1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: HF Radio Signals, Propagation and DX.

« on: April 17, 2019, 04:44:05 PM »

I think you may be surprised by the FE reaction to this.  This will be used as evidence for flatness, not a globe Earth.  The justification is that obviously a curved Earth you shouldn’t be able to conceptually bounce the signal far at all.  On a flat Earth the bounce makes a lot of sense you will hear.  As far as differences in sunspot that difference is the same for both models and proves nothing as different conditions allow a further bounce.  Again, this will be used against the globe Earth, the farther the bounce the stronger the flat Earth argument, after all, how do you bounce a signal the other side of a globe?!   It also props up the idea that satellite signals are bounced off the ionosphere and aren’t coming from actual Earth orbiting satellites.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of the Moon

« on: April 09, 2019, 08:50:24 PM »

An image of a full moon diagram where the light from the sun bends upwards:

Looking at this illustration, the moons phases are caused by the moon changing altitude?  It is interesting and sort of works if you don’t have to match the moon and sun locations above the Earth.  How the phases change and then pair that with a solar eclipse I don’t see how that is possible with that image since solar eclipses are timed perfectly with the new moon.  I also don’t see how shadows seen on a full moon would work if the light was bending the shadows would bend as well I would expect as light on the far side of the sun is being necessarily bent quite a bit to light it up.

As the light bends it would radiate energy trangentially anyway. So even if you didn’t see the sun you would see it’s glow (or something) marking the straight line trajectory.

I understand that, except the light at full moon is coming perpendicular to the surface of the moon as seen by the shadows or lack of them.  How does light bend around a curved surface but still have no shadows or next to no shadows?

You mean how would the shadows on the moon exist in this scenario? Not sure what you’re saying here. Rephrase?

Right.  The moon is a sphere. For a full moon and all moon phases for that matter, we can trace the shadows back to the Sun.  For the full moon specifically, the sun is 180 degrees from the moon, and the shadows show this as well.   

How does bendy light curving around the curve of the moon maintain perpendicular shadows as needed by a sun 180 degrees away?  The angle of the shadows particularly near the edges of the moon on a full or nearly full moon if produced by bending light should show the light coming from a different angle I would think.  If it doesn’t then why shouldn’t the moon be full most of the time.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of the Moon

« on: April 09, 2019, 06:21:28 PM »

An image of a full moon diagram where the light from the sun bends upwards:

Looking at this illustration, the moons phases are caused by the moon changing altitude?  It is interesting and sort of works if you don’t have to match the moon and sun locations above the Earth.  How the phases change and then pair that with a solar eclipse I don’t see how that is possible with that image since solar eclipses are timed perfectly with the new moon.  I also don’t see how shadows seen on a full moon would work if the light was bending the shadows would bend as well I would expect as light on the far side of the sun is being necessarily bent quite a bit to light it up.

As the light bends it would radiate energy trangentially anyway. So even if you didn’t see the sun you would see it’s glow (or something) marking the straight line trajectory.

I understand that, except the light at full moon is coming perpendicular to the surface of the moon as seen by the shadows or lack of them.  How does light bend around a curved surface but still have no shadows or next to no shadows?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of the Moon

« on: April 09, 2019, 05:58:13 PM »

An image of a full moon diagram where the light from the sun bends upwards:

Looking at this illustration, the moons phases are caused by the moon changing altitude?  It is interesting and sort of works if you don’t have to match the moon and sun locations above the Earth.  How the phases change and then pair that with a solar eclipse I don’t see how that is possible with that image since solar eclipses are timed perfectly with the new moon.  I also don’t see how shadows seen on a full moon would work if the light was bending the shadows would bend as well I would expect as light on the far side of the sun is being necessarily bent quite a bit to light it up.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Convince me

« on: March 26, 2019, 05:11:54 PM »

I like your #7, that’s fresh.

The rest are what we get here 50 times a day. So don’t get your hopes up about getting in depth replies.

The water in your bottle curves. That's called a meniscus. The sea is flat ... which is why it is called sea level. #7 only reasserts the fact earth is flat.

What about sea level makes the Earth flat?   The sea is at different levels all the time!  Tides, storm surge, etc etc all greatly affect water level.  Sure, if you ignore all facts and all of science and replace it with imagination then the Earth is flat.

Literally, nothing works on the flat Earth that matches the simplest of observation without appealing to magical undefined forces which don’t match observations even if they existed.

While the OP is correct in that the Earth is undeniably a barely measurable bulge from a perfect sphere, the OP doesn’t even use the best evidence of the globular Earth.

I’ll help the OP out here...

1.  Phases of the moon as seen across the Earth are impossible with a near sun/moon system without creating a self illuminating migrating light source which coincidentally always points towards the Sun and creates shadows to fool us since the Sun and moon cannot be placed above a flat earth to create them and match day/night.

2. Two celestial axi both above the surface of the Earth with accompanying star trails and straight trails at the Equator.  Either the Earth is a sphere and the Universe circles us (which has its own mountain of issues) or the Earth is a sphere and spins approximately once per 24 hours.  If the Earth were flat, then star trails would look like they do at the equator and always look that way, but they don’t...  you go north the axis of rotation becomes higher and higher, same for southerly direction.

3. The suns speed on its path does not increase while it approaches Tropic of Capricorn, or slow down on its path towards Tropic of Cancer as required by a near moon/sun system to create our seasons.

4.  Solar eclipses...  the moon does not follow the same path as the sun as required of it to cause solar eclipses at any time of the year.

5. Distances in Southern Hemisphere and southern direct flights between Santiago/Australia/Johannesburg etc.  This has been done to death, but these flights exist and are taken by millions.

6. 24 hour sun and darkness in the north and south as predicted by a titled spherical Earth.  Millions of people have seen the 24 hour sun in both hemispheres. This is not possible on any FE map without creating even bigger problems (ie bipolar/duel earth etc).

These are the easy ones...  there are many more that FE has zero answer for, I use these ones because bendy light, too many FE models (with possible exception of 6) and magic perspective can’t save FET.  If FE model can’t explain these incredibly basic undeniably true observations then it is dead in the water.  No arguments about gravity or relativity to change the subject have anything to do with them. 

 

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Non-believer. Open-minded. Just need help to understand.

« on: March 08, 2019, 06:59:56 PM »

Hi guys,

I am new to the flat-earth theory, and try as I might, I can't wrap my head around some things.

Is everything in the sky flat? The moon, sun, and planets? Or is it just us?  How does the sun and moon get from the point in the sky where we last saw it, back to where we first saw it again?  My thinking is that something as bright as the sun would be visible 24/7, unless it is orbiting us (or us orbiting it, as I believe it does)?

If everything in the sky is also flat, why does everything appear to be perfectly round?  Does everything in the sky point their flat surfaces directly at us? Why don't we ever see ellipses, or even flat lines in the sky?  I have owned a telescope, and viewed many objects in the sky, and everything is round.

Those objects also spin, and some have visible moons which visibly orbit their planets.  The FE explanation is that just because every object of significant size we have found is spherical and rotate doesn’t mean the Earth is.

What are the moon phases? Why does the moon appear as a crescent in perfectly predictable cycles?  I am having trouble trying to work out why I've never seen a straight line in the sky? This isn't NASA telling me this, but rather things I have observed with my own eyes.

This question has been asked and asked with no explanation given which match our observations that I have found.   Multiple models isn’t an answer when none of the models work with a near Sun/Moon to make the moon phases as observed. 

If we were able to dig straight down far enough, where would it lead us?  What is on the bottom of our earth?  My army buddy spent time in Antarctica, at Casey station; he never told me of a giant wall of ice.

Ask your friend if he witnessed the Sun not setting for 24 hours. The Earth isn’t flat if he witnessed it.  Which routes did he take to get to or from Antarctica?  If he flew some connecting direct routes in the Southern Hemisphere such as anywhere in Australia or New Zealand to South America or South Africa in the time stated by the airlines then the Earth isn’t flat as described by the FE wiki.

I have so many questions, and as someone who believes whole-heartedly that the governments and elite institutions of the world are well and truly involved in cover-ups and conspiracies, I am willing to believe in this too, should the evidence be compelling enough.  I don't, for instance, believe we have been to the moon; I believe this is a cold-war conspiracy.  I need to address my lack of understanding before I can accept this theory.  I will be honest and tell you I think flat-earthers are crazy, but I have been wrong about things I believed in the past, and can accept I may be wrong now. I just need something to make my brain understand.

You should do some research on third party verification of the moon landings.  This is a good start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
In a few years, SpaceX is planning a pass around the Moon with a rich benefactor, it should be interesting to see.

All I ask is somebody explain these things to me.

Thank you all sincerely for taking the time to read, and address these things.

Thanks for stopping by! For me, looking into these ideas expands my knowledge of our place in the Universe and that can’t be a bad thing.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sun rising exactly east for all observers on the Earth during the equinoxes

« on: March 06, 2019, 09:05:46 PM »

(Sorry if this is a necro)
Reading the linked site on the FE Wiki, I'm getting the impression that one's 'local dome of visibility' and the maximum distance you can see the sun have two different radii? The article makes it clear that we only see a small part of the sun's circular path, making it appear straight and an east-west apparent motion possible. That is reinforced by:

Given that at sea level we can only see perhaps 30 miles through the atmosphere […]

If this is the case, then the sun is outside of our field of view, but it is still able to illuminate much more further out than that. If the sun is 3000 miles up then of course the sun has to be at least 3000 miles to someone experiencing noon, and more for anyone else at any other time. This is well outside the 30 mile range. What properties does the sun and other celestial bodies have that make them appear much further out than our maximum vision? Correct me if I have your explanation wrong

I know where you're going wrong. Not to worry, you had me for a bit there too.
This assumes that from the ground to the sun is ALL atmosphere, I bet that a big chunk of it is space.

Luckily for us, the atmosphere appears to extend beyond the Moon! Well, at least enough detectable Hydrogen atoms are out there...

https://www.space.com/amp/earth-atmosphere-extends-beyond-moon.html

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: cone sun possible???

« on: March 06, 2019, 08:48:10 PM »

However, there are still disagreements on the exact explanation of this illusion - some attribute it to the Ponzo Effect. Others attribute it to the Ebbinghaus illusion.  The fact that it is an illusion is an established fact. The CAUSE of the illusion is still debated.

But other thoughts on the cone sun...

A simple test determining starlight aberration will tell you that the Earth does truly rotate around the sun in combination with the observed rotation of the sunspots dispenses with the need to invent a different shape of the sun and orbit of the sun.  A cone sun is simply an ad hoc/post hoc explanation.

Relating to the Earth orbiting the Sun, I have not seen good FET explanations for why our view of the stars changes from season to season either, Hemisphere-wise seasonally as well for stars near the horizon.   I try to stick to geometry and basic observation anyone can make when discussing these issues.  Seems to me concepts like star aberration and other intricate measurements just causes many  FE supporters to roll their eyes and not even consider it.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: cone sun possible???

« on: March 06, 2019, 08:36:06 PM »

However, there are still disagreements on the exact explanation of this illusion - some attribute it to the Ponzo Effect. Others attribute it to the Ebbinghaus illusion.  The fact that it is an illusion is an established fact. The CAUSE of the illusion is still debated.

But other thoughts on the cone sun...

A simple test determining starlight aberration will tell you that the Earth does truly rotate around the sun in combination with the observed rotation of the sunspots dispenses with the need to invent a different shape of the sun and orbit of the sun.  A cone sun is simply an ad hoc/post hoc explanation.

That Ebbinghaus illusion is pretty trippy, I have seen versions of that before but did not know the name.  The two phenomenon are both applicable looks like to me.   What is clear is that it is our brains making it larger.  There are some good documentaries which show how bad we are at interpreting accurately what we are seeing.  Depth, colors, and shadows all mess with our brain as it fills in the gaps and makes massive shortcuts (assumptions) even while we consciously pay attention to it and can see its effect over and over and over.   

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: cone sun possible?

« on: March 06, 2019, 07:12:46 PM »

Sunspots taking approximately 27 days to visibly rotate around to come back to the same location as viewable from the same location on Earth is a huge problem for these questions about the Sun’s shape.  The angular rotation of the sunspots at various latitudes of the Sun match a spherical rotation. 

The Sun does change size throughout the year interestingly.  The angular size of the Sun as seen through filters changes size incredibly slowly from aphelion to perihelion over 6 months.  At aphelion the Sun occupies 31.46 arc minutes or .52538 of a degree of sky.  At perihelion the Sun occupies 32.53 arc minutes or .543251 degrees of sky.  Or better said the Sun is 3.6% larger at perihelion then at aphelion.  To the eye, this is indistinguishable, but filtered photos of the Sun clearly show the size difference.   

At sunset, the Sun appears to be larger, but it is not, as seen through filters, the Sun is the same size throughout the day.  This is a geometric optical illusion known as the Ponzo Effect.  The brain perceives the increase in depth of the Moon or Sun combined with constant light size near the horizon and it translates it into a seemingly larger object. Again, photographs throughout the day with the same focal length and filters shows this to be an illusion.  This effect is easily demonstrated by looking down a dark street illuminated only with streetlights, our brains interpret the lights to be larger the farther they are as they have more depth.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Convince me that the Earth is flat - friendly debate

« on: March 05, 2019, 06:13:57 PM »

IAMPC, that works both ways.  When criticism of FET are broad, then its supporters say the critic is not considering the myriad of models and needs to be more specific.  When critics are very specific in their analyzation of an aspect of FET, its supporters say the critic isn’t considering alternative models.  How are we to have a debate when the answer is the same?

This is why I think the FET supporters of this site and wiki should rule out some concepts and come to at least a general consensus about what they can support.  This is very easy to do.  Is the Sun/Moon near?  Is the Earth an infinite plane?  Is the Earth a dual Earth, monopole or bipolar?  Start there with easy ones and maybe never get to determining if there is a dome or not or a wall which is guarded or not as those are points of contention.  Then we can have a discussion about specific aspects of a general consensus of at least the bigger ideas then what we currently have which is untenable and generally a waste of time debate-wise.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is Nasa cheating us?

« on: February 26, 2019, 07:43:56 PM »

NASA may be cheating us, but Australia’s Richard Branson’s ship just carried its first non pilot passenger to suborbital altitude.  Hundreds of people are in line to pay $250,000 for the ride. 

13

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]

« on: February 24, 2019, 11:40:53 PM »

Provide proper evidence. Quote from your sources rather than mindlessly linking to videos and papers. Provide direct quotes which back up what you are attempting to say.

The first source, a video, provided generic information about RLGs in navigation.

The second source, a paper, linked to the research RLGs previously discussed.

The third paper gives some generic information about RLGs.

You have provided NO evidence to back up the claims you have made. None. Quote your sources. Learn what evidence is and how to provide it. Show us.

So, aviation training manual showing RLG are used for navigation isn’t evidence they are used in planes? 

https://archive.org/details/arxiv-physics0406156
Paper on RLG to detect rotation of the Earth...  Is that direct enough? They are specifically sensitive enough to measure changes in the rotation of the Earth...

14

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]

« on: February 24, 2019, 11:04:44 PM »

Why don’t you address the gyro Mr. Knodel used in the video, then proceeded to ignore the results as they were inconceivable, instead of some other gyro not in the discussion.  The gyros in question are used in airplanes to adjust specifically for the Earths rotation,  not seismic acitivity or the movement of the galaxy or the orbit around the Sun.

I will suggest you research some more. A search for "Ring Laser Gyroscope" and "seismic" brings up many papers showing that the RLG is used to study seismology.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22ring+laser+gyroscope%22+%22seismic%22

Do some searches for "ring laser gyroscope" + "earth rotation". Show us where the device is measuring 15 degrees per hour beneath it and is not talking about the earth's rotation as seismic signals.

Demonstrate rather than say or assume. So far you have demonstrated nothing.

"The gyros in question are used in airplanes..." I would like to see a source for this. Please demonstrate that the gyro in question is used in airplanes, and that all airplane gyroscopes and all RLGs of all types and resolutions can see this feature.

These are all things that you heard, not things that you have demonstrated. Demonstrate you claims, right here, rather than stating them.

Really?  An explanation of ring laser gyroscope usage in commercial aircraft.  These took  seconds to find.


http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/ringlaser/about_us.shtml
Taken from the front page... “The goal of this research group is the development of world-leading active ring laser gyroscopes for measuring subtle variations in the rotation rate of the earth. This is important for research in geophysics, geodesy, general relativity and other areas of fundamental physics.”

Modern navigation from early gyros to ring laser gyros ...
http://www.imar-navigation.de/downloads/papers/inertial_navigation_introduction.pdf

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]

« on: February 24, 2019, 10:06:28 PM »

Why don’t you address the gyro Mr. Knodel used in the video, then proceeded to ignore the results as they were inconceivable, instead of some other gyro not in the discussion.  The gyros in question are used in airplanes to adjust specifically for the Earths rotation,  not seismic acitivity or the movement of the galaxy or the orbit around the Sun.

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]

« on: February 24, 2019, 09:16:14 PM »

The author of the paper states that they apply a period of 86164 seconds, the sidrael day, to this feature of the background noise to come up with a "rotation rate". This is how the device is stated to work.

You have done nothing, and have shown no sources, to say otherwise.

So, why do commercial airplanes have these expensive gyros in them if they aren’t measuring what they claim to measure.  What possible purpose would they serve?  Notice how Mr. Knodel says  he won’t accept the 15 degree rotation per hour despite its consistency.  He not so subtley asserts the gyro is measuring distance and speed of the heavens energies then says it would pick up the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and even pick up the movement of the entire galaxy therefore it is useless.  How utterly obnoxious.  Notice he has not come out with any more experiments.  As a self proclaimed engineer you would think he would use that gyro hundreds of times in different places with different controls and then release those experiments.  If the device is so incredibly accurate, surely it would be the nail in the coffin for globular spinning earth.

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]

« on: February 24, 2019, 09:04:37 PM »

The flat Earth content makers in that video also unequivocally state southern flights east west across the southern ocean are fake or nonexistent.

Sydney to Johannesburg, time lapsed from 13 plus hour flight, paired with satellite images and gps data analyzation confirming the planes location.
I would wager the person on the flight would even share his entire 13 plus hour video with you if asked nicely.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!

« on: February 13, 2019, 06:07:31 PM »

That photo is obviously not the entirety of the earth, what makes you think that photo is showing too much of the Earth from one side?  Did NASA claim that photo or the ISS is capable of showing an entire hemisphere of the Earth in a single photo (even fisheye)?   Isn’t the first step to disprove that photo to display what the photo even is? Are you suggesting there is no “horizon” equivalent effectively cutting off the view prior to where the hemisphere ends as viewable for the ISS? That horizon for the ISS would reveal more and more of the Earth surface if the ISS were to change its altitude.  Obviously it’s not high enough in altitude to see anywhere near half the spherical Earth, no one has ever claimed it was.

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: the ISS light in the sky is fake, right?

« on: February 08, 2019, 05:15:03 PM »

Furthermore I'm unaware of what equipment is being used to lock onto and follow something that is moving that fast up in the sky.



Look at this video. An independent astronomer with a telescope/camera and a tripod is unable to "track" this moving aircraft/rock/balloon/mirage/upper atmosphere station. It just zips by. In the video you presented it looks like it is from some sort of professional observatory which very likely could be getting some sort of NASA funding.

He is unable to track it because an EQ mount or Alt-Az mount is designed to track objects in the sky mathematically based on the rotation of the Earth, the latitude, and location of Polaris if in Northern Hemisphere or a few bright objects you use to calibrate.  Most EQ mounts for example are designed to work best at specific latitude ranges to keep the same object in its sights near perfectly for hours for imaging.  You can’t just look at an object and expect such a mount to follow it, that would take software and a custom program to control the mount to track the ISS moving in a few minutes across the sky.  Moving a telescope by hand to perfectly track the ISS would obviously be difficult.

With the right equipment tank shells are tracked through the air.  YouTube it.  The idea that you can’t track something that takes four to five minutes to cross the sky is a little silly when you can video in high def a tank shell from its firing to the target.  If it costs a few thousand dollars, what does that matter?  I am currently saving money for a TEC140 telescope that costs about $7000 with an EQ mount costing $2500.  When I attend skywatching parties, amateurs regularly bring telescopes which cost over $10000 on mounts that cost over $4000.  One local amateur skywatcher built his own observatory, must have cost him $60000 and his pictures and video would rival that public observatory.  A simple visit to an active astronomy club will show you the great lengths skywatchers are going for their hobby.

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: Pole to Pole Trip Cancelled

« on: February 01, 2019, 10:14:08 PM »

Why wouldn’t that YouTuber just take a cruise to Antarctica and view the 24 hour sun in December?  This is not difficult, and would cost significantly less then $20,000 and would be actual evidence...  If people were serious about exploring FET, taking a flight from L.A. to Melbourne or Sydney, to Santiago, the next a cruise to see the 24 hour sun would be enlightening I’d expect.  After all, those flights are scams, and there is no 24 hour Antarctic Sun or the military would stop you so why not prove it? Make a go fund me and do it, livestream it...  This really is not that difficult.