41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 09, 2016, 03:43:35 AM »

Yes, kind of, but the carrier is not the photon. From a classical physics perspective, the radio waves are EM fields propagating through space. Once you get into quantum mechanics, it gets a bit murkier. To create a radio transmitter, the antenna needs to effectively vibrate thereby creating fluctuations in the EM field. This is what the carrier wave of an AM radio.
Like I said, this is the quantum mechanics description of EM radiation, but I didn't think that Flat Earth believers accepted any scientific discoveries since the dark ages.

Incorrect. All Electro-Magnetic radiation is photons.

I'm not debating that.

You stated in your original post that in low frequency radio waves:

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

However, in order to understand the method of how these waves propagate, you have to understand that it is not the photon that is acting like the carrier wave. This is not the case for higher frequency waves however.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 09, 2016, 03:28:48 AM »

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

Are you sure about that? These types of radios do not use photons as their carrier!

All electro-magnetic radiation consists of photons.

Yes, kind of, but the carrier is not the photon. From a classical physics perspective, the radio waves are EM fields propagating through space. Once you get into quantum mechanics, it gets a bit murkier. To create a radio transmitter, the antenna needs to effectively vibrate thereby creating fluctuations in the EM field. This is what the carrier wave of an AM radio.
Like I said, this is the quantum mechanics description of EM radiation, but I didn't think that Flat Earth believers accepted any scientific discoveries since the dark ages.

Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.

Where is the evidence that this is made up? The whole reason that these radars, like the JORN, exist is because the surface of the earth is curved.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 09, 2016, 02:51:12 AM »

Actually, the existence of AM Radio, HAM Radio, and Over the Horizon Radar, where photons travel much further than the curvature of the earth should allow, suggests that the earth is not a globe.

Are you sure about that? These types of radios do not use photons as their carrier!

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight communication

« on: June 09, 2016, 02:50:13 AM »

When designing mobile (cellular) phone towers, we must to the curvature of the Earth into account in order for it to work.
If the curvature was ignored in the calculations, wireless data transmission from your phone would be near impossible.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Apollo mission photos are NOT fake !

« on: June 05, 2016, 04:56:13 AM »

I doubt that's by design. That's just what naturally happens when one side is completely incapable of supporting their side of the argument. They retreat to a safe place.

I wonder how many FEs would comment on a forum dedicated to a round earth?

I have special eyes, and a minor skin condition.

You lied to us, you totesAREreptilian!!

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Apollo mission photos are NOT fake !

« on: June 05, 2016, 12:29:10 AM »

Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.

Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.

Since the Flat Earthers (and other deniers of the moon missions) are the accusers the onus is on you (and them) to prove their case, but so often it is simply stated as "it has been accepted that" (or words to that effect), when it most certainly has not been proved!.

These "fake" claims have been answered numerous times. I suppose you have studied:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
and
Moon Base Clavius and refuted in detail the answers to many of the fake "fake" claims.

Until then I think it fair you "admit that you . . . .  have no evidence."

Rab, from a quick scan of the debate forum, the majority of the threads are started by Round Earthers making claims and Flat Earthers demanding evidence. There are minimal threads started by FEs, with the exception of Intikam, and they usually end up with REs making counter claims and the FEs again demanding evidence.
The only place where FEs make their claims is in the other forums where debate is discouraged.
If you think about it, the whole site is a perfect FE environment as essentially the FEs can make their claims without rebuttal and the REs have to support their claims with evidence that the FEs refuse to accept.

Then again, the website is called The Flat Earth society.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we ALWAYS see the sun?

« on: May 23, 2016, 02:03:15 PM »

So why does the luminescent shape of the moon change and happen to coincide with the location of the sun in the round earth model?

Stop asking nonsense questions. 
The changes of the moon's shape do NOT coincide with the location of the sun in the round earth model. Unless you are trapped in a cell all day long, you should be able to see that any time you look up. 

You shills talk too much.  Nice to see you admitting the round earth MODEL is just a model.

I looked up the other night and the moon had only the upper side illuminated. This would be true on a flat earth if the sun were higher than the moon, but earlier in the year, the lower side was illuminated, therefore the sun must have been lower than the moon.
Unless, the light cast onto the moon actually coincided with the round earth Model...

Also, if the moon and sun was circling the flat earth why doesn't the amount of moon that is illuminated change throughout the night? Certainly, according to the flat earth MODEL, if the sun and Moon rotate according to the various videos posted by flat earth Gurus abiding by the scripture according to YouTube as well as the almighty wiki, the amount of light reflected from the moon should change throughout the night?

All of the above is directly relevant to the shape of the earth, but if you cannot live the lie you try and articulate don't bother trying to give a decent answer.

Your move?!?

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why google map showing China smaller than the real?

« on: May 20, 2016, 01:57:50 PM »

And ignorance is ignorance, one might add.

Science is not blindly believe an organization who is giving you salary.

No, true science is taking a hypothesis, executing experimentation or formulation, deducing valid conclusion and publishing for others to review and reproduce.

Like FE's doing and RE's don't.

No, from reading these forums, FEs make random, unsubstantiated claims of bendy light, shadow objects, electromagnetic cold waves, aether, celestial gears, universal acceleration (that for some unexplainable reason does not seem to affect the moon, sun or stars) and conspiracy theories.
They cannot come up with any geographical evidence to support their theory, claim that the currently proven maps are laden with incorrect distances.
They distort the laws of physics to try and support their wild claims, ignore observable instances like the setting of the sun and rotation of the stars and have failed to even attempt to try and prove anything that can support their theory.  Instead they engage in the notion that it is the responsibility of the REs to prove everything when hundreds of years of science, navigation and exploration have already done so!
I eagerly await your map that promises to reveal all as I know that the only way this is possible is if you map out the earth upon a spherical object. Try it, you might find that this is the only way it will work out.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we ALWAYS see the sun?

« on: May 20, 2016, 01:16:04 PM »

The answer I've been given multiple times is that the sun is a spotlight and shines downwards.

If the sun is a spotlight and only shines downwards then how is the moon illuminated?

Moon has own light.

So why does the luminescent shape of the moon change and happen to coincide with the location of the sun in the round earth model?

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why google map showing China smaller than the real?

« on: May 20, 2016, 11:45:37 AM »

And ignorance is ignorance, one might add.

Science is not blindly believe an organization who is giving you salary.

No, true science is taking a hypothesis, executing experimentation or formulation, deducing valid conclusion and publishing for others to review and reproduce.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is The Moon A Dormant Cold Sun?

« on: May 20, 2016, 11:41:16 AM »

You raise some interesting points, quite possibly too many at once. There are a few people here, as you can tell, that love to angrily debate alternative ideas that go against mainstream thinking like it's their damn job. Thanks for your contributions though, I will be checking out the temperature of objects in the moonlight next full moon to see if I can observe that particular anomaly.

I prefer to think of it as shooting down ridiculous claims that contradict proven science.
Seriously, electromagnetic "cold waves"?  What is this, the dark ages?

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we ALWAYS see the sun?

« on: May 18, 2016, 12:02:05 PM »

The answer I've been given multiple times is that the sun is a spotlight and shines downwards.

If the sun is a spotlight and only shines downwards then how is the moon illuminated?

That's a question I think Tom Bishop has answered with the bendy light theory in other topics.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why don't atmopsher don't fly away to space?

« on: May 18, 2016, 10:08:33 AM »

So, since there are certainly OTHER MOVEMENTS giving rise or interference to actual OPERATION of the devices you present, there is NO QUESTION concerning what is causing any type of measurable output from these devices?

Sorry pal, ain't BUYING THAT BULL SHIT TODAY...

And these other certain movements are?

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we ALWAYS see the sun?

« on: May 17, 2016, 01:34:32 PM »

The answer I've been given multiple times is that the sun is a spotlight and shines downwards.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Science and FET

« on: May 09, 2016, 09:59:24 AM »

What I think is an amazing coincidence is that somehow the moon and sun don't collide with the flat earth, yet a ball I throw into the air comes back down again.
Is there some magic distance required to negate the UA?

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Polaris the center of everything so acts compass neddle to itself?

« on: May 06, 2016, 01:54:58 PM »

I want to ask this question to everybody but thinking as a Flat Earth Model.

Idea:

Polaris is the center of the near sky that acts everything except sun, moon and dead stars (planets) and forces them turning around itself. So which powers do act to the stars?

Correction, polaris is NOT at the centre of the sky in the southern hemisphere.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: May 05, 2016, 02:03:33 PM »

Is polaris everytime 60 degrees angle to North Pole?

No, it is presently inclined at +89° 15′ 50.8″

Which means that on a FE it should be seen from all locations at night barring cloud cover.

Yes in the southern hemisphere I've never seen it?!?

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the stars above the FE?

« on: May 05, 2016, 02:02:43 PM »

In other words not even Wiki can help here. I see  this as a major hole in the "theory" The nigh sky is basic. Polaris' altitude is important. But no one in FET can or so far has bothered to address the question.

And why do you think that is?

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: if the Earth's axis varies in summer and winter how polaris stay at same place?

« on: May 05, 2016, 02:01:16 PM »

What I wonder about, is everyone always talks about the conservation of momentum... what is the original force that made Earth travel? I find it hard to believe or comprehend that planets remain in orbit without an actual force keeping them moving, gravity of the sun is often the ad hoc explanation.

But where did his initial momentum come from? Is this what the hypothetical big bang is supposed to explain?

Also... why would gravity make things orbit elliptically around an object... if the law of gravity states that a molecule is intrinsically pulled to every other molecule inversely squared to the distance between them... then why isn't everything careening into the Sun?

Even in the Flat Earth model "things"  are moving.  The sun, moon and shadow object orbit the earth in a strange spiral pattern, the planets orbit the sun and the stars orbit around Polaris, over the North Pole. If you want more detail on this ask "the Wiki", don't ask me.

So, flat or Globe, something started it all running!

You ask, "why would gravity make things orbit elliptically around an object"? All I can say is that is what you get when you solve the equations involving gravitation and Newton's laws of motion. Actually Johannes Kepler working with the data largely gathered by Tycho Brahe (who as it happens did not accept Copernicus' ideas) found that the planets were moving in (almost) elliptical orbits. Newton in the meantime (actually I don't know all the dates off the top of my head) found that a single small object orbited a large one in an elliptical orbit - nicely tying it all Up.

Of course there are 8 full planets, a number of minor planets and an almost innumerable number of asteroids and comets etc orbiting the sun. This means that the orbits of the planets are not quite elliptical because a given planet is affected by the others, though only the ones either side are significant. The orbits of Neptune and Pluto are an extreme case where sometimes Pluto is closer to the Sun than Neptune.

Then you ask "then why isn't everything careening into the Sun?". Simply because gravitation is only one of the forces involved. The acceleration due to say the Sun's gravitation is balanced by the centripetal acceleration of the planet moving in a curved orbit.

But, the bottom line is simply that Flat Earth or Globe, the Earth and all the Celestial objects are in motion.

At least for the Heliocentric Globe these motions are (in general) explainable.

But there seems no rational explanation of the movements of the Celestial objects in the Flat Earth model - in particular nothing to explain what makes Sun (Moon and shadow object) move the required spiral sort of motion.

Come on Rab, celestial gears and mystical aether. Get with the program.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Google map debunk: You must draw an "S" if you want to go to Taiwan from Shangai

« on: May 05, 2016, 01:58:29 PM »

sydney and South America are where is there. We FEs usually control ourselves the knowledge to see actually whats happened. I'm drawing a world map myself and yet did'nt come to Australia and south America. So i don't tell something matter that i haven't no idea.

I'm not sure I follow.
Are you saying that you don't know where Sydney and South America are, or your map doesn't include them because you have no idea where they are?

You're wrong. I'm working on the map that here:

Flat Continents http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4947.msg95511#msg95511

A problem occured on China that not on Australia. Flying distances and planned distances are so different. So i stopped working about it. I'll scontinue that working from where i stopped.

But i'm so busy at that days.

I can't continue hard issues like that, because of intensive works at these days. i hope most recently, I will continue.

OK, you take your time.
Let us know when you get to the flight time between Sydney (or Auckland) and South America and how this fits into your flat earth map.