1

Science & Alternative Science / Happy Eratosthenes Day!

« on: June 20, 2018, 07:49:34 AM »

It Is Known that on 21st June, 2200 years ago, Eratosthenes measured the angle of the noon Sun in Alexandria at 7.2 degrees and he knew the distance to Syene to be 500 nautical miles. Solving the triangle, the height for the Sun is 3958 nautical miles.

It Is Known that because the Earth is flat then the Sun must be low, and 3958 is close enough to Doctor Birley’s figure of 700 miles, or 608 nautical miles.

Bingo.

**********************

It Is Also Known that New York City is 5188 nm from the City formerly known as Syene. Since we know the distance and the height, we can calculate the elevation of the Sun at 37.3 degrees.

Which is unfortunate for It Is Known that noon in Aswan is daybreak in Brooklyn. I’ve never been to the Big Apple, so can anyone there (or in Eastern Time generally) confirm that at sunrise the Sun looms out of the sky, already at an elevation of 37.3 degrees, or does the Sun appear to Rise out of the Atlantic at SunRise?

If you prefer your Sun to loom "into perspective” at, say, 1 degree above the horizon then you’re looking at a triangle with a base length of 226,754 nm or 260,767 miles.

It Is Known that EgyptAir flies from JFK to Cairo in 11 hrs which requires an average speed of mach 31.6. If the timetable is faked by NASA then it could be 3 weeks at 510mph.

Or 11 hrs @ 510mph, but only if Earth a Globe.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics

« on: January 03, 2018, 12:19:19 PM »

Forget observers. They aren't necessary and only lead to confusion.

Universal Acceleration defines a Flat Earth constantly accelerating at g=9.81 /s².

After 1 year it will have accelerated to 0.77c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 1.58
After 2 years it will have accelerated to 0.97c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 3.99
After 3 years it will have accelerated to 0.996c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 11.01
After 4 years it will have accelerated to 0.9995c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 30.79
After 5 years it will have accelerated to 0.99993c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 86.22

After 16 years it will have accelerated to 0.9999999999999999c and its mass will have increased by a factor of 7194825 (and my spreadsheet runs out of resolution).

If the FE wants to continue accelerating at g, then as its speed approaches c its mass will approach infinity and the energy needed to maintain g also approaches infinity.

Universal Acceleration needs almost infinite energy.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics

« on: January 01, 2018, 09:52:45 PM »

There are plenty of posts on this forum where FET disagrees with RET. It really doesn't matter what I say because it's not my theory; all I'm doing is providing my understanding of it.

My absurd conclusion is based on what I've been taught and what I've read, and it matches every reputable source on this matter. However, if you think it's possible to continuously accelerate to c then I'm surprised that you're too diffident to publish this more widely. If you're correct, write a paper, get some kudos for the society and win yourself a Nobel prize.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE gravity pressure energy mass problems

« on: January 01, 2018, 10:46:27 AM »

I'm having the infinite energy argument in another thread "Show me your physics." I think the argument is that you should consider the Earth in an instantaneous frame reference, i.e. at rest. Therefore the concept of inertial mass doesn't arise.

You won't get any answer to any questions on space travel on this forum, as the stance is that it isn't possible so it doesn't exist.

I don't know what the responses (if any) to the tower or weighing machine will be, but it's usually that your experiment is wrong.

I'm sure they would love to further their research to cover these ideas more fully, but, as the wiki says, it's nigh-on impossible to get funding for FE research.

You have now travelled through the looking-glass. Welcome to Wonderland.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics

« on: January 01, 2018, 10:27:34 AM »

OK, let's start again:

1) It's not possible to accelerate to the speed of light;

2) If you try to do so the Universe changes the goalposts so that metres shrink, seconds expand and kilograms increase, all in such a way as to negate the effect of your acceleration;

3) Because these factors are working against you, you need more and more energy to maintain your acceleration;

4) Since it's UA, repeat steps 2 & 3 ad infinitum. As speed approaches C, your mass approaches infinity, time slows almost to a halt and meters almost vanish. The only option is to increase the energy input, but this approaches infinite as the mass approaches infinite.

5) Universal Acceleration may be valid, but I'm not aware of an infinite energy source to power it.

============================================================================

(I'm happy to ignore time and distance if you are?).

If I've got this right, you say that mass dilation doesn't affect an accelerating FE from its own inertial FoR, i.e. it doesn't know that it's getting heavier.

But the universe knows it's getting heavier, otherwise it wouldn't have to move the goalposts. So the FoR is from the universe's point of view - to accelerate close to C through the universe you need almost infinite energy.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics

« on: December 31, 2017, 11:50:30 PM »

The implication of this is that as the mass increases, the energy needed to accelerate the mass increases correspondingly.  As the mass approaches infinity, the energy required to maintain acceleration also approaches infinity. This is one reason against light speed travel.

No, this is not how relativity works.

 Yes it is. It’s just that either :

a) you don’t understand it,
b) you’re trying to shill me or
c) relativity works differently on a flat earth (which would require a different universe).

In any event, congratulations for picking up something so complicated using only Zetetics.

 

We are accelerating at 9.8 m s^-2 in our own frame of reference, in which the Earth is stationary and does not have dilated mass. The energy requirement to accelerate it is therefore proportional to its rest mass.

 Let’s get this clear – the FE is ALWAYS accelerating at 9.81m/s² in order to replace gravity, but you cannot accelerate and be stationary in the same “frame of reference”. The energy need to accelerate the FE is always proportional to its total mass. At a standstill it has only rest mass, but as it accelerates it gains inertial mass. Total mass=rest mass+inertial mass.

 

If you were to observe the Earth from the frame of reference it was in 4 billion years ago, it would be very heavy, but its acceleration would also appear much slower.

 That's the wrong way round. Assuming you mean the beginning of the acceleration, the only mass of the Flat Earth would be its rest mass (although it could still be very heavy). Acceleration would be at 9.81 m/s² in your own time frame, and I agree as I watch you from my frame on Round Earth. However, within a few years I see you still accelerating, but much much less as the Universe stops you reaching the speed of light by adding inertial mass. And slowing down time, etc.

TL;DR you start off light and quick, and get heavier and slower.
 
 

This is a necessary consequence of the fact that, in relativity, you cannot accelerate past the speed of light. If acceleration were still 9.8 m s^-2 in this frame of reference, then we would very quickly pass the speed of light, which is impossible.

 No, acceleration in your frame of reference remains at 9.81m/s², otherwise your “gravity” would alter. However the Universe is ganging up on you by making your mass increase ( thereby needing more energy), time slow down (so instead of 9.81 m per second every second, it’s 9.81 m per 2 seconds, every two seconds – and increasing) and distances foreshorten (ie 9.81m becomes 8m then 7 …)

Rejoice! As distances foreshorten, the Flat Earth gets even flatter - even Round Earth becomes disc-shaped 

You are still accelerating, but “meters”, “kilograms” and “seconds” have changed. In my frame of reference, not yours; you can’t zetetically detect anything unusual because it’s happening to everything in your frame of reference.

Everything looks normal to you, as you whizz through the Universe at 99.99999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light, but I see you as short and squashed - you're only a few inches tall. The second hands on rour clocks are barely crawling around their faces, as far as I'm concerned. If you hold a 12" ruler and point it to the ceiling, to me it seems maybe 2" high. But when you point it to the wall, at 90degrees to your acceleration, i see it magically stretch to its full length.

 

Thus, the energy requirement for acceleration remains constant.

Thus the energy requirement for UA goes off the scale. Einstein tells you why you can't exceed the speed of light, but that doesn't mean you can't keep accelerating. That's what your own wiki says; it just seems to stop short of considering the implications.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: December 31, 2017, 05:33:52 PM »

Pickel,

I've decided that it's made out of gold because it's yellow and shiny, and that's good enough for me.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: December 29, 2017, 05:20:00 PM »

One theory is that the sun is simply a ball of fire that continues to thrive because of available hydrogen gas, which is flammable and provides the essential fuel. It's the result of chemical reaction / combustion. This explanation explains known things about the earth. For example, during combustion, hydrogen is combined with oxygen. We know that the earth's surface is around 70 to 76 % h2o, and it is believed earth's atmosphere had more hydrogen in the past.

This is what I love about this forum. Ask a reasoned, logical question, and if you're lucky, a "theory" comes back, which gives me a starting point to learn more about the world.

I don't know how to do the maths to prove that a hydrogen sun, 32 miles in diameter, will burn too quickly to heat the Earth for 4.6 billion years.

But there are a couple of other characteristics of burning hydrogen which you should include in your theory:

1) Hydrogen burns with a blue flame which is almost invisible in daylight. Hydrogen "sunlight" isn't light.

2) Hydrogen does not radiate much infra red energy but it does radiate ultra-violet energy. Therefore it isn't hot, but it will cause sunburn. Think about how a sunbed works.

Chemical plant sensors which detect hydrogen fires don't measure heat or light, because a hydrogen flame isn't hot or bright. Instead they use ultra-violet CCTV.

I would seriously be very grateful to anyone who could point me to a noobs guide on hydrogen combustion, or explain for how long a 32-mile diameter ball would burn in oxygen.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What if flat earth theory was widely accepted

« on: December 28, 2017, 10:33:00 PM »

And back to the main topic.  It is probably in part a result of realizing that the earth is just a dot orbiting the sun that has helped create the great reduction in wars that we now experience.  A lot of people who do not consider statistics will think that the world is more dangerous now, but the facts support greater peace now than ever.
If we reject the inconsequential nature of Earth and instead believe it to be a unique place in the universe and all those lights in the sky are pretty much useless pieces of junk circling around us a few miles up, suddenly my 1/10th of an acre of land is maybe worth killing someone else over.  It is humbling to consider us a mere speck of dust, but if we are kings of the universe on a special disk sitting on a stack of turtles that are growing at a rate of 9.8 m/s2 then maybe we should kill for our domain.  Rejecting what we see makes us think we are more important than we are.

I'm fascinated by your argument that realizing the Earth isn't the only planet has reduced wars. I've just spent the whole afternoon and evening collating wars (Note: with more than 20,000 fatalities) and the years in which they happened against global population into a spreadsheet, and it made my eyes open, I can tell you.

Until 1591 we never had more than 5 such wars on the go at once
Until 1947 we never had more than 10
Since 1981 we have had at least 20.

The last year with no wars of more than 20,000 fatalities was 1797.

Top 6 deaths per year (approx 5.5million) go to WW2, but top 9 deaths per mil population (almost 10,000 per million per year) goes to the An Lushan Rebellion in 755-763.

PM me and I'll email my spreadsheet. Swaps?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun/Moon Orbit and Upward Acceleration

« on: December 27, 2017, 08:40:35 PM »

Easy.

Imagine a circular cake. Cut it into 64 segments and magnetise each one. North in the centre, south at the edge.

According to the wiki, this is a radial magnet (true) and is found in loudspeakers (presumably on the basis that, like the Bedford Level, it "looks right"). Sigh. Loudspeaker magnets are axial, because that's how they make the cone move in and out.

Presumably the Sun and Moon simply flip their own orientation to South when it's time to go North, and vice versa. That's it! The Sun and Moon are magnetic.

So not only does FET have to explain how a 32-mile diameter sun can burn for 4.6bn years, it now has to find a composition that is also magnetic. I'll get back to you on that.

Welcome to Wonderland.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What if flat earth theory was widely accepted

« on: December 27, 2017, 08:08:05 PM »

What do you think society would look like if NASA stopped deceiving people into believing the earth is round? Would technology be more advanced than is is now? Would understanding the unique place the earth occupies in the universe lead people to act with better morals and more integrity?

Starting with faulty assumptions leads to faulty results. The widespread misconception that the earth is round must surely be slowing scientific progress and hampering the spread of human rights. What do you think?

If FET were accepted in the US of A, it would mean a breakdown of science, you could go back to the Dark Ages and believe in Noah. Farewell, old friend; the rest of the world won't be joining you.

How many posters here talk about "the government" and NASA as if they controlled the whole world?

As an American, this drives me crazy. It's like some of my fellow Americans don't seem to comprehend that there is a whole world outside of our borders. Japan launched a satellite the other day. "The govt" and NASA were not involved. Boy, I'll bet they are going to be surprised when it hits the dome. 

FEH will never be more than a small slice of society though. It appeals to the conspiracy types, those who fancy themselves "free thinkers", and the gullible. Mostly though, FEers and ridiculed for being idiots.

Thanks, S-One.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What if flat earth theory was widely accepted

« on: December 27, 2017, 05:20:24 PM »

What do you think society would look like if NASA stopped deceiving people into believing the earth is round? Would technology be more advanced than is is now? Would understanding the unique place the earth occupies in the universe lead people to act with better morals and more integrity?

Starting with faulty assumptions leads to faulty results. The widespread misconception that the earth is round must surely be slowing scientific progress and hampering the spread of human rights. What do you think?

If FET were accepted in the US of A, it would mean a breakdown of science, you could go back to the Dark Ages and believe in Noah. Farewell, old friend; the rest of the world won't be joining you.

How many posters here talk about "the government" and NASA as if they controlled the whole world?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics

« on: December 27, 2017, 04:58:11 PM »

By my calculations we reached 99.9999999999999% of the speed of light after 17 years of accelerating constantly at 9.81m/s^2.

I can't seem to find any information on the age of the Earth, so I'll assume 4.6bn years.

I can't find any information on the weight or thickness of the earth - it may be infinitely wide, which kind of implies infinite mass. Alternatively as its speed approaches c, so its mass approaches infinity.

Somewhere in the universe is the infinite amount of energy which is needed to shift an infinite mass for 4.6bn (OK, 4.6bn less a few) years, but no-one has mentioned its source as far as I can see.

The Earth isn't infinitely thick in ANY FE model. Please don't bring a strawman in for no reason. The only one where it's infinitely wide is the one 'infinite plane' hypothesis where they use standard mass attracts mass gravity. The UA model assumes finite dimensions in all directions.

As for the rest I don't presume to understand the parts of GR they're cherry picking. I just know the guys who DO seem to know more tend to agree it's not a place the UA hypothesis can be picked apart.

No straw man here, just another unexplained consequence of FET physics.

I didn't say the Earth was infinitely thick; I said that it may be infinitely wide. But it doesn't matter about the dimensions, as long as it has mass: it's the acceleration which is a problem.

Pre-Einstein, you can work out the speed of an accelerating object by multiplying the acceleration by the time. We know that a=9.81 and t=4.6bn years in seconds, so FE speed=1,400,000,000,000,000,000 m/s.

Einstein says you can't go faster than 300,000,000 m/s. "Piece of cake", says FET. "Relativity says that you can keep accelerating but you'll never go faster than light."

And they're correct. You can't use that equation in Einstein's world (although in everyday terms there's no noticeable difference) so you never reach the speed of light. But why can't we travel at light speed?

As the FE accelerates, its mass increases. Things get heavier as they go faster. If you're nowhere near the speed of light you won't notice, but as you approach the speed of light then mass approaches infinity.

The implication of this is that as the mass increases, the energy needed to accelerate the mass increases correspondingly.  As the mass approaches infinity, the energy required to maintain acceleration also approaches infinity. This is one reason against light speed travel.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeking Understanding

« on: December 27, 2017, 01:06:27 PM »

1. There's a famous double-slit experiment in physics which shows that an electron can be both a wave and a particle. If the Bedford Level experiment had any merit I'm sure it would be equally famous.

2. Have you ever seen a spotlight? Even though it isn't pointing at you, you can still see the side of it as the photons spill out. This doesn't happen to sunlight. Instead, it sets in the west as the Earth turns on its axis. You can see it disappearing over the horizon like a big orange ship.

Not only would you need an unknown mechanism to point and move the sun, you also need an explanation of how it has managed to give out so much light and heat for so long. What is it made of?

Isn't it strange that there's nothing in the Wiki so you're invited to pick a YT video "which makes more sense to you"? Pick your own truth 

3. A Norwegian explorer, Roald Amundsen, reached the South Pole in Dec 1911, 106 years ago. The ice wall is simply the edge of the ice shelf.

Please be careful with your calculations, as they assume that the two static posts are equal distance from the Pole and you may not be crossing at a right angle. As Amundsen knew, the best way to navigate the Earth (pre SatNav) is via the sun or stars.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics

« on: December 26, 2017, 09:22:17 AM »

By my calculations we reached 99.9999999999999% of the speed of light after 17 years of accelerating constantly at 9.81m/s^2.

I can't seem to find any information on the age of the Earth, so I'll assume 4.6bn years.

I can't find any information on the weight or thickness of the earth - it may be infinitely wide, which kind of implies infinite mass. Alternatively as its speed approaches c, so its mass approaches infinity.

Somewhere in the universe is the infinite amount of energy which is needed to shift an infinite mass for 4.6bn (OK, 4.6bn less a few) years, but no-one has mentioned its source as far as I can see.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eratosthenes - How Shadows Disprove the "Flat Earth Theory"

« on: December 26, 2017, 09:09:54 AM »

But because you *know* the Earth is flat you can use the same "base length" of 5000 stadia and two "base angles" of 90 and 82.8 degrees to prove that the Sun is 3000 miles above the Earth.

Erastothenes had also calculated the distance to the Sun as either 704,000 or 93,000,000 miles depending how you translate "of stadia myriads 400 and 80,000". Whatever, he clearly knew it wasn't 3,000.

He also calculated the Sun to be 27 times wider than the Earth and the Moon to be 90,000 miles away. Blame the errors on the accuracy of his measurements, not his trig.

Only one of these calculations is mentioned in the Wiki, and that's corrupted.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: December 22, 2017, 09:52:54 PM »

You do realize that the top of that car isn't the surface of a sphere or equally curved in all directions, right?

I agree, the car was a bad example, but let me just say, the earth isn't nice and round 'equally curved' as most of the population may think. the Earth was created by the collection and clumping of proto-planets, and so on, making the Earth look more like this:



And depending on where you are, the Earth may seem more extremely flat or extremely curved.

I think "extremely" is pushing it a bit. The measurements in the source article talk about differences of ~20 or ~40 metres in the Earth's radius, so it's still fair to say that the Earth is a sphere to about 0.3% radially.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is on the other side of the Earth?

« on: December 22, 2017, 01:20:57 PM »

It's difficult to say as you can't actually get to the edge. As you continue your research you'll find that not every Flat-earther holds the same views about features of the earth (other than, of course, its flatness).

For example, some say the Earth is infinitely wide and so you can never reach the edge.

Others will tell you that the edge is an ice wall patrolled by the US govt which stops intruders.

A third possibility is that

"As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct."

NOTE : This funding problem refers specifically to Universal Gravitation, but I assume that similar problems blight all their investigations.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Parallel universes

« on: December 21, 2017, 11:46:28 PM »

But if they believe in parallel universes, than there are universes where the Earth is a sphere?, right?

Well, yes, I can think of at least one 

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Parallel universes

« on: December 21, 2017, 11:44:50 PM »

Ironically, both our solar system and our galaxy are flat. Just not the planets, or stars, or anything over the potato radius.