121

Flat Earth Community / Re: Who is at the top of the Conspiracy?

« on: October 31, 2018, 02:58:33 AM »

Interesting question that will take some thought and investigation.

Since Trump has signed on to the idea of for example a "space fleet", the questions must be asked.

#1 does he believe in space?
#2 Is he part of the conspiracy, grabbing at the riches?
#3 has he been fooled by the conspirators?

I think he probably believes in space, otherwise he would have tried to expose the conspiracy by now.  He seems to like doing that kind of stuff.  I don't think he's part of it because of my previous statement, and he's not even that rich.  A quick search shows he's far down the list of wealthy Americans.

It's possible that he can be fooled by the conspirators, because I doubt he'd go to personally watch the launch of whatever he thinks would be sent out to space.  And, any scientist can spew out technobabble and Trump would most likely just nod and say uh huh.

For all we know, the conspiracy could be led by some 13 year old autistic savant named Mikey with deep ties to the Illuminati.  It's such a well-guarded secret that even talking about who might be at the top could get us all killed.  We should tread carefully about asking such dangerous questions.  TFES logs our IP addresses, so make sure to use a VPN when posting.

122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is beyond the ice wall?

« on: September 21, 2018, 02:03:43 AM »

The flat earth model that I most relate to is that the earth is an infinitely repeating plane with no ice wall.

Would you say then that an infinitely repeating plane has an infinite diameter?  What is your view on gravity in this model?

123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race

« on: September 09, 2018, 02:26:59 PM »

...except it's not simply their interpretation; there's photos

How do you confirm that what your witnesses saw is consistent with these composite photographs? Also, how does the presence of photographs eliminate the need for interpretation?

Photographs would reduce the interpretations to those that make sense, would they not? I certainly won't look at the earth from the moon and interpret that as looking like a dinosaur.

But it's not just one photo. It's many. Can any be interpreted as representative of a flat earth?

124

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth and the space race

« on: September 09, 2018, 03:57:20 AM »

I am a round earther, and have always believed in a spherical (not totally smooth, obviously) earth, due to the overwhelming solid evidence given that can be replicated time and time again. After looking at each of  the topics, I felt this would be the best place for my question. In the over 70 years since the first picture of earth taken from space in 1946, how is it possible that multiple space programs and agencies (including the U.S. and Russian programs that would love to prove each other wrong) have all maintained the truth for this long, not to mention the dozens of non-government space programs, including the (in total) hundreds of thousands of people involved in the calculation, construction, launching, and even the people inside those spacecraft? I am open to questions.

I have often wondered that myself, especially since the ISS is visible through a telescope.  And, because of its shape I doubt it can maintain altitude if it had to fly within our atmosphere.  I can't see the logic or feasibility in a global spaceflight conspiracy.  One of my friends worked at NASA during the Apollo program.  If there's a conspiracy NASA somehow managed to buy his silence.

125

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites

« on: September 08, 2018, 01:39:01 PM »

And that's where I thought SHARP was a plausible explanation.  It could theoretically fly at very high altitudes.  I'd have to ask one of the engineers what altitude he expected it to be capable of flying.  Looked it up.  ~70,000ft.  It has no need to land because the craft would be able to indefinitely convert microwaves to dc power.  It wouldn't depend on sunlight, and I would imagine depending on the frequency used the power transmission wouldn't be affected by clouds or bad weather.

From what I was just reading, the tests in the 80's required an 80m diameter array to beam up the power. Seemingly, you would need a globe littered with arrays to manage the number of satellites today. Subsequent to the early SHARP tests, solar tech go a lot better thereby dispensing with the need for the microwave power.  Fast forward to Google's recent attempts to build solar drones for internet relays, an effort they abandoned in 2016.

All in all, kind of seems easier to just launch a satellite.

Yes, in a world with space travel it would seem easier.  For this thread I stepped outside of my round earth bubble and closed off space as an option.

126

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Alternative Thoughs on Satellites

« on: September 08, 2018, 02:25:46 AM »

If the earth is indeed flat, and there are no satellites in space, does anyone here think it could be possible that a project such as SHARP (Stationary High Altitude Relay Platform) could have been refined to a point where it can maintain sustained flight without ever needing to refuel?

They're ultralight unmanned aircraft for the purpose of being a communication relay that are powered by microwaves directed at them from the ground.  They would typically fly in a small radius to stay within the microwave transmitter's field.  Since SHARP there have been many advances in similar high altitude aircraft.

To me, this would seem the most logical and cost-effective approach to transmitting signals across the earth, especially if people have dishes pointed up at a specific place in the sky.

Let's call these plantellites.

An airplane has a lower ceiling than a balloon because it requires more air density to keep aloft. 

These plantellites must be high enough that we cannot see them with our naked eyes and somehow also get missed by the thousands of people with telescopes.  They could be black so you don't see them through a telescope at night.  During the day they could get drowned out by the other light.  Or maybe a color changing bottom?

Flying in a tight circle and using GPS plantellites could maintain location.

There is a problem of refueling.  I've seen claims of solar powered planes, but this only works for part of the day, no solar power at night.  That leaves batteries at night, difficult, even an ultralight plane needs a lot of power to maintain altitude.  This is complicated by any winds.  I suppose you could have a plantellite in place for as long as fuel allows, then swap out for another plantellite.  This requires a large ground operation as these plantellites would be stationed over the entire world to service all the dishes pointed at them.

And that's where I thought SHARP was a plausible explanation.  It could theoretically fly at very high altitudes.  I'd have to ask one of the engineers what altitude he expected it to be capable of flying.  Looked it up.  ~70,000ft.  It has no need to land because the craft would be able to indefinitely convert microwaves to dc power.  It wouldn't depend on sunlight, and I would imagine depending on the frequency used the power transmission wouldn't be affected by clouds or bad weather.

127

Flat Earth Theory / Alternative Thoughs on Satellites

« on: September 07, 2018, 01:40:01 PM »

If the earth is indeed flat, and there are no satellites in space, does anyone here think it could be possible that a project such as SHARP (Stationary High Altitude Relay Platform) could have been refined to a point where it can maintain sustained flight without ever needing to refuel?

They're ultralight unmanned aircraft for the purpose of being a communication relay that are powered by microwaves directed at them from the ground.  They would typically fly in a small radius to stay within the microwave transmitter's field.  Since SHARP there have been many advances in similar high altitude aircraft.

To me, this would seem the most logical and cost-effective approach to transmitting signals across the earth, especially if people have dishes pointed up at a specific place in the sky.

128

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Summer Solstice in Antarctica

« on: August 31, 2018, 01:10:37 AM »

The firmament is the clear dome that is above us. It seperates the waters above us frombelow. The clear & reflective properties create the true prism that refracts and reflects large dome shaped rainbows into the opposite direction of the sun onto raindrops. This dome explains many other “phenomena” but this is what creates the 24hr days & triple sun. If you take a reflective bowl & a lighter holding it upside down you’ll see when the light source is closest to the edge it creates a reflection on both right & left side, hence the triple sun, this light accounts for the extra 4-8 hours of sunlight

So, at what point does one sun take over for the other?  For just a couple weeks a year, and only at the poles?  That's just silly.

129

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: August 30, 2018, 01:05:45 AM »

"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

OMG I know this!  See, the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like.  Their senses couldn't get it right.

I've always seen the black and blue dress, and I hear Yanny.

OMG!! It's the Martrix!!!!

I think everyone posting in this thread is exhausted from this topic.  Quoting Morpheus seems to be a sign.  My senses are telling me to take the blue pill.

So true... You can only beat a dead horse so many times! And you'd of had to be here for a couple months to get the "Martrix" quote (misspelling intentional, but unintentional at the time of original pose).... https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10118.msg158803#msg158803

Awesome!  That thread should be locked so nobody ruins it.

130

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: August 30, 2018, 12:32:41 AM »

"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

OMG I know this!  See, the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like.  Their senses couldn't get it right.

I've always seen the black and blue dress, and I hear Yanny.

OMG!! It's the Martrix!!!!

I think everyone posting in this thread is exhausted from this topic.  Quoting Morpheus seems to be a sign.  My senses are telling me to take the blue pill.

131

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Value of the Bishop Constant

« on: August 30, 2018, 12:29:57 AM »

Ask him. He's on this site now.

Understood, Tom.  Thanks.  Do you trust Parsifal's reference to dark energy to be reliable, considering your view on NASA and space travel?  Dark energy has only been observed in space through NASA instruments located in space (Chandra X-ray Observatory, Hubble, etc.).  This is in direct contradiction to the flat earth society position on space travel, and calls into question the viability of EAT as it is currently presented.

132

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: August 29, 2018, 11:01:29 PM »

"What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain."

OMG I know this!  See, the machines didn't know what chicken tasted like.  Their senses couldn't get it right.

I've always seen the black and blue dress, and I hear Yanny.

133

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Value of the Bishop Constant

« on: August 29, 2018, 10:55:46 PM »

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30679.0

Awesome, Baby Thork!  Thanks.  Great read.  Do you know if there has been any progress on this work?  He sounded pretty busy with other things while working on it back in 2009.

134

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Value of the Bishop Constant

« on: August 29, 2018, 10:33:34 PM »

That depends. Gravity is a constant ... but gravity isn't always the same. In RET constants aren't constant. I'm yet to work out if your variables vary.

To that end, the Bishop constant can be like an RET constant. It changes to suit the situation.

Then the constant's value is derived from a formula.  What is that formula?  Is there any way for anyone to demonstrate the validity of the equation listed in the wiki?

The method of deriving G doesn't change to suit a situation. And I thought flat earthers don't believe in gravity? 

If you don't know what it is, don't make an excuse.  Just leave it for someone who does know.....if there IS anyone.  Perhaps there's a paper out there which explains how this constant came to be.

135

Flat Earth Theory / Value of the Bishop Constant

« on: August 29, 2018, 10:58:12 AM »

β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy. When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.

What is the numeric value of the Bishop constant?

136

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New Question about Electromagnetic Accelerator.

« on: August 28, 2018, 07:59:49 PM »

Light from the sun bending upwards would also increase the speed with which the sun sets as it approaches horizon.

By contrast atmospheric refraction, bending light downwards, slows the passage of the sun at sunset.

This would be another observation of sunset phenomena that favors downward light-bending of atmospheric refraction vice upward light-bending of EAT.

EAT is fake because dark energy cannot be directly observed, and therefore does not exist.

Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You are the one making all of these fantastic claims. You are the one claiming that space ships exist, that the government can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things. You are the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really cannot do all of that stuff.

https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/nov/HQ_06353_Hubble_Dark_Energy.html

β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy.

So, if NASA doesn't have anything out in space, what is this dark energy?  How did we come to know of its theoretical existence, its properties, its effects?

You can't cherry pick space facts to try to fit your model.  If I can trust this information from NASA, then we can confirm that there is no space travel conspiracy.  If there is a space travel conspiracy, then all data regarding dark energy should be viewed as false and cannot be used in any equation thus invalidating EAT as presented.

137

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: August 28, 2018, 01:27:40 PM »

Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this this you should also feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball.

I couldn't find a ball.  So, for the purpose of this experiment I used my cell phone.  I held it up in the air, then let it go.  I felt no difference in the pressure against my feet as the phone fell.  I then tried a heavier object to see if it would make a difference.  I took a 55 lb dumbbell, held it up in the air.  When I let it go, I felt the opposite effect.  I actually felt that the earth was pushing less on me after I let go.  Why did I not feel the earth pressing down (up?) on me as the weight free-falled(-fell)?

I think you need to explain this phenomenon in much greater detail, Tom.

Furthermore, and as another point, in order for "gravity" to exist, entirely new and untestable physics must be created for that construct. The phenomenon of pushing is well established and long known to science. The phenomenon of push can occur with existing physics, whereas pulling particles or bendy space requires new physics. This favors the concept of upwards acceleration.

So, you don't believe in creating entirely new and untested physics for a phenomenon to exist?  Your electromagnetic accelerator requires dark energy to exist, which is currently theoretical, and is being tested for in space....a place the flat earthers claim we've never been.

So, how can you dismiss gravity, where your own theory of EA involves results detected by instruments that cannot possibly exist.  If they did, they'd be in space.  Tom, how do you know dark matter - required by the Bishop Constant - is real?  Detected by NASA equipment!

If you see gravity pulling particles and creating bendy space as improbable due to new physics, then you should also see the fallacy in accepting that EA is bending light due to some phenomenon detected by non-existent space instruments owned by space conspirators.

138

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator

« on: August 28, 2018, 03:11:13 AM »

Wait, I'm confused now.  Tom, I just tried experiment 1.  When I stepped off the edge of my chair, my hair went up along with the earth.  Why, if I'm not actually moving, did my hair move?  I have to go buy a ball to try experiment 2.  I'll get back to you with my findings.

139

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: August 28, 2018, 02:09:42 AM »

Okay.  Just to be clear, in a situation where you are in a room that's getting flooded with odorless, colorless, natural gas (without the stinky additive), and there are no instruments available to aid your senses.  Just you, a room, gas.  Your options:

1. You trust your senses, don't detect any gas in the room.....and then you die.
2. You don't trust your senses, and still don't know there's gas in the room.....and then you die.

Your senses just got you killed, whether you trusted them or not.  And this is why they add a smell to the gas.

Exactly how many times have you ever found yourself in a room completely flooded with natural gas?

About as many times as I've found myself on a flat earth.  But thanks for playing.  Checkmate.

I was just asking why you need examples of situations that don't exist to support your point, but I suppose if you'd rather sit in a reality of thought experiments rather than real ones, that's up to you.

Awww, still wanna play? That's so cute.  Replace natural gas with carbon monoxide.  Situation that exists and supports my point.

140

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reliability of senses

« on: August 28, 2018, 01:27:09 AM »

Okay.  Just to be clear, in a situation where you are in a room that's getting flooded with odorless, colorless, natural gas (without the stinky additive), and there are no instruments available to aid your senses.  Just you, a room, gas.  Your options:

1. You trust your senses, don't detect any gas in the room.....and then you die.
2. You don't trust your senses, and still don't know there's gas in the room.....and then you die.

Your senses just got you killed, whether you trusted them or not.  And this is why they add a smell to the gas.

Exactly how many times have you ever found yourself in a room completely flooded with natural gas?

About as many times as I've found myself on a flat earth.  But thanks for playing.  Checkmate.