41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 14, 2018, 08:32:25 PM »

Tom, I think you missed you the part of this thread where I provided empirical observational evidence that Euclid's ideas of geometry and perspective are functional at a distance of 3000 miles.

The observable fact that the percentage of totality of a solar eclipse is proportional to the distance from the path totality it is observed from, fully supports Euclid geometry and perspective. It shows that angle the eclipse being observed from is not the same for all observers. It looks like this:



The moon appears to be observed from basically the same angle, that is the same side is presented, to all observers regardless of the distance of separation between them.

If the angle the eclipse is observed at is NOT the same for all observers, how can the angle the moon is observed at BE the same for all observers???

Please review the diagram and explain if geometry and perspective doesn't work for points thousands of miles distant from each other:

How is it that distant observers can all look up and observe the moon surfaces at the same angle but at the same exact moment in time observe that moon occlude the sun at different angles proportional to their distance from a median line extended from the center of the solar object, through the center of the lunar object and terminating on the ground?

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 06, 2018, 06:43:16 PM »

Does light travel in straight lines?

Yes and No.

Light travels in straight lines, except when it is refracted as it passes obliquely through the interface between one medium and another or through a medium of varying density.

We could talk about gravitational lensing, but that light is still going straight, it's the space that's curved. Being, that it's hard to see curved space (cause it's all empty and stuff), it just appears that the light is bending.

Do, I think light bends in the way indicated by the 'FE Perspective' arcs the diagram? 4311 no! That would be ignoring the observations of the August 21, 2017 solar eclipse (or any solar eclipse for that matter), which seems to (IMHO) strongly support that :

A) Light travels in a decently straight line from the Moon to Earth (generally less than 10% refraction due to the atmosphere)
and
B) Euclid's ideas about geometry and perspective are valid at a distance of thousand's of miles. (Tom's initial rejection)

If it didn't, everybody on the illuminated portion of Earth would enjoy a 100% Total Solar Eclipse every time there was a solar eclipse. They don't [unfortunately?] because perspective works [good enough at least] the way it's supposed to at that distance. (Tom's rejection refuted) Which still leaves FET in the position of needing to provide a model that can have:

A) All observers seeing the same side of the Moon
and
B) The same observers not seeing 100% totality of the Solar Eclipse

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 05, 2018, 07:52:45 PM »

Tom is suggesting Euclid geometry is not proven at distances of thousands of miles, but he's not suggesting an alternative, so all I can really do is guess at what he means and provide observational evidence that it actually does.

Support for Euclid geometry at a distance of 3000(ish) miles = The August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse:

If geometry and perspective work the way I understand [or at least imagine] Tom is suggesting, that some how distance observes both look up at the same surface of the Moon, the Eclipse should have been visible with 100% totality from, like, nearly the whole daylight zone of the Earth's surface. (Hint: It was not)

If geometry works the way Euclid indicates, the amount of totality should recede the further away from the path of totality that you are. (Hint: It does)

In my mind it looks something like this:



[Note: I'm not trying to strawman you here, Tom, this is what I think you are saying about geometry.
If the FE perspective lines to the Moon are wrong, please provide us a diagram that can account for
A) All observers seeing the same side of the Moon
B) The same observers not seeing 100% totality of the Solar Eclipse
C) [optionally] Falsifies Euclid geometry at 3000(ish) miles]

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 04, 2018, 03:36:54 AM »

I was under the impression that you agreed with FET that the Sun & Moon are 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the Earth for the reasons explained in the wiki. The wiki seems to suggest that triangles work at these distances when it states "Hence, if we assume that the earth is flat, triangles and trigonometry can demonstrate that the celestial bodies are fairly close to the earth." It also appears the diameters where calculated using the angular diameter and the 'known' distance (derived from from Euclid geometry).

[This isn't stated but I can see the math and since space travel isn't possibly, actually measuring the Moon isn't an option]

Tom, are you saying that the wiki (and FET) are incorrect about the height [and diameter] of these two objects and this is yet another case of 'The distance between X and Y is unknown'.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 04, 2018, 02:40:46 AM »

It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:

It really doesn't seem like reversed to me. Put one person further away, and the red dot will be gone. This diagram really seems to be biased.

That's my point, when two people separated by any appreciable distance look at an object 3000 miles away, they really aren't going to be seeing the same side of the object. I'm not sure what you mean by the diagram  being biased, so I drafted a scale and color coded version.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 02, 2018, 11:06:21 PM »

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

If Elucid's ideas about geometry (and perspective) were never demonstrated to apply at large scales, why does FET use it to determine how far away the Sun is?

In context of this topic:
I am also assuming this how the distance to the moon was calculated, as a tertiary search of the wiki for this information provided no results.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The moon

« on: February 02, 2018, 07:45:11 PM »

It's not the reversed orientation that is the problem. Here's a simple diagram:

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is Gravity.

« on: January 25, 2018, 07:05:59 PM »

Macarios - Excellent post. It seems like Spheres might also be looking for the flat earth model explanation.

 TFES 'official' explanations can be found in the wiki. However, it has been noted on several occasions to be out of date.

There is also a FAQ section and the forums have a search feature.

In most flat earth models, the force perceived as gravity, is the disc of the planet being accelerated upwards by force know as the Universal Accelerator (UA). The Universal Accelerator, as the name might imply, accelerates universally, so that the Sun, Moon and planets accelerate at the same rate as the disc of the earth. [There is also an infinite plane model in which gravity is gravity, but requires the Earth to be an infinite plane with infinite mass].

Please note that although it is called the Universal Accelerator, it does not actually accelerate things universally, objects like people, trees, small rocks and cheese are exempt.

Based of the fact that the air has a measurable weight (about 15 pound per square inch @ people altitude), I'd assume UA doesn't work on it either. I'm not sure is any explanation has been provided as to what holds the air on the disc. If I had to place a bet, I'd go with 'Celestial Gravitation', which is not to be confused with actual gravitation, as most FE proponents as careful to point out that their is no such thing as attraction between massive objects. What causes celestial gravitation is not well explained. [The other choice would probably be the 'Firmament'.]

Note 'Celestial Gravitation' is often attributed as the cause of local variances in the measured force of acceleration of the disc and the possibly tides. [Other models attribute tides to the bobbing of the floating continents in a great ocean]

Day and night is caused by the periodic rotation of a solar object over the disc. This solar object is 32 miles wide at a height of 3000 miles, with an rotational period of 24 hours. A second rotation, with a period of (about) 365.25 days causes it to transition along a path contained between the Tropics, which causes the seasons. It cast a directional beam of light as to only illuminate (about) half the disc at a time.

The Moon follows a similar rotational mechanic, also being 32 miles wide at an altitude of 3000 miles. I haven't seen a good FE description of the Moons motion, but I would assume it has a period of (about) 24 hours and 50 minutes. Some FE models claim it to be self illuminating and possessing a 'cold-light' (i.e. some sort of anti-photon that causes objects it falls upon on to get colder).

Finally, the stars differ between hemispheres either because:

a) there is a Bi-polar FE model (which you'll need to get someone else to explain because it's a level of [something] beyond my comprehension)
b) I've never come across a reasonable FE model explanation of the southern star field. My bet here would by, 'something to do with perspective'.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: NASA can't lie, Earth is round

« on: January 18, 2018, 09:12:49 PM »

Some FE'ers say NASA is simply mistaken about going to space (not sure how that works).

No, no one is saying that. Many FE'ers say that NASA is simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Well, "no one is saying that" is a very broad generalization. However I apologize, I did not intentionally misquote the Wiki. The corrected statement is:

+++++++++++++++++++++++
'Many FE'ers say that NASA is simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth.

However, if NASA knows it's faking space missions, it means NASA is launching, what is basically, a missile into the distance, to fake putting something into space. I'd like to think someone is at least checking to see that the expended rocket isn't going to land on something important (or even possibly recover it for reloading and reuse, which could be even more profitable[?] or at least wastes less of my tax dollars). After so many times of it not landing where it's supposed to, some rocket scientist would figure out "Oh, it's not coming down in the right spot because the Earth isn't round. Silly us."'
+++++++++++++++++++++++

I think it would be very irresponsible to launch a multi-ton rocket, that you know is going to fall back to Earth, without being fairly confident about where's it going to land, something that would require using the correct Earth model to figure out. So, no, I'm not really buying the just 'mistaken about the shape' thing.

I personally can't envision a scenario where NASA isn't all lies, all mistaken or completely correct, with mistaken being the least likely.

But, a debate on The Conspiracy page is a whole different topic.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm an "RE" but how do you debate this?

« on: January 18, 2018, 08:16:04 PM »

1. How can planes go from Europe or Asia to America without crossing the Atlantic Ocean, It'd be impossible if the Earth was flat to do that?
2. It's not prohibited to go to Antartica, you can go with exploration purposes. The treaty prohibits military use in Antartica. You can just go to Antartica for yourself and see there is no giant ice wall.
3. How do you explain the moon, stars, and other planets are round. You can get a telescope and see for yourself that the moon and other planets are spheres.
4. It's impossible for the Earth to be flat because of gravity. An object this size will collapse on itself because of the size.
5. If gravity doesn't exist how can you explain that in vacuum where there is no air, objects still fall and how can you explain that objects that are denser than others would fall faster because they are denser.

All of these topics have been addressed multiple times over and can be searched for within the forum. There is not really a single flat theory, but generally speaking, most would would provide the following refutations.

1. The GPS makes the pilots think the Earth is sphere and makes them fly along a longer route that takes them over the Atlantic.
2. Google some pics taken from the Ocean, sure looks like an ice wall to me. There maybe exploration to the Antarctic, but those are only just beyond the edge, even the ones to the 'South Pole' are merely to a spot were they are 'told' it's the South Pole.
3. The Earth is not a planet, it is a plane, and therefore no expectation that it should look like something it is not.
4. There is no gravity, the force of acceleration you feel is UA accelerating the disc of Earth upwards at 9.8 m/s². Local variations in that force are cause by Celestial Gravitation (not to be confused with a force of attraction between two massive bodies).
5. Those object are not falling, the Earth is accelerating toward them.


On a side note:

You are absolutely mistaken about an object of higher density falling faster in a vacuum. Gravity accelerates all objects at the same rate, regardless of mass or density. This can be seen in the equation describing gravitational attraction between two masses (EFE reduces to Newtonian Gravity where the gravitational field is weak and velocities are much less than the speed of light.):

 F=G((m₁ X m₂) / r²)

As you can see, the volume of the masses is not a factor.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: NASA can't lie, Earth is round

« on: January 18, 2018, 07:41:57 PM »

So many Flat Earthers claim that NASA is lying to us. But in the first place, why would they lie? They don't gain anything from this 'conspiracy' anyway.

Some FE'ers say NASA is simply mistaken about going to space (not sure how that works). Others point out that faking space missions is much cheaper than actually going to space, the difference in costs being money used to line the pockets of the corrupt leadership.

Firstly, Round Earth has already been proven true by our ancestors like Eratosthenes. One such case is how Eratosthenes could calculate the circumference of the Earth. As the Earth was round, he was able to measure the shadow of a rod at another location (let's call it location A) as the sun was directly overhead a well at Syene (Which had no shadow). From there he was able to conclude the circumference of Earth.
If Earth was flat (like a frisbee) , then there would be no shadow at BOTH the rod at location A and the well at Syene. Thus, the Earth could not be flat.

This assumes the rays of light are traveling nearly parallel, indicating a very large distance between the Earth and Sun. If the Sun where closer, the light would not be traveling parallel, the lencth of the shadows would be different. The difference in the shadow lengths would then indicate the altitude of the Sun (this is basically why FET says 3000 miles [give or take]). FET ignores (or otherwise rationalizes) the fact that when a location C, D and E are added, the calculated height to the Sun for each location yields a very different value for each location.

These were later proven to be very accurate with the help with modern technology. Firstly, if the Earth was flat, how would the Satellite orbiting Earth go in a full circle? If the Earth was flat, the Satellite would not be able to orbit properly, and will crash into flat Earth (or the other side of the flat Earth)

In FET, the satellites are are lie.

The defense against modern technology is that it was developed using RE theory and would therefore would only yield results supporting that theory. This is almost a semi-valid argument, given that inventions that indicated a flat Earth would likely be discarded as being 'broken'. No explanation is provided for how, if the Earth were in fact flat, an invention that depends on the Earth being round, works properly.

Next, if the Earth is flat? Why are we the only planet that is flat? Doesn't make sense right?

FET says, cause the Earth is special. It sprinkles in a little etymological fallacy about 'planet' meaning 'wondering star' in ancient Greek to divorce the meaning from the modern usage of 'planet', or state it's not a planet because planets are round and the Earth is not (circular reasoning fallacy).

Gravitational pull will cause the cosmic dust or rocks in space to clump together into a sphere like shape. This is because a sphere has the least surface area to volume ratio and is very stable.
In other words, if the Earth was flat, the gravitational pull of the Earth will be very unstable.

FET claims the Earth does not exhibit gravity (in fact gravity, a force of attraction between massive bodies, doesn't exists in FET at all). The accelerating force experienced is caused by the disk of the Earth being accelerated upwards by the Universal Accelerator (UA) at a constant rate of 9.8 m/s². Local variations are due to the effect of Celestial Gravitation (not to be confused as being caused by a force of attraction between two massive bodies though).

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ehy haven't round earthers gone to the South pole to prove flat earth wrong?

« on: January 12, 2018, 09:31:44 PM »

The South Pole is a tourist destination.

www.icetrek.com/join-a-trip/south-pole-and-antarctica
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole
https://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica/ships/...trips/south-pole-and-emperor-3

Trips are cost prohibitive and personal accounts are easily dismissed with the something along 'you were just taken somewhere on the ice wall that they told you was the south pole'. Some FE conjectures also include a South Pole.

As supaluminus correctly assesses, it's a waste of time and money to do it simply to debunk flat earth, as just going there doesn't.

The real question becomes what observation or experiment could be performed and documented at the South Pole, by an unaffiliated third party (that is someone not predisposed to debating the shape of the Earth) with little or no training at a reasonable cost that would provide sufficient evidence that the location identified as The South Pole is in fact, the southern pole of an axis of rotation running through the center of a very large and roughly spherical object?

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 12, 2018, 07:56:11 PM »

That was never the question. The argument was, "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X."

And that's why the argument was so flawed. A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X. You can make arguments about how you'd need to get farther away from the Earth, get a wider sub-section of the image. You could argue that trying to infer the bigger picture from a smaller part is inconclusive. There are many points you can make here.

But to claim that something that looks flat is not flat is not the same as claiming that a car that's been designed to imitate another car doesn't go fast.

That's just plain incorrect.

First, let's clear up the straw man fallacies:
My argument is not "a car that's been designed to imitate another car doesn't go fast."
My argument is: "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X." This argument does not preclude something from looking like x from actually being x. I never claimed that you couldn't build a replica car and it not be fast.

Second, let's clear up the Inductive fallacy, in this case an over-generalization:
For the assertion of "If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X." with a "for all intents and purposes" to be true then all things that look like, let's say, a square or rectangle would have to be squares or rectangles. Trying to infer the overall shape of a large object from looking at only a small part would certainly increase the difficulty though, wouldn't it? But we don't even need to invoke this sort of argument.

Look at your floor.

What shape does look like? A square or a rectangle?

I'm pretty sure it's not a square or rectangle (measurements would need to be taken to be positive), but when I was a professional tile setter, I never had the pleasure of laying tile in a room that was actually a square or rectangle. They all do sure look square (or rectangular), though, until you start measuring. For the purpose of professionally laying tile, just looking square - just isn't good enough.

Just for fun, I'll demonstrate "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X" works for Color as X:



The interior areas sure do look orange, but they are not orange.

Finally, as to the markings on the door and hood of the car. It looks '36' doesn't means it is '36'. It could actually be a stylized cursive 'ЗБ', someone's initials perhaps. Maybe even cleverly designed to look like the number 36? Probably highly unlikely. Some additional investigation would be required to determine which but still nothing precludes it from simply being '36'. I'm just not comfortable with positively declaring it to be '36' based solely on it's looks.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 11, 2018, 08:00:23 PM »

I'm still stuck on how looking out the window shows a flat Earth. All I see when I look the window is hills, (also a statement) should I conclude the Earth is hill shaped?

Also "It looks 'X'" does not automatically equal "It IS 'X'".

This car looks fast:



But see that 'replica' at the end of the URL, it's a body kit on an old VW bug. Comparing the 71 mph Bug vs. the actual Ferrari 146 mph, it is NOT fast. This is something that can't be discerned simply by looking at it. Taking it out on a test track would probably reveal it's true nature.

This same thing occurs to Flat Earth when it's taken out on a test, it's true nature is revealed to be something that is not flat.

We can, in fact, know the Earth is round because it's very easy to show mathematically that it cannot be flat - and it doesn't require telescopes or NASA or government information...

We can see the horizon curvature by looking carefully at high-altitude footage AND CORRECTING AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ANY LENS DISTORTION.  In fact, the curvilinear nature of this lens makes it CERTAIN we are seeing actual curvature because below lens center any curvilinear distortion would be FLATTENING out the actual curvature which is why I have carefully choosen [sic] a frame where the horizon is below lens center.



Once you know it is round you can also use this data to calculate the circumference and know how large around it is. Turns out it is very large - which is why merely looking at the horizon doesn't make it obvious.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Project ESDR

« on: January 10, 2018, 07:48:51 PM »

GoFast specs from (2 sources):

http://www.astronautix.com/g/gofast.html

Payload: 18 kg (39 lb). Gross mass: 350 kg (770 lb) ... Apogee: 124 km (77 mi).

The solid propellant motor for the rocket was designated S-50000 and was loaded with 196 kg lbs of ammonium perchlorate-based propellant configured in a monolithic case-bonded grain with a central fin-o-cyl core with a nearly neutral thrust profile. The case was aluminum 6061 with an outer diameter of 25 cm and 4.45 m long. The end closures were retained with two rows of radial bolts. The nozzle was created from a new process using a combination of graphite, carbon fiber, and ablative materials and featured a bell shaped exit cone. Following subscale tests, the final full sized motor delivered a total impulse of 44,000 kgf-sec with a total motor weight of 272 kg.

http://ddeville.com/derek/CSXT.htm

The "GoFast" Rocket

Diameter:   10" OD

Length:   21 feet

Liftoff weight:   724 lbs

Propellant weight:   435 lbs

Motor Classification:   S-50,150

Max Altitude:   72 miles

Max Velocity:   Mach 5

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a 1000kg of ammonium perchlorate is a bit of an over-estimation. Seem like about 200kg would be more than enough get the job done with a 18kg payload. We've already seen what a 250,000+ ft rocket looks like and probably have enough information to reverse-engineer the specific impulse of the motor.

On a side note:

The GoPro needs scrapped though (something about "a NASA-brand fisheye lens[es]"). The camera needs a rectilinear lens, which tend to be more expensive (and heavier).

It's already demonstrated that 380,000 ft isn't enough to demonstrate unmistakable roundness, maybe sticking with the extra fuel to get some extra height might?

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Project ESDR

« on: January 10, 2018, 05:20:31 PM »

Don't waste your time planning for 250,000 ft, that's not high enough.

The CSXT 'GOFast' launched 2014 reaching an altitude of 73.1 miles (verified to .6 miles at 95% confidence).



Take a minute to read the comments section on it...

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Chapter III of Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe 2015 Ravenio edition - again

« on: January 09, 2018, 06:15:34 PM »

The FES Wiki credits the Coriolis effect and (possibly Prevailing Disc(us?) Winds) to:

The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line.

However, this entertainingly suggests all the prevailing winds should either blow either from N-S (or vise versa, it's not particularly detailed about how the attraction of the systems causes the wind to be put in motion) due to the attraction...

OR

The wind picks up motion from the gears, in which case:

All the winds north (hubwise?) should rotate in one direction, I'd assume counter-clockwise (to match celestial direction) centered on the north pole. All the wind south...

...I'm not 100% sure how the Southern Celestial System(s) work, because the Southern Pole stars are sort of everywhere south at the same time and that's never been well explained... ...I can't really even take a good guess at, but in any case it would probably be counter-rotating.

Near the Equator, the wind from something like that just doesn't seem like it would induce any local rotation to a hurricane or affect the trajectory of a sub-orbital ballistic rocket (not sure if those are even permissible on FE).

Neither of these models (unsurprisingly) seem to match actual observations that have been made since the 1400's concerning the prevailing global winds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winds_in_the_Age_of_Sail
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_wind_patterns

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Chapter XI of Rowbotham

« on: January 08, 2018, 05:40:30 PM »

The cool moonlight hoax is the silliest yet.  Anyone with 2 dollars and a cardboard box can test this one.   Go to the dollar store and buy 2 thermometers.  Go out on a moonlit night and put both under the box blocking the moonlight and let them settle to the ambient temperature.   Now move one under the moonlight. 

Case closed.

Actually, that's how you set up an 'experiment' to show the moons cooling effect. The cardboard box will trap heat radiating off the objects under it. [That's why hoboes use cardboard as blankets.] The thermometer will say it is warmer under the box than in the moonlight, because it is. This shouldn't be confused with the moonlight having a cooling effect though.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides?

« on: January 05, 2018, 09:51:21 PM »

Is UA is a zetetic considerable?

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides.

« on: January 05, 2018, 06:21:53 PM »

Honestly, Chapter XII (or whatever it is) is an untenable argument, maybe it was OK 150 years ago, but now it's bunk. FE needs to consider updating it's conjecture. Personally, the best FE explanation I've seen went like this:

The lunar gravity differential field at the Earth's surface is the primary mechanism that drives tidal action.
The gravity differential field at the Earth's under-surface, caused by an 'Under-Moon', circulating 180 degree out of phase but otherwise identically to the 'Over-Moon', is the primary mechanism that drives antipodal tidal bulge.
Together their action accounts for two daily high waters.

(Personally, I'd go with this, as it fits the observed tidal effects and is impossible to disprove if you reject space travel)