1

Flat Earth General / Re: Apollo moonbuggy drives through crater

« on: December 18, 2011, 12:04:18 AM »

Skimming through thumbnails of this lunar station, I found this image from the same parking site:

High Res: http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11451HR.jpg

The crater is clearly NOT 3-4 feet deep.
The rover barely went into the crater, definitely far from bottoming out or flipping over.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Distances

« on: December 17, 2011, 01:27:52 PM »

This is still the one you are looking for:


Also, anywhere that the Haversine Formula is accurate, the earth is curved.
So if it is accurate in the northern hemisphere, the northern hemisphere is a hemisphere.
The FE one posted above would be accurate everywhere for any two points on your model of the FE earth. I don't know why you are defending your incorrect formula.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Astronaut with no PLSS on Moon?

« on: December 17, 2011, 01:22:29 PM »

Why would we see it it detail?
The PLSS is behind Schmitt's head.
Look at the shadow, you can see the PLSS shadow on the back.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Distances

« on: December 16, 2011, 06:51:36 PM »

zarg, perhaps you should start a new thread and explain in depth what you mean. This thread is purely theoretical.

Anyways, from what I can tell, Tausami's formula is wrong, and a real one can be found here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51811.msg1279699#msg1279699

Tausami, drawing a picture of your formula would probably be enough to convince you that it doesn't even theoretically work.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Distances

« on: December 16, 2011, 02:42:23 PM »

If were going to reference this thread, we might as well get a better FE distance formula:


r₁ is the first radius (centered at the north pole).
θ₁ is the first longitude.

r₂ is the second radius.
θ₂ is the second longitude.

d is the distance.

Why is that better?

Since it would theoretically work with the given FET, unlike Tausami's.
It is the law of cosines, but with both sides square-rooted.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: Distances

« on: December 16, 2011, 02:10:38 AM »

If were going to reference this thread, we might as well get a better FE distance formula:


r₁ is the first radius (centered at the north pole).
θ₁ is the first longitude.

r₂ is the second radius.
θ₂ is the second longitude.

d is the distance.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: Maps

« on: December 15, 2011, 03:37:41 PM »

Australia is at least as long as Russia, I see.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Somethings that have been bothering me.

« on: December 14, 2011, 05:48:47 PM »

How does a Zetetic support two wildly different model, especially in the same thread? Did you forget the your method results in a single conclusion that can never be wrong or updated?

Fortunately I didn't make a conclusion in that thread, let alone claim it unimpeachable, did I?

Why do you link to an "explanation" (namely, your infamous claim that people on the equator are all primitive cultures that conveniently aren't capable of corroborating your theory one way or the other) which was immediately destroyed in the very next post, after which you became silent on the subject again?

People on the equator simply aren't interested in whether on the day of equinox the sun rises slightly to the left and sets slightly to the right.

You RE'ers keep bringing up things like "oh some one would have noticed," when the subject matter is rather obscure. Not many people study the path or position of the sun, let alone on specific days of the year in specific locations. The topic is day, time, and location specific. Using the "someone would have noticed" excuse is absurd.

Even if someone somewhere did see an astronomical discrepancy, "refraction," is quickly used as an expiation to fit bad observations into a Round Earth model. You guys even have the sun and moon being moved from below the horizon to the sky on some occasions (selenehelion).

Actually, if a star or planet were not where it was supposed to be, amateur astronomers would say something. Again, Nasa can't change the locations of the stars and planets or stop people from observing them. Everytime I've checked the location of a planet or moon or sun, its in the right place.

In fact, make yourself a sundial. Sundials work only on an RE. Of course you wouldn't believe me if I said I ever saw a sundial and checked it against my watch. But it is very easy to do, and they are accurate.

As for the selenehelion, guess what? Refraction. You've seen light bend when it hits water. Well, light bends when it hits the atmosphere, more noticeably at low angles with the horizon.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Gravity, UA, and why they can't get along.

« on: December 14, 2011, 05:36:26 PM »

Well, since change in gravity is not noticeable by modern instruments, the superstring multiplication is clearly making up for variables.

change over time or location?

also, conservation of momentum:
A brick flying through the air does not double its momentum if it splits in two. Nor does a superstring.
You can try to make words sound good together, but science nor zetecism works that. The words have to mean some thing. And what happens when anything splits is that momentum is conserved.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'

« on: December 14, 2011, 05:27:48 PM »

@randall_55 - I am not disputing a decrease in the force we feel from UA as altitude increases. Pizzaplanet has explained this at length and of course it is logical as you move away from the protective sheild of the earth and out into the dark energy stream. I dispute that the force of acceleration changes at random places around the earth's surface.

@The (ironically named) Knowledge. That isn't a rebuttal. That's argumentum ad hominem.

You already admit that acceleration changes with height.

Why don't you admit that acceleration changes with location. Friendly link:
http://www.microglacoste.com/fg5specs.php

Accuracy: 2 µGal (observed agreement between FG5 instruments)
Precision: 15 µGal/sqrt(Hz) at a quiet site [eg. About 1 µGal in 3.75 minutes or 0.1 µGal in 6.25 hours]

This is the type of device used to absolutely measure gravity to 1 part in 10^-8 or better, which is more than sufficient to measure differences in g at different locations. It is used many places in gravimetery. I don't care if you say gravimetery is not related to the earth beneath, thats not the point (not now). The point is that instruments such as this read different accelerations at different locations.

Also, your explanation for change in g with change in height makes no sense.
What are the rules governing UA? Does UA come through the earth or around it?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Higgs particle 'may have been glimpsed'

« on: December 14, 2011, 03:25:55 AM »

Thork, if gravity is magical and not real, please explain to us how tides work and why there are measured variations in gravity/UA based on altitude.

Tides
I dispute that gravity varies around the earth. I have documented this in many threads.

Sorry to disappoint, but gravimeters do not read the same thing everywhere. You can say that acceleration changes do to some weird effect or other, but the instrument still gives different readings for g in different locations. You can't change that.

For example:
http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/8666/1/2(2)_p247-250.pdf

People get different reading on their gravimeters at different locations.

As for tides being caused by pressure? no
yes, pressure does change tides by a little.
but to even change the tides by 2 meters would need a pressure change of ρgΔh = ΔP = 1000*9.8*2 / 100 = 196 millibars between areas of high and low tide bi-daily.
In fact if you look at a classic barometer, the range of pressures is only about a 100 or so millibars:


Usually the needle never comes near those points.


Also, if you have ever looked at a chart of barometric pressure, it typically does not change that much in a day on a daily basis. This means there is different driving force at work, not atmospheric pressure

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Somethings that have been bothering me.

« on: December 14, 2011, 02:58:26 AM »

This distance was recently confirmed by bouncing radar signals off of venus and measuring the time it took for them to return.

Who did this, NASA?

Perhaps you missed the point. You said there was conflicting evidence as the the distance of the sun in RET. There is not.
In FE, light would have to significantly bend to make the sun, stars, and planets appear where they are in the sky all over the earth.
See:

So, I have always been confused by celestial things in FE. One of the problems I have is polaris's angle from the horizon.
I assume that polaris is directly over the north pole in the north pole centric FE model.
I used the following diagram to determine the FE relation between latitude and the angle polaris makes with the horizon:


φ (or Φ) is latitude, and θ is the angle polaris makes with the horizon.
h is the height of polaris, and R is the radius of the earth.

I then plotted θ as a function of φ for various h/R ratios:


Note that I also plotted θ = φ, which is roughly the observed relation between the two variables. (Personally, I have viewed at latitudes 47N and 34N)
No h to R ratio can account for this.

However, this relation comes naturally for the RE model, where Polaris is  about 433 lightyears away, and sends in light pretty much parallel to the axis of earth's rotation:


What does FE make of this?

1) Again, I still challenge you to find a planet, star, or other object in the sky that is not where it is predicted to be by RET.
2) I also challenge you to come up with an FE sun or moon position calculator that is more accurate than the RE one.

^ You would have to do something along one of these lines to have a case for FET. I'm sure you agree that the RET skies and the FET skies would behave very differently. NASA cannot affect where celestial objects are and cannot stop people from observing them. This should make your job exceedingly easy.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Somethings that have been bothering me.

« on: December 13, 2011, 11:57:22 PM »

The distance of the sun, of course, relies heavily on the accuracy of the experiments. If Eratosthenes was wrong in the slightest about the distance between Syene and Alexandria, or about his angles the calculations would be off.

There is also some confusion on how long an Ancient Greek "stadia" is, the unit of measurement Erasthonese uses in his calculations.

From the Wikipedia page on Eratosthenes's calculation of the earth's circumference --

This distance was corroborated by inquiring about the time that it takes to travel from Syene to Alexandria by camel. He rounded the result to a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia. The exact size of the stadion he used is frequently argued. The common Attic stadion was about 185 m, which would imply a circumference of 46,620 km, i.e. 16.3% too large. However, if we assume that Eratosthenes used the "Egyptian stadion" of about 157.5 m, his measurement turns out to be 39,690 km, an error of less than 2%.

Actually, if he were off slightly on distance, the calculations would not be very far off. A ten percent difference in distance is a ten percent difference in height answer.

A ten percent difference in measured angle is about a 9-10% difference in height answer (at 7.1 degrees)

so it is still difficult to get 3000 miles in height from this.

Why does it even matter if Erasthone's calculations are off? As we well know, astronomical figures have varied wildly throughout the years. On the Earth's distance from the Sun, for example, Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.

Indeed it is difficult to measure distance to the sun by parallax since it is so far away. Indeed it is virtually impossible to measure the parallax directly with enough accuracy.

Newton knew the proportions of distance from planet to planet (or sun) in the solar system. To calculate distance to the sun, all we need to do is to measure the parallax of a nearby planet (mars or venus). Although still difficult, it is more manageable than measuring the parallax of the sun. Once this was done, there was a fairly accurate distance. This distance was recently confirmed by bouncing radar signals off of venus and measuring the time it took for them to return.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Somethings that have been bothering me.

« on: December 13, 2011, 04:43:53 PM »

I have done a little of that myself, and the objects are always where the calculators say they are.

I meant natural celestial objects, like planets, stars, and galaxies. The same deal as thousands of amateur astronomers.

Even if you doubt me, amateur astronomers still use star coordinates and use RE to calculate their position in the sky. And it works.

Again, you should find significant counter evidence. That burden is on you.

Yeah, sure, we're all Neil Armstrong.

Neil Armstrong isn't the only one who can measure the angle of a star or planet from north and its angle from the horizon, and then look up where it's supposed to be.

Heres a good place to start:
http://www.astronomyforum.net

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Somethings that have been bothering me.

« on: December 13, 2011, 04:30:24 PM »

I have done a little of that myself, and the objects are always where the calculators say they are.

I meant natural celestial objects, like planets, stars, and galaxies. The same deal as thousands of amateur astronomers.

Even if you doubt me, amateur astronomers still use star coordinates and use RE to calculate their position in the sky. And it works.

Again, you should find significant counter evidence. Find that jupiter or something is not where it is supposed to be in RE. That burden is on you.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Somethings that have been bothering me.

« on: December 13, 2011, 04:19:18 PM »

So why is it OK for you to take Winship's word for it about the sun's elevation and the distance to the equator when you want to demonstrate that the method works but I need to go out and make observations when I want to show that Winship's method is inherently flawed? 

You came in here and made a claim. It's your responsibility to demonstrate that claim with 3rd party logs or studies, not just say "because RET is true it must be true" or "I'm sure it's been studied before."

Picking out posts I made from years ago does nothing to demonstrate your claims, except to try and divert the topic from you being unable to demonstrate that sun calculators are based on anything except a hypothetisis.

Actually, I'm refuting your claim that the celestial objects are a few thousand miles up.  You are the one using a flawed method for calculating that distance.  You are the one that refuses to show that the method that you have referenced on numerous occasions (including in this very thread) yields consistent results at any latitude other than 45 degrees.  You are the one who needs to support your claim.

I didn't make the claim that measurements were made at many different latitudes at that day and time. You seem to be claiming that, however.

You guys keep going on and on about how this stuff has been studied and recorded, as if an army of people are traveling the world and making observations of the position of the sun on certain days and times and building RE calculators with the data. That's not how the calculators were made. There is no reference to the calculators being built on any concerted study of the sun's activities. They're all made on the hypothesis of how the sun should act on an RE.

You can't simply say "someone would have noticed!" as if casual astronomers are assessing the predictions for accuracy, or cares either way why the sun isn't where an internet sun calculator says it is. Even if someone did notice, CNN isn't going to run a news report about a bad prediction on an internet sun calculator.

I have personally corroborated solar calculators many times in my region.

Perhaps you should give evidence that these calculators are incorrect. That would not be very hard if they are wrong.

As for casual astronomers, they ARE (as a collective) assessing predictions of the locations of hundreds or more celestial objects all based on RE predictions every night. I have done a little of that myself, and the objects are always where the calculators say they are.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Gravity, UA, and why they can't get along.

« on: December 13, 2011, 02:46:59 PM »

But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.

The multiplying of the superstrings would account for that too.

So the mass of the earth is perfect to balance their multiplying?

Anyways, superstrings can't just divide and double their mass. Conservation of momentum still holds.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Gravity, UA, and why they can't get along.

« on: December 13, 2011, 02:25:49 PM »

But, even if UA has giving a constant flux in a given inertial frame (same number of particles going through the same area), it will give a decreasing force in the earth's frame, since the earth will be accelerating.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Somethings that have been bothering me.

« on: December 13, 2011, 02:11:44 PM »

So, I have always been confused by celestial things in FE. One of the problems I have is polaris's angle from the horizon.
I assume that polaris is directly over the north pole in the north pole centric FE model.
I used the following diagram to determine the FE relation between latitude and the angle polaris makes with the horizon:


φ (or Φ) is latitude, and θ is the angle polaris makes with the horizon.
h is the height of polaris, and R is the radius of the earth.

I then plotted θ as a function of φ for various h/R ratios:


Note that I also plotted θ = φ, which is roughly the observed relation between the two variables. (Personally, I have viewed at latitudes 47N and 34N)
No h to R ratio can account for this.

However, this relation comes naturally for the RE model, where Polaris is  about 433 lightyears away, and sends in light pretty much parallel to the axis of earth's rotation:


What does FE make of this?

This basically covers why trigonometry indicates not a flat earth. Sure it deals with polaris rather then the sun, but the treatment for the sun would be similar.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why must the FE model be true?

« on: December 09, 2011, 01:07:08 AM »

What observable phenomena does the RE model fail to explain that the FE model explains sufficiently?

Gravitational pull does not decrease with altitude if you take into account local geography and the gravitational pull of the heavens.

What does "taking into account" mean?
Are you subtracting the gravitational pull of the heavens from your readings or leaving them in?

i.e. if you take a sensitive gravimeter and read it at a given height versus a height a meter higher, will it ever read the same or higher magnitude of g than at the lower height?

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can someone address this?

« on: December 06, 2011, 12:43:03 PM »

So you assumed RE to debunk FE?

Also,
Fascinating results. That must have been an accurate experiment.
Assuming you to were on a 3000 km apart (likely ballpark guess), the angle you would need to have measured would be:
(3000 km) / (1AU) to arcseconds = 4 arcseconds.
To have any accuracy (~10%) you would need accuracy of about .0001 degrees (.4 arcseconds or 2*10^-6 radians) in measuring the angle of the sun.

To get such an accurate result, you would each need a telescope with a diameter of at least 20 cm pointed at the sun. (assuming observation at 400 nm, the edge of the visible spectrum.

And that's if earth had no atmosphere. As it is, angular resolution is limited by the atmosphere. You'd be lucky to get 1 arcsecond resolution on a very still day in a good site (on a mountain), likely a lot more since the air is hot and active during the day.

How about you actually do a real experiment?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can someone address this?

« on: December 06, 2011, 11:32:04 AM »

Furthermore, I have worked with a friend in Georgia to determine the ballpark distance of the Sun from Earth using triangulation (http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/AstronNotes/distance.htm). We came up with, taking the curvature of Earth into account, a distance of roughly 160,000 km. We didn't do a formal study or anything, though. If we had precise equipment we'd probably have found it to be 147,000-152,000 km away.

So there. FET debunked.

So you assumed RE to debunk FE?  The sun is roughly 160,000 km away according to you? so half as far away as the moon right?

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Energy of the Sun

« on: December 04, 2011, 01:05:32 PM »

In AWT, it's just fusion.

How do temperatures and pressures come about to create fusion?

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Comment on the alleged conspiracy

« on: December 03, 2011, 07:01:32 PM »

Fine, then how would you propose that NASA landed 12 men on the moon if there is no conspiracy?  Or did the astronauts land somewhere else and they were just too stupid to realize it?

They have simply found a model that is close enough to reality in numbers, but does not accurately represent what is going on really.

What is really going on?
Describe an experiment will discern your FET from RET.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: I thought this theory died 500 years ago?

« on: November 30, 2011, 03:21:41 PM »

I had thought you were responding with evidence, not a high school word problem that is incorrect.  You'll forgive me if I fail to attempt weighing a 10000 lb (why in God's name are they using feet and pounds?) plane on earth and somehow measure the 35 lb difference in the sky (while obviously taking into account its buoyancy, geodesic, etc.)

As far as my experiment, I'm open to any suggestions from the round earth and flat earth communities when I reattempt this.

*sigh* Then why don't you take a 1 pound wight in a plane to 35000 feet and see if you can measure the predicted .0035 pound difference?

BTW, my guess is that they used feet and pounds because those are the units that average people in the US are most comfortable with.

Or I can just bring an accelerometer and measure the pull directly.

*sigh* Yes, I have said that I will repeat my rock city experiments as soon as I get to travel back to Chattanooga and use tools and methods to the satisfaction of anyone here so long as they aren't wrong about the appropriate tools or methods.  In fact I believe I have stated as much directly to you in the past.  And yes, in the past I used sufficient tools to measure any supposed difference.
 

Like a gradiometer?
I recommend an Eotvos torsion balance.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: All the evidence

« on: November 29, 2011, 05:50:05 PM »

Actually, Earth Not a Globe doesn't even say that the sun disappears to perspective like the sinking ship in Chapter 14.

Here is what Earth Not a Globe has to say on the subject:

"The question, "how is it that the earth is not at all times illuminated all over its surface, seeing that the sun is always several hundred miles above it?" may be answered as follows:--

First, if no atmosphere existed, no doubt the light of the sun would diffuse over the whole earth at once, and alternations of light and darkness could not exist.

Secondly, as the earth is covered with an atmosphere of many miles in depth, the density of which gradually increases downwards to the surface, all the rays of light except those which are vertical, as they enter the upper stratum of air are arrested in their course of diffusion, and by refraction bent downwards towards the earth; as this takes place in all directions round the sun--equally where density and other conditions are equal, and vice versā--the effect is a comparatively distinct disc of sun-light."

Including light bends down, the sun still should never set, it will just appear higher in the sky.

Also,

Lovely discussion.

Tom,
If Rowbotham got it right, can you express perspective mathematically, since math is the a language of science?
I don't need infinite precision, just something accurate. So, I would like an equation relating any or all of following variables for a distant object according to Rowbotham's perspective:

H = height of the observer
h = height of the object that is hidden
d = distance to the object
m = magnification of your viewing device (eyes alone = 1).

As long as you includes some of these, if you feel I left out significant variables, add those in as well.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: All the evidence

« on: November 29, 2011, 02:39:58 PM »

Lovely discussion.

Tom,
If Rowbotham got it right, can you express perspective mathematically, since math is the language of science?
I don't need infinite precision, just something accurate. So, I would like an equation relating any or all of following variables for a distant object according to Rowbotham's perspective:

H = height of the observer
h = height of the object that is hidden
d = distance to the object
m = magnification of your viewing device (eyes alone = 1).

As long as you includes some of these, if you feel I left out significant variables, add those in as well.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Could FE Math Prove an RE World?

« on: November 28, 2011, 05:14:35 PM »

I have discussed this with you before and your model doesn't make sense, physically or mathematically.

Your imagination of the model. You have actively avoided learning about it, substituting it with whatever you and your fanclub made up.

Yet, there is nothing supporting the model, theoretically or physically.

Can you come up with an experimental procedure that would give different out comes on your FET and RET?
How can we tell which theory is wrong with an experiment?

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions about the "Cavendish Experiment disprovement"

« on: November 28, 2011, 05:08:44 PM »

How is it outlandish? Do you have evidence to the positive? Proving a negative is generally close to impossible.

Because you have not run the experiment, you do not know if bananas exhibit a gravitational force.

Personally, I have little incentive to run this experiment.

You however, have enormous incentive to run it. If it turns out that bananas do not attract like gravity predicts, that would be significant evidence against gravity that would be easily repeatable. Do it, document the experiment, and then post procedure and results.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Disproof of bendy light - an idiot's guide (FAO Pizza Planet)

« on: November 24, 2011, 01:53:34 AM »

The Knowledge, I think you'll find that angular and linear distances of the stars are very closely related to one another. If one of them changes, then usually so does the other.
That is unless you claim that the velocity at which they move away from the Earth is exactly proportional to the sine of the angle, in which case I await your proof.

If you accept Hubble's Law, then you must reject FET.

Once again (I've already told you this. I'm not sure why you're pretending I didn't) - I'm pointing out a contradiction in this supposed evidence of RET. I am assuming RET as default and applying a simple proof of contradiction. Assuming RET by default does, indeed (shock, horror), imply !FET by default. However, since this is discussion is about an internal contradiction of RET, FET is quite irrelevant.

markjo, why do you derail threads?

First, As far as we know Hubble's law is caused by expansion of the universe, which would increase distances, but preserve angles. (since the distance between us and the stars also increases as well as the distance between them)

Second, Hubble's effect is small, so it is only observable with very distant objects not in the same local structure. Vega and Polaris are in the galaxy.

Continue without this argument.