Trillion

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2021, 06:47:20 PM »
Quote
Ha. Yes, and your super reliable evidence of that is your own Wiki which quotes your hero Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was transparent or translucent or some such nonsense. Compelling
Has Tom ever given as 'evidence' for what he claims is true anything other than links to the FE Wiki? Its almost as if that on its own is supposed to show that whatever he is claiming is true.  It must be true... the FE Wiki says so.  And who wrote most of the FE Wiki?

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2021, 07:17:40 PM »
Quote
Ha. Yes, and your super reliable evidence of that is your own Wiki which quotes your hero Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was transparent or translucent or some such nonsense. Compelling
Has Tom ever given as 'evidence' for what he claims is true anything other than links to the FE Wiki? Its almost as if that on its own is supposed to show that whatever he is claiming is true.  It must be true... the FE Wiki says so.  And who wrote most of the FE Wiki?
He does sometimes reference other sources but he cherry picks and often quotes parts out of context to make it look like they’re saying something they aren’t.
A good example is in the Wiki pages about UA where he quotes part of a book about gravity which appears to back up the notion that the earth is accelerating upwards. Looking at the source it’s clear the author believes the earth to be a spherical planet, formed into that shape because of gravity. Tom dishonestly cherry picks to make it look like the author is agreeing with his worldview when the opposite is true.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Trillion

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2021, 08:26:52 PM »
Quote
He does sometimes reference other sources but he cherry picks and often quotes parts out of context to make it look like they’re saying something they aren’t.
Yes I had noticed that. I did a little reading up about this so-called electromagnetic acceleration that FE claim makes light bend in such a way (and in just the right way under just the right conditions) to make certain things such as the phases of the Moon, sunrise and sunset and the motion of the stars possible in flat land.

Thing is, electromagnetic acceleration is mentioned in conventional or mainstream physics but not in the same context as FE refer to it. For example, check the link below and tell me how this explains anything about how FE refers to EA? How many times in this article is the word 'star' even mentioned?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276849404_Electromagnetic_acceleration_of_permanent_magnets

FE people are always going on about conspiracies and how people are lying or making out that things are different from what we are told.  Seems to me though they are doing exactly the same to try and persuade people towards their own beliefs.  Unsuccessfully in my case I might add.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2021, 08:29:16 PM by Trillion »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9102
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2021, 08:28:53 PM »
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
He does sometimes reference other sources but he cherry picks and often quotes parts out of context to make it look like they’re saying something they aren’t.
A good example is in the Wiki pages about UA where he quotes part of a book about gravity which appears to back up the notion that the earth is accelerating upwards. Looking at the source it’s clear the author believes the earth to be a spherical planet, formed into that shape because of gravity. Tom dishonestly cherry picks to make it look like the author is agreeing with his worldview when the opposite is true.

Incorrect. The Wiki article does not say that the author believes the Earth is accelerating upwards. The author in the quote you are referring to says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved spacetime. This simulates the effect of accelerating upwards.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards

Quote

General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards

The Equivalence Principle is a fundamental tenet of General Relativity, which describes that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through space-time to cause the EP effects as experienced on Earth.

From Gravity: A Very Short Introduction (Archive) by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton (bio), we read:

“ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs! ”

He is explaining how curved spacetime works. The Wiki does not state that he believes that the Earth is physically accelerating upwards. This is only your misconception. The author clearly states that he believes that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved spacetime.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2021, 10:46:22 PM by Tom Bishop »

Trillion

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2021, 08:32:47 PM »
Tom, perhaps you could point me towards a link (apart from just what your FE Wiki says) where electromagnetic acceleration is described in the same way that FE refer to it.  An independent source is what I am after. Otherwise all I have to go on is one webpage essentially that tells me there is an apparently a 'mechanism' to the universe which causes light to be pulled, pushed or deflected.

There is nothing to tell me what that 'mechanism' is, how it does what it does or how it can be controlled to provide the effects that we observe.  These being different to suit the circumstances. Have you got anything else on this or is the Wiki page on EA it so far as any explanation is concerned? What is written amounts to nothing more than a vague hypothesis.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2021, 11:24:49 PM by Trillion »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 524
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #45 on: November 09, 2021, 01:20:23 PM »
Azimuth angles are not maintained. The azimuthal angle between two bodies will not be the same for two observers who view the celestial bodies from any position. Take an Azimuthal Grid Chart and take two points overhead which gives an azimuth angle of about 180 degrees separation and then try to put the two points at lower elevation angles on the chart.



Apologies - you're absolutely right, I've muddled the conversation by using the word 'azimuth' which is of course refers to a horizon measurement, which does indeed change with position.  I was trying to refer the to lateral angular separation between the stars - the angle an observer would see if they measured it, or held up a suitable sight marked with angular graduations etc. That absolutely does stay the same regardless of position, which is how and why star almanacs can refer to star's positions by means of RA and dec number pairs - the numbers don't change with location, just their relative position in the sky. The time and date site has quite a good night sky simulator where you can change viewing location and see this effect yourself - I played with varying latitude in the northern hemisphere and it shows the principle very nicely - Polaris just moves higher up in the sky and all the other stars around it retain their relative positions - https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/@80,-0.

If you work out the angular separation between stars, they remain the same. That's not what your model would predict, as per my diagram - you would expect the angular separation to reduce as you got further away. It doesn't, though, does it?


Trillion

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #46 on: November 09, 2021, 01:44:21 PM »
To even suggest that the stars are just a few thousand miles away so completely absurd when modern measurements have shown conclusively that they are actually lightyears away.

If Tom is proposing that his EA 'hypothesis' suggests that they are just a few thousands of mile away then that is evidence enough that EA is wrong. So far the FE Wiki is the only mention I can find on the internet about it. EA is mentioned elsewhere but in a completely different context.

If Tom wants to carry on insisting these ridiculous figures for the distances to the stars then that is up to him but I'm not wasting my time on that. 

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #47 on: November 09, 2021, 02:03:29 PM »
There is nothing to tell me what that 'mechanism' is, how it does what it does or how it can be controlled to provide the effects that we observe.
I don't believe there is any known mechanism behind UA or EA or the magnifying affect which keeps the sun and moon a consistent angular size despite their vastly varying distances.

This is another issue I have with Tom. I've seen him attack gravity because there is no mechanism for why mass attracts mass (although I believe Relativity does actually explain this). But he readily accepts these other mechanisms which have no known mechanism or explanation behind them.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 524
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #48 on: November 09, 2021, 02:15:59 PM »
There is nothing to tell me what that 'mechanism' is, how it does what it does or how it can be controlled to provide the effects that we observe.
I don't believe there is any known mechanism behind UA or EA or the magnifying affect which keeps the sun and moon a consistent angular size despite their vastly varying distances.

This is another issue I have with Tom. I've seen him attack gravity because there is no mechanism for why mass attracts mass (although I believe Relativity does actually explain this). But he readily accepts these other mechanisms which have no known mechanism or explanation behind them.

Indeed. The sun and moon apparent size issue is very similar to the star separation point I made previously - they wouldn't hold constant if they were moving the way they are supposed to according the model presented in the wiki.

Trillion

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #49 on: November 09, 2021, 02:17:37 PM »
It seems to be the case that those with a FE mindset have a problem with any kind of non-contact force. But then that kind of includes all the fundamental forces such as gravity, magnetism and even electrical force.

It seems that having a belief that the Earth is flat means you effectively have to throw out the whole of physics.  Which seems a bit ridiculous to me.  But then so too does believing the Earth is flat. It's OK though to propose some non-existent property of light which magically bends light in just the right way under just the right conditions to produce the impression of sunrise, sunset, the phases of the Moon or indeed the observed motion and positions of the stars.  That is some property!

If it were true and real you'd think there would be a mention about that somewhere other than just the FE Wiki wouldn't you?!?

I guess when you join a forum which is part of a FE website then you are naturally going to get some people who have 'unconventional' ideas about stuff.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2021, 02:29:20 PM by Trillion »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 524
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #50 on: November 09, 2021, 02:37:59 PM »
It seems to be the case that those with a FE mindset have a problem with any kind of non-contact force. But then that kind of includes all the fundamental forces such as gravity, magnetism and even electrical force.

It seems that having a belief that the Earth is flat means you effectively have to throw out the whole of physics.  Which seems a bit ridiculous to me.  But then so too does believing the Earth is flat. It's OK though to propose some non-existent property of light which magically bends light in just the right way under just the right conditions to produce the impression of sunrise, sunset, the phases of the Moon or indeed the observed motion and positions of the stars.  That is some property!

If it were true and real you'd think there would be a mention about that somewhere other than just the FE Wiki wouldn't you?!?

I guess when you join a forum which is part of a FE website then you are naturally going to get some people who have 'unconventional' ideas about stuff.

Whilst I completely agree, I think I come at it from a completely different angle. This is a debating forum, and whilst you're absolutely right in that if something was true then it probably wouldn't only be found on the FE wiki, that is a form of an appeal to authority - it's a fallacious argument. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that light does bend so conveniently, but that's not why the concept is wrong. I'm trying to show that the idea can be shown to be wrong by simple observation - the moon wouldn't wouldn't stay the same size, nor would the stars retain the same angular separation as they rotated, or as the viewer moved north and south, if the earth was flat. Even the bendy light, convenient though it may be for explaining some things, cannot explain that observable fact.


Trillion

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2021, 03:26:42 PM »
I am also looking at it from a practical point of view. If the stars were so near then they would also have to be very small. I can aim my 20" telescope at any star and even through 300x or more magnification I cannot see any star as anything more than a point of light. Perfectly explainable if the stars are at effective infinity in terms of distance. Their angular diameter on the sky is less than the resolving limit of my telescope. Therefore I only see an Airy disk formed optically by the telescope. Yet I can see fine detail on the Moon through the same eyepiece. So if the stars are so near and so small then what has been their source of power all this time?  Why do they vary in colour and brightness?  FE promote 'questioning' things so I am questioning my observations against their theories and claims.

The Sun they claim is only 32 miles across. So likewise, what is the source of power? That has been shining for as long as the Earth has existed and we know from geological studies that is millions of years. Or are they going to insist that geologists are lying to us as well. I can see the Sun as a disk in the sky half a degree in diameter but if that is also only 3000 miles away (as FE Wiki lays claim to) then why can I not see any physical disk for any other star?

I am not going to limit myself to purely what I can see with my naked eye when I have access to my own telescopes and cameras etc. If I have equipment available to me then I will use it. As have millions of other astronomers over the world.

Bottom line is that what the FE Wiki claims simply doesn't add up to what we see in the real world. No matter how you dress it up.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2021, 03:36:07 PM by Trillion »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9102
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2021, 03:58:32 PM »
Apologies - you're absolutely right, I've muddled the conversation by using the word 'azimuth' which is of course refers to a horizon measurement, which does indeed change with position.  I was trying to refer the to lateral angular separation between the stars - the angle an observer would see if they measured it, or held up a suitable sight marked with angular graduations etc. That absolutely does stay the same regardless of position, which is how and why star almanacs can refer to star's positions by means of RA and dec number pairs - the numbers don't change with location, just their relative position in the sky. The time and date site has quite a good night sky simulator where you can change viewing location and see this effect yourself - I played with varying latitude in the northern hemisphere and it shows the principle very nicely - Polaris just moves higher up in the sky and all the other stars around it retain their relative positions - https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/@80,-0.

If you work out the angular separation between stars, they remain the same. That's not what your model would predict, as per my diagram - you would expect the angular separation to reduce as you got further away. It doesn't, though, does it?

The problem is that you want to use some parts of EA as if things operate in straight line geometry and think that you have identified a view and situation where it must apply. But this is incorrect. There is also distortion when viewing stars on a lateral view as well.

From this top down view an observer is observing two stars:



From a "3D" view of this below we can see that the closer star would create one angle, but if the curve of one star is dropping down to a lower elevation laterally then the rays of the second star would dip to a lower elevation and the angle the observer sees between the stars would not match the prediction of straight line geometry.



The points and curves I made here are somewhat arbitrary to show a point, but we can here that one star would create a greater curve than the other. The angle between the curved lines at the observer wouldn't make the same angle in space as the straight lines and angular separation as you envision it to be.

In another type of 3D scene where the light is shining from overhead and casts shadows straight down beneath a body, the following shows two lines (black) that appear at an angle. But if we look at the paths the shadows make on the surface, the shadows are actually intersecting at a broader angle on the surface:



You believe that if we turned the EA diagram I provided:



 into a 3D view split into a three dimensional symmetrical cross insert, looking like a + from above, with four stars instead of two, that the observer at the far end of an arm would see two of the stars closer together than the top and bottom stars he observes. You think that an observer, who starts at the center of the scene beneath the stars, who then recedes to the end of one arm, would cause two of the four stars to get closer together and the effect would only apply in two dimensions.

But, as the central observer recedes away to the end of one arm the rays will dip in another dimension, causing them to widen out as they shrink.



It works in multiple dimensions, which is why the video I posted on the first page shows circles that are fairly circular.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2021, 12:48:01 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 524
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2021, 05:32:18 PM »
I am also looking at it from a practical point of view. If the stars were so near then they would also have to be very small. I can aim my 20" telescope at any star and even through 300x or more magnification I cannot see any star as anything more than a point of light. Perfectly explainable if the stars are at effective infinity in terms of distance. Their angular diameter on the sky is less than the resolving limit of my telescope. Therefore I only see an Airy disk formed optically by the telescope. Yet I can see fine detail on the Moon through the same eyepiece. So if the stars are so near and so small then what has been their source of power all this time?  Why do they vary in colour and brightness?  FE promote 'questioning' things so I am questioning my observations against their theories and claims.

The Sun they claim is only 32 miles across. So likewise, what is the source of power? That has been shining for as long as the Earth has existed and we know from geological studies that is millions of years. Or are they going to insist that geologists are lying to us as well. I can see the Sun as a disk in the sky half a degree in diameter but if that is also only 3000 miles away (as FE Wiki lays claim to) then why can I not see any physical disk for any other star?

I am not going to limit myself to purely what I can see with my naked eye when I have access to my own telescopes and cameras etc. If I have equipment available to me then I will use it. As have millions of other astronomers over the world.

Bottom line is that what the FE Wiki claims simply doesn't add up to what we see in the real world. No matter how you dress it up.

All very good points - I entirely agree. And that's before we even touch on the obvious issues with the Southern Hemisphere...

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 524
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #54 on: November 09, 2021, 05:42:43 PM »
Thanks for the reply Tom.


The problem is that you want to use some parts of EA as if things operate in straight line geometry and think that you have identified a view and situation where it must apply. But this is incorrect. There is also distortion from that when viewing stars on a lateral view as well.

From this top down view an observer is observing two stars:



From a "3D" view of this below we can see that the closer star would create one angle, but if the curve of one star is dropping down to a lower elevation laterally then the rays of the second star would dip to a lower elevation and the angle the observer sees between the stars would not match the prediction of straight line geometry.



The points and curves I made here are somewhat arbitrary to show a point, but we can here that one star would create a greater curve than the other. The angle between the curved lines wouldn't make the same angle in space as the straight lines and angular separation as you envision it to be.


But in the example I gave, the angle between the stars was fairly small, meaning the distance between them was small compared to the observer's displacement. This means the hypotenuse of the triangle is essentially the same length as the adjacent side, which would mean, going from your EA diagram, that the curvature of the two paths would be very similar.

And if that difference is still too big for you, consider a situation where the observed stars are either side of the pole, and our observer retreats away down a line of longitude splitting them in two - the two light rays would be identical on either side, so the effect you're relying on there wouldn't happen. This would be as if the 'Ob' in your first diagram moved to the right, to a point equidistant from the two stars. How in that case would you explain the lack of changing angular separation as the observer moves closer and further from the mid-point between the stars? That's essentially very similar to your '+' example - if you're equidistant from the stars either side, why would one star dip more than another? Surely they would just dip or rise together as you changed latitude?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9102
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2021, 12:59:49 AM »
And if that difference is still too big for you, consider a situation where the observed stars are either side of the pole, and our observer retreats away down a line of longitude splitting them in two - the two light rays would be identical on either side, so the effect you're relying on there wouldn't happen. This would be as if the 'Ob' in your first diagram moved to the right, to a point equidistant from the two stars. How in that case would you explain the lack of changing angular separation as the observer moves closer and further from the mid-point between the stars? That's essentially very similar to your '+' example - if you're equidistant from the stars either side, why would one star dip more than another? Surely they would just dip or rise together as you changed latitude?

When coming in at a lower angle the apparent angles are different. Elevated angles look differently from the observer's vantage point and are height dependent. You assume that it would always equal, but this is not so.

The only way to get anything looking like a circle facing the observer in the video on page one is if there was compensation inherent in the geometry of this.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2021, 02:29:32 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #56 on: November 10, 2021, 01:41:12 AM »
Prior to running an experiment one has to clearly describe what you aim to prove (i.e. so the experiment is falsifiable).
No such formulation of "bendy light" exists.  I do not think any such formulation is possible that would match actual observations.  But that fact that none is even offered clearly shows that this is just FE hand waving used as a crutch by folks who want to believe (or at least claim that they believe) in a FE.  Why is it that (it appears) that no one with the requisite scientific training to create such a formulation will do so?  Is every member of every science faculty and all their students for the last 50? 100? years (that's many millions) part of the conspiracy?
Come on.

Apologies if this sounds harsh, but I don't think professed FE believers really hold that belief, they just like to say so.  How many FE'ers have boarded a long haul flight fully expecting to get to their desired destination (as happens 1000s of times a day) despite the flight being navigated, planned and fueled all on a globe earth model?  How may FE'ers are receiving satellite TV?  How many FE'ers are routinely using GPS?

The globe earth is apparent in aspects of every day modern life in which I suspect many FE'ers readily partake.  Humans have traveled extensively over the earth and all of those distances correspond to the globe earth not the FE.  In all of that travel no dome or wall or infinite plane has ever been observed.  Yet some seem to genuinely persist in their belief in a FE (there are of course trolls here as well).  The interesting question is why?

I ask as I think this is a major issue in our civilization but particularly in the US.  This effect has come up with the pandemic, the 2020 elections, and climate change.  All of which are very very serious issues on which a significant group refusing to accept reality is a major problem.  I chose the FE to ask about this as it seemed the topic where the evidence is the most overwhelmingly clear (that the FE belief is wrong).   But so far not much internal questioning seems to be on the table.  If one is to take the idea of questioning seriously, shouldn't the question of why you believe what you believe be the most fundamental?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2021, 06:55:03 PM by ichoosereality »

Trillion

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2021, 09:18:00 AM »
How is this any different to what Tom is inferring?

https://britastro.org/node/17066

Or indeed this

http://www.mike-willis.com/Tutorial/refraction.htm

Tom is simply providing a re-interpretation of this to suit his apparent beliefs?  The difference with the above on atmospheric refraction is that it is entirely based on known properties of light. Plus of course it is a much more thorough and more detailed explanation.

I can't find the term 'electromagnetic acceleration' mentioned once in either of these links. Why would that be?

« Last Edit: November 10, 2021, 09:24:02 AM by Trillion »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9102
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #58 on: November 10, 2021, 06:16:00 PM »
Aside from the explanation of "this must be the case since the earth is round", how do they know this?

Quote
When trapped between an elevated layer and the surface in a surface duct, extended propagation will occur if the reflection from the ground is low loss. The angles are small and low loss reflections can occur, especially where the roughness of the terrain is small compared to the wavelength. When trapped between layers within the troposphere in an elevated duct is formed and the refraction loss depends on the roughness of the layers.

« Last Edit: November 10, 2021, 11:46:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

Trillion

Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #59 on: November 10, 2021, 11:23:22 PM »
How do you know the Earth is flat Tom? Or is it just a case of you believe it is flat, and if so why? When we can see that the other planets are round, why should the Earth be any different and how did it form flat rather than round?