Not a believer but have a question
« on: December 01, 2018, 09:03:24 PM »
I don't believe this theory and I cant say I ever will but instead of just reading what others have to say about it, others being those who don't believe it either, I thought I should ask what the people who do believe it think so I actually get the truth. Is it true that the main reason for dismissing photo and other such evidence from space that show the earth as a sphere is that they are part of some sort of conspiracy made to make people think the earth is round?

LoveScience

Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2018, 07:24:50 PM »
It strikes me from browsing through tfes.org website that a lot of effort and thought (imagination is perhaps a better word) has been put into what has become the current state of the FET.  I admire those who support it and fight their corner. I respect their opinions.

If I am presented with two theories I will treat each one initially at least with equal consideration based on the evidence presented for each, and the methods used to obtain that evidence. Having explored the evidence on each side I will then form a judgement as to which theory I think forms the strongest case. For me personally in the current context that is and always will be RET 100%. Not because I simply 'believe' the world is a sphere but I consider that it has long since been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Earth is spherical.

I don't overlook, dismiss or try to change certain forms of evidence just because they happen to counter my beliefs. It is a popular view in science that the simplest and most obvious solution is generally the best one. And for me at least, RET does me just fine.

I have always been willing to listen and explore alternative theories about any aspect of science. That that is what led me to explore the FET because it would be wrong to dismiss it at first glance. I continue to be a RET supporter though because nothing that I have read so far in terms of the FET have caused me to think any different.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 389
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2018, 07:35:00 PM »
I don't believe this theory and I cant say I ever will but instead of just reading what others have to say about it, others being those who don't believe it either, I thought I should ask what the people who do believe it think so I actually get the truth. Is it true that the main reason for dismissing photo and other such evidence from space that show the earth as a sphere is that they are part of some sort of conspiracy made to make people think the earth is round?
No. The 'conspiracy' extends no further than space travel. It kicked off in the cold war for political gain, was prolonged for financial gain, and nowadays we're in the position where no one can really be the first to come forward and say "So, uh, turns out that's impossible and we've been lying this whole time." Images showing a round Earth do so purely because that was what the paradigm of the time was, and so was what they expected to see.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 535
    • View Profile
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2018, 07:42:56 PM »
I don't believe this theory and I cant say I ever will but instead of just reading what others have to say about it, others being those who don't believe it either, I thought I should ask what the people who do believe it think so I actually get the truth. Is it true that the main reason for dismissing photo and other such evidence from space that show the earth as a sphere is that they are part of some sort of conspiracy made to make people think the earth is round?
No. The 'conspiracy' extends no further than space travel. It kicked off in the cold war for political gain, was prolonged for financial gain, and nowadays we're in the position where no one can really be the first to come forward and say "So, uh, turns out that's impossible and we've been lying this whole time." Images showing a round Earth do so purely because that was what the paradigm of the time was, and so was what they expected to see.

It must be a global conspiracy:


*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 389
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2018, 08:05:39 PM »
It must be a global conspiracy:
Not inherently; if space travel was in fact impossible, and all those that tried failed, it's highly likely many would claim success simply to save face.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 377
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2018, 08:09:43 PM »
Don't forget SpaceX.  I believe that they just launched a rocket today.  According to what I read, most of the payload was from customers who paid to have their satellites put into orbit.  I believe that the total number was 64 different satellites.  Are all the customers in on the conspiracy as well?  If they aren't then how will SpaceX explain to them that their satellites didn't make it to orbit?  Why would those customers pay SpaceX for something they didn't receive?  How can SpaceX then remain in business?  It's starting to get like trying to think honey Bees are fake while in the vicinity of a hive.  Either you believe in the space program or you have to figure out how a company like SpaceX can get away with a huge deception involving customers from all over the world.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 389
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2018, 08:13:17 PM »
Don't forget SpaceX.  I believe that they just launched a rocket today.  According to what I read, most of the payload was from customers who paid to have their satellites put into orbit.  I believe that the total number was 64 different satellites.  Are all the customers in on the conspiracy as well?  If they aren't then how will SpaceX explain to them that their satellites didn't make it to orbit?  Why would those customers pay SpaceX for something they didn't receive?  How can SpaceX then remain in business?  It's starting to get like trying to think honey Bees are fake while in the vicinity of a hive.  Either you believe in the space program or you have to figure out how a company like SpaceX can get away with a huge deception involving customers from all over the world.
Why on earth would SpaceX tell their customers they didn't put it in orbit? Give them a little credit.
Their exact response would depend on what exactly the satellite was meant to do, but they're hardly going to be honest about it.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 377
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2018, 08:24:59 PM »
Just read the description of the launch today and all the different customers who think they have a satellite in orbit.  When those customers don't get the signals from the satellites then they will know that the launch was unsuccessful.  At that point they won't write a check to SpaceX.  Since SpaceX is a corporation it needs revenue to stay in business.  I've personally confirmed satellites are in orbit on a daily basis so I know that they are up there.  Of that, there's no doubt.  I idea that SpaceX could fail to get satellites into orbit time after time after time and not have customers publicly complain is not very likely.   
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 389
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2018, 08:29:52 PM »
Just read the description of the launch today and all the different customers who think they have a satellite in orbit.  When those customers don't get the signals from the satellites then they will know that the launch was unsuccessful.  At that point they won't write a check to SpaceX.  Since SpaceX is a corporation it needs revenue to stay in business.  I've personally confirmed satellites are in orbit on a daily basis so I know that they are up there.  Of that, there's no doubt.  I idea that SpaceX could fail to get satellites into orbit time after time after time and not have customers publicly complain is not very likely.
Can you please stop the posturing? I get it, you believe in SpaceX, you don't need the dramatics, you need a case.
The only thing that approaches a case there is 'what if the customers don't get the signals from their satellites?' Everything else is irrelevant or assertion.

So, to not distract, my response will be to the point: how is it they would confirm that the source of the signal is both a) the satellite they sent in and b) in orbit?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2018, 08:30:30 PM »
Just read the description of the launch today and all the different customers who think they have a satellite in orbit.  When those customers don't get the signals from the satellites then they will know that the launch was unsuccessful.  At that point they won't write a check to SpaceX.  Since SpaceX is a corporation it needs revenue to stay in business.  I've personally confirmed satellites are in orbit on a daily basis so I know that they are up there.  Of that, there's no doubt.  I idea that SpaceX could fail to get satellites into orbit time after time after time and not have customers publicly complain is not very likely.
Same here.

ArianaSpace (not SpaceX) put the ViaSat-2 vehicle into orbit. I can vouch that it is operational and right where it's supposed to be. But don't just take my word for it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/viasat-2-high-speed-internet-satellite-network-comes-online.html

That same launch mission also put another commercial satellite into orbit that is currently operational: Eutelsat 172b.

https://spacenews.com/with-ariane-5-launch-of-viasat-2-and-eutelsat-172b-arianespace-all-caught-up-on-protest-delayed-missions/

SpaceX will be placing the ViaSat-3 satellite into orbit.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2018, 08:51:34 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 377
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2018, 08:51:29 PM »
When I was sitting in front of my computer on the ship I had a program where I could 'ping' the satellite.  I could measure the time it took to get from the ship to the satellite and back.  Also I had an indication of exactly where the dish was pointed.  There were readings of both azimuth and elevation.  All the data indicated that the satellite was a geosynchronous bird over the equator.  As the ship progressed the dish would indicate that it was pointing lower & lower in the sky until it was just near the horizon and at that point I would loose the signal.  Then I would command the system to point at another satellite at a different longitude to continue our service.  If you did all the calculations there was no way all the path lengths would work out unless the satellite were above a global earth.  On a flat earth the azimuth and elevation angles would have to be different.  QED (and so it is proved) 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 389
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2018, 09:14:08 PM »
When I was sitting in front of my computer on the ship I had a program where I could 'ping' the satellite.  I could measure the time it took to get from the ship to the satellite and back.  Also I had an indication of exactly where the dish was pointed.  There were readings of both azimuth and elevation.  All the data indicated that the satellite was a geosynchronous bird over the equator.  As the ship progressed the dish would indicate that it was pointing lower & lower in the sky until it was just near the horizon and at that point I would loose the signal.  Then I would command the system to point at another satellite at a different longitude to continue our service.  If you did all the calculations there was no way all the path lengths would work out unless the satellite were above a global earth.  On a flat earth the azimuth and elevation angles would have to be different.  QED (and so it is proved)
It's not particularly hard to stagger a signal. All they'd have to do would be type in a single line of code, a 'wait' right before it responds to a ping.

As far as signal origins go, that's been covered in far more detail by countless people, FE and otherwise, than I could ever did. Reflections, stratellites... You have no solid proof, you have data you interpret one way, but there's nothing to stop something else being responsible.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 377
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2018, 09:31:06 PM »
Your assumptions are incorrect.  I am a well trained and experienced engineer and wouldn't be fooled for long.  The combinations of the speed of light, azimuth, and elevation in combination with knowing where our ship is at all times would make it impossible to fake a geosynchronous satellite with any kind of a balloon, dome, or anything else.  I've been thru this argument before.  No one has ever been able to come up with a design of a system that would emulate a geosynchronous satellite system on a flat earth platform that would respond to all the combinations that I would see on a daily basis.  If you have a viable design than the FET folks would really like you to post it for everyone to see.  While you are at it, show all the professional seamen out there just how celestial navigation would work on a flat earth.  Yes, we use GPS just about all the time, but everyone has to know how to use a sextant and the navigation tables to fix our position in an emergency.  That whole system is based on spherical geometry on a globe.  it works, and has worked for 100's of years.  There's no theory there, it just works every time it's tried.
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2018, 09:36:43 PM »
Here's another example of a satellite system that I can vouch for is in operation, providing polar region communication coverage.

To work, the ascending and descending satellites must be tracked to keep the antennas pointing at the orbiting vehicles. It doesn't work otherwise. Misalignment of the antennae has happened and signal is lost.



I cannot even imagine how a non-satellite solution could be engineered to make such a thing functional. If it were possible, I can't imagine why the government would pull a hoax on itself and waste so much time, money and effort just to make it appear that it was satellite technology when there could actually be a non-space way of doing it.

Something's in a Molniya orbit. I don't know how such a thing would be possible on a flat earth or how, if it's a decoy, the communication link is actually being accomplished.


Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2018, 10:39:15 PM »
When I was sitting in front of my computer on the ship I had a program where I could 'ping' the satellite.  I could measure the time it took to get from the ship to the satellite and back.  Also I had an indication of exactly where the dish was pointed.  There were readings of both azimuth and elevation.  All the data indicated that the satellite was a geosynchronous bird over the equator.  As the ship progressed the dish would indicate that it was pointing lower & lower in the sky until it was just near the horizon and at that point I would loose the signal.  Then I would command the system to point at another satellite at a different longitude to continue our service.  If you did all the calculations there was no way all the path lengths would work out unless the satellite were above a global earth.  On a flat earth the azimuth and elevation angles would have to be different.  QED (and so it is proved)
It's not particularly hard to stagger a signal. All they'd have to do would be type in a single line of code, a 'wait' right before it responds to a ping.

As far as signal origins go, that's been covered in far more detail by countless people, FE and otherwise, than I could ever did. Reflections, stratellites... You have no solid proof, you have data you interpret one way, but there's nothing to stop something else being responsible.
Please provide details of how satellite alignment is incorrect for millions of receivers and transmitters.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3047
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2018, 10:58:26 PM »
So, to not distract, my response will be to the point: how is it they would confirm that the source of the signal is both a) the satellite they sent in and b) in orbit?
Simple.  Encrypted communication and telemetry signals where only the customer has the decryption key.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1063
    • View Profile
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2018, 11:39:50 PM »
You have no solid proof, you have data you interpret one way, but there's nothing to stop something else being responsible.

Such as ... what?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 377
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2018, 05:56:02 AM »
With a satellite transceiver in one fixed point, I suppose you could be fooled into thinking you are on a flat earth with the way the satellite could be 'rigged'.  Now think about this.  The satellite transceiver I was operating was on a large oceangoing ship.  We would be traveling thousand and thousands of miles while going from port to port.  On every trip across the Pacific I could see the satellite signal more or less in front of the ship.  I would have the length of time it took the signal to get to the satellite and back, the azimuth, and elevation of the satellite.  The satellites were at a fixed longitude over the equator in geosynchronous orbit.  On every trip I would start out seeing the first satellite very high close to directly over the ship.  As the ship progressed on our route the satellite would get lower & lower towards the horizon. Soon the signal would be lost on the horizon and I would have to make the switch to another satellite further ahead.  On a flat earth I would expect the satellite to get lower in the sky as we progressed a couple thousand miles on our route but I would expect that we could easily use the same satellite for the entire trip from Long Beach, Ca to Shanghai, China via Honolulu and Guam.  If the satellite companies were trying to fool use somehow they would have to simultaneously fool countless ships in countless different locations along the route all at the same time.  Many years ago I used to be on another ship that traveled all around the world.  There were 4 INMARSAT birds up there and I could see as we progressed that each one was going out of range as we progressed.  I would have to manually adjust the dish antenna to it would automatically track the next bird along our route.  On a flat earth all you would need would be one bird above the North Pole to cover the whole earth.  If you look at the specifications for the INMARSAT birds you will see that there isn't much coverage at all above about 70 degrees North Latitude.  In fact when we were in the Bearing Sea on some of our trips our satellite coverage was shaky.  It's all because of the globe earth.   
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5475
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2018, 12:09:56 PM »
Quote
As the ship progressed on our route the satellite would get lower & lower towards the horizon. Soon the signal would be lost on the horizon and I would have to make the switch to another satellite further ahead.  On a flat earth I would expect the satellite to get lower in the sky as we progressed a couple thousand miles on our route but I would expect that we could easily use the same satellite for the entire trip from Long Beach, Ca to Shanghai, China via Honolulu and Guam.

I believe this expectation would require a technology that can send such signals through thousands of miles of atmosphere at those lower angles. Not all types of signals can necessarily do that.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1063
    • View Profile
Re: Not a believer but have a question
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2018, 01:46:57 PM »
how is it they would confirm that the source of the signal is both a) the satellite they sent in and b) in orbit?


One of SpaceX's earlier launches was to deploy one or more satellites for Orbcomm

Orbcomm specialise in fleet tracking, monitoring where goods vehicles or company cars are, that kind of thing.

So .... SpaceX announce in advance they're launching Orbcomm's satellite, and confirm it has been deployed by the mission.

Orbcomm start to use it. The scenario holds that the various vehicles have a box which uploads to the satellite, which then routes detail of their location either directly to the company data centre, or via Orbcomm's data centre to the company.

The suggestion here is broadly that the satellite "could be something else"

In which case, why bother with the SpaceX launch? Why would Orbcomm suggest they have one or more satellites, when they're actually using something else?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2018, 01:48:46 PM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"