Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Averti

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Flat Earth General / Re: There is no Round Earth Theory / About the unknown
« on: November 05, 2010, 10:46:44 PM »
Gravity has not been claimed to be definitively caused by subatomic gravitation, nor is that relevant to RET.

Einstein is responsible for theorizing the the bending of space-time. This theory was proven by Sir Eddington.

The universe is not considered infinite, If it were infinite it could not be continuously expanding as It is described by contemporary physics.

You can thank Edwin Hubble for observing and demonstrating the metric expansion of space.

Dark matter/energy is still an active area of research, and has very little to do with the earth's geometry.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ockham's Razor
« on: November 02, 2010, 01:44:33 PM »
You could also just measure it through differential leveling over distances > 500m. Or you could continue ignoring the fact that most of the internet (probably even this site) is reaching most of us users from a satellite based transmission... which we all know isn't possible on a FE, especially since NASA has never put anything in space and is just lying to us. Oh and also orbital dynamics don't work in FET, so either way satellites are SOL... yet we can all still post online... curiouser and curiouser...

Flat Earth Debate / Re: New model for explaining gravity in FET
« on: November 02, 2010, 01:28:52 PM »
Excellent theory, too bad gravity is a force in at least three dimensions and not only two, otherwise this would be a great explanation of a potential flat earth.

I definitely suggest the Plane experiment. Put your dignity where your mouths are and see how fast it takes you to get lost flying straight to the middle of "this isn't where I am supposed to be!?!"

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earthquakes and Seismology Disprove FET
« on: November 02, 2010, 11:22:00 AM »
Which has nothing to do with the argument. In order to demonstrate the spherical nature of the earth via seismic waves all you would need is: three people, three seismographs, and a decent amount of explosives. What you do is;

1) place explosives and seismograph#1 and one person at any continental location on the earth (place the explosives far enough away from the seismograph so that it will not be destroyed by the inevitable blast, and the seismograph on continental bedrock)

2) place one person and seismograph#2 1.5 million meters away in any direction, as long as the destination point is on a continental bedrock.

3) place one person and seismograph#3 3.15 million meters away from the original location in any direction, as long as the destination is on continental bedrock.

4) set off explosives at location 1

5) each of the three people records the activity, or lack of activity identified on each seismograph.

6) congratulations, assuming you didn't blow yourself up, you just proved that the earth is a sphere. Why you might ask? you will, upon the completion of this activity notice that the results are as follows:

location one: both Primary and Secondary waves will be identified by the seismograph.

location two: both Primary and Secondary waves will be identified by the seismograph.

location three: only Primary waves will be identified by the seismograph.

How does this prove a round earth?

Primary waves and secondary waves are both produced by the initial release of energy from the explosion, however secondary waves are incapable of passing through liquid material, while primary waves are able to pass through virtually any material. You can prove this for yourselves by testing this activity at a smaller scale in a solid material and in the middle of a pool of water.

This means that at location#3, which was 3.15 million meters away (the opposite side of the spherical earth), the waves must have passed through liquid material (Ie: the core of the earth) which prevented the secondary waves from reaching that location. However, Secondary waves did reach the location 1.5 million meters from the original location (one quarter of the way around the spherical earth), which means that there was no liquid material between that point and the original location through the earths interior.

Were the earth flat, even with a liquid bottom, or core, or whatever garbage you would prefer to call it, you would identify secondary waves at ANY location on the earth, because they would simply pass above the liquid bottom/core/what ever you want to term it along the plane of the planet. This is not the case, and this simple activity proves just that.

Happy testing gentleman!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How Evolution Proves a Flat Earth
« on: November 02, 2010, 10:49:23 AM »
Not to mention taking the "shortest" path still puts the birds in a position with little or no supply of food, shelter or places to rest. Unless of course your migratory birds have taken a liking to not eating and falling into the ocean from exhaustion...

buy an airplane. Fly it in a straight line directly to any location in the mid latitudes. You will not reach your destination if a straight path is taken. Try it yourself, either get a pilots license or make friends with a pilot, and do it. you will not reach your destination if you take a straight line course because the earth will continue rotating as you fly above it, this will result in your course being shifted to the right in the N. Hemisphere, which will be easily identifiable when you partake in this hands on proof of the Coriolis effect.

Flat Earth General / Re: first time
« on: November 01, 2010, 09:28:04 PM »
Honestly, It's like all of my posts are so full of truth you won't touch them... It's not like being able to post on this forum is directly attributable to advanced space craft orbiting the planet based on RE physics, and successfully transmitting the signals that allow all of our advanced communications. Let's not forget their precursors as well, long range radio systems that were able to transmit much farther than traditional systems by reflecting their signals off of the ionosphere. It's just a layer of charged ion's sitting above the earth that facilitates (and limits) long distance communications of all kinds, oh wait that's only if it had a spherical nature... but it works, so obviously .... nope there really is no other explanation for us being able to argue about this BS all day. If there were no satellites and ionosphere there would be no internet. Both of those require a spherical earth to work, and both DO work (as evidenced by the internet, satellite TV and radio, almost all intercontinental communications, plenty of other fun stuff too.

To deny the spherical earth is to deny the internet....

so please, don't quit your day jobs. 

Flat Earth General / Re: Doing a school presentation
« on: November 01, 2010, 09:16:49 PM »
Just say no to drugs kid, they do bad things to your ability to perceive reality...

Flat Earth General / Re: Truth Vs Truth
« on: November 01, 2010, 09:11:33 PM »
Wallace debunked Rowbotham's claims "on the very spot" .... as in on the very same channel used in Rowbotham's original experiment.

The simple fact of the matter is, any one of you can rent a transit and stadia rod, go outside, and literally prove that the earth is round to yourselves. I highly suggest you all try it.

The procedure is very simple.

1) acquire transit and stadia rod

2) set up transit and Stadia rod less then 100m apart, take a reading of the elevation of a single point of known elevation.

3) keep the stadia rod on the exact same point just measured, set up the transit (at the exact same height) at least 500m away,     (preferably > 1000m)

When measuring the elevation beyond 500m you will begin reading a higher value on the stadia rod, this is due to the curve of the earth. While refraction has an opposite effect on the readings, under most atmospheric conditions it is only about 14% the magnitude of the earth's curvature, leaving the net effect to be a notable increase in the measurement via a transit and stadia rod.

try it yourselves, maybe you will learn something useful.

"moon" rocks have high concentrations of iron and a myriad of other potentially lustrous metals, your assertion of low reflectivity is not necessarily sound, please look into some elementary geology courses.

There are potentially multiple sources of light. As the moon reflects light from the sun that we are able to see on earth, the earth also reflects light that can be seen on the moon. There is also irradiance from multiple other sources, perhaps a revision of optical physics is also in order.

This response is invalid, objects needn't be auto-luminescent to emit radiance.

There have been several notable validations of the moon landings, and of evidence returned from trips to the moon. Perhaps it is best to start at the easily understandable "MythBusters"version first, then work your way up.

Flat Earth General / Re: first time
« on: October 31, 2010, 10:19:32 PM »
Satellites couldn't orbit a flat earth, so Obviously satellite TV, GPS, intercontinental communications (via the ionosphere), the internet, that all doesn't exist (based on the FE model). Of course since we are posting on the internet now, and GPS works with a high degree of accuracy, and we can communicate between continents by reflecting radio waves off the ionoSPHERE, the actual argument posed by FE is invalid. A huge amount of technology we use on a daily basis is entirely dependent on the spherical nature of the Earth, as with the limitations on such technologies.

Flat Earth General / Re: Truth Vs Truth
« on: October 31, 2010, 10:07:21 PM »
Rowbotham was disproved on the very spot he made his ridiculous assertions by Alfred Wallace, the intellectual mentor of Charles Darwin. Rowbotham's flaw was in assuming that curvature of the earth was the only variable affecting the apparent elevation of points along the canal as assessed by his use of a theodolite (transit).In reality there are several that were unaccounted for by his experiment. His work is further disproved by the work of every professional surveyor the world over.

If in fact there were an all encompassing conspiracy, it would undoubtedly have taken down this site, killed every member who sought to elucidate the minds of the public, and destroyed any record of their action. The small price for doing this would save plenty of resources in the long run in damage control from such a coherent and well informed group dispelling their penultimate secret of the earth being flat. In all honesty, groups have been "silenced" for much less then speaking against the single greatest cover up in the history of the world.

You obviously have no understanding of the scientific community. Scientists entire careers are MADE by disproving current scientific understanding, and replacing it with more updated and accurate knowledge. If the world were flat, any number of scientists would make their careers by reporting this through an academic journal, solidifying their place in history and earning a great deal of scholarly clout. Of course that would only happen if the world really was flat, which it has been conclusively proven to not be. Also, many people outside the "tiny fraction" of the population would have to be in on the conspiracy. This includes not only scientists and engineers, but every air traffic controller, professional surveyor, land manager, photogrammetrist, most members of the marine sailing and shipping industry, and many others who by nature of their work have first hand experience with the spherical nature of the Earth.

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Expedition
« on: October 22, 2010, 04:19:31 PM »
yes..... though that is entirely irrelevant to the Earth being a sphere, that's only relevant to my toes staying warm.

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Expedition
« on: October 22, 2010, 03:46:56 PM »
Or you could accept that people live and work there. Antarctica has been heavily explored and entirely mapped, and there are no guards or insurmountable walls of ice, only two ice sheets and cold temperatures.

Flat Earth General / Re: The supposed conspiracy theory makes no sense
« on: October 22, 2010, 01:00:14 PM »
And you have evidence to support this, right?
I find it obvious that the earth is not round, its flat. As for the conspiracy, we will never know their true motives until we infiltrate them or overthrow them

Check out in Q&A Stars... Revisited, or the Stary night explained. a simple view of the stars that Flat Earth theory as of yet cannot explain.

Another big problem can be found in the Map questions - specifically in the classic Jackellelian Time/Distance/Speed functions that are exasperated as one crosses below the equator into the SouthernHemiplane.

Those are simple thought experiments that can be done with relative ease.

Watching CSI - wants to clean the apartment.

I am not a cartographer so I can't assess the map issue, neither am I an astronomer so stars mean nothing to me.

This is why you aren't qualified to make statements of the geometrics of the earth, thanks for discrediting yourself, you make this too easy.... perhaps another go at the university of troll is in order?

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Expedition
« on: October 22, 2010, 12:32:14 PM »
I'm going back to Antarctica in December, I will do my best to bring back pictures. I'll be working between 10 and 50 miles to the south east of McMurdo station identifying the spatial extent and presence of soil moisture in the Antarctic dry valleys. Hate to have to say it again, but the first time I went there were no guards, or impassable ice walls, I doubt there will be any this time either. If you get too butt hurt about it feel free to check out one of my colleagues sites from our previous trip, It's not much in terms of design, but there are some fairly decent pictures from the trip during the summer of 07-08 (for the geographically challenged, the South hemisphere summer, which happens to be at the same time as North hemisphere winter).

As for refraction, please consult any of the links I provided in my earlier post, the extent of refraction is dependent on air temperature, density, and pressure, as well as several other environmental variables. Refraction also is not unlimited, light cannot "bend" around the entire earth, it is only an angular deformation of EM energy that is reaching your eyes. Refraction does allow one to view a ship past the point you would be able to see it (were the earth flat and) as it moves into the distance, but this is also slightly counter acted by the direct curvature of the earth, and the refractive effect, as I said before is not infinite.

If you "know" architects why not TALK to them about this. of course the distance LOOKS flat, the elevation differential is in the millimeters over distances of up to a few hundred meters, however the effect is still significant or construction purposes. As for the calculations feel free to read ANY basic surveying or civil engineering text. Here are some links to half decent sources for you to enjoy:

as for the equation,

"The equation for curvature and refraction commonly presented in textbooks is

(C + R) = 0.574M2

where (C+R) is the difference in elevation between the instrument and target in feet, and M is the horizontal distance between the instrument and the target in miles.

If you examine the root physics that go into this equation, it is clear that the curvature of the earth remains roughly the same throughout the earth, but that refraction varies considerably depending on the temperature, pressure, and humidity of the atmosphere. Chester (1998) shows in his tables below the impact of elevation (atmospheric pressure), keeping the temperature constant and temperature, keeping the pressure constant.
(ft)    Refraction coefficient    Refraction + Curvature coefficient
0    -0.088    0.574
1,000    -0.076    0.587
10,000    -0.065    0.597
15,000    -0.056    0.606

Table 1: Changes in coefficients due to elevation changes (temp. constant at 65F)

Value used in equation above
Temperature ( F)    Refraction coefficient    Refraction + Curvature coefficient
0    -0.080    0.582
30    -0.077    0.585
60    -0.074    0.588
90    -0.071    0.591

Table 2: Changes in coefficients due to temperature changes (elev. constant at 6,000 ft)" from the Geomatics industry of America.

Again, these "experiments" are carried out daily by engineers, surveyors and cartographers. Any time a professional surveys elevation they MUST account for both the curvature of the earth and EM refraction through variably dense air (due to the curvature of the earth placing ones line of sight above air of the same density as that which is at your exact location). Every structure that has been built by even poorly qualified engineers since the 1800's has required surveys which used calculations of both these factors to determine true elevation, and every single day these calculations are being done again and again by professional surveyors the world over. Its not an experiment, it is the base of our entire civilizations built infrastructure. So please tell me, how precision engineered structures could possibly be built and not collapse immediately if they are built using calculations based on a round earth if the earth is actually flat?

I suggest a review of basic Geodesy, please at least form intelligent arguments... It's boring when all you can feed are the trolls who are either too dumb or too lazy to do their homework :/

P.S. Bendy light = refraction, and we as humans generally see it because of..... the spherical nature of the earth.... you guys win at irony.

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the earth or the sky spinning?
« on: October 21, 2010, 11:17:51 PM »
So back to the Earth,

"Bendy light" is a truly ironic and misguided failure of trolling. The problem is.... light does "bend". Unfortunately, the reason light bends at the surface of the earth is due to ..... the fact that the earth is round. The process which such brilliant FE'rs like to call bendy light is nothing more than refraction, a physical result of electromagnetic radiation passing through unique and variable media.  In essence, light bends along the curve of the earth, because the air on the tangent line to any point on the earth becomes less dense the farther along that tangent line you view. The reduction in density is due to the raise in your relative viewing angle, and because of this the radiation you "see" as straight over long distances, actually curves towards the earth.

The proof of this is very simple, and I encourage all FE'rs to try this experiment.

take a transit and stadia rod, and three locations of known elevation, each successively farther away then the last and in a straight line. If you measure the elevation of one of the points at the end of the line at both other points, you will have two different direct readings. The elevation reading from the farther point will be lower than the reading from the closer point (just considering refraction).
But refraction isn't the only phenomenon causing an offset in ones "line of sight". The other factor is the curvature of the earth itself.

Along with Refraction, the curvature of the earth will offset the direct readings in this experiment. However the reading from the farther point will indicate that the elevation is actually greater then the reading from the closer point. If both of these phenomenon were equal in magnitude, they would cancel each other out, however they are not and both are distance and environmentally dependent. These two phenomenon are necessarily required in contemporary surveying and in all engineering and cartographic endeavors, and any professional surveyor, civil engineer or geographer has to calculate the offset caused by each of these factors to derive true elevation.

You FE'rs can certainly argue against this, but since ALL engineering surveys have included these calculations since the early 1800's, it would have to be that were the earth really flat, all of these calculations would be invalid, and no engineered structure would stand. Since the vast majority of large buildings, monuments, bridges and developed infrastructure do NOT simply collapse on themselves, then the current calculations involving the Earths curvature and EM refraction must be true.

Thanks for playing,

better luck next time~

I apologize old chaps, but what data are you referring to? Perhaps I am simply just not as enlightened as such brilliant gentleman such as yourselves, but i don't suppose you were referring to this data?

definitely not, as all this supports a spheroidal earth...

what ever could you be referring to?

My argument relates directly to the OP's thought experiment. I took his experiment and correlated it to a real life phenomenon, which unless you are going to provide objective proof against, stands to disprove any semblance of a possibility of a flat earth as mere psychopathy. The image was a visual aid in showing how the lithosphere acts as a free floating rock membrane above the earths core, in a fashion very similar to the OP's thought experiment. I even provided a means by which a FE proponent or any curious person could test my assertion, and provided a prime location to do so. Stop being sore that you have no means to refute geologic fact.

very different from :

X person direct your post at Y person


criticism is constructive, blah blah respect

or: OP stated project is impossible, there fore the earth is flat

Why? how about this. Provide one useful application of FET. Otherwise refrain from low content spam please.

And yes I realize the vast shortcomings of FET (Flat Earth Trolling), however their reactions to such assertions never cease to amuse me :)

But then again,I suppose all the FE'rs cars run on pixie dust and Bull Sh!t, obviously biogeologic resources are a conspiracy right? Please elucidate my inferior conspiratorial mind, what has FET ever contributed to human kind? The geophysical methods introduced in RET allow us scientists to discover sub surface resources, such as petrol, gas, water, minerals, etc. It also allows us to begin to predict earthquake and volcanic events. Such methods also explain and predict orogenesis and essentially all surficial and subterranean geologic phenomenon.... what has FE contributed?

And to be honest Clock, those predictions aren't difficult in application, but rather very costly. The science isn't the limiting factor, money is.

Unfortunately for you I'm not a theorist, I'm an applied Geoscientist. I respect what can be proved and used to better scientific understanding, not two-bit pseudo-intellectual rubbish. The day a FE proponent can successfully use FET to discover a previously unknown petroleum or subsurface natural resource deposit, I will respectfully acknowledge the possible validity of FE.

Do you ever add anything constructive Mrs. Peach? don't answer that please, it's rhetorical. To be fair this thought experiment is essentially in play at this very moment.

Take for example the lithosphere, the outermost portion of the earth on which we reside. It is at average 10km (felsic) and 2km (mafic) deep, and rests on the asthenosphere. The asthenosphere separates the lithosphere and the core of the earth. It also acts as a plastic, this means that the lithosphere is essentially free floating upon the aesthenosphere. If you don't believe me, or 30 years of Geophysical literature you can go out in the field and examine volcanic and fault systems to better understand the lithospheres motion on the earth. This motion is well documented along all major fault and rift zones, and you could personally go out and measure the motion over a year if you wanted to. A good place for this would be the great Rift valley in Africa.

While obviously the lithosphere is notably different from the OP's thought experiment, it is essentially the same concept.

Flat Earth General / Re: Is the earth flat
« on: July 11, 2010, 07:32:01 PM »
All of your links are counter productive to a flat earth argument.
Professor Mark Fonstad used Geophysical formula specifically modeled on a spheroidal earth.
Rowbothom and Shenton were effortlessly disproved on that very spot by Alfred Wallace, please refrain from retelling history and hoping no one actually knows the truth. I'm not even going to comment on the embarrassment you call your own mathematics, as it has been dispelled numerous times already. Radar can return data from great distances because it is not "seeing" anything, it emits specific wavelengths of energy that are REFLECTED OFF THE EARTHS IONOSPHERE in order to overcome the curvature of the earth. This would not be necessary or possible on a flat earth, as any shortwave radiation would theoretically be able to "see" as you say the other end of the earth. Also the Ionosphere could not form on a flat earth. The sinking ship phenomenon is a result of the optical conditions of the earth as both a spheroid and one shrouded in an atmosphere like ours. As for Occam's Razor, I assume you are trying to tell us that the simplest definition must be the correct one (since that's what Occam postulated). This however is a heuristic tool, not a concrete law or truth, it is not by any means accurate in every instance and increasingly is less employed in the scientific and pseudo-scientific communities. As for the NASA conspiracy I can tell you for a fact that is false, as NASA hasn't been run by NASA for decades. The operational function and management of NASA has been run by the House and Senate for decades, and would be incapable of any conspiracy unless it was both congress and the senate who were the conspirators. I believe I've debunked all of your assertions, please come back with some real and solid argument, this childish rubbish is getting pretty boring :/  

The statement i made was in relation to a STATIONARY particle, which of course is not an appropriate use for inertia, as it applies to objects not particles, however i was generous enough to over look that flaw in the posters argument.  Since I was responding to an assertion about a stationary "thing" there was no need to discuss the nature of inertia in an object in motion.

That is not circular logic, that's me calling you out for not knowing what the heck a measurement tool measures. Please only type things you actually understand. Also of note, an accelerometer is designed on the premise of gravity, and in a context of UA would be rendered useless...

General Relativity (theory) requires the earth be round. If it wasn't then physics would be completely different and GR would not work.
You keep forgetting GR is a THEORY attempting to describe a physical phenomenon. While it successfully does this it is a theory none the less, unlike some hard heads i know *cough* science understands it's own margin of error and that scientific advances will one day be replaced by more accurate theories and understanding.IE: The true and exact machinations of the universe will never be exactly known by man, however contemporary physics is the closest thing we have to that truth.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5