101

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?

« on: November 20, 2020, 10:33:48 AM »

@longitube

Theoretical max, around 200 miles from the top of everest under perfect visibility.

At sea level (where the air is densest) it is typically only a few miles, but it varies with weather.

I’m not concerned with standing on Everest (where most folk wouldn’t survive without an oxygen supply) so much as normal observational height. I should have been clearer, I meant an observer standing on the ground, not lying on the ground, sees just a few miles?

102

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?

« on: November 20, 2020, 06:50:56 AM »

@WTF_seriously

So the limit of our vision is variable depending upon altitude.

Correct!

There are two main reasons for that.  One is the angular resolution limits of the human eye, and the other is the "standard"/"normal" density gradient within our air.

So how far can we see at ground level?

103

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Thork's Jack Russell challenge

« on: November 19, 2020, 12:59:32 PM »

No contest! Lovely dogs, whippets, and very soft natured. Thanks for sharing.

104

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: PLASMA MOON SCIENTIST 1965

« on: November 19, 2020, 06:58:32 AM »

If you look at it from another perspective, from that of the claims he makes, they are basically bunk. I mean how would a plasma moon have craters?

And furthermore, these craters and other surface features are unchanged from day to day, year to year and have been recorded in charts for decades as continuing features. A plasma moon would not preserve these features. Jupiter is reckoned to be a gas giant and its features visibly change daily in telescope films of its surface, but the moon only changes how much of its visible surface is lit by the sun in a predictable, repeatable cycle. Plasma, schmasma.

105

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: PLASMA MOON SCIENTIST 1965

« on: November 18, 2020, 07:06:07 AM »

Um. The guy in that 1965 video wouldn't be a day under 50 years old, so by 2002 he would be 97 or older. I don't think the guy mentioned as a Royal Society Edinburgh donor is likely to be the same person

We did verify his name is Roy Foster, and he was a Professor of Earth science and Chemistry at the university of Dundee Scotland, he is the only R. Foster from Mitchel and Longman 1983 directory "Materials Research Centres: A World Directory of Organizations and Programmes in Materials Science" as the head of the Chemistry department at Dundee alongside Professor J. S Brimacombe. They were researching absorbtion spectra in the Ultra Violet, wavemechanical studies, mechanism of oxidation of Gaseous fuels etc he is the only recorded R Foster from RSE with his earliest recorded association with RSE dating to 1926. Its the same person, and im not here to speculate, im looking for hard data on his publications. Saying move on nothing to see is the exact thought terminating praxis that gets one nowhere. When there is clearly something to unpack. Also, alot of people make donations posthumously. What im looking for is his research refrenced in this 1965 interview.

That’s more info than we first had to go on, good digging, but you’ll need more to identify the video guy. How do you know his actual name? It’s not given in the video. What is the actual Professor Foster’s background? Was he Scottish or UK born? The video guy’s accent is continental, not British, and certainly not Dundonian. I’m not trying to ridicule you, just pointing out the identifying of the “professor” is far from complete yet.

106

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: PLASMA MOON SCIENTIST 1965

« on: November 17, 2020, 09:07:43 PM »

Um. The guy in that 1965 video wouldn't be a day under 50 years old, so by 2002 he would be 97 or older. I don't think the guy mentioned as a Royal Society Edinburgh donor is likely to be the same person, especially since the thickly-accented Tasmanian (allegedly) gentleman in the video is really difficult to find traces of apart from the video and there are a number of real Professor R Foster individuals to be found, including professors of Irish history, mathematics, circadian neuroscience, Quaker theology and English. They all have published work, the video guy doesn't appear to have any.

Just a video clip of an "interesting" individual who may or may not have been a professor, but turned out to be wrong. Nothing to see; move along, people

107

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 16, 2020, 07:50:08 AM »

I think MarkAntony’s problem with physics is there’s no consideration of momentum, so there “has” to be “something” to push against.

108

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 15, 2020, 10:12:21 PM »

Your analogy with the boat is incomparable as there is no vacuum present and, unlike the rockets in space, it conforms to all of Newtons laws of motion. Your example with the rocket at the start is exactly what you think should happen but definitely not in theory or practice

Think about it this way: You are in your spacesuit with a bowling ball travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. You think to yourself "I'll need to throw this bowling ball hard enough to propel myself back towards the earth again". The problem here is that both you and the bowling ball are all part of one system. You can throw the bowling ball as hard as you want (let say 10m/s) - the bowling ball will travel at 10m/s away relative to your position and 70m/s away from earth for a time until it runs out of energy but at the end both you and the ball will still be travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. The net result force is, has and always will be zero as both you and the bowling ball were contained within the one system. You can't create your own external force. A rocket in a vacuum would simply exhaust all the burnt fuel and matter but the net force would be zero and there is no change in velocity.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this, your definition of a system seems wrong: once the ball has been thrown, unless it is somehow tethered to the astronaut, it is no longer part of a system with him. Thank you for responding nevertheless.

If anyone else is interested in this kind of problem, this might help illustrate it, including discussion of whether the ball remains part of the system or not:-

109

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 15, 2020, 04:58:24 PM »

I appreciate MarkAntony doesn't want to post any more on rockets in space, but the insistence rockets don't work in space because there's nothing to push on is wrong. Simply put, the rocket is pushed by expelling its fuel out the back at extreme speed (speed generated by burning the stuff). Take the third stage of a Saturn V, which weighed around ten metric tonnes when empty and carried over a hundred metric tonnes of fuel, and operated only in space. Expel those hundred tonnes as a single mass backwards at 10ms^-1 from a stationary rocket and reaction to the necessary force will push the now empty 10 tonne rocket forwards at 100ms^-1 in accord with Newton's 3rd Law. Since the tonnes of fuel have left the rocket, the rocket continues on its way until another force acts on it. Of course the real rocket exhaust roars out of the engine at much higher speed, supersonic speed in fact (and not all the fuel at once.)

There is an earthbound comparison I find useful: swing your open hand through the air and feel how much resistance from the air you can detect, then try swinging your open hand through a bath of water at the same speed and feel how much more resistance to movement from the water you can feel. There's lots more resistance from the water, isn't there? Yet here's a conundrum: boats that use water jet propulsion don't direct that jet into the water, they direct it above the water into the air, which has much less resistance to push against. The difference in propulsion is dramatic, so here's a 1000hp+ gas turbine-powered jet boat doing its stuff on a Canadian river. (look at the enormous rooster tail from the water jet; these guys are nuts...)



Now if the water jet works much better pushing the water jet into air with much, much less resistance to push against than water, then the efficiency of a water jet has nothing to do with pushing against a resistance. Its efficiency is all to do with directing as much water backwards in as short a time as possible to drive the boat forwards at as high a speed as possible in accordance with Newton's Third Law. The boat above manages 100mph+ speeds. Rocket engines do the same, and are in fact more efficient in a vacuum than in the atmosphere.

110

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disappearing Stars as you walk North/South

« on: November 14, 2020, 03:00:16 PM »

The refraction coefficient of our atmosphere has an average of k=0.17.

Are you sure about this? I was under the impression k represents the extinction coefficient of the medium, not its refractive index which is represented by n and is 1.0003 for air at 0 deg C and 1 atmosphere pressure.

111

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disappearing Stars as you walk North/South

« on: November 13, 2020, 08:40:51 PM »

If you want the wiki's answer, you'll find it in the entry Shifting Constellations. Perspective, allegedly. 

https://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations

112

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe

« on: November 11, 2020, 05:19:44 PM »

Without prejudging the possible responses, this would be a great project for investigation. Chart the progress of the yachts day by day on an FE-style map versus an RE map, compare distances and average speeds from the telemetry and as derived from an FE map and make comparisons. I’m sure it would be fascinating!

Just one caveat - anyone who wants to accuse the sailors of fraud or cheating better do it from a great distance: they’re a tough lot, liable to react badly to being accused to their faces. You might get an unexpected cold, salty bath.

113

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: November 09, 2020, 01:24:07 PM »

In conclusion, it seems most of your points were disproven above.  The hyperoxia argument (EDIT: and the invisible harnesses) seems to be the only one that could still hold up, but we're lacking complete information about it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430743/#_article-26493_s2_

Hyperoxia effects set in about 24 hours after beginning breathing pure oxygen, not minutes.

The trigger for hyperoxia is too high a partial pressure of oxygen. We breathe air that is approximately one fifth oxygen and approximately 15psi pressure, so the partial pressure of oxygen in the air is one fifth of atmospheric pressure, or approximately 3psi. If we instead breathe pure oxygen at 3psi, say, in a decompression chamber, the partial pressure of oxygen would be 3psi and it wouldn’t harm us.

Astronauts breathing pure oxygen at atmospheric pressure a couple of hours before launch are not going to suffer, nor would a working pressure of 5psi pure oxygen (the actual pressure used) in the Apollo capsule for a week’s mission kill them with hyperoxia. This also means the capsule has to contain a 5psi atmosphere, not a 15psi one, so the pressure loading is less.

114

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 06, 2020, 09:01:47 PM »

A nice video from a balloon ascent was release not too long ago ... I forget the name of the channel, but remember the balloon was nicknamed MAGE.

There’s a link to the full video footage in reply#4 above. The channel is Mr Sensible.

115

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 06, 2020, 07:20:42 AM »

The density gradient of air we observe is chiefly due to the weight, an intrinsic and inexorable property of all matter, of the gas.

Yes, and it’s that weight which gives us a breathable air pressure and keeps the air from dissipating into space. We’re on the same page, you see.

116

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets in EA

« on: November 03, 2020, 06:48:19 AM »

I would like to know if “Electromagnetic Acceleration” is just a handy name or if the EA effect proposed is due to actual electromagnetism. If EA is due to actual electromagnetic effects it should be measurable, so have any measurements been made and how are they distinguished from Earth’s own magnetic field?

117

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inquiries about Flat Earth theory of the firmament.

« on: November 02, 2020, 01:02:28 PM »

I don't believe RE community talks about or believes in a layer of dense atmosphere above the Earth.

RE community believes that the higher one goes in altitude, the less dense the atmosphere becomes.

For the FE firmament theory, is FE belief then the opposite of this?
....i.e. the higher one goes in altitude, the MORE dense the atmosphere becomes until there is a really dense layer?

Thank you.

It’s not a matter of “belief”, it’s been measured repeatedly. Travel from sea level to a decent height and then go for a brisk hike and you’ll discover altitude sickness, or hypoxia for yourself. It’s quite possible to do this, the high Sierra passes can be reached from the California coast by car in less than a day. Or fly from Miami to La Paz, Bolivia and try a quick mile’s jog. Trekking in the Himalayas, you absolutely must watch for altitude sickness if it’s not to spoil your holiday photos. Go even higher if mountaineering is your thing and above 8,000m or so you will die without extra oxygen because the air is so thin. That’s why these heights are known to climbers as the Death Zone and why airliners have pressurised cabins. Anyone wondered why the cabin crew demonstrate putting on the oxygen mask before every flight?

Go even further up and water boils without heating in the very low pressure air at 70,000ft, so record-breaking skydivers wear a space suit just to live at these heights without their eyes being permanently damaged or destroyed as the water in them would boil too. Above 100,000ft the air pressure is less than 1% of what you and I breathe. It’s not a friendly place to visit.

How do we know this? Weather balloons have gone this high carrying pressure sensors and the results were logged and published. One example is another camera-on-a-weather-balloon experiment done recently in the UK and pressure monitoring was one of the other experiments done on the same trip.

118

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does Flat Earth/UA reject the concept of spacetime?

« on: November 02, 2020, 07:19:35 AM »

What, or who accounts for, and changes the colour of literally thousands/millions of small spots of light, just to make it look like they are redshifted or blueshifted relative to Earth?  What purpose would that serve in a flat Earth model?

Whoah, tiger. Redshift doesn’t change the colour of the stars as we see them: Betelgeuse isn’t reddish because of redshift, nor is Sirius blueish because of blueshift. You’re not alone, I’ve seen others here make the same mistake, but redshift or blueshift in astronomy is the absorption spectra of eg helium within starlight shifting from their regular positions towards the red or blue end of visible light due to Doppler effect. That Wikipedia article you linked explains it.

119

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun

« on: October 31, 2020, 08:26:19 PM »

The weather on the Atlantic coast at latitude 31 North does not replicate the weather at latitude 31 South because there's a lot more governing the weather than just latitude. Nearby ocean currents, presence or absence of high mountains near each coast, local wind patterns, high or low local humidity due to rainforests or desert are just a few of the factors.

120

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon tilt illusion

« on: October 31, 2020, 08:18:17 PM »

This was discussed at some length back in July. The Moon tilt illusion is only an optical illusion which you can test yourself in a few seconds with a ping pong ball. Since tonight is full moon (and a blue moon at that!) you will be able to try this simple experiment next week, clear skies permitting. The gist of it is, the gibbous moon's apparently wrong tilt is in fact a completely correct tilt and there is no complicated or esoteric explanation needed.

The Ping Pong Perspective

Holding a white ball at arm’s length in the direction of the Moon shows how lunar phases depend on where the Moon is in the sky with respect to the Sun. S&T: J. Kelly Beatty



The Moon's phases are actually related to orbital motion, and there's a simple and fun observation that shows how they're connected. All you'll need is a Ping-Pong ball to simulate the Moon—actually, any small, white sphere would work. Then head outside about an hour before sunset, or around the time of a first-quarter Moon. Find the Moon in the southern part of the sky, then hold the ball up at arm's length right beside it.

You'll see that the ball shows exactly the same phase as the Moon. The Sun illuminates both the ball and the Moon from the same direction, and you see them as partly sunlit and partly in shadow, their bright and dark portions mimicking each other perfectly. If the weather stays clear, you can repeat this observation on the next several afternoons. Each day the Moon's orbital motion has carried it farther east, and the sunlit portion of its disk has grown larger. If you hold your ball up near the Moon, you'll see that its “phase” has thickened too.

To sneak a preview of the Moon's appearance in the days to come, simply move the ball farther east. And if you move it all the way over so your arm points low in the eastern sky, the side of the ball that's facing you will be almost completely illuminated — nearly a “Full Ball,” so to speak. And, sure enough, a day or two before full Moon, the Moon hangs low in the eastern sky just before sunset and is almost completely illuminated.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/what-are-the-phases-of-the-moon/