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 - Science Supporter

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3]
41
Suggestions & Concerns / Suggestion: Upvote/Downvote Idea
« on: April 18, 2019, 04:19:28 AM »
I think it would be cool if there was a button that could allow us to like/dislike a post we view. Just a thought.

42
Yeah, there are tons of videos at 80k+ showing curvature very clearly. I remember like a month ago I watched this guy sent lasagna to space as a joke to help PewDiePie. He was able to get footage at 95k feet with very visible curvature. This is a random, average citizen. Not part of NASA, the government, just a random YouTuber with 2 million subscribers who probably doesn't even know the Flat Earth Theory exists!
Original video:

43
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Eclipes
« on: April 18, 2019, 03:42:54 AM »
How would these work on a flat earth if the sun and moon are level with each other and are moved by the aetheric whirlpool (this is what I've heard).
The FE Wiki claims that the New Moon occurs when the moon is below the Sun's altitude of the orbit. So that causes a solar eclipse according to them but there's still some controversy between how lunar phases work. Even Tom admitted they don't know much about this, as he said, "Not much is known about the celestial bodies and there differences".

44
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Earth's Oval Orbit defies Science!
« on: April 14, 2019, 09:24:12 PM »
Earth's eccentricity is only .016, so it's almost no difference.

45
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Law Of Perspective
« on: April 13, 2019, 03:47:16 AM »
It appears that this thread has nearly 100 views, and no replies. But to test that the angular size of the Sun is constant, here are some videos I found online:





And there's probably many, many more videos.

These videos clearly show the Sun not enlarging/shrinking at all. It proves that the angular size of the Sun does not change.


46
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 'Oumuamua Comet
« on: April 11, 2019, 03:45:04 PM »
So I read the post, and then briefly looked at the rest of the links. The comet is still being affected by gravity, causing its path, but it was mostly affected by cometary outgassing.

You haven't done your homework.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.11490.pdf

From a theoretical point of view, Rafikov (2018) has shown that if outgassing was responsible for the acceleration (as originally proposed by Micheli et al. 2018), then the associated outgassing torques would have driven a rapid evolution in ‘Oumuamua’s spin, incompatible with observations.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/6-strange-facts-about-the-interstellar-visitor-oumuamua/

The extra push for ‘Oumuamua could have originated by cometary outgassing if at least a tenth of its mass evaporated. But such massive evaporation would have naturally led to the appearance of a cometary tail, and none was seen. The Spitzer telescope observations also place tight limits on any carbon-based molecules or dust around ‘Oumuamua and rule out the possibility that normal cometary outgassing is at play (unless it is composed of pure water). Moreover, cometary outgassing would have changed the rotation period of ‘Oumuamua, and no such change was observed.

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/476/3/3031/4909830

The lack of evidence for outgassing means that the purely observational prior favours an asteroid-like composition.


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.06389.pdf

However, a recent measurement by Micheli et al (2018) of a substantial non-gravitational acceleration affecting the orbit of this object has been interpreted as resulting from its cometary activity, which must be rather
vigorous. Here we critically re-assess this interpretation by exploring the implications of measured
non-gravitational acceleration for the ’Oumuamua’s rotational state. We show that outgassing torques
should drive rapid evolution of ’Oumuamua’s spin (on a timescale of a few days), assuming torque
asymmetry typical for the Solar System comets. However, given the highly elongated shape of the
object, its torque asymmetry is likely higher, implying even faster evolution. This would have resulted
in rapid rotational fission of ’Oumuamua during its journey through the Solar System and is clearly
incompatible with the relative stability of its rotational state inferred from photometric variability.
Based on these arguments, as well as the lack of direct signs of outgassing, we conclude that the
classification of ’Oumuamua as a comet (invoked to explain its claimed anomalous acceleration) is
questionable.
It is questionable, however scientists are certain it came from an interstellar space, possibly from a solar system like ours. They also concluded it had high speeds before reaching the solar system.

47
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Size of the Flat Earth
« on: April 11, 2019, 02:13:43 AM »
There are many models, so it could be several things
This is not about flat earth. This is a proof for a globe earth.
Their calculations might be wrong
They were, with an error of 15%. I said that in my original post. But the fact that they got a somewhat accurate calculation for the technology they had 2300 years ago is impressive.
How do you know the people in other parts of the world weren't lying
That makes no sense. At the time, they didn't know much about the world. So if they found the circumference of earth, this would be a remarkable discovery. Also, he did this by himself.
Maybe degrees have a different length in different parts of the world but they measured wrong
No, he hypothesized that Syene (a city where he did his observations in) was 7 degrees, 14 arcseconds from Alexandria (the other city) on a curved surface. That's around 50 times smaller than a circle, so he multiplied the distance from both cities by 50 to get the circumference of a circle.
Were you there? The entire story could be made up, all the numbers could be lies
"All the numbers can be lies", yet out of a wild guess he got the circumference of Earth with an accuracy of 85%?
There are many ways this could be wrong, so one can still believe FE with so much possibility of dismissal of your idea.
Really?! Can you please explain why?


48
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 'Oumuamua Comet
« on: April 11, 2019, 12:28:39 AM »
I think you have this place confused with YouTube.
No... this is clearly YouTube. Although this new update looks weird.
Non-gravitational acceleration of the Oumuamua comet:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2122759#msg2122759
So I read the post, and then briefly looked at the rest of the links. The comet is still being affected by gravity, causing its path, but it was mostly affected by cometary outgassing.

49
Flat Earth Theory / 'Oumuamua Comet
« on: April 10, 2019, 03:43:46 AM »
'Oumuamua is a comet that had a hyperbolic trajectory with an eccentricity of 1.2. It passed the Sun in late of 2017, with the object's velocity at the perihelion (.25 AU) being 87km/s. Far greater than the Sun's escape velocity at that distance, thus a hyperbolic orbit. I was wondering how flat earthers can explain this? According to the FET, everything is around the dome, completing a full rotation once every 24 hours. How can an object break this rule, and have a hyperbolic orbit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua

50
Flat Earth Theory / Size of the Flat Earth
« on: April 10, 2019, 02:31:21 AM »
It is commonly known that Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the spherical Earth by observing the Sun's rays during summer solstice. He made a slight error in his calculation of only 15%, which was very impressive for the technology they had 2300 years ago. Knowing this, he was also able to calculate the radius of the spherical earth. Knowing the radius, we can accurately calculate the mass of the Earth since we know that g=9.8m/s, and we know the distance between both objects. Which is r^2. (The equation is m=gr^2/G, which is derived from Newton's famous formula.)

For the flat earth, on the Wiki, it gives an estimate of the flat earth radius. I'm not sure if other flat earthers disagree with the mass too. Why haven't experiments been done to calculate the flat earth's radius, and possibly mass too? Am I not looking hard enough?

51
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of the Moon
« on: April 06, 2019, 10:25:28 PM »
I’d love to see a diagram of how FE thinks a full moon works. I know they say something about the sun and moon varying in altitude because of...reasons.
But even with that I’m not clear how the angles would work such that the sun could illuminate enough of the moon than it’s full for everyone on the night side of the disc.

I’ve been encouraging them to build this model for some time. I’m even willing to help! It seems like an obvious first task to legitimise FET.

Hence, I am a little surprised at the lack of response.

If I didn’t know better, I’d almost think that they were not interested in legitimising FET. But that’s absurd, why wouldn’t they be?

There is a possible epicycle trajectory that should work for mapping the sun and moon patterns over a FE. I’d need their help in figuring out whether this could also provide the moon phases.
I would LOVE to see an animation/diagram/picture showing how they work on a flat earth.

52
Flat Earth Theory / Phases of the Moon
« on: April 06, 2019, 12:51:53 AM »
So I read the FE Wiki about the lunar phases and I have some questions.

Quote
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.

When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
So how high/low does the Sun change altitude? We should be seeing the Sun's angular size increase/decrease, but this isn't reality.
Also, since the sun is an omni flourescent light (at least I think it is on the flat earth), we should be seeing the Sun's light faintly illuminate the moon's top hemisphere.
With the full moon now being above the Sun's orbital path, what causes it to FULLY illuminate the moon's surface? Because, the Sun should be at the same angle above/below the moon's orbit for the full/new moon for this to happen. Why are the two so drastically different?

I'd also like to hear an explanation how ALL observers on the flat earth can see the same lunar phase. Because, if you are "behind" the moons orbit, it would almost always be a new moon for you.

53
Flat Earth Theory / Law Of Perspective
« on: April 04, 2019, 02:36:26 AM »
Need to know stuff;
-FE Wiki states the Sun's diameter is 32 miles and the Sun is 3200 miles high.
-Lets assume the Sun is circling above the equator during the Equinoxes.
-Circumference of the orbit is 39000 miles
-Sun is moving at 1625 mph

Using the Law of Perspective, a=2*arctan(g/2r) where:
a=angular size
g=size of the object
r=distance to the object

Noon

a=2*arctan(g/2r)
a=2*arctan(32/6400)
a=.57 degrees

Sunrise
Since the observer is on the equator, the radius of the orbit is 6213 miles. We need to find the hypotenuse of a right isosceles triangle. Using pythagorean theorem:
a^2 + b^2 = c^2
c=8786 miles
Concluding, the distance from the observer to the sun during sunrise is 8786 miles.
Now, going back to the Law of Perspective equation,
a=2*arctan(32/17573)
a=.206

.206/.57=2.7

The size of the Sun is supposed to change 2.7x during the day.

That doesn't happen.

Please correct my math if I made a mistake.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3]