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 - lookatmooninUKthenAUS

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« on: July 14, 2018, 10:41:34 AM »
you would see X, Y, and Z all the time regardless of where you observe it.

No, you would not, and this is entirely my point. You can't and never do see the back (dark) side of the moon. Explain to me how it is possible to see the back side of ANY object simply by virtue of your distance from it. Light travels in straight lines and reflects only off the surface presented to the sun and Earth.

If it is possible to see the underside and backside of an object by viewing at different distances this must be a regular phenomenon in nature. Please can you cite a single example where this occurs.

Reason for N for #4.  As you walk from one side to the other of the room and pass under the ball/moon you will be looking directly up.  As you continue to walk, is will be difficult to continue to see the ball/moon without turning around.  When you turn around the orientation of the ball/moon will be rotated.

There is no disagreement concerning how the rotation can occur. But you have failed yet again to explain how, for instance, as we 'pass under the ball/moon' we see its underside in the model BUT NOT WHEN VIEWING THE MOON. The answer to Q4 must therefor be 'yes'.

I am afraid I am not even going to look at the 'libration' wiki. It is not significant or relevant to the discussion we are having. This is absolutely classic FE tactics. We have a rock solid simple explanation for why the moon can rotate 180 degrees in our field of vision while FE must introduce red herrings and use logical contortions predicated on pure misunderstandings of simple optics and 3D space.

This is the end game. Nobody can adequately explain the rotation of the Earth using FE theory. It is utter, utter nonsense and without being able to explain this very simple observation THE ENTIRE THEORY FALLS DOWN. Do not pass go, do not collect £200, go directly back to the drawing board and start again.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« on: July 13, 2018, 08:16:00 PM »
I keep struggling to parse the logic of this situation so unbelievably simply that everyone can get it. I simply cannot understand why the essential point of what I am pointing out keeps getting missed.

One more attempt......

If the green arrow in the wiki was to be replaced by a model that more accurately represented the moon e.g. a small globe with 'x' on one side and 'y' on the other and 'Z' on the bottom, and you were to move from 50 ft south to 50 ft North, looking all the time at the globe as you went.

1) As in the green arrow example you would pass underneath and then to the other side of the globe? Y/N

2) No matter what angle or manner you observed the globe (upside down / over your shoulder) you would see a X a Z and then a Y? Y/N

3) This is incompatible with the wiki which predicts you would see the same face at all times? Y/N

4) So, travelling to the OTHER SIDE can cause rotating perspective effects but since this necessitates seeing different faces of a spherical object and we do not see this with the moon, it cannot be the explanation for the rotation we DO see when viewing the moon? Y/N

Phew, this is getting really tedious. Please answer the questions in turn flat Earthers and if you state No for any you must explain how this can be possible in the context of the examples given.

Note, we can see now that the arrow example is invalid as an example as it limits the discussion to 2 dimensions when the real situation demands we consider 3, as in for things that can have x,y,z components or 'backs, fronts and sides'. Such limited examples, as are frequently employed by FE theory, are useful if you are trying to seed doubt among people with a limited grasp of spatial logic but totally invalid as soon as an accurate analysis is applied.

Just to reiterate a basic point I have been screaming from the rooftops in umpteen posts.

Even if Celestial gravitation were assumed to sufficiently explain the steady reduction of g with altitude, it does not explain how there can be different values of g at equal altitudes.

Can I also say, it ought to be a rule of engaging in any discussion that the data and the theory that stems from it be laid out in a coherent fashion before it is even considered. To entertain flat Earther's on this thread with tit for tat arguments about whether gravity exists when Celestial gravity exists ONLY AS A STATEMENT is ludicrous. The measurement of g has a history stretching back centuries with countless methods being employed, nearly all in agreement to within very small error margins. There is zero explanation of the difference between celestial gravitation and normal gravitation and no data exists AT ALL.

As Rabinoz pointed out......

The variation of measured g with altitude? "Celestial Gravitation" has been suggested, but that raises the question as to why "celestial mass" should attract  "terrestrial mass" but "terrestrial mass" not attract "terrestrial mass".

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon's orientation dilema
« on: July 10, 2018, 07:30:56 PM »
Tumeni put it very well. But I will reiterate in my own fashion. I will pose it as a series of yes/no answers directed at any flat earther that cares to follow the logic:

Q1. In essence the FE wiki argues that the rotation of the moon we see is a perspective effect? Y/N

Q2. The example given is of walking TO THE OTHER SIDE OF A GREEN ARROW. (The wiki is very clear about the OTHER SIDE part)? Y/N

Q3. However, if we did the same with the moon we would be on the OTHER SIDE of the moon looking at the back side of the moon? Y/N

Q4. This of course does not happen and we do not ever see the back side (or any other side) of the moon? Y/N

Q5. The reason is the moon is very far away? Y/N

Q6. The coin example and the arrow example are good examples of the perspective effect. But this cannot happen with the moon because we would need to pass to the other side of the moon and in so doing we would be looking at a completely different side of the moon? Y/N

So, as I understand this part of the theory, there is a conflict of very basic logic here that cannot be resolved. In which case, a fundamental part of the FE theory is clearly wrong. Unless the orientation of the moon can be explained for a FE model we need go no further with it. In fact, scientific logic demands that we go no further with it. The observations are too important and too clear to be ignored. There is no ambiguity.

Flat Earth Theory / Moon's orientation dilema
« on: July 09, 2018, 08:28:14 PM » goes....third time at this.

FET states the reason that the moon changes orientation when viewed from different locations is a perspective effect:

Q: Why does the orientation of the moon look the same to everyone one earth regardless of where they are?

A: It doesn't. The orientation varies depending on your location on earth. In FET this is explained by the different observers standing on either side of the moon. On one side it is right-side up, and on the other side it is upside down.

Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.

I have maintained in numerous posts that this is plainly wrong. Here are a few reasons:

1. Moving North to South in the arrow example assumes we can do the same with the moon. This would mean moving from one side of the moon to the other. In so doing we would pass underneath the moon and then be on the other 'dark side' of the moon. If we do not see this it is because the moon must be very far away. So distant that our location on Earth makes virtually no difference to our relative view. This is of course the real situation.

It is not possible to simultaneously be able to move around a round moon, viewing it from different sides without seeing those other sides. By definition being 'on the other side' implies seeing the 'other side' of something. The fact that we only ever see one side of the moon is because the moon is very far away in terms of the dimensions of the Earths surface. But this of course precludes the perspective effect suggested in the green arrow example.

I am still waiting for a Flat Earther to explain the flaw in this logic. I have been asked to read the FE theory on this matter but the entire FE theory as pertains to the orientation of the moon is contained in the quote above. Unless their are 'other FE theories out there. That seems to happen alot!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« on: July 01, 2018, 08:07:11 PM »
Watch this. Its a lovely, clear demonstration.

Notice how the moon orbits 'round' the Earth (her head) and the sun remains static. She (and we) can only see the moons phases if it goes around us.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« on: July 01, 2018, 07:37:03 PM »
An object suspended one foot above your head, that recedes into the distance, will rotate to perspective quickly.....

No it won't......'rotate'. You simply see the underside and as the angle of observation allows photons of light to reflect off the front surface you see that. You would not see, for instance, the letter T rotate so that the horizontal of the T was at the bottom. Not in any direction.

This perspective stuff is raised anytime a simple question that cannot be answered with FE theory is asked. It is smoke and mirrors. No discussion to be had. Come back with data and a worked out theory.

Meanwhile.......Please answer Bobby's question. Lets keep this thread on track:

For the moon to be full, it can't be out of alignment from the sun. Just like you argued for RE. The geometry based on the claimed form and magnitude "assumptions" of FE wiki make it impossible. If that's not true -- if it's possible -- show how. That's the point of this topic.

......My version: How can a spotlight sun or a radial sun create a full moon when it is night at a given observing point on Earth?

for the RE theory both the rotation of the moon and the phases of the moon are easily and beautifully explained by the same phenomena....that the EARTH IS ROUND!

Given how liberally FE theory attempts to co-opt the theories of Einstein I am imagining that there must be many on this forum familiar with how special relativity meshes with FE theory. Some questions need to be answered to clarify the FE position.

Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on the idea of observers and particularly which 'frame of reference' they are in.

Q1. How far away are the stars and galaxies in FE theory? The wiki makes absolutely no reference to galaxies. Do galaxies exist in FE theory or is the universe contained withing our own local galaxy, the milky way?

Q2. Which of the stars and galaxies are in our frame of reference, that is to say, accelerating with us? One assumes that the stars must be otherwise we would long ago have moved out of their sphere of influence.

Q3. Although no mass can ever reach the speed of light can we assume that the FE must now be travelling close to the speed of light and certainly beyond the 80% threshold where relativistic effects become measurable?

Q4. Q3 assumes that there is some outside 'observer' frame of reference. Does FE theory say such a frame exists? I am of course thinking of other galaxies.

Q5. Given that our speed on the FE should have long ago approached the speed of light does that not mean that our observations of any stellar object (galaxy etc) in an 'outside' frame of reference would be grossly affected by relativistic effects? That is to say, we would potentially look at all events outside our FE 'system' frozen in time due to the excessive time dilation effects.

These are just the first questions that occur to me.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« on: July 01, 2018, 04:26:55 PM »
There is absolutely no need to be banging on about different types of geometry here.

It should be simple to draw a basic line drawing that shows where the suns rays go in order to create full and partial (phases of the) moon.

Indeed the phases of the moon are the best evidence we have that our moon is a globe. The shadows generated could only be made by a spherical object casting its shadow as the sun orbits behind it emitting light radially in all directions. A circular disk shaped Earth would not produce the same regular arrangement of shapes throughout the month.

As for the full moon problem.....QUITE! Lets just see a simple line drawing by a FE supporter explaining it. IT CANT BE DONE!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking to talk
« on: July 01, 2018, 04:16:02 PM »
A big problem you will find is that while those on this site have a fairly unified flat earth "model", there are numerous different flat earth interpretations outside here.

Now 'unified' is a fairly kind designation. Fewer claims are made but then the trade off is this raises all sorts of unanswered questions.

Overall the problem for any theory is how to gain consensus. Science uses data that is checked and rechecked and finally cross referenced with different data sets. This creates a narrowing of allowed conditions which finally produces a well defined, well refined theory, and, in the ultimate case, the theory becomes a law or a 'fact'. It can take decades or in the case of our understanding of the motion of our solar system, many hundreds of years.

In FE land a new phenomena can crop up almost instantly. Because there doesn't need to be any data behind it, any Tom (haha), Dick or Harry can invoke their pet theory, and voila, instant answer! Celestial gravitation seems to be a good example of this. It does exist on the FE wiki, but nowhere else it would seem. And yet, FE's invoke this as if it has weight or credibility in a serious debate. In such a way the FE theory simply multiplies and becomes MORE complex as time goes on. This is more a sort of chaos theory than a FE theory. It pays no heed to the real scientific method and is completely illogical.

When the FE theory runs aground, as it did with memyselfandI's first question on the 29th, we hear silence. In any good theory the explanation of any context should be at your fingertips. It might not always be easy to explain but in the case of the RE they generally are. All the geometric, stellar and magnetic observations layer up perfectly and agree with all the data we have collected (and we have!) You will find videos claiming otherwise but they all, ALWAYS have misunderstood the very basic Physics behind the phenomena being discussed.

Incorrect again, Mr. Physics degree. Here is a video of lead a diamagnetic material being affected by static permanent magnets:

Tom, congratulations are certainly in order for finding an example of magnetic interaction with a non ferromagnetic material that can be observed without creating superconducting effects by chilling to -80 degrees Celsius.

A thin slice of pyrolytic graphite, which is an unusually strong diamagnetic material, can be stably floated in a magnetic field, such as that from rare earth permanent magnets. This can be done with all components at room temperature, making a visually effective demonstration of diamagnetism.

The main problem still remains however, achieving observable interactions requires very specific, very highly engineered materials. In the case of an MRI scanner a very high power alternating magnetic field induced electrically. In the case of static magnets we require several very powerful rare earth magnets placed within 1mm from the material to achieve a very, very weak effect.

Now back to the original context, Cavendish did not have rare earth magnets in his experimental setup. He had the Earth's magnetic field. The difference in field strength is vast. A single rare Earth magnet typicaly achieves 1-1.2 Teslas whereas the Earth's magnetic field ranges from 25 -45 micro Teslas. This is a ratio of some 1:22000.

As I said in my original post, orders of magnitude different.

I will concede that I was not aware that diamagnetism could be achieved outside of chilled superconducting experiments (which I did myself once) but the effect is almost un-measurable and requires a stack of rare earth magnets. I only ever had 1! I did try to attract various materials including my pencil lead and it didn't work.

What is annoying about this exchange is the way it quickly diverges from the main idea and to focus instead on the extreme limits of esoteric areas of science. I freely admit I don't knot know EVERYTHING about science. Not even close. But I certainly know enough to know that magnetism played no part in influencing Cavendish's experiment. Your problem is that you have google at your disposal but not the sense to know that the examples you managed to find do not support the case. The best you can do is to find holes in my knowledge repository. As a Teacher of Physics with a normal degree and some years in Engineering you will find plenty holes in my knowledge. The difference is I know my limits. You, however, are passing yourself off as some kind of authority on this stuff when you clearly have no picture of science as a whole. The inconsistencies you find do not lead anywhere except further from the original argument.

Anyway, I concede I was not aware that in some extreme circumstances non ferromagnetic materials can show other magnetic (diamagnetic) properties.

From your end, can you concede that such properties are not significant in influencing measurements of g. Then we can continue back to the main question.

Does gravity exist between all masses?

And finally, how can UA be explained in the context of celestial gravitation when we can observe differing values of g at equal altitudes on the Earth's surface? This is the point of the thread.

Gravity has been measured countless times with greater and greater accuracy. I am actually angry at myself for even entertaining the idea of defending Cavendish's original experiment. This point is not a reasonable one for discussion. Lets stick to the theories FE proposes. How do THEY work. At least gravity has a long tradition of measurement through experimentation. Celestial gravity is just a vague notion concocted to plug yet another glaring hole in FE theory.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A new Earthrise shows the globe Earth
« on: June 30, 2018, 08:02:39 PM »
plenty of videos from nasa themselves showing how they "create" the CGI blue marble photos.  no different process, and videos are easy to find.

Can any FE offer a credible explanation for the countless movies taken in ascent to orbit, re-entry, Earth's orbit, moon's orbit, descent to the moon, ascent from the moon, in transit between the Moon and Earth.

Can anyone explain how between 1956 and 1969 when TV was still transitioning from black and white to colour and computers mostly still resembled tractors, how CGI technology become a fully fledged tool used simultaneously by two superpowers. Two superpowers who normally threatened each other with nuclear weapons managed the same feat simultaneously and without co-operation?

But no, CGI is a digital technology and is only possible through the massive computing power that allows manipulation of huge images with ease. This processing power was not possible in 1989 far less 1956. No, the only other option is human power with analogue technologies. But there is a reason why no commercial entity or film maker managed this before CGI technology. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to fake dynamic images of objects moving in freefall or zero gravity. Not with any amount of human ingenuity or will power or man hours. The task would be almost as difficult as going to the moon itself.

As with all FE theories, the conspiracy one is orders of magnitude away from being deemed 'credible'. To ask people to beleive that for 60 odd years countless countries have (for waht individual reasons) colluded in a conspiracy involving a cast of hundreds of thousands (if you include sub contractors) to deceive the rest of the planet that the Earth is round. What prize is so great that this lie should still be needed? Why would countries like Japan who never were part of the cold war and have no communist ties need to lie? 

No, the endless footage that started in 1956 and continues to this day is real. But hey, the CGI in 1956 thing. Please explain that to I'm a 5 year old.

Ferromagnet is the typical name for a material that is naturally magnetic. This is in contrast to a material that simply becomes magnetic for a short while after contact with a magnet as a nail is wont to do after some time stuck to a ferromagnet. Lead has the opposite effect, where it actually repels the magnetic force of an object. This is called diamagnetism.

Tom, diamagnetism is a residual effect that all materials have. In this respect, I can be considered magnetic, indeed this is how MRI scanners work. However, the problem for the point you make is that diamagnetism is a dynamic not a static effect. In other words you would need an alternating magnetic field NOT a bar magnet (creating a static field) in order to even see this effect. In addition it is several orders of magnitude less than any static magnetic effect that might be observed between ferromagnetic materials (Iron, Cobalt and Nickel). In short, lead cannot in any meaningful way be influenced by the magnetic fields that might have been present in the Cavendish experiment.

I encourage you to learn more about the world. Lead is affected by magnetism.

Tom, it is you who needs to go learn more about the Physical world you attempt to dissect. I suggest doing what I did, go study Physics for at least 4 years and get a degree. Cutting and pasting quotes who's real meaning you do not penetrate is not helpful to the ongoing discussion and it belies the fundamental lack of real understanding I keep going on about. I make no bones that these exchanges are the point of my efforts on this site. Your ignorance of the basic Physics (and that of your fellow FE devotees) needs called out in every single nook and cranny and I intend to do so with vigour at every opportunity afforded.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me
« on: June 30, 2018, 05:41:11 PM »
More pics to follow......

Now something else occurs to me while reviewing these pics.

I was upon joining this website guided to the book and video 'Earth not a globe'. While I have not yet read the book I did watch the hour long youtube film of the same name. I will try to refrain from hyperbole should it be deemed 'low content', suffice to say the problem with the assertions in this film is that each one gets some very, very fundamental science wrong in the opening sentences.

One such clanger is the idea that jet planes clearly indicate the RE model is wrong due to the lack of relative motion observed. i.e. if a jet flies West towards New York from London then the Earth should be zooming round underneath at several hundred miles an hour, thus making the journey much shorter. This is a perfect example illustrating how a lack of fundamental science understanding can lead to terrible misconceptions. The reality is that the Earth's atmosphere is coupled to the surface by friction. The atmosphere, in effect, moves with the Earth although this coupling reduces as altitude increases. The picture is however not even that simple as the atmospheres complex system of currents creates different strata that move at greatly different velocities, sometimes in opposition to the Earths motion and sometimes with it. In short, the picture is not simple. That is why climate science is a very difficult thing to master. Very, very, very big computers are employed to try and understand the details of its evolution but the general trends are predictable and can be relied on. Our ancestors understood this and made use of the trade winds to navigate and reach new continents. Wind and weather are actually one of the very best proofs of the rotating motion of our planet as the cyclic nature of weather systems attest.  - see from about 20 mins in.

However, this only now brings me to my point. If FE science models that moving from the Earth's surface separates you from it, then how come the constant upward acceleration doesn't eat up the distance travelled by an ascending balloon? The reason of course is that the balloon is coupled in a different way, it is experiencing upthrust caused by the displaced air. A different type of force to friction but a force nonetheless that explains what we actually see. Simple yes?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me
« on: June 30, 2018, 05:20:06 PM »
And finally, the money shot. Balloon pops at about 112 000ft.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me
« on: June 30, 2018, 05:17:13 PM »
You can see 'The Wash' and the sweep of England's South East coast. This image is close to 100 000ft.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me
« on: June 30, 2018, 05:13:18 PM »
Leicester from god knows what height.....

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me
« on: June 30, 2018, 05:11:11 PM »
and airborne....~100ft?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do my eyes deceive me
« on: June 30, 2018, 05:07:47 PM »
Hi folks,

sorry for my 'absence'. I was banned for posting 'low content'......I suppose I should try to return with a bang by making my first post back some actual evidence of the RE.

The problem I had was that in moving to my new school this year I seem to have lost the original data dump for the balloon project. It was on a pendrive that was only a temporary backup. I have been in touch with my old colleague who is still in touch with several of the pupils involved in the project but he was unable to contact the main pupil who became the custodian for the original data. Schools are on holiday now so I will have to reach out via an indirect contact. I will get the pics.

In the meantime I have some lovely pics of me and the RE taken using a GoPro. Just to prove we did actually do the project. The problem of course is that the GoPro has inbuilt curvature so will not be admissable in the 'court of FE'! The Raspberry Pi pics are part of the original data set that I will hopefully retrieve shortly.

So, be patient. I am not a liar. Perhaps a little disorganised? I didn't think I would ever need the entire 6000+ photo haul in the near future. I was happy to have the GoPro pics. They are lovely and in HD.

My colleague recently put a similar balloon into near space and beat my altitude by some 5000ft to reach 117 519ft. Unfortunately only 2 of her 5 cameras worked. Both were GoPro's. I will reach out to my old contacts on the High Altitude Balloon forum and I am sure there will be plenty of offers of pics taken with a variety of cameras. It is a reasonably common hobby with many active balloonists organising several flights per year. It will not be hard to gain access to pics of the Earth with a clear curvature shown.

You are not making any sense and the liberal quotation of scientific papers is not helping.

You do not understand the relationship between observed redshift (and redshift ratio Z) which results from the doppler effect, recession velocity (z=v/c) and distance (v=Hod).

This is high school level Physics so you should not be quoting PHD level papers by the dozen until you understand this part. Your statements are complete gobblydygook and I am guessing the barage of 'science' is meant to confuse and divert. We did afterall start this thread with a very simple and acceptable thesis that the orbit of planets and moons cannot be altered without a massive exchange of energy i.e. the law of conservation of energy cannot be violated and is violated by the claimed FE motion of the Sun.

We should stick to the point and not desperately try to subvert the substantive arguments with wild injections of totally speculative science. This is classic FE nonense. Not content with inventing the FE theory against all observation and evidence FE's go on to invent whole new forces, energies and parallel universes of logic to explain the unexplainable.

However, given the total lack of posts from other readers I would say that you have won the day. Nobody passing by these posts would read beyond the second or third given the vast complexity of the arguments made. My motivation is to simplify and draw attention to the easily drawn conclusions that can be made using rock solid Physics laws. I will not be drawn in again.

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >