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: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 6  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 15, 2020, 10:25:44 AM »

Your blend of science and critique is applauded, but with much respect (something you have definitely earned) a lot of what you say does feel like more of a conspiracy theorists perspective, and I don't say that in a derogatory manner because you are clearly very well educated and spoken.  I agree there are things that have been, and will continue to be, lied about and/or kept secret by governing bodies and such like, but I don't really think the shape of the Earth or what lies beyond it is one of them. 

The room of smoke containing 2,500 years worth of evidence evaporating when you critique them individually...the exact same thing can be said about the "evidence" being provided so support the posit that the Earth is flat.  The ongoing sequence of implications that one theory has on the next winds up with statements that make no sense, like sunset being an illusion of perspective.  I know you don't claim that the Earth is Flat, but you do say that it can't be round.  Something being round is one of natures most preferred forms, and is the lowest energy configuration for most systems, like bubbles in water, bubbles in air, or water droplets falling to the ground.  The Sun is round, the Moon is round, and all of the planets we observe are round.  If any claims are going to be made that the Sun and Moon and planets aren't real, then the burden of proof is solely on that claimant to evidence that fact.

I'm genuinely interested to know which elements of the different theories you do consider accurate.  Do you think the Sun and Moon are real, rotating spheres, 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, or are they something else?  In your view, forgetting basic refraction effects, does light travel in a straight line or curve and do U-turns as stated by EA theory?  I'm just trying to better gauge where you position your thoughts because you clearly have some independent views and approaches.

I'm intrigued as to why you think water cannot curve though.  It curves all the time.  If water couldn't curve, it wouldn't be able to fill a round bottomed flask for example.  At the small scale, water forms a meniscus against a surface, it beads up on certain surfaces, and in the absence of gravitational effects, it forms globules as it tries to conform to its lowest energy configuration.  If you take a steady stream of water from a tap, you can induce a movement of that stream using electrostatic forces.  There are all manner of ways in which water does not behave flat/straight.  If you dip a football into a bucket of water and take it out, there's a film of water all around its surface.  Water conforms to internal and external curves all the time.  Granted, you can't pour water onto the football and have it be a meaningful depth all the way around because the forces at play are not very strong, but on a large body like Earth, it's a totally different scale.  If water doesn't curve, how do you explain tides?

You may say I'm a victim of education, but I find a sphere (or at least a shape with a constantly convex curvature in all directions) much easier to comprehend - especially as the model explains and predicts everything that we see.  Of course water can curve, and of course the Earth is curved - I've measured it myself with a colleague of mine (on the premise light travels straight, hence I asked you that question earlier).  Sailors at sea will observe the tops of distant mountains or volcanos appearing first before the rest of the mountain reveals itself.  I'll refer back to the Rainy Lake Experiment as well because I'm interested to know why that setup, carried out on a frozen lake, setup with high accuracy and fairness to give flat/round a chance to show itself, is considered a poor example and not proof of curvature.

Then more recently we have the statement that thrust/motion in space would violate Newton's laws, which clearly isn't the case as I explained.  By all means people can still maintain that space doesn't exist and that it's all fake, but the maths and physics around it are sound and well understood.  I've got the phone number of a guy who I worked with who literally studied rocket science and I'm sure he'd gladly provide all the examples and explanation needed to back this up.  Here's a YouTube video showing a basic experiment showing thrust in a vacuum.  OK it's not world class, but illustrates the point quite nicely:

Another one that's using an actual rocket with a measure of the force exerted:

At the end of the day we all live in a round Earth society, and for the vast majority of people that's just how it is and they get on with their lives.  Science accepted this long ago and moved on.  The only reason people push the globe Earth narrative with all of its evidence is because there is a group of people claiming it's not round, more specifically, that it's flat.  Unfortunately, just claiming that space doesn't exist, NASA is a conspiracy, and that light doesn't travel straight etc. isn't evidence, it's merely conjecture and doesn't disprove anything.  Selectively dismissing everything that goes against what you think (in my book anyway) is not good science, and I see that happening a lot here.  Sure, on the RET supporter side we also have people dismissing things in the flat Earth Wiki, but I don't see that as evidence, it's literally just theory with very little backing it up (yet).

I would agree, rigorous measurement is required to determine the shape of the Earth, but I'd also argue that there already has been.  The fact that we can back up those observations from space just confirms those findings, which brings us right back to the whole NASA/space conspiracy stuff.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 14, 2020, 09:59:30 PM »

Many thanks for taking the time to amicably respond to each of the points, much appreciated.  I can wrap my head around a lot of the equivalencies, and the notion of weight being intrinsic is not ridiculous in of itself.  Lots of things in the world are bonkers when you think about it!  It’s all food for thought, and you are absolutely right about the fact that your eyes don’t always see things as they are ;)

@Mark Antony

I don’t quite agree.  In the vacuum of space, if I were holding onto the rocket and I pushed hard against it, I would accelerate backwards at the same rate the rocket is accelerated forwards.  Crucially, the combined relative velocities remain at zero, and the combined centre of mass remains at the origin in my frame of reference.  The third law is therefore still respected because as a whole there is no net change.  With a rocket burning its fuel and creating thrust and pressure in the engine bell, it’s basically the same principle.

I think it’s an important point because if the claim is that NASA is a conspiracy and that we have never been into space, part of the debate around that conspiracy is the claimed inability of rockets to work in the partial vacuum of space.  It’s all related.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 08:44:53 PM »
Very well. Please provide a reference for an individual in this thread who claims things do not fall down (i.e. they deny gravity, rather than gravitation).

If you can't do that, I will conclude that you are cynically attempting to derail this thread, and respond accordingly.

Seriously?  Here’s just one reference amongst many where they deny that gravity is real.  A quick search over his his post history will show many similar wordings around gravity:

We know and can readily demonstrate this on earth's surface, where "gravity" is presumed and calculated (NEVER measured) to be strongest.  Gravity, if such a force were real and not mathematical fiction, does not help with this problem

Here’s another recent one that’s quite pertinent:

So what is gravity then?

Almost no one has any idea. I have figured it out, and I am not alone.  It is mathematical fiction with no reality whatsoever.  Weight is all there is, an inexorable and intrinsic property of all matter.

I never once said the words, “There are individuals claiming things don’t fall down to Earth”.  What I said was, there is somebody claiming that gravity is not real.  You took it upon yourself to decide that if I meant what I said, it also means I’ve found somebody who claims that things don’t fall to Earth.  Your words and your interpretation, not mine, and it infers that dismissal of gravity is to dismiss things falling to Earth.  Not once did I say that, or that anybody else did.  I merely replied by saying that dismissal of gravity does not necessarily mean things do not fall, because this individual concerned caters for weight in an alternative manner in his theory of how things behave, which itself would account for why things fall.

If you think the discussion is anything different than that, perhaps get somebody independent to review it because while my initial reply which triggered yours may not have been worded the best, in no way at all was it an active attempt to cynically derail anything, nor anything written subsequently.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 07:45:47 PM »
Water finds its level.  If Water rises from 99m to 101m without gaining any extra water. Then water has to be raised up off the bottom or the land around it has to be pushed down.

So we need to understand what you mean when you say “water finds its level”, which has been the entire topic of this thread.  In both FET and RET, the effects of gravity hold the water down, and “level” means that the water is level perpendicular to the direction of gravity.  In both models, regardless of what causes the tides, water just moves around the surface.  It gets deeper in one part by getting shallower in another.  The land is largely unaffected in comparison. 

You can do an experiment with a spherical magnet and some ferrofluid.  The ferrofluid surrounds the spherical magnet to a consistent depth let’s say.  If you introduce another magnet close to it, simulating gravity, some of the ferrofluid will be attracted towards the other magnet.  As the ferrofluid gets “deeper” at the tidal point, the ferrofluid gets shallower around the rest of the magnet.  Nothing is raised up off the bottom and no surface is getting deformed.  You could also do the same with a disc magnet to simulate a flat Earth, at least the motion and depth of fluid anyway.

Just remember, tides have to happen on a flat Earth as well, and by definition the water can’t be flat at those transition points even if the rest of it is.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 07:10:27 PM »
So when force of gravity moves these massive body’s of water that increases elevation 10’ what replaces underneath the water.  You can’t just move water without air,dirt,etc. replacing the area that has moved.

Nothing replaces the water, it’s just deeper where the tides are and shallower everywhere else - it just moves around. 

Here’s a thought experiment.  Take a sphere with water all around it to a depth of 100m all around its surface.  Now apply a Sun and Moon so that it creates tides.  Where the tides are, the depth might be 101m now.  All around the rest of the sphere the water might be 99 m deep.  Make sense?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 07:02:48 PM »
@Pete Svarrior, believe me, I haven’t forgotten your role here.  I answered a question about things being level and flat in this thread, and responded to your resultant critique.  If that’s being irrelevant then the boundaries seem skewed, but thanks for letting me know.

As for what I meant, let me repeat for absolute clarity just in case you’re not listening.  I 100%, categorically, unequivocally, and without refute, meant gravity, because that is specifically the thing being repeatedly dismissed.  Are you not the one who said that if true then I’ve found somebody who claims things don’t fall down to Earth?  I don’t ever remember saying I saw someone claiming things don’t fall down, I simply explored your inference of somebody dismissing gravity.  But, here you go again, suggesting I work on my reading comprehension, dishing out the childish insults.  Very professional of moderator, well done.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 06:16:12 PM »
If I’m remembering correctly, Newton imagined gravity when an apple fell from a tree.  But if that apple would have caught on fire would the same gravity pull the smoke down like it did the apple.  What would be easier to pull.  If you have 2-100’ ropes. With a Bicycle on the end of the first rope and a train on the second rope.  The bike would be because it’s 1000’s of times smaller than the train and would require less force. 
So why would the force of gravity pull down a bowling ball faster than it would a feather.  It should take less force to move the feather. 
Gravity doesn’t effect the tides.  If it did, when it moves the oceans and seas +/- 10’ it would also move that small pond in my back yard.  But It doesn’t move it, not 1”.  Just like every other body of water that’s not connected to the oceans.
You are correct in that remembrance, but if the apple caught fire, the smoke particles would rise up with the hot air causing convection currents above it.  The smoke particles are very, very light and may eventually end up back on the ground, but some can stay in the atmosphere for a very long time as the wind and natural air currents continue to blow them about.

The bike would indeed be easier to pull because the train has significantly more mass.  The larger the mass, the heavier the weight due to gravity, and so it would be impossible for me to move the train, but possible for me to move the bike.  Even if we forget gravity and mass for a second and just assume weight is a "thing", the same effect would be observed.

The reason why gravity pulls a bowling ball down faster is because the feather experiences proportionally much more air resistance.  If you get a large enough container and create a strong vacuum and carry out the experiment, you'll find that they fall at exactly the same rate.  This is because the bowling ball has a lot more mass than the feather, so is harder to get moving.  The lighter feather is easier to get moving, and so the net effect is that both fall together at the same time.

The question about tides is all to do with scale.  The Earth is absolutely huge, almost 8,000 miles in diameter, and so a bulge of 10 feet is  nothing in relative terms. The water in your pond does rise up, but it is by such a tiny amount it is basically imperceptible and would easily be negated by wind effects at that scale.  It's the same effect of the horizon looking flat out at sea - it looks flat simply because the Earth is huge and you are tiny in comparison.

Another thing to consider is that if it’s not the gravity of the Moon and Sun causing tides, what is it?  We know tides exist and they generally happen twice a day.  I don’t have the answers to tides in the absence of known gravity, the Wiki might help.  I should take another look!

Hope those helped your thinking a bit :) 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 06:04:39 PM »
Technically correct
I'm glad we agree

but entirely irrelevant, given that you yourself already acknowledged the importance of context. I'm not sure why you'd waste our time like that.

If you think it's irrelevant and a waste of time, just skip it then.  Regardless of the shape of the Earth, flat means flat, level means level, they don't mean the same thing and never will.  Under FET, they are used as synonyms with respect to water at every vantage point, under RET they are only synonyms in certain circumstances because water curves.  This is supposed to be the Flat Earth Theory forum, and this discussion relates directly to FET and the very title of the thread, including a direct request for a demonstration of the difference between flat and level.

...Christ, one day you'll learn not to just lash out at every disagreement you encounter, but it'll be a long process.
Not sure where you went with that as I absolutely 100% meant gravity, as clearly written multiple times in black and white.  If you want to yet again infer that absence of gravity means somebody thinks things don't fall, perhaps you should understand the impact that intrinsic weight would have in such an understanding.

As for lashing out, you're fond of that term aren't you?  Yet, you're the one going around dissecting posts, picking them apart piece-by-piece and taking every chance you can to throw petty insults and derogatory terms around.  I'm just reacting in a manner befitting of how you engage with me, so if you want to partake in productive discussions, try to be not quite so destructive.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 14, 2020, 05:07:55 PM »
With regard to re-evaluating my position on rockets, I simply can't. I don't want to go off on a tangent here but rockets in space break Newton's First law which states "that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force". In a car, wheels -action, the road - reaction. A boat: propeller - action, water - reaction. A plane: turbines engine, jets - action, air - reaction. Rockets in space: Jets - action, no reaction. Can't do that. NASA use the skateboard bowling ball analogy, does not hold any water. You simply cannot propel yourself/change trajectory without a medium in which to do it. Lets not discuss this as it requires too much fundamental engineering and mathematical knowledge.

I know you don't want to go off on a tangent, but, this is the most intriguing and telling bit for me.  Newton's laws are called laws for a reason - they apply everywhere.  Newtons first law is stated subtly differently depending where you look, and yours is one just one example.  However, it's the action of "a force" or "an imbalance of forces" that cause something to change its state.  This could be external to the object, or it could be the object itself causing the imbalance.

The whole "action-reaction" bit is Newton's third law, and a jet works by sucking in air from its surroundings and thrusting it out of the back at high speed.  So yes, by pure definition a jet that relies on sucking in air and throwing it out of the back won't work in space.  However, rockets are not jets.  A rocket engine creates its own thrust because the fuel contains an oxidiser as well, allowing it to combust in the absence of air/oxygen.  In this case, the rocket and its fuel together act as one object and the ejection of exhaust gases itself causes the imbalance of forces that pushes the rocket in the opposite direction.

Maybe it's a misconception that people think something is needed to push against?  A simple experiment is to just sit in a swivel chair and fling your arms out in one direction.  The chair moves a bit in the opposite direction (only a bit because of friction and the low force involved).  That's not me pushing against the air, it's just Newtons third law in action.  Same with throwing a bowling ball when stood on a skateboard, perfectly fine example.  Brushing it under a carpet of complex maths and engineering just makes it sound like part of yet another conspiracy, this time involving the laws of physics. 

In space, or a very thin atmosphere if you will, even a tiny jet of air can cause a change in motion because there is very little resistance.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disappearing Stars as you walk North/South
« on: November 14, 2020, 03:14:08 PM »
The refraction coefficient of our atmosphere has an average of k=0.17.

Are you sure about this? I was under the impression k represents the extinction coefficient of the medium, not its refractive index which is represented by n and is 1.0003 for air at 0 deg C and 1 atmosphere pressure.

Yeah sorry, my bad for using refractive index (n) for the numbers comparing vacuum, air and glass, then when I was just talking about our atmosphere I switched to refraction coefficients (k)  The numbers stated are correct though, and don’t correlate with what would be needed to support the theory of EA.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 01:19:02 PM »

Don't be so pedantic  ;)

In this context, it's pretty obvious what a flat surface of water is, and, assuming FET, it will indeed be synonymous to a level body of water. You'll struggle to find a vertical, or otherwise askew, surface of water.

Synonymous in that context maybe, but still doesn't mean they have the same definition.  Even in RET, for a normal person stood on the surface, the same can be argued - it looks flat and level.  However, on the larger scale, the surface of the water follows the curvature of the Earth, and it does so because of gravity.  Thus completing the never-ending cycle of debate, because under FET, water cannot "curve", despite there being plenty of references I can make to water surfaces being askew in nature.

Whoah there, cowboy. Nobody's "rejecting" gravity. And, since you almost certainly meant gravitation, nobody's "rejecting" that, either.

Errr, nope, I certainly meant gravity, and jack44556677 has plenty of references to gravity around words such as "fiction", "not real", "concocted", "there is none", "if it were real", "Newton would have scrapped it" etc.  Excuse me for interpreting that as anything other than rejecting the concept of gravity.  This is backed up with a similar rejection of the concept of mass, leading to the conclusion that weight is an intrinsic property of matter - something you'd know if you took the time to understand why I might have written what I did instead of putting words into my mouth again.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 14, 2020, 12:45:06 PM »
Nature does not allow vacuums to exist, and imbalance likewise can only be maintained/persist for limited finite durations - most acutely when there is no obstruction to doing so.  To allow a partial vacuum (the only kind nature will allow) to persist against all the laws of nature takes a lot of work and continued effort.  Naturally, vacuums do not exist - nature will not allow them.  Air pressure is naturally isobaric / isostatic.  I know we will have more to discuss about this to convey / understand!


Excellent! Asking specific questions / responding to specific content like this is the best way to do so!

"Space" is defined as a (mostly) empty void - if we get too detailed we get derailed by sophistry so I hope this is just specific enough for you to agree with.

The earth, where we study reality through science, has sustained positive gas pressure.  When considering the earth and the edge of "space" as a system, the second law of thermodynamics has a problem with the sustained concentration of matter/energy (most specifically gas) next to the absence of it.  That work/heat/energy must diffuse into the available area.  It's a law.  It can do so in varying amounts of time, and we will likely need to talk of that (briefly), however in general it takes less than the order of days for thermal and/or gas pressure equilibrium to be reached when there is no obstruction to doing so.

This problem is compounded by the natural behavior of gas - gas law.  If you place a partial vacuum and put any volume of gas into it - that gas diffuses very quickly.  I recognize these words are imprecise, but I hope you can agree (with the sentiment at least) and/or follow anyhow.

We know and can readily demonstrate this on earth's surface, where "gravity" is presumed and calculated (NEVER measured) to be strongest.  Gravity, if such a force were real and not mathematical fiction, does not help with this problem - nor stop gasses from behaving as they demonstrably do where the "gravity" is believed strongest/greatest.   If the container is large enough, a pressure gradient will become more apparent (it was always there) as defined by pascals law.  This is as a result of the weight of the gas, which also does not hinder gas from its natural and readily demonstrable behavior - namely of always diffusing/expanding to fill a container as homogonously as possible (in accordance with pascals law, and for the same reasons). Weight, is an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter - not "imbued" by magic "fields".

I will agree with you in the literal sense - even in the vast reaches of sciences definition of the Universe, there is no complete, total vacuum.  Close to, but not quite.  So, by definition nature doesn't like a total vacuum, only partial.  However, I don't agree with the statement that weight is an intrinsic and inexorable property of matter.  That definition is only needed because you don't think gravity exists, and because gravity doesn't exist, mass cannot be real either, and so you have to come to that independent conclusion.  It's a bit like a flat Earther thinking the Earth is flat, and so that means all other observations must conform to support that thinking.  If there is no gravity, and the "weight" of the air is able to create its own pressure gradient, how is the air being contained?

Also, if weight is an intrinsic property of matter, wouldn't you expect a cannon ball dropped from a tall tower to reach the Earth faster than a golf ball?  If not, why not?  In the real world we see things fall at the same rate because something with more mass is harder to move that something with less mass, so the effects cancel out.  If gravity doesn't exist and mass isn't real, the only thing impacting their fall to Earth (neglecting air resistance) would be their intrinsic weight.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 12:11:15 PM »
Level and horizontal are synonyms, I am glad we agree on this.

Level and horizontal are both always level, by definition and, more importantly, in manifest objective reality.

Yes, I am aware of the incorrect definition of level being taught in "schools".  There is no curve-a-level.  Level is always both flat and horizontal.

If you disagree, and believe that your definition is correct - then please provide a demonstration in reality of level and flat ever differing.

What's your definition of flat?  Flat in this context to me means "free of raised areas or indentations", in which case even the flat Earth cannot be considered flat because it has hills and valleys.  But, if we remove that level of pedanticity (that's a word now!) and let's just say that a flat Earth is indeed flat.  Well, then so is the side of of my house.  That's flat, but it is almost certainly not level, and doesn't really need a demonstration - just go outside yourself and have a look at your own.  The surface of the monitor I'm looking at now is very flat, much flatter than the side of my house, but is far from level.  That's two examples of level and flat differing.

The fact of the matter is that level and flat are two different things, regardless of the shape of the Earth.  I completely understand what you are attempting to drive towards, but being flat relates to the surface itself, and being level relates to the surface being at the same height, perpendicular to the centre of gravity.  But, since you don't believe in gravity either I suspect the debate could be rather moot.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disappearing Stars as you walk North/South
« on: November 14, 2020, 11:46:11 AM »
It does seem questionable whether straight line trajectories are prevalent in nature. It's mainly the RE theory where I've heard that.

I think you are overcomplicating things with your quotes and references.  At a level which impacts our daily lives, light travels in a straight line from the Sun to the Earth, in rays that are as near as makes no difference to our daily lives, parallel.  This one factual observation accounts for plenty of things we see with our own two eyes and can measure with simple equipment.  I see this a lot with FET - when something cannot be explained, reams of pseudo-science and interpretation get thrown at it.

Yes, light does bend, but not in the way FET and EA supposes.  Refraction is something most school children are taught, and while they may not understand the underlying physics and actual quantum effects, they can see with their own two eyes that light bends when it passes through things with different refractive indices.  A vacuum (i.e. space) has a refractive index of 1.00000, air has an average refractive index of 1.00029 at STP, and water is 1.333.  As you can see, light is hardly affected by air relative to a vacuum.  However, STP does vary in the atmosphere, so...

The refraction coefficient of our atmosphere has an average of k=0.17.  This means that light is ever so slightly curved TOWARDS the surface of the Earth, not away from it as EA would have you think.  The closer you are to the ground, the lower the temperature, the more k increases to the point that light can follow the curvature of the Earth for hundreds of miles.  However, once you are a few meters above the ground, the effect is negligible as the density gradient gets less and less.  For EA to be correct the Earth would need an average refraction coefficient of -1.  This is not the case.  Even on a flat Earth, light would still curve towards to the surface at low altitudes due to the same density gradient.

The impact of atmospheric refraction is very well known and understood, with plenty of actual science and mathematical models to back it up.  The theory of EA has never, ever been observed or shown to be a true effect in nature, and sill relies on an unknown force pulling or pushing light away from the surface and doing a U-bend back into space.

As for the whole thing about shifting constellations and the fact that we observe counter-rotation in one hemisphere to the other, all of that is explained elegantly in RET.  In FET it needs perspective and other "anti-rotation of stars" theories, where I can't find anything else anywhere on the internet to back up such theories and claims.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the logo
« on: November 13, 2020, 01:40:00 PM »
It's covered under the creative commons license:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon wax and wane direction
« on: November 13, 2020, 09:45:08 AM »
I'm guessing it's the "bendy light" that explains this:

"You cannot see Kawaikini from the peak of Mauna Kea. Mauna Kea, the highest peak in Hawaii (the summit of the Big Island), offers incredible views. With nothing but the ocean around it, and a few other nearby islands, you should be able to see extremely far away. The island of Kauai has the seventh highest point in the Hawaiian islands: the peak known as Kawaikini. If you were to draw a straight line from Mauna Kea (elevation: 13,796 ft.) to Kawaikini (elevation: 5226 ft.) it would span a distance of 303 miles." which I obtained here:

If I'm understanding, according to the Bishop experiment light doesn't bend at all in 23 miles yet it bends in excess of 8,000' in 300.

Well, in reality we know that light travels in a constant direction unless acted upon, which here on Earth means atmospheric refraction.  There is a standard refraction coefficient that you can use to account for it, but that does vary.  The closer you are to the surface, the lower the temperature and the higher the pressure gradient, the more the light bends in accordance with known formulas as can be found in this experiment here:

Light on Earth will always bend in the direction of lower to higher pressure (i.e. usually towards the Earth, not away from it) which means it can follow the curvature of the Earth for hundreds of miles making it seem like you can see things much further away.

How light curves in accordance with EA, nobody really knows, but suffice to say that it always curves away from the surface of the Earth, and sharply, which is not what we see or measure.  But yes, EA would explain why you can't see things in the far distance on a flat Earth, because the light would have curved away over your head and back into space before it reached you.

Ok, thanks for that. I see they have a formula, so it must be right. Btw, do they ever say why this 'hoax' is being perpetrated, and why it started over 400 years ago with every cartographer in the world?

The formula is an attempt at trying to model how light would behave according to the theory of EA, but the issue is nobody knows what the force is that causes the light to bend and so the theory is incomplete and untested.  Somebody here took the formula and tried to create different curves, using it to replicate the drawings.  The curves looked nothing like the drawings, even with a range of Bishop Constants, but that could have been an incorrect implementation.  I'm going to get a software developer of mine to do a mathematical model Flat Earth with the Sun and everything to scale and see if he can get the Sun to behave like a spotlight while also respecting all other phenomenon and natural observations.

All I know is that 2,500 years ago, people already suspected that the Earth was round, and science progressed from there.  Biblical cosmology still proposed the flat Earth and firmament, and a large number of people still believe this for religious reasons, and that's absolutely fair enough.  Some people simply observe that the Earth looks flat and just independently believe it to be so, and some of those think NASA and space exploration is all just part of a global conspiracy.  Have a read of the Wiki and lurk in the forums a bit - you'll learn a lot about the what's and the why's.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Zetetic method questions: what about germs?
« on: November 12, 2020, 03:58:27 PM »
My, limited, understanding is that you objectively/unbiasedly collect observation/evidence and conclude/deduce/infer directly from that.  You do not speculate a cause, but rather look for correlation/causation in the data and allow it to lead you to a conclusion.

In general though, yes - in all empirical science of any kind - if you can't observe/measure something then it is not a part of science.  This applies to speculative "causes" and everything else.  If it can't be measured/observed then it can't be (empirical) science.

In the context of the zetetic flat earth society (not flat earth research at large), it is because those first hand observations/measurements are the basis for further deduction about the world.  It works that way in "standard" science too!  They DO tend to shun "i felt it" or "i saw it" as scientific "data", but the logic is identical.  The world does appear flat, and we do not feel any motion at rest.

Nicely put jack44556677, and to further expand on the whole "feeling flat" thing for the benefit of ImAnEngineerToo, the zetetic thinking will have gone something like (but don't quote as it may not be absolutely 100%!):
  • Looking out of the window, my, that Earth sure does seem flat.
  • Hey, the water in that glass looks flat, and stays level too no matter how you tilt the glass.
  • Would you look at that?  The water in the bath is also flat.
  • That lake over there.  It's huge, but it also looks flat.  I wonder if water is always flat?
  • Looking out at Sea, it looks as flat as the lake and perfectly level in all directions.
Together that's a whole bunch of observations that one could reasonably form a conclusion from that the Earth itself must also be flat.  In the absence of anything else, that position can't really be refuted, and is the foundation to all of the other theories put forwards in FET.  Just like the advent of the telescope proved the existence of germs though, the advent of telescopes also confirmed an observation that as ships are going out to sea, they appeared to disappear from the bottom up.  This observation doesn't make sense on a flat surface, and so continues the scientific advancement and ongoing debate with all kinds of evidence and counter-evidence, theories and counter-theories being provided.

The notion that we are moving a thousand miles per hour on the surface, or a million miles per hour through the universe sounds preposterous, but as mentioned, we don't feel motion, only acceleration.  Again, it is easy to just assume that we are not moving, and that everything else around us must be.  It's only the applications of multiple other observations that one can reasonably conclude something different.

But that is not the question. The question is whether life in lockdown is anywhere near as good as the life they were originally supposed to be removed from.

In fairness the question was "Should we extend all jail sentences by a year due to COVID-19?", and my statement there was a direct consequence of answering that by way of examples.  However, I accept that threads weave about a bit and add perspective.  Tackling that question as posed there, "Is life anywhere near as good as it was before lockdown?"  I have to say no, it's definitely nowhere near as good - far worse for some than others for sure, but on balance we are all in a worse social and/or financial position compared to before and will continue to be affected by it for quite some time with cancellations and restrictions in force.  Having said that, I was going to explore the avenue that AllAroundTheWorld highlighted to see if prisoners lives had been negatively affected by the same magnitude.  You could argue that being cooked up for 22 hours at a time in a dingy cell isn't quite the same level of disruption to their normal daily routine compared to those of us on the outside.  However, that doesn't sound too appetising!  On balance I do stand by my original answer that no, jail sentences shouldn't necessarily be extended, for all the same reasons I gave before.

Flat Earth Theory / Moon bounce - amateur radio communication
« on: November 12, 2020, 11:26:19 AM »
Flat Earth theory has the moon stated as being a rotating sphere, 32 miles across and about 3,000 miles above the surface of the Earth.  I think it's fair to say we all agree that the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s (as used in the EA formula) and by inference, agree what a meter and a second represent as units of measure.  I think it's also fair to say that we all agree radio exists as a means of communication and entertainment that does not have to rely on satellites in orbit, just good-old fashioned line of sight, atmospheric propagation and bouncing signals off objects.

As a technique still in use today by amateur radio enthusiasts the world over, the measured round trip for signals is about 2.56 seconds.  Do the maths and this give an Earth to Moon distance of 383,734 km (238,441 miles).  This correlates with the accepted distance to the Moon as measured multiple times by various different methods, so I'm wondering how this is accounted for in FET without it just being added to the conspiracy pile.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 12, 2020, 10:22:12 AM »
The title of the thread is "Burden of proof", and you are placing it squarely on the flat earther. No flat earth believer is interested in convincing you of anything. They will present the evidence, you can challenge it by all means but you have to come to your own conclusions. And if that conclusion is that the earth is a globe then so be it - you are taking the position of 99.99% of the population

So here's the thing.  In the RET corner we have 2,500+ years of evolved science, observation, a single model that accounts for everything we observe on Earth (above the quantum level at least), along with photographs, videos and eye witnesses.  That's the pool of evidence to support a round Earth, which by all accounts is rejected by 0.01% of the population as they formed their own conclusions for whatever reasons.  I don't think it's case of either side trying to "convince" the other, but, given that there is an overwhelming skew towards round Earth, it's fair to say that the burden of proof does lie with the flat Earther.  If RET evidence is bunk, why?  Prove it.

The issue is that the "evidence" presented for a flat Earth isn't really evidence because it's largely just theories based on actual science, just with carefully selected elements and misinterpretation to make it sound plausible.  Like the size and dimensions of the Earth - those are based on an actual experiment carried out by Eratosthenes, but that experiment was carried out based on the observation that light travels in a straight line.  Nevertheless, FET chooses to accept that as the "diameter" of the observable Earth, but then suddenly introduces a whole new concept of "Electromagnetic Acceleration" to account for the spotlight effect of the Sun etc., in which light curves significantly and even does U-bends the further it travels.  On the one hand FET has light going straight, and on the other it has it curving to suit - which is it?  Such theories have no evidence to back them up, which is in complete contrast to round Earth where there is plenty of experimental evidence to back things up, hence there are mathematical models.  For me this is the key difference, and nowhere on Earth has anybody measured light doing anything other than going straight, only affected by known, calculable effects such as atmospheric refraction on Earth and gravitational lensing out in space.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 6  Next >