1

Flat Earth Theory / Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 20, 2018, 06:08:46 AM »

We "know" GPS satelites send three signals: a unique ID, a location (where it is over the globe) and a time stamp for each signal it sends. A "receiver" uses signals from three or more GPS satelites to calculate position, based on the "Delta" or time passed between the time stamp in the signal, and the time on their GPS device. From the delta, you can work out how far you are from each satelite, and with three or more, you can determine the point where that delta "holds true" for all satelites. From the location information of each satelite, you can relate that information to a map of the globe, and "know" your position on that globe.

As far as flat earth is concerned, GPS can be "faked" from ground based locations. And it's true: triangulation is possible from ground based antennas. You can use cell phone towers to locate people for example, in exactly the same way as described above (time stamps, deltas, know location of the tower, map)

However, we also "know" GPS satelites move: they are not in geosyncronous orbit. Therefore, for two receivers (Fred and Wilma) measuring their location at different times (a and b), I'm saying it is impossible for land based signals to "spoof" that information



Diagram above shows what happens with GPS: each satellite continuously sends signals giving it's ID, Location and a Timestamp for that information. We can see two receivers held by "Fred" and "Wilma"... They haven't moved, and they're some distance apart (5km say). Each satelite is moving, and each delta changes as that satelite moves. I've only shown delta from "Sat2". There are two ways this could be "spoofed" or mimicked by Flat Earth conspiracy agents, but neither makes sense:



In the above, the stationary tower "Fixed2" sends an ID, Location, and Timestamp. However, Fred and Wilma are considerable distances apart, so their "Delta" changes quite a lot between each signal. The stationary antenna could "pretend" and give a fake time stamp to Fred the first time (T2a), and then give the real time stamp T2B the second time... but Wilma will receive those same time stamps, and Wilma would think they're much further away with the first signal, and then the correct distance in the second signal? Or the antenna could give the "correct" Time stamp the first time, and Wilma will have the correct delta, and then the antenna could "spoof" a time stamp for the second signal so Wilma still gets the correct delta, but then that would through Fred completely out of whack. It is not possible to spoof for one receiver without confusing the second. It is impossible for both to calculate the "correct" location for both signals.



Option two: with two fixed antennas, the flat earth agents could "pretend" that the GPS has moved, simply by changing the ID part of the signal sent by antennas 1 and 2: in the first signal, Antenna 1 says "I'm Sat2!", and then on the second signal, Antenna 2 says "I'm Sat2!" and us globetards are fooled in to thinking this is a moving GPS. Everything else (the delta, calculated distance etc) holds in exactly the same way as for the first "known" diagram of GPS. However there's a huge problem: that only works to explain the two points shown in my diagram! What about the signal sent half way between those two points? A third antenna? What about half way between that? A fourth antenna? Obviously impossible without "infinity antennas"(!)

This is a little tricky to "conceptualise" with moving GPS vs Fixed Time Stamps vs Deltas etc: I found this hard to turn that in to clear diagrams, and perhaps they are not clear enough I don't know. However what I found completely impossible, is how it can be possible to mimic GPS with fixed antennas. Given they are constantly transmitting DIFFERENT locations and time stamps, it's simply impossible to spoof. You could argue that the GPS receivers themselves are in on the conspiracy, but there's any number of free open source aps for your phone to directly read the GPS data, and a LARGE part of the data is not "the data itself" it's simply a time stamp... you can not "spoof" a time stamp for selective people: time stamps get broadcast to everyone, it's up to the receiver to compare that time stamp to their individual device. It's simply impossible to spoof data for one receiver without throwing out a second receiver.

2

Flat Earth Theory / EA Theory Sub Debate: The Sun would disappear "top first"

« on: June 16, 2018, 08:34:58 AM »

The main EA debate is turning in to a bit of a doozey, hopefully this is OK to split in to a separate debate in the interests of debating one point at a time.

So, to my mind, given that it's accepted that "light rays travel away from the sun in all directions", then the sun would disappear top first in the EA model. If light rays are affected by an upward pull, they can be thought of as trajectories. They can be graphed and modelled as trajectories. For example, here's a plot of multiple rays with multiple trajectories, inline with how EA affects light rays. I've only chosen rays emanating from the centre of the sun in this example



Obviously, the rays of light will terminate when they hit the ground... but that's not the point of this image: i'm just showing that I'm using trajectory formulas, i.e. i'm not fabricating curves to suit my argument, i'm using the same exact formula just with different angles of light.

Now consider below: different angles of light, and different starting points of light, namely the top and the bottom of the sun.



I put to EA proponents, that the point at which light rays from the top of the sun can no longer reach an observer, there will still be rays of light from the bottom of the sun that can reach the observer. For example: blue rays are going over the observers head, green rays are still reaching the observer.

I realise of course that this is diagramatic only: there would be other "blue" rays that would reach the observer... however the point is that as the observer gets further from the sun, the light rays from the top of the sun cease to reach the observer before the light rays from the bottom of the sun. Ergo, the top disappears first.

It's like two archers: one on the ground, one at the top of a building. They can shoot arrows at any angle they like, but they both fire arrows at exactly the same speed. Everything else being equal, then the archer at the top of the building will reach further than the archer on the ground. How could the same not be true of the sun? The difference is EA is an upwards force (the archers have gravity which is a downwards force), so the situation is reversed: the trajectories are upside down, and the "archer" at the bottom of the sun can always reach further than the top of the sun...

3

Flat Earth Theory / Perspective in 'Earth Not a Globe' contradicts itself

« on: May 24, 2018, 02:28:24 AM »

ENAG shows this representation for how humans perceive objects disappearing in to the distance towards a vanishing point (drawing perspective lines to show the effect):


It follows that one can also draw a perspective line on the bottom of the lamp, as it clearly follows the same rules: in other words, the lamp post gets smaller, and the actual lamp 'head' gets smaller, as clearly shown in the diagram:


ENAG then goes on to show how the sun sets because it too approaches a vanishing point:


However, in this image, they have either forgotten or failed to show the size of the sun descreasing, just like the head of the lamp does


Is there some "exception" rule for the top image vs the bottom image? Is ENAG choosing not so show the sun shrinking for the purposes of the diagram? Given the diagram is meant to describe what we see in reality, then which version is more correct in reality? When you view a lamp in the distance, does the light/head part of the lamp stay exactly the same size while only the post shrinks to the vanishing point?

ENAG is saying in the top image, that images shrink towards a vanishing point, yet it's also saying that objects DON'T shrink towards a vanshing point in the bottom image, and that somehow light can hold information about what should shrink and what shouldn't shrink? Aparently the height of an object can shrink without the object itself shrinking? If the top of the lamps had their posts removed, and were sitting on the ground, would they not still shrink in the distance? How are they any different from the sun: the sun is just a lamp without a post, yes?

_{All base images from 'ENAG' courtesty "Zetetic Astronomy - Earth Not a Globe" (ENAG), by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881], at sacred-texts.com. Red lines added to images but all rights retained as per original}

4

Flat Earth Theory / Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 15, 2018, 05:39:24 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?

5

Science & Alternative Science / This Is How Perspective Works

« on: April 28, 2018, 06:52:36 AM »

Hi, forgive the large image heavy post, but I have finally finished my slide series showing how perspective works. Please read all the way through: it explains why we see things smaller as they are further away in terms of what is happening inside your eye, demonstrates how to calculate apparent size and location of objects, explains why "diagonal lines on side views" are misleading, and shows why an object never reaches a vanishing point.

All feedback welcome: if you feel certain areas need further clarification, or could be explained more clearly, i'm open to editing the series for FE and RE believers alike.
_{'Perspective' by SiDawg (https://imgur.com/a/CSG38fL) Licensed CC BY-NC-SA https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/}

6

Flat Earth Theory / The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth

« on: April 13, 2018, 03:07:11 AM »

Hello, I believe it is not up for debate that "as an object gets further away, it's perspective/apparent height above the horizon decreases". It's been said (and it follows) that the reason the sun sets on the flat earth (i.e. moves towards the horizon, and then appears to go below the horizon) is "due to perspective". It is also said that the sun circles closest to northern countries in the northern summertime, and it circles closest to southern countries in southern summertime. And in the time in between, it slowly changes from one to another in a spiral. The sun makes one rotation every 24 hours at a constant speed, so it follows that it travels half way around the circle in 12 hours, a quarter in 6 hours etc. Any time during the day can be easily translated in to a position on that 24 hour rotation.

So accepting all of that as true, then can you please explain the image below? In Durango, the sun sets around 9pm on June 21 each year, and the sun is overhead at mid day because Durango sits more or less along the path that the sun takes. "Length N" shows the horizontal distance between where the sun was above the observer at 2pm, and where the sun is at 9pm when it disappears due to perspective. So that Length N, should be the same distance the sun sets EVERYWHERE on the earth yes? If the sun is that far away from you horizontally, then it will disappear below the horizon at sun set. But from Rockhampton on Dec 21 (i.e. a point where the sun will be above the observer at mid day, for a fair comparison with Durango), using that same distance (Length N), the sun SHOULD set at around 3:45pm in the middle of summer? So the explanation that the sun travels in a larger diameter path for southern summer compared to northern is in conflict with the time the sun sets (and rises), by around a factor of two in this example.