GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

Kansas, flat as a pancake. Not convex, not concave!  I would like to see a serious experiment done, somehow involving an entire continant.

That's an excellent idea! What's stopping you? If you don't know how to survey yet, you might start by checking your local community college or technical college for courses. Maybe locate a retired old-school land surveyor for advice and tutoring. Since mechanical transits are no longer used by professionals, you may be able to buy one for a song, and one that's in decent condition should be more than adequate for this if you know how to use it.

Kansas would be a terrific place to start, too. Most of the state is covered by a grid of rural roads on one-mile spacing. I've suggested mapping Iowa in the "Expedition" thread, but got no comments; Kansas is bigger, population is sparser, especially in the western portion, but still shouldn't pose a problem for provisioning, and the grid is not quite as complete, but should be an excellent starting point if you'd rather do it than Iowa.

Be sure to keep us updated on your progress.

Yes, I  am very intersested.  However,  my one worry is that I will get a bullet in my head!

Kansas, flat as a pancake. Not convex, not concave!  I would like to see a serious experiment done, somehow involving an entire continant.

Imagine the whole of north America is 1 meter above sea level. Every single square meter. It would be flat. It would still follow the curvature of the earth. Every location would be equidistant to the earths centre of gravity. That's what "flat" is on a sphere.

Yes, I  am very intersested.  However,  my one worry is that I will get a bullet in my head!

Considering that this forum still exists and that it's so easy to find, it's obvious that either there is no conspiracy or the conspiracy doesn't give a flying chainsaw that flat earthers exist.  Either way, you are safe to experiment.

How about you do the experiment? I assume Kansas from point A to point B, would be level with each other, but in the center it would need to be hundreds (maybe thousnds) of feet higher. Good point weatherwax. It is not so easy to prove anything.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 31, 2015, 04:56:09 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 31, 2015, 03:49:16 PM

Did you see this : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html

No. Can you describe in general terms what it says? In the past, all the energeticforum links you have given have been to posts by you that are at least as erroneous as the ones you post here, so an utter waste of time.

Quote

One another photography of that type :

<Apparently links to pictures of sun and/or moon... see comments by others.>

Look at this picture : http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137

Sun is on the horizon, and the upper half of the Moon is eclipsed, what eclipsed the Moon? The Earth?

Why do you say the Sun is on the horizon? Given the lack of distinct shadows as well as the position of earth's shadow on the Moon (yes, that is what's eclipsing the Moon), the Sun is obviously below the horizon. This is a long exposure in twilight soon after sunset and the Moon is emerging from totality as it's rising. This is exactly as you'd expect for this eclipse from Colorado. It's a cool picture. What revelation do you think it's supposed to convey?

Regarding your first question: Just click on the link : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html

Since you can't be bothered to explain why I would want to, I can't be bothered to go there. To date, every post there that you have linked to has been an total waste of time. I guess this is no different.

As for our "mysterious" Lunar eclipse, let's see it here:



Now, draw me a diagram, and show me how this could be (geometrically possible) on the round Earth?

I don't take orders from you. Maybe mikeman7918 will do this for you because he enjoys doing stuff like this. Meanwhile, diagrams explaining eclipses are easy to find; see if you can figure it out for yourself. If you still can't figure it out, ask nicely about the part that confuses you.

Eclipses aren't mysterious at all once you realize the Earth is spherical and the Sun is large and very far away. Once you reach that obvious conclusion, it all becomes very easy to understand. They're mysterious if you start with the supposition that earth is flat and the Moon and Sun are nearby. Starting from there you have real problems trying to figure them out.

How about you do the experiment? I assume Kansas from point A to point B, would be level with each other, but in the center it would need to be hundreds (maybe thousnds) of feet higher. Good point weatherwax. It is not so easy to prove anything.

You're the one that said he wanted to see the experiment done. So how about stepping away from the keyboard and doing it instead of just sitting around whining that someone else should do it for you.

Survey a few hundred square miles and see if your loops close with and without taking curvature of the Earth into consideration. You don't have to tell anybody why you're out there; just say you just took a surveying course and are practicing.

How about you do the experiment? I assume Kansas from point A to point B, would be level with each other, but in the center it would need to be hundreds (maybe thousnds) of feet higher. Good point weatherwax. It is not so easy to prove anything.

The width of Kansas is 417 miles and given that I can calculate the exact bulge created by the curvature of the Earth.  Kansas takes up 0.052 radians or 2.987 degrees and some trigenometry reveals that it's maximum bulge is approximately 10 miles or 43,800 feet.  You were right about how big it is, but once again that was accounted for when the flatness if Kansas was measured and it was also done by satellites which you believe don't exist.

So your quite confident I would find this 10 mile bulge smack in the middle of Kansas? I am not certain how to do the test.  Plumb lines are no use, unless I could drop a couple down deep holes, and see how they move in relation to each other.  I have tried to find the inforation on line, but will need to keep searching. The test seems difficult. ...

So your quite confident I would find this 10 mile bulge smack in the middle of Kansas? I am not certain how to do the test.  Plumb lines are no use, unless I could drop a couple down deep holes, and see how they move in relation to each other.  I have tried to find the inforation on line, but will need to keep searching. The test seems difficult. ...

I did some math and I have determined that from across Kansas (on a flat Earth) an object that's at least 10 feet high and 10 feet wide could be seen with a really high quality telescope, but obviously you would need a less powerful telescope if the object was bigger, and there are some big objects that already exist which you can use.  Kansas city is on the edge of Kansas and if the Earth were flat then from the other side of Kansas you would be able to see the tallest buildings with a low end cheap telescope or even a pair of binoculars.  Needless to say, if the Earth were round then the 10 mile bulge would block your view of Kansas cite form the other side of Kansas.

It sounds good in theory, but what if there are other reasons for not being able to see Kansas City? I wish we could just drop a 400 mile "level" down on Kansas. Maybe the best way is to unwind a string from one tower (at one end) to a tower at the other end. Then pull on the string tightly, and if it doesn't snap, and if it remains above ground the entire 400 miles, then it is a flat state of Kansas.  I worry the illuminati keep tabs, and so it is foolish of me to even be on this website. Maybe they like to keep some people alive, just out of curiosity.

It sounds good in theory, but what if there are other reasons for not being able to see Kansas City? I wish we could just drop a 400 mile "yard" stick down on Kansas. Maybe the best way is to unwind a string from one tower (at one end) to a tower at the other end. Then pull on the string tightly, and if it doesn't snap, and if it remains above ground the entire 400 miles, then it is a flat state of Kansas.  I worry the illuminati are listening, and so it is foolish of me to even be on this website.

The problem with your string idea is that for a string to be perfectly strait with gravity (or whatever all the flat earthers say it is now) pulling it down it needs to have infinite tension, otherwise it will become a parabola shape.  Also, even if you were to use paracord (which is very light and very strong) then it wouldn't work because it's not light and strong enough.  The strongest paracord I could find (this paracord to be precise) has a tensile strength of 1,100 pounds and a weight of 0.036 ounces per foot, meaning that a length of paracord the length of Kansas is 6,655 pounds which is 6 times what the paracord could handle if it were just dangling vertically, but in this case there is no vertical dangling going on.  If you were to stretch a paracord across Kansas and both ends were held a full mile in the air (that way it could work with less tensile strength) and allowed it to almost touch the ground in the middle then the paracord would have 2,754,401 pounds of force on it at either end, which is about 2,504 times what the paracord can handle.

You are going to need a different approach if you are going to prove the shape of the Earth, because that's not going to work.

You, see?  Nothing is so simple!  Might that not be the same with your telescope example?

I keep hearing about curvature of earth, but don't see any in this video. I also don't see any rotation of the earth. lol

I keep hearing about curvature of earth, but don't see any in this video.

Here is an image from your video at 13:32 with some lines added:


The yellow line follows the horizon while the red line is perfectly strait.  Do you notice something?  Yeah, diverge in the middle.  The reason I picked that frame is because the horizon is at the lower part of the screen meaning that any fish eye lensing would cause the Earth to look more concave then it really is, yet it looks quite convex.  Thank you for proving my point: the Earth is round.

I also don't see any rotation of the earth. lol

Yeah, that's because the air moves with the Earth and the balloon moves with the air.

Oh, I understand the reason given for the rotation of the air, that it is the 'friction' of the earth. Is that a reasonable explanation, or an ad hoc explanation?  Even above the clouds? That doesn't cause you to scratch your head?

Oh, I understand the reason given for the rotation of the air, that it is the 'friction' of the earth. Is that a reasonable explanation, or an ad hoc explanation?  Even above the clouds? That doesn't cause you to scratch your head?

Outside the atmosphere is just empty space and the only force acting on the atmosphere is friction from the Earth.  There are no forces holding it back or slowing it down and so even a stationary atmosphere on a spinning planet will eventually accelerate to spin with the planet.  The upper layers of the atmosphere have friction with the lower layers of the atmosphere which have friction with the ground, so it makes sense that the whole atmosphere would spin with the Earth.

Ya, well I would love to see a scientific experiment proving this theory to be correct.  How many feet do you have to be above the earth, before it is not rotating with the earth?  100 000 ft?

Ya, well I would love to see a scientific experiment proving this theory to be correct.  How many feet do you have to be above the earth, before it is not rotating with the earth?  100 000 ft?

There is no real limit because air has friction with it's self and so if air is moving below it then it will start moving with that air.

Quote from: earth is a stage on April 01, 2015, 05:38:08 PM

I keep hearing about curvature of earth, but don't see any in this video.

Here is an image from your video at 13:32 with some lines added:


The yellow line follows the horizon while the red line is perfectly strait.  Do you notice something?  Yeah, diverge in the middle.  The reason I picked that frame is because the horizon is at the lower part of the screen meaning that any fish eye lensing would cause the Earth to look more concave then it really is, yet it looks quite convex.  Thank you for proving my point: the Earth is round.

Quote from: earth is a stage on April 01, 2015, 05:38:08 PM

I also don't see any rotation of the earth. lol

Yeah, that's because the air moves with the Earth and the balloon moves with the air.

yes I do notice something , retardation.!!! . How many miles across would you estimate that photo takes in.?

Quote from: cikljamas on April 01, 2015, 08:25:48 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 31, 2015, 04:56:09 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on March 31, 2015, 03:49:16 PM

Did you see this : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html

No. Can you describe in general terms what it says? In the past, all the energeticforum links you have given have been to posts by you that are at least as erroneous as the ones you post here, so an utter waste of time.

Quote

One another photography of that type :

<Apparently links to pictures of sun and/or moon... see comments by others.>

Look at this picture : http://www.reporterherald.com/portlet/article/html/imageDisplay.jsp?contentItemRelationshipId=5860137

Sun is on the horizon, and the upper half of the Moon is eclipsed, what eclipsed the Moon? The Earth?

Why do you say the Sun is on the horizon? Given the lack of distinct shadows as well as the position of earth's shadow on the Moon (yes, that is what's eclipsing the Moon), the Sun is obviously below the horizon. This is a long exposure in twilight soon after sunset and the Moon is emerging from totality as it's rising. This is exactly as you'd expect for this eclipse from Colorado. It's a cool picture. What revelation do you think it's supposed to convey?

Regarding your first question: Just click on the link : http://www.energeticforum.com/254554-post297.html

Since you can't be bothered to explain why I would want to, I can't be bothered to go there. To date, every post there that you have linked to has been an total waste of time. I guess this is no different.

Quote

As for our "mysterious" Lunar eclipse, let's see it here:



Now, draw me a diagram, and show me how this could be (geometrically possible) on the round Earth?

I don't take orders from you. Maybe mikeman7918 will do this for you because he enjoys doing stuff like this. Meanwhile, diagrams explaining eclipses are easy to find; see if you can figure it out for yourself. If you still can't figure it out, ask nicely about the part that confuses you.

Eclipses aren't mysterious at all once you realize the Earth is spherical and the Sun is large and very far away. Once you reach that obvious conclusion, it all becomes very easy to understand. They're mysterious if you start with the supposition that earth is flat and the Moon and Sun are nearby. Starting from there you have real problems trying to figure them out.

Why is it so hard for you to move your ass just a little bit?

yes I do notice something , retardation.!!! . How many miles across would you estimate that photo takes in.?

I don't know, but if I knew the altitude at which it was taken and the field of view of the camera I could calculate it.

Cikljamas, how can the sun be over the area right under Florida, but it be before sunrise in Colorado. You should probably fix your pictures.

Why is it so hard for you to move your ass just a little bit?

Excuse me?

Why do you have the time set for 23:40 UTC (16:40 MST)? That's about 9 hours after maximum eclipse, and almost 10 hours since that photo was taken. The Total phase began at 14:06 UTC and ended at 14:57 UTC. The Moon was over the western Pacific Ocean at the time of maximum eclipse, not over Africa.

I do apologize for one error. I misread the chart and interpreted this eclipse as in progress at moonrise where the photo was taken. It's actually in progress at moonset. So instead of:

This is a long exposure in twilight soon after sunset and the Moon is emerging from totality as it's rising. This is exactly as you'd expect for this eclipse from Colorado.

It should be:

This is a long exposure in twilight not long before sunrise and the Moon is entering totality as it's setting. This is exactly as you'd expect for this eclipse from Colorado.

I had the meanings of the dark grey and white areas of the initial chart reversed, and should have used the chart linked in the correction instead. It explicitly says what the shadings mean.

Apologies for any confusion.

Nonetheless, all of the following illustrations are meaningless for this conversation because the positions depicted for the Sun and Moon are wrong by nine hours or so!

http://i.imgur.com/opI8Eh0.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/j9L2MO9.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OZ6QuEd.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kkGGZCl.jpg

Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:

 
 
 

Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:

Can you explain again why line of sight would have to pass through earth? Totality was not visible in Colorado. Why not instead of looking through the earth, look at the setting moon as one usually does?

northwestern North America saw a partial eclipse of a setting moon (wiki)

Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:

 http://i.imgur.com/OV0YRXf.jpg
 http://i.imgur.com/igsbFw8.jpg
 http://i.imgur.com/laynfUl.jpg

The Moon is not located at the surface of the Earth as you depict here; it's located about a quarter million miles above it. If you draw a straight line from any point on a sphere to any different point on the sphere, the entire line will be inside the sphere. Your illustrations show nothing but that you completely misunderstand what you're trying to demonstrate.

Relocate your moon to a point 30 globe-diameters directly away from the center through the sub-lunar point and see what your sightlines look like.

Quote from: cikljamas on April 02, 2015, 01:43:08 PM

Never mind Alpha, geometry stays the same, if not even worse than in previous case:

Can you explain again why line of sight would have to pass through earth? Totality was not visible in Colorado. Why not instead of looking through the earth, look at the setting moon as one usually does?

northwestern North America saw a partial eclipse of a setting moon (wiki)

For the same reason you "can't" see Polaris below the Equator!

Quote from: charles bloomington on April 02, 2015, 12:50:13 AM

yes I do notice something , retardation.!!! . How many miles across would you estimate that photo takes in.?

I don't know, but if I knew the altitude at which it was taken and the field of view of the camera I could calculate it.

well have a conservative guess . I would say over that span ,if the earth was spherical.You would have a very very noticed curvature.  Which is not being displayed in that photograph .

Quote from: mikeman7918 on April 02, 2015, 07:38:50 AM

Quote from: charles bloomington on April 02, 2015, 12:50:13 AM

yes I do notice something , retardation.!!! . How many miles across would you estimate that photo takes in.?

I don't know, but if I knew the altitude at which it was taken and the field of view of the camera I could calculate it.

well have a conservative guess . I would say over that span ,if the earth was spherical.You would have a very very noticed curvature.  Which is not being displayed in that photograph .

Seriously?  You don't see the curvature that I pointed out with the lines?  The red line is perfectly strait and the yellow line is not parallel with it even though it intersects the red line at two points.  That's called curvature.  My guess is that the horizon spans about 20 miles and the curvature we see is about what we would expect on a round Earth.  Now how do you flat earthers explain the distinct curvature seen on the Earth even though in that particular shot any fish eye effects would make the Earth look concave?  This is going to be interesting.