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 - Bikini Polaris

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 09, 2021, 08:21:36 AM »
These theories were created to explain why the Earth seems to be horizontally motionless and accelerating upwards.

If this plane is going upwards at a speed which is, hands waving, ginormous, how's that we are not hit by debris from space at an equally ginormous speed? Or how's that we aren't leaving behind nearby planets?

2
I have a math/physics degree, and my research is on mathematical modelling.

Ask me anything.

If we start believing we are simulated like in the Matrix movie, can we also believe that the simulating matrix is simulated? And if we does so, is it turtles all the way down? Or it must stop at some point?

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Happiest Thought
« on: April 07, 2021, 10:15:54 PM »
It is my understanding that UA plays along with SR. Gravity is a force in UA, like gravity from stars and planets, but that's very faint. UA states the surface we are on has a negligible gravity due to mass and the rest is just acceleration from an undefined force, which keeps pushing this "special" plane since the dawn of time. But on other planets, like Mars, gravity works as Einstein says.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 28, 2020, 02:19:06 PM »
Even if this case goes your way, it's not enough to overturn the result.  You need the Biblical KRAKEN!  (Just in case you are confused, the Kraken isn't from the bible.)

His plan is/was to make the recounts pass the States deadline so to let the Governors decide the winner by themselves, not having the final final final vote number, and then winning by having Republican Governors voting for him (against their citizens will). It looks crazy but Trump is quite used to these kind of Law tricks when dealing with real estate; for him it's just business as usual.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lake Minnewanka
« on: September 22, 2020, 10:33:00 AM »
Videos showing the convexity of water should account for refraction, providing information about temperature and humidity all over the filmed area. I don't want to be demanding, but in some cases refraction can be a real deal, allowing to light to travel in non-straight paths. In the video it is possible that refraction made the boat disappear.

6
The clip shows the sun for the entire ascension of the balloon, but isn't the spotlight effect supposed to create a light to dark moment? Is there a computation on the height where this transition should happen? As far as I understand at some point a weather balloon going up should stop seeing a bright sun.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning effect on flat earth
« on: September 04, 2020, 11:42:50 PM »
In the wiki I cannot find the supposed behavior of draining water in FE. Is it possible that in a (impossibly) perfectly symmetric sink there would not be any vortex in FE? Are there effects, like celestial gravity or some underground vibration acting as tie breakers in that case? I'm asking from the modelling perspective.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The elevation of Polaris. Yes, I read the Wiki
« on: September 02, 2020, 02:19:12 PM »
My guess is that it could explain away Polaris as well.

Not sure about this. The observation that any model need to be account for is that sailors travelling in a straight line (presumably with some physical constraint, not only with a compass) see Polaris always at the same height. Same for planes.This cannot be explained by some FE maps, even adding a light bending effect.

9
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Weather balloon from Antarctica
« on: August 22, 2020, 01:53:30 PM »
If FEs could manage a common Weather Balloon project, and they could agree on a protocol that denies any possible data tampering from space agencies, I believe that the first object to be studied would be the Sun. Since  Zetetic measurements say the Sun is just 3000 miles above us, my impression is that it's not required a great height for witnessing it just circling above the FE, without any perceived/illusory sunrise and sunset. Equinox days would be perfect for such measurements.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy is a Pseudoscience
« on: August 18, 2020, 11:06:49 PM »
I found that in your forum https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

I don't like the wiki approach as any definition of "Science" must find a social consensus, i.e. in the end "Scientists" is just a group of people sharing values. Within that group, Astronomy is surely accepted. So what the wiki should say is that the scientific approach to Astronomy is not zetetic and that it should be called pseudo-zeteticism. I mean, the two groups, scientists and zeteticists, should make their vocabulary distinct.

11
Hi Bikini,

Thanks for posting that link. Apologies for not noticing that while reading through things prior to posting my original questions here.

I dont want to get into arguments over what's right or wrong about the views, just better understand them... so I'll just ask for further elaboration - is there an estimate of the thickness of the planetary disk?

The explanations given for volcanoes and earthquakes (upon a cursory read) are very similar to the RE view. The obvious difference is that theres no core in the flat earth frame work... so where is the heat generated from, and what kinds of thicknesses of crust/mantle etc are we dealing with? How do the hotspots discussed in that article move, i.e. the way the Hawaiian islands formed in a RE view is that there is a stationary hotspot beneath the crust due to mantle convection. The pacific tectonic plate is migrating westward overtop of the hot spot, so a chain of islands developed gradually, with the oldest island occurring in the west, where volcanism is now mostly dormant, and the youngest in the east, with very active modern volcanic because it still overlies the hotspot.

Thanks for any additional clarification you can provide, its appreciated.

Let me premise that I'm a cognitive RE, I.e. I actually do see the frontal curvature of Earth when I look at the sharply cut horizon on the sea and I actually perceive the rotation of stars above us at night (if I stare long enough). So I'm probably very bad at FET.

IMO what you ask is still unknown in any FET. The source of the incredible underground forces is a mystery and contributions would be greatly appreciated in the wiki.

12
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.

That's here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes, I discovered that when discussing about tectonic plates here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16109.0. Hopefully I can summarize that in FET propositions like "South America and Africa fit like a jigsaw puzzle" is just a falsity and that yes, below the ground something is going on that creates Volcanoes but we really don't know what and how. I invite you to see the interesting discussion that played out there!



13
Flat Earth Projects / Re: FAQ Improvements - 'Spotlight Sun'
« on: July 11, 2020, 03:26:13 PM »
I don't see anything wrong with that question, and eliminating it is probably impossible... it will just be substituted by another one.

14
Flat Earth Projects / Re: The Atlantic Split
« on: July 06, 2020, 04:08:00 PM »
How would the Sun move in this model?

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: July 05, 2020, 11:58:02 AM »
Your response of "could be an illusion...." says nothing about what is and is not the simplest explanation. In fact, you are adding more complexities to justify your position.

In addition to what iampc posted, I've posted some more information here on the topic: https://wiki.tfes.org/Distances_in_the_South

I believe that proposing at least two different models, where longitude lines can either diverge or converge, shows that FE explaination is not very simple.

16
The OP paper is a very silly strawman argument, just proving that a flat earth could just not be in a certain way, decided by the authors themselves. But it really gets wrong when they say:

"The mediƦval style of the title of the present paper is intended as an allusion to the Middle Ages which, followed by the Renaissance, symbolizes the struggle between ignorance and enlightenment",

because during the middle ages they were well aware about the roundness of Earth.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 16, 2020, 01:59:17 PM »
But a traveller on a spaceship that is constantly accelerating at g toward a, let's say ten light years afar, star will reach it quicker than the speed of light,  according *on the spaceship clock*, so it's indirectly a travel faster than the speed of light.
That has nothing go do with speed, and everything to do with spacetime.

Yeah. My point is that if something is above us and it's not "universally accelerated", or accelerated at less than 1 g upwards, we will arrive there pretty quickly (and we would crash with the incredible kinetic energy that we now have). That's the main problem an accelerating spaceship travelling the universe would have (after solving the energy problem etc...).

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration
« on: June 12, 2020, 05:57:23 PM »
After some thought it's even worst, on a flat horizon we should see the shape of very distant mountains, those mountains whose sight, on FE, is hidden behind a "fog", now would come up again as a shadow. So an oval with the shadow of distant mountains.

Agreed, if such a bend was happening we would see the Sun like an oval, not a disk, at sunset or sunrise.

That's what see at sunrise and sunset . Do some research .

Prove me wrong with a pic?

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Electromagnetic Acceleration
« on: June 12, 2020, 02:47:32 PM »
What ACTUALLY causes light to curve in such a drastic way??
Although there are factors to take into account, like refraction and such, light does not bend as much as it is shown: https://wiki.tfes.org/images/b/bf/Electromagnetic_Accelerator.gif

Agreed, if such a bend was happening we would see the Sun like an oval, not a disk, at sunset or sunrise.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 12, 2020, 09:28:46 AM »
The frame of reference is absolutely crucial. If you believe it to be irrelevant, simply choose your favourite one. I'll give you a hint, there are three FoR's that are worth considering here: a local observer standing atop the Earth, a local observer located immediately above the Earth who is initally at rest relative to the Earth, and an external inertial observer.

I said it's irrelevant because for an internal observer, the observed speed is zero (like it would be for an astronaut sitting on an accelerating spaceship) and, on the other hand, UA excludes the possibility of talking about "external" observers, let's say someone just below the place where an energy becomes acceleration, or someone outside the ice wall. UA is silent on the current knowledge of what is outside, but it doesn't deny it's existence, because it assumes that there is an energy the converts into movement in a direction.

If I'm accelerated in a direction and nothing is stopping me, I will acquire speed.
Correct, but entirely irrelevant. The magnitude of that speed is the key point here, not the fact that it's increasing. Specifically, your claim that "the flat surface we would be on is now travelling upwards at quite a fast speed (incredibly greater than the speed of light)" contradicts basic physics. You cannot identify a frame of reference in which the Earth is moving faster than c without contradicting Special Relativity. As was the case previously, I suggest that throwing physics out the window is not the best way for you to defend RET.

Special Relativiy is safe, because what you cannot do is *measure* a speed faster than light in any frame of reference. But a traveller on a spaceship that is constantly accelerating at g toward a, let's say ten light years afar, star will reach it quicker than the speed of light,  according *on the spaceship clock*, so it's indirectly a travel faster than the speed of light. The important difference with a travel that would really contradict SR is that the clocks on departure and destination will have run normally, that is faster than the spaceship clocks, and for them the spaceship has never went faster than the speed of light. But again, my main point is that the energy poured by the spaceship engines *must go somewhere*.

because you're not in a different system S' but you are on S
If you're on S, your speed relative to S is 0m/s, and the speed of S relative to you is 0m/s. That's significantly lower than c.

I'm referring to the whole system S, unknown-form-of-energy+earth-surface+the-visible-sky.

Summing up, I do understand that the whole UA describes the known universe as the inside of a spaceship, but still it doesn't rule out that fact that an energy is converting into acceleration in a direction. And this has, as a consequence, that we would *really* be on some sort of spaceship!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >