### 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 - stevecanuck

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next >
41
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 10, 2021, 11:11:24 PM »
That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?

Upwards acceleration is acknowledged to be identical to 'gravitation'. So a calm lake is perpetually pushing up a boat at 9.8 m/s/s as well. The mass distribution of a boat isn't evenly distributed, and the atoms of the water aren't perfectly distributed beneath the boat either. Yet boats and ships aren't flipping around on the water. Why is that?

Because it's a completely different set of parameters. A boat is not flat. The walls of the boat allow for more leeway in terms of weight distribution. Move off center, and the boat will list, but the walls keep it afloat. However, move too much, and over it goes. Just go to youtube and you'll see hours of clips of people tipping boats and canoes.

Now, back to flat things, which you did your level best to avoid talking about  (Heh, heh. Level best. See what I did there?). Stand on an SUP (stand-up-paddleboard) in the middle. If you're new at it, you'll tip it because your weight will go off center before you know it. Even if you're good at it you have to stay perfectly centered to keep it from tipping.

It's obvious that you're just making these "answers" up as you go along, as the absurdity of your "rebuttal" demonstrates. I'm guessing you've never had this question before and that you're scrambling to come up with an newly invented force by way of explanation.  Oh, btw, water IS evenly distributed. Are you seriously suggesting there are "clumps" of water???

I have a suggestion. Since UA can be anything you want it to be, why not expand on it and turn it into AUA? That stands for Adaptive Universal Acceleration. When UA is pushing under the Marianas Trench (all that water has to weigh more than shallower oceans), UA "ADAPTS" to account for the extra load and applies more force where needed. Yeah, THAT's the ticket.

42
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 10, 2021, 09:13:28 PM »
I just though of an experiment. Go to an indoor sky-diving dome where huge fans blow air upward. Take something flat and heavy enough for it to be held up by the blowing air. Try to stop it from flipping if it's not 100% symmetrical with even weight distribution (Hint: Take lots of money - you'll be there for a while.)

43
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 10, 2021, 09:09:22 PM »

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.

We already know from human experience that it is possible for things to be pushed without flipping. I am sure that you can think of ways for it to happen on your own.

That was 100% question evasion. Here it is again:

- The earth is flat.
- It is being pushed from the bottom.
- If the force is not distributed evenly OR the earth is not perfectly balanced, one side will ride up relative to the other causing it to flip (rockets are pointy, symmetrical, and evenly balanced for a reason).
- The earth may be flat, but it's weight is NOT evenly distributed.
- Please tell us what keeps the earth from flipping.

And when you figure it out, could you please add it to the wiki?

44
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 10, 2021, 06:00:47 PM »
Ever since finding this site, I have had this nagging thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the logic behind relying on the equivalence principle to justify UA, but couldn’t  quite put my finger on it.

I wasn’t thinking about people falling off a roof, but it finally dawned on me.  Special Relativity tells us that accelerated motion warps spacetime. The faster you go, the slower time moves and objects will contract.  The equivalence principle tells us that accelerated motion and gravity are indistinguishable.  The logical conclusion then is that gravity is the warping of spacetime.

Instead, the UA crowd concludes that the EP means there is some mysterious force that is accelerating the earth (and maybe, but maybe not, everything else.) upwards.

I couldn’t find anything in the wiki that justifies this leap (no pun intended) in logic. Maybe if you took SR out of the equation, it would make some sense but that creates even more problems for UA.  Not to mention the fact that part of what makes the EP so important is that it serves a bridge between SR and GR so that SR is consistent with gravity.

Why should UA be considered a better theory for gravity when it doesn’t even logically follow from the very premise it is based on?  Not to mention the fact that it leaves so many questions unanswered that GR very elegantly solves.

Another problem with UA simulating gravity is that for a flat-disk earth to be pushed without flipping, one of two things must be so. Either the earth has to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly weight-balanced, or UA has to exert uneven force on the bottom to account for the asymmetrical weight distribution of land and water. I have never seen this addressed.

45
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 30, 2021, 10:49:15 PM »
Yup. And we're still waiting for Tom to follow up on his "There are many problems with RE" statement.

It's pretty much documented in the Wiki.

The question for me at this point is more of a matter of what does work, rather than what doesn't work. I also suspect that the topics described are incomplete on the numerous issues plaguing RE. The problems and anomalies and contradictions tend to be suppressed and ignored rather than publicized and celebrated.

Here are some I find interesting:

Mechanics

The physics of the giant RE galaxies don't work - https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

The model of the RE Sun doesn't work - https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Inconsistent_Brightness:_A_Round_Earth_Mystery

Cosmology

RE Cosmology doesn't work. Scientific American calls modern cosmology a folk tale - https://wiki.tfes.org/Cosmology_Has_Some_Big_Problems

Perspective

The celestial bodies don't shrink according to the laws of perspective.

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

RE Galaxies don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies

Gravity

Can't truly model more than two bodies at a time - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

The equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass, as seen in laboratory experiment, is a coincidence, even in GR - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Astrophysicist Ryan Martin: "As we will see, both Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity and Einstein Theory of General Relativity assume that the two are indeed equal. In fact, it is a key requirement for Einstein’s Theory that the two be equal (the assumption that they are equal is called the “Equivalence Principle”). You should however keep in mind that there is no physical reason that the two are the same, and that as far as we know, it is a coincidence!"

Variations of gravity inconsistent, contradictory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

Relativity

Light's velocity does not change on a horizonal plane from the earth's movement around the Sun, but does change when the detectors and receivers move in a laboratory experiment.

Earth's movement has no affect on light velocity on an experiment on a horizontal plane - https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment

Devices with moving detectors and receivers in a laboratory do measure a change - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

Also, a change is detected on a vertical plane - https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Vertical_Michelson-Morley_Experiments

None of that has anything to do with the shape of the earth.

46
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's talk about gravity
« on: March 27, 2021, 03:17:03 PM »
Hi there, I've been pondering gravity in the FET and I can't make it work. Looking at the wiki and FAQ on this site doesn't help.

Obviously, the standard model of gravity can't work with a disc shaped world so one answer to explain away gravity in the FET is to suggest that we're undergoing "Universal Acceleration" at 1G. I have a few problems with this idea.

1) Were does the energy come from to constantly accelerate the earth, moon and everything else at 1G for millennia?

2) Just how fast are we moving through the cosmos after millions of years of 1G acceleration?

3) How can the varying gravitational attraction of the various bodies we can observe be explained, if everything is accelerating at the same rate?

Saturn and the moon have very different gravitational attraction, so wouldn't that mean they are accelerating at different rates? If that is the case, why are all the planets, asteroids and moons all still very close to the same plane?

It just doesn't work as an explanation for me.

First, they don't believe the universe exists, so all talk of Saturn etc. is moot to them. If you stop to think about it, their belief that the universe doesn't exist speaks a lot more to the extent of their delusion than merely believing the earth is flat.

Also, there are a couple of things you forgot to mention:

1. The "upward" force would have to be EXACTLY 90 degrees to the plane of the flat earth. Even a deviation of 0.0000000000000000001 degree would eventually cause a spin.

2. The weight of the earth would have to be EXACTLY evenly distributed (think of a server carrying a tray of beer). The slightest unevenness would cause one side to drop in relation to the other (think of said server taking beer glasses off the tray without alternating sides).

This requires perfect symmetry of the earth, which has never been claimed by FEers because they've never had anyone bring this up before (or they've invented a reason why it doesn't apply).

47
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 26, 2021, 10:55:03 PM »
Just read through this whole thing - understood maybe half of it? - (those who remember me from when I first joined and was active a year ago perhaps recall I suck at math  ).

But the thread virtually immediately deviated (as soon as Tom commented    ) from what observations about the world does RET not explain to whether we can solve the three body problem...

Here's my question (asking in sincerity, since I suck at math, recall), in an attempt to bring it back to the OP and an actual response from the FET crowd:

Does the fact that our maths cannot numerically(?) solve the three body problem* count as an "observation" that RET fails to explain?

I don't think so.

Tom's response and the entire rabbit hole of this thread regarding numerical/analytic methods is a category error in some sense.

RET does explain the observation that there are orbiting bodies - planets, moons, etc. - in our solar system. And it explains it with comprehensive consistency with other elements of RET and accepted science.

So there's yet to be an observed phenomenon suggested in this thread that actually answers the OP.

*Hope I didn't butcher that formulation

Yup. And we're still waiting for Tom to follow up on his "There are many problems with RE" statement.

48
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Was Milankovitch "in on it"?
« on: March 24, 2021, 08:46:55 PM »
So he was an expert in astronomy, climatology, and geoscience?

Wow. What a crank. Those are the most pseudoscientific fields in all of science. Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

Mathematics and geophysics are pseudoscience? Oh, my. Did you hear that from your alchemist or your astrologer?

49
##### Flat Earth Theory / Was Milankovitch "in on it"?
« on: March 24, 2021, 04:33:36 PM »
Milutin Milankovitch spent his life studying the solar system and it's effects on the earth. A by-product of his research was an affirmation of the existence of the solar system and the round earth. He defined cycles that were named for him.

So, was he in on the hoax, or was he utterly fooled his whole life?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87

50
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: March 23, 2021, 03:33:39 PM »

Time-lapse photos taken of the earth from space that shows rotation would create the illusion of depth perception in the same way.

51
##### Flat Earth Theory / Why does the moon have impact craters?
« on: March 22, 2021, 09:48:42 PM »

I searched for "crater" in the wiki, but I couldn't find any threads about moon craters (maybe I just need a wiki lesson). If previous posters have already asked this, perhaps someone could direct me.

Anyway, the moon clearly has impact craters, which comports with the whole RE/the-universe-exists side of the argument. How does FET explain them?

52
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 22, 2021, 09:42:06 PM »
Given the excellent quality of the rebuttals

I don't see any quality. AATW, Tunemi, SteelyBob are citing themselves as their source versus the physicists who say directly that the three body problem does not work.

Professor Ashish Tewari said "we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion"

They simply can't do it. Don't pretend that you are a better authority than he is.

They seemed to explain that quite thoroughly. I guess pi doesn't exist because an exact number can't be determined for it.

Anyway, were still waiting to hear of the other "many problems".

53
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 22, 2021, 09:18:23 PM »
There are many problems with RE. The biggest problem with RE is that they can't get their gravity system to make orbits with more than two bodies - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Okay, you tried to give one. Given the excellent quality of the rebuttals, I would call that a swing and a miss. However, since there are "many problems with RE", you should be able to simply give us the next one on your list.

P.S. Add the fact that the moon has impact craters to my original list.

54
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: March 21, 2021, 07:35:21 PM »
As long as our computer monitors are 2D, earth will stay flat!

The same with photos. It takes 3D depth perception to see a sphere.

55
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 21, 2021, 04:51:02 PM »
RET can not explain the power of Shobijin to summon me.

Give them my regards next time you see them.

56
##### Flat Earth Theory / FET implies intelligent design
« on: March 20, 2021, 07:38:21 PM »

As an spin-off of my last thread, it occurred to me that for UA to work, three factors have to exist:

1. The force pushing the earth "upward" has to be at EXACTLY 90° to the surface of the earth to create straight-down pseudo gravity.
2 and 3. The earth would have to be perfectly symmetrical AND perfectly balanced in terms of weigh distribution* on the surface to keep it from wobbling and thereby throwing us all over the place.

Since the likelihood of that happening in nature is probably zero, the only thing that leaves is ID. We are an ant farm.

* The problems with creating perfect weight balance on the surface are legion. The weight of the oceans and land masses have to be distributed PERFECTLY evenly, or it's Weeble time. Any flat earth flat would have to reflect that fact, and that's impossible. The entire FE story turns to tatters when examined carefully.

57
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 20, 2021, 03:48:27 PM »
Right. You could say that we have hypothesised that mass attracts and called it gravity without any explanation as to why. In that sense it’s as much as an invention as UA.

The difference is that gravity explains why the earth is a sphere and why all coherent objects above a certain mass are. It explains how planets and stars form. It explains why the planets orbit as they do and can predict their paths - which led to the discovery of Neptune. And it explains the variations in gravitational force we observe in different locations.

UA doesn’t do any of this and the last of those is explained either by denying it or by the invention of another as hoc unexplained mechanism.

Even if we didn’t understand what “powers” gravity it would still be a very useful model of reality. Although didn’t Einstein go quite a long way to explaining the mechanism?

Tides as caused by the moon's gravity and eccentricity (Milankovitch) are two more phenomena that comport with RET and gravitational effects 100%.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

Also, there's something about UA that I've never seen discussed, which is the importance of PERFECT perpendicularity of the UA force and the shape of the both sides of a flat earth. Just think of pushing something flat with an accelerating car and of how easy it would be to get slightly off center and cause said flat object to start spinning. Also the weight of the flat side would have to be evenly distributed to keep from spinning. It's an absurd concept no matter how you approach it.

58
##### Flat Earth Theory / Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« on: March 19, 2021, 10:10:06 PM »

This is NOT to ask what FET can or can not explain, but to ask if there's something RET and the existence of the universe fails to explain. I believe RET has perfectly logical and provable explanations for the following (I have undoubtedly missed some). So, to reiterate, are there any phenomena that RET either can't explain or contradicts?

gravity
seasons
day and night
light and dark distribution
eccentricity, obliquity, and precession per Milankovitch cycles
area of continents and seas
distance from any point A to any point B on earth
direction from any point A to any point B on earth
continental drift
geologic strata
tides
eclipses
different stars visible in north vs south
moon waxing on right in the north and on left in the south
ocean currents
coriolis effect
weather patterns
magnetic field
space travel
all satellite functions such as GPS, satellite phone, satellite radio
millions of photos of earth from space

and all without inventing new phenomena such as EA and UA.

59
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Starter Pack (and why nasa has been so dishonest)
« on: March 17, 2021, 05:03:52 PM »
Nah your friends just know how much of an dumbass you are because you don't understand a well known fact

Not helpful. I have yet to see a thread where round earthers and flat earthers start with what they agree on (if anything). That would be refreshing.

60
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Starter Pack (and why nasa has been so dishonest)
« on: March 17, 2021, 03:11:27 PM »
Hey fellow flat earthers!!! My name is Oscar. Over the past few months I have become increasingly interested in the flat earth community and "conspiracy". I've always been interested in it and recently discovered 'Mad' Mike Hughes and was saddened to learn of his passing. Any time I made mention of my belief to friends I've been shunned and made fun of, occasionally I have had to play it off as a joke to avoid getting in a fight. I'm really tired of my friends not being accepting of my beliefs whenever I bring up this subject and it has really opened me up to the adversity that is faced when trying to
seek truth. I was very excited when I found this forum and realized that it was pretty genuine, unlike other places on the internet, and seemed relatively free from those who seek to troll and chastise.

As a newcomer to this forum and to being an open flat earther I was curious if you fine people had any tips for how to handle being an open flat earther, what do you think I could do to help bring my friends come around, and hopefully resolve a couple of long burning questions I've had about the earth being flat: Do you think the reason we're being by the government because to much of our economy has become built around hollywood movies that depict space? Is it possible that the flat earth is a test made by those beyond the wall to see who can determine fact from fiction? If it is a test is it possible we are in a matrix like simulation? Also, what would it take to send a weather ballon beyond the wall with a gps and a camera in it, how far do you think it would get before somebody got rid of it?

And my last question regards NASA and is somewhat related to my first question, I genuinely want to know why so much money is being afforded to these people to protect the true shape of our earth. Do you approve of my hollywood and test theories? I want to know what the most accepted answer is about why they would lie as i've gotten different answers from various videos and sources and wanted to see what you fine people had to say as I've asked about this on reddit and was only met with mocking and trolls.

P.S. please don't redirect me to a wiki, i genuinely want to have a discussion about these serious topics.

Have a lovely day!
Ever curious,
-Oscar

Hello, round earther here. Perhaps your friends would be more agreeable to talk to you without mockery if you started with areas of agreement, and then worked from there. For example, the distance from the north pole to the equator through Greenwich is said to be exactly 10,000 kms. (1/10 millionth of which was used to create the meter as a unit of measurement). Are we in agreement so far?

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next >