Recent Posts

1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Last post by TierraPlana on October 13, 2019, 10:14:46 PM »
If the illuminated portion of the Moon is in the east and pointing straight up then you would be at the equator. Your description of the Sun being half way to the horizon in the west I would take to mean the elevation of the Sun is 45 degrees. (mid-way between zenith and horizon).  If the Moon was at first quarter it would also have an elevation of 45 degree in the east since the angular separation of the Sun and Moon would be 90 degrees.  That would make the terminator horizonal.

You wouldn't need a piece of string to confirm that.

I'm not entirely sure how that could be produced though if the FE model with the Sun and Moon circling above a flat Earth is correct.  You could never have situation where the illuminated half of the Moon was pointing straight up as far as I can tell.
2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 13, 2019, 09:59:22 PM »
Your explanation of "it's an illusion" is not a very satisfying mechanism.

If the Moon is in the East with the illuminated portion pointing straight upwards, and the Sun is half way into the horizon in the West, what would a string tell us about the mechanism?
3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: UA and Inclined Planes
« Last post by pricelesspearl on October 13, 2019, 09:37:47 PM »
Quote
Your question boils down to "What is the equivalence principle?" You're well capable of Googling that.

I understand EP enough to know that in order for it to apply, in one reference the object is at rest and in the other, the object is being accelerated.  However, the example I have given, the object is being accelerated in both references. 

UA explains why, if I released a box from a height, the box would appear to fall to the ground, when in reality, the ground is rising up to meet the box.
It would not explain why a box would accelerate down an inclined plane if placed on an inclined plane that was already sitting on the ground.

Those are two different things.  The ground is not rising up to meet the box

Let S1 be accelerated in the direction of its X axis, and let g be the (temporally constant) magnitude of that acceleration. S2 shall be at rest, but it shall be located in a homogeneous gravitational field that imparts to all objects an acceleration –g in the direction of the X axis. As far as we know, the physical laws with respect to S1 do not differ from those with respect to S2; this is based on the fact that all bodies are equally accelerated in a gravitational field. At our present state of experience we have thus no reason to assume that the systems S1 and S2 differ from each other in any respect, and in the discussion that follows we shall therefore assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the reference system.

The fact that an object at rest in a UA reference will appear to behave the same way as an accelerated object in a gravity reference does not mean an object being accelerated in an UA reference would appear to behave the same as an object being accelerated in a gravity reference
4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2019, 08:43:27 PM »
We already observed non-spherical celestial bodies, other than the Earth.
Interesting. So isn't that the answer to the OP then? It isn't alone. Or are these objects not in the solar system?
Can you give examples? I mean, if you're talking about asteroids then sure, for matter the form into a spherical sphere it has to be above a certain mass and a certain degree of oblateness is caused by spin. That is all to be expected. But do you have an example of a non-spherical (ignoring a certain degree of oblateness) celestial body of significant mass?
5
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« Last post by sandokhan on October 13, 2019, 08:33:22 PM »
The ether is no longer a problem for relativists. Practically they are forced to accept its existence, given the fact that GPS satellites do not record the orbital Sagnac, nor the solar gravitational potential effect.

So we are back to the MGX. Michelson claimed he measured the SAGNAC EFFECT. Then, it's all over for the geocentrists.
6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Last post by Pete Svarrior on October 13, 2019, 08:11:38 PM »
it wouldn't significantly change our understanding of how the universe works
And the discovery of further flat celestial bodies wouldn't change our understanding of how it works. You choose to ignore the evidence of FE - your choice. But seeing more flat worlds wouldn't snap you out of it. You'd just make a new excuse.

and why all the other celestial bodies we can observe are too.
We already observed non-spherical celestial bodies, other than the Earth. Which brings me back to my point - it doesn't matter how many times you zealots prove yourselves wrong.
7
Flat Earth Community / Re: I have questions
« Last post by cikljamas on October 13, 2019, 08:01:14 PM »
1. Sagnac effect is a real phenomena.
2. Heliocentrists and relativists have to answer this question : If there is no aether what mechanics can explain Sagnac effect? Coriolis force? Of course not...
3. The amount of lagging of electromagnetic waves is consistent with the speed of aether's motion (a.k.a. alleged earth's rotation) for each latitude on the earth. So, either aether rotates around the earth or the earth rotates within motionless aether. In both cases aether exists.
4. Since aether obviously exists why we can't measure orbital motion of the earth? Because there is no orbital motion. But heliocentrists can't have rotation without orbital motion.

5. Now, look how author of that article interprets the result of MM experiment :

It  was  designed  to  reveal  the  speed  of  the  Earth’s  orbital  motion  through  the  hypothesized  ether  using  the  expected  change  in  light  speed  arising  from  movement  with  or  against  the  associated  ether  wind.  The  observed  fringe  shift  was  significantly less than what was expected as a result of the revolving Earth.


Utter bullshit!

6. So, once again for everyone :

Interestingly enough, Michelson preformed another interferometer experiment with Gale in 1925 (MGX), but this one was designed to measure the rotation of the Earth, not a revolution around the sun. Lo and behold, Michelson found an ether drift that was near 100% of a 24 hour rotation period. So, whereas MMX measured 0.1% of a 365-day revolution around the sun, MGX measured a 99% of a 24-hour rotation, simply by using the measured ether drift.

This presents quite a problem for the heliocentric camp, for the interferometers measure a rotation but not a revolution. But heliocentrism must have both, otherwise it is falsified!

Michelson didn't say they saw no evidence of shift. He said it was "probably" less than 16% of what would be expected from Earth's alleged orbital motion. That's not the same as saying there's no evidence of shift, or that the measured shift was within the margin of instrumental error. In fact, he did see a shift...

Even though this did not disprove the existence of the ether, *this was an extremely important discovery.* The commonly-accepted theories about how light propagates would not be valid if the Earth were moving through the ether at 5 km/s, so science was facing a kind of crisis because of this news.

The theories of the time proposed that light traveled through the ether, which the Earth moved through at 30 km/s. This theory came about after Maxwell summarized the equations of electromagnetism in 1860. Up to this point, the established laws of physics were invariant under Galilean transformations: the simple picture where, if you're in a car at 60mph and someone's driving toward you at 60mph, you can say from your frame of reference that he is coming toward you at 120mph. That is, in a nutshell, classical relativity. Newton's laws of motion work equally well in any non-accelerating reference frame, and so are invariant under a Galilean transformation. That is, you can add a certain velocity to all object in a kinematics problem or move it fifteen miles to the left, and the math will work out the same for you.

It was found that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under a Galilean transformation. It also predicted electromagnetic waves that travelled at speed c, and since this number was close to the speed at which light had been measured, this was seen as likely confirmation that light was an electromagnetic wave. It was at this point that the “ether theory” made a comeback. According to this theory, the ether would be the “rest frame” from which the speed of light is measured at c. Michelson and Morley were trying to prove the existence of this ether by calculating the difference in the speed of light in different directions, and they failed.

 If there is no ether wind, than Earth is spinning with the ether, but Geocentrism (where the universe rotates around Earth) can't have that. Earth must be motionless with neither translation nor rotation. So if the universe is spinning around Earth, the ether should be too, and this spin around Earth causes a drift.

If there were indeed no drift at all detected by Michelson-Morley, this would be equally support for a non-orbiting Earth as it is for Relativity. However, if a drift is detected, and this drift is not big enough to account for Earth's orbital motion, but is big enough to account for the ether drift, than Michelson-Morley is evidence of Geocentrism to the exclusion of Relativity (because Relativity can't have any drift whatsoever).
8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2019, 08:00:28 PM »
The Moon Tilt Illusion is proof enough for me - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

We are given multiple contradicting explanations which don't really work, and appears to be predicted by EA.
I think "illusion" is the key word there. This is a genuinely interesting illusion, I've seen it myself and at first glance it does seem like the moon can't possibly be lit by the sun. But it is an illusion. All you have to do to prove that to yourself is to take a piece of string, told it tight in front of you and line it up so it forms a straight line perpendicular to the terminator on the moon and you will see that the string does indeed point at the sun. It admittedly doesn't look like it will, but it does. I have done this experiment myself. Bobby did too and showed a video of the result.
You could do this too, it would take you 5 minutes next time you see the illusion and it would clearly demonstrate that there is a straight line between the sun and moon. I see you reference this experiment on that Wiki page although I don't understand your hand waving away of it. If the terminator of the moon is not perpendicular to the direction of the sun then how could you hold a string straight between them and have it line up?
9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on October 13, 2019, 07:50:25 PM »
The Earth is unique amongst the celestial bodies we have good amounts of knowledge about. As a necessary consequence, it is unique within the solar system (divert your attention to the thread's subject for a moment). It may or may not be unique in a broader context. We can speculate about how likely that is until the cows come home, but in the end we simply don't know.
Yes, fine. We don't know. We have reason to believe there may be life elsewhere in the universe - from our explorations so far, which are very much in their infancy, it seems that other planets have similar features and chemistry to earth so there's no particular reason to think we're unique. There could even be life elsewhere in the solar system. If there is it's pretty certain it's microbial but you're right, right now we don't know.
But, the OP is about the shape of the earth and why that is unique in the solar system. It's much easier to determine the shape of other celestial bodies than know whether they harbour life. There is speculation there may be life on Titan, right now we don't know. But we do know it's a sphere.
So while we don't know for sure about the existence of life elsewhere, we do know for sure that all the other planets and moons we can observe elsewhere are spheres too, and we know why. Any object over a certain mass will end up as a sphere because of the way gravity acts on the material in it.
It would be a major discovery if we found life elsewhere in the universe, it would have massive philosophical implications but it wouldn't significantly change our understanding of how the universe works. If we ever found a flat planet elsewhere though it would have massive implications for the laws of physics we have come to believe are a good model for how the universe hangs together.
In FET the earth is flat just because, RET tells us why it's a sphere and why all the other celestial bodies we can observe are too.
10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 13, 2019, 07:39:13 PM »
The bending in EA takes place over thousands of miles. It is under two degrees per 100 miles as far as I can see. Terrestrial light may alternatively be going through a different gradient than celestial light.

The Moon Tilt Illusion is proof enough for me - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion

We are given multiple contradicting explanations which don't really work, and appears to be predicted by EA.