The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: AnneFrothingslosh on May 01, 2024, 10:58:49 PM
-
There are north-centered, bipolar, etc. map models. But what is the real map? What are the pros and cons of each?
-
Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship. Lady Blount's society collected the professional surveyor and railway proofs. This specific society's contribution to Flat Earth has been the celestial model (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration) and the gravitational model (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration). Progress was made on these subjects because they are things we can see and test. And with that, we have basically been done here with our current constraints. If you ask me what is happening on earth thousands of miles away, there will be less research there. The total world model is a topic for the next generation of FE to figure out.
At the current trajectory I estimate that it will take twenty or thirty more years for the wider Flat Earth community to actually figure out and perform and repeat the necessary tests that check all the boxes.
At the moment among the Monopole supporters there seems to be some division on whether there are faster winds in the south (https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis) or whether the planes are actually following the straight line Flat Earth Azimuthal path to their destination, as evidenced by emergency landings (https://www.flatearthresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/covered16emergencylandingsprovingflatearth-191007025918_compressed.pdf).
Someday they might figure it out, but it's not going to be anytime soon.
-
"... faster winds in the south ....". Ah yes, we've been here before.
Amongst others at the moment, (now, 0912UTC on 2 May 2024) LAN-Chile has 2 Boeing 787 Dreamliners airborne over the South Pacific.
Reg CC-BGG is operating as LAN801 from Santiago to Auckland, a route planned as about 5300NM. The aircraft is just under halfway and estimates completing the journey with a flight time of 12 hours, giving an average ground speed of 440 kts.
Its sister ship, CC-BGH is operating as LAN804 from Melbourne to Santiago, a route planned as about 6200NM. The aircraft is about halfway and estimates completing the journey with a flight time also of 12 hours, giving an average ground speed of 520 kts.
Taking the average of the westbound and eastbound flights, 480 kts, would suggest an westerly wind component of 40 kts acting as a headwind hampering LAN801 and assisting LAN804. Wikipedia lists the cruising speed of a Dreamliner as 488 to 516 kts.
As the captains of both aircraft would not have departed unless they were sure of the distance and fuel needed, I would suggest that calculating the distance from South America to Australasia has been calculated in considerably less than "20 to 30 years", and that the windspeeds are well understood.
-
"... faster winds in the south ....". Ah yes, we've been here before.
There was a link there: https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis
I am asking you guys to address the topics in the link, rather than just read and ignore it and pretend that nothing was posted.
Amongst others at the moment, (now, 0912UTC on 2 May 2024) LAN-Chile has 2 Boeing 787 Dreamliners airborne over the South Pacific.
Reg CC-BGG is operating as LAN801 from Santiago to Auckland, a route planned as about 5300NM. The aircraft is just under halfway and estimates completing the journey with a flight time of 12 hours, giving an average ground speed of 440 kts.
Its sister ship, CC-BGH is operating as LAN804 from Melbourne to Santiago, a route planned as about 6200NM. The aircraft is about halfway and estimates completing the journey with a flight time also of 12 hours, giving an average ground speed of 520 kts.
Taking the average of the westbound and eastbound flights, 480 kts, would suggest an westerly wind component of 40 kts acting as a headwind hampering LAN801 and assisting LAN804. Wikipedia lists the cruising speed of a Dreamliner as 488 to 516 kts.
As the captains of both aircraft would not have departed unless they were sure of the distance and fuel needed, I would suggest that calculating the distance from South America to Australasia has been calculated in considerably less than "20 to 30 years", and that the windspeeds are well understood.
Those numbers are around the plane's cruise speed. But the plane should not be traveling at a speed around its cruising speed, since we know that on long haul flights planes across the oceans planes use jet streams to reach their location. It would be traveling the plane's cruising speed + jet stream.
Jetstreams even enable supersonic flight (https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis#Jetstreams_Enable_Routine_Supersonic_Flight) for commercial aircraft.
On the flight trackers there have been some interesting anomalies. Jeran shows at the 1h32m mark of the following video about the flight between Auckland and Santiago that True Airspeed can be seen to far exceed ground speed. Over the course of the flight the True Airspeed is either "N/A" or shows quite fast speeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKHY72x3ZU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKHY72x3ZU)
Screen shot:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/6/61/Jeranism-Auckland-Santiago.png/1600px-Jeranism-Auckland-Santiago.png)
-
The answer to this question is entirely dependent on the purpose for which it was asked.
No one navigates utilizing a map of the entire earth.
Waypoints utilized for navigation by seafarers and aviators have been transcribed to the flat earth plane utilizing overhead coordinates of matching guiding light points from the celestial sphere above our heads.
-
Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship.
Did it, though? He spends some time in ENaG claiming that things like ladies dresses disappear bottom first on a flat path, which they don't. And then he claims that ships which have gone over the horizon can be "restored", which they can't.
Lady Blount's society collected the professional surveyor and railway proofs.
Did they? Well where are those then? I looked her up and found something about some photo they took. It's here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth,_Lady_Blount#/media/File:Blount-photo-bedford-level.jpg
What the hell is that supposed to be?!
EA and UA are admittedly pretty good explanations for certain observations BUT they are just that.
The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times. So EA is used as an explanation. It's not a bad one, but it's at best a hypothesis that "light bends upwards", and the formula shown in the Wiki has no derivation and an unknown constant.
The model mainstream physics has of gravity can't work on a FE so UA is used as an explanation. Again, not a bad one but it doesn't explain variations of gravity so those have to be hand-waved away.
This is an issue with your way of enquiring. You form a theory which explains observation rather than forming a hypothesis and then making observations which test that hypothesis - which then becomes a theory as observations build confidence. I know this is deliberate, and working the other way around could lead to the same conclusions. The issue though is when observations are presented which show your theory to be wrong you just claim they're wrong/flawed/fake. That's not a way to make progress.
If you ask me what is happening on earth thousands of miles away, there will be less research there. The total world model is a topic for the next generation of FE to figure out.
Is it, though? There are flat earthers all around the...disc, right? And we have instant communications now.
There are surely ways you can do large scale experiments reasonably cheaply. I'm sure you could club together and get a ticket for a Santiago to Sydney plane ticket, a FE person on that flight could gather a load of data which would help you advance things.
Are you now leaning towards the bi-polar model? That does solve some issues - like how there are jobs in Antarctica, sailing races around it and so on. But I'm not sure how the 24 hour sun works in the Arctic and Antarctic AND the other observed patterns of light and motion of the sun would work. It solves some problems which the monopole model has in the southern hemisphere, but it seems to create some equally big ones.
-
The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times.
Do you have evidence to back up this outright lie?
Why do you persist in repeatedly writing this outright lie on this forum?
-
The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times.
Do you have evidence to back up this outright lie?
Yes. The evidence is that if the sun is a few thousand miles above a flat earth then you would have a clear line of sight to it at all time. What would stop you seeing it? It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.
All that is in the context of the mainstream physics. You may have other mechanisms to explain this - EA, some magnification effect and I'm not sure about the luminosity one - the sun does admittedly change at sunset, but not during most of the day as it surely would if the sun was at a significantly different distance.
As I said, EA is a reasonable explanation. It's better than "perspective" which makes no sense at all. But it is at best a hypothesis, not a well formed theory.
-
The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times.
Do you have evidence to back up this outright lie?
Yes. The evidence is that if the sun is a few thousand miles above a flat earth then you would have a clear line of sight to it at all time.
A statement made by some random contributor to this forum does not constitute evidence.
You should be able to model it on scale to back up your claim.
What would stop you seeing it?
Lots of things...distance for one, physical aspects of the aether for two, occluding objects for three...I could go on.
It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.
Just another baseless statement based on your inability to envision alternate and, certainly possible, modes of operation.
All that is in the context of the mainstream physics. You may have other mechanisms to explain this - EA, some magnification effect and I'm not sure about the luminosity one - the sun does admittedly change at sunset, but not during most of the day as it surely would if the sun was at a significantly different distance.
As I said, EA is a reasonable explanation. It's better than "perspective" which makes no sense at all. But it is at best a hypothesis, not a well formed theory.
"Mainstream physics"...joyfully uttered by most typical RE-zealots who visit this forum, as if they have any sort of grasp as to meaning.
You, of all contributors here, have the least amount of standing (based on the evidence of your posting history), to even include such a term in any of your posts.
-
Those numbers are around the plane's cruise speed. But the plane should not be traveling at a speed around its cruising speed, since we know that on long haul flights planes across the oceans planes use jet streams to reach their location. It would be traveling the plane's cruising speed + jet stream.
Jetstreams even enable supersonic flight (https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis#Jetstreams_Enable_Routine_Supersonic_Flight) for commercial aircraft.
On the flight trackers there have been some interesting anomalies. Jeran shows at the 1h32m mark of the following video about the flight between Auckland and Santiago that True Airspeed can be seen to far exceed ground speed. Over the course of the flight the True Airspeed is either "N/A" or shows quite fast speeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKHY72x3ZU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKHY72x3ZU)
A jetstream is just a wind, and I accounted for it in my calculation. A look at any jetstream map will show that they are predominently westerly in the southern hemisphere, which corresponds with my previous statement and, if it is assisting the eastbound flight will it not be hindering the westbound which is occuring simultaneously and at similar latitudes?
We've also done Jeran's thing before. Simultaneous to the "supersonic" speeds is a series of altitude changes which an F-16 would struggle with. Its just a batch of missing data on aircraft position; when it recovers the position data it integrates the delta-position over time to determine speed.
-
Those numbers are around the plane's cruise speed. But the plane should not be traveling at a speed around its cruising speed, since we know that on long haul flights planes across the oceans planes use jet streams to reach their location. It would be traveling the plane's cruising speed + jet stream.
Jetstreams even enable supersonic flight (https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis#Jetstreams_Enable_Routine_Supersonic_Flight) for commercial aircraft.
On the flight trackers there have been some interesting anomalies. Jeran shows at the 1h32m mark of the following video about the flight between Auckland and Santiago that True Airspeed can be seen to far exceed ground speed. Over the course of the flight the True Airspeed is either "N/A" or shows quite fast speeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKHY72x3ZU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKKHY72x3ZU)
A jetstream is just a wind, and I accounted for it in my calculation. A look at any jetstream map will show that they are predominently westerly in the southern hemisphere, which corresponds with my previous statement and, if it is assisting the eastbound flight will it not be hindering the westbound which is occuring simultaneously and at similar latitudes?
We've also done Jeran's thing before. Simultaneous to the "supersonic" speeds is a series of altitude changes which an F-16 would struggle with. Its just a batch of missing data on aircraft position; when it recovers the position data it integrates the delta-position over time to determine speed.
How did you account for it? Can you show the calculation?
-
I showed you the calculation at Reply#2. Average the groundspeeds of 2 aircraft flying in opposite directions at a similar airspeed in a similar airspace; for each aircraft the difference from the average is the headwind/tailwind speed component.
-
You should be able to model it on scale to back up your claim.
I could draw you a diagram I guess, but you can surely imagine this yourself. If an object is above a flat plane the all points on that plane are looking up at that object at an angle so have line of sight to it. Walk around a room illuminated by a lightbulb on the ceiling. Where in the room can you not see the lightbulb? Obviously in real life there will be things occluding the sun at times, which I'll come on to.
Lots of things...distance for one, physical aspects of the aether for two, occluding objects for three
Taking those one by one
Distance - when you can't see things because they're too far away they don't just go from "you can see them" to "you can't". They get smaller and smaller until you can't see them any more. Or if the issue isn't angular size but visibility then they gradually fade out, like someone walking away from you on a foggy day. That isn't what we observe at sunset. The disc of the sun is dimmer because of the angle, but it doesn't just slowly fade out. It disappears behind the horizon. In all other experiences of something disappearing like that it's because it's going behind something. So no, us not being able to see the sun because of distance does not match what we observe.
Physical aspects of the aether - you're going to have to explain what that means. What aspects of the aether?
Occluding objects - Obviously the sun is occluded all the time, at the moment I can't see it because it's cloudy. And when the sun is low in the sky then you might not be able to see it because of nearby hills or buildings or whatever. But it doesn't go dark. The sunglight is still hitting the atmosphere and scattering and illuminating the ground. What is stopping that happening on a FE? I've explained why distance and visbility aren't the issues.
It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.
Just another baseless statement based on your inability to envision alternate and, certainly possible, modes of operation.
It's "baseless" to state that objects get smaller in angular size as the distance between you and the object increases? ???
-
You should be able to model it on scale to back up your claim.
I could draw you a diagram I guess, but you can surely imagine this yourself. If an object is above a flat plane the all points on that plane are looking up at that object at an angle so have line of sight to it. Walk around a room illuminated by a lightbulb on the ceiling. Where in the room can you not see the lightbulb? Obviously in real life there will be things occluding the sun at times, which I'll come on to.
With the sun circling above, along with the celestial sphere, why would you not expect it to disappear from the view of persons in varying locations.
Lots of things...distance for one, physical aspects of the aether for two, occluding objects for three
Taking those one by one
Distance - when you can't see things because they're too far away they don't just go from "you can see them" to "you can't". They get smaller and smaller until you can't see them any more. Or if the issue isn't angular size but visibility then they gradually fade out, like someone walking away from you on a foggy day. That isn't what we observe at sunset. The disc of the sun is dimmer because of the angle, but it doesn't just slowly fade out. It disappears behind the horizon. In all other experiences of something disappearing like that it's because it's going behind something. So no, us not being able to see the sun because of distance does not match what we observe.
I addressed this fallacious response above.
Physical aspects of the aether - you're going to have to explain what that means. What aspects of the aether?
Aspects that would cause the light of the sun to be visible in some locations and not to be visible in others.
Occluding objects - Obviously the sun is occluded all the time, at the moment I can't see it because it's cloudy. And when the sun is low in the sky then you might not be able to see it because of nearby hills or buildings or whatever. But it doesn't go dark. The sunglight is still hitting the atmosphere and scattering and illuminating the ground. What is stopping that happening on a FE? I've explained why distance and visbility aren't the issues.
Addressed above.
It's "baseless" to state that objects get smaller in angular size as the distance between you and the object increases? ???
Will you make up your own mind here for the benefit of the readership, please?
Why on earth would you claim the luminosity of the sun does not change throughout the day? Of course, it does.
Why on earth does the angular size of the sun actually appear larger to the naked eye at dawn and dusk? Of course, it does.
Just some of the possible effects of the aether.
-
With the sun circling above, along with the celestial sphere, why would you not expect it to disappear from the view of persons in varying locations.
Because the sun remains above the plane of the earth at all times.
In ancient flat earth models the sun went up and over the earth in the day and underneath at night. Day was day everywhere, night was night everywhere. They didn't know that when it's day in the UK it's night in Australia. With a sun which is always above a flat earth it should illuminate the whole of the disc. Unless there's some reason it can only be seen for a certain distance, which is plausible, but then you'd get the sun slowly fade in and out as the distance to it decreased or increased. That isn't what we observe.
Aspects that would cause the light of the sun to be visible in some locations and not to be visible in others.
That's just a bunch of words. Give some details. You can't just reject the notion that the sun sets because we live on a rotating globe and then replace that with something vague about "aspects of the aether" with no details about what you mean by that.
Why on earth would you claim the luminosity of the sun does not change throughout the day? Of course, it does
During sunrise and sunset the light scatters through more of the atmosphere so yes, that does affect the luminosity, but not in a way consistent with your theory of a sun rotating above us. That would mean the distance to the sun constantly changing and that would surely affect the luminosity. Again, if visibility is the reason we can't see the sun at night then it would fade out, not set.
Why on earth does the angular size of the sun actually appear larger to the naked eye at dawn and dusk? Of course, it does.
I've bolded the word appear. Yes, there is a known optical illusion which makes this happen, in reality it's not actually bigger. And if that were true then that's the exact opposite of what you'd expect on a FE where the sun is at a significantly greater distance from you at sunset than at midday. That would make it appear smaller at sunrise and sunset. Again, I don't feel I need to provide any evidence for the assertion that things get smaller as they get further away from you.
-
With the sun circling above, along with the celestial sphere, why would you not expect it to disappear from the view of persons in varying locations.
Because the sun remains above the plane of the earth at all times.
In ancient flat earth models the sun went up and over the earth in the day and underneath at night. Day was day everywhere, night was night everywhere. They didn't know that when it's day in the UK it's night in Australia. With a sun which is always above a flat earth it should illuminate the whole of the disc. Unless there's some reason it can only be seen for a certain distance, which is plausible, but then you'd get the sun slowly fade in and out as the distance to it decreased or increased. That isn't what we observe.
That is exactly what is observed. Show an "ancient flat earth model" where it was day everywhere and night everywhere.
Aspects that would cause the light of the sun to be visible in some locations and not to be visible in others.
That's just a bunch of words. Give some details. You can't just reject the notion that the sun sets because we live on a rotating globe and then replace that with something vague about "aspects of the aether" with no details about what you mean by that.
One possibility is a condition similar to that of a veil.
Why on earth would you claim the luminosity of the sun does not change throughout the day? Of course, it does
During sunrise and sunset the light scatters through more of the atmosphere so yes, that does affect the luminosity, but not in a way consistent with your theory of a sun rotating above us. That would mean the distance to the sun constantly changing and that would surely affect the luminosity. Again, if visibility is the reason we can't see the sun at night then it would fade out, not set.
Addressed above.
I've bolded the word appear. Yes, there is a known optical illusion which makes this happen, in reality it's not actually bigger. And if that were true then that's the exact opposite of what you'd expect on a FE where the sun is at a significantly greater distance from you at sunset than at midday. That would make it appear smaller at sunrise and sunset. Again, I don't feel I need to provide any evidence for the assertion that things get smaller as they get further away from you.
Reflective properties (similar to a funhouse mirror) of a dome could account for what we see.
-
Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship.
Did it, though? He spends some time in ENaG claiming that things like ladies dresses disappear bottom first on a flat path, which they don't. And then he claims that ships which have gone over the horizon can be "restored", which they can't.
All of this is true of this effect though, and you have even admitted that the effect exists before in past conversations. See this past admission from 2022 from you:
But in any case, your "experiment" simply demonstrates the part I already wrote in bold above. The very thin hull in your picture will become hard to resolve at a certain distance. And yes, in that case optical magnification could "restore" it. But the reason it can be "restored" is that it isn't hidden in the first place. It isn't behind anything, it just becomes difficult to discern at a certain distance.
Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.
The experiment we discussed in that thread is still available for you to perform here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/69/Sinking_Optical-Resolution.png)
Lady Blount's society collected the professional surveyor and railway proofs.
Did they? Well where are those then? I looked her up and found something about some photo they took. It's here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth,_Lady_Blount#/media/File:Blount-photo-bedford-level.jpg
What the hell is that supposed to be?!
The railroad references are here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Railroads
Yes, Lady Bount also verified Rowbotham's water convexity experiments with the then-new technology of long distance photography.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment
The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic faith hired a photographer, Mr Clifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."
—The Zetetic Website
Near the surface of the water, for at least the span of six miles, the light created a path which contradicted Round Earth Theory.
EA and UA are admittedly pretty good explanations for certain observations BUT they are just that.
A hypothesis typically does not have supporting evidence. However, the pages show that there is supporting evidence for celestial-scale, and possibly celestial-specific, bending of light.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c4/Moon_Tilt_Diagram.png)
This is an issue with your way of enquiring. You form a theory which explains observation rather than forming a hypothesis and then making observations which test that hypothesis - which then becomes a theory as observations build confidence. I know this is deliberate, and working the other way around could lead to the same conclusions. The issue though is when observations are presented which show your theory to be wrong you just claim they're wrong/flawed/fake. That's not a way to make progress.
Incorrect. There are observations to test the EA hypothesis of large celestial-scale bending.
If you ask me what is happening on earth thousands of miles away, there will be less research there. The total world model is a topic for the next generation of FE to figure out.
Is it, though? There are flat earthers all around the...disc, right? And we have instant communications now.
There are surely ways you can do large scale experiments reasonably cheaply. I'm sure you could club together and get a ticket for a Santiago to Sydney plane ticket, a FE person on that flight could gather a load of data which would help you advance things.
People sitting in a plane have a difficult time telling how much the winds and the jet stream are adding to the journey. Planes have a hard time determining their true speeds because they are propelling themselves in pockets of fluids which itself is traveling through larger scales of fluids. Wind-intake odometers for planes are notoriously inaccurate. Comparing yourself to Lat/Lon coordinates would also change your speed depending if you are assuming an RE or and FE which has different spacing between the coordinate points. There needs to be an independent method of speed determination.
-
A jetstream is just a wind, and I accounted for it in my calculation. A look at any jetstream map will show that they are predominently westerly in the southern hemisphere, which corresponds with my previous statement and, if it is assisting the eastbound flight will it not be hindering the westbound which is occuring simultaneously and at similar latitudes?
We've also done Jeran's thing before. Simultaneous to the "supersonic" speeds is a series of altitude changes which an F-16 would struggle with. Its just a batch of missing data on aircraft position; when it recovers the position data it integrates the delta-position over time to determine speed.
The speeds you provided for the Southern Hemisphere flights were too low. You stated "40 kts acting as a headwind hampering LAN801 and assisting LAN804". Jet streams are far faster, and we know that long haul flights take advantage of the Jet Stream.
https://skybrary.aero/articles/jet-stream
"To be considered a Jet Stream, the accepted minimum speed limit is 60 knots. The speed of the Jet Stream is typically 100 kts (nautical miles per hour) but can reach 200 kts over North America and Europe in the winter. Speeds of 300 kts are not unheard of, particularly over south-east Asia."
Commercial flights would fly at the the plane's cruising speed + the Jet Stream speed. See this article from a Northern Hemisphere event over the Atlantic Ocean:
https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/jet-stream-flights-speed-of-sound/index.html
'In February 2019, a Virgin Atlantic plane flew at 801mph from Los Angeles to London, reaching its top speed over Pennsylvania thanks to a 200mph jet stream – although it slowed down to a mere 710mph once it hit the ocean. The aircraft – a Boeing 787 Dreamliner – usually has a cruising speed of around 560mph. Virgin founder Richard Branson described it as flying “faster than any other commercial non-supersonic plane in history.”'
-
You're talking about the jetstreams as being a constant phenomenon. They aren't, they are variable, in location, direction and velocity. Like I said, its just a wind. If its above 60 kts, as you say, they term it a jetstream, but its still just a wind.
And you are absolutely correct that favourable jetstreams (like other winds) are exploited for the purpose of speed and economy, but if the jetstream is absent, or unfavourable, the flights still occur. Just look at the post-Covid-resurrected Qantas/LAN services between Chile and Australasia; they take place on schedule every time, eastbound and westbound. They can't be that anomalous can they?
Now try Googling Air France flight AF174 on 8 May. (Or here's a link);
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/af174?utm_campaign=website&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sendgrid.com#351eba3d
Airbus A350 F-HUVC departed Paris CDG as AF174 for Mexico City but developed a problem over Newfoundland and returned to CDG. Flight tracking data shows that the return leg was performed almost completely along the same route and at a similar altitude as the outbound leg. Pretty dumb with a 300mph wind wasn't it, or maybe the airline actually knew the windspeed?
-
You're talking about the jetstreams as being a constant phenomenon.
Correct. The jetstreams are present year-round.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a9181/how-the-dual-jet-stream-sparks-this-weird-summer-weather-15634917/
"The jet stream is a year-round feature of our atmosphere, but the double jet stream phenomenon is more common in winter."
https://www.rmets.org/metmatters/jet-stream-weakening
"In the UK, we feel the influence of the polar jet stream (which is also sometimes called the ‘mid-latitude’ or the ‘eddy-driven’ jet stream), which forms due to the difference in the temperatures between the pole and equator. On its northern side lies colder air, and on its southern side warmer air – so its position is important for what type of weather we experience in the UK. It waxes and wanes with the seasons, being strongest in winter, but is a year-round phenomenon."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
"The northern hemisphere polar jet flows over the middle to northern latitudes of North America, Europe, and Asia and their intervening oceans, while the southern hemisphere polar jet mostly circles Antarctica, both all year round."
They aren't, they are variable, in location, direction and velocity. Like I said, its just a wind. If its above 60 kts, as you say, they term it a jetstream, but its still just a wind.
And you are absolutely correct that favourable jetstreams (like other winds) are exploited for the purpose of speed and economy, but if the jetstream is absent, or unfavourable, the flights still occur.
They don't. Flights are canceled all the time, especially long haul flights. See this quote by travel writer Maggie Teneva: (https://web.archive.org/web/20200612203343/https://skyrefund.com/en/blog/fun-things-to-do-on-a-plane)
“Long-haul flights are often associated with long layovers and delays or cancellations.”
If there are unexpected changes to the jet stream or winds mid-flight, a non-stop flight might even stop for fuel: (https://web.archive.org/web/20161026015807/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203436904577152974098241982Nonstop)
“ Dozens of Continental Airlines flights to the East Coast from Europe have been forced to make unexpected stops in Canada and elsewhere to take on fuel after running into unusually strong headwinds over the Atlantic Ocean.
The stops, which have caused delays and inconvenience for thousands of passengers in recent weeks, are partly the result of a decision by United Continental Holdings Inc., the world's largest airline, to use smaller jets on a growing number of long, trans-Atlantic routes. ”
Per ETOPS, plane flight routes are required to be in vicinity of airports or landing strips for unexpected stops like that. Even long haul flights over oceans need the capability to make detour routes to islands with landing strips in case something like the above happens. The US Military is even known to maintain landing strips on certain uninhabited islands in remote locations for ETOPS purposes.
Just look at the post-Covid-resurrected Qantas/LAN services between Chile and Australasia; they take place on schedule every time, eastbound and westbound. They can't be that anomalous can they?
Now try Googling Air France flight AF174 on 8 May. (Or here's a link);
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/af174?utm_campaign=website&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sendgrid.com#351eba3d
Airbus A350 F-HUVC departed Paris CDG as AF174 for Mexico City but developed a problem over Newfoundland and returned to CDG. Flight tracking data shows that the return leg was performed almost completely along the same route and at a similar altitude as the outbound leg. Pretty dumb with a 300mph wind wasn't it, or maybe the airline actually knew the windspeed?
The Jet Stream can change in nature within hours. This is why those non-stop flights stopped for fuel in the previous quote I gave. Those planes didn't take off knowing that the winds would be unfavorable. Planes have a network which tracks the Jet Stream to follow the best path in real time. If that was the path it took, then it is simply because the flight logistics people determined that it was the best path at that specific time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_stream
"Jet streams may start, stop, split into two or more parts, combine into one stream, or flow in various directions including opposite to the direction of the remainder of the jet."
In this case, the jet stream probably just moved out of the way and the plane had enough fuel in its wings to take a long trip back, or there was a favorable path at a lower altitude.
Most typically, the planes take different routes on the return trip:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/29729/why-are-westbound-transatlantic-routes-located-hundreds-of-km-away-from-eastboun
Why are westbound transatlantic routes located hundreds of km away from eastbound routes?
Looking at flights between NY and London (click to see route):
BA 185 (https://i.stack.imgur.com/L2g7A.png) (EGLL - KEWR)
United 941 (https://i.stack.imgur.com/p4Awa.png) (EGLL - KEWR)
United 16 (https://i.stack.imgur.com/EEh3S.png) (KEWR - EGLL)
The FlightAware anticipated routes are quite similar in both directions, but the actual routes for past flights are really remote from each other:
(https://i.imgur.com/wsYL3XY.png)
The two westbound routes are either 800 km north or 1,000 km south of the eastbound route (the dotted line shows the shortest path).
Why are the two westbound routes different and so remote from each other? Why this difference of about 1,800 km?
Why BA 185 route seems to be composed of two arcs?
Did the pilots changed their mind in flight because of the jet streams? Is it related to ETOPS constraints, or alternate airport at Santa Maria? or something else?
-
Why are westbound transatlantic routes located hundreds of km away from eastbound routes?
I would say it is a good thing the routes are spaced so far apart.
I can remember traveling to Mexico City at 14 and the captain came over the radio, informing the passengers to look out the port windows to see another jet passing in the opposite direction. It is rather strange and frightening to see another jet pass by so closely at 35k ft.
-
They don't. Flights are canceled all the time, especially long haul flights. See this quote by travel writer Maggie Teneva: (https://web.archive.org/web/20200612203343/https://skyrefund.com/en/blog/fun-things-to-do-on-a-plane)
“Long-haul flights are often associated with long layovers and delays or cancellations.”
If there are unexpected changes to the jet stream or winds mid-flight, a non-stop flight might even stop for fuel: (https://web.archive.org/web/20161026015807/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203436904577152974098241982Nonstop)
“ Dozens of Continental Airlines flights to the East Coast from Europe have been forced to make unexpected stops in Canada and elsewhere to take on fuel after running into unusually strong headwinds over the Atlantic Ocean.
The stops, which have caused delays and inconvenience for thousands of passengers in recent weeks, are partly the result of a decision by United Continental Holdings Inc., the world's largest airline, to use smaller jets on a growing number of long, trans-Atlantic routes. ”
Per ETOPS, plane flight routes are required to be in vicinity of airports or landing strips for unexpected stops like that. Even long haul flights over oceans need the capability to make detour routes to islands with landing strips in case something like the above happens. The US Military is even known to maintain landing strips on certain uninhabited islands in remote locations for ETOPS purposes.
The quote from Maggie teneva (who she?) is simply a throwaway line at the end of an article about entertaining your kids on longhaul.
The "stopping for fuel" link doesn't go anywhere.
The Continental Airlines example is undated, has no reference, and (if true) sounds like poor planning by the airline in not using aircraft with apprpriate capacity/range.
ETOPS is not a restriction; it is a relaxation of previously existing routes that require aircraft to route within 1-hour flying time of a suitable diversion airfield. In the case of the Airbus A350, this can now be extended to 5hrs 30min at single engine cruise speed (frightening but true), meaning that only Antarctica is off limits (unless, of course, one of the ice-runways is the destination).
The USAF, being outwith ICAO regulations, is not limited by ETOPS. The United States maintains "landing strips on certain uninhabited islands in remote locations" for military operational, security and diplomatic purposes.
Aircraft often divert from route for reasons of security, medical or technical emergency, but beyond the apocryphal stements you have made, I challenge you to identify a single recent occurance made purely for a splash and dash. Any commercial aircraft diverting from its planned route purely for a fuel stop would find its captain and dispatcher having a series of one-way conversations with management.
And yes, jetstreams are a perpetual phenomenon, but no they are not alway at the extreme stengthsyou suggest, and almost without excdeption are a west-to-east direction. Apart from local eddies there is absolutely no, general, assistance, anywhere on Earth, to westbound travel.
Your statement "Flights are canceled all the time, especially long haul flights" is simply untrue. For example, I've just looked at data on FR24 for LATAM's Santiago-Melbourne service LA804/805; run with a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The service operates 3 times a week in each direction and between 15 Feb and today, 12 weeks, 36 planned return trips; one cancellation. And the flight times:
Santiago-Melbourne; quickest 12.55 (16 Feb), longest 14.45 (1 March).
Melbourne-Santiago; quickest 11.38 (12 March), longest 12.35 (23 March).
Action80; You haven't said when your flight was, or whether it was over land or sea, but its not unusual. Over land there is normally good radar coverage and separation is normally monitered by ATC controllers. Oceanic; aircraft are cleared to fly a route between specific waypoints, but the principal separation is made by altitude. Separation used to be 1000feet but for the last 20 years or so this was reduced to just 500feet, with a strict regime of altimeter-inspections and aircrew compliance. At about a mile, a 500foot difference would probably be indistinguishable.
-
The quote from Maggie teneva (who she?) is simply a throwaway line at the end of an article about entertaining your kids on longhaul.
Are you claiming that she is joking? She is clearly not, even if the article is about childcare on an airplane. It is not a satire article. She is known as a travel writer. penncapital-star.com (https://penncapital-star.com/commentary/as-the-pandemic-loosens-its-grip-its-time-to-reengage-with-the-world-lloyd-e-sheaffer/) -- "Travel writer Maggie Teneva posits these and other benefits derived from exploring the world outside our own cocoons"
The "stopping for fuel" link doesn't go anywhere.
Did you try googling the text?
I got results for the page and was able to put it into web archive to see the content: https://web.archive.org/web/20120114084248/http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203436904577152974098241982.html
The Continental Airlines example is undated, has no reference, and (if true) sounds like poor planning by the airline in not using aircraft with apprpriate capacity/range.
Well yes, that's what the article says. The planes were traveling a distance within the distance of the Boeing 757's 4100 miles range. The planes were within their range, but still ran out of fuel. This proves that the flights as they are claimed to exist are dependent on a balance of physical phenomena.
Here is a related graphic:
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/TcLOh.jpg)
ETOPS is not a restriction; it is a relaxation of previously existing routes that require aircraft to route within 1-hour flying time of a suitable diversion airfield. In the case of the Airbus A350, this can now be extended to 5hrs 30min at single engine cruise speed (frightening but true), meaning that only Antarctica is off limits (unless, of course, one of the ice-runways is the destination).
The USAF, being outwith ICAO regulations, is not limited by ETOPS. The United States maintains "landing strips on certain uninhabited islands in remote locations" for military operational, security and diplomatic purposes.
Aircraft often divert from route for reasons of security, medical or technical emergency, but beyond the apocryphal stements you have made, I challenge you to identify a single recent occurance made purely for a splash and dash. Any commercial aircraft diverting from its planned route purely for a fuel stop would find its captain and dispatcher having a series of one-way conversations with management.
Planes also make ETOPS stops when they run out of fuel due to winds. According to the above graphic, there were 14 Continental trans-Atlantic non-stops stopping for fuel between Jan 1 to Jan 8, 2012. They took off and thought they had enough fuel according to weather radar, but were mistaken on how the wind conditions would change.
And yes, jetstreams are a perpetual phenomenon, but no they are not alway at the extreme stengthsyou suggest, and almost without excdeption are a west-to-east direction. Apart from local eddies there is absolutely no, general, assistance, anywhere on Earth, to westbound travel.
Incorrect. Maps of the Trade-winds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_winds) show that winds can travel in both Easterly and Westerly directions in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/1/18/Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png)
Your statement "Flights are canceled all the time, especially long haul flights" is simply untrue. For example, I've just looked at data on FR24 for LATAM's Santiago-Melbourne service LA804/805; run with a Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The service operates 3 times a week in each direction and between 15 Feb and today, 12 weeks, 36 planned return trips; one cancellation.
This is covered on the https://wiki.tfes.org/Issues_in_Flight_Analysis page
Terminology
Airliners call a cancelled flight "rescheduled": (https://web.archive.org/web/20200612203711/https://www.flightcentre.ca/flights/bangkok-from-vancouver)
“ How often are flights cancelled/diverted?
Not often. Flights are more often rescheduled than cancelled or diverted. In the event that a flight is cancelled whether under the airline's control or caused by a severe weather or air traffic disruptions, many airlines will rebook your flight or cancel your remaining flight(s). ”
Removed
Oh Great: United Airlines Redefines “Cancelled” (https://web.archive.org/web/20210218200201/https://onemileatatime.com/united-airlines-cancelled-flight/) - Suggests that cancelled flights are alternatively called "removed" to improve cancellation stats.
-
Tom,
Maggie Teneva. I think you misunderstand; I wasn't implying satire or humour with regard to Maggie, I was just making the point that the article was about making air-journeys more enjoyable, and its relevance to flight cancellations was a single line in the summary implying that cancellations were frequent, but without any evidence or analysis.
Continental Airlines. The article is 12 years old, and refers to Boeing 757s. Almost no-one uses 757s for transatlantic travel these days and, unless I am missing your point, it confirms my assertion that jetstreams impede, rather than assist, westbound travel.
"ETOPS stops". There is no such thing. ETOPS refers purely to the aircraft's range from a suitable diversion airport at cruising speed on a single engine.
East-to-west winds. You earlier drew a distinction between "jetstreams" and "winds"; I am throwing it back at you. Your graphic, and the Wikipedia article from which it is drawn, is about wind; specifically trade-winds. The whole point of trade winds is that they assist sailing ships, which generally operate at sea level. They are part of a Hadley Cell, in which the high altitude component flows away from the equator and the low altitude element towards the equator, forming the trade wind. I reiterate that jetstreams are almost exclusively a west-to-east phenomenon.
Cancelled/rescheduled flights. I would refer you again to the LATAM Santiago/Melbourne service as an example. Three months of scheduled flights, 3 times per week, only one flight cancelled. Of the remainder, every flight left Santiago on the day planned, most within an hour of the scheduled departure time. Not replanned. Not rescheduled. Not removed.
-
All of this is true of this effect though, and you have even admitted that the effect exists before in past conversations. See this past admission from 2022 from you
What "effect"? That things get smaller as they move away from you until you can't see them? ???
I'm not sure that's something that needs to be "admitted". Obviously that's true, it's just nothing to do with the sinking ship effect.
In the conversation around the post you quoted I demonstrated that by showing how the "hull" of a ship I drew disappeared from across the room even when it was at the top. Angular side can, of course, make objects not visible. And with optical zoom they can be restored. No-one disputes that. But when an object is properly occluded by the horizon you can zoom in and you only see the top of the object, the rest is hidden by something, it's not just too small to see.
Rowbotham claimed that things disappear bottom first on a flat plane - like a path. They don't.
Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.
I wasn't wrong, I never denied that things can be too small to see. But that's true whether the thing is at the bottom of an object or the top. Your experiment is the same as the one I posted the results of in the thread you quoted. The hull disappears if it's at the top of the boat. Nothing to do with the sinking ship. Your claim that "Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship" is simply untrue.
The railroad references are here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Railroads
That's just a box set of people not understanding that "level" is defined with respect to your up/down direction. A spirit level shows when something is level. If you were at a different location on earth then the spirit level would be in a different orientation but still show level as horizontal to the local up/down direction. There's also a sprinkling of not understanding that elevation above sea level is also with respect to your orientation. I'm not sure if the curve of the earth is really a factor in the construction of railway as rails are laid in such small sections. The curve of the earth is absolutely a factor in larger scale engineering projects. It's explicitly mentioned on the LIGO web page:
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts
Yes, Lady Bount also verified Rowbotham's water convexity experiments with the then-new technology of long distance photography. Near the surface of the water, for at least the span of six miles, the light created a path which contradicted Round Earth Theory.
Amazing. Can we see the proof then? Then we can put all this globe earth nonsense to bed. Because I found one picture and it was some grainy mess in which I couldn't really make out anything. Please tell me there's something better? Or the results of the Bishop experiment would do. If you can see the beach all the way down to the shoreline from 23 miles away and a viewer height of 20 inches then I'm sold. Could you present the evidence you gathered?
A hypothesis typically does not have supporting evidence. However, the pages show that there is supporting evidence for celestial-scale, and possibly celestial-specific, bending of light
No-one disputes that light bends. There's refraction of course, light bends in relativistic ways. But EA states that light bends "upwards".
But in the moon tilt illusion you show the light bending downwards.
The test of a good theory is its ability to make predictions which can then be verified experimentally. How can you make specific predictions using EA when you have no working FE map and the equation governing EA is one Parsifal made up, shows no derivation and contains an unknown constant ???
People sitting in a plane have a difficult time telling how much the winds and the jet stream are adding to the journey.
OK, but you could plot your expected flight path on a FE map and check that against observations. Basic stuff like are you flying over land or sea. If land are there any identifiable landmarks.
Planes have a hard time determining their true speeds because they are propelling themselves in pockets of fluids which itself is traveling through larger scales of fluids.
They absolutely don't have a hard time doing that. Go on any long haul flight and you can put the flight map on the screen showing exactly where you are, how fast you're going and when you'll arrive. You can cross reference that against observations to determine whether the data it's showing is accurate. I was flying back from Cairo recently, I did this for a bit. The map said we were flying over some mountains. I looked out the window and there they were. The idea that this is all possible without planes knowing where they are at all times and therefore how fast they're going is ludicrous.
-
They absolutely don't have a hard time doing that. Go on any long haul flight and you can put the flight map on the screen showing exactly where you are, how fast you're going and when you'll arrive. You can cross reference that against observations to determine whether the data it's showing is accurate. I was flying back from Cairo recently, I did this for a bit. The map said we were flying over some mountains. I looked out the window and there they were. The idea that this is all possible without planes knowing where they are at all times and therefore how fast they're going is ludicrous.
So, you have one sole instance to offer as a counter and it happens to be in a place you would have been able to visually detect a referenced landmark perhaps matching the flight map.
How in the world would this translate to a transoceanic flight having little if any similarity to the flight you cite?
Tom,
Cancelled/rescheduled flights. I would refer you again to the LATAM Santiago/Melbourne service as an example. Three months of scheduled flights, 3 times per week, only one flight cancelled. Of the remainder, every flight left Santiago on the day planned, most within an hour of the scheduled departure time. Not replanned. Not rescheduled. Not removed.
One instance as a counter to the multitudes described by Tom? I think it is hilarious the airlines chose to redefine the terminology. Got to maintain the veil.
-
A80; I think you'll find 35 on-schedule return flights is 70 instances. Why, what have you got?
(And, as you apparently failed to notice, Tom just (once again) reiterated previous apocrypha without actually referencing any single jetsteam-related cancellation).
-
So, you have one sole instance to offer as a counter and it happens to be in a place you would have been able to visually detect a referenced landmark perhaps matching the flight map.
How in the world would this translate to a transoceanic flight having little if any similarity to the flight you cite?
If you need many more descriptions of long-haul airline flight experiences, I have plenty for you.
While I was working, I took lots of long-haul transoceanic flights. Some were up to 15 hours long. On those flights I sat in business class or first-class seats. There was always a map with the aircraft’s position and ground speed displayed on the screen in front of me. Sometimes there was even a forward-facing camera allowing me to have the same outside view as the aircraft’s captain on my display. If I wanted to double check I could pull out my GPS receiver and have a 2nd source of speed & position data. This worked OK especially when I was in a window seat. I am an experienced commercial pilot/ship’s officer/ and navigator myself and was never surprised when I could confirm the aircraft’s position with landmarks below. We would always start flying a great circle route to save fuel and sometime would go way up into the Artic on flights from the USA to Asia. Sometimes that route would be altered to avoid unfavorable weather conditions. You can be sure that high altitude jet streams were taken into account when the pre-flight planning was done. There were times when we did divert for a refueling stop before reaching our destination but that didn’t happen very often. When it did happen, there was always bad weather along the way and the pilot would make some diversions to avoid thunderstorms, typhoons, or hurricanes. We did once land in Beijing, China to refuel on the way to Hong Kong but there were frequent storms along the way, plenty of adverse head winds and the weather was foggy in Hong Kong. It made sense to be safe and have plenty of reserve fuel in case a diversion or a holding pattern was necessary near the end of the flight due to the unpredictable visibility at our final stop.
The bottom line is that I have the experience of many hundreds of trans-oceanic voyages by air and sea during my working years. You always knew your position and speed over the ground very accurately. If someone tells you the contrary, they might very well not be able to determine their position correctly, but experienced navigators certainly can, very accurately, determine both their position and speed over the ground. If they can't then there is a serious problem with their equipment. I don't believe that I ever had that happen to me in over 40 years of traveling. I always had a backup or two to fall back on if a single piece of equipment failed. Sure, in my early years, I had some navigational difficulties, but that was due to inexperience. I got better & better at using the navigational equipment and reading navigational charts as my training & experience progressed.
-
As anyone who has any serious knowledge of aviation knows (air traffic controller for 25yrs here), there's a lot of inaccurate nonsense and claims.
Airspeed indicators are accurate and work fine. As do the varied GNSS and SBAS systems. The various jetstreams are well known, and although always active, strength and location does vary, although can usually be forecast. 'Southern winds' are only 'anomalous' in the sense they are usually very strong. We know why.
The document Tom keeps linking to as evidence of weird flight routes is a red herring, and again written by someone with a demonstrable lock of understanding of how global commercial aviation works.
Again, having been involved in the operational side of aviation for 25yrs, I would say the majority of 'travel' writers have no idea about operational matters, just like the majority of their readers. Airlines cancel flights for all sorts of reasons. For example, yesterday British Airways had cancelled 12 departures from London Heathrow by mid afternoon, out of 347 planned.
-
The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times.
Do you have evidence to back up this outright lie?
Yes. The evidence is that if the sun is a few thousand miles above a flat earth then you would have a clear line of sight to it at all time. What would stop you seeing it? It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.
All that is in the context of the mainstream physics. You may have other mechanisms to explain this - EA, some magnification effect and I'm not sure about the luminosity one - the sun does admittedly change at sunset, but not during most of the day as it surely would if the sun was at a significantly different distance.
As I said, EA is a reasonable explanation. It's better than "perspective" which makes no sense at all. But it is at best a hypothesis, not a well formed theory.
A good explanation for this:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92516.msg2422822#msg2422822
Evidence of electromagnetic acceleration:
The Moon and a sphere have the same orientation as the terminator, they had to state that the Sun is super far away and is too big to explain this on the globe, because this observation is not predicted on a spherical earth.
However, it is predicted by the theory of light bending:
https://qr.ae/psiDgn
Celestial sphere and Moon tilt illusion are also predicted much better by the bending of light:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
Scientific articles on the bending of light:
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2014/02/07/can-light-bend-around-corners/
https://physicsworld.com/a/light-bends-itself-round-corners/
https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/taming-mavericks-stanford-researchers-use-synthetic-magnetism-control-light
-
A good explanation for this:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92516.msg2422822#msg2422822
That post is a load of word salad, no evidence is provided for any of the claims for it.
The Moon and a sphere have the same orientation as the terminator, they had to state that the Sun is super far away and is too big to explain this on the globe, because this observation is not predicted on a spherical earth.
However, it is predicted by the theory of light bending:
Wrong way round.
The sun was known to be distant - you can look up yourself how that was determined. So the observation of the moon and a close sphere having the same "phase" is expected and predicted. If the sun is close then that observation doesn't make sense, light bending is a hypothesis introduced to explain it.
Celestial sphere and Moon tilt illusion are also predicted much better by the bending of light
This is incorrect. In the moon tilt illusion the light appears to be bending downwards, in the opposite direction to the way EA claims light bends.
And, more importantly, it's an optical illusion, hence the name. You can use a string lined up perpendicular to the terminator on the moon and show that the string points to the sun. I have done this myself. The apparent misalignment is simply an optical illusion.
Scientific articles on the bending of light
No-one disputes that light bends, it bends because of refraction and there are relativistic effects. It just doesn't bend in the way claimed by EA.