### Recent Posts

1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Last post by xasop on Today at 12:50:04 AM »
I wasn't talking about velocities relative to an observer.
Yes you were, you just don't realise it because you don't understand physics. Here, let me help. Velocity cannot be measured except relative to some observer, so you are really saying:

If both objects are  moving up relative to some observer, the relative velocities between them will be different than if they are moving in opposite directions relative to some observer.
The only difference between these two scenarios is which observer you choose. There is no difference in the physics, so this claim is incorrect.

Of course, none of this gets us any closer to answering the question If two objects are 1000m apart and one moves up 533m in 15s and the other moves up 1103m in 15s, how far apart are they at the end of the 15s.?  That's a simple 3rd grade level word problem. Let me know when you've worked it out.
You are just throwing meaningless numbers around. Can you actually describe the model you are using, or did you just throw some numbers into a random website and hope for the best?

To calculate the relative velocities between two objects that are moving in the same direction, you add their individual velocities.  To calculate the relative velocities between two objects that are moving in opposite directions, you subtract their individual velocities.
This is also incorrect. You subtract their velocities, which are vector quantities, in both cases. Do you understand vector arithmetic?
2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Last post by Mark1986 on Today at 12:42:16 AM »
Quote
If you get different results depending on whether you model the Earth as accelerating up or an object as being pulled down to Earth, your mathematics is wrong.

I wasn't talking about velocities relative to an observer.  I was talking about the relative velocities between the earth and the skydiver.  If both objects are  moving up, the relative velocities between them will be different than if they are moving in opposite directions. If the relative velocities between the earth and skydiver are different if the skydiver is ascending or descending, the fall times will be different. ie, the earth and diver will meet at different times Whichever velocity it is, will be the same for a falling observer and for an observer on the ground, because both observers would record the same fall time.

Of course, none of this gets us any closer to answering the question If two objects are 1000m apart and one moves up 533m in 15s and the other moves up 1103m in 15s, how far apart are they at the end of the 15s.?  That's a simple 3rd grade level word problem. Let me know when you've worked it out.

You can check the math here for calculating the velocity of the earth at any given second.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/free-fall

You can check the velocity of the skydiver at any given second, taking .24 thrust/resistance into account
https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224830797

To calculate the relative velocities between two objects that are moving in the same direction, you add their individual velocities.  To calculate the relative velocities between two objects that are moving in opposite directions, you subtract their individual velocities.

3
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Last post by xasop on July 29, 2021, 11:44:22 PM »
It does make a difference because the relative velocities of two moving objects is different if they are moving in opposite directions or the same direction, or if one is moving and the other is not.
No, again, you are missing the most basic principle of relativity, that velocity is relative. In any motion involving two objects with different velocities in one dimension, you can choose an observer such that one object is stationary, or they are moving in the same direction, or in different directions. The choice of observer will not affect the fall time (unless you choose an observer moving fast enough that time dilation becomes significant), but some choices can make calculations easier than others. This has been accepted physics since Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published in 1687, which leads me to suspect that you have never taken a physics course.

If you get different results depending on whether you model the Earth as accelerating up or an object as being pulled down to Earth, your mathematics is wrong.
4
##### Flat Earth Community / Re: Thousand mile cloud shadows
« Last post by MetaTron on July 29, 2021, 09:30:13 PM »
yeah thats amazing.
5
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Last post by hvanmunster on July 29, 2021, 07:56:41 PM »
Hi,

As I mentioned before in a earlier reply to Toddler Thork, I think the entire 7 pages of discussions could be stopped at once if the FE team members would use the concept of Electromagnetic Acceleration to explain the apparent curvature of the horizon in the footage, as explained here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

On that page, AE is suggested as a possible  or alternative explanation of why we see the sun touching the horizon at sunset.
This is explained by accepting that the light of the sun bends due to AE.

The tfes wiki pages also mentions that this bending happens not only for light coming directly from the sun, but also for light coming from elsewhere, like f.i. the horizon, see chapter 'Horizon Dip' on that same page.

As a result: the horizon should appear to be curved when seen from a great distance (high altitude). And thus the footage of the curved horizon at high altitude is in accordance with both the RE and the FE model.

Unfortunately (for FE), accepting AE creates other problems.

Althoug the concept of AE is explained in detail (again: as a "possibility", an alternative for the RE), the reason why AE is able to bend the light, is not explained (still unknown?). Also the math behind it needs more explanation. Just one example: the dimension of the Bishop constant Bèta is not mentioned, and neither are the dimensions of x and y. The page explains that the value of Bèta is not yet know (fair enough), but the dimension of Bèta should already be known and mentioned on the page. (my guess: Bèta ´s dimension is m/s^2)

So AE  basically looks a bit like a wild guess (but not impossible) the way it is explained on tfes wiki.

In accordance with the policy of this forum, I suppose that the discussion about AE and it's formula should not be discussed in this thread. Instead, it would probably require a new thread on anothor board.
If any FE team member is willing to discuss the 'flaws' (as seen from my perspective) of the formula, please feel free to open a new thread under the correct location.

Plot of the formula (for Bèta = 1 and c expressed in km/s):

Note that the overall shape of the fomula does not change with changing values of Bèta.

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Building a map of the flat earth using "sunrise" and "sunset".
« Last post by ichoosereality on July 29, 2021, 06:30:11 PM »
Just the sunrise/sunset times clearly show that they move around the earth, not across some layout of continents on a flat earth.

Further making a little use of modern technology, find a buddy on the other side of the planet.  Call them up when the sun is rising or setting for you and it will be doing the opposite for them.
How can a FE explain one observe seeing the sun rising in the east while another somewhere else on the planet sees it setting in the west at the same time?  There is only one sun, it can be doing both.

I find the entire FE proposition nonsensical to be honest.   Science is a methodology not an ideology.  It is nonsensical to accept the results of that methodology in some domains but not others.  Doing so, like FE belief is an instance of ideology over facts (albeit an extreme one) and folks that have adopted that philosophy seem very unlikely to be swayed by pointing out facts.  Sadly this is a very bad thing for our civilization.
7
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Last post by WTF_Seriously on July 29, 2021, 06:29:40 PM »

It does make a difference because the relative velocities of two moving objects is different if they are moving in opposite directions or the same direction, or if one is moving and the other is not.

That is where the FE error lies. If the earth and the skydiver are both going up, with the diver at a slower rate, yes they will eventually meet.  But not in the same time frame as if the earth is stationary and the diver is descending.  Its the relative velocities that count, not the rate of acceleration.

In both scenarios, the relative velocities of the earth and skydiver at the moment the skydiver jumps are equal.  In RE they can be considered as both zero, in FE they are some value but in each case both the earth and the skydiver are traveling at the same velocity.  The fact that the FE skydiver keeps moving can be ignored since the earth was moving at the same velocity when the skydiver stopped accelerating.  In both scenarios, the change in the distance between the two objects is only governed by the acceleration of one of the objects and that acceleration is the same value in both scenarios at 9.8
8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Last post by Clyde Frog on July 29, 2021, 05:55:03 PM »
Velocity is relative. The skydiver is not going up relative to the Earth. The skydiver is falling toward the Earth, with air resistance being really the only thing limiting the velocity (again, relative velocity between the skydiver and the Earth) the skydiver eventually strikes the Earth with.
9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« Last post by Mark1986 on July 29, 2021, 05:32:43 PM »
In FE, the atmosphere is always going to provide a motive force upwards, rather than a resistance.
Those are the same thing. In RET, to a free-falling observer with the same initial velocity as the falling object, the atmosphere provides an upward motive force. In FET, taking a non-inertial observer accelerating with the Earth, the force is resistive. This is like arguing about whether the object is undergoing acceleration or deceleration — it makes no difference to the physics, you can use whichever description suits your frame of reference.

It does make a difference because the relative velocities of two moving objects is different if they are moving in opposite directions or the same direction, or if one is moving and the other is not.

That is where the FE error lies. If the earth and the skydiver are both going up, with the diver at a slower rate, yes they will eventually meet.  But not in the same time frame as if the earth is stationary and the diver is descending.  Its the relative velocities that count, not the rate of acceleration.
10
##### Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« Last post by Tumeni on July 29, 2021, 03:59:51 PM »
Well, you gave an FOV in your original submission, stating why water couldn't be seen. How large a radius did that reflect?"

No, I showed the limit of visibility from the camera and capsule, along the axis of the camera, not a Field of View.

The FoV across the picture depends on the focal length of the lens used, and I don't have that available. I know it was a GoPro, but without knowing which one...

I reckon, as stated above, the limit of visibility (from camera to that limit point, measured in a straight line from camera to surface) to be around 706km. The arc on the surface below this, and the chord below that, will be approximately the same, but will differ.

That will tell you whether or not the chord is 150km.

I don't see how you can calculate the arc/chord across the frame without knowing the angle covered by the camera across its FoV, or by reference to landmarks in the frame. I don't see that can be derived from the distance to the limit of visibility along the axis of the camera. If we had the camera FoV in degrees, we can calculate the arc/chord easily with simple geometry.

We can clearly see how the distances on the surface take up different lengths within the frame, depending on whether they are closer or further away.

Do you agree with the identification of landmarks and features so far, and the distances between them?