9221

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why not pick one topic to flesh out?

« on: January 20, 2015, 02:12:28 AM »

How do you suppose we should go about figuring out things such as the mechanism for what keeps us on the ground?

9222

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Proposal to create the Earth Not a Globe Forum

« on: January 19, 2015, 08:18:22 PM »

As per the current constitution, simple majority wins?

9223

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses

« on: January 18, 2015, 09:59:57 PM »

Well the modern Satos cycle uses ephemerides that depend on the Earth being round so there is that.

Explain.

It also requires that 40 different Saros are underway at different parts of the globe, which is something the ancients never had to contend with.

Why would 40 different Saros Cycles be needed to predict the lunar eclipse for different parts of the world? The lunar eclipse occurs for everyone at once, at the same point in time, to whomever can see the moon.

Elements of celestial mechanics are used in the Saros Series as well as in NOVAS.

Show us. I've already gone through NOVAS with you on the other forum to show you that it's using known eclipse tables, not celestial mechanics.

9224

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: January 18, 2015, 09:52:37 PM »

Well, that actually made sense somehow... cold air has a higher refractive index than hot air, so the spot is not a perfect circle, it's a bit squeezed because the air is colder in the north and far south.

Except that the refractive index for air is around 1.00027 at 20°C (and 1 atm) and 1.00030 at -10°C (and 1 atm). That's a difference of less than 0.003% and yet you expect to believe that it's enough to transform the shape of the spot from a perfect circle to the oval represented in your picture?

But even then, let's say that it is the case. I'm still wondering why you would present such a picture and pretend that it accurately represents daylight during some time of the year.
Let's consider Australia. At latitude 30° south, Australia gets between a bit more than 10h and 14h of daylight, depending on the time of the year (winter solstice and summer solstice respectively). Yet, if I follow the 30° S latitude up to the spot in your picture, I count only 9h. It doesn't fit reality.

In fact, if you had to produce a spot that accurately represents the length of the day during the solstice of June, you'd get the spot in yellow (or something close to that) in the first attachment.
And in the second attachment, I drew the spot for the solstice of December (in red).

You're trying to tell me that the sun spot changes so drastically, only because of the 0.003% difference in the air refractive index change?

It's as I said on this thread or another one: to make FE theory work, you need magic. A magic sun or maybe a magic atmosphere. Probably both...

The refractive index is small, but the space is over tens of thousands of miles. Even over the distance of a few miles, when light air passes between cold air and warm air, or between warm air and cold air, there is a large effect:







As per the midnight sun in Antarctica, there is some dispute whether it actually occurs.

9225

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses

« on: January 18, 2015, 01:10:47 AM »

The NASA website does a great job of explaining the modern method. The books I referenced provide the modern mathematics.What don't you understand? Which of the books have you referenced so far? Is there a particular page you're confused by?

The Saros Cycle is neither modern or an RET method of predicting the eclipse. The books you posted are mostly about ancient astronomy and pattern-based prediction.

Show us where a lunar eclipse has been predicted using celestial mechanics.

9226

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses

« on: January 17, 2015, 09:27:42 PM »

I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed.  If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?

And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.

Google is irrelevant. Gulliver provided information which indeed shows calculations for predicting lunar eclipses based on the "geometric model" of the solar system.

If you think this argument doesn't stand, please provide a refutation. Ad hominem fallacies or mocking only discredits your position. And i'm quoting you: "In lieu of sufficient rebuttal, he sayeth, "LOL.""

I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth.  They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid.  "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.

The Saros method has limited accuracy (although a pretty good one) and couldn't predict eclipses to the hour or minute. This is only possible with calculations based on the "geometric model".
It is true that the ability to predict eclipses to the minute based on RET is not an absolute proof that RET is true. There is no such thing as an absolute proof to anything. I certainly wouldn't say however that it "has absolutely zero to do with" RET. It's an argument in favor of RET.

Show us where a geometric model has predicted the eclipse. The only method talked about on NASA's website is the ancient Flat Earth one.

9227

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses

« on: January 17, 2015, 09:17:35 PM »

I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed.  If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?

And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.

I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth.  They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid.  "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.

Since RET predicts the shape of earth's shadow and how it will cross the moon from hundreds of locations across the globe, I challenge your to show your predictions for the next lunar eclipse if the earth were a trapezoid. Then we'll just check which theory does a better job of predicting. See: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf

Why do you keep calling methods created by ancient flat earth scientists a RET method which predicts the lunar eclipse?

9228

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses

« on: January 17, 2015, 09:05:28 PM »

The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.

The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.

Please bear in mind that Tom thinks The Saros Cycle is used in exactly the same way as the Babylonians did. This is false as there has been a tremendous amount of precision introduced with the refinement of astronomical epoches. This has made the delta-t calculations much more precise than the Babylonians could have dreamed of.

NASA can also transform the coordinates of a lunar exlipse such that they can be predicted from any locale on Earth. These coordinate transformations would only work if the Earth is round.

The lunar eclipse occurs at the same point in time for everybody, wherever the moon is visible, since it is a shadow on its surface. Your assumption of special maths which show different eclipse times at different locations is of your own imagination. It happens at the same time for everybody. It's only the solar eclipse that occurs at different times for different people.

But even if the saros cycle has been refined for accuracy over the years and more patterns have been picked out for different variables of the eclipse, it is still a pattern based prediction, not one based on celestial mechanics. The use of the Saros Cycle or its variants is still irrelevant and not evidence for RET.

9229

Flat Earth Community / Re: Fundraising Idea: Task-Based Micro Payments

« on: January 17, 2015, 04:06:43 AM »

Good idea. We can have a separate site where we host these products geared for fundraising. From time to time perhaps we can convince Daniel to feature some of our things as a tweet or perhaps temporary side panel on the main site.

I don't think the beer is out of place in such an inventory, but I imagine that vendors have a hard time selling beer legally over the internet where IDs cannot be checked. I did own earthnotaglobe.com at one point, where I was hosting the wiki before we had a wiki. I think Daniel owns it now.

9230

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis effect in FET

« on: January 16, 2015, 07:48:40 PM »

If the earth were a globe the stars should be an equal distance away from each other at all times as they pass across the sky, and not physically spreading apart and growing in distance from one another.

OKay, I'll bite. When don't the stars appear to be the same (You mysteriously called it "equal".) distance as they pass across the sky? Did someone change reality and forget to post it in FET announcements?

I believe I provided two pictures taken from the equator. The stars get close and then spread apart from each other. They do not remain the same distance from each other at all times.

Tom, no stars do not change their distance from each other. Your photo shows the  projection of a celestrial ball. Yes 3-D to 2-D causes distortion.

Tom, do these tracks get wider as they come closer to the camera? Do I really have to lecture you on perspective?

Your mechanism doesn't really make sense. Under RET the stars are many light years away from the earth, and from each other. You seem to be claiming that when rotating across the sphere of the earth, an admittedly tiny amount of space in relation, they get far enough away that they build up and squeeze together via perspective. Is that correct?

9231

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis effect in FET

« on: January 16, 2015, 08:08:19 AM »

If the earth were a globe the stars should be an equal distance away from each other at all times as they pass across the sky, and not physically spreading apart and growing in distance from one another.

OKay, I'll bite. When don't the stars appear to be the same (You mysteriously called it "equal".) distance as they pass across the sky? Did someone change reality and forget to post it in FET announcements?

I believe I provided two pictures taken from the equator. The stars get close and then spread apart from each other. They do not remain the same distance from each other at all times.

9232

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses

« on: January 16, 2015, 08:02:42 AM »

I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I'm talking about a geometric model of the solar system which operates on celestial mechanics. The Saros Cycle operates by looking at the time period when past eclipses have taken place in the past and then finding the pattern. Equations can be made to predict when it will occur, the duration, and even the totality, all from looking at patterns and trends of past events. In order for the prediction of a Lunar Eclipse to validate the Round Earth model, it would need to be predicted with celestial mechanics, rather than the pattern method.

9233

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses

« on: January 16, 2015, 07:47:29 AM »

The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.

Nope. I've already referred you to several texts on the matter. Try looking at a simple Amazon search and then head to your local library. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mathematical+astronomy&sprefix=mathematical+astr%2Caps%2C171

Show me that the lunar eclipse has been predicted with a geometric model of the solar system. Many of those mathematical astronomy books are simply talking about the maths behind the Saros Cycle and other cycles that predict things based on patterns in the sky. NASA uses the Saros Cycle on their website to predict the eclipse, a method created by ancient Flat Earth scientists. How embarrassing for them.

9234

Flat Earth Community / Re: Fundraising Idea: Task-Based Micro Payments

« on: January 16, 2015, 07:31:25 AM »

As the person who runs this forum, let me state for the record that there will never be any revenue raised from it in any form. This forum is and always will remain free of charge, free of advertising and free of any solicitation of financial contribution (direct or indirect) for anyone to use, provided that they post within the rules.

Naturally, Daniel's website (which will remain the host of the Society homepage post-reunification) is under his remit, but I would be very surprised if he is any more amiable to this idea than I am.

I guess that's makes the idea of raising funds for education materials for those poor school children impossible then. I would also suggest removing the thread on this forum soliciting me for t-shirts. It is against these rules.

9235

Flat Earth Media / Re: Save the Repository

« on: January 16, 2015, 07:25:39 AM »

I encourage the OP to just take the lead and go wild with the idea. He can do some research and figure out how to do it. If he can find a solution then maybe others here will help run it through the program. Once he is able to digitize the material he can submit it to the society and it will be uploaded to the repository.

Good luck!

9236

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis effect in FET

« on: January 16, 2015, 06:49:34 AM »

In the classic model, an explanation given in the past has been that the sun is stirring up wind systems as its warm spotlight passes over the equator. Heat causes a change in pressure, which puts wind systems into motion. After the sun's spotlight leaves an area the winds are sucked in from the North and South to meet in the middle. Over eons this has caused the wind systems in the North to generally move one way and wind systems in the South to generally move the other way. Bullets and artillery shells are affected by this wind, often mistaken for the rotation of the earth.

9237

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis effect in FET

« on: January 16, 2015, 06:45:38 AM »

The answer we've given in the past to this question is that the stars have a slight gravitational field. This is how the variation of g at high altitudes is explained. The stars are also rotating above the earth at one rotation per 24 hours. That bullets and artillery shells are are deflected is because the stars are pulling the bullet.

Why do storms always rotate anti-clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern....?

This is explained in the bi-polar model by counter-rotating celestial systems which grind against each other like a spinning pair of gears.



The gravitation of the spinning celestial gears overhead pulls wind systems clockwise or counter-clockwise. The gears are centered over the North and South Pole. The layout of the earth in the bi-polar model is depicted with two poles. Here is a general illustration:



At the equator we can see this gear system begin pulling away from itself, which should be impossible if the earth were a globe.





If the earth were a globe the stars should be an equal distance away from each other at all times as they pass across the sky, and not physically spreading apart and growing in distance from one another. This is evidence that the stars are operating in the manner described.

9238

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipses

« on: January 16, 2015, 06:41:50 AM »

The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.

9239

Flat Earth Community / Re: Fundraising Idea: Task-Based Micro Payments

« on: January 16, 2015, 06:03:11 AM »

Do you think that real scientific organizations all operate on zero budgets and their scientists all work for free?

Tom, how many times have you dismissed "real scientific organizations" because the "real scientists" were paid to produce the results that their employers wanted.  Is this what you really want for TFES?

We are already accused of faking research. If we had an actual budget we would get more and better quality research. Isn't that what you have been asking for since you got here?

Still a no, in my case.  It's backhanded and sleazy, the sort of thing I'd expect to find on a less-than-reputable website, and this kind of campaign really doesn't sit well with me.  I know it's your company and all, and I mean no offense, that's just the way I feel about it.  I'm not interested in being associated with a website with these practices at all.

I think the T-Shirts and the book(s) are much more in the direction we need to look for fundraising efforts, and I concur that registering as a nonprofit and supporting charitable organizations would be good for us.  I don't oppose ideas for fundraising in general, but this one, scientific focus or no, is just not something I'd recommend for any website who doesn't want to appear shady, and it's not something I can participate in at all.  I do this crap at work because I have to, and my employer graciously works around my school schedule.  Outside of that context, I want nothing to do with it.

How is offering two issues of Smithsonian Magazine with the copy of the new Earth Not a Globe book sleazy or backhanded? That's the least offensive form of advertising I can imagine. We would certainly get more interest than if we were to sell the book outright. We would be basically giving the book away for free, as well as a popular science magazine.

I would be more offended if I went to a Hollow Earth site and they were trying to push their books on me for profit, withholding research about a Hollow Earth unless I pay them money. My idea is a less sleazy way to fund-raise. The research is being given out for free. You want us to withhold research from the public unless we get paid in cash. That's terrible.

A disclaimer can be made that the "Smithsonian Magazine is partnered with the Flat Earth Society to bring you this offer." Anyone with an IQ above room temperature could figure out that money is somehow exchanging hands. It's not really that backhanded.

9240

Flat Earth Community / Re: Fundraising Idea: Task-Based Micro Payments

« on: January 16, 2015, 02:40:43 AM »

I would have to say that I would have to bow out of the society as a whole were this to happen.  I'm not at all comfortable supporting a group that resorts to the lowest common denominator methods of internet marketing.    The whole idea makes me sick to my stomach.

Here is another idea:

Instead of using low tier offers which are geared towards a general audience (ie, enter your zip code for a free box of Cheerios) we can take the time to pick out offers relevant to science and technology. It will be more time consuming to find these offers, and they sometimes need approval before running, but they exist. Right now Smithsonian Magazine is offering to pay $9 for signups for their 2 issue free trial. Users will receive 2 issues of their magazine and then have the option of signing up with Smithsonian for more.

We would get users to sign up with something like this:

Download Earth Not a Globe 2015 Expanded Edition and
Get 2 Free Issues of Smithsonian Magazine