B flat B♭

[Apple Sky]

Let’s try it the other way around. The following video shows the problems with the laser experiments:

So Rob skiba was right about his refraction kit.

 

[Strong in Him]

Sometimes I think that people are only posting on this thread to bump up their reaction score.

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but if you think I have to get "likes" and reactions to make me feel good about myself, you're even further from reality than I thought.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't understand this sentence.

You do understand that you can’t take a flat object and make it into a sphere without distorting it right? You have to stretch, bend, fold, or cut a flat object in order to make it into a sphere. So that would mean that if the earth is in fact flat, it would be 100% absolutely impossible to make a spherical map of it that is actually accurate to scale. It can’t be done if the earth is actually flat. The only way that a globe can be accurately scaled to where you can measure between any two points on it and accurately calculate the actual distance is if the earth is actually a sphere. If the earth was flat then the distances between points on a globe would be severely distorted. That’s why flat earthers can’t produce a flat map of the earth that is actually to scale where you can measure between any two points and accurately calculate the actual distance between those two places that’s why their maps either drastically distort continent sizes to where the southern continents like Australia and South America are 4 times larger than Asia or North America or they dramatically distort the size of the oceans to where you’d be flying 20,000+ miles between Perth and Madagascar if you actually flew traveling straight west according to a flat earth map. If you actually take the shortest route on a flat earth map you’d be flying over Indonesia, India, the Middle East, and East Africa to get there but those flights are directly over the ocean the whole time, not over land. And in reality Madagascar is pretty much straight west of Perth. So if the earth is in fact flat, a globe should be dramatically distorted, but it’s not, it’s actually very precise unlike the flat earth map.

 

[Phil G]

Sometimes I think that people are only posting on this thread to bump up their reaction score.

Well obviously you just post here to provoke people’s reactions. You can’t even answer the most basic of questions to what you post, so you’re not here to debate, inform or explain anything.

 

[Apple Sky]

If you actually take the shortest route on a flat earth map you’d be flying over Indonesia, India, the Middle East, and East Africa to get there but those flights are directly over the ocean the whole time, not over land. And in reality Madagascar is pretty much straight west of Perth. So if the earth is in fact flat, a globe should be dramatically distorted, but it’s not, it’s actually very precise unlike the flat earth map.

I don't quite understand flight routes but I do know that on a the flat earth map they should take the shortest rout but they don't, or do they ?

They know thw shape of the earth as proven with government documents.

 

[Jerry N.]

You do understand that you can’t take a flat object and make it into a sphere without distorting it right? You have to stretch, bend, fold, or cut a flat object in order to make it into a sphere. So that would mean that if the earth is in fact flat, it would be 100% absolutely impossible to make a spherical map of it that is actually accurate to scale. It can’t be done if the earth is actually flat. The only way that a globe can be accurately scaled to where you can measure between any two points on it and accurately calculate the actual distance is if the earth is actually a sphere. If the earth was flat then the distances between points on a globe would be severely distorted. That’s why flat earthers can’t produce a flat map of the earth that is actually to scale where you can measure between any two points and accurately calculate the actual distance between those two places that’s why their maps either drastically distort continent sizes to where the southern continents like Australia and South America are 4 times larger than Asia or North America or they dramatically distort the size of the oceans to where you’d be flying 20,000+ miles between Perth and Madagascar if you actually flew traveling straight west according to a flat earth map. If you actually take the shortest route on a flat earth map you’d be flying over Indonesia, India, the Middle East, and East Africa to get there but those flights are directly over the ocean the whole time, not over land. And in reality Madagascar is pretty much straight west of Perth. So if the earth is in fact flat, a globe should be dramatically distorted, but it’s not, it’s actually very precise unlike the flat earth map.

I have no problem with the concept. Of course you are correct. I was just having a little trouble with the sentence structure. It is not your fault. I should have read it a couple more times.

 

[Jerry N.]

I don't quite understand flight routes but I do know that on a the flat earth map they should take the shortest rout but they don't, or do they ?

They know thw shape of the earth as proven with government documents.

This fellow has never studied dynamics of motion in physics. All of the assumptions of a flat non-rotating earth are normal for preliminary study. It is the same with the study of acceleration and kinetic energy. You assume friction is zero and there is no drag from air flow around the objected. Then you refine your studies one step at a time. Everybody knows that zero friction is impossible and there is drag when moving through a fluid like air. For the calculations he was talking about, you would assume a flat earth so you would not have a difference in elevation between the points studied. You would assume the earth is not rotating for the same reason you can’t run faster west to east than you can east to west. It only makes a difference at pretty high altitudes, which modern aircraft take into account. Your little Piper single engine plane doesn’t worry about it, but a 747 might on a long flight. Anyhow, the video is deceptive and assumes the listener doesn’t know about physics and engineering.

 

[Apple Sky]

This fellow has never studied dynamics of motion in physics. All of the assumptions of a flat non-rotating earth are normal for preliminary study. It is the same with the study of acceleration and kinetic energy. You assume friction is zero and there is no drag from air flow around the objected. Then you refine your studies one step at a time. Everybody knows that zero friction is impossible and there is drag when moving through a fluid like air. For the calculations he was talking about, you would assume a flat earth so you would not have a difference in elevation between the points studied. You would assume the earth is not rotating for the same reason you can’t run faster west to east than you can east to west. It only makes a difference at pretty high altitudes, which modern aircraft take into account. Your little Piper single engine plane doesn’t worry about it, but a 747 might on a long flight. Anyhow, the video is deceptive and assumes the listener doesn’t know about physics and engineering.

How come the Russian's didn't know what shape the earth was in 1947 ? Explain this.

 

[Jerry N.]

How come the Russian's didn't know what shape the earth was in 1947 ? Explain this.

The earth is not a perfect sphere. The north and south poles are closer together than the diameter at the equator. There are also variations all over the place, not counting mountains. That is why the north and south poles wobble a bit. It is ever so slightly out of round. There were few ways to measure these differences until we had satellites. We knew they were there, but it was difficult to measure. Before rockets and jet airplanes it didn’t matter, but as soon as you want to fly into space, you need to take it into account. So when they are talking about the shape of the earth, they were thinking about these variations.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This fellow has never studied dynamics of motion in physics. All of the assumptions of a flat non-rotating earth are normal for preliminary study. It is the same with the study of acceleration and kinetic energy. You assume friction is zero and there is no drag from air flow around the objected. Then you refine your studies one step at a time. Everybody knows that zero friction is impossible and there is drag when moving through a fluid like air. For the calculations he was talking about, you would assume a flat earth so you would not have a difference in elevation between the points studied. You would assume the earth is not rotating for the same reason you can’t run faster west to east than you can east to west. It only makes a difference at pretty high altitudes, which modern aircraft take into account. Your little Piper single engine plane doesn’t worry about it, but a 747 might on a long flight. Anyhow, the video is deceptive and assumes the listener doesn’t know about physics and engineering.

As far as running faster east to west vs west to east it all depends on your frame of reference. Technically you can run faster running west to east if you’re looking at it from space because the earth is rotating west to east at 1037 miles per hour so measuring your speed from space you’re traveling 1037 miles per hour plus whatever speed you’re running but here on earth we don’t measure speed relative to space or other celestial bodies we’re measuring it relative to our position on the earth. Just like if we were to run from the back of a train toward the front of a train, to a person riding on the train you still appear to be running the same speed you always run but to someone watching from outside of the train you’d definitely be running faster relative to the earth. Another example would be those conveyors that some airports have for people to walk on that kind of look like a flat escalator. People walking on those look like they’re running and those are actually kind of fun to run on because it feels like you’re running like 20-25 mph or something but you’re not.

 

[Jerry N.]

As far as running faster east to west vs west to east it all depends on your frame of reference. Technically you can run faster running west to east if you’re looking at it from space because the earth is rotating west to east at 1037 miles per hour so measuring your speed from space you’re traveling 1037 miles per hour plus whatever speed you’re running but here on earth we don’t measure speed relative to space or other celestial bodies we’re measuring it relative to our position on the earth. Just like if we were to run from the back of a train toward the front of a train, to a person riding on the train you still appear to be running the same speed you always run but to someone watching from outside of the train you’d definitely be running faster relative to the earth. Another example would be those conveyors that some airports have for people to walk on that kind of look like a flat escalator. People walking on those look like they’re running and those are actually kind of fun to run on because it feels like you’re running like 20-25 mph or something but you’re not.

Thanks, you are correct. It is fun to think about it. I was just trying to debunk the video without too much detail.

 

[Apple Sky]

So when they are talking about the shape of the earth, they were thinking about these variations.

No they were not, the government documents were saying the Russian's did not know the shape of the earth.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't quite understand flight routes but I do know that on a the flat earth map they should take the shortest rout but they don't, or do they ?

They know thw shape of the earth as proven with government documents.

Ok so the Russians not knowing the exact shape of the earth in 1948 isn’t surprising at all. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t know whether it was flat or not, it means that they didn’t know whether it was a perfect sphere, an elongated sphere, or a distorted sphere.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I don't quite understand flight routes but I do know that on a the flat earth map they should take the shortest rout but they don't, or do they ?

They know thw shape of the earth as proven with government documents.

Have you bothered to even check any of the links he put in the description? Because so far none of them are taking me to the pages he’s reading. They’re not even taking me to anything remotely related to the topics he’s discussing.

 

[Jerry N.]

No they were not, the government documents were saying the Russian's did not know the shape of the earth.

First of all, you are dealing with translations from Russian to English, which makes the statement suspicious. Then you have the point of who the texts was for. I had a friend that thought fat women were very sexy. When he said she had a nice shape, I had to wonder what he meant. However, I was pretty sure she had two arms and two legs. So the Russians could be wondering if it was egg shaped or actually spherical, or something else. It is not clear, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t flat or spherical.

 

[Apple Sky]

Ok so the Russians not knowing the exact shape of the earth in 1948 isn’t surprising at all.

 

[Apple Sky]

Have you bothered to even check any of the links he put in the description? Because so far none of them are taking me to the pages he’s reading.

No.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How come the Russian's didn't know what shape the earth was in 1947 ? Explain this.

Can you please send me the link to that page because the link in that video doesn’t take me to the pages he’s reading he’s actually reading from.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No.

Well you might want to actually check the validity of your source then because those links he gave don’t take you to the pages he’s reading from and without the links to collaborate his claims they’re just unsupported claims.

 

[HantsUK]

View attachment 373279

This type of argument is logically invalid.

Yes, most internet and data traffic is carried by fibre. Yes, there are other methods of radio transmission. These do not mean that satellite communications are fiction.

This is like saying that electric cars do not exist because many (still most) cars have diesel or petrol engines.

None of these other types of communications can explain the signal sources for satellite dishes. Prodromos and Phil G have both asked for an answer. We are all still waiting.

Satellite dishes are very directional so the transmitter / signal source must be in line with the direction that the dish is pointing. This rules out the signals coming from a nearby mast (as used for terrestrial TV and TV arials point horizontally to a local mast). Dishes are also fixed, so this rules out the use of planes or balloons. Drones cannot stay in the same position for years on end.

Not mentioned but bouncing radio waves of the ionosphere: only works below 30MHz. TV and satellite frequencies will pass through the ionosphere.

• Geographical challenge: Antarctica's location at the South Pole means that most satellites in geosynchronous orbit (which circle the Earth above the equator) are blocked by the Earth's curvature. This makes continuous, high-speed communication a challenge.
• Large antennas at bases: To compensate for the low angle and limited visibility of available satellites, research stations utilize large, fixed antennas (often within massive radomes to protect against hurricane-force winds) to capture signals when satellites pass over the horizon.

These are both evidences for the earth being a globe, contradicting a flat earth.

If the earth was flat then a satellite dish would work just as well in the Antarctica (or the Artic) as other areas. Just need to point the dish in the right direction. (And you still have the problem of where the signal is coming from.)