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 - Joecool

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Debunking universal acceleration theory
« on: September 05, 2020, 01:39:12 PM »
If the earth was accelerating at 1G:

We would see the Doppler of things near the northern stars get more an more blue shifted, relative to the objects to the side of the motion. We are not seeing that.
We do see the shift from our 66,000 MPH around the sun, up to a 20 arc second shift, depending on where you measure it, and where you are relative to the sun, during our orbit.

Also at one G just after 25 or so years, we would be really close to the speed of light. So we would notice events in deep space speeding up greatly, we are not seeing that.
Also we would approach those stars to the north, a low as 10 years.

We are seeing us going around the galaxy, Doppler motions up to plus and minus 200,000 MPH. We also see the Doppler on other spinning galaxies.

Also what is driving the acceleration?

So we cannot measure the acceleration, and have no theory on what moves it.

It's easier to have a globe in a solar system, all going around the galaxy.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: GPS
« on: September 05, 2020, 01:21:31 PM »
"Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?"

Since this astronomer and satellite observer has seen many GPS and GLONASS satellites, right where predicted, in his large scope, they are in space.

And I have verified in two ways, that the GPS radio signals are coming from them in the sky, not elsewhere.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: The number of fish-eye lenses is too damned high
« on: September 05, 2020, 01:10:07 PM »
There are 3 ways to determine and correct for fish-eye distortion on videos:

1) A strait or curved edge will change the amount by where it is above or below center line. When corrected, meaning no barrel or pincushion distortion, that edge will not change.
So a strait edge will stay strait, or a curved edge will stay curved if no barrel distortion.
1A) However, whatever a lens type, when the strait or curved edge goes thru the middle, what shape remains there is natural.

2) As an object goes from center to an edge, if the camera is panning smoothly, with a true fish eye, the object will not speed up as it gets near the edge. A Rectilinear (normal) lens, it would appear to speed up, more so, on very wide angle lenses.
(A true fish eye, is where each angle change, is linear at the focus, usually 180 deg lens)

3) As an object goes from the center to an edge, it will keep it's aspect ratio if a true fish eye. On a rectilinear lens, it will widen in direction to the center axis of the lens. This distortion is needed to keep strait lines strait, on the focus.

Note:
1) When you need to measure great angles from images, only the true fish eye you can do that.
2) GoPro use mild fish eye lenses, because you can get a good 1080P image quality without expensive optics, and they have free correction software at their site.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: The Green Flash Phenomenon
« on: September 05, 2020, 12:41:28 PM »
The green flash on the top of the sun, shows which way the refraction is happening from the gradient pressure atmosphere.
So it confirms we see 180.8 degrees of sky.
So it is like a very weak fish eye lens, no magnification.
It confirms why all space objects appear to slow down as they get low in the sky.
It confirms why the sun get squished only in the vertical when it gets low in the sky.
The blue is omitted, because at those low angles most of that light has been scattered.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky
« on: September 05, 2020, 12:23:46 PM »
"They look exactly like moving stars.   How do I know they are not moving stars then I expect you will ask..  very simply because I know what I'm talking about. Unlike your good self it seems."

Why are the large ones, like ISS, have the ISS shape?
Why do they stay in full sunlight way after sunset, some are seen in the middle of the night?
Why when they do shut off, it matches where the sun's shadow should be for the supplied location of them?
The fastest moving star, move 1 degree per 360 years.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky
« on: September 05, 2020, 12:18:59 PM »
"Is it by any chance Newton's law of universal gravity?
Then, you got a huge problem, because this law of worth shit in outer space."

When I surveyed many different satellites, including the moon, they all followed the Newton's laws by the speed they traveled across the sky.
It also passed on Jupiter's 4 bright moons.
The laws stand their grounds.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Satellites on the sky
« on: September 05, 2020, 12:14:39 PM »
Since I have measured satellites with ground triangulation, they are at orbital heights and orbital speeds. And being an observational astronomer for 51 years, I can say we did not not see these dots, till we put them up there.

8
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: September 02, 2019, 06:08:43 AM »
I don’t have an answer for you at this time.
Then why not accept defeat?


Because Earth is a Plane.
Then why don't you have a flat earth model that works better than the RE model?

We do and if we just use a concave disk filled with water, rocks and sand in the middle laying on the ground, it would be 100% better than your Globe Model that can’t hold water. We would get a grade of A and you a F for failing to do so after 500 years.  You need it to hold water to compete. That's important for life. This isn't a game for toys.

What drugs are you on, and where can I get some? The sheer mass of the earth causes everything to stick to it's surface by a force called GRAVITY. You can't recreate that effect, with a tennis ball, and a glass of water, numb nuts.

You get an A++ for STUPID.

A sphere earth with a 3959 mile radius is not very big. Hell, there would be a curvature drop of 6' just 3 miles out all around you. And you wonder why it floods.  Massive is an infinite Plane.
A drop due to curvature is not the same as an elevation change.
Did your parents have any children that lived?

I never knew my mother, she left before I was born.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: September 01, 2019, 03:15:21 PM »
I will wear two welding helmets when looking at the moon now. Thank you Joecool!

Welders #1-4 would be sufficient, #6 for gas torch may be too much.
Moon filters are usually let 25% thru.

10
Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: August 31, 2019, 03:53:39 PM »
I hope everyone here knows that the moon does NOT give a cold light.
I have measured more directly and got a 40F rise.
Well now there's something else to be concerned about. A 40F rise in temperature due to the moonlight could certainly prove to be quite dangerous. During the summer, it would spell doom for probably millions of people in hot climates. And in winter, it could very well mean even less snow cover to help reflect the sun's rays. This is certainly how runaway climate change gets a very strong foothold. GOOD WORK Joecool! This kind of thing is why the work we do at the FES is so important. We stand at the precipice of an environmental catastrophe because of the very dangers of the moon, and most people would turn a blind eye to it. Granted, those following this thread have known the moon to be dangerous all along, but perhaps just didn't know why or to what extent until Joecool shared these temperature measurements.

The sun is more dangerous. The moon only gets to 200F at full moon from the sunlight on it for 2 weeks at a time on a given spot.
Where the sun is 10,000F, so it is way more dangerous.
I would not worry about the moon.

11

“...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be   made   perceptible   in   terrestrial   experiments.   We   have   already   remarked...that  all  attempts  of  this  nature  led  to  a  negative  result.  Before  the  theory  of  relativity  was  put  forward,  it  was  difficult  to  become reconciled to this negative result.” Physicist, Albert Einstein

News flash!

We are living in an era AFTER the theory of relativity was put forward.  Not only put forward, but verified by every test thrown at it.

Why do you seem wedded to the  Michelson–Morley experiment being the last valid experiment ever performed by humanity.

Things have moved on.

And a year after Einstein said that, Mr. Michelson invented a more precise spectroscope that could measure it.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 30, 2019, 03:44:33 PM »
It’s no different than looking up at the Moon 5’ from the equator and walking 5’ across and looking up again without turning north. It's all about "Orientation". Deal with it!

It isn't just a question of perspective,  FE doesn't work.

If the moon were just 50 km wide and 5000 km high, two observers separated by 10.000 km of flat disk looking at the moon at the same time would just see different parts of the moon. The observers would be at 90° angle from the moon.

In FE there would be almost not far side of the moon, as most of the moon would be visible from the earth.

In reality two observers in S.America and N.America 10.000 km away from each other see the same side of the moon, just upside down as RE predicts. In reality there's a far side of the moon that we never see from earth and it's roughly half of the moon.

Here's the demonstration:





Now go post some more ISS pictures.

Are you familiar with refraction?



You should take some time a look at refraction from another point of view.

Flat Earth Documentary: Refraction Experiments and FAQ by Research Royal Rife



That image of the refraction is what happens on the earth's atmosphere.
That is why we can all see 1/7 more over the curve.

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Disproving the flat earth, by sun angles.
« on: August 30, 2019, 03:38:05 PM »
Why not just measure the sun altitudes at local noon?
From 3 distant points in latitude, on the same day.
The longitudes don't even have to be the same.

you'll compare the results by looking at what? Since the position of the sun visually draws a curved vertical trajectory relative to the ground, you cannot understand which of the spherical or straight models belongs. and if you see that it fits the flat earth model, you'll say it's because the world isn't a globe but sphere. Burden of making this experiment and sharing results is on your side,  because you've suggested it.

Get accept sun angles prove the flat earth, or prove the opposite by your own experiment, other than talking in vain.

Apparently you don't know trig, to understand my list.
I don't have the burden, the shape is a given fact, I only verify it. Just because you and a few others don't want it to be a sphere, does not push the burden onto me, you have to come up with something real.
If the sun angles don't match the FE model, then you get rid of it.

sun angles match the FE model, hence I don't have to get rid of anything. If you think it does not match, so prove it. Otherwise get stop to baseless claims.

So you did not not check the math, and see the FE model does NOT match the angles it should be.
Please don't chose to be ignorant.

It theorically overlaps in my opinion. You had to prove opposite to encourage me to investigate it. You did not. So you can't say it. Your baseless claiming does not magically make wrong the flat model.

The flat earth claim requires the sun sun to maintain a certain level height above the flat earth.
These measurements disagree with it that FE model.
These measurements agree with the globe model.
No one has come forward to explain why the FE model still stands after this exposure.

These measurements where measurements.  You say you measured something, without any evidence.

That web page and many other sites that tell you the sun angle, all show the errors of you ways. Why would all of them have incorrect info, for things like photo-voltaic array placement?
I do not need measure them myself, it would require a lot of jet trips.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 29, 2019, 05:04:35 PM »
It's all about "Orientation". Face south lean back and look at the Moon and Stars and you can see the same face and the same rotation of the Stars as those in the North.



So why doesn't the moon change size from being over head to lower in the sky on the FE model? Like if you had a man laying between the other two people, should see is at least 20% larger than them.

15
Flat Earth General / Re: Disproving the flat earth, by sun angles.
« on: August 29, 2019, 04:58:44 PM »
Why not just measure the sun altitudes at local noon?
From 3 distant points in latitude, on the same day.
The longitudes don't even have to be the same.

you'll compare the results by looking at what? Since the position of the sun visually draws a curved vertical trajectory relative to the ground, you cannot understand which of the spherical or straight models belongs. and if you see that it fits the flat earth model, you'll say it's because the world isn't a globe but sphere. Burden of making this experiment and sharing results is on your side,  because you've suggested it.

Get accept sun angles prove the flat earth, or prove the opposite by your own experiment, other than talking in vain.

Apparently you don't know trig, to understand my list.
I don't have the burden, the shape is a given fact, I only verify it. Just because you and a few others don't want it to be a sphere, does not push the burden onto me, you have to come up with something real.
If the sun angles don't match the FE model, then you get rid of it.

sun angles match the FE model, hence I don't have to get rid of anything. If you think it does not match, so prove it. Otherwise get stop to baseless claims.

So you did not not check the math, and see the FE model does NOT match the angles it should be.
Please don't chose to be ignorant.

It theorically overlaps in my opinion. You had to prove opposite to encourage me to investigate it. You did not. So you can't say it. Your baseless claiming does not magically make wrong the flat model.

The flat earth claim requires the sun sun to maintain a certain level height above the flat earth.
These measurements disagree with it that FE model.
These measurements agree with the globe model.
No one has come forward to explain why the FE model still stands after this exposure.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 28, 2019, 05:36:25 PM »
Themightykabool on Today at 03:59:31 PM

Well the greeks had an aristocrat society where people got paid to sit around and think.
They also lived on the coast and had a huge navy constantly fighting.
3 questions:
 1.Sunsets and sun rises appear to show the circle emerge from behind an edged horizon.  Why?
 2. Ships coming would rise out of thwater and going would disappear botttom first.  Why?
 3. The moon would cycle regularly but a special occurance during lunar eclipses show a shadow crossing ans they got to see the phases in action.  Why?

So graduate from grade 4 elemtranry school before arrogantly touting bad memes.
..........
Plat Terra

1. There is evidence of the Sun fading away above the horizon. Why?  (So, it's inconclusive.)
2. There is evidence of a surface mirage blocking the view of the boat. Why?  (So, it's inconclusive)
3. There is evidence of both the Sun and Moon being above the horizon during a lunar eclipse; not in a 180° alignment. Proving it's not Earths shadow.

Hard evidence please....

Again
...

Why would anyone (500 to 1,500 years ago) believe in and teach Earth is a Sphere after viewing this horizon (below) everywhere they went for most of their life?

What was the life changing evedience?



There are 3 conditions, that allow you to see a partial lunar eclipse on a globe, 2 are geometric. Not during the total phase.
There are NO geometric conditions that a lunar eclipse can happen on the FE model.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Disproving the flat earth, by sun angles.
« on: August 28, 2019, 05:31:25 PM »
Why not just measure the sun altitudes at local noon?
From 3 distant points in latitude, on the same day.
The longitudes don't even have to be the same.

you'll compare the results by looking at what? Since the position of the sun visually draws a curved vertical trajectory relative to the ground, you cannot understand which of the spherical or straight models belongs. and if you see that it fits the flat earth model, you'll say it's because the world isn't a globe but sphere. Burden of making this experiment and sharing results is on your side,  because you've suggested it.

Get accept sun angles prove the flat earth, or prove the opposite by your own experiment, other than talking in vain.

Apparently you don't know trig, to understand my list.
I don't have the burden, the shape is a given fact, I only verify it. Just because you and a few others don't want it to be a sphere, does not push the burden onto me, you have to come up with something real.
If the sun angles don't match the FE model, then you get rid of it.

sun angles match the FE model, hence I don't have to get rid of anything. If you think it does not match, so prove it. Otherwise get stop to baseless claims.

So you did not not check the math, and see the FE model does NOT match the angles it should be.
Please don't chose to be ignorant.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Disproving the flat earth, by sun angles.
« on: August 27, 2019, 05:40:16 PM »
Why not just measure the sun altitudes at local noon?
From 3 distant points in latitude, on the same day.
The longitudes don't even have to be the same.

you'll compare the results by looking at what? Since the position of the sun visually draws a curved vertical trajectory relative to the ground, you cannot understand which of the spherical or straight models belongs. and if you see that it fits the flat earth model, you'll say it's because the world isn't a globe but sphere. Burden of making this experiment and sharing results is on your side,  because you've suggested it.

Get accept sun angles prove the flat earth, or prove the opposite by your own experiment, other than talking in vain.

Apparently you don't know trig, to understand my list.
I don't have the burden, the shape is a given fact, I only verify it. Just because you and a few others don't want it to be a sphere, does not push the burden onto me, you have to come up with something real.
If the sun angles don't match the FE model, then you get rid of it.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: When will RE Community Accept Defeat?
« on: August 27, 2019, 05:35:36 PM »
If you observed horizons like this (below) five hundred years ago everywhere you went and for decades and without anyone’s opinion on Earth’s shape, why would you believe Earth is a sphere?





Or you are incapable of accepting the Globe proof.

So you haven't looked at all the earth images from the ISS?

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: August 26, 2019, 05:25:44 PM »
We do not reject scientific process. We think its poorly defined, and I think you'll agree if you look at the science you learned in your academic career, those who actually "use" science, and what you think is true retrospectively and analytically.

Every time I hear that (reject scientific process), I usually find they don't know that much about the subject.
Can't be a qualified critic then.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: August 26, 2019, 05:23:13 PM »
Yesterday (and not for the first time) I have witnessed the lie that is our moon

It was a very thin crescent shape YET when looking at it, you could see the WHOLE moon! The rest of it was just really dark but you could clearly see a full circle

And don't give me any garbage about it being some stupid 'optical illusion' and that our brain fills in the gaps or other such nonsense. If the moon is as it is described in official texts, than I should NOT have seen a full moon when there should only have been the thinnest of crescents

Moon is debunked
As I interpret what you have said, you're seeing the moon just after, the new Moon, as opposed to Full moon. This occurred during the day, and the reason why you see the rest of the Moon dimly lit, Is earth shine, the light reflecting off the earth onto the moon.
Earth shine still occurs after dark.

It was early in the night although pitch black. Not a ray of sunshine

I dont care how many light bulbs you turn on on Earth. It is not going to light up the moon. The surface of the Earth is covered by around 70% water. Hardly reflective enough to light up the Moon

The earth is 16 times the area to the moon, than we can see the moonlight on the the ground at night. The earth reflection wins.
Also we can see earthlit moon during total solar eclipses, when you over expose the image.

This is processed image (HDR) because of the great range of light from the eclipse.
http://www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz/~druck/eclipse/ecl2008m/tse2008_1000_mo1/Tse2008_1000_mo1_stars.jpg

22
Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: August 26, 2019, 04:56:03 PM »
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions







Since the dawn of history, the Moon has possessed an almost unequalled hold over the imagination of man, provoking by turns fascination and even worship. Mankind has studied the Moon for thousands of years, and some human depictions of its luminescent features may be over 5,000 years old.


However for as long as man has revered the Moon, he has also feared it. This topic will chronicle how ancient cultures have perceived the Moon's harmful effects, how modern studies (both scientific and Zetetic) corroborate this view, and how and when to prepare to prepare for periods of high lunar activity and/or exposure. It will also provide a Zetetic Lunar Calendar, and a forecast/record of impending/past spikes in Lunar activity:


1. Moonlight: Historical & Socio-Cultural Perspectives

2. Moonlight: Scientific & Zetetic Perspectives

3. Moonlight: Precautions & Preparations

4. The Zetetic Lunar Calendar

5. The Lunar Forecast


Alarmism is not our aim here at the Flat Earth Society, but the threat presented by contact with Lunar rays is significant, and the mainstream media has proven unwilling to alert the public to the evidence for and dangers of this hazard. Our only goal is to make sure that you and your loved ones remain safe.


Any suggestions regarding additions or improvements should be posted in this topic.


I hope everyone here knows that the moon does NOT give a cold light.
I have measured more directly and got a 40F rise.

23
This video sums it up :


Let me show you one interesting comment one guy has left below this video :

J Roger Trudel
1 year ago (edited)
Why have many of us lost faith in science? Very simple, deception. NASA used to be wonderful at doing many scientific portrayals of space. Everything looked so real and most of us were really caught up with it from the 1960s on. But when NASA failed miserably in the 1990s on with fake imagery, the fake ISS, and all those unprofessional actors acting as astronauts (astro-nuts), many of us woke up to reality. And, when an intelligent person has seen and witnessed the fakery of a science field for a few times, that is when 100% of that particular field of science comes into question. How would you feel about someone (example - a Mexican), that has deceived you, say for over 20 years, and you discover the truth about that person. You become very upset inside, and some will even go to the point of never trusting another Mexican person ever again. The same has come to past with space and aeronautical science. Once you have discovered the deception you begin to and lose complete faith in the whole works of its program, and you begin to question everything. As for rockets functioning propulsion in the vacuum of space, for me that is like pulling a boat out of the water, firing up the engine, engaging the prop, rev up the engine, and let's go to town boys

I repeat, why can we see them in orbit after a launch?
If they are seen moving at such a clip, it has to be the rockets work.

24
Flat Earth General / Re: Disproving the flat earth, by sun angles.
« on: August 26, 2019, 04:50:23 PM »
Upside data is imaginary. But the reality is quite different:

Disproving the globe earth by sun angles.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2137912#msg2137912

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2110400#msg2110400

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2110081#msg2110081

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2110544#msg2110544

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2110550#msg2110550

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2110569#msg2110569

You have to be kidding.
Perspective is messing with you.
That is why your are not going to be a good photographer.
I even had to correct for perspective in the darkroom in the 70's.
Old stuff to me.

That is not a single sun and moon shot.
Actually use a fish eye lens, which maintains the amount of degrees per linear amount on at the focus.
There you will see the moon faces the sun.

Why not just measure the sun altitudes at local noon?
From 3 distant points in latitude, on the same day.
The longitudes don't even have to be the same.

25
I answered your question many times, but since you are full of shit, you will continue to pretend that i didn't!
Stop lying.
You are yet to answer this.
This is almost certainly because you know answering it will show you have been lying the entire time and know that rockets do work in a vacuum and that they don't need to push off anything other than their own exhaust.

Spamming the same refuted nonsense again and again will not help you.
It will not magically answer the question.

Again:
What force is acting on the gas that is exiting the rocket to make it go in a particular direction and what is the other body involved in this interaction?
The Expansion produces THRUST FORCE!
And again, you fail to answer the question as you have failed to identify the second body involved in this interaction.
If the expansion produces thrust force, why isn't this force accelerating the rocket?

Free expansion!
Does not apply in this case.
With free expansion, there is no net change in the velocity of the gas.
With a rocket there is.
Also note that free expansion does not care what the actual pressures are, just that there is a difference.
If free expansion would magically prevent rockets from working in a vacuum it would also prevent them working in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, there is no resistance in a vacuum, hence : the second body is missing!
If that was the case, that would mean that the gas CANNOT accelerate.
That the gas MUST REMAIN INSIDE THE ROCKET!
By claiming there is no second body you are claiming that gas will magically be held inside the rocket rather than escaping out the opening to a vacuum.

Is that really the path of stupidity you want to go down?

Again, we know the gas will leave the rocket. To claim otherwise is claiming pure magic, that you can hold gas inside an open container surrounded by vacuum.
We also know that as there is only one opening in one direction, it will leave in a particular direction.
We know that that means it will have a velocity relative to the rocket.
We know that it started without a net velocity relative to the rocket.
We know that that means it needs to be accelerated.
We know that it has mass.
We know that that means it needed a force applied to accelerate it.
We know that that involves interaction with a second body.
We know that that will also accelerate the second body.

Claiming there is no second body means there cannot be any iteraction and thus no force and thus no acceleration and thus the gas remained trapped inside the rocket.

If that is what you want to claim, then state it directly. Go against all known physics and claim that in a vacuum, because there is no second body, gas will remain inside an open vessel with absolutely nothing to keep it in.

If you don't want to claim that and instead want to accept that the gas will escape, you need to identify the second body. Claiming there is none will not help.

As a reminder, the only thing there to act as the second body is the rocket.
That makes it clear why you are avoiding answering it. Because you know that answering it will show that you know rockets will work in a vacuum.

Was this helpful
No, you ignoring reality and repeating the same refuted nonsense without dealing with the refutation is not helpful in any sense.

So going to answer the question yet, by either identifying the second body or by claiming the gas will magically stay trapped inside an open container?

If the gases are pushed in to the container faster than they can exit, the pressure builds up and can combust.

Also think inside the rocket engine. The fuel and oxidizer burns rapidly and expands, pushing against all the walls of the chamber, except where the hole is at the bottom, to the nozzle. So the gasses push in all directions but less down, so the results it pushes the rocket up. So it pushes against itself, simple.

26
Flat Earth General / Disproving the flat earth, by sun angles.
« on: August 25, 2019, 04:59:57 AM »
Disproving the sun is close on a flat world, with solar altitude measurements:
Once Eratosthenes measure the curvature of the earth this is true.

Sun altitude test, uses web (USNO) for max sun heights, to compare flat earth and close sun vs globe earth and far sun, in miles. Also using Google Earth for linear distances.
Picking 5 places on the earth, all close in Longitude, on Sep 24 so sun is overhead and still south on the equatorial city. Then assuming a flat earth, taking the sun height difference, TAN, 1/X, times the ground distance, will give you the alleged sun's altitude over each location. Notice as you go north the calculated sun's distance are NOT constant, it shrinks as the two points get further. If the results are inconsistent, then the concept of a flat earth and close sun are incorrect.

1. Libreville, Gabon,
          Lat +00.39, Max sun height 88.8, 0000 Mi Dist
2. Kano, Nigeria,
          Lat +12.00, Max sun height 77.3, 0799 Mi         = 3928 flat sun alt.
3. Tunis, Tunisia,
          Lat +36.80, Max sun height 53.6, 2505 Mi         = 3551
4. Frankfurt, Germany,
          Lat +50.11, Max sun height 39.2, 3245 Mi         = 2761
5. Oslo Norway,
           Lat +59.91, Max sun height 29.4, 4102 Mi         = 2425

You will notice that the distances close to the Equatorial location, are the same as the Earth's radius, because low angles do not produce much error. That is why short distance testing for earth's curvature seem to match a flat earth close sun, but only there. You can use any site for the sun angles, besides my choice.

27
Flat Earth General / Re: how to know the altitude of a DirecTV satelite
« on: August 25, 2019, 04:10:52 AM »
Thanks, but that sounds to obscure site to me.
I was hoping I could just download from my PC, like Twitter allows.

This forum doesn't host images, it just shows them from url you provide.
I don't know if is "recommended" but I've linked to images posted by others on Twitter and I don't even have a Twitter account.
Here's one:

  • On my computer I just right-click the picture in Twitter and a menu showing "Copy image address" shows. Paste this as below.

  • On my Samsung Galaxy tablet I had to "touch" the picture until a menu showed then selected "open image in new tab".
    The "url line" that shows in that tab is the url of the picture, so paste the url into  [img]<< Picture url >>[/img].
The above picture had " width=400" added to save space so was the following before posting:
      "[img width=400]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECoZ-FHU0AMz0oZ?format=jpg&name=900x900[/img]"

PS Be warned! This post will look like a (more  ::)) indecipherable mess if you try to "[quote][/quote] it" ;D

Thanks, I will try my twitter, but my images are spread all over there, would take time to find them, it maybe easier to send a dumb reposte of them in twitter, then copy and paste the url to here.

28
"One chance in 10^200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible"

What is the tolerance of those stats, how many other solar systems did he visit to get a more accurate tolerance?
One sample is not enough.

29
The Gyroscope shown in your video, will not show the 15 degrees per hr.
Because it has pedulus vanes, which keep it level to the local earth, but are damped a lot, so the planes motions do not affect it.
Also mechanical gyroscopes are not accurate, so they can drift more than the earth's rotation. That is why they have those vanes.

If you just have plane gyroscope on a bench, may not show the rotation too.
But I suspect it's from internal friction of the gimbals.
If you dither the assembly then it may show the motion.
Dithering (rotating back and forth) is a way to get more sensitivity on things with friction.
I had told them this, but again they won't try anything that disproves them.

30
Airy's Failure is based of the "aberration of light", which does show the motion, of the 66,000 mph around the sun.
Remember the scope in the test is still tipped.

Pages: [1] 2