### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - SteelyBob

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: December 13, 2022, 10:07:18 PM »
[
Its ok for you to tell me its a rule of thumb that I am using when you are using a rule of thumb for the diameter of the earth?

I’m using an approximation - the earth isn’t a perfect sphere, it’s an oblate spheroid - fat in the middle. 4000 miles is close enough.

I told you the other one is a rule of thumb because it is a rule of thumb. You then mangled it, misunderstood it and then produced some maths that was so wrong it’s hard to know where to start.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: December 13, 2022, 10:01:31 PM »
[
Yes but science is based on miniscule scale models its based on fact. Of course I wont see anything at that scale. But on the total scale of the earth I expect to see something projecting from 'ground level'. Dont you?

But you’ve asked for a picture of the mountain with the whole earth shown. That is what you asked for. I’m demonstrating to you that it won’t work, due to the relative size of the earth and the mountain. If I’ve misunderstood you, please sketch what you want the photo to look like.

3
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are there any 2d projections that are widely accepted by FE?
« on: December 13, 2022, 07:49:28 PM »
Yes, those are all valid arguments... Inevitably if a FE map is claimed to be true a discussion of its distance changes must be discussed...

Surely not just discussed? If you produce, for example, a map that requires Australia to be several times wider, east to west, than it is known to be…isn’t that enough for you to be able to confidently say ‘this map is wrong’? We never see FE proponents discuss these things - if you are generally interested in the subject, wouldn’t you want to work out which map was correct?

4
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are there any 2d projections that are widely accepted by FE?
« on: December 13, 2022, 04:08:48 PM »
I'm sorry, nothing comes to mind.

Then why do you think it’s possible? Surely somebody who thinks something is possible, and is participating in an online debate about the subject, might go so far as to attempt the thing that they are claiming to be possible, before pronouncing that it is possible?

5
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are there any 2d projections that are widely accepted by FE?
« on: December 13, 2022, 03:09:56 PM »
It's true, it's not an easy conversion...  Land and water measurements cannot equal a spherical map...  But I do think it's possible to make a flat map and justify the changes...

Can you give a single example of just one change that you might make, and why?

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: December 13, 2022, 01:52:57 PM »

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

So you claim to see the earths curvature at 8 inches per mile. That is 8/63360ths of a mile. Yet we won't see a mountain peak which is a 727th of the 4000 unit radius?
You can do anything with statistics.

I don’t claim that, no. I believe that is a rule of thumb, which you have slightly misquoted - it’s per mile squared.

Emphasis on rule of thumb though - it’s not accurate, and it gets less accurate the further away you go.

Let’s try this again. Draw a circle of 8 inches diameter on a piece of paper. That is earth. You can write N and S to indicate the poles, and a line across the middle to show the equator.

Now let’s try to draw the situation you describe. Get a protractor and measure 28 degrees around from the equator towards the North Pole - mark it off on the edge of circle. That’s Everest’s latitude. Now draw a mountain sticking out from the earth by 5.5 thousandths of an inch. Let me know how you get on, bearing in mind that your pen or pencil is probably making lines substantially thicker than Everest is high.

7
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: December 13, 2022, 12:23:59 PM »

Nice images. But the pic I have been referring to is one of the 'edge' of the globe i.e. the line of the circumference as seen when viewing it from a front elevation as it sits with the north pole at the 'top' and south pole at the 'bottom'. Not from 'above' the mountains.

So you want a picture with the North Pole at the top and the South Pole at the bottom with Everest sticking out the side?

So the earth is 8000 statute miles 'tall', and Everest is 5.5 miles above mean sea level. Draw a ball of radius 4000 x any unit you like and then draw a spike sticking out of it that 5.5 of the same units. Tell me if you can see much of the spike.

Having just shown you photos of Everest taken from space at various ranges...why would there particular photo you seek prove anything to you? You're dismissing every other photo as fake, anyway, right?

8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: December 13, 2022, 08:43:45 AM »
[
'We' can allegedly see stars and galaxies light years away. We can see craters on the moon from 250,000 miles away. But we cant see the top of a mountain (even better a person on top of that mountain) from a front elevation of the globe from a few miles up and capture that image as its peak projects horizontally away from the globe. That would stop in its tracks any further debate on this subject. It would prove a global earth. No formulas, equations, theories or experiments. Just a simple photograph. There has to be a reason that none exist.

Something like this?

I’m not really clear why the ‘projection’ aspect of this gives you the proof. You’ve already dismissed other photos as fake, so wouldn’t you just say it was fake as well?

Moreover, I’m not sure if the kind of photo you’re after is even possible - Everest is a big mountain (elevation approx 5.5 statute miles), but it’s tiny in comparison to the earth, so any picture that shows an appreciable component of the globe (radius approx 4000 statute miles) isn’t going to really show Everest itself very much. You also have the problem that the more oblique the photo, the more haze layer you have to photograph through, and the fuzzier the image.

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: December 12, 2022, 08:16:47 PM »
I remember reading one time that if a snooker ball was the size of the earth then it would have bigger mountains than Everest. Point being, the Earth is very smooth for its side. So yes, any mountains, people or any other objects at the positions of those stick men would be angled as the stick men are. But unless they were at the size of those stick men you wouldn’t be able to see them at the distance where you can also see the whole globe earth. Optical resolution is a factor but so it just how far you’re looking through the atmosphere at that angle.
But why is any of this an issue. We have photos of the globe earth, unless you have good evidence they’re faked then that should be pretty definitive. Especially when you add things like the ISS, other technologies which we use daily and rely on satellites etc etc.

We have two dimensional, processed, spliced, enhanced photos of the earth. That's what they are.

But you could say that about any image, right? This is a pointless debate if your baseline assumption is that any image refuting your beliefs is false.

That then raises the question: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong? If the answer is ‘nothing could do this’, then there is little point in debating anything with you. If you can explain what would persuade you, then we can help.

10
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: December 12, 2022, 05:33:17 PM »
I would love to see such a photograph of a person (who, in their own geographical location, is standing upright) sticking out at right angles from the earth. That would surely cement the global earth theory and dispel the concept of a flat earth.

We have numerous photographs of the Earth from multiple space missions. One can identify the land masses of the various continents in most all of them. If you accept that everybody in (say) Africa is standing upright in their onw geographic position, and you can see that the land mass of Africa wraps around the edge of the globe when viewed from the camera location, why would you doubt that the vertical person in Africa would have a different orientation when viewed by the camera?

Am doubting it because it couldn't happen. Why is there no close up of Everest for example? Imagine how folk would marvel at such images. They would be priceless.

Not really clear where you’re going with this one. There are loads of photos available - the key word you need is ‘oblique’, meaning side on, as opposed to the normal plan form shots. A quick google will reveal loads of shots. Here’s a couple:

https://www.newsweek.com/can-you-spot-mt-everest-space-this-photo-astronaut-took-iss-1654811?amp=1

https://www.universetoday.com/147074/mount-everest-seen-from-space/amp/

The issue is that you are just going to cry ‘fake’ at anything that refutes your views. The orientation thing seems a bit of a red herring - you can rotate any photo, any which way you choose. Most of the oblique shots that I’ve seen have been orientated gravity-down, but even if they weren’t, you would presumably just say they were faked, right?

11
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: December 11, 2022, 08:56:46 PM »
Let us take the Earth as a perfect sphere.

Place a human on the surface, and let's say he is 1.7m tall. He will be able to see to the horizon, and whatever is nearer than the horizon, but nothing of the Earth's surface beyond it. If we draw a plumbline, a vertical at his location, his sightline to and beyond the horizon will be the green angle H.

If there's a ship out there of infinite height, and we also draw a plumb vertical at its location, the angle between that plumb and the vertical we formed at the human's location will be the red angle S

These two lines can only meet (i.e. the human's sightline will meet the ship's infinite height) if angle S is greater than H. If they are equal, the sightline will be parallel to the ship, and can never meet it. If S is less than H, the sightline will diverge away from the ship. The lines can only meet if they converge. If S is greater than H. I could work out the maths to the Nth degree to determine exactly how far, but really ...

My bad - you are absolutely correct. Nicely explained.

12
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: December 11, 2022, 06:04:15 PM »
So at what point i.e. distance from the shore, would a ship become impossible to see (assuming it has an unlimited height) due to the curvature of the earth? I presume the 90 degree mark i.e. 6,000 miles away?

One can only compute this if the height of the ship is known. Not with an unspecified "unlimited" height

I guess if the height was unlimited (ie infinite) then you would be able to see some part of it on all locations on the globe apart from the point directly opposite the observer - ie if the observer was at the North Pole and the infinite tall thing was at the South Pole, then you wouldn't be able to see it. Deviate from that position, however, and the infinite vertical protrusion would also have some infinite horizontal component part as well, meaning you'd see it sticking out.

A somewhat odd thought experiment.

13
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: December 11, 2022, 03:33:30 PM »
So at what point i.e. distance from the shore, would a ship become impossible to see (assuming it has an unlimited height) due to the curvature of the earth? I presume the 90 degree mark i.e. 6,000 miles away?
And if such a ship had a mast lets say of 4,000 feet tall - assuming curvature of 8 inches per mile then using a telescope capable of seeing such a distance what would that ship look like in the water? According to the figures mentioned above it would appear to be lying on its side i.e. at 90 degrees but we know that isnt how it would be. I rather fancy it would still be sailing at right angles to the water surface.

Using this calculator: https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature

...and an observer height of 1.7m (ie a man standing at sea level) then a 4000ft object would be completely obscured at 80 statute miles, so still pretty much 1 degree of tilt territory. Note that this ignores refraction, which will, depending on the conditions, increase the distance that distant objects can be seen, as well as meteorological visibility, which generally prevents anything further than 10-20 miles or so being seen clearly. And that tilt is with respect to the observer, not the local see. Anywhere on earth the surface appears to be level. It is earth's massive size, compared to us as humans, that causes the confusion. There are many ways to demonstrate or test for the shape - gyroscopes, stellar observations, distant objects disappearing below the horizon - but as you are demonstrating, if you aren't willing to be open-minded, it's a somewhat futile task to change peoples' opinions.

14
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why is Earth a magnet?
« on: December 08, 2022, 10:44:11 PM »
I'm told the air is so thin that planes can't get there and probably any other machine or human that I know of.

By whom?

15
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: November 27, 2022, 07:27:21 PM »
I don't have any thoughts on the FE map. It isn't proof of anything.
Nobody is suggesting that map is proof. The FET maps are proposed layouts of the earth. My point is that they are falsifiable, and have been falsified by numerous means, of which the flight times is a very good example.

And nor are flight times - they don't prove the earth is a globe.

Absolute proof…perhaps not, but extremely strong evidence - yes. If you tried the exercise I suggested you would see that there is no way to make the flight time-derived distances coherent without wrapping the map around a sphere.

Especially when it’s quicker to fly one way than the other.  As it should technically be the same as one presumes the plane travels the same route on its return?

No, it shouldn’t be the same. Aircraft groundspeeds are a function of their airspeed and the wind - the movement of the air mass they are flying through. You would not expect the times to be the same in both directions.

They fly roughly the same route in both directions, yes, although they do vary their flight path slightly in order to maximise / minimise the wind effect. There are also regulatory reasons for not necessarily flying the most absolutely direct route, however for the purposes of this argument the effect can be ignored.

My question to you was to ask whether you agreed that the flight times were inconsistent with the FET map - do you agree? Are my estimated distances from the FET map about right? Do you agree that the flights exist, and take roughly that amount of time? If so, do you agree that the FET map cannot possibly be correct?

Or if you disagree, where specifically do you think my train of logic is wrong?

16
« on: November 26, 2022, 08:10:06 PM »
The U.N. uses the Azimuthal Equidistant map as their logo. They are hiding the truth right out in plain (plane) site.

There are numerous obvious problems with the FET idea that the AE map is a true, dimensionally and spatially accurate scale representation of the earth.

As I pointed out in this thread - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19193.msg274182#msg274182, and as others have pointed out in others, if the AE map (or north centred monopole) is correct, then the distances between places that we expect from the RET earth model cannot be true. But the evidence for these RET distances being correct is substantial - I used long-haul flight times in the adjacent thread, but there are plenty of others.

Do you have a view on this? How do you explain the flight times between Perth and Johannesburg, for example, if the earth is indeed laid out as per the AE map?

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: November 26, 2022, 11:14:14 AM »
They have never convinced even one flat earther to believe the Lies.

Not one flat earther has convinced a glober that the Earth is flat. Touche.

No one has seen the curvature of the earth.

Au contraire mon frère...Capt. James T Kirk has...

In this exclusive excerpt from William Shatner’s new book, “Boldly Go: Reflections on a Life of Awe and Wonder,” the “Star Trek” actor reflects on his voyage into space on Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space shuttle on Oct. 13, 2021.

"I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing. I turned back toward the light of home. I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her."
- William Shatner

Thats obviously conclusive then he is obviously having flashbacks to an earlier life.

On a similar note it amazes me how many globalists refer to the sun as 'rising' and 'setting' in the sky. Sorry to spoil the party but scientifically it doesn't rise or set. According to you we orbit it therefore it cannot 'rise'.

Any thoughts on my flight times question Simon?

18
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: November 24, 2022, 06:09:12 PM »
Yes  - to scheduled times.

Following on from my last post, let's take an example. You can fly with Qantas from Perth to Johannesburg direct. It takes 9:55 hours from Johannesburg, and 11:15 hours travelling from Perth. As per my suggestion, let's split the difference and call it 10:35 hours on average. Now allow 30 mins for arrival and departure, so 10:05. The jet will average around 500mph, so that's a touch over 5000 miles.

The round earth great circle distance between those two places comes in at just under 5200 miles, so the estimate is pretty good on that basis.

Now take a look at, for example, the monopole FET map. According to the wiki, the diameter of the earth is 25,000 miles. What would you say is the distance between Perth and Johannesburg on that map? I'd say roughly 80% of the radius maybe? So about 10,000 miles?

So our aircraft is going to have to fly at roughly twice the speed. We know there aren't any supersonic airliners anymore, so what does that leave us? Either magic 'anomalous winds' that blow at 500mph in both directions or the map is hopelessly wrong?

The existence of that flight alone should be enough to completely falsify the monopole FET map. Would you agree?

19
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: November 24, 2022, 07:19:56 AM »
[

Its fine saying that software was written for plane flights. Yet its so weird that on an out journey a plane can take longer than expected to get there and on the in journey it gets back quicker than expected. of course we blame tail winds or head winds for this. Isn't it remotely possible that the estimated distances were miscalculated and relying on a round earth? It never ceases to amaze me how frequently many people get off a flight an hour before they were due to land. Its actually quite worrying given the consequences of a plane taking off and no one knowing when it will eventually land.

This has been done to death here n several occasions. Flight times of international services are extremely good evidence for the earth being spherical. A genuinely interested (dare I say zetetic?) sceptical person might, for example, take the average of the outbound and return flight times for a large number of different long haul routes. You could, if you wished, compare planned with actual departure and arrival times to add an extras layer of accuracy and verification.

Most airliners cruise at pretty much the same speed - around M0.75 give or take, which is around 500mph true air speed at 40,000. If you subtract 30 mins from each flight time to allow for take off and landing etc, and then work out the approximate distance based on the remaining time and 500mph, you’ll have a grid of estimated distances between major cities all over the earth.

The question, then, is: is there some way of arranging these cities on a blank page such that the distances between them are roughly coherent?

You will find that the answer is ‘no’. The only way you’ll be able to make the distances work is by doing it on a sphere.

I would say that is strong evidence for a round earth. Others might say ‘anomalous winds’, despite the obvious absurdity. What do you think?

20
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: November 23, 2022, 07:24:45 PM »
So if we can detect curvature only a few miles out to sea, then shouldn't we be able to detect curvature accross the sea?

I happen to believe that the earth starts to appear spherical from the sky, because of atmospheric refraction (the bending of images and light, etc)...

Using the method of measuring two or three objects accross a certain distance from another, minimizes the same problems you get with measuring one object at a distance (on sea) - wind, ocean swell, and local refraction phenomena...  Because you can get an average of how high each "ship" is relative to one another, how verticle there masts are and the angles they point away from one another...   Doing this experiment on land with a few buildings or flag poles may also work.

Why not use the stars? Measure the elevation angle of the North Star (convenient because it doesn’t appear to move, unlike the other stars in the northern hemisphere), and measure the elevation angle above the horizon. Then move some distance north or south and repeat the exercise. Keep doing this and you’ll get a plot of lots of angles and distances. You’ll find that, for every 60 miles you move in a northerly direction, the North Star rises by 1 degree in the sky.

You’ll very quickly see that the only possible solution that works for all the measurements is a spherical earth and a star that is a long, long way away. Try it on a flat earth, and / or with a star that is only a few thousand miles away, and it won’t work.

This is where the absurdity of FET then comes to the fore. Given that the whole theory is allegedly based on simple observations, when confronted with this very simple observation, FET proponents have to invoke ‘bendy light’, aka ‘EA’, for which they have no explanation, nor any model, nor indeed any proof whatsoever.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 29  Next >