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 - WTF_Seriously

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« on: January 18, 2022, 04:15:24 PM »
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?

You're going to find that question impossible to answer.  The reason being evidenced by just what you listed:
Well, that's why I asked the question.
One of my frustrations with FE is they seem to simultaneously claim that observations demonstrate a FE, but then hypothesise mechanisms which they claim produce equivalent effects to a globe (the page about EA pretty much makes this claim).
Hence the question, what experiment could we do - and have they done - which discriminate between the two models.

I believe the following would accurately explain your frustrations:

Quote
"Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe"

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« on: January 18, 2022, 03:17:40 PM »
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?

You're going to find that question impossible to answer.  The reason being evidenced by just what you listed:

Quote
I would suggest that objects sinking below the horizon, the distance (and angle dip) to the horizon increasing with altitude are observations which we all agree on.
That could be explained by us living on a globe - objects disappear over the curve, as you ascend you see further over the curve. But these observations could equally be explained by EA on a flat earth.

I think we can all agree that objects fall. That could be explained by mass attracting mass, but it could equally be explained by UA.

Ah, but the weight of things, and therefore the force of gravity, varies by latitude (and in other ways) in a measurable way. That could be explained by a spinning globe, the centrifugal force being greater nearer the equator where you are spinning faster. Other variations can be explained by the mass of the earth not being distributed perfectly uniformly.
But it could also be explained by Celestial Gravitation causing local variations.

RET has explanations for all the above. If FET has hypothesised mechanisms which also explain them then what experiment can we do to help us determine the true shape of the earth?

It doesn't matter the experiment or observation, FE will simply contrive something to explain it.  There really isn't an experiment that an alternative explanation can't be created.


5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: January 07, 2022, 07:09:43 PM »
The UK and US do seem to have been competing for the highly coveted "stupidest electorate" prize. We did Brexit, you elected Trump, we've elected Boris in a landslide.
I think you might still be edging it, but it's close.

Trump 2024.  Check! and Mate!

6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?
« on: January 04, 2022, 04:24:39 PM »
You get bullshit when you try to paint reality (i.e., flat earth) in unreal terms (i.e., spherical)

Actually, you get bullshit when you try to paint flat earth into real tearms.  This is why there is no agreed upon FE map.  IF the earth were flat, creating a map of said earth would be an incredibly simple task with modern technology.  It actually would have been an incredibly simple task with less than modern technology.

7
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather forecasts
« on: January 03, 2022, 04:29:58 PM »
You should pay attention to what I said. I didn't say that meteorologists [not capitalised, it's not a proper noun] never present the weather. I said it happens rarely, and that no qualifications in meteorology are usually required.

Just a quick glance at my local weather folks and it appears that a 'certificate of broadcast meteorology' is a fairly common thing (3 of the 4 I looked at in 2 minutes on the Google) here in the states.  I guess it's something overseen by the American Meteorological Society.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: December 29, 2021, 06:32:57 PM »

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: December 21, 2021, 11:18:19 PM »
When the GOP takes the house next year and appoints mtg as the speaker

The fact that this is actually a plausible scenario shows just how big a disaster America has become.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites
« on: December 20, 2021, 04:13:59 PM »
Under FET the satellites would all have to have a large fuel source and rocket motors in order to maintain a constant 9.81 m/s upwards acceleration rate.  This requirement would greatly shorten the life of any satellite.  The INMARSAT and the newer KVH TracPhone satellites have been in orbit for years so this invalidates the UA argument in one simple shot.
This isn’t true.
The idea in FET is that the earth “shields” objects on and above it from whatever force it is which causes the acceleration. But that shielding only works up to a certain altitude so if you could get a satellite above that then it would be subject to the same force that the earth is so would accelerate along with the earth and this remain at a constant altitude above it.

I don’t think anything else about geostationary satellites works with the FE model though.

The fuel source would not be required to maintain relative elevation to earth, it would be required to adjust the orbit.  Take the ISS as an example.   On FE, the ISS doesn't simply orbit the pole as the sun and moon do. On a FE, the ISS orbits a point which is itself orbiting around the pole.  Fuel would constantly be required to maintain this orbit about an orbit. (Insert ad-hoc FE explanation here.)

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: geostationary satellites
« on: December 16, 2021, 04:31:41 PM »
This is consistent with RET math and physics.

This is the interesting part of the RE/FE debate on this subject.  Either we're all being lied to and they are actually using FET math and physics or RET math and physics just magically work even though the earth is flat.

As to geostationary satellites, there's a little more to just sending them up at the right height and velocity.  They are actually launched using a elliptical transfer orbit and then brought into a circular orbit using subsequent mini-burns.  Somehow, all that RE math just works even though the earth is flat.

https://www.planetary.org/articles/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 16, 2021, 04:22:20 PM »
Quote
Yes.  But aren't the relative velocities of the earth and object prior to being dropped zero always?

Assuming the object is supported by the earth, the relative velocity would be zero,  and the clocks would be synchronized before it is dropped.  But once the object is dropped, they would become unsynchronized. When the object hits the ground, the clocks would start keeping time at the same rate again, but they still wouldn’t agree unless they were synchronized again.



I understand that.  What I'm questioning is how the scenario would change 5 minutes from now if in both cases the relative velocities of the two are zero.  That was the premise of your original statement.  The situation would be different because the earth under acceleration would be traveling at a different speed.  But the clock would also have accelerated the same amount during that 5 minutes so at the time it's dropped the relative velocities are still zero which result in the time jumping of the chair to be the same 5 minutes later.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 15, 2021, 10:07:08 PM »

Since we are talking relativistic velocities, a clock on a dropped object (which would be in an inertial reference frame) and a clock on the ground (presumably in an accelerating reference frame at close to c) would read differently.  Each would perceive the other as going slower (this is ignoring any gravitational time dilation that might happen) and the difference would increase as the velocity of the clock on the ground increases relative to the clock on the inertial object. 

Drop tower experiments are performed all over the world everyday.  You’d think somebody would’ve noticed that the time it takes to perform the same experiment is different at different times and/or depending on whose clock you are looking at.  Not to mention that a skydiver’s watch would read differently than an observer on the ground.  They’d have two different measurements for how long it took the skydiver to “fall”.


Yes.  But aren't the relative velocities of the earth and and object prior to being dropped zero always?

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 15, 2021, 09:56:35 PM »
The video with the flashlight over the glass hemisphere does show that you can light up the part of the map underneath similar to the shape of the lit area on FE.

But does it. The only thing the video shows is that you can make the surface of the dome black.  It demonstrates nothing as to what is happening under the dome.  It's not dissimilar from light traveling down a fiber optic cable.  Very little light escapes the side of the cable but a bright dot is seen at the end.  I'd postulate the same thing is occurring on the surface of the dome which is why the surface turns black.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 15, 2021, 09:06:07 PM »
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Southern_Hemisphere



I might have to give this one a try.  I'm guessing what I'll find is that if you view the dome from the side where the light is shining you'll see the entire map lit while the view from above is darkened because of the light refracting.  Basically, a slight of hand parlor trick.

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Canada is a $#!/hole country
« on: December 15, 2021, 07:14:27 PM »
Quit posting obvious nonsense.

You first.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 15, 2021, 02:51:01 PM »
Here’s an experiment.  Jump from the same chair 5 minutes apart.  If the time it takes to meet the floor is not less on the second attempt, then the earth is not accelerating up and increasing in velocity.

Would you be so kind as to humor an old codger and show me the physics behind this statement.

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Azimuth angles?
« on: December 14, 2021, 06:52:56 PM »
@Brett500

Since you seem to think azimuth angles can disprove a theory, let's do a little exercise.
Considering he deleted his account 3 days ago, you might not have much luck.

Suppose not.

Just curious, is there an easy way to see if someone's account is still active?  Like a scarlet D for Douche Deleted or something.

You can tell it's inactive/deleted when it looks like this next to their posts:



Ahhhh.  Thanks.  My learning for the day is done.

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Azimuth angles?
« on: December 14, 2021, 06:34:08 PM »
@Brett500

Since you seem to think azimuth angles can disprove a theory, let's do a little exercise.
Considering he deleted his account 3 days ago, you might not have much luck.

Suppose not.

Just curious, is there an easy way to see if someone's account is still active?  Like a scarlet D for Douche Deleted or something.

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Azimuth angles?
« on: December 14, 2021, 05:51:08 PM »
@Brett500

Since you seem to think azimuth angles can disprove a theory, let's do a little exercise.

I mentioned suncalc.org.  Go to that site and set your location to 35 deg. south lat.  Long. doesn't matter.  If you get it right, you'll notice that your sunrise/sunset azimuth angles are nearly 120 deg.  What that means is that at 35 deg. S latitude (a little over 10 deg. south of the furthest south the sun travels in the north monopole FE model) you must look 30 degrees south of east to see the sunrise.  Can you explain how that is possible?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >