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 - RhesusVX

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 24, 2020, 05:12:42 PM »

You repeatedly say things along the lines of "Until something is adequately proven (for, to, and by yourself), you should continue to remember that it is speculation at best.".  Now clearly there are things in this world that are easier to prove by yourself than others.  Some things are so trivial and have been proven so many times by countless others that it's safe to take those as solid fact.  Equally, there are things in this world that are almost impossible to prove by yourself with current technology and capabilities.  The thing is though, a constant questioning of anything you can't see or touch or otherwise prove to yourself just creates a world in which everything conforms to your own narrative and interpretation of physical laws.

The obvious one here is space travel and getting to the Moon.  You are unlikely in your lifetime to have the opportunity to adequately observe/experience this for yourself, so what would it take to give you adequate proof?  China have just launched a mission to retrieve lunar material and bring it back to Earth.  It's a man-made vehicle, travelling through the vacuum of space, using Newtons laws of motion to get it there and back.  If this mission succeeds, will it just be considered yet another science fiction movie created by China's space program?

Regarding the "infinite partial vacuum of space", are you able to explain to us, in simple terms, why the 2nd law of thermodynamics and gas law are broken?  What kind of system do you consider the universe that we live in?  Open, closed or isolated?  Some say it's neither because by definition the universe is everything.  Others talk about the entire universe being isolated, but our observable universe being open.  I'm intrigued as to your thoughts on this.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 23, 2020, 08:20:03 PM »
The 200 mile visibility is pretty much consistent with what you'd expect on a round Earth.

This is a different figure than distance to the horizon, but hope springs eternal! In any case, "begging the question" / circular logic is a crummy way to investigate anything.  The general format goes like this, and is to be identified and discarded/avoided wherever you see it : If the earth is round, I expect to see "something". I see "something", therefore the earth is round.  This is circular logic, and is shamefully embarrassing to scientists and children alike!

There could also be refraction effects that cause the light to track with the surface of the Earth for a few miles making it appear you can see even further.

Not for you, no.  Your faith REQUIRES you to believe (and profess, disearnestly, that you KNOW) that refraction is the reason we see too far.  It is a dogma of your faith, and no dissent is permitted.  The more objective (scientific) of us can indulge and pursue alternative explanations - but not you and the rest of the "educated" - no.  For you, there is merely the repeated mantra of "refraction" to keep the bad/inconvenient data at bay.

Perhaps I should have worded things differently rather than use "round Earth" because there's no circular logic in my statement, just merely stating what's consistent with what we broadly measure here on Earth when you factor in, yes, known refraction coefficients and the known dimensions of our water-laden rock.  Looking out over a long distance from any given altitude, the only reasons we stop seeing things are:
  • Our own visual acuity and ability to resolve something
  • Atmospheric distortion/refraction
  • Particulates/pollution
  • Something getting in the way, like a curved surface
The use of telescopes and binoculars etc. helps with the visual acuity bit, but even those aren't going to help after a point even on the best of days.  So what point is that?  It either has to be light bending out of our sight due to EA or refraction, or the object is physically being blocked by something - that something being curvature (with curvature based on a number of other observations in nature, not just one).

I have some experimental experience with light and refraction and how it behaves in different mediums of varying density, so we know that light bends according to known laws and can be mathematically modelled.  I trust you at least agree with this bit?  Regardless of the shape of the Earth, refraction can account for altering the "apparent" distance that you are able to see something at, especially in colder climates and lower altitudes.  It's also known that in some locations on Earth, at one time of year you might be able to see that skyline shimmering away in the distance, yet another time of year you might not be able to see it at all.  Nothing has changed other than the nature of the atmosphere between the two points.  I'm not saying this confirms or denies curvature, but it does provide some objective evidence for atmospheric refraction and how it can cause you to see things further away than you might otherwise expect.

If you know that there is another reason why we can sometimes see objects further away than we otherwise expect, please let us know.  I know you proclaim to be purely scientific in your research and conclusions, but throwing away almost everything you have been taught, rejecting what science experimentally shows you, and only ever choosing to trust your own observations, conclusions and interpretations of physical laws takes things to the opposite extreme and into it's own form of conspiracy-like affair.  I don't mean that in a derogatory manner either, just saying that maybe, just maybe some things simply are what they are.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 23, 2020, 01:44:20 PM »
My, oh my where do I even begin. Maybe a mod could move this over to a dedicated thread?


This debate is absolutely not over.

I would agree, this is perhaps one to be split out because I also agree that the debate isn't over!  It's related for sure, but maybe it's conflating with the other debate around space suits etc, let's see what the mods think. I've also read your replies and the debate you've had with stack.  However, before I start I just want to acknowledge one thing, and that is that air has "something" to do with it, I'll grant you that much.  Here on Earth when people throw things we are doing so in an atmosphere and so that does have some effect.  Depending on surface area it can be negligible to significant.  Jets need air, rockets don't, but we'll get onto that. 

You seem to think though, that I'm basing everything on biased opinion and assumption rather than experimentation, but you couldn't be further from the truth.  You also have no idea what my background is or who I've worked with in the past.  As a result I do happen to have a reasonably good grasp of Newtons three laws of motion, and nowhere in anything I stated were any of them broken.  In my original thought experiment of a "stationary" astronaut (relative to the Earth, say) holding a bowling ball and then throwing it, the 3rd law results in the astronaut moving backwards and the bowling ball moving forwards with motion in accordance with values governed by his 2nd law.  The very fact that you have one system at rest, with two opposing forces acting against each other when thrown, imparting motion to both is what also preserves the 1st law.  I'm not sure why you think in such a case the astronaut would stay still and only the ball would go forwards - that would indeed be breaking Newton's laws.

I would recommend trying out the experiment that stack suggested.  Back at school in physics class we carried our our own tests to show that air only has "something" to do with it, and also "nothing" to do with it.  Back then it was done with 3 similarly sized aluminium balls (baking hemispheres taped together!) filled with different things to create different weights (air, water and lead).  The base was a long board covered with ball-bearings upon which another board was placed on top which you sat on.  This gave a very low rolling resistance.  Based on your understanding that "air is everything", you would expect that you would move back an equal amount with each ball thrown.  Each group carried out 10 throws of each ball, and guess what?  The heavier the ball, the further back you were pushed.  Take it to the extreme - a ball so heavy you can't move it.  Push that and you will go backwards with maximum force.  Do the same with a ball of aerogel and you are hardly going to move backwards at all.  We also carried out a similar experiment with two objects of similar weight but vastly different surface areas.  Based on your understanding, the one with the larger surface area would push us back more.  Not the case.  Within experimental error, both pushed back the same amount.  In order for air resistance alone to cause you to be pushed back, you would need a significantly larger surface area in comparison.

To show that air had nothing to do with it, the teacher set up another experiment with a brass tube sealed at one end, a remotely triggerable spring, and a ball bearing. The ball was shot out of the brass tube at normal atmospheric pressure, and in a strong vacuum.  Remember, being a spring there are no expanding gasses at play here.  Again, based on your understanding there would be no recoil in the vacuum, but this was not the case.  Recoil happened in air and in a vacuum.  None of this is made up walls in space or whatever, it's just basic controlled experimentation.

With absolutely no disrespect intended, I don't think you understand the 3 laws correctly.  The reason why I didn't mention the 1st law is because the very fact that you had a system at rest being subject to two opposing forces, one causing motion upon the other just implies that it's not broken.

As for rockets working in space, the following is a good, if technical guide as to what thrust is and why it works.  In simple terms, pressure differences between the combustion chamber and the outside:

Again, rocket thrust has absolutely nothing to do with pushing against air, which in most cases makes rockets less efficient than they are in a vacuum (depending on their purpose).  As I said before, I know a guy who studied rocket science so I called him at the weekend and asked if rockets work in a vacuum.  His response?  A short laugh, followed by, "Of course they do, why?!".  Forgetting the complexities as shown in the site above, the basic theory is simple. The bigger the pressure differential, the faster the gasses accelerate out of the nozzle, the larger the force being thrown out of the back of the rocket, and so Newtons 3rd law results in forward motion of the rocket.  Exactly the same principles that caused us to be pushed backwards when we threw those balls in physics.

How can you push off something that is moving away from you? That's a physical impossibility.

The very fact that you have something moving away from you that you have ejected is exactly the reason why you move in the opposite direction. In this example, the rocket is the astronaut, the bowling ball is the exhaust, creating thrust.  Like the rocket and its accelerating exhaust, the astronaut is in contact with the accelerating ball until they let go.  It's that transition from being in contact to not being in contact that is "pushing off", and it applies equally to rockets ejecting exhaust gases.

In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
This assumes the ball is accelerating forever relative to the spaceman. To achieve this the spaceman would have to exert infinite work/energy on the ball (w=fs, e=w/t) which is physically impossible.

I think the original use of the word acceleration may have been slightly misleading, and as such you may be seemingly confusing acceleration with velocity.  The only time the astronaut and bowling ball are accelerated is while the astronaut is throwing it.  Once the ball has left the astronauts hands they are both going to be traveling at a constant velocity (m/s as shown) until acted upon by another force.  Constant velocity in a vacuum does not need an infinite amount of work/energy.

You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.

I mean no offense, but you sound a little confused about how Newton's 3rd law works.
I mean no offense either but I think it is you who is confused here.

In all fairness, based on what I've read, your understanding of the laws of motion are flawed, and this is why I wanted to address it because debating whether we've actually been into space or not to take photographs and video is one thing, but debating whether it's physically possible is quite another.  It might be a completely innocent misunderstanding, or it might be that you choose to interpret the laws differently so that it makes space travel impossible which itself has other implications on FET and related conspiracies.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?
« on: November 23, 2020, 10:48:30 AM »
It's all a great conspiracy so governments all over the world can continue to fund all kinds of different  endeavors and keep the cash coming in or something like that.

I call that tax! :D The thing is there are all manner of ways the governments all over the world can rinse cash from us and otherwise funnel it into their bank accounts without the shape of the Earth being a factor.

If indeed there is a grand conspiracy, as @GreatATuin says, it would have to go way beyond just NASA and space travel, but that to me seems like the biggest threat to debunking FET and hence gets most of the attention.  Could be wrong.

But, let's for one minute suppose that the Earth is indeed flat, that there is an ice wall impenetrable to mere mortals, and the governments the world over are doing everything they can to maintain the round Earth image and perception. According to some aspects of FET, the actual Earth goes beyond the visible ice wall and so maybe in that belief, there could be resources beyond our reach that governments use to control the distribution of wealth.  I dunno', just speculating based on what I've read, but I'm with @GreatAtuin on this, first I'd love to know "how" they are keeping it up.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How far is it from Vancouver to Sydney?
« on: November 23, 2020, 10:27:34 AM »

The round earth distance, the one used successfully by Air Canada to plot direction and distance, says 12,500 km. What is the flat earth distance?

If you take the "standard" map which is what most people think of ( - a normal "Azimuthal Equidistance Polar Projection of the globe Earth) and blow that up to 2,500px wide using 1px to represent 10 miles, that gets you a nice scale size of the agreed diameter of the Flat Earth.  If you draw a straight line as the crow flies from Vancouver to Sydney, you get an approximate distance of 14,100km.  Even accounting for error in placing the line, that's still a huge discrepancy.  Having said that, I don't believe that the map I used is the accepted one as there seem to be many, and none really agree.  As I've mentioned before in posts though, it is physically impossible to take all of the accepted land masses, distances between places and put them on a flat plane whilst maintaining those same actual and relative dimensions and distances.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 23, 2020, 10:05:22 AM »
I just think it is very interesting, and misunderstood by so many, that from the highest point on earth, under the best visibility conditions possible, you can only see a couple hundred miles (laterally, towards the horizon).  That is the max, though at sea level (the min) it's only a few miles directly through the densest air.

Jack, I don’t mean to be rude and hope you won’t be offended, but air pollution where you live must be appalling. I live by the ocean and can see cliffs and headlands twenty miles away while standing on the beach. I can see large hills inland more than thirty miles away from a roadside viewpoint that’s perhaps 150 ft above sea level. From the same beach on a clear day I can see on the horizon the top of a mountain which is 66 miles away. I know this because I’ve seen these things often with my own eyes, without using binoculars, a powerful zoom camera or Google Earth. Furthermore, at night I can watch the moon and stars setting on the horizon, and how far away are these? A few miles?

You need to do some real research, Jack, do some real investigations, before declaring how little we can see. Sorry to be blunt.

@jack44556677, I don't find it that surprising really given how large the Earth is and how relatively small Mt Everest is by comparison.  The 200 mile visibility is pretty much consistent with what you'd expect on a round Earth.

@Longtitube, what you say you can see there makes absolute sense and is consistent with what I'd expect.  At 150ft above sea level you can expect to see about 15 miles anyway, and if you are looking at a large mountain in the distance, I'm not sure how tall it is, but even if it's a small one at just 3000ft, you'd still be able to see at least part of it from 66 miles away.  There could also be refraction effects that cause the light to track with the surface of the Earth for a few miles making it appear you can see even further.

You're about two clicks away from the largest compilation of arguments, past and present, that I'm aware of. You could try the wiki and the refs therein.

I echo the Wiki reading - something I should have done before just questioning everything, because whether I agree with the theories put forward or not, there are explanations for a lot of things that will allow you to delve deeper into the things that maybe puzzle you most.  In particular, I'd start out by maybe reviewing the following two major theories that are needed to explain a lot of what FET relies on: - explains many things including why the Sun doesn't illuminate the entire surface at once, why we only see one face of the Moon etc. - explains gravitation

There are many things out that demonstrate curvature, and one of my go-to references is the Rainy Lake Experiment:

It's a modern repeat of the Bedford Level Experiment carried out on a canal.

If you can't gather from my response, and for your demographic analysis, I'm of the round Earth mindset but am here to learn more about FET, the what's and the why's.

Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 23, 2020, 09:40:03 AM »
So is refraction a cause for why the bottoms of distant objects are obscured? I've always been a little confused as to what actually causes the "hidden" area to exist on a flat earth. And if refraction is solely a flat earth phenomenon.

For me, I just can't help referring back to the Rainy Lake experiment which is pretty rigorous in terms of eliminating, or accounting for as many variables as possible to give flat Earth a fair chance:

Refraction, if we are to all agree is a phenomenon we observe, happens in both RET and FET to largely the same extent for the same reasons.  The refractive index of air at different densities and the refraction coefficient on average is pretty well known.  Over water especially, and where there are higher temperature differences between the surface and the air, you tend to get more refraction that (typically) causes light to bend down towards the Earth, and in some cases follow the curvature (i.e. causes you to see things much further away than you would do normally, making it appear that the Earth could be flat).

In a flat Earth model, you could reasonably argue that light from the bottom of a tall tower could get refracted down towards the surface of the Earth before it reaches your eyes, making it appear as though the bottom of the tower is indeed below the horizon.  This effect would be compounded on a round Earth due to curvature and refraction.  Without knowing what the atmospheric conditions were, pressure, temperature etc., and not knowing the refraction coefficient, it is hard to say in those images how much is refraction and how much is curvature. 

This is why I return to the Rainy Lake experiment, because there they are on a frozen lake, known conditions, measured refraction coefficient to account for it, with targets of accurately known heights and shapes that are set where refraction should be minimised.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 19, 2020, 09:38:10 AM »
I don't really get this. If there is no NASA fraud/conspiracy, and all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., that somehow relay the shape of the earth to us is real, then that's that. Earth is a globe. End of story. So for FET to remain viable it must discount all of the engineering, data, images, videos, launches, probes, landings, etc., as fakery and that would require a conspiracy. I'm not saying the entirety of FET, but I have yet to come across any NASA-believing FET proponents. So it does seem that FET is heavily reliant upon the conspiracy.

I completely agree.  While jack44556677 is correct in saying that the actual shape of the Earth has nothing to do with NASA or any conspiracy directly, they have a lot to do with providing visual proof, which seems to be at the heart of every Zetetic inquirer - observe then conclude.  That such visual proof would basically be the end of FET as we know it, it's understandable that it just gets brushed under the carpet as a conspiracy, and a massive global one at that, not only including other space agencies, but requiring research facilities, educational establishments, engineers and scientists the world over to be in on the act.

Pre- and post-GPS in the 20th/21st centuries they have been sailing both hemispheres using global charts, navigating by radio aids, astronomical sightings, physical landmarks, depth soundings, inertial navigation, and dead reckoning, on waters with known currents and in conditions of known and predicted windspeed.  They know the theoretical distance from Point A to Point B and, travelling at a planned speed, they generally get to Point B on schedule. 

And are you suggesting that, for instance, the crew of a scheduled flight from New Zealand to Chile don't know the distance of the intended journey?  How much fuel are they supposed to carry?  When should they expect to arrive? 

If you've travelled at a known speed for a known time, you've measured the distance.

This is one of the key things for me, and it doesn't matter what the actual units are.  Whether it's miles and hours, or km and days, if you use the same units all of the time you will get pretty accurate distances between land masses and hence their relative positions with each other on the surface.  With the sheer amount of global navigation happening by land, sea and air, it's reasonable to take these things as agreed, known quantities.  Taking those, you simply cannot create a flat map of all of the continents and maintain those same relative distances.  It just doesn't work - something somewhere has to give.

If indeed the Earth were to be flat, that would mean that every single piece of navigation equipment, and hence anything related to do with measuring speed, distance, time, direction and location would have to be engineered in such a way that it gives the impression that we are traveling around a globe.  This is why any conspiracy goes way beyond just NASA and space travel, it includes all of the technology that we use in our daily lives.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 17, 2020, 11:24:17 AM »
In your example, if the astronaut and bowling ball were drifting away from Earth at 60 m/s, after the push, the Astronaut may be only going now at 58.4 m/s and the bowling ball may be going at 71 m/s (remember, they have different masses, so different accelerations), but the center of the mass of the system continues to move at 60 m/s. You are correct in stating that the we can't accelerate the system without an outside force, the Center of Mass does continue to move at 60m/s away from Earth, un-accelerated). However, parts of that system just need to follow newton's laws, and they do.
You may be confused in the thinking the astronaut immediately would have a velocity back towards Earth of pushing the bowling ball, but that simply wouldn't happen.

That's a really good explanation, and per your latter point, exactly right - the act of pushing on one bowling ball wouldn't send them back towards Earth, it would simply reduce the velocity at which they are traveling away from it.  However, give the astronaut enough bowling balls to throw and eventually they would be able to reverse their direction, which is akin to gas being constantly ejected out of a rocket nozzle.

Hopefully this one can be amicably laid to rest as at least being considered plausible to everyone, as we can't just break physical laws.  In of itself though, it doesn't prove that space as defined exists or that we have been there, so those particular claims are still wide open for discussion, and on that note...  For those who claim NASA and other space agencies are basically just large movie studios with actors, what do you think of the recent dragon launches into space?  I don't think there can be any denying that a rocket was launched given the sheer number of witnesses, but is the rest of the footage considered fake, and did the rocket and contents simply fall back to Earth out at sea?

I know @james38 tried to bring some direction to the thread and focus it, and I'm as guilty as anybody for this little deviation, but I do think it was important to address the whole Newtons laws piece.  However, bringing it back around to where james38 was coming from, it basically came down to proving that NASA and other space agencies are not fake, and are in fact legitimate organisations doing what they say they are doing.  For them to be faking it, it's not just other space agencies that need to be in on it.  Pretty much all of academia needs to be too, plus thousands of other independent research institutions and even engineering companies who create things like radio equipment.  Even amateur backyard scientists are now able to use powerful telescopes to make observations and get cameras high enough up above the Earth along with equipment to measure atmospheric pressure, composition, temperature, altitude etc.  The notion that organisations like NASA and SpaceX can do a little bit better than that isn't so absurd, but the notion that we are all being lied to by millions of people around the world about space travel and, by some inference, the shape of the Earth sounds far more absurd to me.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 16, 2020, 01:19:42 PM »
I think MarkAntony’s problem with physics is there’s no consideration of momentum, so there “has” to be “something” to push against.

You might be right Longtitube, but wouldn't like to say.

For me, the reason why I honed in on the whole "rockets don't work in space thing" is (admittedly) firstly because of the stated reluctance to talk about it as that rings alarm bells somewhat, but largely because it is a misinterpretation of the consequences of the physical laws.  I understand why it would get claimed as it helps support the perceived absurdity of space, space travel and therefore any evidence from it.  I'm OK with the notion that something might seem ludicrous or even impossible (i.e. photos of Earth or videos on board the ISS), but less so when some of that notion is based on incorrect science.

In relation to what RonJ said at the end about a hand grenade, here's an interesting video about trying to ignite stuff in a vacuum:

Contrary to what some people might (reasonably) think, something that is self-oxidising can burn inside a vacuum (which can only ever be partial)  Again, that video isn't perfect, but it does illustrate how things behave differently in the absence of an atmosphere.  In some cases, depending on what is being ignited and how, energy is dissipated so quickly that burning as we know it doesn't always happen, which does support what some people might think.  However, when confined to a binder or a casing, like in a hand-grenade for example, the explosion would happen in space, just looking very different.  The absence of anything around it means you wouldn't hear it, and there wouldn't be a shock wave.  The high-energy gases produced wouldn't form a fireball or plume of smoke as we see on Earth.  Instead everything would spread out somewhat evenly in all directions, forming a ball of gas.  That gas would very quickly dissipate, significantly reducing its effective "blast range" compared to here on Earth, and the resulting shrapnel would just keep going forever until acted on by an external force.

I completely agree with the statement that you cannot push off against yourself.  However, rockets don't push off against themselves, in simplistic terms they push off against the exhaust which is external to the system at an instance in time.  Imagine sitting in an office chair with wheels on a smooth surface.  You can flap your arms about but you won't propel yourself easily.  Now imagine if a friend was sat next to you on a similar chair.  If you push against them, you will both move away from your starting positions by the same distance.  The force you placed on him was met with an equal and opposite force from him on you.  In that sense, you're the rocket, he's the exhaust.  Now hold onto a fire extinguisher and release its contents - you'll move in the opposite direction to where you pointed the nozzle.  None of this has anything to do with air pressure or pushing against air, and everything to do with mass being ejected.  Far from not working in a vacuum/space, rockets can be more efficient in a vacuum/space because of the very absence of an atmosphere.

I found this to be interesting as well as it explains more about the forces at play:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 16, 2020, 02:30:52 AM »
Not exactly, I said it would travel away from you at 10m/s until it runs out of energy i.e. the ball will accelerate away from you then decelerate until it's relative velocity is zero. There is an internal force between you and the bowling ball but after the event has taken place both you and the ball will be stationary relative to the earth and to each other (albeit further apart). The only thing that can disrupt this system is a force external!

Swap the bowling ball with a big heavy wall.  If you were to push against that wall, instead of the wall moving you would end up going backwards relative to the direction you pushed.  In space you would keep going for a very long time due to there being very little resistance.  If a new wall kept repeatedly appearing and you were able to keep pushing off each one, you’d end up going faster and faster. No atmosphere is needed to push against.

Ultimately jets need air to be sucked in to create thrust.  Rocket motors create their own thrust.  Neither work off the principle of pushing against air itself, same with recoil.  When a gun is fired, what do you think causes the gun to recoil in your hand?  It’s not air displacement.  You can fire a gun in a vacuum and you still get recoil.  Fire a gun in space and the gasses that propel the bullet forward will also push you back.

The video Iceman2020 linked to is a perfect illustration of how thrust works.  The key point is that the gases produced are not part of the rocket so can be considered an external force.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 15, 2020, 10:45:27 PM »
Think about it this way: You are in your spacesuit with a bowling ball travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. You think to yourself "I'll need to throw this bowling ball hard enough to propel myself back towards the earth again". The problem here is that both you and the bowling ball are all part of one system. You can throw the bowling ball as hard as you want (let say 10m/s) - the bowling ball will travel at 10m/s away relative to your position and 70m/s away from earth for a time until it runs out of energy but at the end both you and the ball will still be travelling at 60m/s away from the earth. The net result force is, has and always will be zero as both you and the bowling ball were contained within the one system. You can't create your own external force. A rocket in a vacuum would simply exhaust all the burnt fuel and matter but the net force would be zero and there is no change in velocity.

All of Newton's laws are valid and cannot be broken on earth or in the idea of space.

With much respect, I think part of the reason this is getting focused on is because rockets not working in space means that either space doesn’t exist or we can’t really get there even if it does, which in turn adds more fuel (no pun intended!) to the whole thing being one big conspiracy.

Here’s a similar thought experiment.  You are in a spacesuit with a bowling ball in hand, with zero net velocity relative to Earth, i.e. stationary.  If you were to throw the bowling ball as hard as you could, 10 m/s using your numbers as reference, under your analogy, you would stay where you were and the bowling ball would travel away from you at 10m/s.  This cannot be the case though.  The bowling ball has mass, and when you throw it, you are pushing against it and so it will impart some force on you.  The ball might go 9m/s away from the point at which it was thrown, and you’ll go 1m/s away from the point at which it was thrown.  Energy is conserved, the total momentum is zero, and Newton’s laws are preserved.

It’s like firing a cannon here on Earth.  If the cannon is empty and you shoot it, you get little to no recoil, it isn’t going to move backwards at all as the cannon is so heavy.  However, when you shoot out a cannonball, the cannon recoils and moves in the opposite direction to the cannonball.  This has nothing to do with air displacement or having something to push against.  It’s for the same reason that if you throw a bowling ball when stood on a skateboard, you are pushed backwards.  Has nothing to do with pushing against air.

I’ll have a watch of that video, but one guy saying NASA is Not A Space Agency doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true, no matter how senior they are.  Does it mean SpaceX is also bunk as well, and ESA...all part of a global conspiracy?  Ultimately it does seem to come down to what sounds more absurd.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 15, 2020, 07:00:26 PM »
@stevecanuck, I think I get what you are saying, and yes, from our perspective as being tiny specs on a huge surface, we literally cannot observe curvature directly with our own two eyes.  There are, however, a number of different ways you can conclude curvature from down here that don’t need complex maths and physics to understand.  I’ve carried out a couple myself.

The real issue being debated here is, what does flat and level mean, and how can water be level on a curved surface?  The answer is gravity (or the effects of gravitation to keep the peace).  Level just means that the surface is at a constant height in line with the gravity vector.  In RET, gravity is caused by the mass of the Earth pulling things down, and in FET, gravity is caused by Universal Acceleration (the Earth constantly accelerating upwards, pushing up on us at a rate of 9.81 m/s^2)  In RET, water can conform to the surface of a sphere, in FET it cannot.  In RET, gravity accounts for the tides.  In FET it cannot.  There are a number of differences and discrepancies that warrant understanding on both sides to respect each other’s position.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 15, 2020, 10:25:44 AM »

Your blend of science and critique is applauded, but with much respect (something you have definitely earned) a lot of what you say does feel like more of a conspiracy theorists perspective, and I don't say that in a derogatory manner because you are clearly very well educated and spoken.  I agree there are things that have been, and will continue to be, lied about and/or kept secret by governing bodies and such like, but I don't really think the shape of the Earth or what lies beyond it is one of them. 

The room of smoke containing 2,500 years worth of evidence evaporating when you critique them individually...the exact same thing can be said about the "evidence" being provided so support the posit that the Earth is flat.  The ongoing sequence of implications that one theory has on the next winds up with statements that make no sense, like sunset being an illusion of perspective.  I know you don't claim that the Earth is Flat, but you do say that it can't be round.  Something being round is one of natures most preferred forms, and is the lowest energy configuration for most systems, like bubbles in water, bubbles in air, or water droplets falling to the ground.  The Sun is round, the Moon is round, and all of the planets we observe are round.  If any claims are going to be made that the Sun and Moon and planets aren't real, then the burden of proof is solely on that claimant to evidence that fact.

I'm genuinely interested to know which elements of the different theories you do consider accurate.  Do you think the Sun and Moon are real, rotating spheres, 32 miles across and 3,000 miles up, or are they something else?  In your view, forgetting basic refraction effects, does light travel in a straight line or curve and do U-turns as stated by EA theory?  I'm just trying to better gauge where you position your thoughts because you clearly have some independent views and approaches.

I'm intrigued as to why you think water cannot curve though.  It curves all the time.  If water couldn't curve, it wouldn't be able to fill a round bottomed flask for example.  At the small scale, water forms a meniscus against a surface, it beads up on certain surfaces, and in the absence of gravitational effects, it forms globules as it tries to conform to its lowest energy configuration.  If you take a steady stream of water from a tap, you can induce a movement of that stream using electrostatic forces.  There are all manner of ways in which water does not behave flat/straight.  If you dip a football into a bucket of water and take it out, there's a film of water all around its surface.  Water conforms to internal and external curves all the time.  Granted, you can't pour water onto the football and have it be a meaningful depth all the way around because the forces at play are not very strong, but on a large body like Earth, it's a totally different scale.  If water doesn't curve, how do you explain tides?

You may say I'm a victim of education, but I find a sphere (or at least a shape with a constantly convex curvature in all directions) much easier to comprehend - especially as the model explains and predicts everything that we see.  Of course water can curve, and of course the Earth is curved - I've measured it myself with a colleague of mine (on the premise light travels straight, hence I asked you that question earlier).  Sailors at sea will observe the tops of distant mountains or volcanos appearing first before the rest of the mountain reveals itself.  I'll refer back to the Rainy Lake Experiment as well because I'm interested to know why that setup, carried out on a frozen lake, setup with high accuracy and fairness to give flat/round a chance to show itself, is considered a poor example and not proof of curvature.

Then more recently we have the statement that thrust/motion in space would violate Newton's laws, which clearly isn't the case as I explained.  By all means people can still maintain that space doesn't exist and that it's all fake, but the maths and physics around it are sound and well understood.  I've got the phone number of a guy who I worked with who literally studied rocket science and I'm sure he'd gladly provide all the examples and explanation needed to back this up.  Here's a YouTube video showing a basic experiment showing thrust in a vacuum.  OK it's not world class, but illustrates the point quite nicely:

Another one that's using an actual rocket with a measure of the force exerted:

At the end of the day we all live in a round Earth society, and for the vast majority of people that's just how it is and they get on with their lives.  Science accepted this long ago and moved on.  The only reason people push the globe Earth narrative with all of its evidence is because there is a group of people claiming it's not round, more specifically, that it's flat.  Unfortunately, just claiming that space doesn't exist, NASA is a conspiracy, and that light doesn't travel straight etc. isn't evidence, it's merely conjecture and doesn't disprove anything.  Selectively dismissing everything that goes against what you think (in my book anyway) is not good science, and I see that happening a lot here.  Sure, on the RET supporter side we also have people dismissing things in the flat Earth Wiki, but I don't see that as evidence, it's literally just theory with very little backing it up (yet).

I would agree, rigorous measurement is required to determine the shape of the Earth, but I'd also argue that there already has been.  The fact that we can back up those observations from space just confirms those findings, which brings us right back to the whole NASA/space conspiracy stuff.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"
« on: November 14, 2020, 09:59:30 PM »

Many thanks for taking the time to amicably respond to each of the points, much appreciated.  I can wrap my head around a lot of the equivalencies, and the notion of weight being intrinsic is not ridiculous in of itself.  Lots of things in the world are bonkers when you think about it!  It’s all food for thought, and you are absolutely right about the fact that your eyes don’t always see things as they are ;)

@Mark Antony

I don’t quite agree.  In the vacuum of space, if I were holding onto the rocket and I pushed hard against it, I would accelerate backwards at the same rate the rocket is accelerated forwards.  Crucially, the combined relative velocities remain at zero, and the combined centre of mass remains at the origin in my frame of reference.  The third law is therefore still respected because as a whole there is no net change.  With a rocket burning its fuel and creating thrust and pressure in the engine bell, it’s basically the same principle.

I think it’s an important point because if the claim is that NASA is a conspiracy and that we have never been into space, part of the debate around that conspiracy is the claimed inability of rockets to work in the partial vacuum of space.  It’s all related.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 08:44:53 PM »
Very well. Please provide a reference for an individual in this thread who claims things do not fall down (i.e. they deny gravity, rather than gravitation).

If you can't do that, I will conclude that you are cynically attempting to derail this thread, and respond accordingly.

Seriously?  Here’s just one reference amongst many where they deny that gravity is real.  A quick search over his his post history will show many similar wordings around gravity:

We know and can readily demonstrate this on earth's surface, where "gravity" is presumed and calculated (NEVER measured) to be strongest.  Gravity, if such a force were real and not mathematical fiction, does not help with this problem

Here’s another recent one that’s quite pertinent:

So what is gravity then?

Almost no one has any idea. I have figured it out, and I am not alone.  It is mathematical fiction with no reality whatsoever.  Weight is all there is, an inexorable and intrinsic property of all matter.

I never once said the words, “There are individuals claiming things don’t fall down to Earth”.  What I said was, there is somebody claiming that gravity is not real.  You took it upon yourself to decide that if I meant what I said, it also means I’ve found somebody who claims that things don’t fall to Earth.  Your words and your interpretation, not mine, and it infers that dismissal of gravity is to dismiss things falling to Earth.  Not once did I say that, or that anybody else did.  I merely replied by saying that dismissal of gravity does not necessarily mean things do not fall, because this individual concerned caters for weight in an alternative manner in his theory of how things behave, which itself would account for why things fall.

If you think the discussion is anything different than that, perhaps get somebody independent to review it because while my initial reply which triggered yours may not have been worded the best, in no way at all was it an active attempt to cynically derail anything, nor anything written subsequently.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 07:45:47 PM »
Water finds its level.  If Water rises from 99m to 101m without gaining any extra water. Then water has to be raised up off the bottom or the land around it has to be pushed down.

So we need to understand what you mean when you say “water finds its level”, which has been the entire topic of this thread.  In both FET and RET, the effects of gravity hold the water down, and “level” means that the water is level perpendicular to the direction of gravity.  In both models, regardless of what causes the tides, water just moves around the surface.  It gets deeper in one part by getting shallower in another.  The land is largely unaffected in comparison. 

You can do an experiment with a spherical magnet and some ferrofluid.  The ferrofluid surrounds the spherical magnet to a consistent depth let’s say.  If you introduce another magnet close to it, simulating gravity, some of the ferrofluid will be attracted towards the other magnet.  As the ferrofluid gets “deeper” at the tidal point, the ferrofluid gets shallower around the rest of the magnet.  Nothing is raised up off the bottom and no surface is getting deformed.  You could also do the same with a disc magnet to simulate a flat Earth, at least the motion and depth of fluid anyway.

Just remember, tides have to happen on a flat Earth as well, and by definition the water can’t be flat at those transition points even if the rest of it is.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 07:10:27 PM »
So when force of gravity moves these massive body’s of water that increases elevation 10’ what replaces underneath the water.  You can’t just move water without air,dirt,etc. replacing the area that has moved.

Nothing replaces the water, it’s just deeper where the tides are and shallower everywhere else - it just moves around. 

Here’s a thought experiment.  Take a sphere with water all around it to a depth of 100m all around its surface.  Now apply a Sun and Moon so that it creates tides.  Where the tides are, the depth might be 101m now.  All around the rest of the sphere the water might be 99 m deep.  Make sense?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?
« on: November 14, 2020, 07:02:48 PM »
@Pete Svarrior, believe me, I haven’t forgotten your role here.  I answered a question about things being level and flat in this thread, and responded to your resultant critique.  If that’s being irrelevant then the boundaries seem skewed, but thanks for letting me know.

As for what I meant, let me repeat for absolute clarity just in case you’re not listening.  I 100%, categorically, unequivocally, and without refute, meant gravity, because that is specifically the thing being repeatedly dismissed.  Are you not the one who said that if true then I’ve found somebody who claims things don’t fall down to Earth?  I don’t ever remember saying I saw someone claiming things don’t fall down, I simply explored your inference of somebody dismissing gravity.  But, here you go again, suggesting I work on my reading comprehension, dishing out the childish insults.  Very professional of moderator, well done.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >