Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Rounder

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Opposite theory of gravity
« on: September 09, 2016, 12:50:46 PM »
İntikam posted a new topic in the Flat Earth Information Repository section which we might enjoy debating.  Since that isn't the Debate section I did not reply to it there, but brought it here instead.  Quoting exactly as presented by İntikam, all emphasis and format choices in the original:

It is a knowledge that almost everything pushes others. To catch and to pull are not real acts. As a magnetic illusion. Magnetic illusion is the only exception. But it is still not a complete pulling, because a full merger does not occur.

When you kept a cup, actually you don't keep it, you are forcing to it to pull up. It is theorically like this, because no one of the particles never touches to the others.

This situation shows us almost everything on the nature pushes to the others.

This situation explains us two main events:

1- Difusion
2- Sky thrust (opposite theory of gravity)

1- difusion: All of objects pushes others so if one side is empty, almost all objects pushes the object which on the edge. This causes to object to move to the gap. Science calls it as diffusion".

2- Sky thrust : All of objects pushes the others.

So on the ground, Most of the objects are above on the chosen object on the ground. So the propulsion is the the greatest value. This makes the object as heavier. When the object go up, then some objects start to push it to up, though they were pushing down it Shortly before.

if an object passes the equilibrium position by going up continuously, The balance of power changes to outward then the object starts to fly with no way to return.

This theory has some challenges, to put it mildly.  The Cavendish Experiment, to name but one example, demolishes the assertion that "almost everything pushes others...Magnetic illusion is the only exception".  The attractive force of gravity can be demonstrated by a home science enthusiast's low budget version of the Cavendish experiment, with more than one example posted on YouTube.

"Sky thrust" is a preposterous concept too.  Let's unpack it!
"on the ground, Most of the objects are above on the chosen object on the ground"
Really?  Most of WHAT objects?  Seems to me the very large object that is Earth is BELOW the chosen object, and the vast collection of earth-bound stuff is at best horizontal to (rather than above) the chosen object.  Only far, far away objects are above the chosen object.

"So the propulsion is the the greatest value. This makes the object as heavier. When the object go up, then some objects start to push it to up, though they were pushing down it Shortly before."
Why then do objects fall back to earth?  How high up does one have to be to begin seeing this?

"if an object passes the equilibrium position by going up continuously, The balance of power changes to outward then the object starts to fly with no way to return."
Has this ever been observed? 

Considering the Equinox Day path of the sun over a flat earth, which we are told will be a flat circle directly above the equator.  In the FE model the sun never actually goes below the horizon, only appearing to do so because of distance and perspective, in much the same way that birds and airplanes appear to drop toward the horizon as they fly away from us.  (You have no doubt guessed or remembered that I disagree with that assessment, but that isn’t my point today.)  Suppose we accept the premise for the moment, and consider specifically the position of sunrise on Equinox Day. 

It is common knowledge, which you can directly observe for yourself on Sept 22, that the sun rises exactly due east on Equinox Day, for everyone on earth.  Let’s choose a spot on the equator from which to conduct a thought experiment: I’ve chosen Pedernales, Ecuador as an example, located on the equator at 80° West.  At sunrise in Pedernales, it is high noon 90° east of there, at 10° East.  That puts the sun at a spot over the African town of Oyan, in Gabon.  Oyan is due east of Pedernales from a circumpolar, magnetic compass, navigational view of things in the round earth view.  But we’re not talking about a round earth now; we’re talking about a flat earth, above which the sun is a quarter way around a curved path above the equator.  This puts the line-of-sight to Oyan (and therefore, to any spot above it) at quite a few degrees to the left of due east.   From the equator, the sun above a flat earth is not exactly due east on Equinox Day, nor indeed on any day.  In fact, drawing lines due east from the meridian at 80° West, one finds that none of those lines point at Oyan, meaning there isn’t a single spot on earth that will see the sun rising directly due east until you get far enough north for “east” to become meaningless.

In order for the flat earth explanations for sunrise and sunset to match the real world observations, a mechanism must be proposed to explain the apparent sideways shift in the sun's observed position as it gets further away from the observer.  On Equinox Day, the sun should be to the left of due east at sunrise; it appears to be exactly due east.  The sun should be to the right of due west at sunset; it appears to be exactly due west.

TL;DR: the small, nearby Sun of the Flat Earth (FE) model could not give Earth the heat and light energy that we actually receive.  Therefore, the Sun is not small and nearby.  The large, far away Sun of the Round Earth (RE) model could give the Earth the heat and light energy we actually receive.

The Long Version.  Quite long, in fact, and I apologize for that.  But in order to adequately make the point, I need to cover a lot of ground that will be unfamiliar to most readers, so please bear with me.  I have broken the monologue up into smaller chunks.  Please, if you are going to quote from a section, EDIT IT DOWN to only the sentence or two you want to talk about, instead of quoting an entire post.

Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:

The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles. On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc, as shown in fig. 58. The base-line from L to B, 50 measured statute miles; the angle at L, 61 degrees; and the angle at B, 64 degrees. In addition to the method by calculation, the distance of the under edge of the sun may be ascertained from these elements by the method called "construction."

The diagram, fig. 58, is the above case "constructed;" that is, the base-line from L to B represents 50 statute miles; and the line L, S, is drawn at an angle of 61 degrees, and the line B, S, at an angle of 64 degrees. Both lines are produced until they bisect or cross each other at the point S. Then, with a pair of compasses, measure the length of the base-line B, L, and see how many times the same length may be found in the line L, S, or B, S. It will be found to be sixteen times, or sixteen times 50 miles, equal to 800 statute miles. Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles. By the same mode it may be ascertained that the distance from London of that part of the earth where the sun was vertical at the time (July 13th, 1870) the above observations were taken, was only 400 statute miles, as shown by dividing the base-line L, D, by the distance B, L. If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

Flat Earth Debate / Round-earth evidence: the sound from Krakatoa
« on: March 30, 2016, 05:10:08 PM »
On August 27, 1883 the volcanic island of Krakato suffered a cataclysmic eruption.  The sound was loud.  No, it was SUPER LOUD!!!  It ruptured eardrums 40 miles away.  It could be heard by actual human ears at distances of thousands of miles away, the most distant audible sound reported by an observer on an Indian Ocean island 3,000 miles away.  Point is, this sound was YUUUGE!

Sound is an air pressure wave.  Even as the sound level fell below the threshold of human hearing, the sound wave continued to propogate away from the source.  Hours after the blast, the barometers installed at weather stations around the world saw the spike in air pressure as the wave reached their location.  (This is why I used the term "actual human ears" above, to distinguish that observation from the subsequent instrument-based observations). Six hours and 47 minutes after the Krakatoa explosion, a spike of air pressure was detected in Calcutta. By 8 hours, the pulse reached Mauritius in the west and Melbourne and Sydney in the east. By 12 hours, St. Petersburg noticed the pulse, followed by Vienna, Rome, Paris, Berlin, and Munich. By 18 hours the pulse had reached New York, Washington DC, and Toronto.  Amazingly, for as many as 5 days after the explosion, weather stations in 50 cities around the globe observed this unprecedented spike in pressure re-occuring like clockwork, approximately every 34 hours. That is roughly how long it takes sound to travel around the entire planet.

There was great interest in these pressure observations in subsequent years.  In those days any subject of the British Empire who fancied himself to have a certain level of sophistication, especially if one was posted abroad in the Empire, had his own suite of weather instruments.  When it became known that this sound wave was observable in barometric recordings, everybody checked theirs.  And sure enough, from all over the world came reports of amateur observers who had captured one or more pulses. 

Now, the shape of world in 1883 was thought to be round.  These pressure observations from all over the Empire, caused by an event occurring at a known time, provided an opportunity to prove otherwise, were the world some other shape.  However, the timing of the pressure wave's arrival at each barometer corresponded to what one would expect for a globe.

Flat Earth Debate / The ISS, visible in the sky
« on: February 29, 2016, 01:55:34 PM »
There is a tiny, fast moving dot in the sky that NASA et al call the International Space Station.  There is at least one web site where you can get projected dates and times when you can see it from anywhere you are in the world.   Those who believe space flight to be a hoax: what do you think that dot is?  It has a ground track which is explained in RE as being the result of travelling around a sphere at an inclination to that sphere's axis.  What would the FE explanation be?

I've been to the wiki, where under the heading of "Layout of the Continents" there are two very different maps presented:  The wiki does not take a side, nor does it suggest that these are the only two options.  My question is: does one of these maps (or maybe a third one not shown on the wiki) enjoy the support of MOST of the FE community?  Enough support, so that when you and I talk about "the flat earth map" we can be sure we are talking about the same thing?

Pages: [1]