1

Flat Earth General / Re: Weightlessness During Freefall

« on: January 10, 2023, 05:31:21 AM »

Weightlessness is an inaccurate term anyway. Aside from fallacious discussions about gravity (where somehow weight on the moon relates to weight on Earth), a person/object's weight is their mass. You cannot be weightless, you can only be in a state whereupon weight doesn't matter because they are floating.

I'm looking at the guy dropping this water container, and at no point am I seeing weightlessness. What I am seeing is the water falling at a different rate than the bottle.

Stop using inexact terms like weightlessness. Objects have mass.

Mass is mass, but weight is a force. Specifically, the force an object exerts on the ground, or scales, etc.

An object with no force acting on it is therefore weightless as it does not exert an opposite force on anything.

Ignoring air resistance, the falling container and the water it contains are weightless as (in General Relativity) there is no force acting upon them.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How high is the sun?

« on: January 10, 2023, 05:04:53 AM »

Finding the true height of the sun is not easy due to the layer of water in between, but still, accepting a value between 4000-5000 miles as correct will give the least erroneous result. I think you might have started this thread to troll the believers because you are the sleeper cell. No problem. Finding the truth here may be still possible. The rest is not important. I won't respond to citations, most of them are already on the block list. You're not on the block list but it doesn't matter, This answer is sufficient in every way. Objections are not important.

I hope you got the most appropriate answer from all perspectives.

Thank you for your interesting response O Wise One!

The layer of water is obviously important in this question. Do you think it would be possible to determine its thickness or will that remain forever unknown?

By the way, not trolling at all. I deliberately raised this question in Q&A to avoid any debate.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How high is the sun?

« on: January 08, 2023, 07:22:59 AM »

If the sun were 32 miles across and a few thousand miles high the Eratosthenes experiment where you place sticks in the ground at some distance and observe the shadows has the math check out

Also have a read about this dude. The flat earth teaching was enforced

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Glenn_Voliva

Thanks for that link. I love his reasoning - "God would not have placed the light far away" !

So, he put it at no more than 3,000 miles. Any other offers?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / How high is the sun?

« on: January 07, 2023, 01:28:44 PM »

Just curious as to whether there is any kind of consensus among flatists as to the altitude of the sun above the flat earth.

And, if so, how high is it and how has this height been determined?

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dip of the horizon

« on: January 07, 2023, 12:03:39 PM »

What height would the arc be in the middle of a 200 mile long horizon, as seen from planes?

According to YOUR rate of 'curvature', it would be quite a pronounced arc in the middle of that horizon, right?

But the horizon is entirely flat, there is NO arc at all to be seen, in the slightest.

Why is there no arc at all? It WOULD be there, if 'curvature' existed, no?

No, it wouldn't be there. Over water, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions and the same height in all directions. In that sense, it is indeed flat.

When viewing from an increasing height it will at some point become apparent that you are looking at the edge of a circle, but the horizon will still be the same height in all directions. There is no reason why one direction would look different from any other.

This is entirely consistent with a round earth. A flat earth wouldn't have a distinct horizon at all.

6

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: SLS launches in 4 days

« on: November 16, 2022, 07:11:49 AM »

Holy crap. It actually launched and did not blow up!

That was the second most powerful rocket to ever launch and the most powerful rocket to reach orbit.

This record will hold about a month before Starship launches, its WAY more powerful.

I thought it was a bit underwhelming compared to the old Saturn V launches. I'm guessing that's because most of its power comes from the solid rocket boosters, whereas the 5 F-1 engines on the Saturn were what really impressed.

The commentary too was lacking, it didn't convey the same drama that Jack King used to conjure up.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?

« on: November 13, 2022, 12:54:50 PM »

When we fly above Earth, and see a horizon that is over 200 miles across the Earth, it is always perfectly flat, and horizontal from end to end.

If Earth were a ball, we would see it arc up in the middle, using your own argument, and rate of 'curvature' on Earth, which would show an arc of over 50 miles high, in the middle of that horizon, and it WOULD be seen, beyond any doubt.

You cannot have a ball Earth that doesn't curve as a ball, or ever INDICATE any curve at all.

 horizons are perfectly flat and horizontal across the flat surface of Earth, they are not ARCS across the surface of a ball Earth. If you draw a horizon of 200 miles in length, scaled to a paper, with an arc in the middle of it that is about 50 miles higher than at each end of that horizon, this would give you an arc, rising up to 1/4 of it's total length across the Earth.

But the horizon above a ball Earth, 200 miles across, arcing 50 miles up in the middle, would also curve down from you, at the same time, all around your position above it, away from you, downward from your position. So the horizon would arc up 50 miles high in the middle, and curve downward from you, over that 200 miles away from your position, as well.

This is why your side cannot make a model of it. as it would be seen from the ground, and above the ground, until we see it as a ball in 'space'.

What happens is, the horizon will curve, more and more, with more height above that ball Earth. If you try to make the horizon appear 'almost' flat across, it will not form into a ball, without making a radical, sudden curve appear before it is seen completely from a distance.

A 200 mile long horizon WOULD curve, it would arc up 50 miles high in the middle, while each end of it would be 50 miles lower than the mid-point of it.

Mountains and stuff notwithstanding, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions. It forms a circle around the observer. Its distance depends only on the height of the observer.

So, why would the horizon look any different in one direction than in any other direction? Why would it appear at different heights in different directions? That makes no sense.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?

« on: November 01, 2022, 01:47:49 PM »

I'm sure if we convert the sphere to make it flat, the total area for the sphere would be more than the flat disk.
Therefore, less area= less money spent on fuel/energy.
Seems reasonable to me.

You'd have to convert it first.

Yeah, sorry about that bud.
I have to do my homework instead of spending an hour converting sphere and the flat disk.
Maybe one day when I have more time I will do it but not today.

Well... Flat earth 'maps' seem to imply an earth radius equal to the distance between the poles. This is approx. 20,000 km. Calculating from that gives a flat earth area of about 1.26 billion km².

This is considerably larger than the accepted earth surface area of 510 million km². A discrepancy which might have been noticed...

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water always finds level...or does it?

« on: September 08, 2022, 02:10:52 PM »

But have you ever found a ball shaped planet out there with a liquid surface? Of the many thousands of planets our telescopes have looked at, none are confirmed to have liquid surfaces. On the balance of probabilities it would appear that you cant have a ball shaped planet with liquid. That alone is a slam dunk proof that Earth is not a ball shape

Saturn's moon Titan has seas and lakes of liquid methane and ethane: Lakes of Titan

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 03:55:08 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?

The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?

Because there isn't a hump ? Show me the hump.

As explained, the 'hump' is in front of you and all around. The top of the hump is the horizon. Stuff far behind the hump (e.g. ships) can't be seen.

Your lack of engagement with what I've written suggests you're trolling. Good luck.

So why is the horizon pretty much horizontal? I can't see any hump looking to the horizon at all .

Over water, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions. It is therefore the same height in all directions. Hence it is horizontal. This is exactly what would be expected on a round earth.

You have contradicted yourself,  how can the horizon be horizontal if there is a hump?

I've never said there was a hump in the horizon. I've been very consistent in saying that the curvature is along the line of sight, not along the horizon.

Fairly sure you're trolling here. That's a shame, but I won't be replying further.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 03:42:56 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?

The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?

Because there isn't a hump ? Show me the hump.

As explained, the 'hump' is in front of you and all around. The top of the hump is the horizon. Stuff far behind the hump (e.g. ships) can't be seen.

Your lack of engagement with what I've written suggests you're trolling. Good luck.

So why is the horizon pretty much horizontal? I can't see any hump looking to the horizon at all .

Over water, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions. It is therefore the same height in all directions. Hence it is horizontal. This is exactly what would be expected on a round earth.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 03:30:00 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?

The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?

Because there isn't a hump ? Show me the hump.

As explained, the 'hump' is in front of you and all around. The top of the hump is the horizon. Stuff far behind the hump (e.g. ships) can't be seen.

Your lack of engagement with what I've written suggests you're trolling. Good luck.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 03:08:07 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?

The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 02:57:45 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?

The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 02:18:42 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment

« on: August 26, 2019, 02:09:29 AM »

If John's 'experiment' is capable of showing anything it is that roundies are too easily trolled..

17

Flat Earth General / 'Globe Lie' convention UK

« on: August 18, 2019, 02:07:18 AM »

https://feconvention.com/kidderminster/

13-15 September. Is anyone from here planning to go?

I'm thinking about dropping by. Very curious to see some genuine flat-earthists 'in action'. I suspect it may not always be easy to keep a straight face, but we'll see...

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA

« on: July 09, 2019, 12:46:20 AM »

The point is that the accelerometer would show that objects on the ground are being accelerated at approx. 9.8 ms^-2 upwards.

Now you know that’s not quite true as the reading would depend on where you happened to be standing.

That's why I wrote approx.

However what has that got to do with UA on a flat disc. The problem is the two are interwoven and have to be taken together. SR GR, Newtonian physics and any other law of physics you care to mention would not apply on a disc world either finite or infinite.

The Question is what evidence is there for UA on a flat plane.

Fair enough, and apologies. My thought experiment didn't concern a flat plane, but the real world.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA

« on: July 08, 2019, 03:04:14 PM »

It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.

I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.

If you would like to make a point please go ahead.

The point is that the accelerometer would show that objects on the ground are being accelerated at approx. 9.8 ms^-2 upwards.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA

« on: July 08, 2019, 11:37:43 AM »

Yeah, I get what you're saying, the flat earth is effectively a rocket accelerating at 1g. So what do you imagine is under the flat earth accelerating it? Why doesn't the sun and moon fall down? Are they being individually accelerated at exactly the same rate? How is that synchronised rate maintained? Why can't we see what is accelerating them? Are all the stars and planets being accelerated in the same way?

Sorry if I've misled you but, no, I don't go along with the whole UA thing or a flat earth etc. I'm just pointing out that the idea of the ground accelerating upwards isn't so silly, in fact it's mainstream science, allowing for the fact that it needs to be thought of in terms of spacetime and not just space. It's part of what makes gravitation, so planets, stars etc behave in the same way as earth.

If you haven't already, have a look at that second video I posted. It's quite good at explaining this.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA

« on: July 08, 2019, 10:06:15 AM »

If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.

You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.

Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:



Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.

Yes, so why isn't the UA accelerating me at the same rate as the ground below me?

Well, briefly, because it's not really UA that's going on here. Sure, everything on earth is being pushed upwards but that's because the curving of spacetime by the earth's mass means that 'standing still' would mean moving downwards relative to the ground (like the ball and feather in the video). So the physicality of the earth pushes everything out of the way.

A falling object has no force on it so it obeys Newton's 1st law and doesn't accelerate. An object on the ground does experience a force from the ground and accelerates upwards.

Edit: This video is quite a good intro to this stuff:

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA

« on: July 08, 2019, 07:54:57 AM »

If the UA is "universally" accelerating, why isn't it accelerating me? I'm definitely being pulled down to the ground with a force of 1g. If I was being universally accelerated at the same rate as the ground below me, I'd just be hovering next to the ground.

You're not being pulled down to the ground, you're being pushed up by the ground.

Under General Relativity (which is the basis for the UA idea) there's no 'force' of gravity. The ground is forcing you to deviate from your natural position which is to stay where you are:



Pay attention to what Prof. Cox says at around 4:02.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA

« on: July 08, 2019, 07:41:57 AM »

It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

It would depend where you were standing, up a mountain, in a deep mine, at the poles or equator or in Canada where there is a large anomaly due to historic glacial melting.
Where would you like to stand?
As you could be standing anywhere I think this should cover everywhere.

I wasn't really asking for a precise figure. It's the direction that is relevant.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA

« on: July 07, 2019, 03:05:47 PM »

Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.

Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.

It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

Firstly while thought experiments can be useful to help visualise an idea, for it to have any real value the the elements within the thought experiment should be known to the thinker and based on some previous work. What you are suggestion is not a thought experiment, it’s more idle speculation.
Have you been into space? How do you know how an accelerometer would function in space, all you could do is guess, and it’s hardly a practical experiment.
I fail to see how this would throw any light on UA, but then again idle speculation is about all there is as far as flat earth experimentation goes.

It's not idle speculation, it's about measuring the accelerating forces acting on an object on earth. The point about calibrating the accelerometer in empty space is that it should read zero when not accelerating, that's all.

Now, would you care to say what you think such an accelerometer would read on earth?

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA

« on: July 07, 2019, 02:01:36 PM »

Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

I think the idea of this thread was to see if there were any actual experiments that have been carried out in an attempt to give any credence to UA. One can think all you want about an idea but sooner or later you have to back that idea up with some hard science.

Well, you could at least try to answer the thought experiment, you might find it enlightening. You might even find it gives some credence to UA. Aside from the calibration in empty space, it is a practical experiment.

It's said Einstein was very keen on thought experiments. Whether that's true or not, I don't know.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: What's the deal with REers here?

« on: July 07, 2019, 03:25:53 AM »

I've been wondering lately: Why do round-Earthers (REers) come to the Flat-Earth Society? A quote commonly attributed to Einstein (probably incorrectly) says that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. REers come here (which is fine, it's an open forum) where they know they will find FEers, and they present the same old arguments over and over again. I don't think I've ever seen an original or new argument in favor of a RE. And I doubt that any FEer has ever been swayed over to the RE camp by these arguments. So why do they bother? I know why I'm here: To find like-minded people to have friendly chats with. But a REer on these forums must feel awfully frustrated. Why do they subject themselves to this? There must be more enjoyable ways to pass their free time than arguing with us incessantly. And yet they trudge on, never converting anyone, but keep up the same old Arguments day after day; year after year. I don't understand it.

A question that gets asked a fair bit. I suspect most come here because, like me, they were curious as to how these people could think the earth is flat. It turns out, with one or two possible exceptions, that they don't. Most 'FEers' here are role-playing, here for the debate. That's why they're not chatting to themselves in the FE only forum. You could argue that the REers are here for the same reason, i.e. debate. Though I suspect quite a few are fooled by the 'FEers'.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA

« on: July 07, 2019, 03:06:16 AM »

Thought experiment:

Take an accelerometer, calibrated to zero in empty space, i.e. away from any influence of gravity.

Now place this accelerometer on the ground, on earth. Does it show it is being accelerated and if so, by how much and in what direction?

28

Flat Earth General / Flat Earth FC

« on: July 03, 2019, 08:36:14 AM »

Spanish football club renamed Flat Earth FC

It is yet to be seen if this name change will stand the test of time or will gain the club new followers from around the globe.

Only a small club but quite funny nonetheless.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Non-Euclidean Flat Earth (John Davis proposal)

« on: June 10, 2019, 12:40:30 PM »

I'd love to know why I'm mistaken.

Well I haven't followed your reasoning in great detail, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to rely on a geodesic in spacetime translating to a straight line in space (or, similarly, to a geodesic in curved space). This isn't generally the case. Satellites follow elliptical orbits even after allowing for the curvature of space under GR.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Non-Euclidean Flat Earth (John Davis proposal)

« on: June 10, 2019, 03:18:25 AM »

I'll tell you how the satellite is accelerating, John, but first you have to specify the model you are working with, a dome or not, a vacuum, altitude, etc., and type of satellite.

Under General Relativity (which it seems is the basis for John's argument), an orbiting satellite is not accelerating as no force is acting on it. It's following a geodesic in spacetime.

Where John is mistaken is in thinking this implies a flat earth.