A flat Earth thread for Tradosaurus

[Chew]

Tesla invented free energy, doncha know, and the same PTB that are suppressing free energy are also suppressing the flat earth because they hate GOD.

[nomuse]

I'm in no way trolling here, bknight, merely stating that if FEs want to believe in a flat earth, that has zero impact on me personally(well, other than me questioning their mental faculties), but they should have the courage to label it as such. I can believe that a vast, cosmic raccoon created the cosmos, but it doesn't make it true.

I am interested in your religion and would like to read a pamphlet.

[bknight]

Tesla invented free energy, doncha know, and the same PTB that are suppressing free energy are also suppressing the flat earth because they hate GOD.

Something like the Oil/auto companies have suppressed carburetors that get 250 MPG?

[raven]

One thing I can't work out is why they seem to adore Tesla, but think that any other smart person is a liar and a fake?

I think that's because they attempt to shoehorn electricity, charge, and electromagnetism in general in as their answer to gravitational attraction.

Also, he's perceived as being a suppressed, persecuted genius. They might use Galileo, but I think the irony of that might be too much even for them.

[bknight]

Its the same old bunkum, repeated ad naseum.

One thing I can't work out is why they seem to adore Tesla, but think that any other smart person is a liar and a fake?

I'm too much into stocks because I thought of the car company, not the individual, and didn't understand the post initially.

[Sus_pilot]

Its the same old bunkum, repeated ad naseum.

One thing I can't work out is why they seem to adore Tesla, but think that any other smart person is a liar and a fake?

I'm too much into stocks because I thought of the car company, not the individual, and didn't understand the post initially.

Well Tesla can provide free energy with the cars.  Just build them all at the top of a mountain, and then use regenerative braking to get them to the buyers at the bottom.  All we have to do is get the parts up --

Oh.  Wait...

[DonQuixote]

I am interested in your religion and would like to read a pamphlet.

From the Book of Raccoon, Chapter 1, verse 1
In the beginning, the Raccoon made it* happen. It* was pretty good

*"It" is generally taken to mean the sequence of events that lead to you being here right now reading this.

From the Book of Raccoon, Chapter 10, verses 35-37
[35]Before thou eatest the food, thou shalt first wash thy paws; then shalt thou wash the food.
[36]Having now purified the food, thou shalt wash thy hands anew before thou partakest of the food.
[37]Let whosoever doeth this not be cast aside as the empty mussel shell.

[tradosaurus]

By the by, Trad, I'm still waiting for you to explain why I have to tell my flight students that the wind generally shifts 30 degrees to the right as they climb. 

Added bonus questions - why, when we use paper sectional charts (aeronautical maps), do we tell our students the most accurate true courses are found near the center?  Why, if I take the US set and piece them together, do they not match perfectly at the edges?

Just for fun, using a very popular software used by pilots ranging from Sport Pilots to Airline Transport Pilots, here are two shots of a flight from Honolulu International to John F. Kennedy in New York (the numbers are for Cessna 182, BTW).  The blue dot is where I'm sitting in Omaha, NE.  This is the shortest path for the flight, ignoring obstacles and airspace.  Note that the first image is a nice straight line.  The second is of the flight patch with the software centered roughly on the equator in the middle of the flight path, showing a pretty good arc - this is what happens when you plot a straight line on a sphere and try to show it in two dimensions - change the center of projection and it HAS to curve.  BTW, yes I know most of the world is grayed out on this, but I'm not paying for the international data just to prove a self-evident point.

ETA:  Looking at the images, no I'm not 2,600 feet above sea level - more like 1,000.  Note the GPS accuracy - I'm sitting in my company's HQ building at lunch, and it's essentially a giant Faraday cage (cell phone reception drove us nuts the first couple of years in here), so I'm amazed an iPad without an external antenna is getting any GPS information at all.

ETA - ETA:  Whoops - the altitude is fairly accurate, after all.  I saw the 2,600 and wanted to pre-empt Tad - that's actually the minimum safe altitude (VFR) above the tallest object in the area.  Those are the broadcast towers at 72nd Street in Omaha, which are roughly 1,500 feet tall to send FM TV and radio signals as far as possible - tall because the Earth is a sphere.

No. the Antennas are used to broadcast over a flat earth as the British did in the early 20th century before the fiction of satellites were dreamed.

You should also check flight patterns over the world and wonder why the flight paths look unusually long but laid out on a flat earth map are direct routes?  For instance on a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense
on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.

Maybe you should instruct your flight student pilots to push the nose of the plane down so that they can follow the curve of the earth because how else could the plane stay level on a globe earth?  Oh yes, the magic of gravity that sees all and knows all.  lol

[frenat]

By the by, Trad, I'm still waiting for you to explain why I have to tell my flight students that the wind generally shifts 30 degrees to the right as they climb. 

Added bonus questions - why, when we use paper sectional charts (aeronautical maps), do we tell our students the most accurate true courses are found near the center?  Why, if I take the US set and piece them together, do they not match perfectly at the edges?

Just for fun, using a very popular software used by pilots ranging from Sport Pilots to Airline Transport Pilots, here are two shots of a flight from Honolulu International to John F. Kennedy in New York (the numbers are for Cessna 182, BTW).  The blue dot is where I'm sitting in Omaha, NE.  This is the shortest path for the flight, ignoring obstacles and airspace.  Note that the first image is a nice straight line.  The second is of the flight patch with the software centered roughly on the equator in the middle of the flight path, showing a pretty good arc - this is what happens when you plot a straight line on a sphere and try to show it in two dimensions - change the center of projection and it HAS to curve.  BTW, yes I know most of the world is grayed out on this, but I'm not paying for the international data just to prove a self-evident point.

ETA:  Looking at the images, no I'm not 2,600 feet above sea level - more like 1,000.  Note the GPS accuracy - I'm sitting in my company's HQ building at lunch, and it's essentially a giant Faraday cage (cell phone reception drove us nuts the first couple of years in here), so I'm amazed an iPad without an external antenna is getting any GPS information at all.

ETA - ETA:  Whoops - the altitude is fairly accurate, after all.  I saw the 2,600 and wanted to pre-empt Tad - that's actually the minimum safe altitude (VFR) above the tallest object in the area.  Those are the broadcast towers at 72nd Street in Omaha, which are roughly 1,500 feet tall to send FM TV and radio signals as far as possible - tall because the Earth is a sphere.

No. the Antennas are used to broadcast over a flat earth as the British did in the early 20th century before the fiction of satellites were dreamed.

That only works for long wavelengths like HF communications that bounce off the ionosphere.  Can't work for UHF.

You should also check flight patterns over the world and wonder why the flight paths look unusually long but laid out on a flat earth map are direct routes?  For instance on a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense
on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.

Why are you deliberately choosing flights that don't have direct routes?  Quite deceptive of you.  They choose those routes because of hub locations and because flights over a certain length over oceans require planes with 3 engines or more.  The majority of planes have 2 engines.

By the way, there are nonstop flights from Johannesburg to Australia but not to Perth, they go to Sydney and the flight is less than 12 hours.  Seems the Perth airport is not a hub.

Maybe you should instruct your flight student pilots to push the nose of the plane down so that they can follow the curve of the earth because how else could the plane stay level on a globe earth?  Oh yes, the magic of gravity that sees all and knows all.  lol

Why would they have to push the nose of the plane down when gravity works opposite of lift?  If the gravity vector changes then the plane self adjusts.  You've never flown a plane before, have you?

[Sus_pilot]

By the by, Trad, I'm still waiting for you to explain why I have to tell my flight students that the wind generally shifts 30 degrees to the right as they climb. 

Added bonus questions - why, when we use paper sectional charts (aeronautical maps), do we tell our students the most accurate true courses are found near the center?  Why, if I take the US set and piece them together, do they not match perfectly at the edges?

Just for fun, using a very popular software used by pilots ranging from Sport Pilots to Airline Transport Pilots, here are two shots of a flight from Honolulu International to John F. Kennedy in New York (the numbers are for Cessna 182, BTW).  The blue dot is where I'm sitting in Omaha, NE.  This is the shortest path for the flight, ignoring obstacles and airspace.  Note that the first image is a nice straight line.  The second is of the flight patch with the software centered roughly on the equator in the middle of the flight path, showing a pretty good arc - this is what happens when you plot a straight line on a sphere and try to show it in two dimensions - change the center of projection and it HAS to curve.  BTW, yes I know most of the world is grayed out on this, but I'm not paying for the international data just to prove a self-evident point.

ETA:  Looking at the images, no I'm not 2,600 feet above sea level - more like 1,000.  Note the GPS accuracy - I'm sitting in my company's HQ building at lunch, and it's essentially a giant Faraday cage (cell phone reception drove us nuts the first couple of years in here), so I'm amazed an iPad without an external antenna is getting any GPS information at all.

ETA - ETA:  Whoops - the altitude is fairly accurate, after all.  I saw the 2,600 and wanted to pre-empt Tad - that's actually the minimum safe altitude (VFR) above the tallest object in the area.  Those are the broadcast towers at 72nd Street in Omaha, which are roughly 1,500 feet tall to send FM TV and radio signals as far as possible - tall because the Earth is a sphere.

No. the Antennas are used to broadcast over a flat earth as the British did in the early 20th century before the fiction of satellites were dreamed.

You should also check flight patterns over the world and wonder why the flight paths look unusually long but laid out on a flat earth map are direct routes?  For instance on a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense
on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.

Maybe you should instruct your flight student pilots to push the nose of the plane down so that they can follow the curve of the earth because how else could the plane stay level on a globe earth?  Oh yes, the magic of gravity that sees all and knows all.  lol

Frenat answered your response, but I'll keep going with it.  Not only are there very stringent requirements for ETOPS, airplanes, particularly large cabin class transports, are enormously expensive.  The name of the game is seat mile density.  You do what you can to keep every seat full for as many miles possible to reduce expenses on a seat mile basis, also known as making as much money as possible.  The route with the legs chosen was after a carrier did a lot of work to figure out where the markets are to keep the airplane full.

As for the height of the antennas - no, if the Earth were flat, an antenna wouldn't have to be very tall at all - it would just need enough wattage to overcome the inverse-square law for a reasonably economic receiver.

And, no, pushing the nose down would just cause the plane to descend and build up speed.  And yes, gravity does work here, because the aircraft, regardless of attitude, has its component of lift at right angles to the tangent of the curve of the Earth, whether in level flight, climbing, or descending.

Finally, why does the wind generally shift about 30 degrees to the right above 1,000 feet above ground level in the Northern Hemisphere?  You still haven't (can't) answer.

[LunarOrbit]

Oooooo, the threat of being banned.   

Absolutely. If you're just here to troll and anger people then I have no interest in enabling that. You've got to prove to me that you seriously believe the garbage you've been spewing.

The reasons you gave for a globe earth universe is by faith not by facts.

I gave you examples of my personal observations of planets through my own telescope. How is that a matter of faith?

1. Other planets being round could easily mean you are looking at a dinner plate instead of a sphere.  However even if other planets were spheres that doesn't dictate the earth is one.  There is no way to test your theory.

The other planets are very clearly spherical. Not a single one is a flat disc. That trend ought to tell you something.

2.  So you see stars rotate around a center point (which actually proves an earth centered universe) and you conclude the earth is spinning?  That takes a lot of faith.

What is the alternative? That the whole entire universe rotates around us? And you think that is more plausible?

3. Venus transiting in front of the sun?  I hope you weren't blinded.     Again you are witnessing movement and concluding that the earth is orbiting the sun when it is just as viable to conclude that everything else is orbiting the earth.

Again, it's the fact that every other planet we have ever observed orbits a star, not the other way around. Show me one example of a star orbiting a flat disc-like planet and I'll give you a point.

By the way, here are some pictures I took while observing the transit of Venus:




I also observed it directly through another telescope that had a protective solar filter.

4. The flat earth map shows how the moon and sun would appear to "set" beyond the horizon because what is called the vanishing point.  Remember that the sun and moon are only about 4,000 miles in diameter.

What is the diameter of the "flat Earth"? How big is the Moon, and how far away is it? How does the Moon maintain it's position over the Earth?

5. So how does your gravity know to apply just the right amount of force to keep amounts of water spinning at varying speeds (from 1,000 mph at the equator to 0 at the poles) in place?  Sounds like science fiction to me.  Also no where in nature do you observe water adhering to a spinning curved surface.  Water is always flung off the surface.

How does your flat Earth "know" how to apply just the right amount of constant acceleration so that objects don't get crushed or float away? You never explained how the Earth maintains this acceleration. Is it using rocket engines with infinite fuel, or magic?

6.  The affects of objects falling to earth can be explained by the affect of buoyancy. What causes an object to float in water?

I hope you aren't a naval engineer.

7.  Well you are postulating on this with no evidence.  I'm saying the globe earth universe is ludicrous because of the crazy velocities and distances between stars (that can't be measured).

So you believe in a flat Earth that creates the effect of gravity from it's constant acceleration via magic, but you complain about "crazy velocities"? How fast must the Earth be traveling after all these years of acceleration?

By the way... can you explain the processes that formed the flat Earth? Is it natural, or artificially constructed? How do the seasons work? What clockworks control the movements of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars in our sky? These are all questions that need to be answered if you want me to throw out all of my beliefs in a "round Earth".

[Sus_pilot]

LO - your post reminded me about how Stanley Kubrick and Douglas Trumbull had to render a flat painting of Jupiter to make it convincing - they used an 8x10 view camera on a 180 degree track and took an eight hour  [iirc] time exposure of the painting as the camera swung around it.

[sts60]

If gravity doesn't exist, why do things fall when you drop them?

Dangit, you beat me to asking this question. 

For a degreed Engineer, he makes some really dumb observations.  Like Neil Baker, I'm ashamed to call him a fellow Engineer.

Why in the world would you call him a fellow engineer?

[Peter B]

You should also check flight patterns over the world and wonder why the flight paths look unusually long but laid out on a flat earth map are direct routes?  For instance on a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.

Do you bother to verify the statements in that "200 Proofs" book before you copy and paste them?

It took only a couple of minutes to find out that Qantas, Virgin Australia and South African Airways all fly direct from Johannesburg to either Perth or Sydney.

Plus, I note the statement you copied said "most Johannesburg to Perth flights stop over..." Most, not all. What do you think the other flights do?

Maybe you should instruct your flight student pilots to push the nose of the plane down so that they can follow the curve of the earth because how else could the plane stay level on a globe earth?  Oh yes, the magic of gravity that sees all and knows all.  lol

Seeing as you're so obsessed with gravity, please explain how it is that the Sun and Moon (and the planet things) stay suspended above the Earth while people and water stayed cemented to it.

Oh, and an explanation of the physics of the Sun would be good too.

I realise these may be tricky questions, seeing as neither is discussed in the "200 Proofs" document, so you're going to have to do some original research. But please have a go - you never know what you might find.

[Peter B]

One other thing:

Here is "Proof" 198 in its entirety:

198) Some say the idea of an inter-generational world-wide conspiracy to delude the masses sounds implausible or unrealistic, but these people need only familiarize themselves with the works and writings of Freemasons themselves, for example John Robison who exposed this in his 1798 book, “Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe Carried Out in the Secret Meetings of the Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies.” Supreme Commander of the 33rd degree Albert Pike was quite forth-coming in several letters regarding the Masons ultimate goal of world domination, and in the Zionist “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” the exact plan by which this would be and has been carried out is completely disclosed.

Please note the bolded text.

Do you consider the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to be a real document or a fake?