I have now decided : The Earth is actually FLAT...!

Post Reply New Topic

I can probably find/locate somebody with a telescope to let me borrow and I live in an area with lots of hills and other areas of high-points (cliffs/hills/mountains but I would probably need to travel out-of-town to reach those locations).

What did you have in mind and lol what were you doing on the Flat Earth Society forums ? I had learned that the FES Forums is some form of a "controlled opposition" psy-operation so I chose to dialogue/research about this movement elsewhere.

Here are my ideas:

Experiment one: I call this the horizon level experiment. The idea is to test the popular flat earther claim that the horizon is always at "eye level". On a round earth this would of course not being expected, and using math and I have determined that on top of a rather tall hill or structure with the horizon not being obscured it should be noticeably below eye level but only if you had something marking where eye level is to compare it to. I made some drawings a while ago to demonstrate my plan.

Here is how the experiment is set up:



Here is what we would see on a flat Earth from the camera's perspective:



Here is what we would see on a round Earth from the camera's perspective:



It would be ideal to do this facing an ocean, but relatively flat ground would work too. We would need to repeat this in as many locations as possible.

Experiment two: this is a variation of a sunspot observation experiment I did a while back. I will need to have a general idea of what part of the world you live on because the idea is that we will both take photos of the Moon at the exact same time and the further apart we are the better. The aim is to measure parallax and get an idea of how far away the Moon is. The telescope is to help get a close up image, which would be much better because it would have more detail. Once we have the images I will analyze them, tell you every step of the process, try to measure the distance to the Moon, and let you do whatever you want with the data too.


I was there as one of the "government shills" defending round Earth because I was bored and it related to my special interest.

I will respond to your other message later.

Wouldn't it be easier to have each of you plant a few-foot tall stick in the ground, exactly vertical & the same height above ground, and then at the same time of day, both take a photo of the stick, it's shadow, and a ruler? Assuming you are at different longitudes, the shadows will be different lengths.

(This works even better if you can skype it as you can watch the shadows shorten, disappear and then lengthen again *out of sync*, thus eliminating any confusion about time zones and the like.)

the problem with that is that round earthers and flat earthers don't agree on the relative orientation of the two participants. That would only work if there were 3 or more participants and a lot of math was involved.

I want everyone who denies science to be denied the benefit of the science in question. Creationists shouldn't get modern antibiotics; flat-earthers shouldn't use GPS, velcro, or anything else derived from the space program; or take any commercial flights over the pole.

Ah ha!, you're falling for it too!.

The same thing Pythagoras (or whoever that Greek guy in Egypt was) who did that stick trick fell for.

you're assuming that the difference in shadow lengths at different latitudes is caused by the Earth being curved.

Its really caused by the differing distances of the latitudes on the flat earth from the small close sun.

The Sun is about the size of a Goodyear blimp. It flies around at only a few thousand feet up, and it only flies around in the sky in the tropics near the equator. So thats why shadows are longer at the high latitudes. Also thats way that Malaysian airliner disappeared. Like Icarus it melted from getting to close to the sun (same thing happened to Amelia Earhardt).

Jeeze! Everyone knows THAT!

Speaking of not taking everything into account, that guy got a few things wrong. Simulations may not be fool proof, but ordinary calculations and logic can just as easily be wrong. I only watched the first 7 minutes of the video, tell me if I missed something important but I think I got the gist of it. He was saying that hot goes to cold and the thermosphere is hot so therefore satellites should be super hot and shouldn't work. He forgot to take some important things into account though.

1): Conduction is not the only way heat is transferred, there is also radiation (and convection which in this case is irrelevant). Heat can radiate away in the form of light (usually at invisible frequencies) which is why light bulbs work.

2): Space has a temperature, although it's only about 3 degrees above absolute zero. But space has nothing in it to be hot you say? Incorrect, it has light which as you (hopefully) know can heat things up, and I am not talking about stars. Cosmic background radiation can heat things up and if you leave something in the deepest depths of space then it will radiate away it's heat until it's at about 3 degrees Kelvin at which point it will radiate away the same amount of heat that it absorbs and it will be in thermal equilibrium with the space around it. Since space is so cold, anything above 3 degrees Kelvin will start cooling off by radiating heat into it. I can cite my sources if you want, I'm not making any of this up.

So you have the very hot thermosphere which conducts heat to a space ship and then that space ship radiates it's heat into space because it's well above 3 degrees Kelvin. As he said, thermometers can't measure the temperature of the thermosphere and the reason for this is because said thermometers are also radiating any heat they obtain out into space. Just this alone proves that satellites would be just fine orbiting through the thermosphere.

Believe it or not I used to be a big conspiracy nut myself a few years ago. If I had heard about flat Earth then then I might have seriously considered it, I believed that 9/11 was an inside job, I didn't believe in climate change, and I even listened to Alex Jones. I have since learned a lot about how to be unbiased and see both sides of the story. Now I actually plan to work for NASA in some way and I even plan on applying to be an astronaut. If it turns out to be a conspiracy then I'll let you know.

This ain't good, man, for I expect more out of researchers to be meticulously thorough.

And you most-certainly did miss important parts as a result. You can't have it both ways, saying that it's in a part of space that is considered to be upwards of 2000°C, whilst simutaneously also being at deep-freeze temperatures, too. From another thread on another forums, one claim was made that weather-balloons were sent up to measure the temperatures to prove that the atmosphere got up to 2000°C, but if a thermometer cannot measure said temperature that is absent of an atmosphere, then the only means of measurement would have been through spectroscopy.

Back to Brian Mulllin, this guy teaches physics as a professor if I heard correctly from another source, and his issue is that the ISS is said to have reflective-material to bounce of radiation to keep it from over-heating. However, the solar-panels are connected to the ISS, according to the CGI-images depicting the ISS, and those are made of metals. That was where he started to find errors/contradictions in the mainstream explanations. Metals will become super-heated when exposed to high temperatures, meaning that for it to cool, the heat would need to dissipate into somewhere, and if that atmosphere of which the ISS is genuinely 2000°C as is shown in that altitude-temperature-chart, then his question is exactly where is the heat dissipating to for the ISS to be able to remain at room-temperature ? Remember, when you heat up an oven, all of the tin-foil/aluminum-shielding doesn't do anything to keep the chicken from getting cooked, even if set to broil-mode where heat is only coming from one direction.

For him, a physics-graduate, that did not make any sense to him, and for one like myself, I still have not encountered any good explanations for how a particular space can be both simultaneously upwards of 2000°C and also at freezing temperatures. Either it is hot or it is cold... claiming that it is both forces me to question the validity of the science. Also, you need not cite sources, because I am only interested in doing some damn good experiments. Additionally, even if you start working for NASA, many organisations are highly compartmentalised, such that you don't necessarily know what the people in the next room are doing or that there may even be another room that is hidden from your access (therefore it is pointless for you to try to find any conspiracies if your disposition towards a paradigm is to view it as being full of nut whilst simultaneously only listening to 7 minutes whilst skipping the remaining 25+ minutes [that is considered to be sloppy like judging a book by its cover]).

When I want to remove the sliver out of another's eye, I make sure to be thorough, looking at the entire paradigm in question, and that is why I am only really interested in very well-designed experiments at the moment. You wanted to test for eye-level horizon, and have mentioned that flat-earthers claim that the horizon is always at eye-level, but I am in agreement that eye-level horizon seems to defy mathematical-geometry. I am willing to do the experiment using a telescope & level just to double-check (because experimentation is how I prefer to do science rather than just book-reading). I will need some time to be able to find someone with a decent telescope who's willing to help me out with this so that I don't have to fork out huge sums to buy one unless binoculars would suffice. The other experiment I need to do is to time-lapse video-record ships leaving a dock out to sea. The results will at least let me know if the ships really still remain visible at hundreds of miles away or if those videos used as flat-earth proof were just created by CGI or manipulated from some other camera-trick to give the appearance of ship-visibility from hundreds of miles of distance.

The ship one I cannot do for another couple of months or so since I am far from the coastal-regions. I might get an opportunity to film/test/experiment/record the procedure starting from possibly within a couple of months from now though when I might be re-visiting the West-Coast (Pacific-Ocean side of America from Puget-Sound region). I will come back to the other points as time permits (also because these forums seem to be funky and occassionally give me errors when I try to post at certain times of the day).

As for your point about how something can be two temperatures at the same time, the best examples/experiments I can think of is sitting by a fire on a cold night or standing in the Sun in the early morning. In both cases the air is cold, but you are still warm because of radiative heat transfer from the fire or the Sun.

It should also be noted that the ISS has large radiator panels which can be used to get rid of excess heat.

I will address more later.

Some people do question NASA, especially when NASA releases footage where their astronauts become partial-transparent during certain time-frames, such as being able to see through their arms, through their head, etc., but that can be discussed some other day as time/resources permit.

Now I want to return back to commenting about the Saturn-image...

Now I need to know which is the case, whether it's a time-lapse composite of over 100 snap-shots, otherwise I need to know more details about the camera-settings in which the "photo" was captured. For a 3-hour composite, I have to question, why is the sun still in the same stationary location, when I would expect it to have moved at least a little bit to cause something like a blurr-line, unless the sun-spot is supposed to be stationary in that exact same location for 3 hours for some reason ?

The thing about human eye-sight is that the eyes will adjust to be able to aborb more light the longer one has been in darkness. Cameras, how-ever, typically take very dark pictures of pitch-blackness at night-time, unless you set it to a very high light-sensitivity. I can guarantee you that if I tried to take a picture of a cat that was outside at night-time, with my regular digitcal-camera, the picture would only come out black with only very faint light-traces. Attempting to capture a digital-snapshot of the stars in the sky would also not register the view of the sky (I have only gotten a black screen as a result when I tried it with a normal digital-camera), and so Saturn would need to be quite bright unless the "Casini" camera has ultra-sensitive settings ? Exactly what kind of equipment are they using and why do they not make it a point to let us know which light-frequency the planets are being photographed ? (Ultra-Violet, Infra-Red, etc)

Not to side-track from discussions about experimental-design, but I also remember coming across some "leaked" information about how Jupiter looks like a planet full of vegetation and teeming with life and civilisation if viewed through an extremely high-powered telescope in the ultra-violet spectrum, but when viewed from the regular light-spectrum, they say that it appears to be a dead planet, covered with poisonous-clouds. You can find a few uploads from a handful of users on You-Tube who show the strange things that they capture in the sky via the infra-red or ultra-violet light-spectrum but I have yet to get the equipment to see if I can capture similar things for myself (then the question becomes which co-ordinates on earth and time of when to do such filming). The existence of CGI/blue/green/chromakey screen-technology forces me to question the validity of anything that I now see (even anything that we see in the news could just be a film-production of events that never really happened being passed off as news as the following video-clip demonstrates as being absolute possible)...

Anyway, I look forward to having these experiments carried out, assuming the economy doesn't impode into a sudden global-disaster on the 28th of May 2016CE or anything of that nature of course...

If you want to find that information about the cameras used NASA (and every other space agency) provides extensive information on that kind of stuff, you just have to know where to look (and actually bother to look).

When using a telescope to magnify Saturn it's easy to photograph even with my iPhone camera, in fact right now Jupiter is in a great position for telescope viewing and I have wanted an excuse to get out my telescope and look at it so I could do that and give you a demonstration if you wanted. A telescope does not increase (or decrease) the apparent brightness per square arc-second and if it did then it would be breaking some fundamental laws of optics and thermodynamics, so an image of a planet (or anything else for that matter) seen through a telescope would appear just as bright as it would if you were right next to it. The only way to change the brightness of an image is to do so with the hardware that captures the image weather that be your eye or a camera, this is done by controlling how much light is captured and for how long. In the case of the images you posted, they would have to be rather short exposures to look like that otherwise the planet would be totally washed out and overpoweringly bright.

I have actually obsessed over CGI for a while, so I am well aware of what it's capable of. Note how I haven't cited photos or videos as proof of anything.

If you'd taken a bit of chemistry - and I do mean a little bit - you'd understand how this is possible. 'Temperature' is the measure of how fast atoms & molecules are moving and vibrating. However, temperature is only conducted when the moving atoms of a hotter substance hit the more stationary atoms of anther substance, causing them to move as well. You can have a very, very thin gas (the upper atmosphere) in which the atoms and molecules are moving incredibly fast (that is, they are very hot) but which cannot transmit much heat to other substances (like a human, or the sensor of a thermometor) because there simply aren't enough atoms impacting the other substance.



Now you're confusing heat with radiation. Certain kinds of electromagnetic radiation (which powers the solar panels, btw) are capable of exciting atoms and thus are felt as heat even though radiation has no mass. The ISS can *radiate* into space even when it cannot conduct heat.
As for your supposed physics grad...

Saturn is almost 900 million miles from the sun.

Read that again.
900 million miles.
The parallax the sun of three hours of travel is effectively nothing at that distance.


You know you can get good night photos just by slightly altering the exposure times on even a normal camera, right?

*snicker*
That's on the level of 'not even wrong.'
You can also find videos of perpetual motion machines on youtube.
Jupiter is really goddamn far away. With a nice home telescope, you can see a blurry, striped dot... and that's a planet with a diameter roughly 10x of ours. Regardless of what spectra you are looking at, you will not see fine enough details to make out civilizational structures on Jupiter with a home-sized telescope.

But, gods! By all means, get a telescope anyway and explore what you can see of the solar system and universe from home. Set up and test your own experiments. Just don't use youtube as your only source of information; there are lots of resources for hobby-astronomers, and it's not at all unusual for a non-professional astronomer to catch first glimpse of a new comet or asteroid and have it named after them. It's even highly likely that there will be an astronomy club somewhere near you that you could join.