1

Suggestions & Concerns / Why do my questions disappear?

« on: Today at 02:00:35 AM »

This has happened 3 times now: I ask a question and by next day it is totally gone. There is no comment that the question is inappropriate, it has not been been moved to another forum, nothing.

My last question, yesterday, suggested a simple way to prove which was right, FE or RE by measuring the elevation of the sun. Previous questions asked about flight paths on round and flat earths.

I led to assume that any question which could convince people that the earth is round will be removed immediately, with no reasons given.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipse prediction

« on: January 23, 2024, 03:10:44 AM »

The wiki does not show any research for the last 100 years or so. It only shows the simple and approximate methods used a long time ago. There has been no FE research for the last 100 years?

The old methods usually managed to predict the day of an eclipse; modern (RE based) calculations get it down to the minute. Now we can predict whether it will be a complete, partial or ring eclipse. We can predict its path across the globe, where it will start, and where it will finish. If you don't believe it, use the graph I linked and check it on 8 April.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Eclipse prediction

« on: January 21, 2024, 03:11:41 AM »

Astronomers have predicted, using RE theories, that a total solar eclipse will occur over the USA on 8 April this year. Their predictions are very detailed, giving the band of totality, the times when it will be visible across the country, where you can see a partial eclipse, etc. See, for example, these websites:

https://www.planetary.org/press-releases/total-solar-eclipse-countdown?autologin=true&s_src=downlink&s_subsrc=20240119
https://www.planetary.org/eclipse

Here are my questions:
  Does FE predict eclipses?
  What method does you use?
  Or do you predict that this eclipse will not happen?

Note: as for my other question, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer, obfuscation is not.

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 27, 2021, 11:24:30 PM »

All the talk about the Big Dipper, and which stars are visible, and when, may be interesting, but it leads us well away from my question, which is:

How does FE explain star trails that seem to dip almost vertically down to the horizon, instead of approaching it gradually, as they should in FET.

Here's another example:


Will those stars suddenly make an almost 90 degree turn as they approach the horizon?

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 26, 2021, 02:59:31 AM »

I must be missing something. If the stars (and sun, moon, etc) were always above the horizon, then their tracks might pass very close or even on the horizon, depending on our position. However, it would be clearly impossible for some of those stars to dip vertically below the horizon. No matter what the wiki says, this is clearly not possible if the stars are above the horizon. None of the talk about circles, ellipses, 3D projections, etc can make those stars go down vertically. However, this is trivial to explain if you assume the earth is a rotating globe.

If this is explained in the wiki, please direct me to it, as I could not find it.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 25, 2021, 05:52:14 AM »

Often you see long-exposure photos of stars, and how they circle around the celestial poles, such as this one:



This image is one of many on https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-are-star-trails

You can see that many of the stars clearly dip below the horizon. As far as I understand it, this would not be possible on a FE; the stars should dip down, but never go below the horizon. Of course this assumes the horizon is flat, such as the ocean on the right-hand side of this image.

Can one of the FEers explain this to me?

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: space balloon test near the south pole?

« on: January 03, 2021, 09:12:18 AM »

As I'm always willing to learn, I went to the FAQ, and found this:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_does_the_Earth_look_like.3F_How_is_circumnavigation_possible.3F

It quite clearly states that "The Earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back". There is not a single mention of the bi-polar model.

How are we supposed to learn "the very basics of FET", if you don't want to teach us? Please enlighten us - or, if you don't know, get an expert to explain it. I'm looking forward to learning more.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: space balloon test near the south pole?

« on: January 02, 2021, 10:44:28 PM »

I'm also not an expert on it, since it's not the model I support.

And yet you expect me to "familiarise" myself with it, as it's so basic? As in :

you're supposed to familiarise yourself with at least the very basics of FET before posting here.

As I can't find out anything else about it, I'll have to stick with the Ice Wall model. And to my original comment.

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: space balloon test near the south pole?

« on: January 01, 2021, 03:12:58 AM »

Hi Pete

So I checked the wiki, and found you have added a new model of the FE, although the old Antarctic wall model still has pride of place.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_Maps

Are you trying to get rid of the old one with the Antarctic all? And is that because there are now too many tourists who have visited the continent?

On what basis has this new "Bi-polar Model" been constructed? Is it based on any measurements, or is it just a desperate attempt to avoid an obvious impossibility? When I searched the wiki for more information on it, and it said "There are a wide variety of continental layout possibilities for a Bi-Polar map. The continental layout is unknown and has yet to be fully researched due to ambiguities of jet streams, flight routing, and non-direct flights". That sounds like a real copout to me.

10

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: My dad is a pilot, does he know something?

« on: December 29, 2020, 03:02:21 AM »

@KnuckleJoe
You may want to ask your dad why he, and all other long-distance pilots, consistently follow "great-circle" paths to minimise fuel.

I live in Sydney, Australia. If I fly to Santiago, Chile, the plane follows a path that curves far to the south, close to Antarctica. In fact, depending on weather and winds, it is sometimes possible to see the continent from the plane. If FE maps were correct, this would be sheer madness; it would be far quicker and cheaper to fly northwards, across the USA. The same thing happens when I fly to Johannesburg, South Africa. Again the plane flies far south, rather than going across Asia.

Now compare the normal Sydney-Santiago flight with one that follows a straight line on a FE. A flight via a great circle takes about 13.5 h, as measured by the watches of both pilots and passengers. The "straight-line" one would take over 25 h. That figure becomes clear when you realise the straight-line flight would take you over Los Angeles. Sydney-LA takes 14.5 h, and LA-Santiago 11 h, for a total of 25.5 h, again as measured by pilots and passengers alike. For more explanation and pictures see:

https://flatearth.ws/sydney-santiago

Now ask your dad which route he prefers to fly; I bet he won't fly "straight-line".

The only way out of this dilemma is to assume that the airlines somehow reset all the personal watches of everyone onboard a plane. And yes, all watches would need to be changed: mechanical, quartz, wristwatches, alarm clocks, in carry-on luggage, in checked luggage, the one you didn't even realise you'd packed, the plane's clocks, clocks in shipping containers, every single damn clock on the plane. It's either that, or someone will realise there's funny business going on.

11

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: space balloon test near the south pole?

« on: December 29, 2020, 02:22:18 AM »

You forgot that, according to FEers, you cannot get to the South Pole. Nobody can scale the wall of ice that blocks access to people, caterpillar trucks and, yes, airplanes or balloons. Hence, there is balloon there, and nobody to fly it.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 16, 2019, 09:57:40 AM »

@TomInAustin, @iamcpc

What you are saying is that none of the FEers care two hoots about reality. If they cannot build a flat map from the information which they claim is acceptable (flight times) then, in that case only, the data is wrong.

It's a game of half a dozen I lose, 6 you win. There is no fun left in  arguing in a case like that, so I'M OUTTA HERE.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.

« on: July 15, 2019, 10:36:31 AM »

In my question about airline flight times, I have suggested a very simple method to create a flat earth map, using flight times between cities. See this post:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15105.msg196360#msg196360

Can someone from the FE community do this and report back with the result?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question

« on: July 14, 2019, 01:27:56 AM »

Mass is a quantity of matter
Weight W is a force, in this case generated by gravity

F (lbf) = m x a
Mass m in this case = W (lb)/g in slugs
And a = g ~32 ft/sec^2
g cancels so F = W

My point is density can't explain this phenomenon.

You start by saying weight is a force, and end up stating weight is a force (W=F). Obviously.

Where does density come into the equation? The weight changes because the acceleration changes. When you are accelerating in earth's gravity field, your acceleration is added to the gravitational acceleration of the earth. That has nothing to do with density. Your error is where you say a=g. That is only true if you are not accelerating. When you are accelerating with an acceleration of x, the equation becomes a=g+x.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elevator question

« on: July 13, 2019, 05:07:07 AM »

Your calculations are correct, but your subsequent questions need some explanation. I'll base my answer on standard Round Earth physics. FEers can give their own explanation if they want.

You need to remember that mass and weight are not the same. Mass is something that is inherent to an object. Weight is a force, which depends on both mass and acceleration, with F=ma (Newton's second law).

On the surface of the earth, where the gravitational acceleration is about 9.8m/s² the "weight" of an object is the same as its mass, i.e. a person with a mass of 100 kg will weigh 100 kg. However, on the moon, where the gravitational acceleration is 1.6 m/s² they would weigh only 16.3 kg. To avoid the confusion of having kg (or lb) used for both mass and force, in the SI metric system kg is the unit of mass, but force is measured in Newtons (N). 1 N is the force needed to accelerate 1 kg with 1 m/s². Hence a person with a mass of 100 kg will have a weight of 9800 N on earth, but 1600 N on the moon.

Because the imperial system does not distinguish between mass and weight, I felt I had to give the above explanation in metric units. If you do want talk in imperial units, multiply every instance of kg in the above paragraph by 0.454 and multiply every m by 0.305 to convert to ft.

Now for your questions.

1. No, the person's density does not change, because neither their mass nor their volume changes.
2. As explained above, a change in weight is not the same as a change in mass. In this case it is simply the acceleration that changes the weight, while the mass stays constant.
3. When going at constant speed there is no acceleration. Hence on earth the scale will read 100. On the moon the same scale will only read 16.3

Trivial fact: there used to be a minor difference (about 1/63000) between the British and US inch. That was finally sorted out when both countries agreed that one inch is exactly 25.4 mm. In other words, they agreed on a metric definition of the inch!

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What empirical evidence proves a curved half round "dome" shape firmament?

« on: June 29, 2019, 10:21:07 AM »

@spherical
Sandokhan always seems to sidetrack you into weird and wonderful maths that are irrelevant to the issue. But he'll prove their relevance by pointing you at some ancient scientific papers. Or to the wiki pages, which is rather incestuous, I think.

He would have to explain how the Egyptians did their advanced maths though, as they only used integers and fractions. Real numbers were introduced at around 800 CE by the Indians. Maybe the Egyptians  used gear driven pocket calculators? And Egyptologists destroy those whenever they are found, to make sure round earth theories get validated. The point is though that, to them as to the ancient Greeks, numbers like 0.617468 did not even exist.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What empirical evidence proves a curved half round "dome" shape firmament?

« on: June 28, 2019, 10:09:57 AM »

I get it. You start with some fierce looking maths, and then you suddenly throw in:
  I = 35.8 Pyramid Inches
  J = 35.8 Pyramid Inches
Why are they those values? What is a "pyramid inch"? Is it measured with the same ultra-precise tool that measures the distance between some atoms on a rock to give us the "sacred cubit"?

If Egyptians could measure things that accurately, why has no evidence ever been found of their high-tech tools?  I suppose Egyptologists carefully removed all evidence of those tools. And I suppose someone screwed up, so the Antikythera mechanism became public. But, of course, that is nowhere in the same class as the tools you reckon the Egyptians must have had 2000 years earlier.

And, you still ignore the fact that tangent is a RATIO, not a LENGTH. Tan = length/length, so it is dimensionless. Why do you equate a dimensionless number with another that has the dimension of length? Your ancient Egyptians should have known better.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What empirical evidence proves a curved half round "dome" shape firmament?

« on: June 28, 2019, 06:29:48 AM »

The book of Enoch was written some 250 years ago, but let us take the official chronology of history at face value.

Then, you are going to have to explain why the ancient Egyptians were using advanced calculus (the extended arctangent infinite series) at Giza:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1834389#msg1834389 (four consecutive messages)

The Round Earth conspiracy has spread all the way to Wikipedia. How did they know to falsify the age of the Book of Enoch, just in case Sandokhan would use it to prove a flat Earth? See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

As for your link about the pyramids, I stopped reading when I noticed you don't know tangent is a ratio, not a length:

TAN 51.8554 DEGREES = TWO SACRED CUBITS

And I also noticed the Egyptians could measure with sub-micron accuracy:

ONE SACRED CUBIT = 0.6356621 meters

Just tell me which particular atoms on that rock were use to give that distance.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What empirical evidence proves a curved half round "dome" shape firmament?

« on: June 27, 2019, 11:50:01 PM »

The empirical evidence is provided by Newton's quotes:

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Circulating ether = force that keeps the planets/stars orbiting

Flow of ether = terrestrial gravity, a force of pressure

Obviously there must be a shield/barrier between the two different gravitational forces: the dome.

It consists of aether/ether, at a very high density (the Nazis tried to go beyond the dome with their mercury gyro UFOs, but they could not pass through the barrier).

More details on the dome, from the book of Enoch:

https://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71

https://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_74

https://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_75

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80589.msg2163748#msg2163748

You are saying that "quotes" (from Newton) are "empirical evidence". That sure is a new definition of empirical!

And then you throw in the clincher:  the book of Enoch. As I pointed out in another post, you do not seem to accept any evidence less than 100 years old, but this takes it to another level: conclusive evidence that's only 2200 years old!

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 26, 2019, 10:18:24 AM »

Thanks, sandokhan

I will of course take all your links as gospel truth. But I do notice that, going by the documents you link, science seems to have stopped late 19th or early 20th century. What a wasted century.

At the risk of repeating myself: That is so typical of pseudo science and conspiracy theories: use a (valid) criticism that was written a century ago, and ignore all of the more recent evidence.