61

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 02:07:14 PM »

Yes the bipolar model is symmetric in the east-west and north-south direction. But the symmetry axis in the north-south direction is not fixed. If it  would go through Australia we would have a similar mapping of distances to longitudes/latitudes as on a globe. In general the bipolar map has less significant problems with distortions than the unipolar one.

Of course, it has other severe problems, but for discussions it is quite convenient to have it as backup to counter arguments.     

Is this the model (below)? How would it not have distortions of distance? The equatorial regions for example? [edit] Also the mapping below has curved lines of longitude.

That model wont work.

At present we are sailing from North west Australia to japan, and i am pretty certain we are not going PAC~Man off the edge of the world doing it.....

Sorry, I forgot to mention, that the Pac-Man effect is a necessity for the bipolar model... But, nothing is perfect...

62

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 02:04:28 PM »

Without experiments on the universe to tell us whether the underlying theories are true, you are just observing and interpreting. Astronomy is not a real science. Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation. The practice is a disgrace and really no better than Astrology.

My emphasis. Wow.

This is indeed one of the most remarkable statements. Ironically, what he is criticizing here is exactly the zetetic way as it is exemplified in EnaG. A guy going around, doing some observations and interpreting them. 

"Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation": Take what they call the "Bishop experiment". A guy going down to the beach looking over the water and imaging up the explanation that the world is flat.

63

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 01:51:08 PM »

Yes, but no one here is claiming to do science, in the opposite they have strong objections against science and scientific argumentation.

Could some bona fide Flatearther confirm this please? The objections in question are not against the claims of established science themselves, but rather scientific methodology itself, i.e. the method science uses to confirm or disconfirm truth claims. That's pretty important.

I thought that FE did use the scientific methodology, except they come up with different answers.

Let's say they accept science where it is not in contradiction to the "obvious truth that the earth is flat". They throw away many areas of optics, gravity, the whole physics about planetary motion, the mechanism how the sun produces its energy, basically everything in astrophysics and geophysics. There are contradictions to quantum mechanics, the standard model in particle physics, electrodynamics, optics.

Roughly you can say, its a scientific picture like in the early 19th century. With some selective exceptions, e.g. there affinity to the equivalence principle.

Methodically they claim to be empiricists, which they call zetetics. Basically, that means draw conclusions only from direct observations with a minimum of tools and assumptions, just by your senses. Like looking out of the window or jumping from a chair to see how the earth is approaching you. And believe it only, if you tried and experienced yourself. 

       

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: May 31, 2018, 12:32:35 PM »

OK he is entirely serious.

I told you...

65

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 12:32:01 PM »

However, this is not how we do science, at least as I learned it.

Yes, but no one here is claiming to do science, in the opposite they have strong objections against science and scientific argumentation.

But otherwise, how would you manage to argue for years for a completely lost point? I really admire how they brought there way of arguing to perfection. Beside that the earth is flat, there is no other distinct claim. For everything they present at least two complementary explanations. None of them fully worked out into details. No formulas, no quantification, only qualitative statements. It's just perfect :-)

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison

« on: May 31, 2018, 12:24:59 PM »

And you seriously think they will accept this? Even if you would be able to walk over water and measure the distances by hand with a ruler they would not believe it, because how could you be sure that you are walking always directly in straight line? You know this kind of argumentation e.g. when you argue about size and shape and position of the South Pole?   

67

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 12:19:25 PM »

That's one of endless possibilities to draw it. Of course it has distortions, but not that severe as the unipolar one has in the south. And the circular one in the wiki has even less distortions. Not for Australia, but that you can correct by putting Australia on the vertical symmetry axis.

The point is not to show one single map, that solves all problems, it's about having something that you can present for the problem that is actually discussed.

So you can draw a flat map with a more or less undistorted Australia, so you are able to refuse the claim there can be no map that shows Australia undistorted. And so easily you can disregard all arguments against a flat earth one by one.

 

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: May 31, 2018, 12:06:23 PM »

Then you agree that the furthest light rays approach the observer tangential with an angle of 0°? But then the sun stays at the horizon, and not below the horizon.

But if the light rays are continuously curved beyond 0° than you will see the light coming from below.

It is very simple and obvious to see if you just draw one more light ray to the left or right in the figure of the original post.

Otherwise, the figure is made in a very clever way. Who ever made it just left out the critical parts where the light light beams emerging from the sun under such a flat angle that the light is curved upwards in the literal sense.

And just as a reminder, in case you think such flat angles are not possible: "Any given part of a light source will emit light in all possible directions." 

69

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 11:52:35 AM »

That's not true. In the bipolar model you can place the symmetry axis such, that the distance for Australia would fit. That's the convenience of having no agreed model. You can always point out that you're arguing against the wrong model.

Are you certain of that? In that case the model would have to dispute the assumption of 38 degrees longitude, no? I may be wrong.

Yes the bipolar model is symmetric in the east-west and north-south direction. But the symmetry axis in the north-south direction is not fixed. If it  would go through Australia we would have a similar mapping of distances to longitudes/latitudes as on a globe. In general the bipolar map has less significant problems with distortions than the unipolar one.

Of course, it has other severe problems, but for discussions it is quite convenient to have it as backup to counter arguments.       

70

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 11:25:52 AM »

Spelling it out. He takes two points on the same latitude, then makes three claims

1. The difference in longitude is 38 deg.
2. The distance overland is 3,687km.
3. The distance implied by any FE model is 8,885km.

What FE model or belief is he misrepresenting here?

That's not true. In the bipolar model you can place the symmetry axis such, that the distance for Australia would fit. That's the convenience of having no agreed model. You can always point out that you're arguing against the wrong model.   

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: May 31, 2018, 11:12:06 AM »

Seems to be difficult to understand... I can try again... When it is tangential, in the next moment it is point upwards. Therefor the apparent position of the sun will be below the surface of the earth. So the sun would not appear to shine out of the sky anymore, it would appear to shine out of the earth's surface.

It would simply never disappear.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: May 31, 2018, 10:59:30 AM »

You can be sure that this guy is 100% serious about everything he is writing. The sun is just a few hundred meters in diameter and 10 km above the earth...

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: May 31, 2018, 10:55:07 AM »

That is obviously wrong. At one point it has to be tangential otherwise the angle between the light rays and the surface would always be non-zero positive. And therefor the sun would not appear to be even close to the horizon.

Its like the example of the projectile movement. At the highest point of the parabola the motion is parallel to the surface.

Of course it is only tangential at one point, it does not continuously follow this direction. But that's even worse, because for every one further away the light approaches him by an negative angle, therefore pointing upwards, so it would appear as if the sun is inside the earth.

Just look at the illustration of the projectile motion and extrapolate the apparent origin of the projectile along every point of its curve assuming that the projectile is going straight at every point. That's how the EA concept let's you think the sun is sinking in the sky, the light is curved, but the apparent position of the sun is the linear extrapolation of the light direction if it approaches you.     

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: May 31, 2018, 09:21:04 AM »

If you look at the original illustration there is another obvious drawback of the EA concept. The 6am/6pm approach the surface almost tangential, therefor the sun would appear to stay just at the horizon, but not behind or below the horizon. And that would be the lowest point. Because of the constant upward acceleration the beams that are emitted under a slightly larger angel would approach the observer in an upward direction. That would lead to the paradox that sun would appear as being below the surface but still be visible.

This could be solved if one would assume that the upward acceleration is not constant, it stops acting on light that is tangential to the surface, but then the sun would never disappear, it would stay all the time at the horizon until its starts to rise again.

Another problem is the light that shines perpendicular onto the surface. If we take the term constant acceleration literally, this light would feel a acceleration in the opposite direction towards the sun, so it would be slow downed. And cause of the speed of light is the product of wavelength and frequency, either both of them or at least one of them would have to change.

Similar problems would occur for the other directions. The horizontal velocity component would be unaffected,while the vertical component would slow down. For the tangential 6am/6pm light, the vertical component would be zero, so the light would propagate with the initial horizontal component parallel to the earth surface. Lets assume an initial angle of 45° for this light, the speed of light would reduced by a factor 1/sqrt(2). The morning or evening light from the sun would therfor be significantly slower than the light emitted directly parallel to the surface....             

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison

« on: May 31, 2018, 07:07:20 AM »

The same issue you have with the length of the equator. If r_E is the mean radius of the round earth, than the length of the round-earth equator is 2*pi*r_E. And the distance between the two poles is then roughly half of it: pi*r_E. And therefor the distance from the north pole to the equator is 0.5*pi*r_E.

Therefor the flat-earth equator has a length of 2*pi*0.5*pi*r_E = pi^2 * r_E. If you compare the two results,you see that the FE equator is longer by a factor of pi/2.

That's one of the the reasons why it is so essential for flat-earth believers to deny the possibility to measure distance over sea. Because that way you can account this factor of about 1.5 completely to the width of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.     

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: May 31, 2018, 06:44:06 AM »

This topic on the "other" board to which sandokhan is linking goes back 9 years, and holds some fascinating stuff.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0


Edit: And this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101219061827/http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183

Yes, it is really enlightening...

The interesting thing, that he even has not understood what the the people 100 years ago thought the ether is and his purpose would be. It is also interesting that he tries to prove the flat earth via the existence of the ether by citing old experiments that where all done and interpreted at that time in light of the standard geocentric model. 

It's a total mess of misinterpretations and lack of real understanding beyond the pure math of the formulas he is posting.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: May 30, 2018, 03:30:02 PM »

It doesn't help that you copy paste random formulas (that, I guess you barely understand)

I understand them.

I was able to derive the GLOBAL NATURAL LOGARITHM FORMULA:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1910773#msg1910773

LN V =  2ⁿ x ((-2 + {2 + [2 + (2 + 1/V + V)^1/2]^1/2...}^1/2))^1/2   (n+1 evaluations)


By summing the nested continued square root function, we finally obtain:


LN V = 2ⁿ x (V^1/2n+1 - 1/V^1/2n+1)

This is the first explicit global formula for the natural logarithm, which can be used immediately to find LN V without resorting to logarithm tables, or calculators which feature the logarithm key: all we need is a calculator which has the four basic operations and the square root key. It links algebraic functions with elementary and higher transcendental functions.

Here is my global arctangent formula:

ARCTAN V =  2ⁿ x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ V²)}^1/2)^1/2]...^1/2}))^1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)

Looks like soon you will get the Fields Medal...

It really doesn't help that you put together random out of context citations. Also linking other post by you or links to pseudoscience institutes does not help...

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: May 30, 2018, 03:00:07 PM »

But this is pre-Einstein stuff...

You still don't get it.

It doesn't help that you copy paste random formulas (that, I guess you barely understand), mix up physics buzzwords and call mediocre scientists world leading experts. You're discussing things that (beside not being relevant for the topic here) simply outdated, not relevant in actual discussions.

I believe you, that you are honestly convinced to be into something big, but you aren't. If physics is your hobby, go to a university, take some lectures and discuss with the people there to get e feeling for what is really going on.

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: May 30, 2018, 01:16:08 PM »

One of the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism of all time, Dr. Terence W. Barrett has proven that the Sagnac effect can only be explained in the context of the Whittaker potential scalar waves, using advanced topology.

Dr. Terence W. Barrett (Stanford Univ., Princeton Univ., U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Univ. of Edinburgh, author of over 200 papers on advanced electromagnetism)

Just to add something to this guy... I checked on Web of Science and Research Gate. And the result makes me a bit suspicious. There is a T.W. Barrett who indeed worked at Universities with high reputation, but not in physics or something related, but e.g. in Stanford at the Department of Psychiatry and Neurophysiology... All this papers (by the way its only 133 articles according Research Gate) are about some neuroscience stuff and related things. All papers 30-40 years old.

And then there are Papers by a Terence W. Barrett about stuff related to electromagnetism. But with a private address in Vienna VA as affiliation. I'm a bit suspicious that this are different guys, which can easily happen on Research Gate. Or he changed his research interest after his retirement, which could be. In any case he is not the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism of all time. His work on this field has more or less no citations. Therefor no impact to and acknowledgment by the relevant scientific community. 

A cross check with Web of Science is also very interesting. A search for "Barrett, TW" and the affiliations given on Research Gate results in 78 publications, 70 of them until 1984. After that there is a gap of twenty years with no publications. Anyway, none of this publications are related to "electromagnetism". This is a really wired "greatest experts of all time"...

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: May 30, 2018, 12:27:29 PM »

But this is pre-Einstein stuff... Of course at that time the ether was under discussion. People tried to proof it or argued against it. But now we are more then 100 years later and all this has be shown to be not correct and irrelevant. Only some freaks are digging out old stuff like this and convince themselves they made some great discoveries. And also this guy is meanwhile forgotten, no one cares which prizes he has won. And he is definitely not one of the top scientists of the last century. 

That's science, if something is new you go through a time of controversial discussions. Several ideas, models, theories, experimental data and so on are published, some of them in heavy contradiction to each other. But over time you see how this converges into a coherent picture. And the question of ether is long ago solved and shown to be irrelevant. 

That's how it goes. Look at Einstein, he started a revolution in our view on the universe, but when the next revolution that completely changed our understanding on a very different scale started, he never accepted it. Suddenly he was the old guy, sticking to old concepts.