### 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 - spherical

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10  Next >
41
« on: June 18, 2019, 10:34:31 PM »

If I look out over the ocean, the horizon is a perfectly straight line. The horizon is flat and level. The REs tell me that the horizon is slightly curved, but it looks very flat to me. If it WERE curved, that would mean the edges are slightly lower than the middle.

That is the thing... the distance you can see the horizon on open sea is not long, the curvature exist but you can not see it, because you are in the middle of the very narrow and small angle "dome" of water.  The curvature is not on the horizon in front of you, understand that, the curvature is what makes the horizon, FROM YOU to where you can see.  Imagine a million horizontal concentric circles, you are in the middle of the smaller, and this smaller is a little bit above the others, you can't see the curvature, you see the larger circles disappearing all around you.

The image below, the ridges from the center to the bottom are the curvature. If you are small (cat) on the top, those ridges will produce a horizon for you, after that horizon you can not see the roof anymore.  May be the horizon coincide with one of the horizontal circles.  The circles you can see have no curvature to the ground, they make just flat horizontal circles around you, and because you are in the center, you see a straight (leveled line) circle.  This is the same reason why you can not see "curvature" of the ocean, because they are much more pronounced on distance from you to away from you, not on horizon.  The reason is that the far horizon over the sea, even if you are on land, is just a piece of such circle all around you when you are on open ocean, same explanation, can't see a curved horizon, only if you are very far and over, making this ball smaller to see the whole at once.

If the Earth was a flat polished sphere, like a billiard ball, any place you go you would see a vast area around you, perfect horizontal circled horizon, not curved horizontally.

42
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« on: June 18, 2019, 08:08:52 PM »
Even pulsing a very narrow power laser beam to the reflector on the Moon, it arrives there with a very wide beam, only a very small part is reflected to Earth, it arrives here very wide beam. No matter how far from the external frame the receiver moved from the 2 seconds delay when it emitted, the very wide and faint returning beam is captured and time/distance is measured accurately.

http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/0125/c90000-9419444.html

43
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?
« on: June 18, 2019, 03:18:16 PM »
Not fake... I saw those robots acting in person.  Amazing technology.

44
« on: June 18, 2019, 03:16:37 PM »
If the sea line is an arc with high in the middle and low on the left and right ends it will not close around.It's a simple fact.
If the sea line is a straight line and the sea surface is a sphere.The sea line will close in a circle.

What you really mean by "sea line"?  The horizon?  If yes, it is not a line.  A line is something that connects two points, and it is straight, if not it will be a "curve".

So, rephrasing your first sentence, "If the sea curve is an arc, with high in the middle and low on the sides, it will not close around, It's a simple fact".... and NO, it can close on the bottom.  An arc can be part of a round circle or ellipsoid closed object.   Why you say it can not close around? as a fact... ?   That is what nobody is understanding.  What you mean by that?  By any chance are you saying it will not "close around horizontally"?  If yes, you need to put more words in the text, so we don't get confused.

Your second sentence makes no sense at all.  "If the sea line(?) is straight and the sea surface is a sphere, the sea line(?) will close in a circle".

Again, this is a very difficult (for me) to understand what you mean by "sea line".  What you mean by "sea line is straight"?

The sea surface is not a sphere, never is.  A sphere represents a globe, the Earth's oceans do not make a globe, they are over a globe, the patches of land above the water makes it not a spherical water.   Think with me, when you submerge an orange under water, still a spherical orange, even when you remove from water and it still all wet, still a spherical orange.  The water could be covering a spherical orange, spherical planet and ultimate copying its format, but it is not a sphere.

Rethink and rephrase, mostly about the "sea line".

45
« on: June 18, 2019, 03:01:24 PM »
An "arc" that closes is not an "arc", it is a "circle".
What you mean by arc that closes?
What you mean by "elipse" on a oblate spherical globe or even on FE?  Elipses are 2D objects, have two focal points, a globe only one, an extruded 3D elipse is called oblate sphere or spheroid.

An extruded sphere is called prolate spheroid.

Once over the open ocean, you don't see any arc, impossible, you see a patch of 'leveled' water all around you, limited by the "circle" of horizon due the curvature.

One tip, don't be irritated by people not understanding what you are saying.  If one person can't understand you, perhaps is that person, but it seems nobody can understand what you are writing. Rethink, rephrase.

46
« on: June 17, 2019, 08:10:14 PM »
It is normal for a lot of people to have problems with physical multi-dimensional imagination.
Much more people that we think can't really control a tridimensional computer mouse, for example, like navigating inside a 3D maze.
A lot of people can't learn the formulas for a Rubik's cube because of that.

There is a simple test, a rolling tesseract, image below.  In the rolling, try to find an external square made by 4 arms, and then try to follow that same square as it turns inside as a trapezoid and return to outside as a square.  If you can do it, you have a good ability for 3D, if not, sorry, you will have difficulties to imagine yourself floating in the middle of the Atlantic and looking in all directions like on top of a water ball, seeing little around.  And yes, a row boat or a life-saver boat with 2 ft tall would disappear from your view (if floating on a life-saver) pretty easy in less than two miles.  Forget the 8"/mile rule, the water movement, depressions, splashes, make your visible area really short.

About the Suns on the bottom of the sea, hmmm, not sure, myth.  I tend to go with science that explains in a pretty neat way the planet's molten core, temperature, iron concentration, magma, tectonic plates, volcano activities, etc.   If you ever pay attention to some cake in the oven, releasing steam, would understand better volcano activity.

47
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station
« on: June 17, 2019, 03:47:00 PM »
Even that it seems reasonable to ask questions like that in this forum, due the statement that the forum is open for everyone and opinion (see Manifesto #5, equivalency of all members), the "about us" on the first page states:

This is the home of the world-famous Flat Earth Society, a place for free thinkers and the intellectual exchange of ideas. This website hosts information and serves as an archive for Flat Earth Theory. It also offers an opportunity to discuss this with the Flat Earth community on our forums.

I understand the forum does not want to filter only FEs and blocking (ban) REs like you and me, it would paint a very harsh color on the doors, like extreme cults and religions do, so everyone is allowed.  But there is no rules to enforce answers to your questions.  I already have dozens of very good questions for FEs, never answered.   So, it is easy to just ignore REs and questions.

Imagine a forum with the name of "LINUX WORLD SOCIETY", that is open for everyone.  You, a long life Windows user, comes to that forum and start to question why they use Linux, in a world of 85%+ windows users and applications and programs.   Your question may be totally valid and of course deserve an answer to satisfy your curiosity.  But not a single Linux user wants to discuss the 85%+ market share for windows, they don't even want to be remembered about that.  They love Linux simple because they are addicted to it, they think they are superior computer wizard because they deal with something your grandma can't do it.  They say you can do anything you want under Linux, but that is not true, even so, they just believe on that and will keep saying it for their life.

The point is, you may think the Linux World Society is the best place to go to question things, it should be full of Linux users, right?  But no, in their mind they are doing the right thing, no matter the 85%+ of the world. It will not be your question that will change that. They don't believe and no accept the idea of a corporation producing a paid software, their beliefs on open-software is similar to a cult.  Can you imagine a world where you strongly belief that wearing a red shirt means you are attracting evil?   But that is life, and people are free to do whatever they want, even you question FE 150+years book and lack of scientific evidences in this place.  It doesn't mean you will have your answer, wrong place.

Can you imagine what would be the state of technology evolution (Intel processors) if all the computers in the world use open-source software without few high-octane corporation dealing strategies with hardware developers and multi-million dollars being flowing in the marketing game?

Can you imagine a world where everyone thinks FE? What would be the state-of-the-art technology development? Considering a very large percentage of it came from military defense pressure, including airspace?  Can you imagine a bunch of engineers and scientists dealing with hundreds of million of dollars technology instrumentation that never existed and was developed right for that project, based on a 150 years book of perspective and vanishing point?

Sorry friend, you are in the wrong place to ask about ISS, satellites, GPS.  They don't exist here.

48
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: June 14, 2019, 04:40:43 PM »
I wish we could continue investigating about Jupiter and its moons.
Anyone has any suggestion about the Jupiter Moons movement observable by telescope?

They appear as moving to one direction in front of Jupiter, even casting a shadow over Jupiter surface, then moving to another direction and disappearing as if behind Jupiter, appearing at the other side of Jupiter and repeating the cycle.

The speed/time they cross in front of Jupiter diameter is the same they disappear behind it.  Also, the time they take from when reappearing from behind, until they go exactly at the edge in front of Jupiter (time of being away), suggests a 3D motion curvature.  Also, the time each one takes to complete a full turn, or cycle, fits perfectly to an orbital cycle calculation based on the diameter of such movement. Also, the "away" distance and time from Jupiter is exactly the same on both sides.

Is there any way we could discuss it and try to fit this thing into FE point of view?

49
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do seasons work?
« on: June 14, 2019, 04:10:09 PM »
It seems to be some mechanical celestial gears.

But you forgot to think about the Sun's circling speed.

To complete a full 24 hours turn over the FE, the angular speed will be the same, 15° per hour, but its speed must be faster when distant from the North Pole due larger circling diameter.  It means, it would run faster overhead people in Rio de Janeiro in December, than it would do in June over people in New York.

Due this higher speed over southern hemisphere in December, It would pour less radiation per km²/second than on northern hemisphere in June.  Even if you can consider the Sun being lower altitude on December to compensate the less radiation per km², there is the exposure time difference, impossible to compensate.  As it travel faster, its visible time on sky would be smaller, people on the southern hemisphere in December would have a very shorter daylight than northern hemisphere on June, what it is not true.

Other than that, if the Sun is lower altitude in December, an observer over Equator at noon time would see the Sun lower at the south, compared of what he can see at noon time on June, sun at the north.  That is not true at all.  Both people, Rio or New York see the same Sun apparent size, 0.5°.   Also, with the Sun being at different altitudes would produce a different sizes of shadows of a same pole vertical in the ground at 2pm, June on Cancer, December on Capricorn.  On RE world, the shadows would have the same length, June on Cancer = December on Capricorn, and also, June of Capricorn = December on Cancer.    Also, the changes on the shadow size in one hour, would be the same on both tropics on RE, that will be not true on FE.

FEs say you can not see far, light bends, Sun appears to be low on horizon (sunrise & sunset) due refraction when it still high in sky, but mostly because atmosphere not be transparent.  This effect should happen all over FE, so the Sun would disappear due atmospheric refraction no matter the hemisphere.  People in Rio de Janeiro would see the sun rise at 10am and set at 4pm on summer time, December, that is totally nonsense, not true.  Summer in Rio shows almost 13~14 hours of Sunlight.

Because I have a calculator and know how to use it, I already posted all this distances, calculations, numbers based on FE, on another post, as usual not a single blip from FE scientists on this radar.

FE Tropic of Capricorn circumference: 79191km, Sun's speed: 3300 km/h.
FE Tropic of Cancer circumference: 46471km, Sun's speed: 1936 km/h

See: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14844.msg193713#msg193713 post #40.

50
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think I can disprove everything
« on: June 14, 2019, 03:29:42 PM »
Of course there is a way, involves technology and a speedy vehicle, better if it flies.
You can not use star locking navigation, since on FE stars also make a circle, if you follow a star you make a circle around North Pole.

But you can use the old and good magnetic compass, even electronic ones (much more precise), and also, you can use electronic accelerometers, electronic gyros, they are very very good, much better than the old mechanical ones used on rockets.  One of my jobs is develop field products using those little high tech devices, they work very very good.  As a matter of fact your own Android of iPhone has all of the above and even more of those little gizmos that you never heard about.

You don't need too much, just depart from New York, for example, towards North+330° (30°NW), calculate a formula (based on RE) to go straight around the globe, so you would return to New York from the South.  The formula will be a simple navigation based on magnetic North deviation versus distance traveled, that is very simple, used for centuries.   That circumnavigation straight line will cut the globe in two, slicing close to the North and South Pole.

Why use de 30°NW instead of flying directly over the North and South Pole in a straight line?  Because, by doing so you can keep track of where is the North all the time, no matter where you would be.  If you fly over the North Pole you can not compute your bearings very well when over the poles, some may say "oh, you make a turn and don't even noticed" .

Following 30°NW from New York, you will fly over Canada, probably China, Australia, South Pole (FE ice wall), then magically appears over the tip of South America - Argentina or Uruguay, then over Brazil, back to New York.   The "magic"  here is the fly distance and time from Australia to South America over the South Pole would be much shorter than one can see on FE map.  And that is not from winds, light refraction or any other magic you can pull up from the sleeve, it is plain real distance.   May be you can use the to plot this trip.

The problem is that you can not have a fly object that can do such trip in one fuel tank.  I think only a B-52 can do 14~15000 km between refuels on flight, and complete the circumference with at least 3 refills.

But wait, thousands of orbital satellites do it all the time, but no, FEs don't recognize the existence of orbiting satellites.

But there are an easy way, a flight from Sydney to Montevideo (Uruguay), 11862km, 25 hours flight (wristwatch time), one stop in Arturo Merino Benitez Airport in Santiago Chile.  The tarmac waiting time in Chile is 11 hours, so the Qantas flight time is a little bit short of 15 hours, average speed of 790km/h (493mph).
https://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-sydney/to-montevideo/

On FE world, it would be more than 35000km, to make it in 15 hours, the average speed would be 2333km/h, it would required a Mach2 airplane to complete such trip in that time.  Even the Concord at 2180km/h at 60000 ft (18000m altitude) would not do it in 15 hours, with a maximum range of 7200km with the 210000 lbs of fuel, it would need 5 refueling stops during the trip.

FEs would say that flight doesn't exist, it is a lie promoted by governments and the potential travelers aboard were paid off to lie.
If you want to book such flight, click here:

51
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« on: June 13, 2019, 06:20:27 PM »
I don't see anything flying on those old photographs, just people drinking and a big cooking pan lid hang by wire.

Talking about people spending money just because they can, you can include the following in your collections:
Google "rar energia" and select "images", or click here:  https://bit.ly/2Kiahax

52
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« on: June 13, 2019, 05:12:50 PM »
The bridge progressively disappears under the horizon, from close to far distance, considering 8"/mile... as the camera goes down and down.
Reappears progressively from distance to close distance, by the same rule, as the camera goes up and up.
Best example of RE.

53
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« on: June 13, 2019, 04:38:10 PM »
It is very possible that the B-2 bomber also uses supercapacitors which greatly increase the force.

You do know the B-2 uses four thermal avionic fuel turbofan engines, General Electric F118-GE-100, 17300 lbf each, right?
Those are not to generate electricity for your dream BB lifting, they generate trust moving air, to push the wing flying beast.
Huge hundreds super-caps for such monster BB lift would require a thousands MW nuclear power plant to charge them rapidly.
Even if possible, there would be a tremendous problem to control the lift, mostly for rapid ascent and descent, remember, B-2 was also made for low altitude terrain topography follower aerial vehicle.
You really need to stop writing about things you have it all wrong.
ゆっくり行きなさい

54
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« on: June 12, 2019, 09:55:54 PM »
One point to notice.
The water is not contaminated with biological, it is blueish, colder, not warm and not constant evaporating, variable moisture.  This may cause evaporation by solar radiation more dependent on clouds then thermal stored, intermittent.  Skunk Bay, Kitsap County, Hansville, WA, must be low temp.

55
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki - Tom Bishop Experiment
« on: June 12, 2019, 03:52:38 PM »
One of the worse scientific experiment and observations is using ocean water patch visual level.  It changes a lot in minutes, just some small constant wind sheer from one or another direction can just push a bunch of water level from one side to another.  Not even talking about other factors, like tides and ocean currents that can cause the same effect.   FEs (and even REs) love to use such opportunities to "prove or disprove" the flatness of the planet.  It proves nothing, it is impossible to make sure of anything, even very rapidly light refraction changes on water surface, due temperature, spray, moisture, etc, it is a total uncontrollable environment for any scientific visual testing.  The fact that water is a gravity self leveling phase of the matter, doesn't mean it will be self leveled and perfectly distributed in a long patch.  If you ever traveled by boat or in an ocean cruise, and if you were curious enough to pay attention to the water, saw vast area of water depressions and lumps caused by wind or differential barometric column pressure.  Just look up, if you see a dark big cloud, the water below would be showing leveling anomalies. You can also be surprise how long does it take for the boat wakes to disappear and "flat level" back to normal.  The only place water is flat leveled is in a glass bowl over the kitchen counter, and even so there is the surface tension at the glass point of contact.  I have a lake at the back of my home, somedays I wonder the wind ripples over the water, but all tree leaves are static, so little air movement registered over water - I would bet the water level would be different from one to another side of the lake.

56
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Suns Motion, Concentric with the Polar Centre.
« on: June 12, 2019, 03:22:50 PM »
The human ignorance goes very far.  The year is 2019, we split atom 70 years ago, we went to the Moon, robots on Mars, we develop cell phones and GPS, still there are people asking about two things:

a) If the Earth's surface speed is 1600km/h eastward on equator, why when I jump for 1 second I don't fall 444 meters to the West?
b) Why I am not projected to the space by tangencial centrifugal force of this speed?

The funny thing is, they are not joking about ignorance, they are serious, their brain is really limited.

I really don't know what they are teaching at school nowadays, it seems humanity just stop evolving, falling in the abyss of "technology will solve it all for me".

Common simple knowledge, including science, chemical, optics, simple physics laws, playing chess, trigo formulas (not even talking calculus), knowing "URUiLiURiUiL" by muscle memory, should be a funny thing to know for regular teenagers, why not?

Playing with other people's ignorance is a pastime for some nasty creatures.  We always need to remember that ignorance has a cure based on knowledge. By other side, bad character has no cure, it is a defective mental state.

If I could vote for the biggest demonstration of this issue, would be the image below.  For that picture to have an effect, it must flip several switches of ignorance at the same time, considering atmosphere pressure, wing airlift, engine performance, auto-pilot (auto leveling), flight plan, auto-guidance based on GPS or star tracking, and so many others, that at first one could think it would be impossible to convince any human being, but surprisingly, it happens, since most people understand "air lift" as much as they understand that black is not a color.  What really cough my attention on that picture, is the forced bad marketing with the clouds way over the planet, trying to impose that the airplane could fly anywhere it wants (clouds, right?), and the "actual path of the plane" wording, again, as an unquestionable truth.   A normal school educated person would immediately understand the atmosphere layer where airplane engines can work is below 35000 ft, even if the pilot wants, the airplane will not go above that, engines will fail, perform badly, by itself the airplane would level at the ceiling altitude. Piston prop airplanes are limited way below that.  The point here is, the person who created such drawing knew it, and even so produce it, willing to confuse the all levels ignorant persons, but for what intent? what is the gain?  Profuse stupidity? To promote wrong bases for even greater anomaly?

But we are distancing from the subject of this thread, and even so, if I would be forced at gunpoint to assume a flat concentric solar motion, would be around the South Pole, I love penguins, they love summer time.

57
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Suns Motion, Concentric with the Polar Centre.
« on: June 11, 2019, 10:32:35 PM »
Yes, one should learn to state a declaration only with proven evidence, based on scientific facts, replicated if possible in a laboratory.
"As the earth has been proved to be fixed"
Who proved it? where? where are the physical tested and replicated evidences?
Can you imagine the difficulties to uncover evidences that prove Earth to be fixed?

Lawyers use this technique on court of law, they state as truth something yet to be found out and stated, the other lawyer immediately contest (Objection!) so the judge stops the first one to continue on that line, in some cases the judge even instructs the jury to disregard what the first lawyer was saying.

I see this kind of tactics all over Wiki.
When you state something like that, you flat the idea and remove the doubt of the reader, just to use it as a base for the next statement that needs that "solid base" to stand up.  Lots of people fall for that.  A little bit of I.Q. normally cancels that approach.

It is necessary to everyone be alert in life against this kind of marketing flash out.  I heard on radio or TV someone saying "this is what everybody is talking about"... so, if the listener is not aware of the flash out, he will unconsciously think "oh, I am not talking about, so I need to pay attention on this ad"...   When TV shows a line at the door of the department store waiting for next day release of the next iPhone model, that is not only "news", that is a flash out into your brain saying "you see? you will be outdated with your old model, people are making lines to buy it..."

SBR used this technique, this is not new.
Brighton Sussex is 50.8°N, you can use https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/uk/brighton to see the angles.
Again, playing with common people's mind, usually the ones that simply can't visualize Earth tilted against the orbit.
Even on June, Earth still tilted. Now, do it over the equator line.

58
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earth precision and solar declination
« on: June 11, 2019, 10:02:33 PM »
Sandokhan, again, ignoring frame of reference.
What is the tire speed on top and bottom, on a 100km/h running car?  The bottom of the time is touching the ground.

59
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« on: June 11, 2019, 04:35:42 PM »
A convex disc, not a flat disc.

Now the FE Sun will be a fusion reactor convex disc ?
Keep going, perhaps soon you will fall into the optical lenses geometry studies and realize a spherical one will be better suited for the job.
Can see from all angles, no matter what, easy, simple, practical, no complications.

60
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE
« on: June 10, 2019, 09:11:06 PM »
Magnetism on extreme hot plasma?  Just observe the plasma loops and will rethink what you think you know.  The dark spots (not really dark, just little less temperature) demonstrate very strong magnetic internal loops, causing instability on the surface temperature.  Not even talking about the gargantuan gravity attraction.  How do you think the accretion process collected so much hydrogen?  It is able to grasp  Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune on very far away orbit... what is some very hot gas on surface?  Interesting, FE eliminates gravity everywhere in the universe, then try to discredit everything else where gravity makes important part of it.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10  Next >