Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ack1308

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« on: January 21, 2018, 09:53:28 PM »
Please, NASA or JPL or any of the other sites have already spent money providing CGI renderings of the Solar System. The fact their renderings are not accurate or based on Newton/Kepler/Einstein,, is damning evidence that either the math is wrong or the model is wrong.
What do you base this assumption on?

Also, I'd be interested in how the flat earth theory allows for 24 hour days, yet whichever latitude it's summer in gets more daylight hours.  Especially in the December-February, which is summer down here (Australia).  Let's assume that the sun moves farther outward from the centre of the disc to give us more warmth in that time.  However, it's now got a greater distance to travel in the same 24 hours.  Say, it's doing 60,000 km instead of the 40,000 km at the equator.  So that's 1.5 times the distance, which means it's travelling 1.5 times as fast to make the distance in the same time.

So far, so good, yeah?

Except that the problem is that just like in Europe and North America, summer in the Southern Hemisphere is typified by longer days.  Which means that the sun can't be travelling faster over any spot on the world.  If anything, days would be much shorter.  1.5 times as short, to be exact.  We'd be getting 8 hours of sunlight instead of 16.

I cordially invite anyone to come to Australia in the summer.  I'll even put you up in my spare bedroom (it's air-conditioned).  You can measure the hours of daylight, and then explain to me that if the sun is passing by faster, how are the days lasting longer.
I look forward to the explanation. It should be a good one.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm an "RE" but how do you debate this?
« on: January 21, 2018, 09:36:18 PM »
1. The GPS also makes airplanes think the Earth is sphere and make them use less fuel along those "longer routes".
2. Flat Earth believers never accept pictures unless they "prove" what they want. You can find ice walls few kilometers long in Arctic too, but they are "fake".
3. The Earth is not a planet, it is just snow globe. Inept God couldn't reach more than 50 000 miles or so. He is also old, and couldn't see well, so he made Earth different.
4. You can measure difference in acceleration between poles and Equator. Poles 9.83 m/s2, Equator 9.78. That is why UA after only two hours made mountains 1296 kilometers high on poles.
5. The objects are not falling. If nearest planet or asteroid is close enough it accelerates towards them.

Side note is ok. In vacuum speed of fall depends only on acceleration, not on mass/weight.

You have been warned by me once, and reminded by another member that you are intentionally misrepresenting the FET model supported here. Consider this another warning. Next one is a short ban, followed by longer bans.
How do you explain planes using less fuel along these 'longer' routes?

If the Earth is constantly accelerating, why haven't we left the stars and other planets behind?  Anyone with a halfway good telescope can see Jupiter and Venus.  Heck, on a clear night you can see them with the naked eye.  In fact, why is it that the constellations come back to the same configurations at the same time every year?  You know, as if we'd just completed a trip around the sun?

As for that matter, why is it that on a flat earth we'd only have one hemisphere (above the disc) to show of night sky, whereas we have northern and southern hemisphere starfields which have been exhaustively plotted?

Why do the stars turn around a single point when filmed with a time-lapse camera?  (I can take a photo and prove it if you want).

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Burden of Proof
« on: January 21, 2018, 09:27:29 PM »
Regarding the satellite dish alignment, how can something stay in one place in the sky when everything else moves around on a 24 hour cycle?
In the heliocentric model, it's simple.  Satellites orbit the Earth, each one with a a particular period mandated by the distance from the Earth.  The Moon is 400,000 km away, and its period is one month (more or less).  Artificial satellites are usually much closer (though more than 100 km up, that being the nominal edge of the atmosphere) and have much shorter orbital periods.  With me so far?

Well, low earth orbit satellites can whip around the globe in a matter of minutes.  They're really moving.  The farther away they are, the longer they take to get around the Earth (both travelling farther and going slower).  It's just a matter of calculation to find the orbital distance that gives you a period of 24 hours; that is, the satellite goes around the Earth in exactly the same length of time that the Earth takes to rotate (as it happens, this is about 40,000 km up).  From the ground, the satellite seems to just hang overhead.  Note that this can only be done in the equatorial plane, as the satellite is still tracking around the centre of Earth's gravity.  Note also that Arthur C Clarke predicted the concept of geosynchronous orbits long before they put a satellite in one.

So that's how it works with a globe.  My question to you is, given the proven existence of geosync satellites ... how would they stay up in a flat earth scenario?  In fact, how do any satellites stay up in a flat earth setup?

Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Continents
« on: January 21, 2018, 09:08:47 PM »
I live in Australia.  I've flown from Sydney to LA (and back again) twice. 

A few facts:
The trip takes 13 hours 45 minutes, either way. 
The aircraft was a 747-400.
The distance from Sydney to LA is just over 12,000 km.
A 747-400 has a rated speed of 988 km/h.  Allowing a bit of wiggle room, that allows for a 13-14 hour trip.

However, by your map, the aircraft has a somewhat greater distance to travel, and would have to exceed the speed of sound to make the trip. 
The kicker?  The 747-400 is not a supersonic aircraft.  I'm interested in how this works, if the earth is not a globe.

Another good one:
Australia and New Zealand are close neighbours, geographically and politically speaking.  The distance from Sydney to Auckland via global measurement is 2,155 km.  This gets flown every day, and boats travel to and from on a regular basis.  Why is it that they don't use more fuel than they've allotted for that distance?  Again, I'm interested in how this works.

And then there's Antarctica.  Because you're aware, are you not, that there are several scientific outposts on the continent?  You weren't?  Australia actually controls a large chunk of it.  Interestingly enough, a friend of mine who used to be in the Army Reserve was actually posted there for a while.  His stories of the place involve lots of ice, a crapload of penguins ... and oddly enough, no edge of the world.
Oh, and by the way, he's long since left the military.  So there's zero chance he's still being paid to keep any secrets.
So how do you reconcile that with, well, any of what you're saying?

And finally:
Captain James Cook, who mapped the eastern coast of Australia (as well as a good chunk of the coast of New Zealand) with an accuracy that still holds good today, also sailed farther south to circumnavigate Antarctica.  Which he did.  To do so in your model would require travelling a distance of 60-80 thousand km, on a sailing ship that moves at maybe 10 km/h (just saying, they would've run out of food).  Oh, and then he went from New Zealand to Tierra del Fuego in five weeks.  With your map, how far is that and how fast would he have had to travel?  Let's not forget: sailing ship.

One of the many flaws of the flat earth concept, and the most easily proven, is the lateral distance problem.  The farther out you get from the north pole on a flat disk, the greater the distance between any two lines of longitude.  The trouble is, the farther south you go from the Equator, the closer these lines get together.  I cordially invite any believers to come to Australia, rent a car, check the odometer, then drive from Sydney to Perth along the Gunbarrel Highway.  Take careful note of the distance, then compare it to what your map says it should be.
(Spoilers: it won't be that far).
Go ahead.  I dare you.

Pages: [1]