301

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 24, 2018, 04:55:35 PM »

Hey guys, cool discussion and all, but I wonder if we can return to how any of this relates to FE and the whole UA vs Newton's law question? Did you notice that Mathis agrees with Newton's law? I mean, if you are accepting Mathis's analysis, then I really don't see how this helps the UA position at all. Please explain that first, and then maybe we can pick at various points in that essay.

302

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: June 24, 2018, 05:48:04 AM »

I'm not sure what you've decided to do here, but well-informed REs will tell you simply that we all accept "Full Moon" to mean the fullest it gets that month. It does not need to be 100% illuminated to count as "full".

303

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 24, 2018, 04:32:24 AM »

Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.

I have finally finished reading that paper. There is a lot in there that one might argue with, but none of that seems to matter a bit. Ultimately, the author does not seem to support the claims of FE. While he clearly makes some novel* claims, he states the following:
"The actual gravitational field is 9.81, and the E/M field is -.01. This means at the level of size of the earth, the gravitational field is more than 1000 times stronger than the E/M field."
And this:
"Both of my fields are contained by Newton's equation, which means my equations and theory show no variance from Newton, except in exceptional circumstances like this."

The author describes gravity as an expansion which is blocked by the presence of matter. All he's really saying about gravity is that he thinks gravity is not so much mass attracting mass but mass not repulsing other mass. Good old double-negative arriving at the same result. According to Miles Mathis, all mass is pushed towards all other mass with an inverse-square relationship.

*novel = the most diplomatic word choice I could come up with

304

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 24, 2018, 12:11:47 AM »

Regarding the Cavendish Experiment, see: http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

It is a highly sensitive experiment that was basically uncontrolled. There are forces much powerful than the alleged affect of gravity that would affect the objects.

That is an extremely long paper. As I work my way through this, may I ask, "Is this paper offered as the official stance of the FES or is this simply an example of a refutation of the Cavendish experiment?"

It seems to me that we do not need this entire document to get to whatever this guy's point may be. If he expresses a stance that you agree with, perhaps you might summarize for me what his strongest point is? I'll keep reading this, but if there is a point in you you would care to defend, I will give it extra attention.

305

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: June 23, 2018, 06:20:30 AM »

Is there a "standard" explanation for the Cavendish experiment? The one I've heard personally is, "it's fake."

Here's an apparatus you can buy from Frey's
https://store.schoolspecialty.com/OA_HTML/ibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?minisite=10029&item=2206303

Here's one from Pasco
https://www.pasco.com/prodCatalog/AP/AP-8215_gravitational-torsion-balance/index.cfm
I even found the instructions
http://www.phys.utk.edu/labs/modphys/Pasco%20Cavendish%20Experiment.pdf
Here's a video of somebody using what looks like the Pasco kit:

and another one:


So not fake right? What's up with that?

306

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon

« on: June 22, 2018, 10:56:16 PM »

It may be worth pointing out that here on Earth we do observe a very tiny variation in the portion of the Moon seen from different points at different times. If you work it out with the scales suggested by the standard model, you'll see a very tiny angle between the Moon and opposite sides of the globe. I simply point this out because maybe this tiny amount of variation could help you to resolve your mathematical problem.

If you're talking about lunar libration, I'd rather keep that out of the mix. For what Tom is proposing, I don't think we need to address that.

Or were you touching on something else?

I mean simply this... the radius of the (round) Earth is reported to be 3,959 mi. The distance to the Moon is reported to average around 238,900 mi. Imagine two viewers at the equator both looking at the moon at the same time. (Assume the moon is directly over the equator for simplicity.) Place one observer at 0 degrees longitude, and the other at 180 degrees - exact opposite sides of the Earth. The observer at 0 sees the moon from 0.95 degrees east of straight-on while the opposite observer is looking at 0.95 degrees west of straight-on. They both take a photo and compare. The photos see the moon from SLIGHTLY different angles... a total difference just under 2 degrees.

307

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Wiki Entry: Why we always see the same face of the moon

« on: June 22, 2018, 09:58:31 PM »

It may be worth pointing out that here on Earth we do observe a very tiny variation in the portion of the Moon seen from different points at different times. If you work it out with the scales suggested by the standard model, you'll see a very tiny angle between the Moon and opposite sides of the globe. I simply point this out because maybe this tiny amount of variation could help you to resolve your mathematical problem.

308

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about navigation and maps

« on: June 22, 2018, 07:16:27 PM »

The problem is that you cannot unfold a sphere into a flat surface without causing severe distortion complete with pac-man style wormholes. It's easier to see with a cube. I suspect most of us have built a paper cube before. You trace out the 6 faces on a flat surface, cut them out, and fold them into a cube. Unfold it again, and you'll see that many of the faces aren't anywhere near the edge they touched as a cube. Those edges are what I'm calling the pac-man style wormholes... you cross one boundary and appear instantly on another face of the cube. It works when it's assembled as a cube, but when you lay it flat, you need wormholes.

What this means is that the Earth cannot be both a sphere AND a flat surface. It must be one or the other (assuming we aren't going into higher-dimensional math and allowing for wormholes). I hope that's simple enough. It's either a globe or a plane - it can't be said that "either way works".

So if you make a flat map (any map really), we'll want to test the latitude and longitude of any city on your map against empirical observations. (These were outlined by a previous poster.) If the flat map does not match the known latitude and longitude at any point, we either need to prove the accepted latitude and longitude of that city is incorrect, or we must reject the map as inaccurate.

As I've just pointed out, there is no way for both the globe and a flat map to represent the exact same latitudes and longitudes without severe distortion. We also know that the standard globe model DOES accurately represent the latitude and longitude of every city on it. (Please let us know if you'd care to dispute this point.)

So... before making any FE map, you would first want to come up with some justification for why you are going to challenge the latitude and longitude of cities all over the Earth.

The same can be said for distances between these cities. If we can measure (or even estimate) the distance between any 2 points on the Earth, we'll need to make sure your new map reproduces those empirical results correctly. Once again, you'll first need to establish that there are a pair of cities on the globe which are represented inaccurately.

So if you have a specific, testable reason to challenge the latitude and longitude of any city on the Earth, please share that. (My apologies if this has been given before... if so, I have missed it and would appreciate being directed to it... thanks).

309

Flat Earth Investigations / Empirical Validation of Perspective

« on: June 22, 2018, 06:03:24 PM »

Hey ya'll... I'm working on a video that discusses some different ideas about how perspective works, and how we can do simple experiments to figure out which ideas are correct and which are not.

I'd like to ask willing participants to take a photograph and record some measurements from it. I have a little questionnaire to ask what your ideas about perspective were before and after doing the experiment. The video would ideally focus on whether or not people who started off with different ideas about perspective arrive at the same conclusions after testing it for themselves.

You can participate completely anonymously if you want.

I would like to avoid any debate over which ideas are correct and which are not. I would prefer that nobody posts their answers here until everyone has had a chance to do the measurements on their own. The idea is to explore whether doing the empirical investigation on your own is a better way to find the truth (as opposed to reading about it online).

Anyone interested/willing to participate?

Here are some questions for before you take your measurements:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeLXshSjVkWswmdGUlh6YztQOk-woesW0MGXMRl2_U7uH4brg/viewform?usp=sf_link
And here is the description of how to take the measurements:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M_Qhcexuac2dsv4OzdbdnNFTY4F6dknQ42UMEpzXnno/edit?usp=sharing

To turn in your answers (without sharing them here right away), just PM me or email me at ICanScienceThat@gmail.com
If you'd like to arrange an alternative way to share your answers, feel free to post here telling me how to get them.

The goal of this experiment is to answer the question, "How far away is the vanishing point?" If you'd like to come up with a different experiment to answer that question, that would be great too! All ideas welcome.

(I had posted this on the other forum, but I have few responses so far. So I'm re-posting here hoping to get a few more.)