1

The Lounge / Re: the batwing

« Last post by Jura-Glenlivet II on Today at 02:53:01 AM »

Is Batman the white fascist dream? The precursor to the “Death Wish” vigilante, who strikes from the shadows at the underclass of society, in his case from his ivory tower of privilege.
Taking down not the exploiter but the exploited scum, the vilified, the tabloid bogeymen, those for whom crime is an institution as much as the charity ball is to Bruce Wayne.
Sure, they are bad, but the body count is the muscle, the foot soldier and only rarely does the kingpin not evade destruction to recruit more underlings from the poor and dispossessed to be broken and discarded, as they always have been, to bolster our prejudice and indulge our vengeance against those who prey on a society that rejects them.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Re: The strongest arguments of the flat earth theory

« Last post by EarthIsRotund on Today at 02:04:02 AM »

Your math is completely wrong due to The speed of the satellites was not taken as 1650 km/h.

V= Velocity = 1.650 x (42371 / 6371) = 10.973 k/h = 10.973 x (10/36) m/s = 3.048 m/s

your units are entirely wrong. it's 3.048 km/s OR 3.048 * 10³ m/s – which is the speed of the satellite. see, you wouldn't have this problem if you use SI units and scientific notation.

You need to realize he is using a different convention for the decimal "point" and the thousands separator.  So to us, it would be 3,048 km/s, but to him this is 3.048 km/s.  That confused me quite a bit at first.

Earth's angular velocity is 2π/(24 hours) which is equal to 7.26*10^-5/s and distance is 4.2*10⁷m. multiply them and you get 3.04*10³m/s.

also, I went back to your earlier post, and Force is measured in Newton, N - not kgs. so Gravitational force due on 1kg at ~42400 km is 0.22 N due to the earth

I did a quick search on mass, weight and force units used in the US.  What a mess!!!  Do you know what a slug is?  WTF! 

How did we ever land anything on other planets?  I know we mucked up a Mars landing because of US vs. SI units.

oh okay then, now I get it. and I think it still is confusing you cause for us, three thousand meters per second is 3.04 km/s whereas for him it is 3,04 km/s

Not sure how you blame me???

just so we're on the same page, the speed of geostationary satellites is about three thousand and forty meters per second, yes? so if you convert it to km/s how would you write that in numbers?

you mean to say people in US still use feet and inches and miles for designing and calculating? damn. It's a miracle they only lost one lander.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« Last post by EarthIsRotund on Today at 01:32:08 AM »

Only a denialist would scroll past this part and want to talk about the intracacies of an equation instead:

³ The upward bending of light notably explains odd and extraordinary celestial anomalies such as the Moon Tilt Illusion, in which the path of light between the Sun and Moon appears to take a curved path across the sky:



Image Credit: Professor Alan Myers (Source)

okay, so critical examination of an article makes me a denialist? that's new. I should have told that to my teacher when he was correcting my answer sheets. "Sir, you're focusing too much on my equations. You're in denial."

The moon tilt illusion is exactly what it's called as. an illusion. That's why we have other methods to verify the position of the sun and the moon, instead of relying on just our eyes.

I only highlighted the main reasons why the article absolute garbage. the only reason I skipped some was so that I didn't have to populate my post with too much questions, making it a burden for both of us.

But if you want to examine each and every point, here's another question. The article likens the bend of light similar to a bullet or car. Now, a car deviates from straight line due to rocks, uneven surfaces, etc. A bullet, due to gravity and wind. But what about light? we know it bends when changing medium, in diffraction, or due to gravity. so the question is, in your moon tilt illusion, why does the light bend away from the line joining sun and the moon and come back to the line again and meet at the moon? what is the reason, what is the why? light is not a goddamn frisbee. and if there is indeed a reason, how does the light bend, what equation describes it?

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« Last post by EarthIsRotund on Today at 12:30:52 AM »

so, after reading your article, it proves more so than ever that you are every bit delusional as they come. so, answer my question or get lost and stop posting links that have virtually no connection to reality. or common sense.

I will charitably assume noone close to you has taken the time to tell you this, but this is anti-social behaviour. Noone here or in the real world enjoys it or respects you for it. 

One should not insult people or make demands of them. No one here (or anywhere else) owes you anything. Least of all as a guest. Imagine thinking that this acceptable.

The good news is that you are the master of you. You can be as decent or indecent as you decide to be. Ut ameris amabilis esto, as the cheery reprobate Ovid once said.

I will assume that no one close to you has taken the time to tell you this, but this is the internet. get over it. You can't be stupid and expect people to show you decorum.

second, I assume that you have read a previous post of mine where I explain the difference between why stars move and how stars move. So, I ask again, do you know HOW stars move?

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« Last post by Unconvinced on May 20, 2024, 11:43:47 PM »

I am not sure you are using words with their conventional definitions. Falsifiability is the bedrock of scientific-building. A thing either is or is not.

No one serious thinks the universe works via Newtonian mechanics. That the laws make a reasonable and simple approximation under a set range of circumstances does not make them "true". Noone is debating the merit of using the far simpler Newton to complete your high school physics experiment to get an accurate approximation of reality. Noone should be fooled, however, that the Newtonian mechanics are "true" depictions of the underpinning physical reality. Lorentz, Lagrange, Einstein, all built upon the failings of Newton.

Einstein's relativity spectacularly fails to describe our universe as well. Few people will argue that it is not a brilliant piece of mathematics or that it is not useful (indeed, far more useful than Newton) as an approximation of physical laws under more circumstances, but it, too, does not accurately describe reality.

Usefulness does not equal truthfulness.

You appear to be getting caught up  in the definition and are missing my point.  Falsified or not, Newtonian mechanics work extremely well for situations where relativistic (or quantum) effects are insignificant. 

I wasn’t talking about high school experiments, but engineering.  Newton’s laws are some of the most fundamental building blocks from which the advanced equations are derived.  Including everything from static structures to dynamics and control theory to fluid mechanics and thermodynamics.  Even if someone were to design a spacecraft to travel at relativistic speeds, they’d still use the equations derived from bog standard Newtonian mechanics  (and the other things that go into it).  Relativity is only more useful when you actually need to take it into account, which for most practical applications is not at all.

Einstein couldn’t have come up with a theory of relativity that just destroyed Newton’s laws of motion for all the cases where they work, because of the vast amount of existing evidence that they do.

So if you’re hoping for some future scientific revolution that just blows away everything we’ve learned about the universe and replaces it with a flat earth accelerating upwards, you are going to be disappointed. 

Incidentally, Karl Popper wrote about the scientific method, he didn’t invent it.  He is not the sole authority and how it works in practice is not as straightforward as many make it out to be:

https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news/the-idea-that-a-scientific-theory-can-be-falsified-is-a-myth

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: They've lied to the world about the stars

« Last post by AnonConda on May 20, 2024, 05:16:30 PM »

Oh no, flat earthers get betrayed again by their favorite high zoom camera!

It shows that Jupiter constantly spins at high speed, just like Saturn and it's ring does, while your liars said they appear completely MOTIONLESS, and had to shoot time lapse images of them to see that they 'slowly rotated', once every 10 to 10.5 hours!!

They're nothing but liars, proven by all the videos of Saturn and Jupiter, and the others, too.

First of all, I'm not sure why it matters whether Saturn and Jupiter are motionless or not.

Second, there's a reason why courts have now disallowed photos and even videos as evidence. It is possible to hoax entire videos.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/23/1165146797/it-takes-a-few-dollars-and-8-minutes-to-create-a-deepfake-and-thats-only-the-sta

8 minutes and a few dollars. That's all it takes to make entire videos  where something didn't happen happens. So if Hollywood can make entire movies where ppl head to space when in fact they are in a green screen, why is it so hard for you to admit that those making these videos have plenty of means (billions of means, in fact), motive, and opportunities. A person finding time to make a shot of Saturn or Jupiter really only has that time, then they go back to their day job. Unlike the people who apparently can set aside time to make a (real or fake) time lapse where these move, they aren't paid based on convincing others of something. Con artists are devoted to the con. Truthers usually have multiple priorities.

You call others liars, but they don't have to keep national secrets like NASA and their cronies do. Who has a better reason to lie?

Sure, any given video could be faked, and I no longer (not even sure if I ever) use photos or videos from space or the moon as evidence. Until space travel becomes commonplace, such videos are weak evidence that can't be easily verified.
The point is that the appearance of planets and their moons is easily verifiable from earth, and can be seen by ANYONE with a telescope or a P1000. It's the fact that ANYONE can take such a video that makes it strong evidence.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: How have the flat earthers learned so much that is "secret"?

« Last post by HOTCOCO on May 20, 2024, 04:35:05 PM »

You heard it from them, folks! Flat Earthers are just people who haven't been properly educated.

Flat Earthers are not people who haven't been properly educated
Flat Earthers are people who are actively choosing to be stupid
Of course it's also possible that biologically you're just an unintelligent person but I think the latter is much more likely

Which is more likely
)You guys are idiots
)One guy is more trustworthy than every government official and astronaut on the planet for the last 67 years

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Re: The strongest arguments of the flat earth theory

« Last post by JackBlack on May 20, 2024, 03:55:07 PM »

Your claim that satellites move at the same speed as the earth and therefore their movements are not noticed from the ground is completely imaginary and not based on any calculations.

Geostationary satellites are quite well known.
Your argument is based upon wilful ignorance of these satellites.

The earth has a spinning speed around its axis and a speed revove around the sun. In order for an object to move at the same  as the earth, it must accommodate both the rotation around the earth and the rotation of the earth around the sun.

Which is trivial.
As it is in close proximity to Earth, it will be accelerated by the gravitational attraction to the sun similarly to Earth. i.e. it will orbit the sun.
So that takes care of that. Then it just needs to orbit Earth.

would either move towards the sun where it was close to the sun, or would be thrown towards space when it was far from the sun.

Not if it remains in Earth's region of influence.
Care to provide the equations to justify your claim?

This is a definite problem and cannot be solved. Even if there was a satellite there, it would either move towards the sun during the day or move towards space at night, and no power could stop it. But since this is difficult for you and the public in general to understand, I will take it more simplified for you and solve the problem by showing that centrifugal force and gravitational force are not suitable for satellites.

In order for a satellite to move simultaneously with the Earth and remain fixed in place, it must mimic rotational motion. When it does this, the fundamental forces acting on it, the gravitational force and the (hypothetical) centrifugal forces it has due to its motion, must be equal. If one of them is larger than the other, it will either fall to the ground or gone away into space. Lets calculate.

1- The satellites are assumed to be 36,000 kilometers above the ground.

2- The radius of the Earth is 6,371 km.

3- The rotation speed of the Earth around its axis is approximately 1650 km/h.

4- To simplify the calculation, the forces acting on an object weighing 1 kg will be considered.

a) Gravitational Force Effect

Gravitational force acting on an object 36,000 km above the ground:

Distance of the object from the center of the earth: 36.000 kms + 6371kms= 42.371kms.

Since the object weighs 1 kg when it is 6.371 kms away from the center of the earth (at the ground), the gravitational force it has when it is 42.371 kms above the ground can be found simply by a simple ratio. Since the gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance;

GF= (6371 / 42371)² x1kg = 0,022 kg

b)Centrifugal force assumed to act on the object due to angular velocity.

F= mV²/R

m= mass=1 kg.
V= Velocity = 1.650 x (42371 / 6371) = 10.973 k/h = 10.973 x (10/36) m/s = 3.048 m/s
R= 6371 kms = 6.371.000 m

F= 1x 3.048² / 6.371.000 = 1,46 kg.

RESULT

While the force that pulls the object to the earth has a very low value of 0.022 kg, the force that forces the object to move away from the earth has a high value of 1.46 kg. To compare;

1,46 / 0,022 = 66.

Except you entirely failed.
Your math is wrong.
Notice how what you have done is scale the weight of the object with altitude, but then used the force for the rotation.
A 1 kg object sitting ont he surface of Earth does NOT have a force of 1 kg acting on it due to gravity. It is ~9.8 N.
So it shouldn't be ~0.022 kg, it should be ~0.22 N.

You have also entirely failed to calculate the angular velocity correctly.
If you want to do that there are a few options.
But R needs to be the radius of the circle, not Earth.

We can also just use angular velocity, instead of linear velocity.
Then F=m*w^2*R.
w=2*pi/T.
T, as a simple approximation (which overestimates it) is 86400 s.
And taking your previous calculated radius of 42 371 000 m, we get F=0.224 N.

If you did want to use the velocity of the satellite, will that is given by 2*pi*R/T, which gives us roughly 3081 m/s.
Sticking that into the formula with the correct value of R, gives us 0.22N.

Either way, YOU ARE WRONG!

And would you look at that?
0.22 N = 0.22 N.
The ratio is 1.

So you are entirely wrong.
Sticking in numbers which are not appropriate, and failing to understand units.

As you can see, I present the mathematics

Math equivalent to just saying 1+1 = 65678.
It is useless and wrong.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« Last post by JackBlack on May 20, 2024, 03:04:15 PM »

Aside from the litany of experimental evidence referenced in those pages, the most obvious clue that the Earth is accelerating upwards is in the Equivalence Principle page that you linked, which shows that in the official Round Earth Theory the surface of the earth is also accelerating upwards.

Again, the fundamental issue is that the equivalence principle is local.
It doesn't work with the value of g varying across Earth, not does it explain things like satellites.

The only "experimental evidence" of UA, is evidence of gravity, and when analysed honestly, including the fact that g varies, it refutes UA.

Trying to twist the equivalent principle to pretend Earth is flat and accelerating upwards is quite dishonest.
But I guess that is par for the course for you.

Only a denialist would scroll past this part and want to talk about the intracacies of an equation instead:

You mean your dishonest representation of the moon terminator illusion?
Which is merely a result of you trying to take a wide angle view which necessarily distorts the view and place it on a flat plane?

In this Flat Earth celestial model it's not an "illusion". The light is really bending.

Which just further shows the problem with your model, as it is a quite well known illusion, which disappears if you angle the camera correctly.
There is no need at all for light to bend to explain it.

The Earth is not fully illuminated by the Sun because of the opacity of the atmosphere and the bending of light, which explains practically all visual observations and phenomena associated with light on the flat Earth:

It doesn't explain anything.
Instead it takes the observations and forces light to bend to make it match what is observed on a round Earth.

It also directly contradicts plenty of claims of evidence by FEers.
There is no explanation at all for why light should bend just the right amount to make the same visual observations as a RE.

It is just trying to force the reality of a round earth to fit the fantasy of a flat Earth.

An explanation has to go the other way. You need to explain why the light bends to then produce those results.

And if you use the equation provided, it doesn't work.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/lfhky8uh1s

You can fiddle with the bishop constant all you want, it wont result in the sun in the same location for everyone.
You need an entirely different formula.
Now, the dishonest pile of garbage you linked does say it is just an approximation, but this means you don't even have an explanation.
You have vague, handwavy nonsense to pretend it works, without any actual explanation.

And that only attempts to explain the vertical issue, why the sun appears to set rather than remain high in the sky.
It makes no attempt to explain the horizontal issue, i.e. why pretty much the entire world sees the sun rise due east on the equinox, instead of varying angles from due east to north east, to north north east.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the Earth stationary or rising up at 9.8 m/s?

« Last post by Tom Bishop on May 20, 2024, 02:56:10 PM »

Only a denialist would scroll past this part and want to talk about the intracacies of an equation instead:

³ The upward bending of light notably explains odd and extraordinary celestial anomalies such as the Moon Tilt Illusion, in which the path of light between the Sun and Moon appears to take a curved path across the sky:



Image Credit: Professor Alan Myers (Source)

Why would anyone want to discuss an "illusion"?  Hasn't this been explained before?

In this Flat Earth celestial model it's not an "illusion". The light is really bending. Upwardly bending light predicts that this will occur.

The sun shines as an orb.  What’s all the other rays of light doing shot out  from all the surface area of the sun emitted at all different directions?

There is a caption or text somewhere which says that the image only depicts the rays that intersect with the earth. The other rays are making a U-Turn back into space.