Dubious... (About FAQ)

Ok...this is going to be a LONG post... Some things I would be confused about...I'm wondering if you could explain AM and FM radio waves to me, and why you need high towers to send FM radio signals to extend their distance as well as your line of sight (using a telescope)  For those who don't know, FM waves are limited to line of sight, while AM waves are affected by gravity, and if powerful enough can travel around the curvature of the earth... Speaking of gravity, your FAQ says the gravitation pull of the earth is caused by it's movement, but what exactly cause the sun and moon to orbit the earth if it has no natural attraction of it's own.  Without some kind of pull, momentum would cause both to continue on in a straight line.

I was also wondering what's on the other side of the earth.  I'd very much like to see some physics model for the universe and I'm curious as to whether you believe in anything NASA has done?

I'm reading your FAQ right now, and I have some issues with the logic... First, it says:

"Q: "The government could not pull off the conspiracy successfully"

A: Actually, they could."

The magnitude of such a conspiracy makes it prohibitive.  When you consider that all the governments do not have the same agenda, at some point one would have certainly disputed the claim.  To achieve such a conspiracy, the sheer number of people involved tax the laws of probability to an insane degree.  With so many possible problems, without a doubt someone, somewhere would have gotten the "real" information out. 

To use an example, very little can go wrong with a wedge.  It's simple, and it works...the more moving parts a machine has, the greater the chance of it breaking down.  If you have an extremely complex machine, over time it is inevitable that it will break down in several areas.

"Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."

A: It's a perspective effect.  Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it disappears because everything gets smaller and eventually disappears as it gets farther away."

Um...not sure what to say about this.  The moon, for example, doesn't really appear to get smaller.  You can see it against the horizon, often cut in half... it does not get smaller.  Also, taking into consideration that the moon is rarely full, goes far to dispel the theory that it is it's own source of light, when the explanation that it's merely reflecting another light source is much more reasonable.

"
Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers."

They do not come from radio towers.  Take TV dishes, for example.  They must be pointing at the satellite in order to receive the signal.  Consider the mass multitude of dishes which need to point at the sky to receive the signal.  If you've ever attempted to set a dish up, you'd see that they must be very specifically directed to work.  Also, with a strong enough telescope, you can see satellites.

"Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

Q:  Follow-up to previous question:  How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?

A:  This argument is a non sequitur.  You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?"  Snakes are not dogs or cats.  The Earth is not a star or the moon.  It doesn't follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more."

This analogy does not work.  Snakes and dogs follow the same rules of physics, the issue of legs does not relate.  If a body of the moon has a gravitational pulled, it stands to reason that a similar mass would have a same effect.   Science suggests that all mass has attraction and the greater the mass, the greater attraction.  The theory of the universe in this sense works.  To suggest that the moon and stars have gravity without any reason greatly lessons the credibility of the model.

"Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A: There is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south."

Have you seen the ice wall?  I ask this question only since the central idea that I'm hearing is that you believe the world to be flat because it's what you see... I wonder at the faith in this "ice wall" that no one has any actually proof of...

"Q: "How does global warming affect the ice wall?"

A1: Global warming is melting the ice wall, but the government isn't doing anything because cutting carbon emissions would damage the economy, and they only care about making money.

A2: Global Warming doesn't happen. It and its counter-theory (Global Cooling) are effects that cancel each other out. Remember, these "greenhouse gasses" can reflect heat back out into space as well as keep it on Earth. Yes, there are recorded rises in temperature, but the only records we have go back, at most, around 150 years. This is very likely an occurrence that happens every [x>150] years, that's happened before (perhaps many times), and that the Earth has thus survived before."

The green house effect is simple.  The thicker atmosphere does not both reflect AND magnify.  Consider a car parked in the sun with the windows closed.  The glass magnifies energy and keep it in the car.  Glass does not reflect, as it's transparent.  The ice is responsible for reflecting the energy, but as it melts, less and less get reflected away from the earth, thus increasing the "warming" effect.  If you question this theory, go back to the car analogy.  Touch a white car sitting in the sun, then touch a black car sitting in the same area.  You'll notice that the black car has absorbed a considerable amount of heat compared to the white.

"Q: "What about tides?"

A: The tides exist due to a slight see-saw effect on the earth. As it goes back and forth, the water rushes to the side that is lower. Note, this is a very slight wobble. Remember, these wobbles are created by very minor earthquakes. They keep the tides in check. Notice that large earthquakes result in large tides or "tsunami"."

Exactly what physical law causes the "see-saw" effect?  All the laws of physics suggest that an object in motion requires much more energy to change course than to stay the course.  To prove this, take your car around a sharp turn, and in the apex, let go of the wheel.  Without direction, it will continue along a forward path.

For FM large towers are required for a larger are of broadcasting.  FM just happens to be used more often since it has a wider frequency range (88MHz and 108MHz) and the FCC provides stations 150KHz of bandwidth, while AC stations are allowed 10KHz of bandwidth.

As for the other questions, FEers cannot provide you answers with except pure speculation.

Thanks for the response, but my question about AM and FM waves was more to do with the fact the FM will not travel past the line of sight, regardless of power.  Higher towers increase the range of these waves (by increasing the line of sight) and I was wondering how this would be explained in a flat earth scenario.

Thanks for the response, but my question about AM and FM waves was more to do with the fact the FM will not travel past the line of sight, regardless of power.  Higher towers increase the range of these waves (by increasing the line of sight) and I was wondering how this would be explained in a flat earth scenario.

In Flat Earth Theory viewing distance ends at the horizon because it is where the atoms of the atmosphere become dense to the point of obstructing view. Atoms are not transparent. And thus, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. After a certain point into the distance air density becomes clouded to the point it completely obscures objects beyond it. Viewing distance into the horizon is directly correlated with pressure, gas constant, temperature, humidity, and pollution. At sea level the average air density is 1.2250 kg/m3. This sort of density will allow a viewing distance of around 30 miles across the horizon.

Presumably, FM radio is also limited by the density of the atmosphere.

Then how is it they may travel (and indeed see) farther when elevated? 

Then how is it they may travel (and indeed see) farther when elevated? 

For the same reason one can see further at a higher altitudes: The atmosphere gets thinner and the observer has a better vantage point.

At higher altitudes the air density drops sharply, allowing the viewer to see far away lands before they are obscured by a blue-white sky. It is for this reason that an observer standing on Mt. Everest can see other mountains over a hundred miles away. Such pristine conditions are rare on the earth, however.

So then, why would someone with a telescope be able to see the top of a building clearly on the horizon with a distinct break where it meets the horizon not a gradual fade as would be suggested by this theory?

Also, is there any counter argument to the multitude of other points I made?

So then, why would someone with a telescope be able to see the top of a building clearly on the horizon with a distinct break where it meets the horizon not a gradual fade as would be suggested by this theory?

Distinct break? I've only ever seen gradual fadeouts at the horizon. Try to take a picture of this phenomena.

Also, is there any counter argument to the multitude of other points I made?

1.) I describe the origins of the conspiracy here.

2.) Satellite TV signals come from lighter than air geostationary broadcasting platforms located at very high altitudes. These airships are ridged structures filled with helium like the Geostationary Banana Over Texas.

3.) The illusion of the setting sun is accurately described in Chapters 9 and 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.

Chapter 9
Chapter 10

5.) Global Warming is pure speculation. I could find as many scientific papers against Global Warming as I could find papers in favor of Global Warming.

6.) The tides are a result of the Moon's gravitation. I'm not sure where the see-saw explanation came from.

Quote from: Curiously on March 16, 2007, 09:27:47 AM

So then, why would someone with a telescope be able to see the top of a building clearly on the horizon with a distinct break where it meets the horizon not a gradual fade as would be suggested by this theory?

Distinct break? I've only ever seen gradual fade outs at the horizon. Try to take a picture of this phenomena.

Quote

Also, is there any counter argument to the multitude of other points I made?

1.) I describe the origins of the conspiracy here.

2.) Satellite TV signals come from lighter than air geostationary broadcasting platforms located at very high altitudes. These airships are ridged structures filled with helium like the Geostationary Banana Over Texas.

3.) The illusion of the setting sun is accurately described in Chapters 9 and 10 of the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.

Chapter 9
Chapter 10

5.) Global warming is pure speculation. I could find as many scientific papers against Global Warming as I could find papers in favor of Global Warming.

6.) The tides are a result of the Moon's gravitation. I'm not sure where the see-saw explanation came from.

1.  Have you seen the Rocky mountains from a distance?
2. These stations would be visible with a telescope and are not.
3. Guess I'll have to read that one...
5. (skipped for, but oh well) Global warming is not speculation, but rather the cause is in some cases disputed.  One has only to consider the basic science available to anyone to see what happens when energy is magnified.
6.  Again, what law gives the moon gravity but not the earth.  Dispute what you will, but physical laws are proven to affect everything.  Why does one body of mass which is smaller than the earth have gravity, while the earth does not?

2.) Satellite TV signals come from lighter than air geostationary broadcasting platforms located at very high altitudes. These airships are ridged structures filled with helium like the Geostationary Banana Over Texas.

Please provide real examples.  The geostationary banana is a hoax since they claim it to be only visible from the state of Texas, despite being in a low orbit.

Although there is some fading towards the horizion, there are no ships seen fading past the horizon on a clear day.  Rather, these ships appear to 'sink' bottom-up.

1.  Have you seen the Rocky mountains from a distance?

Yes. You will notice that at a distance mountains seem washed out in color and sharpness. This is due to the amounts of air density between you and the mountain.

2. These stations would be visible with a telescope and are not.

Look at any one of the dozens of alleged satellites in the night sky. What you are seeing are actually high-altitude stratospheric airships that provide a stationary communications platform for various types of wireless signals.

5. (skipped for, but oh well) Global warming is not speculation, but rather the cause is in some cases disputed.  One has only to consider the basic science available to anyone to see what happens when energy is magnified.

Pure speculation, like I said. Energy does not simply build up on the earth. It is also eventually be reflected back out of the atmosphere or converted into useful byproducts which sustains life. Otherwise, the Earth would have turned into a molten deathtrap millenia ago.

6.  Again, what law gives the moon gravity but not the earth.  Dispute what you will, but physical laws are proven to affect everything.  Why does one body of mass which is smaller than the earth have gravity, while the earth does not?

Whoever wrote that FAQ is mistaken. If the Moon has gravitation then the Earth has gravitation.

Please provide real examples.  The geostationary banana is a hoax since they claim it to be only visible from the state of Texas, despite being in a low orbit.

These high altitude airships are also known as "Stratellites." Feel free to look it up on Google.

Although there is some fading towards the horizion, there are no ships seen fading past the horizon on a clear day.  Rather, these ships appear to 'sink' bottom-up.

Samuel Birley Robotham describes this effect as a perspective effect dealing with the distances involved. See Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

Alternatively, did you bother to consider that these cases may be a simple matter of refraction? Modern flat-earthers do indeed assume that refraction is at work. They attribute the disappearance of the ships over the horizon to a refraction effect, and even point out that with some atmospheric conditions, ships, icebergs, and distant mountains have been observed to rise above the horizon, and even turn upside down!

The diagram below shows how this works.



Left: Round Earth physics. Right: Flat Earth physics.

To complete their path from the sun to the earth the rays must curve to strike the earth at the correct (observed) angle. The curvature of the rays for latitude differences of less than 50° hardly shows on the diagram. Of course this result can be obtained in various ways. The curvature could be confined to the region near the earth, even within the atmosphere. The diagram shows circular arcs, but other shapes might be used as well.

Yes, the Rocky mountains do look washed out rather equally from top to bottom, however, there is a solid break on the horizon.  They don't fade to nothing at the bottom, as you can't see the bottom which is due to the curvature from the earth.

The "stations" would appear as more than dots if view from a telescope if situated in our atmosphere.  This would be impossible to cover up.

Again, it's not speculation, it's easily demostrated physics.  Some energy is converted obviously, but matter is converted back to energy.  Such is the cycle of life.  I thought the car analogy was simple enough to follow in my initial post.  Some energy is reflected away from the earth, some is kept.  If the balance is upset, then things change.  Why is it warmer on the surface of the earth, than the top of a mountain?  Because the energy is amplified by the atmosphere.  Thickening the atmosphere has the same effect as using a thicker magnifying glass.  It gets stronger.   The changes are gradual, but there.  It's a myth that there are is many studies disproving global warming as proving.  The controversy mostly exists in denying the cause.  Research the numerous studies.

As far as the Earth turning into a molten death trap, well... there is a point when the thicker atmosphere will actually begin to prohibit energy from traversing.  For example, a small amount of water will amplify, yet if you travel to the depths of the ocean, only so much can get through, and there comes a point when light is all but non-existent.  This could very well be what ends up causing ice ages, but THAT is speculative.

Never before has earth seen such a singular destructive force as man be he atheist, Christian or Muslim.  The rain forests are contributing to the excess of CO2 in the air (both by their burning and by the annihilation which deprives the earth of mass CO2 filters, so it's twofold).  Under the water, the raking of the ocean destroying the habitat of vegetation which actually do more to filter CO2 from the atmosphere than anything above the water.  Factories and cars and the like increase the CO2 content of our atmosphere.  This is fact.  The denial of global warming and the dangers of it is simply short sighted thinking.

The conspiracy...  A conspiracy of this magnitude is so far beyond the realm of probability as to be impossible.  It's extremely paranoid to think that many people could work together without anything falling apart or without any published  contrary proof by someone.  The only way to rid someone of such a paranoid fantasy would have to be through therapy and medication.  Google schizophrenia, and keep an open mind as this might help.

Yes, the Rocky mountains do look washed out rather equally from top to bottom, however, there is a solid break on the horizon.  They don't fade to nothing at the bottom, as you can't see the bottom which is due to the curvature from the earth.

I''ve never experienced this. Perhaps there was a slight hill in between you and that particular mountain. Even on a Flat Earth, the earth is not perfectly flat. There are hills and ridges and peaks and valleys.

Also, due to perspective, objects will appear to sink below the horizon at a distance. This is how we can explain the setting sun and sinking ship illusions.

See Chapters 9 and 14 of Earth Not a Globe for good explanations.

As an analogy, Robotham says the following about the setting sun:

ALTHOUGH the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them.

The "stations" would appear as more than dots if view from a telescope if situated in our atmosphere.  This would be impossible to cover up.

Have you ever tried viewing a "satellite" through a telescope? They are extremely hard to keep in view. One can really only see them for a fraction of a second before they move out of view. Even then, the "satellite" only appears as a bright dot in the sky.

With a large observatory telescope I can only imagine that it's impossible to keep a satellite in view for a focused shot.

It's a myth that there are is many studies disproving global warming as proving.  The controversy mostly exists in denying the cause.  Research the numerous studies.

Global Warming is a fallacy because we cannot predict the temperature of tomorrow based on the spotty record of thirty years past. The Earth actually goes through cycles of hot and cold with a rate measuring in the aeons. Just because the temperature reads as one degree higher today it doesn't mean that the temperature will continue to perpetually rise. Tomorrow the temperature might reach its peak, leading to a gradual decline into an Ice Age.

The conspiracy...  A conspiracy of this magnitude is so far beyond the realm of probability as to be impossible.  It's extremely paranoid to think that many people could work together without anything falling apart or without any published  contrary proof by someone.  The only way to rid someone of such a paranoid fantasy would have to be through therapy and medication.  Google schizophrenia, and keep an open mind as this might help.

The Conspiracy is extremely possible, and in retrospect extremely ingenious. Due to the dogmatic nature of the Conspiracy any dissenting opinions published about the shape of the world are laughed at. The Conspiracy already won over a hundred years ago. Publicity beats Fact any day of the week. Today the notion of a Round Earth is blindly set in stone to all peoples of the world.

Would the media really believe someone claiming that the world was flat?

ALTHOUGH the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them.

I wonder where he lives.  Here in New Jersey the sun rises from southeast to sotuth west.  The only time I see it travel closeest to east-west is around the summer solstice.

Have you ever tried viewing a "satellite" through a telescope? They are extremely hard to keep in view. One can really only see them for a fraction of a second before they move out of view. Even then, the "satellite" only appears as a bright dot in the sky.

With a large observatory telescope I can only imagine that it's impossible to keep a satellite in view for a focused shot.

actually they are quite easy to spot, such as the ISS http://www.heavenscape.com/iss.gif
and http://www.stargazer.htmlplanet.com/iss2.html

LIES! new jersey is hell... so it has no sun.

Only around Newark, Trenton, and Camden areas.  That is where the mole people live to hide from the sun.

Presumably, FM radio is also limited by the density of the atmosphere.

lol.  Search for waves to see how they work. 

Many satellites appear stationary in the sky, as their orbit matches the earth's rotation.  They are not moving across the sky, no would anything you were pointing a stationary dish receiver at, as it can only receive a direct signal. including a floating banana or any other fruit that may be hovering in the sky...

The temperatures have been noted significantly more 30 years, yet geographically speaking, still not a long time.  But the physics remain solid and the ice is disappearing from the ice caps at an alarming rate.   With less ice, you also have less reflecting energy.  The issues of global warming compound themselves.

Samuel Birley Robotham describes this effect as a perspective effect dealing with the distances involved. See Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

Interesting article but the author does not accurately describe what happens. Also, using a telescope doesn't change perspective, and therefore when the hull of a ship disappears below the horizon, a telescope should be able to be used to see the hull again. However, the ship appears identical in relation to the horizon with the naked eye as with the telescope.
I also don't understand how if the atmosphere becomes so thick that even the sun disappears as it approaches the horizon, then how can we see stars that are even further away?

See Chapters 9 and 14 of Earth Not a Globe for good explanations.

Everytime I try to read some of that book, I feel I am getting stupider in the process
It makes me want to go slit my wrists with Occam's Razor.