1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Atmolayer lip hypothesis and its incorrectness

« on: August 17, 2018, 05:49:14 PM »

And what force is stopping the gas molecules over the earth from moving to this area, freezing and dropping?
Pressure will try and equalise. You have a heat source over the earth, the sun, you don't have a heat source elsewhere. So the pressure over the earth will be higher than in the " thousands of miles of frigid tundra" around it. What is stopping that high pressure from leaking into the low pressure?

Also, you have no evidence for this thousands of miles of frigid tundra even existing. By definition it's not something which has been explored or observed in any way.

Good point.

I think we have shown it should be closer to millions of miles of ever cooling tundra (since we do not observe gale force winds).  With the 25,000 mile FE diameter containing oxygen up to at least 20 miles (in a gradient), we have created a pyramid of gasses that should try to flow down towards the Earth (because of the UA), and then out towards this hypothetical tundra.  Homeostasis demands that these forces equalize.

I cannot estimate how long homeostasis would take for the atmolayer to thin out and equalize pressures, but I think it should be done by now.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: universal acceleration... really?

« on: August 14, 2018, 10:03:08 PM »

McRaent, in special relativity, you do not add velocities directly like you do with general relativity.  I am not a teacher, and this is a topic that I BARELY grasp.
 I think this will explain it better than I can.  You should only need to read the first section of that paper to get the gist of it.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: how does buoyancy work

« on: August 14, 2018, 08:48:19 PM »

i am fairly new too this topic and it seems quite interesting to me because the more i look into it, the more i get confused by the globe earth and that is why i am more leaning towards the flat earth model. but 1 thing that really confuses me is buoyancy. i cant really seem how it would work.
could you please elaborate this a little bit more to me because i i can't get my head around it.

i thank you in advance.

In the FE model, buoyancy is the same as the RE model, except gravity is replaced with the UA.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of the sun

« on: August 14, 2018, 08:39:29 PM »

What is this other force that causes the sun (and moon) to defy Newton's Law?

In addition to the rotational speed changes, what is the force that causes the sun and moon to move in and out (to different "tracks")?

I think these questions fall into the FE category of "we don't yet know".  Often when we RE'ers ask these questions, we don't get answers.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: universal acceleration... really?

« on: August 14, 2018, 08:29:37 PM »

well thinking the earth is going up with a acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 (what Flat earthers call universal acceleration) is just an assumption while we have a reason for that called gravity. that is why on the moon, mars or any other celestial body with a mass m we all have a different gravity constants g. and last but not least i hope you know what acceleration means, right. it is the increase of speed over a timeperiod. so 9.81m/s^2 means that the speed of the upwards moving earth would increase with 9,81 m/s per second(9.81m/s/s=9.81m/s^2 just to clearify). this would mean that since the beginning of the earth (or whatever flat earthers regard as the beginning of the earth) its speed would keep increasing to an infinitely fast speed what would never stop increasing. this speed would soon go faster then the speed of light which is the upperlimit of speed for anything that carries information(mass). so it just isnt possible that the earth moves up with with that acceleration.

There are two few things wrong here.  In science, acceleration is defined as "the rate of change of velocity per unit of time".  So slowing down is technically acceleration.  So it turning.  Not terribly important for this example, but it's worth pointing out.

Next, using Einstein's special relativity, we conclude that as you approach the speed of light, it takes more and more force to achieve the same result.  Think of it like an asymptote: the closer you get to the speed of light, the more energy is required to get the same increase in speed.  So from a standstill, 9.8 m/s gains you 9.8 m/s for the first second, and slightly less the second second, even less the third second, and so on.  As you approach the speed of light, adding the same energy that used to give you 9.8 m/s might only gain you 1 femtometer per century.

So the FE UA does not break relativity.  You really ought to read the Wiki before posting.  I believe the UA to be total hogwash, but we are playing in their sandbox, and should play by their rules.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of the sun

« on: August 14, 2018, 08:09:21 PM »

Actually, as a record (or CD/DVD) spins in the drive and the needle (or eye) moves closer or further from the center, the angular velocity of the record (or CD/DVD) increases as it moves closer and decreases as it moves further.

Just to be pedantic, record players are CAV, while audio CDs, video DVDs, and video Blu-rays are CLV.  Data optical discs can be either CAV or CLV.

So the needle of a record player will cover more ground at the start of each side (outside) than it will at the end (inside).  The result was greater fidelity at the beginning of each side, because the needle was covering more linear space each second, and could pack more detail into each second.

This was well known to mastering engineers (and bands), and they would often take this into consideration when deciding what order to put the tracks on a record.  Audio CDs eliminated this concern with CLV.  Each "pit" took up the exact same linear distance, and each second had the exact same number of "pits".  If you have an audio CD player with a window showing the disk as it spins, you can see the speed change when you skip tracks.  This is especially visible when skipping from the last track to the first on a long CD.

Here is a neat image to help keep them straight.

On an AE FE map, the sun would have to be CAV for a day to be a consistent 24 hours.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of the sun

« on: August 14, 2018, 05:02:41 PM »

I believe it is flat because that is what I can prove with all of my senses, without outside influence. You believe it is round because you were told it was.

Your method for determining truth is fraught with problems.

8

Flat Earth Theory / What other FE models can pass Daily Debunk #1

« on: August 09, 2018, 11:53:25 PM »

I believe Lady Blount's bipolar model and the Dual Earth model each pass this test Daily Debunk #1.  Are there any other FE models that pass it?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth and Volcanoes

« on: August 09, 2018, 11:43:22 PM »

They submit it is because nobody is willing to spend money on the research, and I suspect that is for a very good reason: Global Earth is a model that has proven very beneficial to mankind, so spending money to prove it is incorrect would require FE to show how it would benefit mankind to change the model.

Ooooh... that's a good point.  Money is often the most powerful motivator.  Fame is probably a close second.  If someone could prove that the Earth is flat, they would definitely be famous, and likely rich soon after.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth and Volcanoes

« on: August 09, 2018, 11:23:04 PM »

Please do a little research before posting questions that are answered in the Wiki: https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Actually, the UA article does nothing to say what is causing it.

The Wiki gives two possible reasons for UA: "Dark Energy" and/or the "Davis Plane".  But it claims that without funding, they may never know which of those two are correct.

OP asked "what is creating this acceleration?"  That answer is clearly given in the Wiki.  While I don't subscribe to TFES hypotheses, I do try to follow (and encourage others to follow) their rules while on their forum.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: August 09, 2018, 11:02:36 PM »

This makes sense to me.  The guy on the left side of the picture would see the moon's terminator as nearly horizontal.  The guy on the right side of the picture would see the moon's terminator as nearly vertical.  That would not happen on a flat Earth.

I am now expecting EA to rear it's ugly head.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 09, 2018, 10:57:30 PM »

Well riddle me this BigGuyWhoKills ...

If the earth spins whilst the bullet is off the ground for a second moving the place it hits ... what happens when an aircraft flies South to North?

According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph.
(image of a globe with trajectories and rotation)

If I flew from Los Angeles to Seattle (due North), that flight takes 5 hours in a commercial airliners. Meanwhile the earth moved 5000 miles east under me. So when I come down to land ... I actually land in New York.
(map of the US)

Or do aircraft not get effected by Coriolis, it only works on bullets?

IMO, the other replies suffice.  But to recap:
1. Planes adjust their direction and speed, bullets do not.
2. Earth's tangential speed at LAX is closer to 850 MPH.
3. While the aircraft is on the ground, it is moving with the Earth at about 850 MPH.  Do you claim that when it takes off, it loses that energy?  If so, what force causes the loss of energy?  Over what time frame is that energy lost?  If it instantly loses that energy, how does this not cause catastrophic structural damage to the craft?
4. Let's presume that the aircraft does NOT lose that tangential speed when it takes off (since that is our reality).  The Earth is still spinning, but so is the atmosphere.  So the aircraft is not affected all that much.

Do you want me to explain why the airplane and the bullet are not comparable?  I can, if you need.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Effect

« on: August 09, 2018, 08:05:03 PM »

I am interested in this topic, and want to post what I consider fairly strong evidence for the Coriolis effect:


In that video, a manufacturer demonstrates how the Coriolis effect can affect a shooter's accuracy.  The demonstration has them shooting at an eastern target at 1,000 yards, and then at a western target at 1,000 yards, and then compare the impact points.

The intent is for their customers to get more consistent (reproducible) results.  I posit that it would not be in their best interest to mislead their customers about the Coriolis effect, so it is unlikely that this company is part of any conspiracy.  Because of that, I trust that the shooter was doing his best to hit the center of the target.  That is why I accept this video as fairly strong evidence of the Coriolis effect.

Having said all that, I am eager to learn how this could happen on a flat Earth, and why it behaves differently when shooting north and/or south vs. east and/or west.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Sunsets -- A Projection Effect?

« on: August 09, 2018, 02:20:30 AM »

The sunlight doesn't shine evenly over the earth. When the sunlight is angled one square foot of sunlight covers more than one square foot of earth.

I see what I did wrong.  I used the cross-sectional area of the Earth, but also used the RE distance to the sun.  The FE distance needs to factor in the slope like you say.  I was only thinking of the slope due to curvature, which is why I used the cross-sectional area instead of half the surface area.  I will recalculate the numbers when I have a bit more time.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why would the government lie about the earths shape

« on: August 08, 2018, 06:44:12 PM »

This introduces a lot of problems.  What was the space shuttle program?  Did they launch a shuttle while thousands watched, then it crashed into the ocean, days later to launch an identical shuttle from some remote location so it could land while thousands watched?

Do the commercial space companies also play the same game? For example, when the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC) handed over a milti-million dollar TV satellite to SpaceX, does it just fall into the ocean after launch?  BTRC then starts communicating with their satellite, who fakes that the satellite is in place?  When BTRC points their dishes towards where they think the satellite is, how does it work?  I've seen claims that people continuously launch balloons replicating the functionality of satellites, does SpaceX replicate the functions of the satellite in these balloons, thus faking their customer?  How could this be profitable for SpaceX?  Replicating the functionality of the satellite is non-trivial and maintaining the balloons during the entire life of the satellite is cumbersome, plus it's not in California, they would have to manage this near Bangladesh.  I don't see how this could be profitable, reverse engineering someone elses satellite is non trivial.  Faking the movement controls of someone elses satellite is non trivial.  Replicating the functionality of someone elses satelling is non trivial.

Or, on the other hand, is BTRC in on it as well, they handed over a dummy satellite and they manage the faking of the satellite functionality themselves?  Why would they do this, wouldn't it just be easier for them to just launch the balloons without the satellite fanfare?  How does this benefit the BTRC?  They don't have a vested interest if covering up NASA's coverup.

These issues don't go away with simplistic claims that NASA is just faking it, there are many other entities involved that would have to be enticed to fake it.  The scope of the conspiracy grows terribly large.

Thank you for that!  That was a GREAT way to put the "conspiracy" into perspective.  I had never thought of it from a customer's perspective.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Sunsets -- A Projection Effect?

« on: August 08, 2018, 06:34:36 PM »

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

... I don't feel out of place saying there is nothing in existence that would work as a reflector for that amount of energy.

And I have no reason why you should not feel entirely out of place in writing such a statement given you have provided absolutely nothing to support it except an argument from incredulity.

Nothing to support my statement?  I calculated the energy density to be 30,152,268,960 watts per square foot.  The only incredulity is that someone would expect any material to handle that much energy.  The power consumption of iron smelting furnaces is measured in kilowatts per ton (http://www.electroheatinduction.com/how-to-calculate-electricity-cost-for-melting-metal-in-induction-melting-furnace/).  Not megawatts, and definitely not gigawatts.  With this new information, does my incredulity seem reasonable now?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The rotation of the sun

« on: August 08, 2018, 05:22:01 AM »

The speed of a needle on a record on a record player also changes when it is closer or further from the center. Would you say that the record needs to "change speeds" to achieve that?

Are you suggesting that the Earth rotates beneath the sun, rather that the sun spinning above the Earth? As that's the only way to make your analogy applicable.

I think Tom is claiming the sun has a constant angular velocity rather than a constant linear velocity.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Sunsets -- A Projection Effect?

« on: August 08, 2018, 03:42:03 AM »

The sunlight doesn't shine evenly over the earth. When the sunlight is angled one square foot of sunlight covers more than one square foot of earth.

Yeah, I didn't want to do the calculus on that gradient, so instead of using half the surface area of the globe, I used the cross-sectional area at the equator (1.28×10^14 square meters).

If that was your only concern, I think that my numbers are correct.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth and Volcanoes

« on: August 07, 2018, 11:46:20 PM »

Please do a little research before posting questions that are answered in the Wiki: https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Sunsets -- A Projection Effect?

« on: August 07, 2018, 11:44:49 PM »

We don't actually receive that much energy from the sun on earth. The sun's energy is just multiplied by the inverse squared law and Round Earth distances to get the strength of the RE sun.

I disagree.  Let's call it a 32 mile diameter disc 3,000 miles above the Earth.  All (most) light and heat comes from that source.  That sources illuminates and heats approximately 98.45 million square miles of land.  Granted, the light and heat attenuate towards the edges of the illuminated area, but it is still an AMAZING amount of energy.  Considering it comes from an area that some FE'ers believe to be 32 miles in diameter, that makes an energy density that confounds modern material science.  This is not my area of expertise, but I don't feel out of place saying there is nothing in existence that would work as a reflector for that amount of energy.

Start your own thread about that. I can only assume that you are accepting that sunset is possible since you are trying to move on to another topic.

I'm not trying to move on to another topic.  I'd describing how it would be impossible for the sun to be a projection.  We receive a LOT of heat and light from that 32 arcminute circle in the sky.  If that is a projection, reflecting light and heat from an emitter somewhere else, this reflector is handling a LOT of energy.  It would be curious for a reflector like that to be undetectable to us.

The energy of the sun in RET was derived by the inverse square law: http://www.ucolick.org/~bolte/AY4_04/class3_04bwb.pdf

The sun in FET would be of substantially less energy.

I get it.  But I'm not claiming that this 32 mile wide reflector is handling 3.846×1026 watts.  I am instead working the power from the receiving side.

We measure a maximum of about 1,000 watts per square meter at the surface of the Earth.  The Earth has a cross-sectional area of 128,000,000,000,000 square meters.  That means we receive approximately 128,000,000,000,000,000 watts of energy

That energy originates from an area of just 804 square miles.  This gives a density of 159,200,000,000,000 watts per square mile.  That breaks down to 30,152,268,960 watts per square foot.  Tom, that's quite the reflector.  In fact, I would say it falls into the realm of the supernatural.

If I made a mistake in my calculations, please show me where.  I sometimes shift a decimal point on accident.  But 30 terrawatts per square foot is more energy handling capacity than any material I've heard of.  And it definitely disproves any projection theory.