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 - 6or1/2Dozen

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Testable difference between FE and RE
« on: May 07, 2018, 09:31:25 PM »
Ah, true. So what you would need, would be two people low enough in latitude that days are something like 11 hours or less. Thus, two people on opposite sides of the Earth could see it at once. So something like.

Sigma Octanis
a) FE predicts that Sigma Octanis moves in the sky opposite the sun, thus it could not be seen at the same time by two people more than a certain number of degrees of longitude apart.
b) RE predicts Sigma Octanis is visible to anyone sufficiently far to the south at any time, but the sun makes the sky too bright to see it most of the time.
Conclusion: Two people observing the night sky during the Southern winter, below approx. 45S with a difference in longitude greater than 120 degrees, can/cannot see Sigma Octanis. Whichever is true falsifies a part of either FE or RE thought.

FE explains this with smoke and mirrors:


2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset. Please explain the pictures.
« on: April 24, 2018, 03:30:45 PM »
There's also an issue with the atmosphere eventually blocking line of sight. I'm not sure when this would happen, and clearly it depends on the particulates, water droplets, etc, suspended in air. What we can say is that this effect would normally come into play at a far greater distance than the horizon at sea level.

I seen this just a couple weeks ago. The particulates of water filled the air in a solid form of matter called 'snow', and blocked the line of sight well before the distance of the horizon in something we up north call a 'blizzard'. :P

I took special note, that during this snow storm, there WAS NOT a horizon at all, a clear delimitation between the land and sky did not exist. Objects in the distance (apart from getting smaller) became hazier as they were obscured by snow until the furthest limit of visibility was nothing but the blanketing white wall of falling snow. I have personally seen this exact same thing happen in a fog, smoke and during a sandstorm. I've seen smog on TV and it looks the same. Sometimes, when I look up the clouds block my line of sight to any star in the sky (during both the day or night).

I've seen atmospheric effects obscure the horizon, but I've never seen them make a horizon.

3
[...]Additionally, we can see in the title shot of the video, there's not a cloud in the sky and the star field rotated. This implies something is actually rotating, not just appearing to rotate because clouds are passing by.

P-Brane is not saying that the stars rotate with the same mechanism as the sun's crepuscular rays rotate. The sun's crepuscular rays rotate due to clouds passing by in the foreground. The stars rotate due to a different (unknown) mechanism. He is using the sun's crepuscular rays as an example for how something can seem to be rotating in two different directions.

Spinning in a chair and looking up at the ceiling and then down at the floor also serves as an example for that.

So what, he wasted like 8 minutes of my life talking about crepuscular rays when all he had to say was "When you spin in a chair and looking up at the ceiling and then down at the floor you'll notice that they appear to rotate in opposite directions".

But that really doesn't work, because on flat earth, one cannot simply look down at the floor and see the stars. They are all above us. For this to work, when you spin counterclockwise in your chair and look up, the ceiling would have to spin counterclockwise until at some point further away from you perspective will cause the ceiling to appear to spin clockwise.

Could you explain how a single point can appear stationary while also sweeping across the nighttime half of the Earth (and be almost exactly South of everywhere) at the same time?

That is because you were taught to imagine the world as in the left side of this image below, which is what the Ancient Greeks taught, what the educational system continues to teach today, and is a wrong interpretation of perspective geometry. We really view the world in accordance to perspective that culminates to a point, as the right side of this overhead image shows:



P-Brane explains it more in his videos.

That's odd... When I look around what I see I have is a field of view. My vision do not appear to collapse to a point at a distance.

Here's a real picture, probably pretty familiar looking:


Does it match the drawing on the left, the one where objects receding into the distance occupy less and less of you field of view, which when projected onto a 2 dimensional surface (like your retina) would appear smaller

OR

The drawing on the right, where objects take up more and more of you field of view as they get farther away, and would appear larger when projected onto a 2D surface?


Neither your perspective on perspective or the P-Brane video explain how Sigma Octantis can appear to be in three different places at the same time. Well, P-Brane actually appears to creating multiple copies of it but as you rightly noted there is only one Sigma Octantis and proposed that it sweeps around the edge 12 hours out of phase with the Sun (placing it at position #2 as seen here).

So if it's to the due south (rimwise) of observer 2, how is it also appear to be south (rimwise) to observers 1 & 3?

4

The cardboard mockup is just a demonstration on how something spinning in one physical direction can appear to rotate in opposite directions depending on how you look at it.

The same reverse-rotation phenomenon can also seen with a spinning chair. Spin counterclockwise in your chair and look up. If you assume that you are inert, you will see your ceiling spinning counterclockwise. Now look down at the floor. If you assume that you are inert, you will see the floor spinning clockwise.

Only on flat earth you can't look down at the southern stars, they're always above you (on the ceiling basically).

On flat Earth, according to the P-Brane video, when you spin counterclockwise in your chair and look up, the ceiling will spin counterclockwise until at some point further away from you perspective will cause the ceiling to appear to spin clockwise.

5
The rays do seem to rotate counterclockwise like in your video. Checkout the video at 3:26.



However, I don't think it really matters which way the rays are turning. I don't think P-Brane is proposing that the rotation or movement of the sun around the earth influences the direction the rays are turning. I believe that the rays are rotating entirely based on the direction clouds in the foreground are moving. The rays can turn clockwise or counterclockwise, based entirely on the movement of those clouds.

The point of it is that if the rays are moving one way in the East, it could turn the opposite way in the West. P-Brane also creates a small model out of cardboard and paper to demonstrate the idea further in the video.

That shows them rotating counterclockwise when facing EAST. The Sun sets in the WEST, the video I provided shows them rotating counterclockwise while facing WEST. If we turned around, like P-Brane does with the cardboard tube in his video, they would be rotating clockwise in the EAST. This is the opposite of everything P-Brane claim.

But most importantly we've agreed that Crepuscular rays (and anti-crepuscular rays) of the Sun and their rotation are caused by the clouds, the clouds determine the direction they move in, and the wind determines the direction clouds move in. If you reverse the direction of the wind and the rays rotate the other way, everything in P-Brane's video runs in the reverse direction.

The stars direction of rotation never reverses, they always rotate in a consistent direction (based on what side of the Equator you're on). This means the star field rotation isn't based on the clouds and what direction the wind is blowing, and since we agree that crepuscular rays (and anti-crepuscular rays) are caused by clouds and wind, we can conclude that star field rotation is not related to crepuscular ray rotation. In order to be related, the star field direction of rotation would need to based on the clouds and wind direction, which would cause them to rotate in the opposite direction as well.

Additionally, we can see in the title shot of the video, there's not a cloud in the sky and the star field rotated. This implies something is actually rotating, not just appearing to rotate because clouds are passing by.

As you noted (and the model appears to show):
[that] perhaps Sigma Octantis is on the dark side of the earth opposite of the sun. Sigma Octantis may also be the brightest star that is the furthest out on the star disk. It is always on the opposite side of the sun, moving in the same 24 hour period, so it is always in night. Since it is the furthest out on the star disk, it appears in the middle of the rotation due to the perspective explanation P-Brane describes in the video.

AND

The people on opposite sides of the earth would only see stars at night. It is not night for two people on opposite sides of the earth at the same time; and so whoever is in night is experiencing Sigma Octantis sweep across their half of the earth.

Could you explain how a single point can appear stationary while also sweeping across the nighttime half of the Earth (and be almost exactly South of everywhere) at the same time?

How is it that this star, being furthest out on the disk and possessing the highest angular velocity, seems to hang nearly motionless in the sky, just like the star nearest the center (Polaris) and possessing the lowest angular velocity?

When standing on the Equator both stars (SO & P) are equidistant from the observer, so it's almost like your saying the faster something is moving the slower it appears to go?

If the outer most point of the disk rotates on a 24 hour period, how is it that the visible constellations cycle throughout the year?

6
What evidence is there that crepuscular rays rotate in the direction indicated by P-Brane?

As seen here, these rays from this sunset (that would be facing West) are rotating from North to South (a.k.a right to left or counter-clockwise), not South to North (a.k.a left to right or clockwise) as seen in the P-Brane video at 4:37-4:41:



The crepuscular rays rotate in the opposite direction than what is depicted in the P-Brane video. This claim is supported by the above video.

One can easily see (by running the P-Brane video backwards) that this would cause the stars to also rotate in the opposite direction. Let's call this the 'Corrected P-Brane Model'. This claim is supported by running the P-Brane video in reverse.

P-Brane appears mistaken about the direction these crepuscular rays rotate in and it appears that if the actual direction is used it would cause the star field to rotate in the opposite direction of what is observed.

Nobody should accept a conjecture that is not supported by the observable data. In this case the observation being that crepuscular rays rotate counter-clockwise at sunset, not clockwise as claimed by P-Brane. And the direction of the star fields rotation is opposite of what the 'Corrected P-Brane Model' indicates.

Additionally, from the P-Brane video at 8:39, it appears to fix Sigma Octantis in a stationary position almost directly over the South Pole, but does not explain how a compass reading taken from it from Rio, Brazil and Gaborone, Botswana would both read 180 degree (South) [the reading from Botswana was verified with a compass, Rio was eyeballed as due South, but definitely not SSE]. As we can see, the direction to this star should be vastly different between these locations.

7
Carl Gauss is usually credited with being the first to make detailed observations of the field's direction and strength around 1840. Let me re-emphasis both direction and strength. Others observed direction prior to Gauss, other observed strength prior to Gauss. Gauss applied his mathematical genius and created model from the measurements of both direction and strength.

Tom's statement suggesting that the Earth's magnetic field was just being studied on a large scale only beginning around the  mid 1800's seems patently false.

Declination and inclination were discovered prior to 1544. It seems that [in Europe] the Earth's magnetic field was correctly being described as a bar magnet since 1600.

Someone at some time may have had a theory that it was like a bar magnet. But that was not confirmed until the mid-1800's.
You're making baseless citations, Tom. I cite Halley's expedition 1698-1700, the one where he set out to locate 4 magnetic poles. Obviously, he was not successful and confirmed a dipole model.

Quote
It seems that the general layout was understood to be a dipole bar magnet slightly inclined to the axis of rotation in 1600. It was only the intensity that was not first measured in 1791, and modeled (detailed) for both direction and strength around 1840.

You know what, just read the article yourself...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geomagnetism

I don't know what premises Rowbotham based his premises on, it certainly doesn't appear to be the what was actually know about magnetism at the time.

Nothing was known about the earth's magnetic field until large scale studies were made of it.
How do you know what was known, in 18xx. Where you there? No? Then you have an opinion. Your opinion is "Nothing was known about the earth's magnetic field until large scale studies were made of it." However, there sure was a lot of work done and documented on it before 18xx. Halley had the Earth magnetic field mapped for declination by 1701.

Quote
Why does it seem like he didn't know about this?

At that time the nature of the magnetic pole was hypothesis, of which there were many. It took large scale study to determine which was the best.
So what your saying is Rowbotham's hypothesis was just one of many and the large scale study shows it's not the best?

Do you even read, Bro?

Quote
Magnetism has been known since prehistory, but knowledge of the Earth's field developed slowly. The horizontal direction of the Earth's field was first measured in the fourth century BC but the vertical direction was not measured until 1544 AD and the intensity was first measured in 1791. At first, compasses were thought to point towards locations in the heavens, then towards magnetic mountains. A modern experimental approach to understanding the Earth's field began with de Magnete, a book published by William Gilbert in 1600.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Magnete

Quote
In his work, Gilbert described many of his experiments with his model Earth called the terrella.

5. Magnetic dip. The angle of inclination (dip) of a compass to the horizon differs according to latitude. He shows how to construct a dip instrument. At the equator it is level and increases towards the poles as he has shown earlier with his terrella.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrella

Quote
A terrella (Latin for "little earth") is a small magnetised model ball representing the Earth, that is thought to have been invented by the English physician William Gilbert while investigating magnetism[...]

[...]

William Gilbert, the royal physician to Queen Elizabeth I, devoted much of his time, energy and resources to the study of the Earth's magnetism. It had been known for centuries that a freely suspended compass needle pointed north. Earlier investigators (including Christopher Columbus) found that direction deviated somewhat from true north, and Robert Norman showed the force on the needle was not horizontal but slanted into the Earth.

William Gilbert's explanation was that the Earth itself was a giant magnet, and he demonstrated this by creating a scale model of the magnetic Earth, a "terrella", a sphere formed out of a lodestone. Passing a small compass over the terrella, Gilbert demonstrated that a horizontal compass would point towards the magnetic pole, while a dip needle, balanced on a horizontal axis perpendicular to the magnetic one, indicated the proper "magnetic inclination" between the magnetic force and the horizontal direction. Gilbert later reported his findings in De Magnete, Magneticisque Corporibus, et de Magno Magnete Tellure, published in 1600.

This wasn't thought experiment theory, these where findings discovered through observational science, using a model of the Earth magnetic field. More importantly, it was know since 1600 that a dig needle would lay horizontal at the Equator (and therefore a compass would as well).

Tom, just to verify, you basic position is:

That Gilbert, Norman, Nautonier, Borough, Guenter, Gellibrand, Bond, Perkins, Halley and others contributed nothing to the understanding of the geomagnetism throughout the 1600's. You 'know' what people knew in 18xx, because, you were there, [or possibly you have opinions, but then that isn't 'knowing' is it?]. Nobody knew nothing about magnetic fields before Gauss, including Rowbotham. And Gauss show's us Rowbotham's theory, one of many at the time, is not the best.

Correct?

[sarcasm]
[Validly] None of us know [except Tom, apparently he was there] what the exact understanding of the Earth Magnetic field was in 18xx [that would be 18-whatever] or the speed at which such information was disseminated.

Perhaps, Rowbotham made the best observations with the best equipment available to him and the best understanding he had.
Perhaps since {via Tom] "Nothing was known about the earth's magnetic field until large scale studies were made of it." [in the 1840s] he thought a compass needle was a mono-pole, and would only be subject to a dipping force from the Northerly direction, in which case his conclusion is correct, the needle should dip at the horizon.

Guess that's not bad seeing as [according to Tom] until Gauss in 1840 [despite a lot of evidence indicating geomagnetism was known to possess both horizontal and vertical components since 1544, and a global magnetic field was mapped for declination by 1701] nothing was previously known about the magnetic field, shouldn't we all realize that Rowbotham's conclusion, while a valiant effort for it's time, was incorrect.

Now that we know about magnet fields and stuff [thanks Gauss, screw all the other people that didn't contribute. Yeah I'm talking to you Gilbert, Norman, Nautonier, Borough, Guenter, Gellibrand, Bond, Perkins and Halley, among other, all the work yinz did before 1700 don't amount 541T, you are all notable for discovering NOTHING!!!!] If Rowbotham had access to the Gauss model, he clearly would have correctly assessed that the needle should, in fact be horizontal at the Equator. [Because it really takes a detailed study of of direction and strength to validate that such a simple thing being observed since 1544, actually happen]
[ /sarcasm]

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon
« on: April 13, 2018, 05:23:11 PM »
pretty graphics.
not sure it's relevant though.

Thank you, I did the cross-sectional line-drawing, the Eclipse map was one I found on the internet from a non-governmental source (i.e. not NASA).

As for the relevancy:

It was noted that Ancient Greek theories perspective do predict that we [observers] should be able to see [different] sides of the moon when viewed from an [different] angle [like when standing thousands of miles apart]. This presents a problem in the FE model as this isn't what we actually observe.

The poster presented, in order to reconcile the discrepancy between prediction and observation, the argument that those ancient theories are incorrect, some phenomena, such a curved space, electromagnetic acceleration or incomplete model of the perspective, causes the observers to both see the Moon from the same angle.

The line drawing, shows via the uncolored and slightly curving lines, the reconciling conjecture, that somehow the observer's field of view is bent so all observer's see the same Lunar surface.

To counter this argument, a study of the Solar Eclipse was presented:
The curving lines of the reconciling conjecture appear to predict that all observers would view a 100% Total Solar Eclipse, due to the phenomena bending their fields of view to observer in a nearly straight up direction, and would occur at the same moment for all observers.

The predictions of the straight colored fields of view [representing that space is not curved, photons generally travel in straight lines and the RE model of perspective are correct] indicate observers 2333 miles from the path of totality would be unlikely to see the Eclipse and implies that the % of totality would decrease proportionally to the distance viewed from the path of totality. Additionally, the point of totality would sweep along a path West to East, so the local time of the eclipse maxim would vary by longitude.

To summarize:
The Eclipse map shows the RE prediction [the straight colored lines].
The FE prediction, based on alternate perspective conjecture discussed here and in the linked thread, predicts all (or nearly all) observers in the daylight zone would see a 100% total Eclipse all at the same time.

The result:
The actual observations of the August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse are consistent with the RE model prediction. During the Eclipse the path of totality is relatively narrow and the % totality observable decrease with the distance the observer is away from the path of totality, with the eclipse maxim occurring at different time based on the observer's longitude.

The FE model prediction is found to be wildly inaccurate. And, you simply can't have the view bend to see the Moon from the same angle while simultaneously have it not bend to see the Eclipse from different angles.

This would suggest that the FE conjecture of light bending (for whatever reason) is false and we can discount any conjecture that results in a curvature in space or the general path a photon takes, at least to the distance of the Moon. It also suggests, that perspective and geometry function as theorized by the Ancient Greeks, at least to the distance of the Moon and that the Moon is significantly farther away than 3000(ish) miles.

9
Not all magnets make that shape. A magnet with a North and South pole closer together would make a more circular and radial magnetic field. It was also unknown if there was more than one magnetic element in the earth -- if we introduce the concept of multiple magnets, a whole variety of shapes could be made.

Before the mid 1800's it was known that the earth was magnetic in some form, but the exact layout of the fields was unknown. Your accusation that Rowtham did not know about the layout of the earth's magnetic field is misplaced, since it was just then being studied on a large scale at that time.

Rowbotham's conclusions based on the premises provided are accurate. If a premise is wrong, it means that some Round Earth academic was wrong, since that is where they are taken from.

I hate to use your own link against you. (I'm lying, I actually love it.)

Referencing:
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2007-05/1178030012.Sh.r.html
(That's a link you provided earlier)
Quote
English scientist William Gilbert pioneered research into magnetism and electrical attractions. In 'De Magnete' (1600), he was the first to describe the earth's magnetic field and to postulate the relationship between electricity and magnetism. (He introduced the term 'electricity'). He corrected described the Earth as being like a giant bar magnet." [emphasis added]
Carl Gauss is usually credited with being the first to make detailed observations of the field's direction and strength around 1840. Let me re-emphasis both direction and strength. Others observed direction prior to Gauss, other observed strength prior to Gauss. Gauss applied his mathematical genius and created model from the measurements of both direction and strength.

Tom's statement suggesting that the Earth's magnetic field was just being studied on a large scale only beginning around the  mid 1800's seems patently false.

Declination and inclination were discovered prior to 1544. It seems that [in Europe] the Earth's magnetic field was correctly being described as a bar magnet since 1600. It seems that the general layout was understood to be a dipole bar magnet slightly inclined to the axis of rotation in 1600. It was only the intensity that was not first measured in 1791, and modeled (detailed) for both direction and strength around 1840.

You know what, just read the article yourself...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geomagnetism

I don't know what premises Rowbotham based his premises on, it certainly doesn't appear to be the what was actually know about magnetism at the time. Best I can tell his premises are based on ignorance (stated without accusation of intent). Dip needles had bee around for a while, their operation should have been decently understood after 300 years (or so) of use, being they point 90 degrees down at the North pole and (presumably) they would point 90 up at the south. That means in the middle (at the equator) they'd read, what? 0 - aka horizontal, meaning there sum total magnetic inclination at that latitude is 0, meaning the needle on a compass should not dip, irrespective to the shape of the Earth's surface.

Why does it seem like he didn't know about this?

10
Compasses are counter-weighted to compensate for the inclination of Earth's magnetic field.

via Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass

and Suunto (a compass manufacturer)
http://www.suunto.com/en-US/Support/Compasses-feature-index/Understanding-balancing-zones/

The pivot point can be set above the needle's center of gravity and weights can be added to compensate. High precision compasses are built to compensate based on the area they will be used in.

The magnetic needle itself even has some built-in compensation itself. Monopole magnets aren't really a very common thing and don't even exist naturally. The needle in the compass has a N and S end. The force trying to dip the end pointing toward the Northern is counteracted by the fact that the other end is trying to dip to toward the South in the opposite direction.

Also, there's this thing called a 'Dip circle' (aka 'Dip needle') invented in 1581. Dip circles (also dip needles) are used to measure the angle between the horizon and the Earth's magnetic field (the dip angle). They were used in surveying, mining and prospecting as well as for the demonstration and study of magnetism.

It was invented because some dude actually noticed the needle on a compass dipped in 1544.

Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dip_circle

So, pretty much, yeah, that needle dipping thing sort of actually happens. A tool was made to take advantage of it and compasses were being designed to compensate for it (possibly since 1544) .

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: April 10, 2018, 10:02:15 PM »
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

I positioned both at 3000(ish) miles, but since putting them right on top of each other seemed catastrophic and I've never seen the Moon and the Sun collide, it's a pretty safe assumption that one must pass the other at a slightly lower altitude.

If you read through our Phases of the Moon article you will find that the height of the sun and moon is not static, and that they are rising and falling in altitude to create the phases on the moon. If they are rising and falling to create the phases, it is unrealistic that they are always at the same or very similar altitudes.

Also, the word "approximately" is a synonym of "more or less" and "in the neighborhood of." See: Google dictionary.

I ask you kindly to refrain from straw-manning me. I do not appreciate people putting words in my mouth.

I never disagreed that these measurements are not "approximately" or "more or less" 3000(ish) miles.
I did not make any assertions contrary to the idea that that the variation of the angular measurement of these bodies over time was due to anything other than a variation in their altitudes over the Earth.

My comment to the nature of the 'FE cosmic dance' was, in fact, born out of the idea that orbits the Sun and the Moon are NOT delimited by time, space or altitude but we are supposed to believe they are non-interfering (i.e. timed and choreographed so perfectly as not to collide while sharing a constantly varying space and altitude).

My only contention was that 2000 miles is NOT approximately 3000 miles, and thus, refused to reposition the Moon to someplace that was NOT approximately 3000 miles. Are you suggesting that 2000 miles IS approximately 3000 miles?

Did you miss this part:

Quote
The results would be 3226 - 3750 miles for the Moon and 3364 - 3481 miles for the Sun, clearly well within the range to be right next to each other (and colliding, one 4311 of a cosmic dance going on in FE land, BTW). Ultimately, your suggestion of decreasing the Moon's altitude doesn't match the established data obtained by TFES via observation.

It's where I gave the range of the altitudes for both the Moon and Sun, based upon their angular measurements and assuming a diameter of 32 miles.

At any given point in time, the Moon would be located at some altitude not less than 3226 miles and not more than 3750 miles, above the surface of the Earth. The Sun would likewise be no less than 3364 miles and no more than 3481 miles above the Earth.

As noted in the link you proved:

Quote
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.

[omitted]

When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs. [emphasis added]

When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

Clearly, since you are the one providing the link, you must agree that the Moon can be below the Sun. It's minimum altitude is less than the Sun's, it can also be above because of it's greater maximum altitude. Is there some reason we should think that the Moon cannot be at it's minimum altitude (3226 miles) while the Sun is at it's maximum (3481 miles)?

Does this not "approximately" or "more or less" match the position that I added the Moon into the drawing you provided, given that the Sun and Moon are represented by circles that would be 300 miles in diameter based on the scale distance to the Earth's surface in the drawing?

Here's math if you want it. Sun maxOrd 3481 miles less Moon minOrd 3226 miles = 255 miles of separation. That is the greatest vertical separation that can occur between the two when the Moon is below the Sun. That is the best case scenario, they can only get closer together from there.

A circle with a diameter of 300 miles has a radius of 150 miles, to place the center of two such circles 255 miles apart, should they be drawn:

A) Touching
B) Overlapping by 45 miles (about 7%)
C) With the Moon 1/3 closer to the surface of the Earth

Really the answer is B, most certainly not C, and I picked A, as the drawing was not to scale anyway.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: April 09, 2018, 07:38:20 PM »

I added the angular degrees of the Sun's circular spotlight for easy reference. And since it's supposedly a circle, you can spin it to measure N and S along a meridian, or even catty corner - SE to NW for example (nifty thing about a circle, being same all the way around).

Oh, wait, that's not how the Eclipse works. It's NOT visible from everywhere daylight is at the same moment with a minimum of about 50% totality, as the EA model appears to predict.

Why do you have the moon right up against the sun, touching it? If you decrease its altitude it will only intersect a portion of those rays at a time.

[...]


Because I read the wiki and that's where it says it goes.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

I positioned both at 3000(ish) miles, but since putting them right on top of each other seemed catastrophic and I've never seen the Moon and the Sun collide, it's a pretty safe assumption that one must pass the other at a slightly lower altitude.

I could probably easily validate the angular diameter for the Moon and Sun at 29.3 to 34.1 and 31.6 to 32.7 arcminutes, respectively, as provided by Wikipedia.

However, you're the one who says geometry doesn't work at the distance of the Earth to the Moon, so why would I assume you would accept a calculated a distance from those figures (assuming the bodies are 32 miles in diameter)?  But that that really isn't a problem, if you want Sun and Moon around 3000 miles away, the math actually works (I was being condescending there, as I assumed that TFES came up with 32 miles by taking their stated distance of 3000(ish) miles and determining what size the Sun and Moon need to be match the observed angular measurements).

What I'm saying here is, I'm pretty sure I just reversed the math TFES did to come up with a 32 mile diameter. You can argue against it, but then your probably arguing against a TFES measurement as well.

Anyway...

The results would be 3226 - 3750 miles for the Moon and 3364 - 3481 miles for the Sun, clearly well within the range to be right next to each other (and colliding, one 4311 of a cosmic dance going on in FE land, BTW). Ultimately, your suggestion of decreasing the Moon's altitude doesn't match the established data obtained by TFES via observation.

Why should I lower the Moon's altitude to say 2000 miles, when the wiki states it is 'approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth', when the math the TFES used to determine it's size says it's at 3000 miles, when that's not where anyone's observations are placing it?

Let's even look a little closer, clearly the nature of the drawing is NOT TO SCALE. The Sun and Moon, as depicted there, are both like 300 miles in diameter when compared to their distance over the Earth's surface. What I penciled in was pretty much a BEST CASE SCENARIO separation, that is, the Sun at it's maximum elevation and the Moon at it's minimum. But, even drawn to scale it's not going to address the fact that this model does not fit the actual observation of an eclipse.

Here's a scale version with a generic Moon altitude of 3000 miles and Lunar/Solar separation of 32 miles (which seems like it could happen).

If the The Flat Earth Society would like to provide different & verifiable observational  data, I will be glad to redraw this to scale again, using it instead.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon
« on: April 09, 2018, 06:36:20 PM »
Yes, the moon "flipping" is not an issue in FET.

Yes, the theories of Ancient Greek continuous perspective do predict that we should be able to see the side of the moon when viewed from an angle. However we questions those assumptions. See my comments in this thread.

The assumption are shown to be accurate at the distance from the Earth to the Moon & Sun in an FE model. If they were not, the path of totality during the solar eclipse would be vastly different than what is observed.

As seen in this scale cross-section, in order for both observers (4666 miles apart) to see the same portion of the Lunar surface, a perspective effect or a non-continuous universe could (and would have to) bend their field of view, as depicted by the uncolored sight lines. However, under these conditions, both observers (and presumably every one in between) would also view a 100% total Solar Eclipse. 



The actual path of totality of the Solar Eclipse is much narrower and the observed % totality at various locations is not consistent with a model invoking non-Euclidean geometries or non-continuous universe.

The observations seem to more closely match the Euclidean geometry predictions in a continuous universe, as depicted by the colored fields of view, indicating that people 2333 miles from the path of totality would not observe a 100% total eclipse (if they seen any eclipse at all).


Time of maxim and % totality confirmed from Corpus Christi, Pittsburgh, points along the path of totality and everywhere else that an eclipse did not occur

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: April 06, 2018, 07:37:22 PM »
Here is an old one. The theory of the Electromagnetic Accelerator states that there is a mechanism to the universe that pulls light upwards. All light curves upwards. This is an alternative to the perspective theory proposed in Earth Not a Globe. Sunset happens as consequence of these curving light rays, as well as limited visibility of objects and the sinking ship effect.



I was also under the impression that Tom was not an EA proponent and the EA idea was dead and buried awhile ago.

[sarcasm]
I guess because it explains why the Solar Eclipse (the one where the Moon transits the Sun) is visible with at least around 50% totality from the ENTIRE daytime portion of the Earth at the EXACT SAME TIME.
[/sarcasm]


I added the angular degrees of the Sun's circular spotlight for easy reference. And since it's supposedly a circle, you can spin it to measure N and S along a meridian, or even catty corner - SE to NW for example (nifty thing about a circle, being same all the way around).

Oh, wait, that's not how the Eclipse works. It's NOT visible from everywhere daylight is at the same moment with a minimum of about 50% totality, as the EA model appears to predict.


[Eclipse observations (time and totality) verified from points at Corpus Christi, all along the path of totality, Pittsburgh and everywhere in South America that didn't see it.]

EA does not correctly describe the observations obtained from the August 2017 Solar Eclipse. It seems to predicted an observable area more than twice the size, way more percentage of totality across that area and a much wider path of 100% totality. Could be the reason nobody is really subscribing to an EA model, seeing how easily it is shown to be inaccurate. It doesn't seem to fit what we (me at least) actually see in the world.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Fill me with informations, please ?
« on: April 06, 2018, 05:15:13 PM »
Probably got the idea from the FES wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
What, the page that quite explicitly suggests the very opposite of what he said? That would be quite remarkable.

I'm sorry, but how is an effort to gain (or at least appear to gain) 'The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space.' in 1958 not a bid to end the Cold War (by winning it).

It's also a popular topic in the forums.

I'm not the first person to see the connection:
Hello everybody  :D ,
The main question is : why?

Why do you think we've been told this gigantic lie for hundreds of years ? I can see that it is related to the cold war at some point (from what I read at least),

Rushy (one of your planar moderators) points it out in this thread:
No one is covering up the shape of the earth directly. It's simply a result of misguided religious dogma combined with cold war propaganda. The short version is that Aristotle decided long ago that the earth must be sphere because the gods would only choose such a perfect shape for humans to live on. Eventually the Catholics picked it up many, many years later and ran with it. Then we reach the cold war, where each country is showing off just how much it can lie to its own people and the US won. The moon landing was faked, and since the popular belief at the time was that the world is spherical, the earth was depicted as a sphere.

This whole thread is about it:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8819.msg141165#msg141165

Connected to winning the Cold War in this thread by Thork (not sure if that any relation to Baby Thork):
M=Knowledge is power
M=Why not. The moon landing hoax is still going.
O=The space race was a propaganda war. Hearts and minds. If you can convince your voters something as ridiculous as a man walking on the moon, you can convince them anything, including justification for nuclear war. The US won, because the US had Hollywood. They won the cold war. They could get support for total war.

That only about half the threads that came up to the search term "Cold War".

But I wanted to point out one last one, because it is THE ABSOLUTE BEST -  from Pete Svarrior about a relation to the conspiracy being born out of the Cold War era Space Race:

So why would governments and scientists try and convince us?
Again, the exact same reason North Korea does. You're not trying to convince your friend from the petrol station, you're trying to convince other governments that you've achieved something. Trace it back to the cold war and the space race - neither America nor Russia would like to admit that they made stuff up, now would they?

So...

Did you change your mind or are you spouting out baseless assertions or are you just trolling?

I suppose it could be some sort of Pavlovian response - Anytime an FEer see's an RE speaking the truth they reflexively adopt the the opposite position. [Which is kinda like trolling except is involuntary]

EDIT - stupid auto correct

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Fill me with informations, please ?
« on: April 06, 2018, 04:19:08 PM »
a common theory among them is that it was to end the Cold War
I'm not entirely sure where you got that idea from, but it most certainly isn't common...

Probably got the idea from the FES wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

Quote
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. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.

See this remark made in 1958 by Senate Majority Leader and later President Lyndon Johnson:

    Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change temperate climates to frigid. There is something more important than the ultimate weapon. And that's the ultimate position. The position of total control over the Earth that lies somewhere in outer space.
    —Lyndon B. Johnson, Statement on Status of Nation's Defense and Race for Space, January 7, 1958

So, if it's not common, why is the 'official' position of the FES?

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to see the curvature of the Earth
« on: March 30, 2018, 04:50:57 PM »
GPS is commonly disputed as inaccurate around here, recently as last week even:

We can all agree, flat-earther and round-earther alike, that GPS, GLONASS, Galileo and similar systems work pretty well.

I don't agree with that. There are numerous complaints online that GPS gives inaccurate distances. Look at this link: https://pmags.com/gps-mileage-discrepancies

Multiple examples are given, including the following quote:

Quote
And in the racing world, professionally surveyed half-marathon routes of 13.1 miles are called too short by people wearing GPS enabled devices.  Some people less politely and less friendly, but still firmly, write the race directors and complain that the race course is 13.9 miles or even 14.2 miles. Some racers even are LESS polite. :O  Why? Because their GPS enabled devices report higher mileage than what is on the race course.

USATF Certified tracks are measured with wheeled devices, and this distance differs when compared to GPS.

This author claims that GPS devices are inaccurate for finding distance, and that this inaccuracy grows with greater distance traveled (which is curious under the Round Earth model since GPS is just finding your coordinate and computing the distance to another coordinate).

Another quote from that link:

Quote
Your GPS-enabled watch, a GPS unit such as one bought at outdoor stores or an increasingly frequently used mobile devices are all Recreational Grade GPS units. They are good for knowing, more or less,  where you are in a general location.  You will not get pinpoint accuracy for location or distance.  The effects of this inaccuracy is more noticeable the longer or more varied a jaunt.

See the bolded. If the Round Earth model is true, this is confusing, since GPS devices are just based on finding your coordinate and mapping how far away coordinate B should be. It should not matter how far away you map coordinate B. It should not increase in error the further away you map. The coordinates and the distance between them on a Round Earth should be known.

A comment at the bottom of that article showing that this is illogical:

Quote
It surprises me how much inaccuracy there seems to be. If my GPS knows my position within fifteen feet, there shouldn’t be a half mile discrepancy over fifteen miles.

The author of the article further asserts that "professional GPS equipment" is necessary, but does not suggest that he has ever used it, or show information that it is any more accurate for distances. Such equipment may be more accurate for showing current coordinate with higher resolution, beyond the accuracy of consumer GPS (which measures in 3 to 7 meters, not on the range of miles), but it does not follow that such professional devices are more accurate for "measuring distances". The distance between coordinate points on a Round Earth should be known in all systems.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon
« on: March 30, 2018, 04:42:57 PM »

Still, the only argument I'm making is:

If taken alone, that is not considering the other factors that make FE Moon conjecture laughable, the inversion of the image between North and South points in the FE model is consistent enough not to falsify the FE conjecture (i.e. it could be consistent with an FE model).

I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get what it is I'm trying to point out, so I give up.

I'm can't get your 'point' because what you're trying to point out amounts to 'nu-uh'. Your sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to good science. I'm not trying to convince you of FE, that's a bunch of bunk. I'm trying to teach about basic geometry and point of view.

I've shown (in two different sets of pictures) a model over a flat plane that an overhead object in which only one face is visible to all observer's, will appear to flip over based solely on the observer crossing underneath and it turning around. You're refusing to believe it.

Did I fake the pictures? If you say, 'No', then what the problem, I've shown 'that flat earthers COULD see the moon as "upside down", when compared to that seen by another viewer, from SOMEWHERE on their "flat earth'. [paraphrasing you]

If you scream 'FAKE'; Welcome to the mindset of the FEer's. Congratulations, you now probably understand their cognitive dissociation better than any other RE in the room. 

What you're saying is that such an observation can't happen, ever, at all, under no conditions. You claim is that I should NEVER have been able to take a picture of the 3D cylinder from the flat floor of my office and have the image appear to invert (which I did BTW). You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to backup your claim, A) because you can't really backup 'nu-uh' and B) I've already falsified it.

I've explained it to you in blimp-o-vision. Are you telling me that you think that the peeps in both the Goodyear blimp and the peeps in the MetLife blimp on the other side of the track would both read the number on the race car roof as '6'?
Are you saying a racetrack isn't [relatively] flat?
Or that 2 blimps at similar altitudes aren't on the same plane with the same reference of the direction defined as away from the surface of the Earth?

Then I provided you a drawing that related this concept to a distant object circling overhead (like the FE Moon).

And, then there is my personal favorite, the attempt to obfuscate and confuse a 2D drawing, by injecting you own 3D perspective without considering that when you push (or pull) the Moon around in the Z direction, you have to rotate it so the back side continues to face away from everyone, confuse a card taped to the ceiling on edge as a fair depiction of the Moon's image, have me make a 3D cylinder, but then say, you're the one whose been "trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion".

Maybe it's my fault for taping a card up, perhaps if I had drawn the Moon on my ceiling in permanent marker, you would have realized that I had the ink oriented in the proper direction to begin with? I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding that turning around is sufficient to to invert the Moon image.

Maybe it's because this is the FE site, had you read this elsewhere you might been more open minded to the idea that there is not a preferred direction of 'top' on a flat plane.
 
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/135-does-the-moon-look-different-in-the-northern-and-southern-hemispheres-beginner

Quote
I'm not surprised they noticed a difference in the appearance of the moon. Had they tilted their head and looked at the Moon upside down, it would have looked normal (to them anyway). In short, the moon looks upside down in the southern hemisphere (or in your case the moon would look upside down in the northern hemisphere). I noticed exactly the same thing on my first trip to southern hemisphere.

To understand why this happens, imagine for simplicity that the orbit of the Moon was exactly in the same plane as the Earth's equator. From the northern hemisphere, the Moon is in the southern sky because that's the direction of the Earth's equator. In the southern hemisphere the situation is reversed. Now imagine that you are standing on the equator. The Moon would be directly overhead. First face north and look straight up at the Moon. It should look like it does in Australia. Now turn and face south and look at the Moon. You are now looking at the Moon flipped from how it looked when facing north. This is how the moon looks in the northern hemisphere to your American friends.

The equator is a special place because the moon is overhead (at least in our thought experiment), and there's no preferred viewing direction. At higher or lower latitudes there is a preferred direction, namely the one when you're standing on your feet and not your hands, so you really only see the moon in one orientation.

Key points:

The orbit of the Moon was exactly in the same plane as the Earth's equator. = On flat earth, the Moon ALWAYS orbits in the same plane of the equator.

The equator is a special place because the moon is overhead (at least in our thought experiment), and there's no preferred viewing direction. = When the viewing plane is parallel to orbital plane, there is no preferred viewing direction.

From the northern hemisphere, the Moon is in the southern sky because that's the direction of the Earth's equator. In the southern hemisphere the situation is reversed. = On FE, turning around reverses your viewing direction.

At higher or lower latitudes there is a preferred direction, namely the one when you're standing on your feet and not your hands, so you really only see the moon in one orientation. = The is only a preferred direction on RE, a model where people can be upside down while still standing on their feet, but this only applies to higher and lower latitudes.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon
« on: March 29, 2018, 06:00:41 PM »
I began by saying, and THIS IS IMPORTANT, so PAY ATTENTION - "First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers". What I meant there is that, since we are dealing with a two dimensional illustration, for the sake of my argument it becomes necessary to mentally place the moon deeper into the illustration in the Z axis, thereby creating a "virtual" 3D illustration, so that the viewers in the illustration have essentially the same view of the moon as drawn that you and I have.

I get it, it appears that you're not getting it. I'm simply trying to show that flat earthers would never see the moon as "upside down", when compared to that seen by another viewer, from anywhere on their "flat earth". That should be obvious to anyone who gives it a modicum of thought.

As for "seeing the backside of the moon" I've consistently been trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, the face we see, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion. The amount of miscommunication here seems gargantuan. This is almost like kibitzing with an FEer.  :)

I know, and you're the one playing the part of the FEer.

You keep demanding more proofs and taking materials out of context, without providing anything of you own. You're the one who complained I used a playing card to represent the Moon and then had me make a 3D cylinder for no good reason, only to come back and say "I've consistently been trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, the face we see, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion".

I mean really, make me build a model in 3D than come back and say YOU'RE the one whose been "trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon".

8!tc4, please!

Still haven't heard you tender a guess at to which set of pics are from the FE model and which are from the RE model, BTW. But hey, that's a classic FE debate tactic, too - Avoid answering the questions that challenge your point ... by ignoring them.

I've understood that we can model the Moon as a 2 dimensional surface oriented so that all observers can only see one face. You're the one who wanted it mounted so one person would see the value and the other would see the picture, which doesn't happen in either model or in real life.

You're the one who keeps dis-believing all the evidence that I've put forth that this could work over a flat surface, but provided nothing to show it can't.

You're the one who is having trouble unfolding the RE mechanics of an orbit to visualize what amounts to a race track over FE.

Also, pushing the moon in the Z direction causes it to rotate on it axis (in reality it's the Earth rotating, the Moon essentially stays still over the course of a day) so it's continues to present only one side. This is the best 3D rendering I can do:



You should also note that the Moon also flips between rise and set. The red/green edge rising first out of the horizon, is the edge that will lead the moon setting on the other horizon. Go out and watch it tonight.

Nothing is wrong with anyone's understanding of how the works on RE. You're just not getting how it works when FE peels it out into basically what amounts to an overhead race track. (Which we can model as a below a blimp racetrack)

Imagine you're up in the Goodyear blimp over a stretch of racetrack, so high you're almost looking straight down on at the cars roofs, can't really see the sides at all. You watch the Number 6 car take the lead, but the people in the MetLife blimp, on the other side of the track, see the Number 9 car pulling ahead. How is this possible? Because the direction you are facing makes a difference.



On FE the image could flip, just not for the same reason as on RE. Still, on FE with it's fake horizon and with the inverted bowl effect (which exists on RE as well), the act of passing under the zenith and turning around could create a similar effect.

This Moon flipping thing between North and South, by itself, could be consistent on a FE (flat plane) model.

It's not consistent with the common FE model of a Moon 3000 miles away though. The Moon still needs to be much more distant and must remain tidally locked (in FE case the o part of the 6/9 always facing the North Pole and 1 side always facing Earth. (Not sure why the Moon would be tidally locked of on Fantasy Earth though, since gravity isn't really supposed to be a thing there.)

Still, the only argument I'm making is:

If taken alone, that is not considering the other factors that make FE Moon conjecture laughable, the inversion of the image between North and South points in the FE model is consistent enough not to falsify the FE conjecture (i.e. it could be consistent with an FE model).

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon
« on: March 29, 2018, 12:45:24 AM »
Quote from: Spycrab link=topic=9212.msg145439#msg145439
Actually we have. The whole thing. Not all from earth, no, but here's a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon
Read up.

Now you are just being obtuse.

I think most people would realize I was implying 'as seen from Earth'.

Thanks for the link, but I am familiar with searching both Wikipedia and Google without assistance.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >