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 - Bikini Polaris

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 7  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 12, 2020, 09:28:46 AM »
The frame of reference is absolutely crucial. If you believe it to be irrelevant, simply choose your favourite one. I'll give you a hint, there are three FoR's that are worth considering here: a local observer standing atop the Earth, a local observer located immediately above the Earth who is initally at rest relative to the Earth, and an external inertial observer.

I said it's irrelevant because for an internal observer, the observed speed is zero (like it would be for an astronaut sitting on an accelerating spaceship) and, on the other hand, UA excludes the possibility of talking about "external" observers, let's say someone just below the place where an energy becomes acceleration, or someone outside the ice wall. UA is silent on the current knowledge of what is outside, but it doesn't deny it's existence, because it assumes that there is an energy the converts into movement in a direction.

If I'm accelerated in a direction and nothing is stopping me, I will acquire speed.
Correct, but entirely irrelevant. The magnitude of that speed is the key point here, not the fact that it's increasing. Specifically, your claim that "the flat surface we would be on is now travelling upwards at quite a fast speed (incredibly greater than the speed of light)" contradicts basic physics. You cannot identify a frame of reference in which the Earth is moving faster than c without contradicting Special Relativity. As was the case previously, I suggest that throwing physics out the window is not the best way for you to defend RET.

Special Relativiy is safe, because what you cannot do is *measure* a speed faster than light in any frame of reference. But a traveller on a spaceship that is constantly accelerating at g toward a, let's say ten light years afar, star will reach it quicker than the speed of light,  according *on the spaceship clock*, so it's indirectly a travel faster than the speed of light. The important difference with a travel that would really contradict SR is that the clocks on departure and destination will have run normally, that is faster than the spaceship clocks, and for them the spaceship has never went faster than the speed of light. But again, my main point is that the energy poured by the spaceship engines *must go somewhere*.

because you're not in a different system S' but you are on S
If you're on S, your speed relative to S is 0m/s, and the speed of S relative to you is 0m/s. That's significantly lower than c.

I'm referring to the whole system S, unknown-form-of-energy+earth-surface+the-visible-sky.

Summing up, I do understand that the whole UA describes the known universe as the inside of a spaceship, but still it doesn't rule out that fact that an energy is converting into acceleration in a direction. And this has, as a consequence, that we would *really* be on some sort of spaceship!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 11, 2020, 03:49:35 PM »
That's at odds with the fact that the flat surface we would be on is now travelling upwards at quite a fast speed (incredibly greater than the speed of light).
Please complete your assertion by answering the following question: Relative to what frame of reference?
Once your assertion has been made complete and coherent, please explain: How have you concluded this?

The frame of reference is irrelevant. If I'm accelerated in a direction and nothing is stopping me, I will acquire speed. In the wiki there's clearly written "Since the Earth is pushing you upwards, you are moving at the same speed as the Earth". So, that's the speed I'm talking about.

How do you conclude this? Well, again basing myself on the wiki, you just realize that if you never apply the Lorentz transformation, because you're not in a different system S' but you are on S, nothing prevents you from having a speed that is faster than light. In RE, a spaceship accelerating at 1g will eventually go faster than light and reach its destination as that was the case (but for the fact that time will have run faster at destination).

Another way to see this is that UA assumes the presence of an energy that act accelerating the earth. But energy is conserved, and so earth must acquire that energy in form of kinetic energy, and that's proportional to speed. The direction of the speed is, of course, 'upward'.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 11, 2020, 02:56:51 PM »
But you are using that diagram to demonstrate the impossibility of the image on a FE. That is only valid if light travels in straight lines.
In FE either the light bends or there is some perspective effect but then I'd suggest that invoking those no longer makes it the simplest explanation for the observation.

Light not travelling in a straight light would wipe out the entire ENAG by Rowbotham. And from the comments here, I think Pete doesn't like Rowbotham much.

The point is that the whole zetetic method depends on each person, and so when you collect the models of 100 FEs, you get at least 100 different assumptions, where REs, for as they wrong as they are supposed to be, and slightly ignorant on astronomy too, accept a single model no matter what they "see".

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 07, 2020, 03:55:19 PM »
I also have some doubts over the Universal accelerator. If the earth were really accelerating constantly at approximately 9.8 meters per second^2, then from a halt it would reach the speed of light in just under a year. Does this mean that FET denies the speed of light as a universal speed limit? I know that there is some disagreement in the community over this, but this is a problem that has to be avoided somehow.

As far as I understand no, the speed of light is a limit only in relativistic terms, but from your own perspective it's not. I.e., on your own spaceship with infinite energy you can accelerate to a speed much faster than light and reach a destination whose distance has been covered faster than light. *But* for someone watching you from Earth, you aren't going faster than light. The trick here is that you will age at a slower rate than those people on Earth, so from their perspective it indeed took you the "right slower than speed of light" time to reach your destination. See here:

Once you're sufficiently far away, you will have escaped the Earth's "gravitational" effect, or the nullification thereof.

That's at odds with the fact that the flat surface we would be on is now travelling upwards at quite a fast speed (incredibly greater than the speed of light).

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 07, 2020, 11:17:01 AM »
How is seeing a flat earth not the simplest explanation for its flatness?

Your response of "could be an illusion...." says nothing about what is and is not the simplest explanation. In fact, you are adding more complexities to justify your position.

No wait, "flatness" is not a shape. FEs do no tell us the whole shape of the rock we live upon. Let's compare apples with apples, we have a sphere floating in space on one side, and what do we have on the other side? The unknownable unknown+a flat surface? But now Tom please don't tell me that Occam's razor states that "not knowing" is simpler than knowing.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Did Rowbotham use Conspiracy Theories?
« on: June 07, 2020, 10:57:47 AM »
Regarding the OP, since Rowbotham gave many public lectures I don't think he could have blamed a conspiracy against free speech, but I do wonder how many times he was asked how could he explain that in the previous centuries sailors and in general everyone with some interest was believing in a round earth.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: UA Circular Motion Theory
« on: June 06, 2020, 10:16:13 PM »
Yes, the acceleration speeds would build up in the circle, but to the rest of the universe there are no drastic (relational) speed changes. Look at this diagram:

In relation to Points A and B the xy coordinates are the same after a complete circuit.

It would be like spiraling into a black hole. The speeds increase locally to extreme rates, but that would be unrelated to the outside universe.

Black holes are very precise objects that exist due to gravity, if you allow for their existence you are basically saying that earth's gravity is mainly due to mass. You cannot admit them in FE models. That said, acceleration in our own framework would still build up and our kinetic energy would be increasing constantly, and that would maybe refute external structures helping the rotation.

But, I LOVE the bucket theory of gravitation! It has many less issues than UA!

As flat earthers know well, it's not easy to convince a society of what is Truth. People won't accept a scientifically accepted fact that they hate, unless your proofs are Nuclear Weapons or GMOs. Indeed the rest of lesser, difficult to reproduce, results,  aren't universally accepted, like for evolution or particle theories. At that point not-so-good scientists may come up and grab the funding for pleasant truths. Shall we call it "life"?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates
« on: April 02, 2020, 11:54:48 AM »
Taking a step back, I just wanted to use the theory of Mountains and Volcanos (here: to get some clarity on what flat earth maps are more likely. I am not sure there's an accepted map of how the plates are disposed and the puzzle they compose, but we do know that Mountains and Volcanoes are created from their long-standing activity. So, for example, if we think there is a subduction plate next to the ice wall, there should be some volcano there, signalling the underlying activity. Or, the Pacific Ring of Fire that, in the standard monopole map, is quite straight and not a ring at all, depicting a quite interesting underlying dynamic.

There is an equinox article in the Wiki.

See the links at the end of

The link states "The sun that we see is a projection on the atmolayer. Its image is close to the earth". From this sentence a reader will conclude that pages like don't refer to the actual Sun, but to the distance to the projection on the atmolayer. It should be specified in the latter pages.

Sundown -> Sunfar
Sunset -> Sunfar
Sunrise -> Sunnear

Explain, please

FEs all agree that the Sun hovers above us, so as they correctly prefer the term "atmolayer" to "atmosphere", they should also avoid sundown, sunset, sunrise... all terms suggesting a vertical movement of the Sun. E.g., it's difficult for me to parse a FE reasoning like "the sun rise in the atmosphere, over the line of a flat horizon", it would be much better to read " the sun nears in the atmolayer, over a vanishing flat horizon"

Yet, in the southern U.S., Venus is visible at 45 degrees -- WAY up in the night sky, after sundown for at least two months STRAIGHT. Tonight, Venus is visible for as long FOUR HOURS after sunset. That means I can see it til ONE O'CLOCK in the morning.

Sundown -> Sunfar
Sunset -> Sunfar
Sunrise -> Sunnear

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE maps and Tectonic Plates
« on: March 22, 2020, 11:10:23 PM »
Notably, this should never be the case, and is not the case in RET. You're asking us if there are any maps which conform to an urban myth, and the answer should be "no".

Regarding tectonic plates here: it is written:

"The Flat Earth's crust is made up of huge slabs called plates, which fit together like a jigsaw puzzle."

So I'm asking if this important bit of information is used to discern the likelihood of a map with respect to another one (some maps are wildly different from others, see: . For example, as GreatATuin is suggesting, if we know that two continents have similar fossils, we can increase the likelihood they were quite close in the past, and that would give the burden of proof back to maps where such continents are too far apart.

It would be just a nice Occam's Razor tool in the toolbox.

Flat Earth Theory / FE maps and Tectonic Plates
« on: March 22, 2020, 07:32:06 PM »
What FE maps actually comply with the tectonic plates composition? For example, what are the maps such that South America and Africa can be put one aside the other fitting like a jigsaw puzzle? Apparently the standard monopole model doesn't show that, as the two continents don't look like fitting together at all, but other may do, like the bipolar model. Any other one?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: March 11, 2020, 08:37:21 PM »
Perhaps I could propose some solution: the sun as we see it is actually a lense of some sort that magnifies a distant radiation source that which we cannot see. This explains why we don’t all evaporate, and also explains the spotlight affect of the sun.

I actually like this. It could be nearby a wormhole connecting us to a real star! It also explains why gravitation from the Sun is so small (despite its possible huge mass). Also, being massless it would give it's hanging on the sky a reason.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: March 10, 2020, 07:09:25 PM »
Fusion in the sun is a problem... we know how fusion works, and that the sun must be super massive with unimaginable pressure at the core for it to make the heat and light that we know it does.

Yes, on the other side it's not clear where a 32-miles diameter Sun would take it's energy from and how UV rays aren't way much stronger than they actually are, since the supposed proximity of 3000 miles. It's like really powerful nuclear bomb exploding each second at a relatively close distance (so quite a lot of them in a single day).

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: March 09, 2020, 01:41:04 PM »
I'd say the difference is the (relatively) simple model of a spinning globe earth orbiting a distant sun with a moon orbiting it and with the axis of spin inclined does explain observations pretty well. It explains night and day, seasons, the way the celestial objects move in the night sky, eclipses. The FE model has to explain all these things using different and unexplained phenomena. The angular size of the moon and sun should constantly vary in your model for example, but it doesn't. And while our understanding of gravity might not be complete, our model of it does a pretty good job of explaining and predicting the movement of bodies. I don't believe there's a FE equivalent.

Now this makes me think they also agree there's a worldwide conspiracy from the sixties and involving citizens and technician from all around the... world that produces the same kind of pictures in a consistent way.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: March 09, 2020, 11:06:17 AM »
I think they do agree on the reality of time zones and usually they think the Sun is quite close to us. I mean, I have never saw a FE denying those two things (and they really deny so many things)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare
« on: March 09, 2020, 11:01:21 AM »
Hey Tom,

Here's that image you PM'd me about.

And, I totally agree.

Answers a lot.

What puzzles me of that model is that:

- it doesn't show how the Sun works as a lamp light on earth but yet illuminates the Moon
- it doesn't show the "shadow object" needed to explain Moon eclipses
- it shows Africa, South America and Australia as quite distorted as they actually are
- it doesn't show how Universal Accelleration should work in practice
- it doesn't show how the Moon and the Sun stay hanging on the sky
- it shows a very tiny Sun and current understanding of nuclear power cannot explain how something so small can be so powerful (and yellowish instead of purely white)
- sun rays would not arrive parallel to earth, implying that shadows of clouds should be much larger than their clouds
- how, trigonometrically speaking, could we ever see a full moon

Flat Earth Media / Re: Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth
« on: March 06, 2020, 10:58:31 AM »
Dr Rowbotham actually accounted for refraction, by pointing out that refraction only exists when the medium which surrounds the observer is different to that which the object is placed. He used two barometers, two thermometers and two hygrometers, all reading the same. He then had the readings taken at different points at different times, and concluded that refraction played no part in the observation.

I'm summing that up in less detail than he included but if you study Dr Rowbothams work you should be able to understand that he was aware of refraction, but using proven methods was able to count it out because it simply wasn't necessary.

That refraction is not the one we're discussing here. Rowbotham doesn't appear to understand that on a globe you'd have layers of air with different densities and that light will prefer to travel on a layer (so having a curved path) rather than going straight to space, as Rowbotham apparently believes.

On the contrary, he proved that the density was the same at the start and at the end, so at the end he just disproved his own mental model of an atmosphere-less ball rather than an actual round planet.

EDIT: Thinking through it reveals a fundamental experimental error made by Rowbotham, shouldn't he have to check the difference in temperature between his point of seeing and the same point but one meter above him? And maybe also two meters and three meters. And the same for the target point and above each flag. That's the density/temperature refraction we're discussing here.

That said, is it *so* difficult to perform such experiments with some meters of elevation, where that offending refraction should have less effect? Just for the sake of  satisfying those pesky REs I mean. Just starting from few centimeters and then going up and up until five meters?

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 7  Next >