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 - RazaTD

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3  Next >
21
Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS livestreams
« on: March 23, 2021, 11:33:38 AM »
Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

What about the fact that you can match ground observations to those from the satellite?

22
Flat Earth Theory / ISS livestreams
« on: March 23, 2021, 02:26:06 AM »
What do Flat Earthers make of ISS livestream? Or satellites like himawari (not NASA) that are constantly taking pictures and sending them back to Earth?

It is possible to match up a plane trail or cloud formation as observed on the ground to a picture taken by the satellite. How is it possible to fake this? At this point it’s cheaper to actually send something up and take a picture rather than any ground based mass observation or whatever excuse Flat Earthers will definitely come up with.

Here is a link to observing cloud patterns that match up with satellite images https://www.metabunk.org/threads/how-to-prove-satellite-images-are-real-ground-truth.8781/

It even contains easy steps for those Flat Earthers that feel brave and adventurous.

23
Flat Earth Theory / Sun and Moon
« on: March 17, 2021, 12:25:58 PM »
What forces are keeping the Sun and the Moon flying in the Sky in a Flat Earth model? Are there any experiments done to demonstrate those forces? What is keeping them in their orbits?

I don’t want speculations rather hard evidence  8)

24
Flat Earth Theory / Real Scientific Experiment
« on: February 27, 2021, 01:09:03 PM »
Flat Earthers like to dismiss accepted scientific knowledge and make baseless claims without any scientific basis. They refuse to do any practical experiments on their own and only rest on YouTube videos or what their senses perceive.

For example, a common misconception that Flat Earthers have is that “water seeks its own level”. They have never made an effort to learn anything beyond a few YouTube videos.

Flat Earthers have still not been able to create a map of the World which shows how disinterested they are in gaining any real knowledge. It is literally one of the most important aspects of a model describing the shape of the World and even with the incredibly modern communication and travel technology of today, the Flat Earthers have not been able to make an accurate map of the World.

I have also noticed after interaction in this forum that when Flat Earthers are cornered they just leave the thread. They don’t want to be proven wrong because they don’t want to improve their knowledge. For example, two threads about Southern celestial pole were abandoned by Flat Earthers even prominent one after they realized they were wrong. Instead of improving their knowledge they chose to remain ignorant.

Why is there such a lack of scientific interest in this community? Why are Flat Earthers not joining effort to map out the surface of the Earth? You can disprove the Globe Earth map.

25
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments
« on: February 21, 2021, 03:33:49 AM »
Is it possible for someone to replicate this scenario on a 3D model of the globe in a software like blender? I assume it’s going to be relatively trivial (as opposed to what the FE goes for with EA). I would try it myself once I find some time.

26
Flat Earth Theory / Simple Experiments
« on: February 18, 2021, 04:48:04 AM »
I want to know what is the simplest experiment that one can do in their neighborhood or community without expensive  equipment or a lot of commitment. Is there something so simple that everyone can do and that strongly distinguishes whether reality is a Flat Earth or Globe Earth?

I am pretty sure it depends on the location too whether you live in a urban, suburban, or a rural area. Or even you live near mountains or beach etc.

But is there any experiment that comes closest to being extremely accessible and strong in conclusion?

27
Flat Earth Community / Re: New Universe Model ("Many Worlds" Theory)
« on: February 18, 2021, 04:24:32 AM »
What kind of topic is this? How can you reject the entire scientific knowledge gathered over centuries about astronomy just because some stuff seems similar, or the idea of it seems simple or just interesting.

Where is the solid evidence debunking modern astronomy? Also just because you don’t understand dark matter or dark energy it does not means they are ad hoc glues thrown around just to keep the structure working.

28
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 18, 2021, 04:15:49 AM »
Hey,

just a quick intro: it is my position we live on a globe, in a solar system, in a galaxy and that we are revolving around the sun.
I am not here to convince anyone, or to mock anyone, I am just looking for an answer to a question I cannot obtain talking to other FE-ers.

Could someone provide me with a working map of the world we live in?
I'm an experienced traveller, been around the world a few times and I'd like to see how the locations of cities and countries are positioned on that map.

Thank you

Logically speaking, because all Flat Earth maps are 2D projections of the true 3D Globe Earth map, there is always some sort of distortion with size, shape, and distances on the maps.

The most popular map is an azimuthal equidistant projection centered on the North Pole. When you compare it with Earth, you can notice how heavily distorted it really is. It also has a lot of other issues for example a missing South Pole location (It has a ring instead which is ridiculous).

29
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 14, 2021, 03:37:55 PM »


Let’s grant that this special gravity exists. Why then do we observe consistently higher gravity acceleration values near mountains?

This isn't strictly correct. The largest gravity anomalies are in areas where there are accumulations of dense (oceanic) crust: the highs align with mid-oceanic ridges, hot spots (Hawaii and Iceland) and the flanks of trenches. Technically, these kind of count as mountains too...

Continental mountain ranges themselves often (but not always, depending on the nature of the orogenic event) have lower comparative gravity signal in large areas because the rocks comprising the peaks are  commonly made of less dense, lithified former sea floor sediments. These mountain rocks then sit above the denser underlying crustal rocks making their effect on felt gravitational pull less.

I agree with you that is true. I should have done proper research before making that claim. However, I believe the point still stands. Why does the density of landmass dictate the local variances in the downward pull if in fact it is the celestial bodies that are causing the variances according to FEers.

30
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 14, 2021, 01:51:50 PM »
From the Wiki:
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction of objects of mass on Earth to heavenly bodies.  this is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth.  Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

The Wiki explains why the earth could be moving upwards (universal acceleration) but results in lots of other unexplained problems.

The Wiki proclamation says a heavenly body has a special property that can attract an object of mass on the earth that an object of mass on the Earth doesn't exhibit (selective gravitation).  I am speculating that the Flat Earth Theory would imply that the source of this selectivity property of heavenly bodies is unknown.  Since the Sun and Moon could be classified as 'heavenly bodies' they must exhibit the property of gravitational attraction between all the other 'heavenly bodies'.  It has been stated that the Sun & Moon orbit around the center of gravity of the Sun, Moon, and all the other planets.  This wouldn't happen if the traditional equation of gravitational force were applied.  I couldn't find another equation in the Wiki to justify all the Celestial Gravitation properties so it looks like the Wiki needs to be updated.  It would also be nice to have an explanation for the unique properties of mass of the heavenly bodies that can exhibit gravitational forces when a mass on the earth does not.

That is such an ad hoc explanation for the local variances. At one hand FEers deny gravity because we don’t yet understand exactly what it is and on the other hand they use it in more extraordinary ways. Why do only celestial bodies exert gravity? Why is this gravity fine but the normal gravity rejected?

Let’s grant that this special gravity exists. Why then do we observe consistently higher gravity acceleration values near mountains? Why is the Earth gravity acceleration map so complex if UA causes same acceleration and only spherical disturbances are caused by the two celestial bodies?

By the way, if you want to reject the gravity acceleration data, you need to provide strong evidence that something is wrong with it otherwise you can’t disagree that you need a grand conspiracy.

31
Flat Earth Theory / The curve
« on: February 14, 2021, 03:25:40 AM »
Recently I stumbled upon this thread in metabunk while searching for easy ways to prove the curvature of the Earth.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.8939/

How do Flat Earthers explain the image of the pylons over the lake that is dipping?

32
@stack

Quote
That's not really a solid argument for, well, anything. That would just be your opinion, not fact.

Facts are arbitrary.  They are merely what your authority TELLS you / arbitrates / defines is a fact.

The argument was made pretty clearly - was there something about it that you don't understand or disagree with?  If you understand what I am saying, then you ought to be able to explain/respond why the air DOES in fact completely entrain to the whole world regardless of distance from the surface (ignoring gravity) and why we can ignore the most significant motion within it to support this apologist paradox.

This is just the stupid stuff they teach children/undergrads.  Much of it is oversimplified to the point of being false, just like in this example.  It reinforces cognitive dissonance, and conditions the impressionable/gullible "students" to think they have an answer for the paradox their science cannot explain.  We do it in astronomy every few years.  We find an irreconcilable problem that all but proves our model(s) is(are) wrong, and then we add that in as an exception caused by some more wildly speculative and unscientific fiction - or just teach it as a "great mystery" not the obvious/evident contradiction and refutation of the science we were/are taught.

There are physicists that hold this view, of course.  Finding you one would do ... what, exactly?  I encourage people to evaluate claims on their own merits, and not appeal to an "authority" for validation of any kind.  That said, their steeping in a particular worldview may help them to convey things in terminology/concept that you might more readily understand and accept, so there certainly are valid reasons for wanting to talk to a physicist about this if you can't fully grasp it without assistance.   Credential worship is a scourge and should be excised whenever recognized, in any case.  People conditioned (through rote under the guise of education) to repeat the same things mostly repeat the same things (they are not THEIR perspectives, findings, or science), and the echo of "consensus" (a VERY dirty word in science) can delude you into thinking that it must be the "most right" because a majority of "educated" parrot it.

As I said, the competent ones don't accept this line of reasoning - because it is logically unsound and incompatible with what we know about the motion of the air (and the ground) on earth.

Scientific facts are not arbitrates issued through some absolute scientific authority. There is no one authority that decides what science is. Science is knowledge produced through the use of scientific method. You can observe or test a scientific fact yourself. In the scientific world, if you think someone has got it wrong, you can literally challenge them or create your own theory and publish it. If your criticism or theory holds merit, other scientists will agree with you and your contribution to science will increase human knowledge.

It is a virtue of scientific facts that they are falsifiable. Science is always evolving. We are learning new things and changing our theories accordingly. If science worked the way you says it works wherein scientific contradictions are hidden as mysteries and no effort is made to correct current theories, why is our knowledge always getting better?

If our system of gathering knowledge is inherently flawed, why is our knowledge always getting closer to the truth? Technology that you use everyday is improving based on this flawed science you speak off.

Year after year, scientists are sitting around making sure no one questions their authority and hiding all their scientific contradictions as hidden mysteries of the universe, yet the pace at technology evolves is accelerating.

33
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 12, 2021, 02:50:27 PM »
@razatd

Quote
How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth?

One way is by refuting/denying that "observed fact".

Another is by accepting that "observed fact" and attributing it to another cause - perhaps the same one that is currently pointed to - the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances (just without fictional "gravity fields" which exist only in equation).

Quote
Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy?  ::)

The people who most frequently talk about conspiracies on this site are the round earth acolytes - such as yourself and in a similar manner.  The flat earth researchers most often prefer to talk about the topics at hand, which are most often considered "scientific" or in the realm of science in any case.

Your incredulity is not helping you to objectively evaluate this subject earnestly, and there is VERY good reason to do so (and it has little to do with the shape of the earth).

How does the physical/material variances of the world itself cause the local variances in the acceleration of falling objects if UA necessitates that the entirety of Earth is accelerating upwards at the same rate? It makes no sense. By the way, you can not use gravity to explain it because in the Flat Earth UA replaces gravity.

Also let’s grant that There are local variances. Now the source of those variances must be UA and not gravity. That means UA is not universal anymore and parts of the Earth accelerating faster will fly off into the sky. How do you explain this?

Round Earth people talk about conspiracies?  :o Give me a break. Flat Earthers flat out reject all space agencies and everything that doesn’t conform to their beliefs. Flat Earth is based on the grand conspiracy that everyone that uses the Globe Earth model is actually lying which is pretty much everyone.

34
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Earth Moving?
« on: February 12, 2021, 04:00:47 AM »
Okay, well, I've run out of things to say, and you're not responding to the things I have said. You now know why UA is the mainstream model (whether you choose to ignore it or not), how you can verify it to be true by yourself, and you've been informed that the offer I've made to you many years ago remains standing.

See you in a few months when you choose to start this subject from scratch again, I guess?

How does UA explain the observed fact that the downward acceleration is different on different parts of the Earth? UA requires the entire Earth to be accelerating at the same constant and therefore we should expect to get the same downward acceleration for falling objects everywhere on Earth.

Do you have any mechanism to offer to correct this? Or is everyone who has measured a different value in on the conspiracy?  ::)

35
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments
« on: February 12, 2021, 03:53:49 AM »
I'm not really interested in proving or disproving the existence of the UA here. That discussion has been had a lot already on this forum, and on the wiki. What I'm interested in is something the wiki, and this forum, are lacking on - the nature of the UA, and what ways that nature could be better investigated and determined. The wiki offers two theories, but doesn't provide reasoning behind why they were hypothesized, or how we could figure out which of them is correct (or if there might be additional theories about what the UA is).

You can do the experiment I outlined in my previous reply to investigate whether or not UA maintains the same value in different parts of the Earth. I’m interested in knowing why you think this experiment does not reveal something about the nature of UA.

It doesn't tell me what gravity is made of either!

It’s an experiment to discover the nature of UA. It will not reveal a whole lot about gravity. However, it is enough to disprove UA. I don’t understand why you are not interested in something that disproves UA while trying to learn more about its nature.

36
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: February 11, 2021, 01:39:37 PM »
It’s been nearly a month and there has been no good explanation for what we observe as the Southern Celestial pole. Again even if we grant that PBrane’s video is able to explain a rotating celestial pole for everyone, there is no way distant people looking in different directions will see the same stars.

Nothing has been offered to explain that anomaly except Jay Seneca’s suggestion that people might be looking at the wrong stars which is laughably incorrect.

I guess this is another point about which the Flat Earth model is just flat out wrong 😎

37
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments
« on: February 09, 2021, 02:48:49 AM »
I'm not really interested in proving or disproving the existence of the UA here. That discussion has been had a lot already on this forum, and on the wiki. What I'm interested in is something the wiki, and this forum, are lacking on - the nature of the UA, and what ways that nature could be better investigated and determined. The wiki offers two theories, but doesn't provide reasoning behind why they were hypothesized, or how we could figure out which of them is correct (or if there might be additional theories about what the UA is).

You can do the experiment I outlined in my previous reply to investigate whether or not UA maintains the same value in different parts of the Earth. I’m interested in knowing why you think this experiment does not reveal something about the nature of UA.

38
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Accelerator experiments
« on: February 08, 2021, 02:56:37 AM »
The wiki says that "As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct." and then points to the Dark Energy and Davis Plane theories. I was wondering, what experiments or research could we do to try and better understand the Universal Accelerator? Obviously we can't just dig all the way down until we break through, I don't think there's enough grant money in the world for something like that, but what else could be done?

(I'm just wondering if anyone has any hypothetical ideas, I'm not neceessarily looking for anyone to come up with an experiment someone like me could actually do - if your experiment would need the Hadron Collider or something then that's still fine! The wiki implies they might be kind of expensive anyway, and if it was something I could do, someone would've already done it already.)

Although it may seem gravity and universal acceleration can work as substitute for each other, there is one thing that is different about them, which you can use to distinguish them.

According to the theory of gravity, the downward pull we experience daily is simply another one of the attractive forces that exist between objects with mass. In this case the Earth attracts us, and we attract the Earth. However, the Earth is much more massive and therefore it is able to exert a greater force than we can exert on it.

On the other hand, the theory of universal acceleration states that the Earth is accelerating up to catch us giving the illusion of a downwards pull.

The difference is subtle but it is of major significance. Universal acceleration claims that the Earth is accelerating up. This means that the Earth MUST be accelerating up the same amount EVERYWHERE. Otherwise, faster accelerating pieces would fly off. The implication is that you should get the exact same value for the downward pull no matter where on Earth you take the measurement. Gravity, however, does not requires this. Therefore, you can get different values of downward pull at different locations.

The experiment could then be to take careful measurements of the downward pull in different places of the Earth. If the value is not constant, UA fails to explain observed reality. Though we still would not have proved that it is gravity, but whatever it is, it’s not UA.

39


You're missing a key fact. Not only do planes fly that northerly path from LA to London, but they fly the same path, against the polar jetstream, from London to LA. Why don't planes take my straight route on your map over Africa and South America when flying London to LA? It's way shorter and they are not fighting a jetstream.

Average flight time, British airways non-stop LAX to LHR is 9:37
Average flight time, British airways non-stop LHR to LAX is 10:31

1 hour difference yet your northerly arcing flight path is at least a third longer than my straight line path on your map.





As usual thank you for the mind bending information.   I can't answer this yet.  My first thoughts are why are planes travelling up a jet stream?  But I can see there trying to avoid it.  Jet streams are normally a few hundred miles wide.  And even if that was the shortest distance, why if the earth is spinning TOWARDS you on your flight from London to LAX, why would the flight take longer?  It should be shorter.?  The only answer I have is when you fly near the Artic Circle, you have entered the Twilight Zone!

Because the atmosphere of the Earth also spins with the Earth. If what you are proposing were true, helicopters could just hover and wait for their destination to come to them. Similarly, jumping in a train or plane would slam you across on the back of the vehicle.

40
These are good questions.  I attempted to reconcile these problems in the map below.  You'll notice that I shrunk all latitudes and longitudes below 30d north by 50% and increased latitude and longutudes by 150% above 60d north.  I also increased the distance between 60w to 30w and correspondingly150e to 120e.  This helps to modify and provide more accurate landmasses that we measure today,  identical in the most popular fly over areas.   Greenland, South America, Australia, and China are directly affected by this. 

I drew an exact map to size in another post called "new world map (south centered)".  This one is my best attempt at Photoshop on an android.

If your starting point is the 3D Globe Earth map and you are creating a 2D Flat Earth map, you will always face a loss of information. There is no way around it. You can do different projections to take different forms of the loss of information (distortion in distances, shapes, sizes etc) but there will always be a loss of information.
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.

All maps are flat.

Period.

When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.

The Flat Earth map is a projection of the 3D Globe map. There are many flaws with this projection as it should be expected because of the loss of information that is incurs. There is a lot wrong with the Flat Earth map as it is presented. A lot of the flight distances and times don’t match up with reality. There is no single South Pole (see my thread about the issue of Southern Celestial pole related to this).

None of these issues happen with the Globe Earth map because it reflects reality without loss of information.
There is no single verifiable map of the entire world of any kind, RET or FET.

All maps are flat, however.

There is no such thing as a "Globe" map.

Quit posting false information.

Actually there is a Globe map that perfectly describes reality. The traditional Flat Earth map is literally just its projection. That is why, as I explained in my previous message, there is a loss of information.

This means the traditional Flat Earth map gets a lot of stuff wrong including the fact that South Pole is actually a singular point instead of a ring. Simple proof of this is observing the Southern Celestial Pole. If you claim that the South Pole is actually a ring, then how do three people living in Australia, tip of Africa, and tip of South America look to their South (different locations) and see the same stars.

Unless you are a troll, you will not deny the existence of the Southern Celestial Pole. How does the Flat Earth map explain this real life observation. The Glove Earth map has no trouble explaining this.

Also this problem occurs even if the two people are on the same continent but just far apart. The two people see the same set of stars even if their South Direction is different.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3  Next >