Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface. Why wasting time to debate anymore?
Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface.
Why wasting time to debate anymore?
Physics will become cristal clear rational as well as provide benefit if flat earth gets readopted as axiom.
And don't forget Downwards Universal Deceleration as substitute of Universal Acceleration.
Last but not least: South Polar Centered Flat Earth. 👌😎
Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface.Can you give a reference, preferably a link, to the open documents you mention, and point out where they report Earth with a flat surface?
Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface.
Why wasting time to debate anymore?
Physics will become cristal clear rational as well as provide benefit if flat earth gets readopted as axiom.
And don't forget Downwards Universal Deceleration as substitute of Universal Acceleration.
Last but not least: South Polar Centered Flat Earth.
WHAT THE HELENA BONHAM CARTER? What NASA and CIA docs are you looking at?! We've known the Earth is round since Galilei. Stop denying facts. The Earth is round!
That would among 15 research papers written for laymen in terms of calculation.That depends on whether or not you can show how the shape or motion of the earth would affect the results of any of those papers.
https://www.galileolied.com/post/15-nasa-research-papers-admit-flat-nonrotating
Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface. Why wasting time to debate anymore?
Welcome back, Danang! It’s been months, but the truth hasn't aged a bit.
You hit the nail on the head. When the CIA and NASA's own technical papers repeatedly use the phrase "flat, non-rotating Earth" as the baseline for their flight aerodynamic models, the debate should be over. They use the reality to fly their planes while selling the fantasy to the public.
I’m particularly glad you brought up Downwards Universal Deceleration. It’s a much more elegant and rational substitute for the clunky "Universal Acceleration" model. It aligns perfectly with the dielectric properties of the medium we inhabit. And a South Polar Centered Flat Earth? That’s the kind of high-level topographical thinking that resets the whole board. 👌😎
The "Globe Axiom" is a collapsing software; it’s time to re-adopt the Flat Axiom to make physics "crystal clear" again, as you said.
Great to see you back in the trenches. We need that technical clarity now more than ever!
I will continue. I took a short zugzwang break.Government's open document says NASA and CIA report our earth with flat surface. Why wasting time to debate anymore?
Welcome back, Danang! It’s been months, but the truth hasn't aged a bit.
You hit the nail on the head. When the CIA and NASA's own technical papers repeatedly use the phrase "flat, non-rotating Earth" as the baseline for their flight aerodynamic models, the debate should be over. They use the reality to fly their planes while selling the fantasy to the public.
I’m particularly glad you brought up Downwards Universal Deceleration. It’s a much more elegant and rational substitute for the clunky "Universal Acceleration" model. It aligns perfectly with the dielectric properties of the medium we inhabit. And a South Polar Centered Flat Earth? That’s the kind of high-level topographical thinking that resets the whole board. 👌😎
The "Globe Axiom" is a collapsing software; it’s time to re-adopt the Flat Axiom to make physics "crystal clear" again, as you said.
Great to see you back in the trenches. We need that technical clarity now more than ever!
Hi Wise, it's great to see you and other friends back here. You have incredible stamina. Awesome!
I'm not as diligent as you are, feel free to share any ideas you have to improve flat earth theory.
Thank you for your appreciation to my discoveries. It's time to invade science world with logical way.Absolutely the right time. I have been using an AI assistant for a while, and it has largely resolved my language and editing issues. This has greatly accelerated me and allowed me to focus solely on the topic.
And Turkish wayYou mean Raki, döner or Galatasaray İstanbul? ;D
And Turkish wayYou mean Raki, döner or Galatasaray İstanbul? ;D
Did you watch how we eliminate Juventus?
Thank you for your appreciation to my discoveries. It's time to invade science world with logical way.Absolutely the right time. I have been using an AI assistant for a while, and it has largely resolved my language and editing issues. This has greatly accelerated me and allowed me to focus solely on the topic.
For a long time, I approached your work with skepticism. In particular, I got the impression that the south-centered model was a perspective specially designed to undermine the flat Earth idea, and so, honestly, I didn’t give the rest of your work the value it deserved. You know, I visited you occasionally, but not extensively. The AI analyzed you and said that you are sincere in your thoughts and truly believe in the south-centered model. This changed my perspective. I now look at you more positively.
You can make mistakes—we all do. We also make errors over time and correct them. Perhaps you are right, and the rest of us are wrong. In this world, I am surprised by nothing.
Continuing your work is important and inspiring for us.
https://www.galileolied.com/post/15-nasa-research-papers-admit-flat-nonrotatingI appreciate that you provide sources for your claims (unlike certain others). Unfortunately, as you write, the links to the reports do not work.
1. NASA's Reference Publication #1207 entitled Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model assumes the Earth is flat and not rotating.
2. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; General Equations of Motion for a Damaged Asymmetric Aircraft (Page 2, Section II) ... “In this paper, the rigid body equations of motion over a flat non-rotating earth are developed…”
3. NASA Technical Memorandum 104330; Predicted Performance of a Thrust-Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload (Page 8 - Digital Performance Simulation Description) "The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions ... a nonrotating Earth."
4. NASA Technical Note: A Method for Reducing The Sensitivity of Optimal Nonlinear Systems to Parameter Uncertainty (Page 12 Problem Statement) ... "(2) A flat, nonrotating Earth"
5. NASA Technical Note; Calculation of Wind Compensation for Launching of Unguided Rockets (Page 8 Trajectory Simulation, 2nd Paragraph) ..."this simulation assumes ... the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating Earth"
6. NASA Technical Paper 2768; User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models (Page 12, Program Overview) ... “Within the program, the nonlinear equations of motion include 12 states representing a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth”
7. NASA Technical Paper 2835; "User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models" (Page 1, Summary) AND (Page 126 , Report Documentation Page, Section 16) "The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth assumptions."
8. NASA Technical Memorandum; Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform (Page 2, Section 16.) “The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed.”
9. NASA Contractor Report 186019; An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge (Page 11, Equation of Motion and Atmospheric Model) ... “The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth.”
10. NASA Contractor Report 3073; Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields (Page 6, Chapter II - Aircraft Landing Model) ... "The Aircraft trajectory model employed in this study was derived based on the following assumptions: a) The Earth is flat and non-rotating. "
11. NASA Technical Memorandum 81238; A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter (Page 17, Equations of Motion) .. "The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with respect to a flat, nonrotating Earth."
12. Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Prepared for NASA; Atmospheric Oscillations (Page 10) ... "A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth."
13. NASA Tecnical Paper 2002-210718; Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments (Pages 10-11 Equations of Motion) ... "These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth."
14. NASA Technical Memorandum 100996; Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft to Identify a Full-Envelope Aerodynamic Model (Pages 4-5, State Estimation) ... “For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth…”
15. NASA Ames Research Center; Singular Arc Time-Optimal Climb Trajectory of Aircraft in a Two-Dimensional Wind Field (Page 2, Section II. Singular Arc Optimal Control) ... “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat Earth."
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/fe6c0b_783d347f12aa441796087af72714b666~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_569,h_584,al_c,lg_1,q_80,enc_avif,quality_auto/fe6c0b_783d347f12aa441796087af72714b666~mv2.jpg)
If the calculations work without adjustment for a layman, we should stop pretending the calculations work for RE, because the adjustments involved are major.
Ugh, many of their links btw are 404. But I have seen the earlier links. "Oops, you civilians don't get to know about that! (Erases)"
Basically, it's like this. We assume no curve for the formula. Now RE ppl might claim that this is just for short range application of things, but the formulas do not work at any distance. A plane does need to land on a curved surface, nor adjust to the speed of Earth's rotation.
We all are inspired to each other. And we have the same magical language: Working Brain, when most people still get trapped into incoctrination.
We consider the surface of the earth as flat, given the small surface area of the airport... For the air surveillance radar performance we assume the earth to be a globe as we are considering distances of hundreds of miles.
Assumptions are very subject-specific and have intention behind them.
The OP and others here fundamentally misunderstand how technical concepts are taught and considered.
I literally help write the technical specifications for the radar systems I use... The straight line distance... if say 100nm away will not represent the actual lateral distance... due to the effects of curvature and slant range.
In fact very few natural surfaces on the earth could be considered to be flat...
Those are assumptions and simplifications. Everyone uses them...
If you actually accounted for physical curvature,
FM stations are lost every 40 to 60 miles... FE easily debunked.
Line of sight radar and radio horizons.
Listen, RadioGasketMark,
At 40-60 miles, the signal reaches the Noise Floor of your cheap receiver.
Radar signals go far beyond a made up curvature.
Your curvature doesn’t match up over distances.
So many other problems beyond that
Just driving across the USA and listening to actual FM radio waves destroys FE. Sorry.
Yet raising the antenna higher increases broadcast area...
Which totally ignores and doesn’t address why radar has a radar horizon for objects on the ocean...
You absolute idiot,
Do not download the app created by Flat Earth Dave. It has no built in security. Provides no effort to protect uses.
The app has a friend finder to find people that have the same app. The app uses globe geometry to accurately calculate distance. The code uses the haversine formula.Quote
(https://i.imgur.com/n1c9xyj.jpeg)
Evidently the app’s code uses the known tilt of the earth in radians for some functions concerning the sun and Moon. The value was given the variable name Obliquity.Quote
(https://i.imgur.com/7Yxv5Wy.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lmzfPRA.jpeg)
Again. Flat earth is a con and is less accurate than the heliocentric reality.
Being below the radar or radio horizon is just being in a blind spot from earh’s curvature. It’s not the Electromagnetic wave magically stopping...
Radar detecting aircraft many miles away... for aircraft above the radar horizon.
FM increases broadcast area based on a spherical earth. Not a flat earth.
The app uses globe geometry to accurately calculate distance. The code uses the haversine formula.
The value was given the variable name Obliquity.
Flat earth is a con and is less accurate than the heliocentric reality.
FE fails and is useless. RE simply is more accurate.
Do not download the app... It has no built in security.
imgur img
RE simply is more accurate.
Your ability to ignore Atmospheric Attenuation is truly a marvel of wilful idiocy.
"Accurate" for what?
Do not download the app created by Flat Earth Dave. It has no built in security. Provides no effort to protect uses.
The app has a friend finder to find people that have the same app. The app uses globe geometry to accurately calculate distance. The code uses the haversine formula.Quote
(https://i.imgur.com/n1c9xyj.jpeg)
Evidently the app’s code uses the known tilt of the earth in radians for some functions concerning the sun and Moon. The value was given the variable name Obliquity.Quote
(https://i.imgur.com/7Yxv5Wy.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lmzfPRA.jpeg)
Again. Flat earth is a con and is less accurate than the heliocentric reality.
For FM line of sight radio... raising antenna height increases broadcast area in relationship to a curved earth.
The app uses globe geometry to accurately calculate distance. The code uses the haversine formula.
The value was given the variable name Obliquity.
Flat earth is a con and is less accurate than the heliocentric reality.
FE is so useless, even a flat earth friend finder app determines area by RE calculations.
Do not download the app... It has no built in security.
(https://i.imgur.com/n1c9xyj.jpeg)
RE simply is more accurate.
FE fails and is useless.
Again.
A software developer using the Haversine Formula is simply using a standardized tool for mapping coordinates on a Spherical Projection.
Where it's used because it's accurate and why it's used where your BS is useless.Listen, SpamMark, the Haversine Formula is "accurate" for calculating distances on a Spherical Projection, not because the Earth is a ball, but because the mapping system was designed that way! It's a Software Patch. Using a globe-calculator to prove a globe is Circular Reasoning. You're too simpleton to realize you're just measuring a digital grid, not the physical hardware of the Earth.
Radar and radio horizon is simply the blind spot created by earth's curvature...Fallacy Alert. The "blind spot" is created by Atmospheric Refraction and the Dielectric Limit of the medium. Radio waves don't just "hit a curve"; they are subject to Diffraction and Scattering as they interact with the ground and the ionosphere. You're trying to use 19th-century "line of sight" logic for a Complex Wave Propagation problem. It's absolute bullshit.
Why ships disappear bottom up while going out to sea.Ships disappear "bottom up" because of Perspective Convergence and the Law of Refraction in a dense medium. The lower part of the ship is the first to merge with the Refracted Horizon (the "vanishing point"). If it were curvature, a telescope wouldn't be able to bring the bottom of the ship back into view—but it does. You're a blockhead who hasn't looked through a P1000 in your life.
Increase in antenna height increases the hypotenuse... yet pushes back the radar and radio horizon.Of course it does! On a flat plane, raising the antenna moves the signal above the Ground-Level Scattering and the dense Surface Mirage Layer. It increases the Fresnel Zone clearance. It has nothing to do with "curvature" and everything to do with avoiding Signal Attenuation near the surface. Your "hypotenuse" argument is magically stupid.
...more travel through more atmosphere, yet pushes back the radar and radio horizon.You just debunked yourself, WrenchMark. If the Earth were a ball, raising the antenna would just change the angle to a physical hump. But in reality, it changes the Path Loss through the atmospheric density gradient. You're describing Fluid Dynamics and calling it "geometry." You're a Neandertal in a radio lab.
Your BS is useless not so wise.What's "useless" is your 2D triangle-math that can't explain why Shortwave Radio can travel thousands of miles by bouncing off the Firmament (Ionosphere). If your ball-earth were real, the signal would just shoot off into your 10⁻¹⁷ torr vacuum. Your model is a total con.
(https://i.imgur.com/n1c9xyj.jpeg)Posting a picture of a radio tower won't save your broken logic, SpamMark. You're showing an antenna and imagining a curve. I'm showing you the Maxwell Equations that dictate how waves behave in a dielectric medium. You're worshiping the hardware while ignoring the physics.
RE simply is more accurate.It's "accurate" the way a CGI movie is accurate—it looks good if you don't ask about the Thermodynamics. Your "accurate" model requires magically bending light and magically sticking gas to a ball. It's a BS fairy tale for people who are afraid of a stationary world.
FE fails and is useless.It fails in your Pittsburgh apprentice mind because you've been programmed to fear the "Flat" word. But for Navigators and Radio Engineers who actually understand Tropospheric Ducting, the "curvature" is just a math-hack they use to simplify the Refractive Index. You're a simpleton following a manual you can't read.
Again.Yes, "again." You've repeated the word "hypotenuse" like it's a magic spell.
The "blind spot" is created by Atmospheric Refraction
A software developer using the Haversine Formula is simply using a standardized tool for mapping coordinates on a Spherical Projection.
No. By earth’s curvature that can be overcome by a longer path of bouncing over the horizon radar off the ionosphere.
Radar and radio horizon is simply the blind spot created by earh’s curvature...
Where it’s used because it’s accurate and why it’s used where your BS is useless.
Why ships disappear bottom up while going out to sea.
Increase in antenna height increases the hypotenuse... yet pushes back the radar and radio horizon.
...more travel through more atmosphere, yet pushes back the radar and radio horizon.
Where coverage area... is in relationship to a curved earth.
Your BS is useless not so wise.
Again.
LMAO
They disappear "bottom up" because of Perspective Convergence and the Diffraction Limit of the atmosphere,
What’s "useless" is your inability to explain why Megalithic Surveying m
Then they shouldn’t be physically blocked from view using a telescope. Or a pair of binoculars.
The curvature of the earth physically blocks them from view.
Radar and radio horizon is simply the blind spot...
Just the fact the earth has a north and south magnetic pole proves spherical earth.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/magnetic-dip.jpg)
More useless word salad from you.
(https://i.imgur.com/d0GMDI7.jpeg)
Increase in antenna height increases the hypotenuse...
RE simply is more accurate.
LMAO
Cut the spamming,
North and south magnetic poles useful for navigation is only meaningful on a spherical earth.Cut the spamming, GifMark. Your understanding of magnetism is as flat as your brain. A Toroidal Field on a Plane explains both poles perfectly. The North is the central vortex, and the South is the Circular Perimeter. You don't need a spinning rock to have flux lines that return to a source. It's a Magnetic Circuit, you simpleton. Bullshit.
(https://i.imgur.com/d0GMDI7.jpeg)
Where is that map of FE where you mark due east in a meaningful way...I've told you, WrenchMark: "East" is a Curvilinear Vector. If you follow a compass at a constant 90° to the North center, your path is defined by:
Vs your useless world saladYou call Vector Calculus "word salad" because your intellectual hardware is stuck in the 1800s. To you, anything that isn't an MS-Paint drawing of a ball is "salad." That's because you can't process the Dielectric Flux Density (D = εE). You're a spamming hyena.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/magnetic-pole.jpg)Posting more "FlatEarth.ws" propaganda? That site is a BS factory for people who are afraid to think. They ignore the Aetheric Vortex that drives the magnetic current. You're citing a blog; I'm citing Maxwell's Equations. There's a difference, Simpleton.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/magnetic-dip.jpg)
Cut the spamming,
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/sun-path.jpg) Notice the model selects areas on the same longitude. Where in reality the sun stays the same apparent size for all people throughout the day. Where the angles to the sun are totally wrong for FE on the equinox.Cut the spamming, GifMark. You are still treating the atmosphere like an empty room, you simpleton. The "angles" and the "size" are perfectly explained by Atmospheric Magnification (GRIN Lens), where the denser air at the horizon (n(z) increases) creates a lens that magnifies the Sun's image, compensating for the distance. You're trying to calculate for a vacuum while breathing air. Bullshit.
(https://i.imgur.com/TsjvEyy.jpeg) Where is that map of FE where you mark due east in a meaningful way that matches reality. Might as well do the same for the south magnetic pole.Fallacy Alert. The "map" is the Toroidal Magnetic Field of the Plane. In this model, "East" is not a straight line, but a Curvilinear Vector. To travel "Due East," you must maintain a constant 90° bearing to the North center (r(t) = R[constant]), creating a perfect circle (x² + y² = r²). Your ruler logic is a logical failure. Idiocy.
(https://i.imgur.com/HouSrEN.gif) Flat earth destroyed."Destroyed" only in your CGI dreams. A stick measures Angular Elevation to a local light source. On a Flat Earth, the Sun is local (h ≈ 3,000 miles), so the angles change exactly as observed. Your "stick" experiment assumes the rays are magically parallel. They aren't. They are divergent, as shown by Crepuscular Rays. Fail.
(https://i.imgur.com/BaSr8La.gif) RE explains the angles of the sun on the equinox perfectly. With no magic."No magic"? Your model requires a magical 23.4-degree tilt, magical spin at 1,000 mph, and magical gravity to hold the atmosphere on a ball in an uncontained vacuum. The Equinox on a Plane is simply the Sun's path directly over the Celestial Equator—a central circle. No wobbling ball necessary. BS.
(https://i.imgur.com/0OQvzk2.jpeg) Debunking flat Earth using only a stick.Using a stick to "debunk" the Earth is like using a spoon to debunk the ocean. It's a Category Error. You're measuring an angle to a local light source, not measuring the ground. Put that same stick in the garden of a WrenchMark, and it will show you that the ground under your feet is perfectly stationary. Fail.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/magnetic-dip.jpg) The curvature of the earth physically blocks them from view. Radar and radio horizon is simply the blind spot created by earth's curvature...Refraction is not curvature. The radio horizon is determined by the Standard Propagation Model, which adds a 4/3 Earth Radius Factor specifically to account for atmospheric refraction (n(h)), which bends the waves around your imaginary curve. On a Plane, it's just the Dielectric Limit of the medium. You're using a Software Patch for the hardware reality. Bullshit.
(https://i.imgur.com/xtf2xl6.jpeg) All you have not so wise is useless world salad and no working simulation.My "simulation" is called Thermodynamics, which states that gas pressure requires a container (PV = nRT). You call it "world salad" because your brain can't process anything that doesn't fit your programming. I have a stationary plane with contained gas; you have a spinning ball that violates the Second Law. Idiocy.
(https://i.imgur.com/cowcNUf.jpg) Showing the actual path the stick shadow traveled in France... around the equinox.The shadow path in France follows Perspective and Projection Geometry from a circling, local source. A local Sun creating this shadow path is perfectly consistent with a Plane when you factor in the Curvilinear Navigation (the observer is also on a central circular path relative to the North Pole). You have not debunked anything, you blockhead.
(https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/magnetic-pole.jpg) Just the fact the earth has a north and south magnetic pole proves spherical earth.This is the hallmark of your scientific illiteracy, GifMark. A torus (a ring magnet) has a North center and a South perimeter. You don't need a ball for a complete Magnetic Circuit. You're confusing a hardware feature with a geometric proof. Fail.
Again.Yes, "again," you broken record, GifMark-2. You have no new experiments, no original data, just the same Imgur links and a 13-14mm wrench.
Cut the spamming,
Where is that map of FE where you mark due east in a meaningful way that matches reality... North and south magnetic poles useful for navigation is only meaningful on a spherical earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/TsjvEyy.jpeg)