The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: DanielC on July 04, 2009, 02:26:58 PM
-
1) FAQ says: "The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3000 miles above sea level."
* If the sun was 32 miles in diameter, it would not have enough gravity to sustain nuclear fusion (AFAIK the FE model does not dispute General Relativity).
* We can use trigonometry on a flat surface to calculate the distance to the Sun and verify that it is a lot more than 3000 miles. Perform the following experiment: Take two points 5.2 miles part. Call the points A and B. From point A, measure the angle between B and the sun. From point B, measure the angle from A to the sun. If the Sun is 3000 miles away, basic trigonometry tells us that there should be a difference of 0.1 degrees in the two measurements. This discrepancy is easily detectable with standard nautical or topographical equipment.
2) FAQ says: "Each functions similar to a 'spotlight,'"
Light sources do not behave like a spotlight. A spotlight behaves the way it does because humans put the light source inside a container that purposely blocks light going in other directions and usually also reflects it in the desired direction. To suppose that the sun and moon behave like spotlights, requires the assumption of similar containers designed to block light going in other directions.
The spotlight hypothesis is demonstrably false. When you get further away from a spotlight that is not pointing directly at you, you don't see a round spotlight sink on the horizon. What you see is the circular light become oval shaped, with the oval getting thinner until no light is visible. This is not what we observe in the real world. Hence, the sun and moon are not spotlights.
The spotlight hypothesis is also contradicted by eclipses. If the moon was a spotlight, during a solar eclipse we would see the moon as usual, rather than a black circle. The reason we see a black circle is that the moon produces no light of its own.
The spotlight hypothesis is also contradicted by lunar eclipses. Why does the moon change colour and then go dark at precisely the points that RE theory says that the moon enters the penumbra and umbra?
If the sun-spotlight is hovering around the equator as in the FE model, that would mean that days are longer in the equator than in other latitudes, and that days are longer in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. We know both ideas to be false. Furthermore, the southern hemisphere would get less over-all sunlight, making it much colder than the northern hemisphere.
If the sun hovers above the equator in the way described by the FE model, then an observer on the equator would see the sun make an arc across the sky. This is not what we observe. A person on the equator sees the sun go straight up, to the zenith and then straight down. In higher latitudes you see the sun roll across the horizon a bit more (I have lived both next to the equator, and at high latitudes). This observation contradicts the FE model.
----
Edited to add: Another problem with the FE model is that it does not explain through which mechanism the moon is supposed to be a light source for "cold light". Furthermore, if you grab an amateur telescope and point it at the moon, you will see surface features like craters. These are visible because they cast a shadow. How can they cast a shadow if the moon itself is the light source? Finally, any amateur astronomer knows that the best place to aim your telescope is near the edge between the light and dark sides of the moon, because that is where the shadows are biggest (making surface features more visible). How is this possible if the moon itself is the light source?
----
3) FAQ says: "The stars are at a height of 3100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston."
The same parallax experiment explained in (1) also disproves this.
The fact that different stars are visible at different latitudes conflicts with the FE model. In a round earth, the earth obscures parts of the celestial sphere from different observers (you can't see Polaris from Australia, and you can't see the Southern Cross from Sweden). On a flat earth, the planet does not obscure different parts of the sky for different observers. Everybody gets the same sky.
The fact that during the course of the night the stars rotate around a point in the sky (e.g. Polaris) and this point moves up as one moves to greater latitudes also conflicts with the FE model.
-----------
Edited to add: The FE model also fails to account for the fact that different stars are visible at different times in the year.
-----------
4) FAQ says (on the topic of sunsets): "It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it's disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away."
The sun does not get smaller during sunsets. The angular size of the sun can be easily measured (compare it to a dime held at arms length).
5) FAQ says: "Dark Energy accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.8m/s^2"
This dark energy requires justification and supporting evidence. It is entirely unlike the dark energy that astrophysicists know about (I have a degree in astrophysics). I suggest using a different name for this mysterious energy, lets it be confused with the dark energy used in astrophysics literature.
6) FAQ says: "FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field."
Theories that predict that the laws of physics are different for Earth have a tendency to be wrong. They also defy Occam's razor and the mediocrity principle. Second, variations in Earth's gravitational field have been measured (e.g. gravity is a tad weaker in Canada) and are consistent with Earth being a round planet that generates a gravitational field just like all other objects. The gravitational field can also be measured through atomic clocks, since gravity makes time slow down, according to General Relativity. These experiments indicate that clocks run slower at sea level than on an air plane. This is consistent with Earth generating a gravitational field, and inconsistent with the lower perceived gravity being a result of celestial bodies exerting a gravitational influence.
7) FAQ says: [gravity varies with altitude because] "The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull."
This is contradicted by experiments with atomic clocks. Time runs slower closer to the Earth. If the lower gravity was due to the celestial bodies exerting a gravitational pull, the clocks would not behave this way.
8) FAQ says: "There is a field created during the interaction between Dark Energy and the Earth. This is known as the Dark Energy Field, and it acts as a containment to prevent DE from affecting the objects on Earth. This explains why the atmosphere will not be diffused into space"
This also requires explanation and supporting evidence. This must be a very magical sort of "energy" that makes air stay inside the FE. Calling it a "field" doesn't explain anything.
9) FAQ says: "The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provide tidal effects."
This fails to explain why there are two tides per day and why they follow the moon and not the sun. The "sun-moon" thing is yet another unproven postulate to try to force the FE model to fit the evidence. When you keep adding unseen, unproven, and unprovable hypothesis to a model, that is a sign that the model is flawed.
Even if we allow the "sun-moon" object proposed in the FAQ, the FE model still fails to explain why the tides don't point to the moon, but seem to come a little bit behind it. In the RE model, Earth's rotation explains the gap between the moon's position and the tides.
10) FAQ says: "The sun circles over the equator, thus the poles don't receive the same intensity of light."
If the sun is 3000 miles away and circles the equator, the incident light on the poles would be at 65 degrees. That is not nearly low enough to explain the temperatures at the poles. For comparison, the city of Orlando, Florida, gets incident light at 62 degrees. If you live in Canada or Europe, it is easy to see that the average sun position is at less than 45 degrees from the horizon. If you live in Sweden or Norway, the sun is even lower. At the north pole, the average incidence angle is zero. This contradicts the FE model.
11) FAQ says: "An undetectable celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon [causing lunar eclipses and moon phases]."
Another undetectable object. How convenient... Anyways, this cannot work. During moon phases, part of the moon is entirely black. If it was a shadow, the moon would be inside the umbra, making the moon darker but not black, as in a lunar eclipse. Second, this explanation is inconsistent with the earlier claim that the moon is a spotlight. If the moon produces its own light, then the idea of casting a shadow on it makes no sense. Unless of course the moon is not a spotlight and its light is reflected, in which case you need to explain how it can reflect sun light if the sun is a spotlight and you need to explain why moon phases make some of the moon black, but lunar eclipses make it red.
12) FAQ says: "The airline pilots are guided by their GPS."
Air planes and airlines are much older than GPS. Even today, not all air planes use GPS. And for hundreds of years, ships have sailed the oceans using only stars and a round earth coordinate system to navigate around the oceans, including many trips around the southern hemisphere from Europe to Africa to India, to China and Australia.
13) FAQ says: "The magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as with the RE (Diagram)."
This is flawed. Earth's magnetic pole does not coincide with the geographic north, and indeed, the magnetic poles are in constant movement. This is fine in a spherical earth, but more problematic in a cylindrical earth.
14) FAQ says: [flushing toilet] "On a round Earth, the Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day."
This is a straw man argument. The Coriolis effect has many significant terrestrial effects a lot more important than flushing my toilet. The Coriolis effect has significant meteorological effects such as cyclones, air currents and ocean currents. Air tends to move toward low pressure regions, but not on a straight line. On a non-rotating frame of reference, air should move in the direction of the pressure gradient. Instead, large scale air movements are perpendicular to the pressure gradient. This is known as geostrophic flow. There are many other important terrestrial effects caused by the Coriolis effect. Please look up "Coriolis effect" in Wikipedia.
Earth's rotation (and the Coriolis effect) is also easy to demonstrate using a pendulum (look up Foucault's pendulum). I have done this experiment myself.
Earth's rotation is also easily observable on a clear night away from the tropics, when you can actually observe the stars rotating around a fixed point in the sky. You can see that the position of this point corresponds to your latitude, so that, for example, at the north and south poles, Polaris is directly above you, all the time, and the stars all rotate around it.
15) FAQ says: [seasons] "The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus."
Another unexplained phenomenon. And once again, one that doesn't solve anything. This hypothesis can begin to explain why the sun's angle changes during summer and winter, but it fails to explain why days are longer in summer and shorter in winter. This is also a good time to again point out that the spotlight model of the sun, as in the FE model, would mean that over the course of the year days are longer in the equator than at other latitudes, and that days are longer in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere. So the spotlight hypothesis contradicts observations.
16) FAQ says: "NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden. The pictures are faked using simple imaging software."
I have personally met two people who have flown into space. One was an astronaut, the other a space tourist. Maybe the astronaut was lying to me when she showed me her pictures at MIR, but the space tourist is someone who has no reason to lie to me about his going to space and seeing the earth being round.
-
Second, this explanation is inconsistent with the earlier claim that the moon is a spotlight. If the moon produces its own light, then the idea of casting a shadow on it makes no sense.
Good spot!
-
Our breath is bated . . .
-
The main flaw in the FE model is there is no FE model. There is a myriad of individual "explanations" for a myriad difficulties, and they do not show the path to a measurable observation or experiment, just to non-numeric predictions that make them feel good.
A model, in scientific terms, must be the basis for precise, hopefully numeric predictions. Just the simple prediction that the sun spots will move showing the spherical shape of the sun is totally in contradiction with the "sun is a spotlight" idea.
-
I take my hat off to you, OP. I cannot wait for the FEer's response (although you may not get one).
-
I take my hat off to you, OP.
Indeed - I doubt that anyone else has done so much to debunk FET with just a single post.
-
* If the sun was 32 miles in diameter, it would not have enough gravity to sustain nuclear fusion (AFAIK the FE model does not dispute General Relativity).
Where is your evidence that the FE Sun is powered by nuclear fusion? If your answer to this convinces me that what you have to say is worthwhile, I will read the rest of your post and respond to it.
-
* If the sun was 32 miles in diameter, it would not have enough gravity to sustain nuclear fusion (AFAIK the FE model does not dispute General Relativity).
Where is your evidence that the FE Sun is powered by nuclear fusion? If your answer to this convinces me that what you have to say is worthwhile, I will read the rest of your post and respond to it.
(1) Nuclear fusion is the only energy source known that can produce enough energy to produce the incidence power of 14 kW/m^2 that we measure here on Earth. This is true whether the sun is 32 miles wide and 3000 miles away, or 1.4 x 10^9 m wide and 1.5 x 10^11 m away (I did the math myself).
(2) We can use spectral analysis to obtain the element composition of the sun. This way we know that it is 73% Hydrogen, 25% Helium, and small amounts of higher elements. Nuclear fusion is the only energy source available given those components.
(3) The notion that stars are made mostly of hydrogen and helium which burn by nuclear fusion makes a prediction as to the luminosity vs colour vs size vs abundance of the stars. This prediction is observed in practise, forming what is called the main sequence. The sun's luminosity and colour (and in the RE model, angular size) are consistent with the main sequence, placing the sun as a type G2V star.
(4) The sun's spectrum is a near-perfect example of blackbody radiation. From this we can conclude a hot inner core that gradually transmits energy to higher layers. The blackbody spectrum also indicates a surface temperature of about 5,800 Kelvin. To produce this outer layer temperature, along with the near perfect blackbody radiation, the core must be relatively small, and produce very large amounts of energy, once again pointing toward nuclear energy. There are two types of nuclear energy: fusion and fision. Of these, only fusion is feasible given the sun's element composition.
This last point made me think of another inconsistency with the FE model: I find it very doubtful that a sphere only 32 miles wide would have such a good heat distribution as to make the near-perfect blackbody spectrum that we observe from the sun.
Finally, your decision to only read the rest of the post based only on the first sentence seems less than rational. An interested reader should at least read and consider the first few arguments before making such a statement.
-
The earth is flat. Get used to it.
If this is the limit of your ability to rebut the OP I'm impressed.
-
DanielC, well said.
You bring up some very interesting observations that can't be refuted.
Robosteve is a troll, ignore the little fucker like the plague!
We need a response from Tom Bishop, he is all knowing in the FE world.
-
(1) Nuclear fusion is the only energy source known that can produce enough energy to produce the incidence power of 14 kW/m^2 that we measure here on Earth. This is true whether the sun is 32 miles wide and 3000 miles away, or 1.4 x 10^9 m wide and 1.5 x 10^11 m away (I did the math myself).
Matter-antimatter annihilation would also be potent enough to produce that power.
(2) We can use spectral analysis to obtain the element composition of the sun. This way we know that it is 73% Hydrogen, 25% Helium, and small amounts of higher elements. Nuclear fusion is the only energy source available given those components.
Spectral analysis measures the Sun's chemical composition; in other words, it can only tell us the composition where every nucleus has its charge perfectly balanced by electrons. Since the process of nuclear fusion requires free nuclei, we cannot thereby determine the composition where fusion is taking place.
(3) The notion that stars are made mostly of hydrogen and helium which burn by nuclear fusion makes a prediction as to the luminosity vs colour vs size vs abundance of the stars. This prediction is observed in practise, forming what is called the main sequence. The sun's luminosity and colour (and in the RE model, angular size) are consistent with the main sequence, placing the sun as a type G2V star.
I can't fault you on this point. Clearly you are better educated than the average new member, and I will now take the time to read your initial post.
(4) The sun's spectrum is a near-perfect example of blackbody radiation. From this we can conclude a hot inner core that gradually transmits energy to higher layers. The blackbody spectrum also indicates a surface temperature of about 5,800 Kelvin. To produce this outer layer temperature, along with the near perfect blackbody radiation, the core must be relatively small, and produce very large amounts of energy, once again pointing toward nuclear energy. There are two types of nuclear energy: fusion and fision. Of these, only fusion is feasible given the sun's element composition.
Again, matter-antimatter annihilation could do this job equally well.
This last point made me think of another inconsistency with the FE model: I find it very doubtful that a sphere only 32 miles wide would have such a good heat distribution as to make the near-perfect blackbody spectrum that we observe from the sun.
Wouldn't a smaller body have more even heat distribution than a larger one?
Finally, your decision to only read the rest of the post based only on the first sentence seems less than rational. An interested reader should at least read and consider the first few arguments before making such a statement.
You see, we get a lot of stupid trolls around here. Your post is very long and I didn't want to read it all only to find that you are one of them and I have wasted my time. For this reason, I decided to tackle a singular issue to begin with.
-
Robosteve, wouldn't matter-amtimatter reactions produce too much energy? Surely the frequency f=e/h would be different in that reaction, because matter-antimatter reactions are 100% efficient, compared with the hydrogen fusion which is 0.7% efficient? By efficient I mean the percentage of mass converted into energy.
-
I will attempt to briefly cover all of these points now. If you would like more detail on a particular response, feel free to enquire.
* We can use trigonometry on a flat surface to calculate the distance to the Sun and verify that it is a lot more than 3000 miles. Perform the following experiment: Take two points 5.2 miles part. Call the points A and B. From point A, measure the angle between B and the sun. From point B, measure the angle from A to the sun. If the Sun is 3000 miles away, basic trigonometry tells us that there should be a difference of 0.1 degrees in the two measurements. This discrepancy is easily detectable with standard nautical or topographical equipment.
This would be a perfectly valid demonstration, if it could be shown that light travels in straight lines. Can you show this?
[listing all the flaws in the spotlight and hot/cold light theories]
I don't like the idea of spotlights and cold light either. Until recently, cold light was not a part of the FAQ, and I wish it had remained that way. I think the whole thing is better explained by the in-development EA theory, which describes a curved path for light rays.
The same parallax experiment explained in (1) also disproves this.
The fact that different stars are visible at different latitudes conflicts with the FE model. In a round earth, the earth obscures parts of the celestial sphere from different observers (you can't see Polaris from Australia, and you can't see the Southern Cross from Sweden). On a flat earth, the planet does not obscure different parts of the sky for different observers. Everybody gets the same sky.
The fact that during the course of the night the stars rotate around a point in the sky (e.g. Polaris) and this point moves up as one moves to greater latitudes also conflicts with the FE model.
-----------
Edited to add: The FE model also fails to account for the fact that different stars are visible at different times in the year.
-----------
The stars in the hubward circle rotate about the North Celestial Pole, while those in the rimward annulus rotate about three or more distinct South Celestial Poles. EA theory accounts for the visibility of only those nearby a particular location at any one time, which explains both the latitude issue and your point about the time of year.
4) FAQ says (on the topic of sunsets): "It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it's disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away."
The sun does not get smaller during sunsets. The angular size of the sun can be easily measured (compare it to a dime held at arms length).
Again, EA theory provides a better explanation for this.
This dark energy requires justification and supporting evidence. It is entirely unlike the dark energy that astrophysicists know about (I have a degree in astrophysics). I suggest using a different name for this mysterious energy, lets it be confused with the dark energy used in astrophysics literature.
I would prefer a different name, too. But the term has been on this site longer than I have, I don't know who coined it, and frankly I think it's so firmly rooted in FET that we are stuck with it.
As far as evidence goes, the observed gravitational field combined with the equivalence principle is sufficient to show that something is causing an upward acceleration. In RET, this is easily explained by electrostatic repulsion; in FET, we refer to it as "dark energy".
Theories that predict that the laws of physics are different for Earth have a tendency to be wrong. They also defy Occam's razor and the mediocrity principle. Second, variations in Earth's gravitational field have been measured (e.g. gravity is a tad weaker in Canada) and are consistent with Earth being a round planet that generates a gravitational field just like all other objects. The gravitational field can also be measured through atomic clocks, since gravity makes time slow down, according to General Relativity. These experiments indicate that clocks run slower at sea level than on an air plane. This is consistent with Earth generating a gravitational field, and inconsistent with the lower perceived gravity being a result of celestial bodies exerting a gravitational influence.
Not all of us believe that the Earth does not warp spacetime. I feel that the downward pull we feel is a combination of gravitation and acceleration.
This is contradicted by experiments with atomic clocks. Time runs slower closer to the Earth. If the lower gravity was due to the celestial bodies exerting a gravitational pull, the clocks would not behave this way.
Sorry, but I have to point out an error here. Locally, there is a downward gravitational field; nobody can dispute that. The question is whether it is caused by the entire Earth accelerating up, or the Earth warping the surrounding spacetime. As you ascend, this gravitational field decreases in strength, whether due to a greater upward component from the stars or a weaker downward one from the Earth. Regardless of the fundamental cause, the local gravitational field is what creates the effect of time dilation.
This also requires explanation and supporting evidence. This must be a very magical sort of "energy" that makes air stay inside the FE. Calling it a "field" doesn't explain anything.
I subscribe to the "Greater Ice Wall" version of events. That is to say, I believe there is an enormous wall of ice, far beyond the Lesser Ice Wall (Antarctica), which retains the air.
This fails to explain why there are two tides per day and why they follow the moon and not the sun. The "sun-moon" thing is yet another unproven postulate to try to force the FE model to fit the evidence. When you keep adding unseen, unproven, and unprovable hypothesis to a model, that is a sign that the model is flawed.
Even if we allow the "sun-moon" object proposed in the FAQ, the FE model still fails to explain why the tides don't point to the moon, but seem to come a little bit behind it. In the RE model, Earth's rotation explains the gap between the moon's position and the tides.
The angular velocity of the moon as seen from Earth is the same whether the Earth is round or flat. There would be the same effect of the tides coming slightly behind the moon in either theory; the only thing that changes is whether it is the Earth or the Moon that is the most significant contributor to this motion.
If the sun is 3000 miles away and circles the equator, the incident light on the poles would be at 65 degrees. That is not nearly low enough to explain the temperatures at the poles. For comparison, the city of Orlando, Florida, gets incident light at 62 degrees. If you live in Canada or Europe, it is easy to see that the average sun position is at less than 45 degrees from the horizon. If you live in Sweden or Norway, the sun is even lower. At the north pole, the average incidence angle is zero. This contradicts the FE model.
This is another point that FE+EA explains much better than conventional FE. The initial publication for the EA theory should be ready in no less than three weeks.
Another undetectable object. How convenient... Anyways, this cannot work. During moon phases, part of the moon is entirely black. If it was a shadow, the moon would be inside the umbra, making the moon darker but not black, as in a lunar eclipse. Second, this explanation is inconsistent with the earlier claim that the moon is a spotlight. If the moon produces its own light, then the idea of casting a shadow on it makes no sense. Unless of course the moon is not a spotlight and its light is reflected, in which case you need to explain how it can reflect sun light if the sun is a spotlight and you need to explain why moon phases make some of the moon black, but lunar eclipses make it red.
Again, I don't think the Moon is a spotlight or even that it produces its own light. EA theory would predict that sunlight bends from the Sun to the Moon in an enormous arc; the dark part of the Moon is the part facing away from this stream of sunlight.
Air planes and airlines are much older than GPS. Even today, not all air planes use GPS. And for hundreds of years, ships have sailed the oceans using only stars and a round earth coordinate system to navigate around the oceans, including many trips around the southern hemisphere from Europe to Africa to India, to China and Australia.
I must agree, this is one of the biggest hurdles FET needs to overcome. I cannot properly explain the behaviour of the heavens in FET, and I won't attempt to until a comprehensive theory is developed.
This is flawed. Earth's magnetic pole does not coincide with the geographic north, and indeed, the magnetic poles are in constant movement. This is fine in a spherical earth, but more problematic in a cylindrical earth.
I don't see why.
This is a straw man argument. The Coriolis effect has many significant terrestrial effects a lot more important than flushing my toilet. The Coriolis effect has significant meteorological effects such as cyclones, air currents and ocean currents. Air tends to move toward low pressure regions, but not on a straight line. On a non-rotating frame of reference, air should move in the direction of the pressure gradient. Instead, large scale air movements are perpendicular to the pressure gradient. This is known as geostrophic flow. There are many other important terrestrial effects caused by the Coriolis effect. Please look up "Coriolis effect" in Wikipedia.
Earth's rotation (and the Coriolis effect) is also easy to demonstrate using a pendulum (look up Foucault's pendulum). I have done this experiment myself.
Earth's rotation is also easily observable on a clear night away from the tropics, when you can actually observe the stars rotating around a fixed point in the sky. You can see that the position of this point corresponds to your latitude, so that, for example, at the north and south poles, Polaris is directly above you, all the time, and the stars all rotate around it.
In FET, all this is caused by the stars rotating rather than the Earth. The Coriolis effect is the result of the gravitational influence of the stars.
Another unexplained phenomenon. And once again, one that doesn't solve anything. This hypothesis can begin to explain why the sun's angle changes during summer and winter, but it fails to explain why days are longer in summer and shorter in winter. This is also a good time to again point out that the spotlight model of the sun, as in the FE model, would mean that over the course of the year days are longer in the equator than at other latitudes, and that days are longer in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere. So the spotlight hypothesis contradicts observations.
I feel that the cause for this phenomenon is most likely electromagnetic, though cannot comprehensively describe it at this point. Also I don't think the impression of the Sun on the Earth is perfectly circular, leading to varying lengths of day and night.
I have personally met two people who have flown into space. One was an astronaut, the other a space tourist. Maybe the astronaut was lying to me when she showed me her pictures at MIR, but the space tourist is someone who has no reason to lie to me about his going to space and seeing the earth being round.
Can I just ask; did he simply travel a parabolic trajectory through the upper atmolayer, or did he actually claim to have gone into orbit? Also, what he saw was not the curvature of the Earth, but the distorted edge of the sunlit area on Earth, which would appear curved due to the curvature of the light rays between the Earth and his eyes (more distant light would have curved more, compressing the angle subtended more distant locations into what looks like a surface curving away from the observer).
-
Robosteve, wouldn't matter-amtimatter reactions produce too much energy? Surely the frequency f=e/h would be different in that reaction, because matter-antimatter reactions are 100% efficient, compared with the hydrogen fusion which is 0.7% efficient? By efficient I mean the percentage of mass converted into energy.
The efficiency of a reaction has nothing to do with the rate of reaction.
-
Matter-antimatter annihilation would also be potent enough to produce that power.
(1) Matter-antimatter annihilation has a distinctive gamma ray signature which is not detected in the sun. (2) Astronomical observations similarly show that there are no detectable amounts of antimatter in the universe. (3) One has to wonder as to the origin of the antimatter. (4) Antimatter annihilation would not produce a stable, sustained heat output, instead it would produce an uncontrolled explosion. Fusion has a nice self-regulating property (the interplay between temperature, pressure and the rate of reaction) which makes the system stable over long periods of time. The same is not true for matter-antimatter annihilation.
Spectral analysis measures the Sun's chemical composition; in other words, it can only tell us the composition where every nucleus has its charge perfectly balanced by electrons. Since the process of nuclear fusion requires free nuclei, we cannot thereby determine the composition where fusion is taking place.
(1) That's not true. Spectral analysis has nothing to o with the nucleus having its charge balanced by electrons. Spectral analysis works perfectly well on ionized gas, as long as some electrons are around. (2) Like all fluids with a heat gradient, plasma core mixes together with the other layers. If the core had a different composition, this would be
easily detectable. (3) For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the core really is made of different materials. How does that help FE? (a) The most potent energy source is nuclear fusion. (b) Other types of nuclear fusion than D+T -> He require even higher pressures and thus higher gravity. You will not help FE by arguing for a different energy source.
I can't fault you on this point. Clearly you are better educated than the average new member, and I will now take the time to read your initial post.
I cannot comment on the average education of members here. My education is an honours degree in mathematics and astrophysics, along with some post graduate work.
Wouldn't a smaller body have more even heat distribution than a larger one?
According to current literature (round earth, big sun), it takes about 10,000 years for a photon to travel from the core of the sun to the outer layer. This is because the photon is constantly bouncing around inside the sun. Often, it loses energy in the process. After 10,000 years of this, the photons that come out have an energy distribution that very closely matches the Planck curve. If the sun were much smaller, the photons would come out much sooner, and their energy distribution would deviate significantly from the Planck curve.
-
Again, I don't think the Moon is a spotlight or even that it produces its own light. EA theory would predict that sunlight bends from the Sun to the Moon in an enormous arc; the dark part of the Moon is the part facing away from this stream of sunlight.
Yes. EA theory predicts that a curvature of electromagnetic radiation is clearly observable in any case where the expected deviation from a straight line is greater than one wavelength of the ray in question.
If I knew WHAT light bended towards (i.e. what direction), it would make this hypothesis far easier to explain and/or draw.
Up.
It was only a couple of days ago that you were postulating that EA would cause light to bend 'up'. Now you are suggesting that light from the sun is going to bend in an enormous arc to illuminate the moon. In FET the moon and the sun are on a plane so how does your theory that EA bends up suddenly become one that will allow the sun to illuminate the moon? ???
-
This would be a perfectly valid demonstration, if it could be shown that light travels in straight lines. Can you show this?
(1) FE does not claim to contradict General Relativity, and indeed, GR is at times used in some arguments. GR requires that light beams travel along geodesics, which is the same thing as a straight line in a non-Eucledian space. Furthermore, in a very low gravitational field such as the one we experience, the deviation from Eucledian space is practically nil - many magnitudes smaller than what can be detected with standard nautical equipment, and far smaller than the effect I discuss. (2) Many experiments have demonstrated the validity of General Relativity to an incredible level of accuracy. Thus, GR is very trustworthy on the subject of the straightness of beams of light. (3) To have light not travel along straight lines would easily invalidate both theories of relativity. GR is too complex to learn in just a few hours, but you can learn Special Relativity, and you'll quickly see that having light rays that are not straight would quickly invalidate the theory and make its predictions very different. Since the predictions of SR have been thoroughly tested, we gain high confidence in the straightness of light beams.
I think the whole thing is better explained by the in-development EA theory, which describes a curved path for light rays.
Do the people working on "EA theory" have physics degrees? Physical theories are difficult to produce. It requires a lot of knowledge and experimentation to make a theory. Relativity took many years to develop, and many more to become accepted. I would recommend that the authors of EA make sure that it does not contradict GR.
The stars in the hubward circle rotate about the North Celestial Pole, while those in the rimward annulus rotate about three or more distinct South Celestial Poles. EA theory accounts for the visibility of only those nearby a particular location at any one time, which explains both the latitude issue and your point about the time of year.
(1) Since EA does not exist yet ("in development"), it cannot be claimed that it explains anything. (2) Your postulate reminds me of Ptolemy's epicycles. Adding more and more extra rings and motions to the celestial objects to force them to fit observation. (3) It is hard to disprove the extra-annuli idea since you do not explain how it works, and a key component ("EA theory") is missing. EA will have to bend light in really weird ways to make stars in the southern hemisphere look like they rotate around a point above the south pole which according to FE does not exist and is instead an Ice Wall. Furthermore, EA will have to show why light bends differently in the south vs the equator, vs the north.
I would prefer a different name, too. But the term has been on this site longer than I have, I don't know who coined it, and frankly I think it's so firmly rooted in FET that we are stuck with it.
Regardless of its name, it requires explanation, justification and evidence. The perception of gravity does not constitute evidence, since, as you said, it is easily explained using mainstream science (aka RE). An experiment that does not differentiate between two theories is not useful for distinguishing which theory is correct. Also, the FE notion of "dark energy" was invented to explain gravity. Thus, using gravity as evidence is circular thinking and unscientific. Dark energy also defies Occam's razor since it postulates a new unknown force while also postulating that the otherwise universal laws of physics do not apply to Earth.
Not all of us believe that the Earth does not warp spacetime. I feel that the downward pull we feel is a combination of gravitation and acceleration.
If the Earth does warp spacetime, then FE has a bigger problem. The Earth disk is not in hydrostatic equilibrium. The centre of gravity is at the north pole. All the fluids on the earth (air, water, magma) as well as lose objects (dirt, people, fish) should condense at the centre in a spherically symmetric form. Then the rigid forces of the remaining disk would have to be indeed very strong to resist the deforming effect of Earth's own gravitational pull. This is implausible, knowing the composition of Earth's mantle. Any object as large as Earth (even a thin, flat earth), if it produces gravity, will inevitably crumble into a mostly spherical shape until it reaches hydrostatic equilibrium. Thus, FE really requires an Earh that does not warp spacetime, which in turn is contradicted by the experiments I listed.
Sorry, but I have to point out an error here. Locally, there is a downward gravitational field; nobody can dispute that. The question is whether it is caused by the entire Earth accelerating up, or the Earth warping the surrounding spacetime. As you ascend, this gravitational field decreases in strength, whether due to a greater upward component from the stars or a weaker downward one from the Earth. Regardless of the fundamental cause, the local gravitational field is what creates the effect of time dilation.
If the acceleration is caused by a "dark energy" pushing the earth plate upwards, the acceleration cannot decrease with altitude. Think about that for a minute. If the tip of mount Everest is accelerating upwards at a lower rate than sea level, eventually sea level would catch up with the tip of mount Everest. A simple calculation shows that the tip of mount Everest should be accelerating at 0.0265 m/s^2 less than sea level. At that rate, it would take just under 13 minutes for sea level to catch up to the Everest. Therefore, if the gravitational field we perceived is caused by a form of energy pushing a rigid object, the field must be constant, and it isn't. I suspect that some FE'r realized this and hence postulated that the lower perceived gravity was due to the gravitational attraction of celestial objects.
I subscribe to the "Greater Ice Wall" version of events. That is to say, I believe there is an enormous wall of ice, far beyond the Lesser Ice Wall (Antarctica), which retains the air.
This wall would have to be several hundred kilometres high in order to retain the air on earth. But no rigid structure can be that high on a 9.8m/s^2 gravitational field unless its stiffness to weight ratio is far beyond any material known. Thus, the Greater Ice Wall postulate also requires an unexplained, semi-magical concept that requires explanation and evidence.
The angular velocity of the moon as seen from Earth is the same whether the Earth is round or flat.
This has nothing to do with why the tides trail behind the moon. The problem is not that the moon has an angular velocity. The problem is that the water has angular momentum, which would not be present in a non-rotating earth. There is a real difference between a rotating and non-rotating frame of reference. It is not merely a matter of perspective.
Again, I don't think the Moon is a spotlight or even that it produces its own light. EA theory would predict that sunlight bends from the Sun to the Moon in an enormous arc; the dark part of the Moon is the part facing away from this stream of sunlight.
EA is getting really other-worldly. I hope no one forgets to write down the mechanisms through which this impressive light arch feature works. I hope they also compare it with GR and run it through Occam's razor.
I must agree, this is one of the biggest hurdles FET needs to overcome. I cannot properly explain the behaviour of the heavens in FET, and I won't attempt to until a comprehensive theory is developed.
Ok.
This is flawed. Earth's magnetic pole does not coincide with the geographic north, and indeed, the magnetic poles are in constant movement. This is fine in a spherical earth, but more problematic in a cylindrical earth.
I don't see why.
First, the dynamo effect requires a convecting, electrically conducting fluid. Otherwise, the magnetic field would decay after only 20k years. The convection currents emanating from a hot core are more difficult to attain as you deviate more from a spherical shape. The Coriolis effect also plays a role that I do not fully understand. Dynamo theory is a complex subject, even for a trained physicist. So rather than go into much detail here, I'll point you to this paper (http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/~pauld/etc/210BPaper.pdf) which I think is a good introduction to the subject. After reading that paper you will see that offering an alternative explanation of earth's magnetic fields is a very non-trivial challenge for FE.
In FET, all this is caused by the stars rotating rather than the Earth. The Coriolis effect is the result of the gravitational influence of the stars.
(1) What makes you think that the Coriolis effect can be caused by the gravitational influence of stars? That makes no sense. They are totally different behaviours. Star gravitation points upward, and the Coriolis effect is rotational. You will need to justify how gravity from stars can cause the Coriolis effect.
(2) You need to justify that stars rotating can cause the effect we see. Why is it that there are two points in the sky around which the stars rotate while they sink into the horizon? You'll have to make light bend in really weird ways to reproduce this effect.
I feel that the cause for this phenomenon is most likely electromagnetic, though cannot comprehensively describe it at this point. Also I don't think the impression of the Sun on the Earth is perfectly circular, leading to varying lengths of day and night.
The light impression would have to be *conical*, emanating radially outwards from the north pole. How does the spotlight do that? Furthermore, even a conical image would conflict with seasons. You need a way to make the cone fatter in one hemisphere while making it thinner at the other, and then reverse them. Having the sun simply move between the tropics does not accomplish this by a long shot.
Can I just ask; did he simply travel a parabolic trajectory through the upper atmolayer, or did he actually claim to have gone into orbit?
Orbit. Mir space station. Several days. Nothing that could be done with a parabolic orbit.
Also, what he saw was not the curvature of the Earth, but the distorted edge of the sunlit area on Earth,
You can see the earth rotate, and the station itself orbits the earth.
which would appear curved due to the curvature of the light rays between the Earth and his eyes (more distant light would have curved more, compressing the angle subtended more distant locations into what looks like a surface curving away from the observer).
You need to propose a mechanism through which light is curved in all these magical ways.
-
Robosteve, wouldn't matter-amtimatter reactions produce too much energy? Surely the frequency f=e/h would be different in that reaction, because matter-antimatter reactions are 100% efficient, compared with the hydrogen fusion which is 0.7% efficient? By efficient I mean the percentage of mass converted into energy.
The efficiency of a reaction has nothing to do with the rate of reaction.
No, it doesn't. But the energy given off by said reaction most certainly affects it's frequency. Frequency has nothing to do with rate of reaction.
-
I would like to make a list of phenomena which "EA theory" with its bendy light is intended to produce. I would be grateful if other members could add to this list. This is what I have so far. EA must produce light which bends in such a way as to produce the following effects:
1) Make the earth look round when you go to space. That means that it must make distances appear different, so that an Eucledian plane looks like a sphere. Longitude lines which are radial on the flat disk, must be curved to be made to look like spherical longitude lines. Furthermore, after the equator, the lines must begin to converge, so that the entire ice wall looks like a point.
2) It must make daylight average out to 12 hours, everywhere on earth.
3) It must make the length of day vary between seasons, in a way that exactly matches what would be expected in a spherical earth with an inclination of 23 degrees.
4) It must cause the observed angle of incident light be drastically altered, so that near the poles the light seems to be incident at almost zero degrees. Furthermore, the light incidence angle must vary linearly with "latitude", even though the concept of latitude does not exist on a flat surface.
5) It must bend around, doing a U-turn, in order to iluminate the moon. It must do additional complex turns in order to cause the observed phases of the moon.
6) It must bend star light in order to create the illusion of a rotating celestial sphere. This includes creating the illusion that the stars rotate both around the north pole, as well as the non-existent south pole which is in fact a large circle surrounding the entire earth (the ice wall). It must create the opitcal illusion that this huge, all-surrounding circle is actually a point, around which stars rotate.
7) It makes the sun look as if it is sinking on the horizon, rather than getting smaller, or looking like an oval, as a normal spotlight would.
Did I miss anything? Personally I think this will be a tall order for EA. I cannot imagine any form of light bending that would conspire in such a weirdly complex way to do nothing more than create the illusion of a round, rotating earth. Especially if this proposal is to be consistent with General Relativity and physics as we know it.
I'm sure I've missed a few things that the EA postulate is supposed to solve. Can anyone suggest a few more? I'm sure that the FE researchers will be happy to see a full list of phenomena that their model is required to solve.
-
The stars in the hubward circle rotate about the North Celestial Pole, while those in the rimward annulus rotate about three or more distinct South Celestial Poles. EA theory accounts for the visibility of only those nearby a particular location at any one time, which explains both the latitude issue and your point about the time of year.
If there are multiple Southern Celestial Poles ...
How come those Poles are always observed to be due South?
Any Southern Celestial Pole would have to sit above a definite point on The Flat Earth ...
Which could not lie due south from all observation points at all longitudes.
Here is a diagram illustrating this point:
(http://i39.tinypic.com/2r632xk.gif)
------------------------------
Edit - oops, already covered:
6) It must bend star light in order to create the illusion of a rotating celestial sphere. This includes creating the illusion that the stars rotate both around the north pole, as well as the non-existent south pole which is in fact a large circle surrounding the entire earth (the ice wall). It must create the opitcal illusion that this huge, all-surrounding circle is actually a point, around which stars rotate.
I'm sure I've missed a few things that the EA postulate is supposed to solve. Can anyone suggest a few more? I'm sure that the FE researchers will be happy to see a full list of phenomena that their model is required to solve.
(I'm a lazy reader!)
I suppose my diagram shows that light would have to bend horizontally as well as vertically to make the star-trails perfectly circular.
-
Did I miss anything? Personally I think this will be a tall order for EA. I cannot imagine any form of light bending that would conspire in such a weirdly complex way to do nothing more than create the illusion of a round, rotating earth. Especially if this proposal is to be consistent with General Relativity and physics as we know it.
They already have concocted formula and some graphs - http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.msg661776#msg661776
Also in same topic I tried to clarify why there is shadow are near the ground and sunlight couple a meters above you when sun sets. The spotlight wouldn't get such situations so the EA must starting bend light upward at sunset an that it's bending strength depends how far sun is or the strength of the light. If it is above your head then it can't bend light but if sun moves away then at some point EA starts bending light away from ground so that light doesn't reach to the ground anymore but still reaches to the point of the building some meter-two above your head.
(1) Nuclear fusion is the only energy source known that can produce enough energy to produce the incidence power of 14 kW/m^2 that we measure here on Earth. This is true whether the sun is 32 miles wide and 3000 miles away, or 1.4 x 10^9 m wide and 1.5 x 10^11 m away (I did the math myself).
Matter-antimatter annihilation would also be potent enough to produce that power.
Robosteve, where is your argument that sun can't run on nuclear fusion because sustained nuclear fusion has not been yet experimentally verified? And stars are balls of dust heated by the Sun because, quoting you (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27692.msg654127#msg654127) - a phenomenon which, unlike nuclear fusion, has been proven to be a viable method of producing light in laboratories on Earth.
-
1) FAQ says: "The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3000 miles above sea level."
* If the sun was 32 miles in diameter, it would not have enough gravity to sustain nuclear fusion (AFAIK the FE model does not dispute General Relativity).
* We can use trigonometry on a flat surface to calculate the distance to the Sun and verify that it is a lot more than 3000 miles. Perform the following experiment: Take two points 5.2 miles part. Call the points A and B. From point A, measure the angle between B and the sun. From point B, measure the angle from A to the sun. If the Sun is 3000 miles away, basic trigonometry tells us that there should be a difference of 0.1 degrees in the two measurements. This discrepancy is easily detectable with standard nautical or topographical equipment.
2) FAQ says: "Each functions similar to a 'spotlight,'"
Light sources do not behave like a spotlight. A spotlight behaves the way it does because humans put the light source inside a container that purposely blocks light going in other directions and usually also reflects it in the desired direction. To suppose that the sun and moon behave like spotlights, requires the assumption of similar containers designed to block light going in other directions.
The spotlight hypothesis is demonstrably false. When you get further away from a spotlight that is not pointing directly at you, you don't see a round spotlight sink on the horizon. What you see is the circular light become oval shaped, with the oval getting thinner until no light is visible. This is not what we observe in the real world. Hence, the sun and moon are not spotlights.
The spotlight hypothesis is also contradicted by eclipses. If the moon was a spotlight, during a solar eclipse we would see the moon as usual, rather than a black circle. The reason we see a black circle is that the moon produces no light of its own.
The spotlight hypothesis is also contradicted by lunar eclipses. Why does the moon change colour and then go dark at precisely the points that RE theory says that the moon enters the penumbra and umbra?
If the sun-spotlight is hovering around the equator as in the FE model, that would mean that days are longer in the equator than in other latitudes, and that days are longer in the northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. We know both ideas to be false. Furthermore, the southern hemisphere would get less over-all sunlight, making it much colder than the northern hemisphere.
If the sun hovers above the equator in the way described by the FE model, then an observer on the equator would see the sun make an arc across the sky. This is not what we observe. A person on the equator sees the sun go straight up, to the zenith and then straight down. In higher latitudes you see the sun roll across the horizon a bit more (I have lived both next to the equator, and at high latitudes). This observation contradicts the FE model.
----
Edited to add: Another problem with the FE model is that it does not explain through which mechanism the moon is supposed to be a light source for "cold light". Furthermore, if you grab an amateur telescope and point it at the moon, you will see surface features like craters. These are visible because they cast a shadow. How can they cast a shadow if the moon itself is the light source? Finally, any amateur astronomer knows that the best place to aim your telescope is near the edge between the light and dark sides of the moon, because that is where the shadows are biggest (making surface features more visible). How is this possible if the moon itself is the light source?
----
3) FAQ says: "The stars are at a height of 3100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston."
The same parallax experiment explained in (1) also disproves this.
The fact that different stars are visible at different latitudes conflicts with the FE model. In a round earth, the earth obscures parts of the celestial sphere from different observers (you can't see Polaris from Australia, and you can't see the Southern Cross from Sweden). On a flat earth, the planet does not obscure different parts of the sky for different observers. Everybody gets the same sky.
The fact that during the course of the night the stars rotate around a point in the sky (e.g. Polaris) and this point moves up as one moves to greater latitudes also conflicts with the FE model.
-----------
Edited to add: The FE model also fails to account for the fact that different stars are visible at different times in the year.
-----------
4) FAQ says (on the topic of sunsets): "It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it's disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away."
The sun does not get smaller during sunsets. The angular size of the sun can be easily measured (compare it to a dime held at arms length).
5) FAQ says: "Dark Energy accelerates the Earth and all celestial bodies in the universe at 9.8m/s^2"
This dark energy requires justification and supporting evidence. It is entirely unlike the dark energy that astrophysicists know about (I have a degree in astrophysics). I suggest using a different name for this mysterious energy, lets it be confused with the dark energy used in astrophysics literature.
6) FAQ says: "FE assumes that the Earth does not generate a gravitational field."
Theories that predict that the laws of physics are different for Earth have a tendency to be wrong. They also defy Occam's razor and the mediocrity principle. Second, variations in Earth's gravitational field have been measured (e.g. gravity is a tad weaker in Canada) and are consistent with Earth being a round planet that generates a gravitational field just like all other objects. The gravitational field can also be measured through atomic clocks, since gravity makes time slow down, according to General Relativity. These experiments indicate that clocks run slower at sea level than on an air plane. This is consistent with Earth generating a gravitational field, and inconsistent with the lower perceived gravity being a result of celestial bodies exerting a gravitational influence.
7) FAQ says: [gravity varies with altitude because] "The celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull."
This is contradicted by experiments with atomic clocks. Time runs slower closer to the Earth. If the lower gravity was due to the celestial bodies exerting a gravitational pull, the clocks would not behave this way.
8) FAQ says: "There is a field created during the interaction between Dark Energy and the Earth. This is known as the Dark Energy Field, and it acts as a containment to prevent DE from affecting the objects on Earth. This explains why the atmosphere will not be diffused into space"
This also requires explanation and supporting evidence. This must be a very magical sort of "energy" that makes air stay inside the FE. Calling it a "field" doesn't explain anything.
9) FAQ says: "The gravitational pull of the celestial bodies provide tidal effects."
This fails to explain why there are two tides per day and why they follow the moon and not the sun. The "sun-moon" thing is yet another unproven postulate to try to force the FE model to fit the evidence. When you keep adding unseen, unproven, and unprovable hypothesis to a model, that is a sign that the model is flawed.
Even if we allow the "sun-moon" object proposed in the FAQ, the FE model still fails to explain why the tides don't point to the moon, but seem to come a little bit behind it. In the RE model, Earth's rotation explains the gap between the moon's position and the tides.
10) FAQ says: "The sun circles over the equator, thus the poles don't receive the same intensity of light."
If the sun is 3000 miles away and circles the equator, the incident light on the poles would be at 65 degrees. That is not nearly low enough to explain the temperatures at the poles. For comparison, the city of Orlando, Florida, gets incident light at 62 degrees. If you live in Canada or Europe, it is easy to see that the average sun position is at less than 45 degrees from the horizon. If you live in Sweden or Norway, the sun is even lower. At the north pole, the average incidence angle is zero. This contradicts the FE model.
11) FAQ says: "An undetectable celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon [causing lunar eclipses and moon phases]."
Another undetectable object. How convenient... Anyways, this cannot work. During moon phases, part of the moon is entirely black. If it was a shadow, the moon would be inside the umbra, making the moon darker but not black, as in a lunar eclipse. Second, this explanation is inconsistent with the earlier claim that the moon is a spotlight. If the moon produces its own light, then the idea of casting a shadow on it makes no sense. Unless of course the moon is not a spotlight and its light is reflected, in which case you need to explain how it can reflect sun light if the sun is a spotlight and you need to explain why moon phases make some of the moon black, but lunar eclipses make it red.
12) FAQ says: "The airline pilots are guided by their GPS."
Air planes and airlines are much older than GPS. Even today, not all air planes use GPS. And for hundreds of years, ships have sailed the oceans using only stars and a round earth coordinate system to navigate around the oceans, including many trips around the southern hemisphere from Europe to Africa to India, to China and Australia.
13) FAQ says: "The magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as with the RE (Diagram)."
This is flawed. Earth's magnetic pole does not coincide with the geographic north, and indeed, the magnetic poles are in constant movement. This is fine in a spherical earth, but more problematic in a cylindrical earth.
14) FAQ says: [flushing toilet] "On a round Earth, the Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day."
This is a straw man argument. The Coriolis effect has many significant terrestrial effects a lot more important than flushing my toilet. The Coriolis effect has significant meteorological effects such as cyclones, air currents and ocean currents. Air tends to move toward low pressure regions, but not on a straight line. On a non-rotating frame of reference, air should move in the direction of the pressure gradient. Instead, large scale air movements are perpendicular to the pressure gradient. This is known as geostrophic flow. There are many other important terrestrial effects caused by the Coriolis effect. Please look up "Coriolis effect" in Wikipedia.
Earth's rotation (and the Coriolis effect) is also easy to demonstrate using a pendulum (look up Foucault's pendulum). I have done this experiment myself.
Earth's rotation is also easily observable on a clear night away from the tropics, when you can actually observe the stars rotating around a fixed point in the sky. You can see that the position of this point corresponds to your latitude, so that, for example, at the north and south poles, Polaris is directly above you, all the time, and the stars all rotate around it.
15) FAQ says: [seasons] "The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus."
Another unexplained phenomenon. And once again, one that doesn't solve anything. This hypothesis can begin to explain why the sun's angle changes during summer and winter, but it fails to explain why days are longer in summer and shorter in winter. This is also a good time to again point out that the spotlight model of the sun, as in the FE model, would mean that over the course of the year days are longer in the equator than at other latitudes, and that days are longer in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere. So the spotlight hypothesis contradicts observations.
16) FAQ says: "NASA and the rest of the world's space agencies who claim to have been to space are involved in a Conspiracy to keep the shape of the Earth hidden. The pictures are faked using simple imaging software."
I have personally met two people who have flown into space. One was an astronaut, the other a space tourist. Maybe the astronaut was lying to me when she showed me her pictures at MIR, but the space tourist is someone who has no reason to lie to me about his going to space and seeing the earth being round.
Wonderful. A true demonstration of science, proving FET is nothing but a childish concept. Nice going :D
-
Excellent thread! Every attempt, so far, by FE'ers to counter your arguments has only succeeded in making themselves look all the more foolish and scientifically illiterate! I suppose that they may realize that, and that may be why they have stopped trying.
Congratulations! Great win for RE, though far from the only win I have observed on this site.
-
Excellent thread! Every attempt, so far, by FE'ers to counter your arguments has only succeeded in making themselves look all the more foolish and scientifically illiterate! I suppose that they may realize that, and that may be why they have stopped trying.
Congratulations! Great win for RE, though far from the only win I have observed on this site.
Thanks for bringing that fresh perspective on the debate.
-
If there are multiple Southern Celestial Poles ...
How come those Poles are always observed to be due South?
Any Southern Celestial Pole would have to sit above a definite point on The Flat Earth ...
Which could not lie due south from all observation points at all longitudes.
Here is another diagram illustrating this point:
This should help:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/components/com_joomlawiki/images/1/10/Gears.gif)
-
Thanks to Johannes Kepler for that illustration and to 3 Tesla for bringing it to our attention again. I can't imagine a clearer or more devastating refutation of the FE'ers' lame attempts to explain how there can be a south celestial pole in FET!
-
If there are multiple Southern Celestial Poles ...
How come those Poles are always observed to be due South?
Any Southern Celestial Pole would have to sit above a definite point on The Flat Earth ...
Which could not lie due south from all observation points at all longitudes.
Here is another diagram illustrating this point:
This should help:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/components/com_joomlawiki/images/1/10/Gears.gif)
Any Flat Earthers out there who can explain why The Southern Celestial Pole(s) is (are) always reported as being due south?
-
DanielC is my hero.
-
This...is...impossible
A REer whose arguments are based on sound science, and replies with even more science?
I agree with Sentient Pizza: DanielC, you are an hero to the REers!
-
I would like to make a list of phenomena which "EA theory" with its bendy light is intended to produce. I would be grateful if other members could add to this list. This is what I have so far. EA must produce light which bends in such a way as to produce the following effects:
Your excellent list did miss one decisive aspect: light must do all of those amazing tricks while keeping the brightness just right.
On a flat Earth with a 3000 mile high Sun light travels a path three times longer at mid afternoon than at noon, and it gets even longer at dusk. That means that light disperses to an area more than 9 times as big, and therefore is 9 times less bright. Any photographer can tell you that while there is a small difference in the brightness of the sunlight between noon and mid afternoon, it is nowhere near the nine times (3 F-stops) predicted by the "bendy light" schemes described in this forum. In fact, a cloudless noon and a cloudless mid-afternoon have exactly the same brightness, as far as a photographer can measure.
The other big hurdle that makes this whole hypothesis akin to magic is that there is that space and the atmosphere above us should be so anisotropic that they can bend light in very complex three dimensional curves without a single telltale sign.
-
The other big hurdle that makes this whole hypothesis akin to magic is that there is that space and the atmosphere above us should be so anisotropic that they can bend light in very complex three dimensional curves without a single telltale sign.
And if light bends, why are sun-beams dead straight?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fdecomite/284975040/
Perhaps light only bends before it reaches the atmo-plane, i.e. when it is in the "aether"?
-
DanielC is my hero.
I agree with Sentient Pizza: DanielC, you are an hero to the REers!
Our resident "ham radio" expert JulianMartin has also been proposed as a hero:
"JulianMartin" is my new hero!
See:
Ham Radio and Moonbounce
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.0
08/06/2009+
For another damning piece of do-it-yourself evidence that The Earth is not flat.
-
Daniel, you should study astrophysics much more...you are just quoting ACCEPTED hypotheses, which have no proof behind them...on the contrary...here is the complete demolition of your conjecture (a nuclear powered sun):
Faint young sun paradox + Impossibility of a spherical shaped Sun:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg718434#msg718434
The correct Flat Earth Sun theory (not the 32 mile diameter, 3000 miles orbit quoted in the FAQ, which is completely wrong, as is the travelling FE at the speed of light):
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33410#msg33410
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33509#msg33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33520#msg33520
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg34143#msg34143
The True Size/Orbit of the Sun (Sun/Mercury-ISS transits):
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=830.0
The complete destruction of the big bang hypothesis:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.0
Superstring pipe dream:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.msg24650#msg24650
The biggest hoax of the 20th century: General Relativity
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=601.0
Sun Neutrino Paradox/Solid Sun Surface Paradox/Cold Sun Paradox/Sun Coronal Heating Paradox:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=553.msg24704#msg24704
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=553.msg24705#msg24705
So you see Daniel...you have not studied this subject as you should have...
You want more?
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom:
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm (the catastrophic mistakes committed by both Rutherford and Bohr)
Chadwick's Neu(t)rons:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=894.0 (in 1932, J. Chadwick DID NOT DISCOVER ANYTHING, read his own words)
-
DanielC is my hero.
I agree with Sentient Pizza: DanielC, you are an hero to the REers!
Our resident "ham radio" expert JulianMartin has also been proposed as a hero:
"JulianMartin" is my new hero!
See:
Ham Radio and Moonbounce
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.0
08/06/2009+
For another damning piece of do-it-yourself evidence that The Earth is not flat.
You are dreaming 3Tesla...I showed our friend Julian that his hypothesis is not correct; being taken by surprise, to see somebody who knows much more than himself on the subject, Julian was not able to say much more; I showed him that on a flat earth, the phenomenon thought by him to exist just on a spherical earth, will also take place very nicely; a spherical earth needs curvature and a theory with proofs behind it.
PS Daniel, you will never see light bending used as an explanation in my messages...
-
The True Size/Orbit of the Sun (Sun/Mercury-ISS transits):
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=830.0
I only looked at one link that you posted, the one I have quoted.
Stunning science levee, absolutely stunning!
There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers in the background.
Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
That bit in bold must be the most accurate bit of data I have ever seen for the earth/sun distance.
Stunning science!
-
squat, the videos speak for themselves...please read how nuclear energy COULD NOT POSSIBLY be the energy source for the sun...the other Sun Paradoxes...
It was well known since antiquity that the Sun measures only a few hundred meters in diameter...your mischevious use of the word science will not work with me...I have scientifically destroyed all your hopes of a gaseous nebula conjecture, which you need to reach a spherical earth, here it is in full splendour for all the squats of the world:
A spherically shaped star/planet would have been impossible to attain from the start.
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.0 (the complete demonstration that a supernova could not have produced any kind of rotating gaseous nebula)
Now, a gaseous nebula approaching the form of a disk involves several things. Because of the rotating motion of the whole nebula, a centrifugal force was in action, and we are told that parts of matter more on the periphery broke up into rings. Matter must have been concentrated in just a tiny sector of those rings, given the distance (the diameter) of the rings themselves (in our case, about 150 million kilometers).
Given the fact that there is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation (the complete demonstration here: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=536.0 and http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=552.0 ), to get from a disk to a sphere, a tangential force of compression which would produce circumferential shortening/radial shrinkage (on the equatorial plane) would have been needed. To get from a disk (transversal cross section in the shape of an ellipse, with the eccentricity very close to unity, about 0.9995) to a sphere (eccentricity of about 0.314), given the centrifugal force of rotation, would have been impossible.
A rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two directions (moons of Uranus, three of the satellites of Jupiter, 1 of Saturn, and one of Neptune). Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.
Being smaller than the Earth, the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinkage and a has a lighter specific weight than the Earth. The moon was produced, it is assumed, from the superificial layers of the earth's body; this assumption means that the origin of the moon was not simultaneous with that of the earth; that is, the earth had to undergo a process of leveling (cooling) before the moon parted from the earth. Therefore, we are told that a stupendous collision took place between a heavenly body and the earth, but this collision MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE EARTH COOLED DOWN, that is 3.9 billion years ago (4.6 billion years - gaseous nebula, 4.5 billion years - incandescent conglomerate of matter and elements). Such a collision would have melted completely the surface of the earth; this in sharp contrast with the facts we are told: 3.85 billion years ago, DNA appeared out of nowhere. Also, in the official storyline, this collision would have been responsible for the 23.5 degree tilt, but such a collision would have disrupted completely any axial rotation, not to mention the orbital motion.
And let us not forget the Minkowsky Space Time Continuum Hoax:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=537.0
-
The True Size/Orbit of the Sun (Sun/Mercury-ISS transits):
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=830.0
I only looked at one link that you posted, the one I have quoted.
Stunning science levee, absolutely stunning!
There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers in the background.
Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
That bit in bold must be the most accurate bit of data I have ever seen for the earth/sun distance.
Stunning science!
Only an idiot would believe that you could measure relative distances away from a camera using a single photograph.
(Because you can't given that there is no depth of field - all objects are compressed into a single plane.)
You may be interetsed to know that the people who do sub-titles for TV programmes in the UK use (!) to indicate sarcasm.
As in: stunning science yet again, Levee(!)
-
You are dreaming 3Tesla...I showed our friend Julian that his hypothesis is not correct; being taken by surprise, to see somebody who knows much more than himself on the subject, Julian was not able to say much more;
Actually your attempts at refuting his evidence (for trans-global radio wave propagation) were so feeble, badly thought-out and badly presented that he probably just chose to ignore them as being irrelevant (I know I did).
Please read much more carefully, since you have not done so up until now, re: no attractive gravity:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=536.0 and http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=552.0
EDIT: I included by mistake a comment in 3Tesla's message, which was meant to be removed...levee...
-
Given the fact that there is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation
This is way off-topic, but Levee is an expert at hijacking threads.
If there "is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation" ...
Please explain the well-reproduced results of The Cavendish Experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
-
Maybe you had idiots in your family...you must truly be stupide to believe in a spherical earth...
Have you read the big bang/superstring impossibility links? Why are you behaving like a fucked-up imbecile then? Have I ever made statements which I was not able to prove afterwards?
Let us bring here the whole thing here then:
You have already seen the photographs, now here are the videos: the Iss/Mercury Sun transits
Flat Earth Society members need to understand that to continue to present in public the false supporting theory, that of a 50 km (diameter) Sun, which would orbit at an altitude of 3000 miles (4800 km) is to invite disaster and contempt; the Earth IS flat, but if the supporting theory is false then nobody will pay attention. Also, as I have shown here, the Earth is completely stationary; the false theory, that of an Earth travelling at the speed of light through the cosmos, has to be removed and deleted (not to mention the wall of ice which does not exist, in Antarctica).
As we can see here, the Sun is right behind (perhaps 1-1 1/2 km distance) the Iss/Mercury, with a diameter of between 1.6 - 2.6 km, which is the correct theory.
The following incredible photographs, taken by Thierry Legault and David Cortner (shown on CNN and other massmedia outlets), offer the true distance from the Sun to the International Space Station (ISS)/Atlantis shuttle.
There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers in the background.
Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_crop.jpg
http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_shuttle_50.jpg
The next two photographs show exactly the same distance from Venus/Mercury to the Sun, as in the photographs taken with ISS/Atlantis shuttle, and moreover, the same dimensions, of just 50-75 meters in diameter; it was well known in the ancient world that the stars are very small (with the exception of Jupiter, Sirius B-Saturn, and the heavenly bodies which cause the Moon and the Sun eclipses, Rahu and Ketu).
The ISS/Atlantis station/shuttle are maneuvered by remote control, because of the radiation no astronauts can be aboard; the entire space shuttle program has been faked since 1979; ISS/Atlantis use the Cosmic Ray Device of Nikola Tesla to orbit above the earth (as do all other satellites, whether geostationary or orbital).
http://www.davidcortner.com/astro/vtransit/asd_1470ct.jpg
http://members.chello.at/merkur/Merkurtransit_7Mai10h52_NehGen.jpg
Other Venus/Mercury, ISS/Atlantis Sun Transit photographs which confirm the information offerred above:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/images/sun/mts030507d.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2006/iss_suntransit2.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.geofffox.com/MT/images/shuttle-iss-sun.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0609/iss_shuttle_legault_c88.jpg
http://www.esa.int/images/iss_shuttle_legault_f_L.jpg
Squat, where is the 149000000 km distance betwee the Sun and the ISS? Are youblind? Can you imagine how a real distance of 149000000 would look on a photograph or a video?
-
levee, why do you keep quoting threads on the .net site? Are you lonely over there?
For what it's worth I am not a scientist so any criticisms I make come from a layman's point of view. Now if I think your crazy . . . ;D
-
Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.
Completely unexplained?
Tidal forces seems to be a reasonable explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus#Orbit_and_rotation
-
A rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two directions (moons of Uranus, three of the satellites of Jupiter, 1 of Saturn, and one of Neptune). Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.
Why do you assume that those moons in question were formed together with their host planets? Why could those counter orbiting moons not have been captured at some other time in those planets' histories?
-
You are dreaming 3Tesla...I showed our friend Julian that his hypothesis is not correct; being taken by surprise, to see somebody who knows much more than himself on the subject, Julian was not able to say much more;
Actually your attempts at refuting his evidence (for trans-global radio wave propagation) were so feeble, badly thought-out and badly presented that he probably just chose to ignore them as being irrelevant (I know I did).
3Tesla, you are eating **** big time...I have completely destroyed Julian's conjecture in that thread...he was not able to say anything more...on a flat earth his proposed theory will work just as fine...shut the **** up otherwise...
Please read much more carefully, since you have not done so up until now, re: no attractive gravity:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=536.0 and http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=552.0
3TESLA, CAN YOU REALLY BE THAT STUPIDE? Do you understand what a retrograde orbit involves? There must have a collision which changed the original orbit, such a collision would have completely melted the surface, pulverized the whole planet, and would have completely destroyed the orbital motion, not to mention the axial rotation...
-
Maybe you had idiots in your family...you must truly be stupide to believe in a spherical earth...
I'm not the one who thinks you can measure distances away from a camera with a single photo!
-
Squat, you fucker, where is the 149000000 km distance betwee the Sun and the ISS? Are you fucking blind? Can you imagine how a real distance of 149000000 would look on a photograph or a video? You are truly the most idiotic participant in this thread...GTF out!
Where have you quoted the precise distance YOU measured? Please define "a few kilometres", there's a good chap.
-
FLAME ON! - johny storm-
Levee: I'm sorry to say that you have not prooved anything. I read through your links and the info within those links and so on.
a - you cant use books like the bible as reference of any kind. you cant do it. stop it. any book where people in one chapter claim to have been withness to magic or a god in one chapter can not be taken a serious in any other chapter.
b - every scientific concept (including GR and all that other stuff in your links) that is still in development has flaws and holes in it. untill prooven and accepted as law there will always be evidence against them. and some even after they are proven will be revised and expanded on.
c- FES threads stating the they are right can not be used as evidence. also every thread you posted only works for your agruements as long as the reader only reads the intended message. every one of those was shot full of holes before and after the intended post fro us to see.
DanielC and JulianMartin are just the most recent two members to shoot down FET completley. FEers on this forrum dont even believe. it is a mental exercise for them. Can we pleas get back to civilised debate without miles of links to read? Levee do you have something original to say about the topic at hand? or would youlike to continue posting everyone elses stuff?
-
I have completely destroyed Julian's conjecture in that thread...
Only in your own mind ...
on a flat earth his proposed theory will work just as fine...
I don't recal you giving even one diagram to back up your ideas.
shut the fuck up otherwise...
I have been censured for responding to personal criticism once already today, so I will not rise to that.
Perhaps the mods will take appropriate action re your your uncalled-for profane language.
-
Maybe you had idiots in your family...you must truly be stupide to believe in a spherical earth...
Have you read the big bang/superstring impossibility links? Why are you behaving like a fucked-up imbecile then? Have I ever made statements which I was not able to prove afterwards?
*snip*
Squat, you fucker, where is the 149000000 km distance betwee the Sun and the ISS? Are you fucking blind? Can you imagine how a real distance of 149000000 would look on a photograph or a video? You are truly the most idiotic participant in this thread...GTF out!
I'm sorry Levee, but this sort of personal abuse it not appropriate on the serious discussion boards. Being a mod, you should know better.
-
markjo, you wrote an intelligent message...thanks...there is no way to capture a planet/satellite, please read the special section dedicated to this subject in the Impossibility of the Big Bang thread...
Here are my responses to Julian, which took care of that thread:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg718430#msg718430
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg719841#msg719841
squat...look carefully at the comparison of the Mercury/Iss transits photos and especially the videos...same distance, about the same diameter...this was well known since antiquity...if you believe in a spherical earth, you must explain how the atmosphere rotates at the same speed as that of the earth itself, can you do that?
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=1143.0 (stationary earth/cloud trajectories)
squat...you have not read 100 mathematics volumes in your whole life...but you have the audacity to come here and comment...
3Tesla, leave the diagrams aside...I was able to clearly state to Julian the facts, that on a flat earth the same thing will take place, as he described for the spherical earth conjecture...the Tunguska explosion of 1908 proves clearly that we are on a flat earth...
markjo, I respond in the same language as that which I am spoken to...I am showing the man videos and photos and he uses foul language to respond to me...
-
markjo, I respond in the same language as that which I am spoken to...
That is not true.
You swore at me when I had not sworn at you.
-
Levee, you have reached new lows in logic on this forum, which is no small feat in a place where logic is often in short supply.
Please do realize that, as others have said before me, your credibility is nil and you are your own worst enemy. It is borderline comical to skim your posts.
But please don't let any of this stop you from digging up more family vacation photos from the internet and posting them as your version of proof of a flat earth. I do so look forward to them.
Also, the language and attacks are uncalled for, and only serve to destroy what little credibility you had left.
-
markjo, I respond in the same language as that which I am spoken to...
You are very good at quoting levee. Please quote where I have used language at you similar to what you have used at me. I won't quote your words, they are still there on the last post of the previous page.
Now be a good moderator and moderate yourself. Thank you.
-
3Tesla, leave the diagrams aside...I was able to clearly state to Julian the facts, that on a flat earth the same thing will take place, as he described for the spherical earth conjecture...
For example:
Also, on a flat earth, we have the Schumann cavity resonances, that is, the space between the surface of the flat Earth and the conductive ionosphere (acting as a closed waveguide). Just above the ionosphere we have the first Dome, as is well known in our flat earth theory now.
An electrical signal will circumnavigate above a flat earth, just as easily as it could around a spherical earth.
Without a reasonable diagram all of that is just pure conjecture.
JulianMartin provided diagarams but you didn't - why?
-
seriously.... how is this Levee guy a mod on this forrum? This guy jumped right in the middel of this thread, hijacked it, started flaming, and now is making accusations about others.
Levee, I'll ask it again cause you probably missed it in the middel of your ranting: Do you have anything original to add to the OP and discussion? - or would you like to continue endlessly quoting other peoples ideas and content?
Personally I would like to get back to the topic.
-
markjo, I respond in the same language as that which I am spoken to...I am showing the man videos and photos and he uses foul language to respond to me...
I'm sorry Levee but I didn't see 3 Tesla or Squat use any profanity aimed in your general direction. Mods are supposed to keep the peace, not escalate the name calling. And editing other people's posts is generally considered bad form as well.
-
3Tesla, is that the tactic you use here? Read carefully your responses to me: insult after insult, with no scientific discussion. If you talk nicely to me, I will do likewise, you accuse me of false things, I will take care of things, as you know...
equinox, your message amount to very little...I am sorry...all those photographs prove one thing very clearly: there is no curvature at the surface of the Earth...no matter what you say...look carefully at the Port Credit photos...no curvature whatsoever...
So far, I have the best credibility here, because I am able to prove what I say, read my first message here and you will see it is so.
squat, use the word idiot to describe yourself, and your mediocre belief in the round earth theory...here, you have to prove something scientifically...
3Tesla, julian words are pure conjecture, until he is able to prove the earth is round; I have proved already it is flat, therefore, my description is not a conjecture, don't try stuff like that with me, that is, to draw up diagrams, we are not in kindergarten here...
sentient pizza, here is the my first message completely on the subject:
Daniel, you should study astrophysics much more...you are just quoting ACCEPTED hypotheses, which have no proof behind them...on the contrary...here is the complete demolition of your conjecture (a nuclear powered sun):
Faint young sun paradox + Impossibility of a spherical shaped Sun:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg718434#msg718434
The correct Flat Earth Sun theory (not the 32 mile diameter, 3000 miles orbit quoted in the FAQ, which is completely wrong, as is the travelling FE at the speed of light):
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33410#msg33410
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33509#msg33509
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg33520#msg33520
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.msg34143#msg34143
The True Size/Orbit of the Sun (Sun/Mercury-ISS transits):
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=830.0
The complete destruction of the big bang hypothesis:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.0
Superstring pipe dream:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.msg24650#msg24650
The biggest hoax of the 20th century: General Relativity
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=601.0
Sun Neutrino Paradox/Solid Sun Surface Paradox/Cold Sun Paradox/Sun Coronal Heating Paradox:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=553.msg24704#msg24704
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=553.msg24705#msg24705
So you see Daniel...you have not studied this subject as you should have...
You want more?
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom:
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm (the catastrophic mistakes committed by both Rutherford and Bohr)
Chadwick's Neu(t)rons:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=894.0 (in 1932, J. Chadwick DID NOT DISCOVER ANYTHING, read his own words)
The reason YOU ARE TROLLING (you meaning the whole lot of you) this thread and using foul language, is to divert attention from the fact that I know astrophysics much better than you, and can and am able to respond to Daniel. This has been your tactic in all the other threads here.
markjo, read the messages...look at the insults used by squat, 3Tesla...
-
Now, I will wait until Daniel comes back, if he has anything to say...please continue your discussion without me...if that is what you want...
-
markjo, read the messages...look at the insults used by squat, 3Tesla...
I did. This is the closest to an insult that I could find before you started with the profanity:
Only an idiot would believe that you could measure relative distances away from a camera using a single photograph.
(Because you can't given that there is no depth of field - all objects are compressed into a single plane.)
I still say that your response was not appropriate. If you can't keep you temper, then you shouldn't be a mod.
-
Now, I will wait until Daniel comes back, if he has anything to say...please continue your discussion without me...if that is what you want...
so ..... no you don't have anything original to add. and you are going to continue to post other peoples content at infinium.
I dont think we want you to leave, what we want is for you to contribute with your own information and keep it clean. mile long posts full of links does not work. pick a thing and work on that. then pick another and work on that. That method can be followed and debated. Using a "shotgun" typ posting method allongside flaming, will only get the results you have seen for the last page or so.
-
I will go back and remove any excess language...the problem we face here is this: I have scientifically proved that there is no such thing as a big bang, or a superstring theory, without these two, the round earth is over right now.
I have researched more than anyone heliocosmology, and I have proved that nuclear energy cannot be the energy source for the sun, please read those five solar paradoxes.
There is no such thing as attractive gravitation, without this, the spherical earth theory is dead; GTR is a PRESSURE TYPE gravity theory, which can only work on a flat earth.
sentient pizza and equinox, those links include the very best information at the present time, you will not be able to find anything better; no big bang, no superstring theory, no attractive gravitation, and no axially rotating spherical earth. Thank you.
-
I LOVE it! The levee defence is undeniable:
I proved it because I proved it. Look at my posts and you will see that i proved it. This thread and all like it are pointless because I proved it. I'm now aiting for you to prove that I did not prove it.
The earth was thought round long before any big bang thoery (a theory mind you) and it worked in that model.
The earth was thought round long before superstring theory (again a theory) and it works with or without that model.
Th earth is universally accepted as round by every single scientific comunity, and culture ever known to man throughout history. With the exception of a handfull of people on this forrum, and a few small religeous groups here and there. It does not matter how much reasearch you have done on the matter because allong the way you have had to dismiss much more science and data than what you have found to support your ideas.
Please pick a specific arguement that has been made in the OP and discuss it with your facts and data.
I will go back and remove any excess language...the problem we face here is this: I have scientifically proved that there is no such thing as a big bang, or a superstring theory, without these two, the round earth is over right now.
I have researched more than anyone heliocosmology, and I have proved that nuclear energy cannot be the energy source for the sun, please read those five solar paradoxes.
There is no such thing as attractive gravitation, without this, the spherical earth theory is dead; GTR is a PRESSURE TYPE gravity theory, which can only work on a flat earth.
sentient pizza and equinox, those links include the very best information at the present time, you will not be able to find anything better; no big bang, no superstring theory, no attractive gravitation, and no axially rotating spherical earth. Thank you.
-
sp, you have not studied the round earth theory at all...
If you believe or not, there were only 12 persons in the whole antiquity who believed in heliocentrism (and, implicitly, in a spherical earth):
Yajnavalkya (aprox. 900 BC), Aryabhatta (450 AD), Bhaskara (1.100 AD) and Madhava (1.400 AD) from the Surya Yoga sect, started by none other than Akhenaton; Philolaus, Aristarchus, Herakleides and Seleucus (disciples of Pythagoras), Erathosthenes, Eudoxus, Aristotle (disciples of Plato) WERE ALL SUN WORSHIPPERS. As were Koppernigk, Kepler, Galilei, and Newton.
Here is a quote from Koppernigk:
In regard to his cosmology, Copernicus consistently appealed to the 'harmony' of his system, but it was a harmony ennobled by a sun that he personified, and, some say, deified, way beyond what we now know as its ability to convert helium into hydrogen. Copernicus writes:
In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe: Hermes Trismegistus names him the Visible God, Sophocles' Electra calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal throne ruling his children the planets which circle round him. The Earth has the Moon at her service. As Aristotle says, in his On Animals, the Moon has the closest relationship with the Earth. Meanwhile the Earth conceives by the Sun, and becomes pregnant with an annual rebirth (De Revolutionibus, Of the Order of the Heavenly Bodies 10).
Karl Popper shows the origin of these cultic ideas:
Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus' idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the center of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato's Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of the visible things in nature.Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status.then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the center of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It does not start with observations, but with a religious or mythological idea (Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, p. 187).
Popper couches his critique of Copernicus in rather polite terms, but essentially he is saying that Copernicus' brainchild had all the earmarks of originating from pagan sun-worship. As Wolfgang Smith notes:
In the Renaissance movement championed by Marsiglio Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a religion, a kind of neo-paganism. Copernicus himself was profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen from numerous passages in the De Revolutionibus (The Wisdom of Ancient Cosmology, p. 174).
Upon reading Copernicus' De Revolutionibus, one is struck by the preponderance of philosophical and humanistic arguments that he brings to his aid. As J. D. Bernal notes: '[Copernicus'] reasons for his revolutionary change were essentially philosophic and aesthetic,' and in a later edition he is more convinced that the 'reasons were mystical rather than scientific' (Science in History, 1st edition, London, Watts, 1954; 2nd edition, 1965). Overall, Copernicus presents about five-dozen arguments, at least half of which are solely philosophical in nature. Although the other half of his argumentation depends more on mechanics, these also have philosophical appendages to them (e.g., his view that the universe is infinite and therefore cannot have a center). Very few of his arguments are based on his own personal observations, since Copernicus merely reworked the observations of his Greek predecessors. In fact, Copernicus concludes that because the Greeks did not detail their cosmological models more thoroughly, history (and God) have called upon him to provide the long-awaited documentation of true cosmology.
-
squat, use the word idiot to describe yourself, and your mediocre belief in the round earth theory...here, you have to prove something scientifically...
I have already said quite openly that I am not a scientist. However, 15 years ago I undertook the Science Foundation Course at the UK Open University. One of the first things students were required to do was to measure the distance to the moon.
Luckily I did not put, as my answer, "only a few kilometres".
Now, I am hanging around on this forum for a while because it has interesting moments, I have some time on my hands and it is good to stretch the old grey matter now and again. I make no claims to scientific greatness like your good self levee but I am quite well read. If you want me to even start to consider that a flat earth is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you are going the wrong way about it.
You do your colleagues on this forum no favours by posting the way you do.
-
There are no 149.000.000 million kilometers between the Sun and the Earth; as these photographs clearly show, right behind the ISS/Atlantis is the Sun, at just a few kilometers in the background.
Between the ISS/Atlantis and the Sun are only a few kilometers and not the 148.999.600 kilometers we have been lied to with.
That bit in bold must be the most accurate bit of data I have ever seen for the earth/sun distance.
Stunning science!
There is much more amazing revealings. Venus is only some three-four times larger than ISS
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
And Mercury is even smaller tha ISS - http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
That is really a "science"
-
and culture ever known to man throughout history
Most cultures and religions in history stated the earth was flat. Not that it isn't a logical flaw anyways to make the arguement you are.
-
Levee: Thank you for postsing some content. Quite the interesting read. I'll not be recorderd in history as one of the great thinkers of 2009. I am failing to see how these observations from centuries ago have anything to do with modern observations and evidence stated in the OP. What could any of those guys said that has any bearing on modern science and observations?
-
Most cultures and religions in history stated the earth was flat. Not that it isn't a logical flaw anyways to make the arguement you are.
Agreed. that is far too sweeping a statment to really support what I am trying to say. The only culture i am aware of that thought the earth is flat was dark ages cristsinity. The vast minority thought the earth to be flat. Today there are no cutlures that believe the earth to be flat beyond a few hardcore FES members and a few religeous extremists. How can it be possible for only a tiny tiny tiny portion of the populace be right and everyone else in 2009 is wrong?
-
You are dreaming 3Tesla...I showed our friend Julian that his hypothesis is not correct; being taken by surprise, to see somebody who knows much more than himself on the subject, Julian was not able to say much more;
Actually your attempts at refuting his evidence (for trans-global radio wave propagation) were so feeble, badly thought-out and badly presented that he probably just chose to ignore them as being irrelevant (I know I did).
Edit: inserted by mistake, sorry...levee...
Please read much more carefully, since you have not done so up until now, re: no attractive gravity:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=536.0 and http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=552.0
Sorry to butt in, but how can it be that Levee is editing 3 Tesla's posts?
Please check the message I am quoting and you will see that it is 3 Tesla's but the last edit was made by Levee.
Moderators should show us all the ethics of a moderator. Instead, in this forum most moderators don't even moderate. And now this!
-
Maybe you had idiots in your family...you must truly be stupide to believe in a spherical earth...
Why are you behaving like a fucked-up imbecile then?
Who moderates the moderators?
If I had used this language I would have already gotten at least a reprimand. I think I remember Sokarul was banned for less than this, for a month.
-
I still think it is absolutely hilarious that levee is oblivious to the undeniable fact that Velilkovski's theories and FET are mutually exclusive, and continues to accept both as gospel truth! What more conclusive proof of levee's irrationality can there be than that?
-
The only culture i am aware of that thought the earth is flat was dark ages cristsinity.
Actually, it's been the Church's official position that the Earth is round since the very beginning. They borrowed most of their views on issues such as these from the ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle.
The idea that Columbus opened everybody's eyes to the notion that the Earth is round is pure myth, invented by Washington Irving.
-
The only culture i am aware of that thought the earth is flat was dark ages cristsinity.
Actually, it's been the Church's official position that the Earth is round since the very beginning. They borrowed most of their views on issues such as these from the ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle.
The idea that Columbus opened everybody's eyes to the notion that the Earth is round is pure myth, invented by Washington Irving.
Even long before I read Chritine Garwood's excellent book, I realized that was true, which only shows me that the ancient Greeks and the Church were not wrong about everything. None of that changes the fact that every attempt so far by FE'ers to counter Daniel C.'s and JulianMartin's arguments have only succeeded in further demonstrating the inherent weakness and irrationality of the FET hypothesis and those who cling to it.
Besides, though it may be true that the Church's official position has long been that the earth is spherical, I am not nearly so sure that the majority of the laity in medieval times, especially Illiterate peasants, were aware of or held that view.
-
The True Size/Orbit of the Sun (Sun/Mercury-ISS transits):
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=830.0
Couple days ago you asked to come to you with specific points about "your astrophysics". How about this true size of the Sun? With your pictures you claim that ISS, Venus and Mercury are roughly in same distance from earth, Venus is about four times larger than ISS and Mercury is smaller that ISS
http://lakdiva.org/2004egypt/transit/venus_sun1.jpg
http://adamkapler.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/international-space-station-and-atlantis.jpg
http://www.petealbrecht.com/astrophotos/Sun%20Mercury%20Transit__0002.jpg
Care to explain a little more about "your astrophysics" and how did you measure the sizes and distances? Or I guess I can predict the answer - visual observation of pictures which were taken by other people.
-
Daniel, you should study astrophysics much more...you are just quoting ACCEPTED hypotheses, which have no proof behind them...
Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. To the best of my knowledge, everything that I've quoted, and more, has been experimentally verified. I have quoted no hypothesis. I never knowingly quote a hypothesis. I only quote theory. A theory is a hypothesis that has undergone rigorous experimental verification over a period of time, has explained phenomena that previously gone unexplained, and predicted new phenomena that was later observed. A theory is the highest point that a model can reach in the world of science.
Your comments about my background are bordering on ad hominem. Please don't do that. My background is fairly good, but in any case, it is not the subject of discussion since I never said "I am an astrophysicist, therefore you should just take my word as fact". Thank you.
Faint young sun paradox + Impossibility of a spherical shaped Sun:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29694.msg718434#msg718434
How do you figure that the sun has a much lower pressure than predicted by General Relativity?
The correct Flat Earth Sun theory (not the 32 mile diameter, 3000 miles orbit quoted in the FAQ, which is completely wrong, as is the travelling FE at the speed of light):
If 32 mile diameter / 3000 mile distance is wrong, why is it in the FAQ? First there was disagreement as to why the atmosphere stay sin place, and now there is disagreement as to what the sun is like. It is odd and frustrating that there doesn't seem to be an agreement on exactly what the FE model actually is. Every time the model is shown to conflict with observation someone dreams up of something else. To be taken seriously, the FE group has to get its act together and actually agree on what their model is.
It is not reasonable that the mainstream scientist be asked to disprove multiple, constantly mutating, mutually contradictory models. You have to provide a single consistent model to present as an alternative. Otherwise you have no hope of doing science.
I scanned the first few posts you linked to and I saw no discernable model there. The first three talk about ancient mythology. The fourth is itself a set of links, with another reference to ancient texts. The next one is a collection of youtube videos. I don't see how those videos are supposed to prove anything. The video says it shows the ISS crossing the sun, what's wrong with that? How do you figure that crossing the sun means that the sun is about 1 km behind the ISS? Btw, I thought the FE model said that there are no satellites. Has there been another change in the FE model?
Tell you what. If you summarize your views on the FE sun and how it works, I will try to respond to it. But since you are asking me to keep multiple models in mind in the discussion, I think it is fair that I ask you to clearly and concisely explain your model, rather than have me read multiple forum posts scattered around this site.
The next link (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.0) talks about the big bang theory. Following the numbers on that post, perhaps I can shed some light:
(1) The big bang theory in its present form does not claim to explain the origin of the gas in the universe. This is not a flaw. It just means that we don't have complete knowledge of the universe. What else is new? We would like to one day know the answer to this question, but there are a few things that we need to do before we can even try that (we need to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity before we can probe further into the big bang).
(2) The formation of galaxies is the most natural thing in the world. In a universe that is not 100% isotropic and homogeneous, there will be regions that will have a small, non-zero angular momentum, as well as there are regions slightly denser than the others. As gravity makes the slightly denser regions coalesce, the existent angular momentum causes the rotational speed to accelerate, as dictated by the law of conservation of angular momentum, similar to how a figure skater accelerates her rotation when she pulls her arms inwards. The combination of a gravitational field pointing to the centre of mass, with the centripetal acceleration associated with the angular motion will tend to push matter into a disk shape (this can be easily explained to a first year student that knows the basics of vector addition).
(3) This is not true. The birth of stars is currently being observed. We can see examples of stars at all ages, from a nebula, to early proto-stars, to the youngest stars, and so on.
(4) Explosions are not needed to make stars. The author of this post seems confused. Supernova explosions are responsible for heavy elements, but stars need not have heavy elements, and stars that do contain heavy elements need not be on a one-to-one ratio with supernova explosions (why should they be?).
(5) Present theories on star formation do not require that near-vacuum gas be formed into a ball. The spherical shape of a star comes from the hydrostatic pressures inside the star at a stage that is most definitely not a vacuum. That said, because gravity is spherically symmetrical, it does tend to grab a more or less round blob of gas. But AFAIK this fact is not important for the roundness of a star.
I don't know Philip E. Seiden, but he might be mis-quoted or confused. The homogeneity of the universe is a convenient assumption to make the big bang model mathematically easier. That is all. Mapping of the cosmic microwave background reveals that a moment after the big bang the universe was not actually perfectly homogeneous and isotropic. The deviations are really really tiny, but they are detectable.
(6) This would only be true if the surrounding gas around the supernova was perfectly spherically symmetric, which is obviously not true.
(7) Answer: very slowly. But the material emanating from a supernova will eventually cross a 10 light-year gap, and the gravitational influence of the gas will be felt from very early on. After all, changes in the gravitational field (e.g. after an explosion) propagate at the speed of light.
(8) This is, at best, a misunderstanding of the nature of astrophysics, along with old information. Astronomy is a science that has very large margins of error. In particular, we have large errors in our measurements of distance, which in turn affect our estimates of everything else. The greater the scale, the larger the error. At the level of the entire universe, the margin of error is indeed very large. At the level of local stars, the errors are more modest. Several years ago we had the problem that our best estimates of the age of some nearby stars, and the age of the universe, seemed to indicate that those stars were older than the universe. Because the first measurement has only a modest margin of error, and the latter has a very large margin of error, there was no doubt as to which of the two estimates was wrong. Since then, improvements in telescopes technology have allowed us to more accurately measure distances, and the new results have corrected the age of the universe to something compatible with the age of the oldest stars we can see.
(9) Without trying to either confirm nor deny this, I don't see how this observation is a problem for the big bang theory.
(10) Uhm... no. This is like saying that because all humans are formed the same way, all humans should look the same. According to present theory stars should differ in mass, metallicity (quantity of heavy elements) and age, and that alone will cause a lot of variations.
(11) The order is not so delicate, and I don't know what the poster means by detailed. In any case, gravity will naturally produce the fractal-like organization that this point refers to. Density variations in the universe tend to cause large regions of gas to come closer together. Density variations inside those will in turn coalesce together, and so on and so forth. This leads to the structure of super clusters, clusters, galaxies, and solar systems. This is actually quite straight forward. Unless you believe in a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic universe, slight variations in density should clump together, forming the fractal-like pattern we see. What else would you expect?
[note: here the numbering in the post skips from 11 to 13].
(13) The issues behind the neutrinos is more complex than the author seems to realize. You need to understand some quantum mechanics to be able to talk intelligently about this topic. Furthermore, the commentary on this post is 8 years out of date. I'll try to explain: For many years there was a discrepancy in the number of neutrinos detected on earth (we were indeed detecting too few). The discrepancy was resolved 7 years ago, requiring a correction to the standard model, giving mass to neutrinos (the question of whether neutrinos had mass was one of the big open questions at the time). This allows neutrinos to change flavour, into flavours that are not detected with current instruments. Please google for "solar neutrino problem" to learn more about this subject.
Superstring pipe dream:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=551.msg24650#msg24650
I won't bother with this one. Superstring theory can't really explain anything right now and it does not form part of any of the theories we have been discussing here.
So you see Daniel...you have not studied this subject as you should have...
That is too close to an ad hominem. In any case, what I have seen from the links so far seems to be full of misunderstandings (about neutrinos, gravity, basic physics, the big bang, etc) or irrelevant commentary (who cares about superstrings or about mythology?).
You want more?
I would appreciate a consistent FE model that I can examine and discuss.
-
PS Daniel, you will never see light bending used as an explanation in my messages...
That is nice, but it does re-affirm the issue: What exactly IS the FE model? It looks like every FE poster has a different idea of what the FE model actually is. When I joined this forum, the FAQ gave me the impression that there actually was a generally agreed-upon model that could be discussed. But now it seems like every poster has his own pet hypothesis and at times they seem to struggle to explain what their hypothesis actually says (your earlier post, in particular). It is not reasonable to expect a mainstream scientist to reply to multiple, fuzzy, poorly defined, constantly fluctuating hypotheses.
-
I would appreciate a consistent FE model that I can examine and discuss.
Wouldn't we all.
-
i am going to lock this thread for the moment, as it has degenerated into a trade of petty insults along with some other questionable behaviour.