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 - Longtitube

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 19, 2023, 08:17:56 PM »
Quote from: SteelyBob
This is simply incorrect - much like the slinky video people, you are publicly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. There is nothing in Newtonian understandings of gravity or F=MA etc that is at odds with what we observe in freefall, for example.

The above quotes provided by the astrophysicist at and by show the problem with the effect that causes weightlessness - the separation of inertial and gravitational mass and their equivalence. Newtonian Gravity was rejected as incoherent because of this.

After describing the issues with Newtonian Gravity the article goes on to describe Einstein's "Happiest Thought" that a man would not experience his weight in freefall as a sticking point. Einstein also repeated this thought as his basis for his theories and principle on numerous occasions. If this were cleanly explained in Newtonian Gravity and was of no relevance, why would segway to this curiosity of Einstein? Obviously this does matter and the issue here is a matter of understanding and reading comprehension on your part.

You have cited nothing. On this forum you continuously post and cite only yourself as your source.

You also describe Newtonian gravity as being 'discredited'. That is very unfair on poor old Isaac. His theory has been built on, but it remains an entirely valid model for most of what goes on in our lives - bridges, aircraft, boats, rockets etc are all built using Newtonian physics and ideas of gravity - it works.

Actually those things use Newtonian gravity + the absurd mechanisms like the separation of inertial and gravitational masses that require it to work. It was on basis of this ad-hoc mechanism that the theory was discredited. The theory does not work without those mechanisms and would otherwise make blatantly wrong predictions, as explained by the above article.

A theory that works is a different matter than it being discredited as an incoherent theory. You have a low comprehension of this and are using circular reasoning to justify something that has been discredited.

Tom I would like to thank you for the article, it's most interesting as an introduction to the development of Einstein's thinking. However, I must ask if you've read it through yourself? You claim Newtonian gravitational theory has been "discredited as incoherent", but that same article clearly says "...Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system. I'm still not sure what your difficulty with the equivalence principle is: that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent is a great mystery?? There are still mysteries that scientific enquiry hasn't solved...

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 04, 2023, 08:33:48 PM »
What's the point of this? Did the video get cut short before explaining something – if so, please repost it? Apart from the Glaswegian "eloquence" at the beginning, what I saw was mostly pretty coloured graphics with a musical background.

That's interesting that it went over your head. May I ask what your beliefs are regarding Earth and gravity?

No, wait, I missed the brief advert for the book; presumably the video is meant to be that length. I still don't understand the point of this in an FE Theory forum: if you mean us to read Mr Wheeler's book and then discuss it with you, why not say so? Always assuming it's relevant to FE Theory, that is.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ether vs. Rocketship Earth
« on: May 04, 2023, 06:51:05 PM »
What's the point of this? Did the video get cut short before explaining something – if so, please repost it? Apart from the Glaswegian "eloquence" at the beginning, what I saw was mostly pretty coloured graphics with a musical background.


The guy in the video is Theoria Apophasis, also known as The Angry Photographer, also known as Ken Wheeler. His YouTube channel is

I make no comment on his channel, videos or knowledge – this is only for information. You can make your own assessment of his opinions.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Globebusters' Bob Knodel Passed Away
« on: April 09, 2023, 01:56:48 PM »
I'm sorry to hear of Bob's sudden passing. My condolences to his family and all who knew him. A sad day.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: April 02, 2023, 04:11:23 PM »
What you say is almost true and in the spirit of what I am saying. But there are no straight lines on a globe. They are all curves. So i walk 1.57 miles from the north pole heading due south to the north pole. The line I have walked is a curve although it will look straight if looking from above and it will feel straight to me. It is a curve. And when i have travelled that 1.57 miles curve my rate of drop in height will be 1 mile (for each 1.57 miles).

Perhaps we ought to consider where you got the "magic number" of 1.57.

It's not magic at all, it's just half of pi. Having revisited junior high school mathematics and determined the distance from pole to equator is the globe's radius times half of pi (correct), you have mistakenly thought this ratio is a constant amount for the distance travelled compared to vertical drop from pole to equator. If the sphere has a radius of 250m, the distance from top to "equator" position is ½ x pi x 250 = 392.5m (and the vertical drop 250m.) If it has a radius of 1700 miles, the distance from top to "equator" position is ½ x pi x 1700 = 2669 miles (and the vertical drop 1700 miles.)

But the only sphere where travelling a distance of 1.57 miles on its surface from the top results in a drop of 1 mile is on a sphere of radius 1 mile. And the earth is a great deal larger than that.

(edited for clarity)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon
« on: April 01, 2023, 09:27:03 PM »
I have revised the image to hopefully better explain this.

Instead of walking from N to E1 imagine walking from N to X. This is half the distance to the equator and represents one eighth (1/8) of the earths circumference ie 3,113 miles.  Can we agree on this?
If so the drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole (call it whatever) will be equal to 1,982 miles ie one half (1/2) the radius of the earth. Can we agree on this?
If either of the above figures are incorrect please tell me how?

Accepting the above if we divide 3,113 miles by 1,982 miles we get a drop/fall/decrease in height in relation to the north pole of 1 mile per 1.57 miles travelled.

Like it or not and forget what I have called these dimensions does anyone disagree with these maths?

Hopefully not. And regardless of what others have said every single infinite point on a circle is at the 'top of the curve'. Above that point the circle curves away as does it below that point wherever that point is on the circle. And as a circle is one continuous curve there are no parts of the curve that are any different to other part. Take any two segments of the curve and they will be identical no matter where on the circle they came from.

Now instead of me walking 3,113 miles I am going to divide the circle into 360 (purely for conventional purposes - I could have chosen any figure to divide it by; 100, 125, 299 - it wouldn't make any difference). The circumference of the earth divided by 360 = 69 miles. I am now going to walk that 69 miles from the north pole. And when I have finished I will be at a point on the circle some 43 miles below the north pole. Forget linear dimensions they don't matter. The fact is I will have dropped by roughly 43 miles. Or to make it simpler 1 mile for every 1.57 miles travelled around the circumference. And if someone stood at the north pole and watched me walk 1.57 miles away from them I should be at a point 1 mile below them. These figures are irrefutable. Its down to the wording. If anyone disagrees can you please do so in layman's terms? Many thanks

Well, yes we do disagree with your maths and find the figures entirely refutable. In layman's terms, I'll try drawing out what you are actually describing. Starting at the north pole, you travel 1.57 miles and find yourself 1 mile lower than the pole:–

Another 1.57 miles and you're another 1 mile lower than the pole:–

On and on, for each 1.57 miles you travel, you're another mile lower than the pole:–

Does the path travelled bear any resemblance to the curve of a globe? No, it doesn't, it's a straight line: you are travelling down a constant slope.

If you disagree, explain in layman's terms.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?
« on: January 03, 2023, 08:30:28 PM »
Latitude and Longitude are references ultimately based on astronomical phenomena. The Latitude is based on the angle of the North Star in the sky (for the NH) and Longitude is related to clocks and time zones. You might know your Lat/Lon coordinate point, but this would do nothing to show the distance between those points. This is how GPS, and formally the land-based LORAN, operate. The station knows its own coordinates and it is giving you your own coordinates based on triangulation.

AATW has already dealt with GPS and trilateration, but you're also incorrect that LORAN used triangulation. It used multilateration to fix a position, as did its shorter-range cousin the Decca Navigator system.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?
« on: January 02, 2023, 05:01:02 PM »
For long distance measurements in the 17th century and prior the first step was to get your longitude and latitude. From that you could know how far away another place with a known latitude and longitude was if you knew how many miles a degree took upon the earth. It was "known" how many miles a degree took upon the earth based on a study, to which they would take and apply to Lat/Lon coordinates on a theoretical basis. They were not stringing ruler tape or chains for all long distance work. Long distance 'measurement' worked, and still works, based on a series of assumptions.

How very interesting, how was this number of miles per degree "known"?

To answer that, here's a link to a 17th century work on the same subject. The author sought to verify the "known" number of miles per degree by actually measuring, by surveyor's chain, the distance from London to York and comparing the difference in latitude and longitude with this directly measured distance. In the course of the book, he also mentions how others through history had physically measured distances to determine, say, latitude difference compared to distance in cubits or stadia etc.

The Seaman's Practice by Richard Norwood:–

You'll find he uses 17th century English spelling – it'ʃ difficult to ʃay at timeʃ how theʃe thingʃ might be pronounced without aʃsiʃtance...  ::)

Finite is adjacent to infinite.

Wow.  :o  You need to consult a dictionary.

Chapters 1 & 2

After describing triangulation, as used by surveyors and on which the author is particularly keen, he introduces the astronomers Hipparchus of Nicaea, Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria, Nicolas Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei. As astronomers, their opinions and theories formed the standard views of astronomy in their times and Copernicus and Kepler especially laid the foundations of modern astronomy, but the author believes they all made a fundamental mistake: beginning at Hipparchus they all held that “the heavenly bodies (the stars) are infinitely distant.” (page 3)

The author never says where this saying is recorded; he only insists it was Hipparchus’s conviction and that the others accepted it at face value. We can’t check Hipparchus’s own writings, they’re lost; we mostly know them from Ptolemy. So, if Ptolemy, author of the standard text on geocentric astronomy used for 1400 years (the famous Almagest), built his theory of the universe while accepting this, you’d expect to find it in his writings, but you’d be disappointed – the Almagest doesn’t mention it. In fact, Ptolemy claims the stars are just beyond the orbit of Saturn, 20,000 earth radii from Earth (from Ptolemy’s Planetary Hypotheses, Hamm, 2011, p202).
I find it amusing that you fail to point to a direct reference to Ptolemy when laying claim as to what he believed, instead relying on the hearsay of others "to speak the truth," "you can trust us, this is what Ptolemy believed."

Nah, doesn't fly.

Yet when Hickson claims a direct quote of Hipparchus (i.e., "the heavenly bodies are infinitely distant," you offer nothing more than a statement a direct quote of Hipparchus or his work would be impossible, because we cannot check Hipparchus' writings.

You know you do not have access to them.

That's all.

Spare us the rest of the writing as it is rendered totally useless by this demonstration of your bias.

This demonstration indicates an inability to assess the printed material on a toothpaste tube, let alone a written work by a scientist.

I do beg your pardon, how remiss of me.
Therefore, the greatest distance of Saturn, which is adjacent to the sphere of the fixed stars, is 19,865 earth radii, and its least distance is 14,187 earth radii.

If all the diameters subtended the same apparent angle at their mean distances, the ratio of one diameter to another would equal the ratio of their distances, because the ratio of the circumferences of circles, as well as of similar arcs, one to another, is equal to the ratio of their radii. In the measure in which the diameter of the Sun is 1,210, the diameter of the Moon is 48; the diameter of Mercury 115 the diameter of Venus 622½; the diameter of Mars 5,040; the diameter of Jupiter 11,504; and the diameter of Saturn 17,026. The diameter of the first magnitude stars in this measure, assuming that their (sphere) is adjacent to the furthest distance of Saturn, is 19,865, or about 20,000; and the amount is surely not less than 20,000. But the diameters do not subtend equal angles, for the diameter of the Moon subtends an angle 1 1/3 times that of the Sun, and the diameters of the planets subtend angles smaller than the Sun in the ratios mentioned. It is clear that in the measure where the diameter of the Sun is 1,210, the diameter of the Moon is 64 because it is 1⅓ times 48; the diameter of Mercury is 8 because it is about 1/15 of 115; the diameter of Venus is 62 which is about of 622½; the diameter of Mars is 252 which is 1/20 of 5,040; the diameter of Jupiter is 959 which is about 1/12 of 11,504; the diameter of Saturn is 946 which is about 1/18 of 17,026; the diameters of the first magnitude stars is 1,000 which is 1/20 of 20,000, and they are certainly not smaller.

Planetary Hypotheses Book 1, part 2 by Claudius Ptolemy

Now perhaps you know of where Hickson gets his quotation, with a direct citation or reference? In turn, I find it slightly amusing Kings Dethroned is accepted as the trustworthy work of a scientist.

Yes, sources were also provided showing that Hipparchus believed in an infinitely distant sun. If he treated the sun as infinitely distant it is difficult to argue that he never treated he stars as infinitely distant.

Your argument is that you do not personally believe that Hipparchus believed in infinitely distant stars, and do not actually have a source on that except for your own opinion, which is a poor argument to say the least.

You provided a selective quotation from one website. I'll offer in return a link to a paper examining accounts of Hipparchus's On Sizes and Distances (as reconstructed from the extant quotations in Ptolemy, Pappus etc) which considers the substance of Book 1 (which assumes an imperceptible parallax for the Sun) and the contents of Book 2 (which considers a minimum distance to the Sun). You'll doubtless be pleased this is from New York University instead of NASA.

Nowhere in this comprehensive examination of the subject of both books (determining the size of the Moon) does it indicate Hipparchus believed the Sun or any other stars to be infinitely distant.

You also offered a quotation from some random guy on Quora. Random guy doesn't substantiate his opinion with a reference or a citation and may have been quoting Gerrard Hickson's book for all we know.

Kings Dethroned doesn't substantiate its claim either. That's the point.

Incorrect, Longitude clearly argues that Hipparchus believed in a small universe like Ptolemy. He states at the end of his second post: -

" Instead of astronomers originally thinking the stars were infinitely distant or unthinkingly accepting the opinion of their predecessors, the impression from reading their works is a growing understanding of how much bigger they each realise the universe is than previously thought; "

He suggests that astronomers did not originally think the stars were infinitely distant and eventually realized that it was enormous. This is clearly wrong.

Incorrect. Hickson maintains Hipparchus believed the "heavenly bodies are infinitely distant" but never substantiates this. Having checked the works of Ptolemy and the few other secondhand records of Hipparchus's writings, I cannot find anything to substantiate this either. I don't know what Hipparchus believed about the distance to the stars, but if you know of a citation or reference which clearly tells us, I'd be obliged if you shared it.

You could have just googled it instead of writing us an essay about how you don't think Hipparchus believed in infinitely distant stars.

Thank you for the Quora link; reading the further remarks from Dr Nazarro was quite enlightening. Unfortunately, he doesn't substantiate his remarks on Hipparchus with a reference of any sort, so it's of no use in verifying anything.

Aristarchus believed that the stars were infinitely distant too:

I'm aware of Aristarchus's belief, but he doesn't feature in Kings Dethroned. Sorry.


No kings were dethroned in writing this book. The author has entirely failed to demonstrate how his erroneous opening premise – that beginning with Hipparchus, astronomers believed the stars to be infinitely distant – has ruined modern astronomy. He has demonstrated extremely poor understanding and almost no practical knowledge of his subject as well as hopelessly muddled theoretical misunderstandings. His proposed method of measuring the distance from Earth to the Sun, Moon, planets and stars is wretchedly incompetent and his resulting claim for the Sun’s true distance from Earth is not even in the wrong ballpark – it's in the wrong continent. His book changes nothing of, and adds nothing to our understanding of the cosmos.

Rather wonder why he bothered.

Chapter 15

This is the last chapter and appears to be about various newspaper reports from Hickson's time and about as credible as sensational articles from Twitter, Facebook or the current popular press. The tone is very like an elderly uncle shaking his morning newspaper in irritation while harrumphing about The State Of The World. We won’t waste time on it.

Chapter 14

The author sets out three tests of Einstein’s theories (page 79): –

1. That certain irregularities in the movements of the planet Mercury would be accounted for by Einstein's geometry.

2. That because light has weight it would bend by gravitation as it passed near another body on its way to the earth, and that this could be verified by observations taken at the time of a solar eclipse.

3. That certain lines in the spectrum would be found to shift.

The author dismisses test no.1 by quoting a newspaper article: – “The "proof" he adduces from the aberration of the orbit of Mercury can be disposed of in a sentence. [Einstein] has made the elementary blunder of regarding Mercury as globular instead of spheroidal.” (page 80) This is gibberish: as an explanation it explains nothing.

Test no.2 was proved by the eclipse observations from 1919 referred to in the book and further supported by observations of the 1922 eclipse by Dodwell and Davidson (too late for Hickson’s book).

The author however believes the results are the exact opposite of what Einstein’s theory predicted.: “…if light was matter, and was affected by the gravitation of the sun, the stars would be seen nearer to the sun; and not as stated by the lecturer and illustrated on the slide. ... If Einstein's theories had been right the stars would be seen nearer to the sun than the crosses, but the Astronomer Royal demonstrated the fact that they were actually further away!” (page 83)

Practical astronomers need some knowledge of optics in the course of their work, for example, the refracting effect of a convex lens on light passing through it. From viewing the object through a convex lens, in other words through a magnifying glass, the original object is seen as covering a larger area than it really does.

The effect of light passing the Sun is predicted by Einstein to be similar, where instead of light passing through a lens and being refracted, the light is instead bent by gravitational effect: –

The stars are seen over a larger area than previously, so they are seen farther from the sun than would be expected without the effect. This is what Eddington (1919 eclipse) and Dodwell and Davidson (1922 eclipse) reported.

So, despite the author’s confidence, he is wrong again. It might also be noted that light has no mass, but it does have momentum, as proved by the photoelectric effect, which is why general relativity predicted light being affected by gravity. The person who developed the theoretical explanation of the photoelectric effect was a German physicist – Albert Einstein. It won him a Nobel Prize.

…Of  [3.] it is said by the Authorities of Astronomy that the observations necessary to prove or disprove such a shifting of the lines in the spectrum would be so extremely difficult that it is practically impossible ever to do it, and therefore it is set aside.

The Pound-Rebka experiment of 1959 measured the effect described in test no.3 – it was later improved in accuracy by Pound and Snider in 1964 and you can read an FE view of this proof of General Relativity in the wiki. Hickson is very unlikely to have lived to see this evidence, but evidence it is.

Chapter 11

The author, like some of his contemporaries, tries to pick apart the Michelson–Morley experiment findings, but the existence of the Aether has been argued over in these fora at least as often as gravity and Hickson has nothing new to add, least of all an explanation of what the Aether might be. We’ll leave that there, as he has nothing else worth saying in the chapter.

Chapters 12 & 13

Hickson now turns his attention to Einsteinian relativity and holds forth for two chapters on his opinion of it. This is both tedious and ignorant, but if he argued about frames of reference in these fora, using the street vs wagon example on page 65, the regular members would make mincemeat of his lack of understanding.

Hickson’s opinion of the nature of light is similarly laughable: –

…we find that Light is not a material thing, that it is not subject to gravitation, that it has no weight and does not bend, and that it does not describe any kind of curve; but that it is "an expression," in the same sense as sound is an expression, and that as such its velocity varies according to the density of the medium through which it passes; and that therefore the Velocity of Light is not constant, and Einstein's Second [sic] Law is entirely wrong!” (page 73)

Einstein’s law is about the constant speed of light regardless of the speed of its source, not its speed through different things like water, etc. The author is shouting at the wrong bus driver.

But there is another glaring error in the author’s method: he claims the bearing of the Sun from A and B is all that’s needed, but has forgotten a globe is presumed. The difference in latitude between A and B is 115°, so A and B are 115° different in orientation relative to each other. The two observers’ north and south are in very different directions in 3D space. For all bearings other than directly east or west (which are parallel), finding the angle between bearings is not simple arithmetic. His claim that the planets and stars will be found to be no more than 20,000 miles away (page 59) is spectacularly wrong.

Hickson has only confirmed the findings of the first nine chapters. His “new astronomy” is as unconvincing as his previous incompetence.

Should anyone like to check these bearings for the rising sun, all you need are astronomical tables like Hickson (mis)used, or perhaps the stargazing program Stellarium, which incorporates them.


It is for me, now, to show how the distance to the sun is really to be ascertained, and this may indicate the way to a new astronomy, and a saner conception of the universe.” (page 57)

With this introduction, the author outlines his “remarkable discovery” of 1907, mentioned in the preface.

Let two observers be placed on the same meridian; A in the northern hemisphere at about Mansfield, Nova Scotia, for example, 60 N, 74 W., and B in the southern hemisphere at Tierra del Fuego, Cape Horn, 55 S. 74 W., as shown in diagram 23. As the two observers are on the same meridian, they use the same north and south, while all lines which cross that meridian at right angles indicate east and west, and are parallel to each other; so that A's east is parallel to B's, and to the equator, as in diagram 24. The chord that is a straight line connecting the two points of observation A, B, will give them a base-line 6,900 miles in length, which runs in a direction due north and south…

…Now let our observers take their places at about 8 o'clock local time (1 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time) on a morning within a week or so of Christmas … The observer at A in Nova Scotia will see the sun, blood red, just rising above the horizon to his east-south-east, while the observer at Tierra del Fuego will see the sun at the same time, about eight degrees to the northward of his east (east by north) ; and so the two lines of sight from A and B converge so as to meet at the sun, which is between the two easts, a little to the southward of A and to the northward of B.

Let’s imagine following the author’s prescription and see what might happen. As above, we’ll send observer A to 60°N, 74°W for 18th December 2021 and at the same time send observer B to 55°S, 74°W. Each observer has modern communications and the necessary instruments to measure the direction to the rising sun. At 1pm GMT, we call A for his measurements: it is difficult to hear what he’s saying since his teeth are chattering uncontrollably, but the sun hasn’t risen yet – it won’t rise for another hour. B is difficult to reach, but we eventually get through and hear that his equipment is lost in the ocean and he has been swimming since arriving at 55°S, 74°W: he’s nearly 70 miles offshore in the Southern Ocean and over 250 miles westward from Cape Horn.

Trying again the following day (19th December), A (‘Cold feet’ on the map) reports he was rescued from hypothermia by a passing Inuit, who lent him warmer clothing. Mansfield, Nova Scotia is in fact over a thousand miles away; he is instead in Nunavik, northern Quebec, about midway between Puvirnituq and Kangirsuk and the temperature is minus 30°C. Sunrise is at 14:07 GMT and the sun rises at bearing 142°. Our re-equipped B (‘Wet feet’ on the map) is much more comfortable on the big life–raft and reports the Sun at 61° at the same time, but remarks that sunrise was about 8:20 GMT, almost six hours ago – the sun is now 46° above the horizon.

This is a shambles. Not only does the author not know where Mansfield, Nova Scotia or Cape Horn are, he has forgotten the day is much longer for southern latitudes in December than for northern latitudes. His planned scenario of noting the bearing of the rising sun from two widely–separated locations at the same time fails because he has confused the solstice with the equinox: the 2021 winter solstice was December 21st –  midsummer in the southern latitudes, winter in the northern ones.

So, let’s instead try the same experimental observation at the next vernal equinox, 20th March 2022, when the sun should rise at the same time at both locations, as it should between A and B all along the 74°W meridian. When we call observer A, he reports the sun rising over the Nunavik landscape at 11:04 GMT and observer B reports that sunrise in the Southern Ocean is at the same time. What is the sun’s bearing? A reports just a tiny bit over 90° and B reckons just a fraction less than 90°. The lines of sight will definitely converge, but at a very large distance indeed and many, many times more than Hickson’s claimed 13,000 miles.

So much for his “remarkable discovery.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >