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.

Topics - Woody

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Q&A / Why no advancement of FET?
« on: January 13, 2017, 02:20:54 AM »
For the last 2,000 years or so RET continued to advance and be refined, yet FET has not made any advancements during that time.

The Lounge / Looking to get new telescope
« on: October 01, 2016, 08:37:05 PM »
I am thinking about getting this:

Anyone have any experience with this model or similar from Meade?

I might even use it not to only observe the stars and planets, but if I can bring the hull of a ship back into view as it sinks below the horizon.

The reviews look good, but I have also seen claims Meade deletes any reviews that are too negative on their site. Not sure if that is true and it is not some people just being salty.

Also it would be nice if someone can tell me how to delete the pre-installed images the Conspiracy installs on telescopes so I can see the universe as it really is.

Here is a thread specifically about the below so Heiwa can not claim it is off topic, even when he brought the below up in another thread.

So Heiwa can you show where the calculations are wrong and show people the calculations you used to determine the below?

Saturn V
                                     Individual stage                         Total vessel       
STAGE                   Total mass        Dry mass      Total mass      Dry mass        Isp           Delta-v

1  LOX/RP-1            2,300,000        131,000       2,900,000       731,000        263s       3554.2 m/s
2  LOX/LH                   480,000          36,000          600,000       156,000        421s        5561.5 m/s
3  LOX/LH                   120,800          10,000          120,800         10,000        421s        8796.2 m/s
                                                                                                                                       17911.9 m/s   
Masses are in kg
Does not include delta-v calculations for the lunar lander, but assumes the GVM of the Saturn V.

kg of propellant per second= Thrust in Newtons/ISP in meters per second

Stage 1:
34,020,000/2580= 13,186 kg per second
164 second burn time.

Saturn V TWR:

5 F-1 engines with 6.672.000 N thrust each=33,360,000 N

2 896 895 kg gross rocket mass

(6,672,000N*5)/(2,896,895*9. 8 )=1.17  TWR

Explanation of methodology used:

Flat Earth Debate / Scientific Method vs. FE Zetetic Method
« on: March 14, 2016, 06:02:18 PM »
Below is link to a brief example of the Scientific Method trying to discover if light is waves or particles:

It was rather hard to figure out and still being worked since light displays characteristics of being waves or particles.  Even when scientific community had a general consensus answers to questions were still sought.

"Greek scientists from the ancient Pythagorean discipline postulated that every visible object emits a steady stream of particles, while Aristotle concluded that light travels in a manner similar to waves in the ocean."

18th Century  Particle and wave theory argued and experiments made.

"In the early eighteenth century, the argument about the nature of light had turned the scientific community into divided camps that fought vigorously over the validity of their favorite theories. One group of scientists, who subscribed to the wave theory, centered their arguments on the discoveries of Dutchman Christiaan Huygens. The opposing camp cited Sir Isaac Newton's prism experiments as proof that light traveled as a shower of particles, each proceeding in a straight line until it was refracted, absorbed, reflected, diffracted or disturbed in some other manner."

19th Century the wave theory Becomes the most prominent and accepted.

 " (If) light was composed of waves, Young reasoned that some type of interaction would occur when two light waves met. In order to test this hypothesis,(he developed a reproducible experiment)"  His experiment showed light behaved the way it should if it was waves.

"Even more evidence for a wave-like nature of light was uncovered when the behavior of a light beam between crossed polarizers was carefully examined"

"By the middle of the 1800s, scientists were becoming increasingly convinced of the wave-like character of light, but there remained one overbearing problem. Exactly what is light?"

 "English physicist James Clerk Maxwell (discovered) that all forms of electromagnetic radiation represent a continuous spectrum, and travel through a vacuum at the same speed: 186,000 miles per second. Maxwell's discovery effectively nailed the coffin of the particle theory and, by the dawn of the twentieth century,"

A major blow to the wave theory occurred behind the scenes in the late 1880s when scientists first discovered that, under certain conditions, light could dislodge electrons from the atoms of several metals

20-21st century Property of light still being researched and questioned

Albert Einstein postulated that light might actually have some particle characteristics, regardless of the overwhelming evidence for a wave-like nature. He develops his Quantum Theory.

Einstein's theory was solidified in the 1920s by the experiments of American physicist Arthur H. Compton, who demonstrated that photons had momentum, a necessary requisite to support the theory that matter and energy are interchangeable.

French scientist Louis-Victor de Broglie proposed that all matter and radiation have properties that resemble both a particle and a wave. De Broglie, following Max Planck's lead, extrapolated Einstein's famous formula relating mass and energy to include Planck's constant: E = mc2 = hv

Quantum mechanics was born from the research of Einstein, Planck, de Broglie, Neils Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, and others who attempted to explain how electromagnetic radiation can display what has now been termed duality, or both particle-like and wave-like behavior.

I wanted to demonstrate to some people that science just does not accept theories and never continues to question those theories.  I thought the search for the answer is light a wave or particle
was a good example.  General scientific opinion swayed from not knowing the answer, to particle, to wave, to duality over a span of about 300 years.  It changed with new evidence, it changed even when it said someone like Newton was wrong and it will change even if Einstein is proven wrong.

Edit: I will add what I can find about the FE Zetetic Method later if no one counters showing it.

Flat Earth Debate / Tide Predictions
« on: February 05, 2016, 04:20:35 AM »
This seems like a good validation of what we think we know.

Would someone be able to predict tides if they assume they are on a RE and they are actually on a FE?

This is an example of how we are told it is done:

Flat Earth Debate / Bishop Experiment Open Debate
« on: February 02, 2016, 12:59:25 AM »
If you do not want to read the whole thing:

The Bishop Experiment states the distance being about 33 miles.  On navigation charts and google maps the distanced I measured is about 23 miles.

I think it should be removed as evidence in the wiki , edited, or removed until the distance is verified.

My Argument:

I would like to openly debate the validity of the conclusions made by the Bishop Experiment. Preferably with the person who conducted the experiment. Not on any other topic but the distances claimed in the experiment.  I think we can all agree a mile is a mile.

From the wiki under experimental evidence:

Tom Bishop conclusively demonstrates that the earth is flat here: link)

I am assuming Tom Bishop is the person who conducted this experiment.  He states,"I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles."

The above link is images taken from google.  I have also measured the distances on navigation charts that I will make available upon request or can guide you where you can acquire your own charts.

The distance I measured in the link provided was from about the furthest point south of Lover's point to north of the boundary of the Light House park as indicated on the charts and google maps. 

It is reasonable to assume between those two I used points where sight lines would be obstructed. For the sake of argument I used those points that from what is described in the quote below would be within the distance claimed.

 "With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse."

Where was the observer able to lay down with the telescope 20 inches above the water?

The measurement was 23.6 miles in the link provided.  I got similar results on the navigation charts I used.  Both using google maps and the navigation charts the distance between what is stated in the experiment and what the charts and google indicate the distance as is about 10 miles shorter.

My argument the conclusions from the experiment are flawed since there seems to be an error in calculating the distance.

I would also like the argue that this be removed from the wiki or edited if I am correct.  If edited the distances and calculations should be removed and leave just the observations allowing the reader to make their own judgement of the distance

Tom Bishop conclusively demonstrates that the earth is flat here: link)

Merriam-Webster definition of conclusive:

showing that something is certainly true

of, relating to, or being a conclusion

putting an end to debate or question by reason of irrefutability

From the wiki:

The soldiers of truth and reason of the Flat Earth Society

The understanding I have of what I will call your mission statement is that TFES values truth and honesty.  If I am correct and the distance stated is wrong it is misleading and in my opinion not the truth.

Flat Earth Debate / Why link this as experimental evidence in the wiki?
« on: January 31, 2016, 03:15:12 AM »

What was done what I assume was a little fun by Professor Mark Fonstad was not proving that Kansas was flat like as I think you want people to think.  What he was doing is basically comparing which would be flatter if either were the same size. 

Evidence from the article:

One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio. The length of an ellipse’s (or arc’s) semi-major axis a is compared with its measured semi-minor axis b using the formula for flattening, f = (a – b) / a. A perfectly flat surface will have a flattening f of one, whereas an ellipsoid with equal axis lengths will have no flattening, and f will equal zero.

For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.

They are using calculations based on a RE model.

This article in no way supports your theory except it has the word flat. 

The conclusion of the experiment is Kansas would be flatter then a pancake of the same size laid on the globe.  Simply because the math used assumed Kansas is located on a spherical planet and the theoretical pancake would also be.

Flat Earth Q&A / Some simple questions
« on: January 30, 2016, 12:12:08 AM »
So here are my questions and I will try to keep with in what I have personally experienced:

1. Why can some from a higher vantage point see things I can not?  When sailing someone up on the mast can see islands other boats, etc when on person on deck can not.

2. How was Erastosthenes able to calculate the circumference of the Earth in 300 BC?  Simply by measuring shadows at different locations, the method he used would not have been accurate if the Earth was not round. 

3. Why when sailing do I see objects rise from the horizon and not just appear?

4.  How can I or sailors in the past successfully navigate with celestial navigation when it is based on a round Earth?  The math does not work with a FE model.

5. What causes  lunar eclipses and phases? What is casting a shadow on the moon?  With a Flat Earth model I do not see how the Earth would end up between the Moon and Sun.

6. Why can I see different constellations depending on my distance from the equator?  With a flat earth model this would not change.  I can measure the distance from the horizon using a sextant.  Depending on my direction of travel they will either move closer or further away from the horizon. 

7. Why is it dark in one location of the planet and light in another?

8. Why do I see the moon and sun set on the horizon? 

I asked these questions on and the response I got was to read th FAQ forum.
I read the forum searched the topics on their site on none answered the questions I was asking except for number 5 above.  The answer to that was it was either hollow with 1/2 being opaque and the other 1/2 being transparent that rotated. The other answer was it is either a projection or hologram.  With nothing backing up the claims except that is how the person thinks it is.

To give an example of what I am looking for:

Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the Earth around 300 BC,

Please do not comment on the 1st part when she talks about pictures from space, voyager etc if you want to skip to the meat with out hearing about space travel skip to 1:10. I did not create this thread to debate about Space agencies being part of a conspiracy.

Here is how he did it:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

It is reproducible and gives evidence that supports the Earth is round.

I am looking for math, reproducible experiments, observable evidence, science that answers the above questions and how the above things work within a FE model.

Pages: [1]