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.
The wiki claims that the Moon is round. If this is the case, then why would the Earth not be round, if the Moon is?Because they believe the Earth is special of some sort. Honestly i think a flat world is a freak rather than "special"
Does the flat earth society even try to put together a theory regarding the creation of our universe? Or is just, gravity is wrong, heliocentric model is wrong, but the big bang is right?You can't be a flat Earther if you believe the Big bang is right.
Is there any proof that anything floats in a vacuum?The fact that we don't have proof anything floats on vacuum, is a proof that buoyancy is a product of downward force of gravity.
Big bang actually doesn't account for shapes of planets, how they were formed or anything.Knowing how farm a wheat doesn't mean you know how to make bread with the wheat.
He's (kinda) right, in the heliocentric spherical Earth model, the Sun moves the fastest relative to background star in January and the slowest in July.It varies. You can work it out for any day of the year. It travels from the tropic of cancer to Capricorn. Work out the latitude. How far that latitude is around on a flat earth and divide by 24 hours.Is sounds as though an experiment could be conducted to see if the sun moves overhead faster during summer in the south along the tropic of capricorn than it does during the summer in the north over the tropic of cancer.
This happens when theyre seemingly standing still, not just demos of them moving around the station.Because they aren't standing still, you probably mention how they slowly rotates.
Why in videos of the astronauts inside the ISS are they constantly moving around, catching themselves and grabbing stabilization bars? If they aren't experiencing any acceleration then why would that happen?They need something to absorb their momentum, once they accelerate to move somewhere, they must decelerate to stop somewhere.
I'm wondering, does the sun indicate any redshift/blueshift to say, the New Horizons module, if it looked back at it while moving towards/away? Don't think that's how the doppler effect works though, the Sun would be have to be the thing that's moving... ugh I want to see the sun redshifted now.New Horizons is in hyperbolic orbit, so it only moves away from the Sun with a current velocity of 14.5 km/s
Sigh... Do your research or don't. Your choice man. I'm not here to educate or indoctrinate.YOU of all people tell us to research ourselves? When was the last time you even research of my explanations?
Believe what you will, but ignorance doesn't make you exempt of the influence.Same goes for you.
Because this is a 2D representation of it, viewed from sideways the Moon is either above or below the ecliptic, were the Moon to cross the ecliptic during a full Moon, a Lunar eclipse occur.The illumination of the Moon in your model requires too many assumption and complication.
Tell me how this model isn't simpler:
How in this model is the moon full when it is "behind" the Earth in relation to the Sun?
Regarding a conspiracy, who would really even know it besides the actual astronauts, and the owners at the very very very top?As i said, they would gain more than they lose if they tell the truth weather they knew the Earth was flat or just blindly accept it's spherical by older models while lying about space travel. Now, why would they want to lose more than they gain?
You could work at NASA applying the 12 years of higher education in geodesics and engineering you've obtained and do everything right by the book when preparing the trajectories for putting something into orbit.No, satellite trajectories are now prepared by computers automatically.
Also since it seems to be common knowledge that Boeing, Northrup Grumman and the several other contractors make up 90% of NASA, and they get trillions of dollars from our government in the form of military contracts etc. Don't you think they'd have a vested interest in doing whatever they're told as well? Wouldn't be hard to convince them to be "in on it," would it?This is too USA-centric for me to debate.
Didn't know gravity forced anything to do anythingYou forgot, in Newtonian gravity[1] that mass accelerate other mass, hence it force all particle with mass to accelerate towards the center of mass.
Also, as we know our Earth isn't made out of pliable plastic or paper, it is multiple layers or hard stone, crust, iron, magma, giant volumes of water etc.Irrelevant on something very massive and dense
To assume it should just fold in upon itself is illogicalBut it doesn't fold itself "compressed" into a sphere is a more correct term. Also the Earth didn't form as a flat disc in the first place.
Big Bang doesn't have any actual hypothetical mechanism on how a multi layered sphere with varying, yet perfect amounts of periodic chemicals happened to form out of an explosion.A common creationist mistake to attempt disprove complicated stuff by the Big bang, the reason the Earth is denser in the center is because of buoyancy[2], the heavier iron will fall to the center of mass and the lighter element to the crust.
The illumination of the Moon in your model requires too many assumption and complication.How does it answer the question on how the full moon appears to be full for everybody though, from the peremiter of the night shadow to people standing directly beneath it?
I believe that perspective behaves differently than is assumed by classical Ancient Greek perspective over very large distances. When the moon sets you are not looking at its "side". There are no real world examples to tell us the truth of perspective at large scales, and it is a matter left to assumption.
Imagine that we have a giant solved rubix cube:
When the rubix cube is 10 feet above you imagine that we are looking at its white underside. It is directly over you and we can only see white. Now imagine that the rubix cube starts slowly receding away from you into the distance. You will quickly see one of colors sides of the cube as it recedes and changes angle. It will get far enough that the white bottom of the cube will go away and you will only see it from the colored side.
Now imagine that we have a giant rubix cube 30,000 feet above you. It is directly over you. When the rubix cube recedes away from you into the distance, it will take much longer for you to see the colored side of the rubix cube, and for the white bottom to go away.
We assert that the sun and moon are at such a great distance in the sky that they hardly change angle at all when the move over the observer's limited viewing area.
Why would gravity pull a flat world into a sphere? Where do you get that information? Is there any experimental evidence to back that up? Or is that just some kind of hypothetical talking point you've assimilated as an original idea?From all your previous response, i knew you would start asking stuff like this. But i had high hopes that you really would know this for yourself. *sigh*
But why is it tilted? Because it has to be?
This point has been debated here before. However according to the wiki to which RE participants are so often directed:Yeah, but smart person that could gain all this power should known to use the advantage of telling the truth to gain more funding of researching the shape of the world they live on, instead of wasting money making propaganda of space travel.QuoteThere is no Flat Earth Conspiracy...There is a Space Travel Conspiracy.
But one things for sure, when asked a question that stumps him he agrees it's a good question, then reaches in his trick bag and pastes the innumerous results from all the billions of cavendish experiments as his main gotcha, eventhough it has no bearing on Earth's shape.Cavendish experiment is about finding Earth density, it requires the assumption that gravity is the product of attraction between masses, since the experiment give a result of 99% accuracy that couldn't be an accident, either a total hoax or a real success. If you believe the Cavendish experiment did happen as we are told, then gravity which is the product of attraction between mass would pull the Earth into a spherical form should it be a flat world.
Gravitation exists on the Earth. You throw a ball up, it comes back down. Obviously that is a form of gravitation. I feel like I've only recently mentioned this to you, but you should look up the universal accelerator in the wiki.You (along with I believe every FEer) have not yet answered my question.QuoteIn any case gravitation between masses on the earth has been verified numerous times (measured).
I have asked many times, just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?
I had hoped not to repeat all this again, but I guess I have to!
So many dismiss gravitation, but just what did Cavendish and the numerous others that performed similar experiments actually measure?
Some have accused Cavendish of knowing the answer beforehand and quessing the Universal Gravitational Constant "G". But, he never set out to measure "G", but to "weigh the earth" - find its density.
Newton before him, had no way of knowing this density so he assumed it would be about the same as the surface rocks - around 2,800 to 3,000 kg/m3.
This was all the information Cavendish had to start with. The result of about 5,500 kg/m3 surprised everybody,but his results have been shown to be within about 1%. Not that bad for such a difficult experiment!
Of course once the mass of the earth was known "G" could easily be found, so he effectively measured the Universal Gravitational Constant "G".
Now before you dismiss Cavendish[1] (as so many Flat Earthers try to), just remember the value of "G" determined from the Cavendish experiment was within 1% of the currently accepted value. You don't get that close by accident! His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy.
There have been numerous versions of the Cavendish experiment performed since then.
His result was verified in 1873 and there have been many modern version done to improve the accuracy.
Most of the measurements were done using variations of the equipment used by Cavendish, though in at least one the equipment was evacuated to minimise interference.
The "atom interferometry" one uses "the minuscule gravitational tug between rubidium atoms and a 516-kilogram array of tungsten cylinders. The uncertainty in the latest measurement is 150 parts per million, or 0.015%" from the same source.
None of this pretends that gravitation is fully understood, but it appears to be a real phenomenon that causes an attractive force between two masses. (Pity we don't know how to reverse it yet!)
When one person does an experiment (like cold fusion or even detecting gravity waves) it might be looked on as interesting, but will not be taken too seriously until it can be shown to be repeatable. So the results of Cavendish's experiment could easily have been dismissed, had they not been verified numerous times.
[1] Some might argue that Miles Mathis has "debunked" Cavendish, but on reading his paper, I would not give much credence to it. Mind you Miles Mathis seems to have had little to say on all the modern work, with better equipment and the means to avoid some of the sources of possible error. In any case many of the "errors" Miles Mathis alludes to are simply constant masses in the vicinity, as no-one has questioned the additive property of gravity.
Another paper by Miles Mathis proves π = 4, and is not "dimensionless". Interesting fellow, Miles Mathis!
Well, I apologize, after seeing that the rest of your post was based on a faulty proposition I decided to skip it, as your posts sometimes give me a headache (this time for a change at least the meandering was somewhat on topic), but as it happens, I don't know what's being observed in the Cavendish Experiment. Obviously something is causing something to react somehow, but I do think that Miles Mathis makes some excellent points that can't be dismissed out-of-hand, however eccentric he might seem (Sir Isaac Newton was an alchemist yet he's revered as something of a God to you people, after all) and we must be cognizant of the fact that there's no reason to assume that the theory behind the Cavendish Experiment isn't flawed, or misunderstood.
This is why an open-minded approach to FE research is so important. Rather than deny something that has been observed many, many times by people of all walks of life, we should be pondering this fascinating experiment, and striving to understand it. To me, that's what the modern Flat Earth Society is all about, or at least should be.
Whatever the case may be, the Cavendish Experiment does not prove that the Earth is not flat.
If the Earth's shape was satisfactorily observed, measured, and confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt would this forum even exist?Probably as there always ignorance in humanity
There is an incredible amount of faith involved in believing in things like the moon landing, the big bang, or Newtonian gravity.The Big Bang are supported by the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the Newtonian gravity is incomplete and have been refined by General theory of Relativity backed by lots of evidence.
So how do you explain "space walks?" Is it that the ISS isn't moving at 17,000 mph? That, because of their proximity they appear to just float near it? Is the gravity of the ISS enough to hold an astronaut close by, instead of him being hopelessly left behind?The astronaut have very small relative speed to the ISS inside and there was nothing that made him somehow gain speed and rapidly move away from the ISS.
Trains aren't constantly falling like the ISS and the astronauts, they are also a subject to friction where they have to keep accelerating to have constant speed, if you were outside the train and no longer touch it, you're no longer accelerating with the train meanwhile the Earth's gravity could accelerate/decelerate both the ISS and the astronaut so that they have small relative speed to each other.
I can almost buy that an astronaut inside would hold the momentum and not be affected by the sheer supposed speed of the craft, kind've like being on a fast moving train or something... but if I was anywhere outside the train, dangling by a cable, I don't think I would be as calm as this guy:https://twitter.com/AstroRM/status/415955599700946944
