61

Flat Earth Investigations / GPS and the Orbital Coriolis Effect

« on: June 05, 2019, 06:53:01 PM »

So why should these observations provide evidence to SBR about the Earth being flat? Because they can be equally accounted for using RET as described above as well.

Correct.

However, now that you have mentioned the sun's declination, you are going to have to explain this.

This is the orbital CORIOLIS EFFECT formula:

dto = 4Av_osinΦcosδ/Rc² = 4AΩ_osinΦcosδ/c²

R = 150,000,000 km and A = Lh

Cosδ is the sun's declination factor; however, on the day of the spring or autumn equinox, cosδ = 1.


Please explain to your readers why the orbital CORIOLIS EFFECT is not being registered by the GPS satellites.

This is the question that none of the physicists in the world can answer without resorting to MLET (modified Lorentz ether theory).

Light beams in an interferometer in rotation will be subjected to the Coriolis effect (a deflection of the beams) and to the Sagnac effect (variable velocity).

Rotation: either the Earth rotates around its own axis, or the ether drift rotates above the surface of the Earth.

There are two Coriolis effects: rotational and orbital.

Rotational effect: due to the Coriolis force of rotation of the Earth.

Orbital effect: due to the Coriolis force of rotation while in orbit around the Sun.


Here is how the rotational Coriolis effect is derived:

https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/pram/087/05/0071

Here is how the orbital Coriolis effect is derived:

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Michelson_1904.pdf

The Coriolis effect formula involves AN AREA and the ANGULAR VELOCITY.


GPS satellites record/register ONLY the rotational Coriolis force.

In fact, GPS functions even because the orbital Coriolis force is not being registered.



https://web.archive.org/web/20170808104846/http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf

This is an IOP article.

The author recognizes the earth's orbital Coriolis is missing whereas the earth's rotational Coriolis is not.

He uses GPS and a link between Japan and the US to prove this.

In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.


In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.


Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame.


The calculations performed for the LISA space antenna/satellite prove that the orbital Coriolis effect is 30 times greater than the rotational Coriolis effect in that case.


Faced with these facts, relativists have denied (believe it or not) that the satellites actually orbit the Sun.

"The motion of the earth's orbit is also a sagnac effect. We should see light path distance differentials caused by the orbit just like we see if for earth's rotation.

The orbital path is simply longer and nothing else.

The earth - sun orbital frame is a sagnac rotating frame.

The Sagnac correction for the earth's rotation is applied because as the light moves toward the receiver, the receiver rotates with the earth changing the distance the signal travels.

In the same light, if the unit had been at the equator at noon, then it should see the full effect of the Sagnac effect of the earth's revolution around the sun.
In other words, assume a satellite is low on the horizon in the east at the equator.

We should measure a sagnac correction for the earth's rotation on its axis and a sagnac correction of the earth's rotation/revolution around the sun.
If sagnac is true for the earth's rotation, then light travels at one speed c. the speed of light cannot be increased by circular motion and presumably not by linear motion either.

If light travels at one speed c, then as the earth moves in it's revolution loop at 30k/s, while light moves c through space, the unit at the equator at noon would move with the earth' rotation and the earth's revolution cutting the distance the signal must travel to meet the unit.
The earth is rotating at 1000 mph. This shows up in GPS as c+v and c-v as you would expect with Sagnac.

All that is fine.

When the satellite emits at c, the earth rotates the receiver at v and so a correction is needed.

This is all OK.

Now, the earth is revolving around the sun at 67000 mph, as we are told by the heliocentrists.

Let's say the unit is at the equator and the satellite is low on the horizon in the east at noon.

That means the unit is traveling at the orbital speed of the earth at 67,000 MPH.

The satellite emits at one speed c in space. While the light travels through space toward the unit at c, the unit moves with the earth at 67,000 MPH. The unit cuts the distance that the light must travel.

This is not being seen by any experiements nor GPS."

Certainly this is interesting. The Ching-Chuan Su article is arguing that they've come up with a modified version of ether that can explain what we've come to accept as relativity. I'll want to swing back to this and take a closer look at that.

As to the more relevant claims about Sagnac effect on the Earth's orbit and how it affects GPS signals... From an inertial frame attached to the Sun, the Earth is moving at some 67,000 mph which result in a measurable difference in the travel time of light going in opposite directions. However, the Earth and its satellites do not operate in the's Sun's frame of reference. They operate in the Earth's where that linear speed is zero. I gather that you do not support relativity, but this is what relativity says. You don't have to agree with it, I'm just explaining what the theory says.

To observe the Sagnac effect, we need the light to go around in opposite directions in a rotating frame of reference. The Earth's orbit around the Sun is a rotating frame of reference, and it rotates at 1.9x10-6 rpm or 0.041 degrees per hour. For the Sagnac equation, we'll want rad per sec or 1.99x10-7. That sounds tiny, but when we multiply this by the area the light makes in the loop, we could get a significant result. When you apply this to a standard ring laser gyro, the area would probably be too small to affect anything, but we're talking about using satellites as our ring, so the area should be huge.

Now if we actually had light making these loops in opposite directions, applying the Sagnac equation would be pretty trivial. The Ching-Chuan Su paper doesn't show that part, so we'd have to follow their links to see the source material for it. Sandokhan, if you'd care to follow that up a bit more and find out exactly how the author works this part out, I'd like to hear more about that. I may decide to dig into it some more on my own, but no promises there.

My initial reaction is that GPS doesn't involve loops. It involves a broadcast of light from the satellite to the receiver. Both the satellite and the receiver on Earth are in orbit together around the Sun and thus share that exact same 67,000 mph speed relative to the Sun. The satellite orbiting the Earth has a relative speed. The Earth's rotation beneath the satellite creates a relative speed. Their shared orbit around the Sun does not. This is a fairly easy situation to resolve under Special Relativity.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earth precision and solar declination

« on: June 05, 2019, 05:08:48 AM »

Please explain to your readers why the orbital CORIOLIS EFFECT is not being registered by the GPS satellites.

This is the question that none of the physicists in the world can answer without resorting to MLET (modified Lorentz ether theory).

Could you please elaborate? What do you mean by "the orbital CORIOLIS EFFECT"?
Edit: Upon reflection, I am able to infer that you are referring to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Since that is a rotating frame of reference, anything moving perpendicular to that rotation will feel a (tiny) coriolis effect. If viewed from within the rotating reference frame, that would feel like a coriolis force. Something moving away from the Sun would behave as if it felt a force "slowing it" wrt the Earth and heading towards the Sun the opposite. Is that what you're talking about?
How does that relate to GPS exactly?

63

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus

« on: June 04, 2019, 02:45:09 PM »

REs should first make a step towards building a consensus themselves. FEs are scared of posting in the forum for being attacked, and REs are quite aggressive and insisting. Probably REs should create a flatearth-discussion etiquette?

Sounds great. I don't know what happened to totallackey, but perhaps you're willing to participate instead.

I'm asking for 1-to-1 representation for friendly discussions only.

64

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus

« on: June 03, 2019, 03:07:44 PM »

I would be interested, but most people don't consider me very friendly.

All we need to do is remember that the point is to work collaboratively towards the idea of a consensus. The point is not to win, but to find the truth. There's plenty of room to disagree while not getting angry or defensive about it, and if we keep to that, we should be fine.

I'd suggest we start by explaining our general beliefs and philosophy. My own goes something like this...

I've always been highly skeptical. I don't remember a time when I ever believed in Santa Claus. This has led me to a lot of truths, but many times it has turned out that my skepticism was unfounded. I think skepticism is a good thing, but it won't get you any answers.

When it comes to science, I've always been skeptical there as well. So far, it has been my experience that virtually everything I was taught in a science class has checked out. As a result, I've come to trust science as my default position, but that trust does NOT extend to science in the media. In that area, I have become even more skeptical. I'm pretty sure chocolate is not healthy.

So about the shape of the Earth... My default position is to presume that the material from science class was accurate, however, I have been perfectly willing to challenge that material. So far, every single test I've run in this area has conformed with the standard science material.

Through my exposure to the FE movement, I have heard many challenges to this material that I'd never thought of myself. I've checked them out, and so far, each of them has turned out the same way. It seems like a lot of these challenges come from the overly simplified models that we teach in science class. As educators, we understand that there are details we're glossing over for now, but I don't think all the students caught on to that. When folks listen to the lecture on the ideal gas law, they hear how pressure cannot exist next to a vacuum. From there, the logical extension is that space cannot exist. As someone with a healthy relationship with the science, I understand that the teacher just skipped over the part about external forces acting on the gas because those aren't relevant in the scale of a steam engine, but to someone else, that omission seems like a lie.

So that sums up what I believe about the shape of the Earth and why. I think it pretty much matches what we were taught in school because I've tested it. I'd love to hear about how you've come to a different conclusion.

65

Flat Earth Community / Re: So what if the earth is flat?

« on: June 03, 2019, 07:07:23 AM »

The shape of the Earth is important to me for 2 reasons:
1) As a test of our ability to correctly apply critical thinking.
2) Because of the implications of the global conspiracy this would indicate should it turn out to be flat.

1) Each of us should individually consider what we believe to be true and what thinking process got us there. Then when the truth is determined, we must each re-evaluate whether our thought processes had failed us or not. If we find that we've made a significant error in critical thinking, that would be a call to re-evaluate other things we believe as well.

This is something I've tried to impress upon others. Critical thinking is an important skill, and you've got to test yourself to be sure you're doing it well. The idea of a flat Earth is a fantastic way to do this. Some folks here take an "agnostic" view of the shape of the Earth, and I challenge those individuals to test their critical thinking skills as well. I submit that the answer is extremely clear, and the correct application of critical thinking should show you that answer. If you've come away with any answer other than that (including "there's no way to know"), then you need to seriously re-evaluate the process that brought you to that conclusion.

2) Some folks want to say that, "only a few people at the top know the truth," but that doesn't hold up if you apply that same level of critical thinking to the process. The number of people that must be "in on it" for the Earth to be flat is utterly staggering. And make no mistake, you'd need to put ME into that category. I'd pretty much need to be "in on it." I can't give you any reason to believe me when I say I am not in on anything of the sort, but I can assure you, my mind would have to be seriously broken if I were somehow involved in a global conspiracy and not aware of it myself.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.

« on: June 03, 2019, 12:54:20 AM »

Why L can't see the segment AC?
Why L can't see the segment AM?

Why L can't see beyond B?

I'm going to assume your math is correct because I'm lazy, and I see no reason to doubt you... All of those things should absolutely be visible on a flat Earth.

67

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What experiments could I do in a home setting to prove that the Earth is flat?

« on: June 03, 2019, 12:50:36 AM »

Hi guys. I'm looking for an experiment that would prove the Earth is flat, so that I could do. I'm hoping I could do it in under an hour, for not that expensive. If so, could you guys send me the procedure? Thanks everyone.

If such an experiment existed I think its fair to say this website and this forums would no longer exist!

It would have to be an experiment that produces a unique outcome that would only be possible to achieve on a flat surface. The outcomes to many of the experiments that flat Earthers like to say proves their belief that the Earth is flat also apply to a global Earth as well. That is the purpose of experiment where two (or more) hypotheses exist.  To confirm one as correct and thereby eliminate the others.

Right now I cannot think of such an experiment but I will certainly research it and let you know if and when I come up with one.

I think i devised such an experiment. The only drawback is it takes six months to be performed, but anyway it is simple and above all it allows to decide between the two hypotheses.

I will describe it without figures, i presume it will be understandable.
From north pole to equator there are 10,000 kilometers. This was measured during the past centuries with the triangulation method, a method that is suited either for a round or a flat earth, so i think it would be accepted from both parties. Anyway the experiment would work perfectly even with another distance.

I live on the parallel 45 in Europe (and then halfway between north pole and equator), but one can adjust the test for another latitude. So i am about 2,500 kilometers from the Tropic of Cancer (it's irrelevant if the value isn't exact; here we are looking for a qualitative outcome, not quantitative). And because there are about 5,000 Km from the two tropics, i am 7,500 Km away from the tropic of capricorn.

Well then, in a few weeks from now there will be the summer solstice, and the sun will be right above the tropic of cancer. In six months from now there will be the winter solstice, and the sun will be perpendicular on the tropic of capricorn.

First case: presuming the sun is 5,000 Km high (on the flat earth of course!), few days before or after the summer solstice i will be 5,590 Km away from the sun.

Second case: few days before or after the winter solstice i will be 9,000 Km away from the sun. (Pythagorean theorem, you know)

A simple trig calculation shows us that if the apparent dimension of the sun during the summer solstice is 100, its dimension would be 62 during the winter solstice. A huge difference that is impossible to underestimate.

This is the experiment: take a photo of the sun around the next summer solstice; wait six months; take a photo of the sun with the same exact setting of the camera during the winter solstice in december.

If the sun gets noticeably smaller the earth is flat. If it is the same the earth is round. Tertium non datur.

There is an important precaution to take though. We have to be sure we take a pic of the real sun, not to the glare/halo of the sun due to the interaction between the sunlight and the atmosphere. Then we have to put a filter on the camera.

This way the experiment would be correct and reliable.

I support this experiment. This should work in my opinion.

For a quicker turn-around, why not just measure the size of the Sun/Moon at Noon vs a time later/earlier in the day? Wouldn't that give enough size difference to be conclusive?

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.

« on: June 02, 2019, 06:08:00 AM »

You are getting closer.

At the end of his Reply #3 Tom said

Eventually the view will be blocked by the opacity of the atmosphere, ...

If you are on Flat earth your view will end there no matter how high you go.

If your boat is there, at the edge of your view, then going higher won't let you see any sea behind.
But on Flat earth you will still see your boat no matter how low you go.
(Unless you dive, ofcourse... )

Indeed, I did see that, and it's just really hard to make any sense out of it. Like there's a haze out there that's sky colored, right? Once you get too far from the viewer, everything just turns to the sky color... I guess? Except the Sun and the moon... and the stars... and stuff.

So yeah that makes no sense whatsoever... but there you go.  /shrug

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.

« on: June 01, 2019, 08:39:35 PM »

If you go back to the diagram in the Reply #5 of this topic, you will see that
- U sees the ground all the way to A because his "arc minute of vision resolution" (green) is covered by the ground portion AC
- L sees the ground all the way to A because his "arc minute of vision resolution" (red) is covered by the ground portion AB

In short, they both see up to A because U sees AC and L sees AB there, not somewhere else.

Great. My apologies if this still seems remarkably vague. The best I can figure is that we're talking about how the distance to the horizon increases with altitude. Is that correct?

If so, even then, what does THAT even mean? Let me try...

Say you have a boat sitting right on the horizon. By that I mean the very bottom of the boat is no lower than the horizon line where the ocean meets the sky. Then you go up in altitude and look at the same boat. Now we can see that the bottom of the boat is below the line where the ocean meets the sky. From this, we can infer that we are seeing farther out from higher up. Is THAT what we're talking about?

If so, let me direct the discussion to this little app by Walter Bislin:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator
This is a really great app, and it shows exactly how that can work. And YES it CAN work.
Set it to flat earth mode. Observer Height 1 m, Target Distance 20,000 m, Target Size 10 m.
You'll see a little rectangle sitting on the horizon. The bottom is just a little bit lower than the horizon.
I'd like to draw your attention to the horizontal lines... see how they all pile up right at the horizon. Based on this image, where would we say the horizon is? The object is at 20 km, and there's a little bit of ground behind it, but it's all in the mashed-up lines zone, so really hard to tell.
Now raise Observer Height to 10 m. Now the little rectangle is well below the horizon. In fact the TOP of the rectangle is now lined up with the horizon. But look at the horizontal lines. The lines are clearly distinct now. We are clearly seeing farther now... at least in a manner of speaking.

This is all accurate and correct. But is it relevant to the shape of the Earth? To find out, you need a specific observation instead of these vague claims. Find some photos of a distant object taken from different heights. Check out the exact measurements, and run the numbers. Then you'll have something concrete.

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.

« on: June 01, 2019, 07:24:08 AM »

Yes. Both eyes have their minimal resolution angle of about one arc minute.
If the whole arc minute is covered with something then you don't need to distinguish details to see that something is there.

Regardless what it is, you will not perceive it as "nothing".

The upper eye's arc minute will just get covered with smaller portion of the surface, and lower eye's arc minute with bigger portion.
Viewer's altitude will not dictate the allowed range of line of sight.

This is why I keep suggesting you pick a specific observation to talk about. Phrases like "line of sight" and "vanishing point" are too vague. Give is something SPECIFIC. Are you talking about objects disappearing from the bottom first? Is that it?

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does GPS work?

« on: June 01, 2019, 03:25:49 AM »

As for "balloons and aircraft contribute", where are they? Are they all invisible? And are they absolutely everywhere? They would need to be to provide GPS at sea, in deserts - and in central Australia. Who is responsible for the upkeep and running of these huge flocks of craft? Where are they built and launched, in secret so we don't see it happening? Get real, mate.

I just wanted to add... what about GPS-guided bombs? Did you know that's what the GPS system is even for? It was very nice of president Clinton (and Bush) to open it up for civilian use, but they put the system in place so America could bomb their enemies. So just think about that one. Is the American government floating these inviso-balloons over Russia, and Russia is just going along with it?

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.

« on: June 01, 2019, 03:18:11 AM »

If you read Rowbotham's "Earth not a globe!", he seems to think that the vanishing point is somehow defined by the optical resolution: once the distant object gets small enough that the eye can no longer resolve it, that object is at the vanishing point, according to him. Hence smaller objects reach the vanishing point before larger ones. Which is no more than obfuscation or, in plainer terms, bullshit...

Indeed, Rowbotham apparently ties this phenomenon into something to do with the horizon, but exactly how this ties in is vague at best. Thus my call for somebody to give us a specific observation to discuss. Let's choose a specific detail and then see how this applies to it.

First, we can take this claim at face value. Does angular resolution have anything to do with the vanishing point? Well, we must define "vanishing point" first.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vanishing%20point
1: a point at which receding parallel lines seem to meet when represented in linear perspective
2: a point at which something disappears or ceases to exist

Normally, I've seen this applied to the idea of a perspective drawing. Parallel lines (railroad tracks) appear to converge linearly into a point in the far distance. We learn that in like 4th grade art class or so. This is just perspective, and it doesn't seem at all related to angular resolution. (At least not yet.) WARNING: A little bit of math can tell you exactly where this vanishing point is, and that calculation does NOT involve angular resolution. Also, that vanishing point happens to land at infinite distance from the viewer.

So Rowbotham was wrong? I'd say no. Let's give him a fair shake here.

As those railroad tracks shrink into the distance, the angular separation between them gets smaller and smaller. At some point, the 2 tracks will be less than 1/60th of a degree apart, and at that point, we can no longer tell where one track ends and the next one begins - they look like a single track. So replace those tracks with a pair of rocks. As the rocks recede into the distance, the 2 rocks will eventually look like 1 rock. Right?

Keep going with this... if we have a rock sitting on a patch of grass, at some point, the rock will fall below your angular resolution, and it will just merge into the grass to become a blurry brownish dot in the field - something that you can't even be sure is even a thing. It will have "vanished."

So based on that, we could argue that there's a "vanishing point" beyond which we can no longer see something, and that is the "vanishing point" Rowbotham is talking about here. Is he wrong about that much? No he's got that right, although I like to point out that a telescope will bring that rock back into view.

But here is where Rowbotham gets super vague. Just because you can't make out the rock against the field of grass, that doesn't create a horizon. Looking out over an infinite field of grass, the horizon is the spot in your view where there is blue sky above and green grass below. A telescope can sharpen that line, but it won't move where that line is.

At this point is where (IMO) the science ends and the hand-waving begins. Once again, I'd like to call for someone to name a specific observation, and we can apply these principles to that observation and evaluate it all objectively.

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does GPS work?

« on: June 01, 2019, 12:28:17 AM »

I wonder what you consider the cellular towers every couple miles to be? GPS is not from sats, no no its from ground based positioning for the most part.

Have you never traveled to a place with no cellular service? I guess lots of people haven't, but I can assure you GPS still works in the middle of the desert, the top of the mountain, and out on the glacier - even if the cell service doesn't. That is, at least if you have a true GPS device on you.

Unless the ground-based explanation works for all of these cases, it's a non-argument. This point is completely irrelevant. Not incorrect, just irrelevant. GPS works without the ground-based towers, so we still need the satellites.

Balloons and aircraft contribute. Don't be swallowed by fiction, embrace facts.

This point could actually be relevant. Presumably this means there are balloons or aircraft or something flying over the deserts, the mountains, and the glaciers. So let's drop the cell tower discussion and focus on this instead.

According to your "facts," balloons and/or aircraft are doing this. Do you have anything that would count as evidence for this?

It's only fair for you to ask me for evidence. Here's what I'm willing to provide... I would offer to show you videos of satellites in orbit. I've seen satellites with my own eyes many times. I mean sure, they're just lights in the sky, but those lights are exactly where "they" tell me the satellites are supposed to be, and they move in exactly the way they are supposed to. If you mean to prove that satellites don't exist, those videos would be something you'd need to deal with.

Next, I would suggest we try to see if we can identify exactly which satellites we're connected to at any given time. This is pretty technical, so it might not be easy to do at home, but it's worth looking into.

What's NOT hard to try at home is a DirectTV satellite dish. I'm happy to try to dig up a video of a dude who takes his sat TV dish out into the desert with him. He explains how to set it up and everything. You could certainly try that easily enough. The thing with sat TV is balloons and aircraft have to move around in the sky, but a sat dish is pointing at a particular point in the sky. They can't track moving targets. So if the sat TV works like they say, it will only work right when pointed at a geostationary orbit. That should be pretty easy to test.

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.

« on: May 31, 2019, 10:33:35 PM »

Why the eye closer to the table couldn't see wider portion of the table?
What would limit the sight to the narrower band?

Perhaps I can help you there. Tom is talking about the resolution of the human eye. It's often ballparked at around 1/60th of a degree. Biological vision is a lot more complex than a digital camera, but the same principles apply. There's a certain "resolution" to it. Like a pixel in a camera. If 2 rays of light land on the same "pixel," they cannot be separated visually.

If you are looking along a surface, all the points of that surface merge into a single line... in the extreme, they merge to a single pixel. But as you rise up and look down on the surface, the angle between the points gets larger, and the rays of light from them land on different "pixels" in your eye/camera.

That all makes sense right?

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.

« on: May 31, 2019, 09:00:29 PM »

I redrew the diagram with just two points. Connecting point A and B at a position closer to the table will make a very shallow angle, while connecting points A and B at a higher elevation will make a more broader angle to those points.



Near the surface of the table if points A and B are 1/60'th of a degree, they will appear to merge together. At a higher elevation points A and B may not be making 1/60th of a degree, and will not be merged together.

If the 1/60th of a degree had any significance, we should be able to test that theory out with a telescope. A telescope would improve the visual resolution. Does a telescope "push back your vanishing point"?

Yes, a telescope will restore things which disappear to angular resolution. This is one of the premises in Earth Not a Globe. See: https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

Your diagram is absolutely accurate with regards to the 1/60th of a degree.
On your top image, points A and B will appear blurred together as just a shade of brown.
In the bottom image, the points are separated a bit wider, so there is some pair of points A&B such that they are smeared together as a single color in the top, but you can tell them apart in the bottom.
This is completely correct. AFAIK, nobody argues against it.

Does that mean that point B is the "horizon" in the top image? How is this diagram even related to a horizon? What IS a horizon?

It seems to me the horizon is the dividing line where it's sky above and ground/water below. Are we agreed on that?

We've agreed that points A&B are indistinguishable until you climb higher, and then you can tell them apart. Which of these is in the sky? Neither. Point A, Point B, and the merged Points A&B are all ground-colored. None of them is sky-colored.

I'm a little confused about EXACTLY what is being debated here...

Are you guys debating about why boats/mountains/buildings vanish bottom up but reappear when you gain altitude?

Are you debating about the existence of a horizon line?

This whole argument could probably be cleared up if you guys came up with a very specific observation you were thinking of.

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's investigate how viewing distance works.

« on: May 31, 2019, 06:24:35 PM »

If the 1/60th of a degree had any significance, we should be able to test that theory out with a telescope. A telescope would improve the visual resolution. Does a telescope "push back your vanishing point"?

77

Flat Earth Theory / Terminal Velocity

« on: May 31, 2019, 04:58:54 AM »

I was just browsing the wiki, and I found something that seems a bit strange. It's short, so I'll quote it:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Terminal_Velocity

In the Round Earth model, terminal velocity happens when the acceleration due to gravity is equal to the acceleration due to drag. In the Flat Earth model, however, there are no balanced forces: terminal velocity happens when the upward acceleration of the person is equal to the upward acceleration of the Earth.

Q: If gravity does not exist, how does terminal velocity work?

A: When the acceleration of the person is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the person has reached terminal velocity.

I'm having trouble putting this into the right words here... This section seems totally unnecessary. There's just nothing related to the shape of the Earth involved with terminal velocity. It's just not necessary to have this in there.

I'm trying to come up with a way to rebut this section without sounding like a total jerk, but... I just can't even.

Look... whether the downward force comes from Newton's law of gravity or GR or Universal Acceleration or "it's all relative density," it makes literally ZERO difference to the terminal velocity.

If you have questions about aerodynamic drag, I have some training (indoctrination) in that area. I can't think of any reason that drag is related to the shape of the Earth.

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 30, 2019, 10:41:52 PM »

Atmospheric refraction probably COULD explain sunsets. Is that the end of the conversation? Like, "Oh well, sure that could maybe work. I guess we're all done here."

If you're serious about this atmospheric refraction idea, I would encourage you to take it further than that. What angle would the refraction have to go? Is that consistent with any existing models? Can we work backwards from this effect to create a new model? Can we make one model that explains both sunsets and ships/mountains disappearing below the horizon? Does this refraction only affect up/down? What if we tried to line the Sun up North/South as well? Could we make a refraction model that does both? Would that model hold up against other observations?

There's SOOOO much more to dig into. So much to learn and discover. How far can you take it?

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are your main points for when proving to someone the Earth is flat?

« on: May 29, 2019, 09:08:03 PM »

Apart the obvious "it looks flat" and "where's curvature?" I am a huge fan of:

1 - The Sun and the Moon have the same size
2 - Earth is inhabitated by a unique sentient race, it's not a normal planet
3 - If it were a rotating ball, water would fly into space

1 and 2 are factually accurate as far as I know.
However, I take exception to #3. That is not factually accurate, and I encourage you to challenge whatever thinking pattern has led to you believe that it is. If you're willing to challenge your assumptions, I am always happy to help.

80

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What experiments could I do in a home setting to prove that the Earth is flat?

« on: May 29, 2019, 07:07:14 PM »

Where is home?

City centre? Rural? Coastal?

I live in a populated city, and I don't have easy access to a clear horizon.

That makes it somewhat harder. I personally really like the horizon tests, but those are kind of out.

You can do all the astronomical observations... size of sun/moon, angle of sun/moon, rates of motion, etc.

You can coordinate with someone else to do the triangulation types of observations.

Are you in the Northern or Southern hemisphere? Can you observe the stars in the Southern sky?

The main issue with all of these astronomical observations is that many flat Earthers don't put any stock in anything that happens in the sky. To that, I offer the same wisdom that the whole 20 tests video is based on: "You need to decide what model you want to test, and then you can test it." So if you believe the size of the Moon means nothing to the shape of the Earth, just skip over that one. If you think the horizon always rises to eye level, then you should test that. (Sadly you can't test that one I guess.)

There are the satellite tests. Again, that's relevant if you believe that satellites shouldn't be part of your FE model.

The one that anyone can do from anywhere is to make your own flat earth map based on publicly available flight information.

To summarize, I would start with what you suspect the world is like and test that. If you think the Earth cannot be spinning, then do a test based on the rotation of the Earth. If you think air pressure can't exist next to space, do a test based on air pressure, etc.