1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The curved horizon seen from an aircraft is due to the shape of the window

« on: July 19, 2018, 02:41:14 AM »

I wish someone would send up a balloon with a clear perspex sheet in front of the camera (a suitable distance), with a grid on it. Every photo, even if it did have curve due to the lens, could be referenced against the curve in the grid lines from the sheet.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo Analysis - Sea Horizon

« on: July 06, 2018, 03:48:24 AM »

Also "swell" would not magically form a reasonably static line in front of a boat... like the ocean just swells up at one point and stays there? Or like it's continually "swelling" up and down and yet somehow the line in front of the boat doesn't rise up and down i.e. there's a huge swell but also no motion to the swell at all? hmmmmm. Obviously static photos don't show this lack of movement (ironically) but plenty of videos that do.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: July 03, 2018, 03:01:08 AM »

Kind of astounding to entertain the notion the world is flat isn't it. I mean what, the globe model just "happens" to consistently fit with an endless amount of observations? If the world was actually flat, just think of the endless procession of scientists, pilots, ships captains raising hell to everyone who would listen "hey! these globe coordinates make no sense?? i'm in a completely different location than where i think i am!" or "none of my scientific conclusions work with a globe, they only work if the world is flat!". It would be constantly in the news. Private companies would've spent millions proving the world was flat. Impossible to hide.

You kinda have to stop and think about the ridiculousness of this flat earth theory now and again. You could probably estimate it with maths. Take the probability of a global conspiracy, multiplied by the probability that no significant number of scientific experiments ever made someone think "hmmm, maybe this thing is flat??", multiplied by the probability the sun magically rotates around the flat earth when no other observable object does, multiplied by the odds no one in the global conspiracy ever sold their story to the media... etc...

Let's see.... .01 * .01 * .01 * .01 (and that's being extremely generous)... Odds about 1 in 100 Million? Still sounds high. I mean come on... there are literally photos taken of half the globe every 10 minutes lol (Disclaimer: some statistics may have been completely pulled out of my, er, globe)

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: July 02, 2018, 04:44:19 AM »

Pi assumes that it is possible for a perfect circle to exist, and that has never been demonstrated

Huh?? This is like saying "it's never been demonstrated that perspective lines meet at infinity". You're kind of just questioning maths in general...

Parallel lines never meet. A plot of points an equal distance around a central point forms a circle.

You can debate the language I've used, but the concepts they describe are beyond debate. They just ARE. They don't require demonstration. Interestingly enough, they're both examples of "converging infinite series". Neither of them can be demonstrated: how can you demonstrate infinity?? Argh.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: July 02, 2018, 12:31:50 AM »

Just because there are occasional GPS outages, what does that prove? Someone said something like "if they're 12,000 miles above earth, how come there are outages?"... I mean. what?? Hunks of metal travelling 12,000 miles above earth at thousands of miles an hour... i'm surprised there are only OCCASIONAL outages. Probably your strongest argument against GPS is that it's so remarkably reliable, not that it's slightly unreliable??

But going back to the original post... to my mind there is no way you can spoof GPS information unless there is "something else" travelling at 8000 miles an hour 12,000 miles above a flat earth. And even if that's so, you can't spoof the "shape" of the earth for the same reason: if magic spoofing planes are giving accurate location information, then we can use that information to accurately measure points between the earth. Once you start mapping that out, you realise the world is a globe. It's the same argument: you can't spoof GPS information to pretend that some bits of land are longer or shorter than other parts, without destroying the accuracy for "other" observers using the same satellites...

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A question about Sir James Clark Ross and the Ice Wall

« on: June 28, 2018, 12:03:37 AM »

Apparently solar powered planes can go at Mach 3 on a flat earth so just imagine how fast and how far they can go on hydrocarbon!

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about navigation and maps

« on: June 26, 2018, 05:16:52 AM »

google maps represents an infinite repeating plane.

mmm not really, google maps represents a globe. Note below: the line of the distance measured is a perfectly straight line on a shere: google maps is "warping" the sphere in to a repeating flat plane: hence why that straight line appears curved in the image below. It's still aware of the sphere as you zoom in: Greenland is warped to all buggery, but as you zoom in, it's aware of the "actual" size



Check this out: i've zoomed in a fair way in to Greenland: check the scale size at the bottom right. Now i've simply "scrolled down" to cuba: i've moved the map without affecting the zoom level at all. The scale is half the size: i.e. Greenland is appearing a lot larger than it actually is compared to Cuba, because the sphere has been warped to appear flat.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Empirical Validation of Perspective

« on: June 26, 2018, 05:00:30 AM »

If this helps, below you can find the explanation for how perspective works, including the "distance of the vanishing point" from a mathematical perspective (ha!)

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9513.0

9

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Debate Club: Recap post

« on: June 26, 2018, 04:48:42 AM »

You may have noticed: after the change, there's some topics in the new "Flat Earth Theory" forum that are appearing as "Moved" (e.g. "Q. Sunset...", "Q. Universal...", "Q. How..." etc) and they appear to be duplicates of "non moved" versions in the same forum?

Where inside they say "Moved to Flat Earth Debate", the link takes you back to the "other" duplicate inside the same Flat Earth Theory forum?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me

« on: June 24, 2018, 11:51:39 PM »

There's already thousands of video and photos showing a curved earth, I'd imagine the argument will progress like this: "You can't show me the photos therefore you're wrong"... "Oh you've sent photos, they're fake" or "it's a fisheye lens"

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 24, 2018, 08:22:50 AM »

Can we stop quoting everyone's entire post?

But thinking further on this "they're not satellites, they're planes" idea... The same problem occurs as in original post: you can not spoof a time stamp and have it work for every observer.

If you're saying planes fly around somewhere close to 15 miles high... GPS is 12000 miles high. So when a receiver gets a signal from ANY GPS, it's going to be at least 12000 miles worth of distance right? (i.e. if it's directly over head, it's 12,000 miles away). The original post was all about the horizontal positioning, but the vertical position is just as important. If you think planes are 15 miles high, 5 miles high, 100 miles high... they will have to "spoof" their time stamp to make an observer think they're 12,000 miles above the exact location that the "plane" is transmitting. If they spoof their time stamp as being earlier than it really is, then an observer in a second location is going to have the completely wrong distance. You can not spoof a time stamp for an individual location without affecting other observers: you can not provide a spoofed signal for every seperate observer, unless you're proposing there's some sort of "tailored highly directional radio signal" being generated for all individual users? 

As for your comment that you were using RE understand to calculate the speed of the planes... just get you and a friend or two to take logs of GPS signals over a 5 minute period, then see if you can come up with an alternate explanation for the information it tells you. The signals will be able to tell you the effective ground speed of GPS. Start with an assumption the world is flat by all means: good luck with that!

Effectively what i'm proposing, is to use GPS in the opposite manner: you can use the same signals to tell you the location, height, and speed of GPS satellites if you have three or more ground based observers/loggers. When your calculations show they're 12,000 miles high and travelling at 8,700mph, try to come up with a possible method that ground or plane based antennas can fake that information.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EA Theory Sub Debate: The Sun would disappear "top first"

« on: June 22, 2018, 05:57:24 AM »

True. Let's put this to bed. We've learnt new information about a) the nature of the "force" curving the light rays and b) the initial direction of those light rays.  The OP conjecture doesn't hold under those conditions.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 22, 2018, 05:54:11 AM »

Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth.  If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math.  Reasonable, try again

Planes fall out of the sky all the time??!!  Did you seriously just say that.  You round earthers will say anything to try and prove themselves right.  Wow

Sorry yes you're right... i was lazy in my googling. So OK you think we have solar powered planes travelling at Mach 3? That's less impossible than 14,000km/h but still impossible. Think of the solar panel size for a start... and if only 15 miles up, pretty easy to spot the giant solar wings...

As for planes falling out of the sky: OK sure i didn't even bother researching that. But looks like figure is about 90 commercial flights a year? God knows how many total (incl private). Sure there's only 24 GPS "planes" but if they're travelling 24 hours a day... at Mach 3 (!), for the last twenty years... Haven't done the maths but thinking odds of at least ONE falling in a populated spot are pretty high... Could be wrong.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EA Theory Sub Debate: The Sun would disappear "top first"

« on: June 21, 2018, 03:31:22 AM »

The eye can't magically "focus" two light rays that originate from the same point but different directions

So you DON'T understand how focus works...

Yes, I understand how focus works. This isn't at all the scenario we're talking about

So the scenario is NOT two light rays that originate from the same point?

If you really can't see that there is a huge difference between light rays diverging from a point and getting focused back to another point, and light rays getting bent so that they appear to come from completely different directions, then I'm sorry, but I don't know how to explain the self-evident.

If you don't understand that "divergence" implies "different directions" then I don't know how to explain the self evident.

But I think I get what you're trying to say, I apologise if i misunderstood. The way I've drawn/calculated the curved light causes an issue because diverging rays will become converging rays. And yes, this would result in blur. i.e. top two pairs of diverging rays in image below = no problem.... bottom where diverging then becomes converging = huge problem: i.e. the eye will think they're rays from two different points. I agree this causes a problem, and provides an additional piece of useful information for EA: if rays of light starting in different directions must not converge, then the effect of the "pull" must be relative to the distance from that light ray. You said earlier the curve for each light ray would be more or less the same: I think it's an important distinction to make. If they were EXACTLY the same curve, the they would eventually converge. If you imagine two light rays that have turned so they're now travelling parallel to the earth (one above the other) then the upwards pull must effect the the higher ray less than the lower ray, otherwise they would converge.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 21, 2018, 01:54:41 AM »

A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.

Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?

Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated"

16

Flat Earth Theory / Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 20, 2018, 06:08:46 AM »

We "know" GPS satelites send three signals: a unique ID, a location (where it is over the globe) and a time stamp for each signal it sends. A "receiver" uses signals from three or more GPS satelites to calculate position, based on the "Delta" or time passed between the time stamp in the signal, and the time on their GPS device. From the delta, you can work out how far you are from each satelite, and with three or more, you can determine the point where that delta "holds true" for all satelites. From the location information of each satelite, you can relate that information to a map of the globe, and "know" your position on that globe.

As far as flat earth is concerned, GPS can be "faked" from ground based locations. And it's true: triangulation is possible from ground based antennas. You can use cell phone towers to locate people for example, in exactly the same way as described above (time stamps, deltas, know location of the tower, map)

However, we also "know" GPS satelites move: they are not in geosyncronous orbit. Therefore, for two receivers (Fred and Wilma) measuring their location at different times (a and b), I'm saying it is impossible for land based signals to "spoof" that information



Diagram above shows what happens with GPS: each satellite continuously sends signals giving it's ID, Location and a Timestamp for that information. We can see two receivers held by "Fred" and "Wilma"... They haven't moved, and they're some distance apart (5km say). Each satelite is moving, and each delta changes as that satelite moves. I've only shown delta from "Sat2". There are two ways this could be "spoofed" or mimicked by Flat Earth conspiracy agents, but neither makes sense:



In the above, the stationary tower "Fixed2" sends an ID, Location, and Timestamp. However, Fred and Wilma are considerable distances apart, so their "Delta" changes quite a lot between each signal. The stationary antenna could "pretend" and give a fake time stamp to Fred the first time (T2a), and then give the real time stamp T2B the second time... but Wilma will receive those same time stamps, and Wilma would think they're much further away with the first signal, and then the correct distance in the second signal? Or the antenna could give the "correct" Time stamp the first time, and Wilma will have the correct delta, and then the antenna could "spoof" a time stamp for the second signal so Wilma still gets the correct delta, but then that would through Fred completely out of whack. It is not possible to spoof for one receiver without confusing the second. It is impossible for both to calculate the "correct" location for both signals.



Option two: with two fixed antennas, the flat earth agents could "pretend" that the GPS has moved, simply by changing the ID part of the signal sent by antennas 1 and 2: in the first signal, Antenna 1 says "I'm Sat2!", and then on the second signal, Antenna 2 says "I'm Sat2!" and us globetards are fooled in to thinking this is a moving GPS. Everything else (the delta, calculated distance etc) holds in exactly the same way as for the first "known" diagram of GPS. However there's a huge problem: that only works to explain the two points shown in my diagram! What about the signal sent half way between those two points? A third antenna? What about half way between that? A fourth antenna? Obviously impossible without "infinity antennas"(!)

This is a little tricky to "conceptualise" with moving GPS vs Fixed Time Stamps vs Deltas etc: I found this hard to turn that in to clear diagrams, and perhaps they are not clear enough I don't know. However what I found completely impossible, is how it can be possible to mimic GPS with fixed antennas. Given they are constantly transmitting DIFFERENT locations and time stamps, it's simply impossible to spoof. You could argue that the GPS receivers themselves are in on the conspiracy, but there's any number of free open source aps for your phone to directly read the GPS data, and a LARGE part of the data is not "the data itself" it's simply a time stamp... you can not "spoof" a time stamp for selective people: time stamps get broadcast to everyone, it's up to the receiver to compare that time stamp to their individual device. It's simply impossible to spoof data for one receiver without throwing out a second receiver.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A new Earthrise shows the globe Earth

« on: June 20, 2018, 02:20:36 AM »

Would seem like a nice opportunity for world domination to expose the west for their 'lies' about the world being a globe by showing flat earth pictures from your rocket... I guess they're all in on it together huh! 

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EA Theory Sub Debate: The Sun would disappear "top first"

« on: June 20, 2018, 12:01:05 AM »

If two light rays intersect at a point, and you place an eye at that point, both of those rays are going to enter the eye. The eye can't magically "focus" two light rays that originate from the same point but different directions

*shrug* don't tell it to me, tell it to science



When things are "in focus" the different direction of light coming from a single point all go to a single point. When things are "out of focus" they go to different points and appear blury. If two paths of light enter the eye at "the same spot" on the front of the lens but originate from different spots, the shape of the lens will "direct" those rays of light to separate spots on the retina. So the eye's dealing with two things: the "location" of something i.e. wheres the top of the sign, the bottom of the sign, the word 'stop' etc, and the eye is also dealing with "focus"... i.e. for these rays all coming from the same spot, am i going to focus and converge them back to a single point, or am i converging other things in the picture... am i focusing on the bird or the building. If it was only single rays of light from each point in an image that reached the retina, then EVERYTHING would be in focus in your image plane.

In fact your iris does control this: it's an "aperture": just like a camera: when the aperture is tiny, then the depth of field is huge: "everything" is in focus but the amount of light entering is less so the image is darker. When the aperture is wide open i.e. big hole, then the depth of field is small: you need to "focus" on certain items at a certain distance, and everything else is blurry. Your eye doesn't change the shape of the iris becaue it gives a crap about depth of field, it's just trying to control the amount of light on your sensitive retina. Depth of field is a side effect.

Or put another way: different rays from the same point enter the eye while "diverging" (spreading out)), different rays from DIFFERENT points enter the eye while "converging" (joining together)... The lens will deform to bend diverging rays in to a single point (focus) but the converging rays will enter the eye, cross over, and hit the retina at different spots to tell the brain that those points are in different spots. Similarly, if something is out of focus, the diverging rays fail to be bent back to converge perfectly, end up hitting "different spots" and our brain tells us this is one object out of focus rather than different objects or a blurry object (and gives us an option to try to bring those things in to focus). Staring at a blurry photo of something can strain our eyes, because our brain tells us it's something is out of focus but our lens fails to deform to bring it back in to focus.


https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/biology-the-living-environment/physiology/vision-how-do-our-eyes-work/

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EA Theory Sub Debate: The Sun would disappear "top first"

« on: June 18, 2018, 11:58:37 PM »

I mean it sincerely that, if you still don't see the 90-degree rotation despite producing a diagram that illustrates it yourself, then I do not know how to explain it better

OK i'll try this one more time, but i can concede my entire point is moot if light rays start downwards. I can concede that with what I now understand to be the correct EAT theory of the the suns light rays, then my problem doesn't occur. I'm completely happy with this outcome as it gives additional information to EA and provides a path for further discussion. But anyway, one final time for the folks back home:



Curves not shown, just "starting angle" and "ending angle"



There's no "90 degree rotation", there's a 45 degree angle of light, so the "visible portion" of the sun describes a perpendicular 45 degree angle...



I imagine what's happened here is you've taken your understanding of the sun "pointing downwards", and then seen my two points on a 45 degree sun, and my two points DO describe a 90 degree angle to your version of the sun... but in of themselves, they are not 90 degrees to MY understanding of the sun: they're just an additional 45 degree angle (45 + 45 = 90!)

So on my apparently totally incorrect version of the angles of light from the sun, then the top point would disappear first. This is now made almost entirely irrelevant, as you've explained that in EAT the light from the sun is almost completely downwards. Although we still have some points higher than others, they're also "further away" so you don't end up with the same problem of the area of visible light ending at the top before the bottom.

I think you'd still find if you modelled what the sun would look like as it disappears in your version, it would not be as perfectly uniform as observed

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EA Theory Sub Debate: The Sun would disappear "top first"

« on: June 18, 2018, 11:31:18 PM »

But yeah i get you're point, light rays are pulled in a perpendicular direction and maintaining the same speed. That still seems a bit "odd" to me but i accept it, and I don't believe it effects what i'm saying in the slightest: the paths of light that i assumed were bending up sharply hit the ground anyway... they're irrelevant to my point just because they hit the ground at a slightly different angle. Roughly speaking: light rays are bending upwards. My point still holds as far as i can tell.

No, you never had a point to begin with. As a consequence of different rays having different curves in your diagram, they cross over each other all the time. This means that, for most observers, the same point on the Sun's edge will be observable in multiple directions at once.

The technical term for this is "blur", and you're going to have a tough time making the case that the Sun is not observable as a coherent circular image in the sky. If your diagram cannot even model a single point on the Sun correctly, how do you hope to produce a meaningful description of what the entire Sun looks like?

er, no, i don't think you know how an eye works... only the paths of light that enter the eye will be visible. The diagram just shows all of the possible paths of light: something is visible if there is a path of light entering the eye. The eye will "focus" a number of rays entering the lens at certain angles from the same point by converging them to a single point. If you drew all of the rays of light in the room you're in right now it might freak you out. It doesn't look "blurry" though does it? There's light bouncing around all of the place, they just don't enter the eye, or they enter the eye at the wrong angle