1

Flat Earth Community / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?

« on: July 28, 2017, 04:45:56 AM »

What am I supposed to explain? I was given a flight prediction for a flight time which might occur, not a flight record, and two proposed hypothetical map possibilities for a Flat Earth which are currently being investigated. The argument made seems a little weak,.

So am I interpreting correctly, that a flight record would be an acceptable standard of evidence for you?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me, I'm being deceived

« on: July 28, 2017, 04:37:34 AM »

The cosmology clearly describes a Flat Earth. The cosmology is depicted in several of their texts. Why would you assume that their astronomers believed in a Round Earth? We will need some sort of evidence that the "astronomers and astrologers" of the time believed in something contrary to their published cosmology.

Talk is cheap. Let's see those references.

Here's the references for the opposite of what you said.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 28, 2017, 04:26:37 AM »

The sun predictions need to be affirmed with actual observations. We have asked for these sun observations on many occasions throughout the years, and after a lot of searching, the Round Earth proponents come up empty again and again, all while still maintaining their vague references that the plethora of data is out there, which they somehow cannot seem to find. It is getting to be quite pathetic.

How do Round Earth proponents show you "actual observations"? Can you be more specific and crisp in what you are asking for, please. Perhaps examples of Flat Earth observations you have submitted, that we can use as a quality and rigorousness reference to aspire to. And then perhaps Round Earth proponents could oblige! How does that sound?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset

« on: July 28, 2017, 04:19:58 AM »

You wouldn't accept us showing you a map and proclaiming that it it true and beyond question, right?

You got that completely backwards. Your problem is that you DON'T show us a map and proclaim it true (and thus falsifiable), yet do claim it beyond question.

If you would do exactly what you are complaining about - post some theoretical predictions - literally ANYTHING - from your models, that could actually be empirically tested - and confirmed or disconfirmed - you could build a case. Instead your only evidence is from a disgraced charlatan who died in the late 1800s, who only said he proved stuff but according to his contemporaries at the time, lied about it. Maybe they were the liars, but all we have is his own words and nothing else. Not even close to good enough. Instead you refuse to put forth anything that can be independently tested and confirmed or disconfirmed.

Like, a map. You've had at least 170 years to come up with a map.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH

« on: July 28, 2017, 04:06:49 AM »

Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.

That's nice, dear. I'm still not here to lecture you. If you'd like to read the basics, read up on them.

That would be a fine response, if every time someone quoted your wiki, you guys didn't dismiss it with, "but I don't believe that part of the wiki". That's what you guys say every time. There is objectively no point in reading your wiki. That is why Just in it for the Lols was "asking YOU". If you don't care to answer, that's your prerogative, but at least be honest about it.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Venus Transit Across the sun

« on: July 28, 2017, 03:59:03 AM »

Why can't venus go in front of the sun?

Do you believe that the sun is 3,000 miles away? Give or take a few thousand miles? Give or take an order of magnitude? Give or take how many orders of magnitude?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.

« on: July 28, 2017, 03:48:59 AM »

Einstein's GENERAL theory of relativity says that there is no experiment that can distinguish between uniform acceleration and uniform gravitation.  So if the FE community want to say that there is uniform acceleration - rather than uniform gravitation - that doesn't change the results of any experiments.

The problem for FET is that gravity isn't uniform...things weigh different amounts in different places - and that can't be explained by acceleration without some parts of the Earth accelerating faster than others...with obvious unfortunate consequences.  So universal acceleration alone can't explain all of the facts that are plainly out there.

I'm glad you added "uniform" to both acceleration and gravitation, to make it technically correct. The best kind of correct. Because in practical reality, specially on earth, you can tell. You can weigh yourself in Badwater Basin, then again at the top of Mt. Whitney. Or with experiments like this.

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node87.html

In fact, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where you could not distinguish between gravity and acceleration. Given enough precise technology and some freedom to move.

That has been a headscratcher for me, as I grew up accepting that equality assertion. I reasoned that since they are identical, they must somehow be the same thing. At some deep fundamental level. Maybe everything is expanding at a rate proportional to it's mass. Maybe all the subatomic particles are expanding. But somehow maintaining proportional attributes, fields, etc. That could explain some things, say, the force of gravity on the Earth's surface, kind of like the UA. But I don't think that could explain the inverse square law. How would galaxies work, and the attraction between two of them. How would orbits work.

Anyway, at some point I figured that maybe they aren't the same fundamental thing. And maybe the claim that there is no experiment that can tell them apart, is flawed. Because is really no such thing as uniform gravitation. There is always a gradient. For something like the largest black hole known that has an event horizon about the equivalent of Pluto's orbit, and standing on a platform 10 times again as far, the gradient might be essentially practically immeasurable with any conceivable technology over the span of a few meters. (Given the inverse square law.) But if the distance between measurements is large enough, you'll find the gradient.

And yet, as you also pointed out, I don't think it would be possible for a gradient to form with acceleration.

Or would it? Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Not gravitation, and presumably not acceleration. We've never tried to accelerate a mountain, let alone long enough to measure G-force at top and bottom. If the velocity can only increase at on quantized planck time boundaries, and can propagate from bottom to top no faster than the speed of light light, and only in planck time increments, then the top will always be a bit behind the velocity of the bottom, thus you'd always weigh less at the top than the bottom. I know that seems illogical, but so does photons traversing the universe instantly while we see them as slow as molasses, until you understand General Relativity. Maybe there's a deeper underlying truth that unites both phenomenon.

So maybe gravitation and acceleration could be the same fundamental thing after all. Not just indistinguishable.

In other words, we just assume that UA would not produce the same weight measurments at sea level vs. mountain top. Certainly makes sense. But maybe it's not that simple, and it really would be indistinguishable. (And therefore we wouldn't need the "uniform" qualifier on gravitation and acceleration to make the equivalency still valid.)

My head hurts. I hope I didn't just give ammunition the the flat-earth UA model. Like, enough plausible-sounding babble to run with.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain this to me

« on: July 28, 2017, 03:04:23 AM »

Most of FEC is "rough approximation". Your claims seem to fall into three categories: 1) Smallest category: Testable claims about a FE, that are tested, rebutted, but the evidence dismissed or just ignored. 2) There's a massive global conspiracy covering up FE - which renders a huge chunk of FEC immune from disproof. 3) And the biggest bucket: Untestable FE claims involving "rough approximations" - which by definition, are conveniently immune from disproof. Such as, what does the planet we live on - just the parts we can readily travel to - even vaguely look like.

Which claims of mine fall under these categories?
...

I believe the part where you said,

It can be rationally explained in that it's a rough approximation.

in response to

...I noticed that as the sun and moon swirled around, darkness never ever touched that part my mouse happened to be on...There are no points on earth that literally never experience night, nor for whom day and night have equal length year round. How can we explain this rationally?