Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Sentient Pizza

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Pick one thing?
« on: January 20, 2015, 02:15:22 PM »
Preachin to the choir, my Pizza friend.
You and I might see forums like this as a place to flesh out good ideas from the bad. Process of elimination and all that noise.

What instead happens is a schoolyard pushing match. Someone points out a flaw, the other person goes "nuh uh <ad hominem>" which prompts the first person to retaliate. It is, seriously, like arguing with a 3 year old.

World is round.
Nuh uh.
Why.
I drew a picture of a flat earth!
That says nothing
Nuh uh!
... and so on.

You just can't have that (a proper, peer review) conversation here, no matter how hard you try.

Fully agreed. I wanted to give us all a chance to keep it clean for a topic. I wanted to make a thread that took seriously what is possible here, while giving the flatists some pointers (if they are at all sincere) on how they could better make use of the best tool at their disposal.

All childishness aside I still see a place like this as an avenue for real discovery. When I started lurking this site in 2010 I thought I knew quite a bit about the world around me. I was way wrong. In fact I learned so much just by coming here and being told how wrong I was. It made me hungry to fully understand the claims I was making. The amount of research I have done on the side over the years has been indispensable .

I cant remember the guys name but he was active on this site 2 or 3 years back and he was producing some great models of how FE could actually work. I was appalled to see the flatists dismissing his help because it did not agree with the flavor of the week explanations they were embracing at the time.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Pick one thing?
« on: January 20, 2015, 12:22:20 PM »
Reality is something that just isn't part of this flat earth website, if that is what you are looking for. Most of us so-called "Round Earthers" come to this website just for the fun and entertainment. There is no argument that the earth is not a flat disc and all the other flat earth things. So if you are looking for any real evidence, math or other means about a flat earth, you might as well forget it.

But it is really interesting to see what the flat earthers are going to come up with next, so don't take it seriously and enjoy it.

I am still of the opinion it is just sort of a game sort of website. As quite a lot of people have said, "The Flat Earth Society Forum Website  is either one big hoax or one big joke." Or maybe a bit of both.

Ask some questions and see what kind of answers you will get. They prefer you do this one at a time, so don't ask more than one question at a time. Lotsa luck. Once again : Enjoy !

I think you misunderstand my point Googleotomy. I'm sure FET is a joke, and I know there is no merit to any of the assertions made by the flatists. I understand this site is largely a place for people to practice debate judo and troll for fun. In general if they are serious they cold make better use of their time.

My first point is: If they are serious these fora are like a crude, crowd sourced, peer review. They should take advantage of it instead of getting all bent about what is presented against their assertions.

My second point is : just producing one piece of founded (backed up by a good model and experiments) evidence for one phenomena unique to FE, they could start a revolution among the sciences. The sciences would leap at the chance to refine their own understanding of reality. If there is any merit to FE one single solid piece of evidence would create a cascade effect in the sciences and the answer would reveal itself. Thus the sciences would do all the work for the flatists, instead of having to do it all with the limited resources available to this small community.

3
Flat Earth General / Pick one thing?
« on: January 20, 2015, 10:25:15 AM »
With all of the different ideas supported by all of the different FE proponents; don't you think you should focus your efforts on the best piece of evidence you have? Seriously though. Why get caught up in the discussion of topics that don't get you anywhere.

Why not just sort out what is going on with the sun and moon? Do any of the claims (UA, bendy light, antartica, gravity, FE map, conspiracy, etc....) even matter if you don't have an explanation on the sun and moon that could survive any scientific scrutiny?

An example to put it in perspective: During the Bill Nye -V- Ken Ham debate, Mr Nye made a statement that applies here. I'm paraphrasing but the statement was something like - If you could find a squirrel in the fossil record mixed in with the trilobites you could change the world -

My point being that if you could produce a model that explains how the experienced reality of the sun and moon could be explained in another way you could change the world. It would not take a complete Flat earth theory with every little detail sorted out, only one big point to unsettle the foundation of the globularists.

I'm not asking this question to have a debate about the merits of any of the FE ideas. I am more interested in more of an explanation for the tolerance of so many conflicting views. If the case is that there are some flatists who claim to be actively working on FET and you want to lend credence to your case I think you might focus your efforts better. Forum communities like this are almost your best best for a crowd sourced simple peer review. It seems like all you have to do is put out one single piece of founded evidence and the rest of the scientific community (who are unaware of their indoctrination and take all evidence as a challenge to their knowledge) will rally to prove or disprove it. They will do all the work for you if you give them a starting point.

Instead of going on and on about how a thing is plausible or not, produce some maths and let the opposing view have a crack at it. The more you learn form the nay-sayers the closer you will be to uncovering the mystery. The people who most strongly oppose your view are, in reality, your team mates in showing the holes in your position so you can easily sort that out.

That is how peer review works at its most fundamental level. It's not about showing who is right or wrong, but about revising and revealing our understanding of reality. If the earth is flat and we could all benefit from this understanding, no amount of conspiracy could hold back the truth in today's social media climate.

Just a thought.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Angle to the sun
« on: December 31, 2014, 06:54:30 AM »
Light dissipates as it moves through atmosphere.  What you think is a sunset is really just atmosphere blocking the light.  Much like how a diver soon finds the ocean dark as light passes through water.

Why does the atmosphere during a sunset look exactly like land or water then? Why is the light suddenly cut off rather than continuously fading?

I don't understand the question.  The atmolayer looks exactly like land or water to you during a sunset?

I believe the question was more like: Then why does what we see look the way it does (sun dropping behind/below our visual horizon), instead of a steady reduction of intensity until it is dark.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Angle to the sun
« on: December 30, 2014, 07:51:37 AM »
Here's a question.

If the angle of the sun were a reflection from Earth, meaning you are looking at the sun from anywhere on Earth. Where would the initial light eminate from, assuming that energy was coming from Earth?

What? Scepti do you even think out your own questions/statements before you post?

IF - the earth is flat
AND - the light we see (as the sun) is reflected from a source on the ground
AND - there is a reflective bowl covering the disk (as you often describe )
THEN - we could expect to see the following:
     1 - the sun would never go near the horizon - let alone below it
     2 - we would be able to see all other lights reflected in the sky at night
     3 - just like in any flat earth model there would be no night ever

Mnova : just a tip.... Basic jr high trig will be useless here. It's too simple and provides too much predictive capability for a RE model.
You didn't answer my question.

I did in fact answer your question. That is what the IF AND AND THEN statements were. Filling in the assumptions of your question then making a set of predictions based on the model.

In the case of sun light actually being reflected light from the ground: One can predict that there would be no night time if the source is on. That why there is a reflective bowl behind headlight in cars. So an intense small light source can be used to direct and illuminate a wide area. 

What is the source on the ground?
Where is the source on the ground?
How is it Powered?
What is the shape of the reflective dome?
What predictions can be made about these things that can help us understand the reality that you suggest?

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Angle to the sun
« on: December 29, 2014, 12:07:47 PM »
Here's a question.

If the angle of the sun were a reflection from Earth, meaning you are looking at the sun from anywhere on Earth. Where would the initial light eminate from, assuming that energy was coming from Earth?

What? Scepti do you even think out your own questions/statements before you post?

IF - the earth is flat
AND - the light we see (as the sun) is reflected from a source on the ground
AND - there is a reflective bowl covering the disk (as you often describe )
THEN - we could expect to see the following:
     1 - the sun would never go near the horizon - let alone below it
     2 - we would be able to see all other lights reflected in the sky at night
     3 - just like in any flat earth model there would be no night ever

Mnova : just a tip.... Basic jr high trig will be useless here. It's too simple and provides too much predictive capability for a RE model.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Amazing flight of a balloon to the edge of space
« on: October 08, 2014, 05:53:04 PM »

So, why did you feel the urge to pipe up now, after two years?
Reason 1 - Sometimes I feel like engaging. Several times over the last few years I have logged in to begin writing in response to a specific thread I had read. Every time I end up deleting my post while shaking my head and thinking "it's just going to turn into another pedantic war of semantics and logical fallacy.That will be followed directly by a tornado of ad-hominem attacks and grossly negligent quote cherry picking as a means to demonstrate where the other guy made the mistake." Those kinds of thoughts keep my posting to a minimum.

Reason 2 - Today my work is especially taxing/frustrating for some reason. A little mental judo sometimes helps me keep it together.


Especially after berating your brothers in arms for "asking the same (poorly phrased, poorly supported) questions and storming around after the same (well practiced) pseudoscience responses are drudged up as evidence for a FE."
That was not a condemnation of RE'ers specifically. That was more of an observation about how things here do not change much. Mostly it was a salute to the standard response to newer members of "lurk more, we don't have the time/desire to type out the same old question/answer for the 100th time today".  RE'ers say it about their own "proofs" they have posted many times and FE'ers say it about the "evidence" they have provided many times. It's the same statement from both sides of the fence.



You even admitted your link was worthless garbage, so, why bother?
Incorrect. I admitted that would be the typical, low thought content, under creative, tired old response given by the FE'ers in this forum.


Predictably this thread (thanks, at least in part, to me and my rambling replies) has gotten so far away form the topic that is is likely not repairable.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Amazing flight of a balloon to the edge of space
« on: October 08, 2014, 12:54:45 PM »

Agreed. So why would you make such a post??? Can you give one reason why anyone should trust NASA?


Asking people to "trust NASA" about the form of the earth is akin to asking someone to "trust Percy Spenser" concerning microwave technology. It's not about letting one source be the authority on any one subject. It's about the general consensus of all the evidence. NASA (and all of the other space agencies around the world) has brought to bear an astonishing amount of evidence supporting the fact of the oblate spheroid earth, but they are far from the only source of such info.

If Fe'ers are serious in any way about exposing the great conspiracy they would at least add a section to this site concerning actual Science. I would suggest a section called "Peer reviewed literature" or "FE science". The section of the web site should contain the same kinds of things any other field of scientific study would. Things like papers published in current reputable Scientific journals, study results/findings that have survived peer review, active research currently going on at laboratories/colleges, scientific explanations of why/how the world has so many details wrong, research showing plausibility/certainty of UA or Bendy light, or whatever else is needed to support a FE consensus.

Unfortunately for FE proponents the only things that could be added to a section like that is ancient pseudoscience by the likes of SBR and a FAQ page based on more pseudoscience and baseless conjecture from thousands of forum posts on this website and a couple others like it.

No single argument will stand on it's own (nor should it) as the final word for or against FE or RE. The overwhelming consensus will make the case, as it does in all other forms of discovery. If it were true that the earth is flat there would likely be a small following of people on websites like this who argue over how it is actually round, and it would be met with the same level of criticism and dismissal.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Amazing flight of a balloon to the edge of space
« on: October 08, 2014, 11:29:44 AM »
My first post in a couple years. Been lurking and reading all along.

Nothing changes here. FE'ers just want it more and are willing to cook up whatever they need, and dismiss all inconvenient info. RE'ers are a dime a dozen asking the same (poorly phrased, poorly supported) questions and storming around after the same (well practiced) pseudoscience responses are drudged up as evidence for a FE.

On to the subject at hand. Here is a picture taken from orbit. Looking out one of the viewing ports at the round earth in the back ground. I thought it was related to the topic seeing as this "picture from high altitude" subject seems always to come up with the same set of points and counter points. 


edit: Can't seem to get my pic to load. So here is a link to the article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1329943/Female-astronaut-looks-Earth-window-space-station.html

I already fully understand the rehearsed FE response to how this photo actually shows nothing, is clearly a fake, is part of the conspiracy, and how the girl in the picture would not be leaned or positioned how she is in an alleged zero G environment.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Distances
« on: November 28, 2011, 10:27:15 AM »
I thought I'd make a thread about this, since everyone has been complaining about distances recently.
The distance debate is not new. Its been going on for years. Lurk Moar.



The distances below the equator in FET are different from the ones in RET.
Actually the distances everywhere except for on the equator are all wrong. The scale is just backwards between north and south. But since there are no FE maps that have a proper account for observed and measured distances, FE has yet to make a claim. Judging from the few very basic maps/sketches that have been presented its pretty easy to tell they are wrong based on comparing the size of the continents to each other. there need not be any further investigation on distances untill a map is presented.

Simple distance measurements are among the most basic major hoels in FE ideas. They are a bad place to argue from if your are a FE proponent. The current observed supface of the planet only works on a sphere.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: November 28, 2011, 10:14:10 AM »
Do we all agree on the following?

1 - There are thousands of objects in the visible sky (pseudolites or satelites or baloons or whatever) that perform the function of RE satelites
2 - Some of these objects move in regular predictable paterns.
3 - Some of these objects are stationary.


For the purposes of this discussion, do we all agree on the above statements?
If not please edit to more closely suit what is agreed on so far.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do people see further in FET?
« on: November 10, 2011, 05:44:04 PM »
One problem with this atmo issue:

If the atmosphere is contained in a sort of a low pressure region in the UA shadow of the earth then it will be thickest at the north/center pole and thin at the edges.

Thus someone in an airplane near the wall/antartica will be able to see much further from the same altitude as someone near the center pole.

If both of those are true the more north a person is the less they will be able to see at higher altitudes.

What is the gradient of atmoshpere thickness? Or how would one know how high is safe to go?
The reaso I ask is that on a RE 75% of the mass of the atmosphere is within 10miles of the surface and this is basicly uniform all arround the earth. So people flying over Austrailia would have a much lower safe cruising altitude than those over any country in the northern regions.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: The earth is unique a valid excuse???
« on: November 10, 2011, 05:36:43 PM »
The question is not "why are dogs not cats?”. The general FE statement is equivalent to "Dogs are mammals and all share the same characteristics as other mammals, except this dog who has wings and is cold blooded.

Incorrect. The FE equivalent would be "the animal with wings and is cold blooded is not a dog, it is different" which is our exact statement in concern to comparing the Earth to other objects.

OK now we are getting somewhere.

What is it that makes the earth a unique stellar body?
Are other celestial bodeis made from the same components as the earth?
Are other objects flat also? (Like the moon or sun or other planets) if so which ones?
Are other celestial objects capable of having gravity?

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Sun
« on: November 10, 2011, 07:58:52 AM »
none of the FE models for explaining the Sun, as observed all ofer the world every day, make any sense. FET really needs to get back to the drawing board on this one.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: The earth is unique a valid excuse???
« on: November 10, 2011, 07:56:08 AM »
This thread hurts my head. So much off topic pointless debate…..

The logic question made by the OP stands. Finding a specific point of uniqueness between the earth and other stellar bodies (The creation and supporting of life in this case) does not invalidate the macro similarities used in the OP.

And yes humans are mammals created in very similar ways to all other mammals. This does not make humans the same as primates (even really smart ones that can type) because of a few distinct differences.

Based on the scope of the comparison it follows:
Humans = mammal
Primates = mammals
Dogs = mammal
Humans =/= Primates =/= dogs


Mars = planet
Jupiter = planet
Venus = planet
Earth = planet
Mars =/= Jupiter =/=Venus =/=earth

The scope of the comparison is what matters here and is why The OP logic is a question.

to paraphrase the OP;
If other celestial bodies are Spherical and are of the same materails and creation methods: why does this not apply to earth?

The OP question does not relate to the primate issues because there are no fundamental construction differences between Primates and humans. If humans laid eggs or were cold blooded that would fit the logic question.

The question is not "why are dogs not cats?”. The general FE statement is equivalent to "Dogs are mammals and all share the same characteristics as other mammals, except this dog who has wings and is cold blooded.



16
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: November 09, 2011, 07:52:36 AM »
If you wish to research U.S. Patent 5,345,238 you may understand how sky objects can be hidden.

Why would you even post this? did you read the patent information?

The whole patent is based on technology to disguise ORBITING satellites. Individual orbiting satellites, being disguised from detection.

I know I'm losing the game right now. I am being gently trolled into a rage. If your goal was to be so willfully stupid and get me to quit this thread for fear of smashing my keyboard....... Then you have won.

Pseudolites are a slam dunk win for RE. You know it. I know it. No amount of rage on my part will make it better.

I'm done here

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: November 09, 2011, 06:55:37 AM »
The other FE zealots have abandoned this thread already. They know this is a slam dunk topic for RE. You may wish to do the same.

I'm sorry that I haven't had time to be online lately. What other than your refusal to believe in the existence of pseudolites would you like me to address?

Well Ski I suggest you re-read this thread. As we have been arround this one a few times already. I have never said pseudolites do not exist. I know there are a hand full of them arround the world. I'll not be baited again to repost the points from this thread.

Please if you would like to try a new point I am all ears.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: November 08, 2011, 05:04:46 PM »
Let's be fair.  You widened the scope of this thread to include satellites.  See reply #111.

Lets be fair. The whole thread is about satelites and how they dont fit in FET. See the OP and the rest of the first page. The OP is a question of why he can find plenty of info on Satelites and not much on pseudolites.

I do like that you confirm my acusations by pointing me to a post where I was trying to get us all back on topic. Oh the irony of it all.

I'll refer you to my earlier post:
I cordially invite you to make a point and stay on topic.

Also I would like to know how current research into atmospheric satellite technology (that might someday serve a similar purpose even though currently mostly researchers show it to be a non economical alternative or addition to existing safelight technology) is in any way similar to a plausible pseudolite. Furthermore I am curious how this could have been done for the last 60 years while satellite technology has been the primary form of global communication.


19
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: November 08, 2011, 02:02:54 PM »
Mrs. Peach,

Your avatar is a perfect representation of you in this thread: Dancing around the points and arguments made by others, while avoiding all responsibility for your statements and claims.

This thread has been nonstop point dodging and FE derailing. This style is all too common of FE proponents and only serves to discredit anything they say. I cordially invite you to make a point and stay on topic.

Also I would like to know how current research into atmospheric satellite technology (that might someday serve a similar purpose even though currently mostly researchers show it to be a non economical alternative or addition to existing safelight technology) is in any way similar to a plausible pseudolite. Furthermore I am curious how this could have been done for the last 60 years while satellite technology has been the primary form of global communication.


The other FE zealots have abandoned this thread already. They know this is a slam dunk topic for RE. You may wish to do the same.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: November 08, 2011, 07:10:58 AM »
Atmospheric satellites seems reasonably descriptive.

ok. Atmospheric satelites it is. So what "work" has been done as you claim?

Or is this another post of FE point dodging in this thread?

This thread looks like a pretty clear RE win.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: November 07, 2011, 06:07:57 PM »
It's a much better guess than the globularist guess of mid-air refueling of a pseudolite/stratellite.  Maybe you can instruct us as to how that works?

um....no

No RE person thinks or has suggested that there is any kind of refueling necessary (mid air or otherwise) because there are none of them that suggest pseudolites/stratelites are in use. 

The speculation so far has been about how to sustain FE contraptions that would be able to replace RE satelites.

FE contraptions?  It's curious that you would use those terms.  Much work has been done on atmospheric 'satellites.'  Denying their existence won't make them go away.

thats what you take issue with? The use of the term "contraptions"? What term would be more to your liking? Claimin gthey exist does not make them real.

Please enlighten me. What 'work' has been done on atmospheric satelites? wich btw is a contradiction in terms. Also you may want to depart from the notion of your atmospheric satelites because NASA funded most of that research.

Even Thork gave up on this one quite a while ago. That should be a bit of a hint to the rest of you FE zealots.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: November 07, 2011, 02:35:14 PM »
It's a much better guess than the globularist guess of mid-air refueling of a pseudolite/stratellite.  Maybe you can instruct us as to how that works?

um....no

No RE person thinks or has suggested that there is any kind of refueling necessary (mid air or otherwise) because there are none of them that suggest pseudolites/stratelites are in use. 

The speculation so far has been about how to sustain FE contraptions that would be able to replace RE satelites.

 

23
Obviously hills get in the way. Go somewhere where the earth is flat and you will see that it is flat.


I love it! Perfect FE Zealot debate tactic. I'll interpret:

"Oh my oversimplified and nonsensical example did not apply to your situation so go somewhere else that looks more like what I mean."

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: November 02, 2011, 10:49:10 AM »
Maybe you are unfamilliar with the term "contecxt".

My whole point is that FE or RE Pseudolits are a joke as a suitable replacement for orbiting satelites. So in this context the large scale shape of the earth does not matter. FE or RE Pseudolites are bunk.

As I hve shown in this thread a wide variety of explanations for this and since you have yet to refute any of them I am considering this matter closed. Pseudolites are aslam dunk win for RE and you know it.

It´s flat, if you mean that the medium distance of points on the surface are almost at the same distance to the earth core. Also I´m getting bored of this site

Its irrelevant to the point but yes that is what I was getting at.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Global Warming and the Infinite Earth
« on: November 02, 2011, 10:42:43 AM »
What spin?
What fantasy play?
What predictions?
What is paranoid about posting the data? Did I say its going to kill us all? Did I say ther is a conspiracy covering it up?

do you care to contribute to this thread or just pontificate about the semantics of my statements?
Global Warming assumes the trend will continue.  That would be a prediction.   The fantasy is said prediction, and its paranoia because Global warming has the connotation in almost every circle of being a bad thing.

Warming is present tense. It has been happening for thousands of years. Neither of those things is a prediction. They are observations of the past. The word trend is associated with measured past events. None of this is a prediction. I can predict the sun will come up tomorrow, and not have to worry about being made a liar from that prediction. I should not have to explain these concepts to someone.

I have added no connotation and I have been saying "Global climate change" in addition to "the trend is warming". Perhaps you should remove your personal filters when reading up on certain subjects. It seems that all the additions and fantasy are coming from the person typing on your keyboard.

Now do you have something to contribute to the thread or woudl you liek to continue with the pedantic semantics debates?

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Global Warming and the Infinite Earth
« on: November 02, 2011, 06:48:50 AM »
These all by themselves have no necessary place in this fantasy play you spin for us.  Your predictions are a lie until they are fact.  I have twisted nothing and you kind sir have shown just how paranoid you might be that we could be indeed right.  Forest for the trees indeed.

What spin?
What fantasy play?
What predictions?
What is paranoid about posting the data? Did I say its going to kill us all? Did I say ther is a conspiracy covering it up?

do you care to contribute to this thread or just pontificate about the semantics of my statements?

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites
« on: November 02, 2011, 06:42:32 AM »

The pseudolite/satelite arguement comes down to line of sight. Low altitude fixed broadcasting stations -vs- satelites.
1 - TV and GPS signals are not light. They go straight.
So do signals from pseudolites.
I think you misread the statement. This was not an issue of the source. Just the nature of the signal. Unfortunatley for you, agreeing with this is a slam dunk for a later RE point. Continue on.


b. If pseudolites transmit as far as FM radio stations can (100 miles -ish) we still need 18000 of them to cover the states.
That seems a reasonable number.   

18K pseudolites Just for the Continental USA seems Reasonable? There are not 18K suitable places to put them in the US. The US is mostly flat save for a few mountain ranges. Anyone on flat land more than 100 miles away from a high geographical point (like me) would never get these signals. What about places like Africa, Eastern Russia, Canada, Alaska, the OCEAN? There are not Pseudolites on every peak in Alaska. What would be the point when satelites do the job so much easier and dont need to be powered other than by the sun. 18K Its not a reasonable number at all. That is if we had a perfect grid of suitable positions spread all around the country. I estemate the need ov over 100K pseudolites just for the US. That means that to cover the rest of the world we are looking at somewhere 2-3M of them. Everyone wouuld know about them and there would be pseudolite repair techs everywhere. And they woudl not be called Pseudolites because that name is created as a replacement for the word satelite, meaning fake or alternative for real satelites.


c. If all these communications are coming in laterally or say within 10 deg of the horizon; Why are satelite dishes pointed at much higher angles?
Pseudolites will be placed at high points. It makes sense. The signal will travel much further than expected because the earth is flat. Also, to receive signals from stratellites.
Not all areas have high points that will serve what you claim. Ther are only 20 or so places in The Pacific northwest That would get what you need for this to work and that would still only cover a tiny percentage of the area. Please see the above point.


  d. Why is it that the only time the satelite radio in my car cant get signal is when I am directly under something? never next to anything? I get signal in a canyon, or driving arround in a city, but not under a bridge or in the covered drive through at a bank?
This makes perfect sense with stratellites and pseudolites too. If you are in a canyon, there is quite a large chance that a pseudolite will be transmitting a signal from somewhere past one end of the canyon. If you are under a bridge, since most pseudolites are on high places, you will not receive a signal.
Not all canyons are straight. I woudl say no canyons are straight. Your going to need a bunch more pseudolites if you plan to strategicly place them arround geographical features to get full coverage. What about in a city? even a small as Seattle or Spokane? The signal would be blocked (as you admited to them only going in straight lines) by buildings. Unless in cities there are pseudolites on every building top. In that case There would need to be far more than 18K of them covering the US.



The death nail in pseudolites is simple. Ground based LOS communications is not remotely feasable due to the simple effectiveness of satelites. The immense number of them required to pull off what is already happening on this planet today is impractical. There is not the amount of required suitable transmitting locations arround the world to properly cover everything. It is a lost cause and a bad arguement for FE.

You guys will need to come up with a new idea for how satelites are real and are also cought up in the celestial mechanics of the sun and moon. Something that allows more for a real world observed scenario. Simple unmanned rockets deploying satelites to 1000 miles up where  they are also engaged by the UA and are forced to rotate with the sun and moon.

For your own sanity and credibility please abandon pseudolites. They are not good for your position.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The 4 seasons??
« on: November 01, 2011, 06:09:38 PM »
Does not the sun travel faster during the winter months in RE theory? Indeed RE theory says it does as the Earth races toward the sun to it's closest approach in RE's model of Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun. In FE theory we have the gravity of the sun, moon, and stars, interacting with each other in addition to the Universal Acceleration of the Earth affecting objects.

Nope. the sun does not travel at all relative to the earth. In fact the reason for the short and long days in nothing more than surface earth exposure to the sun based on angle. The number of hours does not change nor does the speed of a minute.

The earth does not race towards the just as nascar driver do not race towards the Center of the track. Their orbit may bring them a tad closes or further from the center but the frequency of the rotation of the earth is constant.

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Global Warming and the Infinite Earth
« on: November 01, 2011, 06:00:04 PM »
You are talking about global warming as if it were a Law in your science.  In reality its just a guess based off data.  The data may be true and agree with the hypothesis, but that does not mean the hypothesis is true.

Th eonly reason it is in dispute at all (much like the shape of the earth) is complete willfull ignorance of the facts. You can argue the semantics of my statments all you want, and you can call it whatever you want. Your semantics issues do not change the reality of the situation.

The trend is warming.
This has been happening for thousands of years. 
In the last 200 years it has accelerated.
This is not a tactic, nor is it fantasy, nor does it have anything to do with globularism. FE or RE it happening right now to all of us.

The notion that you wan to twist it into a RE-v-FE issue is a little scary to me. Some people cant see the forest for the trees

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Global Warming and the Infinite Earth
« on: November 01, 2011, 01:11:45 PM »
Call it what you want. its a fact.
Global warming is a theory, or rather a hypothesis.  The data, if accurate, that supports it may be fact.  See how easily the globularist resorts to fantasy and fear when confronted with data?

I'm not sure what your getting at here John. If you are trying to make a point I would love to hear it.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10