1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why would we be lied to about the shape of the Earth?

« on: December 29, 2017, 09:03:50 PM »

So what is the motive for the government or whoever to lie about the shape of the Earth?
Like what benefits does it give them?
I can't see any. It makes no sense to me.

No one is lying about the shape of the earth. The governments are lying about space exploration, and they use the flat earth model (fake earth images and such) because it's the most popular theory of earth's shape and is widely accepted by most. If they didn't, most would not believe NASA and other space agencies are sending things in space.

Why not just say it was flat?

They probably don't know it's flat. The public is convinced the earth is round. So, NASA and others present the earth as as a sphere.

Also, whoever is lying to us would have had to have started hundreds of years ago because even around the time Christopher Columbus was alive, it was commonly accepted that the Earth was round.

No. No one is intentionally lying about the earth's shape. There are and has always been two competing views of the earth's shape. The spherical earth proponents managed to gain influence in society and indoctrinate people for the last few hundreds of years. NASA is simply faking space exploration as a way for powerful and influential people to embezzle money and they use the earth model that most already accept.

(It's a false myth that he proved the Earth was round, everyone knew already)

Of course he didn't prove the earth was round. And no one is saying the spherical earth model didn't exist prior to him. That doesn't prove the earth is round.

So where do all of the rockets go, if space exploration has been faked? You can not deny the fact that there have been countless rocket launches and space shuttle launches. The Challenger and Columbia tragedies? Did they send those astronauts into witness protection? Siberia maybe?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight Times in a Flat Earth

« on: December 29, 2017, 07:23:52 PM »

um. . . the earth must be round.

I agree

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight Times in a Flat Earth

« on: December 29, 2017, 07:14:16 PM »

The map was scaled for a 7310-mile flight from Hong Kong to Las Angeles.

All other distances are measured as indicated and are wrong.

In addition, the flight paths are wrong. On MEL-SCL, the aircraft departs Melbourne and flies Southeasterly over the ocean.  The flight path does not fly over Texas. Upon arrival, the Boeing 787-9 approaches Santiago from the Southwest.



The farther south the flight path, the more error is introduced.

Yes, exactly, similar flight times and distances do not make any sort of sense on any existing flat map.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Surface Area and entropy

« on: December 29, 2017, 07:09:15 PM »

Ok this is a question more for those FEers who believe the earth is a flat plane, but not an infinite flat plane.

Alright bear with me, my question deals with biomolecular principles of entropy’s relationship to surface area and surrounding environment that governs protein folding, the shape of the earth, and water droplets. This has been observed in labs, as well as any of us when we cook eggs and the whites turn milky.

The most stable form of spontaneously forming natural things is that which minimizes the surface area. This may seem wrong, as it seems like this increase in order of the forming entity goes against the favorable laws of entropy and good old Gibb’s free energy, but the decrease in enthalpy of the forming entity coupled with the increase in entropy of the surroundings leads to a low energy formation= stability.

This and the hydrophobic effect is exactly what leads to proper protein folding, as well as high temperature denaturing and globular plaque formation upon this denaturation (clear egg whites —-> opaque egg whites). This principle can also be visualized in droplets of oil/water.

If we think about the formation of the earth, a flat earth would not follow this principle. “Well it is flat because some form of energy is being applied, as that is how we are also constantly accelerating upwards,” some may say. Has anyone seen a flat raindrop? (Crystallization, like snowflakes, is a whole different concept, and the earth may not, in any universe, be compared to a crystal) And sure the “dome” may be rounded, but the laws of entropy demand hat the land would still become encircled by such a dome, allowing everything to come to a sphere and disrupting as little gas/environment as possible. Think of a small drop of oil in a drop of water. The oil remains a sphere in the center of water, and if forced to the edge of the water droplet, separates completely and reforms into its own sphere.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun/Moon Orbit and Upward Acceleration

« on: December 29, 2017, 05:44:19 PM »

First, you have to understand that being the least popular of the two competing theories of earth's shape, the flat earth model hasn't had the kind of support and funding that the spherical earth has gotten. Meaning: less progress and advancement of the flat earth model has taken place compared to the spherical earth model. So, much of flat earth remains unexplained.

What sort of tests would you start with to figure out the mechanics of a sun and moon that somehow stay fixed above a continuously accelerating infinite plane? What sort of grant proposal would you or any other FEs write?

Why reject all of the progress/advancements that the round earth has garnered? Why reject all of the evidence, funded tests, visual evidence that logically prove a round earth? Sure a flat earth is a fun hypothesis to disprove, and might be worth a novel, but is it anything worth spending money on? No. Do some reading on pubmed and request funding in areas that actually need it and would benefit the human race. Stand on the shoulders of giants; don’t knock the giants down.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight Times in a Flat Earth

« on: December 29, 2017, 05:11:19 PM »

Try and chart this flight on a Flat Earth model.

LAN Airlines 804
MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA to SANTIAGO, CHILE
12h 12m total flight time
7,092 Miles.

Boeing 787-9 (twin-jet) (B789)



Yes, this data is from flightaware.com

I agree that most on this site are less wary of direct observations, so I’ll share some of mine. I would appreciate it if any one has had any contradictory experiences.

 I’ve been on countless flights, both domestic and international, and I am somewhat of a nervous flyer so most changes in direction/speed don’t escape my notice.

From my experience, gate-to-gate times are usually around 30 minutes longer than wheels-up to wheels-down, so I figure they add on 15 Minutes of taxiing at each airport (although this is not always the case on very short flights). I always monitor the flight projections while on the flight itself, mostly so I don’t miss out on landmarks (big cities, coastlines, the Grand Canyon, etc.) and so I know how much more time I have to pass. I’ve never had a flight that lasted drastically longer or shorter than the projected flight time, and I’ve never noticed the plane to be in any location other than what the flight status map shows me, although this is understandably more difficult when flying over oceans.

In terms of monitoring flight aware, I have a few close friends that, whenever they fly, text me when they’re about to takeoff (not just leave the gate) and as soon as they land, and these times always match up with what flight aware tells me, on both domestic and international flights. From these experiences, I have grown to trust flight aware and the data it puts out.

Now in terms of charting the Melbourne to Santiago flight on a flat map, I drew a markup (on my phone so not perfect) on an existing flat earth projection. Red is the route over water that these flights presumably take, yellow is a possible quicker route on a flat model, and blue is the flight from California to Shanghai, which would be much shorter than either Australian flight on this projection, and I’m not sure how the length of this flight would be unnoticeabley lengthened to match the projected flight time on a round earth and the flight times from Chile to Australia. 

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight Times in a Flat Earth

« on: December 29, 2017, 03:18:55 AM »

If you are not in the cockpit, you can not trust the flight times.

What’s so special about the cockpit?  Why can passengers not trust flight times?  I myself have taken two trips from Portland to Vienna, the flight times matched the published times.

How fast is the aircraft flying through the air? What is the ground speed? Are they flying point to point or do they have to fly around foreign airspace or restricted military airspace? Did they reduce speed drastically or put into a holding pattern.

Using the takeoff and landing times will be much better than departure and arrival times, but we still have all the above unknowns.

Honest question for you and other FEers: what are your opinions/thoughts on flight tracking apps like Flight Aware?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: polar orbit satellites

« on: December 29, 2017, 12:02:59 AM »

(...)
“Do satellites exist? If yes, then the earth is round...” You can easily see the details of the ISS with a backyard telescope.

RightRoundBabyRightRound,
I hope i won't get Deja Vu`s from this!...
How do you know, if what you see up there in the sky, and think of as ISS or satellites, is not a hovering or projected "plasmahologram", just like the moon and the sun??



Also, i haven't seen any high-altitude (weather) balloon videos that would show satellites...Maybe because these balloons fly too low? Or maybe because of daylight being too bright to detect anything of the size of satellites?...

(...)
my reply to "THE SUN " topic
my reply to "What are stars?" topic
"Is THIS the sun/moon/stars/planets?" topic
(...)

First, the weather balloon thing... the highest a weather balloon has ever gone is around 32 miles high in 2002. The space station orbits around 250 miles above the earth’s orbit, and the lowest a satellite can orbit without burning up is around 120 miles above the surface. So yeah just simply too low, with cameras that are usually faced or slanted downward anyways.

As for the space station:
Well philosophically speaking, you’re right..... can I be completely sure the space station exists without ever seeing it up close or touching it to make sure it’s not some sort of large, rigid, balloon that moves 5 miles/s on a very predictable and observable path? No, not really. But there is enough reason for me to believe that NASA isn’t lying about the existence/nature of the space station? Yes, here’re just a few reasons:
1. Russia uses the space station too.. what would they have to gain by corroborating with the US?
2. The twins study. Why fake an entire huge research project, data, etc? Literally pointless.
3. Skylab’s descent and debris
4. The entire space shuttle program, and flights/descents of shuttles that I have both heard and watched


Is the idea of a space station (as NASA explains it) more scientifically plausible than the idea of something manmade that can “hover” and move in predictable flight paths without any sort of energy source or planetary orbit to keep it aloft? Yes. Space station more believable than a 20 year holographic hoax? Yep.

Please let me know if this gave you deja vu.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: polar orbit satellites

« on: December 28, 2017, 04:53:10 PM »

Satellites aren't real. They are debris from the Firmament, which float in currents on the ether, which creates the illusion of ordered flight. NASA simply claims that these objects are satellites, when in reality they are completely natural.

Use a backyard telescope to view the details of the ISS and tell me it is natural and just debris.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight Times in a Flat Earth

« on: December 28, 2017, 04:49:46 PM »

Hmmm, that's odd. I geocache and use GPS to find the location of caches. It works amazingly well. Soooooo....yeah.

Do satellites exist? If yes, then the earth is round and the GPS system identifies the location of your geocache on the globe.

If satellites don't exist and the earth is flat, then radio stations broadcast a signal that makes the flat earth appear to be a globe while at the same time providing a coordinate that does work to locate your geocache on a flat earth.

A similar manipulation would have to be accomplished with flight times and distances. Even GPS distances can be faked to match the Globe overlay to the flat earth. One way or the other is false.

“Do satellites exist? If yes, then the earth is round...” You can easily see the details of the ISS with a backyard telescope.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight Times in a Flat Earth

« on: December 28, 2017, 12:08:03 AM »

I agree with you that flat projections of the round earth are understandably distorted (take the size of Greenland for example), but the strings do line up when compared on a round globe because these flights travel roughly along the same latitudes in the north and south (~33 degrees N and S). The strings do not line up, however, on any flat earth map that I have come across. Please let me know if you can find a flat earth map that depicts Shanghai/LA and Santiago de Chile/Auckland to be of similar disntances or if you can explain the similar flight times.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Flight Times in a Flat Earth

« on: December 27, 2017, 11:14:50 PM »

Hi, I'm sure this has been brought up before, but how can the flat earth model explain the relatively similar flight times in northern and southern hemispheres. From the popular image of a flat earth, it seems that a flight from South America to Australia/NZ would take a very long time, but flights from Auckland to Santiago only take around 12 hours. This can be compared to a flight from Shanghai to LA, which also only takes around 12 hours. If the earth were flat, wouldn't the northern LA--->Shanghai flight be much shorter than Santiago----> Auckland?


Some data:
Auckland to Santiago= 11 hours, 5 minutes, 6,002 miles (Latam Airlines, Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner)
Santiago: 33.4489° S, 70.6693° W
Auckland: 36.8485° S, 174.7633° E
difference: 116 degrees


Shanghai to LA: 11 hours, 50 minutes, 6,505 miles (American Airlines, Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner)
LA: 33.9416° N, 118.4085° W
Shanghai: 31.2304° N, 121.4737° E
difference: 121 degrees

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun/Moon Orbit and Upward Acceleration

« on: December 27, 2017, 10:57:40 PM »

Ok, but I am still confused as to how they stay at a constant distance from the earth, if the earth were to be constantly accelerating upward.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Sun/Moon Orbit and Upward Acceleration

« on: December 27, 2017, 07:28:27 PM »

Hello I am quite new to the flat earth theory, and I have a few questions regarding the graphic that shows the sun and moon moving in circular paths above the earth. Ok so I understand how satellites (both man-made and natural) stay "aloft" in the round earth schematic, but what keeps them aloft (and moving in circular orbits) in the flat earth scheme? If their circular movements are due to magnetism, why aren't their concentric circles getting tighter and tighter? How are the sun and moon also accelerating upward at the same rate as the earth with no discernible force?