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 - existoid

Pages: < Back  1 ... 5 6 [7] 8  Next >
121
Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station
« on: May 16, 2020, 05:04:32 PM »


One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Okay, so with some quick Google searches, I'm thinking this has something to do with parallax?  You measure the distance it is traveling in an amount of time and somehow calculate angles with trigonometry or something?  I'm really extra dumb when it comes to math and physics.  But at a basic level, knowing how fast it travels is really all you need to calculate its distance?

No parallax. Hard to explain without math.

Gravitational force keeps ISS in centripetal acceleration. You can express that in terms of its speed. Speed can be expressed in terms of the time period.

Then by knowing the radius of the earth, that’s gives you the altitude.

You did a great job of explaining without math!   I had to read it twice, but I think I get it.  Thanks!

So, the elements needed would be to know how much gravitational force there is (I guess the gravitational constant?), how fast the satellite is going, the size of the earth, and with all of these elements, there's basically only one altitude it could be at?


122
Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station
« on: May 16, 2020, 04:38:27 PM »


One complete orbit every 90 mins tells you how far away it is.

Okay, so with some quick Google searches, I'm thinking this has something to do with parallax?  You measure the distance it is traveling in an amount of time and somehow calculate angles with trigonometry or something?  I'm really extra dumb when it comes to math and physics.  But at a basic level, knowing how fast it travels is really all you need to calculate its distance? 

123
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 16, 2020, 03:05:26 AM »

Quote from: existoid
thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I  still have  in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:

Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon

Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below

It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.


It's possible the Wiki doesn't out right state that it's "directional."  But...that's kind of what a spotlight is - it doesn't shine in all directions.  I'm not trying to get into semantics about the definition of directional or spotlight, though.   My point is that for the FE model to make sense it HAS to be directional, otherwise there would be no night (hence "spotlight"). 

But you're saying it's NOT directional like that?  Are you saying that so as not to contradict the explanation for the moon question?  If so, then why does night exist?  You can't have it both ways (without creating a logical fallacy, which has kind of been my point all along in this thread).






124
Flat Earth Community / Re: Rocket Propulsion
« on: May 15, 2020, 11:44:21 PM »


Rockets move because the inside pressure is greater than the outside pressure. Stuff comes out, rocket goes forward. If stuff can't come out as fast, less movement.


Curious about this statement. I thought the force of the thrust is what pushes it forward, not the fact that it has greater pressure on the inside? 

125
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races? - Part 2
« on: May 15, 2020, 08:09:58 PM »
AS an experienced sailor, and knowing my beloved sailboat, Serenity, very well, I can tell without looking at the knotmeter a one knot difference in speed through the water.  And as others who have replied to my original post, looking at the common FE models would require distances that are at least 2 times farther than on a RE, and likely closer to three times farther to circumnavigate.  Please believe me that even ignoring GPS data, anyone with enough sailing experience to be doing a round-the-world race would be aware of the massively increased distance involved.  And monohull sailboats have a "hull speed" past which they cannot reasonably go faster.  This is based on the well-known physics of water itself and wave generation.  The oversimplified explanation is that as you push a displacement boat hull faster and faster it starts sinking deeper into the water, which greatly increases the drag until you reach a limit = the hull speed.  You just cannot make up that degree of distance increase.


I've never heard of hull speed, but it is interesting.  So basically, if you go TOO fast for a particular vessel (whatever its hull speed is), it will take on water and just sink?


126
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses
« on: May 15, 2020, 08:03:17 PM »
Once again, so good at explaining!   Okay, so, after the first sentence that there's no friction in space, my brain went "oh, cool, so maybe we COULD have a perpetual motion machine...IN SPACE? Friction is the problem!"  But after reading everything, this is not the case. 

I do love the idea that an alien civilization with a timespan measured in trillions of years, can accidentally come to the point of sending a planet in their solar system out of orbit by using it countless times to fling spacecraft into deeper space, thereby reducing its kinetic(?) energy until it can't sustain its orbit.   by the way, what is actually happening there, in terms of its change in course?  Is its orbit getting infinitesimally smaller? Or bigger? Or it depends?

Thanks, I do try.

An orbit will get larger if you add energy to it, and smaller if you take it away. So if Jupiter looses a bit of speed with each spacecraft boost, it will eventually fall into the sun.

I may have vastly underestimated the amount of time it would take to do this however.  Reading up, the Voyager 1 spacecraft stole enough speed from Jupiter to slow the planet down by one foot per trillion years.  So a trillion years from now, it will be one foot behind in it's orbit. That's not much!

To drop it into the Sun that way would likely take longer than I care to calculate, by a lot. Of course, if they start launching small moons, that would speed things up.

Ah, yes.  So, as with lots of things in the universe, it's really hard to grasp.  A trillion years is like two hundred times longer than the age of the earth, so it's functionally the same as saying "Jupiter will NEVER fall into the sun."  It goes to the same thing you or someone said earlier (I think) that the sun will die before the earth's orbit will decay into it.


127
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses
« on: May 15, 2020, 04:25:12 PM »
Yes, it is making a LOT of sense to me conceptually (which is all that can happen, because there's no way I'll understand the maths), thanks to you and BRollin. 

Also, this tracks with reality, IMO.  I don't know much about inertia, gravity, momentum, etc., but I can grasp them in my everyday life enough to suspect that it would NOT make sense for the solar system to NEVER become "unstable" and change.  Just like a car when you take your foot off the gas, you will have inertia or momentum that carries you for some time, even on a totally flat road, but eventually other forces (gravity?  friction?) work on the car and it will stop even on an endless flat road.

I have no idea if I'm super conflating something in saying this, but it's like the idea that "you can't have a perpetual motion machine" and so, the solar system, at a certain point, can't be sustained forever stably - otherwise it WOULD be a "perpetual motion machine" in the big picture.   Or are those two things tooooootally different?

They are quite different actually. :)

There is no friction in space. If you had just the Earth and the Sun, the Earth would continue orbiting forever with no changes. It takes no power to keep Earth in it's orbit, as far as the Earth is concerned it's moving in a straight line. It's just that line is bent into a closed circle by the Suns gravity. It's not a "perpetual motion machine" because it doesn't produce or consume energy, it is just stable.

With multiple bodies it's more complex, but energy is still conserved.  If a small asteroid gets too close to Jupiter, it can get pulled in and flung out at high speeds, but Jupiter will also lose a tiny fraction of it's momentum. So you have one object going faster and one going slower, but that asteroid could loop back and hit Jupiter and give it's kinetic energy back too. So humans can use Jupiter to fling spacecraft into deep space and it is effectively an infinite source of gravitational energy, but if we used it enough we could drop Jupiter into the sun by stealing it all. If we keep doing it for, oh, a trillion years.

So the Earth won't stop, but if other bodies get close it can be nudged into other orbits, possibly out of the solar system or into the sun.  But not for a LOOOOOOONG time, If ever.

Once again, so good at explaining!   Okay, so, after the first sentence that there's no friction in space, my brain went "oh, cool, so maybe we COULD have a perpetual motion machine...IN SPACE? Friction is the problem!"  But after reading everything, this is not the case. 

I do love the idea that an alien civilization with a timespan measured in trillions of years, can accidentally come to the point of sending a planet in their solar system out of orbit by using it countless times to fling spacecraft into deeper space, thereby reducing its kinetic(?) energy until it can't sustain its orbit.   by the way, what is actually happening there, in terms of its change in course?  Is its orbit getting infinitesimally smaller? Or bigger? Or it depends?




128
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 15, 2020, 04:16:38 PM »
Quote from: existoid
Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.

What observation would that be? His imagined observation which contradicts Round Earth Theory's prediction that observers in the North would have to look South and observers in the South would have to look North?

Quote from: existoid
You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

Those were discussed. You were directed to the FE's celestial model of EA Theory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration


I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.

The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.

I was just thinking how difficult it must be defending FE theory, because one would have to constantly keep on their toes and keep up with and create these tangled spider-webs of theories to try and rationalize the FE model.

The RE model works so seamlessly beautiful. And, yes, people have been to space and have also observed the Earth as round.

Totally. 

When I first got to this site in the past few days, I loved reading all about the scienc-y proofs and explanations.  The FET cannot account for so much, whereas the RET does it without effort.  But even aside from physics and math, there is an inherent illogic amongst the FET claims. They are so self-contradictory that you don't even really need to know the math to grasp that it is unworkable.

I'm trying to discuss it through logic alone, without resort to calculations, physics, math, and it's ridiculously simple to discover fallacy.






129
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 15, 2020, 03:59:15 PM »
Quote from: existoid
Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.

What observation would that be? His imagined observation which contradicts Round Earth Theory's prediction that observers in the North would have to look South and observers in the South would have to look North?

Quote from: existoid
You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

Those were discussed. You were directed to the FE's celestial model of EA Theory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I  still have  in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:

Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon

Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below

Q: How do you reconcile those two answers which directly contradict each other?
A: ??????

EDIT:
and that other question that's also always dodged, and not at all addressed in the Wiki:
Q: Why do the earth and sun not get bigger as they near your position, and get smaller as they go away, like we would expect?
A: ?????




130
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 15, 2020, 03:32:41 PM »
Quote from: existoid
Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.

What observation would that be? His imagined observation which contradicts Rount Earth Theory's prediction that observers in the North would have to look South and observers in the South would have to look North?

Quote from: existoid
You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

Those were discussed. You were directed to the FE's celestial model of EA Theory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

Yes, I've read that part of the Wiki (thanks to JSS I believe pointing it out in this thread).  It totally doesn't answer the three questions - ESPECIALLY not when combined.  Once again, the RET has a consistent, coherent explanation for all three simultaneously, but the answers from the Wiki create contradictions. 

Let me explain what I mean. The three questions summarized were:

1. Why do we see the same face on the moon all over the earth [this is the only one of the three questions actually addressed by the Wiki]
2. What is stopping the sun's light from reaching the entire FE?  How can it possibly be a spotlight?
3. Why do the sun and moon not change their size all the time throughout the day and night, as it travels nearer and farther from where you stand?


There IS an answer in the Wiki page you linked (which I've now read for the second time in its entirety). It's in the "Nearside Always Seen" section with a helpful diagram showing how two people on different places see the same part of the moon because the light is bending. Okay, so far so good. I can accept that, because I can't fully understand the maths involved with the bending of the light. But here's where we get a massive contradiction. This contradicts the "spotlight" explanation for why the sun's light doesn't illuminate the entire FE at once.    In other words, if the light is bending down to curve all over the earth for the moon, why is it NOT doing that for the sun, but instead showing a laser-like direction downward that, contrary to all other observations of light, doesn't even let you see it from a distance from a non-directly illuminated area? 

And finally - there's NO explanation for the fact that the sun and moon don't change their size virtually every hour (the third question).  The explanations for bending light don't seem to account for this at all - they are all about "where" you are positioned as to "what" you see (except as it concerns sunset/sunrise, apparently).  Imagine you are standing in a circular field one mile in diameter. And there is a remote controlled drone flying in a circle that is about half the size of the field, concentrically inside (basically, like where the sun/moon path is on the FE model).  If I were standing directly below that path in the field, I would see the drone get smaller after it passes overhead and bigger as it nears me from the other direction after traveling around.  Why don't the sun and moon change sizes throughout the day, therefore?

See what I mean?  I'm sorry, but your Wiki doesn't address all three questions, and certainly doesn't address their implications all together.  The one explanation it has, for the first question, cannot account for the second.   :o


















131
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses
« on: May 15, 2020, 03:12:55 PM »
What's up with the idea that it says in the Wiki on this site that 3+ bodies become inherently unstable over time?  Is that a red herring?  Is it a "given zillions of years" issue?  The 3 body problem section of the Wiki here devotes quite a bit of space to it, so I'd like to understand a  bit more.

Thanks!!!!

(EDIT: also, and I say this with complete sincerity, I am thrilled that I am learning tidbits of actual science on a website where I expected to be informed of none).

I'll focus on this question and add I've learned a lot here too, both from having things explained and being forced to look stuff up in detail to try and argue.

Any complex orbital system is going to be unstable. We found some stable 3-body solutions that work in pure math, but once you throw things into the real world stuff goes haywire eventually.

But yes, it's a matter of zillions of years.  The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are unstable. That's why they have rings, former moons that were literally torn apart. But they won't fly apart tomorrow. But in a billion years? Sure, they will have likely changed.

In the long term, Earth could be ejected from the solar system or moved to another orbit eventually. But we call it stable because that would likely take billions or tens of billions of years. Hard to tell.  But that's reality. Like with the pool table, i can't tell you exactly how a break will turn out, but if someone claims they will all end up stacked and balanced on each other up to the ceiling, i can say NO.

Just because we don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean we don't know ANYTHING.

Yes, it is making a LOT of sense to me conceptually (which is all that can happen, because there's no way I'll understand the maths), thanks to you and BRollin. 

Also, this tracks with reality, IMO.  I don't know much about inertia, gravity, momentum, etc., but I can grasp them in my everyday life enough to suspect that it would NOT make sense for the solar system to NEVER become "unstable" and change.  Just like a car when you take your foot off the gas, you will have inertia or momentum that carries you for some time, even on a totally flat road, but eventually other forces (gravity?  friction?) work on the car and it will stop even on an endless flat road.

I have no idea if I'm super conflating something in saying this, but it's like the idea that "you can't have a perpetual motion machine" and so, the solar system, at a certain point, can't be sustained forever stably - otherwise it WOULD be a "perpetual motion machine" in the big picture.   Or are those two things tooooootally different?


   

132
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 15, 2020, 03:01:06 PM »


But they'd all see it in different directions. People in the South would have to look North, people in the North would have to look South (South being the perimeter of the big circle, which represents the earth, North being at the centre).

Does that in any way match what we observe?


This reads as ignorance of your own model. That is what is predicted by RE.



Observers in the South would have to look North and observers in the North would have to look South. This occurs regardless of the Moon's distance from the Earth.

Not surprising that you wouldn't know how your model works.

Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.   I admit to not fully understanding these diagrams, but I can read and understand the point of the posts.  You might need to re-read his.

You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?



133
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 15, 2020, 01:33:25 PM »
Oh dear, you've all been Bishoped...
Try not to let him derail threads like this. I don't know if he really doesn't understand about the 3 body problem or is just pretending not to but either way it's not what the thread is about.

We were talking about EA. That is the FE solution to why we all see the same face of the earth but I'm not convinced it works - and there's no actual evidence for the effect existing, it has been invented to explain why observations don't fit what they would on a FE with a close moon. It's also the explanation for sunrise and sunset.

Honestly, I don't see how it matches observations. Let's say the light bends such that it is horizontal at 'x' miles.
If the moon is in the position of the small circle and the dotted line has radius x then that means anyone on the perimeter of the circle sees the moon on the horizon.



But they'd all see it in different directions. People in the South would have to look North, people in the North would have to look South (South being the perimeter of the big circle, which represents the earth, North being at the centre).

Does that in any way match what we observe?

To the extent that I understand you, it doesn't at all seem to match what is observed.  Also, beyond needing to account for how we see the moon, it seems there needs to be an additional part of EA to account for how the sun only shines on a PORTION of a flat earth.  The spotlight idea seems seriously flawed - anyone who's ever seen a spotlight knows that you don't have to be immediately inside its area of direct illumination to know it can be seen from elsewhere, even in a very dark area. Just look towards the patch that IS illuminated!  Right?   

Seems like an amazing oversight in the FE model...



134
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses
« on: May 15, 2020, 01:26:00 PM »
Thank you, both. All that REALLY helps clarify a few things.

As I wrote in other threads, I'm NOT a math guy. But I am a logic guy.

And doesn't this argument of Tom/FEers completely destroy their own FET?

Let me rephrase it to see what I mean (although I'm sure you already do, but for the sake of others who read this thread) -

The argument goes:
"Since this one thing [3 body problem] cannot be fully mathematically described, it must therefore mean physics is wrong, so we cannot rely on it to determine that gravity and the solar system operate the way science says it does." 

The exact same reasoning would immediately lead anyone to conclude that FET is wrong.  ???  ::)   There's almost nothing in FET that is mathematically described in a consistent/coherent way. Almost everything follows a short road, then ends with "well, beyond this point we aren't sure."  Examples are endless (what's the size of any celestial body we see? What's the actual path that even ONE of them take that also accounts for every single phenomena that all humans observe?).

From a non-scientist's standpoint, it seems like the more they push this argument while failing to fully mathematically describe basically all parts of their theory, the more it's clear they're missing the galaxy for the trees (so to speak  ;D ).

BUT, I do have one question -

What's up with the idea that it says in the Wiki on this site that 3+ bodies become inherently unstable over time?  Is that a red herring?  Is it a "given zillions of years" issue?  The 3 body problem section of the Wiki here devotes quite a bit of space to it, so I'd like to understand a  bit more.

Thanks!!!!

(EDIT: also, and I say this with complete sincerity, I am thrilled that I am learning tidbits of actual science on a website where I expected to be informed of none).






 

135
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses
« on: May 15, 2020, 01:26:49 AM »
A fairly recent published scientific article is provided below, which analyzes possible bounded orbits using Newtonian central force in the case of 3 bodies.

The analysis demonstrates evidence that:

1. Closed bounded orbits arise from central force considerations

2. The bounded orbits identified have also been verified using numerical computations (see references therein)

3. There is a demonstrably mathematical distinction between analytical solutions, the application in numerical methods, and the application to chaotic dynamics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0410149.pdf

I'm very new to this site, and this seems to represent a neat opportunity for me to learn some cool physics. 

I have no personal background in science, but I do love to learn - to wit, can you help elaborate, in simple terms, the "3 body problem" ?  Regularly Wikipedia is too dense for me. And in reading the Wiki on this site, I'm still pretty confused about certain things.  What makes it a "problem"?  And what are its implications for astrophysics?  And why is it such a hangup for the FET? 

Here's an example of why it's hard for a laymen like me to wrap my head around:  I get that it's referring to three bodies in orbit with each other, but how does that exactly matter for the solar system anyway?  The moon isn't directly orbiting the sun, it's orbiting the earth, right? So, my very limited understanding of physics makes me think that in terms of gravitational forces it's really just "two" bodies we're dealing with - the sun, and the earth/moon as if it were ONE body.  "3 bodies in orbit with each other" sounds like a system that has three stars all orbiting each other or something odd? 

I'd love to understand - but with as little actual math as possible  ;D :D

136
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« on: May 15, 2020, 01:15:13 AM »
I've been out sailing off shore on a sail boat too.  However I was a professional merchant marine officer for the last 20 years of my career.  In those 20 years at least 10 of them were spent living & working an ocean going ships transiting the oceans of the world.  If you make a trip say from Shanghai, China to Long Beach, CA countless times you know within a small margin of error what the variables are.  Distances are very well known.  When you leave port you start the ship's engine.  The ship has a propeller with a known pitch.  That means for every turn of the propeller the ship travels a known distance.  There's a counter on the propeller shaft and at noon every day the shaft count is recorded.  You can use those figures to easily calculate a distance.  Of course there's some margin for error but if you are making the same trip over & over again you know what to expect.  If the distances traveled in a day don't match the known speeds it will quickly become apparent that something is wrong.  You can get within a mile or two with a sextant and closer than that with GPS so any good merchant marine navigator will know when things aren't correct.  I can say, in the Zetetic fashion, that the earth is proven to be spherical and can't be flat from countless ocean trips of over 5000 miles.  You are wasting your time to think anything else.

Fascinating.   I do have a question about the shaft count.  Wouldn't that only measure speed in water (and air) that are completely still?  In other words, air can push the ship a little, and water currents can also push the ship a little, right?  Wouldn't this affect the measurement, or is it too insignificant?


137
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 15, 2020, 12:46:14 AM »
Quote
I agree, and imo that’s the entire issue with current FE status. It seeks to provide a descriptional account for its claims - which it has yet to fully do. While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework.

As you have been unable to find a single physicist who says that the three body problem is solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system, this is false. You are unable to contradict the many sources and physicists who say that the Three Body Problem is insoluble except for some symmetrical solutions.

Your model can't even keep the Sun, Earth and Moon together.

I am new to this site (but have read the seven or eight most recent threads in two of the forums in their entirety). I have no background or expertise that really applies - I have English and history degrees (though not scientific or cartographic history, etc.), I have taught 9th and 10th grade HS English, and now I work for a very small tabletop game publisher.   Luckily, it seems that no expertise is really needed - just clear thinking and reasoning.  (As an aside, I'm here because the apparently growing FE belief is fascinating to me, much more so than traditional conspiracy theories). 

I have a point (at least I believe I do!  :D ), but it will take a teeny bit to get to. Bear with me.

First, I need to summarize/characterize this discussion up to your comment if I may (I am sure I'll be savaging some of your words as I rephrase and summarize them, so let me know if I misrepresented anyone) -

GoldCashew: The observation that the same face of the moon is seen by people standing in different continents is a big problem for FET. The Wiki doesn't provide an answer.

Pete: That's not actually a problem for FET

Me: [with limited knowledge of physics, astrophysics, geomatics, climatology, or really any physical sciences], well, actually, it's quite an obvious problem that should be readily apparent even to a layman like me. [Reads several sections of the Wiki to make sure I didn't miss something] Also, in looking at this animation further, two more problems arise: 1) A "spotlight" sun is not what we observe, and 2) the moon and sun do not dramatically distort in size as they travel their course, which would clearly be the case if the FE animation were accurate. [Re-checks the Wiki, still finds no answer to these issues.]

JSS: The claim is that light can bend (electromagnetic acceleration), but there's no actual formula or claim for sizes - all the things required to use a scientific claim to resolve these problems with the FE model.

BRollin: That's the entire issue with FET: there's no actual explanatory framework. Instead, each separate FET claim creates more burdens of proof that aren't met.

Tom: [Super out of the blue] The three body problem isn't solved; therefore the RE model can't "keep" the Sun, Earth, and Moon together.

[Various others]: the 3 body problem isn't really a problem. Here's some science links!

....

Wait.  What?  Again, I really don't know much about physics. But let's say for the sake of argument that the 3 body problem is totally unsolved by "science" up to today.  How could that matter?  (I'm not trying to obliquely say that it's outside the scope of this thread).  I'm saying that a failure to fully describe one particular phenomenon with math is hardly a refutation of the RE model and framework.  I would guess (again, no background) that there are loads of phenomena that modern physics has yet to fully describe, making it a "problem" in the same way, and that some of these may have to do with the RE model.  But this doesn't help the argument for the FET in the context of simple observations (such as the one that launched this thread and the two I've added to it, none of which have yet to receive answers). 

Let me put it in other words:
You're saying we don't know how to use algebra (apparently?) to solve an exceptionally complex math problem (apparently). I would conclude that it must be really damn complex!
I'm saying there are three simple, basic observations that even a total non-physicist (like me!) can make about the FE model that kind of destroys it.  Can I have a coherent answer to these?  It would help convince me that the FET has a figment of legitimacy among thinking people (which I consider myself a part of!).


The reason I wanted to summarize this thread is to point out how weak the FET claim is even if you have almost no knowledge of physics and science (as I do).   Talking about a super complex algebraic problem that most folks (like me) don't understand is one thing. Making simple observations that show the FE model doesn't match reality is quite another.  And it's something I can do! So, can you answer these three problems with the FE model?  I'd really like to know.

You see, I cannot do the RE experiments and proofs myself to know that the earth is a sphere (or oblate spheroid or whatever).  My background is in English.  So I have to rely on experts, NASA, my teachers. You know - all those folks who must be in on the conspiracy, since they DO know how to make the experiments. But if you cannot even refute the simple observations that I can make by myself regarding the FE animated model, well, FET has some serious problems.  Don't bring the 3 body problem into this. Answer my three observations...

Thanks for reading!







138
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 14, 2020, 09:14:39 PM »
For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? It doesn't follow from FET.

I assume he is referring to the animation of the sun and moon circling overhead from the FAQ:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif

Based on this, what GoldCashew is saying absolutely follows from FET.  Pick his first example that he is in South America.  Attached is a screenshot of the animation.  Suppose the moon is at this point, and he is in S. America looking up at it.  Now, say that I am in North America. We are far enough apart, and the moon is close enough to the earth (as depicted by the animation) that we would see different parts of the moon at the same time.  But that's not what is observed. So, it's a problem for FET.  I cannot see it addressed on the wiki, though I admit I have not read all of it.

Only if the moon were very far away, would those in N. AND S. America see the same side (the "bottom" side of the moon from this model of a FE).  But if it were far enough away that both would see the same part of the moon at once, then ALL humans on the planet would see the moon at the same time. And they don't - only half (geographically) of the world can see the moon at a time.

Additionally, this animation brings up far more questions for which I cannot find answers in the wiki. Two of them come immediately to mind:

1. What causes the sunlight to stop its shine from covering the whole earth, regardless of where it is on its course above? Even when it is directly over the Phillipines (as in my screen capture of the animation), on an actual FE light should trivially still reach S. America. The Wiki reads "its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth."  But this doesn't make sense - imagine you are in a big circular field with a spotlight in the relative proportions and distances as the flat earth animation capture I've attached. The people in this field in the relative area where S. America is would not be under the direct spotlight. But they would SEE the light and that part of the field that is directly illuminated. There is nothing on the Wiki that explains this which I can find.

2. Why do the sun and moon not drastically change size as they move across the sky? As it moves around, if it were traveling within this system, and this much closer, it would obviously become much smaller as it travels over thousands of miles across the earth.  (EDIT: Yes, I know there is a section on the Wiki that addresses why the sun doesn't shrink when it sets. But this is a much bigger problem that seems unaddressed to me. The sizes of both the sun and moon would be visibly changing in size just about every single hour, if it were anywhere close to proportional as depicted in this animation).

In the past few days, after discovering this forum, I've read through several threads and been fascinated and enlightened by the clear reasoning and sophisticated understanding of math that I do not grasp. I'm new, and while I've read the forum rules, I don't believe I've broken any of them.

If these questions have been answered by the Wiki, please point them out to me.  They seem like glaring errors.




existoid,

Your exactly correct in re-summarizing my query about the Wiki animation model.

It presents a problem with the FE model in that if the moon is moving INSIDE of the perimeter of the Earth and moving INSIDE the tips of say South America // Africa // Australia (as the Wiki model shows), than folks living at these locations would see the "bottom face" or a portion of the "back side face" of the Moon which doesnt occur in real life. Hence, the potential flaw. For the FE model to be consistent with how people at every location on Earth actually see the same face of the Moon, the Moon would have to be moving about the flat Earth outside of the Earth's perimeter. The dome firmament that contains the Moon would look kind of funky, like a large expanded Jiffy Pop bag, if viewed from the side. So. I am just trying to get clarity on the FE model as depicted in the Wiki.

"you're" (sorry, I used to teach HS English)  ;D

Thank you!  Do you have any thoughts on my other two questions?  I can't find anything about them anywhere in the Wiki, but it seems like those would really need to be addressed.  How is at least SOME light of the "spotlight" not seen anywhere at night?  And the sun and moon, if moving around a perimeter as depicted, would have to be constantly shrinking and growing as they get closer and further to where you are on the flat earth. But they don't.  I have read about the sunset solution, but as described that can only explain it at sunset, not at all other times, right?  Or am I missing something.




139
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?
« on: May 14, 2020, 08:13:32 PM »
I disagree that it would be so easy for the sailors to notice that they're traveling a greater distance than expected; there are so many x-factors involved with sailing. I suspect they rely primarily on navigation equipment to determine what kind of distances they've covered and just trust what they're told just like everyone else; for all we know innumerable sailors involved in this race were surprised that they covered as little distance as their equipment tells them, but because RE is so ingrained, they just don't question it.

Can you suggest a few x-factors that aggregated would account for double or triple the length required (the outside lines of longitude on the Azimuthal FE model are easily twice the circumference of the inner ones where the UK is that the race starts)?   I find it very hard to believe it would be "so easy" to be mistaken about going two to three times more than expected.  That would require having to go two to three times the average speed since they can literally just count the days the trip takes, right?  And this would mean that lots of sailors - who are so experienced at sailing that they can travel for thousands and thousands of miles - cannot tell the difference between about 15mph and 30 or 45mph.  It's trivial to tell the difference between those two speeds in a car, but then again there are things to look at on the ground.  Even so, the surface of the ocean is not placid, so you can gauge it, if you've spent years on sailing boats . Plus, a great deal of the trip must be within sight of land, based on the description (certainly not all of it).

Additionally, if even a single person, out of the many who have done this since 1973 does not use sophisticated navigation equipment relying on the conspiracy, then that disproves the FE model in one fell swoop. Seems like kind of a high bar?  Isn't the zetetic model all about seeing for yourself?  It appears that literally anyone can do this. The website reads "Anyone, even if they have never stepped on a boat before, can join the adventure."
https://www.clipperroundtheworld.com/about/about-the-race






140
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?
« on: May 14, 2020, 07:05:39 PM »
For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.
How did you arrive at this conclusion? It doesn't follow from FET.

I assume he is referring to the animation of the sun and moon circling overhead from the FAQ:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif

Based on this, what GoldCashew is saying absolutely follows from FET.  Pick his first example that he is in South America.  Attached is a screenshot of the animation.  Suppose the moon is at this point, and he is in S. America looking up at it.  Now, say that I am in North America. We are far enough apart, and the moon is close enough to the earth (as depicted by the animation) that we would see different parts of the moon at the same time.  But that's not what is observed. So, it's a problem for FET.  I cannot see it addressed on the wiki, though I admit I have not read all of it.

Only if the moon were very far away, would those in N. AND S. America see the same side (the "bottom" side of the moon from this model of a FE).  But if it were far enough away that both would see the same part of the moon at once, then ALL humans on the planet would see the moon at the same time. And they don't - only half (geographically) of the world can see the moon at a time.

Additionally, this animation brings up far more questions for which I cannot find answers in the wiki. Two of them come immediately to mind:

1. What causes the sunlight to stop its shine from covering the whole earth, regardless of where it is on its course above? Even when it is directly over the Phillipines (as in my screen capture of the animation), on an actual FE light should trivially still reach S. America. The Wiki reads "its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth."  But this doesn't make sense - imagine you are in a big circular field with a spotlight in the relative proportions and distances as the flat earth animation capture I've attached. The people in this field in the relative area where S. America is would not be under the direct spotlight. But they would SEE the light and that part of the field that is directly illuminated. There is nothing on the Wiki that explains this which I can find.

2. Why do the sun and moon not drastically change size as they move across the sky? As it moves around, if it were traveling within this system, and this much closer, it would obviously become much smaller as it travels over thousands of miles across the earth.  (EDIT: Yes, I know there is a section on the Wiki that addresses why the sun doesn't shrink when it sets. But this is a much bigger problem that seems unaddressed to me. The sizes of both the sun and moon would be visibly changing in size just about every single hour, if it were anywhere close to proportional as depicted in this animation).

In the past few days, after discovering this forum, I've read through several threads and been fascinated and enlightened by the clear reasoning and sophisticated understanding of math that I do not grasp. I'm new, and while I've read the forum rules, I don't believe I've broken any of them.

If these questions have been answered by the Wiki, please point them out to me.  They seem like glaring errors.






Pages: < Back  1 ... 5 6 [7] 8  Next >