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 - Pinky

Pages: [1]
1
How do FE-researchers account for the limited resolution of the instruments they use?

You can measure a distance only with a certain accuracy, you measure angles only with a certain accuracy, you can measure time only with a certain accuracy, digital images have a pixel-resolution and silverhalogenide-photographies have a grain-resolution. How do you take that fact into account?

How do you design your experiments and how do you analyze your data to sidestep the problem that you cannot get a precise value?

2
I'm talking about these guys
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/

What was going on there?

3
Is it okay to base an argument on the numbers that he measured, even though we cannot confirm that his experiment was done correctly?

Are his numbers to be considered estimates with the caveat of a certain error of accuracy? What is our estimate for the errors of his numbers? 1%? 10% 1°? 0.1°? 5°?

Or are his experiments deemed not quantitatively correct at all (and the numbers not trustworthy) but qualitative observations that point to a basic conclusion?
In that case we should be careful, because we then don't know how trustworthy Rowbotham's conclusion is. All we would end up with would be a conclusion whose validity could rank anywhere from completely true to mostly true to mostly false to completely false. We wouldn't even know whether to trust Rowbotham's conclusion or not.

4


Let's ignore the mainstream-science explanation for crepuscular rays with light-scattering and perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays
Let us ignore that. Let's instead assume that what we see with our unaided eyes were true: That the rays emanate DIRECTLY from a light-source.



You cannot use the angles of the crepuscular rays to deduce the position of the Sun, because you don't know how far away the cloud is.

A simple experiment to demonstrate my geometric argument:
Shine a light on a wall. In front of the light hold a piece of paper, so you can see its shadow. (Or just hold a paper in front of your face and squint your eyes.) Hold the paper in such a way that a corner points up.
If you hold the paper upright, the shadow of the corner has the same angle as the corner. 90°
Now, as you tilt the paper, the angle of the shadow of the corner gets bigger and bigger than 90°, even though the corner still has 90°.



My point is: What you see in the crepuscular rays is not an upright triangle. You see a tilted triangle and you have no idea how far away the top corner is. From the crepuscular rays you could deduce the vector from the position of your eye to the position of the source of light, but you don't know where on that line the source of light is.

Now, if we were to triangulate the directions of crepuscular rays from several positions on Earth, THEN we could calculate where the top corner of the triangle is, but a single observer cannot measure the tilt of the triangle. He sees only the projection of the triangle.

Therefore, observing crepuscular rays as shown in the image above is no proof for the distance of the Sun or for Flat Earth.

5
Suggestions & Concerns / Question about logic.
« on: February 05, 2019, 09:42:01 AM »
I have noticed that several people on this forum post statements that are illogical and/or mathematically incorrect.

Am I allowed to correct them or will my attack on their logic be regarded as an attack on them as a person, respectively as an attack on the FE-community?

6
So, the Sun moves farther away from us during the day.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun

From its point of view, we occupy a smaller and smaller fraction of its 4*pi spatial angle. This means, we get less and less of its photons.

However: The Sun at the same time stays at the same observed size due to glare. To us, the Sun keeps occupying the same angle and same area in the sky.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

This means, that less and less photons are coming from an area in the sky that stays at the same size.

And this means, the Sun would have to get darker throughout the day. Not simply less daylight as the same amount of sunlight is stretched with 1/cos(alpha) over more and more terrestrial area. But a real decline of brightness of the Sun-disc itself.

And we do not observe such a change in brightness...

7
1. Has Earth been proven to be flat or is its true shape merely unknown?

2. Is newtonian gravity as a general concept real or a mirage, a side-effect of other physical phenomena such as the density of an object?
What experiment convinced you that newtonian gravity is/isn't real?

3. Is the movement of the Sun known (e.g. it moving in a circle above FE) or is the true movement of the Sun still unknown and subject of research?

4. Do the other planets move above Flat Earth in a similar way as the Sun or do they move apart from Earth in astronomical distances?

5. Is there a universe full of stars or are they affixed to a dome?

6. Are Einstein's theories of General Relativity and Special Relativity accepted in the FE-community?
What experimental proof convinced you that they are correct/incorrect?

7. Does sunlight move in straight lines in the atmosphere (as postulated by Rowbotham) or does it move in curved lines (as postulated in the "Electromagnetic Accelerator")?

8. Are man-made satellites real? Yes or No?

9. What percentage of the FE-community is creationists? (Rough estimate.)

10. What percentage of the FE-community believes in the Nasa and space-travel conspiracy? (Rough estimate.)

8
Flat Earth Theory / How do sunsets work?
« on: November 29, 2018, 08:49:10 AM »
I have read these
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

And I am more confused than ever.

The second Wiki-page says that sunset is due to the Sun moving so far away that its observed size shrinks beyond the resolution of the eye.

But the third Wiki-page says that the observed size doesn't shrink despite the Sun moving further away, because of light-scattering in the atmosphere.

If the Sun maintains its observed size despite moving further away, then why does the Sun disappear eventually? Why is there a cutoff? Why does the Sun maintain a certain observed size throughout the day and then the observed size suddenly shrinks within a few minutes and it's gone?

How far away is the Sun when it goes from non-shrinking to shrinking?



The second Wiki-page mentions some non-transparent atmospheric layer that dims sunlight, but that doesn't explain the sharp cutoff and it doesn't explain why the Sun-disc shrinks asymmetrically while maintaining its radius.

9
Has anybody ever made a Flat-Earth map that can bring me from A to B to C, with all angles and distances matching reality AND usable for distances upwards of 1000 km? May I pretty please see it?

I was wondering: If the FE-maps of old were correct, then how were the seafaring navigators tricked into giving up their accurate FE-maps for inaccurate SE-maps and how come no seafaring navigator has ever complained that the SE-maps give wrong distances and wrong angles?

10
We know the "scientific method":
Theory -> Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Comparison of theoretical prediction and experimental data -> Decision whether to keep or to abandon the theory -> Repeat with a new theory

What exactly is this "zetetic method"? I have found a definition here:
http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method
Experiment -> Hypothesis -> Theory

Is this what Flat-Earthers are using?

11
According to UA,FE accelerates upwards at 9.81 m/s². That means, it would have reached relativistic velocity within less than a year and we are currently travelling very close to light-speed.

The stars are travelling at negligible velocities and independently from Flat Earth. That means, when the photons enter our moving frame of reference, they will get a blue-shift.
1. Element-specific spectral lines of the stars, of our Sun, of gas-lamps in the lamp, they would all be different from each other (bc blueshift) if UA were true. Except they are identical.
2. The blueshift would mean that starlight coming from directly above would be blue or violet. As we are moving close to light-speed, it is reasonable to assume, that the blue-shift has already shifted starlight beyond the visible range. Accordingly, if UA were true, there would be no starlight coming from directly above.



Could you please update your wiki? Thx.

12
I have two major issues with Flat Earth-research:



1.
An argument I see over and over again is "Earth/planets/sky/sun/nightsky do not like I expected them to look, therefore the observation must be false."
This is literally a prescientific medieval mindset, where theory is given priority over experiment. How come nobody is calling this out?

How come that this community prides itself in not believing what they are told and only believing what you have measured, and then they turn around and dismiss a measurement because they don't like the result?



2.
Why do we accept the premise that there is a RE-conspiracy? The only purpose of this conspiracy-theory is to serve as an excuse to dismiss measurements and data Flat-Earthers don't like.
* The existence of this conspiracy has never been proven in any way, neither by objective evidence nor by witnesses. It is entirely hypothetical.
* The mere probability of such a conspiracy existing without getting revealed over time is astronomically low. (There is a scientific paper that can model how long different types of conspiracies can stay hidden before a whistleblower reveals them.)

Why do we shape our research around a premise that is 100% unproven and that is next to impossible to even exist?
Why do Flat-Earthers rather believe in something that is 100% unproven rather than accept the possibility that the photo is real and that their opinion is wrong?




I was over in the other forum. I have met people who literally believe in magic, I have met people who believe that ancient civilizations were technologically more advanced than we are, I have met people who claimed to have received visions from the future and that therefore their statements are the absolute truth and beyond doubt.



I will furthermore refuse to humor Flat-Earthers by engaging with them in a scientific debate that is premised on a religion that they invented for the purpose of tilting scientific debates in their favor. And neither should other Round-Earthers.

Religious bias has no place in scientific research.

If Flat-Earthers want to research the shape of Earth, first they must check whether the premises of their models are even valid.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Is there a FE-explanation for sunset/sunrise?
« on: August 22, 2018, 06:11:01 PM »
Is there a FE-explanation why the sun is partially obscured during sunrise/sunset?

This here assumes that the sun is a point-source of light.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun

14
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

As the article states, there is no definition of a "resting" observer within Special Relativity. However, we do have a definition of a moving observer. In fact, there is a moving observer who always has the same velocity:
Photons.
The velocity of light is a constant and no matter into which moving coordinate-system you transform the movement of the photon, it always moves at the speed of light.

Why is this interesting?

Because of the Doppler-Effect. The wavelength of an observed photon depends on the velocity of the observer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

If we are looking at starlight, our velocity as an observer relative to the starlight depends on at which angle we are looking up into the sky. Light coming straight at us from above has the largest blueshift, while light coming at us from the horizon has no blueshift.

The same goes for the light of a light-bulb. Let's assume that Flat Earth is moving upwards and that we are looking upwards to a light-bulb. That means, the light of the light-bulb has a blue-shift relative to us. Now, if we look at the same light-bulb from the side, the blue-shift disappears.



How big is this effect?

If Flat Earth experiences a constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s², after 1 year = 31,557,600 seconds it has a velocity of approximately 3*10^8 m/s. That's light-speed. Now, of course we are not moving at light-speed, but this simple estimate makes it reasonable to assume that Flat Earth has been moving at a velocity close to the speed of light since a few years after its creation.

For simplicity's sake, it is a reasonable estimate to assume that Flat Earth has a velocity of something in the ballpark of 10% of the speed of light.

The formula for the Doppler-effect is:     
f = f0 * (1+ v/c)
if we are moving towards the emitter with a velocity v. As wavelength is the inverse of frequency, the corresponding formula for wavelengths is
lambda0 = lambda * (1+ v/c)



For the measurement you will need:
- a shining lightbulb
- transparent colored material

You hold the colored transparent material between the lightbulb and your eye. The human eye can detect wavelengths in the range of 400 nm (violet) to 700 nm (red). The colors are as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
400 nm - violet
450 nm - blue
500 nm - turquois
550 nm - green
600 nm - orange
650 nm - red
700 nm - red

If Flat Earth has a velocity of 10% of the speed of light, then the wavelengths you see can shift up to 10%. And that means that the human eye would see a noticable shift in color, depending on whether you look at the colored light from below or from the side.



If you are worried that the effect is too weak for the human eye, fear not. There are a myriad ways to measure this, from simple prisms to the spectrometers built into the digital cameras used by professional photographers to apps you can download for your smartphone. (just google "app smartphone measure spectrum")



So, what are you waiting for?

Universal Acceleration is just one lightbulb away.

15
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

As the article states, there is no definition of a "resting" observer within Special Relativity. However, we do have a definition of a moving observer. In fact, there is a moving observer who always has the same velocity:
Photons.
The velocity of light is a constant and no matter into which moving coordinate-system you transform the movement of the photon, it always moves at the speed of light.

Why is this interesting? Because it allows us to measure how fast the Universally Accelerating Flat Earth is right now, measured as a percentage of the speed of light, which is a hard, well-known number.



The experiment is fairly easy. You need:
- 1x laser-pointer
- 1x sheet of paper
- 1x ruler for measuring distances

If Flat Earth experiences a constant acceleration of 9.81 m/s², after 1 year = 31,557,600 seconds it has a velocity of approximately 3*10^8 m/s. That's light-speed. Now, of course we are not moving at light-speed, but this simple estimate makes it reasonable to assume that Flat Earth has been moving at a velocity close to the speed of light since a few years after its creation.

What happens if you throw a ball horizontally at a constant velocity? It will fall down and its trajectory is a parable. The same would happen to a photon in a Universally Accelerating Flat Earth.

The photon is moving horizontally at a constant velocity, while the frame of reference is moving upwards with an acceleration. That means, to an observer within the frame of reference the photon is moving downwards.


The experiment is simple:
1. You hold a laserpointer horizontally and activate it.
2. By holding the sheet of paper at various distances to the laserpointer, you can make the trajectory of the photons visible.
3. As you know the speed of light, you can calculate the present velocity of Universally Accelerated Flat Earth based on how the beam of light drops down to Flat Earth.

The formula for evaluation is simple:
1. The photon reaches a paper held at a distance of 1 meter after a time t = 1 meter / c
2. We assume that 1 meter is an such an insignificant length for an object moving at the speed of light, that we can estimate for Flat Earth to have a constant velocity during that short interval of time.
3. We measure the drop-off d of the beam of light, compared to the horizontal axis defined by our laser-pointer.
4. We calculate d/t, and now we know how fast Flat Earth has been on average during our experiment.

For example:
If the beam of light has a drop-off of 0,1 m over a distance of 1 m, then Flat Earth had an average velocity of 10% of speed of light during the measurement.




What drop-off do you see when pointing a laserpointer sideways?

Pages: [1]