81

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: January 29, 2023, 11:41:58 PM »

And, as typical of FE'ers, that explanation (no matter how reasonable) must be hand waved away.

Hand-waved? Not at all. It's just strange that a magical lightsaber showed up in these very legitimate photos, and its existence was only retconned in after people pointed out that it looked strange.

Handwaved, retconned, ad-hoc explanation on the BBC, 8 days prior to the social media post:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64065004

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work

« on: January 14, 2023, 07:43:22 AM »

If I may, here's 2 supplementary questions for JPJ.  I'm not a rocket scientist, but I am an aircraft engineer.  Aircraft actually do have a spirit level in the cockpit; its part of an instrument called the Turn and Slip Indicator.  It doesn't have any electronics, its just a plain and simple spirit level, and the pilot checks it to ensure that the aircraft is balanced about its longitudinal axis.

1.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is banked 60 deg left in a level balanced turn?

2.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is perfectly level in flight with the rudder hard over to the left?

(Hint; if you have access to any kind of computer flight sim you can try this yourself).

I don't know enough about aerodynamics to answer exactly, but in an uncoordinated turn, the bubble wouldn’t be in the center.  In a coordinated turn, where all the forces are balanced, it would.  Because...all gravitational and inertial forces are balanced. There is no lateral acceleration  relative to the planes center of gravity’ like you would feel in a car making a tight curve.

Relative to the plane, the indicator is stationary, so it responds to the same forces the plane, the pilot and passengers experience. Drinks and peanuts don’t go flying off tray tables and people don’t fall sideways out of their seats because within it’s own frame of reference, the plane is level.

A spirit level aligns itself to an equipotential surface.  Maybe the “spirit” means magic and the bubble and fluid just magically change positions.  It doesn’t really matter, because how it aligns isn’t the problem for FET.  Its the fact that a spirit level demonstrates differences in gravitational potential that according to FET shouldn’t exist.

Thanks.  So you accept that gravity is just one of the acceleration forces that act on an aircraft, and on a spirit level? 

(and the "spirit" thing doesn't mean magic; it just means a non-freezing medium, like in "wines, ales and alcoholic spirits". 

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work

« on: January 12, 2023, 10:00:58 AM »

Here's a fun challenge for you: contact your favourite spirit level manufacturer or award-winning physicist and ask the following question: would a spirit level work in a rocket accelerating through space, in a zero-gravity environment?

If I may, here's 2 supplementary questions for JPJ.  I'm not a rocket scientist, but I am an aircraft engineer.  Aircraft actually do have a spirit level in the cockpit; its part of an instrument called the Turn and Slip Indicator.  It doesn't have any electronics, its just a plain and simple spirit level, and the pilot checks it to ensure that the aircraft is balanced about its longitudinal axis. 

1.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is banked 60 deg left in a level balanced turn? 

2.   Where do you think the bubble will be if the aircraft is perfectly level in flight with the rudder hard over to the left? 

(Hint; if you have access to any kind of computer flight sim you can try this yourself). 

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work

« on: January 08, 2023, 11:24:19 AM »

If UA effects the meteor, their relative acceleration would be zero and they would never meet.

In no way am I advocating FE, but that premise seems incorrect. 

In the RE case, everything on Earth is affected by the same gravitational acceleration, but things still meet; bats meet balls, cars meet pedestrians, and bullets meet victims. 

You are presuming;
1.  No other forces are involved.
2.  Initial velocities are identical. 

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work

« on: January 06, 2023, 01:35:22 PM »

With the greatest respect for Pete and JPJ's Relative-arguments, aren't we just accelerating down a mathematical rabbit-hole here? 

OK, the velocity of a meteorite is going to be somewhere between 0 and C.  So where do they come from, and what makes them collide with Earth (or vice versa). 

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?

« on: December 31, 2022, 11:30:31 PM »

Chains, of course are flexible, so why not measure distance using steel bars of known length? 

Between 1888 and 1937, several companies, using different gauges, laid a rail track from Sydney to Perth; traversing Australia from East to West coast.  In the 1970s the unified Australian Rail Track Corporation converted the entire length to Standard Gauge. 

They seem to think they laid 4352 kilometres of track.  I'm pretty sure that trains also have speedometers and clocks so, well, you know .....

87

Flat Earth Projects / Re: The Atlantic Split

« on: December 19, 2022, 06:55:52 PM »

Before anyone beats me to it, can I be the first on this thread to bring up the Meteorological-Phenomenon-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named; the southern hemisphere Anomalous Winds.  There don't appear to be any, with regard to this boat race. 

The current race leader, Simon Curwen, has an average race speed so far (recorded at 16.00 UTC 19 Dec 2022) of 4.9 Kts, with his rivals  showing a decimal digit-or-2 in his wake.  Current speeds of of him and his closest (geographical) competitors appears to be in the range of 5 to 7 kts; hardly extraordinary.  I am not a sailor, but would have imagined that extraordinary winds would be driving sail-boats at extraordinary speeds. 

Two questions for resident yacht-club-guy Goldie (or any subject-matter expert);

1.  Any thoughts on the apparent speeds, and how the skippers are determining their actual position, speed and heading?  (ie GPS, astronomical sightings, LORAN).

2.  There are 2 large, rectangular (on Mercator) brown zones in the southern oceans which the boats are avoiding; out of bounds for the race?

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 14, 2022, 10:20:02 AM »

Everest is 8848 metres above sea level. It doesnt matter how high it is relative to the ground it rises from.

Of course it matters.  It only stands out in human consciousness because it is an absolute; humans are obsessed with "highest", "fastest", "biggest", and we use sea level as a universal datum.  Its only "the highest mountain in the world" because it sticks out a tiny bit more from a range of generally high terrain.  Its only 200 metres taller than its best mate, K2.  I live at sea level and I can see a 900 metre mountain (Skiddaw) from my living room window, 30 km away, and its really not that impressive (though pretty to look at). 

Everest is 8 km high and 700 km from the sea.  Why would you notice it from space?  Your seeming obsession with something that small demonstrates that human brains simply can't relate these tiny dimension to the sheer awesomeness of the size of Earth. 

And can I comment on the "map of Africa" thing?  Yes, one is a direct dopy of the other; the map is directly copied from the actual shape of Africa.  People have been sailing around it for millennia, trekking across it for centuries, and flying over it for decades, so I think we had a pretty good idea what shape it was before we ever saw it from space.  And most of the correspondents on this site don't just base their idea of the shape of Earth on "rectangular drawings on school room walls"; we've travelled enough to see them in reality and found that, yes, this map works. 

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 13, 2022, 02:40:10 PM »

And Simon, you understand that although Sagarmatha (Everest) is the highest mountain, it doesn't just rise up to 8848 metres directly from sea level, like the Eiffel Tower.  Its in a mountain range, its surrounded by other mountains; its like the tallest man standing in a crowd of very tall men.   

Also, its not symmetrical.  When you find such a photo how will you define whether it is perpendicular to the horizon?   

90

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Parental Licensing and Why We Need It

« on: December 11, 2022, 04:50:35 PM »

But what if you end up preventing the birth of the man who killed Hitler!

Nice paradox; Hitler killed Hitler. 

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding

« on: December 10, 2022, 11:45:02 AM »

If the earth is a globe then any image of a ship beyond the horizon would not be sitting at right angles to the horizon. It would be at right angles to the relevant curvature. The ships in the image are both upright which clearly shows the pic is a fake.
If an infinite number of ships on the sea beyond the horizon (one after the other) could be viewed to an infinite distance they would not be sitting like little ducks in a row.

As Tumeni said (while I was writing); Correct.  If the ship were 60 nautical miles from the observer it would appear to be tilting away by 1 degree.  As the ship appears to be less than 60 nautical miles, the angle of tilt will be less that 1 degree.  Please demonstrate that the ship shown is not leaning away by less that 1 degree. 

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why is Earth a magnet?

« on: December 08, 2022, 11:09:58 PM »

And for your second question, not many people have been to the north pole.  I'm aware of a few skiers, a motorcyclist, a cruise ship, and some science expedition's who have been there...  And that's not even the edge of the world in my opinion.  And even if a person descided to travel farther and farther in a particular direction which is near the edge of the world, I'm told the air is so thin that planes can't get there and probably any other machine or human that I know of.

So, if only one person had been to the North Pole, then someone's been there.  But of course, hundreds of people have been there.  Motorcyclists?  Probably, they are a hardy and impetuous bunch.  Cruise ship?  Don't think so, due to the permanent presence of pack ice.  Skiers and scientists?  Definitely.  You forgot to mention Sir Michael Palin; author, traveller and parrot-sketch participant (check out his book and TV series "Pole to Pole".  And what about the daily overflights by international airlines?  For instance, look at Finnair A.350 OH-LWO; left Seoul at 23.24 tonight, flew northeast across the Bering Sea around Russia then almost due north heading across the pole to Helsinki.  Check it out on FR24. 

(edit) And, yes, the thin air thing.  By whom?

93

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17

« on: November 27, 2022, 05:03:47 PM »

I was privileged to be born in the 1950s.  I still remember my mum listening to the radio and telling me that there was a man in space (Yuri Gagarin), and I was old enough in the later 60s to witness, and understand the significance of, the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs culminating in the Lunar landings. 

In Earth orbit we have had Skylab, Mir, Shuttle, ISS, constellations of communications-, broadcasting- and navigational-satellites.  Beyond Earth's immediate locale, we have landed or flown-by all the major planets, some asteroids, and a comet.  Robotic probes are excavating material from some bodies for future return to Earth.  Half a dozen countries, of all political shadings, have soft-landed vehicles on alien bodies, and some of them are still driving around.  We've sent probes beyond the boundaries of the Solar system, and spaceborne telescopes are probing the furthest reaches of the universe.   

The prototype of a manned lunar probe is currently orbiting the moon; the first person-capable vehicle to do so in 50 years, and we stand on the threshold of permanent lunar settlements, and a manned probe to Mars.  Possibly, inshallah, in my lifetime. 

Against this backdrop, someone on another thread (who's name I can't even be arsed to look up again) is suggesting that space is boring.  Unbelievable.  Makes you wonder where we will be in another 50 years. 

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?

« on: November 27, 2022, 01:31:01 PM »

Looks like yesterday's Qantas QF1336 was a chartered sightseeing flight to Antarctica (Google it). 

Obviously Qantas aren't aware of the Forbidden Zone thingy, and the Global Space Force F-16s failed to shoot it down. 

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?

« on: November 26, 2022, 11:08:35 PM »

You are not allowed to sail or go past past the 60th parallel south. I believe it is to prevent us from getting too close to the firmament and discovering the true nature of the plane we live on.
Antarctica, interestingly enough, is the only 'continent' that has it's shape on the flag. It's almost like they want you to 'know' the shape of it - thereby further fooling us and hiding the truth.

What flag?

And what's with the "go past the 60th parallel south" thing.  What law is that?  What is the jurisdiction?  Who enforces it?  As I write this, Qantas Boeing 787 Dreamliner Registration VH-ZNB, operating as flight number QF1336, is on FR24 out of Melbourne and at 67deg South 165deg East.  Should we be telling the World Police? 

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?

« on: November 26, 2022, 08:04:36 PM »

The map is pure fantasy.  It doesn't even show Essos, Westeros or Narnia. 

97

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Does the Sun appear larger in the morning?

« on: November 26, 2022, 07:55:57 PM »

Item 1:  Before we go any further; for Christ's sake be careful with your eyesight; you won't get a second chance.  Research how to safely look at the sun.

Now lets critique your science.  "3/8 inch", "between 1/8 and 1/4 inch".  What?  I thought even FE took it to be several miles across.  I assume you are measuring the apparent diameter at some distance from your eyes.  What distance?  How have you measured the range of your compass points from your eye?  Are you using the same distance for every observation? 

Sunglasses are totally inadequate for this task (see Item 1).  If you are looking through trees you are partially obscuring the thing you are attempting to measure.  Unless you are looking through something like welder's goggles you are only measuring the glare, not the sun. 

Finally, read Item 1 again. 

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum

« on: November 20, 2022, 05:31:42 PM »

Questions like.. if exhaust fumes do nothing compared to the internal action/reaction principle, then what happens if we move the exhaust of a jet in different directions?  Nothing really?  What if we turned the exhaust of  a rocket 180 degrees...  Would the rocket still move forward?  I'm compelled to give credit to the enormous wind power generated by these machines.

Harrier; it can deflect its exhaust nozzle downwards; plane goes up.
Airliners; ducts and vanes deflect the exhaust gas forwards; plane slows down. 

99

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum

« on: November 20, 2022, 01:08:21 PM »

If Jets and Rockets are propelled as a reaction to moving the mass of fuel at a high velocity in one direction rather than on the exhaust fumes pushing against air, then there should be some information which could confirm the answer. 

There is information; its called Newton's Third Law.  Google it.  Its plainly written in practically every book about physics.  You act on an object, and it exerts an identical force on you, but in the opposite direction.  Its skateboard-guy with a bowling ball. 

The exhaust fumes are not pushing on air.  Fuel itself is not moved backwards, it is the exhaust gas which moves; -

Rocket; the fuel/oxidiser in the tanks combine and burn to produce hot gas, which has a hugely greater volume so is directed out of the nozzle and is termed "exhaust".  The volume is increased, but the mass remains the same.  The mass is therefore accelerated, which is a force.  The force of accelerating the exhaust produces a reaction on the rocket, in the opposite direction. Whatever is outside the nozzle (air, vacuum, yogurt) doesn't matter.

Jet; The aircraft only carries fuel, not oxidiser.  It collects air through an intake.  The air serves 2 functions;
1. it contains oxygen, so supports combustion. 
2. It has mass. 
Fuel is combined with the air and burnt, which increases the volume and pressure of the gas.  The fuel doesn't contribute much to the mass, the exhaust gas is mainly air and combustion products like CO, CO2, water, but whilst the volume is much greater it still has the same mass.  The gas escapes through the jetpipe, and is termed "exhaust".  The mass is therefore accelerated, which is a force.  The force of accelerating the exhaust produces a reaction on the aircraft, in the opposite direction. Whatever is outside the nozzle (air, vacuum, yogurt) doesn't matter, but unfortunately the intake needs to be immersed in air, so the rest of the aircraft has the same limitation. 

100

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum

« on: November 19, 2022, 08:53:41 PM »

It doesn't push against anything.  There's no friction.  Its a reaction.  Read the book. 

"And stack, Newton made it clear that MASS is important in the action/reaction equation.  The greater the mass of one object compared to another, the less it will move".

Correct.  You're probably thinking "Gas?  That's not got a lot of mass".  Try to understand that this was the heaviest rocket that NASA has ever launched, and that around 90% of the Lift-Off Mass of a rocket is fuel and oxidiser.  And all that mass gets thrown out of the nozzle.  It burns, and it becomes gaseous, but when it flies out of the nozzle at supersonic speed it still has the same mass it had when it was a zillion gallons of liquid oxygen and hydrogen.