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 - newhorizons

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Which is right?
« on: August 21, 2019, 10:14:02 PM »
Under the discussion thread about Investigating FE Jupiter, Sandokhan wrote...

We know for sure that no aircrafts fly above 9 km, therefore the first dome must be located very close to this altitude, perhaps 10-12 km.

Yet in FE Wiki under the section about the constant speed of the Sun it states..

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

45,000ft is just over 13.7km but according to Sandokhan an aircraft cannot reach 45,000ft. He seems pretty sure of himself because we 'know for sure'. 

So which is right... ?

Flat Earth Theory / Flat Earth proof?
« on: August 15, 2019, 10:35:10 PM »
We, editors of the FEW, hope that you find the truth and erudition of these works, as so many before you have. Within these digital pages you can expect to find the scepticism and understanding needed to break free from the constraints of conventional dogmatic thinking and brave the pioneering waters of true science and learning. More specifically, you will find Flat Earth proofs conducted by Flat Earthers across the world

This seems to be a rather wordy way of saying that you (the editors of FEW) think you know better than the mainstream, conventional way of thinking that the Earth is round. Then in the next sentence we will "find Flat Earth proof'?   Has the Earth ever been proved to be flat then?  I'm not so sure the Earth has ever been proved to be flat.

Flat Earth Theory / On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!
« on: August 11, 2019, 04:43:18 PM »
Just come across the astronomy page in FE Wiki.  This starts off with:

On the topic of astronomy there is a view that, for whomever may practice it, astronomy is a pseudoscience.
Whoever wrote this has clearly got a very deluded understanding of astronomy. Far from being a 'pseudoscience' I would say that astronomy is not only one of the most popular sciences worldwide but is also one of the most accessible sciences to the public at large.

To suggest that true science can only be done through experiment is absurd. Astronomers gather their data through radiation received from the Universe as a whole and we then interpret that data to gain an understanding of physical bodies such as stars. We can gather a lot of data about the physical properties of stars for example through spectral analysis. 

I have done some proper science of my own using my own equipment. A supernova occured in a galaxy 65 million light years from Earth a few years back. Using a special filter I was able to image the spectrum of the supernova and identifiy a characteristic spectral line. Using software I was able to measure the observed wavelengh of the spectral line and then compare that to the laboratory standard wavelength.  As expected the observed wavelength was blue shifted becuase the shell of material released by the supernova was expanding at high velocity which (for a short time) was greater than the galaxies rate of recession away from us.  This was enough data to enable me to calculate the shell expansion velocity as about 5% of the speed of light.  I wrote a magazine article about it which I will be happy to attach to a further post if anyone is interested.   So how is that not an example of me doing true science using my own equipment and my own data?

Astrology is far more fitting of of the title of pseudoscience but astronomy, absolutely no way. 

Flat Earth Theory / 'Spotlight' effect
« on: August 05, 2019, 07:35:26 PM »
Under this section of FW Wiki it states the following:

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.

Same principle can be applied to an aircraft. Lets say it is flying level at 35,000ft. If seen passing through the observers zenith or overhead point, the distance between the observer and the aircraft will be as stated, 35,000ft will it not. To the pilot, situated 35,000 ft directly above the observer, the horizon is 229.3 miles away according to To the observer on the ground however, lets say they are 6ft tall, the visible horizon to them is only 3 miles away.

If RE is correct and the aircraft is flying level w.r.t the surface (constant height) then the aircraft will follow a curved path which remains parallel with the circumference of the Earth. That would mean I would have thought from the observers point of view as the angle between the aircraft and the observer changes, so it would appear to sink lower and lower in the sky until it meets the horizon. The higher the aircraft the longer it remains in the observers line of sight.

If the Earth is flat then I would suggest for a given height the aircraft would remain in view for a much longer time than it does in the real world because the path of the aircraft and the surface of the Earth would be straight, parallel lines and so in effect the aircraft would never actually reach the horizon let alone disappear below it. Only the limits of the transparency of the air would limit the visibility of the aircraft.

How long does the ISS remain visible from the same observation spot assuming it passes through the zenith?


Flat Earth Theory / Moons appearance
« on: August 03, 2019, 10:35:48 PM »

This page of FW Wiki makes for fascinating reading.  Does anyone know how much experience Rowbotham actually had in observing the Moon through telescopes himself? I have personally had the pleasure of doing so for many years using a variety of telescopes of type and size.  I cannot say that I share Rowbothams comments about how the Moon looks through telescopes. Quite the opposite in fact. No matter how many times you have seen it you can never get bored of the sight.  It lures you in and then keeps your attention for as long as you remain at the eyepiece.  Just seeing the Moon hanging there in the sky makes me want to get the telescope out and take a look.

I particularly enjoy showing others the Moon who have never looked through a telescope before.  It is true that some targets can be quite challenging for those unaccustomed to using telescopes but not the Moon. It is big and bright, and the detail that you can observe even with a small telescope at low power is breathtaking. I don't think I have ever experienced any one say ''why I see nothing but clouds and bubbles!' as the article suggests.

Flat Earth Theory / Moon diameter
« on: August 03, 2019, 03:56:09 PM »
FW Wiki quotes in several places that the Moon has a diameter of just 32 miles.  How do you figure that out given that just one of the craters on the Moon has a diameter of nearly 60 miles?  Several independent sources quote a figure of nearly 60 miles as listed below.

Flat Earth Theory / Distance/Size of Earth and Moon
« on: August 02, 2019, 03:49:21 PM »
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth

The Moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth. It is thought to be spherical due to a slight rocking back and fourth over its monthly cycle called Lunar Liberation, where more than 50% of the lunar surface can be seen over time.

Both direct quotes from FE Wiki Cosmos chapter.  As far as I can tell these are both just statements or claims. There is no published evidence included to back either of these claims up so have you got any or not?

I agree with the statement about lunar libration. I note the FW Wiki describes it as liberation. I don't know of anyone ever seizing the Moon so there is no need to liberate it!  However taking into account lunar libration you can see up to 60% of the lunar surface from Earth.

Pages: [1]