1
Suggestions & Concerns / Frozen_berries
« on: April 15, 2010, 08:10:01 PM »
Why/How is is post count so high? Haxor?
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.
Pages: [1]
2
The Lounge / Really nervous
« on: April 14, 2010, 04:24:09 PM »
Today is the day I find out if I'm accepted into the air force or not. I got a message on the phone to call the recruiting sergeant back but she's out for lunch 
waiting for her to call any minute now. Most intense nervous moment in my life.
Ever been super nervous?
waiting for her to call any minute now. Most intense nervous moment in my life.Ever been super nervous?
3
Suggestions & Concerns / Tom Bishop linking wiki
« on: April 11, 2010, 02:52:19 PM »
I have no issue with him quoting and posting links to his wiki, but he is pretty much just as bad as Levee in proving a point. Every time he posts a link to a page in the wiki, it rarely has any relevance to the topic at hand and quite often doesn't prove ANY point at all.
Example:
This entry doesn't prove a faked moon landing at all. He isn't in any position to comment on the structure of lunar landers and obviously has no intention of backing this up. Why is he continually ignored in his verging-on-spam posts?
Example:
NASA's spacecraft are clearly bogus when viewed up close.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=A+Close+Look+at+the+Lunar+Lander
This entry doesn't prove a faked moon landing at all. He isn't in any position to comment on the structure of lunar landers and obviously has no intention of backing this up. Why is he continually ignored in his verging-on-spam posts?
4
Suggestions & Concerns / Levee
« on: April 02, 2010, 10:53:53 PM »
I'm not done discussing this subject. Don't lock threads so nobody can reply. There was no spam or attacks on any individual/group and the problem/concern was not addressed.
All levee does is post a whole lot of crap that nobody has any time or patience to refute because nobody has any damn idea where to start. His posts are a massive block of lies and falsities and never actually address the subject at hand. He clearly only copy pastas and at one stage I clearly remember him personally attacking me and another REer just because we disagreed with him. He shouldn't be a mod.
I also have an issue with John Davis locking the previous levee thread. There was no need for it but that's a whole different situation entirely.
All levee does is post a whole lot of crap that nobody has any time or patience to refute because nobody has any damn idea where to start. His posts are a massive block of lies and falsities and never actually address the subject at hand. He clearly only copy pastas and at one stage I clearly remember him personally attacking me and another REer just because we disagreed with him. He shouldn't be a mod.
I also have an issue with John Davis locking the previous levee thread. There was no need for it but that's a whole different situation entirely.
5
The Lounge / April Fool's
« on: March 31, 2010, 08:27:19 PM »
As the 1st of Arpil is nearly over for me (haha, I get everything first) I propose we all tell of awesome pranks, hilarious goings-on and post links to April Fool's press releases etc.
This is one from today
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=10635816&ref=rss
This is one from today
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/science/news/article.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=10635816&ref=rss
6
Suggestions & Concerns / To all modz nd adminzz
« on: March 30, 2010, 08:31:41 PM »
Instead of deleting my posts containing profanity and/or editing them without my permission, why don't you just give me more warnings? I'm not saying I want to be bant, I just don't like feeling like an exception to a rule. Tell me off for fuck's sake. Stop letting me get away with it.
7
Flat Earth General / FET is based on ill-understanding of itself
« on: March 21, 2010, 10:02:15 PM »
To be honest, I'm getting bloody pissed off with these magical 'everything' theories. So far I have seen bendy light used to explain:
Curvature
Retrograde motion
Ships disappearing over horizon
The sun and moon's disappearance over horizon without changing size
And I have seen photos from space and high-altitude curvature explained by saying:
The sun is a spotlight. It can magically direct it's own light and disobey physics because it can
Camera barrel distortion
Your own brain and eyes lying to you
And I have not seen any valid explanations for the following:
GPS
Satellite based communications
How the sun and moon project their light in a spotlight fashion
Antarctic summers (Mirrors don't hover. They don't)
Gravitation's source of infinite pushing energy
Celestial south pole (apart from a wild on-the-spot "There are several" from Tom Bishop. Historically, nobody got lost by following one celestial south pole around in circles. They all managed to do just fine before you went and came up with a stupid theory
Plate tectonics (including the super continents)
Why people needed to be so greedy that they are extorting money from the government as we speak, and without any consequence
Where the hell space shuttles and the like go after they are launched
And finally and most importantly, I have not yet once seen an example of the following in terms of a Flat Earth:
A god-damned map
Maps get us places. They do. And if you use one properly, they get you places even more accurately. They do. People know the shapes of their own countries. They do. And yet I have not seen on FE map that does not misrepresent any one landmass in anyway. Get your act together. If you want to be taken seriously, and have people understand your theories properly; get a sponsor, some resources, some volunteers and some backing; and do some proving. Not only to the world, but to yourselves. Prove bendy light (properly), make a map, and debunk the conspiracy. Use guns and shit if you have to. Because, if the earth is flat, I sure as hell want to know about it, I really do. I wouldn't be disappointed in myself, or my knowledge if it turns out the earth is flat. Nothing would change. Except at this stage, a hell of a lot of people (And many of them much much smarter than a lot of us put together) belive the earth is round
But if you're wrong, and there is no conspiracy what-so-ever, then all I will have to say to you is:
"Idiots. Utter utter idiots."
Get it done. You aren't credible at this stage. Sometimes I only hang around for the lolz. I want to take you seriously, I really do, but at this stage you aren't doing yourselves any good. As a society you should be pro active, not lounging around coming up with crap theories to type on a forum. Prove the earth is flat. Or else admit defeat.
Curvature
Retrograde motion
Ships disappearing over horizon
The sun and moon's disappearance over horizon without changing size
And I have seen photos from space and high-altitude curvature explained by saying:
The sun is a spotlight. It can magically direct it's own light and disobey physics because it can
Camera barrel distortion
Your own brain and eyes lying to you
And I have not seen any valid explanations for the following:
GPS
Satellite based communications
How the sun and moon project their light in a spotlight fashion
Antarctic summers (Mirrors don't hover. They don't)
Gravitation's source of infinite pushing energy
Celestial south pole (apart from a wild on-the-spot "There are several" from Tom Bishop. Historically, nobody got lost by following one celestial south pole around in circles. They all managed to do just fine before you went and came up with a stupid theory
Plate tectonics (including the super continents)
Why people needed to be so greedy that they are extorting money from the government as we speak, and without any consequence
Where the hell space shuttles and the like go after they are launched
And finally and most importantly, I have not yet once seen an example of the following in terms of a Flat Earth:
A god-damned map
Maps get us places. They do. And if you use one properly, they get you places even more accurately. They do. People know the shapes of their own countries. They do. And yet I have not seen on FE map that does not misrepresent any one landmass in anyway. Get your act together. If you want to be taken seriously, and have people understand your theories properly; get a sponsor, some resources, some volunteers and some backing; and do some proving. Not only to the world, but to yourselves. Prove bendy light (properly), make a map, and debunk the conspiracy. Use guns and shit if you have to. Because, if the earth is flat, I sure as hell want to know about it, I really do. I wouldn't be disappointed in myself, or my knowledge if it turns out the earth is flat. Nothing would change. Except at this stage, a hell of a lot of people (And many of them much much smarter than a lot of us put together) belive the earth is round
But if you're wrong, and there is no conspiracy what-so-ever, then all I will have to say to you is:
"Idiots. Utter utter idiots."
Get it done. You aren't credible at this stage. Sometimes I only hang around for the lolz. I want to take you seriously, I really do, but at this stage you aren't doing yourselves any good. As a society you should be pro active, not lounging around coming up with crap theories to type on a forum. Prove the earth is flat. Or else admit defeat.
8
Flat Earth General / More konspirasee?
« on: March 19, 2010, 09:49:44 PM »
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/
Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.
I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/
Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.
I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.
9
Flat Earth General / Beliefs
« on: March 11, 2010, 01:55:32 PM »First and foremost, I do not seek to prove either RE or FE as true. Nothing can be proven as true.
10
Flat Earth Q&A / GPS (Don't worry, this time it's different)
« on: March 09, 2010, 04:11:00 PM »
Due to the lack of FEers in the debate topic http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36546.0,
I'm making this new topic with one question in mind:
How does GPS work if satellites are not the answer?
Keep in mind that weather balloons have been suggested and shot down. So this isn't really going to cut it. Please read the debate topic if you haven't already as it explains everything from a RE perspective conclusively. If you have already done so, you may continue to answer the question.
I'm making this new topic with one question in mind:
How does GPS work if satellites are not the answer?
Keep in mind that weather balloons have been suggested and shot down. So this isn't really going to cut it. Please read the debate topic if you haven't already as it explains everything from a RE perspective conclusively. If you have already done so, you may continue to answer the question.
11
Suggestions & Concerns / trolls
« on: March 07, 2010, 12:40:40 PM »
plz bant Zelexin and Irushwithscvs. Tnx.
12
Flat Earth General / Simulation of different map projections.
« on: March 03, 2010, 07:00:56 PM »
Haven't had a go yet as it's a bitch to install (It makes you install some other stupid program to run the random filetype. Dw, not a virus) But this thing will show you how fucked up the landmasses and even the oceans get when you screw around with different projections. Check it out as it's pretty relevant to you nubs coming up with a proper map that works (Hint, you never will).
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/WorldMapProjections/
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/WorldMapProjections/
13
Flat Earth Q&A / Light bends up, right?
« on: March 02, 2010, 08:36:52 PM »
And it does this because of the variation in atmospheric density with altitude, right?
So how come at sea level the atmospheric density is the same [assuming constant temperature and barometric pressure], and yet it still bends? (As you say it must for a horizon to appear)
All bendy light is going to do, is change the apparent position of the sun in the sky. As far as I am aware (I just came to this realisation) the horizon shouldn't be altered.
TO ALL: Remember, light does not need to be a light source. Everything you look at is either emitting or reflecting light. The horizon is a line where the sea/land reflecting light at you, and the sky reflecting light at you, meet. Do not confuse light sources, with anything that you look at.
Please answer me this, or correct me on what makes light bend. This realisation of mine could either debunk, or do nothing to your theory. It is in your hands.
So how come at sea level the atmospheric density is the same [assuming constant temperature and barometric pressure], and yet it still bends? (As you say it must for a horizon to appear)
All bendy light is going to do, is change the apparent position of the sun in the sky. As far as I am aware (I just came to this realisation) the horizon shouldn't be altered.
TO ALL: Remember, light does not need to be a light source. Everything you look at is either emitting or reflecting light. The horizon is a line where the sea/land reflecting light at you, and the sky reflecting light at you, meet. Do not confuse light sources, with anything that you look at.
Please answer me this, or correct me on what makes light bend. This realisation of mine could either debunk, or do nothing to your theory. It is in your hands.
14
Flat Earth Debate / GPS. This has to be done.
« on: February 12, 2010, 10:33:08 PM »
GPS, Global Positioning System. We all know what it is and how it works. Only problem is the denial from FE'ers on the subject and simple shrugging off of the topic by going on about pseudolite crap. So here goes.
Everyone understands triangulation right? Knowing where something is by knowing it's distance from at least 3 points on a map, on a table, on the globe. On a 2d surface it's easy, we just draw a circle of specific radius around each point we know we are from. If your initial measurements were correct, you will get a point where all three intersect.
This image shows this (note, the 'rounded' triangle in the middle is our point. In this example, our measurements taken are not perfectly accurate and so our point is rather an overlap of all three.)
In 3d space it isn't that much harder. If we know our distance from 3 satellites, and how high the satellites are orbiting, we now have 4 points (the fourth being our altitude of zero. Alternatively, we know our distance from 4 satellites to know our 4 points).
We need this fourth point because we added a dimension to work with. If we don't add a fourth, we are left with two points where all three spheres overlap, one that is higher than the satellites' orbit, and one at ground level (or at our altitude if we are using 4 satellites). We aren't out in space, therefore we must be at the location which gives us our altitude of zero (with 3 satellites) or our actual altitude (with 4 satellites or more).
What's that you said? "How do we know our distance from each satellite though?" Well I'll tell you.
Each satellite knows the [atomic, yes, atomic] time and your receiver knows the time too [not quite atomic. This leads to errors. More expensive units just have more accurate clocks]. Your receiver sends out a "Hey satellites, I want this message back k?" message and the satellites in range will send it back. Your receiver figures out how long it took and therefore knows how far away it was [knowing the speed of light and Doppler effect on the specific radio frequency sent out etc]. To create redundancy [accuracy or backup], there should always be at least 7 (provided no obstructions) satellites in view.
Some smart guys sitting in computer labs in places around the USA monitor the satellites and make sure they are on path. Remember, a satellite will orbit the earth in a constant circle [sometimes oval] no matter how fast the earth is spinning. Therefore if we take into account the earth's rotation, each satellite makes a curved path along the ground (unless it orbits parallel to the earth's rotation).
"But why can't pseudolites exist then?" Well, that's because of the frequency used in GPS.
GPS actually uses 5 different frequencies. A couple are the actual navigation frequencies and the others are used for ionosphere research and even detection of nuclear detonation to ensure treaties are being adhered to. All of these frequencies lie between 1575.42 MHz -1176.45 MHz placing them in the UHF range.
So?
Well, UHF relies on line of sight. You might not be able to see satellites at daytime due to the 'blueness' of the sky (refraction of visible wavebands) but they are there, and at night time, you can [sometimes] see them. Radio masts like those claimed to be pseudolites are not line of sight and cannot (repeat, cannot) possibly give any indication of distance due to their waves bouncing off the ionosphere and therefore not travelling in a straight line. If we could stay in line of sight, sure it might work. But how many radio masts can you see in any direction right now? (I can’t see any, but my GPS still tells me where I am)
But if the earth is actually flat, wouldn’t these radio waves just go straight?
Yea, but 'bendy light theory' bends all wavelengths equally [apparently] so no radio waves will reach you in a straight line [in FET]. Besides, in a valley you can still get GPS reception so the signals must be coming back from the sky. This leads us to the conclusion that satellites must exist because they are the only possible way for a GPS to work. And as I'm sure we can all figure out, for satellites to exist, they need to be suspended in orbit around a spherical earth. Nail in the coffin.
Tl;dr this if you want, FE’ers. It’ll only harm your integrity. Feel free to dispute anything I have said.
Everyone understands triangulation right? Knowing where something is by knowing it's distance from at least 3 points on a map, on a table, on the globe. On a 2d surface it's easy, we just draw a circle of specific radius around each point we know we are from. If your initial measurements were correct, you will get a point where all three intersect.
This image shows this (note, the 'rounded' triangle in the middle is our point. In this example, our measurements taken are not perfectly accurate and so our point is rather an overlap of all three.)
In 3d space it isn't that much harder. If we know our distance from 3 satellites, and how high the satellites are orbiting, we now have 4 points (the fourth being our altitude of zero. Alternatively, we know our distance from 4 satellites to know our 4 points).
We need this fourth point because we added a dimension to work with. If we don't add a fourth, we are left with two points where all three spheres overlap, one that is higher than the satellites' orbit, and one at ground level (or at our altitude if we are using 4 satellites). We aren't out in space, therefore we must be at the location which gives us our altitude of zero (with 3 satellites) or our actual altitude (with 4 satellites or more).
What's that you said? "How do we know our distance from each satellite though?" Well I'll tell you.
Each satellite knows the [atomic, yes, atomic] time and your receiver knows the time too [not quite atomic. This leads to errors. More expensive units just have more accurate clocks]. Your receiver sends out a "Hey satellites, I want this message back k?" message and the satellites in range will send it back. Your receiver figures out how long it took and therefore knows how far away it was [knowing the speed of light and Doppler effect on the specific radio frequency sent out etc]. To create redundancy [accuracy or backup], there should always be at least 7 (provided no obstructions) satellites in view.
Some smart guys sitting in computer labs in places around the USA monitor the satellites and make sure they are on path. Remember, a satellite will orbit the earth in a constant circle [sometimes oval] no matter how fast the earth is spinning. Therefore if we take into account the earth's rotation, each satellite makes a curved path along the ground (unless it orbits parallel to the earth's rotation).
"But why can't pseudolites exist then?" Well, that's because of the frequency used in GPS.
GPS actually uses 5 different frequencies. A couple are the actual navigation frequencies and the others are used for ionosphere research and even detection of nuclear detonation to ensure treaties are being adhered to. All of these frequencies lie between 1575.42 MHz -1176.45 MHz placing them in the UHF range.
So?
Well, UHF relies on line of sight. You might not be able to see satellites at daytime due to the 'blueness' of the sky (refraction of visible wavebands) but they are there, and at night time, you can [sometimes] see them. Radio masts like those claimed to be pseudolites are not line of sight and cannot (repeat, cannot) possibly give any indication of distance due to their waves bouncing off the ionosphere and therefore not travelling in a straight line. If we could stay in line of sight, sure it might work. But how many radio masts can you see in any direction right now? (I can’t see any, but my GPS still tells me where I am)
But if the earth is actually flat, wouldn’t these radio waves just go straight?
Yea, but 'bendy light theory' bends all wavelengths equally [apparently] so no radio waves will reach you in a straight line [in FET]. Besides, in a valley you can still get GPS reception so the signals must be coming back from the sky. This leads us to the conclusion that satellites must exist because they are the only possible way for a GPS to work. And as I'm sure we can all figure out, for satellites to exist, they need to be suspended in orbit around a spherical earth. Nail in the coffin.
Tl;dr this if you want, FE’ers. It’ll only harm your integrity. Feel free to dispute anything I have said.
15
Suggestions & Concerns / Favicon
« on: February 09, 2010, 05:02:29 PM »
Not a biggie but is there any way for the forum-master to add the main FES page's Favicon to the forums? It just adds a little bit to the proffesionalism of everything.
16
Suggestions & Concerns / Location shown under avatar
« on: January 30, 2010, 12:29:33 AM »
Is this at all possible? It would make things easier from many perspectives. Twice today I have been involved in topics that involve my location and I have had to type it out (which makes me look like a knob). Also, since these forums are largely about the earth as a whole, it would be helpful to see the geographic spread of contributors. Many of the topics discussed actually involve geographic positioning and to be able to see where someone is located after reading thier observations would greatly help everyone's understanding.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Thanks if you can.
Anyway, just my two cents.
Thanks if you can.
17
Flat Earth Debate / Retrograde Motion
« on: January 24, 2010, 02:25:42 PM »
Surely this has been explained before but I want to hear your inferior explanations. Retrograde motion, the motion of outer planets in our solar system as observed from Earth can be easily observed with the naked eye. A few simple facts and figures about their velocities can help us to understand that if the earth is moving faster than the outer planets (which it is) then as it catches up to [for example,] Mars, the red planet will appear to move backwards in relation to ourselves. Upon overtaking the planet, it will then slowly accelerate [again, in relation to ourselves] to continue in its original direction.
This does not prove or disprove RE vs FE but it does however prove a heliocentric solar system. FE'ers seem to believe the moon and sun go around in circles above the earth but if this is true, why does retrograde motion exist? Where to planets orbit? Do they take the less than ideal route of 'curly' orbits where they orbit around a non-existent point, that orbits around us [like the moon around us, going around the sun in RE terms]? Or do they take the more obvious route of circular [read elliptical] orbits around the large mass of the sun at speeds directly relating to their distance from the sun?
This does not prove or disprove RE vs FE but it does however prove a heliocentric solar system. FE'ers seem to believe the moon and sun go around in circles above the earth but if this is true, why does retrograde motion exist? Where to planets orbit? Do they take the less than ideal route of 'curly' orbits where they orbit around a non-existent point, that orbits around us [like the moon around us, going around the sun in RE terms]? Or do they take the more obvious route of circular [read elliptical] orbits around the large mass of the sun at speeds directly relating to their distance from the sun?
18
Flat Earth Q&A / How do you explain Nautical miles and the entire Latitude/Longitude situation?
« on: January 09, 2010, 02:30:29 AM »
By it's very definition, a nautical mile is:
"a unit of length corresponding approximately to one minute of arc of latitude along any meridian"
And a nautical mile is the same distance at any given point on earth. If I walk 1 Nm across Antarctica and 1 Nm across the Arctic, it will be 1.85200 kilometres in both places. No FE map can show a proper projection of the earth showing this to be true. All show distortions around the southern hemisphere, even indicating that one can walk around the entire circumference of the earth with essentially no movement at all because the entire south pole (a place which we know to be a specific point at which you can face in any direction and start walking) wraps around the entire earth. A paradox in itself.
So question: How did the unit of a nautical mile come about with no relation to anything what-so-ever when in RE terms it makes perfect sense that if the earth where 6,378.1 Km in radius, one minute of arc direction from the centre of the earth will equate to 1.852 Km on the Earth's surface (give or take)?
Also: the answer "Because it was made up to fit the [non-existent] RE model. It's all a conspiracy" will not be accepted unless proper proof can be provided
"a unit of length corresponding approximately to one minute of arc of latitude along any meridian"
And a nautical mile is the same distance at any given point on earth. If I walk 1 Nm across Antarctica and 1 Nm across the Arctic, it will be 1.85200 kilometres in both places. No FE map can show a proper projection of the earth showing this to be true. All show distortions around the southern hemisphere, even indicating that one can walk around the entire circumference of the earth with essentially no movement at all because the entire south pole (a place which we know to be a specific point at which you can face in any direction and start walking) wraps around the entire earth. A paradox in itself.
So question: How did the unit of a nautical mile come about with no relation to anything what-so-ever when in RE terms it makes perfect sense that if the earth where 6,378.1 Km in radius, one minute of arc direction from the centre of the earth will equate to 1.852 Km on the Earth's surface (give or take)?
Also: the answer "Because it was made up to fit the [non-existent] RE model. It's all a conspiracy" will not be accepted unless proper proof can be provided
Pages: [1]