401

Flat Earth Community / Re: Impossible Daytime Moon Phases in Round Earth Theory

« on: October 08, 2017, 05:50:27 PM »

To be fair, at sea level the horizon line is about as close to flat as possible, it's only like 1/25 of a degree, which would not differ from Tom's diagram in any significant way.

If the observer were at the top of a 10000 foot mountain (e.g. Mauna Kea on a clear day) then RET says you get an extra 1.77 degrees in each direction.

In any case, it is likely that the angles given by the Navy on that website are with respect to the astronomical horizon, which is a flat line.

So, listen to these words because I won't say them very often: Tom Bishop is right.

402

Flat Earth Community / Re: Anti-gravity or Weightlessness

« on: October 08, 2017, 01:09:36 AM »

This is a pretty good illustration:

(only the first 8 minutes or so, after that it gets weird)

The planes are flying in front of the sun. Trailing behind the airplane is a bunch of really hot exhaust from the jet engines, swirling around with the surrounding air. The density fluctuations cause blurring, and enough sunlight is directed towards you it looks like part of the sun. This blurring effect is caused heat haze and you can see it if you go to the airport and look behind running jet engines, or even if you look at the hot air coming out of a smoke stack or other heat source.

If you look at this video, BEFORE THE PLANE TOUCHES THE SUN you can see the light of the sun in the exhaust plume That can't be explained as a splash, it's obviously light scattered from the blurry exhaust plume behind the engine.

Here's a good photo of the blurry exhaust plumes:

403

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is THIS the sun/moon/stars/planets?

« on: October 08, 2017, 12:45:02 AM »

as a pilot I can tell you exactly

Are you honest or you're lying?

Well, I'm not sure how I could prove this to you when everyone seems to think photos are faked, but here's some photos I took of a trip to San Luis Obispo with my son earlier this year:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GTfQVhYzijVbhBjp2

Here's just the airplane at sunset:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/MWmcQ8deFSfWbqtF3

If you want to connect some dots, you could look up who owns that airplane, and who owns the domain douglips.com which kinda matches my nickname here, and see that they have suspiciously similar names.

If you live near Santa Cruz or San Jose California I could be convinced to take you flying some time. I understand that Tom Bishop might live near me, the offer applies to him as well. I can't show you anything in the airplane you haven't already seen pictures of and dismissed, so I don't think this will change anybody's mind about earth's flatness or roundness.

As a pilot, I went through flight training of course. One of the things you learn is how to fly the aircraft really slowly, and you get experience with the power curve. Flying slowly takes a lot of power - flying a medium speed takes less power. This is why the bird starts flapping like crazy when it's slowed down enough to effectively hover in the wind.


Why would a bird do that? It's a hunting behavior - the bird either sees prey or sees something where he expects prey to appear, like a rabbit hole. When prey is vulnerable, the bird will dive and try to capture the prey.

I actually never seen in my whole life, never known about this type of behavior until few months ago!
How is this bird keeps flapping so fast without exhausting? Why and how its muscles keep contracting for so long?!

I see it all the time - there has to be a bit of a breeze, but it happens quite often.

Your heart is beating at least once per second, and when you exercise much faster. Your entire life.
People run marathons, with their legs going and going and going.
People ride bicycles for extended periods of time:


It turns out that our bodies, and that of predators and prey animals, are really good at exercise if you just get some practice.

Watch the end of the video again - do you see it?

I watched the whole video, is there something special I'm supposed to see? I see the bird entering slow flight, hovering for a time, then flying out of the hover, then entering a hover again. Note this is not a true hover like a helicopter's, there's wind that it is flying in. All the bird has to do is face into the wind and fly at the same speed as the wind, and it will hover over the same spot on the ground.

I look at this bird, when it's just flying, - i feel like it's normal. But when this bird flaps for so long without changing the flight state, like it's hovering and bouncing left-right, without getting down, it just looks and feels very robotic, abnormal, fake!
And that's not the only one video of birds behaving weird:

I think, a real living bird, of a big size and big weight, just cannot handle flapping for too long without a little of relaxation ! Where would the muscles even get additional energy to continue their contraction?

Are there any active bird watchers, who know about this weird behavior in birds?

I might be ignorant about aerodynamics of birds' wings(i still wanna learn), but this really does feel like out of this reality!!

It seems pretty normal to me. There's a wind, so the bird is able to take advantage of the wind to hover over the ground for hunting or other purposes.

404

Flat Earth Community / Re: Impossible Daytime Moon Phases in Round Earth Theory

« on: October 07, 2017, 08:40:47 AM »

Here you go. There should be a significant crescent.

Just quick and dirty.


Left is the image from the website showing what the moon should look like, Right is a crop from :32 sec into the video, I adjusted contrast and brightness to make it easier to see.  Looks pretty much spot on.

Yes, we all agreed that the moon appears to be in 95% illumination. The problem is that it should not be in so much illumination.

Your calendar is based on what the moon does do, not what it should do.

Your diagram is actually quite good. Looking at it, I think the moon would appear as it does in the video. Remember, the observer is at the part of the horizon line that is touching the earth. If you draw a line from the observer to the bottom of the terminator on the moon, you'd see the fraction of the angle at the fattest part of the moon that would be black.

What do you think the moon should look like to an observer at that place on the earth in your diagram?

405

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is THIS the sun/moon/stars/planets?

« on: October 07, 2017, 08:29:06 AM »

What do you think is strange about this bird? It looks like a perfectly normal earth bird to me.

This is a behavior I've seen often, and as a pilot I can tell you exactly what the bird is doing.

The bird is changing airspeed from very slow (when the wings are flapping rapidly) to faster (when the wings are not flapping so rapidly.) In an airplane, when you go slow enough, you get "on the back of the power curve", or in the "region of reversed command". This means that the slower you want to fly, the MORE power you have to add. That's why the extra flapping at slow speeds.

Why is the bird doing this? By reducing the airspeed, especially in the presence of a wind, the bird can reduce or even eliminate its ground speed in order to be ready to dive on prey.

406

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is an experimental result that would convince you the Earth is a globe?

« on: October 07, 2017, 02:43:37 AM »

The angle to the horizon is close to zero at ground level, but if you are 10000 feet above the ground at the horizon it should make a measurable angle. If we measured that there is 180 degrees of sky at sea level but 182+ degrees of sky on top of a 10000 foot tall mountain, would that do it?

407

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does this prove flat earth?

« on: October 07, 2017, 01:49:10 AM »

I was just doing the math on this in response to the statement "The horizon is always at your eye level" statement on the wiki. The only way to see the curvature would be if the horizon is perceptibly lower than eye level, refuting a key tenet of FET.

In RET the horizon is always slightly below eye level. I.e. if the tangent to the surface where you are standing is at 0 degrees, the horizon is at about 0.04 degrees below that tangent plane. Not enough to measure.

But, if you go up to 5000 feet, it's 1.25 degrees below, and at 10000 feet, 1.77 degrees. In an airliner at 40000 feet, it would be 3.5 degrees below the tangent plane.

From a mountain top it should be possible to build a rig to measure 1 degree of additional sky above the horizon, but I don't think you could see it with your naked eye. From low altitude, there's no way you could perceive it.

Here's the calculation: https://www.google.com/search?q=arccos%283%2C959+mi+%2F+%283959+mi+%2B+40000+feet%29%29+in+degrees

408

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 02:05:09 AM »

You SEE with your eyes that the two lines obviously meet - not very far (it seems) beyond the limits of the camera's lens or our visual acuity.  You never actually DO see the tracks meeting - but you presume that they must because you can draw the two lines on top of the photo - and it looks like they meet somewhere just fractionally beyond the resolution of the camera.

The limits of our visual acuity is the vanishing point. You said that we can perceive the distance between railroad tracks forever, but we can't, they converge at our angular resolution limit because we can't distinguish distances between points beyond that point, angles smaller than we can visualize.

It's ANGLES smaller than we can visualize, so the distance to the vanishing point depends on the size of the object or the distance between the perspective lines.

Here's an interesting image. If you take a picture of a long straight road from on a hill, the lines no longer seem to have a vanishing point, and you can clearly see the road still as a separate entity far in the distance. You can also see the edge of the roadbed that is significantly wider than the pavement, and it appears to be wider than the road the entire way.
https://i1.wp.com/unusualplaces.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/US50.jpg

So if something is large enough, we can see it at an arbitrarily large distance, no?

409

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 06, 2017, 01:40:29 AM »

If the jet was 10 times higher than the cessna and moving at 10 times the speed - and they were both overhead at the exact same instant and travelling in the exact same direction - then they'd appear to be in the same spot in your field of view.   The rate of change of angle would be the same for the jet as for the cessna...the law of similar triangles (or simple trigonometry)  proves that.

You've correctly deduced what I was getting at with my question.

If the FE position is that objects further away do not have a reduction in angular velocity, or have a reduced reduction in angular velocity, it is possible to design an experiment to prove or disprove this without relying on high school geometry, and you don't have to get a jetliner that flies 10,000 mph to do so.

If you are riding in a train and look out the window, you can see a mountain N miles away, and a lake N/2 miles away, and observe their angular velocities and see if the change in angular velocity is always the same.

Since Tom thinks that 45000 feet is enough to illustrate this proposal, we would only need to find a mountain that is 10 miles away from a railroad track.

The high school geometry model will tell us that the angular velocity of an object passing by at constant velocity v is v/r when it's at closest approach (90 degree angle to direction of travel), but at other angles the angular velocity is decreased by a factor of the sine of the angle from direction of travel. So, when something has moved 60 degrees from azimuth/closest approach, its angular velocity will be half of what it is at closest approach.

As a formula:
ω = (v/r) sin φ
where φ is the angle (less than or equal to 90 degrees) between the direction of travel and the direction the object is with respect to the observer

The Tom Bishop model is that angular velocity is v/r reduced by some other factor larger than the sine of the angle based on distance, tending towards 1 (no reduction) at 3000 miles. We don't have to guess what that factor might be, we could do this experiment and measure what that factor is to see if it differs from the sine in a measurable way. But, a reasonable guess for such a thing might be

If we did such an experiment, Tom Bishop, what results would prove to you that objects at any distance have the same angular velocity patterns? How far away should an object be to qualify to test this idea?

410

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Constant angular speed of the sun

« on: October 05, 2017, 05:46:05 AM »

Tom Bishop pointed out a rebuttal to this argument on another thread:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7001.msg126699#msg126699

I'll happily discuss this here or there. My response on that thread:

To see if I understand properly, it sounds like you are saying that the change in angular velocity of an object as it passes has to do with the distance from the observer. This means that something farther away will have less change in angular velocity, until at some distance (say, 3000 miles), the change in angular velocity goes to zero. Is that correct?

411

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 05, 2017, 05:43:53 AM »

Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.

https://renaissanceinnovations.com/PerspectiveBefore.png

Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?

That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.

This also demonstrates that this model fails to account for the constant angular speed of the sun. Note that the sun is moving about 22 degrees per interval at the top, and it's down to about 10 by the end.  And that's with the error pointed out that the visual distance would shrink due to perspective - if this represented how perspective actually works it would be EVEN WORSE.

The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour which can be demonstrated by an equatorial sundial you can make yourself out of paper.

That was addressed on page 1.

Ah, thank you, I hadn't understood that that was what you were getting at but I see it now.

To see if I understand properly, it sounds like you are saying that the change in angular velocity of an object as it passes has to do with the distance from the observer. This means that something farther away will have less change in angular velocity, until at some distance (say, 3000 miles), the change in angular velocity goes to zero. Is that correct?

412

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: October 04, 2017, 04:50:13 PM »

Now he's just made another mistake.  The green sun positions are equally spaced across the photograph - but that's not right.



Equally spaced things should get closer and closer together with perspective...right?

That depends on their distance, more distant frames would become less distinguishable in terms of apparent distances between.

This also demonstrates that this model fails to account for the constant angular speed of the sun. Note that the sun is moving about 22 degrees per interval at the top, and it's down to about 10 by the end.  And that's with the error pointed out that the visual distance would shrink due to perspective - if this represented how perspective actually works it would be EVEN WORSE.

The sun moves at a constant 15 degrees per hour which can be demonstrated by an equatorial sundial you can make yourself out of paper.

413

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 03, 2017, 05:29:28 AM »

I'd love to see someone predict the tide timing accurately from the "God is breathing" theory.

414

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Star tracks in the southern hemisphere

« on: October 02, 2017, 06:07:07 PM »

dude i'm on your team

(that link goes to show both RE and FE models and explains some problems with the FE models.)

But yes, you raised the same objections I did. My favorite involves traveling to Tahiti to see the region where the gears are grinding together.

415

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth view of longitude?

« on: October 02, 2017, 04:03:25 PM »

Here is the journal of Captain Cook:
https://books.google.com/books?id=B0YHAwAAQBAJ&pg=PR13&dq=captain+cook%27s+logs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje67j9ptLWAhWG-VQKHWv3BFYQ6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=captain%20cook's%20logs&f=false

Includes latitude observations for most days of his journey.

Every ship in the Royal Navy made similar observations.

Is latitude a thing that you agree with or not?

416

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth view of longitude?

« on: October 02, 2017, 03:19:17 PM »

What observations can you quote showing that the sun is over the equator at all times during the equinox?

That is literally the definition of the equator. At every point along the equator you can go there and observe that at noon shadows are directly under objects, showing the sun is directly overhead.

Here's the story of one guy who did that:
https://blog.education.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/05/educator-spotlight-use-shadow-geography-to-find-your-place/

You can find hundreds of photos of similar observations from around the world. You could travel to the equator at the equinox and observe it.

This boils down to my original question- do you or other flat earth theorists accept the definition of latitude and longitude or not? For hundreds of years people have observed the following:
- Latitude is the angle from vertical the sun makes at noon on the equinox.
- Longitude is based on time offsets from GMT, and is the east/west angle the sun makes at GMT. I would understand if you can't accept this definition for anywhere that the sun is not visible at noon GMT, but that still would allow us to talk about longitude over about half of the planet.

Here's an article on how to measure latitude and longitude:
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/politics-policy-people/geography/diy-measuring-latitude-and-longitude

If you measure the latitude as navigators have done for hundreds of years, or longitude as they have measured for a lower number of hundreds of years, even if it doesn't mean the Earth is round, do you agree that latitude and longitude lines (of whatever shape) exist?

417

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Star tracks in the southern hemisphere

« on: October 02, 2017, 01:10:03 AM »

Oh wow, just found "Round earth information repository" which covers this quite well - there's a post there with both the round and flat earth explanations for the South Celestial Pole.

It includes the celestial gear ideas and all the questions I had (and then some):

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5225.msg102964#msg102964

418

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 02, 2017, 12:45:05 AM »

Because it's a battle of good and evil. I'm choppin a few demonic heads here and there. Glad I'm under your skin.

Well at least that makes sense. I'm sorry you feel that I'm evil though - or maybe I'm just misguided or misled by the devil or something?

You go ahead and use the "oh the moon pulls the water off both sides of the earth" spinning ball nonsense for tides.

In all of recorded time only twice in history, once in 1960 and once in 2012 did a submersible reach the bottom of the ocean. Even military subs only go 1/10 as deep. So yes you tell me how God explained it to you or let you see? Come again? I'm listening

Well now hold on a second. Using the "spinning ball nonsense" for tides, humans have been able to correctly calculate the exact timing and magnitude of the tides well in advance. Can you do that with "God is making the earth breathe" conjecture?

It sounds like you're saying that at the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean there is a hole through which water flows to make the tides raise and lower. This cannot explain how tides actually work, which is that they are low in one part of the earth and high in another at the same time, and where the tide is high and where the tide is low corresponds exactly to the predictions made by the spinning ball nonsense.

Seriously, can you take the "God did it" explanation and make any predictions about how the world works? Should we throw out tide tables and eclipse predictions because it's spinning ball nonsense?

Who asks questions here on this forum? The roundies not the God fearing FE'ers, we know the score.

That's entirely my point. If you don't ask questions because you know all the answers, but you can't even predict when the tide will come and go, I guess you don't care about sailing. What else can't you accomplish if you don't ask questions about how the world works? Are diseases caused by viruses and bacteria or by bad humours or evil spirits? Who knows! Stop asking questions!

419

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 02, 2017, 12:37:28 AM »

The moon moves across the sky almost exactly like the sun does, there's definitely no possibility of it moving across the sky twice as fast. It actually moves slightly SLOWER than the sun.

Next time there's a new moon, wait a couple of days and you'll see the crescent moon in the sky just after sunset. The next night, it will be slightly higher and slightly fuller at sunset. So while the sun has appeared to make a complete circuit, the moon makes slightly less than one circuit.

420

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 01, 2017, 06:03:17 PM »

God doesn't explain everything to us, or need to, our bodies for example are so complex in their daily working that the medical community is still baffled and amazed at the brilliant design.

Moses probably knew the timing of the low tides as land appeared in the red sea only to swallow the chasing soldiers as the tide rose again. God lowered the DEEP or ocean floors and raised the mountains to disperse and place the global flood waters in a way we have our continents of today.

Maybe one needs to think of the DEEP as GOD's body. The very deep ocean floors his chest that inhale and exhale twice a day giving this living earth it's high and low tides. Maybe tides are nothing more than our reminder of his brilliant design as he cradles us in his bosom? He controls all life breathing dependably day in and day out for eternity.

I don't understand why you're here. It sounds like asking questions is pointless because God did everything and doesn't have to explain himself to us.

That's great, except He DID explain lots to us, because we are able to calculate, with phenomenal precision:
- The timing of the tides
- The timing of eclipses, both solar and lunar, CENTURIES in advance

And that's leaving out anything that you might think is a fairy tale like GPS satellites.

If God Did It and That Settles It, why are you even in here talking to us losers? Why is there a forum? Why ask questions at all?
Why isn't the Wiki just "God did it, stop asking questions."?