1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: July 30, 2022, 09:25:42 PM »

If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

Well, firstly, what can be simulated in FE? What predictive power do any of your models or theories have?
By that criteria your model doesn't work at all.

Secondly, that's nonsense. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It's very common in science or engineering to simplify a problem from one which can't be solved to one that can. If the latter is good enough to have predictive power then it's useful. Our models of the solar system have got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars, they can predict eclipse paths to the block level.

Loads of things can't be simulated accurately, put milk in your coffee and mix it - that's a chaotic system right there which can't be perfectly simulated. Does that mean your coffee doesn't now have milk in?

Don’t waste your time. We’ve been here before, on lots of occasions - see the links I’ve posted. I’ve used a different example - airflow over a wing - but the principle is the same - ditto WTF’s example. He never responds.

Likewise, I’ve shown in lots of detail, with extensive links, exactly what goes in to modern ephemeris models - again, nothing in response, and then a few months later the same garbage gets spouted and the cycle continues.

The only thing I can’t quite fathom is whether it’s trolling, or genuine lack of understanding. I suspect the former.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass

« on: July 29, 2022, 05:25:33 PM »

Yes, we have been through this before, and you were wrong. Numerical solutions are not solutions which use the full physics of the situation. We have a page for you to address here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Yes, we have been here before, and you never, ever address the fundamental flaws in your argument when pointed out. Examples include:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17884.msg235076#msg235076
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17923.msg235482#msg235482
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17927.msg236050#msg236050

There's very little point in engaging when you've shown such bad faith in your prior discussion on a subject that you clearly either a) don't understand or b) wilfully misrepresent.

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Arctic Flights

« on: July 23, 2022, 05:03:09 PM »

Hello. Are there flights over the exact North Pole? I mean is the area of center magnetic North Pole accessible for public?

For most people the ‘exact’ North Pole is at true north (ie the axis of rotation), which is pretty much fixed, and not magnetic north, which moved around a fair bit.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton

« on: July 22, 2022, 09:47:26 PM »

I'm hesitant to believe that no instruments take into account Earth's curvature.  We're talking many thousands of feet of drop per hour.   

Gravity, air pressure, etc I think are dwarfed by the effects of thousands of pounds of lift generated by these planes.

Kind of how a kite is not affected by gravity etc... At least on windy days.

I just explained how inconsequential the curvature is on the immediate ‘here and now’ of an aircraft. The amount of ‘nose down’ control input required to remain at a constant altitude is absolutely tiny - dwarfed by far larger influences such as turbulence, changes in pressure, and shifts in c of g and total mass caused by fuel burn.

The control laws and autopilots on modern aircraft don’t need to worry about the curvature of the earth, as its effect on them is tiny, and is taken care of simply by the process of maintaining level flight. The nav systems absolutely do, however, as do the attitude and directional referencing systems, all of which have to take account of the spherical shape, and indeed rotation.

So your hesitancy to believe is not entirely misplaced - many avionics do take account of the earths shape, it’s just not that important in the context of level flight.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: Apollo Software Programmer Margaret Hamilton

« on: July 22, 2022, 09:57:43 AM »

I know pilots flying 14 hr flights and never nose the plane down to make up for some fake curvature. The cool aid is strong and so are paychecks.

Maths is your friend.

In circular motion, acceleration equals the square of the velocity divided by the radius.

So let’s take an airliner travelling at, say, 500 mph.

500mph = 224m/s
224 x 224 = 50,176

The mean radius of the earth is about 6,371,000 metres, plus we should add a bit more, say 10,000m or so, to account for the altitude - 6,381,000m

So the centripetal acceleration required to move our airliner around the circle is:

50,176 / 6,381,000 = 0.00786 ms^-2


In level flight the aircraft is experiencing a weight force, balanced by lift, of 9.81 ms^-2 multiplied by its mass. In order to fly in a circle, the pilot would have to ‘push’ 0.00786 off of 9.81, an imperceptible amount. Indeed, an amount so small it is less than the amount by which g itself varies around the world.

In order to require a substantial ‘push’, the aircraft would need to go much, much faster. Indeed, if you go up to about 18000mph, you find you would need to ‘push’ to zero g, which is why objects in orbit travel at around that speed (depending on their orbital distance), and why astronauts flout around when in orbit.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: June 14, 2022, 01:15:43 PM »

Here is an interesting proof point re the moon landing: (and pretty entertaining)

I posted something similar here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17989.0
It's a video of 3 VFX artists looking at Apollo footage and basically concluding that there was no way of faking those shots with 1960s technology.
Predictably in the rest of the thread the original video wasn't really addressed, there were instead various diversions about the fact that the astronauts looked uncomfortable in subsequent press conferences, and then a long rambling discussion on the Van Allen Belts.

It's noteworthy that the people who look at the pictures/video and declare them fake invariably don't know what they're talking about - in your video the bloke mentions not seeing stars, a common claim from people who say it was all fake. But if they did fake it then why wouldn't they have just put stars in the background? That would have been the easy bit to fake. Anyone who knows the first thing about cameras knows that you can't capture faint things and bright things well with the same exposure settings, you either capture the bright things with a low exposure - which means you can't see the dim things - or you capture the dim things and the bright things are an overexposed mess. It's such basic stuff.

The Van Allen belt arguments are one of the more ludicrous around here. If you think the earth is flat, and that NASA fakes everything, then you don't believe in Van Allen belts. Their detection was done using technology that FEers routinely claim cannot exist, travelling distances away from the earth that exceed the alleged height of the sun, moon and stars, according to FE.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 25, 2022, 06:39:00 AM »

Well, now you have several problems ahead of you.

a. Saros cycles do not predict the duration of the eclipse to the second.

b. Saros cycles cannot predict the path of totality.

c. There are multiple ongoing Saros cycles and you cannot know when a new Saros cycles will begin.

d. A Saros Series will finally end, and there will not be any more eclipses on that cycle.

e. You have to somehow explain why the Saros cycles happen, since you adopted them.

Good luck.

We’ve been around this buoy on several occasions before - here’s one:


https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18054.msg237363#msg237363

FEers never explain how simple periodic data, like saros and inex, can be used to predict the start of new cycles - indeed in the thread I linked to the FE proponent’s own source clearly articulated the many limitations of the tables, and pointed to ephemeris data. Moreover, they also never explain how the precise geography of each eclipse is predicted with such precision. When all this is pointed out, with evidence, the thread usually ends with zero response, just as that last one did.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scales on Maps

« on: May 16, 2022, 08:58:13 AM »

There kind-of is, in the sense that the wiki makes a claim about the diameter of the FE - see https://wiki.tfes.org/Eratosthenes_on_Diameter

From this, if you take the most commonly depicted north centred monopole map, then you can work out the scale. See this post of mine here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13948.msg237441#msg237441

But it gets muddled by the fact that some of the most frequent FE proponents on here don't actually support the monopole map, although debate between FE proponents about which map works, and why, is very rare indeed. I think you are correct in saying that there is a reluctance to commit to, or to discuss, accurate distance measurements. For me, that's one of the most powerful arguments against the whole concept - such distances are easily measured and verified.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity Batteries

« on: May 08, 2022, 07:47:21 AM »

In terms of this thread, I agree that "Gravity Batteries" would work with UA. Just pointing out that UA + Celestial Gravitation are not as well formed theories as gravity.

Actually, now that I think about it.  I don’t think a gravity battery would work at all on a flat earth.  First of all, an object on the ground has zero potential energy.  As you lift against gravity, potential energy is is generated.  The amount that is generated would be equal to m*g*h.  A 10 kg object raised 10m would gain 980 joules in potential energy.  If you are lifting with UA, the formula would be m*-g[-/b]*h, because you aren’t lifting against gravity, you are lifting with UA. The amount of energy generated would be -980 joules.  The object didn’t gain potential energy, it lost potential energy.

On top of that, potential energy is converted to kinetic energy when a force is applied that causes it to move.  Kinetic energy is energy an object possesses due to it motion, if there is no force of gravity to cause motion, no electricity can be produced.

Not quite right. It’s all about frames of reference, and this situation (ie the FE / UA model) is complicated by the entire system not being inert - it is constantly accelerating. Imagine being in a massive space station, in orbit, and hence a 0g environment. Now imagine getting in an elevator in that space station, and let’s say it accelerates at 1g. Everything in that lift would feel like planet earth does. If you picked an object up off the floor and dropped it, its velocity relative to the floor of the lift would be indistinguishable from the same situation in a stationary lift on earth. The same would go for its kinetic energy. The key point is the frame of reference - the lift. If you stand outside the system and watch, the maths gets a lot more complicated.

There is an awful lot wrong with UA, but these are not the droids you seek, as it were.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity Batteries

« on: May 06, 2022, 04:34:51 PM »

The energy stored in a gravity battery comes from the force a body is subject to when released from a height.

There is a bit more in this that needs consideration though. One of the main problems with UA is that it would require a massive, unexplained energy source, whereas gravity doesn't. Not quite the same thing, I realise.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 03, 2022, 08:19:01 PM »

It is clearly a matter of national coping to claim that it had to be a man on the moon to win the Space Race, much like the previous analogy given of after losing a foot race deciding that the REAL race is the race to your car in the stadium parking lot.

Except, if I've understood you correctly, you're contending that neither the stadium, nor the car park, exist, and that both parties mutually agreed to fake the existence of both, whilst also agreeing, for some odd reason, to not fake running their best race.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: May 03, 2022, 04:24:54 AM »

The goal posts shifted to planting a flag on the moon with a man after the US lost the space race. Russia clearly and obviously won it with what it was claiming, and was under no obligation to win further arbitrary goal post shifting.

This is utterly surreal. So the US clearly lost a race, despite both participants only pretending to compete?

13

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 22, 2022, 09:47:26 PM »

]
Prove it.

It can’t be proved, or at least not with the resources at our immediate disposal, as I’m sure you know.

However, if you, and the other FEers, were really as curious about the world as you claim to be, you could very easily try something similar yourselves, and see if it works.

14

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: ISS Photo From The Ground

« on: April 22, 2022, 04:50:49 PM »

It would just explain everything in a way that fits neatly with already established flat-earth facts.

It doesn't really fit with anything at all, and there aren't any agreed 'facts' in the FE community, other than that the earth is flat. There is no agreement on even basic stuff like the layout of the north and south poles, or the approximate size of the various continents, or the distance between us and the moon or sun.

Your theory is an extension of the 'space travel conspiracy', and fails for numerous reasons, not least of which is the enormous number of people, working in complete secrecy, that would be required to perpetuate the illusion. You can see the ISS with your bare eyes, and you can see its form with very basic equipment - it is clearly not a 'tethered dirigible'. Where is the tether? How is it staying aloft? How does it travel so quickly?

You appear to be just waving around 'it might be x' type sentences, whilst dismissing the most obvious, which is that it might just be a large space station orbiting the earth, precisely as advertised. Is that not less absurd than multiple large tethered dirigibles operated by a team of secret engineers, who never spill the beans, despite the absurdity of their job?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New Star Map

« on: April 21, 2022, 08:10:16 AM »

Based on the position of the sun it's about 12pm in London and 7am in NY.   The direction of north is correct.

You have the same problem that the more common north-centred monopole FE map has with the Southern Hemisphere and the southern pole star (sigma octantis). If two observers are at different longitudes, both in darkness, then if they look to the pole (north in your case, so London / NY works) they are facing in divergent directions looking at the same thing. That cannot be the case.

I’ve never seen this adequately explained here - responses range from distraction or outright refusal (it can’t be dark in those places at the same time) or just flat out odd (they’re looking at different stars that look the same). What’s your explanation?

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 12, 2022, 08:52:36 AM »

Magnetic declination - This is merely an assertion that there is a physical phenomenon causing this coincidence, not an explanation for why the coincidence should be seen as it was in both areas.

What would you expect the declination to be in those areas? Zero, or something? And, if 'something', then what? If you agree with the declination figures as generally provided by widely available information sources, then if you accept his heading measurements as being correct, then you are actually accepting that he has, in fact, directly contradicted the very point he was trying to make.

Which is it, Tom? Do you accept the magnetic declination figures for the area(s) in question, or not? If not, why not? If you do, do you accept that this completely defeats the argument made in that video?

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 11, 2022, 12:04:23 PM »

Magnetic declination - This is merely an assertion that there is a physical phenomenon causing this coincidence, not an explanation for why the coincidence should be seen as it was in both areas.

What would you expect the declination to be in those areas? Zero, or something? And, if 'something', then what? If you agree with the declination figures as generally provided by widely available information sources, then if you accept his heading measurements as being correct, then you are actually accepting that he has, in fact, directly contradicted the very point he was trying to make.

Hubs - It is easy to search for "layover in Hawaii" and find that Hawaiian Islands are being used as hubs for international flights. The argument that the Cook Islands can't be used is just nonsense.

Might have something to do with Hawaii being a state of the USA and having a population of 1.5 million, compared to the Island's 17,000?

18

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path

« on: April 11, 2022, 08:04:36 AM »

In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, it seems that these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.

Max Igan reports that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience regarding directions is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.

On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:



On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:



I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, or always makes straight line paths in FE models, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.

The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model in both areas.

We've been round this before Tom; another thread where you stopped engaging once the questions got tricky - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18502.msg246537#msg246537

As with many of the videos you link to, this one has many layers of wrongness to sift through. Firstly, as many have pointed out, using a hand held magnetic compass on an aircraft will rarely give good results, as there is so much going on in terms of metal and electronics that you get large amounts of interference - aircraft magnetic compass systems tend to rely on remote magnetic sensors that are deliberately located as far away as possible from interfering electronics etc, and they are also carefully calibrated to remove any errors. So whilst we can discuss his readings, we should bear in mind that we might be discussing 'stopped clock' accuracy, as it were. Occasionally right, but for all the wrong reasons.

That said, his compass does appear, in the sections of the video that I looked at, to be indicating roughly what you would expect a compass to show for the direction of travel at the time and declination in that area, which is quite large. You started a vague argument implying that the entire concept of declination was an ad hoc correction for a failed model, thereby ignoring the fact that declination is an observed fact, and therefore would be present, and changing (hence my point about changing runway titles at airfields), even if the world was flat, as you claim.

You have to pick a horse here - either declination isn't real, or it is. If you are claiming it isn't, then you're up against a mountain of data to the contrary. If you are agreeing that it is real, then you have to apply it to any magnetic headings you are using in your arguments. And when you do that, you realise that our intrepid video maker has in fact undermined his own argument.

So which is it, Tom - is mag declination real, or not? Does it change over time as it is observed to? Was it present in the manner that every declination calculator shows it to be when that video was made? If not, why not? 

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ECHOSTAR (Private Satellite) Earth footage?

« on: April 01, 2022, 02:57:07 PM »

My evidence is it could have been faked and there are multiple acknowledgments, even from the op, this is correct.

Don't you have some internet etiquette guidelines to write or something?

Any video or picture could be faked, with enough resources. The issue for the ‘it’s fake’ argument is the volume and quality of imagery out there - it would take a lot of people, all working in silence, to make this stuff.

But the key point here is that you claimed there was a particular problem with the footage that indicated it was fake. The burden is therefore on you to say how the image differs from what you would expect to see if the earth was a globe and you had a camera on a geo-stationary satellite. That’s very different from saying ‘it could be faked’. We all get that it’s fakeable, that’s not the point.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bipolar Model- An Investigation.

« on: March 25, 2022, 06:43:54 PM »

Quite.

The fact that FR24 doesn't present ADS-B location data there doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means they've made a commercial decision not to pay for it.

I see the data as part of my job, certainly from flights over the N. Atlantic.

Yeah, you see the data as part of your job.

And it doesn't include data from significant regions.

And, other than some internet jockey making a ridiculous claim, "government could not or would not interfere with that data!" there is no evidence that the government could or would not interfere.

I did look at that very nice PowerPoint slide show from ADS-B marketers.

Fancy, but likely false. Ground-based transponders are still operational (and still maintained for dependable operation) located all across the flat earth, performing the exact same functions.

Do you know what a transponder is?