The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: rubberbands on January 09, 2016, 05:29:35 PM
-
I've looked around for discussions on this, and they all seem to have gotten off track pretty quickly. I'm hoping this one doesn't.
The crux of my argument is that if the world is flat, there are a lot of people who would have to know, and who would have to be keeping it a secret. Leaving aside the question of why this conspiracy would get started in the first place, I want to know why each of these groups of people would find it in their interest to willingly lie to the public about this.
1. Geoscientists. As you can see from pictures like (A) below, geoscientists certainly rely on the assumption of a round earth. From their papers, they seem to operate quite well under these assumptions, and perform experiments which would immediately falsify either FE or RE (you'd never be able to detect seismic waves as shown in that picture in FE, right?). Therefore, there must be a rather large number of geoscientists who know the earth is flat, yet continue to practice their sham science and, I suppose, just straight up create false data from nothing. Why? What do they have to gain from being part of a field whose fundamental assumption they know to be false? Add under this heading Meteorologists as well, whose mapping of weather patterns in the Southern hemisphere must be completely incorrect (although they do a pretty good job with those radar maps despite apparently having no idea how the earth is shaped...) and Oceanographers as well, whose detailed maps of sea currents, etc., must be fatally flawed since they don't even know how far it is from Australia to South America.
2. Airlines. If the world actually looks like (B), then all southern-hemisphere flights must be longer than they're actually billed. Airline pilots and those creating their routes must know how far they're actually going, even if they try to keep it a secret from their passengers for some reason. There are, after all, nonstop flights from Australia to South America all the time, for instance. They'd have to either fly over the North Pole (which would be very hard to justify) or take an extremely long path across the enormous Pacific Ocean (which would be extremely inefficient). Either way, there have to be a great many people in the airline business that know. Why do they keep quiet?
3. Sailors. From the voyages of James Cook (C) to the Vendee Globe yacht race (D) to basically every commercial freighter that sails in the Southern Hemisphere, the distances these people travel and the way they navigate is based on a round earth. It would be impossible for the Vendee Globe sailors to go around the perimeter of the disk earth as quickly as they do, so is that whole thing a sham? If so, why even host it? Why should those sailors, along with all the commercial sailors, keep this quiet? As a subcategory here, include cartographers, who even hundreds of years ago were drawing world maps that look entirely incompatible with (B).
4. Physicists. A lot of physics, even stuff that doesn't seem to be at first, is predicated on the idea of gravity working pretty much the way Isaac Newton said it does. If you're saying Newtonian gravity is completely wrong, then the Cavendish experiment is a hoax, along with General Relativity. There are many papers that confirm the findings of Newton and Einstein, so these all must be fraudulent and at least some of those physicists must know that. Why don't they go public with this? I've seen that there are answers to this on the wiki, so in the interest of not re-hashing old arguments, I'm dropping this point for now.
5. Smaller governments. To the extent that I've seen any justification for a vast RE conspiracy, it's that larger governments, like the US, want to brainwash the masses or something. But what about other countries that have geoscientists and airline pilots and commercial sailors -- in other words, countries that have the ability to figure this out? Do they have the same incentive as the big guys to keep this under wraps? What about countries 100, 200, 500 years ago, and all the ones in between? How have all these governments agreed that maintaining this sweeping RE deception is beneficial?
6. Larger governments. As above, they certainly know. This is the group usually focused on in these discussions, so I'd like to de-emphasize it somewhat, but I still would like to know why in the world they would want to perpetrate this massive hoax. When has any other government project gone on for so long, so successfully, and even through massive regime changes? And whatever their ultimate goals are, is pouring the trillions of dollars it must take to fake NASA, pay off whoever needs paying off, and secure the Antarctic Ice Wall *really* the best way these countries have of acheiving those goals?
Also, not only is there the direct cost of all that falsifying, but the additional cost of having a public that's not scientifically literate. If the Earth is actually flat, surely there are consequences of that which could be better exploited if it didn't need to be kept a secret?
I'm purposely de-emphasizing NASA and other space agencies as well -- I don't want this to get sidetracked into a discussion solely about them, that ground has been well-trod many times. It probably leaves out many other groups of people that would also have to know the shape of the Earth, no matter what it is. The bottom line is that the conspiracy seems too enormous to be sustainable.
---Pictures---
(A) (http://misswise.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/2/0/18209119/3183949_orig.gif)
(B) (http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/modern+flat+earth+map.png)
(C) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Cook_Three_Voyages_59.png)
(D) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/VendeeGlobeRaceRoute.png)
(see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vend%C3%A9e_Globe) for more information on the Vendee Globe race.)
-
It's a very good point.
Some people claim that the World Cup in Football in 1958 never took place. The theory is that it was made up by the Swedish government and CIA as a propaganda tool during the Cold War. Critics of this theory say that it's ridiculous because thousands of people actually saw the games on the stadium during the weeks of playoff.
However, millions of people would be 'involved' in keeping the Flat Earth secret! Over decades! For no (obvious) reason!
-
It's a shame that no flat earthers will comment on this valid question. How can the government keep millions of people from telling 'the truth', when they can't even manage to place a chemical weapon in the Iraqi desert for the weapon inspectors to find?
-
It's a shame that no flat earthers will comment on this valid question. How can the government keep millions of people from telling 'the truth', when they can't even manage to place a chemical weapon in the Iraqi desert for the weapon inspectors to find?
It's a false assumption that "millions" of people would have any knowledge of this. I'm not sure why you think millions would be involved.
-
I don't think it's a false assumption at all. Think about all the categories mentioned above.
All commercial pilots (130.000 as of Feb. 2015) and navigators and planners (probably much more than the number of pilots). And that's just the current number. You also need to count in everybody who have even been such person, say, in the past 70 years!
40 different nations have had astronauts in space (I know you think this not a fact) so you need to count in all the astronauts and direct staff. And government people.
Sailors, scientist, computer engineers and much more...
But ok, let's just work with rounded numbers and say 1 million people. It doesn't change the assumption for the question much.
Best regards
-
How would any of these people be able to confirm Earth's shape, other than hypothetical astronauts?
Since we are just making things up, I'll say under 100 people need to be involved which has as much supporting evidence as your claim.
-
No, I must disagree. It's has been evident from these discussions that all commercial pilots are 'instructed' where not to fly and for what reasons.
Hmm.. But at least you'd agree that the astronauts would be involved. Let's start with these 540 astronauts who have been in space then. (You agree that a significant number of additional people among the ground personnel would have to be involved in the 'lie' as well, right?) They come from 40 different nations with 40 different agendas, politics, religion, economy and so. The conspiracy is still too big.
-
So we go from millions, to a million, to several hundred. I think if we keep at this you'll realize how few are really involved.
-
No we're not. Please read what I wrote. I'm now talking about the group we both can agree on. The astronauts.
I think you're being polemic because you're trying to avoid the question. I believe there must be millions, but let's play ball on your field.
Regards
-
No we're not. Please read what I wrote. I'm now talking about the group we both can agree on. The astronauts.
I think you're being polemic because you're trying to avoid the question. I believe there must be millions, but let's play ball on your field.
Regards
Avoiding what question? You haven't asked me anything.
-
How is it possible to orchestrate this 'round earth lie' for so many years among so many different stakeholders with no information leaks whatsoever?
I guess your answer is "That's very easy!", so just let this question for other people to reflect on.
-
How is it possible to orchestrate this 'round earth lie' for so many years among so many different stakeholders with no information leaks whatsoever?
I guess your answer is "That's very easy!", so just let this question for other people to reflect on.
Okay, so it seems you'd rather answer your own questions rather than have any sort of a discussion. Have fun with that.
-
I was merely guessing on your answer. You're free to prove me wrong, but you have just been so eager to avoid answering.
-
I was merely guessing on your answer. You're free to prove me wrong, but you have just been so eager to avoid answering.
Prove you wrong? That isn't how burden of proof works. I haven't avoided anything. You're asking a question based on a false premise, and then providing your own answer.
-
Ok. You don't want to asnwer. That's ok.
-
Ok. You don't want to asnwer. That's ok.
There isn't anything to answer yet. Your question is based on an unsubstantiated claim. If we're basing everything off of said claim, then I already answered.
-
@Junker: I wrote a whole post (the one that started this thread) explaining why at least some nontrivial subset of several large, disparate groups of people would have to know about the Flat-Earth coverup, if there were such a thing. If you disagree with any of my points, by all means say so. But if not, then we can accept that some relatively large number of people know. You and MrAtlas aren't contributing anything with this bickering.
-
@Junker: I wrote a whole post (the one that started this thread) explaining why at least some nontrivial subset of several large, disparate groups of people would have to know about the Flat-Earth coverup, if there were such a thing. If you disagree with any of my points, by all means say so. But if not, then we can accept that some relatively large number of people know. You and MrAtlas aren't contributing anything with this bickering.
Incidentally, there is nothing but conjecture regarding how big this group must be. I'm not sure what you're looking for in reply when the premise is so flawed.
-
I gave what I still believe to be very good reasons that many people in each of these fields, in order to be able to do their jobs successfully (which they clearly do -- unless you're disputing that seismographs, weather maps, maps of ocean currents, shipping routes, etc exist and function properly in the southern hemisphere), must know the shape of the earth. I have argued for this point in the OP. I would like you to actually address some part of the content of this post, because so far all you've done is claim with no support that my premise is flawed.
I am still there only one who has put forth any argument at all for a position in this thread (MrAtlas has also put together a loose argument for some vague numbers, which I appreciate, although as I mentioned in the OP I want to keep NASA more or less out of this. People on this forum are way too obsessed with NASA, and I believe my argument is still quite strong without them). I would like for someone to actually respond to that with an argument of their own.
-
Question: when is the old map, the unipolar map, going to be put out of existence?
Now, here are some facts about the iron core/seismic waves you didn't know about:
"The presence of iron in the shell or the migration of heavy metals from the core to the shell has not been sufficiently explained. For these metals to have left the core, they must have been ejected by explosions, and in order to remain spread through the crust, the explosions must have been followed immediately by cooling.
If, in the beginning, the planet was a hot conglomerate of elements, as the nebular as well as the tidal theories assume, then the iron of the globe should have become oxidized and combined with all available oxygen. But for some unknown reasons this did not happen; thus the presence of oxygen in the terrestrial atmosphere is unexplained."
For some inexplicable reason, many cosmologists believe that a solid Iron core is necessary to explain stellar and planetary magnetism.
What is so special about a solid Iron core? Iron only forms a magnet at low temperatures. Steel is more resilient holding residual magnetism at moderately high temperatures, but looses all directed magnetic qualities with heating, impact and chemical activity. Once steel is magnetised, it normally takes a great deal of energy from an external source to reverse the magnetic direction, yet the Earth's magnetic field flips automatically without energy being applied from any external object. This flip occurs within a short geological time frame. The magnetic field generator of the Earth, the Sun, and the Galaxy must work at temperatures exceeding 10,000C, perhaps in excess of 1,000,000C in the Sun. Steel is magnetic only to temperatures of about 500C. Geologist contradict the solid Iron core belief claiming that the Earth has a "liquid Iron core" citing unscientific beliefs about the properties of S-waves because these waves do not travel through the core. Oddly, geological evidence proves the core's density is far too low and the speed of sound far too slow for Iron , Iron minerals and liquid Iron, but then in total contradiction, the geologists claim the core as being the magnetic field generator, when they have not determined a suitable mechanism to power the magnetic field or to explain magnetic reversals. As the speed of sound and the density of the core are lower than the crust and half that of Iron compounds, one must be very dubious of both composition claims for the core. This belief in "Iron" is a scientific artifact that should have been dropped many years ago.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090207162952/http://geocities.com/longhairedbastard/chv7_11.htm
Here is the correct FE map, in the context of the Vendee race:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3422.0
If you're saying Newtonian gravity is completely wrong, then the Cavendish experiment is a hoax, along with General Relativity. There are many papers that confirm the findings of Newton and Einstein, so these all must be fraudulent and at least some of those physicists must know that. Why don't they go public with this?
You have at your disposal my messages (here and on the other website) which contain counterexamples to Newton's alleged law of attractive gravity, the debunking of the flawed Cavendish experiment and also the total refutation of the GTR/STR.
-
I'll have to look more at that core stuff later -- that's a really long page you sent. I'm not too concerned about the specifics of the composition of Earth's interior (although what you sent seems very interesting) -- the important piece for my argument is how waves are observed to travel through the Earth. Again, I only skimmed the page you sent, but it doesn't look like that fact is disputed. So my question remains, how would these waves travel this way in a flat earth?
As for your bi-polar map, it seems to me to just be swapping one problem for another. Sure, you can now explain circumnavigation of Antarctica, but travelling from Australia to South America is even more of a problem on the bipolar map than on the Azimuthal Equidistant map that most FE'ers seem to subscribe to. How do you reconcile this with things like live satellite weather (http://www.accuweather.com/en/world/satellite) and wind maps (http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-140.97,-2.65,294), which clearly show continuous data across a relatively short path from Australia to Chile? And there are, of course the shipping lanes (https://thepolicytensor.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/transportnetwork.jpeg) crisscrossing the Pacific, with a handful going straight from Australia or New Zealand to South America. This would be an incredibly circuitous route by your map (even the routes to North America would be circuitous), passing by Japan, the Kamchatka peninsula, then Alaska and the entire US West Coast before finally reaching South America. How would commercial sailors and pilots not realize that this is a horribly inefficient route?
My main problem with every attempt to make a map of a flat earth is that, no matter what specific map you endorse, it is inevitable that you will have to say that certain things are farther apart or closer together than the RE model would have us believe. With such an interconnected global economy, it seems ludicrous to say that our best cartographers don't actually know how far it is from City A to City B. Then you're left with saying either 1) that we simply have been measuring distances wrong this whole time and nobody's noticed, or 2) somebody knows the real distances -- which brings us to the Enormous, Pointless Conspiracy For Which I Have Seen No Plausible Justifications.
I've also glanced at the gravity stuff, and that also looks like a lot to slog through. I'm pretty sure you guys are wrong about that, but it seems like there's enough there to have a whole separate post about. So consider the gravity point dropped for now.
-
I could argue with you about the inner composition of the Earth...about the fact that I did debate the bipolar map for years with the RE using every imaginable flight path (even Santiago de Chile to Juneau) and still won... or bring to your attention the double force of attractive gravitation paradox...
Let us not waste time anymore: here is the Tunguska file.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/Capturet_zpszsnxbozx.jpg)
JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES
http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html (http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html)
“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”
“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m. It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset. The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals. Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night. It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct. An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow. The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year. I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight. I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.
Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”
Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.
A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'
On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'
The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:
The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.
Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.
375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above
I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.
LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:
The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).
(http://www.andras-nagy.com/ufo03/pic/p131.jpg)
The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.
The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.
UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.
Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.
(http://www.phenomena.org.uk/features/page88/files/tunguska-3.jpg)
A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.50 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.
The telluric currents/ether/subquark-magnetic monopoles strings transmitted the energy input from the Tesla ball lightning spheres which exploded over Siberia (Tunguska): this is how the bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia was created.
If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.
Tunguska file:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846) (no comet, meteorite, or asteroid)
Tesla - Tunguska:
http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm (http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm)
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm)
Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!
Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.
Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.
-
Ah, there's no real debate torn to pieces and demolished the way sandokhan does it when he brings his copy/paste of the tunguska "file" - That was bound to happen.
(Or citing his own work from external pages as scientific proof)
-
Yeah, this Tunguska stuff might be interesting in another thread, but not in this one. So far as I can see, it's not relevant to anything that's been stated so far. As I said in my OP, I've seen tons of other threads on this site get totally sidetracked when discussing these things, and I don't want that to happen here.
Just to make sure we stay on track, these are, broadly, these are the questions I'm asking to Flat Earthers:
- How can seismic waves from one side of the Earth be detected on the other side if it's flat? (This is not the same as asking about the inner composition of the Earth -- I'm just interested in the fact that these waves propagate at all, not what they propagate through. The composition of the Earth might be relevant to answering this question, but I have not seen anything so far that has made me think that is the case.)
- Given that a map of a round Earth cannot be perfectly represented on a flat surface, and that if you look up the distances between any two points on Earth, they'll be consistent with the RE model, most* accepted distances between two points must be inaccurate. However, as the abundance of Made-in-China products attests, we have a very interconnected global economy. This means either (a) airline pilots and sailors have no idea what the Earth actually looks like, but successfully navigate it anyway, or (b) many of them are in on some vast conspiracy. If (a), how do they do it? If (b), why?
- There are plenty of maps of weather patterns moving smoothly across the whole planet. You can track weather and wind formations moving from Australia to South America. This is either elaborately fabricated (and thus many meteorologists are in on The Conspiracy) or it's accurate. If it's accurate, how can the mapping of these weather patterns be reconciled with a flat Earth?
- The concept of a (roughly) spherical Earth has been around for quite some time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth) -- at least 400 years or so, and much, much longer in some places. Since almost all the talk about The Conspiracy that I see on this site involves NASA in some way or another, what motivation did people/nations 400 years ago have in perpetuating a Round Earth myth? If they just didn't know about FE back then, when did they find out, and when did the conspiracy actually begin?
- Due to the worldwide presence of pilots, sailors, geologists, and meteorologists, the higher-ups of almost every nation should know about the true shape of the world. Since most of the talk about The Conspiracy seems to be US-focused, what motivation do non-US nations have to keep this a secret?
- Whatever the US/NASA's ultimate goals are, how could perpetrating a worldwide conspiracy possibly be the best way they could come up with to achieve those goals?
And just a general remark:
when has any other government project gone on for so long and been so successful?
These are things I'm not asking about in this thread, unless you make the case that they're directly relevant to one of the above:
- Pretty much anything about NASA
- Pretty much anything about Tunguska
- Pretty much anything about whether the Earth's core is made of iron
- The Cavendish experiment, since I've seen you guys have an established answer to that
The things I want to discuss are mostly things I haven't seen other answers to on this site, which is why I'm emphasizing them. I don't want to get caught up in arguments that you guys have had a hundred times before.
*For instance, the Azimuthal Equidistant projection (aka the Unipolar map that I see most often here) maintains the correct distance between each point and the North Pole, but the distance between any other points will differ from what would be calculated on a globe.[/list]
-
So far as I can see, it's not relevant to anything that's been stated so far.
It is most relevant: it answers all your questions at once.
The Tunguska explosion event does prove that the surface of the Earth is actually flat.
What would be the point of addressing seismic waves?
To tell you that the discontinuities of the seismic waves assumed by modern science to occur at the crust mantle boundary are actually a network of huge caverns and large underground bodies of water and that they would match perfectly the seismic data?
That great masses of water are interpreted as molten rock?
Seismic data which directly refute the claims of a solid Earth (RE) have been ignored by seismologists.
Did you know that seismic waves travel faster north-south than east-west for a full four seconds?
"The S-wave shadow zone is larger than the P-wave shadow zones; direct S waves are not recorded in the entire region more than 103° away from the epicentre. It therefore seems that S waves do not travel through the core at all, and this is interpreted to mean that it is liquid, or at least acts like a liquid. The way P waves are refracted in the core is believed to indicate that there is a solid inner core. Although most of the earth's iron is supposed to be concentrated in the core, it is interesting to note that in the outer zones of the earth, iron levels decrease with depth.
Seismologists sometimes draw contradictory conclusions from the same seismic data. For instance, two groups of geophysicists produced completely different pictures of the core-mantle boundary, where there are believed to be 'mountains' and 'valleys' as high or deep as 10 km. The two groups used virtually the same data but used different equations to process them. Seismologists also disagree on the rate of rotation of the inner core: some say it is rotating faster than the rest of the planet, others that it is rotating more slowly, and yet others that it rotates at the same speed!
It is becoming increasingly evident that the earth model presented by the reigning theory of plate tectonics is seriously flawed. The rigid lithosphere, comprising the crust and uppermost mantle, is said to be fractured into several 'plates' of varying sizes, which move over a relatively plastic layer of partly molten rock known as the asthenosphere (or low-velocity zone). The lithosphere is said to average about 70 km thick beneath oceans and to be 100 to 250 km thick beneath continents. A powerful challenge to this model is posed by seismic tomography, which shows that the oldest parts of the continents have deep roots extending to depths of 400 to 600 km, and that the asthenosphere is essentially absent beneath them. Seismic research shows that even under the oceans there is no continuous asthenosphere, only disconnected asthenospheric lenses.
The more we learn about the crust and uppermost mantle, the more the models presented in geological textbooks are exposed as simplistic and unrealistic. The outermost layers of the earth have a highly complex, irregular, inhomogeneous structure; they are divided by faults into a mosaic of separate, jostling blocks of different shapes and sizes, generally a few hundred kilometres across, and of varying internal structure and strength. This fact, in conjunction with the existence of deep continental roots and the absence of a global asthenosphere, means that the notion of huge rigid plates moving thousands of kilometres across the earth is simply untenable. Continents are about as mobile as a brick in a wall!
The plate-tectonic hypothesis that the present oceans have formed by seafloor spreading since the early Mesozoic (within the last 200 million years) is also becoming increasingly implausible. Numerous far older continental rocks have been discovered in the oceans, along with 'anomalous' crustal types intermediate between standard 'continental' and 'oceanic' crust (e.g. plateaus, ridges, and rises), and the evidence for large (now submerged) continental landmasses in the present oceans continues to mount.
At the Kola hole, scientists expected to find 4.7 km of metamorphosed sedimentary and volcanic rock, then a granitic layer to a depth of 7 km (the 'Conrad discontinuity'), with a basaltic layer below it. The granite, however, appeared at 6.8 km and extends to more than 12 km; no basaltic layer was ever found! Seismic-reflection surveys, in which sound waves sent into the crust bounce back off contrasting rock types, have detected the Conrad discontinuity beneath all the continents, but the standard interpretation that it represents a change from granitic to basaltic rocks is clearly wrong. Metamorphic changes brought about by heat and pressure are now thought to be the most likely explanation.
The superdeep borehole at Oberpfälz, Germany, was expected to pass through a 3-to-5-km-thick nappe complex into a suture zone formed by a supposed continental collision. The borehole reached a final depth of 9101 m in 1994, but no evidence supporting the nappe concept was found. What the scientists did find was a series of nearly vertical folds that had failed to show up on seismic-reflection profiles.
Rock density is generally expected to increase with depth, as pressures rise. Results from the Kola hole indicated that densities did increase with depth initially, but at 4.5 km the drill encountered a sudden decrease in density, presumably due to increased porosity. The results also showed that increases in seismic velocity do not have to be caused by an increase in rock basicity. The Soviet Minister of Geology reported that 'with increasing depth in the Kola hole, the expected increase in rock densities was therefore not recorded. Neither was any increase in the speed of seismic waves nor any other changes in the physical properties of the rocks detected. Thus the traditional idea that geological data obtained from the surface can be directly correlated with geological materials in the deep crust must be reexamined.'
The results of superdeep drilling show that seismic surveys of continental crust are being systematically misinterpreted. Much of the modelling of the earth's interior depends on the interpretation of seismic records. If these interpretations are wrong at depths of only a few kilometres, how much reliance can be placed on interpretations of the earth's structure at depths of hundreds or thousands of kilometres beneath the surface?!
Contrary to expectations, signs of rock alteration and mineralization were found as deep as 7 km in the Kola well. The hole intercepted a copper-nickel ore body almost 2 km below the level at which ore bodies were thought to disappear. In addition, hydrogen, helium, methane, and other gases, together with strongly mineralized waters were found circulating throughout the Kola hole. The presence of fractures open to fluid circulation at pressures of more than 3000 bars was entirely unexpected. The drillers at Oberpfälz discovered hot fluids in open fractures at 3.4 km. The brine was rich in potassium and twice as salty as ocean water, and its origin is a mystery.
Another surprise at the Kola hole was that lifeforms and fossils were discovered several kilometres down. Microscopic fossils were found at depths of 6.7 km. 24 species were identified among these microfossils, representing the envelopes or coverings of single-cell marine plants known as plankton. Unlike conventional shells of limestone or silica, these coverings were found to consist of carbon and nitrogen and had remained remarkably unaltered despite the high pressures and temperatures to which they had been subjected.
The oceanic crust is commonly divided into three main layers: layer 1 consists of ocean-floor sediments and averages 0.5 km in thickness; layer 2 consists largely of basalt and is 1.0 to 2.5 km thick; and layer 3 is assumed to consist of gabbro and is about 5 km thick. A drillhole in the eastern Pacific Ocean has been reoccupied four times in a 12-year span, and has now reached a total depth of 2000 m below the seafloor. Seismic evidence suggested that the boundary between layers 2 and 3 would be found at a depth of about 1700 m, but the drill went well past that depth without finding the contact between the dikes of layer 2 and the expected gabbro of layer 3. Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong.
If the earth's interior were homogeneous, consisting of materials with the same properties throughout, seismic waves would travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. In reality, waves reach distant seismometers sooner than they would if the earth were homogeneous, and the greater the distance, the greater the acceleration. This implies that the waves arriving at the more distant stations have been travelling faster. Since seismic waves travel not only along the surface but also through the body of the earth, the earth's curvature will clearly result in stations more distant from an earthquake focus receiving waves that have passed through greater depths in the earth. From this it is inferred that the velocity of seismic waves increases with depth, due to changes in the properties of the earth's matter.
Seismic velocity in different media depends not just on the substance's density but also on its elastic properties (i.e. rigidity and incompressibility). In the case of solids and liquids, for instance, there is no correlation between sound-wave velocity and density. Here are some examples involving metals:
Substance Density (g/cm³) Velocity of longitudinal waves (km/s)
aluminium 2.7 6.42
zinc 7.1 4.21
iron 7.9 5.95
copper 8.9 4.76
nickel 8.9 6.04
gold 19.7 3.24
There is a correlation between density and seismic velocity in the case of gases: velocity decreases with increasing density due to the increased number of collisions.
According to the relevant equations, the velocity of seismic waves will become slower, the denser the rocks through which they pass, if the rocks' elastic properties change in the same proportion as density. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this would imply that density decreases. However, scientists are convinced that the density of the rocks composing the earth's interior increases with depth. To get round this problem, they simply assume that the elastic properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the increase in density. As one textbook puts it:
Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with depth than density increases.
Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their arguments are circular.
Drilling results at the Kola borehole revealed significant heterogeneity in rock composition and density, seismic velocities, and other properties. Overall, rock porosity and pressure increased with depth, while density decreased, and seismic velocities showed no distinct trend. In the Oberpfälz pilot hole, too, density and seismic velocity showed no distinct trend with increasing depth. Many scientists believe that at greater depths, the presumed increase in pressures and temperatures will lead to greater homogeneity and that reality will approximate more closely to current models. But this is no more than a declaration of faith.
Scientists' conviction that density increases with depth is based on their belief that, due to the accumulating weight of the overlying rock, pressure must increase all the way to the earth's centre where it is believed to reach 3.5 million atmospheres (on the earth's surface the pressure is one atmosphere). They also believe that they know by how much rock density increases towards the earth's centre. This is because they think they have accurately determined the earth's mass (5.98 x 1024 kg) and therefore its average density (5.52 g/cm³). Since the outermost crustal rocks -- the only ones that can be sampled directly -- have a density of only 2.75 g/cm³, it follows that deeper layers of rock must be much denser. At the centre of the earth, density allegedly reaches 13.5 g/cm³.
Pari Spolter casts doubt on this model:
About 71% of the earth's surface is covered by oceans at an average depth of 3795 m and mean density of 1.02 g cm-3. The average thickness of the crust is 19 km and the mean crustal density is 2.75 g cm-3. From studies of seismic wave travel time, geophysicists have outlined a layered structure in the interior of the earth. There is no accurate way currently known of estimating the density distribution from seismic data alone. To come up with a mean density of 5.5, earth models assuming progressively higher density values for the inner zones of the earth have been devised. . . .
Except for the ocean and the crust, direct measurements of the density of the inner layers of the earth are not available. This currently accepted Earth Model is inconsistent with the law of sedimentation in a centrifuge. The earth has been rotating for some 4.5 billion years. When it was first formed, the earth was in a molten state and was rotating faster than today. The highest density of matter should have migrated to the outer layers. Except for the inner core, . . . the density of the other layers of the earth should be less than 3 g cm-3.
Also, heavy elements are rare in the universe. How could so much of materials with such low stellar abundances have concentrated in the earth's interior?
The seismic radiation of deep earthquakes is similar to that of shallow earthquakes. It used to be said that deep-focus earthquakes were followed by fewer aftershocks than shallow ones, but there are indications that many of the aftershocks are simply difficult to detect, and that there is much more activity at such depths than is currently believed. The fact that deep earthquakes share many characteristics with shallow earthquakes suggests that they may be caused by similar mechanisms. However, most earth scientists are incapable of entertaining the notion that the earth could be rigid at such depths. One exception is E.A. Skobelin, who draws the logical conclusion that since deep-focus earthquakes cannot originate in plastic material but must be linked to some kind of stress in solid rock, the solid, rigid lithosphere must extend to depths of up to 700 km.
On 8 June 1994, one of the largest deep earthquakes of the 20th century, with a magnitude of 8.3 on the Richter scale, exploded 640 km beneath Bolivia. It caused the whole earth to ring like a bell for months on end; every 20 minutes or so, the entire planet expanded and contracted by a minute amount. A significant feature of the Bolivian earthquake was that it extended horizontally across a 30- by 50-km plane within the 'subducting slab'. This undermines the hypothesis that such quakes are caused by olivine within the 'cold' centre of a slab suddenly being transformed into spinel in a runaway reaction when the temperature rises above 600°C. It also undermines the theory that gravity increases with depth; if this were true, the motion of earthquakes at such depths should be nearly vertical. There appears to be something very wrong with scientific theories about what exists and what is happening deep within the earth.
The acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s² at the earth's surface and the prevailing view is that it rises to a maximum of 10.4 m/s² at the core-mantle boundary (2900 km), before falling to zero at the earth's centre. But not all earth scientists agree. Skobelin argues that the normal, downwardly-directed gravitational force may be replaced by a reversed, upwardly-directed force at depths of 2700 to 4980 km, and that the widely-accepted figure of 3500 kilobars for the pressure at the earth's centre, may be an order of magnitude too high."
David Pratt
see also: http://davidpratt.info/inner1.htm#s5
-
Your example of the Tunguska incident is based on one rare instance of atmospheric conditions. Has this ever been duplicated ?
Your example of Tunguska to or from London would be an impossibility even if the earth was flat.
The elevation of London is approximately 115 feet above sea level. The elevation at Tunguska is approximately 1082 feet above sea level. If there were no obstructions in between you would be able to see them.
But in between are the Ural Mountains with an elevation of approximately 6000 feet above sea level. You would have to see over the mountains.
So if you actually read the letter to the London Times, it clearly states that they saw a light in the sky. It was caused by a possible explosion in the sky. How could this possibly answer or even attempt to answer whether Tunguska can be seen from London?
Your answer does not remotely address any of the 6 questions asked. That's perfectly ok, because the Earth is spherical.
-
But in between are the Ural Mountains with an elevation of approximately 6000 feet above sea level. You would have to see over the mountains.
The explosion itself occurred at some 7 km in the atmosphere.
London - Tunguska: 5200 km
So if you actually read the letter to the London Times, it clearly states that they saw a light in the sky. It was caused by a possible explosion in the sky. How could this possibly answer or even attempt to answer whether Tunguska can be seen from London?
The explosion was seen INSTANTANEOUSLY ALL OVER EUROPE: no other astronomical event was recorded at that time (rest assured, this is a fact).
Moreover, even the initial trajectory of the object (10-15 minutes) was observed by Mrs. Katharine Stephen.
The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation.
If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.
-
If you don't want to answer the 6 questions, you should let other people try.
-
Sandokhan, this is exactly what I mean about threads being taken off track. Tunguska addresses none of what I have asked for above. Even if it did prove unequivocally that the world is flat, it wouldn't tell me how airplane pilots manage to reach their destinations accurately and on time, despite firmly believing they are flying around a sphere. It wouldn't tell me anything about why seismic waves seem to propagate as if they're travelling through a sphere. It wouldn't tell me why any governments would try to cover up the fact that the Earth is flat. It wouldn't tell me why atmospheric data maps perfectly well onto a spherical-Earth map, and therefore necessarily maps imperfectly onto any conceivable flat-Earth map. These are the questions I'm interested in discussing in this thread, NOT unrelated proofs of the Earth's flatness, however valid or invalid they may be. I think it's an interesting topic for another thread, but not for this one.
You've written a lot more about geoscience that, frankly, still seems quite irrelevant. First of all, the fact that there are facts that geoscientists don't agree on doesn't mean the field is worthless, as you seem to imply at a few points. I will readily admit that I don't know very much about geoscience as a whole, but the interior of a planet seems like a difficult thing to map, and if different groups of scientists have come to different conclusions, that probably means they haven't collected enough data. Even if something like the plate-tectonic hypothesis is severely flawed, that says nothing about the Earth being flat. I'm still not sure how the rest is supposed to be relevant. If the Earth is flat and there is a large network of oceans and tunnels underground like you seem to be suggesting, how does that explain the appearance of waves travelling directly through a spherical Earth? That's all I've been asking, and in all this I see no clear answer to that question.
If you do have anything to contribute to this thread, I trust you can do so without pasting entire webpages into your post. Just state the crucial facts of your argument, state how this relates to something I'm actually asking about, and then provide a link to the page as a source.
-
You were very sure about your seismic data before you came here: now, you are starting to doubt it.
You have no idea what causes earthquakes or how actually seismic waves do propagate.
If the Earth is flat and there is a large network of oceans and tunnels underground like you seem to be suggesting, how does that explain the appearance of waves travelling directly through a spherical Earth?
As you have seen, none of the assumptions made by geologists are true about the composition of inner earth, therefore no one at the present time has any idea how actually seismic waves propagate at very large depths.
In order to make claims about the shape of the Earth based on seismic waves, you must know exactly the composition of inner earth: I have given you plenty of examples which do show that this composition is very different than what was assumed to be true.
Please read:
The oceanic crust is commonly divided into three main layers: layer 1 consists of ocean-floor sediments and averages 0.5 km in thickness; layer 2 consists largely of basalt and is 1.0 to 2.5 km thick; and layer 3 is assumed to consist of gabbro and is about 5 km thick. A drillhole in the eastern Pacific Ocean has been reoccupied four times in a 12-year span, and has now reached a total depth of 2000 m below the seafloor. Seismic evidence suggested that the boundary between layers 2 and 3 would be found at a depth of about 1700 m, but the drill went well past that depth without finding the contact between the dikes of layer 2 and the expected gabbro of layer 3. Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong.
If the earth's interior were homogeneous, consisting of materials with the same properties throughout, seismic waves would travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. In reality, waves reach distant seismometers sooner than they would if the earth were homogeneous, and the greater the distance, the greater the acceleration. This implies that the waves arriving at the more distant stations have been travelling faster. Since seismic waves travel not only along the surface but also through the body of the earth, the earth's curvature will clearly result in stations more distant from an earthquake focus receiving waves that have passed through greater depths in the earth. From this it is inferred that the velocity of seismic waves increases with depth, due to changes in the properties of the earth's matter.
There is a correlation between density and seismic velocity in the case of gases: velocity decreases with increasing density due to the increased number of collisions.
According to the relevant equations, the velocity of seismic waves will become slower, the denser the rocks through which they pass, if the rocks' elastic properties change in the same proportion as density. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this would imply that density decreases. However, scientists are convinced that the density of the rocks composing the earth's interior increases with depth. To get round this problem, they simply assume that the elastic properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the increase in density. As one textbook puts it:
Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with depth than density increases.
Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their arguments are circular.
I suggest that you dig a little deeper into this field (which might also answer your concerns about seismic waves on a flat earth):
http://www.everythingselectric.com/forum/index.php?topic=97.0;wap2
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/electric_sun01.htm
Birkeland currents, ether and aether
-
Oh my God. Why did this become a geography class? Let's cut to the bone of the argument. Why would anyone want to sustain a lie about the shape of the earth? What's the benefit, the goal, and the motivation? Why would anyone benefit from not knowing the truth? Who is at the heart of the lie, pulling the strings and hiding in the shadows? What are they getting out of it? What is their purpose?
-
And why do you keep avoiding answering the questions asked? There's no shame in saying that you can't :)
-
The state of the "debate" subforum is shameful. The shocking intellectual dishonesty makes me embarrassed to be associated with FES to be honest.
Junker, an admin for goodness' sake, insistently stonewalling, and sandokhan blatantly filibustering.
How can you call yourselves God-fearing Christians and engage in deception in this manner? Two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm sure I'll get deleted and banned before this gets seen, hence the fresh profile, but I couldn't just stand idly by. We looked up to you.
Truth does not shy away from scrutiny.
-
The state of the "debate" subforum is shameful. The shocking intellectual dishonesty makes me embarrassed to be associated with FES to be honest.
Junker, an admin for goodness' sake, insistently stonewalling, and sandokhan blatantly filibustering.
How can you call yourselves God-fearing Christians and engage in deception in this manner? Two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm sure I'll get deleted and banned before this gets seen, hence the fresh profile, but I couldn't just stand idly by. We looked up to you.
Truth does not shy away from scrutiny.
Well, I am not a god-fearing Christian, so there's that. I'll engage in debate with people on either side and answer directly. Unfortunately, I don't always know what people are trying to say, and if I prod for details, people get upset. I can't help if they aren't good at making points. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about that.
Why would you get deleted and banned? At worst, this post is just in the wrong forum, as we have a dedicated forum for suggestions and concerns. I don't mind people criticizing me. Certainly not going to ban someone for it.
-
In order to make claims about the shape of the Earth based on seismic waves, you must know exactly the composition of inner earth: I have given you plenty of examples which do show that this composition is very different than what was assumed to be true.
First of all, I see no reason to think you need to know the exact composition of the earth to say something worthwhile regarding seismic waves. The fact remains that seismic waves appear to travel through the interior of the earth. Their speed doesn't concern me, or what they travel through, just that they do. All you've said is that geologists don't know what the Earth is made of, which doesn't answer my question.
Second of all, all you've done to show me that mainstream geology is false is link an archive to a rambling geocities page, a website which talks elsewhere about aliens from other dimensions visiting Earth (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vida_alien/alien_humanitymanipulationalien.htm), and another one which talks elsewhere about cold fusion and alchemy occurring within living beings (http://davidpratt.info/age.htm). I've admitted that I don't know very much about geoscience myself, so please forgive me if I decide to take the word of established academics over that of probable crackpots. (Aside from that, looking elsewhere on those sites I saw nothing about the flat earth, which makes me again question their relevance. They certainly don't answer the question I was asking).
Besides, as I've been trying to emphasize, the geology isn't what I'm interested in discussing. I'm interested in discussing the global conspiracy, of which geology would have to play a relatively small part. This thread has gone on for two whole pages, and I still haven't had anybody actually address the issue in its freaking title.
-
Obviously you are not a geologist yourself, otherwise you would have not stated such nonsense:
First of all, I see no reason to think you need to know the exact composition of the earth to say something worthwhile regarding seismic waves.
There is a correlation between density and seismic velocity in the case of gases: velocity decreases with increasing density due to the increased number of collisions.
According to the relevant equations, the velocity of seismic waves will become slower, the denser the rocks through which they pass, if the rocks' elastic properties change in the same proportion as density. Since seismic waves accelerate with depth, this would imply that density decreases. However, scientists are convinced that the density of the rocks composing the earth's interior increases with depth. To get round this problem, they simply assume that the elastic properties change at a rate that more than compensates for the increase in density. As one textbook puts it:
Since the density of the Earth increases with depth you would expect the waves to slow down with increasing depth. Why, then, do both P- and S-waves speed up as they go deeper? This can only happen because the incompressibility and rigidity of the Earth increase faster with depth than density increases.
Thus geophysicists simply adjust the values for rigidity and incompressibility to fit in with their preconceptions regarding density and velocity distribution within the earth! In other words, their arguments are circular.
Seismologists sometimes draw contradictory conclusions from the same seismic data. For instance, two groups of geophysicists produced completely different pictures of the core-mantle boundary, where there are believed to be 'mountains' and 'valleys' as high or deep as 10 km. The two groups used virtually the same data but used different equations to process them. Seismologists also disagree on the rate of rotation of the inner core: some say it is rotating faster than the rest of the planet, others that it is rotating more slowly, and yet others that it rotates at the same speed!
David Pratt is one of the greatest scientists of the Western world: his articles on gravity and astrophysics are classic.
You should have never brought up the seismic wave subject: NOW, I CAN PROVE TO YOU THAT THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH IS FLAT BASED STRICTLY ON SEISMIC WAVES.
If the earth's interior were homogeneous, consisting of materials with the same properties throughout, seismic waves would travel in a straight line at a constant velocity. In reality, waves reach distant seismometers sooner than they would if the earth were homogeneous, and the greater the distance, the greater the acceleration. This implies that the waves arriving at the more distant stations have been travelling faster. Since seismic waves travel not only along the surface but also through the body of the earth, the earth's curvature will clearly result in stations more distant from an earthquake focus receiving waves that have passed through greater depths in the earth. From this it is inferred that the velocity of seismic waves increases with depth, due to changes in the properties of the earth's matter.
SINCE THE EARTH'S INTERIOR STRUCTURE IS MARKEDLY DIFFERENT THAN WAS ASSUMED, THE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING CURVATURE AND VELOCITY ARE SIMPLY WRONG.
THAT IS, THE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING MORE DISTANT STATIONS NO LONGER HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT CURVATURE: THE VELOCITY INCREASES DUE TO THE CHANGES IN THE PROPERTIES OF THE EARTH'S MATTER, AND NOT DUE TO CURVATURE.
Can you understand? Since the interior structure is completely different, the assumed calculations made taking curvature into consideration are wrong.
Once we exclude the curvature, we can simply explain the velocity of the seismic wave strictly based on the newly discovered properties of earth's matter, on A FLAT SURFACE OF THE EARTH.
-
Okay, so if this is the case, why aren't the people who spend their lives studying this stuff coming to the same conclusion? Furthermore, do any of the sources you linked actually claim the Earth is flat? If not, then they're clearly wrong as well, so why even link them?
-
Well, I am not a god-fearing Christian, so there's that. I'll engage in debate with people on either side and answer directly. Unfortunately, I don't always know what people are trying to say, and if I prod for details, people get upset. I can't help if they aren't good at making points. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about that.
Why would you get deleted and banned? At worst, this post is just in the wrong forum, as we have a dedicated forum for suggestions and concerns. I don't mind people criticizing me. Certainly not going to ban someone for it.
I apologise for misjudging you in thinking you would ban someone for opposing you too vociferously, and for making assumptions about your faith.
I stand by my claim that you stonewall, or deliberately evade, some difficult questions or arguments.
I will attempt to restate and simplify what the OP said, not meaning to speak for him but just because I find this question interesting and want people to actually discuss it. He can correct me if I misunderstood.
The argument goes along the lines that FE cannot be true because the conspiracy to keep it quiet for so long is impossibly complicated. Many people would have to have inside knowledge of the truth in order to do their jobs, and there would be frequent leaks and failures to maintain the deception, especially from countries not firmly under the thumb of TPTB. For instance, why hasnt North Korea spilled the beans just to spite the hated US?
-
Well, I am not a god-fearing Christian, so there's that. I'll engage in debate with people on either side and answer directly. Unfortunately, I don't always know what people are trying to say, and if I prod for details, people get upset. I can't help if they aren't good at making points. There's nothing intellectually dishonest about that.
Why would you get deleted and banned? At worst, this post is just in the wrong forum, as we have a dedicated forum for suggestions and concerns. I don't mind people criticizing me. Certainly not going to ban someone for it.
I apologise for misjudging you in thinking you would ban someone for opposing you too vociferously, and for making assumptions about your faith.
I stand by my claim that you stonewall, or deliberately evade, some difficult questions or arguments.
I will attempt to restate and simplify what the OP said, not meaning to speak for him but just because I find this question interesting and want people to actually discuss it. He can correct me if I misunderstood.
The argument goes along the lines that FE cannot be true because the conspiracy to keep it quiet for so long is impossibly complicated. Many people would have to have inside knowledge of the truth in order to do their jobs, and there would be frequent leaks and failures to maintain the deception, especially from countries not firmly under the thumb of TPTB. For instance, why hasnt North Korea spilled the beans just to spite the hated US?
Presumably because NK does not have the means to provide any evidence. They can't even feed half of their population. I'm of the position that very few need to be involved in a conspiracy if it exists. Most simply don't know any better.
-
Junker, if you believe the number involved in the conspiracy is so small, can you speak to any of my specific concerns laid out in the OP? Sailors, pilots, meteorologists, etc? And among those who do know, what's their motivation for keeping it a secret?
-
Junker, if you believe the number involved in the conspiracy is so small, can you speak to any of my specific concerns laid out in the OP? Sailors, pilots, meteorologists, etc? And among those who do know, what's their motivation for keeping it a secret?
Why would any of those people need to know, or be able to confirm the shape of the Earth? I don't understand the concern.
-
I've already argued for this a few times in this thread, but I'll summarize again here.
Sailors and pilots because they need to know where they are and where they're going. If the Earth is shaped differently, then all their maps are wrong, so it's a miracle that they all get to the right destinations at the right times -- or, their maps are right, and they're all in on the conspiracy. And many of them (claim to) travel on routes that appear completely implausible if a typical flat-earth map is used (e.g. pretty much anything in the southern hemisphere).
Meteorologists, because we can use satellites to track weather patterns across the world and across large bodies of water. You can easily find live weather maps of wind speed, temperature and the likes (such as this (http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-153.41,-5.10,294)). This is evidence of the same vein as "we've been to space and we have pictures", except these would be vastly more difficult to fake. There are people who analyze these patterns and use them to predict the weather for a living. You'd think they'd be able to tell if the data weren't matching up to what they saw in real life.
These people aren't rare. You should be able to find some all around the world. Most nations in the world should be able to figure this out, especially if you guys all were able to (that is to say, you're probably mostly in fields that are totally unrelated to the shape of the earth). And as much as you say a nation like North Korea isn't advanced enough to figure it out, you're not giving them enough credit. They have been able to make nuclear weapons, so they do have some pretty advanced scientists, even if the majority of their citizens live in terrible conditions.
-
I've already argued for this a few times in this thread, but I'll summarize again here.
Sailors and pilots because they need to know where they are and where they're going. If the Earth is shaped differently, then all their maps are wrong, so it's a miracle that they all get to the right destinations at the right times -- or, their maps are right, and they're all in on the conspiracy. And many of them (claim to) travel on routes that appear completely implausible if a typical flat-earth map is used (e.g. pretty much anything in the southern hemisphere).
Can you provide an example? Sailors absolutely do not need to know the shape of the Earth to maintain the vessel they are traveling in. It isn't like they're a group of PHDs sitting around documenting planetary motion. They wake up, do a job, and go to sleep, then repeat. Please provide some specifics regarding what they do that is beyond following a set of instructions provided by someone else.
Meteorologists, because we can use satellites to track weather patterns across the world and across large bodies of water. You can easily find live weather maps of wind speed, temperature and the likes (such as this (http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-153.41,-5.10,294)). This is evidence of the same vein as "we've been to space and we have pictures", except these would be vastly more difficult to fake. There are people who analyze these patterns and use them to predict the weather for a living. You'd think they'd be able to tell if the data weren't matching up to what they saw in real life.
I suppose this is why weather predictions are always spot on... ::)
These people aren't rare. You should be able to find some all around the world. Most nations in the world should be able to figure this out, especially if you guys all were able to (that is to say, you're probably mostly in fields that are totally unrelated to the shape of the earth). And as much as you say a nation like North Korea isn't advanced enough to figure it out, you're not giving them enough credit. They have been able to make nuclear weapons, so they do have some pretty advanced scientists, even if the majority of their citizens live in terrible conditions.
You are right that they are not rare. There are a bunch of regular people doing regular jobs who aren't notable or remarkable in any way. You are right, I don't give NK enough credit. Forgive me for not believing the same state media that says their supreme leader finishes a round of golf with 18 consecutive hole in ones, and that he gets re-elected with 100% of the vote...
-
They wake up, do a job, and go to sleep, then repeat.
Are you saying that sailors and pilots don't actually know where they're going? They just blindly drive their crafts according to some pre-written directions without actually knowing where they are? In order for them to be able to do their jobs, they obviously need to know their location at all times. To argue otherwise is practically absurd. And while they don't need to know the shape of the Earth, they do need to know the distance from Point A to Point B, and those distances differ wildly between FE and RE models. As a prime example, take the distance from Australia to South America -- on a globe, you just cross the relatively short Pacific, while on the conventional FE disc model, you need to traverse the entire outside of the disc to make that trip. Do you really think sailors and pilots can't tell the difference?
I suppose this is why weather predictions are always spot on... ::)
That isn't an answer to anything I said. Predicting the weather a week or even a few days from now is a totally different thing to having the current weather conditions mapped, worldwide -- which is something we do have. And again, we can see storm patterns, etc., moving smoothly from Australia to South America in a manner that would be incredibly confusing if that requires traversing the perimeter of a disc.
Forgive me for not believing the same state media...
I'm not asking you to trust their media; we have independent evidence that they have developed nuclear weapons. Yes, the country is awful and filled to the brim with propaganda, but those in power do have access to sophisticated technology -- as do those in power in most other nations. If even a few know the truth, why would they want to keep it quiet? For that matter, why does the US want to keep it quiet? What are they gaining from this that they couldn't do more efficiently?
-
we have independent evidence that they have developed nuclear weapons.
We do? Could you present it? The international community would love to not have to continue speculating and trying to figure it out! You might even get some money out of it if you bring it to the government!
-
This isn't news (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction). Can we focus on my actual points?
-
This isn't news (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction).
Clearly it must be news, since Wikipedia knows nothing about North Korea having nuclear weapons...
Can we focus on my actual points?
No, we can't, because your "actual points" rely on a lie. Underground nuclear tests are not nuclear weapons.
-
Hah, not surprising that you guys didn't answer my questions. It's funny, the lengths you go to in order to hide the truth. There's no point, I'm just trying to understand. It's our earth, why can't we know what it's shaped like?
-
Oh God now sexwarrior has joined in the distraction/evasion tactics! Stop avoiding the questions by picking out any minor fault. The questions were posed using generic examples to illustrate the general argument as simply as possible. You know this. You're not stupid. Neither are the people you're debating with so stop being disingenuous and either tackle the issue honestly or get out of the way and let some other forum members try.
-
Please, people. My points don't rely on North Korea having nuclear weapons at all -- that was merely an answer to Junker saying that they had very little technological capacity, which is clearly false whether they have nuclear weapons or not. (Also, the wikipedia page very clearly and unambiguously states that they do.)
But my actual points are more about the pilots, sailors, meteorologists, etc. These points still haven't really been addressed.
-
Please, people. My points don't rely on North Korea having nuclear weapons at all -- that was merely an answer to Junker saying that they had very little technological capacity, which is clearly false whether they have nuclear weapons or not. (Also, the wikipedia page very clearly and unambiguously states that they do.)
But my actual points are more about the pilots, sailors, meteorologists, etc. These points still haven't really been addressed.
You made the claim that these professions have and require knowledge of the shape of the earth to do their jobs. I'm asking for proof of that. You made a claim that you need to provide evidence for. I'm refuting the original claim, saying that these professions rely on technology, and make decisions based on what the instrumentation tells them.
When you start making additional claims outside that scope as some kind of further evidence, they are fair game, especially when they don't hold up to scrutiny.
-
You made the claim that these professions have and require knowledge of the shape of the earth to do their jobs.
I'm actually not making that claim. The claim I'm making is subtly different -- it's that these professions make heavy use of a globe model in their everyday work and would definitely notice if this model weren't accurate.
On a round Earth, the shortest distance from Sydney to Lima is 7964 miles (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=distance+from+sydney+to+lima). On a Flat Earth, modeled by the Azimuthal Equidistant projection, it's almost 14000 miles (see badly made image below) -- nearly twice as long! And that involves going over land, so any sea route would be even longer. Are you expecting me to believe that professional pilots and captains can't tell the difference between 7,000 and 14,000 miles?
The fact that pilots and ship captains need to know their whereabouts is such a basic, common-sense, indisputable fact that I've had trouble finding any website that would bother to explicitly state that. If you're saying that these people who pilot these craft for a living follow their directions so blindly that they don't actually know how far they're going or where on Earth they are, then I think you need to provide some evidence for that yourself. Never mind the fact that people have navigated the seas, including in the Southern Hemisphere, using round-Earth-based maps since well before anything like GPS was invented. You can't say that they were just blindly following the directions of their technology. Furthermore, if you subscribe to the Azimuthal Equidistant map as the correct representation of the Earth, there's the Vendee Globe (http://alaindelordtourdumonde.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/delord-globe1.jpg) race to consider, which either goes around a relatively small Antarctica, or circles the circumference of an enormous disc.
Then there are the live meteorological maps that I've linked a few times. The fact that the data fits perfectly onto a globe Earth means that it necessarily fits imperfectly on any other shape. If the weather data coming across the Pacific didn't match up with reality, South American meteorologists would realize it.
Here's my map showing the distance from Sydney to Lima (very approximately). Really, anyone with a shred of common sense can see this map couldn't possibly be the way the world literally looks -- even the landmass of Australia is terribly stretched.
(https://i.imgur.com/LvuAIz6.png)
-
Yes, the projection map is a reference and obviously not to scale or 100% accurate. Unfortunately, there is no official flat earth map; this has been stated numerous times. I don't see the merit in the rest of the claims if the premise is using that map. I suppose you can take solace in that there isn't an official map at this time. The rest of it is unremarkable. Of course systems using RE maps will have models that fit it.
-
Well, so far, the Round Earth map does seem to be 100% accurate. And the problem isn't just with the Azimuthal Equidistant map -- any flat map will have a similar problem. There is simply no way to make a flat-earth map that is compatible with all the distances we observe on a round earth.
Of course systems using RE maps will have models that fit it.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. If you're saying that, whatever the actual map of the Earth looks like, our RE models will fit the data -- then you believe the Earth is round. If you don't believe the Earth is round, then you must believe the RE map models won't fit the actual map of the Earth. They are by their very nature incompatible. And, as the evidence I've been presenting suggests, the RE map works. People use it successfully for all sorts of things -- the only alternative is that the conspiracy is much larger than you're willing to say. And if the RE map works, the world is round. It's as simple as that.
-
Are you suggesting that all of these people use globes when navigating or modeling navigation data? What type of maps do you think they use? If we reference the OP, it is suggested such a conspiracy must be vast. There has been zero evidence provided that is the case.
-
I'm suggesting people use maps which correspond to a round-earth model rather than a flat-earth model. If they do, and they get from place to place accurately, then the earth must be round, since the round earth model works. If they still get from place to place properly but the earth isn't round, then they must be using flat-earth maps, and as such are in on a conspiracy. We can agree, I think, that they get from place to place accurately. Therefore, according to that reasoning, either the earth is round or there is a conspiracy converting up the fact that it is flat, and most pilots and sailors must be in on it. Can you find anything wrong with this reasoning?
-
I don't understand why RE'ers get so upset when someone calls them out on a lie, or a simple factual error. If you weren't lying, admit you were wrong, amend or retract your claim, and we can all move on. However, we can't move on when you insist that something that's untrue serves as evidence of your claim and descend to evasion tactics when that's pointed out to you.
-
I'm sorry SexWarrior, but I'm not aware of any place where I have lied or where I have been called out on a lie. I have made the following logical argument:
-We observe planes and ships navigating themselves to their destinations accurately and on time
-If these planes and ships are using round-Earth maps, then those RE maps clearly work (since they got them to the right place at the right time). Therefore, the Earth is round.
-If the world is flat, and these planes and ships still arrive on time, they must be using flat-Earth maps. Hence, they must be in on a conspiracy.
The evidence I'm resting this argument on is essentially the fact that international trade happens. I think that's something we can all agree on. The rest follows from that. Where am I being dishonest, and where have I been called out on a lie?
-
I can't think of a single instance where a pilot I've interacted with referenced a map when flying from A to B.
-
I'm sorry SexWarrior, but I'm not aware of any place where I have lied or where I have been called out on a lie.
You claimed that it is well-known that North Korea has nuclear weapons. In reality, it is well-known that it probably doesn't, although there is some speculation that it might.
You also claimed that planes and ships rely on "RE maps". The only map that truly represents the RE model is a globe. Can you name one modern ship or plane that uses a globe for navigation, rather than a projection which is representative of neither FE nor RE?
-
Junker: Are you suggesting that pilots (and sailors) blindly follow their computer navigation systems to get from Point A to Point B and, in the meantime, don't actually have a clue where they are? Whether or not they have paper maps, in order to do their jobs properly and say, make an emergency landing in case of a storm, they need to know where they are at all times. I'm not sure why we're getting so caught up on this point.
SexWarrior: Wikipedia is firmly of the opinion that NK has nuclear weapons, and expresses no doubt as to that issue. The International Atomic Energy Agency shares that opinion. I haven't seen any sources that seem to doubt this, so I took that as an indication that it is well-known and well agreed-upon, at the moment. Nevertheless, this isn't even important to my argument. It was a throwaway comment meant to illustrate how many other nations have advanced technology among their higher-ups. I don't want to keep talking about this because it isn't important to my larger points.
And yes, planes and ships rely on maps that are based on a round Earth. They don't use globes, but they use maps which are projections of a round Earth. The distances you calculate on these maps are based off those that would be calculated from a globe. So yes, they are representative of RE.
-
That is exactly what I'm suggesting. I'm sure from experience of flying particular routes repeatedly they gain an intrinsic understanding of their bearings. They aren't pulling out maps to chart courses in an airplane.
-
Even if they're blindly following GPS signals and are misled as to where they actually are (a big "if"), your notion still requires that pilots sometimes fly much longer distances than they would be led to expect, and that they somehow never notice this. The example on the Azimuthal Equidistant map that I provided above is just an illustration of this concept, as I've said. You simply can't create a flat-Earth map that avoids this problem. How stupid/oblivious do you think airline pilots are?
-
Rubberbands has a point. It gets worse. Junkers can you, or anyone, explain how there can be direct flights from Santiago to Sydney in approx 12-14 hours, and the passengers report flying over the ice floes at the edge of Antarctica?
-
Here's a quick bit of evidence I found: a passenger on a direct flight from Sydney to Santiago (video of takeoff here) (https://youtu.be/KCXTwvoPJNY) took some pictures of the Antarctic ice that he could see outside the window on the way which you can see here (https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/greyingnomad/sets/72157637303474316/with/10669886654/).
Now of course, he could be lying about any one of these things, but why would he? Is he in on the conspiracy?
This further illustrates how unlikely it is for pilots to be totally deceived the way Junker believes -- they can see things like this that give them an indication of where they actually are. Even if their instruments were secretly programmed with FE-consistent maps unbeknownst to the pilot (again, to the best of my understanding, this is junkers explanation), they would certainly be able to tell whether or not they are above land that looks similar to where the navigation system says they are.
Just to be perfectly clear, I have now provided evidence that Junker's "deceived pilot" hypotheses is somewhat implausible. If you want to keep arguing that point, I'm going to want to see some counter-evidence suggesting that pilots really can be successfully deceived on such a massive scale.
-
To be clear, you're claiming a random video is evidence supporting you claim, correct?
-
I'm claiming first, the fact that a person with no clear motivation to lie has posted pictures of Antarctic ice, which he claims to have taken from an airplane enroute from Santiago to Sydney, is evidence that planes actually make that flight, and that that flight passes over Antarctica. This is extremely hard to explain with the typical FE map.
Edit: for more evidence that these flights do happen (something Junker hasn't expressly denied, but others have elsewhere on this site) see this: http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/australiasouth-america-airfares-under-pressure-20150422-1mr289.html
Second (and more importantly), this is simply an illustration of the fact that people on airplanes can see where they are a lot of the time, which is a fact that you didn't seem to be accepting. If a passenger can see they're over Antarctica, so can a pilot. And therefore a pilot can tell when they're *not* over Antarctica, but should be. Hence, pilots would have to be exceptionally oblivious or stupid in order to be taken down different paths by their navigation systems, as you seem to suggest.
Just to be sure, it was your argument that pilots blindly follow their GPS and don't actually know where on earth they are, so their GPS could conceivably be taking them on a different route than they expect -- correct?
-
I never stated pilots blindly follow their GPS.
-
I have an idea for settling this once and for all. 2 methods:
1: A trusted flatearther actually takes the direct flight between Santiago and Sydney and journals everything faithfully; times, regular photos out the windows on both sides. This is expensive but the Society could chip in.
2: Find two trusted flatearth supporters to help, one in Santiago or who can get there, one in Sydney. Get Sydney to find the flight (if it doesn't exist you've won straight away) watch it take off and note it's tail numbers. Get him/her to contact Santiago just before the flight plan says it's going to land; if it doesn't, RE is in trouble.
Cheap fun day project for all involved!
-
Okay, then what did you mean when I asked
Are you suggesting that pilots (and sailors) blindly follow their computer navigation systems to get from Point A to Point B and, in the meantime, don't actually have a clue where they are?
and you replied
That is exactly what I'm suggesting.
Was I misunderstanding you -- were you saying that in response to some other question perhaps? I also haven't considered "GPS" to mean anything significantly different from "computer navigation system" for the purposes of this discussion -- do you consider them to have some difference relevant to the discussion? Otherwise I'm not sure what the difference between this statement and the previous one is. Could you clarify?
@Enlightenmental -- I like the idea, but it seems the FE community (or at least many members of it, including Junker) are not very committed to any one map, so while that would pretty effectively rule out the Azimuthal Equidistant projection as a literal interpretation of how the Earth looks, they could just resort to something else. I will emphasize again, however, that no matter what other map they resort to, it will necessarily have similar problems.
-
I have an idea for settling this once and for all. 2 methods:
1: A trusted flatearther actually takes the direct flight between Santiago and Sydney and journals everything faithfully; times, regular photos out the windows on both sides. This is expensive but the Society could chip in.
2: Find two trusted flatearth supporters to help, one in Santiago or who can get there, one in Sydney. Get Sydney to find the flight (if it doesn't exist you've won straight away) watch it take off and note it's tail numbers. Get him/her to contact Santiago just before the flight plan says it's going to land; if it doesn't, RE is in trouble.
Cheap fun day project for all involved!
I'd be happy to take part if someone wants to arrange it. Thankfully, one of our fellow admins lives in Sydney and I've been meaning to pay him a visit. We just need one more person, and someone to fund and arrange. I can even GoPro the whole session to ensure all is accounted for.
-
OK junker, can you propose it to the wider community outside this subforum? It'd get more attention coming from you.
-
I'd be happy to propose it. I'm not sure who will listen, though.
-
Well, give it a try. It's an opportunity to get some real kickass evidence.
-
I like the test idea, but I think at this point any further discussion of it would be better off in another thead.
Junker, I still want to know why, when I asked
"Are you suggesting that pilots (and sailors) blindly follow their computer navigation systems to get from Point A to Point B and, in the meantime, don't actually have a clue where they are?"
you replied
"That is exactly what I'm suggesting",
but when I asked
"Just to be sure, it was your argument that pilots blindly follow their GPS and don't actually know where on earth they are, so their GPS could conceivably be taking them on a different route than they expect -- correct?"
you replied
"I never stated pilots blindly follow their GPS."
The two statements look very similar to me, so I'm wondering what the distinction is that made you say yes to the first and no to the second.
[edited formatting to make it easier to read]
-
How is it possible to orchestrate this 'round earth lie' for so many years among so many different stakeholders with no information leaks whatsoever?
I guess your answer is "That's very easy!", so just let this question for other people to reflect on.
There are information leaks, just because you disregard them doesn't mean they are not there.
-
Hoppy, do you have any examples? (Also, since I'm always interested in seeing the arguments presented by different flat-Earthers, do you have any thoughts on my argument that, if the earth is flat, pilots, along with others, must be in on the conspiracy?)
-
How is it possible to orchestrate this 'round earth lie' for so many years among so many different stakeholders with no information leaks whatsoever?
I guess your answer is "That's very easy!", so just let this question for other people to reflect on.
There are information leaks, just because you disregard them doesn't mean they are not there.
Where? By who?
-
Junker, are you able to answer my question? It's been well over a day and you've posted in response to other people in this thread, but you haven't addressed my most recent question. I feel like we're finally starting to get somewhere in this conversation, so it would be a shame if it just stopped in the middle here.
-
Junker, are you able to answer my question? It's been well over a day and you've posted in response to other people in this thread, but you haven't addressed my most recent question. I feel like we're finally starting to get somewhere in this conversation, so it would be a shame if it just stopped in the middle here.
What is there to answer? They were in fact separate statements.
-
I've been very clear about what there is to answer: I would like to know why you said "yes" to one and "no" to the other. From the fact that you answered them differently, I could already tell that you saw these as very different questions, but I still do not see much meaningful difference between them. Hence, I am asking you to clarify why you answered them differently.
For the record, I didn't intend for there to be any real difference between the phrases "computer navigation system" and "GPS". Most plane navigation is heavily reliant on GPS, so I took the two to be more or less synonymous. That change of phrasing is essentially the only difference I can see between the first and second time I asked that, so I can only assume that it has something to do with the difference in your answer.
And, just to reiterate, the reason I think this is important is that I take your larger point to be that pilots need not be in on a conspiracy because they could be led by their navigation systems on different paths than they expect. I see this as unlikely, and have argued that since pilots are often able to see the ground and specific landmarks (such as coastlines, cities, ice, or just open ocean), they would certainly realize if their navigation systems were trying to deceive them. Therefore, they would have to be complicit in flying their planes on alternate, flat-Earth-friendly routes, and hence in on the conspiracy.
-
Rubberbands asked "Are you (Junker) suggesting that pilots and sailors blindly follow their computer navigation systems to get from Point A to Point B and, in the meantime, don't actually have a clue where they are?" To which Junker replied less than an hour later "That is exactly what I'm suggesting. I'm sure from experience of flying particular routes repeatedly they gain an intrinsic understanding of their bearings. They aren't pulling out maps to chart courses in an airplane." Perhaps this is true in today's ships and airplanes, where the computer reigns supreme, but in pre-digital days this was not the case. Early aviators absolutely DID navigate in flight using paper maps, and sailors always have and still do so as a backup if GPS should fail them. And those maps are/were projections based on an assumption of a round earth. If the assumption of a round earth were false, then maps based upon that assumption would not be an accurate representation of the world. They might be navigable in some parts of the world, but they would be worthless in others.
In today's world, ships and planes routinely arrive where they are trying to go, and they arrive in the amount of time one expects of a round earth. Therefore one of the following must be true:
1. All pilots who fly more than merely local routes, and all mariners who navigate ships across the ocean, they all merely pretend to use RE navigation when in reality they know and use FE navigation, and therefore all of them are a part of the conspiracy to keep FE a secret.
2. All those people are fools, they think they're navigating a round earth when in fact they've been duped by mapmakers and GPS programmers who pretend their maps represent RE when they actually represent FE, placing all mapmakers in the conspiracy.
3. None of those people are in the know, they all mistakenly believe RE, the maps are based on RE and are worthless, and my statement about ships and planes routinely arriving at their destinations is false. They are actually lost at sea in large numbers or making landfall wildly off course due to navigating under false RE assumptions with bogus RE maps. There must be a massive coverup to hide all these missing ships and planes from the news, which is an even bigger pool of conspirators.
4. None of the above, because maps based on RE assumptions actually get you where you want to go.
-
None of this has to be so difficult.
I have an idea for settling this once and for all. 2 methods:
1: A trusted flatearther actually takes the direct flight between Santiago and Sydney and journals everything faithfully; times, regular photos out the windows on both sides. This is expensive but the Society could chip in.
2: Find two trusted flatearth supporters to help, one in Santiago or who can get there, one in Sydney. Get Sydney to find the flight (if it doesn't exist you've won straight away) watch it take off and note it's tail numbers. Get him/her to contact Santiago just before the flight plan says it's going to land; if it doesn't, RE is in trouble.
Cheap fun day project for all involved!
I'd be happy to take part if someone wants to arrange it. Thankfully,
we can ask GoogleEarth to show us a live-streaming video of all of the flights the shills and disinformation trolls say exist........ oh, wait.
-
"we can ask GoogleEarth to show us a live-streaming video of all of the flights the shills and disinformation trolls say exist........ oh, wait."
Yet another weak strawman argument, laughable. Does google have to do everything? Just search for flight trackers, there's plenty of them. Or don't, if you have no interest in finding out what the truth is.
-
"we can ask GoogleEarth to show us a live-streaming video of all of the flights the shills and disinformation trolls say exist........ oh, wait."
Yet another weak strawman argument, laughable. Does google have to do everything? Just search for flight trackers, there's plenty of them. Or don't, if you have no interest in finding out what the truth is.
How about this?
http://m.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
-
Still wondering why Junker is refusing to answer a simple, direct question.
-
How about this?
http://m.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
You forget, Luke, that we are not going to get anywhere with evidence based on spaceflight, spacecraft, satellites, etc. Flat Earthers believe all spaceflight to be fiction, hoax, Photoshop and CGI. A live feed from the ISS is no better to them than 'footage' from Pandora or Tatooine.
-
You forget, Luke, that we are not going to get anywhere with evidence based on spaceflight, spacecraft, satellites, etc. Flat Earthers believe all spaceflight to be fiction, hoax, Photoshop and CGI. A live feed from the ISS is no better to them than 'footage' from Pandora or Tatooine.
Any evidence you have that is too strong to come up with a plausible sounding rebuttal for, suddenly becomes fake. Even if the source had previously been used in a different context to support flathead ideas. It's like banging your head against an ice wall.
-
You forget, Luke, that we are not going to get anywhere with evidence based on spaceflight, spacecraft, satellites, etc. Flat Earthers believe all spaceflight to be fiction, hoax, Photoshop and CGI. A live feed from the ISS is no better to them than 'footage' from Pandora or Tatooine.
Any evidence you have that is too strong to come up with a plausible sounding rebuttal for, suddenly becomes fake. Even if the source had previously been used in a different context to support flathead ideas. It's like banging your head against an ice wall.
Incorrect.
-
You forget, Luke, that we are not going to get anywhere with evidence based on spaceflight, spacecraft, satellites, etc. Flat Earthers believe all spaceflight to be fiction, hoax, Photoshop and CGI. A live feed from the ISS is no better to them than 'footage' from Pandora or Tatooine.
Any evidence you have that is too strong to come up with a plausible sounding rebuttal for, suddenly becomes fake. Even if the source had previously been used in a different context to support flathead ideas. It's like banging your head against an ice wall.
Incorrect.
Which part is incorrect? My statement that FE believe spaceflight to be fake, or the more broad statement made by Enlightenmental? Or are both incorrect?
If my statement is incorrect, and you DO accept spaceflight as real, what do you think of the ISS live feed?
-
The response was specifically to Enlightenmental.
-
The response was specifically to Enlightenmental.
I told you in https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4410.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4410.0) i'm ignoring you until you've watched those timelapse videos and tackled them directly. So there.
-
Junker! Glad to see you back in this thread, it just hasn't been the same since you started ignoring me. I'm still wondering about your apparent self-contradiction from earlier -- if you actually changed your mind on that issue, or if there's a way for you to reconcile the two different statements you made.
-
Junker! Glad to see you back in this thread, it just hasn't been the same since you started ignoring me. I'm still wondering about your apparent self-contradiction from earlier -- if you actually changed your mind on that issue, or if there's a way for you to reconcile the two different statements you made.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I've made no contradicting statements.
-
I've asked you this question at least three times, Junker. You keep avoiding it.
I would like to know why you said "yes" to one and "no" to the other. From the fact that you answered them differently, I could already tell that you saw these as very different questions, but I still do not see much meaningful difference between them. Hence, I am asking you to clarify why you answered them differently.
For the record, I didn't intend for there to be any real difference between the phrases "computer navigation system" and "GPS". Most plane navigation is heavily reliant on GPS, so I took the two to be more or less synonymous. That change of phrasing is essentially the only difference I can see between the first and second time I asked that, so I can only assume that it has something to do with the difference in your answer.
I asked you what I thought was the same exact question two different times. The first time you said yes, the second time you denied having said yes. I want to know whether you actually think GPS/other navigation systems actively deceive pilots and take them on different routes than they expect. If you don't think that, I want to understand what you actually meant earlier when it looked like you were saying exactly that.
-
"Computer navigation" and GPS are not the same thing.
-
Okay, as I've said, I considered that a pretty insignificant point since practically all plane navigation involves GPS at this point. However, I will do my best not to conflate the terms from here on out.
Now that we've finally put that aside, I would like to ask you again if you still hold that pilots are often deceived by their computer navigation systems into taking different routes than they think they are taking -- specifically, I'm assuming that the navigation systems would have FE-based maps programmed into them, but would display alternate routes on a RE map so that the pilot doesn't catch on to the flatness of the Earth. A specific example of this might be a flight computer taking a pilot flying from Sydney to Santiago through the northern hemisphere (the shortest FE route, at least according to the most popular map) while making the pilot believe they are flying over the Pacific Ocean the whole time (the shortest RE route). If this is not a fair characterization of the way you think things work, please correct me.
If this is an accurate characterization of how you believe international air travel works, I would like to know how pilots don't catch on by just looking out their windows and seeing land when they should be seeing water (or vice versa). In the above scenario, this would happen all the time, there's no way around it.
To reiterate, the whole reason we got on this topic is because I am firmly on the belief that many airline pilots would have to be in on the FE conspiracy, and in particular all of those who even occasionally fly in the Southern Hemisphere (assuming the typical map). The above is the only remotely plausible way I could think of to attempt to deceive pilots into thinking the earth was round while they flew over a flat earth, and as I've argued, it appears rather far-fetched itself.
Bottom line: If we accept that pilots can often tell whether they're flying over land or not, then it seems to me they wouldn't be able to be tricked and would therefore have to be in on the conspiracy. This seems like something we should be able to agree on at this point.
-
I will add my personal experience:
I have sailed between Hawaii and California two times. The map I used was of course a projection of a round Earth.
I have sailed to other locations as well.
From time to time I enjoy using more traditional methods of navigation. Using a sextant to get noon shots of the sun to get longitude and sighting stars to get my position. Methods that are based on a round Earth. A method of navigation that has been successfully used for hundreds of years that required astronomers to be in on the conspiracy during that time also.
Using maps based on a RE I have always made port in the travel times I expected. The speeds, distances, and travel times always added up correctly.
On a side note I also witnessed something many times during my travels over the ocean. I will focus on one experience at night watching a ship near me and several times I approached land at night. Which I find the most compelling argument against a flat or concave Earth I have experienced. While on deck I saw I light on the horizon. I got my binoculars and tried to determine what heading the other ship was on. I will list my visual observations in order.
1. Saw one light.
2. Continued to see the one light which I identified as being on a mast along with now being able to see light from a lower location the Helm.
3. Previous lights still visible and light coming through several port holes that where slightly lower.
4. Navigation lights came into view.
1. Well as for approaching land pretty much the same as above I was able to see light from the taller buildings first. Pretty much the same experiences during the day but I usually have to be closer to ships before I notice they are there. It is just harder to spot them with the naked eye until they are closer.
These experiences and seeing how the lights came into my view does not support a flat or concave Earth.