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 - Stagiri

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 06, 2020, 06:03:18 PM »
.. but it's contradicted by the simplest observation. I refer you to my post above.
Your "simple" observation relies on light travelling in straight lines, something that we both know to be extremely unlikely.

Generally speaking, what would be the reason for light to not travel in a straight line?

science isn't fake news

Medical and psychiatry science that treated homosexuality as an abnormality was praised in the 50's and 60's, and is shunned today. And it's not because today's researchers are any smarter.

You only get funded by supporting the present social norms, FYI. No one is going to fund electroshock therapy research for homosexuality. Society already decided that it's okay.

Those prior researchers are highly demonized, despite that those patients themselves wanted the treatment. When you read about it today, writers demonize it to an extent that they make it sound like the police rounded them up against their will and doctors forced electroshock therapy in mental institutions (without actually saying that), when that implied situation is far from the truth.

Okay. Some TV channels spread fake news. Does it mean that all TV channels spread fake news? Does it mean that all news are equally fake?

I definitely agree that there was, is and will be (apparently) scientific stuff that is more or less fake. I guess that scientists are just humans! However, that doesn't mean that all of science is fake. In fact, I would say that the majority of science is not fake.

There are, for example, different fields of science. The main two branches are social sciences (archaelogy, psychology, sociology, economics, ...) and natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, ...). They're also called soft and hard sciences. What's the difference? Hard sciences are overall more rigorous, exact, objective, so there's less room for being fake. As an example, you've mentioned psychiatry, which is a hybrid science - it's somewhere between hard and soft science.

The Occam's razor is getting duller and duller these days. The idea of how simple a hypothesis is depends pretty much entirely on your own judgement and so on your own beliefs and opinions. In other words, it's subjective, not objective. This is true for everyone, FEers and GEers alike.

EDIT: what I mean to say is that, while sometimes helpful, the Occam's razor can hardly be used as a valid argument in a sirious discussion.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth at the Beach
« on: June 03, 2020, 05:53:04 AM »
- Watching the Sun move leads us to the direct conclusion that the Sun moves. It does not lead us to the direct conclusion that the Earth is moving. (...)
(...) The observation that the Sun moves and not the Earth, (...)
(...) Many things must be taken on faith. RE certainly does not have anything as empirical as "The Sun moves because we see it moving." (...)

You don't have to be Einstein to understand the principle of relativity of mechanical processes. There's no absolute motion or absolute rest, only relative ones. Suppose observer A stands on an island and observer B stands on a boat. From observer A's perspective, the island stands still and the boat and observer B move; from observer B's perspective, the boat is at rest and the island and obsever A move. The conclusion that the Sun moves is just as valid as the conclusion that the Earth moves, in both the GET and the FET.

(...) Likewise, watching the light of the Sun set into the Earth leads us to the conclusion that its light has set into the Earth,(...)

Yes, and there are different possible explanations for the observed phenomenon, which are more or less consistent with other observations.

By the way, since the Sun and the Moon perform a circular motion, shouldn't a cetripetal/centrifugal force affect them?

(...) You are supposed to make observations which directly shows that you are correct, not argue that contrary observations might not be correct.


That's exactly right. There is no direct evidence for such theories. (...)

Do you realize that to prove the FET or the GET directly requires observing the Earth and its macroscopic (non-)curvature directly? If you wanted to prove by direct observation that the Earth as a macroscopic object is flat/round you would have to be able to directly observe the majority of its surface at once. (You can do it and it has been done but as far as I know all such evidence has been dismissed as fake by the FES.)

The problem with your assumption is most Satanist believe the earth is a planet. If you stick with the majority, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist we all believe the Earth is flat and covered by a Raqia or Dome.

Wikipedia is infiltrated with Trolls, science is similar to fake news, so read manuscripts of at least 1500 years old.

I don't know many Jews or Muslims but I can say that almost all Christians believe the earth is a planet (at least here in Europe). So maybe you should doublecheck your data.

By the way, Wikipedia is one of the best free source of (surface) information on the Internet and science isn't fake news, fake news is fake news.

Technology & Information / Re: T minus 5 minutes to launch
« on: May 31, 2020, 06:47:32 PM »
Sorry, I have to disagree. The camera lenses distorted the view heavily. From one view, the curvature was greater than even the GET predicts, from the other, the Earth even appeared to have slight negative curvature.

The SpaceX live stream is currently showing a view of dragon docked with the ISS. You can clearly see the curvature of the earth, as well as the ISS's flat solar panels which rules out a fish eye camera. Either SpaceX is broadcasting a doctored video stream or the earth is round.

Well, at least one camera view was distorted:

(The shots are the same view like a minute apart.)

Hi! How are you?

Hello! I'm doing fine, but it's pretty busy lately since we're so close to launching Mars 2020! How are you?

Glad to hear that and good luck with the Mars mission! I'm fine, just a bt nervous since my final exams start tomorrow  :)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: May 31, 2020, 12:57:31 PM »
Sorry, can you clarify? You appear to be claiming that a body's inertial mass and inertial resistance changes when under different levels of gravity.

Can you clarify this? Why is the inertial force of a bullet or bowling ball approaching you the same in weightless space and on Earth? According to that logic inertial resistance should disappear in a weightless environment far from gravitational fields.

If a bowling ball is in vertical free fall towards the surface of Saturn, are you claiming that it would take more force to move it sideways horizontally during its downwards descent than on Earth, since the bowling ball now has a greater inertial mass? And if not, why should the force to move that object sideways horizontally be the same as on Earth or in weightless space?

Sorry, perhaps I've expressed it poorly but I am not claiming that a body's mass changes. It stays the same.

F = m*a. F is the force applied to a body, m its mass and a its acceleration. From that, you can see that a = F/m, that is that the acceleration of a body is proportional to the force applied to it divided by its mass.

Suppose we have an object A and a two times heavier object B. The same force will accelerate B less (by a half) because it has two times greater mass. Alternatively, a two times greater force has to be applied to B if you want both objects to accelerate the same way. So far so good?

Now, let's take the Newton's law of gravity F_g = k*m*M/r^2. F_g is the gravitational force, k is a constant, m and M are masses of two bodies and r is the distance between them. If the distance increases the gravitational force decreases. If one (or both) of the masses increases the gravitational force increases too.

Let's return to objects A and B and let's drop them on the Earth's surface. Object A has a mass m and is accelerated towards the Earth by gravitational force F, so it achieves acceleration a. Object B has a mass 2m so it's two times harder to accelerate. At the same time, object B has mass 2m so the gravitational force between object B and the Earth is 2F. It's two times harder to accelerate object B but the force accelerating it towards the Earth is two times greater as well. So, 2F/2m = F/m = the same acceleration a towards the Earth. In conclusion, A and B are accelerated identically towards the Earth.

Now, let's take objects A and B to Saturn and drop them there. Object A has the same mass m but Saturn's mass is much greater than Earth's mass. So, the gravitational force is greater, not because object A's mass m would be different but because the planet's mass M is greater. So on Saturn, object A achieves much larger gravitational acceleration a (or g) than on Earth. Nevertheless, the same that applied to the relation between objects A and B on Earth applies on Saturn. Object B still has the same mass 2m so it's still two times harder to accelerate. At the same time, object B still has the same mass 2m so the gravitational force between object B and Satrun is again twice greater. It's two times harder to accelerate object B but the force accelerating it towards Saturn's core is two times greater as well. In conclusion, A and B are accelerated identically even when on Saturn.

The same goes for any planet/star/whatever. Bodies with different mass are harder (or easier) to accelerate but at the same time the gravitational force between a body and the planet/star/... is greater(/smaller). So in conclusion, all the bodies on the same planet/star/... are acceleratde the same way, none, every has the same acceleration g. However, the particular value of acceleration depends on the mass of the planet/star/... so different planets/stars/... have different gs, different values of acceleration of bodies on their surface.

Is it clearer now?

Technology & Information / Re: T minus 5 minutes to launch
« on: May 30, 2020, 08:26:53 PM »
Congratulations to the SpaceX and NASA teams for the successful launch into space!(...)

I'm always nervous when I watch these launches, but so far so good on this one.

I believe the docking to the ISS occurs about 19 hours or so from launch.

Same and true.

Beautiful on-board capsule camera view from launch to space showing the beautiful curvature of globe Earth.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The camera lenses distorted the view heavily. From one view, the curvature was greater than even the GET predicts, from the other, the Earth even appeared to have slight negative curvature.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: May 30, 2020, 08:20:19 PM »
Really? Gravity cancels out exactly with inertial resistance by pulling harder for heavier objects?

Yes, exactly. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing, mass, so of course that while the inertia is bigger so is the intensity of the force.

What about on another planet like the conventional Saturn where, assuming that it had a surface that you could stand on, g is stronger? The inertial resistance of a body stays the same throughout the universe (on Earth, in weightless space, on Saturn), but g can change.

The g is the same thing as the a from the equations above, i. e. the gravitational acceleration of objects. As you can see from said equations, it is proportional to the mass M of the planet and not dependant on the mass of an object. Having greater mass M, Saturn attracts any object much more than Earth does, hence the greater g / a.

Why should the Earth be so special that gravity exactly cancels out with inertial resistance on Earth to a very high precision but not on any other planet or environment?

It isn't special. The mass of an object is the mass of an object, it does not depend on what planet you are closer to. It cancels out with itself the same way 2/2, 3/3, n/n cancels out to 1. You can see that from the equations above (or you can, you know, google it as you are supposed to).

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: May 30, 2020, 02:55:06 PM »
(...) It takes more force to roll a bowling ball across the floor than a marble. So it is curious how 'gravity' knows how to equalize the inertial resistance all bodies naturally exhibit when they are pulled or pushed through space so they fall at the same rate.

It's not curious at all, it's interesting at most. Yes, it takes more force to accelerate a heavier object. On the other hand, since it's heavier, the gravitational force is also greater.

F = the force affecting an object
m = the mass of the object
a = the acceleration of the object
M = the mass of the Earth
then according to the Newton's law:

So, the difference cancels out, i. e. the acceleration of an object in a gravity field does not depend on the mass of said object, just on the mass of what's attracting it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: May 29, 2020, 07:49:04 AM »
A much more interesting flaw of the FET is the Eötvös effect.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: May 28, 2020, 09:24:04 AM »

If you are talking about centrifugal acceleration, on the other hand, there is quite another problem. Centrifugal acceleration is observably different from gravity. Just watch this amazing video by Tom Scott:


That difference would diminish if you increased the radius of rotation. For a radius large enough, it could be too small to observe. Also, in the video it's said that you would gradually adapt.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: May 28, 2020, 06:33:49 AM »
It’s only a problem if you are mistakenly under the impression that something is somehow prohibited from undergoing constant acceleration for an arbitrary length of time. Which would put you at odds with long established theory from some great scientific minds, but you’d be far from the first person to plant a flag on that hill just to die on it.
I'm unsure as to why you think that I am mistaken. You have made a statement but failed to provide any evidence. What theory, what scientists? I'm honestly unsure as to whether this is authentic or a joke. The speed of light in a certain medium is a speed barrier that cannot be surpassed, numerous experiments have proved this. One such example is the phenomenon of Cherenkov radiation, which is the blue glow observed in nuclear coolant pools. Light travels much slower underwater than in a vacuum, so nuclear material can emit radiation that would be traveling faster than light in water. This cannot happen, and so the particles emit photons to release energy.

If you are referring to linear acceleration, then I am right. An object is prohibited from undergoing linear acceleration for an arbitrary length of time. Acceleration is change of velocity. For a linearly accelerated flat earth to match empirical observations of gravity, the world would have to constantly increase it's velocity. At some point, in this case just under a year as I previously mentioned, the world would reach the speed of light. The idea of the speed of light then has to either be dispelled with, which contrasts with observations, or has to be somehow overcome. The acceleration cannot be changed, because that would result in a perceived change of gravity. The speed of the earth cannot be changed, because then everyone would smack into the ceiling at the speed of light (which would be quite a sight).

Actually, as TheRealDave has mentioned, that wouldn't be a problem, at least according to Einstein's theory of relativity. It just depends on how you look at it.

Let's suppose there's an outer space where one's somehow free from the influence of the UA. In that outer space, an observer is watching the FE being accelerated by the UA. Let's call him Adam. Let's also say that Adam has a really god eyesight and so is able to oversee the entire trajectory of the FE.

From Adam's perspective, the FE is accelerating and thus gaining speed. As you've correctly said, no object with mass - and the FE definitely has mass - can achieve the speed of light. So, as the speed of the FE in relation to Adam's FoR gets closer and closer to the speed of light, the acceleration starts to noticeably decrease. The FE could accelerate for eternity but since the acceleration diminishes it would never reach the speed of light, just get closer and closer to it.

However, that's just what would seem to be going on from Adam's perspective. For an observer living on the FE, let's call her Eve, things would be different. She lives on the FE and she is accelerated along with it. Her FoR is non-inertial so she experiences the inertial force of gravitation. However, in her FoR, the FE is in relative rest, there's no speeding up and so there's no getting close to the speed of light. So from Eve's perspective, this could go on for ever even as the inertial force of gravitation stays constant.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Gravity’s smallest scale
« on: May 27, 2020, 08:01:02 PM »
Is an alternative possibility that there are more spatial dimensions but that gravity only acts on three of them?  Or is that too non-sensical?

Yes, that could be a totally possible alternative.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: greenolive's Flat Earth model
« on: May 27, 2020, 07:31:43 PM »
An interesting idea. Where would the south celestial pole lie in this model?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - Power Source discussion
« on: January 23, 2019, 07:05:42 PM »
I'm a bit confused by the last sentence, though. Are the principles behind UA and CG the same or have I misunderstood what you are saying?
You did misunderstand, but that's probably my fault. Let me try to unwrap what I meant.

The original objection was that GR has a single source, where UA has many. I disagree with that objection - the sources of RET gravitation are multiple, each object with a mass having its own pull. The fact that they all follow the same principle is not relevant.

Ok, I see. Sorry for wasting your time. Thank you  ;)

Flat Earth Theory / The Force of Sun
« on: January 23, 2019, 06:57:26 PM »
A total solar eclipse occurred on May 29, 1919. With the duration (...) of 6 minutes 51 seconds, it was the longest recorded solar eclipse since May 27, 1416. A longer total solar eclipse would later occur on June 8, 1937, lasting for 7 minutes and 4 seconds.


On that day, during the eclipse, two independent expeditions measured positions of stars in the constellation Taurus. One, situated on the island Principe (off the west coast of Africa), was led by Sir Francis Watson Dyson and Sir Arthur Eddington, the other, led by Andrew Claude de la Cherois Crommelin and Charles Rundle Davidson, settled in Sobral, Brazil.

Both confirmed Albert Einstein's prediction of the bending of light caused by the Sun to be correct.
- source of information (text modified)

Since then, these kinds of experiments have been repeated with the same results. My question is: do FEers find these measurements (that the stars' positions changed due to the Sun's presence) valid?
If yes, do you think that the deflection was caused by the Sun bending the spacetime?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mercury/Venus transiting the sun
« on: January 23, 2019, 06:36:05 PM »
In a flat earth reality, what is the explanation for when mercury and venus transit the sun (are visibly in between the sun and earth)?
Differentiating orbits, I think.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >