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 - jimster

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / 2 questions about UA
« on: June 11, 2024, 11:06:36 PM »
UA seems plausible, the model would explain what we observe in everyday life, at least for a while.

Question 1: The sun and moon seem to stay more or less the same distance per many FE models, thus they must be accelerating identically. Is there some structure that holds them up there? If the dome is holding them up, that would be some impressive structure. Or perhaps the same force that is accelerating the earth is acting on them but not airplanes.

Question 2: Do we have any reference outside the earth and astronomical objects that do not appear to be getting closer, thus must be accelerating as part of the earth/astronomical object system. Acceleration must be in relation to a point that is not accelerating, yet I see no info in FE on where that point is or how to observe it. My question is, can we observe or measure this acceleration from any frame of reference, or is the only way we know it is accelerating is by dropping things at the surface of the earth and attributing the acceleration of 32 feet/sec/sec to the earth rising instead of the object falling?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: falsification, epistemology, FE and RE
« on: June 11, 2024, 10:53:28 PM »
Re falsification of RE/FE:

On the wiki page of maps, all the FE maps are falsifiable by comparing the distances on the maps to gps, airline schedules, google maps, time/speed/distance, navigation works, etc, all consistent and proved many many times daily by airliners arriving, ships, many other ways. In most FE maps. Australia is way too big and the distance to Los Angeles (a route I flew) is way too long.

I have a globe and used a piece of string and the scale printed on the globe to measure some distances and compared them to google maps, lat/long, and various internet sites. They were all the same and matched RE. I submit a globe is the only map that is not falsifiable in that way.

Within Euclidean 3 space and Newtonian physics, RE is not falsifiable. All the FE maps in the wiki are easily falsifiable.

If you want to falsify RE, you can use non-Euclidean geometry and esoteric math. I can also prove that 1 = 0 using math, so ...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: falsification, epistemology, FE and RE
« on: June 11, 2024, 10:34:28 PM »
Re solipsism, this is the definition I meant:

    the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
    "solipsism is an idealist thesis because ‘Only my mind exists’ entails ‘Only minds exist’"

Religion, politics, and flat earth often use what I would call "partial solipsism", saying "You can't know that." Information that falsifies their narrative can be dealt with by claiming you can't know (faulty senses, hypnotism, conspiracy, fake news, etc) things. For instance, one FE posted that it is impossible to know the distance across oceans. If the only certainty is
I think, therefor I am" and only your existence to ask the question is certain, all inconvenient facts can be dismissed.

Flat Earth Theory / falsification, epistemology, FE and RE
« on: May 19, 2024, 07:52:24 PM »
The wiki contains falsification of RE, even though RE has many observations and explains things like equatorial telescope mounts, sunset/sunrise, eclipse, day and night, 24 hour sun or darkness at the poles, etc etc etc. So let's say RE is falsified despite many reasons to think it is true. My question is whether FE models can be falsified. It seems to me that the ratio of proof of RE to falsification of RE is pretty high, many reasons to believe RE and few to falsify it. FE believers seem to hypothesize various explanations of the problems with various FE models without experiments, proof, equations, etc, just "well, it might be".

My question is why can't RE belief be saved by "well, it might be ..." as FE often is?

Could the true FE model be determined by falsification similar to RE falsification?

If that standard applied to all FE models, would any survive? Why can't the FE world falsify all but one model to determine the true form of the earth? If inconsistencies can be explained by unproven hypothetical forces, how can the FE world ever figure out which is true?

Is it the case that RE has to be complete, consistent, and flawless, while FE can have inconsistencies and not correlate to observations without "unknown forces and unknown equations" as the wiki formerly explained EA (aka "bendy light")?

Does someone have a flawless FE model, no inconsistencies that require light to bend etc? Or are all RE and FE models flawed and we can never know?

I submit that there is no falsification of anything that can not be explained by some mechanism you dream up if no experiment, equations, or other sharable and verifiable is required and that includes RE. For instance, one could easily make up a previously unknown force to explain Michaelson Morley RE falsification. I submit that in this sense, RE is exactly the same as FE models in that you have some reason to believe it, but it has flaws. Until we have experiments, observations, equations etc to explain things like UA and EA, FE is no more unfalsified than RE.

So the solipsist can not believe RE or FE.

Where is Sigma Octantus?

If the earth is a spheroid. light travels straight in a vacuum, and Sigma Octantus is a star 294 light years away and 1 degree off a line extended from the south pole, then all over the southern hemisphere it will be visible at any point in the southern hemisphere almost directly south and at an angle above the horizon equal to the latitude of the observer's location. This is explained in textbooks, web sites, videos, etc, consistently and unambiguously. Navigators have used this and observers have confirmed this. In this respect, the earth appears round and the geometry is consistent. Any RE will tell the exact same story. In this respect, the earth appears to be round.

If the earth is flat, we know the light is bending but do not know why or how. The bending can only be determined by what bending needs to occur for the round appearance to actually be flat. We don't know whether there is one pole or two. We don't know why at the same time people in the north see entirely different stars than people in the south. Since we don't know how the light bends, we don't know where Sigma Octantus actually is.

It is not just the azimuth of Sigma Octantus but also elevation (angle above the horizon). It is stated above (hypothesized? speculated?) that SIgma Octantus is directly above the south pole in the bi-polar model. Since Sigma Octantus is on the horizon when viewed from the equator, that makes it appear to be directly on the south pole while far to the south it appears to be far above it. So the light bends vertically as well as horizontally.

In the monopole disc model Sigma Octantus is in every direction, always directly opposite to the north pole. Seems like it would be visible from the northern hemisphere. It has the same elevation problem as bi-polar model.

So that leaves us with: RE has an explanation that is known, consistent with observations, and identical in all RE info sources. FE does not know which model and has no equations, explanations, or verification experiments to explain observations. Yet some believe the earth is flat. Sure would like to hear the details of EA, but so far the definition is "whatever it has to be to make the appearance of RE be actually FE".

Interestingly, if we know the light bends in various directions but do not know exactly how, Sigma Octantus could be anywhere. I claim that to know where Sigma Octantus is, we have to know the forces and equations of how the light bends. If it does not bend, the earth is round.

I hope we can all agree with everything I said above. Please advise if I said anything that isn't true.

I saw a video where a man had a scale and a weight that he showed, then took went on an airliner a thousand miles away and showed the weight was slightly different. I googled "does gravity vary in different places?". I got results that said that due to different mass in different places, gravity does vary. Greater in mountains, less above trenches, which makes sense if gravity is attraction between masses as claimed by conventional consensus science.

Questions for FEs: Is this true, does gravity vary slightly in different places? Perhaps error or conspiracy? If gravity does vary, and gravity is due to universal acceleration (per the wiki?), does that mean that different places have slightly different acceleration? Seems to me that would distort the flatness over time. Places with less gravity would accelerate slightly slower, thus falling behind and so getting lower and lower compared to average, and mountains having more gravity would be accelerating. They would get continuously higher.

Should the universal acceleration theory be discarded, or is there an FE explanation for varying gravity?

Flat Earth Theory / Are the distances shown on google earth true?
« on: September 06, 2023, 12:56:51 AM »
GPS, google earth, celestial navigation, does any FE have an example of them not matching? If they are all correct, the shape of the earth is a geometry problem. They either match RE or FE. If they are not correct, please explain.

To put it another way, does the US Navy know where its ships are? Can they send a ship to Japan and order it mid course to go to Australia? Will it arrive? Will they know the distance and therefor whether they have enough fuel and when it will arrive? Does the US Navy know the shape of the earth?

Good faith: If someone had explanations, equations, and experiments that proved flat earth and explained things like sunset and sunrise, I would believe FE. Sunset and sunrise are explained by "the light bends", while there is no explanation of why, no experiment, no equations. The wiki page on EA used to say it bends due to unknown forces with unknown equations, but that seems to have been removed once I quoted the wiki page on zetetic where it said you should not believe things unless it has been experimentally demonstrated, and the EA page admitted there are no experiments proving EA bends light. I have listened to many FE ideas, people misunderstanding perspective and vanishing point etc etc etc. The FE ideas are full of misunderstandings and gaps. RE has explanation for sunrise and sunset that works geometrically, and so many other things.

Gotcha: This is another word for proof by contradiction, used in math and epistemology, Karl Popper says you can't prove anything, you can only assume things are true and show that leads to contradiction with known facts, so in perhaps the leading school of thought on epistemology, "gotcha" is all there is. The use of the word in daily life is not even about the probitive value of a statement. It is a tribal appeal to emotions, making the conversation not a search for truth, but invalidation by saying you're not looking for truth, you are trying to invalidate my tribe. Which I am, but calling my argument a gotcha attempt does not change the logic of the argument.

I wasn't even arguing that the earth is not flat. I was asking if someone can find flaws in the Newton/Kepler system, which explains why people see different stars above them in northern/southern hemisphere, why sun sets and rises, etc etc etc. Is there something we REs have missed in calculations and observations, or does RE geometry "work", is it consistent with calculations and observations? Please show your work. It is possible that the appearance of planets is consistent with RE yet the earth is actually flat. My observation about that is that even if true, it is remarkable that the RE calculations and observations are consistent because FE geometry is greatly different.

I doubt that any FE will say "observations and calculations of Newton/Kepler are consistent with observations". They just won't. Neither will they come up with Newtonian calculations that are inconsistent with observations.

Don't you think it is remarkable that RE could be be consistent with calculations and observations yet the earth is actually flat? That something so wrong could predict planetary motions accurately?

PS Flat eyes and under my feet??? I do not understand. I freely admit that if you just look around you, the earth looks flat. This is because the earth is so big, that locally, flat is a good approximation. FE breaks down when you try to explain sunrise/sunset, different stars in southern/northern hemisphere, etc etc etc.

In my nearly 10 years trying to understand and verify the truth of FE, I have heard many FEs describe our world as a terrarium, flat land under a dome. It is always difficult to determine what exactly FE means, as FEs do not agree and often their ideas are presented as models, as possibilities, often multiple possibilities. So some say dome, some don't, whatever.

Forget the dome, sorry I mentioned it.

My question is whether the RE model of the solar system is consistent with observations and calculations per Newtonian physics. If RE astronomy was true, would it account for planetary motion as observed from the surface of the earth? Are Newton's equations consistent with orbital paths and are those paths what we would see in RE solar system?

The possible answers from FE believer are:

1. Yes, the RE explanation is consistent with calculations and observations, but that is just an amazing coincidence. The light bends to make the appearance of RE actually be FE, although FE can't explain the forces and equations involved.

2. No, here are calculations that show that Newton was wrong, or observations that show that Kepler was wrong.

All other answers, including the FE posts in this thread, do not answer my question. Dome or no dome, epicycles, fourier, etc. The question remains, is Kepler/Newton consistent with observations and calculations? If the solar system is what RE says it is, does that account for its appearance? Is RE consistent with Newtonian equations of mass and motion?

That is the only question of this thread.

Re the FE dome, this is a common, perhaps majority idea of FE. It is of course difficult to discuss FE theories, since the only thing I have found that all FEs agree on is that the earth is not round. Most of the wiki is full of statements like "some models" or "there is a theory". Unlike RE, there is no system of facts that all FEs agree on.

But ...

The question was, is the Newton/Kepler/astronomy as taught at my high school and college consistent with observations and calculations? If you calculate the mass, velocity, gravity etc per Newton, astronomer observations, all of RE science, are there inconsistencies?

I am hoping for a yes or no answer, not a discussion of whether epicycles work, or even whether FE is true. Just the answer of whether RE science is consistent with itself and observations.

My ultimate point is that until FE shows inconsistency in calculations and observations, I would find it astounding if the FE solar system is not Kepler/Newton and yet the entire system of calculations and observations is consistent and predictive.

Will any FE admit that Newton/Kepler is consistent and predictive? Will any FE admit that it is an astounding coincidence that if you don't account for the bending light (per EA wiki page), that assuming light travels straight through a vacuum, RE solar system, Newton's laws, RE science in general, then RE science is consistent with calculations and observations.

Please, yes or no. If the answer is no, you can be a famous scientist like Kepler, Galileo, etc. If the answer is yes, RE is the most amazing coincidence in science. I have beaten this to death in hopes of getting my answer because the answers either pick apart my question (am I able to communicate a question? Will repetition help?) or answer a different question (Do epicycles work?). Yes or no?

Is RE/Newton/Kepler consistent with itself and observations? Yes or no?

I do not quarrel with your assertion that it is possible to derive equations that describe planetary motion, and apparently we agreed that these equations approach accuracy as the number of terms approach infinity. I said that in sloppier language, or meant to. It also appears that modern astrodynamics may use epicycles, to my surprise. I found a research paper:

"This paper presents a modern treatment of epicycle theory, which is an exact series representation of Keplerian motion, and uses that theory to develop the first analytic method for analyzing the higher order dynamics of the LISA orbits. LISA, the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna mission, uses a constellation of three spacecraft in heliocentric space and takes advantage of particular solutions of the Clohessy-Wiltshire equations."

So I was wrong, epicycles are used by modern astronomers, but I don't think much. Note that the author is confirming the equivalence to Kepler.

From the wiki page on deferent and epicycle:

"Epicycles worked very well and were highly accurate, because, as Fourier analysis later showed, any smooth curve can be approximated to arbitrary accuracy with a sufficient number of epicycles. However, they fell out of favor with the discovery that planetary motions were largely elliptical from a heliocentric frame of reference, which led to the discovery that gravity obeying a simple inverse square law could better explain all planetary motions."

This is the overall approximate truth I was under the impression of, and I think it is true that most astronomers today do not use epicycles. In math, there are often different approaches that yield the same results, and apparently, epicycles helped at least one modern astronomer, who, as I mentioned, said it was equivalent.

And it remains true that epicycle equations are produced by taking data and analyzing it without relation to underlying physical theory. It is a case of, here is an equation that produces the curve described by the data, while Newton/Kepler says here is mass and position and velocity and equations describing experimentally confirmed forces, and those equations accurately predict observed apparent planetary motions produced by heliocentric RE astronomy.

Case in point, astronomers observed slight variations in the predicted orbits of known planets, and used the Newtonian equations within RE heliocentric solar system to predict the existence of Neptune. They looked where they calculated it should be, and there it was. Epicycles could not do that.

But ... that was not the question of the original post. The original question is whether Newton/Kepler equations "worked", are they consistent and predictive. Per the above articles and general knowledge, yes they are. My point is that the motion of planets on FE dome may be described and even predicted by epicycles, but they don't explain why planets appear to make little loops, slow down, go backwards (planets to ancient Greeks: wandering stars). Kepler/Newton/RE are also consistent and predictive, as well as explanatory. If FE is true and planets are moving around on the dome, it is amazing to me that there is a 3d explanation that matches with known laws of physics. What a coincidence! Heliocentric Kepler/Newton RE solar system has the same appearance as the FE dome.

If you take FE as true, you don't know the how or why of the appearance of planets and other heavenly bodies, nor day and night, different stars in the southern and northern hemispheres, etc. You don't know why when it is sunset in Denver, people looking at the dome directly over Denver from St Louis see dark sky with stars, while at the same time people in Salt Lake City look at the same spot on the dome and see light blue with no stars. RE explains this consistent with known physical laws. FE requires some complex, speculative, unproven explanations, or has no explanation at all. "Some people have proposed a model ..." is not proof, not complete, not consistent.

Please point me at the place in the wiki that explains how people can see such different things when looking at the same spot on the same dome, and I will rebut it. I have looked (and asked), and I haven't found it.

The "faint young sun paradox" does not seem to have anything to do with whether Kepler's laws, RE, and sun centric solar system are true. It is a problem of trying to figure out the chemistry and physics of long long ago. This is hard, as it can not be visited or observed. But whatever about the sun's output not matching effects on earth, it tells you nothing about the orbits of planets around the sun and RE. The sun could have been faint on RE or FE, and ideas about conditions at that time are deduced, speculative, and are not confirmable without time travel.

Be careful, though. Some people here believe FE is true because of the Bible. They think earth was created less than 10,000 years ago in more or less its present form. Never heard of a "young earth" believer accepting science involving millions of years ago.

The reason you know RE better than I do is that you are searching it for errors or misrepresentation opportunities. In your search, you descend into the details. I find the basic ideas convincing and the basic ideas of FE so flawed that I see no reason to spend the time. For example, at the same time that someone in north America sees the dome covered with stars, someone in south America sees the same dome covered with completely different stars, while someone in the middle east sees the sun and light blue sky. RE explains this quite reasonably, while FE has no plausible explanation. Astronomers and science classes explain, and navigators confirm. GPS works with satellites, FE can't explain how a satellite works, or denies their existence. It makes sense as a system, FE has "models" without experimental proof or equations, and it has problems explaining people seeing different things on the same dome at the same time.

Psychologists call what you are doing "motivated reasoning", you are motivated to prove FE is true. I intend to be motivated to find the truth, and in 10 years of hearing FE explanations, RE wins easily. Explain why at sunset in Denver, someone in St Louis looks at the dome directly over Denver and sees dark sky with stars, while someone in Salt Lake City looks at the dome directly over Denver and sees light blue sky with no stars, and experiments to prove your mechanism rather than saying "it might be ...". That would be something.

Before Brahe/Kepler, astronomers spent lifetimes computing epicycles, and mathematically, you can produce an equation to describe the path of planets. As the equation becomes more complicated, the approximation becomes better, like limits in calculus. So yes, you can come up with an equation to describe the path. Two issues.

1. After Newton/Kepler, the new "model" (RE astronomy, sun center of solar system, etc) replaced computing epicycles, shortly thereafter no astronomer was doing epicycles, they were all extending the Newton/Kepler sun centric solar system model. I googled "do astronomers still use epicycles?" and this came up at the top:

However, once the sun was in the center of the system and orbits were envisioned as being elliptical, as in modern astronomy, epicycles were no longer necessary.

In fact, the expression "adding epicycles" is now used by scientists to describe adding fudge factors to make your equations work. I suppose it is possible that astronomers were on the right track pre-1700, they all went wrong, and nowyou will set them straight, but it seems unlikely.

2. Computing epicycles is like what is called curve fitting in math. You come up with an equation to match the data. The equation is not derived from nor does it tell you anything about the physical processes behind the process that produced the data. Newton's laws and the idea of syn centric solar system take phenomena that can be demonstrated in experiments (I did them in college physics) and derive equations that predict planetary motion to confirm the theory. And indeed it does, or astronomers are stupid or conspirators in a 300 year conspiracy with no one (except possibly a few FE'ers) seeing the lie. In other words, having the equation tells you nothing about the physics, whereas sun centric solar system and Newton's laws produce equations that predicts future planetary positions. The equations exist (and experimentally verified) independet of and before being applied to prediction of planetary motion. This, to me, is profoundly significant aand incredible that the equations work if the underlying theory is not true. Epicycles are just coming up with an equation to describe the data.

My original point was that RE has equations that accurately predict along with an explanation of how it works. Epicycles may accurately predict positions, but what is the underlying mechanism that produces those equations? Can FE postulate a mechanism, derive equations, experimentally verify, and apply them to planetary motion to make accurate predictions? What are those mechanisms? Or find the flaw in RE physics and its application to astronomy?

Near as I can tell, in FE, planets just move around the dome making little loops and sometimes going backwards and no one knows why. What causes epicycles? No one knew then, and no one knows now. Or you could enlighten me.

There have been thousands of astronomers since Kepler, students doing calculations as learning, scientists looking to perfect or even falsify previous data. Any number of astronomers will confirm that the entire system is consistent with calculations and observations.

My friend has a computerized telescope which he commanded to point at Saturn. I looked through the eyepiece, and there it was, rings and all. Somebody knows how to calculate where it is.

There are open source programs to point telescope. You can examine the source code and see how it figures it out, and then install in a telescope to confirm it can find planets. If the program does not work according to RE/Newton/Kepler, you can expose that fact. If it does not actually work, you can expose that fact. Hint: it works, and just the way RE and astronomers know it to work.

So words, words, words here on TFES, or become world famous, probably make $$$$, establish the truth of FE. Show us that the software doesn't work by RE/Newton/Kepler, or doesn't work at all. Other wise, just bla-bla-bla.


If the earth is flat, and observations match RE/Newton/Kepler, and the calculations are consistent with each other, is this just a coincidence? Does any FE find it amazing that there is a whole coherent system of observations and calculations that matches RE when the earth is actually flat and covered by a dome with planetary motion unexplained by FE calculations and theory? If I believed FE, that would be amazing to me.

Does FE have a similar explanation that provides accurate answers to the future position of planets?

There are computerized telescopes that you can tell to point at Mars, Saturn, etc now or any point in the future. How does this work if FE is true? Do the people who wrote the programs that do this know the true shape of the earth? How, if not Newton/Kepler/RE do they do it?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)
« on: August 16, 2023, 08:11:08 PM »
The FE map relates to the RE globe mathematically as a projection. If you take the surface of a sphere and project it onto a 2d disk, the only distances that are preserved, i.e. both the same, are distances along the north/south radians. Doing this gives a distance from north pole to equator of 6,215 mi. This matches gps, celestial navigation, time/speed/distance, google maps distance tool, etc etc etc. I have never seen a FE map with a scale, but this is one way to do it. If you use that scale on the FE map, the east/west distances are too long (vs all conventional sources) in the northern hemisphere and too short in the southern, which matches the distortion expected when projecting a sphere onto a disk. This is why on the FE map, the US is narrower than Australia, while in actuality, Australia is about 300 mi less east to west distance.

If you postulate that the edge of FE is the same distance from equator as from north pole to equator, this gives FE radius as 4 times 6215, or 24,860 mi (approximately). As I said, this matches RE geometry and observation, at least along direct north/south radians. But ... problems.

The FE radius is unknown. First, because FE maps don't have scales, so we don't know if they intend to match RE distance directly north/south. Indeed, one prominent FE poster said that no one knows the distances across oceans because you can't crawl across them with a ruler and that is the only way to measure. Second, because FE does not know where the southern edge of FE is. Some say it is an infinite plane, some say there are lands beyond , and no one knows how the dome meets the surface or where exactly it is down there. Until it is ascertained where the edge is and what the scale is, how can we know the radius?

If you take the FE north/south distances as the same as the RE distances, and you take the edge as the circle formed by the top down mathematical projection of sphere onto disk, then the diameter of FE is equal to the circumference of RE. But that requires knowing that the scale of the north/south lines on the projection is the same as RE and that the edge is where the circle would be with a mathematical projection of RE onto FE. Can we say that FE agrees these distances are the same, there is an edge, and it is the same distance from the equator as the north pole?

Seems to me that either the FE north/south distances are the same as RE, in which case Australia is too wide by hundreds of mile, or if the north/south scale is not the same. perhaps unknown, and the edge is not the same distance from equator as from north pole to equator, then how can we ever calculate the radius of FE?

If you take the FE north/south scale as equivalent to RE, then the FE east/west distances do match observations and RE does match. If you don't know the scale of the map, you don't know the distance across ocean, and you don't know where the edge is, how can you ever know the diameter of FE? I submit that either FE does not match observations, or we are all so ignorant that we may never know.

Or you could do the math for Eratosthenes experiment while assuming FE and get numbers that don't match anything, I guess. Then you have to explain everything from gps to airline schedules etc etc etc not matching. That will take a huge conspiracy involving geographers, cartographers, astronomers, navigators, geodetic surveyors, etc etc etc, all of which must either be sinister of unable to do math. I have heard FEs take the position that scientists are stupid and/or evil and actually no one knows because FE is a young science (not true) and does not have the resources to figure it out (true).

The last possibility is that our powers of observation are all distorted in the exact way to make FE look like RE, perhaps by some uber Einstein n-dimensional math. That leaves you with RE for all practical purposes and FE as a mathematical concept of ultimate truth. Not very useful or satisfying, except to be prideful or perhaps to make your preexisting beliefs (religion) plausible.

To know the diameter of FE, you have to have a map with a scale and know where the edge is. So far, I have only heard speculation on this from FE, but if you can define it, you can calculate. Then you can explain why it does not match observations, but that may be a different thread.

I welcome anyone pointing out errors of math or logic, and especially welcome anyone with a coherent logical explanation of FE diameter that matches observations.

Flat Earth Theory / Universal Acceleration
« on: July 11, 2023, 11:48:43 PM »
Is there some location, object, or ??? that FE is accelerating in relation to? How can I know about what is outside the FE/dome system? If astronomical objects are part of the dome, or on it, or whatever, then the dome is accelerating right along with FE. What is it that is not part of FE and dome that we are accelerating in relation to? How do we know where FE+dome is, or what it is moving in relationship to? Zetetically, can I believe there even is any movement until I can see or somehow know the thing or location FE is accelerating in relation to? If we can't know about anything outside the FE/dome system? Does UA demolish the "infinite plane" idea, could an infinite plane accelerate, having infinite mass?

Or maybe astronomical objects are not accelerating with FE? How do I know where they are?

When I drop something and it accelerates towards the floor, is that object continuing ti travel at the velocity FE was at when I dropped it and the entire FE/dome system continues to accelerate?Is this the only way I know the whole system is accelerating?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« on: December 31, 2022, 07:47:50 PM »
If meteors are subject to UA the same as the universe, what is the universe accelerating with respect to? If the universe is everything that can be perceived by senses or instruments, can we ever know what is "outside" the universe? Is the only way to know that through "faith"? Is there evidence of something beyond the universe it could be accelerating in relationship to? Seems like you would be forever speculating with no way to know if you are right. Is FE "faith based"?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?
« on: December 31, 2022, 07:38:00 PM »
One aspect of how science works is to come up with multiple possibilities and eliminate the wrong ones. In FE, there seems to be no elimination of wrong ones. The maps in the wiki are different, only zero or one can be right. I have posted before on why they don't eliminate the wrong ones, no enthusiasm for that, no methodology. There was a FE meeting in UK where they did not agree on their ideas of what's up, so at the end the chanted. "The earth is not round!" because it was the only thing they could all agree on. I have seen FE proposals of infinite plane, doughnut, inside a sphere, non-Eucldean bafflegab, etc.

They seem reluctant to invalidate each other's ideas, although enthusiastic to invalidate RE. This makes sense, as the small FE world fragmenting into competing factions would hurt their cause. So expect all FE options to be accepted as possible with no invalidation, while RE is held to very high standard of proof. It actually makes sense to rename TFES to "The Anything but Round Forum". Endless proposals, no invalidation. Every single map in the wiki has Australia wider than USA, so using that as a criteria invalidates them. FE, to be viable, must always remain many possibilities with none invalidated.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?
« on: November 27, 2022, 08:14:20 PM »
I have questions, and will try to express them respectfully. I think they are reasonable valid questions, but maybe I am inadvertently shitposting.

From OP, "What do you think of this map? Is it in any way realistic?"

To answer your question respectfully, I think the distances and directions on the center part of the map that corresponds to the RE maps does not match the distances and directions in google maps, airline schedules, gps, and many more things from daily life and RET. For example, on your map, Australia looks bigger than Russia. Is RET wrong, or maybe your map still needs work?

RE the part outside the ice wall, I think I would like a way to observe, investigate, and measure the lands beyond. Until then, I will follow the advice in the FE wiki:

"We must, at the very least, know exactly how conclusions were made about the world, and the strengths and weaknesses behind those deductions. Our society emphasizes the demonstration and explanation of knowledge.

How can I do this? How can you demonstrate those lands? Where did you get the information? If you are presenting it as a possibility, aren't there an infinite number of possibilities? How do you know which is true?

Summary: the part of your map inside the ice wall seems distorted. I do not know how to have any opinion about the part outside the ice wall, only the question of how to find out.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >