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: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 13  Next >
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:

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.

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:

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?

If Elon Musk and Spacex engineers meet with NASA managers and engineers, does anyone in that room know the earth is actually flat and space travel is a hoax?

I grew up at Edwards Air Force Base and Lancaster CA. My neighbors and classmate's parents were aerospace people. Col Knight, X-15 pilot lived on my street and his daughter was in my class. My sister had class with Chuck Yeager's kid. My brother's girlfriend's father was NASA test pilot on lifting body. Two doors down was an engineer on the Gemini program. Around the corner, Kirk Long's dad worked at the rocket test site, he brought us a bottle of liquid nitrogen to mess with. Neil Armstrong spoke at a Futire Scientists of America meeting in high school. He was learning to land the lunar module on a captive test rig. I was in Aerospace Explorer post, we got tours of everything from Goldstone to Pt Mugu (Navy research base, they had a flight simulator program run by a computer filling a large room, it was crude). My girlfriend's father worked at NASA and so did she as summer intern in college. I interned at the AFFTC data processing center on testing F-15.

All of which is mostly about airplanes, except ...

I asked the X-15 pilot if he saw the curve of the earth, he said that is the first thing people ask, and yes, he did. Out a window that is not round, is flat, and shows no distortion when looked through on the ground - saw it at airshows and open house, they let you get within a few feet.

Astronaut training and X-15 were there, those were space guys where FE invalidates their world. In reality, the two worlds had overlap and people moved between them. Their calculations and observations were connected.And all of them believed the earth is round, and none ever discovered an observation or calculation that did not match reality and other known facts.

Or maybe they are lying? Thousands of engineers with crew cuts and plastic pocket protectors and no conceivable acting skills pulled it off without anyone ever getting drunk and spilling the beans? Or did they have calculations and instruments that matched RE theory and observations and yet they were all wrong and no one noticed? Perhaps most are just incompetently stupid at math and science and a few have been bought of or coerced into becoming great actors and incredibly effective conspirators?

Would love to hear the details. Without details, a conspiracy can be both large enough to do an amazing thing and small enough not to be detected. Any actual description of who knows and who doesn't will be ridiculous ion its face.

So hoax believer, describe how a small number of people can maintain a hoax containing space agencies from multiple countries, Spacex, astronomers, William Shatner, Elon Musk, GPS companies. US Space Force, etc. WHo among them knows, Who is fooled, who is acting. Something better than "They" just do it. If you don't know the details from evidence, how did you figure it out other than "It must be a hoax because the earth is flat." If you don't start with "the earth is flat" as a given, what reason do you have to think this huge group of people is a hoax.

I lived with them for 20 years. They think the earth is round and they are not good actors. There work is consistent with itself, observations, and gps works.

I really want to hear some specifics on the boundaries of the conspiracy.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scales on Maps
« on: July 12, 2022, 07:23:05 PM »
The polar projection does not distort measurements that are directly north/south. For that map, the distances along longitude lines match those on a globe. In other words, the distance from the north shore of Australia to south shore matches on both globe and north pole projection, the UN/most common FE map. So you can determine the north/south scale using 8000 mile diameter FE map. Distance from equator to north pole is the same on globe and FE polar projection map.

If you use that scale to measure the width of Australia, globe works, FE polar projection has Australia too wide, wider than USA. GPS, astral navigation, odometer, airline schedule, geometric calculation of distance on a sphere, all match RE and do not match the scaled measurement on FE polar projection map. Either FE does not match reality, or measurement is broken.

Perhaps this is why published FE maps never have scales. It has been suggested that FE rulers need to be bendable and stretchy. This flies in the face of the idea of measurement, which scientists go to great lengths to make constant and measure accurately. Measurement is not bendable or stretchy, that violates the very definition and concept of it.

If you want to portray the earth as a different shape than it actually is, you will inevitably need bendable and stretchy rulers. So here's the deal: RE - rulers can be straight and constant and distances match observed reality. FE - distances do not match, so measurement must be distorted to match observed reality.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scales on Maps
« on: June 06, 2022, 10:18:38 PM »
My recollection is that when I asked him why Australia was much wider on his map, he said "measurement is broken". Later I said that I could sum up what he said as "If measurement is broken and light rays do not travel straight, then the earth could be any shape." He agreed that was true.

He also said that after his coordinate conversion changed the shape of a sphere to a disk and that the mathematical properties were preseved. I said that the actual definition of a sphere was the set of points equidistant from a central point, and that is not a disk. He said that the basis would be translated and that preserved the properties.

Maybe I misremember. Maybe I misunderstood, but math is a pretty clear language. You do have a point that Troolon, who admitted to a very limited math education, does not speak the language clearly to me.

Are you a mathematician? What do you think a mathematician from a college would say about his ideas? That he made profound discovery? That he recited obvious basic math? That they agree the meaning of his math is that the earth could be any shape? Or perhaps that he needs to understand what a coordinate conversion is, for starters.

If I am wrong about coordinate conversion ans all the facts of what Troolon did, I would like to know.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: June 06, 2022, 07:06:30 PM »
Here is an interesting proof point re the moon landing: (and pretty entertaining)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon landing hoax question
« on: June 06, 2022, 06:57:02 PM »
There is a reason the soviets were first in all those things. When they first developed their atom bombs, they were behind the US by years and their bombs were much bigger and heavier, The military missile race preceded the space race. Soviets always made big military stuff, ww2 tanks, pre-war bombers, big subs. In the early 50s when the space race started, the soviet ICBMs were simply much bigger and thus more capable when used for exploration. US did not get there until Saturn 5.

Russian culture does not do complicated and advanced very well. Their fighters in WW2 were less capable than Germany, US, UK, they did eventually have an overwhelming number of them. They succeed with mass, not with excellence and cleverness. Ref: Ukraine.

They shot their massive rocket to the moon before we could. But we had the advantage when the problem was no longer "shoot something at the moon and hit it." Add in the problems of keeping human alive and returning them and we beat them to it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scales on Maps
« on: June 06, 2022, 06:40:10 PM »
In another thread, Troolon explained to me that measurement is broken. His attitude towards the same question was that when real world measurements do not match FE, one concludes that measurement is broken. Most would conclude that real world measurements confirm RE. If you wish to believe FE, something has to give, so measurement is broken. Result you don't like? Declare it wrong. No idea what forces or equations account for broken measurement? No problem. Only RE explains measurement? Just ignore the problem, i.e., don't reply. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: June 06, 2022, 06:31:06 PM »
The OP said that a sphere turns into a disk when you change coordinate systems. He said that the disk was mathematically equivalent to a sphere. A sphere is the set of points equidistant from a point. A disk is not that. There is so much wrong with the OP's ideas in basic high school geometry. Why even bring up tensors? Complexity is an FE tactic to make their idea possible by obscuring simple truth. The OP made numerous math errors ecxplained in the 14 pages above by myself and others.

Before any discussion of tensors, wouldn't it be wise to make sure the basic idea is not wrong?

Could we have a discussion of whether changing coordinate systems makes a sphere into a disk?

Does anyone else see the math errors? Crush me, show your math skills and prove to me that OP understands math correctly, coordinate systems, sphere, basis, and measurement. OP has changed all these things from math as taught in high school and college. Either all of math is wrong, or OP is wrong. OP wants to redefine math the way he needs to in order to prove the earth is flat, or at least could be flat.

The actual conclusion from the OP is that no one can know the shape of the earth because the light could bend in any direction and measurement could be broken. I am astounded that a site dedicated to the shape of the earth can end up talking about the math of tensors when the evidence of the shape of the earth is found in simple things. Only by ignoring those simple things can the earth be flat, so off to tensors and whatever.

You end up with 14 pages of people arguing esoteric math by people who mostly learned that math through a google search without a thorough background to understand correctly what those words mean. This is convenient for FEs so they can substitute their idea of what the math words mean so as to make FET possible. There are a few RE math knowledgeable people who try to convince them of the correct meaning, but that is like trying to teach a math course through a comment column to a person who does not want to learn the true math.

Troolon should go to a community college and enroll in a geometry class. Perhaps he could explain his ideas. Would be fun to see him explain how a coordinate conversion makes a sphere into a disk and yet is mathematically equivalent. Never fear, Troolon, you can save your belief system through conspiracy, just add mathemiticians to the NASA/RE conspiracy theory. Troolon correctly understands math, and the entire worldwide math community is made of a few conspirators and a bunch of stupid sheep.

Troolon right and they are all wrong? If they are right, then measurement works and light travels straight in a vacuum. If Troolon is right, measurement is broken and no one knows the shape and size of anything, not just the earth. How do you know about an object across the room when light bends and measurement doesn't work? In order to make it possible for the earth to be flat, you have to make it possible for anything to be any shape or size.

Flat Earth Theory / Possible FE demonstration
« on: June 04, 2022, 01:05:34 AM »
It occurs to me that a planetarium is a perfect miniature of FE. WHat would it take to demonstrate FE by projecting on the dome the correct visuals for any location, as though the floor had an FE map. The middle of the room would be the north pole, and the outer edge would be the ice wall. So someone halfway between would see the north and south pole stars in opposite directions on the horizon. At the outside edge, Sigma Octantus would appear directly overhead at all points around the edge. Entirely different set of stars depending on whether you are close to the middle or the edge.

As you walk from the center, the north star would move down to the horizon, then the south pole star would appear on the horizon and as you walked to the edge, it would move to directly overhead.

How would this be done?

The night sky is tough enough, but the appearance to some spots would be daylight over the entire dome with a large very bright sun, while other places, some not far away see dark sky with stars over the entire dome. Half of the room would be dark, other other half would be light while the dark side could not see that. Perhaps this room is too small, not enough distance for the light to fade out? Don't foget to include it being daylight around the edge of the room 24/7 in the northern hemisphere winter in December the whole room will be daylight 24/7 around the entire edge of the room. You actually can't do day/night because of raley's scattering, so just do the stars, that would be impressive.

Ideas on how to do this?

Interestingly, a RE 3d planetarium could be built to do this, at least in a vacuum to prevent raley's scattering. A globe held in the center with all the stars in their RE positions would yield the correct sky from any point on the globe.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: June 04, 2022, 12:17:20 AM »

If you have oroved that the earth could be any shape, then the earth could be round. Interesting. The only thing I know all FEs to agree on is that the earth is not round. Could be north pole centric, could be south pole centric, could be bi-polar, but they all agree couldn't possibly be round. FEs will like you better if you prove it isn't round rather than that it could be round. To do that, I think you would have to prove that light rays in vacuum can't be straight and measurement is definitely broken. You will be the hero of FE.

I have a degree in math, my son is a math major, and I have reviewed the math behind your claims. Known mathematicians and discussed math all my life. Your claim might be restated as: The earth appears round in Euclidean 3-space but reality is secretly non-Euclidean (measurement is broken, as you say, and rays of light that seem to travel straight are actually bent, perhaps in different ways depending on the position of the observer). Once you assume measurement is broken and light curves in unknown ways, an infinite number of possibilities with no way to know which one.

You also did not incorporate the astronomical transform. When you apply your transform to earth, what about stars millions of light years away? Somehow they moved into a dome, but you have no math for that. Once you say the light bends and you don't know the equation, those stars could be anywhere, sun, moon, etc. The earth could be a cylinder a million miles long and an inch diameter. Meanwhile, Euclidean 3 space with RE gives us GPS, ICBM, airliner finds the airport, sextant north star latitude makes perfect sense, and the solution is singular. If light doesn't bend and measurement isn't broken, the earth is round.

Your ideas re coordinate transforms, basis, and "mathematically equivalent", and your physics claim that it follows a shape change through coordinate transformation are wrong. If you are right, you can go to the math and physics community and explain, for example, the power that coordinate transforms have to bend light. You will be famous, but you will need experiments and equations. You found a reasonable (to you, although not to a professor) of how the earth's shape is unknown. I imagine you will not share your discoveries with them, perhaps posting on TFES is the thing to do with it. To what end?

So the choice of what to do with your discoveries is up to you. You can post on TFES and get some agreement and some explanation of why you are wrong from RE. If I knew some part of science was wrong, I would go to scientists and explain in an attempt to set them straight. But I suppose if they did not agree, it would be because of conspiracy, or perhaps scientists and mathematicians are stupid. Conspiracy can really explain a lot, and you never have to have details or evidence, because its secret, so how could you know the details and the evidence is they all say the wrong RE stuff.

Still, just the idea that changing coordinates changes the shape of a geometric figure would be a starting point. Go to some mathematicians and show them how you changed a sphere into a disk by coordinate conversion. If they say "It doesn't work that way, you don't understand coordinate conversion, the figure remains the same size and shape." Perhaps all mathematicians are wrong, just the ones at UCLA, maybe you can explain, but this is their definition, so don't they get to decide?

You started with a globe where Australia's size matched real world measurements and Sigma Octantus made sense. Then you transformed the surface into a disk, where Australia was wrong size and Sigma Octanus made no sense. Then you claimed this as mathematically equivalent, and then that the physics is then equivalent.  Forget which is true, which is useful? If it pleasures you to think that under the RE appearance, non-Euclidean math means it is flat, well, I can't stop you. But the fact that you can map the points on a sphere to a disk if you don't care that the size is wrong and the light bends, but that doesn't prove the earth could be any shape. If anything, you have proved that it is round. In the infinite possibilties of shape agnostic earth, only one works with measurement and light waves traveling straight in a vacuum, Polaris and SIgma Octantus, etc, etc etc.

Does that mean anything? As I said, forget true, what is useful?

What is the motive of Spacex?

What is the motive of the Japanese Space Agency, and India Space Agency?

When the Chinese decided to have a space program, did NASA go over there, explain the situation, and get them to go along with the hoax? For what motive? Or did they have a missile go splat against the dome, contact NASA and ask them what to say? I find the image of a meeting such as this where one side is revealing the earth is flat and securing the cooperation of someone grown up in RE world, even more fascinating when they come out of the meeting faking RE without missing a beat.

If one speculates about such a motive? Details and corroboration, or just speculation?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New Star Map
« on: April 30, 2022, 01:50:50 AM »
To say things are not how they appear and offer no explanation or evidence is absolutely inconsistent with science. FE is absolutely inconsistent with RE. RE has experiments, observations, mathematics, and much confirmation daily. FE has "RE is wrong but we haven't figured it out yet."

Well, suggestion: Posting a wild thought about how things might be is just bla bla bla. Posting a consistent explanatory theory with experimental evidence that contradicts known science, you got something there. Why post until you have that? Suggest not posting util you have that.

The Electromagnetic Acceleration has the explanation "unknown forces with unknown equations". Even if you want to continue exploring the idea, you might want to keep quiet until you can explain, and certainly not go around saying it is true until the forces are known and confirmed with experiments.

Please find a real mathematician and/or physicist and ask them to explain coordinate transformation and basis.  If they have the patience, tell them your idea that coordinate transform changes shape and physical properties are the same.

Also, per you, we can't know the shape of the earth. We can know the precise location of many many points on the earth and the distance between them. We can plot them on the surface of a globe. If all the distances match up, the earth might be round. If there was such a map of FE, the earth might be flat. Until someone produces a FE map with accurate distances between all points, there is no known possible FE.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: April 30, 2022, 01:08:38 AM »
"-> There is no test to differentiate between the shapes. In reality we can only observe/measure the physical properties, not the shape."

If we can measure the physical properties, how can we not know the shape?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: April 30, 2022, 01:05:46 AM »
It is not still a globe model, literally. He has changed the shape of it. He is trying to say that because of his misunderstanding of math and physics, that any shape is the same as any other shape. A globe is a globe in any coordinate system. Changing the coordinate system does not make distances stretch or compress nor make the light bend. Coordinate systems describe geometry, a globe is a globe in cartessian, spherical, or any coordinate system and it has the same physical properties.

Math does no control, it describes. Physics is the process of looking at the world around us and figuring out a consistent explanation for how things work. Math is starting with a set of assumptions and building a logical system. Turns out that if you start with natural numbers and 3 space Euclidean math, you get a useful tool to help you do physics. But a globe is still a globe and has the physical properties of a globe (different from other shapes) no matter what equations you present. Changing coordinate systems does not change the shape of an object, or you have done it wrong.

If the transforms give equivalent results, you don't have to change the laws of physics to get observed reality, distance is constant, light rays don't have to bend and get cancelled to match observations.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: April 29, 2022, 07:56:17 PM »
I think we can actually agree on this.

If you bend the light however you need to, cancel the light where you need to (light comes off the sun only in certain directions), and ignore the problem of distance, then yes, the earth can be any shape.

At present, you have no explanation for why the same dome has Polaris everywhere, yet individual observers see it as directly north, while others see the entire dome as light blue with no stars, and yet others see an entirely different set of stars at the same time. You have no explanation for why longitude lines diverge when real life measurements reveals they converge.

RE geometry explains all this with conventional geometry, light travels straight in a vacuum, the sun radiates in all directions, and distance works consistently everywhere.

Are we all agreed on this?

What do all FEs agree on?
A ridiculous notion. Many RE'ers do not understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. Indeed, we get visitors with that misconception rather frequently.

Should I get on my high horse and start asking whether "RE'ers will agree on whether velocity and acceleration are different things"? Of course I shouldn't, that'd be dumb.

In return, you should try to also not do dumb things.

There is a consensus on what acceleration and velocity are. Within math and physics, it is possible to say someone got it right or wrong. Also within RE, there are hundreds of web pages saying the exact same thing, equivalent diagrams, textbooks, etc, there is one standard model of RE. So one can divide RE into those who say the same thing as all that, and those that are different (wrong).

My point is not that some get it wrong in every group, there are always incorrect explanations of everything. My point is that there is no "right" FE model, there are many different and incompatible models. North pole centric, south pole centric, and bi-polar - which is wrong? FE seems to have no interest in figuring that out, FE seems to want to hold all possibilities open except RE. A south pole centrist will dismiss RE while saying maybe bi-polar is right, I think because they are allies against RE. I continue to not understand why RE is not on the FE possibility list, but anything not RE is possible. If not, why are all three maps in the FAQ? when will it be determined which is right?

Regarding "getting on a high horse", RE is not a high horse. It is accepting lessons from teachers and discoverers and humbly trying to pass it on. No glory of discovery, no distinction of being in a small group of brilliant pioneers so brilliant they saw through a giant hoax playing them for fools. FE is casting themself as someone who has surpassed and disproved scientists since Newton, the new Newton come to fix his errors. That is a high horse indeed.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New Star Map
« on: April 29, 2022, 06:58:41 PM »
Do I understand Metatron's explanation of Polaris appearing directly north of any observer on FE be summed up as: "I don't know anything about how other than vague speculation about projection and reflection, it just does."? Sort of like "unknown forces with unknown equations" in the FAQ re Electromagnetic Acceleration? We can add unknown reflective properties of the FE dome?

Meanwhile, is there any flaw in the RE explanation for where Polaris appears? It requires only the known tested properties of physics, the light doesn't have to bend, no dome with mysterious reflective properties? Does RE explain this with simple geometry? What is the reason to prefer an explanation that has no explanation rather than one that has explanation consistent with geometry and physics?


How does gravity work in your model?

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 13  Next >