1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 11, 2016, 07:06:22 AM »

It's more like being born before they can crawl.

I typically point out that (1) you can't have people living on just one side of a FE because of rotational issues (Earth/sky). (2) Then per amateur astronomy, the sky/heavens are all wrong on FE models (S. Celestial Pole, sunrises/sunsets, etc.). (3) Then any type of FE map causes major distortions that are hidden by oceans and the ignoring of peoples' complaints who are south of the equator (as demonstrated by the S.Pole being in the middle rather than the N.Pole). Therefore, the FE concept is truly a fantasy only in the minds of individuals (who probably have their own versions of a FE). So, discussing how various things would work *IF* a FE existed is silly to me - at best a mind game/exercise.

It is like a car. The triangular wheels don't work (geometry). The body of the car doesn't exist (sky). The engine and powertrain doesn't exist (Earth/map). So hey, let's discuss how seat belts would work on it (Dish TV, gravity, etc. usually with some off-the-wall ad hock explanations not supported by what actually happens in the real world). Sorry if this all gets nonsensical and tiring.

Sure, it's just a mind exercise, so what? At least that achieves something. Pasting an argument you know isn't going to get refuted to someone you know won't be convinced doesn't even manage that. Seems far sillier.
Plus asking someone to singlehandedly map out satellites like that is a ridiculous thing to do no matter the shape of the world. Given they won't have the means to just google, I'd love to see you manage the same with that restriction in place.

Seriously, why do you come to this forum? You may as well not even read what they post if you're not going to engage with it. Given achievement's not an option on a forum like this, you may as well at least try to derive some enjoyment. I can't imagine anyone enjoys talking to a brick wall (both on your part and theirs). You can refute FET, big woop, instant-death arguments are overkill if a model can't even answer the small ones.
Refute it on their grounds. Have a little fun. Leave behind evidence, how they justify their belief, let them get as ad hoc as they want. Wait until they can actually even theoretically answer questions like "What are satellite dishes pointed at?" Most FEers have different models so at least that'd actually be fresh. It's only tiring if you're left repeating yourself.
Then ask questions relating to evidence and the like. By that point they'll actually be meaningful. Pointing out there's no evidence for something that doesn't even work in the first place is silly.

Okey dokey. As long as everyone knows that the FE concept is just a fantasy and all we are doing is discussing "mind-games" - IF a FE could exist - that is fine. We are just here for the fun of it, nothing serious. I hope they don't call us trolls. Got it...

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Interesting vid on angular momentum in space

« on: July 11, 2016, 06:48:02 AM »

Thanos, let me take you through this one step at a time...

1) There is software that you can see where and when the ISS is near your location (latitude and longitude). Google it.
2) The ISS is in orbit at an inclination of 51.6° (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-ISS-at-51-6-degrees-orbital-inclination)
3) The Sun's inclination is 23.5°.
4) The Moon's inclination is 28.58°.
5) Therefore, every now and then the ISS will transit the Sun and Moon.
6) We have cameras and telescopes (with solar filters).
7) We can and do take pictures of the Sun and Moon.
8 ) We can and do travel to places on Earth where the ISS will transit the Sun and Moon.
9) Are you suggesting we can't take a picture of it transiting the Sun or Moon?

Why not?

Your ISS sun and moon photos are fake CG. It's no different then how they broadcast fake videos inside the ISS from a studio.  I get it though you will believe any of the Hollywood star magic that comes from the high priests of NASA.

As I asked before, if you think they are fake, what do real ones look like? Is taking pictures of the Sun and Moon impossible on a FE? I guess so...

So I took you step by step but no go... Obviously you have no logic and never have seen or used cameras or telescopes. "lalala" leave me alone in my FE fantasy world... I don't believe in the real world... "lalala"... Got it...

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Chicago Skyline Mirage

« on: July 11, 2016, 06:42:41 AM »

Hey guys and gals,
My name is Steve and I live in Northwest Indiana. I live about 2 miles from the Southern shores of Lake Michigan.  I have very recently opened my eyes to the fact that, the earth is not a globe.  In doing some research I have come across a couple different pictures of the Chicago skyline.  In the pictures I've heard several reasons why you can see the skyline at around 55-65 miles away, which would be West of Michigan City's lakefront.  My favorite one, is that it's considered a "mirage" and that you normally can't see the skyline. That it has to me a certain temperature, cloud cover, sun angle, season, etc....I call BS!  I can go down to the beach every day of the week through the summer and see the Chicago skyline.  Heck, I sometimes take pictures of it with my cell phones camera.  No need for a telescopic lens, or to be on top of Mt. Baldy (The area's largest dune). A mirage that is only visible with certain "lucky" conditions? Are you serious? That's the best you can do to explain why on a round earth that you can see across the lake to see the skyline? I'll see if I have a picture from my cell phone to post here. It will be from Washington Park in Michigan City, taken from my car.

You should probably watch this video by Rob Skiba. I think it helps back you up.

Yes, his video proves curvature. You should read my 3 posts.

This is FE "science" at its best...

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 10, 2016, 10:37:38 AM »

Because no FE model has a map. You don't know where you or anything is on your FE fantasy world. How can you measure or say what happens anywhere on it? You don't know where a dish (e.g. a house in Texas) is on a FE. You don't know where ANY transmitter is on a FE. So how do you know when a dish is pointing up, it hits a transmitter on Earth? It is all hand-waving - nothing scientific or measurable or verifiable.

That wasn't a good argument the first time you made it. Given the core of Triddles' argument is based on satellite signals bouncing off of moisture layers, the only claim that merits testing is that. Whether or not that happens isn't going to relate to how far Texas is from wherever. Asking for things that would be impossible to provide regardless of the shape of the Earth is just silly, especially if they aren't really relevant.

Actually you are correct. It is impossible to provide on a FE. On a FE, even if signals somehow could bounce off of moisture layers, how can you tell if you don't know where the transmitter is that is sending the signal or the receiver (dish) is? I don't even know if the height of these moisture layers can be measured. How can anything be measured?

On a RE, per latitude and longitude on a sphere, we know exactly where they are. Therefore, based on the calculated angles from software we can point the dishes at the target. They all converge on the target. We can set up telescopes (without even their motors running) to take pictures of the geostationary targets. All this conforms to documentation on how dishes are installed and work.

So against hand-waving at best with dubious scientific properties (bounding off of moisture layers) - another ad hoc explanation that probably only one FEer believes, we have reality that is testable, falsifiable, measurable and repeatable.

We know where they are on a RE because we've been told. You're asking an FEer to do the work of all those hundreds of people who did quite literally rocket science on the spur of the moment, for a forum post. It's a silly thing to ask for.
Like you pointed out: you don't know how to measure the height of these moisture layers. If the same holds for them, then you're literally asking the impossible. Similarly, if the world was round, you wouldn't easily be able to determine the location of satellites by just the angle of a dish. There are hypothetical experiments, relying on figuring out two dishes point to the same one, finding out the angles... But that's a lot of work to go through, and if you can't prove they're pointed at the same point, pointless.

All you're establishing is that FET lacks predictive power. Big woop. Let's wait for FET to pass a few more minor hurdles before we hold it up to that particular test. Wait for an FEer to walk before demanding they run.

It's more like being born before they can crawl.

I typically point out that (1) you can't have people living on just one side of a FE because of rotational issues (Earth/sky). (2) Then per amateur astronomy, the sky/heavens are all wrong on FE models (S. Celestial Pole, sunrises/sunsets, etc.). (3) Then any type of FE map causes major distortions that are hidden by oceans and the ignoring of peoples' complaints who are south of the equator (as demonstrated by the S.Pole being in the middle rather than the N.Pole). Therefore, the FE concept is truly a fantasy only in the minds of individuals (who probably have their own versions of a FE). So, discussing how various things would work *IF* a FE existed is silly to me - at best a mind game/exercise.

It is like a car. The triangular wheels don't work (geometry). The body of the car doesn't exist (sky). The engine and powertrain doesn't exist (Earth/map). So hey, let's discuss how seat belts would work on it (Dish TV, gravity, etc. usually with some off-the-wall ad hoc explanations not supported by what actually happens in the real world). Sorry if this all gets nonsensical and tiring.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 10, 2016, 09:40:33 AM »

I will happily do so if you can provide one piece of information: given your dish, what angle is it at, and where is the tower or installation that receives its signal? From that I can calculate where all dishes at the same angle on that radius. Without that, it is not physically possible for me to answer that question.

Satellite signals reflect off moisture, and a moisture layer would develop between the heat of the Sun and the cool of the ground: there is a point where it goes from gas to liquid and back to gas. The variation I gave only follows from the shape of the caloric field, and the Sun's influence.

Dishes can be said to converge many ways. If you wanted you could point every dish on Earth towards a place that would be over the equator, but the signal would still bounce and return to a point on Earth. So long as a sufficient 'satellite' is there (it might be no bigger than a lamppost, the main installation could be elsewhere) the system will remain.

I ask you again to please leave behind the bluster. I understand you believe the world is round, but a conversation cannot be had if you try to drag me into your worldview without comprehending mine. If it makes you happy I will concede this aspect of your model could work. I don't believe that is true, but I have no desire to get into that discussion. Now, if your model can in theory work, and my model can in theory work, what is it you intend to do to sort between them?

Here are 3 locations and angles:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64682.msg1726741#msg1726741)

The Galaxy 19 satellite - There are almost 200 transmitters using this satellite.
(http://www.ftalist.com/galaxy19.php)

One channel - Daystar Television - transmits from KRMT (SW of Denver, CO) at (39° 35′ 59″ N, 105° 12′ 35″ W)
KRMT info (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRMT)

Please show where they are on your FE.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 10, 2016, 09:03:49 AM »

May I ask if this is a special layer of moisture. I ask because the world is covered with clouds/moisture and this doesn't effect the reception when it is overcast. Or when there is not a cloud in the sky.

Moisture does affect satellite signals.
http://www.tech-faq.com/rainfade.html

Did you actually read that article (1st sentence in the 1st paragraph)?

It says that rain and snowfall disperse/distort satellite signals. Nowhere does it say that Dish TV companies use clouds (VERY low level) to transmit TV broadcasts. So what is your point?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Interesting vid on angular momentum in space

« on: July 10, 2016, 08:51:26 AM »

Thanos, let me take you through this one step at a time...

1) There is software that you can see where and when the ISS is near your location (latitude and longitude). Google it.
2) The ISS is in orbit at an inclination of 51.6° (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-ISS-at-51-6-degrees-orbital-inclination)
3) The Sun's inclination is 23.5°.
4) The Moon's inclination is 28.58°.
5) Therefore, every now and then the ISS will transit the Sun and Moon.
6) We have cameras and telescopes (with solar filters).
7) We can and do take pictures of the Sun and Moon.
8 ) We can and do travel to places on Earth where the ISS will transit the Sun and Moon.
9) Are you suggesting we can't take a picture of it transiting the Sun or Moon?

Why not?

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 10, 2016, 07:18:45 AM »

Because no FE model has a map. You don't know where you or anything is on your FE fantasy world. How can you measure or say what happens anywhere on it? You don't know where a dish (e.g. a house in Texas) is on a FE. You don't know where ANY transmitter is on a FE. So how do you know when a dish is pointing up, it hits a transmitter on Earth? It is all hand-waving - nothing scientific or measurable or verifiable.

That wasn't a good argument the first time you made it. Given the core of Triddles' argument is based on satellite signals bouncing off of moisture layers, the only claim that merits testing is that. Whether or not that happens isn't going to relate to how far Texas is from wherever. Asking for things that would be impossible to provide regardless of the shape of the Earth is just silly, especially if they aren't really relevant.

Actually you are correct. It is impossible to provide on a FE. On a FE, even if signals somehow could bounce off of moisture layers, how can you tell if you don't know where the transmitter is that is sending the signal or the receiver (dish) is? I don't even know if the height of these moisture layers can be measured. How can anything be measured?

On a RE, per latitude and longitude on a sphere, we know exactly where they are. Therefore, based on the calculated angles from software we can point the dishes at the target. They all converge on the target. We can set up telescopes (without even their motors running) to take pictures of the geostationary targets. All this conforms to documentation on how dishes are installed and work.

So against hand-waving at best with dubious scientific properties (bounding off of moisture layers) - another ad hoc explanation that probably only one FEer believes, we have reality that is testable, falsifiable, measurable and repeatable.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FLAT EARTH -- REAL DEBATABLE THOUGHTS

« on: July 10, 2016, 07:05:47 AM »

Actually, they can't. If their moon is as big as their sun, it's completely impossible to have an eclipse like the ones we've always experienced. There would be no crown, for starters. Also, if both moon and sun fly at the same height, they would crash, and it doesn't happen, unless they can now vary their height, too. It wouldn't surprise me, though. They already change their "orbit" and speed constantly

Also, if the Moon is bigger than the Sun in the sky (a total eclipse) and approximately at the same height as the Sun, why the entire FE doesn't go dark. Why is the path of totality on the Earth only a couple hundred miles with partiality being about 1/2 the Earth. Can a FE even make this type of prediction - Aug 21, 2017:

(http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2017-august-21)

Mathematically, we should be able to figure out what the height of the Sun and Moon need to be to show solar eclipses on the FE. That may also be a problem because after thousands of years, they still don't know the height of the Sun and Moon. At best we have this, that changes the height of the Sun based on position on the Earth (3000 mi is cherry-picked - no single height, it is also silly because FEers don't know where the equator is or if an "edge" even exists): (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64777.msg1729335#msg1729335)

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 09, 2016, 09:19:06 PM »

Oh, BTW, I absolutely 100% know you can not provide ANY evidence of these "moisture layers" actually working. Why?

Because no FE model has a map. You don't know where you or anything is on your FE fantasy world. How can you measure or say what happens anywhere on it? You don't know where a dish (e.g. a house in Texas) is on a FE. You don't know where ANY transmitter is on a FE. So how do you know when a dish is pointing up, it hits a transmitter on Earth? It is all hand-waving - nothing scientific or measurable or verifiable.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 09, 2016, 06:09:31 PM »

The signals are received by being bounced off of a layer of moisture in the sky, that arcs from horizon to horizon (dipping slightly in the center). At and near the equator, the curve of this moisture means they must point straight up to avoid being scattered, while elsewhere there is less of a curve.

Too bad, per your sig, you don't believe in astronomy.

1) Dish angles point at geostationary satellites per installation software.
2) The S. Celestial Pole needs to be over a single point S.Pole that can not be found on a single-sided FE per the geometry of rotating objects.
3) All the stars below the S.Celestial Pole in star trail images are on the opposite side of the Earth 10,000+ behind the observers and yet everyone is facing due south looking at the "edge" - remarkable.
4) The Sun is seen due E/W on the equinox at sunrise/sunset when it is 1/4 of the Earth away NE/NW. Sometimes as people have noted, sunrise/sunset is seen south (SE/SW) of their locations. How does that happen exactly on a FE?

Yep, too bad. Your FE Fantasy is the lie. So you are somewhat correct.

My sig does not mention astronomy, it just mentions other facts that need to be taken into account.
This thread is about satellite dishes. Talk about satellite dishes, not star trails and the Sun. There are numerous threads where those issues are discussed, if you want to talk about stars go to a thread about stars, or start your own.
Dishes point where they've been told to point: certain points on the moisture layer which reflects the signals back down.

OK, I was trying to drag you kicking and screaming into reality. But no go... Sorry...

I did mention satellite dishes.

So if all these dishes are pointing and converging somewhere to get their signals, where is this spot? Can you show us using 3 points and dish angles, like the ones I provided (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64682.msg1726741#msg1726741), where that spot is so we can check for a transmitter? ... or is this just fanciful BS?

Please refrain from such clearly meant-to-provoke language. You clearly know those arguments do not work: either you have made a thread on them and seen the responses, or you do not wish to see them rebutted in a location people can easily find. It is simple courtesy in a forum. I don't give the multiple experiments that have detected no curvature, or bring up the flaws in the physics supporting a round earth, when it is not relevant to the subject.

I responded to your mention of satellite dishes. I don't know why you're talking about signals converging on only one location, I didn't say that, I said the signals were reflected back to the ground to/from stations and towers. There are a lot of towers and facilities in the world.

I have noticed that you often seem to feel the need to state your opinion arrogantly. Such statements have no place in scientific discourse. If you are right, you should be able to prove it calmly. If you need to bluster, consider why. If you are simply frustrated I would suggest you find a different hobby, if this one is so unenjoyable for you.

No problem then - no convergence. As dish software tells installers where to point the dishes in the sky from ANYWHERE based on the longitude and latitude of the installation, please provide the location of some of these transmitters. I provided 3 locations and angles per the software. Please calculate where these transmitters are/would be so we can verify your claim.

Yep, there are many towers and facilities in the world. There are lots of trees in the world also. So what? Can you demonstrate any Dishes bouncing off the atmosphere at them or is this just mere hand-waving? (FE logic - there are horses in the world, animals fly, therefore there are flying horses)

In case you are wondering, in the installer software you specify which satellite you want the dish to point at. Based on your latitude and longitude, the software calculates the angles. The Dishes actually DO converge in the real world 42,000+ km above the center of the Earth. This is done for all the dishes out there. So against reality (the real world), what do you have to offer for your "maybe" scenario?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Interesting vid on angular momentum in space

« on: July 09, 2016, 05:51:45 PM »

virtual azimuth and elevation numbers are assigned to mask the land based towers

As for the ISS it is a simple hologram projection. Darpa has had the high altitude hologram technology since the 70s.

See, this is why the FE debate tactic of letting arguments just "roll off" is so bad. Many of these types of arguments have already been covered but here we go again...

I have even brought up this topic months ago here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65080.msg1736930#msg1736930

Please, by all means, explain how:

1) The position of the ISS, that is calculated beforehand so people with telescopes can travel to where it will transit the Sun, is fake. They actually set up equipment and do take pictures. BTW, (1) the image actually has the shuttle docking with the ISS, just like it was supposed to and (2) there are also pictures of it against the Moon as well (calculated beforehand).
2) Exactly how does a hologram work against the Sun? Please provide some evidence of this ludicrous claim. This is why I started that thread in the first place.
3) Using basic high school mathematics, we can (and I did) demonstrate the altitude of the ISS based on the telescope picture (and there are several more you can find). If you know some math, you can calculate it as well.

So, FEers are just making up stuff - as usual. REers have photographic, repeatable, measurable, verifiable proof/evidence. FEers only have "maybe", "if", invisible objects, theoretically possible (?) hopes/beliefs (i.e. religion) with no demonstrable, verifiable evidence something is ACTUALLY being done. The FE concept is just a fantasy/religion for believers, and an underdog debate topic for non-believers.

As I keep saying, amateur astronomy (visual/photographic) supports/proves or falsifies/disproves/destroys/annihilates all Earth models.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 09, 2016, 10:58:11 AM »

The signals are received by being bounced off of a layer of moisture in the sky, that arcs from horizon to horizon (dipping slightly in the center). At and near the equator, the curve of this moisture means they must point straight up to avoid being scattered, while elsewhere there is less of a curve.

Too bad, per your sig, you don't believe in astronomy.

1) Dish angles point at geostationary satellites per installation software.
2) The S. Celestial Pole needs to be over a single point S.Pole that can not be found on a single-sided FE per the geometry of rotating objects.
3) All the stars below the S.Celestial Pole in star trail images are on the opposite side of the Earth 10,000+ behind the observers and yet everyone is facing due south looking at the "edge" - remarkable.
4) The Sun is seen due E/W on the equinox at sunrise/sunset when it is 1/4 of the Earth away NE/NW. Sometimes as people have noted, sunrise/sunset is seen south (SE/SW) of their locations. How does that happen exactly on a FE?

Yep, too bad. Your FE Fantasy is the lie. So you are somewhat correct.

My sig does not mention astronomy, it just mentions other facts that need to be taken into account.
This thread is about satellite dishes. Talk about satellite dishes, not star trails and the Sun. There are numerous threads where those issues are discussed, if you want to talk about stars go to a thread about stars, or start your own.
Dishes point where they've been told to point: certain points on the moisture layer which reflects the signals back down.

OK, I was trying to drag you kicking and screaming into reality. But no go... Sorry...

I did mention satellite dishes.

So if all these dishes are pointing and converging somewhere to get their signals, where is this spot? Can you show us using 3 points and dish angles, like the ones I provided (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64682.msg1726741#msg1726741), where that spot is so we can check for a transmitter? ... or is this just fanciful BS?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 09, 2016, 10:48:23 AM »

Been vacationing in Norfolk and I saw something interesting. Across the hotel I've been staying in there's a tv or radio station that is about four stories tall. The hotel I was staying in was nine stories but I was on the fourth floor. Anyway I noticed the satellite dishes on the roof of the station (WGNT) were pointed at a 45 degree angle and were pointed south. According to the flat earth theory satellites don't exist and the dishes are getting there signals from towers. Please explain to me were are these dishes are getting there signal when there are no mountains near by.

I would think in Norfolk Va. satellite tv dishes should be pointing more towards SW at around 38 degree elevation to pick up the High-Altitude Long Endurance platforms they use to beam tv signals at us.

So this is going to be the next FE go-to answer. You realize they are just LOOKING at STUDYING these right?
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67265.msg1797523#msg1797523)

Yep, say anything to try to disprove satellites. Keep believing the fantasy.

You do realize that the technology has been around since the early 60's to do this don't you? Just because they say they are just now doing it doesn't mean anything. They could have been doing it all along as far as we know.

Ah, so why are they just looking into studying it now?

"They could have been doing it all along as far as we know." Or they could be doing what they claim they are doing. Can you demonstrate where this technology from the early 60's is being used for dishes today? ... or is this just a hopeful "may be" to keep the FE faith?

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Interesting vid on angular momentum in space

« on: July 09, 2016, 10:41:32 AM »

Galaxy 19 is in geostationary orbit above 35,700 KM. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_19
http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=33376

do you have a reference for you claim that it is only at 42 km?

No, I used software that Dish TV installers use for the angles and derived the 42,000+ km (from the Earth's center) using high school trigonometry.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Interesting vid on angular momentum in space

« on: July 09, 2016, 10:29:37 AM »

the tiny stationary white dots!

Those tiny white dots are hauling ass!   

They are merely stationary blimps that function as geosynchronous satellites for the globe deception. 

Triangulation from dish angles puts those " stationary blimps that function as geosynchronous satellites  " at the right altitude to be in geosynchronous orbit.

A geostationary equatorial orbit (GEO) is a circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth's equator with a radius of approximately 42,164 km (26,199 mi) (measured from the center of the Earth). A satellite in such an orbit is at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above mean sea level.

So you are guessing that there are blimps at an altitude of 35,786 km!  not much air there!

Still any old bit of guesswork to stop the flat earthers from thinking.

I have noticed a few of your other posts and you seem to be dragging out all the old ideas that have been answered dozens of times.

You must have just graduated from the "Flat Earther Indoctrination Course 101"!

Maybe you should wait till you get through the third level before making serious posts.

See if this post means anything to you

OK, here it is - your proof that satellite dishes are point at the same object. I am using towns at the 97° longitude to make this a 2D trigonometric problem:

You'll need to go and look at it.

Obviously you need to do more research into HAPS "High altitude platform station" blimps that reach 50Km. As someone that studied Aerospace Engineering nearly 10 years ago I will provide a little lesson of how things really work.

HAPS offer all the same data transmission capabilites of "satellites," are routinely positioned 20-50Km, AND have outrageous benefits:
- They are orders of magnitude cheaper
- They can be landed for repairs and upgrades
-  rapidly deployable and replaceable without launch platforms 

Now think about those practical benefits for a moment...  You really think that Government agencies and corporations have been blowing $50-500 million a pop on 2,271 fragile, impractical, non-upgradable satellites? haha

Quite the opposite. For about $200K a HAPS blimp you can have 2,271 blimp "satelite" platforms deployed for only $454,200,000. Less then the price of a single staged $500 million shuttle launch! Think about the magnitude of that and the money laundry opportunities of such a scam.

BTW take a good look at these two articles and the conflicting stories.  One claims that Google will use 180 satellites to provide free internet while the other claims they will use HAPS platforms. Very interesting isn't it? 

"Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) supports the idea of the FCC authorizing resources for the study of broadband delivered from high-altitude platform stations (HAPS), which are 20 to 50 kilometers above ground." (hmm satellite dishs aimed at 35km objects would work with this right? lol)

http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/google-pushes-fcc-study-high-altitude-platform-stations-broadband-services/2015-05-20
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2646039/Googles-plans-world-domination-Search-giant-launch-180-satellites-bring-internet-access-ENTIRE-planet.html

Many things are theoretically possible. So what? Theoretically, you can build a tower for every Dish TV. So what?

Did you actually read and comprehend what the article says? "Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) supports the idea of the FCC authorizing resources for the study of broadband delivered from high-altitude platform stations (HAPS), which are 20 to 50 kilometers above ground." So they are LOOKING into STUDYING the HAPS. This does not say they actually used them. Considering you have 10 yrs of engineering, you should comprehend what you read a bit better.

We (REers) are interested in what really happens (reality - the real world, not the fantasy FE world). Companies are looking to save money all the time. If these were possible and practical, they would do it - especially if it would reduce their costs by billions of dollars. Even NASA started using reusable shuttles instead of plain rockets to reduce costs. They would not be doing this to "prove" a FE.

Regardless now-a-days, TV Dishes are using SATELLITES - specifically geostationary ones 35,000+ km above sea-level. Bye Bye FE FANTASY.

It shows that LEO satellites are completely unnecessary thanks to high altitude airship technology that has been around for decades before Arthur C. Clark introduced satellites as a Science Fiction concept.

Google knows HAPS work and are filing the paperwork with the FCC to use them. That certainly points to plans to use them.

So lets be clear you actually believe there is a Galaxy 19 satellite at a low earth orbit of 42 Km since 2008?  Do you realize the Karman space line and effects of gravity reach up to 100km?  Either Galaxy 19 magically has enough fuel for 8 years of constant thrust to fly with or it floats on hot air like a blimp. haha

Yes, many THEORETICAL concepts have been around. Right...

As you say, if Google is only now filing for this, what have we been using for Dish TV for many years and are using TODAY?

Concerning the Galaxy 19 satellite, yes. It only needs to make minor corrections because it is in a near vacuum in orbit. It does not need thrust. There is no air 42,000 km up.

So you just studied engineering 10 years ago. Did you understand it? Considering your lack of grasp of simple subjects like this, it doesn't sound like it went anywhere.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 09, 2016, 10:16:41 AM »

The signals are received by being bounced off of a layer of moisture in the sky, that arcs from horizon to horizon (dipping slightly in the center). At and near the equator, the curve of this moisture means they must point straight up to avoid being scattered, while elsewhere there is less of a curve.

Too bad, per your sig, you don't believe in astronomy.

1) Dish angles point at geostationary satellites per installation software.
2) The S. Celestial Pole needs to be over a single point S.Pole that can not be found on a single-sided FE per the geometry of rotating objects.
3) All the stars below the S.Celestial Pole in star trail images are on the opposite side of the Earth 10,000+ behind the observers and yet everyone is facing due south looking at the "edge" - remarkable.
4) The Sun is seen due E/W on the equinox at sunrise/sunset when it is 1/4 of the Earth away NE/NW. Sometimes as people have noted, sunrise/sunset is seen south (SE/SW) of their locations. How does that happen exactly on a FE?

Yep, too bad. Your FE Fantasy is the lie. So you are somewhat correct.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite dishes in Norfolk

« on: July 09, 2016, 10:04:09 AM »

Been vacationing in Norfolk and I saw something interesting. Across the hotel I've been staying in there's a tv or radio station that is about four stories tall. The hotel I was staying in was nine stories but I was on the fourth floor. Anyway I noticed the satellite dishes on the roof of the station (WGNT) were pointed at a 45 degree angle and were pointed south. According to the flat earth theory satellites don't exist and the dishes are getting there signals from towers. Please explain to me were are these dishes are getting there signal when there are no mountains near by.

I would think in Norfolk Va. satellite tv dishes should be pointing more towards SW at around 38 degree elevation to pick up the High-Altitude Long Endurance platforms they use to beam tv signals at us.

So this is going to be the next FE go-to answer. You realize they are just LOOKING at STUDYING these right?
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67265.msg1797523#msg1797523)

Yep, say anything to try to disprove satellites. Keep believing the fantasy.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Interesting vid on angular momentum in space

« on: July 09, 2016, 05:56:03 AM »

the tiny stationary white dots!

Those tiny white dots are hauling ass!   

They are merely stationary blimps that function as geosynchronous satellites for the globe deception. 

Triangulation from dish angles puts those " stationary blimps that function as geosynchronous satellites  " at the right altitude to be in geosynchronous orbit.

A geostationary equatorial orbit (GEO) is a circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth's equator with a radius of approximately 42,164 km (26,199 mi) (measured from the center of the Earth). A satellite in such an orbit is at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above mean sea level.

So you are guessing that there are blimps at an altitude of 35,786 km!  not much air there!

Still any old bit of guesswork to stop the flat earthers from thinking.

I have noticed a few of your other posts and you seem to be dragging out all the old ideas that have been answered dozens of times.

You must have just graduated from the "Flat Earther Indoctrination Course 101"!

Maybe you should wait till you get through the third level before making serious posts.

See if this post means anything to you

OK, here it is - your proof that satellite dishes are point at the same object. I am using towns at the 97° longitude to make this a 2D trigonometric problem:

You'll need to go and look at it.

Obviously you need to do more research into HAPS "High altitude platform station" blimps that reach 50Km. As someone that studied Aerospace Engineering nearly 10 years ago I will provide a little lesson of how things really work.

HAPS offer all the same data transmission capabilites of "satellites," are routinely positioned 20-50Km, AND have outrageous benefits:
- They are orders of magnitude cheaper
- They can be landed for repairs and upgrades
-  rapidly deployable and replaceable without launch platforms 

Now think about those practical benefits for a moment...  You really think that Government agencies and corporations have been blowing $50-500 million a pop on 2,271 fragile, impractical, non-upgradable satellites? haha

Quite the opposite. For about $200K a HAPS blimp you can have 2,271 blimp "satelite" platforms deployed for only $454,200,000. Less then the price of a single staged $500 million shuttle launch! Think about the magnitude of that and the money laundry opportunities of such a scam.

BTW take a good look at these two articles and the conflicting stories.  One claims that Google will use 180 satellites to provide free internet while the other claims they will use HAPS platforms. Very interesting isn't it? 

"Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) supports the idea of the FCC authorizing resources for the study of broadband delivered from high-altitude platform stations (HAPS), which are 20 to 50 kilometers above ground." (hmm satellite dishs aimed at 35km objects would work with this right? lol)

http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/google-pushes-fcc-study-high-altitude-platform-stations-broadband-services/2015-05-20
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2646039/Googles-plans-world-domination-Search-giant-launch-180-satellites-bring-internet-access-ENTIRE-planet.html

Many things are theoretically possible. So what? Theoretically, you can build a tower for every Dish TV. So what?

Did you actually read and comprehend what the article says? "Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) supports the idea of the FCC authorizing resources for the study of broadband delivered from high-altitude platform stations (HAPS), which are 20 to 50 kilometers above ground." So they are LOOKING into STUDYING the HAPS. This does not say they actually used them. Considering you have 10 yrs of engineering, you should comprehend what you read a bit better.

We (REers) are interested in what really happens (reality - the real world, not the fantasy FE world). Companies are looking to save money all the time. If these were possible and practical, they would do it - especially if it would reduce their costs by billions of dollars. Even NASA started using reusable shuttles instead of plain rockets to reduce costs. They would not be doing this to "prove" a FE.

Regardless now-a-days, TV Dishes are using SATELLITES - specifically geostationary ones 35,000+ km above sea-level. Bye Bye FE FANTASY.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: THE EARTH IS ROUND NOT FLAT.

« on: July 06, 2016, 12:08:02 PM »

The earth is a globe and I can prove it..........I have come up with an experiment that anyone can try at home. I tried this at ground level as well as atop a grain elevator. If you don't already own one get yourself a telescope wait untill you see the sun go down I mean fully down and then at that very second look through the telescope at where the sun should be and it is not there every time. Why??? Because the earth is a ball and it is down below your point of view. If the earth was flat you could still see it.

There are issues with the sunset, but that's not one of them. According to FET the Sun's like a spotlight, so once it's a large enough horizontal distance away there's no way to see the lit part.

I don't understand if a boat goes below the horizon and the flat earthers say you can still see it with a telescope then why not the sun which is higher and much bigger??

***** DO NOT LOOK AT THE SUN WITH A TELESCOPE - EVER *****
(At best, take pictures through a solar filter)

The FE Sun is special/magical.

1) Being supposedly somehow 3000 mi UP, it is not at sea-level.
2) Also being ~20° up at sunrise/sunset, it still sets somehow.
3) Also being 1/4 of the Earth NE (sunrise) or NW (sunset) on the equinox, a person on the equator sees it rising due east and setting due west somehow.
4) It NEEDS a "spotlight" effect or everyone on Earth would see it. Actually EVERYTHING in the sky has the "spotlight" effect to different degrees depending on where it is in the sky. For example, as some stars and the Moon and planets are at or travel through the same place as the Sun (the Ecliptic), at that time they must have the same effect. It is only round a couple days of the year and has a "perfectly" straight line at the equinox (quite amazing) and is an "anti-spotlight" a part of the year:

5) All these have to happen within a few thousand miles between the Sun and the observer.

There are individual ad hoc explanations for these. BTW, FEers don't use telescopes - too revealing.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Sundials on a FE

« on: July 06, 2016, 07:14:51 AM »

Exactly how do sundials work on a FE?

Specifically, on the equinox on the equator, a vertical sundial produces a shadow that (1) travels due W/E and (2) therefore, it travels in a straight line and (3) only the length of the shadow changes. The video below shows how it works on a RE. Starting @1:30:


If the Sun is 1/4 of the Earth away NE at sunrise (NW at sunset), how on a FE can it produce straight shadow lines?

On the equinox using the map below (it doesn't have to have equidistant latitudes):
1) IF the Sun is where the yellow vertical line (longitude) meets the red circle just below Africa (noon)
2) 6 hrs earlier it was where the horizontal line (longitude) meets the red line on the right
3) 6 hrs later it will be where the horizontal line (longitude) meets the red line on the left
4) How does that produce a shadow that is a straight line E/W that only varies in length?

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hello, I'm new here

« on: July 06, 2016, 05:48:40 AM »

Typical FE tactic. Instead of discussing the scientific, atmospheric, astronomical and mathematical issues as applied to a FE vs RE, we derail into social issues. No need to prove/disprove FE. FE has no answers hence the derailment.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 3D Airplane Windows and Odd Flights

« on: July 05, 2016, 03:18:08 AM »

Um, you guys are seriously delusional. Have you ever heard of private aircraft? Why don't you get into a Cessna and fly around? Unless... YOU are part of the conspiracy and fake your own windows... You drive out to an airport or better yet an airstrip and everything you see out your window is fake. Jeez...

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: what's left now?

« on: July 03, 2016, 12:49:33 PM »

Of course you would say that if you close your eyes and ignore the mountains of evidence that goes against your indoctrination.

I don't know about "indoctrination". That means you don't question beliefs. I think most REers do question them but actually get answers that make sense. These then become a relatively solid theory - heliocentric spherical Earth model. This can be and is taught in schools. You can call it "indoctrination" or just "common sense" supported by "mountains of evidence".

I can see why FEers can not be indoctrinated. There is nothing to indoctrinate. Every FEer has their own "theory" that is wrong. They are "free thinkers" making up stuff as they go along. What would you teach children in school?

When a child asks "where am I on Earth?", having no map, the FEer would say "after THOUSANDS of years, we still don't know. All we can be sure of is that the N.Pole is in the middle because there is an Antarctica conspiracy. We don't know distances. Although we go on ships and planes that use RE maps/globes, we don't believe in them".

If a child asks "what is the shape of the Earth?". The FEer would say "after THOUSANDS of years, we are not sure if it is a disk or plane, just that it is flat because it looks flat out my window".

If a child asks "what is the shape of the sky?", the FEer would say, "after THOUSANDS of year, we are not sure. It may be a dome, but we don't know how high it is or what it is made of. We are not sure how high the Sun or Moon are. Some people think they are flat disks, others spherical. We don't know what causes phases or eclipses. Some people believe they are Moonshramps. As today we don't use telescopes and we are really not interested in astronomy, we don't have the knowledge they had THOUSANDS of years ago."

And this what you would have us teach in schools? Really?

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: what's left now?

« on: July 03, 2016, 06:12:34 AM »

plus they can think what they like about my attitude, my evidence speaks for itself

the theory is over, I'm now just wondering WHY people still claim to believe the flat earth theory when all the evidence is staring them in the face

I doubt there is more than just a handful of real FE believers here. Most people simply are here to debate "If a FE existed" or just trolls ("poking the bear" just for the fun of it - look at jroa's initial posts from 2011). I would not be surprised if debate teachers/professors send their students here to take the underdog position of a FE. Possibly governments may do this also. As I have said several times before, the FE concept is slavery and has no benefits. FEers believe Antarctica is "off-limits" and no space travel. What a wonderful "theory" to keep people from trying to go there or even think about it.

So, no matter how much actual evidence in the real world (reality) you present, the FE concept will not go away. The same arguments, presented over and over and over again will continue. There are debate tactics like letting any good arguments just "roll off" or derailing.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What actual evidence for FE is there?

« on: July 03, 2016, 05:36:36 AM »

It does seem RE believers welcome their own perceptions of reality as truth even though there is a stronger foundation of truth within FET. Observation of what is real as opposed to what is gleaned within closed doors of a lab is a good comparison of proper fact finding, as demonstrated ITT.

No matter how many more pages of RET that are written and stacked up on their predecessors, FET always has and always will have the edge when it comes to quality of evidence.

As I keep saying, amateur astronomy (visual/photographic) supports/proves or falsifies/disproves /destroys/annihilates all Earth models. You can not fake the sky as people can and do look at it and photograph it (i.e. "Observation of what is real").

1) All celestial objects (e.g. stars) have celestial coordinates (declination and ascension) that correspond to Earth coordinates - specifically declination (sky) = latitude (Earth) EXACTLY (See Explanation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination).

An object (star) at 40° N declination "paints" the 40° N latitude on Earth in 24 hrs. Per declination/latitude, the N. Celestial Pole (~Polaris) is a single point above a single point N.Pole 90° N - the farthest north you can go in the sky and on Earth (everyone facing these is facing due north). Per declination/latitude, the Celestial Equator (0°) is above the Earth equator and is the largest circle (star trails) in the sky and therefore should be the largest circle on Earth. The S. Celestial Pole (SCP ~Sigma Octantis) is a single point that per declination/latitude, should be (and is) above a single point S.Pole 90° S - the farthest south you can go in the sky and on Earth (everyone facing these is facing due south). Sorry, that is the geometry of it. ANY model of the Earth MUST have ONE SINGLE POINT S.Pole below the SCP by definition of rotating bodies. Where is it on a FE?
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)

2) When anyone faces the SCP, per declination/latitude, they are facing due south. If you draw a horizontal line through the SCP in the image below, ALL the stars below it are on the OPPOSITE side of the Earth from the observer. On a RE, you are simply looking past the SCP/S.Pole at them. On a FE, they are BEHIND you 10,000+ mi. How can you see them?


So RE has VERY solid direct evidence - FE has none. How does FE have "a stronger foundation of truth" when it can not and does not describe what is seen south of the equator by people living there (a FE is TOTALLY unfriendly/wrong to people living south of the equator - everything is wrong for them)?

"Observation of what is real" is looking at and photographing the SCP by definition. It demonstrates that the FE concept is false and RE concept is true.

PLEASE provide this "quality of evidence" that FEF has (FE FANTASY - it is no way a theory although FEers like to deceive people into thinking it is. It is "imagination unrestricted by reality" - https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64810.msg1728305#msg1728305)? Please provide your SCP evidence.

The FE concept is a FANTASY. The only evidence, like the concept, is in the minds of its followers/debaters.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: what's left now?

« on: July 02, 2016, 03:11:12 PM »

So.... go ahead and disprove John Davis' non-Euclidean flat surface.

Also, you came into this place reeking of ego from the get-go. You literally just posted that I should have just replied with "You're absolutely right" even though you ignored what I said about JD's latest theory that you haven't addressed.

It all boils down to the single point S. Celestial Pole that needs to be above a single point S.Pole. As demonstrated here, it can not be on a disk/plane with people living on just one side: (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)

To make the non-Euclidean flat surface work, it will have to be something along the lines of the following: (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66985.msg1787756#msg1787756)

Of course you have to invoke something that will convert the non-Euclidean plane to appear spherical and something on the "edge" that will instantaneous teleport light and matter to the other side of the "edge".

As I keep saying, amateur astronomy (visual/photographic) supports/proves or falsifies/disproves /destroys/annihilates all Earth models. You can't fake the sky.

So although you can play theoretical mind games like "would an infinite plane collapse because of gravity?", all that, like UA on a disk, is totally irrelevant if you can't make the sky "work". THE difficulty that must be explained is how the S. Celestial Pole "works" on any FE model - in this case a non-Euclidean plane. Once you have THAT, then we can discuss other stuff. No S. Celestial Pole/S. Pole as a single point, no working FE model.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Reality check

« on: July 01, 2016, 12:52:03 PM »

Isn't it strange, then, that space travel has see no little progress? In a hundred years, planes went from being mostly useless to being the pinnacle of travel. And yet, space travel has remained the same. It's gone decades since the Moon Landing, and yet space travel still isn't accessible to the public? Is it not suspicious that it's still so tightly regulated by the government?
Very few people have been into space, and they've all been GOVERNMENT regulated. All the pictures from space have either been severely photoshopped or are composites or use Fish Eye lenses. In fact, I've edited away the Fish Eye effect from the Felix Baumgartner photograph using Lens Correcting software, and you can clearly see a completely a flat horizon:

With Fish Eye


Without Fish Eye


I won't expect you to immediately believe me. Once you're used to living a lie, it's hard to get out of it. But I do expect you to have an open mind - don't believe everything NASA tells you. Don't be a sheep like everyone else.

So, by your "logic" since space travel hasn't progressed in a few DECADES (keep in mind it would require an infrastructure like launch pads, fuel, places (hotels) to stay, space suits, return flights, possibly/probably national security issues, etc.), it is therefore garbage, bunk, a conspiracy, not possible, etc.

So, using your "logic", since the FE has been around for THOUSANDS of years and hasn't produced a map (2D FE to a 2D piece of paper), we/you should regard a FE as garbage, bunk, a conspiracy, not possible, etc. Right?

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Wha's up with the compass

« on: July 01, 2016, 12:44:04 PM »

1) The compass is not the shortest route between two places but the great circle is.

Great Circle - a circle on the surface of a sphere that lies in a plane passing through the sphere's center. As it represents the shortest distance between any two points on a sphere, a great circle of the earth is the preferred route taken by a ship or aircraft.

2) Off hand, I don't see how it would prove/disprove a FE. If you keep due north on your right, you will travel the latitude (more or less, magnetic N is not true N) on both. Things would probably get funny near the S. magnetic pole as it is far away from true south and the S.Pole.

3) If you want to go absolutely E/W, you need to use the N.Celestial Pole (due north) and S.Celestial Pole (due south) to navigate. That is why sailors used the stars and sextants.

A compass is comprised of 360 degrees. N/S and E/W are STRAIGHT LINES forming 90 degree quadrants. On a FE, E/W is a circle.
Drawing a 90 degree line off N/S line, will always point south on a FE map/compass. How does this work for plotting a E/W course on a map?
The compass degrees do not change.
Due West from my house is Japan. That is 270 degrees on a compass and a straight line. That is how it has been drawn for thousands of years.
That is why older ships used Flat Maps(not FE maps) and compasses to navigate. Yes stars and sextants too. But they had a compass and used it for plotting.

1) Are we talking about true N/S or MAGNETIC N/S? So be clear, which are you referring to? They are different. Longitudes are base on true N/S (N.Pole/S.Pole). Magnetic lines join the mag N/S like a magnet and do not usually correspond to longitude lines. That is what compasses use. That is why typically you need to make corrections to compasses if you want to know where true north/south is.

2) There is E/W that is relative to true north/south that is perpendicular to longitude lines. Compasses use mag E/W that is perpendicular from any magnetic line.

3) Although the E/W lines are perpendicular to the longitude/mag lines, they are not nice rectangles (straight lines).

On a RE, the vertical lines (longitudes) converge at the N.Pole and S.Pole. The magnetic lines do the same at the mag N.Pole and mag S.Pole (that compasses use) but in different places on Earth.

On a FE the magnetic lines converge on the mag N.Pole and mag S.Pole (compass) also. The longitude lines keep on diverging from the N.Pole (the true S.Pole on a FE should be under the N.Pole on the other side). The "edge" should not be the S.Pole but the equator.

4) Japan being E/W... is that compass or based on longitudes?

5) E/W is NOT a straight line anywhere. It is always a circle. On a FE it goes left/right. On a RE, it goes up/down/left/right.

QED: Go to the N.Pole or mag N.Pole. Go say 3 feet (1 m) off it it. Now, with it on your right, walk around the ~9 feet (3 m) to get back to the same spot you started. Did you make a circle? or did you go straight? Does it matter if it is a FE or RE?

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth's disk staying right way up in UA model

« on: July 01, 2016, 06:51:17 AM »

Well, it looks like FErs are abandoning UA for another infinite plane model, which seems to create a uniform finite downwards gravitational pull, and (as it seems from calculations) does not collapse. But I think the deal with UA isn't supposed to be that the force is constant everywhere, but the acceleration is constant. That wouldn't cause it to overturn.

FEers can say it is a disk or plane with some sort of "dome" but it doesn't matter. Until they can make a SINGLE POINT S.Pole on it above which is the S. Celestial Pole that the sky revolves, it doesn't matter. "Gravity" on a disk/plane doesn't matter either unless you can get the sky right. If the sky is wrong, the model is wrong. The sky is hard to fake.
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)

FEers MUST start out at the very least, with a dual Earth model (people living on BOTH sides) to make a S. Celestial Pole over S.Pole exist. Either that or you get weird:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66985.msg1787756#msg1787756)