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 - rabinoz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 68  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Based on what?
« on: December 07, 2018, 03:13:31 AM »
The distance to the sun and moon are still based in the classic methods. Nothing has changed. When we look to see how the distance to the sun and moon were computed we find the methods described in the book.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Venus radar tests and lunar laser ranging tests were funded by NASA, and we have discussed them before.
You cannot justify dismissing something simply because NASA funded JPL for the first confirmed radar return from Venus. Read SP-4218 To See the Unseen - Chapter Two - Fickle Venus.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Wiki and the Sun.
« on: December 07, 2018, 02:59:15 AM »
Was that a proton-proton chain reaction? As I am aware, the "brief fusion" processes that have been claimed were quite different.

Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.
What is the reliance of that to the question of flat earth vs. Globe earth?

I will suggest you re-read the thread. It was claimed that we know how the sun works and can recreate its processes in the lab.
I did not claim that we can or cannot "recreate its processes in the lab". All I claim is that recreating the processes in the lab is quite irrelevant "to the question of flat earth vs. Globe earth".

So my question stands.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Wiki and the Sun.
« on: December 06, 2018, 08:39:24 PM »
Was that a proton-proton chain reaction? As I am aware, the "brief fusion" processes that have been claimed were quite different.

Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.
What is the reliance of that to the question of flat earth vs. Globe earth?

But back earlier you claimed:
Stellar Fusion is entirely hypothetical. No one has recreated it in a lab.
So why can't I claim that UA "is entirely hypothetical? No one has recreated it in a lab".
You might object by claiming that UA too extensive to "recreate in a lab" involves the whole Flat Earth Universe but Stellar Fusion is claimed to involve dimensions far exceeding the Flat Earth Universe.

And why can't I claim that the source of the almost infinite energy UA requires "is entirely hypothetical? No one has recreated it in a lab".
You might object by claiming that it too extensive to "recreate in a lab" and I would give the same answer.

Though in the end, your answer will be that Flat Earth Theory is young and has no resources but Flat Earth Theory is not young and was the accepted by the ancient Sumerians, Babylonians and Greeks.
They had similar models that worked "fairly well" even explaining sunrises and sunsets, solar and lunar eclipses and the seasons due to what was then thought to be the tilt of the sun's orbit around the earth.
This was one of the earliest documented "cosmologies":
Quote
Cosmos, Anaximander

Anaximander of Miletus (c.610-c.545 BC), a pre-Socratic philosopher, was a contemporary of Thales and was one of the first ‘cosmologists’ (i.e. one who attempted to explain the origin and form of the Universe).
Anaximander was quite a productive philosopher as he made maps of the known world, offered explanations for the origin of the Sun, Moon and stars, and even performed simple experiments such as marking the solstices and equinoxes on sundials.

The cosmological model he proposed was a ring of fire surrounding the Earth, that was hidden from view except through vents.
The stars were the light of this fire that could be seen through the openings. This model could also explain the phases of the Moon: its phase depended on how wide or narrow the vent covering was.

Anaximander’s model of the Universe. The Sun, the Moon and each of the stars is
actually a transparent ring – or hoop – made of air. Each ring is filled with fire
which we can only see when the hole in that particular ring passes over us.


Anaximander described the Earth as rounded and circular with two plane surfaces (not necessarily a flat disk, more like a cylinder or ‘stone pillar’), which was suspended freely in space. It stays where it is because it is equidistant from everything else in the Universe. Above the Earth were (in order) the other planets, the stars, the Moon and finally the Sun. The components of the Universe were supposed to have formed as rings that were shed from a fiery sphere that once surrounded the Earth.

Anaximander's model of the flat earth, as with most others of his day, did quite reasonably sunrises and sunsets etc, yet it was discarded - I wonder why.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do sunsets work?
« on: December 06, 2018, 03:22:38 AM »
I am not talking about that glow on the outside of the sun in the 12 o'clock image. The sun is inconsistently bright.
What do you mean by "The sun is inconsistently bright"?
The corona might be extremely hot but it is so tenuous that it radiates little visible light.
But, even if it cannot yet be explained, why is it any evidence against the Heliocentric Solar System?

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do sunsets work?
« on: December 05, 2018, 12:37:15 PM »
Dr. Brooks says that it is an unsolved mystery that doesn't make sense under the theories of the RET sun.

Will you show that he is wrong and that it does make sense?

Or, will you continue to present unsolved mystery as fact that we need to disprove?
I fail to see any connection between the photos of the sun and any mystery about the temperature of the sun's corona.
No-one here is a solar expert but there is plenty written on the topic, such as:
      Why is the Sun's atmosphere hotter than its surface?
      Strong Evidence For Coronal Heating Theory Presented at 2015 TESS Meeting
And "science" is quite prepared to say that many things are not yet solved.
On coronial heating, there are hypotheses which explain it, but to my limited knowledge, none that could be called "the theory" as yet but I could easily be wrong.

But in the end, this has nothing to do with the topic, which is "How do sunsets work?"
I posted a few photos as evidence that the sun's angular size does not change from solar noon to sunset, apart from some slight reduction in height.
That does not fit with any flat earth explanation of sunsets.
The sharpness of the sun's image does not seem to fit with any explanations in "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset".

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do sunsets work?
« on: December 05, 2018, 12:09:06 PM »
I do believe that is the sun. I am asking why the outer edges of the sun are significantly dimmer than the center of the sun like a projection on a movie screen.

Here was the image that was posted:



The duller "outer edge" in that photo is not the sun but just flare in the atmosphere and not removed by the "welding glass" filter being used.

Photos earlier in the day don't show that and neither does one through early morning mist (my photo):
 
June 30, 2018 06:43 Elev 2.0° Azm 64°

And a time lapse video using a high grade solar filter also shows much cleaner edges:

25 June - Time lapse of the Sun - with a visible sunspot.




7
That map appears to suggest that the Antarctic coast was only partially explored.
It was only partly explored at that time because lots of pack-ice got in the way of the land but the perimeter of that was mapped at least approximately - its position changes.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do sunsets work?
« on: December 04, 2018, 09:37:49 PM »
If you feel that it isn't clear, feel free to help rewrite it to make a better distinction between the actual sun and the visible sun.
Sorry to be so late posting this, but maybe you could explain why there is any "distinction between the actual sun and the visible sun" other than some slight refraction when the sun appears on the horizon?

I do tend to believe what I see, unless given a good reason why that is incorrect and sunsets I see look like this:

Sun near setting at Weipa
               

Sunset at Weipa
Not only that but the apparent size of the setting sun is the same as when overhead apart from a slight reduction in height:

The real sun[/i] certainly appears to move across the sky without changing in size as in these photos taken from a video made by Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) shown  at a number of times of day from 12:00 PM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.

Here are three afternoon ones from his video and they do an excellent job of showing that the sun size does not change!
   

9
On the accuracy of pre-satellite navigation, I am just reading Scott's account of the 1901-2 Antarctic expedition, and comparing the coordinates he gives against Google. The expedition knew exactly where it was, all the time.

I am just at the part where they reach what they call "The Great Ice Barrier", now called the Ross Ice Shelf.
Yeah, I would like to obtain a copy of that.

Name the work please.
This is not Scott's own account but does contain the most southerly point reached:
Quote
The Story of RRS Discovery
Southern Journey

On November 2nd 1902 Scott, Wilson and Shackleton set off to cross the Great Ice Barrier and explore the frozen desert beyond. With them were nineteen dogs pulling five sledges laden with 1,853 lbs of supplies and equipment. On November 25th they had passed latitude 80º south, charting new lands and features every day. But there was a heavy price to pay. One by one the under-nourished dogs began to die. The men too were beginning to suffer dreadfully. They carried on until December 30th, when, at latitude 82º 17’, they reluctantly turned for home. Shackleton was in the advanced stages of scurvy, incapacitated and coughing up blood through his congested throat. Against near impossible odds they arrived back at Discovery on February 3rd 1903. They had trudged over 950 miles in 93 days, travelling further south than any man before them.

By December 1903 there was 20 miles of ice between Discovery and the open sea with no apparent way out. On January 4th 1904 two relief ships arrived, Morning and Terra Nova. Finally, on February 16th controlled explosions were used to blow Discovery free from her icy prison and the expedition headed for home.

Landfall was made at Spithead on September 10th 1904 to a rapturous reception. Scott was acclaimed as a national hero and awarded numerous honours.

And here is a 1906 map of Antarctica:
Quote
Maps Owje: ANTARCTICA MAP 1906

Inset maps of Cape Town, Cape of Good Hope, Magalhaes Strait, Hobart, Port Elizabeth. Source: Justhus Perthes

I wonder why they forgot that Antarctica was a ring continent around the earth.

10
To answer the original question, the idea that a flat earth map could be produced that someone could navigate by is an impossibility.

Have you assessed all possible layouts, continental configurations, jet stream paths, navigational assumptions, to make that statement?
Not necessary. Take four points reasonably far apart from each other, then measure the six distances between them. Geometry will do the rest. If earth is not flat, the distances between these points will not be consistent with the distances calculated on the assumption it is flat.
That's true but few flat-earthers will accept those distances as accurate. That is why so many try to estimate distances from aircraft flight times.
This from an earlier post and uses great circle distances:
For example take the international airports at Johannesburg (JNB), Dubai (DBX), Beijing (PEK) and Sydney (SYD).
The nominal distances between these airports (from Great Circle Mapper) is:
   
DBX
   
PEK
   
SYD
JNB
   
6,390 km
   
11,699 km
   
11,045 km
DBX
   
xxx
   
5,857 km
   
12,039 km
PEK
   
xxx
   
xxx
   
8,934 km

Now if we take the Johannesburg (JNB) to Sydney (Syd) flight (11,119 km) as a baseline we can use
      the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to DXB and JNB to DXB to calculate the location of Dubai, relative to Johannesburg and Sydney and use
      the routes JNB to SYD, JNB to PEK and SYD to PEK to calculate the location of Beijing, relative to Johannesburg and Sydney.
Then the distance from Dubai to Beijing can be calculated or scaled off a diagram - I did both.

This shown here:

JNB-DBX-PEK-SYD Flat Air Routes
This distance from Dubai to Beijing is 7,608 km calculated in Excel.
But the actual air route distance from Dubai to Beijing is not 7,608 km but 5,857 km.
So these flight distances do not fit on any flat surface.

Now the distances I have used are just the nominal distances and real flight distances would all be a little longer.

Some other kind person might like to go to the trouble of looking up actual flights on FlightRadar24 or FlightAware, QANTAS QFA64, JNB to SYD

11
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
My point is the map is flat.
And everyone else's point is that your map might be flat but it is not a flat-earth map.

Quote from: totallackey
Have you ever undertaken a long journey by road to a place you have never been to before? If so did you use a map?
Yes and yes.

And on that journey, the map I utilized was flat and the ground upon which I traversed was also (aside from mountains, hills, valleys, and dales) flat.
Sure your map might be flat but is it a flat-earth map? Yes or no!

Quote from: totallackey
Why is it millions of people every day, long distance drivers for example, complete their journeys using roads that were surveyed using conventional maps. All the evidence points to them working.

What you would have to do is supply actual evidence to the contrary.
I have no evidence to the contrary that maps work.

They do for most areas of the flat earth.
Please show me a flat-earth map that is accurate "for most areas of the flat earth" because I know that the Ice-Wall grossly distorts the shapes of countries south of the equator

The left hand map is and 1855 one from surveys prior to that time and the one on the right is Australia as on "Gleason's 1892" map:

Map of Australia 1855
           
1892 - Gleason's Map Scaled - Australia
The dimensions scaled off the 1855 map are very close to the current dimensions from Google Earth, etc.

I live in Australia and I know which is NOT anywhere near the correct shape!

Now look at the areas of the USA and Australia on the usual FE map:

1892-new-standard-map-of-the-world

Compare the true sizes of Australia and the United States:
Quote
Australia's Size Compared
Australia is the planet's sixth largest country after Russia, Canada, China, the USA, and Brazil. At 7,692,024 km2.

Note that the area of the contiguous United States is 8,080,464 km2, a little larger than the area of Australia yet, on that flat-earth map, Australia looks at least twice the area of the United States.

Now, if perchance, I have chosen the incorrect map for the flat earth, please show us the correct one.

12
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?
« on: December 04, 2018, 06:52:59 AM »
I will relent a make some comments on the hypothesised dark matter and dark energy. Neither has the the slightest significance within the Solar system.


Noh, indeed: Wikipedia says, that there is Dark Matter. But with matter (tables, insects, flowers) comes force, which drives and changes it.
Wikipedia does NOT say, "that there is Dark Matter". What Wikipedia does say is:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Dark matter
Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe, and about a quarter of its total energy density.
Dark Matter is hypothesised to cause "gravitational force" but it has such a low density (approximately 1 proton-mass for every 3 ccs), that it has no effect on the earth's rotation!

Quote from: Jeffrey P Filippini
DARK MATTER IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM
Dark matter should have gravitational effects on the planets orbits and on space probes, but we are so far unable to detect them.
This is not surprising, however, because they are hidden by bigger effects: the gravitational pulls of the sun and planets are much, much larger.
The average density of dark matter near the solar system is approximately 1 proton-mass for every 3 cubic centimeters, which is roughly 6x10-28 kg/cm3. The actual density might be a little lower or higher, but this is the right order of magnitude.
Based on this number, we can work out the total mass of dark matter within the radius of Earth's orbit around the sun: for an orbital radius of 100 million km, we get a total of 2.3x1012 kg of dark matter within the Earth's orbit.
This sounds like a lot, but the sun's mass is 2x1030 kg. All of that dark matter only weighs 10-18 as much as the sun does, so we cannot detect the tiny pull of dark matter upon the Earth's orbit.
The same story is true all over the solar system: the gravitational pulls of the sun and planets are always much larger than that of the dark matter.
Jeffrey Filippini
Particle Cosmology Group
University of California - Berkeley

Quote from: Astrophysics-
However, the Dark Force might not be introduced, if the Flat Earth model is used.
The is no Dark Force even postulated. I do wish that you would read what is written in your sources and not what you wished was in there.
Dark Energy is a name given to whatever drives the apparently accelerated expanding Universe but that is totally insignificant within thousands of light years of here.

All these things are well known to anyone claiming any connection with Astronomy or Astrophysics so why are you not familiar with these matters?

13
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?
« on: December 04, 2018, 05:46:39 AM »
the bullets could be considered subject to the "force of gravitation" which is balanced by the "centripetal acceleration" from the curve of the orbit.

But, I have a question for you: Do you accept Newton Laws and/or Einstein's General Relativity as being at least locally correct?
It is indifferent what I am and what I think:
It's you I'm asking and if you can't answer such a direct question I'm not going to take the time to bother with your claims.

Quote from: Astrophysics
I am facing the Absolute Truth (He is beutiful!).
Well, what is this "Absolute Truth"?
If you have the "Absolute Truth" what is the point if all these questions and claims? Just present this "Absolute Truth" and stop all this time wasting.

Quote from: Astrophysics
But I have papers in European P J B and Physical Review.
So what? You were the one that posted the video "Is Most Published Research Wrong?" so unless I see your papers why should I believe that they are not wrong too.

Quote from: Astrophysics
The Newton First Law speakes about forces, not about (fictional) inertial forces. Thus, for Newton free falling cabin of spaceship has no inertial frame in it.
Pseudo-forces are still forces that can be measured and cause acceleration.

Quote from: Astrophysics
But reread my post, I have changed it drastically.
I spent a lot of time answering it the first time.
You refuse to answer my direct questions so I fail to see why I should spend more time especially with one who claims "Absolute Truth".

14
Do you think that each of those companies each independently created rocket technology from scratch?
No, but much of the development was done in the USA, by Goddard, and in Germany,  long before NASA

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Is it possible for a company to register more than one business name?
That's quite irrelevant.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Do you think that the government doesn't care about letting the knowledge to build ICBM delivery systems out in the open for all to have?
Don't you agree that it is quite possible for countries to develop their own rocket technologies? NASA were not the first to:
  • successfully launch a satellite,
  • have a man orbit the earth,
  • hard land on the moon,
  • fly-by the moon or
  • soft land successfully on the Moon
So stop pretending that the US Government and NASA has any control over the rest of the world.
Would NASA have control over the China National Space Administration (CNSA), the National Aerospace Development Administration of North Korea (DPRK NADA) or the Iranian Space Agency?
I don't think so. NASA is the largest agency but remember that it is also the National Aeronautics Administration with responsibility in that area too.
You Americans don't run the world!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Do you think that the Mexican Space Agency is a real space agency, or do you think that they contract with NASA contractors?
That's quite irrelevant.

But your attempt to prove that NASA controls everything to do with space seems to verify that your think a worldwide conspiracy is involved.
I don't believe that NASA has this level of control and that believe that no such conspiracy is possible.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using a telescope to see across the planet,
« on: December 04, 2018, 02:09:16 AM »
Hi, so I have a question, if the earth is flat why can I not stand on Australia and with a telescope see the uk? Hypertheticaly speaking there is no mountain ranges or natural barriers in the way. If your theory was correct then this would be possible
Even through the cleanest air there is quite finite visibility distance.
Hence, whether the earth is flat or not you see more than a few hundred kilometres due to the Scattering of light in the air.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Visibility
In extremely clean air in Arctic or mountainous areas, the visibility can be up to 160 km (100 miles) where there are large markers such as mountains or high ridges. However, visibility is often reduced somewhat by air pollution and high humidity.

Visibility distance is of vital importance for aircraft pilots and this article treats that side: Introduction to atmospheric visibility estimation by Alec Bennett

16
NASA is on trial. It is up to the public to decide on guilt. I've cast my vote. Many of those videos and exhibits are not reasonably explained.
And yet you are in the tiny minority with this view. That doesn’t make you wrong of course but while a troubling %age of people believe the moon landings were faked I don’t think many people believe that the whole of space travel is. If the evidence is as clear as you claim why is your belief not more common?

Quote
I do not believe that I am engaging in a conspiracy theory any more than the jurors on the spy case thought they were engaging in a conspiracy theory.

You have a theory that a lot of people are conspiring to fake space travel. I really don’t know what else to call it.
There are 72 government space agencies, 14 with launch capability and numerous private spaceflight companies, many with orbital capability.
If they are claimed to all fake space missions I would assert that has to involve belief in a huge conspiracy.

Quote from: Wikipedia
List of government space agencies
As of 2018, 72 different government space agencies are in existence; 14 of those have launch capability. Six government space agencies—the China National Space Administration (CNSA), the European Space Agency (ESA), the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Russian Federal Space Agency (RFSA or Roscosmos)—have full launch capabilities; these include the ability to launch and recover multiple satellites, deploy cryogenic rocket engines and operate extraterrestrial probes.
And in here is a List of private spaceflight companies, many with orbital capability and some with interplanetary capability.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic aspect of FET
« on: December 03, 2018, 09:59:07 PM »
I did many trips across the Pacific from Southern California to China and Japan.  The biPolar map would make that trip interesting.  It would be interesting to see how the waypoints could be laid out for that trip.  We never did see any walls at sea or anything that looked like an edge even after diverting all over the place to avoid getting into typhoons at sea.
That sounds like the "Space/non-Space" explanation in Leo Ferrari's video "In Search of the Edge":

Flat Earth - In search of the edge (1990 Documentary)
Take particlar note of:
  • "light curved by mass makes the earth look a sphere from space" at 14:31
  • "Space/non-Space"  at 20:30
  • "Cows in Antarctica" at 20:35
There's a bit on Leo Ferrari in the Wiki: Leo Ferrari

18
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?
« on: December 03, 2018, 09:39:16 PM »

I'm waiting for your answers to my questions!

But as to: "Is gravity a force? Newton - yes, Einstein - no."
Not quite there is no real difference in the end result under low velocity (<< c) and low mass (even near the sun the deviation is almost immeasurably small).
And the reason for that is because Einstein, having noted that "Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system", designed GR that way.
You know the subjects very well. What are your questions? If gravity is a force, then bullets are not free. Therefore, they are not subject to Newton first law. Do you follow?
Your OP stated:
Consider in your imagination three bullets, which fly on a ring orbit around the Sun.
That depends on how you want to view these bullets.
If the observer is in a "local sun-centred inertial reference frame" the bullets could be considered subject to the "force of gravitation" which is balanced by the "centripetal acceleration" from the curve of the orbit.
Quote
Newton's First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. It may be seen as a statement about inertia, that objects will remain in their state of motion unless a force acts to change the motion.
So the observer in this Inertial Reference Frame sees the bullets follow a curved (accelerating) path because they are subject to a force.

But if you travel with a bullet you will simply be in "free-fall" (as Newtonian Mechanics would describe it) or "following a geodesic in spacetime" (as general Relativity would describe it).
The end result is exactly the same and in most cases, Newtonian Mechanics is by far the simpler way to analyse the problem.
Newtonian Mechanics can be used for most orbital calculations, though NASA's spacecraft trajectory calculation programs have the option is using GR if requested.
But all earlier spacecraft trajectory calculations were done using Newtonian Mechanics and initially with no more assistance than a mechanical calculator.
Take a look at: She Was a Computer When Computers Wore Skirts - no GR for any of those early missions.

If you want to try your hand a GR for the "simple case" of a small body (planet, bullet or artificial satellite) moving in the vicinity of a large spherical body (sun or earth) read up on it in:
         Spherically-symmetric solutions in general relativity, Do Young Kim, Anthony N. Lasenb and Michael P. Hobson
or     Determination Of Newtonian Gravitation From The Schwarzschild Spacetime Within The Region Of Spherical Geometry by Okpara, P. A., et al.
But please don't ask me to explain any of it - it's way out of my league.

Please excuse any imperfection in my explanations as I'm certainly no physicist or mathematician.

But, I have a question for you: Do you accept Newton Laws and/or Einstein's General Relativity as being at least locally correct?



19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic aspect of FET
« on: December 03, 2018, 08:51:07 PM »
The idea that Antarctica has to be inaccessible under FET is a weird thing that so many REers insist on criticising even when it's a totally unnecessary part of a model. Honestly I blame that for why it's stuck around so much; people end up needing to invest so much time and energy into defending it from some of the bad arguments levelled against it that it's psychologically near-impossible to recognise the valid objections in among the messes.

The classic FET response would be twofold; there are two entities being confused here. One is the edge of the Earth, the ice wall, the icy limit of where it is we can go. The second is an icy landmass chosen to put stations on, perhaps simply because it's believed to be the Antarctica referred to by RET, or perhaps out of an active attempt to mislead. That can be crossed, circumnavigated, etc etc, no problem. The only thing that's really testable is the magnetic south pole, which isn't even claimed to be on the land itself. The former is the 'actual' South Pole, the latter is merely what RET claims is such.

Then there are those like me that see no reason to suppose both poles cannot exist as distinct points on a flat world.
I would note in respect to your last point, even the (previously stated) most 'up-to-date' model of the FE endorsed by TFES has Antarctica as its own continent. The idea is in the wiki under the 'bi-polar' model. It might have other issues at various locations, but Antarctica is not one of them.
Might I suggest that flights from Australia or New Zealand to Hawaii of the USA might have problems on any continental layout with a break down the International Dateline or the Equator.
One such example would be Air New Zealand flight NZ10 from Aukland to Honolulu:

The Bi-polar Model reflects the work of many Zeteticists
who diverged from Rowbotham's work
         
Playback of Air New Zealand flight NZ10 on 01 Dec 2018 (Aukland to Honolulu)
That flight is claimed to take just over 8 hours and there is no way a Boeing 777 could fly from Aukland to Honolulu in that time by any other route.

That continental layout would also seem to make a human-powered equatorial circumnavigation as this  Kickass Trip undertaken by Mike Horn.

But rather than Kickass Trips they should be called You've Gotta be Mad Trips!.
Quote
Kickass Trips, Latitude Zero: Mike Horn’s Horizontal Solo Circumnavigation of the Globe at the Equator
Mike Horn is a South-African born Swiss explorer and adventurer who gained world fame in 2001 after completing a solo journey around the equator without motorized transport.



After Ranulph Fiennes’ ‘vertical’ crossing of the world along longitude zero – aka the Greenwich Meridian – in his Transglobe expedition in 1982, Mike Horn accomplished the first ‘horizontal’ crossing of the world at Latitude zero – aka the Equator in 2001.

The 35-year-old South-African crossed the Atlantic Ocean, South America, the Pacific Ocean, the Indonesian islands, The Indian Ocean and Africa. All by him­self, walking, rowing, sailing, biking, through jun­gles and tem­pests, through marshes and deserts. He left in June 1999 and came back to where he had started, one year and a half later. He had gone round the world fol­lowing the equator.
Quote from: Mike Horn
“When I left, I thought I knew enough to go round the world this way. Now that I am back, I know that I don’t know enough to start again.”

Read about the six stages, with the hair-raising photos in the link above.

Wherever a "break" in the Globe is made to "flatten it out" there will be numerous air-routes and circumnavigations crossing that line.
That makes Rowbotham's North Pole centred "Ice-Wall" layout so "ingenious". Back in his time no-one had crossed Antarctica and even now there are no commercial air-routes that cross it.

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Just three bullets?
« on: December 03, 2018, 11:34:33 AM »
All you have done is to make baseless claims that to me seemed quite incorrect then refused to answer my requests for elucidation.
So either you back up your claims or we're done.
Is gravity a force? Newton - yes, Einstein - no.
I'm waiting for your answers to my questions!

But as to: "Is gravity a force? Newton - yes, Einstein - no."
Not quite there is no real difference in the end result under low velocity (<< c) and low mass (even near the sun the deviation is almost immeasurably small).
And the reason for that is because Einstein, having noted that "Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system", designed GR that way.

In Einstein's GR, mass (and energy) cause spacetime to curve. Objects in "free fall" (subject to no forces) follow what are known as geodesics in spacetime.
Objects prevented from following a geodesic in spacetime, such as resting on a table or supported by a rope, experience an inertial force comparable to, say, centripetal force.

So in Einstein's GR gravitation can still be looked on as "being a force".
But instead of simply being mass attracts mass, GR asserts that mass causes spacetime to curve and the force results from preventing an object from following this curvature.

There's a lot more that could be said but it should be pointed out that spacetime can be broken up into spacelike and timelike components.
The curvature in our region of space is extremely small (parts in 109) but that is enough to explain gravity.

Forces that result from being in a non-inertial frame of reference, such as centrifugal force or the force felt when in an accelerating vehicle, are commonly known as pseudo-forces because they are due to the FOR we are in. But they are certainly real forces to the object or person experiencing them.

But there is no reason to use GR in any calculations you or I are likely to do - within the Solar System it is only needed when extreme accuracy is needed.

<< Add explanation re non-inertial frame of reference. >>

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 68  Next >