61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation of Earth through poles

« on: August 28, 2017, 10:15:02 PM »

How is it possible to circumnavigate the Earth longitudinally? I want to ask the question that if we go from the North Pole to the South Pole, how come we don't just fall off the Earth?

That is indeed a problem in the ice wall model, how circumnavigation via the poles could be done. The only possibility I know of is that they crossed past the ice wall and circled around the circumference of the antarctic circle above the ice to make it to the other side. The distance would be longer and there would need to be some exaggeration of the speed of the plane, distance traveled, and the navigation method for this to be true.
Otherwise, there is the bi-polar flat earth map, where they crossed the south pole and came back around:


And then there is my favorite model (the one I adhere to), the Davis relativity model, where aether (space-time), bends around the Earth, where you can traverse the Earth in a straight line as a flat plane, but the aether you are traversing within curves and you circle back. Basic entry here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

Please read this link - it shows that a person actually did this once. I still want to reiterate the question of why the Earth bulges at the equator. By understanding seismic activities, and how the waves travel through the Earth, we can see that the Earth has a horizontal radius that is 26.58 miles longer than the vertical radius. Why? In the 17th century, following the invention of the pendulum clock, French scientists found that clocks sent to French Guiana, on the northern coast of South America, ran slower than their exact counterparts in Paris. Measurements of the acceleration due to gravity at the equator must also take into account the planet's rotation. Any object that is stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth is actually following a circular trajectory, circumnavigating the Earth's axis. Pulling an object into such a circular trajectory requires a force. The acceleration that is required to circumnavigate the Earth's axis along the equator at one revolution per sidereal day is 0.0339 m/s². Providing this acceleration decreases the effective gravitational acceleration. At the equator, the effective gravitational acceleration is 9.7805 m/s2. This means that the true gravitational acceleration at the equator must be 9.8144 m/s2. This difference in acceleration is massive, all because of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which, according to the law, shows that the Earth must be round because all mass is attracted toward's one another.

I recommend you look into Mach's principle. Essentially, any frame of reference (FoR) considered as geocentric would involve a 'celestial gravitation' as influencing the local physical characteristics of such a local physical FoR, in such a way so that the term "mass out there influences inertia here" holds true when taking geocentricity as your preferred relative movement.
Here's a great example:
Suppose we took a bucket of water at rest, and stirred the water so that the water rotates relative to the bucket, then, we got the water rotating relative to the stationary bucket. Now, lets suppose we rotated the bucket instead, so the bucket was rotating relative to the stationary water, but if you do this, the water will start to rotate with it, giving the same effects that water rotating relative to the stationary bucket would have. So, we can postulate, that in a local frame of reference, the rotation of the Earth relative to the stationary celestial bodies is indistinguishable from the rotation of the celestial bodies relative to the stationary earth, because of how the celestial bodies would affect the Earth, giving centrifugal force by interaction between these masses.

A good basic read: http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/machs_principle_and_the_concept_of_mass_fos_v16n3.pdf

62

Flat Earth Community / Re: depth of Earth

« on: August 28, 2017, 09:18:48 PM »

How thick is the Earth? If I drill a hole straight down through it, and look through the hole, what will I see on the other side?

Would be unknown, and varies by model.
However, on the infinite plane gravitational model, there is an estimate if we assume we know the average density of the plane.
The infinite plane all boils down to g = 2πGp,
where:
g- gravitational pull (9.81 m/s/s)
G- gravitational constant (6.754×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2)
p- average density of Earth (5.51 g/cm³ by modern estimates)

If we accept this, it comes down to a 4,195 kilometer depth.

Given it also has depth we are looking at the case of m = (density * Area * depth). This gives us instead g = 2πG p d, where d is depth.

g = 9.81 m/s/s
G = 6.754×10−11 m3 kg−1 s−2
p = 5.51 g/cm³ , the average density of earth

Giving us d = g / (2πG p). This evaluates to around 4 195.43 kilometers deep, thus showing false my early hypothesis of 9000 km deep.

- https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

As for the other side, could be infinite space, which would be nothing worth getting excited about.

I don't hold to this model, but I like how it can give an estimate of the depth of Earth.

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 08:56:21 PM »

[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]

I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...

Alright, considering that attachments are all too large, i had to resort to image address links.


This is an illustration I found on this video:
It doesn't deal exactly with what I am talking about here but it shows an astroplate above Earth and it would contain two sides, a top and bottom. It could be shaped more like a flying saucer like I said earlier (not completely flat), but "plate" describes it accurately.
Here is something else I found that would do better than I could do:

This is actually quite spot on, think of that dome as the concave mirror wrapping around you, and the top of the astroplate (that line with some blue around it) is reflected off of the dome around, and it even has lines to illustrate it. I don't think this picture even had this purpose (looks more like its modeling the december solstice), but it works as an illustration.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 08:41:03 PM »

[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]

I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...

I'm not one for drawing precise 3d models, so, I'll just put up some pictures that may get you to see.
The first one is the astroplate above the Earth, the top is the other side seen in the south by reflection. The dome is concave and surrounds the Earth, so it reflects the same stars on top from all across, so anyone looking due south will see it even if in different directions due to the circling ice wall.
The astroplate may in fact be so that it curves around to the other side, but for visualization purposes, just think of it as a disc of stars above the Earth with two sides.
But to answer your potential objection, it seems the astroplate would have a thickness of stars curving around so that when it reflects, the stars curving to the top of the astroplate will reflect too, meeting the reflection and the actual stars seamlessly, shaped just like an alien flying saucer, so it's not completely flattened.

But yeah, think of a concave mirror circling you with a plate above you and when you look up at the mirror surrounding you, the top of the plate is reflected.

Damn, just realized my pictures are too large of an attachment. I'll try again with something else.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Our perspective of celestial bodies?

« on: August 28, 2017, 07:22:23 PM »

[...]The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.[...]

Actually, afaik you can never see the stars as circular. They always appear as dots, no matter the magnification... they are too far away for any telescope to resolve that much.

I meant star trails, yeah, should have been more clear on that one.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Our perspective of celestial bodies?

« on: August 28, 2017, 07:20:08 PM »

Assuming the moon and stars are hovering thousands of miles above Earth and get far enough away to descend due to linear perspective, then why is it that we always see the same side of the moon? Wouldn't see see it at a different angle as it descends away? The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.

Is it claimed to be some law of perspective with far away celestial objects, them appearing to tilt to our angle of view as they descend, or is it explained as a type of electromagnetic accelerator phenomena where the path of light is affected and gives us this appearance? Or if neither, what?

The moon is tidally locked with Earth. This means the time it takes to complete a revolution is the same amount of time it takes to complete one orbit of the Earth. As such, we always see the same side of the moon. Perspective is an optical illusion. Think of it like this, why do the Sun and moon look so large when they are on the horizon? It is because the brain "thinks" things on the horizon are closer and they appear larger. It isn't reality, the Sun and moon are no larger. You can't trust what your senses tell you nearly as much as we like to think we can.

Yes, I understand that it is, but on a flat Earth, with the moon moving above the Earth, perpendicular to it, as it furthers away, we will view it at a different angle. So, we would see a different part of it and different phase as it furthers away, assuming it was a sphere in this case. The star trails around Polaris as we move south would not appear like they are above us, but would appear more elliptical because of our angle of view.
This illustrates what I mean:

So:
1. Why do we always see the same side of the moon across Earth even as it furthers away and converges with the horizon?
2. Why do star trails always appear like they are facing us directly? Almost like they are tilting to our perception as we move away.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Our perspective of celestial bodies?

« on: August 28, 2017, 11:31:49 AM »

Assuming the moon and stars are hovering thousands of miles above Earth and get far enough away to descend due to linear perspective, then why is it that we always see the same side of the moon? Wouldn't see see it at a different angle as it descends away? The same would be true of stars, as we move south, rather than the north stars being at a more acute angle of vision and therefore appearing elliptical by being viewed from the side, we see them circular as if they are tilting with our perception of them.

Is it claimed to be some law of perspective with far away celestial objects, them appearing to tilt to our angle of view as they descend, or is it explained as a type of electromagnetic accelerator phenomena where the path of light is affected and gives us this appearance? Or if neither, what?

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 11:07:52 AM »

This is a cross post from another Flat Earth forum, since i havent been able to glean anything useful there. Im hoping you guys can help.

The Flat Earth Theory seems to be a predominantly nothern/inner latitudes thing - most of its proponents live in North America. This is evident from the north-centric views of the Flat Earth.
Trouble is, from the perspective of someone who had lived most of their life in southern/outer latitudes, most of what is said doesn't really wash.
The prime example of this is Sigma Octantis, the southern pole star.

In the northern/inner areas of Earth, the stars appear to wheel around the star known as Polaris - it's brightness and proximity to the celestial pole make it perfect for determining true north. It is almost a fixed point in the sky, and this would be true in both Flat and Spherical scenarios.
However, in the outer latitudes of the Flat Earth theory, there would be no pole star and we would see the stars flying overhead much faster that near the centre of the disc.
This is not the case.

Instead, the southern latitudes have their own pole star, Sigma Octantis, around which all the stars circle. They also circle at the same rate as those in the northern/inner latitudes - something that would be impossible if viewed from a disc.
An object with two poles is necessarily 3 dimensional.

So I would like to hear the Flat Earth explanation for this.
Diagrams and animations encouraged.

I don't hold to this or anything, but I heard from some that the Earth with an ice wall has a firmament dome wrapped around the Earth, giving a mirror effect, with the concave nature of the dome, therefore all observers in the south hemiplane looking due south will see the same stars.
Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth.
In the Northern hemiplane, we see the north star rotation and Polaris as a barycenter, as we move south, the northern stars disappear below the horizon and the southern stars enter our field of vision. The north stars are the under part of the plate that we see directly, the southern stars are the other side of the plate (the top), which reflect off of the firmament dome and comes into view near the southern hemiplane. We are in reality looking up at a reflection off of the dome of the top of the dual astroplane, with sigma octantis being the center point star on the other side of the astroplane.
Here's an illustration on a video:

Now, concave mirrors, and any mirror surrounding you will reflect the same center point given that it's an equal distance away from it. So, all across the Hemiplane, all across the circumference of the ice wall and to the firmament, we will see the same stars because the top astroplate is reflecting.
The south star reflection will follow the same rotation of the north stars, but will appear to rotate in the opposite direction because it's mirrored.

I hope that makes sense, I don't hold to the ice wall model or existence of this firmament, but it sounds like an interesting theory to have given you grant those.

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?

« on: August 28, 2017, 10:03:02 AM »

Interesting.
Will you consider adding this on the wiki here?: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

The concept with this is solid in my view.

I obviously don't expect it to be part of a replacement model for the planarists mainstream position, but it's something that interests me.