41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 12, 2021, 11:31:31 PM »

Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination.

You are right, to a certain extent. Let me back off from my assertion that non-symmetrical. flat objects will flip. I agree they will not necessarily flip. They would have to be asymmetrical beyond a certain point for that to happen.

What WILL happen, even if they still float, is that they will list. Any object that has a flat "top side", but is not perfectly weight-distributed, will sit in the water at an angle relative to the flat surface. I don't see any way to deny that.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 11, 2021, 07:33:08 PM »

When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

You keep making this analogy but what I posted about larger ships being more stable is apt. In your scenerio it would be more like a bacterium trying to tip over a floating circular beer tray.

Nope. Boats aren't flat. They are designed to float and follow obvious physical laws. Anything flat that's being pushed at an acceleration equal to 1g has to be perfectly balanced. And you know it.

Incorrect. It is not only boats that float. Many different types of masses can float, including masses that are non-symmetrical. They float without flopping around willy-nilly like in your imagination. Gravity being physically equivalent to upwards acceleration shows that a floating object can be continuously accelerated upwards without flopping around.

It is clear that larger floating objects are more stable. It is also clear that if a bacterium can't tip over a floating circular beer tray that we would also have difficulty tipping over something with a similar size ratio.

Full circle. You can continue to deny because there's no way to prove it either way.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 11, 2021, 06:41:05 PM »

When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

You keep making this analogy but what I posted about larger ships being more stable is apt. In your scenerio it would be more like a bacterium trying to tip over a floating circular beer tray.

Nope. Boats aren't flat. They are designed to float and follow obvious physical laws. Anything flat that's being pushed at an acceleration equal to 1g has to be perfectly balanced. And you know it.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 11, 2021, 03:13:10 PM »

My overall point is that the earth is not symmetrical in terms of weight distribution. I'm sure the side of the flat earth on which the Pacific Ocean resides is heavier that the other side. I suspect the difference is significant enough to cause UA to push the lighter side up relative to the other and cause a flip. Again, think of a beer tray.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 11, 2021, 01:12:50 AM »

The water over marianas trench has limited significance to the overall mass beneath that part of Earth

Nothing that anyone has said changes the fact that a disk that does not have even weight distribution will tilt. Think of a beer tray.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 11, 2021, 01:10:33 AM »

Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Have you ever been on a large cruise ship?



Cruiseships are pretty stable. You aren't going to be able to walk to one side and cause the cruise ship to flip over. The larger the ship, the more stable it seems to be in response to waves and currents and irregularities like people walking around on it.

Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.

Not really. If you tied the rope to a different part of the handle other than the exact middle the water in the bucket would still be flat in relation to the center of rotation. The bucket would just be crooked and have a new center of mass.

A more realistic version might be a giant porous rock or natural object spinning around in space, with the flat ocean in one of the cavities at one side of the object, where water is flattened out away from the center of rotation due to the 1g centripetal force. It doesn't have to be a bucket and a rope.

When you put a disk on the water and try to stand on it, get back to me.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 11:15:55 PM »

Stability is also less of a concern in the centripetal force version of UA: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16319.msg210934#msg210934

Your own diagram of the bucket proves you wrong. It's perfectly symmetrical, the rope is tied EXACTLY to the MIDDLE of the handle, and the fluid contents of the bucket distribute EXACTLY evenly. Change one of those parameters and the bucket will wobble.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 11:11:24 PM »

That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?

Upwards acceleration is acknowledged to be identical to 'gravitation'. So a calm lake is perpetually pushing up a boat at 9.8 m/s/s as well. The mass distribution of a boat isn't evenly distributed, and the atoms of the water aren't perfectly distributed beneath the boat either. Yet boats and ships aren't flipping around on the water. Why is that?

Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Now, back to flat things, which you did your level best to avoid talking about  (Heh, heh. Level best. See what I did there?). Stand on an SUP (stand-up-paddleboard) in the middle. If you're new at it, you'll tip it because your weight will go off center before you know it. Even if you're good at it you have to stay perfectly centered to keep it from tipping.

It's obvious that you're just making these "answers" up as you go along, as the absurdity of your "rebuttal" demonstrates. I'm guessing you've never had this question before and that you're scrambling to come up with an newly invented force by way of explanation.  Oh, btw, water IS evenly distributed. Are you seriously suggesting there are "clumps" of water???

I have a suggestion. Since UA can be anything you want it to be, why not expand on it and turn it into AUA? That stands for Adaptive Universal Acceleration. When UA is pushing under the Marianas Trench (all that water has to weigh more than shallower oceans), UA "ADAPTS" to account for the extra load and applies more force where needed. Yeah, THAT's the ticket.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 09:13:28 PM »

I just though of an experiment. Go to an indoor sky-diving dome where huge fans blow air upward. Take something flat and heavy enough for it to be held up by the blowing air. Try to stop it from flipping if it's not 100% symmetrical with even weight distribution (Hint: Take lots of money - you'll be there for a while.)

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 09:09:22 PM »

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.

We already know from human experience that it is possible for things to be pushed without flipping. I am sure that you can think of ways for it to happen on your own.

That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought

« on: April 10, 2021, 06:00:47 PM »

Ever since finding this site, I have had this nagging thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the logic behind relying on the equivalence principle to justify UA, but couldn’t  quite put my finger on it.

I wasn’t thinking about people falling off a roof, but it finally dawned on me.  Special Relativity tells us that accelerated motion warps spacetime. The faster you go, the slower time moves and objects will contract.  The equivalence principle tells us that accelerated motion and gravity are indistinguishable.  The logical conclusion then is that gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Instead, the UA crowd concludes that the EP means there is some mysterious force that is accelerating the earth (and maybe, but maybe not, everything else.) upwards. 

I couldn’t find anything in the wiki that justifies this leap (no pun intended) in logic. Maybe if you took SR out of the equation, it would make some sense but that creates even more problems for UA.  Not to mention the fact that part of what makes the EP so important is that it serves a bridge between SR and GR so that SR is consistent with gravity.

Why should UA be considered a better theory for gravity when it doesn’t even logically follow from the very premise it is based on?  Not to mention the fact that it leaves so many questions unanswered that GR very elegantly solves.

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 30, 2021, 10:49:15 PM »

Yup. And we're still waiting for Tom to follow up on his "There are many problems with RE" statement.

It's pretty much documented in the Wiki.

The question for me at this point is more of a matter of what does work, rather than what doesn't work. I also suspect that the topics described are incomplete on the numerous issues plaguing RE. The problems and anomalies and contradictions tend to be suppressed and ignored rather than publicized and celebrated.

Here are some I find interesting:

Mechanics

The physics of the giant RE galaxies don't work - https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

The model of the RE Sun doesn't work - https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Inconsistent_Brightness:_A_Round_Earth_Mystery

Cosmology

RE Cosmology doesn't work. Scientific American calls modern cosmology a folk tale - https://wiki.tfes.org/Cosmology_Has_Some_Big_Problems

Perspective

The celestial bodies don't shrink according to the laws of perspective.

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

RE Galaxies don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies

Gravity

Can't truly model more than two bodies at a time - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

The equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass, as seen in laboratory experiment, is a coincidence, even in GR - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Astrophysicist Ryan Martin: "As we will see, both Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity and Einstein Theory of General Relativity assume that the two are indeed equal. In fact, it is a key requirement for Einstein’s Theory that the two be equal (the assumption that they are equal is called the “Equivalence Principle”). You should however keep in mind that there is no physical reason that the two are the same, and that as far as we know, it is a coincidence!"

Variations of gravity inconsistent, contradictory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

Relativity

Light's velocity does not change on a horizonal plane from the earth's movement around the Sun, but does change when the detectors and receivers move in a laboratory experiment.

Earth's movement has no affect on light velocity on an experiment on a horizontal plane - https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment

Devices with moving detectors and receivers in a laboratory do measure a change - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

Also, a change is detected on a vertical plane - https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Vertical_Michelson-Morley_Experiments

None of that has anything to do with the shape of the earth.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's talk about gravity

« on: March 27, 2021, 03:17:03 PM »

Hi there, I've been pondering gravity in the FET and I can't make it work. Looking at the wiki and FAQ on this site doesn't help.

Obviously, the standard model of gravity can't work with a disc shaped world so one answer to explain away gravity in the FET is to suggest that we're undergoing "Universal Acceleration" at 1G. I have a few problems with this idea.

1) Were does the energy come from to constantly accelerate the earth, moon and everything else at 1G for millennia?

2) Just how fast are we moving through the cosmos after millions of years of 1G acceleration?

3) How can the varying gravitational attraction of the various bodies we can observe be explained, if everything is accelerating at the same rate?

Saturn and the moon have very different gravitational attraction, so wouldn't that mean they are accelerating at different rates? If that is the case, why are all the planets, asteroids and moons all still very close to the same plane?

It just doesn't work as an explanation for me.

First, they don't believe the universe exists, so all talk of Saturn etc. is moot to them. If you stop to think about it, their belief that the universe doesn't exist speaks a lot more to the extent of their delusion than merely believing the earth is flat.

Also, there are a couple of things you forgot to mention:

1. The "upward" force would have to be EXACTLY 90 degrees to the plane of the flat earth. Even a deviation of 0.0000000000000000001 degree would eventually cause a spin.

2. The weight of the earth would have to be EXACTLY evenly distributed (think of a server carrying a tray of beer). The slightest unevenness would cause one side to drop in relation to the other (think of said server taking beer glasses off the tray without alternating sides).

This requires perfect symmetry of the earth, which has never been claimed by FEers because they've never had anyone bring this up before (or they've invented a reason why it doesn't apply).

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 26, 2021, 10:55:03 PM »

Just read through this whole thing - understood maybe half of it? - (those who remember me from when I first joined and was active a year ago perhaps recall I suck at math  ).

But the thread virtually immediately deviated (as soon as Tom commented    ) from what observations about the world does RET not explain to whether we can solve the three body problem...

Here's my question (asking in sincerity, since I suck at math, recall), in an attempt to bring it back to the OP and an actual response from the FET crowd:

Does the fact that our maths cannot numerically(?) solve the three body problem* count as an "observation" that RET fails to explain? 

I don't think so.

Tom's response and the entire rabbit hole of this thread regarding numerical/analytic methods is a category error in some sense.

RET does explain the observation that there are orbiting bodies - planets, moons, etc. - in our solar system. And it explains it with comprehensive consistency with other elements of RET and accepted science.

So there's yet to be an observed phenomenon suggested in this thread that actually answers the OP. 

*Hope I didn't butcher that formulation 

Yup. And we're still waiting for Tom to follow up on his "There are many problems with RE" statement.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Was Milankovitch "in on it"?

« on: March 24, 2021, 08:46:55 PM »

So he was an expert in astronomy, climatology, and geoscience?

Wow. What a crank. Those are the most pseudoscientific fields in all of science. Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

Mathematics and geophysics are pseudoscience? Oh, my. Did you hear that from your alchemist or your astrologer?

56

Flat Earth Theory / Was Milankovitch "in on it"?

« on: March 24, 2021, 04:33:36 PM »

Milutin Milankovitch spent his life studying the solar system and it's effects on the earth. A by-product of his research was an affirmation of the existence of the solar system and the round earth. He defined cycles that were named for him.

So, was he in on the hoax, or was he utterly fooled his whole life?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: March 23, 2021, 03:33:39 PM »

Time-lapse photos taken of the earth from space that shows rotation would create the illusion of depth perception in the same way.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Why does the moon have impact craters?

« on: March 22, 2021, 09:48:42 PM »

I searched for "crater" in the wiki, but I couldn't find any threads about moon craters (maybe I just need a wiki lesson). If previous posters have already asked this, perhaps someone could direct me.

Anyway, the moon clearly has impact craters, which comports with the whole RE/the-universe-exists side of the argument. How does FET explain them?

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 22, 2021, 09:42:06 PM »

Given the excellent quality of the rebuttals

I don't see any quality. AATW, Tunemi, SteelyBob are citing themselves as their source versus the physicists who say directly that the three body problem does not work.

Professor Ashish Tewari said "we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion"

They simply can't do it. Don't pretend that you are a better authority than he is.

They seemed to explain that quite thoroughly. I guess pi doesn't exist because an exact number can't be determined for it.

Anyway, were still waiting to hear of the other "many problems".

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 22, 2021, 09:18:23 PM »

There are many problems with RE. The biggest problem with RE is that they can't get their gravity system to make orbits with more than two bodies - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Okay, you tried to give one. Given the excellent quality of the rebuttals, I would call that a swing and a miss. However, since there are "many problems with RE", you should be able to simply give us the next one on your list.

P.S. Add the fact that the moon has impact craters to my original list.