741

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Asteroid and planetoid collisions and ther orbit?

« on: April 17, 2020, 01:58:28 PM »

I asked before, and I didn't get answer. Moon moves few centimeters by year form Earth. Is that predicted by Heliocentric model. I have feeling it shoud be bigger?

It's predicted by current physics, yes. It will continue to get further away, but slower and slower until it will reach it's maximum distance in about 50 billion years.

If we use nothing but Newton's laws, the orbit would not change. But tidal forces between the Moon and the Earth are also at work here, it's what caused the Moon to become tidally locked so one side always faces us. Currently the Moons gravity is slowing down the Earth, but energy must be conserved so that gravitational exchange adds energy to the Moons orbital speed and pushes it outward.

Read up on 'tidal locking' for some interesting science. I find it fascinating how all these effects balance out in ways that seem strange at first but then make perfect sense when you follow the flow of energy.

742

Suggestions & Concerns / Built-in profile pictures are not secure.

« on: April 17, 2020, 12:15:00 PM »

I just noticed that all the built-in profile pictures are http and not https links.

Not exactly a world-shattering security hole, but something to fix if it's just editing a script or config line somewhere.

That would keep web browsers from complaining your site is insecure, which likely drives off a small number of people.

743

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 16, 2020, 11:15:41 PM »

Holy shit, Biden ripped off a British politician's speech thirty years ago. Pack it in, Biden, you're done.

Thank goodness Trump would never do anything like that!

744

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof of Flat Earth in DFW, Texas?? You decide!

« on: April 16, 2020, 11:10:38 PM »

None of what either of you keep saying makes the slightest dent in the validity of this photograph.



If you don't want to accept the Truth, that's a personal issue, but even if the observer were at TWO THOUSAND feet elevation, this image would NOT look like this on a Round Earth. You still wouldn't see this much of the buildings due to their leaning away at forty five miles distance; and they also wouldn't appear straight up and down like that either.

It would look exactly like that, and they would look straight up and down too. The angle they would be leaning you be far too small to see at this distance with the naked eye.

This is basic geometry, but the scale we are working at is something the human mind has trouble imagining.

So go ahead and create an image of the photograph like this one which has a flat plane surface...



...and make the ground curve, accurate to the proper dimensions in that area of Texas, and we can all put this one to rest.

You complained the last time I showed you diagrams and math, but I will try one more time.

I made some images to show what the curve looks like at that scale, as requested.

The first is the Earth and a rectangle that is 45 miles long, and 900 feet high.  This is to scale, and the ground curves, but very very little in this picture because the Earth is extremely large.  It has a circumference of 30,000 miles so 4 miles is just a tiny tiny part of it. If you look REALLY close you can see the curve of the earth just barely cuts into the rectangle in the center.




Here is a closeup of the right side of the rectangle. You can see the curve just start to cut into the bottom, but if it wasn't for the rectangle above it you would be hard pressed to tell this from a straight line.




Just for scale, here is the Earth zoomed out. I made the rectangle MUCH taller just so it would show up, otherwise it would be an invisible sliver.  You can see just how small a part of the Earth it covers.  This is how much 45 miles is on the surface. This is why it's so hard to see it's curvature directly, it's just so large. It's why the lean you expect to see is invisible, at that scale there is hardly any separation between the angled of two upright structures./



I hope this helped someone understand. The Earth is big. Really big. So big it's hard to grasp it. If the Earth were small enough to show a visible curve from the surface, then it would be an extremely small world after all.

745

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof of Flat Earth in DFW, Texas?? You decide!

« on: April 16, 2020, 08:49:18 PM »

...it does a smash-up job of working here.

The city to the left of the image is 45 miles from the observer. Should be 1,350 feet below the horizon based on Rowbotham's curvature formula that he took directly from the scientific-stated (claimed) circumference of the Earth.

There are a number of mistakes you are making here.  The biggest one is your formula is only valid for a viewpoint directly on the surface.  The photographer was 500 feet higher than Dallas which makes the drop 200 feet instead, far less than the 921 foot tall building shown, so we should be seeing the top 700 feet of the tallest building.

So the picture does indeed, show what is expected, the tops of very tall buildings as seen from a high hill. Storm did a more detailed analysis, but I could get all the data required easily enough from the source of the photo that lists it's location.

If you're curious, the location is somewhere near that hill to the left in this Google Maps link.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7787272,-97.5498708,3a,54.6y,96.83h,88.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYl9iHCzA0ozWUXL3pI6kGA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

746

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof of Flat Earth in DFW, Texas?? You decide!

« on: April 16, 2020, 08:02:37 PM »

JSS demands photos of all my observations over time, as well as further evidence, while JSS provides nothing concrete and expects this 'computer generated' image to serve as undebatable evidence of Venus' dynamics in relation to Earth.

All right, your question was, and I quote...

Though there were a handful of responses, not one person has tried to explain why Venus can be seen every single night in a row, for going on THREE MONTHS now, at 45 degrees in the sky after dark.

Not ONE diagram or explanation has even come close to explaining this tom-foolery.

So you asked me to explain the position of Venus in the sky. I'm sorry that all the diagrams confused you, but I gave you quite a detailed explanation of why we see Venus and how it moves.  I even linked a video showing where Venus will appear and why.  It clearly explained why we can see Venus for months at a time, and showed high high it will rise every night. I'm not sure why you are upset that I provided the information you asked for, and if you didn't understand it that's not anything I can help with. Learning is something you have to do on your own, I can't force you to understand anything, just show you the information.

I asked for your observations because you made a claim, and did not provide any evidence behind it. How can you expect to prove your case if you refuse to share anything backing it up? How for example, did you measure the 45 degrees? And did you record what time each of these sightings were?

I'm seriously not sure how to provide you with what you want. You asked for me to explain how Venus worked, yet got angry when I provided diagrams showing just that.

What is it exactly that you would accept as proof?

747

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: With Zetetic method, what pictures are Real vs. Fake

« on: April 16, 2020, 02:42:13 PM »

I'm curious, is this your standards of evidence for everything? If you can't see something in person, close up, you believe it's all lies?

Never has been my stance.

Sorry for assuming it was. Lets clear this up with a simple, direct question.

Can you can accept things are true even if you can't see them with your own eyes?

748

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Level Experiment Flawed

« on: April 16, 2020, 11:15:44 AM »

Famous naturalist Alfred Wallace rebutted the experiment as early as 1870.

Strange. If he was so successful, then why did he lose so much money in the wager? Why did he feel the need to cheat?

Hint: before you answer this question with any degree of confidence, you should familiarise yourself with the accounts of people other than the perpetrator himself.

I'm curious where you're getting your information. Could you provide some sources?

I've read so many accounts of this, and they all say the same thing. 

Wallace did not lose any money. He was awarded the money from winning the bet, Hampden then sued claiming he had withdrew the wager before it was over, a court agreed and ordered the money returned. Note that he wasn't given the money back because he won, but because he said he withdrew the bet before the money was awarded. No money was lost, and if that is how he 'cheated' I would have to dispute that as well.

Later, Hampden was sued for libel and lost that case, so Hampden ended up paying Wallace in the end.

Hampden was also charged with and sentenced to jail for death threats, and found guilty of libel at least three times over accusing Wallace of cheating.

Here is a transcript of one of the court procedings: https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S248A.htm

You will need to provide references of your own, and not just a Flat Earth Wiki page. Independent sources please, thanks.

749

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Asteroid and planetoid collisions and ther orbit?

« on: April 15, 2020, 10:16:30 PM »

Did you miss this part of that papers summary?

"In contrast, a well chosen algorithm with the
same initial data yields the correct behavior.
We explain the main ideas of how the evolution of
the solar system can be computed over long times"

They are saying VERY clearly that they can simulate the system correctly over long times.

Right, only if they use a geometry-preserving method with a symplectic integrator. It's an admission that it doesn't come about naturally and that they have to use work-arounds.

It's called math. Sometimes it's complex.

Wait, are you saying only 'natural math' is valid? As opposed to unnatural math?  Is that like homeopathic math?

Regardless, right there in the paper you are quoting it says that yes, they can simulate solar system dynamics accurately and over the long term. That is very clear.

So they can simulate the solar system correctly, but it doesn't count because they use methods you disapprove of?

What math in particular do you object to, and what is your proof for finding it invalid? What is is about symplectic integrators that you can prove are incorrect? Please explain.

750

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Level Experiment Flawed

« on: April 15, 2020, 10:10:52 PM »

Actually, the test was canceled due to conditions one one day and they met again on the next day. There is no calculation for how much drop should have been seen due to an RE there.

You are claiming that they saw a drop of an unknown value, and that this is verification of the theory, despite that it is a single observation. Today we know that Rowbotham was right, and that the changing atmospheric conditions can change the scene over time.

So your retort to a well documented experiment is, it's only a single observation?

Perhaps you should actually read before you comment.

In fact, they did it more than once. Hampden kept raising objections, so Wallace repeated the experiment, including things like levels and crosshairs which Hampden demanded.

I'm afraid you are the one basing all of your beliefs on ONE guy who did an unverified experiment, which has been proven wrong again and again.

751

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof of Flat Earth in DFW, Texas?? You decide!

« on: April 15, 2020, 09:55:37 PM »

I didn't say that you said anything. I asked: "Can you show us the part in ENAG where Rowbotham is using it to measure over thousands of miles?"

The answer is "No" and gives us everything we need to know about the applicability of the math used in this work.

That is the very definition of a straw man argument.  You ask a question that has nothing at all to do with the discussion, answer it, and claim victory.

Can you not see what you did here?

752

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Asteroid and planetoid collisions and ther orbit?

« on: April 15, 2020, 09:53:36 PM »

Funny, neither the Sun Earth Moon system or the Solar System are stable in the long term.

Is your definition of "long term" more than a few of orbits?

I ran the discussed Sun-Earth-Moon model in Scilab and got the same results:



The Moon was quickly ejected from the system.

Doesn't look like this works, sorry.

NASA

The instability of these problems is more evidence against those claims. The space probes would need to be constantly and endlessly correcting, whereas NASA is claiming to simply put them into stable orbits with only brief and minor corrections.

So your failure to correctly understand a math paper proves that all the space probes we launched aren't real?

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's impossible.

You need to understand the paper you got that simulation from.

They are discussing various ways of using Newtons methods to simulate the solar system, and are showing one method works better than another method.

Did you miss this part of that papers summary?

"In contrast, a well chosen algorithm with the
same initial data yields the correct behavior.
We explain the main ideas of how the evolution of
the solar system can be computed over long times"

They are saying VERY clearly that they can simulate the system correctly over long times.

So you are basically copy-pasting a method which is known to have problems, and ignoring the solution in THE  SAME PAPER that solves it.

Also, you say NASA is "claiming" to put them into stable orbits. Can we clarify this? Are you saying NASA is lying about the hundreds of probes and people that have been put into space?

753

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof of Flat Earth in DFW, Texas?? You decide!

« on: April 15, 2020, 09:38:23 PM »

Can you show us the part in ENAG where Rowbotham is using it to measure over thousands of miles?

What does that have to do with anything? I said it works fine for short distances, but is only an estimate that gets worse the further you go.

Can you show me where I claimed he used it to measure over thousands of miles? I never said that.

Rowbotham says that it's the surveyor's rule for the drop of the Earth. Not many surveyors are measuring over thousands of miles. The equation is just fine to measure the distances in the book.

Again, you are making up things I said and then arguing against them. Classic straw man. You again completely ignored my question so I will repeat.

Where did I state that Rowbotham was measuring thousands of miles.  Quote it. <-- I'm asking you a question right here.

Otherwise, please admit that I never said that and stop arguing like I did.

I'm waiting for that quote.

That's what I asked you. You said the equation is wrong because it becomes inaccurate over thousands of miles. Thousands of miles were not tested, however. Therefore the equation is correct.

Are you assuming that math did not exist in the 1800's and that this was not known?

I'm really sorry you are having so much trouble understanding this. I'm not sure how simpler I can make this, but will try, again.

I never mentioned Rowbotham's tests. I mentioned his use of an approximation. A parabola is not a circle. These are all indisputable facts.

You were the one that brought up his experiments. Nobody else mentioned it before that. Only you. It was NEVER mentioned before your comment. Can I make this any clearer?

Please, take a little time to read and understand this before replying. If you need something clarified, ask.

But if you insist on demanding references to things, you must quote where I said such things. Quote me, or please quit claiming I said it. Understand that you can only argue about things I said, not thing you imagined I said.

754

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Level Experiment Flawed

« on: April 15, 2020, 09:10:59 PM »

There is no test which claims to see a drop matching RE curvature.

You can't keep claiming that.

Alfred Wallace did it.  More than once. It's well documented, especially since Rowbotham's supporter sued and was eventually jailed for death threats. Plenty of documentation at the time due to all the legal issues.







One source, feel free to Google for as many more as you need: https://flatearth.ws/bedford-level

755

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 15, 2020, 08:53:48 PM »

Also Tom's quotes say the plan went into motion weeks ago when Trump informed Mnuchin that he should be allowed to formally sign the checks. That's not what he's doing (because he's not allowed to); his signature is going on the memo line. Who knows how long ago that plan was actually made firm? All we really know is that a few weeks ago Trump said he wanted to do something he's not allowed to do, and the IRS found out the checks needed to be changed yesterday. Whatever the case the fault for the delay clearly lies with the administration (and the President's massive ego, of course).

Who is REALLY responsible I wonder? Lets ask the guy in charge.

756

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 15, 2020, 08:18:10 PM »

I assume Iactuallycanthink believes the earth is round, which is great! I think so too. If you use the conventional model of our Earth orbiting a celestial star, the Sun, it is accelerating and maintaining a constant speed. For the sake of argument, though, has anyone ever suggested that a flat earth could simply do the same? If it were facing inward, centrifugal force could plausibly create a gravitational force similar to our planet’s own.
Please get back with me if I sound crazy. This is the first time I put that thought out and I’m NOT a flat earther I swear!

That's actually a great idea. There is nothing at all wrong with using your imagination, now you've given people something interesting to think about.

If the Earth were a disk, attached to the sun with a a rope and spun around it fast enough we would indeed experience centrifugal force, and it would be very similar to gravity.

The difference would be the Coriolis force for anything thrown or launched into the air, making it curve.  On something as big as a planet this effect would be small but absolutely measurable and we would have seen it. Artillery shells for instance would need to be corrected for it. Long distance battleship guns in fact have to take into account the curve and rotation of the Earth, so on a flat Earth being spun we would need different corrections.

Math time!  I used to design make believe rotating space stations in my spare time when I was younger, so I remember the formula for centrifugal force. (With help from Wikipedia)

g = v^2 / r

So g is the gravitational acceleration felt in meters per second, v is the radial velocity in meters per second, r is the radius in meters.

We can rearrange that to this to solve for the radial velocity.

v = (g * r)^0.5

We want 1g for the liner acceleration so that is 9.8m/s

Lets set the radius at 150,000,000,000m which is the distance to the Sun.

So we get...

( 150,000,000,000 * 9.8 ) ^ 0.5 = 1,212,435m/s

So that's pretty fast.  The speed of light is 299,792,458m/s so that's nearly 0.5 percent of the speed of light.  Whoo.

That speed would make one year about 9 days long. 

If you fell off the edge, you would go flying off into space away from the sun at 0.5c for free.  This would make launching deep space probes super easy, just push it off the edge. Getting them back would be a problem.

Launching anything sunward would be interesting.  If you weren't careful it would slam back into the disk as it was being slung around.

This would make an awesome setting for a sci-fi story, actually.  Finding some crazy flat planet tethered to a star that aliens built.  I'd read that!

( Edit: Well duh, that's basically Niven's Ringworld stories but a disk instead of a ring. Same distance and speed, hah. The sci-fi comment made me remember it. )

757

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof of Flat Earth in DFW, Texas?? You decide!

« on: April 15, 2020, 06:55:17 PM »

Can you show us the part in ENAG where Rowbotham is using it to measure over thousands of miles?

What does that have to do with anything? I said it works fine for short distances, but is only an estimate that gets worse the further you go.

Can you show me where I claimed he used it to measure over thousands of miles? I never said that.

Rowbotham says that it's the surveyor's rule for the drop of the Earth. Not many surveyors are measuring over thousands of miles. The equation is just fine to measure the distances in the book.

Again, you are making up things I said and then arguing against them. Classic straw man. You again completely ignored my question so I will repeat.

Where did I state that Rowbotham was measuring thousands of miles.  Quote it. <-- I'm asking you a question right here.

Otherwise, please admit that I never said that and stop arguing like I did.

I'm waiting for that quote.

758

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: April 15, 2020, 06:49:37 PM »

Why would I be upset that the Treasury can't follow instructions? Trump asked for that weeks ago, directly to the Treasury Secretary.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/908826/report-stimulus-checks-may-delayed-over-order-have-trumps-name-printed

The plan went into motion a few weeks ago, the officials said, after Trump privately mentioned to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin that he should be allowed to formally sign the checks.

Yet, from the same article:

The Internal Revenue Service's information technology team learned early on Tuesday that President Trump's name must appear on the stimulus checks being sent to millions of Americans, an order that will likely lead to a delay in issuing the first batch of payments

Media: Durp. Trump delaying checks. Durp durp.

These articles are not mistakes, but rather malicious intent.

The "plan went into motion" by Trump demanding that Steven Mnuchin get his name stamped all over the checks.  With a few weeks lead time.

And in those weeks, what did Steven Mnuchin do?  You're assuming he IMMEDIATELY rounded up all the top Treasury heads and said, "Look, we need to get Trumps names on these checks, so lets get the software changed and schedule audits and testing and keep me apprised of every step to make sure there are no delays! I want daily reports and you call me right away if there are any problems!"

Or, he could have just sent a memo to his secretary saying "Add Trumps names to the checks, k?" and not bothered to check how things were going.

The reality is likely somewhere between, but you are assuming that the fault is those terrible Guvment workers.

The true reality is Trump's over-inflated ego demanded that a large check printing system be suddenly modified in a few weeks time, and any delays are entirely 100% his responsibility for demanding that unnecessary change in the first place.

So yes. Trump delaying checks. How could it possibly be anyone elses fault? Maybe Steven Mnuchin for not simply denying the request, like other Treasury Secretaries did in the past, like when Bush wanted the same thing.

But you know what happens when you tell that big baby NO.

The malicious intent here is Trump thinking that forcing a last minute change just to see his name in print with the economy at stake is a good idea.  Trump First, after all.

759

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 15, 2020, 06:10:20 PM »

Thanks for the explanation.
I would say that UA is probably the best evidence for FE'rs to back up their theory, as its very hard to disprove. Even Einstein said " It's as though the Earth is accelerating upwards".

Let's try another approach:
During some of my studies we observed natural radio waves emitted from gas clouds through the plane of our Galaxy. In doing this we could determine the distance and speeds of the spiral arms of the galaxy by measuring the change in wavelength of the radio waves. To get accurate measurements, we used some sophisticated software to account for the Earth's motion within the Galaxy, these being; Earth's axial spin, the orbit around the sun and the suns orbit around the Galaxy.
There were no formulas used to account for the Earth accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2.

Also, I do believe that when cosmologist are measuring the subtle differences in the Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation (CMBR) to map the early universe, then they too need to account for the same motions and also the motion of the Galaxy around its centre of mass. They do not account for any acceleration due to UA.

If we were in fact accelerating as UA suggest, then we could actually measure the effects it would have on the CMBR. In the direction of acceleration the CMBR's would be greatly blueshifted and in the opposite direction it would be significantly redshifted, This is not what's being observed by the cosmologists. I think the CMBR can be used as reference frame in many aspects of physics/cosmology especially when travelling at relativistic speeds through acceleration.

Yes that's exactly right, we would absolutely see everything blue shifted in the sky, and red shifted if we drilled a hole through the Earth's disk and looked through it.

It's actually way worse than not detecting any blueshift.  As stated in another thread, if we have been accelerating at 1g for a mere 6000 years, the outside universe would experience 8.843e+1345 years of time. That's an insanely long amount of time. There wouldn't BE a universe outside at this point, which would be lucky because if there was, even a single PHOTON hitting the earth would vaporize it. I can't even calculate how much energy incoming light would have going that close to light speed. So the universe would have to be 100% empty. Everything we see would have to be, well, something else. It would mean that 100% of everything we know about the universe is wrong. All of it. That's a big stretch.

The basic issue here is that to make UA work it has to exist in a very different universe than our own. Planets, the stars, the sun, cosmic background radiation, gravity... none of it works. Literally everything not attached to the Earth has to have some alternate explanation.  Maybe some illusion or projection so the likely answer to your question is "CBR isn't real" or "CBR is just static leaking from the holo-emitters that create the sky."

UA breaks everything.

760

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 15, 2020, 04:20:39 PM »

JSS, maybe you can help, if the Earth was accelerating towards the muons would we measure them any differently to how we observe them in RET?

I don't know enough about relativistic math to quote any supporting equations. But that muon would accelerate faster as it neared the Earth either due to our planets gravity, or due to it accelerating forward due to UA.

My suspicion is if there were any difference, it would be incredibly hard to measure. Possibly beyond the accuracy of anything we can currently rig up.

Lets take the rising elevator example as a starting point.  If you are in a metal box, you can not tell the difference between being on the surface of a planet at 1g, or being accelerated in space by a rocket at 1g. There is just no way in relativity theory to tell if you are accelerating or being pulled by gravity, they are literally the same thing.

So inside that box you just can't tell.

Now lets say the top of the box is open, and you have a muon detector with you.

Will muons behave differently?  I don't think so, but really, none of us have a PhD in Relativistic Physics in this so it's all kind of guesswork. I haven't drawn space-time diagrams to trace light cones through different frames of reference since college so I'm a little rusty.