121

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: March 10, 2021, 05:26:26 PM »

@scomato

The last of your examples is wrong.  The rest are right!

The only thing that can alter lights path is direct interaction with matter.  "Gravitational lensing" is fiction with only clear experimental/scientific/demonstrative refutation (no support whatsoever).

Well, if we want to get pedantic about it, gravity doesn't alter Light's path through space, like interaction with matter does. Gravity warps the space that light is travelling through itself, as far as the photon is concerned it has never changed course. It is more akin to drawing a straight line on a piece of paper, and then bending the paper.

Can you kindly cite any work that clearly refutes gravitational lensing?


You are dead wrong with the claim that the only thing that can alter a light's path is interaction with matter. Experiments at LIGO (which is just a giant Michelson Interferometer, described below) proved the existence of gravitational waves that are constantly passing through the earth, like ocean waves rocking a boat at sea.





It is kind of an interesting round-circle, Michelson and Morley originally conducted their original experiment (which won them the 1907 Nobel Prize) to disprove the Aether theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment), and then over a hundred years later the same method was used to prove the existence of gravitational waves.



This 'blip' that is simultaneously observed at both LIGO stations is the interference pattern caused by gravitational waves rocking through the planet. This is irrefutable proof of gravity's effect on light - but nobody has seriously argued against gravity effecting light since Newtonian physics.



It is funny, because the proponents of the Aether Theory were kind of on the right track, sort of. But instead of an Aether what there actually is, is a gravitational background.

122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: March 10, 2021, 03:03:35 AM »

Light can bend when it comes into contact with molecules that disrupt its linear path. This is how mirages work, with the rising action of hot air causing the light distortion. The light from above the road, that would have otherwise missed your eyes completely, are deflected upwards into your eyes creating the illusion. 



Light also gets refracted when it passes through other changes in the air. Like in the exhaust of a jet engine.



Refraction of Light is also responsible for the awesome effect you get using the process of Schlieren Imaging, which uses the refractive variation in light to 'see' perturbations in air pressure and wind.



Light rays can also be bent on cosmic scales, "the graceful arcs at the center of this image from the Hubble Space Telescope are actually the distorted light of distant galaxies, twisted to form an "Einstein ring" by the gravitational influence of the closer galaxy cluster SDSS J0146-0929."

123

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How to explain?

« on: March 04, 2021, 07:34:00 PM »

Hello!
I was browsing on YouTube today and found this video: https://www.yo utube.com/watch?v=9dfVtaZbuIQ
In the video, a weather balloon was sent to 100K feet and we can clearly see some curvatures on the shape of Earth.

The video is a full uncropped 4 hours video from launch to landing.
I'm wondering what could explain this phenomenon?

Thanks.

GoPros come stock with a fish-eye lens that creates curved distortions in various parts of the frame. As the horizon line moves around the frame you can see the curve change to almost flat:





Find a similar vid without a fish-eye lens and have a look at that.

How does the Fish Eye Lens effect explain this video? As you can see the Earth does not distort wildly due to a lens effect as it comes in and out of frame.

124

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking for curvature is a fool's errand.

« on: March 03, 2021, 08:27:22 PM »

When I travel to the other end of Lake Ontario and view my home city of Toronto from the city of St. Catharines, why does the CN Tower appear 2/3 as tall as it should?

If the Earth was flat the CN Tower should appear as-is. In the image below, you can see a Mirage Effect (eg. where the white roofed Rogers Center is smeared) but due to its gigantic height you can see how low the CN Tower dips below the horizon.

125

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.

« on: February 24, 2021, 07:37:55 PM »

Don't tell anybody but I also think Mars is probably smaller then we think.

Mars has a diameter of 6,779 km. It is 227.9 million km away from Sun. It has a mass of 6.39 × 10^23 kg, an overall density of 3.93 g/cm³, an orbital period of 687 days, and a surface pressure of 0.636 (0.4–0.87) kPa.

What are the measurements of your Mars?

126

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal

« on: February 24, 2021, 07:33:09 PM »

There seems to be some severe misunderstanding of how GPS works in this thread.

You are mistaken.

If you have an argument to make, make it. There is absolutely no need to post basic videos with no explanation as to why you're posting them.

I just arrived in this thread but I would argue strongly that GPS are not fake, or hoaxed using radio towers. They sit in low earth orbit and use electromagnetic waves to continuously cast information about its current position and time of signal sent to the surface of the Earth. Receivers sensitive to 1575.42 Mhz and 1227.60 MHz (the EM frequencies used by GPS) can read this information, and use trilateration and math to deduce the coordinates of a user.

If people are claiming that our phones send out a signal and communicate with the GPS satellites, that is false. GPS devices can only read and compute. 

127

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal

« on: February 24, 2021, 07:22:11 PM »

There seems to be some severe misunderstanding of how GPS works in this thread.

This video explains it much better than I can, in a way that should be comprehensible to schoolchildren.

128

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 24, 2021, 07:15:51 PM »

On the "Ball Experiment" -

Bay Area California, Feb 21st, 2021, pictures taken around 5:27 PM PST with a Google Pixel 3 XL Phone.

Image 2:

Viewpoint from behind the ball, looking at Sun:

Full Size: https://i.imgur.com/dahZJsy.jpg

Image 5:

Next I moved my position to below the ball and the top of the post, to get the ball to point upwards via a close range perspective effect. I could have done a better job at getting the phase to match, by moving the camera around. But it was easy to move the camera downwards to get the illuminated portion to point upwards:

Full Size:  https://i.imgur.com/rSV2mAx.jpg

Tom, I think it's fantastic that you did the experiment yourself.

In your photo #2 it perfectly demonstrates how the moon would be illuminated if you were to view it from the perspective of the far side of the moon facing the sun.

The below is a photo of the same experiment on a much grander scale, this shows how when viewed at the same angle, the Moon and the Earth are illuminated the same.



In your photo #5 it also perfectly demonstrates how, when a ball and the moon are viewed at the same angle, you see the same phase on the ball and on the moon. You have proved that both the Moon and the Earth, and the Ball, are all illuminated by parallel light rays, which is impossible in a geocentric model.

But your argument that by changing the perspective of the observer, so does change the shading of the ball. Of course it does, you are viewing it from a different angle. If you were to fly into space, and viewed the moon from an angle directly opposite the sun (such as in Photo #3), you would see a fully illuminated moon.

129

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 20, 2021, 09:59:34 PM »

Here is a better diagram and explanation of the Moon Tilt Illusion. Tom, you are fundamentally misunderstanding and misrepresenting several concepts simultaneously, which is why your posts are not making any sense.

http://chrisjones.id.au/MoonIllusion/

When the moon and the sun are both visible in the sky, but not close together, the sunlight often appears to illuminate the moon from a high angle, even when the sun is closer to the horizon than the moon.

As seen in an orthogonal projection, the lunar terminator (the boundary of the illuminated hemisphere of the moon) appears from Earth as a half-ellipse. The major axis of the ellipse is perpendicular to the sun's direction from the moon: the sun lies on an extension of the minor axis.



The illusion occurs when the moon and sun are separated by a wide angle, so that they are perceived relative to the horizon, as if in a panorama. A panoramic photograph is a cylindrical projection. In this projection, most straight lines project as sinusoidal curves. The moon-sun line is curved, unless the moon and sun are on the horizon or directly above one another.

This curve can be seen in the figure below, which shows a cylindrical projection of the sky covering 60° of altitude and 180° of azimuth. Below it is an isometric drawing showing how the moon and the sun project on to the cylinder from the viewpoint.



The above figure animates to show the radius of the cylinder increasing until it becomes a plane. The projection then becomes a rectilinear one, in which all straight lines remain straight. As the cylinders are tangent to the plane at the moon's position, the angle of the terminator remains constant throughout the animation.

The rectilinear projection is like a wide-angle photograph. Angular displacements are progressively magnified away from the optical centre, as revealed by the grid lines. The angle of the terminator is thus slightly different than it would appear if looking directly up at the moon.

130

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 20, 2021, 03:31:34 AM »

No, I didn't say "any direction". I said a variety of different directions. You can use close range perspective effects to get a ball or a pencil or any close range object to point upwards or downwards to match something in the distance very easily.

As for why the ball "generally" matches the Moon's phase in relation to the Sun, the ball will also be full with your back to the sun in the FE model during the times near Full Moon. This "ball experiment" shows nothing. I would suggest looking further into this and actually coming up with something that can only be true in your model.  During the time near Full Moon holding out a ball with your back to the sun on the horizon will cause the ball to be full.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Lunar_Phases



A man holds out a ball sometime during the gibbous phases. Sun is behind him setting on the horizon due to EA. The ball he holds out is full.

I don't know why you put "generally" in quotes because this observation is perfect. Try it yourself!

I am not sure also what you mean by the illumination of the ball being influenced by my perspective of an observer? In your demonstration you are changing the camera position around the scene, until you get a view where the cones are pointed in the same direction. but how does that translate into the real world at all?

I also don't see the relevance of the direction of pointed cones - we are talking about ping pong balls. Balls can't be pointed in any direction, they are balls.

131

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 20, 2021, 01:42:03 AM »

Oh, so our brain makes the Moon rotate but nothing else that we can test. Clearly, your deductive powers are amazing.

This explanation might seem good and well in your mind, but this is clearly more objective nonsense from you. I would suggest working with your RE friends to get your act together and come up with a compelling argument that doesn't rely on tricks the brain plays on us with the Moon but is otherwise untestable.

Tom, here is a simple test I can do with the moon. I was taught this experiment in the 1st grade when we started to learn about the Earth, Moon and Solar System. I go outside into an empty field (no artificial or reflected light sources) during the day when the moon is visible in the sky, and I hold out a ping pong ball in the air. The illumination and shadow of the ping pong ball is always the same as the illumination and shadow of the moon.





This would suggest that both the moon and the ping pong ball are both being lit by parallel light rays being emitted by the sun. This, combined with lunar and solar eclipses, proves conclusively that the Earth is Round, that the Moon orbits the Earth, and that the Earth orbits the Sun.

132

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth

« on: February 18, 2021, 08:09:24 PM »

The map is an azimuthal projection centered on wherever you happen to be at any given time. The map changes based on the position of the observer.

If you are standing at the North Pole then the Flat Earth looks like this - there is an Antarctic Ice Wall surrounding the Earth.


Standing in Florida the Flat Earth looks like this, the Ice Wall transmorphing itself into a continent based on your changed location:


Standing in Japan it looks like this:


Standing in New Zealand it looks like this - instead of an Antarctic Ice Wall the Earth is now bounded by the Africa and Russia Wall.


Standing at the South Pole it looks like this:

133

Flat Earth Community / Re: New Universe Model ("Many Worlds" Theory)

« on: February 15, 2021, 11:55:20 PM »

What do you mean by the planet resembling a galaxy?

This is a photo of Andromeda with a DSLR camera no telescope, in plain old visible light.



It's clearly a disc shaped amalgamation of matter with a bright core. Is the speculation that the Andromeda galaxy is actually another Flat Earth zooming through space?

134

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Antartica just an ice wall or does it have waterfalls too?

« on: February 15, 2021, 11:49:53 PM »

There is an 'ice wall' but it is called the Ross Ice Shelf, it spans an 800km long section of West Antarctica.





It is not really a wall, it is an ice shelf.

135

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 12, 2021, 02:23:27 AM »

it is possible to keep a star in frame of a telescope or otherwise without star trails on a EQ telescope mount for hours at a time.

Tom, there are many How-To guides on YouTube for doing this, using a device such as a Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer Motorized Mount. It is the basis of astrophotography, a hobby that many non-scientists enjoy.

This is a great video of a guy doing this in his backyard, with top tier hardware. He is keeping Mars in frame, without trailing, for hours at a time. At 7:26 in this video, you can see a tracked preview image of Mars without any trailing, and his final photo is not smeared like a time lapse.

136

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki Contradictions: be careful who you quote!

« on: February 11, 2021, 05:42:20 PM »

Was scrolling through the wiki, in the Coriolis effect article, when I found this gem.

In those highly controlled settings, scientists at MIT in the 1960s were able to show that Coriolis could work on a draining tub. In fact, I have been told that graduate students at MIT still do this experiment today in one of their classes.

Tom, if you're going to cherrypick quotes, at least have the sense to:

1. Remove the sections that count against FET
2. At least attempt to address the questions raised.

Where does it say that the later MIT results were against FE?

Those sources in that section specifically say that when Shipiro's claim was repeated it was found that the outcome is dependent on the specific conditions it was conducted, and that the matter was not resolved.

The Coriolis Effect is caused by the rotation of the Earth around its axis, if the effect (and therefore the fact that the Earth revolves around an axis) can be proven with a simple bathtub experiment, how is the reconciled with the notion of a non-revolving, upwardly accelerating flat earth?

137

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Other Gravity Solutions

« on: February 11, 2021, 04:40:13 PM »

I don't think I have seen a FE reasoning for tides. If everything in the material universe was accelerating upwards at single, fixed speed - and if gravity is not real, what causes the oceans to bulge towards the moon when it is overhead?

138

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?

« on: February 11, 2021, 04:34:57 PM »

Here are the cold hard facts. By the way, speed only makes sense relativistically. You can't have a speed if you don't have something to compare it against.

1. The Earth moves at a relative speed of 66,000 miles per hour (107,000 km/hr) around the Sun, at the center of the Solar System.
2. Through local space, the Solar System moves at a relative speed of 43,000 miles per hour (70,000 km/hr) towards the star system Vega (in the Hercules Constellation).
3. The Solar System and its neighbors orbit the black hole Sag. A* at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy at a speed of 483,000 miles per hour (792,000 km/hr) in a counter-clockwise motion as viewed from galactic North.
4. Relative to the Andromeda galaxy, the Milky Way Galaxy is moving towards it at a speed of 260,000 miles per hour (402,000 km/hr). They are expected to collide in some 4.5 billion years.
5. All Galaxies in our local group are travelling towards a tremendous cluster mass of galaxies called the Great Attractor, at a mind-bending 1,342,162 miles per hour (2,160,000 km/hr)

So, as we speak and sit here typing stuff out, we are hurtling through space at over a million miles an hour towards a mysterious mass of over 1000 galaxies. Speed is just a measure of the difference between relative objects.

So, you wouldn't be totally wrong to say that the Earth is moving, possibly even accelerating, at a ridonculous rate. However, that has nothing to do with a reasoning for why objects fall on Earth.

Even small children are taught in school now that Gravity is NOT a downwards pulling Force. It is the curved geometry of spacetime itself. Newton wrongfully posited that objects that are not influenced by forces move along straight lines. Einstein corrected the theory, in fact, objects that are not influenced by forces move along geodesic curves in space time. The falling of objects has nothing to do with, and doesn't even require the application of an upwards force from below.

Whether it is the earth revolving around the Sun, or the Sun revolving around Sag A*, or Sag A* hurtling towards the Great Attractor, all things are not influenced by any force rather they are moving along geodesic curves in space that is caused by objects with great mass.

139

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments

« on: February 11, 2021, 03:15:30 PM »

A very good point. The FE Wiki has a huge section on gravimetry - none of it makes any sense at all. It seems to muddle (deliberately?) the fact that a lot of people using gravimeters, for example those looking for oil or other minerals, are interested only in the sub surface densities, and hence want to correct for the larger scale variations that you get due to the earth's shape and the apparent reduction in g you get, in increasing amounts closer to the equator, due to the earth's spin. It also goes big on the similarities with seismometers, as if this is some grand conspiracy. Amusingly, there's several references to how gravimeters and seismometers are often accurate enough to detect solar and lunar gravitational effects. The fact that the FE wiki itself is quoting sources that state that the passing of the sun and moon, synchronised perfectly with the tides of the sea, can be detected by what is essentially a weight/spring balance machine, should give most FE believers at least pause for thought.

The wiki on Gravimetry claims that Gravimeters are picking up seismic noise, which is impossible considering most Gravimetry these days is conducted using airplane or satellite mounted devices. How does seismology work, when the detector is not even attached to the ground?

The FE dispute of Gravimetry seems to revolve around this notion, and posits that the correlation between seismically active regions of earth and the gravimetric anomaly distribution of Earth as being the same thing. But they are visibly not. Most notably are the mountain ranges of West Africa - we know them to be ancient and from the Precambrian period and what's left today is eroded sediment from half a billion years ago. It isn't volcanic, yet, the high density of mass caused by those mountains still gives the expected gravimetry readings despite being seismically inactive!

Gravity of Earth


Seismically Active Regions


There are many similarities, but any grade-school child could understand that mountains are the result of tectonic plates colliding and are therefore seismically active regions, while the same process creates volcanic mountain ranges that are incidentally the densest regions of the Earths surface.



The correlation is not causation. If airborne gravimeters were indeed somehow magically picking up on seismic activity, then there should be spikes in measurement in the seismically active undersea tectonic plate borderlands too. But instead, the gravimeters provide data that is consistent with a less dense region of the earth's surface, why is that?

140

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments

« on: February 11, 2021, 02:52:19 AM »

It can be observed using ground-based instruments that g does not equal 9.81 m/s² everywhere. I do not see how you can reconcile the fact that the Earths gravity is easily measurable using gravimeters.

Gravimetry is the backbone of modern oil, mineral and gas industries, it is how they survey the earth to estimate the mineral compositions below the earth. Over pockets and voids in the earth full of less dense oil and gas, energy companies can know where to drill. This is all totally independent of, and can be verified without coming close to the topic of satellites, a curvature of the earth, atmospheric distortion of light, the size and positions of the sun and moon, the trailing of the stars, it's just a good old fashioned box with a spring in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5WYBVFqRhk

The data from gravimeters tell us that the downward pull from the earth is weaker where there is the least mass underneath you (over the deepest parts of the ocean) and the pull is stronger when there is more mass underneath you (over a tall mountain range). What you get is a global distribution of gravity that makes the Earth less of a sphere and more like a lumpy potato.



If UA was real, gravimetry would show that the downward pull on the earth is the same everywhere - and it would not be possible to explain the measurable variation in gravity at different points of the earth at the same time.

In FE UA it would not matter if you were standing at the top of Mt. Everest or at the bottom of Mariana's Trench you would experience the same downward pull anywhere you were on Earth, as the Earth can't be accelerating at different speeds in different places.