1

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: May 12, 2023, 11:42:46 AM »

Oh, so you're a skeptic, are you? Here's a quote that I found on the internet:

Whilst I can't speak for Realestfake, some of us actually find stuff out without using the internet. 

2

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: May 08, 2023, 10:48:50 AM »

I'm no more an epistemologist than a cosmologist, but If you want my opinion; if I was in the White House, I'd prefer to get the deed done, and accolades garnered whilst I was still rational and elected.  And alive. 

I suppose we could always put the delay down to the Writers Guild of America dispute.  This narrative doesn't write itself. 

3

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: May 08, 2023, 09:01:17 AM »

Since you're clearly an expert in space travel technology - How many more years until the warp drive do you think? Once the Space Force gets done developing the warp drive, are they going to be able to use it to get to the Moon in a nanosecond, or is 240,000 miles too close for the warp drive?

The sad part is that Artemis 1 was originally scheduled for 2016 and didn't happen until 2022. Who knows how many more years of delays for the upcoming "missions". Meanwhile, NASA gets $69 million a day and Biden wants to increase that to $74 million a day in 2024. All so that people like you can keep their cozy uncritical faith intact.

I don't know where you got the idea that I'm "an expert in space travel technology", though as a licenced aircraft engineer I understand some of the technologies and challenges involved.  Warp Drive?   Completely outside my training and experience, and I haven't seen reference to it in any industry journals, so I've no idea how it might work, what progress they are making, or what limitations may apply to it. 

Artemis delayed by 6 years?  My goodness, what are they frigging around at.  Appalling progress.  Should be ashamed of themselves. 

What I do understand though (referencing JFK, and this really isn't rocket science) is that they don't attempt  these things because they are easy, but because they are hard.  Humankind doesn't achieve anything unless it strives for what appears to be unachievable.  I'm sure medieval Europe and Viking Scandinavia had its share of cynics complaining about how many millions of Krona were being spent on pointless (non-existent?) sea voyages, when they should be concentrating on witch burning. 

Fortunately, others believed in the need to explore frontiers and send vessels on 5-year missions to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man had been before. 

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 25, 2023, 06:51:46 PM »

I'm talking about that whole continent that you think is nothing but ice where the North Pole is, not the exact point at 90ºN that they say is the "top of the world" that you're allowed to go take a selfie at for tens of thousands of dollars. But you globeheads keep trying to twist it because you're globeheads. I want full exploration, which means getting hundreds of ships and planes and whatnot to explore that area. I'm talking about an entire army that is free to explore that area, unconditionally. And even have huge underground excavations and drillings if needed.

You present a case who's logic is difficult to refute. 

Not an army, exactly, but you could maybe try getting in touch with the producers of that Oak Island series.  I'm serious; the treasure must surely be imminent, so they will be looking for a new project, and appear to have the requisite tunnelling and investigative (and fundraising) skills.  Don't know about the "hundreds of ships and planes", but maybe start small until the sponsorship starts rolling in.  (Also not sure about the need for ships to explore the continent of Arctica, perhaps you could expand on this). 

Actually, what is it that leads you to believe that there is a continent there?  And how would you circumvent the security?  Sorry, trying to be constructive but I keep coming up with more questions. 

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 25, 2023, 12:48:35 PM »

Not really thought this through, have you Action?  What stars?  In addition to the armed guards and killer-drones, its only practical to travel to the South Pole in southern summer months due to the climate and absence of daylight in winter, and the sun doesn't set, so no visible stars.  What you can do, however, is take a sextant reading of the sun. 

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 25, 2023, 11:34:46 AM »

You're quoting things I didn't say, which is very naughty (dishonest) of you. I didn't say that "gravity is a function of magnetism" (although they are related), I said gravity is caused by acceleration of the Ether (what else?). I didn't say "the whole Arctic is off-limits", I said the North Pole is. And if you doubt that the Arctic is getting more militarized each day (a figure of speech, obviously) you just have to read some news yourself, I'm not going to read them for you.

I didn't get the "PricelessPearl and £5" part, I'll consider that a malfunction in your programming.

I'll give you the Arctic thing, that was lazy of me.  If by "Arctic" we mean the area inside the Arctic Circle then, yes; thousands of people live there for goodness sake.  I've been there several times.   

I'm gonna double-down on the North Pole though.  How?  Who? Which (Magnetic or True)?  What size of an exclusion zone?  What Jurisdiction?  Its just in international waters, that happens to be frozen.  What is your evidence of military presence, or restriction?  Yes, its difficult to get too, like anywhere far from land in the Pacific, Atlantic or Southern Ocean.  But restricted?  How?  World Police? 

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Altitude related g... where are the experiments?

« on: April 25, 2023, 06:50:15 AM »

I'm not representing "RE", I'm representing a model of FE where gravity is caused by acceleration of the Ether like I already said. Supposedly that gravity causing element would be located at the North Pole as any magnetic compass indicates. But that area is completely off limits and no one is allowed to explore it, not to mention that the whole Arctic is heavily militarized and monitored and more so each day and therefore only the elites know what's actually there while we're left to fend against ourselves in forums engaging in endless debates... Sorry if I seem ranty, but isn't it true?

The whole thing is just a white smudge that a 5 year old could make in Photoshop. In other words, nothing to see there.

An interesting semi-rant. 

I think you actually know that gravity is not a function of magnetism, and that "any compass" only points at the North Pole because that end of the needle is painted red; the other end points South. 

"The whole Arctic is off-limits"?  By who?  It's outside any nation's jurisdiction. 

".... heavily militarized ...."?  By whom? 

"... more so each day..."?  Evidence? 

Anyone can fly over the Arctic by booking a flight from (say) Helsinki to Tokyo; then look out the window.  Anyone can travel to the Arctic, just don't forget your stout walking-shoes and polar bear repellent. 

You are PricelessPearl, and I claim my £5. 

8

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: April 16, 2023, 06:58:53 AM »

Like Apollo which preceded it in the 60s, this is a developmental programme in which each mission uses proven tech, and adds on new developments.  Apollo 1 through 7 developed and proved the basic space-worthiness of the vehicles, 8 explored the tech to reach the moon, 9 the ability to rendezvous in Earth orbit, 10 took that rendezvous-technology to lunar orbit and 11 actually landed.  Artemis does all that in 3 planned missions, presumably because greater reliance can be placed on developments due to the ability to test computer modelling, and the shear experience of being in space for 6 decades. 

What I find particularly interesting is that Apollo was laid out in the early 60s and every schoolboy (it was the 60s; it was a boy-thing) knew the names of the modules, length of the journey, how the modules interacted and so forth well before any of the tech actually got close to the moon.  The difference with Artemis is that NASA was quite open early on that how they will get from lunar orbit to lunar landing has not yet been developed; they are still just assuming that something will be facilitated by emerging technology.  That's the difference between fact and fiction; if they were just making this stuff up, they wouldn't have to wait another 2 or 3 years to actually work out how to build something. 

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: April 11, 2023, 04:43:50 PM »

"to the perceived (not clearly delineated) horizon line, yes"

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: April 11, 2023, 03:34:07 PM »

What is a non-delineated line? 

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: April 11, 2023, 07:28:22 AM »

Your constant reference to "shades of blue" seems a little naive and reinforces my opinion that you have never actually seen a nautical horizon.  Are your conclusions based upon a series of actual observations, or are you just using photographs, paintings and imagination as a reference? 

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Visibility of the ISS

« on: April 10, 2023, 11:37:06 AM »

THe object could have passed through a section of the sky at an angle causing it to be occulted by another object in the sky.

That's quite literally what we observe. The Earth's shadow is cast onto the ISS, and that is why it disappears while above the horizon. As far as it being occulted by ANOTHER object, I'd like to know what object you're referring to. Remember that it needs to be big enough to make the ISS completely disappear while above the horizon.

It could have been occulted by a cloud lying between its location and the sun.

I see shiny airplanes flying overhead all the time, then they are no longer shiny.

A cloud predicted by NASA? 

https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/home.cfm 

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: April 02, 2023, 07:38:17 AM »

As this is a debating forum, not a geometry tutorial, I'm out. 

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: April 01, 2023, 11:51:39 AM »

You're just not getting this are you?

If you come halfway down the circumference of a dome, you are not vertically-halfway to the ground.  The relationship between circumference and "drop" is not linear. 

If you want to "drop" halfway to the ground, you have to travel 2/3 of the circumference between apex and ground   

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 30, 2023, 10:42:06 AM »

I am not a scientist so please bear with me. My definition is the amount by which the curve 'drops' in 'height' on an assumed non-rotating global earth from any single point on that globe. And for illustrative purposes my example would be a person standing at the north pole on that globe (the north pole being at the 'uppermost' part of that globe) would see the curve fall in height by 1 mile for every 1.57 miles of circumference.

Curvature is measured as the angular turn per unit distance. Your definition seems to be based on straight line measurements.

Ok lets forget about the actual curve itself for a moment. What I am calculating is how much does the curve drop in height (assuming a non-spinning globe earth that has a top and bottom). So if I walked a quarter of the earth's circumference from the north pole to the equator in a straight (obviously curved) line I would cover 6,225 miles (or so).  And in doing so I would have dropped in height by 3,963 miles (the radius of the earth). Therefore for every 1.57 miles I walked there is a drop in height of 1 mile. Using the ocean as an example; and again assuming a globe earth, if rowed out to sea a distance of 1.57 miles there should have been a drop in height of 1 mile. Now a physical drop of 1 mile in height is something we just do not see (in fact we see no such thing and to us it looks quite level) but we should see it if we were on a globe earth.
Looking at it another way. If I walked across the salt flats for 1.57 miles I should be 1 mile lower than when I started. And am sure we all know that this is not the case.
I am not sure if I am explaining this as I intended or indeed correctly but would welcome some genuine advice/debate/discussion on this particular matter as something just doesn't seem right and am sure I haven't miscalculated the actual maths.

The fundamental mistake you are making is an assumption that your "Rate of Drop" is linear; it isn't.  The "rate of Drop" as you call it increases as you travel south. 

Consider standing at the North Pole in your model and travel 1 mile.  Your actual drop is negligible, and you can probably still see the Pole.  The Rate of Drop is zero. 

Now stand 1 mile north of the equator and then walk to it.  Your Rate of Drop is now 1 mile per mile. 

Your formula only works if the drop is linear, as if the Earth was a cone. 

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Investigating flight paths experiment for round earthers

« on: March 24, 2023, 09:19:25 PM »

Its not easy to fly over antarcticaa you know.

Why?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:58:37 PM »

Respects to Stack but, gentlemen, you're just going down a wormhole here. 

One minute on the concordephotos site shows that the picture was taken from a Tornado; the air defence version has a maximum ceiling of 50,000 feet.  In practice, military aircraft never get anywhere near their stated ceiling, so I would be very surprised if this was much above a normal airliner cruise altitude of 40k.  And if you magnify the image, I think you'll find that both the cabin window line and the roof line have curvature. 

Yes, the Earth's a globe, but posting this as "evidence" is a non-starter. 

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 07:09:13 PM »

If there were really that much curvature at 70,000 feet it would be possible to post multiple pictures of it with consistent curvature, not just one.

This view from a U2 at 70,000 feet shows different shapes of the horizon at different times in the video:

Agree with Tom 100% (that's twice this year!). 

At 4.43 in the U-2 video the horizon is concave, and the aircraft's wing curves upward.  As we don't know the optics involved in either the U-2 video or the Concorde picture their presentation as evidence is pointless.  (And "optics" includes both the camera lens and the aircrafts' cockpit canopy/window). 

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Investigating flight paths experiment for round earthers

« on: March 14, 2023, 09:15:10 AM »

Interesting and topical, don't think I've noticed this before; Latam's 800/801 outbound/inbound Dreamliners between Santiago and Auckland are both airborne at the same time (registration CC-BGD westbound as LAN801, CC-BGB LAN800 eastbound).  Google Maps shows the Great Circle route reaches a maximum declination of around 53deg S; one flight is currently at 47deg S, the other at 54deg S. 

Presumably one of them is benefitting from Tom's winds. 

(Not sure if the other is full of hapless hobos on a one-way ticket to Palookaville).   

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 10, 2023, 01:31:15 PM »

Now we're getting somewhere. 

Clear day, Observer A views the horizon 3 miles away.  Observer B is 3 miles from Observer A, on his horizon.  Neither can see the conditions.