1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: May 21, 2015, 03:49:47 AM »

That is what I am talking about.  4 posters, 4 answers and not a single caveat.

What are you talking about? Spoon, Tintagel and Vauxy said basically the same thing.

That's a fairly generous interpretation.


Having served, and used Night Vision Goggles, which see EM waves on a much greater scale than the naked eye, I can confidently say that I personally know they aren't acoustic waves. We had a lot of time on our hands on exercises, and tend to spend a lot of it on our phones. Whenever someone looked at their phone at night, I could see it through my NVGs as it would light up like a Christmas tree. It's really neat to see actually. If you ever get a hold of a pair, have a look and see. Not sure how the sonar hypothesis could account for visibly seeing the waves emitted from gps and cellphone devices.
EDIT: Wanted to add a bit more since I posted in haste. I can concede that Spoon and Tintagel's responses are similar but to say that GPS operates using sonar is a radical shift the be sure. It is also eminently testable and would require GPS manufacturers as well as amateur tech enthusiasts who build their own GPS to be completely ignorant or in on it^TM.

My original post was really made in the moment because within a short time of the OP being made 3 (or 4) different answers were posted, all phrased without a hint of uncertainty. It is that sort of phenomenon  that created the cliche of "FEers can't agree on a single model lol!" And I thought it was funny.

You should know that FET is still evolving. We are discovering more and more everyday about the workings of the Flat Earth and the conspiracy behind it.

I have no problem with competing theories but it strikes me as disingenuous when a theory that is still nascent is presented with the degree of confidence shown above.

Are you trying to say that sonar can't be used for GPS? If so, please explain.

I am not saying that it can't because I don't rightly know if it is possible or not. I meant what I said above: that using acoustic waves rather than EM waves is a radically different thing. It seems highly improbable, to the point of the idea being a non-starter, that no one in the world has noticed that they are using sonar rather than EM waves. If this is actually what you believe, you should endeavor to put a GPS receiver in a vacuum chamber and see if it still works.

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why do the sun and moon appear to be the same size in RET?

« on: May 21, 2015, 03:36:13 AM »

Does FET have a better answer?

A better answer is that the moon and sun appear to be the same size because they are the same size.

It also makes sense to have a universe with kinds of bodies that are the same sizes. Not wildly different sizes, where one star can be thousands or millions of times bigger than another.

I must ask, have you considered the measurement of heat from a sun the size of the moon? I'd love to see the math on what the minimum size for the sun could be based on the amount of heat input to Earth.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: For those who believe in a flat Earth.

« on: May 18, 2015, 09:33:18 PM »

I'm hoping those who don't believe the Earth is flat not answer. I'm wanting to get a sense of where people who do believe are coming from.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: Proving a Flat-Earth Using Round-Earth Maths

« on: May 18, 2015, 06:46:29 PM »

Then again, refraction can be quite convenient for FE'ers when it makes a round earth appear flat.

i get the feeling that "refraction" is one of those convenient, throw-a-way "explanations" that TPTB trot out to try and dodge "the hard balls";

although "refraction" is a relatively simple concept/explanation, TPTB and their innumerable shills are quite content to spew out a barrage of meaningless scientific gobbly-de-gook to baffle and confuse the average punter...

most people haven't got the qualifications, the time or the inclination to penetrate these "smoke screens";

that's the way TPTB like it......keep every-one distracted with mindless entertainments and too busy working to earn a living to have any spare time to consider the fact that they're trapped in "the Matrix";

(the word "amuse", for instance,  actually means "don't think" or "anti-think"....'muse' being the Græco-Roman term for "thinking" or "pondering"/"reflecting on some-thing"....an "a" prefix is its opposite!)

as for refraction making a RE appear flat....well....where is the evidence for this?
where are the laboratory experiments (that have been double/triple checked and, then, peer-reviewed) to demonstrate this?

what are the refractive indices of air and water.....how do they compare and how can they distort an object's appearance....   

most people know that water has a certain refractive index that can distort objects under-water......
does air have the same sort of effect?

quite frankly, i doubt it!

if any-thing, it would be only of a minimal, marginal kind that would make no appreciable difference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

In fact, not only does light refraction occur in laboratory settings, it is used by radio communications teams, from military applications, to commercial, to send high frequency radio signals greater distances than line of sight. The use of atmospheric refraction allows the signals to be sent at high angles as high as into the ionosphere, allowing the signal to refract back to the surface of the Earth beyond the horizon.

http://fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/U3.htm


Light refraction is a very real phenomenon. So to determine the distance one can see from a horizon, one necessarily must use control, as you suggest right? Wouldn't that mean controlling the test to eliminate for any possible variables that could interfere with accurately measuring the distances seen, such as the refraction of light, or at least factoring in a margin of error due to it?


*****************

Also, as Mr. Bickles raises the point of repeated controlled testing and peer-review, wouldn't such mathematical models serving as proof have to match replicable and observable tests?

Pongo, can you please explain if your model accounts for why we cannot see the lower portion of mountains in the photos, or the bottom sections of towers, if the Earth were flat? Wouldn't a linear line of sight produce the entire image that we are looking at? Also, if your model is to be used to demonstrate that a spherical Earth were not possible, then wouldn't the sight seen from the top of the CN tower also have to be visible from the base of the tower? Or are you suggesting that atmospheric conditions prevent us from seeing visible light beyond a set distance from the surface? If so, then why doesn't this match observation? Light waves have varying frequencies, and atmospheric distortion would fade out the shorter wavelengths first. Thus, if this were to be what caused our vision to perceive a horizon, then objects should appear more red the further out they are, just as the Sun does due to the angle as it sets. Another method of falsifying this claim could be tested with radiowaves, as they can travel further than visible light. If we were to set up radio signals, and monitor them, would the distance of line of sight be further for them?

Please help me out in understanding your position on these.

5

Suggestions & Concerns / Tapatalk password incorrect?

« on: May 18, 2015, 05:25:09 PM »

I keep getting this issue when trying to log in via tapatalk. Every time I try, it says password incorrect. I have reset my password multiple times, yet it still keeps saying this.

6

Flat Earth Theory / For those who believe in a flat Earth.

« on: May 18, 2015, 05:17:09 PM »

This poll is for those who believe in a flat Earth. Thank you.