be able to write an equation to solve the 3 body problem!

80

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 02:57:46 AM »

Celestial navigation is allegedly based on the theory that the Earth is the center of the universe and that everything is revolving around it.

I can see that you are really confused.  At least you used the term 'allegedly'.  The old Polynesian navigators did look up at the heavenly bodies and learned how to use them as 'trail signs' to navigate across the Southern oceans thousands of years ago. The pattern of ocean waves was also used as another very useful indicator. These days the art of celestial navigation has advanced a bit.  Just get a copy of Dutton's Navigation and Piloting for a more up to date version of how celestial navigation works today.  You will see that it's now assumed that the earth circles the sun and so on.  All the bunk about 'historical data' , 'epicycles', and the 'three body problem' are just diversions and/or trolling and used when necessary when you can't effectively refute the real world experience of today's navigators.  We can all understand why this must be done but it doesn't keep you from looking a bit shady & disingenuous.  The bottom line is if you get on a ship with a current ephemeris and a good sextant and use your celestial navigational skills based upon spherical trigonometry you can keep pretty good track of where you are anywhere in the world.  I don't need to look up 'references' for this statement, it's in my inventory of personal experiences.  It is true that this is a obsolete art as my iPhone has a very accurate GPS receiver that matches up perfectly with the ones on any ship that I was working on.  No, GPS does NOT depend upon any land based systems.  My phone works perfectly in the middle of the Pacific, Atlantic, or Indian Oceans where there's no land within 1000 miles.  It does take a couple of minutes for the GPS receiver to come up with a good position and that time is some shorter when you can get a signal from a land based tower.  That's the only function of a land based station when using GPS is to shorten the time necessary to get a usable position.