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 - manicminer

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
Flat Earth Community / Re: Extent of the "Conspiracy"
« on: May 08, 2019, 12:50:11 PM »
Why do you find the concept of "space" photography so hard to grasp then Pete? It is an extensive and far reaching aspect of photography these days. A friend of mine was personally involved in the lab testing for the imaging chips that are now part the GAIA spacecraft which is now imaging the Milky Way Galaxy. And very successfully I might add.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Extent of the "Conspiracy"
« on: May 08, 2019, 10:46:03 AM »
Given that the definition of the word 'zealot' is...

a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideal

I would have said that is more fitting description if anything to some of those on the FE supporting side than the RE.  Personally while I stand as a firm believer of RET, I am certainly not so fixed in my mind as close my mind to all potential other lines of thought.  If strong enough evidence is presented to genuinely suggest that RET is actually wrong then I will consider it accordingly. However up to now no one has presented any such evidence.

since we do not have access to space to study its properties

Care to explain what you mean by this a bit more specifically Tom.  Do you mean that the FES doesn't happen to own any spacecraft so you cannot gather your own data from space to study its properties?

Who is 'we' in this context?

This one is a bit long

You could say that. On first glance I thought it said 3 minutes on the clock but after 10 minutes I started to think that time must have slowed down somehow. Then I looked again and saw it was actually just over 3 hours long.  That was when I decided to stop the video and go and check whether the wall I had just painted was dry yet.  More interesting.

Of course these sort of conspiracy theorists are very popular with their target audiences because they say what they want to hear. You could say that FE'ers will naturally 'gravitate' towards these sort of videos to use Toms favoured terminology.  No confirmatory biasing going on here obviously.

 If these claims are all as genuine and ground breaking as they would have you believe, why is it then that I have never heard of this character before in the mainstream science world?  Or indeed the BBC News? 

Surely instead of hiding behind an unregulated YouTube channel he should be contacting all the Universities around the world and explaining to them why modern astronomy and cosmology (which is less than a century old by the way) is all a load of tosh.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« on: May 06, 2019, 07:51:42 PM »
If we take assumption to be defined as
a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Then there is no assumption on the RE side as all the proof necessary of its validity is there and has been for a long time. It is the choice of the FE side not to accept that proof.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary retrograde motion
« on: May 06, 2019, 07:44:52 PM »
From what I can tell in general, FET is based on very lose and superficial claims which are down to false interpretations. For example in FE Wiki, under the FAQ page that they are so fond of making reference to..

The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the Sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world.

Of course the world looks flat from our point of view.  That proves nothing.  The bottoms of the clouds are flat. Again that proves nothing in favour of FET and how the movement of the Sun provides evidence of a flat Earth I have no idea.  All statements made without any foundation or any real explanation.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« on: May 06, 2019, 08:16:18 AM »
Fundamentally in science, alternative theories only exist if there is a need for them. If an existing theory can satisfactorily explain all we know about something then there really is no reason to seek alternative theories. The success of any theory or model is judged on its ability not only to account existing observational or experimental results but also to correctly predict future observations or experiments.

Relativity, quantum mechanics and thermodynamics are 3 examples of highly successful theories that correctly predicted results before they were or could be performed. It does not matter who developed those theories or when. Physics does not have any biases, it simply relies on results and if on one occasion results lead us in a different direction then that will be investigated accordingly.

FET seems to have no reason or substance. Being dissatified with a mainstream view is not a reason to dismiss it unless real world weaknesses or inaccuracies in that mainstream view can be demonstrated beyond simple personal preference or belief. What FE people need to do, and I haven't seen it done yet, is account for how FET offers a better explanation for everything that we experience over RET. Simply not liking it is not acceptable.  In that sense FET seems to have a more political or religious motivation over a pure scientific one. In variably if one theory is accepted more widely than another, there is a reason for it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary retrograde motion
« on: May 05, 2019, 10:52:28 PM »
If FE theorists are going to make claims that go against the mainstream heliocentric model then they had better have compelling and verifiable evidence to back up those claims.  Up to now I have not seen any of that evidence.  Just the claims.

The statement that is contained in the FW Wiki and that I have quoted above cannot produce the observed planetary motions that we see in the real sky. So why should we believe it?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary retrograde motion
« on: May 05, 2019, 04:57:54 PM »
I know all that... what you describe is the classic heliocentric model that astronomers use today. Indeed if you plot the position of Mercury and Venus against the stars on a day to day basis you will get nice curves which match their orbital paths very nicely.  Mercury always closer to the Sun than Venus as you would expect.

I am targeting these questions at the FE supporters who remain adamant that the heliocentric model is not true. Their Wiki states explicitly that the Earth is not a planet.  In case there is any dispute about that, here is a quote of what the Wiki currently states:

The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve.

So I am trying to understand how they have reached the conclusions that they have about planetary motion.

Flat Earth Theory / Planetary retrograde motion
« on: May 05, 2019, 04:05:21 PM »
If my understanding is correct, FE theory has it that all the planets orbit around the Sun, above the plane of the Earth surface. That is what seems to be implied in the Wiki page at least. That being the case, why then do not all the planets show a retrograde motion?

Further, if the diagram in the Wiki page is accurate then should not all the planets show a distinct phase pattern similar to the Moon?

Lastly, again based on the diagram contained in the Wiki, how is it possible for Mars through to Neptune to be visible on the opposite side of the sky to the Sun, while Mercury and Venus are never visible opposite the Sun in the sky?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« on: May 05, 2019, 03:50:49 PM »
From the wiki ( "Firstly, we must understand that the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth." But to my understanding the above critic does assume Polaris (it's weird to talk about myself in third person) to be much farther.

Could you explain what methods have been used to bring you to the conclusion that the stars you are talking about here are small (how small?) and a few thousand miles above sea level? Please be as specific and detailed as you can be.  The next stellar neighbour of the Sun has been accurately measured as having a distance of 4.3 lightyears which is a tad more then a few thousand miles.   

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 25 Questions for Flat Earthers!
« on: May 05, 2019, 02:05:36 PM »
the sun varies its orbit depending on the time of year

What is the mechanism in FE theory that causes this variation or is it a case of it just does because that is what we observe in the real world but we cannot actually explain why?  The same must also apply to the Moon because that also varies its distance from the ecliptic over the course of each month.  By 5 degrees or 10 times its diameter.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« on: May 04, 2019, 10:14:24 PM »
the bright absolute -4.14 magnitude star on the Crux Constellation
Just to be clear, the absolute magnitude of a star is the brightness it would have as viewed from a standard distance of 10pc (32.6 lightyears) and not from Earth. At that same distance the Sun would shine at only +4.8 magnitude making it quite difficult to see with the naked eye, especially from urban areas.

The observed magnitude of Alpha Cruxis (Acrux) is 0.77 which is still a respectably bright star only slightly fainter than Vega.  Magntiude -4.14 is closer to the apparent brightness of Venus.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 04, 2019, 09:41:29 PM »
Since air is not a solid but a combination of different gases I am not sure you can say that air has a weight as such. Rather it has a number density (number of particles per unit volume). That will be greater near the surface and less the higher you reach in altitude. That is what people mean when they describe the air as being more 'rarified' at higher altitude. There are less oxygen atoms per unit volume as you get higher which is why people start to suffer with altitude sickness at 8000ft or higher.

It is more correct to describe the pressure of the air, and needless to say air pressure is greater at the surface because of a summative effect from gravity coming from below and the pressure of air particles higher up pushing down on the particles nearer the surface.  I would also expect air pressure at the surface to be on average slightly higher at the poles compared to the equator due to the lesser effect of the Earths rotation.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Quick question...
« on: May 04, 2019, 09:26:42 PM »
Is there such a thing as an official model in flat Earth land? They always seem to reference various models but if there is an official version then I will second the request for a link to it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations
« on: May 04, 2019, 08:03:37 PM »
To clarify my point about ancient astronomers. I mean the likes of Aristarchus who did a pretty good job for their time at working out things such as the Moon being a lot nearer and a lot smaller than the Sun. He deduced that from observing the position of the Moon relative to the Sun at the time of the first quarter Moon for example.

With the limited knowledge that existed during classical times it was not unreasonable that there would be various theories and models about the nature of the heavens. Ptolemys geocentric ideas were based on the 'seeing is believing' approach as he watched the heavens moving and not apparently the Earth itself. Subsequent observations by the likes of Galileo and others provided the direct evidence that the Earth was not in fact stationary.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations
« on: May 04, 2019, 03:56:04 PM »
You have made reference to literally nothing which says or suggests that the three body sun-earth-moon problem can exist as a stable system.
Can you just clarify what you mean by a stable system?  The Moon has been orbiting the Earth and the Earth orbiting the Sun for billions of years.  Is that not evidence of a stable system?

You can see that the Moon is in orbit around the Earth just by observing it with your own eyes. As the Moon moves eastwards against the stars and the phase pattern matches the increasing and then decreasing angular elongation between the Sun and the Moon during the course of a month so natural and logical conclusion to come to is that the Moon is in orbit around the Earth. 

It might be the case that the 3 body problem has never been solved on a piece of paper but it sure seems to be working in the sky. So long as we can predict exactly where the Moon and Sun are going to be at any one moment during any year then why is it significant if an unsolved 3 body problem an issue to you?  You want evidence.  The sky is your source of evidence.  You can see what I and everyone else can see. If ancient astronomers could figure it out using nothing more than their own eyes then I'm sure we can give it a go as well.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 03, 2019, 10:49:28 PM »
Check for yourself Tom.  In just a few minutes of web searching I found numerous websites that support the same view. If I can find the information then so can you I'm sure. As I said earlier I would happily travel to Mount Everest (highest point above sea level you can reach directly on the surface) and carry out an experiment myself to confirm the hypothesis but I don't have the means to.  Supply me with the gear and the funds and I will book the flight.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 03, 2019, 09:38:11 PM »
I personally don't believe that there are variations in gravity. Those tidal effects are only being felt in seismometers (gravimeters).

There are certainly no gravitational variations caused by the stars. Far too distant. But variations caused by altitude increase are real enough. Very slight within the range of what you can achieve without resorting to air/spacecraft, but measurable nonetheless.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Celestial Gravitation
« on: May 03, 2019, 09:12:18 PM »
The mere fact CG is proposed in any model is an acknowledgement that the observed gravitational variations are real and need an explanation.

I'm not sure that CG as such (the way it is described in the FE Wiki) has ever been directly observed.  Gravitational variations have been observed but they are not caused by what the FE community describe as celestial gravitation. That has just been made up as part of FE theory.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >