1

Flat Earth General / Re: Is Trump In On The Conspiracy?

« on: May 22, 2019, 11:44:12 PM »

Ok John, you agree that cold war was real?

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map

« on: May 20, 2019, 10:08:59 AM »

The hemispheres aren't evenly lit like that. Learn what seasons are.

Its just a sketch showing the main problem on a bipolar map. The correct shape will not solve this problem. The correct seasons are in the video from the original post or also in the following video, made by the same person, where the real life sun viewing vectors are added:

So Mr. Bishop, did you ask yourself what it means that we can see only one sun at the same time while the viewing angles point only on a globe into the same direction but not on a flat earth?

And about your "atom layer": From which elements is it made of? How are they supposed to have enough binding energy for such a large area? And as Rabinoz said, it would be as good as transparent to light, since the reflection probability is way too low for a single layer of atoms.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map

« on: May 20, 2019, 09:27:48 AM »

Please point out where the information presented by Souleon in the YouTube video and his two statements proves that the Sun changes shape. Remember, the question is "Did this convince you and if not, why not?" where I specifically stated my assumption about what was meant by "this."

First post:

There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

and a bit later:

But to get something like in video minute 1:00, you would need something like a halo sun, which we don't see every day for several months. That's why I wrote "single spherical light source".

The problem is really that you cannot light an area from a single spherical light source while having a dark center without shadowing. It's like having a light bulb in front of a wall and seeing a separated shadow on the wall without something in between OR seeing shadows on the wall without seeing an object in front of the light bulb --> both won't happen.


 

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How does the Sun Create Energy on a Flat Earth?

« on: May 19, 2019, 10:54:00 PM »

Btw the sun is creating energy by mass to energy conversion by fusion of 2H to He.

Interestingly Jupiter has nearly the same elemental composition as the sun but is "too small" to get enought pressure for fusion.

Sorry for posting in Q and A, but it's my major so I couldn't resist.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: The disappearing island

« on: May 19, 2019, 12:52:35 PM »

...
But I'm not sure why anyone would regard a two-dimensional photograph as proof that the Earth is a ball.

Because it looks like a ball being hit by sunlight from one side:


Also, if you look for other images, if it would not be a ball, where are the other continents?

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Stuck at home with nothing to do?

« on: May 17, 2019, 02:54:10 PM »

Seeing the forrests being "eaten" away from this angle and as time lapse let one understand that we are like a parasites. I hope the docu will help to change our behaviour.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map

« on: May 17, 2019, 10:13:22 AM »

also solar eclipse cannot be explained with FET 


Even if you claim this picture is fake, you know that you can see a 100% lunar eclipse only in a small area on earth. If sun would be only ~6000 km high and small, and the moon lower to be able to hide the sun, then the shadow would be much larger. And "dome projections" don't work either, because if you would make a projected sun to an eclipse, then it would have to be dark everywhere on earth.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is a sphere Because---->

« on: May 17, 2019, 10:07:45 AM »

Counter questions: Are there FEB flying their own plane?

What do you mean but FEB do you mean “Federal established borad”

flat earth believer

9

Flat Earth General / Re: The disappearing island

« on: May 17, 2019, 09:56:17 AM »

magellanclavichord,
did I understand it correct that you believe that what science is telling is commonly true and that NASA send men to the moon, however, on the same time you believe earth is flat? That's interesting. So... what do you think about the photographs from the moon showing the earth? Please don't get me wrong, I like your attitude and your explanations of gravity.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map

« on: May 16, 2019, 10:56:22 PM »

But to get something like in video minute 1:00, you would need something like a halo sun, which we don't see every day for several months. That's why I wrote "single spherical light source".

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The earth is a sphere Because---->

« on: May 16, 2019, 10:49:01 PM »

Counter questions: Are there FEB flying their own plane?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map

« on: May 16, 2019, 11:27:49 AM »

If you want to debate something start a debate.

Ok.
Did this convince you and if not, why not?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunlight on a flat Earth map

« on: May 16, 2019, 10:04:51 AM »

>48h no comment... is this argument too one unfair?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: distance between santiago de chile and melbourne on a fe?

« on: May 16, 2019, 09:50:10 AM »

Different cities, but it fits to the OP very well:

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain

« on: May 16, 2019, 06:47:58 AM »

Clouds lit on the underside before sunrise

True, this is more often visible.

@Curiouser and Curiouser
Mirages are caused by large temperature differences in the air caused by e.g. a hot street or sand in the desert. But Between the ground and the clouds there are no such strong temperature gradients.

Also, in a mirage air turbulence causes this "flickering", you probably have seen by yourself.
But the clouds lit from below don't show this flickering.

About the flying boat, is this real? Can some one explain the physics behind this? I couldn't find it.
Thanks 

16

Flat Earth Debate / Upwards shadow at clouds from a mountain

« on: May 15, 2019, 10:07:42 AM »

Hi,

Is this fake or not?
https://imgur.com/pBlV3tL

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 15, 2019, 05:28:36 AM »

All your comment does is serve to insult people and lose respect people had for you.

Do you mean that you felt insulted and that I lost your respect? If so, why? Or did I miss understand? You can also pm me

JackBlack, I did read through your posts again and I realized that I did you wrong, sorry.

I should have used wording like "you put wise under so much stress / pressure by repeating questioning vehemently causing him to rant" instead of "ranting".  I'm not saying that you are not allowed to do so, but since I knew asking wise to stop ranting from his side, is a waste of time, I asked you to give him less fuel instead. But you didn't or couldn't or whatever. But doesn't matter now anyways.

I will let things settle and reduce the time that I spent in this forum drastically.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 14, 2019, 03:37:41 PM »

All your comment does is serve to insult people and lose respect people had for you.

Do you mean that you felt insulted and that I lost your respect? If so, why? Or did I miss understand? You can also pm me

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Objects Weighing Slightly More at the Poles

« on: May 14, 2019, 02:40:16 PM »

So you removed the aurora, made the earth flat and now it's a nice hidden message: flat earth -> leads to -> nothing

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 14, 2019, 05:04:39 AM »

hm... seems my quite large effort, to build up a friendly discussion with wise, was in vain.
I wonder how this would have turned out without rabinoz' and jackblack's rants.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Sunlight on a flat Earth map

« on: May 14, 2019, 01:23:10 AM »

Seems no one has posted this video before:


There is obviously no way that the sun, which we can observe as a single spherical light source, could result in all these light/shadow patterns on a flat earth.

However, by understanding the map as an azimuthal equidistant projection of a sphäroid earth, the patterns perfectly make sense.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 14, 2019, 12:24:06 AM »

If you capture a 3d world, the video is stored more or less in a 2d projection, but the captured world remains 3d. You can walk around and above objects, feel and see them from all sides... That wouldn't be possible in 2d

Nope. Possible. Open a MMO game, you can move every sides, but it is still on 2D screen.

Souleon, who did not replied statements between us during a day, but replied jackblack who clearly a ranter aims to cut our conversation; is ignored.

We live in different time zones, so you have to be more patient. I woke up ~30 min ago, so relax, please 

if you delete the quoted post, i will delete mine as well 

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 14, 2019, 12:16:42 AM »

If you capture a 3d world, the video is stored more or less in a 2d projection, but the captured world remains 3d. You can walk around and above objects, feel and see them from all sides... That wouldn't be possible in 2d

Nope. Possible. Open a MMO game, you can move every sides, but it is still on 2D screen.

Souleon, you've still not replied this statement but supported jackblack's freedom of ask me question. Tell me something which prevents I put you in alt accounts of sickinoz group.

Oh sorry, I missed that due to your many rants with Rabinoz and Jackblack.

Ok, wise, here is my answer: If you can move in the MMO world every side, than the MMO world is also in 3D. The projection for the 2D screen happens after your input to the game. The game developers uses an equivalent to a video camera inside of the game and you watch what this "camera" is filming, with a tiny delay. The game developers have to include the camera position and movement into their coding. Your question proofs that you never did some 3D modeling yourself.

One more thing to the "incident = reflection angle": Please walk along a wall with a mirror, observe the mirror and think about what you see there.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 13, 2019, 04:32:19 PM »

I am still waiting for a new statement from you.

You have demonstrated you don't care about the truth at all and will happily dismiss any statement that shows you are wrong.
So what is the point of a new statement?
You still have all the old ones to deal with.

Again, if you can only see 20 km, you would not see the sunset. Instead the sun would fade to a blur high in the sky as you would be looking through too much atmosphere.
Again, if light reflects, then it will not spread out in all directions from the point of reflection. Instead it reflects such that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection, with the light continuing in a straight line. Light doesn't magically spread out. It simply travels in a straight line (more technically a geodesic through space-time), with omnidirectional light sources emitting light in all directions giving the apparence of light spreading out. This is confirmed with quite simple experiments and in no way indicates the universe is a simulation.
You can't have a 3D simulation stored as 2D. That would lose the 3rd dimension resulting in a massive loss of information.

Now are you able to reply to any of these statements, or just continue to dismiss them?

Would have said it a bit more gentle but in overall content I agree.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Objects Weighing Slightly More at the Poles

« on: May 13, 2019, 11:27:29 AM »

The funny thing is, gravity and RET can explain this, FET not. 
I will work on the new thread now, addressing your question.

Just the opposite. For a flat land, everything is explained perfectly, but for a ball it is a problem. Just not such a flat land - as it is considered here.

**My signature shows what the earth looks like, and I have already given the structure of the fields. In the theory that I speak, above the flat earth even lunar eclipses are possible and it is explained why the celestial bodies do not affect the weight of the weights.

Ok, there is already a lot about tides in this forum, I will have a look first. But I would also be interested in your version for explaining tides. In the mean while you can watch
there is a little surprise at 3:50 you will like

edit: reading the tide threads was a waste of time 

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Objects Weighing Slightly More at the Poles

« on: May 13, 2019, 10:59:00 AM »

I understood perfectly. I wanted you to confirm once again that the moon does not affect any objects on earth ... Then a contradiction comes out - how then does the moon attract tons of water and do not affect weights? And how the earth attracts air. When the air actually weighs nothing? This is bullshit. Gravity is mythical power.

The funny thing is, gravity and RET can explain this, FET not. 
I will work on the new thread now, addressing your question.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Maximum seeing distance

« on: May 13, 2019, 10:52:30 AM »

here they go again ... 

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Objects Weighing Slightly More at the Poles

« on: May 13, 2019, 10:26:17 AM »

ha ha ha ... you made me laugh.

As I understood this is caused by tidal forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force (which itself are explainable by gravity)
But the influences are very very small:
"The lunar tidal acceleration at the Earth's surface along the Moon-Earth axis is about 1.1 × 10−7 g, while the solar tidal acceleration at the Earth's surface along the Sun-Earth axis is about 0.52 × 10−7 g."
with g being direct proportional to the weight.

I do not mean the influence of the moon, but completely different facts. If you say that the moon can have an impact, you are definitely a banker, and you should take care of your gold at night, and if you are a gardener, then your cucumbers should stand up at night ... ha ha.

If you would read more carefully, you would have seen that the tidal force has "practically" no effect on the weight. So yeh you could buy/sell gold for 1 million $ and then "earn" at most 0.11$ with this...  but with including the transaction cost, it will be minus.  On the other hand, isn't it interesting, that this small effect is already enough to cause sea water level at many coasts to change by several meters? This gives me an idea for a new thread, hehe

But well then, how much does the standard weights, you heard of, change, while staying at the same positions? Which facts did you mean?

29

Flat Earth General / Re: The disappearing island

« on: May 13, 2019, 02:07:29 AM »

Isn't "internet research" an oxymoron?

Not necessarily, e.g. with Google.scholar and optionally the Unpaywall browser plugin you can get access to huge amount of material, including peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. There you can dig deeper and deeper and also check for plausibility by reading the methods and references (forward and backward). I agree, that there are also wrong statements in between, since humans are not omniscient. But I would say as a large group, in average, we got already in many scientific topics very close to the truth.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Objects Weighing Slightly More at the Poles

« on: May 13, 2019, 12:06:38 AM »

But I will still say that scientists lie about gravity. Since no one explains why the weight of standards standing in one place changes.

As I understood this is caused by tidal forces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force (which itself are explainable by gravity)
But the influences are very very small:
"The lunar tidal acceleration at the Earth's surface along the Moon-Earth axis is about 1.1 × 10−7 g, while the solar tidal acceleration at the Earth's surface along the Sun-Earth axis is about 0.52 × 10−7 g."
with g being direct proportional to the weight.

What I will try to memorize:
Change in weights one earth due to...

- centrifugal forces: ~0.3% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude), depending on position (only latitude)
- bulk deformation of the earth due to centrifugal force: ~0.2% (same source)
- ground altitude and density differences: ~0.01% (~100 mGal = 1 mm/s^2), depending on position
- tidal forces: < 0.00002%, depending on time and position

If I calculate centrifugal force with the formula I gave above in this thread, I get for 1 kg at the equator:
F_centrifugal = (2*PI()/(24*60*60))^2*6.37*10^6 N = 0.034 N. With "F_weight = m * g - F_centrifugal" this results to a weight reduction ~0.34%. So, this fits quite well to what can be measured.

Hirt et al. did simulations in 2013 which bases on 3 billion measuring points from satellites, which resulted in max difference of ~0.7%, which is a bit higher than what we get by summing up the list above: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50838
So, bullet point 3 might be actually higher.
Quite interesting, but I have to stop here, because I have to write currently my phd thesis in a completely different topic lol

And no one can explain why we see what we see. All laws are far-fetched.

Please don't close your eyes with respect to the explanations above..