41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 29, 2017, 08:58:19 AM »

[...]
But, to your main point, I still fail to see how it cripples the hypothesis I brought up. It just picks at how we would seem to perceive things and relies on the ambiguity of that to take it down.
How perspective would work for this is unknown and will clearly rely on more variables that what we simulate with angles of view.

What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?

Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.

42

Flat Earth Community / Re: depth of Earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 08:51:22 AM »

thank you! this at least tries to make sense. Only if you accept that the matter that composes the earth exert gravity, you have to explain why local differences in density don't cause the whole shebang to collapse with time into discrete spheres

The gravitational pull and normal-unit vectors cancel out on an infinite plane (being counterbalanced), giving stability. It is based on the uniform density of the plane, with a uniform gravitational pull across it [...]

that is a rather big assumption. It's a bit like the joke of the scientist trying to be a farmer: "assuming punctiform cows..."
It's also arguable. I understand that the earth is in fact not uniformly dense, and even small variations would accrue over time. Unless you're also assuming that it was created last Wednesday. 

It's been mathematically demonstrated on an infinite plane, as shown above (with Newtonian gravitation). The resulting equation has the density of the plane interdependent with its gravitational pull. So, the density of the plane determines it's gravitational pull (with the gravitational constant and depth of course), small variations in density all across the plane will be subject to the same uniform gravitational pull across it, the plane just needs density to have this stable gravitational pull. It is infinite, it is not subject to point masses like you seem to be assuming.

Different densities = different pulls. What's keeping the denser areas to pull material away from the less dense ones?
Consider ad absurdum having a neutron star buried in your backyard... Do you think that the rest of the ground would somehow counterbalance that?

Again, you are misunderstanding it, it's the uniform pull of the plane. The infinite plane is what forms the pull in the first place.
The equation above has the density of the plane itself factored into the gravitational pull. All areas are part of the same uniform plane. It's not like point mass gravitation.
And I already answered that question, the normal unit vectors and gravitational cancel out on an infinite plane, making it stable. These vectors are infinitesimal.

According to your objection, on a spherical Earth, more dense areas will have greater gravitational pulls and less dense material will be pulled away. However, we know that the gravitational pull across Earth is a product of the entire mass and not particularly areas on its surface, as those all form the uniform mass of Earth and therefore it's uniform gravitational pull.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 29, 2017, 08:19:39 AM »

So, here are a few pictures from the model I've done.
I had to eyeball the proportions from your pictures, because no dimensions are given (figures...)
In the side view you can see the earth and the astroplane.
The darker area in the astroplan is a rough approximation of the visible sky from a point on earth ca. halfway "south" of the Astroplane center. From your map it would be like Florida? Egypt? beats me.
The other picture is a first person view from that point at ground level. As you can see, perspective has a massive effect.
I lack the time now to render the concave / convex alternatives, but, trust me, you'd get similar problems.
Crappy quality, but the attachment size costraints are crippling

Dimensions don't get to my point, whether you pick the standard FES dimensions or something else, the concept is the same.
Based on perspective assumptions, there is a ratio of around 1:2 (altitude : distance away from the ground that's perpendicular to the above object) at past the apex of perspective lines, which would be celestial bodies on this model. So, it may be about 3,125 mile high sun : 6,250 miles away from a ground point perpendicular to the sun with perspective in standard. Stars, wouldn't know all the altitudes exactly.
But, to your main point, I still fail to see how it cripples the hypothesis I brought up. It just picks at how we would seem to perceive things and relies on the ambiguity of that to take it down.
How perspective would work for this is unknown and will clearly rely on more variables that what we simulate with angles of view.

44

Flat Earth Community / Re: depth of Earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 07:40:22 AM »

thank you! this at least tries to make sense. Only if you accept that the matter that composes the earth exert gravity, you have to explain why local differences in density don't cause the whole shebang to collapse with time into discrete spheres

The gravitational pull and normal-unit vectors cancel out on an infinite plane (being counterbalanced), giving stability. It is based on the uniform density of the plane, with a uniform gravitational pull across it [...]

that is a rather big assumption. It's a bit like the joke of the scientist trying to be a farmer: "assuming punctiform cows..."
It's also arguable. I understand that the earth is in fact not uniformly dense, and even small variations would accrue over time. Unless you're also assuming that it was created last Wednesday. 

It's been mathematically demonstrated on an infinite plane, as shown above (with Newtonian gravitation). The resulting equation has the density of the plane interdependent with its gravitational pull. So, the density of the plane determines it's gravitational pull (with the gravitational constant and depth of course), small variations in density all across the plane will be subject to the same uniform gravitational pull across it, the plane just needs density to have this stable gravitational pull. It is infinite, it is not subject to point masses like you seem to be assuming.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cartography and a flat earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 07:25:07 AM »

Well, in the model I accept, aether is bent across the Earth, so there is distorted space. 2D maps assume that space is flat, but it isn't, so there is no possible completely accurate map.

Do you have a description of this model? I suspect that no one here accepts it.

A source with some description: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model
Basically, aether (space-time), bends across the Earth, while clearly maintaining a flat plane due to the fact that it's able to be traversed in a straight line between two spatial coordinates, it is just that space bends rather than the straight line traveled across, so it's flat. From an external frame of reference, it appears as curved since space is curving (aka Ferrari effect). This has been confirmed experimentally and in observations.

Due to this, no accurate map can be made, because maps assume flat space, which isn't so with Earth.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FET explain these very simple errors

« on: August 29, 2017, 06:43:53 AM »

First, let me say this site is fantastic. Who doesn't like a little nutty conspiracy theory once in awhile. I have a feeling that 90% of the supposed FE supporters are actually just faking it for fun or to encourage critical thinking. I do worry about the other 10% who are suffering from delusional paranoia.

I read the Wiki and there are some very glaring facts that blow this "theory" out of the water.

Lets hear them.
The sun and planets. So FET says the Sun is roughly 3000 miles away and is only 32 miles across. A few things. 32 miles is not large enough to create enough gravitational pressure to initiate fusion in hydrogen gas. (and we do know what the sun is burning because of its spectral lines) You lack the mass.
What planarists are saying the sun gets all of its energy from complete inner nuclear fusion in this model?
Here's a paper pointing out an external source of high energy particles: http://www.journalcra.com/article/external-energy-supply-sun-overwhelmingly-obvious-and-has-recently-been-detected-space-probe . There is also the hypothesis held by Eric Dollard the the sun gets its energy by converting it from elsewhere. A favorite hypothesis of mine regarding this (not one I hold to personally) is that the sun is a spherical vacuum with a concentration of physical aether around it due to a previous rush that created a vacuum and aether rushed together equidistantly to form a sphere, constantly burning because of the aether filling the entire universe. By aether, I am referring to this: https://wiki.tfes.org/Aether
Ideas may exist all over, can't assume planarists must accept nuclear fusion. It's alright to say "we don't know" as well.
The planets are small and orbit the sun a couple thousand miles away. If this is true, why has no group of intrepid FETers launched a mission to these tiny planets to prove to the world that the Earth is flat? I think we all know that answer to that one.
Yeah, we know, because they are not able to do so. Instead, we rely on observation with what we can do.
Your model of sunlight is verifiable incorrect. If the Earth is laid out as proposed, some locations in the east would still be in daylight, while areas southwest would be in the dark. A simple phone call between two people, one positioned southwest of another could prove that the Earth is illuminated by this "flashlight" sun. Why hasn't this very easy, inexpensive test been done??? Again, we know the answer.

Look at this carefully:

Edge continent that keeps the air in. LOL, hard not to laugh when typing that. Where is this 50K foot tall wall of rock or ice surrounding this flat expanse of land?? Surely it could be mapped by a simple mission.
How far would the large ice wall be? Is it attainable? Details like that make all the difference here. Assuming it must be able to be mapped by some simple Antarctic mission or it must not be true is a fallacious assumption to make.
Also, the theory about dark energy holding in the air is completely false. Dark energy and matter are named that because they DON'T INTERACT with normal matter. It wouldn't be dark energy if it was holding all the air in. lol
Maybe you should figure out what the hypothesis is first before trying to make a rebuttal attempt.
An alternative theory says that the atmolayer is held in by a complex reaction to the streams of Dark Energy at the edge of the world. This creates a "boundary" containment.

The Dark Energy Field is a vector field. It has a gradient that is smallest at the interaction of the atmosphere and the field, called the boundary layer. The DEF interacts with the magnetic field of the earth at this boundary layer. These vectors produce a force vector that is orthogonal to the other vectors in four dimensional space. This force vector is always normal to the boundary layer, thus providing a type of forced containment for the atmosphere.
- TheEngineer
-https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer
It is not physically blocking air, it consists of a force vector by the DEF and magnetic field interacting to create a forced containment normal to the boundary layer. Force vectors do not mean that specified fields involved are directly interacting physically.
Also, you sound like you know exactly what dark energy is, funny, even mainstream science admits they don't know.

Consider this as well: https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer_Lip_Hypothesis
The atmoplane fading away slowly, and it need not be physically infinite either.
There are many other obvious problems with FET - what causes this acceleration that gives the illusion of gravity
True, wouldn't exactly know for sure. Dark Energy, Aether, or infinite plane gravitation, they are in the end, not conclusive, but we are free to question and have models, that is the great part.
why don't the sun, moon, and planets simply crash into the Earth?
Possibly because they are accelerating too, or, they are kept up by a force, such as electromagnetic levitation (a force acting against the 1G force). I really like the aetheric whirlpool hypothesis, sun, moon, stars, and planets move with the rotating whirlpool while in freefall due to the siphon nature of the whirlpool.
I could go on - magnetism without a metallic core,
Does it need a literal center core? No, not required for magnetic fields.
the seaborne radar problem,
The wiki happens to have an entry on this: https://wiki.tfes.org/Radar_and_the_Horizon
I think the point made there is worth noting too, more scatter of waves will happen due to the moisture here on Earth.
the fake vanishing point argument.
It's a fair assumption to make that perspective limitations is a thing.
Good fun, but the believers in this stuff are...well, I'll be nice and say nothing.
I don't even need to agree with the model you are picking at (and I don't), your attempt wasn't solid, but I applaud you for an attempt to speak your thoughts.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cartography and a flat earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 05:29:54 AM »

Well, in the model I accept, aether is bent across the Earth, so there is distorted space. 2D maps assume that space is flat, but it isn't, so there is no possible completely accurate map.

48

Flat Earth Theory / What model do you hold to?

« on: August 29, 2017, 05:11:04 AM »

I was going to make a poll but figured it would better to hear what it is rather than make a list of predictions and assume most will vote for them.

So, yeah, the title is self-explanatory, what model of Earth do you adhere to?
And remember, the more explanation, the better. 

I'm interested to hear the diverse views.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Both the Ice Wall and Bipolar maps are wrong, why don't you think of new models?

« on: August 29, 2017, 04:29:48 AM »

If you don't have the data then you have no right to claim that such data exists as the basis of your argument.

You are sending us off to look at maps and we are supposed to assume that somebody actually measured the things you claim rather than being projected assumptions.

No. Show us the data and tell us how and who collected it.

It isn't one entity that produced these maps. US Geological Survey, NOAA, European Space Agency, and others. And no, these aren't assumptions. They are actual measurements. The USGS flew a plane over the continental US and measured the magnetic field. ESA used satellites. I'm assuming NOAA used satellites, but didn't specifically look because satellites can't exist. smh...

Show us the data and tell us how it can only suggest a round earth rather than just expecting people to believe that it supports you.

What makes you think the shape of the earth is not round?

Is it news to you that people don't think that?
What is the name of this site again?

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Summer solstice in southern vs. northern hemisphere

« on: August 29, 2017, 04:28:08 AM »

If you go north of the Arctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the summer solstice. This seems consistent with both round and flat earth models.

If you go south of the Antarctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the (southern) summer solstice. This seems inconsistent with a flat earth model. How can you see the sun 24/7 in the south, when the sun is so much farther away on any of the flat earth maps?

Because it's an ice continent with the south pole.
Either that, or ice wall proponents have to explain how the sun works that way.
The last resort is to say its not real and that the footage is faked.

Motivation for faking the multiple videos?  They don't make any money from it and it's not exactly a riveting story either.

Thank You,

CriticalThinker

Don't you think that many possible motivations could be though of?
It doesn't take that big of an imagination to come up with things.
And I said "last resort", so, if someone feels that they need to assume that, they come up with something.

I should have said last resort is to discard your model actually. 

51

Flat Earth Community / Re: depth of Earth

« on: August 29, 2017, 04:23:29 AM »

thank you! this at least tries to make sense. Only if you accept that the matter that composes the earth exert gravity, you have to explain why local differences in density don't cause the whole shebang to collapse with time into discrete spheres

The gravitational pull and normal-unit vectors cancel out on an infinite plane (being counterbalanced), giving stability. It is based on the uniform density of the plane, with a uniform gravitational pull across it.

This is the basics written out:

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 29, 2017, 03:46:57 AM »

Just to confirm exactly how much of my other post you agree with. Will you automatically dismiss an unedited continuous 24 hour stream from the Antarctic rim showing 24 hours of sunlight with a mechanical watch in the field of view as undeniable proof or will you dismiss everything off hand?  I provided two scenarios and it's incredibly important to know which one you fall into before continuing the discussion.

Alternatively, I'd accept physical evidence or live video from the rim that shows the dome where it meets the edge of the world as proof.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

No, I am not dismissive of footage there. I don't consider anything "undeniable" though.

I wouldn't know an explanation of the 24 hour Antarctic sun on the rim model as its been commonly dismissed as fake by advocates.
Considering that the dome would act like a mirror from what I explained about stars, they can attempt to claim and explain some mirroring effect around the entire rim possibly, though I can't say anything for them unless I wanted to get very speculative about it and I don't care a whole lot to try to explain it. I left behind the ice rim FE model because of how it was fraught with problems.

Never been far enough across the Antarctic (never stepped foot there in my life), I lack the resources to get an expedition across and try to find whats over there. That's why we got models and discuss them among ourselves to see what best fits what we do know.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Summer solstice in southern vs. northern hemisphere

« on: August 29, 2017, 03:00:15 AM »

If you go north of the Arctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the summer solstice. This seems consistent with both round and flat earth models.

If you go south of the Antarctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the (southern) summer solstice. This seems inconsistent with a flat earth model. How can you see the sun 24/7 in the south, when the sun is so much farther away on any of the flat earth maps?

Because it's an ice continent with the south pole.
Either that, or ice wall proponents have to explain how the sun works that way.
The last resort is to say its not real and that the footage is faked.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 29, 2017, 02:56:36 AM »

And the 24 hours of continuous sunlight observable in every one of the research stations along the rim ice wall simultaneously?  Even 24 hours of sunlight on the rim period?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Got a great answer from my friend "CriticalThinker" for this one, here's a quote from them:

Douglips,

I'll save you the trouble for this one.  The first requirement that you will be asked to provide is a 24 hour continuous raw video showing the sun at the south pole not taken by any government agency, edited in any way, with some other verifiable proof of time, date, length of video etc.  If there has been even the slightest post production edit or time lapse, it will be dismissed as a fake.  For best results, if you can find one, it would be a video specifically shot for the purpose.  24 hours plus and additional hour for good measure, with a mechanical watch with date dial in the field of view at all times and a live person that attends it at regular intervals to show that it isn't fake.  Even then, they'll probably dismiss it as a conspiracy plot by someone.  The other possible response will be some alteration to the 2 pole model that states the sun moves in a continuous figure 8 or something along those lines and before you ask, at no point will any of these models theorized be substantiated by hard evidence.  They have essentially drawn their line in the sand and stated that we must prove to them that the earth isn't flat and then immediately dismiss any evidence that it isn't flat as fake, inaccurate or failing to take into account some magic that can't be measured.

Thank you and welcome,

CriticalThinker

Link: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6819.0

There's the answer.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 29, 2017, 02:26:55 AM »

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?

Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:

So, the repeated trips of people to the south pole don't exist why?  How can people physically walk to the south pole if it doesn't exist in the unipolar model?  People visit the single south pole every year that are not government employees.

Thank you,

CritcalThinker

In that case, the supposed 'south pole' would just be a location along the ice ring inside the firmament, with it just being deemed the "south pole" because we suppose the Antarctic is an ice continent on a globe.

The ice wall model has many problems regarding how large the Antarctic circle would be and the larger circumference of the southern hemiplane, but I figured this question could be given a hypothetical answer regarding southern star trails on a unipolar map (dome reflection).

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 29, 2017, 02:22:00 AM »

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?

Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:

Nice looking but sun/moon are in the firmament.

They are in the commonly accepted firmament model.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Our perspective of celestial bodies?

« on: August 28, 2017, 11:01:32 PM »

1) Perspective at long distances. Don't know the mechanisms involved, but that's the answer that comes up when this question is asked.
2) Not sure I understand the question. Could you give it another shot, maybe word it a little differently? Sorry. My first off-hand guess is it's a perspective effect again, at least according to the FE hypothesis.

You'll find perspective thrown about in answer to a lot of the visual curiosities. I still don't understand why they think it functions so differently, nor have I gotten any kind of reply when pointing out perspective can't change where something actually is.

Well, celestial perspective would differ from basic perspective here on Earth in these models essentially because the celestial bodies are much higher up. Assuming a finite point of convergence, such high objects will descend into the ground at a 45 degree angle in a "isosceles right triangle" fashion, so, the stars, sun, and moon will descend at a constant rate and won't slow down as it approaches the horizon. That is a common view of perspective among planarists, but, to try to explain this as a distinctive part of celestial perspective as well doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe, I guess, it could be thought of as the moon descending into the horizon before it gets to an angle so that we see a different side of it (so, basically, the moon can never be at such an angle so you can see a different part of it because you can't see it at such a hypothetical angle, it would be past your perspective lines and therefore below the horizon), but, I would assume any movement far out would have some difference in what we see with the moon.

As for #2, if you are at the north pole looking up, the stars will appear to circle above you, but as you move away, your angle of view changes and therefore you will view it from the side and it won't be as if its directly above you. However, we observe that the stars always appear the same as they do when you are looking up at the north pole, lining up with your eyes and facing you. That means it would have to 'tilt' with you as you walk away to maintain the same appearance of it directly facing you.

Star trails facing you:

Those stars don't look like they are circling above the pole, but are circling while pointing to you.
Does celestial perspective do that?

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation of Earth through poles

« on: August 28, 2017, 10:39:34 PM »

How is it possible to circumnavigate the Earth longitudinally? I want to ask the question that if we go from the North Pole to the South Pole, how come we don't just fall off the Earth?

That is indeed a problem in the ice wall model, how circumnavigation via the poles could be done. The only possibility I know of is that they crossed past the ice wall and circled around the circumference of the antarctic circle above the ice to make it to the other side. The distance would be longer and there would need to be some exaggeration of the speed of the plane, distance traveled, and the navigation method for this to be true.
Otherwise, there is the bi-polar flat earth map, where they crossed the south pole and came back around:


And then there is my favorite model (the one I adhere to), the Davis relativity model, where aether (space-time), bends around the Earth, where you can traverse the Earth in a straight line as a flat plane, but the aether you are traversing within curves and you circle back. Basic entry here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Davis+Model

Please read this link - it shows that a person actually did this once. I still want to reiterate the question of why the Earth bulges at the equator. By understanding seismic activities, and how the waves travel through the Earth, we can see that the Earth has a horizontal radius that is 26.58 miles longer than the vertical radius. Why? In the 17th century, following the invention of the pendulum clock, French scientists found that clocks sent to French Guiana, on the northern coast of South America, ran slower than their exact counterparts in Paris. Measurements of the acceleration due to gravity at the equator must also take into account the planet's rotation. Any object that is stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth is actually following a circular trajectory, circumnavigating the Earth's axis. Pulling an object into such a circular trajectory requires a force. The acceleration that is required to circumnavigate the Earth's axis along the equator at one revolution per sidereal day is 0.0339 m/s². Providing this acceleration decreases the effective gravitational acceleration. At the equator, the effective gravitational acceleration is 9.7805 m/s2. This means that the true gravitational acceleration at the equator must be 9.8144 m/s2. This difference in acceleration is massive, all because of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, which, according to the law, shows that the Earth must be round because all mass is attracted toward's one another.

I recommend you look into Mach's principle. Essentially, any frame of reference (FoR) considered as geocentric would involve a 'celestial gravitation' as influencing the local physical characteristics of such a local physical FoR, in such a way so that the term "mass out there influences inertia here" holds true when taking geocentricity as your preferred relative movement.
Here's a great example:
Suppose we took a bucket of water at rest, and stirred the water so that the water rotates relative to the bucket, then, we got the water rotating relative to the stationary bucket. Now, lets suppose we rotated the bucket instead, so the bucket was rotating relative to the stationary water, but if you do this, the water will start to rotate with it, giving the same effects that water rotating relative to the stationary bucket would have. So, we can postulate, that in a local frame of reference, the rotation of the Earth relative to the stationary celestial bodies is indistinguishable from the rotation of the celestial bodies relative to the stationary earth, because of how the celestial bodies would affect the Earth, giving centrifugal force by interaction between these masses.

A good basic read: http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/machs_principle_and_the_concept_of_mass_fos_v16n3.pdf

Davis doesn't get much love around here. I've seen him describe as a senile old man or just crazy. (I personally don't know anything about him)

What you are describing is aether dragging if anyone wants to Google it. Are you familiar with frame dragging? Essentially spacetime being dragged along around a rotating massive object. Very interesting. Confirmed experimentally and similar to aether without requiring a physical aether, which has never been detected.

I was actually considering mentioning that, something important in a geocentric Davis relativity model, but thinking of it in terms of just point 'charge' attraction is generally more basic thought.
Also, I do use the term "aether" interchangeably with "space-time", but not referring to the hypothetical physical luminiferous aether.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 10:31:25 PM »

It's hard to make out from the images.  Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?

Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 10:27:28 PM »

[...]
This is actually quite spot on, think of that dome as the concave mirror wrapping around you, and the top of the astroplate (that line with some blue around it) is reflected off of the dome around, and it even has lines to illustrate it. I don't think this picture even had this purpose (looks more like its modeling the december solstice), but it works as an illustration.

I don't think it'd work as you think. If I get around it tomorrow I'll make you a 3d view (night time here...) but it's the same reason why old videogames had a separated "sky box" for the far scenery. Perspective messes things up. None of the options you cite would really work once you're a bit sideways. You'd see either far stars getting too close to each other, or close constellations deformed.

I don't quite know what you mean here, but I am assuming you are referring to the angle of view problem with stars and the moon that I just made a thread on (asking about how it works): https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6821.0
Otherwise, I'd have to see what you mean.