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 - stankann

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Space tourism
« on: July 20, 2021, 05:32:19 AM »


I imagine that it will go down like this:

- They are really just in a regular plane cruising at a normal altitude
- Passenger shots out the windows are faked somehow, maybe simulated video imagery projected on/in the glass
- Selfie’s of 5 minutes of unedited weightlessness hijinks = Cables

But that all means passengers have to be in on it. Which can work for a while. But in years to come with growing ridership/exposure, they are going to have to figure out how to dupe the passengers too. Projected window sims would be a start. But the weightlessness…? That’s gonna be tough. Maybe micro dose them with ether and ketamine…

I used to think that something like space tourism would have to end the FE movement.  But, I've read what people have written in this forum about the impossible flights in the Southern Hemisphere, even in at least one thread someone writing that the people taking those flights are murdered.   Proof does not seem to matter.   So let me ask FEers.  When it gets to the point where hundreds or thousands of civilians have gone on these flights, and they say they have seen the curvature of the Earth, will that be enough to change your mind?  If not, can you give me an example of something that would change your mind?

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Q, Antarctica, and FE
« on: July 13, 2021, 05:27:50 AM »

So yes, it is about having a large group insisting on FE. You need a large group when your premise is false, otherwise, you look like an idiot.

Even with a large group, listening to to what they say (bendy light, unbelievably massive conspiracy theories, etc. etc), they still sound like idiots.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Space tourism
« on: July 13, 2021, 05:23:43 AM »
I admit that some of the things that people can do, that disproves FE, are difficult (but not impossible).  So you can't afford a flight high enough to see the curvature, or go to the Antarctic.  But, more reasonable are flights in the Southern hemisphere, that would be impossible to do according to FE maps.  I personally do not have to book a flight in the Southern hemisphere as I have no reason to disbelieve published flight schedules, and testimony of people who booked them.  There is a wealth of evidence that these flights exist on a very regular basis.  If you don't believe the evidence, then you can disprove it by booking one of those flights and seeing what happens; Or, even more simply, looking at the space station through a telescope.  It will appear at a published time, and you will be able to make out its unmistakable shape.   At some point FEers have to put up or shut up and do something conclusive other than spouting contradictory beliefs and theories that constantly change.

4
Flat Earth General / Space tourism
« on: July 11, 2021, 04:30:53 PM »
So now the era of space tourism has begun.  The conspiracy is way beyond NASA. It involves many countries and corporations, and now people unaffiliated with any corporation or country can book a flight into space.   At what point does this conspiracy stuff end.  A flat Earther can book a trip to Antarctica, can book a trip on a flight in the Southern Hemisphere that by their beliefs cannot exist, and now can book a flight into space.  A flat Earther can look through a telescope or high powered binoculars and see the International Space Station.  No one is stopping anyone from doing any of these things. 

5
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how high is the dome?
« on: June 24, 2021, 08:40:46 PM »
So now, the second part of the original question. How was the height measured?   Also, is the height given, the height of the dome at it's highest point?

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Can't figure it out
« on: June 11, 2021, 09:53:10 PM »
In no way does this answer the question.  Even if there is a slight variance of the length of day around the equinox at  different locations.   It still does not explain how the sun can set in the West in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,  and rise in the East just 3 hours later in Jerusalem Israel.  How does the sun get to the location necessary in just 3 hours?  It can't.  But, a round Earth explains it perfectly.
The issue is where is the sun when you see it setting?
A better observation of the location of the sun is the subsolar point. On the equinox, this follows the equator at a fairly steady pace.
So there is no problem with it moving.
The question then becomes how you see it set in the first place?
I have asked in the q and a forum and elsewhere, what is the distance the Sun is from the observer when it vanishes from site, as well as "what is the speed of the Sun".  I have not gotten an answer.  But it does not really matter.  We know that the Sun is visible for about 12 hours at that time of year (at whatever speed it is traveling).  We know that the Sun is setting about 6 hours of travel distance to the West of its closest point to Pittsburgh.  We know that the Sun has to be 6 hours distance East of its closest point to Jerusalem in 3 hours time.  It would be impossible for the Sun to arrive at its sunrise point in Pittsburgh in 3 hours as that point is 12 hours away from the Pittsburgh sunset point, let alone its sunrise point in Jerusalem which is 6 thousand miles to the Southeast of Pittsburgh.   I use these points of reference because they are very familiar to me and well populated by observers.   Sunrise and sunset times are easily confirmed by millions of people.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Can't figure it out
« on: June 11, 2021, 03:17:23 PM »
I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox
In no way does this answer the question.  Even if there is a slight variance of the length of day around the equinox at  different locations.   It still does not explain how the sun can set in the West in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,  and rise in the East just 3 hours later in Jerusalem Israel.  How does the sun get to the location necessary in just 3 hours?  It can't.  But, a round Earth explains it perfectly.

Did you consider that your friend might not be entirely honest with you?

Why on Earth would she lie to me?  Besides I have been back and fourth to Israel many times at all times of years.  I can tell you that the Sun comes up at the time the newspaper says the Sun rises.  I have been there on the equinox, and although I never checked the time of sunrise or sunset to the minute, the sunrise does happen about the time that I stated. 

8
Flat Earth General / Re: Can't figure it out
« on: June 11, 2021, 05:37:17 AM »
I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

Maybe you should just look up what the FE Theory says about it - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox
In no way does this answer the question.  Even if there is a slight variance of the length of day around the equinox at  different locations.   It still does not explain how the sun can set in the West in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA,  and rise in the East just 3 hours later in Jerusalem Israel.  How does the sun get to the location necessary in just 3 hours?  It can't.  But, a round Earth explains it perfectly.

9
Flat Earth General / Can't figure it out
« on: June 09, 2021, 02:12:17 PM »
I am trying to understand the FE model, but it just doesn't make sense.   Can someone explain this to me?  The Sun rises in the East.  Let's say it is the equinox, and the sun will rise due East and set due West.  Please don't argue with me about whether this is true.  We can see it with our own eyes.  So, if the Earth is flat and I watch the Sun set (or leave) in the West at 7:34 PM here in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.   To my friend in Jerusalem, Israel, the time is 7 hours later or 2:34 AM in the morning.   In Jerusalem the Sun will rise in the morning at 5:41 AM.   This means that 3 hours after the Sun sets for me in the West,  The Sun must rise (or arrive) from the East for my friend in Jerusalem.   How can the Sun travel that distance in that short length of time.  It is easy to see how it works with a RE, but makes no sense to me with a FE.  Anyone have a real explanation for this?  Please don't debate word minutia.  I am interested in an explanation.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how high is the dome?
« on: June 09, 2021, 11:40:20 AM »
I did not know that the dome was a minority view.  I thought it was part of the theory.  I am looking for any kind of answer that makes sense.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how high is the dome?
« on: June 08, 2021, 04:48:31 PM »
That is not helpful.  What I take away from this question is that the FE community does not know the height of the dome.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how high is the dome?
« on: June 08, 2021, 04:36:42 PM »
Okay, so I won't debate this.  The gist of your answer is that you don't know the height of the dome, and it has never been measured.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the speed of the Sun
« on: June 08, 2021, 04:32:45 PM »
So again, I can't get answers that make sense.  At 90 miles with the speed of 300 miles an hour, the sun would be visible 1/2 hour a day.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the speed of the Sun
« on: June 08, 2021, 04:25:43 PM »
If the speed is 300 miles per hour, and the distance is 57 miles that you can see it, then the sun would only be visible for about 20 minutes a day.  Are there other answers to these questions?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how high is the dome?
« on: June 08, 2021, 04:22:52 PM »
But the question of the original post has not been answered.   How high up is the dome.  This requires a number with a unit of measure.  How was the height measured?

Well how high does your commerical plane go? Highest I see reported is about 43000ft or 13km. So it's at minimum that number. Maybe they leave a little breathing room but at least we know it's definetly not less than 13km

So you are saying that you do not have an exact height?  Just that it is over 13km. because that is the maximum altitude of commercial airliners.
So my next question is why is the maximum altitude of commercial airliners the standard?  Crewed balloons have gone much higher.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the speed of the Sun
« on: June 08, 2021, 04:16:47 PM »
I am trying to understand FE theory.  To be honest my questions never seem to get answered acceptably.  Here are two very specific ones.
1. What is the speed of the Sun as it moves over the Earth?
2.  What is the distance of the Sun to an observer, when it sets?
The distance of the sun is i think 57 miles.
While the speed is a little faster than the moon.
So i say that the sun moves over 300 miles an hour.
I think the sun might be 300 miles or less an hour,could be more.
But anyways im looking at a gif that shows the sun and moon moving and considering how high it is it might be slower than what i though.
Are you saying the Sun is 57 miles away, or that it sets when it is 57 miles away?  I asked how far it is away when it sets.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how high is the dome?
« on: June 08, 2021, 04:05:32 PM »
But the question of the original post has not been answered.   How high up is the dome.  This requires a number with a unit of measure.  How was the height measured? 

18
Flat Earth Q&A / What is the speed of the Sun
« on: June 08, 2021, 04:02:07 PM »
I am trying to understand FE theory.  To be honest my questions never seem to get answered acceptably.  Here are two very specific ones.
1. What is the speed of the Sun as it moves over the Earth?
2.  What is the distance of the Sun to an observer, when it sets?


19
Flat Earth General / Re: Two sunsets
« on: May 29, 2021, 01:13:08 PM »
So the second part of my question is;  If it is distance that causes the sunset, why can't I still see the sunset by using my high powered binoculars?  Also, can someone tell me the actual distance in kilometers or miles away from me where the sun vanishes?  One more point I'd like to make.  On a hazy day, you can still see the sun setting at the predicted time, even though distance vision is limited.

20
Flat Earth General / Two sunsets
« on: May 26, 2021, 05:14:41 PM »
So I flew from North Carolina to Pennsylvania the other day.  I was looking West from the airport terminal, and watched the sunset.  The sunset was completely done and it was dark when the plane took off.  I cannot tell you the cruising altitude of the plane, but by the time it leveled off, there it was for the second time;  The sunset.  The Earth being a globe affords a simple explanation for this phenomenon.   Flat Earthers say that the sun can't be seen due to its distance, and the density of the air makes it vanish earlier when you are on the ground.  Can someone from the Flat Earth community tell me how far away the sun is when it vanishes from full size to nothing within minutes?  And, why can't I continue to see the sun if I use these high powered binoculars that my cousin gave me if it is the distance that causes the sun to vanish.

21
D

Serious answer:
"Rahu is a transparent body, but it can block the sunray". 8)
Flat Earthers routinely say that you can't see the curvature of the Earth with your eyes, therefore the curvature does not exist.  Here is something that has never been seen or detected and yet it is believed to exist.

22
Flat Earth General / Re: space balloon test near the south pole?
« on: December 03, 2020, 01:04:28 PM »
If I really believed that there was an icewall, I would personally work tirelessly to prove it. 

I do not think such an ice wall would be visible from "the south pole" or it would have been seen already. I tend to think there is an ice wall, but do not believe such a trip as suggested would prove it.


 "If you really believed x, you would do y to prove it!"

 "How would y prove x? "

 "I don't know. But you should do it"

Why would I do it?  I have no desire to go to Antarctica.  I have no belief that there is anything else there besides what people who have been there said was there.  If someone believes there is an icewall, it could be easily proven through photography.    Yes, if I believed there was an icewall (x), I would arrange a flight (y) to prove it by photography and live satellite feeds to the world, documenting the incredible event.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: space balloon test near the south pole?
« on: December 03, 2020, 12:01:44 PM »
Here are some trips you can take to Antarctica in the real world.

https://www.adventure-life.com/antarctica

24
Flat Earth General / Re: space balloon test near the south pole?
« on: December 03, 2020, 11:54:24 AM »

I'd find the idea of uncharted lands only a plane flight away irresistible.


question
Quote from: stankann
There is no way that an unexplored continent that is a relatively easy plane flight away would be left alone. 


That sounds inexpensive and fruitful.


 "Hi, Chilean Air Rentals?  Yes, I'd like to lease a plane... To fly past the south pole... Si... A licence? No problemo... Oh, sure. A large deposit? Por supuesto...  No, no. Actually, I want to fly past Antarctica and discover new land. Si, nueva tierra ... Hello? Hello?  ....  We must have gotten disconnected "

Maybe you wouldn't do it, but so many people would if there were any validity to your claims of an icewall.  You would not have to fly past the icewall, just near it and document its existence.  It would be one of the great "discoveries" of all time.  The people involved would be famous and rich.  If I really believed that there was an icewall, I would personally work tirelessly to prove it.  It does not exist, and I think that Flat Earthers know this, and know that instead of making a great new discovery, they would just be finding a continent that was discovered a long time ago.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: space balloon test near the south pole?
« on: December 03, 2020, 11:09:14 AM »
To this day I still don't understand why Flat Earthers are so completely disinterested in exploring and discovering all the incredible things they know are out there.

I'd find the idea of uncharted lands only a plane flight away irresistible. But no flat earther seems even slightly interested in simply going there to prove to the world that everyone is wrong.

I just can't fathom the lack of motivation.
Flat Earthers do not want to explore the icewall/Antarctica.  It would prove to them concretely that they are wrong.  Curiosity is fundamental to human nature.  There is no way that an unexplored continent that is a relatively easy plane flight away would be left alone.  Think of how we push the limits (with great difficulty) in ocean exploration.  And, how in the real world Antarctica itself is being explored. 
I do have a question of Flat Earthers on this topic.  Does the icewall meet up with the dome?

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Ice wall
« on: November 26, 2020, 06:43:30 PM »
I guess my first question is whether the ice wall is in the ocean, or is it on land. 

27
Flat Earth General / Re: Ice wall
« on: November 22, 2020, 12:06:28 PM »

Quote

Perhaps you could organize a private trip to circumvent Antarctica.   How hard would it be?   Float south until land, make a right, point a camera off port side at the land, keep the land in camera view until the start point is reached.   

I have no desire to do this, as it is quite cold in the antarctic region.  I am asking FEers since the ice wall is central to their beliefs.

28
Flat Earth General / Ice wall
« on: November 22, 2020, 06:38:32 AM »
 I want to discuss the ice wall, but first, I need a clear understanding of what FEers believe it to be.  What is the latitude of the ice wall?   If latitude does not exist in the FE model, how far in miles or kilometers South of the Southern tip of Africa, or the Southern tip of South America is the ice wall?  Also, how tall is it?  Does it go up as high as the "dome"?
Is there a land mass under the ice wall, or does it rise up out of the sea?

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Gravity again
« on: November 13, 2020, 06:20:55 AM »
I just read this article, and I understand it better now.  Still unclear about some smaller details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Gravity again
« on: November 13, 2020, 03:17:42 AM »
Except, without gravity, there is no "weight".
Except as kind of hinted at by the OP, that upwards acceleration causes the same effect as weight.

An object in free fall, falling towards Earth due to gravity (ignoring the minor variations in g) is equivalent to Earth accelerating upwards towards a stationary object.
An object sitting on Earth with gravity pull it down, and the ground pushing it up to keep it stationary is equivalent to an object being pushed upwards by Earth to cause it to accelerate with Earth.

The part that I don't understand (and I recognize your superior knowledge in this area) is the equating of density with weight, in the absence of gravity.  I have pondered it, but still am uncomfortable with the concept.  In the real round world, things accelerate at the same rate irregardless of density.   Why should the acceleration upwards create artificial weight in the absence of a gravitational force.  From what I understand, g force, is based on pulling away from an object (planet) that is exerting gravitational force.  In the complete absence of gravity, I just don't get it.  I will ponder it some more.

Pages: [1] 2 3