Lets talk facts and science not conspiracy

I would like to post some questions and scenarios to challenge the Flat Earth concept, but I am not interested in any comments claiming conspiracy (they will simply be ignored as they have no value or clout)  ... no-one can prove or substantiate conspiracy in my book. So I challenge you to show me science and math and logic in your comments. I also don't want answers that cannot be explained such as "blah blah blah because we don't understand the physics yet".

#1 How does the south magnetic pole work on your flat model?
#2 Why did no-one see the flash of the the flash from the 15MT nuclear detonation over the Bikini Atoll or any of the atmospheric nuclear tests?

Much more to come!

I forgot that they detonated an H-Bomb in the upper atmosphere to see if it would ignite. Thank God it didn't but why would you try!?

Considering that is a large explosion I would agree everyone on the planet would have seen it on a FE.

The DE model addresses the multiple issues that arise from the classical FE model of the poles. It also proposes an origin for the magnetic field: the link to it is in my sig. It's a full model, so it is a little involved.
(If you're interested, consider waiting a day or so, I have a rewrite and I'm waiting for a beta reader to get back and ensure it's clearer before updating).

On 2, you can't see an endless distance through the atmosphere: there's a natural haze, sometimes more opaque than other times. No matter what, it's there, and will blot out distant sights. I think that's an answer, I'm not completely clear on your question. I'm fairly sure many people did indeed see the flash, they just happened to be closer.

The DE model addresses the multiple issues that arise from the classical FE model of the poles. It also proposes an origin for the magnetic field: the link to it is in my sig. It's a full model, so it is a little involved.
(If you're interested, consider waiting a day or so, I have a rewrite and I'm waiting for a beta reader to get back and ensure it's clearer before updating).

On 2, you can't see an endless distance through the atmosphere: there's a natural haze, sometimes more opaque than other times. No matter what, it's there, and will blot out distant sights. I think that's an answer, I'm not completely clear on your question. I'm fairly sure many people did indeed see the flash, they just happened to be closer.

I don't think you are familiar with the magnitude of a H-Bomb.

I would like to post some questions and scenarios to challenge the Flat Earth concept, but I am not interested in any comments claiming conspiracy (they will simply be ignored as they have no value or clout)  ... no-one can prove or substantiate conspiracy in my book. So I challenge you to show me science and math and logic in your comments. I also don't want answers that cannot be explained such as "blah blah blah because we don't understand the physics yet".

#1 How does the south magnetic pole work on your flat model?
#2 Why did no-one see the flash of the the flash from the 15MT nuclear detonation over the Bikini Atoll or any of the atmospheric nuclear tests?

Much more to come!

Speaking of bombs, correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings have also been visible from anywhere with an explosion of that magnitude? I'm no bomb expert, but shouldn't people in California at least been able to see something? I don't know the exact brightness, but I do know that explosions in uoper magnitudes begin to be as bright as the Sun appears on Earth.

I will respond here to demonstrate how conspiracy is irrelevant. There is more than sufficient evidence to support the existence of nuclear testing. If you are going to make such a comment I need facts and proof that it didn't happen in light of all the evidence. Without such "full" argument your comment is nothing more than gibberish (words without substance or meaning).

I will respond here to demonstrate how conspiracy is irrelevant. There is more than sufficient evidence to support the existence of nuclear testing. If you are going to make such a comment I need facts and proof that it didn't happen in light of all the evidence. Without such "full" argument your comment is nothing more than gibberish (words without substance or meaning).

No one in this thread has even begun to claim that nuclear testing doesn't exist...

The DE model addresses the multiple issues that arise from the classical FE model of the poles. It also proposes an origin for the magnetic field: the link to it is in my sig. It's a full model, so it is a little involved.
(If you're interested, consider waiting a day or so, I have a rewrite and I'm waiting for a beta reader to get back and ensure it's clearer before updating).

On 2, you can't see an endless distance through the atmosphere: there's a natural haze, sometimes more opaque than other times. No matter what, it's there, and will blot out distant sights. I think that's an answer, I'm not completely clear on your question. I'm fairly sure many people did indeed see the flash, they just happened to be closer.

I don't think you have any idea of the intensity of the light emitted from that test. Nor do you understand light and its behavior in atmosphere. I light several orders of magnitude smaller than that created by the blast could easily penetrate thousands of kilometres of atmosphere ... even clouds. I specifically chose that example because of the intensity vs Hiroshima or other options. Also because it was essentially over open water with nothing to block the light.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on December 22, 2015, 05:01:55 PM

The DE model addresses the multiple issues that arise from the classical FE model of the poles. It also proposes an origin for the magnetic field: the link to it is in my sig. It's a full model, so it is a little involved.
(If you're interested, consider waiting a day or so, I have a rewrite and I'm waiting for a beta reader to get back and ensure it's clearer before updating).

On 2, you can't see an endless distance through the atmosphere: there's a natural haze, sometimes more opaque than other times. No matter what, it's there, and will blot out distant sights. I think that's an answer, I'm not completely clear on your question. I'm fairly sure many people did indeed see the flash, they just happened to be closer.

I don't think you have any idea of the intensity of the light emitted from that test. Nor do you understand light and its behavior in atmosphere. I light several orders of magnitude smaller than that created by the blast could easily penetrate thousands of kilometres of atmosphere ... even clouds. I specifically chose that example because of the intensity vs Hiroshima or other options. Also because it was essentially over open water with nothing to block the light.

I mean wouldn't intensity of the Sun result in the Sun always being visible as well? This is a point I have always made.

there's a natural haze, sometimes more opaque than other times. No matter what, it's there, and will blot out distant sights.

This is a claim without any evidence or science or math to substantiate it. Give me the math!

On 2, you can't see an endless distance through the atmosphere: there's a natural haze, sometimes more opaque than other times. No matter what, it's there, and will blot out distant sights.

Oh, like the render distance when I play Minecraft? I use minecraft to try to visualize many flat Earth models.

I specifically asked for facts and science because I am not interested in banter ... I did the youtube discussion thing on this topic for some time and all I get is people calling me names ... I want a mature discussion ... Please!

This is a claim without any evidence or science or math to substantiate it. Give me the math!

I don't have anywhere near the resources to begin to calculate that. It's well documented though: you can see further on some days than others. Air is not perfectly transparent.

I mean wouldn't intensity of the Sun result in the Sun always being visible as well? This is a point I have always made.

That would require the Sun's light to be pointed in the right direction. Under classical FET, for example, it's akin to a spotlight.

I don't think you have any idea of the intensity of the light emitted from that test. Nor do you understand light and its behavior in atmosphere. I light several orders of magnitude smaller than that created by the blast could easily penetrate thousands of kilometres of atmosphere ... even clouds. I specifically chose that example because of the intensity vs Hiroshima or other options. Also because it was essentially over open water with nothing to block the light.

Air blocks light. Not perfectly, but it does: over sufficient distance, I fail to see what else you would expect. (And under the DE model, light would be drawn down to the Earth's surface: this is also what causes the sinking ship illusion on the horizon. That would limit how far any light could go).

I'm just subscribing.

I don't have anywhere near the resources to begin to calculate that. It's well documented though: you can see further on some days than others. Air is not perfectly transparent.

Air blocks light. Not perfectly, but it does: over sufficient distance, I fail to see what else you would expect. (And under the DE model, light would be drawn down to the Earth's surface: this is also what causes the sinking ship illusion on the horizon. That would limit how far any light could go).

So I repeat myself, "I don't want banter". If you make a claim, I want your science. There are very simple tests that can be conducted in your own home to determine light intensity atmospheric penetration. Also, If you understand a bit of Physics and Chemistry, you can do the math and determine what light intensity is needed to traverse any given atmospheric condition.

The human eye, while very complex, still has limitation which is why I use intense light as examples, because the human eye is very sensitive to this. But looking to the horizon for a ship ... not a good eye challenge.

I will not do the math for you. You need to do it for yourself so you can "trust" the results. I assure you, the 15Mton blast would penetrate any atmospheric condition that might have been present at the time.

If you wish to use "aether" or any other Magical powers, I need science and math to back them as well or they are simply more banter.

Quote

This is a claim without any evidence or science or math to substantiate it. Give me the math!

I don't have anywhere near the resources to begin to calculate that. It's well documented though: you can see further on some days than others. Air is not perfectly transparent.

Quote

I mean wouldn't intensity of the Sun result in the Sun always being visible as well? This is a point I have always made.

That would require the Sun's light to be pointed in the right direction. Under classical FET, for example, it's akin to a spotlight.

Quote

I don't think you have any idea of the intensity of the light emitted from that test. Nor do you understand light and its behavior in atmosphere. I light several orders of magnitude smaller than that created by the blast could easily penetrate thousands of kilometres of atmosphere ... even clouds. I specifically chose that example because of the intensity vs Hiroshima or other options. Also because it was essentially over open water with nothing to block the light.

Air blocks light. Not perfectly, but it does: over sufficient distance, I fail to see what else you would expect. (And under the DE model, light would be drawn down to the Earth's surface: this is also what causes the sinking ship illusion on the horizon. That would limit how far any light could go).

We totally understand that air is not perfectly transparent. We are merely arguing that the explosion of this magnitude would have been visible from pretty much anywhere. We would like to see you calculations regarding that air would be sufficiently thick if your argument is going to rely on that. We know how bright the explosion was, we know the opaqueness of air. Use your model's distance calculations and it should be fairly simple.

Ok, while you continue to be baffled by #1 and #2 here is #3: (don't like light .. as such!)

#3 Why are we not able to receive all high energy microwave radio signals all over the "Flat Earth"?

I forgot that they detonated an H-Bomb in the upper atmosphere to see if it would ignite. Thank God it didn't but why would you try!?
Considering that is a large explosion I would agree everyone on the planet would have seen it on a FE.

Just what authority says that was at all possible, like oxygen and nitrogen don't really like combining!
Besides, the only reference I found was "Back in the summer of 1962, the U.S. blew up a hydrogen bomb in outer space, some 250 miles above the Pacific Ocean. It was a weapons test, but one that created a man-made light show that has never been equaled — and hopefully never will.".  250 miles up is hardly the upper atmosphere - seems a bit "upper" to be called the atmosphere  Not that I want to see a repeat performance!

It might be instructive to look at some rough energy scales A-bombs are big and H-bombs are massive, but look at the following table of some typical releases of energy:

Energy	Event releasing energy
1.1×1013 J	energy of the maximum fuel an Airbus A380 can carry (320,000 liters[136] of Jet A-1[128])[137]
1.2×1013 J	orbital kinetic energy of the International Space Station (417 tonnes[138] at 7.7 km/s
6.3×1013 J	yield of the Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II (15 kilotons)
6.0×1014 J	energy released by an average hurricane in 1 second
> 1015 J	energy released by a severe thunderstorm
4.2×1015 J	energy released by explosion of 1 megaton of TNT
1.0×1017 J	energy released on the Earth's surface by the magnitude 9.1–9.3 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
1.7×1017 J	total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each second
2.1×1017 J	the largest nuclear weapon ever tested (50 megatons)

Table from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
Note that an average hurricane releases almost 10 times the energy every second as the blast from the "Little Boy atomic bomb" - mind you Hiroshima took the lot!  The hurricane's energy is spread over a wide area.
Also the "total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth" is almost as high as the largest ever nuclear blast, 50 megatons.  A few of them might upset the energy balance!

I forgot that they detonated an H-Bomb in the upper atmosphere to see if it would ignite. Thank God it didn't but why would you try!?

I must also take umbrage with this statement.

During the early phases of bomb development, the issue of Nitrogen fusion was raised.  It was studied and a report was written showing that a self sustaining reaction in open air was 'impossible' (considered so improbable to be impossible).

So no, a H-Bomb was not detonated in the upper atmosphere 'to see if it would ignite'.  The fact that this 'fact' still circulates is ridiculous. 

Here is another!

#4 If the sun is a spotlight like object such that it only casts light towards the Earth so as to allow for "night" in areas not below it at a preset angle, then it could only be a perfect circle when it is directly overhead. As it moves away from you, the circle would distort and become an oval. This oval would continue to "flatten" until it were a thin line just before disappearing (setting). This is easy to experience, just walk down a hallway with a pot light illuminating it. It is impossible, with your model, to experience the standard sunset we witness throughout our lives, where the "bottom" of the solar sphere disappears below the horizon. How does your model explain this?

You can clearly see this effect in the image I have included .... but Please do not trust my image. Go and try this and see for yourself!

#1 How does the south magnetic pole work on your flat model?

It does not. FE model claims the Earth's magnet is like a disc magnet. But they completely IGNORE the fact south magnetic pole is outside of Antarctida and therefore it causes the disc to have BOTH poles on the SAME side. No disc magnet behave like that.

#4 If the sun is a spotlight like object such that it only casts light towards the Earth so as to allow for "night" in areas not below it at a preset angle, then it could only be a perfect circle when it is directly overhead. As it moves away from you, the circle would distort and become an oval. This oval would continue to "flatten" until it were a thin line just before disappearing (setting). This is easy to experience, just walk down a hallway with a pot light illuminating it. It is impossible, with your model, to experience the standard sunset we witness throughout our lives, where the "bottom" of the solar sphere disappears below the horizon. How does your model explain this?

You can clearly see this effect in the image I have included .... but Please do not trust my image. Go and try this and see for yourself!

They say the Sun is not a flat object, but a round one acting like a spotlight. However, how this is possible remains a mystery.

P.S. Talking about "day" and "night" has no point, because FEers do not know how far the Sun is in their model. The 3000 miles was proven to be flawed and noone is willing to fix that. See my signature.

I would like to post some questions and scenarios to challenge the Flat Earth concept, but I am not interested in any comments claiming conspiracy (they will simply be ignored as they have no value or clout)  ... no-one can prove or substantiate conspiracy in my book. So I challenge you to show me science and math and logic in your comments. I also don't want answers that cannot be explained such as "blah blah blah because we don't understand the physics yet".

#1 How does the south magnetic pole work on your flat model?
#2 Why did no-one see the flash of the the flash from the 15MT nuclear detonation over the Bikini Atoll or any of the atmospheric nuclear tests?

Much more to come!

You want you want . Who the phuck do you think you are . Take your book & shove it up your ass . How about you start lodging some  freedom of information applications . Then come back & tell us how they happly released all the restricted national security documents you ask for.
Ya fuck wit

Ok

It does not. FE model claims the Earth's magnet is like a disc magnet. But they completely IGNORE the fact south magnetic pole is outside of Antarctida and therefore it causes the disc to have BOTH poles on the SAME side. No disc magnet behave like that.

Uh, all disk magnets behave like that.  I don't think you understand electromagnetism.

These may help in the discussion.

These may help in the discussion.

Help? Dammit, you've ended it!

Quote from: Brouwer on December 23, 2015, 02:34:18 AM

It does not. FE model claims the Earth's magnet is like a disc magnet. But they completely IGNORE the fact south magnetic pole is outside of Antarctida and therefore it causes the disc to have BOTH poles on the SAME side. No disc magnet behave like that.

Uh, all disk magnets behave like that.  I don't think you understand electromagnetism.

I think you do not understand the point of my comment. Unless you can explain how a disc magnet can have and keep both poles at the same side of the disc.

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 23, 2015, 07:30:12 AM

Quote from: Brouwer on December 23, 2015, 02:34:18 AM

It does not. FE model claims the Earth's magnet is like a disc magnet. But they completely IGNORE the fact south magnetic pole is outside of Antarctida and therefore it causes the disc to have BOTH poles on the SAME side. No disc magnet behave like that.

Uh, all disk magnets behave like that.  I don't think you understand electromagnetism.

I think you do not understand the point of my comment. Unless you can explain how a disc magnet can have and keep both poles at the same side of the disc.

Sure, here you go:

These may help in the discussion.

Hmmm, there is a fatal flaw in the FE disk magnet theory. A simple device, typically made of Gallium or Indium compounds, can demonstrate that the FE magnetic polar model is wrong. These devices called "Hall Effect" sensors can be used to detect; any magnetism, either specific pole or even fluctuating magnetic fields. They can also determine relative strengths. So the problem arises when one builds the circuit to detect the south pole. According to the FE model, it should indicate that the south pole is below us (or under ground) regardless of your location on the Earth but it does not (unless you are deep in the north where the south pole on a globe would be below you). Arrays of these devices can be used to determine fields and their directional properties, much like the dashed lines in the center portion of the images posted by others. These arrays can be used to demonstrate that the Earths magnetic lines of force maintain a relatively consistent distance from the surface of the Earth. As the disk model demonstrates, in the images, this does not work on your FE disk as the flux lines clearly do not "huge" the contour of the surface. Replace the disk with a globe and TA DA, it works as the data suggests.

In fact data collected from these devices easily support a spherical world and the associated magnetic poles. Again, don't take my word for this ... do the experiments ... that is how good science happens. 

Quote from: Brouwer on December 23, 2015, 09:14:35 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 23, 2015, 07:30:12 AM

Quote from: Brouwer on December 23, 2015, 02:34:18 AM

It does not. FE model claims the Earth's magnet is like a disc magnet. But they completely IGNORE the fact south magnetic pole is outside of Antarctida and therefore it causes the disc to have BOTH poles on the SAME side. No disc magnet behave like that.

Uh, all disk magnets behave like that.  I don't think you understand electromagnetism.

I think you do not understand the point of my comment. Unless you can explain how a disc magnet can have and keep both poles at the same side of the disc.

Sure, here you go:

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 23, 2015, 07:47:53 AM

These may help in the discussion.

Completely irrelevant. Please try again.