21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 27, 2023, 07:52:33 PM »

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?

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 18, 2023, 10:08:18 PM »

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:

https://authors.library.caltech.edu/24754/

"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:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 18, 2023, 12:09:10 AM »

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.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 17, 2023, 11:36:51 PM »

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.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 17, 2023, 07:13:40 PM »

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.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Does observation of planets match Newton's and Kepler's laws?

« on: August 16, 2023, 08:40:29 PM »

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OrbitsHistory/page2.php

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?

27

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.

28

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?

29

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"?

30

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.

31

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.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset

« on: August 19, 2022, 01:03:00 AM »

It can't go under the disk, because it is always day over half the earth, so it has to be up there. Not only does it not get smaller as it would if it were 3500 mi away, nor come anywhere near the horizon, but another issue is why is it equally bright all day, then when it appears to go under the horizon, it becomes invisible over a period of 20 minutes. If it was varying by distance, you would expect it to get brighter until noon, then darker slowly with distance, so there must be another explanation.

Go to the WIKI and search for Electromagnetic acceleration, There you will find an explanation of the banding light. The explanation does not have equations, description of physical mechanism, just a diagram of the vertical component that show the bending necessary to make the inclination of the north star match latitude. There is also horizontal error, which I put at about 45 degrees, in opposite directions at sunset and sunrise.

At sunset in Denver, in St Louis, the sun has already disappeared under the edge of the earth and the sky is black with stars, while in Salt Lake City, the sun is still up in the the light blue sky. If a person in Salt Lake City and a person in St Louis look at the sky directly over Denver, one sees black with stars, the other sees light blue with no stars. WTF?

RE has a reasonable explanation for this. FE does not. If you want to count problems with earth shape possibilities, FE has many many many. Somehow, to FEs, problems with RE make them think the earth can't be round, but problems with FE do not cause them to think the earth can't be flat, they just don't have an explanation yet.  There is a much longer list of problems with FE than RE, plus, REs can explain every FE problem with RE. FEs can't explain any of their problems, except to refer you to the wiki, which is speculative, incomplete, and wrong.

Easy way to fix your distress with where does the sun go? Simply explain with RE. I don't think any FE will answer your question, but maybe they wiill, should be entertaining. Most likely they will say it is explained in the WIKI. The WIKI basically says "the light bends however it needs to to make the earth appear round. If only there was some way to measure, find equation, invent experiment ....

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question

« on: July 29, 2022, 10:59:05 PM »

Space travel/NASA deniers, all the images from James Webb and Hubble, many gigabytes daily, how was all that created? By a small group of conspirators?

Is it closed minded to think that water is 2 hydrogen atoms bound to an oxygen atom? F=MA? A thrown object makes a parabola described by a quadratic equation? The brain thinks and the stomach digests? The scientific meaning of the word "theory" is a explanation together with the math and experiments to confirm it duplicated by others. There are many such theories that not only have survived but have many practical uses that reconfirm them daily.

Or perhaps I should get up every morning and figure out the whole world anew, after all, I could have made a mistake yesterday? Come to think of it, anything might be wrong, so maybe I should admit I can't know anything because I could be wrong?

Personally, I choose to treat atoms and molecules, F=MA, pretty much anything they teach in high school or undergrad college as true, it has been looked at by millions, confirmed a billion times. Iif you find "feels stationary, looks flat" and Michaelson-Morley as proof that the earth is not round, then I don't know how light bends and measurement is broken and I have no map. FE pretty much means we don't/can't "know" anything, as FEs don't agree on anything other than the earth is flat.

All that establishment mainstream science has produced nuclear reactors, petrochemical fertilizers, airplanes, gps, etc etc etc. FE has produced many maps, all clearly incorrect. Who are you going with?

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question

« on: July 27, 2022, 09:56:11 PM »

Tron,

What progress has been made in FE science in the past few years?I have seen several FE fails on youtube and in "Behind the Curve". I have not seen any equation, experiment, or even idea that proves FE.

When I first became aware of FE, I asked a group of FEs what they all agreed on. The only thing they all agreed on was that the earth is not round, not one single detail of FE that has been agreed, described, proved and achieved consensus. At first, the main activity of FE was speculation, "Well, it could be this, or it could be that". Stratalites, tethered gps balloons, perspective/vanishing point, etc. In the wiki, everything is "could be", "most FEs think that ...", FE is forever stuck in speculation, where the FE idea solves one issue directly but that solution is inconsistent with other things.

WHen I started, FE had "Feels like it is stationary and looks flat", Michaelson/Morley, the light bends and measurement is broken (without explanation, experiment, or equation). It is still stuck there and will be forever.

And then there is the FE map, which ought to be easy. We know distances between cities by airline schedule, gps, odometer, astral navigation, etc. Just get a sheet of paper, select a scale to fit, and plot it. Yet the wiki has the same maps it had years ago, none disqualified and none are right.

What progress has been made?

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question

« on: July 25, 2022, 07:23:41 PM »

You need to understand settled science versus bleeding edge, and it's relationship to engineering, which by using science to make gadgets, proves that science every day. Early astronomers had several models, much like FE, some thought the earth center, some the sun, etc. Over time, this became settled science, and everyone agreed about the planets (although some disagree on what the criteria for a planets is, they all agree on the size and position of Pluto). Everyone agrees that Polaris is 93M miles away in the direction of the earth's axis off the north pole. This has been confirmed every time a navigator used a sextant to find their latitude and you can make an inclinometer and measure the angle off the horizon and use your cell phone gps and observe it reports your latitude as the same as inclinometer.

There are frontiers of science and astronomy that are not agreed, understood, and accepted by consensus - big bang, quantum, string theory, dark matter/energy, etc. Things that are far away in time or space, extremely small or extremely large, the things furthest from our everyday experience. Even then, we can get consensus, for example everyone agrees that water is molecules with one oxygen atom bonded covalently to two hydrogen atoms. I have seen them separated using electrolysis, and the idea of covalent bonding and the periodic chart is completely consistent. Science departments, industries, medicine, millions have learned about, used, and confirmed so many times and so many ways. Would it be a good use of your time to try to disprove atoms, molecules, and chemistry?

If you want to propose creative ideas about astronomy, big bang, quantum, dark energy/matter are not certain, you can join the speculation and efforts to nail it down. I'm sure there are web discussion about these things, some with real scientists. TFES style discussion is perfectly reasonable there. But the shape of the earth had to be known for successful long distance navigation. People have walked, driven, sailed, and flown all over, navigated, measured, confirmed, located, measured the distance between everywhere, and it matches RE distances, no FE map ever matched. GPS matches sextant, matches airline schedule time/speed distance, matches odometer, matches scaled distance on globe map, and does not match any FE map.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question

« on: July 23, 2022, 10:09:51 PM »

Tron, you do understand that Newton's laws correspond to observations, that if light travels straight in a vacuum RE geometry matches observations, RET explains all this, everything from spaceflight to GPS to sextant, RET can explain all this.

I have been following FE since 2015, and the most explanation you get is a remotely plausible speculation, "Well, it could be ..." These always fall apart when you try yo pin down the details. Zero of them have a complete and consistent detailed explanation. No progress is ever made.

In the wiki, there are many maps, all have Australia wider than USA. No flat map with constant scale has ever been produced or ever will be. A globe map has correct scale distance everywhere, matching airline schedule time/speed/distance, sextant location, gps, all matches RET.

You have no EA/FE answer, RET has good answer, so which is true?

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question

« on: July 23, 2022, 12:46:20 AM »

What do we know about the dome? Measurements? Materials? Anything? What reason, other than it is "very important to FE"? I don't see any dome. Are you saying that a dome exists because it explains things that otherwise make no sense on FE?

Galileo famously saw moons orbiting Jupiter, which appeared to transit across Jupiter and disappear behind it only to reappear as if coming out from behind, aka orbiting it. I am eager to understand what is going on with that in FET. So the dome definitely doesn't explain that. Nor does it explain how people a few hundred miles from each other can see completely different domes, one with sky blue, sun, and no stars, the other sees a dark sky with stars, same dome, same time. A dome with diameter 8000 mi would weigh an immense amount, a miracle of structural integrity, weighing heavily on the perimeter. And the inside surface of this dome is scientifically miraculous to show different skies to people in different places at the same time and although stars travel across the dome in perfect formation, planets, moon, and sun have different paths. Really want to know how that works. The FE answers to such questions are never answered by experiments and observations correlated to known facts. They are always of the form "Well, it could be ..." and never any proof, just endless explanations of what "might be", as though science was an endless series of speculation with no experiments, observation, and correlation with no facts.

The evidence for the dome is what, other than it makes a simplistic, if flawed explanation for the sky on FE. I submit that the dome introduces more problems than it explains. There is no evidence for the dome other than the need for FExplanation.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question

« on: July 22, 2022, 06:56:22 PM »

An interesting way to determine the truth of moon landing:

39

Flat Earth Theory / Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question

« on: July 22, 2022, 06:51:17 PM »

After reading the Electromagnetic Acceleration wiki page, attempting to understand and figure out the details, it has dawned on me what the EA wiki page is saying. It says that scientists decided the earth is round because they did not accounting for light bending over long distances. Does this mean that if light does not bend over long distances, RET makes sense, is consistent with itself and observations? Did the wiki confirm RET if there is no dome and light does not bend over long distances?

In the wiki page, it says that celestial objects are always curved, hence light must be curved, because it is on a dome. Where did the dome come from, winy would one think there is a dome?

Seems per the wiki, if there is no dome and light does not curve over long distances, RET works and is consistent. So to prove FE, one must prove there is a dome and light bends over long distances. Is there any equations, descriptions of mechanism, and repeatable experiments to nail down the long distance light bending?

So with straight light and no dome, RET has description, explanation, and repeatable experiment. FET has no description, no explanation, no proof of dome and long distance light bending. Yet some think the earth is flat. Fascinating.

40

Flat Earth Theory / questions about electromagnetic acceleration wiki page

« on: July 21, 2022, 10:20:33 PM »

The wiki page says that scientists have not thought of or proven that light might bend as it travels through space, they haven't even considered it.

1. In science class, they told me about refraction and reflection. Einstein's prediction that huge gravitation forces could bend light was famously observed 10 years after its publishing by multiple scientists. Does that count as having considered it?

The wiki page next says that scientists concluded RE because they assumed light travels in a straight line in a vacuum.

2. Does this mean that if light travels in straight line through a vacuum then RET is consistent with observations?

Next the wiki claims that light curves in celestial observations over long distances because the sky looks like a dome (maybe got this wrong, I found the writing unclear).

3. Are there any experiments, observations, or mathematics to confirm, describe, or quantify the curve other than the diagram of how the light curves to make sunset/sunrise on FE?

The wiki page seems to assume that the light bends however it needs to to make a sun high on the dome appear to rise and set on FE.

4. If the light is bending in unknown ways due to unknown forces without equations, how can we use any observation to know the shape of the earth?

The wiki page talks about the vertical component of the bending.

At noon in southern Egypt, it is dawn on the east coast of South America and sunset on the west coast of Australia. I have made a crude approximation of the problem in this image:



https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipNAFKR3HU3Q9xy9RVHfkZDgJz-oiOMg7oVuXnXS

The white arrows are where the sun appears to be, while the red arrows point to where it really is in FET. Quite an amount of bend over what I make to be about 8000 miles. Also notice that the light does not bend horizontally when looking straight north or south. In fact the bend varies from 0 to more than 45 degrees as you move south, and when the distance is 4000 mi, the bend is zero. And it is symmetrical, bending opposite ways to east and west. Side note: RE distances and direction match FE along straight north/south longitude lines. Coincidence?

6. Does anyone have an explanation for this?

7. If this is due to acceleration, is that physical velocity or something else?

8. Same thing as Universal Acceleration, or two different simultaneous things?

9. What direction is the acceleration that accounts for both horizontal and vertical bending in the observed way it bends?

10. If light bends in due to unknown forces and unknown equations over long distances, how can we ever know where any far away thing is, or how the light bends, or how much, or anything, as seeing far away things is our only evidence and we can't rely on it being where it appears to be?