1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: February 28, 2021, 01:37:23 AM »

The RE model explains the South Pole, the motion of the Sun, the Seasons, and the relative sizes of the different continents. It has been accepted for thousands of years and is supported by the overwhelming percentage of the data that has ever been collected. And RE data continues to be collected at a huge rate by thousands of scientific instruments every day.

The baseless and shallow argument is the one the claims it is all a hoax. There is absolutely no evidence for this. There isn't even a plausible theory about how "they" might be able to create such a massive fake.

Indeed. FEs are defined by what they don't believe, not what they do believe. That is why they spend so much effort trying to prove that RE is wrong, but spend almost no effort trying to prove that FE is right.

You need to read over what you've just said and stop letting your emotions get in the way.

You are the only person making claims here - therefore you need to provide the evidence.

Claim 1: RE model has been accepted for thousands of years - I can't wait to see how you back this claim up
Claim 2: RE has been supported by the overwhelming percentage of the data - What data?
Claim 3: RE data continues to be collected at a huge rate by thousands of scientific instruments every day - name one instrument that proves RE...

How many millions of intercontinental flights based on RET would it take to convince you?

You need to learn how flights work. Airliners use filed flight plans and radar communication with air traffic control. The filed flight plans are based off of years of historic data collection. Nothing here proves the shape of the earth.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: February 26, 2021, 11:21:16 PM »

I don't think there is a standard RE map. There seem to be several different ones if you look for them. Many of them offer a very euro-centric view of the world with Europe given greater space than is accurate. How can RE maps be assumed "accurate" if they have these inbuilt biases? FE maps should avoid this pitfall I think.
BTW I'm new so go easy on me!

The ‘standard RE map’ is a globe.

Everything else suffers from some sort of error, and which errors you choose to live with depends on what you need the map for and, yes, bias certainly creeps in - witness the fact that we choose to orientate the earth north-up, for example.

However, the fact that it is impossible to accurately represent a globe earth on a flat map is not in any way an argument to support the contention that the earth isn’t a globe.

Flat earth, on the other hand, shouldn’t have any such problem - it should be easy to create a map of the world, with distances and bearings all accurately represented. The fact is that it can’t be done, and there’s a very good reason for that.

How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?

I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: February 24, 2021, 11:36:23 PM »

Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth

Who developed this map and where can I find it? I'm interested to know what makes a map "round"

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?

« on: January 06, 2021, 01:04:49 AM »

Space, as we are told, is a vast expanse of boring nothingness.

Whoever taught you about space needs to be slapped! Sure there's a lot of boring nothingness out there, as far as we know, but scattered around are billions of planets and stars and comets and black holes and supernovae, colliding galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars, each having the potential to have orbiting planets, which could share similarities with Earth, or harbours other life forms which are unimaginable to us.

We have 7 other planets in our own solar system, that are both very similar and wildly different to our own. Mars once had a giant ocean, and polar ice caps but lost most of its lighter  elements over time.

Looking up at the stars at night is one of the most awe-inspiring things I do on a regular basis, and that feeling only grows as new discoveries are made.

What's boring about this:

We have nothing but probability figures that there are planets that are earth-like, could sustain living beings or are currently habitable/habitated. We can't even visit Mars, let alone our nearest extra-terrestrial neighbours. In that sense I find it boring. Even if I believed in space the way I used to, nothing exciting would ever happen in my lifetime. Even a lot of the fantasy space movies are incredibly boring, with the exception of maybe Interstellar amongst others. The idea of the planet with the huge waves for example was quite interesting I have to say. Why can't NASA come up with stuff like this? Shake the story up a bit please, NASA!

There are far more exciting places left unexplored on Earth that we should be looking into.

In contrast, the flat-earth map above no matter how inaccurate, sparks a wonderment in me. Thoughts of vast landmasses maybe 10,000-100,000km away beyond a barrier that we either can't pass or are not allowed to pass. Even the prospects of civilizations that know we exist but we know nothing about them! What if the Antarctic Treaty or the barrier out of this world is enforced by the beings of Gemina, Aten or Thoth civilizations?

Even the mystery of what lies below polaris gets me excited. I've read about giants of the north that like to keep to themselves. Funnily enough, I used to take 3-4 trips per year to Stockholm for work in the last few years. I was sitting in the airport waiting for a flight home when two people passed quickly, a man and a woman - they were huge! They looked at least 7ft tall and were slouching as if they were trying to hide it. And I'm well aware of how tall Scandinavians are in general but this was something out of the ordinary. I just remember their disproportionately large jawlines too as they scampered through the terminal trying not to attract too much attention. I often fantasize that they were giants of the north coming to explore distant lands! Exciting stuff.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?

« on: January 04, 2021, 09:03:46 PM »

Hello guys, I'm new here. Recently read this : https://www.amazon.fr/Earth-Flat-Illuminati-Secrets-English-ebook/dp/B06XFQ9M17 and it made me wonder about a lot of stuff. I found this map :

I find these images incredibly interesting. Space, as we are told, is a vast expanse of boring nothingness. But once you stop believing in it your mind opens up to all sorts of wonders that get ignited by pictures like this. Imagine if each of those worlds had their own races, animals, societies, histories, wars? Maybe societies that are far more advanced than ours and have cures for all kinds of illnesses. It all just blows my mind.


Would you recommend this book? I'm thinking of getting it but it may not have anything I don't already know.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 31, 2020, 01:23:21 AM »

Same place your "rat" footage came from.

At which time point in the video? I can't find it.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 30, 2020, 07:42:28 PM »

Is it our beloved Mars rat maybe?

Ice. Happens all the time - More 'rat' ice:

Have you a source for this footage?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 30, 2020, 12:55:51 AM »

In any case, statistically or otherwise, there is no reason to conclude the thomas baron incident is "merely coincidence".  You can argue that it is merely suspicious, and not "proof" of anything in particular - but when the independent oversight's family is murdered and all copies of the exhaustive and recently completed scathingly critical report mysteriously vanish - it is hardly a wild leap to conclude/deduce/speculate that something is very rotten in denmark.

The Conspiracy: Mars Rat

But you do not know it is a rat.

Sure, in the same way that you do not KNOW that it is a picture from mars.

It is plain to see, however - which is why this is, perhaps, the quintessential example.  There is maybe no better worshack/litmus for the "space madness" than this picture.

Any child or otherwise unindoctrinated/unconditioned/uninfluenced person will tell you it is a rat in that photo.  "Double blind", that is a rat.  I agree that does not certainly make it a rat, but this highlights the problems with pictures as evidence more than anything else.

ONLY the "educated"/conditioned interpret the photo in an unnatural/corrupted manner - required as a dogma of their faith.  No dissent, discussion, or further investigation is permissible.  It's a rock... It simply has to be... Otherwise - "houston, we have a problem".

When rocks look like other things, they still look like rocks. Paradoilla is defensible in the case of the picture of the lizard (due to its natural camouflage to blend in with rocks), but not with the rat.

I find it interesting how you regularly bring up the rat as I feel there is some kind of inside joke around it at NASA and spaceX. A rat has appeared on a number of occasions in the space footage. Here is one example to examine from a few months back while I try and find another one from a few years ago:

See from 3:16:20 onwards on the left panel there appears to be a rat on the thruster in outer space!



Is it our beloved Mars rat maybe?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 30, 2020, 12:45:47 AM »

Do you accept the principle that explosives and fuels, when detonated or ignited, generate rapid and significant expansion of gas product, from the chemical reaction initiated by detonation or ignition?

Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?

I refer you back to reply #155 on the previous page, which you seemed to miss, and where I invited you to start that discussion

I didn't miss it, I'm just not interested in having a discussion about how explosives work on earth and then making assumptions that they work the same way in a near perfect vacuum scenario. This is no different to the bowling ball/gun recoil argument - it skews the readers interpretation of what may happen when the reality is quite the contrary.

From the FES Wiki:

Explanations for Universal Acceleration
The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct.
Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.
Davis Plane
This model states that there is an infinite plane of exotic matter somewhere below the disk, pushing in the opposite manner of traditional gravity. This is a recent theory, and is in progress.

If you choose to believe in Universal Acceleration as per the FET then how could space be empty?  There has to be some form of energy out in space pushing the Earth and accelerating it continuously.  Why couldn't a rocket's thrust just push against the same energy that is allegedly accelerating the whole mass of the earth?  Most rockets take off and then head off in a definite direction and not continue straight up.  Why couldn't those rockets just be heading off towards the edge of the flat earth where is could enter the presents of the 'dark energy' so the rocket could continue it's travels?

That would solve the mystery of how a rocket could actually work in space!

Perhaps the same 'dark energy' could be pushing on the outside of a pressurize space suit and making it a lot easier for an astronaut to move around in as well.

I'm sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. I'm not a member of any flat earth organisation and I'm certainly not going to let myself be categorized into whatever you think a "flat earther" is.

@Mark, still very interested to hear your response to my #151 whenever you have time

I'm obsessed with keeping these conversations a little organized so first here's the short list again of the side conversations that we never really finished:

• My questions to Jack
• rockets and newtons laws

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of.

Honestly, this comment took me by surprise. Your giant syringe example was your attempt to take a basic physics principle and apply it to your understanding of the physics of space, not mine. And it was your misunderstanding of that basics physics principle that, as you explained yourself, made the concept of space absurd to you.

I gave your giant syringe example some serious thought. I approached it with an open mind. To be honest, I thought it was an incredible point. I'm not a physics guy, and I actually thought you were right at first. I never really thought about it... if you pull on a syringe the pulling force does rise exponentially, doesn't it? So I took your point seriously and looked into it a bit more and discovered Boyles law, etc. After I discovered why we were both actually wrong (because I believed you at first), then I tried to walk you through exactly where your understanding of pressure was wrong in my mind.

The fact that you merely pushed the whole thing aside without even acknowledging that you misunderstood the way pressure works made me feel discouraged from continuing the conversation. I will try to continue for now, but only as long as we can agree that open-minded debate is a two-way street. We both have to be willing to admit when we are wrong.

And even after doing all this, the vacuums are so powerful that leaks through seals aren't the only problem, you have diffusion leaks through the steel itself!

Can I ask you your source on this one? I just want to read more so I understand where you are coming from.

This is a quantum physics problem, not a school mechanics problem. You have to take molecular bonding and vibration into account. In the lowest vacuums in space you have 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter but even this can become more unstable depending on the excitation/vibration of the proton.

So when you say "this is a problem", I think you mean the problem of how to understand the physics of space from the surface of the Earth? I agree it's a fascinating question. Maybe you are correct that the effects of quantum physics become non-negligible at this level of a vacuum. This is probably way beyond what I can do with my freshman college level of physics understanding, but I'd definitely be down to try for fun.

But let's stay focused here: this conversation is centered around your thesis that spacesuits could not possibly work in space due to the high pressure. That's why my response to your syringe problem was so important because whether you admit it or not, your thesis seems to be now unfounded.

I hope I'm not coming off as overly aggressive. I'm just stating the fact here that your thesis as stated above, as it currently stands in this conversation, is based on no evidence or argument. If you still stand by the syringe example, why? If you think quantum physics would cause the spacesuits to not work in a vacuum, why? Just because quantum physics might become non-negligible is not on its own supporting your thesis that the spacesuits would not work in space.

There are just too many questions here, the answers to which need a lot of time and prerequisite knowledge (even more than what I have myself). I'm not saying it goes beyond our level of understanding, but it's hard to go into detail on this when there is such variation in people's background knowledge of the topic. Besides, I think I touched on a lot of your questions in post #157

If you read the article in this link:
https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html
The first paragraph he describes how some industrial vacuums are equivalent to increasing the volume of a cubic meter of gas to 200 times the volume of the grand canyon. Industrial vacuums require a lot of engineering to ensure they don't collapse in on themselves. But why? Why not use a perspex box like some of the videos shown earlier in the thread if the difference in pressure is as minimal as is suggested?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 13, 2020, 11:29:50 PM »

I got to say I'm a bit disappointed.  What could be an interesting thread on the relative arguments FE/RE, has degenerated over the last few pages and weeks into a futile attempt to help a correspondent understand basic (generally unchallenged?) physics regarding Newton's Laws and the nature of vacuum. 

More disappointing is that there are a couple of heavy-hitters on the FE side who's understanding of these concepts is respected, but who's input has so far been confined to debating the timeline of Tweets about an album cover and the personal integrity of a retired member of the Canadian Space Agency.   

Any contribution on gas law and Newtonian physics Gents?

You criticize the debate yet you yourself have contributed nothing. Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 13, 2020, 12:16:41 AM »

Well, now the origin of the notorious photograph has been settled, we can each decide who the joke is on. Good grief!

What do you mean this has been settled? Defend them all you want, the truth is that a prominent NASA figure posted a picture giving the impression it was the very hole in the ISS when in reality it was nothing of the sort and what's worse is that it was years old and one that had even been used by a band on their album cover. All the subsequent twitter posts were clear backtracking. If he was comfortable with what he did then there would have been no need for backtracking. Embarrassing gaffe for an organisation that chews through billions of dollars annually.

Also, who cares what the band says? Their statements are immaterial.

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.

You may not know this, but science doesn't have a full and exhaustive explanation for every phenomenon under the sun. Magnetism, for example – there is still no complete explanation for that. On a more mundane level, ordinary mechanics doesn't have a full theoretical explanation: the lecturer facing another year's undergraduates made the point that there is no grand theory to explain the basics of forces exerted on a stationary body. The students are taught that the sum of all horizontal forces on a stationary body is zero, the sum of all vertical forces is also zero and all rotational forces on that same stationary body also sums to zero, but this is drawn from observations, not a grand theory.

Mark, you repeatedly state that these vacuums are "so powerful" and can supposedly do all sorts of things. What is your basis for these claims? What do you know about these phenomena that "we have no experience of"? Have you a book you have read? Maybe a web article? YouTube video? Other people have provided links and quotations to support their case – Tom Bishop usually posts tons of links, f'rinstance – but you just make unsupported claims about excitable vibrating protons and whatnot. Where's the beef, Mark?

Contradictory post here. You are telling me that science doesn't have an exhaustive explanation for everything yet you expect all my arguments to be sourced and established scientifically? I'm still waiting for the scientific explanation for how rockets work in a vacuum without violating Newton's 1st law. 

Unfortunately for you it is well known in the scientific world that vacuums are difficult to achieve, unpredictable and generally a pain to work with. Industrial vacuum chambers, spectrophotometers, particle accelerators, x-ray machines all need careful and sophisticated designs. But guess what? They all only have 1atm exerted on them.

Here's an image taken from a paper on photon chamber design in which the author ponders over limitations of cross sectional shape in terms of deflection under a vacuum (with 1atm externally). He mentions that while rectangular cross sections are preferred, they deflect more than the less desirable elliptical shape. Even the elliptical shape deflects more than 0.1mm on both sides of the chamber despite the aluminium being 1mm thick! That is unprecedented:


Trakhtenberg, Brajuskovic, Wiemerslage New Insertion device vacuum chambers at the advanced photon source (2003)

Scientific journals are plagued with engineering problems of this nature.

And yet we have coke cans (also made from aluminium) that are one tenth the thickness of the above and yet they contain 2-3 atmospheres of pressure (sometimes twice this) with negligible deflection! This is why we can't apply basic pressure vessel mechanics to high vacuums because the science doesn't fit - there are phenomena that we simply don't understand whether you like it or not.

Incredible isn't it?
Here's an interesting informational article describing the strength of vacuums and the kinetic theory of gases which looks at the molecular element: https://vacaero.com/information-resources/vac-aero-training/170466-the-fundamentals-of-vacuum-theory.html


I'm reluctant to put the effort in to give you the science because I don't believe you sincerely want to be convinced.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 05, 2020, 04:34:52 PM »

Ok, here we go. For anyone just tuning in, there are two conversations right now, one about rockets and newtons laws and one about spacesuits and pressure. There were a few more from before if Jack ever has a chance to continue them. This post will be about the spacesuits and pressure, and I'm going to start by reviewing the conversation a bit for those who might find it useful.

@Mark Antony, in my last big post I showed evidence that joints have always existed to allow bodily movements in spacesuits, but you still made the claim that "a pressure differential of 5-6psi would still render the suit impractically rigid". I will focus on this thesis of yours.

There are various other claims you have made, such as that "you would have an unusual chemical reaction as the protons strip the materials apart to create a more stable state" which even when asked about you did not further support with evidence. There are a bunch of unsupported claims. I will leave most of these other claims for which you did not provide supporting evidence for alone, but if you feel I'm missing anything essential please let me know.

I'll start where you are correct: you said that the vacuum of "space" has never been recreated on Earth. You are correct that we have never invented a vacuum chamber that recreates the level of vacuum found in space, although we do have ultra-high vacuum chambers. I agree with you that this would be an interesting experiment to take back some "space" from a space expedition. However, mathematically we can already predict what it would be like.

I've read through the conversation a couple of times now to try to understand your views as best I can. I think the highlight of your argument for all of us was the giant syringe example. It's pretty clear that your view is based on a sincere misunderstanding of the physics of pressure. And as any good scientist should do, I hope you can take a moment to critically analyze your thesis with an open mind. I'll give you both a mathematical and experimental approach with your syringe example.

First, the math. The fact that ultra high vacuums have extremely high negative exponents of pressures means that they are extremely close to zero pressure, i.e. the differences become negligible. If the pressure inside the spacesuit is 1atm (not sure what it really is, just a thought experiment) and you are in a ultra high vacuum chamber, the pressure outside the spacesuit is 9.87×10^−16 atm. So the final pressure differential is 0.999999999 ... and so on. When you now take it into space, the pressure inside the spacesuit is the same, but the pressure outside is now approx.  2.96×10^−20, so the final pressure differential is also 0.999999999 ... and so on, but negligibly larger. The only difference is that it is ever so slightly closer to 1atm in the case of being in space.

Now, maybe this math is problematic to you because you interpret the laws of physics differently. So let's take your syringe example, which is extremely helpful, for an experimental approach. You were mentioning how pulling the 20-mile syringe would require an exponentially greater force with distance. The exponential part is central and crucial to your thesis that the vacuum of space is so powerful we cannot comprehend it. I don't think you have any experimental evidence to support that claim, so let's test it. Modern science would predict that the force required to keep pulling the syringe would rise, but asymptotically, not exponentially. This means that while the force required to pull does increase over distance as you are pulling, the derivative of the function (Δforce required to pull)/distance is positive but trends towards zero. At a certain point the force will be very high, but the delta of (force over distance) will become negligible. Eventually, you will stop noticing the change in force as you are pulling. It will be a seemingly constant large force. The change in force as you are pulling will become unnoticeable to your senses or even measurement. If your tank can already surpass that force, you can keep going forever (in an ideal system). But because this is a rule, it can be tested with a normal-sized syringe.

If you are correct here, your findings would be groundbreaking. You would be making the greatest scientific discovery in hundreds of years. So you have no excuse not run the experiment You can purchase a syringe for 9 bucks here https://www.amazon.com/Frienda-Scientific-Dispensing-Multiple-Measuring/dp/B07MHMN3Y8/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=scientific+syringe&qid=1606773922&sr=8-4 , a spring scale for 13 bucks here https://www.amazon.com/Ajax-Scientific-Plastic-Tubular-Capacity/dp/B00EPQGQIA/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=scientific+pull+scale&qid=1606773980&sr=8-2, and you will need a ruler. Plug the syringe at the bottom with something, then pull it and measure the pulling force at regular intervals. Your hypothesis is it will rise exponentially, mine (and the rest of the scientific community) is that it will rise asymptotically. If you prove me wrong, you may have shocking news regarding a basic physics principle (Boyles Law). I'll buy the tools myself and verify your result if you prove me wrong.

*** (its also possible I've made a major blunder, because again, I'm not a physics guy, but maybe one or two other people can back me up on this?)

You are applying extremely basic physics principles to a vacuum condition that we have no experience of. It's like saying things fall to earth because of gravity. 'Gravity' is just the name of a phenomenon that we have no scientific explanation for.

Scientific vacuum chambers on earth require extremely complex processes to create. They need mechanical displacement pumps, ion pumps and often the chamber needs to be baked to 600+ degrees to remove any contaminants or moisture in the chamber.

And even after doing all this, the vacuums are so powerful that leaks through seals aren't the only problem, you have diffusion leaks through the steel itself! This is a quantum physics problem, not a school mechanics problem. You have to take molecular bonding and vibration into account. In the lowest vacuums in space you have 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter but even this can become more unstable depending on the excitation/vibration of the proton.

And yet all of these problems have been miraculously solved in the ISS, lunar modules, space suits but not on earth? In 2018 there was a 2 mm hole in the ISS that they covered with duct tape  . In an incredibly embarrassing gaffe, Chris Hadfield posts an SEM image of the hole which turned out to be the album cover for the band Remedy Drive!






It was at this point I knew NASA were taking the piss out of everyone. It's not a conspiracy, it's a joke on a global level.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 29, 2020, 11:43:26 PM »

I especially like the last bit of the demonstration when he lets the air back into the vacuum chamber. Air pressure does the work, not vacuum.

I've acknowledged already that it's still 1 atm outside the vessel. You can't apply simple pressure vessel mechanics to vacuum chambers that we have no experience of on earth. If there is very little difference between them, then how come we haven't recreated these vacuums? In the 50-60 years of space travel, how come an astronaut didn't think of bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis?

For all the money spent on the space program, they really have done a poor job answering lots of basic questions... 

I don't think you have understood what has been written or demonstrated, possibly not even read or watched either. I have tried, but it seems oddly pointless. It has, however, been highly entertaining, especially the suggestion of "bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis".    However, I don't want to break the strict conditions of these forums so I'm out.

Thank you for engaging. 

I watched the video and many of his videos in the past. The fact that he claims a "full vacuum" with his equipment is ridiculous. Boiling water does not prove a full vacuum as he implies.

Whats wrong with my suggestion about bringing back a sample of the vacuum? All they have to do is open a container in the vacuum of space, let the air out and close it again - bring it back to earth and we can now test a vacuum that we have never been able to recreate. What would be wrong with doing this?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 29, 2020, 03:51:44 PM »

Interesting points Mark. Let me ask you this because I'm not sure I completely understand. According to your understanding of physics, the air is essential for two objects to move in opposite directions, right? For example, if a person in a hypothetical perfect vacuum threw a ball, the ball would move but not the person. Is this an accurate summary of your view?

It's all relative - from the person's perspective the ball would move only, from the ball's perspective the person would move only.
From a third person's perspective the velocity of the system would remain unchanged but a displacement would be created between the person and the ball. How much the person moves and how much the ball moves depends on how the force acts around the respective centres of gravity and one other vital thing that I didn't even touch on yet and that is inertia (another thorn in NASA's side  ).

I especially like the last bit of the demonstration when he lets the air back into the vacuum chamber. Air pressure does the work, not vacuum.

I've acknowledged already that it's still 1 atm outside the vessel. You can't apply simple pressure vessel mechanics to vacuum chambers that we have no experience of on earth. If there is very little difference between them, then how come we haven't recreated these vacuums? In the 50-60 years of space travel, how come an astronaut didn't think of bringing a sample of this vacuum back to earth for analysis?

For all the money spent on the space program, they really have done a poor job answering lots of basic questions... 

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 28, 2020, 06:07:51 PM »

Mark, can I just say how much I'm enjoying this conversation, learning how you think. I think I see where the vacuum logic comes from: take a cylinder of gas and a piston and apply increasing force to the piston, directed towards the gas, and the pressure will climb and as the volume of gas decreases and its pressure increases, it takes ever-increasing force to move the piston further into the cylinder in ever-decreasing amounts. This analogy is extended to pulling a piston out of a cylinder containing a vacuum, implying ever-increasing force is needed to pull the piston further out of the cylinder against the vacuum.

There's just one problem, a vacuum is nothing. Compressing a gas by reducing its volume does indeed take greater and greater effort, because there's a gas in the cylinder, but increasing the volume of a vacuum means increasing the volume of nothing. The outside pressure is still 1 atm and the internal pressure, the vacuum, is still nothing, nada, zero, so the differential is the same whether the piston is pulled out by 1cm or 500 yards. The piston is still being pulled against a pressure of 1 atm on the piston, however far it is pulled.

Have you any example of that experiment having been done to back up the idea? Gas compression is not a thought experiment like the vacuum in a piston example, it's an everyday occurrence; but I shall be astonished if you can point to even one successful attempt to prove pulling on a vacuum results in an ever-increasing resistance to being pulled. I'm not being frivolous by suggesting this would be a scientific revelation.

Longtitube, you are learning how the real world works, as opposed the the science-fiction that NASA create on a daily basis.

You are implying that there is a perfect vacuum in space. Perfect vacuums do not exist on earth nor in space.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 28, 2020, 05:59:45 PM »

  I am lost for words at these responses...

Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum". We have only ever recreated a high vacuum on a large scale on earth. These are unimaginably powerful vacuums we're dealing with, yet we have astronauts dancing around on the moon? I think not.

Your use of space being 1000 to 1000000+ times stronger than a high vacuum on Earth is over-dramatising it.  It's like somebody trying to get close to absolute zero, one group getting to within 0.0001K and another group getting to within 0.0000001K and then saying one is 1000 times colder than the other.  In principle it is, but in reality they are hardly any different to each other compared to the scale of what 293K represents, which is a comfy room temperature.  Same with such high vacuums.  Yes, one might be 1000000 times "stronger", but compared to 1 atmosphere they are as near as damnit the same as each other (I know they aren't the same, but hope you understand what I'm trying to say). 

Besides, in space it's not about absolute pressures, just relative pressures, and the suits are pressurised accordingly.

Rhesus, this is an outrageous comment, I can't believe you are standing over it



This table explicitly states that an "Extremely high vacuum" is 1000 to 1000 000 000 (1 billion) times stronger than a "High Vacuum". Are you saying that the figures in this image are wrong? If so, what are the true figures?

While it's a convincing demonstration, it simply does not compare. As the driven component is in contact with the beads, the beads therefore are providing an external force as it is propelled forward. This is not comparable to the skateboard and bow analogy. It's equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off on the skateboard. If the driven component was not in contact with the beads underneath you would not get the same result.

How is that the same as pushing off the ground?  The only thing providing any propulsion is the elastic.  All those beads do is offer resistance to motion.  If that experiment were carried out with things suspended in air from strings, would you believe the results or claim that they were pushing off the strings?  Until you can accept how Newton's laws actually work, the whole rocket debate is moot - and that's kinda' what I'm driving at.

How exactly are the beads providing a propelling force? All the beads are doing is providing a low friction means by which the sled can move across. Imagine if the beads were removed and the bottom of the pan had a thin layer of ice instead. Would you say the ice is providing the force that is pushing the sled in the two opposite directions? Further still, instead of beads or ice, put little tiny wheels on the bottom of the sled, just like a skateboard. And in doing so, you now have a tabletop version of the skateboard/medicine ball demonstration. Same exact concept. Would you say the wheels now are providing the propelling force?

As you can clearly see, there is nothing equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off as there is nothing touching the ground that is doing any pushing, in opposite directions, no less. The only energy/force is in the rubber bands transferred to the sled and bar and they, in turn, act accordingly as expected and predicted by Newton's Laws.

It's exactly the same as pushing off the ground. Whether it's beads or ice or water, it makes no difference as they are external to the system. The demonstration is no different to how a snow mobile works - you have the two static skis on the front and the conveyor belt at the back creating the forward movement, the snow underneath being the external reaction force. If the slider in the middle (the component driven by the rubber bands) was not in contact with the surface underneath then you would not get any motion of the heavier slider (neglecting air resistance of course)

Here's a similar example I found of a person throwing a ball on a skateboard, pushing him back. Skip to 4:00. In this example, the rolling friction was overcome by the force exerted by throwing the ball, which mechanically is similar to a bow and arrow.




If you stand on a skateboard and push a ball against a wall, you will meet constant resistance. The resistance is so high (assuming you are pushing off an immovable wall or the ground) that the force will only decrease when you and the skateboard start to move. Your arm will apply an equal force until you and the skateboard accelerate to a point where you start moving. Only at that point will the force and acceleration start to decrease. Because you and the skateboard are a much higher mass than the ball, the object being moved is much larger. F=MA, so more mass equals more force. This will be a longer duration of high force than the example when the ball is thrown, and therefore a longer duration of acceleration and a higher resulting speed of you on the skateboard. This is exactly the same as when your foot pushes off the ground.

I appreciate you trying to explain this, but there is no need as I already understand it - it's no different to the NASA stance. But it's completely wrong! NASA and Newton are in disagreement - I trust Newton you trust NASA.

I'm sorry but that video you posted is farcical to an extraordinary level. Here is why:

His description of why he moves backwards is wrong as it violates Newton's 1st Law:


Here is the correct force analysis for why he moves backwards:

The green outline marks the system with green arrows showing the only force on the system (which is the air) and the velocity vector (Vsys)
The orange and blue outlines are between two internal components therefore they cannot influence the behaviour of the green system unless they have something external to work against (in this case the air) Note: I am missing an orange arrow working against the green air arrow.

This video actually made me laugh because the poor man, god bless him, was too heavy to get any real push back from the air so he had to put a sneaky pivot point underneath himself:



If you look at the video again, he's only getting enough push-back to teeter himself over this pivot point 

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 26, 2020, 03:58:54 PM »

Newton's 3rd along with experiments/demonstrations of it, using various objects, bowling balls included, existed long before NASA existed. So it's not a NASA thing.

The closest I could get to perhaps your arrow analogy is the newton sled:



Full video here:


The single bar being half the mass of the double bar would probably mean your arrow would have to be of considerable mass as you mentioned. And I'm not sure how much energy a bow would absorb. But in any case, as you can see from the sled demonstration, think of the single bar as the mass flow leaving the rocket chamber, the double bar sled being the rocket. No air resistance to "push off of" is required nor is there enough "resistance" to push off of even if it wanted to.

I appreciate you taking the time to find these demonstrations, they are hard to find but interesting and I do enjoy seeing them. Don't get me wrong, I have a complete open mind about all of this, I will 100% hold my hands up if someone can show the fundamental principal that allows rockets to work in space.

While it's a convincing demonstration, it simply does not compare. As the driven component is in contact with the beads, the beads therefore are providing an external force as it is propelled forward. This is not comparable to the skateboard and bow analogy. It's equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off on the skateboard. If the driven component was not in contact with the beads underneath you would not get the same result.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 26, 2020, 03:56:13 PM »

The point I was making around 1psi and 0psi is that it is not a binary thing as NASA imply by saying there is a low pressure differential if you have 5psi inside the space suit and 0psi outside. The reality is that there is a massive pressure differential - we just don't have any experience of the strength of these vacuums on earth. We can get vacuums down very low but only on an extremely small scale (not infinite like in space). Or if we do scale it up in size we have to use very thick concrete walls or thick steel vessels. But why? Isn't it just a small pressure differential 

Yes it is a small pressure differential, but applied over a large surface it amounts to a very large force. Let’s take a vacuum chamber with one flat wall 10 feet square and assume it’s air at 5psi outside and 0psi inside. That’s a wall of 14,400 square inches and it will be bearing a pressure load of 72,000 pounds force on that wall alone.

Both you and Jack refer to an infinite vacuum of space - but what are you talking about? Do you think there are pressures below zero?


Do try this at home!

I appreciate the mathematical demonstration but you are making the very assumption I am saying is flawed, that there is a 5psi pressure differential no matter how powerful the vacuum. This is an absurd assumption with no disrespect. You really can't talk about these vacuums without taking energy or even wall stresses into account.

Lets say you have a syringe like below:



For arguments sake, the barrel is 20miles long and the plunger is pushed in as far as it can go so only a very small amount of air is in the tip. You plug the tip and get someone to pull the plunger as hard as they can. That person is only going to get so far before the strength of the vacuum is just too much to go any further. Lets say you then get a horse to pull it further. At some point the barrel will collapse so you will have to replace it with steel to withstand the vacuum. The horse can go no further so you get a 16 wheeler truck to pull the plunger. The truck pulls the plunger further but now the steel tube collapses so you have to replace it and reinforce with outer ribs for support. You then get an army tank that pulls the plunger further. Each foot of distance the plunger gets pulled will require an exponentially higher amount of energy to do so. It will get to a point where no vehicle or combination of vehicles will be powerful enough to pull the plunger further. You are also getting closer to material limitations where there simply won't be materials strong enough to maintain the volume of vacuum. There is still only 1atm outside but the differential is growing immensely.

Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum". We have only ever recreated a high vacuum on a large scale on earth. These are unimaginably powerful vacuums we're dealing with, yet we have astronauts dancing around on the moon? I think not.

@ Mark,

Can we just look at that vacuum thing.  You seem to think that at 0psi (perfect vacuum) something suddenly happens.  I think you have some grasp of it when you say, correctly, its not a "binary thing", but lets go a bit further. 

Vacuum has no temperature, and doesn't have any kind of "negative" pressure.  Its not inherently hazardous to inorganic things, its just a state of zero psi.  Is doesn't support life (as we understand it) because all terrestrial life requires an oxygen-rich environment and, if any gas exists, obviously there is no vacuum. 

Most terrestrial life thrives at a pressure of around 15 psi.  Start climbing mountains and you'll find alpine goats or whatever that are happy with lower pressures.  Humans can operate with reasonable ease at 10,000 feet.  Get to the top of Mount Everest (around 29,000 feet) and you are reaching the limit of human physical and mental capacity but trained and acclimatised mountaineers can survive.  The pressure up there is is around 5 psi. 

Go snorkelling, dive down around 12 feet and you are operating at 20 psi.  Dive a little further, to the bottom of the challenger deep and, whilst humans would struggle, creatures are existing at a pressure of around 8 tons per square inch, a thousand times sea level pressure. 

The point I am trying to make is that, in the big picture, at 15 psi,we are already operating at a pressure a thousand times closer to a vacuum than on some parts of the earth.  Its not a big deal. 

And as for the abiity of a vacuum to rip things to pieces?  Its just a matter of pressure differential.  15 psi.  The differential of the air in your car tyres is at least double that.  You can test the physical integrity of a space suit or spacecraft in a vacuum just by pressurising it to 15psi above ambient pressure in a workshop.

What altitude/ambient pressure you are at has nothing to do with it, that's an oxygen supply problem. Snorkelling is different as you have to take a low pressure to an area of higher pressure. Organisms can survive deep down because they have no body cavities that can be crushed, they are more or less incompressible using nutrient exchange through fluids to survive.

You are trivialising the magnitude of these pressure differentials. They cannot be compared to everyday objects on earth.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 25, 2020, 11:12:35 PM »

I'm breaking my policy of not posting on a work night but these responses will disrupt my sleep patterns if I don't 

A quick little demo. Air has nothing to do with it. Based upon experimentation. Skip to :35.

Air has everything to do with it. If he used a lighter beach ball of higher surface area, he would be pushed back further.

How do you figure that? Have you invalidated Newton's Third?

The medicine ball in the experiment is about the size of a basketball. Would you expect that the individual would be pushed backward to the same extent with two equally sized surface area objects, one with the mass of a basketball and one with the mass of a medicine ball? Do you really think the air resistance between the two same area objects but with different masses would render the equal results?

I suggest you try it at home. You might find something interesting.

 

In my original thought experiment of a "stationary" astronaut (relative to the Earth, say) holding a bowling ball and then throwing it, the 3rd law results in the astronaut moving backwards and the bowling ball moving forwards with motion in accordance with values governed by his 2nd law.  The very fact that you have one system at rest, with two opposing forces acting against each other when thrown, imparting motion to both is what also preserves the 1st law.  I'm not sure why you think in such a case the astronaut would stay still and only the ball would go forwards - that would indeed be breaking Newton's laws.

With absolutely no disrespect intended, I don't think you understand the 3 laws correctly.  The reason why I didn't mention the 1st law is because the very fact that you had a system at rest being subject to two opposing forces, one causing motion upon the other just implies that it's not broken.

The very fact that you have something moving away from you that you have ejected is exactly the reason why you move in the opposite direction. In this example, the rocket is the astronaut, the bowling ball is the exhaust, creating thrust.  Like the rocket and its accelerating exhaust, the astronaut is in contact with the accelerating ball until they let go.  It's that transition from being in contact to not being in contact that is "pushing off", and it applies equally to rockets ejecting exhaust gases.

I really dislike the bowling ball analogy, not just because it's so loosely related to rockets, but because the only reason NASA use it is because it manipulates the reader's logic and reasoning but in reality it is fundamentally flawed. It even fooled me initially until I really thought about it. NASA know that 99.9% of the population are not going to really think about it.

Lets use a slightly different analogy that follows the same principal in the laws of motion but doesn't skew the reader's logic and reasoning:

Imagine standing on a skateboard with a bow and arrow. You shoot the arrow as hard as you can but you simply will not move in the opposite direction, you will remain stationary. Don't you agree?

Let say you use an arrow that is the same weight as the bowling ball. You shoot it as hard as you can, but you still will not move in the opposite direction. The action force is in the arrow propelled by the potential of the string on the bow, the reaction force is in your hand on the grip. All the forces are contained internally therefore you will not move backwards.

It is no different with throwing the bowling ball - it's part of your system, part of your weight - the action is in the forward motion of the bowling ball caused by the potential of your muscles, the reaction force is in your hands. Newton's 3rd Law of motion is observed, but since his 1st Law is definitely not observed (neglecting pushing off air) you simply cannot move!

The reason you keep reverting back to the "stationary" case in space is because it serves to shroud reality even more and skew people's logic in the same way NASA do. The dynamic case that I gave where the spaceman is moving away from the earth really is no different but is easier for the reader to visualize.


It seems we also have fundamental differences around the question of work/energy and acceleration. You claim constant velocity in space (despite there being no observed body ever historically, that maintains a constant velocity, only in theory). If the ball is accelerating in your hands but then maintains a constant velocity when it leaves them- at some point it has to decelerate i.e. stop accelerating. At what point does this happen and what external phenomenon in space is preventing this acceleration?

There appears to be some conflict in your argument in how the rocket propels that I hope you can clarify. From my understanding of what you are saying above is that the rocket moves forward by the 3rd law action of ejecting mass in the opposite direction therefore propelling you in the correct direction? But you said previously on post #83 and #86 that it pushes itself off the external exhaust gases. .

The key point is that the gases produced are not part of the rocket so can be considered an external force.

they push off against the exhaust which is external to the system at an instance in time

But which is it? Newton's 3rd or 1st or both? Or just the 3rd? Maintaining Newton's 1st here is physically impossible, I will always maintain this until I get some miraculous explanation.

Again, rocket thrust has absolutely nothing to do with pushing against air, which in most cases makes rockets less efficient than they are in a vacuum (depending on their purpose).  As I said before, I know a guy who studied rocket science so I called him at the weekend and asked if rockets work in a vacuum.  His response?  A short laugh, followed by, "Of course they do, why?!".  Forgetting the complexities as shown in the site above, the basic theory is simple. The bigger the pressure differential, the faster the gasses accelerate out of the nozzle, the larger the force being thrown out of the back of the rocket, and so Newtons 3rd law results in forward motion of the rocket.  Exactly the same principles that caused us to be pushed backwards when we threw those balls in physics.

I'm not denying you know someone who studied rocket science - but you can't use this as way of cementing your argument as one that is more valid than mine. Either invite him to the debate or bring some of his justification that backs up your argument.

Just think about it, the vacuum that is purportedly in space has never been recreated on earth.  Vacuums don't just go from 1psi to 0psi there is a huge scale of vacuum strength, each level being exponentially more difficult to achieve. Just look at the different types of vacuum given by the Wikipedia page:

@Mark Antony, I would like to take whoever taught you number systems and boil that person slowly in oil for doing such a rotten job. Vacuums don’t just go from 1psi to 0psi? Actually, that table from Wikipedia shows that vacuums do, but the numbers given could be easily misunderstood from the way they are expressed.

A extremely high vacuum, from that table, is < 1x10^-12 torr meaning less than a millionth of a millionth of a torr. But that’s still a higher pressure than zero. If it were < -1x10^-12 then that would be less than minus a millionth of a millionth of a torr - a negative pressure, less than zero - which doesn’t exist!

The very low pressures listed in that table are indeed extremely difficult to achieve on Earth, but all are larger, however slightly, than the bottom row of the table, the perfect vacuum, which is precisely zero pressure. If you already know and understand this, please feel free to ignore it and forgive my misunderstanding you.

The point I was making around 1psi and 0psi is that it is not a binary thing as NASA imply by saying there is a low pressure differential if you have 5psi inside the space suit and 0psi outside. The reality is that there is a massive pressure differential - we just don't have any experience of the strength of these vacuums on earth. We can get vacuums down very low but only on an extremely small scale (not infinite like in space). Or if we do scale it up in size we have to use very thick concrete walls or thick steel vessels. But why? Isn't it just a small pressure differential 

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 23, 2020, 01:26:19 AM »

I had to research and learn quite a bit for this reply!

The two gloves have fingertips of silicone rubber that permit
some degree of sensitivity in handling tools and
other objects

This is in line with the video you shared, in which she is able to rotate her wrists as well as maneuver her fingers to a limited degree.

Do you think it's fair for me to call this one debunked now, or is there still a flaw in what I'm saying somewhere?

You can draw whatever conclusions you want from your own research and if my arguments haven't convinced you of anything then that's fine. However, using the word "debunked" (a word I hate) assumes you have proven me wrong and that the space suits are feasible. I disagree with this. I tend to approach the space suit argument giving NASA the benefit of the doubt with the details they give us. But even so, I think the space suits are still very much implausible  i.e. a pressure differential of 5-6psi would still render the suit impractically rigid.

Putting NASA's science aside, my real opinion of how space suits and any vessel for that matter would perform in space is far different. Assuming there is only a 6psi pressure differential in the suits is a huge and unrealistic assumption in a practical sense (even for NASA's standards it's a bit of a joke). Just think about it, the vacuum that is purportedly in space has never been recreated on earth.  Vacuums don't just go from 1psi to 0psi there is a huge scale of vacuum strength, each level being exponentially more difficult to achieve. Just look at the different types of vacuum given by the Wikipedia page:



Here's the description for a high vacuum:

High vacuum is vacuum where the MFP of residual gases is longer than the size of the chamber or of the object under test. High vacuum usually requires multi-stage pumping and ion gauge measurement.

In outer space, we're talking about a vacuum that has only a few protons per meter cube. In my opinion any vessel, even a thick steel tank would violently explode if exposed to such a vacuum. I even think you would have an unusual chemical reaction as the protons strip the materials apart to create more stable states. Not to mention the effect such a vacuum would have on the temperature of objects that lie within it. These declared vacuums go way beyond anything we can comprehend on earth. Just saying (as NASA do) that "there is a low pressure differential therefore x and y works in the vaccum of space" is bizarre, but is clearly sufficient for the masses to accept.

All of these technologies use dishes and antennae that are firmly fixed on the ground. The convenience of the earth being flat means that aeroplanes have a direct line of sight to the dishes which is important for radio transmission. Antennae use different technology that manipulates the natural voltage differences at different altitudes. A technology created by the greatest inventor ever - Nikola Tesla.

Interesting. I didn't know much telecommunication tech before, so I'm reading up on it now. So my understanding is that cell towers and satellite dishes transmit to and receive from communication satellites.

So if what you are saying is that communications satellites aren't real, here a few problems we have to solve:

1. If you are working on installing a satellite dish, pointing it towards a geosynchronous communication satellite is a regular part of the process. Here's an app I found that helps people do it (https://www.dishpointer.com/).
2. Here is a satellite dish troubleshoot guide, in which realigning it point at the communications satellite is a part of the process (https://satgist.com/how-to-fix-satellite-dish-signal-no-signal/).
3. You can see satellites and the ISS yourself through telescopes (https://telescopebuddy.com/can-you-see-satellites-with-a-telescope/).

Very curious about how you think about these problems.

I haven't looked into how these technologies work that much. Cell towers and dishes communicate with themselves, not with orbiting satellites. But thats just my own opinion. As I stated before I am only speaking on behalf of myself, I do not represent any flat earth organisation nor do I have any affiliation with the flat earth society. (I haven't even read a single page of the wiki, sorry guys  )