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 - RonJ

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23  Next >
1
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: March 02, 2021, 03:28:37 PM »
[quote author=RonJ Now if you take those same marbles and place them above a globe you can easily see why the satellites would have to be changed as often as they do.  All the antenna elevation angles also match a globe earth.  It's just that simple.

Ron its still to far to use only 1 geosynchronous satellite if your moving on earth.  You might be able to use 3 or 4 going around the earth like your suggesting.
Not quite!  Think about it this way.  On the earth you only have daylight and darkness.  On a flat earth all this is generated by 1 rotating Sun. If you had a second Sun to light up the areas not covered by the first Sun you could have continuous daylight.  The way microwaves work is if you can see it you can communicate with it.  On a flat earth you could just have 2 satellites and cover the whole earth.  In the real world that doesn't really work, you need 4, minimum.  That's because the earth isn't flat.  On a globe, a satellite can go out of sight because it's being hidden by the earth's curvature. It's just that simple.

2
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: March 02, 2021, 02:33:22 AM »
Ron your saying that you had to switch Geo Stationary satellites because you moved to far away from some and was lost beyond the horizon?  On a Flat Map, it follows the same fundamentals as a sunset I think.  The farther you move away from it, it appears to sink and dip beyond the horizon...  Signal loss might be a function of distance and atmospheric interference.
The geosynchronous satellites I'm referring to are all located above the earth's equator.  Find a round table somewhere and a small marble.  Now imagine that you are a small ant on top of the table.  Place the marble well above a pseudo equator that you would draw on the flat table, now why couldn't an ant see that marble from anywhere on that table?  Image now that there are now 4 separate satellites equally separated and well above that equator line on the table.  It's easy to see that on a flat table any ant could see all four satellites.  The example of the Sun being visible only half the time just isn't viable.  What if there were 4 suns?  Wouldn't you see more than 1 Sun all of the time?  Besides the Sun argument is based upon the EA equation that is incomplete so has to be disregarded.  Now if you take those same marbles and place them above a globe you can easily see why the satellites would have to be changed as often as they do.  All the antenna elevation angles also match a globe earth.  It's just that simple.

3
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: March 01, 2021, 09:00:29 PM »
The INMARSAT satellites are a bit more than 35k KM above the earth's equator in geo-stationary orbit.  I personally have plenty of experience using these 'birds' for communications on the ships I worked on.  The biggest problem with this under FET is that these satellites should be continuously available at all times about anywhere on the earth.  On an actual basis, this is NOT a fact.  When we were on a long haul passage between Asia and Europe or the USA I would have to switch to a different satellite a time or two because as we progressed Easterly or Westerly the satellites would go below the earth's horizon even though they were up in the sky about 35k KM.  This fact was easily observable on my computer screen because I could see the elevation and azimuth data on the dish's gimble mount changing.  As we progressed the dish would aim closer & closer to the horizon and the signal would get too weak to transfer data at a reasonable rate.  At that point I would tell the system to aim at a closer satellite that was ahead of us and rising in the sky. The data rates went up and I could upload & download emails & other traffic to the office to keep everyone happy.  I know that the distance to the satellites were about right because it was easy to 'ping' the 'bird' and you could see the delay times.  These delay times would correspond to the expected distances very closely.  Later on we also started to use a different company that had higher speed data but the problems were the same and I had to also switch satellites from time to time to maintain communications.  In this case this scenario disproves the flat earth and firmly proves the globe earth.  No one has ever been able to come up with an acceptable flat earth explanation for what I had to deal with every day while working.     

4
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: March 01, 2021, 06:27:37 PM »
Well, if the earth is accelerating upwards at a constant rate, then any satellites above the earth would have to run their engines continuously to keep a constant distance above the surface.  That scenario is untenable under FET because any satellite would quickly run out of fuel and couldn't stay up there for years & years like is happening now.  It would be helpful if you revised your 'understanding'.     

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: March 01, 2021, 06:21:14 PM »
I guess my ideas are so far out there that no one will even think beyond flat or round.  Ya'll know the amount of land, and the size of the earth, or do you?  If the powers that be can hide the very shape of our planet could they not then hide half or more of the landmasses on said planet? 

The round earth police have gotten you into defense mode.  You are so caught up in proving your right and they are wrong you have all missed the larger picture.  I don't care if the earth is round or square or a inside out triangle.  What I do care about is the truth of it.  Not just the truth of the shape but also the size.  Is no one interested in the idea that the earth could be much larger than we have ever dreamed or been told?
If you are looking for a 'treasure' then you have to have a map, or at least an idea of where you will start to look.  If you think you know of some land area on the surface of the earth that isn't already known then give us an idea of just where that might be.  Who knows, maybe someone has already looked there and could give you some hints.  Why try to 're-invent' the wheel?  If you have a location on the map where no one has been then you might need some help to mount an expedition.  Again, you have to have a concrete plan and a known area to look.  Please share your detailed ideas, we know you might need some help. 

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: March 01, 2021, 03:56:39 AM »
Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth
Who developed this map and where can I find it? I'm interested to know what makes a map "round"
Take a look at WGS-84.  https://www.unoosa.org/pdf/icg/2012/template/WGS_84.pdf 
This should get you started on your requested information.
Any person operating a ship on the high seas will use a series of WGS-84 charts of the earth's surface for navigation.  Each and every day you will see the ship's navigator on the bridge using his dividers and scales to plot the ship's progress on it's route to the next port.  Yes, there's also an electronic version of these same charts and I would update them on a weekly basis.  We were confident of the accuracy of these charts to a couple of meters and they would keep our ship 'off the rocks'.  If this weren't enough, I also had access to the finer details of our navigational gyros.  These gyros were important and greatly reduced the workload of the watch officer and the lookout.  If you took a good look at the data stream from the gyros over a period of time a globe earth shape would be confirmed.  So now you have very detailed and accurate charts drawn from a globe earth projection and a couple of gyros also confirming the shape of the earth.  I am puzzled as to why this evidence would be disregarded as invalid.


7
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 17, 2021, 04:06:18 AM »
The flat earth theory pontificates that the heavenly bodies have a property of attractive force on all objects of mass located the Earth and this property has been assigned the term Celestial Gravitation.  Effectively, the term Gravity has been relegated to a property of mass that doesn't exist under the flat earth theory because the proclamation has been made that there is no attractive properties of mass when that mass is located on the Earth.  The former term Gravity meant that ANY object of mass would exhibit an attractive force between any other object of mass regardless of it's location in the universe. The Wiki does doesn't claim one way or the other that a heavenly body contains any material that has mass.  So Celestial Gravitation could be a completely new (and/or fictional) selective property of mass that has attractive properties depending upon where that mass is located. 


It's fine that the flat earth theory could make such an outrageous postulation but it's completely unsupportable by any gravimetric study made and these studies are probably made somewhere on the earth every day.  If the flat earth supporters what to support the zetetic mantra then they have to believe that the earth is round.  QED       

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 14, 2021, 05:59:45 PM »
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies.  this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.  Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

The Wiki quote is a bit sneaky.  It does use the term Celestial Gravitation to justify things like tides and other anomalies but does, technically, leave the door open for attraction between objects of mass on the Earth.  The quote only says that Celestial Gravitation does not IMPLY the attraction between objects of mass on the Earth, but does not rule them out either.  You have to read between the lines of the wiki some more because there are gravimetric anomalies across the 'Earth's plane' that are due to Celestial Gravitation, but those anomalies are in the minority.  Gravimetric studies are not conducted to see what's in the heavens, but to locate mass differentials in the Earth that can lead to the location of oil, gas, or other sought after minerals. In many cases after a gravimetric study has been conducted, a core drilling program is carried out, and if everything goes well the results lead to the oil or minerals sought.  This proves that objects of mass on the surface of the earth can be gravitationally attracted by an other mass below the Earth's surface.

All the nice gravimetric maps wouldn't be possible if universal acceleration was valid.  The effects of the Sun & Moon are eliminated as much as possible because the gravitational attraction information they provide isn't desired.  The information desired is the gravimetric anomalies produced by the changes of mass density below the surface of the earth.     

9
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 14, 2021, 04:18:19 AM »
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies.  this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.  Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

The Wiki explains why the earth could be moving upwards (universal acceleration) but results in lots of other unexplained problems.

The Wiki proclamation says a heavenly body has a special property that can attract an object of mass on the earth that an object of mass on the Earth doesn't exhibit (selective gravitation).  I am speculating that the Flat Earth Theory would imply that the source of this selectivity property of heavenly bodies is unknown.  Since the Sun and Moon could be classified as 'heavenly bodies' they must exhibit the property of gravitational attraction between all the other 'heavenly bodies'.  It has been stated that the Sun & Moon orbit around the center of gravity of the Sun, Moon, and all the other planets.  This wouldn't happen if the traditional equation of gravitational force were applied.  I couldn't find another equation in the Wiki to justify all the Celestial Gravitation properties so it looks like the Wiki needs to be updated.  It would also be nice to have an explanation for the unique properties of mass of the heavenly bodies that can exhibit gravitational forces when a mass on the earth does not.

10
I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind. 

We would investigate your claims but you've never actually backed them up with any of the sources or results of your research into any of these matters.
When I went to college to become a ship's officer we spent plenty of time doing the regular math & physics stuff.  Then we applied all that to global navigation and did plenty of homework & lab exercises.  During the summer we didn't get to go home.  We had to get aboard a ship and set sail to international destinations.  All of the things that were taught in school by the professors had to be put into practice supervised by already competent & licensed ship's officers.  If there was something taught in class that didn't work in the real world out at sea it would become immediately obvious.  In this case we were effectively evaluating all the professor's claims on their merits and challenging their 'authority' and confirming their teachings.  Guess what?  They claimed that the earth was spherical and we confirmed that out in the real world.  How could we be brain washed by any BS?   

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 12, 2021, 05:57:37 PM »
Celestial gravitation in the wiki implies that the moon can attract the water on the earth and can cause other observed gravimetric anomalies.  Gravity does exist but only between heavenly bodies and a mass on the earth.  If you used a gravimeter to take a measurement you would have to take into account the position of the moon first.  You could take a series of measurements at a fixed location on the earth as the moon passed overhead and expect to see some predictable changes in your readings.  This doesn't happen so the idea of celestial gravitation is invalid. QED. 

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 12, 2021, 05:14:42 AM »
The Wiki seems to attribute tides to the gravitational attraction of the moon and stars.  Additionally, the observed and documented differences in gravitational attraction in different areas on earth are also attributed to the moon & stars.  This implication in the Wiki causes some problems.  The mass of the moon & stars are exhibiting the property of gravity, but there is no property of gravity exhibited by the mass of the dry land of the earth.  The implication is that mass of the moon & stars is different from the mass of the earth, except for the water of the oceans.  Dry land of the earth has weight but no mass, while the water of the oceans has mass, but no weight.  This doesn’t make any sense.  Universal acceleration isn't a viable alternative to gravity.  The experimental evidence (in the zetetic manner) doesn't support it either.

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 25, 2021, 04:27:58 PM »
The LIGO equipment as setup would work under FET + EA, maybe.  I say maybe because there’s no known value of the Bishop constant.  If that constant was zero, then the LIGO experiment, as constructed, would NOT work if placed on a flat earth.  You have the ‘unknowing’ scientists do a design based upon a round earth placing the actual structure on a flat earth and due to EA see a perfectly operating system. Understood.  The physical tube has a slight skywards bend to exactly compensate for the EA effect as outlined in the Wiki equation and all is good with the world.  I do have a ‘gap’ of my own here.  If you go to another part of the FET wiki you will see the outline of the Bedford Level Experiment.  The nice diagrams illustrate the FET desired outcome of a perfectly level body of water for 6 miles and a level sight lines as well.  In fact, one of the photographers made the statement: This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."
So now the conundrum: In ENAG Rowbotham maintained that the earth was flat.  The Bedford Level Experiment required NO electromagnetic acceleration.  In other words, flat earth + flat water surface + light rays that are perfectly straight = a valid proof of a flat earth.  QED.  Today with LIGO you have the upwards curving beam tube + curving rays of light (EA) = indications that the earth is flat and the LIGO experiment works as expected.  So the collaborating CalTech & MIT scientists were totally fooled into thinking that they were compensating for a round earth when they were really compensating for EA.  The bottom line is that either EA is correct and Rowbotham was wrong, or visa-vera.  Who gets thrown under the bus?

14
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 24, 2021, 06:44:24 PM »
The LIGO website states that they took into consideration a spherical earth during the construction of the beam tubes.  That would require a level foundation.  I would define such a foundation as one with a surface being an equal distance from the center of the spherical earth in all locations on the foundation path.  Once the foundation was constructed,  beam tube mounts could then be installed.  These mounts would have to be a series of ever longer mounts.  The longest would be at the ends of the beam tube and the shortest ones would be at the center.  This would mean that the points along the beam tube would have different distances to the center of the earth.  Just visualize a circle with a tangent line drawn on it, if you can.  If the earth were flat then the different mount lengths would have to bend the beam tube upwards because the mounts of different lengths with the longest at the ends.  I have no indications that the actual beam tube was constructed as claimed on their website.  Perhaps a trip to the site could confirm that.  I'm assuming that the designers were confident enough that the earth was spherical before starting the design.  I have personally confirmed that the earth is a sphere and I'm confident that many others have done so as well.  Probably the designers of LIGO were plenty confident of their 'assumptions' before finalizing the plans.  The data that is coming from the site seems to imply that the beam tube is working as designed. 

You could make the argument that the upward bending of the beam tube on a flat earth would work fine as well because EA bends the light beam upwards, but by how much?  Your Wiki equation give no indication because of the lack of the quantity of the Bishop constant.  I believe that the value of the Bishop constant should be zero.  Then the observed results would fit the equation. The results of the Bedford Canal experiment would be in conflict here as well.  The flat earth theory needs more work and the Wiki needs to be updated with more information.   

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 24, 2021, 04:07:50 PM »
The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.
  OK, fair enough.  If you think that I don't understand, please feel free to provide your versions of the 'facts' for our consideration.  There can be no discussions if all you put out is that I'm wrong without putting out your 'facts' for consideration. I did the best I could with the limited information in the Wiki.

What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.
Unfortunately, the assumption of a spherical earth contradicts your guarantee of it being a "mechanical level surface". Therein lies the crux of your failure - in order for your RE proof to be admissible, RE has to be assumed at the onset.
Your statement was incorrect.
It is possible to hold a straight edge up to a spherical surface and draw a tangent line.  That was the goal of the LIGO constructors, draw a mechanically straight surface TANGENT to the spherical earth.


If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.
This continues not to be the case.
Agreed.  The earth is a sphere so the construction plans that accounted for that worked out as expected.  You have a beam tube that forms a straight tangent line to a sphere and works as expected.

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 24, 2021, 04:18:55 AM »
I believe the argument is that the designers may have thought they were accounting for earth's curve, but really they were accounting for the upward deflection of light rays from horizontal due to EA. You would therefore have to demonstrate why the LIGO design cannot support both possibilities - earth's curvature vs EA - which under typical, isolated readings at a similar scale, are argued to be able to produce equivalent results.

According to the FET Wiki: There is an equation stated with an undefined Bishop constant (which makes it useless) that proclaims to show how the underside of clouds could be explained on a flat earth.  It goes on to say: "its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance." The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.  What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.  If the tube was mechanically straight, as designed, and a light beam went from one end to the other and didn't hit any tube walls and hit the opposite end near the center then it would be a good demonstration of a spherical earth.  Effectively the light beam would be forming a tangent to the earths surface.  If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.  This is a nice 'quasi' Bedford level experiment that shows the earth is round.

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 24, 2021, 03:10:50 AM »
The constructors of LIGO built a mechanical flat level plane for the beam tube assuming a spherical earth. The center of the tube was at a fixed reference level and a plumb bob would hang perfectly straight. The mechanical surface would form a tangent to the edge of the earth’s sphere.  That means the other ends 2 km distant would have to be elevated about 31 cm on each end.  The ends wouldn’t be perfectly level relative to a plumb bob.  They would form an angle that wasn’t quite 90 degrees.  If the construction was done according to the CalTech website and the earth was flat, then the tube would effectively be bowed upwards and the laser beam wouldn’t make it to the other end.  Since the beam was working as designed it can be assumed that the earth is spherical and of the advertised size.  The laser beam was operating in a nearly perfect vacuum so no refraction could be expected.  This is effectively a better designed and better controlled Bedford level experiment and shows a round earth.  QED. 

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 23, 2021, 03:14:55 PM »
However, it was stated in the Caltech website that it was necessary to take the earth's curvature into account during construction because of the length of the beam tubes.  So either FES is correct and the earth is flat or the scientists & engineers at Caltech are.
Or they built a tube that follows FE+EA perfectly, while incorrectly assuming that they were accounting for the Earth's curvature - the most obvious conclusion.
How could they build a beam tube using FE+EA when no one knows the value of the Bishop constant?  It's hard to do a design without all the facts.

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 23, 2021, 03:32:21 AM »
The LIGO experiment would work fine on a flat earth, in fact the construction of the beam tube foundations would be easier.  However, it was stated in the Caltech website that it was necessary to take the earth's curvature into account during construction because of the length of the beam tubes.  So either FES is correct and the earth is flat or the scientists & engineers at Caltech are.  Maybe they knew the earth was flat and lied on their website about the tube construction problems.  If that's true, then there's a conspiracy.  I think that if the FES wants to proclaim that the earth is flat and Caltech is mistaken then they need to come up with some evidence and demonstrate it to the world.   

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 22, 2021, 09:37:25 PM »
If the construction engineers were working with plans having the earth's curvature factored in and the earth was really flat, there would have been alarm bells going off all over the place during construction.  The beam tubes are thin material that has to stand up to a high vacuum.  The stresses are significant.  Most likely the structural engineers had a test jig with a laser on it and put it onto the end of the tube from time to time during construction to see if everything was going according to plan while they were building the tube.  That way little was left to chance.  I would have put stress gauges on the outside of the tube as additional level indicators.  If there's some abnormal bending stress indicated, something is going wrong. That would happen if the foundation was constructed assuming a curved earth and the earth was really flat. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23  Next >