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 - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 22, 2019, 09:17:26 PM »
This thread has all but derailed to a discussion of semantics.

To get back on track, here's my thought on step one:

Start from scratch.  Don't use any existing map, flat or round, to make a FE map. 

As is stated repeatedly by the FE community, a FE map does not exist.

Many members of the FE community believe that there is a map. Many claim there is no map but use a map to accurately navigate the earth on a day to day basis.



I have the impression the FE community is happy with the maps they already have and there is a lack of interest in making new ones. I'll admit the disc map with the north pole in the center looks pretty.

I have the impression the FE community largely disagrees on the map.

Right, and for all intents and purposes, the point of this thread was to 'maybe' come up with a way to create The Flat Earth map that represents The Flat Earth and also represents reality. And that starting assumption is that there is no The Flat Earth map. Whether true or false, that is the starting assumption. So, given that, how might one start to measure an area of land from a flat earth perspective. Can we use existing spherical measurements from Geodesy and flatten them out? I don't know. Do we have to march across land and physically survey from a flat earth perspective? I don't know. These are the questions. 

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 22, 2019, 04:11:13 PM »



Reporter: "When your supporters last week were chanting "send her back" why didn't you stop them? Why didn't you ask them to stop saying that?"
Trump: "Well, number one, I think I did. I started speaking very quickly"

Have another look at the video. As they start chanting "send her back" he stands there silently, smugly drinking it in for a full 13 seconds.
He only starts to speak again when they stop. So yes, the part in bold is a lie. He did nothing to stop them chanting it. He didn't egg them on either (although it was his Tweets which stirred them up), he just stood there and let it happen.
He didn't lie.

He stated, "I think I did."

I am sure you also have stated you "I think I did," when in fact you hadn't.

This doesn't appear to be, "I started speaking very quickly"


3
Flat Earth Community / Re: Is this 'cover' for the 'story'?
« on: July 21, 2019, 02:09:46 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.

An ordinance doesn't have a pilot nor onboard flight controls.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 09:30:04 PM »
Dr. Croca closes the above cited paper with this (the paragraph after the one you cited above about velocities greater than c):

"As a final note, I would like to stress that these observed facts in any way deny the usefulness of relativity. Relativity is a good approach to describe reality at its proper scale of applicability. What is quite wrong is to claim that relativity is the last, the complete and final theory ever devised by mankind."

So he's not saying relativity is falsified. He's saying it isn't the last theory on the matter. Who wouldn't agree with that? Literally no one.

It sounds like he gave up and is admitting that SR cannot explain why some of its defining postulates are violated in experiment.

He is somehow suggesting that SR only applies to the 'proper scale' of explaining the Michelson-Morley, Airy's Failure, and other motionless earth experiments, but does not apply to the laboratory experiments which show that the speed of light is c +/- v.

Back to the drawing board!

That's quite the interpretation on your part that he "gave up". I don't think you're in a position to make such a claim.

What laboratory experiments show that the speed of light is c +/- v? I'm not seeing that in Wang's 2004 Generalized Sagnac Effect paper.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 09:11:00 PM »
That's the same person. Dr. Bennett holds a Ph.D. in Physics and agrees that the experimental evidence for Heliocentrism is insufficient.

I would submit that scientists follow the experiments to their conclusions, and that pseudoscientists do not, however.

I don't know why you guys are dancing around it. It says right here by Dr. Croca:

Quote
In the book Unified Field Mechanics II we find a paper by Physicist José R. Croca, Ph.D. (bio), where we see:

  “  Since the realization of this experiment, which has been done with photons [25], electrons [26] and neutrons [27], many trials have been made to interpret the observed results seen, for instance, Selleri [28]. Indeed, Sagnac utilized the habitual linear additive rule and with that he was able to correctly predict the observed results. Still, since his prediction lead to velocities greater than c and consequently are against relativity which claims that the maximal possible velocity is c this raised a large amount of arguing. In fact, many authors tried to explain the results of the experiment in the framework of relativity which assumed that the maximal possible velocity is c. As can be seen in the literature, there are almost as many explanations as the authors that have tried to explain the results in the framework of relativity. In some cases the same author [29] presents even more than one possible explanation. The complexity of the problem stems mainly from the fact that the experiment is done in a rotating platform. In such case, there may occur a possible accelerating effect leading the explanation of the experiment to fall in the framework of general relativity.

This controversy, whether Sagnac experiment is against or in accordance with relativity, was settled recently by R. Wang et al. [30] with a very interesting experimental setup they called linear Sagac interferometer. In this case the platform is still, what moves is a single mode optical fiber coil, Fig. 12.



They did the experiment with a 50 meter length linear interferometer with wheels of 30 cm. The observed relative phase shift difference for the two beams of light following in opposite directions along the optical fiber was indeed dependent only on the length of the interferometer and consequently independent of the angular velocity of the wheels. From the experimental results obtained with the linear Sagnac interferometer one is lead to conclude that in this particular case the linear additive rule applies. Consequently we may have velocities greater than c, which clearly shows that relativity is not adequate to describe this specific physical process. ”

Dr. Croca closes the above cited paper with this (the paragraph after the one you cited above about velocities greater than c):

"As a final note, I would like to stress that these observed facts in any way deny the usefulness of relativity. Relativity is a good approach to describe reality at its proper scale of applicability. What is quite wrong is to claim that relativity is the last, the complete and final theory ever devised by mankind."

So he's not saying relativity is falsified. He's saying it isn't the last theory on the matter. Who wouldn't agree with that? Literally no one.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 19, 2019, 07:00:48 AM »
Quote
Incorrect. That experiment was to determine if the aether is a background medium of space which light flows through.

Kindly read the article. The experiment is merely measuring the velocity of light. Aether is just a medium for light like ripples in water.

Quote
Morley wrote to his father that the purpose of the experiment was “to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions.”

Quote
https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/ (Archive)

Michelson–Morley experiment is best yet

  “ Physicists in Germany have performed the most precise Michelson-Morley experiment to date, confirming that the speed of light is the same in all directions. The experiment, which involves rotating two optical cavities, is about 10 times more precise than previous experiments – and a hundred million times more precise than Michelson and Morley’s 1887 measurement. ”

The purpose is to measure the speed of light in different directions.

MMX was more than just about measuring the velocity of light.

Dorothy Michelson Livingston, Michelson's daughter, describes the experiment in The Master of Light (University of Chicago Press, 1979), her biography of her father. The following is excerpted from her book:

"In April 1887, Morely wrote his father that he and Michelson had begun a new experiment, the purpose of which was "to see if light travels with the same velocity in all directions." They also hoped to learn from the experiment the speed of the Earth in orbit and in movement with the solar system; whether the ether was moving or stationary; and, most important to Michelson, some clear proof of the ether's actual existence, with which to confront skeptics.”

https://www.the-scientist.com/books-etc/michelson-morley-the-great-failure-63642

From:

On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether  (1887)
by Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley

"On the undulatory theory, according to Fresnel, first, the ether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media, in which secondly, it is supposed to move with a velocity less than the velocity of the medium in the ratio, where n is the index of refraction. These two hypotheses give a complete and satisfactory explanation of aberration. The second hypothesis, notwithstanding its seeming improbability, must be considered as fully proved, first, by the celebrated experiment of Fizeau,[2] and secondly, by the ample confirmation of our own work.[3] The experimental trial of the first hypothesis forms the subject of the present paper."

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 18, 2019, 11:59:32 PM »
Great on the English lesson. But the problem is without me doing that you still don’t get it. I’m afraid you never will.

Oh no. I understand you. I just disagree. This is where we are different.  You don't understand the point that both Pete and I have made.

I could be wrong, but I don't think you and Pete are actually saying the same thing. Feel free to correct my thinking.

Half of me thinks you’re just playing a game. And that’s fine. Carry on.

All of me thinks that you are playing a game. You have done things like demanding arbitrary lines be drawn on static images, looking at an image or map and saying the earth is round based on assumptions, repeated "DOES NOT COUNT" claims,  refusing to answer a simple yes or no question, and making erroneous grammar corrections.

No one has demanded anything from you. Unless you possess a distinct absence of free will and self control, it's entirely up to you how you would like to engage and participate.

A yes or no answer sometimes requires that the terms and intent of the question are understood by both parties. For instance:

Have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no is required.


8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 18, 2019, 10:21:25 PM »
by literal definition they aren't 'flat earth' maps.
That's not true. By definition, they are projections of the Earth. You (and possibly the authors of some maps, notably excluding the "azimuthal equidistant projection") assume that the original shape of the Earth is your favourite shape.

Saying that the Earth is round because it is round is not gonna help us here.

I’m not sure I’m following. Are you saying that google, for example, is assuming that earth is a globe and therefore they use a globe projection for their maps?

If so, which is actually a fair statement, I think that is different than what iam has been trying to convey.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 18, 2019, 08:43:35 PM »
Maybe this is a semantics thing, idk. But the sentence to me should read:
If you project the earth (of a specific shape) onto a flat plane map then the flat plane map represents the earth (of that specific shape).



I had my friend's sister who is an English major look at this sentence:


If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat map then that flat map represents the Globe earth as a flat map


She said that saying globe and flat multiple times is repetitive and should not be done.

If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat map then that map represents the earth.

Great on the English lesson. But the problem is without me doing that you still don’t get it. I’m afraid you never will. Half of me thinks you’re just playing a game. And that’s fine. Carry on.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 18, 2019, 08:02:31 PM »
That's not true. By definition, they are projections of the Earth. You (and possibly the authors of some maps, notably excluding the "azimuthal equidistant projection") assume that the original shape of the Earth is your favourite shape.

Saying that the Earth is round because it is round is not gonna help us here.

I agree and this is the same point that i'm making. Even in the RE model there are like multiple shapes the earth could be such as a sphere, spheroid, oblate spheroid, globe etc.


People constantly look at something, such as a 2d map which is widely accepted as a map of the earth, and proudly proclaim EARTH IS A SPHERE! What about a spheroid? What about an oblate spheroid? What about some other shape?



Fixed it for you:

If you project a Sphere Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Sphere Earth on a flat plane.
If you project a globe Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the globe Earth on a flat plane.
If you project a spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the spheroid Earth on a flat plane.
If you project an oblate spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the oblate spheroid Earth on a flat plane.


You didn't fix anything. I had basically said the exact same thing here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=15083.msg196532#msg196532

The shape of the earth is still moot.

If you project the earth (of any shape) onto a flat plane map then the flat plane map represents the earth (of any shape).

Maybe this is a semantics thing, idk. But the sentence to me should read:

If you project the earth (of a specific shape) onto a flat plane map then the flat plane map represents the earth (of that specific shape).

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Earth Stands Fast
« on: July 18, 2019, 07:20:01 AM »
Why should anything need to keep the fixed stars spinning? If there is microgravity in space then the system or 'firmament' can be kept rotating for the same reason that a fidget spinner would spin essentially forever in space.

Seems reasonable. However, does FET have knowledge of any microgravity in space? And if so how?

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 17, 2019, 10:21:58 PM »
If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat plane map then that flat plane map represents the earth as a flat plane. Isn't that the whole point?

Yes you can represent a sphere on a plane using different techniques, but the fact that an object is represented on a plane, doesn't make it a representation of a plane.

The map is a plane, that much is clear. But the map can't be representing a plane and a sphere at the same time. I think you are confusing two things: what the map IS geometrically (a plane) and what the map REPRESENTS (a sphere).

Let's go step by step:
1. IF you project a Globe Earth onto a flat plane map THEN the Flat plane map is  projection of a globe. Correct?
2. IF a flat plane map is a projection of a globe, THEN the flat plane map represents a globe in a plane. Correct?
3. IF the flat plane map represents a globe THEN the flat plane map does not represent a plane. Correct?
If you project the Earth of any shape onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth (regardless of it's shape) as a flat plane. It's shape agnostic.

Incorrect and you are entirely, after all this time, completely missing the core of what a cartographic 'projection' is. Gerardus Mercator is spinning in his grave right now.

Let me give you some examples:

If you project a Sphere Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.
If you project a globe Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.
If you project a spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.
If you project an oblate spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Earth as a flat plane.

Fixed it for you:

If you project a Sphere Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the Sphere Earth on a flat plane.
If you project a globe Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the globe Earth on a flat plane.
If you project a spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the spheroid Earth on a flat plane.
If you project an oblate spheroid Earth onto a flat plane map then the flat plane represents the oblate spheroid Earth on a flat plane.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 17, 2019, 08:01:46 PM »
I want to be crystal clear here.
When you use 'FE', do you mean the royal FE? As in The Flat Earth, the belief that the earth is actually flat and not spherical?

Ex., Yes = Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps as they do not represent The Flat Earth, aka 'FE', which is defined as the earth being actually flat and not spherical.

I'm so sorry. I'm not trying to be rude here. I'm just trying to figure out if you answer is a yes or a no?

I can't answer your question without you answering my question first.


Bing maps does NOT represent the earth as a flat plane.  It represents a globe that is projected onto a flat plane.  Do you see and understand the difference?

And, as stack said. In one word.  Yes.

If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat plane map then that flat plane map represents the earth as a flat plane. Isn't that the whole point?

You're still shaving around the edges. The correct phrasing of the statement should be:

"If you project a Globe Earth onto a flat map then that flat map represents the Globe earth as a flat map, maintaining a Globe Earth coordinate system and Globe Earth measurements/distances. It is not a map of The Flat Earth, the earth shape where some believe the physical shape of the Earth is flat, not spherical. It is a map of the Globe/Spherical earth that has been projected on to a flattened surface for ease of use and transport."

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 17, 2019, 05:23:55 AM »
How very adult of you.

About as adult as ignoring a simple yes or no question.

It's not a yes or no question.

This is, very clearly, a yes or no question:

Do the Bing maps, which represent the earth as a flat plane, not count as FE maps because the map website says they are based on a globe projection?

Yes =Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps
No = Bing maps do count as FE maps

I want to be crystal clear here.
When you use 'FE', do you mean the royal FE? As in The Flat Earth, the belief that the earth is actually flat and not spherical?

Ex., Yes = Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps as they do not represent The Flat Earth, aka 'FE', which is defined as the earth being actually flat and not spherical.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 17, 2019, 01:45:21 AM »
I'm not following. It's lame for Microsoft to state that their Bing Map system is based upon a spherical Earth; with a spherical Earth coordinate system and spherical Earth measurements/distances?

Stack,

you refused to answer a simple yes or no question. so I will refuse to answer your question.

How very adult of you.

It's not a yes or no question. Here's a dialogue I made up as an example:

Question, it appears that according to many in the FE community there isn't an accurate, usable FE map. How should we go about actually making one?

Flat Earther: There is an FE map. It's called Bing Map. It's flat and I can zoom in and out of it.

Globe Earther: Actually, according to Microsoft and their documentation their Bing Map system is based upon a spherical Earth; with a spherical Earth coordinate system and spherical Earth measurements/distances.

Flat Earther: What are you saying, that the Bing Map DOES NOT COUNT as an FE map?!?!

Globe Earther: I'm just saying that it would be weird and ironic for an FEr to say that Bing is an FE map when clearly Microsoft says it is not. I mean it is a 'flat' Earth map, as opposed to the 3D Globe it represents in 2D, but it's not a map of The Flat Earth. You know, that thing where people believe the earth is actually flat and not spherical...

Flat Earther
: Well that's lame, you could say DOES NOT COUNT about anything!

Globe Earther: Well I suppose you could, but I'm not saying it, Microsoft is, about their own map system. And the entire purpose of the question, "How should we go about actually making one? (an FE Map)" is because apparently there is no Flat Earth map that anyone seems to know of that is either not at all accurate with reality or is not based upon a Globe Earth. If you know of a map that is both accurate with reality and is not based upon a Globe Earth, lay it on us. Job done.

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 16, 2019, 11:31:26 PM »
You seem confused - the scientific definition of the equinox , which I quoted , is taken from the timeanddate website . The two instances when the earth tilt is not angled toward or away from the sun , six months apart .
And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night . All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees .

The fact is these days of equal day/night are increasingly farther apart for corresponding N-S latitudes  . Now refraction , scientific term form for abracadabra, is given as an attempt to explain this . But where is this magic effect at solstice . No refraction at solstice  !!  No waffle required .
       So solstice days fit the heliocentric model nicely , however you can't fit equinoxes within the heliocentric model without waffle .
The reason I use time and date is that those sunrise/set times are not theory , they are direct observation , or reality .

Wikipedia is another site with a well known aversion to reality so I tend to ignore that .
No confusion on my part. Your definition of an equinox in terms of earth tilt I entirely agree with. But you then follow up with "And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night". No, no, no. You are just making this assertion, this hasn't come from any scientific description of equinox. You seem quite fond of time & date as a source for accurate and reliable information, so let me quote from them:
Quote
Even if the name suggests it and it is widely accepted, it is not entirely true that day and night are exactly equal on the equinox.
And I've already given you a link to a full explanation as to why this is the case and as markjo has pointed out you are confusing equliux with equinox.

I make no assertion. What you refer to as my assertion is in the scientific dictionary description of equinox .
https://www.britannica.com/science/equinox-astronomy
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/equinox

You can find more if you wish . 

This is equinox according to heliocentrism - do you not know the model you defend ?

Equinox is a prediction of the heliocentric model which fails in reality hence the waffle required

Can you perhaps be more clear exactly what you are arguing here? Because it seems like we are all saying the same thing. From your equinox definition link:

the time when the sun crosses the plane of the earth's equator, making night and day of approximately equal length all over the earth and occurring about March 21 (vernal equinox or spring equinox) and September 22 (autumnal equinox).

Seems like a reasonable definition.


17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 16, 2019, 08:59:15 PM »
does not count

This is what i'm saying is lame. It's lame for someone to say a map does not count just like it's lame for someone to say a southern hemisphere flight does not count.

I'm not following. It's lame for Microsoft to state that their Bing Map system is based upon a spherical Earth; with a spherical Earth coordinate system and spherical Earth measurements/distances?

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 16, 2019, 08:12:19 AM »


That does not answer my question. A simple yes or no would suffice. Do the Bing maps, which represent the earth as a flat plane, not count as FE maps because you believe they are based on a globe projection?

Yes =Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps
No = Bing maps do count as FE maps

You seem to be the only one who can answer their own questions. So ask yourself why this topic exists.


Was that a yes or a no?


I'll ask again because i'm not sure what the answer is.

Do the Bing maps, which represent the earth as a flat plane, not count as FE maps because you believe they are based on a globe projection?


Yes =Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps
No = Bing maps do count as FE maps

My beliefs have never played a role in this discussion.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 16, 2019, 01:44:45 AM »
The same logic doesn't apply because we are talking about 3D versus 2D.

A quick glance around shows that i'm in a 3D room in a 3D state in a 3D country on a 3D planet so the same logic does apply.



Ask yourself what the question is that's being asked in the OP and why.

That does not answer my question. A simple yes or no would suffice. Do the Bing maps, which represent the earth as a flat plane, not count as FE maps because you believe they are based on a globe projection?

Yes =Bing maps DO NOT COUNT as FE maps
No = Bing maps do count as FE maps

You seem to be the only one who can answer their own questions. So ask yourself why this topic exists.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 16, 2019, 12:38:25 AM »
Yes, you have explained and documented this before. And from that thread, your explanation and documentation mystified everyone else. But maybe we're just all daft. But essentially the same conceptual problems you have with the common FE AE map/model are the same problems you should have with an 'FE' Bing style map/model.

FE AE map/model: Distances are all out of whack especially in the southern hemisphere. Would it make a difference if it were 'interactive'? No
'FE' Bing style map/model: Distances are all out of whack especially when traveling east or west off the map. Would it make a difference if it were 'interactive'? No

You can't travel off of the bing map. I've sent screenshots to demonstrate how you can travel east and wind up where you started as well as travel west and wind up where you started without traveling off of the edge of anything.  The map is interactive.

Hmmm, maybe I am just incapable of conveying what I think I am trying to convey. Entirely possible.

If you look at a map of Texas and drive outside of the Texas border does the edge of the map represent the end of all existence? no it does not.

We are not talking about a map of Texas, we are talking about a map of the world.

The same logic applies to a RE model. You can't take a flat 2d static image of a globe and demonstrate these kinds of flights. You can do it with a globe because the globe is interactive and can spin.

Refusing to accept an interactive map and FORCING the use of a static not interactive image to represent a planet which is not static is the same as me doing this to you:

Draw a line on this static image of the round earth model which demonstrates a flight from San Francisco to Tokyo:

One line in the unedited image below. If you can't draw such a line the earth can't possibly be a globe!!!


The same logic doesn't apply because we are talking about 3D versus 2D.

these interactive maps you've referenced are globe

Ok. I got it. You believe they are globe maps. I've known that for some time now.

I never uttered the words, "does not count".

 So you are saying that, even though you believe they are globe maps, they do count as FE maps?

Because if you are saying that these maps "DO NOT COUNT" as FE maps because you believe they are globe maps then my original statement stands

Ask yourself what the question is that's being asked in the OP and why.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 53  Next >