I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?

  • 81 Replies
  • 6726 Views
*

chtwrone

  • 443
  • Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2015, 01:16:52 PM »
lol, you can just read google.  I am sure that you idiots can only copy/ paste and have no actual debate skills, but you don't have to advertise it all the time.

The implication of the above statement, is that YOU actually have 'debate skills'?

Sorry to inform you, but you most certainly DO NOT have any debating skills at all.

Well done NASA - 12 men on the moon and back again.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #31 on: September 12, 2015, 01:25:54 PM »
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.
That would be helpful if you said that the first time.

I did.

There are elements like Uranium 236 and Neptunium 237, which do not occur naturally, in said rocks.

Don't come in in the middle of a conversation without reading it. You're almost certain to bring up something that's already been mentioned.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #32 on: September 12, 2015, 03:43:25 PM »
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.

Uranium 236 is most commonly the product of radioactive decay of the naturally occurring uranium 238. Guess what the half life of uranium 238 is.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #33 on: September 12, 2015, 04:36:23 PM »
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.

Uranium 236 is most commonly the product of radioactive decay of the naturally occurring uranium 238. Guess what the half life of uranium 238 is.

About 4.4/4.5 billion years, just older than the moon. An interesting coincidence, which I assume is what you're getting at, but not a particularly important one: half that time would still translate to a quarter of the U-238 decaying. Uranium 236, however, has a half life of just 23.4 million years. We would still expect next to none.

Even so, my aim with these points was pointed out earlier.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2015, 02:48:18 AM »
Uranium occurs naturally. It's actually more abundant than you think.
I am aware. This is why I specifically referred to the isotope Uranium 236.

Uranium 236 is most commonly the product of radioactive decay of the naturally occurring uranium 238. Guess what the half life of uranium 238 is.

About 4.4/4.5 billion years, just older than the moon. An interesting coincidence, which I assume is what you're getting at, but not a particularly important one: half that time would still translate to a quarter of the U-238 decaying. Uranium 236, however, has a half life of just 23.4 million years. We would still expect next to none.

Even so, my aim with these points was pointed out earlier.

No, that makes no sense. U-238 had 24 million years to "produce" considerable amounts of U-236, plus as far as I know U-238 can be produced by reactions initiated by solar flares and cosmic rays, so that's another minor source.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2015, 06:59:32 AM »
No, that makes no sense. U-238 had 24 million years to "produce" considerable amounts of U-236, plus as far as I know U-238 can be produced by reactions initiated by solar flares and cosmic rays, so that's another minor source.

Several million years isn't actually that much time, with a half life measured in billions. There wouldn't be too great a mount produced, that was all I was saying.
There are ways for U-238 to get to the moon's surface, certainly.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #36 on: September 13, 2015, 08:34:13 AM »
No, that makes no sense. U-238 had 24 million years to "produce" considerable amounts of U-236, plus as far as I know U-238 can be produced by reactions initiated by solar flares and cosmic rays, so that's another minor source.

Several million years isn't actually that much time, with a half life measured in billions. There wouldn't be too great a mount produced, that was all I was saying.
There are ways for U-238 to get to the moon's surface, certainly.

According to my calculations, it's a little less than 1% of the moon's initial U-238 supply. It's not that bad actually, especially considering that "According to the NEA, [on Earth] identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered". You can double that amount to find how much of it was there since the creation of Earth. Of course, that shows how much uranium in general there is, BUT U-238 is I think about 99% of all uranium found in nature. Another potential source of U-236 is spallation.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #37 on: September 13, 2015, 08:57:49 AM »
Oh whoops! My calculations were wrong!  :-[ It's actually 0.2%! Although that might be wrong as well, I'm too tired right now... Correct me if I'm wrong: the amount of U-238 that has remained after a certain amount of years is x=1/2^(y/h), where y is the years and h is the half life in years. Assuming that U-238 "appeared" on the moon 4.468 billion years ago (the half life of U-238), now there should remain 50% of the original supply. I want to find how much there was 24 million years ago, so that I can find how much decayed since. The formula for 24 million years ago is x=1/2^(4.444/4.468)=1/2^0.994=1/1.99=0.502=50.2%. I think it's still a noticeable amount.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2015, 09:25:50 AM »
Oh whoops! My calculations were wrong!  :-[ It's actually 0.2%!

It's been a while since I've dealt with half lives in any detail, so I'll accept your calculations for now.
Percentages don't mean too much without a gauge of what 100% is. Knowing how much Uranium-238 there is on Earth now may not be too useful; it would only form under certain conditions, and it may not be so easy to determine whether those conditions were met when the moon must have been formed from the proto-earth. Then we must note that the moon is far less dense, and far smaller than the Earth, so taking a random sample of the proto-Earth to form the moon would not bring with it too much of the U-238: and what there is would still be scattered throughout the moon.

As I said, there are always answers. My point was the way conclusions in RE are drawn, and how the same process is unacceptable for those that accept a FE.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #39 on: September 13, 2015, 10:09:42 AM »
Oh whoops! My calculations were wrong!  :-[ It's actually 0.2%!

It's been a while since I've dealt with half lives in any detail, so I'll accept your calculations for now.
Percentages don't mean too much without a gauge of what 100% is. Knowing how much Uranium-238 there is on Earth now may not be too useful; it would only form under certain conditions, and it may not be so easy to determine whether those conditions were met when the moon must have been formed from the proto-earth. Then we must note that the moon is far less dense, and far smaller than the Earth, so taking a random sample of the proto-Earth to form the moon would not bring with it too much of the U-238: and what there is would still be scattered throughout the moon.

As I said, there are always answers. My point was the way conclusions in RE are drawn, and how the same process is unacceptable for those that accept a FE.

Well, my formula is based on the fact that after one half life, 1/2 of the initial supply is still there, after two half lives it's 1/4, after 3 it's 1/8 and so on and so forth. I'm gonna draw an assumption completely out of thin air and say that "100%" is 10 million tonnes. We would be left with 20,000 tonnes of U-236. Not too bad.

"As I said, there are always answers. My point was the way conclusions in RE are drawn, and how the same process is unacceptable for those that accept a FE."

Why? The amount of U-236 on the moon isn't directly related with the shape of the Earth. Sunsets and southern circumpolar stars are though. What you say does not make much sense to me. I didn't establish a new model for half lives for which we have no proof to explain the fact that there is U-236 on the moon. I used what was already established by the model, and we have proof about. On the other side, establishing a completely different model for light even though we have no evidence about it isn't the same thing. And you can't consider proof the fact that if you assume that the earth is flat, light would need to behave that way. That's just circular thinking. I could say if I wanted to that the fact that we can't see cats flying around is proof that cats are invisible when they fly.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #40 on: September 13, 2015, 12:25:35 PM »
Quote
I'm gonna draw an assumption completely out of thin air and say that "100%" is 10 million tonnes. We would be left with 20,000 tonnes of U-236. Not too bad.
As you say though, this is an assumption you drew from thin air: and even so would be only the barest fraction of the moon's mass.

Quote
The amount of U-236 on the moon isn't directly related with the shape of the Earth.
I was speaking generally. Even so, a lack of a direct relationship doesn't mean there isn't one. If the amount of Neptunium 237 and Uranium 236 on the moon was not naturally occurring (not saying this is so, simply proposing) then it would follow either that the RE model cannot fully explain the moon, or that the rocks in fact came from Earth. The latter provides evidence for the conspiracy and faked space travel (at least partially), the former might mean the moon came about a different way: a necessity of FE models.

Quote
On the other side, establishing a completely different model for light even though we have no evidence about it isn't the same thing. And you can't consider proof the fact that if you assume that the earth is flat, light would need to behave that way. That's just circular thinking. I could say if I wanted to that the fact that we can't see cats flying around is proof that cats are invisible when they fly.
I am aware. I am not concerned with proof yet, that would be working backwards. I need a complete hypothesis before I can actually test it.
Further, a new model for light is only one possibility. Currently I'm simply leaning towards a unification theory, which would involve a force acting on light caused by the vast quantities of ice (or some other refractive material) at the rim. This is tenuous, and just a hypothesis, but it illustrates what I'm saying.
Difference from the existing theory is not a weakness, so long as observations remain matched.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #41 on: September 13, 2015, 12:42:32 PM »
Quote
I'm gonna draw an assumption completely out of thin air and say that "100%" is 10 million tonnes. We would be left with 20,000 tonnes of U-236. Not too bad.
As you say though, this is an assumption you drew from thin air: and even so would be only the barest fraction of the moon's mass.

Quote
The amount of U-236 on the moon isn't directly related with the shape of the Earth.
I was speaking generally. Even so, a lack of a direct relationship doesn't mean there isn't one. If the amount of Neptunium 237 and Uranium 236 on the moon was not naturally occurring (not saying this is so, simply proposing) then it would follow either that the RE model cannot fully explain the moon, or that the rocks in fact came from Earth. The latter provides evidence for the conspiracy and faked space travel (at least partially), the former might mean the moon came about a different way: a necessity of FE models.

Quote
On the other side, establishing a completely different model for light even though we have no evidence about it isn't the same thing. And you can't consider proof the fact that if you assume that the earth is flat, light would need to behave that way. That's just circular thinking. I could say if I wanted to that the fact that we can't see cats flying around is proof that cats are invisible when they fly.
I am aware. I am not concerned with proof yet, that would be working backwards. I need a complete hypothesis before I can actually test it.
Further, a new model for light is only one possibility. Currently I'm simply leaning towards a unification theory, which would involve a force acting on light caused by the vast quantities of ice (or some other refractive material) at the rim. This is tenuous, and just a hypothesis, but it illustrates what I'm saying.
Difference from the existing theory is not a weakness, so long as observations remain matched.

On earth there is even less U-236 comparatively with the moon... And if they are lying, why would they fake their own "findings" to support something that does not agree with them? And if the other case is correct, that is, the moon came to be in a different way, it means that the space travels are NOT a fraud, which means the Earth is not flat!

When should we expect your complete hypothesis?
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #42 on: September 13, 2015, 03:47:47 PM »
On earth there is even less U-236 comparatively with the moon... And if they are lying, why would they fake their own "findings" to support something that does not agree with them? And if the other case is correct, that is, the moon came to be in a different way, it means that the space travels are NOT a fraud, which means the Earth is not flat!

When should we expect your complete hypothesis?

They wouldn't necessarily have faked the findings: that would be true only if everyone was in on the conspiracy, which no one proposes. An administrator who knew more about the business side than the scientific could have gone out, picked up a sufficiently moon-ish rock, and handed it in. I don't know, I wasn't there; it likely wouldn't be intended as a conspiracy.
All the existence of space travel would mean, if the world is flat, is that they were mistaken about their observations. As we already know light would behave differently on a FE, this would not be unexpected. The only real question is the distance to the moon.

I don't know how long it will take. I have several bits and pieces which could be used or discarded. The main problem is that everything is built on everything else: I can't cover planets and Sun movements until I understand gravity, for example. The map will be the main landmark, but it could be quite a while still, with my internet connection.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #43 on: September 14, 2015, 02:26:03 AM »
As for the: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

This is too much to reply on. But I'll take some.

A lot of these issues are categorizable. Some arguments fall in multiple categories. Here are some examples of categories:
A) There is no curvature visible (1, 2, 6, 10 ...)
B) Water is not spilled across the curvatur of the earth. It just goes from high to low, as expected on a flats surface (3,4,5,6, ...)
C) Constructions do not take the curvature of the earth into account (7,8,9,10,11,12,...)
D) a light/object was placed at very large distance and was still seen from very far away (13, 14, ...)
E) Experiments related to starlight: (16, 17).
F) Flight routes (43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)
G) You should not be able to see wales from the coast of Ilse of man, if the earth was curved (67)

Just to take some examples... I don't have time to reply to everything.

Just to reply to these examples:
A) See http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64300.msg1712223#msg1712223
B) The water is attracted "downward". Which is "towards the center of the earth". Which makes the water follow a curved path. We don't notice, because we are also attracted to that same point. The "lowest point" is always the point that is nearest to the center of the earth. So water always flows from high (large radius) to low (small radius).
C) Constructions are usually too small to take the curvature of the earth into account. Even the Suez canal consists of multiple constructions, which are individually very small relative to the size of the earth.
Large constructions, like railroads, do follow the curvature of the earth. You don't notice that, because the curvature is very slight. The ones who build it also don't notice that, as they receive coordinates from designers, who use projected systems, that already take the curvature into account.
I recently made a simple calculation that could tile the Dutch "rijksdriehoekstelsel" into squares of 2km x 2km. At that size, I measured the maximum error was 80 cm, relative to a round earth. So constructors of the largest bridges in the world do have to deal with very slight lenght differences due to the curvature. And they do. However, that is hardly noticable, as these bridges are usually made of components of, say, 20 meters long. That means that every component needs to be (for example) 19.99 meters long, in stead of 20 meters, to account for the curvature of the earth.
With the Nord Stream pipeline for example, the designers had to use (and convert between) 3 coordinate systems: WGS84 UTM33, UTM34 and UTM35. Thanks to conversion techniques, constructors don't notice these curvatures. They just follow the coordinates handed to them by the designers.
D) Well, that's easilly falsified, as we see ships disappearing behind the horizon. Just place a light on top of a ship mast, and measure again. I don't know what these scientists saw a couple of centuries ago, but it wasn't that light.
E) This is a completely different subject.
F) Let's take some examples "THESE ROUTES DO NOT EXIST!" (related to some routes across Antarctica). Usually routes don't exist because there are not enough people using them. There are routes from Sidney to Santiago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route) for example. Depending on the wind these routes pass Antarctica.
Also, there ARE direct flights from Johannesburg to Buenos Aires. (http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/Argentina/flights-to-Argentina.php#Johannesburg)

The indirect routes are sometimes very far off. But that also has to do with how many people use these lines. If you would travel from Den Helder to Leeuwarden by train, you would have to travel through Amsterdam. That is ridicules. But there is simply not enough economical benefit to make a line from Den Helder to Leeuwarden directly. The same applies for flight routes.
The fact that there are direct lines falsify the FE claims of all the direct lines that are not used.

G) this one is just an example to show bad calculation. With the distance of 60 miles (96 km), if you stand on a hill that is 170 meter high, you could see another hill of 170 meter at the other side. If you stand on the ground, you could see a hill of 700 meter high on the other side. 
Where there is water, there can be life. Where there is metal, carbon and silicon, there can be computers.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #44 on: September 14, 2015, 06:54:39 AM »
On earth there is even less U-236 comparatively with the moon... And if they are lying, why would they fake their own "findings" to support something that does not agree with them? And if the other case is correct, that is, the moon came to be in a different way, it means that the space travels are NOT a fraud, which means the Earth is not flat!

When should we expect your complete hypothesis?

They wouldn't necessarily have faked the findings: that would be true only if everyone was in on the conspiracy, which no one proposes. An administrator who knew more about the business side than the scientific could have gone out, picked up a sufficiently moon-ish rock, and handed it in. I don't know, I wasn't there; it likely wouldn't be intended as a conspiracy.
All the existence of space travel would mean, if the world is flat, is that they were mistaken about their observations. As we already know light would behave differently on a FE, this would not be unexpected. The only real question is the distance to the moon.

I don't know how long it will take. I have several bits and pieces which could be used or discarded. The main problem is that everything is built on everything else: I can't cover planets and Sun movements until I understand gravity, for example. The map will be the main landmark, but it could be quite a while still, with my internet connection.

Wait. What's the source that claims that there's Neptunium on the moon? Also, it seems to me as if NASA would have no problem to conceal this information if they can spread holograms all over the world that appear like satellites... Or, at least, that's what satellites are supposed to be in FET. The distance to the moon has been measured many times, but apparently that's a conspiracy as well.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

*

JerkFace

  • 10156
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #45 on: September 14, 2015, 07:20:59 AM »
Refer to 45,46,47 and other Southern Hemisphere flight routes.

I already posted this a while ago,  but I'll repost in this thread,  since Eric Doobuy uses the same argument as Zetetic Earth,  same graphics too?  with all the stuff he plagiarizes I wonder if he had permission for this one.?

This video in particular by Nina aka "Zetetic Flat Earth"  " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">   since it has flight time information is worth looking at further.

The video author has obviously never bought international tickets and doesn't understand the one free stop option.    This is where you buy a ticket from Johannesburg  to Sao Paulo,  and you can nominate a single stop over, which you get to choose from whatever options are available, in this case one of the options is to fly BA and spend a few days in London.

 
Why not read the lines above where it clearly says SAA offers a direct flight.  Or even notice the little inset map, which shows the flight route?

Instead of trying to find out why you would fly to London,  the video author with pre-conceived notions in mind starts a train of thought that is just plain stupid, suggesting that this is the round earth way to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo  ..  WTF?



And then goes on to point out that the flat earth model using the Gleason map, makes more sense..  well no it doesn't  just goes to show how stupid the author is.


Here is the real flight path on Google Earth.


And here are the real flight arrival and departure times.


Sao Paulo is UTC-3:00 and Johannesburg is UTC+2:00 ,  so departs at 9:00PM UTC and arrives 5:25AM the following morning,  that's  8 hours 25 minutes flying time.

I'm guessing the author of the video has made an honest mistake,  I can sympathize,  but it is so easy to check these sort of facts before going to commit to a video,  for that sake of the hundreds of gullible fools who
will just accept it as being true and so the misinformation and lies propagate.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2015, 07:23:35 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #46 on: September 14, 2015, 07:34:23 AM »
Wait. What's the source that claims that there's Neptunium on the moon? Also, it seems to me as if NASA would have no problem to conceal this information if they can spread holograms all over the world that appear like satellites... Or, at least, that's what satellites are supposed to be in FET. The distance to the moon has been measured many times, but apparently that's a conspiracy as well.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v050n003.p002
That's one source. You can pay to read the whole thing, but the little that's visible says enough. Google is also a valid way to research; a lot of the sites are rather ridiculous ones, because unexplained observations do attract such claims. You can find a few good ones.

I don't believe anyone has claimed that satellites are holograms. Specifically choosing one of the most outlandish ideas, likely suggested in jest or by a troll, is a completely absurd way to engage in any kind of discussion. Should I quote round earthers who believe the world is run by lizards as evidence for a conspiracy?
Satellites would clearly be physical entities in order to be able to project signals: such as planes, or balloons, or helicopters. Even so this is only relevant in the case where space travel does not exist, which is not automatically true.

The distance to the moon is measured by means that only hold assuming a RE. Beyond properties of light, one way to measure the distance would be parallax: which relies on knowing the distances to objects beyond the moon, such as the Sun: the distance to which would be shorter on a RE, as proven by shadow lengths.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #47 on: September 14, 2015, 12:04:16 PM »
Wait. What's the source that claims that there's Neptunium on the moon? Also, it seems to me as if NASA would have no problem to conceal this information if they can spread holograms all over the world that appear like satellites... Or, at least, that's what satellites are supposed to be in FET. The distance to the moon has been measured many times, but apparently that's a conspiracy as well.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cen-v050n003.p002
That's one source. You can pay to read the whole thing, but the little that's visible says enough. Google is also a valid way to research; a lot of the sites are rather ridiculous ones, because unexplained observations do attract such claims. You can find a few good ones.

I don't believe anyone has claimed that satellites are holograms. Specifically choosing one of the most outlandish ideas, likely suggested in jest or by a troll, is a completely absurd way to engage in any kind of discussion. Should I quote round earthers who believe the world is run by lizards as evidence for a conspiracy?
Satellites would clearly be physical entities in order to be able to project signals: such as planes, or balloons, or helicopters. Even so this is only relevant in the case where space travel does not exist, which is not automatically true.

The distance to the moon is measured by means that only hold assuming a RE. Beyond properties of light, one way to measure the distance would be parallax: which relies on knowing the distances to objects beyond the moon, such as the Sun: the distance to which would be shorter on a RE, as proven by shadow lengths.

Hmmm... This source really doesn't say much...Neptunium seems very weird to me... I don't know if it should be trusted... Neptunium doesn't even occur in the Earth naturally. It seems very peculiar to me that any of it would happen to be on the moon. Then come researches like this: http://www.universetoday.com/33692/first-conclusive-signature-for-lunar-uranium/grs-data-set/ It reveals uranium, thorium and other elements, but not Neptunium.

In case you haven't noticed, there are LOADS of people who think the ISS etc. are holograms. And it's impossible that they are balloons or aircrafts, because they can be seen from locations thousands of miles apart, yet they appear to move really fast. How can a balloon travel around the Earth in 90 minutes? 24/7? And why does it look exactly like the ISS is supposed to look? Last time I checked, that's an extremely impractical shape for aircrafts or balloons. And it's not just the ISS (which is the easiest object to see with a telescope with a recognizable shape, it's much harder to see the shape of smaller satellites or the Mir space station or something). It's dozens of satellites easily visible with the naked eye. And I have no idea how long term space travel is supposed to work on a flat earth. Constant thrust upwards would be needed.

Plus, parallax shows that the moon is definitely much closer than the sun, and, contrary to what you think, you don't need to know how far the sun is. FET is kinda inconsistent with how far away the moon is. I mean, we know that they say that the sun is 3000 miles away (which is completely baseless, If I wanted I could say it's 10 meters away for the angles during a sunset), but... How far away the moon is? Because if it is closer, why are the shadows of the moon and its apparent height of it from the horizon assuming a flat earth saying a different story? And what about the planets? We know both Mercury and Venus are closer (we've seen them transit, including the recent transit of Venus which I observed myself), BUT there's a problem: next to no parallax is seen during these transits, contrary to what we see during solar eclipses. That would only be observed if they were right next to the sun with the moon being much closer to us, OR both the sun and these planets are insanely far away. We also know all the other planets are spherical. It doesn't look like me at all as if a flat shape is the most likely to form  ;)
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2015, 05:14:47 PM »
Quote
Hmmm... This source really doesn't say much...Neptunium seems very weird to me... I don't know if it should be trusted... Neptunium doesn't even occur in the Earth naturally. It seems very peculiar to me that any of it would happen to be on the moon. Then come researches like this: http://www.universetoday.com/33692/first-conclusive-signature-for-lunar-uranium/grs-data-set/ It reveals uranium, thorium and other elements, but not Neptunium.
That link may not be working, it doesn't give an account of any research to me, just a graphic in another language.
As you say, it is odd that it would be on the moon. This is what I'm getting at. I think it was found in rocks brought back.

Quote
In case you haven't noticed, there are LOADS of people who think the ISS etc. are holograms. And it's impossible that they are balloons or aircrafts, because they can be seen from locations thousands of miles apart, yet they appear to move really fast. How can a balloon travel around the Earth in 90 minutes? 24/7? And why does it look exactly like the ISS is supposed to look? Last time I checked, that's an extremely impractical shape for aircrafts or balloons. And it's not just the ISS (which is the easiest object to see with a telescope with a recognizable shape, it's much harder to see the shape of smaller satellites or the Mir space station or something). It's dozens of satellites easily visible with the naked eye. And I have no idea how long term space travel is supposed to work on a flat earth. Constant thrust upwards would be needed.
You cannot simply insist lots of people think that with no explanation given. Literally the only explanations I have seen on this forum anywhere are those I have given. Further, you can't deny there are a number of trolls here.
A balloon was one possibility. Satellites typically are only visible as lights: as you say, they are fast-moving, nearly impossible to view properly. The only images we have of the ISS from Earth are far to blurred to say that it isn't, for example, a sketch on the underside of a darker craft.
Again, I do not favor the conspiracy notion. Space travel on a FE is only hard if you copy RE physics: this wouldn't be the case. look at the Sun: we know that there is, if the world is flat, some mechanism or way for rotational motion above the Earth. There's no reason a satellite wouldn't be caught up in that.

Quote
Plus, parallax shows that the moon is definitely much closer than the sun, and, contrary to what you think, you don't need to know how far the sun is.
Parallax shows the moon is closer than the Sun, yes. Firm figures however do require the distance.

Quote
they say that the sun is 3000 miles away (which is completely baseless, If I wanted I could say it's 10 meters away for the angles during a sunset)
The 3000km figure is very justified. It comes from Eratosphenes and trigonometry: the shadows cast by any objects vary in length depending on location. This is explain by a RE by the surface being at different angles, with a distant Sun. If we take the same figures however and assume a flat plane, the Sun would need to be closer, so that the rays would hit the objects at different angles.
I could draw a diagram if you wanted?

Quote
We also know all the other planets are spherical. It doesn't look like me at all as if a flat shape is the most likely to form
Again, I am working with the hypothesis that the Earth is flat. Outside of the RE model you're used to, a flat shape is most likely. In addition, if we look up at the sky most things we see are stars: should we then assume the Earth is a star?

I'm fond of magnetic fields as an analogy. If you scatter metal filings around a magnet to see its field, you'll notice curves and round shapes are common. Introduce a second magnet however, you can quite easily gain a flat surface between the two.
Assuming the model where gravity and magnetism (and the strong nuclear force) are interconnected, if there is a star the other side of the Earth then a flat surface would form. The idea of a below-Earth star is also supported by geothermal energy which, without the UA model and its absurd energy requirements, needs another FE explanation.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #50 on: September 15, 2015, 11:51:12 AM »
http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg

Is this considered "too blurred"??

I'd say so: it is quite poorly defined, especially at the edges. Though that might just be half a centimetre in a photo, it's a lot of space in reality. A lot could be happening there.
Again, it is possible that it is genuine.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #51 on: September 15, 2015, 11:59:18 AM »
http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg

Is this considered "too blurred"??

I'd say so: it is quite poorly defined, especially at the edges. Though that might just be half a centimetre in a photo, it's a lot of space in reality. A lot could be happening there.
Again, it is possible that it is genuine.

If an image is computer generated then edges are often very sharp, sharper then they are in real photos.  Look up images from any video game and compare it to any photo and you will see what I mean.  Something having very sharp edges is a dead give away that it's fake.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #52 on: September 15, 2015, 01:29:38 PM »
If an image is computer generated then edges are often very sharp, sharper then they are in real photos.  Look up images from any video game and compare it to any photo and you will see what I mean.  Something having very sharp edges is a dead give away that it's fake.
I never claimed the photo was computer generated.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2015, 01:39:50 PM »
http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg

Is this considered "too blurred"??

I'd say so: it is quite poorly defined, especially at the edges. Though that might just be half a centimetre in a photo, it's a lot of space in reality. A lot could be happening there.
Again, it is possible that it is genuine.
So you are claiming the ISS and the $200 billion a year satellite industry are in fact one massive hoax?

Massively stupid as this is, it's the default flattie position, as there isn't really any other explanation, if you want to start with a fixed, preconceived  idea that the world is flat...
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2015, 02:17:27 PM »
So you are claiming the ISS and the $200 billion a year satellite industry are in fact one massive hoax?

Massively stupid as this is, it's the default flattie position, as there isn't really any other explanation, if you want to start with a fixed, preconceived  idea that the world is flat...

I'm saying it's one possibility. Money could be spent on planes, balloons, helicopters etc to fill the role, and the ISS is similar.
It's also possible that they do exist, kept in 'orbit' (the circular path we observe) by a similar mechanism that affects the Sun, and are merely mistaken about their observations for whatever reason.

I am working on determining an accurate FE model, so that I may test it as a hypothesis. This is only scientific: it would be a poor test if I assumed the world wasn't flat.
The model only feels odd to you if you assume the world cannot be flat. All conclusions drawn are logical for a FE model, and when viewed as a whole it is not necessarily any more complicated than the RE model. The only real variance between the two is that the FE model lacks evidence, which is to be expected as it is a hypothesis, and experimentation is not yet possible.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

JerkFace

  • 10156
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2015, 11:57:50 PM »
So you are claiming the ISS and the $200 billion a year satellite industry are in fact one massive hoax?

Massively stupid as this is, it's the default flattie position, as there isn't really any other explanation, if you want to start with a fixed, preconceived  idea that the world is flat...

I'm saying it's one possibility. Money could be spent on planes, balloons, helicopters etc to fill the role, and the ISS is similar.
It's also possible that they do exist, kept in 'orbit' (the circular path we observe) by a similar mechanism that affects the Sun, and are merely mistaken about their observations for whatever reason.

I am working on determining an accurate FE model, so that I may test it as a hypothesis. This is only scientific: it would be a poor test if I assumed the world wasn't flat.
The model only feels odd to you if you assume the world cannot be flat. All conclusions drawn are logical for a FE model, and when viewed as a whole it is not necessarily any more complicated than the RE model. The only real variance between the two is that the FE model lacks evidence, which is to be expected as it is a hypothesis, and experimentation is not yet possible.

I've posted info on GPS satellite systems previously,  but the short version is that GPS works by the transmitters sending their real time co-ordinates in WGS-84 format together with a coded sequence  of bytes in order, the receiver is running the same sequence of bytes and by comparing the sequence received from the satellite the transmission delay can be determined,  since the receiver also receives the satellite position the receiver can determine it's position by  trilateration with multiple transmitters.   

So there's a clue here,   the GPS transmitters are telling us where they are continuously,  you can buy or build a gps receiver that will let you access the raw data and confirm it for yourself that the GPS transmitters are in fact in orbit,  exactly where they are supposed to be.   Not ground based.    Although there are ground based DGPS and AGPS systems, they piggyback off the main satellite systems.

GPS works properly  because the transmitters send their true co-ordinates,  if they didn't the system would not work.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #56 on: September 16, 2015, 04:27:11 AM »
I've posted info on GPS satellite systems previously,  but the short version is that GPS works by the transmitters sending their real time co-ordinates in WGS-84 format together with a coded sequence  of bytes in order, the receiver is running the same sequence of bytes and by comparing the sequence received from the satellite the transmission delay can be determined,  since the receiver also receives the satellite position the receiver can determine it's position by  trilateration with multiple transmitters.   

So there's a clue here,   the GPS transmitters are telling us where they are continuously,  you can buy or build a gps receiver that will let you access the raw data and confirm it for yourself that the GPS transmitters are in fact in orbit,  exactly where they are supposed to be.   Not ground based.    Although there are ground based DGPS and AGPS systems, they piggyback off the main satellite systems.

GPS works properly  because the transmitters send their true co-ordinates,  if they didn't the system would not work.

Again, it is very possible that they are genuine. The FE model would not necessarily contradict space travel.
The alternative, however, is simply that the 'satellites' compensate: giving out a string of data deliberately offset so that they appear further away than they are. A lower object could well impersonate a higher one, that way.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

JerkFace

  • 10156
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #57 on: September 16, 2015, 05:09:38 AM »
I've posted info on GPS satellite systems previously,  but the short version is that GPS works by the transmitters sending their real time co-ordinates in WGS-84 format together with a coded sequence  of bytes in order, the receiver is running the same sequence of bytes and by comparing the sequence received from the satellite the transmission delay can be determined,  since the receiver also receives the satellite position the receiver can determine it's position by  trilateration with multiple transmitters.   

So there's a clue here,   the GPS transmitters are telling us where they are continuously,  you can buy or build a gps receiver that will let you access the raw data and confirm it for yourself that the GPS transmitters are in fact in orbit,  exactly where they are supposed to be.   Not ground based.    Although there are ground based DGPS and AGPS systems, they piggyback off the main satellite systems.

GPS works properly  because the transmitters send their true co-ordinates,  if they didn't the system would not work.

Again, it is very possible that they are genuine. The FE model would not necessarily contradict space travel.
The alternative, however, is simply that the 'satellites' compensate: giving out a string of data deliberately offset so that they appear further away than they are. A lower object could well impersonate a higher one, that way.

Interesting idea,  but if you think about it some more you will realize that while it might be possible to send fake positions that work for one receiver,  that will fail for all other receiver locations.  If the transmitters send false co-ordinates the system won't work.     The  other thing is that the transmitter locations are continuously changing,  the GPS constellation satellites are orbiting at 14,000 kph,  and an altitude of 20,200km.

Here is the constellation display from xgps,   usb serial connection to an early SirfStar



You will notice the azimuth and elevation data,   no way could there be a ground station at an elevation of 45 degrees,   and a distance of  15,000 km, travelling at 14,000 kph.

There are multiple GPS systems currently in orbit,  the American system,  the Russian System, and shortly the European System.    Latest model receivers can use multiple systems.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #58 on: September 16, 2015, 05:38:33 AM »
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

JerkFace

  • 10156
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #59 on: September 16, 2015, 06:09:17 AM »
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.

Funny,  I replied, but the server timed out when I posted the reply.   

Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.

The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.   

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.