1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 21, 2018, 09:21:43 AM »

3 body problem is completely unrelated to the heliocentric model.
And sure, we can't calculate precise orbits without precise measurements.
We can easily make the simulation though. Nothing wrong with the heliocentric model.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Detailed flight times and distances

« on: July 20, 2018, 05:29:39 PM »

Latitude : can be derived from the angle from the horizon to Polaris or Sigma Octantis. They are not spherical earth measurements.

Longitude: can be derived from the sun and time, by checking the time when the sun is directly north/south, it is not a spherical earth measurement.

On a globe earth, we have easily defined and calculated distances, and as seen in the graph, flight times match distanced calculated on a globe earth.

We have all the information at our fingertips, yet the FE community has not been able to produce any working map. The monopole map doesn't work and the bi-polar map is hopeless, I really fail to see why FEers would use that instead.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bi-Polar Model: YouTube movement catching on

« on: July 20, 2018, 11:52:28 AM »

Yeah, bi-polar map really doesn't work.
You can book direct flights from Los Angeles directly to both Sydney (14h) and Dubai (16h).
On the bi-polar map as presented, the distance to Sydney would approximately double that of the distance to Dubai.

We can even travel between all these locations, nonstop:
LA <> Dubai: 16 hour flight
Dubai <> Sydney: 14 hour flight
Sydney <> LA: 14 hour flight
For some reason, we can travel from LA to Sydney FASTER than from LA to Dubai, almost as though we are living on a globe where we can fly straight over the Pacific Ocean to get between Sydney and LA.

We also know that daytime can be at LA and Sydney at the same time, while EU and Africa is in the nighttime, which would be impossible with a sun on a bi-polar map.

The shape of all continents in the outer part of the bi-polar map are also extremely stretched to a point they do not in any way match their real shape.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: July 18, 2018, 02:25:39 PM »

Yeah, its you not reading.

You would get skin friction drag. You wouldn't get form drag because you are in the vacuum of space. I gave you about 4 links previously of people telling you you get friction at the surface.

Friction, something which occurs when matter meets matter, and you are claiming that there is surface friction when the matter of the atmosphere meets the vacuum of space?

Try watching this again:


Friction does not affect winds when higher than 700 ft. The friction below is caused by the surface of the earth and does not automatically imply (as you seem to believe) that friction only works to counter to earths rotation.

Can you at least acknowledge that friction works both ways?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: July 18, 2018, 02:04:00 PM »

Drag... Not friction...

Drag on an aircraft is made of 3 components.

Skin friction drag ... the same as we see on this earth problem
Form drag ... not required
Lift induced drag ... not required for earth issue.

As Lift induced drag & form drag is zero, I can just ignore it and use the same formula to calculate the rest.

So in this case, friction is drag. A small component would be heat but I can approximate that to zero as well. I already gave the answer to this problem.

It feels as though you only read the first line...

Here are 2 highlights... please read and understand them...

the equation assumes the air to be still

friction applies to both the plane and the air

Drag is not friction, drag equations use the friction of STILL AIR.

Your calculations are right however, perfectly usable for a plane or other airborne craft which moves through still air.

The earth spins and the air spins with the earth, it does not provide friction.
There are winds on earth, but they are rather local and move in all directions, and while they may provide a small amount of friction, they do so in all directions, and they do so an insignificant amount anyways doe to the shear mass of the earth.

It is as though you only think one direction. That the air will affect the earth with friction while the earth would not affect the air, while it is mostly opposite, times a million.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: July 18, 2018, 01:42:12 PM »

Please stop.

Why? You seem to have this strange belief that wind tries to be stationary, always pushing against the spin of the earth in the RE model, and I'm simply explaining where you are wrong.
You seem to have the wrong fundamental logic in regards to friction at least, so at least correct that notion as that seems to be your primary argument, or explain why friction is a counter force as you claim.

Dude, I used to also be an Aerodynamicist for Airbus. I helped design aircraft like the A380 and A340. I know what friction is.

You can equate it using a drag formula.

drag is equivalent to lift in level flight with no speed change.

The lift equation is L=1/2pV^2SCl

I can substitute lift directly for drag to get the same equation.

Now if you use that formula which is now D=1/2pV^2SCd you stop the earth because S (your surface area) and V (the speed of earth spinning) are going to f you over. If you don't apply relativity, you stopped the earth.

I'm bored of this thread. It was too hard for the participants. You have all the answers.

Drag... Not friction...

Drag is the effect which slows down an airplane travelling through air, the equation assumes the air to be still.
Friction is the cause of drag, yes, but your trying to equate an airplane travelling through still air, to the earth always spinning through still air compared to its rotation.
Drag calculations doesn't even factor in that while the air will slow down the plane, the plane will speed up the air. This is friction, friction applies to both the plane and the air.

The plane with a weight of approximately 500 tons, vs the complete atmosphere of 6 quadrillion tons, will slow down the aircraft way way more than it will speed up the atmosphere.
Just like the atmosphere with a weight of 6 quadrillion tons will have basically no effect against the 6,000,000 quadrillion tons of the earth.
The atmosphere will move with the earth just like the plane will move with the air, friction at work, works both ways, biggest object wins.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: July 18, 2018, 01:24:00 PM »

Please stop.

Why? You seem to have this strange belief that wind tries to be stationary, always pushing against the spin of the earth in the RE model, and I'm simply explaining where you are wrong using as simple examples as I can think of.
You seem to have the wrong fundamental logic in regards to friction at least, so at least correct that notion as that seems to be your primary argument, or explain why friction is a counter force as you claim.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: July 18, 2018, 01:15:21 PM »

Friction isn't a counter force.

I'm going to single this out as stupid comment of the week.

You just don't get it.

Stand in front of a giant fan blowing air at you. It provides friction against you pushing you away from the fan. Do you slow down due to that friction?

It just seems you will never get it.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: July 18, 2018, 01:02:11 PM »

I just linked you about 4 sources showing you that their is friction at the surface. Friction is friction. It is a force counter to the direction of a moving object. Go back and have another think. Don't tell me there is no friction, when every source says there is.

You are wrong here as well. Friction isn't a counter force.

Lets try again with a different example, if we have a stationary earth with 1000 mph winds. BOTH the earth and the winds are affected by friction. The earth will start to spin a tiny bit by the friction, and the winds will slow down significantly by the friction. AKA, the earth will speed up, not slow down, due to the existing force of wind.

The winds on the surface of earth moves in all directions, providing both friction to theoretically speed up and slow down the spin of the earth due to friction almost equally. But this friction is as good as negligible due to the sheer mass of the earth compared to the tiny mass of the atmosphere.

Total atmosphere mass: approximately 6 quadrillion tons
Total earth mass: approximately 6,000,000 quadrillion tons

The atmosphere really stands no chance in a contest, and it already follows the spin of the earth. It isn't trying to slow the earth down in any way and even if it tried, if wouldn't do anything.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: July 18, 2018, 12:28:33 PM »

Apparently you don't get that wind follows the RE. Is that so hard to acknowledge?
Wind is generally caused by high and low temperatures meeting, nothing to do with the spin of earth.
Wind causes friction, but why would you think it doesn't cause friction in all directions, and why can't you comprehend that wind really doesn't have the power to prevent the earth from spinning, but instead its the earth providing spin to the air.
You just don't get it.

Let me explain it differently then...

Imagine the spherical earth with air on it, the earth isn't spinning, the air isn't moving. Is there any wind? No.
Imagine putting a camera with the ability to see wind far away from earth, always pointing at earth, always pointing from the same location relative to earth, it will follow the earth when it spins.
The camera will see a seemingly stationary earth with stationary air.

Now spin the earth, and from the camera you will see a seemingly stationary earth with winds at speeds of 1000 mph at the equator.
Lets reset, and instead of spinning the earth, we spin the earth and air at the same time, they are now spinning at the same speeds, the camera will see a seemingly stationary earth with stationary air.

The air as explained is moving with the earth, there is no force trying to stop the air from moving with the earth. What is different you might ask, very little.
Due to the spin of earth, matter closer to the equator is moving ever so slightly faster than matter further away, and this tiny difference which means nothing to the small scale of us actually provides enough difference in force that winds will tend to circulate in a clockwise rotation in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere.
If we lived on a non-spinning planet, it would be 50/50 if hurricanes ended up clockwise or counterclockwise, but since there is a bias due to the rotation of earth, it will provide the outcome from this.

11

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 18, 2018, 11:34:32 AM »

You apparently misunderstand the content of these theories.  Kepler's laws can be derived from Newton's laws, they are essentially equivalent.  Any calculation you wish to produce with either Newton's or Kepler's laws can be produced with GR.  GR is the only theory that you need request.  If you go back through the forum history, you will see that I provided with documentation on a model of the solar system that used GR, so perhaps go have a look at that and then come back and discuss?

Maybe you can actually produce what you state you have and then come back and discuss.

If GR was all there was to it, then Newton and Kepler go bye-bye...

Did you see anyone waving with a tear in their eye?

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.
Newtons law of gravity works.
Einsteins GR generalized Newtons law with his theory on Special Relativity (spacetime), providing answers to issues observed while only using Newtons law of gravity.

We still do not need GR to simulate our solar system, but it easily can and is way more complicated to implement for something which doesn't really change the outcome in our small solar system.

Let me give a similar example:
When we throw objects, if we remove the friction of air, we generally calculate the trajectory via a parabola and this works fine.
However when we throw the ball, the ball actually follows an orbital path, which just so happens to intersect the earth because we didn't throw it very far.
Correctly, we should use math for an orbital path, but we use math for a parabola because there is only a minimal difference which is basically undetectable, and calculating a parabola is way easier than calculating an orbit.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: July 18, 2018, 08:29:14 AM »

The earth is constantly spinning, there is no friction which tries to stop the spin.
The air is spinning with the earth, there is no friction which tries to stop the air.

If we assumed a starting point, where the air was not moving but the earth was spinning as it is now:

• We would get 1000 mph winds at the equator.
• The wind would slow down the earth due to friction by a tiny bit
• The earth would speed up the wind due to friction by a large amount
• After a long time the earth and the atmosphere would spin at the same speed, the earth would only spin a tiny bit slower having lost some kinetic energy to speed up the air
• They would now spin at the same rate basically forever, as there is no friction slowing them down

How is this so hard to understand for flat earthers.

Speed does not require power when there is no friction. Acceleration requires power.
Look up spinning tops in a vacuum, they spin for way longer because there is way less friction in vacuum.
In the complete vacuum of space, where there is no friction, a ball can spin forever without requiring any external force.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - falling slinky experiment

« on: July 17, 2018, 06:46:59 PM »

Regardless of other contentions, I hope we can agree that this particular argument is not strong, and that the thread title of "UA debunked" is a bit far-fetched in this instance.

I agree, slinky experiment proves absolutely nothing.

I have though seen some FEers claim a slinky is proof against RE gravity, but they were youtube FEers.

14

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 17, 2018, 06:29:26 PM »

Blah, blah, blah...

Take notice, you have produced NOTHING!

You can write about it all you want...you can clamor on and on and on...

In the end, even if you could do as you claim, your purty model would only be based on Newtonian physics (per your own claim) and include nothing of Kepler or Einstein.

If it was easy to make, we would already have it.

We do not.

Therefore, the science you proudly support and claim as gospel is INCORRECT and a bald-faced lie!

Why do you claim that I need all Kepler, Newtonian and Einstein physics? Why should we use all together? Explain what Kepler provides that Newtonian does not, explain why we need Einstein to simulate our tiny solar system?

You demand as much as you possibly can, because your only goal is to proclaim it is impossible. You demand without putting in any of the effort you require of the opposition. I've met the demands of several FEers, provided 3d models and all, but I would never do it for a demanding person as you.

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 17, 2018, 03:03:01 PM »

And that is where all of RE gets the complete kabosh.

You guys are promoting a complete and utter pile of unadulterated HOGWASH, plain, pure, and simple!

All this mystical and accurate math crapola you constantly put forth, stating: "THE MATH IS CLEAR AND IN FULL SUPPORT OF A SPHERICAL EARTH!"

Yet, when pressed to provide a COMPUTER PROGRAM (you know computers, right? the machine that PROCESSES AND RENDERS IMAGES CORRECTLY ACCORDING TO MATH INPUTS!) UTILIZING your sacred gods of RE in the rendering, what do we have?

"You gotta be satisfied with this BS..."

YOUR OWN SOURCE STATES IT USES: "...Newton mechanics or General Relativity..., NOT BOTH!

LMAO!!!

I'm sure I just stated that they overlap:

It would be impossible to make a simulation using all the methods simultaneously, as they overlap.

Yeah I did.

The source probably uses newtonian physics for solar systems and general relativity for binding them together in a small galaxy cluster, it doesn't use both for the same things as that would be an overlap.
I'm sure I also stated it would be near impossible to get the source code for more advanced simulations.
I'm also sure I stated that for our own solar system, it is quite easy to simulate only using Newtonian physics, hell I can even create that myself.

Do you even know anything about programming?
Well I do, I know how 3d graphics work, I've created my own raytracing camera once which perfectly showed a perspective image, I've created a solar system with planets orbiting a sun, with moons orbiting the planets (not our own solar system though), using the very simple concept of gravity that FEers have an extremely hard time to grasp.
You demand simulations, you demand source code, you probably won't even understand the source code even if you got exactly what you asked for anyways.

Listen, I understand enough to know this...

Your mad hatter scientists of your holy RE temples claim that Einstein GR, Kepler, and Newton math are in agreement and not "overlapping," as you deceivingly phrase it.

Your own source states it uses one or the other and not all in concert, as your own scientists state it must be.

It is patently evident you do not even understand your own writing and hence your claim you have created your own CGI models of the solar system based only on Newtonian physics is also a bunch of BS and you need to stop making such provably false claims on the internet.

All I needed to use was this:

The formula is F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2), where F is the force of attraction between the two bodies, G is the universal gravitational constant, m sub 1 is the mass of the first object, m sub 2 is the mass of the second object and r is the distance between the centers of each object.

Newtons law of gravity, simple as that.

As stated, I didn't simulate our own solar system, but if I had placed the planets correctly, given them correct mass, and given them their initial speed, I would have created a model of our solar system.
Then I would need to apply spin to the objects aswell as light from the sun and perhaps a static star background, and I would then be able to see all our observations in the sky.

That is all it takes, and there are many simulations out there of our solar system, since it is so easy to make.

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 17, 2018, 02:08:58 PM »

And that is where all of RE gets the complete kabosh.

You guys are promoting a complete and utter pile of unadulterated HOGWASH, plain, pure, and simple!

All this mystical and accurate math crapola you constantly put forth, stating: "THE MATH IS CLEAR AND IN FULL SUPPORT OF A SPHERICAL EARTH!"

Yet, when pressed to provide a COMPUTER PROGRAM (you know computers, right? the machine that PROCESSES AND RENDERS IMAGES CORRECTLY ACCORDING TO MATH INPUTS!) UTILIZING your sacred gods of RE in the rendering, what do we have?

"You gotta be satisfied with this BS..."

YOUR OWN SOURCE STATES IT USES: "...Newton mechanics or General Relativity..., NOT BOTH!

LMAO!!!

I'm sure I just stated that they overlap:

It would be impossible to make a simulation using all the methods simultaneously, as they overlap.

Yeah I did.

The source probably uses newtonian physics for solar systems and general relativity for binding them together in a small galaxy cluster, it doesn't use both for the same things as that would be an overlap.
I'm sure I also stated it would be near impossible to get the source code for more advanced simulations.
I'm also sure I stated that for our own solar system, it is quite easy to simulate only using Newtonian physics, hell I can even create that myself.

Do you even know anything about programming?
Well I do, I know how 3d graphics work, I've created my own raytracing camera once which perfectly showed a perspective image, I've created a solar system with planets orbiting a sun, with moons orbiting the planets (not our own solar system though), using the very simple concept of gravity that FEers have an extremely hard time to grasp.
You demand simulations, you demand source code, you probably won't even understand the source code even if you got exactly what you asked for anyways.

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 17, 2018, 01:14:46 PM »

you are aware that no CGI representation (utilizing KEPLER and NEWTON formulas and GR) of the movement of the EARTH, SOLAR SYSTEM, AND GALAXIES, exists?

Disagree. I've got one on my iPad for Earth and Solar System.

No, you do not.

Provide the program code that provides clear, unadulterated evidence of the use of Kepler, Newton, and GR formulas in the source material.

Otherwise, apologize to the forum for making such a claim and immediately cease posting here on this forum.

You got him there, ay.

It would be impossible to make a simulation using all the methods simultaneously, as they overlap.

There are plenty of simulators that use the Newtonian physics to simulate the solar system.

Quick search finds a Java project simulating 24 solar systems using newtonian and GR:
https://github.com/nicokuijpers/SolarSystemSimulator

You wont find source code for the more advanced simulators, as people generally want to make money on the advanced stuff they create.

Besides, simulating our entire galaxy where we have very limited information about the makeup of planets is as good as impossible.
Simulating our solar system is easy, and really only requires Newtonian physics.

Scientists finally created a simulation recently, which could actually simulate an entire universe being created, forming galaxies similar to the forms we observe in our universe, though this simulation still can't form all the planets, it is a huge step forward.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal Acceleration - falling slinky experiment

« on: July 17, 2018, 09:20:57 AM »

Pete is right.
UA on FE is generally indistinguishable from RE gravity on earth.

But there are many differences, though they are harder to detect:

Since the earth is not a perfect sphere, there are locations where gravity is slightly less or more on RE.
Since the earth is spinning, the gravitational force at the equator is negated ever so slightly from the centrifugal force on RE.
Gravity on RE is dependent on the distance to the object, and as such we have lower gravitational force at higher altitudes.
Since the moon is so big and close, it also opposes the gravitational force, most noticeable by creating tides both on the earth side facing the moon and the opposite side of earth on RE.
The sun is so far away from RE, that it really makes no difference in the forces here on earth.

On FE, the excuse is Celestial Gravitation, which doesn't explain the constant gravitational difference at the equator, doesn't explain tides at the opposite side of the moons location, and doesn't explain why the sun doesn't create tides like the moon (even though its the same altitude and size), it also doesn't explain lesser gravitational force at higher altitudes or different locations.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Everest challenge

« on: July 17, 2018, 08:26:34 AM »

Thanks for that. What if modify the challenge to reflect what you have just told me?  Would this be any use then? I would appreciate any suggestions you might have.

I don't think it matters...
FEers will defend their right to blame it on perspective, even though they haven't defined their perspective to any degree yet.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Everest challenge

« on: July 17, 2018, 07:44:11 AM »

Here's a challenge for you.
Stand on the highest point in your area with a telescope. Aim in the general direction of Mt Everest. Everest is the highest  point on earth so if the earth is really flat then you should be able to see it's peak. If anyone can achieve this then I will accept that the earth is flat (no excuse about perspective please. The moon and other heavenly bodies can been seen using a telescope and they are further away.)

From 20.000 km distance, Mount Everest would be 1/20th the apparent size of the sun/moon (0.025 degrees).
On RE, Mount Everest would disappear at about 350 km distance due to curvature (unless you are standing on another mountain).
At 350 km, Mount Everest would be approximately 3 times the apparent size of the sun/moon degrees (1.5 degrees).

So basically, if you can see Mount Everest from 500 km distance, standing at an altitude lower than 1 km, you would prove the RE wrong.