301

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 01, 2017, 03:18:35 AM »

Which beside being a statement rife with problems of various nature has zero explanatory power.

Can I save this for future use?

302

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 01, 2017, 03:15:33 AM »

There are over 1,800 weather balloons released EVERY SINGLE DAY....Now add just as many secret ones daily, you ever seen one?

 NOPE

4,000 everyday and you've never seen one.

I don't think anyone denies that balloons are launched. Where is your proof that they are the source of GPS? There isn't any.

This is the logic you are using: GPS works. I don't believe in satellites, but GPS works. So there must be something else up there. Balloons are up there, GPS works. Therefore, GPS uses balloons. Now I've answered something, time to move on and not think about it too long.

It's ridiculous on so many levels.
1: The triangulation (actually trilateration) used requires the source of the signal to be in a known position. Not a fixed position, but a known one. This works for satellites. Not for balloons that are subject to moving with the wind.

2: If balloons were the source, the math wouldn't match satellite orbits. So Garmin, Magellan, Apple, Google, and everyone in the world writing software for GPS receivers would have to be part of your alleged global conspiracy.

3: GPS was created by and for the U.S. military. It is used to fix exact locations for ships, planes, bombs, tanks, missiles, etc. Do you think that system would be dependent on balloon launches? Sure, if we every had to go to war with the Soviet Union, the first step would have been to send a bunch of guys over there to launch balloons first. Right.

303

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: October 01, 2017, 03:01:19 AM »

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog160/node/1926

Dude you're so gullible. Read the provided link. Surveyors used "Fixed" positions and now wait for it...........

The "STARS"

J-Man, did you read that page or just look for a couple of words that made you feel better about your FE belief? This seems to be a common theme that I've seen. I found something that kind of says something like I believe, or some other shallow relationship as best. But as long as you can point to, well, something, then yeah me, I won the argument.

Since you are entering the article as evidence, I assume you accept as truth.

If you read the article, it describes the techniques of surveying as it existed pre GPS, and says that they are still in use. Still in use, doesn't mean it is exclusively used, and that GPS doesn't exist. Automatic transmissions have largely replaced standard transmissions. But if you find a car with a stick shift, it doesn't mean that automatic transmissions don't exist.

Anyway, since we are accepting the article as evidence, I'll quote some excerpts from the page, with some commentary.

The techniques and tools of conventional surveying are still in use and, as you will see, are based on the very same concepts that underpin even the most advanced satellite-based positioning.

Clearly saying that satellite based GPS exists.

Geographic positions are specified relative to a fixed reference. Positions on the globe, for instance, may be specified in terms of angles relative to the center of the Earth, the equator, and the prime meridian.

Nice globe reference.

Nowadays, geodesists produce extremely precise positional data by analyzing radio waves emitted by distant stars.

Pretty sure those radio waves aren't all coming from lights on a dome over the Earth.

Before survey-grade satellite positioning was available, the most common technique for conducting control surveys was triangulation

Having read this chapter so far, you have already been introduced to a practical application of trilateration, since it is the technique behind satellite ranging used in GPS.

You have seen an example of trilateration in Figure 5.8 in the form of 3-dimensional spheres extending from orbiting satellites. Demo 1 below steps through this process in two dimensions.

Two more references to ranging from satellites.

The reference to "Figure 5.8" is to another web page in that series of articles that describes GPS. It shows some details of the satellite orbits around the globe and describes how signals from multiple satellites are used to identify your position on the (round) globe. Have a look for yourself. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog160/node/1923

304

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is it just earth that is flat?

« on: September 30, 2017, 04:39:11 AM »

3dGeek, here is another take on a similar problem with the moon.

Imagine the unipolar view (first drawing on https://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents) with clock marks for ease of discussion. Let's say that the moon is at the 9:00 position to the right, south of North America. The sun is at the 3:00 position, south of India. We are viewing from the U.S. This is where there should be a full moon, right?

If the sun and moon are about 3k miles above the Earth, there will be an angle from the viewpoint on Earth to the sun, and another angle from the viewpoint to the moon. Whatever those angles are, the light from the sun is illuminating the half of the moon towards the sun, and we are viewing from a lower angle. Therefore, we could never see a full moon. It might be nearly full, but never completely round/full.

305

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Linear speed of Sun in FE?

« on: September 29, 2017, 04:01:53 PM »

So at 52m/s speed will it create sonic boom??

A sonic boom, in space... No.

Also, a sonic boom is not created by something going continuously faster than the speed of sound. It's made when something breaks through the speed of sound (in an atmosphere).

306

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Most Powerful Telescopes !

« on: September 29, 2017, 03:12:13 AM »

Prove once again to me there is a dome with Gods lights twinkling at us. Yes some but few round shaped bodies can be seen but even the greatest telescopes of our time see mostly blurred light. It takes "tricks" like adaptive optics to trick the lens in what its seeing. The scientists call these "Magic Tricks".  Like infrared trick followed by a whole lot of guess work.

See 1:42 specifically for some proof.

They admit that these tele's can see better than Hubble probably because Hubble was looking out an aircraft door and no where near stable. You can see almost as much as them with a simple camera like a Nikon P900. Colored lights flickering in the dome of water and the moon.

This is why EVERYTHING is CGI because it's all guesswork.

Don't take my word for it, just listen to the scientist and his words not the guesses that are spit out later by the deceivers. How do we know they are deceiving us? It's obvious, just listen, @ 1:42 the reason its blurred is "Earths atmosphere", say what? The moon is 238,000 miles away supposedly and long gone from the atmosphere yet even binoculars bring up fine details no BLUR. Total Bullcrap....

You show so little understanding of anything here with this comment. The moon is a long ways from us, isn't blurry with binoculars, but is with a telescope. Bullcrap you claim. That is exactly the reason. More magnification means distortions are magnified by movements of the camera or of the atmosphere you are looking through.

Want some really hard core science to test this yourself?

Take your Nikon camera, use a low ISO so that the shutter speed is fairly long, like 1/30 of a second. Don't use a tripod, just hold the camera in your hand. Take a picture of something with the widest field of view. Zoom in on something with maximum zoom and take a picture. Compare the pictures. The zoomed view magnifies any shaking of the camera and will have a less sharp picture. This is a very simple test you can run. But if  you see the results I described, I'm sure somehow you'll find a way to blame NASA for faking the image in your camera. Maybe Nikon is part of the vast Copernicus conspiracy.

Here is a second observation. Ever here anyone describe stars as twinkling, but not planets? That's the same effect. The arc width of Venus of Jupiter is wider than any star (other than the Sun of course.) So their light is more affected by the moving atmosphere.

307

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Russia and China to the moon and beyond.

« on: September 28, 2017, 04:02:49 AM »

LOL, go read the comments on the YouTube page. Someone was just taking some pictures at an airport when the approach used by the planes lined up with the moon. After some derogatory comments about this not proving anything, the video's poster said "Are you saying that Flat Earth are using my video to advance their theories?"

308

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The pull of gravity would be irregular

« on: September 28, 2017, 12:46:19 AM »

We know that the gravitational pull of the moon causes the tides in both models*, so I guess that could be an answer for you.  The moon is indeed causing irregular gravitational forces high up in the atmosphere.  The RE model also asserts that variances in the density of the crust of the Earth creates gravitational irregularities all over the planet.  Therefore very small gravitational irregularities on the surface and in the atmosphere/atmolayer actually do exist in both models.

*FE gravitation reference - https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Tidal_Effects

The differences have experimentally proven to be related to increased distance from the Earth's gravitational field. With ultra precise atomic clocks differences in altitude, and/or velocity measure exactly as expected according to Einstein's relativity. https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/superaccurate-clocks-prove-your-head-older-your-feet

309

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth view of longitude?

« on: September 27, 2017, 07:56:28 PM »

Thanks Squirrel, that's about what I was imagining. So according to that, where I live in Georgia, I should see probably 2-3 hours of sunlight per day in the winter since most of the sun's south pole orbit is further away from me than it is at night during the north pole orbit.

310

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth view of longitude?

« on: September 27, 2017, 07:30:09 PM »

It does a vague sort of figure 8. Rotating around the North pole during their summer and 'shifting gears' to the South pole at the equinoxes. I don't remember the reference material, but one of their suggestions for how it does so was literally just 'magic' so.

What? I mean, what?

So in bi-polar it orbits the north pole during the north's summer, then moves to orbit the south pole during north's winter. Is that they say? Is there an animation of this?

So when the sun orbits the north pole, we see darkness when it's over the other part of the flat Earth because of spot light sun. If it was orbiting the south pole, wouldn't it always be to far away for the north to get any light?

311

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?

« on: September 27, 2017, 07:04:13 PM »

Can you show us the force that is making the Earth accelerate? Can you conclusively show us that it's the Earth accelerating towards the ball when we let got of it and not the ball accelerating towards the Earth? If you can I would love to see it.

Not anymore than RE can show what makes gravity function, I suppose. But if you have some evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

Newton explained the effects of gravity in the 1600's and Einstein explained how it worked in the early 1900's. Over the last hundred years, more and more pieces of Einstein's theories have been confirmed in various experimental tests. Here is a summary. https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

One caveat, I have not seen it explicitly mentioned anywhere, but I am assuming Einstein was a RE believer.

312

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of acceleration

« on: September 27, 2017, 06:49:43 PM »

Flat Earth believers didn't calculate that number. That is a generally know constant for the gravity caused by the mass of the Earth. It's the same one I was taught in high school physics class, although we used feet per second instead of meters.

This is the observed effect of gravity. They don't believe in gravity, but that the Earth is constantly moving faster and faster up, pushing us down. They just use the same number so that the effects match.

313

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth view of longitude?

« on: September 27, 2017, 03:14:30 AM »

I think it's supposed to have an ice wall too...but whoever drew it didn't seem to have drawn it in.

But yes - the equator is dead straight...which is kinda what I was getting at with sailing due East from Borneo to get to S.America...you kinda need teleportation to get from one side of the map to the other.

So have they ever tried to explain how they think the sun would would rotate on the bi-polar model? I can't imagine what kind of zig zag path it would have to take to explain seasons and ice in the arctic/antartic areas.

314

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth view of longitude?

« on: September 26, 2017, 10:34:29 PM »

Wow, that's the first time I've seen the bi-polar map. Even stranger than the uni-polar map. It doesn't have an ice wall holding the ocean in? Lol

It also stands out to me that the equator line is the only normal looking, straight latitude line. It appears that if you sailed/flew west along the equator from South America, you would hit the edge of the world. I've heard no reports of anyone seeing the edge of the world, which must be that anyone who saw it fell off and was unable to report back, right?

315

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the Earth accelerating at9.8 metres per second?

« on: September 26, 2017, 09:53:35 PM »

What does gravitation require to make it happen, then?

Mass

316

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the Earth is Flat what is below it?

« on: September 25, 2017, 11:57:33 PM »

How is it that there are pictures of the sun being large and pictures of the sun being small?   

Because the field of view is different. You shouldn't really rely on pics unless you know the camera setup. I can make the sun look large or small with the same lens on my camera. Just depends how much I zoom in. Using the same camera/same setup with pics throughout the day, the sun is very stable in size.

I have also seen some pics that claim the sun does get smaller just before sunset. They show pics with the sun 5-10 degrees above the horizon, then at the horizon. Then they draw lines along the side of each and measure them. But what they don't recognize, or admit, is that in the supposed larger sun pic, the glare is much stronger, so that measurement is really of the glare of the sun, compared to a sun with no, or lessor, glare. I think that to really prove it to yourself, you would need to use a consistent camera and lens focal length as 3Dgeek mentioned. But also a solar filter so you are getting a clear view of the actual surface of the sun.

I went to see the totality of the recent eclipse and saw a few people with solar filters made for a standard camera lens. Until then, I thought the filters only existed for telescopes.

317

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is the Bishop experiment scientifically valid?

« on: September 25, 2017, 11:17:53 PM »

I haven't dug into the math behind it, but there is a calculator online at https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc

It's open source, so anyone can review it.

Just doing a couple of test calculations on it, it does give the results that match the 8 inches/mile².

But I see a very basic thing that people quoting the 8 inch do wrong. They don't understand that there are two inputs to the equation. The distance of course, but also the the viewing height. They imagine standing on the beach and looking at something ten miles away. 10 miles squared * 8 inches = 66.6867 feet obscured. But by doing the calculation that way, they have implicitly set the viewing height to zero.

Say you're standing on a parking lot at the beach, maybe your eye level is 15 feet above Earth/sea level. The same calculation then results in 18.4317 feet obscured. A significant difference.

318

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I just flew through a sunset and took pictures that support RET

« on: September 25, 2017, 02:45:26 AM »

Nice photos Douglips. Dark on the ground, light on the clouds, light on the plane. Sounds like a round Earth to me.

319

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Star tracks in the southern hemisphere

« on: September 25, 2017, 02:22:57 AM »

From those observations, you can deduce how the solar system operates.

It's not even all that difficult.

If it was that easy, people would have understood the relationship between the Earth and sun hundreds of years ago. Oh wait, they did that didn't they. Never mind.

320

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"

« on: September 25, 2017, 12:11:40 AM »

You guys are arguing without knowledge how perspective would actually act at large distances. You are making a hypothesis that the perspective lines would never touch. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch?

This perspective argument is crazy. Is this whole idea just a big joke? I can't tell any more.

Perspective lines can't ever touch because they are NOT REAL. Perspective means, how we perceive something. It doesn't mean how it is in reality.

I'll stick to the railroad track argument because it is so simple. If you stand between the rails, the rails appear to become closer in the distance. It has nothing to do with the horizon. Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that perspective lines will never touch? Because for these angles to meet the rails would touch. And regardless of their meeting or not, no matter how far down these tracks, to the horizon, to the tree line, to half way up the picture, the rails are the same distance apart. I know this because the trains that travel the tracks don't shrink as they move away from us. Even if it looks like they do.

And yes we all believe in the horizon. It's where the Earth appears to meet the sky. It happens because the Earth is round and slopes gradually away. These arguments giving magic properties to "perspective" just don't make sense.

Reference the picture of the tracks. You look down them and see rails moving at angles getting closer. If someone else was standing 300 feet down those same tracks and looked back at you, what would they see? Rails moving at angles getting closer. So how can either perspective be said to have anything to do with the reality of the rails?