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.

Messages - 3DGeek

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 25, 2017, 09:31:03 PM »
Wow!  What a clever and compelling argument!   Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them!   I like it.   Very "FE" of you.

Yes, I point out false statements when I see them. I am sorry if that bothers you. You should do your research before posting if you would like to prevent that from happening in the future.

You're not engaging in a discussion - you're just saying "FALSE" or "LOOK IN THE WIKI/FORUMS" - you never, ever, not even once ever come up with a coherent explanation when someone presents a difficult question to you.

At least Tom takes the time to try to explain (well, mostly).

I have done my research and there is absolutely nothing on the Wiki, in the other writings or on the forums that are searchable that explains ANY of the serious problems with FE gravity.

Here is the sum total of what the Wiki says:

The earth isn't pulled into a sphere because the force known as gravity doesn't exist or at least exists in a greatly diminished form than is commonly taught. The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind.

There are also other theories of flat earth thought that maintain that the earth sits on an infinite plane, with the sun moving overhead. Gravity works much like it does in a round-earth model, and the earth will never form into a sphere because the plane is endless.

Then there is the page: ...which doesn't explain how gravity decreases at the equator.

Then we have "Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane."

It says it explains them - but doesn't actually explain them!

If you're going to carry on claiming that there is - then either point them out - or NOBODY is going to believe you.  Not just a vague "in there someplace" - point an exact post out to us...just once.   You always use this hand-wavey approach and it just gets tiresome to those who come here to understand what you guys are trying to tell the world.

I don't think you have *ANYWHERE* a fully explained theory of how FE explains gravity - variable over altitude, variable by latitude and explaining the tides.

You're continual "look for it" or "false!" posts are a waste of bandwidth - the kind of thing you'd be the first to ban someone over.   If you're not going to present a reference, a discussion, or an explanation of any kind - then why bother posting?

Your responses are FAR less useful than those of many people you ban.  I recommend you give yourself a three day ban to consider this.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gleason Map
« on: July 25, 2017, 09:11:05 PM »
Hmmmm........good points. Although, if then earth is globular or 'flat' are not the distances the same? Rather like folding over a length of card?

No - they really aren't.  Nor can they ever be.  That's really the problem with FET.  It simply doesn't match common observations.

Long before my FE friend gave me this challenge and having allocated FE to the realms of the understandings of the ancients, I had queried a good many things.  If the earth is spinning at 1,000mph and rotating around the sun at over 60,000mph:

- Why WWII barrage balloons or other fixed balloons do not eventually lean to westward given that the earth is rotation West to East.

Because the atmosphere is being dragged around with the rotation of the Earth.  There is friction within the atmosphere - so if it was ever rotating slower than the ground, the earth and atmosphere speeds would gradually change until they were the same.   Since aircraft (including helicopters and balloons) are blown around by the atmosphere at the exact same speed as the ground is moving (unless some weather is adding to the effect) - they stay in the exact same places.

- Why planes flying West do not arrive at their destination twice as quick as those flying Eastward.

Same answer.  Aircraft pull themselves along relative to the speed that the air is moving.

- The gravity of the earth has to be just right to counter centrifugal force zipping things off the centre as well as ensuring the northern and southern ends not to drop. This also enable water to flow uphill.

No!  The centrifugal force due to Earth's rotation is about 0.4% the force of gravity.  So there is more than enough gravity to keep things pinned down and to stop water flowing uphill.   In fact, things do weigh a little less at the equator than at the poles because of centrifugal force.   But it's small enough that most people don't notice the change.

- How does orbit work if applying the principles of centrifugal force. If its gravitational pull then this too must be finely balanced to ensure we are not face planted onto the ground.

Well, the Earth rotates one revolution over 24 hours...this accounts (as I've said) to a force equal to about 0.4% of gravity.

A satellite in Low Earth Orbit rotates around the earth in about 90 minutes - that's a LOT faster than the Earth is spinning - and the centrifugal force EXACTLY balances gravity - leaving people floating inside their spacecraft.

In higher orbits (Geostationary orbits, such as satellite TV uses) they are much further from the center of the earth - and gravity gets a lot less at those distances - at some height (thousands of miles up) there is enough centrifugal force to balance gravity with a 24 hour orbit.

Gravity does "face plant us onto the ground" if we fall over!   We remain standing because the force of gravity isn't really all THAT strong.

- If the earth rotating around the sun at over 60,000mph and the sun is 93m miles aways how does that work?

Same exact deal.  Only now, we're talking about the sun's gravity.  The sun is much bigger than the earth, the gravity at it's surface is crushing.   However, (as you point out) we're 93 million miles away - and at this distance, the Earth feels relatively little gravity from the sun - and there is enough centrifugal force from going around the sun once a year to oppose the sun's gravity at this distance.   That's why we don't feel heavier at night and lighter during the day!   Yeah - that is happening, but the amount is so tiny, we don't feel it.

- How did the lunar module have instant voice response with mission control on landing approach?

It didn't.   I was a kid when the lunar landings happened and there was a very noticeable 2.6 second pause between the NASA ground crew asking a question and the answer starting to come back from the astronauts.   In some (but not all) recordings, that delay has been edited out to make things a bit easier to understand.

If you listen to Neil Armstrong in this recording, you can hear a distinct 1.3 second delay between him finishing his "One small step for man" speech and the mission control guys commenting on it.   In this case, we're hearing only a one-way delay...but if you listen to the back-and-forth chatter later in the mission, the delays are very noticeable.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Curiosity
« on: July 25, 2017, 08:44:25 PM »
General FE consensus is that anything having to do with going beyond the atmosphere of Earth is a hoax, because space travel itself is a lie. Wiki goes over this some, but that's the broad strokes of it. As for the planets and stars we see, I believe that's no precise agreement, even here. The two most common views are that they are in fact all out there and real, or that they're holes in some form of sky dome. The former is the more prevalent upon these forms though I would say, and is the one espoused in the wiki.

Some FE'ers seem to be saying that EVERYTHING that NASA say is a lie - a knowing fabrication.  The size of that conspiracy is would have to have extended at least 400 years into the past (because sailors claimed to have used celestial navigation techniques that couldn't have worked in FET)...and would have to cover a dozen major governments, 450+ astronauts and cosmonauts, 400,000 people who worked on the moon shots at NASA and about a million other people who've worked on spacecraft since then.   Astronomers would also have to be in on the conspiracy - so add another million or so people there...then all of the people who write software for GPS receivers, etc.

Others say that NASA staff are EXPECTING their results to show a curved earth and so when the images come back not showing that, they presume they've made an error and "correct" the image back to show a round earth...that's kinda insulting to a bunch of VERY smart people who'd spot the true facts in a heartbeat.

The latter are going to have a hard time with the mars rovers.  Clearly, they are either on a large planet that isn't Earth - or NASA are faking it at enormous expense instead of just saying "Sorry - it's too hard to get rovers to Mars"...which would be a lot cheaper and easier for them.

I think it's sad.

I read this story today - about the insane lengths everyone went to in order to find a rock out in the Kyper belt to extend the New Horizons mission out by another couple of years using just the few ounces of fuel left in it's rocket tanks.   A town in Pategonia going to amazing lengths to allow the NASA team to observe a blink in the brightness of a star lasting under a second so that it's speed could be accurately determined and so the space probe (already FAR past Pluto) can use those last drops of fuel productively.   They shut down a freeway to get rid of light pollution - and when it looked like the wind would shake the telescopes and ruin this once-ever observation - they brought a bunch of semi-trailers and parked them around the telescopes to shield them from the wind.

This tiny rock will be (by FAR) the most distant object ever to have been explored by the works of mankind.

That's such a wonderful thing - it makes me proud of humanity that we crave knowledge to this degree - that we'll go to such lengths to see what's over the next hill.

The bleak, miserably limited world of the Flat Earthers, full of nonsense and misunderstandings is a horrible place by comparison.   You almost feel that you're rescuing people from these horrors by opening up the true magnificence of the universe to them.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 25, 2017, 08:30:58 PM »
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.

And how is it impossible for the sun to be seen from both poles at some point in the bipolar model?
If that were the case the sun would be visible from all points on earth all the time... no?  In the spot light model painted by the wiki.

Clearly, the sun is not seen at all times. It was agreed that the midnight sun (24-hr sun) did not occur at both the North and South pole simultaneously, but there is no reason that at some point in the year the sun can't be seen from both the North and South pole simultaneously if the area of light contained both those distant locations.

As usual, you've grabbed onto some small part of the problem you don't understand.

Stick with this one.   On Dec 31st at the center of Antarctica, they have 24 hours of continuous sunlight and the sun makes a complete circle above the horizon.

When the sun appears in the direction of the Ross Ice Shelf (the very bottom of your map) where does it appear to be for people in South Africa?

Please don't dodge this very simple question!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 25, 2017, 08:22:10 PM »

We don't need to directly detect a graviton

because we've detected gravity waves...and they provide PRECISELY the same level of proof as their particulate dual.
Also false.

So yeah - we know gravity is a thing that's carried by a wave
There seems to be a pattern here.

Feel free to retract your claim at any time.
Why? You have literally done nothing to fulfill the requirement for me to do so.

Wow!  What a clever and compelling argument!   Just grab a few random sentences from my post and say "FALSE!" to all of them!   I like it.   Very "FE" of you.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 25, 2017, 08:13:41 PM »

Gary, if you believe that the three body problem has been solved and is able to predict the lunar eclipse, please post the method.

Tom: Your usual blindness to modern knowledge defeats you here.

1) It can be proven for 100% sure that the 3 body problem cannot ever be solved ANALYTICALLY.   That means that we can't write an equation that you can plug the positions and velocities of the three bodies into - along with some amount of time into the future - and get back the position at some other date/time.   This is true - there is not and cannot EVER be a mathematical equation that does that.  Nobody who understands the problem would claim otherwise.

2) BUT: It *CAN* be proven for 100% sure that for a 3 body problem where the masses are highly unequal that there is an approximate solution - and, furthermore we can prove that the true future positions will lie within some predictable range.   For the Earth/Moon/Sun problem, neglecting the mass of the moon produces an error that is VERY tiny - of the order of a meter or so over a year or two.   That's because (in RET) the moon is insanely tiny compared to the Sun and fairly small compared to the Earth.  Because the moon's gravitational effect on the sun is COMPLETELY negligible - we can simplify this from a 3 body problem to a couple of two-body problems and those we can solve very easily.   Yes, there is an error - no it doesn't matter - and we can PROVE that.

3) Although there cannot be a precise equation - there are other ways to solve the problem.  Numerical integration is a good one.   Using numerical integration you calculate the approximate motion of each body over a particular (short) time-step using three 2 body approximations.   You then apply this math over and over again to predict a future positions of the three bodies.  THEN, you pick a smaller time step (thereby getting more accurate results) and do it all over again.   The difference between the answer you got the first time and the answer you have now gives you a confidence interval that tells you how close you are to a solution with "good enough" precision.  Now that we have computers and can automate this, we can make calculations using (say) a microsecond as the time interval and obtain the position of moon, earth and sun to within a tiny fraction of a millimeter.  Plenty good enough to predict sunrises, sunsets, moonrises, moonsets, phases of the moon and both lunar and solar eclipses thousands of year into the future.

So your complaints are frankly ridiculous.   You know JUST enough to think you can jump into a problem like this ("The thee body problem cannot be solved") and blow that up into "We can't predict these things"...but you don't know anywhere near enough to understand WHY IT CAN BE DONE.

Sadly, you've now met someone who can see through these claims of yours and explain clearly and comprehensively why you're wrong.   I intend to keep doing don't expect these kinds of incorrect claims to slip past a gullible audience anymore.

Mathematicians are a LOT smarter than you seem to think.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunrise and Sunset
« on: July 25, 2017, 07:55:08 PM »
It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me?  If you think those predictions are false, just say so?  If you except them, then we can move on.  I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.

How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.

Can you get on board with that?  Anyone?

I don't know where the sun will be on the equinox at the equator. We need an actual observation, not a theoretical calculation. There is a complete lack of any effort on your part to provide real actual data. A theoretical calculation starts off as being false. Only once it is affirmed is it true.

What evidence would you accept as "real"?

Can I phone someone who lives near there and ask them whether the sun is setting or not?   Maybe the British Embassy or the US Embassy - a hotel or someone?

Would you accept that?

What if I go there in person?   Would you take my word for it - or would you still say that since YOU hadn't seen it, then you won't accept it.

If you LITERALLY won't accept anything that you PERSONALLY haven't accepted then why the heck should we believe one single thing you say?  Firstly because you'd be terminally ill-informed - and secondly because (logically) we should accept the same standards of evidence that you do.

Truthfully, you cannot carry out debates with ANYONE here unless there is some form of practical evidence that you'll accept.

So, I ask again - what are your standards for evidence?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived
« on: July 25, 2017, 07:50:45 PM »
The North Star is North in the Flat Earth model. To find the direction of North the Chinese just had to find the North Star. It's the brightest one. Simple!

Really? The North Star is the brightest? Are you sure about that?

This statement helps support my hypothesis that the main problem with FE'ers is that they don't get out much, and didn't spend much time outside as kids. People that spend much time outside at night (e.g. camping, star-gazing, or just hanging out) understand things like the basic geometry of celestial bodies, sunrises and sunsets, the relative apparent brightness of objects such as polaris, etc. (All using the Zetetic method.)

Ha ha!  I hadn't noticed that blunder.  But indeed, Polaris is the 53rd brightest star and the 24th brightest in the northern hemisphere.

If you find the brightest star (Sirius) and follow that, you'd sail round in circles.

I think I can forgive Tom for this one's a claim that's untrue in both FET and RET - so we'll just call it a mistake.  In truth, to navigate by Polaris, you have to find the right constellations and locate it from there.  In the patch of the sky it occupies, Polaris is quite bright and it's hard to mistake it for some other star once it's been pointed out to you.

Bad problem is, if you use Tom's approach, in FE you sail along a circular route that's much longer than the shortest route.

What makes him BADLY wrong about this one is that he's assuming that navigation is all about using the stars as a compass...which is kinda pointless since you already have one of those.   Navigation is about finding POSITION - which in RET means latitude and longitude - but in FET, it's a horrible mess because the huge optical distortions implied by "The Bishop Equation" make stellar navigation quite impossible without fully understanding that the earth is flat - and the seamen of yesteryear either didn't know that or there was a conspiracy back in the 1600's and throughout the long history of chinese sailors that would have encompassed vastly too many people to be plausible.

What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.
Yes, Round Earthers like to call it that. Your point?

You know that Tom doesn't believe in this map. (Apparently.) He believes the Antarctica is a continent. (Apparently.) How do you reconcile these wildly differing, mutually exclusive hypotheses as to the fundamental shape and form of the Earth? Which one are we to believe, and/or debate?

Tom's "new" map is actually even harder to reconcile with the facts that we know from the real world than the old one.   Consider that in December, the antarctic (which Tom now admits exists) has 24 hours of continuous sunlight.   Which means that sometimes, the sun is somewhere between the "bottom" coast of antarctica and the "bottom" edge of the map.  (Using compass directions on Toms new map hurts my head!).   This would mean that in South America, the sun would be setting on the southern horizon.   Needless to say, this doesn't happen.

So that map is *BUSTED* for sure!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gleason Map
« on: July 25, 2017, 07:34:32 PM »
Quick Q re Gleason's Map: If, for example, a ship sailed out from the east coast of Africa and headed on 'straight right' correcting to cut across line of latitude and longitude in a 'south easterly' the ship should in theory reach the ice wall that encloses the oceans. This could be repeated from any other position. This would prove flat earth, that all line of longitude south lead to the Antarctic  and that early Antarctic explorers were not merely navigating around a large iced landmass bigger than the whole European/Asia continent.  If this is so, why hasn't anyone tried it?

For reference, to use forum terminology, I am a REer challenged by a FE friend to make reasonable and objective enquiries. As the Gleason map was offered as an example, I have thus raised it here.

The stock RE response to this map is to look at the Qantas airlines flight schedule from Sydney Australia to Santiago Chile.   On a "gleason" map (the FE map shown in the Wiki) - their 747-400's would have to fly about three times the distance that Qantas say they do - they'd need to fly more than twice the maximum range for a 747-400, and their speed would have to exceed Mach 2...not something a 747 can do!

The ONLY response I've yet had to this from the FE community is that the Jet Stream speeds them along - but (a) the jet stream isn't that fast and (b) how could Qantas ALSO fly back from Santiago to Sydney against this mach 1.5 jet stream headwind?

Sadly, their experts are oddly quiet about this.   There are MANY other airline timetables you can look at online, and without fail, 100% of them agree perfectly on flight times and distances with the round earth - and unsurprisingly, almost none of them agree perfectly with the FE map...except over ridiculously short trips or predominantly North/South flights.

Once you get into the Southern hemisphere - their model of the world simply doesn't work.

Since then though we have an exciting "NEW" map!   It actually shows Antarctica as a separate continent - and has lines of latitude and longitude that make very exciting curves.    Sadly, these are even more insanely wrong...but in different ways and in different places.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:58:49 PM »
The trouble with the new map: even more severe than with the old one.

Suppose it's summer in Antarctica - and you're standing on the south pole.

At some point during the months of continuous sunlight, the sun is going to be shining from the direction of the Ross Ice Shelf (the "bottom" of the new map).    (You want to say "South" - but directions are so screwed up at the poles...!)

So the actual FE sun is somewhere between the Ross Ice Shelf and the "edge of the world" at the Ice Cliff.

Which means that for anyone in (say) South Africa - the sun is setting (or rising?) on the SOUTHERN horizon...yeah - that's a bit odd isn't it.

Then, for NewZealanders - their little islands have been smeared out over some ungodly large distance - which way does a compass point?   Both North and South poles are "above" them on the map (again, putting compass directions on things is hard).

I had a small amount of grudging respect for the original FE map - it's not without it's faults, but it's quite a clever interpretation - but this new one is must batshit-crazy!

It's so badly screwy, you can't easily get your head around just how screwy it really is!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:45:08 PM »
Unless you are suggesting the "graviton" has been discovered. If so, then please provide evidence and I will retract my claim.

Now that's a tempting offer!

Wave-duality says that for every force-carrier there is a corresponding particle.   Electromagnetic waves have the photon, Strong and Weak nuclear force have the Gluon, Mass has the Higgs particle.  Gravitational waves (if they exist) have the graviton.   Even electrons (normally seen as a particle) have an associated wave function (see Schrodinger's equation).

In fact, there isn't really a distinction between a force as a wave or as a particle - they are merely aspects of the same exact thing that show themselves up under different experimental situations.   So some experiments with light can count photons where others diffract and focus light as a wave.   This duality is a hard thing to wrap our minds around - but we've seen it in enough physical situations to know that it's true.

So - for gravity,  the only experiment that would reveal a "particle-like" nature would require a particle accelerator about the size of the orbit of the moon  (er, sorry FE'ers...I mean "MUCH BIGGER THAN THE ICE WALL CIRCLE").

However, we don't need to do that - we only need to detect a gravity WAVE - and the existence of the dual particle can either be assumed or ignored.

So - enter the gravity wave observatories, there are (I believe) three of these with sufficient sensitivity to actually detect gravity waves.  For 10 years, they got no results, until just last year they improved the sensistivity of the "LIGO" detector just a little bit more - and BINGO.   A gravity wave was detected...and if there is a wave - there must be a particle to be it's dual.

We don't need to directly detect a graviton because we've detected gravity waves...and they provide PRECISELY the same level of proof as their particulate dual.

So yeah - we know gravity is a thing that's carried by a wave - that things as far distant as a pair of orbiting black holes in another galaxy have the power to transmit a gravity wave that can be detected here on Earth.

Feel free to retract your claim at any time.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fake Photo Fest
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:23:39 PM »
But no, you can't just adjust the aperture and get a perfect photo.

I have used composite layers from bracketed exposures many times.  That does not make a fake image.

I agree - but many here would not.   Some here have been complaining that images are "photoshopped" - but that's a common tool for adjusting lighting to account for exposure issues (and also for something called "Gamma Correction" which makes images look more realistic by accounting for the differences in brightness sensitivity curves for camera, screen and human eye).

My point is that any "digital" image has inherently been "processed" if only by the act of displaying it on a particular type of display.

At what point "correction" becomes "fakery" is a matter of opinion.

To my mind "The Blue Marble" is very, very close to the "fake" end of the spectrum - and I'm happy to dismiss it as evidence.  But the Apollo 8 "Earthrise" photo is right at the "correction" end, and should be believed.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: High Places
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:17:46 PM »
Curvature is a tough thing to see in a three dimensional situation because you have curvature in the left-right direction (which you'd have if FET was true) as well as in the near-far direction (which you only have with RET).   The consequences of these two things are hard to wrap your head around.

What IS noticeable in RE but not FE is that from higher altitudes, you can see much further and that the percentage of the 360 degree view that is sky gradually increases with altitude.   (Pilots call this "Horizon Depression").   The ability to see further from the height of a ferris wheel should be easily enough to be obvious - but in most situations, there is enough nearby ground clutter to make accurate visible range measurements difficult when close to the ground.

Flat Earth General / Re: London Documentary on Flat Eart
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:12:35 PM »
Are you also interested in talking with seasoned veterans at the Flat Earth debunking game too?

I naturally assume a balanced view in your work.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Navigation
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:11:10 PM »

The coriolis force does not influence the navigation directly, but the weather and, with that, the wind direction, which, in turn influences the navigation. However, if you argue that the flat earth is spinning (which I don't know if the flat earthers claim that it is), then you would indeed have coriolis force. On the real earth the coriolis force makes low pressure systems rotate counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere - that can be seen from the ground, sometimes. That would be non existing on a flat earth. Even if the flat earth was spinning, the pressure systems would all be rotating in the same direction.

No - I don't think the FE'ers generally believe that their flat planet spins.   I can't guarantee that none of them believe that - because there are always multiple FE theories for everything.

If it doesn't spin - then there can be no coriollis force - and multiple observations (eg the way long range snipers take account of it when adjusting their aim point - or the reason that hurricanes don't cross the equator and spin in opposite directions either side of it) show that the coriolis effect exists.

If it does spin then the coriolis force would have the wrong magnitude - and it would operate in the wrong direction in the southern hemiplane.

So no matter whether the flat earth spins or not - the coriolis effect is a problem for them to explain away.

For every problem, there are generally at least three or four competing FE theories.  For "gravity", I'm aware of three:

1) The "density" theory is no longer popular...especially amongst the FE'ers on this forum.  It's ridiculously easy to debunk...put any object from a feather to a bowling ball into a bell jar, pump out the air with a vacuum pump and see if it floats.   Nope - it does not.  Theory busted.

2) The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s because of...magic pixie dust...whatever.   This would indeed reproduce all the effects of gravity.  Albert Einstein was kind enough to prove that equivalence in his General theory of relativity.   The first complaint of most RE'ers about this is that after a billion years of this acceleration, the world would be going faster than light and that's not possible...but enter Albert Einstein again - and because time/length and mass change for the people inside the moving Earth - any outside observer would see the earth's acceleration being slowed by the slowing passage of time as it goes faster - so it never exceeds light speed...and for people on the accelerating earth, there is no problem whatever.   The reason this theory cannot be true is that gravity is measurably different at the equator compared to the poles - and the earth can only accelerate at one rate without tearing itself apart.   So although this is by far the most popular FE theory on this forum, it's also BUSTED.

3) Gravity is present in the Flat Earth...this would be busted if the Earth were a neat little round disk because people close to the rim would be attracted towards the center...but members of this forum seem to believe that the Earth is infinite in extent - and if that's the case then gravity works just like in RE theory and all is well.   Moreover - the issues of gravity varying with altitude, at the poles and equator and near tall mountains all work perfectly providing the earth has a bit of a dimple where the pole is and a subtle bulge around the circular equator...but gravity works as an FE theory.   I'm not sure why it's not liked.
There are people here who believe that it's a mixture of acceleration and true gravity...which is messy.

All of them have trouble explaining tides.   These are caused in RET by the moon's gravity - but in FET, the moon is too small for that...but hey, maybe water likes the moon and gathers towards it or something.   Sadly, that idea doesn't explain why there are TWO high tides every day. others here have said - it's wise to read ALL of the Wiki before jumping in with criticisms of things that the FE community don't actually claim.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Fake Photo Fest
« on: July 18, 2017, 04:16:16 PM »
Why not just adjust the width of your aperture? Any amateur photographer would be able to capture this in one shot. Bring the right tool to do the job. This excuse is particularly poor for an organisation the size of NASA.

The problem with adjusting the aperture is that it affects all of the image at once.   So if you have one part that's over-exposed and another that's under-exposed, no amount of fiddling with the aperture (or the film speed or anything else for that matter) will get you a well-lit photo.

Human eyes have dynamic apertures that change without conscious thought - so as soon as you concentrate on a particular spot in your field of view, it appears well-lit...but cameras are only just becoming able to do that.

I believe I mentioned the Google Pixel phone that can do this by taking a bunch of pictures at different exposure settings and compositing them appropriately to get everything in the scene to be well lit.   When NASA do this, you accuse them of faking the image...which is semi-justifiable.

But no, you can't just adjust the aperture and get a perfect photo.

Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 18, 2017, 04:07:34 PM »
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

...that and the fact that your photo on the Wiki is a "fake".  It's not a picture of the coast of Antarctica *or* the Ice Wall (if those are different things) - it's a photo of an iceberg.

Just saying - for a group who routinely accuse people of making fake photos - let those who live in glass houses not cast stones!

I'm not saying that there are no gigantic ice cliffs along the coast of Antarctica - I'm quite sure there are - I'm just saying that this isn't a photograph of one - and you should go fix your Wiki.

Of course there are also some very gentle beaches - places where intrepid explorers wishing to travel beyond the Ice Wall could easily gain access...even those without helicopters capable of reaching the dizzying altitude of 150 feet!

Flat Earth General / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 18, 2017, 03:53:55 PM »
In proving whether or not the Earth is flat can't we just do a simple distance test, assuming that any direction towards the perimeter of the Antarctic Ice Wall is south?


What do you guys think about that? Is this a feasible idea?

You don't really need to go to all that trouble.   Do this:

* Go to Google Maps.
* Type in "Santiago, Chile", hit enter.
* Click "Directions"
* Type in "Sydney, Australia", hit enter.

It tells you that Qantas airlines will fly you direct (4 flights per week) taking 12h 15min...and it draws you a map, showing you'd be flying West-to-East.

Now (just for grins) click the up/down arrow icon up where you entered your start and end point.  Now it tells you that to get from Sandiago, back to Sydney takes 13hr 45 min...but the route is the same.

OK, so I could tell you how to get onto the Qantas site and confirm all of this - but I'm sure you can figure that out if you're mega-sceptical.

Now - go to a regular Google search window and type: "distance sydney to sandiago chile"  (make sure it's "sandiago chile" and not "san diego"!) 11340 km.

So the plane is flying West/East at a speed of 11,340/12.25 = 925 kph...which is 575mph.  On the East/West return trip, it's 824kph or 512mph.  The difference is because the prevailing winds in the southern hemisphere blows west-to-east, so there is a tail-wind on the outbound leg and a head wind on the way back.

Phew.  OK - so we can look up the data for a 747-400 (that's what Qantas fly on that route)...the Wikipedia page says with maximum payload it can fly 14,200km non-stop (so it can make the 11,340km trip with a healthy safety margin)...and it's cruise speed is 933kph...which is a little faster than we calculated - but commercial flight times are always padded by a little bit to allow for takeoff and landing times, etc.

This all seems very self-consistent doesn't it.

Trouble is, in the FE map - the distance from Sydney to Sandiago Chile is a lot more than that.   FE map distances are the same as RE map distances on North/South routes - but differ wildly from RE distances on East/West routes - and increasingly so the further south you go.

So on both a round and a flat earth map, 11,300 km is about the distance from Johannesburg (South Africa) to Venice (italy).

 Now...from the Wiki (with some overlays of my own):

So - each red line (pretty much North/South from Venice to Johannesburg) must be about 11,000 km on both RE and FE maps.
The green line represents the 14,200km range of a 747-400 airplane.

It's rather clear that if the airplane takes the route that Google says it does - and how the flight would go if the pilot uses a compass or a GPS to follow what he believes to be the shortest RE distance, then on the FE map, the curved route is over three and a half times the distance he'd have to fly if the Earth is round.

Even if he takes a "short cut" over North America - he needs three times the distance.

Clearly he can't be taking that short cut because I'm quite sure people on the plane would look out of the window and notice that nearly half of the trip was over land...and every air traffic controller along the way would be surprised at a Qantas flight over their airspace at that time!

Qantas also fly non-stop to South Africa - and almost the exact same problem happens there.

So the FE map on the Wiki simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny...and you don't need to do the experiment you describe because Qantas airlines do eight flights (four each way) every week.

The ONLY semi-plausible answers from FE'ers on this is are:

1) That the jet stream speeds the aircraft up...but that's ridiculous because it can't possibly speed it up in BOTH directions.
2) That this map is only an approximation, and...meh.  But there isn't a way to fix this...either this distance is wildly wrong - or some other distance is off by a similar amount.
3) There is a "new" map - which includes antarctica as a separate continent - basically, this one:
This actually makes the West-to-East route for Qantas even longer - and the short-cut takes them over antarctica...but Australians are going to have to learn all new geography.

So...yeah...a bit of googling around and the problem for the FE'ers is clear.   How can you POSSIBLY explain your way out of this one?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >