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 - RhesusVX

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 27, 2020, 01:59:53 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Take J-Man to the mat if you dare
« on: November 27, 2020, 11:36:55 AM »

Never read the bible either, not a religious bone in my body.  Admittedly guessed a few, but the odd pop song and story I might have heard, along with some common sense is enough to get you through.  Not sure it qualifies me to educate people on the bible though! lol

Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 27, 2020, 10:04:52 AM »
It shows how refraction can fool people into thinking the horizon curves downwards thus making them believe the world is a globe.

But the video does not appear to take into account Electromagnetic Acceleration so is not representative of a flat Earth.  What you are showing there is a flat Earth design that's almost certainly using round Earth physics with an unknown refraction coefficient used to make it look like the photo.  In reality the photo is a combination of two things - a bit of refraction and some curvature.

Besides, refraction can also increase the apparent viewing distance on a curved surface as light tracks along the ground for many miles further than it would do otherwise, fooling people into thinking that the world is a flat plane.  Like I said, it cuts both ways so refraction alone as a phenomenon doesn't actually demonstrate anything about the shape of the Earth.  If nothing else it just serves to add ambiguity!

As stack said in an earlier response, sometimes atmospheric refraction can be severe, sometimes moderate and sometimes non-existent.  In all cases, when it comes to viewing a ship going out to see, regardless of conditions you always see the ships hull disappearing first.  When you approach an island from out at sea that has a tall mountain/volcano on it, you always see the top of the mountain/volcano first.  I'll also refer you back to the Rainy Lake experiment I linked to in an earlier comment in this thread - that experiment is carried out over several miles over a frozen lake bed, with target heights to reduce the effect of refraction as much as possible while still being easy to work with.  The result?  What they see in the real world pretty much matches what they would expect to see based on a known surface radius with minimal refraction.  Take a look, it's an interesting read and a very thorough experiment.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 26, 2020, 04:27:45 PM »
Unlike the confined volume inside the syringe, space is sold to us as being a vacuum of immense magnitude but also at an infinite scale. There are no materials that exist that could cope with this vacuum, be it at 5psi, 1psi or 0.001psi inside - makes no difference. The wikipedia scale above tells us that a vacuum in outer space is 1000 to 1 000 0000+ times stronger than a "high vacuum". We have only ever recreated a high vacuum on a large scale on earth. These are unimaginably powerful vacuums we're dealing with, yet we have astronauts dancing around on the moon? I think not.

Your use of space being 1000 to 1000000+ times stronger than a high vacuum on Earth is over-dramatising it.  It's like somebody trying to get close to absolute zero, one group getting to within 0.0001K and another group getting to within 0.0000001K and then saying one is 1000 times colder than the other.  In principle it is, but in reality they are hardly any different to each other compared to the scale of what 293K represents, which is a comfy room temperature.  Same with such high vacuums.  Yes, one might be 1000000 times "stronger", but compared to 1 atmosphere they are as near as damnit the same as each other (I know they aren't the same, but hope you understand what I'm trying to say). 

Besides, in space it's not about absolute pressures, just relative pressures, and the suits are pressurised accordingly.

While it's a convincing demonstration, it simply does not compare. As the driven component is in contact with the beads, the beads therefore are providing an external force as it is propelled forward. This is not comparable to the skateboard and bow analogy. It's equivalent to putting your foot down on the ground and pushing yourself off on the skateboard. If the driven component was not in contact with the beads underneath you would not get the same result.

How is that the same as pushing off the ground?  The only thing providing any propulsion is the elastic.  All those beads do is offer resistance to motion.  If that experiment were carried out with things suspended in air from strings, would you believe the results or claim that they were pushing off the strings?  Until you can accept how Newton's laws actually work, the whole rocket debate is moot - and that's kinda' what I'm driving at.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 26, 2020, 03:49:50 PM »
I'm breaking my policy of not posting on a work night but these responses will disrupt my sleep patterns if I don't  :P

We appreciate the commitment Mark ;)

I really dislike the bowling ball analogy, not just because it's so loosely related to rockets, but because the only reason NASA use it is because it manipulates the reader's logic and reasoning but in reality it is fundamentally flawed. It even fooled me initially until I really thought about it. NASA know that 99.9% of the population are not going to really think about it.

I don't think it's really manipulating anything, and in principle has nothing to do with rockets either.  Newtons laws have been in force (pardon the pun!) since before they were discovered by Newton himself, and well before rockets were in use.  The effects of Newtons laws were observed when cannons were fired etc.  They may not have understood why the effect we call recoil happened, but it happened and they accounted for it.  The only reason we use an example of throwing something heavy like a bowling ball or medicine ball is because it's easy for people to grasp.

Lets use a slightly different analogy that follows the same principal in the laws of motion but doesn't skew the reader's logic and reasoning:

Imagine standing on a skateboard with a bow and arrow. You shoot the arrow as hard as you can but you simply will not move in the opposite direction, you will remain stationary. Don't you agree?

Let say you use an arrow that is the same weight as the bowling ball. You shoot it as hard as you can, but you still will not move in the opposite direction. The action force is in the arrow propelled by the potential of the string on the bow, the reaction force is in your hand on the grip. All the forces are contained internally therefore you will not move backwards.

It is no different with throwing the bowling ball - it's part of your system, part of your weight - the action is in the forward motion of the bowling ball caused by the potential of your muscles, the reaction force is in your hands. Newton's 3rd Law of motion is observed, but since his 1st Law is definitely not observed (neglecting pushing off air) you simply cannot move!

Excellent, a good example to discuss.  The thing here is the sheer complexity of forces and motion involved - I looked up a paper on this and there were reams of very long and complex formulas!  When the bow is released and the arrow is shot, there is forward motion of the limbs which ultimately vibrate backwards and forwards, and the arrow shoots forwards.  The string also vibrates and absorbs some of that energy, and yes, your hand holding the bow absorbs some of that energy.

The key thing here is the term "recoil", and while a bow or crossbow does experience recoil, it's mechanics are different and nowhere near as pronounced as you'd get with a gun (which is analogous to this example here - the gunpowder represents the stored energy of the bow, and the bullet represents the arrow).  With a very efficient bow like a compound bow, the effect of recoil is minimal.  With recurve bows and crossbows, you get more recoil.  The lighter the bow and the heavier the arrow, the more recoil you get.

With an empty bow you can even get "reverse recoil" where there is only forward motion due to the mechanics of the limbs and string.  So yes, if there is sufficient energy transfer to overcome rolling resistance on Earth, you absolutely can move on a skateboard by shooting an arrow of sufficient mass.  Remove the human element like in the experiment stack showed, you can clearly see that stored energy in the elastic launches the "arrow" forwards and the "bow" backwards.

The reason you keep reverting back to the "stationary" case in space is because it serves to shroud reality even more and skew people's logic in the same way NASA do. The dynamic case that I gave where the spaceman is moving away from the earth really is no different but is easier for the reader to visualize.

As you said, there really is no difference, it's just about frame of reference and Newton's laws don't care if you are stationary or moving.  I just find it much easier to visualise and actually observe the effects if you have a static system to start with and then see one part move backwards and one part move forwards, as opposed to a moving system where there is only a change in their relative velocities - much harder to see and quantify.

It seems we also have fundamental differences around the question of work/energy and acceleration. You claim constant velocity in space (despite there being no observed body ever historically, that maintains a constant velocity, only in theory). If the ball is accelerating in your hands but then maintains a constant velocity when it leaves them- at some point it has to decelerate i.e. stop accelerating. At what point does this happen and what external phenomenon in space is preventing this acceleration?

I said constant velocity unless acted on by another force, which in space could mean collisions with the few molecules and particles out there, asteroids, other planets, comets, stars etc.

To be clear in your question, are you asking at what point the ball stops accelerating when you throw it?  That answer to that - as soon as it leaves your hands.  This has nothing to do with space or a vacuum.  Here on Earth if you throw a ball, the only time it is being accelerated is while it is in your hands.  As soon as it leaves your hands it starts to slow down (decelerates) due to air resistance and eventually stops when it hits the ground a rolls to a halt due to friction.

Thow a ball in space and it's the same thing, it's only accelerating while it is in your hands.  However, unlike on Earth, in the vacuum of space there is no air resistance or gravity to cause it to significantly slow down, so it just keeps going at whatever speed/velocity it was going when it left your hands.  Yes it will slow down/decelerate eventually, but would take an extremely long time.

You asked at the end what is preventing this acceleration, which is what leads me to think you are getting things mixed up.  The answer to what is preventing any further acceleration once the ball has left my hands is Newton's laws.  It's not going to accelerate/move any faster unless something else causes it to.  It's either going to stay at the same speed or gradually slow down over an extremely long period of time.

There appears to be some conflict in your argument in how the rocket propels that I hope you can clarify. From my understanding of what you are saying above is that the rocket moves forward by the 3rd law action of ejecting mass in the opposite direction therefore propelling you in the correct direction? But you said previously on post #83 and #86 that it pushes itself off the external exhaust gases. .

In simple terms, correct, and unfortunately I'm going to go back to the "throwing a bowling ball on a chair" model.  When I'm sat on that chair holding the ball, the muscles in my arm and the mass of that bowling ball represent a store of energy, much like the fuel in a rocket.  You could say at this time, we are all part of one system.  When I throw the bowling ball, I accelerate it away from me and at some point it leaves my hands.  The ball thereafter is external to "me", but with respect to the system it's still part of the whole energy transfer that took place.  Make sense?  No energy was created or destroyed, and the laws of motion were respected. 

The key is Newton's 3rd law.  When I "push" onto the ball, the ball is also "pushing" back onto me with exactly the same force.  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and my school experiment demonstrated that nicely.  I'm heavier than the ball so I don't move as far, which you can calculate using his 2nd law.

A rocket burning its fuel and creating a massive pressure difference to shoot exhaust gases out of the nozzle at high velocities is completely analogous.  The rocket "pushes" onto the exhaust gases with the same force that the exhaust "pushes" on the rocket, ultimately causing it to move in the opposite direction.  Those exhaust gases are external to the rocket body, but not the entire system, to be a bit more clear on things.

But which is it? Newton's 3rd or 1st or both? Or just the 3rd? Maintaining Newton's 1st here is physically impossible, I will always maintain this until I get some miraculous explanation.

Just like throwing a heavy ball sat on a chair, rockets in space respect all three of Newton's laws.  Why do you say maintaining his 1st law is physically impossible?  For now just forget space and vacuums and rockets then to keep things down to Earth, literally.  Have you actually done the experiment of throwing balls of differing weight but the same area, and observed the effects of motion (i.e. ball goes forwards, you go backwards?)  If not, then I strongly suggest you try it out to see for yourself that not only does air have nothing to do with it, but also all three laws are respected.

His 1st law basically states that an object in motion will remain in motion unless a resultant force acts upon it, and that an object at rest will remain at rest etc.  Agreed?  As I explained earlier, when it comes to throwing bowling balls and things like recoil and rockets, his 3rd law is what preserves the 1st.  "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."   Like I said, when you push against something, it is also effectively pushing back against you with the same force.  When I throw the ball, I push against it and it moves forward at a rate determined by the 2nd law.  At the same time the ball pushes back against me and I move backwards, again at a rate determined by the 2nd law.

You only have to look at the experiment stack showed to clearly see that to start with, the system was static. After the energy was release and the "arrow" shot forwards, the "bow" moved backwards - no laws broken.  The surface area of those things was very small, and they were relatively very heavy, so clearly they were not pushing off against air.

I'm not denying you know someone who studied rocket science - but you can't use this as way of cementing your argument as one that is more valid than mine. Either invite him to the debate or bring some of his justification that backs up your argument.

That's fair enough, but even here on Earth you don't seem to believe the experiments that are being performed are behaving exactly according to Newton's laws without saying air has everything to do with it.  Having done the experiments myself at school, under pretty well controlled conditions, I can confidently say that the only things that influenced the amount we moved back was the weight of the object being ejected and the rate at which it was ejected at (which was kept as constant as realistically possible being eager beavers!).

F = MA 

All air does is make things less efficient than they would be in a vacuum.

Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 25, 2020, 02:29:25 PM »

This video shows what happens when refraction is added to a scene in Cinema 4D. It might be of use to you perhaps.

What use is the video meant to be?  All it does is show that refraction can, depending on extent (which is unknown in that video) make it appear as though something in the distance is shorter than you'd expect, or even not visible at all.  In of itself it shows nothing about the shape of the Earth, only the possible effect of atmospheric refraction which is basically the same process in both models.  Maybe a curved surface alone would not be enough to create the pronounced effect as shown in some of the images earlier, but it would certainly compound the effect of refraction.

Another problem with that video is the likelihood that it is designed using round Earth physics, as in light travels in a straight line unless it bends due to refraction, which it presumably accurately models.  In flat Earth theory light doesn't travel in a straight line, it curves away from the surface of the Earth due to Electromagnetic Acceleration.  This unknown force is not modelled in Cinema 4D out of the box, so unless they somehow accounted for that, the rendering is not showing what you'd expect to see on a flat Earth.

I know that the curve due to EA increases with distance, but if you look at the wiki the effect is used to illuminate clouds from underneath.  Given that the highest clouds are still only a few miles high, this gives you an idea of the kinds of distances you can expect to see significant curvature away from the surface of the Earth.  Looking out miles to sea, the effect of EA on distant objects would be pronounced.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 24, 2020, 05:12:42 PM »

You repeatedly say things along the lines of "Until something is adequately proven (for, to, and by yourself), you should continue to remember that it is speculation at best.".  Now clearly there are things in this world that are easier to prove by yourself than others.  Some things are so trivial and have been proven so many times by countless others that it's safe to take those as solid fact.  Equally, there are things in this world that are almost impossible to prove by yourself with current technology and capabilities.  The thing is though, a constant questioning of anything you can't see or touch or otherwise prove to yourself just creates a world in which everything conforms to your own narrative and interpretation of physical laws.

The obvious one here is space travel and getting to the Moon.  You are unlikely in your lifetime to have the opportunity to adequately observe/experience this for yourself, so what would it take to give you adequate proof?  China have just launched a mission to retrieve lunar material and bring it back to Earth.  It's a man-made vehicle, travelling through the vacuum of space, using Newtons laws of motion to get it there and back.  If this mission succeeds, will it just be considered yet another science fiction movie created by China's space program?

Regarding the "infinite partial vacuum of space", are you able to explain to us, in simple terms, why the 2nd law of thermodynamics and gas law are broken?  What kind of system do you consider the universe that we live in?  Open, closed or isolated?  Some say it's neither because by definition the universe is everything.  Others talk about the entire universe being isolated, but our observable universe being open.  I'm intrigued as to your thoughts on this.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 23, 2020, 08:20:03 PM »
The 200 mile visibility is pretty much consistent with what you'd expect on a round Earth.

This is a different figure than distance to the horizon, but hope springs eternal! In any case, "begging the question" / circular logic is a crummy way to investigate anything.  The general format goes like this, and is to be identified and discarded/avoided wherever you see it : If the earth is round, I expect to see "something". I see "something", therefore the earth is round.  This is circular logic, and is shamefully embarrassing to scientists and children alike!

There could also be refraction effects that cause the light to track with the surface of the Earth for a few miles making it appear you can see even further.

Not for you, no.  Your faith REQUIRES you to believe (and profess, disearnestly, that you KNOW) that refraction is the reason we see too far.  It is a dogma of your faith, and no dissent is permitted.  The more objective (scientific) of us can indulge and pursue alternative explanations - but not you and the rest of the "educated" - no.  For you, there is merely the repeated mantra of "refraction" to keep the bad/inconvenient data at bay.

Perhaps I should have worded things differently rather than use "round Earth" because there's no circular logic in my statement, just merely stating what's consistent with what we broadly measure here on Earth when you factor in, yes, known refraction coefficients and the known dimensions of our water-laden rock.  Looking out over a long distance from any given altitude, the only reasons we stop seeing things are:
  • Our own visual acuity and ability to resolve something
  • Atmospheric distortion/refraction
  • Particulates/pollution
  • Something getting in the way, like a curved surface
The use of telescopes and binoculars etc. helps with the visual acuity bit, but even those aren't going to help after a point even on the best of days.  So what point is that?  It either has to be light bending out of our sight due to EA or refraction, or the object is physically being blocked by something - that something being curvature (with curvature based on a number of other observations in nature, not just one).

I have some experimental experience with light and refraction and how it behaves in different mediums of varying density, so we know that light bends according to known laws and can be mathematically modelled.  I trust you at least agree with this bit?  Regardless of the shape of the Earth, refraction can account for altering the "apparent" distance that you are able to see something at, especially in colder climates and lower altitudes.  It's also known that in some locations on Earth, at one time of year you might be able to see that skyline shimmering away in the distance, yet another time of year you might not be able to see it at all.  Nothing has changed other than the nature of the atmosphere between the two points.  I'm not saying this confirms or denies curvature, but it does provide some objective evidence for atmospheric refraction and how it can cause you to see things further away than you might otherwise expect.

If you know that there is another reason why we can sometimes see objects further away than we otherwise expect, please let us know.  I know you proclaim to be purely scientific in your research and conclusions, but throwing away almost everything you have been taught, rejecting what science experimentally shows you, and only ever choosing to trust your own observations, conclusions and interpretations of physical laws takes things to the opposite extreme and into it's own form of conspiracy-like affair.  I don't mean that in a derogatory manner either, just saying that maybe, just maybe some things simply are what they are.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 23, 2020, 01:44:20 PM »
My, oh my where do I even begin. Maybe a mod could move this over to a dedicated thread?


This debate is absolutely not over.

I would agree, this is perhaps one to be split out because I also agree that the debate isn't over!  It's related for sure, but maybe it's conflating with the other debate around space suits etc, let's see what the mods think. I've also read your replies and the debate you've had with stack.  However, before I start I just want to acknowledge one thing, and that is that air has "something" to do with it, I'll grant you that much.  Here on Earth when people throw things we are doing so in an atmosphere and so that does have some effect.  Depending on surface area it can be negligible to significant.  Jets need air, rockets don't, but we'll get onto that. 

You seem to think though, that I'm basing everything on biased opinion and assumption rather than experimentation, but you couldn't be further from the truth.  You also have no idea what my background is or who I've worked with in the past.  As a result I do happen to have a reasonably good grasp of Newtons three laws of motion, and nowhere in anything I stated were any of them broken.  In my original thought experiment of a "stationary" astronaut (relative to the Earth, say) holding a bowling ball and then throwing it, the 3rd law results in the astronaut moving backwards and the bowling ball moving forwards with motion in accordance with values governed by his 2nd law.  The very fact that you have one system at rest, with two opposing forces acting against each other when thrown, imparting motion to both is what also preserves the 1st law.  I'm not sure why you think in such a case the astronaut would stay still and only the ball would go forwards - that would indeed be breaking Newton's laws.

I would recommend trying out the experiment that stack suggested.  Back at school in physics class we carried our our own tests to show that air only has "something" to do with it, and also "nothing" to do with it.  Back then it was done with 3 similarly sized aluminium balls (baking hemispheres taped together!) filled with different things to create different weights (air, water and lead).  The base was a long board covered with ball-bearings upon which another board was placed on top which you sat on.  This gave a very low rolling resistance.  Based on your understanding that "air is everything", you would expect that you would move back an equal amount with each ball thrown.  Each group carried out 10 throws of each ball, and guess what?  The heavier the ball, the further back you were pushed.  Take it to the extreme - a ball so heavy you can't move it.  Push that and you will go backwards with maximum force.  Do the same with a ball of aerogel and you are hardly going to move backwards at all.  We also carried out a similar experiment with two objects of similar weight but vastly different surface areas.  Based on your understanding, the one with the larger surface area would push us back more.  Not the case.  Within experimental error, both pushed back the same amount.  In order for air resistance alone to cause you to be pushed back, you would need a significantly larger surface area in comparison.

To show that air had nothing to do with it, the teacher set up another experiment with a brass tube sealed at one end, a remotely triggerable spring, and a ball bearing. The ball was shot out of the brass tube at normal atmospheric pressure, and in a strong vacuum.  Remember, being a spring there are no expanding gasses at play here.  Again, based on your understanding there would be no recoil in the vacuum, but this was not the case.  Recoil happened in air and in a vacuum.  None of this is made up walls in space or whatever, it's just basic controlled experimentation.

With absolutely no disrespect intended, I don't think you understand the 3 laws correctly.  The reason why I didn't mention the 1st law is because the very fact that you had a system at rest being subject to two opposing forces, one causing motion upon the other just implies that it's not broken.

As for rockets working in space, the following is a good, if technical guide as to what thrust is and why it works.  In simple terms, pressure differences between the combustion chamber and the outside:

Again, rocket thrust has absolutely nothing to do with pushing against air, which in most cases makes rockets less efficient than they are in a vacuum (depending on their purpose).  As I said before, I know a guy who studied rocket science so I called him at the weekend and asked if rockets work in a vacuum.  His response?  A short laugh, followed by, "Of course they do, why?!".  Forgetting the complexities as shown in the site above, the basic theory is simple. The bigger the pressure differential, the faster the gasses accelerate out of the nozzle, the larger the force being thrown out of the back of the rocket, and so Newtons 3rd law results in forward motion of the rocket.  Exactly the same principles that caused us to be pushed backwards when we threw those balls in physics.

How can you push off something that is moving away from you? That's a physical impossibility.

The very fact that you have something moving away from you that you have ejected is exactly the reason why you move in the opposite direction. In this example, the rocket is the astronaut, the bowling ball is the exhaust, creating thrust.  Like the rocket and its accelerating exhaust, the astronaut is in contact with the accelerating ball until they let go.  It's that transition from being in contact to not being in contact that is "pushing off", and it applies equally to rockets ejecting exhaust gases.

In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
This assumes the ball is accelerating forever relative to the spaceman. To achieve this the spaceman would have to exert infinite work/energy on the ball (w=fs, e=w/t) which is physically impossible.

I think the original use of the word acceleration may have been slightly misleading, and as such you may be seemingly confusing acceleration with velocity.  The only time the astronaut and bowling ball are accelerated is while the astronaut is throwing it.  Once the ball has left the astronauts hands they are both going to be traveling at a constant velocity (m/s as shown) until acted upon by another force.  Constant velocity in a vacuum does not need an infinite amount of work/energy.

You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.

I mean no offense, but you sound a little confused about how Newton's 3rd law works.
I mean no offense either but I think it is you who is confused here.

In all fairness, based on what I've read, your understanding of the laws of motion are flawed, and this is why I wanted to address it because debating whether we've actually been into space or not to take photographs and video is one thing, but debating whether it's physically possible is quite another.  It might be a completely innocent misunderstanding, or it might be that you choose to interpret the laws differently so that it makes space travel impossible which itself has other implications on FET and related conspiracies.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?
« on: November 23, 2020, 10:48:30 AM »
It's all a great conspiracy so governments all over the world can continue to fund all kinds of different  endeavors and keep the cash coming in or something like that.

I call that tax! :D The thing is there are all manner of ways the governments all over the world can rinse cash from us and otherwise funnel it into their bank accounts without the shape of the Earth being a factor.

If indeed there is a grand conspiracy, as @GreatATuin says, it would have to go way beyond just NASA and space travel, but that to me seems like the biggest threat to debunking FET and hence gets most of the attention.  Could be wrong.

But, let's for one minute suppose that the Earth is indeed flat, that there is an ice wall impenetrable to mere mortals, and the governments the world over are doing everything they can to maintain the round Earth image and perception. According to some aspects of FET, the actual Earth goes beyond the visible ice wall and so maybe in that belief, there could be resources beyond our reach that governments use to control the distribution of wealth.  I dunno', just speculating based on what I've read, but I'm with @GreatAtuin on this, first I'd love to know "how" they are keeping it up.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How far is it from Vancouver to Sydney?
« on: November 23, 2020, 10:27:34 AM »

The round earth distance, the one used successfully by Air Canada to plot direction and distance, says 12,500 km. What is the flat earth distance?

If you take the "standard" map which is what most people think of ( - a normal "Azimuthal Equidistance Polar Projection of the globe Earth) and blow that up to 2,500px wide using 1px to represent 10 miles, that gets you a nice scale size of the agreed diameter of the Flat Earth.  If you draw a straight line as the crow flies from Vancouver to Sydney, you get an approximate distance of 14,100km.  Even accounting for error in placing the line, that's still a huge discrepancy.  Having said that, I don't believe that the map I used is the accepted one as there seem to be many, and none really agree.  As I've mentioned before in posts though, it is physically impossible to take all of the accepted land masses, distances between places and put them on a flat plane whilst maintaining those same actual and relative dimensions and distances.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 23, 2020, 10:05:22 AM »
I just think it is very interesting, and misunderstood by so many, that from the highest point on earth, under the best visibility conditions possible, you can only see a couple hundred miles (laterally, towards the horizon).  That is the max, though at sea level (the min) it's only a few miles directly through the densest air.

Jack, I don’t mean to be rude and hope you won’t be offended, but air pollution where you live must be appalling. I live by the ocean and can see cliffs and headlands twenty miles away while standing on the beach. I can see large hills inland more than thirty miles away from a roadside viewpoint that’s perhaps 150 ft above sea level. From the same beach on a clear day I can see on the horizon the top of a mountain which is 66 miles away. I know this because I’ve seen these things often with my own eyes, without using binoculars, a powerful zoom camera or Google Earth. Furthermore, at night I can watch the moon and stars setting on the horizon, and how far away are these? A few miles?

You need to do some real research, Jack, do some real investigations, before declaring how little we can see. Sorry to be blunt.

@jack44556677, I don't find it that surprising really given how large the Earth is and how relatively small Mt Everest is by comparison.  The 200 mile visibility is pretty much consistent with what you'd expect on a round Earth.

@Longtitube, what you say you can see there makes absolute sense and is consistent with what I'd expect.  At 150ft above sea level you can expect to see about 15 miles anyway, and if you are looking at a large mountain in the distance, I'm not sure how tall it is, but even if it's a small one at just 3000ft, you'd still be able to see at least part of it from 66 miles away.  There could also be refraction effects that cause the light to track with the surface of the Earth for a few miles making it appear you can see even further.

You're about two clicks away from the largest compilation of arguments, past and present, that I'm aware of. You could try the wiki and the refs therein.

I echo the Wiki reading - something I should have done before just questioning everything, because whether I agree with the theories put forward or not, there are explanations for a lot of things that will allow you to delve deeper into the things that maybe puzzle you most.  In particular, I'd start out by maybe reviewing the following two major theories that are needed to explain a lot of what FET relies on: - explains many things including why the Sun doesn't illuminate the entire surface at once, why we only see one face of the Moon etc. - explains gravitation

There are many things out that demonstrate curvature, and one of my go-to references is the Rainy Lake Experiment:

It's a modern repeat of the Bedford Level Experiment carried out on a canal.

If you can't gather from my response, and for your demographic analysis, I'm of the round Earth mindset but am here to learn more about FET, the what's and the why's.

Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 23, 2020, 09:40:03 AM »
So is refraction a cause for why the bottoms of distant objects are obscured? I've always been a little confused as to what actually causes the "hidden" area to exist on a flat earth. And if refraction is solely a flat earth phenomenon.

For me, I just can't help referring back to the Rainy Lake experiment which is pretty rigorous in terms of eliminating, or accounting for as many variables as possible to give flat Earth a fair chance:

Refraction, if we are to all agree is a phenomenon we observe, happens in both RET and FET to largely the same extent for the same reasons.  The refractive index of air at different densities and the refraction coefficient on average is pretty well known.  Over water especially, and where there are higher temperature differences between the surface and the air, you tend to get more refraction that (typically) causes light to bend down towards the Earth, and in some cases follow the curvature (i.e. causes you to see things much further away than you would do normally, making it appear that the Earth could be flat).

In a flat Earth model, you could reasonably argue that light from the bottom of a tall tower could get refracted down towards the surface of the Earth before it reaches your eyes, making it appear as though the bottom of the tower is indeed below the horizon.  This effect would be compounded on a round Earth due to curvature and refraction.  Without knowing what the atmospheric conditions were, pressure, temperature etc., and not knowing the refraction coefficient, it is hard to say in those images how much is refraction and how much is curvature. 

This is why I return to the Rainy Lake experiment, because there they are on a frozen lake, known conditions, measured refraction coefficient to account for it, with targets of accurately known heights and shapes that are set where refraction should be minimised.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 19, 2020, 09:38:10 AM »
I don't really get this. If there is no NASA fraud/conspiracy, and all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., that somehow relay the shape of the earth to us is real, then that's that. Earth is a globe. End of story. So for FET to remain viable it must discount all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., as fakery and that would require a conspiracy. I'm not saying the entirety of FET, but I have yet to come across any NASA-believing FET proponents. So it does seem that FET is heavily reliant upon the conspiracy.

I completely agree.  While jack44556677 is correct in saying that the actual shape of the Earth has nothing to do with NASA or any conspiracy directly, they have a lot to do with providing visual proof, which seems to be at the heart of every Zetetic inquirer - observe then conclude.  That such visual proof would basically be the end of FET as we know it, it's understandable that it just gets brushed under the carpet as a conspiracy, and a massive global one at that, not only including other space agencies, but requiring research facilities, educational establishments, engineers and scientists the world over to be in on the act.

Pre- and post-GPS in the 20th/21st centuries they have been sailing both hemispheres using global charts, navigating by radio aids, astronomical sightings, physical landmarks, depth soundings, inertial navigation, and dead reckoning, on waters with known currents and in conditions of known and predicted windspeed.  They know the theoretical distance from Point A to Point B and, travelling at a planned speed, they generally get to Point B on schedule. 

And are you suggesting that, for instance, the crew of a scheduled flight from New Zealand to Chile don't know the distance of the intended journey?  How much fuel are they supposed to carry?  When should they expect to arrive? 

If you've travelled at a known speed for a known time, you've measured the distance.

This is one of the key things for me, and it doesn't matter what the actual units are.  Whether it's miles and hours, or km and days, if you use the same units all of the time you will get pretty accurate distances between land masses and hence their relative positions with each other on the surface.  With the sheer amount of global navigation happening by land, sea and air, it's reasonable to take these things as agreed, known quantities.  Taking those, you simply cannot create a flat map of all of the continents and maintain those same relative distances.  It just doesn't work - something somewhere has to give.

If indeed the Earth were to be flat, that would mean that every single piece of navigation equipment, and hence anything related to do with measuring speed, distance, time, direction and location would have to be engineered in such a way that it gives the impression that we are traveling around a globe.  This is why any conspiracy goes way beyond just NASA and space travel, it includes all of the technology that we use in our daily lives.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 17, 2020, 11:24:17 AM »
In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.

That's a really good explanation, and per your latter point, exactly right - the act of pushing on one bowling ball wouldn't send them back towards Earth, it would simply reduce the velocity at which they are traveling away from it.  However, give the astronaut enough bowling balls to throw and eventually they would be able to reverse their direction, which is akin to gas being constantly ejected out of a rocket nozzle.

Hopefully this one can be amicably laid to rest as at least being considered plausible to everyone, as we can't just break physical laws.  In of itself though, it doesn't prove that space as defined exists or that we have been there, so those particular claims are still wide open for discussion, and on that note...  For those who claim NASA and other space agencies are basically just large movie studios with actors, what do you think of the recent dragon launches into space?  I don't think there can be any denying that a rocket was launched given the sheer number of witnesses, but is the rest of the footage considered fake, and did the rocket and contents simply fall back to Earth out at sea?

I know @james38 tried to bring some direction to the thread and focus it, and I'm as guilty as anybody for this little deviation, but I do think it was important to address the whole Newtons laws piece.  However, bringing it back around to where james38 was coming from, it basically came down to proving that NASA and other space agencies are not fake, and are in fact legitimate organisations doing what they say they are doing.  For them to be faking it, it's not just other space agencies that need to be in on it.  Pretty much all of academia needs to be too, plus thousands of other independent research institutions and even engineering companies who create things like radio equipment.  Even amateur backyard scientists are now able to use powerful telescopes to make observations and get cameras high enough up above the Earth along with equipment to measure atmospheric pressure, composition, temperature, altitude etc.  The notion that organisations like NASA and SpaceX can do a little bit better than that isn't so absurd, but the notion that we are all being lied to by millions of people around the world about space travel and, by some inference, the shape of the Earth sounds far more absurd to me.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 16, 2020, 01:19:42 PM »
I think MarkAntony’s problem with physics is there’s no consideration of momentum, so there “has” to be “something” to push against.

You might be right Longtitube, but wouldn't like to say.

For me, the reason why I honed in on the whole "rockets don't work in space thing" is (admittedly) firstly because of the stated reluctance to talk about it as that rings alarm bells somewhat, but largely because it is a misinterpretation of the consequences of the physical laws.  I understand why it would get claimed as it helps support the perceived absurdity of space, space travel and therefore any evidence from it.  I'm OK with the notion that something might seem ludicrous or even impossible (i.e. photos of Earth or videos on board the ISS), but less so when some of that notion is based on incorrect science.

In relation to what RonJ said at the end about a hand grenade, here's an interesting video about trying to ignite stuff in a vacuum:

Contrary to what some people might (reasonably) think, something that is self-oxidising can burn inside a vacuum (which can only ever be partial)  Again, that video isn't perfect, but it does illustrate how things behave differently in the absence of an atmosphere.  In some cases, depending on what is being ignited and how, energy is dissipated so quickly that burning as we know it doesn't always happen, which does support what some people might think.  However, when confined to a binder or a casing, like in a hand-grenade for example, the explosion would happen in space, just looking very different.  The absence of anything around it means you wouldn't hear it, and there wouldn't be a shock wave.  The high-energy gases produced wouldn't form a fireball or plume of smoke as we see on Earth.  Instead everything would spread out somewhat evenly in all directions, forming a ball of gas.  That gas would very quickly dissipate, significantly reducing its effective "blast range" compared to here on Earth, and the resulting shrapnel would just keep going forever until acted on by an external force.

I completely agree with the statement that you cannot push off against yourself.  However, rockets don't push off against themselves, in simplistic terms they push off against the exhaust which is external to the system at an instance in time.  Imagine sitting in an office chair with wheels on a smooth surface.  You can flap your arms about but you won't propel yourself easily.  Now imagine if a friend was sat next to you on a similar chair.  If you push against them, you will both move away from your starting positions by the same distance.  The force you placed on him was met with an equal and opposite force from him on you.  In that sense, you're the rocket, he's the exhaust.  Now hold onto a fire extinguisher and release its contents - you'll move in the opposite direction to where you pointed the nozzle.  None of this has anything to do with air pressure or pushing against air, and everything to do with mass being ejected.  Far from not working in a vacuum/space, rockets can be more efficient in a vacuum/space because of the very absence of an atmosphere.

I found this to be interesting as well as it explains more about the forces at play:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 16, 2020, 02:30:52 AM »
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!

Swap the bowling ball with a big heavy wall.  If you were to push against that wall, instead of the wall moving you would end up going backwards relative to the direction you pushed.  In space you would keep going for a very long time due to there being very little resistance.  If a new wall kept repeatedly appearing and you were able to keep pushing off each one, you’d end up going faster and faster. No atmosphere is needed to push against.

Ultimately jets need air to be sucked in to create thrust.  Rocket motors create their own thrust.  Neither work off the principle of pushing against air itself, same with recoil.  When a gun is fired, what do you think causes the gun to recoil in your hand?  It’s not air displacement.  You can fire a gun in a vacuum and you still get recoil.  Fire a gun in space and the gasses that propel the bullet forward will also push you back.

The video Iceman2020 linked to is a perfect illustration of how thrust works.  The key point is that the gases produced are not part of the rocket so can be considered an external force.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 15, 2020, 10:45:27 PM »
Think about it this way: You are in your spacesuit with a bowling ball travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. You think to yourself "I'll need to throw this bowling ball hard enough to propel myself back towards the earth again". The problem here is that both you and the bowling ball are all part of one system. You can throw the bowling ball as hard as you want (let say 10m/s) - the bowling ball will travel at 10m/s away relative to your position and 70m/s away from earth for a time until it runs out of energy but at the end both you and the ball will still be travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. The net result force is, has and always will be zero as both you and the bowling ball were contained within the one system. You can't create your own external force. A rocket in a vacuum would simply exhaust all the burnt fuel and matter but the net force would be zero and there is no change in velocity.

All of Newton's laws are valid and cannot be broken on earth or in the idea of space.

With much respect, I think part of the reason this is getting focused on is because rockets not working in space means that either space doesn’t exist or we can’t really get there even if it does, which in turn adds more fuel (no pun intended!) to the whole thing being one big conspiracy.

Here’s a similar thought experiment.  You are in a spacesuit with a bowling ball in hand, with zero net velocity relative to Earth, i.e. stationary.  If you were to throw the bowling ball as hard as you could, 10 m/s using your numbers as reference, under your analogy, you would stay where you were and the bowling ball would travel away from you at 10m/s.  This cannot be the case though.  The bowling ball has mass, and when you throw it, you are pushing against it and so it will impart some force on you.  The ball might go 9m/s away from the point at which it was thrown, and you’ll go 1m/s away from the point at which it was thrown.  Energy is conserved, the total momentum is zero, and Newton’s laws are preserved.

It’s like firing a cannon here on Earth.  If the cannon is empty and you shoot it, you get little to no recoil, it isn’t going to move backwards at all as the cannon is so heavy.  However, when you shoot out a cannonball, the cannon recoils and moves in the opposite direction to the cannonball.  This has nothing to do with air displacement or having something to push against.  It’s for the same reason that if you throw a bowling ball when stood on a skateboard, you are pushed backwards.  Has nothing to do with pushing against air.

I’ll have a watch of that video, but one guy saying NASA is Not A Space Agency doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, no matter how senior they are.  Does it mean SpaceX is also bunk as well, and ESA...all part of a global conspiracy?  Ultimately it does seem to come down to what sounds more absurd.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 15, 2020, 07:00:26 PM »
@stevecanuck, I think I get what you are saying, and yes, from our perspective as being tiny specs on a huge surface, we literally cannot observe curvature directly with our own two eyes.  There are, however, a number of different ways you can conclude curvature from down here that don’t need complex maths and physics to understand.  I’ve carried out a couple myself.

The real issue being debated here is, what does flat and level mean, and how can water be level on a curved surface?  The answer is gravity (or the effects of gravitation to keep the peace).  Level just means that the surface is at a constant height in line with the gravity vector.  In RET, gravity is caused by the mass of the Earth pulling things down, and in FET, gravity is caused by Universal Acceleration (the Earth constantly accelerating upwards, pushing up on us at a rate of 9.81 m/s^2)  In RET, water can conform to the surface of a sphere, in FET it cannot.  In RET, gravity accounts for the tides.  In FET it cannot.  There are a number of differences and discrepancies that warrant understanding on both sides to respect each other’s position.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >