### 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 - Jay Seneca

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
1
##### Science & Alternative Science / Re: Size of the Sun
« on: February 20, 2022, 03:29:41 PM »
Put it in theory forum out of habit. By Fault.
I'm trying to do the math but it isn't coming out right. I'm trying to figure out what I'm missing.
Liquid Hydrogen = 4 pound per square foot.
Rock = 170 pounds per square foot.

2
##### Science & Alternative Science / Size of the Sun
« on: February 19, 2022, 06:00:04 PM »
The Sun had a diameter 109 times that of  Earth. That means the Sun's area would be roughly 1,300,000 times that of Earth.
The Sun is made up of 73% hydrogen. Which is by far the lightest element known to man. And 25% Helium.
Here's my question.
Why does the Sun have a mass 330,000 times that of the Earth?

3
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 28, 2021, 07:42:51 AM »
Not sure where this video was taken but you can see Ursa Major any time of the year and time of the night in all of the US. I live in southeast US around 30 latitude and I know this to be true. This shouldn’t be possible on RE.

You're right, it shouldn't be possible to see all of Ursa Major any time of the year and all night in all of the US. The 'big dipper', or the bit of Ursa Major that most people recognise, is visible from most of the states all year round, but only Dubhe, with a declination of 61, would be visible from 30 north all the time (because 30 + 61 > 90). The lowest star in the big dipper, alkaid, is at 49 degrees declination, meaning you'd need to be north of 41 degrees latitude for it to be circumpolar. At 30 north I'd expect most of Ursa Major to be below the horizon, especially in the winter.

If you're experiencing something different to that you are either a) looking for the wrong stars or b) in possession of one of the most earth-shattering observations made by a modern amateur astronomer, and you should definitely tell more people about it, because you could make some serious money out of it. You would be disproving every star almanac, every internet star calculator app...everything. You should start with a video, showing today's paper, some recognisable part of where you live so we can verify the location and then a picture of the whole of Ursa Major.

https://earthsky.org/tonight/where-is-the-big-dipper-on-these-octber-evenings

I look forward to seeing it.

I could show you some timestamp pictures throughout the night. That’s the easy part. The hard part would be proving my location without showing my location.

4
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 26, 2021, 06:19:40 PM »
Often you see long-exposure photos of stars, and how they circle around the celestial poles, such as this one:

This image is one of many on https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-are-star-trails

You can see that many of the stars clearly dip below the horizon. As far as I understand it, this would not be possible on a FE; the stars should dip down, but never go below the horizon. Of course this assumes the horizon is flat, such as the ocean on the right-hand side of this image.

Can one of the FEers explain this to me?

Not sure where this video was taken but you can see Ursa Major any time of the year and time of the night in all of the US. I live in southeast US around 30 latitude and I know this to be true. This shouldn’t be possible on RE.

5
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 24, 2021, 07:55:20 AM »
I don’t think it’s possible in real life.  What you shown is a drawing. Maybe people are confused and one country is looking at the southern cross and the other country is looking at the false cross. It’s kind of like why north hemisphere compasses won’t work correctly in the Southern Hemisphere. But the compass will always point to north correctly in both hemisphere. You can make a compass with a bottle top and a paper clip. That will point correctly to the North and it’s opposite to the south. But for some reason in the Southern Hemisphere you need an additional part that points to the South. This makes no sense. If your going opposite of north you will be going south and someone in Africa going south will not end up in the same place as someone in South America going south. Unless one uses a Southern Hemisphere compasses. Which sounds like it gives a false southern direction to make all points going south end up in the same place.
So a person can be in Africa and one in South America and both looking south and thinking there seeing the southern cross but actually be looking at 2 different sets of stars.

Two separate issues there - compasses and stars.

Let's deal with compasses first. You are right, some compasses (not all though - some are universal) are optimised to work in particular hemispheres, or even particular latitudes of each hemisphere. This has nothing to do with north or south though, and everything to do with dip - the downward angle of the earth's magnetic field, which varies with latitude. To compensate for the dip, northern hemisphere compasses are counterweighted on the southern end of their needle, and vice versa in the southern hemisphere. Use one in the wrong hemisphere and it will still point north/south, and it will do so correctly, but its performance will be poor as it will be trying to dip down at an extreme angle.

As for the stars, I'm afraid that just a ridiculous claim. Firstly, as I've said elsewhere today in another thread, the issue that we've illustrated with the extreme case of different continents is equally applicable, albeit not as obvious, for two observers just a few hundred miles apart on the same continent. If you and I met in Australia, we could look south, then look up at an angle equal to our latitude, say 30 degrees, and we would be able to see Sigma Octantis. Then we could get in our SUVs and drive East and West respectively, keeping that star on our left or right as we get further apart. Go for an hour or two in opposite directions and then look at the same star. It will still be orientated true south for both of us, and yet the according to the monopole FET map we are now each facing in two slightly different outward directions. How can we be looking in a slightly different outward, radial directions and yet looking at the same star? You've brought in this idea of different stars, but that makes no sense at all - where, when and how do these different stars appear? Where is the join? How do the various constellations retain their continuity and conformance to all of the different star charts? It can't be mistaken identity - that doesn't align with centuries of successful celestial navigation across the southern hemisphere.

But how does one verify there’re looking at the same stars?  They might think there looking at the same stars but aren’t.  One continent could be looking for sigma octantis through the way if the southern cross and the other continent looking at the false southern cross and not the real one. Both thinking there looking at the same thing but they aren’t. Or they could be using a Southern Hemisphere compass to find Sigma Octantis which that compass doesn’t really look opposite of north when using it to look south.

6
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 24, 2021, 07:24:59 AM »
I believe the argument is that the designers may have thought they were accounting for earth's curve, but really they were accounting for the upward deflection of light rays from horizontal due to EA. You would therefore have to demonstrate why the LIGO design cannot support both possibilities - earth's curvature vs EA - which under typical, isolated readings at a similar scale, are argued to be able to produce equivalent results.

According to the FET Wiki: There is an equation stated with an undefined Bishop constant (which makes it useless) that proclaims to show how the underside of clouds could be explained on a flat earth.  It goes on to say: "its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance." The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.  What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.  If the tube was mechanically straight, as designed, and a light beam went from one end to the other and didn't hit any tube walls and hit the opposite end near the center then it would be a good demonstration of a spherical earth.  Effectively the light beam would be forming a tangent to the earths surface.  If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.  This is a nice 'quasi' Bedford level experiment that shows the earth is round.

I do know that they use surveyor/optical levels when building railroads and highways and usually anything that’s a long distance. It’s basically line of sight while level.  Railroads and highways never have to factor in the curvature of the Earth while being engineered or built.     The level we have at work is good for up to 3000’ and there’s better ones than that.
I guess my question is what kind of level did they use to build it?
Its not very accurate trying to level something that long of a distance with a hand held level.

7
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 23, 2021, 07:49:18 PM »
This directly contradicts statements and papers from LIGO itself that they did in fact use knowledge of the Earths shape to build the tubes. They have said they used Earth curvature calculations and explained why they did it.
Indeed - a misunderstanding of FET would lead one to assume that they're working under RET. Where, pray tell, is the contradiction?

It is here: "We've already been through this - they built their tube to work for the experiment. This would be accomplished without any knowledge of RE vs FE."

The contradiction is when you said they accomplished building the tube without any knowledge of RE vs FE. They say they did take knowledge of RE vs FE into account.

Did LIGO first attempt to do the experiment with it not raised at all and it hit the surface of Earth?
Or did they assume the Earth was round so they built it raised on one end from the beginning?

8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 23, 2021, 06:55:03 PM »
I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis

'Fascination' is probably not quite the right word for it, but I tend to focus on Sig Oct because it has the unique property of being stationary, and perfectly shows the latitude of the observer without needing complex navigation tables etc. This avoids all discussion of movement, which I think tends to distract from the key points of the debate - I don't need a star chart to tell you where to look to see it, as all I need is your latitude and to tell you to look south at the appropriate elevation. Yes, it's hard to see, but it's still there. It also avoids tedious confusion regarding the Southern Cross being visible in parts of the northern hemisphere. I've seen this used as an argument to the effect that the southern pole can in fact be viewed from the northern hemisphere, which is not correct - the southern cross has a declination of around -60, and so would be expected to be visible in the southern 30 degrees or so of the northern hemisphere.

The stationary property of sig oct is perfect for the point being made here, which is that it is visible from all parts of the southern hemisphere - as I showed in my post above, at brief periods, it's even visible in three different continents at the same time. There is no credible explanation for that within FET, and I'm disappointed that Tom hasn't risen to the challenge of addressing this point.

I am trying to think what possible explanation the FE proponents can come up with but honestly nothing short of magic comes to me. I wouldn't want to be in their spot

I would like to invite Tom Bishop and Pete Svarrior to take up this challenge

I don’t think it’s possible in real life.  What you shown is a drawing. Maybe people are confused and one country is looking at the southern cross and the other country is looking at the false cross. It’s kind of like why north hemisphere compasses won’t work correctly in the Southern Hemisphere. But the compass will always point to north correctly in both hemisphere. You can make a compass with a bottle top and a paper clip. That will point correctly to the North and it’s opposite to the south. But for some reason in the Southern Hemisphere you need an additional part that points to the South. This makes no sense. If your going opposite of north you will be going south and someone in Africa going south will not end up in the same place as someone in South America going south. Unless one uses a Southern Hemisphere compasses. Which sounds like it gives a false southern direction to make all points going south end up in the same place.
So a person can be in Africa and one in South America and both looking south and thinking there seeing the southern cross but actually be looking at 2 different sets of stars.

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 17, 2021, 11:54:17 AM »
None of the older civilizations that navigated by the stars used the Southern Cross.  It wasn’t used until the 16th century and wasn’t named till the 19th century. And they mapped the constellations in a circle around Polaris. And months of the year you can see them. Shouldn’t most of Southern Hemisphere always see year round the constellations that are close to the South Pole? Like the small/Big Dipper?

And there are a lot of stars that make up a cross that points opposite of the North Pole.
I tried to add a photo showing multiple crosses that point south but I still haven’t figured out how to post a picture.

10
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The moon illuminated oddly?
« on: January 17, 2021, 09:31:36 AM »
The temperature of the ground is cooler in moonlight than it is the shade. I’ve tested this several times in several different places with an infrared thermometer.  My test always 4-5f degrees cooler in the light of a full moon.

I’ve noticed something similar recently - in recent frost the ground was frozen hard in the open but not frozen under the pines. Only problem is there was no moon that night, so that effect is seen whether there is moonlight or not.

Not just under trees but any area that makes a shadow for most of the night. Side my house in the grass or behind my vehicle on concrete.

11
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The moon illuminated oddly?
« on: January 17, 2021, 05:50:03 AM »
First photo was taken December 8, 2020 at 3:46AM. Second photo was taken the same day at 12:35PM.

The moon recently caught my attention because it was being illuminated from the bottom. How is the moon sitting above the sun? I never noticed it this way before. Could someone explain how this is possible?

The moon has a cooling light. The temperature of the ground is cooler in moonlight than it is the shade. I’ve tested this several times in several different places with an infrared thermometer.  My test always 4-5f degrees cooler in the light of a full moon.

So I don’t see how moonlight can come from the Sun if it cools. If anything it would be a warming light if moonlight actually was the reflection of the Sun.

12
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic fossil finds
« on: November 14, 2020, 07:33:58 PM »
Fossils are mostly fiction.  This is important to understand. The natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum - no science takes place there nor are fossils good evidence of anything beyond swift cataclysm.

The process of interpreting a dead animal from a few bone fragments (we virtually never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal) is art - not science.

The climate of antarctica has clearly changed over time, it's location - most likely not. That's stupid and we have no evidence to support it beyond pointing at volcanic activity underwater and saying SEE?! Or worse, look at this unvalidatable satellite data that says the continents are drifting apart, and the moon too (why the hell not right?).

Climate change is real, and recorded in human history. They skated on the themes in the 15-16's - this is NOT evidence that england is brigadoon and floats around. Holy hell the stupid things we are taught as "fact", as children no less...

In any case, none of this is relevant to the shape of the earth.

Hi,

Regarding your comment that fossils are mostly fiction, can you provide scientific evidence and/or scientific data that shows this?

Also, regarding your statement the the natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum, can you share your scientific evidence of this? Do you have direct eyewitness accounts of this? Which natural museum of history -- there are many.

Also, regarding your statement that "we never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal".... what scientific study or data can you share to show this? How do you know its 10%?

Again, any scientific data or scientific evidence is welcome.

Thank you.

T-Rex skeleton = killer Whale skeleton with legs.  The whales fins are the T-Rex’s feet same amount of bones on each toe/fin.  Both have same tail, Rib cage, teeth. Etc.
I’d post pics but it won’t let me saying File to big.  I’ll bet it’s user error.

13
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 07:19:45 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?

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.

14
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 06:48:12 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

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.

15
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 04:49:40 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.

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun
« on: October 31, 2020, 08:07:10 PM »
I live around 31 latitude in the northern hemisphere.  It’s hot most of the year and this week average Highs will be around 80f and lows 60f. Close to the same temp are the same all alone the East coast of USA from latitudes of 30-34.
If you would go same latitude on the Atlantic Ocean coast in the Southern Hemisphere, say Rio Grande do Sul.  The average highs this week will be 55f and 40f for lows.  It should be the same temperatures in Rio Grande today as it would be where I live at in April/May.   Our average highs in May are 85f and 65f for lows. The temperatures are no where close to one another.
Does the Sun increase in elevation as it gets closer to January?

Hi, in flat Earth theory (FET), the Sun moves about about in the sky above the Earth according to the following:

In round Earth theory (RET), the Earth rotates around a tilted axis, and the part of the Earth tilted towards the Sun receives more light directly compared to the part that is tilted away.  Think of it like shining a torch at a piece of paper.  Do it straight on and you see a bright circle.  That's summer.  Tilt the paper, and that the same amount of light turns into an oval and is spread over a larger area.  That's winter.  As the Earth orbits the Sun, over the course of a year it's always summer for some locations and winter for other locations at the same time (i.e. 31 north can be hotter than 31 south):

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/seasons/en/

Which model you choose to believe is really the crux of the question, not really what causes the difference in temperatures because both account for it.

Yes I’m aware of that, but the temps of some of the locations in the southern hemisphere do not look that way.  So I’m asking does the Sun also increase elevation and gets further from the Earths surface as January approaches. And from January to June the Sun decreases it’s elevation and gets closer to the Earths surface?

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / The Sun
« on: October 31, 2020, 05:57:22 PM »
I live around 31 latitude in the northern hemisphere.  It’s hot most of the year and this week average Highs will be around 80f and lows 60f. Close to the same temp are the same all alone the East coast of USA from latitudes of 30-34.
If you would go same latitude on the Atlantic Ocean coast in the Southern Hemisphere, say Rio Grande do Sul.  The average highs this week will be 55f and 40f for lows.  It should be the same temperatures in Rio Grande today as it would be where I live at in April/May.   Our average highs in May are 85f and 65f for lows. The temperatures are no where close to one another.
Does the Sun increase in elevation as it gets closer to January?

18
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Please don't hit the dome. Astra
« on: October 14, 2020, 01:32:02 AM »
No, the shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds when empty, or 73.6 tons. A satellite weighing 6 tons is roughly one twelfth of this, and will therefore require approx one-twelfth of the thrust, approximating to a fuel requirement of one twelfth.

Why are you adding a graphic of an Apollo Command Module, and quoting from a Wiki about Vostok, when we're talking about the Shuttle? You know, the Space Shuttle? The one that came along AFTER Apollo?

I’m sorry! I meant Spacecraft. They retired the space shuttle and now going back to the spacecraft.

19
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Please don't hit the dome. Astra
« on: October 13, 2020, 06:23:43 PM »

No, the shuttle weighed 165,000 pounds when empty, or 73.6 tons. A satellite weighing 6 tons is roughly one twelfth of this, and will therefore require approx one-twelfth of the thrust, approximating to a fuel requirement of one twelfth.
[/quote]

20
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Please don't hit the dome. Astra
« on: October 13, 2020, 06:07:59 PM »

It doesn't need any fuel to 'slam on the breaks' once it reaches orbit.

Think of it like merging onto the highway.  When you start, all the cars are going much faster and you have to accelerate and use fuel to reach them.  But once you match speed you don't have to hit the breaks to stop.

Same for satellites. The fuel is needed to boost them to the proper altitude, and to get to the correct speed.  After that it will stay in it's orbit without the need for any more massive boosting or thrust.
[/quote]

But if I’m trying to park across the street I’ll drive straight across.  No need to merge.

And I’m having a hard time understanding.  It takes rockets/satellites to go 17,000mph to get into orbit.  Once there some stay at that speed without any other boosting or thrusting and others decline to the speed of the Earth 1,000mph or directly over the same surface spot.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >