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 - spherical

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
Questions 261, 273 and 299 are absurdly pure ignorance, no answer.   There are few continents in this world, each one has its own great mountain, some very well known; Everest, K2, Namcha.  The Aconcagua was even depicted on a Disney movie about South America, the small animated airplane trying to overcome it.  Anyone that paid attention in science class remember the name Anemometer.  Christiaan Barnard the first heart transplant surgeon, had plenty of publishing on the media, impossible no one knows his name.  Just one in four knew the name "odometer" for the car's distance (not only mileage as stated, jeez...).   If some math or science questions would be there, a disaster. The test say "general information"... hmm.

Also, pay attention that ISS orbit is not circular around the North Pole, there is an orbital inclination of 51.6°, each orbit takes around 92 minutes, depending on ISS altitude.  So, how and why the ISS altitude changes its orbital time?   And, what kind of force or energy makes each orbit to advance its non circular path over the same place on FE ?  On RE it is very much simple to explain, indeed, not needing any extra energy to advance its position each orbit.

This off the center path on FE would put the orbital pivot closer to equator line, but then this circling would cover much more degrees when closer to North Pole than when closer to the edge (ice wall).  What causes this totally not circular (more an egg shape path) motion on FE ?

Observe on the second image above, how easy is to perform such orbital inclined path, just apply some angle and voilá, it will automatically advance its position above ground for each orbit, even considering the path to be a straight line over the globe, with just few corrections for altitude and direction now and then, just to keep going on the planned path.  This is why FErs want terrible to dismiss any possibility to admit the existence of satellites, it is incredible difficult (to impossible) to explain them over FE.

Below a drawing of what ISS orbit would be (without the position advancement) over FE

Air pressure does not only affect scales trivially. See the following illustration and text:


Air pressure decreases as altitude increases.

Atmospheric pressure — or barometric pressure — is simply the weight of the air at ground level. It’s a little easier to understand when you think about the concept of water pressure first. As you get deeper in water, the pressure increases. This is because as you descend, the built up weight of the water on top of you increases. In 1 foot of water, you have the weight of that foot of water pressing down on you. In 2 feet of water, you have the weight of an extra foot of water pressing on you. It’s quite logical, really.

Tom, I think you understand very well the difference between absolute and differential pressure gauges, how the absolute needs calibration (zero tara) when moved to a difference place, etc.    A Bourdon tube needs needle zero adjustment for that particular location.  A differential gauge needs not adjustment whatsoever, only the factory relationship to the needle movement to differential pressure, thus, calibration.  Most spring based mechanical scales are considered differential, being "gravity" one of the sides of the measurement element.  The force necessary to move the spring will not change based on air pressure, the mass doesn't change eight, but over a mountain the gravity will change, also changing the weight you can measure of such mass.

A regular barometer (Aneroid, Torricelly, open tube, etc) is an absolute gauge that measures the inner pressure and atmospheric pressure.

Sorry, your statement is not really correct and carries a huge misconception.  When you descend into a deeper water, the pressure of the water is not OVER you, is all around you, it does NOT make you weight heavier over any fixed regular scale, as a matter of fact, you would be lighter, your body will be less dense than the water. This is why diver workers need to use extra weight on their suits to counter effect buoyancy, in order to reach deeper water.

Unfortunately your posted drawing is not trying to represent anything else than atmospheric pressure gauge readings using an absolute air pressure sensor (barometric measurement), nothing to do with mass measurements unde different gravity.   The same changes in different mass by gravity could be exercised on Earth or the Moon (no atmosphere).   

Also, your image posted comes from this website related to atmospheric pressure, so, why you use this to try to make a reference to different mass measurement for different altitudes?  What you thought is the other way around, if only thinking about air pressure interfering with weight over a scale, more pressure around you including underwater would make you lighter, not heavier, by buoyancy effect.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 08:06:16 PM »
Here the animation of what will be the July 2nd 2019 solar eclipse... large penumbra, small umbra.
Watch and learn

Most of those things are facts taught in elementary school

Not really.   Even so, everybody at some point of academic life did in fact learn how to calculate hypotenuse from a rectangle triangle, how many from those really remember that?  Some even did learn how to calculate integrals, some became scientists or teachers, not everyone.  Most of people just went to school because there is a normal path, not because they wanted to learn. Example, all US teens at some point did learn few years of Spanish at High School, ask people around you (not Hispanic descendants, or even them) to say "this is a wonderful sunny morning" in Spanish.  All adult Americans that I know and already had a conversation about different languages, remember how to say "holla" in Spanish, nothing else.  Most of them had no interest to learn it, in their brain this learning had no future use, so they just learn enough to have the tests grades, nothing else, and immediately forgot about it.  I would guess that more than 70% of the average people hate math, biology and sciences, and now as adults none of those remember how to calculate the volume of a sphere or the factorial of 4, or the sulfuric acid chemical composition.  People are not the same, they may looks like the same, their brain, memory and inner working differ very much, and that makes a huge difference.  Square root of 3 is a simple test to ask around, make your own statistics.  Don't even try to ask about the speed of light, that would be overboard for most people.

It is statistical that 97 in 100 people have no idea about how an airplane or a bird flies.
More than 95 in 100 doesn't know the cycle of rain.
More than 95 still thinking plants and trees are the responsible for the oxygen on the planet.
More than 98 have no idea why it is hot in the summer and cold in the winter.
Less than 1% can tell you by memory the names of the chemical elements Na, Ag, Au, Cu, S.
Less than 1% heard any of the following expressions; "NPN, If-Then-Else, Sin(x), nanosecond, 50ml, v=d/t"
Less than 1% can understand how to calculate with 9.8m/s².
Less than 1% can tell you the 5 decimal digits of PI number.
Less than 5% have no idea what PI is used for.
Less than 1% can tell you the value of hypotenuse of a isosceles right triangle with sides equal to 1
Less than 1% can tell you the square root of 2 or 3
For lots of people "tangent" may be a color
Lots of people still believing in ghosts, spirits and supernatural
Less than 1% can tell you how many cubic cm into a 1 cubic meter
Very few can calculate the area of a circle     
Less than 1% knows how may pieces are in a chess game board.
Less than 1% knows what Tegucigalpa is and where it can be found, not knowing if it is a city, a lake or a fruit's name.
A very little percentage of the world's population ever entered into an airplane, much less traveled to another country.
Less than 1% knows how an air conditioned, fridge or freezer unit works.
Less than 2% knows the function of pancreas in the human body.
Very few people will know where Hydrocarbons can be found.
Very few use 10 fingers on a computer keyboard.
Very few read at least one book per year.

This is why we, humans, institucionalize schools and teachers, research and scientific development, trying to perpetuate knowledge and even improve it.
This is why there are scientists, universities, technology development, health and food improvement.

The stupid and ignorants are easy pray for any wrong information and manipulation, bad guys knows it, and use it for their own gain and profit. 
It is no surprise why most of the world's population still poor, hungry and sick.

Lots of people do not have a minimum idea where North direction is, or even read a map on paper.  Do you really expect them to have a 3D mental mechanic visualization capability to understand the universe, gravity, elliptic orbit, shadow projections, photons and radiation path and refraction, stars, space and time, etc?   They have no idea even what "elliptic" means.  They can not understand.

For those people, if you promise them "a diploma, or making part of a group" without needing to think, learn, use a calculator, study, etc, just by following you, and listening to you saying "believe me, I know it", they will follow you easy, they will pile up to share your "knowledge without efforts".  That is how humanity is behaving for thousands of years.   The worst atractors are the ones without any logical of scientific explanations, you just need to believe, and that's it.  On purpose they don't explain by numbers just to have an easy escape route in case of any contesting.  If you state your home has 2000 square feet facing north, it is better to have it right, somebody may prove you wrong and a liar.  But if you say "my home is big, facing the wind"... you can always get rid of someone trying to prove you wrong.  A nasty trick used by many crooks.

One of the best things I learn in life was that people are not the same.  If you learn something a little more than your neighbor, congratulations, but you will be along with few ones in this universe.  You can try to teach your neighbor, but don't expect that he will be capable to understand a single word you say, or worse, he may not even want to hear you.  For lots of people, the act of "thinking" hurts, it is difficult, tiresome, even boring. 

Science and experience proves that to build a bridge or a building you need to do a lot of calculations, it could not be done only by guessing and believing.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 04:49:41 PM »
Wow... the Oppolzer northern hemisphere 1900-1918 eclipses map posted on FE wiki Eclipses, as a reference to promote FE, had a hidden twin map for the South Pole (Antarctic continent) as center.  That is fantastic.  So, FE now improved, it is double-sided.  See how Australia's shape is more real. I wonder which way UA pushes it.   

Calculating here how Sun and Moon, both at 4800km altitude and 48km in diameter could promote the strange total eclipse path on  11/13/2012, changing more than 30° of latitude in a matter of few hours, considering only a small 12° of circling difference (longitude) between Sun and Moon in 24 hours See, same altitude, can only promote a straight down vertical shadow, total or partial, never angled.    July/22/2028 will have more than 40 degrees of latitude change.  FE behavior is amazing.  Someone may say the Moon is way down below the Sun, with a chaotic circling path (we don't observe that in the real world), but both Sun and Moon being 48km in diameter the projected umbra shadow will never be wider then 48km, the minimum noted all times was never smaller than 120km. 

A lot of things don't add up. FErs scientists and high knowledge specialists need urgent to define and post the right numbers.

Flat Earth Theory / Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 14, 2019, 05:48:11 PM »
Can any FEr demonstrate how the Total Solar Eclipse of July 2nd 2019 is predicted under FE map and conditions?
How the FE Moon comes under the FE Sun on that particular path?

Any spectrograph measurement, using diffraction gratings (>2000gr/mm), shows exactly the radiation solar spectrum, no matter if you think FE or RE, the Sun doesn't change.  The analysis points to Hydrogen fusion into Helium, releasing energy, no matter what.  So, FE Sun is a Hydrogen Fusion Reactor, but considering its tinny small size of only 30km in diameter, it is totally impossible to accumulate enough gas to promote such pressure and temperature necessary to ignite the fusion process. Not even considering that gravity doesn't exist in the FE world, any gas would disperse in vaccuum.   In the real universe, not even Jupiter could do it, with a diameter of 142984km, 4766 times larger diameter than the 30km FE Sun) composed with 90% hydrogen, mass equivalent to 318 Earths.  The smallest Red Dwarf star, is 80 times bigger than Jupiter, so it needs to pack another 79 Jupiters into the actual one for it to have a narrow chance to ignite fusion and become a star.  We are talking about 381000 times larger than the FE Sun.

Want to make a comparison?  Think about a 1/2" (12.7mm) small glass marble as being the FE Sun, now, 12.7mm x 381000 = 3.024 miles, that is the equivalent diameter of more than 650 city blocks put together to form a 3 miles diameter circular area (do you want me to post the calculation?), or the equivalent to 519,841,729 US school buses piled into a huge ball, and that is the smallest Red Dwarf known to be able to ignite.  Do you really think a tinny glass marble 1/2" in diameter will ignite fusion? 

US total yellow school buses in 2015/2016: 474194.  It would be necessary 1096 times the entire US school bus fleet to build such 3 miles diameter ball, just to make a small Red Dwarf ignite as a star, when compared to the size of FE Sun as a small 1/2" marble.   Think again.
A regular US school bus is 2.6m wide, 13.7m long, 3.2m high, 114m3
A 3 miles diameter ball has a volume (V=1.33*PI*R*R*R) 5.92 E+10m3

Below the solar spectrograph, with the black absortion lines showing its radiation and gases composition.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scientific proof??
« on: May 13, 2019, 07:51:03 PM »
With so many online applications and software helping to locate the next visible satellite at evening time on your exact latitude/longitude, is there anyone in this world that never saw a cruising satellite reflecting solar light, yet???  Start looking up.

Sorry Reer, you are wrong, about the Sun's altitude and viewing angle.

The FE statement for the Sun is 30 km in diameter, 3000 km in altitude.  I made no calculations whatsoever, but it seems FErs use this altitude because it is the only possibility to flat a sphere with a very far away Sun with parallel rays and have the same shadows based on the oblate spheroid model.  Also, the diameter is purely based on apparent size of view (angular size).

Then, based on your assumption, the Sun being over the ICE wall (worst case) and the observer being also over the 180° opposite ICE wall, the rectangle triangle would have a base of 20000 km and the vertical of 3000 km, what gives a (atan(3/20)) of 8.53 degrees.  This would be the lowest inclination (altitude) the Sun would appear anywhere over the FE for an observer.  Anywhere the observer or the Sun moves, the altitude will increase.   

The best possible analogy for what is 8.5° of altitude, is looking to your home front door from the curb across the street.   A regular door is about 80 inches tall, a regular city street is about 30 ft wide plus 15 ft from the curb to the door, total 45ft = 540 inches.  It would be atan(80/540) = 8.4°.

So, just walk to the curb across the street and look back to the top of your home front door, that is the lowest altitude the Sun would be anywhere over FE.

Now, thinking about apparent size.  If the FE Sun right over you will have "x" view diameter, and it is 3000 km of altitude, on that viewing experience Ice wall to Ice wall, the hypotenuse will be sqr(3000²+20000²) = 20223 km, the delta size = 3000/20223 = 0.15 or 15%.  Suppose the apparent Sun size right over you is around a US Quarter Coin, at that longest distance it will be the size of your shirt button.  That is big enough to be completely visible and shinning bright on the sky, mostly considering that (according to FE wiki) the Sun is a globe spinning, shinning in all directions, not only as a disc spotting light down, as it was said before.   Notice that according to this size and altitude, vanishing point does not make it disappear at all. It would looks like a street lamp at 150ft (50m) away.

So, where is the night sun?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polaris & Alpha Crucis visibility
« on: May 13, 2019, 04:05:45 PM »
I wonder if FErs would comment and explain my questions about Polaris and Alpha Crux visibility.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Theory/Model Request
« on: May 13, 2019, 04:00:25 PM »
Oh so are you assuming that the sun is just a big lamp or what?

Hmmm, I guess it is not a natural fusion floating device generating so much energy in a flimsy 30km diameter thing.  Even Saturn is not big and dense enough to ignite fusion.  If yes, we need to find out how it works so we could create few more on the earth's surface... can you imagine the free energy?   30km is my daily comute distance, pretty small.  It is not fission device, at such distance we would be all cooked by radiation.   

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle and Length of a pole's shadow
« on: May 13, 2019, 03:54:33 PM »
Curious as to why you chose 4pm instead of 3pm?  3pm would have a 45° elevation angle just like 9am does, but 4pm will not.

45° is already there at 9pm, why repeat?
Now, 4pm was chosen exactly for the little offset on the shadow and angle, as a "control experience" and being high enough in the sky to suffer minuscule refraction on the atmosphere.

I wonder if Tom Bishop would have time to help with the numbers.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Crisp clear horizon line
« on: May 12, 2019, 04:37:48 PM »
I've performed the experiment as well. I printed out a ship that had a hull 1/8th of an inch tall and the hull disappeared once I got far enough away.

I just performed such experiment, printed a whole ship on a letter size paper.
Taped it to a card and nailed to the middle of a tree trunk.
Walk away until I barely could see the paper (80m+) - binoculars show the whole page and ship, perfectly visible, no missing hull.
Walk towards the tree until I could see the image on paper but could not identify (30m+) - binoculars show perfect image.
Walk towards the tree until I could recognize the ship on paper (10m+), could see it entirely, no missing hull.

Repeated the experience with the card and paper touching the ground.
The views and results exactly as above.
No missing hull at anytime.

Just remember that ships on ocean sink completely under the horizon based on distance, not only hull, and the visible part has great visibility.
Also, after part or the whole ship disappears, the use of binoculars or telescopes doesn't bring it back, what eliminates any relation to the human eye acuity or optical resolution.

I don't know how familiar are you with telescopes and binoculars, I am very much. Using a telescope I can see a small Moon's crater or the beautiful Jupiter's red spot and its natural satellites, impossible at naked eye, what means, it didn't "disappear", it still there and optical apparatus could be used to still it yet, not the case of the ship's hull or the entire ship disappearing under the horizon, because in that case the curved horizon just hid the object.

I already wrote about that, the problem to use ships below the horizon, is that the reference is always a complete bad video, fuzzy, lots of mist and moisture in the middle, stabilization, etc.  Those videos are the horror in full extend for anyone involved with expensive optics.   When I see those videos I wonder what a heck this people are using? holding the camera by hand? no steady tripod? solar filter oil all over the lens? no image filters? no post-processing software to clean up the mist?   Even my first home made telescope decades ago could produce a crisp and better image.  The chosen video is on purpose, to create more discussion than answers.

Below some videos with better visibility, but lacking knowledge of "controlled experience", no "mirage", "refraction" or "optical resolution", we can still see the very narrow masts and tops all the way.

The following is a little bit better, using calculation and flashing lights from the target, what makes it easier for the geometry.

A little more good technology used in the next one.

The following uses a control reference setup (over the hill recording), great video.

Another great experiment, you can see the bottom of the building didn't just vanish due optical resolution, mirage, refraction.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle and Length of a pole's shadow
« on: May 12, 2019, 02:52:04 PM »
Read about the equinox here:

Sorry Tom, found no answer on the link to help me calculate the angles requested.

No matter very tinny refraction of the sun's light on the atmosphere, an observer in Quito will see the 9am Sun on Mar20/21 pretty close to altitude 45° at azimute 90° (totally East).

Can you pretty please dedicate few minutes and calculate the angles and shadows sizes for me?

Oh, I just realize the 9am shadow length, because the Sun is at 45° it forms an isosceles right triangle, and the shadow will be exactly the same as the height of the pole, 10m.   Am I correct Tom?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle and Length of a pole's shadow
« on: May 11, 2019, 04:41:16 PM »
A modest contribution to help Tom Bishop, I made the drawing below, based on a FE map.
I am almost able to calculate the angles, just waiting Tom numbers for confirmation.
The shadow lengths on the ground are more difficult, due FE perspective and vanishing points.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: May 11, 2019, 03:57:43 PM »
I post a similar but easier experience, a single pole on Quito Equator, and kindly request Tom Bishop to answer.
I know he is very busy, but I am sure he will be glad to answer.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map
« on: May 11, 2019, 03:48:55 PM »
Pull up Rowbotham's map. Australia is its normal size there. The map you usually see online is a globe projection.

Tom, can you please be dear and post here two easy things, according to FE map:

1) The direct physical distance from Perth to Sidney in Australia
2) The direct physical distance from Perth (AU) to Cape Town in Africa

The numbers don't need to be very precise, any 10 km error is acceptable.

Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Earth - No Boat Went Over The Horizon
« on: May 11, 2019, 03:36:12 PM »
This kind of absurd observation under no control whatsoever is the same as measuring a patient blood pressure and pulse rate during a sky diving, and assume the patient is ill due the rapid changes in the numbers.   I really don't know why people continues to assume observing a boat going down the horizon, under terrible observation will be the answer for all the questions.  On the video above there is no way to say the experience has any control, so it is totally invalid for any statements both from REs or FEs... it is ridiculous to pursue it otherwise.    One could say, it is the same as measuring the size and weight of the chicken while it runs like crazy all over the yard.  Situation like that is just to promove endless debating without any scientific repeatable results and answer, it seems it was chosen on purpose for that end.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >