21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity

« on: July 23, 2019, 05:14:40 PM »

We do feel it, it's our 'weight' pressing us down
Constant speed we would not feel it

It's not your weight. When you're touching the ground you don't feel like you're constantly accelerating upwards.

Also, if the earth is moving upwards at about 9,8m/s², meaning that every second its speed increases by 9,8m/s, the speed of the earth going upwards would just get bigger and bigger and at one point reach the speed of light and even go beyond.

You aren’t understanding the physics. When you are touching the ground, you are experiencing the same force as you would if you were in free fall. The only difference is that the ground would be exerting an equal and opposite force against you.
You need to learn about special relativity, but first I highly recommend learning Newtonian physics.

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is this 'cover' for the 'story'?

« on: July 23, 2019, 05:09:55 PM »

You are equating the earth with a closed system such as a train , bus or airplane - these have definite boundaries to the containing environment in which they move .
           The logical conclusion is that earth is an enclosed environment . Where are the boundaries ?

No, lol, the earth is not a closed system.

However, the atmosphere and objects on the planet are moving WITH the earth in the same way that the air and rocks and people inside a plane, train, or car is moving with it, AKA inertia.
My analogy isn’t flawed, your understanding is.
There doesn’t need to be definite boundaries on anything. There is no sharp line between space and the atmosphere. There doesn’t need to be a dome separating it. The fact that everything is moving together is enough to explain this. INERTIA.
Learn the basics.

23

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is this 'cover' for the 'story'?

« on: July 23, 2019, 07:32:06 AM »

If you fire a shell against the supposed spin of the earth then surely you would have to apply force to overcome inertia ? Can't see any column in the fire chart allowing for direction of fire v spin direction of earth (or rotation v latitude ) .

 No. You’re misunderstanding.

Get on a constant velocity train, bus, or airplane, stand in the middle with one person on each end. Throw a rock as hard as you can at person A standing at the front of the car then throw a rock at person B standing at the back of the car.
You will hit both people equally hard and potentially injure them. They are on your train. They are moving the same speed you are. Inertia.

Now if you want to throw a rock at a pedestrian on the sidewalk from your train after you pass them, THEN you would have to overcome your inertia if you wanted to hit them with that same amount of force.
Or if you wanted to shoot a spaceship that is at rest in relation to the earth.

24

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is this 'cover' for the 'story'?

« on: July 23, 2019, 03:32:24 AM »

hog wash like the moon landing. A helo hovering for 1 hr. would have the earth pass under them when in fact they stay in exact spot as liftoff. No ordinance aloft for 5 seconds is going to move crap except from wind and rotation of projectile. Thank you for creating an alt to help me understand more fake science.

PHYSICS:
   1) The Basics
      1a) Inertia

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On The Subject of Gravity

« on: July 23, 2019, 03:23:56 AM »

A constantly accelerating earth would almost match what we observe in reality. The fact that a feather falls more slowly than something more dense would be caused by the same phenomenon, air resistance, because as I understand this hypothesis, yes the air is moving with the earth in an enclosed dome.

As I said though, it would only ALMOST match what we observe in reality. The one glaring piece of evidence that comes to mind is the fact that gravity at the poles is stronger (AKA accelerating faster in flat earth hypothesis) and the closer you get to the equator, the weaker (slower in FE) it gets.
This difference is quite small, roughly .5% difference between the poles and the equator, so you wouldn't notice it just walking around (you would notice the different weather though, LOL). A 200lb person at the north pole would roughly weigh 199lbs at the equator. Elevation also plays a role, albeit a more minor one. Higher elevations tend to have weaker gravity than the surrounding lower elevations.
This may not be noticeable in day to day life, but it is however not an insignificant difference. For the various FE models that claim earth is accelerating, it spells disaster. It doesn't take long at all for the earth to rip itself apart under these varying forces.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50838

EDIT:
As a side note. The notion of an accelerating earth as touted by many FE'rs doesn't seem to line up with zeteticism.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunn and moon rotations shifting away???

« on: July 16, 2019, 05:02:19 PM »

The geographic North Pole isn’t moving on the earth. The magnetic north is shifting, NOT the rotational axis.

The sun is a sphere that puts off relatively constant radiation, so if for some reason it’s rotational axis is shifting, I don’t know that it would change weather. But you have to ask yourself the question... what would make an entire planet or sun or moon’s rotational axis shift? Something would have to push or pull on it to have this effect. You would need to find whatever this is. If it’s powerful enough to disturb the movement of the sun then it would be enormous.

I think you need to learn the basics.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary Phases

« on: July 14, 2019, 02:19:07 PM »

Concerning the fact that stars twinkle while planets don’t. The reason for this is simple. Stars are so far away that we can’t resolve their disc, and since the light is seemingly emitted from a pinpoint, it’s quite susceptible to disturbances in the atmosphere; refraction. Planets don’t have this problem, as they are easily resolved and aren’t as susceptible to this refraction. This fact however doesn’t pertain to the argument.

As far as syzygy goes, I’m afraid you’re going to have to be more specific, and I don’t see how it either relates to the OP.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary Phases

« on: July 14, 2019, 02:05:39 PM »

Brahe revolutionized astronomy, and the Tychonic model made perfect sense in his time, and for over a hundred years afterward. Using Tycho’s revolutionary data, Kepler deduced that the movement of the planets were eclipses rather than circles.
However, the main objection to the copernican model during his time, apart from religious and philosophical arguments, was the absence of observational stellar parallax.
Proponents of the copernican model argued that the stars were too far away to observe the parallax with the instruments of their day, and it turns out they were correct. Stellar parallax was first observed in the mid 1800’s by German scientist Friedrich Bessel.

Stellar parallax definitively proves that the earth is moving around the sun, in relation to the stars, and debunks Brahe’s heliogeocentric model.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Planetary Phases

« on: July 14, 2019, 12:24:52 AM »

I've scoured the forums, and while I've seen multiple threads dedicated to the planets, I haven't seen this particular phenomenon addressed.
Indeed, most of the planetary questions have gone unanswered, so I doubt to get a satisfactory response, but perhaps some of you FE'rs can share your opinions and shed some light (pun intended) on this for me.

I was wondering (I know there are 20 different models) how the flat earth model(s) account for the phases of the planets.
The Helioentric model of the solar system accounts for them perfectly. The only two planets to exhibit full phases (similar to our own moon) are the two planets closer to the sun than us, Mercury and Venus. In fact, we can observe these inner 2 planets transit between earth and the sun. Mercury will transit in November of this year, while Venus unfortunately won't transit again until 2117.
The outer planets do not exhibit these full phases, nor do they transit between the earth and the sun.
It's relatively straightforward geometry from a heliocentric standpoint. Thoughts?