101

Flat Earth Theory / Re: questions about day/night sky

« on: December 09, 2021, 02:19:16 AM »

MetaTron,

There is future time when information will come in that explains how the person in STL sees stars at the farthest end of the dome, directly beyond SLC that is still in daylight.

***(
***
***_______________________________SLC______________________STL
far edge of the dome
stars as seen by STL

SLC sees daylight there. STL sees stars from farther away.

If what you are saying is really "I have no explanation but refuse to accept RE", then I can't argue with you.

Those are your choices. Like a FE map with constant scale and correct distances everywhere, you will wait forever.

102

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Untrustworthy quotation in the wiki

« on: December 07, 2021, 06:45:49 PM »

What is the significance of 52% thinking the moon landings were fake?

What is the significance of a vast majority thinking the earth is round?

https://www.yahoo.com/now/three-in-100-britons-think-the-earth-is-flat-143259242.html
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/flat-earthery-british-style/

103

Flat Earth Theory / Re: questions about day/night sky

« on: December 06, 2021, 06:36:39 PM »

MetaTron,

Just after sunset in STL, a person in SLC and one in STL look at the spot on the dome half way between them, an equal distance from each. One sees darkness, the other sees light. Exact same distance.

Worse yet, the person in SlC can look eastward and see light blue sky on the dome waaaaaaay further from them. Look at my character graphics diagram. STL sees darkness at all distances, SLC sees light at all distances.

Even worse, the person in SLC sees the light travel from the sun to their west, across the dome and back to them still bright. The person in STL looks directly at the sun and doesn't see it even though the distance is much shorter.

So you need to explain that. It has nothing to do with distance.

Perhaps the totality of your position, simply put,  is: "The earth is flat and there is a dome. I have no idea how people under this dome can see a daytime sky in one place and a nighttime sky in another at the same time."

Do you acknowledge that RET explains this? Do you admit that FET has only the conviction that it can be explained, but has no explanation?

104

Flat Earth Theory / Re: questions about day/night sky

« on: December 06, 2021, 04:50:01 AM »

I am eagerly awaiting an explanation of how someone in Salt Lake City looks up and sees light blue over the entire dome at the same time that someone in St Louis sees darkness at the same time.

This means that the person in St Louis is seeing stars against the night sky right through the daylight shinning down on salt lake city.

                                                                               
Stars seen from STL ...        *                                                                                                           Sky here is light blue from SLC
but from SLC, light blue    *                                                                                                               but stars from STL
                                   *
                                    _________________SLC___________________STL_____________________

I truly hope you can explain this.

105

Flat Earth Theory / questions about day/night sky

« on: December 04, 2021, 10:59:55 PM »

At sunset in Denver, two people look at the sky directly above Denver. One is in Salt Lake City, where the entire sky appears to be light blue. The other is in St Louis, where the sky is dark all over, the exact same spot is black with stars. How can this be?

Just after sunset, we know the sun is still up there, just a little more distant. Yet if I look at the exact spot the sun would be in according to the faq, I see an unbroken field of stars, none are blocked by the sun or anything. They are much dimmer than the sun, yet something that is lighting up half the earth has disappeared. It can't be the distance, because I can see stars over the entire dome, so the relatively dim light of the stars can travel all the way across the dome. Why can't I see the sun when the stars are visible at even greater distance?

Why is the entire sky light blue all day, then suddenly over a period of 20 minutes it turns black. If the sun is still up there, just moving away, why the sudden darkness over the entire dome?

If one paints the dome black with stars over the night portion, and light blue with sun over the day portion, what would an observer see from the surface of FE? I see the entire dome all day and all night. Same dome, different place, sees the entire dome so different - day to night, southern hemisphere stars vs northern hemisphere.

When the sun sets, it appears to be directly on the horizon, apparently per the faq, it is still up quite a ways from the horizon. Why does the horizon appear to be in the same place all day, same horizontal angle consistent with the horizon in every direction. The light bends from the sun quite a bit to cause a > 20 degree distortion of position. Yet the light rays from the horizon right next to it are not bending? At that moment, the horizon looks to be at the same place as the sun. Are the rays from the sun bending > 20 degrees while the light from the horizon is traveling straight while the sunlight is bending? Or is the horizon moving up to the sun and both their light rays bending down to look lie they are on the horizon?

106

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How to explain Midnight sun/No sun?

« on: October 16, 2021, 04:57:48 PM »

At night, I can see stars on the dome in every direction. So can people at the edge of FE map. So that comparatively weak light can travel from the farthest distance across the globe.

Metatron, how do we see stars from all the way across the dome, yet the sun is not visible because it is too far?

107

Flat Earth Community / Re: Skeptic.org.uk article on the Universal Accelerator

« on: September 29, 2021, 12:35:59 AM »

Sometimes my reaction to FE is bewilderment, although that is about what FEs belive aned how their minds work, not bewilderment at pages of math formulas, science jargon, and referemces to long ago scientic quotes, etc/ <y reaction to that is somewhat the same as the author you criticize, but I would characterize it differently. I took physics in college, double majored in math/computer science and at that time (1975) understood the prof explaining the calculus of relativity. Became a software architect and never did any math much beyond simple algebra.

So if I read something abut Lorentz equations, to actually understand it I would have to dredge up 50 year old knowledge and practice my math. I am, on the other hand, a generally well informed and knowledgeable person with analytic and critical thinking skills. This leaves me, like the author, with the prospect of a daunting project to understand what is being said, while at the same time we are aware of: north star/sextant/latitude, gyrocompass. ships appear to sink over the horizon, different stars in southern hemisphere, ring laser gyroscope 15 deg/hour, tide and moon phase, equatorial telescope mount, ham radio moonbounce, etc etc etc, and my personal favorite, southern cross is visible directly south of Capetown SA and Tierra Del Fuego at the same time. Plot that on the FAQ map, complete opposite direction. So the question is "Why try to inderstand the FE article and the math and the theory behind that particular math?" - when you know from the above mentioned reasons, and the impossibility of some small number of people hiding the truth from 8 billion (professors, scientists, engineers, navogators, etc etc, etc), when gps works, airliners get where they are going, etc.

So I will be happy to spend the time to study the details of posts like this one when you can explain how the southern cross can be seen all over the southern hemisphere, always directly south, and not in the northern hemisphere, the "unknown forces" and "unknown equations" from the wiki page on Electromagnetic Acceleration explaining why north star direction is consistent with RE geometry and latitude, for instance.

One catch, you have to explain what is happening without "unknown forces" and "the experts are lying" conspiracy theories. Otherwise I am not interested. Still don't understand how FEs often encourage FE proselyzation nd get excited over the prospect of spreading FET, yet also say they don't care what I think. Puzzling.

108

Flat Earth Community / The borders of the conspiracy

« on: September 26, 2021, 06:37:49 PM »

So if the earth is flat and space travel is fake, there must be some who are doing the fakery. Spacex, scientists, NASA, the actual astronauts, operations technicians. There must be either a giant conspiracy (thousands of people, billions of dollars), or most of the people involved have things faked for them. I have tried to think through the details of how this could work, but I keep having problems with plausibility. For instance, consider the passengers on Spacex Inspiration 4. EIther they are in on it and paid millions to not go and do a masterful job at lying about it, or "they" put together a way to have them in 0g and looking at a fake RE. Lots of people saw them get in and blast off, did they go down a chute instead of being in the rocket and went somewhere to wait to reappear, and act as though they really went? Or was there some way they went to a 0g simulator with fake video screens they thought were windows? Either way, many people know.

Is there an ever increasing supply of actors pretending to be astronauts, or do they have some amazing tech to make them think they were in space?  Perhaps it is impossible to know anything about what is really going on with space travel, one can only know the earth is flat and so space travel is false, just endlessly guessing at the details of how they fake it?

Does someone have a plausible explanation of the borders of the conspiracy? Who at Spacex and NASA knows FE is true? If they don't know, how do they put astronauts in the capsule and get them later? If they do know, how do they keep the giant conspiracy secret? How do you get billionaires to lie about it (convincingly, requiring acting skills and rehearsal to get the story straight), or how do you fake 0 g for them?

109

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: September 04, 2021, 05:35:15 PM »

Rays bounce off objects in all directions, that's why you can see objects from every angle.  Some of the rays do bounce at a low angle or bend slightly and hit the ocean. If the ocean were flat calm, you would see this as a reflection. But rays do not bounce in one single direction, they bounce in all directions. That's why you can see mountain across a flat calm lake at the same time you see its reflection. One ray reflected down and off the lake, while another went straight to your eye.

So if there is a ray that bends down and hits the ocean, there was also a ray that bounced slightly higher such that this one ends up hitting your eye.

 /\
/  \

      X                                      _o__
                      _____________\     /

Tell me the angle of refraction and I will draw a curve at that angle from X to my eye. There is an unblocked path from everywhere down to the shoreline through the path of refraction. Refraction doesn't make things disappear, it makes them look higher than they really are. Like the pics I posted about looming.

You can draw an unblccked path to my eye through the curve of refraction to any point on the mountain down to the shoreline. I should be able to see the entire mountain if the earth is flat.

Simple example, a man looking at X. Here I show a ray that bounces down and hits the ground, yet X is still visible!

   X            O
     \           /|\
      \           /\

Now suppose refraction is bending the light down at 45 degrees after it bounces of X. Has X become invisible? No, because light is bouncing off X in all directions, including 45 degrees up, where the refraction would bend it right into your eye.

       _
     /    \
   X        O
     \      /|\
      \      /\

But because your mind interprets as though light rays travel straight, you would see this:

     X
       \
        \
          \
           O
          /|\
           /\

See "looming". Search "atmospheric refraction". Refraction causes the entire scene to seem higher than it is. It does not make part of it invisible.
 
You see things if they are not blocked. On FE, nothing blocks it. On RE, the crest of the curved ocean surface blocks it.


 

110

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: September 01, 2021, 06:47:27 PM »

jack44556677 - Whatever you want to call it, there is a huge group of people doing what they call "science" most of which is "settled" (f=ma, periodic table, RE, etc). The same ideas, equations, experiments all consistent with each other, all over the world in schools, engineering labs, etc. It works, chemistry, physics, etc produces working gadgets, airplanes, computers, internet, including google earth and nav equipment and gps. All matches, all works, all based on RE. There is a part of this which is blurry or controversial at the edge of what is known (string theory, quantum, big bang, etc). But that is not what we are talking about here, the science of refraction is well known and not controversial, the are many refraction calculators available.

Then there is Bob Knodel, seeing 15 degrees per hour on his ring laser gyroscope and refusing to accept RE, attributing it to "unknown forces". In FE, some say gravity does not exist, in the FAQ it says light bends (due to unknown forces with unknown equations) to explain the problem that the north star angle above the horizon matches latitude, but if the earth is a flat disk, the angles don't meet in the same place, see the diagram in the FAQ.

I call the collection of settled proven consistent science believed by consensus RE science. I use the phrase FE science to describe whatever changes, exceptions, misunderstandings, etc used to explain the gap between observed reality (north star/sextant/latitude) and the mismatch to FE geometry.

You got me on temperature, it is density, but the point is the same, both contribute, lessen with altitude, and both bend the light down. Search astral navigation refraction and you will find warnings that if you shoot a star near the horizon it will appear higher than it really is. This makes no sense, as the mountain appeared to sink into the water.

Let's get to the heart of the OP. Here is a diagram of where I was with the earth surface flat:

    /\
   /  \
 /     \                                               _o__
/        \_________________________\    /

Here is what I saw:

 / \                                                   _o__
/   \                     ________________\    /

Per your explanation, the real position of the mountain would be, minus the part I didn't see:

    /\
   /  \
                                                       _o__
                           ________________\    /

Please draw the light rays to show how they travel. Bear in mind that your ray is just one of many, there are rays going lower and higher, all directions, some crash into the ocean and some reach the eye if no object blocks it. In RE what blocks it is the crest of the curved surface of the ocean. In what I call FE science, the light bends however it needs to and disappears entirely without equation, explanation, or experiment.

111

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: August 29, 2021, 05:04:41 PM »

Refraction as known to conventional RE science is explained by light traveling through layers of air at different temperatures. Sometimes, as over a body of water, a cool, dense layer of air underlies a heated layer. An opposite phenomenon will then prevail, in which light rays will reach the eye that were originally directed above the line of sight. Thus, an object ordinarily out of view, like a boat below the horizon, will be apparently lifted into the sky. This phenomenon is called looming.

https://www.britannica.com/science/looming

https://twitter.com/weatherbraine/status/1367518727042908162

Refraction through the atmosphere results in things appearing higher than they are, while I saw the mountain appear to sink into the sea. This is consistent with the air being denser, thus slowing the speed of light, at lower altitudes.

Ironically, this phenomenon is responsible for pictures of cities across lakes that shouldn't be visible per RE, yet they are. RE will tell you about temperatures on different days that make this happen or not. FE uses this as proof of FE. So on one FE post we have "you shouldn't see this, yet you do, so FE!", but here, you claim it as an explanation for what you don't see.

Two conclusions:

1. FE refraction works the opposite of RE refraction. RE has diagrams, explanations, experiments for refraction. FE does not.

2. FE uses the word "refraction" without detailed rigorous explanation to explain why the world that appears RE is actually FE. For FE, light bends however it needs to. Ref position of sun at sunset/sunrise, north star angle above the horizon equals latitude, etc.

Apologies if I failed to see your (wrong) explanation. There are so many off-topic, personal, and otherwise irrelevant posts I have trouble reading through the BS.

112

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: July 01, 2021, 05:07:16 PM »

Pardon me for not reading 13 pages of replies, but coming down to the end of this, it seems to me that none of this is necessary. The target of an ICBM will be in a very different place if the earth is flat or round. All that is necessary for the question of FE vs RE is to observe that if you get the shape of the earth wrong, the missile will miss by hundreds of miles. The US has multiple test ranges and tracks missiles with radar, gps, and hydrophone grid at landing site. Russia shoots them at Siberia and can see where they landed. They want to get the CEP (circular error probability) down as low as possible (certainly less than a mile) to hit hardened targets.

The equation for a multi-stage rocket would be very complex, and I believe they have in flight guidance control of some kind. There is a gap between stages firing, the stages have different power and weight. It is not physics 101 textbook parabola. They are MIRVed and different warheads land different places.

The North Korea missiles went almost straight up. To know how far they can go if aimed more horizontally, one must know the shape of the earth.

Why do REs here go down the rabbit hole of arguing exact equations etc when there is a simple principle that will determine the point being debated? Complexity obscures, and RE should be looking for clarity and simplicity. Sometimes I think this is not about RE or FE but who has the most detailed scientific knowledge and math ability.

My point was that missiles that go a thousand miles or more will land in very different places on FE or RE. The people who test them have spent huge amounts of money tracking and instrumenting to know exactly where they are landing. Multiple countries have done this. There are 3 possibilities.

1. They know earth is round.
2. They know earth is flat.
3. All such systems have failed and none of the countries that desperately want to have their missiles hit a target have succeeded.

I do not care what the equation is. I care whether there is a giant worldwide conspiracy, required for case 2 or 3. Case 1 is ICBMs work and RE is true. Case 2 is ICBMs work and everyone involved with knows the earth is flat. Case 3 is everyone is an idiot and desperately trying to look like a genius, in which case it puzzles me that they could be so incompetent at aiming and so brilliant at faking it.

Do you think that no one knows where ICBMs will land? Because if someone knows, they know the shape of the earth. Multiple ranges and organizations in the US and more in other countries. Tracked by radar and gps and landing area instrumented with hydrophones.

113

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 30, 2021, 02:58:58 AM »

Action80:

Do ICBMs exist?

Do they hit what they aim at?

What map do they use to aim them, FE map (?) or RE globe coordinates?

My point was that an ICBM test is a test of FE/RE. If you fire an ICBM and carefully track where it hits, that track will match either FE or RE. If they know how to accurately aim, they know the actual shape of the earth.

If the earth is flat, and they know how to aim, they have a FE map. Either they know the true shape of the earth, or they don't know how to target, whether FE or RE.

114

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What happens when I fly west on the wiki map?

« on: May 30, 2021, 02:50:37 AM »

Action80,

I don't think you want to understand the geometry, perhaps you are not an abstract thinker and can't understand the geometry, so let's go back to a simpler question.

Where is the southern cross when it appears directly south in both Capetown and Sydney at the same time?

Are you going to claim that the southern cross is not visible directlly to the south anywhere with clear sky in the southern hemisphere? We can never know because we can't go together? Would that even work? You could say I hypnotized you or projected a hologram, or, like the bishops with Galileo, just refuse to see.

None of that avoidance or denial impresses me, what would impress me is a coherent explanation of where the southern cross is on FE. RET has such an explanation, FET does not. You may come up with a string of words about not testable, but for the sane, non-cult real world, your attempts to win by refusing to believe something so well known and confirmed is not clever, it is pathetic.

The southern cross is visible directly south everywhere in the southern hemisphere. FE has no plausible explanation. You can say "bla bla bla

115

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 27, 2021, 05:47:35 PM »

Action80:

I believe what you call "HIGHLY RELIABLE propagandists" because they are HIGHLY RELIABLE.

I got on an airplane in Sydney AUS and flew to LA USA. The trip time, airliner speed and travel time matched the schedule, my phone gps matched lat/long, google maps distance matches, distance on globe with piece of string, everything matches. It is all HIGHLY RELIABLE. An ocean of things is reliable.

You never answered any of my questions. On FE, if I fly a plane from Tierra Del Fuego and keep the southern cross at 90 degrees from one side, where do I go?

On RE, you would make a circle around the south pole, gps, gyrocompass would all match, it is HIGHLY RELIABLE. You would track the latitude line you were on. Without going there, I can diagram and explain it, and that is all I am asking for from you. Even if it doesn't exist, the geometry still is consistent with itself.

Please lay out on a FE map what happens when a plane takes off from Tierra Del Fuego and keeps the southern cross 90 degrees off one side for 8000 miles. Do you have a HIGHLY RELIABLE map on which you can plot a HIGHLY RELIABLE course?

Please no picking nits on the question or denial because no personal experience. I am asking you for a consistent model of how it could be, not to prove it in person. The question is clear and simple, either you have the geometry or you don't, but somehow, I expect your answer will not be either "here is a diagram" or "I have no idea, no reasonable answer". Answer, please, don't waste time with evasion techniques.

116

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What happens when I fly west on the wiki map?

« on: May 27, 2021, 01:07:03 AM »

I said 50,000 feet to allow enough to angle see the stars, which would be right on the horizon at ground level. I should have said 40,000 feet, because on FE, no problem with the horizon. Does it give you a sense of triumph to have avoided the question of the simple geometry.

The question is, what happens to magnetic compass, gyrocompass, gps, and sighting north star and southern cross at 90 degrees from each side of the plane.

If you keep the north star at 90 degrees, what happens to the southern cross? Does it remain at 90 degrees, and how can this be on the FE map? How can the southern cross appear directly south of two planes traveling opposite directions?

Really, there is no good answer to how a gyroscope works on FE or where is the southern cross, is there? Just another one of those things FE can't explain yet, it would seem. I got no answer.

Try this one:

In the early evening Capetown SA, one can see the southern cross directly south. At the same moment it is predawn morning in Melbourne AUS and the southern cross is visible directly south. How can that be? What happens to a plane that takes off from Capetown and keeps the southern cross at 90 degrees to its left? WHich southern cross does it circle, or does the apparent position of the southern cross travel along the dome?

Are FEs aware when they answer these questions their mental process is to try to think up any possible explanation that allows FE and not to consider the plausibility of their answer? Seems to be all defense strategy, no consideration, and FEs always say we should be skeptical, except for FE.

Where on the FE map is the southern cross? How can it appear on different places on the dome at the same time?

117

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 27, 2021, 12:37:04 AM »

Everyone, this is hilarious, you gotta read this quote from a link Tom Bishop posted saying that Kepler still used epicycles:

"Kepler accounted for the second class of deviation by his perspicuous laws of planetary motion. It is this fact that has generally been credited with the destruction of epicycles as a mechanical device."

I was going to repost the link, but too much trouble and it was a conventional science article from I think 1940 and waste of your time to read it unless you want a intro to astronomy circa 1940.  Tom Bishop likes his science quotes old.

Tom Bishop, it is true there are still deviations from a perfect ellipse, but these are not epicycles, they are the calculable gravitational impact of planet's moons, nearby planets, wobble, decelleration, probably more, see a real astronomer for an accurate list. Epicycles had no known physical phenomena, just a fudge factor that made the apparent motion calculable at least pretty close, the error appraoches 0 as the number of epicycles approaches infinty, I would think. 

RE the original questions do ICBMs exist and are they aimed RE or FE? I think I know the answer. A person can look at the web of facts and experts and analyze the plausibility using consistency with knwon facts and proof by contradiction to rule out wrong answers. Or one can ignore contradictions, misunderstand science, start with your conclusion and form a group willing to accept any ridiculous explanation for their treasured narrative.

Occam's razor: the simple explanation for the facts I know is that ICBMs exist and the people who aim and test them know the true shape of the earth.

 

118

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE and artillery

« on: May 25, 2021, 08:48:20 PM »

What he is calling "punch" would be referred to as F (force) in physics class. If you know F, M (mass) and the angle of the barrel, and the force of gravity, the resulting trajectory will be a parabola described by a quadratic equation. And yes, that is the basic equation of a range finder. Let's agree to ignore the aerodynamics of the projectile (with cannon ball or artillery shell affect is minor), wind (calm day), corriolis (tiny effect), the point stands without the minor differences these would make.

Whatever the shape of the trajectory, that is not the issue. The issue is where is the target:
 

119

Philosophy, Religion & Society / different kinds of conspiracies

« on: May 25, 2021, 08:24:29 PM »

Uncontroversial conspiracies are historical, documented, court proven, consensus believed conspiracies. Examples are a coup, tobacco companies hiding the harm of smoking, organized crime, etc, many conspiracies have occured and been revealed. These Have a clear motivation, are plausible, consistent with all other known facts, and public evidence with consensus belief. The generals  really did take over, court case, crimes did occur, etc. Perhaps there are differences over who is the good guy or was it legal, but it did occur.

Controversial conspiracies have some evidence, but not enough to achieve consensus. Examples are Kennedy assassination not lone gunman or Trump conspired with Putin.

Absurd conspiracies have no evidence and make no sense, example Tom Hanks is a eats babies and sells them for sex.

But the kind of conspiracy that is most useful is the explanatory conspiracy. It makes no sense and there is no evidence, except for the thing being explained. Example is NASA promoting/enforcing RE belief and suppressing the FE truth. There is no plausible reason, no evidence other than that they say RE, so if the earth is flat, they must be liars, and it explains why everyone thinks it's round. No evidence, no motive, but plenty of FExplanation.

120

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 07:10:07 PM »

RE both epicycles still being used and celestial navigation based on precopernican, straw man, Tom Bishop is misrepresenting RET. Seems like the REs should get to say what RE is. Also seems like a person should know what he is arguing against. We are here arguing with a man who says that celestial navigation is precopernican, astronomers are still using epicycles, and no one knows the distance between major cities, meaning gps doesn't work. I have a feeling FEs rely on gos for their own daily use, but disclaim it for figuring out the shape of the earth.

And yet our expectation of reasonablness and competent mental process leads us to expect to be able to explain and convince him. That a person functioning and accepted in regular life, able to read and write and do arithmetic, remember things, hold a job, have friends, in short function apparently competently in everyday life. could repeatedly reject, dismiss, delude, distort, etc in order to hold on to a belief that makes no sense is alarming and scary. It threatens our collective self image as an intelligent competent species.