7061

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for Flat Earthers

« on: November 07, 2017, 09:02:31 PM »

Actually the chain of debate goes as follows:

RE: Look at these Round Earth distances compared to this hypothetical Flat Earth model I found!! They prove Flat Earth fake!

FE: Actually, we do not have an official map or layout of the earth because we cannot trust those distances, as they rely on a Round Earth coordinate system which has never been demonstrated to be accurate.

RE: GPS is true fact, prove me wrong!

FE: If that is your positive claim you are putting fourth, that is your burden to show.

RE: Wahhhh x 8 pages

The coordinate system we use is shown to be correct at all times.

Source?

Please give some examples where it is not, and not 'we can't, it's too difficult for us'.

Can't you read? That is your positive claim to demonstrate.

7062

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does flat earth account for flight times?

« on: November 07, 2017, 07:47:37 PM »

Airspeed indicator devices are not accurate and are not used in navigation.

Please provide your reference for this claim.

See this exchange with Curious Squirrel:

I'll link you again that air speed is NOT measured by how much ground they cover, but by the speed of the plane through the air. As explained here the speed of a plane is measured based on the air it goes through, using standard nautical miles. If you wish to explain how a Flat Earth mile differs from a Round Earth mile, I'm all ears. But I'm not sure such a claim can hold water in any sort of honest debate.

Airspeed is not reliable, as the plane is traveling in fluids which are traveling within fluids. All instruments which measure how fast air is passing by the craft are unreliable. Your website directly states that it is considered rather useless and is not used in navigation.

Read this quote from your link:

Knowing TAS (True Airspeed) during flight is surprisingly useless - for navigation, ground speed is needed

Groundspeed is computed by measuring with some reference to coordinates based on a Round Earth model.

7063

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does flat earth account for flight times?

« on: November 07, 2017, 07:40:22 PM »

How does the pilot know that the amount of consumed fuel equates to a true distance traveled rather than a distance traveled according to the Round Earth coordinate system?

The round earth coordinate system has nothing to do with measured distances by an object travelling at a given speed for a given time.

The plane would need to know how fast it is traveling.

Airspeed indicator devices are not accurate and are not used in navigation. It is not possible to create an odometer for an airplane to guess how fast it is moving through the air. It is measuring fluids traveling within fluids. The airspeed of fluids against the wings is only used in things like banking maneuvers.

Groundspeed indicators which measure against the ground (such as GPS) are based on a Round Earth coordinate system, and would produce a Round Earth result.

7064

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does flat earth account for flight times?

« on: November 07, 2017, 07:28:42 PM »

How does the pilot know that the amount of consumed fuel equates to a true distance traveled rather than a distance traveled according to the Round Earth coordinate system?

Equally questionable, how does the pilot know that the time of flight equates to distance traveled? Cruising speed? How did these airplanes get their cruising speed calculated? Based on a distance provided by a Round Earth coordinate system?

7065

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Genuine question about photographic evidence

« on: November 07, 2017, 07:26:22 PM »

You need to prove your own positive claims right.

Exactly - you have to prove that there is a space travel conspiracy. You're asking us to prove that there is no conspiracy, instead of trying to prove your own positive claim that there is one.

Expressing skepticism and questioning your fantastical claims of the existence of space ships is not creating a positive claim. It is questioning your positive claim.  It is the party bringing those things as evidence to the discussion who must meet all challenges.

WE are the skeptics. YOU are the claimant.

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts, is the burden of proof on the skeptic questioning the existence of ghosts, or is the burden of proof on the claimant who is mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist"?

False.

I have already addressed that video, please refer to the original discussion.

7066

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does flat earth account for flight times?

« on: November 07, 2017, 07:11:09 PM »

This sums up FE belief. You can't accept that the Earth is round, so you must reject every article of evidence and science that conflicts with your belief.

Distances not verified. Can you honestly say that you believe all these planes have not verified distances and don't know how far they are flying each day. How you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously with claims like that?

How does the pilot know that the output from the round earth coordinate system is exactly true?

7067

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for Flat Earthers

« on: November 07, 2017, 06:49:02 PM »

Actually the chain of debate goes as follows:

RE: Look at these Round Earth distances compared to this hypothetical Flat Earth model I found!! They prove Flat Earth fake!

FE: Actually, we do not have an official map or layout of the earth because we cannot trust those distances, as they rely on a Round Earth coordinate system which has never been demonstrated to be accurate.

RE: GPS is true fact, prove me wrong!

FE: If that is your positive claim you are putting fourth, that is your burden to show.

RE: Wahhhh x 8 pages

7068

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Genuine question about photographic evidence

« on: November 07, 2017, 06:42:00 PM »

The hundreds (thousands?) if images from space, could perhaps, possibly be fake. So they're inconclusive.... Doesn't this mean you need to prove every single image is fake?

No one needs to "prove you wrong". You need to prove your own positive claims right.

Every image from space has to be fake for FE to have a snowballs chance in hell, do they not? I would love to hear how you can rationally disagree with that.

Not every image is fake. Some amatur balloonists who send dirigibles near the edge of space see a very flat earth, which we have pointed out rather extensively. Any curvature otherwise seen by amateurs at further extreme altitudes has also been pointed out to be elliptical in nature, rather than an arc of a circle, suggesting that we are looking down at a circle of the sun's light.

7069

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does flat earth account for flight times?

« on: November 07, 2017, 06:33:34 PM »

There is no Flat Earth map.

You mean it is not possible to use measured distances to produce a map that shows the earth is flat.

The problem with creating a map and model is that those "measured distances" rely on a Round Earth coordinate system to compute a distance. No one has ever verified the accuracy of the distances computed from that coordinate system. No one has ever taken a tape measurer across the Atlantic to verify the spherical lat/lon distances, for example.

If we accept the round earth coordinate system as true, we might as well accept that the earth is round. The claim that GPS, or whatever Round Earth coordinate device, is true and accurate, is a positive claim brought to these discussions which must be demonstrated as accurate.

7070

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does flat earth account for flight times?

« on: November 07, 2017, 04:29:21 PM »

There is no Flat Earth map.

7071

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Startrails in the southern hemisphere

« on: November 05, 2017, 06:37:19 PM »

Why did you guys stop researching? Keep reading the Flat Earth research published after Earth Not a Globe.

7072

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you believe in UA why would gravity be weaker inside a mineshaft?

« on: November 03, 2017, 05:08:50 AM »

No, they aren't empirical.

Universal acceleration is theoretical. It is a proposed model intended to explain why things fall down.

This theory fails to predict changing acceleration in certain conditions, such as in mineshafts, and celestial gravitation is conjecture.

Neither one has been measured, by anyone, ever.

Incorrect. We can see the earth accelerating upwards by simply standing on a chair and walking off of its edge. We can SEE the mechanical motion of an upwardly accelerating earth. THAT is empirical.

The Quantum Mechanics/General Relativity ideas of undiscovered "graviton" particles and invisible bending space pulling me to the earth are NOT seen, not by any man, machine, or experiment, and are decidedly NOT empirical.

Therefore, the empirical explanation is that the earth is rising upwards and all other phenomena are interpreted as a consequence of that.

7073

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you believe in UA why would gravity be weaker inside a mineshaft?

« on: November 03, 2017, 04:53:33 AM »

We know what it is....BS.  At this point, why even use the term Zetetic - the method isn't being applied. Clearly, beyond someone writing some sciencey-sounding stuff in a wiki, celestial gravitation has no basis in reality.

The interpretation of the Universal Accelerator is empirical. Celestial Gravitation is a consequence of that.

Earlier in this thread you kindly pointed out that gravity was stronger in a mine shaft due to the increased density of the surrounding Earth. Hard to imagine that being possible in a UA environ where the acceleration would affect everything equally.

Actually, RET predicts that gravity should get lower with increased depth. UA-CG predicts that gravity should increase.

7074

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The case for flat Earth

« on: November 03, 2017, 04:46:22 AM »

Flat Earth persists because, even if you do not believe a word of the experiments and literature, it really boils down to a matter of empirical vs non-empirical. Everything for a Round Earth requires appeals to authority and leaps of assumption.

A Round Earth is questionable, and its authorities doubly so, and that is its downfall.

7075

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you believe in UA why would gravity be weaker inside a mineshaft?

« on: November 03, 2017, 12:05:08 AM »

But see, that's the problem - there is no research. Google it and the first link that pops up is your useless Wiki. Beyond that, not much. So, like I said, it's a made up idea to "fix" obvious problems with FET.

Keep googling.

the google results in question

the first result is the wiki page on it

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

its talk page is empty

Searching the forum here directly yields one page of results, mostly dissenters speculating about what it isasking what it is and being told to look it up (I read the results more closely, this doesn't usually happen). I can't search the other site without signing up, which I do not want to do.

Research findings do indicate there isn't much to the idea. Is it similar to Newtonian gravity? If it is, why doesn't the mass of the Earth have gravitation? Does general relativity hold for celestial gravitation, as it does for Newtonian gravity? What empirical evidence has been observed for celestial gravitation, poorly defined as it is?

I have looked for answers to these questions, and found none, only excuses for not having answers. It is therefore fair to describe it as a 'fix' for UA, given UA's shortcomings established in this thread.

From your research it appears that you now know what Celestial Gravitation is. Congratulations.

Per your follow up questions, if you can't find the answer to your questions upon further research then it means that the matter has not been discussed/is unknown.

7076

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you believe in UA why would gravity be weaker inside a mineshaft?

« on: November 02, 2017, 09:46:30 PM »

Regardless, universal acceleration wouldn't have any change at all depending on altitude. If you are in the front or back seat of a car that accelerates, you feel the same force. So, Tom has provided evidence for us that universal acceleration cannot adequately explain empirical observations.

We are talking about Celestial Gravitation. Please follow along.

Can you explain what the heck it and how it works?? The wiki has very little on the topic and it just seems like something that was made up to make a FE work with stellar observations.

It is discussed in the forum archives between this site and the other one, and in the wiki. You can do your own research.

7077

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you believe in UA why would gravity be weaker inside a mineshaft?

« on: November 02, 2017, 08:03:10 PM »

Regardless, universal acceleration wouldn't have any change at all depending on altitude. If you are in the front or back seat of a car that accelerates, you feel the same force. So, Tom has provided evidence for us that universal acceleration cannot adequately explain empirical observations.

We are talking about Celestial Gravitation. Please follow along.

7078

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you believe in UA why would gravity be weaker inside a mineshaft?

« on: November 02, 2017, 06:56:45 PM »

The wiki argues that objects fall due to the earth constantly accelerating and gravity is weaker at higher altitudes due to celestial gravity. The closerto the sky the weaker the downward force as the celestial gravity is pulling you up.

But there is less gravity underneath the earth's surface such as in a mine shaft.
How does this explain the downwards force being weaker the further from the sky you are?

Going below the earth's surface is still going further from the sky.

What an astute observation. But it doesn't explain why 'gravity' is less when you go underground, rather than more as is suggested by how celestial gravitation explains lower gravity at greater heights.

This is false. Gravity actually increases as you descend. There are numerous RET excuses for why this is so, but the fact remains that gravity increases below the earth's surface.

Introduction to Physical Oceanography: Third Edition

Physical and Hydrologic Properties of Water-Bearing Deposits in Subsiding Areas in Central California

http://www.exo.net/ti/pinhole/hypermail-00/0064.html

But in the real earth which is denser at the center the
force of gravity actually increases with depth at least down to the depth
of the deepest mines.

7079

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If you believe in UA why would gravity be weaker inside a mineshaft?

« on: November 02, 2017, 06:06:01 PM »

The wiki argues that objects fall due to the earth constantly accelerating and gravity is weaker at higher altitudes due to celestial gravity. The closerto the sky the weaker the downward force as the celestial gravity is pulling you up.

But there is less gravity underneath the earth's surface such as in a mine shaft.
How does this explain the downwards force being weaker the further from the sky you are?

Going below the earth's surface is still going further from the sky.

7080

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The burden of proof.

« on: November 01, 2017, 04:54:13 PM »

And where is the evidence that the perspective lines will approach each other forever and never touch, as hypothesized by Euclid?

May I suggest you go back and actually READ my post?   The pinhole camera demonstrates the geometry - from that we can use similar triangles to turn this into algebra - and then we can try sticking some numbers in there to try to get Hsubject to be zero.   When you do that - the ONLY way to get the sun onto the flat earth horizon is to have Dsubject to be infinity.   This is another way of saying "parallel lines appear to touch at an infinite distance from the eye".  (They don't literally touch no matter how far away you are.)   This is PROOF that the vanishing point is at infinity.

If they do touch at some distance, then your diagram will look a whole lot different. The fundamental premise of this continuous universe model needs empirical evidence behind it -- things to suggest that is how it is in the real world. It is only backed by math which assumes a hypothetical model, and this is wholly insufficient.

But they don't touch at any finite distance...and they don't literally touch in the real world at all...only in images that are focussed.

There is nothing of the "continuous universe" in here - it's simple grade-school geometry and algebra.

But if you're now denying that mathematics can address the real world - then you have truly entered a world where only magic applies.  Perhaps this is a good place for you to exist - beyond the realms of reality where logic and reason cannot assail you.

Most of us would call that "insanity"...but if that's your choice, then maybe we shouldn't be listening to your ravings any longer.

Math does not prove the nature of perspective lines. That math is only valid if certain assumptions made about that underlying model are true.You are using math under a model which assumes that the perspective lines are continuous.

See my post about how 2 + 2 does not always equal 4:

What you have is MATH. What I have is empirical observation. Your math only works under the model it is intended for. If the assumptions of the underlying model changes, or is wrong, the math does not work.

2 + 2 = 4 relies on the underlying model, and is not a universal truth. Under some models 2 + 2 does not equal 4. See Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always.

All math relies on the underlying model for it to have truth. You need to prove that your underlying model for perspective lines is valid. That is your claim. You are the claimant. I am the skeptic. I am not going to prove a negative. You need to prove your positive. My position on this subject is backed by empirical observation, while yours relies on ancient hypothetical models. So get proving already. Demonstrate that your perspective model is founded in the real world.