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 - Pinky

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
How do FE-researchers account for the limited resolution of the instruments they use?

You can measure a distance only with a certain accuracy, you measure angles only with a certain accuracy, you can measure time only with a certain accuracy, digital images have a pixel-resolution and silverhalogenide-photographies have a grain-resolution. How do you take that fact into account?

How do you design your experiments and how do you analyze your data to sidestep the problem that you cannot get a precise value?

2
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Consider Renaming the wiki
« on: May 15, 2019, 10:29:34 AM »
It is publicly editable, albeit with some checks and balances. Any reasonably established member of the forum can request an account, subject to my approval. In addition, anyone without an account can post edit suggestions in the Projects board.

Realistically, a lot of the traffic we get is from bored schoolkids who are looking to troll. Those are fairly easy to weed out from a forum, but the maintenance cost of the Wiki would go through the roof.

Over the years, we've had a large number of contributors come and go, some long-standing an active, others just making a few one-off contributions. While I readily admit that this wasn't recently the case (with the brunt of contributions coming from Tom, and occasional adjustments from me), I see no reason to rename the Wiki to reflect this temporary state.

You should really add a category-system. In the Wiki's current state it's really hard to get a comprehensive overview of FE.

As a long-time Wiki-admin, I can tell you that manually updated lists are no match for a category-system.

3
As we all know, the sun undergoes a thermonuclear process where it converts hydrogen to helium and into other elements which releases energy. How exactly can the Sun create energy on the Flat Earth?

And in that vein: Why does the spectrum of the sun contain absorption-lines that fit the emission-lines of excited atoms?

4
I'm talking about these guys
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/

What was going on there?

5
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: May 14, 2019, 08:54:30 AM »
But that also means that there must be a repulsive force that keeps satellites and celestial bodies away from FE as it moves towards them.
That would be the very same UA. Instead of complaining about how confused you are, you could simply read the Wiki page on the subject. Try to address your confusion instead of just whining about it. You'll find it very satisfying, I promise.

That Wikipage explains precisely nothing.

UA is (at least) four speculations roled into one:
- that Earth accelerates upwards (not experimentally proven)
- that some bodies accelerate upwards as well (not experimentally proven)
- that some bodies are immune to UA (not experimentally proven)
- that whatever UA is, it is influenced by mass (not experimentally proven)

That's FOUR unproven assumptions being made to explain what we see in real life.

6
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: May 13, 2019, 08:56:25 AM »
I'm researching UA at the moment, and I would like to ask for some clarification. Could anyone speak about this particular topic: "The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA."

If I understand this correctly, something is pushing the Earth upwards at 9.8 m/s2. We feel "gravity" because the Earth is being accelerated upwards. Whatever force that is, it doesn't hit us. If it did, we wouldn't feel "gravity" because we'd just be in freefall with the Earth.

But I believe I've read mentions that if you get up high enough over the Earth, that something will start pushing on you too. Am I correct to understand that this is the explanation for why the Sun, Moon, etc. do not come crashing down? They must be under the same influence of the something that the Earth is. Do I have this correct?

For a supposedly simple explanation, UA is frustratingly confusing. FE is moving upwards, pushing us humans from below, so we perceive the counter-force as gravity. And we know why we don't sink into the ground when FE comus for from below: The Pauli-principle.

But that also means that there must be a repulsive force that keeps satellites and celestial bodies away from FE as it moves towards them.

7
Flat Earth Community / Re: Extent of the "Conspiracy"
« on: May 09, 2019, 11:53:46 AM »
There is no such thing as "the official TFES-position on the conspiracy" - I am unlikely to have contradicted something that doesn't exist, although this is a question best left for philosophers.

As for citations or sources - congratulations, you successfully discovered that nobody wrote a scientific paper on a mistake you made on an online forum a few hours. Shocking.

If the existence of the conspiracy is not the official position of TFES, then why does the TFES-website state the existence of the conspiracy as a fact?

I claimed there are no examples. YOU refuted MY claim by bringing up unproven claims. I cannot prove that there are no examples, but YOU can prove that there are examples. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on YOU.

8
Flat Earth Community / Re: Extent of the "Conspiracy"
« on: May 08, 2019, 04:18:05 PM »
I'm talking about ships and planes getting lost because the RE-map is supposedly wrong. If the RE-map is wrong, how come ships and planes still find their course?
What makes you think that a specific projection of the Earth can't be used for navigation?
You said it right there. Specific. Use any other way to project a flat Earth to a spherical Earth and it no longer works because with each projection distances and angles are different.

Quote
I'm talking about satellites not being where they are supposed to be. If RE wrong, why are the satellites where RE claims they should be?
What makes you think a specific projection of the Earth can't be used for location?
Again. Specific. Use any other projection and you get a different prediction for where the satellites should be.

Quote
I'm talking about extraterrestrial radiation. How come that particle-physicists can detect stellar neutrinos coming THROUGH Earth from the direction where the Sun should be according to the RE-model?
Electromagnetic acceleration.
Neutrinos are neither electrically charged nor an electromagnetic wave. They have nothing whatsoever to do with electromagnetism.

Quote
If Earth were flat and then there would be thousands of instances each day across all of industry and research where the measurements do not match the official numbers. And yet there is not one corporation and not one scientist who complains that the official numbers are wrong.

If Earth were flat, then all the calculations based on the RE-model would be wrong and would lead to thousands of accidents and incidents every single day. How do you cover up the shape of Earth when thousands of people compare the official numbers to real-life every single day as part of their job???????
You have yet to substantiate any of this. So far, your claims rely on RET being internally inconsistent rather than "wrong". I already told you that this is (for the most part) not the case, and highlighted the fault in your reasoning. Restating your reasoning, shockingly, did not advance your point.
Define "wrong".


Quote
- The aim of the conspiracy is to control/fake information about the shape of Earth and/or space-travel.
This flies in the face of every single conspiracy proponent's claims, so I'm going to venture a guess here and say that's false. If you want to propose your own conspiracy in order to then explain how wrong it is, please refrain from doing so in the upper fora.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
"There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space."

Quote
- They do this by involving all the people that would be necessary for doing so.
Congratulations - the crux of your argument is a truism. This is getting better and better.
Well, if the conspiracy were not to involve the people they need they wouldn't be able to go about whatever they are doing, right?

Quote
- The conspiracy has successfully fooled hundreds of thousands of corporate professionals and scientists every single day for decades without any slip-up ever.
I already pointed out that slip-ups are relatively common. Once again, if you want to make up your own argument and then disprove it, I'll be asking you to take this elsewhere. Metabunk, perhaps?
Slip-ups are common? Can you point to a few?

Quote
- No member of the conspiracy has ever stepped forward and exposed them. In decades.
And now you've added a lie. Matt Boylan/Math Powerland and Thomas Baron would be very sad to hear that they never existed.
The TFES-wiki cites no source for the claim that Thomas Baron claimed that NASA is operating a fake space-program.

Quote
- Nobody has ever managed to infiltrate them or find them or identify one single person who's a member. In decades.
See above.
Again. See above. Baron's supposed report was never found and the TFES-wiki cites no evidence.

Quote
that must exist
Except for repeated claims that it may well not exist
According to the TFES-wiki it DOES exist.
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Quote
Indeed - your description of the supposed conspiracy, together with your willful misrepresentations and blatant omission of facts
All I got from you was the unproven claim that the people whose work depends on the shape of the Earth can all be fooled by a simple map-projection.
All I got from you were contradictions to the official TFES-position on the conspiracy.
All I got from you were claims without citation of sources.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Theory/Model Request
« on: May 08, 2019, 03:26:32 PM »
174*10^15 watt / 3*10^8 m/s = 58 * 10^7 N spread out over the entire surface of Earth.
Let's assume that the sunlight hits an area of pi*6000*6000 km² = 113,000,000 km²
That means, sunlight is pushing us down with roughly 58*10^7 / 113*10^6 = 5.1 N/km²
Your theory has been disproven.

Oh darn!  I thought I would be famous.  But even with the Sun much closer and focusing all its energy upon a spot area?  May be you can recalculate for millions more Newtons/km² ?

Only if we assume that the Sun shines a million times more energy to Earth.

10
Flat Earth Community / Re: Extent of the "Conspiracy"
« on: May 08, 2019, 03:06:48 PM »
This is precisely my reason for starting this thread.  We have nothing to go on.  Instead of accusing RE zealots of trying to forcefully define the extents of the conspiracy, why not properly define the extents for us?  Come on Pete, this is your prime opportunity to bring focus and understanding to this topic so we aren’t left guessing.
How exactly do you propose I'd do this? Putting to one side the fact that I'm very skeptical of any such conspiracy, you're asking me to define something that, by its very nature, is undefined. If we knew exactly who's part of any such conspiracy, it wouldn't be much of a conspiracy. It's almost as if you were fishing for bad arguments.

Au contraire. The conspiracy is actually very well defined.

- The aim of the conspiracy is to control/fake information about the shape of Earth and/or space-travel.
- They do this by involving all the people that would be necessary for doing so.
- The conspiracy has successfully fooled hundreds of thousands of corporate professionals and scientists every single day for decades without any slip-up ever.
- No member of the conspiracy has ever stepped forward and exposed them. In decades.
- No member of the conspiracy has ever lost control of sensitive information. In decades.
- Nobody has ever managed to infiltrate them or find them or identify one single person who's a member. In decades.

So, we have an all-powerful entity that must exist but you cannot prove that it exists. Funny. That sounds exactly like religion.

11
Flat Earth Community / Re: Extent of the "Conspiracy"
« on: May 08, 2019, 02:51:35 PM »
Where are the accidents that must inevitably happen when predictions made by the RE-model fail in real life?
Accidents, especially in "space" photography, are brought up relatively often. Unsurprisingly, the RE zealots are not very interested.

I'm not talking about accidents in space photography.

I'm talking about ships and planes getting lost because the RE-map is supposedly wrong. If the RE-map is wrong, how come ships and planes still find their course?
I'm talking about satellites not being where they are supposed to be. If RE wrong, why are the satellites where RE claims they should be?
I'm talking about stars and planets not being where they are supposed to be. If RE is wrong, why are planets and stars where RE claims that they should be?
I'm talking about extraterrestrial radiation. How come that particle-physicists can detect stellar neutrinos coming THROUGH Earth from the direction where the Sun should be according to the RE-model?
I'm talking about distances and angles not fitting to the official maps when a cartographer makes a new map from measurements. Why do his measurements fit to a RE-map???

If Earth were flat and then there would be thousands of instances each day across all of industry and research where the measurements do not match the official numbers. And yet there is not one corporation and not one scientist who complains that the official numbers are wrong.





If Earth were flat, then all the calculations based on the RE-model would be wrong and would lead to thousands of accidents and incidents every single day. How do you cover up the shape of Earth when thousands of people compare the official numbers to real-life every single day as part of their job???????

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: Extent of the "Conspiracy"
« on: May 08, 2019, 10:54:37 AM »
The vast majority of the groups RE zealots try to force into the conspiracy have no business being part of it. In reality, any such conspiracy would necessarily be quite small.

Being unknowingly complicit in someone's actions is not the same as being part of their group.

But if there were a conspiracy faking numbers and events, then there would be hundreds of thousands of people OUTSIDE of the conspiracy who would notice and speak up.
The telecom-corporations would start complaining that the official numbers are wrong because the satellites are in all the wrong places.
The astronomers would start complaning that the official numbers are wrong because the stars are in all the wrong places.
The particle-physicists would complain that the official numbers are wrong because the radiation is coming from all the wrong directions.
The cartographers would complain that the official numbers are wrong because the distances and angles are all wrong.
The climatologists would complain that the official numbers are wrong because the streams and currents don't fit.
The pilots and sea-captains would complain that the official numbers are wrong because locations aren't where they are supposed to be.

How come none of these people have a problem with the theoretical predictions provided by the RE-model?

Where are the accidents that must inevitably happen when predictions made by the RE-model fail in real life?

13
Flat Earth Community / Re: Extent of the "Conspiracy"
« on: May 08, 2019, 09:19:11 AM »
It has been my assumption about the “conspiracy” that it is this huge all-powerful foe which seeks to suppress flat earth reality and sustain round earth fiction.  I have come to understand from a previous thread that this couldn’t be farther from the truth.

From the Flat Earth Wiki, it states that “There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy” but “There is a Space Travel Conspiracy”.

This doesn’t provide a whole lot of information to go on, and as such I was wondering what flat earthers believe in more detail.  I’m curious as to what extent flat earthers believe the conspiracy entails, how deep, how wide.  I’m curious to know if you are skeptical of the conspiracy theory and why.

Just using Wikipedia as a reference, “As of 2018, 72 different government space agencies are in existence; 14 of those have launch capability. Six government space agencies … have full launch capabilities."   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_government_space_agencies

Provided these stats are valid, do flat earthers consider all 72 space agencies in existence part of the conspiracy, is it just the 14 that have launch capability, or is it just the 6 who have full launch capabilities?  Would countries without space agencies be considered members in the conspiracy or not?  If not, why aren't these countries calling BS on the space fakers?

The problem is, the cover-up would have to go way, way, way beyond government-agencies.
- The telecom-corporations with satellites must be in it.
- The geographers analyzing mountain and sees via satellite must be in on it.
- My very own brother would have to be in on it: He's updating real-estate maps and real-estate databases with satellite-images. He gets satellite-access every few weeks for 1 hour.
- All the scientists doing astronomy must be in on it.
- All the particle-physicists analyzing radiation coming from space must be in on it.
- All the geologists working on earthquakes must be in on it.
- All the meteoroligists and climatologists tracking the movements of ocean-currents and winds must be in on it.
- All the long-distance-pilots must be in on it.
- All long-distance sea-faring captains and navigators DATING BACK CENTURIES must be in on it. (If Earth were not a globe, Magellan and Francis Drake and the East India Company and everybody who colonized Africa would have noticed)

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Theory/Model Request
« on: May 07, 2019, 04:52:47 PM »
Brain Storming is good, it allows both FEs and REs to participate and try to help each other in the issue.

I would go for the idea of the Sun projecting "Repulsive Radiance" (RR™) towards Earth down below.

You mean the momentum of light. We already know how that works.

The dispersion-relation for photons is
energy = momentum * lightspeed

If the photon is absorbed, that's the momentum we get. If the photon is reflected back, we get twice that momentum.
You just need to know how much energy we are getting from sunlight and we can calculate the momentum.

The Earth receives 174 petawatts (PW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

174*10^15 watt / 3*10^8 m/s = 58 * 10^7 N spread out over the entire surface of Earth.

Let's assume that the sunlight hits an area of pi*6000*6000 km² = 113,000,000 km²

That means, sunlight is pushing us down with roughly 58*10^7 / 113*10^6 = 5.1 N/km²




Your theory has been disproven.

15
This is in supplement to a discussion with Sandokhan in EMS trajectory. The purpose is to provide context for my claim:

Intelligence is insufficient to deduce correct conclusions in fields beyond one’s expertise.

This is actually a very old conflict. If you look at the way education and research was historically structured in Europe, you see that until the Renaissance the emphasis of education was memorizing facts.

That shifted during the Age of Enlightenment, when the concept of "laws of nature" spread. Fact-based learning gave way to structure-based learning. It was no longer about memorizing lists of facts, but about memorizing patterns, connections and formulas.



Sadly, the misconception that intelligence means memorizing lists still exists today.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2 questions about flat earth
« on: May 07, 2019, 10:56:43 AM »
1. What would happen if you dug down, would you reach the other side? You must at some point because that would break the laws of physics by there being infinite matter.

2.
Gravity dose not exist, the earth simply accelerates up at 9.8 meters per second BUT
It would reach the speed of light, in which time stops.

1. That's irrelevant in practical terms. In reality we have dug down only a few kilometers. That's nothing. FE could be 100 km or 1000 km thick and it would be all the same to us.

2. FE reaching lightspeed is not a problem in itself.
The first big problem is that the starlight would be blueshifted because we would be moving towards the stars extremely fast. The stars shining vertically down on FE would have a larger blueshift than the stars shining on FE from the side.
The second big problem would be that FE would ram into the interstellar/interplanetary dust. That dust impacting on any matter (be it an atmosphere or a dome) causes massive particle-radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_shower_(physics)
If Earth were flat, those particles would come into the detectors at a different angle than what is observed. For example, scientists have detected stellar neutrinos coming from underground. They are byproducts of the nuclear reaction in the sun and they passed through the whole of Earth before reaching the detector. And we can tell that they must be stellar neutrinos (as e.g. opposed to neutrinos from man-made nuclear reactors on Earth) because they have a specific lepton-number ratio that cannot be produced by any natural or artificial neutrino-source on Earth.

17
Is it okay to base an argument on the numbers that he measured, even though we cannot confirm that his experiment was done correctly?

Are his numbers to be considered estimates with the caveat of a certain error of accuracy? What is our estimate for the errors of his numbers? 1%? 10% 1°? 0.1°? 5°?

Or are his experiments deemed not quantitatively correct at all (and the numbers not trustworthy) but qualitative observations that point to a basic conclusion?
In that case we should be careful, because we then don't know how trustworthy Rowbotham's conclusion is. All we would end up with would be a conclusion whose validity could rank anywhere from completely true to mostly true to mostly false to completely false. We wouldn't even know whether to trust Rowbotham's conclusion or not.

18


Let's ignore the mainstream-science explanation for crepuscular rays with light-scattering and perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays
Let us ignore that. Let's instead assume that what we see with our unaided eyes were true: That the rays emanate DIRECTLY from a light-source.



You cannot use the angles of the crepuscular rays to deduce the position of the Sun, because you don't know how far away the cloud is.

A simple experiment to demonstrate my geometric argument:
Shine a light on a wall. In front of the light hold a piece of paper, so you can see its shadow. (Or just hold a paper in front of your face and squint your eyes.) Hold the paper in such a way that a corner points up.
If you hold the paper upright, the shadow of the corner has the same angle as the corner. 90°
Now, as you tilt the paper, the angle of the shadow of the corner gets bigger and bigger than 90°, even though the corner still has 90°.



My point is: What you see in the crepuscular rays is not an upright triangle. You see a tilted triangle and you have no idea how far away the top corner is. From the crepuscular rays you could deduce the vector from the position of your eye to the position of the source of light, but you don't know where on that line the source of light is.

Now, if we were to triangulate the directions of crepuscular rays from several positions on Earth, THEN we could calculate where the top corner of the triangle is, but a single observer cannot measure the tilt of the triangle. He sees only the projection of the triangle.

Therefore, observing crepuscular rays as shown in the image above is no proof for the distance of the Sun or for Flat Earth.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Understanding the Zetetic Method
« on: May 01, 2019, 12:12:47 PM »
There is a TFES-wiki-page on zeteticism.

Zeteticism is a method of research related to the scientific method but fundamentally different from it.

In the scientific method, a biased researcher proposes an explanation, from that you derive a prediction, then you make the experiment to check whether the prediction matches reality. In the end, the proposed explanation is declared correct/incorrect based on whether or not the prediction matches to reality. The bias of the researcher becomes irrelevant, because the decision is made by the data.

In contrast, the zetetic does not propose an explanation or a prediction. In the zetetic method, the experiment gets conducted first. From the data, the biased researcher derives an explanation for what he has seen.

That is the difference between the scientific method and the zetetic method: The scientific method neutralizes the biases of the researcher, the zetetic method enhances them.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Update: Earth-Moon-Sun Trajectory equations
« on: May 01, 2019, 12:02:46 PM »
This update is in regards to a prior thread about the 3 body problem.

Summary
Prior discussion ended with a call for direct evidence of solutions to the 3 body problem, specifically to describe the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system under the central force model. Multiple references were provided, but a request was made for a synopsis which contained distilled results easily identified - rather than committing to several hundred pages of technical manuscript.

This Offering
I have procured a link to a concise summary that is intended for an upper division undergraduate physics student audience. The benefit of this approach is that it presents the nominal equations without additional theoretical applications often found in publications or research. Hence, it is my hope that this resource will prove useful for FEers who seek direct evidence that the 3 body trajectories are not only known, but reasonably simple and accessible to a scientific but not necessarily professional physicist audience.

As always, it is my pleasure to offer my time in fielding any questions you may have about this resource.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/celestial/Celestialhtml/node100.html

There is a general misconception surrounding mathematical equations. Just because it's not possible to write a function down explicitly as "f(x)=something", that does not mean that the function doesn't exist.

We can define a function via its analytic attributes without writing it down. We can for example define a function via it being the solution to a differential equation or to an integral equation. The function exists, even though we haven't written it down as "f(x)=something".

Consider for example Riemann's zeta-function. For x>1 it's possible to write it down explicitly as f(x). For x<1 it's not possible to write this function down as f(x). For x<1, the function is defined via a functional equation. (A functional is essentially a mathematical object/tool that assigns an attribute to a function.)



Just because it's not possible to write down the trajectories for a three-body-system as explicit functions, that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >