1

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors

« on: September 25, 2023, 02:26:11 PM »

Also imagine this ichoosenonsense clown telling construction workers and engineers that they need to do their jobs differently and get new tools because level doesn't mean straight, it means curved because the Earth is "round".

For projects where the deviation would make a difference, like the LIGO project they DO take it into account.  For smaller structures it not only would be difficult and expensive but would serve no purpose so they do not do so.

lol The "LIGO GPS curvature proofsie" card. "GPS is mapped to follow the curve, so the curve exists because we use GPS and it works!". "We accounted for curvature because the GPS says so". 

No, it's not just small structrue. No one accounts for curvature no matter the size of the structure. If you think so provide the blueprints as evidence. Not stories. Real blueprints that we know for a fact were used to build real things.

Sometimes though the existing maps aren't accurate enough. Here's some details going into digging the cross-rail tunnels under London. Due to the small gap that the tunnels had to go through, between existing infrastructure and other tunnels, existing maps were found to only be accurate to 20cm per KM in a 3d space due to the curvature of the Earth. So a new co-ordinate system was produced.

https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/building-a-spatial-infrastructure-for-crossrail/
https://www.engineeringsurveyor.com/software/1-026%20-%20Topographical%20Surveys%20and%20Mapping.pdf

The following link talks about how engineers and surveyors are attempting to display routes of long train infrastructure on a 2d plane on blueprints. You will probably be interested in figure 1 showing a simplified version of the ratio that has to be applied to convert from one to the other.

https://learninglegacy.hs2.org.uk/document/advances-in-engineering-survey-grid-transformations-for-rail-infrastructure/

To demonstrate the reasons for using the HS2 Snake Projection, imagine a line approximating the route from London to Birmingham. Measuring the line first in British National Grid, and then measuring again in HS2 Snake Projection would reveal an apparent increase in length of 60 metres. In fact, the length of the project on the ground did not change – it is just that the British National Grid is a best-fit for the whole country which means the map distortion is far in excess of what is appropriate for precision engineering required on projects like HS2.

2

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 06, 2023, 05:58:24 PM »

all you have to do is understand that proof doesn't exist outside of the limited language of mathematics.

Oh, it doesn't? If I jump in front of you, that's not proof that I can jump? You're just a mouthpiece for mainstream narratives with no brain of its own, and you're not fooling anybody with your mainstream-approved sophistry that you get from Google.

By your own logic of course it isn't. It's evidence. Pretty strong evidence. But maybe something else was going on. You might be incapable of jumping, but just as you bent down Zeus took pity on you and lifted you up in invisibly.

People like you who follow mainstream jumping just don't understood the truth of invisibly Zeus lifting

3

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 07:14:12 PM »

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?

They are operating nothing except a computer program. And yes, SpaceX / NASA launched it - and?

It was launched by spacex from an air force installation (now space force). Exactly where did NASA come in to it? Do NOAA believe they have a satellite but the data is being faked? Did spacex and the air force think they were launching a satellite but it was secretly swapped out and their own transmissions and signals faked or did they know it failed and they are part of the coverup as well?

4

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 07:01:28 PM »

It's not that "it couldn't be sent" from 1 million miles away, it's that there's no proof that it's actually being sent from there.

What kind of proof do you think could possibly exist for that?
But of course your model of reality informs how credible you find the claim.

Probably none. That's why it's not science or fact.

Science is not about credibility either. Are you now going to tell me that it is? And if that's your point - NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

Not sure why people are getting so concerned about NASA. After all they didn't launch it, not do they provide the day to day operations of it. I assume since NASA are the least credible the NOAA who paid for and operate the satellite are more credible?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?

« on: January 02, 2023, 09:04:12 AM »

This is equivalent to saying that surveyors had rulers. Maybe they did have rulers. But it doesn't prove that they measured long distances with them.

What do you consider "long distances" and how else would you suggest measuring them with 17th century technology?

By long distances I mean continental or inter-continental distances. Much of surveyor work was plotting small parcels of land or water, and didn't really seek to measure the earth. They had tools to do the job of direct small-scale measurements, but they weren't measuring long distances with ruler tape.

For long distance measurements in the 17th century and prior the first step was to get your longitude and latitude. From that you could know how far away another place with a known latitude and longitude was if you knew how many miles a degree took upon the earth. It was "known" how many miles a degree took upon the earth based on a study, to which they would take and apply to Lat/Lon coordinates on a theoretical basis. They were not stringing ruler tape or chains for all long distance work. Long distance 'measurement' worked, and still works, based on a series of assumptions.

What about undersea cables. Surely the southern cross NEXT cable from Sydney to Los Angeles (via a few South Pacific Islands) at 15,840km is a valuable tool to eliminate several maps on the wiki. Yes you can argue that the exact mathematically shortest distance may be different to the cable length but it still provides a maximum distance.

As you can see by the following link there are many other cables under the Pacific Ocean which would invalidate the most often shown monopole maps on the wiki

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/southern-cross-next

Source
https://www.capacitymedia.com/article/2absmdajn10pf5yxqctts/news/southern-cross-next-becomes-ready-for-service

https://www.telstra.co.uk/en/news-research/articles/southern-cross-next--sx-next--connecting-los-angeles-and--sydney

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reconciling Velikovskianism with the theory of the Flat Earth

« on: December 03, 2022, 12:42:42 AM »

I was alluding to a much scaled down experiment perhaps under lab conditions. Take a 'large enough mass' of clayey earth for example maybe weighing a few kilos, mould it into an unorthodox shape, subject it to magnetism or gravity (or both - one at a time); and moisture and heat and light and generally 'age' it and watch it collapse into a sphere. It shouldn't take long for something that size. Or is a specific minimum size of 'large enough mass' required if so what is that size?
I can't see it happening for some reason. But there must be some evidence to show that this has happened in the past - however as it cannot be replicated then the theory might take some proving.

Just get a bar magnet and some iron filings and see how they arrange themselves.

It would be difficult to do with gravity as a "large enough mass" would have to be around 400-600 km and it would still take thousands, if not tens of thousands of years.

Am not sure that a magnetic and some iron filings demonstrates/proves the large-mass-becomes-sphere theory.
But surely its all relative. And the timescale of tens of thousands of years for a large mass to become a sphere would be much reduced for a very small mass surely? Or is there a minimum definitive size of mass which only above this the sphere theory works? If so what is that 'size'? If the theory has been tested, peer-reviewed, accepted by (and everything else that goes with proving such things) by science that shouldn't be a difficult one to answer.

It depends on what the object is made from

Here's a good paper on the subject http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.1091.pdf
The term used us hydrostatic equilibrium. As gravity pulls equally in every direction it will naturally attempt to pull things into an object where the mass is equally distributed from the centre of mass (a sphere). But depending on the material the object is, it's own integrity will try and resist the change. We can see this when we look at asteroids and moons as the paper shows in its diagrams. Below a certain size they will be more lumpy and potato shaped, but as they get larger the more rounder they are. The maths given are how this is calculated and the verification is observing the different sized bodies in the solar system.

Think of a thought experiment to explain why not just any body will turn into a sphere. Take a cardboard box and place a weight in it. The box is unlikely to collapse in any given timeframe. We add the same sized box with a weight in on top. Unless they are very poorly made your stack should be fine. But if we keep going eventually we will reach a trigger point. The weight constantly increasing is balancing against the strength of the boxes which is fixed. When the weight gets too much a crush begins. In our example you'll end up with a big pile of boxes, but in space with nothing to act on them you'll get a cloud. Keep adding boxes, they'll all be attracted to one another and with pressure on every side with enough you'll end up with a sphere!

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 06, 2018, 08:43:22 AM »

It's actually a fascinating subject and like a lot of dark matter/ dark energy stuff a lot of the answers are still being researched. Firstly though although current estimates put most of the universe matter consists of dark matter under the current leading hypothesis it's not actually believed to be in massive clumps, like the baryonic matter we're used to instead being in large clouds orbiting galaxies. Here's an artist interpretation of how it would look compared to our galaxy, with the dark matter being the large blue cloud. In a sense you can think of it as an atmosphere around the galaxy; a lot of it but quite diffuse.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/0/03/Artist%E2%80%99s_impression_of_the_expected_dark_matter_distribution_around_the_Milky_Way.ogv/Artist%E2%80%99s_impression_of_the_expected_dark_matter_distribution_around_the_Milky_Way.ogv.480p.webm

Here's a good paper on the subject which is fairly short as these things go and doesn't get too bogged down in the technicalities.

To answer your point about why it's not all attracted to the centre of the mass of an object consider why all the mass of the solar system isn't concentrated at the heart of the sun. The answer is once it's in orbit of something it'll remain there until something gets in it way. It's easy to imagine that the Earth has swept up some dark matter during it's life time, but based on the density shown in the above paper, they'll be a teaspoons full somewhere in the core of the Earth.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 29, 2018, 01:29:03 PM »

Fine, here is the map for iridium satellites and outages then :  http://downdetector.com/status/iridium/map/

Interesting they used a flat earth map with Antarctica shown as an ice wall.... 

But feel free to keep clutching for straws

I don’t know what map you’re looking at, but that link goes to the typical representation of Earth when a globe is inconvenient for 2D screens.

by typical representation of earth when a glob is inconvenient....yeah a flat earth map.  it shows antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map.   interesting, google earth works fine on my 2D screen

Not sure why your making a mountain out of this but I'll bite. Yes this is a standard type of map when shown on a 2d screen. In fact all the info you need is available right there. In the bottom right of the map is the info of who provides the map, which in this case OpenStreetMap.org. In their wiki they go into detail about the type of projection used on the map which in this case is EPSG:3857 or "web-Mercator. They are completely upfront and detail the errors that can originate by using this map as well as the latitudes it's available for.

Google itself uses two systems, a 2d or a 3d map. The 2d map is the one shown above.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A question about Sir James Clark Ross and the Ice Wall

« on: June 28, 2018, 10:43:07 AM »

On your page The Ice Wall you say that Sir Ross circumnavigated the Antarctic Coastline, but how would he not know the difference between a convex and a concave coastline? Even if you assume all the explorers after him who traversed Antarctica are lying, cartographers can tell which way a coastline curves. Even if you ironically say that the edge of the world is so round the curve isn't noticeable, you can still tell by straight line movement. A convex shore would cause the island to slowly slip away. A concave one would cause you to crash into the shore as it wraps around to meet you.

We know that Antarctica is an island, how can you so confidently say its a wall that wraps around a flat earth? This would be so easy for you to prove if it were true. Hop in a plane and circumnavigate the coast.

Even commercial flights do not impede upon the Antarctic coast.

This thread is a zero with a capital Z.

They don't fly over it, but there are plenty of flights that bring you within visual range of Antarctica.

Once again, providing an outright lie to the reading audience.

You cannot provide one single verified flight path of any commercial flight approaching the Antarctic coastline enough to bring it into visual distance.

A few seconds googling flight QF63 gives us this amongst others
 

A few seconds of googling provides you a tremendous pile of rubbish as no commercial flights are legally able to fly over Antarctic airspace according to treaty.

There's actually a few reasons why flights don't fly directly over Antarctica and it's not to do with treaties. Firstly ETOPS rules state twin engine planes have to be within a distance of land (Antarctica doesn't count for this). This doesn't apply to four engine planes but this limits your options if you run an airline.

Secondly for those planes that can fly below 72 degrees have to have specialised survival equipment which takes up precious space on planes.

But wait I hear you say, you've proved my point, if they can't fly there how are there photos and videos? Well flight QF63 depending on weather conditions will fly as far south as the 71st parallel which gives them good views of the iceflows, of which this video is one example.

There are also non commercial tourism flights that will take you over Antarctica, if you have a few grand spare. You can also contact people have been on the flight via here and hereif you so wish.

10

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Video: NASA - How to fake space badly in 1983

« on: June 27, 2018, 08:11:01 PM »

Did you think they parachuted the tapes down to Huston?

What kind of question is that? No I don't think they parachuted the tapes down to Houston, they were instead brought down in the space shuttle they were taken on. Remember that these particular videos were not used live or broadcasted, but were used in a press conference after the end mission was concluded.

It's also interesting to note that you believe the parts of the image which exactly show what we would expect for what this image is (a reflection) can be explained away by an image artefact in your eyes, but the rest of the image which would therefore prove to be some sort of stage hand (which NASA forgot about, had a press conference about and 30 years later uploaded to the internet) is allowed to stand.

11

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA - How to fake space badly in 1983

« on: June 27, 2018, 02:16:54 PM »

The black object that he disappears behind is the camera that he (looks like Astronaut Dale Gardner by his distinctive moustache) is using the take this video.

The shuttle being painted bright white will wash out any reflection on the window making it harder to see over the top of the image, but it's clearly there.

https://i.giphy.com/media/1APhzXCgZOynAaqGxF/giphy.mp4

You will see the blue area on the right hand side of the shuttle bay is clearly lighter when Dale's reflection overlaps. There are also a lot more details visible on the NASA uploaded version here that can only really be seen in motion, such as his metallic headset that is visible all the way down the side of the bay when he moves his head.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A question about Sir James Clark Ross and the Ice Wall

« on: June 27, 2018, 01:37:54 PM »

On your page The Ice Wall you say that Sir Ross circumnavigated the Antarctic Coastline, but how would he not know the difference between a convex and a concave coastline? Even if you assume all the explorers after him who traversed Antarctica are lying, cartographers can tell which way a coastline curves. Even if you ironically say that the edge of the world is so round the curve isn't noticeable, you can still tell by straight line movement. A convex shore would cause the island to slowly slip away. A concave one would cause you to crash into the shore as it wraps around to meet you.

We know that Antarctica is an island, how can you so confidently say its a wall that wraps around a flat earth? This would be so easy for you to prove if it were true. Hop in a plane and circumnavigate the coast.

Even commercial flights do not impede upon the Antarctic coast.

This thread is a zero with a capital Z.

They don't fly over it, but there are plenty of flights that bring you within visual range of Antarctica.

Once again, providing an outright lie to the reading audience.

You cannot provide one single verified flight path of any commercial flight approaching the Antarctic coastline enough to bring it into visual distance.

A few seconds googling flight QF63 gives us this amongst others
 

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 21, 2018, 10:12:17 AM »

Let's look at the money side of things as well. We've been regularly told that the myth of space flight is just a money making scheme for launch agencies such as NASA. The trouble is that although launch agencies do charge money to launch a companies satellite this is simply a one off cost. If every time NASA launched a satellite into a new orbit they had to take money out of their own funds to setup a new chain of super planes with associated maintenance, fuel, wages and other expenditures plus an amount of backup so that we don't catch on when the inevitable happens and a plane is grounded, how exactly do they run a profit?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where are the documents from NASA that show it's all a hoax?

« on: May 10, 2018, 08:22:03 AM »

Actually if the gravitational attraction of a a disk does not drop away according to the inverse-square law but is approximately constant and perpendicular to the disk, missile trajectories become parabolic rather than segments of elliptical orbits; as such they wouldn't have the range to be inter-continental.

The bizarre aspect of this theory though is if both America and the Soviet Union know that it's impossible to go into space or launch missiles at one another, why did they spend such staggering amounts of money perpetuating the myth? You could make the claim of course that one side was scared the other side was able to do it and was spending money to keep up the masquerade, but that falls apart since according the FET the Soviets and Americans must have jointly conspired to keep up this farce (Soviets confirming the moon landing and Apollo/Soyuz). If they both know each other were faking it, why didn't the Soviets just occupy Europe since a major part of the nuclear deterrent was a myth?