Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball?

Have to go.

This is about EFI.

And this is about "no Sagnac effects on satellite communications".

"Precision of two-way satellite time and frequency transfer (TWSTFT) highly depends on
the residual nonreciprocity delays; one of them is caused by the Sagnac effect."

I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.

You are beginning from the assumption that the Earth is flat.  Beginning with a presupposed idea is not something any real scientist would do.
Remove that assumption.
Run your research again.

It's up to you to prove your position.

Also I see it could be possible the sun rises and falls in elevation on a flat earth.

  As you seem knowledgeable then can you please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated.

Scientists put satellites into orbit with the data they had assuming the earth was round. Guess what? Satellites a working. This forum reminds me of a bad Jerry Springer episode with uneducated hillbilly's wanting to fight anyone who disagree with them.

Think about this then:  If ships actually go over the horizon (which they do not, as I have seen this for myself, and any evidence shown of this is a function of limited perspective)  then it would mean you can see curvature only several miles away.  If that is the case then at 33 KM high how is it possible that the horizon is always flat and at eye level - which has been proven by countless balloon videos.  This is impossible.  The only solution is that the earth is not a globe, and in either situation there is no curvature, because you are not living on a sphere.

Whatever your height the horizon is the same distance from you all the way round, so it looks the same height all the way around, so
What does change is the dip angle to the horizon. Ask anyone who has done any celestial navigation about that.

The "dip angle to the horizon" is just your
If you are standing right at sea level, say an eye height of 1.5 m, the horizon is about 4.4 km away making the dip angle 0.04°, quite invisible.

Even in an aircraft at say 10,000 m, the horizon is about 360 km away making the dip angle 3.2°, quite measurable, but not easy to pick without a reference.

At your 30 km, the horizon is about 620 km away making the dip angle 5.6°.

Now where have you any examples of anyone actually measuring the "dip angle to the horizon" from 30 km up? People just say "it looks level", or "that's just a fish-eye lens"
Remember 30 km is still only 0.2% of the earth's diameter!

This video " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level gives some measurements (only on a smart phone) of the "dip angle".

By the way, I had calculated that dip angle of 3.2° from an aircraft at 10,000 m months before finding that video - maybe there's something in these sums!

Yes, the horizon seems to rise to eye-level, but only because of perspective, that is the relatively small distance from eye-level to the horizon (compared to the size of the earth) seems very small over the large distance the horizon if from the observer.
Below 1000 m of so you do need surveying equipment, a surveyors level or theodolite, for reliable results.

Any child would say they live on a FLAT and stable suface with the sun and moon moving overhead.
That same child will be waiting a l0000ng time for the spinny, roundness part to happen...  fact is ALL OF YOU wake up each day to a FLAT and STILL surface.  Period.  Go outside.  Stand up straight.  And observe how you are on a flat surface.  The spinning part only happens in your programmed imagination.  You imagine it, dream it, 'been told it was so', but each and every day when a round-earther goes to his slave-cubicle to repay his debt, his cubicle is still, stable, and flat... then ONLY thing that moves above him is the sun and the moon...

The FE/RE debate is too polarized to be truly productive.  One camp goes outside stands perfectly still on a flat surface and SWEARS it is spinning at a zillion miles per hour and is indeed round.  The other camp goes outside and reports what it observes (ie science) flat, stable, round.. stuff above moving like clockwork...

Where is the proof of a round earth.  Poll any unmolested person from the old-world who has never heard of NASA and they will ALL tell you the world is flat.  Poll an unwashed westerner and, dispite thier own eyes, its round and spinning.  Ask for proof and they will show you some CGI from the 1970s..lol...

Thus the debate is pointless.. the RE's belong at thier 9-5 slaving, day in and day out... segregated from the truly free people (FE's) who live BY natures laws and reality....

Fun fact:  A RE'r is mot likley to be your typical 9-5 debt-slave caught in the matrix.  A FE'r likey works for himself, has no debt, and UTILIZES his days rather than simply trying to 'get through them' like a RE'r...

Bee well..

-- hives

Observation is not science. Repeated experimentation is.

It is actually okay to have a worldview that the earth is still, and everything revolves around it, but that makes calculations a hell of a lot more complicated and tedious.

The only daily rotation that is picked up is that of the rotation of ether strings/waves above the surface of the Earth: results proven by Dr. Dayton Miller and Dr. Yuri Galaev.

GPS satellites cannot detect and do not detect any orbital motion, the latest and most up-to-date results:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780

You haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.

[that is, the detection of the ether waves was recorded]


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf

GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect: the most direct proof that the Earth is stationary.

Are you overlooking something GPS satellites are in orbit around the globe, the USA geostationary satellite is a relay in orbit around the globe earth.

The very fact that you brought the fiber optic gyroscope into the discussion shows your level of ignorance on the subject.

...the question about the angle of the device matching the observer's latitude.

I always take care of such details: use the search function to find out where.

The ether drift results ALWAYS are latitude dependent.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Just an FYI, ether drift, if real, supports a round earth orbiting the sun better than a stationary flat earth.

Observation is not science. Repeated experimentation is.

It is actually okay to have a worldview that the earth is still, and everything revolves around it, but that makes calculations a hell of a lot more complicated and tedious.

..Oh if you only knew un-illumanated one... ACTUALLY a flat earth makes calculations ALOT EASIER... theres no BS 'axis' or 'tilt' or 'libration' NONSENSE to deal with... it ALL BECOMES SIMPLE:

- the sun circles the earth in 1 day
- the sun spirals from tropic to tropic in 1 year
- the moon circles the earth in 'almost' one day
- the moon spirals from lunistice to lunistice every 13 moons
- the moon gradually extends this boundary every 18.6 years (major and minor lunar standstills)

- the moon phases are EASY to explain on a FE model:
- A FULL moon means the moon is at its southern limit
- A NEW moon means its at its northern limit




ALL of this is also true on a RE model, its just MUCH simpler to explain and calculate on a FE model


bee well..

-- hives

How come the southern hemisphere sees different stars than the northern hemisphere?

How come the moon is flipped in the southern hemisphere?

How come the stars rotate around an axis on BOTH hemispheres?

Why is the moon full at it's southern limit and new at it's most northern limit?

How come the planets have retrograde motion?

How come stars can have a measurable parallax?

How come the sun sets, then somehow rises on the other side?

How come ships disappear over the horizon?

I could keep on going, but if predictions are easier, you should have no problem coming up with answers that the ancient greeks figured out.

Quote from: sandokhan on August 26, 2016, 08:36:00 AM

The only daily rotation that is picked up is that of the rotation of ether strings/waves above the surface of the Earth: results proven by Dr. Dayton Miller and Dr. Yuri Galaev.

GPS satellites cannot detect and do not detect any orbital motion, the latest and most up-to-date results:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780

You haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.

[that is, the detection of the ether waves was recorded]


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf

GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect: the most direct proof that the Earth is stationary.

Are you overlooking something GPS satellites are in orbit around the globe, the USA geostationary satellite is a relay in orbit around the globe earth.

Let me illuminate you:


Sattelites are FAKE.


FAKE sattelite TV has been replaced by FIOS (hard wired fiber-optic cable)
FAKE sattelite internet has been replaced also by FIOS or radio-towers
Where is the 'sattelite phone' promised from the 1980s and 1990s?  Instead in 2016 ALL cell-phone carriers user CELL TOWERS (radio towers)

Sattelites exist in your collective imagination... those sketchy images of scientists (ie actors) wearing all white lab-coats fondling a satellite in a NASA hanger... the CGI images of sattelites in space...

Take a hike to the tallest moutain in the wilderness and let me know how the reception (to ANYTHING) is...  'sattelites' dont seem to work too good now do they...

BONUS:

Tesla confused alot of people trying to 'bounce electrical signals' off of the ionoshpere... seems like lunacy on a ROUND earth model... but is simple REFLECTION on a FLAT earth model...  Point a signal at the FLAT ionosphere and it reflects the signal just like reflecting a flashlight off of a flat mirroed ceiling to another spot on the 'floor'/earth... china, india.. wherever... just bounce the signal...  again makes no sense on a round earth model... you gotta play with all this 'bending of light' nonsense.. makes perfect sense on a FE model however...

bee well..

-- hives

Sattelites are FAKE.

Where is your proof, because thousands of people have seen them. Are you saying every amateur astronomer is lying?

Where is the 'sattelite phone' promised from the 1980s and 1990s?

Ebay, Amazon, your pick. They are about 1000$ a pop, which is why most people pick the cheaper version which uses towers.

Sattelites exist in your collective imagination... those sketchy images of scientists (ie actors) wearing all white lab-coats fondling a satellite in a NASA hanger... the CGI images of sattelites in space...

They also exist in space above us, as anybody can go outside on certain nights and see the ISS. Are you saying that the sky is a giant television or something? How would the Government CGI the sky?

Take a hike to the tallest moutain in the wilderness and let me know how the reception (to ANYTHING) is...  'sattelites' dont seem to work too good now do they...

Well, cell phones won't work because there are no cell towers, but Satellite phones would. (see above, you can buy one for about 1000$)

Tesla confused alot of people trying to 'bounce electrical signals' off of the ionoshpere... seems like lunacy on a ROUND earth model... but is simple REFLECTION on a FLAT earth model...  Point a signal at the FLAT ionosphere and it reflects the signal just like reflecting a flashlight off of a flat mirroed ceiling to another spot on the 'floor'/earth... china, india.. wherever... just bounce the signal...  again makes no sense on a round earth model... you gotta play with all this 'bending of light' nonsense.. makes perfect sense on a FE model however...

Funny how it only works when you "bounce" it off of the exact place where there happens to be a satellite. Try angling your Satellite TV dish and see how good of reception you get.

How come the southern hemisphere sees different stars than the northern hemisphere?

How come the moon is flipped in the southern hemisphere?

How come the stars rotate around an axis on BOTH hemispheres?

Why is the moon full at it's southern limit and new at it's most northern limit?

How come the planets have retrograde motion?

How come stars can have a measurable parallax?

How come the sun sets, then somehow rises on the other side?

How come ships disappear over the horizon?

I could keep on going, but if predictions are easier, you should have no problem coming up with answers that the ancient greeks figured out.

How come the southern hemisphere sees different stars than the northern hemisphere?

- the stars are the same in both hemispheres, the orientations are different

How come the moon is flipped in the southern hemisphere?

- Put a smiley-face on the ceiling in a room, have a pal sit opposite of you... YOU will see a smiley-face, your pal will see a 'frowny-face'... in the USA the moon never gets more north of the nation.. south of the equator it does..

How come the stars rotate around an axis on BOTH hemispheres?

- What does this have to do with the SHAPE of the Earth?

Why is the moon full at it's southern limit and new at it's most northern limit?

- I have no idea!  And neither do round-earthers!

How come the planets have retrograde motion?

How come stars can have a measurable parallax?

- This has NOTHING to do with the SHAPE of the earth...


How come the sun sets, then somehow rises on the other side?

- Because the sun hovers above the earth moving in a CLOCKWISE circle that slowly spirals northward, then southward in 1 full year.  Each day the sun ARRIVES/rises in the east and DEPARTS/sets in the west... this circle gets slightly 'bigger' each day until the summer solstice, then it gets 'smaller' each day until the winter solstice... this is how you get seasons..

got more [RELEVANT] questions?  keep em coming!

Hint - try to STAY ON TOPIC.. try not to ask about quakrs, quazars, black-hole nebulas and other NASA fabricated baboonery... we are talking about the SHAPE of the earth, NOT why a cat's meow makes a 'meow' noise...

bee well...

-- hives

Quote from: djhives on August 26, 2016, 09:38:56 PM

Sattelites are FAKE.

Where is your proof, because thousands of people have seen them. Are you saying every amateur astronomer is lying?

Quote from: djhives on August 26, 2016, 09:38:56 PM

Where is the 'sattelite phone' promised from the 1980s and 1990s?

Ebay, Amazon, your pick. They are about 1000$ a pop, which is why most people pick the cheaper version which uses towers.

Quote from: djhives on August 26, 2016, 09:38:56 PM

Sattelites exist in your collective imagination... those sketchy images of scientists (ie actors) wearing all white lab-coats fondling a satellite in a NASA hanger... the CGI images of sattelites in space...

They also exist in space above us, as anybody can go outside on certain nights and see the ISS. Are you saying that the sky is a giant television or something? How would the Government CGI the sky?

Quote from: djhives on August 26, 2016, 09:38:56 PM

Take a hike to the tallest moutain in the wilderness and let me know how the reception (to ANYTHING) is...  'sattelites' dont seem to work too good now do they...

Well, cell phones won't work because there are no cell towers, but Satellite phones would. (see above, you can buy one for about 1000$)

Quote from: djhives on August 26, 2016, 09:38:56 PM

Tesla confused alot of people trying to 'bounce electrical signals' off of the ionoshpere... seems like lunacy on a ROUND earth model... but is simple REFLECTION on a FLAT earth model...  Point a signal at the FLAT ionosphere and it reflects the signal just like reflecting a flashlight off of a flat mirroed ceiling to another spot on the 'floor'/earth... china, india.. wherever... just bounce the signal...  again makes no sense on a round earth model... you gotta play with all this 'bending of light' nonsense.. makes perfect sense on a FE model however...

Funny how it only works when you "bounce" it off of the exact place where there happens to be a satellite. Try angling your Satellite TV dish and see how good of reception you get.

Not gonna argue the existence of sattelites with you because there is no argument.  You CANNOT see a Boeing 747 with the naked eye at cruising altitude on a pitch-black night with its lights flashing... IT IS TOO HIGH TO SEE (ie vanishing point..)... now ANYONE who claims to have seen something 10x SMALLER at 30X HIGHER is simply WRONG!  Period.  End of discussion.  YOU CANNOT SEE TINY SATTELITES FLOATING IN SPACE when YOU CANT even see a GIANTIC 747 at night at crusing altitude!

THE END!


-- hives

How come the southern hemisphere sees different stars than the northern hemisphere?

- the stars are the same in both hemispheres, the orientations are different

No, they are not.
Northern Hemisphere stars:

Southern Hemisphere stars:

They are very different, unless you think that everybody who ever went to the southern hemisphere is lying.

How come the moon is flipped in the southern hemisphere?

- Put a smiley-face on the ceiling in a room, have a pal sit opposite of you... YOU will see a smiley-face, your pal will see a 'frowny-face'... in the USA the moon never gets more north of the nation.. south of the equator it does..

Made a quick sketch in MS Paint to show you how stupid this is. Notice how people in different parts of the southern hemisphere would see radically different orientations. This does not happen in real life. Unless you think everybody in the southern hemisphere is lying.

How come the stars rotate around an axis on BOTH hemispheres?

- What does this have to do with the SHAPE of the Earth?

Because a flat earth would be IMPOSSIBLE for stars to rotate around the southern pole, which they do.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gg
unless you think that everybody in the southern hemisphere is lying.

Why is the moon full at it's southern limit and new at it's most northern limit?

- I have no idea!  And neither do round-earthers!

First of all, the moon's phases are cause by sunlight. The moon can be full in the southern hemisphere and new in the northern hemisphere. There is ABSOLUTELY no correlation between latitude and lunar phase.

Unless you think everybody who has ever seen the moon is lying.

How come the planets have retrograde motion?

How come stars can have a measurable parallax?

- This has NOTHING to do with the SHAPE of the earth...

Regardless, I'd like to see you answer, or see if you even know what these two things are.

How come the sun sets, then somehow rises on the other side?

- Because the sun hovers above the earth moving in a CLOCKWISE circle that slowly spirals northward, then southward in 1 full year.  Each day the sun ARRIVES/rises in the east and DEPARTS/sets in the west... this circle gets slightly 'bigger' each day until the summer solstice, then it gets 'smaller' each day until the winter solstice... this is how you get seasons..

I asked how the sun sets and rises. Not how seasons work. But while we are on that topic, how does antarctica have 4 months of complete sunlight?

Not gonna argue the existence of sattelites with you because there is no argument.  You CANNOT see a Boeing 747 with the naked eye at cruising altitude on a pitch-black night with its lights flashing!

You can't see a boeing at night because it is dark, but you can see satellites because of the sun's reflection off of them. Irridium flares are really cool. Nothing else in the sky can cause them. Here is a video of one:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">gg
An irridium flare is when light bounces off of a near-perfect reflector, basically a giant mirror pointed at your eyes.

IT IS TOO HIGH TO SEE (ie vanishing point..)... now ANYONE who claims to have seen something 10x SMALLER at 30X HIGHER is simply WRONG!
THE END!

Strange, because I can see jupiter through a telescope, even though it is 588,000,000X as far away and only 4,000,000X as big (diameter).

You can see Jupiter because it is much brighter than a 747, not because it is bigger. The same goes for satellites.

Any child would say they live on a FLAT and stable suface with the sun and moon moving overhead.
That same child will be waiting a l0000ng time for the spinny, roundness part to happen...  fact is ALL OF YOU wake up each day to a FLAT and STILL surface.  Period.  Go outside.  Stand up straight.  And observe how you are on a flat surface.  The spinning part only happens in your programmed imagination.  You imagine it, dream it, 'been told it was so', but each and every day when a round-earther goes to his slave-cubicle to repay his debt, his cubicle is still, stable, and flat... then ONLY thing that moves above him is the sun and the moon...

The FE/RE debate is too polarized to be truly productive.  One camp goes outside stands perfectly still on a flat surface and SWEARS it is spinning at a zillion miles per hour and is indeed round.  The other camp goes outside and reports what it observes (ie science) flat, stable, round.. stuff above moving like clockwork...

Where is the proof of a round earth.  Poll any unmolested person from the old-world who has never heard of NASA and they will ALL tell you the world is flat.  Poll an unwashed westerner and, dispite thier own eyes, its round and spinning.  Ask for proof and they will show you some CGI from the 1970s..lol...

Thus the debate is pointless.. the RE's belong at thier 9-5 slaving, day in and day out... segregated from the truly free people (FE's) who live BY natures laws and reality....

Fun fact:  A RE'r is mot likley to be your typical 9-5 debt-slave caught in the matrix.  A FE'r likey works for himself, has no debt, and UTILIZES his days rather than simply trying to 'get through them' like a RE'r...

Bee well..

-- hives

Another boofhead who thinks that believe in a round earth started with NASA (which began in 1959). I can assure you that belief in a round earth preceded WW2... and the birth of Jesus.

by the way, anybody here can feel free to use my smily face drawing to get the point across about how dumb the lunar flip is for flat earth.

Any child would say they live on a FLAT and stable suface with the sun and moon moving overhead.
That same child will be waiting a l0000ng time for the spinny, roundness part to happen...  fact is ALL OF YOU wake up each day to a FLAT and STILL surface.  Period.  Go outside.  Stand up straight.  And observe how you are on a flat surface. 

Sure the earth looks pretty flat, so would a 5 mile diameter ball to an ant!

I go outside in the morning and see the sun seem to rise from behind the horizon. It starts as part of a circle peeping over the horizon and gradually rises to become a perfect circle. It stays the exactly the same size till it does the same thing in reverse and sets in the west.
You don't believe it? Take a peek at: The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun « on: August 24, 2016, 08:12:47 PM ».
None of that fits with any Flat Earth model!

The spinning part only happens in your programmed imagination.  You imagine it, dream it, 'been told it was so', but each and every day when a round-earther goes to his slave-cubicle to repay his debt, his cubicle is still, stable, and flat... then ONLY thing that moves above him is the sun and the moon...

and the stars?

No, not "my programmed imagination" and I don't "go to my slave-cubicle to repay my debt". You're the one dreaming.

The FE/RE debate is too polarized to be truly productive.  One camp goes outside stands perfectly still on a flat surface and SWEARS it is spinning at a zillion miles per hour and is indeed round.

What are you on? Nobody has ever claimed "spinning at a zillion miles per hour", rotating at one revolution per day might be a bit more realistic.

The other camp goes outside and reports what it observes (ie science) flat, stable, round.. stuff above moving like clockwork...

Where is the proof of a round earth.  Poll any unmolested person from the old-world who has never heard of NASA and they will ALL tell you the world is flat.  Poll an unwashed westerner and, dispite thier own eyes, its round and spinning.  Ask for proof and they will show you some CGI from the 1970s..lol...

"Poll an unwashed westerner and, dispite thier own eyes, its round and spinning." apart from anything else this "unwashed westerner" might be able to spell better!

And do I qualify as a "westerner", living as I do in Australia, the Great South Land? Whatever, I knew that the earth was a globe long before NASA came on the scene!

Thus the debate is pointless.. the RE's belong at thier 9-5 slaving, day in and day out... segregated from the truly free people (FE's) who live BY natures laws and reality....

Fun fact:  A RE'r is mot likley to be your typical 9-5 debt-slave caught in the matrix.  A FE'r likey works for himself, has no debt, and UTILIZES his days rather than simply trying to 'get through them' like a RE'r...
Bee well..
-- hives

Really? You seem to be the one with the imagination here, with your "your programmed imagination" and "spinning at a zillion miles per hour".

Dream on!

Quote from: origamiscienceguy on August 26, 2016, 09:46:26 PM

Quote from: djhives on August 26, 2016, 09:38:56 PM

Sattelites are FAKE.

Where is your proof, because thousands of people have seen them. Are you saying every amateur astronomer is lying?

Quote from: djhives on August 26, 2016, 09:38:56 PM

Where is the 'sattelite phone' promised from the 1980s and 1990s?

Ebay, Amazon, your pick. They are about 1000$ a pop, which is why most people pick the cheaper version which uses towers.

Quote from: djhives on August 26, 2016, 09:38:56 PM

Sattelites exist in your collective imagination... those sketchy images of scientists (ie actors) wearing all white lab-coats fondling a satellite in a NASA hanger... the CGI images of sattelites in space...

They also exist in space above us, as anybody can go outside on certain nights and see the ISS. Are you saying that the sky is a giant television or something? How would the Government CGI the sky?

Quote from: djhives on August 26, 2016, 09:38:56 PM

Take a hike to the tallest moutain in the wilderness and let me know how the reception (to ANYTHING) is...  'sattelites' dont seem to work too good now do they...

Well, cell phones won't work because there are no cell towers, but Satellite phones would. (see above, you can buy one for about 1000$)

Quote from: djhives on August 26, 2016, 09:38:56 PM

Tesla confused alot of people trying to 'bounce electrical signals' off of the ionoshpere... seems like lunacy on a ROUND earth model... but is simple REFLECTION on a FLAT earth model...  Point a signal at the FLAT ionosphere and it reflects the signal just like reflecting a flashlight off of a flat mirroed ceiling to another spot on the 'floor'/earth... china, india.. wherever... just bounce the signal...  again makes no sense on a round earth model... you gotta play with all this 'bending of light' nonsense.. makes perfect sense on a FE model however...

Funny how it only works when you "bounce" it off of the exact place where there happens to be a satellite. Try angling your Satellite TV dish and see how good of reception you get.

Not gonna argue the existence of sattelites with you because there is no argument.  You CANNOT see a Boeing 747 with the naked eye at cruising altitude on a pitch-black night with its lights flashing... IT IS TOO HIGH TO SEE (ie vanishing point..)... now ANYONE who claims to have seen something 10x SMALLER at 30X HIGHER is simply WRONG!  Period.  End of discussion.  YOU CANNOT SEE TINY SATTELITES FLOATING IN SPACE when YOU CANT even see a GIANTIC 747 at night at crusing altitude!

THE END!


-- hives

obviously, as the sun is lighting up the satellites

the sun doesn't light up a 747 at night time

you're very confused over a very simple thing

If I have a light bulb and a basketball, I can create 'night' on one side of the ball. This is the shadow side, since it is not lit. The light from the bulb is stopped by the ball. So if I hold my hand close to divide between light and darkness, on the dark side, my hand will be in shadow. If I lift my hand higher, my hand moves outside of the shadow. It is now hit by the light.

Conclusion: it is very possible for a plane to be in darkness and for a satellite to be in sunlight at the same time viewed from the same spot on the earth.

Anyone got anything that would disprove this?

Just an FYI, ether drift, if real, supports a round earth orbiting the sun better than a stationary flat earth.

You still don't get it.


In one of the most intriguing experiments of the 20th century, Martin Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory (1961).

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66858.msg1784179#msg1784179 (also includes the references on the Ives experiment, a hexagonal closed path Sagnac effect)


A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182


Ron Hatch, one of the world's greatest experts on GPS satellite technology, explains:

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus,
ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.


Believe it or not, most scientists have begun to give up on the theory of relativity, as it no longer can explain the spinning Mossbauer effect encountered in the GPS satellites.

THE LATEST VIEWPOINT in cosmology today is this: MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory).

THIS IS THE LAST STAND of the RE scientists.

Let me explain.

A modified Lorentz ether is a TRANSLATIONAL ETHER: that is, it surrounds the Earth like an envelope, but does NOT rotate along with the Earth around its own axis; while at the same time it travels WITH the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.

In this way, the orbital Sagnac spinning Mossbauer effect could be explained by this translational ether.


HOWEVER, there is no such thing as MLET.


None other than Dr. Hans Zweig (Stanford University) has exposed the fallacies inherent in Lorentz' approach:

The colossal mistakes committed by Lorentz and Einstein in deriving the Lorentz transformation/factor:

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-4-the-michelson-morley-experiment/

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-5-the-lorentz-transformation/

http://relativityunraveled.net/chapter-1-introduction/

Dr. Hans Zweig, Stanford University: http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/wiki/hans-j-zweig/


MLET (Modified Lorentz Ether Theory) is based on the Lorentz transformation (Lorentz factor/contraction), and as such, is equally invalid.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/agathan5.pdf



And things don't stop here.

In addition to the fact that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac effect, we have an even greater problem: the GPS clocks DO NOT RECORD the Sun's gravitational potential.

It is assumed that the orbital velocity of the Earth as it orbits the Sun is a variable; however, the GPS clocks show that the this velocity MUST BE CONSTANT, as it does not record the Sun's gravitational potential effect upon these clocks.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780

the fact that GPS works as it should.. does that not tell you something?

you also totally ignored my earlier comment
..debating the ins and outs of GPS is pointless, there's irrefutable evidence of a globe that is being blatantly ignored

The more sandokahn feels cornered, the longer his walls of text become.

I understand why.

He feels unrest when his assertions are proved to be incorrect. But by typing he feels like he is gaining control again. He is reshaping the facts in his head and feels satisfied by the effort.

Inetersting from a psychological perspective.

Earth still a spheroid.

The more sandokahn feels cornered, the longer his walls of text become.

I understand why.

He feels unrest when his assertions are proved to be incorrect. But by typing he feels like he is gaining control again. He is reshaping the facts in his head and feels satisfied by the effort.

Inetersting from a psychological perspective.

Earth still a spheroid.

You have nothing else to say about anything so you result to these comments. You're so butt hurt and its hilarious, keep em' coming.

Quote from: Silicon on August 26, 2016, 08:05:30 AM

Think about this then:  If ships actually go over the horizon (which they do not, as I have seen this for myself, and any evidence shown of this is a function of limited perspective)  then it would mean you can see curvature only several miles away.  If that is the case then at 33 KM high how is it possible that the horizon is always flat and at eye level - which has been proven by countless balloon videos.  This is impossible.  The only solution is that the earth is not a globe, and in either situation there is no curvature, because you are not living on a sphere.

Whatever your height the horizon is the same distance from you all the way round, so it looks the same height all the way around, so

it looks flat!

What does change is the dip angle to the horizon. Ask anyone who has done any celestial navigation about that.

The "dip angle to the horizon" is just your

(eye height above the horizon) divided by (the distance to the horizon), converted to degrees.

If you are standing right at sea level, say an eye height of 1.5 m, the horizon is about 4.4 km away making the dip angle 0.04°, quite invisible.

Even in an aircraft at say 10,000 m, the horizon is about 360 km away making the dip angle 3.2°, quite measurable, but not easy to pick without a reference.

At your 30 km, the horizon is about 620 km away making the dip angle 5.6°.

Now where have you any examples of anyone actually measuring the "dip angle to the horizon" from 30 km up? People just say "it looks level", or "that's just a fish-eye lens"
Remember 30 km is still only 0.2% of the earth's diameter!

This video " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level gives some measurements (only on a smart phone) of the "dip angle".

By the way, I had calculated that dip angle of 3.2° from an aircraft at 10,000 m months before finding that video - maybe there's something in these sums!

Yes, the horizon seems to rise to eye-level, but only because of perspective, that is the relatively small distance from eye-level to the horizon (compared to the size of the earth) seems very small over the large distance the horizon if from the observer.

I wish more people would out some effort into this measurement, as it is quite definitive!

Below 1000 m of so you do need surveying equipment, a surveyors level or theodolite, for reliable results.

So you're saying the dip angle of 0.04° a just at few kilometers  is enough to hide an enormous cruise ships hull, however a dip angle of a balloon at 30KM of 5.6° which is a 13900% increase is completely undetectable?  Nope.  Just a whole bunch of nope.

Quote from: Omega on August 27, 2016, 09:36:22 AM

The more sandokahn feels cornered, the longer his walls of text become.

I understand why.

He feels unrest when his assertions are proved to be incorrect. But by typing he feels like he is gaining control again. He is reshaping the facts in his head and feels satisfied by the effort.

Inetersting from a psychological perspective.

Earth still a spheroid.

You have nothing else to say about anything so you result to these comments. You're so butt hurt and its hilarious, keep em' coming.

Why don't you go and prove ether drift again?

I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.

My personal favourite's weather prediction.
Even if we assume all the data comes strictly from ground-based sources, meteorology is based on certain equations, and those equations take into account the Coriolis force as a key factor. Without the Coriolis term in the equation, you'd primarily get motion to and from the equator. With the Coriolis term included, you get what's called geostrophic flow. This essentially means when wind flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low, it gets deflected (in a different direction depending on hemisphere).
This behaviour is key, and visible on publicly available weather maps. Nothing's behind closed doors here, all the numbers and resources can easily be found by anyone.
Round Earth Theory successfully predicts the future in a verifiable fashion, daily.

You're welcome to use the same maps to try to do the same assuming there's no Coriolis force, and so no geostrophic flow. You can of course verify the maps if you're willing to put in a little effort, coordinating with others online, but if you don't want to do that it's still pretty clear they must be accurate as the maps are the same wherever you are. if you look up the weather in, say, Britain, and then use a proxy to change your IP so it seems like you're looking from somewhere else, you'd get the same answer.
So, if weather maps are accurate for the present, how do they predict the future if the assumptions they're founded upon are false?
Omit the effect of the Coriolis force, it doesn't work. Assume the Earth's rotating so there's a force in one direction, it still wouldn't work.

(Side note: this is primarily about shorter-term weather prediction. Knowing the direction pressure systems will move, and the subsequent wind direction etc, are all impressive feats to get right when the justification is apparently guesswork or a lie, according to FET. For the longer term, it tends to be less accurate because the PDEs governing weather systems are incredibly complex, and typically solutions can only be approximated. Still, they're often right more than you'd expect if it was chance alone).

Quote from: Silicon on August 24, 2016, 02:56:46 PM

I have yet to find a single verifiable proof of this anywhere.

My personal favourite's weather prediction.
Even if we assume all the data comes strictly from ground-based sources, meteorology is based on certain equations, and those equations take into account the Coriolis force as a key factor. Without the Coriolis term in the equation, you'd primarily get motion to and from the equator. With the Coriolis term included, you get what's called geostrophic flow. This essentially means when wind flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low, it gets deflected (in a different direction depending on hemisphere).
This behaviour is key, and visible on publicly available weather maps. Nothing's behind closed doors here, all the numbers and resources can easily be found by anyone.
Round Earth Theory successfully predicts the future in a verifiable fashion, daily.

You're welcome to use the same maps to try to do the same assuming there's no Coriolis force, and so no geostrophic flow. You can of course verify the maps if you're willing to put in a little effort, coordinating with others online, but if you don't want to do that it's still pretty clear they must be accurate as the maps are the same wherever you are. if you look up the weather in, say, Britain, and then use a proxy to change your IP so it seems like you're looking from somewhere else, you'd get the same answer.
So, if weather maps are accurate for the present, how do they predict the future if the assumptions they're founded upon are false?
Omit the effect of the Coriolis force, it doesn't work. Assume the Earth's rotating so there's a force in one direction, it still wouldn't work.

(Side note: this is primarily about shorter-term weather prediction. Knowing the direction pressure systems will move, and the subsequent wind direction etc, are all impressive feats to get right when the justification is apparently guesswork or a lie, according to FET. For the longer term, it tends to be less accurate because the PDEs governing weather systems are incredibly complex, and typically solutions can only be approximated. Still, they're often right more than you'd expect if it was chance alone).

Haven;t looked into this much however you know what I'd say about the Coriolis effect...Of course prediction is not impossible on a globe model but I think patterns and flow makes more sense on an AE map as seen below. Maybe viewing this way, could lead to an alternative theory that negates the need for geostrophic flow and the Coriolis effect.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/azimuthal_equidistant=0.00,90.00,100

 @silicon, @djhives. I don't have very good imagination and as you argue flat earth but have not yet covered sunset thing then maybe you can help. Or even sandokhan as he puts up wall of texts but I quite haven't seen this topic came up from him.  Can anyone please draw me picture how light moves from sun to the observer at sunset. Observer stands at twilight zone and clouds above his head are illuminated. Is it possible to draw it?