1

Flat Earth General / Re: How do you explain Newton's action-reaction reality?

« on: December 01, 2021, 05:34:45 AM »

What on Earth are you talking about?

I'm sure you must be Sceptimatic in disguise.  He shared your (near) unique gift of being able to make up some alternative fantasy reality in his head and then making out it was real.  Let's test this. How do you explain magnetism?

2

Flat Earth General / Re: How do you explain Newton's action-reaction reality?

« on: December 01, 2021, 03:52:54 AM »

But I have to sound clever because I'm a rector in Phew University, 👌

Well I hate to break it to you but you don't actually sound clever. I'm sure you think you do but you don't. You just sound like some sort of idiot.

I don't even know what this 'Phew' business that you keep droning on about even is means.  Nor quite frankly do I care because everything you come out with is so ridiculous it is impossible to take you remotely seriously. 

3

Flat Earth General / Re: How do you explain Newton's action-reaction reality?

« on: November 29, 2021, 08:32:49 AM »

Danang, from what you say in your posts it is so obvious that you like to sound clever but you haven't actually got a clue about anything science related. You just make stuff up as you go along while at the same time making a mockery of science because you are not intellectually capable of understanding it. You go from criticising the Big Bang model to criticising train timetables while at the same time claiming that gravity doesn't exist.

So take your PHEW or whatever you like to call it and stick it somewhere fitting for what it is, where the Sun never shines.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: How do you explain Newton's action-reaction reality?

« on: November 28, 2021, 04:01:38 AM »

Danang, clearly you don't know anything about cosmology so rather than taking the time and effort to try and learn something about it, you prefer instead to just make up stuff based on your religious beliefs rather than anything scientific. And to be frank your religious comments don't make any sense either.

I agree with Boyd on this one. You obviously don't read anything that anyone posts before you then add another post saying whatever comes into your mind first. That seems to be how you decide what is true or not.

I have no time for people like that so until this discussion takes a different path then I'm opting out.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: How do you explain Newton's action-reaction reality?

« on: November 27, 2021, 02:39:51 PM »

What do you think?

6

Flat Earth General / Re: How do you explain Newton's action-reaction reality?

« on: November 27, 2021, 01:04:59 PM »

Okay, if BigBang is consider as not the initial of existence, do you still believe the universe existed without a cause? This sophisticated universe was preceded by a mere explosion??? How ridiculous it is!

Danang, the term 'Big Bang' does not mean and never has meant to mean cosmologists think the Universe started with some sort of explosion. Our minds (yours included obviously) simply make that connection because we naturally associate the terms bang and explosion. The term big bang as used flippantly (look that up if you need to) by a certain Sir Fred Hoyle and has stuck ever since. 

One of the elements of the Hot Big Bang model was the existence of some sort of 'echo'. Again not to be taken literally in the sense of a sound echo. That echo was actually a form of radiation, whose existence was predicted long before it was detected. So when it was detected in the 1960s and named the cosmic microwave background, that single discovery was seen as a huge step forward in  cosmology because it more or less cemented the big bang model in place.

So it may be ridiculous in your mind. But that view is not one that is shared widely on the main cosmological stage. You are free to think what you like though of course.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: How do you explain Newton's action-reaction reality?

« on: November 27, 2021, 08:40:46 AM »

His "Phew" nonsense has grown into basically rejecting all of modern science, and even a bunch of FE stuff. Being different for the sake of being different.

Well if he is going to start pouting out some nonsense about the circumference of a circle somehow being 6 times that of the radius then he must be in a minority of 1 in the world for that.

I'd like to see him prove that mathematically.  Over to you Danang for that.  Show me how pi can be equal to 6. If you draw a straight line of any length and then curl it into a circle, you will find that the radius of resulting circle is just about a third of the length of the original line.  So how you can get 6 out of that I haven't a clue. Amaze me.

I always knew he was crazy but I didn't realise he was that crazy.

Can you explain the beginning of the universe please?

No, can you?

It's hard to explain it if you rely on school's theory with BigBang as the initial existence.

You clearly have a natural talent for making false claims and pouting utter nonsense. 

8

Flat Earth General / Re: How do you explain Newton's action-reaction reality?

« on: November 27, 2021, 04:28:00 AM »

Well thanks for that A2O.

Well if Danang thinks that then a career in mathematics is not something I recommend for him. And how does that relate to any of the s**t that he keeps going on about?!?

9

Flat Earth General / Re: How do you explain Newton's action-reaction reality?

« on: November 27, 2021, 01:01:09 AM »

Go phew is the right way to do. Try it, it's delicious.

Maybe I have missed something somewhere but I haven't a clue what 'phew' actually is or means. Can someone explain please. Obviously it is something that Danang has dreamt up but that's as far as it goes with me.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: How do you explain Newton's action-reaction reality?

« on: November 26, 2021, 09:14:22 AM »

It's hard to explain it if you rely on school's theory with BigBang as the initial existence.

What is hard impossible to explain is pretty much anything you say or ask in your posts.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 22, 2021, 03:18:52 AM »

Cool so you want me to just believe you that the curvature is there? You haven't seen the curvature during a total lunar eclipse you have only seen a shadow that's all.

You can believe or not believe whatever you want ultimately. All I can tell you is what is true. Or at least try and help you understand. I'm pretty fed up with non-globe believers thinking they know better than anyone else but without being able to present any compelling evidence to show that they are right and everyone else is wrong.  If you are so convinced the Earth is flat then just explain to me in detail how equatorial mounts work well in both the northern and southern hemispheres.

So what is causing the obviously curved shadow that I see crossing the disk of the Moon during a total lunar eclipse? What phase is the Moon when there is a lunar eclipse and where does that place the Sun in the sky compared to the Moon? What direction does your shadow point compared to where the Sun is in the sky during the day?

And don't tell me it is caused by some sort of mysterious shadow object which no one has ever seen or detected in any form cos I ain't buying that. (unless you count the Earth itself of course).

Just forget about what you want to believe for a moment and consider instead only what the evidence is that is presented to you for a moment. What is the most simple and logical answer based on what you see?

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes

« on: November 19, 2021, 03:47:22 PM »

Their argument is that Earth is flat, and thus Eratosthenes, while thinking he was measuring the circumference of Earth, was actually measuring something else/taking observations which could be used to calculate something else.

Well as much as I'm sure they believe they are right, this is just a claim from flat Earthers based on nothing more than their choice of belief. By taking in the wider picture with all the evidence that is available from other sources we can see that this claim is wrong. But obviously they will deny that.

13

Flat Earth General / Zetetic methods

« on: November 19, 2021, 11:15:10 AM »

As I understand it, the concept of zeteticism is based around relying on ones own senses to gather evidence. Since the Sun and Moon appear to us to be the same size in the sky, does that mean then that those who follow such zetetic methods would therefore say that the Sun and Moon are actually the same size purely because of that?

Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out.

Does all this mean then that zeteticism does not take any account of distance since you cannot always determine distance from observation alone?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes

« on: November 19, 2021, 06:38:47 AM »

FE believers like to nit pick and seize onto one small topic while forgetting the greater picture as its the only way they can opperate.

Which in itself implies a problem with their side of the argument doesn't it. If what they are claiming is genuine and true then it should be more apparent to everyone without them having to resort to or rely on nit picking and cherry picking.

If you have to effectively re-invent the laws of physics (UA, EA for example) in order to support a belief system, then that should bring that belief system into question rather quickly shouldn't it? EA does exist in conventional physics but in a completely different and unrelated context to how FE talk about it.  It's almost as if they have stolen the term because it sounds good and re-invented its meaning.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes

« on: November 19, 2021, 05:55:50 AM »

Why don't we forget about 'proof' of this or 'proof' of that for a moment. All I'm interested in is whether there is any historical evidence that Eratosthenes was trying to measure anything other than the circumference of the Earth.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes

« on: November 19, 2021, 01:07:24 AM »

Ask yourself this... did it ever enter the mind of Eratosthenes at the time he did the experiment that he was or might be actually calculating the diameter of a flat Earth rather than the circumference of a spherical Earth? Or is this just something that flat Earth believers have made up because it suits their own mindset.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes

« on: November 17, 2021, 05:05:01 AM »

I think it is basically true to say that is was known in Eratosthenes day that the Earth was round but not known exactly how big the Earth was.

So Eratosthenes used his own mathematical reasoning and deduction as a scientist to work out a way of measuring the Earths circumference. He wouldn't have had any way of checking his result so the figure he reached was simply accepted until anyone could present a better answer.

As it is, by modern methods we have been able to confirm that his figure was actually very accurate. In the meantime flat Earthers have chipped away at all this to find a way of making out it was the diameter of the Earth he was measuring and not the circumference.  Unfortunately their method also produces different distances for the Sun indicating that it is wrong.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Some reasons I believe FET (prev. "check my FET")

« on: November 17, 2021, 04:43:20 AM »

Just a correction - I forgot i knew roughly what zetetic means

As I understand it, the term 'zetetic' basically means relying on ones own senses to gather evidence. So does that mean since the Sun and Moon look the same size in the sky, that must mean (to a zeteticist) the Sun and Moon are physically the same size?  Even though we know they are not? That would of course help some FE models where the Sun and Moon are circling above the flat sarface of the Earth.

Does zeteticism not take distance into account then?

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...

« on: November 17, 2021, 01:40:49 AM »

So far no one has yet been able to answer the original question, not even the great Dr Black phd.

“ In this thread we are going to use only scientific and rational methods and see if an everyday person can demonstrate whether the Earth if flat or round.”

There is no scientific or rational methods (lets say evidence rather than methods) that anyone can demonstrate to a flat Earth believer than the Earth is flat or round because flat Earthers don't use rational methods to reach their conclusions.

You only have to read through some of the 'rational methods' that flat Earthers use to reach their conclusions to realise that rational doesn't come into it. Take UA and EA for example. If you can point out anything remotely rational or scientific about either of those you are better than me.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 03:39:00 PM »

I think you meant to say "all celestial bodies beyond a certain mass threshold"

No I didn't mean to say all celestial bodies. That would include stars and I am certainly not talking about stars in this instance. I am talking about bodies within the solar system such as planets, minor planets and dwarf planets.  Specifically all solid bodies where a minimum mass has been calculated which is required for gravity to sculpt them into a spherical shape.

Having researched this point since I posted I have learned that the limit is more size dependent than mass dependent since it is related to the type of material the body is made of.  For bodies made of rock for example it is around 600km while for bodies made mostly of ice it is smaller. Obviously the Earth is just a bit larger than 600km across (by a factor of 30) so it is most definitely spherical.

As far as definitions of what constitutes a planet, I go by the IAU definition which lays down 3 conditions as I'm sure you know.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 12:32:02 PM »

At this point I would settle for someone that can provide us with something that creates real genuine doubt on the shape of Earth, for those who are informed of all the available evidence, even if it doesn't conclusively show Earth is flat.

I have to say if it was ever proved that the Earth is flat then the next questions we would need to ask is exactly how it came to be formed flat. 

Given that all the other planets are spherical beyond a certain mass threshold, why would the Earth be any different. Also there are so many aspects of our life experience that can all very logically be explained by considering we live on a rotating planet which is orbiting a star.

The FE Wiki on another well known (well sort of) FE website states that the reason is simply that the Earth is not a planet.  Well if it isn't a planet what would you call it?

Anyway I digress. It seems that there are many unanswered questions on the FE side. Questions to which RE have found quite satisfactory answers. Why would that be?

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 08:43:00 AM »

i have done the experiment with a basketball and a curve is always there and when I raise the camera it looks nothing like earth does.. so you see lying and being dishonest about this experiment atleast I do experiments, you are too lazy to do the experiment I said.

Sorry but are you really that dense or just putting on a good show? Do you not realise that if you were to reduce the Earth to the size of a basketball then you would be about the size of bacteria. And I bet you wouldn't see any curve on a basketball at that level.

By all means carry on dismissing and denying all the evidence the others are giving you to show you are wrong but the Earth is a globe no matter how you want to argue the point.  I have never personally seen the curvature of the Earth (apart from during a total lunar eclipse) but than doesn't stop me accepting the Earth is round.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 16, 2021, 04:03:25 AM »

Notasphere has obvious made his mind up about what shape he thinks the Earth is.  There is a clue in his screen name. But if you are hoping that everyone in the science community and beyond are one day just going to come out with an admission that we've all been lied to all this time and yes, the Earth really is flat then I'm afraid you've got a long wait in front of you.

I'm waiting for someone from the flat Earth community to present us with that one piece of golden evidence that puts the debate beyond any kind of doubt and proves beyond refute the Earth really is flat.

All these claims about what you can or can't see over the horizon or even whether the horizon really is what it seems to be, or indeed this apparent belief that the surface of water is always flat don't actually prove anything.  And for one good reason.  The Earth ain't flat and nothing that you or any other flat Earth believers are going to come out with is going to change that.

I continue with these debates because it is a bit of fun and entertainment. No other reason.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 15, 2021, 03:37:04 PM »

Notasphere...

I'm not really involved in this discussion and nor do I really want to be. But I ask you this... how much do you know about astronomy? There are a lot of clues in the night sky which evidence that we don't live on a flat Earth. In particular how do you think equatorial mounts could possibly work in the southern hemisphere if we did not live on a globe?

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Lunar Eclipse coming

« on: November 15, 2021, 03:33:19 PM »

Going by the weather forecast in this part of the world for the next few days I'd say you got that about right!  You should be a weatherman.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes

« on: November 15, 2021, 03:27:57 PM »

I don't think the main modern interest in Eratosthenes lies in what he did but rather how he did it. Without the benefit of the sort of equipment or data we have available to us today, he was still able to achieve a measurement for the circumference of the Earth which was incredibly close to the modern accepted value. His experiment is well documented and has been repeated many times since by a lot of different groups (many or all of whom have no interest in FET whatsoever) with consistent results. That's more than can be said for any of Sceptimatics 'simple experiments'...  (what has happened to dear old Scepti anyway.. haven't seen him post for a while now.)

That is what stands out for me at least. Flat Earthers meanwhile are happy to accept the findings of some guy from the mid-19th century who placed some flags in a canal as proof that the Earth is flat!

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescope tracking

« on: November 15, 2021, 06:39:53 AM »

It is simply ridiculous for anyone to suggest that equatorial mounts can only track the stars accurately for a few minutes at a time.  They are specifically designed to do a specific task. Which is to track the sky for extended periods of time.

Of course there are little errors in accuracy but that is part down to human error in alignment and part down to mechanical imperfections.  Tom is obviously completely unaware that autoguiding performance and tracking performance are two completely different aspects of how these mounts work.  I know all about them. I've used many over the years. Obviously Tom will see all this in his own way to make it seem like it is something completely different.

If he wants to continue arguing his point I'm all ears. But since he hasn't replied for some time now, I assume he doesn't.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Eratosthenes

« on: November 15, 2021, 03:08:32 AM »

There is a big difference between proving something and providing evidence for it.  In my view science has never been about proving anything but rather providing evidence for the most likely explanation.

The FE Wiki has always insisted that Eratosthenes was actually setting out to measure the diameter of the flat Earth...

https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Diameter

But I cannot find any other mentions of this other than the FE claim on this page. All other mentions about Eratosthenes that I can find only talk about him setting out to the circumference of the Earth because he already knew it was spherical.  And clearly the measurement Eratosthenes came to could only be one for the circumference.  You cannot have a sphere whose circumference is equal to its diameter!  D=C/pi so how could you work out the diameter of a circle unless you could work out its circumference first?

Obviously a 25,000 mile circle can be straightened out to form a 25,000 mile straight line.  Which is presumably how the FE version works out. That would be OK providing the Sun was placed a lot closer to us than it actually is.  So rather than discount this version because we know the Sun isn't that close by other methods, FE simply fudge the result by saying that proves the Sun is much closer than it actually is. Which makes their version appear correct! But that fails ultimately as explained below.

https://flatearth.ws/eratosthenes

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is it even possible for everyday person to get definitive evidence...

« on: November 15, 2021, 01:35:16 AM »

In this thread we are going to use only scientific and rational methods and see if an everyday person can demonstrate whether the Earth if flat or round. We will wipe everything we take as granted and we will rely only on what we can observe with our naked eye or demonstrate with simple mathematics.

Bear in mind that flat Earth believers, like all conspiracy theorists are not scientists. They are denialists. They deny anything other than what they believe to be true. And the one thing they love more than anything is engaging with those who oppose their beliefs and challenging the evidence which is presented which (to every one else) shows their beliefs are false. By engaging with them non-believers are simply feeding the believers which makes them feel more and more confident that they are right.

A typical flat Earther would likely say we cannot prove for definite, 100% and beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is a globe. So as long as there remains that snippet of chance the Earth could be flat then they are going to believe it is. Obviously we have space based photos of the Earth showing it to be a globe but in this day and age of photo and video editing anything is possible.

If you think about conspiracy theories, all are chosen so they are based around subjects which are actually very difficult to prove one way or another. For the every day person in the street at least.

The fun part of it I guess is challenging those beliefs with evidence and that makes you realise how difficult it is to actually prove anything for definite!

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth

« on: November 08, 2021, 11:19:34 PM »

Obviously the effect or phenomenon that we recognise or call gravity is real enough. Our lives are controlled by it.

What causes that effect is another question. We have established that gravity is related to mass because anything that contains mass also has a gravitational field associated with it, no matter how small. The largest mass in our vicinity is the Earth itself which is why we don't float off into space.

We have carried out experiments like the hammer and feature in air evacuated chambers. OK they used a cannon ball instead of a hammer but same principle. Conspiracy theorists will say 'allegedly' to those sort of experiments but I have no time for those who take scepticism to the nth degree where n is a very large number.

First we had Newtons explanation for gravity, now we use Einstein. We must always remember that we didn't create the laws of physics or the laws of nature. Science is human kinds journey to understand those laws so it is inevitable that our understanding of the laws will change over time. As we refine our understanding.