1

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why is it warmer in the shadow of moonlight rather than cooler?

« on: May 13, 2021, 10:48:14 AM »

The impossible cold moonlight has been thoroughly debunked already several times. Here is a good experiment:

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities

« on: April 07, 2021, 02:24:34 AM »

I read some of that wiki page and it is very interesting, thanks for linking that. I don't understand what's wrong with perturbation theory. If I understand correctly, it is just a way to simplify calculations. Why is it the opposite of using the mathematical model?

Tom has completely misunderstood, or is misrepresenting, perturbation theory. You are nearly correct - it's not quite a way of simplifying calculations, because that implies that there is a calculation that could be done. The point with things like the n-body problem is there simply is no way of solving the equations. There's a $1M prize for the person who can, and 20 years later nobody has claimed it. Despite numerous people, including me, pointing out that this fact does not in anyway invalidate the underlying theory, Tom persists in claiming that it does. This clearly ignores the oft-repeated point that numerous scientific problems end up in the form of partial differential equations that cannot be solved without recourse to some kind of approximating technique.

So things like perturbation theory are a way of obtaining an approximate answer - how approximate depends on how horrific the equations are allowed to become. But we should be careful using 'approximation', as it suggests that that there is some superior method that is eluding us. Almost all calculations in science are approximate to some degree - it's the amount of error that matters.

I understand Tom’s misinformation now after reading some of his rants in other threads about how numerical approximations somehow don’t work on the underlying principles 🤣

If I understand correctly, numerical approximation don’t have a meaning without the underlying principles (what is it that you are trying to approximate if not the result of those principles). I hope Tom realizes that most of the people now see through this.

Unless Tom is genuinely confused about this, I apologize. It does seem rather hard though to get confused about it.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: April 07, 2021, 02:05:24 AM »

My concern is with what is true and verifiable.

And the distances between the southern and northern extremities of the UK aren't verifiable? Or the distance from Argentina to the Falkland islands isn't verifiable?

Planet Earth is fairly well explored by now. Regardless of what shape you think it is, there is no doubt about the distances between certain points especially if they aren’t just some random points in the ocean. These distances are verified everyday by millions of people and thousands of industries that consume this information. The fact that some people are casting doubt on this basic information in such a modern world suggests they are unwilling to have an open mind or are being disingenuous.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: March 31, 2021, 03:09:53 PM »

If this were true then why would FET not be the prevailing view?

Change takes time, and we do have a schooling system that (in our case) is tailored towards raising good Tory voters, and not people who think critically.

You also have to consider that ISS is literally out there. It is easily observable and it is literally streaming the shape of the Earth.

And?

I am going to ask one last time that you stop wasting our time. Figure out what you're arguing against before you post again.

I think the reason that you're being asked the question a lot is because it is not intuitively obvious how there couldn't be some deception, somewhere. [...] Can you describe a credible scenario whereby they don't go into orbit, but nobody deceives anybody?

I don't know about "credible" - it's not a position I hold, and arguing for things I don't believe doesn't come easily to me. As far as I understand, the argument comes down to the fact that most of the "obvious" differences between FE and RE cosmology are actually not obvious at all, and most would be nigh-indistinguishable. Weightlessness under UA would be identical to weightlessness under the mainstream RET+Gravitation model (as opposed to other RET models, which I hope we can agree are false), and as a consequence of EA, the Earth could very well appear vaguely spherical if viewed from sufficiently far away.

In essence, to my best understanding of these proponents' beliefs, astronauts would go into "orbit" just fine - they would simply misinterpret their surroundings as congruent with RET, because RET is a good attempt at simulating reality.

I find it hard to believe you can't understand the significance of being able to observe ISS and its streams as a problem for the FE. Some people even flashed a light towards ISS which appeared on its stream: https://www.universetoday.com/93987/amateur-astronomers-flash-the-space-station/

There really is no excuse to say it is fake anymore.

If on the off chance you aren't being disingenuous and literally can't understand the significance of this: The ISS stream very clearly shows a Round Earth.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: March 31, 2021, 12:42:26 PM »

Sigh. I really don't want to come across as more patronising than usual (and I know I inevitably will), but I just don't know how to spell this out any more clearly, and apparently people chose to ignore my answers in favour of discussing something that they made up on the spot and found amusing.

The variant of FET which doesn't involve a conspiracy does not involve a conspiracy. As a consequence, no, it does not surmise that anyone has been "duped" - it presumes the exact opposite of that.

Again, because this question has now been asked multiple times in a row: no deception means no deception. Replacing the word "conspiracy" with "being duped" or "deception" doesn't change the implication.

Not patronising - really useful actually, thank you. I think the reason that you're being asked the question a lot is because it is not intuitively obvious how there couldn't be some deception, somewhere. I'm unclear, as I suspect many others are, as to how somebody could simply mistake a sequence of monumental events in their life for space travel when, in fact, they weren't in space and, critically, how that chain of misunderstanding could occur without a massive degree of deception occurring. So if somebody, for example, is on a long-duration mission to the ISS (or thinks they are), then for there to not be a conspiracy, everybody involved has to genuinely believe that they are going to the ISS. So the people designing the equipment, fuelling the rocket, the people strapping them in, the people tracking it on radar, talking on radio, the caterers(!), the people rescuing them after re-entry several months later...they all have to genuinely believe it happened. So where exactly do these mistaken astronauts go for several months at zero g, if not into orbit? Can you describe a credible scenario whereby they don't go into orbit, but nobody deceives anybody?

You also have to consider that ISS is literally out there. It is easily observable and it is literally streaming the shape of the Earth. The denial is so strong with this one.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS livestreams

« on: March 30, 2021, 06:24:41 PM »

Here is the description of the 'updated' 2002 version of the Blue Marble, which is a composite.

Well, yes. The Blue Marble image is also generally dismissed as an image of the earth, as it consists of highly manipulated strips and layers of data to create the world, and is not a photograph. When people post the Blue Marble image we point that out.

Is your point that we should throw away the DISCOVR and LROC images as well? The references you find showing that the pictures are not really pictures and really consists of manipulated data tends to work against you rather than for you. Your "nah-uh NASA made some disclaimers to special processing" is irrelevant to that. Those references you found are further evidence that the photos are not really photographs.

Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

What about the fact that you can match ground observations to those from the satellite?

Doppler radar has existed for a long time.

What does the existence of Doppler radar have anything to do with making observations and confirming them with satellite images? If you are trying to suggest that Doppler radar is used to construct the fake satellite image, what evidence do you have?

Also, what do you have to say about being able to observe ISS from the ground? That is obviously something real.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities

« on: March 30, 2021, 06:08:49 PM »

The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.

There is a page on that too, to read and comment on - https://wiki.tfes.org/Discovery_of_Neptune

So what?

Have you ever seen a heliocentric system based on epicycles? Copernicus's system was heliocentric, but still had epicycles like Ptolmy, arranged differently. Epicycles are fudges to explain something under whatever scheme you wish.

From https://www.physast.uga.edu/~loris/astr1010/ASTR1010_Study_Notes_part2.pdf -

I read some of that wiki page and it is very interesting, thanks for linking that. I don't understand what's wrong with perturbation theory. If I understand correctly, it is just a way to simplify calculations. Why is it the opposite of using the mathematical model? I think I will have to research this topic more because I was led to believe (or incorrectly assumed) that the description of Neptune the scientists derived was quite accurate. In fact, I don't know what margin of error would even be fair because I do understand that new developments made by Einstein were able to clarify a lot about how classical physics behaves at a more macro scale.

I guess FE would use epicycles to make predictions about the motion of the planets? Since it does not have a mechanism by which they can move similar to the motion of the Sun and the Moon?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities

« on: March 30, 2021, 02:31:48 AM »

What calculations would an FE scientist do to predict the position of Mars?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Ancient Babylonians

Astronomy for Physical Science - Cal State Long Beach

“ The Babylonians accumulated records of astronomical observations for many centuries. The records enabled them to see repeated patterns in the motions of the celestial objects. They used the patterns to predict the positions of the Moon and planets. ”

From Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times: Volume One by Professor Morris Kline (bio) we see:

“ Babylonians calculated the first and second differences of successive data, observed the consistency of the first or second differences, and extrapolated or interpolated data. Their procedure was equivalent to using the fact that the data can be fit by polynomial functions and enabled them to predict the daily positions of the planets. They knew the periods of the planets with some accuracy, and also used eclipses as a basis for calculation. There was, however, no geometrical scheme of planetary or lunar motion in Babylonian astronomy. ”

I agree with the point that if there is repeating then it’s state can be accurately predicted without understanding mechanics that drive it.

The Ancient Babylonians did not understand why planets were moving but they observed the motion and understood it to be repeating. From there, they were able to make their prediction.

However, the problem is that their “model” is just memorizing a pattern and is too simplistic. Since then science has developed a lot and we have a greater predictability with our model where we don’t necessarily have to observe something before we can predict it. In other words, we are able to understand the mechanics of how things work.

The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.

Understand here that the Ancient Babylonians could not have done this because their model was purely observation with no mechanics. They would have seen Uranus’ quirk and overtime, due to its repetition, become able to predict it. But they couldn’t give a reason as to why this happens.

So I guess I should ask, has Flat Earth developed since the time on Ancient Babylon’s? If so how will a FE scientist calculate the position of Mars? Would they rely on patterns or will they introduce some mechanics?

The Round Earth has introduced a lot of mechanics which is one of the reasons why Neptune was found.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities

« on: March 30, 2021, 01:37:33 AM »

You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.

Just demonstrably not true.
Your inability to understand it - or your flat our unwillingness to accept the evidence you've been shown - doesn't make it true.
It has been explained that the n body problem can be split into multiple 2 body problems - thus clearly using the underlying laws.
We have sent probes to every planet, there's a rover sitting on Mars as we speak. There's an ISS which you can see from the ground.
The eclipse path was predicted down to the block level, you can't do that with a Saros cycle.
None of this was achieved with a FE model.

Multiple Two body problems is a workaround to the problem of multiple bodies. There is a problem is when you have to explain the Sun-Earth-Moon system as multiple two body problems in which one of the bodies ignores the gravity of another because the three body version of the problem doesn't work even on paper. It is farcical that you think that the bodies operate under those laws, but that you can't get it to work.

You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.

Can you please calculate where in the sky is Mars right now? Only use Flat Earth tools

The Ancient Babylonians were a Flat Earth civilization and they are known to have predicted the position of the planets just fine.

Just open up Stellarium. Someone already studied the patterns of Mars and put them into an application for you. If you think it's based on RE theories then you can go ahead and prove that for us rather than insisting that your assumptions are fact.

What calculations would an FE scientist do to predict the position of Mars?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities

« on: March 30, 2021, 12:28:10 AM »

You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.

Can you please calculate where in the sky is Mars right now? Only use Flat Earth tools

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Celestial Gravitation

« on: March 29, 2021, 05:08:33 PM »

I see. I guess this thread has come to an end, then. We cannot meaningfully discuss your disagreements to positions nobody holds (strawman attacks), and you are openly unwilling to fix your arguments.

I can’t find information?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities

« on: March 29, 2021, 05:08:00 PM »

How so? If you think that the earth is flat then surely that model should replace the globe earth model, like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.

We've discussed this many times, and I dou t repeating myself yet again will help, but hey ho. We care about what is true, and not what is currently more complete. Using known incorrect answers to fill the gaps in what would otherwise be unknowns is not a healthy approach, and has pretty much got us into the mess we're in as a society.

No.

Refrain from creating posts which do not contribute to the discussion at hand.

What predictions can the Flat Earth model make so far that can be observed in reality? Derive only with Flat Earth equations

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Celestial Gravitation

« on: March 29, 2021, 04:59:54 PM »

Do you agree with this?

I do not - there is very little in what you said that isn't horrendously wrong, both for RET and FET. Are you planning on filling your gaps in knowledge prior to posting here, as requested, or do you intend to continue wasting everyone's time with your nonsense?

I read the wiki and apparently some FE models are UA so those are obviously wrong (can not account for local variances). Other FE models are celestial gravitation.

I think where I am getting wrong here is that UA and celestial gravitation do not mix?

If that’s so then let me address just celestial gravitation. I did not find the following information about the celestial gravitation:

If only celestial bodies exert gravity such as sun, moon, and earth, then what property of those bodies is it that allow this? Also what part of Earth exerts gravity? If I pick up a rock does it still exert gravity?

Sorry I can’t find this information anywhere on the wiki and outside the wiki.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities

« on: March 29, 2021, 11:52:54 AM »

If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.

This premise is false.

No.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Celestial Gravitation

« on: March 29, 2021, 11:51:22 AM »

Do you agree with this?

Acceleration on RE = 9.81 (approx.)
Acceleration on FE = A (exact due to UA) + B (celestial gravitation)

A must be significantly larger than B because as A approaches 0, celestial gravitation basically becomes a different name for RE gravity.
A must also be strictly vertical while B is like a point source.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's talk about gravity

« on: March 28, 2021, 12:52:59 PM »

Good questions also, I feel observable gravity is the biggest thorn in the side of FET. It's just impossible not to sound ridiculous trying to explain it away with magical forces of unknown origin, when the mass warping space time explanation is so elegant and able to predict with great accuracy what we observe.

Universal acceleration is a preposterous idea, truly.

FE explains gravity using UA and Celestial Gravitation. UA is the upwards acceleration and celestial gravitation is the gravity that celestial bodies like Earth, Sun, and Moon exert.

Celestial gravitation is invoked to explain the local variances in the value of gravity (it is not 9.81 everywhere) because UA can’t do that.

In my other post, I demonstrate some of the problems with this model. I will summarize them here. First, the wiki does not explain what property of Earth makes it exert gravity. If it is matter, then celestial gravity is just another name for normal gravity and UA, which was originally devised to replace gravity is becomes pointless.

If both UA and celestial gravitation do work together then the issue is to demonstrate that celestial gravitation’s value is far less than RE’s gravity to keep it distinct. Otherwise, again there will be no use for UA.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities

« on: March 28, 2021, 12:28:08 PM »

If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.

What is the best prediction that the Flat Earth can make?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Celestial Gravitation

« on: March 25, 2021, 09:13:35 PM »

RazaTD's strawman was rooted in assuming that the Earth is not a celestial body. This is his original proposition, distinct from anything you'll find in the Wiki. Context is crucial.

So what doesn't have gravitational acceleration then? Since FE can't say much about the nature of the Sun and the Moon and being able to directly test them is not accessible to laymen and FEers don't trust NASA and their robots, they could assert that such celestial bodies are special for whatever reason. But Earth is right here and easily testable. If Earth exerts gravity, what property does it have that other matter doesn't which makes this possible? Are there special rocks deep down that work like magnets but for gravity?

Obviously, you don't want to end up with all matter exerting gravity otherwise it's not celestial anymore, and why even have UA then? This will basically be RE gravity which FEer make fun of.

However, the challenge is to prove that the force of gravity is much weaker than the RE value.

Once again, I'd appreciate it if you didn't waste our time with such bad faith arguments. It won't work. We will not presume the correctness in RET while debating FET, for reasons that hopefully don't need to be spelled out.

This is not a bad faith argument. I am not asking you to presume the correctness of RE model. I proposed a model that is similar (possibly not because you haven't clarified whether matter also exerts gravity) to the one you just suggested where even Earth exerts gravity. Now by logical necessity, this gravitational force must be less than that on RE model because UA also contributes to the overall gravitational acceleration on the FE.

Acceleration on RE = 9.81 (approx.)
Acceleration on FE = A (exact due to UA) + B (celestial gravitation)

A must be significantly larger than B because as A approaches 0, celestial gravitation basically becomes a different name for RE gravity.
A must also be strictly vertical while B is like a point source.

So, the task for FEer, only if they concede that matter exerts gravity (which you are just a few steps away from as you have just conceded that Earth has gravity), is to demonstrate that B is significantly less than 9.81, which is what RE claims is the gravitational acceleration.

I don't see where I have presumed the correctness of RE here. The value of gravitational acceleration 9.81 is what we observe. Making the assumption that it must be the same on Flat Earth does not mean I have assumed RE is correct. 9.81 is an observation that both models must derive.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Celestial Gravitation

« on: March 25, 2021, 11:52:40 AM »

If the celestial bodies exert force and nothing else does

I don't think anyone here is making that claim, and you did not source it from the Wiki. The Wiki is not broken, merely your imagination of FET.

I really wish you guys wouldn't try to get us to defend such blatant strawmen. It rarely works.

I also addressed the case where everything attracts.

20

Flat Earth Theory / FE Celestial Gravitation

« on: March 25, 2021, 02:04:27 AM »

The Variations in Gravity are the supposed variations to gravity due to either the variations in strength of the gravitational field of the earth or due to the presence of masses such as hills or celestial bodies. It is often stated that the strength of gravity decreases with altitude or that the gravity of the Sun and Moon pulls upon the earth's surface.

The FE model of Celestial Gravitation postulates that the celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull, which accounts for tidal effects and the lessening of g with altitude. Other FE models question whether variations in gravity actually exist at all. The few effects suggesting variations are questionable, contradicted, and may be attributed to other causes.

Gravity generally appears to behave as if the earth is accelerating upwards, that the strength of gravity is uniform, and there are no other gravitating sources around us.

This comes from the wiki. There are a lot of problems with this. First of all, it is a known fact that gravitational acceleration is NOT constant. FE must provide some mechanism to explain that variation. This requirement means those FE models that deny this variation are false.

The models that do not deny this variation attribute it to gravity but a special version. This is a celestial gravitation model where only the sun and the moon can produce an attractive force.

This is EXTREMELY easy to debunk. If the celestial bodies exert force and nothing else does, then we just need to look at how gravitational acceleration varies over the surface of the Earth. It turns out that there is a lot more going on than just the sun’s and the moon’s gravity.

However, let’s assume that a superior FE model states that the general gravitational acceleration is the result of UA and the local variances is actually the result of gravity that exists between everything just like in the RE mode except it’s much weaker. However, the challenge is to prove that the force of gravity is much weaker than the RE value.

The wiki is broken 😎