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 - ErnestV1

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Complete Circumnavigation
« on: August 07, 2017, 05:12:45 AM »
Hey flat-earthers,

If you believe that the earth is flat, how come when you travel around the world, you get back to your take-off point instead of falling off the edge?

Do you understand how circumnavigation works?


Don't be surprised by the lack of response to this question.  They have to venture way outside of their BS comfort zones in order to be able to provide any kind of response, and the time it takes to carefully word this kind of bullshit just isn't worth it for them.
Do you understand how circumnavigation works?

You go around in circles on a flat earth. You go around the globe on straight lines.You set your course on the globe and stay on it. You would be continually turning on a flat earth.

No, traveling east or west on a globe you are still constantly turning. Except right on the Equator.

No.
You have it backwards.
It is following a straight line course from port to port, using civilian and/or military oceanic navigation as an example.
No matter if it is east to west, north to south or any direction in between, such as north-east to south-west .
Just take a string and stretch it from San Diego to Honolulu on a globe as an example.
It is a straight line.
I suggest if you don't take this as the fact, ask some shipping company official or someone in the Navy if they go on a straight line course or go aound in a circle to and/or from San Diego to Honolulu.

There is a scene in the 1958 movie "A Night To Remember" where Second Officer Lightoller looks at the compass and tells the Quartermaster to "Stay on course QM ." He doesn't say "Keep on turning in a circle, QM." He is referring to the straight line course set for RMS  Titanic at that time in the crossing . (266 Degrees True) It is that way in reality.

Do you even have a flat earth map to prove how it would be IF the earth was flat ?

Not to defend FE but if the Earth were flat and in a rough North Azimuthal layout, I doubt rudders are sensitive enough to detect the minor deflection away from centerline except in close proximity to the poles.

2
Hi,
Could someone well versed in current flat earth theory please explain to me the rotation of stars across the night sky.

I have watched the night sky from Northern hemisphere/Equatorial/Southern Hemisphere stars and they all travel across the sky the same distance apart from each other every night.. How does Flat Earth theory explain the rotational opposite direction between Northern Hemispheres and Southern hemispheres?

The wiki says everything in the cosmos revolves around a 'barycenter' http://wiki.tfes.org/Stars
Some here talk about celestial gears. It is confusing.

3
Flat Earth Media / Re: Werner Von Braun's grave stone
« on: August 03, 2017, 09:32:38 PM »
I have been watching the videos that supposedly reveal NASA as fraudulent with an open mind...
honestly, my trust in them has been reaffirmed as I have done so.

What is the rough age of the Earth in your opinion?

How does this relate to the topic?

4
Flat Earth Media / Re: Werner Von Braun's grave stone
« on: August 03, 2017, 01:02:48 AM »
I fail to see any hidden meaning therein.

You are choosing not to see it because it suits your current worldview.

The Hebrews were correct, the cosmology also appears in other ancient cultures in different degrees.
Its very similar to how the deluge mythology is mirrored, it points to the truth.
You have stated that you are open minded, if this is true keep investigating NASA.
I am choosing...? No doubt you are also choosing to see things based upon your own world view? I acknowledge I have bias, though I do at least try to see other people's point of view. Do you acknowledge your own bias? Can you see my point of view?

If von Braun had chosen that quote, perhaps we might investigate and discover more subtle hints that he was working for a fraudulent cause and wanted the world to know about it?

I have been watching the videos that supposedly reveal NASA as fraudulent with an open mind... honestly, my trust in them has been reaffirmed as I have done so. There is one particular video of an astronaut giving an extended tour of the ISS. It is fascinating to me how many spaces they went through without any cuts. I have two children who have been studying theater so I am well aware of how difficult it is to run a cut-less scene, especially through multiple spaces. Also, the microgravity was throughout the entire 30 minutes of cut-less footage, so that fully eliminated the possibility of filming on a jet in free fall on two counts: microgravity durarion with zero aparent wires and size of the 'set'. Here is the link if you wish to check my findings. I look forward to hearing your take on it...

But maybe that would be best in the debate forum? Look for me to start a thread there... OR message me if you want to discuss it in private.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: August 01, 2017, 05:39:16 AM »
No, I have not attempted to prove your claims for you.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Please link us to the observations that verify that website, rather than attempting to divert.
I can verify that NOAA has accurately predicted the sunrise and sunset times for my location every day since Thursday July 27 until sunrise today July 31, 2017. Their site agrees with the information provided by timeanddate. I will continue to look for a location that provides a good photograph of the sun at these times, but my location in a city makes things somewhat difficult.

How do we know that their predictions hold true at all? Is there a report of observations somewhere on that website which affirms the predictions?

How do we know that the model is actually still a Round Earth model and not one which has been modified over the years to meet observation?

You can't simply link to a calculator and declare it all to be true. None of this is transparent or substantive as an acceptable evidence.

Here ya go, Tom.

http://www.bfound.net/detail.aspx?jobId=141125&CoId=1582&rq=1

With this job you could take your Zetetic method on the road and do one year of observation for yourself south of the antarctic circle. :-)

Whole there, if you are truly interested in the truth, you could check the date and time Web page for that location, call friends back home and make comparisons and generally discover whether or not there is verifiable data that can be used no matter which model you want to stand upon. If it is verifiable and you continue to stand on the FE model you will at least have data from which to mount a plausible working model for the Zetetic FE map. I wish you all the best in your endeavors!

6
Flat Earth Media / Re: Werner Von Braun's grave stone
« on: July 29, 2017, 03:49:51 PM »
Of course it was possible - but modern scholars have more sources (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) to work with - and more contemporaneous material with which to compare language use from those times.   So modern translations tend to be more reliable.

Taking into account more sources is not always a good idea, majority does not equal accuracy.
This is a big discussion but there is a reasonable argument towards preferencing Received text over Majority text.
Personally, I prefer Geneva over KJV and I regularly use NASB which is Majority Text but yes KJV is accurate.
I use NASB as well as doing word studies in the original language. Frankly I think the Jews had their celestial science wrong (or we are reading too much into poetic verse) bit their Spirituality was exceptional. Therefore, to me, the reference on von Braun's head stone was a touching and poetic spiritual summation for a brilliant scientific mind. I fail to see any hidden meaning therein.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 28, 2017, 08:07:13 PM »
In the bi-polar FE model, how can the sun be seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously, but not also the entire planet within the same diameter as between the two poles (which would only exclude Australia, southeast asia, and some pacific islands)?

I do not have any information on whether sun is seen from both the north and south pole simultaneously. I was saying that it does not appear to be impossible under that map. That point may as well be fiction, seeing as we were never provided a source for that claim from the person who stated that.

A link to a video showing the sun's position at equinox 2013 as viewed from the south pole.


A simple search for the date and time of equinox 2013.

https://www.google.com/search?q=when+was+equinox+spring+2013&oq=when+was+equinox+spring+2013&aqs=chrome..69i57.19622j0j4&client=ms-android-att-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Sunrise on the north pole is more than elusive. Every year since 2002 a private Russian camp is set up near the North Pole. The following is a well written article that describes the difficulties of exploring the North Pole.

http://polarexplorers.com/polarexplorers-media/press-and-news-releases/item/78-adventure-to-the-north-pole

While it ma not be 100% conclusive that the sunrise happens on the North Pole simultaneously with the sunset at the South Pole, it is so widely accepted that Borneo Camp attempts to get established as close to that date as possible due to the short duration of time that the ice can support the camp reliably during the spring.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 28, 2017, 02:39:47 PM »


Quote from: 3DGeek
We're standing in the center of your newly-found continent of Antarctica on midsummer day (Dec 21st) - the sun orbits all around us and is continually visible.   At some point therefore, it must be closer to the ice-wall (I want to say the "south" - but in this map, that's tricky terminology) than Antarctica...right?

This happens when it is noon at some point on the planet.   Precisely where is hard to say...but it's always noon SOMEWHERE.

So - according to this new and exciting version of FET - the sun is both someplace between the continent of antarctica and the ice wall AND vertically above some place on the equator.

You want to take a shot at where that is?

Maybe get a copy of your map and put a nice red dot where you think the sun must be...I'd love to see that.

The sun isn't over the equator on December 21st in Round Earth Theory. How embarrassing for you that you did not know that.

You might want to rethink this statement for while it is true it shows you, sir do not know when summer starts *hint: think solstice, not equinox* ;)


9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 28, 2017, 02:34:10 PM »
And now it looks to me like Tom and others are beginning to concede the point that the South Pole definitely has similar daylight traits as the North Pole... thus the search for a new map model must begin in earnest.

If you read the Flat Earth literature works the bi-polar model (not that specific map, however) has been around since at least 1918, and is said to have been created immediately after the South Pole was discovered as to include that new data into an updated Flat Earth model. Read the book "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" by Zetetes. The concept of a South Pole has been accepted in the society since there was a South Pole. It is not some new thing.
Ok. I have been exploring both this site as well as others and mostly find those who try to disprove the south pole 24 hour cycle and show that Antarctica is essentially the ice wall. Please forgive my ignorance at this more than confusing development.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 28, 2017, 06:25:08 AM »
FE people say they cannot map the earth or check any models so presumably they do not believe a map of their own town or country.

This is a fantastic non-sequitur. Well done.

Let's just see how much of a non-sequitur it is.

Are you willing to name any source for a map of any country that you except as being accurate for distance and elevation?
Unless the map or chart reflects the curvature of the earth it will be inaccurate.  Every flat piece of paper that attempts to approximate the globe is going to have errors. It is widely accepted that all latitudes converge on the north (and to a lesser degree the south)poles. If the earth were truly flat, one would think that an accurate map would be quite easy, especially near coastlines where elevation is mostly not a factor, by using compass and transit. Surveyors have honed their craft quite well.

That being said, with the advent of worldwide communication, it became undeniable that the original flat maps could not hold water due to sun transit (time zones) and seasons that differ between North and South. The largest number of people, thus communication and travel made it very easy to assume that the FE north pole-centric map would fit all available data, in fact it is quite cleaver how much of the data this works for... especially north of the Equator. Unfortunately with the South Pole exploration of 100 years ago, there has been much data that is largely held in disrepute by FE who hold to this view of the world map because the so called ice wall is not long enough, and places south of 66 degrees S longitude have a nasty habit of more than 24 hours of night or daylight near the solstices.

Of course any who want to stand on the belief if a 2D world have a few choices, discredit any info that does not fit the model, or accept the data and look for a new model.

I see a lot of FE adherents attempting to discredit videos, but I have yet to see anyone attempt to discredit early 20th century explorer journals.  And now it looks to me like Tom and others are beginning to concede the point that the South Pole definitely has similar daylight traits as the North Pole... thus the search for a new map model must begin in earnest. I look forward to seeing what other map attempts might be made to see how closely it might fit the data. For now, this old sailor is content to use his charts that while flat are a close approximation to globe representation while using satellite based GPS to get a fix on my location. It may not be 100% accurate but it is a far cry closer than anything I have yet to see from a Flat Earth model to date.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 25, 2017, 08:05:44 AM »
So... what is the sun again? Why can we not determine it's composition from its spectrum analysis when we can determine any plasma composition in a lab using a spectrum analysis?

What happened to the original topic on this thread?

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Wall
« on: July 22, 2017, 02:43:19 AM »
Well.....FE can juggle figures anyway they want to make them come out any way they want them, to.
My apologies, but I was in the U.S. Navy  (you know they are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course) and  worked in areas such as radar and the spacing of microwave relay stations which are all based on the earth being a globe (which are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy, too, of course.)
So I'm just a hopeless case in not knowing how to make things work on a flat earth, so I guess I'll just have to keep them working according to a round earth until I know better.   :-(
C'est la vie !

I was in the Navy as well. The conspiracy ran so deep as to be included in both our over the horizon calculations as well as earth rotation calculations for fire control solutions. It's a good thing we did not need to be very accurate with our projectiles or those parts of the calculations would have really thrown off our large projectile delivery to target!

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Wall
« on: July 22, 2017, 12:33:10 AM »


How did they come up with a 12,250 mile equator ?
If I use the 12,250 mile equator, I come up with  38,465 miles for the circumference of the ice wall ?

But due to a lack of a flat earth map without distortion I find it difficult to determine the circumference of the ice wall.
If I adjust the diameter of the flat earth map from the inner side to inner side of the ice wall (where ocean meets ice wall) to 4 inches that gives the circumference of the inner side of the ice wall as 12.56 inches. But if I should know for certain the diameter of this circle in miles and  by what scale to use I could determine the circumference of the ice wall. Perhaps there is a simple solution  and the circumference of ice wall should be known to The Flat Earth Society. As has been stated so many times, we do know the coastline of the Continent of Antarctica is about 11,000 miles. The lack of an accurate map is one of the greatest shortcomings of the idea of a flat earth.
I went back and reread that wiki entry. 1st, I was wrong. They did say 25k miles diameter of 'known' flat earth based upon Erosthenes work. There is a serious flaw in logic that could ever assume that the circumference of a disk that large could resemble the data we have of the southern reaches of that disk (areas we refer to as the southern hemisphere). You had the calculations right.

Edit: sidenote, the southern hemisphere distortion due to this effect would also seriously throw off calculations about light refraction since distance from sunrise to sunset along any southern longitude is so much greater than northern equivalent longitudes especially the farther south you go.

14
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Wall
« on: July 21, 2017, 08:28:03 AM »
Gecko, hi, original poster here. Where did you get that circumference number from? I feel like I have to constantly say this: but seriously asking, seriously curious. lol.

FE will probably come up with a different number but this is the way I did it.:
 
I estimated the diameter of the flat earth as being about 25,000 miles.
The "c" (circumference of a circle) is the product of "d" (the diameter) times "pi" (3.141519.....)
They have carried "pi" out to several hundred numbers but have not come up with an exact number.
But 3.14 or 22/7 is usually considered close enough for all practical purposes.

I don't have symbols for the Greek Alphabet on my Nook keyboard so I just had to spell "pi" and show its numerical value.
c=(pi) d

Incidentally the word "Alphabet" comes from the first two letters of the Greek Alphabet : Alpha and Beta.



So 25,000 miles times 3.14 equals about 78,000 miles



It would be interesting too see what the FES has to say on the subject. They will probably say it is false because I have been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" because I learned this from a textbook and didn't do it myself. Welcome to the wonderful world of the FES !

P.S. The diameter of the real word is about 8,000 miles and the circumference is about 25,000 miles. The real world is a globe of course .

Gecko, let's be fair, surface distance from north pole to south is half circumference of the globe, so while fe 'maps' show that distance as nearly the radius of the earth disc, thus making the wall nearly the circumference, your figures are still based on a globe converted to a disk. Unfortunately for the fe model, using shadow measurements to a low sun they still come up with 25k mile circumference based on 12,250 equator (fe wiki forms section). So presuming your figures for the antarctic survey are correct and well documented in a way that is irrefutable, fe still has many thousands of miles to account for.

15
Flat Earth Community / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 19, 2017, 11:04:01 AM »
What is still being investigated?  There are plenty of flight records that show that you are completely 100% wrong.

What flight records? None have been posted. And how do they prove a map which does not exist wrong?

Ah, so even though the globe folded out with North at the center and South at the perimeter is often shown as the FE model, there is not 'official' map for the FE society. Am I right?

That is either most convenient, or most unfortunate.

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 19, 2017, 11:00:19 AM »
In proving whether or not the Earth is flat can't we just do a simple distance test, assuming that any direction towards the perimeter of the Antarctic Ice Wall is south?

For example: If you have two points, both 100 miles north of the equator and 200 miles away from each other and both points travel south until they are 100 miles south of the equator and measure the distance between them. 

The thought behind this experiment is simple.  On the flat earth model each line of latitude is a larger circle and each line of longitude branches out from the north pole creating triangles.  If you draw horizontal lines through a triangle from top to bottom, you'll notice the lines get longer as you get further away from the top. 

If the earth is flat, the distance between these two travelers will increase as they follow their compass south and there distance between each other will be greater than the 200 miles it started from. If the earth is round the distance between these two points would be equivalent.  Measuring equidistant from the equator will eliminate and 'bulge' effect of the equator.



In this scenario the Earth is a globe and if we were to solve for X after the transformation of Y1 and Y2 to Y1' and Y2' x=200 miles, same as the starting distance



In the alternate scenario Earth is flat, and the distance between both points increases as we go south.  If X>200 miles it would prove the flat earth theory.


What do you guys think about that? Is this a feasible idea?


Let us refine this experiment a little. 1st, what medium of travel shall we use. By land may be difficult to find enough land to acurately measure 200 miles East/West @ 100 miles north of the equator, then 200 miles south from both y1 and y2 to y1' and y2' including enough land between the southern points to measure separation distance once again. Therefore we may well have to resort to using sea or air media for our travel, both of which would either rely on measured rate of travel v. time which in either media is not exactly accurate giving one side or the other room to deny the results... or upon GPS signal, which for RE is quite satisfactory, but for FE the existence of satellite based GPS presents dubious data at best and flat out lies at worst.

So how do we propose to come to an arrangement that is both feasible as well as agreeable to both camps if suitable land-based travel arrangements cannot be found?

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 18, 2017, 11:45:01 PM »
Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab. It is a completely hypothetical concept. There may be many possibilities for why the sun looks as it does, and observation alone just does not cut it.

What has been demonstrated in a lab is that plasma of individual gases have unique spectral signatures. Here is a picture of three different gases and their plasma signatures.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=spectrum+of+helium+plasma&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dfe.net%2Fimages%2FSpectralEmissions-c.jpg#id=8&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dfe.net%2Fimages%2FSpectralEmissions-c.jpg&action=click

The sun's spectral signature tells a story of many different gases in a plasma state. Gaseous plasma can be reproduced in a laboratory, in fact we use plasma to create things such as integrated circuits (plasma can lay down materials, or etch them off as needed). We use spectral detectors in these processes in order to determine when the recipe of the plasma has changed its chemical composition. We know a lot about plasma, how to create it and change it and how to detect what is in the gas as it is in this excited state. Therefore, we can observe what gases are excited within the sun by looking at its spectral signature.

18
We are arguing about whether the Earth is convex round or flat , but we haven't even ruled out all the possibilities! Do we even have enough proof to rule out the Earth being concave!? It sounds completely absurd , but so does the other side's belief. Could it be possible for the Earth to be concave? Could there be alternate theories that explain everything for a concave Earth , just like there are for Flat Earth/Round Earth? (I am saying both to not offend others) Could a concave Earth even exist , or is there no way for it to exist? We need to rule out a concave Earth before confirming which one is the definite truth.

A concave earth, if uniformly concave would be a globe ( or sphere) where we reside on the inside. This would be quite easily disproven with vision tests since all points would rise above the field of view. There would, therefore, be no clear horizon, just a great fading in the distance effect. It would also be possible to disprove by moving in all directions within the sphere and experiencing the lessening of centrifugal force the closer one get to the pivot point of the sphere. Neither gravity of RE model, nor acceleration of FE model could answer the question of why we remain on the surface since gravity would pull toward the absolute center of the sphere without centrifugal force, and acceleration would only work on one side of the sphere. Likewise, centrifugal force will work on most of the inner surfaces of the sphere, but as I previously said, the closer one got to the center of rotation, the less centrifugal force would be felt. The interesting thing about this thought experiment is that it would definitely explain Coriolis effect which FE model absolutely fails at and even denies as in the case of the pendulum experiments. But concave earth would not be able to explain space, nor seasons, nor satellite launches any better than FE model does.

Edited for spelling and word corrections.

19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 16, 2017, 10:44:46 AM »
Isn't one of FE tenets that the heavens are a dome?

Nope. I welcome you to try and find something about a dome in Earth Not a Globe or any of the other Flat Earth literature sources.

Quote
No matter, for all of us, FE or Spherical, the sky appears to be a semi-sphere.

The sky is not a sphere. How would things curve against it if it were not a literal sphere? Straight lines would be straight, unless they were resting against something curved.

Now that I comprehend that there are different beliefs and that you do not believe in a dome, I will not use that again with you, but I have seen FE believers say it is so, and have seen one analogy of a bowl with reflections to describe how both the north and south pole rotations can 'work'... but it made thing no clearer to me.  That said, please allow me to try a different tack to the same attempt at communication. Have you ever gone to a planetarium? If so, you have seen that the sky is represented as a dome. That does not mean that we believe that the stars are on the same plane, but it is a great way to visually and accurately represent what is happening in the heavens.

So the sky is not a dome, but even as perspective on a two-dimensional piece of paper can accurately represent how our eyes see the world, so does a planetarium's dome accurately represent how our eyes see the stars and their motion as they appear to traverse the heavens.

Perspective of straight lines on a dome will look straight at one spot in the domed room but curved at another spot in the room. This, as I have previously stated, is due to perspective. Yet even to the person who sees the line as straight, the line drawn on the dome is in fact a curve. Only a string from one point on the dome to another point on the dome will prove what is the true straight vector from point a to point b. Thus, if point a is a radiant source such as the sun, perspective will obfuscate the true phase angle of a large body (point b, or the moon) reflecting the radiant energy from point a (our sun).

Video or pictures taken will reflect that poor perspective is the camera is not held to the proper orientation, or 2 dimensional plane of the camera's horizon. For instance, if the camera is held at a 45 degree angle to the earth's horizon, the camera reflects the horizon as sloping the opposite direction than the camera is being held. Also, if a close object such as wall-ceiling interface with straight lines is above or below the camera horizon, even though the camera is oriented to the straight, horizontal line, there will be an apparent curve at the foreground to that horizontal line as these lines move away to the right and left toward the convergence point of perspective. A similar horizontal line that is centered on the camera's horizontal plane with have no slope to the right and left. Some have called this lens distortion when what it truly shows is perspective. Lens distortion will simply magnify this effect based upon whether it is a wide angle, or has some magnification.

Therefore, straight lines will appear curved whether on the ground or in the sky based upon our vision being oriented to a different plane of reference than the one which is being observed. In order to correct for perspective in a camera or with regard to our own vision. we must put our camera's horizon which starts at center point on the left and is a straight line to center point on the right side of the field of view. If the camera is oriented with the moon at center point on the left or right with the phase angle exactly 90 degrees to the horizon of the camera, then when we find the sun at the opposite side of the field of view it will also be centered between the top and bottom of the camera viewfinder. Now by keeping the sun and moon both on the right and left, but moving the camera up or down in relation to this plane described by the sun and moon, you will see the phase angle of the moon begin to shift due to perspective as the two heavenly bodies begin to rise above or below the center-line of the camera's viewfinder as the plane that the sun and moon are on rises above or falls below the observed plane, even as the line of the wall/ceiling interface 'curves' when the field of view is below the plane of the ceiling.


20
Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: July 15, 2017, 04:30:51 AM »
Bishop, you aren't serious about that, right? Ever heard of a spherical sky map? The straight lines just don't work.

Woof, you guys need to study a bit of math really. You draw conclusions like a 1-grade boy. Do you have B.Sc degree in anything technical?

Fictitious premise. The sky is not a sphere which things rest against.

Isn't one of FE tenets that the heavens are a dome? Am I wrong?

No matter, for all of us, FE or Spherical, the sky appears to be a semi-sphere.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >