Recent Posts

91
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: High tide(s)
« Last post by Revel on October 16, 2017, 06:03:13 PM »
Two things you're misunderstanding about tides:

FIRSTLY:

The tides caused by the sun DO exist - if you look at the graphs, they are the sum of TWO sinewaves, a large amplitude swing with a period of about 12.5 hours due to the moon and a smaller wave with a 12 hour period due to the sun.

We see the total of those two superimposed waves.

I'm unfamiliar with the graphic relationship, which might constitute most heavily on my misunderstanding.

Quote
SECONDLY:

Tides don't depend only on the AMOUNT of gravity from a remote body - they depend only on the fact that the gravitational pull from sun/moon on one side of the earth is more than on the other.

So the key factor is the DIFFERENCE between the sun/moon's gravity on one side of the planet versus the other.  Since the sun is about 400 times further away than the moon, the difference in distance between the two sides of the planet from the sun is a smaller percentage than that for the moon.

So even though the moon's gravity is FAR less than the sun's in absolute terms, it's proximity to us makes the tides much higher.

I understand that the moon is closer, but even then, the sun's size more than makes up for its poor vicinity, as shown in the equation I used. It should still have a more overwhelming effect on tides, seeing that its gravitational effect is so much higher. Gravitational pull already accounts for the relationship between distance and size. The moon's effect should be 1/179th of the total effect assuming there exist no outside forces apart from the sun and moon, since the sun has 178 times the effect that the moon has.
92
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 16, 2017, 05:51:50 PM »

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.
have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.
The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.
93
Flat Earth General / Re: Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 16, 2017, 05:44:04 PM »
Astronomers merely observe and interpret. They do not conduct controlled experiments on the cosmos to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomy is not a real science. Astronomers are fake scientists. Astronomy does not even follow the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method instructs the investigator to conduct a controlled experiment before publishing conclusions. Astronomers are not putting the universe under controlled conditions and conducting experiments. Astronomy is no better than Astrology. Trash.
94
Flat Earth General / Scientists Make First Detection of Neutron Star Collision
« Last post by mtnman on October 16, 2017, 05:18:56 PM »
Very exciting observation! Although I'm sure some here will pass it off as just another expansion of the vast conspiracy.

http://www.news.gatech.edu/2017/10/16/scientists-make-first-detection-neutron-star-collision
95
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Lord Dave on October 16, 2017, 04:16:16 PM »
Ah, didn't see that, thanks.  I could apply but they might not like the airfare. XD
Do it! If you win and they question the airfare, you can cross that bridge when you come to it.
But then I'd go to Texas.  Do I really want to go to Texas?
96
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by mtnman on October 16, 2017, 03:27:51 PM »

Just to be sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.

Example scenario. I am standing on the coast of California, looking west, watching the sun set. Just using rough approximations for the sake of discussion only. If the sun is at its highest point at noon, it would be at the opposite side 12 hours later, so that would mean it would about 1/4 of the way around at sunset, let's say 6 pm. Based on your unipolar map that would be around eastern Australia.

You are saying the sun is at so low of an angle above the Earth, that tiny waves and swells are what block us from seeing the sun after it sets from out perspective.

Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.

It should follow that the most that waves/swells can obscure would be due to the largest wave between the two objects.
And that if you could move your viewpoint above the height of the waves/swells, the sun should be visible again.
The highest wave ever recorded is around 100 feet.
Therefore, if only waves/swells block our view of the sun, we should always be able to view the sun over the ocean from a tall building or a plane.
97
Flat Earth General / Re: Threats To The Firmament
« Last post by 3DGeek on October 16, 2017, 01:48:17 PM »
Thanks Geek, I kind of like the firefly idea. Those little bugs have always been among my favorites. If they are responsible for me being able to see the phases of the Moon, I will have still another reason for liking them. I was however looking for a “mechanism” rather than a “life form” to be responsible for the Moon phases. A mechanism would only require an occasional drop of oil and a new battery. Fire flies would require food and water on a daily schedule, and some one would have to clean up after them regularly. If for no other reason, the mechanism would be preferable.

Plus, the firefly hypothesis STILL doesn't explain why the phase of the moon is the same throughout the world...the ONLY way to explain that is if the moon is a quarter million miles away and orbiting around us instead of 3,000 miles above us and drifting around in some double-loop spiral thing.
98
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: High tide(s)
« Last post by 3DGeek on October 16, 2017, 01:44:55 PM »

One week later, and this is the situation:
- 3dgeek couldn't resist explaining how tides work in a RE  (I knew you couldn't! ;D);
The tides happen (roughly) twice per day - one high tide when the moon is overhead and (*low tide*) when it's overhead on the opposite side of the world.

Because the moon's motion around the Earth is combined with the Earth's rotation, the tides are actually about 12.5 hours apart, not exactly 12.   This fact of tide times really brings home the fact that tides are definitely related most strongly to the cycles of the moon.   However, the sun actually adds (or subtracts) it's own tides on a precise 12 hour cycle.   But because the sun is SO far away (at least in RET) it's tidal effects are rather small.

So if you look at water level charts, you see two sine-waves added together - one with that 12 hour cycle and another with a roughly 12.5 hour cycle

Explaining all of this subtlety is FAR beyond what FET can manage.

In RET, the explanation is really very simple.

3DGeek makes a valid point, in spite of admonition from Ga_x2. The equation for gravitational force is (and has been proven to be, with or without a flat Earth) (G(m1m2))/(r^2).

But there's one thing. The proportion of gravitational force between Sun&Earth and Moon&Earth are (in SI units) ((Msun)/((distance[Earth--Sun])^2))/(Mmoon/((distance[Earth--moon])^2)), which would be ((1.989 × (10^30)[kg])/((1.496 x (10^8)[km])^2))/((7.34767309 × (10^22)[kg])/((3.844 x (10^5)[km])^2)) = 178.726326. The sun has 178 times the gravitational pull that the moon has upon the Earth. The sun has a higher pull upon the Earth than the moon does. So the tides should, according to this logic, rise and fall with the sun. But it doesn't. What do you people make of that?

Two things you're misunderstanding about tides:

FIRSTLY:

The tides caused by the sun DO exist - if you look at the graphs, they are the sum of TWO sinewaves, a large amplitude swing with a period of about 12.5 hours due to the moon and a smaller wave with a 12 hour period due to the sun.

We see the total of those two superimposed waves.

Sailors and other people who care about tides talk about "neap tides" and "spring tides" (badly named!) - where the tide is less than or greater than "normal".   Why?  You'd think the moon was always at the same distance and always has the same gravity - so why are there these special tides?

The neap tide happens when the sun and moon are about 90 degrees apart in the sky and the sun is trying to raise the tidal level while the moon is depressing it (or vice-versa at low tide).

The spring tide happens when the sun and moon are either close together in the sky or on opposite sides of the earth and the two tidal effects reinforce each other - so you get a higher "high tide" and a lower "low tide".

Hence we most certainly do see an effect from solar tides - it's just a lot smaller than lunar tides.

SECONDLY:

Tides don't depend only on the AMOUNT of gravity from a remote body - they depend only on the fact that the gravitational pull from sun/moon on one side of the earth is more than on the other.

So the key factor is the DIFFERENCE between the sun/moon's gravity on one side of the planet versus the other.  Since the sun is about 400 times further away than the moon, the difference in distance between the two sides of the planet from the sun is a smaller percentage than that for the moon.

So even though the moon's gravity is FAR less than the sun's in absolute terms, it's proximity to us makes the tides much higher.

Sadly, although all of these effects are easily demonstrated in RET.   NONE of these effects would be present in a flat earth...so...the two-tides-per-day thing is hand-waved away - along with issues of spring and neap tides.
99
Flat Earth General / Re: Threats To The Firmament
« Last post by Bubbathearkie on October 16, 2017, 01:33:49 PM »
Thanks Geek, I kind of like the firefly idea. Those little bugs have always been among my favorites. If they are responsible for me being able to see the phases of the Moon, I will have still another reason for liking them. I was however looking for a “mechanism” rather than a “life form” to be responsible for the Moon phases. A mechanism would only require an occasional drop of oil and a new battery. Fire flies would require food and water on a daily schedule, and some one would have to clean up after them regularly. If for no other reason, the mechanism would be preferable.
100
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by 3DGeek on October 16, 2017, 01:23:57 PM »

Yes, that is correct. Tiny waves can obscure the sun much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
can you please draw a diagram with the correct quotes and the path of the light? You keep repeating the same stuff, that has been taken to task a hundred times.

Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?
Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.

16 days ago Tom said he'd start a new thread explaining how photons travel from the sun to your eye at sunset (which would answer a *lot* of questions and concerns about FET - and SPECIFICALLY answer the question of this thread).   But he STILL hasn't done that - despite reminders.    It's starting to look like he doesn't have an answer...which is what you'd expect to be the case if "magic perspective" has to remain "magic" in order to support the large number of FET problems that it's supposed to explain.  I started a thread on that topic myself - but Junker "vanished" it without any of his usual notifications.  Sounds a lot like the FE'ers aren't keen on answering this key question about their hypothesis.