Show Posts

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


Messages - 3DGeek

Pages: < Back  1 ... 48 49 [50]
981
Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here
« on: May 20, 2017, 09:35:56 PM »
I would really like to see an FE Map, too.

There are plenty of FE land/ocean maps (they don't all agree - but they exist).

What I'm asking for specifically is a map of the stars...with all of the constellations drawn out onto it.

It seems that since polaris would have to be vertically above the North pole of the FE, the constellations in the southern hemisphere would be visible in the northern hemisphere - and you'd be able to see polaris quite easily in (say) Australia.

Clearly that isn't the case - so getting an FE star map would answer a lot of questions...or at least point the way to other questions that should be answered.

982
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides.
« on: May 19, 2017, 03:59:54 PM »
No - the moon passes overhead ONCE per day - producing a peak in that sine wave as it goes overhead (plus or minus a bit to allow for the time for the water to flow to where ever it needs to be).  BUT...and this is the critical thing...about 12 hours later - when (in RE terms) the moon is on the opposite side of the Earth - there is a SECOND high tide.

So your sine wave (which isn't a bad approximation of what we see) has TWO peaks and TWO troughs in every 24 hour cycle.

Actually, because (in RE terms) the moon moves around the Earth once every lunar month - AND the Earth is rotating - the cycle isn't exactly 24 hours...but roughly speaking...there are TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day.

If you check here:

http://www.myforecast.com/bin/tide.m?city=30578&metric=false&tideLocationID=T8285

You'll see that on Sunday, in Houston Texas, there will be high tides at 6:15 AM and 6:23 PM and low tides at 12:48 PM and 11:50 AM.

In RE, the first high tide happens when the moon is at it's zenith (plus or minus a bit) - and the second when the moon is on the opposite side of the Earth.  That second tide happens because the Earth and Moon both rotate about a common center-of-gravity that's not at the center of the earth - so there is a centrifugal force acting on the side of the planet that's furthest from the moon that creates that second tide each day.

I understand your explanation of the FE moon having gravity and causing tides...makes perfect sense (well, kinda)...but you CANNOT explain the second tide in the same way.   If the Moon's gravity was the only cause then there would be just one high tide and just one low tide each day...because (just as in RE) your moon will only be overhead ONCE in Houston Texas this Sunday.

There are CLEARLY two tides every day.   This is a fact that absolutely anyone can easily check for themselves - and for which tide charts are easily available if you don't want to move from your chair to verify it.

Your moon can't produce a second tide...it's too far away - when the second tide comes in in Houston, your moon is over the other side of the world!

So...where is the second tide coming from?

If you can't explain this - you don't have any clue as to how tides are formed because FE theory predicts only one tide per day - so the idea that the moon's gravity is responsible simply doesn't work.

Come what may - your Wiki is incorrect.

983
inorder to "find the pattern" one must first find the "object" and track its path ....
what is this so-called "object" (if not the Earth) that casts its shadow across the face of the Moon ?
been waiting for some solid answers from the FErs .... so far none
Well, we're told there is a "shadow object" out there - a few miles across that causes eclipses by getting between us and the sun/moon.

btw: ..... if the Moon is self illuminated, then how can a shadow be cast across it ? .... you cannot cast a shadow across a light bulb nor the Sun ..... right ??
in a Lunar Eclipse we are not seeing an "object" .... we are seeing a SHADOW ........... Media hoax blah

Well...the only explanation I've *seen* (there may be other explanations) is frankly embarrassing to even mention - it seems that the moon's light is created by luminous "creatures" (fireflies maybe?!) that "migrate" around the moon over the course of a lunar month...thereby causing the phases of the moon.

I'm surprised that the FE'ers don't claim that the same "shadow object" that causes the eclipses doesn't also cause the moon phases...but I've not seen that claimed anywhere.

I think that anyone who's looked at the moon through maybe an 8" or better telescope (I have, on many occasions) and can see the shadows cast by mountains and crater rims on the moon - would rapidly realise that the "luminous creatures" explanation couldn't possibly explain what you can clearly see with your own eyes.  If the terrain were illuminated as explained - there could be no sharp shadows from a consistent direction.

So, unfortunately - I can't get a decent explanation from the FE folks for the moon being both "self illuminated" and having shadows visible upon it.

It will probably be claimed that this photo is photoshopped...but I've seen this kind of thing with my own eyes, through a simple Newtonian Reflector telescope with no fancy electronics or anything of that nature.  So I *KNOW* this to be a true representation:




984
You're talking nonsense. With three primary colors red, blue, and yellow, mixing red and blue makes magenta. You can call magenta a combination of red and blue or you can call it an absence of yellow.

That's not quite the whole story.

If you are mixing paint, ink, dye, stains...that kind of thing - then you're undertaking "subtractive" mixing - and each new color subtracts from the color of the medium beneath (eg white paper).   In subtractive mixing, the primaries are cyan, magenta and yellow (the colors that you find in your inkjet printer) - although these can be approximated as (respectively) blue, red and yellow.

If you are mixing light (as for example, the computer or phone screen that you're looking at right now does) - then you're undertaking "additive" mixing where each new color adds to the color that's already there.   In additive mixing the primaries are red, green and blue (the colors you can see in your computer display if you take a magnifying glass to an area of "white" screen).

So in light, red+blue=magenta, green+blue=cyan, red+green=yellow, red+green+blue = white.
But in ink (etc) cyan+yellow=green, magenta+yellow+red, cyan+magenta=blue and cyan+magenta+yellow = black...although it can be hard to tell because you can't really purchase primary colored ink in a paint box...the only pure sources are in things like inkjet printer cartridges...and even then, cyan+magenta+yellow only makes a dirty brown - which is why real inkjet printers add black ink too so we can get true blacks and greys.

Our eyes detect red, green and blue.   So subtractive inks block the complements of the colors they say they are.  cyan ink is really "red-blocking-ink" so when white light is passed through it, the red is absorbed and the green and blue light that shines through combine to make cyan light.

985
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides.
« on: May 18, 2017, 10:09:18 PM »
19 views...no answers?

986
I'm not a card-carrying FE'er - but I don't think it's necessary to be rude - especially here, as guests on the website they've lovingly created and maintained.

I believe that the fair way to resolve these questions is to politely read the Wiki - and raise simple questions that it does not cover and steadfastly demand explanations and point out problems and inconsistencies with FE theory.

Eclipses are explained all over FET...albeit not to RE astronomy standards - but there are explanations.

The FE responses to the questions raised in the video aren't all that fancy.

1) Why no FE predictions of eclipses?  FE'ers can't predict eclipses because there aren't enough mathematicians, physicists and/or astronomers who believe in FET who are doing the math.  Laypersons without deep knowledge can't be expected to do that - so I think we have to be somewhat forgiving.  I regard myself as fairly educated - fluent in basic math, physics and astronomy - but I certainly couldn't predict an RE eclipse.   It's unreasonable to demand that similarly qualified FE'ers are able to do so.

2) Why do...predictions...correspond with the Earth being a spheroid?  Many predictions of RET are amazingly similar to FET predictions...this doesn't allow you to say that one or the other is more true.  This cuts both ways.

3) What exactly is the moon?  Well, according to FET, nobody has been there - they know it's 3,000 miles away and 32 miles across - that it glows with it's own light - some say from unknown sources (fair enough - admit what you don't know) - others say from luminous creatures that migrate over it's surface (!!).   From the diagrams in the Wiki, it's clear that it's a sphere...I don't see anything that says that it's transparent - seems to me like the sky glow can be in front of it just like it is in RET so no special arguments required there.

4) How does the transparent moon block light from the sun?  Well, FE'ers have already said that there is a shadow object that causes the solar eclipse and it's not the moon.  Even the guy who made the video seems to know this - so why is he asking that?

So, I'm not sure this video is a fair set of complaints - all of them have rational answers within the realms of FET.

Posting it here is offensive to our hosts and doesn't get us anywhere with resolving the deeper questions.

987
Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here
« on: May 18, 2017, 07:47:20 PM »
Certainly some questions are addressed adequately on the Wiki...but others really are not.

I think I've now carefully read all of the pages there...and there is a LOT that's missing.

I'd REALLY like to see an FE star map.  Where are all of the familiar southern constellations on the FE map of the stars?  How do people in the southern hemisphere see the stars when they look toward the south?  Something very odd must be happening.

I'd like some idea of how FE accounts for the fact that there are two tides each day - one when the moon is overhead and the other about 12 hours later.

988
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question from a physicist
« on: May 18, 2017, 03:54:06 PM »

When traveling east your total velocity (velocity plus earth spin) is greater than when traveling due west (earth spin minus velocity).   The centripetal acceleration is greater when traveling east resulting in lower measured weight. It's called the Eotvos Effect.

 http://www.cleonis.nl/physics/phys256/eotvos.php

Oh - yeah - I'd forgotten about that result.  Weird.  Makes sense in RE - but less so in FE.

It's almost like the laws of FE physics cunningly conspire to make it seem like the Earth is round!

989
Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here
« on: May 18, 2017, 02:10:34 PM »
I think the problem goes deeper.

The "space race" argument could possibly explain why the Soviet and American space agencies kept quiet about it - but now we have China and India launching stuff to Mars, the Moon and into orbit...what's stopping them from telling the truth?   Don't you think the Chinese would *LOVE* to embarrass the USA by revealing the FE truth to the world?

There is a deeper problem with the conspiracy idea.

The Germans who built the V2 rocket during WWII would have been the first to discover a problem...NASA didn't exist back then...if the Germans could have won the war by exploiting FE effects - they would have done so.  But the German scientists from that program went on to join either the NASA or Soviet space agencies.

If the Soviets were beaten in the race to the moon - why not simply reveal the flat-earth truth and show that the Americans faked it all?

It's worse even than that - the British were routinely sailing ships around the South Atlantic and the Pacific in the 1700's and 1800's - they would have noticed the discrepancy in distances between what their globes were telling them and the "FE truth" (if it is truth) - and ESPECIALLY because they used celestial navigation - they'd have had to rewritten their navigational handbooks to explain how the FE world works.

The conspiracy would have had to go back to the Spanish, Dutch and British fleets 300 years ago at least.   It's hard to believe that in all that time, nothing would have "leaked" out to reveal the conspiracy.

If you believe that the military could have kept a lid on the secret - what about the whalers?  They often hated the military ships - but they also hunted whales throughout the Southern hemisphere - they'd need the same FE version of celestial mechanics as the Navy - while still telling the world that in their experience, the world was round...so these secrets must have been available to them too.

What about the pirates in the 1600's and 1700's...they'd need to navigate by the stars also...surely those people would not have aligned themselves with the navies of the world to keep this quiet?

It's hard to comprehend how such a conspiracy could have covered such an insanely large number of people for so long.

I'm flying to Australia in a few weeks on a business trip.   I'm going to take a long, hard look at the motion of the stars while I'm there.  First hand information.


990
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proving flat earth by using online maps
« on: May 18, 2017, 01:51:14 PM »
The trouble with this "proof" is that it assumes that the software that Google provides is assuming either a curved or a flat earth model when it converts your mouse clicks to lat/long coordinates and when it converts lat/long coordinates into kilometer distances.

If it's written one way you'll get one answer and if it's written the other way you'll get the other.

So all you can prove is that the Google software engineers are working in RE or FE coordinates.

This discussion proves nothing about the real world - all it proves is that Google take one set of shortcuts or another in their software.

991
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« on: May 18, 2017, 01:36:32 PM »
I see a lot of complaints from FE'ers that repeating the explanations over and over is tiresome - and I certainly get that.   You guys have been in the trenches fighting this battle for decades at least.

The trouble is that for a newbie, all there seems to be in the way of solid explanation is in the Wiki.

But then I hear from many FE'ers here in the forums that the information in the Wiki doesn't represent what is widely believed to be the case...OK - so maybe the Wiki is outdated...I get that.

So for a newbie (like myself) - I read the Wiki (quite carefully) - and it doesn't answer my questions.  (eg Why are there two tides each day, roughly 12 hours apart).

All I can do to try to resolve this is to ask a question here.   In that case, (at time of writing) it has gotten 3 views but no responses.

Where does that leave me?   The obvious assumption (which is hopefully wrong) is that nobody in the FE community has an explanation for this phenomenon.  The Wiki is wrong (or at least inadequate) - and the people who know are not explaining it.

I could believe that the people who've been defending FE for a long time are sick of explaining the two-tides phenomenon.   But perhaps if they took the time to add their explanation into the Wiki - they'd get fewer people asking about it...and when they do - they can simply say "Check the Wiki!" and all will be well.

Failing that - you do seem to be getting new FE believers all the time - and surely they cannot be suffering from this "explanation exhaustion" problem - so perhaps the old-timers could apply a little pressure to their newer followers to seek out and explain these things.

If you don't/can't/won't do this then whatever corpus of FE knowledge covers things that are incorrect - or not covered - in the Wiki will die with the present generation of experts...and the only remaining FE'ers will be people who have not thought things through or who are following blind religious doctrine.   That would be a shame because it's clear that a large amount of effort has gone into explaining the FE phenomenon with care and attention to detail.

So it seems like the old-school FE adherents need to either:

* update the Wiki as needed to cover genuinely new questions ("new" defined as "not explained in the Wiki")...or...
* keep responding to questions that are truly not covered by the Wiki...or...
* face up to the fact that people who seek knowledge here will find huge gaping holes in FE theory...debunk whatever (outdated) information is present in the Wiki...which will hand victory to the RE'ers.

A good example of this is the question of which direction the stars move in the Southern Hemisphere.

This is not covered in the Wiki (at least my careful search didn't find it).

Simply saying that 100% of all Australians, South Africans, Brazilians and New Zealanders are either lying or facing the wrong way when they make their observations isn't tremendously convincing.  That's a LOT of people - observing the skies for at least 150 years.  Just dismissing those observations doesn't add to the credibility of FE.

If that has been successfully explained here - then please take a moment to copy-paste the definitive answer into the Wiki - and newcomers will get the facts.

The truth is out there (be it FE or RE) - but without reasoned debate, we'll never get to the bottom of it.

992
Flat Earth Theory / Question about perspective.
« on: May 18, 2017, 12:52:05 PM »
So I was reading in the Wiki about the FE "perspective effect" - as shown in this diagram:

It's an interesting concept.

It says (in effect) that perspective isn't a "symmetrical" effect - it forces things downwards toward the horizon with increasing distance - right?   I say not "symmetrical" because it evidently doesn't push things that are below the horizon upwards.

Then we're told that this is a defect of human vision - but that can't be the cause because cameras produce the same effects...so perhaps cameras have the same effect built into them so they take "natural" looking photos?

Trouble with that is that if I turn my camera upside down and take a photo - the same effect happens - the depression happens downwards.

For that to be the case, then this has to be caused by the Earth/Atmosphere - and not by the camera/eye.

So I think the Wiki could use some correction here.


993
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question from a physicist
« on: May 18, 2017, 12:28:34 PM »
The effects of gravity are also different when objects are in motion going east vs West and in motion at different latitudes.

Oh!?   That's odd.   What is the cause and effect of that one?

994
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question from a physicist
« on: May 17, 2017, 09:46:16 PM »
So from what I've been reading, there are at least three FE theories for why things fall to the floor when you drop them? (What RE calls "gravity").

1) The Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s/s.
2) That the air presses down on things to make them fall.
3) That there actually is gravity (like in RE) but the earth is infinite in extent.

Then maybe some people believe combinations of these - so accelerating upwards AND air pressing downwards...or that AND that the sun, moon and stars do have actual gravity and pull upwards to make things lighter on mountain tops.

My problem is that I don't see how any of these - in any combination - explains the observation that gravity is less at the equator than at the poles.

It's very difficult to discuss FE theories when there are so many of them, and they are (frankly) contradictory.

It would be nice to have some kind of clarification of all of them.  The Wiki doesn't really lay them all out clearly.

995
Flat Earth Theory / Tides.
« on: May 17, 2017, 04:09:20 AM »
According to the Wiki, tides in the FE theory are due to gravity from the sun and moon.

How does this explain that there are TWO lunar tides in each 24 hour period?  In the RE model, the Earth/Moon system orbit around a point a little off-center from the center of the (round) Earth. The tide that happens when the moon is overhead is just gravity, same in FE and RE physics.  But the second daily tide (which happens in RE theory because centrifugal force produces that second tide due to the off-center rotation of the Earth.

What is the FE explanation for that second daily tide?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 48 49 [50]