1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 22, 2019, 07:03:16 PM »

Here is the scene watching from Earth with our perspective locked to the moon.

Presuming that everything is traveling leftwards like the other image, your illustration has the Moon traveling faster than the Sun. If the Sun is traveling faster across the sky than the Moon then the Moon can never catch up to it.

Try to outrun a car traveling at 60 MPH with a bicycle traveling at 20 MPH. Not possible.

Everything is moving right, because right is West. Just as though you were watching the eclipse from Earth. The sun overtakes the moon, just as I said above. The moon starts blocking the sun starting on the West side of it, and thus the shadow travels West-to-East, just as is observed despite both objects rising in the East and setting in the West. The moon finishes its journey in the sky slower/later than the sun so it sets later every night than the night before. Voila.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 22, 2019, 05:47:33 PM »

The illustrations are showing only the motion of the moon in relation to the sun. In reality the sun is moving behind the moon during an eclipse rather than the moon moving in front of the sun (if we're talking speed differential across the sky, the effect is the same visually) Perspective, perspective, perspective.

Really? How does it work? If the Sun is outrunning the Moon rather than the Moon outrunning the sun then the scene is reversed:

This:


Becomes this:



Now the shadow is moving in the wrong direction.

Please provide the proper diagram if this one is wrong.

The diagram is correct. It's just showing what happens from the sun perspective rather than the Earth perspective. Essentially.

Here is the scene watching from Earth with our perspective locked to the moon.

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 22, 2019, 05:29:27 PM »

The above sources say that the Moon moves slower than the Sun in the sky, not faster than it.

If the Moon moved faster than the Sun in the sky then it should set earlier every day, not later every day.

The illustrations showing the Moon moving faster than the Sun in the sky appears to be incorrect. If the Moon were moving slower than the Sun in the illustration it should be intersecting it from the opposite direction in the illustration when it intersects those rays, which messes up the argument put forward. Now the shadow is moving in the wrong direction.

The illustrations are showing only the motion of the moon in relation to the sun. In reality the sun is moving behind the moon during an eclipse rather than the moon moving in front of the sun (if we're talking speed differential across the sky, the effect is the same visually) Perspective, perspective, perspective.

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 17, 2019, 08:36:11 PM »

I've already seen that thread. You don't think that I visit that forum? I went there and here is Markjo's explanation:

As FE'ers like to constantly remind us, the earth is rotating at 1100 mph at the equator. 

Well, the moon is orbiting the earth at just under 2300 mph.

Which do you suppose is faster?

The answers do not address why the moon doesn't set in the East if it is rotating around the Earth faster than the Earth's rotation. You linked me to 50 pages of trolling.

If you have an answer then I would suggest that you give it directly rather than random links with the explanation that "the answer is in there somewhere." That is a sign that you do not know the answer and cannot explain it.

If you still genuinely don't know the answer to your question after having watched that thread, then you're hopeless and you should stop pretending you understand a damn thing about how the standard model works. Go take some classes. Learn something. Reevaluate what you know vs think you know. Then try this whole FE thing again.

For the rest of you, check out that thread. See if you can find the explanations I'm talking about. This is just the final nail that Tom is here just to troll. He's not interested in learning.

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 17, 2019, 08:20:38 PM »

Neither of those sources address how the moon can travel faster than the Earth's rotation and also set in the West.

Please point out the explanation.

Bullshit you read through that thread in ten minutes. The answer is in there, and normally I'd be happy to suss out where, but do your own work this time Tom. Or wait for someone who's got the time and interest to do it for you to come along, the threads a rather interesting read overall imo.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 17, 2019, 07:58:32 PM »

I'm not interested in taking the time to find the exact pages at this time being on mobile, but the answer to your question was answered as nauseum in a thread about two years ago on the other site. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.0 There were no less than three different attempts at explaining this phenomenon, including a way to replicate it in your own backyard as I recall.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment

« on: May 13, 2019, 10:24:35 PM »

If they aren't taking it down or fixing it as they do with other material, then it sounds like EurekaAlert! is promoting it.

B does not follow A at all Tom. Not only is this post from 8 years ago, but there's a limit to what one person can do. You're letting your bias dictate what you see again. Reminder: If they heavily monitored postings they would have no need for their disclaimer.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. No reply from the media contact yet ( not that I expect one) and if I don't get one by Wednesday I'll attempt a more direct request with EurekAlert.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment

« on: May 13, 2019, 05:02:55 PM »

Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?

Your example that this AAAS organization edited some content for accuracy gives us further evidence that they are paying special attention to the content that they post on the website, even after posting, and that they are willing to make corrections based on fact.

Therefore they are vetting their content and the website is a legitimate source of science news. Thanks.

It is interesting that you are trying to debunk a traditional and respected source of science information with internet opinion which lacks contradictory studies or experimental evidence to the experimental evidence those opinions are complaining about.

However, your efforts appear fruitless. It most certainly is, and remains, a well respected source of science information.

It only shows they will do so when asked, not that they always do. Else the disclaimer on every article would be unnecessary. Accordingly, I have sent an email request asking that they review the article in question and remove it if it has as little merit as many online have suggested.

As it is late on a Friday however, my hopes for a speedy reply are low.

Edit: I in fact received a reply they do not respond outside business hours, so we will unfortunately have a few days to wait for a reply.

Well this bodes ill for any suggestions of strong quality control. I've received word that requests for takedowns or title adjustments should be sent through the media contact for a listing. In this case the contact is the very man who wrote the article!

I will attempt to request he remove it or similar, but I do not have high hopes. In the meantime I will look for other options.

Either way, this pretty much nails down that AAAS and EurekAlert do indeed have very little hand normally in these press releases. As the earlier article stated.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment

« on: May 10, 2019, 10:22:36 PM »

Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?

Your example that this AAAS organization edited some content for accuracy gives us further evidence that they are paying special attention to the content that they post on the website, even after posting, and that they are willing to make corrections based on fact.

Therefore they are vetting their content and the website is a legitimate source of science news. Thanks.

It is interesting that you are trying to debunk a traditional and respected source of science information with internet opinion which lacks contradictory studies or experimental evidence to the experimental evidence those opinions are complaining about.

However, your efforts appear fruitless. It most certainly is, and remains, a well respected source of science information.

It only shows they will do so when asked, not that they always do. Else the disclaimer on every article would be unnecessary. Accordingly, I have sent an email request asking that they review the article in question and remove it if it has as little merit as many online have suggested.

As it is late on a Friday however, my hopes for a speedy reply are low.

Edit: I in fact received a reply they do not respond outside business hours, so we will unfortunately have a few days to wait for a reply.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment

« on: May 10, 2019, 09:55:59 PM »

Yet the article cites multiple instances of them failing to provide quality control, multiple experts agreeing its "quality control" is hogswash, and even has testimony from someone who used to work there! If this was a disparagement of NASA, you'd be eating it up! But you need them to be reliable to lend even a hint of credence to your "SRT debunked!" article, so you'll happily gloss over all of that it seems. Please at least *attempt* to show some ability to look past your biases. There's very little point in discussing something with a wall.

Your accusation that the AAAS is posting trash to its website is hardly compelling.

The examples in the link Markjo posted are about things like "eating more fish could prevent Parkinson’s disease based on an in vitro lab study of fish proteins" and "magnetized wire could be used to detect cancer in people based on a study conducted in pigs." All of that could be true.

What controlled studies did your source create or cite to contradict those sources?

Nothing.

Therefore it is actually your source which is trash. Experiments show the truth. Not opinion. I would suggest learning what science is and is not. Someone saying "not true" and "dubious!!" is not science. Science needs to be demonstrated. Show me what scientific method your source followed to make those claims. The sources in the studies certainly did use the scientific method of experimentation.

If your source cannot follow simple science integrity then it is not science--it's rubbish. Then need more than opinion to tell us that the studies that the AAAS is posting are trash.

Did you skip over the third one in the list? The two you mention are poor relaying of information, the titles designed to grab attention rather than properly convey what was done. The third had no attention payed to a blatantly false claim, and was only edited to better reflect the actual contents later. Likely after this article in health news ran. Do you think they're likely to get enough reports to care about a fringe article like the one originally liked?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment

« on: May 10, 2019, 09:47:58 PM »

Since you're so enamored with EurekaAlert and it's 'robust quality controls' how do you feel about these news releases they seemingly hold to the same basic level of integrity as your news release?

Theory of general relativity proven yet again in new research
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/uobc-tog062818.php

Researcher's work offers more proof of Einstein's general theory of relativity
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-11/fsu-rwo111715.php

How a neutron star collision proves Einstein's 100-year-old General Relativity prediction
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/uoj-han101817.php

The existence of those articles on that website tells me that the organization is clearly backing General Relativity.

Perhaps one day we will see some "General Relativity has been disproved" articles on there as well. You seem to be arguing simultaneously that the organization is legitimate and illegitimate. The organization is likely legitimate.

They probably wouldn't post any "General Relativity is false" articles unless they saw compelling material on that matter. That much is obvious.

Evidence? You can't just make a claim like this without evidence.

The content that the organization vets and accepts are indicative of its position of what is acceptable science.

Again, evidence? Baseless claim, whereas the article linked above provides multiple examples and success that the organization pays little to no attention to vetting these links.

In this case the organization is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity is false, just as those General Relativity articles tells us that the organization is lending support to General Relativity.

In the end, your examples demonstrate for us that the AAAS and its EurekaAlert is lending support to the idea that Special Relativity has been falsified.

Inconclusive at best final conclusion based upon faulty premises. You've not shown any evidence they apply a strict filter, not that they support all articles they link to. In fact we have evidence just above starting the opposite. I.e.

AAAS disclaims responsibility for the accuracy of material posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions and for the use of any information obtained through EurekAlert!. Support from sponsors does not influence content or policy.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment

« on: May 10, 2019, 08:12:04 PM »

Yet the article cites multiple instances of them failing to provide quality control, multiple experts agreeing its "quality control" is hogswash, and even has testimony from someone who used to work there! If this was a disparagement of NASA, you'd be eating it up! But you need them to be reliable to lend even a hint of credence to your "SRT debunked!" article, so you'll happily gloss over all of that it seems. Please at least *attempt* to show some ability to look past your biases. There's very little point in discussing something with a wall.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airy's "failed" experiment

« on: May 10, 2019, 07:55:12 AM »

I don't think they curate their releases in any manner as controlled as you're implying Tom. www.eurekalert.org/releaseguidelines So long as it's getting published in a peer reviewed paper (which the one publishing this at least purports to be) eurekalert will post or allow to be posted, a notification about the release of the paper. This doesn't imply an endorsement of the paper whatsoever.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Davis Model

« on: May 03, 2019, 09:21:42 PM »

Welcome to part of why we have tfes.org and theflatearthsociety.org as far as I understand it. Deep rooted differences in how to approach the problem. From what I recall of my time on the other site Davis was favoring some form of Relativity based flat Earth, where (to put it extremely simply and inelegantly) space is curved rather than the Earth.

I'm kind of curious however where you dug that bit up, I don't recall seeing it in there before and I thought I had perused most of the wiki at one time or another.

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Why crepuscular rays aren't proof for the position of the Sun.

« on: May 01, 2019, 02:58:32 PM »

Crepuscular rays have been discussed many times before. I don't know why Thork is taking the stance he is, it's well known tracing the ray paths back doesn't work for RE OR FE sun height claims. Here's a good post with info on things.

Yes, "crepuscular" is the search term which will give you some results.

Meanwhile a have a similar "grounded" example for you, not so striking, as the length of the field is limited.
https://il9.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/11234123/thumb/1.jpg
(France, Lavender fields)
Reason is: Perspective.

The rays are practically parallel due to Sun being very far. Here is a very simple explanation: http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm

Thank you both. The explanation makes perfect sense for either FE/RE. I like the picture of the rows of heather (or whatever it is). That is a good way to visualize and understand the perspective.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctica shows 24 hours of sunlight.

« on: April 29, 2019, 08:10:41 PM »

The biggest challenge here is making the model of the FE as it stands accurately reflect real world experience.  I agree that if you call Antarctica the entire circumference of a flat disk then quite simply the Sun as it is shown on the FE model cannot be and will not be visible continuously over a 24 hr period from any one point on the circumference. 

I have read posts by FE believers which state that because of that they don't beleive that the Sun can be visible over the horizon continously for 24 hours and therefore any photos/videos that show that to be the case are wrong or have been faked. How about the other possibility that the FE model is wrong?

Lots of people have been to the Antarctic region now, many of whom have no interest whatsoever in FE theories and will confirm without a moment hesitation that the Sun never sets over Antarctica on and around the December solstice.

This is one of the things that the Bi-Polar Model approaches at least better. https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model It has other issues, but provides Antarctica as its own continent and allows for the possibility of a 24-hour daylight period for both North and South pole areas.

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Ice wall picture (I hope this is correct)

« on: April 22, 2019, 03:19:12 PM »

No. I’m telling you that the Ross Ice Shelf isn’t the “Ice Wall” which is commonly claimed to encircle the earth in FE models.

Please remember that just stating you think RET is correct is not a useful argument in the upper fora.

He has a point though insofar as 'The Ice Wall' wiki page could maybe do with some touchups. I mean like "How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply." Really? There have been literally hundreds of people that have gone past 'The Ice Wall' described by Sir Ross. I mean, you can fall back on 'they're all liars' if the wiki so chooses, or maybe you want to remove Ross' comment to make just what is being reference a bit more vague, but it seems the wiki could do with a bit of assistance in that regard. But I also just don't think the monopole 'model' does FE any favors at this point.

18

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Salt Lake City Observations - Need Help

« on: April 15, 2019, 07:05:05 PM »

Reality doesn't match up with REFE. Bendy light is required for the RETFET, and we are told that everything we see is an illusion.

Still makes the same amount of sense doesn't it? The problem as I see it, is this 'bendy light' you keep railing against is stated to be due to a well documented effect that you can even see in experiments done in your very own home.

Refraction is well known. The FE perspective hypothesis attempts to take a tool created in/for the art world and apply it to the real world. You have little to no documentation of the science behind the effect, little to no documentation of how it works, and no information on how to calculate it. In fact, it requires throwing out the idea that the space around/upon the Earth is Euclidean in nature, as the perspective hypothesis has the sun, moon, stars, and more breaking geometric relationships on a daily basis! Can you give me an experiment that shows FE perspective that I can do within my home? My backyard? This experiment cannot be upon the sun or other celestial objects, you need to prove the existence of the effect (preferably close to the degree required) without using the very objects you wish to apply the effect to. (It would also be great it if it was Earth shape agnostic like refraction is.) Note it will ALSO need to show that the numbers I calculate using geometry are incorrect, as they must be for the sun.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories

« on: April 08, 2019, 07:34:40 PM »

I don’t know much about this EA. Can you give me the quick and dirty on it so I don’t have to wade through the awful wikis? What’s your technical assessment of it?

Essentially light slowly bends towards the perpendicular (and maybe horizontal). This allows the light from the sun to appear to be hitting you along a horizontal when setting (as seen everyday) AND it sets up everyone seeing the same face of the moon no matter where you are. Plus it sets up why the moon is full when it's away from the sun, and new when it's closer. I'll see if I can find a visual or two that I've seen around when I've got a bit more time later.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories

« on: April 08, 2019, 02:41:47 PM »

How married are you to pushing perspective for the core of all of this. Because imo dusting off the Electromagnetic Accelerator is a much better way to explain observations regarding the celestial bodies. It comes with its own set of problems in certain areas, but I feel it explains pretty much everything to do with how the sun and moon appear far better than perspective allows. At least without having to rewrite a number of rather common things about how we view the world.