1

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: October 10, 2018, 11:19:02 AM »

When the experiments were done on a stationary earth, not only the rotational Sagnac effect, but also the Coriolis effect should not be recorded.
And since the Coriolis effect is an optical effect, you always need a visible rotating surface to create it.
Invisible media, like the ether, can not be used to create & explain an optical effect.

If that is too hard for you to understand, then you've a serious problem understanding what the Coriolis effect is.

I have the formulas, you have nothing.

I win.

You have formulas, but you don't know how to use them. And those who know how to use those formulas, know they need a spinning globe to make them work.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and formulas only can prove a theory when they are used, but to copy/paste formulas you don't know how to use is not the same thing as using them. Pasting formulas does not prove theories.

So no victory for you yet, until you have figured out & demonstrated how those formulas based on spinning globes can be used to prove a stationary earth.

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: October 10, 2018, 10:01:57 AM »

Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.

Case closed.

If Michelson and Gale recorded the Coriolis effect (with or without the Sagnac effect), then they were standing on a rotating floor.
And if this rotating floor was fixed to the earth, they proved the earth is rotating.

Because Coriolis effects only can be recorded if the recorder is rotating, and ether does not rotate Michelson and Gale.

Case closed.

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The use of Polaris for celestial navigation proves a round earth.

« on: October 10, 2018, 03:00:47 AM »

Because compasses don't work everywhere on earth. At the latitude of Seattle, Washington, a normal compass is already scraping against the floor of its enclosure. It is actually only a narrow strip of land where the magnetic compass works, where the majority of the population lives.

Nowadays they use gyrocompasses, the work everywhere on the planet where ships can go, even on submarines in the deep sea. While Polaris is only visible on a clear night, not during daytime or a cloudy night.
And a navigator does not only want to know where the north is, he also wants to see as exactly as possible in which direction his ship is heading, and a compass shows that more precisely than a quick glance on Polaris. So why relying on Polaris for geographical directions if you have a compass?

Polaris is constant in its setting and rising, because Polaris doesn't move. It is always fixed on the same location above the North Pole and never setts or rises. As long as you do not change your location, Polaris will always be visible in exact the same spot above the northern horizon. And as long as the light of Polaris enters the atmosphere in a steep angle, refraction is negligible. Only close to the equator where Polaris is close to the horizon refraction can change the angle a little.

Sure, but those are just words, not demonstration. We can't take 'common knowledge' for granted.

This knowledge is "common" to mankind for at least 10,000 years, and confirmed by everyone who watched the night sky on the northern hemisphere.
But no one will stop you when you will check that by watching Polaris yourself.

In this scientific revolution of FET we must start knowledge afresh.

That's OK, but then you'll have still 10  centuries to go to catch up with mankind. Don't know if "revolution" is the right word for that, I would call that a "relapse".

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The use of Polaris for celestial navigation proves a round earth.

« on: October 10, 2018, 01:44:51 AM »

From what I have read, all latitudes on earth were created based on Polaris.

The latitudes on earth are based on the devision of a circle in 360°.
If you draw a line from the top of a circle towards the centre, and a line from the side to the centre, they will meet in an angle of 90°:

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The use of Polaris for celestial navigation proves a round earth.

« on: October 10, 2018, 01:14:52 AM »

Polaris is only used by navigators to find their actual position on the ocean, by measuring the angle of Polaris above the northern horizon.

That is all it can be used for? It is impossible to figure out where East and West are with Polaris?

Because Polaris is always in the north it "can" be used for east - west navigation, but why should you use Polaris for that if the compass in front of your nose does a much better job for that.

But why the angle of Polaris is always equivalent to the latitude of the navigators position can only be explained with help of the globe earth model and a very far away Polaris, so I can imagine that the writers of the FES WIKI have a problem with educating their FE readers correctly about that.

From what I have read, all latitudes on earth were created based on Polaris.

By my knowledge the geographical coordinates were created based on the shape of the earth as a globe, because the cartographers who introduced it all used the globe as generally accepted model of the earth to be coordinated.

......or that Polaris is exactly constant in its setting or rising as one travels North or South, which may or may not be the case. RE'ers do complain a lot about "refraction" changing the position of celestial bodies in significant ways.

Polaris is constant in its setting and rising, because Polaris doesn't move. It is always fixed on the same location above the North Pole and never setts or rises. As long as you do not change your location, Polaris will always be visible in exact the same spot above the northern horizon. And as long as the light of Polaris enters the atmosphere in a steep angle, refraction is negligible. Only close to the equator where Polaris is close to the horizon refraction can change the angle a little.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The use of Polaris for celestial navigation proves a round earth.

« on: October 10, 2018, 12:48:33 AM »

What you quoted already says compass, and uses the word "or" when using Polaris as a reference for Eastwards or Westwards travel. It appears that the Wiki is correct and should stay as it is.

No, the WIKI is not correct about navigation. Polaris is not used "as a reference for Eastwards or Westwards travel" (Unless the navigator has dropped his gyrocompass overboard, but that hardly happens)

Polaris is only used to find a ships location, because the number of degrees Polaris is visible above the horizon always matches the number of the latitude. If the ship is 57° North, than Polaris is visible 57° above the horizon, and when it is 32° North, Polaris is 32° above the horizon:



Wonder why that is not corrected in the WIKI

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: October 09, 2018, 11:18:31 PM »

Because a medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but that will not change its trajectory from "straight" into "curved".

You must be dreaming.

You must be sleeping.

Dr. Ludwik Silberstein calculated the PRECISE deflection due to the Coriolis effect on a light beam:

dt = 4ωA/c^2

Yes, but they all explain that Coriolis effect on a light beam as the result of a spinning earth, not a spinning ether, because spinning ethers can not create Coriolis effects. Impossible. And Dr. Ludwik Silberstein knows that, because he knows what a Coriolis effect is.

It is a physical effect.

No. The Coriolis effect is NOT a physical effect, it is an OPTICAL EFFECT: a straight line observed as curved because the frame of reference of the observer (Including the observer himself) is rotating. When the observer leaves the rotating reference frame to a fixed non-rotating point of observation, he will see the light beam as a straight, not curved line above a rotating surface.

And if the earth is stationary, we the observers are not rotating with a rotating reference frame, and for that reason we will not see any Coriolis effects above a stationary earth.



The fatal flaws in your theory are:

1- The observer has to be rotating with his rotating reference frame; a rotating ether does not rotate the observer, so no Coriolis effect to be observed above a stationary earth.

2- The ether is invisible, and therefore completely useless to explain optical effects, like the Coriolis effect.

3- The ether is a medium, and electromagnetic waves travel in a straight line through media, not in a curved line.

4- If a spinning medium like ether would "drag" electromagnetic waves, it would only do so in one direction, not in two opposite directions simultaneously like the Coriolis effect does:



Therefore a spinning earth as explanation for the Coriolis effect can not be replaced by an invisible spinning ether, and none of the researchers you are linking to is doing so.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 09, 2018, 08:49:11 PM »

If correct, it shows that perspective is not as it has been taught.

Sure, but the problem is, his non-linear perspective is demonstrably not correct.

Where can we see something which demonstrates that perspective is as it is taught in schools?

In the world around you.
But do not take that for granted; compare what you see with what is taught in schools.

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System

« on: October 09, 2018, 08:28:45 PM »

But the correction mentioned by Ashby is NOT the rotational Sagnac effect: it is, in fact, the Coriolis effect of the ether drift upon the e/m signal.

Coriolis effects only occur above surfaces that are:

A- Visible
B- Rotating.

If the surface of your earth is visible, but not rotating, there will be NO Coriolis effect above that surface.
If your drifting ether is rotating, but not visible, it will NOT create a Coriolis effect.

When a drifting ether exert a force on moving objects and e/m waves, then this force should not be confused with the Coriolis force.

In case of a real Coriolis effect the moving object or electromagnetic waves travels in a straight line, and therefore both (mass & wave) can be subject of the same Coriolis effect.

Physical objects have mass and that mass gives them "inertia". To overcome inertia and change the trajectory of a physical object we can use a real force
Electromagnetic waves have no mass, so no inertia, and are not sensitive to forces that can change the kinetic energy of physical objects with mass.

Example:
To change the velocity and trajectory of a football, we can kick it with our foot.
But we cannot change the velocity and trajectory of an Electromagnetic wave by kicking, pushing or pulling it. That won't work, that wave will go on moving with the same speed and in the same direction, no matter how hard we kick it.

The experiments you are referring only talk about a change in "velocity of the propagation path" as a result of propagation through an ether field, not about a change from a linear to a curved propagation path, that is theoretically impossible, because waves always move in a straight line trough a medium.

And here falls your theory apart: When the Coriolis effect on earth is observed to have the same effect on electromagnetic waves as it has on objects with mass, then this can only be explained with a rotating earth (bcs here both keep moving in a straight line), not with ether drift. Because a medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but that will not change its trajectory from "straight" into "curved". And forces that can curve the path of a physical object do not influence propagation of electromagnetic waves.

Bottom line: A medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but can not make that wave follow a curved trajectory. That's why the researchers you are using to legitimise your ether-drift theory will never abandon their spinning earth as the sole explanation for the observed Coriolis effect.

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: RESEARCH - Do you agree with this statement? Your main reason for believing

« on: October 09, 2018, 04:16:25 PM »

You need reasons to believe something, not just a lack of evidence to the contrary.

The answer stands: No. It is not the main reasoning behind our belief in anything. It's not how the human mind works, generally speaking.

Exactly, people always need a reason to believe something. We agree about that. But that reason is not always based on evidence or the lack of it, and often the main reason why someone has chosen to believe something can be stronger than all the evidence in the world that what he believes is not true.

Eg religious sentiments and the influence of religious communities on a person can be much stronger than evidence. When a particular person is a respected member of a religious community that preaches creationism, he/she can decide to stay a creationist even after seen irrefutable evidence for evolution. Because if he/she would accept that evidence and change his believe about creationism, he/she will be in deep trouble with his/her religious community and lose respect, friends and family. If for this person his position within his community is more important than the truth about evolution, he will stay a creationist no matter what.

That's how the human mind works, generally speaking, and the driving force behind self-deception.

Therefore as soon as you see someone denying irrefutable evidence when that irrefutable evidence doesn't support his belief, (like the declining speed of the terminator on the southern hemisphere) you should start questioning the reasons of his belief; a desire to know the truth........ or something else.

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: RESEARCH - Do you agree with this statement? Your main reason for believing

« on: October 09, 2018, 03:21:22 PM »

No, that's a suggestion that's verging on idiotic. You imply that it is just a matter of time for a FE'er to understand that she's wrong. Regardless of what the truth might be, how likely do you think a FE'er will be to share your reasoning?

Flat moon's suggestion is not verging on idiotic, but very reasonable.  He/she is asking if your main reasoning for believing in a flat earth is because you haven't yet seen proof that the earth is not flat. Implying that you're willing to change your opinion about the shape of the earth in case you proved to yourself that it isn't true.

Verging on idiotic would be the opposite; maintaining to believe the earth is flat even after you've seen proof the earth is a sphere.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 1m Waves block 100m building

« on: October 09, 2018, 02:19:09 PM »

A dime CAN block your view of a distant elephant but only if you hold the dime close to your eye.

Perspective attempts to bring the surface in the distance to eye level. Unless you have a solid demonstration on how perspective works, I don't see how your argument holds any weight.

Perspective is nothing else than a decreasing angle of sight lines as a result of a increasing distance. That decreasing angle can be calculated with simple trigonometry. When the viewing angles decrease, then the projection of the observed object on our retina becomes smaller.



 If the angle of sight line of a nearby dime is the same as the angle of sight lines of a far away elephant, both appear on our retina as equal in size.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez

« on: October 08, 2018, 10:54:43 PM »

Join points A and B on the respective beaches: point C is the midpoint curvature.

That is what you have to deal with: even if you ascend to a point higher than C (let's say 45 meters in Cap Gris Nez), and you have a visual target, the ascending slope, the midpoint curvature (22.4 meters) and the desdending slope are still there on a globe earth.

That is what we deal with, but what you completely overlook is that on a globe that the line that joins points A and B on the respective beaches is not a horizontal line parallel to the observers eye level. Due to the curvature the other beach is always on a lower position (from the point of view of the observer) than the position of the observer, and therefore that line connecting those beaches is a line going down from the point of view of the observer. And because of that, on a globe the observer is always on a higher point than C, even if he/she is standing at sea level ->



That's why on a globe there is no such thing as an "ascending slope" between the observer and his horizon, only a descending slope.

It is just that they are totally missing in the photographs: the ship is not part of any slopes, just a perfectly straight surface of the English Channel.

There is a descending slope between you and the ship. The reason this slope is not visible with the naked eye or on a photograph is the result of perspective, as I pointed out earlier in tis thread:

Let's say the boat in your picture is somewhere in the middle between France and England, 10 miles away from the observer. then the drop of curvature will be 800 inch, or 67 feet. Over a distance of 10 miles 67 feet is still only 0.86 degrees of an arc. Now the problem is that with the naked eye it is hard to tell if a horizontal line 10 miles away is exactly on our eye level or just 0.86 degrees of an arc below eye level. Therefore with the naked eye we can not see the curvature of the globe as a descending slope, because perspective is hiding that slope for us. For our natural observation it is impossible to tell if we're watching a flat surface, or a surface that's curving down from our point of view with only 8 inch/miles².

To tell if a body of water is flat or curving down with 8 inch/miles² we need the help of precision instruments like theodolites........

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS:

If you want to talk about how much you hate sandokhan's logic....

I do not hate sandokhan's logic, in contrary, I love it because he is willing to put time and effort in substantiating his point of view. That's why he is my favorite flat earther.
What I do not love is people making all kinds of bold claims and wild accusations without any substantiation.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez

« on: October 08, 2018, 05:16:37 PM »

The spherical earth theory includes a gravitational force curving water around the centre of the globe

How can it be a "theory" if you cannot as much as explain how two gravitons attract each other?

What you have is a mere hypothesis, being ripped into shreds by the Biefeld-Brown effect, experiments carried out in full vacuum: no such thing as attractive gravity.

The gravitational field consists of gravitons.

Please explain to your readers how two gravitons attract each other.

I have provided both the theoretical proof of ether waves (Whittaker's 1903 and 1904 papers) and the experimental proofs (Galaev ether drift experiments) of their existence.

This topic is about observing the Dover cliffs from the French coast, not about explaining gravity. You are now replacing your indefensible straw man with a red herring:

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez

« on: October 08, 2018, 04:39:09 PM »

You are standing right on the Cap Gris Nez. Distance to the Dover cliffs, 34 km. Spherical earth hypothesis.

The spherical earth theory includes a gravitational force curving water around the centre of the globe, and causes the observer to realize that "down" is always in the direction of the centre of the globe.

In this frame of reference from the point of view of the observer, the surface of the earth is always curving downwards, from the place he is standing towards his horizon and beyond.

If there would be an ascending slope of curvature between the observer and the horizon on a spherical earth, the horizon would be above eye level, which on a sphere is utter nonsense.

If you really believe that on a globe there would be ascending slopes of curvature, than you seriously confuse Globe earth theory with Concave earth theory.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez

« on: October 08, 2018, 03:25:02 PM »

Even if one ascends to 45 meters in altitude (Cap Gris Nez cliffs), you still are going to have to deal with a 22.4 meter midpoint bulge, an ascending slope, and a descending slope.

That midpoint curvature is totally missing from the photographs taken in France, Grimsby, Gibraltar.

You still cling to your straw man as if losing your straw man would be losing your life.

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Coriolis Effect - Wiki Page

« on: October 08, 2018, 01:54:39 PM »

The Coriolis effect on bullets amounts to some inches, while the effect of the wind could be even greater than this figure; that is why the UA proponents are justified to call into question the Coriolis force on projectiles.

The adepts of the UA hypothesis might even deny the existence of satellites, thus they do not have to explain the delay of the signal from the GPS satellites to  Earth, which is caused by the Coriolis effect of the ether drift.

Coriolis effects only occur in relation to observable rotating surfaces. If the earth you live on is not rotating but stationary, then there is no such thing as a "Coriolis effect" with your stationary earth as a reference frame.

If you believe there is a thing like "a rotating ether" then that is fine. But because we human beings do not have the senses to observe ether, neither rotating ether, this "ether drift" cannot be a reference frame for any observable Coriolis effect.

Maybe your "ether drift" can create forces that can alter the trajectory of flying objects, gasses or waves, but these forces should not be confused with what science calls the "Coriolis force" because this force only exists in relation to an observable reference frame and NEVER to an invisible reference frame.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Cliffs of Dover from Cap Gris Nez

« on: October 08, 2018, 01:20:53 PM »

On a spherical earth you will observe this: an ascending slope, a huge midpoint bulge/visual obstacle of 22.4 meters, and a descending slope all the way to the other shoreline.

That is not what you will observe on a spherical earth, because this is not the curve, this is a "straw man"

What is a straw man?



What FE'ers do who claim they can't see the curve is they first create a "straw man" of the curve; a totally false image in their prepossessed anti-globular mind about how a curved surface of the earth would be visible. Then they look around if they can see this caricature of a curve. Of course they can't see it, because they are not looking for the curve itself, but for a misconception about that curvature. And because such a misconception does not exist in the real world, they incorrectly conclude that there is no curve, while that curve is just in front of their nose if they are watching the horizon on a clear day.

That's what I call: "A straw man attack on Mother Earth spherical shape."

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Deflection of Falling Bodies

« on: October 08, 2018, 01:45:57 AM »

Thought experiment: We have a spinning record on a record player. If hold out a small BB over its 'equator' and drop it, will the BB hit the record south of the record's equator?

Depends on the motion of the BB. When it is spinning with the record before it is dropped, it will hit the record outside (south) of the equator, just like this ball will always drop outside its own orbit when released:

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Zetetic Experiment

« on: October 08, 2018, 01:32:26 AM »

If science and religion is not opposed, then I expect that you will provide us with a list of mainstream scientists who have written studies or papers which attempt to demonstrate God, Creationism, or the benefits of prayer.

You're very badly informed about the history of modern science. Modern science sprang from theology in the Middle Ages. Roman Catholic theologians considered the universe and nature as a creation of God, and their motto was that: "A better understanding of the creation is a necessary condition for a better understanding of the Creator.

That is why natural sciences in past centuries were mainly practiced by theologians. An example of this was Isaac Newton, who as a theologian wrote more about the Bible than about physics, but is remembered as a physicist only because his studies of nature were more groundbreaking than his theological studies. Natural sciences were, and still are not seen as an enemy or competitor of religious studies, such as theology, but as a necessary addition to that.

Imagine that God created the earth as a spinning ball, but you believe that God created a stationary flat earth, then you are actually hold on to a false belief, and you deny God's creation, which is in fact a blasphemy.

But the shape of the earth has never been a point of discussion among theologians, for the science among the literate that the earth is a globe is older than Christianity itself. The belief among Christians in a flat earth only arose relative recently after the Reformation, when Protestant preachers taught that the Bible, as the highest magisterium, should not be interpreted but must be read literally. The contemporary rejection of the globe and the heliocentric model originated among the supporters of new fundamentalist and dogmatic protestant Christian sects, and is relatively new in the history of Christianity.

The only thing that was a matter of dispute and conflict in the Middle Ages was heliocentrism vs geocentricism , as preached by the Roman church. But the main reason that the Roman church opposed for a long time the heliocentrism of Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei was not because they believed they were mistaken, but because the Roman magisterium feared loss of credibility and authority if they had to admit that what they had preached for centuries about God's universe would turned out to be false. After all, Roman magisterium had always presented themselves as "infallible" and they would lose this infallibility if they were to admit that they had always been wrong about geocentrism.

Ultimately, the Roman Magisterium was overthrown by the idea that it was better to admit a mistake than to become the pushers of a false belief by sticking to geocentrism in the knowledge that it is not what God created.

That is why theologians and scientists have never seen science as opposed to religion, but as a useful tool to purify religions of superstition and misconceptions about God and his creation, that are often the fruits of ignorance and lack of knowledge. After all, the more we learn about God's creation, the more we learn about the creator. And objective, independent, unbiased science not bound to religious pre-conditions is indispensable in achieving this goal of knowing the Creator by exploring His creation.

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.