2881

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: October 17, 2018, 02:43:40 AM »

Recently the dependable Russian Soyus rocket with two astro's aboard 1 american 1 russian failed at 31 miles up on the way to the make believe ISS. The Nuts in the ISS at 254 miles up took this pic of the failed launch. Now you tell me, does this photo look like it was taken from a height almost 10 times higher?

Lies, Lies and more hoax..... The Nuts crash landed, first time in about 30+ years as I recall, both safe and sound in Hollywood.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/on-thursday-a-rocket-failed-three-humans-remain-on-the-iss-whats-next/

BTW hold a ruler up...NO CURVATURE AT ALL>>>Pancake FLAT

I'm not sure what this has to do with satellites.

Aside from that, if it's fake, as you claim, then holding a ruler up is neither here nor there. Because, well, it's fake. I guess maybe it's a fake shot, from a fake ISS, showing a fake flat earth.

As for satellite launches, they are typically unmanned.

2882

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Purpose of the Flat Earth Media board

« on: October 16, 2018, 07:53:51 PM »

It's the easiest way to establish a collaborative video feed without forcing everyone to sign up to a new service. It's a low tech solution, but it works fine for the time being.

Basically, if you want to make a quick comment on the video, point out that there's a follow-up or refer people to response videos, you can do that in the same thread. If you want to discuss the content of the video in any more meaningful matter, that belongs to the debate boards.

The Wiki wouldn't really work for this. We don't want to be arbiters of what is "best".

To be blunt - that section of the forum is probably not for you. It's unlikely to interest you. And that's fine.

As for anti-FE videos - I'm not sure if we've reached a formal agreement on that. My suggestion would be that these, again, are better placed in the debate boards. Posting them in the Media board does not serve the Society's goal of documenting and popularising FET, but rather its goal of offering a discussion space for free thinkers. Hopefully this makes sense.

All makes sense. I guess the simplest solution would be that it's a place for pro-FET media and if anyone wants to debate something contained therein, they pull it out and address it in one of the debate forums. Maybe even go so far as to state that explicitly in the "purpose" post. I think that may give it more of a 'repository' feel. You kind of already state that, but it's loose. And giving the royal 'we' an inch usually leads to us taking a mile.

2883

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Coriolis Effect - Wiki Page

« on: October 16, 2018, 05:27:07 AM »

I doubt a 1960's Fortran program is still in use today. But from the document:

Page 5: "The program is run on the IBM 1410 computer. It is being adapted for use on the IBM 1620 computer for use by the Army.”

Document declassified by the Department of Defense.

2884

Suggestions & Concerns / Purpose of the Flat Earth Media board

« on: October 16, 2018, 01:18:26 AM »

I wasn't sure where to post my question, so I'm starting here.

What exactly is the purpose of the "Flat Earth Media" board? There's this:

"The purpose of this board is to create a community-driven repository of media relating to the Flat Earth Society or Flat Earth Theory. Please post here if you've found any interesting material which pertains to these subjects."

Is 'anti-Flat Earth Theory' media allowed?
At what point should discussion create a new thread elsewhere as suggested?

Just trying to cut an issue 'off at the pass', as it were, and not get into trouble nor viewed as disrespectful.

2885

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Coriolis Effect - Wiki Page

« on: October 15, 2018, 11:03:38 PM »

That is, the Earth does not rotate: only the Coriolis effect of the ether drift was registered by the fringe shifts of the interferometer.

This paper, though quite old, is for a calculator of sorts for ballistic missile guidance used by the US Army.

Page 5: “The program takes into account air resistance, the variation of the gravitational and centrifugal field with latitude, and earth’s rotation.”

Page 14, Equation 24, “kc  = Coriolis Effect"

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/414825.pdf

2886

Flat Earth Media / Re: NAVY Missile Instructor Describes Flat Earth

« on: October 15, 2018, 06:36:27 PM »

Nothing against the Missile Instructors belief system. In one of his 4 videos (this one here) he mentions his belief in Flat Earth right at the beginning. So I thought it was relevant.

2887

Flat Earth Community / Re: A missed gem - the Washington Post schools NdGT on our FAQ

« on: October 15, 2018, 06:29:04 PM »

Would you have preferred if, for example, he showed instead of the first image, something more reflective of what's in the FAQ, like the second image?

We would have preferred it if he had actually read anything about something he was attempting to criticize.

I get that. I'm just trying to get at an example of what that preference might have looked like. One that would have satisfied what amounts to be a counter argument to his criticism and how it should have been taken into consideration.

2888

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Albert Einstein: Father of the Universal Accelerator

« on: October 15, 2018, 06:24:28 PM »

I can understand why an acceleration of the flat earth (in some unspecified vector direction) would hold all of us on the ground.  The flat earth theories also seem to require a firmament (dome) to keep the sea water and air from falling off the edge.  Additionally, the Sun and Moon are inside the dome and rotate at a certain rate to match what is seen by humans on the surface of the earth.  Now the big question is what keeps the moon (a sphere of 32 miles) at 3000 miles above the earth's surface in place?  I suppose that there could be a cable that holds the moon to the top of the dome but no one has mentioned that.   You can also see a lot of surface damage (craters) on the moon.  I was always told that they were produced by the collisions of asteroids.  Did these asteroids come thru the dome or was the moon made that way (by unspecified beings) before it was suspended inside the dome?     

The big question is whether UA is action at a distance, or at a point. If the former, this explains why the moon is accelerating upwards as well as the earth, but does not explain why the action does not also affect humans, buildings, things in coal mines etc. If the latter, it is difficult to explain why the moon and the heavens do not come crashing down.

The way it's been explained to me is that UA is accelerating everything inside the Universe. The reason why terrestrial things (humans among them) don't fly upwards is that we are 'shielded' from below by earth itself. However, if the moon and sun and all other celestial objects are above the earth, then wouldn't they be shielded too? Then the question is, to your point, why haven't we accelerated upward and slammed into them? I guess that brings in the 'dome' argument, the moon and sun being beneath it. But it's my understanding that Saturn, for example, is above the dome. So why doesn't our dome slam into it? I haven't found an explanation for this. May have missed it though.

2889

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Out Hero and MCToon examine the AE Map

« on: October 15, 2018, 05:59:38 PM »

The second one will not work.

Why not?  Is there something wrong with it?

It's the "AuthaGraph" globe projection map. Here is how it was formed moving from a globe to a flat map:

2890

Flat Earth Community / Re: A missed gem - the Washington Post schools NdGT on our FAQ

« on: October 15, 2018, 05:42:50 PM »

However, if you flip the argument, the vast majority of FET proponents consider space travel, any manmade space object, something that may even be able to take a picture of earth from way up there, to be fake. The notion of any of it being real is a non-starter for them.

I would still argue that NdGT is much more guilty here than others. Whether you want to criticise some FE'ers or, say, the WaPo article, at least they're able to state their opponents' position, even if they fail to riposte. NdGT fails at the former stage.

Would you have preferred if, for example, he showed instead of the first image, something more reflective of what's in the FAQ, like the second image?

2891

Flat Earth Community / Re: A missed gem - the Washington Post schools NdGT on our FAQ

« on: October 14, 2018, 07:07:11 AM »

Once again, we're left with a bleak image of society. Those who are supposed to lead the charge in educating the masses struggle to find it in themselves to actually research the subject they're intending to discuss, and prestigious journalistic outlets find it difficult to mount a more coherent response than "haha this is obviously stupid!"

Complicated. There are a host of issues woven all throughout this. For one, NdGT is more of a celebrity who is an astrophysicist, not so much the other way around anymore. So I wouldn’t necessarily say he is leading the charge to educate the masses. Just as much as I wouldn’t say B.o.B. is either.  Though FET got a nice bump from the latter’s endorsement way back when.

But back to NdGT. He is an astrophysicist with all of his education and experience leading him to believe the earth is round, we spin and revolve around the sun, we went to the moon, satellites are real, i.e., RET.  So for a person like that, a lot of what is in the FAQ, for example, if he ever chose to review it, might as well be written in a language he doesn’t know. And as the WaPo article somewhat painfully pointed out there are some non-starters for the majority of folks right from the get go. For example, NASA conspiracy. For NdGT that is anathema. That probably ends his wanting to look any further into FET right out of the starting gate.

However, if you flip the argument, the vast majority of FET proponents consider space travel, any manmade space object, something that may even be able to take a picture of earth from way up there, to be fake. The notion of any of it being real is a non-starter for them.

So, in essence, all of this is a bleak image of society. FET is just as guilty as RET is. RET just has a much bigger voice.

2892

Flat Earth Community / Re: A missed gem - the Washington Post schools NdGT on our FAQ

« on: October 14, 2018, 01:32:44 AM »

Space has been politicized and militarized from the opening moments of the race to reach it.

Tyson well admits that the military is deeply involved in space, and that the government and its allies attempt to control it in all aspects.

Good read, about halfway through, definitely recommend.

NASA was specifically created, not for the benefit of humanity, but to show the world that America could get ICBMs and other weapons into space and annihilate its enemies at the push of a button.

I don't think that really means anything. I mean the initial Internet protocols were specifically created, not for the benefit of humanity, but to maintain military/government computer-to-computer communications in case of an ICBM attack. As well, we nailed the "push of a button" mutually assured destruction concept 50-60 years ago. So fast forward to today, I'm not sure something like the ISS, shared by several nations, one a cold war foe, in fact, necessarily speaks to NASA's militaristic beginnings. Now whether one thinks the Internet is a benefit to humanity today given it's cold war inception, debatable...

2893

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 13, 2018, 07:03:46 PM »

P4. Explanation of the Scientific Method. Description of steps. Explain its inferiority for building truth off of a specific hypothesis. By not considering all known possibilities a "half-truth" or "partial-truth" may slip by.

From a meta perspective, you start with the hypothesis that the scientific method of building truth off of a hypothesis is inferior to Zeteticism, which doesn’t start with a hypothesis, then presumably proceed to explain why hypothesizing may obscure some truth.

P5. Describe how Astronomy is not a science, not even following the Scientific Method.

Much of Astronomy is based upon observation. And pattern based. Wouldn’t that make it more Zetetic than anything else? Defacto, wouldn’t that make Zeteticism “not a science”?

P6. Describe how the Nasa space flights generally do not count as science themselves, being ultimately a claim. Describe how NASA space flights and space science are not even peer reviewed, the standard in scientific credibility.

A couple of things here. There is more to space flights and space science than just NASA. Many other countries and organizations partake in such endeavors.

Specifically, NASA has ‘pubspace’, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/funder/nasa/) their repository "to permanently preserve and provide easy public access to the peer-reviewed papers resulting from NASA-funded research."

2894

Flat Earth Community / Re: Revolution

« on: October 13, 2018, 06:43:44 AM »

Stack, everything I said is true.

Per stratellites, I was thinking more about Google's Project Loon and the government's stratellite and pseudolite projects.

https://loon.co/

"Loon is a network of stratospheric balloons designed to bring Internet connectivity to rural and remote communities worldwide."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loon_(company)

From the timeline we see that Loon has already signed contracts with several countries. While they do not release numbers, we can expect it to be in the millions.

Related Article: Google thinks its internet balloons could be a $10 billion business

WorldView is another company with existing contracts:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180604-the-new-lighter-than-air-race-for-space

World View, based in Tucson, plan to use their balloons, known as Stratollites, not just as communications relays, but also as surveillance platforms. BBC Future visited their facility back in 2016.

“Applications are endless, from persistently monitoring forests to notifying first responders when a fire sparks, to watching remote parts of the ocean for maritime piracy, to real-time monitoring of crop health," says World View’s Angelica DeLuccia Morrissey.

Three years ago World View looked like a dream, but after a series of increasingly ambitious test flights, the company has government contracts and commercial customers.

Per the government's stratellite and pseudolite research, see this article:

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2175-91462016000300249

The government has likely already spent over a hundred of million of dollars on these technologies, and have successfully deployed them for special operations.

Yes, there have been various HAPs programs for decades, but really none except for Project Loon have gotten anywhere.

But that's not the point. The point is none of this has anything to do with FET, nor RET, for that matter. Project Loon wasn't created b/c Google thinks "RET is a lie and there are no satellites b/c space travel doesn't exist". Loon is a way to more cheaply deliver internet access in areas underserved by satellite and ground based infrastructure. And make money doing it.

The larger point is that FET would absolutely revolutionize navigation, shipping, transportation, etc., but as it stands, I can't seem to find a single industry or technology that is predicated on FET and one that bests those industries or technologies that base at least a portion of their monetization on RET. Easy example, think fuel consumption in the airline industry.

Now that we got that squared away, how about all the other truths you mentioned?

2895

Flat Earth Community / Re: Revolution

« on: October 12, 2018, 06:27:49 AM »

AM Radio

Unlike FM Radio which is more affected and limited by the atmosphere, AM Radio can propagate further than than the curvature of the earth should allow.

Profit: Tens of Billions of Dollars Annually

Hardly revolutionized by FET. Citation requested that AM radio can propagate further than a curved earth should allow.

Stratellite Industry

A number of companies offer cheaper versions of satellite services in the form of high altitude dirigibles.

Profit: Tens of Millions Annually

I couldn’t find a number of companies. I found one, Sanswire, and they have yet to put one into operation. Ironically, their proposed dirigible design uses GPS (satellites) to navigate.
So unless you can cite evidence, your "Profit: Tens of Millions Annually” is a false statement.

Radar Companies

Several companies, mostly government contractors, offer products allowing one to bounce radar signals off of bodies that are beyond the horizon.

Profit: Tens of Millions

Hardly revolutionized by FET. Works just as well on a round earth. And, presumably, on a flat earth they wouldn't need to bounce anything.

Troposcatter Communications Companies

Several companies offer technologies that broadcast a signal against the upper atmosphere, which can communicate with a far away receiver that is pointed at that spot in the sky.

Profit: Unknown Millions

Again, not flat earth centric. Works just as well on a round earth.

Missile Systems

Many government contractors are building missiles that are, according to various documents and testimonials, built to operate with the assumption of a Flat Earth.

Profit: Untold Billions

Untrue. Citation requested. As in the production of the many various documents and testimonials from "many government contractors".

Fighter Jets

Many government contractors are, according to various military documents and testimonials, creating jets which are built to operate with the assumption of a Flat Earth.

Profit: Untold Billions

Untrue. Citation requested. See above.

NOAA Hurricane Early Warning System

NOAA is now using predictive models which do not require the Coriolis Effect for the better prediction of hurricanes and tropical cyclones.

Profit: Possibly Human Lives

Baffled by this one. Did they recently stop requiring the Coriolis Effect? If so, when? And when did they previously start requiring it? Citation requested. 

2896

Flat Earth Community / Re: Revolution

« on: October 12, 2018, 12:29:11 AM »

It kind of comes down to a “show me the money” argument. If FET offered anything in the way of monetary expansion, it would have been or would be exploited. Aside from clicks and ‘subs’ on youtube, I have yet to see where FET would make our lives more beneficial, lucrative. A super ‘meta' argument, but not without merit - As to date, a flat earth does not provide the worlds pinions and gears of any better movement than what we already have in RET. It doesn’t make FET wrong, just less optimized and there's a reason for that.

2897

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Carlsbad from La Jolla

« on: October 12, 2018, 12:24:42 AM »

Amen.

2898

Flat Earth Community / Revolution

« on: October 11, 2018, 11:16:43 PM »

Ronj got me thinking about it. If there really was a benefit to FET, then it would revolutionize the world as we know it. Albeit, lot’s of industry would fight tooth and nail against it. But at a minimum, if FET could take on navigation, shipping, transit, movement of any sort the world would be inexplicably altered to such an extent that the first, second, third and beyond to do so would profit beyond their wildest imaginations. Why nothing?

Consider Silicon Valley, the supreme worldwide order for ‘disruption’ to what is given. Why no startups disrupting commerce with FET ‘short-cuts’? Why no anti-SpaceX, "we can do it cheaper without the necessity for ‘satellites’ launching rockets"? Why nothing?

If FET had promise, endeavoring enterprises would build a profit on its backbone, it’s their nature, yet there is literally nothing.

FET defies the pure and simple logic of a money-maker. Sad that that’s what it comes down to. But in the absence of FET being a profit center it seems that, at a minimum, RET seems more fitting to how the world functions and how it functions well, better than anything FET has to offer.

2899

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Carlsbad from La Jolla

« on: October 11, 2018, 10:41:18 PM »

I feel this is yet another case where my personally-conducted observational evidence appears to support a convex earth surface and presents a challenge to the flat earth model. As always, I invite critique and criticism on either the method, observation or conclusions.

You can take these pictures until you are blue in the face it does not change anything.  FE can counter these observations by saying

-optics
-atmosphere
-waves/swells


The one that i'm able to comprehend the most are the real, observed, and measurable atmospheric and optical phenomenon. (the waves/swells I really struggle with understanding)
The closer you get to sea level the higher the PPM concentration of water molecules in the atmosphere and the more optical anomalies you will have. What you say is curve someone else can, just as easily say, are different atmospheric conditions that the light is passing through.

Agreed to an extent. However, the tower is 400 ft tall. Given image B, at 10 ft observation height, standing out 20.15 miles, the RE 'hidden' amount is 176'. The FE hidden amount is 0'. Not to mention, RE curve calcs land right in the sweet spot as to what is observed.

If there are experiments that show minimal to no distortion and a compression of 176' or waves high enough to obscure 176' feet, I'm in. In the absence of such, well, you be the judge.

2900

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 11, 2018, 09:22:01 PM »

You are assuming a model of perspective which stretches into infinity continuously without meeting, rather than the finite perspective model observed where the lines appear to meet.

Though they appear to meet, from a model of perspective looking out toward the end-point of rails on the horizon, do the train tracks actually meet at a convergence or do they continue to maintain their gauge spread?