Recent Posts

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Force of Gravity Real or Fake?
« Last post by QED on Today at 02:12:38 AM »
When physicists define a force, what they are really doing is making a statement about energy. I know that sounds strange, but hear me out!

A "force" in physics is a gradient of a potential field. There is a connection between a potential field and energy. Hence, it is convenient to speak about this using forces.

However, if you are a particle physicist, then you have a different approach, because you can measure specific gauge bosons which transmit forces. So in this regime you would say that forces are transmitted by particles exchanging these bosons. Then the forces play out in a intuitively tractable dynamic fashion.

Which view is ultimately correct? That is hard to say. Both describe reality very well in certain regimes. I do not know of any description which has predictive power and abandons the idea of forces.
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What does it matter?
« Last post by Bad Puppy on Today at 02:05:06 AM »
It's not just that a powerful organization lied.  It's about the world as you knew it being a lie.  If you don't think that would fundamentally change your life, than I'd say you're lucky.  Perhaps that's why real flat earth believers (not just the trolls on the forums) are so quick to dismiss any evidence of a round planet.

Pick anything you strongly believe in and replace flat earth belief with that.  Imagine a devout christian, he spends his whole life in the service of God and the bible only to find that it was in fact written by the devil for some nefarious purpose.  I think his life would fundamentally change.

Although, I'm sure flat earth believers are happy to be living in our round world as our conspirators have given them efficient flight around the world, GPS, Star Trek, pi that doesn't equal "something closer to 4", a known distance from New York to Paris (3161 nautical miles), and most conveniently a map of the earth (something that doesn't exist on a flat earth).
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth and The Big Bang Theory
« Last post by QED on Today at 01:59:08 AM »
Why does being flat take more energy?

Galaxies are flat. You have no problem with that. The universe is flat.

But you have a problem with the energy required to make a teeny weeny planet flat? 'Immense energy' compared to a universe being created? I've told round earthers a million times on this site, not to exaggerate.
The Galaxies are flat because they are spinning!!! But the "Flat Earth Theory" that the sun is spinning over the earth makes it stationary.

If the earth is stationary ( not spinning ) and is flat. then it is IMPOSSIBLE.

therefor the earth is a sphere and not a disk. You might say "if the earth is a sphere and spinning then why isn't it a disk? after all it is spinning!" Well that is waaaayyyy slower than a spinning galaxy.

The earth is actually slightly oblong due to its rotational force. This is consistent with the explanation of why galaxies are "flat".

Yes, this is consistent with my understanding of the Earth as an oblate spheroid. It is "fatter" along the equator, where the centrifugal force is largest. If we could, somehow, speed up the rotation of the Earth top match the rotation of the galaxy, then the centrifugal forces would become large enough to eclipse the molecular forces holding the Earth together, and the Earth would break apart into constituent molecules. These molecules would then collapse to form a disk shape due to collisions which removed (or averaged) radial velocities while still preserving azimuthal velocities (due to conservation of angular momentum).

It would be fascinating to simulate this.
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ice Wall
« Last post by QED on Today at 01:50:41 AM »

What do you mean imagine? Is your imagination empirical evidence? A thought experiment where you set the rules to be so that earth is round, isn't much of a though experiment.

Imagine Mars is full of little green men. Now tell me that there is no life on Mars.

I LOL'ed with your Mars example. Not in a way that is mocking, mind you, but in a honest way that appreciates the point you are making.

I think it is well stated.

Any positive claim has a burden of proof. If I want to claim the Earth is round, then I have a burden to prove it. If I want to claim the Earth is flat, then I have a burden to prove that. The evidence must then be in proportion to the size of the claim. What I mean is this: suppose I told you that my name is David. You will probably believe that without much evidence. David is a known name, and many folks are named this. You may not bet you LIFE on it being true...but you might take my word for it. Suppose, however, that I say my name is Qjksoauhjfrtpa9ehfszEADKLUhfawkdf. THAT is a bit of a bigger claim! You might ask for some ID before you believed it!

So, I guess the point I am making is that it isn't fair. FEers have a harder job than REers, because FEers have a bigger claim -- they must content with an entire field of experimentally proven evidence which validates RET. Hence, FEers in fact have a higher burden of proof needed to support the larger claim. That is not easy on you all, and I am beginning to realize that and cultivate compassion for it.

Please do let me know if I might help.
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What does it matter?
« Last post by QED on Today at 01:35:03 AM »
I have always wondered what the powerful organizations have as a motivation for the conspiracy. What is to be gained in tricking people about the Earth's shape? Is it money? How? NASA could sent folks into space (or pretend to...if that is your belief) no matter what shape the Earth takes. What does the conspiracy gain by lying about the Earth's shape?
This thread raises an interesting issue that is testable. If the Earth is flat, then objects at a distance should appear smaller, but we should still see the entire object. If the Earth was curved, then we would see only the tops of the objects, since the bottoms would lay below the horizon. This is related to the pictures shown in this thread and the ideas discussed.

Hence, as a ship approached us, we would see the tops first in RET. This example is probably well known to the fora.

Now, one challenge to REers in regards to these statements is how do we demonstrate that the bottoms of the ships are not simply merging into the horizon line? Indeed, it is difficult to identify objects at such large distances with adequate resolution.

If we use a magnifier, however, we can test this scenario. Simply bring a pair of binoculars (or a cheap telescope) to the coast and use it to watch advancing ships. This is easy for me since I live in Auckland, which is a large port city with many ships arriving and leaving.

When you use an optical aid, you see definitely that the bottoms are below the horizon. Such observations are in disagreement with the FET, which postulates that you would see the entire ship.
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Cruising the round earth?
« Last post by Tumeni on Today at 12:08:50 AM »
Really the whole world wants to talk to you ? O ly to explain to you how ridiculous your flat Earth theory really is

I think you're responding to the quotations in my signature. Honestly, there's no need to.
Eye level follows the horizon seems nomatter how hi u go

How hi have you been?
Flat Earth Community / Re: Global Positioning System
« Last post by Bobby Shafto on August 18, 2018, 11:32:54 PM »
Geostationary orbits are geosynchronous, but geosynchronous need not be geostationary.

Though he used the term geosynchronous, rushy must mean geostationary if he is talking about satellite that does not change location in the sky. Only geostationary (equatorial) satellites satisfy that characteristic. And a global system cannot be based on geostationary vehicles. Not possible.

It becomes possible if you include geostationary satellites in inclined orbit, but those will move, tracking an analemma pattern in the sky.

A constellation of geosynchronous satellites some with inclined or polar orbits could provide global navigational coverage, but would be inferior and more cost prohibitive to one with medium earth orbit vehicles.

Geostationary only? Can only provide partial globe coverage and is not the only functional orbit. MEO not only works but has significant advantages.
The NHS, as Tom pointed out, are basically saying clinical trials are on going, garlic does kill the cancer cells in the lab ... but there is no drug that can be sold for masses of profit at this time.

Quote from:
The researchers found that all three compounds caused more glioblastoma cells to die (by a method known as apoptosis) than was observed in the untreated control cells. The higher the concentration of the compound used, the more cells died.

Those are the results. Garlic kills cancer.

It did kill some cells, in a lab. So do other compounds. I look forward to more research on the matter. In the mean time, Cancer is NOT easily cured with common grocery store items.