1

Flat Earth General / Re: Can we please have a list of the good proofs from 100 proofs T.E.I.N.A.G

« on: December 12, 2009, 06:33:09 AM »

4. This probably isn't true, see http://www.mbarron.net/Nile/nileheight.gif.
32. This is ridiculous, RET predicts exactly this behavior, while FET needs complicated explanations like bendy light. This argument with vanishing point doesn't make any sense. This proof is like saying: Earth really seems to be round, therefore it is flat. RET even predicts the 3 mile distance...
35. I wonder how can you say that it is perfectly straight.
40. The problem is, that you don't understand what "level" really means. See e.q. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid . The way how you build something straight on earth is using spirit level (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_level if you don't know what it is), but the resulting structure will not be straight in geometrical sense, but it will be level, which roughly means, that it will copy the shape of the earth.

All of these proofs are really stupid and can hardly be called proofs.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oceans in RET

« on: May 19, 2009, 10:55:18 AM »

I realized, that I've made some mistakes, so I'll try to repair it. The values of g is in fact different in Helsinky than in Singapure and I'll try to explain why it is possible. I've correctly written, that sea level should be equipotential surface. The reason for that is quite simple. It is obvious, that in equilibrum gravitational force should always be perpendicular to sea level. If you know the potential, than you can compute the force as F=-gradV, so that gradV should be always perpendicular to sea level. And this is exactly property of equipotential surfaces.

This means that quantity that has to be same everywhere on the sea level is potential. g is derivative of potential (more precisely it's size of the derivative *kg^-1) and therefore it doesn't have to be same everywhere. This is basic physics, but I didn't realise it at first. Rest of my previous post should be correct.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oceans in RET

« on: May 19, 2009, 12:55:26 AM »

This is very interesting question and it took me quite some time to figure it out. The answer is however relatively simple. The values of g you posted are not actual values of g measured in Helsinky and Singapur, rather they are values calculated with some simple model. Wikipedia is not always exact source of information.

The earth's shape is aproximately elipsoid, if you calculate earth's gravitational field as a field of homogenous rotationg elipsoid, you'll get this equation:

This equation is not entirely exact, as earth is not an elipsoid and is not homogenous. This equation is used for reference purposes-you can use this equation to find out how much earth differ from an elipsoid.

More exact shape of earth is Geoid. Geoid is by definition:

a surface of constant potential energy that coincides with mean sea level over the oceans.

That means to find shape of geoid, you must measure earth's gravity potential, find its equipotential surfaces and then choose the surface that corresponds to mean sea level. This has been done and the shape of geoid is now known with good precision (+- 1m and propably better now)

Mean sea (averaged over the period of tides) level is almost exactly equal to the geoid. There are of course differences caused by currents, air pressure and propably lot of other aspects, but difference is nowhere bigger than 2 metres. On continents geoid can differ a lot from the factual shape of earth (up to 200 m). Here is a map of geoid relative to reference elipsoid:
http://principles.ou.edu/earth_figure_gravity/geoid/ww15mgh.jpg

The important thing is that geoid is by definition an equipotential surface and by measurement it was shown that it almost exactly corresponds to sea level. Your idea was however good, here you can find image showing how would earth look if it was perfectly sferical with no gravitational anomalies (homogenous):
http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/graphics/geoid6_lg.jpg
The difference between this simple model and real earth seems to be cause mainly by two reasons-the earth is not spherical and it is not at all homogenous.

This all is not surprisive. If the value of g was really different on sea level, then then the sea would have to move to lowest energy state (as you correctly said) no matter the shape of the earth. Your argument with rotating stars is really stupid, if their rotation had no effect on g, then it could have no effect on the oceans too. Their rotation is irrelevant as long as it doesn't influence the value of g.

For more informations look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid
http://www.lct.com/technical-pages/pdf/Li_G_Tut.pdf
http://principles.ou.edu/earth_figure_gravity/geoid/index.html
http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0703/geoid1of3.html

P.S. Nuclear fusion is in fact well proven. Not only it is theory that correctly explains and predicts things (which is a condition for good science theory), it aslso has been tested in laboratories. While we can't use it to make energy, we can make plasma and start fusion in facilities called tokamaks. The fact that we can't use it to make energy is no big surprise-plasma needs to have temperature of sveeral milion degrees, it take a lot of energy to keep it where you want. 

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coreolis Effect?

« on: May 18, 2009, 06:34:41 AM »

Have you made a detailed 24 hour analysis?

I haven't, but other people did... If there was something wrong with it, someone would notice, lot of people walk around it every day and most of them know what Foucalt pendulum is. We learn about it in physics lectures. If you really wanted, I could go there and check it myself (not for 24 hours of course), but I think you'd say I'm part of conspiracy anyway.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Coreolis Effect?

« on: May 17, 2009, 01:28:11 AM »

Wait - You guys actually trust the military? They are among the biggest supporters of the conspiracy.

The fact is the FP results were fabricated. Since FET is such a world wide community I would invite all RE believers to set up their pendulums in different parts of the world and redo the "experiment". The results will all be the same - not different.

There are many Foucalt pendulums around the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foucault_pendulums . One of them is in my school and I assure you, it rotates exactly how it should on rotating earth.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Spherical Earth

« on: May 15, 2009, 01:18:19 PM »

First of all, i'll start with the easiest one, and the most popular. Gravity. As the FAQ says, we are kept on the earth because its being forever pushed up, there-fore, we are being stuck down. Sure this makes sense... untill you start thinking a little bit. This form of "Gravity" only works untill the forcing object, and the object that is being forced (In this case the FE is focing and we are being forced) are moving at the same speed. On earth, you can be stuck to the front of a truck if its going fast enough from this. But it is not the speed of the truck that is holind you verticaly against the grill, its the air pressure, constantly bashing against you. If you were placed in a 100% vacuum and did the exact same thing, you would slide off the front of the grill as if you werent moving at all, then get run over.

You are not right in this point, what they say about Gravity is in principle possible. Otherwise I completely agree with you. They believe, because they want to believe. They have no single proof, nothing that would make more sense in FE than in RE. Their theory doesn't explain anything, not even basic things like sunset. I'm reading book about history of physics and they are on the level of early Greek philosophers. They also thought that earth is flat and is swimming in a "bowl" filled with water. But Aristoteles already knew that Earth is round and he was also able to calculate it's diameter. Even in Babylon they knew that the earth is curved.

If they really wanted, they could find out themselves (for example reconstruct Robotham's experiments), but I don't think they really want to do that.

Well, I hope that this all is only a joke. They can't be really serious about stuff like fishes swimming along boats a thus speeding them.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Celestial Pole

« on: October 26, 2008, 02:39:15 AM »

I might bump this.  Obviously Tom must have forgotten about this topic.  Best remind him, because why wouldn't he want to prove an experiment in the name of FE?

I don't live in the Southern Hemisphere to participate in such an experiment. But even if such an experiment were performed and the observers looked southward and saw the same stars it would prove nothing about the shape of the earth since there are some maps of the FE where Australia and Argentina are pointing in the same direction.

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

This map doesn't correspond to your theory well, because it doesn't have north pole in centre.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Reasons for believing in FE?

« on: October 26, 2008, 01:44:06 AM »

Well you can either believe one book from 1865 or hundreds modern sources (such as star maps). You believe Rowbotham, I don't. I can't prove he's wrong, just as you can't prove he's right. 

Why don't you choose some different proof?  This one is same proof of flat earth as photos from space are proofs of round earth.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Reasons for believing in FE?

« on: October 25, 2008, 03:17:10 AM »

These proofs don't make any sence at all. Choose few of them, that seem best to you and I'll try to explain you, what's wrong about them.

How do you explain the fact that the North Star has been seen in the sky at locations over 20 degrees beyond the equator?

I can't explain it, it would of course mean that something is wrong with RE. However I don't believe it's true. If you take star map of some place below the equator (www.wikisky.org or http://www.stellarium.org/ for example), you will not find there polaris. Now you can (and will) argue that these map are wrong, but maps that are used everyday by astronomers all over the world seems more reliable to me than "someone saw it". And polaris is an important star so I'm quite sure, someone would have noticed.

And even if this was true, it would hardly be proof that earth is flat, since FE can't really explain north star behaviour.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Reasons for believing in FE?

« on: October 25, 2008, 01:55:43 AM »

I have 100 proofs. You have 0.

These proofs don't make any sence at all. Choose few of them, that seem best to you and I'll try to explain you, what's wrong about them.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a few questions chaps...

« on: October 24, 2008, 09:09:36 AM »

They will not answer you anything, because only thing they've got to support FE is that earth looks to be flat...

If the Earth were a globe, people - except those on the top - would, certainly, have to be "fastened" to its surface by some means or other, whether by the "attraction" of astronomers or by some other undiscovered and undiscoverable process! But, as we know that we simply walk on its surface without any other aid than that which is necessary for locomotion on a plane, it follows that we have, herein, a conclusive proof that Earth is not a globe.

Wow these proofs are almost as dumb as "fish speeding ships" theory.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise / sunsets

« on: October 23, 2008, 07:29:26 AM »

How do you explain this image?

If the sun was ust getting smaller, then why can I see only part of it? Smaller or not, from my perspective it is below the horizon. Let's say the earth is flat, then it means the sea on the picture is not. And if I understand it correctly this sea should be pretty high in order to block sun...

It looks like a circle that has been distorted by the atmosphere into an oval to me.  If part of the sun is beneath the horizon there why does the bottom appear rounded???

I dont know maybe reflection on the sea, maybe it's caused by camera... It's not important, my point was that during the sunset, sun appers to be below the horizon. You must know that if you have ever seen sunset.

If you don't believe me, just look at some other pictures, there's no rounded bottom on these:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_ljFvcfs-6DQ/R9b8kdQvrAI/AAAAAAAAAGk/xHYlRwIvJE8/s1600-h/Caribean+sunset.jpg
http://www.gofethiye.com/gallery/pictures/calis%20sunset.jpg

If you have ever seen sunset and if you thought about it for a second, you would see, that it happens exactly as you would expect from RE theory and that it contradits FE theory.

Anyway I know that it makes no sence to argue with you. You just pick up one unimportant thing (like gravity vs gravitation) and then flame about it.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A question for REers

« on: October 21, 2008, 06:02:55 AM »

Why do you think so? I did this experiment with my own hands and we actually measured gravitational constant. Knowing this and knowing earth's radius (even Aristoteles was able to measure it with pretty good accuracy) it is easy to calculate earth's mass. Understanding this experiment is not that difficult,it's basic mechanics...

http://milesmathis.com/caven.html

I don't have neither time nor patience to read it all, but from what I've read so far, this guy doesn't know how Cavendish experiment works. The walls have nothing to do with it as they are too far away (in our experiment they surely were). Anyway this guy obviously doesn't believe in Newton law's or in EM so citating him is not actually good point.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiritory Conspiracy

« on: October 21, 2008, 12:59:21 AM »

Also you should be aware that most of scientist would have to be connected to the conspiracy as well.

No they wouldn't. They're studying Flat Earth phenomenons.

If they are studying Flat Earth phenomenons, then they have to know that earth is flat. And since no scientists do that, they have to be part of the conspiracy.

Don't tell me scientists study Flat earth phenomenons and believe earth is sphere. That is complete rubbish.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Conspiritory Conspiracy

« on: October 20, 2008, 02:46:03 PM »

Also you should be aware that most of scientist would have to be connected to the conspiracy as well. At least all astronomers, everyone who study earth, scientist working in antarctida. Even all physicist would have to be in it, since your theory is in huge contradiction to basics of physics.

Then there are pilots, cartographers... All these people would have to know the earth is flat (ot at least know it isn't sphere), yet they all would be quiet about it? Now this is paranoia.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise / sunsets

« on: October 20, 2008, 02:10:36 PM »

How do you explain this image?

If the sun was ust getting smaller, then why can I see only part of it? Smaller or not, from my perspective it is below the horizon. Let's say the earth is flat, then it means the sea on the picture is not. And if I understand it correctly this sea should be pretty high in order to block sun...

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: ships disappearing over horizon

« on: October 20, 2008, 12:10:42 PM »

I know enought about general relativity to know that it is not caused by bended light.

You can see the satellite with your eyes even thought you see it only as a dot (just like stars). It is however exactly where it should be. You can find positions of many satellites on the internet for example here: http://www.n2yo.com/?s=25634 . I'm sure ISS for example can be seen with your eyes so wait when it flies above you (or find some other one tha can be seen with your eyes). And if you dont believe me, just buy small telescope, they are not expensive.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A question for REers

« on: October 20, 2008, 12:03:53 PM »

So if the only way we know the amount of mass a heavenly body has is by working backwards using Newton's law of universal gravitation, how is it confirmed that Newton's law actually applies to the heavenly bodies? 

Cavendish experiment.

Is flawed.

Why do you think so? I did this experiment with my own hands and we actually measured gravitational constant. Knowing this and knowing earth's radius (even Aristoteles was able to measure it with pretty good accuracy) it is easy to calculate earth's mass. Understanding this experiment is not that difficult,it's basic mechanics...

19

Flat Earth Q&A / ships disappearing over horizon

« on: October 20, 2008, 11:39:57 AM »

I'm sure this queastin has beed asked many times, but I couldn't find any reasonal answer so I'll ask again. How do you explain the fact that ships clearly disapper over horizon? I guess everyone has already seen it, so you just can't deny it like everything else. And you can't explain it by saying that the ship is too far since it diseppears gradually...

Also I don't understand how you can actually belive in scientific theory like general relativity and yet belive in flat earth.

My last question is what makes you believe spaceflight and mainly satelites are impossible. Because if you suppose earth is sphere, it can be quite simply shown from Newton equations that body (i.e. satellite) can orbit the earth. You can see photos, videos of spaceflights, you can even see satellites with your own eye, yet you rather believe that earth is  flat and that NASA is conspiracy? Sounds weird to me...