[behrad]

Hi everyone!

My last question regarding the nature of the Sun did not end up being responded to with ... well pretty much any information. I understand that this theory is still incomplete and I will indulge that. But maybe someone can shed some light on my newest confusion. How is it that rooftop satellite dishes (for TV, etc.) are tilted slightly downwards near the north pole (Such as in Sweden, Norway,...) and tilted upwards nearer to the equator? If the earth is flat then why the necessity for the tilting?

Thanks!

[rabinoz]

Hi everyone!

My last question regarding the nature of the Sun did not end up being responded to with ... well pretty much any information. I understand that this theory is still incomplete and I will indulge that. But maybe someone can shed some light on my newest confusion. How is it that rooftop satellite dishes (for TV, etc.) are tilted slightly downwards near the north pole (Such as in Sweden, Norway,...) and tilted upwards nearer to the equator? If the earth is flat then why the necessity for the tilting?

Thanks!

I am from near Brisbane (lat about 27°S), Australia and here the dish elevation is about 58°.
In Durness (lat about 58°N), Scotland they looked almost horizontal, but SatSig gives 22° - looks pretty flat.
Mind you on there are no satellites above the flat earth! So they must be pointing at

[Woody]

If an FE looked to hard at this and made some observations by figuring out where antennas need to be pointed in different locations to receive a signal from the same satellite it would offer evidence they are wrong.

So that will likely never happen.  It will be explained as pseudolites or dismissed as not proving the shape of the Earth so not worth looking into.

I made some suggestion to Tom about tracking satellites, doppler shift, make observations of the ISS, taking long exposures where geostationary satellites are said to be,   I was told that it would not prove there is stuff up there. 

Yet a picture of a rock that resembles a gopher is valid evidence that NASA is faking it all.

[rabinoz]

If an FE looked to hard at this and made some observations by figuring out where antennas need to be pointed in different locations to receive a signal from the same satellite it would offer evidence they are wrong.

So that will likely never happen.  It will be explained as pseudolites or dismissed as not proving the shape of the Earth so not worth looking into.

I made some suggestion to Tom about tracking satellites, doppler shift, make observations of the ISS, taking long exposures where geostationary satellites are said to be,   I was told that it would not prove there is stuff up there. 

Yet a picture of a rock that resembles a gopher is valid evidence that NASA is faking it all.

This seems to be the attitude to anything astronomical

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 

Not even the slightest bit of curiosity. Yes, Tom Bishop has said to me "that doesn't prove there are space-ships of there".

[nametaken]

I'll bite, seems harmless enough.

If the Earth is flat, it doesn't change anything, the phenomena that exist still exist, and the orbit of the 'satellites' is still in the same place; thus, they still have to point at it; simple. The orbits themselves, now, may function differently in a flat Earth than with a ball (still a circle, but on a different axis), but they'd still be in the same place. There is a lot of space between the north pole and the equator after all. I don't own autocad, nor live close enough to either location, but that would be a simple case of triangulation if you get the angles to know where the satellites are; not sure how much this would help to 'prove' flat or globe, though.

Edit To clarify, geostationary orbit; I don't know how/if Flat Earth 'turns', but if it doesn't, then the satellite must be stationary as well (read: balloons). If the FE does turn, then the orbit must follow it, as with the Globe. Hope that sounds more simple.

[rabinoz]

I'll bite, seems harmless enough.

If the Earth is flat, it doesn't change anything, the phenomena that exist still exist, and the orbit of the 'satellites' is still in the same place; thus, they still have to point at it; simple. The orbits themselves, now, may function differently in a flat Earth than with a ball (still a circle, but on a different axis), but they'd still be in the same place. There is a lot of space between the north pole and the equator after all. I don't own autocad, nor live close enough to either location, but that would be a simple case of triangulation if you get the angles to know where the satellites are; not sure how much this would help to 'prove' flat or globe, though.

Edit To clarify, geostationary orbit; I don't know how/if Flat Earth 'turns', but if it doesn't, then the satellite must be stationary as well (read: balloons). If the FE does turn, then the orbit must follow it, as with the Globe. Hope that sounds more simple.

I do think you need to study up on "FE theory" before making anymore pronouncements. You could start with things like:
Flat Earth Literature where you will find:

Earth Not a Globe
An experimental inquiry into the true figure of the Earth, proving it a plane, without orbital or axial motion, and the only known material world; its true position in the universe, comparatively recent formation, present chemical condition, and approaching destruction by fire, etc. A treatise on Zetetic Astronomy.

see Earth Not a Globe

Thomas Winship presents conclusive evidence demonstrating that the world is not a rotating-revolving globe, but a stationary plane circle. This in-depth study provides further supporting evidence for the work of Samuel Birley Rowbotham by way of test, trial, and experiment.

see Thomas Winship

One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe by William Carpenter
William Carpenter (1830-1896) maintained that "There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet" notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's 'convexity.'" Carpenter also presents aeronautic testimony that even at the great observable heights no curvature of the earth is observed, and fits with the idea of a flat-earth, since it is the nature of level surfaces to rise to a level with the human eye.

see One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe by William Carpenter

When you have done that marathon, if you have not yet been cured of flat earth ideas, you can start looking up question on "the Wiki" yourself.

Then you might see that there is a bih difference between "The Flat Earth" and "The Heliocentric Globe" - quite different animals!

[nametaken]

I do think you need to study up on "FE theory" before making anymore pronouncements. You could start with things like:

Earth Not a Globe

Thomas Winship

One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe by William Carpenter

When you have done that marathon, if you have not yet been cured of flat earth ideas, you can start looking up question on "the Wiki" yourself.

Then you might see that there is a bih difference between "The Flat Earth" and "The Heliocentric Globe" - quite different animals!

Humbled! Consider me banished from posting on this site for now. I wasn't even aware there were already 2 editions of the Earth Not a Globe Book already in existence. That's obviously where I'm going to start for now as I've already taken a great interest in the workshop there. Thank you and my apologies!

[rabinoz]

I do think you need to study up on "FE theory" before making anymore pronouncements. You could start with things like:

Earth Not a Globe

Thomas Winship

One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe by William Carpenter

When you have done that marathon, if you have not yet been cured of flat earth ideas, you can start looking up question on "the Wiki" yourself.

Then you might see that there is a big difference between "The Flat Earth" and "The Heliocentric Globe" - quite different animals!

Humbled! Consider me banished from posting on this site for now. I wasn't even aware there were already 2 editions of the Earth Not a Globe Book already in existence. That's obviously where I'm going to start for now as I've already taken a great interest in the workshop there. Thank you and my apologies!

Hey, why be "Humbled!" and no need for apologies! Besides I would be the last person to want you banished (and the least able to!).
In case you hadn't picked it up by now I don't go along with any of the stuff in "Earth Not a Globe" or in "One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe". In my opinion the latter contains some of the most ridiculous "proofs" you could ever see.

My only point was that it would be a good idea if you knew a bit about the "Flat Earth Hypothesis", so that you might realise that there is a big difference between that and the "Heliocentric Globe".

Sorry if I sounded too critical!

A couple of "proofs"!
8.  If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.

13. As the mariners' compass points north and south at one and the same time, and a meridian is a north and south line, it follows that meridians can be no other than straight lines. But, since all meridians on a globe are semicircles, it is an incontrovertible proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Judge for yourself!

[nametaken]

Hey, why be "Humbled!" and no need for apologies! Besides I would be the last person to want you banished (and the least able to!).
In case you hadn't picked it up by now I don't go along with any of the stuff in "Earth Not a Globe" or in "One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe". In my opinion the latter contains some of the most ridiculous "proofs" you could ever see.

My only point was that it would be a good idea if you knew a bit about the "Flat Earth Hypothesis", so that you might realise that there is a big difference between that and the "Heliocentric Globe".

Sorry if I sounded too critical!

Indeed! ~to my obliviousness to FE model. I came here a mere few weeks after finally delving into FE; I am completely ignorant of it, and came here exclusively to 'feel the burn'; walking on thin ice, expecting (if not welcoming) the worst. Re-reading my aforequoted post, I could feel myself trying on the emperor's new clothes there; don't ask questions you don't already know the answer to. I have been re-simulating [what *little* I know of] each model before each of my posts; which is proving, as both you and I already implied, to be insufficient (in at least one model).

A couple of "proofs"!

Funnily enough I literally just read that first one, which currently resides on the author's wikipedia page.

Oh, I will still be monitoring the threads I have posted in (as well as the new posts and a few others I don't currently have enough info to post in), but I understand I have a bit of reading to do for now. I didn't even know who [laid the foundation for] the FES until just now, nor who was the author of [the first iteration of] the 'hundred proofs'. I thought Eric Dubay wrote it. 

[rabinoz]

Oh, I will still be monitoring the threads I have posted in (as well as the new posts and a few others I don't currently have enough info to post in), but I understand I have a bit of reading to do for now. I didn't even know who [laid the foundation for] the FES until just now, nor who was the author of [the first iteration of] the 'hundred proofs'. I thought Eric Dubay wrote it. 

Eric Dubay made the video "200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball Videobook". If you are a real masochist with a couple of hours to spend you  could watch that too! You might think better of it than I did!

Mind you I think Eric Dubay is almost "persona non grata" with The Flat Earth Society and possibly TFES. Some of his "proofs" are decidedly childish!

[nametaken]

Well now that it's gone this far off topic...

Mind you I think Eric Dubay is almost "persona non grata" with The Flat Earth Society and possibly TFES. Some of his "proofs" are decidedly childish!

Ugh. ED has chosen to classify himself as independent on this very forum, for reasons of FES lineage (in which he makes a fairly sound argument; although funnily enough the board he linked seems to have been taken down for violating the ToS). Rap Stars typically are considered "persona non grata" by the music industry; though the industry wouldn't exist without them! I haven't read his book yet either; though in his case it's only out of bias of it's conspiratorial name. Still if it's a YewTube personality, I tend to prefer Flat Water's (video from 4:14-10:00) explanations of the FE model.

RE: decidedly childish:

To quote Parallax's himself (in what I 'speculate' is regarding theories such as gravity);

"Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffer"

Such practical deceit is what I 'speculate' paved the way for 'the space conspiracy' in the FE model; which brings me back to my last point; the tilts, in triangulating the 'tilts', couldn't you find where they are pointing, and thus get a good estimate of the distance (or rather, is it legal to move them around yourself)? Flat Water (and many others) explain a point (4:30 in his above mentioned video) where rockets cannot pass.

[rabinoz]

Such practical deceit is what I 'speculate' paved the way for 'the space conspiracy' in the FE model; which brings me back to my last point; the tilts, in triangulating the 'tilts', couldn't you find where they are pointing, and thus get a good estimate of the distance (or rather, is it legal to move them around yourself)? Flat Water (and many others) explain a point (4:30 in his above mentioned video) where rockets cannot pass.

I won't comment on the rest, but you ask "in triangulating the 'tilts', couldn't you find where they are pointing, and thus get a good estimate of the distance"?

Yes, you can, though I don't think I will try it, but Jadyyn on the" The Flat Earth Society" site has done the calculation for three satellite dishes aimed at the same TV satellite. Here is a link to his post http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64682.msg1726741#msg1726741
The one spot these three dishes are shown to be pointing at is one particular TV satellite.

While I don't doubt that this is an actual satellite, it would be interesting to see where they point to on a flat earth. One trouble is that there seems to be no accepted accurate FE map. That might not matter as the lat, long coords are given for each dish.

But it would be a bit beyond me I think.