Recent Posts

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Last post by stack on Today at 03:42:00 AM »
I have my doubts that the big world model and layout will be solved with this generation of FE. The Zetetic societies have been arguing over Monopole vs Bi-Polar vs Other models since at least the early 1900's. What is possible, what to trust, all valid and endless questions.

Every generation of FE seems to have contributed something towards Flat Earth Theory. Our main contribution will likely be the celestial model. With correct basics to the celestial model it might even be possible to derive the world model, independent of arguments about jet streams, routes, Antarctic travel restrictions, and such. An important milestone which unlocks the rest.

You could probably start by contributing to the celestial model by not cherry-picking astronomer's words to suit your narrative and actually examining the greater findings. Your signature tagline is:

"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy"

Taken from an article: "The Size of the Universe May Be Inaccurate" 2011
https://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Size-of-the-Universe-May-Be-Inaccurate-181163.shtml

Dr. Pauline Barmby continues:

“Measuring distances is important to understanding the properties of the things in the Universe,” she goes on to say. The expert's team used the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to arrive at these results.
The conclusions directly contradict the calculations made in 1924 by famed astronomer Edwin Hubble, who showed that the Milky Way is in fact one of very many galaxies, spread out in the Cosmos.
Data collected by analyzing Cepheid variables was used to determine that galaxies are currently flying apart from each other. Dark energy – as a concept – was introduced to explain this behavior.
“It doesn’t mean that everything we thought we knew is wrong, but if you want to do the best possible job, this effect needs to be considered,” the UWO researcher goes on to say, adding that an estimated 25 percent of all Cepheid stars were found to be shrinking via constant mass loss.
“If one measurement examined the stars when they were younger and the other when they were older, then the disagreement would make more sense. By taking images with an infrared telescope we can see the dust in the mass that is being lost, which allows us to measure it,” Barmby explains.
It remains to be seen how the international astronomical community will react to the findings. If they are confirmed, then we could expect to see a host of studies aimed at reassessing the size and behavior of the Universe."

The team used the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope to arrive at your tagline, a device now millions of miles away from earth.

It would be more genuine for you to use the full breath of science to try and support your narrative rather than carefully selecting a short gasp to do so.
12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the moon face
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 02:30:19 AM »
I have my doubts that the big world model and layout will be solved with this generation of FE. The Zetetic societies have been arguing over Monopole vs Bi-Polar vs Other models since at least the early 1900's. What is possible, what to trust, all valid and endless questions.

Every generation of FE seems to have contributed something towards Flat Earth Theory. Our main contribution will likely be the celestial model. With correct basics to the celestial model it might even be possible to derive the world model, independent of arguments about jet streams, routes, Antarctic travel restrictions, and such. An important milestone which unlocks the rest.
13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Last post by iamcpc on Today at 01:49:52 AM »
Got a flat earth version of that math?

unfortunately no because on the FE models there is no accepted map of the earth and a dozen different models.

I didn’t say I believed the flood really happened. In fact, I don’t because I’m still struggling with how there’s kangaroos on only one continent. I’m just trying to play in your field but you seem to be playing a different sport, are you even a flat earther, iamcpc?

Do I believe 100% that the earth is not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? NO.
Do I believe 100% that the earth is a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? NO.

Do i believe that there is evidence which supports the idea that the earth is  not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? YES.
Do I believe that there is evidence which debunks claims that observations/measurements mean the earth is a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid? YES
Do I believe that there are convincing logical arguments which explain why the earth can be flat and we can have the observations/measurements made? YES


I think there are far too many unanswered questions in the various FE models for me to be 100% convinced that the earth is not a sphere/oblate spheroid/spheroid.  There are way too many models with too little consistency within the community which significantly weakens the movement.




I’ve still yet to see a map that works. The bing map has discrepancies. The only time you wouldn’t have a discrepancy is if you picked two cities on the equator with the bing map. The bing map will tell you the actual distance, but if you use the provided scale, the two distances are different.
Bing maps does not have discrepancies because it has an interactive scale

We could look at the map with the two poles if you’d like iamcpc.

Bing maps has two poles.
14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?
« Last post by ImAnEngineerToo on Today at 01:24:59 AM »
Got a flat earth version of that math?

I didn’t say I believed the flood really happened. In fact, I don’t because I’m still struggling with how there’s kangaroos on only one continent. I’m just trying to play in your field but you seem to be playing a different sport, are you even a flat earther, iamcpc?


I’ve still yet to see a map that works. The bing map has discrepancies. The only time you wouldn’t have a discrepancy is if you picked two cities on the equator with the bing map. The bing map will tell you the actual distance, but if you use the provided scale, the two distances are different.

We could look at the map with the two poles if you’d like iamcpc.
15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« Last post by Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 11:53:06 PM »
If it is midnight for the observer then I don't see how the observer can see something on the day side of the Earth.

1 By virtue of the fact that the Moon is approx 70 degrees through the first quarter of its cycle, so only 20 degrees away from being AT the border between day and night side;
2 By virtue of the Moon having passed an ascending node, placing it above the plane of the Earth and Sun;
3 By virtue of the axial tilt of the Earth pointing toward the Sun (but not directly at it);
4 By virtue of the observation position, already at 52 degrees North, being moved further toward the Sun by the axial tilt
5 By virtue of the fact that midnight is not exactly at the midpoint between sunset and sunrise, placing it closer to the Moon's side of the Earth

All illustrated in the 3D models labelled above. Let me know when you've examined all of them.

All that your solar midnight argument can change is No. 5, Tom - which still leaves four of them
16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration
« Last post by ImAnEngineerToo on February 18, 2020, 11:45:51 PM »
Sorry for the necropost, but I have a UA question for flat earthers. I’m not a theoretical physicist, just a very curious engineer, however I believe I’ve come to understand enough to try to poke holes in UA again.

The way that dark energy applies forces on other bodies is by means of warping spacetime in the opposite way that mass warps space time via gravity. Instead of an actual force pushing you, think of it as the environment created a valley or hill and you roll forward or back, except this is in 4 dimensions. This is what warping spacetime is. If you accept that action as it’s accepted in UA, wouldn’t you need to accept gravity as at least possible? If you actually studied dark energy rather than cherry picking what scientists have come up with, perhaps you could prove yourselves wrong about gravity?
17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« Last post by Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 11:33:47 PM »
I've already shown you why it doesn't work at Solar Midnight.

Yet this is the first mention you've made of Solar Midnight. Why didn't you specify that's what you thought you were proving earlier? And in which post do you think you proved it?


As you are conceding that it's not possible at Solar Midnight ...

I don't think I actually said that. I think you said that.

The Mooncalc screen grab that you showed earlier, in relation to the blog. What time is shown on that?

What time was the observation? You tell us. You've read the blog
18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« Last post by Tom Bishop on February 18, 2020, 11:27:46 PM »
I've already shown you why it doesn't work at Solar Midnight. So did the person in the Savage Plane link. That's why you are trying to move your little orange dot is not at midnight, so it might be possible to see some slight angle behind the earth.

As you are conceding that it's not possible at Solar Midnight, the correct thing to do is to find whether is up at Solar Midnight or not. You will find that the Moon is up at Solar Midnight.
19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Surface Measurements
« Last post by ImAnEngineerToo on February 18, 2020, 11:21:27 PM »
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15748.0

And apparently there’s dark matter that’s below the earth propelling it forward. It’s not visible but would be cool in an artist render to depict.
20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars
« Last post by Tumeni on February 18, 2020, 11:05:04 PM »
Reply #47

Now tell us how it is possible that some people have seen the crescent moon at midnight: https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/impossible-heliocentric-moon-phases-explained/

Were you talking about solar midnight here, Tom? If so, why didn't you say so?



If the Earth shrunken to half it's size, with Blunham at the edge rather than the equator, the Moon will still be below the horizon.

but ...

I've examined your argument. You are now drifting to a "not exactly solar midnight" argument, apparently conceding that my argument was correct. Solar Midnight often occurs within an hour of UTC midnight. Find out when Solar Midnight occurs and you will find that the Moon is above the horizon on that night, at that time, for that location.