Show Posts

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


Messages - spherical

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pole to pole flight
« on: July 16, 2019, 09:53:46 PM »
Big leap of faith to call that a pole to pole flight . Viewing the flight track log shows the plane flies no farther north than 67 degrees before heading south .

Feel free to plot those flight coordinates over Google Map wide open zoom seeing the spherical Earth, you will see that the gap below will go straight over the North Pole, the 61.7175 -80.9999 is north of Hudson Bay on Canada - Nortwestern Passages, and the 69.2901 708606 is right over Russia, the other side of North Pole, Yamalski District.  There is no other easy and faster way to go from one to another than a straight flight over the North Pole.  There may be several reasons why the tracking controle didn't log this less than 6 hours trip right over North Pole.

Ter 13:54:12   61.7175   -80.9999   
Gap in available data         
Ter 19:36:52   69.2901   70.8606   

The same for the South Pole, a 12 hours flight east from Madagaskar (Mauritius Island) to the southern tip of South America:

Qua 08:30:25   -24.2242   57.9559
Gap in available data         
Qua 20:52:16   -55.7884   -70.9529   

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pole to pole flight
« on: July 15, 2019, 10:24:46 PM »
I can not find the flight patch track, where did you get it online?

3
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 12, 2019, 10:16:56 PM »
I am not a FET, but answering your question #2:

According to Flat Earth theory, the Moon distance is not actually "measured", but calculated by geometry.
On a Flat Earth world, a "pizza" disc with 20,000 km in radius, 10,000 km from Poles to Equator, anytime the Moon is right at the top of Equator, a person located at 5,000 km from the Equator (right in middle of Equator and pole, or 45° of latitude), same longitude as the Moon, will see the Moon at 45° of elevation towards Equator.  By rectangle triangulation, 5000 km on ground, 45° of hypotenuse, makes 5000 km up to the Moon, that makes around 3125 miles up. 

Of course, if you start to bend the ground with gravity underneath, same person will continue to see the Moon at 45° IF the Moon starts to go away further proportionally.  If the ground bends 45° where the person is, relative to the Equator, plus the 45° of elevation the person sees the Moon, our beloved natural satellite will be pretty close to 90° of elevation to another person over the Equator seeing the "same" Moon, what puts the Moon very far away, around 380,000 km of distance in the same triangulation calculation.  The same calculation can be used for the Sun.  The problem is that a regular poor mortal person doesn't have a super precise instrumentation necessary to measure exactly the thousandth of a second of degree of difference when measuring at Equator or at 5000km from it, in order to get the exact distances for objects in the sky, so, on FE rounding degrees result in that 3000 miles up for the Sun and the Moon.

The same triangulation can be used to calculate the size of the Moon and Sun.  As we can actually see and measure Sun and Moon diameter to be very close to half a degree, and considering FE living creatures could see them at 45° of elevation, when standing at 5000km from another person seeing it at 90° elevation, it means 111km (5000km/45°) per degree, half degree would be 55km, or roughly 34.7 miles in diameter.

So, distances and sizes based on triangulation only relies on angles of observations, if you zero all the terrain to a flat Earth, and all its inhabitants will be straight up no matter where, all the distant objects on the sky MUST be pulled close in order to keep the same elevation angle results.

If you make flat Earth concave by only 5°, all the measurements change again, the sky objects would need to be yet closer.

Two persons over the Moon in RE world, can calculate the distance to Earth, they only need to know the Moon radius, the distance among them, and the elevation angle each see Earth, a triangulation calculation will easily gives them the "h" of the isosceles triangle (if both see the Earth with exact same elevation angle number), that means distance.  They can also measure the angular size of Earth, and based the distance to Earth, easily calculate Earth diameter.   Knowing diameter and guessing Earth is composed of rocky material, they can also calculate volume (4.1888*r³), mass and gravity. Knowing radius of the Moon and also a rocky object, volume, mass and gravity. Earth and Moon gravity and distance gives you orbital period.   Astrophysics is a fascinating field of study, not existent on flat Earth world, unfortunately.
 

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why Does Water Look Flat?
« on: July 12, 2019, 04:01:22 PM »
Yes, but as Flat Earthers arbitrarily removed gravity and space/time warping from their universe laws, so your assumption that water is attracted to the center of a mass, will not work.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spherical Measurement System
« on: July 12, 2019, 03:29:38 PM »
Yes you can, IF you consider the frisbee just a very small part almost flat of a large spherical object.

I think I understand what you mean. As if the frisbee was just a small part of a much larger sphere.  Would that mean then that you would only be using a small portion of that measurement system (like coordinates)?

Yes, if you see an egg-shell through a microscope, what you see on the lens can receive plotted coordinates almost as a flat surface, lines almost parallels and perpendiculars, no visual perceptible curvature.  Remember from geometry school, a circle is composed by infinite quantity of small straight lines.

Also remember, a curve is a line that you can measure and determine it is not straight.  If you can not show or prove it is not straight, then for your point of view it is a straight line. May be that line is a crooked all warped through stars and galaxies, but this small segment you see may be straight.

For example, the horizon is a straight line for the observer, if the observer can see the horizon in front, sides and back of himself.  If the observer moves very far away from inside of this flat circle, then he can see the circle edges and find out he was indeed inside a circle.  It is all a reason of what you see and how you can measure.

Other than that, in true nothing in the universe is straight, not even light travelling for eons, everything is under the influence of some gravity, space/time deformations.  Think about your home window glass, it seems straight and flat, but it is not.  It was produced using molten glass over a tank of liquid molten tin metal, liquid glass floats ove the metal, becomes flat and smooth.  But due the Earth's spherical format and gravity, that liquid tin metal surface is not truly straight, it is curved - the center will always be bulged, non even close to visually perceptible angle, but it is measurable with precise instrumentation.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spherical Measurement System
« on: July 11, 2019, 06:32:24 PM »
Yes you can, IF you consider the frisbee just a very small part almost flat of a large spherical object.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 11, 2019, 06:28:56 PM »
If you think about the FE model to be like a pizza, and start to draw countries and continents based on known true distances, inland and between them, this pizza will end up missing few slices. Flat Earth model has a huge problem here.  Someone (FEt) must fix this issue very soon.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pole to pole flight
« on: July 10, 2019, 09:15:12 PM »
At this moment, 31:42 hours after takeoff they are flying right over Antarctica.
They depart from Florida KSC, straight North, over Canada, flew the North Pole, flew South over Russia, Kazhakstan, Indian Ocean, Mauritius island directly to South Pole, are crossing it, fly North over a little west of Chile (South America) and directly to Florida KSC for landing.  The whole flight to this moment Long:58, Lat:-84.18, Alt:42900ft Speed:478.  The total flight will be 40172km. This flight from Indian Ocean over South Pole, few hours later ending up almost over Chile on East Pacific ocean is a killing, isn't it?

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs
« on: July 10, 2019, 03:18:28 PM »
56.   The Sun and Moon may often be seen high in the heavens at the same time - the Sun rising in the east and the Moon setting in the west - the Sun's light positively putting the Moon's light out by sheer contrast! If the Newtonian theory were correct, and the moon had her light from the Sun, she ought to be getting more of it when face to face with that luminary - if it were possible for a sphere to act as a reflector all over its face! But as the Moon's light pales before the rising Sun, it is a proof that the theory fails; and is gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Well, the above statement give me a headache by imagining that the author thinks Globe Earth to be so much bigger than the Sun, in order for the Sun be hidden "in the other side" during the night, and can not illuminate the Moon during that time.   The thing is, even not believing in certain things, I am able to imagine those things in the "what if" world.  Why the author can not even imagine Earth, Moon are so much smaller than the Sun, in order to the Moon being blocked by solar radiation only in the few Moon eclipses when Earth blocks it in the middle?  I can imagine the universe with and without god, for example, fanatics can not, or want not, to imagine the "other way".

I understand the author says the Moon is lit in the sky even without the Sun being present (so it must have own light), and when the Sun comes out the Moon pales out, reduces its brightness.  It is interesting to imagine someone lacks so much knowledge about the atmosphere ionization, reducing Moon's and other planets and stars glare visibility, also, about the Sun radiating energy all over the space within the solar system volume and even beyond, illuminating all bodies all the time, except during the rare obstructions by a larger body, typical case of eclipses of natural satellites, some asteroids and space debris in the way.  By other way, I can imagine the author uses the lack of knowledge (innocence) of the readers to force them to believe in his words that the "theory of global Earth fails" because the Moon becomes pale in the presence of the Sun.


57.   The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of. the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

I wish the world to be a place where you would need to prove with evidences all you say or write and be responsible for such sayings.
"... since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon..."
That is a strong lie, it never happened, never will be.  I will not even ask for evidences, because they don't exist.
It is exactly using this kind of absurdity statements as support, that put the whole FE theory into discredit and disbelief.

85.   There are rivers which flow east, west, north, an south - that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth's surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down, taking it for a fact that there really is an "up" and a "down" in nature, whatever form she assumes. But, since rivers do not flow up-hill, and the globular theory requires that they should, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

This is another example of the absurdity of lack of knowledge and imagination.  Even being a FET you obsiously CAN imagine a global planet with gravity in the center, thus, no matter where the rivers are, water will always flow towards the lower point in reference to the globe core, following gravity attraction.  The author again shows he simply CAN not (or want not) to open space for imagination.  Another attempt to force very biased information in the mind of the innocent uneducated readers.

Am I wrong thinking like that?

I wish, please, we could discuss this three points, mostly FEts supporting them with evidences or further clarifications.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 08, 2019, 08:16:53 PM »
If uA is comstantly accelerating, wouldn't we approach the speed of light?
In what frame of reference?

The same frame of reference that measured the acceleration (UA).
Simple, isn't it?

You can even measure acceleration of a car if you are a passenger.
Accumulate acceleration and time, you can calculate actual speed from the moment you started measure it, as speed=time=0.
In this case, there is no frame of reference, other than time.

If you say approaching light speed time changes to avoid reach such speed, and if you remember that acceleration is delta-speed over time, and if time changes, then the acceleration is not constant any longer.  But we don't see it change along the time, still 9.8m/s² at sea level for eons.  Impossible.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 03, 2019, 09:57:46 PM »
Under the pay grade:
If you say the elephant should hit the floor first because there is more force pulling it down, I would say exactly the opposite, the rat should hit the ground first, since the inertia on the rat would be smaller under same acceleration values.  But both statements would be wrong.  The sliding acceleration vector is always the same, no matter the attracted mass, within certain limits, but yes to make you happy, the elephant really accelerates few nanometers/s² faster than the rat, the sum of Earth's + Elephant's masses is bigger than Earth's + Rat's masses.

Over the pay grade:
Inertia is also not a force, you can call it a force if you want - but then gravity will also be a force.
You need to apply certain force to a mass to change its speed, thus acceleration.  F=m.a

Gravity has nothing to do with it.
Fg=Gm1m2/r² is a mere formula to help calculate for the ones under the pay grade.
Gravity does not accelerate or move any mass, it moves the space. Period.
So, there is no matter involved in the "virtual movement" of masses under gravity.
Then, there is no inertia involved, since the masses never moved.

If you could produce a deformation of space right at your side, you would move to the side, without any energy or force involved.
This is exactly the scientific dreams of traveling super fast on space, deform space to be less dense in front of the spaceship.

Sit down, return to the chair.

Then you can ask:
"Oh, what about space-probes using planetary slingshots to accelerate further into space? are they not moving and gaining speed based on gravity?"

The above the pay grade answer is:  No. 
The space-probes does not steal energy from the planet, it concentrates its own energy during certain time and then use it in a shorter time.
They gain speed based on the difference between the time it takes to slide into the space deformed and the time it takes to get out.
It move closer to the planet in a certain angle and gets out in a steep angle.
The steep angle acts faster to achieve the escape velocity from the deformed space (gravity).
The energy resulting from diving into a less dense space during certain time, can be used to escape faster to a more denser space.
If it enters and exit at the same angle, same time, the delta would be zero.
As it changes angle and exit faster, there is a (energy) speed gain not returned due gravity.
If you want, you are free to call this gain in speed "anti-inertial force".

Why it is called "slingshot"?  Think about the slingshot, it does exactly that, you pull the strings/rubber slowly and accumulate energy during such time, then release in a fraction of such time, the pebble or projectile goes much further than if you through the projectile by hand.  All a matter of time.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 03, 2019, 05:42:09 PM »
You could file all the blurry photos and videos of bigfoot and ghosts into the same folder for the same reason as well but all that is beside the point.  It remains that FE cannot and never will be able to explain as clearly and as obviously as RE can how lunar eclipses happen without having to resort to invention.

I think history is full of inventions to justify what we could not understand.  Human nature leads us to imagine what and how that contraption could work, so we use our imagination to fulfill the gaps of understanding.  For quite some time, that imaginative answer may works, until we reach a point of better equipment and science when then, we can test such attempt answer over strong fire of technical proof.   This works like that during many millennia, mostly around groups that need some explanation.   For lots of groups an eclipse is a miracle, some god request, a godly communication of some sort.  When we understand what was really happening, all those spiritual explanations for the eclipse disappeared, not at all, some people still see eclipses as a godly event of the universe.

Invention is our brain capacity finding epoxy for the holes in the boat.  It may not work forever, but may save your life during the next couple of days.

The problem with lunar eclipses on FE, is that this big hole in the boat is making water for more than 150 years, the epoxy didn't stick, don't hold water, nobody is fixing that.

The biggest problem of FE explanation for lunar eclipses, it only happens during night time, of course, the shadow object that "covers" the bottom of the moon don't cover the stars light right aside the moon, and don't create the fringe of chromatic dispersion any object in front a light would do.   So, it is an idea, impossible to prove, to test, to duplicate, even to mechanically predict by orbital calculations.  The FE shadow object brings more problems than solutions, like requiring to open new holes in the boat in order to plug the first one, and the glue doesn't stick.

The other problem is that the FE shadow object sometimes is not totally dark... leaves the Moon redish...



13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 03, 2019, 03:47:44 PM »
Oh, here is Tom's misconception: 

You can say:
"To accelerate two blocks of metal of different masses to the same speed, requires different forces".

Yes, that is true, for f=m.a.

You can say:
"So, how gravity applies same acceleration for different masses and obtain same speed?"

What you missing Tom, is a complete different way force is applied, and this is why I wrote before "the concept is the same, not the force".

When you PUSH a solid block of metal, you are applying force to a specific point of such block,  this point of contact could be small if using a screwdriver, or large if using a cement brick as contact.  In both cases, you are NOT applying uniform force to all atoms, just the ones on surface of contact, they are transferring movement to the other atoms.  So, the force "F" necessary to accelerate the block is the SUM of force needed to move all the atoms.   Gravity works differently, each atom slides down the space/time deformation, you can call it also force, but all atoms are pushed at once, individually, no matter how many atoms are there, the force applied by gravity is not applied to a surface, but to the guts of the mass, individual atoms.  The final speed achieved is calculated based on individual atoms being pulled at the same time, no matter if 1 or 2 trillion atoms. 

If you think as gravity as a force, it confuses you, because you are used to think and see force being applied to the surface of masses, pushing a car, a refrigerator, a furniture. That force is "compression", since it is transferred from the atoms on the surface being pushed to the next layer, next, etc.  Only when the last layer (opposite surface) of atoms start to move, then your cumulative force are being applied to all atoms of the mass.  Think about pushing a spring or a foam.  In a way, this compression force is entirely applied to the mass, it doesn't move a second mass that is barely touching the first one side-by-side.

There is NO known force in the universe that can push all individual atoms of any solid mass at once.  Imagine you being able to push a very soft foam block without compression, without changing its surface shape even by microns.  Such force doesn't exist.  It needs to go inside the matter, act on individual atoms, same force applied on each one, everything at the same time, and move the whole block without compression.

Think about a mass of 10 layers of atoms.  The force is applied, it acts on the first layer, but it needs to act on the second, third... tenth.  How the force can continue, go through the first and reach the second, go through all the first 9 layers and still have enough energy to push the tenth layer? Go through all the trillions of layers and still being able to keep pushing next layers and so on?  Such kind of force doesn't exist at all.  Oh, wait, you can think of magnetic force, it can act at once in all metallic ferrous metallic atoms without deforming the surface. Ferrous, magnetic and electric forces, different story.  I wrote above "any solid mass".

The only force you can think of doing such magic trick is gravity.  But gravity is not a force, if it is, you will need to explain how it can act on all layers of ANY material at the same time, acting on individual atoms, in order to not deform the surface being pushed, and "being pushed" I mean during acceleration on free fall.   If you accelerate a block of foam by pushing it at 9.8m/s², your hand will deform the surface being pushed.  Gravity doesn't do that.

The best way to understand gravity is comparing with buoyancy on atmosphere.  Any volume of gas less denser (LD) than the gas that surrounds it will seeks escape to a LD direction, even if this density delta is barely measurable.  The trick here is that the LD gas does not seek a LD direction, it is being pushed by the more denser gas all over, the side with LD pressure will allow it to move in that direction, it is not escaping, it is being pushed out.  Gravity changes the density of space, matter being pressed by same space density all around, seeks to slide into such less dense space, and it works over all atoms of the mass, not a surface. So, mass moves towards less denser space, stronger the gravity, lower space density.

Now, the complication is to understand what is space, how can its density could act on individual atoms?

As a slider, doesn't matter how big the mass, its density, how many masses together or separated, they will slide down at once to the less dense space.

Now, even if you don't agree with the above, be a gentleman and give me 10 seconds and think again about your conception of f=m.a being equal to Fg=Gm1m2/r², where Fg is not a force any longer, but the inclination of a slider, while f=m.a is a non inclined slider, same space density all around.

This is a nice and easy reading about this subject:
https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/gravity

February 2016 was the first time our instrumentation could detect gravitational waves originated from space.  Google and understand how they did it.

It is very difficult to build an image representing gravity space distortion, the best people can do is a two dimensional space distortion like the image below, in fact is nothing like that, it is from all angles, all directions, the distortion is all around the mass.  The "sliding vector" happens everywhere around it, another mass will be sliding towards the center of the ball, no matter where it comes from.



14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 10:41:57 PM »
Tom, you still messing up apples with tomatoes.
The elephant inertia has nothing to do with Earth or Jupiter, it is just F=ma, its mass times the acceleration applied, thus, force applied that will hit you if you are stationary.
I still don't know why and where you think those forces are the same on Earth, they do not.
If you apply 50N to the elephant in space it will creates a certain acceleration that has nothing to do with Earth's or Jupiter's Gravity Acceleration.
You still putting both together, as "force=force".
What is the same, is not the number, is the concept, since both were created here on Earth, the same concept that created 1 liter of distilled water = 1kg at sea level.
F=ma is the same concept of Gm1m2/r², not the values, it was not coincidental, it was on purpose.
To accelerate this 1 liter of water to 1m/s it will require 1N, to accelerate to 9.8m/s, will require 9.8N.  The same 1kg dropping from 1 second from the surface of Earth, (G*EarthMass*1kg/r²) will generate an impact of 9.8N, funny, isn't it?  Can't you see they are two different things with same concept, and, if you want, same numbers?
An apple is red and round, the same for tomatoes, different things.
Please call your physics teacher from school and ask him about it.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 09:18:47 PM »
Bowling balls, books, and feathers 'drop' at the same rate of acceleration.
Anything which is pushed or pulled through space is subject to the laws of inertia. More massive bodies exhibit more resistance. It is more difficult to push a car in neutral down a road than it is to push a marble.
How does any theory of gravity that moves bodies through space towards the earth apply varrying amounts of energy or force to each body in order to move them all at the same rate? In order to move something through space, energy or force must be involved. Why should it adjust itself for all bodies like that?

Because a body is made of a bunch of atoms, each proton and counterpart neutrons+electrons (Atomic Number = Atomic Mass Units) would require exactly the same amount of energy to be put in motion.  More mass, more necessary energy.  You can move a feather by blowing, since it has much less mass than a car's mass.   It doesn't adjust itself for all bodies, it is a constant per unit of AN/AMU.  To push two trillion atoms of Sodium requires twice the energy of one trillion, no surprise on that, doesn't matter if you will push atom by atom or all of them at once in a huge rock, the total energy is just a scaling of the energy necessary to move a single atom.

Ants can move a dune, grain by grain of sand, with the same effort each time, the dune can be small or big.  To move a larger dune at the same time they move a small, they need much more ants.

Mass, Acceleration, Force and Gravity,  Inertial or Gravitational Mass, are inter-related.
The mass of Jupiter enter in formula as mass of Earth, attracting the same bowling ball 15lbs, here or there.
Even that G (gravitational constant) is the same, the final gravity acceleration (not a force, but you can think as it is a force) will be different due the difference of the masses. Don't mix up everything and confuse yourself.   
The gravitational mass and inertial mass on Jupiter will be the same, since larger mass produces larger gravity acceleration, so F=ma still equal to Gm1m2/r²
This works the same on Earth or in Jupiter.  F = 15lbs*JupiterGravityAcceleration = G*JupiterMass*15lbs/r², with variable r² (distance of masses).
I don't see why and where you think it is different.

I think you are thinking about pushing a bowling ball by hand, and thinking the force to achieve 1m/s² will be the same on Earth or in Jupiter, but gravity will be different on both... yes, but you are mistaken to use an external unequal acceleration, replace it by the planet acceleration of gravity and everything fits in place.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs
« on: July 02, 2019, 08:12:06 PM »
On the AE map, the circumference of the Sun's path over the Tropic of Cancer (northern summer) is shorter than the path over the Tropic of Capricorn (northern winter).
Since we've observed that the length of a day is the same in the summer as in the winter, that means the Sun must move faster when it's down south than when it's up north.

Well, that I think I understood in the first place, the problem is, he really assumed the Sun runs faster (distance/time) in December over the Southern Hemisphere than on June on the North?  That does not match any actual measurements.  This is why I asked for explanations, since I don't believe it was saying the Sun find a way to accelerate substantially to keep the exact radial speed of 15°/h, this assumption would create lots of more questions and disbelief than anything else, I mean, about the solar speed mechanics and downpour carpeting radiation.

According to statistical measurements, the NH is warmer about 1.25 ~ 1.5°C than SH, what is very very little compared to what it would be if the Sun accelerates over SH.   The main reason for that is the larger oceans water mass in SH than on NH, and if the solar energy is lower than 1kW/m² (as it is on NH), the temperature difference would be much more, follows after the weblink:

http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf

Total FE area = r²xPI = 20000²xPI = 1256636000 km²
NH area = r²xPI = 10000²xPI = 314159000 km²
SH area = TotalArea - NHArea = 1256636000 - 314159000 = 942477000 km²

Total FE Area = 1.256 E+9
NH Area  = 3.141 E+8
SH Area  = 9.424 E+9

FE SH area is in fact 30 times larger than NH
How come NH can be only 1.25 ~ 1.5°C warmer than SH?

For FE SH temperature to be the almost the same as FE NH, the FE Sun would need to be 30 times hotter in January.   

For the ones that didn't get it yet, if you pass your hand very close over a candle flame it may burn, or not, it only depends on how fast your hand moves.  In the FE January, the Sun needs to cover 30 times more km² per second than it covers the Northern Hemisphere in July, so it moves faster, radiating less energy per km² to the land on January than on July when it moves slower.  Even needing to cover 30 times more land, the land temperature is almost the same on both hemispheres.

Lets calculate:
FE say on July the Sun is circling Earth every (lets round to) 24 hours, right over the Tropic of Cancer, at 23°26' North.
FE say on January the Sun is circling Earth during the same period of time, over the Tropic of Capricorn, at 23°26' South.

Considering FE disc to have 180° from North Pole to Ice Wall:
Tropic of Cancer is at 23°.26' (23.4333°) North from Equator, means 66.566° from North Pole.
Tropic of Capricorn is at 23.4333° South of Equator, means 113.433° from North Pole.

The circumference the Sun must travel when over the Tropic of Cancer on July will be the radius x 2 x PI.
The Tropic of Cancer radius is FE radius x 66.566/180, 20000 km x 66.566 / 180 = 7396km
Tropic of Cancer circumference = 7396 x 2 x 3.14159 = 46471 km.

The circumference the Sun must travel when over the Tropic of Capricorn on January will be the radius x 2 x PI.
The Tropic of Cancer radius is FE radius x 113.433 /180, 20000 km x 113.433 / 180 = 12603km
Tropic of Capricorn circumference = 12603 x 2 x 3.14159 = 79191 km

Now;
the speed of FE Sun rotating over FE Tropic of Cancer is 46471 km / 24h = 1936.3 km/h
the speed of FE Sun rotating over FE Tropic of Capricorn is 79191 km / 24h = 3299.6 km/h

The speed difference is 3299.6 / 1936.3 = 1.7x
(I will not even question what makes the Sun accelerate or break speed and change circling diameter)

Means, the FE Sun runs 1.7x faster over the Tropic of Capricorn than over the Tropic of Cancer.
It simply means that the Northern Hemisphere solar speed would spread 70% more radiation per second than to Southern Hemisphere.
This is not true in the real world, the NH is NOT 70% hotter than SH, it would be much more than just 1.5°C.
Also, the above calculations should take in consideration just radiation per second, not radiation per squared area of land.

On the top of this post, I considered squared area land, and came to 30x less radiation per km² in the South than in the North.
What it is again, not true in the real world. 

The actually measured solar radiation energy in average, between tropics to be 1kW/m². Based on the 70% difference of solar radiation per km² on FE, if measured 1kW/m² in Rio de Janeiro (what is real), then a person living on Central Florida would receive 1.7kW/m², that is not true, it will be cooking everything on land.

Other important thing, consider the sun speeding 1.7 faster on the Tropic of Capricorn, it means people on the Southern Hemisphere would notice the Sun moving 70% faster on January sky, shadows on ground moving 70% faster, etc.  This is also not true.

Based on FE perspective, vanish point and "can not see far due atmosphere not being transparent", the Sun would disappear from southern sky on January 70% faster than on July on North.   If on the North we can see the Sun during 12 hours on July, then on the South we will see the Sun only for 3.6 hours on January, what is also not true.

So, this is why I don't understand the text on item #53, it is just one paragraph, without any calculation, thermal per area, nothing.  How can people take seriously a vague statement floating in the air like that?  I also don't believe that on 1885 people didn't use numbers to state scientific thoughts or ideas.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 02, 2019, 03:53:53 PM »
the shadow object will be blocking the Sun on the southern hemisphere...
Why are you referring to the moon as "the shadow object"? Are you mixing up solar and lunar eclipses?

You are correct, I am not well versed on FE yet.

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 02, 2019, 03:50:01 PM »
Wow, so UA is just a story someone created to try to justify FE mass attraction without using general gravity? without any known origins?  So, we are discussing here something without any reasonable scientific or proven experiences?

Based on that, then UA is merely an idea, an attempt to justify, so I can create my own ideas of FE attraction of matter.
UA creates more problems than solve, it is a bad assumption.

I have a good one for FE, if you think about it makes more sense than UA, I call it GPA (General Polarized Gravity).

For general gravity to work on FE, the waves need to be polarized vertically.  The polarization reduces drastically the horizontal attraction, even so it exists at some level, keeping all the FE together.  Being stronger vertically, it works nicely, without pulling all large masses into a ball format. The assumption of how polarization is build, is based on mass - itself try to attract each other, but more mass in one direction creates perpendicular polarization (magnetic & electric waves fields are also perpendicular), thus, flat things, even the universe. My observation of proof is that you are not being attracted horizontally by FE gravity, only vertically. You are not attracted to a building wall, but to its floor.  Right?  Being polarized, it can even neutralize itself at certain distance, this is why after few thousand miles gravity attraction disappears, and more, it reverses polarity, even pushing things away.   What we see in sky, Sun, Moon, stars, etc, are at the right altitude (floating zone) where gravity is not pushing, nor pulling.   Little droplets of water (most vapor) has the ability to refract gravity polarization, this is why they float and even go up to the clouds, where they form larger droplets and stay afloat until they become larger and lose the ability to refract gravity, so the rain falls.  Also, the reversing of gravity polarization on the "floating zone" started by chance a turn in western direction, it creates torsion right over the North Pole, with a constant pushing for the Sun/Moon/etc to keep rotating over FE.   Also, the Sun is made of material that can convert such polarization turn energy into heat and light, this is the Sun's energy source.  Also, when Sun/Moon/etc interact with the floating zone, they reflects gravity back, you can see its effect on ocean tides.  See how easy? not only eliminate lots of old theory problems, also explains better how things work on FE.

Think about it, and remember, you heard first about Polarized Gravity here from Spherical, based on a symmetric trace free 2x2 tensor, it comes from the Flat Universe assumption.



https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.022008

But of course, you can ignore my new (GPA) gravity idea and keep UA as a strong headache.

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 02, 2019, 02:38:02 PM »
Just to remember, today (July 2nd 2019) the shadow object will be blocking the Sun on the southern hemisphere... question is, where over FE will be the Moon during this event?  I know this forum has members all over the world, so please, if someone sees the Moon away from the Sun, from 4 to 5pm EST, even if you are in China or Australia, even during the night time, please report here.   Also, how can I see this shadow object blocking stars and planets when it is not blocking the Sun?  How can we preview its location? I have a good telescope.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/world/solar-eclipse-south-america-scn-trnd/index.html

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100 proofs
« on: July 02, 2019, 02:24:31 PM »
I have certain difficult to understand the text from the item #53 below, I would appreciate someone with native English language to explain it to me.  What he means by "travels quicker as he goes further south"?   AFIK, the angular speed of the globe Earth is exactly the same at any latitude, 15°/hour.

53.   Every year the Sun is as long south of the equator as he is north; and if the Earth were not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region being, in consequence of the fact stated, - far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10  Next >