1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration debunked

« on: November 11, 2017, 02:40:21 AM »

So then the FE must assume that it is either infinite or that there is something containing it. Otherwise the Earth would have pushed past the atmosphere a long time ago. Are people supposed to take these assumptions on faith?

It seems so. I cann't speak on behalf of the FEers, but I remember having seen somewhere (in the wiki or in the fora) these two possibilities presented as solutions for the problem you are pointing out. Whether these solutions are satisfactory is of course another question...

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.

« on: November 10, 2017, 09:27:30 PM »

The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? ...(cut)... what happens in reality.

Wowww... what a strange and surprising request!.....
There is no need for "reports that any of this happens". Requesting them denotes a fairly bad knowledge of geography and astronomy. What I has said results directly fron the very DEFINITION of what longitude is. There is no need of "reports" for that. There is no need of "evidence" to prove a definition.

Definition? Common knowledge? Hmm. No. Basic evidence for this phenomena is still required to turn it into anything more than a hypothesis.

No, this is definitely not "hypothesis", nor "common knowledge". This is only based on the definition of longitude. But maybe you don't know how longitude is defined on earth? At least your answer leads us to believe it. According to you, what do mean the sentences :" place X and place Y have the same longitude", and "the longitude of Z is 90 deg W" ?
We have to agree on the definition of longitude (and of latitude, of course) if we want this discussion to be fruitfull. Maybe there are different definitions for FE and RE, but in any case we have to know them to continue discussing (this concerns everybody in this thread, not only you and myself).

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.

« on: November 10, 2017, 06:41:04 PM »

The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

Where are the reports that any of this happens? I have been in threads where we have repeatedly asked for evidence of such, over many pages, without progress.

Is it unreasonable to ask for basic evidence of this phenomena you guys are bringing to the table?

While a 12+ hour day is possible in a Flat Earth model, I don't see why we should discuss or attempt to explain this thought experiment of yours without having external data sets of what happens in reality.

Wowww... what a strange and surprising request!.....
There is no need for "reports that any of this happens". Requesting them denotes a fairly bad knowledge of geography and astronomy. What I has said results directly fron the very DEFINITION of what longitude is. There is no need of "reports" for that. There is no need of "evidence" to prove a definition.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration debunked

« on: November 10, 2017, 04:34:08 PM »

Then I would expect there always to be significant turbulence in the air as the air accelerated by the Earth collides with the air above and that this urbulence would be greatest at ground level. I personally do not experience this, do you? Or do you see a problem with this analysis?

I see a problem with this analysis. If it were correct, we would experience the same phenomenon in every elevator. We do not.

Sorry, by ground level I meant next to the ground, regardless of elevation.  Furthermore, this should be noticeable anywhere that atmospheric effects, such as wind, are negligible; in a sealed room, for example.

Sorry RS, but I think your view on how the atmosphere should behave is wrong... Basically, there should be no difference between a FE with gravity (even if that sounds crazy) and a FE with UA. Of course, at the beginning of Time, when God for the first time has imparted his FE with an acceleration of 9.81m/s/s, the atmosphere has got a lot of trouble! but since that memorable event, it has had sufficient time to relax (in the technical meaning of this word) and has reached a thermo-hydrodynamical state of equilibrium, the same as we see today on our (round) earth. The effect of gravity or UA (it's equivalent) can only be traced to the pression/density profile of the atmosphere with elevation.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Neither map explains the equinox.

« on: November 10, 2017, 03:57:50 PM »

In addition to Rama Set's comment to the excellent post by 3D (once again...),  may I clarify another point of understanding. At equinox, the sun generally is not a its highest at noon : this depends on the localisation of the considered place within its time zone, as well as on the value of the time equation (see wikipedia for more details if needed) which is about 7mn (plus or minus) at the time of equinoxes.
The important fact is that at equinox all the places on earth with the same longitude have the sun at its highest exactly at the same instant of time, not very far from but not necessarily at noon.
I think this was what 3D had in mind when writing his post, and what anybody here with good faith has understood...

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: MANAGERIAL NIGHTMARE

« on: November 07, 2017, 04:34:46 AM »

How do they get it in the exact spot to stay over the same spot on the surface of the Earth? At a high level, it can be described easily. To maintain an orbit, (not falling back or speeding away) there is a basic formula which gives the relationship between the distance from the Earth and how fast the object must orbit. The lower the orbit, the faster the orbit. So you just have to provide enough life to get it to the point where the speed of the orbit matches the ground rotational speed of the Earth's surface.

Actually the faster the orbit the higher the orbit.  The way to achieve a higher orbit is to apply thrust on a prograde vector.  To get lower you do a retrograde burn.  Orbital mechanics are all about velocity vectors.

A relative question perhaps. I think what I said was correct, relative to the surface of the Earth. (low orbit recon sats going around multiple times a day, geosync sats going around once per day). But I think you are correct in terms of the actual radial velocity of the speed around a larger and higher orbit.

Hello guys, did you forget the third law of Kepler?  It says :  cube of the main axis proportional to the square of the period. Then if for sake of simplicity you take a circular orbit, with a diameter 2R and and period T = 2*pi/Omega, it translates into :  R^3*Omega^2 = constant. There is at least 2 ways to read this formula :

A)   Omega = constant*R^(-3/2), telling you the higher the orbit, the lower the angular velocity of the sat,
or
B)   R*Omega = V =  constant*R^(-1/2), telling you the higher the orbit, the lower the radial tangential velocity.

So whatever is your point of view, angular velocity or tangential velocity, the higher the orbit, the slower the satellite!...

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Impossible Daytime Moon Phases in Round Earth Theory

« on: October 25, 2017, 12:24:10 PM »

Tom's ability to take on all comers is quite impressive with this data/video.
One can see clearly that both the sun and moon are relatively close, proving once again the FE and trust in your senses.
I've yet to find any information on this site that would lead me to RE belief.
Tom should be awarded slayer status. A whole new crew of RE folks should fire up because the regulars have been waylaid and massacred here.

Is it an answer to or a comment on my post? If yes, it's a very unexpected and surprising one.
I demonstrate marthematically and without any possiblilty of rebuttal that Tom B. was wrong all along this thread, and as an answer (or comment) you sing his praises...
Well it's hard for me to grasp your logic. I see only one solution : your post has to be taken ironically. But in that case it would be very unfair to Tom! ...

One can see clearly that both the sun and moon are relatively close, proving once again the FE and trust in your senses.

I do not see in this video any clue whatsoever on how far or close the sun and moon are. If you did, please feel free to explain : I always enjoy learning new and cleaver things.

And my open question to FE on the compatibility of this video with FET is still valid!

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision

« on: October 25, 2017, 03:15:19 AM »

I'm happy for you that you managed to find a book that spells it your way. I think your action linking to Britannica speaks for itself. Regardless, it's spelled Eratosthenes. It's a translated name, so we understand some people are going to spell it one way or another, especially when referring to older sources, but there is still a most correct way to spell the name.

There is in fact one and only one way to spell Eratosthenes, for the following simple yet very compelling reason :
 in ancient Greek  most of the names had a meaning, more or less in relation with the concerned person or one of his ancestors. Now "Erathostenes" has no specific meaning (at least to my knowledge), meanwhile "Eratosthenes" can split into its two components  "Erato-sthenes", which means "strength of love" (or strengthened by love).
With such a mane, there is no wonder he was such a gifted and famous philosopher!....,

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: Impossible Daytime Moon Phases in Round Earth Theory

« on: October 22, 2017, 05:46:20 PM »

The illustration in the middle is not 95% luminosity.

            *** I apologize for my rather approximate English. I'll try my best! ***

 Why is it not 95% luminosity? the best way to know is to calculate! And it's so easy I wonder why you did not do it yourself already.

If alpha is the angle between the directions Moon-Observer and Moon-Sun, the illumination ratio of the moon is given by :  r = (1+cos(alpha))/2  (this is an approximate formula, assuming the light rays coming from the moon are parallel, but the error is very small, and in any case in the right direction...)
Taking into account the data from the Naval Observatory you quoted on your post of Aug. 10, 01:16:53 AM (reply#10), we find that alpha = 26°. This gives an illumination ratio of... 0.9494.  Hence the 0.95 given by the National Obervatory.

So I think everything is ok :  contrary to your feeling, the moon phase in the video at the begining of the thread is perfectly compatible with Round Earth Theory.

Now the next question from me would be : is it compatible with Flat Earth Theory?...
I would very much appreciate if you - or any other authoritative flatearther - post a similar demo for the case of FET, of course with the same parameters (sun and moon altitudes and azimuts, same place and date,...). Is it possible? I don't know enough FE theory to be able to do it myself (in fact I know nearly nothing concerning FET...)