1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Calling for the best proofs of flat earth

« on: February 16, 2019, 10:16:12 AM »

A accurate, verified, map would be a simple proof.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flight Paths

« on: February 11, 2019, 08:50:54 AM »

mapqust is based on openstreetmap which uses a round earth WGS84 model.

regardlesss of what the map is based on it represents the earth at a flat plane. I'm using that projection of the earth as a flat plane as the basis for a alternate flat earth models.

google maps represents the earth as a sphere.

Reality is that the earth is a sphere.

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: February 10, 2019, 04:57:44 PM »

I suppose if there were a problem with these levels, there would be occasions when the horizon does appear to be at eye level (from elevation). Yet it never, ever does.

Anyway, I can recreate that Rowbotham observation easily enough, and better. If Tom tells me what the other one is I'll incorporate that one too.

Cheers.

Still waiting for Tom to specify equipment available today for this project.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: I want to ask some questions.

« on: February 09, 2019, 11:58:55 PM »

Rowbotham has a diagram of the sun projecting on the atmolayer on Chapter 10 here:



Line AB is where the sun projects onto the atmolayer. It seems like it might also be interpreted as a "dome" of atmosphere rather than an line of atmolayer, since the opacity of the atmolayer is all around us in three dimensions.

We should probably make an article about question number 2, "Why can't we see the sun at all times," specifically.

My interpretation of the larger scene would be a large circle representing the circle of the earth, with a smaller circle or oval of the sun's area of light pivoting around its center. The observer's vision is pretty limited, we can only see maybe 25 miles away depending on conditions? Basically a dot. When the border of the sun's area of light intersects the observer's circle of vision sunrise occurs.

Visualization ideas are appreciated.

Sadly, not consistent with measurements of the angle of the sun from different locations at different times of day.  Unless you can provide some examples.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: I want to ask some questions.

« on: February 09, 2019, 10:27:07 PM »

1. I assume that you mean the Antarctic border. The answer is that if you went East from America you would travel in a circle around the North Pole, since the compass points North, and East and West are always at right angles to North.

2. The matter is summarized by the following:

     a. The atmosphere is opaque with distance and limits our vision. We cannot see forever across the earth.
     b. The sun close to the earth and manifests as a projection upon the atmolayer.

When the border of the sun's area of light intersects your circle of vision, sunrise occurs.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Diagram for 2b please to explain in more detail.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: February 09, 2019, 06:48:39 PM »

These devices are not "accurate for the purpose". They need to give consistent results, and those results need to match RET.

Another issue is that the operators are not ensuring that the containera are perfectly parallel. The height of the surface tension changes when viewed at a slight angle.

Which devices would you use today from the world of surveying to measure the earth we all live on?

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: February 09, 2019, 05:19:23 PM »

If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

In ENAG Rowbotham shows at least two methods where the horizon registers at eye level or very close to it.

Also, find a calculator showing what the drop would be under RET. It is nowhere close to the 1 degree+ that these horizon drop experiments show. Show that your theory matches the results. It is deceptive to show us a random drop that may or may not match your theory. Be honest.

Why can you not show what the drop is?  You know the numbers.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: February 09, 2019, 04:17:22 PM »

Rowbotham studied the matter and the surveying tools: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za16.htm

Devices with lenses are inaccurate and there is nothing about water level experiment methods.

Read Earth Not a Globe. The matter is studied there.

If you are going to do an experiment then you really need to prove the methods. These water level experiments are amateur rubbish.

What have you proved recently with the latest equipment available?

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: February 09, 2019, 10:04:52 AM »

Quite incorrect and undemonstrated. The Britannica article says that the surface tension is not level and there are several examples of the water level experiment giving inconsistent results or being inaccurate. These experiments are jokes, and they give large and differing results.

Show us that water tension is level and always gives the same results.

The closer we get things to our face in the foreground, the more accurate all elements of leveling needs to be. You are assuming that we can just wing it on the imprecise nature water tension and the fact that the water levels are arguably off very slightly in the images.

None can doubt that a slight error in altitude and leveling in the foreground can create a large impact on the background. You are just winging without knowing how precise you need to be.

The errors shown and inconsistency of these experiments invalidates the matter until demonstrated otherwise. Are we to believe that it doesn't matter that the water line kept changing in relation to the bodies in the background? Are we to believe it doesn't matter that the water doesn't line up in some of the devices?

If you want to conduct an experiment you need to really prove the matter and the validity of the tools used.

What professional equipment would you propose using?

re 'Professional surveyors admit that the science is always in error.'  The amount of the error is important.  And the statement does not mention 'science'.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 02, 2019, 07:52:58 PM »

All satellites use the Biefeld-Brown effect and orbit at a much lower altitude than thought. However, you should be concerned about the fact that the GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect at all.

The location of a satellite is clearly known, we know where to point our dishes.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 02, 2019, 06:48:22 PM »

You cannot use SkyLab: it was a fake mission.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/audioletters/audioletters_48.htm

How do you do this before or in the very early stages of CGI?

They had CGI (and the hardware to go along with it) back in 1968.


http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos

A brief excerpt.

How did they fake so many trips to Venus and Saturn, Mars, etc.?

Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How?  Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.

Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space.

Where would the distant satellite be and how would the correct position be maintained?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: February 01, 2019, 11:03:49 PM »

As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.

No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and ovals on the official FE map? Strong evidence there.

A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

Which is not consistent with any current proof.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: February 01, 2019, 10:49:01 PM »

As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.

No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and circles on the official FE map? Strong evidence there.

Are distances correct on your model or map?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: February 01, 2019, 10:04:45 PM »

Tom has still not explained how he would measure the size and shape of the earth, but has time to move to another topic. Says it all.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: February 01, 2019, 07:44:27 PM »

So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.

Interesting. Yet here I am posting numerous quotes by mathematicians who say that these problems just fall apart, and here you are giving us opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up at all. No links, no quotes, nothing. Typical.

I just put a series of quotes from the site YOU LINKED as reference for that statement. I even connected the dots for you. Lead a horse to water.....

No, you didn't quote anything relevant to your statement. Your statements of "we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it" and ">1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up." are complete fantasy nonsense, and is entirely unsupported by what you quoted.

What you quoted admits that modeling three or more bodies of a solar system is impossible with any realistic model of the celestial bodies, and admits that they are resorting to a series of 2-body problems and pretending that ignoring the physics of multiple bodies is just as good.

You have no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system. It is admitted that it cannot be done.

Who is 'you' you refer to?  Have you ever discussed this subject with anyone else other than on this or a similar forum?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: February 01, 2019, 06:09:17 PM »

But  a round earth traditional gravity system can be modeled.

No, it can't. I disagree. Anyone who asserts that the RET system can be modeled has no idea what they are talking about, and is engaging in wishful thinking. Show me where the heliocentric orbits are in the three body family galleries are. Lets see something that looks like a star with a planet that has a moon.

Take a look at the Three Body Problem family gallery: http://three-body.ipb.ac.rs/

Here is an N-Body Orbit Gallery, which showcases the limited orbits that can be made, and which must assume that bodies are of equal mass or mass-less: http://rectangleworld.com/demos/nBody/

The ones that look like a heliocentric system don't exist. I am unable to find that family anywhere in the list of families.

Where are the solutions with the suns that have planets and moons? Don't tell us. Show us. Until you guys can demonstrate your case that it does work, the mathematician above who says that it doesn't work is likely better qualified to answer the matter.

All this discussion and you still do have not have any measurements to work out what you might accept as the shape of the earth.  It is clearly not flat or else flight times would be wrong.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: January 31, 2019, 06:50:15 PM »

The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work.

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

Welcome to a great example of what iamcpc was saying. Tom latches onto one thing (there is no analytical solution to the Three Body Problem) and uses that to sweepingly declare there is no RE model.

Are there some things that seem problematic for the RE model? Yes.
Are there things that seem problematic for the FE model? Yes.

I personally feel the problems set forth for the FE model are the more serious and damning at this point in time. But feel free to hang around, browse some old threads, do some experiments on your own, and come to your own conclusions. That's honestly the core of what TFES is attempting to promote, and imo it's not a bad thing. The problem imo comes when they don't hold their own experiments to the same standard as RE experiments. But I'm just as sure they don't see it the same way.

Tom,

I'm the first to admit that you have presented lots of evidence. Much of it does very well and presenting alternate explanations for RE conformation bias. You are going to get through to a lot more round eathers if you just phrase things a little differently. Instead of saying _____________ proves the earth must be flat. You could say _____________ is something that the round earth model really struggles with.

I have yet to see one piece of evidence which, to me at least from an objective standpoint, proves 100% that the earth is flat.
I have yet to see one piece of evidence which, to me at least from an objective standpoint, proves 100% that the earth is round.

I do believe that, if the earth is flat, it's not the flat disk model. It very well might not be an infinite plane model. It might be some combination of those things.

How do explain that measured distances, which we use every day, show the earth is round. In detail the WGS84 model.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: January 31, 2019, 02:43:39 PM »

What "one thing"? RET can't be modeled and doesn't work.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

https://wiki.tfes.org/Tides

https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment

https://wiki.tfes.org/Torsion_Balance_Experiments

More on the way.

Most impressive is the Three Body Problem. A sun with a planet that has a moon cannot even be simulated. There is no predictive astronomical model at all, only cartoons.

How would you determine the shape of the earth?

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: January 31, 2019, 02:49:23 AM »

The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work.

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

How do you explain that measured distances, the path of the sun and satellite operation all confirm a round earth.  How would you determine the shape of the earth if you had the resourses?  Where is the WGS84 model inaccurate?

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Paper. Simply irrefutable.

« on: January 30, 2019, 09:49:52 PM »

One day we will read:  I contacted xxx and explained they were incorrect. They were very grateful and have redesigned their equipment.