81

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 08, 2018, 11:01:18 AM »

Incorrect. Dark-matter is only hypothesised to account for the faster than expected velocities of stars towards the outer edge of galaxies. It has no effect on the solar system or even nearby stars.
It certainly does not cause the "model of gravity" to "fall apart".
I don't have to explain "the velocities of those stars" but in any case, those velocities only start to deviate some 1000 light years from galactic centres.
"Dark-matter" is simply one hypothesis for that, though is the one currently most supported. Science accepts that there are many unknowns about things far away and far back in time.

There is a difference between an unknown and a contradiction. Without an explanation, the behavior of such stars forms a contradiction with eveyrthing RET knows about how they should move.

There is a explanation, dark-matter and with dark-matter there is no "contradiction with everything RET cosmology knows about how they should move."
Must stress again, ad nauseum,
what happens thousands of light years away does not affect the reality of the heliocentric solar system and I have explained why numerous times.

Here's some very recent evidence for Einstein's GR, Physics.org, Einstein proved right in another galaxy. June 21, 2018, University of Portsmouth.
And not only is it evidence for GR but also for the dark matter distribution postulated as noted in:

It has been known since 1929 that the Universe is expanding, but in 1998 two teams of astronomers showed that the Universe is expanding faster now than it was in the past. This surprising discovery—which won the Nobel Prize in 2011—cannot be explained unless the Universe is mostly made of an exotic component called dark energy. However, this interpretation relies on GR being the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. Testing the long distance properties of gravity is important to validate our cosmological model.

Read more at: Einstein proved right in another galaxy, June 21, 2018, University of  Portsmouth/color]

I'm not trying to give myself any "illusion of superiority". I'm simply trying to present things as they are.

Then why is your whole post completely irrelevant complaining based on ignoring eveyrthing I said rather than simply focusing on making an actual point?

Because I did not want to spend the time going through every last detail of why you were wrong, so I concentrated on a couple of points:

• The cosmology of galaxies thousands is irrelevant to the basic heliocentric solar system.
  
  
• Whatever you might claim the dark-matter hypothesis is that there is an extremely low volume density  of dark matter anywhere.
  So it only becomes significant in the vast regions of space between the stars.
  "the total mass of dark matter within the radius of Earth's orbit around the sun . . . . . only weighs 10^-18 as much as the sun".
  Any dark matter that might be within the solar system so small that it couldn't be measured - even if there was some way to distinguish it from ordinary matter.
  
  
• And my final point was that even if there were dark matter within the earth, it was there when the mass of the earth of the earth was measured and it was there when geologists measured the composition of rocks etc and so could never cause any discrepancy.

So, Mr Rowe, from what I can see you have never made a case to answer and no other poster seems to think you have either - end of story!

82

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 08, 2018, 09:59:40 AM »

Fantastic post Rab. I just wanted to say. Really well written.
Dark-matter cannot form atoms and molecules and hence cannot form planetary bodies.

https://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/10750/slac-pub-10882.pdf (Stanford University/Oxford University)
Published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2005/07/001

Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter, being a boson, is not similarly suppressed and can annihilate directly to e⁺ e^-, µ⁺ µ^- and τ⁺ τ^-, each of which yield a generous number of high energy electrons and positrons.

Conclusions
Electrons and positrons produced directly in Kaluza-Klein Dark Matter (KKDM) annihilations
can result in a discontinuity in the diffuse spectrum observed by gamma ray telescopes both on
the ground (ACTs such as HESS, VERITAS, or MAGIC) and in space (GLAST). We have shown
that this feature can be observed at statistically significant levels in either ACTs or GLAST for
KKDM particles with masses of up to 600 GeV, if several years are spent accumulating data.

And what do "Electrons and positrons" produce? Not matter, just energy.

This theorized particle was of course discovered in 2008:
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/19nov_cosmicrays/
Dark matter consists of KK particles:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.2801.pdf
https://archive.org/stream/arxiv-0902.0593/0902.0593#page/n0/mode/2up (published by the Fermi National Accelerator Lab)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0206071.pdf

These papers seem to ask Is the Lightest Kaluza–Klein Particle a Viable Dark Matter Candidate? Geraldine Servant and Tim M.P. Tait.
As yet there seems no definitive answer but I am no cosmologist and can have no opinion on that.

The KK particle might be dark matter, but that doesn't seem to alter the distribution of dark matter in the slightest and that has been the question raised in this thread.
Also, the gist of those papers seems be that KK particles decay into electrons and positrons which "cannot form atoms and molecules and hence cannot form planetary bodies".

So, sandokhan, while your input is much appreciated, it does not seem to affect the discussion at all.

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 08, 2018, 01:45:57 AM »

I'm reminded of an argument that states the universe could not arise naturally because all of the cosmological constants are so fine tuned; if you tweak one by just 0.001 everything gets thrown out of whack and life the universe and everything can't exist. However that's not the whole story; if you change more than one constant a random amount you can find a myriad other possibilities thatcould conceivably work, if you adhere to RET.
The lesson being: big changes work where small ones might not.

FET isn't RET, the idea of the moon reflecting sunlight is a relic that should be discarded with the globe. There's a lot to be said with respect to lunar eclipses and full moons, but leaving that aside for now, a self-illuminating moon is the way to go. A reflective moon is a product of RET and only works within the framework of RET, it should not try to be shoehorned into FET.

I model it so:
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.

That explanation does not fit with photos like this that show the moon always a disc with various amounts illuminated.
This photo is somewhat overexposed to show earthshine illuminating that part not lit by the sun:

The crescent moon lit up by earthshine was captured by astrophotographer John Chumack on Sept. 8, 2015. Credit: John Chumack | www.galacticimages.com

Compare this with a good full moon photo and see if it is almost the same face, possibly rotated.

84

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 08, 2018, 01:12:52 AM »

No, claiming that "A key tenet of RET is dark-matter" is totally incorrect.

Dark-matter is a hypothesis put forward by Cosmologists to explain an apparent anomaly in the velocities of stars orbiting in galaxies.

It has nothing to do with the basic theory of the heliocentric solar system.

But if dark matter does not exist, there are consequences. You cannot explain the velocities of those stars, your model of gravity then falls apart, and you are left without the most fundamental part of your model.

Incorrect. Dark-matter is only hypothesised to account for the faster than expected velocities of stars towards the outer edge of galaxies. It has no effect on the solar system or even nearby stars.
It certainly does not cause the "model of gravity" to "fall apart".
I don't have to explain "the velocities of those stars" but in any case, those velocities only start to deviate some 1000 light years from galactic centres.
"Dark-matter" is simply one hypothesis for that, though is the one currently most supported. Science accepts that there are many unknowns about things far away and far back in time.

But this anomaly has no effect on any object within many hundreds of light years of here. Dark-matter is too sparse to have any local effect anywhere.

Again it's nothing to do with the basic heliocentric solar system "theory" but to do with "modern cosmology".
You say, "If dark-matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET"
but all ordinary matter is not drawn into the one place because it is in motion and is subject to inertial forces.
Dark has different properties and it unable to form atoms and particles, so cannot form planets and stars so would be expected to remain diffuse.

And modern cosmology is RET.

No, modern cosmology is not RET

instead of this tedious semantic rubbish that you use to try and give yourself the illusion of superiority, drop the act and start making your posts about the actual topic.

I'm not trying to give myself any "illusion of superiority". I'm simply trying to present things as they are.

RET, like FET, proposes a model of how the whole universe works. Everything from the distances on a map to the stars themselves operates differently, it does not make the slightest bit of sense to divorce the heliocentric model from its subsequent model of the universe when we are debating the merits of the model as a whole.

It makes plenty of sense "to divorce the heliocentric model" from the "subsequent model of the universe".
"Distances on a map" can and have been measured directly, many using the old chain and theodolite methods of geodetic surveying. Distances to the planetary bodies have been measured, initially using "parallax" and more lately using radar and laser measurements.

So the heliocentric model can be observed and measured with sufficient accuracy to predict closely (but not perfectly) where planetary bodies will be for a significant time in the future.

The distance to stars a few light years away can be measured with fairly good accuracy but once distances get over a few hundred light years even the distances have to be inferred by other means.
There is a massive distinction between the heliocentric solar system, which can be observed and accurately measured, and the distant galaxies that I, at least, class as part of "modern Cosmology".

It could be called a distinction between "what we are", the local region that we can study in detail, and "where we can from", the region far away and far back in time.

I specifically acknowledged and went over the fact dark matter would not interact with itself in my opening post, you are not adding anything new here so i fail to see why you felt the need to bring that up unless it's, like the rest, more stageplay, more pointlessness to give an illusion of victory. My point stands. Not being able to form atoms does not equal being diffuse, it is still going to be attracted to the same centers of gravity. You don't need particles for that. i notice that you completely fail to actually explain what you think connects those points.

Now, I don't pretend to be a cosmologist and you certainly are not one, so this a case of the "blind" debating the "blind" but still:
Dark-matter cannot form atoms and molecules and hence cannot form planetary bodies. Neither you nor I know what velocity that dark is moving at but presumably, it is at the velocity of the stars in that region.
Dark-matter is a hypothesis to explain the apparent missing (unseen) mass in galaxies and the distribution is inferred from where that mass needs to be.
You haven't explained why dark-matter should gather around the individual planets and stars any more than the stars of the various systems, say the stars and planets in the Solar System and the Centaurus Constellation don't all collapse into one big mass.

There are simply no "historical unanswered questions" and "major rewrites" necessary anyway, whatever the properties of dark-matter, because even if it were within the earth its mass would have been "measured" along with baryonic matter.

And would have been at odds with what geologists determined to compose the Earth, did you even read my post?

Yes, I read your post and I do not agree.
In the hypothetical event that dark-matter was incorporated into the ordinary matter of planets etc it would then simply be part of ordinary matter and when geologists determined the composition of the Earth it would have been included.
So why would there be any discrepancy.

But and it's a big BUT, your scenario of dark-matter being concentrated in or about ordinary matter completely defeats the purpose of the hypothesis.
The hypothesis is that dark-matter is placed where it is needed to explain the rotational velocities of stars far from the galactic centres and that dark-matter is moving at the observed velocities of these stars.

85

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 07, 2018, 12:21:01 PM »

A key tenet of RET is dark matter; without such an entity the whole model falls apart.

No, claiming that "A key tenet of RET is dark matter" is totally incorrect.

Dark matter is a hypothesis put forward by Cosmologists to explain an apparent anomaly in the velocities of stars orbiting in galaxies.

It has nothing to do with the basic theory of the heliocentric solar system.

Hence, right from the start, your claim that "the whole model falls apart" is without foundation.

Even so, let's look at your claims:

And further, it is true that dark matter is supported by evidence when the world is viewed from the RE perspective,

No, not "viewed from the RE perspective" but viewed from modern cosmological perspective, which are not claimed yet to be certain.

the only way to make sense of the motion of planets and stars (supposedly due to gravity) is by recourse to these dark bodies.

No, when viewed from modern cosmological perspective dark matter has virtually no effect on planetry motion because the "average density of dark matter near the solar system is approximately 1 proton-mass for every 3 cubic centimeters, which is roughly 6 x 10^-28 kg/cm³".

There is meant to be over five times as much dark matter as regular matter. And this is where it all starts to fall apart for RET.

Even were to accept your view that the mass of the earth and its components were "five sixths dark matter" as in:

And, again, there is five times as much dark matter as regular matter.
So where is its impact on calculations of the Earth's mass? RET does have excuses, but none of them can explain why it is dark matter fails to be attracted to centers of mass like planets. The moon doesn't simply stop orbiting the Earth just because the Sun or Galactic Center exist. If dark matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET.

Again it's nothing to do with the basic heliocentric solar system "theory" but to do with "modern cosmology".
You say, "If dark matter exists, it should be drawn to stars, moons, planets, according to RET"
but all ordinary matter is not drawn into the one place because it is in motion and is subject to inertial forces.
Dark has different properties and it unable to form atoms and particles, so cannot form planets and stars so would be expected to remain diffuse.

As a result dark matter is spread through the "empty space" of the galaxies though is more dense near masses and the galactic centre.

Thus Cavendish's figure for the mass of the Earth should have been noticed to be six times what the actual physical matter and composition allowed for. That isn't some minor figure that can be brushed over with error bars.
Where has the seismic shift in geology been? Where have the scientists that work on mapping the interior of the globe Earth accounted for the fact their mass is five sixths dark matter? How could no one notice this giant glaring flaw? Where are the historical unanswered questions, where are the major rewrites we would expect?

Were that even true, and I and cosmologists do not accept that, that "five sixths dark matter" would have been implicitly measured by Cavendish et al.

So in conclusion:

• Dark matter is not a part of "RET" (the heliocentric solar system) so has no effect on its validity.
• Dark matter is hypothesed to be spread though the "empty space" of galaxies and not concentrated in baryonic matter.
• There are simply no "historical unanswered questions" and "major rewrites" necessary antway, whatever the properties of dark matter, because even if it were within the earth its mass would have been "measured" along with baryonic matter.

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation of the earth via both the South Pole and North Pole

« on: July 04, 2018, 02:49:11 AM »

Not a flat earther but I wish I could go on that trip. That would be so fun.

Likewise. I haven't seen any indications of how bookings are going.

Economy class US$11,900, only 154 seats available. Middle seats in economy class will be kept vacant for optimal comfort.
Business-class US$19,500, only 32 seats available

But I do wonder how that flight would be possible on either the Ice-Wall map or the BiPolar map.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking to talk

« on: July 04, 2018, 01:04:12 AM »

So, in a flat Earth, why don’t planes circumnavigating the Earth have to keep turning North in order to avoid flying South past Antarctica and over the edge?

Planes that are circumnavigating the earth start off heading clockwise and continue heading clockwise until they have traveled in a circle arriving back where they originally landed. All aviation equipment is calibrated to handle 4 directions. Toward the center, away from the center, clockwise, and counterclockwise. On a round earth they are called north, south, east, and west.

What about circumnavigation from north to south down to the South Pole, north to the North Pole then south to the point of departure.

Rather than clutter this thread with possibly inappropriate material, there is more in Flat Earth Community, Circumnavigation of the earth via both the South Pole and North Pole

88

Flat Earth Theory / Circumnavigation of the earth via both the South Pole and North Pole

« on: July 04, 2018, 01:01:31 AM »

Most discussion about circumnavigation seems to have been about east to west circumnavigation.
But what about circumnavigation from north to south to the South Pole, north to the North Pole then south to the point of departure.

Circumnavigation by air via both the South Pole and the North Pole has been done a few times. Here are a couple.

First Circumnavigation via both Poles by Aircraft
Captain Elgen M. Long achieved the first circum-polar flight in a twin-engined Piper PA-31 Navajo from 5 November to 3 December 1971. He covered 62,597 km (38,896 miles) in 215 flying hours.

from: First Circumnavigation via both Poles by Aircraft, Guiness Book of Records

Charles Burton 59 a Pole-to-Pole Explorer
Charles Burton, a British explorer who took part in the first expedition to circumnavigate the globe from pole to pole, died on Monday at his family home in the English village of Framfield in Sussex. He was 59 and had suffered a heart attack, said his brother, Richard.

from: Charles Burton 59 a Pole-to-Pole Explorer, NY Times

See a bit more in, Traveling Directly South? « Reply #1 on: February 07, 2017, 12:48:59 PM »

And you can do it yourself:

THE TRIP OF A LIFETIME DEPARTS JFK AT 11:00 am, October 26, 2018
If you are the kind who would like to tell your children’s children that you were one of an exclusive group of people who have circumnavigated the Earth over both poles, step aboard our private Airbus A340-300 on October 26, 2018. We call this historic one-time flight “THE POLAR EXPLORER.” Jose Roberto Àldana, Travel Curator

The flight starts in New York. From there, in one giant nonstop leap (6,382 miles - 11 hours, 35 minutes) we fly southwards to Río Gallegos, at the southernmost tip of Argentina. Then across the entire continent of Antarctica, for a spectacular daytime crossing directly over the geographical South Pole (6,663 miles - 12 hours, 20 minutes) to Perth, in Western Australia. Our flight then turns north, for a journey to Beijing in China (4,962 miles - 9 hours, 10 minutes). It then crosses continental Russia and the Siberian Plateau over the geographic North Pole to New York (6,710 miles, 12 hours, 45 minutes), landing back at JFK at around 2:00 p.m., approximately 50 hours later.

See more at: THE TRIP OF A LIFETIME DEPARTS JFK AT 11:00 am, October 26, 2018

And here is the route they'll be flying:

A video project by GreaterSapien documenting my trip on a world record flight circumnavigating both the North and South Poles
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1282946600/pole-to-pole-circumnavigation-of-the-globe
The flight from New York has four stops: Rio Gallegos, Argentina, Perth, Australia, Beijing, and back to New York. The info can be found here  (https://www.overthepoles2018.com).
And who knows, if we raise enough, maybe I can entice a big Flat-Earther to come with me?



Regards,
Dens

A YouTube poster, GreaterSapien, has crowdfunded his seat on the flight.

Kickstarter has been 100% funded!

Are any keen flat-earthers going to accompany him?

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 03, 2018, 12:28:13 AM »

Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,

I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon.  Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?

Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.

I am by no means a flat-earther but one big objection to that geometry is that no-one in the night area of the earth can see a full moon.
Hence it seems that again a "Full Moon is Impossible on Flat Earth". Not only that, but the angular size of the moon does not change a great deal.

90

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Stars Slowing as they Approach the Horizon

« on: July 02, 2018, 11:30:21 AM »

An interesting video about the stars slowing down as they approach the horizon. At the 1:15 mark the author states that "the stars get significantly closer together as they get closer to the horizon."

This contradicts the Round Earth Theory that says that the celestial bodies move at a constant speed across the sky as the earth rotates.

Please show where "Round Earth Theory that says that the celestial bodies move at a" precisely "constant speed across the sky as the earth rotates."
Now read and study all of Lecture 1: Introduction to Astronomy 250. Especially the section that starts with:

When making precise measurements of stellar positions, various effects must be taken into account:

• Aberration -- an object's position will be shifted slightly because of the finite speed of light and the observer's motion
                     
  
• Refraction -- light gets bent (refracted) by the Earth's atmosphere, a star's altitude is increased by refraction. When the Sun is setting, it is actually beneath the horizon when its lower limb just appears to touch the horizon -- in other words, the refraction amounts to ~35', the apparent diameter of the Sun. Refraction depends on your altitude, the atmospheric conditions, and the wavelength of the observation.
                     

The official Round Earth excuse is, of course, that there is a permanent mirage effect that slows down the stars, and which also reverses any observation that suggests a Flat Earth.

Sure, you call it an excuse but the deflection of objection near horizon has been observed for around 2 millennia.

Abstract
Astronomical refraction has had a long and fascinating history. Cleomedes (100 A.D.) and Ptolemy (200 A.D.) were aware of its existence and understood in a qualitative way some of its properties. Alhazen (1100 A.D.) quite correctly suggested that the flattening of the sun’s disk near the horizon was due to astronomical refraction. Tycho Brahe in 1587, however, was the first to make direct measurements of the magnitude of the refraction.

Astronomical Refraction–Some History and Theories, A. I. Mahan

So I would say that your claim that this slight variation due to long known refraction "contradicts the Round Earth Theory" is totally without foundation.

Not only that, but you claim "The official Round Earth excuse is, of course, that there is a permanent mirage effect << emotive term for 'slight refraction' >>" yet your own "Flat Earth Society Wiki" uses refraction to explain "Horizon Limits".

Horizon Limits with Refraction and Opacity
Horizon limits are easily explained by the fact that air is not transparent and refraction. As light travels through a denser medium, the object will appear to be smaller because light is refracted towards the normal. Furthermore, air is not transparent so it is not possible to see past a certain distance.

So this seems just another "strawman augment" from someone who has an imperfect and incomplete knowledge of so-called "Round Earth Theory".

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: July 02, 2018, 09:21:47 AM »

The point is entirely relevant.

Not at all relevant. Euclid's Elements Book I Definition 23 is his definition of "parallel straight lines", so is making no "assumptions about the world".
You might dispute his definition but that's quite a different matter.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the world to a criminal level, without the necessity of evidence of fact.

That's your opinion but where their "assumptions about the world" have not been supported by later evidence those "assumptions" have been discarded.

But many things that you claim are "assumptions about the world . . . . . . without the necessity of evidence of fact" often did have evidence, though they could have mis-interpreted some of that evidence.

But this seems way off the topic "Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:"
All I did was quote Euclid's definition of "parallel straight lines". 
That hardly seems justification for your diving into "spontaneous generation" and "Greek assumptions". A definition can never be classified as an assumption.

Now what about the question of "Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation?" Forget Miles Mathis, he's got nothing to do with any modern experiments.

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: July 02, 2018, 08:54:59 AM »

by typical representation of earth when a glob is inconvenient....yeah a flat earth map.

No, it is not "a flat earth map" but a projection on a 2-D surface (your flat screen) of a 3-D object (the Globe).
So it's "a flat map" representing the Globe and map-makers for over 1000 years have recognised that and the distortion it causes..

it shows antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map.

And it shows the arctic huge and going around the entire north part of the map, that's what the Mercator projection does.

interesting, google earth works fine on my 2D screen

and it's interesting that Google Earth does not "show antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map", why?

It's a different projection. This time it's a sterographic projection that shows how the Globe would look from the stated "eye-height".
Look a how Antarctica look from a 25,000 km eye height:

And Greenland from a 25,000 km eye height:

And do you notice something?
Google Earth can never show more than half the earth, which explains why Mercator or a similar projection is used to display the whole earth when needed.
This is at the expense of severe distortion of sizes, directions and/or shapes.

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: July 02, 2018, 08:22:03 AM »

Euclid's Elements
Book I
Definition 23

Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction.

Euclid's Elements, Book I, Definition 23

The Ancient Greeks
Animal Reproduction 101

Flies spontaneously generate from rotting meat.

That is an incorrect deduction from the observation of flies seeming to "spontaneously generate from rotting meat".
And before you criticise Aristotle too much, just consider that the idea of the spontaneous generation of flies, fleas, etc was not seriously challenged till 1668 and not finally disproved until 1859 by Louis Pasteur.

But you make the incorrect deduction that the "Earth is not a Globe" from the observation that "the earth looks locally flat".
I see little difference, but Euclid's "Definition 23" was not a deduction based on an observation but was  Euclid's definition of "Parallel straight lines".

Hence your post seems totally irrelevant.

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: July 02, 2018, 06:31:48 AM »

Euclid's Elements
Book I
Definition 23

Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction.

Euclid's Elements, Book I, Definition 23

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 02, 2018, 06:13:27 AM »

Finite geometry is easily illustrated:



Click to enlarge.

I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?

You don't? 
I see a 2-D representation (a diagram) of 3 sets of parallel lines appearing to get closer as they recede into the distance
till they finally apear to meet at infinity in the 3 points, Z, O and N.

But it is only a representation.

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking to talk

« on: July 01, 2018, 12:34:44 PM »

I’m looking to have a discussion with a flat earther about their hypothesis. I believe I’ve come up with a few points that disprove the earth being flat and want to see what they have to say.
Just to be clear: I would like to talk to someone who will actually read my argument, respond with reasonable logic, and not turn this into a shouting match.

i will give it a go, i dont shout, and i consider both points of view.  shoot away

Ok, so I’ve heard Flat Earther’s claim that in a round Earth, planes should have to keep pointing their noses down to avoid flying into space.

Flat Earth believers on this site are knowledgeable enough to realise the truth behind that claim. This video by a high business jet pilot might be a little surprise:

Do aircraft change attitude to follow the curvature of the Earth?

But many Flat Earthers, outside this place, continue to use that argument, see Philip Stallings is a Reformed Christian Apologist, The Biblical Flat Earth: The "Plane" Truth.

A big problem you will find is that while those on this site have a fairly unified flat earth "model", there are numerous different flat earth interpretations outside here.

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: July 01, 2018, 12:12:10 PM »

That is not an inaccurate statement but had they stated "that a 1.000 illuminated moon happens every month" it would have been a different matter.

They do say that it goes to 100% every month:

They say, "that it goes to 1.00 every month" but they do not say, "that it goes to 100.0% every month" or "that it goes to 1.000 every month" do they?

And while it might not reach 100.0% every month, the moon's fraction illuminated, rounded to an integer percent, does reach 100% every month.

One thing to realise is the "Full Moon" technically occurs at one particular time and the moon is not visible at that particular time over half the earth.

Now, if my sums are correct, maybe someone can check them (remembering that the angle errors due to the orbital inclination are normal to those due to the moon moving around its orbit):
The illumination at the exact time of full moon varies depending on one's location on earth from 0.9972 to 0.9986 or 99.72% to 99.86%.

But viewers in the wrong part of the Globe to see the full moon at the correct time might be up to 6 hours out, in which time the moon will have moved, relative to the direction of the sun by up to 3.3°.
For this misalignment, the illumination of the "full moon" varies depending on one's location on earth from 0.9964 to 0.9964 or 99.64% to 99.64%, all of which round to 1.00 or 100%.

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A new Earthrise shows the globe Earth

« on: July 01, 2018, 08:01:00 AM »

plenty of videos from nasa themselves showing how they "create" the CGI blue marble photos.  no different process, and videos are easy to find.

Plenty?
Please show which "Blue Marbles" were made by combining high resolution data from low earth orbit satellites.
Even those were made from data from satellites, so I don't see what it does for your case.
And why is this an issue if NASA themselves publish the information
Data Visualizer and Designer Robert Simmon never thought that he would become “Mr. Blue Marble.”
On reason for doing it that way is that a photo can only show a little less than one hemisphere but modern "blue marbles" can show many "layers" of the whole Globe.

Though the Russian satellite's 121-megapixel image of Earth is most detailed yet - the Verge.

And what about this one?

Apollo 17: Blue Marble

One of the most widely known photographs of Earth, this image was taken by the crew of the final Apollo mission as the crew made its way to the Moon. Dubbed the “Blue Marble,” Earth is revealed as both a vast planet home to billions of creatures and a beautiful orb capable of fitting into the pocket of the universe.

Apollo 17: Blue Marble

No CGI there - it was taken on a real film camera by a real person.

99

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Universal Acceleration versus Newton's Law of gravitation:

« on: July 01, 2018, 05:09:46 AM »

Does it matter? Graphite is right next to lead as a diamagnetic material.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism

Diamagnetic materials are repelled by a magnetic field; an applied magnetic field creates an induced magnetic field in them in the opposite direction, causing a repulsive force.
...
Notable diamagnetic materials[3]
Material   χv [× 10−5 (SI units)]
Lead   −1.8
Copper   −1.0

In the video I posted we had a static permanent magnet and a diamagnetic material that was clearly interacting with it.

And don't you think that those designing this sort of experiment might know far more about than you might about the precautions necessary?

Here is one fairly modern experiment:
The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, The BIPM measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G.
This one uses "four test masses of Cu–0.7% Te free-machining alloy", which greatly reduces any stray torque due to variations in the already small magnetic field and movement of near objects. Fixed objects can have no effect.

There are many problems in the measurement of G hence the work continues. 
But the fact remains that after a hundred of more experiments the current value of 6.674 08×10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻² is within 1% of the value of 6.74 x 10^-11 N m²/kg² from Henry Cavendish's value.
He must have done something right. Now please present some flat-earth measurements with even that repeatability.

100

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: July 01, 2018, 02:03:34 AM »

You are right. 0.99 is the same as 99%.

The US Navy is inaccurate. Not only do they state that a 100% full moon happens every month on their website, so do their calculators, and for everywhere on earth. You may assert that they are rounding up, but it is still a technical inaccuracy for an astronomical authority.

Sure 0.99 is the same as 99% but is 99.7% closer to 99% or to 100%. The US Navy chose to specify the illumination as to two decimal place. What is inaccurate about that?
For example, around the next full moon on July 28 at Monterey they show:
July 27  0.99
July 28  1.00
July 27  0.99
That is not an inaccurate statement but had they stated "that a 1.000 illuminated moon happens every month" it would have been a different matter.

The correct answer to the topic question "Full moon impossible?" is, of course, "Yes" but that does not imply any limit on precision.

Now, instead of going on and on about the perceived "mote" of the "technical inaccuracy for an astronomical authority" how about
giving some consideration to "the beam that is in your own eye" in the form of the flat earth's model being total unable to explain many aspects of lunar phases.

You complained earlier that this was off-topic, so on your suggestion Bobby Shafto opened a new thread Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?.

So far you seem to have studiously avoided it, which you have every right to do.

All flat-earthers ignoring such questions certainly implies that there is no satisfactory flat-earth explanation for the lunar phases we see.