1

Flat Earth Theory / Electromagnetic acceleration

« on: March 05, 2018, 04:24:50 PM »

I've seen several references to EA and how it might explain sunsets. In the wiki, there is an equation that purports to show the effect of "decreasing dark energy" on a light ray. Best I can surmise is that the light ray will bend towards the "fastest decreasing Dark Energy potential" - correct me if I'm wrong.

From the Wiki:
x, y - co-ordinates in the plane of the light ray, where y is increasing in the direction of fastest decreasing Dark Energy potential, and x is increasing in the direction of the component of propagation of the ray which is perpendicular to y.

c - the speed of light in a vacuum.

β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy. When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.

A few very obvious questions come from this - hoping one of the more astute FEers can tackle this.
1) What experiments have been performed to quantify the changes in the dark energy potential?
2) How does DE affect light's path?
3) The Bishop constant...what is the theoretical value?

As an aside - Tom, I didn't know you held a doctoral degree! What was your field of study?

2

Flat Earth Theory / The Humanity Star satellite

« on: January 29, 2018, 06:34:25 PM »

I came across this story and it got me thinking about FEH and satellites.

Quick background:
The Humanity Star is "disco ball" satellite that was launched into orbit by Rocket Lab. (Yet another private launch firm) It is an art project to unite humanity or something along those lines.



You can view the tracker here: https://www.thehumanitystar.com/

How this relates to FEH is that there is an easily identifiable object orbiting the globe with a real-time online tracker. I say easily identifiable because it is supposedly very bright and has an irregular flashing as it spins. Anyone on this site can use the tracker and, if the timing is right, can go outside and view it as it travels around the Earth. There are a couple of videos of it already posted to youtube. If you watch the orbital path, you can see it is in a polar orbit.

This raises a few questions. Some say satellites are balloons, but if you watch its path, you can see it is traveling far to fast to be a balloon. It is in a polar orbit, which makes no sense on a flat globe. Further, it has no propulsion system, so it isn't able to provide any course correction. (and will deorbit later this year)

What do FEers make of this? Is it even possible?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Gravity confirmed - UA dead?

« on: January 11, 2018, 02:19:50 AM »

Now that LIGO has detected gravity waves warping space-time on multiple occasions (and once again confirming that Einstein was right), where does that leave UA? In FEH, there is no such thing as gravity, so I'd love to hear a rational explanation for the detected waves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html

4

Flat Earth Theory / Earth not a globe - floating Earth

« on: December 13, 2017, 03:30:58 AM »

Rowbotham:
FIRST. The earth floats on the waters of the "great deep."

That it thus floats is concluded from the fact that it is surrounded with water, in which it fluctuates; and that if limited in extent, water could not surround it without also gathering underneath it. If not limited in extent, then it extends downwards for ever. If so, it could not fluctuate in a limited mass of water. It does fluctuate, therefore it floats, and hence there must be "waters under the earth."

Really - do any FEers think that the Earth floats on water? Rowbotham seems to be held in very high regard here. Given his rudimentary understanding of geology, it is forgivable that he wouldn't understand plate tectonics (the fluctuating he refers to), but that just further points out how easy it is to get things VERY wrong when you lack some education on a topic. Or am I misreading his fluctuating comment? Did he just think the Earth sorta bobbed along?

5

Flat Earth Theory / The outer planets

« on: November 30, 2017, 07:05:11 PM »

Concerning the outer planets size, the Wiki states:
Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?

A. Pretty small.

Can anyone quantify the term 'pretty small?' Are they smaller than the Earth? Smaller than the moon?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Planet Earth

« on: November 30, 2017, 06:59:50 PM »

FEH claims that the Earth is not a planet. If it is not, what is it? Why would it be different than any other object we observe? What makes the Earth special?

The Chinese took this lovely picture of the moon and Earth in 2014. The Earth looks like a planet to me.

Chinese exclusion policy of NASA
Due to security concerns, all researchers from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are prohibited from working with Chinese citizens affiliated with a Chinese state enterprise or entity.[28] In April 2011, the 112th United States Congress banned NASA from using its funds to host Chinese visitors at NASA facilities.[29] In March 2013, the U.S. Congress passed legislation barring Chinese nationals from entering NASA facilities without a waiver from NASA.[28]

These rules make it hard to believe that they are cooperating to perpetuate a pointless lie. China began their space program because they were falling behind the US and USSR in space tech. If they discovered the world was flat, why would they not expose their adversaries as liars?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Sun on the horizon

« on: November 28, 2017, 06:59:36 PM »

Tom Bishop recently stated that the Sun is literally on the horizon at sunset and that if you fired a magic projectile towards the horizon, it would hit the Sun. I was wondering if that is the position FEH takes in general or if it is one of those where Tom differs from the community as a whole?

Note to RET folks, I respectfully request we allow someone from the FE community to comment first.

8

Flat Earth Theory / The 100 Proofs - Rowbotham uneducated?

« on: November 08, 2017, 11:45:58 PM »

Proof #15:
The idea that, instead of sailing horizontally round the Earth, ships are taken down one side of a globe, then underneath, and are brought up on the other side to get home again, is, except as a mere dream, impossible and absurd! And, since there are neither impossibilities nor absurdities in the simple matter of circumnavigation, it stands without argument, a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

I was reading the 100 Proofs and came to the conclusion that Rowbotham was either uneducated or an idiot. Taken as written, Rowbotham doesn't appear to understand that 1) his hypothetical ship only made it halfway around the Earth and 2) he seems to think there is an up/down on the globe. Given his usual lack of detail, one can only assume the "down" portion is with gravity and the "up" portion is against. This implies he has no clue how gravity works. If he isn't referring to gravitational issues, he doesn't seem to understand that by going all the way around a globe, one can indeed arrive back at their starting point.

Rowbotham - uneducated, idiot, or terribly lazy writer?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Universal Acceleration debunked

« on: November 08, 2017, 12:14:52 AM »

Claim: The effects of gravity are actually caused by the Earth accelerating upward. There is no actual gravity.
Experiment setup: Had daughter stand on chair and jump off. A cloth was held beside her as a control.
Results: When she jumped, her hair and dress flew up as she jumped off.

If the was no gravity, my daughter would have simply hovered in air until the ground rushed up to meet here. Instead, she clearly accelerated downward as proven by the fact that her hair and skirt did not stay in the same position. Her downward acceleration along with air resistance caused her hair and skirt to rise. The control cloth did not move, proving there was no sudden upward rush of air.

Thanks go to Tom for giving me this idea when he claimed something along the lines of jumping off a chair proved UA. Ironically, it proved that UA fails to describe reality.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Path of photons during sunset

« on: October 27, 2017, 03:24:10 PM »

What path do photons take at sunset that allows the bottom of clouds to be illuminated? 3D has been asking this question in various threads and I felt it is critical to the whole sunset debate and needed it's own thread. If the Earth was flat and the Sun stayed at a constant altitude, direct sunlight would never be able to shine on the bottom of a cloud.
I've seen claims that this is due to perspective, but perspective can't cause this as it does not rearrange the position of objects. Think of railroad tracks appearing to draw closer to one another. At no point do the tracks appear to draw together more rapidly or shift position. The rate of change in perspective is linear, not exponential. The other option is reflection, but this doesn't hold because there is a period of time as the Sun sets where the light is coming from a roughly 90 degree angle which causes shadows to be cast from clouds that hang lower than others. If the light was reflected, the shadows couldn't form at that angle.

So, how do photons originating 3000 miles up reach the underside of a cloud?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Tsar Bomb shows Earth is round

« on: September 15, 2017, 08:03:51 PM »

Ok, so here is one I'm hoping is unique as far as disproofs go. In 1961, the Soviet Union detonated the largest bomb in history. It was rated at 50 megatons and shattered windows 500 miles away. The thing that shows FET is wrong is its shock wave. The shock from the blast was measured circling the globe 3 times. Obviously, if the Earth was flat, the shock wave would never return unless there was something at the edge of the Earth, but even that isn't likely because then the shock wave would have arrived a different times due to the edges not being equidistant.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Private space flight images and the conspiracy

« on: August 30, 2017, 01:40:47 PM »

The image below wasn't taken by NASA or a governmental agency. It was taken from the Genesis I satellite launched by Bigelow Aerospace. The satellite was put into orbit by the International Space Company Kosmotras. I know NASA is viewed as a faking everything, but what about the numerous private companies that have satellites imaging the Earth? Are they lying, too? Are they also in on the conspiracy? How widespread is the conspiracy and how is it kept quiet in a day and age when leaks are almost constant?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Question about gravity that I don't believe has been asked

« on: August 28, 2017, 06:04:06 PM »

From my understanding, the thing most people call gravity is a constant acceleration pushing the Earth up in FET. My question is how does FET account for the fact that gravity is not uniform across the Earth? If it is an acceleration, everything would be affected equally. Maps of the strength of gravity on Earth, however, show that there is more gravitational pull in some areas than others. The maps show that areas with more mass exert increased gravitational pull than areas with lower mass. (i.e. the ocean) How is this possible in a FE model?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406-new-map-earth-gravity-geoid-goce-esa-nasa-science/

14

Flat Earth Theory / Question about the motion of the Moon

« on: August 22, 2017, 12:43:58 PM »

Can someone explain to me how the Moon supposedly bobs up and down? (resulting in the solar eclipse)
The problems I see:
There has to be a force acting on the Moon to cause it to dip below the Sun since they normally share the same orbital height.
The Moon should look larger when it is closer to us and yet it doesn't. (no, the optical illusion of a large Moon on the horizon doesn't count. If you take a picture, you'll see the Moon is actually the same size)
How is it that the Moon and Sun haven't collided?
If the Sun and Moon orbit each other, what would ever cause the Moon to dip below and move across the Sun? That would be like the Moon dipping below the south pole and coming up the other side in the round Earth scenario.
Many thanks!

15

Flat Earth Theory / Question about tides/gravity

« on: August 19, 2017, 03:27:04 PM »

I read the wiki on tides, but it didn't have much info. As we know, large bodies of water (and land, ftm) go through regular tidal changes caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. FET claims the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of stars. It also states that the Moon has some gravitational attraction, which helps cause the tides. This raises a very important question. What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Why space launches?

« on: August 17, 2017, 01:00:03 AM »

Why do private companies spend millions of dollars to launch satellites into space if you can't get into space? Why are there private companies providing these services? Is everyone in on the conspiracy and are REALLY good at keeping secrets??

Another question - how does satellite radio work? I can drive anywhere and never lose the signal. (provided I have line of sight to the sky) I wish my cell phone was half as good. Why would a private company claim to be satellite radio if it isn't possible??? Again, in on the conspiracy?

17

Flat Earth Theory / How does FET explain these very simple errors

« on: August 16, 2017, 07:23:32 PM »

First, let me say this site is fantastic. Who doesn't like a little nutty conspiracy theory once in awhile. I have a feeling that 90% of the supposed FE supporters are actually just faking it for fun or to encourage critical thinking. I do worry about the other 10% who are suffering from delusional paranoia.

I read the Wiki and there are some very glaring facts that blow this "theory" out of the water.

The sun and planets. So FET says the Sun is roughly 3000 miles away and is only 32 miles across. A few things. 32 miles is not large enough to create enough gravitational pressure to initiate fusion in hydrogen gas. (and we do know what the sun is burning because of its spectral lines) You lack the mass.

The planets are small and orbit the sun a couple thousand miles away. If this is true, why has no group of intrepid FETers launched a mission to these tiny planets to prove to the world that the Earth is flat? I think we all know that answer to that one.

Your model of sunlight is verifiable incorrect. If the Earth is laid out as proposed, some locations in the east would still be in daylight, while areas southwest would be in the dark. A simple phone call between two people, one positioned southwest of another could prove that the Earth is illuminated by this "flashlight" sun. Why hasn't this very easy, inexpensive test been done??? Again, we know the answer.

Edge continent that keeps the air in. LOL, hard not to laugh when typing that. Where is this 50K foot tall wall of rock or ice surrounding this flat expanse of land?? Surely it could be mapped by a simple mission. Again, the answer to why no one has done this is very clear. Also, the theory about dark energy holding in the air is completely false. Dark energy and matter are named that because they DON'T INTERACT with normal matter. It wouldn't be dark energy if it was holding all the air in. lol

There are many other obvious problems with FET - what causes this acceleration that gives the illusion of gravity, why don't the sun, moon, and planets simply crash into the Earth? I could go on - magnetism without a metallic core, the seaborne radar problem, the fake vanishing point argument. Good fun, but the believers in this stuff are...well, I'll be nice and say nothing.