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: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs
« on: Today at 04:02:45 PM »
I really don't know why everything related to flat earth must be based on more than 130 years old literature, and, observations without modern instrumentation and measurement, largely based on unknown navigator through his cousin, friend, etc.

Why not rely on actual modern documents, as this ships navigation real time maps below?  I really don't understand why very old and dubious documents are more valid and more believable.  Why FEs have this fixation about old books and old questionable information?

The marinetraffic is a real time transport sea ships position information, with thousands of ships, routes, etc.  All of them are mistaken about the fuel they need to travel the distances?  I don't think so.  If the distances from the actual map were wrong, I guess few thousand of those ships captains would have reported the problem already.  A 1800'sh book is more reliable?  It would be funny for a captain knowing the ship needs "x" gallons of oil per mile, fitting "y" gallons in the tanks, making "z" miles, being z double or triple what he expects? Nah. It doesn't happen.  Perhaps a simple (many thousands of) ship trip log could demonstrate it.  A 1800'sh book is more reliable, based on a "say" from few letters from sailors, that "suggest" longer trips?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs
« on: June 21, 2019, 09:26:30 PM »
In 1885's magnetics were not a great playful toys as we have 130 years later.  Today any 7 years old kid buying any kind of magnetic balls and such at eBay can answer #11, #12 and #13 smiling.  Mr. William Carpenter in 1885 had a vague idea about magnetic fields, and worse, his readers (the ones that can read and the others that can not even read) had even less knowledge.   

#16 is a proof that people are free to state as truth whatever they want, without hard evidence, in 1885 letters and mail traveled over horses, so nobody could contest fast some untrue statements, like we can do now over internet in seconds.  Mr. Bill Carpenter statements wound't survive 30 minutes in 2019.  "since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance", Mr. Carpenter, please, what is the name and email address of these "navigators", please, if you state it as truth, you have the information.  Like people would say 135 years later, without evidence your words are just dust in the wind.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?
« on: June 21, 2019, 08:32:48 PM »
I know BD is not faking at all. 

First, I saw personally one of the robots working.

Second, my personal budget is waaaaay below BD, million times lower, and even so I was able to build a self standing and driving two wheels and one arm robot, with accelerators and gyros chips, infrared and ultrasound sensors for obstacles, no image camera yet (working on it), and a simple space orientation beacon based on 3 ultrasound emitters in the long room.  When he wants to make sure about location, it stops, shuts off its own ultrasound obstacle avoidance, blinks its strong IR LEd upwards in a certain sequence of pulses, this trigger the 3 emitters, then listen to them.  The first emitter beeps, the second hear such beep and issue its own beep, the third does it too.  The robot listen for the 3 beeps and measures time between them following its own IR flash.  As the time delay between each emitter  is known, the robot calculates the delays from what he hear, and with certain accuracy he can tell where he is in the room, walks a foot and repeat, now he even knows the direction.  This was home made (as many others in the world), using 8 simple AVR AtMega microcontrollers (including the emitters) a half size car battery, MosFET drivers, motors, etc.  Boston D uses much more advanced processors, memories, programming, drivers, actuators, engines, and millions of dollars.  If they can? Of course they can, much more even, talk about the military contracts we shouldn't know.

Therefore, the horizon (if you look at it) is a circle that is TILTED compared to your view direction.
The higher you are, the more you need to TILT to look at it, and the more TILTED that circle looks.

Correct, the same example of the hola-loop on the ground, you may say there is a up and down on the 2D image, because it is tilted.
Yes, if you go high enough you will see the circle curvature, and the vertical curvature, and there is a height where it starts to show that, really small and then it grows.  We are in the same page.

Flat Earth Theory / 100 proofs
« on: June 21, 2019, 06:51:57 PM »
I wish to start a conversation about some of the 100 proofs from the link below, text written year: 1885.
I have a list here I selected as good conversation points, 16, 33, 34, 37, 44, 49, 54, 55, 57 and 71.

But first, I want to ask if FEs agree with the 100 items posted on the file, and if not, which numbers should I eliminate?

Anyhow, I wish to start with numbers 33, 37 and 44, but pay attention to 44 first, and answer my question: If you fire 3 bullets, no, no bullets, just a baseball by hand, inside an airplane flying at 500 miles per hour, front to back then back to front, the last sideways. If you timed each ball to travel 1 meter, they would present different times?, meaning different speed?  Just remember, the airplane is the frame of reference. To confuse you a little bit more, remember that the "sideways" ball travel is in a real diagonal if observed from a stationary observer on the ground, but on board, it moves neatly sideways.  Try to calculate the 1m distance time/speed, from the point of view of a airplane passenger and from the observer on the ground.  Then read again the #44 below.

44) It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in, a second of time, "from west to east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.

And no, the flight attendant does not walks the corridor in different speeds when going back or front in reference to passengers... that would be ridiculous to think.  In 1885 the world was different, ignorant, lacking tools, technology, instrumentation.  In 1880 only 19.5% of the population COULD READ. How this people could understand the world? They could not research, just believing on what the other ignorant say. And even the ones literate, what they read?

So, how many of the 100 can we discard now?

Yes, it all depends on how high you are compared to the diameter of the horizon circle.   

The problem with the hola-loop is the diameter is so small (and fixed) compared to you, and its diameter never change according to you moving it up and down.  In the oblate spherical planet, such diameter changes according to your altitude, to a certain point. 

Think with me:  If you are floating on the open high sea, you can not see very far, your horizon is limited by the 8"/mile, and most of all, the waves and turbulence in the water, but imagine you stand at 30 ft high, and can see far because you can see over the waves and turbulence.  Even so, your horizon view distance is limited by the 8"/mile, maybe not considering waves of moisture affecting refraction of light, you will be able to see 3 to 4 miles, so that is the radius of your hola-loop.  If you fly up to 300 ft, your hola-loop horizon radius will increase, keep the flat horizon line straight. Fly up to 10km high, hola-loop becomes bigger, still flat horizon.   The only altitude your hola-loop stop increasing radius, is when the horizon increase can not keep up with your height, the curvature escaped in an bigger angle than your distance (altitude) can not see it, and that is when you start to see the curvature of the horizon as you stated, yes, it happens, I agree with you, but only in altitude proportional to the diameter of the hola-loop.   In case of the Earth, the diameter is big, you need to be far away for that to happen.  See, I agree with you, it is just a matter of proportions.

I don't have a graphic generator software here, tonight I will post some nice drawing about mending 4 "pictures" of 90° aperture to make a panoramic view of 360°, even with small degrees of curvature down on the edges, the final image becomes what you do not see in real life. It will be a dented horizon, you don't see it when turning your head on open seas, not real.

There is a visual misconception about what is up/down, front/back on our world observation.
If you see a hola-loop in the ground, and you are standing up one meter outside it, you could state that in a 2D representation the farther side of the loop is high, the closer side is down, it appears like that in a photo, right?  But your intelligence tells you the hola-loop is flat on the ground, so it is leveled horizontally, no up, no down, just a visual interpretation of the 2D observation.   You can even swear that loop forms a curvature, yes, but horizontal one, over the ground.

Now, imagine 100 hola-loops each one with an increasing diameter as a function of sine(), if you pile up those loops you will have one half of a ball (hemisphere), number those loops from 1 to 100, being 1 the small on top, the largest (100) touching the floor.  Now, if the diameter of the #100 is 10 thousand times bigger than you, and you are over the #1, maybe you could see the #1 and #2, being the horizon.  If you go higher vertically, start to see the #3, #4 and so on, perhaps very high you could see #50, much higher, #70, astonishing higher, perhaps #99 or even #100.   What curvature would you see, even when seeing the #100?  The curvature of the loop, you can not see the curvature made by the sequence #1 to #100, you can not, you are on vertical top, you only see concentric circles.  Of course, 3D image can show you the #100 is further down than #1, but you still "not seeing any curvature", only the curve (circle) of each loop in the pile.  Well, the curvature of each loop is a nice proof of the hemisphere being curved, but that is horizontally curved, not vertically.   To see it vertically, you need to move yourself down and out of the top, go horizontally far, at height of loop #50, then maybe you will see the hemisphere sideways, curved vertically.

We are talking the same thing, just a matter of proportions and what curvature you are trying to show, the horizon circle curvature or the vertical curvature made from you to distance?  That is the one people try to prove showing boats disappearing below the horizon.  You can not capture that curvature horizontally in front of you with a photo picture.

It seems you guys don't grasp it, do yah?

There is no horizontal curvature on the circled horizon around you, and I am talking about oblate spherical planet.
If it exist, so it would accumulate and go very deep down on your back view, right?
The problem on any optical device is the lens, only expensive lens can give you a very good orthoscopy image.
You need to read

There is no horizon curvature, except if you go very very high in a way where you have the whole object in front of you, nothing on your back.  In case of Earth planet, "very high" means more than 20 thousands miles up.

Apparently this thread is being diverted to discuss camera pixels accuracy, trying to ignore the original post.

That is exactly what I'm been saying during the last two days... precisely

I've seen lots of people at Internet rubbishing texts about proving the horizon is not curved, so, wow, the earth must be flat, and other foolishness due not understanding the tridimensional real world visual basics.

Yes, without obstructions the horizon is a flat horizontal circle, the perimeter of such horizon is all around you, mostly equidistant, in the same horizontal level, just sit over the edge of how far you can see.   Any other explanation about horizon is nonsense.

People start to calculate 8 inches drop per mile, blah blah, they are just showing their ignorance.  You can not see any curvature on horizon, sorry, period.

Some pearls of bad auto-exposure:

Almost, but no cigar... failed to see the light.

Is not how high you go, if you still can see the same land on your back, you still over a horizontal flat circle, the horizon.

The only way to see "some curvature" is going very far from the object, in order to see the "horizon circle"  in front of you, as a whole, everything at once, one viewframe, then you will see the "circle", curved.  Then, obviously the same object will not be at your back, everything at once in front of you.  To do it with Earth planet, you need to go 20~30 thousand miles up in space.   Other than that, nope, your horizon will be a flat circle around you.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this
« on: June 19, 2019, 05:52:39 PM »
...But in reality, sea lines-horizons appear both in front and behind the observation point and in other directions. They don't overlap.
So you're saying things that don't fit reality.So you're wasting everyone's time!
After consideration, the above reply is not appropriate, so I apologize.But there are other points I want to make to you, which I'm not sure about, but I'm sure someone can.

High seas horizon is everywhere you look, any direction, 360° around you, so it forms a nice horizontal flat circle.  I don't understand what you mean by "overlap"...   You say the "lines-horizons appear both in front and behind the observation point, and in other directions".  Sorry, it is not lines-horizons, it is just "horizon".  As I already said before, a "line" connects A to B, the horizon connects nothing, it is a horizontal circle all around you, that specifies how far you can see due the curvature.  That distance is the same, the radius that forms the circle around you.   In a very calm ocean (almost impossible), suppose you can make a very long line of party balloons 11 inches (28cm) in diameter, and make a very big circle around you. If you are just floating eyes few inches from the water, to see the balloons they can not be more than 3km from you (radius of the circle).  If the ocean is really calm, you will see all the balloons whatever direction you look, so they form a nice horizontal circle around you.   If you make this circle of balloons with a radius of 5km (example), you will not see any balloons, they will be under the horizon circle.   The horizon will always be a flat horizontal circle all around you, no matter what.  That is the reality.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this
« on: June 19, 2019, 03:55:01 PM »
Again, everyone is failing to understand a fundamental concept of visual geometry.

Think about a gigantic torus like the one below, 300m in radius.
Now close the top with a gigantic circular board, just to cover and ignore the central inner circles orange and below.
Go to the center top of such board, go up 20 meters, so you can see better around.
Now look all around you, 360°.
Do you think you would see the external orange or yellow bands?
Of course not, they will be below the "red horizon" bands all around you.
Keep climbing so your head would be few meters over the top most red band.  What you see?  Only red horizon.

Even that a strong curvature exists from red to external orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, etc, you can't see that curvature, anywhere you look around you, you only see a red horizon.

You can not see any curvature on the red concentric circles, because there are no vertical curvature there, only flat horizontal circles.  The trick here is that all curvature lines start from your point of view in a line that goes away from you.

See, the visual red horizon band is not higher in the center with the sides (left and right) going down, no way, it can't, because when you turn your head, all the red horizon will make a flat plain horizontal line, even that the next red band would be below the horizon, making a curvature from you to ahead, in all directions.

This effect will always happens while you have the object all around you, no matter the altitude you are from that object.  It means, if you turn your head all around and still see the object in all directions.   The only way to see the curvature from red to orange, yellow, etc, is to get out of the top center of the object, away enough to see the object as a whole in just one direction at certain angle, so you would see  the torus as in the image, curvature and all.

Replace the torus with the planet Earth, to see it whole in a single view, curvature and all, you would need to be probably more than 20 to 30 thousand miles in space.   While you are close to the planet, no matter the altitude, if you turn your head and still see the planet all around you, the horizon will be a flat horizontal circle line all around you, impossible not to be like that.

And no, you can calculate as much as you want, the only way to see the small degree of curvature as someone calculated in a previous post, is if you slice the planet in vertical half, like a half orange, then go away back and face the cut. 

Think with me, if you see ANY horizontal drop at your left of right horizon with the center a little bit up, as in a curvature, what happen when you turn your head to the right? that drop would be more pronounced?, what about on your back? that drop would be adding to be way below you?  No, the horizon is a straight flat circle all around you.  The next concentric circle further from the horizon would be below the horizon and you can't see it, the horizon image blocks such view. You can, of course, the the inner concentric circle before the horizon, and you will see it all around you, as another flat horizontal circle.

There is not curvature drop to measure while you are sitting on such sphere, the horizon is a flat horizontal circle all around you.  In open ocean, the horizon would be at the same distance from you, no matter the direction you look, this makes the horizon a circle around you, leveled, horizontal, no curvature.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this
« 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.

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.

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.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this
« 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".

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this
« 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.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this
« 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.

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.

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?

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: post #40.

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).

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:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >