1

Flat Earth Debate / It makes me laugh...

« on: June 05, 2008, 12:59:16 AM »

That people are still trying to prove the FE'rs wrong. This forum has been here for bloody years, surely someone would have come up with the definitive proof for a RE by now? But new people don't realise that, I have come to the conclusion that Tom could go up in a space shuttle and see for himself the shape of the earth but still believe it to be flat.

THERE IS NO WAY YOU ARE GOING TO PROVE A RE OR DISPROVE A FE!!!!

I feel that this topic should be stickied to warn people not to even bother. Don't you FE guys get sick of answering the same questions?

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radar Waves

« on: December 15, 2007, 03:19:44 AM »

Radar Waves.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Brief summary please!!

« on: December 15, 2007, 03:18:23 AM »

Hmm, RADAR?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: round vs. flat II: the recknoning

« on: December 15, 2007, 03:16:54 AM »

Also, RADAR.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Radar Waves

« on: December 15, 2007, 03:09:04 AM »

RADAR debunks flat earth theory! RADAR waves can only travel in straight lines, and struggle to detect targets when the curvature of the earth gets in the way!!!!!!!!

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radar Waves

« on: December 04, 2007, 02:33:12 PM »

Yet there was still a need to develop OTH RADAR.
Why would this be necessary on a flat earth?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: observations and explanations

« on: December 04, 2007, 02:31:30 PM »

Hey Eric, add to your list the fact that aircraft can hide from RADAR waves behind the curvature of the Earth. FE tries to explain this with 'atmospheric distortion' and 'clutter', both of which i debunked in the Radar Waves thread.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The burden of proof lies with the REers

« on: December 04, 2007, 02:29:41 PM »

Thank You. I believe we can add the fact that aircraft can hide from RADAR waves behind the curvature of the Earth to RE Winning Threads.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The burden of proof lies with the REers

« on: December 04, 2007, 05:21:19 AM »

meh, point taken, i was just trying to find a quick answer.

Its bad but it's the first place i thought of!

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The burden of proof lies with the REers

« on: December 04, 2007, 05:17:23 AM »

OTH was developed during the 50's and 60's, according to Wikipedia. So I guess this fits in with the conspiracy. Its just annoying how arguments eventually always lead back to the conspiracy, which can be neither proven nor disproven.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The burden of proof lies with the REers

« on: December 04, 2007, 05:07:38 AM »

RADAR is limited due to the horizon, be it due to curvature or FE magic.

So explain OTH RADAR.

OTH horizon RADAR was invented because of the shortcomings of conventional RADAR, ie the fact that the waves tend to travel in straight lines, and therefore cannot pick up targets beyond the curve of the earth. Such an invention would not be necessary on FE.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The burden of proof lies with the REers

« on: December 04, 2007, 05:06:41 AM »

I never said that. I said RADAR (probably should have stated CONVENTIONAL radar) could not detect aircraft over the horizon. I was just saying that why would this happen on a FE?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The burden of proof lies with the REers

« on: December 04, 2007, 05:00:51 AM »

Why was this developed? To make sure that targets could not be cloaked by the curvature of the earth! If you want to debate further, go to the Radar waves topic.

What does that have to do with your false claim?

I don't know what you are talking about. Which false claim? Post in the RADAR waves forum so we don't clog this one up.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Acceleration of the Earth

« on: December 04, 2007, 04:59:23 AM »

The energy may run out at any time John.

Exactly.

what happens when it does?

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The burden of proof lies with the REers

« on: December 04, 2007, 04:57:41 AM »

how about the fact RADAR cannot detect aircraft (and other targets over the horizon) due to the curvature of the earth?

OTH RADAR.

Why was this developed? To make sure that targets could not be cloaked by the curvature of the earth! If you want to debate further, go to the Radar waves topic.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The burden of proof lies with the REers

« on: December 04, 2007, 04:52:24 AM »

how about the fact RADAR cannot detect aircraft (and other targets over the horizon) due to the curvature of the earth?

If the effect is indeed true, there is likely another explanation for it.

which no FE'er has discovered yet...still waiting

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The burden of proof lies with the REers

« on: December 04, 2007, 04:46:38 AM »

how about the fact RADAR cannot detect aircraft (and other targets over the horizon) due to the curvature of the earth?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Username and Lunar Eclipses

« on: December 04, 2007, 02:51:00 AM »

sorry to get off topic, but who is in your pic username?

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radar Waves

« on: December 03, 2007, 10:27:11 PM »

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6853331-description.html

I suggest reading this website, particularly this paragraph:

There is a need for a method of compensating for atmospheric effects while using radar to detect an object near the horizon that determines a real time bending angle by comparing the Doppler shift in a signal from the observed location of a low elevation object to the signal from the apparent location of the low elevation object.

Obviously someone has already noticed the effects of atmospheric distortion on RADAR waves, and corrected it.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radar Waves

« on: December 03, 2007, 10:22:03 PM »

no, the radar is distorted by atmospheric distortion, which creates the illusion of flying under the radar. No curvature required.

Next.

Explain in more detail.
What effect does the atmospheric distortion have on the RADAR waves? Why does it only occur when the aircraft is flying low to the ground?

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radar Waves

« on: December 03, 2007, 10:15:47 PM »

BUMP

Just in case some of you have forgotten the original argument:

I was reading about aircraft which can penetrate COASTAL radar systems by flying in low so the curvature of the earth covers them.

By the time the aircraft comes in range of the radar waves it is usually too late for the 'enemy' to scramble enemy fighters or whatever (although in this modern age SAM's would probably be launched, i don't care STICK TO THE TOPIC and don't start fighting about the aircraft would get shot down etc.)

Anyway, this tactic has been used by the US Air Force (and i'm sure many others) to infiltrate enemy airspace.
How would this be possible on a flat earth? (notice the COASTAL in capitals? There are no mountains to hide behind)

Plus 'clutter' is not a valid argument, as RADAR receivers use many different techniques to minimize clutter which may affect the reading of the RADAR.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: All the proof that anybody needs

« on: December 03, 2007, 07:55:07 PM »

oh, right: it LOOKS flat to YOU because you WANT to see it that way!

And that looks like the south pole because YOU want it to. That could be anywhere in the arctic. Where is the evidence that this is anything but a picture of a pole in some snow.

I'm sick of Northern Hemisphere chauvinism! It also could have been taken somewhere in the antarctic (whether continent or, erm, 'ice shelf wall thingy'

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radar Waves

« on: December 03, 2007, 03:13:35 PM »

BUMP

Getting annoyed that no Flat Earther can explain to me how the phenomenon of a plane hiding from RADAR waves below the horizon on a Round Earth model could occur on a Flat Earth.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect

« on: December 03, 2007, 02:32:43 AM »

But the number is significantly less when compared to FE theory

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration 101

« on: December 03, 2007, 02:30:20 AM »

Dawkins covers it in The God Delusion but says the prayers make no difference whatsoever. (scientifically)

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Who am I?

« on: December 02, 2007, 04:54:55 PM »

the plot thickens.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Who am I?

« on: December 02, 2007, 04:48:48 PM »

Who am i really? I'll give you a clue:

I am not Tom Bishop.

Sorry to disappoint.

Tom Bishop is well versed on conspiracies. I bet it is him, and this statement was just to throw us off the trail. He longs for the respect on these forums that TheEngineer has.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radar Waves

« on: December 02, 2007, 03:36:29 PM »

Let me explain. My original argument outlined a coastal RADAR station, where a plane can successfully use the curvature of the Earth to hide from RADAR waves (which travel in straight lines)

Although you have thoughtfully bolded "While this does not help detect targets masked by stronger surrounding clutter, it does help to distinguish strong target sources"

However, waves and a bit of sea mist are not 'strong' clutter.

In fact, it says in the same passage 'Sea clutter can be reduced by using horizontal polarization'. Sea clutter would not be strong enough to mask an airplane from a trained RADAR operator.

Also, read the last part of this statement: "While this does not help detect targets masked by stronger surrounding clutter, it does help to distinguish strong target sources"
This means a trained RADAR operator would be able to make an informed decision if anything looked different from the (minimal) ordinary clutter.

EDIT: Fixed typo

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect

« on: December 02, 2007, 03:24:43 PM »

Why? FE'ers would do the same to RE'ers, but it just happens they can never find a hole in the RE theory.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Radar Waves

« on: December 02, 2007, 03:05:25 PM »

EDIT: From my friends at Wikipedia:

There are several methods of detecting and neutralizing clutter. Many of these methods rely on the fact that clutter tends to appear static between radar scans. Therefore, when comparing subsequent scans echoes, desirable targets will appear to move and all stationary echoes can be eliminated. Sea clutter can be reduced by using horizontal polarization, while rain is reduced with circular polarization (note that meteorological radars wish for the opposite effect, therefore using linear polarization the better to detect precipitation). Other methods attempt to increase the signal-to-clutter ratio.

CFAR (Constant False-Alarm Rate, a form of Automatic Gain Control, or AGC) is a method relying on the fact that clutter returns far outnumber echoes from targets of interest. The receiver's gain is automatically adjusted to maintain a constant level of overall visible clutter. While this does not help detect targets masked by stronger surrounding clutter, it does help to distinguish strong target sources. In the past, radar AGC was electronically controlled and affected the gain of the entire radar receiver. As radars evolved, AGC became computer-software controlled, and affected the gain with greater granularity, in specific detection cells.

So i think that sufficiently debunks the 'clutter' argument.

Nope.

Go on, enlighten me and tell me why this is wrong.