1

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Stabilising to the Milky Way shows the rotation of the earth" (gifv)

« on: June 03, 2016, 06:17:24 PM »

1. The image demonstrates rotation around a horizontal axis. (Like a plane doing a barrel roll)

cough cough, an aileron roll, cough cough

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beautiful recent hi-res image of Earth from the moon

« on: May 16, 2016, 03:18:43 PM »

It's all in the lenses Chris.



Zoom lenses!

That picture has been doctored. The only thing that has been zoom is the moon.

Orr... you just don't realize that the picture is from very far away.

3

Flat Earth Media / Re: All of my working will be here

« on: May 10, 2016, 03:41:34 PM »

I claim no one did a "persuasive draw" the velocity "diagram" of the atmosphere. Can you explore this?

I would if I knew would you were asking for.

Then who know let him come and done.

I'm saying I don't understand your wording, please clarify.

4

Flat Earth Media / Re: All of my working will be here

« on: May 10, 2016, 12:57:47 PM »

I claim no one did a "persuasive draw" the velocity "diagram" of the atmosphere. Can you explore this?

I would if I knew would you were asking for.

5

Flat Earth Media / Re: All of my working will be here

« on: May 09, 2016, 10:27:40 PM »

Andrew, my boy, I admire the effort, but he's just going to bitch and moan about how we are "the hoaxers" and  "telling him the fables" and how you shouldn't be talking to him in his information repository.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Science and FET

« on: May 09, 2016, 01:45:21 PM »

What I think is an amazing coincidence is that somehow the moon and sun don't collide with the flat earth, yet a ball I throw into the air comes back down again.
Is there some magic distance required to negate the UA?

They are going to say the Aether, magic fluid that causes UA and "meets" above the atmosphere plane and suspends things above the plane. The turbulence of the fluid causes vertical motion of the objects held within, and the swirling motion somehow causes consistent and predictable circular "orbiting" above the plane

Not making this up.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse Proves The moon orbit is wrong

« on: May 06, 2016, 04:51:02 PM »

You don't understand. Earth Not A Globe Workshop is for people talking about the BOOK "Earth, Not a Globe" by Rowbotham. You weren't in the right section. Put it into the information repository if you're working on it.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse Proves The moon orbit is wrong

« on: May 06, 2016, 12:38:19 AM »

I think he mean if the Moon was near perigee and the Earth is near aphelion then a Solar eclipse occur, the Sun and Moon looks almost the same size.
I'm not so sure if it's true, never seen photo showing a total solar eclipse at perigee-aphelion and neither how does this suppose to debunk the Moon's orbit, could be just an optical illusion by the immense brightness of the Sun.

Honestly I have no idea if that's what he's trying to say, it just seems as though he was trying to argue against the existence of the annular eclipse. You could be right, however.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse Proves The moon orbit is wrong

« on: May 04, 2016, 07:27:27 PM »

This board is dedicated to discussing and working on the annotated Earth Not a Globe.

Hmm...maybe you should read the rules or show me where in ENaG this is...

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: if the Earth's axis varies in summer and winter how polaris stay at same place?

« on: May 04, 2016, 05:53:30 PM »

So to expand upon that, are we to assume that every star in the universe is a similarly imperceptible distance from each other? It seems highly unlikely that our star just happens to be this red headed stepchild so in our galaxy.

It isn't. Most stars are actually very far from each other, averaging 4.2 light-years away from each other, it's just to any observer from any angle and position, objects of unknown distance seem to be next to each other.

Imagine having a ball that is one mile away and another one that is two miles away but four times as big. It will appear as though they are next to each other but one will be a little more blurry(this doesn't matter for stars as there is no atmosphere in space).

At longer distances away, the relative size becomes less distinguishable and makes them look more similar due to parallax. That's why they appear to be the same size(-ish).

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: if the Earth's axis varies in summer and winter how polaris stay at same place?

« on: May 04, 2016, 03:53:59 PM »

Also... why would gravity make things orbit elliptically around an object... if the law of gravity states that a molecule is intrinsically pulled to every other molecule inversely squared to the distance between them... then why isn't everything careening into the Sun?

Because we are moving sideways in relation to it.

Do you know those coin funnels at shopping malls that kids like? The coin spins around down into the hole?(if not, imagine putting a bowling ball on a bed and rolling a marble around it).

Same idea as general relativity, gravity bends space-time into a funnel, and things with linear velocity tangent to it curves the path of the object if it's too fast or too far away. However, if an object is a little too slow or too close, it begins to spiral towards the middle.

You may ask: "Nice, why aren't we getting closer to the sun then?" That's because in the coin funnel, friction slows the coin down. In space, there is nothing to slow us down aside from other gravitational forces.

You may ask: "Nice, does that mean gravity never ends?" Well it does, that's why we regard space as "microgravity"; there are infinite gravitational(albeit extremely small) forces acting on us wherever we are. Any object of energy applies gravitational potential to others. you can model this using the Law of Gravitation and the Inverse Square Law.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: if the Earth's axis varies in summer and winter how polaris stay at same place?

« on: May 04, 2016, 03:39:30 PM »

The angle of polaris and the earth axis are same has about 1/4 degrees difference.

But our glober friends claim that the earth bowing a side 5 degrees for summer and bowing to the other side for winter. It makes a total of 10 degrees. however, the angle of polaris don't change to the earth more than 1 degree difference. This means the earth looking the direction different summer and winter that has 10 degrees difference.

if the polaris is moving at a speed where the earth's new direction or we need to throw away the system.

The axis doesn't physically change, it does relative to the sun however.



Polaris is a very far distance away(433.8 lightyears, or 2.55 * 10¹⁵ miles.) So going in orbit around the sun(a maximum horizontal change of 185,900,000 miles)  will only give a very slight change in the angle of Polaris.

The earth axis is phsically impossible.

Because which pole is near to sun, it must continue to be near; which pole is far to sun, it must continue to be far. You are drawing the opposite it but it opposite of the saving the momentum.

Look to this shape:



Watch a spinnig of a whirligig. Which way is it turning around, it is usually the same side is bent to the center of the way. You are claiming opposite. So you need a very strong argumant to say except imaginary evidences.

Well, the reason that doesn't happen is because the earth is massive. Conservation of angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy would state that it would take a humongous amount of energy to turn the earth's axis while it is spinning. That's why axial precession happens.(much like holding a spinning bicycle tire) Your whirligig comparison isn't akin because that doesn't have extremely high amounts of mass. However, you are sort of right. The earth's axis does change very slightly. Over a period of 13,000 years, it will turn 47 degrees counter-clockwise due to tidal effects of other celestial bodies.

Imagine a spinning ball in space. It will spin forever unless a force is applied to it, right? It won't randomly start moving in a direction, right?(Conservation of translational energy) In the same idea, it won't start rotating randomly(Precessional force and conservation of angular momentum)

Now, if you don't know what precessional force is, take this experiment. If you have a bike, take off the front wheel and spin it very quickly. Hold the axes with both hands and try to rotate it. The force will cause your body to turn in a direction perpendicular to torsive force you are applying. Imagine doing it with a larger, more massive, and faster spinning object.

Hope this helps.

You are not talking about phsics. I know what you are talking about. You are wrote a fable. precessional force don't changes the movement.

Forget spinnig. Think it just rotating around the sun. Then you understand what i am talking. Or you can act as you don't understand you are free.

I am talking about physics actually. Precessional force is a vector cross-product or torque and gravity on a spinning object. Let me clarify.

Take your whirligig. That leaning towards the center is because it is precessing in earth's gravity.
Tap it any move it in any direction, the axis will turn towards the direction of movement?

Take that same whirligig and put it in space. It won't wobble on an observable scale because it is barely precessing in microgravity
Even move it in any direction, the axis will not change towards the direction of movement.

I've calculated gravitational acceleration on the earth by the sun to be about .00588 m/s². So this very small acceleration causes a very small change in the earth's axis, observably different over thousands of years. So as I said before, you are right, however on a much much smaller scale than you predicted.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: if the Earth's axis varies in summer and winter how polaris stay at same place?

« on: May 04, 2016, 01:52:09 PM »

The angle of polaris and the earth axis are same has about 1/4 degrees difference.

But our glober friends claim that the earth bowing a side 5 degrees for summer and bowing to the other side for winter. It makes a total of 10 degrees. however, the angle of polaris don't change to the earth more than 1 degree difference. This means the earth looking the direction different summer and winter that has 10 degrees difference.

if the polaris is moving at a speed where the earth's new direction or we need to throw away the system.

The axis doesn't physically change, it does relative to the sun however.



Polaris is a very far distance away(433.8 lightyears, or 2.55 * 10¹⁵ miles.) So going in orbit around the sun(a maximum horizontal change of 185,900,000 miles)  will only give a very slight change in the angle of Polaris.

The earth axis is phsically impossible.

Because which pole is near to sun, it must continue to be near; which pole is far to sun, it must continue to be far. You are drawing the opposite it but it opposite of the saving the momentum.

Look to this shape:



Watch a spinnig of a whirligig. Which way is it turning around, it is usually the same side is bent to the center of the way. You are claiming opposite. So you need a very strong argumant to say except imaginary evidences.

Well, the reason that doesn't happen is because the earth is massive. Conservation of angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy would state that it would take a humongous amount of energy to turn the earth's axis while it is spinning. That's why axial precession happens.(much like holding a spinning bicycle tire) Your whirligig comparison isn't akin because that doesn't have extremely high amounts of mass. However, you are sort of right. The earth's axis does change very slightly. Over a period of 13,000 years, it will turn 47 degrees counter-clockwise due to tidal effects of other celestial bodies.

Imagine a spinning ball in space. It will spin forever unless a force is applied to it, right? It won't randomly start moving in a direction, right?(Conservation of translational energy) In the same idea, it won't start rotating randomly(Precessional force and conservation of angular momentum)

Now, if you don't know what precessional force is, take this experiment. If you have a bike, take off the front wheel and spin it very quickly. Hold the axes with both hands and try to rotate it. The force will cause your body to turn in a direction perpendicular to torsive force you are applying. Imagine doing it with a larger, more massive, and faster spinning object.

Hope this helps.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: if the Earth's axis varies in summer and winter how polaris stay at same place?

« on: May 04, 2016, 12:06:36 PM »

The angle of polaris and the earth axis are same has about 1/4 degrees difference.

But our glober friends claim that the earth bowing a side 5 degrees for summer and bowing to the other side for winter. It makes a total of 10 degrees. however, the angle of polaris don't change to the earth more than 1 degree difference. This means the earth looking the direction different summer and winter that has 10 degrees difference.

if the polaris is moving at a speed where the earth's new direction or we need to throw away the system.

The axis doesn't physically change, it does relative to the sun however.



Polaris is a very far distance away(433.8 lightyears, or 2.55 * 10¹⁵ miles.) So going in orbit around the sun(a maximum horizontal change of 185,900,000 miles)  will only give a very slight change in the angle of Polaris.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: May 04, 2016, 11:58:19 AM »

Satellite dish alignment can easily be measured by you to prove your theory. They have to be very accurately aligned and each transponder has a tighly defined coverage area.  For reception of a particular transponder you should be able to show the transmitter location to prove the use of ionospheric reflection.

Or you could just look at where dishes are aligned for residences at or near the equator. Since a geosynchronous satellite would necessarily be directly above the equator, their dishes should all be aimed at near 90 degrees straight up.

You were so close with that one, but you overlooked something. While, yes, geosynchronous satellites are usually positioned above the equator, that doesn't mean that it's directly above any given city. It could be anywhere east or west of that city, it just has to be on the equator. If you look at the compass on google StreetMaps, you can see that they are all pointing magnetic east.

Yes, they give you plausible deniability so people can continue believing in orbiting satellites. What's surely odd is all satellite tv dishes point off at an angle less than 60 degrees from horizontal. And the angle they point at indicates the satellite must be above a part of the globe nearly 1/4 the circumference away.

LOOK
Piura, Peru
Here's one at -5 degrees south of the equator that is pointing nearly horizontal!
https://www.google.com/maps/@-5.1609302,-80.655418,3a,35.5y,294.86h,84.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7NexUd5IifEuOVb5ZYhQ_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Another: https://www.google.com/maps/@-5.1612217,-80.6560581,3a,75y,193.78h,78.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svSn0F5QUV7F28hcGnLN_aA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
And two more: https://www.google.com/maps/@-5.1601944,-80.6565193,3a,40y,136.04h,84.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbktmsKHcIQXoTYG-zz0FXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

What location could such a satellite possibly be 42,000 kilometers above for dishes at this angle to be aiming at it? Africa?

Now the east coast of South America:
https://www.google.com/maps/@-1.3512533,-48.4667752,3a,25.6y,24.66h,106.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV9epkXfNJZhdjJ_cDGPWTQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Dish points west, but at such a low angle - it must be aimed at a satellite above the middle of the Pacific Ocean!

Go ahead and work out where these "geosynchronous satellites" must be located, given the angle the dishes are aimed. It makes zero sense.

EDIT: Here is a place that is a couple hundred miles north east of where most cable satellites are positioned.
https://www.google.com/maps/@2.7995709,-60.7763506,3a,15y,312.94h,90.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssrlXH5t2LPKGoUWBVwdhYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Just so happens that they are "almost 90 degrees", I calculate them to be 80 degrees above the horizontal.

Did you notice those are Mesh dishes - which is not used for satellite tv but some sort other C-band radio function. Could be anything from HAM / troposcatter or who knows what else. Parabolic antennas were being used long before it was ever said we had satellites in orbit.
However if you rotate that view clockwise you'll see next to another of the mesh dishes there is an actual satellite TV dish - and it is pointed about 55 degrees from horizontal.
https://www.google.com/maps/@2.7995709,-60.7763506,3a,15y,340.45h,88.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssrlXH5t2LPKGoUWBVwdhYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Coincidence?

My assumption for the ones I had posted were over the pacific ocean, which is the most plausible location. However, there are dozens if not geosynchronous satellites, and there is no way of determining which dish receivers are pointing at which satellites. If you have that much time, go ahead and use the satellite locator widget to figure it out. Try it out on your own satellite receiver dish. But what I said still stands, you can't disprove satellites if they could be anywhere east or west of the points you are giving. Find a case where it is obviously not pointing to a point at the equator(such as a Canadian dish facing north) and I'll talk.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: May 03, 2016, 10:23:02 PM »

Satellite dish alignment can easily be measured by you to prove your theory. They have to be very accurately aligned and each transponder has a tighly defined coverage area.  For reception of a particular transponder you should be able to show the transmitter location to prove the use of ionospheric reflection.

Or you could just look at where dishes are aligned for residences at or near the equator. Since a geosynchronous satellite would necessarily be directly above the equator, their dishes should all be aimed at near 90 degrees straight up.

You were so close with that one, but you overlooked something. While, yes, geosynchronous satellites are usually positioned above the equator, that doesn't mean that it's directly above any given city. It could be anywhere east or west of that city, it just has to be on the equator. If you look at the compass on google StreetMaps, you can see that they are all pointing magnetic east.

EDIT: Here is a place that is a couple hundred miles north east of where most cable satellites are positioned.
https://www.google.com/maps/@2.8321939,-60.7017016,3a,15y,224.21h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1segv7xAGhIQlPNwCEI4hL0A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656https://www.google.com/maps/@2.7995709,-60.7763506,3a,15y,312.94h,90.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssrlXH5t2LPKGoUWBVwdhYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Just so happens that they are "almost 90 degrees", I calculate them to be 80 degrees above the horizontal.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse Proves The moon orbit is wrong

« on: May 03, 2016, 09:59:53 PM »

Good job, you just figured out what an annular eclipse is!

Here, let me google that for you if you don't already know:

An annular solar eclipse occurs when the moon is furthest from the Earth. On these occasions the moon will appear to be smaller and not fully eclipse the sun.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: May 03, 2016, 06:02:24 PM »

Another funny coincidence is that the moon and sun appear the same size because the sun is both exactly 400 times bigger, and 400 times further away. It seems this heliocentric model has got to involve, by far, the most coincidences of any accepted scientific model.

Well, this is just a coincidental as the sun and the moon being the same distance away and the same size. What is your argument?

We wouldn't coincidentally be in the only habitable zone of our solar system either. The axis wouldn't be coincidentally tilted just perfectly for us to experience seasons. The stars wouldn't be coincidentally so far away that their position remains relatively unchanged throughout the 583 million mile trip around the sun.

I can't really say much else about the other things you said as those are your beliefs, and you're entitled to them. However, this part is a flawed argument.  You can't argue coincidence that out planet it perfect for habitable life. Out of the billions upon billions of planets that are observable or predicted, statistics dictate that the perfect condition for life is likely for at least one. Imagine that earth were not habitable to begin with: it's more than likely that we would come about on some other planet rather than just not exist at all. Earth happened to be a habitable planet, so life evolved. If it were a coincidence, it would be that life evolved everywhere and earth just so HAPPENED to be habitable for us as a culture. It is the other way around: its habitability caused life. 

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: May 03, 2016, 04:50:31 PM »

Another funny coincidence is that the moon and sun appear the same size because the sun is both exactly 400 times bigger, and 400 times further away. It seems this heliocentric model has got to involve, by far, the most coincidences of any accepted scientific model.

Well, this is just a coincidental as the sun and the moon being the same distance away and the same size. What is your argument?

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: May 03, 2016, 04:01:17 PM »

I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing.

It actually means EVERYTHING.  The distance between Moon and Istanbul is effectively the same as the distance between Moon and Sydney, or the Moon and Tokyo.  This means that the light of the Moon should be no different at those places, because the light is travelling the same distance, subject to the same inverse-square law. 

Also important to note: that drawing of sun, earth, and moon is not to scale.  That drawing shows a ridiculously close moon, which would occupy an enormous amount of sky if that's where it really orbited.  ThatsNice chose that drawing, no doubt, so as to have a moon large enough to see it for the purpose of illustrating the lunar phases.  Here is a scale drawing to illustrate lunar distance:



See how tiny the moon is?  See how far away?  The difference in distance between lunar Apogee and lunar Perigee is almost eight times the largest possible distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth, which means that the distances between cities on earth is insignificant.  And the difference in distance between the moon and two far-apart spots on earth is only 2% of the shortest possible earth-moon distance, not enough to make a visible difference in the moonlight at those two locations.

Excellent explanation! I would like to add to it in the case that Intikam asks about other things such as that "inclination band", however. The "inclination band" in this illustration is the area where the moon could be as it is not exactly horizontal to the earth, it is 5.2 degrees diagonal. As the moon goes around the earth, a full moon happens when it is higher than or lower than the earth in that band, a lunar eclipse happens when it is behind the earth, or dead center of that band. The moon's position in it changes due to lunar orbital precession, or apsidal precession, as I had stated before. The moon's orbit "turns" due to precessional force, making one full rotation every 8.5 or so years. This means it intersects with the "inclination band" differently every time it goes around every 29.5 days, sometimes up or down(full moon), sometimes close to the center(partial lunar eclipse), sometimes in the center(total lunar eclipse). Hope that helps more