Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - stack

Pages: < Back  1 ... 136 137 [138] 139 140 ... 155  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Earth get between the Moon & Sun in FET?
« on: November 18, 2018, 07:37:17 AM »
There's another huge problem with FET according to the FAQ section in the Wiki.  The sun changes it's orbital diameter in the different seasons.  You can see that on the nice diagram.  When you go from a smaller diameter circle to a larger diameter circle you have to speed up the sun in order to keep the same orbital time (length of day).  This would require some kind of a retro-rocket.  The opposite would be true when going from a larger diameter orbit to a smaller one.  The retro-rocket would have to fire in the opposite direction to slow the sun down.  I'm assuming that the sun has some mass.  However I haven't been able to find a figure for the mass of the sun under the FET model.  Since the sun has to have some mass it would take a specific amount of time to change the orbital diameter.  More thrust means a shorter time to change orbits.  All of this would have to be accounted for in any kind of diagram showing the timing of an eclipse.  Additionally since the sun has some kind of mass it would require a force to keep it in an orbital path.  Could this be some kind of gravitational attraction between the sun and another body?  Maybe the shadow body is somehow involved.  Again I am going on very little information and having to make some educated guesses.  It sure would help to have some kind of reading on the speculated mass of the sun under this FET model so some accurate predictions could be arrived at for an eclipse.

Does the needle of a record player change its rotational rate when it travels towards the center?


The record is not rotating, like flat earth. The needle, like the flat earth sun, needs to travel around the record. Here it is explained using the example of a stationary record with a traveling needle:

"But, when the record is stationary and you are using a cute little device to run around the grooves, the device would have to “know” whether it is an outer groove (where the correct linear speed is about 20 inches per second) or an inner groove (where the correct linear speed is about 9 inches per second) and adjust its travel speed accordingly in order to play at the proper pitch. This would be quite a difficult engineering project; it’s far more likely that the device runs at a constant speed (perhaps with a manual adjustment) in the hopes that it doesn’t sound too bad over the course of a single track."

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Experiment 'evidence'
« on: November 18, 2018, 12:44:34 AM »
On the FAQ page you state
Perhaps the best example of flat earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment. In short, this was an experiment performed many times on a six-mile stretch of water that proved the surface of the water to be flat. It did not conform to the curvature of the earth that round earth proponents teach.

If the Earth is a sphere of 24,901 miles equatorial diameter then a 6 mile section would appear flat. 6 miles would represent an arc of just 0.02% of the total circumference. Not enough to show any noticeable curve.

From the famous (infamous) Hampden/Wallace Bedford Level wager, one of the attempts was something like a 13' viewing height with 13' high poles placed at I think 1 mile intervals for the whole of the 6 mile distance. Here's what it might have looked like with one pole at 3 miles and the other at 6. FE left, RE right:

Flat Earth Community / Re: Logan Paul allegedly comes out as a Flat Earther
« on: November 17, 2018, 06:49:09 PM »
Mark Sargent apparently left the conference b/c of Logan's presence. I'm only 10 minutes in, but pretty interesting. Have a look:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Earth get between the Moon & Sun in FET?
« on: November 17, 2018, 06:08:19 AM »
At least from a Rowbotham perspective, yes, the shadow object is a must. He also swizzles in the self-luminous moon bit as well. I haven’t read ENAG Chapter XI In a while. But enlightening:

"From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.”

The last line is a particular favorite, kind of a, “Logic demands this conclusion,’compulsory’, in fact, but here on in, I’ll pepper you with cherry picked phrases from philosophers, astronomers, greeks and scriptural references to cement this undeniable logical conclusion.” type of argument. Clever, that Rowbotham.

Bottom line, the shadow object argument as a requirement to explain a flat earth lunar eclipse is just that; a requirement. One necessary to get FET out of the earth “getting in the way” jam. It is literally not based on anything observable, testable, measurable…nothing. It doesn’t even pass the Zetetic sniff test. It is a ‘compulsory’ necessity in FET, manufactured to solve a problem in FET that doesn’t exist in RET.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Earth get between the Moon & Sun in FET?
« on: November 16, 2018, 10:52:55 PM »
Aside from n-body issues and predictive versus calculated astronomy, what is the shadow object? Where does it go between eclipses? How come no one has ever seen it other than during an eclipse? Literally no one can verify/explain it's existence.

Lastly, is the shadow object the only explanation for the lunar eclipse FET has?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sunset Ship Sighting
« on: November 16, 2018, 10:20:23 PM »
Unlike the RE "refraction did it!" claims, the effect I am referencing is neither a magic wand or a hand wave. We have seen it happening.

So are you saying that in FET, all observations of the "Sinking Ship Effect" are due to the presence of an inferior mirage?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sunset Ship Sighting
« on: November 16, 2018, 07:06:35 PM »
I say it's another one of the squished inferior mirage effects we've been talking about.

I thought refraction was RE's magic wand, not FE's?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sunset Ship Sighting
« on: November 16, 2018, 06:25:26 PM »
By no means laser accurate. But here's what a spec of the destroyer looks like superimposed over the image. From looking at a bunch of photos, the water line is generally at the bottom of the black strip on the hull.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position
« on: November 16, 2018, 12:46:47 AM »
And I already gave you a model where someone has used this with bending light.

Click on stars and then click the number 1 to get to the end. You'll see the bending.

I'm not really seeing where Bislins' simulation computes the apparent position of Mars in the sky from any point on a flat earth. Which is what I think the OP is looking for.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position
« on: November 16, 2018, 12:00:12 AM »
Why are you insisting the stars and planets should appear some place else and that there should be different numbers? That is stupid. If the earth is flat, the numbers must work and the stars and planets are where we see them. End of. Round earth or flat, if Mars is in Aquarius, that's where Mars is. The same place.

Perhaps because in GET the sphere may get in the way of me seeing Polaris, for example, based upon my coordinates. Yet in FET I should be able to see it from the same coordinates. So maybe Polaris is in a different place based upon earth shape models.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position
« on: November 15, 2018, 11:35:26 PM »
This guy made some fundamental errors discussed in a previous thread on this site (use the search function), but you can see he has made a decent start.

For planets, look at the works of Ptolemy. You are interested in geocentric epicycles.

That's the shape you want.

The numbers you want for a geocentric ephemeris are a google away.

My understanding is that in FET the celestial bodies are above the earth only. Not above, around and off to the side. At least that's what I gather from the wiki.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position
« on: November 15, 2018, 10:16:02 PM »
I am not looking for tables that someone somehow made. I am actually looking for a mathematical model that describes the motion of the planets on a flat and stationairy earth which I then can use to calculate the apparent positions of said planets. Just a formula where I can plug in a date and a position on earth and it spits out the azimuth and declination.

I don't think such calculations exist for FE. I could be wrong. Maybe some FEr's can weigh in.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planets Position
« on: November 15, 2018, 08:42:55 PM »
From your point on the ground you still have a declination, azimuth and direction.

And the tables are based on iteration, not calculation. there is nothing in those tables telling you what shape the earth is, so go ahead and use them.

I think it actually depends upon which flat earth model is used. So I'm not sure the cited ephemeris works with all of FE theory.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Few Questions
« on: November 15, 2018, 07:39:09 PM »
As a new member of the forum, and someone who strongly believes that the Earth is an oblate spheriod, I would like to know why you believe in the theory that the Earth is flat. I've looked extensively for answers to the following answers, of which I cannot find.
1. How do day/night cycles work on a flat earth? Wouldn't the light diffuse across the entire Earth, just making a constant state of dusk?

2. How do seasons prevail across the flat Earth? Why would the seasons change?

3.What force would be pulling the Earth up and 9.8 meters per second per second?

4. Why is the Equator so much hotter than the rest of the world? This is explained on the round Earth model, but not that of the flat earth.

Not sure, but this might have something to do with it:

5. What about the planets which you can see with the naked eye? What explanation do you have for that?

If you need more info, look through the wiki/FAQ and search/start a discussion.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is the 'edge'
« on: November 15, 2018, 09:10:53 AM »
As a newcomer to this group please excuse my ignorance here but could someone explain where the 'edge' of the flat Earth is and what does it look like. Under the FAQs page under the section for Geography and related phenomenon, Antarctica is apparently the edge.  Really?

In my understanding of Flat Earth theory (FET) I would say there are two main models:

- North Mono-pole centered (Antarctica a ring around the edge)
- Bi-polar where Antarctica is a continent to the south


There are other models.

In the bi-polar model, I'm not sure where the "edge" is. But an adjunct to this one is the "infinite plane" model where in, my simplest understanding, the earth is a plane, there is no edge, the plane is infinite.

Hope this helps. Others may weigh in with more/better info.

I agree the 191 mile bulge is confusing and the term should be banned.  Think of it this way.  Take a perfect sphere with nothing on it.  Then cut it in half.  Then the bulge would be 3959 miles.  If you cut off just the top 3 quarters, then the bulge would be 2969 miles.  You can see that you can keep cutting the sphere into small and smaller sections.   It still would be hard to see any physical curvature of the earth, but you could still measure it indirectly.  That's the real problem.  On land in rolling hills or in the desert the average terrain may actually be mostly flat with only a curvature, on average.  Even at sea a bubble level would always be centered because vertical is always towards the center of the earth.  Those vertical lines would not be parallel. It's all confusing because man is so small and the earth is so large.  When you start observing the sun, moon, and stars you can start getting an appreciation to the true spherical nature of the earth.  Those that just go to work, watch TV, then go to sleep will never have any reason to care, one way or another, about the shape of the earth.   

None of what you have said makes any sense with most all of our current landmasses having coastal lands below the grade of your 3959 mile (sea curve) radius earth. It would all be flooded until the radius of the Earth was completed. Level, (horizontal) lands could not adjoin the coast on your world, unless you had a force field that held back the waters.

Our coast lands are below the grade of your 3959 mile radius earth and there is no force field holding back the waters.

4 pages and you're still not getting it...hmmm.

In any case, let's start from the beginning. Some qualifying questions:

1) In Globe Earth Theory (GET, sometimes referred to as Round Earth Theory or RET) do you agree that the belief is that earth is spherical, kind of like a ball? Y/N
2) In GET do you agree that the belief is that, in this example, the landmass of Australia spherically conforms to a globe? (Think of smearing peanut butter onto a portion of a bowling ball in the shape of Australia - See how it's kinda rounded around a portion of the ball, that's what I mean by 'spherical conformity'.) Y/N
3) Let's say the surface of the bowling ball is all ocean and our smeared peanut butter is the Australian landmass. Y/N
4) Now, get a band saw and cut the just the area that has the peanut butter from the bowling ball. Like you're cutting a slice of bread from a loaf. Take that slice and lay it down on a table, peanut butter/Australia side up. With me? Y/N
5) Crouch down so you are eye level with the surface of the table. See that slice, how it's flat on the bottom, rounded on the top with the peanut butter smeared on it? Y/N
6) If you look at the middle of that slice, the distance from the bottom of the slice to the top of the slice is the dreaded 'bulge' we have all been speaking about.

If you answered 'N' to any of the questions either:
A) None of us are able to ever explain this to you
B) You have zero concept of what a sphere is, let alone the earth
C) Both

Yes, Bobby is right, 'bulge' is quite misleading as term in this topic. So forget that word for now. In the mean time, look over the attached and let us know if any light bulbs go off.

Yup, I can see the bulge. But it sure doesn't measure 191 miles at center from the base of point A and B, according to a Curvature chart.

I also see a huge Australia. It would't look that big in a real picture.

In short, you don't understand globe earth curvature nor curvature on a basketball, but that's fine.

Australia is pretty big depending upon your POV. Do you have a real picture of what it should look like that you're willing to share?

Yes, Bobby is right, 'bulge' is quite misleading as term in this topic. So forget that word for now. In the mean time, look over the attached and let us know if any light bulbs go off.

If Sea level is measured from the center of the Earth on a globe earth, then the center of Australia would be 191 miles below sea level, because the highest point at center is only 1076” as measured from the surface of A and B. Measuring from the coast lines or center of earth the results are the same, it does not matter. A grade school math teacher would come up with the same results.

The fact that the center of Australia is not 191 miles under water proves Earth is not a ball.
And with that into the troll bin of people I will ignore you go. It's either that or you're one of the densest people I've ever met, but it's clear you either lack the ability or the desire to understand what is wrong with your statements. Neither option is conducive to any sort of discussion. Go back, reread the thread. If you still don't understand what's being said, go find that grade school math teacher and see if they can help you. Or better yet, a geography teacher. Perhaps they can succeed where we have failed.

If you measure from the center of the Earth to the central surface point in Australia, it would be 1076' above a horizontal line stretched from (A and B) the east and west coast water line. It also would be 191 miles short of an alleged curved sea level line.  I have yet to see a Globe Earth believer prove Australia has 191 miles of bulge. Can you?   

How may ways can one come up with the same results?

Ok, I'm bored, so I'll respond. Regarding globe earth theory, curvature 'charts', calcs, etc., you do realize, that standing in the middle of the ocean trying to see, let's say a ship, the same distance away as the width of Australia, no landmass inbetween, just ocean, this "bulge" you can't seem to wrap your head around would be the same, roughly 191 miles?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Increased gravity at the poles?
« on: November 14, 2018, 08:26:38 PM »
A scale that measures the weight of the atmosphere has already been invented. It is called the "barometer".

Air pressure does not affect the scale trivially.

Sure, but are we talking about being at 18,000' versus sea level or at a pole versus the equator?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 136 137 [138] 139 140 ... 155  Next >