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 - Iceman2020

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Low earth orbits, vs. Sun and moon
« on: October 20, 2020, 01:07:58 PM »
Just came across this video that shows the orbital path of the ISS in both sphere and flat earth models.

***recommend muting volume so you dont have to hear the ridiculous added sound effects***

It's a pretty cool animation no matter how you look at it!

The downside is that it doesnt show day/night cycles along with the orbital path.

Curious if anyone has tried to model/visualize ISS paths with sun and moon path throughout the seasons?

Flat Earth Theory / Sunsets in EA
« on: October 16, 2020, 01:40:39 AM »
So I understand the argument for EA influencing the apparent azimuth of the sun as it sets or rises, and how it accounts for an observer on the ground seeing the clouds illuminated from below.

But for a second observer, located above the clouds, how does EA account for what both of them see? Why doesnt the second observer, above cloud deck, see the sun anymore? Does the bending of light from EA apply to both observers simultaneously?

Flat Earth Community / Pre-NASA space conspiracy
« on: September 23, 2020, 09:17:02 PM »

In the historical figures section on the wiki, a long quote is given from Winship, where he delivers a scathing review of his contemporary astronomers in 1899.

I tried reading further, but theres not a lot of discussion about the motives or reasons for the doubt of the shape of the earth and findings of astronomers until the space flight era. These more modern reasons I can totally understand. There is a valid argument that having dominance in space provides geopolitical power (the US has absolutely achieved that).

I'll stay completely out of the thread after this question, I'm just trying to understand more about the origins of the skepticism surrounding pre-NASA astronomy and the shape of the earth.

Flat Earth Theory / Gravity - measurement and applications
« on: September 09, 2020, 07:11:38 PM »
The gravity vs. Upward acceleration/ equivalency principle arguments are an interesting set of discussions. They commonly quote the constant value of 9.8 m/s2 for g. This is true enough for our every day lives.

The problem is that Earth's gravity is nowhere near that uniform once to start using more sensitive instruments in different areas - i.e. the significant digits after 9.8 become significant to the discussion. Gravitational strength varies based on a number of regional factors, like your latitude (because of the earth's rotation, you weigh very slightly less at the equator than you do at the poles, even though you're at a greater distance to the center of the earth).

Ignoring large regional effects, local variations in earth's gravity occur over as little as tens of meters! And in mapping out these changes, weve been able to discover geologic features like buried mineral deposits, oil and gas reservoirs, and buried bedrock valleys that may host large aquifers capable of supplying groundwater for large municipalities. (e.g. Greenhouse and Williams, 1986. A gravity survey of the Dundas buried valley west of Copetown, Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, v.23: 110-114 available free online)

Aside from the multi-billion dollar applications of gravity for exploration, understanding temporal variations in earth's gravity is becoming increasingly effective. The GRACE satellite system can now detect tiny changes in gravitational strength that relate to changes in water and ice storage on land on seasonal and multi-year timescales. These help measure climate change impacts and long-term over use of major aquifer systems that are causing subsidence problems in many cities (examples in California and Arizona are widespread in google searches )

How do these measured changes in local acceleration due to gravity fit within a FE framework? The UA would induce an apparent acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 uniformly across earth's plane, and the equivalency principle is really only valid for local reference frames and cannot account for these local variations.

Flat Earth Theory / Antarctic fossil finds
« on: September 09, 2020, 05:06:31 PM »
Hundreds of fossils have been recovered from various parts of Antarctica. These range from plants, sea creatures, large reptiles and dinosaurs, to coal beds. In particular, large reptile fossils (Lystrosaurus) that date back to the Triassic Period can be found across the interior of the continent, and are also found in bands across southern India, Africa, and South America. *there is an excellent page outlining lots of these on the Geological Society's website, and hundreds of images, journal articles, and news reports can be found by a quick search on google and/or researchgate.

These fossils, the wide variety of rocks which contain them, and the additional older igneous and metamorphic rocks underlying those, demonstrate that the Antarctic continent has a dynamic geologic past. They provide evidence for long-term plate tectonics, by suggesting it was once connected to parts of the other continents mentioned above, and that the climate in the area was warm enough for large reptiles to live (unlike the modern tundra environment we know today, now that it is located at the south pole).

How do these observations of fossil abundances and diversity within the rocks of the Antarctic continent fit within a flat earth framework, where the leading views (monopole model) advocate that Antarctica  is an unknown part of the earth surrounded by an ice wall with only minor rock outcrops (source:fes wiki)?

Italics added to correct an originally misquoted statement.

Flat Earth Theory / Tsunami travel times across Pacific Ocean
« on: August 23, 2020, 03:48:01 PM »
Another geology question to toss out there:

Published arrival times of tsunami waves across the Pacific Ocean appear to be consistent with distances between shores portrayed on map projections within a Round Earth framework.

When a seismic event occurs, we can triangulate its epicenter through analysis of the arrival times of the different types of seismic waves recorded at seismometers at different locations on earth. From there, arrival times of tsunami waves have historically been recorded by analysis of tide gauge data at various coastal locations around the Pacific. Tsunami waves travel at ~500 mph, depending on water depth; with the waves traveling faster in deeper water than shallow water. This causes the waves to 'pile up' when they approach shorelines, increasing their height, and leading to destruction of life and property on land.
For more detailed descriptions and sources, go to the USGS, NOAA, or BGS websites, or there are many available research papers available through Researchgate.

The image below shows two separate data sets (very crudely) plotted on a standard FE map (I had to crop out big areas to get it u der max file size for display here). The first, coloured dots, are derived from this map of travel times from a 1975 tsunami originated at Hawaii (data from The source location is shown with purple dot, 5-hour travel times in red, 10-hour times in yellow, and 15-hour times in green. I decided not to drawn lines to connect those locations (as is done in the linked map for a RE).

The second set of data shows the Chilean mega thrust earthquake of 1960. The pink lines connect the source, near Santiago, to the American coast near Los Angeles and to the Northeastern New Zealand coast. Both of these locations reported tsunami wave arrivals after 14 hours.

Can someone explain these observations?

Flat Earth Investigations / Weather balloon from Antarctica
« on: August 20, 2020, 11:12:45 PM »
Hey, I have a decent idea for a couple simple investigations that can be turned into an effective test.

First, crowd-fund a leading FE-er to take the chartered flight to the south pole, where they get to spend 5-6 days there trying around, and would have free time to conduct some basic studies (magnetic inclination and declination mapping as an example)

Second option: convince one of the many agencies operating in antarctica, that they should install a camera and livestream the ascent from any one of the dozens of weather balloon launches. This would (depending on cloud cover) effectively show the shape of the Antarctic continent, one way or the other.

Chartered trips to the south pole are just over 50k USD. I'm not sure what the costs of adding a video stream to a weather balloon launch would be.

*I am a glacial geologist who specializes in reconstruction of past glacial processes. I will not claim to be an expert in geologic knowledge beyond that. Looking to better understand the principles of FE theory as part of ongoing scientific questioning. I have many questions about FE, but many are partially addressed in the FAQ and or the wiki, so I want to address some of the shortcomings of FET, namely its avoidance of explanations of geologic phenomena. Thanks in advance for any clarifications you can provide on any of the queries below. I appreciate it!

1.     Is there an estimate of the age of the earth in flat earth hypotheses? I have not seen any. This is more a point of curiosity for me, but it would hold implications for evaluating other aspects of the theory against potential bodies empirical evidence.

2.     How are earthquakes and volcanoes explained within a flat earth paradigm? Again, more curiosity than anything, but these are major phenomena that require explanation in any worldview.

3.     Though I am admittedly skeptical of the FE model’s ability to account for changes in day/night and seasons, larger scale climate variations are not discussed within a FE framework. A very basic but fundamental question to ask would be what is the cause(s) of past ice ages and interglacials in the recent geologic past (either the last interglacial to glacial maximum from 115 000 – 25 000 years ago, or the last deglaciation from 20 000 – 12 000 years ago, or even the Medieval Warm Period and/or Little Ice Age conditions that exhibited major climate changes over large parts of the earth?

4.     Antarctica. (this will be a longer one, fair warning.) Glaciers and ice sheets are intensely complicated features, but they can be effectively simplified as large masses of frozen water that move/flow due to the influence of gravity. I will grant that they could move under the influence of any force that exhibits a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s2 (i.e. UA explanation offered in the FE wiki), given our inability to differentiate those two possibilities within a closed reference frame. The problem lies in glacier mechanics and mass balance, but we don’t need to go into detail; simply put, glaciers flow ‘downhill’ melting or calving into the sea at their downstream end. For a glacier/ice sheet to survive over millennia, mass must be added in the upflow regions in the form of precipitation.

a.     If Antarctica is just a wall of ice (and mountains?) that rims the earth, as depicted in the more common FE maps and theories, where are they flowing from? That is, where is ice being added to the wall of ice to counteract the melting and calving observed along the margins of Antarctica?

b.     If mass is being added upflow, that would mean it is being added closer to the edge of the disk. The downward acceleration that drives glacier motion (either gravity or UA, as discussed above), would also cause the ice sheet to flow not only towards the inner part of the disk, where it meets the oceans, but also towards to outer parts of the disk (the mechanism here is the same for all large ice sheets and ice caps, Greenland ice sheet would be the best analogue). If this is true, then ice would eventually flow either off the edge of the earth (which is likely no happening, because this would cause rapid acceleration of the ice flow velocity, initiating broad ice streams that would effectively ‘steal’ ice from the catchment areas flowing towards the oceans within the disk (google ice stream piracy, or check out a paper by Matthew Bennett, 2003: ice streams as the arteries of an ice sheet).

c.     Many people have been to Antarctica, including several personal friends of mine (these are limited to cruises and research missions that visited the margins of the continent). I have seen videos and hundreds of photos of the different stages of the trip. I have personally been offered a position to visit the continent as part of a graduate field course, but I was unable to make it work because of financial and time constraints. Many other people have flown to (and in some cases, skied to) the south pole. There is a permanent research station at the south pole, and many past travelers have documents their experience in detail. There is a 24-hour live stream offered by the US Antarctic program – you can check sunrise and set times and compare them to predictions made by round earth (though, technically, there’s just 6 months of daylight followed by 6 months of darkness, but the angle of the sun in the sky/glow beneath the spring and fall will be informative in developing/evaluating theories). You can even apply to be a volunteer and work on different research bases in Antarctica! 😊

d.     How do the transantarctic Mountains and the nearly 100 documented volcanoes fit within the icewall paradigm of flat earth (this assumes the monopole version that appears to be more commonly promoted as opposed to the dipole version which was advocated following increased Antarctic exploration in the early 1900’s, according to the FE wiki). In the round earth paradigm, these mountains form a significant topographic divide which helps promote the divergence of flow at the interior of the ice sheet outward in both directions to the east Antarctic and west Antarctic ice sheets.

e.     How does liquid water get to the base of the Antarctic ice sheet? And why does it flow towards the oceans? If the ice was simply a wall that holds the oceans in place, as promoted by FE, any documented water should be flowing from the oceans, beneath the ice, towards the interior of the ice sheet/outwards towards the edge of the disk, however far that may be. This flow should be controlled by differences in hydraulic head (think pressure) from sea level to the base of the Antarctic ice sheet, which is in many areas 800 - 1500 m below sea level, even along its margins. If the ice was holding the oceans on the surface of the disk, there would be a head differential promoting water flow outward toward the disk margins, rather than from the ice into the oceans.

Pages: [1]