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 - Iceman

Pages: < Back  1 ... 36 37 [38] 39  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration
« on: September 11, 2020, 06:32:20 PM »
Hi Pete, fair point on the DE response - I'll do some more digging around the wiki (but might also suggest that could be clarified on the EA page for future readers)

I'm still confused as to the statement of limitation of the equation to scenarios when y>>x. I'm asking specifically as EA is argued to provide the answer to why clouds are lit from the underside during sunrise and sunset, but the equation isnt valid for those times, where exactly does that leave things?

I should make it clear that I'm not trying to disprove the equation by any means, just understand how it is used to explain this commonly observed phenomenon.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration
« on: September 11, 2020, 04:20:27 PM »
To jump in on this, there are a few questions that came up from reading the wiki page on EA.

The article states that the equation provided for curvature only works when y (vertical distance of Ray's path) is much greater than x ( horizontal distance of Ray's path). If the sun is 3000 km up, how is this equation valid at sunset/sunrise, when the sun is at a horizontal distance of >6,000 km based on the models of night and day depicted on FE maps?

The other question relates to the inclusion of the Bishop constant, which relates to the magnitude of acceleration of a horizontal light ray induced by dark energy. How exactly does dark energy fit within a flat earth worldview when it was only discovered recently, though astronomical investigations, which are dismissed as pseudoscience in various articles within the wiki, and by the words of numerous FE proponents in various fora on this site.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications
« on: September 11, 2020, 12:31:41 PM »
If there were active seismic waves (I.e. from a major event that causes notable vibrations of the the earth) passing by, we wouldn't be able to get our readings. As I mentioned earlier, the passing of large trucks forced us to pause because the vibrations made it impossible to take a reading.

We actually do multiple types of seismic investigations as well. Seismic reflection surveys involve a seismic source (vibrator or shockwave) and a series of receivers (think micro phones). As you said, different media transmits seismic waves differently (denser media transmit the waves the fastest, and the energy of the wave is both reflected and refracted at interfaces between layers of different properties. By measuring the time and amplitude of the seismic energy reflected back upward to the receivers, we essentially get a picture of the geometry and layering of different materials beneath the surface.

 In exploration contexts, the gravity survey will tell us whether there is a valley beneath your feet, the seismic survey will gives you clues as to what's actually in filling the valley, and then drilling will allow you to measure the properties, test the chemistry, measure permeability etc..

Gravimeters are absolutely able to detect ground vibrations from seismic waves. The problem is that gravimeters are so sensitive that they cant actually read them.

Since they both do they same thing- measure acceleration  they are similar instruments, but the nature of the accelerations they measure  (the enormous differences in their amplitudes and frequencies) requires them to be built very differently.  I would say you can think of them like boats. Depending on where you want to go, you would want a different type of boat. A 12-foot aluminum boat is great for getting you up and down a flat stretch of river, but I wouldn't want to be caught in one in the middle of a big lake on a windy day!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications
« on: September 10, 2020, 12:14:14 PM »
To be fair, gravimeter measurements are noisy, and if you tried to take measurements during a seismic event, the additional accelerations would make it impossible. The instruments are so sensitive that we had a had time completing a survey along a busy road because any large trucks driving by created enough vibrations that we had to wait until they had passed.

But there are still large, pronounced responses that are observed in exploration surveys (whether that's for mineral deposits or groundwater incestigations) that we know with a very high degree of certainty are caused by varying properties of material beneath our feet, namely the different local distribution of mass.

 in the examples provided above, the noise level would be like repeatedly using one of those rolling distance measuring wheels to measure the distance around the curved part of a regulation Olympic sized track then plotting the difference in measurements you get in millimeters. You'll never get exactly 100 m, but you can get really close every time.

This just wasnt the discussion I wanted to have, but not that weve gone through the measurement and precision side of things, maybe we'll be able to move toward the issue at hand of the observed changes in force at different locations and at different times. I would argue that these data support the idea that the force is gravity and is problematic for a constant upward acceleration concept, but would happily consider other options to explain the phenomena that account for the observations

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications
« on: September 10, 2020, 02:35:24 AM »
Hey Tom, thanks for the continued input. Interesting study you linked about the gravimeter calibration and apparent drift.

I would point out the scale on the y axis, and that the 'typical noise' range is 20 nm/s2... converted into standard g values, that's 2.039x10^-9 g in noise.... that's a lot of significant figures to carry around.

The bouguer gravity anomalies that define buried valleys and mineral deposits are about three orders of magnitude stronger (lower value of~1.5 mGal from the paper I cited earlier).

Again I emphasize that the readings are then ground truthed in exploration studies, so we can then verify whether the observed differences in pull match with the density contrasts of the rock/sediment beneath.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications
« on: September 09, 2020, 08:23:55 PM »
East-west profiles over short distances (1-3km) still register the local changes in gravimeter readings I'm talking about. This isnt just theory about density changes though. The subsurface properties are investigated by drilling and measurement of density/specific gravity etc.

You're 100% right that gravimeters dont measure gravity directly. They measure a pull on a mass.

BUT. Thousands of measurements spanning all the continents over many decades document changes in the pull over local scales. These are correlated with the observed properties of subsurface media (rocks, sediments, ice, water) in exploration settings, or with sun-moon positions, as you alluded to. Collectively, the local variations of the pull measured from all these gravimeters point to spatial and temporal variations in that pull. This collection of measurements and supporting ground truthing data is the evidence that gravity is the force exerting the pull, rather than a uniform upward acceleration.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity - measurement and applications
« on: September 09, 2020, 07:46:24 PM »
Tom, thanks for providing the link to the wiki. It was an interesting read. My questions stemmed from that, and I will try to rephrase.

My issue is that the gravimeter readings of local changes in relative pull, as the wiki puts it, are supported by the subsequent drilling of boreholes and measurement of the properties from the subsurface materials. In mining camp settings, there are hundreds of boreholes drilled to provide the necessary ground-truthing.

I would argue that the wiki article misrepresents the density differences that are interpreted from the changing reading on gravimeters. It's really the total amount of mass beneath the meter (the relative densities of subsurface materials just influence the total mass because denser materials have more mass per unit volume).

The other issue is the seismometer-gravimeter comparison. The wiki article seems to argue that the fact that the two are variations of the same setup invalidates either of them. That's just not true because both are devices that measure acceleration. Why would they need to be different? The fact that they differ in precision and frequency is a function of the nature of the acceleration they are developed to measure at-large amplitude high frequency seismic waves vs. Low amplitude low frequency gravitational variations.

The wiki article does no seem to provide any explanation as to why the relative pull measured by a gravimeter would change over small areas, nor why temporal changes in gravitational strength are observed across large areas.

If you could provide further clarification to those last points that would be great!

Edit, these variations are often in the interior portions of tectonic plates and far from mountains or other features

Flat Earth Theory / Gravity - measurement and applications
« on: September 09, 2020, 07:11:38 PM »
The gravity vs. Upward acceleration/ equivalency principle arguments are an interesting set of discussions. They commonly quote the constant value of 9.8 m/s2 for g. This is true enough for our every day lives.

The problem is that Earth's gravity is nowhere near that uniform once to start using more sensitive instruments in different areas - i.e. the significant digits after 9.8 become significant to the discussion. Gravitational strength varies based on a number of regional factors, like your latitude (because of the earth's rotation, you weigh very slightly less at the equator than you do at the poles, even though you're at a greater distance to the center of the earth).

Ignoring large regional effects, local variations in earth's gravity occur over as little as tens of meters! And in mapping out these changes, weve been able to discover geologic features like buried mineral deposits, oil and gas reservoirs, and buried bedrock valleys that may host large aquifers capable of supplying groundwater for large municipalities. (e.g. Greenhouse and Williams, 1986. A gravity survey of the Dundas buried valley west of Copetown, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.23: 110-114 available free online)

Aside from the multi-billion dollar applications of gravity for exploration, understanding temporal variations in earth's gravity is becoming increasingly effective. The GRACE satellite system can now detect tiny changes in gravitational strength that relate to changes in water and ice storage on land on seasonal and multi-year timescales. These help measure climate change impacts and long-term over use of major aquifer systems that are causing subsidence problems in many cities (examples in California and Arizona are widespread in google searches )

How do these measured changes in local acceleration due to gravity fit within a FE framework? The UA would induce an apparent acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 uniformly across earth's plane, and the equivalency principle is really only valid for local reference frames and cannot account for these local variations.

Flat Earth Theory / Antarctic fossil finds
« on: September 09, 2020, 05:06:31 PM »
Hundreds of fossils have been recovered from various parts of Antarctica. These range from plants, sea creatures, large reptiles and dinosaurs, to coal beds. In particular, large reptile fossils (Lystrosaurus) that date back to the Triassic Period can be found across the interior of the continent, and are also found in bands across southern India, Africa, and South America. *there is an excellent page outlining lots of these on the Geological Society's website, and hundreds of images, journal articles, and news reports can be found by a quick search on google and/or researchgate.

These fossils, the wide variety of rocks which contain them, and the additional older igneous and metamorphic rocks underlying those, demonstrate that the Antarctic continent has a dynamic geologic past. They provide evidence for long-term plate tectonics, by suggesting it was once connected to parts of the other continents mentioned above, and that the climate in the area was warm enough for large reptiles to live (unlike the modern tundra environment we know today, now that it is located at the south pole).

How do these observations of fossil abundances and diversity within the rocks of the Antarctic continent fit within a flat earth framework, where the leading views (monopole model) advocate that Antarctica  is an unknown part of the earth surrounded by an ice wall with only minor rock outcrops (source:fes wiki)?

Italics added to correct an originally misquoted statement.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA claims Flat and Fake Apollo Missions
« on: September 09, 2020, 04:46:18 PM »
No-Man, where does the space conspiracy start? Moon landings fake, Hubble telescope fake, photos of earth from space fake?

... but GPS is okay? Weather satellites that identify and track tropical storms and hurricanes are okay? Satellite phones  and internet are okay?

I have a hard time understanding where the line is between "obviously fake" things like moon landings and the ISS, when we use data and technology in earth's orbit every single day...

Flat Earth Community / Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
« on: August 26, 2020, 10:05:21 PM »
Some cheap community-based tests to evaluate aspects of claims/predictions of FE and RE models:

1. Get a group of people, spread over as broad a range of latitudes (north and south of the equator) as possible, to measure the shadow length of n object of fixed height at their local solar noon on the upcoming fall equinox. Have them record their coordinates, take photos of their setup and shadow measurement, and conduct it in a public place, with identifiable landmarks. Post pictures and readings so that all reported coordinates, and measurements can be cross-validated by anyone who wishes to do so.

2. Minimum 3 people - one in southern america, one in southern africa, one in southern Australi/New Zealand - point their cameras due south, record star trails on the same night.

3. Take a long-haul southern hemisphere flight, bring a GPS with you. Take way point measurements every ~15 minutes or so. Plot the path you take, use the distance between points and time interval to evaluate for any changes in speed during the flight.

4. Obtain tide gauge data (public domain) for ports along oceans following seismic events that produce a  tsunami. Time interval between the seismic event (also public domain) and the arrival of tsunami waves at different coasts allows for the calculation of distance the wave has travelled.

5. Conduct your own pendulum experiments

6. Evaluate refractive effects of light bending over water by adding observers and instrumentation ( temperature, humidity etc) in between land-based observers, and ships dissapearing over the 'apparent' horizon.

Those are the cheapest and easiest experiments I can come up with. There are undoubtedly many others. In this age of instant communication, remember that it doesnt necessarily take big money to produce big data. Just ensure strict protocols are followed and record everything you do so that others can verify and replicate your work. Best of luck to you!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tsunami travel times across Pacific Ocean
« on: August 23, 2020, 07:49:48 PM »
Hey Tom,

Fair question. The map you copied that I had originally linked is indeed partially simulated, but anchored with observed data. We dont have enough data to make perfect maps of the tsunami wave fronts, but by integrating tidal gauge data from pacific islands and coastal regions, with bathymetric data, there's more than enough data to compare observed wave arrival times, seismic event origin, and compute travel distances to evaluate maps advanced within anycomepting worldviews.

The pink lines I drew on the FE map represent the distances the tsunami wave front would have travelled over 14 hours, using actual (but approximated, due to me using my fingertips on my phone) observed travel times from the 1960 Chilean earthquake ( see link below). That tsunami wave traveled from Santiago to Hawaii in 15 hours, then reached the coast of Japan in 22 hours.

Other examples would be the reported tsunami arrival times after the 2004 Christmas weekend tsunami that affected a huge region of coasts along the Indian Ocean from Indonesia to Australia to the east coast of Africa.

Hope that helps clarify things!

Flat Earth Theory / Tsunami travel times across Pacific Ocean
« on: August 23, 2020, 03:48:01 PM »
Another geology question to toss out there:

Published arrival times of tsunami waves across the Pacific Ocean appear to be consistent with distances between shores portrayed on map projections within a Round Earth framework.

When a seismic event occurs, we can triangulate its epicenter through analysis of the arrival times of the different types of seismic waves recorded at seismometers at different locations on earth. From there, arrival times of tsunami waves have historically been recorded by analysis of tide gauge data at various coastal locations around the Pacific. Tsunami waves travel at ~500 mph, depending on water depth; with the waves traveling faster in deeper water than shallow water. This causes the waves to 'pile up' when they approach shorelines, increasing their height, and leading to destruction of life and property on land.
For more detailed descriptions and sources, go to the USGS, NOAA, or BGS websites, or there are many available research papers available through Researchgate.

The image below shows two separate data sets (very crudely) plotted on a standard FE map (I had to crop out big areas to get it u der max file size for display here). The first, coloured dots, are derived from this map of travel times from a 1975 tsunami originated at Hawaii (data from The source location is shown with purple dot, 5-hour travel times in red, 10-hour times in yellow, and 15-hour times in green. I decided not to drawn lines to connect those locations (as is done in the linked map for a RE).

The second set of data shows the Chilean mega thrust earthquake of 1960. The pink lines connect the source, near Santiago, to the American coast near Los Angeles and to the Northeastern New Zealand coast. Both of these locations reported tsunami wave arrivals after 14 hours.

Can someone explain these observations?

Wow, I really didnt think I made many claims in my response, but alright. Apparently there is severe skepticism of the utility/accuracy of GPS, passengers on airplanes, circumpolar ocean currents, and the fact that wind is just gas moving from ares of high pressure to low pressure.

I'll just leave this one alone...

Hey Tron,

Thanks for weighing in and adding to the discussing! Interesting points, appreciate you taking the time to chime in!


Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather balloon from Antarctica
« on: August 21, 2020, 09:24:38 PM »
There arent restrictions on north pole airspace, nor antarctic. Launching a weather balloon anywhere requires a permit, the same way most countries require licensing for drone pilots.

Published maps of antarctic balloon paths show circular paths, typically creating paths around the pole during their lascent. My argument is that once any balloon gets high enough, a camera pointed down at earth's surface would provide evidence as to the shape of the continent - whether it 'looks' like it does in map projections for a round earth, as displayed in journal publications, and satellite imagery from numerous agencies, or whether it is a long, curving ice wall, as depicted in various FE maps.

Easypeasy, valuable information either way :)


Those are some excellent quotes from some great sources :) the Australian, British, and US Antarctic surveys have many additional fantastic resources to choose from as well. Journal of Geophysical research is a fantastic journal, that supports Open Access publication, so the full texts of lots of peer-reviewed articles available for free download. Awesome stuff!

The thing you didnt mention for OP though is that the causes of those winds are very well understood, owing to Hadley Cell development due to the Coriolis effect, and because below about 55 degrees south, a southern circumpolar current exists because there is no land to obstruct the flow of shallow or deep ocean waters. These currents alone would create difficult weather conditions, but they're enhanced further due to upwelling along Antarctica's coast, and from katabatic winds driven outward from the interior cold regions of the Antarxtic ice sheet.

Despite these, commercial airliners dont have too many problems completing long flights like NZ to Chile or Argentina to South Africa, or south Africa to Australia. And return flights take approximately the same length of time, plus or minus a bit due to the winds, just as any standard flight does.


Flat Earth Investigations / Weather balloon from Antarctica
« on: August 20, 2020, 11:12:45 PM »
Hey, I have a decent idea for a couple simple investigations that can be turned into an effective test.

First, crowd-fund a leading FE-er to take the chartered flight to the south pole, where they get to spend 5-6 days there trying around, and would have free time to conduct some basic studies (magnetic inclination and declination mapping as an example)

Second option: convince one of the many agencies operating in antarctica, that they should install a camera and livestream the ascent from any one of the dozens of weather balloon launches. This would (depending on cloud cover) effectively show the shape of the Antarctic continent, one way or the other.

Chartered trips to the south pole are just over 50k USD. I'm not sure what the costs of adding a video stream to a weather balloon launch would be.

Hi Bikini,

I didnt mean to imply anything in my response to your post with the link to the wiki. Was only trying to reaffirm that I'm requesting clarification from anyone who views the earth as a flat surface as to the nature of geologic processes in such a model. Despite some lingering uncertainties, the processes that govern the phenomena listed in my original questions are well accounted for within a round earth framework, as is currently taught in schools.

 You might be right that the answers to my original questions are still unknowns within FET. I would completely agree with you that if anyone with a firmer background in flat earth mechanics can provide background as to how these processes can operate within FET,  the contribution would be welcomed,  as these issues are not seemingly addressed in videos or provided literature from this or other flat earth websites.

Hi Tom, thanks again for continued input on this discussion.

I feel, however, that you're cherry-picking definitions of certain things, while ignoring some of the points I'm trying to understand. You've quoted oxford's definition of an experiment, but not their definition of science. You've focused on experimentation as the root of all science, while ignoring the examples I've given of laboratory experiments that provide the confirmation of the theories that were developed based on detailed field observations with controlled environment.

Thanks for your input, and I respect your right to believe what you feel is right, but I dont think it will be particularly productive for either of us to continue the discussion of the merits of geologic studies as a science any further.

On the other hand, if you (or anyone else) has any additional perspectives to offer on how geologic processes are explained within flat earth models, I'll be happy to read them.

Thanks again to the contributors so far.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 36 37 [38] 39  Next >