241

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 05:55:40 PM »

And for the final freaking time, as has been demonstrated in previous threads, long distance navigation of any sort is broken down into easier to manage short trips, with frequent stops to check systems and position.

Just a simple google and this is shown to be nonsense.

https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/longest-flights-in-the-world#:~:text=Lufthansa%20repatriated%20German%20citizens%20from,Papeete%2C%20Tahiti%2C%20to%20Paris.

Nothing, and I mean, NOTHING, has fundamentally changed concerning which routes are taken over long distances, either by sea or air, for over 100 years.

The first intercontinental flight didn't occur until 1927.  The first flight over the north pole didn't occur until 1937.  The first commercial polar route didn't occur until 1954.

When you are able to tell the difference between a globe and map, let us know will you?

All globes are maps, not all maps are globes.


I know self awareness is not really your thing, but I'll just leave this little nugget here.

You have no business even commenting in the thread as it is quite clear the subject matter is well over your head.

242

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 05:21:03 PM »

@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.

In turn, we will wait for you to produce an accurate RE map.

Take your pick. 

https://www.ultimateglobes.com/

Of course accuracy will improve with the size of any map so this would be more accurate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eartha#:~:text=Eartha%20is%20the%20world's%20largest,41%20feet%20(12.5%20m).

243

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 04:25:01 PM »

You do not even know if ICBM's work on a round earth.

You've never seen one in action.

So stick your nonsensical thinking back under your hat.

I'm going to plagiarize Pete here for a sec.

If you're going to resort to this tired and worn out tact, please do the intellectually honest thing and choose not to respond.

244

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 01:52:41 PM »

It's bizarre that Tom thinks that RE geometry working is a "belief". There are global airline and shipping industries which rely on it working. We all use GPS routinely these days and can verify from personal experience that it works. It doesn't get much more Zetetic and empirical than that.

To Zetetic or not to Zetetic.  That is the question.

The thought kinda came to me after I posted the above.  Time and time again, simple observations of everyday things point to RE yet rather than embracing what is witnessed thousands of time daily all over the world, FE 'Zetetics' choose to make absurd excuses and theories to try to explain them away while not being able to produce simple things like a FE map that fits the observed view.

245

Science & Alternative Science / Re: FE and ICBMs

« on: May 25, 2021, 12:58:32 PM »

@TomBishop

There's a really simple way to end all of this nonsense.  Simply produce an accurate Flat Earth map.  That's all you need to do and this all ends.  It truly is just that simple.

We'll wait.

246

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make an FE map with accurate distances

« on: May 23, 2021, 08:21:26 PM »

You didn't answer the question. Do you think we've gotten better at high seas navigation since 150+ years ago?

I don't think things have changed that much in regards to accuracy and speed, no.

On navigation:

https://books.google.com › books ›
The Globalization of Knowledge in History

"Celestial navigation as practiced by the military was not perfected until the invention of the chronometer at the end of the 18th century."

Lowtech Magazine: https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/01/satellite-nav-1.html

"More than two centuries ago, it was possible to very accurately pinpoint your position on earth by means of 'satellites'.

Man has navigated across the globe by means of satellites for thousands of years – however, until the mid twentieth century, these were not GPS-satellites, but stars. In reality, the sun and the stars aren’t satellites of the Earth, but celestial navigation is based on a precopernican world view (the earth was believed to be the centre of the universe). This may sound a little outdated, but this system was perfected to such an extent that in the second half of the eighteenth century it was almost as accurate as the present-day GPS. Moreover, it was much more robust."

On cruise ship speeds:

From a 2021article: "The average speed of a cruise ship is 18 to 22 knots (20 to 25 miles per hour). The maximum speed of a cruise ship is around three knots faster than its average cruising speed."

From a CNN article on the Titanic: "At the time, the RMS Titanic was the largest passenger ship afloat. The ship's length was 882 feet, 9 inches, and it weighed 46,328 tons. Its top speed was 23 knots."

Seeing as though none of those articles provide any ships logs they’re pretty meaningless.

247

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make an FE map with accurate distances

« on: May 23, 2021, 07:14:46 PM »

You'd think nothing has changed since the 1890s with respect to how we can navigate the oceans.  SMH.

Seeing as you have not provided any ship logs, I don't see how you can confidently assume anything.

Yours is a similar argument to Fedex and UPS international deliveries are fake because we used to use the Pony Express.  Please, continue this line of reasoning.  It's quite entertaining.

248

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make an FE map with accurate distances

« on: May 23, 2021, 06:36:03 PM »

The calculated of speed is s = d/t and requires a known distance. Distances are fundamentally in contention in this discussion

If you say that distances are in contention, then you must have some evidence, right?  Just give us all an example.  Saying something without any real world experience isn't satisfactory.  It's non-Zetetic.  My contention, after crossing the earth's oceans countless times, is that the distances ARE NOT in contention.  We know where those shallow reefs are.  Our scheduled arrival times after a voyage of many thousands of miles can be very accurate when King Neptune allows it and doesn't throw bad weather our way.  Without any examples or evidence your arguments just don't hold any water!     

These ships seem to have had trouble: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sea_Travel_in_the_South

You'd think nothing has changed since the 1890s with respect to how we can navigate the oceans.  SMH.

249

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: McDonalds can't even pay people to interview...

« on: May 20, 2021, 02:06:41 PM »

Not going to stand for this.

America is #1 at everything.  Our healthcare system is the best.  Any information to the contrary is just more of the RE coverup.  If you really want to argue about it we'll add another $500 trillion to our military budget and come blow you off the face of the earth just to prove how great we truly are.

250

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread

« on: May 18, 2021, 02:00:12 PM »

251

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: May 12, 2021, 06:55:15 PM »

If we leave the distance that light travels on the December solstice constant and try to determine what time sunrise would be on the June solstice we get position 'B'. 

Can you elaborate/show your work on this?  Not disagreeing, I just don't comprehend it.

Sure. 

Just to reiterate, position A is dictated by sunrise.  Based off of solar noon (where the sun would appear due north of Melbourne), you can go back to sunrise @ 15 degrees/hr. and position the sun on the Tropic of Capricorn.  This would give straight line distance that sunlight travels (M to A) when the sun rises on the December solstice at Melbourne.

If you now take M as the center of rotation, you can use M to A as the radius and rotate the sun toward the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer.  What is a little confusing is that B never instersects the Tropic of Cancer since the M to A line is too long.  Had the sun intersected the Tropic of Cancer somewhere, that would indicate the time at which the sun would become viewable at the June solstice in Melbourne based off the distance that it is able to travel on the December solstice .  Since the distance from M to B (M to B equals M to A) is so long going through the north pole, it would dictate that the sun would not set leading up to the June solstice. 

Hope that clarifies it.

Edited to add:  B sits at approximately 19 degrees lattitude.  This would dictate that Melbourne should be in constant sunlight anytime the sun is north of 19 degrees latitude based on the analysis of the model.

252

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: May 12, 2021, 05:29:57 PM »

Here's another interesting circumstance of "Help me understand how light rays travel"

Here's an image of how the Sun would be positioned with respect to Melbourne, Australia based on the FE north monopole model.




The red circle is the Tropic of Cancer (June Solstice) the blue line is the Tropic of Capricorn (December Solstice).

'A' is the postition of the sun at sunrise in Melbourne on the December solstice based on the time and the 360 degree daily rotation of the sun.  If we leave the distance that light travels on the December solstice constant and try to determine what time sunrise would be on the June solstice we get position 'B'.  You will see that 'B' extends beyond the Tropic of Cancer even at the longest distance from Melbourne to the Tropic of Cancer.  This means, based on the distance that light can travel on the December solstice, that the Sun shouldn't set at the June solstice.  What actually occurs is that the sun rises at position 'C' in Melbourne at the June solstice.

So, what we need to understand is how the distance that light rays travel shortens between the December and June solstices. 

253

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: May 12, 2021, 04:58:54 PM »

My original question still has not been answered and can be posed re the picture of sailboat and skyline posted above. I can see the water for miles, and the tops of the mountain/buildings. If I draw a side view diagram, the rays come up from the water and down from the building/mountain tops meet at my eye. What happened to the light rays between? No haze, no big waves.

I'm surprised no one invoked Bendy-Light in response to your question.  Here's what I believe would be the Bendy-Light explanation for what you see:



On the left is the object being viewed.  Should have drawn it a little taller for clarity.  The red line shows what would be the height at which the object can start to be seen.  It travels to the green horizon line and then continues to the viewer (you).  Above the red line the object is visible.  The blue lines show how the image of the object would crash into the ground and thus disappear below the horizon.  The black lines show how the image of the water beyond the horizon would curve up above the viewer thus not being seen at the viewers elevation until you get to the horizon line at which time the water becomes visible.

254

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: May 07, 2021, 03:10:49 PM »

Just going to think out loud for a moment.

Been thinking about Scamato's horizon pic.  I know some of the thoughts of hidden horizon center around EA and bendy light so it got me thinking about how bendy light might actually work here.

We're all familiar with this image from the EA Wiki.



What's postulated and attempted to quantify with the EA equation is that the bend of light becomes steeper the further you are from the earth's surface.  This got me to thinking how this would affect how the horizon is viewed as one travels vertically from a given position.  Wouldn't EA cause the effect that as person rises in elevation that the angle at which they view the horizon actually becomes steeper?  Wouldn't this then cause the horizon to actually appear nearer that person.

For example. Consider a person standing at 3PM at an elevation where they see the horizon at 6PM on the 6PM curve in the EA picture.  Now move the 6PM horizon curve to what would be 7PM and change the observers elevation to meet that curve.  Wouldn't the observer now see the horizon while looking at a more downward angle which would give the appearance that the horizon has moved closer to them.  Of course there would be the question of whether or not the effect would even be observable at the range of which an observer could actually see.

Just thinking about how it might work.

255

Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please

« on: May 07, 2021, 01:32:12 PM »

Wow. Are you going to back that up with any credible source to substantiate that completely made up claim?

Not all claims (or in this case, historical facts) are “made up” just because you are unfamiliar with them.

It’s in the word itself! Gyro-scope!  I encourage you to do some research on the gyroscope, its origin as well as the etymology of the word.

So, once again, you have nothing to back up your typical pontification.  At least you're consistent.

256

Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please

« on: May 05, 2021, 05:34:00 PM »

I am saying you are not in Argentina, never have been in Argentina, and would have no freaking clue about what any particular Argentinian would be observing at any particular point in time.

Thanks for the clarification.  We can now ignore 99% of anything you say because you have obviously not personally witnessed it.  That sure makes life easier.

257

Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please

« on: May 05, 2021, 05:24:22 PM »

All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.

The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.

But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.

As soon as you can account for everyone at the same time, come back and discuss this more in depth.

All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.

The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.

But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.

As soon as you can account for everyone at the same time, come back and discuss this more in depth.

The stupid thing about this continued argument is that you only need two points of observation, say Australian East Coast and West Coast which without question are viewing the same southern pole star, separated by over 30 degrees longitude both viewing the southern pole star at a direction due south.

258

Flat Earth Community / Re: i dont understand someone help please

« on: May 05, 2021, 04:24:34 PM »

All points above an x-y plane would appear as being in cylinder.

The earth doesn't need to be a sphere in order for the pole star to change angles relative to the observer's latitude.

But it does for everyone to view a pole star as due north/south regardless their longitude.

259

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction

« on: May 05, 2021, 04:21:07 PM »

Yeah, and here we go.

Never mind the mountain ranges that are visible when they shouldn't be.

They changed apparent position also, I guess.

Start at about minute 21.  Good explanation of how every FEer missuses distance-drop phenomenon.

260

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Snell's Law proves long distance sighting is not due to refraction

« on: May 05, 2021, 04:01:54 PM »

Wait a minute.

I thought RET claims that the angular size of the sun remains the same across the entirety of its trip above our heads?

Not the first time you've been mistaken, won't be the last.

Oh, you are claiming I am mistaken?

According to this debunking site, you are wrong and I am right.

https://flatearth.ws/sun-apparent-size

My apologies for confusing the original 'apparent size' due to:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate

as opposed to you're stated 'angular size'.