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 - Ga_x2

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motion of Orbit by the Flat Earth/ Shape of the Flat Earth
« on: October 18, 2017, 06:09:48 AM »
I don't think anyone in here thinks the earth is either rotating or orbiting anything. The only possible movement could be a rotation of the plane, like an old vinyl disc but I don't think anyone in here thinks that's the case

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 17, 2017, 05:46:56 AM »
you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?

EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!

EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high

Perspective changes the orientation of bodies around you. Perspective has has oriented the man to be 90 degrees from zenith for the sun. A photon leaving the sun at 90 degrees is pointed at the man, and that is the straight line path it will take.
this is a meaningless sentence. Does the earth literally raises? Is the sun torching it at sunset?
In your model the sun is 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high. The photons cannot be emitted at ground level. There is nothing there to do it. They have to cover the vertical distance somehow.
The cases are two: either the earth literally raises, and the sun is leaving smouldering craters around the world at sunset
Or, the light bends somewhere, getting down in altitude before realigning parallel to the ground.
There is no way around it. Which is it?

Also, in your diagrams you have a paradoxical situation in which you can't conserve the orientation of the line of sight with respect to the ground. The direction is radically different. You have to address this too.

Quote
At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.

So, let's go through this. Assuming a flat earth with no obstacles... a sunset in the desert.
I point a laser beam at eye level, 6' , parallel to the ground. What happens?
Basic geometry suggests that after a mile, it will still be at 6' height. The same after 100 miles. After 6000 miles, if the earth is flat and the light goes straight, it will pass at 6' height, below a sun  which is 3000 miles high.
You are saying that, instead, it's going to hit the sun.
How?! Walk me through the path of that laser. Tell me how to cross that 3000 miles divide without bending the light or without incinerating the earth

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 09:25:54 PM »

The path the photons travel is STRAIGHT. The observer sees the sun at the horizon and, from the sun's perspective, the sun sees the observer at its horizon. Therefore the photons leave at a 90 degree angle from zenith and arrive at a 90 degree angle from zenith.

At sunset we see the sun at 90 degrees and the sun also sees us at 90 degrees. A laser pointer held by the observer or by the sun would be pointed at 90 degrees to hit the target.
you have just stated that the earth literally raises. If the sun is 3000 miles high, how the heck do the photon leave at ground level? What is emitting them? Do you understand that you are saying that the sun is literally burning a hole in the ground?

EDIT: Btw, these two diagrams are mutually exclusive! In the top one the angle of the path is positive, with respect to the ground, and in the bottom one it's negative. It's a paradox!

EDIT2: if these are to scale, the tree in the top diagram is 3000 miles high

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 07:20:45 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
oh god not again. This is meaningless. You are basically refusing to accept basic geometry because you cannot shoehorn it in your preconceived view. This is demented, I'm sorry.

How do photons travel from the sun to your eyes? What path do they take from a sun which is 6000 miles away and 3000 miles high? Draw that path on a diagram.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)
« on: October 16, 2017, 12:30:44 PM »

This isn't round Earth. This is the relationship between the moon's influence and the sun's influence. Nothing to do with the Earth except for distance between it and the moon and sun. What am I saying that's controversial in the slightest?
nothing you said is controversial, but unless you can use it to answer the question in the OP is an off topic musing

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 12:25:51 PM »

That's the point. ~20° is not a precise measurement at all. Does it change? Is there not a set value? I know what he said. Even 30° was thrown around a few times. That's a 10-degree difference. It's vague regardless. Specificity is highly recommended under such circumstances.
you can calculate yourself, to the precision you deem necessary, what's the angle of incidence of light coming from an object 6000 miles away,  and 3000 miles high.
The problem is that these distances are kinda thrown out there from the FE community, so there's no precision to begin with. Garbage in, garbage out.

Point is, 20° plus or minus 10° is still a long way higher in the sky than 0°...

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)
« on: October 16, 2017, 06:22:31 AM »

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 06:20:56 AM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The vanishing point
« on: October 16, 2017, 05:32:20 AM »

Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
can you please draw a diagram with the correct quotes and the path of the light? You keep repeating the same stuff, that has been taken to task a hundred times.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)
« on: October 15, 2017, 07:50:33 PM »
Quote from: AstralSentient link=topic=7111.msg128697#msg128697 and =1508039173
Two tides a day are because the water is warped away from a particular part of Earth and other water is left behind, having two high tides.
ok, this part has to be explained, as for the rest, you seem to use aether as a substitute for gravity, so no problem there. (Well there are some, I guess, but they can wait)
The water is warped away from a particular area (the moons geodesic deviation is at the highest magnitude in the area it is most directly facing), and other water farthest away lags behind, leaving a tidal bulge opposite of the moon. This leaves one tide facing the moon and the other opposite of the moon (two tides, separated almost 12 hours apart).
can you please draw a diagram with the flat earth and the positions of this bulge and of the "lag"? Saying opposite of the moon on a flat earth makes really little sense. How come do we have a lag that's higher than the bulge? Why would you have a lag at all?
Quote
Quote
Is the rest of the Flat Earth Society ok with this explanation? I understand that aether isn't part of the "standard model" (lol)
What "standard model"? I thought the celestial gravitation wiki page made it clear that multiple with differing explanations may exist.
Aether is just a term for the space-time fabric of the universe (there may be disagreements on how to describe it and it's effects).
I used the scarequotes for a reason. There is no standard model, but afaik no one in here has ever presented anything in the neighbourhood of what you are writing. The "celestial gravitation wiki page" is the paragraph I cite in the OP. And it doesn't make anything clear. To call that a word salad is being charitable.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 15, 2017, 07:44:24 AM »
What makes you think "no physicist" has never noticed or proposed this?
It has been known that 'orbits' are straight line geodesics in curved space-time with General Relativity.
source? I don't think this is as established as you think.
Quote
I think you are presuming that since mainstream society and science communicators have been proclaiming the Earth is round, that it is a consensus among scientists that given all the theories they got (including Relativity) have a round earth, and so what I'm saying here must include GR but add in extra things to make it flat (because a flat earth certainly can't agree with modern physics, right?).
the aether, the rejection of euclidean geometry, the "Ferrari effect" etc are all things you have to put up on top of the understood model. My "why" question still stands.
Quote
A good example is with Heliocentrism,
not really. That is a matter of frames of references and it is well understood. If anything, it was a movement in the direction of a simpler model, not the contrary.
Quote
Quote
Btw, weren't you the guy defending tom's magic perspective in another thread, and the infinite plane with gravity in yet another? How many mutually exclusive view are you holding?
I find other Flat Earth ideas merely interesting views that may have some merit every now and then, I don't really hold to all these other ideas (maybe a few that I don't find mutually exclusive and supposedly work out).
so I wasted time answering you in those threads. I'll make a note for the future of first asking if you actually hold the views you are defending...

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)
« on: October 15, 2017, 06:57:55 AM »
Quote from: AstralSentient link=topic=7111.msg128697#msg128697 and =1508039173
Two tides a day are because the water is warped away from a particular part of Earth and other water is left behind, having two high tides.
ok, this part has to be explained, as for the rest, you seem to use aether as a substitute for gravity, so no problem there. (Well there are some, I guess, but they can wait)
Is the rest of the Flat Earth Society ok with this explanation? I understand that aether isn't part of the "standard model" (lol)

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)
« on: October 14, 2017, 08:16:17 PM »
Aaand another week gone by. Time flies when you're having fun.
Making a mental note that the A in the forum title doesn't stand for Answers. Maybe it's quirks & absurdities, or something like that.
So no one in the damn board knows how tides work? There's people expounding on relativity and celestial gears and magic perspective and tides are a friggin mystery? Seriously?

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Relativity Model
« on: October 14, 2017, 08:48:14 AM »
I came on this forum stating that I hold to an alternate view than mainstream FE, so I'll put it here for comments, discussion, etc. like I did in the other forum. [...]
Frankly I don't know where to start... there are a lot of things that don't sound right, but it has been too much time since I studied relativity, and the wall of text is hard to parse.

One thing I have to ask though: why?

I mean, as far as i understand, you have a model that mimics perfectly the current accepted RE model, but has a bunch of extra ad hoc stuff, that no physicist has ever even noticed or proposed,  to accommodate for the flatness of the earth. Why?

Btw, weren't you the guy defending tom's magic perspective in another thread, and the infinite plane with gravity in yet another? How many mutually exclusive view are you holding?

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Weightlessness in FEer UA and in REer gravity
« on: October 13, 2017, 11:17:02 AM »
Sometimes I hear people saying that the earth is in the goldilock zone, but my God the flat earth is the mother of all goldilocks
Gravitational effects have to be explained by "heavenly bodies" not too far and not too close and just shaped right to mimic the effect of a round earth.
Observations of the sun and moon have to be explained by a paradoxical magic perspective  (the mystery of the trinity is peanuts, in comparison) that works just right to mimic the effect of a round earth.
Observations of the stars have to be explained by celestial gears, pulls and levers, just right to mimic the effect of a round earth...
What else?

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity
« on: October 11, 2017, 05:43:01 AM »
The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2).
would you mind pointing me to where on the wiki is the correct information? I happen to agree that 3d got that one probably wrong, but I can't blame him. If you spent half of the time you spend whining correcting the wiki with clear and univocal statements, you'd get almost no misrepresentations from people trying to nail jello to the wall.

Aha!  I knew I'd seen it someplace:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer#Infinite_Earth
figures
But then, it is presented with a big if. Truth is, you won't catch anyone making a definitive positive statement... The wiki is noncommittal on almost every topic, and most of the people know better than lending their side to fact-checking.. You have to end up giving credit to j-man for the courage of his convictions.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity
« on: October 10, 2017, 10:26:48 PM »
The folks here at TFES.org seem mostly to be agreed on (2).
would you mind pointing me to where on the wiki is the correct information? I happen to agree that 3d got that one probably wrong, but I can't blame him. If you spent half of the time you spend whining correcting the wiki with clear and univocal statements, you'd get almost no misrepresentations from people trying to nail jello to the wall.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is an experimental result that would convince you the Earth is a globe?
« on: October 10, 2017, 12:12:44 PM »
Pete, good  see you. Do you also espouse Tom's magic perspective(TM)?
Because TMP is the only reason I can think of, for considering what you quoted a misrepresentation.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« on: October 07, 2017, 04:09:26 PM »
Right.  The reason I asked is because if the sun is 3,000 miles high, it would need to be over 240,000 miles away to appear a distance above the horizon that even comes close to being equal to the size of the moon (since you provided the specs on the moon, I'll just use that).

We're left with the sun and moon physically getting lower, or perspective causing the light to curve.
precisely. I realized later that that 3000 figure wasn't random
Anyway that's the point. If you accept that light travels in straight lines, then it's basic geometry. I tried using an online trig calculator, because i'm lazy, and to have 3000 miles within a 0,02° angle the result was above 8 million miles. I won't bet my life on the figure being correct, but it looks reasonable to me.
Of course it's out of wack with reality, but that doesn't seem to have ever given pause to the good folks here

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)
« on: October 07, 2017, 09:32:19 AM »
One week later, and this is the situation:
- 3dgeek couldn't resist explaining how tides work in a RE  (I knew you couldn't! );
- Sammy proposed a supersonic moon passing by twice a day, which not even the FE crowd would accept;
- j-man makes shit up as he goes along, and that's kind of his modus operandi... (even FErs don't seem to be willing to touch him with a 10' pole) so no hope there either.
- I'm a bit miffed by the absence of hmmm with a fake moon holografic projection multiple moons "theory" but I suppose he wouldn't comment an OP clearly coming from a reptilian;

Anyone else willing to chime in? Should I put "tides" in the bin of topics for which the FES doesn't have a discernible answer, along with the Cavendish experiment?
(And tbh with the layout of the continents, the path of the objects in the sky and a few other topics which I didn't personally ask, but I've seen butcher in various threads so far)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9  Next >