Recent Posts

11
I see you keep ignoring the question about why projection is necessary if the earth is flat :)
12
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Question about logic.
« Last post by QED on Today at 01:14:27 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?

Pinky,

I invite you to correct any piece of logic or mathematics in any reply or post that I make. I want everything I write to be free of errors. If there is one, then I thank you in advance for drawing it to my attention.

If it helps, or matters, then I give you permission to be rude to me in doing so, if that will prevent criticism of me result in you being banned. I won’t take anything personal.

Fire away broheim.
13
Flat Earth Media / Re: How Einstein Made the Earth Move
« Last post by QED on Today at 01:07:44 AM »
There is no such thing as a "relativistic treatment":

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13863.msg185999#msg185999 (comparison of the Sagnac effect with the relativistic approach)

In their formidable treatise, Sungenis and Bennett never address the fact that the formula put forth by Michelson was claimed to be the SAGNAC EFFECT phase difference, which immediately ends any debate on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. If the RE bring forth the HAMMAR experiment as well, they can defy any arguments forwarded by the FE regarding the ether drift.

That is why my formula becomes crucial in these kinds of debates, as the youtube flat earthers found out very fast once they started performing the RLG experiments.

Well sure there is. The sagnac effect is, by definition, relativistic, and all modern derivations of it use special relativity. Just look it up.
14
I don't understand what is so significant about this that many flat earthers are now claiming that "NASA is coming out to the truf!" when it's really not a surprise because the atmosphere is a pressure gradient.
Actually the atmosphere is a density gradient. It also happens to have a pressure, but that is an extensive thermodynamic variable.
Yeah, the atmosphere is a density gradient because lower dense gases are in higher altitudes. The definition of a pressure gradient is when there is a difference in pressure, literally the same as Earth's atmosphere.

Yeah, the atmosphere is a pressure gradient because lower pressures are in higher altitudes. The definition of a density gradient is when there is a difference in density, literally the same as Earth’s atmosphere.

Also, you’re wrong. That isn’t the definition of a pressure gradient. You can have differences in pressure with a gradient of zero.
15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Get the Science Right
« Last post by QED on Today at 01:02:15 AM »
Well, nothing has to be relativistic here. Minkowski space is, basically, 4-dimensional Euclidean space. It’s flat! So parallel lines will appear to converge.

I you are in a curved spacetime, then parallel lines will not stay parallel, hence they may not appear to converge in the distance.

Just think of the surface of a globe (I know I know). The lines of longitude are parallel at the equator but meet at the poles. This is because a globe’s surface has curvature.

Make sense?

Ah, I didn't see what angle you were going for there. You're absolutely right that in curved spacetime parallel lines would not stay parallel.

That said, the amount of curvature for Earth's mass/size is infinitesimally small. I don't have the calculations with me, but I'd wager that across a whole flat Earth disk there wouldn't be enough curvature to make two parallel lines starting five feet apart actually converge by the other end of the disk, let alone to account for something the size of the Sun. So unless there's something to suggest such a dramatic curvature, I don't think you can suggest perspective on Earth works any differently than it would in perfectly flat space.

Dude, please re-read my previous reply, and then read again what you just wrote. Parallel lines at the equator will meet at the poles. Look at a globe. That is the whole point of longitude lines.

Dramatic is subjective. The curvature of a spherical surface is 2/R^2, which can be derived from Einstein’s field equations. It’s dramatic enough for our purposes here.

You said "parallel lines in curved spacetime won't stay parallel." I agreed with you.

Lines on a globe have nothing to do with lines of perspective unless that globe is warping spacetime enough to bend it into a similar sphere. The Earth has absolutely nowhere near enough mass to do anything like that.

What other connection are you trying to draw between lines of perspective and lines on a globe?

The correct one. The surface of the Earth is a curved surface. Two parallel lines, which begin on the equator, will meet at the poles. That’s it. If you and your pal begin at the equator and walk parallel to each other, then you will meet at the poles.

I frankly do not understand why you think this doesn’t apply to perspective.
16
I don't understand what is so significant about this that many flat earthers are now claiming that "NASA is coming out to the truf!" when it's really not a surprise because the atmosphere is a pressure gradient.
Actually the atmosphere is a density gradient. It also happens to have a pressure, but that is an extensive thermodynamic variable.
Yeah, the atmosphere is a density gradient because lower dense gases are in higher altitudes. The definition of a pressure gradient is when there is a difference in pressure, literally the same as Earth's atmosphere.
17
Well this thread is practically useless now, and this conversation is pointless. So this will be my last statement on this thread, whether you reply back or not.

You asked:
There is one bound orbit that doesn’t have negative energy. What type is that again?
Where I responded with:
Elliptic orbits are the only ones with negative energy since it's a periodic orbit.
Then you claimed:
The correct answer is circular orbits, which are bound orbits with ZERO energy.
Yet you say:
That isn’t what I said. I said circular orbits are elliptical orbits. They are a kind of elliptical orbit. Just like a square is a kind of rectangle.
18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« Last post by iamcpc on March 25, 2019, 11:04:06 PM »

As well, do we each have our own earth treadmill?

I just used an omnidirectional treadmill as a concept.



when the position of a body with respect to its surroundings does not change with time it is said to be "at rest". When the position of a body with respect to it's surroundings does change with time then it is is said to be moving. Things like rest and motion are 100% relative to the situation, the object, and it's surroundings.

If you start walking/driving/flying west on earth your surroundings do change with time so I would say that you, relative to your surroundings, are in motion. Multiple people being in motion will all have different frame of references for motion.

Someone sitting on an airplane heading west is not moving relative to his immediate surroundings of the airplane but is moving relative to the surface of the earth. He has a direction of travel, relative to his starting location, of west.


Someone sitting on an airplane heading east is not moving relative to his immediate surroundings of the airplane but is moving relative to the surface of the earth.He has a direction of travel, relative to his starting location, of east.

Because what happens if you and I both jet from SF and you are going West and I am going East? How does that work?


I have outlined the path west here with blue arrows:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14046.msg187564#msg187564

I really don't want to take the time to make screenshots and draw red arrows going east. I can tell that you are intelligent and can imagine a similar scenario in which there are red arrows going east. One person follows the blue series of screenshots going west and another follows the red series of screenshots east.
19
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« Last post by Adrenoch on March 25, 2019, 10:39:00 PM »
Well, I'm really sorry about how you feel about the state of science today. You've got a terrific model that both explains why science doesn't agree the Earth is flat despite your being confident it is, and it also absolves you of doing any real experimentation because it would be a fruitless exercise. It allows you to assume you're correct while removing the requirement to prove it.

Be well, and I hope you get a chance to do some solid experiments someday because no matter the results, you'll probably benefit.
20
Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« Last post by JRowe on March 25, 2019, 09:27:28 PM »
You seem to be suggesting that science builds on conclusions of the past, but never revisits or retests or re-evaluates those conclusions. That's patently false. Einstein and general relativity superseding Newton is a simple answer. Newton came up with the math that was incredibly accurate in predicting the motion of the planets. But Einstein came up with something completely different and it made a prediction about how certain orbits would act based on some extreme examples. When we checked those orbits, we realized Einstein's model was a lot closer than Newton's even though Einstein's makes far less intuitive sense. We had to reconstruct everything we thought we knew about what space and time are. It was a huge teardown.
It really wasn't. It was a massive addition. Newton and Newton's understanding is still used today. A teardown would be the transition from the caloric theory of heat to the mechanical, say, the caloric theory isn't used because it was rejected as wrong. That'd be over a century ago.
Einstein should have been a teardown, if scientific institutes worked properly. Like dark matter and many such things, something new and fundamental is discovered about the world, let's take it back now that we know space is more than an abstract dimension, or that we know there is mass not detected by anything other than its gravitational signature, let's change things based on that; nothing happens. Einstein at least offered the transit of Mercury, though it wasn't a teardown as there was no good answer to that, dark matter didn't impact, say, the field of composition of the Earth as we discovered it had more mass than current models indicated, because excuses are always made for why those things don't apply.

Quote
This is the problem with how you're thinking about it. It's not a curvature experiment, it's a light experiment. This approach is basically scientific tunnel vision, which is the whole problem.
I don't follow. Normally, science proceeds by working meticulously with a very narrow focus to explain a single observation. Enough of them build up to force larger changes in theories. Are you saying you want to do something different?
Because you want the result to point to curvature of the Earth rather than a property of light. There is no such thing as impeccable evidence precisely because of this, this experiment's results can be explained either with with reference to either option. It's excessive focus on one option to the exclusion of another.

Quote
Maybe this is the crux of the whole issue. Why is your goal to cause debate on the shape of the Earth? Shouldn't it be to find the truth, regardless of whether it causes debate about the shape of the Earth?
Because we're talking in this thread, and you've said science should be open to the idea. If that is the case, let's show it. Suppose we live on a flat Earth with the result of the curvature experiment you wanted, could academia ever acknowledge that?

There's no "by force of numbers." If you were to do the laser test and others confirmed your findings, then there would have to be a new hypothesis about why this experiment goes against expectations. New hypotheses would arise, and each of those would generate a prediction. You and/or others would then test those hypotheses. Most will be falsified. Some might shed light on other things we thought were pretty well known, and we'd have to re-examine those. Maybe you'd have discovered an entirely new phenomenon. Maybe it could be explained by a small adjustment of the current theory. Or maybe an entirely new theory would be required.
Like your dark matter example, that is exactly what I mean. Propose enough hypotheses and one will pass its tests. That is the case regardless of whether it's true. It is just force of numbers, throw enough things at the wall and something will stick, they will always be able to invent a hypothesis that explains the observation, and either is close enough to appealing to the right principles, or is just straight-up lucky, that it passes the possible tests. Nothing is ever going to make that not the case. Look at the caloric theory of heat again for a good example; the carnot cycle, still used today, was developed from it, as well as accurate predictions of the speed of sound. The theory itself is still accepted as wrong, but the predictions it made are still valid.

Quote
But you're actually asking, "If my observation can be fully explained by only a small addition to the current body of knowledge, how do I get people to rethink the global Earth?"

If your aim is to cause scientific debate about the global Earth, you would have to do another impeccable experiment. Maybe that breaks it wide open, or maybe it just adds to the general body of knowledge. But hey, at least you'd then have two really solid experiments that can also point toward a flat Earth. You do more experiments. Maybe sometimes you revisit an old experiment of yours and show that the new accepted explanation fails under your new experiment, and then everyone will scramble to put the pieces back together in a meaningful order. Eventually, you may get enough experiments that the most likely explanation for your observations and everyone else's is that the Earth must be flat.
Except by the time I perform a second, the first will be viewed as pointing to RET because they'd have a theory. If I question it, they'd refine or replace said theory. So I'd only have one experiment, and the same would happen to it.
And equally, given that RET will propose an explanation for literally anything pointed out so that a point in time after such an experiment will have it looking as accepted a part of science as gravity decreasing with the inverse square law, for example, surely it follows it's sufficient to show that the most likely explanation for observations now is that the Earth is flat?