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 - Salviati

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs
« on: July 10, 2019, 04:38:34 PM »
57.   The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of. the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

I wish the world to be a place where you would need to prove with evidences all you say or write and be responsible for such sayings.
"... since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon..."
That is a strong lie, it never happened, never will be.  I will not even ask for evidences, because they don't exist.
It is exactly using this kind of absurdity statements as support, that put the whole FE theory into discredit and disbelief.

Am I wrong thinking like that?

I wish, please, we could discuss this three points, mostly FEts supporting them with evidences or further clarifications.

This phenomenon exists and is named selenelion. Famous is the one happened in Paris the 19 June 1750. It is mainly explained by athmosphere refraction. It's easy to understand. Imagine to be on the terminator in the moment of a lunar eclipse with the setting sun at west and the raising moon at east (or the other way around). If you are high enough (Paris average altitude is about 100 meters), with a little aid by refraction you can see sun and moon at the same time.

This is one of the strong points of the supporters of the flat earth (this contradicts the round earth !! blah blah blah ...) but the irony is that this phenomenon instead completely refutes the flat earth! If I am in the middle, to my right I see the sun grazing the horizon and to my left I see the moon grazing the horizon, what is it that casts a shadow on the moon? ...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 04, 2019, 09:33:00 AM »
What makes you think that the Nibiru community aren't using coronagraphs to try and find Nibiru?

Many more on YouTube

Ok, I admit they use coronagraph and found what should be found: nothing remarkable.
In the first video I see a coronal mass ejection, in the second I see a still image with a red ball, why didn't they show the whole film? Perhaps because that ball is an artifact of the instrument?
The third is a case of pareidolia (nothing real is visible).
Come on man, if there was a big planet near the sun the images would be much clearer and more obvious.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 03, 2019, 10:15:07 PM »
It is an astounding coincidence that inertia, an entirely different properly of mass, should slow all bodies in Earth's gravity to exactly the same rate of acceleration. If gravity had been any different, such as with gravity on Jupiter, it would not match inertia. Inertia is a universal property of mass which is the same for the same mass in weightless space, on Earth, and on Jupiter.

1). Please note that gravity isn't the same at every point of the earth. The difference is not too much great but isn't too small either. It's sufficient a sensible scale (meaning dynamometer) to measure experimentally this difference, that is caused mainly by 1. Altitude; 2.Proximity to equator; 3. Uneven distribution of the masses in the inner of Earth. The value commonly adopted is only an average. You say "If gravity had been any different, such as with gravity on Jupiter, it would not match inertia", well then, we are in this situation, without need to go to Jupiter or to the Moon! In every point of Earth where this measure was performed, this "incredible coincidence" did happen, but with variable values of gravity acceleration. According to you (see citation above) they should have noted a discrepance in equivalence principle. This never happened.

2). It is rather easy simulate a lower gravity. With an inclined plane we can for example simulate the gravity on the Moon.

Being alpha the angle, the body on the inclined plane is subiect to a gravity = mxgxsin(alpha). This should mean that it's as if the body is on a planet wit lower gravity. Again according to you there would be a violation of the equivalence principle, but it's not the case.

It was Galileo that first did these experiments with inclined planes, let alone unnumerable others that did the same after him.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 03, 2019, 06:44:08 PM »
I don’t actually understood Salviati’s post.

“He says a heavier body is attracted with a greater force and thus with greater acceleration

The bit in italics doesn’t make sense to me. The force required to accelerate a body of ‘m’ at a certain rate in proportional to m. Double the mass, double the force required to accelerate the body at the same rate.

But the force of gravity on an object is also proportional to m. Double the m, double the force of gravity acting on it from the earth (or any object).

It’s because both these things are proportional to ‘m’ that the acceleration is the same. Not clear what the issue is.

I did not express myself properly. I meant that the acceleration would be greater if there were no inertia. But with inertia the acceleration is the same for all bodies. (English is not my language).

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 03, 2019, 06:23:35 PM »
The shadow on the moon is evidence that there is something casting it. RE also asserts that there is an object near the sun that is casting a shadow.
I don't regard 93 million miles as "close". During a lunar eclipse the moon is in the earth's shadow.
The bit which makes no sense is the fact that no-one has ever observed the shadow object, as I said a solar eclipse would be an opportunity to do this.

Some people claim to see an object near the sun during solar eclipse and sometimes at other times. They believe that it's a massive gas giant called Nibiru that is orbiting close to the sun's vicinity and usually stays hidden due to the sun's effect on the sky. There is a community around it.

No need to wait for a solar eclipse to see Shadow Object / Antimoon / Nibiru / whatever. There is an optical instrument called a coronagraph that allows you to see objects near the Sun:

Here you can see comet ISON approaching the Sun. Comets are very small objects and can go very close to the Sun, yet they are perfecly visible.

Coronagraph was invented in 1930 and is used from since. Short version of the story: no shadow object at all.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 09:13:10 PM »
That doesn't make much sense.

Consider the RE Jupiter: Gravity is much higher there, right? Assuming that it had a solid surface, when dropping a bowling ball from an altitude of 10 feet above it's surface, a bowling ball would move at a greater rate of acceleration towards Jupiter than it would move towards the Earth.

Yet the laws of inertia are the same on Jupiter as they are on the Earth. On Jupiter Gravitational Mass != Inertial Mass. The same would apply to an area where gravity is much lesser, such as a moon somewhere.

Why should the Earth be a special coincidental place where not even the best research laboratories with the best equipment can find a violation of the Equivalence Principle?

You are climbing the mirrors, as we say in my country. You say:"a bowling ball would move at a greater rate of acceleration towards Jupiter than it would move towards the Earth. " And a feather would move at the very same rate of acceleration (in the vacuum of course) i would add. On the moon the rate is smaller, but the key concept is that all those bodies touch the ground at the same moment.

And as usual you answered yourself: "Why should the Earth be a special coincidental place where not even the best research laboratories with the best equipment can find a violation of the Equivalence Principle?"

Easy answer: no special place at all.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 08:12:27 PM »
Bowling balls, books, and feathers 'drop' at the same rate of acceleration.

Anything which is pushed or pulled through space is subject to the laws of inertia. It is more difficult to push a car in neutral down a road than it is to push a marble.

How does any theory of gravity that moves bodies through space towards the earth apply varrying amounts of energy or force to each body in order to move them all at the same rate? In order to move something through space, energy or force must be involved. Why should it adjust itself for all bodies like that?

You just answered yourself. "It is more difficult to push a car in neutral down a road than it is to push a marble."

An heavier body is attracted with a greater force (not energy!) and thus with greater acceleration, but inertia slows it down by an equal amount.

In other words Gravitational Mass = Inertial Mass

The funny thing is that flat earthers make correct examples of the law of gravity to say that gravity does not exist.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this
« on: June 18, 2019, 03:30:10 PM »
I don't really want to know what the first picture you gave me was about.Since I have explained my point of view with my own image, if you want to give advice, please point it out.I'll try to figure it out.
The arguments of this guy remind me of those of a certain Sceptimatic who years ago flooded the other site with an incredible pile of nonsense.

Flat Earth Community / Re: ISS Open For Business
« on: June 18, 2019, 12:58:26 PM »
Gravity in the ISS is about 90% of what it is on the earth's surface so it is nowhere near zero gravity. While it doesn't affect your question about how to simulate microgravity I think it is important to be accurate while battling scientific ignorance. Some members of this forum love to seize on these little details to derail a debate.
Correct. Here we are talking about free falling, not microgravity or zero gravity or whatever.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: June 06, 2019, 03:16:52 PM »
If the Sun orbits at some 12 km above the surface of the Earth, then Jupiter must orbit somewhat at a higher altitude, perhaps some 25 km, if not more.

You probably wanted to say 12 000 km for Sun and 25 000 km for Jupiter, but obviously those numbers aren't very useful either.

I assure you that sandokhan meant just 12 Km. Go to the other flat earth society site and read his posts.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter
« on: June 05, 2019, 10:54:14 PM »
If the Sun orbits at some 12 km above the surface of the Earth, then Jupiter must orbit somewhat at a higher altitude, perhaps some 25 km, if not more.

I live exactly at the 45th parallel; in the days of the equinoxes the sun is perpendicular to the equator and at noon I see it at 45 degrees. This means that I am 12 km from the equator. But I am also halfway between the north pole and the equator, which means that I am 12 km from the north pole. So the distance north pole - equator is 24 km. Other 24 km from the equator to the outer edge lead us to the conclusion that the earth's radius is 48 km. Is the earth really so huge? I thought it was much smaller.

Quote from: ICanScienceThat
I support this experiment. This should work in my opinion.

For a quicker turn-around, why not just measure the size of the Sun/Moon at Noon vs a time later/earlier in the day? Wouldn't that give enough size difference to be conclusive?

Surely it would be decisive. But the difference in dimension is not that big, and in such cases there is always someone that begins to raise hell yelling: 'perspective!' or 'vanishing point!' and the debate never reach a conclusion.
With the solstice experiment i think there would be a hard time trying to negate the evidence (in either case, round or flat).

Hi guys. I'm looking for an experiment that would prove the Earth is flat, so that I could do. I'm hoping I could do it in under an hour, for not that expensive. If so, could you guys send me the procedure? Thanks everyone.

If such an experiment existed I think its fair to say this website and this forums would no longer exist!

It would have to be an experiment that produces a unique outcome that would only be possible to achieve on a flat surface. The outcomes to many of the experiments that flat Earthers like to say proves their belief that the Earth is flat also apply to a global Earth as well. That is the purpose of experiment where two (or more) hypotheses exist.  To confirm one as correct and thereby eliminate the others.

Right now I cannot think of such an experiment but I will certainly research it and let you know if and when I come up with one.

I think i devised such an experiment. The only drawback is it takes six months to be performed, but anyway it is simple and above all it allows to decide between the two hypotheses.

I will describe it without figures, i presume it will be understandable.
From north pole to equator there are 10,000 kilometers. This was measured during the past centuries with the triangulation method, a method that is suited either for a round or a flat earth, so i think it would be accepted from both parties. Anyway the experiment would work perfectly even with another distance.

I live on the parallel 45 in Europe (and then halfway between north pole and equator), but one can adjust the test for another latitude. So i am about 2,500 kilometers from the Tropic of Cancer (it's irrelevant if the value isn't exact; here we are looking for a qualitative outcome, not quantitative). And because there are about 5,000 Km from the two tropics, i am 7,500 Km away from the tropic of capricorn.

Well then, in a few weeks from now there will be the summer solstice, and the sun will be right above the tropic of cancer. In six months from now there will be the winter solstice, and the sun will be perpendicular on the tropic of capricorn.

First case: presuming the sun is 5,000 Km high (on the flat earth of course!), few days before or after the summer solstice i will be 5,590 Km away from the sun.

Second case: few days before or after the winter solstice i will be 9,000 Km away from the sun. (Pythagorean theorem, you know)

A simple trig calculation shows us that if the apparent dimension of the sun during the summer solstice is 100, its dimension would be 62 during the winter solstice. A huge difference that is impossible to underestimate.

This is the experiment: take a photo of the sun around the next summer solstice; wait six months; take a photo of the sun with the same exact setting of the camera during the winter solstice in december.

If the sun gets noticeably smaller the earth is flat. If it is the same the earth is round. Tertium non datur.

There is an important precaution to take though. We have to be sure we take a pic of the real sun, not to the glare/halo of the sun due to the interaction between the sunlight and the atmosphere. Then we have to put a filter on the camera.

This way the experiment would be correct and reliable.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Please explain Earth's shadow on the moon.
« on: October 26, 2016, 01:27:15 PM »

This image from page

Lunar eclipse of 16 August 2008. It's the real moon photographed with a real camera operated by a real human being The umbra of the earth is clearly visible.  And now look at this:

I did this animation with one of my planetariums on my PC. PCs are all about mathematical calculations. Planetariums do calculations based on data of the solar system, i mean Kepler's laws, Newton theory of gravitation and all that stuff. How is that only putting the date of the eclipse in the planetarium it can do a perfect representation of the eclipse, if the scientific description of the solar system is wrong? Better said: planetariums work according the round earth.


Lunar eclipse 10 December 2011. Here too we can see the shadow of the (round) Earth casted on the Moon. This too is a real picture of the moon (a time lapse to be precise, like the other). With my planetarium:

Once again, performing calculations based on round Earth model a program running on a PC can do a precise description of the eclipse. How this can be explained if the Earth is flat? ( and then his model is different at all ?)

Here the Earth's shadow is entirely visible:


Flat Earth Theory / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: October 21, 2016, 12:59:17 PM »
I want to compliment the OP because he or she spotted FET's worst nightmare. The rotation of the sky around both north and south celestial poles is the ultimate nail on FET's coffin. Our feers friends can do triple somersaults but can do nothing to fix this. No way, no antimoon, moon luminescence, or other hand waving can explain how on a flat earth observing toward south from Australia, South America or South Africa skies rotate around a point and observing toward north from the Northern Hemisphere we see skies rotate around another point.

** This is possible ONLY if we are on a sphere **

Of course the 'Bipolar Map' cited by Tom Bishop is a joke. Observe it:
but don't laugh too loud. Imagine a ship that travels along the equator line from ,say, south america toward west. When it is near the rim... OMG... what happens?. Or a ship that travels along the equator toward east from Malaysia, when it reaches the border... DOUBLE OMG... what happens? And many many other problems with this map. Besides, it's a particular projection of the ROUND earth.

And note please that this observation (i mean the rotation of the sky) doesn't need anything special, no physics laws, no mathematics, no indoctrination from NASA, but only seeing the sky by anyone with his own eyes. Pure zeteticism at his best! Even only an eye is sufficient! Even more zeteticist!

Is there any Feer that can explain clearly and convincingly how things go on a flat Earth  to explain this fact?

Pages: [1]