• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Flat Earth Internation Conference 2017!!!

Being as the earth is a spheroid, it's rather simple. You put an aircraft like an E2-C Hawkeye in the air. It can see over the curvature of the Earth and target for you. The seeker head locks onto the radar return of the E2 instead of the radar on the vessel.


While I've not seen a reference to the Sea Sparrow being used in precisely that manor it does seem to be, at least plausibly, within the current variants capabilities.

The computerized guidance system also included a simple autopilot that allowed the missile to continue flying toward the last known target location even with the loss of a signal, allowing the launch platform to break lock for short periods while the missile was in flight. All of these modifications also improved performance against low-altitude sea-skimming targets as well.[4] The M model entered US operational service in 1983.[5]

and...

A final upgrade to the Sparrow was the AIM-7P, which replaced the M's guidance system with an improved model that allowed mid-course upgrades to be sent from the launching platform via new rear-mounted antennas.[4] For air-to-air use this allowed the missile to be "lofted" above the target and then be directed down towards it as it approached; this gives the missile greater range as it spends more time in thinner high-altitude air. This meant that the new version could also be directly guided against surface targets that would otherwise not show up well on radar (which is a function of relative speed), allowing the ship's more powerful search radars to provide guidance until the missile approached the target and the reflected signal grew stronger. This also gave the Sea Sparrow a very useful secondary anti-shipping role that allows it to attack smaller boats.

So rear mounted antenna guidance to a high waypoint and then terminal radar guidance from the 'painting' platform.

ETA: Sorry, forgot link.

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/RIM-7_Sea_Sparrow
 
Last edited:
I suspect this is a kind of live action role playing and he doesn't really believe this. The trival simplicity that it takes to establish a spheroid earth makes me think he's not for real on this.

My expectation as well, but still it would be PPPA (Piss Poor Performance Art) as much of the regurgitated material has been discussed elsewhere on this forum. Though, given what I've seen of much modern art, Piss Poor may even be the artists intent as in some cases it would seem difficult to reach such an exceeding high excremental level by pure chance.
 
Last edited:
While I've not seen a reference to the Sea Sparrow being used in precisely that manor it does seem to be, at least plausibly, within the current variants capabilities......

What? They can use it indoors? Extraordinary. :D;)
 
What? They can use it indoors? Extraordinary. :D;)


Apparently, but your line of site gets very limited. I remember a friend (on a guided missile cruiser) telling the story of a test firing (not a Sea Sparrow) that malfunctioned turned around and came back at the ship, passed between the stacks and came about again before they were able to shoot it out. So you can get some fairly close quarters maneuvering with some of those puppies.

ETA: I should probably added that I've always just considered this one of the stories the crew tells new swabbies and friends.
 
Last edited:
Apparently, but your line of site gets very limited. I remember a friend (on a guided missile cruiser) telling the story of a test firing (not a Sea Sparrow) that malfunctioned turned around and came back at the ship, passed between the stacks and came about again before they were able to shoot it out. So you can get some fairly close quarters maneuvering with some of those puppies.

ETA: I should probably added that I've always just considered this one of the stories the crew tells new swabbies and friends.

Reminds me of the legend of the sealed off machine shop on the USS {insert carrier name here}, discovered by tracing lines and wondering where they went.
 
Only just very recently have I seen bits of video where flattards use levels to 'disprove' the globular Earth. Including taking them on overseas flights. I couldn't have imagined the fools would even bother using a tool which cannot prove nor disprove Earth's shape because both models involve a local vertical which is everywhere perpendicular to the surface. Idiots!

They would be better served by a decent gyroscope having precession eliminated (running at constant speed). Why don't they try *that*?
 
Only just very recently have I seen bits of video where flattards use levels to 'disprove' the globular Earth. Including taking them on overseas flights. I couldn't have imagined the fools would even bother using a tool which cannot prove nor disprove Earth's shape because both models involve a local vertical which is everywhere perpendicular to the surface. Idiots!

They would be better served by a decent gyroscope having precession eliminated (running at constant speed). Why don't they try *that*?

Because doing the experiment right would prove them wrong.

It's the same with Southern Hemisphere travel, flights between between Auckland and Buenos Aires-Ezeiza, or Sydney to Johannesburg-O. R. Tambo would take days to complete compared to how fast they are actually flown. Sailing between South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and South America would also take far longer then advertised. Anyone that decided to sail the roaring 40's would know that the Earth was flat, if it really was, because it would take them far longer to get between destinations than it should, and I'm not talking days longer, but weeks and months longer.

Flat Earther's consistently ignore it all though.

They and all other CT'ers are great at ignoring things that don't suit them.

The biggest one is that even if you can poke holes in a current science theory, that doesn't mean that you get to just slot your different theory into its place without any scrutiny of its own. That's not how science works, and yet virtually every CT out there seems to be of the belief that if they can poke any hole in the "Official" Theory, then by default their own must be true.

No, the way to make your own theory the default is to show that not only does your theory explain all of the observed phenomena at least as well as the current one, and in an internally consistent manner, but that it also explains any holes in the current theory better too!

As of yet I have yet to see any CT'er take up this challenge. Instead when asked to put forth their own theories they switch to that they are just JAQing off, or as Daniel seems to do, claim that any attempt to get him to explain how things work under his own theory, that such is a "red herring" rather than understanding that it's how science works.

Currently I have yet to see any Flat Earther give a consistent, testable, and plausible explanation for the following things:

  • Why Horizon distance varies with attitude but not optics.
  • Why the sun sets from the bottom to the top.
  • Why travel times between like distances on a global Earth at latitudes South, are the same as those at Latitude North
  • How people all around the so-called "Southern Hemisphere" see the same stars despite being on opposite sides of a flat earth.
  • Why the Southern Stars rotate clockwise about a point in the sky that corresponds to south on a compass, while the Northern Stars rotate about a different point that corresponds to North.
  • Why Hurricanes and Cyclones Rotate.
  • Why an anticyclone outside the Equator rotates anti-clockwise, but inside rotates clockwise.
  • Why Hurricanes and Cyclones move away from the Equator.
  • Why Solar Eclipse paths aren't straight on a flat Earth map.
  • Why everyone on Earth sees just one side of the moon
  • Why the phases of the moon predictably match the sun/moon position in a three body system
  • Why lines drawn using sun angles taken simultaneously across the planet don't met up at a single point
  • Why Air pressure varies in a predictable manner with altitude.
  • What it is that crosses the sky at the time the ISS is predicted to be seen crossing the sky
  • How NASA can fake cloud patterns seen live on the ISS streaming camera to match those of the sky being passed over
  • How everyone in NZ and Australia can point their dish antenna at the same point in the sky and receive TV signals.

I am sure I can think of more too, but it'd be a good start.
 
Last edited:
Only just very recently have I seen bits of video where flattards use levels to 'disprove' the globular Earth. Including taking them on overseas flights. I couldn't have imagined the fools would even bother using a tool which cannot prove nor disprove Earth's shape because both models involve a local vertical which is everywhere perpendicular to the surface. Idiots!

They would be better served by a decent gyroscope having precession eliminated (running at constant speed). Why don't they try *that*?

Flat Earthers don't know what gyroscopes are or how they work.
 
I am sure I can think of more too, but it'd be a good start.

Red herring and begging the question!!11!1 What kind of gravity are you using? Einschteinian or Newtonian? What is gravity? Why don't I understand?

/Daniel-emulation-mode: off

How about it Daniel? How do you explain the observable pressure gradient in the atmosphere?
 
What happened to Daniel? Did he fall off the edge?

I wanted him to explain to me what I'm seeing when I look at various planets in my telescope because despite his claims, they sure look like spheres to me.
 
What happened to Daniel? Did he fall off the edge?

I wanted him to explain to me what I'm seeing when I look at various planets in my telescope because despite his claims, they sure look like spheres to me.
The observed planets are spherical - to leap to a conclusion that therefore the earth must be spherical too isn't very skeptical of you. Logic 101 globe gobbler
 
The observed planets are spherical - to leap to a conclusion that therefore the earth must be spherical too isn't very skeptical of you. Logic 101 globe gobbler

Nonsense. Planets are 15 dimensional hyper spheres embedded in a 17.45 dimensional æøå-brane. It's true! I read it on the internet because I wrote it myself!
 
What happened to Daniel? Did he fall off the edge?
:)

I wanted him to explain to me what I'm seeing when I look at various planets in my telescope because despite his claims, they sure look like spheres to me.
They're disks that the flat side always points to earth? There is a problem with that idea. Everybody on the earth is going to see the planets from a different angle and you'd think there would be pictures of the edges from somebody. So the planets are mostly flat with a concave surface that points towards the earth? There is a problem there if you have a telescope powerful enough to see features people will see different features when the planet rotates. Or even if you don't have a telescope you can see that even though roughly the same side of the moon is always visible from the earth, a combination of earth and moon motion makes it so that it is possible to see different parts of the moon at different times.



These are two different images of the moon shot on different days. You can see how different different side of the moon visible to earth is between the two images by looking at the position of the large crater (Tycho Crater) in the southern hemisphere is.

One other thing you can see in these images that suggests the moon is not flat is that you can see the sides of craters along the edge. One idea here is that the shape of the moon in approximately a sphere.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. Planets are 15 dimensional hyper spheres embedded in a 17.45 dimensional æøå-brane. It's true! I read it on the internet because I wrote it myself!

Are we sure they aren't icosahedrons? I'd love to roll a nat 20 with a planet. And yes, I did have to Google the proper name of a 20 sided die.
 
:)

They're disks that the flat side always points to earth? There is a problem with that idea. Everybody on the earth is going to see the planets from a different angle and you'd think there would be pictures of the edges from somebody. So the planets are mostly flat with a concave surface that points towards the earth? There is a problem there if you have a telescope powerful enough to see features people will see different features when the planet rotates. Or even if you don't have a telescope you can see that even though roughly the same side of the moon is always visible from the earth, a combination of earth and moon motion makes it so that it is possible to see different parts of the moon at different times.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5665a483e666db29.jpg[/qimg]

These are two different images of the moon shot on different days. You can see how different different side of the moon visible to earth is between the two images by looking at the position of the large crater (Tycho Crater) in the southern hemisphere is.

One other thing you can see in these images that suggests the moon is not flat is that you can see the sides of craters along the edge. One idea here is that the shape of the moon in approximately a sphere.
Flatearthers only believe the earth is flat.

Planets and moons are spheres.
The earth is not a planet.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom