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.

Topics - lookatmooninUKthenAUS

Pages: [1]
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!


Universal Acceleration (UA) is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2.

This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

Except that the acceleration due to gravity is easily measured and is not 'Universal' everywhere on the Earth's surface. The reason for these small but perfectly measurable differences is predicted by Newton's law of gravitation but not by the UA. Increases or decreases in height affect the radius to the centre of a spherical Earth and local fluctuations in the density and thickness of the Earth's crust determine the effect of mass. There are other factors (see the link 1 below). In UA such factors would not have any effect indeed the UA theory should predict acceleration to be exactly equal everywhere in the world. Data to support Newtonian gravitational theory is readily available (link 2).


2. New Scientist:
Mount Nevado HuascarĂ¡n in Peru has the lowest gravitational acceleration, at 9.7639 m/s2, while the highest is at the surface of the Arctic Ocean, at 9.8337 m/s2.

Again, the key here is that fluctuations of +/-0.1 m/s2 are easily measurable using the most basic of kit found in any classroom. Light gate timers, meter sticks, that sort of thing. So if you don't believe NASA or New Scientist or the hundreds of other institutions who measure such data and who's errors are way below the statistically significant limit, go and do the experiment yourself.

In any event, I would say that the non-uniform value for acceleration due to gravity is one of the easiest ways to argue that FE theory is inadequate as a model. Again, any FE's who have data to the contrary and who can describe their methods and the apparatus used, please post here. I would be glad to repeat the experiment to verify or refute.

An honest question to the various FE's on here. Physics comes as a package of integrated ideas, layers of logic if you will, each one built upon the last either refining it (e.g Newtonian gravitation --> Eistein's general theory) or destroying it to start again from the last universally agreed point. This is the scientific method, it is not a body of information as such, more a method of establishing the information, agreeing what is fact (stands up to repeated testing and scrutiny of empirical data) or fiction (does not stand up to scrutiny and is not repeatable).

In any argument there comes a fork in the road, a place where people deviate in their interpretation of the data (assuming they are using data). In FE theory there appears to be some acceptance that the Universe is a Physical place with laws that must be obeyed i.e. the universe has logical rules and limits. It does not claim to be a superstitious movement based on claims of faith and belief. The problem for me then is that when the rules of reason and logic are applied via mathematics and laws of Physics FE theory is not complete (I will give a very clear example in a moment). Indeed, there comes a point where FE refutes some Physics law or makes up a new phenomena that superficially explains an observation but at its root is not supported by testable science. see my thread in the Q section 'What do we know about the Sun' and 'Do my eyes deceive me' where I believe I have comprehensively shown that the 'spotlight' model for the sun simply does not agree with experience and measurement. At the tail end of those debates I arrive at the orbital motion of the Sun around the Northern Hub in concentric and fluctuating radii as proof that the solar system proposed by FE simply cannot be. On its own this is more than enough to create a crisis of logic in FE theory. My specific question then is:

Q1. How can the Sun move in concentric orbits (explaining the seasons) and still satisfy the Law of the conservation of Energy. The most basic law of the universe, one which must be obeyed and is the root of ALL logic in the realm of the scientific model. (Specifics: Moving at a constant 24hr period to satisfy night/day would require greater speed in Winter and thus the kinetic and potential energy of the system would be greater).

see the animated model and diagram summarising the situation for orbits in different seasons:

and therefor, additionally

Q2. If the sun's orbit in the summer has a smaller radii why does its period not alter as conservation of momentum demands. This would of course shorten the period of a day (which we surely can all agree does not happen). Again, this is a phenomena that any person can model. The classic classroom experiment involves rotating a pupil in a chair, the pupil is holding weights and when they hold them tight to the chest they rotate fast and when extended they rotate slowly, thus conserving momentum. This is analogous to Summer versus winter in the FE model of orbits. 

Flat Earth Theory / What does FE theory say about the sun:
« on: June 19, 2018, 06:26:51 PM »
Okay, I'm going to have another go at finding out some facts about what FE theory says about the sun.

What does FE theory say:

Q1. is the source of the Sun's energy?

Q2. about the size and shape of the Sun?

Q3. about the apparent rotation of the Sun (as shown by sun spots)?

That's enough for now. I cannot begin to form a picture in my head about FE theory until I see how it fits with the observed motion and nature of the bodies in the solar system.

Flat Earth Theory / Q. Sunset
« on: June 18, 2018, 09:21:51 PM »
The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.

This quote above is from the FE wiki.

The perspective effect would cause the already relatively small size of a flock of birds to reduce. Hence the disappearing. The sun, however, does not reduce in size in any way, it simply sinks down. Anyone who has properly watched a sunset can tell that these two effects are not comparable. The sun is not changing as it recedes. Another effect that we should see from a receding sun is the fading of the power of the sunlight. This effect is called the Inverse square law in Physics but we experience it simply as bright objects appearing dimmer the further away they are. We also do not see this occurring.

This is perhaps the most simple observation of all to help us discern which model is rational and which fantastical. It is simply not adequate or indeed sane to suggest that the sun recedes like a flock of birds. It does not match mathematical measurements and calculations, or basic observation or indeed common sense. It is total, utter nonsense in every way and needs desperate logical contortions to allow any aspect to be considered.

If any FE can shed new light (haha) on this issue, please do.

Flat Earth Theory / Do my eyes deceive me
« on: June 18, 2018, 08:29:51 AM »
A common criticism of those proposing that the Earth is round using established scientific 'theories' is that the proposer has not themselves gathered the data or done the data processing to prove the theory works.

So, 3 years ago I started a school club with the sole aim of putting a balloon into 'near space', which is defined as above 100 000ft. Last July (2017) we succeeded in our mission using a Raspberry Pi computer controlling a range of devices including an onboard camera that sent images back via radio linkup.

The images clearly showed the curvature of the earth.

There are no optical effects or aberrations that can explain the same view in every picture at almost every angle in a 360 degree vista. The field of view took in a vast swathe of England from the Wash towards London on the South East.

Care to comment?

(p.s I can provide on board footage of the myself and the team receding from view underneath the balloon using a secondary go-pro camera to prove I have not downloaded the images off the internet. I can also provide full telemetry data as well as pressure, temperature, humidity and magnetometer data.)

Pages: [1]