1

Flat Earth General / Re: See Earth in all it's round beauty 22 miles up from a balloon for only 150k

« on: August 20, 2011, 07:50:10 AM »

Infrared light and some types of radio waves may also be blocked by thousands of miles of atmosphere. FM waves are limited by atmospheric density, for example.

That is why I said that the signal can be degraded slightly. It will not completely block it, however.

It is also why I said increasing the transmission power would assist to overcome the degradation. No amount of power could overcome signal blockage by natural land curvature.

Intercontinental communication is possible via radio waves. It is possible to pick up AM  radio waves from the other side of the world with a HAM radio.

In RET this phenomenon is mumbled away by an absurd claim that the radio waves bounce back and fourth between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere around the earth's curvature to reach their destination. It can apparently do this without extreme scattering.

In FET the waves need only to take a straight line path through the atmosphere to reach the destination.

Yes, that is why I specifically referred to VHF communication, which propagates line-of-sight. The types of transmissions that can go around the world are in the HF bands. The "absurd" claim that the radio waves bounce between the surface of the Earth and the Ionosphere has been observed quite readily.

Ask any Ham to show you how it works. You would be likely dumbfounded to explain how an HF transmission can be directed straight up, using a unidirectional antenna, and then listen to a distinct echo of the transmission as it reflects back to the original source.

Furthermore, by using a unidirectional antenna, the signal can be set an any specific angle pointing toward the sky, yielding a predictable transmission range as the height of the Ionosphere is known.

This is called Skywave Propagation. It has been utilized for decades using "non conspiracy-inducing" analog circuitry. The behavior of the various frequency bands is well known.

This is an activity being performed continuously throughout the day by millions of licensed hams. Hardly a phenomenon that is "mumbled away."

Hams are ALWAYS trying to learn something new about their hobby, and would jump at the chance to share it with his club and community. If there was even the slightest passing thought that the difference between VHF and HF propagation was nothing but the ability to penetrate an atmosphere, word would travel VERY fast (largely over the air), and the "conspiracy" would unravel in only a short time.

By the way, the word "absurd" doesn't sound very scientific, especially when used to describe an easily observable and repeatable phenomenon.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: See Earth in all it's round beauty 22 miles up from a balloon for only 150k

« on: August 19, 2011, 08:10:46 PM »

This one I had to actually jump in on.

Tom, the examples previously cited were to point out that even though visible light has difficulty penetrating "thousands of miles of atmosphere," many other forms of electromagnetic radiation do not, such as infrared light.

AND radio waves.

If what you are saying is true, intercontinental communication would be possible with nothing more than a VHF transceiver. The signal may be degraded slightly as it passes through the various elements of the atmosphere, but it wouldn't be cut off completely. Even then, such a signal degradation could be remedied with an increase in transmission power.

Also, the range of VHF communication and navigation increases predictably at a standard rate as altitude increases, indicating a gradual curvature between points.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Very easy confirmation of the theory.

« on: March 31, 2010, 06:41:00 PM »

I'll admit, it doesn't involve science, just geometry. 

Another thing I forgot to mention, the distances that you measure need to be large.  You can't just measure a small distance that would lead to RE and FE theories within experimental error of each other.

Geometry is maths and maths is a science.

You have great contributions for this forum but this is not one of them. These are just a few differences between Mathematics and Science:

• Nothing is absolutely true in Science. Just about anything can be true in Mathematics if you just declare it an axiom.
• The real world is the target of Science. The real world is not the target of Mathematics. Anything that can be defined as an axiom is a target for Mathematics, whether it resembles something in real life or not.
• One counter-example is all it takes to disprove a theorem. One counter-example is not enough to unravel a scientific theory unless it is mind-boggling.
• Experimental error is an integral part of Science. There is nothing even close to experimental error in Mathematics.
• Preponderance of evidence is not part of Mathematics.
• In maths, proof is a theorem. In science, nothing is ever proved right, it is just backed by a preponderance of evidence, or even overwhelming evidence.
• The Scientific method is a gradual path to knowledge. Nothing much is gradual in Mathematics: either you have the theorem or you don't.

The fact that inspiration for Maths, Arts and Science can from the same place does not mean they are the same.

Well said.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Easy test of bendy light theory

« on: March 31, 2010, 06:26:39 PM »

Unless the ship has a hole in it.

Then it's valid in both.

 

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS. This has to be done.

« on: March 30, 2010, 08:22:09 AM »

No offence to 2fst4u (and in a break with tradition in the use of that phrase im not about to go on to be offensive), who started this thread well, but if anyone had,
a) read the wiki page,
b) the first clue how GPS worked,
c) most importantly, ever worked with GPS
would know this entire thread was pointless.

The one thing that undeniably is true about GPS is that the signal sources have to be where they claim to be. For the simple reason if the positions broadcast were incorrect then how would a GPS unit ever get the true location. If you were performing a triangulation calculation and the position  was wrong why would you expect to get the same answer. Now I'm not an engineer but I think at tower 20,000 km high might stand out. On top of this isnt it bigger than the entire FE universe anyway.

The signals aren't triangulated.
The signals from the birds (that's industry term for satellites in space) are digital.  They broadcast their IDs, and the local time on that satellite.
Through an algorithym, your GPS 'knows' where the satellite should be, and 'triangulates' your position based on the information the GPS gives your unit.
So, if there was a giant ice wall, or something like that, placing towers all around it could emulate the effects of a satellite based navigation system.
I'm not saying this is plausible, but the fact stands that given current technology (and who told you the government tells you everything about those things in 'space' anyway?), it's totally possible to fake this IMO.  It's not likely, but it's possible.

It isn't actually "triangulation," as angles are not measured. The system uses a similar method called "trilateration," in which the receiver detects the signal-embedded time-stamp and determines it's distance from the satellite using a simple D=RT formula. A single signal, as stated, gives a location as a sphere around the satellite, and the radius is the distance from transmitter to receiver. At least 3 signals are required for a 2-dimensional location (on the Earth's surface), and a 4th valid satellite lock gives 3-dimensions (altitude). Any number beyond that gives greater accuracy from RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring).

The issue raised here and in similar threads concern the plausibility of such technology being simulated through terrestrial towers or high altitude autonomous UAVs. The most common response from FEers, pseudolites, is instantly invalidated since GPS uses a frequency spectrum requiring line-of-sight. The GPS receiver could never get a valid signal lock unless it was on a totally flat plane free from ANY terrestrial obstructions. Buildings, hills, trees, etc. would block the signal.

The other method, stratellites, are just barely more possible yet almost as easy to discount, but we've yet to see anything offered by FEers thus far, so it's probably not even worth continuing.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Very easy confirmation of the theory.

« on: March 30, 2010, 07:57:16 AM »

This post is far more inferior to concise than my massive rant posted not long ago.

No, mine was better because it was plausible. This one involves no science.

They're both plausible, but more words just means more for an FEer to pick apart in an attempt to evade the question.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Very easy confirmation of the theory.

« on: March 29, 2010, 02:34:27 PM »

This post is far more inferior to concise than my massive rant posted not long ago.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Offering help

« on: March 28, 2010, 08:09:18 PM »

Thomas, are you Tom Bishop's alt or a just a Tom Bishop wannabe?  You seem to have the same tendency to ignore inconvenient facts, like the fact that FPs rotate in opposite directions in the northern and southern hemispheres.  That is you want to invoke celestial gears or some such nonsense.

That would be quite an alter ego, as Thomas is willing to concede the weaknesses of FE, and Bishop seems entirely closed- and single-minded to any possibilities beyond faith.

The Foucault Pendulum could still act in the same manner in a geocentric or a heliocentric archetype, as long as the planet it is on is round. This, however, would require that everything in the universe rotated over the Earth in a geostationary manner, in a pattern identical to that which is indicated by the pendulum itself.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Offering help

« on: March 28, 2010, 07:32:15 PM »

Well, yes, but I wasn't aware there were any believers of a Geocentric universe anymore. Then again, I didn't know there were any believers of a flat Earth anymore up until a few months ago. Do you still appease the gods when you want rain?

Don't be ridiculous.  That's how plagues are started. 

Honestly, Geocentrism is far less absurd than its FET variant, because the basic laws of physics remain intact, the commonly accepted Geocentric model can predict the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies as accurately as the Heliocentric; and most importantly, most recognize it as a valid model if for no other reason than, in its simplest form, it is just a transference of the coordinate system from the sun to the earth.  It works mathematically and observationally, and has worked for centuries.  The main reason Copernicanism arose was due to the "moral relativity" and nihilism of its proponents. If the earth were simply an accidental speck in an isotropic and homogeneous universe, then the individual has no moral obligations because it is all nihilistic, anyway. Thus is its appeal, and its main force is not in greater accuracy (which it does not have), but instead in its philosophical underpinnings.

It can only be that the nature of the universe is so wholly unknown that your explanation can hold any semblance of plausibility. In any case I am willing to listen and keep an open mind, and acknowledge that there remain too many factors that are still a mystery to humans.

My first visits to this forum had me thinking the same for a FE. Yet as the nature of our own planet is so much more understood, and the arguments held around here are so substantially weak that it has been very difficult to do so.

Still my mind remains open.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Offering help

« on: March 28, 2010, 05:40:14 PM »

Yes it does. That's the point of it.

Geostatism (and even Geocentrism) is a part of FET, and in fact Flat Earth cosmology has even been said to be a further restriction of Geostatism; that is, an unmovable earth which is flat.  Therefore, it's only rational that we begin by analyzing whether it is possible for the earth to be stationary first, before moving on to its shape.  To do that, it is necessary to stay on topic. You nub.

Missed the last few posts, so had to play catchup.

So you're saying that you agree the pendulum shows the Earth rotating (which is pretty indisputable), but unlike the Earth rotating relative to the rest of the universe, as in RE, you theorize the entire universe is rotating and the Earth is stationary relative to it?

Yes, that's essentially what I was saying.  It's a fairly common hypothesis among modern adherents to Geocentrism, and is mathematically equivalent to a rotating earth.

Well, yes, but I wasn't aware there were any believers of a Geocentric universe anymore. Then again, I didn't know there were any believers of a flat Earth anymore up until a few months ago. Do you still appease the gods when you want rain?

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Offering help

« on: March 28, 2010, 04:54:28 PM »

Yes it does. That's the point of it.

Geostatism (and even Geocentrism) is a part of FET, and in fact Flat Earth cosmology has even been said to be a further restriction of Geostatism; that is, an unmovable earth which is flat.  Therefore, it's only rational that we begin by analyzing whether it is possible for the earth to be stationary first, before moving on to its shape.  To do that, it is necessary to stay on topic. You nub.

Missed the last few posts, so had to play catchup.

So you're saying that you agree the pendulum shows the Earth rotating (which is pretty indisputable), but unlike the Earth rotating relative to the rest of the universe, as in RE, you theorize the entire universe is rotating and the Earth is stationary relative to it?

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Offering help

« on: March 28, 2010, 02:54:31 PM »

Foucault's Pendulum is supposed to demonstrate the rotation of the earth about its axis; but how can you determine that the effect is caused by a rotating earth, as opposed to the universe itself rotating about the earth instead? 

Because the pendulum uses the same basic principals as a gyroscope. The most massive part of the pendulum (the swinging weight) carries with it inertial energy as it swings. This motion is determined by Newton's 1st (Law of Inertia) that maintains the mass moving in a given direction. If the Earth was completely stationary, the pendulum would never change it's pattern. If the Earth was rotating, the pendulum's mass would be less affected by the Earth's actual rotation, and it's own pattern would change over time. The pendulum demonstrates the Earth's rotation through very simple physical means.

Unless you are suggesting that the Earth is stationary, and the movement of the pendulum is affected from various gravitational fields given off from the entire universe.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Scientific Theories (A continuation of Sorts)

« on: March 27, 2010, 04:23:18 PM »

Where else in the world can you go to see Emilio Estevez arguing with a mollusk...?

14

Flat Earth General / Re: ok all you smart flat earthers.. answer me this

« on: March 27, 2010, 09:41:23 AM »

Also try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

It will greatly help you understand the meaning in the other posted links.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 05:55:47 PM »

It's because I'm always right. Sometimes I just feel the need to portray it.

I've seen your posts. You usually occasionally are.

Nothing can be 100% though.



EDIT: Read more of his posts.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 05:14:55 PM »

2fst4u is being a worse semantics bitch than the FE'ers.

The FEers usually do that to escape questions. Not sure why he was, though.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 04:43:38 PM »

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

See, that's my problem.  You go on assuming the Earth is Flat and everything must therefore work around that.  THEN you yell at us for assuming the Earth is round.

I do assume the earth is flat. However I know that the earth is not round.

Well, not perfectly round. It's actually an oblate spheroid.

An oblate spheroid is still round.

I'm aware that it's round, but it's not perfectly round. I'll try to make the important words bigger next time.

An oblate spheroid is perfectly round. I don't know of any spheroids that have flat sides.

"Isaac Newton first proposed that Earth was not perfectly round. Instead, he suggested it was an oblate spheroid—a sphere that is squashed at its poles and swollen at the equator. He was correct and, because of this bulge, the distance from Earth's center to sea level is roughly 21 kilometers (13 miles) greater at the equator than at the poles."

-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-is-not-round

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 03:44:38 PM »

An oblate spheroid is still round.

I'm aware that it's round, but it's not perfectly round. I'll try to make the important words bigger next time.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 03:37:10 PM »

The Science that says a radio signal, even from the tallest mountain, can't reach the other side of the world?

Um... Well, it can. HF can be reflected off the ionosphere.

He was likely referring to the line-of-sight restrictions of VHF and UHF communication, which is far more common in telecommunication technology.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A Flaw with the EA

« on: March 25, 2010, 02:48:57 PM »

We know "satellite" TV works and exists. We also know the earth is flat. Thus we know it must not work via satellites. I have not done any testing, therefor (at least to me) the method of there operation is unknown.

See, that's my problem.  You go on assuming the Earth is Flat and everything must therefore work around that.  THEN you yell at us for assuming the Earth is round.

I do assume the earth is flat. However I know that the earth is not round.

Well, not perfectly round. It's actually an oblate spheroid.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: To all RE'ers: why are we arguing?

« on: March 24, 2010, 03:47:47 PM »

I like how all you people that supposedly have a deep psychological understanding of FES and FE'ers are all newbies. Just a slight observation.

Honestly, i think the majority of regulars here just like it for the community. They may like debating FE, but that's not the sole reason why they are here.

And I like how most of you people don't immediately pass judgment based solely on the number found under a person's avatar. There can easily be a discernible difference between how long a person was REGISTERED on this site and how long they have followed such matter in general.

Plus no one claimed to have a "deep psychological understanding" of anyone. Besides newer people offering a fresh point of view on this forum, it's possible that the veterans have become so numb to the question-dodging and word-twisting from FEers that only the newest visitors even notice anymore.

Besides which, the thread seems to be more one of self analysis. If you're going to play the troll, try to hide it better.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: To all RE'ers: why are we arguing?

« on: March 23, 2010, 05:13:26 PM »

EDIT: and actually I'm gonna be the first one to quit, because this is all just really dumb. Adios, have fun in your flat fantasy world.

Well you have a good mind, sorry to see you go.

My interest in this forum fluctuates. If nothing else, it's a good mindless way to kill time in between real-life issues. Haven't decided how long to stick around, either. The dead-end debates do seem to defeat the purpose of the threads sometimes.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: To all RE'ers: why are we arguing?

« on: March 23, 2010, 05:04:51 PM »

Why do the FEers allow us to stay?

Why wouldn't they? Besides the fact that there only seems to be like 8 REers, would discussion here really be worth it if there was no debate?

It's just for fun. The problem comes when people take this site too seriously.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: To all RE'ers: why are we arguing?

« on: March 23, 2010, 03:55:35 PM »

That's why I keep coming back too. It's like a psychology experiment on how these people think. And I've already come to a conclusion, but they'd all flame me if I said it.

Is it that no one on here actually believes in a FE?

25

Flat Earth General / Re: To all RE'ers: why are we arguing?

« on: March 23, 2010, 03:39:23 PM »

To be honest, I think most people are on these threads strictly for the debate. If it were truely about trying to spread the word of a flat earth, there would be more than just a few posts back and forth on the web. A discovery like that would be the most profound in the history of all mankind. Huge amounts of money and resources would be gotten (some people on here will say they can't afford solid proof, but how many other scientific discoveries were attained through struggle, if it's truely worth it, people find a way).

It seems to mostly be the thrill of the chase, not the actual kill.

But why do REers debate each other? It often seems that once all of the FEers have run screaming out of the room, anyone left still wants to debate, which often takes the thread way off topic.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: FET is based on ill-understanding of itself

« on: March 23, 2010, 03:29:54 PM »

And incidentally, what does faith have to do with knowledge?  Um, lol.

Very little, except that knowledge that is accompanied by proof to back it up becomes integrated into scientific study. It can be scrutinized, it can be documented, and can often be repeated. This is often the basis for a scientific method. If you lack any substantial proof, other than "we just know," well then that's where most religions exist today. Many points have been presented showing the possibility of orbitting satellites. Surely even more can be made, but FEers stopped addressing the posts about those already made. A number of people on here can surely present very compelling evidence toward gravitational orbit, yet are quickly discounted with something like, "you must be wrong, because WE JUST KNOW."

That is... well... faith.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: FET is based on ill-understanding of itself

« on: March 22, 2010, 06:40:13 PM »

Valid - Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived.

I don't see how this doesn't describe the bulk of our theories.

Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites can't orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites. However, temporary space-flight is possible.

So the conclusion that radio signals used for the vast array of communications on our planet is derived from the premisis that satellites can't orbit the Earth.  At best, it's just a theory, as so many previous threads have presented evidence of orbiting satellites. Why not leave such issues open-ended, and say "A: We're not sure yet, but we still think the Earth is flat."

28

Flat Earth General / Re: FET is based on ill-understanding of itself

« on: March 22, 2010, 05:46:40 PM »

And I have not seen any valid explanations for the following:
..
Your inability to acknowledge the word "valid" is not the failing of RET.

You are using the word "valid" in a highly subjective manner.  I suspect a predisposed bias towards RE theory when you consider what would be "valid".

Valid - Containing premises from which the conclusion may logically be derived.

Any predisposed bias could only be the need to see actual logic in the FAQ, rather than speculation. Call it want you want, in the end it's still someone's best guess as to why certain things happen. Is it really so unreasonable that someone will question its content, especially as other threads often directly contest some of it's information?

29

Flat Earth General / Re: FET is based on ill-understanding of itself

« on: March 22, 2010, 05:34:09 PM »

Nice rant. Now, do you have any practical suggestions to make? We're more than aware of the society's lack of resources.

Well then, this raises a question, Willmore. We're all aware that no one on this forum has Virgin Galactic funding, or this issue could have been put to rest and we could all be in orbit chatting over zero gravity beer right now. What limited-budget evidence can you accept without putting any biased spin on it?

By "bias," I mean anyone jumping on and discounting any legitimate piece of information, no matter how significant or how small, with just "I know it's flat." Whatever side of the field you're on, the moment someone says "I just know," the scientific method goes out the window, along with all credibility.

Is there some base subject that would even begin to be accepted, be it geography, topography, radio/satellite technology. Establish a starting point, because from here it seems that the best arguments are the quickest to be discounted or ignored.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: FET is based on ill-understanding of itself

« on: March 22, 2010, 05:23:00 PM »

And I have not seen any valid explanations for the following:

GPS
Satellite based communications
How the sun and moon project their light in a spotlight fashion
Antarctic summers (Mirrors don't hover. They don't)
Gravitation's source of infinite pushing energy
Celestial south pole (apart from a wild on-the-spot "There are several" from Tom Bishop. Historically, nobody got lost by following one celestial south pole around in circles. They all managed to do just fine before you went and came up with a stupid theory
Plate tectonics (including the super continents)
Why people needed to be so greedy that they are extorting money from the government as we speak, and without any consequence
Where the hell space shuttles and the like go after they are launched

Your inability to lurk moar and read the FAQ is not the failing of FET.

Your inability to acknowledge the word "valid" is not the failing of RET.