1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: June 29, 2018, 04:41:49 AM »

If we are accelerating at 9.8m/s^2, then our speed is increasing by 9.8m/s every second. The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s.

If you divide 299792458/9.8 you get 30,591,067.142857. That means that almost a year after the Earth started ‘accelerating’ (11.6404237513076865 months) it would have hit the speed of light.

I know the FAQ gives an explanation for it:
> ...v/c = tanh (at/c). One will find that in this equation, tanh(at/c) can never exceed or equal 1.

But you don’t have to bring random special relativity into this equation! Simple division is enough to tell that one of these statements is wrong:

• The earth accelerates at 9.8m/s^2
• The speed of light is 299 792 458 m/s
• I am correct in my equations

first off, this only relates to the UA theory. 
second, dividing two numbers is not an "equation"
third, yes special relativity is essential here.

you are taking a second grader's approach to this and its not that simple.  Read thru some of einstein's theories and he very clearly states objects of mass can never reach C

I'm not agreeing with OP, but how can any of Einstein's work be correct/provable in a FE universe?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 20, 2018, 03:26:04 PM »

its not that difficult, at any given time there are tens of thousands of airplanes in flight, following a pre-determined paths...and most are utilizing auto-pilot during the flights (less takeoff/landing).  not complicated and we have been doing that a long time.   You think its more complicated than managing the thousands of flights travelling thru one of the large airports on a given day?

Standard autopilot doesn't maintain trajectory, watch out for weather, or monitor systems. If you want an automatic system to maintain your course on a plane, you'd need GPS. So what came first, the GPS or the planes that made GPS?

you are trying to make it sound more complicated than it is to just justify your position. 

Pot meet kettle

weather?  i am pretty sure thats negligible with the altitudes they are flying.

I'm pretty sure it's not.

'Many general aviation as well as air carrier and military aircraft routinely fly the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere. Weather phenomena of these higher altitudes include the tropopause, the jet stream, cirrus clouds, clear air turbulence, condensation trails, high altitude “haze” layers, and canopy static.' https://www.aviationweather.ws/075_High_Altitude_Weather.php

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Yet another GPS Post: stationary radio towers can not mimic GPS signals

« on: June 20, 2018, 02:58:05 PM »

Long range, high altitude, potenially solar powered airplanes.  Nasa website even has a page showing one and even says its used to "test" satellite technology.  Trying to formulate a conspiracy theory utilizing ground based system is overly complicated.  Occams razor.

ask yourself, which of these two scenarios is easiest:

1.  having a large number of airplanes that can fly along pre-determined paths and sustained speeds for a long time utilizing solar powered engines. as planes need more fuel or maintenace another plane takes off and resumes its path; or
2.  having a large number of satelittes launched into space as the exact speed and trajectory needed to balance falling back to earth and its velocity matching the rotation (orbit), and also having to do constant micro-adjustments to their atomic clocks to account for time dilation that is related to both gravitational influence and velocities relative to those on earth.  these satelittes also have to stay in orbit with no maintenance ever needed.

pretty obvious which one is simpler.

also, why is it that areas have random times of no satellite coverage?  i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up:   http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/24Hr_RAIM.htm

The satellites are simpler, pretty obviously.

1: Energy - the amount of power we can harness from solar is limited, especially when you look at the technology when we were first launching satellites. They are just starting to develop planes that can fly on solar now, and they aren't at a level to be mass produced. Satellites take no energy to maintain their velocity and all their power can go towards other functions.

2: Pathing - To fly a plane along a predetermined path inside the atmosphere would involve constant monitoring and adjusting due to wind, weather and probably a million other factors. Seriously, how are you supposed to keep an unmanned flight on its course with no GPS? Satellite paths are predictable because there's no random variables in play. Once it's in space, the needed velocity for orbit can be calculated using high school level physics. The atomic clock is not necessary for its pathing, but again, time dilation can be calculated without difficulty.

3: Logistics - just to have a third point. Don't really feel like fleshing this one out.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 13, 2018, 01:04:09 PM »

You need to prove that the perspective lines recede for infinity.

I really don't because you this is your counter argument which you haven't defined yet. I don't know what a perspective line is.

Math that assumes certain axioms does not cut it. The math of the Ancient Greeks also assumes that perfect circles exist. However, as we now have strong evidence in QM that the universe is quantized, it is impossible for a perfect circle to exist. The Ancient Greeks believed in a perfect continuous universe without any evidence at all.

Perfect circles can exist as a concept even though they might not exist in reality. Just because a perfect circle made of material might not exist in reality doesn't mean that the math defining a perfect circle is wrong.

So, prove it.

How is it possible to prove anything when all mathematical proofs are invalid and all objective observable evidence is invalid?

If you cannot provide evidence for the concept then we are obligated to discard it without evidence. You may not like that, but that's how things work around here. We are empiricists. We have higher standards than you do. An ancient hypothetical model of the universe that amounts to little more than a thought experiment is insufficient as evidence.

Where is your evidence for this infinity nonsense?

I don't think you know what empiricism is, I really don't. Also, I don't think you know what axiom means, or hypothetical, or model, or experiment, or evidence.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 13, 2018, 01:14:00 AM »

I thank you for providing an explanation of your rationalization. Your link claims that "an object further away appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon." This is a provably false statement. Allow me to explain

The problem with that logic is that a plane in the distance will appear to be moving much slower because its angle relative to you moves slower. If you were to speed up the plane to such a degree that it turns your head at the same rate as a closer and slower object, the way your turn your head would be exactly the same. It's just because the process is so slowed down with such a far away object, human perception doesn't notice differential in angular change. If you take two different videos of a plane in a the distance and a car in the nearby road (both shot with identical lenses and the camera set up perpendicular to the path of the object) you could speed/slow on down to fit the other's path exactly. I could provide you with the formula for angular change with respect to velocity and distance. but I'm a bit too lazy to figure it out. The point is that the differential of that equation with respect to distance (velocity as a constant) would not approach 0 at infinity.

That is just math. That math represents a model with certain axioms. Those axioms need to be proven true before you can use them.

If we change the axioms, we change the math. See: Two Plus Two Equals Four, But Not Always

Let me sum up my understanding of our conversation so far. I stated my evidence that the sun moving at constant angular velocity indicates we are living on a round earth. You stated it was due to an effect that an object will move at a more constant angular velocity the further away it is. I stated that this is false, provided both practical examples of proof and a mathematical method of proof. You stated that it's "just math" and I'm using "certain axioms," and you posted a link stating that because 20 degrees centigrade is not twice as hot as 10 degrees centigrade, then a yard does not equal 3 feet (one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard). I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I cannot believe you are genuinely interested in the truth. You are merely trying to win an argument by any means. If you don't say something to convince me that you are interested in knowing whether the earth is round or flat, I cannot continue this. Sorry.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 12, 2018, 09:06:16 PM »

The original post was merely asking how the sun can move across the sky at a constant speed of 15 degrees per hour. How does perspective weirdness explain that? The slowing of motion across the sky is exactly cancelled out by magic perspective and just coincidentally appears as if the earth were rotating at a constant angular speed?

It seems really weird to demand proof of basic geometry when you are willing to make all kinds of crazy assumptions about perspective without any evidence whatsoever.

What are you talking about? All of our evidence is derived empirically. Consider our example here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 300 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

We gave an example where bodies move more consistently across the sky the higher they are.

Where is your example of the opposite?

As the Ancient Greek theory is one that is thousands of years old, it should be a given that you have mountains of evidence for us for how bodies behave at extreme ranges.

Where is it?

I thank you for providing an explanation of your rationalization. Your link claims that "an object further away appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon." This is a provably false statement. Allow me to explain

The problem with that logic is that a plane in the distance will appear to be moving much slower because its angle relative to you moves slower. If you were to speed up the plane to such a degree that it turns your head at the same rate as a closer and slower object, the way your turn your head would be exactly the same. It's just because the process is so slowed down with such a far away object, human perception doesn't notice differential in angular change. If you take two different videos of a plane in a the distance and a car in the nearby road (both shot with identical lenses and the camera set up perpendicular to the path of the object) you could speed/slow on down to fit the other's path exactly. I could provide you with the formula for angular change with respect to velocity and distance. but I'm a bit too lazy to figure it out. The point is that the differential of that equation with respect to distance (velocity as a constant) would not approach 0 at infinity.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 12, 2018, 08:49:51 PM »

I don't believe I ever claimed anything of the sort. How does that relate to my argument in specific terms?

You are claiming that is is impossible for the sun to set. You are making claims for how objects should behave into the distance without any real evidence for those assumptions. You are using the Ancient Greek model of perspective as truth, when that truth first needs to be corroborated with evidence.

Using the hypothesis of perspective lines which approach each other for infinity as a "proof" that something is impossible is pretty unreasonable. There are a number of assumptions there. You should provide some kind of evidence for those assumptions for them to be taken seriously.

We have been asking for evidence for your model for many years, to no avail. We are given quotes by Ancient Greek scholars along the lines of of "therefore... therefore... therefore..." That is not empirical evidence. It is rationalism.

At this point I would go as far as saying that since this theory is given without evidence, that it can be disregarded without evidence.

I am indeed claiming that it would be impossible for the sun to set from a higher elevation if the earth was flat. My evidence is my original post. Here is a simpler explanation: place your head level to a table. Have a friend take a lighter and lower it below the table. My hypothesis is that it will disappear from view; it will set. Now place your head on the ground outside in a level field. Have your friend walk away from you and see if the lighter sets. My hypothesis is that it will not set.

Another point, the ancient Greek scholars you are mentioning often rationalized abstract concepts. These abstract concepts are true either by definition or provable logic. Whether or not those abstract concepts are reflected in the real world would depend if we have considered all the factors in our calculations. To argue that the abstract concepts themselves are errant is provably wrong if you name a specific argument rather than just "all the Greek theories are wrong", in which case counter-argument would be far to comprehensive to engage with. However, I believe that bringing up the Greeks is a distraction technique, and you still haven't told me what possible alternative there could be for this physical observance.

Are you arguing against the abstract, mathematically proven facts of how perspective works? or are you arguing against the real-life application of those concepts?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 11, 2018, 02:32:27 AM »

What evidence is there for the Ancient Greek model of perspective which asserts that the perspective lines recede for infinity?

If you cannot present any evidence for this concept then any perspective explanation is as good as another.

I don't believe I ever claimed anything of the sort. How does that relate to my argument in specific terms?

Honestly, I'm not really sure what you are talking about. Can you provide an alternative, or explanation of what you mean?

Quick Edit: I know lines go on infinitely by definition. I'm not sure what a 'perspective' line and why this would not be infinite.

2nd Edit: Stuff appears smaller when it's further away. Does that suffice as evidence?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do satellites work?

« on: June 11, 2018, 01:16:21 AM »

Okay I was thinking satellite phones. How about dish cable then?

10

Flat Earth Theory / How do satellites work?

« on: June 10, 2018, 10:24:06 PM »

I'm curious how the flat earth belief accounts for satellites. Do they exist? If so what keeps them in the sky? If not, how do cell phones work? Thank you.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 10, 2018, 09:47:41 PM »

How would any flat earth model account for the fact the sun moves across the sky at a constant angle? If the Earth was flat, the sun would fade in (not rise), the angle would slowly change, accelerate midday, decelerate in the evening, and fade out (not set).