1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the Sun?

« on: October 06, 2020, 04:31:58 AM »

Oh no you fools. There is nothing like Europe or China. Only the USA is real and everything else is also fake. Everybody there is part of the hoax!
You can not fool me. Also Sun and Moon are not real. I am not real nobody is. Because can somebody proof me that I am real? can you? No so pls don't tell me something about that doesn't exist,
like the earth for example.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Center of gravity of objects on a flat earth

« on: August 21, 2020, 08:06:37 AM »

It doesn't matter whether the acceleration is due to gravity, ball hit by a bat, bullet in a gun, or something on the floor of an aircraft pulling "g".  As long as the accelerating force is distributed around the Centre of Mass (C of M) it's stable.

But what if it isn't distributed around the COM?  That's kind of my point.  The COM is where gravity will exert the most pull, because that is where the object's mass is concentrated.  But from what I can tell from the wiki, the "accelerator force" must be evenly distributed. It doesn't vary according to position.

If two kids are of equal weight on a teeter totter with the pivot in the middle, it will balance.  But if you move the pivot, you shift the COM and one side increases in mass.  Greater mass means greater gravitational pull.  Gravity is pulling harder on one side than on the other and causes the more massive side to fall. If the accelerator force is what causes it to fall, then the accelerator force would have to be greater on one side than on the other.

There's nothing in the wiki to suggest that greater mass means greater accelerator force and I don't even know how that would work.  The ground on one side would have to be accelerating at a different rate than the other.

well actually when the teeter totter is  fixed on the ground of the accelerating box it will accelerate with the same force. So it would behave like gravity. For example if you put a plank on your car front center with a hinge ( in driving direction) and attach two equal weights when accelerating you  should see that the plank will not move to one side or the other (in reality this would be very difficult to do because there are many things interfering with your setup) but when you offset the center of the plank to one side and accelerate then it will move to the other side because of leverage and mass distribution.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Center of gravity of objects on a flat earth

« on: August 20, 2020, 07:24:49 PM »

Hello. I have recently been presented with proof that the earth is flat. For all you who have done research on this topic, please guide me to a discussion board where I may find the information I need. I have a degree in science(I know, big mistake). I am not religious, but very interested in flat earth theory(or fact, whatever you call it). Thanks.

I'm gonna do what everyone here is gonna do: link you to the wiki https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki
there you can read proofs that sometimes contradict themselves and also are not accepted by everyone that thinks the earth is flat.

Even though I really would like to see the proof you've got there.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy is a Pseudoscience

« on: August 18, 2020, 11:41:53 AM »

With that said you can for example easily disprove the sun cycling model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F

This model does not hold if you consider solar eclipses do prove that the moon is before the sun. (and venus and mercury are also sometimes between earth and sun).

5

Flat Earth Theory / Astronomy is a Pseudoscience

« on: August 18, 2020, 11:39:21 AM »

I found that in your forum https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience
So that is to me kind a funny, but that aside

A Yale astronomy course explains:

  “ One of the questions asked in this astronomy course was "What type of experiment do astronomers perform?" None, was the answer. An astronomer's lab is his observatory. Astronomy is an observing science. Sight is the primary sense used in this science. The instrument that enhances this endeavor is the telescope. ”

The Department of Astronomy at UW-Madison states:

  “ Astronomy is an observational science, as opposed to most of the rest of physics, which is experimental in nature. Astronomers cannot create a star in the lab and study it, walk around it, change it, or explode it. Astronomers can only observe the sky as it is, and from their observations deduce models of the universe and its contents. ”

Well this is not true. Physics including astronomic physics use basically a theory based model. A scientist takes into account what he has observed (measured) and creates a model that represents this behavior. When he thinks he has a valid model he publishes his theory. Then this theory is taken as valid until some one can disprove it. When a theory can not be disproved for some time it will be adapted as probably working model for our world(universe whatever). So in order to disprove the circulation of the earth around the sun you have to take the publication and find a point that can be falsified by observation (measurement) e.g.  the sun does not rise for a day, then the theory would be disproved.

Lets take an example from the past:
https://hti.osu.edu/sites/hti.osu.edu/files/ptolemaic_model_of_solar_system_0.pdf
Ptolmey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy)
Thinks this is the model of the System in which the earth is the center (geocentric model)

Now it was disproved by the fact that venus and mercury are never are far away from the sun. You could argument that they just have similar speeds but that does not hold if you consider that every observed planet has a different speed. So it was disproved by observation.

Also an interesting page about pseudo science:
https://people.physics.carleton.ca/~watson/Physics/NSCI1000/Pseudo-science/Copernicus_vs_Ptolemy.html

But if a model does predicts something and if you try to measure (observe) the prediction then it strengthen the model.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof me that the earth is flat

« on: August 07, 2020, 02:20:16 PM »

Here is the full video from the source. Feel free to tell us how it is out of context.

Now this is interesting. He got an question and then talks about something different in order to distract from the question a bit then continues to answer something that has not been asked.
The point where he talks about something different is where he make some weird claims that either he believes but don't have to be true or he just tells shit because of rhetoric.

But still: one person without proof says something = no value.
 

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof me that the earth is flat

« on: August 07, 2020, 02:15:19 PM »

Objects cannot exceed the speed of light. Doesn't this mean that the Earth can't accelerate forever?
Due to special relativity, this is not the case. At this point, many readers will question the validity of any answer which uses advanced, intimidating-sounding physics terms to explain a position. However, it is true. The relevant equation is v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1. This means that velocity can never reach the speed of light, regardless of how long one accelerates for and the rate of the acceleration.

See Universal Acceleration for more details

...(some math)
As you can see, it is impossible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth past the speed of light.

Explanations for Universal Acceleration
The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct.

Dark Energy
This model proposes that the disk of our Earth is lifted by dark energy, an unknown form of energy which, according to globularist physicists, makes up about 70% of the universe. The origin of this energy is unknown.
Davis Plane
This model states that there is an infinite plane of exotic matter somewhere below the disk, pushing in the opposite manner of traditional gravity. This is a recent theory, and is in progress.

Assuming you deny gravity: Here it gets explained by the "Dark Energy" while the sentence is true that there are physicists that believe that this is a valid model the model itself is only a attempt to explain why the universe is expanding and speeding up when expanding based on the big bang theory. The theory of dark matter and dark energy is not yet disproved but the half of the scientific community is skeptical.

And with that the big bang theory is a contradiction to the "no gravity" theory because it is based on that too.

in short: "Dark Energy" explains "no gravity". "Dark Energy" is explained by big bang theory. Big bang theory involves the usage of gravity.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof me that the earth is flat

« on: August 07, 2020, 02:05:10 PM »

I go one for you:
Do you think space travel is real?

Please read the FAQ before posting here.

Ok sorry for missing that point. While for me the conspiracy explanation is pretty weak.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof me that the earth is flat

« on: August 07, 2020, 01:21:27 PM »

Also my question above were not answered, but that is fine.

I go one for you:
Do you think space travel is real?
What about the ISS wich you can see with the pure eye on clear nights?
When the NASA is "mind controlled" what about the russian space project?

And one more:
Are all pictures of the earth made form space are fake?
https://www.google.com/search?q=earth+from+space&sxsrf=ALeKk02D-PBm72RIfLWQSWYkKvXFjpP6hA:1596806452887&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj4wZjLl4nrAhUtsKQKHfEUDhcQ_AUoAXoECAsQAw&biw=1908&bih=914

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof me that the earth is flat

« on: August 07, 2020, 01:17:44 PM »

"Not a space agency" - yeah NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
"When Alan brought in all the Nazi scientists [...] that is where the bulk of the mind control happend". - what does the one thing to do with the other?
Also this is a statement from one person that is (for me obviously) bad at wording. And this is taken out of context.

And for me please don't link youtube videos. They are the worst source of information you can get usually. Also for almost every video that proves something I can give you 3 that prove the opposite and probably all of them use very bad scientific or rhetoric methods in order to achieve their goal.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof me that the earth is flat

« on: August 07, 2020, 12:42:12 AM »

We sort of explain it in the opening section of the planets section, but we should probably address it there as well.

As far I can tell the FE model does say that the Planets are bound to the sun somehow (maybe with gravity). Explaining it with systems that all assumed the earth is round.
The modern explanation of the solar system is based on the "assumption" there is gravity and with this the earth is orbiting around the sun like every other planet in the system. With this (and probably more information) they calculated the sizes of the moon, sun and the other planets. When there is gravity in a FE model then the sun would be about as big as the moon and the other planets equivalent smaller about the same rate. And the distances would be much smaller. Also the earth would have to have more mass in the center than on the edges which would be a measurable difference in gravity.

The conclusion that Earth is a sphere because we see spheres is only one interpretation.

One could also interpret that the Earth is a plane because we know from human experience that bodies generally need a platform to exist over or upon. Billiard balls need a Pool Table. Basketballs need a Basketball Court. The game Water Polo generally takes place with a flat foundation with layers of an aqueous medium, with a flat surface and floating balls. It does not follow that because the balls in those games are round, the those courts are also round.

Those examples are easy to understand but have a problem with the scale of this situation.
According to RE the earth has a radius of 6.371 km and a mass of 5,972 × 10^24 kg. Lets say there is a Human with the mass of 100 kg.
Now lets take a ball with the radius of 1m it would have a mass(with the same density) about 2,3 * 10^4 kg 
Compared to the Human with 100 kg  he would have a mass of 1 * 10^(2 - 20) kg = 1*10^(-15) g and with the density of an human there would be a square 0.00001 cm edge length that is about to compare for the scale. If you would put an object of that size to the ball it would probably stick to it because of gravity but only as long you don't have any other gravity that is stronger than that of that ball.

Got stuck here with gravity.
What I wanted to show is that with that scale comparison the ball would be almost flat for the "human square" because it can't see the curve.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof me that the earth is flat

« on: August 06, 2020, 11:51:00 PM »

While I'm reading through this just another question came up my mind:
Why is there a north pole but no south pole in the flat earth model, could it not also be the other way around?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Proof me that the earth is flat

« on: August 06, 2020, 11:30:14 PM »

Ok lets start with this: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Cosmos
Here is stated that basically everything except the earth is a sphere. On an simple logical thinking: Why should the earth be an exception to the rest of the cosmos and be flat?

14

Flat Earth Theory / Proof me that the earth is flat

« on: August 06, 2020, 11:20:39 PM »

I am stating here the earth is round(without any evidence presented) and want you, if don't mind, to proof me that it is instead flat.
Preferably with studies and sources I can look up. Or simple physics, what ever you like.

If I am offending somebody I am sorry this was not my intention.

Thanks in andvance