# EXPLAIN THIS

• 106 Replies
• 24093 Views
?

#### Binxsy

• 50
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« on: June 19, 2006, 05:37:10 PM »
I must bring forth the fact that radio waves can't be sent from USA to China directly, without bouncing them off satellites or the ionosphere. This is due to the fact that the radio waves go off on a tangent line to the surface and out into space and do not circle the Earth. This wouldn't be so on a flat Earth. On a flat Earth, you could send a signal straight to China (assuming you had sufficient ground clearence).

Changes in Polaris' angle above the horizon with distance traveled north or south only make sense if the path is an arc of a circle, or very nearly so.

Land surveyers use plane geometry which doesn't work over large distances. The methods of spherical geometry, however, do fit the surface of the earth very closely. For example, if you survey a large triangle, the sum of the interior angles is greater than 180 deg.

If the Earth were flat, then no matter how far away the sun was, there would never be an Arctic Circle. Draw a horizontal line on a paper. Now mark a point above that line to represent the god Mercury in his chariot crossing the sky at noon. All points along that line would have a direct line of sight to the sun god. Not only that, but from two different points, you would be able to determine how far up Mercury's chariot was.

Get a peice of paper and try this...
Start with point A and point B at a distance d to the north. A makes an angle theta with the sun, and B makes an angle phi. The angle between the hypotenuse of A and the hypotenuse of B is phi - theta. By trigonometric Law of Sines, you should be able to compute the hypotenuses (hypoteni?) of both A and B. And from there, by basic trig, you can compute how high up Mercury's chariot is. If the assumption that the Earth is flat is correct, then you should be able to take another point C still further north of B and run the numbers and come up with the same distance. If the numbers don't add up, then the hypothesis is flawed.

DO YOU REMEMBER GEOMETRY IN HIGH SCHOOL? WHY DOES SPHERICAL GEOMERTY FIT THE EARTH SO WELL.......THINK!!!!
n Idiot is genius to another Idiot.

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument - William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)

#### Luke_smith64

• 388
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2006, 05:40:27 PM »
ahem, may I?

am the center of the universe

?

#### Unimportant

• 1229
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2006, 06:08:01 PM »
Quote from: "Binxsy"
I must bring forth the fact that radio waves can't be sent from USA to China directly, without bouncing them off satellites or the ionosphere.

Are you sure?

Quote
Changes in Polaris' angle above the horizon with distance traveled north or south only make sense if the path is an arc of a circle, or very nearly so.

I'd like to see the data you have to back up this hypothesis.

Quote
If the Earth were flat, then no matter how far away the sun was, there would never be an Arctic Circle. Draw a horizontal line on a paper. Now mark a point above that line to represent the god Mercury in his chariot crossing the sky at noon. All points along that line would have a direct line of sight to the sun god.

Quote
Not only that, but from two different points, you would be able to determine how far up Mercury's chariot was.

100% correct. Using basic trig you would easily see the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.

?

#### Welbourne

• 151
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2006, 09:12:54 PM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"

100% correct. Using basic trig you would easily see the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.

Could you please show me this math?
y the power of truth, I, a living man, have conquered the universe.

?

#### rogue

• 23
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2006, 10:53:52 PM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "Binxsy"
I must bring forth the fact that radio waves can't be sent from USA to China directly, without bouncing them off satellites or the ionosphere.

Are you sure?

Im absolutely positive, they must be routed through satellites in order to do so.  Look up any communications web site.  Radio Waves do not curve but are straight beams.  This proof is enough to conclude the world is not flat.  Unless we are going to be nihlistic hear and just scream "Government Conspiracy!" while covering our ears.  Excellent point!

?

#### TheScales

• 18
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2006, 11:42:30 PM »
Quote from: "Welbourne"
Quote from: "Unimportant"

100% correct. Using basic trig you would easily see the sun is 3000 miles above the surface of the flat earth.

Could you please show me this math?

If the earth was flat you would be able to, since you have 2 angles and 1 side. but with the real earth (or atleast the one I live on), you have 2 angles and no side.

Tell me this also, why doesnt radar work as far as the "Big Ice Wall"? From what I can tell, radar would eventually recieve its own beacon signal since it would bounce off of this dense ice wall. If you want to believe in something so stupid then by all means, go for it. Hell, the Bible even says the earth is a sphere. So go ahead and call governments liars, and scientists liars, but dont call god a liar.
arth is an incorrect spelling of the name of our planet. It's Uarth. Hah!

?

#### TheScales

• 18
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2006, 11:46:05 PM »
Actually, I'll correct myself. You can have 1 side and 2 angles, you would have to "cut the earth in half" (in your head. not literally.) then you would have a side.

I stand by the rest of my statements!

whats next, Ktulu is real? lol
arth is an incorrect spelling of the name of our planet. It's Uarth. Hah!

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2006, 11:51:27 PM »
Quote from: "TheScales"
Tell me this also, why doesnt radar work as far as the "Big Ice Wall"? From what I can tell, radar would eventually recieve its own beacon signal since it would bounce off of this dense ice wall.

Obstructions and ground clutter.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### Welbourne

• 151
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2006, 11:55:20 PM »
From any random coast facing the "ice wall?"
y the power of truth, I, a living man, have conquered the universe.

?

#### rogue

• 23
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2006, 11:55:46 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "TheScales"
Tell me this also, why doesnt radar work as far as the "Big Ice Wall"? From what I can tell, radar would eventually recieve its own beacon signal since it would bounce off of this dense ice wall.

Obstructions and ground clutter.

Elaborate on the 150 foot tall obstructions that protude from the middle of the ocean blocking out radar.  Not to mention most things on the ground exist below most radar towers, where said radar waves come from.  If we can track the movement of ice storms over antarctica we should be able to see the giant ass wall of ice.

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #10 on: June 20, 2006, 12:06:56 AM »
Quote from: "rogue"
Elaborate on the 150 foot tall obstructions that protude from the middle of the ocean blocking out radar.  Not to mention most things on the ground exist below most radar towers, where said radar waves come from.  If we can track the movement of ice storms over antarctica we should be able to see the giant ass wall of ice.

Do you think radar is unidirectional?  It is not a tight beam, there is some scatter.  This is reflected back to the reciever from the obstructions on the ground.  This is why aircraft fly low to the ground when they are evading radar.  The operators can't pick them out of the energy reflected back by surface objects.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### rogue

• 23
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2006, 12:11:51 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "rogue"
Elaborate on the 150 foot tall obstructions that protude from the middle of the ocean blocking out radar.  Not to mention most things on the ground exist below most radar towers, where said radar waves come from.  If we can track the movement of ice storms over antarctica we should be able to see the giant ass wall of ice.

Do you think radar is unidirectional?  It is not a tight beam, there is some scatter.  This is reflected back to the reciever from the obstructions on the ground.  This is why aircraft fly low to the ground when they are evading radar.  The operators can't pick them out of the energy reflected back by surface objects.

This is true and i dont discount it.  But 150 feet is mighty tall and probably above at least 1 high tech peice of radar equipments range.  And with all the news radars , weather stations radars , pictures from satellites radars whether privately or government owned, youd of think there would be more proof to the existence of this ice wall?

?

#### TheScales

• 18
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2006, 12:13:55 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "rogue"
Elaborate on the 150 foot tall obstructions that protude from the middle of the ocean blocking out radar.  Not to mention most things on the ground exist below most radar towers, where said radar waves come from.  If we can track the movement of ice storms over antarctica we should be able to see the giant ass wall of ice.

Do you think radar is unidirectional?  It is not a tight beam, there is some scatter.  This is reflected back to the reciever from the obstructions on the ground.  This is why aircraft fly low to the ground when they are evading radar.  The operators can't pick them out of the energy reflected back by surface objects.

i'll try something else.

if the earth is flat then radio waves would be too, right? Then since is 99x broadcast from a 150 foot tall (approx.) antenna, i shouldnt be able to recieve the signal, when i'm about 141 feet below where it is broadcast from. and yes, i'm at the same elevation (above sea level) as the base of the antenna.

arth is an incorrect spelling of the name of our planet. It's Uarth. Hah!

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2006, 12:16:02 AM »
Over the hunderds of miles that the radar beam would have to travel, 150ft is very small.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### TheScales

• 18
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2006, 12:17:45 AM »
*flat waves!*

the wall is 150 feet *tall*
the radar is traveling 100's of miles *long*

length and height are two very different things.
arth is an incorrect spelling of the name of our planet. It's Uarth. Hah!

?

#### rogue

• 23
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #15 on: June 20, 2006, 12:21:17 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Over the hunderds of miles that the radar beam would have to travel, 150ft is very small.

Radar signature is unaffected by distance to a large extent.  The signature of a plane does not get larger as it approaches a radar tower thus it would not matter how far away an object is, the radar signature remains primarily the same size

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #16 on: June 20, 2006, 12:29:12 AM »
Quote from: "rogue"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Over the hunderds of miles that the radar beam would have to travel, 150ft is very small.

Radar signature is unaffected by distance to a large extent.  The signature of a plane does not get larger as it approaches a radar tower thus it would not matter how far away an object is, the radar signature remains primarily the same size

You have no idea what I am referring to.  The angle between the ground and the elevation of the broadcaster is extremely small at such great distances.  Let's say the dish is 500 miles from the wall.  That works out to an angle of .003 degrees above the ground.  As I stated before, radar is not a tight beam, it extends out in a rather conical shape.  The radar will reflect off the ground long before the beam gets to the ice wall and will produce a much stronger return, thereby blocking out the weak return from the wall.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #17 on: June 20, 2006, 12:31:15 AM »
Quote from: "TheScales"

if the earth is flat then radio waves would be too, right? Then since is 99x broadcast from a 150 foot tall (approx.) antenna, i shouldnt be able to recieve the signal, when i'm about 141 feet below where it is broadcast from. and yes, i'm at the same elevation (above sea level) as the base of the antenna.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### rogue

• 23
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #18 on: June 20, 2006, 12:46:49 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "rogue"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Over the hunderds of miles that the radar beam would have to travel, 150ft is very small.

Radar signature is unaffected by distance to a large extent.  The signature of a plane does not get larger as it approaches a radar tower thus it would not matter how far away an object is, the radar signature remains primarily the same size

You have no idea what I am referring to.  The angle between the ground and the elevation of the broadcaster is extremely small at such great distances.  Let's say the dish is 500 miles from the wall.  That works out to an angle of .003 degrees above the ground.  As I stated before, radar is not a tight beam, it extends out is a rather conical shape.  The radar will reflect off the ground long before the beam gets to the ice wall and will produce a much stronger return, thereby blocking out the weak return from the wall.

Regardless of range, radar rarely picks up any rays that have taken a dual path of projection like those that hit ground.  Radar waves for the most part must be reflected by 90 degree angles like those found in a wall.  Thats why stealth fighters have no right angles on them.  2ndly even if we discount land based radar, satellite radar owned, not by the government, but independent research facilities have also proven that there is no giant ice wall in antarctica

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #19 on: June 20, 2006, 12:54:08 AM »
Quote from: "rogue"

Regardless of range, radar rarely picks up any rays that have taken a dual path of projection like those that hit ground.  Radar waves for the most part must be reflected by 90 degree angles like those found in a wall.

So you are telling me that there are no angles that would return the radar in nature?  Not even in rocks, trees, buildings, hills, waves?

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

#### TheEngineer

• Planar Moderator
• 15483
• GPS does not require satellites.
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2006, 12:55:10 AM »
Also, explain to me why an aircraft can hide in the ground clutter of an enemy's radar return.

"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
-- Bob Hudson

?

#### rogue

• 23
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2006, 01:44:29 AM »
Quote from: "rogue"
even if we discount land based radar, satellite radar owned, not by the government, but independent research facilities have also proven that there is no giant ice wall in antarctica

?

#### Unimportant

• 1229
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2006, 10:00:29 AM »
That has been explained many, many times; satellites do not exist.

?

#### Yardstick2006

• 280
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2006, 10:59:13 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
That has been explained many, many times; satellites do not exist.

What makes you think the dont exist. Couldnt they orbit the Earth the same way the FE sun and moon do?
quote="Dogplatter"]
Penguins were actually created in the 1960's by Russian scientists who combined the DNA of otters and birds.  [/quote]

LOL

?

#### Welbourne

• 151
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2006, 11:02:59 AM »
Because saying satellites don't exist is the only way some of the other evidence even works.
y the power of truth, I, a living man, have conquered the universe.

?

#### psouza4

• 31
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2006, 11:07:55 AM »
Quote from: "Welbourne"
Because saying satellites don't exist is the only way some of the other evidence even works.

As a reminder, theories and lack of opposing evidence is not indicative of supportive evidence.  The no-satellite theory is one of the most flawed, however and is typically explained by FE'ers that functions satellites are typically responsible for are instead replaced with radio towers on the Earth's surface.  Therefore, FE'ers believe that "satellite images" (of the Earth) must all be fake.

?

#### EnragedPenguin

• The Elder Ones
• 1004
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2006, 11:24:37 AM »
Quote from: "psouza4"
The no-satellite theory is one of the most flawed, however and is typically explained by FE'ers that functions satellites are typically responsible for are instead replaced with radio towers on the Earth's surface.  Therefore, FE'ers believe that "satellite images" (of the Earth) must all be fake.

No, FE's believe satellites are faked because for a satellite to be in orbit you have to have gravity, which FE's say the earth doesn't produce. And if satellites don't exist, than the functions of satellites have to be from another source.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

?

#### TheScales

• 18
##### Re: EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2006, 11:25:41 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "TheScales"

if the earth is flat then radio waves would be too, right? Then since is 99x broadcast from a 150 foot tall (approx.) antenna, i shouldnt be able to recieve the signal, when i'm about 141 feet below where it is broadcast from. and yes, i'm at the same elevation (above sea level) as the base of the antenna.

What's incoherent about my statement? Maybe you just can't understand what i'm saying simply because I'm on a higher level of thinking than you are  8-)
arth is an incorrect spelling of the name of our planet. It's Uarth. Hah!

?

#### TheScales

• 18
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #28 on: June 20, 2006, 11:27:39 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "psouza4"
The no-satellite theory is one of the most flawed, however and is typically explained by FE'ers that functions satellites are typically responsible for are instead replaced with radio towers on the Earth's surface.  Therefore, FE'ers believe that "satellite images" (of the Earth) must all be fake.

No, FE's believe satellites are faked because for a satellite to be in orbit you have to have gravity, which FE's say the earth doesn't produce. And if satellites don't exist, than the functions of satellites have to be from another source.

Or, satellites operate like electric helicopers....
arth is an incorrect spelling of the name of our planet. It's Uarth. Hah!

?

#### psouza4

• 31
##### EXPLAIN THIS
« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2006, 11:34:32 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "psouza4"
The no-satellite theory is one of the most flawed, however and is typically explained by FE'ers that functions satellites are typically responsible for are instead replaced with radio towers on the Earth's surface.  Therefore, FE'ers believe that "satellite images" (of the Earth) must all be fake.

No, FE's believe satellites are faked because for a satellite to be in orbit you have to have gravity, which FE's say the earth doesn't produce. And if satellites don't exist, than the functions of satellites have to be from another source.

Yes, so say FE'ers.  Funny, you started with 'No' and an explanation for why they say satellites don't exist, but I don't actually see an argument for what I posted, unless you're inferring that the no-satellite theory isn't flawed, which it is.  One supporting idea, such as gravity-vs.-velocity, does not effect proof of evidence that satellites must not exist.  In the same vein, I can say that because satellites do exist and orbit the Earth that the earth must be globular.  Neither my statement nor yours actually submits proof, it's just a consequencial circumstance of each theory.

I posted more questions about satellites, physics, and other unexplained science-related questions in my recent post: Flatworld question (long)