The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: XaeXae on September 09, 2015, 09:26:39 AM

Title: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: XaeXae on September 09, 2015, 09:26:39 AM
I asked this on another topic ( http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64409.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64409.0) ), but I didn't get any answers from FEers. Could you please give me a list of all of your arguments, or at least of the most important of them ?

Please don't post anything else on this topic.

 :)
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: JerkFace on September 09, 2015, 10:36:08 AM
Marko provided a link to this on the other forum.   Thanks Opus.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball (http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball)!.pdf

It's   Eric Doobuymybook's  200 proofs,   mostly  Rowbotham et al regurgitated,   didn't see any new arguments. 

Happy debunking,

Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: XaeXae on September 09, 2015, 10:56:56 AM
Marko provided a link to this on the other forum.   Thanks Opus.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball (http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball)!.pdf

It's   Eric Doobuymybook's  200 proofs,   mostly  Rowbotham et al regurgitated,   didn't see any new arguments. 

Happy debunking,

I'm going to dismiss a few of them :)

1 : We already see a (very small) curvature of the horizon from weather balloons at about 40 km. This curvature is exactly the one expected by the RET.

2 : The horizon seems to rise with the observor's level because it is very far away. Consider a point 10 kilometers above the horizon. It will appear to be nearly at the same altitude, right ? Now imagine the opposite : you are at 10 kilometers above the horizon. Without any other reference point, it is hard to tell if the horizon really moved.

3 : RE calculations show that gravity is far more important than Earth rotation at this scale.

I could continue for a very long time like this, but I have other things to do.  ;)
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: mikeman7918 on September 09, 2015, 11:24:31 AM
Here is an exhaustive list of flat Earth proof:

It kind of looks flat up close at first glance.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: XaeXae on September 09, 2015, 12:34:47 PM
If someone is okay to debunk the 197 other arguments, he is free to do it :)
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 09, 2015, 01:12:45 PM
Marko provided a link to this on the other forum.   Thanks Opus.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball (http://www.mediafire.com/view/l679prcg097ny8u/200_Proofs_Earth_is_Not_a_Spinning_Ball)!.pdf

It's   Eric Doobuymybook's  200 proofs,   mostly  Rowbotham et al regurgitated,   didn't see any new arguments. 

Happy debunking,

I'm going to dismiss a few of them :)

1 : We already see a (very small) curvature of the horizon from weather balloons at about 40 km. This curvature is exactly the one expected by the RET.

2 : The horizon seems to rise with the observor's level because it is very far away. Consider a point 10 kilometers above the horizon. It will appear to be nearly at the same altitude, right ? Now imagine the opposite : you are at 10 kilometers above the horizon. Without any other reference point, it is hard to tell if the horizon really moved.

3 : RE calculations show that gravity is far more important than Earth rotation at this scale.

I could continue for a very long time like this, but I have other things to do.  ;)

4: What an idiot...

5: Same as 4, plus the "only falls 1 foot" shit is relative to sea level, not an absolute value.

6: "As NASA and modern astronomy claim" I'm sorry, but even the ancient Greeks knew the Earth is round. Oh yeah, and if you multiply it by the square of the distance, you get a parabola, not a circle. And no, there is no single experiment that actually shows that, however, ships sinking below the horizon and only being able to see the tops of buildings is good proof that the earth is round.

7: Yeah, of course they are. Because the curvature is wayyy too little to be noticed like that. Those errors are corrected on the spot without anyone noticing, because the difference is too tiny. Besides, it's not much different than asking why they don't have to make allowances for the flat earth model (trying to build railways that go straight from east to west or vice versa would require them turning).

8: Same as 4 and 5.

9: ARE WE SERIOUSLY STILL DOING THIS?? WTF?  >:( ??? ::) >:(

10: GAAAAAH!

11: JUST STFU! FIND SOMETHING ELSE, DUMB MORON! YOU'RE KILLING ME!

12: ...

13: First of all, stop trying to calculate the curvature by squaring the distance. It's dumb beyond belief. Second, and how much would it appear to change over the distance of 100 miles? Here's a clue: not much. Even on a flat surface, it would already appear to be pretty close to the horizon. Even with the flawed calculation of 1.25 miles (which is WAYYY off), its apparent position would still change little.

14: Here we go again...

15: Airplanes point their nose upwards even when they are landing. Does that prevent them from going down? No. Instead of thinking it as half a mile a minute, think of it as 1/10 of a degree every 10 km. Don't you know what those altimeters are there for? Adjusting the altitude. The pilot's job or the autopilot's job is to find a way to keep the airplane level. You don't have to nose down a lot. Just a tiny bit for every 5 miles or something. Plus the calculation is utterly ridiculous, because it uses the squared distance.

16: It merely disproves aether.

17: This merely disproves that the universe has infinite stars and that the universe is static. This is actually in favor of the Big Bang and the expanding universe.

18: These experiments disprove the luminiferous aether hypothesis. Special relativity explains them.

19: That is utterly stupid. Anyone who knows how to use trigonometry can realize that no difference could ever be seen. When the Earth goes to the other side of the sun, it has changed its position by approximately 16 light minutes. The closest star is 4.24 light years away. Can you please give me the angle that has a tangent of 1/140000? Because my calculator isn't accurate enough, and it gives me 0.

And, finally, for now, 20: First of all, this is bullshit. It's impossible for cannonballs to be that accurate. Even with only the aerodynamic effects to be the variables, there isn't a chance the cannonballs would fall straight into the barrel. Also, does this guy think that when launched upwards, it stops moving? Because it still moves at 1000mph when it's launched upwards, idiot.

It's really tempting to debunk more, because it's so easy, but... I'll just stay to those for now.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 09, 2015, 01:13:39 PM
If someone is okay to debunk the 197 other arguments, he is free to do it :)

It's not that hard. Besides, they're pretty much just the same thing over and over again. They could have easily been condensed to 50.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: XaeXae on September 09, 2015, 04:07:27 PM
I think these are more like 200 examples, not 200 arguments. Could be condensed into something like 20 - 30 arguments.

And, for the 7, I found an example of structure that takes in account Earth's curvature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano%E2%80%93Narrows_Bridge#Statistics
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: XaeXae on September 09, 2015, 04:24:10 PM
Also, lots of these examples could be explained by the inertia of the body on Earth's surface (for example the 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29...) ;)

Even more of them are just misconceptions of the gravity theory, or of other scientific theories. ;)
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on September 10, 2015, 12:07:48 AM
45 - My Aunt flies from Sydney to Johannesburg with no stop overs fairly often.
46 & 47 - Flown from Johannesburg to Buenos Airs and back via Sao Paolo to Johannesburg myself, all direct flights. Can confirm lots of ocean.

So much sillyness
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 10, 2015, 01:49:59 AM
Lol 21... This guy thinks that when you take off of the surface of the earth, you just suddenly stop moving...
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 10, 2015, 01:27:35 PM
This is a rather extreme question. Listing every argument in any situation would be exhausting. In addition, there could be no arguments against a theory: another theory could still be better.

For me, what matters is not the flaws in the RE model, but the fact that the scientific explanation of the world with RE assumed has far too many gaps in.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: XaeXae on September 10, 2015, 02:38:08 PM
This is a rather extreme question. Listing every argument in any situation would be exhausting.

What don't you understand in "at least the most important of them" ?

Oh, and learn the distinction between "argument" and "example". ;)

Quote
In addition, there could be no arguments against a theory: another theory could still be better.


How could FET be better than RET ? Occam's razor will destroy FET even if there are no arguments against it. ;D

Quote
For me, what matters is not the flaws in the RE model, but the fact that the scientific explanation of the world with RE assumed has far too many gaps in.

Too many gaps ? What gaps ? These gaps are the arguments I wait for !
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Son of Orospu on September 10, 2015, 03:57:00 PM
lol, you can just read google.  I am sure that you idiots can only copy/ paste and have no actual debate skills, but you don't have to advertise it all the time. 
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Mikey T. on September 10, 2015, 04:46:57 PM
I'm sure Eric Dubay is not considered an authority on flat Earth facts anyway but the arguments he posted shows a complete lack of the mental capacity to understand the size difference between a person and the Earth.  Many others are deliberate miscalculations to fool a naive person into drinking the cool-aid.  Definately Not Official made a good point earlier about train tracks.  Using teh FE logic of supposedly not accounting for the curvature of the Earth in their construction, you could say that train tracks running East-West or vice versa(same damn thing really) there is no accounting for the FE curvature left or right.  So if you had a completely straight set of railroad tracks, then there is no way it could go from East to West (once again or vice versa for you anal retentive types) and maintain a straight line.  Due East and due west could never be a straight path on a FE. 
As for the crack about debating skills, thank you jroa for the reminder of the biggest guns a FE person has against actual disproofs is a snide one liner which basically just insults their opponent.  No counterpoint, no offer of clarification about claims, just insulting behavior.  So queue some of the more colorful FE supporters on this forum to come in and give obviously flawed arguments sometimes completely misusing scientific terms (babble for anyone paying attention). 

There is one and only one argument that can stand as slight evidence for a Flat Earth.  It is measuring shadows from large distances apart.  It can actually mathematically be proven to be either the Earth is flat and the Sun is only 3000 miles away and very small or the same measurements can be used to determine the spherical circumference of the Earth.  One problem with this evidence is that if you measure the shadows assuming the Earth is flat, then the shadows will tell you that the sun gets closer to the Earth during morning and evening hours, yet your evening hours are midday for someone else and the same rules apply for them.  So how can it be closer and further away at the same time?  Also measuring these shadows from different latitudes (Farther North or South) it will give you different altitudes for the Sun.  But how can that be?  If you use the experiment data for what the experiment was designed for, then no matter where you are on the face of the Earth, no matter what time of the daylight hours you perform the experiment, the results for the circumference of the Earth are the same.  So which is simpler?  If the results for the experiment shows consistency with one argument but do not show consistency with the other argument, either the second argument is false or the math used is wrong.  I find it much simpler to see that the FE argument is incorrect rather than saying that math is wrong.  I find it simpler to believe in what I see, or have experienced first hand rather than thinking there is a massive conspiracy to hide the truth from me.  It is simpler to me to see that if mathematics works for everything we test it on that it is probably telling me the truth when used as a proof rather than saying math must be flawed since it doesn't agree with a paranoid state of mindset that needs a big dark scary conspiracy with all the trimmings for me to be special.
I prefer to believe in what I can test myself.  So far, with every test I can do myself its pretty much:
 FE = 0 vs  Science & Mathematics = (insert large number here, or any number of completed experiments done with proper controls)
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on September 10, 2015, 11:30:38 PM
This is a rather extreme question. Listing every argument in any situation would be exhausting. In addition, there could be no arguments against a theory: another theory could still be better.

For me, what matters is not the flaws in the RE model, but the fact that the scientific explanation of the world with RE assumed has far too many gaps in.
Take on those flaws and see where the evidence leads you.
If there are such obvious flaws new evidence could lead to a Torus shaped world, your fixation on a flat world with no supporting evidence will get you nowhere.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: charles bloomington on September 11, 2015, 12:13:46 AM
Now now children .The world is definitely round. Why? because micky had an extremely large set of testicles for a  mouse . Which was  inspirational at the time. The science communities all round the world  leaped in to action & the race was on  to confirm the  shape of earth was indeed mouse scrotum-ed .I kid you not  trendsetters .Long hours of butt slapping pandemonium & rogerring Rogers roger went in to buggering  out the figures.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: XaeXae on September 11, 2015, 03:46:45 AM
Now now children .The world is definitely round. Why? because micky had an extremely large set of testicles for a  mouse . Which was  inspirational at the time. The science communities all round the world  leaped in to action & the race was on  to confirm the  shape of earth was indeed mouse scrotum-ed .I kid you not  trendsetters .Long hours of butt slapping pandemonium & rogerring Rogers roger went in to buggering  out the figures.

What don't you understand in "Please don't post anything else on this topic" ? ???
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 11, 2015, 06:24:18 AM
Quote
What don't you understand in "at least the most important of them" ?
How is it you believe arguments can so easily be divided like that? Further, it's rare that there is one or two clinching arguments; far more it's the weight of them that does the convincing.

Quote
How could FET be better than RET ? Occam's razor will destroy FET even if there are no arguments against it.
I am not sure you are aware of how Occam's Razor works. The claim you make is very bold, and only works because you are not addressing any model. You simply assume that there will never be evidence for any aspect of any FE theory. This is a claim that requires more justification than the fact you believe in a RE. It is meaningless in any serious discussion.

Quote
Too many gaps ? What gaps ? These gaps are the arguments I wait for !
No, they're not. General gaps in RE science are how the moon is not adequately understood or explained, why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud), the Allais effect...
There could well be RE answers. The point is only that the quantity of gaps makes it worth questioning whether the model that includes them will be accurate.

Quote
If there are such obvious flaws new evidence could lead to a Torus shaped world, your fixation on a flat world with no supporting evidence will get you nowhere.
I am not fixated. I am examining a hypothesis: this is the scientific method. You cannot decide that this is pointless merely because you disagree with what I'm testing.
I am developing a FE model from the basics. A map that must be true, refinements to existing knowledge that must hold (and don't contradict existing knowledge)... This is not a fixation with no evidence, every step i take is based wholly on evidence. if it turns out that there is a necessary contradiction, or that an experiment to test the model goes against it when repeatedly performed, then I will reject FE theory. Until then, I will develop a working hypothesis because this is what scientists do.
This is the scientific method. You do not get to reject it because you would rather insult FE, nor can you merely assume I am not following it.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 11, 2015, 06:57:27 AM
Quote
What don't you understand in "at least the most important of them" ?
How is it you believe arguments can so easily be divided like that? Further, it's rare that there is one or two clinching arguments; far more it's the weight of them that does the convincing.

Quote
How could FET be better than RET ? Occam's razor will destroy FET even if there are no arguments against it.
I am not sure you are aware of how Occam's Razor works. The claim you make is very bold, and only works because you are not addressing any model. You simply assume that there will never be evidence for any aspect of any FE theory. This is a claim that requires more justification than the fact you believe in a RE. It is meaningless in any serious discussion.

Quote
Too many gaps ? What gaps ? These gaps are the arguments I wait for !
No, they're not. General gaps in RE science are how the moon is not adequately understood or explained, why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud), the Allais effect...
There could well be RE answers. The point is only that the quantity of gaps makes it worth questioning whether the model that includes them will be accurate.

Quote
If there are such obvious flaws new evidence could lead to a Torus shaped world, your fixation on a flat world with no supporting evidence will get you nowhere.
I am not fixated. I am examining a hypothesis: this is the scientific method. You cannot decide that this is pointless merely because you disagree with what I'm testing.
I am developing a FE model from the basics. A map that must be true, refinements to existing knowledge that must hold (and don't contradict existing knowledge)... This is not a fixation with no evidence, every step i take is based wholly on evidence. if it turns out that there is a necessary contradiction, or that an experiment to test the model goes against it when repeatedly performed, then I will reject FE theory. Until then, I will develop a working hypothesis because this is what scientists do.
This is the scientific method. You do not get to reject it because you would rather insult FE, nor can you merely assume I am not following it.

What do you mean "the moon is not adequately understood or explained"? This makes little sense... What is it supposed to mean? Could you please elaborate? And how can you say that when the explanation of the FE model for the size of the planets is "pretty small"? I'm serious, that's all they've got about the other planets! Check the Wiki! "Pretty small". That's an adequate explanation I guess. And don't use that "without refinement" card again on me, because that nullifies your points about gaps. Then you say "why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud)". I don't know what your problem about this is. It's obvious that the planets are much more dense than gases. Why not be that empty? It makes perfect sense to me. It's like trying to assemble little balls from all the dust flying around in your house. I bet they wouldn't be that close to each other.

As for the Allais effect, it's a bit hard to determine what exactly is going on with it. Half of the experiments say that it wasn't observed, half say that is was, and nobody knows exactly what is going on. I've seen some explanations, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusive one. But including it in your "gaps" of RE is a bit of a trap, as it was observed with a Foucault pendulum, something that flat earthers reject as fake or rigged or whatever, because there is no way to explain it on a flat earth.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 11, 2015, 04:10:14 PM
Quote
What do you mean "the moon is not adequately understood or explained"? This makes little sense... What is it supposed to mean? Could you please elaborate?
When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles. Moon rocks are magnetised despite the fact the moon has no magnetic field. The oldest moon rocks are dated to be older than the Earth: and I recall reading one was dated 5.3 billion years, older than our Solar System. There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks. In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth.
Those are the easiest facts to note. Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us, how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse...

Quote
And how can you say that when the explanation of the FE model for the size of the planets is "pretty small"? I'm serious, that's all they've got about the other planets! Check the Wiki! "Pretty small". That's an adequate explanation I guess. And don't use that "without refinement" card again on me, because that nullifies your points about gaps.
RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research.

Quote
Then you say "why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud)". I don't know what your problem about this is. It's obvious that the planets are much more dense than gases. Why not be that empty? It makes perfect sense to me. It's like trying to assemble little balls from all the dust flying around in your house. I bet they wouldn't be that close to each other.
Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances.

Quote
As for the Allais effect, it's a bit hard to determine what exactly is going on with it. Half of the experiments say that it wasn't observed, half say that is was, and nobody knows exactly what is going on. I've seen some explanations, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusive one. But including it in your "gaps" of RE is a bit of a trap, as it was observed with a Foucault pendulum, something that flat earthers reject as fake or rigged or whatever, because there is no way to explain it on a flat earth.
Your claim 'there is no way to explain it on a flat Earth' is an unjustified one; the best you can say is that it has not yet been explained. Even so, the Allais effect has been repeatedly reported; far more than an error of measurement would be. The fact it doesn't always occur doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There's been too much corroboration.
If the RE model does not explain the behavior of Foucalt pendulums, why are they touted as an advantage over FE?
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: chtwrone on September 11, 2015, 10:59:03 PM
lol, you can just read google.  I am sure that you idiots can only copy/ paste and have no actual debate skills, but you don't have to advertise it all the time.

You constantly bemoan references to Wikipedia and google, but the only references you use are your own ignorant opinions.

So why should we take any notice of you and your ignorant thoughts - you're obviously not educated or knowledgeable enough to take any notice of - you're a big fat nobody who talks shit.

Your stupid flat earth theory falls to bits completely when you're asked to explain the well documented and confirmed FACT of 24 hour Antarctic summer sun.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: XaeXae on September 12, 2015, 03:13:44 AM
Quote
What do you mean "the moon is not adequately understood or explained"? This makes little sense... What is it supposed to mean? Could you please elaborate?
When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles. Moon rocks are magnetised despite the fact the moon has no magnetic field. The oldest moon rocks are dated to be older than the Earth: and I recall reading one was dated 5.3 billion years, older than our Solar System. There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks. In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth.
Those are the easiest facts to note. Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us, how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse...

This is a false dichotomy. Earth didn't capture a satellite, but, after a collision with a protoplanet of our solar system, ejected a big part of its internal constituents, that formed the moon. These things were magnetised, so the Moon magnetisation is also explained. For Uranium/Neptunium, same logic : they already occured in Earth. For the moon rock datation, show me where you found this, because it doesn't look very credible.

Quote
Quote
And how can you say that when the explanation of the FE model for the size of the planets is "pretty small"? I'm serious, that's all they've got about the other planets! Check the Wiki! "Pretty small". That's an adequate explanation I guess. And don't use that "without refinement" card again on me, because that nullifies your points about gaps.
RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research.

Basically the planet size question is answered. It has been proven that the size of the other planets are more or less the same as that of Earth.

Quote
Quote
Then you say "why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud)". I don't know what your problem about this is. It's obvious that the planets are much more dense than gases. Why not be that empty? It makes perfect sense to me. It's like trying to assemble little balls from all the dust flying around in your house. I bet they wouldn't be that close to each other.
Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances.

The protoplanetary disc was very, very smaller than Neptune, and very, very empty. Outer planets were just ejected, according to the planetary formation model.

Quote
Quote
As for the Allais effect, it's a bit hard to determine what exactly is going on with it. Half of the experiments say that it wasn't observed, half say that is was, and nobody knows exactly what is going on. I've seen some explanations, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusive one. But including it in your "gaps" of RE is a bit of a trap, as it was observed with a Foucault pendulum, something that flat earthers reject as fake or rigged or whatever, because there is no way to explain it on a flat earth.
Your claim 'there is no way to explain it on a flat Earth' is an unjustified one; the best you can say is that it has not yet been explained. Even so, the Allais effect has been repeatedly reported; far more than an error of measurement would be. The fact it doesn't always occur doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There's been too much corroboration.
If the RE model does not explain the behavior of Foucalt pendulums, why are they touted as an advantage over FE?
[/quote]

RE model explain the behavior of the Foucault pendulum... ::)

The experiments to search the Allais effect were done 5 times (with only 3 positive results), with no well-defined experimental protocol. And even if it isn't a measurement error, it doesn't question the viability of the RE model, just because it's not related to the shape of the Earth !
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on September 12, 2015, 03:33:18 AM
FEScietist, you said you where trying to show a FE using existing science. But then you said all these things.

Quote
1 When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles.2 Moon rocks are magnetised despite the fact the moon has no magnetic field. 3The oldest moon rocks are dated to be older than the Earth: and I recall reading one was dated 5.3 billion years, older than our Solar System. 4There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks. In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth.
Those are the easiest facts to note. 5Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us, 6how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse...

1Any two bodies can orbit each other regardless of size. Did you know that the earth has thousands of tiny satellites orbiting it too. Small satellites are however less stable and can degrade relatively quickly, especially when you have something as massive as the moon also in the system. Anything orbiting the earth with the moon around would either get kicked out or pulled into either of the bodies. Thats why we only have one Moon.
2 The moon does have a small magnetic field
3 The oldest rocks on the moon can easily be older than the earth and moon. They just did not come from the moon. This is no giant leap of thought. The moon has no way to weather material on its surface such as the earth, so it is an ideal place to find meteorites.
4 The leading theory of how the moon was formed - a giant meteor collided with earth 4.something billion years ago, the throw off formed the moon. Supporting material composition shows this to be a fair theory. As for the other elements found on the moon, see 3
5 This is a consequence of 2 large objects orbiting each other at such a close distance. If the moon was much heavier the earth would be doing the same. Fortunately for us, the earth wins the battle of mass, and the moon becomes tidally locked with us. No coincidence.
6 This is actually mostly a coincidence of time more than size. the moon is moving further away from us by a few mm each year. SO a few million years ago it was much larger than the sun in the sky.

Quote
RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research.
It is also easier to study the shape of the world. You dont need a heck lot of time to find the shape of the planet nowa days.

Quote
Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances.
No we would not expect more planets to fill those gaps.
First all the mass in the solar system would go the center of it gravity . . the sun, where 99% of the mass in the solar system is. Then close to the sun are the heavy elements and rocky planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. As you get further away from the center the amount of mass in the solar system is expected to go down. Jupiter has a massive orbit so it can take in a massive amount of material. But overall Jupiter's density is very low, same with the other outer planets. The solar system is formed exactly as expected.
Your statement would only be true if the solar system had an average mass distribution all the way to the outer planets during planet formation stage. There is no way that could have happened.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 12, 2015, 03:57:17 AM
Quote
What do you mean "the moon is not adequately understood or explained"? This makes little sense... What is it supposed to mean? Could you please elaborate?
When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles. Moon rocks are magnetised despite the fact the moon has no magnetic field. The oldest moon rocks are dated to be older than the Earth: and I recall reading one was dated 5.3 billion years, older than our Solar System. There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks. In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth.
Those are the easiest facts to note. Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us, how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse...

Quote
And how can you say that when the explanation of the FE model for the size of the planets is "pretty small"? I'm serious, that's all they've got about the other planets! Check the Wiki! "Pretty small". That's an adequate explanation I guess. And don't use that "without refinement" card again on me, because that nullifies your points about gaps.
RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research.

Quote
Then you say "why the Solar System is so empty and yet occupies such space (and resulted from one cloud)". I don't know what your problem about this is. It's obvious that the planets are much more dense than gases. Why not be that empty? It makes perfect sense to me. It's like trying to assemble little balls from all the dust flying around in your house. I bet they wouldn't be that close to each other.
Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances.

Quote
As for the Allais effect, it's a bit hard to determine what exactly is going on with it. Half of the experiments say that it wasn't observed, half say that is was, and nobody knows exactly what is going on. I've seen some explanations, but there doesn't seem to be a conclusive one. But including it in your "gaps" of RE is a bit of a trap, as it was observed with a Foucault pendulum, something that flat earthers reject as fake or rigged or whatever, because there is no way to explain it on a flat earth.
Your claim 'there is no way to explain it on a flat Earth' is an unjustified one; the best you can say is that it has not yet been explained. Even so, the Allais effect has been repeatedly reported; far more than an error of measurement would be. The fact it doesn't always occur doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There's been too much corroboration.
If the RE model does not explain the behavior of Foucalt pendulums, why are they touted as an advantage over FE?

What? You make no sense! "When a planet like the Earth, with a weak gravitational field, has a satellite, we'd predict it to maybe be 30 miles in diameter: the moon is 2160 miles." What is this supposed to mean? How do you reach to that conclusion? Because it makes no sense!

Now about the magnetization of rocks. The moon is said to have once had a weak magnetic field, but not anymore. What about the age of the rocks? These rocks come from craters. They are likely ancient asteroids that hit the moon. I've never heard of Neptunium on the moon, but Uranium also exists on Earth. It's mostly because of solar flares. Wait. Are you using moon rocks to disprove RET? That makes little sense... If moon rocks are real, then Apollo 17 is real, then... The earth is round...

"In addition, there is no way for the moon to be an asteroid captured by the Earth, such as Mars' moons (Mars being close to the asteroid belt) as it is far too big to have been caught by the Earth."

That's both true and false. First of all, the prevailing theory is that a Mars-sized planet hit the Earth, and from the debris the moon was created. But size does not pose a concern. No matter what the mass of the object is, the acceleration will be the same as it would be if you were being pulled towards the ground. Then you would also have the fact that the Earth itself would accelerate towards the other object.

"Then there are conveniences: how it so perfectly rotates such that only one side faces us"

Look up tidal locking.

"how it's positioned just so it blots out the Sun almost precisely during an eclipse..."

That's just a coincidence. It could be a little bit smaller, it could be a little bit larger, who cares. It happens to be that way.

"RE theory has has much more time to answer questions, and has the opportunity to answer these questions for quite some time: they're basic compared to half of what's being studied. A question unanswered in a major, popularly researched field of study means far, far more than an unanwered question in an area accepted by a few dozen people, most of which refuse to do research."

That's the excuse? Less time? Planets are very basic. FET should have had an adequate explanation for them by now. And it's not just a few dozens of people. I think there are like 3000 active flat earthers or something. Now what's your problem with the RE explanation of planets?

"Certainly, it makes sense at a basic level, but have you thought of how much matter, even in an approximately gaseous form, to fill, for example, Neptune's orbit? (excluding Pluto as it is most likely a captured comet). We would expect far more planets to fill that space, rather than it being drawn to just fill specific sections at drastically increasing distances."

Why? Can you please elaborate? Most of the material went to the sun. Some of it was totally lost, as it escaped the sun's sphere of influence. Then there are tons of it in the asteroid belt and the Kuiper belt. Then are the planets. Then there's also the fact that even before all that, the gaseous material wasn't as dense as you seem to think. The solar system was likely in the condition that you say during its birth.

"Your claim 'there is no way to explain it on a flat Earth' is an unjustified one; the best you can say is that it has not yet been explained. Even so, the Allais effect has been repeatedly reported; far more than an error of measurement would be. The fact it doesn't always occur doesn't mean it doesn't occur. There's been too much corroboration.
If the RE model does not explain the behavior of Foucalt pendulums, why are they touted as an advantage over FE?"

Here we go again, "It does not explain it but it will with further refinement blah blah blah...". And I bet it will never be explained in a way that makes sense.

Why is the Foucault pendulum touted as an advantage over FE? Because the RE model DOES explain the behavior of Foucault pendulums. The Allais effect is the "exception of the rule", and there are ways to explain it, it's just that there isn't a single conclusive one that the mainstream entirely accepts. Also, there are many very precise experiments that show no such effect to be present, so we really don't have enough evidence to do anything with them.

Some of what you say are still mysteries that have some explanations, some is just stuff that makes no sense and that has already been explained.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 12, 2015, 04:04:32 AM
MaNaeSWolf explained it better.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 12, 2015, 10:52:36 AM
Quote
FEScietist, you said you where trying to show a FE using existing science. But then you said all these things.
Certainly, I am wary of such statements. I have expressed my skepticism over the Allais effect previously; my point is only that many typical models fail to work. Vast suppositions are required, with no evidence except for "This is what we need to explain observations."
My point of contention is that this sole factor, which is used so frequently in RE science, is anathema as soon as it is used to help develop a FE model.

For example, Neptunium and Uranium don't occur naturally: they're by-products of nuclear explosions. I've seen it proposed that the moon formed when a nuclear explosion naturally occurred on proto-Earth: why? Because this is what must have happened in order for observations to occur.
All I ask is that you don't decide that this principle may only ever be used in RE science. Look at, for example, how everyone used 'coincidence' in response to my point of the relative sizes of the moon, Earth and Sun.

Quote
Wait. Are you using moon rocks to disprove RET? That makes little sense... If moon rocks are real, then Apollo 17 is real, then... The earth is round...
Or the astronauts were mistaken by observation. Or it's made up and they picked up some rocks from Earth to examine, in which case the properties are explained. if the properties of the moon rocks do not make sense under RE then you need to alter your theory, regardless. Proof by contradiction: I assume your state of affairs is accurate, and show it leads to a contradiction. How exactly does this fail to make sense? I do not need to believe the moon rocks are genuine, to acknowledge the fact you do.

Quote
That's the excuse? Less time?
Yes. There are 554 members of the FES, and I doubt all of them are who they say. Next to none of them are active on this forum, and you must admit that those who are, are rarely scientific. There are biblical literalists, or conspiracy theorists: not scientists.
Planets can't be explained before everything else is explained. Planets can't be explained in any more detail than "hunks or rock," until gravity, the Sun, the mechanisms governing the system... and any things which might interfere with our observations of them are also fully explained.

Quote
Why is the Foucault pendulum touted as an advantage over FE? Because the RE model DOES explain the behavior of Foucault pendulums.
If you need to use the phrase 'exception that proves the rule,' then the explanation is not perfect. This is not a flaw: this is often necessary. The fact is, if a FE model can explain the effect while RE struggles, after an FE model is arrived at which explains everything else, this is a mark in FE's favour, and so should be kept track of.
Yes, the evidence is ambiguous, but there is still enough to indicate that it is likely that more is at play: the fact it doesn't occur every time doesn't mean it doesn't occur.

Quote
it doesn't question the viability of the RE model, just because it's not related to the shape of the Earth !
Not directly. There are more than direct implications in the world. the physics in an FE model are different: if these allow for an explanation while RE physics do not, this is an advantage to FE.
Not everything is direct. If I could somehow show the Sun wasn't composed of hydrogen, that doesn't directly link to the shape of the world, but it would be a major blow to RE physics because the FE model could function very well without it.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: sokarul on September 12, 2015, 11:45:36 AM
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 12, 2015, 11:50:16 AM
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: sokarul on September 12, 2015, 11:55:05 AM
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.
That would be helpful if you said that the first time.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: chtwrone on September 12, 2015, 01:16:52 PM
lol, you can just read google.  I am sure that you idiots can only copy/ paste and have no actual debate skills, but you don't have to advertise it all the time.

The implication of the above statement, is that YOU actually have 'debate skills'?

Sorry to inform you, but you most certainly DO NOT have any debating skills at all.

Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 12, 2015, 01:25:54 PM
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.
That would be helpful if you said that the first time.

I did.

There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks.

Don't come in in the middle of a conversation without reading it. You're almost certain to bring up something that's already been mentioned.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 12, 2015, 03:43:25 PM
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.

Uranium 236 is most commonly the product of radioactive decay of the naturally occurring uranium 238. Guess what the half life of uranium 238 is.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 12, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.

Uranium 236 is most commonly the product of radioactive decay of the naturally occurring uranium 238. Guess what the half life of uranium 238 is.

About 4.4/4.5 billion years, just older than the moon. An interesting coincidence, which I assume is what you're getting at, but not a particularly important one: half that time would still translate to a quarter of the U-238 decaying. Uranium 236, however, has a half life of just 23.4 million years. We would still expect next to none.

Even so, my aim with these points was pointed out earlier.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 13, 2015, 02:48:18 AM
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.

Uranium 236 is most commonly the product of radioactive decay of the naturally occurring uranium 238. Guess what the half life of uranium 238 is.

About 4.4/4.5 billion years, just older than the moon. An interesting coincidence, which I assume is what you're getting at, but not a particularly important one: half that time would still translate to a quarter of the U-238 decaying. Uranium 236, however, has a half life of just 23.4 million years. We would still expect next to none.

Even so, my aim with these points was pointed out earlier.

No, that makes no sense. U-238 had 24 million years to "produce" considerable amounts of U-236, plus as far as I know U-238 can be produced by reactions initiated by solar flares and cosmic rays, so that's another minor source.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 13, 2015, 06:59:32 AM
No, that makes no sense. U-238 had 24 million years to "produce" considerable amounts of U-236, plus as far as I know U-238 can be produced by reactions initiated by solar flares and cosmic rays, so that's another minor source.

Several million years isn't actually that much time, with a half life measured in billions. There wouldn't be too great a mount produced, that was all I was saying.
There are ways for U-238 to get to the moon's surface, certainly.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 13, 2015, 08:34:13 AM
No, that makes no sense. U-238 had 24 million years to "produce" considerable amounts of U-236, plus as far as I know U-238 can be produced by reactions initiated by solar flares and cosmic rays, so that's another minor source.

Several million years isn't actually that much time, with a half life measured in billions. There wouldn't be too great a mount produced, that was all I was saying.
There are ways for U-238 to get to the moon's surface, certainly.

According to my calculations, it's a little less than 1% of the moon's initial U-238 supply. It's not that bad actually, especially considering that "According to the NEA, [on Earth] identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered". You can double that amount to find how much of it was there since the creation of Earth. Of course, that shows how much uranium in general there is, BUT U-238 is I think about 99% of all uranium found in nature. Another potential source of U-236 is spallation.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 13, 2015, 08:57:49 AM
Oh whoops! My calculations were wrong!  :-[ It's actually 0.2%! Although that might be wrong as well, I'm too tired right now... Correct me if I'm wrong: the amount of U-238 that has remained after a certain amount of years is x=1/2^(y/h), where y is the years and h is the half life in years. Assuming that U-238 "appeared" on the moon 4.468 billion years ago (the half life of U-238), now there should remain 50% of the original supply. I want to find how much there was 24 million years ago, so that I can find how much decayed since. The formula for 24 million years ago is x=1/2^(4.444/4.468)=1/2^0.994=1/1.99=0.502=50.2%. I think it's still a noticeable amount.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 13, 2015, 09:25:50 AM
Oh whoops! My calculations were wrong!  :-[ It's actually 0.2%!

It's been a while since I've dealt with half lives in any detail, so I'll accept your calculations for now.
Percentages don't mean too much without a gauge of what 100% is. Knowing how much Uranium-238 there is on Earth now may not be too useful; it would only form under certain conditions, and it may not be so easy to determine whether those conditions were met when the moon must have been formed from the proto-earth. Then we must note that the moon is far less dense, and far smaller than the Earth, so taking a random sample of the proto-Earth to form the moon would not bring with it too much of the U-238: and what there is would still be scattered throughout the moon.

As I said, there are always answers. My point was the way conclusions in RE are drawn, and how the same process is unacceptable for those that accept a FE.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 13, 2015, 10:09:42 AM
Oh whoops! My calculations were wrong!  :-[ It's actually 0.2%!

It's been a while since I've dealt with half lives in any detail, so I'll accept your calculations for now.
Percentages don't mean too much without a gauge of what 100% is. Knowing how much Uranium-238 there is on Earth now may not be too useful; it would only form under certain conditions, and it may not be so easy to determine whether those conditions were met when the moon must have been formed from the proto-earth. Then we must note that the moon is far less dense, and far smaller than the Earth, so taking a random sample of the proto-Earth to form the moon would not bring with it too much of the U-238: and what there is would still be scattered throughout the moon.

As I said, there are always answers. My point was the way conclusions in RE are drawn, and how the same process is unacceptable for those that accept a FE.

Well, my formula is based on the fact that after one half life, 1/2 of the initial supply is still there, after two half lives it's 1/4, after 3 it's 1/8 and so on and so forth. I'm gonna draw an assumption completely out of thin air and say that "100%" is 10 million tonnes. We would be left with 20,000 tonnes of U-236. Not too bad.

"As I said, there are always answers. My point was the way conclusions in RE are drawn, and how the same process is unacceptable for those that accept a FE."

Why? The amount of U-236 on the moon isn't directly related with the shape of the Earth. Sunsets and southern circumpolar stars are though. What you say does not make much sense to me. I didn't establish a new model for half lives for which we have no proof to explain the fact that there is U-236 on the moon. I used what was already established by the model, and we have proof about. On the other side, establishing a completely different model for light even though we have no evidence about it isn't the same thing. And you can't consider proof the fact that if you assume that the earth is flat, light would need to behave that way. That's just circular thinking. I could say if I wanted to that the fact that we can't see cats flying around is proof that cats are invisible when they fly.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 13, 2015, 12:25:35 PM
Quote
I'm gonna draw an assumption completely out of thin air and say that "100%" is 10 million tonnes. We would be left with 20,000 tonnes of U-236. Not too bad.
As you say though, this is an assumption you drew from thin air: and even so would be only the barest fraction of the moon's mass.

Quote
The amount of U-236 on the moon isn't directly related with the shape of the Earth.
I was speaking generally. Even so, a lack of a direct relationship doesn't mean there isn't one. If the amount of Neptunium 237 and Uranium 236 on the moon was not naturally occurring (not saying this is so, simply proposing) then it would follow either that the RE model cannot fully explain the moon, or that the rocks in fact came from Earth. The latter provides evidence for the conspiracy and faked space travel (at least partially), the former might mean the moon came about a different way: a necessity of FE models.

Quote
On the other side, establishing a completely different model for light even though we have no evidence about it isn't the same thing. And you can't consider proof the fact that if you assume that the earth is flat, light would need to behave that way. That's just circular thinking. I could say if I wanted to that the fact that we can't see cats flying around is proof that cats are invisible when they fly.
I am aware. I am not concerned with proof yet, that would be working backwards. I need a complete hypothesis before I can actually test it.
Further, a new model for light is only one possibility. Currently I'm simply leaning towards a unification theory, which would involve a force acting on light caused by the vast quantities of ice (or some other refractive material) at the rim. This is tenuous, and just a hypothesis, but it illustrates what I'm saying.
Difference from the existing theory is not a weakness, so long as observations remain matched.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 13, 2015, 12:42:32 PM
Quote
I'm gonna draw an assumption completely out of thin air and say that "100%" is 10 million tonnes. We would be left with 20,000 tonnes of U-236. Not too bad.
As you say though, this is an assumption you drew from thin air: and even so would be only the barest fraction of the moon's mass.

Quote
The amount of U-236 on the moon isn't directly related with the shape of the Earth.
I was speaking generally. Even so, a lack of a direct relationship doesn't mean there isn't one. If the amount of Neptunium 237 and Uranium 236 on the moon was not naturally occurring (not saying this is so, simply proposing) then it would follow either that the RE model cannot fully explain the moon, or that the rocks in fact came from Earth. The latter provides evidence for the conspiracy and faked space travel (at least partially), the former might mean the moon came about a different way: a necessity of FE models.

Quote
On the other side, establishing a completely different model for light even though we have no evidence about it isn't the same thing. And you can't consider proof the fact that if you assume that the earth is flat, light would need to behave that way. That's just circular thinking. I could say if I wanted to that the fact that we can't see cats flying around is proof that cats are invisible when they fly.
I am aware. I am not concerned with proof yet, that would be working backwards. I need a complete hypothesis before I can actually test it.
Further, a new model for light is only one possibility. Currently I'm simply leaning towards a unification theory, which would involve a force acting on light caused by the vast quantities of ice (or some other refractive material) at the rim. This is tenuous, and just a hypothesis, but it illustrates what I'm saying.
Difference from the existing theory is not a weakness, so long as observations remain matched.

On earth there is even less U-236 comparatively with the moon... And if they are lying, why would they fake their own "findings" to support something that does not agree with them? And if the other case is correct, that is, the moon came to be in a different way, it means that the space travels are NOT a fraud, which means the Earth is not flat!

When should we expect your complete hypothesis?
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 13, 2015, 03:47:47 PM
On earth there is even less U-236 comparatively with the moon... And if they are lying, why would they fake their own "findings" to support something that does not agree with them? And if the other case is correct, that is, the moon came to be in a different way, it means that the space travels are NOT a fraud, which means the Earth is not flat!

When should we expect your complete hypothesis?

They wouldn't necessarily have faked the findings: that would be true only if everyone was in on the conspiracy, which no one proposes. An administrator who knew more about the business side than the scientific could have gone out, picked up a sufficiently moon-ish rock, and handed it in. I don't know, I wasn't there; it likely wouldn't be intended as a conspiracy.
All the existence of space travel would mean, if the world is flat, is that they were mistaken about their observations. As we already know light would behave differently on a FE, this would not be unexpected. The only real question is the distance to the moon.

I don't know how long it will take. I have several bits and pieces which could be used or discarded. The main problem is that everything is built on everything else: I can't cover planets and Sun movements until I understand gravity, for example. The map will be the main landmark, but it could be quite a while still, with my internet connection.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: geodetective on September 14, 2015, 02:26:03 AM
As for the: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html)

This is too much to reply on. But I'll take some.

A lot of these issues are categorizable. Some arguments fall in multiple categories. Here are some examples of categories:
A) There is no curvature visible (1, 2, 6, 10 ...)
B) Water is not spilled across the curvatur of the earth. It just goes from high to low, as expected on a flats surface (3,4,5,6, ...)
C) Constructions do not take the curvature of the earth into account (7,8,9,10,11,12,...)
D) a light/object was placed at very large distance and was still seen from very far away (13, 14, ...)
E) Experiments related to starlight: (16, 17).
F) Flight routes (43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)
G) You should not be able to see wales from the coast of Ilse of man, if the earth was curved (67)

Just to take some examples... I don't have time to reply to everything.

Just to reply to these examples:
A) See http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64300.msg1712223#msg1712223 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64300.msg1712223#msg1712223)
B) The water is attracted "downward". Which is "towards the center of the earth". Which makes the water follow a curved path. We don't notice, because we are also attracted to that same point. The "lowest point" is always the point that is nearest to the center of the earth. So water always flows from high (large radius) to low (small radius).
C) Constructions are usually too small to take the curvature of the earth into account. Even the Suez canal consists of multiple constructions, which are individually very small relative to the size of the earth.
Large constructions, like railroads, do follow the curvature of the earth. You don't notice that, because the curvature is very slight. The ones who build it also don't notice that, as they receive coordinates from designers, who use projected systems, that already take the curvature into account.
I recently made a simple calculation that could tile the Dutch "rijksdriehoekstelsel" into squares of 2km x 2km. At that size, I measured the maximum error was 80 cm, relative to a round earth. So constructors of the largest bridges in the world do have to deal with very slight lenght differences due to the curvature. And they do. However, that is hardly noticable, as these bridges are usually made of components of, say, 20 meters long. That means that every component needs to be (for example) 19.99 meters long, in stead of 20 meters, to account for the curvature of the earth.
With the Nord Stream pipeline for example, the designers had to use (and convert between) 3 coordinate systems: WGS84 UTM33, UTM34 and UTM35. Thanks to conversion techniques, constructors don't notice these curvatures. They just follow the coordinates handed to them by the designers.
D) Well, that's easilly falsified, as we see ships disappearing behind the horizon. Just place a light on top of a ship mast, and measure again. I don't know what these scientists saw a couple of centuries ago, but it wasn't that light.
E) This is a completely different subject.
F) Let's take some examples "THESE ROUTES DO NOT EXIST!" (related to some routes across Antarctica). Usually routes don't exist because there are not enough people using them. There are routes from Sidney to Santiago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route)) for example. Depending on the wind these routes pass Antarctica.
Also, there ARE direct flights from Johannesburg to Buenos Aires. (http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/Argentina/flights-to-Argentina.php#Johannesburg (http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/Argentina/flights-to-Argentina.php#Johannesburg))

The indirect routes are sometimes very far off. But that also has to do with how many people use these lines. If you would travel from Den Helder to Leeuwarden by train, you would have to travel through Amsterdam. That is ridicules. But there is simply not enough economical benefit to make a line from Den Helder to Leeuwarden directly. The same applies for flight routes.
The fact that there are direct lines falsify the FE claims of all the direct lines that are not used.

G) this one is just an example to show bad calculation. With the distance of 60 miles (96 km), if you stand on a hill that is 170 meter high, you could see another hill of 170 meter at the other side. If you stand on the ground, you could see a hill of 700 meter high on the other side. 
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 14, 2015, 06:54:39 AM
On earth there is even less U-236 comparatively with the moon... And if they are lying, why would they fake their own "findings" to support something that does not agree with them? And if the other case is correct, that is, the moon came to be in a different way, it means that the space travels are NOT a fraud, which means the Earth is not flat!

When should we expect your complete hypothesis?

They wouldn't necessarily have faked the findings: that would be true only if everyone was in on the conspiracy, which no one proposes. An administrator who knew more about the business side than the scientific could have gone out, picked up a sufficiently moon-ish rock, and handed it in. I don't know, I wasn't there; it likely wouldn't be intended as a conspiracy.
All the existence of space travel would mean, if the world is flat, is that they were mistaken about their observations. As we already know light would behave differently on a FE, this would not be unexpected. The only real question is the distance to the moon.

I don't know how long it will take. I have several bits and pieces which could be used or discarded. The main problem is that everything is built on everything else: I can't cover planets and Sun movements until I understand gravity, for example. The map will be the main landmark, but it could be quite a while still, with my internet connection.

Wait. What's the source that claims that there's Neptunium on the moon? Also, it seems to me as if NASA would have no problem to conceal this information if they can spread holograms all over the world that appear like satellites... Or, at least, that's what satellites are supposed to be in FET. The distance to the moon has been measured many times, but apparently that's a conspiracy as well.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: JerkFace on September 14, 2015, 07:20:59 AM
Refer to 45,46,47 and other Southern Hemisphere flight routes.

I already posted this a while ago,  but I'll repost in this thread,  since Eric Doobuy uses the same argument as Zetetic Earth,  same graphics too?  with all the stuff he plagiarizes I wonder if he had permission for this one.?

This video in particular by Nina aka "Zetetic Flat Earth"  (http://)   since it has flight time information is worth looking at further.

The video author has obviously never bought international tickets and doesn't understand the one free stop option.    This is where you buy a ticket from Johannesburg  to Sao Paulo,  and you can nominate a single stop over, which you get to choose from whatever options are available, in this case one of the options is to fly BA and spend a few days in London.

(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/560x271q90/r/537/9xmsz4.png) 
Why not read the lines above where it clearly says SAA offers a direct flight.  Or even notice the little inset map, which shows the flight route?

Instead of trying to find out why you would fly to London,  the video author with pre-conceived notions in mind starts a train of thought that is just plain stupid, suggesting that this is the round earth way to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo  ..  WTF?

(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/330x294q90/r/901/FCU7Gk.png)

And then goes on to point out that the flat earth model using the Gleason map, makes more sense..  well no it doesn't  just goes to show how stupid the author is.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/560x326q90/r/908/0iey6o.png)

Here is the real flight path on Google Earth.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/428x294q90/r/537/cZRP6S.png)

And here are the real flight arrival and departure times.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/560x267q90/r/537/8X5T0m.png)

Sao Paulo is UTC-3:00 and Johannesburg is UTC+2:00 ,  so departs at 9:00PM UTC and arrives 5:25AM the following morning,  that's  8 hours 25 minutes flying time.

I'm guessing the author of the video has made an honest mistake,  I can sympathize,  but it is so easy to check these sort of facts before going to commit to a video,  for that sake of the hundreds of gullible fools who
will just accept it as being true and so the misinformation and lies propagate.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 14, 2015, 07:34:23 AM
Wait. What's the source that claims that there's Neptunium on the moon? Also, it seems to me as if NASA would have no problem to conceal this information if they can spread holograms all over the world that appear like satellites... Or, at least, that's what satellites are supposed to be in FET. The distance to the moon has been measured many times, but apparently that's a conspiracy as well.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v050n003.p002 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v050n003.p002)
That's one source. You can pay to read the whole thing, but the little that's visible says enough. Google is also a valid way to research; a lot of the sites are rather ridiculous ones, because unexplained observations do attract such claims. You can find a few good ones.

I don't believe anyone has claimed that satellites are holograms. Specifically choosing one of the most outlandish ideas, likely suggested in jest or by a troll, is a completely absurd way to engage in any kind of discussion. Should I quote round earthers who believe the world is run by lizards as evidence for a conspiracy?
Satellites would clearly be physical entities in order to be able to project signals: such as planes, or balloons, or helicopters. Even so this is only relevant in the case where space travel does not exist, which is not automatically true.

The distance to the moon is measured by means that only hold assuming a RE. Beyond properties of light, one way to measure the distance would be parallax: which relies on knowing the distances to objects beyond the moon, such as the Sun: the distance to which would be shorter on a RE, as proven by shadow lengths.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 14, 2015, 12:04:16 PM
Wait. What's the source that claims that there's Neptunium on the moon? Also, it seems to me as if NASA would have no problem to conceal this information if they can spread holograms all over the world that appear like satellites... Or, at least, that's what satellites are supposed to be in FET. The distance to the moon has been measured many times, but apparently that's a conspiracy as well.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v050n003.p002 (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v050n003.p002)
That's one source. You can pay to read the whole thing, but the little that's visible says enough. Google is also a valid way to research; a lot of the sites are rather ridiculous ones, because unexplained observations do attract such claims. You can find a few good ones.

I don't believe anyone has claimed that satellites are holograms. Specifically choosing one of the most outlandish ideas, likely suggested in jest or by a troll, is a completely absurd way to engage in any kind of discussion. Should I quote round earthers who believe the world is run by lizards as evidence for a conspiracy?
Satellites would clearly be physical entities in order to be able to project signals: such as planes, or balloons, or helicopters. Even so this is only relevant in the case where space travel does not exist, which is not automatically true.

The distance to the moon is measured by means that only hold assuming a RE. Beyond properties of light, one way to measure the distance would be parallax: which relies on knowing the distances to objects beyond the moon, such as the Sun: the distance to which would be shorter on a RE, as proven by shadow lengths.

Hmmm... This source really doesn't say much...Neptunium seems very weird to me... I don't know if it should be trusted... Neptunium doesn't even occur in the Earth naturally. It seems very peculiar to me that any of it would happen to be on the moon. Then come researches like this: http://www.universetoday.com/33692/first-conclusive-signature-for-lunar-uranium/grs-data-set/ (http://www.universetoday.com/33692/first-conclusive-signature-for-lunar-uranium/grs-data-set/) It reveals uranium, thorium and other elements, but not Neptunium.

In case you haven't noticed, there are LOADS of people who think the ISS etc. are holograms. And it's impossible that they are balloons or aircrafts, because they can be seen from locations thousands of miles apart, yet they appear to move really fast. How can a balloon travel around the Earth in 90 minutes? 24/7? And why does it look exactly like the ISS is supposed to look? Last time I checked, that's an extremely impractical shape for aircrafts or balloons. And it's not just the ISS (which is the easiest object to see with a telescope with a recognizable shape, it's much harder to see the shape of smaller satellites or the Mir space station or something). It's dozens of satellites easily visible with the naked eye. And I have no idea how long term space travel is supposed to work on a flat earth. Constant thrust upwards would be needed.

Plus, parallax shows that the moon is definitely much closer than the sun, and, contrary to what you think, you don't need to know how far the sun is. FET is kinda inconsistent with how far away the moon is. I mean, we know that they say that the sun is 3000 miles away (which is completely baseless, If I wanted I could say it's 10 meters away for the angles during a sunset), but... How far away the moon is? Because if it is closer, why are the shadows of the moon and its apparent height of it from the horizon assuming a flat earth saying a different story? And what about the planets? We know both Mercury and Venus are closer (we've seen them transit, including the recent transit of Venus which I observed myself), BUT there's a problem: next to no parallax is seen during these transits, contrary to what we see during solar eclipses. That would only be observed if they were right next to the sun with the moon being much closer to us, OR both the sun and these planets are insanely far away. We also know all the other planets are spherical. It doesn't look like me at all as if a flat shape is the most likely to form  ;)
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 14, 2015, 05:14:47 PM
Quote
Hmmm... This source really doesn't say much...Neptunium seems very weird to me... I don't know if it should be trusted... Neptunium doesn't even occur in the Earth naturally. It seems very peculiar to me that any of it would happen to be on the moon. Then come researches like this: http://www.universetoday.com/33692/first-conclusive-signature-for-lunar-uranium/grs-data-set/ (http://www.universetoday.com/33692/first-conclusive-signature-for-lunar-uranium/grs-data-set/) It reveals uranium, thorium and other elements, but not Neptunium.
That link may not be working, it doesn't give an account of any research to me, just a graphic in another language.
As you say, it is odd that it would be on the moon. This is what I'm getting at. I think it was found in rocks brought back.

Quote
In case you haven't noticed, there are LOADS of people who think the ISS etc. are holograms. And it's impossible that they are balloons or aircrafts, because they can be seen from locations thousands of miles apart, yet they appear to move really fast. How can a balloon travel around the Earth in 90 minutes? 24/7? And why does it look exactly like the ISS is supposed to look? Last time I checked, that's an extremely impractical shape for aircrafts or balloons. And it's not just the ISS (which is the easiest object to see with a telescope with a recognizable shape, it's much harder to see the shape of smaller satellites or the Mir space station or something). It's dozens of satellites easily visible with the naked eye. And I have no idea how long term space travel is supposed to work on a flat earth. Constant thrust upwards would be needed.
You cannot simply insist lots of people think that with no explanation given. Literally the only explanations I have seen on this forum anywhere are those I have given. Further, you can't deny there are a number of trolls here.
A balloon was one possibility. Satellites typically are only visible as lights: as you say, they are fast-moving, nearly impossible to view properly. The only images we have of the ISS from Earth are far to blurred to say that it isn't, for example, a sketch on the underside of a darker craft.
Again, I do not favor the conspiracy notion. Space travel on a FE is only hard if you copy RE physics: this wouldn't be the case. look at the Sun: we know that there is, if the world is flat, some mechanism or way for rotational motion above the Earth. There's no reason a satellite wouldn't be caught up in that.

Quote
Plus, parallax shows that the moon is definitely much closer than the sun, and, contrary to what you think, you don't need to know how far the sun is.
Parallax shows the moon is closer than the Sun, yes. Firm figures however do require the distance.

Quote
they say that the sun is 3000 miles away (which is completely baseless, If I wanted I could say it's 10 meters away for the angles during a sunset)
The 3000km figure is very justified. It comes from Eratosphenes and trigonometry: the shadows cast by any objects vary in length depending on location. This is explain by a RE by the surface being at different angles, with a distant Sun. If we take the same figures however and assume a flat plane, the Sun would need to be closer, so that the rays would hit the objects at different angles.
I could draw a diagram if you wanted?

Quote
We also know all the other planets are spherical. It doesn't look like me at all as if a flat shape is the most likely to form
Again, I am working with the hypothesis that the Earth is flat. Outside of the RE model you're used to, a flat shape is most likely. In addition, if we look up at the sky most things we see are stars: should we then assume the Earth is a star?

I'm fond of magnetic fields as an analogy. If you scatter metal filings around a magnet to see its field, you'll notice curves and round shapes are common. Introduce a second magnet however, you can quite easily gain a flat surface between the two.
Assuming the model where gravity and magnetism (and the strong nuclear force) are interconnected, if there is a star the other side of the Earth then a flat surface would form. The idea of a below-Earth star is also supported by geothermal energy which, without the UA model and its absurd energy requirements, needs another FE explanation.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 15, 2015, 10:59:00 AM
http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg (http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)

Is this considered "too blurred"??
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 15, 2015, 11:51:12 AM
http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg (http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)

Is this considered "too blurred"??

I'd say so: it is quite poorly defined, especially at the edges. Though that might just be half a centimetre in a photo, it's a lot of space in reality. A lot could be happening there.
Again, it is possible that it is genuine.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: mikeman7918 on September 15, 2015, 11:59:18 AM
http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg (http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)

Is this considered "too blurred"??

I'd say so: it is quite poorly defined, especially at the edges. Though that might just be half a centimetre in a photo, it's a lot of space in reality. A lot could be happening there.
Again, it is possible that it is genuine.

If an image is computer generated then edges are often very sharp, sharper then they are in real photos.  Look up images from any video game and compare it to any photo and you will see what I mean.  Something having very sharp edges is a dead give away that it's fake.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 15, 2015, 01:29:38 PM
If an image is computer generated then edges are often very sharp, sharper then they are in real photos.  Look up images from any video game and compare it to any photo and you will see what I mean.  Something having very sharp edges is a dead give away that it's fake.
I never claimed the photo was computer generated.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 15, 2015, 01:39:50 PM
http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg (http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)

Is this considered "too blurred"??

I'd say so: it is quite poorly defined, especially at the edges. Though that might just be half a centimetre in a photo, it's a lot of space in reality. A lot could be happening there.
Again, it is possible that it is genuine.
So you are claiming the ISS and the $200 billion a year satellite industry are in fact one massive hoax?

Massively stupid as this is, it's the default flattie position, as there isn't really any other explanation, if you want to start with a fixed, preconceived  idea that the world is flat...
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 15, 2015, 02:17:27 PM
So you are claiming the ISS and the $200 billion a year satellite industry are in fact one massive hoax?

Massively stupid as this is, it's the default flattie position, as there isn't really any other explanation, if you want to start with a fixed, preconceived  idea that the world is flat...

I'm saying it's one possibility. Money could be spent on planes, balloons, helicopters etc to fill the role, and the ISS is similar.
It's also possible that they do exist, kept in 'orbit' (the circular path we observe) by a similar mechanism that affects the Sun, and are merely mistaken about their observations for whatever reason.

I am working on determining an accurate FE model, so that I may test it as a hypothesis. This is only scientific: it would be a poor test if I assumed the world wasn't flat.
The model only feels odd to you if you assume the world cannot be flat. All conclusions drawn are logical for a FE model, and when viewed as a whole it is not necessarily any more complicated than the RE model. The only real variance between the two is that the FE model lacks evidence, which is to be expected as it is a hypothesis, and experimentation is not yet possible.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: JerkFace on September 15, 2015, 11:57:50 PM
So you are claiming the ISS and the $200 billion a year satellite industry are in fact one massive hoax?

Massively stupid as this is, it's the default flattie position, as there isn't really any other explanation, if you want to start with a fixed, preconceived  idea that the world is flat...

I'm saying it's one possibility. Money could be spent on planes, balloons, helicopters etc to fill the role, and the ISS is similar.
It's also possible that they do exist, kept in 'orbit' (the circular path we observe) by a similar mechanism that affects the Sun, and are merely mistaken about their observations for whatever reason.

I am working on determining an accurate FE model, so that I may test it as a hypothesis. This is only scientific: it would be a poor test if I assumed the world wasn't flat.
The model only feels odd to you if you assume the world cannot be flat. All conclusions drawn are logical for a FE model, and when viewed as a whole it is not necessarily any more complicated than the RE model. The only real variance between the two is that the FE model lacks evidence, which is to be expected as it is a hypothesis, and experimentation is not yet possible.

I've posted info on GPS satellite systems previously,  but the short version is that GPS works by the transmitters sending their real time co-ordinates in WGS-84 format together with a coded sequence  of bytes in order, the receiver is running the same sequence of bytes and by comparing the sequence received from the satellite the transmission delay can be determined,  since the receiver also receives the satellite position the receiver can determine it's position by  trilateration with multiple transmitters.   

So there's a clue here,   the GPS transmitters are telling us where they are continuously,  you can buy or build a gps receiver that will let you access the raw data and confirm it for yourself that the GPS transmitters are in fact in orbit,  exactly where they are supposed to be.   Not ground based.    Although there are ground based DGPS and AGPS systems, they piggyback off the main satellite systems.

GPS works properly  because the transmitters send their true co-ordinates,  if they didn't the system would not work.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 16, 2015, 04:27:11 AM
I've posted info on GPS satellite systems previously,  but the short version is that GPS works by the transmitters sending their real time co-ordinates in WGS-84 format together with a coded sequence  of bytes in order, the receiver is running the same sequence of bytes and by comparing the sequence received from the satellite the transmission delay can be determined,  since the receiver also receives the satellite position the receiver can determine it's position by  trilateration with multiple transmitters.   

So there's a clue here,   the GPS transmitters are telling us where they are continuously,  you can buy or build a gps receiver that will let you access the raw data and confirm it for yourself that the GPS transmitters are in fact in orbit,  exactly where they are supposed to be.   Not ground based.    Although there are ground based DGPS and AGPS systems, they piggyback off the main satellite systems.

GPS works properly  because the transmitters send their true co-ordinates,  if they didn't the system would not work.

Again, it is very possible that they are genuine. The FE model would not necessarily contradict space travel.
The alternative, however, is simply that the 'satellites' compensate: giving out a string of data deliberately offset so that they appear further away than they are. A lower object could well impersonate a higher one, that way.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: JerkFace on September 16, 2015, 05:09:38 AM
I've posted info on GPS satellite systems previously,  but the short version is that GPS works by the transmitters sending their real time co-ordinates in WGS-84 format together with a coded sequence  of bytes in order, the receiver is running the same sequence of bytes and by comparing the sequence received from the satellite the transmission delay can be determined,  since the receiver also receives the satellite position the receiver can determine it's position by  trilateration with multiple transmitters.   

So there's a clue here,   the GPS transmitters are telling us where they are continuously,  you can buy or build a gps receiver that will let you access the raw data and confirm it for yourself that the GPS transmitters are in fact in orbit,  exactly where they are supposed to be.   Not ground based.    Although there are ground based DGPS and AGPS systems, they piggyback off the main satellite systems.

GPS works properly  because the transmitters send their true co-ordinates,  if they didn't the system would not work.

Again, it is very possible that they are genuine. The FE model would not necessarily contradict space travel.
The alternative, however, is simply that the 'satellites' compensate: giving out a string of data deliberately offset so that they appear further away than they are. A lower object could well impersonate a higher one, that way.

Interesting idea,  but if you think about it some more you will realize that while it might be possible to send fake positions that work for one receiver,  that will fail for all other receiver locations.  If the transmitters send false co-ordinates the system won't work.     The  other thing is that the transmitter locations are continuously changing,  the GPS constellation satellites are orbiting at 14,000 kph,  and an altitude of 20,200km.

Here is the constellation display from xgps,   usb serial connection to an early SirfStar

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/673/d0FubA.png)

You will notice the azimuth and elevation data,   no way could there be a ground station at an elevation of 45 degrees,   and a distance of  15,000 km, travelling at 14,000 kph.

There are multiple GPS systems currently in orbit,  the American system,  the Russian System, and shortly the European System.    Latest model receivers can use multiple systems.

Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 16, 2015, 05:38:33 AM
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: JerkFace on September 16, 2015, 06:09:17 AM
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.

Funny,  I replied, but the server timed out when I posted the reply.   

Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.

The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.   

Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Yendor on September 16, 2015, 06:48:51 AM
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.

Funny,  I replied, but the server timed out when I posted the reply.   

Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.

The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.

Rayzor, I've told you this before, when are you going to learn? GPS satellites do not exist. Morning Rayzor
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 16, 2015, 10:06:57 AM
Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.
Why is altitude such a key factor when it comes to a GPS system? I can't see any reason a net would fail whether it be kilometres higher or lower.

Quote
The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.
I believe ground based transmitters are taken to be part of the method, but from what I've seen it's often in conjunction with 'stratellites'.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: mikeman7918 on September 16, 2015, 10:17:01 AM
GPS works because of 24 satellites which continuously broadcast the current time and their position, and then a reliever can pick up the signal.  The receiver has the current time and it compares it with the time relieved from the satellite to calculate signal delay and then it knows it's distance from the satellite, and if it has signals from 3 or more satellites it can triangulate it's position.  The only way for the Earth to be flat given this is for GPS manufacturers to be in on a conspiracy which is depemdent on people not poking around in GPS receivers.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 16, 2015, 11:20:25 AM
GPS works because of 24 satellites which continuously broadcast the current time and their position, and then a reliever can pick up the signal.  The receiver has the current time and it compares it with the time relieved from the satellite to calculate signal delay and then it knows it's distance from the satellite, and if it has signals from 3 or more satellites it can triangulate it's position.  The only way for the Earth to be flat given this is for GPS manufacturers to be in on a conspiracy which is depemdent on people not poking around in GPS receivers.

Unless the data emitted by the satellites is offset just slightly to imply a greater distance than they are actually at. A couple of lines of code isn't a huge conspiracy, and would far more likely be done by those launching the satellite than by the GPS company.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: mikeman7918 on September 16, 2015, 11:57:56 AM
Unless the data emitted by the satellites is offset just slightly to imply a greater distance than they are actually at. A couple of lines of code isn't a huge conspiracy, and would far more likely be done by those launching the satellite than by the GPS company.

If the satellites broadcasted incorrect location and time data then in most places the signals would give conflicting results.  In order to get any kind of accuracy with such a system you would need to have a receiver which takes into account that the transmitters are ground based.

I remember that a long time ago I used a GPS which could actually tell you the positions of individual satellites and sometimes when there were less then 2 visible satellites it would stop working and I had to wait a minute or two for another satellite to come into view.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 16, 2015, 12:35:02 PM
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.

Funny,  I replied, but the server timed out when I posted the reply.   

Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.

The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.

Rayzor, I've told you this before, when are you going to learn? GPS satellites do not exist. Morning Rayzor

Guys, I've told you a million times before, STOP PRETENDING SATELLITES DON'T EXIST!
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 16, 2015, 12:36:49 PM
http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg (http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg)

Is this considered "too blurred"??

I'd say so: it is quite poorly defined, especially at the edges. Though that might just be half a centimetre in a photo, it's a lot of space in reality. A lot could be happening there.
Again, it is possible that it is genuine.

You are in denial.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Yendor on September 16, 2015, 12:49:08 PM
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.

Funny,  I replied, but the server timed out when I posted the reply.   

Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.

The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.

Rayzor, I've told you this before, when are you going to learn? GPS satellites do not exist. Morning Rayzor

Guys, I've told you a million times before, STOP PRETENDING SATELLITES DON'T EXIST!

I don't think it's been a million times. Actually, I believe GPS transmitters are hung from the underside of the glass dome.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 16, 2015, 12:54:46 PM
If the satellites broadcasted incorrect location and time data then in most places the signals would give conflicting results.  In order to get any kind of accuracy with such a system you would need to have a receiver which takes into account that the transmitters are ground based.

I remember that a long time ago I used a GPS which could actually tell you the positions of individual satellites and sometimes when there were less then 2 visible satellites it would stop working and I had to wait a minute or two for another satellite to come into view.
Why must the transmitters be ground based? Planes, balloons, helicopters... There are many ways for signals to be sent from above.
Incorrect data wouldn't be given out: the data would be entirely correct, it would merely simulate a satellite higher up.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 16, 2015, 01:08:05 PM
Quote
Hmmm... This source really doesn't say much...Neptunium seems very weird to me... I don't know if it should be trusted... Neptunium doesn't even occur in the Earth naturally. It seems very peculiar to me that any of it would happen to be on the moon. Then come researches like this: http://www.universetoday.com/33692/first-conclusive-signature-for-lunar-uranium/grs-data-set/ (http://www.universetoday.com/33692/first-conclusive-signature-for-lunar-uranium/grs-data-set/) It reveals uranium, thorium and other elements, but not Neptunium.
That link may not be working, it doesn't give an account of any research to me, just a graphic in another language.
As you say, it is odd that it would be on the moon. This is what I'm getting at. I think it was found in rocks brought back.

Quote
In case you haven't noticed, there are LOADS of people who think the ISS etc. are holograms. And it's impossible that they are balloons or aircrafts, because they can be seen from locations thousands of miles apart, yet they appear to move really fast. How can a balloon travel around the Earth in 90 minutes? 24/7? And why does it look exactly like the ISS is supposed to look? Last time I checked, that's an extremely impractical shape for aircrafts or balloons. And it's not just the ISS (which is the easiest object to see with a telescope with a recognizable shape, it's much harder to see the shape of smaller satellites or the Mir space station or something). It's dozens of satellites easily visible with the naked eye. And I have no idea how long term space travel is supposed to work on a flat earth. Constant thrust upwards would be needed.
You cannot simply insist lots of people think that with no explanation given. Literally the only explanations I have seen on this forum anywhere are those I have given. Further, you can't deny there are a number of trolls here.
A balloon was one possibility. Satellites typically are only visible as lights: as you say, they are fast-moving, nearly impossible to view properly. The only images we have of the ISS from Earth are far to blurred to say that it isn't, for example, a sketch on the underside of a darker craft.
Again, I do not favor the conspiracy notion. Space travel on a FE is only hard if you copy RE physics: this wouldn't be the case. look at the Sun: we know that there is, if the world is flat, some mechanism or way for rotational motion above the Earth. There's no reason a satellite wouldn't be caught up in that.

Quote
Plus, parallax shows that the moon is definitely much closer than the sun, and, contrary to what you think, you don't need to know how far the sun is.
Parallax shows the moon is closer than the Sun, yes. Firm figures however do require the distance.

Quote
they say that the sun is 3000 miles away (which is completely baseless, If I wanted I could say it's 10 meters away for the angles during a sunset)
The 3000km figure is very justified. It comes from Eratosphenes and trigonometry: the shadows cast by any objects vary in length depending on location. This is explain by a RE by the surface being at different angles, with a distant Sun. If we take the same figures however and assume a flat plane, the Sun would need to be closer, so that the rays would hit the objects at different angles.
I could draw a diagram if you wanted?

Quote
We also know all the other planets are spherical. It doesn't look like me at all as if a flat shape is the most likely to form
Again, I am working with the hypothesis that the Earth is flat. Outside of the RE model you're used to, a flat shape is most likely. In addition, if we look up at the sky most things we see are stars: should we then assume the Earth is a star?

I'm fond of magnetic fields as an analogy. If you scatter metal filings around a magnet to see its field, you'll notice curves and round shapes are common. Introduce a second magnet however, you can quite easily gain a flat surface between the two.
Assuming the model where gravity and magnetism (and the strong nuclear force) are interconnected, if there is a star the other side of the Earth then a flat surface would form. The idea of a below-Earth star is also supported by geothermal energy which, without the UA model and its absurd energy requirements, needs another FE explanation.

Yeah, the link does not work, I don't know why. It was supposed to show an accurate research where they spotted exactly where uranium, thorium, and other radioactive elements can be found in the moon. No neptunium was found. And no, determining the distance to the moon does NOT require knowing the distance to the sun. If you know how far away the observers are one from each other, by observing an eclipse you can use trigonometry to determine how far away the moon is.

"Again, I do not favor the conspiracy notion. Space travel on a FE is only hard if you copy RE physics: this wouldn't be the case. look at the Sun: we know that there is, if the world is flat, some mechanism or way for rotational motion above the Earth. There's no reason a satellite wouldn't be caught up in that."

Lol good luck trying to explain that! Especially when shooting stars don't have a problem passing through that...

"The 3000km figure is very justified. It comes from Eratosphenes and trigonometry: the shadows cast by any objects vary in length depending on location."

That is COMPLETELY flawed, because trigonometry also tells us that these objects would never go beneath the horizon. Even if you were on one edge of the disk and the sun was on the other (which supposedly never happens), it would still be about 3.5 degrees above the horizon! It also tells us that the sun would appear to be noticeably smaller during sunrises and sunsets. So, if trigonometry using the "standard" model of light disproves your hypothesis, why would you pretend it is useful to calculate something in your hypothesis?

"I'm fond of magnetic fields as an analogy. If you scatter metal filings around a magnet to see its field, you'll notice curves and round shapes are common. Introduce a second magnet however, you can quite easily gain a flat surface between the two."

Again, that is only true because magnets are dipoles. A monopole has a field identical to gravity. Are you implying that mass is a gravitational dipole? Because that is not remotely what we observe.

By the way, if you think pictures of the ISS from Earth are too blurred, here: https://www.google.gr/search?q=iss+with+telescope&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIwdXjm6v8xwIVQdQaCh0IFApx&biw=1440&bih=838#imgrc=_ (https://www.google.gr/search?q=iss+with+telescope&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIwdXjm6v8xwIVQdQaCh0IFApx&biw=1440&bih=838#imgrc=_) Google away.

"Assuming the model where gravity and magnetism (and the strong nuclear force) are interconnected, if there is a star the other side of the Earth then a flat surface would form. The idea of a below-Earth star is also supported by geothermal energy which, without the UA model and its absurd energy requirements, needs another FE explanation."

Not sure how this is supposed to work.

"Again, I am working with the hypothesis that the Earth is flat. Outside of the RE model you're used to, a flat shape is most likely. In addition, if we look up at the sky most things we see are stars: should we then assume the Earth is a star?"

Stars are spherical objects as well. No, that's not what I said. Planets undeniably pose several similarities to Earth, and are in relatively close proximity with the Earth. This is also true for the moon and the sun. There is no observable flat celestial object, yet you assume that a flat object is more likely to form than a spherical object?
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 16, 2015, 01:52:47 PM
If the satellites broadcasted incorrect location and time data then in most places the signals would give conflicting results.  In order to get any kind of accuracy with such a system you would need to have a receiver which takes into account that the transmitters are ground based.

I remember that a long time ago I used a GPS which could actually tell you the positions of individual satellites and sometimes when there were less then 2 visible satellites it would stop working and I had to wait a minute or two for another satellite to come into view.
Why must the transmitters be ground based? Planes, balloons, helicopters... There are many ways for signals to be sent from above.

You call yourself a scientist, but this is pure conspiracy theory.  There are over 2,700 satellites in orbit, owned by thousands of private entities and governments.  They serve up everything from soap operas to high definition meteorological data for thousands of different entities and billions of end users.

Quote
Incorrect data wouldn't be given out: the data would be entirely correct, it would merely simulate a satellite higher up.
Then it wouldn't work, the data simply wouldn't be correct - you are being wilfully ignorant.  To calculate a 2D position you need the exact timestamps and ephemeris data from 3 satellites and 4 for a 3D position.  They have to use atomic clocks and even take into account relativistic effects.  You cannot spoof this data and have the system still work.  Any GPS device has to know exactly when and where the signal is coming from to calculate your position.

I do quite a bit of walking, including remote areas like the Scottish highlands.  One of the walks last time involved walking half the day through a steep sided valley in the Black Cuillin.  There was, not surprisingly, zero mobile phone coverage all day.  Yet my GPS device gave me an exact lock on my position, including altitude, all day.  It would allow me to look at the constellation of satellites available and which ones I was locked onto.  There were no balloons or helicopters hovering over the valley as a part of some ridiculous hoax to fool the world.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Serulian on September 16, 2015, 04:06:08 PM
  Watch ID discovery sometime. You will learn that the killers often get caught because of the location their cell phones were last active. No need for satellites.

Next take into account that accurate maps of almost every road in the world are now digital. Of course that would be fine enough, but next take into account that some guys with a couple cameras mounted to their cars drive down those roads often, so there are now even more accurate digital maps.

We have tracking technology. We have maps.

Seems logical to me.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 16, 2015, 04:19:39 PM
Quote from: Jimmy
You call yourself a scientist, but this is pure conspiracy theory.  There are over 2,700 satellites in orbit, owned by thousands of private entities and governments.  They serve up everything from soap operas to high definition meteorological data for thousands of different entities and billions of end users.
It's a hypothesis which I don't really accept. I have said several times I favor the idea that satellites are genuine (and I'm engaging in a discussion in another thread which may disprove faked space travel, by judging the altitude of the ISS and the length of its route).
However, insisting that the sources of the signals are satellites is not an argument, even if you insist doing otherwise is a cosnpiracy theory.

Quote
Then it wouldn't work, the data simply wouldn't be correct - you are being wilfully ignorant.  To calculate a 2D position you need the exact timestamps and ephemeris data from 3 satellites and 4 for a 3D position.  They have to use atomic clocks and even take into account relativistic effects.  You cannot spoof this data and have the system still work.  Any GPS device has to know exactly when and where the signal is coming from to calculate your position.
It's not spoofing data: it's simulating. A correctly placed and offset transmitter would give the indication of a satellite from higher up: one way to think of it would be to assume there is a higher satellite, and that the transmitter merely relays that data. Then all you need to do is remove the higher satellite, as the data must be intelligible and predictable in order to be usable.

Quote
I do quite a bit of walking, including remote areas like the Scottish highlands.  One of the walks last time involved walking half the day through a steep sided valley in the Black Cuillin.  There was, not surprisingly, zero mobile phone coverage all day.  Yet my GPS device gave me an exact lock on my position, including altitude, all day.  It would allow me to look at the constellation of satellites available and which ones I was locked onto.  There were no balloons or helicopters hovering over the valley as a part of some ridiculous hoax to fool the world.
It wouldn't necessarily be a ridiculous hoax. If anything, it feels more like the classic lie gone out of control. Even so, it would be very hard to get a full image of the entire field of sky above and around you, much less to judge smaller objects likely developed with stealth in mind.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official
And no, determining the distance to the moon does NOT require knowing the distance to the sun. If you know how far away the observers are one from each other, by observing an eclipse you can use trigonometry to determine how far away the moon is.
That sounds similar to an Eratosphenes-type measurement: a large distance would involve curvature needing to be calculated too. I'm not certain which experiment you're referring to.

Quote
Lol good luck trying to explain that! Especially when shooting stars don't have a problem passing through that...
Why would the existence of a force mean nothing can get past said force?

Quote
That is COMPLETELY flawed, because trigonometry also tells us that these objects would never go beneath the horizon. Even if you were on one edge of the disk and the sun was on the other (which supposedly never happens), it would still be about 3.5 degrees above the horizon! It also tells us that the sun would appear to be noticeably smaller during sunrises and sunsets. So, if trigonometry using the "standard" model of light disproves your hypothesis, why would you pretend it is useful to calculate something in your hypothesis?
I don't. you were the one who brought up the 3000 figure, i simply explained where it came from.

Quote
Again, that is only true because magnets are dipoles. A monopole has a field identical to gravity. Are you implying that mass is a gravitational dipole? Because that is not remotely what we observe.
I was using a magnetic field as an analogy. Even so, repulsive gravity is an existing hypothesis. If it serves well in a model then it may well be what we observe: it should also be pointed out that, by definition, it would be very hard to observe matter that exerts repulsive gravity as it would have long since been repulsed from near us. This is a hastily explained, tenuous hypothesis, it's never going to be a complete accurate theory.

Quote
By the way, if you think pictures of the ISS from Earth are too blurred..
I've seen them. A lot of details are missing in most. The most persuasive image I've seen was of the ISS' shadow passing in front of the moon, and I've done calculations which could lead to disproving an in-atmosphere ISS depending on the readings. We'll see. I favoured the idea that space travel was real, anyway.

Quote
Stars are spherical objects as well. No, that's not what I said. Planets undeniably pose several similarities to Earth, and are in relatively close proximity with the Earth. This is also true for the moon and the sun. There is no observable flat celestial object, yet you assume that a flat object is more likely to form than a spherical object?
That's not what I'm saying. i'm developing a hypothesis based upon the notion that the world is not round. How am I to do that if I assume it's round?
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: JerkFace on September 16, 2015, 06:02:36 PM
  Watch ID discovery sometime. You will learn that the killers often get caught because of the location their cell phones were last active. No need for satellites.

Next take into account that accurate maps of almost every road in the world are now digital. Of course that would be fine enough, but next take into account that some guys with a couple cameras mounted to their cars drive down those roads often, so there are now even more accurate digital maps.

We have tracking technology. We have maps.

Seems logical to me.

Not logical at all.

Cell tower triangulation,   is not that accurate,   wheras gps can be accurate down to cm level accuracy.   
GPS works in the middle of the ocean,   thousands of miles from land.   

Finally,   as I already pointed out,  the signals themselves tell the true location of the transmitters,  and those signals cannot be faked.

The GPS satellites are in fact in orbit.    Exactly where they are supposed to be.    Sorry the earth is not flat.




Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 17, 2015, 08:58:36 AM
  Watch ID discovery sometime. You will learn that the killers often get caught because of the location their cell phones were last active. No need for satellites.

Next take into account that accurate maps of almost every road in the world are now digital. Of course that would be fine enough, but next take into account that some guys with a couple cameras mounted to their cars drive down those roads often, so there are now even more accurate digital maps.

We have tracking technology. We have maps.

Seems logical to me.

Not logical at all.

Cell tower triangulation,   is not that accurate,
That's an understatement, in fact they're often complete bollocks:

Quote
Rather than pinpoint a suspect’s whereabouts, cell-tower records can put someone within an area of several hundred square miles or, in a congested urban area, several square miles. Yet years of prosecutions and plea bargains have been based on a misunderstanding of how cell networks operate. No one knows how often this occurs, but each year police make more than a million requests for cell-phone records. “We think the whole paradigm is absolutely flawed at every level, and shouldn’t be used in the courtroom,” Michael Cherry, the C.E.O. of Cherry Biometrics, a consulting firm in Falls Church, Virginia, told me. “This whole thing is junk science, a farce.”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-your-cell-phone-cant-tell-the-police (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-your-cell-phone-cant-tell-the-police)

And in my example there was no cell phone coverage and I was using a specialist GPS device.

Quote
Finally,   as I already pointed out,  the signals themselves tell the true location of the transmitters,  and those signals cannot be faked.
And this is the bit FEScientist keeps sticking her fingers in her ears and going "nnn...nnnn...nnnn"


Quote from: FEScientist
It's not spoofing data: it's simulating. A correctly placed and offset transmitter would give the indication of a satellite from higher up: one way to think of it would be to assume there is a higher satellite, and that the transmitter merely relays that data. Then all you need to do is remove the higher satellite, as the data must be intelligible and predictable in order to be usable.
lol what?  This is borderline gibberish.

What I think you are tying to say is that you could relay data from a satellite, which of course you can.  Then you are saying "all you need to do is remove the higher satellite".  So all you are left with is a relay, and no GPS data. ::)

You going  to look a lot better if you just say "I've no idea how GPS works on a flat earth" rather than coming up with this tortuous shit.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: mikeman7918 on September 17, 2015, 09:45:50 AM
Why must the transmitters be ground based? Planes, balloons, helicopters... There are many ways for signals to be sent from above.
Incorrect data wouldn't be given out: the data would be entirely correct, it would merely simulate a satellite higher up.

Actually that's still impossible.  Because of the nature of the system you can actually use it in revere by setting up at least 3 recievers and triangulating the position of a satellite.  It's impossible to mimic a GPS satellite with anything that's not at the same altitude as a satellite.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 17, 2015, 10:37:58 AM
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.

Funny,  I replied, but the server timed out when I posted the reply.   

Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.

The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.

Rayzor, I've told you this before, when are you going to learn? GPS satellites do not exist. Morning Rayzor

Guys, I've told you a million times before, STOP PRETENDING SATELLITES DON'T EXIST!

I don't think it's been a million times. Actually, I believe GPS transmitters are hung from the underside of the glass dome.

There is only one correct response to this:  ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 17, 2015, 11:24:36 AM
Why must the transmitters be ground based? Planes, balloons, helicopters... There are many ways for signals to be sent from above.
Incorrect data wouldn't be given out: the data would be entirely correct, it would merely simulate a satellite higher up.

Actually that's still impossible.  Because of the nature of the system you can actually use it in revere by setting up at least 3 recievers and triangulating the position of a satellite.  It's impossible to mimic a GPS satellite with anything that's not at the same altitude as a satellite.

That would be true: and it is also true that you could not accurately gain the position of the satellites in the offset model unless you already knew where they were/how long they were offset. So, the question is, what would happen if you tried to triangulate the same signal?
The claim that it is impossible is a very strong one, and very hard to prove. GPS signals are based on "A implies B," that is the satellite A gives off the signals B. The fact A implies B does not mean A is the only thing that implies B, however: as I've said before, the signals pass through the lower altitudes. All that would be needed is to offset the transmitters to what would be expected at those altitudes, and to provide the signals B.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: mikeman7918 on September 17, 2015, 12:39:36 PM
That would be true: and it is also true that you could not accurately gain the position of the satellites in the offset model unless you already knew where they were/how long they were offset. So, the question is, what would happen if you tried to triangulate the same signal?
The claim that it is impossible is a very strong one, and very hard to prove. GPS signals are based on "A implies B," that is the satellite A gives off the signals B. The fact A implies B does not mean A is the only thing that implies B, however: as I've said before, the signals pass through the lower altitudes. All that would be needed is to offset the transmitters to what would be expected at those altitudes, and to provide the signals B.

The government can't control the speed of light, so that means that no matter what the offset is the time measured by recievers will change with distance as expected.  If you get an additional 10 feet away from the transmitter then the receiver cannot be tricked into thinking that the change is anything other then 10 feet.  That is where the probelem lies.

On a flat Earth if all the transmitters were the same distance from a receiver then the numbers would more or less agree but if there are transmitters at varying distances like we see more often in real life then the results would often conflict with each other.  This is because the way that the distance from satellites changes as you go across the surface of the Earth is something that's highly sensitive to the shape of the Earth.  I could provide diagrams and graphs to prove my point of you want.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 17, 2015, 01:08:50 PM
Why must the transmitters be ground based? Planes, balloons, helicopters... There are many ways for signals to be sent from above.
Incorrect data wouldn't be given out: the data would be entirely correct, it would merely simulate a satellite higher up.

Actually that's still impossible.  Because of the nature of the system you can actually use it in revere by setting up at least 3 recievers and triangulating the position of a satellite.  It's impossible to mimic a GPS satellite with anything that's not at the same altitude as a satellite.

That would be true: and it is also true that you could not accurately gain the position of the satellites in the offset model
What the is the "offset model"?

Quote
The claim that it is impossible is a very strong one, and very hard to prove. GPS signals are based on "A implies B," that is the satellite A gives off the signals B. The fact A implies B does not mean A is the only thing that implies B, however: as I've said before, the signals pass through the lower altitudes. All that would be needed is to offset the transmitters to what would be expected at those altitudes, and to provide the signals B.
As with many of your posts, it's very hard to tell what the hell you are on about...which I suspect is intentional.  The words are fine, but the sentences dissolve into meaninglessness.   The simple fact is that a GPS satellites broadcast their position and a timestamp.  Using this information a GPS device work out the lag between the broadcast and receiving the signal - with 3 satellites it can then calculate a 2D position and with 4 satellites a 3D position.

(http://www.geneko.rs/uploads/content/images/Technology/gps_system_how_it_works.png)

If the satellites aren't where they say they are, then it won't work.

Instead of talking in riddles, if you have an alternative system, then draw a diagram and take us through how it would work, step by step.
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: XaeXae on September 17, 2015, 01:13:57 PM
Good work guys, but what don't you understand in "Please don't post anything else on this topic." ? :D

The idea is that you resume all of your arguments here, and that this allows everybody to know what arguments were already proposed, and maybe refuted  ;)
Title: Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
Post by: FEScientist on September 17, 2015, 02:13:46 PM
Quote from: mikeman
The government can't control the speed of light, so that means that no matter what the offset is the time measured by recievers will change with distance as expected.  If you get an additional 10 feet away from the transmitter then the receiver cannot be tricked into thinking that the change is anything other then 10 feet.  That is where the probelem lies.
I'm not blaming the government, just a few administrators and engineers at space agencies.
They don't need to change the speed of light, just the speed of the transmission. Add a few 'pause' markers between the landmarks the GPS uses to interpret the data, you'll get the same effect.

Quote
This is because the way that the distance from satellites changes as you go across the surface of the Earth is something that's highly sensitive to the shape of the Earth.  I could provide diagrams and graphs to prove my point of you want.
Distance from airplanes, balloons, helicopters... will change as you go over the surface of the Earth, even on a FE. To my knowledge, multiple satellites are used to gauge position: not just one or two for the globe. Curvature shouldn't be too major a factor if the nearest satellite is used.

Quote from: Jimmy
What the is the "offset model"?
This may be why you later express difficulty in understanding what I'm saying: you're coming in, in the middle of a conversation. It's never going to be clear what's going on them.
As was explained earlier, GPS reportedly works by data being emitted by satellites, and the GPS expecting certain data, and measuring the difference between the two: the delay in receiving the signal is how distance is measured. The offset model supposes the signal comes from lower transmitters, which are 'offset': the data the emit is a little ahead of the GPS, thus giving the illusion the signal comes from higher up.
This has all been explained, and as such directly answers your question. Please don't enter into the middle of a conversation without reading what's been written before. Maybe you're unsatisifed with my answer, but for your query mean anything you should at least be able to understand the model that I am referring to, and have been outlining throughout this thread. The fact is you haven't even tried to understand what's being discussed, you openly ask about the basics of the conversation we're having clearly showing you have not even begun to read the conversation. I take quite an issue with your insulting tone for this reason because it is clear you do not know what you're talking about.
If you have a problem with my model, you should at least know what the modle is; you should have at least read about it rather than blithely assuming that just because I am a flat Earther I must be incapable of answering the most basic questions posed (and did you really think you were the first and only person to ask those questions, or for that matter that I would blithely mention a mysterious offset model and that only you would be bothered by that?)
Please read a conversation before chiming in.

Quote
Instead of talking in riddles, if you have an alternative system, then draw a diagram and take us through how it would work, step by step.
This is once more something I have done over the progress of this thread.
Imagine a satellite. Its signal is sent down to the Earth.
Now, pick a certain altitude, and place a transmitter at that altitude intersecting the satellite's signal: as the signal must be predictable if it is to be interpreted, have that transmitter emit the same signal. Remove the satellite, the same signal will reach the GPS unit on the Earth: offset timestamp to give the illusion of duration, and a similar effect. Having more than one of these for an area would remove most, if not all, error.

For a final note, which you would also know had you read the conversation, I do not believe this. I do favor the hypothesis that space travel, including satellites, are genuine.