161

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity: Supplemental

« on: May 02, 2019, 07:35:46 PM »

Are you claiming that every physicist on the planet is faking their cavendish experiments? Because even though a single video could be fake, stating that all demos are fake is quite a large claim.

Absolutely not.  There are countless true experiments being done and documented by video all over the planet.  No questions about that.
The problem is that some experiments, can suffer influence of the environment, or even on purpose by the ones that likes to force the results, even when the results could be natural.   Like I said, you can insert other objects in the video to eliminate some doubts.  As an example, in this video he used a simple analog clock to allow the viewers to have the sense of accelerated time during the movement of the masses.   So, based on the data information from the objects used in the video, mass of the balls and the objects suspended, distances, time, etc, one could even calculate the "gravity acceleration" between them.   I don't even eliminate the possibility of the static electricity being dispersed in the air, and attaching to the masses could cause this effect, considering everything is isolated from the ground (plastic cups) or string.  Everything is possible, the only way to really make sure, would be to repeat the experience in vacuum and suspended few foot from the floor, that would be more scientific.

162

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity: Supplemental

« on: May 02, 2019, 06:02:51 PM »

The video should include some light feathers or easily floating stuff, as smoke, in the middle of the setup, so we will be sure there was no wind or air movement being forced into the center pieces.  I can make it even dance rumba back and forth. Oh, I forgot about possible magnets into the balls... silly me, smoke and feathers would not show them, but compasses could be put there to show no magnetic field change.  Silly me again, static electricity can make objects attracts or repeal each other, so a compass, feathers or smoke will not detect it.  Hmm, but what can detect it? EMI sensors.  We can be here 'til tomorrow, at the end will understand a video is just a video, nothing else, there are videos of aliens at Area 51.  I like the video when the right mass touches the ball, kick back and never approaches is again...   I am not saying the video is fake, I am saying it could be made fake with several different methods.

163

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: May 02, 2019, 05:46:21 PM »

Gravity is a force and arises from a potential. It can be generated, and this has been measured. It can be wasted - this has been measured too. Gravity certainly can be used - this is how we obtain energy in hydroelectric power plants.

Of course "gravity" can be generated, you can convert energy into mass, that mass will promote space deformation, thus, sliding vectors toward the center of such deformation, where space is less dense.   But that is it.

But sorry, you can not measure gravity, there is no over the counter equipment to do it, what you may be thinking is that we can measure the sliding vector of a mass towards another, using a common bathroom scale, that layman terms known as "weight".  That is not a gravity measurement device, sorry.  See, photons have no mass, but they have momentum, that can allow them to slide through the space deformation and change path.  You can use a zillion photons over the bathroom scale and obtain no measurement whatsoever caused by "gravity".   If I say to you that my "weight" is 80kg on the bathroom scale, how you calculate the "gravity force", or "gravity acceleration" from that number?  You can't.  You need to know my mass and my altitude first, and then what planet I am.  So, it is not gravity you are measuring on that scale, it is my mass sliding through the space deformation caused by the planet.  You need my mass in order to calculate the sliding vector, without it, you have no "gravity force" indication.   

The same as when you measure the blacksmith's hammer "hitting force" on the iron.  The hammer has no force or energy whatsoever, it is the arm of the blacksmith that applies mechanical motion vector to the hammer against the iron.  You can not use or say "hammer hitting force", because there is none, even that you can in fact measure it.

164

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: May 02, 2019, 05:30:34 PM »

Gravity is a force and arises from a potential. It can be generated, and this has been measured. It can be wasted - this has been measured too. Gravity certainly can be used - this is how we obtain energy in hydroelectric power plants.

You are confusing "gravity as a force", because you are thinking it is gravity what causes the water to slide down through the hydroelectric turbines, it is not.  Gravity offers the way for that to happens, but it is the free sliding of the water through a less dense space that cause the turbines to rotate.  No gravity is wasted, used, consumed, in the process.   The energy conversion to electricity comes from the water movement, once it moved, there is no more energy to be absorbed, so, the energy was in the water, promoted by the solar radiation creating water evaporation, not in the gravity.

You can not reuse the energy in the gasoline that creates the explosion inside the piston in the Otto engine.  When the energy is converted, it is done. You can turn blue trying to convince people that was the piston pressure that created the explosion, but no, it was not.  The piston pressure created the ideal environment for a compressed fuel and oxidizer to reach a favorable situation for an explosion, a spark initiate that, on diesel not even spark.  See, the piston pressure will serve for nothing without those energy packing elements.  The energy acquired in an Otto engine, is directly obtained from the fuel's energy.

This is exactly why perpetual machines doesn't work, it can be based on gravity, magnetic, whatever.  The energy to be produced from the perpetual machine can not be extracted from gravity or magnetic, they can not be the main supplier for such energy, they just are used as part of the environment where the energy can be converted from another force, mostly mechanical, but such force is in fact the ones providing the energy to be converted.

An electric generator is a good example.  It has magnets, coils, rotating parts, contact collars, etc, it uses the known law of pushing electrons flow into an electric conductor when it crosses magnetic field lines.  But see, it needs to be "crossing" magnetic field lines, a stationary copper wire in middle of those steady lines generates nothing.  Even with the most gigantic magnet close to the wire generates absolutely nothing.   The mechanical movement of the wire (or the magnet) does it, and to do so, it needs an external force, a movement, a job, that will finally convert energy from one form to another.  It is not the magnet that does it, the magnet does not contain such force or energy.  The magnet is what creates the right environment for such conversion to take place.  See, when the wire crosses the magnetic line fields, what is converted is the energy from the movement force, it is wasted, converted, it disappears after that and appears in the form of electricity.  The magnet never change its magnetic fields, it does not become weak, change, move, or become wasted, because it IS NOT used in the process.  Exactly like gravity.

165

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: May 01, 2019, 10:10:13 PM »

Whoa, just hold on a second. You need to parse these ideas in smaller, more manageable discussable chunks. We can’t have a good online discussion otherwise - it becomes impractical to address everything as it tangents off from a wall of text.

Let me reorganise a bit, and please reply with your thoughts again.

1. Gravity as a force vs gravity as a deformation of space time.

Okay. The two don’t work in the same discussion together. We can talk about Newtonian gravity, which works well in the regime of the weak field limit. That is, GR reduces to Newton very well on the surface of the earth.

The normal force is the Newton’s 3rd law pair. When I stand on the ground, the gravitational force acts down. So why don’t I move down? Cause the ground is there. Obviously. But since f=ma and my a is zero when standing, there must be a force which counteracts gravity. That is the normal force. It is the force of the ground on me that stops me sinking through it.

What keeps you on your feet while standing over a concrete slab?  It is not any "normal force", it is purely density of mass holding your sliding toward the space deformation.   Of course that if you relax your muscles you will fall over the concrete, space deformation will slide you down, if the soil under the concrete slab becomes less dense, it will slide sinking into the soil (Florida have several sink holes to prove it).  The sliding vector is always present, trying to move you towards the stronger deformation, there is no way to avoid it.    There is no force at all, there is only space deformation, less dense property of the space.

There is no force holding the book over the table, the space deformation generated by the huge mass of the planet is trying to slide the book down, but the table is just holding it there.  A "force" require some energy in first place.  One explanation of force:  "strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement".  Now, think the whole planet and all over it, including the table and the book were in space floating, very apart, by molecules, and slowing all of it slide towards a common center with little space with less density, it took millions of years to do that. Where that huge "force" that pushed everything together comes from? what about the huge force that holds all the tectonic plates over the melting ball of lava comes from?  What generated such huge amount of energy?  It is much easier to think about a space density becoming smaller, mass sliding towards where it is less dense, some mass can't go ahead because something is in the way, a table for example.

"Force" is a simple and easy way to explain in layman terms what we barely understand.
I hear it everyday, "the force of gravity"... it is not.

Force is when I push a chair, there is a muscle mechanic action, based on energy, it promotes a new vector to the balanced space around the chair, it moves.  That is force, because it was not there before, it was generated, used and converted.  A car's engine piston moves by the force of the fuel exploding, such energy can be wasted.  Gravity is not generated, imposed, used or wasted, you can not, because it is not a force.   You can convert the potential energy stored in the hydroelectric water, but it is not a force offered by gravity. The solar energy evaporated all that water and transferred energy to it - well, not really, the water didn't change, you can not measure such energy, but it is there, in a "potential" way, it means, "it potentially can be used".  Gravity is just the slider where the water runs and allows the turbines and generators to extract such energy.  Gravity sliding action will still the same after the water energy is collected, before, while and after.  If it can not be changed, converted or wasted, it is not a force.

Cheers.

166

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: May 01, 2019, 03:40:21 AM »

This is a matter of correct use of the terms. When standing on the ground, you do not feel an acceleration, you feel a normal force that is counter-acting your weight.
When you are falling, then you are feeling the gravitational force, which is your mass times g.
We never feel accelerations, we feel forces.
I’d like correct definitions be employed as much as possible.
But please forgive...I am just extra pedantic and precise about these things.

Lets go in parts. Some lights over the issue?

First, gravity is not a force, acceleration is, it takes energy from nothing. Yes, I know, but wait.

Gravity is a sliding condition of any mass towards a deformation of space.  The deformation can be caused by different reasons, one very well know is the presence of any mass in space, it deforms space towards its center of mass, larger the mass, larger the deformation.

What do you mean by "normal force" counteracting your weight? Is there any counterpart abnormal force?
And no, without any acceleration you will not whatsoever feel any "force" or pressure against your body.

And no, when you slide in the space deformation, that you say "falling", and I assume you are saying falling from an airplane for example, you never feel any force or any acceleration, in true, when you free fall is exactly when the sliding counter balance any other possible holding or suspension, and you feel absolutely nothing.  Ask any skydiver about what they feel when falling, nothing, just the air flowing against their bodies, nothing less, the body (mass) is in pure free form of freedom, all organs accommodate inside the body, without compressing each other, all the limbs relax, even your blood flow becomes easier and you feel euphoric since your brain receives better blood flow and oxygenation.  I have several friends skydivers, the sensation they present is that they are completely stopped and the ground rushes towards them, no other way around.  They say that when the parachute opens, it is like a strong force just push you up in a tremendous jolt and speed.



There is also a new definition about kinetic energy applied to a mass in space.  What always make scientists accept with reluctance, is the definition that a vector force of movement can only be deformed by another vector force (kinetic vector).  Accepting is one thing, understand the basics principles is another thing.  In a large void of space, a steady mass (almost impossible to exist) has space deformation all around it, balanced by itself to the center of such mass.  This deformation makes the mass itself to try to slide towards its center, and it compresses itself to do it.  This is basically the accretion process that converts nebulas into stars, planets, etc, and what makes piles of rubble and dust in enough size to become a ball in space.  But that mass is a piece of rock, can not compress itself anymore, so it is there, steady, doing nothing, with a space deformation balanced around.   Then came a smaller rock in high speed and bounces this original rock.  Kinetic energy is transferred to the original rock, it deform the steady vectors inside and it protrudes with some amplitude to the impacting vector direction, creating a momentum in the center of mass that changes from the center.  This movement also pushes the space deformation along, and now it is not balanced anymore, there is a sliding deformation towards the resulting kinetic vector, but as the original mass was completely stopped and balanced, the deformation will be towards the same direction of movement of the impacting small rock.   This unbalanced deformation will allow the original rock to slide into that less dense space, the original rock moves.  When it moves, its internal vector moves along, and it becomes an infinite cycle, rock slides, vector moves, space deformation moves, rock slides, forever.   This will continue for eternity, until another kinetic vector interferes or another mass space deformation adds sliding conditions to this rock, so it can change path.   This new theory may explain things we never really understood, and may explain why everything in the universe is in motion.  It also explains how photons with no mass, can change direction under sliding conditions, what we were calling "momentum" for many years.  It is exactly the "momentum" that is a little bit off-center and creates this effect.  The amount of sliding force in a regular mass is proportional to the mass, the speed it moves is proportional to how much off-center the "momentum" is set.  Photons travel at speed of light because their no-mass condition allows very little energy to create a large off-center momentum, when compared to its infinite small own space deformation in its wave interior, it moves at fantastic speed, and that is constant, in a regular space you can not speed up or break up photons.  You can change the time it takes to travel a certain distance if changing the space medium, like traveling in glass, water or gas, for example.  But the photon speed is the same, it just takes more time to bounce around and reach its destination.  The side of the wave that first find a denser medium will increase the time for travel, what for us, appears as a change in angle of insertion towards that side and angle.  It is incredible how we humans could find formulas to predict exactly this very complicated energy wave distortion, not knowing how exactly it happens, we think we know what a photon is.



So, your "gravity acceleration" is a little more complicated, we are changing the way we see it, trying to find better explanations for everything else, and actually a sliding condition based on space density changes is promising better understanding, without altering what Einstein predicted.

The best way for humans to understanding it, is as the space is a gel, denser water, our bodies change the density of such gel very close to our skin, and small particles tend to slide towards our skin and stick to it.   When we move inside this water or gel, we are moving very little this space deformation ahead of us, like a force field, and we can easily slide into this less dense gel.  Also, because the center of momentum or deformation is more pronounced to the direction of our movement, our back has less deformation and the gel on the back compress and pushes us forward, what make us move in that direction forever, if no other vector could interfere and change such condition.

Our brain is slowly trying to understand what it can not, so we simplify things to make our life easier. 


At the top I wrote "takes energy from nothing".


Think about two big, huge rocks in void space, steady state, no moving at all, one thousand light year from another.  Both has its own space deformation balanced to their centers, no moving.  But there is an itchy condition between them, very far away and very little.  The space deformation of one is interfering with the sliding situation of the other, this micron off-center movement of the deformation, causes they to start to slide one to another very slowly, microns per thousand years.  This sliding situation transport the space deformation along, what increases the sliding speed between them.  After a billion years, perhaps, they will pack a kinetic energy (momentum) almost impossible to describe, and at some point they will colide one to another.  The packed energy would be so large, the mass compression will be unimaginable, they would fuse their atoms one to another, even creating different heavy elements, radiation in wide spectrum to shine a galaxy, and something else.   But they were only rock, big yes, but nothing else, the energy released could even be larger than mc². They were picking speed and packing energy along the way, but from where?  The answer is:  From nothing.

167

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctica shows 24 hours of sunlight.

« on: April 30, 2019, 06:10:47 PM »

Some people don't understand. 

Science is a work of intelligence, it uses tools and repeatable experiences leading to the same results, also use all kinds of disproving exercises in order to kill the idea - that is the intelligent thing.  If the idea and exercises survive, stay strong and solid after all the attacks and negative attempt to disprove it, then we can say that is a valid scientific explanation for something we don't understand very well, but we can duplicate or simulate with great precision, including math and physics formulas. 

You don't need to understand gravity, in order to measure exactly 1kg of flower when making bread.

The fact that for thousands of years people believed in something, don't make it real.   One of the great factors of science is the birth of new tools and instruments that can be used to refine our old thoughts, or even perhaps finally disprove that old concept accepted during centuries.   The use of telescopes and math allowed to disprove the old wrong concept that the Earth was the center of the universe, and see, lots of theories and even formulas were made considering Earth as the center, and they were fully accepted by man of science and religion at that time.



I am trying to make a point here, saying that any of our scientific explanations could be disprove in the future, some are very very strong and probably will only be found wrong in another universe with different laws.  Most of Newton laws are pretty solid, for instance.   We humans have the tendency to try to explain whatever we see and experience, sometimes the explanation even survive the kill attempts, because those disproving attempts had not enough strong tools to do it.

For example, today we know for a fact that energy can not be generated.  Well, not in the kitchen table.  The universe has some hidden cards and tricks in the sleeves and sometimes prove our knowledge short of being right.   Cold fusion for instance, we strongly believe it could not be done, at least not easily.  Only the next centuries will prove us right or wrong.  May be it will be quite easy to produce cold fusion, maybe we just don't have yet the right tools to make it work, or understand how to do it.

For thousands of years we observe birds flying, and it was literally impossible to fly, well, still does.  We can not fly.  We need tools and machines to help us fly.  One day we found a way to build such machines, and today millions of people fly everyday all over the world.   

We needed to talk to other people far away, we used smoke signs, sounds made by hitting hollow trunks and such.  Necessity was growing and we needed to find a way, it was almost desperation, we could not anymore wait 3 days of a horseman to deliver a letter two towns away.   The necessity is the mother of invention, so we ended up with a mobile phone in our pocket, smaller than your hand, and you can talk or send messages all over the world in seconds.   Why it was so impossible a century ago?  Because science had not the necessary tools.  We needed to first invent the tools, then in time, we invented the solutions with such tools.  It is not longer than 100 years when doctors found out they needed to wash their hands before a surgery, or the patient could dye of infection. Microscopes and intelligence make them understand that, tools and science.



The only way to disprove the Earth as the center of the universe, was to see and measure things much bigger than ourselves in the night sky, and think "is there another way?".

I understand the FEr trying to think about this "is there another way?", but it is not only "to think" about another idea, you need to first disprove it with the tools available.  It is not a matter of you think and I disprove. The owner of the idea, yourself, has the job to try to disprove your own idea, much before you go out and tell others about your idea, because, if others disprove, you will be known as the joker, the crazy stupid ideas guy.  And you don't want that.   

It would be so much easy for me to go out and say that I think the world is a triangle, and that it is the job of the ones that believe is a oblate spheroid to disprove my thought.  No, it is not.  The burden of proof is always towards the accuser.  If you say you can fly, it is better to jump from the top of a building and make a nice glide around, or, you will be a stupid splattered dead guy.

I may spread around the belief that I can fly.  I may even convince thousands of people about it. I can even keep this belief running for centuries, and millions of people would believe on my sayings.   It doesn't chance a bit the fact that I simply can not fly.  I may have a billion people saying "jump, jump, we know you WILL fly"... it will not change the nice splat in the ground if I try. 

Science and physical laws are like a blind executioner.  They just don't care what you think, it will be steady and solid.  You may try to distort scientific facts in your favor, but believe me, hammering your finger will result in pain, no matter how many different explanations you may find to tell me otherwise.  The hammer, kinetic energy, two masses colliding in high speed...ouch, painful, and I don't need to be a scientist to understand that.

So, much before FErs trying to disprove Round Earth, they should try to make their own homework and try to disprove Flat Earth.  A good start is just listening to what the RErs are saying and see if by any chance RErs have a good FE disproving reason.   When RErs say and show the Sun rotating all around the South Pole, what by itself strongly disprove the FE theory, don't simply change your concept and try to find a way to go around that, creating a dual pole FE.   You have what you have, you don't have an adaptation story.  So, what you have?  If it doesn't work, it is wrong, get over that, and stick to the solid facts.   

If you don't know what you have, don't try to push it as a solid truth, because it will fail.

Science just need one intelligent person and a good set of failing disproving attempts, to make something solid.

FErs must make their FE theory solid, with facts, numbers, science and math formulas, FE explanations should be stronger than the RE facts and physics, then, maybe.  Until then, it will be just a figment of imagination, without any scientific reasoning, and that is just a Mickey Mouse world.

If you don't have feathers and large wings, don't try to convince me you can fly, you may ending up tripping from the edge of the building.

168

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: April 30, 2019, 04:24:57 AM »

Where were you born at?

I was born in the Southernmost state of Brazil, Rio Grande do Sul, it makes division with Uruguai (33.7°S) and Argentina. The three countries share a great area known as "Pampas", plains with fantastic cattle with low muscle, the cowboys on horses are known as "gauchos".  Rio Grande do Sul was basically colonized by Portuguese on the 18th century, and then heavily by Italians and Germans later on the 19th century.  The cold weather is perfect for cultive of grapes, so, great wineries can be find there. They export very good lean meat and very good wines.  The US steakhouse chain Texas de Brazil is based on our traditions. I could not hold myself, the climate, culture, genetic mix and influence of the southern stars, produce fantastic women, one is the actual supermodel Gisele Bündchen, also in 1963 a Miss Universe Ieda Maria Vargas, and of course my wife. The cold climate and chilling nights call for a good hot tea, made with grind leaves of "erva mate", we call "chimarrão", everybody drinks it, all the time.  Impossible to put a group of friends together without sharing a "chimarrão" and stories, anytime, anyplace. That metallic straw, we call "pump", has a large round metallic filter at bottom, gold tip on top (to keep clean and free of microbes) and some has precious jewels in the middle, it is used to suck the tea from the bottom of the recipient, named "cuia", it is made of natural plant, known as "cabaça americana", origins in Africa. Impossible to see a "gaucho" without his "chimarrão" at hand.

169

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: April 29, 2019, 09:44:23 PM »

When you are on the ground, though, you won't feel any acceleration.

Wowa, wait a minute.  When I am at the ground I feel all the "gravity acceleration" yes, my weight aches my knees and my feet feel all the sliding of the space distortion against the floor.  I feel it very much.  Try to carry a 80kg weight and tell me you don't feel it.   Please don't make confusion about gravity acceleration (common old saying) and space deformation mass sliding, that is exactly what happens in the real universe between masses.

170

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctica shows 24 hours of sunlight.

« on: April 29, 2019, 09:34:16 PM »

FE bipolar map creates another set of havoc for FErs and complicates even more.  Starting with the extreme dimensional deformed United States and Australia, following by a Sun's path completely impossible (two Suns?), with a totally wrong Equatorial line - you can not ride it straight and end up where started, airplane flight paths from San Francisco to Japan or China impossible to be a shorten path over Pacific, magnetic field lines would be a mess, no magnet exists with such shape.

171

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: April 29, 2019, 09:19:41 PM »

To have a summer day longer than 12 hours in Australia, South Africa or South of Argentina, even Uruguay (I was born close to Uruguay), the Sun's light must hit the exactly same point in the ground for more than 12 consecutive hours, changing angle of incidence, of course. 

Considering the FE Sun circles over the FE disc once every 24 hours, then it must cover more than 180 degrees of the southern FE land at any specific time during southern summer.   Can any FEr please, draw a specific geometric shape over the FE map, even crude, showing this coverage ?

Additional text:
The big problems for FE is the southern hemisphere, always, this is why both, FEr or REr,  we need to stress any issue in attempt to clarify any doubts through the scientific way.  There are plenty of FE issues there, direction of rotation and visibility of the stars, lands dimensions and ocean distances between them, times of flight, Sun presenting itself 360° all around during summer (the killer issue), etc. 

I was raised watching the Crux Constellation every night, rotating in the sky, stars Acrux (the 12th brightest star in the sky), Alpha Crucis  magnitude 0.77.  It is on declination -63°, due the Earth's curvature it can not be seem north of latitude 27°N.  It was my first telescope observation at 6 yrs old, we didn't have so much light pollution at that time, skies were really black and clean. The Crux is a circumpolar constellation at 34°S, it means it is visible all year round in the south, and its position is the opposite of Cassiopeia in the Northern sky.  There is an image of the Crux on the rocks of Machu Picchu in Peru, the Inca knew it as Chakana. It is also presented on the Australian and Brazilian flag, its name was used as Brazilian currency denomination for quite some time. There is a trick to use the Crux to exactly locate the South Pole, it was an important navigation tool before GPS, as the North Star was for the northern hemisphere.

 

172

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctica shows 24 hours of sunlight.

« on: April 29, 2019, 06:06:47 PM »

How about you read the FAQ, and then ask why no one can be bothered to answer your question?

I cannot see anything that explicitly addresses this in the FAQ page either. Indirectly though and related to this question, the FAQ page does show an animation of the Sun circling over a flat Earth. The extent of the daylight area due to the Sun does reach the circumference (or edge) of the flat Earth circular surface. That would mean the Antarctic is in daylight for 24 hours. As the Sun moves back north (radius of solar orbiting circle decreases) so the Antarctic region would be placed into 24 hour night. That corresponds to southern hemisphere winter.

What the animation does not account for though is the variation in the Suns altitude during a 24 hour period near for example the December solstice. In the animation the Sun follows a circular path and so its distance from the 'edge' of the flat Earth is constant. To an observer in Antarctica or near the SP region, that would mean they would see the Sun circle the horizon at constant altitude. That is not what is observed in reality.  Perhaps there is another FE model which does account for this variation in solar altitude during a 24 hour period?

Something wrong with your explanation. 

First that the Flat Earth's Sun never goes much further from the vertical over the Equator, so, for an observer over Antarctica, it will be far away always, never close by.  Even for flat Earth model, the edge will be at 12738km from the center, or 6369km from the Equator, the Sun will be only at 4800km up (over the Equator), so, the observer angle for the closest Sun would be around 37° at Noon time and 14.1° at Midnight, hypotenuse will be 7975km at Noon and 19700km at Midnight.   

Second, if the observer is with his back to the "ice wall" and facing towards the North Pole, he might see the Sun very low on horizon at some time, but the Sun will NOT circle the observer's back, right?  To do so, the Sun would need to go outside the flat Earth model for a long distance, and keep close to the horizon on the observer's back.   Imagine yourself sit over the public benches of a stadium, watching a game happening in the mid field, how some players would run around your back?  Impossible, right? The game field is happening way over your front, the same as the Sun over the middle Equator of flat Earth model.  So, the explanation doesn't work.  I think you didn't understood, those pictures are a 360° composition during 24 hours time period, with the photographer rotating himself in a full circle, facing the Sun.

173

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Theory gravity

« on: April 26, 2019, 10:48:52 PM »

Also, if the Earth is accelerating upwards, what is the force causing this acceleration? Where does this force come from?

Too many questions unanswered.

Who told you that?
Earth is not accelerating upwards.
The space bent due Earth's mass causes you and any other mass to be pushed down.  The better term is "slide" down.
Without Earth present, you will be steady in space, instantly include Earth beneath you, you will be pushed down, so, it is not the Earth that is moving.

Post Edit:
Sorry by that, driving on I-4 it came to my mind, you were saying (Earth accelerates upwards) about the supposed gravity acceleration on the FE model...  Yes, that is crazy, doesn't work, it will reach a critical impossible speed.  Except for one little possibility, if the whole FE world is sit over an inside wall of a gigantic cylinder rotating in space, where artificial gravity could be produced and sky will be floating in the middle. But shushhh, don't tell FE believers that, they may start to believe on it, because it makes sense... 

174

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clock the Sky

« on: April 26, 2019, 10:01:57 PM »

Surely you're obliged to chop the sky into the sections that you can see at any one time?

Unless you can show us how someone in (say) Nether Wallop, UK could see Polaris and Acrux simultaneuously?

On flat earth sky it is possible to do it, right?,  the same from windows of International Space Station when over Equator.

175

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clock the Sky

« on: April 26, 2019, 09:59:15 PM »

Chop the sky always related to the Equator view, please.
But even at any other latitude of observation, it will be 15° per hour. 
As usual, speed is distance divided by time, we are talking here in angular speed.
Even Polux makes 15° per hour in its tinny 360° circle per 24 hours.

176

Flat Earth Theory / Timezone Northern and Southern Hemisphere

« on: April 26, 2019, 09:55:59 PM »

Can you please, inform what is the distance in kilometers or miles between time zones on the latitude 28.5°N (Orlando FL) and 28.5°S (Rio Grande do Sul Brazil) ?   Considering that all 24 time zones lines concentrate on the North Pole, on the flat earth design they open up like an umbrela or slices of a pizza all over the flat map,  right?  So, as your South pole is the border ice wall, it is huge, it will be 80 thousand kilometers circumference of your ice wall, sliced in 24 lines, equal to 3333 km between each time zone.   Is that correct?   

Well, lets calculate.  On the oblate spheroid planet, the equator line is at latitude zero, North pole is latitude 90°, so Orlando at 28.5°N will have a circumference of 40000 * sin(90-28.5), or 40000 * sin(61.5) = 35152km, divided by 24 = 1464km between each time zone.  Now, we know it is not exactly like that because it is oblate, but lets consider spherical.   Now, The 28.5°S would be the the same, 1464km between each time zone.

Now, considering your flat earth map, for the 28.5°S, it will not use sine, it will be a flat proportion, just considering radius and PI.   So, again, equator has 40000 km in the equator circumference, 28.5°N, Orlando FL, will be  40000 * (90-28.5) / 90 = 22888km / 24 = 953 km between each time zone.   Now, for the 28.5°S on your flat earth map, it will be 40000 * (1 + ((90-28.5) / 90)) = 67333/24 = 2805 km between each time zone, that is preposterous ridiculous.   If you once traveled to the Southern Hemisphere, you know that is totally not true.   

Look below the world time-zones, there are 5 hours zones between Africa and Brazil, and only 7700 km between South Africa and Brasilia. This information (distance) is not a straight parallel line, this is why it end up using 1540km per time zone.    The point is that according to your flat earth map, it would take 2805 km for only ONE timezone... those 5 time-zones would take double distance (14027km) than what is measured, that is horrendous.



Now lets compare Australia to USA.
They have almost the same horizontal (longitude) size (New York to SFrancisco almost the same as Pert to Sidney), see the picture below.  New York is at latitude 40°N.   As USA, Australia also has almost 3 hours of timezone differences, see the first picture and uses 40° of longitude, or 40/360 of the world circumference, according to last picture.

Australia is at 35°S Latitude, and according to the flat earth map, the circumference on the parallel of Sidney is [40000 * (1+ ((90-35) / 90))] = 64444km / 24h = 2685 km per time zone, multiplied by lets say 2.7 = 7250km.  The measured distance between Pert to Sidney is 3291km by air, or even zigzagging by land it is no more than 3930km, way below the calculated on flat earth map (7250km).

Last proven number:  40° of longitude (Australia) correspond to 40/360=0.11111 of the world's circumference, what is 24 * 0.1111 = 2.6666 hours, not bad for my guess of 2.7 time-zones above.

I think flat earth believers are aching hard to answer and contest those simple proved numbers.  Grab your calculator and lets have a tea.

177

Flat Earth Theory / GPS constellation of satellites

« on: April 26, 2019, 08:46:37 PM »

Would you care to explain please, how GPS, satellite phones and communication in general work in high-seas or in the deep deserts, in a flat earth model?  and please, don't attack my intelligence writing "balloons" or something like that.   If your high altitude "dome" could reflect radio waves, why can't we have waves reflected at any transmitted angle, and only works when transmitter and receiver points exactly where geo satellites are, within narrow angle?

178

Flat Earth Theory / Clock the Sky

« on: April 26, 2019, 08:17:19 PM »

You can adjust your clock by the movement of things on the sky.
The time a star or the Sun takes to move 15 degrees is exactly 60 minutes, or, 4 minutes per degree, EXACTLY.
It doesn't matter if right after rising in the East, at the top of the sky or right before setting in the west, the time and angle distribution is the same.

This means, the apparent movement of things in the sky is perfectly linear, and that have a simple explanation, the sky is still, our planet is what rotates in a very steady and constant speed exposing us to the universe.

You can NOT have this linearity if dealing with two parallel planes moving one against another, this is exactly what the flat earth model shows, a flat earth disc and a flat sky disc rotating overhead.  When parallel, your angle of view changes constantly, along with the apparent size and time per distance. 

The two images below, the left from the North pole and all the stars rotating around it CCW, the other from the South pole, all stars rotating around it in CW... that for itself kills the flat earth theory.

I wonder when some flat earth believer would contest and explain how this work in their flat world.

179

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Light Composition

« on: April 26, 2019, 05:44:27 PM »

I hope you realize that the power from the sun isn't actually even.

Of course, radiation burst and solar flares make it radiation fluctuating, this is why we use average measurements.

No, I mean it's not even across the Earth's surface. Sunlight coming at an angle is less radiance than sunlight from directly overhead.

This is exactly why we use "average" of 1kW/m².   The same average I used to calculate the energy within the cone from the flat earth sun.

180

Flat Earth Theory / Equator line walk

« on: April 26, 2019, 05:41:52 PM »

On the oblate spheroid planet, if you walks over the equator you do it in a perfect straight line, zero degrees for any side from that line, never deviate even a tenth of degree, and after 40 thousand km you will find yourself back to your starting point. 

On the flat earth model, your walk over the equator is not straight, during the 40 thousand km walk you make a whole 360° turn.  If you are walking west, you will make a long right turn to northwest all the time, it will be a 40 thousand km walk, 360°, 111 km per degree, that would be pretty much noticeable and measurable.   

===

On the oblate spheroid planet, you can sit down and watch the movement of the stars, anything that raise at the perfect East will set perfectly at West. Anything that raises from Northeast will cross the northern sky, never coming over you, and sets on Northwest.  Anything that raises from Southeast, will cross the southern sky, never coming over you, and setting on Southwest.

On the flat earth model, everything on the sky makes a complete 180° turn over you during a 12 hous period of time, nothing will raise or set, things would appear (?) from the Northeast view, make a clockwise 90° turn until it gets right over you, then makes another clockwise 90° turn and disappear (?) over the Northwest, the whole sky is rotating in a circle over you, right?

===

Go outside right after sunset, with a 12" or 30cm ruler, fully extend your arm with the ruler in hand, measure the distance between any two bright stars close to the eastern horizon in the sky that would be around 2 to 5 cm apart.  Make note of such measurement.  Come back 5 hours later, the same stars will be closer to the top of the sky, make another measurement in the same way, return 5 hours later and measure them almost setting in the western sky horizon.   You will have a very important and nice surprise.  All the measurements will be exactly the same, to the microns of measurement.   I know this experience could not make any sense to most flat earth believers, but it should do.    I will explain why.   In your flat earth model, the sky is only 3000 miles high and flat, rotating over us.  Go to a straight street, put two soda cans 1 meter/yard apart on the walkway, go to the walkway across the street, walks away 50 steps, turn back and walks 100 steps, even being on the other side of the street you will be approaching the soda cans in the middle of the walk.  Repeat the ruler measurement with fully extended arm, while you walks, you will notice that the measurement would show a larger number when you will be closer to the cans, right across the street, 90° angle, and smaller when you are at smaller angles and far from the cans.



What conclusion you have with this cans experience?  That while you moves on the street, or the street moves on you, objects distances will change while in a lower angle from you, and that distance will be largest while it is right on top of you.

From the 50 steps to one direction and other on the other side of the street and the soda cans, probably you made a 176° of a sweep, triangle of 20 m of height by 100 m of base, your observation distance changed from 20m (across the street) to 54m at 50m away.  Your observation of the flat earth sky during horizon to horizon would be 20 thousand km walk (triangle base) to 4.8km high,  it will form a triangle with a sweep of  128°, your distance from your sky will be from 4.8km (right on top, 12pm) to 10.1km (at 6am or 6pm), that is more than double the distance, the object size in the sky will be completely different in size.  The size formula for different distances is pretty simple, just a ratio.  If you see the sun at 12pm as (lets say) 20mm on the sky, at 6pm it will appear as 20 * 4.8 / 11.1 = 8.6mm.  But it does not, right?  Measure your flat earth sun at noon and at 6pm right before sunset... will see it has exactly the same size.   The only explanation is that it is tremendously far away, millions of times further than just 4.8km.



So, why the stars distances are all the same while they cross all your sky?  Why they don't change distances from horizon to top of the sky?   If you learn any geometry at middle school, you did learn that a 1 meter diameter rotating drum or circle over the ground, the distance from any point on the surface to ground will be a variance from zero to 1 meter, easily measured.  If this same drum is lift 10 km up in the sky, now the variation of distance to the ground from any point on the surface of the drum will be a variance from 10000m to 10001m, almost impossible to measure or to notice.

That is the same with stars, they are so far away, several trillions of miles away or much much further, the 6300km difference in distance to the stars of 6 hours Earth rotating 90° will add so little to the total distance, that makes the stars to be at the exact same distance among them.  It is the same as in the soda can experience, if you move yourself not just to the other side of the street, but 10 blocks away, and look and measure the soda cans distance through a binoculars, they will be measured the same distance, no matter if you walk 200 yards parallel to them.  This is the same effect when traveling by car in the highway, things closer to the road start appearing small at distance, become huge when closer to you, pass fast, reduce size as it distances away.  But far away trees and mountains appear to be moving with you at the same size.   

When you say the flat earth sky, sun, moon, planets and stars are only 3000 miles (4800 km) high, that is too low for them to keep the same distances when moving all over you through the 20 thousand km half circle of the flat earth equator sky, that is impossible. It is the same as the soda cans across the street, you WILL measure a large difference in distances.   Just go outside and measure, you will find none, what proves the spheroid planet.



Oh, too much calculations, numbers and angles for you?  Then, sorry, you should not be involved in trying to understand the ins and outs of the scientific world, we call it geometry and astrophysics.  I would recommend other areas of interest for you.