1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: May 03, 2019, 09:51:26 PM »

I repeated the above for a few cities in the UK - I even repeated the error, I used the distances as the diameter, not the radius.
I'm not going to post all the details, you can check the distances for yourself.
Interestingly, here we do get a point where the green circles meet which must be where Oxford is.



My conclusion from this is
1) The method I am using is valid
2) The distances as given by Google Maps are likely to be accurate.
3) The difference between a flat earth and a globe earth in terms of accurate mapping is less noticeable over smaller distances, which is as you'd expect.

I would say google maps is more a mercator map for flight purposes used on a public platform. Hope that helps.
I was thinking of a better idea. See if ships follow the great curve for shorter distances across large amounts of water. Aviation uses this rule. If water travel doesnt then we need to research ship travel. Like chile curving down to antarctica and up to new zealand. Thats a typical airline route debated alot about.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year

« on: December 05, 2018, 09:35:04 PM »

How can we be facing the sun in 6 months time when we only shouldve turned 3hours. 3 hours is a quarter of what is said to happen in 6 months time. Thats 30min a month but 4 min a day is 120m a month based on 4 days.

So why the leap year. All this indicates the wobble effect maths equation.

Earths orbit is 3% variable.
The 4 minutes added is 3% as well. Hmm...strange coincedence.

Nobel prize goes too?

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year

« on: December 05, 2018, 09:27:01 PM »

Got. U gotta write this quick berfore it times out.

We move forward 6hrs a year.
Thats 1 min a day. But our day is 4 min fast.

That should be 24hrs a year.

Starting from

day 1..4 minutes fast
Day 365....1460 minutes fast.
That 24hrs20m in 1 year. So thats 12hrs10 min rotation extra in 6 months. All this is at the ecliptic plane btw.

So what happened to the 20 minutes?

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions are met with confusion

« on: December 03, 2018, 07:50:50 PM »

My son made me aware earlier this week that there were people who believed that the earth is flat.  My response was - "REALLY?"  Immediately I was intrigued and started "googling" it.  I found my way here.  I really just wanted to learn more about this perspective.  I mean, I had questions but before asking those I needed to learn more.

Unfortunately it seems there is a lot contradiction from the FE people and I am having a hard time finding anything but.  Just a couple bigger contradictions I've seen are:

1) The Government is making a lot of fake evidence to support the RE belief in the form of pictures and video but they can be manipulated.  Yet a lot of FE members use pictures and video to support the FE belief. (contradiction)
2) (Again) The Government (and the scientific community) are making up things to promote the RE belief.  Yet a lot of FE members refer to those same members, e.g. the navy, to support the FE belief. (contradiction)

These contradictions remind me of a gal that drove up to my vehicle and started yelling at me for sitting in my vehicle with the engine idling -  I am contributing to global warming!  Did you, however, catch the part where I wrote that she "drove" up to my vehicle?  Honestly.  It would have been different had she rode up on her bicycle.

I legitimately started searching the FE belief to learn about this with no prejudice but so far all I have been met with is little to no evidence supporting FE and a lot of debasing comments deflecting RE rationale with no support to the contrary.

I guess the reason for my writing this is cause now I am getting a little frustrated, confused and perhaps angry that there seems to be a significant amount of people that believe in FE but are doing so "blindly" (which also seems to be FE's argument against RE).  I use the word blindly due to the lack of follow through on FE's behalf on any of the debates I have read so far.  How does such a large community exist without any foundation at all (it seems anyway).  I really don't want to be prejudice toward FE but this forum seems to have the biggest following but also seems to be devoid of anything real to help me understand FE.

In a nutshell, where does one go to get the real juice about FE?

I was interested in the reason behind the ying yang sign. Had no idea of flat earth. From there fe appeared on truman show exposed on youtube. Theres many references to a glass barrier in movies. One was with tom cruise. A few more. Theres as much evidence for both scenarios. Why a cover up....assumption and reassurance. Religion and mankind agreed on copernicas's heliocentric theory like 50 years after he presented it. The powers that be only made this law...ish after he died 475 years ago. What the west believed wasnt the same universally at the same time. Greece started it off with education. Then europe learnt from the greeks. Maybe greeks learnt it from the egyptians. Point is....we will never know unless space travel becomes a regular thing....but nasa says theyve lost the technology. Weird of u ask me. Why would a large petcentage of america believe its flat and the moon landings never happened way before the internet. Its a fun perspective but unfortunately we have few embarrassing tinfoil hat wearers that havent got theyre story clear. Also....there is said to be land the size of america beyond antartica...admiral byrd quote.

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year

« on: December 03, 2018, 07:31:28 PM »

I see. Why would they be? The constellations appear to rotate as the earth does but us orbiting the sun doesn’t change the direction we are looking in when we look up at night. It does change the position we are looking from but the stars are FAR. To give you some idea, the nearest star to earth (other than the sun) is 267,000 times further away than earth’s distance from the sun. So we don’t see the stars or constellations in different places through the year

Thanks for the response. We forget these basics. What about earths position 6 months after the longest summer day in the uk for example. Is it not logical that if we were facing the sun with northern hemisphere tilted fully(longest day of uk summer), then 6 months later we would be facing away from the sun at the same time of day? But we should be no?

So 9pm sunset in summer(august) shouldnt be the same time 6 months later. More like 12 hours different. Constellation should appear upside down maybe?

So if we werent tilted then simply every month we would need to adjust our clocks worldwide by 120mins every month in most places. So 3 months later its a quarter further on its orbit round the sun. We should still be facing the same direction with the sun rising 6 hours ahead of schedule.

Actually all diagrams on the internet have this flaw no?

Also they are still teaching that our orbit round the sun is an obvious oval when its about as rounded as our equator.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Polaris doesnt move throughout the year

« on: December 02, 2018, 06:43:22 PM »

Thanks. Didnt mean the obvious. Surely the star constelations would be upside down for 6 months of the year?

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Polaris doesnt move throughout the year

« on: December 02, 2018, 05:23:32 PM »

If the earth tilts etc through the year then why does polaris stay in the same place. This is very odd. Rers?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: June 02, 2018, 06:31:04 AM »

Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.

who's gazza711

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Santiago to sydney impossible to see antartica close up

« on: June 01, 2018, 09:30:03 AM »

Shame this is the only flaw with fe i cant answer. The rest is easy. Lol

Really? How about:

1. Why does the horizon moves progressively below eye level the more we rise in elevation
2. What are we seeing when we see the ISS?
3. How did NASA create the footage from SkyLab in 1973? (video here)
4. What's the altitude of the north star?
5. What's the altitude of the sun?
6. Why do distant mountains that are higher than near mountains appear lower? (explanation here.
7. Why is it impossible to make a flat earth map?
8. If 2 people in Australia and South America are standing with their backs to the north pole, and therefore facing in different directions, how are they both able to see the southern cross?
9. Why can't anyone make a working scale model of a flat earth-moon-sun configuration, which should be easy, and yet they can do it for a globe earth, which should be impossible (unless it's true)?
10. Why do people in Chile and Quebec - same time zone - not see a different side of the moon?

can you confirm you have not asked these questions before and that if so and not happy with those answers, you have researched yourself?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Santiago to sydney impossible to see antartica close up

« on: June 01, 2018, 08:33:04 AM »

Shame this is the only flaw with fe i cant answer. The rest is easy. Lol

You claim that "The rest is easy". Would you then like to explain how, in the flat earth:

• the angular size of the sun and moon can stay the same when the distance from the observer can vary by a factor of 3.
  
  
• the sun can rise almost exactly due east everywhere, except close to either pole, on earth on every equinox.
  
  
• both poles can receive 24 hour sunlight for a day or so either side of each equinox.
  
  
• the South Pole can receive 24 hour sunlight from the (Northern Hemisphere) Fall Equinox to the Spring Equinox.
  
  
• the width of Australia on the usual Ice Wall map is more than twice it's width in reality.

That will do for now.

1. Please simplify question
2. Research yourself to see visually
3. Same as q2
3.The fe map is projected from mercator map. Its like saying why is greenland so big when it isn't?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Santiago to sydney impossible to see antartica close up

« on: June 01, 2018, 07:07:47 AM »

Ive read an article with pics of quantas flight qf28 flying from Santiago to sydney. Pictures of antartica on the left. Problem is that any sign of antartica starts at 66 degrees south yet i am yet to find a flight that flies that journey or similar that gets lower than 52 degrees south. Seems to be 965miles north. Can anyone plot this flight on an fe map at 52 degrees where both santiago and sydney are at 48 degrees. Hmmmm

Have a look at A Flight over the Antarctic Sea Ice From Chile to Australia (QF28). This flies down to about 71.5°S but would not make sense on any FE map I have seen.

The post is by TWCobra, the screen name of one of the QANTAS pilots flying the plane. It opens with:

A Flight over the Antarctic Sea Ice From Chile to Australia (QF28)

[Nov 18 2016] For anyone interested, in a couple of hours I'll be heading out of Santiago heading for Sydney on the QF28. The flight plan has us spending quite a bit of time at 71'30" South and the cloud forecast at the moment shows not a lot of cloud! Lucky I brought 2 GoPros with me!

Fingers crossed for a good time lapse video of the ice pack!

The pic above shows the route. I've been meaning to post something explaining great circle routes and why they are faster. This map will help once I compare it to the Google Earth representation of the track.

There's a lot more detail given, along with photos of the ice-pack from the plane a from satellite images.

Here is a track from FlightAware of another QANTAS Flight QFA28:

FlightAware - Flight QFA28 Santiago to Sydney 2016-05-11

The track they take depends on the winds. Flying further south may be a little further but have less head-wind.
The Sydney to Santiago flights, QF27, fly further north to take advantage of the west to east jet-stream.

you're correct. Guess depends on weather as to which route to take etc. Did comapare more than 3 flights. Shame this is the only flaw with fe i cant answer. The rest is easy. Lol

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What's the current flat Earth explanation for southern hemisphere flights?

« on: June 01, 2018, 04:59:28 AM »

A few years ago it used to be that they all went via the northern hemisphere.

Then, when this was shown to be a result of poor flight searching skills, it changed to fake speeds, unbookable flights, wormholes, special wind.

I know we know the flights are genuine, and easily provable. But what I'm wondering is what the current flat earth explanation is.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Santiago to sydney impossible to see antartica close up

« on: May 31, 2018, 08:48:55 PM »

Ive read an article with pics of quantas flight qf28 flying from Santiago to sydney. Pictures of antartica on the left. Problem is that any sign of antartica starts at 66 degrees south yet i am yet to find a flight that flies that journey or similar that gets lower than 52 degrees south. Seems to be 965miles north. Can anyone plot this flight on an fe map at 52 degrees where both santiago and sydney are at 48 degrees. Hmmmm

14

Flat Earth Investigations / Sun rays beyond horizon proof

« on: May 30, 2018, 08:18:44 PM »

As per OS. Sun is in the clouds and clearly shows sea beyond the horizon at the same level.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 30, 2018, 07:35:36 PM »

Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.

Am i missing something here? Is there another gazza711 as im new here?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 30, 2018, 04:06:33 PM »

Who says GPS is inaccurate in southern hemisphere? Works fine for me!

South america apparently. You do know that gps works if you have a preformed map. Otherwise useless. South america dint use waaap.Im in the uk. I went to calafornia in 2010. Had to by an american chip for me garmin/tom tom. It was 3 years out if date. Surely our technology wouldn't need updating with actual geosurveys?

Go create a new thread for your GPS claims.  This thread is about creating an accurate map of the flat earth.

Go it. Thx

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 30, 2018, 10:53:42 AM »

Who says GPS is inaccurate in southern hemisphere? Works fine for me!

South america apparently. You do know that gps works if you have a preformed map. Otherwise useless. South america dint use waaap.Im in the uk. I went to calafornia in 2010. Had to by an american chip for me garmin/tom tom. It was 3 years out if date. Surely our technology wouldn't need updating with actual geosurveys?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 30, 2018, 09:08:14 AM »

Yeah that's a nice idea. Perhaps it requires a website, to coordinate such world wide effort, and code an easy way for participants to submit their finding.

Was also wondering: could short wave radio be used to measure distances? There'd no doubt be a bit of variance from atmospheric conditions, but I'm thinking the precision would be less than using flight times/plane speeds. Would also require a large amount of coordination, and not many people have short wave radios... might be able to get the SWR community interested though. I wonder if internet calibrated clocks would be accurate enough. Apparently light circles the earth about 7.5 times a second... the cities i've chosen (and can be changed) are roughly 60 degrees apart, so light/EM radiation would take about 22ms to travel 60 degrees (plus a bit more once it goes up, bounces of ionosphere, bounces back again). That's reasonably "slow" in the grand scheme of things but maybe the combination of clock accuracy and atmospheric conditions would make the data essentially useless hmm

Or use shipping distances and times: but as we've seen on this site, direct evidence from people on board such ships is tossed aside.

Maybe shipping distances are not tossed aside, just ignored.
I have posted 5 times now to ask If there is any answer to my verification of distances measured vs calculated, and the FEers have studiously ignored the post each and every time.

It’s almost like a conspiracy to avoid the questions or discussions that have difficult answers.....

As for Short wave radio, it would be possible to measure phase difference compared to distance, but you would not be able to measure what phase you were receiving as far as i remember.
Early hyperbolic navigation systems such as decca were able to to a certain extent, but you needed different widely spaced transmission bases to resolve the issue, but it was not perfect, and did not have a great range. Omega was a worldwide system used by the military with very long wavelengths to try to determine positions (mainly for submarines to get a fix before launching their missiles) which needed base stations around the world, with lots of investment and infrastructure.
Satellite based systems made them both obselete, along with Loran which was a time based measurement.......

However I am confident in my ships equipment to measure distances that we have travelled to within 2% accuracy, and this is accurate enough for a map basis. It wont be accepted because the FEers KNOW it will give a result they cannot agree with, ie the only way you can match the distances MEASURED, would be to have a globe earth, hence the rejection/ignoring/disbelief of any sort of system that tells how far apart 2 places on earth are!

What about dead reckoning. Still havent ruled that one out. Comms in southern hemisphere  still an issue. Gps innacurate in southern hemisphere too.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 30, 2018, 08:32:12 AM »

It's commonly accepted by Flat Earth believers that there's no known map of the flat earth. The "Azimuthal Equidistant Projection" often used is just a conceptual image, it does not reflect reality, just a rough idea of what the flat earth might look like (and by "might" i mean, it's normally accepted that it's something OTHER than that map...)

So how would one go about constructing an accurate map? Obviously navigating coast lines and recording in to journals is a pain staking expensive process. But what I propose is to start with a very very simplified basic map:

Lets construct a Flat Earth map using only 12 points

For those 12 points, let's use these known cities:

• Cape Town
• Kinshasa
• Stockholm
• Beijing
• Jakarta
• Perth (West Australia)
• Anchorage (Alaska)
• Honolulu
• Auckland (New Zealand)
• Montreal
• Panama
• Buenos Aires

So question now is: how can we determine the true distances between these cities? And that's where I'm curious what Flat Earth believers think would be an acceptable method. I know "flight times" have been raised and rubbished (i.e. seen as "skeptical") a number of times, but surely there's a logical/mathematical way to still use that data? For example, theoretically planes could "lie" to us and be travelling very slowly, in order to make distances seem longer than they truly are. Plus planes can use "slipstreams" so they can go much faster than their reported specs.

I'm curious what, if any, aspects of plane data Flat Earth believes will accept? Do you accept published maximum/minimum speeds of planes? Also, do you accept the reported speeds of winds (slipstreams) in the upper atmosphere?

If you accept that data, then that will give us "maximum" and "minimum" distances for each reported flight time between those cities. That should give us a "rough" possible map of the flat earth right?

It is clear fers have been using the wrong map since whenever. I believe i have a more accurate map. This is a projection from the north pole on the accurate globe. By accounts of journeys to antartica, many seem to have followed others paths as many could not use longitude as reference. It is clear gps is still unreliable in the southern hemisphere. These paths lead me to believe that there is not a circle around fe but more like a four leģged starfish shape as in the 4 corners of the world. This would explain the few routes taken to get to antartica.
I believe you can pinpoint your locations on this map and the distances will be the same as it is the globe from above  cant be anymore fairer than that?

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why use lead in all of histories experiments?

« on: October 14, 2017, 07:52:32 PM »

Cavendish, focault and schihallion experiments all used lead. Hmm mm.  Strange that. Why not use a non conductor? All use lead?

Because the gravitational force is proportion to the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distances, to make the forces large enough to measure with a reasonably small experimental rig - you need BIG masses and SMALL distances - which means you need a very dense material.

There are certainly denser materials than Lead - if we list all of the elements in order of densest to least dense, the first nine elements have to be made synthetically because they don't exist in nature.   If we exclude elements that are so crazily rare that you can't get enough to do an experiment with, then you end up with the list:

Iridium, Platinum, Plutonium, Gold, Tungsten, Uranium, Tantalum, Mercury, Palladium, Thallium, Thorium...and Lead

If we remove the toxic and horribly radioactive ones, we end up with:

Osmium, Iridium, Platinum, Gold, Tungsten, Tantalum, Palladium, Thallium, Thorium...and Lead

Of these, some are VERY expensive - and to make masses that are large enough to produce a measurable force - we need LOTS of material.

So when we trim it down to the cheapest/densest material available - we're pretty much left with Lead.

Even if you were to persuade someone to lend you a couple of tons of gold or tungsten to meld down to do the experiment - these are all metals.

The densest NON-metal is Iodine - but it's density is less than half that of Lead...and it's still pretty expensive in a concentrated form...the next non conductor is Bromine...same problem...Carbon is the next densest non-metal - but that's also a conductor, then Sulphur...but that's less than one fifth of the density of Lead.

So no great mystery - they used lead because it's really the only substance that's dense enough, safe enough and cheap enough in large quantities.

Mercury would perhaps have been a good second choice - but the experiment involves the masses moving around and mercury (being a liquid) would tend to slosh around.   But it's also toxic and pretty expensive.

Thanks for ur in depth explanation. So focault works because gold is expensive? How about a bag of nuetral sand? Point is ur answer like the answer is a globe earther response. Where the flat ties these days?