### Recent Posts

91
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on January 12, 2023, 10:00:58 AM »

Here's a fun challenge for you: contact your favourite spirit level manufacturer or award-winning physicist and ask the following question: would a spirit level work in a rocket accelerating through space, in a zero-gravity environment?

If I may, here's 2 supplementary questions for JPJ.  I'm not a rocket scientist, but I am an aircraft engineer.  Aircraft actually do have a spirit level in the cockpit; its part of an instrument called the Turn and Slip Indicator.  It doesn't have any electronics, its just a plain and simple spirit level, and the pilot checks it to ensure that the aircraft is balanced about its longitudinal axis.

1.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is banked 60 deg left in a level balanced turn?

2.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is perfectly level in flight with the rudder hard over to the left?

(Hint; if you have access to any kind of computer flight sim you can try this yourself).
92
##### Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing
« Last post by markjo on January 11, 2023, 11:58:51 PM »
R.I.P. Jeff Beck  :'(
93
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« Last post by Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2023, 09:35:45 PM »
How relative velocity is determined is the issue and you keep avoiding it.
The issue is the figures you pulled out of thin air - the ones you plugged into your equation. One last chance to justify them!

It doesn’t “cause” it to move to the highest point.
Well, gee, mister, it sure is a good thing that nobody made a claim to that effect. This is a recurring issue - you don't understand the things you read.

If there were never any differences in gravitational potential, [spirit levels] wouldn't work. They only work because those differences exist.
Incorrect.

Here's a fun challenge for you: contact your favourite spirit level manufacturer or award-winning physicist and ask the following question: would a spirit level work in a rocket accelerating through space, in a zero-gravity environment?
94
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« Last post by JPJ on January 11, 2023, 06:41:41 PM »
Quote
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

How relative velocity is determined is the issue and you keep avoiding it.

Quote
Well, you can, it's just pretty redundant

It isn’t just redundant.  Its meaningless.  Its like using a word to define itself.  It’s also pointless, if you already know the relative velocity between two objects, you don’t have to find it.  It’s the very definition of circular logic.

Quote
I, and at least one other person, explained why your premise is false (it assumes that UA is the only factor, and it assumes that one body's initial velocity is huge while the other's is 0, without providing any justification for this).

You said:

Quote
There is also nothing novel about them colliding with Earth. OP proposes that something has to "cause a meteor to suddenly lose acceleration and 'fall'", but that's blatantly not the case. Both bodies are affected by UA, so their relative velocity will be unaffected by it. The meteoroid will continue to travel with its initial velocity, and will continue to be affected by other factors, like gravitation

The wiki says:

Quote
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

It doesn’t say anything about celestial gravitation effecting objects of mass that are not on the earth.  So what other factors might effect a meteor’s velocity?

And I did provide justification for the velocities by explaining how relative velocity should be calculated (something you have failed to explain).  And by explaining that in the absence of gravity, objects or observers that are uniformly accelerated  who start from rest at the same time in the same inertial frame will remain stationary to one another (at least in that same inertial frame..in an accelerated frame, the distance between the objects would increase).  There would be no reason for  the earth and a meteor to meet under those circumstances.  Unless, there is some other force at work.  The only option you have offered is Gravitation, but according to the wiki, it doesn’t effect objects not on the earth.  You haven’t offered any other possible alternatives, so why wouldn’t someone assume there is no other force or factor in play?

Quote
I didn't say he was wrong. I said I now know where the factor of 2 snuck in

Quote
Incorrect - sounds like whatever "do my homework plz" snuck in a factor of 2 somewhere in there. I already told you what the result should be. Please study relativity until you can perform this calculation correctly

Yes, you did.  The result you told me it should be was not .77c. It wasn’t even .71c, which is the velocity your own equation in the wiki gives.

You don’t understand hyperbolic motion or  the difference and relationship between proper acceleration, the physical acceleration experienced by an object and that by definition is measured in a co-moving inertial frame  and coordinate acceleration, which is measured in some other inertial frame that is not co-moving.

The coordinate acceleration will decrease over time, but the proper acceleration remains constant.  If you want to maintain earth’s proper acceleration, at a constant 9.8m/s^2, you can’t use the coordinate acceleration to find the velocity..

Coordinate and proper acceleration are related by the transformation:

If you transform a coordinate acceleration less than g, you get a proper acceleration less than g and the earth wouldn’t be experiencing a constant acceleration of g.  Proper acceleration is Lorentz Invariant. If the acceleration is less than g, in one  frame it is less than g in all of them.

The bottom line is this...

1. Is constant acceleration hyperbolic motion?  Yes
2. Do you have to use the hyperbolic motion equations to find the velocity of an object in hyperbolic motion? Yes
3.  Is the equation for velocity of an object in hyperbolic motion

yes.
4.  Is the acceleration in that  equation proper or coordinate?
Proper

Last but not least
5. Do objects in hyperbolic motion eventually experience an event horizon, beyond which no signal can be sent or received?  Yes.
6. Does that mean a flat earth with constant acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 will experience an event horizon, beyond which no signal can be sent or received??
Yes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)#Proper_reference_frame

Quote
However, this does not mean that a spirit level works due to differences in gravitational potential. This has been explained to you time and time again. Perhaps you'll want to read the responses you previously received.

what do you think “This allows the bubble to move to the highest point of the radius as gravity acts on the liquid inside the vial once it is level. “ means?

The curved radius “allows” the bubble to move to the highest point.  It doesn’t “cause” it to move to the highest point. That is like saying the sky causes a balloon to float away.  A curve in a glass vial doesn’t exert a force on the bubble and move it up. Gravity works on the fluid, pulling it down, which allows the bubble to move  to the highest point.  When the potential is constant, the highest point is in the middle, where the curve is. If gravity wasn’t working on the fluid as the potential changes, the bubble wouldn’t move.

A spirit level detects differences in the gravitational potential across a surface. That’s their whole purpose.  If there were never any differences in gravitational potential, they wouldn't work. They only work because those differences exist.
95
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Lord Dave on January 11, 2023, 05:21:45 AM »
Apparently the freedom caucus's first and most important vote...

Because when you wanna showboat, they showboat hard.
96
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Rama Set on January 10, 2023, 08:01:29 PM »
"When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House? These documents were definitely not declassified."

I suppose the answer to his question is they FBI will raid Biden after he ignores multiple requests, for over a year, for documents to be returned and after he has lied about having said documents in his possession.
97
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Lord Dave on January 10, 2023, 06:42:42 PM »
Biden just gave Trump a masterclass on how to responsibly deal with finding classified docs in your possession inappropriately. Surprisingly, he didn’t claim he was being harassed, that his passport was stolen or that he could declassify documents with a thought. Just notified NARA and immediately returned them. Can’t wait for the GOP to attempt to equate the two situations. Perhaps this will be the first attempt at impeaching Biden?

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/1147977922/classified-documents-biden-doj-archives

"Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social after hearing the news, where he posted, "When is the FBI going to raid the many homes of Joe Biden, perhaps even the White House? These documents were definitely not declassified." "

Yes, Trump.  Becasue the white house, AKA the Presidental residence and office, is surely a place classified documents don't belong....
98
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on January 10, 2023, 05:17:35 PM »
My complaint about FET isn't that it is incomplete, it's that it doesn't really exist at all. I mean, there's no working map for one thing, that's pretty fundamental.
Look at you. You can't hold your breath for 2 sentences. "Uhhh the problem isn't that it's incomplete, just look at this thing that's necessary for its completion!!!!!".
The issue is that "incomplete" isn't a strong enough word. RET is incomplete, there are things it can't explain. But there's plenty it can and does a good job of modelling. FET doesn't even exist. There is no working model which has any predictive power at all.

Quote
Also, your claim that the FE map isn't "working" is entirely misguided; and your claim that it's "fundamental" is pulled out of thin air.
We know how far places are apart, we know the shapes and sizes of land masses. If the earth is flat it should be possible to plot them on a map and it match the reality. The earth is flat, maps are flat. Just scale down. The entire reason that every map of the whole earth is a projection is that maps are flat and the earth isn't, so some distortion has to be introduced. So yes, I regard it as pretty fundamental that there's no working map. If you couldn't make a globe of the earth which accurately depicts land mass shapes and sizes and the distances between them then that would put quite a big dent in the claim that the earth is a globe.
The other option is to deny the known distances I guess, that's the approach Tom seems to take. But that's a bit of a stretch given that there's a whole travel industry predicated on knowing where places are and GPS demonstrably works.

Quote
But while FET has some hypotheses which can explain observations, those are often to explain why observations don't match what you'd see were the earth flat.
No. That's just your imagination of the motives behind our observations.
I do at times suspect that you lot are treating this as an academic exercise. You know the earth is a globe, but let's imagine the earth is flat - why does the sun appear to set? Why do objects fall? EA and UA are thus invented to explain those things - things which RET already has explanations for.
But the motive isn't really that important. The point is you guys are simultaneously claiming that observations show the earth is flat and hypothesising mechanisms which explain why observations aren't what you'd expect to see on a flat earth.

Quote
you lot are this meme
Nah. That's a straw man. You don't have to explain everything, as discussed RET can't do that.
But you need to explain some things. If your model doesn't explain things better than RET then it's not going to be taken seriously by the scientifically literate.
EA is actually a pretty good explanation for sunset - it's a million times better than "perspective" or some of the other rubbish you see on some FE YouTube channels. But your reasoning about it is circular. The sun sets in your model because the light bends upwards. How do we know light bends upwards? Well, the sun sets, doesn't it?
Now, that might be unfair, but I've yet to see any solid experimental evidence that this phenomena even exists.

Quote
And none of your ideas have any predictive power. RET can explain annual meteor showers and predict when they will next occur. FET can't.
Incorrect, especially given that the models don't even differ in this case. You're literally saying that orbital mechanics simultaneously can and can't predict the same phenomenon.
How do the models not differ? The RE model has the earth orbiting the sun because of gravity. The meteors are in a certain part of that orbit so as the earth goes through it we get a meteor shower. In FE the celestial bodies are rotating above us once a day. What's the equivalent annual cycle which would explain the annual meteor showers. I'm not saying none can exist but it can't be identical to RE.

Quote
You were the one who raised quantity as a subject. Now you're complaining that I responded to you without changing the subject.
I'm not complaining. You said the FET had been a success, I simply asked by what metric. If your aim is to convince a lot of people then yes, I guess FET has been a success. But that's not what I meant by the model being "widely adopted" - that is not about quantity in terms of your average Joe. A lot of scientifically illiterate people believing in FET and not using it for any practical purpose, instead of believing in RET and not using that for any practical purpose, isn't a model being widely adopted. The model hasn't been adopted by any professionals working in the relevant fields. There are no FE equations one can use to model things and launch satellites.

Quote
The "serious scientific community" is the cause of the "depressing" state of the world you're decrying so much. People just aren't interested in pandering to the old guard simply because they're the old guard.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree. People don't need to "pander" to anyone, but people should listen to subject matter experts because...well, they're experts.
If I'm ill I go see a doctor, if my boiler stops working I call a boiler engineer.
Now, experts aren't always right of course, but this growing attitude that the average man in the street knows better than people who have studied in a particular field for years or even decades is ridiculous. That's the state of the world I am depressed by and I don't see how the scientific community have caused that. I'd suggest the cause is the internet, it allows bad ideas to proliferate far more quickly than they ever could before. The free availability of information about any topic is a good thing, but a lot of people have a misplaced confidence in their ability to understand what they're looking at. Googling things is not "doing your own research".
Now, I'm not saying that unswerving, unthinking confidence in experts is a good thing either, but there's surely a sensible middle ground.
Your position, from previous conversations, seems to be that everyone should figure out a model of reality for themselves. That's like saying everyone should build their own house. Sorry, but I don't have the skills. I wouldn't know where to start. There is a right way of building a house so it doesn't fall down, so why not get some people who know what they're doing to do that.

Quote
Because you're trying to replace a model which works (for most practical purposes) with one which doesn't.
Incorrect. FE works better than RE.
Counterpoint - no it doesn't. You have no model which has any predictive power so in what way does it "work better"? Give an example.

Quote
RE contains unresolveable contradictions, while FE is simply less complete than RE.
What makes you say they're unresolvable?

Quote
The latter has been directly observed and multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on its shape.
Incorrect. They were determined with RE assumptions, and they happen to work.
OK. So GPS works by having a cluster of satellites orbiting the globe. By knowing the positions of some of those satellites and using timestamps you can figure out where you are. Are you suggesting that NASA thought they were putting satellites into orbit around a globe but they're actually just circling over a FE, and all the calculations used to find your position just happen to work out?
And, again, the globe earth has been observed. There are numerous satellites and other craft which have taken photos, there are timelapses of those showing the rotating earth. And the ISS is in orbit as we speak, an object which can be observed from the ground and which ham radio operators have contacted. Again, do NASA just think it's orbiting the globe but it's really just circling above us and all the RE calculations used to get it there just happened to work out despite the earth really being flat? The other option is that the ISS is fake of course, that's a path a lot of FE people go down. But...well, you can see it from the ground so that's a bit of a stretch. Clearly something is up there.
99
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Rama Set on January 10, 2023, 02:52:01 PM »
Biden just gave Trump a masterclass on how to responsibly deal with finding classified docs in your possession inappropriately. Surprisingly, he didn’t claim he was being harassed, that his passport was stolen or that he could declassify documents with a thought. Just notified NARA and immediately returned them. Can’t wait for the GOP to attempt to equate the two situations. Perhaps this will be the first attempt at impeaching Biden?
100
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work
« Last post by Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2023, 10:45:53 AM »
My complaint about FET isn't that it is incomplete, it's that it doesn't really exist at all. I mean, there's no working map for one thing, that's pretty fundamental.
Look at you. You can't hold your breath for 2 sentences. "Uhhh the problem isn't that it's incomplete, just look at this thing that's necessary for its completion!!!!!".

Also, your claim that the FE map isn't "working" is entirely misguided; and your claim that it's "fundamental" is pulled out of thin air. You don't get to dictate what's fundamental for progress, and the way the world works won't change based on what you consider "fundamental". Fundamentalism is passé.

Now I know you've explained that the Wiki is meant to document competing FE ideas, so I guess that's fair enough.
You bring this up all the time, and then you follow up by explaining that you're happy with the reasoning. If you're OK with it, why constantly mention how OK you are with it? Excuse the speculation, but it doesn't sound like you've come to terms with it at all.

But while FET has some hypotheses which can explain observations, those are often to explain why observations don't match what you'd see were the earth flat.
No. That's just your imagination of the motives behind our observations. I can't help you with that until you start helping yourself. You need to stop imagining things and start listening to people when they tell you why they do something. If you think they're not telling you the truth, you need to back that up with reasoning - not just say "uhmmm nuh you do this because XYZ".

Now, a lot of it is explained in terms of answers to RE complaints, because you lot are this meme:

Zeteticism is pretty democratic like that. It speaks the language that people want to hear, while teaching them how to soundly evaluate their surroundings. If you want better answers, ask better questions.

And none of your ideas have any predictive power. RET can explain annual meteor showers and predict when they will next occur. FET can't.
Incorrect, especially given that the models don't even differ in this case. You're literally saying that orbital mechanics simultaneously can and can't predict the same phenomenon.

By what metric? Are you looking for quality or simply quantity?
You were the one who raised quantity as a subject. Now you're complaining that I responded to you without changing the subject. Stop playing this shitty game. If you want to discuss quality, don't raise quantity and then go "ok but quality tho".

But you're not getting any traction in the serious scientific community
The "serious scientific community" is the cause of the "depressing" state of the world you're decrying so much. People just aren't interested in pandering to the old guard simply because they're the old guard. If they want to step up their game, bring it on. Until then, they're going to become increasingly irrelevant. In terms of quantity. Because of quality.

Because you're trying to replace a model which works (for most practical purposes) with one which doesn't.
Incorrect. FE works better than RE. RE contains unresolveable contradictions, while FE is simply less complete than RE. I'm not sure why you feel so threatened by this.

The latter has been directly observed and multiple technologies which demonstrably work rely on its shape.
Incorrect. They were determined with RE assumptions, and they happen to work. To the same (terrible) standard of correctness, they "demonstrably work and rely on FET".