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.

Topics - IronHorse

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Spotlight Sun
« on: June 17, 2020, 09:42:09 AM »
Reading Toms post under FE Projects about updating the entry for the Sun under the FAQ page it reminded me of a question I wanted to ask in relation to the Sun. I didn't feel it was right to post this question as a reply to that so created this separately.

On the FAQ page of the Wiki, we see an animated GIF showing the Sun and Moon revolving around the NP.  From the impression given by the animation it seems that sunlight only shines down on the Earth (to create day time). 

If the Sun is casting light only downwards on the Earth but only to a specific region, then what is illuminating the Moon?  If you compare the size of area of the Earth surface covered by sunlight with the distance between the Sun and the Moon then it is clear that the Moon lies beyond the range of sunlight.

If sunlight is not being cast downwards only (illuminating the Moon as well as it is) then it will illuminate the whole of the Earths surface according to the diagram as there is nothing to prevent it from doing so.  Hence there could be no night time.

Flat Earth Theory / Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 04, 2020, 09:52:10 PM »
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

If I was a bacterium or microbe walking over the surface of a beach ball (comparable size scale to a human walking on Earth) I could carry on walking for ever but I would never have any conscious awareness that I was walking on a curved surface. Nor indeed would it ever look curved to me. So no tricks here - just a matter of scale.

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

Why is it a more simple explanation to say they really can't do all that 'stuff'? Space flight is a very recent invention (spurred on my WWII and originated by the Germans). Just because some people consider something to be unbelievable that doesn't mean to say it is not true and real.  Unless of course that something counters a personal belief in which case you can choose not to believe it.

When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious and highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?

You can say the Earth appears to accelerate toward the person in freefall if you wish. Equally valid is the observation that the person is accelerating towards the ground.  How can you show for definite that it is the Earth accelerating upwards towards the stationary person?  You can claim it for sure but how can you show that the FE claim is any more valid than the conventional claim that the person is falling towards the Earth?  In fact the person and the earth are accelerating towards each other but because the Earth is so much more massive that the person, the amount of acceleration of the Earth towards the person is so small as to be unmeasurable.

What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?

Again why is it the simplest explanation? This is basically just saying that you should reach a conclusion based purely and exclusively on the directly available observational evidence. That is not the case in nature. The Earths rate of spin at a given latitude is constant. That is why you don't feel it. Also in relation to the Earths circumference the rate of spin is very slow (360 degrees over 24 hours) so you don't get any conscious real-time sensation of centripetal acceleration. If you were to sit on a roundabout in a kiddies playground and have it spin once every 24 hours you wouldn't feel that spinning either.

What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?

Again another case where 'simple' and 'real' are completely different. I look up in the sky at Betelgeuse for example and I find it hard to imagine that if I were to replace the Sun with Betelgeuse then the whole of the inner solar system would be swallowed up. Can I prove that myself? No but astronomers have studied Betelgeuse using various techniques (all of which I know will be unacceptable as evidence from the FE point of view) and I respect and accept the results of their research. We know that Betelgeuse is a red supergiant from spectral observations. The FE response will be prove it! show it to be true! evidence please!  Well there is plenty of that out there so take a page out of your own manual and do your own research.

In summary the FE interpretation of 'Occams Razer' is simply that seeing is always believing.  Actually that is not true. Not by a long shot.

Pages: [1]