The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[CabinetMaker]

Time lapse photography is obviously better than personal experience because it can be shared. I'm not saying you're wrong but I can not confirm it either.

--Dave



Sent from my iPhone using TOL

You can confirm it because I told you how i did it. That allows you to replicate what I did to confirm or disprove my results.

Here is a time lapse of the sun setting. Note how the sun remains the same size as it sinks towards the horizon.

 

[patrick jane]

Flat Earth: NASA's "Goodwill" is like a Kick in the Moon Rocks...

15 minutes -

 

[Clete]

That's the tragedy of all this. Especially from a guy like Dave who I once respected.

On the flip side.... these threads are a blast. It's like batting practice - it's not hitting the ball over the fence that's all that fun... it's seeing just how far you can send the ball out of the yard that becomes fun.

I agree. That's probably why I keep coming back to it. It's like I'm addicted to it or something.

It is a totally facinating subject because it isn't readily obvious to the naked eye that the Earth is round and it's fun to explore what were rather astounding feats of intellect on the part of those who first figured out that the Earth was round and how big it is (not to mention that it orbits the Sun and all that entails). It's really amazing stuff.

In actual fact, the incredibly mind blowing stupidity that passes for arguments for a flat earth defeat themselves in the minds of anyone who can think clearly. If it wasn't Christians promoting this nonsense, it would be funny.

Clete

 

[nikolai_42]

I'm not good with equations science and math but I firmly believe that gravity is greatly overrated, credited and used to explain too much. It's a theory and took the Mason 500 pages to try explaining. The mass on flat earth would likely be at the north pole, the center of flat earth. Many, even now today are researching and finding much evidence of much more electromagnetism affecting the earth and the cosmos. Electric Universe : Thunderbolt Project - I just don't think we know as much as we think we do, nikolai.

There are multiple problems with the north pole being the center (or anywhere other than the core of a globe) of a flat earth. For one, gravity should only work perpendicular to the surface at that point. In other words, gravity pulls to the center - so as you go towards the edge of the disc, gravity would be angled towards the center. If you fell from the sky near the edge of the disc, you would fall angled towards the middle (north pole or wherever it would be). Trees would grow more on an angle as you went away from the midpoint. All the water would flow towards the middle of the earth. I haven't even mentioned satellites, the earth's magnetic field, plate tectonics etc...None of this denies the impact of electromagnetism on the earth - but the effect of electromagnetism doesn't diminish the importance of gravity.

I'm not discounting science and math because they work and HELP us understand everything. Yet, can anyone please tell me exactly how many theories are involved with the big bang, space/time, evolution, relativity, spooky action, multi-verses, dark matter, dark energy and all of the theories that are needed to explain globes, planets and "outer space"? There must be over a dozen for sure, all theories, like gravity and flat earth. I can't find the information or a list on Google for space/earth related theories.

Science explains things. It doesn't necessarily mean we fully understand things. Science can be very good at predicting but it is not always very good at explaining "why". Gravity is one of those things. It has been tested over and over again and the results are startlingly predictable (using Newton's Laws). So until it is shown that gravity DOESN'T follow that rule, it is accepted.

EDIT : I still haven't heard how a disc can reel....

 

[patrick jane]

There are multiple problems with the north pole being the center (or anywhere other than the core of a globe) of a flat earth. For one, gravity should only work perpendicular to the surface at that point. In other words, gravity pulls to the center - so as you go towards the edge of the disc, gravity would be angled towards the center. If you fell from the sky near the edge of the disc, you would fall angled towards the middle (north pole or wherever it would be). Trees would grow more on an angle as you went away from the midpoint. All the water would flow towards the middle of the earth. I haven't even mentioned satellites, the earth's magnetic field, plate tectonics etc...None of this denies the impact of electromagnetism on the earth - but the effect of electromagnetism doesn't diminish the importance of gravity.



Science explains things. It doesn't necessarily mean we fully understand things. Science can be very good at predicting but it is not always very good at explaining "why". Gravity is one of those things. It has been tested over and over again and the results are startlingly predictable (using Newton's Laws). So until it is shown that gravity DOESN'T follow that rule, it is accepted.

EDIT : I still haven't heard how a disc can reel....

Why couldn't the flat earth reel? Reeling is not exclusive to a ball or a globe. As I said, I think you'll find that the earth ONLY moves from God's anger or wrath. I wonder why Isaiah described earth as a "circle" instead of a ball since he knew both words.

Isaiah 40:22 KJV -

Isaiah 22:18 KJV -


2.lose one's balance and stagger or lurch violently.
"he punched Connolly in the ear, sending him reeling"

synonyms:

stagger, lurch, sway, rock, stumble, totter, wobble, falter"he reeled as the ship began to roll"

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not good with equations science and math but I firmly believe that gravity is greatly overrated, credited and used to explain too much. It's a theory and took the Mason 500 pages to try explaining. The mass on flat earth would likely be at the north pole, the center of flat earth. Many, even now today are researching and finding much evidence of much more electromagnetism affecting the earth and the cosmos. Electric Universe : Thunderbolt Project - I just don't think we know as much as we think we do, nikolai.

I'm not discounting science and math because they work and HELP us understand everything. Yet, can anyone please tell me exactly how many theories are involved with the big bang, space/time, evolution, relativity, spooky action, multi-verses, dark matter, dark energy and all of the theories that are needed to explain globes, planets and "outer space"?

None of the above are needed to explain a globe earth, so there's that.

There must be over a dozen for sure, all theories, like gravity

Gravity is what keeps the spherical earth a spheroid.

and flat earth.

Which is more of a conspiracy theory than an origins theory.

I can't find the information or a list on Google for space/earth related theories.

Patrick, would you watch this for me?

The Global Flood and Hydroplate Theory
3h 9m 23s
https://youtu.be/tpQSPaJ-X_U

Thanks.

There's a Biblical argument for a globe earth.

 

[nikolai_42]

Why couldn't the flat earth reel? Reeling is not exclusive to a ball or a globe. As I said, I think you'll find that the earth ONLY moves from God's anger or wrath. I wonder why Isaiah described earth as a "circle" instead of a ball since he knew both words.

Isaiah 40:22 KJV -

Isaiah 22:18 KJV -


2.lose one's balance and stagger or lurch violently.
"he punched Connolly in the ear, sending him reeling"

synonyms:

stagger, lurch, sway, rock, stumble, totter, wobble, falter"he reeled as the ship began to roll"

A disc is inherently unstable and it wouldn't take much for it to be set flying erratically. But this verse specifically says the earth is reeling as a drunkard. A dizzy, unstable drunkard. The earth having its axis moved back and forth would make the globe look exactly like that - moving back and forth and wobbling as magnetic north wanders all over the place (which it is currently doing at increased speed). The disc would be more like a bird that has suddenly gone berserk. I realize this isn't some air-tight argument (arguing which model more closely reflects a verb in the English scriptures) but the picture does seem to me to be one of wobbling - which a disc would not be inclined to do. Maybe a minor objection, but one I have trouble overlooking.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If all the satellite and aircraft and GPS manufacturers are all willing dupes, how do they design, build and maintain their respective system based on such a faulty model? Especially one where they may be forced to base critical calculations on something as foundational as Newton’s Laws of Motion? It may seem plausible to say your senses make certain science nonsense, but those laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They hold together and the cost of changing just one of them can result in denying many others.

Indeed.

See also:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ies-Accurate&p=5195822&viewfull=1#post5195822

For self-study: http://ge.tt/3ew2rfo2 (<--a classic work I used when training new employees on the essential topics of orbital dynamics)

AMR

 

[Tambora]

If all the satellite and aircraft and GPS manufacturers are all willing dupes, how do they design, build and maintain their respective system based on such a faulty model? Especially one where they may be forced to base critical calculations on something as foundational as Newton’s Laws of Motion? It may seem plausible to say your senses make certain science nonsense, but those laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They hold together and the cost of changing just one of them can result in denying many others. That’s why all the circular reasoning is needed to keep at least FE “reasonable”. Even then there are some wrong “facts” such as that list of 100 FE saying Antarctica doesn’t experience the long day of summer like the Arctic (#37 if memory serves). It may not be exactly equal at each pole but the earth tilts. Which, I might add, is consistent with Isaiah 24:20. How does a disc “reel”?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Good point.

I would ask ..... Wouldn't all satellite tracking have to have a base starting point that it continues to track from?
Where would that starting point be for each satellite tracked?
In other words ...... Would the exact same coordinace be used for each satellite, or do the starting points vary, and thus the math varies?

I ask because I do not know.

 

[nikolai_42]

Good point.

I would ask ..... Wouldn't all satellite tracking have to have a base starting point that it continues to track from?
Where would that starting point be for each satellite tracked?
In other words ...... Would the exact same coordinace be used for each satellite, or do the starting points vary, and thus the math varies?

I ask because I do not know.

AMR is probably the better one to explain it. I know enough to be dangerous and that's about it. But in a general sense, every part of a satellite system needs to know "where" it is relative to everything else. So the commands it receives (and sends) to reorient angles that antennae are pointed at (for example) and where the satellite in the sky needs to be (relative to the earth and its earth station) have to be precise or else it just plain won't work. As long as all the pieces of equipment in the satellite system are operating on the same coordinate system, then they can each send and receive valid commands that are interpreted the same way by each component. If the earth is assumed to be a ball (for simplicity) and it is, in reality, flat, then the systems have to do different calculations to determine what direction they have to go (even defining what "direction" is becomes a problem). So one issue is whether they are tracking over a curved surface or a flat one.

I'm not sure if that even approaches a decent answer to your question...

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Good point.

I would ask ..... Wouldn't all satellite tracking have to have a base starting point that it continues to track from?
Where would that starting point be for each satellite tracked?
In other words ...... Would the exact same coordinace be used for each satellite, or do the starting points vary, and thus the math varies?

I ask because I do not know.

AMR is probably the better one to explain it. I know enough to be dangerous and that's about it. But in a general sense, every part of a satellite system needs to know "where" it is relative to everything else. So the commands it receives (and sends) to reorient angles that antennae are pointed at (for example) and where the satellite in the sky needs to be (relative to the earth and its earth station) have to be precise or else it just plain won't work. As long as all the pieces of equipment in the satellite system are operating on the same coordinate system, then they can each send and receive valid commands that are interpreted the same way by each component. If the earth is assumed to be a ball (for simplicity) and it is, in reality, flat, then the systems have to do different calculations to determine what direction they have to go (even defining what "direction" is becomes a problem). So one issue is whether they are tracking over a curved surface or a flat one.

I'm not sure if that even approaches a decent answer to your question...

It is good enough, Nickolai.

It gets even more complicated when considering low earth orbiting satellites, such as in the Iridium system.

View attachment 26292

Each satellite in the iridium constellation communicates with ground stations, mobile phones, and one another via cross-link communications. A satellite design must include the right assumptions about where and when it will be in communications range of the ground stations, the mobile phones, and other satellites.

A call from someone in Saudi Arabia to someone in Australia has the "connection" established by the ground uplink and ground downlink earth stations. Between these two ground stations, the "connection" is routed through a system of satellites in low earth orbit. If the calculations based upon Keplerian equations for eccentric, mean, and true anomaly are incorrect, no communications would be possible between two persons using the sat phones.

Imagine the complications of such a system if the flat earth is a "secret" reality. We that programmed these communications operations assume various global earth parameters such that communications are effective. Now the flat earther would have us believe that someone in a secret cabal comes along later in the software and hardware development cycle to modify all our design efforts to fit the flat earth view. In other words a team of a dozen or more designers have their work undone by some "shadow" organization...and we uninformed dupes are all unaware of this.

If you are familiar with hardware and software design cycles, think about the software and hardware integration, testing, bug fixing, etc., this clued in "shadow" design team would have to deal with, and how it is kept secret from us uninformed designers. And presumably all these shadow organization engineers are willingly going along with the ruse, despite their ethical engineering standards, and at least some of them being Christians. Furthermore, it has been going on for many, many, years assuming space exploration plans and undertakings by dozens and dozens of companies in the aerospace industry.

Then, along the same assumptions, consider the after launch ongoing maintenance and upgrades of the system. Integrated software into hardware on mission critical designs are signed with digital hashes for integrity checks. Support teams must again be dualities, one team of the uniformed, the other of the secret flat earth cabal, the former working independently on upgrades while the secret team comes along and twiddles with the design.

The screens on computers in a satellite system operations center are displaying real-time information about satellite positioning and orbits. Again, per the flat earth proponent, these screens are actually just animations, and the actual real, flat earth real-time screens are in front of operations center personnel someplace else. So you have two teams of operational support staff, making changes, tweaks, etc., and some fantastic software underlying all of the screen work to keep track of what is really needed to be changed, tweaked, etc.

The designs incorporated into software and hardware also include accounting for pertubations in the earth's spherical structure. There is an equatorial bump of of the globe that decreases the distance between the earth and the satellite when passing over that region that must be accounted for in communications designs. This bump is irrelevant for geosynchronous satellites, but for the low earth variety, it must be accounted for in satellite system design. Furthermore, the centrifugal forces upon the satellite are impacted by this "bump" along with the other centrifugal forces of the globe of the earth. We must design these "bump factors" into the hardware and software to keep the satellite from internally flying apart in space.

Furthermore, and not generally known to the public, these satellite communications systems must have their security protocols accepted by the NSA. NSA reps are present in the design reviews for these communications protocols. They have access to all the code and hardware design documentation. Why? Obviously so they can understand the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed system and exploit them to their own needs for government security and intelligence.

Naturally explains why in all my years of designing cellular radio and satellite based systems using cellular radio technology, I have yet to hear an NSA rep at a design review say, "You know, if you just tweak this algorithm by adding {yada yada}, your system would be harder to crack." Instead the usual refrain is to suggest removal of some polynomial function in a complicated algorithmic iteration, thus decreasing the computing power required to brute force crack encryption schemes.

If the design team fails to get NSA's stamp of approval, the satellite technology becomes classified as an exported munition, subject to Presidential level authority for export of the technology to various foreign nations. Even the sat-phones themselves would fall under this onerous export requirement. Accordingly, the encryption tech in the system is tough to crack, but not something that prevents the NSA from access. If a manufacturer insists on not abiding by the NSA requirements, their ability to export tech to certain countries becomes a bureaucratic nightmare. Per the flat earth conspiracy wonks, even the NSA is a party to the ruse being perpetrated upon the public.

For anyone interested in the technical aspects of this topic:

https://physics.info/orbital-mechanics-1/
http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm
https://sourceforge.net/projects/fortytwospacecraftsimulation/ (see actual software examples)
http://ge.tt/4WovY8p2 (Microsoft Powerpoint presentation in pdf format..click Download link to the left of the page)

How anyone having any inkling of what goes on in designing hardware and software on a large scale could entertain there is conspiracy of such a magnitude as described above escapes me.

AMR

 

[patrick jane]

AMR is so far off base it's pathetic. "Secret cabal changing all coordinates to flat earth" - unreal. Again, how many people in your estimation, would have ENOUGH knowledge to be "in on it". Your guesstimate is very important for everyone to know.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR is so far off base it's pathetic. "Secret cabal changing all coordinates to flat earth" - unreal. Again, how many people in your estimation, would have ENOUGH knowledge to be "in on it". Your guesstimate is very important for everyone to know.

You obviously have some number in mind. Why not take what I have written based upon actual experience in the matter, and provide some hypothetical explanation how it could all be pulled off?

Start with a basic template of the HW/SW design cycle:

• REQUIREMENTS are concerned with the determination of the information, processing, and the characteristics of that information and processing needed by the user(s) of the product• ARCHITECTURE is concerned with the selection of HW/SW architectural elements, their interactions, and the constraints on those elements and their interactions necessary to provide a framework in which to satisfy the requirements and serve as a basis for the design
• DESIGN is concerned with the modularization and detailed interfaces of the HW/SW design elements, their algorithms, signals, and procedures, and the data types needed to support the architecture and to satisfy the requirements; and
• IMPLEMENTATION is concerned with the representations of the algorithms, signals, and data types that satisfy the design, architecture, and requirements

In effect, per the flat earth views, there will be two groups for each category above working the issues involved. The first group proceeds along its normal course assuming it is designing a spherical earth satellite communications system. The second, "in the know" group comes along side the first unawares by the first, and tweaks the deliverables in each of the categories above. I have omitted the whole ongoing support and maintenance of the delivered system from the above just for your convenience.

If what I have stated is "pathetic", then please explain in detail what leads you to your assertion. I have actually designed these types of systems.

You might also drop the dripping sarcasm if you intend for this topic to be edifying in some sense. Mud slung is ground lost. While on the one hand you claim that these odd views of yours are not a matter of salvific status, you continue, with your dismissive tone, to imply quite the contrary with your "I am right, you all are not" rhetoric. Dial it back a notch, Mark, and you may find things proceeding effectively.

AMR

 

[patrick jane]

You obviously have some number in mind. Why not take what I have written based upon actual experience in the matter, and provide some hypothetical explanation how it could all be pulled off?

Start with a basic template of the HW/SW design cycle:

• REQUIREMENTS are concerned with the determination of the information, processing, and the characteristics of that information and processing needed by the user(s) of the product• ARCHITECTURE is concerned with the selection of HW/SW architectural elements, their interactions, and the constraints on those elements and their interactions necessary to provide a framework in which to satisfy the requirements and serve as a basis for the design
• DESIGN is concerned with the modularization and detailed interfaces of the HW/SW design elements, their algorithms, signals, and procedures, and the data types needed to support the architecture and to satisfy the requirements; and
• IMPLEMENTATION is concerned with the representations of the algorithms, signals, and data types that satisfy the design, architecture, and requirements

In effect, per the flat earth views, there will be two groups for each category above working the issues involved. The first group proceeds along its normal course assuming it is designing a spherical earth satellite communications system. The second, "in the know" group comes along side the first unawares by the first, and tweaks the deliverables in each of the categories above. I have omitted the whole ongoing support and maintenance of the delivered system from the above just for your convenience.

If what I have stated is "pathetic", then please explain in detail what leads you to your assertion. I have actually designed these types of systems.

You might also drop the dripping sarcasm if you intend for this topic to be edifying in some sense. Mud slung is ground lost. While on the one hand you claim that these odd views of yours are not a matter of salvific status, you continue, with your dismissive tone, to imply quite the contrary with your "I am right, you all are not" rhetoric. Dial it back a notch, Mark, and you may find things proceeding effectively.

AMR

Thank you, I guess my point is if you designed some of these systems, how much do you know about the equations and calculations required to make them work. For instance, did you create the equations and calculations? Whoever did may know more than us or you. Do you know for certain that said calculations would NOT work in flat earth? Can you prove that? I can't prove anything, to be clear, but the level of knowledge to know the earth is in an enclosed cosmos and is flat and to know where the "edge" or the dome is is not broadly shared.

What and how much do satellite employees know. I think you realize that airline pilots can't know because you haven't mentioned them. What exactly would HAVE TO BE changed to "make satellites work" in a flat earth in your estimation? Lots of questions I know, but I think necessary.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You can confirm it because I told you how i did it. That allows you to replicate what I did to confirm or disprove my results.

Here is a time lapse of the sun setting. Note how the sun remains the same size as it sinks towards the horizon.

Time lapse video is far better than a pic.

--Dave

 

[nikolai_42]

Thank you, I guess my point is if you designed some of these systems, how much do you know about the equations and calculations required to make them work. For instance, did you create the equations and calculations? Whoever did may know more than us or you. Do you know for certain that said calculations would NOT work in flat earth? Can you prove that? I can't prove anything, to be clear, but the level of knowledge to know the earth is in an enclosed cosmos and is flat and to know where the "edge" or the dome is is not broadly shared.

What and how much do satellite employees know. I think you realize that airline pilots can't know because you haven't mentioned them. What exactly would HAVE TO BE changed to "make satellites work" in a flat earth in your estimation? Lots of questions I know, but I think necessary.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel every time you want to build a car. Likewise, the mathematical equations are there because they have been repeatedly tested and borne out practically. So the designer has to know precisely what his equations are doing if he wants it to do a certain thing (predictably and repeatedly). And he has to know how all the subsystems will work together and test them to make sure they work together predictably and repeatedly. And if they don’t, he has to understand why if he is going to troubleshoot the system. So unless he really understands what his equations are doing, there is no way he can design such a complex system by chancing upon the right combination of variables. That is more like evolution than creation(!)

And since the designer knows what he is designing and what he wants it to do (and how), he knows what would happen if his assumptions are wrong - an undesirable outcome. Engineering does not tolerate chance well - so everything must be tightly controlled and properly understood. Change one variable and the whole system will not work as desired.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

A disc is inherently unstable and it wouldn't take much for it to be set flying erratically. But this verse specifically says the earth is reeling as a drunkard. A dizzy, unstable drunkard. The earth having its axis moved back and forth would make the globe look exactly like that - moving back and forth and wobbling as magnetic north wanders all over the place (which it is currently doing at increased speed). The disc would be more like a bird that has suddenly gone berserk. I realize this isn't some air-tight argument (arguing which model more closely reflects a verb in the English scriptures) but the picture does seem to me to be one of wobbling - which a disc would not be inclined to do. Maybe a minor objection, but one I have trouble overlooking.

A spinning ball is no where in sight in that verse you pulled out of context.

Those verses are describing an earth quake.

Watch the earth sway (reel) to and fro.

Also note the earth being clean dissolved by liquifaction.

 

[patrick jane]

None of the above are needed to explain a globe earth, so there's that.



Gravity is what keeps the spherical earth a spheroid.



Which is more of a conspiracy theory than an origins theory.



Patrick, would you watch this for me?

The Global Flood and Hydroplate Theory
3h 9m 23s
https://youtu.be/tpQSPaJ-X_U

Thanks.

There's a Biblical argument for a globe earth.

Post the scripture, not an idea. "None of the above" have to be in play for a globe? That's a blatant over generalization and you know it. None of those things are needed on flat earth, is a more accurate statement. Does gravity (the biggest theory in history) form the flying spinning balls? Rhetorical. If people in this can't research flat earth then there's no need to debate it. I knew I was on a globe for almost 50 years, heard it all.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Post the scripture, not an idea. "None of the above" have to be in play for a globe? That's a blatant over generalization and you know it. None of those things are needed on flat earth, is a more accurate statement. Does gravity (the biggest theory in history) form the flying spinning balls? Rhetorical. If people in this can't research flat earth then there's no need to debate it. I knew I was on a globe for almost 50 years, heard it all.

I hear ya.

I haven't made up my mind on satellites yet.

If the firmament is electromagnetic, I suppose if they were properly polarized they could stick to it.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

There is no need to reinvent the wheel every time you want to build a car. Likewise, the mathematical equations are there because they have been repeatedly tested and borne out practically. So the designer has to know precisely what his equations are doing if he wants it to do a certain thing (predictably and repeatedly). And he has to know how all the subsystems will work together and test them to make sure they work together predictably and repeatedly. And if they don’t, he has to understand why if he is going to troubleshoot the system. So unless he really understands what his equations are doing, there is no way he can design such a complex system by chancing upon the right combination of variables. That is more like evolution than creation(!)

And since the designer knows what he is designing and what he wants it to do (and how), he knows what would happen if his assumptions are wrong - an undesirable outcome. Engineering does not tolerate chance well - so everything must be tightly controlled and properly understood. Change one variable and the whole system will not work as desired.

On point, as usual, brother.

The plain fact is that if the equations used were not functioning aright, then the deliverables created based upon them would not work. The Iridium system and its satellite phones, designed per spherical earth orbital mechanics calculations, actually work. Q.E.D.

AMR