2701

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

« on: December 04, 2018, 06:59:48 PM »

All maps depict a flat earth.

That is incorrect. And there currently is not a flat earth map. Those that are depicted as such are various Globe projections. Which, in and of itself, is ironic.

They are drawn on flat paper.

Or on spheres or other 3d shapes.

In regard to how area/size is depicted, when I was growing up, Greenland used to be twice the size of Africa.

Depends upon which globe projection you are looking at.

Your objection, while noted, is specious and inconsequential.

Your statements are not well informed and don't represent reality.

2702

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

« on: December 03, 2018, 10:12:08 PM »

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

I don't recall us ever designing or making a map; only discussions about models with one or two poles. If you are trying to disprove something, then we expect you to disprove all possibilities.

So far the possibilities presented by FET have shown to be inadequate and inaccurate in comparison to what is successfully used globally for navigation/transport, which are maps based upon a spherical earth. If there are other possible models that haven't been presented, then they should be presented so that they may be examined as well.

2703

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

« on: December 03, 2018, 07:42:56 PM »

I don't believe this theory and I cant say I ever will but instead of just reading what others have to say about it, others being those who don't believe it either, I thought I should ask what the people who do believe it think so I actually get the truth. Is it true that the main reason for dismissing photo and other such evidence from space that show the earth as a sphere is that they are part of some sort of conspiracy made to make people think the earth is round?

No. The 'conspiracy' extends no further than space travel. It kicked off in the cold war for political gain, was prolonged for financial gain, and nowadays we're in the position where no one can really be the first to come forward and say "So, uh, turns out that's impossible and we've been lying this whole time." Images showing a round Earth do so purely because that was what the paradigm of the time was, and so was what they expected to see.

It must be a global conspiracy:

2704

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

« on: December 03, 2018, 07:22:45 PM »

NASA is on trial.

NASA is far from being "on trial" which is why it remains in the realm of "conspiracy theory."

Have you disproven all videos and exhibits of NASA's fraudulence to say that they are unimpeachable?

I personally haven't seen any that are fraudulent.

And remember, NASA isn't the only agency on the planet engaged in space travel.

2705

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The physical impossibility of its creation.

« on: December 03, 2018, 07:01:29 PM »

In that case, I want you to point out what 3D spherical maps are currently in use and their reliability.

Here's one. It's extremely well vetted and reliable:

2706

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

« on: December 03, 2018, 06:56:00 PM »

For long haul transport, navigation is predominantly via great circles, not rhumblines. So on a mercator globe projection map, the path appears arced to take advantage of the shorter distance assuming a globe. Many nautical charts come in a great circle format:

2707

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails

« on: December 03, 2018, 07:02:54 AM »

Just copy and paste any one of these here:

https://patents.google.com/

You can read the patent. Google cataloged them all, which is pretty cool.

I looked at a handful. Interesting stuff. But also, so what?

Cloud seeding, for one, has been around forever. I read somewhere we even used it in Vietnam during the war to attempt to increase rainfall during monsoons - didn't work. Crop dusting, sure. There's all kinds of scientific talks around these days developing geoengineering methods to stave off global warming/climate change, etc.

Just b/c there's a patent for something doesn't mean it's been developed, has been used, is being used for nefarious purposes/gains.

One caught my eye though, "4873928 – October 17, 1989 – Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation". Seems scary, not sure what it has to do with "chemtrails" but scary nonetheless.

2708

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

« on: December 03, 2018, 03:34:04 AM »

It's entirely relevant. It's fact. Not theory.

The situation here is that you are attempting to dismiss evidence as "conspiracy theory". That is what it boils down to. Dismissal is the best counter-argument we can expect, understandably.

I am not dismissing anything. Your conspiracy theory is that space travel doesn’t exist is just as valid as my theory that it does. We both have evidence that we believe supports our positions, neither of which are fact without you or I being part of a faked or legitimate space mission. I’m not even calling into question what you deem as evidence for your belief. The fact of that matter is that your theory requires a conspiracy (of planetary proportions because we're not just talking about NASA here, but all space travel), hence the term ‘conspiracy theory'. It just is what it is.

2709

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

« on: December 03, 2018, 01:45:40 AM »

Sorry, I fail to see the logic of comparing a convicted spy ring to anything relevant here.

2710

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

« on: December 02, 2018, 09:16:24 PM »

Have you, or anyone, gone through all evidence to show what is clearly fraud is not fraud? No. That has not been done. Therefore the evidence stands, and remains evidence of fraud.

"As of November 6, 2013, a total of 536 people from 38 countries have gone into space according to the FAI guideline (543 people have qualified when including the US Department of Defense classification). Of the 536, three people completed only a sub-orbital flight, 533 people reached Earth orbit, 24 traveled beyond low Earth orbit and 12 walked on the Moon.

Space travelers have spent over 29,000 man-days (or a cumulative total of over 77 years) in space including over 100 man-days of spacewalks."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_name

None of us are one of these folks. Therefore, it’s not a fact to you or me that they went to space or not as we did not personally go to space nor are part of a ruse to make it look like we did. Therefore, the legitimacy or lack thereof of space travel is a theory to us.

If you believe, based upon evidence, that none of these people have actually been to space then we are being lied to. And to perpetuate the lie, multiple people/entities are involved. That is what defines a conspiracy.

Based upon the definitions in our common language makes not believing that space travel has occurred a conspiracy theory. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But to say you don’t believe in a conspiracy theory when it actually is one is simply not an accurate statement.

2711

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eratosthenes according to FE Wiki

« on: December 02, 2018, 05:48:13 AM »

Even so, the Romans were closely related and weren't any better at time keeping:

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/38658/what-calendars-were-used-in-eastern-rome

"Many different local calendars were used in the eastern and western parts of the Roman empire. The Julian calendar introduced about 44 BC was the official calendar of the Roman republic and empire and was used by Roman citizens, the army, and the imperial administration."

https://www.quora.com/If-you-asked-a-Roman-in-30-AD-what-year-was-it-what-would-he-she-answer

"It depends on who and where you asked. It would also depend on when, since the Roman empire was a confusing mishmash of conflicting calendars which didn’t agree on much, particularly not on the actual start of the year."

Lack of a common calendar system was just one of the challenges.

I'm not sure why you are all hung up on calendars and clocks when you go on and on about how all of astronomy is simply predictive and done so by ancient civilizations.

In any case, here's how you do it without knowing the exact day of the solstice and without synchronized rolexs:

- I know the solstice is going to occur some time this week
- I'm in Alexandria and I've got my guy in Syene
- I told my guy to keep an eye on that well and write down on his papyrus what day in the week he got the noon solsticey view of the water in the well
- Meanwhile I'm checking the stick in Alexandria every day around noonish and record the shortest shadow of the stick that day.
- My guy walks up to Alexandria which is good b/c I need him to pace off the distance anyway
- He tells me which day the solstice occurred for him and I look at my papyrus record for the shortest shadow on that same day
- Done

2712

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eratosthenes according to FE Wiki

« on: December 02, 2018, 01:52:45 AM »

Now you are mixing up the Greeks up with the Egyptians.  It has been said that the Egyptians were 'light years' ahead of the Greeks at that time.  Alexandria had a nice library where Eratosthenes could check out books.  There's a great sea port there on the Med (I've even been there a couple of times) and some other Egyptians figured out how to build the pyramids.  No one knows if they had any help from aliens, however.   In any event, if I had to bet on an answer, I would bet on the side of Eratosthenes.

Eratosthenes was an Ancient Greek, and the Greeks had settlements in Egypt. He didn't just wander into foreign nations to conduct science, as far as I am aware. It's possible that the two places mentioned weren't under Greek control at the time, however.

The Ptolemaic Kingdom in 305 BC–30 BC (in blue)

2713

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

« on: December 02, 2018, 01:35:08 AM »

I don't believe in conspiracy theories. There is enough disparaging evidence against NASA that it is merely factual informtion.

By definition, you do:

con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry
noun
noun: conspiracy theory; plural noun: conspiracy theories

    the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event

2714

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eratosthenes according to FE Wiki

« on: December 01, 2018, 11:48:11 PM »

You can do the same experiment today without knowing what time it is. Just wait for the sun to be in the center of the sky.

2715

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about Mount Everest

« on: December 01, 2018, 08:55:32 PM »

I did a quick experiment to show this. I used a lamp as the light source and a Rubik's cube as the object. You can see the top of the cube is illuminated because the light source is physically above the level of the cube:

The only way that shadows can be cast by the sun upwards, or objects shorter than Everest can cast shadows on to Everest if light travels in straight lines is that the sun must be physically lower than the level of the object it is casting the shadow of. Which is is with a globe earth, as the earth rotates the sun goes physically below the horizon.

The only other possibility I can think of is that light doesn't travel in straight lines, this is where EA wins as a flat earth theory. The sun would by physically higher than Everest and the mountains beside it but the light would be bending in such a way that the sun would appear to be below it and the light would be bending in such a way that shadows could be cast upwards. I've yet to see any experimental evidence that EA exists, but it would better as an explanation that perspective.

Your experiment is not analogous to what Flat Earthers hypothesize about sunsets/sunrises because in Flat Earth sunsets the change in the sun's apparent position in the vertical direction is caused by a change in the sun's actual position in the horizontal direction while the change in the apparent position of the light source in your picture is caused by a change in the position of the observer, not a change in the position of the light source, so it is inadequate to demonstrate your claim.

Regardless of the observer perspective, in FET the sun is above the clouds yet when "setting" it casts a shadow of the mountain up on to the underside of the clouds. Either the sun sets or the light is bent - It is not explained by FE law of perspective.

2716

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

« on: December 01, 2018, 10:27:51 AM »

The Universal Accelerator is, in fact, a strong piece of evidence for the Flat Earth movement. It can be shown that it is actually farcical to try and use or argue for any other form of gravity.

Why does FET need an alternate form of gravity? I understand that the spherical version is untenable, but why does FE need one at all?

2717

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

« on: November 30, 2018, 09:23:15 PM »

Tom, I think that you're missing the point of your own thread.  If you want UA to be a unifying project, then it isn't enough to disprove gravity.  You need to show why UA is a better alternative.  Showing why absolute gravimeters show different readings at different latitudes and different elevations, and why relative gravimeters (and seismometers) show anomalous variations in expected acceleration readings that coincide with density changes within the earth's crust would be a good place to start.

I agree and alluded to this before. To appeal to the wider FE proponents as you are wanting to do the issue isn't why UA is a better alternative to spherical earth gravity, but that it is a better alternative to their belief that any form of "gravity", UA or otherwise, doesn't exist. UA puts the earth in motion. That aspect alone is the sticking point for the wider FE audience. It's as ludicrous to them as much as a rotating ball. And it seems to be the main issue why they claim TFES is controlled opposition. There may be other issues, but this seems to be the one I see crop up the most.

So the question is why is UA necessary? What problem does it solve for FE at large?

2718

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

« on: November 30, 2018, 08:24:14 PM »

Great research Tom.  The gravity doctrine is without any straightforward experimental basis.  It's clear that these gravimeters do not directly measure gravity, rather they are interpreted in such a way the presupposes the existence of gravity.

If you want to get all esoteric I guess you could say the same about a lot of constructs/instruments.

The time doctrine is without any straightforward experimental basis.  It's clear that these clocks do not directly measure time, rather they are interpreted in such a way that presupposes the existence of time.

2719

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

« on: November 30, 2018, 09:06:49 AM »

Yes, it seems you keep finding research, definitions, etc., of areas of application/study and the instruments used to measure gravity.

How does the measurement of tiny jerks equal a measurement of gravity? I would really like to know.

Wow, you want to hang your 'gravity can't be measured' hat on the word "jerk"? Interesting. And you're misrepresenting the term by adding your modifier of "tiny" which is not indicated at all. As if indicating constant movement/vibration. Again, not stated at all by what you cite. 

"In physics, jerk is the rate of change of acceleration; that is, the time derivative of acceleration, and as such the second derivative of velocity, or the third time derivative of position. According to the result of dimensional analysis of jerk, [length/time3], the SI units for its magnitude are m/s3 (or m⋅s−3); this can also be expressed in standard gravity per second (g/s)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)

As we've seen from the countless articles/papers posted here, gravimetry and seismology both factor time as a part of acceleration, or 'jerk'. The former relies more on duration whereas the latter is more attune to the acute aberrations and both measured/used accordingly.

Sorry, but you're going to have to try harder to debunk gravimetry and the instruments used.

2720

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

« on: November 30, 2018, 07:33:08 AM »

Another description:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_gradiometry

Gravity gradiometry is the study and measurement of variations in the acceleration due to gravity. The gravity gradient is the spatial rate of change of gravitational acceleration.

Gravity gradiometry is used by oil and mineral prospectors to measure the density of the subsurface, effectively by measuring the rate of change of gravitational acceleration (or jerk) due to underlying rock properties. From this information it is possible to build a picture of subsurface anomalies which can then be used to more accurately target oil, gas and mineral deposits. It is also used to image water column density, when locating submerged objects, or determining water depth (bathymetry). Physical scientists use gravimeters to determine the exact size and shape of the earth and they contribute to the gravity compensations applied to inertial navigation systems.

Yes, it seems you keep finding research, definitions, etc., of areas of application/study and the instruments used to measure gravity.