21

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 17, 2018, 07:14:09 AM »

So basically your claim is, that because NOAA doesn't seem to use orbital mechanics for their calculations, the RE is false.

First up, the linked spreadsheet:
The Sun RAD Vector isn't used for the other calculations, it is an output to show the current distance to the sun.
All formulas in the sheet are simplified to the extreme, so that they are faster to work with, thereby they are also nearly impossible to apprehend.

Second:
You seem to assume that we would use orbital mechanics for our calculations, while I would expect that we would not.
Orbital mechanics are used for simulations, not as much for calculations. This is because orbital mechanics are extremely hard to calculate over time, where all planets and moons affect each other always, and affect each other more or less dependent on their current distance.
If you want orbital mechanics based on Newtonian physics: http://universesandbox.com/ it is actually pretty fun to use, and you can play with it all you wish. It is also very accurate (as long as you don't run the simulation too fast).

Third:
Stellarium is an excellent tool, it precisely shows all observations we see in the sky, and shows all predictions. Even if Stellarium is pattern based, it still shows all observations anywhere on earth which can all be verified. Now that you've brought it up, I would like to know if you acknowledge Stellarium as a valid source of observations, or if you have a problem with it?
Is there any observation in Stellarium which you know cannot be seen in reality?

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: What FE Experiment would you believe?

« on: July 16, 2018, 10:57:38 AM »

Simple experiment really.

Use any tool which can show level. Use an app, use a bubble level, make a contraption with 2 containers of water connected with a tube so the water runs freely.
Now use this tool at a beach with a clear view to the horizon, show that it detects the horizon as being at eye-level.
Then use this tool when at altitude, on a plane, a mountain, a skyscraper, show that the horizon is still at eye-level.

This experiment would show if the horizon is at eye-level as stated by FE, or if it is below eye-level at altitude as stated by RE.

So far, I have yet to see any FEer do this simple experiment EVER, and I have only seen REers do this experiment at altitude (where it shows a dip in the horizon) without showing an accompanying test at low altitude for comparison (though in most cases, this is not required, as they use decent measuring gear like the containers of water, which we know to be level due to physics).

So if a FEer performed that and said they got the FE result, that would be enough for you?

I would hope they at least would take some photos to share.

I generally believe the video results and images shared by almost everyone. I have a harder time using the given claims from them.
Just a recent video on youtube, an FEer claimed he could see a building 22 miles away. He included the calculated hidden height from a curvature calculater (easily verified) and he included the building height that he saw. The problem however was that he completely neglected that the building was built at an altitude, he also didn't factor in that the sea level was really low, and finally he didn't factor in refraction (which makes a huge difference at surface level and especially when taking video over 22 miles of water).

I trust the observations, especially those I can verify due to the location being stated. But I would need all the relevant data aswell.
In my stated experiment, I would at least like the location of the high-altitude experiment, and I would like a clear image of the result (as in a photo taken along the tool to show if the horizon is eye-level or below).

I have an app installed called Dioptra, it can show the amount of degrees to the object I point at. As an app programmer, I know how bad such measurements can be, and I can easily see through experiments that it is 1 degree off constantly. Accounting for this 1 degree (I wish the app could be calibrated properly) I can now do experiments at all altitudes and check the results, though in my whole country, the highest point is 172m and far from any ocean to show level, so I have a hard time doing the experiment myself.


Lets see how an FEer tries the experiment I had:


holding the tool and camera in his hand very unstable, but at least the concept is there, taking a measurement at 2m and 60m.

Then we have the REers test:

the tubes are way more stable when held against the ground, the tubes are wider and allow the water to flow more freely, it also takes measurements at altitudes of 2m, 350m and 1700m, clearly showing a dip in the horizon.

So, the results are clearly opposite, the FE claims no dip, and the RE claims larger dip. Which should I trust? I believe both of their observations to be true.

23

Flat Earth Community / Re: What FE Experiment would you believe?

« on: July 16, 2018, 10:33:25 AM »

Simple experiment really.

Use any tool which can show level. Use an app, use a bubble level, make a contraption with 2 containers of water connected with a tube so the water runs freely.
Now use this tool at a beach with a clear view to the horizon, show that it detects the horizon as being at eye-level.
Then use this tool when at altitude, on a plane, a mountain, a skyscraper, show that the horizon is still at eye-level.

This experiment would show if the horizon is at eye-level as stated by FE, or if it is below eye-level at altitude as stated by RE.

So far, I have yet to see any FEer do this simple experiment EVER, and I have only seen REers do this experiment at altitude (where it shows a dip in the horizon) without showing an accompanying test at low altitude for comparison (though in most cases, this is not required, as they use decent measuring gear like the containers of water, which we know to be level due to physics).


Besides, I would reject any FEer which does an experiment (accepted by REers even), and then uses a full day with nothing to show for it, and then changes the experiment completely to something which logically wont work. Yes I have seen this happen.

Example:

I don't expect you to watch a 1 hour video, but basically Jeranism (a FE youtuber) proposed a laser test (they made a big deal out of it before the test, and this test was fine and even agreed upon by REers to be correct). He and 9 other FEers met, they spent the whole day trying to do the test, yet the results clearly wasn't anything they wanted to share and instead they wrote a small comment about it where they proposed a brand new test. This new test would however completely fail as explained in the video above, using a very nice 2D model in 3ds Max. But alas, Jeranism never made the test anyways.

Basically put, I would not believe an FEer like Jeranism who hides the results completely and has basically no explanation of why they didn't share any results.

24

Flat Earth Community / Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?

« on: July 13, 2018, 11:58:46 AM »

My reason for rejecting it is that I believe space travel is impossible.

This is where I have a problem with the FE mentality.
You believe in a flat earth and your FE model means space travel is impossible.
So when you're presented with evidence of space travel you declare it fake not because you have any evidence that it is fake but because it contradicts your world view. That is not rational. Statements like "In the absence of any footage that is not faked...". Where is your evidence that the footage is faked? You don't have any, you've done no analysis of the footage (correct me if I'm wrong). You declare it fake because it shows you to be wrong.

If you're presented with evidence which contradicts your world view then you need to assess that evidence as objectively as possible and consider whether that evidence shows your world view to be wrong. That is the bit you guys don't do. And to be fair that's quite a common thing, it's why people dig their heels in about all kinds of things. Cognitive dissonance, basically.

In my silly example about kangaroos, even if I've never seen one if I'm told by people that they've seen one, shown photos of them, shown video of one etc. If I keep on calling these people liars with no basis and declaring all the photos and video fake (having done no analysis of them myself) then fine, I can stick to my world view but it's not a particularly rational or analytical way of thinking. It's just denial of anything that doesn't fit my world view. This is what you're doing in this thread.

It's interesting that the summary of the responses so far is:
RE "Show me evidence of a flat earth"
FE "Take me up in a space ship and show me the globe earth" [Note here that you've never seen the flat disc earth either...]

RE are interested in data and evidence, FE is more "I'll believe it when I see it for myself".
And there's nothing wrong with investigating things for yourself per se but no-one actually lives their lives like this, testing every thing for themselves before believing anything. I don't believe you apply that level of rigour to any other area of your lives. And I see very little effort from FE people in terms of actually investigating things for themselves. What experiments have you done in developing your world view?

From what I've seen, every flat earther started out believing that NASA faked the moon landing. This becomes ingrained in their thought process and suddenly everything NASA does is a lie. This then becomes the root of all flat earthers logic, they believe in the conspiracy, so there must be a lie, and it can't be anything else than the earth is flat.

25

Flat Earth Community / Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?

« on: July 12, 2018, 08:06:12 PM »

I am not going to put up with blatant timewasting. You know the path, pick your favorite FE map, draw that path on it. Ta-da! What more do you want?
Ok, why are my explanations unsatisfactory, beyond the fact you disagree with them? For all your constant repitition of that I don't think I've ever seen you bother to justify it.
Where's any evidence to back up your claim that it's in space? Oh, right, you don't need it. Or, wait, is the fact that it explains the sight of it etc enough for that, but not for anything else? Drop. The. Damn. Douible. Standard.

Facts:
The ISS follows a specific path, travelling the world around in 91 minutes.
Thats 40,075 km in 91 minutes if above a flat earth.
We can perfectly capture images of the station with cameras anyone can buy.
With a bit of trigonometry and good measurements of its observation, we can easily calculate its altitude which matches the 408 km stated even calculating on a flat earth.
Measuring its angular size, using simple trigonometry again, we also reach the size of it to be the stated 100m across.
Traveling at more than 6 km/s using flat earth calculations, it would most likely burn up if there was atmosphere.

It exists. Fact.

26

Flat Earth Community / Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?

« on: July 12, 2018, 12:13:06 PM »

Clearly many, many people believe the FE theory. And many don't.  I'm interested to know what it would take to change your mind.  Unfortunately, purported 'Facts' can be subjective based on our interpretation of the evidence, so what would it take to completely convince you that the Earth is a globe / flat, depending on your POV?

1. Personally going to space?  A prominent FEer going and reporting back?
2. A trip to find the ice wall? look beyond it?
3.

Thanks!
PJ

To change my mind, I would need a lot of things or a solid proof.
Lets start with the solid proofs:
1: proof of the filament/dome, someone travelling to the Antarctica, traversing it and snapping some pictures of this supposed dome.
2: a god should tell us, if he is that powerful, then it should easily be doable.

Then onto the logic that would need to be clarified properly:
1: be able to define a workable FE perspective which can be verified.
2: explain all observations in the sky with a workable model.
3: a working map.
4-?: be able to predict reality, as currently the heliocentric model can predict nearly everything, while the FE model can predict absolutely nothing.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation of the earth via both the South Pole and North Pole

« on: July 11, 2018, 10:27:39 AM »

Pretty trivial on a bipolar model so really not sure what your issue is, no different to the east/west issue even on the classical model, but as a side note what does pacmanning mean in this context because maybe there's a slang definition i don't know but i checked and i sincerely hope it's not one of them.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pac-manning

By pacmanning I mean the idea that you disappear from one part of a map and reappear in another - in Pac Man you go through the tunnel on the right of the screen and reappear on the left.
It's a common criticism by RE that you would have to do that in order to circumnavigate a flat earth. I actually accept that in a unipole FE model you wouldn't have to do that to circumnavigate the "globe" going East or West because "East" and "West" would go round in a circle as the Wiki states:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Circumnavigation

But how could one do a circumnavigation over both Poles? The uni-pole model only has one. And on a bi-polar model how would circumnavigation work either East-West or North-South?
I've shown both models here. On the top one the red circle shows an East-West circumnavigation. I'm not clear how that would work on the bi-polar model or how North-South would work on either model:



Maybe the problem is these maps are not accurate but could you either annotate the above with how circumnavigation would work both East-West and North-South on the bi-polar flat earth model? You say it's trivial, can you show your workings?

It is quite easy to do a north to south circumnavigation on a bi-polar map tbh. just follow the vertical lines (though this doesn't work at 0 longitude).
Doing a east to west circumnavigation you would follow the lines aswell horizontal (though this doesn't work at the equator).

It is still ridiculous and the distances would not be able to be measured on a map, and the plane would still need to turn left/right the entire flight.

Only on a spherical earth would it be possible to have these flights going completely straight while simultaneously following east/west/north/south directions.
Only on a spherical earth would the measurements on the map match the flight times and distances.

With ANY flat earth map, everything works relatively fine for the center parts of the map, but when you reach the outer parts it will fall apart flat as reality kicks it while its trying to make excuses.
Flying from America to India on a bi-polar map becomes meaningless and the shapes of continents on the bi-polar map are even more absurd than on the mono-pole map.

28

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 10, 2018, 07:33:46 PM »

Everything we observe is waves, light comes from waves, sound comes from waves, and different kinds of waves have different effects.
If we are to say that all the rules of physics are derived from waves, who is to say that new rules cannot be made. What if a physics rule similar to gravity existed, but it was simply not developed in our part of the galaxy or our part of the universe. Thereby we would have increased gravitational pull from both gravity and this new force, which could be the answer to gravitational pull instead of dark matter.
Gravity would work normally, dark matter wouldn't exist, we would simply have more attraction from other parts of the universe where the laws of physics are slightly different.

String theory also works on the principle of strings making waves, which is not far off. It works in many dimensions and is hard to explore, but might work like this (I made the above thoughts before reading about string theory though, and string theory is a really complicated read).

Positing non-universal, changing laws of physics is not a scientifically tenable position. If that is believed the ability to know anything becomes non-existent.

Changing laws within the confines of the most basic of rules. As though there could exist many more wave forms providing more physical rules. I find it very interesting to think like that.
Think of it as evolution of the laws of physics.

Many possibilities to be found if this was the case, but alas I don't believe it and even if it was the case, it wouldn't affect me in my lifetime. Though I do wish to include it in my fantasy roleplaying worlds.

29

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 10, 2018, 02:17:49 PM »

That is the idealist's perspective, but unfortunately science in the real world does not work like that. For all the lip service paid to openness and acceptance, any scientist would happily repeat the 'standing on the shoulders of giants,' cliche. If it turns out one had to go back away, alter some ancient premise to actually arrive at the truth, that avenue would never go explored. They cling on blindly to impossible hypotheses not because of elegance, but because of tradition.
Though this is getting off topic. I could go on for a while about the flaws with the modern scientific institution, and I'd be happy to, but I started this thread because I wanted to hear the RE answer to a question and I still want that.

I'll just repeat it here for future readers. the rest of this dicussion is veering towards other topics (which I'm happy to talk about, just not here, I hate it when topics get changed so that questions never get answered).

Why does dark matter not forming clumps mean it would not be attracted to centers of gravity? Or, if it is attracted to centers of gravity, why does it then proceed to just shoot straight past it and ignore the fact gravity would act to curve its path or pull it back?

Our idea of how scientists think and act are different, so lets agree to disagree on that area =)

My own thoughts on the matter, I wouldn't call them my beliefs, but if I was a scientist myself I would probably follow this line of thinking:

Everything we observe is waves, light comes from waves, sound comes from waves, and different kinds of waves have different effects.
If we are to say that all the rules of physics are derived from waves, who is to say that new rules cannot be made. What if a physics rule similar to gravity existed, but it was simply not developed in our part of the galaxy or our part of the universe. Thereby we would have increased gravitational pull from both gravity and this new force, which could be the answer to gravitational pull instead of dark matter.
Gravity would work normally, dark matter wouldn't exist, we would simply have more attraction from other parts of the universe where the laws of physics are slightly different.

String theory also works on the principle of strings making waves, which is not far off from my own ideas. It works in many dimensions and is hard to explore, but might work like this (I made the above thoughts before reading about string theory though, and string theory is a really complicated read).

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 10, 2018, 07:17:47 AM »

But the area per pixel/arcsecond increased at the edges, so the intensity should increase when you are looking at more area. You are looking at more area of the sun when you are looking at its edges.

Photons are additive. See the following from physics.stackexchange.com:

However, the amplitude of a light wave depends on the number of photons per second being emitted. The greater the amplitude of a certain type of light, the greater the number of photons per second of that type of light. So if you want to compare intensity of similar types of light, the amplitude is the variable of choice.

When light waves interfere with each other, areas of greater intensity result when photons pile on top of each other, and this is measured by the greater amplitude.

Since you are looking at more area per pixel/arcsecond near the edges, the photons should build up there.

Simple experiment.

If you have a flat light, or watch a white screen tv set in a dark room, you can see the TV from the side and see way more pixels in a smaller area...
Now, if you take a look at the light emitted by the TV, does it look to be brighter at areas straight to the left and right of it, or brighter in front of it?

Use any example you wish of a surface light, and you will see the same result, it is lighter in front than at the sides, meaning your logic doesn't make sense in the real world.

I do get your logic though, but in this case it doesn't work like that.

31

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 10, 2018, 07:09:09 AM »

There is only something there if you make the assumption gravity is what is responsible for their motion. As gone into repeatedly, dark matter as a concept does not work, and given only one person has even attempted to explain how it could (with a flawed answer) I'm feelingly increasingly confident with that conclusion.
That implication goes both ways. If gravity exists, then there needs to be something there. Thus if there is nothing there, gravity needs a rethink. Good old fashioned contraposition.

Gravity is so well defined that it accounts for everything we observe in our own solar system. It works perfectly in our own solar system.
It is extremely elegant, requiring a simple calculation, and scientists love elegant solutions.

Dark Matter is an explanation to an unexplained phenomenon, it is not the solution until we find the truth behind it. It might well be that we need to rethink gravity, but not for use in our own universe, this also makes it way less elegant since we would need to use it differently on a small scale than a large scale.
The Dark Matter theory, is just the best theory we currently have, with predictive powers we can use. Any theory which can explain the phenomenons better would instantly trump dark matter, but no such theory has been made yet which has passed even the bare minimum of peer review. Until such a time that another and better theory comes to light, dark matter is the method we use, since it works.

I do expect many scientists are still pondering other solutions which is more elegant than an unobserved dark matter solution.

32

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 09, 2018, 03:43:59 PM »

Gravity is far more connected to RET than atomic theory is to string theory. Rather, it would be like a scientist who believed in spontaneous generation observing a beef steak in a sealed pack fail to create life. That's just one type of meat, but it still acts to contradict what the model suggests, and it should be motive to take a step back and rethink the notion for all meats. The model states one thing should happen consistently: if it fails in even one of those cases, then those are grounds to take a closer look at the model as a whole.
No one is saying to discard anything until there's a better explanation. Certainly, I believe there is one, but the fact is modern science refuses to even entertain the possibility.

From my understanding, modern scientists are doing everything they can to make a unified theory for everything.
If the galaxies behaved as predicted without dark matter, they wouldn't need to think about it.

But there is something there, and either the extremely simple calculations for gravity is wrong over large distances, or there is an unobservable force which provides the extra force. Since it is unobservable and only affects galaxy and universe scale calculations, it is very hard to theorize and make tests about.

Maybe now that we can simulate universal creation and show how galaxies are formed, scientists might get a better idea of dark matter, since they can better visualise the universe.

33

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 09, 2018, 03:21:11 PM »

Dark Matter is required for our calculations and predictions to make sense on a galaxy and universe scale.
It is not required for anything in our small solar system where we can easily tell that the earth is a sphere.

Which is all part of the same model. That's how science works, if you run an experiment and find it contradicts your hypothesis, you don't make excuses and keep going, you need to take a step back and rethink. If gravity does not work in situations where it should, and the only significant excuse fails too, it needs to be given a rethink.

I don't get where you are getting your 'grand unified conspiracy' from, as conspiracies are flat earthers areas.

Yes, and one REers stretch out of all proportion, hence assigning it to you.

We know that dark matter is an unsolved issue, yet it is something we can use to predict reality. Meanwhile scientists are working hard to figure out exactly what dark matter is and how we can test if it exists or if the observations are caused by something else.

Again, there is a difference between unsolved and contradictory. I would not have dedicated so much time and passion to this thread if I was just looking for you to explain an oddity, I want an answer to a contradiction.

What I hear you say, correct me if I am wrong.
We should throw out and rethink the heliocentric model, even the completely answered parts about our solar system, because we have something unexplained in dark matter.

It is like saying we should discard and rethink atomic theory because we have yet to figure out gravitational waves in string theory.

If we did science like that, we would still be living in the dark ages.

I'm not saying that rethinking is a bad thing, but it is a problem to discard the best theory we have because of an anomaly we have yet to explain.

And again, the shape of the earth does not depend on dark matter, FEers like you just wish to throw out the heliocentric model because it is not fully developed yet in areas far beyond what we need to answer the shape of earth and the solar system.

34

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 09, 2018, 02:55:17 PM »

LOL

RET doesn't need dark matter to tell if the earth is spherical.

If the earth was truly flat, and 'they' lied about it, why would they even invent the concept of dark matter that normal people would be unable to notice anyways?

Because round earthers are the ones that insist that there's a grand unified conspiracy, rather than humans making mistakes.

But really, why would dark matter make any difference towards the spherical nature of earth?

Because it is required for your model to work.

Dark Matter is required for our calculations and predictions to make sense on a galaxy and universe scale.
It is not required for anything in our small solar system where we can easily tell that the earth is a sphere.

I don't get where you are getting your 'grand unified conspiracy' from, as conspiracies are flat earthers areas.
We know that dark matter is an unsolved issue, yet it is something we can use to predict reality. Meanwhile scientists are working hard to figure out exactly what dark matter is and how we can test if it exists or if the observations are caused by something else.

35

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which model do you believe in?

« on: July 09, 2018, 02:45:38 PM »

This poll may not achieve that. Even if you just want to take the classical 'monopole flat Earth model,' there are several subsequent variations upon it. That is one of the strengths of FET, the freedom to develop rather than to blindly follow the leader.
Plus it neglects certain subtleties; many models have more in common than they do differences even in separate categories there. (For example, DET is a bipolar model but it has more in common with the Pole-Centered monopole models).

I know, there are many aspects to the theories, like question if the sun and moon are inside or outside the filament and other theories, but the base model would be generalized in these models I believe.

I've heard a lot about the bi-polar model being the model of choice for the most prominent people on this site for example, so I primarily wish to know if this is just an empty claim or some truth behind it.

36

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which model do you believe in?

« on: July 09, 2018, 01:15:33 PM »

I would suggest "Round Earth Theory" or "RET" - this is generally the name used around here. My worry is that there might be a heliocentric FET model out there somewhere (though I must admit I'm not familiar with one)

I've changed it now to Heliocentric (RE) model, which I hope will be easier to distinguish. =)

37

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

« on: July 09, 2018, 11:20:14 AM »

(Bobby said ) "You can present more crescent moon images if you like, and try to stump me; but I'll bet I'll easily be able to line up any crescent (except the slimmest of crescents) with the moon's features we seen when it's full."

And I'll be able to point out just as many features that aren't shared, as I've done.

Sorry, but I see nowhere in this thread where you've pointed out specific non-shared features. I invite you to present other Moon photos and indicate these features.

I think he is just in denial.

He can't accept that the moon isn't illuminating by itself, even when the evidence is clearly there throughout all photographs taken of the moon through all its phases.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 09, 2018, 08:57:35 AM »

CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.

Spherical, you are essentially taking an issue with the fact that the Flat Earth Theory is a work in progress, and that there are still many unknowns. This, of course, is only normal in the pursuit of truth. We don't have all the answers, but an incomplete answer is vastly preferable to an incorrect one.

So your argument is that a completely vague theory is better than a theory which we can test and find to be incorrect?

I would argue that the scientific method is all about creating testable theories which we can validate or invalidate in search of truth. CG is basically just a word, where you put all the unknown force properties we can see and measure. Without any testable theory, it will be impossible to find truth.

39

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which model do you believe in?

« on: July 09, 2018, 08:47:25 AM »

Can you clarify what you mean by the "heliocentric model"?

The earth is spherical, the moon orbits the earth which orbits the sun.
Generally put, its just an option for people who do not believe in the flat earth, but if another name suits it better, then I'll rename it.

40

Flat Earth Community / Which model do you believe in?

« on: July 09, 2018, 07:53:15 AM »

For discussion, it would be good to know which model is the most prominent.
If you have another model which you believe is relevant to the poll, I would be glad to add it to the poll.