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 ... 5  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / question about sun in dome model
« on: April 16, 2019, 06:11:28 AM »
The sun is still up there at night, and can't be seen because it is too far, atmospheric scattering or perspective and vanishing point. Both of these are gradual and linear. Why does the sun not get progressively smaller and dimmer until midnight, when it would again gradually become visible? All day, bright enough to light up the entire dome until just before sunset, then the rate of darkening gets waaay faster and soon completely wrong. Why the suddeen change in the darkening rate?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories
« on: April 15, 2019, 12:01:34 AM »
At night, I can see stars over the complete dome. Doesn't this mean I can see a relatively dim light over the maximum distance? Why can I see a star at a greater distance from me than the sun, but can't see the sun? How do I see stars on the farthest part of the dome, but not the sun, which is closer?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: April 14, 2019, 11:56:23 PM »
You can get a US geodetic survey topo map telling you your latitude/longitude as determined by surveyors (ref geodetic marker), look up the wiki page for your city, use gps, get a sextant and use celestial navigation, airline nav aids, and compare the results. If they don't match, just show people and be famous. Do this in a second place. Check the google maps (and other, several map sites) for distance between them drive it in a car, or check airline schedules for matching time/speed/distance. Use flat plane formula to calculate distance and spherical geometry. Do this all over the world, especially in the southern hemisphere. Show how these don't match, or how RE math gives wrong answer.

If anything doesn't match RE, I will be your agent. Fame and $.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Law Of Perspective
« on: April 14, 2019, 11:44:31 PM »
I would go with the light bending. If you want to use the UN/polar projection map, you must make it possible for someone on the equator at 0 degrees latitude to see the sun in the on the horizon at the same time that someone at 90 degrees W would see it directly overhead, at 180 degrees, eastern horizon. Plot out where those people will see the sun an a UN/polar projection map, and you will see you are going to need more than 90 degrees bending.

I wonder how perspective works with light bending that much. I believe all FE maps will need quite a bit of light bending.

Dead end tangential bickering is better than having your idea invalidated. My experience is that long logic chains and precise exploration of details is not good for some ideas.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 'Oumuamua Comet
« on: April 11, 2019, 05:37:58 PM »
Why worry about the particular characteristics of a particular comet? As I understand it, the OP question was "how does FE explain the elliptical path of a comet? Then it went into the weeds about some specific comet. To return to the spirit of the OP ...

If there are comets flying around space at all, then space exists, right? FE models that do not include somewhere for comets to fly around, aka outer space, are wrong, right? Or maybe some FE has explanation of how comets travel on the dome to appear to have huge elliptical orbits quite different than the background star field. I would like to see observations and calculations on that. Of course, all can be explained by conspiracy, but that is not satisfying to me when there is no evidence and what they would have to do is implausible, but conspiracy is always an explanation.  Or a complete misunderstanding of the laws of nature by scientists and brainwashed REs?

Is there an FE model that explains comets and is consistent with known physics and does not require that NASA be a giant yet secret global conspiracy?

Would the original poster allow conspiracy, changes to the laws of physics, and the possibility that the poster and physicist and astronomers and REs are brainwashed and find that satisfying?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Flat Earth
« on: April 11, 2019, 05:24:08 AM »
Go to "why can't I see the sun at night" and you will see examples of  exactly what I said.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Flat Earth
« on: April 11, 2019, 05:21:27 AM »
I removed your responses and futher clarified why your disproof did not succeed by FE rules. The basic idea is to come up with an explanation for everything, however implausible. Confronting this with RE/regular world expectations made me angry, possibly you if you got blindsided by it. Dorothy, you're not in Kansas any more.

If you think you can patiently educate and lead them through steps to "the world must be round", I and many others have tried. They. Will. Not. Do. That. In fact, they usually don't answer RE posts like yours. They already did, it's in the wiki, etc. If you find the explanation in the wiki flawed, explanations of that: it's not done, it's just one model (some other model may work), it needs work. Generally they seem impatient about convincing you, they want to spend their time explaining to the credulous. or chatting among themselves to develop more FE models. Often, after some brief explanation that you will find unsatisfying, and referal to the wiki, they become exasperated and say they explained it already and leave in a huff.

Here are mine that don't get answered: sextant/latitude/north star, equatorial mount, amsat (amateur radio ioperators build their own repreater satellites and get them launched, multiple proof points), doppler red shift from stars, spacex, maps, amateur radio (multiple proof points, satellites, beam antenna aiming angles, moonbounce), etc etc etc. And good luck getting them to explain how equatorial mount and north star/latitude/sextants work on FE or RE. I had one who was skeptical that the north star angle always equals latitude.

The key thing that most REs find ludicrous is the space conspiracy - all countries space agencies, all astronauts, maybe all astronmers (no way to tell how many are phds cynical liars and how many have been successfully brainwahsed or intimidated. You do have to admit that an astronomer saying the earth is flat may have career consequences.

Here's a fun one: the sun on FE, while actually always above us, seems to be on the horizon vecause of vaniching point and perspective. Good luck explaining what those really mean, but once they knew the phrase "vanishing point", just gotta use that to explain where the sun goes at night, it vanishes!

There are many models, so it could be several things
There might be a flat earth model you don't know about that could explain your observations. You can't prove there is no FE model that explains it. Bear in mind that FE models can have changes to the laws of physics or as yet unobserved features that do things like make comets appear to be somewhere other than they are. A quick example, perhaps silly even for FE, but suppose the dome had a bunch of "wormholes", where things like comets go into the dome and pop out somewhere else after a delay. Since that could all be, you haven't disproved FE.
Their calculations might be wrong
They might have wrongly measured the distance or done the math wrong. There could be a particularly difficult calculation that people are prone to make the exact same error and they all made it. So again, if there is a way to imagine an explanation, you have not disproved FE.
How do you know the people in other parts of the world weren't lying
According to FEs, there is huge money and power in knowing FE but fooling everyone else. Explanations of this are generally vague. Almost all FEs believe NASA is a giant conspiracy created to fool us and kill leakers. It is FE easy to say there could be a conspiracy to hide all things RE, Perhaps NASA knew about the experiment and sent thugs to bribe/threaten them to lie that RE is true. Again, there is a possible way your proof is invalid, so FE lives.
Maybe degrees have a different length in different parts of the world but they measured wrong
You have no way of knowing how long a degree is. You haven't been everywhere. You can't be sure your measuring tool worked, or even that it doesn't work differently. I recently read an FE post that said the only way to know the size of the moon is to go there with a ruler.
Were you there? The entire story could be made up, all the numbers could be lies
85%, that's not 100%. You need 100% for proof.
There are many ways this could be wrong, so one can still believe FE with so much possibility of dismissal of your idea.
Really?! Can you please explain why?

Because they have seen many many many FE videos, each showing them a problem with RE. And I think for various reasons they want FE to be true, mostly 3:

1. they get pleasure from conspiracy
2. they don't want to feel like they are living on a rock spinning wildly every which way, an accident of evolution in some obscure corner of a vast mess. They want to be in a simple place at the center of everything befitting their central place in existence
3. they think the Bible says the earth is flat

Given they have holes in RE, reason to like FE, and you can't prove the earth is flat, carry on with chatting with other FEs in endless speculation of how the world is flat.

And by the way, understand, FE doesn't mean flat necessarily, there are toroid and inverted and dished and bulged, all trying to solve the probems with flat. They have multiple models, you know, if one is wrong, another might be right. FE means not round. The only shape, for whatever reason. they reject. I think thast is more about rejecting the consensus rather than the shape.

I hope I saved you time and aggravation. The challenge of disproving FE is little or nothing outside the FE world. Inside FE, it is impossible to disprove FE on their terms, and they set the terms.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 'Oumuamua Comet
« on: April 11, 2019, 01:07:14 AM »
As an RE, I expect a single story with evidence. If you invakidate that story, you have proven your claim. In my experience, the FE culture is different.

With FE, it seems there are many models, so you can't assume anything about FE in general. Also, someone might invent a FE model in the future that explained the comet. So you haven't proven the earth is round.

I don't think they want to argue your proof point, they want to chat about their models. You would need someone excited about their personal version of the dome model. You might try:

Does anyone have a model that the comet fits into really well?

Maybe you will get someone who is proud that their FE model makes sense with space and astronomy to reply. More likely, they will spend their time chatting about their models, which is fair, they have a lot of work to do.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Flat Earth
« on: April 11, 2019, 12:46:22 AM »
Before you get too excited about your RE proof, let me list some reasons why your proof doesn't work.

There are many models, so it could be several things
Their calculations might be wrong
How do you know the people in other parts of the world weren't lying
Maybe degrees have a different length in different parts of the world but they measured wrong
Were you there? The entire story could be made up, all the numbers could be lies

There are many ways this could be wrong, so one can still believe FE with so much possibility of dismissal of your idea.

I agree with you, but I expect you will not get an FE to answer and I didn't want you to be disappointed.

Flat Earth Theory / knowing the distance to the moon
« on: April 10, 2019, 10:11:09 PM »
There are several ways to measure the lunar distance, for instance using the radius of the earth and measuring the lunar eclipse, Greek astronomer and mathematician Aristarchus of Samos in the 4th century BC and later by Hipparchus, whose calculations produced a result of 233000–265000 mi. Also parallax, meridian crossing, and occultations.

By recording the instant when the Moon occults a background star, (or similarly, measuring the angle between the moon and a background star at a predetermined moment) the lunar distance can be determined, as long as the measurements are taken from multiple locations of known separation. Notice this depends on the star being behind and much farther away.

In 1950, it became possible to bounce a radio signal off the moon. Governments, scientists, and amateur radio operators have bounced radio waves off the moon and timed the return Given the speed of light.

More recently, a laser was bounced off the moon and the distance calculated by the speed of light.

Should I conclude the moon is about 238,000 mi away, as determined by these several methods?


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?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >