121

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In the bipolar map - what is around the edge?

« on: November 15, 2017, 12:13:28 AM »

I think the problem of the sun jumping back to the other side is a simple one, have two suns at opposite sides and one switches off and sneaks back as the other one switches on and continues.

Roger

122

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Need To Believe In A Flat Earth

« on: November 15, 2017, 12:02:46 AM »

I think that anyone who has flown in a small aircraft at fairly high altitudes would totally agree with the feeling of roundness of the world as new vistas appear over the horizon and roll towards you. It's certainly not so clear if you are looking sideways out of an airliner window.

It's really not surprising that those that fly aircraft or navigate ships at sea are not FETs and many FETs seem to have little real world experience at all. I suppose that if you have the time to sit all day to watch every Nasa video ever made, then make you own youtube video showing that a piece of dust floating across the lens is a UFO or that there appears to be harness holding up an astronaut in a 2 second shot, then you are going to have no time to experience the real world at all.

The purpose of this thread was not to find out why people think the Earth is flat ('because it looks like it'), but why they have a need to believe it's flat! I don't include Tom in that because he is a RET who is having fun. My own thoughts are that for most FETs, their knowledge of the world about them and a lack of understanding of basic physics and science, gives them a fear of anything or any organisation related to science. It brings out their own insecurities, and history has shown that when people don't understand or become afraid of something, they will frequently attack it and group together with others of a similar mindset.

Roger

123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An experiment I want every single one of you to explain

« on: November 14, 2017, 06:19:02 PM »

So If I am standing on the beach on a fairly calm sea state day the waves typically would be no more than 6ft from crest to trough. Here is a wind and wave finder site used by sailors, kite surfers etc https://www.windfinder.com Pick out the area you want to see for sea conditions in that area then click on one of the dots for a detailed information list. The particular area I was looking at for today was for the Dover to Calais area of the UK English channel which was in fact a maximum of about 3ft today. Let's assume a little higher than that perhaps to my eye level. Given a flat earth, anything above the height of the waves, lets say a low building or promenade should be visible across the 21 mile width between England and France at that point, during good visibility. I am quite happy to concede that with my fairly old eyes it might be a bit distant to pick out, but with even a modest pair of binoculars the low building and promenade would be clearly visible. However on a recent trip to Dover in calmer conditions than today, from the beach I could see nothing of the French coastline, just a clear horizon line. On the other hand, when I went to the top of the 350ft cliffs a few minutes later, I could clearly see many miles of the French coastline even without binoculars. How could that possibly be if the planet is flat? The only explanation is that the landmass is below the horizon when viewed from the lower level which could only be possible in a round earth scenario.

As far as I can see, that is clear and verifiable empirical evidence, personally observed of a round earth.

Roger

124

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: so - I don't understand pictures of people parachuting . . .

« on: November 14, 2017, 12:37:06 AM »

I've worn parachutes many times when competition gliding or doing aerobatics, but thankfully never had to use one. I see skydiving as committing suicide, then waiting for something mechanical to happen to save you

Roger

125

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Need To Believe In A Flat Earth

« on: November 14, 2017, 12:31:47 AM »

A few years ago, whilst learning to fly a glider on instruments, I entered cloud, flying in a straight line. After about two minutes, I felt a movement to the left and an increase in speed, which I interpreted as a entering a gentle descending turn to the left. As I had no visual frame of reference, I applied a normal amount of backward pressure on the stick to ease the descent and made a corrective rudder and aileron movement to the right. The sensation of flying straight and level returned, however the instruments suggested that I was actually still turning to the left and still descending. I increased the back pressure on the stick and added more right turn with the ailerons. Everything felt normal but the sound of air rushing past had increased considerably and the instruments continued to show a left turn and descent. At that moment I came out of the cloud and became aware that the ground was above my head to one side and that I was in a slow steep spin to the left. The control inputs I had made and made the situation worse, with no indication from my own senses that my orientation was wrong. THe lesson I learnt from that is to never just trust your senses if you don't have access to all the facts.

Your instructor should have warned you.  The reason most light aircraft (and, I presume, gliders) are restricted to VFR rules is exactly that.  Your "butt feel" for orientation sucks because you can't tell the difference between gravity and acceleration - and you have to look very carefully at ALL of your instruments to truly understand what they are saying to you.   Once you lose sight of the horizon - your instruments are all you have.

I've worked a big chunk of my career in R&D for flight simulators - and the big commercial airliner ones with the hydraulic motion platforms are quite impressive.  They employ a wide range of tricks to trick your "butt feel" in order to make you feel like you're really accelerating hard down the runway - when in fact you're sitting still.   The fact that these tricks work so amazingly well is testament to how bad it is to rely on that sense in determining what's going on in a real airplane.  On one occasion, I took a friend on a simulator ride and rolled the plane inverted.   Afterwards, she was 100% convinced that the simulator cab had some special mechanism that made cabin turn upside down...it does not.    Only when I pointed out that she hadn't been wearing a seat belt did she finally agree that this was something like an optical illusion...a "butt illusion".

So - yeah - being inside cloud is a dangerous situation if you're inexperienced at it.

Yes I was fully briefed on what to expect and was still mentally unprepared which was of course the point of the exercise. The instructor had an IFR rating but had to gain clearance from ATC to carry out the exercise. The glider was also a Slingsby T49 which had speed limiting airbrakes, very useful when pointing vertically at the ground. I have twice had experience in a single seater of being almost drawn  into a storm cloud whilst attempting to dive  away at 60 degrees downward angle at VNE of 130knts. I had to pull full airbrakes and dive vertically to get away. Yeah I know I should avoid storm clouds but the lift was great until I got to about 1000ft below it, then it all went mental. After that, my senses told me that my pants felt damp around the groin area, so some things you can trust  By the time I became an instructor, I had learned many things that can catch you out!

Roger

126

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: November 13, 2017, 04:31:55 PM »

To be honest, in this day and age I didn't think anybody really believed that the earth is flat, but the movement actually seems to be gaining popularity.  To the point where there are conferences to discuss flat earth theory and beliefs.  I suspect that as the tickets are expensive, only devout believers would bother attending (a fool and their money are easily parted) so the discussions are a little one sided.  It's only on forums like this, where us interlopers can enjoy picking apart their theories and laughing at their ridiculous attempts to discredit GPS.

I wonder how the FE believers who attend those conferences actually find their way to them if they don't trust GPS. RE maps or aircraft route accuracy?

Roger

127

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 13, 2017, 04:24:02 PM »

There is no relevance in birds descending to the horizon. It is merely a a simple statement that Tom can make then sit and watch the REs flapping around and getting frustrated at his ability to accept evidence on anything RE. As I have said elsewhere, this whole forum and Tom's flat earth postulations are just the intellectual entertainment for an intelligent man who knows as well as every other thinking person here that the earth is a globe. I is very noticeable that as soon as any debate gets technical or scientific, only Tom continues the discussion with clever flim flamming. He is a master at it and I'm sure gains great amusement from it as I do reading it. I'm sure that most of the REs also know this and enjoy the sparring as much as he does.

It would be nice to hear that there are some serious FEs who are professionals and with a good background knowledge and real world experience getting involved in technical discussions apart from Tom. Perhaps members who are pilots, offshore sailors, meteorologists etc. Sadly I am afraid there aren't any 

Roger

128

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Need To Believe In A Flat Earth

« on: November 13, 2017, 12:02:04 PM »

Here are some empirical observations which qualify as evidence for me of events that I have personally experienced, rather than regurgitating dubious anecdotes and one line answers trawled from the Internet. Can also be used in response to the Standard reply 'It looks flat so it is flat'.

Whilst on a large ship in February of this year I awoke in my cabin and could only hear a subdued hum from the ship, consistent with being stationary. As I could also feel no movement of any sort, I assumed we had docked in Amsterdam, one of our stops. As we were in an inside cabin with no windows, I went up on deck, only to find that we were still at sea in a flat calm, but moving at probably about 10knots from the wake. My senses had told me we were not moving, they were wrong.

A few years ago, whilst learning to fly a glider on instruments, I entered cloud, flying in a straight line. After about two minutes, I felt a movement to the left and an increase in speed, which I interpreted as a entering a gentle descending turn to the left. As I had no visual frame of reference, I applied a normal amount of backward pressure on the stick to ease the descent and made a corrective rudder and aileron movement to the right. The sensation of flying straight and level returned, however the instruments suggested that I was actually still turning to the left and still descending. I increased the back pressure on the stick and added more right turn with the ailerons. Everything felt normal but the sound of air rushing past had increased considerably and the instruments continued to show a left turn and descent. At that moment I came out of the cloud and became aware that the ground was above my head to one side and that I was in a slow steep spin to the left. The control inputs I had made and made the situation worse, with no indication from my own senses that my orientation was wrong. THe lesson I learnt from that is to never just trust your senses if you don't have access to all the facts.

I was in Dover in the UK recently with the family and walking along the beach was thinking that the French coast was only 20.7 miles away. It was a cool clear day but even my binoculars and high zoom camera could only see a distant horizon. About an hour later, We went up to  walk along on 350ft high cliffs and could see very clearly the foreshore and buildings of Cap Gris Nez in France, without binoculars or camera zoom. Using camera or binoculars, the details were sharp and clear considering the distance, although totally hidden by the horizon at sea level.

For many years I have made passages on various small boats including my own, which have required me to use charts and navigational equipment, taking bearings from coastal observations, allowing for tidal and wind errors and getting pretty good at it. I also quickly found that the curvature of the earth prevented me from seizing more than about 3 miles from my eyeline unless an object was tall enough to appear. Recently, I put a camera at the top of my mast which enable me to see about 6-7 miles to the horizon and I can remotely control it. That of course is quite clearly why the old sailing vessels had a crows nest up the mast for observation from the highest point. The advent of GPS a few years ago also meant that I could verify my position using GPS as a secondary backup and I have found it to be extremely accurate in all cases at sea, often a lot more accurate that my own plotting. All my flying and sailing plots are fully logged and verifiable.

As a final empirical observation, I used to glide from Challock in Kent which is on a ridge about 400ft high. From the ridge on a clear day, the view was magnificent across the surrounding countryside as far as the horizon, about 24-25 miles. As soon as I took an aerotow to 3000ft, the view steadily expanded until I could easily see the white cliffs on part of the French coat 60 miles away and the English south coast curving away into the distance. The higher I went, the further I could see.

These are just minimal examples of my personal observations of the world around me and I would be very pleased to see similar accounts from pilots, seagoing sailors, surveyors or anyone who regularly uses those type of observations and are also subscribers to the Flat Earth theory (or other shapes)

Thank you,

Roger

129

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Need To Believe In A Flat Earth

« on: November 12, 2017, 10:28:36 PM »

It looks flat. It doesn't look round. Duh.

It looks flat from where? Mountains look flat and 2 dimensional from a few miles away, are they flat as well? When I sail a few miles out into the North Sea on my little boat, I can't see the coast any more even with my very powerful binoculars and 200x lens on my camera. Actually that's not quite correct as I can still see the tops of very tall chimneys or masts until I get even further out. Why is that?

Roger

Bendy light. Your problem is that you're overthinking it. I believe the Earth is flat because it looks flat. It is based on pure empirical observation. You can overcomplicate things all you want but you can't change facts.

Also I'm not gonna spend pages and pages refuting your objections and justifying my opinion so it's pointless trying to bait me. Sorry guys. 

Well thanks for that informative post :-) 'Bendy Light'? Evidence, documentation, verifiable data? I am beginning to realise that none of the FE people are going to actually answer any of my questions in any sort of scientific or verifiable way, either through lack of knowledge, facts or intellectual capacity.

However I remain waiting in hope.

Thank you,
Roger

130

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Need To Believe In A Flat Earth

« on: November 12, 2017, 04:58:53 PM »

It looks flat. It doesn't look round. Duh.

It looks flat from where? Mountains look flat and 2 dimensional from a few miles away, are they flat as well? When I sail a few miles out into the North Sea on my little boat, I can't see the coast any more even with my very powerful binoculars and 200x lens on my camera. Actually that's not quite correct as I can still see the tops of very tall chimneys or masts until I get even further out. Why is that?

Roger

131

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why?

« on: November 12, 2017, 04:49:19 PM »

Possible apologies needed as I hadn't noticed this thread and just started one in a similar vein, although coming at it from a different viewpoint.

The one question that immediately springs to mind is, if we are being lied to about the planet being a globe, who says it has to be flat and circular rather than flat and square or some other shape, maybe cuboid?

Roger

132

Flat Earth Community / The Need To Believe In A Flat Earth

« on: November 12, 2017, 04:40:49 PM »

I joined this forum very recently as I find the opinions and the information they are based on to be fascinating.

What I would really like to know though is why anybody has a need to believe the world is flat? For that matter why it needs to be believed as any shape at all, whether that is circular, square, spheroid, doughnut shaped or any other shape. For me, the requirement to know in the modern world, is because I need to travel both for recreation and business to various parts of the country and world. The destinations could be great distances or comparatively short ones, by air, on the sea or in a vehicle. To do all this, I need to be able to have access to accurate daily time and the time taken to accomplish different journeys. When I am navigating my boat, I need to use accurate maps and charts in conjunction with instrumentation that enables me to take bearings and know my location at all times. I am also a glider pilot and rely on my knowledge of navigation and meteorology to reach destinations or fly a plotted course. Although GPS is a useful aid in all this, I also need to be able to navigate in the event of power failures. Over the last couple of thousand years and particularly the last couple of centuries, the means have been developed to enable myself and others to be able to achieve this. All of the research and development to this end has appeared to have reached the conclusion that the earth is a globe and all of the maps and navigation equipment that I use are based on this theory.

I would love to hear rational and reasoned debate as to why all the above works fine in my personal experience within the concept of a global planet, but why it doesn't in anyway suggest that the maps and charts are incorrect. If that is the case, then why is there any need to believe that the world is flat when none of the available data backs it up. Also and perhaps more importantly, what does it matter and why is there nobody here that seems to be able to offer scientifically rigorous and demonstrable data that stands up to scrutiny to reinforce their beliefs.

Personally I couldn't care less what shape the planet is providing the data that I use is relevant to the tasks I want to perform. I would love to hear from professional pilots, navigators and global travellers who are flat earth (or any other shape) believers and can relate real world experiences that verifiably support their beliefs.

Thank you 

Roger

133

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: November 12, 2017, 03:29:25 PM »

You say Tom is very intelligent...but he seems incapable of understanding this - or MANY other simple demonstrations that I've provided - so I very much doubt it.

I don't actually think he is incapable of understanding at all, in fact exactly the opposite. I think the intellectual sparring and confrontation is his raison d'etre 

Roger

134

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: November 12, 2017, 12:18:02 AM »

Hi All,

I had a day off today and after looking at ISS videos and info last night, came across some interesting videos and posts from FE people. Never having taken any interest whatsoever in flat earth theory I came to this website. I read some of the other threads before hitting on this one and how fascinating and entertaining it has been to read through the entire thread.

I have no particular scientific or mathematical background so some of the arguments are over my head, however, I spent many years as a gliding instructor with over 2000 instructional flights and flights of long duration and distance for personal enjoyment. As part of that, I taught students in basic navigation, meteorology and aerodynamics. I have also had a lifelong interest in all things aviation and spaceflight related and an interest in astronomy with an 8" reflector to aid my interest. In addition I have also been an amateur sailor for over 40 years with many offshore trips of varying distances both pre and post GPS.  Oh and I should also mention that I have been a professional photographer and videographer for over 30 years incorporating a camera drone in some of my work. I also have close friends and acquaintances that are currently active in commercial and private aviation. None of that makes me an expert on anything but gives me a good basic knowledge of many subject areas.

May I say that I am extremely impressed by the knowledge and qualifications of many of the contributors here and stunned by some of the absolute ignorance of many others across the forum. I hope that by joining in, I can gain an insight into both sides of the discussion about a radical flat earth theory/belief.

First impressions after only a few hours on the forum is that the vast majority of comments from the FE side are from Tom. I find that somewhat disappointing although I have come to the conclusion that Tom is an extremely intelligent man who is immensely adept at turning any carefully planned and knowledgeable questions or explanations back against the poster, by asking questions and avoiding scientifically constructed answers. The second impression is that many of the core posters are determined to keep chipping away at the FE concept with mathematically and scientifically based arguments that are doggedly repeating the same basic information that is being carefully avoided by the FEs. That leads me to suspect that Tom has set this whole thing up as an intellectual exercise in how to get other highly intelligent and scientifically knowledgeable people to beat their heads against a brick wall over and over again. I don't for one moment believe that Tom genuinely believes the world is flat, he just loves the mental sparring with others determined to disprove his FE postulations. He waits until posters have spent hours and perhaps days working out ways to debunk the FE theory, then when excellent well researched arguments are put forward he is able to put up rhetorical questions and non answers, whilst sitting back watching amused whilst everyone scurries around frustrated, to come at him from a different angle.

I have to admire him for that and wait enthralled for his next twist and turn. Almost as entertaining as reading some of the posts elsewhere from other FEs who are devoted to the master yet are unable to match him for wit and guile. Instead, for the most, they are reduced to making ridiculous unsubstantiated pronouncements, or repeating garbage picked up wholesale from ludicrous youtube conspiracy theorists.

I was quite interested in the repeated references as evidence to the website relating to GPS inaccuracies based on athletics courses. The main thrust of the argument seemed to be that the distances shown over a course by GPS was in considerable variance to the same course measured using a wheeled distance measuring instrument. This was, if I understand correctly, evidence that GPS was inaccurate and way off from the 10ft accuracy claimed. Maybe I missed a post on this, but my immediate thought was of the cross section of a hill on the course being a perfect equilateral triangle for the sake of example. If the base of the triangle was 1 mile and the two opposite points of the base were A & B, then the distance shown between A & B by the GPS would be 1 mile, however the distance shown by the wheeled instrument to the top of the hill/triangle, lets say points A to C, would also be 1 mile, with the distance between C & B being a further 1 mile. That would give a total distance over the course of 2 miles, an inaccuracy by the GPS of 50% to the true distance travelled. However GPS is a Global POSITIONING system and the GPS is correctly showing the positions of points A & B as 1 mile apart horizontally. If that same pattern was applied to a range of adjacent mountains over a 200 horizontal distance, then a foot route would  give a distance of 400 miles travelled whereas of course the GPS would show 200 miles. They are both correct but showing results for totally different parameters. To any aircraft using GPS, the route up and down the mountains would be completely irrelevant and both A & B points would be shown within about 10ft of accuracy. When I plot a course on my car GPS, the distance shown to the destination takes no account of gradient and is therefore constantly updating according to position.

Sorry if someone has already pointed that out, I could have missed it, meanwhile I'll have a look at a few more of the other threads.

Roger