Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Regicide

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Something odd about magnets
« on: August 25, 2021, 11:30:21 PM »
This question isn’t specifically about the Flat Earth or Round Earth debate, but ties into a common argument, namely the existence of gravity. Many Flat Earthers reject the existence of gravity because they don’t believe that there can be an invisible force- they ask for someone, anyone, to show them gravity. The most common alternate explanation involves a universal accelerator. However, while gravity is difficult to demonstrate due to its comparative weakness, I can give several examples of invisible forces that are observable on a small scale and lack truly complete explanations in both theories. I’m talking about magnetism and static charge. Gravity, as I said before is a comparatively weak force. This can be seen through the action of a fridge magnet- this tiny chunk of ferrous material has enough power to overcome the full gravitational force of the earth. We’re all taught how magnets supposedly work, of course- there’s a magnetic field, emitted from the magnet’s north pole to the south pole. Opposite poles attract each other, while like poles repel. This is known. What we don’t really know is how. It’s not like the opposite poles want to be together. They aren’t sentient. They have no agency, no means of moving together. There’s no visible interaction or subatomic interaction. They just, through an invisible and baffling force, move together. I’m sure there are explanations, but I challenge you to find one that doesn’t in some way involve invisible forces. So anyway. I await your answers.

Flat Earth Community / What are your codified Flat Earth Beliefs?
« on: August 14, 2021, 10:21:02 PM »
There's not really one Flat Earth Theory. What I've seen instead is a great many theories with one common unifier, a central tenet- that the Earth is flat.
This can sometimes make it challenging to understand what people are arguing, and how to reply. To help with this, I've decided to start this thread, for anyone who wants to explain their beliefs and the way they explain certain facts about the Earth. I'm including a list of questions, which you are free to use or ignore. It would be especially helpful if some of the more prominent posters (I'm looking at you, J-Man!) could take the time to reply to this. Thanks!

I understand that there will be some surprised reactions to the answers to these questions. To avoid this thread getting cluttered, however, could you kindly undertake lines of inquiry/criticize other people's personal beliefs in a seperate thread? Thanks!

--Questions Follow--

1. Do you believe the Earth is flat?

2. Which map do you personally subscribe to? Unipolar, bipolar, or something else?

3. What orbit does the sun take?

4. Why do constellations look different, depending on location?

5. Why do seasons happen?

6. Is Nasa lying to us?

7. Is the government lying to us?

8. Which organizations are lying to us?

9. Is there a global conspiracy to cover up the flat earth?

10. If you said yes to 9, why?

11. If you said yes to 9, when did this conspiracy start?

12. What's your favorite brand of crisps/chips?

13. Can people visit Antarctica?

14. How did the Flat Earth begin?

15. Why do ships disappear over the horizon?

16. Do you have any other questions you'd like to see in this list?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing
« on: August 14, 2021, 09:59:54 PM »
Just a note- this thread seems to have very quickly deviated from the intended point. Upon browsing through, there was perhaps one response to the actual observations in the original video, and that was (forgive me if I make a mistake) an RE response.. Everything else seems to focus on the secondary video of the Apollo 11 astronauts, and myriad other offshoots of that. I certainly believe that Corridor Crew made some valid points.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 29, 2021, 05:35:08 PM »
Do those use the same system of atomic clocks?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 29, 2021, 05:20:35 PM »
Oh, you didn't know? I'm sorry, I shouldn't assume a knowledge base. GPS relies on synchronized timing for triangulation, and is based on travel times for signals. GPS satellites have extremely accurate atomic clocks, and when a GPS device is finding location, it sends a request for location information. This request is received by satellites, which respond with their local time. Since they are synchronized, the GPS device can then use triangulation based on the delay between the satellites to get it's location. This is beneficial because it doesn't rely on the timekeeping of the GPS device: just the satellites. This is for a round earth, and it would be significantly different for a flat earth. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 29, 2021, 04:45:34 PM »
A second special consideration, dictated by the nature of the construction
project, was that GPS alignment needed to be carried out concurrently with the
construction with no significant opportunity for check by standard optical techniques
until the construction was completed.

They clearly said in the article that they didn't check using optical techniques until construction was complete: they used GPS for the alignment.

My challenge still stands: try making a curve out of objects with square edges without leaving gaps. The curve has to happen somewhere!

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 29, 2021, 02:07:30 PM »
You actually did not read my post.
These sort of accusations do not belong here. If you didn't understand my response (or identical responses of others before me), ask for clarification. Do not make ungenerous assumptions, lest they turn against you.
My apologies, it seems I was the one who failed to read yours fully. Your argument, however, falls apart when considering your key statement, that EA makes the two situations indistinguishable. My answer: not quite. This has been argued over and over again, with neither side making progress, so I'll try to explain why EA doesn't affect precision assembly.

Straightness is derived from non-optical means at its base. 3 flat plates are rubbed against each other: A against B, A against C, B against C. The only surface shared by 3 surfaces is a flat plane, so this creates a gradually flatter surface on all 3. Once flatness is achieved, this can be used as a reference for easily creating other flat objects. If a measurement unit is decided on, a straight edge can be turned into a ruler, and from there we can use math to get angles, circles, everything. Everything comes from the flat plane. We of course use other methods two, and we are able to verify flatness with electron microscopes (at extremes of precision.)

So, we are capable of creating a round tube with a high degree of straightness, and with square ends. Importantly, we are able to do this without using optical means: no laser levels, etc. Can we assemble it without using optics, and more importantly would we? Because optical straightness verification isn't really used in machining: it's too imprecise, and most is done by referencing a straight plane. It's highly likely that optical straightness verification wasn't used in the creation process for the tube sections of LIGO. Even, therefore, if a laser level was used to assemble them, they still would have shown the gap.
Try it for yourself: get a couple of long things with square edges like Legos or blocks, really anything, so long as it has a slender form factor and square edges. (Square meaning perpendicular to the other edes, not square as in the shape). Then, put them in the straightest line you can. It should be fairly easy, because the square edges act as a guide for assembling them.  Now, try and make a curve with them without altering the individual blocks or leaving any gaps between the edges. Difficult, huh? That's the problem facing the FE interpretation of LIGO.

You've seen how easy it is to make a straight line with straight blocks with square edges, and that it's impossible to make a curve without leaving gaps. So, let's look at LIGO construction, then. 

On a flat earth: the concrete curves upward. This is because Caltech is trying to account for curvature that isn't there. They put in the first tube, and all is well. They put in the second tube, square it with the first, and weld it on. All is well, except for a slight dip towards the concrete. Fastforward, and the tube is all perfectly straight, but it's also notably lower than at one end than the other. So, let's say they mount each tube parallel to the concrete, which wouldn't be the smartest thing: concrete is by nature a less precise surface than steel, especially poured concrete. But let's say they do do that: each tube has a gap. A small gap, but a noticeable gap certainly (I calculated earlier that it would be half a centimeter. That's a conundrum: if they construct the tube referencing itself, it isn't square to the ground. If they construct it referencing the ground, it isn't square to itself. That's going to take some explaining to management.

On a round earth: the concrete counters the curvature of the earth and is flat. This is because Caltech is accounting for the curvature. They put in the first tube and all is well. They put in the second tube, square it with the first, and weld it on. All is well. Fastforward, and the tube is all perfectly straight and not lower to the concrete on either end. The scientists have a party!

Do you see? The round earth model just works, with no complications, while the flat earth model is going to take considerable explaining. Use the zetetic method, look at the two models, and find which one is truly more likely.

I eagerly await your replies.

Flat Earth Projects / Wiki Contradictions: be careful who you quote!
« on: January 26, 2021, 03:19:56 PM »
Was scrolling through the wiki, in the Coriolis effect article, when I found this gem.

In those highly controlled settings, scientists at MIT in the 1960s were able to show that Coriolis could work on a draining tub. In fact, I have been told that graduate students at MIT still do this experiment today in one of their classes.

Tom, if you're going to cherrypick quotes, at least have the sense to:

1. Remove the sections that count against FET
2. At least attempt to address the questions raised.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 26, 2021, 03:12:02 PM »
You actually did not read my post. Unbelievable. I clearly said that I conceded the EA point at the top of my post. The alignment was referring to the actual tube, the tube which they actually constructed to account for an expected curvature. So, I'll try to break this down, and I'll bold this so that I perhaps actually have my post read this time: I am referring not to the laser, but rather to the logistical issues of constructing a 4 mile long tube that has 300 mm of unexpected curvature.

Precision starts with straightness, which is achieved through non-optical means. Because we have ways of creating a perfectly straight tube, and they made the LIGO tube as straight as possible to avoid stresses, we can conclude that gradual curvature is not possible without introducing significant stress into the system. Thus, the curvature would have to come at the joins, which were also joined straight. If there isn't a curve in the tube, and there isn't a curve at the join, there's really nowhere else for the curve to be but the ground.

Hopefully you at least read through this time, instead of
Ignoring the argument that's actually being had.

As for the quote, I'll go back and edit that, I was trying out WYSIWYG and forgot to preview before posting.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 26, 2021, 02:22:14 PM »
I will concede the EA point, as It seems impossible for consensus to be reached: EA can account for the curvature. However, you seem to have ignored my second argument, which is that the potential curvature introduced by the world being round is significantly greater than even a low grade of precision could account for. Hardly an argument from "personal incredulity". I think it's not likely because it isn't likely. Once again, 0.25 millimeters per meter is measurable and noticeable: not to the naked eye, but certainly to anyone doing work like this and using basic alignment techniques. Caltech says
The 1.2 m diameter beam tubes were created in 20-meter segments.
If each segment is 20 meters long and remains straight, then there would be 5 mm of separation at each join, or half a centimeter. And that measurement is visible to the naked eye. I'm trying to communicate that what you think happened cannot happen. You cannot construct a curved tube over a flat plane while trying to construct a flat tube over a curved plane, and you most certainly cannot do that and then draw a 1^-9 torr vacuum on said tube. That's not my opinion, that's just fact.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 25, 2021, 10:21:33 PM »
The LIGO equipment as setup would work under FET + EA, maybe.  I say maybe because there’s no known value of the Bishop constant.  If that constant was zero, then the LIGO experiment, as constructed, would NOT work if placed on a flat earth.  You have the ‘unknowing’ scientists do a design based upon a round earth placing the actual structure on a flat earth and due to EA see a perfectly operating system. Understood.

It wouldn't really work under EA, like I said. Repeated reflection would cause EA to curve it upwards way more than needed.

That aside, the tube can't really curve up either. The parts of the tube were precision machined and bolted together to insane levels of accuracy. When you are constructing precision equipment like that (I've said it before and nobody listened) you just absolutely have to know what is going on. If there is an expected drop of 1 meter over the 4 kilometer length, then that's a deviation of 250 millimeters per kilometer= 0.25 millimeters per meter. That SUCKS. It doesn't sound like much, but here's some 10 mm rods for $8.99 that are straighter. That's the low end of precision, and it only goes up from there. Some applicatons (although LIGO is likely not this perfect) call for micron per meter straightness. So, could Caltech feasibly have constructed a curved tube on a flat earth rather than a straight tube on a round earth? No. They couldn't have.

So is Caltech in on the conspiracy, or is there no conspiracy at all?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Simulated Flat Earth
« on: January 25, 2021, 02:36:44 PM »
I agree with forty-two: any simulation on the scale of the one being discussed is just completely beyond our current abilities, and it's likely meaningless for us to judge it based on current methods of computation. I'd also likely want to point out that if a concerned party was interested in creating an optimized scenario, they would probably look to other things for optimization, like giving us less cells, or making hairs larger. There are quite a few things that could be optimized with a much smaller effect.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 25, 2021, 01:47:43 PM »
The existence of EA would actually stop LIGO from working: if it does indeed correct the light beam over one single traversal of the tunnel (and there would, of course, be many other obstacles to the functioning of LIGO on a flat earth), then we can assume that there is a bending of light upward to an order of about 300 mm per 4 km. However, on the return it would have to travel downward by an equal amount to arrive at the predicted location. And of course, it doesn't just reflect once. The laser reflects hundreds of times in the laser holding arms, and even 100 reflections equals 30 meters of displacement, so what's the deal? Does EA periodically switch directions in certain locations based on what is most convenient for the FE model? Oh wait. The laser is continuous, so part of the beam is always traveling one way while another part is traveling the other way.  Guess that wouldn't work either. I'll finish with the same question I've always finished with: is Caltech in on the conspiracy, or is there no conspiracy at all?

Oh, and just checking, what's the policy on images in signatures? Because this is absolute gold.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 24, 2021, 12:03:40 AM »
There seems to be a communication barrier here regarding the workings of precision equipment, so let me clarify. EVERYTHING is first modeled to allow for precision construction. EVERYTHING is precut to allow for maximum precision. And finally: a ramp raised on one end works DIFFERENTLY on a flat earth and a round earth.  While the ends may be the same height, the slope of the one on a round earth relative to the ground is curved, while the slope of the ramp on a flat earth is flat. It is impossible to construct an instrument of that precision on a world that differs by as much as 300 cm at one point. They say that they designed it to account for a round earth, and while it is certainly possible to construct a functioning 4 km long laser tunnel on a flat earth, it is impossible to do so while under the impression that it is being constructed on a flat earth.

They didn't just pour the concrete for the base, they curved it away from the ground along the path. That's necessary on a round earth and would ruin any chance of having a functioning system on flat earth. So, once again. Either Caltech is in on the conspiracy, or there is none.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide
« on: January 22, 2021, 07:09:25 PM »
At least he would be if the election were held today.

I imagine polling went like this.

Pollster: "Hi, I'm from the New York Times. Would you mind telling me how you would vote if there were an election tomorrow?"
Democrat voter: "I'd vote Biden. Orange man bad.

Pollster: "Hi, I'm from the New York Times. Would you mind telling me how you would vote if there were an election tomorrow?"
Republican voter: "New York Times? How about you f-off, you total disgrace.  >o<"
Pollster: "I'll pop you down as an undecided.

Conservatives in all countries are much more likely to refuse to disclose their voting intentions. This is likely because the New York Times et al frequently tell people they are stupid if they vote Republican. When a left wing journalist asks you how you will vote, you're unlikely to be cooperative with them. I wouldn't have '5 mins to spare' for the BBC for example.
^ I guess you would have something similar in the USA.

My verdict ... Trump will win again without breaking a sweat. By the time the head to head debate has happened and Biden is shown to be absolutely out of his skull with dementia, it'll all be over for another 4 years.

Welp, this post aged like milk.

From someone with a small amount of knowledge about 3d stuff, I would recommend using a cloudless map and then placing the clouds as a separate visual layer, as well as using diffuse/glossy/rough/bump maps. If your map uses terrain shading, you can do this fairly easily: for the glossy map, just use an image editing program to black out everything that isn't blue and then white out everything that is, etc. Find a fairly high res map, and spend some time doing manual painting. Happy to help with pbrs for free.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 22, 2021, 06:40:56 PM »
...yup. Sure is. Could you perhaps elaborate on your point, because I'm not exactly sure to what you are alluding.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 22, 2021, 05:55:08 PM »
Thanks for that wiki link. So, let's look at this analytically. The builders say that they had to account for the curvature of the earth, right? So, rather than elevate both ends, they elevated one end. However, there is a difference between how this would occur on a flat earth vs round earth. Although a laser raised at one end would indeed work on a flat earth, the distance from the middle to a ground is different on a flat earth vs a round earth. In precision construction, EVERY part is measured to high tolerances, and I have no doubt that the builders would certainly have noticed deviation from their plans. So, what do you think: is Caltech in on "the conspiracy", or is there no conspiracy at all?

Edit: Oh, and EA can't account for this one: straightness is one of the primary parts of precison, you can bet that that tube is dead precise.

Flat Earth Investigations / Southern Cross
« on: January 22, 2021, 02:54:56 PM »
A while back I had a bit of a look at the logistics of Polaris, and was disappointed to find that, provided there is some force pulling light away from Earth,  a Flat Earth can provide an explanation for Polaris. However, having lived in the Southern hemisphere as well as the Northern hemisphere, I happen to know that the South has it's own Polaris. Enter, the Southern cross.

A constellation that is visible year-round from the Southern hemisphere, and basically only from the southern hemisphere (It sometimes peeks over the horizon in the north.) The south doesn't have a star over the south pole, but there are certainly constellations there as well, and the Southern cross is perhaps the most famous.  So here is my question: let us say that the sun is rising in Australia and setting in Argentina. Both countries can see the southern cross, and both see it due south.

This would work in the bipolar model, but would not work (as far as I can see) in the unipolar model. So, let's see what we can find for this one, eh?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Let's do a Cavendish Experiment
« on: January 22, 2021, 02:25:59 PM »
Sounds good JSS, a few considerations to be had just to shoot down complaints before they arise:

Obviously, stay away from objects that have magnetic forces.

Try to eliminate as many sources of heat and motion as possible, which includes yourself: set up a camera and leave the room.

Try it first with fake weights to account for air currents without a gravitational effect.

Even if the weights don't collide, that's to be expected: the experiment was originally designed so that the point where the torsion force counteracts the rotation can be measured.

Wait. The acceleration of a 100 kg weight and a 10 kg weight 1 centimeter apart is about 0.24027 meters per hour squared: be patient.

Looking forwards to seeing your results!

Pages: [1] 2  Next >