1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity

« on: August 04, 2019, 11:52:50 PM »

Okay, then please use that frame of reference to calculate how fast the flat earth would be traveling after 5000 years of accelerating upwards at a rate of 9.8m/s².

Non-applicable. The observer would collide with the Earth much sooner than that.

Since this is a math problem, the observer is just an arbitrary reference point, so colliding with the flat earth isn't an issue.  It's the changing velocity of the FE as it approaches, meets and then moves beyond that reference point that's relevant.  In this case, it's a question of how fast the FE would be moving 5000 years after passing that arbitrary reference point.

She won’t answer.  But the answer is nearly 5155 times the speed of light.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?

« on: September 13, 2018, 03:58:41 AM »

Here is how I would prove FET.

I would measure the shadow of identical objects at exactly 12:00 noon in two locations at least 100 miles apart along the (so called) prime meridian.

Since the sun is in a given point in the sky, the size of the shadow of 1 object, the height of the identical objects, and the distance between the objects can be used to calculate the size of the shadow of the 2nd object.

Since the earth is flat, the calculation of the 2nd shadow will match the measurement of the 2nd shadow.

Update: the measurement of 2nd shadow was smaller than the calculation. Hmm......

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?

« on: September 13, 2018, 03:57:02 AM »

Here is how I would prove FET.

I would measure the shadow of identical objects at exactly 12:00 noon in two locations at least 100 miles apart along the (so called) prime meridian.

Since the sun is in a given point in the sky, the size of the shadow of 1 object, the height of the identical objects, and the distance between the objects can be used to calculate the size of the shadow of the 2nd object.

Since the earth is flat, the calculation of the 2nd shadow will match the measurement of the 2nd shadow.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Sunshine on bottom of clouds

« on: December 14, 2017, 05:00:44 PM »

Can someone help me understand how the sun is able to shine on the bottom side of the clouds?

This observation makes me think that the earth must be something other than flat.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset

« on: December 14, 2017, 05:14:11 AM »

[quote
 author=rgr331 link=topic=8005.msg134938#msg134938 date=1513051593]
I wonder what would cause this “broadening” of perspective and “pushing” of the “vanishing point”.  Is it that the air is less dense?  The atmosphere gets significantly less dense toward the high altitudes, but the same thing (sunset, sunrise, sunset) is seen with a radio controlled drone going up and down only a few hundred feet where there is no measurable change in atmospheric conditions.

When you are standing on the earth at sea level and look at the earth's eye level horizon you are creating a right angled triangle with the hypotenuse laying upon the surface of the earth. The Angle A is the right angle at your eye, Angle B is at the horizon/vanishing point, and Angle C is straight down at your feet.  The Vanishing Point is created where the perspective lines at Angle B approach each other at less than a minute of a degree.

When you increase in altitude, the angle of the triangle change and it takes a greater distance to create the requirement for the Vanishing Point, and so it is pushed backwards further into the distance to where the perspective lines are once again separated less than a minute of a degree. The Vanishing Point is now a greater distance away and new lands have been revealed.

So you must be leaning forward rather than standing straight up?  When standing straight up, your feet would also form a 90 degree angle. So now we have two 90 degree angles (one at eve level & one at ground level). This means we have a rectangle, not a triangle. Which means that I could see the Eiffel Tower from Long Island.

Interesting though how you just described the geometry explaining the horizon of a round earth.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Trying to be respectful

« on: December 13, 2017, 08:56:58 PM »

FES doesn't believe there's a conspiracy to make us believe the Earth is round, but rather one to fake space flight and everyone is simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth. The fake NASA etc images are created based on the mistaken belief of a globe Earth.

Does this mean that pictures of a round earth taken “from space” are proof that space travel is fake?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the map

« on: December 13, 2017, 07:21:25 PM »

But wind, wind, wind. Why not just ask an old-timey surveyor how far it is from LA to NY or Lisbon to Shanghai?

Because old-timey surveyors use a round earth coordinate system.  A flat earth coordinate system is yet to be developed.

And don’t even start talking about radian coordinates. That would never work on a flat disk earth. 

https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/math/trigonometry/unit-circle

Ohh...wait?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the map

« on: December 13, 2017, 06:10:26 PM »

There are a number of ways to calculate how far you have travelled that can be cross-referenced against GPS or other such mapping devices.  This is not an impenetrable scientific mystery Tom.

Incorrect. There is no true way to know how fast you are flying through the air without relying on a Round Earth coordinate device.

I bet Mr. Bernoulli can figure out how fast an airplane is flying.

Per Mr. Bernoulli, an airplane flying too slow will fall out of the sky.  I have personally experienced this on many occasions.  It’s called a stall. In my plane, at say 125,000 lbs, with the flaps up, I need to fly 230 mph to stay in flight.  So, a pilot that decides to fly at or just ever so slightly above the minimum flight speed would only need to make wind corrections to determine their ground speed.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET's Credit Score

« on: December 13, 2017, 08:20:30 AM »

The existence of a Shadow Object is empirically observed. We see a shadow, therefore there is an object to cause it. The existence of the Shadow Object is a certainty. It is the nature of this object that is in question. Our Wiki correctly asserts that the Shadow Object could be a number of possible objects, including an unknown satellite of the sun on the day side of the earth, and makes no definite claim.

Here is a definite claim.  Shadow Object = Earth

There is no indication that this Shadow Object is the earth itself, and the Round Earth Theory has not provided evidence to show that it is. In fact, RET astronomers cannot even calculate the timing of the Lunar Eclipse with geometric models and must use the ancient pattern-based Saros cycle in eclipse predictions.

which is because geometry doesn’t have a time variable. The change in the geometry between multiple moving objects does have a time variable, and that principal has been used to correctly predict the location of every known object in the Milkey Way relative to the earth for the last 100 years.  ( I would say 1000 years if you were willing to give me +/- a few seconds).

Per the effect that stops the sun from shrinking, this effect has been documented with several examples which directly shows the effect in action. There is an effect in nature, which is observed to cause light sources in the far field to be consistent in size.

There is only 1 light source that is our sun’s distance (in magnitude) from earth.  that light source is our sun.  The next closest light source is 360,411 times further away.  so where is your far field?  Our Sun or our stars?

The Universal Accelerator is also empirically derived. When we step off of a chair and watch the surface of the earth carefully we can see the mechanism of an upwardly moving earth. We see that the earth moves upwards. A mechanism is directly observed, in contradiction to the mechanisms of "bendy space" and "puller particle" which have never been observed.

No, you do not see the earth move upward.  you see what appears to be a tiny little piece of ground visible to you at the time move upward.  a person observing from one of your “far fields” would see a human moving downward toward earth.

Nothing is "in the red". Our determinations are weighed logically and appropriately, based on actual observations. When we consider the evidence that exists, not the evidence that we assume exists, like the OP who is implicitly guilty of assuming but not showing, it comes out in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. The Round Earth Theory actually has very little real evidence for its assertions, and this becomes apparent to the budding planeist when one debates these subjects at length.

Tell you what, I invite you to use a weather balloon and yourself to get some “actual observations”. If you can post a picture from 100,000 feet or higher that showers a flat earth, then I won’t even accuse you of using photoshop.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Night Skies.

« on: December 13, 2017, 07:09:10 AM »

I am really struggling to understand why the night sky is different in the Northern Hemisphere vs the Southern Hemisphere.  Since the Earth is flat, the sky should be (for the most part) the same in both hemispheres with small variations based on a person’s exact location on the Flat Earth.

But, the two skyies are completely different.  Why?

I do have a theory that maybe some of you could put through the ringer.  Perhaps when someone is standing in the far southern portion of the southern hemisphere and looking up at the sky, they are looking in almost the complete opposite direction (180 degrees difference) as someone standing in the far northern part of the northern hemisphere and looking up at the sky.  If they are looking in complete opposite directions, then that explains why they would see completely different skies.

But I know this can’t be true unless the earth is round, which is obviously impossible.

Someone please help me understand.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: AM/FM Radio

« on: December 13, 2017, 03:11:48 AM »

Ok so :

If the AM station sends an AM signal only, then there is no way for me to receive it with VHF equipment.

False.

Also your statement is riddled with errors, you need to read up a bit more about modulation types vs frequency.

I have no experience with radio comms from aircraft, but sure listening from ground based stations is just the reverse.

If you like, I’ll post a video of my uhf / vhf radio receiving in AM modulation mode, if that helps.

Since you have no experience with radio comms in aircraft, then I guess you didn’t know that our equipment CAN NOT be switched from AM to FM or vice versa.

We have a radio that we talk on

How come as I drive away from my home town and get further away, I can no longer receive my favorite radio station in my car?

- operates on VHF

Some have radios that operate on UHF

We have ILS/VOR receivers - they operate on VHF

We have ADFs (automatic Direction Finder). They can receive a voice transmission that is broadcast from an AM radio station like 1310AM.  ADFs can not interpret VHF signals.

None of this has anything to do with why the signals are blocked at much closer distances from the transmitter while on the ground vs in the air.

The answer is, the earth blocks the signal because the earth is round.

12

Flat Earth Theory / RAIM Prediction

« on: December 12, 2017, 10:37:04 PM »

What is the point of a RAIM prediction on a flat earth?

Seems that if GPS is actually an eLORAN system, then any aircraft at any positive altitude could receive the eLORAN signal from many many many eLORAN stations. 

But, for some reason, befor I fly a GPS approach, I need to do a RAIM predict to make sure my aircraft will have line of sight view to at least 4 GPS satellites.  It seems like a procedure I could omit on a flat earth.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: AM/FM Radio

« on: December 12, 2017, 10:15:13 PM »

Also, my aircraft can not dictate what type of signal the radio station sends.

Yes it can. All radio receivers have a detection stage. Your radio in the aircraft prob doesn’t have a switchable detection phase so will be AM only. This is why we have band plans. Pilots prob wouldn’t appreciate someone transmitting using SSB on their frequencies. Could be a disaster.

dictate, not detect

If the AM station sends an AM signal only, then there is no way for me to receive it with VHF equipment.

So, for starters, let’s exclude cloudy days, because AM signals reflect of the ground and clouds on cloudy days.  in the manner, the can travel around the earth. 

But on a clear day:
The same signal sent from a station in Denver to the East with no buildings interfering with it will be lost at ground level once  the receiver is 100-150 miles away.  However, from 37,000 feet the very same signal from the very same station, with no building interference could be received from a position over Kansas City on a clear day.

This is because on the ground, the receiver’s line of sight is blocked by the horizon at a short distance. In the air, the receiver also gets its line of sight blocked eventually, just at a much much larger distance.

this is because the earth is round.  An AM signal on a flat earth on a clear day with no obstructions could reach both the ground level receivers and airborne receivers no matter what distance they are from the station.

Why do you think stations put these transmitters at the top of tall towers?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: AM/FM Radio

« on: December 12, 2017, 04:57:10 PM »

Primarily because of the law of conservation of energy. As the waves spread from the transmitter, they carry the same amount of signal over a wider area. Add to that the many sources of RF interference and you've got yourself a recipe for a very limited useable range.

If you want to listen to stuff from the other end of the Earth, stick to low frequencies, like those Russian number stations do.

Okay, then how come in my aircraft I can pick up the stations from much much further away.  For example, when I’m over Houston, I can pick up stations from Oklahoma City, but when I’m in a car in Dallas, I can not pick up signals from Oklahoma City.  It’s still the same signal strength carried over a much much larger and there is still the same amount of RF interference.

In your aircraft there are no obstructions to the tower / transmitter. Or at least, far far less.

Aircraft use UHF, thats around 130mhz Amplitude modulation. This frequency does rely more on line of sight (higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength, so it cannot "pass" around hills, buildings, etc.

Lower you go, further it goes, with less power.

Well the obstruction of the Horizon is certainly much further away and the most significant. Buildings however are almost completely insignificant and make almost zero difference unless I am right next to the building. Think about how your car radio works on the AM band. Are you able to receive the local signals while driving through a downtown area.  Yes you are.

My aircraft DOES NOT use UFH, it uses VHF, most military aircraft use UHF. But those are both frequency modulated (FM) bands that would not be able to receive the signal from an AM (amplitude modulated) station.

Also, my aircraft can not dictate what type of signal the radio station sends.

I also have an ADF which can receive AM signals.  When I am over Houston, I can receive signals from OKC, yet when I am on the ground in Dallas, I can not receive the same signals from the same station at the same aircraft using the same equipment.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: AM/FM Radio

« on: December 12, 2017, 03:52:26 PM »

Primarily because of the law of conservation of energy. As the waves spread from the transmitter, they carry the same amount of signal over a wider area. Add to that the many sources of RF interference and you've got yourself a recipe for a very limited useable range.

Is it because the earth is round and the distance the horizon is from my eye is directly proportional to my altitude above the ground?

If you want to listen to stuff from the other end of the Earth, stick to low frequencies, like those Russian number stations do.

Okay, then how come in my aircraft I can pick up the stations from much much further away.  For example, when I’m over Houston, I can pick up stations from Oklahoma City, but when I’m in a car in Dallas, I can not pick up signals from Oklahoma City.  It’s still the same signal strength carried over a much much larger area and there is still the same amount of RF interference.

Is it because the earth is round and the distance the horizon is from my eye is directly proportional to my altitude above the ground? 

Higher altitude - Horizon further away - therefor not blocking the signal.

Lower altitude - horizon closet - therefor blocking the signal.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotational force

« on: December 12, 2017, 06:07:36 AM »

so I may not be a true flat earth believer, but I have a question that I hope the answer may prove my belief in globe earth wrong. It may be a series of questions, but they are based on one idea: acceleration.
So here is my question: if the planet rotates in a circular motion, why would people not fly off the edge of the planet or die of the rapid changes in acceleration? It’s obvious that this effect applies to small things like those play sets in the park where you spin and feel the forces try to throw you off of it, so why wouldn’t we feel these forces on the flat earth? And if it is the sun and moon that are moving, how is it that the sun and moon end up in specific paths? Wouldn’t that require gravity or rope or some sort of movement based machine?

Seems like you would feel it, but in actuality, that force is very very small relative to what you experience say in a car going around a turn. 

Flat earthers like to say “if the earth is round they we must be blazing around in a circle at 1000 miles per hour.” Well we are, but that doesn’t mean we can feel it.  On a plane, you are flying at 550 mph, can you feel that?

Fact is, what you are really feeling when you drive a car around a corner is your change in direction.  Acceleration is the change in velocity and velocity is a vector defined by both magnitude (speed) and direction (N S E W). So a body can experience acceleration even when the speed stays constant.

So, how much change in direction are we feeling in a car going around a corner. Assuming a 90 degree turn that takes 3 seconds (fairly typical for an automobile), your change in direction is 30 degrees per second.

Now let’s take a look at the rotation of the earth. It takes 24 hours for your body to experience 360 degrees of change (1 rotation of the earth). So your body is experiencing 0.0041 degrees per second.  That is 0.0041=360/24/60/60.

The magnitude is about 7200 times greater in the 90 degree turn in a car.

17

Flat Earth Theory / AM/FM Radio

« on: December 12, 2017, 04:11:10 AM »

How come as I drive away from my home town and get further away, I can no longer receive my favorite radio station in my car?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset

« on: December 12, 2017, 04:06:33 AM »

Another note. As a pilot I often see the sun set, then raise, then set again all within a 60 to 90 minute time frame. You see, as we approach a destination at the time of dusk, we descend toward the earth. This brings the visible round earth horizon closer to my eye causing the sun to drop behind the horizon (sunset). Then, we offload our passengers, load new passengers up, and take off again.  As we climb, the visible round earth horizon moves further from my eye and drops below the sun (sunrise). Ultimately the sun sets for good during that flight.

This setting, then raising, then setting again is not possible on a flat earth.

The above is every bit as rigorous an experiment as the Bishop Experiment described at https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence. I would like to know what further would be required or how the experiment above would need to be modified to be acceptable evidence, because I am starting to despair of ever understanding what sort of observational evidence would be acceptable to Tom Bishop, who keeps saying "Provide evidence. Provide observations."

When one increases in altitude, one is broadening his perspective lines and pushing the vanishing point further into the distance, revealing new lands. This is what causes the restoration event.

No, as I assend, I climb back up into the light that is not blocked by the horizon.  I am not speaking of seeing “New lands” I’m speaking of seeing “The Sun”. I can see it because it is no longer behind the horizon from my position (which by the way didn’t necessarily change horizontally, but just vertically, like a helicopter).

I wonder what would cause this “broadening” of perspective and “pushing” of the “vanishing point”.  Is it that the air is less dense?  The atmosphere gets significantly less dense toward the high altitudes, but the same thing (sunset, sunrise, sunset) is seen with a radio controlled drone going up and down only a few hundred feet where there is no measurable change in atmospheric conditions.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset

« on: December 12, 2017, 03:24:46 AM »

A flat disk that is accelerating straight up would have a uniformly thick atmosphere, and the only perspective the sun would have is that similar to the person looking straight down at the clear water.

I think you misunderstand their model.  Their atmosphere is still a thin layer of air on the flat disc, and at sunrise/sunset you are still looking at the sun diagonally through more air than at noon when you look more vertically.

No, I understand it perfectly.  The angle described would only increase the amount of atmosphere light travels through very slightly.  That total distance would be on the order of 125,000 feet total. Not enough to filter out the blue spectrum of light.

In reality, when the sun drops to the horizon, the light travels through hundreds of miles of atmosphere before reaching my eye. I say hundreds of miles, because I am a pilot, and when I typically see these sunsets/sunrises, I’m at 40,000 feet above sea level.


Another note. As a pilot I often see the sun set, then raise, then set again all within a 60 to 90 minute time frame. You see, as we approach a destination at the time of dusk, we descend toward the earth. This brings the visible round earth horizon closer to my eye causing the sun to drop behind the horizon (sunset). Then, we offload our passengers, load new passengers up, and take off again.  As we climb, the visible round earth horizon moves further from my eye and drops below the sun (sunrise). Ultimately the sun sets for good during that flight.

This setting, then raising, then setting again is not possible on a flat earth.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: why is the sun reddish-orange at sunset

« on: December 11, 2017, 05:49:44 PM »

also, the sun moon model on the wiki page showed northern greenland continuously lit by sunlight, but yesterday in northern greenland, the sun was only up for 4 hours & 22 minutes. 

what explaines the 19 hour 38 minute discrepancy.

As above. It's not meant to be an accurate representation of reality, but something to show the general route of their movement above the Earth.

Okay, so the flat earth sun-moon model doesn’t accurately represent reality.  Does it come close to representing reality?  It shows Northern Greenland continuously bathed in sunlight, but we know the sun was set for 19 hours and 22 minutes yesterday in Northern Greenland. Shouldn’t the model be at a least close approximation of reality if it’s to be believed?

So the thing about the round earth model, it PERFECTLY represents the reality of why it is currently dusk in Northern Greenland and the sun is about to set for approximately 20 hours.

There is no flat Earth map. The animated model shows only a single day of motion. Between those two it could possibly be correct for one day at some point.

Okay, so the earth is flat, but there is no map of it.

How do trains, planes & automobiles get from Point A to Point B?


PS: Tom I saw your comment about why the sunlight turns reddish orange. I saw how you said it had to do with the amount of atmosphere the light travels through. I saw how you compared to to looking out across blue water vs looking straight down at clear water.  I also see that your comment was deleted. Most likely it was deleted because that phenomenon proves the earth is round.

A flat disk that is accelerating straight up would have a uniformly thick atmosphere, and the only perspective the sun would have is that similar to the person looking straight down at the clear water.