Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jimster

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >

In the 1700s, the Cassini family made maps of France. These maps are so accurate that they can be superimposed on current maps and the roads match. This map was used by many, detailed and accurate. At the same time, the east coast of the Americas had been axplored, settled, and mapped accurately. The west coast of the Americas is missing or wrong on these maps, as is Australia, Hawaii, Alaska. Baja CA was shown as an island in one famous early attempt at a map of the est coast of the Americas.

So at the same time, cartography had a reliable, useful, accurate map and a map of the Pacific rim that was wrong and incomplete. So what to think of cartography? Accurate and useful, or wrong and in need of overhaul.

The same situation exists in modern science. Like France in 1800, many people had walked the territory and worked out where everything really was. We could say the map of France was "settled", so much confirmation and so many using the map. Few Eurpopeans had explored the west cioast of the Americas and the pacific, so the maps were sketchy and often wrong. As more people came and explored more, those maps converged on accuracy.

In 1800, one could say, the maps of the pacific keep changing, maybe cartography is screwed up. Perhaps we should doubt the map of France? If you don't acknowledge the reasons why some maps are more accurate than others, you could make false claims and waste time re-doing the map of France.

Similarly, in science, some areas have been thoroughly mapped and those maps repeatedly checked. These areas are things like F+MA, the preiodic chart, and round earth. You can dispute this, but these maps have been subject to many tests and are never wrong. There is a "new world" in science, noty accurately mapped yet, people still working on difficult to explore questions. The science equivalent is big bang, string theory, and quantum. Like the maps of the pacific in 1800, there are incomplete and conflicting maps. Even scientists will agree that this stuff is not completely or certainly understood.

My point is that when you are discussing with FE, they can always say you might be wrong, because science is wrong/incomplete/controversial. Yet the "settled science" of things long discovered, tested many times by experiment and by engineers is so likely that most treat it as true, and it works. FEs try to put the incompleteness and error corrections of big bang, quantum, and string theory off on some very tested and well known science.

In other words, in 1800, saying the map of France is wrong because the maps of the new worlds are may bolster your argument, but revisiting F=MA, the periodic chart, and the earth is round is a waste of time. The earth is flat has the same odds as F not equal MA and the periodic chart is wrong.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Law of Perspective
« on: March 18, 2019, 06:09:21 PM »
FEs use vanishing point and perspective to explain why the sun is still up there at night but you can't see it. FEs do not understand perspective and vanishing point, just using the words as a seemingly valid explanation. Google those words and learn what they really mean.

This is not a good site for your purposes. What most FEs here want is to create elaborate theories to explain FE. They do not want to explain the problems, they want to create delusional thought castles that explain the issues, and they do not want problems with these explanations pointed out.

FEs everywhere (in person, all web sites) ignore or leave threads that pose difficult questions for them.

Additionally, it depends on which FE you ask, so they can always disavow the problems with each presented model, as in "that's just one possible map, I don''t believe that one." There is, of course, no FE map. So you can never disprove the FE map.

You are looking for "credibility", which is orthogonal to FE except in the fevered dreams of the brave new warriors of truth. Good luck getting a straight answer or any at all.

Try the other FE society. They have more traffic. Still, you may have trouble getting a coherent story for your paper, coherent FE is an oxymoron.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« on: March 18, 2019, 05:51:32 PM »
At night, I can see the stars over the entire sky. If the sun is still up there on the dome, why can't I see it? If the sun is still up there, why do I not see the beam shining down in the distance reflected of the dust in the atmosphere, like a spotlight beam? Why does whatever is blocking my vision of sunlight and sun block my vision of stars? How can the dome be filled with stars while the sun is Timestill up there and I see stars right through it, or it isn't up there?

Time zones would be pie shaped on a polar projection map.

FEs do not understand perspective and vanishing point. The words "vanishing point" holds great promise for FE explanations, but it is a artistic technique for making 3d objects look right in a 2d image. Google it.

As for limiting the distance you can see, everyone can see stars over the entire dome everywhere. This means you can see from one edge of the dome to the other. If you can see stars everywhere, you could see the sun everywhere.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do all FEs agree on?
« on: March 18, 2019, 05:36:59 PM »
Re-focus again: the OP question was, what do all FEs agree on. Sop far, the answer is only that the earth is not round.

What else?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do all FEs agree on?
« on: March 18, 2019, 05:35:53 PM »
No "fixit" gadget - no atmolayer, no lampshade sun on a revolving arm, nothing like that? What is your model?

So there is no FE map because no one wants to make one? I challenge that, sir, there is none because Gauss's theorem proves wyou can't porject a curved surface onto a flat on without distortion. I have an accurate RE map, you do not have a constant scale map with distances. Let's see one, or your claim rings hollow.

Would love to see a model that explained space flight without impossible conspiracies, explained the sun/day/night without a rotating arm and a lampshade, had an accurate flat map, obeyed the laws of physics, etc.

Where would I find a description?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance between two cities
« on: March 18, 2019, 05:26:40 PM »
The most popular FE map is polar projection/UN map. This map distorts by making things wider as you move away from the north pole. Australia is clearly wider than US oon this map, and that is clearly not true. But do not despair, FE, explanations are available!

1. Australia is actually wider and NASA has cleverly fooled everyone about the width of Australia.
2. You haven't driven across Autralia yourself, and it you diod, the odometer was controlled by NASA
3. The map needs some work, just some adjuswting
4. This is just one map, we haven't finished figuring out the map

And the one from a reply, "these measurements are made by round earth systems therefore they give a round earth number."

And the round earth numbers are tested daily by thousands of Australians without a clamor from them that the maps are bad, distances are wrong. It all works and matches everyone's reality. No FE usable map is available, and the round one works. The only thing FE knows is RE is wrong, and all evidence to the contrary is to be ignored.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Elon Musk
« on: March 17, 2019, 11:59:39 PM »
Soon there will be a way to tell:

They have contracted with SpaceX to launch a satellite they built. When it goes onto orbit, they will point their highly directional antennas at it and talk to people thousands of miles away by pointing at it. The hams built the satellite themselves, and their antennas, rotators, wrote their own software to track the satellite. Hams have been talking to each other through satellites since the 70s, also ISS, with highly directional antennas.

So, you space progam hoaxers, how does this work?

Conspiracy boundaries? SpaceX? Thousands of hams all over the world?

Google "amateur radio satellite" or youtube, see many many videos of random hams talking to satellites.

By the way, you also have to explain where those DirecTV dishes point on FE. Also gps has problems on FE. The proof points of FE are navigation and the space program. To fix navigation on FE requires an "atmolayer", a nver observed phenomenon that bends the light to make sextant work and conspiracy to explain the space program.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do all FEs agree on?
« on: March 17, 2019, 11:48:13 PM »
I believe that FEs do not all even believe the earth is flat, some think toroid or whatever.

I believe the totality of what FE agrees on is that the earth is not round.

I believe they are nowhere close to agreeing on anything and never will.

I do not believe there is any problem with RE science, it all matches and makes sense.

I submit, that the entirety of FE science is "the earth is not round, because I saw a youtube video".

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do all FEs agree on?
« on: March 17, 2019, 11:41:55 PM »
Science re the formation of the earth or universe is obviously harder to pin down than the shape of the earth today. Let's start with the shape of the earth today and worry about formation later. My thread, right, I am OP.

Would love to see your model, I will bet you any amount of money I can find internal inconsistencies and conflicts with known facts.

Will you attach a "fixit gadget" to every problem your model has?

Will your model make it possible to have a flat map with constant scale as a globe does?

Will there have to be giant conspiracies?

Will you need different laws of physics?

My girlfriend and her father worked at NASA when I was in college. I was there several times, knew several people who worked there. I played blackjack on the same computer that  they used to do data reduction on X planes. Neil Armstrong gave a speech to my high school science class. The first few scenes of "The Right Stuff" (story of the first 7 astronauts) was filmed at Edwards, where I went to elementary school.

Either my youth heroes and father and community members were stupid brainwashed idiots doing phony jobs, or man actually went to the moon. It is enraging when people who don't know anything about it try to explain that they were all dupes, or maybe a few of them were conspirators. Certainly Neil Armstrong was a horrible man, knew what he was doing if FE. My father worked on testing the Saturn 5 motor, my best friend's father worked on the lunar module, the whole town worked for AF, NASA, rocket test site, Lockheed, North American. I worked at the AF flight test data processing center on flight testing the then new F-15. Later, my dad worked at the skunk works and area 51. I was in Aerospace Explorers and we got private tours of rocket site, Goldstone, Pt Mugu, etc etc etc.

Two X-15 pilots lived on my street. One told me personally he could see the curve, he said first thing everybody asks.

FE insults me and my father and my home town. It encourages dismissal of experts and conspiracy thinking. It is not harmless.

Will your model explain the space program? Will it explain how amateur radio operators aim directional antennas at satellites they built, aiming them as though they were at the published places, the operation of sextant and equatorial mount? etc etc etc.

Looking forward to your model and seeing if it conflicts with itself and known facts. If it is not complete or does not match known facts, I assume you want to know. If you can produce one, I will make us both rich.

Flat Earth Theory / zetetic vs atmolayer
« on: March 17, 2019, 10:20:41 PM »
The idea of zetetic is everything must be by direct experience. Look out your window, does it look flat, and do you feel it move, that tells the tail.

In explaining star trails and any optical or radio observation that seems to mean the earth is round, FEs talk about an "atmolayer" that furnishes the necessary diffraction to make it look round by bending the waves in some as yet not known way.

Since no one has seen the atmolayer and it has not been measured or studied in any way, does this conflict with the zetetic philosophy? Can there be zetetic science about something that no one has ever seen?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do all FEs agree on?
« on: March 17, 2019, 09:25:08 PM »
Time to re-focus on my question, what is it that all FEs believe in common.

REs have many many many beliefs in common. What beliefs do FEs have in common?

What is the settled science of FE?

I have asked here and other places, and I think the only thing that all FEs agree on is that the earth is not round. They don't agree that it is a disk, just that it is not round.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?
« on: March 17, 2019, 08:16:40 PM »
When you figure out how to get FErs to explain things that make FE look impossible, let me know. I have a bunch of questions that get zero replies. I would be very entertained to hear an explanation of how an equatorial mount works on FE.

Flat Earth Theory / What do all FEs agree on?
« on: March 17, 2019, 07:37:03 PM »
When I ask about various things, FEs often say they don't agree with some other FE's idea, for instance you say "that map is wrong", they say "well, some other FE's map and I don't believe that one". Seems to me worth discussing the things that all FEs agree on, the "settled science" of FE.

What are those things, what do all FEs agree on?

Flat Earth Theory / amateur radio operators
« on: March 17, 2019, 07:13:38 PM »
Amateur radio operators think they are using satellites they built as relays for long distances using line-of-sight frequencies.

They think they are going to use SpaceX to launch their new satellite.

They think they point highly directional antennas at their own satellites and successfully broadcast to someone far away all the time.

Search youtube or google "amateur radio satellite", many many hams all over the world, moonbounce, talking to ISS, aiming their antennas with RE geometry, etc.

Here are the things hams think about RE:

Are there any FE hams? Will there ever be?

Flat Earth Theory / studying sun using zetetic
« on: March 17, 2019, 06:29:22 PM »
Last night I did zetetic observation of a sunset. It appeared the sun went down below the western edge of the earth. This morning I observed it emerge from below the eastern edge of the earth. So, as I understand zetetic, the truth is exactly what you see. It appears to me that the sun went underneath the earth and came up from the opposite edge.

Is this a good zetetic conclusion?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Professional pilot interested in Flat Earth
« on: March 17, 2019, 06:19:59 PM »
Every point you made has been made here many times. Like you I wanted to come here and patiently and reasonably go through the many proof points of RE. I personally have asked FEs about many things, north star/latitude/sextant, equatorial mount, satellite dish headings, etc etc etc. I have recently asked for FE explanations for 4 of these. 0 zero zilch. They are not here to figure out the true shape of the earth. They are here to build thought castle explanations of how the world can seem so round and yet be flat. Be forewarned, these do not have to be observed or explained, that's their fun. Start with assume FE, then explain a giant gadget/conspiracy to explain.

I once suggested FEs go to the NASA web site and try to figure out exactly who the conspirators were with the execs and org chart. No interest. Endless use of NASA to explain the conspiracy, no interest in the specifics.

Like the old joke where the prisoners tell jokes by just giving a joke number, you can list the FE responses generically:

1. introduce new laws of physics
2. cite never observed and unexplained existence of "correction devices" - atmolayer that turn real FE into apparent RE, or secret boxes in airliner nav systems
3. off into the weeds - pages of equations of obscure physics about anything except your clear point
4. accuse you of bad manners, asking wrong
5. disavow the part of FE that you disproved - you can't say their map is wrong, because it might be another one
6. FE is a young science - RE has to actually prove everything. FE hasn't had time to be held to that sytandard
7. You are brainwashed
8. change subject
9. zetetic solipsism - you can't know because you werenot there - antarctica doesn't exist
10. Giant yet somehow secret multi-generational, multi-national conspiracy with tiny number of people, no detected infrastructure,

and always:

... just don't answer ... The most obvious RE proofs get zero replies.

What you won't get is a clear, simple answer that is consistent with known facts and explains why FE is true.

In the end, what FE proves is that it is possible to get a group of people to believe something absurd and defend their delusion with those strategies. Meanwhile, FEs and REs continue to live ion a world that is RE in every way. I think FEs like it that way. If the world came around to their point of view, this web site would be pointless, it would be absorbed into banality.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: how does gps work on FE?
« on: March 17, 2019, 06:00:00 PM »
Echo was passive, it was the equivalent of a mirror. That's why they call it echo. Orbitted every two hoursw, had weak signal, mostly just experiment.

Modern communications satellites are geostationary repeaters, they actively boost the signal. DirecTV antennas point exactly at them. DirecTV web page will give altitude and azimuth. You can look where they are pointing, the satellitee must be at the intersection. You can get the direction to point your dish from DirecTV web site. You can confirm this direction is correct by signal strength at that heading and less elsewhere, none very far from that heading. You can triangulate using several DirecTV customers. You can do the math from DirecTV zip codes and see if the vectors intersect on FE (no).

GPS works by each receiver having a clock and each transmission has a timestamp. The receiver takes the known position of the satellite and subtracts its clock time to get the distance from the known location of the satellite. Do this with 4 satellites and the calculated distances intersect at only one place. You can see exactly how this is calculated in open source gps receiver software that you can download from and read the C++ code.

You can see the calculations. You can see what it uses as satellite locations. You can see that gps works, and the receivers are getting the signals as though from satellites.

I do not believe there is a way to fake these signals that is plausible without having the transmitter be where they say it is, in orbit around RE.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My sunrise plane flight
« on: March 15, 2019, 04:11:07 AM »
Huh? Can you draw a diagram, your words do not communicate any possible way that flying a Cessna Cardinal could change your angle of view of something 3000 (or ?) miles away and far above you. At what angle will it ever be below the horizon?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain this Phenomenon
« on: March 15, 2019, 04:06:10 AM »
That's what the faqs say. What do you say?

The atmolayer: a never observed natural phenomenon whose function is to turn the appearance of FE into RE, the filter through which all that accurate flatness evidence is transformed into the appearance of RE. No one knows what it is made of or how it works, but it bends light and radio waves to suit any need.

I would like to see a diagram of how the sun could be projected to get sun on western horizon at 0 longitude, directly overhead at 90 long, eastern horizon at 180, and no sun at all at 270.

How is a sun projected over the equator and not seen all over FE?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain this Phenomenon
« on: March 14, 2019, 10:30:13 PM »
Vanishing point is a concept used in art to figure out how to render a 3d image in 2d with the appearance of 3d.

Theoretical vanishing point is at infinity, most use the edge of the paper. Your buildings will look slightly lopsided, better if you tape a second sheet of paper on and use a focal point farther away. Best is infinity.

An ant would see as far as an ant eye lens would view or until blocked by a closer object. A person would get the same view if he put his eye on the floor at the same spot. An ant eye at the same height as a person's eye would see the same view. Ditto them looking at a rendering that used perspective.

Imagine train tracks straight down a valley with a mountain at the and of it. The tracks get closer and closer in the distance, and disappear. That is not vanishing point, that is when they are so distant their image is narrower than the arc of a rod/cone in your eye. Just as a digital video camera or your screen can't depict something smaller than a pixel. The mountain is visible not because it is higher, but because it is bigger. We are used to thinking higher = see farther because the closer to the ground, the more obstacles.

Does it delight you that I answered this way? Do you honestly think altitude has something to do with how far you can see other than raising you higher above the horizon, as in RE explanation? Are you trolling me? Do you think vanishing point and perspective explain things on RE? Do you understand the RE meaning of these words, because many FErs do not understand the RE meaning. It is possible to disagree of disprove an RE explanation only if you understand it. Many FErs give wrong explanations of these things, and I suspect they do it on purpose. Odd way to enjoy life. I would like to explain this stuff to someone who doesn't know it. Do you understand sextant and equatorial mount on RE? I find them more amazing than the atmolayer.

I have never found a FEr who could explain how a sextant or equatorial mount work even if he didn't believe it. Many FErs present themselves as educated and intellectually skilled, but I don't think any of them are smart enough to understand sextant /north star/ latitude or equatorial mount. They lack the ability to understand these things, just not able.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >