21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon !

« on: June 23, 2016, 03:23:02 AM »

This cracks me up, because I came to TFES this morning to present the Strawberry Moon as evidence FOR the round earth!  And to share the below photo, which I found at space.com (of course)  It's a shame Intikam won't see it, it's some eye candy!

That surely is a beautiful photo Rounder.

Really makes you wonder how on a flat earth the moon can stay so well defined as it moves around in a circular path about the north pole.
Certainly the moon would never "set" as a near perfect circle, but appear more of an elipse.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon floating above us - I don't get it

« on: June 21, 2016, 07:23:10 AM »

The sun is observed to be in the sky. However, the answer for the mechanism which keeps the sun in the sky will be along the same lines with how Rowbotham answers why the sun travels North-South through the year:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za25.htm

That such is the sun's annual course is demonstrable by actual observation; but if it is asked why it traverses such a peculiarly concentric path, no practical answer can be given, and no theory or speculation can be tolerated. At no distant period perhaps, we may have collected sufficient matter-of-fact evidence to enable us to understand it; but until that occurs, the Zetetic process only permits us to say:--"The peculiar motion is visible to us, but, of the cause, at present we are ignorant."

We would never hear anything like this from a Round Earth scientist or scientific journal.

I can provide you with a pretty conclusive justification that explains the paths of the sun and moon...
I doubt you'd listen though.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon floating above us - I don't get it

« on: June 21, 2016, 05:57:50 AM »

Unknown.

Come on Tom!  You can do better than this.  You are one of the most vocal proponents of FE theory making valid predictions.

Seems to me that one of the most important tenets of FE theory would be able to make predictions on how everything, other than the FE, is affected by the force which keeps everything in place on the FE.

We work from experiment to experience here. We have standards. Whatever keeps the sun up is not testable or observed, and making a prediction of something so beyond the range of human experience is antithetical to the empirical tenets of Zeteticism, and is more in line with Round Earth ramblings about gravitons and black matter.

But it is observed, the sun does not fall back to Earth, ergo something holds it up.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon floating above us - I don't get it

« on: June 20, 2016, 12:51:41 PM »

Unknown.

Well if UA affects the earth, but not the objects on it (us, aircraft, balloons etc), somehow also affects the sun, moon and stars!
What decides if something oi accelerated with UA and what is not? Altitude, composition aetheric winds?

I really thought that was pretty straight forward.
How does your UA know to accelerate the earth, the sun and moon and stars but NOT the objects ON the earth?

And as an extension, do objects gradually get affected by UA as they get further above the surface?

How else can I ask it?

I've tried to ask this before Rab:

What I think is an amazing coincidence is that somehow the moon and sun don't collide with the flat earth, yet a ball I throw into the air comes back down again.
Is there some magic distance required to negate the UA?

No response!

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain the Moon Phases on a flat Earth to me and I'll consider FE theory

« on: June 20, 2016, 12:45:05 PM »

The idea that everyone sees the same phase
Seems the same thing is true about math.  Only works unless the results do not match what you want to believe.

Actually, scientists have different math for physical reality at different scales.

I only just saw this bit.
Please explain just what you mean by "scientists have different math for physical reality at different scales".

Just what do you mean by "different math for physical reality"? You simply state it, but for a statement like that you really need some justification and references.

Tom is (kind of) correct, quantum mechanics has not yet been unified with the more classical physics such as gravitation and electromagnetism used in astronomy.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earther proves the curvature of the earth then denies what he has proven.

« on: June 20, 2016, 09:59:03 AM »

The man who created that video calculated the altitude caused by curvature as 6 feet. But theorically it must be 1433 feet. If i understand the video true, he disproved the earth's curvature. not prove.

No. Using his own calculations he showed that someone should be able to see part of the island.

Watch the video again and pay attention to where it shows the height on his graph of the island and the sight line drawn.

Without considering refraction an observer should be able to see about 250 feet of the upper part of the island.

I also lived in Hawaii and have been to that area and think it is possible that may be another island with higher mountains he is looking at.  Not 100% sure, but think it is possible he is mistaken.

Yes. I said what i see and understand. I don't want to debate about this matter because altough i said only what i see and understand from watching video. If you think different, its caused by your perspective. It's not needed to debate, the video is clearly understandable. This debate is nonsence I just said what i see and you are saying it is wrong, this is a nonsence. You are acting a nonsence. I just said what i see, i did'nt debate to anyone, why are you targeting me. True or not, i'm not  ambitious, just said what i see. Thats all. Its not needed to debate.

Hi Inti,
But this is a debate forum! It exists in order for us to debate.
This debate is not nonsense!

27

Flat Earth Community / Re: i have a thing with the moon!!!!

« on: June 18, 2016, 11:26:21 PM »

and one other thing i dont know about. did any of you make the thing with the thermometer and the moon?
im planing to do it on a full moon. if theres no diference in the moon light and in the sandow then i thing im going crazy.......

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I do know what he's talking about.  Flat Earthers are fond of repeating one particular gem from Earth Not A Globe Chapter XI, wherein Rowbotham makes this claim:

In sun-light a thermometer stands higher than a similar thermometer placed in the shade. In the full moon-light, a thermometer stands lower than a similar instrument in the shade.

He uses this dubious phenomenon (and other even more ludicrous statements) to support his claim that the moon does not reflect sunlight but is instead self-luminous, and with light opposite in nature to that of sunlight.  He claims moonlight has no heat in it, and in fact is cooling rather than heating the objects it illuminates, hence the thermometer reading lower in moonlight than in shadow.

My first guess is that Rowbotham either misinterpreted something he heard about, or invented the whole thing.  My second guess is that his "instrument in the shade" was warmed slightly by infrared radiation from the object providing the shade (if I were trying to fake such a result, I would shade the thermometer with my hand), or that the air around that instrument was stagnant or sheltered somehow from the moving air to which the other instrument was exposed.  My third guess is that the exposed instrument will read colder than the sheltered instrument even without moonlight, because the shelter reduces the amount of heat the thermometer loses to infrared radiation by reflecting some of it back.

If you want to test this, Akis, the following setup might deal with those variables: place two or more thermometers outside, in a location where a shadow cast by something will pass over each thermometer during the night.  You want each thermometer to go from full moonlight to full shadow and back to full moonlight during the night, and the thermometer must spend a good amount of time in the shadow.  The thermometers need to be near enough to each other that they have similar surroundings and will feel the same wind, but far enough apart that the shadow hits them at different times.  Ideally, the first one to get shadow should be back in full moonlight before the shadow reaches the second one.  Record the temperatures from both at regular intervals.  They should track more or less identical temeratures while both are in full moonlight; if they don't then either your setup has some variable you didn't notice or one of your instruments is bad.  If Rowbotham's moonlight phenomenon exists, each thermometer should get warmer than its neighbor while in the shadow, then cool down again in moonlight.

My interpretation of Rowbotham's divine observation is that it's hotter in direct sunshine, colder at night and in between in the shade.

I cannot begin to imagine how using these observations, anyone can deduce that the moonlight is producing "cold waves" when there has never been any further research on this matter.
If Rowbotham's actually had a PhD (arguable) he should have known better.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 17, 2016, 09:33:38 AM »

There are some users here that answering instead of people altought when writers waiting from an answer somebody else.

I'm thinking they as some viruses. I don't know why the management feeding them but we don't need to listen these anthropophagi whose interfere everything is related or not associated with him.

I'm strongly recommended to ignore them whose answering instead of anybody else. And it is interesting somebody who find on writers some pathological problems just caused by believing some theories does not pay attention about this pathology.

Hi Inti, you do realise that this is a public forum don't you?

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari Satellite - 48,000 photos of the earth !!

« on: June 15, 2016, 12:26:35 PM »

And I'm feeling left out that I have not been ignored by Intikam... what did I do (or NOT do) to be left out of a list full of such special people !!! :-) I want to be with the special people wah wah wah !!!!!!!!!

You need to argue try harder, he's still at it. I noticed Lord Dave just got added, there's hope for you yet 

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari Satellite - 48,000 photos of the earth !!

« on: June 15, 2016, 08:35:32 AM »

Re: Himawari Satellite - 48,000 photos of the earth !!
« Reply #25 on: June 10, 2016, 02:09:34 PM »
You are ignoring this user.

This user cannot be ignored 

GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMETHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?

Nothing is completely flat on the earth but it doesn't prove the earth sphere. Look around clouds are not moving, this world is not spinning. We don't know exactly what is the shape completely but we know it is not a spheroid and don't spinning.

Yet I look to the stars here in the southern hemisphere and they spin in accordance with a round earth model. If I was on a flat earth, they would spin in the opposite direction would they not?

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Not here to "Debunk" FE theories, but I've Flown across Antarctica 11 times.

« on: June 15, 2016, 08:32:36 AM »

is it looks like the  world is really spinning on. I do not think so. Look around you don't feel the air. It is theorical has a speed 1667 kms/h or 1000 mls/h. We are spinning with same speed but it is impossible has simultaneously same speed.

It's because not only is the atmosphere moving relative to the earth, but the earth is not accelerating and therefore you would not expect to feel any movement.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 15, 2016, 01:16:37 AM »

VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf

From the abstract:

Abstract— Observations from many years of amateur radio
operations together with commercial microwave propagation
studies and are used to illustrate the nature of the VHF
propagation in ducts. Recently developed formula for
characterizing VHF and microwave propagation in ducts are used
and modified to reconcile the observations with theory.

The theory was wrong so they went back and changed the formulas around to match the observation. This puts you in a bad place, because it suggests that the theories weren't able to predict and had to be changed around to match the observations. This theory is looking weaker and weaker.

And that's how the Scientific approach differs from your Zetetic approach.

Science is all about
a) Devising a theory
b) Making an observation
c) revising the theory
d) repeating the observation, etc.

Your Zetetic approach seems to consist of
a) Making a wild claim
b) Inventing some abstract concept that could support it
c) Ignoring all scientific evidence that disproves it
d) Calling everyone that disagrees heathens/satanists
e) Demand that everyone provide proof of the science that rejects the original Zetetic idea
f) Rejecting all proofs provided
g) Refusing to provide any proof or said Zetetic idea on the basis that it is not up to you to provide any proof
h) Using circular logic to state that the concept invented in b) proves that a) must be true
i) Ignoring all scientific evidence that disproves b)
j) iterate for all eternity...


Did you even bother to read the paper?

...Measurements from a high resolution SODAR are used to show the complex structure and characteristics of elevated ducts...

Their observation proves the existence of elevated ducts.
Next step, revise the theory, then rinse and repeat...

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 15, 2016, 12:53:47 AM »

With HAM radio operators around the world.  With the people at GIRO.  With physicists who study plasma physics.  All over the place really.  This is not magic fairies, this is something that is happening everyday!  Try investigating!  Start with this phenomenom, which I mentioned earlier and you ignored:

NVIS is another example of ionospheric bounce, in this case, utilized at short ranges when there are obstructions and the receiver is beyond the range of ground wave communication. I am not sure how you will hand-wave this away, but it will likely involve cries of, "absurd!"

This is a real thing that happens, it is described by the math I linked you to, is goverenwhich is derived from Maxwell's equations.  Now what is the problem?  How is this hypothetical if people in the real world are doing this, it has been meticulously modeled and replicated thousands of times all based on a rock solid set of physical laws?  How is that in any context "absurd"?  What is your basis for calling this "absurd" other than your refusing to believe it?

I don't see any evidence here, just a lot of hand waving.

Math != proof

if proof of the soundness and validity of the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves, as they relate to ducting, are not persuasive to you, then ok i guess. 

what would you consider valid proof that ducting is the cause of these radio phenomena?

It takes more than someone writing some equations on a white board for how it might happen to prove that photons are bouncing off of the atmosphere and the ground.

Try harder.

VHF and Microwave Propagation Characteristics of Ducts:
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/VK3KAQDucts2007V3.5.pdf

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 14, 2016, 11:52:28 PM »

The burden of proof is on the claimant, and never the skeptic

Thank you Tom!
You claim that the fundamental principles that govern the propagation of electromagnetic waves are false; since you are the claimant, prove it!

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 14, 2016, 04:52:47 AM »

Rama, this claim is so obviously in your court to prove, that it is quite petty and pathetic to bat it back with "disprove me". The consistent refusal to show evidence for something supposedly so established that it speaks volumes as to the reality of the situation.

No Tom, the burden of proof clearly lies with you.
The 5th post in this topic:

Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.

They even claim that the photons can bounce between the atmosphere and the ground several times, and then back again to the receiver, with no significant scattering!

You claim that a body of science is "made up", yet you provide no proof that the science does not work, is made up or fails.
Clearly the optimum "Zetetic" approach would be to disprove this with some form of evidence, not just saying it is Ridiculous.

If I just said that

Flat Earth believers have to make up mysterious Shadow Objects to explain lunar eclipses, no matter how absurd.
Consider the height of the moon, the sun & moon somehow are suspended above a flat-disc-earth without crashing/falling back down again, yet everything else falls back down. Ridiculous

You wouldn't let me get away with that without providing demanding some form of proof?
Would you?

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Path of the Sun in the Bi-polar Model of the Earth.

« on: June 13, 2016, 10:46:04 AM »

Another problem with the bipolar model, and the figure 8 path of the sun:

Let's look at Alaska during the Spring Equinox, when the sun supposedly switches from circling the North pole to the South pole.

Day before equinox: The sun is rotating around the North pole. In Alaska, the sun will supposedly set somewhere to the West, curving around to the North.

Day after the equinox: The sun turns South instead of North, and never comes near Alaska.

How in the world has this never been noticed by anyone before?? Am I picturing it wrong? Perhaps you can draw the path of the sun before and after the equinox on the bipolar map so that I can understand better?

Try to explain the fact that for a day (or even two) either side of the equinoxes, both poles have 24-hour daylight.

Of course TFES does have the usual explanation - denies it happens at all, and asks have you BEEN in both places (at once of course) and PROVED it!

No, I haven't, and don't intend to try.

BTW  Looked at the shape of countries on the BiPolar map? 

I'm trying to figure out if that is New Zealand shown below Antarctica ??
If so then this map is totally wrong, because the actual distance from Sydney to Auckland is 2155km, whereas the distance from Melbourne to Auckland is 2624km.
On the bipolar map Melbourne would be closer to Auckland ... not further away.
Oh and then there's the size of Africa (far too small), shape of Australia, shape of Canada and Alaska, shape of the southern part of South America ... etc etc etc !!

"Hey Dad, there's a guy selling a bipolar map of the flat earth"
"How much does he want for it?"
"Ten bucks"
"He's dreamin' !!"

But if a flat earth map could be made that had all the continents to scale and the correct distances from each other it would go "straight to the Pool Room"

37

Flat Earth Community / Re: Airy's Failure demonstrates stars are moving, not the earth

« on: June 12, 2016, 04:20:02 AM »

Ignoring some of the religious references at the end, the following video is a good overview of Airy's Failure experiment and how it suggests that the stars are moving, not the earth.

@2:36, shouldn't the light "bend" according to Snell's Law? It does in all the other examples.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari Satellite - 48,000 photos of the earth !!

« on: June 10, 2016, 02:09:34 PM »

GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMETHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?

Nothing is completely flat on the earth but it doesn't prove the earth sphere. Look around clouds are not moving, this world is not spinning. We don't know exactly what is the shape completely but we know it is not a spheroid and don't spinning.

How do you know? Where is your proof?

the answer was not to you. if you are a neutral, you should ask same question to the other. you have been added to ignore list. thank you, bye bye.

So, because I ask you a valid question to state the proof behind your absurd claims, you decide to ignore me on a public forum?
Wow, talk about childish.
Tell me, did you go to school? Did you learn how to query the observations presented to you in a scientific fashion? Did you ever learn to think for yourself?
I only ask because you seem to take a very negative stance whenever anyone questions your "theories".
Is there anyone you won't ignore?

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: June 10, 2016, 02:04:26 PM »

Ah, the head-buried-in-sand approach. Classic.

Exactly, including the lack of comprehension making the OP divert from his own topic.

You can't argue with stupid. Every time I come here I feel my brain melting at the total ignorance of the FEs and their absolute denial of the obvious.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari Satellite - 48,000 photos of the earth !!

« on: June 10, 2016, 01:58:56 PM »

GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMETHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?

Nothing is completely flat on the earth but it doesn't prove the earth sphere. Look around clouds are not moving, this world is not spinning. We don't know exactly what is the shape completely but we know it is not a spheroid and don't spinning.

How do you know? Where is your proof?