### 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 - RJDO

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: December 06, 2017, 08:49:03 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

Is there something about the equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity that you just don’t understand?

You should also look up what “empirically” means, because it is obvious by your use of the term that you have no idea.

No junker, I have a great understanding of equivalence of acceleration and the effect of gravity. And, I fully understand what empirically means.

Our difference is I know gravity to exist, and that the earth is a globe. I do not need to make up theories that cannot be proved. Prove I am wrong. Prove to me that this UA would not cause the atmosphere to be heavier as more molecules were pushed into "dark matter" or "dark energy" in whatever lies above our atmosphere. Is this not where pressure would build up after 1000s of years of being pushed upward by UA. Same with water pressure. If it is being pushed up by the earth, would it not eventually have a greater pressure where it is being rammed into the atmosphere rather than it being heavier at the sea floor.

Prove to me how this does not happen.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS?
« on: December 06, 2017, 07:53:43 PM »
The last country to actively develop any of the Loran systems was the UK and this service, eLoran was discontinued in December 2015. The system use stations transmitting pulsed low frequency waves which were fixed by the receiver and cross referenced with synchronised signals from other stations. Each wave only gave straight line information based on time taken  to receive the signal. The further the station the longer the time, so cross referencing the signals at the receiver would give a position. It was totally different from GPS, but eLoran used positioning information from both to give greater precision to the positioning accuracy. Loran generally could transmit up to 2500 miles under favourable conditions.

It would also be worth mentioning that the system also relied on the accuracy of the round earth based charting and co-ordinates system as does GPS and wouldn't work effectively with any known flat earth maps.

Roger

Better man than me....wasn't going to spell that out for him.

3
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS?
« on: December 06, 2017, 07:30:34 PM »
Pretty sad it was shut down :/

It says that LORAN-C was shut down. Presumably they upgraded.

The article I linked in my last post says that the officially stated purpose of eLORAN is to be used as a "backup" for GPS.

It says as well in your article:

Quote
In late 2006, an Independent Assessment Team headed by Bradford Parkinson, known as the "father of GPS," unanimously recommended that an enhanced version of Loran, known as eLORAN, "be completed and retained as the national backup system for GPS," saying it had "critical safety of life, national and economic security, and quality of life applications."

Once again, this doesn't explain why he would get a GPS signal.

4
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: December 06, 2017, 07:21:15 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.
As far as I'm aware, this statement is correct for the UA model. Everything RE says Earth's gravity does, is taken over by UA for this FE model.

Cool. I was hoping for a FE'er to support this as well, but we are not going to get them too. Its fine. Here is where I was going. Pressure is due to gravity "pulling" on the air downward toward the Earth. Same with Pressure felt underwater. If it was being pushed, would the pressure be lighter at the source of the "pusher" than the opposite being true. This pusher theory of UA completely flies in the face of their UA. Pressure felt at the bottom of a 12 foot swimming pool is greater at the bottom than at the surface. Same with air pressure. Not the other way around you would expect to find with the earth moving up with UA. Which with UA doing this, completely flies in the face of experience of anyone.

And, with the UA, would weather be the exact opposite of what is know. how does barometric pressure change at sea level? So much is wrong with UA when you look at it empirically.

5
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS?
« on: December 06, 2017, 07:14:32 PM »
Pretty sad it was shut down :/

It was, but look at dGPS. It is what Tom is trying to prove with LORAN, but failing to describe. Heck, I will give him the benefit, and say he meant eDLORAN, but even then, it doesn't help why you get a GPS signal.

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS?
« on: December 06, 2017, 07:10:45 PM »
ok LORAN, but the module is a GPS module, not a LORAN receiver

The last version of LORAN, eLORAN, claims to be interoperable with GPS.

http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1571

Quote
Among the IAT’s key findings: “eLoran is the only cost-effective backup for national needs; it is completely interoperable with and independent of GPS, with different propagation and failure mechanisms, plus significantly superior robustness to radio frequency interference and jamming.”

So much wrong here. Even the link is horrible. It does NOT explain how LORAN works. If I didn't know better, you are just saying words that hold absolutely no meaning. LORAN does not describe why he would get a GPS signal.

7
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS?
« on: December 06, 2017, 06:55:05 PM »
Look up the LORAN system. This is one example of non-satellite navigation at sea, and is a system that is already deployed world wide. The latest version of LORAN, in fact, is intercompatible with GPS.

How does LORAN work when 200 miles of the coast?

8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Proof??? Why Not!
« on: December 06, 2017, 06:23:06 PM »
OK. I have a question about your hypothesis, and specifically about "curved horizon". Isn't the horizon always curved? As I stand throughout my life, isn't there a circular horizon all around me at X (very, very small) degrees below level? If I rise higher, isn't there still a circular horizon all around me at X (not quite as small) degrees below level? If I go into orbit or to Betelgeuse, isn't the earth horizon still a circle around the earth center?

What exactly is the hypothesis to be disproved then?

Good Questions. I believe the point is to prove that at 100,000 feet, there is a visible curvature to the horizon consistent with a spherical earth. If the earth was flat, there would be 0 curve as seen at that height at any point (on the horizon) from the lens of the camera.

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: December 06, 2017, 06:19:55 PM »
From my understanding, as long as there really is universal acceleration and the atmosphere is as thick as it really is, that is enough to explain air pressure. To be honest, universal acceleration is on its face a very elegant explanation as long as you are willing to defer inquiry into the source of the acceleration.

I need to know that UA explains air pressure for sure. I need to make sure that the earth moving upward is what causes air pressure as felt at sea level.

10
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Proof??? Why Not!
« on: December 06, 2017, 06:10:44 PM »
Even with all those controls, you would have to state a hypothesis clearly. Otherwise your experiment is not repeatable and verifiable. And you have nothing that is falsifiable. The Scientific Method requires falsifiability and repeatability.

In my example above, if it's not crystal clear how to repeat the experiment to see the beacon from upstairs, then the (vertically uniform) fog hypothesis is not considered disproved.

This illustrates factors that are missing from some of the suggested Flat Earth experiments on this site. a) no null hypothesis b) no clear and accessible repeatability. I would like to see the Flat Earth society focus better on designing experiments well before performing them.

I mentioned what I would assume to be the hypothesis as you asked. Either it is or is not. It is repeatable, and it is verifiable. I do not want to get away from the fact that this is able to be done. You can call it what you want, but this will either prove or disprove a theory. Obliviously, the math would need to be there, the expectations, and conclusions. The end result is that we would expect not to see a curved horizon once the balloon reached the altitude. Either this is proved or disproved, and we can move from there.

I wish I personally had the money to fund them.  To see the results first hand. They can do all the pi=4 math they want, and all the expectations they need, but it will not change the result. My main concern, is that it must be completed by a FE'er, and everything is approved by them prior to results.

11
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor (sort of) - is there a term for this?
« on: December 06, 2017, 06:02:33 PM »
Air resistance with the UA?

I keep reading that Gravity and UA are the same, but with UA, it is pushing on the atmosphere to create pressure. It cannot be pulling, but must be pushing on it to create barometric pressure. Is this correct?

(I am going somewhere with this, but need to make sure I somewhat understand UA and how it replaces Gravity as we experience it.)

12
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Proof??? Why Not!
« on: December 06, 2017, 04:12:25 PM »
High altitude balloon sounds simple and cheap enough to me. But if it's a test, then before it's done, you have to make a falsifiable hypothesis. You aren't allowed to stay in Zetetic Method mode forever, or you never converge on a single hypothesis by rejecting the false ones.

In other words, it ideally can't be just a demo. It has to be done by an honest scientist who is committed to accepting the answer to an honest question.

Shouldn't there be only two hypothesis that can be tested. Either:

Balloon will reach a height of 100,000 feet which will show that the Earth does not have a curvature at this altitude on the visible horizon due to the Earth being flat.

Horizon curve should be (Flat Earth) 0.0 rad

or

Balloon will reach a height of 100,000 feet which will show that the Earth does have a curvature on the visible horizon at this altitude due to the Earth being a sphere. (Link for the math to use for experiment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon)

Horizon curve should be (Round Earth) .098 rad

I am not sure if you need more than that for hypothesis for this experiment. Either is will be a flat horizon or a curved horizon.

13
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Proof??? Why Not!
« on: December 06, 2017, 03:05:08 PM »
I am sure that there must be support to conduct this experiment with statements like this on TFES.

"Though we live in a world fraught with Fake News, occasionally a really good story comes across our desks here at The Flat Earth Society. We believe in a tactile approach to learning and understanding, one that forces individuals to break out of the constraints placed upon them by society and achieve new heights." Pongo. (2017, Nov 24). Flat-Earth Theory Rockets Forward. Retrieved from https://www.tfes.org/

14
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Proof??? Why Not!
« on: December 06, 2017, 02:38:32 PM »
Just curious. Why doesn't the Flat Earth Society and/or others such as the Flat Earth International Conference either support, sponsor or conduct their own proof using High Altitude Balloons with Cameras? Can't they launch one?

Watcha RJDO

I was wondering about doing this myself and then I got to thinking is it as easy as that?

I would HOPE that if one wanted to launch a balloon really high it should be cleared by air traffic control or other agencies as I imagine if an Airbus took a balloon to the engine it would make for a bad day for all onboard?

Also what about issues such as retrieving the camera? What with winds etc the thing could travel miles and how would you go about tracking it? Or do you not get the balloon down and just rely on getting the footage via live feed? If so how do you set up live feed so high, does internet signal work?

Leading on from that I would guess there must be restrictions based on the uncertainty of where it would land (if it would) as again if it came down on a busy motorway it could cause carnage?

Once I started thinking about all these issues it seemed to just grow in complexity and expense.

How would you go about doing it?

https://www.balloonchallenge.org/tutorials

Here is a great link to how to even conduct the experiment.

Largest hurdle for this is determining the "trusted agent" to act on behalf of Flat Earthers to conduct this.  But, as I stated, you have no problem supporting some guy launching himself in a homemade rocket, so finding a trusted agent shouldn't be too hard. Seriously, why support a guy who has invested \$20,000.00+ in this rocket, who only recently became a Flat Earth supporter, when you can do this experiment for about \$1000.00 and no one can be hurt.

15
##### Flat Earth Theory / Flat Earth Proof??? Why Not!
« on: December 06, 2017, 01:14:34 PM »
Just curious. Why doesn't the Flat Earth Society and/or others such as the Flat Earth International Conference either support, sponsor or conduct their own proof using High Altitude Balloons with Cameras? Can't they launch one? Can't they inspect all the gear (esp. the camera) for accuracy, and that it has not been tampered with by NASA or someone?

Why not? Schools do this really easy, but to the Flat Earth supporters, it is faked, or the camera messed with the image. Do one yourself. If there was a conference, they had to make enough in profits to support this endeavor. In fact I know they made enough to support this. Or, why not start a kickstarter? Something to shut us Round Earth proponents up. This would be very easy to do, and relatively cheap.

My guess is you don't, because you don't want the answer it may provide. I think that this, like other things, it is easier to stay ignorant, than to try. You could shock the entire world with this. Heck, you could probably stream the event live, and get your message out to the world. Instead of using pseudo-science to try and explain things, you can seriously end the debate with this. If the balloon gets up there and shows the world flat, with no curve to the earth,...than this could seriously change science forever. Just one little balloon and camera could stop us round-earthers from hitting you with science.

Or, you can rely on some guy in California to launch himself in a homemade rocket and kill himself in support of this cause. Either way works.

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof
« on: November 21, 2017, 07:43:23 PM »

The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.

Your ignorance of science and physics is telling.  A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it.  It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.

This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.

Tom, you are correct, it is just an allegory for the discussion. But it did get me thinking. Bullet. Huh...what a funny allegory to use here.

Firing a bullet at close range is rather simple, but when shooting this bullet at the horizon, what else would the effect be.

Bingo! Coriolis Effect. Something that the long range shooter MUST take into account when firing at distances of over a 1000 meters. What is funny about the Coriolis effect is that is a result of "Round Earth Theory". Basically deflection of the bullet occurs due to the earth spinning. You can actually see this happening and experience it with a rifle, target and about 1000 meters of space. Nothing to hard on this one.

I know you will not actually go and do this, but how does the Flat Earth take this effect into account.

Funny you mention that.  One of my best friends is a former world champion and multi-time world record holder in the 6mm 1000 yard shooting sport.   Ironically he is the one that alerted me to the FE delusion.  He lives in Montana, the home of many of the whackier conspiracy theories and a buddy of his came out as a FEer.  I was skeptical and that's when I found this place.   Will the circle be unbroken?

Small world. That's awesome and scary at the same time.

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof
« on: November 21, 2017, 07:13:11 PM »

The question now becomes how could the bullet/laser travel through space horizontally without dropping and hit the waves and imperfections of the earth; the answer to this query is that the positional orientation of objects is as we see it. We see the waves on the horizon and fire. The bullet travels straight to its target.

Your ignorance of science and physics is telling.  A bullet travels a straight line when it's in the barrel and that's it.  It flys an arc to the target and is just like throwing a rock or a fastball.

This conversation is about straight line paths. The bullet is an allegory to this discussion, obviously.

Tom, you are correct, it is just an allegory for the discussion. But it did get me thinking. Bullet. Huh...what a funny allegory to use here.

Firing a bullet at close range is rather simple, but when shooting this bullet at the horizon, what else would the effect be.

Bingo! Coriolis Effect. Something that the long range shooter MUST take into account when firing at distances of over a 1000 meters. What is funny about the Coriolis effect is that is a result of "Round Earth Theory". Basically deflection of the bullet occurs due to the earth spinning. You can actually see this happening and experience it with a rifle, target and about 1000 meters of space. Nothing to hard on this one.

I know you will not actually go and do this, but how does the Flat Earth take this effect into account.

18
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment
« on: November 21, 2017, 04:12:41 PM »
If you refer back to those threads the spelling of Eratosthenes in the Wiki was shown to appear elsewhere in various Google Books literature, and the ice berg in question was shown to be part of the Antarctic coast at the time the picture was taken. Why do you repeat the same lies over and over again?

The Wiki is clear in that the unipolar and bipolar models are not definitive and that there is room for discussion.

Your constant rants like "the sun would need to warp from one side to the other" is unproductive, and does not encourage constructive debate. The logical followup question is that "can you show any evidence definitively that it would need to warp?" and the answer is almost always no, you are just assuming that the earth is a globe and the sun must match perfectly.

Simply asking for evidence defeats your "common criticisms". You should seek to gather actual evidence for your arguments rather than expecting to rely on appeal to popularity and appeal to authority fallacies.

Tom,

I do not believe that this answer is quite honest. Time and time again, 3D has provided evidence, gave examples, showed the math, and asked for the same to be done from you. With which the typical answer is from YOU that he needs to prove it. You are simply relying on that same statement over, and over.

Nothing you show gives actual math, proof, or some way for someone like myself to help me change my mind. Simple questions such as how the Sun works, or how do we know the position of anything without knowing what the Earth looks like. Empirical evidence is great, and hard to argue, but when that same evidence is shown, all you can say is prove it. Which, on a Forum like this, every photo is doctored, every math is wrong, and every proof is invalid.

Since my time here in the Forum, I have seen great answers from both sides, but I have also seen answers like giant balloons, 100 year old books, and every proof is invalid.

Now I ask from you, have you ever shot the angle of Polaris from earth and did the math to find latitude of your location. Have you ever looked for pictures of these balloons holding up the Space Station. OR, even better, how does light not travel in straight lines. Please show me the math and proofs. Please show me the balloons holding satellites in the sky, and please, please explain to me for once, how does the Sun actual heat the earth?

19
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: November 20, 2017, 06:11:12 PM »

Question. Since reading this, I believe according to Flat Earth Theory, we are to assume that we are unable to rely on distances between cites using travel times, due to any variable that can be introduce to the traveler. We are unable to rely on GPS for position of something on earth since is probably does not exist, or if it does, can not be trusted. And lastly, I have not been able to find a reliable map of what earth looks like, (One I can use for actual distances, location, etc...) What can be used as a constant to do any sort of reliable math problem to figure out locations?

To me it seems as though any form of an actual way to locate something on the earth cannot be done in regrading the Flat Earth Theory. How are we all not lost all the time when sailing on the water, or flying in the air. If we are unable to accurately assume anything based on a round earth, how are these flights, cruises, anything at all able to be accurately predicted with the Flat Earth Theory. Having been a sailor and vessel master myself, I can say that Great Circle sailing has been very reliable for navigation, which relies heavily on the earth being round.

20
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof
« on: November 20, 2017, 05:52:25 PM »
I think I sort of understand what Tom's saying. Remember: according to his rules of perspective (which are not mathematically defined) the sun visually reaches the horizon when it's 'sunset distance' away from the us laterally. Never mind how; it just does.

By the same rules, an observer on the sun would also see us on the horizon.

Here's where the magic happens:

In Tom's model, the horizon is considered a true perspective vanishing point: the ground and all lines parallel to it meet at that point. So if the observer on the sun were to switch the sun off and shine a laser pointer in our direction, parallel to the ground, it could hit us because we are on the horizon. And to us it would appear to come from the horizon because it's parallel to the ground, and again, all lines parallel to the ground converge to the horizon.

The big obvious flaw is that it's impossible to draw a single side-on diagram representing what Tom claims is happening in the real world, because it hinges on a kind of gentleman's agreement between two points of view. Obviously, if an observer on the sun 3000 miles in the air really did shine a laser pointer parallel to the flat ground, that laser beam would, by the definition of 'parallel', stay 3000 miles above the ground forever, and never reach our eyes standing far below. But if we avoid asking 'what would happen' and ask instead 'what would the observer on the sun see?' (Tom's answer: the beam converge perfectly with the horizon), it suddenly seems possible for that beam to hit us in the eyes.

Hence the aversion to abstract theories or use of trigonometry: those are tools for modelling what actually happens rather than dealing purely with what we imagine we would think we saw.

As I dealt with above, however, Tom's claims about what we would 'think we saw' are provably incorrect. His model requires parallel lines viewed in perspective to intersect over a finite distance. The thought experiment with the many sets of parallel train tracks proves that this cannot and does not happen, removing even the possibility that we would 'think we saw' his flat earth model working.

This is a great explanation of what Tom possibly believes. I have been struggling with his explanations, and this helped a lot. It really is mind blowing. As I struggle to deal with perspective vs reality, just trying to wrap my mind around this is crazy.

Trying to put this into some terms that I can deal with. Basically, the sun vanishes on the horizon because of the perspective of the person, and that "light" knows where it is on the horizon, but if we were to take a set of rail road tracks and lay them in the same line parallel to each other, they would still be parallel even though they appear to be converging on the horizon. Even though we know for certain that the train tracks a parallel to each other regardless of perspective, somehow "light" is able to determine the perspective of the viewer and their position relative to it.

Mind blown!

Not sure if this is a correct summary, so please help if I have stated something incorrectly.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >