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 ... 23  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 20, 2022, 05:29:55 PM »
So your contention is that, for all transmission angles, and all altitudes above the earth's surface, the distances and incidence angles at the surface would be identical regardless of whether the earth was round and EM waves traveled in straight lines or if, instead, the earth was flat and the rays curved according to EA?
No.

At this point most reasonable people in a debate would clearly state what their contention actually is, in the interest of keeping a lively discussion going. Any chance you could do so?

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« on: January 20, 2022, 05:05:26 PM »
The problem that Bob Knodel had was the unexpected reading of a rotating earth from the ring laser gyro that was purchased.  It was hypothesized that there was some external force causing this, not the rotation of the earth.  I don’t know if they ever fabricated a metal cylinder to house the gyro and buried it to see if they could do some shielding to eliminate the unexpected readings they got, but I wouldn’t expect that to be published if they did because if it was done in an honest manner the results wouldn’t change.  In any event, I’ve personally seen large, heavy, mechanical gyros do the same thing and I wouldn’t expect  ‘aether’ to have any measurable influence on a heavy rotating metal disk.

The odd thing about Knodel's experiment was that the documentary wasn't clear on what exactly he was using, and how exactly it was set up. If you simply take a single axis gyro and lay it flat on the ground it will measure earth rate multiplied by the sine of your latitude - I would therefore have expected Knodel to have had a result some way under 15 degrees per hour. If they wanted to make it read zero all they'd need to do was tilt it a bit.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 20, 2022, 04:40:09 PM »
There are bunch of other problems, presumably you'd still need fuel to keep the satellite orbiting.
And of course there would have to be a big conspiracy amongst all the countries who launch satellites who claim that they're doing so based on all the maths to make this work on a RE. Which was kinda my point in my post which kicked this conversation off. We have a load of satellite data and photos from space. The image I posted would be extremely difficult to fake. The FE response to satellites confuses me in general. Some just shout "fake!" and run away, but this quality and quantity of data would be next to impossible to fake, and they have no actual evidence of that. Pete's response seems to be that satellites are possible on a FE but I'm not clear how that would work.

It's not just the question of how they stay up there -  a more pressing issue is how to explain their movement. If you look in that link I posted earlier you can see the track of NovaSar - they are very open about it, and it is central to the commercial exploitation of the asset to be able to say where and when it will be. The tracks make no sense at all if you plot them on any of the proposed FE maps - even Tom's almost entirely blank dipole map. Hence my question above, and as you too are saying: what exactly do they think is going on? You can go to a satellite firm and say 'I see your satellite will be over this area at time/date xx, I'd like some SAR imaging please' - how exactly is that working, if the satellite isn't travelling around the globe in a predictable fashion? Who is conspiring, and who is deluded?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« on: January 20, 2022, 04:34:44 PM »
Your experiment would work but would assume that the earth was rotating.  My experiment would have to compensate for a rotating earth but also shows unambiguously that the earth is spherical because of the changes in the z axis during the trip.  If the trip is reversed and you return back to the original destination the changes in the z axis also reverse and you return to nearly the same readings.  I say ‘nearly’ because the earth is also rotating around the Sun so you would expect to see a small change in readings do to that.  A change back to the original readings wouldn’t be expected unless you waited a full year before you returned.

But if the earth isn't rotating, then why would the gyro show a rotation?!

The last FE answer I got for this was that the 'aether' is rotating, causing the gyro to measure that, rather than the earth's rotation. However, that falls down when you introduce the latitude / angle issue, because if it was the 'aether' doing the rotating, and the gyro was somehow capable of measuring that, then the axis of rotation wouldn't change with latitude.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 20, 2022, 02:53:30 PM »
NovaSar, and indeed myriad other satellites, image the earth at a variety of angles and don't have any issues with light bending - if this was the case, then in the case of NovaSar then images taken at 16 degrees would generate different results from those at the other extreme, 25 degrees. But they do not do this - this is not a problem.
Of course they do. They would do that if the Earth were round, too. The field of view dramatically affects the perceived shape of the Earth, either if we assume a round Earth and straight light rays, or a flat Earth and curved light rays. This is extremely basic geometry, not an "EA-based argument".

So your contention is that, for all transmission angles, and all altitudes above the earth's surface, the distances and incidence angles at the surface would be identical regardless of whether the earth was round and EM waves traveled in straight lines or if, instead, the earth was flat and the rays curved according to EA?

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« on: January 20, 2022, 01:13:36 PM »
There’s the gyroscope experiment.  It would be very difficult and expensive but indicates in a non-ambiguous way that the earth is a sphere.  Bob Knodel gave it a try and was surprised at the outcome however he was only trying to confirm that the earth was not rotating.  What he didn’t or couldn’t do was take the gyroscope on a trip around the world.  When I was working on cargo ships, we had multiple gyroscopes and I had the maintenance software on my computer.  If I logged the gyro readings at precisely noon (GMT) everyday I could see a progression of changes in the Z axis that you wouldn’t ever expect to see on a flat earth. The gyros in question were the large mechanical types.  These types of gyros were also used on submarines to allow them to navigate while underwater and out of contact with any other electronic navigation facilities.  It would be interesting to see what other explanations the FET has for what indicates a spherical earth when observing gyro readings.   

It doesn’t have to be that difficult - there’s no need to move. All you need is a ring laser gyro system and the ability to change and measure the angle between the measurement axis (or axes, depending on the design)and local gravity - ie ‘level’. If you tilt the gyro you will observe changes in the measured earth rate - varying between a maximum when aligned with the earth’s spin axis , and zero when at 90 degrees to it. The angle between ‘level’ and the spin axis will tell you your latitude.

That wouldn’t happen on a flat earth, even if it was rotating, as the maximum value would always be achieved at the same angle regardless of your position on the earth.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 20, 2022, 12:27:33 PM »
It’s a SAR image - they are built bit by bit as the satellite passes over. The movement creates the aperture - that’s the whole point. The entire thing is a composite of billions of data points - it’s not just the seven swathes. Each swathe is a composite. I don’t know whether this one fires directly down or at an angle, but the angle will be the same for each point.
Indeed. I'm glad we agree.


Turns out the NovaSar look angle is between 16 and 25 degrees - https://bhoonidhi.nrsc.gov.in/imgarchive/bhoonidhi_videos_help/NOVASAR_PRODUCT_FORMAT_DOCUMENT_V2.pdf

Leaving aside discussions around panorama photographs, I'm unclear as to what your EA-based argument is here. NovaSar, and indeed myriad other satellites, image the earth at a variety of angles and don't have any issues with light bending - if this was the case, then in the case of NovaSar then images taken at 16 degrees would generate different results from those at the other extreme, 25 degrees. But they do not do this - this is not a problem.

On a broader note, I'm fascinated to understand what FE proponents think is going on with systems like NovaSar. There is wealth of publicly available, and commercially useful, information regarding the satellite - see here, for example: https://research.csiro.au/cceo/novasar/novasar-introduction/novasar-1-user-guide/#satellite-specifications

Look at the satellite orbit information - it simply could not work in the way described on a FE. Which then raises the question, what exactly do FE proponents think is happening here? Pete - thoughts?

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 19, 2022, 06:09:57 PM »
?
[mLooking straight down would only capture a single point at a time, rather than meaningful 2-dimensional photographs. This would make the composition even more arbitrary, since you'd be stitching them together pixel by pixel.

It’s a SAR image - they are built bit by bit as the satellite passes over. The movement creates the aperture - that’s the whole point. The entire thing is a composite of billions of data points - it’s not just the seven swathes. Each swathe is a composite. I don’t know whether this one fires directly down or at an angle, but the angle will be the same for each point.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 19, 2022, 03:16:44 PM »
@Gonzo: although the numbers may vary, I think 'RE and FE are in broad agreement that eastbound transatlantic traffic gets a benefit from wind in terms of speed, range and fuel-burn.  Tom's contention, however, is that traffic from Europe to North America also consistently gets a benefit from easterly winds.  Any comment?

I'd go one further - Tom's contention appears to be that pilots and airline ops teams do not know how far their aircraft are flying, or what the wind is doing in the airspace they are operating in. That is an absurd suggestion, and is demonstrably false.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 15, 2022, 08:51:59 AM »

A "control flight" is in reference the they claim that pilots know how fast they are flying because sometimes they are not flying on the fastest route. They are always using winds to reach their destination, which is why there are two paths to the same destination in the previous image I provided despite significant differences from the optimal dotted line RE geographical route.

It’s important to understand that wind speed is not some unknown quantity to pilots. Wind speed can be derived from a number of sources, and many of them make no assumptions at all about the shape of the earth. Inertial navigation, technology that predates GPS, can give very good measurements of groundspeed, from which wind speed and direction can be calculated either manually or automatically from the aircraft’s airspeed data. Overland routes, or routes flying reasonably close to coastlines or islands can also derive groundspeed from DME or TACAN beacons, typically out to a range of 100nm or so. Neither of these require any presumption of a coordinate system, or earth shape, to function effectively.

The important point to hoist aboard is that, when compared with, say, GPS derived data, pilots aren’t presented with enormous differences, which would have to be the case if the known distances between points on the earth’s surface were radically different to the conventional RE model, as they must be if FET in any of its guises is true.

So trying to explain away the differences with vague terms like ‘anomalous winds’ is a deeply flawed argument, because pilots know what the wind is doing - and it never gets large enough to make the speed-distance-time calculations work for FET distances. Furthermore, all of the flight data is cross checked - distance to go, airspeed, groundspeed…and it always matches known distances.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 23, 2021, 11:30:45 PM »


I fail to see where you have shown anything to be incorrect.

The sun distance page specifically says that the 3000 mile figure does not account for EA. If you had linked to the page in question side by side to the argument you made you would have found that you were incorrect and not the Wiki.

The rest of your arguments are based on speculative inferences about nature which you think is proof. The Wiki doesn't discuss much of what you are discussing, so it can't be incorrect. Much of that are assumptions which you have created, not what the Wiki has actually stated to be the case.

Again, please link a Wiki page and show the argument, side by side, where it has been shown incorrect. You will likely find that you assumed too much and that it is you who is, actually, incorrect.

Well, the wiki says lots of things, and many of them directly contradict each other. For example, on subject of the vexed question of how far away the sun is, we have:

Quote
The distance to the celestial bodies is considered to be technically unknown due to confounding phenomena such as Electomagnetic Acceleration

…and yet we also have:

Quote
The Sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth.

And at the same time, you yourself, who seem to have written most of the wiki, seem to think it is 6000 miles above the earth - see https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18734.msg250025#msg250025

And yet you are also posting a video proposing that the sun is in fact laterally displaced from the flat earth, with its rays massively distorted by some kind of dome, in a manner which would render all of the ‘work’ done on EA and the elusive ‘bishop constant’ completely pointless.

As far as debating tactics go I suppose it’s pretty effective - you’re just switching position every time somebody points out a fundamental flaw in your argument. But the fundamental point here is that you don’t have a theory - you won’t commit to a particular layout, to a particular arrangement of the sun, moon and stars, or anything concrete. You claim that things are a matter ‘of debate’ in the FE community, but there’s never any debate visible here.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 22, 2021, 03:00:04 PM »
The second problem is the bizarre refusal to reject the hypothesis when it is proven incorrect

What did you prove to be incorrect? Please link the appropriate Wiki page and your argument side by side which irrefutably debunks it so we can see it and make any necessary adjustments.

Well, in recent threads you yourself have agreed that the sun isn’t 3000 miles above the earth, but that’s still in the wiki. I seem to recall that you said it was 6500 miles high, and although I clearly disagree with that too, it would be good if you could actually change it to reflect your own views as a starting point. I would hazard a guess that your diameter estimate is also wrong if the height is different?

Elsewhere we have clearly demonstrated that the EA explanation of light rays cannot be correct as per the wiki - if that was how light rays travelled from the sun then the sun’s ‘footprint’ would be a circular shape on the FE, which does not make sense when you compare it with actual day/night location information.

When confronted with this you then wheeled out a very amateur shaky torch vs glass dome video and said this might be what happens, without addressing the fact that refraction of course depends on light rays travelling straight through media of constant density, which is completely odds with bendy light as per EA. Moreover, the ‘sun’ in that video is nowhere near being overhead the ‘earth’ - another thing that the wiki is at odds with. Given that the stars are allegedly at the same height as the sun, they too presumably are not actually above the earth?

Can we look forward to a wiki update?

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:26:04 PM »
So far, I've encountered 2 active members on this forum. Both apparent zealots for Globe Earth.

I have an honest question:

Are there any "Flat Earth" proponents on this "Flat Earth Society" forum?

This forum seems to be improperly named. It should be "Globe Earth Society". At least according to my experience so far, which is admittedly limited.

Did all the FE supporters get weary of the constant arguments and leave, or what? Seriously, the forum seems to have been taken over.

Interesting that, when confronted with reasonable rebuttals to your points, you chose to pivot into a criticism of why there weren’t more people like you on the forum, rather than engaging with the specific points made.

Do you agree with the points that AATW and I made? Or not? If not, why not?

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:59:11 AM »
Well, as I told others on another forum:

Quote
If the model needs a bit of work to bring it to a fine polish, that is to be expected.

But it can’t be polished, that’s the problem. There is no way you can represent our current surveyed world on a flat map without distorting distances. That means that either a) the world is indeed the round shape we think it is, or b) the world is flat and our knowledge of distances is completely wrong. If it’s b), show me the wrong distances please.

Quote
What % of our science dollars and man-hours is being WASTED on Evolution, finding "the origins of the universe", "origins of mankind", "dark matter", alien life, and countless other nonsense? All that time and money is literally WASTED which leaves true science extremely impoverished and ignored.

There is no money -- no resources left -- for true science to be done.

True science is only being done part-time by amateurs now -- just like media reporting. All the "professionals" are shills chasing a paycheck, who will say ANYTHING on camera their bosses tell them to. There is no investigative reporting outside a few lower-budget alternative news channels -- little more than vloggers or youtubers.

If the rag-tag group of underdogs called "Flat Earth Truthers" haven't managed to create a great Flat Earth map YET -- maybe they have families, day jobs, and other obligations, and can't dedicate their whole life to this hobby -- that isn't a dealbreaker.

What IS certain and a complete dealbreaker for the mainstream paradigm (globe earth, moving earth) is NASA being caught in lies hundreds of times.


Whilst I don’t share your views on NASA (it’s always NASA, isn’t it, as if other countries and organisations aren’t involved in space…), the great thing is that you can verify the shape of the earth yourself, and you can falsify the FE claims yourself, without needing to trust large organisations and governments.

Quote
And being able to see WAY TO FAR for a globe earth to be our reality.

Discussed earlier. Any calculation or experiment that ignores refraction can be instantly dismissed as garbage.

Quote
Also, water seeks its own level. Water doesn't ever bulge anywhere, on a macro OR micro scale. It is always flat and level.
Spinning balls tend to SHAKE OFF water, not hold it fast.

The earth is spinning, so yes, there is a slight ‘shake it off’ effect. It is easy to do the maths. If you crunch the numbers, the effect of the earth’s rotation is a slight (1% or thereabouts) reduction in g at the equator. Measurable, but small. That’s why the water isn’t shaken off. It’s not surprising if you think about it - yes a spinning ball would shake off water…but try spinning a ball at 15 degrees per hour…

Quote
And how can "gravity" keep a death grip on millions of tons of water on the bottom of the globe, yet it will let a helium ballon "go", no problem.

Why does gravity SOMETIMES hold things fast like a death grip, and other times cause things to orbit it? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways.

Helium balloons are less dense than the air around them. Gravity does act in the helium, but it also acts on the air around it - just like oil on water. The balloon behaves exactly as one would expect it to, as does the ISS, and indeed every other orbiting body.

Quote
Those are some of the most convincing arguments for FE I can think of right now -- but there are others.

They aren’t convincing at all, I’m afraid. They are reasonable questions to ask, but when shown the answers, you have to reassess your own views.

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: December 20, 2021, 09:56:10 AM »
I'm arguing with some Catholics on another forum about Flat Earth, and I'd like to know if there are any well-accepted, accurate maps of Flat Earth.
There is so much I don't know, as I just started looking into Flat Earth recently (and yes, quite convinced, as you'd expect).
I'm just not an expert yet, enough to answer peoples' stupid questions and through argumentation take away their security blanket (globe earth) that they're clinging to so fiercely.

Thank you,

Matthew

You should wade into the wiki on this site to understand what the maps are proposed to be. But while you’re there, note that no one particular map is held up as the correct version, and note also that despite this being a debating forum, you never see two FE people debating which map might be correct. That is, i suspect, because this is T about a genuine inquiry into the shape of the world, but rather a club, or religion, who’s membership is defined by believing in FE - whatever layout that may be.

Implicit in believing in FE is the belief that our current understanding of the distances between known places is wrong. Everything from the distance from your house to the shops, to a flight across the Atlantic - they are all wrong, to varying degrees, if you believe in FE. But oddly, again, you never ever see FE proponents trying to measure distances between places to figure out where we’ve got it wrong. If they were genuinely interested, and in possession of such a monumental truth, they would be all over this stuff.

But they aren’t, and there’s a reason for that.

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The ISS - Who Should I believe?
« on: December 20, 2021, 09:48:36 AM »
@ Izzie Troo

You have essentially verified the existence of the ISS using your own observations. With the help of your brother-in-law you have self-verified the stated height and your own images show you what is obviously the ISS. So you have all the evidence you need surely so you don't have to rely on 'belief' any more.

I have also taken my own images of the ISS so I don't need anyone else to tell me whether it exists or not. When you can look up predicted passes of the ISS for your location and aim a telescope in advance so it pointed towards a particular point on the sky the ISS is going to pass though and then I can watch the pass at the exact position and time predicted, that is evidence enough for me!

Ok, so the ISS exists.

Meanwhile, the hundreds of tests done with P900 and P1000 zoom cameras showing that we can see TOO FAR for the globe earth model to be true.

And NASA has been caught lying on DOZENS of occasions, we have video and other proof.

So just listing those things, we have Flat Earth 2, Globetards 1.

Not being able to explain something (yet) doesn't invalidate a theory -- which has plenty of other proofs for it.

The problem is that your shaky zoom camera videos are invariably science garbage - as AATW says, aside from basic errors, they never account for refraction, which is an essential part of the equation.

The ISS, however, exists (as you have conceded), and you can see it yourself. If you track its path, it only makes sense if the world is globe shaped. If the earth is flat, what is holding the ISS up there? What is powering it? How is it steering?


17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 18, 2021, 01:46:18 PM »
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere



All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?

So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.

18
Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.

If you believe in a flat earth, then implicit in that belief is that somehow almost every distance between two places on the planet is not what it is understood to be

I wouldn't go that far.  We're talking ocean distance and polar region's, not well established travel routes 

No, it’s everywhere. I even worked it out in another post - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13948.msg237441#msg237441

The north centred monopole map is ‘correct’ at the North Pole, and increasingly wrong the further south you go - yours would be the same, albeit reversed. If you hold the north-south distances to be the same as the RE distances, then your equatorial circumference will be 57% larger than the RE distances that everybody uses. That means if you get in a car and drive east-west on a journey that your map says would be 10 miles, your car odo would say 16 miles. And that doesn’t happen, does it?

It gets a lot worse the further towards the edge, of course, as you have seen with the very large distances in your ‘northern’ latitudes.

Quote

That's not totally true   If you Wikipedia "Stratosphere" you'll see that temperature is cold in the Stratosphere and only goes up as you approach it's 40km ceiling..  Planes enjoy flying around the lower Stratosphere to avoid Troposphere weather.


Yes, the stratosphere is cold, but it gets warmer with increasing altitude, not colder. Yes, aircraft fly in it - you have to remember that it’s not a ‘hard’ boundary - just a convenient way of modelling the atmosphere. But generally speaking, airliners will tend to fly at or around the tropopause, at that is where it is coldest, unless other factors, such as jet stream or turbulence, skew the equation.

Quote
I'm always open to comments or questions

Well then why not answer the question that I’ve posed twice already? What would it take?

19
Generally speaking, distances within the southern hemisphere need to increase between continents but I'm unsure how to do it yet without distorting other places up north.

This is the fundamental point. There is no way of preserving RE distances on a flat plane - the only way to not distort distance is to wrap them round a globe. Any flat presentation will have some kind of error - a ‘monopole’ presentation that preserves north-south distances, for example, can only have one latitude at which east-west distances correspond to the globe model.

If you believe in a flat earth, then implicit in that belief is that somehow almost every distance between two places on the planet is not what it is understood to be. That is a massive thing to allege, and it would also be very easy to prove. The wiki /TB seems to wave this problem away with vague statements about ‘anomalous winds’ , forgetting that aircraft can measure the wind…so they aren’t anomalous, they still get to where they were planning on going, and the wind can’t blow in both directions simultaneously.

To your previous point about the composition of the atmosphere…I think you need to do some reading. The troposphere contains almost all of the moisture in the atmosphere - that’s why you are almost always looking down on the weather when you are cruising in an airliner at or around the tropopause. Above that height things get warmer, not colder.

Airline pilots know exactly how fast they are flying, in every sense of the word fast - indicated and equivalent airspeed, true airspeed, groundspeed and Mach number. They also have very accurate distance to go readings. Your suggestion would require that thousands of flights everyday end up flying oddly slow, or over longer distances than expected without comment or question - that’s an absurd suggestion.

Like I said before, it’s ok to propose hypotheses, but when they are shown to be false you have to adjust your position. Again - the question is: what would it take to persuade you that you are wrong about the shape of the world?

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 14, 2021, 08:11:09 PM »
All of these are great points - a bit disappointing that nobody seems willing to take it on from an FE perspective.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23  Next >