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 - Alpha2Omega

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 135
1
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: January 29, 2025, 06:20:08 PM »
Quote
Draw weight is not mass. Weight is force, which is mass times acceleration.

So, your 65-pound-draw bow could accelerate the mass of the arrow for the length of time it takes from release until the bowstring returns to its rest position. This acceleration imparts the velocity the arrow has as it leaves the bowstring. The momentum of the arrow it this velocity times its mass.

This is why your gravity system will never be an adequate system.

As JB notes above, "it works"; gravity explains everyday phenomena quite well. Besides, what does gravity have to do with how hard you have to pull a bow string?

Quote
Having actually used a longbow and crossbow, yes draw weight is actually mass. The metal, fibers, or wood, are being pulled in tension toward your body.  This is actual matter being moved.

Of course there's matter involved. So what? You're still confusing the force needed to bend the bow (65 pounds) with the mass of the bow. They're unrelated. The energy used to deform the bow (force times distance) is stored as elastic potential energy until it's released.

Quote
But because you think mass only is pulled down, you just ignore it. 

Mass is pulled toward the center of the earth ("down") by gravity. You can apply forces in other directions if you want to cause the mass to move in other directions. Who ever said otherwise?

Quote
Nevermind that when I was first assembling a crossbow, the thing felt firm enough to rip my arm off its socket as I tried to pull it in place. It was only when I got used to the draw weight that it was manageable to load.

OK. So what? Since you never mentioned how difficult it was to pick the thing up, so it's obvious that it weighs considerably less than 65 pounds. Its weight is equals its mass times the acceleration of gravity, and the latter doesn't change by much anywhere on or near the surface of the earth so the mass must not produce a weight of 65 pounds. How hard you have to pull the string (so-called "draw weight") is dependent on the bow's elastic characteristics, which are independent of its mass.

2
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: January 28, 2025, 12:27:31 PM »
Quote
Dimensions of FG:
mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / mass2 × mass2 / distance2
 = mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / distance2 × mass2 / mass2
 = mass × distance / time2

I mentioned how this equation is largely tautological. This is what I mean. All the extra crap is canceled out to leave this "constant" equation... which turns out to mean nothing. You could add Jupiter's alleged mass into the mass 2 and it basically gets swallowed up by the rest of the equation, resulting in a fairly fixed fall rate based on mass, distance, and time.

No, the dimensions mass (unit: kg) and distance (unit: meter) divide out the units used to specify G in your example, leaving force as the result; the magnitudes of m1, m2, and r, however, still very much factor into the calculation.

So if you ran the calculation using the mass of Jupiter (~2 × 1027 kg) for m1 in one case and the mass of a flea for m1 (~1 mg = ~1 × 10-6 kg) in another, the calculated FG would be vastly different if m2 and r are the same in both calculations, and both are finite and not zero. Try it. But what's 33 orders of magnitude between friends, right?

For instance, if you want to know how much more massive one item is compared to another, it works like this:

m1 = 36.6 kg
m2 = 12.2 kg

How does the mass m1 compare to m2?

m1 / m2 = 36.6 kg / 12.2 kg
 = (36.6 / 12.2) (kg / kg)
 = 3 (kg / kg)
 = 3

m1 is 3 times as massive as m2.

Change the value of m1 to 48.8 kg and the ratio changes to 4.

As you can (or should be able to) see, the resulting ratios are unitless, which is to say, dimensionless, but the actual values for the masses still determine the ratio. You really need to learn how this works before attempting to argue about it.

Quote
On the other hand, you can rather quickly find out that surface can be adjusted to slow the fall or stop it or reverse it. Almost like buoyancy is a stronger force than gravity... almost like... and before I say it, your defense mechanism sets in.

Buoyancy is affected by density (mass / volume) of the fluid medium and an object in it not the shape of the surface. Shape of the surface does affect drag, though.

Quote
Quote
If you tried to launch the arrow with enough energy (force times distance) to travel 20 feet before its momentum was overcome by drag (a force in the opposite direction of momentum), but it traveled 50 feet instead, you applied more energy than you thought, or the arrow is "slicker" (has less drag) than you thought, or both.

So now you're pretending momentum doesn't exist, even though we have a formula for it, and unlike gravity, it doesn't tear out the meat of itself. It is a clear value.

No, momentum obviously exists, there's just nothing about momentum in the formula we're discussing.

You can plug values into the FG formula, you calculate a resulting clear value, and the dimensions resolve to force, as they have to. Use a different value for m1, m2, or r and you'll get a different resulting force.

Quote
By the way, an arrow from a 65 lb draw weight bow can travel up to 514 yards. What accounts for this distance? The mass of the bow (its draw weight), and the velocity at which it is fired. A modern longbow tends toward 200 yards tho, because most archers don't fire weapons with such a heavy draw weight.

Draw weight is not mass. Weight is force, which is mass times acceleration.

So, your 65-pound-draw bow could accelerate the mass of the arrow for the length of time it takes from release until the bowstring returns to its rest position. This acceleration imparts the velocity the arrow has as it leaves the bowstring. The momentum of the arrow it this velocity times its mass.

The actual mass of the bow makes no difference. None. The mass of the arrow does.

Quote
Hmm! Mass and velocity result in a further distance. Why does that sound familiar...?

Higher velocity results in further distance before the arrow has time to drop to the ground. That does sound familiar. An arrow with greater mass will leave the bow at a lower velocity than an arrow with less mass because it's accelerated more slowly by the string. The more massive arrow may lose velocity more slowly than a less-massive arrow because of aerodynamic drag, but that is not a simple calculation.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: WHY would the government trick us?
« on: January 27, 2025, 12:27:02 PM »
Quote
Momentum is not not a force.

...

Why is momentum not a force?

Because it's not.

Forces cause mass to accelerate. Does momentum cause mass to accelerate? No. It is constant if velocity and mass are constant. Velocity of a constant mass remains constant if there are no forces applied to it. Therefore momentum is not a force.

Dimensions of force:
mass × acceleration = mass × distance / time2

Dimensions of momentum:
mass × velocity = mass × distance / time

Distance is a vector quantity... it has magnitude and direction, so both force and momentum (and velocity and acceleration) are vectors.

They have different dimensions; they are different things.

Quote
When I launch an arrow with enough force to move 20 ft, but it instead goes an extra 30 ft

What did you expect to happen after 20 feet? What finally happened after the next 30?

If you tried to launch the arrow with enough energy (force times distance) to travel 20 feet before its momentum was overcome by drag (a force in the opposite direction of momentum), but it traveled 50 feet instead, you applied more energy than you thought, or the arrow is "slicker" (has less drag) than you thought, or both.

Quote
... that's an "impulse"? No, that's the force of momentum driving it forward.

Until what happens? The arrow stopped moving forward because of atmospheric drag? Remember, drag is a force in the opposite direction of a mass' momentum. Or it flew as long as it could while gravity accelerated it in the direction of the ground and it hit the ground? Apparently you launched it faster than you thought (more acceleration from the force of the string, or accelerating for longer, or both) so it flew further in the time it had until it hit the ground.

Quote
But even if momentum weren't a force:


Definition of a Newton (a quantity of force): 1 kg × 1 meter / (1 second)2
Dimensions: mass × distance / time2

Definition of G, above: 6.67 × 10-11 Newton × 1 meter2 / (1 kg)2
Dimensions: mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / mass2

Dimensions of FG:
mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / mass2 × mass2 / distance2
 = mass × distance / time2 × distance2 / distance2 × mass2 / mass2
 = mass × distance / time2

In other words, FG is force. I don't see a thing about momentum in the above.

Quote
Is mass a force?

No.

Quote
What about distance?

No.

Quote
You see, you demand that forces (which buoyancy is, and needs no other forces to govern it) depend on forces or somehow they are no good. Where is the force that gravity needs to push little birds and jumbo jets down?

Buoyancy is a force. It acts in the opposite direction as gravity, so there's that.

The force of gravity on little birds and jumbo jets is opposed by the force of lift provided by the little birds' and jumbo jets' wings. The energy necessary to produce that lift comes from metabolizing food and burning jet fuel, respectively. Jet engines can convert fuel to kinetic energy much more rapidly (i.e. produce more power) than real-life birds can convert food to kinetic energy. That's why jet aircraft can be much, much heavier than any bird and still fly.

Quote
Oh right. Because gravity is "fundamental" it needs no other forces. But if it were so fundamental, how come non-forces like momentum, propulsion, or aerodynamics can basically scoff in its face? I was 30,000 ft above the ground in a full plane that itself weighed tons.

So now you're saying that momentum is not a force? Good.

Propulsion is a force.

Aerodynamics can produce forces (drag and lift).

The lift (a force) produced by aircraft wings exceed the weight (force) of the loaded aircraft while it gains altitude, balances its weight when it maintains altitude, and is less than its weight when descending.

Seriously...

Before you try to argue against the basics of what you think physics says, it would behoove you to know at least the basics of what physics actually says. The level of understanding you lack should be expected from any competently-taught high school physics student. If you're not yet finished with high school, sign up for physics. If you're not still in school, can you enroll in a beginning physics class at a local community college? Doing so will help you understand what all these terms mean and how they relate to each other.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: The Final Experiment - Antarctic 24 hour sun
« on: December 28, 2024, 11:29:51 AM »


So, let's ask a question of logic to this video. If the video premise is wrong (that they didn't fake it), then we should be able to confirm it very easily by asking a simple question.  So I'm watching the video at the 17 minute mark, and this question popped into my head:
https://www.climatestotravel.com/temperatures/antarctica
The warmest month in Antarctica is January, with a temperature of 23F (-5C). Where are his gloves and hat?

He is wearing a light coat, no cold air is coming from his mouth, he doesn't seem to fear frostbite.  In Virginia, when it gets to 23F, especially if there is wind, I'm gonna start putting on gloves as the air itself is cold, and I'll need a second coat. And I'll need a hat because most body heat is lost from the head. He makes dramatic exhalation sounds, but no moisture shows up.

How about when it's sunny and there's no wind?

Besides, that 23° F [in reality closer to 25° F (-4° C) according to the graph, but whatever] is an average temperature - it even says so in the chart heading. You do realize that measurements (daily high temperatures in this case) will be below average some times during the month and above average other times, don't you?

I worked on a research project in Antarctica in the 1970s, living there from late October to late January. Two months of that time was at a field station at about 84° S latitude. During our time in the field, we would report our weather conditions daily; temperatures during that time ranged from a low (rarely) of about -20° F (-29° C) to above freezing on occasion.

One of our weekly tasks was pumping diesel fuel from 55-gallon drums to our diesel generator's fuel tank and to the fuel tank for our Jamesway hut's kerosene heater. Another more or less regular task was moving snow accumulation if is was encroaching on our infrastructure. The times it was sunny and calm, pretty much regardless of the temperature, we'd be doing this wearing nothing but skivvies (undershorts) and flip-flops or, for foot protection when moving heavy things like fuel drums, boots. If the wind picked up while we were working outside wearing almost nothing we'd immediately head back inside and put on more clothing, and jackets if necessary - it didn't take much wind, either.

On calm, clear days, we'd sometimes open the Jamesway's windows to keep its interior comfortable. Between the dark-colored fabric on the outside and the heater's pilot flame, it was comfortably warm inside most of the time - even with overcast, the pilot alone was often sufficient added heat. Once the wind picked up when it was overcast, however, the furnace flame was turned on.

Quote
He makes excuses about the air being dry for why we don't see his breath. Sorry, that doesn't fly. That's moisture inside the body, not in the air.

Nope. You're wrong. Whether or not you believe air humidity affects visible condensation from breath is irrelevant. You don't even know the temperature, only monthly averages.

Nature doesn't give a damn what you want to believe.

Quote
And he had to "go get his gloves"? In cold weather, your gloves are in your coat pocket, not somewhere that you'd need to head over to fetch them to pick up snow, <gratuitous snark>.

For everyone in all situations and all conditions besides being cold? Even those times when a light jacket is sufficient?

You know this, how?

Quote
So what's your next experiment?

Why do you ask? You'll simply blow it off anyway.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense
« on: September 06, 2024, 01:04:34 PM »
Because Chicago will always be in the summer. (Or is it winter? Who cares!)

Why do you think that?



This is the correct RE model for seasons. Not that RE is correct. Let's explain with a slashed tire.

<Illustrations and garbled commentary>

Do you get it yet?

Yes, I get it. You're confused.

There is a fundamental flaw with the idea that simply shining light on the back end of a downward slant will cause an upward slant. What will really happen is this.


Inverted night and day. NOT seasons. This is why I congratulate you for screwing up an almost good model.

The problem with that image is that the earth doesn't make a full rotation in 24 hours. It makes a full rotation in (approximately) 23h56m04s - one sidereal day - that's 3m56s (236 seconds) less than exactly 24 hours. After almost 183 solar days (half a year), the 236 seconds per day accumulate to half a sidereal day; this means that the distant stars that were high in the June sky at midnight are high in the December sky at noon, and vice-versa. The earth itself is facing opposite directions at noon six months apart, but faces the sun both times since it's gone halfway around the sun. So, yes, what were nighttime stars are daytime stars half a year later ("day would be night and night would be day" for the distant stars). There is no problem with the heliocentric, rotating spherical-earth model.

6
Most of the topics we discuss aren't part of the science curriculum for even Astronomy and Earth Science doctoral students. They don't like teaching about the problems of the model.

No. For instance, "dark matter", "dark energy", and alternatives to explain unexpected rotation rates of galaxies and acceleration in the rate of expansion of the universe are very active and well-known topics of research in physics and astronomy today. Like the earlier issue of the hitherto unexplained precession of Mercury's orbit that was solved when the relativistic nature of gravity was discovered, these "problems with the model" could lead to breakthroughs in our understanding of the universe.

What "problems with the model" do you think are given short shrift in geosciences that could be better explained by earth being flat instead of spheroidal?

For example, except for a niche class of astrophysics researchers, few PhDs barely know what the Three Body Problem even is.

No, again. Solving two-body orbits is a staple of undergraduate classical mechanics courses. The difficulties of the three-body problem were introduced at the same time when I was an undergrad (decades ago), with the claim by my professor that anyone who could find a complete solution to the three-body problem would become famous. More recently, whether it's impossible or not, the search for a complete solution is less urgent because the availability of inexpensive computing power has made accurate numerical solutions to the N-body problem much more practical than back then. It's still well-known amongst physics students, and I suspect every candidate for an degree in astronomy (and physics) would have taken classical mechanics before graduating.

When students do find and show an interest in it, they are often discouraged from looking into it as a thesis topic and are told that it is an impossible problem that will hurt their career to be associated with or to try to contribute to. They are also told the same when they show an interest in problems with Relativity.

At this point, any search for a solution to the N-body problem (for N >= 3) would more likely be appropriate for realm of mathematics than  physics (and astronomy). If it has been proven mathematically to be impossible, then a new type of math would be necessary (kind of like the development of Calculus), and would be an inappropriate subject for a physics dissertation (What would the title be? "Another Failed effort to Solve the 3-Body Problem").

Why do you think the lack of an analytical solution for this is "a problem with the model" anyway?

7
Our psychiatrists, to make a long story short, recommended that those people seek psychological help.

According to our psychiatrists, who went through thousands of posts here on the board, mental illness is a leading factor in this entire 'Flath Earth' issue.

Well, duh! "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." - Abraham Maslow [Maslow's Hammer]  ;)

And, yes, in more than 10 years following this site, I found that a lot of things I only cursorily understood, I now understand much better after studying them in detail to explain why certain things happen in the real world and why they appear the way they do; for example, the shape of the analemma. The best way to learn is to teach, or at least, to try to coherently explain to others.

I've always thought that the assertion that "sunlight warms, moonlight cools" that comes up from time to time here would be a great hypothesis to test with a controlled experiment for a middle school or high school science project. If anyone asks for a suggestion...

8
Flat Earth General / Re: expand the conspiracy?
« on: August 20, 2024, 01:55:56 PM »
The heliocentric model, which represents the sun god Helios, is a representation of sun worship rooted in ancient pagan beliefs.

The heliocentric model has nothing to do with any gods.

In fact, the heliocentric model actually has earth and everything in the solar system - including the sun - orbiting around the barycenter of the solar system.

Since the sun contains about 99.8% of the mass of the entire solar system, the barycenter of the solar system is never very far from the center of mass of the sun itself - it's almost always within one solar radius of the center of mass of the sun (meaning it's within the sun most of the time and never strays very far outside the sun's photosphere, or for very long, when it is occasionally outside the photosphere). Maybe you can call "barycentric" instead of "heliocentric" if it makes you feel any better.

By placing the sun at the center, it reinforces its supremacy and embeds this concept in the collective subconscious. 

The sun contains almost all of the mass in the solar system. That's why it's near the center.

How this is perceived and interpreted by humans, subconsciously or not, makes no difference to the universe.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat earth instruction manual.
« on: August 20, 2024, 11:12:43 AM »
Earth rotates with 1600 km/h

Earth rotates 1/1436 rpm. That's half the rotation rate of the hour hand of common analog clocks. Those hour hands really "whirl" around the clock face, don't they?  ::)

The lateral velocity due to earth's rotation doesn't matter at all as far as most all human activities are concerned. It does help when launching material into orbit by providing tangential velocity for free when launching eastward, which is one of the reasons why launch sites preferentially tend to be as close to the equator as practical.

Earth revolves around a giant sun with 108'000 km/h

And makes it about 1/365 of the way around it every day.

Earth andvances in this Sun-god modeled system at over 800'00 km/h

"Sun-god model"?

What does this statement even mean? Are you referring to the solar system's speed, about 828,000 km/h, around the center of our galaxy? If so, so what? Our speed relative to nearby stars, which move with approximately the same velocity (speed and direction) as we do, is much lower, and everything visible outside our solar system is so far away that detecting proper motion due to these relative speeds requires very precise measurement.

And this sun-centered system supposedly races through a supposed universe at more than 2,000,000 km/h.

I guess you mean the speed of our galaxy relative to the CMB. Again, so what?

Do you really believe in this? Honestly?

Yes. Absolutely.

10
Well?

No one with an answer to the question?


If all of what the user wise claims is true, surely all the information I ask about is out there, right?

If.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth is a comet.
« on: June 22, 2024, 07:55:09 PM »
Here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit on the bi-polar map:
https://pin.it/4UWd9MzoM

Three quarters of earth's area is lit by two half-suns? What does this map look like 12 hours later?

You just didn't read what I wrote.
The text explains that daylight is not exactly sunlight.
Ignore the suns shown in the illustration.

Oh. So you meant "here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit on the bi-polar map, but ignore parts of it."

Okay.

Three quarters of earth's area is in daylight? What does this map look like 12 hours later?

12
Flat Earth General / Re: The Earth is a comet.
« on: June 22, 2024, 10:53:53 AM »
Here is an illustration of how the Earth is lit on the bi-polar map:
https://pin.it/4UWd9MzoM

Three quarters of earth's area is lit by two half-suns? What does this map look like 12 hours later?

13
Flat Earth General / Re: Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense
« on: June 20, 2024, 12:29:03 PM »
So today, I was looking (not directly) at the sun, and something occurred to me. Well, let's give some context.

I live in a small town, and we have a farm, along with our neighbor. Our neighbor is getting older, and his wife died recently, so we decided to help him out. My folks are away, and I have an alarm to keep me on task, but usually it's closer to 10ish by the time I get done with his field.
It's very nice of your family to help your neighbor. Kudos!

The situation described is: northern hemisphere, within a day of the summer solstice.

"So, today..."

Your post is timestamped 2024-06-19, 19:02:39 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are, but the time you posted was 19:02 UTC = 15:02 US EDT = ~3PM EDT, ~2 PM CDT, ~1 PM MDT, and ~Noon PDT.

The following assumes you are located near the geographic center of CONUS (CONtinental US, a.k.a. "the lower 48 states"), 39° 50' N, 103° 35' W, which is in the US Central Daylight time zone.

At 10 AM CDT (UTC 15h) on the 19th the sun's:
  • declination 23° 26'
  • azimuth +93° 07'
  • elevation angle +42° 01'
  • rise time 6:08 AM @ az 58° 24' (~31.5° N of due E)
  • set time 9:03 PM @ az 301° 26' (~31.5° N of due W)
At local solar noon (transit time = sun crosses meridian = sun due south), 1:36 PM CDT:
  • declination 23° 26'
  • azimuth +180° 00'
  • elevation angle +73° 36' [this is sun's dec + 90° - observer's lat]
[angles and times per Stellarium, rounded to the nearest minute of angle and time]

Quote
Since we live in the northern hemisphere, in a sphere, my perspective should look something like this.
<image> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1253057245604745247/RoundEarthView.png?ex=66747800&is=66732680&hm=e3cc972785ba6ac260dd8090e51c8bab6437b849776a89e0dbbbb1f97ffdd499&
That is, at about 6 or 7 am, I should see the sun rise, by 9 or 10 am, it should be about 45 degrees, at noon(ish), it should be overhead, then 45 degrees at 3 or 4 pm, and set by about 7 or 8.

I'm not sure what that illustration is supposed to show, but the specifics for the location specified are sunrise about 6 AM civil time (CDT), about 42° above the horizon at 10 AM, about 73 1/2° at about 1:30 PM, 42° again a bit after 5 PM, and sets right around 9 PM. You adjust civil time for its actual longitude (8° 35' west of the nominal meridian of the time zone: 90° W) by subtracting 0.57h (that's 8° 35' / 15°/h) = 34 1/3 minutes, and subtract the added hour for daylight time, the difference is 1.57h = 1h34 min and some seconds; subtract this to get true local time. That puts local (as opposed to civil) sunrise time at 4:34 AM, solar noon at 12:01 PM, and sunset at 7:29 PM on Jun 19. There's a little slop in there, mostly from the equation of time (1 1/2 min at this time of year) and rounding error (1/3 min).

Quote
Then there is also supposed to be tilt for the seasons. 

Which causes the declination of the sun to change. The biggest visible effects of this are rise and set times and directions (azimuths) changing, and the altitude at transit to change. This also contributes to the equation of time, causing the length of the apparent solar day to change slightly, which means a few minutes of shift in sunrise, transit, and sunset times over the year. Near the solstices, these changes are not large day to day.

Quote
But that isn't really what you see. 

So I was in an open field until some trees maybe about 70 ft away. And I tried to look for the sun, and I was finding that I was craning my neck without results.  It had to be easily 75+ degrees up, and I couldn't see it while standing upright. So anyway, I stopped watering, coiled the hose, and looked up through the trees and to my surprise, I could see the sun without craning my neck.

I want you to think about this. An object moving closer overhead should be at a higher angle, but it was at a lower angle.

Then not much later, I went in on the patio, and it was even easier to see the sun.
<image> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1253061848585207930/FlatEarthView.png?ex=66747c49&is=66732ac9&hm=30c2444175d439bf260ee246b54dfc5ca7dd3f8b63237890c432fcdb99b0271c&

See, the thing with the RE experts here, is that they tell me over and over again what should be.

But I know what I saw.

At least you think you know. The sun won't have changed very much in declination over the next couple of weeks. Can you measure some actual elevation angles at accurate times? Your descriptions are waaay too vague to mean much.

That sketch is also too crude to mean anything.

Do note that the position of the sun as predicted by Stellarium are quite accurate. I relied extensively on its predictions when planning for the solar eclipse a couple of months ago. For weeks and weeks it accurately predicted the angles to the sun all morning and well into the afternoon; its predicted positions and times were utterly reliable as measured by my automated telescope mount, which can report the position it's pointing toward every second.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Free thinking! More like non thinking.
« on: June 04, 2024, 10:18:47 AM »
So besides not understanding how that map works or how high continents are, etc, did you ever find that working flat map you mentioned earlier?

This one?
I introduced the correct FE map to the FES a long time ago. The RE tried everything with it, I was able to explain each and every distance involved.

I'd like to see that, too!

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that he's referring to the "bipolar" azimuthal equidistant projection centered on the prime meridian and equator; I recall that he favored that particular "flat earth map" and claims to have invented it. Of course it has the same problems - increasingly horrendous distortion as you get closer to the edge - as other world maps using azimuthal projection, but this one shifts the worst distortion to the date line (180° meridian) and equator, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

The bipolar map is my map: I introduced this map here ten years ago, the only one that works.

If it's a different map (and actually exists) let's see if it really matches your claim, sandokhan!

What have you got?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GPS disproves flat earth
« on: May 28, 2024, 08:03:17 PM »
You're whole reality is based on zionist Einstein's relativity theory.
Freemasons with a logo that litterally show's a flat earth, (also said by themselves) what exists for over 300 years already.
First man in space (Piccard) was crazy & builded a balloon & get 11 km's up in the sky..
He came back 12 hours later.. almost frozen to death & said the earth was flat like a disk with a ice wall.
This was in 1932..
He's not in the history books.. you ever heard of this man in your reality?
He became a freemason the years after..
He sweared by Einstein's relativity theory the interviews after & after ..
How u sow sure it's right .. hmm?
GPS, smart TV's, Cars, Movies,... they own EVERYTHING honey..

                               ----------

A: "If you can't prove life.. than how can u prove a global earth?"
A: "By the people you met in your life & telling u this? .. or even showing you?"

B: "But how would you prove a flat earth?"

A: "Beacause i can see it"

Welcome to The Flat Earth Society Forums, omerzuwaga. You'll fit right in.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Free thinking! More like non thinking.
« on: May 28, 2024, 02:51:16 PM »
You are wasting everyone's time here as well...

If you think so, then don't reply.

Basically, the Earth has two crusts: the mostly basalt lower crust or the oceanic crust which is two to four miles deeper down than the higher upper continental crust.

The second upper crust (the continental crust) is made up mostly of granitic rock.

That's a very confused description. Can you try again in a language other than gibberish?

Didn't you assert later in this very post that the "basalt lower crust" doesn't exist?

Oceanic crust - 3 to 3.3 times heavier than water. Continental crust - 2.5 times heavier than water.

The word you're looking for is denser. It's possible to deduce what you mean from context, but that's sloppy writing.

In the post starting this discussion you said of continental crust: "The mean weight [sic] of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water." Now you say it's 2.5 times, or is that a typo?

But, yes, oceanic crust is denser than continental crust. Thanks for acknowledging that. Now, why do you completely ignore it in your ridiculous claim that continents should unbalance the earth's crust because continental crust is denser than seawater?

Then, the continents would crash like bumper cars at a carnival.

This is the standard theory. Now, the problems.

Where did the granite come from? No one can explain. But we have the Polonium-218 halos problem.

<Several links to creationist websites>

You rely on YECs for geologic information? Seriously? LOL! No wonder you think so many things can't be explained and get so many things wrong.

Quote
Anyone who paid attention in a High School or later intro geology course would know that the oceans are underlain by oceanic crust that's denser than continental crust.

Scientists smarter than your high school geology teacher have figured out the basalt layer is just a myth. [Citation needed]

Yeah, there it is! Isn't this counter to what your earlier garbled description is trying to say? It's hard to tell for sure.

BTW, I studied geophysics through college and have a master's degree in it. I first learned about oceanic crust before that.

<Rambles about a couple of deep boreholes in continental crust.>

So what? Why are you getting into the weeds with stuff you cut'n'pasted about about the structure of continental crust, and what relevance does it have to the blunder where you compared density of continental crust with density of seawater and reached a preposterous conclusion (twice!) because you ignored the existence of oceanic crust (both times)? Trying to distract attention from your rookie error?

The oceanic crust is commonly divided into three main layers: layer 1 consists of ocean-floor sediments and averages 0.5 km in thickness; layer 2 consists largely of basalt and is 1.0 to 2.5 km thick; and layer 3 is assumed to consist of gabbro and is about 5 km thick. A drillhole in the eastern Pacific Ocean has been reoccupied four times in a 12-year span, and has now reached a total depth of 2000 m below the seafloor. Seismic evidence suggested that the boundary between layers 2 and 3 would be found at a depth of about 1700 m, but the drill went well past that depth without finding the contact between the dikes of layer 2 and the expected gabbro of layer 3. Either the seismic interpretation or the model of layer 3's composition must be wrong.

It's good to see you acknowledge the existence of oceanic crust! And, yes... geology is hard!

Quote
You again insist by this line of "reasoning" that you're still ignoring your ignorant blunder. Your whole premise that areas with continental crust weigh more than areas underlain by oceanic crust (because continental crust is denser than seawater, while completely ignoring oceanic crust) is meaningless.

You are as stupid as basalt rock.

LOL!

That is not my premise.

Hmmm...
Here is YOUR map:

<https://gknxt.com/world_map/interactive_map_of_the_world/Interactive_World_Map.webp>

Now, put your thinking cap on.

The distribution of the continents is possible only for FET.

You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).

"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so."

The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

The unequally loaded perfect oblate spheroid (first four layers) DEFIES the law of attractive gravity.

It should rotate with the northern hemisphere facing the sun.

At present, the RE has an unequal distribution of mass: the northern hemisphere has more mass than the southern hemisphere.

For the Pangeea continent the situation is much worse: such a concentration of land mass in just one place would have meant an EVEN GREATER unequal load upon the inner layers of the Earth.

That post has your name on it and contains no attributions to anyone else. [The "Quote from:" line at the beginning of the quote block is a link back to the quoted post; anyone can easily see the entire context.]

If you stole the idea from someone else (YE creationists maybe?), you should give them credit. That way you can share the blame, too, but even then you're still responsible here for what you post here.

It's yours. You posted it. You own it.

What you the RE have to deal with is this: the distribution of the continents means that the northern hemisphere is heavier than the southern hemisphere (at least for the first few kilometers).

The Pangea massive continent means that the hemisphere which contained this geological formation was MUCH HEAVIER than the hemisphere which had the oceans.

A total defiance of Newtonian gravitation.

Quote
What gravitational force? The net gravitational force pulls the oceans' water down; down is toward the center of the earth. Why would seawater "be pulled" upward to cover the supercontinent?

You are as stupid as a basalt rock.

LOL again! Your schoolyard taunts are just killing me!! I may die laughing!!!

The pull from the Sun: that is why seawater would cover immediately the Pangea continent which would be facing the same Sun while the Earth was rotating.

The solar component of tides is a fraction of the moon's. We calculated this as an exercise when I was in grad school, and I recall that it was less than half. For what you say to be true, the entire supercontinent of Pangaea would have to be less than a few meters above sea level, which sounds about a far-fetched as the rest of your ideas in this discussion.

Explain to your readers how this Earth would rotate facing the Sun with the... North Pole:

<https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/yzxGQrsNXDzWDcTKPFqFFf-1200-80.jpg>

I don't need to. The "problem" you imagine is entirely in your imagination; it doesn't exist in reality.

You're lapsing back into gibberish, though. What about the north pole in reference to the map showing Pangaea?

Have you lost your mind alpha?

I don't think so, but it's looking more and more like you have.

The center of gravity is right smack in Africa.

No, the center of gravity is a little less than 4,000 miles below the surface. Your map shows only the surface.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Free thinking! More like non thinking.
« on: May 27, 2024, 01:36:06 PM »
No rookie errors.

You absolutely made a rookie error. Anyone who paid attention in a High School or later intro geology course would know that the oceans are underlain by oceanic crust that's denser than continental crust. You don't appear to realize this, don't realize what it means, or both.

You show yourself to be a uninformed rookie with ignorant balderdash like this:
The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

...

The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

You are not only unwilling to acknowledge your previous ignorant mistake, now you're doubling down on it.

Indeed, for the first 10-12 km, the northern hemisphere is much heavier than the southern hemisphere. A fact of science[Citation needed]. You can't have any anomalies beyond that depth[Citation needed], since then you'd have to deal with the defiance of the attractive force of gravitation.

Take a look at this:



Explain to your readers why Pangea was not facing the Sun while the Earth was in orbit around it.
...
Then, Earth should have had Pangea facing the Sun, since that hemisphere was way heavier than the other one.

Easy. Your rookie error is still a rookie error even though you should know better now, and is still wrong.

You again insist by this line of "reasoning" that you're still ignoring your ignorant blunder. Your whole premise that areas with continental crust weigh more than areas underlain by oceanic crust (because continental crust is denser than seawater, while completely ignoring oceanic crust) is meaningless.

My initial conclusion was that you're a slow learner. On further consideration, you're making a much stronger case for being a non-learner. That would explain most of your posts in these forums, too.

Moreover, the water of the oceans, being pulled by the gravitational force would have covered Pangea as well, contributing to the effect.

What gravitational force? The net gravitational force pulls the oceans' water down; down is toward the center of the earth. Why would seawater "be pulled" upward to cover the supercontinent?

HERE IS ANOTHER VIDEO TAKEN OF VULCAN, JUST THE OTHER DAY:

https://x.com/hermesisos/status/1794650888591818940

The linked page wants me to log on to X [TSMPFKAT*] to proceed. I do not have an account on X.

<More unrelated nonsense.>

* The Social Media Platform Formerly Known As Twitter.

18
NO PHOTO MEANS: IT DOESN'T EXIST ;D

A photo that doesn't exist is a photo that doesn't exist? Well, duh! So?

See: tautology.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Free thinking! More like non thinking.
« on: May 26, 2024, 05:36:01 PM »
Oh, my... so many words. So much bluster, so few facts.

How could you even for a second believe that I do not take care of things like this (isostasy)?

Because you make rookie errors like this:

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

...

The northern hemisphere has a greater mass than its southern counterpart.

Moving on...
This is what I had posted back in 2010:

How about a link to it? It should be easy enough to show evidence that you really said what you claim to have said, and when you said it.

"Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance. The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much. (G. B. Airy.) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy.

What you characterize as an embarrassment is nothing of the sort. It is an example of new data revealing a flaw (or flaws) in the understanding at the time, requiring a new hypothesis that, if substantiated, leads to a more complete understanding by modifying the old theory so it can explain the new data, or, in some cases a leads to a completely new theory that replaces the old one altogether. This is how science is supposed to work.

This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel[Citation needed]; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel[Citation needed]. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.

A contradiction exists only in your strawman argument.

Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents[Citation needed], though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true[Citation needed]; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon. The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents[Citation needed]. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper[Citation needed]. In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies[Citation needed].

As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected[Citation needed]. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation[Citation needed].

In 1981 a paper was published ... [Citation needed]

The majority of the experiments failed to find any evidence of a composition-dependent force... [Citation needed]

On the basis of newtonian gravity, it might be expected that gravitational attraction over continents, and especially mountains, would be higher than over oceans[Citation needed]. In reality, the gravity on top of large mountains is less than expected on the basis of their visible mass while over ocean surfaces it is unexpectedly high[Citation needed]. To explain this, the concept of isostasy was developed: it was postulated that low-density rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath mountains, which buoys them up, while denser rock exists 30 to 100 km beneath the ocean bottom[Citation needed]. However, this hypothesis is far from proven. Physicist Maurice Allais commented: There is an excess of gravity over the ocean and a deficiency above the continents. The theory of isostasis provided only a pseudoexplanation of this[Citation needed].

The standard, simplistic theory of isostasy is contradicted by the fact that in regions of tectonic activity vertical movements often intensify gravity anomalies rather than acting to restore isostatic equilibrium. For example, the Greater Caucasus shows a positive gravity anomaly (usually interpreted to mean it is overloaded with excess mass), yet it is rising rather than subsiding."

That last paragraph contains an interesting and generally correct observation about gravity anomalies existing in tectonically active regions, but your conclusion that areas with positive gravity anomalies should be subsiding instead of rising is way too simplistic. Tectonically active regions are affected by other forces - specifically, tectonic forces - in addition to isostasy. Geology is complicated.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Free thinking! More like non thinking.
« on: May 25, 2024, 02:26:04 PM »
I introduced the correct FE map to the FES a long time ago. The RE tried everything with it, I was able to explain each and every distance involved.

Here is YOUR map:



Now, put your thinking cap on.

The distribution of the continents is possible only for FET.

You MUST have a symmetrically perfect ellipsoid (or geoid) or there will be a clear and direct DEFIANCE of the law of universal gravitation.

Let us carefully calculate the effect/distribution of mass of the continents with respect to both hemispheres (northern and southern).

"The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one.

The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads - we include here all the mountains/hills.

Almost everything you say above is simply wrong, but that's what we've come to expect from you. That last paragraph, however, is an astonishingly naïve misunderstanding of the most basic intro-level geology. You carry on and on about the density of continental crust (2.75 gm/cm3, which is reasonable) being greater than the density of water, while utterly ignoring the existence of oceanic crust which underlies most of the ocean floor. Oceanic crust has higher density (closer to 3 gm/cm3) than continental crust, so a shorter column of oceanic crust (i.e. thinner oceanic crust) can contain the same mass as a longer column of continental crust (thicker continental crust). The upshot of this is that the continents have to have higher elevation than the ocean floor to be in isostatic equilibrium. If you don't know what that means, check the link, use your favorite search engine, or ask and I will try to explain it to you in a way even you should be able to understand.

<The rest is moot since the premise it's based on is utterly and completely wrong.>

21
Tidak ada bukti foto

"[There is no photo evidence]"

None you would admit to seeing, anyway. So what? Even if you saw some, you would dismiss it as fake; it's what you do.

22
Not ever measured or verified as curvature, it’s entirely ignored as not existing, because it doesn’t exist at all.

Two words: Geodetic Surveying.

Quote
Sure it’s a ball, it just can’t be mapped as a ball, no big deal!

Can't be mapped as a ball?


23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.
« on: October 23, 2023, 12:00:00 PM »
I seem to remember someone telling me when I objected to the new smart meters that I was just imagining things, and then that the sun itself has microwave radiation (nope, UV to infrared, not microwave).

You believe the sun emits energy only in the IR to UV range and not outside that? Why do you think this is true?

Ummmm, I can literally feel microwave radiation after being exposed to high doses of it thanks to months of oppressive wiring, antennas, and now that damned meter. To the point where I'm finally just outright shutting my door.

Unless you're hugging one, a smart meter's RF emissions are completely swamped by other sources like nearby cell phones (technically not microwaves; much of the RF from smart meters isn't either), WiFi in establishments with a WiFi hotspot (WiFi technically uses microwaves, and some smart meters may also communicate short range via WiFi), and many others.

The sun? The sun's radiation is healing. Even a few minutes of sunlight on my feet reverses the effects of 5G bombardment. I know for a fact that the sun has no microwave radiation because the overall energy of natural radiation is far more soothing. Microwave radiation comes from magnetrons inside such devices, not from "cosmic particles" as the official trade secret story goes.

You sound like someone who has never gotten sunburned or suffered from melanoma.

So that's how you've convinced yourself that sunlight contains no microwave radiation - because sunlight "feels soothing" and you believe you can sense even very low levels of microwave radiation? OK... sure.

Actually, the sun emits a large amount of radiation in the 10 to 30 cm band (part of the microwave  band); how much is dependent in part on the number of sunspots, and we're in a period of increasing sunspot activity, so watch out! ;)

24
Why are we arguing about a fictional world in a video game?

I've been wondering the same thing.

25
Flat Earth General / Re: Most recent advancement in The flat earth model
« on: September 12, 2023, 08:17:12 AM »


Interesting hypothesis. How could we test this?

Here's one possibility: From your illustration, wouldn't we expect an outward acceleration along the equator increasing from zero at the middle and maximum eastward at the east edge, and maximum westward at the west edge? The magnitude of the sideways acceleration would depend on how fast the earth is spinning as well as how far you are from the axis of spin. Are such accelerations observed? If not, is this a plausible model?

26
How does flat equate to triangular? You're just putting me down without a sense of your own theory.

JB used the triangle to illustrate one of the properties of flat (i.e. Euclidian) surfaces. That's all. Do you disagree that the internal angles of a triangle on a flat plane add up to 180°?

Quote
Under the "brilliant" RE;FU theory. Gravity makes things "fall" in an orbit. But that's not how gravity's explicitly defined rules work.

Do tell. Can you show us the explicitly rule defined rule of gravity that says that?

Quote
At best the Earth should fall into the sun (as it has way more mass), which is why they have to invent ANOTHER force to explain this behavior.

What is this other force you seem to think is necessary? Orbits subject to gravity alone have been understood since the early 17th century - more than 400 years. No other forces are needed.

Quote
As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing outside the Earth...

The universe doesn't care at all about your concerns.

27
Let's look at the real time of sunrise that day.



Sunrise started at 6:48am that day. Sorry guy, your time was AFTER the sun rose...


Where? Your screenshot doesn't say.

Northern Neck in VA. But it doesn't matter, because I further looked up numerous locations and timezones. Because I wasn't content to just an assumption, I kept following the facts, until I was sure.

A reliable conclusion you can draw is that the table posted by DOF2022 isn't for the Northern Neck, Virginia area. That's about the only meaningful one.

What many people miss about doing real research is that it needs to be systematic. Completely random sampling is not systematic. First, study the problem enough to have a good idea of the significant variables, then hold all of them except one constant (or, realistically, as constant as possible) and change the other variable and study the effect of its change on the result. Repeat for other variables as needed. If there is a (are) discernable pattern(s) in the results, refine the approach if needed. Those first results may suggest a previously unsuspected additional variable that needs to be controlled. Repeat as needed.

TL;DR: Most people have no idea how good research is done and would find doing it well requires too much work.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Btw, sunrise seems fairly consistent regardless of timezone. I looked everywhere from NYC to Lose Angeles, nearly 3000 miles away, and the timezone on none of these was at 7am.  Unless you're living in communist China, I'm afraid you're gonna have to accept that the time the sun rose that day started anywhere from 6:27 (LA) to 6:48 (NYC). Oh wait, no, not even there.


You don't have that quite right. Sunrise time depends on both latitude and longitude within a given time zone. From the eastern edge to the western edge of a standard 15° time zone, sunrise time will vary by an hour, ±1/2 hour from the nominal center.

As you seem to have deduced, how far you are from the equator also makes a difference, so what's the point of showing the sunrise time for some unknown location as evidence for sunrise time somewhere else?

To point is to show that the drastically earlier rise time is the standard, not the exception. I looked in Virginia, New York, Los Angeles, Buenos Aires, Beijing, Israel, and tbh until I got to latitudes of London or higher (all the way up to Alaska and such), there was virtually no incidence of sunrise at later than 7am, with the majority at that day being closer to 6am. 

It doesn't matter what "the majority" of locations you tested show if the observation was from one of what you consider to be "an exception".

As I was composing this, JB posted with a better approach to analyzing sunrise times than yours. He controlled for date [one variable] and time zone [another variable], found locations at differing longitudes [test variable] at about the same latitude [another controlled variable], and also at a different latitude [new test variable]. When an odd result cropped up, he reported it and flagged it as questionable. That's an example of how this this sort of research should be done.

Quote
15°? No, the number of degrees from my general location in Virginia to California is about 39°, yet there is a difference of only 20 minutes or so.  That should be an hour different, based on what you say but it's not.

No, you misunderstood. Time zones are nominally 15° wide; an hour of earth rotation. California is three time zones west of Virginia, which means that at a given moment, civil time in California is three hours earlier than civil time in Virginia. Thus, if you found a place in CA that had a sunrise at the same civil time as sunrise the same day in Northern Neck, VA, the California sunrise is actually three hours later than yours.

Time zones are designed this way so that a locality's noon is fairly close to their actual mean solar noon. This also has the effect of limiting - but not eliminating - variation of sunrise and sunset times due to longitude within the time zone. This has the effect of allowing most people to begin their day reasonably close to sunrise and finishing their work day with some daylight to spare. If strictly implemented on a rigid 15° scheme, the difference between mean solar noon and civil noon would vary by no more than 30 minutes. Sunrise and sunset times within the same zone are also affected by variations in latitude but mean solar noon is not.

In reality, time zone boundaries are established by convenience as much as strictly by longitude, usually along state lines but sometimes county lines within a state within the US, and between various political divisions in other countries, so they can and do vary quite a bit from the ideal. Some places also observe daylight saving time (a.k.a. summer time in some places) because it's generally (but not universally) popular among people to start their day an hour earlier during periods of early sunrise by shifting civil time by an hour for part of the year, thus avoiding sleeping through an hour of daylight and "saving" that to enjoy in the evening after finishing work.

Quote
Based on the season, I typed a city of Canada which is now having sunrise at 5am. Abbotsford, Canada.

If in summer, Canada is having early sunrise, this means in fall and winter there should be late sunrise. Sure enough, that same month, we have a few sunrises as late as 8am.  However, even there, by November 16, there is no sunrise later than 7:20 or so. 7:32? You expect me to believe you live in Greenland?



Did you even notice the one hour jump in sunrise time between Saturday, Nov 6 and Sunday, Nov 7 in your table? What do you think happened there? [Hint] The 7th was the first Sunday in November in 2021.

This circles back to "significant variables." One of them is the selected location's civil time, which all of these tables refer to. The definition of civil time depends on the time zone, and sometimes differs for different times of year in the same place, as happened here. If you want your research to be meaningful, you need to be aware of and control for this.

Quote
For reference, Jerusalem in Israel. Nearly the same as the Northern Neck. Longitude does not matter! Only latitude makes any great difference.

<image> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1138495266866085948/image.png

Research. Not making stuff up.

You may not be making those sunrise times up, but you're not doing actual research, either, and this sloppy work is leading you to the wrong conclusion.

Quote
So when you show me how your silly iPhone says that the sun rose that late on that day, and I find many many countries where it did not, yeah no.

<image>https://i.imgur.com/TSAPFMS.jpg

And get off the floor. You're too old to be embarrassing yourself with smudgy photos. By age 20, I learned to use a camera properly. 

I didn't post that image. It's from someone else. If you're going too jump from replying to one post to replying to another, please start a new post for that different reply unless it's closely related to the ongoing discussion. If the latter, please at least refer back to the new post it responds to. This may help your readers follow what you're talking about. Thanks!

28
Let's look at the real time of sunrise that day.



Sunrise started at 6:48am that day. Sorry guy, your time was AFTER the sun rose...


Where? Your screenshot doesn't say.

Quote
Btw, sunrise seems fairly consistent regardless of timezone. I looked everywhere from NYC to Lose Angeles, nearly 3000 miles away, and the timezone on none of these was at 7am.  Unless you're living in communist China, I'm afraid you're gonna have to accept that the time the sun rose that day started anywhere from 6:27 (LA) to 6:48 (NYC). Oh wait, no, not even there.


You don't have that quite right. Sunrise time depends on both latitude and longitude within a given time zone. From the eastern edge to the western edge of a standard 15° time zone, sunrise time will vary by an hour, ±1/2 hour from the nominal center.

As you seem to have deduced, how far you are from the equator also makes a difference, so what's the point of showing the sunrise time for some unknown location as evidence for sunrise time somewhere else?

Quote



Even as far east as China, the latest the sunrise began was 7:01am.


Why would you go east to find later sunrise times? You go west for that - until you cross a time zone boundary. All of mainland China is one time zone even though it spans about 60° of longitude; that's four nominal time zones and Beijing is on the eastern side of the easternmost one. This means that a 7:01 AM sunrise in Beijing would be an after 10 AM sunrise in westernmost parts of China.

Quote

In order get a sunrise at 7:40 or so, you would  have needed to live in Alaska on that day.
Not buying it.


Wrong again. For instance, sunrise at Minot, ND on Nov 16, 2021 was at 7:54 AM.

Quote

Even London had sunrise by 7:21.


So what? It's pretty obvious that the photograph you're commenting on wasn't taken in London. As already noted, sunrise time at some location isn't relevant to sunrise time in a completely different place.

Quote

You can fake all you want, but nothing is a match for real research.


"Real research." LOL.

29
This is good ol' bendy light. That model was quite popular here a while ago but isn't mentioned much any more.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA EPIC LIES
« on: July 14, 2023, 09:17:27 AM »
I meant that there are many online calculators and such which display position of Mars or JWST or any other observable object to the very high accuracy. Do thiese account for speed of light delay and if no how big issue would that be?
For JWST, I would assume so. But this can be done either by predicting their current location and adjusting for speed of light delay), or position their apparent current location for an observer on Earth or the centre of the solar system.

Different objects will have different effects, as will the time.
For example, consider Mars (as that is what you have brought up).

At its closest it is roughly 57 000 000 km away.
Its speed relative to Earth is roughly 6 km/s.
It would take light 190 s to travel that distance.
In that time, Mars would have moved (relative to Earth) 1140 km.
At that distance it equates to 4 arc seconds.

At its furthest, the numbers change, and it equates to 37 arc seconds.

Conversely, if you go for something like Proxima Centauri (aka Alpha Centauri C), it is moving at roughly 1 arc second per year, and light takes roughly 4 years to get to us so that would be 4 arc seconds.
I did some calculations and came up with the same distances, apparent speeds, and angles for Mars as Jack did.

Going back to the original question:
Also is light year correction applied when observing planets by amateur astronomers? I have seen people pinpoint mars in arcsecond range which would be impossible if it wasnt applied yet i found no evidence it is (on the many sites which list coordinates)

It's unlikely that equipment typically used by amateur astronomers has sub-arcminute go-to pointing accuracy. After accurate alignment and calibration, most commonly available computerized mounts would have pointing accuracy that puts selected objects within a few arcminutes of the center of the field of view, and that is almost always good enough for the intended purpose. Routinely hitting the target within a minute of arc or so would be considered quite good with this class of equipment. Expecting arcsecond pointing accuracy that is affordable by most amateurs is unrealistic.

That said, some astrometric activities that some amateurs actively pursue, like occultation timing - where a solar-system object passes in front of a star or other more distant object and blocks its light - requires exceedingly accurate predictions of the position vs time for the SS object(s) in question; those certainly consider light-time from the object(s) to earth. Quite often, the location of the edges of the "shadow" cast by the occulting object are predicted to within a few hundred meters on the surface of the earth. When you consider earth's speed of rotation, a point at mid-latitude changes position relative to the shadow on the order of 350 m/s, so the change of apparent position due to light travel time is but one important consideration.

The US Naval Observatory's NOVAS library (Naval Observatory Vector Astrometry Software) does indeed include light travel time in its solar-system apparent position calculations. Whether a particular application or table includes this factor depends on the software used to make the predictions, but freely-available software routines to do the heavy lifting to high precision is certainly available.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 135