Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Frocious

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,
« on: April 05, 2018, 05:25:24 PM »

You need to show that all distances are accurate, not just tell us.

When we looked at the transatlantic cable journal logs, they admitted that the laid cable was over 15% longer than expected by spherical coordinates.

Once many world wide distances are verified, it will be possible to start creating a map and model. Nothing can be done until we have all information.

You keep saying this, but it was clear that you misinterpreted the excerpts provided.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,
« on: April 04, 2018, 11:01:24 PM »
Public consensus is that the earth is round anf that our current theories are correct.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal-ish Acceleration
« on: April 04, 2018, 06:56:39 PM »
Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.
Standard theory of gravity applied to a flat Earth would result in a pull that is more and more horizontal the further one goes from the center, unless one assumes an endless (or near endless) plane of finite thickness. If you have evidence that suggests there is something wrong with this, I suggest documenting it and presenting it for peer review. Otherwise UA is your option for a flat, finite size Earth, and standard gravity works for a flat, infinite plane Earth. But you cannot have normal gravity upon a finite sized flat Earth.
Gravity pulls down underneath the earth, not just from the centre. Even if I did provide a paper for peer review, it would be dismissed out of hand because it challenges the norm.

I can assure you that a well-researched paper that contains well-documented and repeatable experiments would not be dismissed out of hand. It might be easily disproved, though.

And if you are right -- your claims can't be disputed, they're backed up by tested science -- you would be a shoo-in for a Nobel prize, you would have a worldwide audience to market books/interviews/whatever you want to and would be able to live out the rest of your life in supreme comfort. As well as setting up a few more generations for success.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal-ish Acceleration
« on: April 04, 2018, 06:18:05 PM »
Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.
Standard theory of gravity applied to a flat Earth would result in a pull that is more and more horizontal the further one goes from the center, unless one assumes an endless (or near endless) plane of finite thickness. If you have evidence that suggests there is something wrong with this, I suggest documenting it and presenting it for peer review. Otherwise UA is your option for a flat, finite size Earth, and standard gravity works for a flat, infinite plane Earth. But you cannot have normal gravity upon a finite sized flat Earth.

This is, to the best of my knowledge, why the idea of UA came to be in the first place. A flat earth does disprove gravity, and it would do so more and more dramatically the further one moves from the center.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Couple of Questions
« on: April 04, 2018, 06:09:35 PM »
Global warming doesn't disprove flat earth. The ice caps are melting, but the ice wall is so gargantuan that it won't melt. The north is the problem.

If, and I say 'if' (because it won't) the ice wall melted, then the oceans would just drain over the edges of the world.

As for the crust, there is no core but certainly tectonic plates do have friction causing earthquakes. There probably is a mantle but its not possible to prove as we can't drill that far.

Hold up. The image you like of the ice wall -- you describe that as gargantuan? Too large to melt?
Look at the image. It clearly extends for 100s of miles, you can see so yourself. Therefore yes, it is too large to melt.

Global warming doesn't disprove flat earth. The ice caps are melting, but the ice wall is so gargantuan that it won't melt. The north is the problem.

If, and I say 'if' (because it won't) the ice wall melted, then the oceans would just drain over the edges of the world.

As for the crust, there is no core but certainly tectonic plates do have friction causing earthquakes. There probably is a mantle but its not possible to prove as we can't drill that far.

So which came first - the ice wall or the oceans?
The way the earth formed would indicate that the waters froze on the edges causing the ice wall. I only say this because we know that earth floats on the waters of the great deep.

Did you know that 150 miles of Antarctic glacier at Pine Bay are two of thr fastest-melting glaciers in the world? Not arctic -- Antarctic. Pieces of your ice wall.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Couple of Questions
« on: April 04, 2018, 02:54:43 PM »
Global warming doesn't disprove flat earth. The ice caps are melting, but the ice wall is so gargantuan that it won't melt. The north is the problem.

If, and I say 'if' (because it won't) the ice wall melted, then the oceans would just drain over the edges of the world.

As for the crust, there is no core but certainly tectonic plates do have friction causing earthquakes. There probably is a mantle but its not possible to prove as we can't drill that far.

Hold up. The image you like of the ice wall -- you describe that as gargantuan? Too large to melt?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Radii of Certain Circles of Latitude
« on: April 04, 2018, 01:20:18 PM »
I don't know what that means.

I'm not an FE believer, and the FE case I described is one model. People like Tom Bishop say that that model is not official.

If you are looking for an official flat Earth model I think you'll be disappointed.

If you are looking for a well funded and organized organization that studies the shape of the earth you will be disapointed. I think you do not realize that this entire thing is based on a few people who individually contribute their time to think about it on what little free time they have away from their work.

Buddy you've got to stop bringing this funding excuse up.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,
« on: April 03, 2018, 01:57:39 PM »
Our total annual budget is $0. The allocated cartography budget is $0.

We are already giving out our little free time away from work to discuss a few matters. You aren't paying us. Why do you guys complain so much?

You keep saying this. We are well aware. We are also well aware that if rocket guy can dupe FE'rs out of 7k, Dr. Tom Bishop can get even more.

All you need to do is describe what you would use the budget for, how you would go about completing the goals and put up a kickstarter.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.
« on: April 03, 2018, 12:13:57 AM »
I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.

That is not how things work. It was your claim, so it is your burden to demonstrate it.

I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.

That is what is expected of you. Demonstrate your positive claims. We frankly don't have the time, resources, or inclination to answer all "prove me wrong" queries we get; and it is not really our responsibility to do that. It is the claimant's responsibility to demonstrate his own claims.

"Ghosts exist, prove me wrong" is an invalid argument. No one is obligated to disprove someone's wild claims of the existence of ghosts. "Here is some evidence that ghosts exist" is a slightly more valid, although perhaps ultimately faulty, argument. Understand?

You being able to post this is proof of his claims.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.
« on: April 02, 2018, 11:26:14 PM »
Quote
"No, Parallax couldn't really be meaning this stuff, there's something else going on."

Much like the original Parallax  :D

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary
« on: April 02, 2018, 07:55:57 PM »
Go beg Rocket Guy for some experiments then. We have an annual budget of $0. Zero. Nothing. The webmasters of this website pay for hosting out of their own pocket. We rely on our users to contribute 100% of all content.

We invited you to our potluck and you are the guy who came empty handed and just sits around complaining about the food other people brought.

Try a kickstarter, maybe you'll get some good support! I think that's the point he was trying to make by bringing up rocket guy.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.
« on: April 02, 2018, 06:17:43 PM »
Dr Rowbotham did provide proof.

Which has been summarily debunked by modern (and ancient) science.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.
« on: April 02, 2018, 06:16:38 PM »
Tontogary is a classic example of someone who thinks he is going round the globe, but in reality isn't.

This schtick is getting old. Starting to think this is simply Tom's troll account rather than a standard troll.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.
« on: April 02, 2018, 05:47:38 PM »
Quote
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.

Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.

Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?

Are you talking about this?

Quote
https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf

Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.

That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.

All right. I will leave it to our navigator to argue the specifics here, as clearly he knows much more about it than either of us.

I am curious as to why a study is necessary for you in this case, as scientific papers/studies seem to matter very little to you when it comes to your beliefs.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.
« on: April 02, 2018, 05:40:29 PM »
Quote
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.

Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.

Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.
« on: April 02, 2018, 05:11:45 PM »
Yes i can,

I have beeen sailing since 1985, Gained my 1st certificate of competency as 2nd mate in 1989, and chief Officer licence in 1996, and my Masters licence in1999. I have been sailing as a Master of oil and gas tankers since 2004, so 14 years in command.

I can show a copy of my masters licence, although for obvious reasons (security and ID fraud being 2) will not show my licence number. As part of my navigational training we studied many subjects, Magnetism, correction of magnetic compasses, and the earths magnetic field.
Electronic navigational systems, such a GPS, transit sat NAV, as well as radio nav systems, nav aids, such as gyros and gyro compasses, radars, theory and understanding of them.
Navigation, celestial navigation which relies heavily on spoherical trigonometry, and principles of position fixing, as well as in depth position fixing from celestial bodies.
Surface navigation, using Rhumb lines, GFreat circles, composite great circles, and calculation of distances along different courses and to different destinations.
Calculation of vertical sextant angles to find distance from a known point, horizontal angles for the same, as well as bearings and ranges from objects.
Cartography, different projections of charts and why, Mercator, gnomonic projection etc, and how the world is charted.
I have spent years practicing celestial navigation, and it works...
As well as law, safety of life at sea, commercial and civil law, and loading of cargos and carriage of cargoes. Stability and damage control, rules of sailing and rules of the road. World wide weather patterns and the reasons for them
All of these things i have studied and understood to be able to pass my master mariners licence, of which i can provide a copy in a few hours. We are in the indonesian islands passages at present, it is late but i can provide my Master mariners licence.

Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?

My friend has been a mariner for about 20 years now, he's failed His masters ticket 4 times! Partly because he's not good at exams but also due to the sheer volume of subject matter they are tested on. TontoGary should be considered an absolute authority where the subjects he lists are concerned in my opinion.

I think arguing against him as an authority that is something even most FE'rs would struggle to do. Unfortunately, that just means he will be ignored.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.
« on: April 02, 2018, 02:17:13 PM »
Ok lets try and put this one to bed shall we.

I am a navigator, and have been for 35 years on varying ships, and can tell you for sure the earth is a globe, because i have sailed around the world, and end up nearly the same place by sailing east or west.

The argument around the horizon is really simple to observe and see.

Mariners have been using tables and maths to work out distances from objects of a known height for hundreds of years, and they are proved to be accurate, there are numerous references to them, and they work. I have done it myself and seen it.

Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.

Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.

Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.

https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf

Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.

The above links explain the maths and tables to use, and the thing is THEY WORK, so if there was no curvature of the earth, then the tables are wrong, and there will be a hell of a lot more ship wrecks around.

Either i am lying, or have been fantastically duped and lucky to get away without running my (large) ships aground all these years.

Also look at this reference, clearly explaining why an object dips below the horizon. There are pictures etc, plus diagrams. I would love to have explained to me why the science behind what i have known and practiced to be true is wrong.

http://www.splashmaritime.com.au/Marops/data/less/Nav/Vsa.pdf

Finally when looking at the home page of this site it is stressed that pictures and videos and wiki references should not be trusted as they are easily manipulated, why therefore does Tom continue to try to provide references to textbooks written over 150 years ago, when our understanding of science was more primitive, indeed we had not even flown an aeroplane at that point, and Darwin had just publish Origin of species, and most people believed in creationism, as opposed to evolution. Please lets have some sense of reality here.
Although i have provided web links, one of them is to a universally accepted journal of navigation that has been published for over 200 years, and the tables are accurate. Have been proved so many times by practice, and measurement, as well as theory.

Please provide solid evidence other than “i believe” or “it has been proved” without explaining why.

I would really like to see this answered to. Tontogary, can you provide is with any confirmable credentials? The community here has a tendency to not believe posters are actually experts.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How thick is the Earth?
« on: April 01, 2018, 10:40:04 PM »
They aren't reaching the other side.

Yes, they are. You can choose not to believe it, but that doesn't change the facts.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How thick is the Earth?
« on: April 01, 2018, 10:27:57 PM »
No no no no no.

People can only fly so far over the ice wall before they can't get any further. It's also possible pilots are being lead to believe they are flying over and are actually coming back on themselves. So what you posted is not definitive proof.

How are they coming back on themselves if they are reaching a destination on the other side?

Also I thought they got turned away by the government or something like that, wasn't that the previous excuse?

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How thick is the Earth?
« on: April 01, 2018, 10:09:13 PM »
To quote you earlier

That's not what I asked.

People cross the Antarctic all the time. Here's a story with several people you can look up: https://www.wired.com/2016/02/people-cross-antarctica-all-the-time-its-still-crazy-hard/

And here's information on the first flight across Antarctica: http://www.royalaviationmuseum.com/2596/first-flight-over-antarctica/

Here is footage from an Antarctic flight (from the folks I linked previously -- you can get yourself on one of these flights!):


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >