newhorizons

Which is right?
« on: August 21, 2019, 10:14:02 PM »
Under the discussion thread about Investigating FE Jupiter, Sandokhan wrote...

Quote
We know for sure that no aircrafts fly above 9 km, therefore the first dome must be located very close to this altitude, perhaps 10-12 km.

Yet in FE Wiki under the section about the constant speed of the Sun it states..

Quote
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

45,000ft is just over 13.7km but according to Sandokhan an aircraft cannot reach 45,000ft. He seems pretty sure of himself because we 'know for sure'. 

So which is right... ?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 10:15:46 PM by newhorizons »

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 414
    • View Profile
Re: Which is right?
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2019, 04:31:21 PM »
Under the discussion thread about Investigating FE Jupiter, Sandokhan wrote...

Quote
We know for sure that no aircrafts fly above 9 km, therefore the first dome must be located very close to this altitude, perhaps 10-12 km.

Yet in FE Wiki under the section about the constant speed of the Sun it states..

Quote
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

45,000ft is just over 13.7km but according to Sandokhan an aircraft cannot reach 45,000ft. He seems pretty sure of himself because we 'know for sure'. 

So which is right... ?
They both may well be wrong according to wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: Which is right?
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2019, 07:50:41 PM »
Under the discussion thread about Investigating FE Jupiter, Sandokhan wrote...

Quote
We know for sure that no aircrafts fly above 9 km, therefore the first dome must be located very close to this altitude, perhaps 10-12 km.

Yet in FE Wiki under the section about the constant speed of the Sun it states..

Quote
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

45,000ft is just over 13.7km but according to Sandokhan an aircraft cannot reach 45,000ft. He seems pretty sure of himself because we 'know for sure'. 

So which is right... ?

One thing you really have to understand is that there are many different FE models. FE models with a dome represent a small subset of all FE models. Of those that adhere to a domed FE model there is disagreement among how high the dome is, if anything can pass through the dome, if there is an ice wall etc.


to someone who does not adhere to a domed FE model they are both wrong.

To someone who adheres to a domed FE model in which the dome is 10 miles above the surface of the earth they are both wrong.


newhorizons

Re: Which is right?
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2019, 09:00:54 PM »
So that leaves me struggling to identify any consistencies in FE theory then that you can actually start to build a model on. The only consistent thing among FE models is that they are inconsistent with what they agree about.

For example there is no evidence at all so far as I can tell that suggests there is any kind of physical dome over the Earth which supports the celestial bodies.  As a staunch round Earther I find the suggestion that there is ludicrous.  Back in antiquity I can understand it because our ancestors didn't understand the nature of space as we do now. As I mentioned in a previous discussion they could only interpret that sky as they saw it with nothing else other than their own eyes.  The sky looks like a dome but that is purely a perspective effect. Perspective is something that FE'ers seem to be quite keen on.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 09:05:53 PM by newhorizons »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: Which is right?
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2019, 04:37:12 PM »
So that leaves me struggling to identify any consistencies in FE theory then that you can actually start to build a model on. The only consistent thing among FE models is that they are inconsistent with what they agree about.

I understand how you feel. What helped me was to do my own research based on my own observations and information which led me to come up with my own FE model. It's pretty unpopular here because it does not have an ice wall, a dome, etc.

It's more about finding the evidence weakens the one RE model than evidence that supports one of the many FE models.

newhorizons

Re: Which is right?
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2019, 08:33:28 PM »
So what part of your own research has led you to dismiss the widely held acceptance that the Earth is not a sphere?

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: Which is right?
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2019, 01:39:58 AM »
So what part of your own research has led you to dismiss the widely held acceptance that the Earth is not a sphere?

There are different levels of acceptance. There are people who 100% believe the earth is a sphere and there are 100% who believe the earth is a flat disk with an ice wall and a dome.

For the there are several bits of evidence which support the idea that the earth might not function as a well as we were told as a sphere, globe, spheroid, or oblate spheroid.


In the RE model the earth is orbiting the sun and the moon is orbiting the earth. With all are knowledge of gravity we are unable to calculate this orbit. Mathematically it does not work. Google the three body problem.

The three body problem is either impossible or virtually impossible. The problem with the round earth model is that there are more than three bodies in our solar system. There are hundreds. With the laws of gravity being unable to explain 3 of these bodies let alone 300 it's evidence that maybe the solar system functions in a different way.

Many people have come here saying that the sinking ship effect has come as a result of the earth being round yet, it has been demonstrated many times, that the sinking ship effect can also be caused by refraction or chaotic atmospheric conditions.

The bishop experiment is one which had a similar experiment done with mirrors which, a very firm 100% round earther admired that it was evidence that supported a flat earth. to name a few.


I'm definitely an anomaly here because i disagree with most of the traditional FE models and I can freely admit that there is evidence which supports the RE model. It's about being open minded and accepting the evidence no matter what it supports. This is why I can admit there is FE evidence. Tom Bishop has done an excellent job of putting it into the wiki.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 01:48:20 AM by iamcpc »

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
Re: Which is right?
« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2019, 03:42:14 PM »
Quote
The three body problem is either impossible or virtually impossible. The problem with the round earth model is that there are more than three bodies in our solar system. There are hundreds. With the laws of gravity being unable to explain 3 of these bodies let alone 300 it's evidence that maybe the solar system functions in a different w

Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, so what?  We can still observe it happening.  A child knows nothing about chemical combustion.  Would it therefore be reasonable for him to declare that fire does not exist, that it is an illusion?  Before humans knew anything about aerodynamics did birds not fly? 

We are not at the end times of scientific discovery, and it is the height of arrogance to claim that because we may not yet have the scientific tools to explain what we observe, that  our observations must be an illusion.

newhorizons

Re: Which is right?
« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2019, 04:12:05 PM »
There seems to be this assertion that anything which cannot be fully explained in the heliocentric model is evidence that it is wrong.  This 3 body problem that seems to keep rearing its ugly head is once such example. I was recently listening to a BBC documentary by Prof Brian Cox who talking about just this issue.  If you consider just two bodies then it is easy to predict their positions at any moment in time on account of their mass. But as soon as you introduce a third body then the process becomes more complicated.

Nevertheless Prof Brian Cox has never and I know would never consider that this provides evidence that the heliocentric model of the solar system is wrong. As Zonk infers, just because we cannot explain something fully is no justification and no reason for us to dismiss it.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for people to ask questions about the validity of any single model, no matter how mainstream or not it is. What I don't find reasonable is when a theory is proposed which is so obviously wrong or inaccurate that people try to massage the evidence to suit that model just because they want it to be true. There is absolutely no evidence for example that Electromagnetic Acceleration exists as some flat Earthers propose it does. The existing laws of refraction and diffraction for EMR are perfectly adequate to explain the behaviour of light as we experience it. Trying to use EA as a means of explaining why the Moon always shows the same side towards Earth is an example of 'force fitting' something so it works in flat Earth theory. The Moon circling the Earth in a synchronised, elliptical orbit so its rotation period is equal to its orbital period is so much simpler.  That same explains also very nicely why we see the phases of the Moon that we do.  RE theory does not deliberately set out to dismiss FE, it simply offers a different and in many cases simpler and better explanation for real world observations. In my opinion of course.

It has previously been pointed out that the patterns of Earthquake waves is also strong evidence to support a spherical Earth with a solid and molten internal structure.  Explaining the same based on a flat Earth hypothesis gets complicated.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 09:07:52 PM by newhorizons »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: Which is right?
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2019, 04:22:11 PM »
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, so what? 

So there is something inherently flawed with the physical laws which we were told our universe operates. Either those physical laws are missing something or the universe operates in a different way than previously thought.

newhorizons

Re: Which is right?
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2019, 06:00:27 PM »
Are you confusing flawed with unknown? Because no physicist, astronomer, astrophysicist or cosmologist would tell you that our understanding of how the solar system works is complete. Far from it. We are discovering new information all the time. However the evidence that the basic framework - i.e. the planets orbiting the Sun and moons orbiting around individual planets is there and happening for us all to see. At least it is if you have the tools to be able to see it fully.

Re: Which is right?
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2019, 07:49:00 PM »
In the RE model the earth is orbiting the sun and the moon is orbiting the earth. With all are knowledge of gravity we are unable to calculate this orbit. Mathematically it does not work. Google the three body problem.

There is no analytical solution but there are numerical solutions where you take the initial conditions, break the problem down into several 2 body problems and in time steps solve those. Those do perfectly fine as an approximation - good enough to accurately predict the positions of the bodies for all practical purposes. The model is good enough that when the solar eclipse happened the path could be predicted to block level.
Neptune was discovered because the wobbles observed in the orbit of Uranus indicated there must be another body pulling on it.
The model of gravity works very well in most circumstances. Einstein showed Newton wasn't right about certain things but for most practical purposes it works.

I'd say the failure to make an analytical model is more a failure of mathematics, not science.

Quote
Many people have come here saying that the sinking ship effect has come as a result of the earth being round yet, it has been demonstrated many times, that the sinking ship effect can also be caused by refraction or chaotic atmospheric conditions.

That certainly does affect results but do you know what I've never seen? In all the pictures you see where a FE person says "aha! you shouldn't be about to see 'x', but you can". I have never seen the whole of 'x'. What I mean is, I've seen videos where people say you shouldn't be able to see the top of a mountain, say, but you can. So they conclude that the earth is flat. But if the earth is flat then where's the rest of the mountain? Yes, atmospheric effects do mean results vary but on the right day you'd surely be able to see all of the mountain or whatever. But you never do. Although yes, there was that experiment with mirrors, which brings me to...

Quote
The bishop experiment is one which had a similar experiment done with mirrors which, a very firm 100% round earther admired that it was evidence that supported a flat earth.

The Bishop experiment is really poorly documented to the point where I discount it completely.
But yes, Bobby did agree that the mirror experiment was possible evidence and I'd agree with him.
BUT, he attempted to reproduce the experiment and couldn't reproduce the result.

The reason there are so many different FE models is the mentality is "check things out for yourself". Now, that in itself is not a bad principle.
But there are some things which are quite difficult to check out for yourself. I don't have the means to do the Cavendish experiment, for example, which is evidence for an attractive force between objects. And maybe I'm not very good at experiments and my errors will lead me to wrong conclusions.

The whole basis of science is that people do experiments, document their methods well and then publish the results. That way other people can scrutinise their results, repeat their experiments and that can help push discovery on. Someone else might find an error in the method, or maybe other people get the same result and that gives confidence in the result. That's how progress is made. The idea that everyone should do their own tests and come to their own conclusions is why there is such a mess of competing and inconsistent models.

Given the wealth of evidence for the globe earth I don't understand how people can do experiments, get a result which indicates a flat earth and think they've discovered something so revolutionary and which has such massive implications in terms of the myriad of conspiracies which must be at work...rather than thinking "maybe I suck at doing experiments" or "maybe I don't understand this stuff as well as I think I do". A lot of the FE arguments I've seen are arguments from ignorance or incredulity which is not a very sensible way of forming a world view. We shouldn't blindly believe everything we've been told either of course but there is a middle ground between that and thinking that each person can form their own model based on their own observations. The inconsistencies in your results should demonstrate that. The earth is the shape it is, the sun is the distance it is and so on.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

newhorizons

Re: Which is right?
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2019, 08:14:31 PM »
Following on from what AATW has stated, surely the changing altitude of Polaris in the sky as you move south is a clue that we live on a globe. Similarly the changing patterns of the constellations through the seasons is a clear indication that we orbit the Sun.  The different constellations arise because the night side of the Earth is facing out into different directions in space through the year.

Sure you could try and explain the same observations by introducing complex and as yet unproven properties of light/perspective etc but ask yourself which is the simpler and frankly more likely explanation? The Moon moves eastwards w.r.t the stars each day.  Evidence I would suggest that the Moon is orbiting the Earth. The phases of the Moon 'match' the angle between the Sun, Earth and Moon if the Moon was orbiting the Earth. Again simple to explain. The Moon always shows the same part of its surface towards the Earth. That can be explained by tidal forces which have synchronised the Moons orbital and rotational times.  Or you could try and explain it by introducing an 'electromagnetic accelerator' which is unknown as far as I can tell outside of FE theory and somehow bends light in a way which defies the laws of physics.

RE doesn't try to prove any other theory or model wrong. It simply offers what many consider to be the simplest explanation for these things.  It all depends I suppose on whether you want to make your observations and collect your data first and then form a conclusion or make a conclusion first and then try and make your observations and data fit that conclusion.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2019, 08:16:09 PM by newhorizons »

Offline ilduce

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Which is right?
« Reply #13 on: August 27, 2019, 12:30:16 AM »
Following on from what AATW has stated, surely the changing altitude of Polaris in the sky as you move south is a clue that we live on a globe. ....

Expanding upon your statement about Polaris; there are other properties of Polaris that do not work on a flat earth.  If you were to stand at the North Pole, Polaris (the North Star), would be directly overhead.  Currently Polaris is at a declination of a bit over 89 degrees.  On a flat Earth, Polaris would always be visible — no matter how far away from the North Pole you moved, it would still be above the horizon.  However, by the time you reach the equator, Polaris is on the northern horizon, and it disappears entirely once you move into the southern hemisphere. You can't see Polaris from Australia. 

Re: Which is right?
« Reply #14 on: August 27, 2019, 04:07:49 AM »
For me the killer argument, the one that simply can’t be argued with, is the fact that we have been to space
Hundreds of people have been there now, 7 of them space tourists who paid for the pleasure. We have loads of satellites which make GPS and satellite TV work, we’ve got a lot of film and pictures from space of the globe earth.
Since the space race in the 60s any argument against a globe earth should have been killed stone dead.
That’s where it gets silly and you have to start invoking huge conspiracies - GPS works in some other way, all the pictures and film from space are fake, all the people who have been there are liars, the ISS isn’t what it seems despite the fact you can see it from the ground.
That’s where I start to think FE belief is more about belonging to a club than genuine belief.

The principle of checking things out for yourself is sound but people need to realise that their understanding or ability is limited and we can’t all make our own model of reality based solely on our own observations. The mess of contradictory FE models shows that. Progress is made by publishing results and methods and people cross-checking each other’s work.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline rpt

  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Which is right?
« Reply #15 on: August 27, 2019, 10:56:51 AM »
In the RE model the earth is orbiting the sun and the moon is orbiting the earth. With all are knowledge of gravity we are unable to calculate this orbit. Mathematically it does not work. Google the three body problem.

The three body problem is either impossible or virtually impossible. The problem with the round earth model is that there are more than three bodies in our solar system. There are hundreds. With the laws of gravity being unable to explain 3 of these bodies let alone 300 it's evidence that maybe the solar system functions in a different way.
The three body problem has no analytical solution i.e. you cannot write a formula giving the positions and velocities of the objects at time t. This does not mean "Mathematically it does not work". It is not evidence that the solar system functions in a different way.

It seems that any round earth observation that cannot be fully explained is dismissed as wrong, but any vaguely plausible interpretation of data that supports a flat earth is proof.

newhorizons

Re: Which is right?
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2019, 04:28:39 PM »
It does seem as if to FE believers, any aspect of RE that cannot be fully documented or explained is taken as a reason why it should be dismissed. Yet FE it seems need multiple and sometimes conflicting models in order to explain the vast majority of what RE theory can. So perhaps you might like to try and get your own side in order first before you go criticising the other.

A full explanation for how the Universe began is still to be achieved but all the evidence we have indicates that it did have a beginning. We just don't know all the details yet.  We can provide a quite strong account of how the Earth formed which agrees with observations and experiment.  That is more than FE can up to now it seems.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2019, 09:15:46 PM by newhorizons »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: Which is right?
« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2019, 05:24:25 PM »
It does seem as if to FE believers, any aspect of RE that cannot be fully documented or explained is taken as a reason why it should be dismissed.


This really depends on the person. It's true there is a lot of conformation bias in the FE community. As a counter point there is a lot of conformation bias in the RE community too.

I don't take the evidence as why the RE is wrong and 100% the earth is flat. I take the evidence as reasons why the earth may not function exactly the way we were taught. The evidence shows that researching alternatives and asking questions about why this evidence supports other models is something worth doing.

 Yet FE it seems need multiple and sometimes conflicting models in order to explain the vast majority of what RE theory can. So perhaps you might like to try and get your own side in order first before you go criticising the other.



Yet FE it seems need multiple and sometimes conflicting models in order to explain the vast majority of what RE theory can.

I can freely admit that there are a decent amount of  people in the FE community which are "out there" or pretty clearly suffering from some sort of mental illness or heavily influenced by conformation bias. In one persons FE model anything not visible with the naked eye didn't exist. Atoms, molecules, bacteria, dust mites, viruses, air, electricity which was not in the form of lightning, radio signals, etc.

I personally HATE the flat disk model which is so aggressively supported in the wiki here. Based on my personal travels and observations this does not match realty in many ways and there are models which are much more accurate.

« Last Edit: August 30, 2019, 05:29:44 PM by iamcpc »

ashenlight

Re: Which is right?
« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2019, 07:02:49 PM »
Some interesting discussion going on here. Interesting in the sense that it seems evident there are a number of different reasons behind why people believe one thing or another. The mainstream 'RE' model of the Earth is so well established and so widely accepted that it would need a lot.. and I mean a lot more evidence than is currently provided by FE theorists to have any kind of impact on the wider population. Those who delve into the current FE evidence are met with a wealth of conflicting statements and diagrams which so clearly don't conform to reality. So some serious work needs to be done on improving consistency.

If one person as you say is basing their belief on purely what can be seen directly with the human eye then that person is sadly deluded and needs help. None existent radio signals?  How then do radios work if not through radio waves?

It seems to me that the FE movement has 'missed the boat' to coin a popular expression. I would contend that it is indeed difficult to prove the Earth is round purely from evidence available as the surface level. But since the 1950s or early 60s we have seen images of the Earth from space which show it to be unquestionably round. The FE movement are therefore trying to close the stable door after the horse has already bolted. Their only way of combating such evidence is to accuse the images of being somehow distorted or faked.  If such images were only available from a single or at the most a small number of sources then perhaps such a claim would have some justification. But now space based images come from a wide range of public and private organisations as well as individuals equipped with high altitude balloons etc. I have yet to see a single actual image of an Earth with a flat surface. Just tap in 'Earth from space' into Google or any search engine, then click images.  How many images do you see which show Earth with a flat surface? So the evidence is naturally tipped very much in the favour of RE.

So come on FE people, if you want more people to believe you then lets see some real evidence.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2019, 07:10:53 PM by ashenlight »