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 - drand48

Pages: [1]
Better yet, try measuring the full moon.  If you do it carefully, you'll get the same results regardless of where it is in the sky.  No fear of eye damage.

My results, using a micrometer at arms length, were that the moon has the same diameter at moonrise as it has when at culmination (as high in the sky as it will be.)  About 11 mm, IIRC.

It was important to make sure that the distance from my eye to the micrometer was constant.  When the moon was on the horizon, I faced it and held the micrometer at arm's length, vertically.  When it was at culmination, I faced the horizon directly under the moon just as before, and then bent backwards so that my head-shoulders-arms-hand angles stayed the same.  Fortunately I don't live in the tropics where this would have been difficult (since the moon would be much higher in the sky at culmination.)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: March 06, 2022, 04:00:55 PM »
I have a question for troolon: Does your transform preserve topology?  My guess is that it doesn't. [...] In this case, I suspect the topology differs, though I'm not sure of that.
The zeroth step here would be forming a hypothesis. Where do you think it differs, and why? An essay on topology is largely redundant if all you have is undefined "suspicions".
I just asked a question.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: March 06, 2022, 01:10:50 AM »
I have a question for troolon: Does your transform preserve topology?  My guess is that it doesn't.  I would be suspicious of using a transform that doesn't preserve topology in physics, to describe the shape of things in the world.

Topology is the study of the things that are constant regardless of how much you stretch or compress a shape.  According to topology, a donut and a typical coffee mug are identical: they're both a class of shapes known as a "torus."  A sphere is not a torus, and can't be shaped into one without tearing or gluing.  So, when talking about the shape of things, I'm suspicious of any transform that does not preserve topology.

Just because you can define a transform between two things does not mean that they are the same.  They're just mappable.  For example, you can map the positive integers onto the set of all rational numbers, and vice versa.  That means the two sets have the same cardinality (the same number of elements.)  But it doesn't mean they're identical in every way and share all properties.

Likewise, Troolon's transform shows that we can map a spherical Earth and its cosmos into a flat Earth and its cosmos, and vice versa.  But that doesn't mean the two share all properties.  In this case, I suspect the topology differs, though I'm not sure of that.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Size of the Sun
« on: March 03, 2022, 10:48:50 PM »
Yeah .. yeah my folly.
Meant just pressure... Like 1 atm.  I apparently need to brush up on what the fuck stp stands for.

Tho reading up on it, it doesn't seem to matter what the pressure is for hydrogen.  Just gotta get the temperature below 32.9 kelvin.  Which the sun is not.
The pressure doesn't matter for liquid] hydrogen, which the Sun is not.  It's plasma.  The pressure is high.  High enough to cause fusion.

Anyway, to help clear up the OP's confusion:

Sun's volume: 1.4 * 10^18 cubic kilometers
Earth's volume: 1.0 * 10^12 cubic kilometers

So, the sun is about 1,400,000 times the size of the Earth.

Sun's mass: 2 * 10^30 Kg
Earth's mass: 6 * 10^24 Kg
Sun-to-Earth mass ratio: about 333,000, so the OP's claim matches the facts according to the Gospel of Google.

So, the density of the Earth is about 4 times the density of the Earth.

Hydrogen and Helium might be light on Earth, but they're heavy in the sun.  Still, only 1/4 as heavy as our rocks.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the FE sun
« on: February 12, 2022, 08:09:27 PM »
The sun ... is observed to be larger than it is for the bulk of its trek across the sky and likewise for sunset.  The perception of a large disk size at sunrise or sunset is due to atmospheric distortion ...
Just FYI, this isn't true, according to the commonly accepted theory (RET, not FET -- I have no idea what FET says about this.)  There is slight atmospheric distortion, especially just where the sun touches the horizon.  Actually, it's just an optical illusion; things close to the ground seem bigger because there's a frame of reference. Cf.

You can prove this to yourself with the moon, just hold a micrometer at arm's length and measure the moon when it's on the horizon, and again when it's high in the sky.  You'll get the same measurement.  If you don't have a micrometer, use any handy object as a reference, like a small ruler you can hold in your hand and move your thumb to register the Moon's size, and then note where your thumb is on the ruler.

But, doesn't everyone have a micrometer?  I don't know what I'd do without mine!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: February 12, 2022, 07:21:32 PM »
There are winds which travel both Eastwards and Westwards in both the North and the South. There is no such thing as not taking advantage of any winds for a control flight. The planes always try to take advantage of the winds when they fly. When traveling from New York to Europe the planes fly North along the track and when they fly from Europe to New York they fly over a thousand miles south to take advantage of the opposite winds.

OK, so if there's a headwind going one way, then there's a tailwind going the other.  So, do the round-trip and split the difference.  The result (especially after a number of trips) is going to be a close estimate of the actual distance.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?
« on: February 12, 2022, 06:46:20 PM »

I believe to have found a fully working flat earth model. Anything that can be proven by physics can also be proven in it.
It's very similar to the bendy light/electromagnetic acceleration theory.
All details are on my website including animations of day/night/seasons:
But yes, i believe a working flat earth model has finally been developed.

Feel free to have a look.
Excellent!  I'm convinced.  So, everyone, just pick whatever model you like and have fun with it.

Just note that (despite what Trolodon saysthink), you can't make a ruler that works in the flat model.  The length of the ruler has to change depending on your latitude and the direction you're pointing, which ... um ... doesn't actually happen.  (Or alternatively, it does, in a way that makes the Earth seem round even though it's flat.)

Great graphics in any case!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reasoning behind the Universal Accelerator
« on: December 23, 2021, 05:40:14 PM »
I'm trying to understand the objections to Tom's OP.

Are the objections to his experiments?  If so, any such objections would contradict the Equivalence principle of gravity and acceleration, a principle that is generally accepted in modern physics.  Are people objecting to that?

Or are the objections to the interpretation?  Because the interpretation doesn't seem to have anything to do with these arguments and could be objected to on philosophical grounds (such as whether "We can see that the earth moves upwards" or whether we see ourselves or the ball dropping.)  But not on the grounds of what actually happens.  Same thing in both cases.  If there was no gravity and the surface of the Earth was accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2, the experience would be exactly the same as Earth with gravity.

Or are those who are objecting here disagree with the equivalence principle?  It seems to me that people are expecting different outcomes from the experiments.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 22, 2021, 04:36:07 PM »
If you accept that the mediums and all affecting phenomena between the Sun and all points on Earth are not necessarily homogenous, there is a video on the Wiki showing how it could work on a Monopole model:

So, what you're saying is that this is not a demonstration, it's merely an analogy.  It doesn't prove anything, it just illustrates an effect similar to what EA would provide.  Correct?

All of the discussion so far is all very interesting, but the fundamental point here is that the various explanations offered cannot coexist. Even if the world and sun were configured as shown in that video, then the wiki explanation of EA cannot also be true - the light rays cannot possibly behave in the way shown. And, if anybody had managed to pin down the elusive ‘Bishop constant’, it wouldn’t work, would it?

So which is it Tom? Pick a horse. You can’t propose one theory one day, and then rely on a contradictory one in another debate on another subject.

This isn't that different than standard EA. Light rays are bending upwards inside of the medium. This is a non-uniform EA, creating different curves depending on where the Sun is located and shining through the environment.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the lit area on the FE map vs EA
« on: December 21, 2021, 08:45:55 PM »
Air at sea level is 1.225 kg/m^3, whereas glass is ~2500 kg/m^3.
What makes you think the density of the medium should remain the same regardless of scale?
Refraction is based on density.  If the density of the atmosphere is less, the refraction angle will be less.  So, for the demo to match reality, the density of the medium has to match.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 20, 2021, 11:04:25 PM »
Drand did you read my disclaimer?  I personally advocate that Gravity is more a function of Magnetism.  And taking spacecraft around the edge may not be that easy.  If the atmosphere is too thin beyond Central Earth we may not move well.
I was replying to the OP, not to you.  Admittedly, taking a rocket anywhere is dicey, if we cant use physics.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moons of Jupiter
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:34:20 PM »
Good question.  The FAQ says that the Earth is the center of everything above it, and needn't be like planets.  But it doesn't address how a planet's moons work, so I'm waiting with 'bated breath to hear the explanation of why gravity is a thing above us but not here on Earth.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravitational Time Dilation on Flat Earth
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:29:09 PM »
The earth isn't moving upwards at a set velocity. It is accelerating. More specifically, the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards into the things above it.

If you walk off of the edge of a chair and go into freefall it will hurt a lot less than if you walk off the edge of a skyscraper. In the skyscraper situation you are inert in space and the Earth has more time to build up velocity and smash into you.

Therefore, in a situation where the Earth is accelerating upwards if you have a broadcasting photon clock light source at the altitude of a chair and a photon clock at the altitude of a skyscraper, from the perspective of a detector on the floor, those photons would be perceived to be hitting it at different rates of reception. The time for the light source on the skyscraper will appear faster than the light source on the chair.

It is also what would happen between the floor and ceiling inside of a rocket ship accelerating upwards through space.

From p.8 of Cosmological Physics by John A. Peacock, PhD. we read the following:

  “ Many of the important features of general relativity can be obtained via rather simple arguments that use the equivalence principle. The most famous of these is the thought experiment that leads to gravitational time dilation, illustrated in figure 1.1. Consider an accelerating frame. which is conventionally a rocket of height h, with a clock mounted on the roof that regularly disgorges photons towards the floor. If the rocket accelerates upwards at g, the floor acquires a speed v = gh / c in the time taken for a photon to travel from roof to floor. There will thus be a blueshift in the frequency of received photons, given by Δv / v = gh / c^2, and it is easy to see that the rate of reception of photons will increase by the same factor.

Now, since the rocket can be kept accelerating for as long as we like, and since photons cannot be stockpiled anywhere, the conclusion of an observer on the floor of the rocket is that in a real sense the clock on the roof is running fast. When the rocket stops accelerating, the clock on the roof will have gained a time Δt by comparison with an identical clock kept on the floor. Finally, the equivalence principle can be brought in to conclude that gravity must cause the same effect. Noting that ΔΦ = gh is the difference in potential between roof and floor, it is simple to generalize this to Δt / t = ΔΦ / c^2 ”

“ Figure 1.1. Imagine you are in a box in free space far from any source of gravitation. If the box is made to accelerate ‘upwards’ and has a clock that emits a photon every second mounted on its roof, it is easy to see that you will receive photons more rapidly once the box accelerates (imagine yourself running into the line of oncoming photons). Now, according to the equivalence principle, the situation is exactly equivalent to the second picture in which the box sits at rest on the surface of the Earth. Since there is nowhere for the excess photons to accumulate, the conclusion has to be that clocks above us in a gravitational field run fast. ”

See the bolded. If you imagine yourself running into the line of photons it is apparent that the clock above you would run fast, because you are running into them. This is a physical explanation for how this works under the concept of upwards acceleration.

In contrast, the Round Earth Theory adopts a non-physical explanation for this which occurs in a hidden layer of reality, in which space is bending to cause the apparent speedup of time at different altitudes. In my opinion this is completely ad-hoc. Physics behaves as if the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards, but that can't work in RE, so they created this space-bending explanation in an untestable layer of reality which seeks to emulate the physics of upwards acceleration.

In one situation, with upwards acceleration, we can describe what is happening on a physical level for why the rate of reception speeds up when the photons are coming from higher altitudes. In the case of space bending, we cannot. We just call it "space bending" like a magic wand and say that it's physically equivalent to upwards acceleration to explain the otherwise unexplainable. Clearly, there is a difference between the two views.

Why should this space bending mechanism cause photons to travel faster from higher altitudes rather than slower from higher altitudes or no difference at all? What physical reason is there other than to claim that it must be the case because that is what is experienced? One quickly finds a lack of answers.
First, kudos for a good citation.  However, I think the argument must be mistaken, because while the bottom of the rocket has accelerated upwards, so has the clock -- meaning, the photons would arrive sooner than expected, but not with a blue shift.  Can you find another citation with a similar argument?  (I can't.)

IMHO, in this case there would be no time dilation because the top of the rocket gets exactly the same acceleration as the bottom.  If there are two clocks, the only time dilation they'd see would be from the trips between them.  (That is, if both started at the bottom of the rocket and one went up and down, we'd see dilation from that trip.  If both started at the bottom and one went up first and the other later, there would be no dilation. And this would be true regardless of what the rocket does.)

So, if this is indeed a case of a bad lesson in print, then there would be no time dilation for a clock atop a mountain on an accelerating Earth.

If it is a good lesson, then your point stands and I must misunderstand relativity.  (I think we can take it for granted that I misunderstand GR.  But I think I have this bit right.)

Edit to add: Note that the wikipedia article ( says "Consider a family of observers along a straight 'vertical' line, each of whom experiences a distinct constant g-force directed along this line ..." and leads to a similar formula.  Note carefully the word "distinct," meaning "different".  In the textbook's example, the same g-force is exerted on the top and bottom.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: December 20, 2021, 10:07:26 PM »
Begs the question as to why they would do that?
Just for fun and because I figured an astute person like you would appreciate it.

People recently have been using "begs the question" the same way you did, so it's not "wrong."  But it's not what that has meant until relatively recently.

"Begs the question" refers to a logical fallacy where the argument's premisses assume the conclusion.  (See .)

A less ambiguous way of saying what you said might be "Raises the question."  I think we can blame whomever named that fallacy for the confusion.

This ends today's lecture.  (Tugs on bow tie.)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side?
« on: December 20, 2021, 08:53:13 PM »
According to this site's FAQ, the Earth is accelerating upwards at a constant rate, providing what we perceive of as gravity by acceleration.  So, it seems it must be receding from some space that is below it, and the question of "what's down there" is a valid one.  If we indeed have spacecraft, then we should be able to fly around the edge and take a peek.  So far, this hasn't happened, so perhaps spacecraft don't exist and all those who claim to have them are in on the great conspiracy.

The answer to that query is that those are not the angles the observers would see since that diagram is an overhead two dimensional scene which inherently assumes that the stars and the observers are at the same altitude. Two points above an observer do not maintain their apparent angular displacement no matter how far they are above the observer.

If we imagine that the image you provided was a three dimensional scene starting with those stars at the same altitude as the observer, and if we then increase the altitude of the stars over the observer nearest the North Pole, the angle the observer sees between the top and bottom stars would become less and less as the stars get further and further from the observer.

If, instead, we imagine that the previous image I provided is three dimensionally sliced through the center with a copy of itself on other axis like a + when viewed from overhead, creating a symmetrical three dimensional scene with four stars instead of two, we can see that the consistent angles would also work on the other axis.
OK, then, do the math for us and show that two observers would observe the same angle between two stars, based on your theory.

No math = no theory.  Not even a hypothesis.  Just a concept.  Concepts are important, but they aren't very convincing when we have theories where the math holds up and has incredible predictive value. Math people have been using for over 2000 years for certain cases, and for several hundreds of years for navigation.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The ISS - Who Should I believe?
« on: December 20, 2021, 08:11:16 PM »
With the help of my brother-in-law (who lives 350 miles away) we both observed the ISS passing across the sky then used the angle of our observations to calculate the height. We came up with an approximate height of 232 miles. This is pretty close to the official figure of 220 miles.
I'd love to see your math!

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The ISS - Who Should I believe?
« on: December 20, 2021, 08:06:26 PM »

... we have Flat Earth 2, Globetards 1.
Just FYI, using terms like that reduces your credibility more than it does those you intend to insult.  It shows that you're using emotions rather than logic, for one thing.  If you'd said "Flattards 2, Globetards 1" we could take it as a joke.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Azimuth angles?
« on: December 20, 2021, 08:02:03 PM »
Just to clarify.

The question is reasonable: someone doesn't quite understand azimuths and RE theory.

The question was, why does the azimuth of sunrise always match the azimuth of sunset?  (Actually, the negative of it, but never mind that.)  It seems as though, if the Earth's axis is angled, the azimuths of these two events shouldn't be equal.

The reason why they're equal is simple: the Earth is a sphere, which is radially symmetrical.  Therefore, sunrise and sunset azimuths will be symmetrical about the plane between the Earth and the Sun.

Here's a little experiment you can use to verify and illustrate this.  Stand up straight and directly face a small light (or anything you can easily see in your peripheral vision) that's at roughly the height of your eyes.  Turn your head left and right until it disappears from view*.  You'll notice that (if you're reasonably symmetrical yourself, as most people are) that the light disappears at the same angle of head turn, left or right.  Now bow forward a bit and repeat the experiment.  You'll notice that the angle is less, but is still the same going right or left.  The same is true of sunrise and sunset azimuths, and for the same reason: the Earth, like your head, is radially symmetrical.

This works for both sphere and cylinder since they're both radially symmetrical, so, by this little experiment, the Earth could be a cylinder and provide similar results.  Of course, for a cylinder the azimuth table wouldn't vary by latitude.

* Ignoring blind spots -- if it disappears and then reappears as you turn further, that's a blind spot so ignore it.  As usual, it's hard to ignore a blind spot unless you're aware of it.

Pages: [1]