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 - jimster

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
When I was a kid, my father had an 8 inch Schmidt Cassegrainian telescope. It had an equatorial mount. It had a motor on it with constant speed of one rev/day. If you turned it off, whatever you looked at would move across and then out of the field of vision. One rev/day , 360 degrees, divide by 24, you get 15 degrees per hour. Worked all night while looking at various things. Works everywhere in the world. No speed control on the motor, it was always 15 degrees per hour.

Mostly we looked at night, as the only celestial body visible in daytime is usually the sun. Once the moon was visible and the equatorial mount worked to look at that, too, although you couldn't see it as well during the day.

Web sites and youtube explain this and state that is works everywhere, always 15 degrees/hour.

Refraction occurs when you look at things just above the horizon. For a couple minutes after a celestial body rises above the horizon and a few minutes before, indeed, the appearance will not be moving at 15 degrees exactly, but at 20 degrees or more above the horizon, 15 degrees, all night, every night, everywhere. The same as a ring laser gyroscope.

Do you have reason to believe that 20 degrees above the horizon, it is not 15 degrees/hr for all celestial bodies? Even if is only 75% of the sky and you don't believe refraction, seems to me like it is still a coincidence worth exploring. FE has lots of "unknown forces with unknown equations", I would think you would be eager to explore any possibility. Find the FE explanation for gyroscope 15 degrees and equatorial mount 15 degrees.

Do you think it is a coincidence, or is there a connection? Or perhaps celestial bodies are just all over the place and no one knows, much like "anomalous winds aloft" makes it impossible to know the distance across the oceans?.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: January 01, 2022, 02:04:18 AM »
Is this what you are talking about?

These errors will not explain FE.

Can you give me more than "China, find out", maybe just a sentence, a little bit specific?

Seriously, if google maps distances are wrong, such that the distance from Sydney to LA is off by a thousand miles as shown on the FE map, I really want to know. I flew LA to Sydney, the airline schedule, google, time/speed/distance all matched RE. If I am wrong, I want to know, but I need a little more direction to search. Please?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: December 31, 2021, 11:36:41 PM »
Are China's borders correct on Google? I am aware that like USSR, they intentionally make their maps inaccurate for fear of foreign invasions.

If so, the error is contained in China and the rest is correct? That doesn't say anything about the shape of the earth.

If not, the borders are wrong, so the maps of the surrounding countries are wrong. Where does that stop?

India knows where the border is, they have an armed standoff there. Russia knows where the border is, they fought the Japanese there before WW2. Taiwan knows where China is, they are quite aware of the exact geography. North Korea and South Korea know where the border is. Viet Nam knows where the border is. Tibet knows where the border used to be.

Where is the error?

Flat Earth Investigations / Coincidence investigation, possible FE clue
« on: December 31, 2021, 11:12:43 PM »
For my FE friends, a suggestion on a possible way to investigate FE.

A telescope pointed at a celestial object must change its angle at 15 degrees per hour to keep that object in the center of view. Bob Knodel's ring laser gyroscope turned 15 degrees per hour.

Let's assume that's not coincidence for the sake of curiosity. What might explain the exact same number, one from a spinning object on the surface of earth, the other from light rays coming from the sky.

Any ideas? Just coincidence?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: December 31, 2021, 11:01:49 PM »
Weather forecasting was invented by a guy in a trench in WW1, as I recall. He had the idea that if he knew the temp and air pressure of every cubic foot of the earth's atmosphere, he could predict the temperature and pressure in the next moment in each cubic foot. In practical reality, we don't have that, but we can come close enough for some useful approximation that is not 100% perfect, but way better than pure chance. Data processing power is also a limiting factor. At UCLA in 1970s, we had one of 10 IBM 360 Model 91 computers, for a brief moment, biggest in the world, certainly on the west coast. It had 4 MB of memory when 8 KB was common and 64 KB was big. You had to finish your programming lab by midnight, because then they used it to run the next day's weather forecast.

It also depends on where you live. I live on the west coast where our weather comes from the pacific ocean, thousands of miles of similar moderate temperature and no mountains. You can watch storms come in, they lok like multiple waves of commas or parenthesis moving in slowly changing formations. Very well organized. They break up somewhat at the coast, but after the storm crosses the continental divide, it whacks into the swirl of weather from north pole, atlantic, gulf of Mexico, and swirls. East coast is harder to be accurate.

They called the storm of the last 2 weeks here, pretty much nailed it, predicted record snow in the sierra, happened just when they said. Weather reports are not always accurate, but way better than wild guess. Weather in Tahoe is the weather from San Francisco, 12 hours later.

The forecast here is almost always close, often right on. The rain might be an hour early or an hour late, it night be a little less or more than predicted. If they spent the money to grid the pacific ocean with weather ships and spent much more supercomputer time running the model, it would be more accurate. Not done because $$$$$$. And the money gets bigger with more accuracy, diminishing returns.


Weather forecasters need to look at the weather around them and make global weather maps, using satellite photos, and matching that up with earthbound data. This extends everywhere in every direction, there is no edge.

If you postulate FE with an edge, either the weather forecasting system is part of a conspiracy, or they are actually complete morons, or there is a giant industry of faking data, which has to be continuous 24/7/365. The Antarctic weather stations and their data must be faked in a way that matches up with the fake satellite pics. The storm coming onto one side of the disk would have to match one leaving the other side. Weather forcasters fundamentally have to know the shape of the earth. Or they are either genius frauds, or morons making occasional lucky guesses.

That would be something, wish I could know more about how this works on FE. Perhaps a new branch of weather studies, what happens with weather up against the dome. We know only one thing - weather at the south pole works very differently on FE vs RE.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 22, 2021, 12:48:59 AM »

In mathematics, there are many impossible things people do "thought experiments" with. Non-Euclidean geometry, for instance. Or Klein bottles, the 3d version of a Mobius strip. It passes through the side of the bottle without making a hole. These are fun for mathematicians, and sometimes provide insight into real world problems. BUT ... they know they are not "real" as in they do not apply to day to day reality.

REs here do that all the time, they do logical conclusions bvased on flat earth. Sometimes just to flex their logic muscles, sometimes to do "proof by contradiction". Assume the earth is flat, see what this wuld mean, then observe that it can't possibly be true. You have done this yourself in recent threads, only when you get to the point of "this can't be true", instead you just stop, as I described in my prior post.

Keeping an open mind is a great idea. Are you open to the possibility that the earth is round? There is a simple answer to why you haven't been able to explain the problems with FE.

South pole centric FE, for instance. Where is the north star? Navigators have used it for thousands of years. On north pole FE, the southern cross is a problem, on south pole FE, the north star is a problem. In each case, they must be located at every point around the disk. On RE, no problem, the geometry works.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Opportunity for Texas FEs
« on: December 21, 2021, 09:36:38 PM »
The value of the law is very specific. Conservatives in Texas don't want schools teaching very specific things.

1. Slavery was really terrible and white people did terrible things.
2. The earth is more than 10,000 years old.

I think those are the main two things, maybe I will think of more. The basic idea of the law is that when experts and scientists determine truth that is not compatible with their beliefs, they should get their side presented as equal. The goal is to keep the Bible on equal footing with science and history from secular sources, ditto science.

Similarly, FE wants to be considered equal or superior to basically the same people. The idea is to dismiss experts in favor of one's belief. Just like FE.

Don't you think it would be a huge step forward to have FE in public schools?

Imagine day one, chapter one: maps. The textbook would say "Here are several maps, none are actually right or have a scale, because no one has ever been able to make a map with constant scale and accurate directions and distances. Perhaps one of you kids can be inspired to finally draw the one true FE map."

Day 2 chapter 2, north star and sextant: Electromagnetic acceleration, it bends the light down to make the north star appear to be at angle equal to your latitude. Perhaps one of you kids will figure out what the TFES wiki says are "unknown forces with unknown equations" that the wiki "hopes" someone will figure out.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 21, 2021, 09:04:26 PM »

This is the third thread where you have given up explaining FE in the last few days. "I have nothing to contribute", "I don't know", etc. If you look at RET, you can find answers to all these questions, consistent with physics, known facts, and a world where ships and planes reach their destination based on RET. You can understand how north star/sextant/latitude, equatorial telescope mount, gyrocompass, etc work, gps satellites, eclipse, so many more. You will no longer have to propose that NASA is a conspiracy, so many things will be consistent and make sense.

Or you can believe FE and have many things that make no sense, can't be explained, require additions or changes to physical laws.

Flat Earth Theory / Moons of Jupiter
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:29:09 PM »
Astronomers since Gallileo looked at Jupiter and saw moons orbiting it, going across the planet and appearing to circle around behind and appear at the other side of the planet. Jupiter is a wandering star, planets do no follow the star trails that the stars do, and it looks to have moons orbiting it.

My question is, is the dome flat (2d) or is there depth to it such that round things can orbit other round things, presumably at or near the dome? Can there be a sort of miniature RE thing going on at the dome, or is Jupiter and the moon flat and 2d? Perhaps the dome has miniature RE things, but earth is flat?

Flat Earth Investigations / NASA conspiracy questions
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:17:33 PM »
The wiki states that there is NASA is not an earth shape conspiracy and that they think the earth is round but understand space travel is impossible. The conspiracy is characterized as "small".

NASA has 4 satellites scheduled to launch in 2022. According to the faq, NASA thinks the earth is round. Do they think these will be orbiting the earth? Will they know where they are? Where will they actually be? WIll they be sending back pictures and data? Perhaps the data will be faked?

gps satellites work by calculating the distance to the satellite, the location of these satellites is published to your cell phone.

Does NASA know where the satellites are? If they do, then they know the shape of the earth. If not, how is this successful in any way? How can a small conspiracy fake the data and location? How can NASA have satellites and not know the shape of the earth? How can they fake this with a "small" conspiracy?

Hubble, DirecTV, weather satellites, gps, etc etc etc? How is all this not part of the conspiracy, and how is that conspiracy "small".

Flat Earth Projects / Opportunity for Texas FEs
« on: December 20, 2021, 09:41:32 PM »
A new law in Texas (HB 3979) requires educators to present “diverse and contending perspectives” on topics that are debated or controversial. Legally, TX has to let FEs present their case in science class. TX FEs should go to their school boards and demand they "teach the controversy". Perhaps print out hard copy of the faq and demand they use it as a textbook. Or maybe Rowbotham? After all, per the faq, there are 10s of millions of FE believers.

Plus, thousands of TX science teachers will learn the true shape of the earth. Perhaps their students can learn critical thinking skills by working out these controversies/unknown equations.

I would love to see TX school board meetings discussing the presentation of FET in TX schools. I think, by law, they have to.

Can't wait to see the final exam.

I may get in trouble, complete nonsense? Seems to me if FE is true, this is not nonsense at all, but a very good idea.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 20, 2021, 09:12:43 PM »
When MetaTron says the satellite is not high enough to see the entire earth, is that due to not being able to see over the horizon?

Would love to hear how satellites work on FE. Geostationary satellites have to be stationary, directly over the equator. What holds them up?

Two questions for MetaTron: Does RET explain this? Does FET have an explanation?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 20, 2021, 08:59:04 PM »
Why even discuss? That a 2 inch half sphere of glass over a flat earth map with a flashlight shining on it can produce a light pattern on said FE map proves nothing. The atmosphere of the earth is air, and this is glass. Very different optical and physical properties.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: December 20, 2021, 08:21:27 PM »
And many have made the drive across the US at about 3000 miles. Yet every map in the TFES faq shows Australia as significantly wider then US. GPS, airplane and ship navigation, geodetic survey, Eratosthenes, etc, all consistent with RE.

One FE claimed that NASA has secret odometer mods built into your car. Another said that the distances are all correct over land, but on waterm no one can know because zetetic, and you can't crawl across the ocean with a ruler, so you can never know the distance. He explained time/speed distance calculations matching RE by "anomalous winds aloft" Apparently these winds only occur over oceans and are stronger proportionate to their distance from the north pole.

I wonder why every reply here is RE. To have a discussion of these things any more, an RE has to describe the FExplanation. I think they have learned that "no answer" can't be rebutted or ridiculed.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites
« on: December 20, 2021, 08:06:29 PM »
When I first looked at FE web sites/youtube in 2015, there were a lot of explanations involving fascinating technology. One of them was gps satellites held up by giant invisible balloons. Some FE would propose things like "stratalites", NASA ice wall patrol, etc, and then REs would immediately post many reasons why the explanation failed. The FE explanation was often hilarious, and then REs would enjoy showing off their knowledge and logic.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 17, 2021, 01:27:32 AM »
Are we talking glass dome the size of atmosphere with varying density? Then why care about the answer, the atmosphere is air. Air pressure variations are well known to weathermen, aeronautical engineers, etc. and the effect on optics is well known. Would love to hear how air pressure variations cause the whole dome to look dark for one person while light blue to another.

I'll make you a deal, I will answer any questions about density variation or whatever if you answer my questions:

How do persons on either side of sunset look at the dome between them and one sees dark with stars while the other sees light blue?

How can someone can look at the dome through the daylight part and see dark and stars on the side of the dome?

The glass globe video does not explain, it illustrates my problem. Someone looking up from the bottom of that glass globe is going to see part of it light and part dark. It does not match my experience of day and night sky.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 16, 2021, 10:16:00 PM »
The density and material of observers on the surface and up to the dome is virtually the same when two people a few hundred miles apart look up at the same spot on the dome between them at sunset. Certainly no difference that can account for the fact that one sees light blue sky while the other sees dark sky and stars. If they both look west, one sees light blue, while the other sees dark sky and stars, right through the lighted area, the same place on the dome that the other sees light blue, looking at almost the same angle and almost the same distance.

Also does not explain how the FE location of the sun on the dome at night is seen as stars, even as it produces enough light to illuminate half the earth. Yet the relatively dim stars and dark sky go right through.

I really want to understand this, but can't seem to get an explanation. "We can't explain it, but the earth is flat, so there must be some unknown force with unknown equations", can some FE add details to this? Diagram? Experiments? Equations? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 16, 2021, 08:57:52 PM »
The glass in the video does not illustrate what people on the surface of the earth experience. The video clearly shows part of the dome lit up, and the rest dark. In reality, some see the entire dome dark with stars, while others, sometimes a few hundred miles away, sees light blue over the entire dome.

Let's see a demo from the surface of the earth that shows how some can see the entire dome as light blue while others see it dark at the same time.

Explain how someone can look up in the sky at night, where the sun is shining bright for some, and see dark sky with stars at exactly the same place. Explain how someone can look at the sky just after sunset to the west and see dark sky and stars, while someone a few hundred miles west can look at the exact same spot on the dome between them and see light blue.

RET explains this consistent with known physics. FET has no explanation.

Flat Earth Theory / geostationary satellites
« on: December 16, 2021, 01:47:28 AM »
On RE, they are stationary in particular spot directly over the equator. They get shot up at the exact speed and direction to be in orbit at that spot. This is consistent with RET math and physics. The web site:

tells you where to aim the dish, thus giving you a pointer to the satellite. Point wrong, no tv signal. So we have multiple pointers at a satellite from different places, thus the point where the aiming lines cross gives the location of the satellite.

Where are these satellites on FE? if they are at the equator, how do they stay up? Will the lines intersect on FE? IF you take the elevation from San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle, will the lines meet at the same point?

I submit that the lines will not cross with FE geometry, and this makes no sense. I wonder how FE explains geostationary satellites.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 15, 2021, 09:45:01 PM »
The video with the flashlight over the glass hemisphere does show that you can light up the part of the map underneath similar to the shape of the lit area on FE. Declare victory and go home, or ....

But what would someone on the ground see in this demo? Looks to me like they would see half the dome lit up. But they see stars exactly where the dome is lit up, at the same time. Let's see a video demonstrating how that works. Show us a video with someone in the dark area seeing the stars in the same area of the dome that is lit up. .

If your answer is: "A physical system that does this is possible.", then you haven't made much of a claim, only that it is possible, which can never be disproven and can be said about anything. You don't even need the video. Just say: "This could be, and you can't prove it's not."

What would be impressive is if you had observations, equations, dimensions, materials, experiments, let's see the physics defined and demonstrated. A flashlight, glass disk, and map do not suffice for anything. Show me how 2 people a thousand miles apart see such a different dome, one lit up light blue, the other dark and full of stars.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >