81

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 06:16:28 PM »

If the earth was spinning we would have astronomers saying that they performed experiments and verified that it was spinning, rather than reading about astronomers who performed experiments and saw that it was not spinning.

OMG Tom, we have done that. Go weigh yourself at the equator. Go Google gravity probe B and it's confirmation of frame dragging caused by Earth's rotation. Foucault pendulums, gyroscopes, the Paris gun, ocean currents, jet streams, etc... If the best you have is a one guy from the 1500s, ya might as well give it up.

82

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 05:22:00 PM »

You really are very dishonest. I'm sure they were educated but that doesn't mean they were correct.

You could say that about any living human in any time period.

Name calling. Avoidance tactics. Dismissal of evidence. Are you even trying to debate?

Sorry, do you have a monopoly on that? It's just interesting that you pick the one experiment from the 16th Century which you think backs up your view and ignore all the experiments which show you to be wrong. My nod to debate was to mention Foucault pendulums but I've looked in your Wiki and I see you have some ridiculous "explanation" for that too. There is plenty of evidence and experiments which shows the earth rotates.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-every-experiment-to-detect-the-Earths-motion-has-instead-shown-it-is-stationary
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-12/tum-fed122211.php

Sorry, but I am going to have to prefer the studies of Tycho Brahe, the greatest astronomer of his era, who did claim to perform many experiments, over the words of "Buddha Buck, studied at University at Buffalo" and "Joe Gedge, Physics student, average Joe", who do not claim to perform any experiments to back up their assertions.

Tom, the key phrase in your statement is "of his era". The long and short is, he was wrong. He held an Earth-centered view of the universe. This was long ago proven incorrect. Using him as some gold standard of Astronomy isn't going to fly today. Many scientists held views that were incorrect. It isn't so much the person saying something (I know we all like to pull out the biggest names we can find that agree with our positions), but the tests that confirm what they are saying. If an assertion isn't testable or doesn't make predictions, it is useless.

And again, I ask, in what way would you experience the Earth spinning?

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 21, 2018, 02:01:21 PM »

Would it not be better to live in the world that REs claim exist (such as myself)? All of those problems I said above disappear.

Unlike RE'ers, we do not much care for what sounds nice, what world would be better to live in, or what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside. We care only about what is true, and what can be empirically measured and observed.

Who is 'we'?  Do you observe the path of the sun at many different places on earth?

Some of us do travel around to do our own experiments, yes.

Have you traveled and done experiments? If so, what did you do?

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 21, 2018, 02:00:44 PM »

It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.

An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?

According to RET you should be able to see it also from other planes than just a Concorde.

There are no other commercial planes that fly high enough to see the curve of the Earth. I highly doubt Pete has access to military aircraft, so in light of that, you are wrong.

85

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 01:41:29 PM »

I don't find a problem with his argument that we should be able to experience the earth spinning.  The famous astronomers Tycho Bachi and Ricioli also believed that we should be able to experience and detect the spinning earth.

In what way would you experience the Earth spinning? There is more than enough evidence that it is spinning, but what do you think you as a person would experience?

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 21, 2018, 12:36:50 PM »

It might have started with anomalies in how far one can see and my inability to visually discern curvature from commercial flights.

An interesting comment. I wonder if your view would be different had you flown on Concorde?

87

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 12:14:03 PM »

Tom, now that it has been shown that these folks can't figure out a spinning sphere and claim to have an alien transport device, do you still think they have anything factual to offer?

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to Flat Earth theory and need help

« on: March 21, 2018, 01:53:02 AM »

The Earth is indeed flat and the biggest piece of evidence that it is has to do with commercial international flights. For example if you want to fly from say New York on the east coast of America to Seoul, North Korea.  If you look out of  the window on a cloudless day you would see that you fly ove the Artic Circle and  Russia, also the horizon would be flat.

Hope that helps a little bit

The only thing you've proven is that you don't know where Seoul is. Flight path on a globe does indeed take you north over Canada. I guess I'm not seeing what your point is.

89

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 01:48:53 AM »

Their other video is fantastic. He tries to claim that the Earth can't be tilted because you can't tilt a sphere... And this is what is wrong with the world, very basic scientific facts are so poorly taught that a grown man doesn't understand what the tilt of the Earth actually means.

Tom, hope you aren't putting any faith in these guys. lulz...

90

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 01:41:08 AM »

Thousands of years of science overturned after 7 years of hardcore research! They must be real smart and stuff. I wonder if they actually bothered to actually, you know, go visit that new continent?

I'm calling fake on their picture of that toilet shaped Earth. You could tell it was CGI.

Humans are getting dumber, I can feel it.

91

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: March 21, 2018, 01:31:52 AM »

FE continues to grow and get more precise as to how the earth is made. We know from the creator that the dome is like molten glass and in as much would reflect light of the sun and moon. Rainbows are arched as the dome. This is how the return of Christ will be seen by all mankind as his image is magnified in the sky via the dome.

Here is a couple good videos explaining math of both FE and globe models and how easy it is for you to get it wrong again and again.

Sats can't exist, they're just a lie of satan.

What is with you and Satan, anyway? You seem obsessed and see the little demon everywhere you look. Sats are real, aren't the work of the devil, and I can tell from the thumbnail that the video isn't worth wasting my time. Implying there is an up and down in space because the Earth is tilted? Let me blow your mind. If you're on a tablet/phone/laptop, turn the screen upside down - look, the Earth is still tilted and you can draw an equally valid xy coordinate plane on it that way, too. It's almost like there is no up/down in space. You would be a much better troll if you at least thought about the garbage you post.

92

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: March 20, 2018, 02:49:16 AM »

• Where do you get 5 second delays? Geostationary satellites are about 22000 miles away, and the speed of light is 186000 miles per second.
• What is Beam technology?
• You don't think that fire weakens steel? Why do blacksmiths heat metal before striking it?
• Are you really comparing kill rates in the Sandy Hook attack, where the shooter was in the same classrooms as his victims and shot them multiple times to Las Vegas, where the shooter was very far away?

Where do you get your information from? None of these ideas would stand up to the least bit of critical thinking.

You don't really know much about analog and digital packet transmissions now do you. They just magically zoom down to earth in this imaginary scenario you were taught. No they must be prepared for transmission and go thru compression, identification and switches then blasted up 22k miles then deciphered and resent back down to this fake spinning ball without jitter or packet loss which causes lag or latency. Try to send data packets 44k miles and not loose packets or degrade them on compression and decompression.
You're clueless my friend. The latency is seconds and unacceptable to anyone.

Beam tech allows the transmission to stay compact and not spread out losing digital packets. But the area of transmission is compact also, not some blanket of grab your data.

Office fires won't bring a steel building down and if the planes weren't cgi the fuel exploded on impact. Nothing to burn. Building were built to sustain exactly those types of impacts.

A bullet comes out of an AR at about 3300 fps and loses very little velocity traveling downhill a football field length. Look up ballistic on that round. 55 gr. 65 gr. I don't care. You ain't getting 100% kill ratio. The bullet is traveling at approx. same speed at either distance and is a spire boat tail, so it's a clean wound, if one can call it that.

J-man, you seem more agitated than usual. Hang in there. This, too, shall pass.

Wireless packet transmission works just fine. Most internet traffic is wired, so latency and your other concerns about satellite transmission are irrelevant. Try making a phone call from a ship to land - the satellite latency is definitely noticeable.
CGI planes don't have eye witnesses and unconstrained jet fuel doesn't explode, it burns.  That is why the lingering fires heated the steel enough to weaken it.
.223 rounds pack very little punch. They are lethal up close, but are less so when fired from a distance. I can shoot you in the head at close range and kill you easily, but using a bump-stock from a tall building means the rounds will hit wherever. Arms, legs, shoulders. Not an effective tool. School shootings are completely ineffective as a tool for anything more than a couple weeks of pointless arguing thanks to the NRA, so, like usual, your attempted point falls flatter than your imaginary planet.

Good luck to you with all the things.

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System

« on: March 19, 2018, 01:17:05 PM »

For a definition of "well" that's utterly irrelevant to the subject matter here, yes. I do note that you immediately backtracked from daredevil mountain stunts to civil aviation, though.

For aviation, GPS is very accurate. (within 1-2 meters 95% of the time) I would submit if 1-2 meters is an issue in mountain flying, you're doing it wrong and aren't long for this world. The inaccuracy is generally introduced by the device, not GPS. Consumer level devices can get you close, industrial devices will put you within a few steps, at most. Again, highly accurate given the Earth is almost 42 million feet around.

No, I say that 10ns is an overstated figure.

You are correct. The system is accurate to within 40ns 95% of the time. Which is to say it is fantastically accurate at time frames a human can comprehend. Your NTP comment was highly overstated if you start thinking about the applications where GPS is used. NTP is great for a network, but is useless, obviously, once your connection to said network is broken. (assuming you had one to begin with)

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System

« on: March 18, 2018, 03:55:21 AM »

Right. The two FE'ers that responded to this thread disagree with you on that matter. To me, that makes it a key contention. If you're not interested in the  FE'ers perspective, that honestly does not bother me, but... why would you bother asking your question to the Flat Earth Society? If you just want to talk about how right you are, why not take it to Reddit?

You seem to have had some bad experiences on Reddit. You should avoid it. I don't post there and all of my FEH stuff is limited to this site.

Indeed, it would work very poorly, and it would perform much better in some areas than others. This is exactly why it's relevant to discuss the situations in which it works very poorly, and the criteria under which GPS is generally avoided as the main source of positioning data.

Terrific, would you mind pointing out where it works poorly that is inconsistent with its design? Poor performance is expected around tall buildings, under heavy cover, in deep canyons, etc. If you were in a nice open field and the system consistently said you were in the ocean, that would be an issue. But given the fact that the system suffers from the exact problems one would expect from a satellite-based system, it makes some sense to conclude that it is, indeed, satellite-based.

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar System

« on: March 18, 2018, 03:28:48 AM »

Not a single word of this statement represents the Flat Earth Society's beliefs. It sounds like you got most of your FE information from Twitter. I'd recommend the FAQ and Wiki as starting points.

Just once in my life I'd like to hear what Pete Svarrior's views are. Ever notice that he studiously avoids revealing his personal views on the matter, even in the media? Yes, I have read some of the media articles to which Pete has "contributed", and nowhere was there a Pete Svarrior opinion to be found, only what the society, and others, believe.

Pete is notorious for never really saying anything of substance. I would almost guarantee that is on purpose.

OP, I think the planets in a FE solar system supposedly orbit the sun above the flat Earth. The planets, according to the Wiki are "pretty small", whatever that means. How any of this works is beyond me. I don't think there is an explanation.

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System

« on: March 17, 2018, 04:42:52 PM »

Allow me to remind everyone that the key contention here is whether GPS works well or not. Not whether or not it exists. Accounts along the lines of Stinky's "I used it and it almost told me where I was!" are unlikely to swing it in either direction.

No Pete, that is not the key contention. That is the strawman you're trying to build because you can't actually explain away the OP's actual question.

From OP:

Could we now please proceed to the essential part of my question?
My intention was not to spark a debate about the accuracy of GPS, and I deliberately left open whether those systems rely on satellites (which obviously I and most fellow round-earthers have no reason to doubt) or something else like ground-based radio beacons like some flat-earthers claim.

What I was getting at was why flat-earthers think it reasonable to claim that NASA and other space agencies are not aware of the shape of earth.

You admit it exists, so you're really close to seeing that the world is, in fact, round. Ground-based GPS wouldn't work for several reasons.(range, elevation calcs, no coverage in the oceans) Satellites don't work in FEH. Even if they could orbit your little Sun, the gravitational perturbations would not result in the nice, steady orbits we see. Beyond OP's question, I'd love to know how you think GPS works.

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Communication with the ISS by amateurs.

« on: March 16, 2018, 10:48:13 PM »

Publicity stunt. The Youtube account in that first video is NASA's official Youtube account.

Yeah....I don't think NASA gains much publicity by communicating with ham radio operators. lol

They got 350 thousand views and probably a bunch of news articles out of it. What do you mean?

Yep - 350K views....in 7.5 years.  One video of the Space X Falcon Heavy has 21 million views. In 1 month! There are many other videos of the same launch with over a million views each. I guess to a FEer, 350k views is a lot.

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 16, 2018, 10:42:49 PM »

The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.

Why did it take some long for FEH to figure out there was a south magnetic pole? The Chinese discovered magnetic fields 2000 years ago. It was known that magnets have a north and south pole as early as 1269. This info was available to Rowbotham in the 1800s.

99

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FET and Global Positioning System

« on: March 16, 2018, 10:33:12 PM »

Nice rationalization there, but those explanations have not been demonstrated to be true. All we know is that GPS is wrong when attempting to determine distance.

Your proof of that statement is - Where?

See the link I provided. People attempted to determine their distance and they could not.

In the link you provided, the first paragraph is:
Recreational GPS units are useful for giving reasonable accuracy in location, giving elevation and tracking overall pace. Recreational GPS units are not suitable for providing accurate total distance covered. The mileage on the odometer, if you will, is often on the higher side.  As much as 10% in some cases.

So you admit that RECREATIONAL GPS devices are reasonably accurate at giving location, elevation and speed readings, but tend to over report distance traveled? So what you're saying is that GPS works and even cheapo models do an alright job of giving location? Cool, welcome to the round Earth.

It is important to note the recreational part of the story. The GPS signal doesn't 'tell' you where you are. The device has to calculate it. Cheaper devices aren't going to be as accurate.

100

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Communication with the ISS by amateurs.

« on: March 16, 2018, 10:25:34 PM »

Publicity stunt. The Youtube account in that first video is NASA's official Youtube account.

Yeah....I don't think NASA gains much publicity by communicating with ham radio operators. lol