Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kopfverderber

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 20, 2019, 10:51:04 PM »
I have the impression the FE community is happy with the maps they already have and there is a lack of interest in making new ones. I'll admit the disc map with the north pole in the center looks pretty.




2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 20, 2019, 10:26:53 PM »
There are multiple explanations as far as I know. Some believe that the earth has a dome, so the atmosphere would be enclosed within the dome. Others might say that the ice wall contains the air and so on.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 20, 2019, 09:35:48 PM »
That's not how it works. Gravitons are a hypothesis. There are problems that modern physics hasn't solved yet.

You might say that UA is also a hypothesis, I would say it's a very weak one. We barely know anything about what UA is supposed to be or  about the energy source that causes it. That's why flatearthers spend more time trying to debunk gravity than investigating their own theory of UA.  Do we already know why UA feels weaker at the equator than at the poles?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity
« on: July 20, 2019, 03:56:53 PM »
Objects fall at the same speed regardless of how heavy they are. This was demonstrated by astronauts on the moon.

What make some objects fall faster than others on earth is air resistance.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 20, 2019, 03:40:19 PM »
The theory of gravity is a mathematical interpretation of what we observe in nature. Gravity can be demonstrated, but I don't think there is an absolute proof of the law of gravity, if that is what you are asking.  Gravity provides a simple explanation of known facts and allows us to make extremely accurate predictions, that's why it's an established theory.

One cannot rule out alternative explanations to gravity, such as UA or magic. However those alternative models cannot explain what we observe in nature or make predictions as accurately as the law of gravity.

I'm sure you also know what Occam's Razor is. Gravity is a much simpler explanation than UA, because UA requires us to believe in additional things to what we observe.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: July 20, 2019, 07:19:18 AM »
If you are asking for FET evidence that the earth is flat, a good place to start would be the wiki in this site.

If you are asking what motives bring people to believe that the earth is flat despite overwhelming evidence against it, I could think of at least two:
- Religious convictions. Some passages of the Bible seem to suggest that the earth is flat or fixed to a position.
- Appeal of conspiracy theories. That would be the psychological explanation.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 20, 2019, 07:04:27 AM »
@Tom

You are grasping at straws. Some lab experiments might put relativity in question. It's scientists' job to question things, but no lab experiment is going to prove that the earth is not rotating or flat.


8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 01:05:32 PM »
So based on an article  written by physicist talking about the experiments done by another physicist we can conclude that an experiment done by a third physicist over a 100 years ago proves that ether exists and thus the earth is flat, is that it? It looks very far fetched.

I will concede that relativity is not perfect and there are things it can't properly explain. That doesn't make it a false or debunked theory and certainly doesn't make the world flat.

Dr. Croca concludes that under certain circumstances speed of light would theoretically (might) be faster than c  as an argument to show that relativity doesn't work in that case. He is not saying that it has been observed to  move faster than c.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 11:47:01 AM »

That is a different experiment and a different Wang. Look into Ruyong Wang's experiment:


My mistake. Your post said something about light speeds faster than c, so I wrongly assumed you meant Lijun Wang's experiments.

So I went through the Dr. R.Wang's paper from your link  and I couldn't find the part about the speeds of light faster than c, so now I'm not sure where are you getting this idea from.

I also don't see where Dr. R.Wang is mentioning that his experiment contradicts relativity.

It seems to me none of those experiments are really proving your point, you are just drawing unfounded conclusions. Your argument sounds like this:
1. If aether exists it means the earth must be flat
2. Relativity is killing my best attempts to prove that aether exists
3. If I can prove that relativity is wrong then aether exists

The first problem is, proving relativity wrong doesn't automatically prove the existence of aether. That is a propositional fallacy.

The second problem is you can't really prove relativity wrong. All you have is a pseudoscience paper from a person called "Robert Bennett" who seem to be one of the authors of the book "Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right", is that the same person?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seasons and Days in the Southern Hemisphere
« on: July 19, 2019, 10:38:22 AM »
inner section (lets call it northern part)
No, let's not. Hemiplanes already have a name and there's no need for you to invent a new one.

That is a weird name choice, considering hemi means half. I would have thought two halves of a plane would have the same area, but  in the FE maps I have seen the southern hemiplane seems to be 3 times bigger than the northern hemiplane.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 07:39:25 AM »
Einstein said that light was constant for all observervers, and that this explained experiments such as Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure (Funny how there are motionless earth experiments that need to be explained). However, his explanation was directly contradicted by experiments showing that light does change velocity to different observers when motion is involved, including velocities faster than c!

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment#Wang_Experiment

Yet, despite the explanation being directly contradicted by experiment, with the admission by mainstream sources that it does contradict relativity, the RE still cling to the belief of terrestrial motion!

However on Lijun Wang's own words:

"Einstein’s Relativity: Our experiment is not at odds with Einstein’s special relativity. The experiment can be well explained using existing physics theories that are consistent with Relativity. In fact, the experiment was designed based on calculations using existing physics theories. "

http://www.nec.co.jp/press/en/0007/images/1901.pdf




12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:18:13 PM »
I'm not a native English speaker. English is actually my third language by order of daily usage, so I will not try to correct anyone's grammar. After reading through the post and making several contributions (which btw went largely ignored), I think both of you iamcpc and stack are reasonable persons yet you are not able to reach an agreement on a simple matter.

The thread title is asking how to make a FE map. Iamcpc considers the bing map already a valid FE map, so there's no need to make one. On the other hand, Stack and I do not think the bing map is a FE map.  To me the reason of the mutual misunderstanding is that each of us has a different idea of what "FE Map" means, and this could be a language problem.

FE Map stand for Flat Earth Map. That's an adjective (flat) and two nouns (earth and map). When we say this in English, it's not clear if the adjective Flat is referring to the noun Earth, the noun Map or both. So I'll rephrase it in the hope that it will become clearer:

What is a "FE Map"to you?
a) Flat map of the earth
b) Map of the flat earth
c) Flat map of the flat earth

To me a FE Map is b) Map of the flat earth
The bing map is a) flat map of the earth, and more specifically a "flat map of the round earth".

I also think this confusion would't exists in other languages.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seasons and Days in the Southern Hemisphere
« on: July 18, 2019, 06:36:01 PM »
Yes that FE model doesn't work at all with the southern hemisphere. I guess most FE folks  live on the northern hemisphere and they don't care. FE folk living in the southern hemisphere should definitely make their own map.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 18, 2019, 11:29:16 AM »
Shouldn't UA stop meteorites from falling on the earth?

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 18, 2019, 07:42:06 AM »
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

That's a very clever idea. Is there information about the axis of the firmament? Like its position, movement and inclination respective to earth?

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 18, 2019, 05:48:07 AM »
The book is actually a translation of a German book from 1853

This is the author
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sch%C3%B6pfer

And the original title:
Die Erde stehet fest. Beweise, daß die Erde sich weder um ihre Achse noch um die Sonne dreht, Berlin 1853

As for your question,  the rotation of the earth is a well known fact, but you already know this.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 17, 2019, 10:38:26 PM »

If you project the Earth of any shape onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth (regardless of it's shape) as a flat plane. It's shape agnostic. Let me give you some examples:

If you project a Sphere Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.
If you project a globe Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.
If you project a spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.
If you project an oblate spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.


The point is not HOW you represent a figure: ''as a flat plane'' as you say
The point is WHAT does your map represent: a sphere, a globe, a spheroid, an oblate

Because the point is not HOW am I representing an object, the point WHAT is the object.

What does the Bing map represent? It represents a globe earth
How does the Bing map represent the earth? As a projection of a sphere on a plane

You seem to think (please correct if wrong) that a FE map is a map that represents the earth as a flat plane. That definition is not correct. A FE map is a map that represents an earth that is flat.  The Bing map is not representing an earth that is flat.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 17, 2019, 09:14:26 PM »
If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat plane map then that flat plane map represents the earth as a flat plane. Isn't that the whole point?

Yes you can represent a sphere on a plane using different techniques, but the fact that an object is represented on a plane, doesn't make it a representation of a plane.

The map is a plane, that much is clear. But the map can't be representing a plane and a sphere at the same time. I think you are confusing two things: what the map IS geometrically (a plane) and what the map REPRESENTS (a sphere).

Let's go step by step:
1. IF you project a Globe Earth onto a flat plane map THEN the Flat plane map is  projection of a globe. Correct?
2. IF a flat plane map is a projection of a globe, THEN the flat plane map represents a globe in a plane. Correct?
3. IF the flat plane map represents a globe THEN the flat plane map does not represent a plane. Correct?

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 17, 2019, 12:54:17 PM »
@iamcpc

I understand you are providing a 2D map of earth with accurate distances, but your map has some glaring issues. Stack and other posters are pointing at these issues and it looks to me you are not providing valid explanations.

If the earth is flat we should be able draw a 2D map of the earth with a constant scale. However the scale of the Bing map you provided varies with latitude. For that reason it's difficult for other people to see how can  that map possibly represent a flat surface.

It's a question of basic geometry.

Let's try an experiment:

I will make the following three assumptions, please let me know if you agree with them:
1. A square is flat shape with four straight sides of equal length where every interior angle is a right angle. Would you agree to that definition?
2. The surface of the earth is flat or nearly flat. Would you agree to that?
3. If you travel describing a square on a flat surface you will end up arriving at the point from where you started after completing the square. Would you agree to that?

Now the experiment. I will travel a square with 7.000 km sides using real world distances and city positions:

1. I start at Belem (Brasil) and travel 7.000 km East, I arrive to Kinshasha (roughly).
2. Now I turn 90 degrees left and travel another 7.000 km, I arrive roughly to Stockolm
3. I turn left 90 degrees and travel 7.000 km, I arrive 500 km west of Anchorage in Alaska
4. I turn left 90 degrees  for the last time and travel another 7000 km, I'm now standing in the middle of the pacific ocean,  somewhere in Micronesia.

Do you agree that my route follows a square? If so could you please explain why my trip can't close the square at Belem?


20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 16, 2019, 10:07:37 PM »
Hi all, I just read the whole thread and wanted to contribute to the discussion.

@iamcpc  If you travel on the earth in a straight line for long enough you will eventually arrive back to to the point from when you started. Many FE models are incompatible with this fact, but from what I understood you agree to this.

Most people will take this as proof that the earth is round, but you propose an alternative flat earth model where you can travel in a straight line and arrive at the starting point. In your model the earth is on an finite plane with no borders.  So we humans are confined to this finite plane that we cannot leave. Is that correct?

From my limited understanding this model of yours is not compatible with euclidean space. It would require space to be curved in way that the universe has the form of a extremely small manifold, but that's just my conjecture.

If we would be able to fly high enough would we also reach what is under our feet?


Pages: [1]