Jump to content

Hard to find evidence that the earth isn't flat


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, amy G said:

Many who join these threads do not even know the story they are trying to support.

but thats not you, right?

 

33 minutes ago, amy G said:

Not only is our solar system a basically flat plane, but up until recently, so was our entire galaxy. Now they tell us at something like 25,000 light years our galaxy is warped, but still a basically flat plane.

wrong. current scientific evidence shows that all galaxies are spherical, even our own galaxy is shown to have a spherical plasma sheath, spiral forms where matter agglomerates simply attract the eye, but are not the whole structure

 

33 minutes ago, amy G said:

The basic idea from our masonic masters boils down to:

Solar Systems/Galaxies are flat because of the rotation of the central mass

so what? just because they are wrong doesnt make you right

 

you are both wrong

Edited by killing raven sun
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

not sure which is worse, flat earth trolls or those that argue with them   think about it, if you have studied as i have then you know the flat earth stuff is a sign of serious mental defect

Problem is not in you being ok to understand. This is a very obvious thing to anyone who uses their head.       It is at sea level and has flow with tides. You are very ign

By 'scientific minded', I meand natural philosophers who look at nature and observe it for the love of the wisdom it provides.   You have mistaken my words to mean 'scientifically minded' in

Posted Images

VHF Comms / radar - both operate Line of Sight

 

Over the ocean - so theres no hills maintains skyscrapers 

 

At a few hundred feet it will see (or talk to) a ship 30 miles away

At 30 00 ft it can see a ship 160 miles away 

 

If the Earth were flat  the range of the radar / VHF would be no different whether you are at 1000 ft or 30 000 ft .

 

Since height affects range its clear something interferes at low height tie the cutvature of the earth.

 

Explain that scientifically, without resorting to - its a lie / thats what youre told to believe - then i will consider the possibility of a flat earth

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, alexa said:

 

By reading God's word and listening to that little voice in side of you, it's called being discerning.

if by 'gods word' you mean the bible then i think you have been mislead, an all powerful god would provide a much more coherent message, for instance the laws of nature, whereas the bible is just a collection of mans tales

 

Quote

As Ehrman notes above, far from being determined by one council and an emperor in 325 AD, the formation of the Christian canon was one of slow development over several centuries.  The whole idea of a “canon” of accepted and authoritative works pre-dates Christianity and began with the development of schools of Greek philosophy.  As works by key philosophers circulated in the decades after their deaths, other works wrongly or falsely attributed to them also found their way into circulation.  So later followers of some philosophical traditions developed rules by which they decided which works were genuine and which were pseudepigraphical forgeries – the word “canon” comes from the Greek κανών meaning “rule”, or literally “measuring stick”.

By the early second century Christianity had a similar problem, with a wide range of texts, letters and gospels in circulation all claiming to be authentic works of the first generation of Christians.  Any given isolated Christian community may well have known of some of them but not others. They may also have had copies of a few of them, but have only heard of others (since copies of any books were expensive and precious). And they may also have used a variety of other writings, many of which did not find their way into the Bible. There was no single, central “Church” which dictated these things at this early stage – each community operated in either relative isolation or intermittent communication with other communities and there were no standardised texts or a set list of which texts were authoritative and which were not at this very early stage of the Christian faith.

Christianity’s parent faith, Judaism, had a similar plethora of religious texts from which it chose a few and considered these to be “Scripture” and especially authoritative as the word of God.  There is evidence that this idea was beginning to be applied to some of the early Christian writings as well, with references to four definitive gospels being made by Irenaeus in the mid second century and a reference to interpretation of the letters of Paul alongside “the rest of the Scriptures” being made as early as c. 120 AD (see 2Peter 3:16).

But it seems that the “heresy” of Marcion was what gave second century Christianity the impetus to begin to define which of these various texts had the status of “Scripture” and which did not.  Marcion was born around 100 AD in the city of Sinope on the southern coast of the Black Sea. After a falling out with his father, the local bishop, he travelled to Rome in around 139 AD. There he began to develop his own Christian theology; one which was quite different to that of his father and of the Christian community in Rome. Marcion was struck by the strong distinction made by Paul between the Law of the Jews and the gospel of Christ. For Marcion, this distinction was absolute: the coming of Jesus made the whole of the Jewish Law and Jewish Scriptures redundant and the ‘God’ of the Jews was actually quite different to the God preached by Jesus. For Marcion, the Jewish God was evil, vengeful, violent and judgemental, while the God of Jesus was quite the opposite. Marcion decided that there were actually two Gods – the evil one who had misled the Jews and the good one revealed by Jesus.

This understanding led Marcion to put together a canon of Christian Scripture – the first of its kind – which excluded all of the Jewish Scriptures that make up the Old Testament and which included ten of the Epistles of Paul and only one of the gospels: the Gospel of Luke.

Marcion tried to get his radical reassessment of Christianity and his canon accepted by calling a council of the Christian community in Rome. Far from accepting his teachings, the council excommunicated him and he left Rome in disgust, returning to Asia Minor. There he met with far more success, and Marcionite churches sprang up which embraced his idea of two Gods and used his canon of eleven scriptural works. Alarmed at his success, other Christian leaders began to preach and write vigorously against Marcion’s ideas and it seems that his canon of eleven works inspired anti-Marcionite Christians to begin to define which texts were and were not Scriptural.

As mentioned above, it was Irenaeus who made the first know defence of the four canonical gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – as the oldest and only scriptural ones, and he did so at least partially on the grounds that these four had always been regarded as the earliest and most authoritative.   Interestingly, after two centuries of sceptical analysis, the overwhelming majority of historians, scholars and textual experts (Christian or otherwise) actually agree with Irenaeus and the consensus is that these four gospels definitely are the earliest of the accounts of Jesus’ life.

Not long after Irenaeus’ defence of the four canonical gospels we get our first evidence of a defined list of which texts are scriptural. A manuscript called the Muratorian Canon dates to sometime in the late second century AD and was discovered in a library in Milan in the eighteenth century. It details that the canonical four gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – along with most of the other books found in the modern New Testament, as well as a couple which are not (the Wisdom of Solomon and the Apocalypse of Peter) are ‘scriptural’ and authoritative. It also gives some approval to other, more recent works like The Shepherd of Hermas, but says they should not be read in church as Scripture.

The Muratorian Canon document accepts twenty-three of the twenty-seven works which now make up the New Testament in the Bible. It also explicitly rejects several books on the grounds that they are recent and written by fringe, “heretical” groups and it specifically singles out works by the Gnostic leader Valentius and by Marcion and his followers.

It seems that the challenge posed by Marcion and other dissident groups caused the early Christians to determine which books were scriptural and which were not. And it also seems that recent works, whether they were “heretical” (like the Gnostic gospels) or not (like The Shepherd of Hermas), did not have the status of works from the earliest years of Christianity. It was only these earliest works which were considered authoritative

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2020 at 5:58 PM, Eldnah said:

VHF Comms / radar - both operate Line of Sight

 

Over the ocean - so theres no hills maintains skyscrapers 

 

At a few hundred feet it will see (or talk to) a ship 30 miles away

At 30 00 ft it can see a ship 160 miles away 

 

If the Earth were flat  the range of the radar / VHF would be no different whether you are at 1000 ft or 30 000 ft .

 

Since height affects range its clear something interferes at low height tie the cutvature of the earth.

 

Explain that scientifically, without resorting to - its a lie / thats what youre told to believe - then i will consider the possibility of a flat earth

Curvature affects nothing. Line of sight transmissions are just that. And this thread is about finding evidence that the Earth is not flat. No one can do that because if they could have, they would have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, amy G said:

Curvature affects nothing. Line of sight transmissions are just that.

 

Line of sight range increases if the height of 1 or both xcvrs increases.   I know this to be a fact as i work with these systems 

Over the ocean - this can only be explained by a curved earth - If the earth were flat it would make no differrence

 

 

Quote

And this thread is about finding evidence that the Earth is not flat.

 

And the above is one piece of evidence 

 

Then theres the whole distance between 2 points lat long business.

 

Quote

No one can do that because if they could have, they would have.

 

 

They have 

 

What you mean is You wont accept the evidence and as demonstrated above - you dismiss it of hand because it doesnt fit youre narrative 

 

The earth isnt flat - the evidence is conclusive.

 

Doing the internet equivelant of Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling la la la I cant hear you - means you cant see/hear the evidence - It does not mean it doesnt exist.

 

 

 

Edited by Eldnah
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, amy G said:

Curvature affects nothing. Line of sight transmissions are just that. And this thread is about finding evidence that the Earth is not flat. No one can do that because if they could have, they would have.

 

You were told that the line of sight is more at higher altitude. This is proven with no efforts. It is not possible with a flat surface to see more at higher altitude - if you wish to claim another explanation, draw the ray diagram.

 

@EldnahA perfect example that is also not disputable is from ships at sea - the crow's nest. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eldnah said:

 

Line of sight range increases if the height of 1 or both xcvrs increases.   I know this to be a fact as i work with these systems 

Over the ocean - this can only be explained by a curved earth - If the earth were flat it would make no differrence

 

 

 

And the above is one piece of evidence 

 

Then theres the whole distance between 2 points lat long business.

 

 

 

They have 

 

What you mean is You wont accept the evidence and as demonstrated above - you dismiss it of hand because it doesnt fit youre narrative 

 

The earth isnt flat - the evidence is conclusive.

 

Doing the internet equivelant of Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling la la la I cant hear you - means you cant see/hear the evidence - It does not mean it doesnt exist.

 

 

 

Another case of not knowing the story you are supporting. In 1901 when the first radio signal was sent and received across the Atlantic ocean, the ionosphere was invented as a way to explain away how line of sight transmissions can be received so far past the horizon.

 

I was not sure at first what to make of this until I came across interesting work regarding transmissions from the BT tower in Birmingham to London. The video no longer exists as the channel was removed by youtube. But the work was mirrored and you will see that no towers are high enough for your story to hold water. This point of yours is actually stand alone proof of our flat earth.

Timestamped:

 

 

You should also consider what towers are high enough for this to happen:

 

 

 

Edited by amy G
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, amy G said:

Another case of not knowing the story you are supporting.

 

Not at all - 

 

What it is, is another example of you either not reading the posts / ignoring inconvinient facts / not understanding whats been said.

 

There is a reason I restricted my comments to the VHF / UHF range and avoided both sea level and the Ionosphere - and that is because

 

1) ULF / HF can be bounced off the Ionosphere and thus are not strictly Line of sight systems - yes i know you are claiming its fake but your videos deliberatly  ignore that it only applies to a certain frequency range - in other words it lies by ommission.  

 

2) at sea level in certain conditions there can be some  odd effects - also HF can propogate as a ground wave as well as such with HF you can get a spot where you are to close to get a radio signal and to far for a ground wave.  

 

As you can see I attempted to keep it narrowly focused on strictly  Line of sight Systems - to avoid you getting confused and running down this rabbit hole. Unfortunatly you did it anyway.

 

 

Its odd that as somebody who claimed to work in aerospace on another thread you are blissfully unaware that transatlantic aircraft carried both VHF and HF radios - given how tight they are for weight and space you would think that if  Line of Sight was possible mid Atlantic then they wouldnt bother with HF sets.

 

HF is only carried on the likes of transatlantic because VHF doesnt work over those distances and thats because there is no Line of Sight because - the horizon blocks it - because earth isnt flat.

 

Well done youre video has proven round earth 

 

Then theres sunspots, Diurnal affects -  Differences between day and night propogation - non of which really impinge upon VHF but can screw around with lower frequencies. 

 

Edit

As for the BT tower video - since the individual is ignoring the antennas on the roof and measuring from the antenna half way down its filed under B1N

Edited by Eldnah
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eldnah said:

 

Not at all - 

 

What it is, is another example of you either not reading the posts / ignoring inconvinient facts / not understanding whats been said.

 

There is a reason I restricted my comments to the VHF / UHF range and avoided both sea level and the Ionosphere - and that is because

 

1) ULF / HF can be bounced off the Ionosphere and thus are not strictly Line of sight systems - yes i know you are claiming its fake but your videos deliberatly  ignore that it only applies to a certain frequency range - in other words it lies by ommission.  

 

2) at sea level in certain conditions there can be some  odd effects - also HF can propogate as a ground wave as well as such with HF you can get a spot where you are to close to get a radio signal and to far for a ground wave.  

 

As you can see I attempted to keep it narrowly focused on strictly  Line of sight Systems - to avoid you getting confused and running down this rabbit hole. Unfortunatly you did it anyway.

 

 

Its odd that as somebody who claimed to work in aerospace on another thread you are blissfully unaware that transatlantic aircraft carried both VHF and HF radios - given how tight they are for weight and space you would think that if  Line of Sight was possible mid Atlantic then they wouldnt bother with HF sets.

 

HF is only carried on the likes of transatlantic because VHF doesnt work over those distances and thats because there is no Line of Sight because - the horizon blocks it - because earth isnt flat.

 

Well done youre video has proven round earth 

 

Then theres sunspots, Diurnal affects -  Differences between day and night propogation - non of which really impinge upon VHF but can screw around with lower frequencies. 

 

Edit

As for the BT tower video - since the individual is ignoring the antennas on the roof and measuring from the antenna half way down its filed under B1N

All your beliefs aside, have a nice day and thank-you for another fantastic illustration of our stationary, non-globular earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, amy G said:

I dont understand basic Physics and so i will now dismiss all those facts presented because they dont agree with a you tube video.

 

 Youre welcome 

 

 

Edit

 

Mods  Can we not change the thread title to 

Easy to ignore evidence Earth isnt Flat.

Edited by Eldnah
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2020 at 5:58 PM, Eldnah said:

VHF Comms / radar - both operate Line of Sight

Keep this in mind.

 

On 11/4/2020 at 5:58 PM, Eldnah said:

At a few hundred feet it will see (or talk to) a ship 30 miles away

How many hundred?

 

On 11/4/2020 at 5:58 PM, Eldnah said:

At 30 00 ft it can see a ship 160 miles away 

30 or 3000?

 

You can be as adamant (and dishonest) as you like as you destroy your own arguments. The horizon for an observer at 30 feet in your world is only 6.7 miles away... at 3000 feet, the horizon must be only about 67 miles away.

 

 

On 11/4/2020 at 5:58 PM, Eldnah said:

If the Earth were flat  the range of the radar / VHF would be no different whether you are at 1000 ft or 30 000 ft .

False. You keep assuming the only limitation of is curvature when several factors play a role.

 

2 hours ago, Eldnah said:

As for the BT tower video - since the individual is ignoring the antennas on the roof and measuring from the antenna half way down its filed under B1N

You obviously replied before even watching it. Everything was taken into consideration that was relevant, the antenna not withstanding. The bottom line was that the London tower would have to have been some 2km higher than where it actually stands and no one can ever explain this stand alone proof away.

 

Btw, another common tactic used by those wishing to stifle legitimate debate is to intentionally change what a person said that you have just pretended you quoted. That, coupled with you accusing me of exactly what you are guilty of, which is another, is quite telling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, amy G said:

Keep this in mind.

 

As I raised the point im not likely to forget it

 

24 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

How many hundred?

 

Dont know i cant remember the equation - and since its only used as a rough demonstrative value its not important enough for me to google

 

 

24 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

30 or 3000?

 

You can be as adamant (and dishonest) as you like as you destroy your own arguments. The horizon for an observer at 30 feet in your world is only 6.7 miles away... at 3000 feet, the horizon must be only about 67 miles away.

 

30 000 - Typo on my part although it would have been self evident to most

 

 

24 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

False. You keep assuming the only limitation of is curvature when several factors play a role.

 

Wrong - It is however the most significant in the frequency and height ranges were discussing - see my point AGAIN about avoiding none LOS frequencies and atmospheric effects.

 

 

24 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

You obviously replied before even watching it. Everything was taken into consideration that was relevant, the antenna not withstanding. The bottom line was that the London tower would have to have been some 2km higher than where it actually stands and no one can ever explain this stand alone proof away.

No i shut it off as bollox about half way through

 

24 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

Btw, another common tactic used by those wishing to stifle legitimate debate is to intentionally change what a person said that you have just pretended you quoted.

 

Since my edit was clearly parody  rather than distorting your words - that doesnt apply - nobody is going to thnk you really said that

 

24 minutes ago, amy G said:

That, coupled with you accusing me of exactly what you are guilty of, which is another, is quite telling.

 

You posted a video - that i debunked - you simply ignore evidence - im countering it with facts it really isnt the same 

 

For example

I made a point about VHF and Line of sight

You responded with a video 

The video refers to lower frequency radio - it then states the ionosphere effect  is a lie its all line of sight.

I pointed out that this isnt VHF radio and i specifically limited my examples to VHF because HF is not LoS limited.

 

I then explained that the video is  taking 1 frequency band and claiming that because its seen beyond the range a curved earth would allow it proves the earths flat.

This is flawed because it doesnt work for other frequency bands - which the video does not adress at all.

 

I then cited aviation as an example where 2 radio types are required because VHF cannot cover transatlantic distances wheras HF can

 

To which youve said la la la I cant hear you.

 

 

If the earths flat Why does an HF radio on an aircraft have a range of thousands of miles and yet a VHF only hundreds .

 

For a round earth the explanation VHF is LoS Limited and HF isnt - works.

 

As a radio Engineer Im going to trust my training and experience over a you tube video published by someone who isnt even aware of the different ranges of frequency bands.

 

 

 

 

As an aside - I didnt accuse you of lying - youve thrown that my way - which i unsuprisng as Liar racist Fascist Shill - tend to be the usual responses by those unable to challenge a point

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eldnah said:

30 000 - Typo on my part although it would have been self evident to most

Self evident to those who don't know the horizon would then be over 200 miles away and your claim was seeing boats that were 160 miles away. What size sphere were you on when this occurred as it surely could not be one with a radius of 3,959 miles.

 

1 hour ago, Eldnah said:

As a radio Engineer Im going to trust my training and experience

I used to believe like this, but no longer do. It is your education that is the problem as it was your proffesors and theirs before them.

 

This is the most important and pervasive PSYOP of all as if it were to come to light, everything would have to change. There would be the greatest paradigm shift in history. The depths they have gone to to protect this lie includes the absolute destruction of anything resembling an education system.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, amy G said:

Self evident to those who don't know the horizon would then be over 200 miles away and your claim was seeing boats that were 160 miles away.

 

What size sphere were you on when this occurred as it surely could not be one with a radius of 3,959 miles.

 

Nice try  - but as ive already pointed out - I used very rough figures for illustration** - the points stilll valid  - vhf 'sees' a lot further at height 

 

**Admittadly here i had changed from 200 odd Miles to 160 ish  because I had a KM related brain fart - dont drink and post . Note i talk of VHF range as a few hundred.

 

 

13 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

I used to believe like this, but no longer do. It is your education that is the problem as it was your proffesors and theirs before them.

 

This is the most important and pervasive PSYOP of all as if it were to come to light, everything would have to change. There would be the greatest paradigm shift in history. The depths they have gone to to protect this lie includes the absolute destruction of anything resembling an education system.

 

Youve evaded the question again

 

Numbers simply illustrative and very ish

 

At 30K ft 

HF sees 2000NM

UHF sees 200NM 

 

Why the differrence if both are reliant of Line of Sight and the Earths flat 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/7/2020 at 3:10 PM, Eldnah said:

 

Nice try  - but as ive already pointed out - I used very rough figures for illustration** - the points stilll valid  - vhf 'sees' a lot further at height 

 

**Admittadly here i had changed from 200 odd Miles to 160 ish  because I had a KM related brain fart - dont drink and post . Note i talk of VHF range as a few hundred.

 

 

 

Youve evaded the question again

 

Numbers simply illustrative and very ish

 

At 30K ft 

HF sees 2000NM

UHF sees 200NM 

 

Why the differrence if both are reliant of Line of Sight and the Earths flat 

  

On 11/7/2020 at 3:10 PM, Eldnah said:

 

Nice try  - but as ive already pointed out - I used very rough figures for illustration** - the points stilll valid  - vhf 'sees' a lot further at height 

 

**Admittadly here i had changed from 200 odd Miles to 160 ish  because I had a KM related brain fart - dont drink and post . Note i talk of VHF range as a few hundred.

 

 

 

Youve evaded the question again

 

Numbers simply illustrative and very ish

 

At 30K ft 

HF sees 2000NM

UHF sees 200NM 

 

Why the differrence if both are reliant of Line of Sight and the Earths flat 

Look, you have been caught at least twice posting fake numbers and then arguing with yourself. Recently, we had a poster who used this same technique to stifle legitimate debate. There appears to be a team here, carefully controlled to use this same behavior. In one case you claimed it was simply a typo and in another you claimed that you woke up and started drinking which actually makes sense as this is the only time anyone feels the 'spin' of the Earth.

 

Now, above you make more claims that you have yet to demonstrate and obviously, I'm not wasting time here any longer. I will point out for you a few obvious problems and hopefully leave it at that. If you are using "NM" for nautical miles, you need to prove their existence. All you are doing here is committing one of the most basic logical fallacies known. We call this "begging the question." You cannot assume an answer. This renders, from a logical standpoint, your argument invalid.

 

Then, you appear to believe that HF transmissions are being received at over 2000 miles after claiming you wanted to focus specifically on line of sight transmissions. Think about that. Laughable.

 

As far as the difference in your numbers, as explained there are multiple factors in play and assuming a geometric horizon or a physical barrier is the only solution is not science. This alone shows a lack of the most basic understanding of what science is even about.

 

In short, we have seen the Earth's radius (r) falsified over and over and over again. If we did live on this spinning, wobbling pear-shaped, oblate spheroid or whatever else they want to claim, it must be shown and cannot be... never has been. Lasers are being shot over lakes for several miles, directly into to camera lenses on the other side.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, amy G said:

  

Look, you have been caught at least twice posting fake numbers and then arguing with yourself. Recently, we had a poster who used this same technique to stifle legitimate debate.

 

No I havent

Posting rough numbers isnt fake or stiffling debate - it means  rough numbers are used to to illustrate the point - 

Since im perfectly clear that they are very rough and over simplified and used for illustrative purposes then its clear theres no sleight of hand involved.

 

 

37 minutes ago, amy G said:

There appears to be a team here, carefully controlled to use this same behavior.

 

Ah the usual - you didnt agree with me so youre a team if Mossad agents etc.

 

37 minutes ago, amy G said:

In one case you claimed it was simply a typo and in another you claimed that you woke up and started drinking which actually makes sense as this is the only time anyone feels the 'spin' of the Earth.

 

At no point did I claim to have woke up and started drinking - youve missread that.

 

When someones talking about high altitude and writing 3000 its pretty clear  that theres a typo 

 

What you are doing is reverting to - a simple error means i can focus on that to pretend everything is false 

You cant its a childish position and no one respects it.

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

Now, above you make more claims that you have yet to demonstrate and obviously, I'm not wasting time here any longer. I will point out for you a few obvious problems and hopefully leave it at that.

 

Translates into I cannot dispute the point with facts

37 minutes ago, amy G said:

If you are using "NM" for nautical miles, you need to prove their existence. All you are doing here is committing one of the most basic logical fallacies known. We call this "begging the question." You cannot assume an answer. This renders, from a logical standpoint, your argument invalid.

 

Can you Prove a statute mile exists or a kilometre or an inch - exactly all measurements exist.

 

Ergo a nautical mile exists as its 1800(ish) Meters - therefore in exactly the same way as you can measure a kilometre you can measure a nautical mile as a unit of distance

 

So youre argument is false - What you really mean is prove that 1mn is 1° of Arc at the equater - which i probably cant to your satisfaction - but that doesnt stop the NM existing - it just makes it as arbitery as a statute mile - a kilometre a litre a gallon etc ie weve chosen a unit.

 

 

50 minutes ago, amy G said:

  

Then, you appear to believe that HF transmissions are being received at over 2000 miles after claiming you wanted to focus specifically on line of sight transmissions. Think about that. Laughable.

 

So what you are doing here is pretending that because I refferred to one frequency range - to keep it simple - that ive introduced another - except i didnt - You introduced the other giving me no choice but to address it . 

 

Brilliant on your part - 

I wish to discuss x only

what about Y

Y is different because...

Oh right so you want to talk about Y now 

 

Unfortunatly you also fail to grasp the point that HF isnt reliant on  line of sight and thats why its fitted to long haul aircraft.

 

50 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

As far as the difference in your numbers, as explained there are multiple factors in play and assuming a geometric horizon or a physical barrier is the only solution is not science. This alone shows a lack of the most basic understanding of what science is even about.

 

There are no other explanations as to why Line of sight increases significantly if one or transmitter is airborne 

 

You can obsfucate all you want - but you have not yet suggested a single reason why this would be the case on a flat earth .

 

You keep claiming it is but you have not offerred a single explanation.

 

50 minutes ago, amy G said:

 

In short, we have seen the Earth's radius (r) falsified over and over and over again. If we did live on this spinning, wobbling pear-shaped, oblate spheroid or whatever else they want to claim, it must be shown and cannot be... never has been. Lasers are being shot over lakes for several miles, directly into to camera lenses on the other side.

 

Hardly a helpful claim - what relevance are they on the surface or 100M above it , are they both at the same height - how longs the several miles 

 

wothout knowing that - youve simply made another claim but theres no facts or evidence as to why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How high is the bulge between any two points?

 

1. On Wikipedia, the circumference of the earth is 24,901.461 miles.

2. The radius of the sphere can be calculated from C=2πr (r=C/2π = 3963.19060836 miles)

 

Now for some geometry...

(before we begin the greek symbol "θ" is pronounced "theeta")

circogeo.png.f36391a9b91007a4a3ab706cf46054e7.png

The above squiggle is generic to a circle. I feel like Bill Gates as I have just sliced the earth in two and the red circle is the cross section. Its red because all the people on the surface are splattering blood over my nicely drawn circle.

 

So the kite inside the circle has three long lines all of which are r (the radius). The kite outside the circle is the same kite but the middle radial is split in two by the direct line between the two points on the earth there is a bulge between. The longer portion of that line is adjacent to the angle of a  right angled triangle with a hypotenuse equal to the radius. Its length can is calculable by cos(θ)=A/H (A=H.cos(θ) = r.cos(θ)). This is the length of the big long section of the middle line. The full line length is r and we are interested in the little dinky part of the line. Since the full length is r and the rest of the length is r.cos(θ), then it stands to reason that the little dinky part has a length of "r - r.cos(θ)".

 

3. The height of the bulge between two points on the earths surface is r-r.cos(θ).

 

 

That θ thing is what will be used for measuring the distance but its actually an angle. If we were one quarter of the earths circumference away from one another then that would be one quarter of 360 degrees (90 degrees). θ is only the half distance so its value would only be 45 degrees. One quarter of the earths corcumference is 90 degrees and since the circumference is by the very first premise of this whole comment 24,901 miles then one quarter of that is something like 6,225 miles. So if we were quarter of the circumference apart then 2θ would be a quarter of a 360 degree circle.

 

The above diagram is designed so that 2θ is 45 degrees and the two points with the bulge between them is around 3,112 miles.

 

To calculate θ based on a distance between two points, you take the miles (lets say 50 miles apart) and divide it by the circumference (24,901 miles) then multiply this by 360 degrees so the ratio is in degrees. That number of degrees is the angular distance (2θ) between two points so divide that by two and you now have θ.

 

4. θ=the distance between two points (d) divided by the circumference of the earth (C) multiplied by 180 degrees. (θ=180.d/C)

 

To calculate the height of the bulge (B), you bring 1,2,3,4 together and you get

 

5. B=r-r.cos(θ)=r(1-cos(θ))=(C/2π).(1-cos(180.d/C))

 

So for any distance d, the height of the bulge B between two points on the earth with circumference C can always be calculated with

 

B=(C/2π).(1-cos(180.d/C))

 

C and π are constants (the earths circumference and pi. How accurate the value you plug into this forumula depends on what data you have for them.

 

Lets take Amy's 67 mile photography. Get your calculator out

 

B=(C/2π).(1-cos(180.d/C))

B=(24901.461/6.283185307).(1-cos(180(67/24901.461))

B=(3963.19060836).(1-cos(180(0.002690605)))

B=(3963.19060836).(1-cos(0.484308933))

(is your calculator set to do trig in degrees not radians or gradians?)

B=(3963.19060836).(1-0.999964275)

B=(3963.19060836).(0.000035725)

B=0.141583314 miles

 

Thats a 747 foot high bulge that should be apparent on the earths surface. Get you're eye as close to the floor as possible. You're eye is about half an inch above the ground. Even if the ground was sea level, you won't be able to see very far.

 

Either Amy is quite tall, or her partner in crime is quite tall or they are both quite tall and standing on top of something high enough to let them see over the 747 foot high bulge between them. On a flat plane, the bulge being midway between the two, one of them would have to be standing at least twice that height above the other. They are both looking like the are quite near the water. The video looks like it could actually be taken at the place its supposed to be taken at. I don't see that bulge.

 

I'm looking at the stars at night going round in circles and there is a kind of spherical look to who whole thing up there in the night sky but with the application of maths, the model of the earth being a sphere looks like it doesn't add up. I don't know why that is but that's how it appears to be regardless of what those who have looked at it claim its supposed to be like. I've been on a plane once and way up there in the international airspace it looks as flat as a very big pancake.

 

Either the figures are wrong or Amys (and other peoples) videos are fake or my maths is rubbish or something but something doesn't add up and I can guarantee you that people who worked out what was really going on, would keep it to themself. It wouldnt be all over the media keeping everyone informed. If theres an Emit Brown with time travelling delorean going about, he doesnt mention a thing to a world that is full of biffs. "Do you know you are required to have a license for that time machine? You dont have a licence? Oh we will need to impound it as punishment for not paying a licence fee)." Intelligent people are not going to put up with that shit. They will find ways around it, and as for the legalised theft of the value of important discoveries, well they cant steal what they dont know is there to be stolen.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eldnah said:

No I havent

Posting rough numbers isnt fake or stiffling debate - it means  rough numbers are used to to illustrate the point - 

Since im perfectly clear that they are very rough and over simplified and used for illustrative purposes then its clear theres no sleight of hand involved.

BS. It is to waste people's time. I give every poster the benefit of the doubt until they prove they are not worthm my time.

 

3 hours ago, Eldnah said:

 

Ah the usual - you didnt agree with me so youre a team if Mossad agents etc.

Straw man... another technique to waste time and derail threads.

 

3 hours ago, Eldnah said:

What you are doing is reverting to - a simple error means i can focus on that to pretend everything is false 

You cant its a childish position and no one respects it.

BS. I google what you post, it's clearly wrong, so I'm done showing you.

 

3 hours ago, Eldnah said:

Translates into I cannot dispute the point with facts

Nope... it is what I said... stop trying to put words in my mouth.

 

3 hours ago, Eldnah said:

Can you Prove a statute mile exists or a kilometre or an inch - exactly all measurements exist.

 

Ergo a nautical mile exists as its 1800(ish) Meters - therefore in exactly the same way as you can measure a kilometre you can measure a nautical mile as a unit of distance

 

So youre argument is false - What you really mean is prove that 1mn is 1° of Arc at the equater - which i probably cant to your satisfaction - but that doesnt stop the NM existing - it just makes it as arbitery as a statute mile - a kilometre a litre a gallon etc ie weve chosen a unit.

Missing the point on purpose is yet another technique used to stifle debate. You are on a roll. Nautical miles are a fantasy made up to convince people of BS. This pretends their PSYOP is intact.

 

3 hours ago, Eldnah said:

So what you are doing here is pretending that because I refferred to one frequency range - to keep it simple - that ive introduced another - except i didnt - You introduced the other giving me no choice but to address it . 

 

Brilliant on your part - 

I wish to discuss x only

what about Y

Y is different because...

Oh right so you want to talk about Y now 

 

Unfortunatly you also fail to grasp the point that HF isnt reliant on  line of sight and thats why its fitted to long haul aircraft.

I failed to grasp nothing. You have moved the goalposts again and again. Line of sight or bouncing off the ionosphere does not matter until r is demonstrated. Hell, go ahead send a radio signal from one side of Everest to the other by pointing up and bouncing the signal back down the other side. I showed this myself and then it was you who claimed just line of sight was what you were interested in while demonstrating NOTHING.

 

3 hours ago, Eldnah said:

There are no other explanations as to why Line of sight increases significantly if one or transmitter is airborne 

 

You can obsfucate all you want - but you have not yet suggested a single reason why this would be the case on a flat earth .

 

You keep claiming it is but you have not offerred a single explanation.

Yawn, denser atmosphere for one, different signals for another, let alone a maximum distance of propagation. And I am still not believing you until you demonstrate actual distances of your claims nor will I google anything else for you.

 

3 hours ago, Eldnah said:

Hardly a helpful claim - what relevance are they on the surface or 100M above it , are they both at the same height - how longs the several miles 

 

wothout knowing that - youve simply made another claim but theres no facts or evidence as to why.

I do know. These laser test videos falsifying r have been posted numerous times. There is a thread here, over 130 pages long that you should read before coming back here.

 

 

 

 

And now gone of course, but this was over 16 miles from about 5 feet above the water:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI8kdz79yyw

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steph said:

Either the figures are wrong or Amys (and other peoples) videos are fake or my maths is rubbish or something but something doesn't add up...

I faked nothing. Your math is on point. It can't add up because there is no way we live on a sphere with a radius of 3,959 miles. This is so simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2020 at 9:31 PM, amy G said:

BS. It is to waste people's time. I give every poster the benefit of the doubt until they prove they are not worthm my time.

 

Snipped 

 

Because basically its another tiresome load of drivel 

Accusing me of moving goal posts from only VHF - when you introduced the video which was other freq range and i responded in context

Still focusing on a single typo and pretending that means everythings suspect or faked numbers

 

Look its really bloody simple at 3000Ft a radar sees 30 Miles at 30000 ot sees 300 - the concept is simple the exact numbers do not matter  its the same radar on the same plane its just climbed higher.

 

There really is no need for actual and exact figures - the above explains the principle in laymens terms

 

Ignoring my post and claiming - it was derailing the thread ( to whit NM and i explained what it is and why it wouldnt matter if the earths flat or not - its a fixed distance - even if what its supposed to measure doesnt exist - it still does.

 

Asides from which -  Consider circumference 

Ball earth  0 max 0  (ignoring oblate etc)

Flat earth  0(North point) - Max (South point) - 1NM could be one lat line - perhaps the middle or one through Grenwich. 

 

 

Edited by Eldnah
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive asked a question - its an important question and you as yet have not answered - youve quibbled about a typo youve deflected youve posted off topic videos youve accused me of shilling but you still have not answered. 

 

I cannot currently accept a flat earth because, to put it at its most simple,  An x band radar sees further as it gets higher. That to me proves the earth is round - as the horizon is blocking etc.

 

I have asked for an explanation as to why that would happen on a flat earth - Im still waiting - There has to be an explanation for that.

 

Until this point is resolved then flat earth doesnt work - resolve that point then obviously it becomes possible

 

If youre next response is to quibble over my calling 3000ft high altitude** - then your next post will be ignored, since its clear you have no interest in debate - 

 

 

 

 

** Obvious typo should have been obvious an clearly was 30 000 ft 

Edited by Eldnah
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...