1

Flat Earth Community / Zetetic method questions: what about germs?

« on: November 11, 2020, 05:47:38 PM »

I don't quite understand why flat earthers have this notion that if one can't observe the actual cause of an effect, then the cause doesn't exist. For example, we know that germs are real because of the effect that various types of germs have on the human body and other bodies. Why do FErs sometimes claim that the earth is flat because they feel like they aren't moving, it appears flat, etc.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 17, 2020, 03:43:13 PM »

Apparently it's because the solar panels cover a big area and reflect sunlight. I always thought the point of solar panels was to absorb sunlight.

I didn’t want this to slip away, but you need to go out and understand things better before you come try to refute them. Solar panels are indeed meant to absorb light but 5ish percent still gets reflected. That’s enough to look a little bright when the reflection is of the sun.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Flat earth and New earth?

« on: May 16, 2020, 09:41:32 PM »

It’s my understanding that flat earthers also believe that the earth is a number under 15 thousand years old. I believe that the earth is a couple billion years old, and the universe is over a dozen billion years old. There are lots of things telling us that the earth and universe are very old, including various earth terrain, fossils, carbon dating, observing very distant space objects and other phenomena, etc.

I understand that not all (even not many) flat earthers believe space objects are real, despite the interesting things one can observe with telescopes and basic equipment. I’m curious if a FEr would confirm that FET in general believes the earth is relatively young, provide supporting arguments, and refute the example arguments that a) the Grand Canyon took millions of years to carve and b) observable phenomena like redshift and objects in space are as they seem. I pulled these out of a metaphorical hat, and there’s plenty more examples that could be discussed that indicate the earths very old age.

I think if we could establish that earth is very old, a cascade of determinations would occur leading to being required to accept modern day physics, as FET partially rejects.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 16, 2020, 07:28:26 PM »

I think somerled may be correct.  Its a plane.  Its been travelling at over 7 km per second since 1998.  Need to get me some of that fuel. 

Or a balloon.  A really aerodynamic, pointy, balloon.

Yeah you watched it all the way eh . Angular velocity tells you nothing about distance .

Have you ever herd of a derivative

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 16, 2020, 06:30:55 PM »

I can’t really help out Duncan here but I happen to work on F35s and after everything is manufactured, the quality group uses lasers and scanners to chisel down the frame to a ten thousand of an inch of tolerance. I don’t work with that group much and f35 engines are outsourced, but I can tell you the tolerances at least on modern fighters are super tight. They are not 1/inf though, but nothing can be toleranced perfectly because of the way metal and any materials are structured and the way they will weather and deteriorate on the vehicle or anything made with it. Perfection is something you only hear about in coursework, but it’s not a real world thing. Theoretically, we can speak of perfection, but in the real world, like we are speaking of now, it’s best to understand when we say “10 meters” we implicitly understand that’s “10 meters +/-1cm”. All things are this way, including googles api code for their maps.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 16, 2020, 06:19:07 PM »

Gravitational constant does not change, but the radius in the gravity equation could change if the orbit was more like an oval. The laws themselves are natural, but we don’t know why they are the way they are. There’s another inverse law equation for electromagnetism, just with a different constant and units. Science seems to easily explain the how, like through these equations, but has a difficult time explaining the why. Just because you don’t know the why doesn’t mean you certainly don’t know the how.

Now you’re saying it’s a hologram because the ISS really does seem to be explained by the simple explanations laid out in this thread. You have a preconceived notion or subconscious assumption that things like the ISS exists to trick you, and you must cover that belief with some explanation, all while also tricking yourself that your logic is justified by extreme scrutiny of others’ explanations through “the zetetic method”.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: May 15, 2020, 08:57:39 PM »

I’m not shocked to come back to this thread to find it has eroded from deciding whether or not plane tickets are real all the way down to arguing over the validity of google/bing maps api code, with the flaw being it does not calculate distance by the picometer. In the real world, estimates are made. The only time estimates might not be made are in labs, if even.

Better estimates were made in google maps than are currently being made by flat earthers’ maps, and the whole point of this thread originally was to use the fact that the airline industry offers flights that travel under certain times over certain terrain that would confirm the idea that the round earth “theory” (or we can relate it to the round earth estimates made by google/bing) has better estimates of the REAL distances than the flat earth theory. As a matter of fact, one could use all of the flight data offered by the airliner companies to plot the shape of the earth, it wouldn’t be that hard actually. Because you could do this, and you would end up with a ball, you would not be able to come up with anything else like, say, a pancake, or a concave dome or whatever.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?

« on: April 16, 2020, 08:35:03 AM »

I've been asking this question for a few months. Why would it be beneficial to lie about this? If it were beneficial, wouldn't it hurt tremendously more to keep the lie rather than share it? I'd like a manifesto of all the people and groups that benefit from people believing the earth is flat and how they benefit.

What's more is that all civilizations before ours and after B.C. that were scientifically influenced knew the earth was round, and some before then, contrary to "Columbus discovering it in 1492" like grade school teaches.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: April 04, 2020, 07:53:43 PM »

We can. This will just be more evidence that the earth is NOT a spheroid or an oblate spheroid. It must be some other shape.

I don’t understand why we’re still discussing the validity of bing when we have an open source map to reference. Use it to validate bing. It doesn’t matter who or how Microsoft wrote their map codes, as long as they are correct. You can verify accuracy using an open source code map so you can see the formula for yourself. I’m not going to do this for you because a)FET is your crusade and b)I am a mechanical engineer, NOT a web developer. I think until you bring results from this, anything you say more about Bing/Microsoft is anecdotal. So far your words have been a lot of anecdotal and not a lot of the so called “evidence” that flat earthers claim to value higher than RE plebs.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Math for universal Acceleration IS INCORRECT

« on: April 02, 2020, 01:38:09 AM »

I’m going to attempt to rectify your broken rhetoric, icanactuallythink...

I think what you are saying is that if the reference frame is to be held at a constant velocity (inertial change of zero), and an acceleration occurs, then the body under some constant or varying acceleration in one direction will not have the same velocity in two different points, as the UA theory seems to indicate?

I believe a FE response, if I understand UA well enough hopefully, is that the reference frame is also accelerating with the earth in time, allowing the earth to net zero inertial energy by accelerating within the accelerating reference frame. Pete, correct me if I‘m wrong.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: April 01, 2020, 12:48:59 AM »

I’m probably going to get a “warning” for this post but...

Just an observation to make: FErs were unable to refute the argument that supports the earth is round in this thread. We have established that:
1) All accurate maps online are either a)controlled by the conspiracy or b) use round earth geometrics
2) you can buy plane tickets that would be way too far for for a normal jet (747) to fly, so either a) the cabal is lying about the planes stats or the nature of the flight, easily proven otherwise if you took the flight, or b) the distance reported to you from the flight company is accurate.

These points have been discussed here, and no good argument was presented in favor of the flat One would rather “not know” than to side with the most likely explanation that the earth is round, maps online are accurate (to a degree discussed in this thread), and that plane tickets ARE real and the nature of these long flights and the planes themselves are accurately described by the airliners and plane manufacturers.

I’m going to give a bone to the FE community though by saying that the quantity of seemingly knowledgeable flat earthers on this forum is low, and the amount of effort they sometimes put into their posts is high, so I’d understand if this thread isn’t a priority over their wife and kids, however questions still remain to be answered and so far it’s not looking to good for FET here.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors

« on: March 12, 2020, 09:42:18 PM »

Well, you could change the analogy to throwing the ball in the air, then catching it with your arm straight out, then swinging back to throw it up again. You would get parabolic motion, and then a tight semi circle. Of course in reality a constant force is applied, but it’s the right idea: conservation of energy in rotations.

Or you could probably do it with a yo-yo if you were skilled enough to apply a constant force to the string with the yo-yo oscillating around your hand

Please learn about circular motion and centripetal force, and also please learn conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, and finally please learn how gravity supposedly works before you criticize an analogy used to represent these principles in a rudimentary way.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: March 11, 2020, 03:52:59 PM »

Perhaps I could propose some solution: the sun as we see it is actually a lense of some sort that magnifies a distant radiation source that which we cannot see. This explains why we don’t all evaporate, and also explains the spotlight affect of the sun.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors

« on: March 09, 2020, 07:24:11 PM »

Why then do things orbit in the first place, if not for gravity, since our local gravity has been replaced with UA? Is it another one of my assumptions that FET totally rejects gravity as a force?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: March 09, 2020, 07:22:14 PM »

Fusion in the sun is a problem... we know how fusion works, and that the sun must be super massive with unimaginable pressure at the core for it to make the heat and light that we know it does.

The angles are off too on that map. Not only would the sun need to be a spotlight, but the geometry of the illumination would need to be a sort of semi circle, not a full circle in order for the sun to not be shining in one regions direction at night time.

A question I’ve had yet to get answered is what is the centripetal force keeping the moon and sun revolving over the surface?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors

« on: March 09, 2020, 08:20:19 AM »

Pete, I tend to speak in generalities as if people know what I'm saying and I ought not to do that, apologies.

If there were a "space" and there was space debris, then shooting stars would make sense on a FE and a RE as space stuff could/would have a lateral velocity component such that these objects could burn in the atmosphere. However, RE has gravity and this explains the shallow entry trajectory, while I have yet to hear a convincing theory for how space debris would always enter at a shallow angle on a FE. Maybe sometimes, but all the time? Wouldn't the randomness of direction of the particles in space make the entry angle random?

The fact space as an entity exists, and meteors come from space as widely accepted by the FE community, and the UA theory says that we are accelerating upwards etc., is space debris also accelerating upwards ontop a pillow of dark energy, such that a grain of sand wouldn't split the earth in two as the earth collides with it? How would the shooting star phenomena work?


Jay, I'm assuming the ball is Halley's comet, the rope is "gravity", and you are the sun in this analogy, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think you're misunderstanding what an orbit is. you should be spinning the ball around you. Imagine if instead of a rope you had a thick column of silly string and the ball was oscillating away and towards you once per revolution. Whenever the ball is close to you, you yank that silly string, giving the ball inertia to rebound back out. When its away, you relax on the silly string, pulling it gently, waiting for its momentum to run out. This is what is happening in space, except gravity is the silly string.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors

« on: March 08, 2020, 09:53:10 AM »

Your premise that "everything from moon to stars is local and predictable" is incorrect, both on the "local" (some celestial bodies are local, others are not) and "predictable" (what does that even mean in this context?)

I think we'd have to first understand each others position here. I assume the FE community would generally agree that the firmament is some finite distance above the earth and everything is locally contained. There are some FE people that don't hold that position though, and you may be one of them, which may drastically change the discussion. I could be wrong in my assumption as well. Regardless, if there is a firmament, then shooting stars and rocks from "space" would have to be local, or inside the dome.

Predictability: There are some objects like junk satellites, some space debris, and some rocks/comets that we can track. Halley's comet for example (since y'all mentioned it) comes around every 75 years and will return next in 2061. Whenever it returns, a part of its debris field becomes fireworks for the observers on earth. Meteor shower events happen relatively frequently where they are predicted and observed.

There are some things we can't track, and as aforementioned, we are trying to make space travel safer and also find earth-ending sized rocks that are close by.

I think maybe your critique of my post is you think I'm saying we can predict all or most the shooting stars on an average night. We can't do that. Most of what we see are no larger than a pebble or grain of sand, and we can't track that. We can track bigger ones, and those typically come with a debris field that gets sucked into our gravity.

However, there is a much bigger problem with your query. It is unclear why you think objects in space would have no component velocities other than downward relative to the Earth, and you did not explain why you think they would.

I'm confused why you're confused... I said "non-vertical". Objects do enter the atmosphere at a shallow angle, not perpendicular to the earth. Perpendicular entry doesn't happen as earth tends to yoink objects out of their own orbit as they travel somewhat parallel to earth, so they enter at a very shallow angle. My problem with the theories thrown around in this thread is that there wouldn't be a large lateral velocity associated with any of the possible debris that could fall from the sky in a flat earth model. I'm not sure if the following statement will be conceded (but I'd be delighted to discuss it): most of the shooting stars you see are moving somewhere around 80,000mph, and a negligible amount of that velocity is towards the earth. For reference of the magnitude of the speed, you would personally burst into flames if you ran at 3,800mph or mach 5.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors

« on: March 05, 2020, 01:52:31 AM »

A growing industry is trying to track more space rocks in order to predict a potential catastrophic event and be more prepared for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Fence


I have been involved in this project.  Spent some time in Kwaj. I guess I am part of the conspiracy now. 

I am jealous that you’ve worked on that. I’ve really been thinking I want to shift from more aero to more space in the aerospace industry. I guess I want in on that conspirator money.

The earth ejects material via volcanos, yes, but this debris is A) tracked B) small C) not high velocity at all, and D) not frequent enough for the volume of meteor activity. I’m sure I could find a X,Y, and Z point, but I think those first three are sufficient.

Planes crash and then we hear about it on the news. Also, previous point C applies to planes.

Remember that in order to burn up in atmosphere, your velocity must be so great that the air acts as a metal grinder and literally bursts any material into flames and vaporizes it. Planes reach Mach .8. Rocks from volcanoes don’t go high, far, or fast on the scale required.

Rockets are actually more plausible. Rockets gain so much lateral or “orbital” velocity that when gravity wins them back over, shear from the air makes the rocket bits burn like shooting stars. However we’d be able to exactly predict debris to become shooting stars based on launch schedules. Further more, Records of shooting stars predate Jesus.

I don’t know what else it could be...

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: March 05, 2020, 01:30:26 AM »

Unfortunately I left the circ fans off today while I was welding, but on the bright side maybe Tom can “see through the smoke” of his faulty logic. If I traced these rays back to the source in 2D space, the sun would be outside the bay door.

Also please look at ChrisTP’s gifs, they will help you with your understanding that you seem to lack, evident in your most recent post.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: March 04, 2020, 05:55:43 PM »

Ah understood, I was mistaken.