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.

Topics - jimster

Pages: [1] 2  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 / 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 / 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 / radio waves as reliable straight line
« on: March 14, 2019, 08:58:01 PM »
We know that light diffracts, that it does not travel straight through an edge between different materials and that P900s don't give exact RE or FE results because the light is bending.

Do radio waves have the same problem?

On FE, if I sight something through a telescope and a radar set, could it be in some other position than where it appears due to bending of both radio and light waves in the same way?

Flat Earth Theory / My sunrise plane flight
« on: March 14, 2019, 08:49:15 PM »
In my twenties, a friend (Frank) was making a set of slides to be projected over a rock band for a show and he wanted a sunrise. My roommate (Ron) had a plane and offered to give him a spectacular shot, with custom sunrise amount and multiple tries.

So one morning before dawn, we got up and took off. As we climbed, the sky in the east got brighter. At 10,000 feet, the sun barely peeked over the horizon. Frank took some pictures, asking could he make it a little higher or lower, which Ron did be climbing or diving. As it came up, he went lower and lower, so Frank got many sunrise pictures over a time a lot longer than the usual sunset. When we landed, it was dawn at the airport.

This has a simple explanation on RE, how could I see multiple sunrises by going from 10,000 feet to ground level on FE?

Flat Earth Theory / how does gps work on FE?
« on: March 13, 2019, 09:08:45 PM »
GPS satellites have 4 atomic clocks and sends a very accurate time in its broadcast and gps receivers have a less good but adequate clock. The timestamp in broadcast is subtracted from receiver clock time and divided by the speed of light. The distance from 4 satellites intersects at only one place, your ocation, so some geometry math and you have your location.

There are open source gps receiver programs at, so if you know c++, you can examine (or fix or dream up your own!) the calculations it makes and compile is yourself. We can truth check that that is the signal and that is how it works.

gps signals are at 12,500 miles, as you can confirm in the receiver code. You can also see how the satellites move and where they are with tracker software. It all matches.

If you don't have the transmitters where they say they are, the geometry will not work right. You can step through the code with a debugger and see the calculations yourself.

How does this work on FE?

Flat Earth Community / What is your goal here?
« on: March 12, 2019, 05:28:01 PM »
Is your goal to find the true shape of the earth?

Is your goal to make the case for flat earth?

My goal is to improve the quality of thinking in those I share the earth with. By quality of thinking, I mean finding the objective truth, not making myself feel good.

It does not matter to me whether the earth is flat. It matters to me that the methods to find out are effective and people understand them.

There is a long long list of things to explain if the earth is flat that make perfect sense on RE. Why think about FE until you have explained morth star/latitude/sextant?

Flat Earth Theory / How to know how high the dome is
« on: March 12, 2019, 02:33:42 AM »
Make an inclinometer:

Get the altitude of the north star as shown.

Now find out your distance from the north pole by going to bing, right click to stick a pushpin directly above your location close to the top edge, right click again and click on measure distance. Drag the line down and read the miles.

We know that the north star is directly above the north pole in all models, right? So that forms a right triangle on FE with one side equal your distance from north pole, a 90 degree angle, and whatever your inclinometer indicated for elevation of north star.

Use a triangle calculator and you know the altitude of the north star, right?

Flat Earth Theory / Any film production experts?
« on: March 11, 2019, 09:31:08 PM »
An analysis of the moon landing hoax videos. Is this guy right?

Flat Earth Theory / How to make an FE map with accurate distances
« on: March 11, 2019, 09:25:52 PM »
Pick out some major cities and check multiple sources to determine their distance apart. I Suggest Stockholm, Moscow, Cairo, Capetown, Lisbon, and Tehran.

Get some washers and string and mark each washer with the city name. The strings must be scale distance long after tying to the washer. Try 1 inch = 500 miles, easier math with 1 cm - 500 miles.

Look up the distances between ALL the cities (this will insure accuracy) and tie a string of that length between the city/washers.

Now put it on a flat flat flat table and stretch the strings tight. When you have all strings tight, the city/washers are located at their true relative positions. Once you have the true relative positions, it should be easy to continue the technique and locate all cities accurately and see how the map is oriented.

If at first it seems impossible to get all strings tight, keep trying! It may take hours, keep going, don't stop.

If you do eventually despair, try putting a deflated balloon under your city/washer string net and inflating the balloon. You may find that as the balloon becomes a globe, making all the strings tight works much better on a curved surface.

If you can make all the strings stretch tight on a flat surface, you have proved FE and are well on your way to a FE map!

Flat Earth Theory / The effect FE has on me
« on: March 11, 2019, 08:05:11 PM »
FE has implications for me that casual FErs might not realize.

First, in science class, they didn't say "believe this just because we told you". In 4th grade, we made inclinometers and used them to get an angle on the north star. Then we looked up our latitude, it matched. The teacher then drew a diagram of round earth with people on it and showed how their latitude was equal to the angle they would see to the north star. This was the beginning of education in science through university where we did as many of the actual experiments as practical, we did the math, we saw diagrams, etc.

According to FE I was "brainwashed", but to me that means "too stupid to see through that crap". After all, FErs figured it out, often say it is obvious. So RE must be too dumb to see. Then I look at FE posts and videos and compare it to my fourth grade teacher presentation. Really? 4th grade teacher was tight, clear, simple, complete and explained it. There is no youtube video to explain north star inclination = latitude, I have looked.

Second, I grew up at Edwards AFB USAF Flight Test Center/NASA Dryden/rocket test site where my father worked. My father and most of my friend's fathers worked at test center, nasa, rocket site, astronaut training school, Lockheed, and North American. The first scenes of "The Right Stuff" were filmed there, some in a house exactly like mine. Where they first broke the speed of sound, Yeager. Space shuttle has landed there. I saw SR-71 AND b-70 take off and land. Two X-15 pilots lived on my street, I knew their kids. I asked one if he saw the curve of the earth (through a flat rectangular window), he laughed and said "yes, everybody asks that." Sonic booms all day.

Our fathers got us into very cool aerospace tech places, one father brought home a genie bottle of liquid nitrogen and we did the freeze flower and shatter it, just like the science films. I was in aerospace explorers, tours of Pt Mugu and Goldstone radiotelescopes, climbed all over the test stand for Saturn V, saw (and heard tests of it). Neil Young gave a speech to my high school science class before he went to the moon. After they taught us the periodic chart, we made explosives (chlorine pellets from my backyard pool and some gasoline in a used CO2 cartridge mortar bomb, for one).

In college, I had a summer intern job at the flight test center computer where they were doing data analysis of the then new F-15. My girlfriend summer interned at NASA Dryden, where her father worked on very high temperature glue. I had lunch there and got tours. My best friend's father was an engineer working on the lunar module. The lunar lander was first tested at Edwards. We followed this stuff like other kids followed sports teams.

My father worked on the Saturn V tests. When they fired one off, you could see it and hear it in town. Impressive. Later my father worked on the SR-71, first at the "skunk works", then at area 51.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

My youth was immersed in aerospace, and I personally knew two men who went over 200,000 feet in the X-15. Our fathers were mostly WW2 vets, what Brokaw called "The Greatest Generation". FErs would say they were a bunch of people doing phony things who lacked the ability that FErs have to see through it. The FErs have to be a lot smarter than literal rocket scientists.

So my father was a liar and I am brainwashed, or both brainwashed? Conspiracy theories are not harmless, they hurt people. And I defy you to define the edges of the conspiracy of how ten, or a hundred, or a thousand could do all the required shenanigans to fool billions.

It was miserable living at Edwards, 60 mph wind, 115 degree heat, no trees, tumbleweeds in my yard, out in the middle of nowhere, could get down to zero in winter, once it snowed 2 feet - high desert is a bitch and I hated it. But we did it, to do our tiny part so that USA could have fighters and rockets. And at least I got one of the coolest tech childhoods ever.

Flat Earth Theory / north star / sextant / latitude
« on: March 10, 2019, 11:44:00 PM »
If I point a sextant at the north star and read its elevation from the horizon, I will get my latitude, known and used for navigation for hundreds of years.

When sighted at the equator, it will be on the horizon, elevation 0, matches latitude on RE.

If the north star is 3100 mi over the north pole on FE, then the triangle says it is at an elevation of 26 degrees. On FE, seeing it on the horizon means it is on the surface of the earth at the north pole.

Does anyone have an FE explanation for this?

Flat Earth Theory / night time sky
« on: March 10, 2019, 10:13:41 PM »
If the sun directionally beams light down, seems like right after sunset, if it is still up there after sunset, I should be able to see the beam, much as you see the beams of searchlights. Right after sunset, I see light from across much of the horizon, although it does not look like it is being projected from above. Shortly after that, disappears completely. Why do I not see what looks like a distant searchlight in the sky pointing down? I can see stars across the entire dome, so I know I can see that far, and the sun is way brighter than those stars. Even if it is not pointing at me, why don't I see the beam, and why doesn't it gradually recede?

If what I see matches RE perfectly, but whatever atmospheric distortions make it look different than it really is, is it the greatest coincidence in history that those unacknowledged distortions make the true flashlight sun look just like the RE sun?

Test of faith?

Flat Earth Theory / sunset, sunrise, noon, and midnight
« on: March 10, 2019, 10:02:22 PM »
At the exact same time, people at 4 positions on earth longitude 90 degrees apart will see sun on eastern horizon, sun directly above, sun on western horizon, and no sun at all.

Can someone show me on a FE map how people at 0,0 0,90 0,180, and 0, 270 can all see the sun at those angles at the same time? I got vectors pointing in wildly different directions.

What am I missing here?

Flat Earth Theory / How can FE make a map?
« on: March 10, 2019, 09:04:24 PM »
It seems to me that an accurate FE map would be useful and would certainly prove FE.

How would a FEr make a map? What data to collect how?

Is there any practical way to make an FE map, perhaps it is impossible?

Given airliners, internet, gps, etc etc etc, it seems technically possible to make an accurate map.

Why has a map with correct distances and a scale not been produced?

Do FErs agree that the DirecTV web page that tells you the altitude and azimuth to point your satellite is true, that is to say, when you point your dish there, you get a signal?

Does this mean there is a transmitter on that vector?

If I take the elevation angle from two different places and know the distance, can I calculate the actual location of the transmitter I am receiving?

If I take a third location and plot that vector, what does it mean if they don't all intersect at the same place?

Flat Earth Theory / amateur radio satellite deduction
« on: March 10, 2019, 07:17:41 PM »
There are amateur radio satellites:

Their location is given many places:

A group of hams builds satellites and is getting the next one launched by SpaceX:

Hams make their own computer controlled antennas, very directional, point them where the satellite is published as being, and talk to someone far away who is also pointing his highly directional antenna at the satellite. There are pages and pages of web sites and youtube videos of hams showing how to build a satellite radio and showing them talking to satellites. All this only works geometrically if there are transponders at 250 mi altitude traveling the orbital path. This all makes perfect sense on RE.

How does this work on FE?

Flat Earth Theory / FE and relativity
« on: July 16, 2018, 06:52:01 PM »
FEs say we can accelerate towards the speed of light (to make gravity) forever because special theory of relativity and never quite get there. So Einstein is right and valid? Einstein also said, and presented math, checked by millions, that predicted that when you approach the speed of light, your mass becomes infinite. So we must be close to the speed of light by now, within a fraction of a percent. Either we should be extremely massive, Einstain was wrong, or the RE is correct. Am I wrong on this?

Pages: [1] 2  Next >