# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Binxsy on June 19, 2006, 05:37:10 PM

Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Binxsy on June 19, 2006, 05:37:10 PM
I must bring forth the fact that radio waves can't be sent from USA to China directly, without bouncing them off satellites or the ionosphere. This is due to the fact that the radio waves go off on a tangent line to the surface and out into space and do not circle the Earth. This wouldn't be so on a flat Earth. On a flat Earth, you could send a signal straight to China (assuming you had sufficient ground clearence).

Changes in Polaris' angle above the horizon with distance traveled north or south only make sense if the path is an arc of a circle, or very nearly so.

Land surveyers use plane geometry which doesn't work over large distances. The methods of spherical geometry, however, do fit the surface of the earth very closely. For example, if you survey a large triangle, the sum of the interior angles is greater than 180 deg.

If the Earth were flat, then no matter how far away the sun was, there would never be an Arctic Circle. Draw a horizontal line on a paper. Now mark a point above that line to represent the god Mercury in his chariot crossing the sky at noon. All points along that line would have a direct line of sight to the sun god. Not only that, but from two different points, you would be able to determine how far up Mercury's chariot was.

Get a peice of paper and try this...
Start with point A and point B at a distance d to the north. A makes an angle theta with the sun, and B makes an angle phi. The angle between the hypotenuse of A and the hypotenuse of B is phi - theta. By trigonometric Law of Sines, you should be able to compute the hypotenuses (hypoteni?) of both A and B. And from there, by basic trig, you can compute how high up Mercury's chariot is. If the assumption that the Earth is flat is correct, then you should be able to take another point C still further north of B and run the numbers and come up with the same distance. If the numbers don't add up, then the hypothesis is flawed.

DO YOU REMEMBER GEOMETRY IN HIGH SCHOOL? WHY DOES SPHERICAL GEOMERTY FIT THE EARTH SO WELL.......THINK!!!!
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Luke_smith64 on June 19, 2006, 05:40:27 PM
ahem, may I?

Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Unimportant on June 19, 2006, 06:08:01 PM
Quote from: "Binxsy"
I must bring forth the fact that radio waves can't be sent from USA to China directly, without bouncing them off satellites or the ionosphere.

Are you sure?

Quote
Changes in Polaris' angle above the horizon with distance traveled north or south only make sense if the path is an arc of a circle, or very nearly so.

I'd like to see the data you have to back up this hypothesis.

Quote
If the Earth were flat, then no matter how far away the sun was, there would never be an Arctic Circle. Draw a horizontal line on a paper. Now mark a point above that line to represent the god Mercury in his chariot crossing the sky at noon. All points along that line would have a direct line of sight to the sun god.

Quote
Not only that, but from two different points, you would be able to determine how far up Mercury's chariot was.

100% correct. Using basic trig you would easily see the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Welbourne on June 19, 2006, 09:12:54 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"

100% correct. Using basic trig you would easily see the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.

Could you please show me this math?
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: rogue on June 19, 2006, 10:53:52 PM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "Binxsy"
I must bring forth the fact that radio waves can't be sent from USA to China directly, without bouncing them off satellites or the ionosphere.

Are you sure?

Im absolutely positive, they must be routed through satellites in order to do so.  Look up any communications web site.  Radio Waves do not curve but are straight beams.  This proof is enough to conclude the world is not flat.  Unless we are going to be nihlistic hear and just scream "Government Conspiracy!" while covering our ears.  Excellent point!
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 19, 2006, 11:42:30 PM
Quote from: "Welbourne"
Quote from: "Unimportant"

100% correct. Using basic trig you would easily see the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.

Could you please show me this math?

If the earth was flat you would be able to, since you have 2 angles and 1 side. but with the real earth (or atleast the one I live on), you have 2 angles and no side.

Tell me this also, why doesnt radar work as far as the "Big Ice Wall"? From what I can tell, radar would eventually recieve its own beacon signal since it would bounce off of this dense ice wall. If you want to believe in something so stupid then by all means, go for it. Hell, the Bible even says the earth is a sphere. So go ahead and call governments liars, and scientists liars, but dont call god a liar.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 19, 2006, 11:46:05 PM
Actually, I'll correct myself. You can have 1 side and 2 angles, you would have to "cut the earth in half" (in your head. not literally.) then you would have a side.

I stand by the rest of my statements!

whats next, Ktulu is real? lol  :D
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 19, 2006, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: "TheScales"
Tell me this also, why doesnt radar work as far as the "Big Ice Wall"? From what I can tell, radar would eventually recieve its own beacon signal since it would bounce off of this dense ice wall.

Obstructions and ground clutter.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Welbourne on June 19, 2006, 11:55:20 PM
From any random coast facing the "ice wall?"
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: rogue on June 19, 2006, 11:55:46 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "TheScales"
Tell me this also, why doesnt radar work as far as the "Big Ice Wall"? From what I can tell, radar would eventually recieve its own beacon signal since it would bounce off of this dense ice wall.

Obstructions and ground clutter.

Elaborate on the 150 foot tall obstructions that protude from the middle of the ocean blocking out radar.  Not to mention most things on the ground exist below most radar towers, where said radar waves come from.  If we can track the movement of ice storms over antarctica we should be able to see the giant ass wall of ice.
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 12:06:56 AM
Quote from: "rogue"
Elaborate on the 150 foot tall obstructions that protude from the middle of the ocean blocking out radar.  Not to mention most things on the ground exist below most radar towers, where said radar waves come from.  If we can track the movement of ice storms over antarctica we should be able to see the giant ass wall of ice.

Do you think radar is unidirectional?  It is not a tight beam, there is some scatter.  This is reflected back to the reciever from the obstructions on the ground.  This is why aircraft fly low to the ground when they are evading radar.  The operators can't pick them out of the energy reflected back by surface objects.
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: rogue on June 20, 2006, 12:11:51 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "rogue"
Elaborate on the 150 foot tall obstructions that protude from the middle of the ocean blocking out radar.  Not to mention most things on the ground exist below most radar towers, where said radar waves come from.  If we can track the movement of ice storms over antarctica we should be able to see the giant ass wall of ice.

Do you think radar is unidirectional?  It is not a tight beam, there is some scatter.  This is reflected back to the reciever from the obstructions on the ground.  This is why aircraft fly low to the ground when they are evading radar.  The operators can't pick them out of the energy reflected back by surface objects.

This is true and i dont discount it.  But 150 feet is mighty tall and probably above at least 1 high tech peice of radar equipments range.  And with all the news radars , weather stations radars , pictures from satellites radars whether privately or government owned, youd of think there would be more proof to the existence of this ice wall?
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "rogue"
Elaborate on the 150 foot tall obstructions that protude from the middle of the ocean blocking out radar.  Not to mention most things on the ground exist below most radar towers, where said radar waves come from.  If we can track the movement of ice storms over antarctica we should be able to see the giant ass wall of ice.

Do you think radar is unidirectional?  It is not a tight beam, there is some scatter.  This is reflected back to the reciever from the obstructions on the ground.  This is why aircraft fly low to the ground when they are evading radar.  The operators can't pick them out of the energy reflected back by surface objects.

you dont know much about radar do you?

i'll try something else.

if the earth is flat then radio waves would be too, right? Then since is 99x broadcast from a 150 foot tall (approx.) antenna, i shouldnt be able to recieve the signal, when i'm about 141 feet below where it is broadcast from. and yes, i'm at the same elevation (above sea level) as the base of the antenna.

Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 12:16:02 AM
Over the hunderds of miles that the radar beam would have to travel, 150ft is very small.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 12:17:45 AM
*flat waves!*

the wall is 150 feet *tall*
the radar is traveling 100's of miles *long*

length and height are two very different things.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: rogue on June 20, 2006, 12:21:17 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Over the hunderds of miles that the radar beam would have to travel, 150ft is very small.

Radar signature is unaffected by distance to a large extent.  The signature of a plane does not get larger as it approaches a radar tower thus it would not matter how far away an object is, the radar signature remains primarily the same size
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 12:29:12 AM
Quote from: "rogue"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Over the hunderds of miles that the radar beam would have to travel, 150ft is very small.

Radar signature is unaffected by distance to a large extent.  The signature of a plane does not get larger as it approaches a radar tower thus it would not matter how far away an object is, the radar signature remains primarily the same size

You have no idea what I am referring to.  The angle between the ground and the elevation of the broadcaster is extremely small at such great distances.  Let's say the dish is 500 miles from the wall.  That works out to an angle of .003 degrees above the ground.  As I stated before, radar is not a tight beam, it extends out in a rather conical shape.  The radar will reflect off the ground long before the beam gets to the ice wall and will produce a much stronger return, thereby blocking out the weak return from the wall.
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 12:31:15 AM
Quote from: "TheScales"

if the earth is flat then radio waves would be too, right? Then since is 99x broadcast from a 150 foot tall (approx.) antenna, i shouldnt be able to recieve the signal, when i'm about 141 feet below where it is broadcast from. and yes, i'm at the same elevation (above sea level) as the base of the antenna.

How about using your thinker to put together a coherent statement.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: rogue on June 20, 2006, 12:46:49 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "rogue"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Over the hunderds of miles that the radar beam would have to travel, 150ft is very small.

Radar signature is unaffected by distance to a large extent.  The signature of a plane does not get larger as it approaches a radar tower thus it would not matter how far away an object is, the radar signature remains primarily the same size

You have no idea what I am referring to.  The angle between the ground and the elevation of the broadcaster is extremely small at such great distances.  Let's say the dish is 500 miles from the wall.  That works out to an angle of .003 degrees above the ground.  As I stated before, radar is not a tight beam, it extends out is a rather conical shape.  The radar will reflect off the ground long before the beam gets to the ice wall and will produce a much stronger return, thereby blocking out the weak return from the wall.

Regardless of range, radar rarely picks up any rays that have taken a dual path of projection like those that hit ground.  Radar waves for the most part must be reflected by 90 degree angles like those found in a wall.  Thats why stealth fighters have no right angles on them.  2ndly even if we discount land based radar, satellite radar owned, not by the government, but independent research facilities have also proven that there is no giant ice wall in antarctica
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 12:54:08 AM
Quote from: "rogue"

Regardless of range, radar rarely picks up any rays that have taken a dual path of projection like those that hit ground.  Radar waves for the most part must be reflected by 90 degree angles like those found in a wall.

So you are telling me that there are no angles that would return the radar in nature?  Not even in rocks, trees, buildings, hills, waves?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 12:55:10 AM
Also, explain to me why an aircraft can hide in the ground clutter of an enemy's radar return.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: rogue on June 20, 2006, 01:44:29 AM
Quote from: "rogue"
even if we discount land based radar, satellite radar owned, not by the government, but independent research facilities have also proven that there is no giant ice wall in antarctica

Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Unimportant on June 20, 2006, 10:00:29 AM
That has been explained many, many times; satellites do not exist.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Yardstick2006 on June 20, 2006, 10:59:13 AM
Quote from: "Unimportant"
That has been explained many, many times; satellites do not exist.

What makes you think the dont exist. Couldnt they orbit the Earth the same way the FE sun and moon do?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Welbourne on June 20, 2006, 11:02:59 AM
Because saying satellites don't exist is the only way some of the other evidence even works.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: psouza4 on June 20, 2006, 11:07:55 AM
Quote from: "Welbourne"
Because saying satellites don't exist is the only way some of the other evidence even works.

As a reminder, theories and lack of opposing evidence is not indicative of supportive evidence.  The no-satellite theory is one of the most flawed, however and is typically explained by FE'ers that functions satellites are typically responsible for are instead replaced with radio towers on the Earth's surface.  Therefore, FE'ers believe that "satellite images" (of the Earth) must all be fake.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: EnragedPenguin on June 20, 2006, 11:24:37 AM
Quote from: "psouza4"
The no-satellite theory is one of the most flawed, however and is typically explained by FE'ers that functions satellites are typically responsible for are instead replaced with radio towers on the Earth's surface.  Therefore, FE'ers believe that "satellite images" (of the Earth) must all be fake.

No, FE's believe satellites are faked because for a satellite to be in orbit you have to have gravity, which FE's say the earth doesn't produce. And if satellites don't exist, than the functions of satellites have to be from another source.
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 11:25:41 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "TheScales"

if the earth is flat then radio waves would be too, right? Then since is 99x broadcast from a 150 foot tall (approx.) antenna, i shouldnt be able to recieve the signal, when i'm about 141 feet below where it is broadcast from. and yes, i'm at the same elevation (above sea level) as the base of the antenna.

How about using your thinker to put together a coherent statement.

What's incoherent about my statement? Maybe you just can't understand what i'm saying simply because I'm on a higher level of thinking than you are  8-)
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 11:27:39 AM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "psouza4"
The no-satellite theory is one of the most flawed, however and is typically explained by FE'ers that functions satellites are typically responsible for are instead replaced with radio towers on the Earth's surface.  Therefore, FE'ers believe that "satellite images" (of the Earth) must all be fake.

No, FE's believe satellites are faked because for a satellite to be in orbit you have to have gravity, which FE's say the earth doesn't produce. And if satellites don't exist, than the functions of satellites have to be from another source.

Or, satellites operate like electric helicopers....
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: psouza4 on June 20, 2006, 11:34:32 AM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "psouza4"
The no-satellite theory is one of the most flawed, however and is typically explained by FE'ers that functions satellites are typically responsible for are instead replaced with radio towers on the Earth's surface.  Therefore, FE'ers believe that "satellite images" (of the Earth) must all be fake.

No, FE's believe satellites are faked because for a satellite to be in orbit you have to have gravity, which FE's say the earth doesn't produce. And if satellites don't exist, than the functions of satellites have to be from another source.

Yes, so say FE'ers.  Funny, you started with 'No' and an explanation for why they say satellites don't exist, but I don't actually see an argument for what I posted, unless you're inferring that the no-satellite theory isn't flawed, which it is.  One supporting idea, such as gravity-vs.-velocity, does not effect proof of evidence that satellites must not exist.  In the same vein, I can say that because satellites do exist and orbit the Earth that the earth must be globular.  Neither my statement nor yours actually submits proof, it's just a consequencial circumstance of each theory.

I posted more questions about satellites, physics, and other unexplained science-related questions in my recent post: Flatworld question (long) (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2812)
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 11:41:30 AM
Quote from: "TheScales"

if the earth is flat then radio waves would be too, right?

Let's see...Flat earth = flat radio waves?  The very nature of EM radiation prevents them from being 2D.  So does this mean round earth = round waves?
Quote
Then since is 99x broadcast from a 150 foot tall (approx.) antenna, i shouldnt be able to recieve the signal, when i'm about 141 feet below where it is broadcast from.

'Then since is 99x' is nonsensical.  What is 99x? Are you saying that the radar won't reach you because you are 141 ft below the dish at the base of it or 500 miles away?
Quote

I'm on a higher level of thinking than you are

Yea, I severely doubt that.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 11:42:01 AM
psouza4, if satellites (like echostar) worked like solar powered helicopters then the FE Theory and Satellites could co-exist.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: psouza4 on June 20, 2006, 11:48:14 AM
Quote from: "TheScales"
psouza4, if satellites (like echostar) worked like solar powered helicopters then the FE Theory and Satellites could co-exist.

Do FE's have reason to believe they do (satellites working similarly to solar-powered helicopters)?  Other than its relevant possibility?  (this again goes back to the "it's possible that it's magic" perspective, but I'm trying to debate based on science, which is supported by data -- so does any exist?)
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 11:48:17 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "TheScales"

if the earth is flat then radio waves would be too, right?

Let's see...Flat earth = flat radio waves?  The very nature of EM radiation prevents them from being 2D.  So does this mean round earth = round waves?
Quote
Then since is 99x broadcast from a 150 foot tall (approx.) antenna, i shouldnt be able to recieve the signal, when i'm about 141 feet below where it is broadcast from.

'Then since is 99x' is nonsensical.  What is 99x? Are you saying that the radar won't reach you because you are 141 ft below the dish at the base of it or 500 miles away?
Quote

I'm on a higher level of thinking than you are

Yea, I severely doubt that.

yes, round earth = round waves... in a sort. They are broadcast in every direction.

"Are you saying that the radar won't reach you because you are 141 ft below the dish at the base of it or 500 miles away?"
it's obvious you havent googled 99x.

"Yea, I severely doubt that."
Doubt all you want, but you're always gonna be the idiot who thinks the earth is flat.  :D
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 11:50:05 AM
Quote from: "psouza4"
Quote from: "TheScales"
psouza4, if satellites (like echostar) worked like solar powered helicopters then the FE Theory and Satellites could co-exist.

Do FE's have reason to believe they do (satellites working similarly to solar-powered helicopters)?  Other than its relevant possibility?  (this again goes back to the "it's possible that it's magic" perspective, but I'm trying to debate based on science, which is supported by data -- so does any exist?)

i dunno i was just thinkin of any way a satellite could work under FE's conditions.
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 11:55:08 AM
Quote from: "TheScales"

yes, round earth = round waves... in a sort. They are broadcast in every direction.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all day.  The waves may be broadcast in every direction, but this doesn't make them round, they are still linear.
Quote
Doubt all you want, but you're always gonna be the idiot who thinks the earth is flat.  :D

When have I ever said it was?
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: "TheScales"

yes, round earth = round waves... in a sort. They are broadcast in every direction.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all day.  The waves may be broadcast in every direction, but this doesn't make them round, they are still linear.
Quote
Doubt all you want, but you're always gonna be the idiot who thinks the earth is flat.  :D

When have I ever said it was?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 11:56:35 AM
Then why are you part of the flat/non flat debate?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 11:59:50 AM
Because of statements like flat earth = flat radio waves / Round earth = round radio waves.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 12:56:39 PM
but why debate it? most of the FE'ers would be stupid enough to believe it!
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 01:00:24 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "TheScales"

yes, round earth = round waves... in a sort. They are broadcast in every direction.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all day.  The waves may be broadcast in every direction, but this doesn't make them round, they are still linear.

I never said they werent linear, i was simply at a loss of words for an explination. radio waves are emited and the move in every direction, like an enlarging bubble. thats what i meant by "round".

i assume that if the earth were flat then instead of the "bubble" it would be like a disc.

it was an attempt to confuse. it's not like anyone CAN know if radio waves would act like that on a flat planet, since there isnt a flat planet to use to test it on.
Title: Re: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 20, 2006, 03:40:02 PM
Quote from: "TheScales"

i assume that if the earth were flat then instead of the "bubble" it would be like a disc.

it was an attempt to confuse. it's not like anyone CAN know if radio waves would act like that on a flat planet, since there isnt a flat planet to use to test it on.

I know how they would act on a flat planet: The same way they do on a RE.  Radio waves behave in a very regular pattern in three dimentions.  Since a FE is also three dimentional, they would behave the exact same way.
Quote
but why debate it? most of the FE'ers would be stupid enough to believe it!

Actually, some of the dumbest things I have ever heard have come from RE'ers who have their own rediculus ideas as to why the world works as it does.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 08:22:33 PM
So, what do you believe? Flat or Round?

and you cant say for 100% sure that radio waves wouldnt act different on a flat earth, simply because you dont have a flat earth to test radio waves on. :)
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Erasmus on June 20, 2006, 09:48:01 PM
Quote from: "TheScales"
Then why are you part of the flat/non flat debate?

Not to put words in the Engineer's... keyboard, but maybe he's not part of a flat/non-flat debate.  Maybe he's picked different teams than you have.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: FungusMcUncle on June 20, 2006, 09:50:29 PM
Unimportent wrote: 100% correct. Using basic trig you would easily see the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.

and using this same logic it is easy to see that the increase in global temperatures since the 1800s is caused by the decline in the numbers of pirates.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Erasmus on June 20, 2006, 09:55:23 PM
Quote from: "FungusMcUncle"
Unimportent wrote: 100% correct. Using basic trig you would easily see the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.

and using this same logic it is easy to see that the increase in global temperatures since the 1800s is caused by the decline in the numbers of pirates.

How is it the same logic?  The former is the construction and evaluation of a mathematical expression, whereas the latter is a claim about causation.  How do you propose to relate them?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 10:18:51 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "FungusMcUncle"
Unimportent wrote: 100% correct. Using basic trig you would easily see the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.

and using this same logic it is easy to see that the increase in global temperatures since the 1800s is caused by the decline in the numbers of pirates.

How is it the same logic?  The former is the construction and evaluation of a mathematical expression, whereas the latter is a claim about causation.  How do you propose to relate them?

Speak english. I cant understand that. Using "former" and "latter" makes your statements ambiguous.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Erasmus on June 20, 2006, 10:52:07 PM
Quote from: "TheScales"
Using "former" and "latter" makes your statements ambiguous.

No, speaking English makes my statements ambiguous.

Quote
Speak english.

"Former" and "latter" are extant English words.

Quote
I cant understand that.

I refuse to lower my standards of discourse by any degree, merely to confine it to the limits of somebody else's literacy.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 11:06:38 PM
Hah, my literacy is fine. I'm probably the most literate person here. I'm just a lazy bastard who doesnt like to think alot. This thread is getting redundant though.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Desu on June 20, 2006, 11:08:30 PM
Quote from: "TheScales"
Hah, my literacy is fine. I'm probably the most literate person here. I'm just a lazy bastard who doesnt like to think alot. This thread is getting redundant though.

I don't care if you're on my side, I had to, for the sake of irony.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 20, 2006, 11:10:51 PM
well, actually i dont like to think even a little... hahaha.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: FlatAnus on June 21, 2006, 05:58:11 AM
you have no way of proving that the pirate/global warming correlation isn't correct.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheScales on June 21, 2006, 12:25:54 PM
awesome.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 21, 2006, 12:29:18 PM
Quote from: "FlatAnus"
you have no way of proving that the pirate/global warming correlation isn't correct.

Pirate incidents have actually been on the incline as of late.  So, what does this mean for global warming?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: pringles on June 21, 2006, 01:08:21 PM
may i just answer the original question, with.. another question, just out of interest, where did you learn that this happens? im guessing from school right? or from a book, or an internet site, all controlled by the govornment.
Case Closed
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Erasmus on June 21, 2006, 01:15:37 PM
Quote from: "pringles"
may i just answer the original question, with.. another question, just out of interest, where did you learn that this happens? im guessing from school right? or from a book, or an internet site, all controlled by the govornment.
Case Closed

Start justifying or start losing posts.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: pringles on June 21, 2006, 01:19:22 PM
what is there to justify? i am simply stating the govornment has complete control over what we learn, and through this, we cannot know the "truth"
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Stonicus on June 21, 2006, 01:32:53 PM
Then how can you claim flat earth is the truth?  How do you know you're not just completely falling under the government's plan to believe in a flat earth?

See, the earth is really a figure 8.  They perpetuate the round earth so noone will know the true form.  And to further keep people from discovering the truth, they purposely leak out details of the earth being flat and details of a huge global conspiracy.  So now, instead of thinking "hey, earth is round", you think "but it is really flat!", when in fact, it is a figure 8.

Your belief in the flat earth is exactly what the giant global conspiracy wants you to believe, and you're just another tool in the giant "figure-8" cover-up.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: pringles on June 21, 2006, 01:38:14 PM
stonicus, im liking the way you think, so you are aware, im neither a FE or a RE i am purely trying to uncover the truth, if you can give me reason to believe in this "figure 8" i will more than gladly fight your cause to, but atm, im FE all the way
Title: ...
Post by: Binxsy on June 21, 2006, 02:15:15 PM
I will say it again i like how you FE people only answear questions your FAQ can "explain" you ignore other things, I mean dosent it bother you you just cant answear some things?

By the way how does google earth work i can see my house, my friends house, the place i work. i doubt its a huge conspiracy thing. and you guys can probally see your houses to.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: pringles on June 21, 2006, 02:17:49 PM
binxsy... what is your question you would like to ask? post it quick and i will try to answer it as best i can, obviously i cant speak for the FE community as i am merely a philosopher.. but continue, ask your question, i just answered every one another guy fired at me.. so carry on :?:
Title: mm
Post by: Binxsy on June 21, 2006, 02:59:02 PM
must bring forth the fact that radio waves can't be sent from USA to China directly, without bouncing them off satellites or the ionosphere. This is due to the fact that the radio waves go off on a tangent line to the surface and out into space and do not circle the Earth. This wouldn't be so on a flat Earth. On a flat Earth, you could send a signal straight to China (assuming you had sufficient ground clearence).

well this was never answeared

Also plate tectonics do not make sense if the earth is a disc, The plates push and retract fold over and underneath eachother, and slide past each other. Now on a sphere like the earth theses plates have pressure on each side since they are surrounded by other plates. Now if earth was a disc what would keep the earth from falling apart? Also you said the sun is about 3000 miles above the surface? how far is the moon from the surface then? i would think the moon is farther away from earth then 300miles?

Also you stated we are faling at a constant rate that gives us gravity right? well why do our constalations stay put? In order for us to orbit we could use the same idea that the space shutttle uses while orbiting the earth. that it is high enough up that it is falling at a constant rate but it is at the right trajectory for it to keep faling indenfintely. But what would this flat earth be orbiting that would be large enough for this to happen? And also were is this thing were orbiting? the sun cant be it? invisible planet?
Title: But they dont have mond control
Post by: Binxsy on June 21, 2006, 03:04:17 PM
Quote from: "pringles"
what is there to justify? i am simply stating the govornment has complete control over what we learn, and through this, we cannot know the "truth"

you can prove the earth is a sphere using geometry (speherical geometry) and you can prove it all by writing it out on paper (since the goverment could have fixed all calculators right?)

Quote from: "TheScales"
Quote from: "Welbourne"
Quote from: "Unimportant"

100% correct. Using basic trig you would easily see the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.

Could you please show me this math?

If the earth was flat you would be able to, since you have 2 angles and 1 side. but with the real earth (or atleast the one I live on), you have 2 angles and no side.

Tell me this also, why doesnt radar work as far as the "Big Ice Wall"? From what I can tell, radar would eventually recieve its own beacon signal since it would bounce off of this dense ice wall. If you want to believe in something so stupid then by all means, go for it. Hell, the Bible even says the earth is a sphere. So go ahead and call governments liars, and scientists liars, but dont call god a liar.

radar can be made by a civilian with enough know how. Also the goverment can not change math. No matter how hard hey try pi will always start with 3.14 no matter how hard they try they can not change it
Title: Re: But they dont have mond control
Post by: TheEngineer on June 21, 2006, 03:47:27 PM
Quote from: "Binxsy"

radar can be made by a civilian with enough know how.

and...
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: lomfs24 on June 21, 2006, 03:59:21 PM
There are a couple reasons why radio waves are bounced off the ionosphere.
1. Terrain. I am just using the US as an example here. But, unless you live on the top of the Rocky Mountains there is probably some terrain that is much higher than you between you and China. If you take that out to the rest of the world you might want to start somewhere in the Hymalia's (sp?) to get above the rest of the terrain in the world. So radio waves are bounced off the ionosphere in order to get over terrain.

2. Radio waves are in constant use around the world. Each time you use a cell phone, cordless phone, rc car, microwave, turn on an electric appliance, everytime a radio station is turned on, TV station turned on etc.... (the list is endless) it adds a little bit more to the radio clutter engulfing our earth. And the closer you get to centers of population, both in proximity and altitude (think dome around centers of population), the worse that radio clutter gets. To hear the radio clutter for yourself, turn your FM stereo to a frequency that does not have a local station on it and you will here a static hiss. This has a generic term of 'white noise' or static. The best way to get a radio signal away from this is to point it up slightly and shoot over the top of it and bounce it off the ionosphere.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Stonicus on June 21, 2006, 04:20:08 PM
Quote from: "lomfs24"
There are a couple reasons why radio waves are bounced off the ionosphere.
1. Terrain. I am just using the US as an example here. But, unless you live on the top of the Rocky Mountains there is probably some terrain that is much higher than you between you and China. If you take that out to the rest of the world you might want to start somewhere in the Hymalia's (sp?) to get above the rest of the terrain in the world. So radio waves are bounced off the ionosphere in order to get over terrain.

2. Radio waves are in constant use around the world. Each time you use a cell phone, cordless phone, rc car, microwave, turn on an electric appliance, everytime a radio station is turned on, TV station turned on etc.... (the list is endless) it adds a little bit more to the radio clutter engulfing our earth. And the closer you get to centers of population, both in proximity and altitude (think dome around centers of population), the worse that radio clutter gets. To hear the radio clutter for yourself, turn your FM stereo to a frequency that does not have a local station on it and you will here a static hiss. This has a generic term of 'white noise' or static. The best way to get a radio signal away from this is to point it up slightly and shoot over the top of it and bounce it off the ionosphere.

What ionosphere?  The ones the RE scientists tells you exist?  Surely you can't believe them if they advocate a RE.  So, there is no ionosphere.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Binxsy on June 21, 2006, 04:32:36 PM
Are you shure your own "scientists" arent goverment agents put there to create confusion and provide baseless proofs to keep you guys at bay? So us the speherical earthers see you as ignorant and rather foolish?

Wait this doesnt make sense either?
Hey whats the percentage of you fe'ers that are paranoid scitzos?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: lomfs24 on June 21, 2006, 08:48:43 PM
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I am schizophrenic
And so am I.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: levilsirfiss on June 21, 2006, 09:28:38 PM
i thought goverment agents kill scientists? if i were one i wulldnt work for the goverment
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Binxsy on June 21, 2006, 09:34:45 PM
WHAT?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: levilsirfiss on June 21, 2006, 09:36:36 PM
its tru

i saw it in movies al teh time
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Binxsy on June 21, 2006, 09:47:03 PM
yes movies are actualy real life just someone secretly vdeo taped all of it. shhhhhhhhh
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 21, 2006, 09:49:02 PM
Quote from: "lomfs24"
The best way to get a radio signal away from this is to point it up slightly and shoot over the top of it and bounce it off the ionosphere.

Anything with a frequency higher than AM can't be bounced off the ionosphere, as they are too energetic.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: levilsirfiss on June 21, 2006, 09:50:21 PM
Quote from: "Binxsy"
yes movies are actualy real life just someone secretly vdeo taped all of it. shhhhhhhhh

noooo

wat you think im dum????

they arent real its just stuf acted out that rely happined
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Binxsy on June 21, 2006, 10:05:11 PM
yes i agree..........you people make me want to go get drunk/high to forget your well i dont konw what to call it.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Erasmus on June 22, 2006, 01:37:25 AM
Quote from: "pringles"
what is there to justify?

There's this:

Quote
i am simply stating the govornment has complete control over what we learn,
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: lomfs24 on June 22, 2006, 08:09:07 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "lomfs24"
The best way to get a radio signal away from this is to point it up slightly and shoot over the top of it and bounce it off the ionosphere.

Anything with a frequency higher than AM can't be bounced off the ionosphere, as they are too energetic.

TheEngineer, obviously radio theory is not your strong suit. I respect a lot of what you are saying but you should leave radio theory alone.

You do realize that AM and FM refer to types of modulation rather than actual frequency location. I could run AM clear up into the Gigahertz's range. Wouldn't work very well but I could. On the flip side I can run FM as low as I want. Again, it doesn't work as well as AM in those ranges but it still works. We are not even going to get into upper and lower sideband.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 22, 2006, 08:48:49 AM
I believe frequencies above 10 MHz can't be bounced of the ionosphere.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: lomfs24 on June 22, 2006, 10:10:54 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I believe frequencies above 10 MHz can't be bounced of the ionosphere.
I believe you are wrong. All frequencies bounce off the ionosphere. However, different wave lengths bounce at different angles. Just like light moves through transparent materials at different angles, that's why we have rainbows. Therefore, higher frequencies don't bounce at an angle that gets back to the ground....under most circumstances. Occasionally you will hear a skip. Frequencies below 100 MHz are frequently bounced. Side band seems to skip better than AM or FM.... don't know why that is.

Perhaps because of the conspiracy.  :D
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Binxsy on June 22, 2006, 10:15:23 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I believe frequencies above 10 MHz can't be bounced of the ionosphere.

So your admiting the existance of the ionosphere right?

I rember awhile ago someone said it did not exist.

contradiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :D  :)  :(  :o  :shock:  :?  8-)  :lol:  :x  :P  :oops:  :cry:  :evil:  :twisted:  :roll:  :wink:  :!:  :?:  :idea:  :arrow:
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 22, 2006, 11:23:22 AM
Quote from: "Binxsy"
So your admiting the existance of the ionosphere right?

I rember awhile ago someone said it did not exist.

contradiction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :D  :)  :(  :o  :shock:  :?  8-)  :lol:  :x  :P  :oops:  :cry:  :evil:  :twisted:  :roll:  :wink:  :!:  :?:  :idea:  :arrow:

I never said it didn't exist.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 22, 2006, 12:08:51 PM
Quote from: "lomfs24"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
I believe frequencies above 10 MHz can't be bounced of the ionosphere.
I believe you are wrong. All frequencies bounce off the ionosphere. However, different wave lengths bounce at different angles. Just like light moves through transparent materials at different angles, that's why we have rainbows. Therefore, higher frequencies don't bounce at an angle that gets back to the ground....under most circumstances. Occasionally you will hear a skip. Frequencies below 100 MHz are frequently bounced. Side band seems to skip better than AM or FM.... don't know why that is.

Sorry I did not make myself clear.  I thought it was understood we were talking about bouncing a signal back to the ground so it could be recieved.

Now, this is from Wiki:
Quote
Skywave is the propagation of radio waves bent (refracted) back to the Earth's surface by the ionosphere. As a result of skywave propagation, a nighttime broadcast signal from a distant AM radio station (or rarely, a TV station) can sometimes be heard as clearly as local stations. Most long-distance HF radio communication (between 3 and 30 MHz) is a result of skywave propagation.

Signals with frequencies above about 30 MHz (VHF and UHF for example) are progressively not returned to the Earth's surface, because they penetrate the ionosphere. (This includes most communications with spacecraft and satellites.) Exceptions include rare occasions of E-skip, when FM and TV signals are reflected. Skywave may be disrupted during geomagnetic storms.

I also have personal experience with the FM signals not being bounced back to the ground.  I live in Arizona where the available radio sations are not plentiful.  Driving across the desert, you can pick up an AM station tens of miles further out than you can recieve an FM station.

Here's the Wiki link if you would like to read the article for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: lomfs24 on June 22, 2006, 01:37:27 PM
Awwww...now we are getting somewhere. The reason so many things on this type of site are argued is the ambiguity of peoples statements. One person makes a statement but means something entirely else. Or someone makes a blanket statement that is entirely false but is clear in their own mind. Think of it as an excercise in communications.

Now, you said that frequencies above 10 MHz couldn't be bounced. I pointed out that was false. You then posted a Wiki that also said it was false. I would also like to point out that wiki's are not always the best place for information to be obtained. For instance, your Wiki says that freqs above 30MHz are not returned. with VHF and UHF in parentheses. However, the 6 meter band is used in ham radio (50-54MHz) and is really only useful when skip opens up. But when the band opens up you can talk all over the US by bouncing off the atomsphere.

Thanks for bringing up the difference between AM radio stations and FM radio stations. And you are correct. You can hear AM stations a lot farther than you can FM. Here's why(and it's not because of ionosphere skip)
Reason #1
AM is amplitude modulation. If you want to know what that is wiki it. It's basically the way modulation is carried on the radio waves. AM radio will always carry farther than FM. FM is frequency modulation. I wish I could draw so I could show you but if you look it up on the net you will see the differences.
Reason #2.
Lower radio frequencies will always carry farther than higher ones. Think of a radio wave as, ...well... a wave. A higher frequency (more cycles a second) make smaller waves and as a result make a flatter traveling radio signal. Making the radio wave follow closer to a line of sight. A lower frequency (fewer cycles per second) makes a larger wave that is more easily bent. Since it will bend easier it will follow large scale terrain changes better. For instance Denver at 5200 feet trying to contact Houston which is very near sea level would be a large scale terrain change.

All that to get to this. AM radio is from 535kHz to 1605 kHz while FM radio is 88.0 MHz to 108.0 MHz. Therefore AM radio is a much lower frequency traveling farther without the need for skip. That's why you will hear AM radio 20,30,50 or even 100 miles farther than FM radio. You would not be actually hearing skip unless you heard an AM radio station 1500 to 2000 miles away. Canada for instance if you were in Arizona.

Again, Engineer, radio is not your stong suit, stay away from it.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 22, 2006, 04:02:34 PM
Quote from: "lomfs24"

Reason #1
AM is amplitude modulation. If you want to know what that is wiki it. It's basically the way modulation is carried on the radio waves. AM radio will always carry farther than FM. FM is frequency modulation. I wish I could draw so I could show you but if you look it up on the net you will see the differences.

Yes, I know the difference.  I even know what they look like.
Quote
Now, you said that frequencies above 10 MHz couldn't be bounced. I pointed out that was false. You then posted a Wiki that also said it was false.

So you are going through all of this because I was off by 20MHz?
Quote
I would also like to point out that wiki's are not always the best place for information to be obtained.

Don't like wiki?  Here are some more:
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter1/ion2.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node69.html
Now we can go back and forth all day, but to say that radio is not my strong point...If I am not sure what I am taking about, I research it.  I did my homework and came to a conclusion.  After even more research, I stand by my statement with the edit of 30 MHZ if that will make you happy.  Are there certain phenomenon that will allow higher radio frequencies to reflect back to earth?  I'm sure there are.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: lomfs24 on June 22, 2006, 04:32:37 PM
Yes, I am going through all this because you were off by 20MHz or more. 20 MHz in the radio world is a huge chunk of bandwidth. You can get a lot of tons of channels out of a couple MHz.

Anyway, we can put all this mumbo jumbo to rest because in the FE model there is no atmosphere to bounce off so this is all a conspiracy. Right?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 22, 2006, 05:11:47 PM
Quote from: "lomfs24"
Yes, I am going through all this because you were off by 20MHz or more. 20 MHz in the radio world is a huge chunk of bandwidth. You can get a lot of tons of channels out of a couple MHz.

So instead of just saying "don't you mean 30MHz"  or "actually it is 30MHz" you have to go on and on about AM this and FM that? Judging from the sites I provided, I obvously new it was around 30MHz.  But simply stating what my error was must have been too easy for a (going out on a limb here) ham radio enthusiast.
Quote
Anyway, we can put all this mumbo jumbo to rest because in the FE model there is no atmosphere to bounce off so this is all a conspiracy. Right?

I don't know what the FE says about the atmosphere, or it's layers.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 22, 2006, 07:15:24 PM
Quote from: "lomfs24"
Yes, I am going through all this because you were off by 20MHz or more.

I think you are going through all this for one of two reasons.

1)  You saw a discussion that you knew something about: radio.  You figured you would take advantage of my statement of 10MHz and below to show the forum what you knew about the topic.  I assume you are a ham enthusiast since you referenced it numerous times, so I am sure you know something about radio.

The one I find more likely:
2)  You saw the discussion about radio and given your ham experience you thought you knew all about EM theory.  So when you saw my post about the ionosphere not reflecting back all frequencies of radio, you thought, "What nonsense!"  Now you start to argue about radio like I don't know what it is, and proceed to tell me how wrong I am.  Then I post supporting evidence for my claim, which was slightly off, and you realize you had no idea that I was right.

Why do I believe this to be so?  Let's review your posts:
Quote
TheEngineer, obviously radio theory is not your strong suit. I respect a lot of what you are saying but you should leave radio theory alone.

Such a strong statement to make just because I was off by 20MHz on the range...Or could it be because you thought I was totally wrong?
Quote
Frequencies below 100 MHz are frequently bounced.

Hmm...you just admitted that the threshold was 30MHz.
Quote
Again, Engineer, radio is not your stong suit, stay away from it.

Not my strong suit because of a 20MHz error?  Even though everything else I stated about the nuances of EM radiation was right - all throughout this entire thread?  Or not my strong suit because you thought you were right?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: lomfs24 on June 22, 2006, 09:30:21 PM
You are wrong. There I just pointed out your error. LMFAO.

No, the reason I went to all that trouble is because you repeatedly made inaccurate statements while trying to prove some sort of point about radio. Because of the wildly inaccurate statements I am not sure what you are trying to prove.

First you said nothing above AM could be bounced. Then you said nothing above 10Mhz could be bounced. Then you posted some Wiki that proved you even further wrong. You have twisted my statements by saying that I said the threshold was 30MHz when I said nothing of the sort. In fact as you quoted I said that frequencies below 100 MHz are frequently bounced. I even specifically mentioned the 6 meter band that is bounced. It was your wiki quote that put the magic number of 30 MHz on it.

Now, please put it to rest so we can continue with out regularily scheduled posting. And don't try to tell me it was I who highjacked this thread. It was you who first said that AM couldn't be bounced with proves nothing here nor there for or against FE or RE.

Wow, such tempers on a stupid message board about the most ridiculous topic in the world.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 22, 2006, 11:52:54 PM
Quote from: "lomfs24"

No, the reason I went to all that trouble is because you repeatedly made inaccurate statements while trying to prove some sort of point about radio. Because of the wildly inaccurate statements I am not sure what you are trying to prove.

Wildly inaccurate?  20MHz is wildly inaccurate, on a scale up to hundreds of GHz?
Quote
Then you said nothing above 10Mhz could be bounced.

I said I believed that was the number but it was actually 30MHz. 20MHz difference, oops.
You posted:
Quote
Frequencies below 100 MHz are frequently bounced.

When I presented you with documentation that it was not true, you said:
Quote
Yes, I am going through all this because you were off by 20MHz or more.

Quote
You have twisted my statements by saying that I said the threshold was 30MHz

Actually you implied it in the quote above, and in doing so, you stated that the only problem you had with my statement was the number.  Now this number did not just come from wiki, it also came from 8 other sources that I found after just three minutes of looking.  I also found a mathematical model if you want it.
Quote
Then you posted some Wiki that proved you even further wrong.

Actually the wiki and the other sources proved you wrong in saying that 100MHz are bounced regularly.
Quote
And don't try to tell me it was I who highjacked this thread. It was you who first said that AM couldn't be bounced

I never said anything about highjacking or that AM couldn't be bounced.
Quote
Wow, such tempers on a stupid message board about the most ridiculous topic in the world.

I agree:
Quote
TheEngineer, obviously radio theory is not your strong suit...you should leave radio theory alone.

Why are you so angry?
Quote
No, the reason I went to all that trouble is because you repeatedly made inaccurate statements

So far, I have provided the links that show EM interaction with the ionosphere and I can even bring into this a mathematical model.  All you have brought is "I do it all the time."

Now, I can leave it alone. (It's all a conspiracy anyway)
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: lomfs24 on June 23, 2006, 05:56:21 AM
Yes, in the radio world 20 MHz is wildly inaccurate. "I was trying to talk to you but you didn't respond. I was only 20 MHz off, I don't get it" Yes, it is wildly inaccurate.
You are right, you didn't say AM couldn't be bounced. You said anything above AM couldn't be bounced. Which is just a sentence that means nothing. Therefore, wildly inaccurate.

I was agreeing with you that you were no less than 20 MHz off but clearly stated that freq's above 30 MHz could be bounced. Again, it was your wiki quote that placed the magic number.

As far as me "doing it all the time". If I have a choice and I want to believe something I will pick personal experiences over what I read on a wiki or other website any day of the week. And mathmatical models alway work in a perfect world but don't always work in the real world.

Why am I so angry? LOL Read your post a couple up and answer the same question. I am not angry I am simply pointing out where you are wrong. And instead of just saying "You are wrong" I gave you reasons why you were wrong.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on June 23, 2006, 03:14:44 PM
Quote from: "lomfs24"
If I have a choice and I want to believe something I will pick personal experiences over what I read on a wiki or other website any day of the week.

The funny thing is that this is exactly the same sentiment that the FE'ers get riddiculed for all the time!
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: lomfs24 on June 23, 2006, 08:52:38 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "lomfs24"
If I have a choice and I want to believe something I will pick personal experiences over what I read on a wiki or other website any day of the week.

The funny thing is that this is exactly the same sentiment that the FE'ers get riddiculed for all the time!
Touché
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: xderosa on July 12, 2006, 12:58:52 PM
Why dont you go back to the original point about spherical geometry and how that if you have 3 people standing in a triangle formation on the surface (at the same height above sea level) the angles between them will be more than 180.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Erasmus on July 12, 2006, 01:01:24 PM
Quote from: "xderosa"
Why dont you go back to the original point about spherical geometry and how that if you have 3 people standing in a triangle formation on the surface (at the same height above sea level) the angles between them will be more than 180.

I think the most reasonable FE response would be: go ahead and try it -- you'll find that the angles will sum to exactly 180 degrees, within experimental error.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: xderosa on July 12, 2006, 01:03:57 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "xderosa"
Why dont you go back to the original point about spherical geometry and how that if you have 3 people standing in a triangle formation on the surface (at the same height above sea level) the angles between them will be more than 180.

I think the most reasonable FE response would be: go ahead and try it -- you'll find that the angles will sum to exactly 180 degrees, within experimental error.

Not if you had one person in australia, one in africa and one in hawai'i. There would be a considerable deviation from the expected 180 value.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Erasmus on July 12, 2006, 01:05:55 PM
Quote from: "xderosa"
Not if you had one person in australia, one in africa and one in hawai'i. There would be a considerable deviation from the expected 180 value.

No, say the FEers -- even then you would have the expected Euclidean sum.

Anyway, aks the FEers, how exactly are the people in Africa, Hawai'i, and Australia going to measure the angles to one another?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: xderosa on July 12, 2006, 01:09:25 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "xderosa"
Not if you had one person in australia, one in africa and one in hawai'i. There would be a considerable deviation from the expected 180 value.

No, say the FEers -- even then you would have the expected Euclidean sum.

Anyway, aks the FEers, how exactly are the people in Africa, Hawai'i, and Australia going to measure the angles to one another?

on a flat earth thats actually quite easy.. since they will all be in LOS with eacfh other (provided they are high enough)
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Erasmus on July 12, 2006, 01:12:31 PM
Quote from: "xderosa"
on a flat earth thats actually quite easy.. since they will all be in LOS with eacfh other (provided they are high enough)

I thought you were talking about what would happen on a round Earth.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: xderosa on July 12, 2006, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "xderosa"
on a flat earth thats actually quite easy.. since they will all be in LOS with eacfh other (provided they are high enough)

I thought you were talking about what would happen on a round Earth.

Well this experiment can be done on a FE but cannot be done on a RE, so why not try it out to proove your theory once and for all. if you can manage to do it using LOS techniques and get an answer of exactly 180 degrees you may convert some people
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Erasmus on July 12, 2006, 01:21:43 PM
Quote from: "xderosa"
Well this experiment can be done on a FE but cannot be done on a RE, so why not try it out to proove your theory once and for all. if you can manage to do it using LOS techniques and get an answer of exactly 180 degrees you may convert some people

Thanks for the suggestion, but it's still pretty difficult.  The points in question are so far away that I think they would likely be too small to see and discern from the surrounding landscape with any accuracy.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: xderosa on July 12, 2006, 01:23:15 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "xderosa"
Well this experiment can be done on a FE but cannot be done on a RE, so why not try it out to proove your theory once and for all. if you can manage to do it using LOS techniques and get an answer of exactly 180 degrees you may convert some people

Thanks for the suggestion, but it's still pretty difficult.  The points in question are so far away that I think they would likely be too small to see and discern from the surrounding landscape with any accuracy.

Use lasers.. in the RE world scientists have managed to bounce lasers off the moon to measure the distance between the earth and the moon.. an experiment like this should be easy.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Erasmus on July 12, 2006, 01:26:03 PM
Quote from: "xderosa"
in the RE world scientists have managed to bounce lasers off the moon to measure the distance between the earth and the moon..

The moon is fairly big.  Also, I'm fairly certain that FEers don't believe that scientists have really done that, so they would have no reason to believe they could do a much more precise version of it.

Also, mostly we're interested in experiments that we can perform ourselves, with minimal equipment.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: xderosa on July 12, 2006, 01:31:53 PM
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "xderosa"
in the RE world scientists have managed to bounce lasers off the moon to measure the distance between the earth and the moon..

The moon is fairly big.  Also, I'm fairly certain that FEers don't believe that scientists have really done that, so they would have no reason to believe they could do a much more precise version of it.

Also, mostly we're interested in experiments that we can perform ourselves, with minimal equipment.

Don't you mean not interested in experiments that would proove or disproove the theory once and for all?

I find it ridiculous how much FEers dismiss as conspiracy.. givernments.. air pilots... 'ice wall' patrol.. scientists... how many people AREN'T in on this conspiracy
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: EnCrypto on July 12, 2006, 01:32:23 PM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "lomfs24"
If I have a choice and I want to believe something I will pick personal experiences over what I read on a wiki or other website any day of the week.

The funny thing is that this is exactly the same sentiment that the FE'ers get riddiculed for all the time!

But the simple observation that you use to conclude that Earth is flat, it also appears that the Sun rises and falls, and that at some point, Earth is between the Sun and Moon, thus casting a shadow on the moon that can only seen by certain geographic points, and it appears that hulls of ships disappear first over the horizon.

Why is it that all of these must be optical illusions and not the other way around?

In other words (assuming that one of the two appearances is an illusion): If you see two things that appear one way, but their appearances contradict each other, how do you decide which is a false appearance and which is the true appearance?
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: Mephistopheles on July 12, 2006, 02:58:11 PM
Quote from: "xderosa"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "xderosa"
in the RE world scientists have managed to bounce lasers off the moon to measure the distance between the earth and the moon..

The moon is fairly big.  Also, I'm fairly certain that FEers don't believe that scientists have really done that, so they would have no reason to believe they could do a much more precise version of it.

Also, mostly we're interested in experiments that we can perform ourselves, with minimal equipment.

Don't you mean not interested in experiments that would proove or disproove the theory once and for all?

I find it ridiculous how much FEers dismiss as conspiracy.. givernments.. air pilots... 'ice wall' patrol.. scientists... how many people AREN'T in on this conspiracy

You speak as if this is a wide-spread conspiracy.  I find it more plausible that a secret society had enough influence/control was able to infiltrate our educational facilities with round Earth doctrine.  This means people grow to the idea (the only idea) that the Earth is round.  In sciences relating to astronomy and the studies of the Earth, they do everything with the mindset of a round Earth as a given.

For this, the conspiracy does not have to be nearly as widespread as the impression of this site often leaves.

The widespread belief then allows mass blind acceptance of the nature of Earth as we see on even cartoon shows for children.  They encounter shows depicting the Earth in space as a round planet and find globes in the store.  Before they are taught anything of this planet, they already know it is round.

In essence, we do not see lies; rather misinformation.
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: xderosa on July 12, 2006, 05:52:11 PM
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
Quote from: "xderosa"
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "xderosa"
in the RE world scientists have managed to bounce lasers off the moon to measure the distance between the earth and the moon..

The moon is fairly big.  Also, I'm fairly certain that FEers don't believe that scientists have really done that, so they would have no reason to believe they could do a much more precise version of it.

Also, mostly we're interested in experiments that we can perform ourselves, with minimal equipment.

Don't you mean not interested in experiments that would proove or disproove the theory once and for all?

I find it ridiculous how much FEers dismiss as conspiracy.. givernments.. air pilots... 'ice wall' patrol.. scientists... how many people AREN'T in on this conspiracy

You speak as if this is a wide-spread conspiracy.  I find it more plausible that a secret society had enough influence/control was able to infiltrate our educational facilities with round Earth doctrine.  This means people grow to the idea (the only idea) that the Earth is round.  In sciences relating to astronomy and the studies of the Earth, they do everything with the mindset of a round Earth as a given.

For this, the conspiracy does not have to be nearly as widespread as the impression of this site often leaves.

The widespread belief then allows mass blind acceptance of the nature of Earth as we see on even cartoon shows for children.  They encounter shows depicting the Earth in space as a round planet and find globes in the store.  Before they are taught anything of this planet, they already know it is round.

In essence, we do not see lies; rather misinformation.

actually in response to questions regarding air travel and how pilots circumnavigating the world would actually fly in a circle rather than a straight line would have to be constantly changing course replied by saying the pilots must be in on the conspiracy. Also, they have said how the ice wall is patrolled all the time by the government so that no one can verify its existance, a mammoth task for a 70,000 mile 'border', just how many people would need to be involved in gaurding that. And then there are scientists, whose experiments have shown that the earth is curved.. they must truly know the shape of the earth, and also the fake sdatellites and what not.. a LOT of people

you cant keep something like that a secret
Title: EXPLAIN THIS
Post by: TheEngineer on July 12, 2006, 06:11:34 PM
Quote from: "xderosa"

actually in response to questions regarding air travel and how pilots circumnavigating the world would actually fly in a circle rather than a straight line would have to be constantly changing course replied by saying the pilots must be in on the conspiracy.

Pilots fly by a compass.  If they want to go west, they line up the compass so that they are facing that direction.  They are not actually changing course, they are keeping with a direction.