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.

Topics - 9 out of 10 doctors agree

Pages: < Back  1 [2]
Flat Earth Theory / Egg Earth
« on: April 17, 2018, 02:15:53 AM »

I do not dispute that the Earth is far from circular in those photos. However, looking at the midground should make it abundantly clear that a fisheye lens was used, telling from the obvious curvature of the solar panels and radiator panels.

If this was made with CGI with the preconception of a sphere, then why would the world look so non-circular? It's not like animators can't draw circles.

Flat Earth Theory / Round Earth does not preclude the full moon
« on: April 16, 2018, 03:53:44 PM »

The logic in that page is flawed. It asserts that anytime the Moon is in a full Moon position, the light coming to it will be blocked by the Earth. That would be the circumstances for a lunar eclipse, and any astronomer on the Internet will happily explain to you why that doesn't happen every month.

Since I am also an astronomer on the Internet, I will explain it too. Since the article I'm battling says that I can't refute it no matter how much mental gymnastics I do with scale, I'll spite it by doing mental gymnastics with scale. I'll be using this table from NASA as a reference.

The Moon's orbit is angled about 5° from Earth's orbit around the Sun. At its closest approach, the Moon is about 28 Earth-widths from Earth. At tan(5°)*28 I get 2 1/2 Earth-widths from the center maximum. The eclipse zone, for comparison, is one Earth-width wide.

Furthermore, the components of the Moon's path are sinusoidal, so the centerline where the eclipse zone is happens to be the line that the path crosses the fastest. Even though the eclipse zone is 20% of the possible heights, it spends only 13% of its time in the right latitude.

Please ask an astronomer about this before jumping to conclusions.

Flat Earth Theory / A few more bases to cover…
« on: April 14, 2018, 12:54:49 AM »
First, gravity variance. There is a measurable difference (about .5%) in gravity between the equator and the poles, and between altitudes. In case you're wondering, I did find some actual data on this:

It is Wikipedia, but they cite a book with a specific page number for the table that data comes from. RET of course explains this as centrifugal force from the Earth's rotational motion. However, it could be problematic for FET, which explains gravity as the Earth simply accelerating uniformly through space. I'm wondering how the FET model accommodates this data without distorting its proven flatness of the Earth.

Second, neutrinos. Neutrinos will basically pass straight through anything you put in their way, so neutrino beams used in expirements are usually aimed through the Earth at far-away detectors. Since the beams definitely reach their target, how would aiming with a Round Earth model reach the right target in a Flat Earth model?

Pages: < Back  1 [2]