1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do passenger airplane windows distort camera photos?

« on: August 27, 2017, 10:26:39 PM »

Lots of people post photos taken out of passenger airliner windows that claim to show horizon curvature.

FE'ers always reply by saying that the window of the plane causes distortion that makes it look like that.

Then, I thought a bit about the shape of the windows.   They don't bulge outwards or dimple inwards compared to the skin of the airplane because that would add horrible amounts of drag.   They match the curvature of the skink of the plane - which is cylindrical over most of the (cattle-class) seats that I can afford.

That means that the two layers of plastic that make up the window are such that the inner layer is dead flat - but the outer layer is a section of a cylinder.   The plastic is of uniform thickness in both cases.

So the lensing effect of the window ought to preserve horizontal lines as horizontal - which means that they can't possibly bend the horizon line into a curve when the plane is flying straight-and-level.

But then, thinking harder on the problem - I realize that a curved sheet of plastic would be like a convex lens followed by a concave lens...and being almost exactly the same radius of curvature, they would cancel each other out.

Now I'm suspecting that our FE friends are talking bullshit here.  (No!  Surely not!)

So in the interests of doing an experiment, when I recently took a flight on a brand new 787 airplane, I thought  I should test this idea.

I pressed my cellphone flat against the inner window and snapped photos of the wing of the airplane.  The aileron (I think that's what it is) that's in my view is dead straight in diagrams of the airplane I found online...and in my photos, that same line is straight too.

Hmmm - so NO DISTORTION!

Oh - oh!  Could it possibly be that the FE'ers are talking nonsense here?

Surely not?

I'm rather certain that this whole FE excuse of the window glass distorting the straight horizon to make it LOOK curved may well be a bunch of hogwash.

If I'm correct - then we can find DIRECT proof of the curvature of the horizon...and I *KNOW* that FE'ers trust direct experimental evidence.

I'm flying back tomorrow - and I'll try to get more pictures.   On the outbound flight, it was too cloudy to get a clear picture of the horizon...maybe I'll get lucky coming back.  It's the exact same airplane both ways...so that's good.

I'll post results in a couple of days when I have a moment to spare.

A simple way to test this is to take pictures at all point of the flight and at different altitudes.  If the window is curved enough to produce a curve on the horizon, then we will notice curves in other places where there ought not be a curve through the same window.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pinhole cameras, Sunsets and FET perspective.

« on: August 27, 2017, 08:01:09 PM »

You are using math on a diagram which is situated outside of the universe; not on an empirical first person view. This video goes over what is wrong whose that type of math and those types of pictures:

So according to this video, according to perspective, the sun and the horizon will meet, and the parallel railroad tracks will meet.  Fine, I will give you that, but the real issue here is that what is observed to be happening with the sun and the horizon is that the parallel lines (railroad tracks, horizon\sun) CROSS. 

The sun sets and goes out of sight.  It doesn't simply meet the horizon in the distance and then stay there at eye level which is what we would expect from a forced perspective of two parallels.  What we observer is the lines cross (the horizontal line of the sun crosses the horizontal line of the horizon) which is impossible in a forced perspective parallel. 

Your perspective argument is invalid because of this.  Two parallel lines will appear to meet, but they will never appear to cross.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airplanes lit from below

« on: August 17, 2017, 12:32:17 AM »

Here is a pic I took just now of this phenomenon.  Sorry for the crappy android camera.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Airplanes lit from below

« on: August 16, 2017, 11:41:08 PM »

I live about 20 miles from the local airport, directly under a common flight path.  Because of this I constantly have airplanes fly over my house as they are coming in to land.  One thing that I have observed is that just after sunset, but before dark, if I look up in the sky at one of these planes, I can see them clearly as they are lit from the sun from below.  This fact is something that has been known since the dawn of military aviation as even the most stealthy of aircraft is visible clearly from the ground after the sun has set on the ground below but before the sun has set on the airplane.  This makes perfect sense from a RE perspective as the sun would actually be below the airplane at this point.  How does this phenomenon work from a FE perspective?  From what I understand the sun is a constant 3000 miles above the surface of the plane of the earth. How then does a flying aircraft become lit form underneath? Please explain.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 16, 2017, 01:54:54 PM »

So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.

Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".

What you are saying is you will disregard any science that doesn't go along with your superstition. 

A short list of Proofs that have been provided here

GPS accuracy
Mapping accuracy
Radar Accuracy
Flight duration accuracy

Of course, you have the luxury of hiding behind the "We don't have a map" concept.  The good news is that other than blind fanatics, anyone reading this thread will see right through the obvious fear and dishonesty you display.   Case in point,  I showed this thread to a few people and the common reaction was belly laughter.  "How can someone be so stupid?" was at the top of the list.

Not to mention the absurdity of FE when compared to flight distances in the southern hemisphere.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 16, 2017, 01:00:29 PM »

Asserting that it is accurate do not make it so.

If you have no further evidence then you are wasting your time posting.

You have no evidence that the WGS-84 shape of the earth is incorrect.  Still waiting for details of what equipment you need.

If you are claiming that some device or method is accurate, then you are obligated to post the evidence here rather than repeat "prove me wrong".

What equipment would you use to determine the shape of the earth?

Why do you not look for evidence and give us the details here?  What do you define as evidence?

Is the timeanddate.com correct for your location?

I love timeanddate.com I can confirm that it is indeed correct in every location that I have used it in. I use it weekly for the last three years to determine sundown time on Friday nights and it has never once been wrong. I have used it in Minneapolis MN, Nashville TN, Greenville SC, Colorado Springs CO, and Kansas City, MO. Each and every time it is perfect.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 16, 2017, 05:20:46 AM »

Have you ever flown on an airplane Tom?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 16, 2017, 05:11:31 AM »

So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all. He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

I asked for a method that did not use Round Earth assumptions. Please refer to my previous post:

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.

[quote  author=frodo467]Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr78A6cJDa4

Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

You will need to provide more effort than generic informational articles about "Radar".
[/quote]

Yup. Confirmation bias claims another. No point arguing if he won't consider any data because he "knows "What he knows, except he doesn't know what he doesn't know and no amount of talking or evidence will change that. He has has belief entrenched and any consideration of opposing evidence simply causes a state of cognitive dissonance. Being comfortable in a lie is too damn comfortable.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 16, 2017, 04:49:54 AM »

Answer one simple question. What method would you deem allowable for determining distances? If you cannot answer that, then we are indeed wasting our time here, because you cannot concede a single point made in this thread without conceding them all and giving a flat Earth zero possibility to exist based on distances alone.

Any method which does not use Round Earth longitude and latitudes or Round Earth assumptions will suffice.

http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/surveying2.html Surveying does not use Long/Lat for Triangulation and it uses simple trig to determine distances for mapping. An older map or road map would have used the method of laying known lengths of material down to measure the starting distance. If I can show a map from 1884 has the same distance information (within reasonable margin of error) as one done today, will you accept those distances? (US government offers maps from 1884 here but at the time of this post their system for retrieving older maps is down.)

From your link:

because the distance between the survey points is generally long (typically about 30 kilometres) the calculations also allow for the curvature of the Earth.

So you will disregard what you ask for simply because it mentions that the curvature of the earth is used in measurement.  If that is the case you are asking for evidence that you will reject out of hand because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion.  Catch 22 all.  He asks for studies and proof, but he won't accept any studies or proof because they take reality into account.  Any study on anything will be based in reality, and he prefers only studies that are based in fantasy. He asks for peer reviewed evidence and then rejects it because his peers with the same preconceived notion did not review it. 

Will you accept this article from the institute for physics on the reliability of radar?

https://www.iop.org/publications/iop/2011/file_47456.pdf

Perhaps this one?

https://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/14407.htm#_Toc119408980

Probably not this one because it mentions that the curvature of the earth must be taken into account when using radar.

http://msi.nga.mil/MSISiteContent/StaticFiles/NAV_PUBS/RNM/310ch1.pdf

Perhaps the fact the Air traffic control systems used RADAR which provides the location, orientation, and speed of the aircraft so that they can be properly brought to ground without continual crashes?

http://ethw.org/Air_Traffic_Control_and_Radar

How about the fact that the military uses radar in order to land aircraft in low visibility environments such as rain and fog?

https://www.army.mil/article/104352/Controllers_use_radar_to_direct_air_traffic/

RADAR is accurate with over 95% reliability, it is measurable, and it is repeatable. You can even build a fully functioning and reliable radar from coffee cans. 



Here are your articles and proofs.  Reject them out of hand if you will, but don't say I didn't provide them.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 16, 2017, 02:19:50 AM »

Many of us seem completely willing to be drawn off topic into a debate on the easy pickings.  There are several good reasons besides GPS that allow us to know the speed of an aircraft.  Tom seems to be really good at deflecting without providing any good solutions.  His only answer seems to be "how do you know?"

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 16, 2017, 01:59:41 AM »

although you yourself have not witnessed it

This is incorrect.

Whoa!  Tom Bishop is an astronaut!  Perhaps we should take his word on it....

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Likely, my last post

« on: August 16, 2017, 01:53:53 AM »

Well 3DGeek...isn't this ironic...I have to learn about the FE'ers from an RE'er...

So the infinite earth is an explanation...weak and unproven to even the least degree, but an explanation.

I see no ones answered my constellation question as yet...or any of the others for that matter.

So they say the sun and moon are 3000 miles away...I'm not sure how they stick the planets in there especially when Venus and Mercury pass in front of the sun. They must be pretty close to the earth...and pretty small...

Here's another question...I live in Florida...California is close to 3000 miles away to the west. When the sun hits the horizon in the west, is it cooking California???

LOL.  I wish it would cook California.  Unfortunately no.  The sun set is an optical illusion of sorts because the sun is always anywhere from 35 to 3000 miles away (depending on who you ask) and it is always above the earth.  That is the best explanation I have ever gotten because the way FEs describe the sunset is nonsense when your light source is always above everyone.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 16, 2017, 01:48:07 AM »

Tom Bishop.  You claim that we cannot know the speed of an aircraft.  There are about 1000 radar stations in North America that disagree.  No GPS needed.  Radar is so reliable on tracking speed that police officers use it all the time to catch speeders.  Stop fixating on GPS and get to the point.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 14, 2017, 03:05:03 PM »

Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222
http://seeklifesc.com/saopauilo_johannesburg.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_Sydney.jpg

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280
http://seeklifesc.com/johannesburg_to_perth.jpg[/img


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27
http://seeklifesc.com/sydney_to_santiago.jpg

That is not the accepted map of the earth.

You mean there is no accepted map.  I can only assume the poster used that one to show how ridiculous the concept was.  The scale of the map and the need to fly over the western USA to get from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.

Not to mention the need to fly the entire length of Africa as well as over the entire Asian continent to get form Johannesbug to Sydney.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 14, 2017, 02:56:28 PM »

Yes, whether you accept the map as accurate or not, the distances needed to fly from points in the southern hemisphere as compared to distances in the northern hemisphere is ludicrous.  Place the continents in any formation you choose and the distances are still so completely non-sensical as to be laughable.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 14, 2017, 02:37:40 PM »

Here are some visuals to help out.  I know that the US is around 2700 miles since I have driven it from coast to coast.  Travelmath.com says it is 2451, so we will go with that.   So with the US as a reference, let's look at some images.

Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sao Paulo Brazil to Johannesburg, South Africa.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA222


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Sydney, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF64


Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is SA280



Here is a comparison of the distances that are needed to go from Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile.  The flight number for this flight so that it can easily be tracked is QF27