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 - geckothegeek

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: September 03, 2017, 12:24:53 AM »
The most recent "worst post" I have seen from Tom Bishop is this one:
Quote : "The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."
Even Charles Lindbergh knew the distance in 1927.

And that's not the only one !

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Standard Model might be convoluted.
« on: September 02, 2017, 03:26:41 PM »
I really don't understand all this flat earth nonsense.
Anyone who have ever been in the Navy knows the earth is a globe.
But not everyone has had that opportunity.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 31, 2017, 09:51:40 PM »
Tom and FE community.

Unless there is a way to demonstrate that all forms of flight speed have margins of error greater than 200% in the southern hemiplane

Why are you basing your argument on a map and model of the earth that is used for visualization purposes only and which no one has claimed to put work into creating?
Because:
A) It's the only map that's been offered up, and Junker - a mod - has insinuated he considers it an actual map.
B) No matter how you slice the monopole map, you'll have distortions like that in either the Northern or Southern hemisplane.
C) Your wiki still appears to present that map as the dominant FE map, so when discussing a map in some form, that's the easiest to refer to.
D) The dual-pole map still has these sorts of issues.

You continue to refuse to address two relevant points. Namely, what is a FE approved way to measure distance? How large of a difference is there between a FE mile and a RE mile, and how do you know that? You can't say over and over that the RE model is wrong because it assumes sphere coordinates, and then not explain how the FE model will differ. There's plenty of us here. I'm certain if you laid out ground rules on finding distance we could figure out a way to show nearly any distance using said method(s).

If we were to measure the distance of a mile by  using the old surveyor's chains, wouldn't we have to know whether the length of the chain was an "FE Chain" or an "RE Chain" ?

Just another "observation.":
In doing a little research on local history, it seems that when a town was even first in the proposal stage,  "the first order of business" was the drawing up of a map , showing streets and natural features, etc.
It would seem that this should be "the first order of business" for The Flat Earth Society to draw up an accurate flat earth map.
But it seems this has never been done, or even started.
Why ?
Because the earth is not flat.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 31, 2017, 09:07:22 PM »
I fail to see any logic in Tom Bishop's arguments in inaccuries.

My experience, both in the USN and the FAA was more in the technical/equipment end of things.

We had problems from time in the radio communications systems, radar systems and computer systems (which were a bit complicated beyond just the radios , radars and computers alone) . But when the systems were working correctly I don't remember ever hearing any reports of any inaccuracies in the data, especially on aircraft speeds, etc., either on the contoller's display screens or from verbal contacts with the pilots.

It seems that a lot of FE's seem to know little or nothing about a subject and just make up something out of their imaginations which make little or none truth or logic.

Some of the funniest remarks from an FE that I remember were on the old thread about amateur radio "Moonbounce" , where the distance from the earth to the moon could be determined by "bouncing" radio signals off the moon, measuring the time it took to receive the signal back on earth and then computing the distance using the speed of  radio waves.

A few choice FE remarks:
"A ham radio operator in his shack talking to truckers can't do this."
 (They didn't seem to  know the difference between an un-licensed  "CB" (Citizen's Band) talking to a trucker.....some times illegally...and a licensed amateur radio operator conducting a legal "QSO" (radio contact with other licensed hams.)

"Radio waves are inaccurate....They slow down getting to moon."
(They didn't seem to know much about radio theory. If this was true, radar would be impossible or inaccurate.)

"You would have to have an antenna the size of a football field to do this."
(They didn't seem to know anything or much about antenna theory. The size of the antenna depends on what frequency (related to wave length ) you are using......An antenna for the 10-Meter (30 MHz) band  has longer elements than those for an antenna on the 2-Meter (144 MHZ) band.) Antenna theory can get a bit complicated, too.....And I have probably forgotten a lot more than what I used to know about things like that.......LOL......

Just a few examples. ::)

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 31, 2017, 04:20:05 AM »
Evidence ? :

I am an FAA retiree (radio, radar and computer technician) so I have been out of it for about it for 17 years now so technology may have advanced a bit since then. LOL

But back at the Fort Worth, Texas Air Route Traffic Control Center, each Air Traffic Controller controlled a small "Sector" of the air space and his radar display showed him the aircraft identifier, its altitude, speed, course and other information.Radio communication was on frequencies in the 108 to 137 MHZ range , at that time I believe.

All of this information was received from the aircraft's transponder, entered into a computer and processed for display on the air traffic controller's display screen at his operating position. The system was accurate and all the data was known to be accurate and had been proven in 24/7 usage.

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: need more information
« on: August 31, 2017, 12:30:26 AM »
Re: Need more information.

I have been trying to get some information this without much success.:

(1) Where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
(2) How do you calculate the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
(3) Is there a horizon on a flat earth ?
(4) What is the definition of the horizon on a flat earth ?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 29, 2017, 06:04:01 PM »
Evidence ? :

I am an FAA retiree (radio, radar and computer technician) so I have been out of it for about it for 17 years now so technology may have advanced a bit since then. LOL

But back at the Fort Worth, Texas Air Route Traffic Control Center, each Air Traffic Controller controlled a small "Sector" of the air space and his radar display showed him the aircraft identifier, its altitude, speed, course and othper information.Radio communication was on frequencies in the 108 to 137 MHZ range , at that time I believe.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: August 27, 2017, 02:13:39 AM »
In a recent thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6710.0), Tom Bishop said a couple of interesting things:

Quote
I have argued in favor of UA EA in the past when the theory was first proposed, but have since tended to prefer the theory that light travels in straight lines and that perspective is the explanation for why the view of the sun is limited, as opposed to refraction or the Universal Electro-Magnetic Accelerator (which works, but is something I now consider to be less empirical compared to other explanations).

...and...

The perspective lines meet at a finite distance, not an infinite distance as described by the Ancient Greeks. This describes why the sun appears to descent and meet the horizon a finite distance away, as opposed to an infinite distance away.

OK - so we've established that (barring the minimal effects of atmospheric refraction) Tom believes that light travels in straight lines.  ("Rectilinear propagation" to use fancy-talk)

This is an important breakthrough (for me, at least).

What we're left with is this notion that the conventional concepts of "perspective lines" and "vanishing points" is somehow incorrect.

But "perspective lines" and "vanishing points" are merely a consequence of light travelling in straight lines.  They are a convenience for artists and the like - but they aren't some fundamental part of physics.

So there is a contradiction in Tom's mind here...one that we should probe into.

Firstly, let's take the human eye, brain and all of that other messy stuff out of the picture.   Let's not even have a lens or anything else in the way of forming an image.

Let's think about the simplest optical device imaginable...a pinhole camera.

A light-tight box with a pinhole punched in the front and a photographic plate at the back.

 

There are thousands of photos of sunsets made by pinhole camera enthusiasts online - here is one of them:



So we know that pinhole cameras "see" sunsets...so whatever the mechanism that Tom subscribes to has to "work" with a pinhole camera.

Looking again at that diagram:

 

This is how perspective works with a pinhole camera.   When the tree is further away, the light coming through the pinhole makes a smaller image...right?

You can use the law of "similar triangles" to state that the height of the image on the back of the camera divided by the distance from image to the pinhole must equal the height of the tree divided by the distance from tree to pinhole.

That MUST be true if light travels in straight lines...it's elementary Euclidean geometry.

Put another way - we can come up with an equation for the height of the image:

   Himage / Dimage = Hsubject  / Dsubject

Where:
  Dimage = Distance from image to pinhole.
  Dsubject = Distance from subject to pinhole.
  Himage = Height of the image of the subject on the back of the camera.
  Hsubject = Actual height of the subject.

...which we can rearrange to:

   Himage = Hsubject x Dimage / Dsubject

To make life easier, let's suppose our camera is one foot across.  So Dimage is one foot - and all of our distances are in feet...that simplifies the equation a bit:

  Himage = Hsubject / Dsubject

In English - the height of the image is the height of the subject divided by the distance it is from the camera.

This is "THE LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE" in a nutshell...just a single, simple equation that depends ONLY on the fact that light travels in straight lines and Euclidean geometry - and it's a proof that any high-school student could comprehend.

It IS indisputable.

So how far away does the tree have to be to "vanish"?  Well, if Himage = 0, and we know that Hsubject isn't zero then the only possibility is that Dsubject is infinite.

So right here - we have the "laws of perspective" - derived from first principles using nothing more than an old-fashioned pinhole camera and the law of similar triangles.

Sorry Tom, you can't believe in "Light travels in straight lines" *AND* your funky version of perspective without denying the most basic Euclidean geometry.

Fundamentally - if at sunset, we know that the FET sun is 3000 miles up and 6000 miles west (Hsubject=3000 miles, Dsubject=6000 miles) - then a one foot long pinhole camera would show the sun to be 6" above the horizon...not the sunset that was actually photographed with a pinhole camera.

But not matter what - Tom's notions that the laws of perspective, known since the times of the Ancient Greeks are incorrect must be untrue.

So Tom....unless you wish to change your answer about how sunsets happen - we have here definitive proof that the Earth Is Not Flat.

More fundamentally:

If the Earth is truly Flat and if sunsets happen - light CANNOT travel in straight lines, and (as explained comprehensively in my previous thread) it CANNOT be due to refraction.

So, alas, poor Tom...you're back with "Electromagnetic acceleration" - which is a truly crappy hypothesis that's going to be VERY easy to disprove.   Trust me, I already have very simple evidence against that load of hogwash!

Are you now ready to admit that the world is not flat?   I really think you should.

The pinhole camera diagram seems to be rather elementary, My Dear Watson.
On any camera, lens or pin hole, the closer to the subject the camera is , the large the image in the camera is.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: depth of Earth
« on: August 27, 2017, 02:01:26 AM »
Yeah, no one knows for sure. It's hard to dig down there, and a fundamental tenant of Zeteticism is confirmation via direct observation. That said, we can speculate!

In AW theory, the aethric wind's push against the Earth would theoretically provide sufficient energy to melt the bottom of our Plane. Therefore, in this model the bottom of the Earth would probably be quite similar to the outer core in RET. This seems to be supported by available evidence, since there appears to be some mysterious heat source deep inside the Earth that is not fully explained by radioactive decay.

Looking past that (ignoring the fact that the Wind would melt your face off), you'd most likely see an abyss that stretches forever. That's not necessarily true; for all we know, there's a second Earth directly below us that thinks we're some kind of celestial ceiling. Or turtles. I've always been a fan of the turtle theory.

I believe there are some sects of FET who believe that Australia is actually on the other side of the plane (which they use as a probably racist explanation for the physical characteristics of Aboriginal peoples and the apparent mass psychosis that characterizes modern Australian society and governance).

That's very interesting.  Is there not consensus amongst flat earth theorists about what is or is not on the plane?  Do all members of the flat earth society subscribe to Zeteticism or is it not an agreed upon set of world values?

Thank You,

CritcalThinker
FE has consensus about very, very little, and even that can vary from person to person. There's no real unified FE hypothesis, it makes discussion difficult. One would hope when on a site that has a wiki that goes over these things, the information as presented in the wiki would be what's under discussion. Unfortunately even the wiki doesn't always have just one explanation listed for things. As for Zeteticism, I believe it's supposed to be a core tenant of the FES, but that doesn't mean every FE believer on the FES website is a subscriber to it, as evidenced by J-man who is obviously a religious focused FEer.

How many theories of Gravity are there in RET, past and present?

Tom, you seem to be not answering the question but you are asking a question. ???
Just tell us how deep the flat earth is.......Please !
If you don't know, just say so !

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse
« on: August 27, 2017, 01:51:26 AM »
Quote
why we had to listen to every news channel in the nation warn us
StinkyOne, be aware(=beware) that usually news channels are just brainwashing us, and the human workers at news companies are even more heavily brainwashed and tricked than we are.

StinkyOne, i'm personally sungazing uninterruptedly literally everyday for hour and a half with blinking. And still nothing happened to me, and i don't want anything happening to me.
If i was blind, i wouldn't be here posting, i would have some sort of a long depression.
Why are you so afraid of looking at the sun with your bare eyes regularly?

Quote
There is no freaking conspiracy about the sun.
I will never agree on that. I'm still researching both sun and moon. The conspiracy is that the sun is 80-100% artificial, not natural, technologically made plasma/hologram/complex system object(sun simulator) and it exists in multitudes(nibiru sightings). Instead of a sun, there is a "sun system", that consists of multiple of suns sometimes interchanging one another and working at a variable/constant looping paths above different regions of earth.

Quote
Kids, Hmmm is either a troll or an idiot.  Please do not take his/her words seriously.
Rounder, i know that "kids" is just a locution, but it sounds so ironical, that you use it on the FE forum.
No, i'm sincere about being able capable of sungazing regularly for hours. It's not a problem for me.

Quote
A team of Texas A&M Aggies are planning a sun landing to land on the sun and explore the sun.
Just to be safe they plan to do this at night or during a total eclipse.
geckothegeek, and why are they gonna plan to do this at night, is it because the sun "changes it's mode" and becomes darker-orange, less bright, less hot and visible, when looking at the sky at sunset? My argument/arguments might sound stupid, but consider it/them. ;D ;D

Hmmm-
It's just an old, old, old  "Aggie Joke" that has been around for some time.  ;D
My apologies to all concerned for same.  ::)
Your arguments are lots less stupid than the joke. :)
Please don't take it seriously although I will admit it is a pretty seriously bad joke.  :P
Humor gets a bit weird at times at College Station as I am sure TomInAustin (are you a T-Sipper ?) will agree. ::)

Tsip here.

I just attended some Summer Term classes. Guess that makes me a "Former Student" here.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Black sky during eclipse?
« on: August 27, 2017, 01:43:43 AM »
I find the flat earth theory very interesting, it definitely passes the eye test. After the eclipse it put doubts in my mind.

If we live a flat plane with the sun and moon under the firmament, then why would the sky go dark? The sun should still illuminate the sky even if the moon blocks light from the ground. Please help

Do you find any flat earth ideas that fall into the definition of a "theory" ?
Which ones do you find that "definitely pass the eye test" ?

12
Flat Earth General / Re: Black sky during eclipse?
« on: August 27, 2017, 01:24:06 AM »
I find the flat earth theory very interesting, it definitely passes the eye test. After the eclipse it put doubts in my mind.

If we live a flat plane with the sun and moon under the firmament, then why would the sky go dark? The sun should still illuminate the sky even if the moon blocks light from the ground. Please help

Flat earth says.:
(1) The sun only "acts line a spotlight" AND shines down on the earth AND NOT on the moon.
(2) The moon is "self illuminated" by some mind of "bioluminscent" organisms or creatures AND IS NOT illuminated by the light from the sun.
(3) A lunar OR solar eclipse occurs when a "dark object" blocks the light from the moon OR the sun to the earth.

It would seem that when a total solar eclipse occurs, there would still be light from the moon.???
When a total lunar eclipse occurs, there would still be light from the sun.???

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Alternative maps problems.
« on: August 24, 2017, 11:35:58 PM »
Your map images do not appear. You might want to reupload them. I believe I know what you are talking about, but you should fix your images first so that there is no miscommunication.

I see them just fine.
But they are just the common (1)Unipolar (the map on the left) and(2) Bipolar (the map on the right) Projections (of the globe) with all the distortions of sizes, shapes and distances.
The Bipolar seems to have more problems than the Unipolar.
Not true for accurate "flat earth maps", which do not exist.
What is needed is an original "flat earth map" with all the continents in their proper shapes and sizes, with all the distances between them correct.
All of the continents, including Antarctica and Australia, have been surveyed and mapped.
Their shapes and sizes are known and accurate.
Only the globe can show these correctly......Because the earth is a globe and is not a flat disc.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse
« on: August 24, 2017, 11:23:19 PM »
If you practice sungazing regularly, the eclipse won't WILL do NOTHING to your vision
True, because you'll already be blind if you've been regularly looking at the sun, the eclipse would have no opportunity to do additional damage.

Kids, Hmmm is either a troll or an idiot.  Please do not take his/her words seriously.

If you do sun gazing without a filter, you will probably see NOTHING  afterwards.

Seriously :
Once again.:
Best place to do some sun gazing is at an observatory.
Some of them have special cameras with filters and with close-circuit tv's so you can see a large picture of the sun - eclipse or not - safely.

And maybe not to be taken so seriouly : ???
News Flash !
I read where a total eclipse will be visible in Texas in 2024.
A team of Texas A&M Aggies are planning a sun landing to land on the sun and explore the sun.
Just to be safe they plan to do this at night or during a total eclipse.

The 2024 is supposed to be a total here in Austin.  That will be awesome

Same here in Irving.
I didn't notice much difference in brightness here in Irving.
You could see the little "crescents" on the sidewalk  where the sun was shining through the leaves on the trees.
(Acting like pinhole cameras.)

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse
« on: August 24, 2017, 10:49:05 PM »
Quote
why we had to listen to every news channel in the nation warn us
StinkyOne, be aware(=beware) that usually news channels are just brainwashing us, and the human workers at news companies are even more heavily brainwashed and tricked than we are.

StinkyOne, i'm personally sungazing uninterruptedly literally everyday for hour and a half with blinking. And still nothing happened to me, and i don't want anything happening to me.
If i was blind, i wouldn't be here posting, i would have some sort of a long depression.
Why are you so afraid of looking at the sun with your bare eyes regularly?

Quote
There is no freaking conspiracy about the sun.
I will never agree on that. I'm still researching both sun and moon. The conspiracy is that the sun is 80-100% artificial, not natural, technologically made plasma/hologram/complex system object(sun simulator) and it exists in multitudes(nibiru sightings). Instead of a sun, there is a "sun system", that consists of multiple of suns sometimes interchanging one another and working at a variable/constant looping paths above different regions of earth.

Quote
Kids, Hmmm is either a troll or an idiot.  Please do not take his/her words seriously.
Rounder, i know that "kids" is just a locution, but it sounds so ironical, that you use it on the FE forum.
No, i'm sincere about being able capable of sungazing regularly for hours. It's not a problem for me.

Quote
A team of Texas A&M Aggies are planning a sun landing to land on the sun and explore the sun.
Just to be safe they plan to do this at night or during a total eclipse.
geckothegeek, and why are they gonna plan to do this at night, is it because the sun "changes it's mode" and becomes darker-orange, less bright, less hot and visible, when looking at the sky at sunset? My argument/arguments might sound stupid, but consider it/them. ;D ;D

Hmmm-
It's just an old, old, old  "Aggie Joke" that has been around for some time.  ;D
My apologies to all concerned for same.  ::)
Your arguments are lots less stupid than the joke. :)
Please don't take it seriously although I will admit it is a pretty seriously bad joke.  :P
Humor gets a bit weird at times at College Station as I am sure TomInAustin (are you a T-Sipper ?) will agree. ::)

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse
« on: August 24, 2017, 04:03:43 PM »
If you practice sungazing regularly, the eclipse won't WILL do NOTHING to your vision
True, because you'll already be blind if you've been regularly looking at the sun, the eclipse would have no opportunity to do additional damage.

Kids, Hmmm is either a troll or an idiot.  Please do not take his/her words seriously.

If you do sun gazing without a filter, you will probably see NOTHING  afterwards.

Seriously :
Once again.:
Best place to do some sun gazing is at an observatory.
Some of them have special cameras with filters and with close-circuit tv's so you can see a large picture of the sun - eclipse or not - safely.

And maybe not to be taken so seriouly : ???
News Flash !
I read where a total eclipse will be visible in Texas in 2024.
A team of Texas A&M Aggies are planning a sun landing to land on the sun and explore the sun.
Just to be safe they plan to do this at night or during a total eclipse.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: How far was it from the Sun to the Moon ?
« on: August 23, 2017, 08:11:32 PM »
When the moon wobbles down it gets below the sun, blocks the sun, (which....remember ! .... acts like a spotlight )and causes the eclipse

Then what is it that lights up Jupiter if the sun shines down like a spotlight ? .......
and also, which way does the moon travel across the US, west to east or east to west ?

Stop asking tough questions. I was told by a FEer that the planets orbit the sun and are very small, FWIW.

I was told by one FE that planets do not exist.
I was told by another FE that the earth is not a planet.
And another said that the stars and planets are reflections on the dome from things on the earth.
One more said they are just holes in the dome that let light in.......From where ???
And then there is the possibility that the planets are projections on the dome from the NASA projectors.
This should answer some of your questions ???

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: August 23, 2017, 06:49:01 PM »
To TomInAustin

About your quote from Tom Bishop.:

Charles Lindbergh knew the distance from New York to Paris in 1927.
I had been under the impression that Tom Bishop was smarter than Charles Lindbergh ???

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.
« on: August 23, 2017, 05:42:54 PM »
I will have to agree with everyone.
Thanks 3DGeek !!!
But just a warning.
Just post "round earth facts" in the "debate" section.
I have received "bans" for posting them in the "Q & A" section.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: How far was it from the Sun to the Moon ?
« on: August 23, 2017, 05:28:28 PM »
When the moon wobbles down it gets below the sun, blocks the sun, (which....remember ! .... acts like a spotlight )and causes the eclipse

Then what is it that lights up Jupiter if the sun shines down like a spotlight ? .......
and also, which way does the moon travel across the US, west to east or east to west ?

Since I am just an indoctrinated, brainwashed "round earther" , I don't know the "flat earther" answers to your questiions.
Maybe Tom Bishop does.???
He seems to be missing on this thread ???

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55  Next >