1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Nasa debunk: As a little hell an atmospheric layer; thermosphere! (1600 c temp)

« on: June 25, 2016, 04:49:05 PM »

There is no user can reply the question.

If the temperature of the thermosphere is 1.000 degrees celcius, so what is the temperature of the about some particles. And whats happen.

To understand this question think about an oxygen gas welding. It is about 2.000 celcius temperature. When a room about 22 degrees celcius, think you started to work with a weld. Then the temperature of the room changed to 23 degrees celcius. just changed 1 degrees. Because why? Because the room is big and the oxygen weld is small. The weld is about 2.000 celcius, and changed the air temperature about 1 degrees celcius.

Now look to thermosphere.

Thermosphere is about 1.000 degrees celcius. So what is the average of temperature of "some particles" have?

Question:
if  a matter have 2.000 celcius that changes the air 1 degrees celcius;
so;
what is the celcius of the matter that changes to air 1.000 degrees celcius.

the answer is "about" 2.000 x 1.000 = 2 millions celcius. This is the result of the temperature of the particles on the thermosphere.

Result:

The average particles on the thermosphere has the temperature about 2.000.000 degrees celcius. There is no material can resist this heat. You can think this situation like a rocket under the think and strong fire. The rocket or another thing will be  full of Holes in a few seconds. This is like heat firing or laser fire.

Nobody can resist it. Sudden and certain evanesce.

Hello
Who are you talking to ?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 16, 2014, 05:51:57 AM »

All they are doing is crossing that peninsula sticking off of the Antarctic coast and claiming that they trans-navigated Antactica.

Ok, so you have now dropped the bipolar flat model ?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 12, 2014, 07:08:24 AM »

There is zero evidence that this is the actual route taken, and I suspect it was much more like the shorter route I posted.

What leads you to this conclusion ?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 10, 2014, 06:55:58 AM »

If you look at the actual travel routes of trans-Antarctican expeditions, it's easy to see that they work just as well on the disc model.  They generally look something like this one:

We all live on one side of the plane, no one knows what is underneath.

Can you please plot this one on the disc model ?



Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition 1955-58, 99 days / 3473 km

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 06, 2014, 08:19:04 PM »

Sorry, but you started explaining that this observation can be explained by windows lensing - unsupported claim - , perspective issue, - still unsupported claim- or an illusion , directly contradicted by my own experience.

Unfortunately, even if I flew Concorde once during a small supersonic loop trip, I could'nt see myself a curvature as I was located at the aisle seat, (and because these windows were awfully small !)
A close relative was a former Concorde flight engineer. He claims he routinely saw earth curvature at cruise altitude. I tend to believe his experience, and the link provided seems to agree with him.

So you're saying you've never seen curvature on a flight, even on a high-altitude flight on the Concorde.  Thanks for your contribution.

Many people claim to have seen curvature on flights.  I believe they have not.  I'm not one to call anyone a liar, so I like to try to find alternative explanations.  You seem to be villainizing me for that.  I never made the definite claim that there is measurable curvature due to perspective, lensing, or illusion, but apparently because I'm ostensibly a "flat-earther" anything I say is a statement of irrefutable fact needs to be supported by maths and peer reviewed studies. 

The appearance of curvature at higher altitudes, a la the concorde, is actually where I wanted this discussion to go, so thank you for bringing it up.  Many sources cite measurable curvature at these altitudes, which I think is fascinating, really.

No I'm saying that during my single Concorde experience, I was not in a position allowing me to see curvature, nothing more, nothing less. From my perspective, it's inconclusive.

Your alternative explanations are always welcome, and I'm sorry if you feel villainised, but you should agree that this kind of statement :

Perspective and lensing through airline windows causes the apparent curve viewed on commercial flights at 30,000 feet or so

sounds quite like an irrefutable fact, whatever your favourite earth shape is.

Anyway, if we agree that some curvature is seen during 50 kft+  flights, let's dig a bit, why do you find it fascinating ?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 06, 2014, 06:34:55 AM »

Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.

commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.

Exactly.  If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing.  This was my point.

That's a bold assumption. Can you give the maths for this "perspective" phenomenon and some relevant data about airplane windows lensing ?

Maths?  It's just a trick of perception, darling.  Look at this.
(...)
See the lovely, flat horizon behind them?  Now imagine you are one of those skydivers.  That horizon wraps all the way around you, 360 degrees.  Look to your left, more horizon.  Look to your right, still more horizon.  It extends in a circle around your point of view, and that can cause the illusion of curvature.

Well, we were talking about vision through plane windows,  barely 30-40° for a passenger and perhaps 180° for a pilot. We are far form this outdoor 360° situation. Other than this lovely picture, you didn't give any scientific explanation to you assertion (not to mention windows lensing).

BTW, from my little skydiving experience, I've never seen some horizon curvature when jumping at 10 000+ ft

Pilots will tell you that no curvature is visible on a commercial flight, yet many airline passengers (and many visitors here) claim to have seen the curvature of the earth from a jet.  They are wrong, and your own experience backs up my assertion, since you've never seen curvature while skydiving.  My point is that some people fool themselves into believing they see curvature where there is none.  It isn't a measurable effect, it's just people thinking they see something when they really don't.  (See also: ghosts.)

You keep asking for math to back this point up, when all I need to back that up is to point at the many many people who claim to have seen curvature from commercial flights or skydiving experiences, when even round earthers assert that they are mistaken.

Sorry, but you started explaining that this observation can be explained by windows lensing - unsupported claim - , perspective issue, - still unsupported claim- or an illusion , directly contradicted by my own experience.

Unfortunately, even if I flew Concorde once during a small supersonic loop trip, I could'nt see myself a curvature as I was located at the aisle seat, (and because these windows were awfully small !)
A close relative was a former Concorde flight engineer. He claims he routinely saw earth curvature at cruise altitude. I tend to believe his experience, and the link provided seems to agree with him.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 05, 2014, 03:16:15 PM »

Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.

commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.

Exactly.  If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing.  This was my point.

That's a bold assumption. Can you give the maths for this "perspective" phenomenon and some relevant data about airplane windows lensing ?

Maths?  It's just a trick of perception, darling.  Look at this.
(...)
See the lovely, flat horizon behind them?  Now imagine you are one of those skydivers.  That horizon wraps all the way around you, 360 degrees.  Look to your left, more horizon.  Look to your right, still more horizon.  It extends in a circle around your point of view, and that can cause the illusion of curvature.

Well, we were talking about vision through plane windows,  barely 30-40° for a passenger and perhaps 180° for a pilot. We are far form this outdoor 360° situation. Other than this lovely picture, you didn't give any scientific explanation to you assertion (not to mention windows lensing).

BTW, from my little skydiving experience, I've never seen some horizon curvature when jumping at 10 000+ ft

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 04, 2014, 05:58:20 AM »

Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.

commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.

Exactly.  If you think you have seen the curvature of earth from a commercial flight, you are mistaken, and have been a victim of either perspective or lensing.  This was my point.

That's a bold assumption. Can you give the maths for this "perspective" phenomenon and some relevant data about airplane windows lensing ?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: OK, got one. Straight lines

« on: April 03, 2014, 09:14:32 AM »

Re: aircraft windows.  So lenses don't function if only one side is curved?  Augustin-Jean Fresnel would like to have a word with you.

I think you misunderstood his point. He is explaining that side (and actually even front) cockpit windows on commercial jets are -very often- flat, like this:



.

And, if curved, are designed to minimize optical distortions.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What happened to flight MH370?

« on: March 25, 2014, 06:18:58 PM »

Yep, it's not officially over until we get the black box and see what the hell went wrong.

Assuming that the relevant data hasn't been overwritten.  If the plane really had been flying for several hours after disappearing, then the data recorders may not be any help at all.

The audio ones yeah, but the flight data should all be there.

Check me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that the flight data recorders only keep the last 1 hour or so of data.

It really depends on the DFDR installed. For instance, on early Air France 320s  it records something like 20 hours. On several CRJs it's about 90-120 hours. 

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 17, 2014, 07:13:17 AM »

Thank you for your drawing PP, greatly appreciated.
The question is still standing :

Can you provide some rational explanations for this satellite path ?

Objects in orbit circle above the earth.  Plotting an actual satellite's path on the monopole map shows a path that is consistent with this.  A satellite's orbit around a spherical earth is circular, too, so it's hardly surprising that it should be the same over a planar one.  I'm not sure what's irrational here.

This implies that this projection is correct (the same projection on the bipolar map is quite.....weird) , and I see various issues there :

- the path is not really circular, indeed, unlike the stellar objects path,
- If you look carefully, you may notice the 5 minutes plots on the trajectory.  Look at the huge acceleration in the south part of the trip.
This may lead to two choices : either the satellite's speed is constant and the map is obviously invalid, or, as the trajectory seems to keep a near constant radius, some additional unknown and speed correlated forces are acting on the satellite, keeping it into the initial circular path while accelerating/decelerating it. 
 

That satellite orbits once every 24 hours? Much like the sun and the moon do? Its likely its caught up in the same dark energy forces that power those objects. Its making the same path in the same timeframe albeit at a lower altitude.

Thank you for this drawing Thork

According to this site http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/htmls/spac0119.htm, the orbits took 117 minutes to complete, which is consistent with low altitude objects orbit times. Clearly a lot faster than the sun. It also turns counter-clockwise, unlike the sun and the celestial objects. The orbit is clearly not north pole centered and finally, considering the point above, the orbit speed varies dramatically.
We can hardly say that the same forces are acting there.
 

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 16, 2014, 07:11:31 AM »

Thank you for your drawing PP, greatly appreciated.
The question is still standing :

Can you provide some rational explanations for this satellite path ?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: March 06, 2014, 02:50:25 PM »

Meanwhile, TV stations use satellites to get pictures back from Crimea.

Satellites are possible and, in my opinion, exist.  This doesn't prove anything about the earth's shape.

Ok, so let's forget the previous point.
Can you provide some rational explanations for this satellite path ? (feel free to plot it on a FE map)

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: February 17, 2014, 05:40:33 PM »

I'm still confused. You can't use polaris as a reference for positionning as its light is also bended at an unknown rate.

Doesn't matter. It's its perceived location that's used for positioning, regardless of where Polaris might really be.

Correct.  And it is the perceived position that aligns with the lines of latitude, not its actual position.  I don't have to know the rate of light's curve to determine the perceived position of an object; I only have to look at it.  Knowing the actual position of Polaris wouldn't help at all in this case.

As I understand, you agree with RE distance measurements, do you ?

To sum up
I open my window, I see a flat portion of earth, this is compelling evidence of a flat earth.
I open my windows, look at polaris, but in fact, it's an illusion, still matching perfectly a spherical geometry. The real location is unknown, but for sure, it's not at the place it seems to be.
Doesn't matter, as the affecting phenomenon is absolutely invariable and predictable, even if -so far- no mathematical function can describe it.

You still haven't answered to my question. How do you really know the distance from your house to equator ? How did you calculate the sun's distance from your house?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: February 15, 2014, 06:40:52 AM »

It's an approximation.  The amount of curvature is proportional to the sun's horizontal distance from the observer. so minimizing this distance makes the most accurate approximation.  In fact, observations made at the same time on the same day at different latitudes could prove to be an effective way to measure the rate of curvature due to EA, though I strongly suspect it will be similar to what has been assumed to be the rate of earth's curvature by Eratosthenes.  I believe his measurements weren't wrong, he was simply wrong about what was doing the curving.  Still, his change in latitude was only 7 degrees or so, so triangulating the sun's altitude from this small distance may be pretty accurate.

I'm still confused. You can't use polaris as a reference for positionning as its light is also bended at an unknown rate. The "best FE theorists" don't accept RE distance measurements, so any RE map is useless. As you didn't measure yourself the distance from your home to equator and assert that the light from any object is bended, how can you, using the "zetetic method", get a valid measurement of the sun's height ?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites

« on: February 13, 2014, 11:41:44 AM »

Polaris' position shifts one degree for every 111.2kms you travel north or south. For this to be true on a FE, Polaris' altitude would be required to change. It is exactly the same issue you run in to with the altitude of the sun. For some reason you are assuming it should work the exact same whether the Earth is round or flat.

Not true, if the light is affected by the EA.  But that's an ongoing discussion in another thread.

Sorry, I don't understand. How can you measure sun's alititude by triangulation if you assert that light doesn't travel in a straight line ?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 17, 2014, 05:24:09 PM »

That's a fairly unreasonable request. I asked him to produce the primary source for the computer enhanced photos. This should be vetted first. It is unreasonable to expect Tom to have an expertise in forensic photo analysis.

Tom Bishop claimed

photographs from that source have been demonstrated to be fraudulent

I'm asking for the demonstration process. The forensic photo analysis expertise of Tom Bishop doesn't matter here, the original claimer should have some, and should show how he applies it to the image processing. Unfortunately, auris.com does not meet these criteria.

Actually, you'll want to start with an uncompressed scan of the original negative.  The JPEG compression process can introduce artifacts that can be misinterpreted as retouching.

Indeed, that's part of the demonstration process. As far as I know, there is no information about the source pictures used.

Here's a demonstration of one the the scenes in the video I made several ago on the old forum:

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/d5784ce2-2348-40a0-8f9b-0ddf37763b6e

Fine, thank you for the link.
Please try the same demonstration with the following image:

http://www.photos-public-domain.com/2011/11/19/bright-sun/

from



to



Hexagonal sun...

You can obtain a lot of weird images when applying this kind of massive effects. As an addition, you didn't use the original uncompressed TIFF images.
Please start with them, before claiming some anomalies.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 17, 2014, 08:25:56 AM »

That's a fairly unreasonable request. I asked him to produce the primary source for the computer enhanced photos. This should be vetted first. It is unreasonable to expect Tom to have an expertise in forensic photo analysis.

Tom Bishop claimed

photographs from that source have been demonstrated to be fraudulent

I'm asking for the demonstration process. The forensic photo analysis expertise of Tom Bishop doesn't matter here, the original claimer should have some, and should show how he applies it to the image processing. Unfortunately, auris.com does not meet these criteria.

Actually, you'll want to start with an uncompressed scan of the original negative.  The JPEG compression process can introduce artifacts that can be misinterpreted as retouching.

Indeed, that's part of the demonstration process. As far as I know, there is no information about the source pictures used.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: January 16, 2014, 11:45:23 AM »

That's not my only reason, but the point of that was to argue against the validity of dismissing photo evidence.  If you can simply photo evidence of a round earth, I can dismiss photo evidence of a kangaroo.

The photographic evidence of the Kangaroo creature would be discredited if the originator was a criminal, and photographs from that source have been demonstrated to be fraudulent. That would leave you back to where you started: Kangaroos do not exist.

Let's start from scratch.
Please take the original picture AS11_44_6642 (LEM, moon and earth) and give us the step by step procedure used to reveal the fraud.
Photoshop should be a good tool for that.

20

Science & Alternative Science / Re: The Apollo Hoax

« on: December 21, 2013, 05:46:13 PM »

None of these photos show the extreme discrepancy in shadow angles like the ones shown in the one photo I shared.  I will certainly concede that perspective can and does contribute to some of these effects, and as I said in my first post, I think that much of the "evidence" pointed out by apollo hoax folks is a stretch.  I don't think there was a rock marked with a "C", I can clearly see that the flag doesn't wave in the breeze, and most of the other examples of not parallel shadows can be attributed to perspective and the landscape.  That singular photo, however, I do believe shows evidence of a single light source which isn't the sun - certainly not a sun that's 93 million miles away.

Really ?







look, more than 100°,  compared to that



I'm sorry, but the angles on your picture are absolutely consistent with a solar-only lighting.

What about the second picture you provided ?