Questions for flat-Earthers

I'm an amateur astronomer.  It turns out that there are a lot of things that you can see with a decent telescope.  I have a few questions for the flat-earthers here on this forum.

One of these things is the ISS.  When it was brought down in 2001, you could also see the MIR space station catching fire.  There are also plenty of meteorites falling out of the sky that are visible with the naked eye.  If the Earth is under a "celestial dome," then where do these things come from?  How are the (visible) space stations remaining in orbit?

We can use parallax to determine how far away celestial bodies are.  The way this works is we compare the angular location of a particular body at one point in time to its angular location at a different point in time.  The difference in angular location may be used to determine the distance of that body.  This works well for close bodies (less than a few tens of light years).  If the scientific model is wrong, then God must have really taken his time in fabricating a model of the heavens.

The FE contention is that there are huge radio towers broadcasting signals, and that there are no satellites.  By my estimation, in order to provide a range of coverage similar to a satellite in low Earth orbit (124-1240 miles) on a flat surface, one would need a radio tower fifty miles tall.  Where are these radio towers?  Does anyone have any pictures?

If the world is flat, then there is no horizon (or if there is, it's further away than eleven miles).  With a powerful enough telescope, it should be possible to see across any adequately flat surface of the Earth--such as a large body of water, or an ocean.  In fact, it should be possible to see the lights of Chicago from Michigan.  Has anybody tried this?

Assume the sun is, in fact, 33 miles in diameter.  The average power flux at Earth's surface is approximately 340 W/m^2.  Multiply this power by the Earth's surface area of 486954715 miles^2 (according to your estimations of diameter, and assuming a flat Earth) and one has, as a result, a total power interception of about 428 PW (10^15 W).  This solar spotlight would therefore have to emit power at a flux of 428 PW / ((33 mi/2)^2 Pi) at an intensity of about 193 MW / m^2.  According to the E=mc^2 relation, this spotlight would have to annihilate a total of 1.2 kilotonnes of matter per year, the equivalent of a Heroshima nuclear detonation every five minutes.  Can you provide a scientific explanation for this phenomenon?

If the reason shadows on the surface of the moon are visible is because of reflected light from the Earth, then why is the moon still visible at night?  If it's visible during the night because of light reflected from the daytime side, then why is it invisible during a solar eclipse?

According to the scientific model, the Earth's shadow is responsible for the various phases of the moon.  If this is not the case, then how can one account for the existence of profile shadows of terrestrial mountain ranges on the moon's surface?

Can you provide a specific reason, something that can cause all of the countries of the world to unify covertly in spite of war, for fabricating the existence of a round Earth?

God

A large percentage of Flat-Earthers don't believe in God.  I'm going to ask you to not make baseless assumptions.

its no use, they will just tell you that the radio towers are on the ice wall, you cant see further than 11 miles becuase the air is dirty, and anything else that cant be explained is conspiracy.

Well, if dirtiness of the air was the issue, we should get linear attenuation with increasing distance.  In any case, you can compensate for just such an attenuation by gathering more light--as in, by increasing your shutter speed, or by using a larger lense.

In other words, if the Earth was flat, you should be able to see Chicago from Michigan with a 5-inch telescope, regardless of how dirty the air is.

If the radio towers were on this "ice wall," signals from them would be almost parallel to the ground by the time you reached North America.  Satellite radio is blocked when you go under trees and underpasses, not when a wall blocks off your southern exposure.

Another interesting point is that the flat-earth hypothesis doesn't explain the existence of the midnight sun in the southern hemisphere.

The signals can be broadcast from other sub-orbital vehicles.

You'd need roughly twenty of these sub-orbital vehicles for every one satellite presumed to be in orbit.  There are a total of (around) 8681 manmade satellites in orbit right now, so a grand total of 173,620 extremly high intensity broadcasting vehicles would be needed to simulate their existence.  They would have to be in the sky all the time, every day.  Compare this figure to the fact that there are only about 23,000 scheduled takeoffs and landings per day in the world.

Furthermore, to service all of these sub-orbital vehicles, you would need a support staff EIGHT TIMES the power of existing worldwide airline infrastructure, to include service personnel, fuel, power, expertise, maintenance, and facilities.  Where are these resource?

And what about the other questions I posted?

You assume I am talking about airplanes.  I am not.

You assume I am talking about airplanes.  I am not.

So they use balloons?

In a manner of speaking, yes, that is one other type of platform.

That doesn't escape the problems I outlined.  You would still need to power balloons, and if you did it by solar power, you'd need huge solar planes that would be visible to the naked eye.  These things would be all over the place!  If you didn't use solar power, you'd still have to service them.  They would be a flight hazard.

Not necessarily. I point you to the foil mylar balloon. I work in a grocery store where one has stayed up at the top of the ceiling, without deflating, for several months. This is because it is a non-porous material, so seals quite handily.

In a world where we didn't spend billions of dollars to go into space, a balloon that doesn't deflate really isn't that hard.

I'm referring to the equipment on board, which still is exposed to the elements at high altitudes.  Solar planes large enough to collect an adequate amount of sunlight would be VISIBLE, and would act as airfoils--it would make this a rather unstable platform that would require constant maintenance.

If the radio towers were on this "ice wall," signals from them would be almost parallel to the ground by the time you reached North America.  Satellite radio is blocked when you go under trees and underpasses, not when a wall blocks off your southern exposure.

The signal actually goes upwards at an angle and bounces of the atmosphere.

Another interesting point is that the flat-earth hypothesis doesn't explain the existence of the midnight sun in the southern hemisphere.

The sun can't be everywhere at once.

I love how people think I am making this stuff up.

texta -

Only signals in the AM band are reflected by the ionosphere.  Just about all other frequencies--including 2.4 GHz microwave, which is what Syrius uses--are transmitted right through the upper atmosphere and radiated into outer space.

There is a midnight sun in Antarctica, believe it or not, in the summertime.  In fact, some parts of southern Chile experience a significant lengthening of days during this period.  A tilted Earth revolving around the sun explains these lengthenings naturally, without supernatural intervention.

I love how people think I am making this stuff up.

Thats because you never really fully explain the technological aspects of you're augments. You say things like "You assume I meant planes" and leave it at that.

Since I don't feel like typing it again, here is a previous thread on the subject:
Lighter than air broadcasting systems.

i love it how nobody answered our young astronomers questions. Probably because no one can. He engineer whats up. Also, mr Engineer, i have seen earlier posts of your where you talk about some sophisticated math equations. its funny how you solve these equations and no one cares. If your equations were actually ground breaking evidence, certain people such as havard proffesors, or members of MENSA would think twice. But since no one in the real world even looks twice at you, your just another brick in the wall. thats a slap in your face.

 
Note: i did not swear once

If your equations were actually ground breaking evidence

Who said they were supposed to be?  Perhaps they were there to illustrate a point.

I agree. You guys should answer his questions... for your theory to be a valid one, you have to be able to account for everything.

members of MENSA

just because someone has a high IQ doesnt make them superior at physics/maths etc.

eg, I be a member, and I'll bet most of you have a far better understanding of the relavent subjects to the topic of these forums, because I am only 17, and have not studied them in any great depth yet.

I agree. You guys should answer his questions... for your theory to be a valid one, you have to be able to account for everything.

So that means that the RE is not valid, as it can't even explain something so fundamental as gravity.

Quote from: "joshd"

I agree. You guys should answer his questions... for your theory to be a valid one, you have to be able to account for everything.

So that means that the RE is not valid, as it can't even explain something so fundamental as gravity.

i belive it is explained better than "its accelerating upwards at 9.8ms^-2 because... it just is."

also the odd member says it has SOME gravity, and also the FE model is yet to explain the diminisment of gravity with the square of the distance. (another thread about that)

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

Quote from: "joshd"

I agree. You guys should answer his questions... for your theory to be a valid one, you have to be able to account for everything.

So that means that the RE is not valid, as it can't even explain something so fundamental as gravity.

i belive it is explained better than "its accelerating upwards at 9.8ms^-2 because... it just is."

also the odd member says it has SOME gravity, and also the FE model is yet to explain the diminisment of gravity with the square of the distance. (another thread about that)

Nobody knows the cause of gravity, but there are speculations.

I love how people think I am making this stuff up.

You are

Atleast you do.. everytime there is a question you can't awnser

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

I love how people think I am making this stuff up.

You are

Did you read what was in the link?

i belive it is explained better than "its accelerating upwards at 9.8ms^-2 because... it just is."

Hmm, gravity causes an acceleration towards the center of mass at a rate of 9.8m/s^2 because...it just is.

why somtimes in counterstrike do i headshot people but it doesnt count

why somtimes in counterstrike do i headshot people but it doesnt count

because you are laggy, so although it looks like you heahshot them, you dont.