Pages: [1]   Go Down

Offline AnicientFire1211

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Logged
Mount Everest?
« on: March 12, 2019, 02:54:32 AM »
If Earth really was flat, wouldn't we be able to see Mount Everest from almost any point on Earth with a telescope?
this question came in my mind and thought i would share it
*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2019, 04:50:21 AM »
Quote from: AnicientFire1211 on March 12, 2019, 02:54:32 AM
If Earth really was flat, wouldn't we be able to see Mount Everest from almost any point on Earth with a telescope?
this question came in my mind and thought i would share it

Great question, but generally no, you would not be able to see it.
Haze in the air makes it very difficult to see anything terrestrial beyond 100-200 miles.

HOWEVER, if the sun was setting on the far side of Mt. Everest from you, you should be able to see the top of the mountain silhouetted in front of the setting sun.

Because the sun is often seen sliding down behind distant mountain ranges.
 
*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2019, 06:09:33 AM »
The current world record for a distant image capture is 443 km (275 miles).
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

The question becomes, as alluded to in the above post, how can a non-setting FE sun cast a shadow from a mountain upward on to the top of the highest mountain on earth?


https://media.istockphoto.com/videos/mt-everest-at-sunset-video-id539252432

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2019, 05:14:47 PM »
If light rays travel almost straight (yes, they do refract in the atmosphere, there will be small errors due to refraction):

The sun on the most common FE model circles above the earth (3100 mi?) between the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn. At no point will anyone see it as "behind" any mountain.

If there is some major light bending in the atmoplane:

Until the bending is defined by equations and confirmed by experimental observation, we do not know exactly how the light is bending. Until that is nailed down, we don't know where anything is.

Thoise are the 2 FE choices. Impossible and don't know.
I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.
*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2019, 10:58:22 PM »
Research the Wiki on electromagnetic acceleration and the resultant equation which contains the honorary Bishop constant which is yet to be defined. It is completely unsatisfactory in its explanation, but it is a proposal of sorts.
BobLawBlah.
*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2019, 04:46:01 PM »
What I find confusing about this equation is that it appears stable against perturbations from its equilibrium position.

That is, this is a trajectory equation. But it appears that if a light Ray is traveling straight down, there will be no deflection at all! Mathematically, there can only be a deflection if the motion has a component in the x direction, which seems strange, since this relation is supposed to hold for y >> x.

I would love to see the original expression that Tom Bishop used to derive this result. Leaving a clear trail of breadcrumbs is essential for the scientific community to take this seriously.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline jimster

  • *
  • Posts: 288
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2019, 05:19:00 PM »
"leaving a clear trail of breadcrumbs is essential to the scientific community to take this seriously."

When you say scientific community, do you mean professors from Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, etc., or do you mean D Marble and Jeranism?

Assuming you mean the conventional scientific community, I thought that publishing a paper was what the scientific community takes seriously. Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Special Theory of Relativity, etc.

Looking forward to Tom Bishop's submission and publication. If he's got a tight theory, why not? What would stop him?

Or do you mean the scientific community of FE web sites?
I am really curious about so many FE things, like how at sunset in Denver, people in St Louis see the dome as dark with stars, while people in Salt Lake City see the same dome as light blue. FE scientists don't know or won't tell me.
*

Offline ISupportFET (JustKidding)

  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Ima Ostrich!
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2019, 07:17:37 PM »
@WellRoundedIndividual: Is the article called "Electromagnetic Propulsion"?
*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2019, 07:34:50 PM »
Quote from: ISupportFET (JustKidding) on March 13, 2019, 07:17:37 PM
@WellRoundedIndividual: Is the article called "Electromagnetic Propulsion"?

No. It is thus:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

QED, yes, I agree. I wasn't to keen on it, because it was just a word salad with no mathematical proof showing the derivation of the equation.
BobLawBlah.
*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2019, 08:06:51 PM »
I did not come up with the equation and can't speak on its history. It is supposed to be describing a pheonomenon which causes light to bend upwards as so:

« Last Edit: March 13, 2019, 09:09:13 PM by Tom Bishop »
*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2019, 03:02:45 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 13, 2019, 08:06:51 PM
I did not come up with the equation and can't speak on its history. It is supposed to be describing a pheonomenon which causes light to bend upwards as so:



I would still very much like to understand if it is just sheer coincidence that the globers claim a parabola for the first 1000 miles for earth curve and the UA theory also contains a parabolic component.
*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2019, 03:09:21 PM »
Quote from: jimster on March 13, 2019, 05:19:00 PM
"leaving a clear trail of breadcrumbs is essential to the scientific community to take this seriously."

When you say scientific community, do you mean professors from Harvard, MIT, Cal Tech, etc., or do you mean D Marble and Jeranism?

Assuming you mean the conventional scientific community, I thought that publishing a paper was what the scientific community takes seriously. Like Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Special Theory of Relativity, etc.

Looking forward to Tom Bishop's submission and publication. If he's got a tight theory, why not? What would stop him?

Or do you mean the scientific community of FE web sites?

I mean any community that does science. A body of researchers that publish are not necessarily scientists. Just look at intelligent design. Proponents of this theory could not get it published in scientific journals - because it does not meet the criteria for a scientific theory. So what did they do? Created their own journals where they stood as the “peers” and published peer-reviewed articles on it.

It is surprisingly easy to fool untrained folks into believing pure bullshit is science.

When I say scientists, I mean anyone doing science. Unfortunately, it is usually only other scientists who can distinguish the charlatans.

Case in point: Deepak Chopra. Grade A charlatan.

Apparently it was Parsifal who made this equation. I plan on reaching out to him to make some movement on it.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior
*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10178
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2019, 04:33:19 PM »
Quote from: QED on March 23, 2019, 03:09:21 PM
Apparently it was Parsifal who made this equation. I plan on reaching out to him to make some movement on it.

This work was done around a decade or so ago on the other site. I know Parsifal did do some work on it, but if I recall correctly, Euclid came up with the equation in question, which can be found here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.msg661776#msg661776

It is possible I am mixing up what each person was working, however.
*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Logged
Re: Mount Everest?
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2019, 05:49:36 PM »
Quote from: junker on March 23, 2019, 04:33:19 PM
Quote from: QED on March 23, 2019, 03:09:21 PM
Apparently it was Parsifal who made this equation. I plan on reaching out to him to make some movement on it.

This work was done around a decade or so ago on the other site. I know Parsifal did do some work on it, but if I recall correctly, Euclid came up with the equation in question, which can be found here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.msg661776#msg661776

It is possible I am mixing up what each person was working, however.

Thank you for the resource. That is helpful.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior
Pages: [1]   Go Up