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 - Longtitube

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Low earth orbits, vs. Sun and moon
« on: October 21, 2020, 11:07:58 AM »
There is an example diagram of FE's sun epicycle on

Scroll down to the "Rendered Picture of the Sun in Relation to the Earth" section.

I don't really agree that it's an epicycle, however. I didn't come up with that.

Whatever the wiki graphic may show, the Sun doesn’t move across the sky like that, it moves in a smooth arc from sunrise to sunset. An epicyclic path would have a wobbling sun that occasionally moved from west to east in the course of a day. Or stopped moving altogether!

Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and Gravitational Time Dilation
« on: October 17, 2020, 08:56:19 PM »
There are two different measurements being discussed here and the Equivalence Principle only applies to one of them.  I think you are both talking about slightly different things.

What Tom is really talking about in the wiki is the rocket accelerating in space experiment demonstrates time dilation due to velocity time dilation. What is measured in the NIST experiment is gravitational time dilation. Both are predicted by relativity theory and both have been experimentally verified. Unfortunately for the wiki, the rocket experiment involves an acceleration which uniformly affects the whole rocket, so the results by definition do not show equivalence with the NIST experiment because that would require a uniform gravitational field – and gravity on Earth has been experimentally shown to vary with height. Tidal forces must also be absent.

If he read a little farther in that book quoted in the wiki (The Five Ages of the Universe by Fred C. Adams, Greg Laughlin) he would find this described exactly on p122:–
Einstein showed that the curvature of space caused by a concentration of mass produces a tidal force. Stellar black holes derive a great deal of their infamy from the extreme nature of the tidal forces near their event horizons. But what exactly is a tidal force? The answer is best given by way of an example. If you stand on Earth's surface, your head is slightly farther away from the centre of Earth than your feet. Because of this difference, your feet are being pulled away from your head. Fortunately, this effect is rather small. Because the curvature of space produced by Earth is extremely tiny, the tidal stretching force is about two million times smaller than the force of gravity itself, and we don't notice this extra force as we walk around on Earth's surface.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunsets in EA
« on: October 16, 2020, 10:50:14 AM »
If there were clouds thousands of miles long curving around the "globe" it would also block the Sun under the RE idea.

That does happen. Ever been to Europe in winter?

I state facts, "matter-of-fact"ly...

I don't engage in debate.  It is beneath me ...

I'm here for rational discourse!  You are always free to ignore me ...

“Facts” like
Spacetime is a joke.
There is no time of any kind.

These are unsubstantiated opinions, with no reason to believe them given.

However, since debate is beneath you and I’m free to ignore you, forgive me for wasting your valuable time and thank you for the option.

Jack, your unsupported opinions are no more credible than the strange guy on the street on a Saturday afternoon shouting about the Martians planning to kill us all. You need to back up your claims with evidence if they’re to be considered seriously. Other people here, on both sides, produce grounds for their opinions - facts, observations, experimental evidence, and the debate goes on. You just insist something is bunk but don’t back it up, so there’s no debate or conversation to be had.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
« on: October 10, 2020, 08:42:45 AM »
The pictures I provided were with a Pixel3 camera on default settings. I did not over-expose the settings.

Of course you didn’t over-expose the lights. The camera in your Pixel3 did.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
« on: October 09, 2020, 11:37:19 AM »
Whether the lights shrink in a linear manner is impossible to tell from Tom’s images, since there is no distance information with them. How far from the photographer is the nearest light and what is the distance between each light? Only then can anyone build a case for non-linear shrinking, where a light twice a set distance from the photographer should halve in diameter compared to one at the set distance.

It still doesn’t answer the anomaly of an annular eclipse. The moon is still smaller in actual diameter than the sun and can completely obscure the sun when close enough to the viewer to cover it, like a nickel can hide a silver dollar if close enough to the viewer.

In GR the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through spacetime. It is Einstein's way of getting the upwardly accelerating Earth concept to work in RE

In the same paper quoted by fisherman (last paragraph), Einstein says:
The universe then must be closed in itself, and its geometry deviates from that of a spherical or elliptical space only little, and only locally, as, for example, the shape of the earth’s surface deviates from that of an ellipsoid.

You are confusing frames of reference, as used in GR, with reality. Einstein does not have an actual flat Earth actually accelerating upwards; he acknowledges in that quote above that Earth is ellipsoid-like in shape.

You should remember what AATW said in a very recent post, that you step off a chair and see the world accelerate upwards towards you: AATW, who is standing nearby, sees you step off a chair and fall. Both views are valid, but neither in itself proves or disproves a flat, upwards accelerating world. You might as well adopt the view of a skydiver falling headfirst who sees the world accelerating downwards towards her.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Creation
« on: October 08, 2020, 02:28:50 PM »
Not really surprising, the top-level forums here discuss how things are, not how they became so. People argue enough about RE vs FE as viable explanations, we don’t have opportunity to debate how the world happened.

You may have more luck elsewhere, though I’m sorry I haven’t any pointers or links for you.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earthers and eclipses
« on: October 08, 2020, 11:49:34 AM »
And under FE the size of the Sun and Moon being equal would need to be a coincidence too.

But the FE sun and moon are not the same size - at an annular eclipse the sun is not completely covered by the moon and is visible behind and all around the moon: the famous “ring of fire” phenomenon. If the moon wasn’t smaller than the sun this would be impossible.

RE says the moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular and it is at times closer to the Earth than others. When it is closest (perigee) and a total eclipse occurs, the period of complete blackout can occasionally last up to 7 minutes or so. If the eclipse occurs when the moon is farthest away (apogee), an annular eclipse may result.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round earther with a few questions
« on: October 05, 2020, 11:58:30 AM »
The quick answer is that there is no consensus on the actual shape of a flat earth - whether it’s like a pizza, or a cylinder (where we live on one end), or the shell of a ginormous turtle or an upside-down cone or whatever. So your question presumes one possibility out of many. From a round earth perspective, you may be also overstating the strength of gravity.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???
« on: October 04, 2020, 04:17:31 PM »
Jack, you tell us a lot about what you disbelieve, but nothing about what you know. Have you travelled at all? Have you seen anything much beyond your neighbourhood? I get an impression your knowledge comes from the web, rather than experience.

Seventy years ago people had little TV experience, but there was several hundred years of exploration history as well as tens of thousands of your own countrymen who had travelled all over the world: two world wars had seen to that, as well as seafarers, aviators and other travellers in peacetime.  Who told them to lie in their accounts and histories about the shape of the Earth? They weren’t stupid, they knew from their own experience how the round earth worked and their lives had depended on it. For example, a sea captain, abandoned mid-ocean in a small boat by his mutinous crew, found his way across the vastness of the Pacific to safety by round earth navigation. Was he just really lucky, or did he know something you don’t?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why? To What End???
« on: September 30, 2020, 05:56:41 AM »
Firstly, Charles Darwin  IS the only reason evolution theorem exists in it's current form. Before his study on the Galapagos islands  in the 1800s, he was a preacher/minister, ...

No, he wasn’t. His father sent him to study in preparation for a possible career as a country parson after neglecting his medical studies in Edinburgh but he didn’t actually finish the process before the Beagle voyage.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a flat Earth Jean Meeus?
« on: September 29, 2020, 08:50:15 PM »
If you can show me some calculations of astrological astronomical positions that consistently give you accurate results/predictions, that use the Earth's planar nature then there is a conversation to be had.

Fixed that for you, I hope?

Well, there we are: you thought the OP was asking about relativity matters and I thought he was asking about light travelling at different speeds in different media or none. You thought I was making a remark about “(not quite) universal acceleration” and I thought you were doubling down on the word “universal”. Sometimes it helps to make sure what each is talking about.

Yes I’ve read the article, several times. I notice several things, starting with your quotation from the wiki that:
all sufficiently massive celestial bodies are accelerating upward at the rate of 9.8 m/s^2 relative to a local observer immediately above said body
The OP might be interested in that, since the Sun, Moon, stars and planets are always (clouds permitting) in view by day or night as applicable. By the article's own logic, this confirms planets and stars as massive objects.

There's the much-mentioned equivalence principle:
in a relative frame of reference, it is not possible to locally discern whether the frame is accelerating upwards, or if the object inside the frame is affected by gravity
which is usually used on this site to maintain that instead of gravity, Earth is accelerating "upwards" at 9.8m/s2. It could as easily be argued that instead of accelerating upwards, Earth is subject to gravity which will accelerate objects near to its surface downwards at 9.8m/s2. Impasse – there is no absolute frame of reference, as Galileo Galilei would have told us. The equivalence principle wasn't devised to propose a flat earth, but to formally equate inertial and gravitational mass; a necessary precondition of Einsteinian relativity, both special and general. For some centuries this had been suspected and increasingly assumed, but Einstein was the first to fully incorporate it into theory. Many experimental measurements since have confirmed this as a fact. Whoever came up with UA from equivalence was adding two and two and getting about fifty.

Apart from some mathematics to account for the impossibility of an object with mass reaching the actual speed of light in a vacuum, the article rather peters out on facts at that. It's time some people put their efforts where their hypotheses are.

I don’t mean to be obtuse, the wiki only claims Earth to be accelerating upwards, not the universe. If the universe were meant, the claim would become meaningless. How would anyone demonstrate the universe - you, me, the world and all it contains, sun, moon, stars and whatever else is out there - accelerates. Compared to what? What possible reference point is available to observe this acceleration from when everything is said to accelerate. However, I’m sure you meant something else, eh?

This also belies the notion there is nothing beyond our world and the “dome” because it’s travelling through somewhere at near lightspeed, dudes.
I'll give you a hint. The name "Universal Acceleration" contain the word "universal".

That’s interesting, so that means the universe is accelerating at 9.8m/s2?

Regicide, thanks for the condensed version, I was aware of the relativistic implications and also how they’re drawn on for UA. Since it takes less than a year at 9.8m/s2 to reach near light speed, for all of the history of life the Earth has been travelling “upwards” at almost light speed - as implied by the hypotheses found in the wiki. The immense energy input needed to do this is supposedly from an “aetheric wind” which is accelerating the world, plus sun, moon and stars but doesn’t affect you and me, because we can jump up and have to wait for the world to catch us up a fraction of a second later. This also belies the notion there is nothing beyond our world and the “dome” because it’s travelling through somewhere at near lightspeed, dudes. It does give a convenient excuse next time someone suggests it’s time you lost some weight: it’s relativistic mass gain, not too many potatoes. And someone said this was a simpler explanation of the cosmos...

None of which answers the OP. Why can’t we see the Sun at all hours of the day and night?? Interested parties would like a sane explanation.

I don't understand how something travelling at the speed of light is supposed to accelerate.

The speed of light isn’t constant at almost 300,000,000m/s, that’s only in a vacuum. If you know the refractive index of what it’s passing through, you can calculate what speed light will travel at in that medium. Just divide the speed of light in a vacuum by the refractive index of water (1.3), glass (1.5) or whatever.

I'll let the above images stand and let other readers judge for themselves.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >