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 - jack44556677

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« on: March 07, 2022, 07:31:20 PM »
Hey all!

Some of my thoughts on the matter:

Experiment is a technical vernacular of the discipline of science.  It has a rigorous and inflexible definition as a result.

We most all learn incorrect colloquial definitions of these vernaculars, and because so few of us ever have advanced scientific training, or study the history and philosophy of science, - they just let us continue being wrong and confused.  It is one of the most major reasons for the ubiquitous scientific illiteracy we suffer from.

An experiment is only a validation/refutation (ideally) of a valid hypothesis.  It has no other purpose. The shape of things is not a valid hypothesis in any way, and so naturally cannot be verified by experiment.

In fact, there is only one way to determine with certainty the shape of any physical object in reality.  It is rigorous and repeated measurement (OF THE OBJECT!)!  The earth is NO exception to this.

As it is is too large for us to tackle all in one go, it would seem that the rigorous and repeated measurement of still water's surface (barring surface tension artifacts) would be the logical place to begin. This has already been done for centuries in the discipline of hydrostatics.

This would not tell us the shape of the entire world of course, but it would help to determine (by establishing the local observations) if spherical is even a potentially acceptable shape for the world (considering its surface is thought +70% water)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 16, 2021, 07:16:48 AM »
but I see no where where you can't have EUA's and Approved vaccines at the same time

If there isn't one, that is criminal.  It turns out there is (for obvious reason).

You need to learn to read between the lines.

If I, as a pharma, have an eua (RENEWED AFTER the "approval"), I don't want an approval (acutely in our current example).  If a pharma company could have both, they would obviously always distribute under eua, and NEVER under approval - because commercial products carry liability.

The crooks in the pharma industry and their vassal the fda need to be spanked in the public square (if not drawn and quartered)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 14, 2021, 11:10:56 AM »
I don't know what you are talking about regarding tax law but there are several laws/statutes violated by holding an EUA and FDA approval simultaneously for the same product.

It's all in the lawsuit, check it out!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Will Inspiration4 convince Flat Earth believers?
« on: September 11, 2021, 07:55:39 AM »
If they report that they see a globe, will you believe their simple, first hand, observations?

It is not so much their observations that are disbelieved - it is their (heavily conditioned/biased) interpretation that is.

We already get plenty of people that say they can see the curvature of the earth (with the erroneous/illogical implicit bias that this proves the world a sphere). They are all deluded or are suffering from lens distortion.

I know that sounds crazy, but it is the reality that everyone observes and there isn't any serious contention on this point.

Let's go through a few examples

  • Airplanes - Many people claim (and believe) that they saw the curvature of the world from a commercial airplane.  Both in terms of calculation and observation, this is not possible. This phenomena is caused most often by false expectation causing a "placebo" effect, and lens distortion. The Concorde is another good example, and it has been shown that their passenger windows caused the optical illusion of the "curve of the earth".
  • High altitude balloons - Once again, the horizon is easily shown to be completely flat from ground level to max altitude.  This is the highest we as normal individuals can go. The horizon does not curve at any altitude, and this is only believed due to miseducation.  This does not vary whether the earth is flat or round.
  • Your example - once again most likely even in theoretical calculation the passengers, like bezos and branson before them, should not see any curvature to the horizon. If they say they did, we know why - the same reasons the people that already come by and swear they saw it on the commercial flight.

What you are missing is that the horizon never curves. And that this has nothing to do with whether it is flat or spherical.

The horizon is always a flat and horizontal line that surrounds you.  As you pull away, that circle expands to the limits of your vision.  If the earth were spherical, you would expect at some altitude (MUCH higher than the "commercial space flights" are going) that the "hump"/"shoulder" of the world ought to jut out, apparently from the horizon line.  The completely flat and horizontal horizon is always there, the curve of the earth appears to jut out of it (IF the world is spherical, that is)

Let me know if you have any questions.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: September 11, 2021, 07:11:26 AM »
But I don’t like the idea of those who choose not to being treated like second class citizens who can’t get certain jobs or travel or go to certain venues

This absurd dystopia is really seperating the empathatic/human from the callous/sociopath.  It is a test of principles that most are failing, willingly and with righteous indignation.

Lo and behold, could it be?

AATW is one of the good ones!

I had a hunch :)

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Untrustworthy quotation in the wiki
« on: September 08, 2021, 03:07:06 AM »
but just a reminder to always stay critical!

We completely agree, though you must always work to avoid being presumptively incredulous (or credulous).

Incredulity, like skepticism, is valuable in moderation and sophistry in excess.

Have you ever heard that the truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction is obliged to possibilities?

I know it sounds absolutely impossible, and you are right to be skeptical but I've met them - and it's true.

Did you know that sir arthur conan doyle (author of sherlock holmes) was a staunch believer in fairies and a member of an exclusive fairy club with much of the aristocracy at the time.  Britain has a very long history with this nonsense - just look at the lord of the rings for god's sake.  This is a country that many of its citizens are taught was historically ruled/supported by an honest to goodness wizard named merlin.  Did you know that dragonslayer is the first last name in the history of mankind? Oxford did!

As for the moon landing, it might help to consider the enduring hard on britain still has and fosters in its citizens against its (former, but not in their hearts) rebel colony.  The brits were skeptical at the time ('69) and a lot of those views persisted and grew in a way that was not allowed in the US.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ring laser gyros
« on: September 08, 2021, 02:47:30 AM »
Given that the wiki rejects the notion of a grand-scale conspiracy (in favour of a smaller space-travel one)

In favor of a smaller one that does not involve the shape of the earth.

are the scientists who wrote this paper and who worked on the device wrong?

Yes, of course - about lots of stuff.  That's just the way human knowledge is, perhaps most notably in science.

Interferometery is very interesting, well worth studying, and somewhat relevant to this subject.

The presumed rotation can be measured with a simple pendulum, as well as any mechanical gyroscope (including the mems, which is not a gyroscope even in a figurative/metaphorical sense)

The rlg works, it just does not work the way the modern scientists imagine it does (they should study its invention, and its inventor) and it does not measure what they presume it does.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: September 03, 2021, 02:01:58 PM »
The point is that if it can not be faked, imagining otherwise is pointless.  You obviously know that, why else all the evasion?

The reason for discussing the hypothetical is to get you to recognize how meaningless such a potential explaination would be to you.  It was merely to try and save time.

Or are you saying that since you did not personally see all of this and witness the launch, travel to space yourself to see the satellites are there,  and all of the related technology etc you do not believe it?

No, I am saying that because there can be no space of any kind (outside of fiction) - i find technology that supposedly resides there and depends on its unique and unatural characteristics (orbit, vacuum, etc.) to be highly suspicious.

The technologies that infer underground mapping (even frommhigh altitude) actually exist, and I presume such technologies were employed to capture the data that further, presumed satellite derived, composites were comprised of.

Again you make wild claims but do not back up a single one.

What claim do you require "backing up" and what would suffice to "back it up" in your view?  The majority of our discussion is not my claims - we are merely discussing possibilities.

You're an articulate troll, but a troll none the less. 
... I'm not going to allow you to waste any more of my time.

I assure you, I am earnest and no troll (though I might as well admit to NOT beating my wife while I'm at it, for all the good it will do).  You can only confirm my earnest sincerity by continued interaction over time.

Unfortunatley, if you avoid such interactions it is highly unlikely that you will be understood and perhaps even less likely that you will understand this subject.  I'm happy to answer any and all questions you might have if I can!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: September 02, 2021, 11:12:33 AM »
It would server as compelling evidence that it COULD be faked.

In potentia/imagination maybe, but i think you agree that just because we can imagine it doesn't make it achievable/reasonable nor actual.

You want to wave that away by imagining you have a countered that
explanation.  You have not.

I am not countering your explanation, but I am humbly asking YOU to imagine along with me!

The purpose of this hypothetical imagining is not to hand wave, but to try and evaluate/anticipate what impact it would have in our conversation and on our perspectives.

Supposing you had just been given an alternative explanation for gps function, that you accepted as at least potentially possible. I think the absolute MOST this could do is convince you to soften your wording in the future - "No other way possible" merely becomes "No other way remotely plausible" or something.

It's a long walk for a very short drink of water if you know what I mean.

Again your argument is just hand waving.

I'm not discussing arguments, I'm discussing possibilities.

The entire experiment depends on the two satellites being in a very well known orbit and watching how that orbit is altered by flying over more or less mass.

True.  That is what is claimed.  The major trouble, and a chief reason other possibilities are considerable, is that the claim is not validateable/verifiable.  It depends on abject appeal to authority in order to believe.

We have well developed thrones of mass, its impact on space and time, orbital mechanics, etc.

We have many models for such things, most of them contradictory.  None of them were ever correct before (historically), and there is good reason to recognize they are still not correct now.

When we use that to do experiments (like launch satttelites) we observe their behavior is exactly as our theory predicts.

As I said, this is particularly unlikely.  I'm just not certain it is impossible, because far wilder things have happened before.

Yet you want to say all that means nothing and maybe they are "riding currents".

Not at all! Many of those incorrect conceptions/models I mentioned above remain useful and in use to this day.

Regarding the currents, this is purely speculation but it isn't baseless.  There are several observations that support our shared experiential reality of "stationary and at rest".  When you recognize the earth is motionless, you also recognize that the sky is in motion.  The currents are deduced from these observations, however they are still speculations.

It is conceivable that the motion the satellites have in the sky is due to another means of propulsion entirely, regardless of the existence of said currents.

Eratosthenes MEASURED the size of the earth, assuming it was round.

Ooo, so close! Eratosthenes measured a (singular) shadow and CALCULATED the circumference of the earth assuming it was round, that sunlight is always parallel "globally", and a slew of other unvalidated assumptions.

And the number he got is very close to the number we know today using vastly different measurement techniques.

I'll let tom field this one.  The bottom line is that when you have the same assumptions (world views) and follow similar approaches, you ought to tend towards similar results.  We inherited MANY of those assumptions (that lead to such things as the radius and circumference of an assumed spherical world) and procedures/approaches from those very ancient greeks themselves!

Yes so much easier to just wave your hands and make silly claims. I get it.

Apparently. But you can stop anytime you want to!

You may be under the misimpression that you are arguing against me or vice versa.  I engage in rational discourse, and am not here to make silly claims nor hand wave.

The lights in the sky "shine where they please"? Are you attributing free will to such things?

Poetic license!

The FE model can not even explain how roughly half the earth is dark and half light.  Why don't you start with that?

I can tell you from experience that this bit will likely be particularly hard for you to grasp/swallow.

One reason we don't start with that, is because we don't want to inadvertently practice mythology.  It's frightfully easy to imagine why things happen and then teach it to people as fact.  Another is that, if the world is not the shape we were taught it is, there may well be more land than what we are aware of.  Lack of validated and validatable data, is essentially the reason you end up dabbling in mythology when you don't mean to.

If the observations are not as the global earth model predicts, then please point out those descrepeneces.

There are many such observations which we can discuss, but that was not my point.  The point was that we experience a flat world.  We only interpret a handful of observations and conclude "globe" due to conditioning through rote under the guise of education from childhood (contrary to that experiential flat reality)

So geology, cosmology, oceanography, ecology, most of biology, anything about the actual world as opposed to a lab experiment is not science in your view.  You're wrong.

Most all of us learn and use incorrect colloquial definitions of scientific vernacular.  Your scientifically incorrect use of the word theory is a very common example.

One cannot hope to evaluate or even discuss science (let alone practice it!) if one doesn't know the proper definitions.  How could you ever hope to discern between what was scientific and what wasn't if your definition of science was wrong?!

Let's start simple by defining science :

Science is what rigorously adheres to the scientific method and colloquially to the body of knowledge that method produces. The one exception is natural/scientific law which is established purely through rigorous and repeated observation/measurement alone.

Do you agree, disagree, and/or have anything to add/change?

Read Sean Carol's The Big Picture, it happens to have an excellent explanation of the role of Bayesian reasoning in science.

I may check that out.  I didn't say bayesian reasoning (and other statistical analysis) wasn't employed by scientists, I said it wasn't part of the scientific method.

Now you are just playing word games.

I appreciate that it might appear that way to you, but I assure you that is not the case.

If this were a technical discussion among scientists then yes we would need to be careful about such things.

I'm glad you recognize and appreciate that what I said was correct.  This is a scientific discussion, and we should be careful to keep that in mind and use the proper vernacular so we avoid misunderstanding (and unintentional equivocation fallacy).

But it is far from that and I think you clearly gleaned my meaning.

I did!  My point in response was that because they aren't theories in any scientific context - they can't be evaluated/compared using meta-scientific methodology (like bayesian, or occam).  They are simply two statements of "fact"/belief made by various people.

Perhaps you can list out some of those contradictory observations?

Absolutely. The demonstrable behavior of water's surface at rest (as established as law in hydrostatics), "seeing too far", and frozen lake observations to name a few.

Again you play games.

I'm just answering your questions!

No observation has ever been made of the edge

Right, so why do you think one exists?

OR of a vast infinite plane.

Right, so that means that there can't be one?

Is all this just part of you religions belief?

I endeavor to eschew and excise all belief where it does not belong.  Belief has no place in knowledge/fact (least of all scientific) and is directly across purposes to objective study of any kind.  If you believe the world is spherical, flat, or any other shape - you have FAITH, not fact.

Many do succumb to the poison of belief however, and that bias prevents them from being able to critically evaluate their own positions.  Globe believers and flat earth believers alike are a major problem.  One of the most important skills to build engaging in flat earth research is discerning the difference between knowledge and belief masquerading as it (both externally, and perhaps more importantly - internally, in your own heart and mind)

I think that makes it the theory that has the most (in this case actually overwhelming) support and thus is the best we can achieve about what is so in the world. 

The trouble being, it isn't a theory :(  and all the support in the universe couldn't make it one.  There is more support for the world being not spherical - but that doesn't (and never could, and should never be allowed to) prove the world one shape or another.

We could all be brains in jars of course but so far we have no evidence of that.

There is no more intellectually vapid waste of time than simulationism.  It is the drain where philosophy goes to die.

The RE is hugely simpler than the FE.

That is completely wrong, and on some level you know it.  The list of assumptions (the vast majority unvalidated, and learned as presumptive "fact") required for the RE is embarrassingly long.  Again, occam is for comparing scientific theories/hypotheses - of which the presumed/believed shape of the world is neither.

I can't say that you have even begun.

It's a two way street!  We both must "begun" together.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: September 01, 2021, 09:22:35 PM »
Whatever you want to call it

I call it what it is, and you should too - science! There are many alternatives to science, but there is only one science.

All matches, all works, all based on RE.

You aren't grasping what I'm saying.  None of it is based on an RE.  Science takes place on a flat earth either because the earth is flat or because it merely effectively is on the scale we live and practice all science.

But that is not what we are talking about here, the science of refraction is well known and not controversial, the are many refraction calculators available.

We are currently not discussing "blurry" science, but we often are in this topic. Gravitation is a very common topic, and almost nothing in science is "blurrier".

I agree that refraction is reasonably well understood, and like all the other science - doesn't depend on the shape of the world.

Then there is Bob Knodel

Don't watch netflix entertainment and mistake it for research.  Just general advice.

attributing it to "unknown forces"

This perspective makes more sense if you understand the history of physics, not that bob would know that.

In FE, some say gravity does not exist

Many do, but that isn't what they mean.  They mean GRAVITATION doesn't exist.  No one denies the 2 millennia old natural law of gravity.

I call the collection of settled proven consistent science believed by consensus RE science.

I recognize that, which is why I am trying to explain to you why you shouldn't continue to.  Consensus is a very dirty word in science, and the cohesive consistency you believe exists (because of miseducation to that effect) is an illusion.  There is no "RE science", there is just science and it belongs to all!

I use the phrase FE science to describe whatever changes, exceptions, misunderstandings, etc used to explain the gap between observed reality (north star/sextant/latitude) and the mismatch to FE geometry.

I can appreciate that, however it (fe science) is more correctly and effectively conveyed as alternative interpretations.  The belief in the shape of the world of the person who holds them is irrelevant, from a scientific perspective.

This makes no sense, as the mountain appeared to sink into the water.

I promise you it does, and better yet I can help you demonstrate it for yourself!  The "trick" you are missing is that the angle the light enters (and travels through) the density gradient is important! The density gradient only ever causes the light to divert downwards.  If the light enters horizontally or towards the ground, it will appear lower than it ought (or won't reach you at all anymore).  If light enters the gradient towards the sky, it will again be bent downwards - sometimes being interpreted/seen as being "above" "where it should be".

Here is what I saw:

 / \                                                   _o__
/   \                     ________________\    /

Yes, exactly as I described.

Just draw half a rainbow (more or less the actual path light travels through the air) from the top of the mountain to your head on the ship.  The mountaintop ray reaches your eye, and each ray below it curves slightly more convexly than the last one.  The reason for that is the density gradient.  It is also the reason you can continue to see the peak so much longer - there is physically less matter on that linear path to you (the observer) than for any of the subsequent steeper angles.

Please let me know if you still aren't understanding.

In what I call FE science, the light bends however it needs to and disappears entirely without equation, explanation, or experiment.

Perhaps I can convince you to use the word "conception".  That's what I frequently use, and that is explicitly what you are talking about.  There aren't 2 (or more) science, there are 2 (and more) conceptions of what the shape of the world is (generally regardless of/irrelevant to science)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 31, 2021, 07:20:02 PM »
You have not said anything about HOW it would be faked.

That's true.  I rarely speculate on such things, and I doubt it would do much good in this case.  Lets imagine I've done all that already, and just presented you a possible (I think we've both agreed, not very plausible) explanation for how it is faked.

Would that prove/demonstrate anything?  Would that serve as some sort of compelling evidence for you? If so, why?

Or explain how the GRACE experiment produced correct data (i.e. lead us to find underground water that did not know about).

Assuming there are GRACE satellites - they presumably use them to indirectly measure such things from high altitude.  Otherwise it is probably composite data from other real sources. Of course there are many other possibilities.

So they are tracking around in the expected orbital paths and are launched into that path based on the globe model and newtonian mechanics (though relativity does come into time adjustments for their clocks) but are not in orbit. ?   What does that mean?

I think this is particularly unlikely, however perhaps not impossible.  Just because we believe we know how things work, and can demonstrably use those things, doesn't prove that belief true.

I think it is more likely, that if they are up there and moving as we expect they are - they are riding a current of some kind.  The earth is most likely stationary, and the sky rotates above us. They would still require large balloons or other means to remain aloft until that system inevitably fails.

Some speculate that the satellites are entirely fictional, and this is the reason there are so few photos of them and virtually no photos of them in orbit.  They conclude that the things we see in the sky are not satellites and point to the apparent sizes of such objects (such as the iss) being inconsistent with their supposed distances as an evidence.

The globe earth IS the default from very far back, this has been known for a couple of thousand years. 

Well, that's a big part of the problem. For virtually all that time the speculation that the world was spherical was taught disingenuously/erroneously as "knowledge"/"fact" when it wasn't.

Many people mention eratosthenes or columbus when discussing "proving" the world spherical - but what they misunderstand is that both of those people already KNEW the world was round for the same reason we do today; we are taught it as fact from childhood, just like they were.

FE doesn't even HAVE a full model (i.e. theory).

Models are not theories.  However - in general, flat earth researchers do not spend their time producing either, so in a way you are right.  There is the globe model, and then there is no model (yet).  Models of the entire world take significant time and investment to create.  Expecting them to already exist is foolish.

Please generate a table of sunrise, sunset, location data based on FE math.

That would be tricky considering we lack the verified and verifiable data to do so.  In any case, the lights in the sky may move and shine where they please - the shape of the world doesn't enter into that.  Looking up to study what is down beneath your feet, is both foolish and unscientific.

If the globe earth were true the observations we see for daylight/night, sunrise, sunset, our view of the stars, etc all are exactly what we would expect.

It's slightly less amazing when you realize that the presupposed interpretation of those phenomena has been conditioned through education for millennia.

Testing theories based on observation via Baysean reasoning is how science works.

The scientific method does not involve "baysean reasoning" nor does it allow mere observation to EVER test a theory/hypothesis.

You do not understand science.

Believe me, the reverse is the case - but that will take time to establish/recognize.

We have two theories.

I hate to be a stickler meseeks, but I must for the purposes of our discussion.  The colloquial definitions that most everyone learn for scientific vernacular are wrong.  For example, your use of the word "theory".  In science, speculations on the cause of a natural phenomenon are called hypotheses. Theories are not speculations at all (ideally).

One that the earth is a globe and one that it is a flat disk. 

Those are just statements that various believers make.  They aren't even hypotheses.

ALL the observation we have is exactly what we would expect to see if the globe theory were true. 

Except for all the observations that contradict it, sure.

None of the observations we make are what we would expect if the earth was flat (particularly not ever finding the edge).

Actually, the vast majority of observations support the world being flat (but that doesn't make it flat!).

As for the "edge" - no one is completely certain there is one.  Biblicalists cite "the four corners" of the world mentioned.  Some speculate the earth to be an infinite plane with no edge.

So bayesian reasoning says the globe theory is the correct one. 

And you think that makes it correct?  If we pretended that the two "theories" were, in fact, just that - applying occams razor would favor the flat world (perhaps not a "wafer disc") because it requires less assumptions; But that doesn't make it correct!

Why don't you get this?  Explain that to me if you would.

I'm working on it! Communication takes time.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 30, 2021, 10:27:07 PM »
I don't think this is possible, let alone actually plausible.

Good edit :) I think it is possible, but I'm not sure how plausible it is that satellites would be flatly non-real.

But these fakes stations could not deliver different signals to different receives and the fake sources do not have the distance variation from the receivers that the satellites do.

All of it is fakable.  I agree that it would be an AWFUL lot of trouble though - perhaps boggling the mind.

When considering GPS i usually conclude that there are gps satelites in motion above our heads - as it appears.  That does not mean that it is impossible that there aren't.

Thus even if some way the titanic cost of maintaining all of that and that the 10s of thousands of folks involved could keep it secret, the technology just doesn't work.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the satelite service companies are selling a service that doesn't work and paying their employers and/or customers to keep quiet about it.

Satellite services exist, and they work.

Satellites are real and really are in orbit.

I think it is concievable they are really up there, but I more or less deny the premise and possibility of "orbit" due to further study of the concept and its origins.  If they are up there, they are not up there the way we think they are.

The earth is clearly a globe

If the earth were clearly a globe, we wouldn't have to educate people out of their experienced reality from childhood to learn that AND we wouldn't  be having this conversation :)

no other model works for what we observe.

This is essentially never the case (and evidence of strong bias).  There is virtually no situation in which no other model can satisfy observations.

In any case, let's assume that were true - What do you expect that would prove about reality?  Models do not contain reality nor explainations therof.

If I contrived an alternate model that did work for what we observe, would that really prove the world a pyramid, or flat, or any other shape i might fancy? Of course not!  Models are meta-scientific tools built for specific provisional purpose.  None are built to determine the shape of the world - so trying to use them to do so is silly!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: August 30, 2021, 09:42:16 PM »
Refraction as known to conventional RE science

Lol, there is no "RE science" nor "FE science".  The shape of the entire world doesn't have much, if any, bearing on science.

is explained by light traveling through layers of air at different temperatures.

That is one way it occurs, yes.  It is more accurate to say that refraction is caused by light traveling through varying densities of media (one possible cause of differing density is temperature)

This phenomenon is called looming.

We aren't discussing looming (though it is well worth doing so).  We are discussing the "normal" refraction, convexly towards the surface, caused by the density gradient that normally exists in the air (even when the air has uniform temperature)

Refraction through the atmosphere results in things appearing higher than they are, while I saw the mountain appear to sink into the sea. This is consistent with the air being denser, thus slowing the speed of light, at lower altitudes.

The air is indeed (typically) denser with lower altitude.  Looming is a pretty rare phenomenon - I'm talking about something that happens most of the time.  A straight ray (imagined, of course - there are no rays) traveling from a higher elevation to a lower one through a "normal" density gradient will be diverted convexly downwards towards the surface.  This is also what we see in reality, and the reason that the bottoms of distant things disappear first (the light from them is diverted, by the density gradient, into the surface and no longer reaches the distant observer first)

Ironically, this phenomenon is responsible for pictures of cities across lakes that shouldn't be visible per RE, yet they are.

This isn't about looming.  That's a discussion unto itself!

1. FE refraction works the opposite of RE refraction.

Nope! Refraction is pretty well understood and, like most everything else in science, does not have any dependency on the shape of the entire world.

RE has diagrams, explanations, experiments for refraction. FE does not.

You need to get this nonsense out of your head.  There is only one science and it takes place on a flat earth either because it is, or because it just effectively is on the scale we live and practice science.

2. FE uses the word "refraction" without detailed rigorous explanation to explain why the world that appears RE is actually FE. For FE, light bends however it needs to. Ref position of sun at sunset/sunrise, north star angle above the horizon equals latitude, etc.

I don't know who this "FE" is you keep prattling on about, but I understand and can rigorously explain refraction as well as why it is often mistaken for "sphericity".

Apologies if I failed to see your (wrong) explanation. There are so many off-topic, personal, and otherwise irrelevant posts I have trouble reading through the BS.

You cannot objectively evaluate/study anything if your inherent bias is that it MUST be wrong.

You may benefit from going back over my posts in addition to responding to this one.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: An idea for experiment
« on: August 30, 2021, 08:31:38 PM »
i have a simple idea for an experiment

Please do not let this discourage you, but you have a simple idea for an observation/measurement (NOT in any way an experiment - the colloquial definition of that word that we commonly use is incorrect)

is there a way to build straight line ? i believe there is. if so
why not just build a straight line over the water like in river or lake

I agree.  The history tells us this was done once in the past, though I don't think it was done over water.  It was named the rectilineator and supposedly measured the world to be concave.

its so simple and the result cant be denied

I agree that it is (reasonably) simple, and the results somewhat unequivocal - however it is shamefully easy for any result to be arbitrarily denied - including this one :(

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Something odd about magnets
« on: August 30, 2021, 08:14:10 PM »
- gravity is rejected by FE because of its 'invisible' force, yet magnetism is not rejected by FE despite that there's an invisible (and partially inexplainable) force for magnetism too.

Looks like we're all on the same page then.  As I said, the op was about comparing gravity to magnetism/static and exploring why one was frequently denied to exist while the other two are accepted - when they're all "invisible".

The FE model as explained on this wiki.

The wiki is not a bible, nor an encyclopedia.  There is no accepted/agreed upon model, and the wiki outlines multiple models (that are not necessarily compatible).

Indeed. If there is a UA then the Sun either needs to be a solid or - as I wrote - a gas or liquid which is kept inside a transparent shell, otherwise it would be flattened. You could argue that both are possible, but both are very unlikely.

Through imagination, all things are possible.  We can always imagine how it might work - how we could potentially reconcile any paradox.  As you said, we could even argue that "both are possible" without difficulty.  The sense I've gotten is that UA is most often conceptualized to push on either only the world, or the world and the visible heavens at the same time.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Something odd about magnets
« on: August 30, 2021, 07:54:49 PM »
Just repeating that there is no mechanism or description of what gravitation s and how it works doesn’t make it true.

Of course not!  I repeat it only in the hopes that you will understand me.  Perhaps we should try this in reverse - what is the mechanism or description of what gravitation is (not gravity, or "warped spacetime") and how it works (NOT what it is believed to do!)? First outline the theory (which does not rigorously exist to describe) and then outline the empirical/scientific support for the reality of gravitation.

Newton assumed that gravity acted instantaneously.

I would argue he concluded it from observation, but sure.

GR shows that gravity doesn’t, nor does it have to.

GR ASSUMES that gravity doesn't nor does it have to.

This is where you ignorance shines the brightest.

I assure you the feeling is mutual, however people rarely learn anything when being explained that.

There is no shame in ignorance

There doesn't have to be, anyhow.  There often is.

it can easily be cured by a little education.

If only it were so so simple! I've been educating you this whole time while you have tried to do the same...  Ignorance is a pernicious foe, and education takes time and earnest commitment!

Einstein didn’t assume a physical substrate at all. 

Wrong.  I recognize we were taught this, but it is false.  Mathematically, philosophically, and literally - relativity is an aether theory. You can hear it from the horses mouth if you wish.  I think this will take a little more discussion to fully convey - you don't seem to be following.

If there was any philosophy guiding Einstein’s science it was that space wasn’t a “substrate” or a physical reality.

Physics is a branch of philosophy.  There was lots of religious and philosophical ideology influencing einstein.  There is no trouble with a relative aether (one of the ideas/concepts floating around at the time).   A substrate is required if you are going to contort it in order to affect action at a distance by it as an intermediary.  We are discussing philosophy, if you hadn't noticed yet.

That last sentence means that the gravitational field is determined by what is in it.  All motion within the g field is relative to other matter within the field, not the field itself.

There is no gravitational field.  Except in equation/theory.  In physics, it is anathema to have something act upon nothing.  Mass cannot contort spacetime thereby affecting distant matter unless spacetime is real/physical.

Albert realized that even if the universe was completely void of any matter, the g field would still exist.

In imagination, all things are possible!

Like I said there is no shame in ignorance.

We agree there doesn't have to be, but there often is.  I would say there is no shame in being wrong (there is deep shame in refusing to recognize/admit you are)

But there is shame (or should be) in spouting off things “you know” without any knowledge or education on the matter.

Agreed.  Just as there is shame presuming someone is wrong/knowledgeless/educationless merely because their perspective differs from your own.

Anyway, we seemed to have strayed from the OP’s original intent, so if you want to start another thread, I’m happy to discuss further.

I wonder about that.  Only the op can confirm, but I think we are right on topic (more or less).  I'm also most happy to continue to discuss!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: August 29, 2021, 02:54:38 PM »
Still no answer on the original post.

You mean, except mine - right?

Why did the rays from Oxnard not reach my eyes?

They were diverted into the land/water by refraction.

Why did I see one light, then more, and finally the lit up shoreline?

Because as you get closer to the light source, the amount of refraction (bending convexly towards the surface) lessens because it travels through less air to reach you.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: August 29, 2021, 02:47:30 PM »
Jack, if I understand your position correctly, you believe that space doesn’t exist independent of the matter that it is in.  If all matter disappeared, then space would cease to exist?  Is that correct?

Like the antagonist from the neverending story?

I have not considered your hypothetical before.  In my view, there is no possibility to do as you propose.  We cannot devoid any area completely of matter, no matter how hard we try.  Nequaquam vacuum.

As a proponent of aether, I have reason to suspect that even if you could create "perfect vacuum" devoid of all matter we recognize - it would still be full of aether (an ultrafine fluid).

My instinct is that if we could devoid an area of aether as well, that it would continue to exist.

IOW, in order for the laws of physics, specifically the inertial motion of bodies to behave as we observe, space must exist as a separate physical entity.

This is a fundamental premise of all aetherists (and relativity, itself an aether theory)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 29, 2021, 02:08:59 PM »
Even if NASA and US organizations try to mislead because of military/nationalistic reasons: why would all other countries, enemy countries of the US, like Russia, China, Pakistan go along with this?

I'm sure you could imagine a few plausible reasons if you put your mind to it!  In general, the nations do what the other nations do.

And also: space programs are not just missions like going to the moon, basically every launch of a satellite would only make sense if the Earth is round.

What if they didn't stay up by "orbit" but by another means? Or what if the satellite based services are really a combination of terrestrial and aircraft?

These launches are carried out around in many countries, often by private companies. Are they all trying to mislead?

Possibly, that is a common profit motive. I think it is probably closer to a "trade secret" in the minds of the few "in the know".  They sell a service, the customer need not know precisely how the service is delivered (and that is proprietary besides).

And how, if not by actual satellites in orbit,  do they then provide the services (satellite TV, GPS, satelite phone, satellite telecommunication) for which millions of customers pay because they work?

I do not preclude the reality of satellites - they are actually built and huge sums of money are seemingly spent on them.  However I do preclude the reality of orbit as we are taught it.

Presumably it is a combination of balloons, aircraft, and terrestrial radio sources which comprise the "satellite" services you mentioned.

In any case, the reasons that corporations, governments, and militaries lie to the people that depend on them are too numerous to list. What precisely they are lying about and why is mostly irrelevant to the shape of the world and to determining it with certainty.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Something odd about magnets
« on: August 29, 2021, 01:13:21 PM »
Going back to the original post: the cause of gravity may not be entirely understood yet, but that does not mean gravity does not exist.

Absolutely! Most everything is not entirely understood, but it exists just the same!

The OP is really about comparing it to magnetism. The cause of magnetism is also not understood - yet demonstrably exists.

As an analogy, the cause of universal acceleration is not known either.

True.  I presume it is the same cause as in the presumptive model.  Whatever powers matter to bend spacetime perpetually is presumably responsible for powering UA.

So why are we discussing whether or not the cause of gravity is known?

Because it has relevance to the OP.  We are comparing gravitation and magnetism.

Bottom line is that the RE model for gravity better matches with what is observed than the FE model.

What FE model?

The FE model is incompatible with gravitational differences

This is a common misconception.  It is frightfully easy to edit a model to match with observation it did not initially predict.

Board members of this wiki take a very clear position towards gravity: it does not exist in their view and UA is the elementary replacement.

I haven't found this to be the case.  Besides, not everyone here has the same views as the wiki.

Additional problem for UA: the Sun can consist of a gas or a liquid because UA would flatten it completely - unless the Sun would be surrounded by a transparent solid shell.

Did you know that every imagined problem has an imaginary solution?  It's trivial to accommodate "paradoxes" like this.

For example, what if you no longer believed the sun were gas or liquid?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12  Next >