1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked

« on: July 24, 2018, 04:56:54 PM »

There are no conjointly motions of first diagonal AD and then vertical DB, resulting in a triangle.

In reality, there are three motions happening at the same time, resulting in a curve consisting of two linear (one vertical, caused by the upward throw; one horizontal, caused by the constant velocity of the ship, which is not lost by the throw, because no horizontal force or acceleration changed it) and a quadratic component (vertical, caused by gravity). Air drag neglected for simplicity.

There might be another FE explanation for a curved throw trajectory, but it is a curve, nonetheless, as everybody can observe themselves.

"triangle" ≠ "curve". Therefore, Rowbotham did not tell the truth. Therefore, there is a high probability, that he did not tell the truth at other locations in his book ENAG for the same reasons.

Where does it say that the ship is traveling at a constant velocity? You are just making things up.

It needs to have a constant velocity. Otherwise Rowbotham's comparison of the moving ship with a rotating Earth in that chapter would be not applicable and it would be more crap than it already is.

But no matter if the ship is moving with a constant speed, accelerating or decelerating. The horizontal speed of the ball is defined by the current speed of the ship at the time of the throw. So, nevertheless, the path of the ball would be a curve, not a triangle.

Ergo, Rowbotham's text is still a lie.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bedford Level Experment

« on: July 24, 2018, 10:51:49 AM »

Rowbotham is clearly highly educated in such matters, while you are not.

If he was highly educated in such matters, then he was not telling the truth intentionally for his own advantage. Read the highlighted passage again:

Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but

FIG. 47.

because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, B; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.

Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' CHAPTER III.THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION.

There are no two separate motions of first diagonal AD and then vertical DB, resulting in a triangle.

In reality, there are three motions happening at the same time, resulting in a curve consisting of two linear (one vertical, caused by the upward throw; one horizontal, caused by the constant velocity of the ship, which is not lost by the throw, because no horizontal force or acceleration changed it) and a quadratic component (vertical, caused by gravity). Air drag neglected for simplicity.

There might be another FE explanation for a curved throw trajectory, but it is a curve, nonetheless, as everybody can observe themselves.

"triangle" ≠ "curve". Therefore, Rowbotham did not tell the truth. Therefore, there is a high probability, that he did not tell the truth at other locations in his book ENAG for the same reasons.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Horizon

« on: July 24, 2018, 08:59:03 AM »

If the earth is flat, how come we even have a horizon?

Also on a flat Earth you would have a horizon. Even with an infinite surface area. But it would be a little bit above the RE horizon. And with refraction even more.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: compass headings

« on: July 15, 2018, 03:14:12 PM »

When a boat or plane travels on any compass heading, it follows a straight line in that direction. If you follow a compass heading on FE to the west, 270 degrees, you have to make a curve. Why should I believe FE when compass doesn't work and compass works on FE?

But whether the earth is flat or a Globe, how do you tell the difference between a curve of say 10,000 km radius and a straight line?
Before inertial navigation systems etc, all ships could do is follow a compass course. On the FE, that would circle around the North Pole as it would on the Globe.

If you are on the equator and identify a far away object due east of your position with a compass and then move - by always keeping multiple landmarks on your way in a straight line - in direction of that object for 100 km, then:

On RE you would still be on the equator after 100 km.

On a flat earth with a circular equator around the North Pole you would leave the equator (because it bends to your left) and after 100 km end up almost 1 km south of it. A map or locals could confirm that.

EDIT:
Or, if you don't want to move physically: find your starting point on a map (it is on the equator) and find your fixed object due east from your starting point, then:

On RE the object is also on the equator.

On FE it is south of the equator. How much depends on how far it is from your starting point (and on the FE radius).

5

Flat Earth General / Re: help me build a complete conspiracy list

« on: July 15, 2018, 02:48:48 PM »

Star map programmers?

No. They don't hide the secret. They distribute it. Therefore, the conspiracy-opposition.

Disassemble a star map program and you have the whole flat Earth science for star position calculation.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sun and stars at night in FE

« on: July 15, 2018, 02:40:15 PM »

On FE, the sun is circling the dome. Yet at night, I can see stars over the entire sky, even where the sun is. Why can I see the stars and not the sun?

One FE explanation idea I  have read might be that the sun "acts like a spotlight and shines down directly in a circle on the earth - this is daylight" ...Sort of like a lamp with a shade or inside a tin can or has some sort of reflector or lens to focus it into to a circle-like beam like  a flashlight...You don't see the sun unless you are directly  underneath that beam. When you're not in the beam, it's night.

Yes, that is the "theory". But being only 52 km in diameter, 5'000 km above the surface and illuminating an area of several thousand kilometers in diameter with almost the same intensity is a quite unfocused flashligt. This is more like the ceiling lamp in my dining room.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Has anybody actually ever used FE-theory? Anybody?

« on: July 15, 2018, 02:08:26 PM »

Or to calculate positions of celestial objects.

Sky map programmers. They are in on the conspiracy. They know the true shape of Earth. They know the secret flat Earth formulas to calculate the positions of stars for a given time, date, location on Earth and consider all properties of bendy light, atmolayer, aether, dome and/or holo-sky.
Otherwise, how could it be that their results are so damn accurate?

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: sextant, polaris, equator

« on: July 15, 2018, 01:59:07 PM »

FEers could come up with lots of explanations:

• bendy light
• not considered aether properties
• not considered atmolayer properties
• not considered dome properties
• holo display

Earth is not only flat, because it seems flat. The flat Earth is round, because its FE physics does everything to seem round.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: southern cross

« on: July 10, 2018, 10:06:49 AM »

Now, show us the evidence that this experiment has ever occurred.

And what would be the point in that?
You would just reject it, just like FEers reject so many other things.
You need to go verify it yourself or with people you trust.

Even if jroa, Tom Bishop and John Davis would do the real experiment at these 3 location, they would come up with jroa’s favorite explanation:

It is a common misconception that light only ever travels in straight lines.

I am surprised that this argument did not come up earlier.

But if that is the case, how could sky map programmers write programs and apps, which calculate the position of stars for any given date, time and location with such accuracy? How could they take into account all these complex properties of the atmolayer, aether, dome and/or whatever? Are they all part of the conspiracy and know the true shape of the earth and have access to the necessary formulas to be able to make these calculations?

I would recommend, that some FEers try to infiltrate the conspiracy. Or if this is thought to be too dangerous, then at least disassemble an accurate sky map program/app. Then they would have all the scientific foundation for a flat earth theory.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Latest FE Map

« on: July 06, 2018, 10:32:19 AM »

Why are you trying to attack a model that was officially rejected by our society in the early 1900's in favor of a bipolar model?

Your therefore already at creation outdated Wiki, that's why?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do satellites fly over flat land?

« on: July 05, 2018, 09:30:42 AM »

The photo is taken in Kirovohrad at 48.5090791° north and 32.2594283° east.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do satellites fly over flat land?

« on: June 30, 2018, 12:23:12 PM »

The inverted satellite dish mount is used when the satellite is lower in the sky. This is the case at locations far in the north (or south) - which is not the case with Ukraine - or when pointing the dish far to the east or west to access other country's satellite TV.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do satellites fly over flat land?

« on: June 30, 2018, 10:10:16 AM »

I photographed it myself.

I was just analyzing the area myself via Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.5080713,32.2610943,3a,15y,52.97h,102.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scdqCVeRxKo9KmAOpcr7-Fg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The satellite dish you are referring (the one on the left of your photo) is mounted upside down and pointing to a western direction for central europe instead of ukrainian satellite TV. The high angle is, because the antenna receiver arm is on the top, intead of on the bottom.

As you can see in your photo, there are satellite dishes on the right side of the roof pointing in a southern direction at a lower angle. See also (same area):
https://www.google.com/maps/@48.5089242,32.2598213,3a,44.7y,322.69h,95.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syZLrUlKSBj62TsBDom3FPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Therefore, it is not true, that all satellite dishes are pointing up high. Maybe only the ones pointing in a western direction and/or being mounted upside down.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat earthers can't deny: Simple observation which concludes a spherical earth

« on: June 29, 2018, 07:33:31 PM »

What observation? A diagram is not an observation.

/fail

Is "The Flat Earth Wiki" based on observation?

Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.

Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
Finding your Latitude and Longitude

And "everybody knows" that, in the Northern Hemisphere, one's latitude is simply the elevation angle of Polaris.
I'm sure that you will have a real fight on your hands if you refuse to accept the one's latitude is simply the elevation angle of Polaris.

/fail again!

Tomorrow that text will be either changed or deleted.

But I am wondering, does this text apply to all FET models? If yes, what does "poles" in the second paragraph mean? This clearly disqualifies the "ice wall" and similar models.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat earthers can't deny: Simple observation which concludes a spherical earth

« on: June 29, 2018, 03:18:23 PM »

The FE diagram will probably be denied, because it does not take into account not-quantifyable properties of bendy light.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A possible explanation of why ships can "disappear behind the horizon"

« on: June 29, 2018, 09:11:22 AM »

But because the wave height could be approximated by a Rayleigh distribution, instead of a standard normal distribution, the OP's formula is wrong anyway.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A possible explanation of why ships can "disappear behind the horizon"

« on: June 29, 2018, 08:30:41 AM »

I analyzed the OP's formula a little bit.

It is a simple probability function (standard normal distribution). You could find the explanation here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalDistribution.html

But there are errors and variable mismatches in it.

Nonetheless, it only tries to explain the disappearing of ships with the probability of wave heights. It does not explain the how.

Technically, it says, the probability that a 20 m high departing/arriving ship will be hidden behind a 20 m high wave at a clear horizon is very small. The probability that every 20 m high departing/arriving ship will be hidden is very, very small. The probability that these ships, only disappear/appear behind single waves and do not re-appear/appear afterwards/before is extremely small. The probability that these single waves suddenly appear/disappear between observer and ship, instead of near the ship or more far away is incredibly small. The probability that these waves do not alter the position of the horizon is unbelievable small.

This theory therefore disproves itself on its own, because in reality we observe this constellation (arriving or departing ship, clear horizon, appearing/disappearing of ship) with a very high probability.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Center of earth?

« on: June 27, 2018, 06:10:14 AM »

An infinite flat earth inflicts a gravitational pull of 1g on all celestial bodies, no matter how far away they are. The value might vary a little bit near the earth surface because of slight variances in the gravitational field of the known earth area, but with increasing distance these irregularities are smoothed out.

So, not only do celestial bodies move somehow above the infinite flat earth plane, they also need to maintain a constant escape acceleration to maintain their distance above the earth surface.

But bcause the infinite flat earth plane is only metastable and would collapse, if there are other objects in space with a gravitational field, this concludes that with an infinite flat earth all celestial bodies are optically simulated and the universe is otherwise empty.

And because of the irregularities in and above the earth surface the infinite flat earth would collapse anyway in the future, creating an endlessly growing black hole.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Center of earth?

« on: June 26, 2018, 08:55:54 PM »

The infinite flat earth was introduced to a) have a flat earth and b) still be able to use gravity.

It might be stable at rest. But rotating it - no matter how slow - would rip it apart. It could  inflict a vertical force equivalent to 1g, but because it is infinite, the horizontal force, which holds the plane together, is zero. The impact of the RE proto earth with an RE Mars-sized object, which resulted in the creation of the RE Moon, would have hit a hole in the only about 4250 km (or less, if density increases with depth; or much less with a liquid metallic core layer; a solid metallic core layer would not be possible, because the pressure would not be high enough) thick infinite flat earth.

The rotation would compress the flat earth outward, away from the rotation center, leaving there a growing hole.

Apart from the structural integrity, with an increasing distance from the rotation center, the tangential velocity would increase as well. If the infinite flat earth rotates 360° in one day, then the surface at a distance of RE Neptune would have a tangential velocity greater than the speed of light.

So, the whole infinite flat earth could not rotate. Therefore, the infinite flat earth must not move.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can somebody explain this?

« on: June 26, 2018, 02:49:21 PM »

I can't help you with a), but b) sure I can answer that. I would ask you to guess what angle you think the camera must be pointing and exactly which axis the camera is rotating around. We saw the earth was straight below the camera, but the camera is pointing towards the edge of the globe. Therefore the camera is looking:
a) up
b) down
c) level

Then as the camera rotates to the next window the camera is looking:
a) up
b) down
c) level

Can you come up with a way to rotate a camera to do what you just described? If you still can't work it out, I'll build you a 3D model of it. Just let me know.

Exactly. The narrator of the video seems to be a little bit of a dim bulb.

He certainly does not own a camera tripod.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do satellites fly over flat land?

« on: June 26, 2018, 01:45:53 PM »

Yes, like I wrote, geostationary (sorry, I wrote geosynchronous above; that was wrong) satellites, which do not move relative to the flat earth surface, could just hang there.With the requirement, that UA is not true. And earth does not rotate.

But what about all the other satellites at other orbits, e.g. like LEO? Over a flat earth, they must change course permanently, which would be very fuel/energy inefficient and would reduce their lifetime dramatically; not years, but days.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do satellites fly over flat land?

« on: June 26, 2018, 10:55:40 AM »

The FAQ has this:

What About the ISS and Satellites?
While one can see satellites in the sky at night, it is generally agreed upon that they are not actual satellites but pseudolites or stratolites put there to fool us.

The ISS stratolite would need to fly in about 90 minutes one “circle” above the flat earth. This is about twice the equator size in 90 minutes; about 27’000 km/h. Constant course corrections would be required to maintain its equator centered sinus curve course relative to flat earth’s surface. Therefore, lots of fuel/energy consumption.

And they try to claim that GPS and satellite TV and phone services is all provided via ground stations, such as cell-phone towers, or "balloons".

Per TV satellite/balloon all dishes are aligned to the same point in space 36‘000 km above the earth. Currently, a satellite dish’s alignment must be accurate to less than 1 degree. With balloons at 50 km altitude in the stratolayer, this would require about 1 balloon every kilometer; therefore, several hundreds of thousand or even millions of ballons per country per TV “satellite”. If they are nearer than 50 km, more balloons are required.

But, this could be tested with a mobile satellite dish. In fact, there is no satellite/balloon reception, if the dish is not aligned. Therefore, the ballon density is much less than described above. But then, at a location further away - e.g. 100 km - the dish alignment must be different when using the same TV “satellite”. It mustn’t, therefore, the satellite/balloon is much further away.

Therefore, no satellite TV balloons.

Technically, geosynchronous satellites would not be a problem for an unaccelerated flat earth. Without gravity, you would only need to put them into space and there they are. But any other satellite or space station would be impossible, because it would need lots of fuel/energy to maintain its course relative to flat earth’s surface.

With UA, any satellite is impossible, because it would need lots of fuel/energy to keep its distance from earth.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A possible explanation of why ships can "disappear behind the horizon"

« on: June 25, 2018, 11:02:16 AM »

I apologize for the "bumping"
But I would like to see some answers, please !

Posting in this thread on April 22th was the OP's last activity.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun path

« on: June 24, 2018, 04:06:51 PM »

How will the tilt of the axis affect the shadow at noon in summer and in the fall? If the earth rotates around the sun, the shadow should change or am I wrong?

Because of the about 23° tilt of the axis, the latitude where the sun could be seen directly above wanders during a year between about –23° and 23°.

This causes, that at noon the angle between horizon and sun varies over the year, see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma

Therefore, the length of a shadow at noon varies as well.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How do satellites fly over flat land?

« on: June 24, 2018, 03:41:56 PM »

How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?

And sometimes telephone communications via satellites. But more importantly, mobile satellite phones, i.e. at places without landlines and cellular network reception (like uninhabited islands, high in the mountains, etc.).

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun path

« on: June 22, 2018, 07:27:42 PM »

But we could think this through for summer on the southern hemiplane for the north pole centered flat earth disk model, when the sun circles directly above the tropic of capricorn. At a location south of the tropic of capricorn the sun would circles the whole day to your north above the earth.

This contradicts reality, because at the southern solstice at a location south of the tropic of capricorn the sun rises south of your east and/or sets south of your west.

27

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is the tension on an "ideal rope" (massless) the same at each end?

« on: June 22, 2018, 05:54:54 PM »

I would like to comment on that thread. But because it is said, that the matter is closed, I don't.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A question I have for Flat Earthers

« on: June 22, 2018, 04:50:07 PM »

Flat Earth Believers / Re: Advanced Flat Earth Theory « Message by sandokhan on August 09, 2017, 06:07:14 AM »
EARTH - SUN DISTANCE: 15-20 KILOMETERS
The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025
The Sun, Moon, Black Sun, Shadow Moon and Jupiter have the same diameter.

All planets/stars have the shape of a disk.

Venus and Typhon-Nibiru (Mercury) orbit the Sun: together they orbit above the flat surface of the Earth.
The distance from Earth to the Sun is some 15-20 km (this figure might be even lower).

No need to comment that. sandokhan could first discuss this with his fellow FEers and find a common denominator.

Ok, sorry. I need to comment that.

You would need a heat source, which radiates more than 5000 K. Otherwise, it would be very cold at places several thousands of kilometers away from directly below the sun. But in direction to directly below the sun the heat radiation must decrease rapidly to not melt the earth surface.

The sunlight would no longer be yellow-white. But according to FE theories the atmolayer has many properties. It could therefore easily redshift the light. Nonetheless, on a mountain or in a plane, the sunlight would be more bluish.

Apropos, does the sun sometimes move directly over a high mountain? It would not be wise to be there at noon with the distance to the sun significantly reduced. Also being on Mount Everest should be avoided at any time. It receives the heat radiation from the sun for places, which are about twice as far away. With the sun having a diameter of about 600 m - therefore being (almost) a point source - and the inverse square law and a temperature of 25°C in China multiplied with four, the received heat radiation on Mount Everest would boil water. Therefore, no ice on the Himalaya.

Apropos, Himalaya. With the sun being in only 15-20 km altitude and the Himalaya having an altitude of about 8 km over an east/west width of 3000 km, a significant area of west China would not receive any sunlight. Never. Ever.

29

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: The dark side of the earth

« on: June 22, 2018, 02:52:08 PM »

There is no need to access a dark side.

There are plenty of geographical areas which have never been discovered at all, such as the North Pole and the South Pole.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/tierrahueca/Chapter5.htm

They are much closer and cannot be accessed by either the public or the military. The gate to the inner region of the North Pole can only be found by astral vision/sight, the ability to see baryons, mesons and quarks with the thalamus gland.

The first movie to feature such forbidden large areas was Zardoz (1974) the classic SF by John Boorman.

Another SF which deals with the same subject (a secluded region of the North Pole) is The Golden Compass (2007).

Damn. I've read some crazy theories on this site but this is by far the craziest I have ever seen!

You didn’t read this yet:

EARTH - SUN DISTANCE: 15-20 KILOMETERS

The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025

The Sun, Moon, Black Sun, Shadow Moon and Jupiter have the same diameter.

All planets/stars have the shape of a disk.

Venus and Typhon-Nibiru (Mercury) orbit the Sun: together they orbit above the flat surface of the Earth.


The distance from Earth to the Sun is some 15-20 km (this figure might be even lower).

You would need a heat source, which radiates more than 5000 K. Otherwise, it would be very cold at places several thousands of kilometers away from directly below the sun. But in direction to directly below the sun the heat radiation must decrease rapidly to not melt the earth surface.

The sunlight would no longer be yellow-white. But according to FE theories the atmolayer has many properties. It could therefore easily redshift the light. Nonetheless, on a mountain or in a plane, the sunlight would be more bluish.

Apropos, does the sun sometimes move directly over a high mountain? It would not be wise to be there at noon with the distance to the sun significantly reduced. Also being on Mount Everest should be avoided at any time. It receives the heat radiation from the sun for places, which are about twice as far away. With the sun having a diameter of about 600 m - therefore being (almost) a point source - and the inverse square law and a temperature of 25°C in China multiplied with four, the received heat radiation on Mount Everest would boil water. Therefore, no ice on the Himalaya.

Apropos, Himalaya. With the sun being in only 15-20 km altitude and the Himalaya having an altitude of about 8000 m over an east/west width of 3000 km, a significant area of west China would not receive any sunlight. Never.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Other Planets

« on: June 22, 2018, 10:07:38 AM »

Its shape, based I think largely on the way its brightness varies, is thought to be:

The calculated ellipsoid shape of Haumea, 1,960×1,518×996 km (assuming an albedo of 0.73). At the left are the minimum and maximum equatorial silhouettes (1,960×996 and 1,518×996 km); at the right is the view from the pole (1,960×1,518 km).

So it is a rather weird shape.

This is all just from: Wikipedia, Haumea. Haumea is so small and far away that this is all the big Keck 10 m telescope on Hawaii sees:

Haumea

Keck image of Haumea and its two moons.
Hiʻiaka is above Haumea (center),
and Namaka is directly below.

What I mean is the earth is a slightly oblate spheroid, due to the spin causing it to bulge a bit at the equator.

That’s spinning much faster, so I’d expect it to a more extreme oblate spheroid, but it appears to be a prolate spheroid.

Seems odd.  I can’t help thinking something else in its formation may have made it that way. 

I don’t expect you to know the answer, btw.

Could be more than one rotation axes. Perhaps a collision in its early stages of formation.