The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Antithecystem on July 07, 2017, 12:51:09 AM
-
I'm not a flat earther, and I think it's safe to say flat earth has some glaring holes.
Perhaps it's biggest, most obvious and well known one is the sun and moon appearing to set.
How do flat earthers get around, or in their case through this?
One way is with refraction.
But simply mentioning the word refraction isn't, or shouldn't be enough.
I'm captivated by the prospect of a flat earth, especially by an infinite plane, and I wish I, or someone could make it work somehow, but I'm not holding my breath, at least not forever.
-
Perhaps over long distances, the light from the ground bends/curves forwards/upwards, making the ground appear more elevated than it is, and since the sun is getting further and further away from you, appearing lower and lower in the sky, eventually the light from the ground appears more elevated than the sun, and cancels it out.
Now why this sort of refraction would be happening, or how we can prove it's happening, is another matter.
If it is happening, it could also explain why boats and things appear to sink bottom first.
-
I'm captivated by the prospect of a flat earth, especially by an infinite plane,
That's how it started for many of us,
-
Well, you are right, on FE it just doesn't work. Furthermore, there is no explanation given and could not be given.
To make this short, there is refraction that causes the sun appear HIGHER than it is. The light always travels the fastest way possible and in air with density gradient growing towards earth surface it bends as well, especially when sun is near horizon. The curve is cycloid as known from physics.
If you get it right, there is no chance that sun will disappear. It is just will never happen. There is no explanation in FET for sun disappearing due to dense air and at the same time very faint stars which are thousands times fainter than sun are still visible right at the horizon. No it doesn't work, sorry.
-
You are assuming that the density of space is zero. You are forgetting that we don't have a real space agency to tell us the density of space.
-
You are assuming that the density of space is zero. You are forgetting that we don't have a real space agency to tell us the density of space.
What are your requirements for a "real space agency", and how could you tell if some agency actually met them?
-
You are assuming that the density of space is zero. You are forgetting that we don't have a real space agency to tell us the density of space.
What are your requirements for a "real space agency", and how could you tell if some agency actually met them?
A simple requirement I have for a space agency is not to build their 6 billion dollar lunar landers with an assortment of junk yard parts held together with tape (http://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
-
No bishop, sorry, but there is no effect of density of space. You mean ether right?
There is simply no effect. Explain how can I see now setting Jupiter and it doesn't disappear. Looks like your ether is very selective. :D
-
A simple requirement I have for a space agency is not to build their 6 billion dollar lunar landers with an assortment of junk yard parts held together with tape (http://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
Ok. Well, we have ESA. It has never landed on the moon at all.
-
Well, there is also RocketLab in NZ which is focused on very small satellites (shoe box - sized) which they put on the orbit for a few $M. Each medium company can afford that. So, Bishop?
-
I'm captivated by the prospect of a flat earth, especially by an infinite plane,
That's how it started for many of us,
So how do you account for sunsets?
I've been at this for a while now actually.
Well, a year and a half anyway.
I have 700 posts on the other flat earth forum under the name: Antithecyst.
I think flat earthers have made a good case for some things, and while they've failed to convince me, I admire their creativity, their imagination, and most of all, their cajones.
Ironically you gotta have some pretty big balls to believe in flat earth nowadays.
To hell with what the scientific dogmatists say, I say be your scientist, DIY.
Lamestream science's state monopoly on education, medicine, space and so much more needs to be dismantled.
It's authoritarian science is what it is.
So much of reality is open to interpretation, science is as much an art form as it is objective.
-
Well, you are right, on FE it just doesn't work. Furthermore, there is no explanation given and could not be given.
To make this short, there is refraction that causes the sun appear HIGHER than it is. The light always travels the fastest way possible and in air with density gradient growing towards earth surface it bends as well, especially when sun is near horizon. The curve is cycloid as known from physics.
If you get it right, there is no chance that sun will disappear. It is just will never happen. There is no explanation in FET for sun disappearing due to dense air and at the same time very faint stars which are thousands times fainter than sun are still visible right at the horizon. No it doesn't work, sorry.
Maybe refraction is causing the ground to appear higher than it is, blocking the sun from view.
-
No bishop, sorry, but there is no effect of density of space. You mean ether right?
There is simply no effect. Explain how can I see now setting Jupiter and it doesn't disappear. Looks like your ether is very selective. :D
Maybe his aether is sparse enough that you can see jupiter, but dense enough that jupiter would appear brighter without it, or: just because it's not white, doesn't mean it's black.
Maybe Jupiter isn't as far away as MS science purports, so there isn't a whole lot of aether for Jupiter's light to travel to on its way to earth.
-
Antithecystem,
Maybe refraction is causing the ground to appear higher than it is, blocking the sun from view.
Why ground appears higher and Sun is not? Selective refraction? We are talking about situations when Sun is "touching" the horizon. No, it doesn't make sense.
Maybe his aether is sparse enough that you can see Jupiter but dense enough that Jupiter would appear brighter without it, or: just because it's not white, doesn't mean it's black.
Maybe Jupiter isn't as far away as MS science purports, so there isn't a whole lot of aether for Jupiter's light to travel to on its way to earth.
Look, first, there is no evidence for aether. But let's imagine that for some insane reason it does exist. Then, we know that Jupiter is farther than Moon and Sun. Because Moon and Sun obscure them. We also know that Jupiter is MUCH MCUH fainter than Moon and of course thousands of times fainter than Sun. Nonetheless, it "disappears" at an exact same place as Sun does.
This simply contradicts evidence and logic.
And I cannot share your optimism about FET. I think it harms humanity. I can talk about it in a separate thread though.
-
Perhaps over long distances, the light from the ground bends/curves forwards/upwards
Yes, this is one of the leading theories in the FE circle.
How, exactly, did you conclude that FET has glaring holes if you're unaware of its very basics?
-
You are assuming that the density of space is zero. You are forgetting that we don't have a real space agency to tell us the density of space.
What are your requirements for a "real space agency", and how could you tell if some agency actually met them?
A simple requirement I have for a space agency is not to build their 6 billion dollar lunar landers with an assortment of junk yard parts held together with tape (http://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
Just as an FYI, a space agency did not build the lunar module. An aircraft company (http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/OurHeritage/Pages/Inspace.aspx) did.
-
Well, there is also RocketLab in NZ which is focused on very small satellites (shoe box - sized) which they put on the orbit for a few $M. Each medium company can afford that. So, Bishop?
Rocketlab was receiving money from the NASA long before their first rocket launch. NASA exists almost in whole as an array of public-private companies known as government contractors. Rocketlab's founder, Peter Beck claims to have experience in international space projects and lists himself as a "friend of NASA" on his Linkedin profile.
-
Just as an FYI, a space agency did not build the lunar module. An aircraft company (http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/OurHeritage/Pages/Inspace.aspx) did.
Just an FYI, NASA is composed of public-private companies known as government contractors; temp agencies which provide people to work under NASA management. Northrop Grumman is one such contractor which provides the government with temps. Aside from the higher management and security personnel, no one actually works for NASA. That's why Boeing may claim to have helped build some satellite thing, or why Computer Science Corporation may claim to have worked on some moon thing.
Set foot into ANY US Government research base and this is just how it is.
-
Lets look up what this "Bethpage facility" actually is:
http://www.northropgrumman.com/AboutUs/OurHeritage/Pages/Inspace.aspx
At its Bethpage, N.Y. facility, Grumman Corporation, now part of the Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems, designed, assembled, integrated and tested the Lunar Module (better known as the LM), the famed Eagle of the Apollo program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Weapons_Industrial_Reserve_Plant,_Bethpage
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Bethpage (NWIRP) also known as 'Northrop Grumman Site Facility' was a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facility established in 1941, with the mission to design, fabricate, and test prototype aircraft for the US Navy and the NASA in the town of Oyster Bay in Bethpage, New York.[1]
Definition of GOCO from a government pdf:
https://info.ornl.gov/sites/wfo/Shared%20Documents/Fact%20Sheets%20for%20Sponsors/Fact_Sheet_DOEWFO_Comparison_of_GOCOandMOContractors.pdf
GOCO2: (Government-Owned, Contractor Operated) facility is a manufacturing plant that is owned by the Government and operated under contract by a
non-government, private firm. Operation and maintenance of facilities when done by contract with the private sector.
Translation: Northroop Grumann is executing a government contract on a government facility. The contract explicitly spells out what tasks they need to perform and how to do so. Being under a government contract, the government is directly telling the firm what to do. The firm is not autonomous or independent in its decision making, and its employees must get any necessary government security clearance levels like anyone else. Undoubtedly, there are government managers on that site actively managing the contract. Being a naval aircraft/weapons facility, the whole facility is surrounded by armed guards or military personnel employed by the U.S. Government.
-
Antithecystem,
Maybe refraction is causing the ground to appear higher than it is, blocking the sun from view.
Why ground appears higher and Sun is not? Selective refraction? We are talking about situations when Sun is "touching" the horizon. No, it doesn't make sense.
Maybe his aether is sparse enough that you can see Jupiter but dense enough that Jupiter would appear brighter without it, or: just because it's not white, doesn't mean it's black.
Maybe Jupiter isn't as far away as MS science purports, so there isn't a whole lot of aether for Jupiter's light to travel to on its way to earth.
Look, first, there is no evidence for aether. But let's imagine that for some insane reason it does exist. Then, we know that Jupiter is farther than Moon and Sun. Because Moon and Sun obscure them. We also know that Jupiter is MUCH MCUH fainter than Moon and of course thousands of times fainter than Sun. Nonetheless, it "disappears" at an exact same place as Sun does.
This simply contradicts evidence and logic.
And I cannot share your optimism about FET. I think it harms humanity. I can talk about it in a separate thread though.
Maybe direct (hasn't bounced off other objects on the way to your eyes) sunlight is stronger than indirect (has bounced off other objects on the way to your eyes) sunlight, and that's why refraction is affecting the latter more than the former.
Yea but the point is being able to see Jupiter, is not proof the aether doesn't exist.
-
Perhaps over long distances, the light from the ground bends/curves forwards/upwards
Yes, this is one of the leading theories in the FE circle.
How, exactly, did you conclude that FET has glaring holes if you're unaware of its very basics?
Is it a basic?
While I've heard flatists mention refraction, I've never heard them explain how and why it's happening the way I just did, and I've seen hundreds of flatist videos and talked to dozens of flatists about this subject and many others.
In my experience, flatists shy away from specifics regarding refraction.
-
Yea but the point is being able to see Jupiter, is not proof the aether doesn't exist.
OK. My original point was as foolows: Disappearing due to dense air doesn't work. Why? Because everything disappears at the horizon no matter how faint it is. If the atmosphere was responsible for disappearing, the fainter the object was the earlier (read farther away from the horizon) it would disappear. But what we see is that enormously bright Sun disappears exactly at the same place where all faint stars are disappearing.
Well, of course, any sane person would think that this is because of Earth Rotation. But how dense air explains this?
-
A simple requirement I have for a space agency is not to build their 6 billion dollar lunar landers with an assortment of junk yard parts held together with tape (http://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
FYI, the reason the landers sun screen material is held together with tape is that they're there to reflect away the intense heat of the sun on the sunward side of the LEM and to retain heat (by insulation) on the shadowed side.
If they fastened this material to the LEM with (for example) screws - then the screws themselves would heat up and transfer that heat through to the inside of the LEM.
Hmmm - now here's a though. If they were just botching something together - why would they use "gold tape"?
Well, actually, the "gold tape" they used is "kapton tape". Its rated to 500 degF, is highly flame retardant and sticks to things better than any other tape I've used. Which would be an odd choice if you weren't actually going to the moon...especially since it costs around $60 for a ridiculously small roll of the stuff. On the other hand, if you WERE going to the moon, it would be just the perfect material!
Sorry Tom - I know people here hold you in high regard - so if you're going to make comments like that I really think you should spend just a moment to do a LITTLE research before talking patent nonsense like that.
Things like the LEM look like crazy contraptions because they have to do a job that is very unusual in nature. We're not used to machines that'll heat up to the melting point of lead if you leave them in the sun - or cool down to sub-antarctic temperatures if they stay in the dark. We're not used to the fanatical desire to save launch weight that was forced on the LEM designers.
The spidery collection of rods and fasteners looks weird because it needs to be weird.
-
A simple requirement I have for a space agency is not to build their 6 billion dollar lunar landers with an assortment of junk yard parts held together with tape (http://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander).
FYI, the reason the landers sun screen material is held together with tape is that they're there to reflect away the intense heat of the sun on the sunward side of the LEM and to retain heat (by insulation) on the shadowed side.
If they fastened this material to the LEM with (for example) screws - then the screws themselves would heat up and transfer that heat through to the inside of the LEM.
Hmmm - now here's a though. If they were just botching something together - why would they use "gold tape"?
Well, actually, the "gold tape" they used is "kapton tape". Its rated to 500 degF, is highly flame retardant and sticks to things better than any other tape I've used. Which would be an odd choice if you weren't actually going to the moon...especially since it costs around $60 for a ridiculously small roll of the stuff. On the other hand, if you WERE going to the moon, it would be just the perfect material!
Sorry Tom - I know people here hold you in high regard - so if you're going to make comments like that I really think you should spend just a moment to do a LITTLE research before talking patent nonsense like that.
Things like the LEM look like crazy contraptions because they have to do a job that is very unusual in nature. We're not used to machines that'll heat up to the melting point of lead if you leave them in the sun - or cool down to sub-antarctic temperatures if they stay in the dark. We're not used to the fanatical desire to save launch weight that was forced on the LEM designers.
The spidery collection of rods and fasteners looks weird because it needs to be weird.
Very well said. There are some great Apollo videos on you tube about each major sub system and the one on the LEM is great. It evolved more than any other system due to the unique problems you describe.
-
The outside heat shield isn't even properly sealed together. There are gaps everywhere in the white exerior. Its terrible. It looks like a middle school art project. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that the heat shield of a space craft which kick up plumes of dust should be so flimsily secured and held together.
-
Oh yeah, and you living on a flat earth with two poles and switching sun jumping up and down are not living on a fantasy land ;D ;D ;D
I'll grab more popcorn. This forum is so funny and addicting.
-
The outside heat shield isn't even properly sealed together. There are gaps everywhere in the white exerior. Its terrible. It looks like a middle school art project. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that the heat shield of a space craft which kick up plumes of dust should be so flimsily secured and held together.
This kind of nonsense makes me quite angry.
I think it's very poor form to criticise a design from a position of total ignorance. You clearly didn't understand about the Kapton tape thing - I don't believe you know the first thing about how the LEM was designed.
I don't pretend that I understand all of the details either - but if I don't KNOW something is wrong - I'm not going to seek education on the subject and not just jump in and criticise it without understanding. Intellectual honesty is important - and there have been several times here when I've even defended parts of FET against incorrect accusations.
But if you're just going to jump in - as a complete ignoramus on the subject and start telling us how the LEM is put together so shoddily...then you get no respect as an intellectual debater.
If I had to guess (and it's only a guess) as to why the sheets of insulation are layered and crumpled like that - I'd say that they probably couldn't pull it tight because the massive temperature variations over the vehicle as the sun tracks across it might result in it tearing. It's a very thin material (has to be super-lightweight) - so it's probably not very strong.
But I'm happy to admit that I don't know the answer on that one.
For sure, I'm not going to just jump in and tell people that some of the best engineering minds on the planet made a botched up lander. That shows no respect and is frankly beneath you.
You have no EVIDENCE that the thing is not in fact a piece of clever design that's beyond your ability to understand...you're guessing (actually, more like "hoping") that it's an easily detectable fake...and it's definitely not that. It's either real - or it's an extraordinarily clever and hugely sophisticated fake.