Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Pinky

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4  Next >
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Question about logic.
« on: February 06, 2019, 05:12:15 PM »
Try figuring out how to post in the right forum - that might help your case.

Very well, then I would like to forewarn you about what I will do next.

I will make a series of 3 posts, concerning a host of mathematical and logical mistakes I have repeatedly seen made by Flat-Earthers, in this forum as well as on Youtube. I will post detailed explanations:
* How to make an experimental measurement and the mathematical reason why exactly an experimental measurement needs to be done in this way.
* How to statistically analyze a measurement and the mathematical reason why the zetetic method cannot be used to create a logical conclusion from data.
* How to test a logical conclusion for whether it even is a valid conclusion and how to calculate whether a conclusion is based in falsified data.

Which sub-forum do you suggest for that?

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Question about logic.
« on: February 05, 2019, 12:21:49 PM »
How about you think about that question logically?

Is correcting mathematics or factually incorrect statements a personal attack?

Whoever you are arguing with and whatever it is about ... I'll bet you are the one that is wrong. Surely you could have figured out the answer to your question without making a stupid thread?

Well, I was banned from this forum for posting a trigonometric calculation.
I got the numbers from Flat-Earthers and the result of the calculation was that Earth cannot be flat.
When I asked via PM why is was banned, the reply was simply that my logic was wrong.
When I asked what exactly was wrong, I never got an answer.

Do you see why I am suspicious?

Anyways, I have found some even more interesting arguments and I just want to be sure that I get to post my calculations and that we can debate them without getting banned yet again.

So, to repeat my question: If I attack the logical and mathematical framework within which somebody reached his conclusion, will that count as a personal attack and/or insult within the rules of this forum? I would like to receive a Yes or No answer.

Suggestions & Concerns / Question about logic.
« on: February 05, 2019, 09:42:01 AM »
I have noticed that several people on this forum post statements that are illogical and/or mathematically incorrect.

Am I allowed to correct them or will my attack on their logic be regarded as an attack on them as a person, respectively as an attack on the FE-community?

It does get darker. Look at the sun when it is directly overhead, and then look at the sun when it is near the horizon.

Fairbanks, Alaska
Dec 16th, 2010

As you can see, as soon as it's above the horizon, the brightness in the inner part of the Sun-disc stays the same.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The physical impossibility of its creation.
« on: December 07, 2018, 05:44:34 PM »
I’m refering of course to a flat earth map that is an alternative to the current world map. According to my extensive research the production of a flat earth ‘alternative map’ is an impossibility rendering the flat earth also impossible.

(Let not get bogged down in discussing all the various projections used as these are just  convienient ways of pictorially representing the 3D globe  on a 2D sheet of paper, which is a tricky thing to do to avoid distortions. Most maps used for travelling deal with smaller sections of the earth’s surface rendering any distortions negligible.)

The main problem is that for a flat earth map to exist something would have to give, and by that I mean land masses including towns cities, mountains and rivers would have to be relocated, which as we all know is an impossibility.

If we start with the Americas, this continent is criss crossed with a vast and complex network of both road and rail with known and fixed start and end points. The 30,000 Km long Pan American Highway being a vast road network stretching from Alaska to Chile albeit with a smallish gap of 100Km. The upshot is the geography of this continent is known and fixed with the location of every town, mountain river and forest known. Using commercial maps you could drive anywhere on this continent, like I did driving Route 66 in the late 80s, and be confident about both distances covered and the exact location of your final destination.

The same could be said of all the other continental land masses. I could take trains, as you all could, from London in the West to Vladivostok in the East, a distance of over 8,500 Km. The track is fixed securely to the ground and passes through all the stop offs acording to published maps.

International communications by land sea and air where the exact locations of both start and end points are known make it impossible for the geography of the planet to be reinterpreted. With the layout of all the major land masses established the positional relationship of an island like Australia can be established by the intricate sea lane connections with major ports in Asia, Europe and the Americas. These sea lanes are travelled every day of the year by a vast armada of container ships carrying both finished goods and raw materials.

To reiterate. Given how the location of every point on earth is accurately known relative to many other points it’s just not possible for the geography of the earth to be reinterpreted rendering the production of a flat earth map alternative as an impossibility.

Put short:

If Earth is flat, why aren't there mapmakers and astronomers and pilots and navigators stumbling all the time over the simple fact that the Spherical Earth-numbers don't add up?

Maybe, because the numbers of Spherical Earth do add up?

So, the Sun moves farther away from us during the day.

From its point of view, we occupy a smaller and smaller fraction of its 4*pi spatial angle. This means, we get less and less of its photons.

However: The Sun at the same time stays at the same observed size due to glare. To us, the Sun keeps occupying the same angle and same area in the sky.

This means, that less and less photons are coming from an area in the sky that stays at the same size.

And this means, the Sun would have to get darker throughout the day. Not simply less daylight as the same amount of sunlight is stretched with 1/cos(alpha) over more and more terrestrial area. But a real decline of brightness of the Sun-disc itself.

And we do not observe such a change in brightness...

Interesting that the RE peanut gallery is ignoring the fact that the route presented is not a triangle. It's almost as if you weren't interested in resolving the critical contradiction in your self-proclaimed victory.

It is a triangle. Three points connected by geodesic lines.

less than 540 degrees.

That's incorrect. On a 2D-manifold with positive curvature, the inside-angle of a triangle goes from 180° (infintely small area inside triangle) to 3*(360°-60°)=900° (infinitely small area outside triangle). :D :D :D

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do sunsets work?
« on: December 07, 2018, 05:05:28 PM »
I don't think my questions have been answered so far, or maybe I simply overlooked it. It feels like this discussion has gone astray.

1. Does the visible Sun-disc shrink or does it not shrink? Which Wiki-page in the FE-Wiki is correct and which one is false?
2. Within the FE-model, what causes the visible Sun-disc to suddenly (over the course of a few minutes) appear and disappear at sunrise/sunset?
1. The sun only 'shrinks' at sunset. Both pages are correct. The size doesn't change during the day, then at sunset the sun appears to vanish/shrink.
2. FEH perspective.

According to it shrinks continuously throughout the day.
Except we don't see it shrinking because .
Except when it suddenly goes from non-shrinking to shrinking.

When its real angular size in the sky shrinks, but it stays the same observed size throughout the day, shouldn't the Sun get darker? You know, because less and less radiation is coming from the same observed area?

Also, what is FEH?

1. Has Earth been proven to be flat or is its true shape merely unknown?

2. Is newtonian gravity as a general concept real or a mirage, a side-effect of other physical phenomena such as the density of an object?
What experiment convinced you that newtonian gravity is/isn't real?

3. Is the movement of the Sun known (e.g. it moving in a circle above FE) or is the true movement of the Sun still unknown and subject of research?

4. Do the other planets move above Flat Earth in a similar way as the Sun or do they move apart from Earth in astronomical distances?

5. Is there a universe full of stars or are they affixed to a dome?

6. Are Einstein's theories of General Relativity and Special Relativity accepted in the FE-community?
What experimental proof convinced you that they are correct/incorrect?

7. Does sunlight move in straight lines in the atmosphere (as postulated by Rowbotham) or does it move in curved lines (as postulated in the "Electromagnetic Accelerator")?

8. Are man-made satellites real? Yes or No?

9. What percentage of the FE-community is creationists? (Rough estimate.)

10. What percentage of the FE-community believes in the Nasa and space-travel conspiracy? (Rough estimate.)

Markjo, whatever justification you want to give it, they are taking data from flat maps. I don't see how it can be successfully argued that the earth is round, but flat maps are used because they "minimize distortion".

All of this is entirely contrary to what you guys have been telling us for the last 13 years about these spherical models.

But how big are these flat maps? The crucial difference between flat maps and spherical maps is that for large distances, distortions emerge and they start predicting different angles and different distances.

If Earth is flat, why are these small flat maps handled individually as local maps? Why are they not stitched together into one large map?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do sunsets work?
« on: December 07, 2018, 03:15:02 PM »
I don't think my questions have been answered so far, or maybe I simply overlooked it. It feels like this discussion has gone astray.

1. Does the visible Sun-disc shrink or does it not shrink? Which Wiki-page in the FE-Wiki is correct and which one is false?
2. Within the FE-model, what causes the visible Sun-disc to suddenly (over the course of a few minutes) appear and disappear at sunrise/sunset?

Flat Earth Theory / How do sunsets work?
« on: November 29, 2018, 08:49:10 AM »
I have read these

And I am more confused than ever.

The second Wiki-page says that sunset is due to the Sun moving so far away that its observed size shrinks beyond the resolution of the eye.

But the third Wiki-page says that the observed size doesn't shrink despite the Sun moving further away, because of light-scattering in the atmosphere.

If the Sun maintains its observed size despite moving further away, then why does the Sun disappear eventually? Why is there a cutoff? Why does the Sun maintain a certain observed size throughout the day and then the observed size suddenly shrinks within a few minutes and it's gone?

How far away is the Sun when it goes from non-shrinking to shrinking?

The second Wiki-page mentions some non-transparent atmospheric layer that dims sunlight, but that doesn't explain the sharp cutoff and it doesn't explain why the Sun-disc shrinks asymmetrically while maintaining its radius.

Hi there,
I've been investigating Flat Earth, and I'm interested in conducting a test of the accuracy of the globe and flat models. I can't find detailed enough versions of the flat version of the Earth to really conduct proper measurements and chart a course, but I just wanted to ask if I've charted the most direct possible path across the two models, so I know which routes to test.

Cape Town to Melbourne isn't necessarily the best path to test - There's a direct flight from Johannesburg to Perth for example - but I haven't found a detailed enough Flat Earth map to be able to properly measure the distances between places the way you can with google Earth. Are there some more detailed maps I could access somewhere to use for this test?

Thanks in advance!

I once proposed a similar experiment:
You pick two random locations A and B on the same latitude high up north and measure their distance in East-West-direction.
Then you pick two random locations C and D on the same latitude deep south and measure their distance in East-West-direction.

If FE is true, the distance AB is smaller than on the SE-map and the distance CD is larger than on the SE-map.

For example, according to the SE-map of Google Earth, the distance from Capetown to Port Elizabeth should be 660 km.

I see. If the FE map were to be taken at face value, it's not possible to travel from the equator going north to the pole, turn 90 degrees left, travel the same amount of distance, turn 90 degrees left again and travel the same amount of distance and end up back where you started. by doing that on a flat map you'd make a square with a missing side and you'd not be back in the same place you started, if you do it on the globe map, you form a triangle and you end up where you started.

Now with that in mind, if you do it in real life, you will end up back where you start. So how on flat earth is that possible?

I made a quick sphere object to show the path with 90 degree turns.

Exactly. There is no map that is based on FE-geometry AND that correctly predicts distances and angles in the real world.

And on the other hand, maps based on a SE-geometry can correctly predict distances and angles in the real world. If they could not, we would hear complaints from navigators and cartographers.

Has anybody ever made a Flat-Earth map that can bring me from A to B to C, with all angles and distances matching reality AND usable for distances upwards of 1000 km? May I pretty please see it?

I was wondering: If the FE-maps of old were correct, then how were the seafaring navigators tricked into giving up their accurate FE-maps for inaccurate SE-maps and how come no seafaring navigator has ever complained that the SE-maps give wrong distances and wrong angles?
It is a given all maps are flat.

Name one map ever used by any seagoing navigator that was flat.

There is no such thing as a "SE" map.


Okay, for those among us who are hard of hearing, I will spell it out nice and clearly so you can smell what I meant:
Maps based on the FE-model and maps based on the SE-model.
Maps where the angles in a triangle sum up to exactly 180° and maps where the angles in a triangle sum up to more than 180°.

Also, I reckon that a globe does count as a SE-map, even by your definition.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Zetetic Methods Are Good Methods!
« on: November 28, 2018, 01:37:30 PM »
Many REers (I have noticed) lambaste the zetetic method and FEers who use it. This is, in my opinion, an error. The zetetic method lays the groundwork for the method REers use anyway: the scientific method.

If one follows the zetetic method to its logical conclusion, then one will derive the scientific method eventually. This is how the scientific method was created; this is what we call history. Contemporary zetetics merely reverse the clock, and begin their thought-process a couple millennia divorced from the achievements that zetetic methods have thus far produced.

Let me state that again. The zetetic method is not novel. What FEers call the zetetic method, is what the rest of the planet calls the scientific method minus about 1-2 thousand years. There is absolutely no problem with individuals seeking to begin this process anew without the benefit of all the progress that has been made. Such an endeavor is, in reality, quite scientific. And honest! We should support such efforts.

And we should also seek honesty in that exploration.

True zetetic investigations are historic, Galileo being one of the greatest zetetics to have lived. He championed direct observation even when doing so threatened his life. We should strive to be equally ruthless. Even if the results contradict what feels safe, or familiar. This is true zetetic practice, and it is emotionally difficult. But worth it.

In true zetetic fashion, I have visited a Foucault pendulum in London. I have watched it precess, across the hour. In true zetetic fashion, I need to form an explanation (i.e., a model) to explain this behavior. In true zetetic fashion, my explanation should match other explanations made about my reality. They should meet -- they should support each other. Otherwise reality is divisive. I seek an explanation congruent with my reality.

I asked this in the forum a while ago and did not get an answer: What is the zetetic method? Where can I find a definition?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Buoyancy ?
« on: November 28, 2018, 01:28:18 PM »
So to keep a long story short, I started watching Eric Dubay, and I havn't seen evidence to a round Earth myself. So I tried to brainstorm some repeatable/observable/somethingable (that he puts emphasis on) experiments.

He mentioned, in lieu of gravity, that buoyancy is a simpler explanation as to why we are stuck on the ground, ie. less dense than ground but more dense than air, keeping us between the two.

Now from life experiences, using still water as a medium, I know that denser objects sink faster than less dense objects. Using this as a parallel, I started to think that, when I use air as a medium, than more dense objects would fall faster than less dense objects.

So using a ping pong ball, die, baseball, tennisball, balled up sock. I began dropping them from an equivalent height (outstretched arms). I found quickly that my left hand is a bit slower than my right, so I had to start testing from both hands multiple times. After some time it seemed clear that regardless of the items density they landed approximately the same time, even the the ping pong ball and baseball (which i felt had the greatest density difference).

Now clearly my experiment needs to be cleaned up a bit, before i can even claim a result. But I should get a camera on the ground to see even small differences at a level perspective. And I need to remove human error somehow. I should also control the density, with some light plastic containers and just fill them with different amounts of water. Also maybe find some more elevation, so any small difference will be more exaggerated. Also controlling shapes would be good, to exclude different levels of air resistance. Maybe all the objects I have dropped are just at a similar magnitude of density greater than the medium that they fall at the same speed, even so, there should still be small differences.

More importantly I feel it's a simple and quick experiment that everyone can attempt. Thoughts? Suggestions?

Gravity cannot be buoyancy because it also works sideways.

Has anybody ever made a Flat-Earth map that can bring me from A to B to C, with all angles and distances matching reality AND usable for distances upwards of 1000 km? May I pretty please see it?

I was wondering: If the FE-maps of old were correct, then how were the seafaring navigators tricked into giving up their accurate FE-maps for inaccurate SE-maps and how come no seafaring navigator has ever complained that the SE-maps give wrong distances and wrong angles?

That's a very good question. If you don't get any answers in this forum, try Youtube. There are dozens of videos where people "prove" with "experiments" that Earth is flat.

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4  Next >