1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 23, 2021, 10:08:35 PM »

Can you be more specific about what is wrong with the mathematical solutions to orbit calculations? This is material that would be covered in a 4th year undergraduate Physics course, well within reach of understanding by a 21 year old student.

It's not that they are wrong. Also those formulas you linked were not for systems with 298357 bodies all with mass all pulling on each other. Your orbital speed equation only has two bodies.

Also the gravitational force calculation only has two bodies.

your orbital period could be used to calculate the orbital period of our moon in relation to our earth. Could that same formula used to calculate the orbital period of our moon while it is orbiting our earth which is also orbiting the sun? If so where are the variables for all three of those bodies in that equation?

In physics and classical mechanics, the three-body problem is the problem of taking the initial positions and velocities (or momenta) of three point masses and solving for their subsequent motion according to Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation.[1] The three-body problem is a special case of the n-body problem. Unlike two-body problems, no general closed-form solution exists,[1] as the resulting dynamical system is chaotic for most initial conditions, and numerical methods are generally required.

If by 'mathematical perspective' you mean 'write down an equation that enables us to plug in variables and output position and velocity and data' then no, we can't, but that doesn't mean we can't explain what's going on, or that the planets don't do what we expect them to do. Indeed, we have very accurate predictive models for planetary motion based on the n-body formulae - we just acknowledge that they aren't perfect over long time frames due to both the slight inaccuracies inherent in numerical methods and the sensitivity of the long-term results to small changes in starting conditions, which we can't measure perfectly. If you require that extremely high bar to be reached by every aspect of science, then we would also have no explanation for the behaviour of molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles, or how aircraft fly, to pick just two examples of things that can't be algebraically solved and require numerical method solutions.

Well that is something that RET can't explain. If we have laws of gravity why can't we put a formula and plug in variables to accurately model the orbits of all these bodies on the solar system?

Questioning it is entirely reasonable; assuming that an entirely baseless alternative model for the shape and disposition of the earth and its solar system, with no supporting evidence, no predictive power, and a whole range of enormous observable contradictions, is in fact a better choice due to some extremely minor limitations at the frontiers of human understanding is just plain daft.

Different people have different views and different levels of strictness on what qualifies as evidence. I assure you that most models are not baseless and each individual person can present you evidence for their own specific FE model.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 23, 2021, 07:04:25 PM »

Because of;

The hundreds of years of practical experience of it,
the measurements which correspond with it, and
the extensive space travel, since the 1960s or so, which has had flight paths based upon it.

Here is an example:





at the 2.52 minute mark which represents our solar system according to modern physics I notice that none of the marbles turned into moons and orbited other planets.

at the 4:40 mark he tries to demonstrate the three body system but it sure looks to me like both marbles are just orbiting the "sun" in that example. One marble does not do more than bump into the other once or twice. They never form what to me looks like a three body system which exists in our solar system with the sun, the earth, and the moon.

From a mathematical perspective we are unable to explain how our moon orbits our earth while the entire earth moon system also orbits the sun.

If we are unable to explain how this three body system works questioning how our 293857298375 body solar system works is not so illogical

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: February 25, 2021, 08:24:03 PM »

That's not a FE map. That is a flat map of a round earth. It is a projection

I could easily say that it's not. I could say it's a flat map of a flat earth.  The earth is round therefore that is not a flat earth map.

You could show me a globe and I could say that's not a map of the Globe earth. The earth is flat therefore it is not a map of the globe earth. It's a projection of the flat earth put onto a sphere.

Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.

with all the errors one would expect from a projection. As with most attempts to display the earth on a flat piece of paper (or screen), the further away from the equator you get, the more exaggerated distances appear. If you zoom out to show as much of the world as you can, the problem becomes apparent very quickly. Yes, when zoomed in they can show you a scale that will work pretty well, but when you zoom out...not so much. Look at Alaska, for example. Looking North-South, Alaska spans roughly 55N to 70N, a distance of around 900nm. Australia, on the other hand, spans from roughly 10S to 40S. But on Bing, as with many other projections, the two appear to be roughly the same distance.

The map I linked solves for those distance discrepancies with an interactive scale.  Also this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.

Likewise, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line on your Bing map - it's a great circle, which would be curved on that projection.

In a large number of the FE models the distance between two points very far away is unknown or the way they are measured are inaccurate so this is not a reason why the FE community would reject such a map.


This discussion is about why the FE community can't agree more unanimously on a map of the earth (regardless of what shape the earth may, or may not be). Not about how the earth is a sphere so all maps of the earth are round earth maps not FE maps.

As stated before the main reasons a majority of the FE community would reject such a map are listed below

1. It has a south pole and a north pole. Any person who believes the earth only has one pole would reject this model.
2. It does not have a great circular ice wall. Any person who believes that the earth has a great ice wall rejects this model.
3. It does not have any additional continents. Any person who believes there are continents other than the ones on a standard map rejects this model.
4. It does not have Jerusalem in the center.
5. It is not shaped like a circle.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: February 25, 2021, 04:10:13 PM »

Which FE maps are you referring to?

https://www.bing.com/maps represents the earth as a FLAT 2d surface with an interactive scale. I've used maps similar to this to navigate many different continents during my travels so I can corroborate, based on my observations, that a model of the earth like this does appear to be correct.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: February 24, 2021, 11:09:14 PM »

Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.

And yet there are no measurements or observations that ‘weaken’ the RE model. Why might that be?

There are FE maps which are NOT weakened by measurements and observations but they are not widely accepted in the FE community because:


1. It has a south pole and a north pole. Any person who believes the earth only has one pole would reject this model.
2. It does not have a great circular ice wall. Any person who believes that the earth has a great ice wall rejects this model.
3. It does not have any additional continents. Any person who believes there are continents other than the ones on a standard map rejects this model.
4. It does not have Jerusalem in the center.
5. It is not shaped like a circle.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: February 23, 2021, 05:10:42 PM »

Round earth theory has a very precise and accurate map of the earth, but there is no equivalent for flat earth theory. In fact there seem to be multiple conflicting versions of the flat earth map.

All this round earth data must be faked from the real (flat earth) data. So there must be a simple way of creating round earth data from flat earth data.

If we can work out how they do this, we can create a very detailed map of the flat earth using their faked data.

So why can't we work out how they do this?

There are many people who think the earth is flat who believe there is a map. Why there is no standard map is because there there a dozens, if not hundreds, of people each with their own perceptions and beliefs. For example, on the other forums, someone adopted a more biblical flat earth model in which Jerusalem was the center of the universe, and the world.

Another thing is that there are measurements and observations which weaken many of the maps. Because there is no map which is not weakened by measurements and observations the majority of the community has not agreed on a map.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simple Experiments

« on: February 18, 2021, 03:39:40 PM »

I want to know what is the simplest experiment that one can do in their neighborhood or community without expensive  equipment or a lot of commitment. Is there something so simple that everyone can do and that strongly distinguishes whether reality is a Flat Earth or Globe Earth?

I am pretty sure it depends on the location too whether you live in a urban, suburban, or a rural area. Or even you live near mountains or beach etc.

But is there any experiment that comes closest to being extremely accessible and strong in conclusion?

There are many experiments but the problem is that someone who believes the earth is round states that the results of the experiment shows the earth is round usually have a good rebuttal from the FE community.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight question

« on: December 21, 2020, 07:20:46 PM »

None of these examples are particularly useful when discussing the issues of long range observations through the atmosphere. Humidity, pressure gradients absolutely affect the apparent position of things - that's why we get mirages. But those represent the cumulative effects of small scale changes in refractive index of air as light travels through it.

The example is that, when making observations based on your visual cortex's interpretation of the signal from your optic nerve, you need to account for the path the light took before reaching your eye regardless of the distance the light traveled. In the video I linked it appears the light is traveling only a few feet and the observations are changed SIGNIFICANTLY based on the path the light took before hitting our eye. Could light traveling through our atmosphere pass through glass before it hits your eye? Absolutely. Could light traveling through our atmosphere pass through rain (water) and glass before hitting your eye? It sure can!

So those made over lesser distances would be less affected by the atmosphere. Just like I said, not all observations affected by these conditions such that the observation is rendered invalid. The effect may be inconsequential on a shorter-range observation.

Agree?

Here you are saying that observations made over a smaller distance would be less affected by the atmosphere. I gave examples of situations where light, which was traveling through things like glass and water were HIGHLY affected even though the distance was VERY small. Meaning that the claim that smaller distance = smaller refraction is not true.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight question

« on: December 21, 2020, 04:06:31 PM »

How are you defining "chaotic"?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaotic
" having outcomes that can vary widely due to extremely small changes in initial conditions"

"A physical system—a weather system, say—is chaotic if a very slight change in initial conditions sends the system off on a very different course."

So those made over lesser distances would be less affected by the atmosphere. Just like I said, not all observations affected by these conditions such that the observation is rendered invalid. The effect may be inconsequential on a shorter-range observation.

Agree?

No. Those observations made over lesser distances are less likely to be greatly affected by optical conditions. Take the observation on the arrow in the video below.

In the atmosphere the light is passing though glass, a zone of 100% humidity, and glass and those zones of refraction GREATLY affect the observations made on the direction the arrow is facing even through the light is only traveling a few feet at most.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight question

« on: December 14, 2020, 07:09:38 PM »

This is, of course, not a proof that the position of the horizon, in comparison with other objects in view, is sufficiently mis-perceived as to render the observation invalid. Chaotic optical atmospheric conditions are not universal to all observations.

Agree?

Chaotic optical atmospheric conditions are universal to ALL observations made on light which passes through our atmosphere. The more time the light spends passing through our atmosphere, and the more varied the conditions of the atmosphere that the light is passing through,  the more pronounced the effects that our atmosphere has on the light and thus our perception. 


Observations made on light traveling one meter indoors in a house through a relatively stable and constant set of atmospheric conditions is going to be largely unaffected by the atmosphere.

Observations made on light traveling many miles outdoors  through many different zones of different atmospheric conditions is going to be much more significantly affected by the atmosphere.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight question

« on: December 09, 2020, 03:32:56 PM »

The change in horizon throughout the day from a fixed viewing position is precisely what we would expect to see. Two factors are at play here. Firstly, visibility varies as light conditions and particulate matter or moisture in the atmosphere builds up or dissipates. Secondly, the refractive index of the atmosphere changes with temperature, pressure and humidity, meaning the range at which you can see over-the-horizon objects changes as well. The earth is not changing shape in that video. The earth is not flat either.

Exactly! So you acknowledge that the perceived position of the horizon is clearly affected by chaotic optical atmospheric conditions.


This is different than your claim here in which you fail to acknowledge that the chaotic optical atmospheric conditions at a high altitude are different than a low altitude:

If a person is at a high altitude, then other things at lower altitudes will appear to be down. Again, up is higher than down. EA if true, would increase the effect of the other object appearing to be down, but it's not necessary.

It seems to me that it could be possible that, at a higher altitude, the atmospheric conditions are so vastly different that it accounts for the variance of the perceived horizon instead of the altitude. Maybe the difference in perceived horizon position is 80% optics 20% altitude? Maybe it's 50/50. I highly doubt that it's 100% altitude and 0% optics. You should really edit the post above to at least account for the optical conditions

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight question

« on: December 08, 2020, 03:06:42 PM »

No. The reason the horizon is below eye level is that the person is at a higher altitude. Up is higher than down.

This very well could be true. The problem that I have with that is that there have been documented observations which suggest that the horizon can go up or down with the same altitude. You have to have an open mind. I'm not asking you to believe the earth is flat. I'm not asking you to believe the earth is not round. In this instance, I'm asking that you at least admit that things like refraction, or the path the light takes,  can have an effect on the perceived height of the horizon. Once you admit that then any sort of claims about the perceived height of the horizon really should have detailed light path/refraction analysis done to go along with those claims.




See the video below? Notice how, throughout the video, the horizon goes up and down with the altitude staying the same? Time and time again people have some and said that our human perception of the horizon, it going up, it going down, or things disappearing behind it are because the earth is round. Based on that kind of flawed thinking watching the video below would lead you to believe that the earth is changing shape. It goes from being flat to being round. Which i have not found one FE or RE person who believes.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me

« on: September 06, 2020, 05:49:43 PM »

9th century Arab sailors were using a kamal to determine latitude for navigation even before compasses were available.

What I want to know from flat earthers then is why they think measuring latitude with a kamal back in the 9th century can be dismissed as irrelevant because it's based on a spherical earth. It isn't, it's just measuring an angle, why can't you measure an angle on a flat earth?

I think it's more the modern longitude and latitude system which is considered based on a spherical earth vs ancient latitude only systems but i'm not sure. Once I saw the kamal video I was confused about what made the ancient latitude measurements were based on the spherical earth. Back then I was under the impression that most of the people thought the earth was flat.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning effect on flat earth

« on: September 03, 2020, 02:49:07 PM »

I appreciate Veritasium's attempt at challenging mainstream science through experimentation, it's an approach I'm very fond of. However, they failed to account for factors like the shape of the pool and the hole within - neither are perfect cylinders, and this will have a greater impact on the direction than any supposed Coriolis effect. The same goes for trade wind patterns affecting both hemiplanes/hemispheres (i.e. the actual cause of cyclonic motions).

I agree. In addition one pool was indoors and one was outdoors. If they did this experiment with the same pool, same tubes, both indoors, same altitude, same humidity, same temperature then switched positions relative to the equator and did the same experiment again it would dramatically strengthen the results as evidence.

As is this evidence is not overpowering.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there direct flights between Sydney and Santiago (Chile) ?

« on: August 24, 2020, 04:04:28 PM »

For those who say the argument "This flight does not exist", you have to be better than this, It sounds like an admission of defeat

There is a random guys who filmed his flight Santiago - Sydney

Here :



If you tell me this video is fake and this random guy (I think there is others we can find on YouTube) are actors, maybe you are paranoiac.

The problem with this is that the claim is that those flights take between 14-15 hours (give or take) and that video is like 50 minutes. There is no way to tell if that is all the same flight or multiple different flights. etc. etc. It's not saying that video is fake it's saying there's no way to tell if that video is real.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Center of gravity of objects on a flat earth

« on: August 24, 2020, 04:02:23 PM »

if an object being pulled down by acceleration is supported by something in which is COM is not over the support it topples over.

You can’t be pulled down by acceleration that is pushing up.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread…F=M*A, which is true but not the complete picture.
Force and acceleration are vectors and have both direction and magnitude.  Simply assigning a magnitude to a force doesn’t tell you squat about how the force is affecting something.  Is it moving it up? Is it moving it down? Sideways? Crushing it?

Are you seriously arguing semantics? Fine then. I'll correct my previous statement.


If a support is pushing up against an object because of gravity in which is COM is not over the support it topples over.

If a support is pushing up against an object because of acceleration in which is COM is not over the support it topples over.

I don't know how much clear this can be.

If a heavy child is on one side of a teeter totter and a smaller child is on the other side of a teeter totter and the teeter totter is pushing up against them because of a gravitational field then the heavy child will be pulled down.
If a heavy child is on one side of a teeter totter and a smaller child is on the other side of a teeter totter and the teeter totter is pushing up against them because of acceleration then the heavy child will be pulled down.

In order to answer those questions, you have to assign a direction to the acceleration. Assign upward (or positive) direction to the acceleration, as you would have on a flat earth, you end up with an upward force. Assign a downward (or negative direction), as you would have with gravity, you end up with a downward force.  How is an upward force pulling something down?

Because of the laws of inertia. When I hit the gas in my car i'm pulled back into the seat of my car, opposite the direction of acceleration.

By that definition, I don’t see how anything could ever be unbalanced on a flat earth, considering that the acceleration force is constantly and consistently accelerating everything with the same amount of force.

Acceleration <> force.

Force = Mass * acceleration. So when accelerating upwards at the same rate objects with more mass have more force.

Even if that weren’t the case, I don’t see how it could cause something to fall “down”, when the force itself is up. Any downward force that would come from a supported object would be the normal force, and would it would only be equal to the upward force.  No net force, means no movement in any direction.

Sounds to me like you should go talk to an engineering professor or physics professor to see if they can explain it better. Everyone here is in agreement about this.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Center of gravity of objects on a flat earth

« on: August 21, 2020, 06:52:30 PM »

But what if it isn't distributed around the COM?  That's kind of my point.  The COM is where gravity will exert the most pull, because that is where the object's mass is concentrated.  But from what I can tell from the wiki, the "accelerator force" must be evenly distributed. It doesn't vary according to position.

if an object being pulled down by a  gravitational field is supported by something in which is COM is not over the support it topples over.

if an object being pulled down by acceleration is supported by something in which is COM is not over the support it topples over.

I don't know how much clear this can be.

If a heavy child is on one side of a teeter totter and a smaller child is on the other side of a teeter totter and they are both being pulled down by a gravitational field then the heavy child will be pulled down.
If a heavy child is on one side of a teeter totter and a smaller child is on the other side of a teeter totter and they are both being pulled down by acceleration then the heavy child will be pulled down.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there direct flights between Sydney and Santiago (Chile) ?

« on: August 21, 2020, 04:59:24 PM »

Those are some excellent quotes from some great sources the Australian, British, and US Antarctic surveys have many additional fantastic resources to choose from as well. Journal of Geophysical research is a fantastic journal, that supports Open Access publication, so the full texts of lots of peer-reviewed articles available for free download. Awesome stuff!

Iceman,

At this point this topic has been discussed hundreds and hundreds of times. It was my very first post here.  so much so that I can just copy and paste this for you from a dozen other times that i've put this data. Each time there is another answer. There is a list of dozens of possible answers to your question.




The idea that known flight times, flight paths, and flight distances weaken the various different FE models is something that has been discussed dozens, if not hundreds of times. Here is a large array of responses:



https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16219.msg217416#msg217416
Sometimes flight paths support one FE model and sometimes they support another FE model or even the RE model when flying from point A to point B



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2046469#msg2046469

 "This flight has never been existed."


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2044714#msg2044714
"Don't trust  aircraft companies such as Qantas and Latam by their claims about flight times. These are liars."


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2045126#msg2045126
"If you find a video show full flight of a travel between Chile and Australia, then there will be a possiblity that path it exist."
-These flights only exist if you can produce a full video of the entire flight.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74707.msg2045413#msg2045413
-flying from Santiago, Chile to Sydney Australia in about 14 hours is impossible


https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121615#msg121615
-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 180 degrees the earth is flat.
-Because the angles of a triangle drawn between three flight paths = 179.99984 degrees the earth is slightly concave.



https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg121996#msg121996
-Distances between two cities which are far apart is unknown


https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122030#msg122030
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122441#msg122441
-Flight GPS systems are inaccurate


https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122359#msg122359
-GPS systems are based on a round earth therefore will give measurements/distances which support a round earth.
-Aircraft are using instruments which assume round earth coordinates which will support a round earth.
-There is no flat earth map.
-The difference in flight time is based off of flight speed which has yet to be proven.
-The airplane speed and range is based off round systems therefore will give speeds and ranges which support a round earth


https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122364#msg122364
-plane speed measurements are unreliable

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122369#msg122369
-there are no flat earth flight programs, systems, GPS etc because the flat earth aircraft navigation fund is nonexistent.


https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122410#msg122410
-Triangulation as a measurement of distance can be inaccurate because the "known" locations used for triangulation are based on a round earth system


https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122411#msg122411
-there are almost an infinite number of continental configurations (If a flight disproves flat earth continental configuration 23985729387592873 you then need to test continental configuration 23985729387592874).
-Groundspeed measurement instruments use a round earth coordinate system therefore will give results which support a round earth


https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122423#msg122423
-proof is needed that mile measurements on a highway are accurate

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122433#msg122433
-Google maps is based on a round earth coordinate system

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122655#msg122655
-any navigation system based on longitude and latitude is a round earth navigation system (which is most likely used in all navigation systems)

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122664#msg122664
-any map, navigation, or measurement system which uses Latitude and Longitude in any way is inaccurate

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.msg122672#msg122672
-That's not the map of the earth (a variant of there is no map of the earth)

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth

« on: August 20, 2020, 09:00:42 PM »

Does anyone consider there are any other options?

how light behaves really determines on what the light is, or is not, passing through.

Light passing through a vacuum not affected by any sort of gravitational, magnetic, or other quantum fields, or any sort of dark matter or dark energy behaves pretty much the same.


Light passing through things like those things listed above or any sort of other solid, liquid, or gaseous matter will behave very differently.

it may go straight, bounce, split


look at the 1:30 mark one light source splits into two.


one stream of photons of multiple different wavelengths may split into a wider stream of photons grouped together by wavelength like with a prism or a rainbow.


A photon will also behave differently based on the quantum state and wave function like in the double slit experiment.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Center of gravity of objects on a flat earth

« on: August 20, 2020, 03:16:48 PM »

I understand the equivalence principle and see how it is a good alternate theory of gravity for objects in free fall.  But I don't think it applies to my question.

I think it does.

The ground can't move up to meet something that's already on the ground when it falls.

Yes it can

  If you're already standing on the ground and lean over far enough, you lose your balance and fall. Technically, you rotate. The ground doesn't move up to meet you if your feet never leave the ground.

If you were in a closed system, like on a planet, you would be unable to tell if your face was slamming into the ground or if the ground was slamming into your face when you fall on your face.

And even if your feet do leave the ground, the equivalence principle still doesn't explain why lose your balance in the first place.  The mainstream explanation is that your center of gravity is no longer directly over your support and gravity will act on the part of your body that has the most mass.  My assumption is that flat earth wouldn't recognize an object's center of gravity as being a real thing.

The center of gravity is the average location of the weight of an object. Having defined that lets do this.


Losing your balance and tipping over is, as you defined it, when "your center of gravity is no longer directly over your support"


An object tips over when The average location of the weight of an object is no longer over the support.

In the gravity system An object tips over when The average location of the weight of an object is no longer over the support.
In an upward accelerating system An object tips over when The average location of the weight of an object is no longer over the support.

Or a teeter totter.  If a heavier kid is on one side, that side will fall, maybe touching the ground or not, but the whole teeter totter is rising at the same rate, so why would one side fall and not the other?

Force. The heavier kid on the teeter totter has more downward force therefore it moves down. In the acceleration system F = MA. Force = Mass * Acceleration.

The difference is that, in the gravity system, if a block is sitting on the ground not moving, it still have gravitational force even though it's not accelerating.