2761

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 14, 2018, 07:38:39 PM »

Which expert opinion should we believe?

I'm thinking a neutral neighbor.

Apparently the Canadians take their scales and gravity tolerance/compensation/calibration very seriously. They have a whole government application process to make sure specific location gravity is taken into account:

"Calculate gravity tolerance for scales

The gravity tolerance application calculates the change in gravity between two locations in Canada. This helps you find out whether a non-automatic weighing device can be inspected in one geographic location in Canada, and then put into service in another without requiring readjustment."

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/mc-mc.nsf/eng/lm04890.html

2762

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 13, 2018, 07:04:58 AM »

This should be clear enough for anyone to understand. Accepting it is what's hard.

Clear in the sense that I think I understand what you think. And clear in the sense that I understand that you don't understand globe earth theory. Do a little poking around on the subjects of geodesy and NAVD88.

Thanks for the tip.  Take a look at the meaning of level, sea level and see how topographical maps are made and ask yourself why doesn't Earth's landmass have any curvature.

Here's a quick primer on how modern topo maps are made as well as how other survey maps/charts are created: Globe earth centric.



Bonus material. What's the highest mountain on earth? It's complicated:

2763

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 13, 2018, 01:49:17 AM »

This should be clear enough for anyone to understand. Accepting it is what's hard.

Clear in the sense that I think I understand what you think. And clear in the sense that I understand that you don't understand globe earth theory. Do a little poking around on the subjects of geodesy and NAVD88.

2764

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?

« on: November 12, 2018, 07:00:07 PM »

If we consider a lead weight on a scale at the bottom of a swimming pool it is a fundamentally different scenario when compared with a human on a scale at the bottom of a swimming pool.

Is it fundamentally different or just that the two have different densities?

2765

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 12, 2018, 08:07:09 AM »

It's simple. Australia does not have 191 miles of curvature as dictated. It's not part of a globe earth. If it was, it would measure 191 miles high at center. The center would be 191 miles above the east and west coast waters. It has less that 1300' of curvature so to speak.   You're globe earth theory with curvature charts put a curved 191 mile high dome over it. Not us.

Have a nice evening,

Just to satisfy my own curiosity and to try and understand what you think RET suggests. Is the following image representative of what you think the result is from globe earth curvature charts? (Obviously not to scale)

2766

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 12, 2018, 01:51:47 AM »

Please allow me to rephrase my statement.

No one can mathematically prove any landmass has the surface curvature as dictated by a 3959 mile radius. If they could or have, it would have been posted by now.

The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.

Measure the angle of the sun.  Sorted.

You sure welcome to start another topic with that issue. However, what ever results you come up with will not prove Earth's land masses have the curvature as dictated by a Earth with a 3959 mile radius nor will is add any.   

Both elevation and curvature or lack thereof can be established and or verified in the same manner with two reverence points of “Sea Level”.  The fact that central Australia’s highest point is less than 1300’ proves it does not have the curvature RE claim for a Earth with a 3959 mile radius.  Simple math and established elevation and a RE curvature chart prove the shape of or Earth is not what we all have been taught.

Seems like you keep mixing FET with RET. But in both cases the highest point in Australia between the coasts is 1300 feet above sea level.  It's almost like you think, as I think RonJ mentioned, that RET puts a curved dome over landmasses. I honestly don't understand what you keep going on about.

2767

Flat Earth Community / Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails

« on: November 11, 2018, 08:55:22 PM »

Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing.  As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.

My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.

Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.

I'm not a Flat Earther, I have no position except that it is good to question everything, including the received wisdom of the experts.  I provisionally believe in the RE based worldview because of maps and astronomical observation but I'm open to changing my position.  The claim that I my criticism of NASA footage is based in confirmation bias is utterly false.  NASA's older (pre-1990s) film footage simply looks completely phony to me.  More modern footage looks better but there are still problems.

No disrespect intended. Just that a lot of stuff is posted, by both sides, saying, "See, look, this definitely means 'X'!" And often times without a pre-dive into some level of research.

2768

Flat Earth Community / Re: BBC slags off TFES again

« on: November 11, 2018, 08:35:54 PM »

And if you type 'google logo' you get their logo. I bet the BBC wouldn't slap a google logo on a holocaust denier.

Definitely agree. Everyone fears the google.

2769

Flat Earth Community / Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails

« on: November 11, 2018, 08:32:44 PM »

Your youtube video doesn't look any more convincing to me, just murkier and with much more interlacing.  As far as the helmet thing it says the "helmet to torso engagement" has a bearing the lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease", it doesn't seem to indicate to me that it should allow the helmet to swivel around but rather it is designed so that the astronaut is free to move his head within the static helmet.  Maybe I'm misinterpreting it.

Well, it's video. We could go all day back and forth as to what perhaps you want to see versus what I want to see. As for the helmet, I suppose up to interpretation. But it states that the torso engagement contains a 'rotating' bearing that lets the astronaut turn his head with "relative ease". Seems clear to me. And even if there is some perceived ambiguity, it seems disingenuous for the video author to state that it definitely doesn't swivel as a main contention.

My larger point is that we see what we want to see. FE sees fake, I don't. Both biased. But when I saw this, I tried to park my bias aside. As yeah, it looked like a gumby video and if the Gemini helmets don't swivel as the video author claimed, then yeah, that's pretty fake. So I looked for original footage which I find to be different. And then found the docs pertaining to the Gemini suit and in there, it states that the helmet does, in fact, rotate.

Point being, before slapping images/videos up, remove your bias to the best of your ability and do some research first, even from the opposite point of view. It just seems like the right thing to do.

2770

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 11, 2018, 08:14:33 PM »

The curvature of a ball earth does not add up or match our existing landmasses.

How so?

2771

Flat Earth Community / Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails

« on: November 11, 2018, 09:20:18 AM »

NASA Bloopers, Blunders & Gaffes - Is Anyone Even In Space?

The sequences from about 4:30 to 8:00 are so obviously cheesy 1960s era stop motion.  It looks like something out of Davey and Goliath.

For the Ed White Gemini EVA shown beginning at 4:30, it looks like it was part of a Discovery Channel show. The EVA footage is sped up as opposed to the original which gives it that stop motion effect. I'll link the original below, the difference is clear. As well, the other argument that he swivels his helmet which you can't do in that suit. Apparently you can.

"Helmet. - The Gemini helmet...The torso portion also contains a rotating bearing, permitting the astronaut to turn his head with relative ease."

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19660007653.pdf

Original footage:

2772

Flat Earth Community / Re: BBC slags off TFES again

« on: November 11, 2018, 12:30:44 AM »

Some BBC employee likely just googled "flat earth society" and chose the first picture that google gives them, which is simply this site's logo. It's doubtful that they intended to single out this website in particular.

I would agree. I just tried chrome>incognito. Searched images for "flat earth logo". TFES logo was the first result.

2773

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

« on: November 10, 2018, 06:34:01 AM »

OK, I was confused. I thought your were a flat Earther.

No. Sorry. I'm still in the globe earth camp.

But I did bring the video in the opening post to the attention of the board because I think it's a good one for flat earth advocacy and a challenge to explain for us globe defenders.

I'm hoping I'll be able to tag along with the crew responsible for that video when they return to the Salton Sea.

I'm also waiting for help to try to reproduce what they did at Monterey locally. There's a nearly 13-mile stretch of ocean between La Jolla and Encinitas, CA.  I don't see how it'll be possible based on my solo scouting and trying to scope the distant beach, but it sure looks like that's the result they got in their video.  If it explicable by a surface level ducting via super-refractive conditions, it ought to be repeatable.

We are having better-than-usual visual conditions right now here in San Diego County thanks to the low humidity and Santa Ana winds blowing out the temperature inversion that has been trapping a persistent haze here for months.  I'm going to try to get my daughter and her boyfriend to be my mirror flashers on Sunday at a beach called Swami's in Encinitas, while I take video/pictures from La Jolla's Children's Pool.

I am new here.  When you first posted the video I thought you were a flat Earther.  That was my fault.

I would like to see your results of the experiment.

During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve? 

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?

I think what you're saying here is relevant to this thread, but I'm still confused as to what you're getting at. Do you have some sort of visual that shows what you mean?

2774

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 10, 2018, 06:28:27 AM »

To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:

I am sorry, there is nothing you can do or say that would add a 191 mile high rugged earth dome over Australia. It's not possible. You can't do it to any land mass. Not even the USA. See pic below.

All you doing is ignoring the principles of elevation derived from a horizontal plane known as sea level. Earth is not a Ball.

I think where you're getting tripped up is that in RE theory sea level is not a horizontal plane just like any landmass is not a horizontal plane, both are part of the same sphere. Does that make sense?

2775

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

« on: November 10, 2018, 06:21:41 AM »

During you research please consider the following.

How can a level, near sea level, low lying landmass extending inward for many miles, adjoin a coastal water that's part of spherical Earth (with water covering 72% of earth) without being flooded to the point the circles curve is complete and the rest of the land mass is sticking up above the curve? 

Example; Draw a horizontal line on the inside of a circle from one point to the other. Then ask yourself what is keeping that line from being flooded with water because it is below the oceans curve.

Southern Louisiana cannot exist if Earth is a ball. Do you see my point?

No. I didn't understand it when you posted in the other topic so I stayed out of it. And I don't understand what you are getting when you state it here.

Let's not sidetrack this topic into duplicate of that one, okay? I have been reading it. If I can figure out what you're proposing and I can work up a response to it, I will.

Ok, but to my knowledge I have never brought the particular issue up before.

Maybe here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11224.msg171958#msg171958

2776

Flat Earth Community / Re: Can Globe believers prove Earth has curvature by their own Curvature Charts?

« on: November 10, 2018, 04:42:28 AM »

To follow along to RonJ's point as to the magnitude of the size of the earth. As well as to why it's called a horizon and not a 'curvizon', I thought this guy had a pretty straightforward approach:

2777

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

« on: November 10, 2018, 01:26:42 AM »

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.

 

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.


Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.

BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.

This would mean that no matter the distance of a ship, 10 miles or 1500 miles away, given a clear day and a strong enough zoom to see that distance, the hull is always visible?

No, see the following pic.

Some water is murkier than other water. Some air is murkier than other air. I don't see the relevance.

2778

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

« on: November 10, 2018, 01:07:09 AM »

He's referring to images like the one he posted above, where parts of the tanker appear 'sunken' into the horizon, and zooming in did not return those parts to visibility. Raising vantage point did. Just like a globe Earth.

Even if the earth were flat zooming couldn't bring it back into view because all telescopes do is magnify an image, there is no way that telescopes can change the perspective of the image.

No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface are blocking the view. Nothing is sunken on a horizontal plane.

 

What atmospheric conditions block half the ship that don't block the ship if you raise your elevation? The angle between shoreline view and 40 feet up is very small if looking at a ship miles away.  Some easy trigonometry shows how little difference the angle is and at higher elevation you would be looking at MORE atmosphere right?

Interesting to note you agree zooming won't bring the ships bottom half into view as that is many other FE believers exact argument.  After that admition, the goalposts are moved to the entire continent of Australia which won't convince you of anything since it uses round earth math.

When one raises the telescope to a higher elevation he is no longer looking through all of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface which was blocking his view, but he can see more of the hull because he is above them (conditions created near surface) looking down at an angle.


Please allow me to clarify. Speaking of the picture posted. No amount of zooming can bring back the hull into view because of the atmospheric conditions created above the surface at that particular time. However, the next day if the conditions are much better the hull can be brought back into view at the same distance with a good zoom lens.

BTW - Real time math is the best and only way to prove Earth's shape with facts and common sense.

This would mean that no matter the distance of a ship, 10 miles or 1500 miles away, given a clear day and a strong enough zoom to see that distance, the hull is always visible?

2779

Flat Earth Community / Re: BBC slags off TFES again

« on: November 09, 2018, 08:04:30 PM »

Well they have to admit it. They did it and they are in the wrong. Changing the video is the first admission of that.

Do they have to admit it or just cease and desist?

2780

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".

« on: November 09, 2018, 07:54:47 PM »

Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?

Do you think RE looks at earth curvature/bulge this way:
1)


Or this way:
2)