The flat earth conspiracy

a reply to: elevatedone

the answer was even predicted - by science

and - more science :

measuring wave heights from airborne and space platforms :

paper


the TL : DR synopsis

SAR [ synthetic appeture radar ] can measure wave height and wave velocity from an oblique angle above the ocean - with offsets upto


also - although it is never used over water - as there is no terrain - SAR terrain mapping radars - must factor eaths curvature into thier calculations - and would measure the curve

a reply to: ignorant_ape

All the evidence points to spherical earth.

Correction, reality is spherical earth.

The Bible is not specific on any model of earth. And is concerned more about spiritual reality. Not physical reality. Unless it impacts the spiritual.

Well the hell does anyone need the fantasy of flat earth to be true? And why would a majority of people and scientists lie? About the physical shape of the earth? And Engineers and companies spend billions on technologies that would only be efficient and effective for a spherical earth.


If people want to role play flat earth, I get that. Maybe something like steampunk. But such people make a distinction between reality and fantasy.

It’s amazing the depths people will go consuming their own credibility to live the lie of flat earth. The depths they even lie to themselves.

Are there insane people that slip between the cracks where the way reality makes sense if it’s all a lie? I get the feeling we are living in an unsustainable population totally dependent on Pandora’s box of technology.

But have flat out paranoia in believing spherical earth is a lie. When one can actually prove to themselves the earth is not flat?

10 easy ways you can tell for yourself that the Earth is not flat

www.popsci.com...

So strange?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

One last point. I get people believing the conception of reality should be verified. Probable a better word than “challenge”. There is no challenging what is real.

But I get so tired of flat earths complaining those that believe in the Heliocentric model don’t “challenge” it. When in reality they don’t challenge their own geocentric model. A model that was determined to be a failure at predicting and explaining the observable reality about 400 years ago.

Hi Trub,
just read your answer to someone else

The most vulnerable part of the round Earth argument is right after a rocket launches up, and flies out of sight, over the ocean.

It is at that point when they must make sure that the rocket will never, ever be seen again, even though any half-wit would know that the rocket would still be completely visible from Earth.

Wondering if any of you "half-wit" flat earth groups could organise enough show that the rocket would still be completely visible from Earth?

OR is it impossible due to not having a map to follow any straight line a rocket is flying along.

a reply to: puzzled2

He doesn't understand the word "Orbit"

I assume he got his idea from loony toons, where orbit = space

a reply to: neutronflux

Question everything.

a reply to: solve

" question everything " ?

you say - that is good - if you actually acceot the answers that arise

the mantra has been hijacked - and is now widley used - not as it should be - but as a glib cop out - to reject anything a person does not want to accept

and at this point - they [ the new " question everything " porponents ] fail - they do not question everything - they just cherry pick - what they wish to reject

a video to watch -



its not directly about the flat earth - but the so called " Bielefeld conspiracy " has a;ll the elements you find in some flat earth " arguments "

enjoy

and ATS member " solve " - this is exactly where the " question everything " mantra fails

a reply to: solve

I have a strange world view as far as reality is concerned. I start with death. So far, death for the physical body is very real and final. Especially once one is committed to the grave or cremated. Then the loss of a biology arm is very real and permanent at this time. By extension anything that causes death or permanent disfigurement is very real. That means tornadoes, earthquakes, crashing meteorites, water that causes drownings, lack of food that causes famine, peoples’ actions that result in murder and death, car crashes that maim and kill result in a very real a permanent reality.

Then energy is very real. I am not saying energy cannot be converted into matter. But a human body cannot harness and handle enough power to think/will another human being into existence.

'They' never tell you where to see launches before the launch. Except....oh...

That's the orbital trajectory of the upcoming Starlink 7 launch. From here

www.satflare.com...

While we're on the subject, here's a comparison of two photos of the same starlink satellite taken at the same time, only 100 miles apart:

The one on the left is mine (lots of camera shake), the one on the right is a friend's.

Oh and just for fun, here's a stack of 3 images taken from the ISS of a starlink chain:

Not possible on a flat Earth.

And here it is:

SpaceX's latest launch, 9 images stacked into 1, as seen passing over my house exactly when it was supposed to on a trajectory that was advertised well in advance on the site I linked to in my previous post. Photos taken by me.

Any questions turbo?

I'll be out again later tonight and tomorrow to see the new satellite train pass over, exactly on schedule, thanks to orbital mechanics that only work on a globe Earth.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

cool - but might i sugest a new thread on your work - and " pro tips " for people that want to see it for them selves ?

we all know turbo-troll will just scream " fake " - and regurgitate one of his inane babblings

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Not a bad thought, and yes I can feel his knee winding up to jerk already. However he made a claim. It's been answered. Anyone reading the thread will be able to see his responses for what they are - unsubstantiated nonsense in the face of overwhelming and verifiable evidence.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Trub's handlers/guards/mummy will normally only let him have internet access every 3 days for about 2 hours.

if he states the great information provided is fake and refuses to supply any counter information then mods should just close the thread.

But we live in hope and perhaps he will actually study the resources before regurgitating FE propaganda.

originally posted by: neutronflux

If you fly over London then Paris, is 30,000 feet above sea level any different over Lindon than Paris? If 30,000 feet is maintained between the two cities, why would there be any vertical speed indication on the VSI? In either model?

I've already explained this...

Do you know what the VSI is used for on planes? It measures for ascent, descent, and level flight, in air, using air pressure around the plane during flight.

When a plane lifts off, the VSI measures it as an ascent. The altimeter measures it as altitude, which starts at 0 feet, or sea level, on the ground, and when the plane lifts off, the altitude goes higher and higher, as it ascends.

After the plane reaches cruising altitude, say 30,000 feet, they stop the ascent, and the VSI measures it as 0 fpm, or level flight, while the altitude is steady at 30,000 feet.

If the Earth was curved, a plane would have to FLY in a curved path, to stay at altitude, obviously.

You simply say 'if the plane flies 30,000 feet over both cities, why would the VSI measure anything different for either a curved surface, or a flat surface?' Because over a curved surface, to stay at 30,000 feet, the plane would have to DESCEND throughout the flight, to stay at 30,000 feet altitude, that's the crucial difference in a plane flying over a flat surface, which is the case, obviously.

It's impossible to fly over both surfaces at altitude the same way, therefore.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Shortwave radio

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Radio waves in the shortwave band can be reflected or refracted from a layer of electrically charged atoms in the atmosphere called the ionosphere. Therefore, short waves directed at an angle into the sky can be reflected back to Earth at great distances, beyond the horizon. This is called skywave or "skip" propagation. Thus shortwave radio can be used for very long distance communication, in contrast to radio waves of higher frequency which travel in straight lines (line-of-sight propagation) and are limited by the visual horizon, about 64 km (40 miles). Shortwave radio is used for broadcasting of voice and music to shortwave listeners over very large areas; sometimes entire continents or beyond. It is also used for military over-the-horizon radar, diplomatic communication, and two-way international communication by amateur radio enthusiasts for hobby, educational and emergency purposes, as well as for long-distance aviation and marine communications.

If the earth is flat. Why is there a different reception range for shortwave radio vs FM?

You think shortwaves have the exact same range as FM waves, then? Is that your argument here?

So what are you trying to argue here, since I have no idea, other than the above...


All waves on Earth, whether FM, AM, shortwave, microwave, or any other wave, which exists on Earth, they cannot 'bounce' off something they invented, as our 'ionosphere', a zone of Earth's atmosphere so distant, so high above Earth, that nobody can ever prove it exists, except for those who claim it exists, not a shred of proof it exists, and nobody can ever confirm their claim is true, or false, which is the whole point of claiming things nobody can ever prove, or test, or observe at all.

They have so many worthless claims, just like claiming an 'ionosphere' is air, but not the same air, yet is there, but so far above Earth, nobody knows about it, on Earth, except for the 'scientists', who have supremely powerful instruments, which nobody else has, or ever will have, either!

Saying we now have an instrument, based on radar technology, yet sees objects that are 'over the horizon', out of our view, nobody can see them, or detect them, before now....

What does 'over the horizon' mean, to those who termed an instrument 'OTH' radar?

We can already see some objects that are/were 'over the horizon', by using magnification, so what is 'OTH' supposed to mean, exactly? Seeing objects that are beyond the horizon, once meant objects out of our view, by eyesight. After it was still in view, simply using magnification, they said it wasn't claimed at all, only assumed to be their claim, which lasted for over 400 years, and often used today, but it is meant differently now, sort of...


They claim this instrument does, or can do, is exactly what they've claimed about shortwave - 'bounces' it's signals off the 'ionosphere', back to Earth!

It's just a different version of it, now.

Except they never said shortwave radios were/are 'OTH' instruments!


Shortwave signals are simply different than FM waves, which are different than AM waves, as we all know. They each have different frequencies, and emit different types of EM waves through the air, and they have different ranges.


The shortwave signals were a problem for ball-planet claims, however. Because shortwave signals prove Earth IS a flat surface, when it is capable of receiving radio signals from thousands of miles away, which cannot happen if Earth was a ball. The signals would never span over long distances, if Earth was actually a sphere.

That's why they had to make up something to excuse the truth, like they always have, and will always do in future... over and over again.

They suggest Earth's atmosphere is not only air, which varies in oxygen levels, from sea level, to higher altitudes, lesser the oxygen levels found... But that's a well proven fact, obviously.

And we already know that the air, at any levels above Earth, do NOT 'bounce' signals back to Earth, when we point them upward!

So they invented 'layers' of air, called it the 'atmosphere', and one of the layers - called the 'ionosphere' - will conveniently have the ability to 'bounce' certain signals back to Earth.... who figured?!?




There is no proof, no valid evidence, for an 'ionosphere' even existing above the Earth, let alone being some sort of 'bouncing' layer, to boot!!

They've lied from day one, and have lied ever since, without fail.


We can easily tell if a claim is legitimate, or at least may be legitimate, from any claims which are purely made up, faked, invented....

But one must look honestly at those claims, first of all.

When they claim rockets fly up into 'orbit', for over 50 years, how does anyone believe the first 3-4 minutes would ever prove their claim is true? There is nothing to prove their claim at all.

If I claimed to have a flying car, but told you where to see the car speed away on a highway, for the first 3-4 minutes, as it goes out of sight, would you believe me? What if I later showed you a few clips of my car, flying in air? Would you believe me after that?
The simple fact is without any valid evidence of a flying car, nobody would ever believe my claim is true, unless it is actually seen by everyone, filmed by people who are present to witness all of it, shot from various angles, too.
After all, you'd be able to see my flying car, when it actually goes from the ground, and fly in air, which proves my claim is true, without any doubts, because all of you saw it, and filmed it, in person, at the scene..

If I don't tell you where to see my car as it actually begins to fly up into the air, when I have no reason for NOT telling you where to see my car fly into air, there is no way you'd believe my claim. NASA's claim is even worse

a reply to: turbonium1

Turb you haven't addressed overcoming falling out of the sky.

You avoid every question I ask - why ?

You need to get more real flat world proof that doesn't involve modern technology.

a reply to: turbonium1

Wow. Just wow. Your level of denial is just staggering. Is there no branch of science about which you are proud to declare your absolute ignorance?

The ionosphere was first identified in 1924. A Nobel Prize was awarded for it.

link.springer.com...

www.nobelprize.org...

It has been empirically proven to exist. Ham radio enthusiasts use it all the time.

As for this crock:

If I don't tell you where to see my car as it actually begins to fly up into the air, when I have no reason for NOT telling you where to see my car fly into air, there is no way you'd believe my claim. NASA's claim is even worse

Everyone can now see that you're being deliberately dishonest and wilfully obtuse. Rocket launch locations are clearly publicised and well attended. Orbital trajectories for those launches are known and publicised in advance. The fact that they are known and publicised means that when one is launched in Florida I (along with many many other people) am able to go and photograph it exactly where it was predicted to be 20 minutes later. You conveniently ignored my posts demonstrating what an absolute fabrication your nonsensical posts are.

Your claims are baseless, devoid of facts and logical thought and can only be deliberately trolling. No-one is this stupid.

I looked at a crecent Venus last night through my small telescope. It kept moving out of view. My other scope with its equatorial mount and tracking motor would have fixed that. Why? Explain how that would work on a flat Earth (short answer - it doesn't).

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
'They' never tell you where to see launches before the launch. Except....oh...

That's the orbital trajectory of the upcoming Starlink 7 launch. From here

www.satflare.com...

While we're on the subject, here's a comparison of two photos of the same starlink satellite taken at the same time, only 100 miles apart:

The one on the left is mine (lots of camera shake), the one on the right is a friend's.

Oh and just for fun, here's a stack of 3 images taken from the ISS of a starlink chain:

Not possible on a flat Earth.

Thanks for even more of this garbage, but I asked for a flight path of a rocket, like Saturn V's, or any one, or a future launch like SpaceX in May, so on...

They always mention where to see rockets when you cannot see anything but a light in dark night skies, but for some odd reason, they never mention where to see a rocket after it launches, BEFORE that.

Would you like to see a rocket fly longer than just the first 3-4 minutes?

Sorry, nobody will ever see it. Do you know why not? Sure you do.


And yet, it's not a secret, right?

You live in a fantasy land, sadly.

a reply to: turbonium1

AND I ASKED YOU FOR A FLIGHT PATH THAT YOU SAID EXISTED FOR A PLANE AND YOU HAVEN'T REPLIED.

You are incapable of answering anything asked directly of you. Yes You live in a fantasy land, sadly.