21

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Google AI

« on: June 26, 2018, 03:30:17 AM »

Machine learning would be the ultimate answer to earth's shape. Not even Tom Bishop would argue because it is based on observable science. You don't give ML any assumptions. You just feed it data and it iterates repeatedly until it finds the answer. The problem with ML in today's format, is that whilst we'd end up knowing what shape the earth is, we'd have no idea how the machine came to that conclusion, we'd only know it is right. Much like we have no idea how Google's AI plays chess. It just does it.

Why would you think this? When humans look at the evidence and show proof that the Earth is round, you discount the evidence. When AI comes along, are you going to withhold from it pictures from space? Will you tell it that there are no power lines over Lake Pontchartrain? That the sun doesn't move across the sky at a constant rate of 15 degrees per hour?

I see no reason why flat Earth adherents couldn't either insist on omitting large portions of relevant evidence, or just dismissing outright any conclusions that differ from their preconceived flat Earth model.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictions

« on: June 14, 2018, 03:24:20 PM »

Using a model and theory, we can make predictions. This is the basis for a theory and we can do a lot of these for the heliocentric model.

Predictions made by the earth orbiting the sun once a year, and the earth rotating relative to the sun once a day:
...
I predict, the sun will always rise east and always set west and always set 180 degrees from where it rose.

At equinox again, right? Because this isn't true any other day.

23

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: June 14, 2018, 02:25:33 AM »

not sure why people are talking about balloons, etc.

NASA doesnt even hide the fact they are using high altitutude planes.  website says 70,000 foot cruising altitude.  and also says they use them to "test" satellite sensor data, lol, ok.  even says they can fly for 6,000 miles at 410 knots (470 mph).  geez, sure does sound like a satellite.  the one they show even is similar to ISS, i am sure its just a different version of the same plane:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-046-DFRC.html


look at the second picture on that website the one on the right side of the page showing a pilot getting in the plane.  look at the large panel about him, looks just like the ISS picture's panel

How long does it take an airplane travelling at 410 knots at 70,000 feet to cross the sky? How long does it take the ISS to cross the sky? Why are we able to predict exactly where the ISS will appear, day in and day out? http://www.isstracker.com/

Why can we never see two ISSs in the sky at the same time?

24

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Roles Reversed - seismology

« on: June 14, 2018, 02:20:54 AM »

The discontinuities of the seismic waves assumed by modern science to occur at the crust mantle boundary are actually a network of huge caverns and large underground bodies of water and that they would match perfectly the seismic data.

Great masses of water are interpreted as molten rock.

Heretic. Rowbotham shows that the inner parts of the earth are molten rock, you certainly can't be talking about caverns full of water being mistaken for them:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm

The true answer, of course, is that the data is fabricated.

Baby Thork, do you run a seismic station yourself? I didn't think so. Where is your evidence? I'm supposed to believe some squiggly lines on a drawing?
Admit it, seismic stations don't even exist.

inspired by: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8220.msg136236#msg136236

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 11, 2018, 06:10:31 AM »

The original post was merely asking how the sun can move across the sky at a constant speed of 15 degrees per hour. How does perspective weirdness explain that? The slowing of motion across the sky is exactly cancelled out by magic perspective and just coincidentally appears as if the earth were rotating at a constant angular speed?

It seems really weird to demand proof of basic geometry when you are willing to make all kinds of crazy assumptions about perspective without any evidence whatsoever.

26

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 11, 2018, 06:06:12 AM »

Before we get too excited, how distorted is Sumatra on your map? How distorted is Africa? The coastline of Africa has an almost 90 degree angle in the Gulf of Guinea that you appear to have nearly completely straightened out. On your map, you'd never think South America and Africa fit together like jigsaw puzzles, but they should look like that.

There are three major land masses south of the equator besides Antarctica. You could find many ways to slice the map that would work equally well, for example, right now you have four quadrants on your map. What if you had 3 sections, or 5 or six?

I'm just not that excited that you think this is a great coincidence given the drastic mistreatments of things like the shape of Africa or the size of Sumatra.
Why is moving New Zealand farther away from Australia a bigger problem to you than blowing up Sumatra to be way bigger than Japan? In real life they are nearly the same size.

27

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 11, 2018, 04:25:15 AM »

There are only three major land masses South of the equator (other than Antarctica.) I'm not sure how much to attribute to this brings a coincidence.

Note though that if you include Antarctica, no choice of meridian results in an accurate map. Land that straddles the pole is a big problem for your projection

28

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: June 10, 2018, 03:38:05 AM »

I love the video about how there is an ice wall so you can't fall off, but in the first clip it shows people being lifted from a boat onto the top of the ice wall.

If you can get on top of the wall and walk, why again can't you fall off?

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Far Away is the Horizon?

« on: June 09, 2018, 08:29:00 PM »

The angle calculation doesn't matter if it has a lampshade. It would have to wink out of sight while still significantly above the horizon, barring weird bendy light.

30

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered

« on: June 09, 2018, 06:18:55 PM »

Thank you, edited to clarify.

31

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 09, 2018, 06:15:33 PM »

So I've been looking for flight data to correct my map. openflights.org has lots of data on airports and routes but unfortunately, it doesn't include estimated flight times which is crucial.

They do however, have an Equirectuangual projection showing flight routes, so I have worked my Peirce Quincuncial Projection magic on this image to show exactly where my map fails.



It's interesting to see how few flights venture over the north pole.

So I really need a database of estimates flight times to continue. If any of you know about this, please let me know.

I'd like to applaud you for going through this effort - and I'm sorry for the distractions on this thread (which I have contributed to, and for which I apologize.)

This is good work, looking at where your model fails and how to improve.

As for tables of estimated flight times, I don't have a good source for that - but you can get individual flight estimates by searching on Google for (for example) "flights auckland to doha"

Make sure you find nonstop flights for the best numbers.

For example, in the search for "flights auckland to doha" I see Qatar airways has a nonstop. So I then search for "qatar auckland to doha" and get a flight number (see attachment - Qatar 921)

Once you have the flight number you can see actual tracks for the past few flights:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QTR921

Here's one from a couple of days ago:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QTR921/history/20180606/0225Z/NZAA/OTHH

If the map looks weird, look for a "three lines" button in the upper right and you can change the map images.

Similarly, here's Sydney to Santiago: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27/history/20180606/0303Z/YSSY/SCEL
Here's Shanghai to San Jose: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CCA830/history/20180531/1750Z/KSJC/ZSPD
Here's JFK to Hong Kong: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA845/history/20180605/0535Z/KJFK/VHHH
Note the other direction doesn't go over the pole due to taking advantage of the jetstream over the pacific:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA830/history/20180603/0115Z/VHHH/KJFK

It might be a fair amount of work to look these up, but it's a start.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: [EXPLANATION NEEDED] Clouds lit from underside

« on: June 09, 2018, 05:39:30 PM »

Mount Rainier is about 100 miles from the ocean.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mount+Rainier/@46.4900452,-123.2168607,7.56z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490d193f70860fb:0x5b5e4fe17ad6b707!8m2!3d46.8523075!4d-121.7603229

And, here's the best part: The same effect at SUNRISE, when it is 3000+ miles to the ocean eastward.
http://twistedsifter.com/2014/01/the-sky-shadow/

What was that you said? "Case closed."

33

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered

« on: June 09, 2018, 01:18:33 AM »

Think about that. How could sea level be 21.36km higher than sea level at the poles if the sea did not bulge, and it was only the land that bulged as you assert?

The point is not that it is ONLY the land that bulges, it is the land and sea bulging together. If the land bulged a little bit less, you'd have deeper oceans. If the land bulged more, you'd have a high and dry equator.

Again, from the squishtheory article:

However the earth’s core is molten, so in general the rock of which the earth is made, has distorted by an appropriate amount. This means that to do the calculation, we will start by assuming that the density of the bulge is the same as the density of the rest of the earth. Incidentally, if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.

Sea level doesn't mean only the sea is moving. Sea level is just where the level of the sea is. If the solid part of earth bulged more, the sea would flow away. If the solid part of earth bulged less, the sea would flow there to make a deep ocean.

[EDITED: Added "the solid part of" in the above sentence because it was ambiguous.]

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Far Away is the Horizon?

« on: June 08, 2018, 09:55:11 PM »

The other big problem is that you know the sun is overhead somewhere else on earth when it sets for you. So the earth would have to be millions of miles across.

35

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered

« on: June 08, 2018, 09:50:47 PM »

This whole conversation is built on a hypothetical model that uses water, that's why he talks about water:

Newton imagined the existence of two tunnels, one from the North Pole to the centre of the earth, and the other from the equator to the centre. If these tunnels were joined at the centre, and filled with water, then as the earth began to spin, water would start to flow from the pole towards the equator.

If he had made the model use mercury instead would you think that the ocean is actually made of mercury? It's a hypothetical model under discussion.

He makes it clear that if the rock portion of the earth were to form higher or lower than the threshold, you might have a high-and-dry equator or a miles-deep-ocean equator.

...if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.

I read this article and it is clear that he's talking about the overall shape of the earth, and not whether the bulge is made of rock or water.

So if you want to assert that the ocean should be miles deep at the equator on the globe earth model, you need to find the portion of this article or another article that resolves that "If the rock had formed one way" question in the second quote in this post. You are the one making the affirmative claim that centrifugal force should make the ocean miles deep, and this article clearly states that it cannot distinguish between whether the equator should be high-and-dry or deep ocean.

36

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered

« on: June 08, 2018, 07:47:49 PM »

How closely did you read that quote?

To do the calculations effectively, we need to use the idea that water (or rock) will flow from the poles to the equator...

It's right in the part you quoted, which is just a few paragraphs below the part I quoted. It's clear that he's calculating what size the bulge should be, not whether it should be made up of rock or water.

37

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Peirce Quincuncial Projection

« on: June 08, 2018, 07:14:46 PM »

You know what I mean. The whole South is the south pole on an FE map.

That's great! And since the pole is at 90 degrees south latitude, you should be able to go there, measure 90 degrees latitude, travel a large number of miles in some direction, and still measure 90 degrees latitude!

Except - when Amundsen went there he only found one place with 90 degrees latitude.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: June 08, 2018, 05:47:07 PM »

This is great, more pictures are always better.

We have one picture that shows a curve, and one that shows flat. How can we resolve this? More people can go there and take pictures!

For example, here's some pictures someone else took that show a curve:
https://imgur.com/a/Bpb64
This person does not appear to be a round or flat earther, just a photographer.

The imgur link is one I made referring to an image I found on google. For images where I say I adjusted contrast and brightness, I did the manipulations myself using Gimp - you're welcome to take the original image and manipulate it yourself and see if you believe it shows a curve or not, and if it does what that means.

You're also free to go there and take your own pictures. Be sure to bring a powerful telephoto lens or telescope.

Finally, compare the reactions here to your most recent video to the original reaction from Baby Thork, where the very existence of the power lines was not only questioned, but outright denied. One of these reactions is consistent with being curious about how the world actually is, and one of these reactions is consistent with not wanting anything to challenge your world view.

I look forward to seeing everybody else's pictures from here!

39

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered

« on: June 08, 2018, 07:04:42 AM »

You apparently just skimmed the first page. I provided a link with the calculations here: https://squishtheory.wordpress.com/the-earths-equatorial-bulge/

The models show that the earth mass should bulge out and the water should bulge out as well on top of that. It says that there should be a water bulge 11.035 km deep at the equator. Yet the ocean is nowhere near that deep on average. The average depth of the Pacific ocean is about 4.25 km.

If the earth is spinning, why aren't the deepest parts of the ocean at the equator?

The article calculates the earth's equatorial bulge, but even the author admits that the bulge should also apply to the solid parts of the earth, especially if they were once molten, and it doesn't appear the article has an answer to how much of the bulge should be solid vs water.

What is relevant here, is the mass of the bulge relative to the mass of the earth. So if the earth was a solid spherical iron ball which did not distort, and it was covered in water, then the gravitational pull of the ocean bulge would increase the height of the bulge by less than 1 km. However the earth’s core is molten, so in general the rock of which the earth is made, has distorted by an appropriate amount. This means that to do the calculation, we will start by assuming that the density of the bulge is the same as the density of the rest of the earth. Incidentally, if the rock had not distorted to bulge by the appropriate amount, then the whole equator would be flooded; whilst if the rock had somehow frozen in an over-distorted shape then the whole equator would be a mountain range.

(emphasis mine.)
Where are the calculations for how much of the bulge should be rock vs. water?

40

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson Still Unanswered

« on: June 08, 2018, 04:53:24 AM »

I'd like to rewind this thread all the way to the beginning.

The centripetal force of the earth would cause the deepest parts of the ocean to be at the equator. This should happen regardless if the land was slightly bulging in the middle. The water would bulge and collect on top of it.

In an ocean depth map we should see that the oceans at the equator is deeper than at higher latitudes. This is not the case. As far as I can see the equator holds no special significance to the oceans of the world.

You have made two assertions without any evidence. Where is your evidence? Where are your calculations to show how much deeper the ocean should be?