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.


Topics - ∂G/∂x

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Crossing The Ice Wall
« on: June 16, 2007, 06:02:07 PM »
Quote from: Wikipedia
During an expedition led by Ernest Shackleton in 1907, parties led by T. W. Edgeworth David became the first to climb Mount Erebus and to reach the South Magnetic Pole.[12] In addition, Shackleton himself and three other members of his expedition made several firsts in December 1908 February 1909: they were the first humans to traverse the Ross Ice Shelf, the first to traverse the Transantarctic Mountain Range (via the Beardmore Glacier), and the first to set foot on the South Polar Plateau. On December 14, 1911, a party led by Norwegian polar explorer Roald Amundsen from the ship Fram became the first to reach the geographic South Pole, using a route from the Bay of Whales and up the Axel Heiberg Glacier.[13] One month later, the ill-fated Scott Expedition reached the pole.

Just to shut Tom up about that insurmountable wall of ice that James Clark Ross discovered. I know dogplatter doesn't believe this is the ice wall, I just though it should be here to refer to in case Tom starts that shit again.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Doesn't Look Like Glare To Me
« on: June 15, 2007, 01:58:30 PM »


So why is the moon not microscopically small at 'moonset'?

Note: The image above is for ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS PROOF. What I AM claiming as disproving FE is the fact that the moon has not shrunk to a near-invisible point whenever it nears the horizon.

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Tom Bishop vs. FE Canon
« on: June 03, 2007, 04:46:28 PM »
I know some FEers (Dogplatter especially) have been frustrated by the confusion between Flat Earth Theory (FET) and the version of it proposed by Tom Bishop (hereafter called TFET). Tom has been known to make very outlandish claims regarding the Flat Earth, and I thought I'd post some of them here in Q&C so that Flat Earthers (no REers please, unless you definitely know what you're talking about) can make clear which of Tom Bishop's various statements are not endorsed by the FES as a whole. I thought this might be helpful as it is difficult for newbies (and oldies, on occasion) to differ between FE canon and something Tom has just made up, simply because he is the most frequent FE poster on Flat Earth D&D.

Here goes (Quotations here are used for clarity of structure, but are not verbatim reproductions of Tom's words):

1.
Quote
The Flat Earth does not rotate

Tom has claimed it both ways, so I'm a little confused which is part of FET.

2.
Quote
The Earth is a (potentially?) infinite plane

Does FET hold an infinite Earth, a finite one, or an unknown in this area?

3.
Quote
The Sun 'orbits' at an altitude of 700 miles

Tom stated these a few times in some D&D threads, in response to some posts I made about it. He says Rowbotham's calculations give us this figure...

4.
Quote
Satellites do exist; they orbit a common barycentre like the Sun, Moon and stars

Tom holds that gravitation by mass exists in FE, but not on Earth. He states satellites are held in space by the gravitational attraction of the various celestial bodies.

5.
Quote
Most photos from space (not the Apollo 17 ones) are real. They are consistent with FE.

While this has gone largely uncontested by REers as yet, it seems a big step away from the conspiracy-oriented ideas of FET.

6.
Quote
Those in low Earth Orbit (including commercial space passengers of the future) will see a curved horizon, consistent with FE.

Similar to above.

7.
Quote
Aircraft flight times in the Southern hemisphere are shortened by 400mph jet streams, or the flights are delayed to compensate.

Also met with incredulity by REers, this doesn't seem like the kind of argument FET would employ.

8.
Quote
The ice wall is 150ft tall. It was discovered by James Clark Ross.

The ice wall question is a big confusion spot. I know there may not be FET consensus, but is this TFET statement correct in your eyes?

9.
Quote
The conspiracy does not extend to the RSA, as they do not have experience of higher altitude orbits necessary to observe the difference between FE and RE.

As above with satellites.

There may well be more, but this is all I could think of right now. If anyone would like to add some feel free (as long as they are good/important ones). If Tom feels I have misrepresented him in some way; please correct me. I am confident I can find supporting statements for each one I have listed in the many threads we have discussed them in.

The FAQ does answer some of these, but it's age and brevity make it unclear what parts of the theory have been changed or added to. Tom's additions may or may not be welcome in FET.

I posted this in Q&C because I didn't intend these points to be debated in and of themselves, just that they be distinguished FET from TFET. Thanks for your help.


4
Flat Earth Q&A / Make me a Moderator!
« on: June 03, 2007, 01:38:52 PM »
I would be fair and not delete Tom's posts or anything. I would also do the task (already covered some of the time by TheEngineer) of de-spamming the Flat Earth D&D...there are so many newbies on there who think they are the first to ask a question. Then theres Mad Catz....

I'd be a good moderator, I promise!  ;D

Everyone has a 2-vote maximum so they don't have to choose between me and Tom, just in case they want both.

Edit: I will not vote in this poll  :D

5
Flat Earth Debate / Redshift
« on: May 30, 2007, 06:24:44 PM »
The Sombrero Galaxy is moving away from us at over 1000 km/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombrero_Galaxy) as confirmed by redshift. How can we still see it in the same position when it travels more than 20 times the distance to the FE Sun every minute?

Before Tom posts, let's remind ourselves that redshift DOES give a measure of relative speed, and is NOT based on the assumption of a Round Earth. Light is subject to redshift whatever shape the Earth is.

More worryingly, the Andromeda Galaxy is traveling toward us at 300 km/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy). When can we expect a crash, according to FE?

It just seems that FEers failed to take account of the effects a huge scaling-down of the heavens would have on modern astronomy. Any explanations?

6
Flat Earth Debate / For the Mathematically Minded: Disproof of FE
« on: May 17, 2007, 06:06:56 PM »
This thread is not for everyone (everyone is welcome, but I expect not everyone will be comfortable with the mathematical nature of this proof) but for those with some faith in mathematics I offer this as proof that the Earth is not Flat. I have taken parts of it from my other threads, but I held back on this part because it is not immediately obvious enough to make a super-strong argument (especially vs. the unmathematical babblings of Mr Bishop). Anyway here goes:

I return again to my favourite FE topic: the sun. I like it because we've all seen it, seen it rise and set, and any observations we make are repeatable daily. The FET explanation of the sun's dipping below the horizon is that it is moving away while maintaining a constant altitude, therefore we can take three points O, S and P as the Observer, Sun and Point at which the sun is directly overhead. These form a right angled triangle with the right angle at P and the hypotenuse OS. We must consider also the sun's apparent angle (from the observer's POV) to the horizon as the angle at O which we will call .

It may be helpful for you to draw yourself a diagram at this point....

We can see that the distance OP is a function of and SP such that:

tan() = SP/OP

Alternatively:

OP = SP/tan()  or   OP = SPcot()

We know SP (the perpendicular distance from sun to ground) is a constant (700 miles, 3000 miles, whatever you like really). OP and are variables as the sun moves closer and further, moving towards and away from the horizon (sunrise/sunset).

Time to bring in another fact about the sun: We know it moves through the sky at a constant rate, that is to say, the rate at which changes with time is constant. As the sun is moving at constant speed OP is also at a constant rate of change. We can therefore, with a little chain rule, show that:

d/dt() = k  d/dt(OP) = q   therefore  d/dOP() = k/q which is constant.

The problem is, this is a direct contradiction with our earlier statement about the sun, as if OP = SPcot() where SP is constant:

d/dOP(SPcot()) = -SPcosec2()

Which is clearly not constant.

The practical interpretation of this is that while in RE, the sun should (and does) move at constant angular velocity, in FE it should quite clearly vary in angular velocity. Indeed, the rate of motion tends to 0 as tends to 0.

So there it is. FEers? Tom if you do try this one, please don't copy paste or say you've answered before. This problem has been stated before, but never demonstrated in such a way. I expect your refutation, if you have one, to be mathematically competent and not dismissive. If there are other FEers who are more mathematical I'm sure you'll have no problem checking this.

As ever, I await your responses eagerly!

7
Flat Earth Debate / The Exploding Sun
« on: May 16, 2007, 04:01:08 PM »
Just another question that's been brought up but never answered:

Why doesn't the sun explode? In fact, why does the sun remain a coherent mass at all?

The reasoning behind asking this question is that the sun clearly gives out energy, and has been for thousands and millions of years. This energy must come from somewhere, and the answer that most FEers give is that it is some form of fusion. This energetic process would blast the sun apart instantly (even if it somehow got started in such a small object).

Some FEers (Tom) argue that the sun must be ultra-dense, and accepting that mass causes gravitation in some cases, give this very high density and therefore high mass as the source of the sun's gravity. My answer to this is what, then, is the sun made of and why has it not pulled all other celestial bodies (also blessed with non-universal spacetime-bending abilities) into one location? Why do the stars not orbit the sun?

The sun is only 32km wide (Tom says 10km...well he should, given a distance of 700 miles and angular size of 0.52 degrees), so where does all this energy and light come from? Why does it emit hydrogen and helium spectra when these materials could not possibly constitute it (as light gases there would be no reason for them to coalesce in such a small amount in this way)?

I await FE answers with great anticipation, REers please keep question-adding and spamming to a minimum as I like this argument  ;D

8
Flat Earth Debate / From Eternal to Infinite
« on: May 16, 2007, 03:28:05 PM »
Tom, in his immeasurable wisdom and genius, has conceded that the Earth is an infinite plane, with the sun and moon only 700 miles above the surface. It is for this reason that air never escapes from the atmosphere and we don't all suffocate.

Flat Earth theory has made a jump from requiring the UA to be a very large and unlimited (within our lifetimes at least) source of energy to an infinite source of energy i.e. that the Flat Earth is at any time having an infinite amount of energy transferred to it by the as-yet undiscovered, unproven UA force.

Now I don't know about you, but an infinite source of energy seems slightly harder to believe than a finite but in-our-lifetimes-unlimited source (after all, the sun is such a source in RE).

FEers, how do you explain this infinite energy? Where does it come from? Why does it affect us?

More importantly, is there any experimental evidence to accept such a theory?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Flat Earth Problems - Updated and Condensed
« on: May 13, 2007, 01:30:23 PM »
Here are the problems of FET as they currently stand:

1. The differences in g in different parts of the Earth.    \
                                                                            |- Possibly related to non-universality of gravitation by mass.
2. The mechanism for the sun, moon and stars' motion. /

3. The impossibility of sunset (particularly Rowbotham's wave crest effect).

4. The constant rate of the sun's motion through the sky, impossible in FE.

5. The lack of power source for the sun (or an explanation for the sun's lack of explosion).

While there are more, these are the strongest and most ignored, particularly (1) and (5).

REers please resist temptation to add to this list, as there is enough here for a good thread's worth. FEers, please try to properly address the issues presented, and Tom: don't copy-paste, it's very very irritating, unless it answers the point (not just mentioning a few key words).

10
Flat Earth Debate / Wave Crests And Sunsets - UNANSWERED
« on: May 09, 2007, 03:01:26 PM »
I posted this somewhere else, but it was ignored and might not have been totally relevant to that discussion  :-[ so here it is in its own thread, my debunking of Rowbotham's wave crests/false horizon argument.

The horizon is not a physical object, it cannot obstruct light. Let me make an earthly example. I am a bacterium on a tabletop...

If I sit on top of an apple which is taller than anything else on the tabletop (which doesn't have a smooth surface, there are fruits all over it). There is a long thread (perfectly straight) which is attached to an orange at the other end, like this:



Now extend the table top, so that it is a bit longer:



And now very very long:



Is the thread ever broken?

However far away it is, as long as the apple and orange are taller than the obstructions (physically taller, not apparently taller by perspective or whatever) there will always be a direct line between them, and the orange will never be obscured from view by anything.

What is demonstrated here (the thread is a beam of light) is that perspective may change the size of things, but it can never change the relative position of things. Perspective will never put the sun BELOW the waves, only near them, and thus the sun can never be obscured by the effect Rowbotham describes.

This is particularly obvious on Everest. Being the apple, Everest is taller than all other objects on Earth. The sun is higher up than Everest is (700 miles, or 3000 whatever), so the 'thread' between them can never be broken...

11
If I stand at the North Pole (or anywhere in the arctic circle) then for 6 months of the year there is no daylight, as the sun does not rise.

This means the sun does not come more than 1 or 2 degrees above the horizon.

This means the sun is never less than 85,909 miles away.

Sorry to keep bringing this up but it has met with NO satisfactory answer from any FEer.

The sun remains FE's greatest problem.

12
Flat Earth Debate / The South Pole (For The Benefit Of Tom Bishop)
« on: May 04, 2007, 02:09:12 PM »
Tom, you have raised in many threads the question of how do polar explorers know when they got to the South or North Pole when compasses are ineffective.  The answer is that the pole most frequently referred to as 'South' (and it's northern counterpart) is the geographic pole not the magnetic one, and as such is determined by the Earth's axis of rotation:

Quote from: Wikipedia
The Geographic South Pole is defined for most purposes as one of two points where the earth's axis of rotation intersects its surface (the other being the Geographic North Pole).

Observing the stars has always been a far more reliable way of navigation than compasses, and many long-distance sea voyages used this method for hundreds of years before GPS. This method of celestial navigation is only possible on an RE (only possible in the way it is actually done, if the world was indeed flat celestial navigation would be possible also, but the methods would be radically different due to the differing geometry of the heavens).

So there's your answer. If you are in a place where the stars overhead appear to rotate about a point directly above you, you are at one of the poles.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Star Trails
« on: April 29, 2007, 10:32:59 AM »


Regardless of differences between hemispheres and latitudes, how can the FE model explain this phenomenon? In what way do the Earth and stars move to produce this kind of rotation, and how is the effect observed all over the world (with the celestial poles marked out by points of least rotation, curiously correlated to latitude).

The stars rotate once every 24 hours, as in this image you can see a just less than half rotation as it was taken over one night.

Simply put, what kind of motion would cause us to observe this on the Flat Earth?

14
Flat Earth Debate / The Principle Guiding FE
« on: April 28, 2007, 05:43:35 PM »
The principle, first discovered by Hermann von Sokarul in 2007, governs the field of 'Flat Earth Debate and Discussion'.

Dealing with the number of FEers willing to answer a given question, it can be expressed thus:



A 'simplicity' value is lower when the question is simpler, resulting in higher difficulty when the question is simple ("How do sunsets work?") and backed by a large body of evidence (Many people have seen sunsets).

k is currently unknown, but some respected theorists say it varies from FEer to FEer, with a lower value resulting in faster thread abandonment when presented with such a question. Tom Bishop has an estimated k of 9.2, while narcberry's is a rather more significant k = 50.56

Research continues in this important field, but would FEers please try not to abandon every single thread where the questions are simple enough and hard enough to require real answers rather than waffle?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Forget Flight Times....
« on: April 25, 2007, 07:40:39 PM »
The pacific has been and still is used for shipping (you try putting thousands of tons of oil or mineral ore in a plane). If it is as wide as FE says it is, the times (calculated using RE) for these shipping routes would be WAY off. No crazy 800mph winds to get you out of this one Tom!

Any ideas?

16


What you see here is the launch plume of an Atlantis space shuttle (of course the shuttle mission is fake, but the launch at least is real).
The bottom part is not illuminated, as the sun has set at ground level. The top part, however, is in sunlight, as the sun has not yet moved far enough behind the Earth to be blocked out at this high altitude. Any FE explanations? This was a public event...

17
Flat Earth Debate / The Unrefuted
« on: April 25, 2007, 03:41:37 PM »
ONE
Quote
1. Zetetic thought relies on the evidence of DIRECT OBSERVATION.

2. FE theory requires a giant international conspiracy to operate for it to be valid.

3. There is not DIRECT OBSERVATION for such a conspiracy.

4. Conclude either:
     a) There is no conspiracy, and the Earth is round.
     b) The zetetic method does not operate in FE theory.
     c) Both.

TWO
Quote
1. FE rotates once every 24 hours, as Foucault's pendulum appears to indicate (even you must agree here Tom, in the Northern hemisphere the experiment demonstrates as much).

2. The North Pole is the centre of this rotation.

3. Melbourne is latitude 37.5 degrees South, putting it approximately 14,000 km from the North Pole.

4. The circle around the North Pole described by Melbourne is then approximately 88,000 km in circumference.

5. Melbourne travels 88,000 km in 24 hours, which is around 1 km/s or 3600 km/h.

6. On a flat Earth this would mean a 75 kg person in Melbourne leaning against a wall facing north would feel a force of around 5.360 N pressing him to the wall, as in any rotating system there is constant acceleration toward the centre and it is natural in any reference frame for a body to resist acceleration (it is the basis of FE gravitation). This effect would be noticeable and definitely measurable.

7. This does not occur.

8. Either:
    a. The Earth is not flat.
    b. The Earth does not rotate.

9. We have shown (b) to be false in part 1.

10. The Earth is not flat.

THREE

Quote
1. The Sun is 3000 miles vertical distance from the Earth, equivalent to 4828 km (I prefer metric).

2. For the sun to set, let us assume it has to get within 5 degrees of the horizon (this is for wave crests etc. to take over, and is a very generous estimate. 5 degrees is quite large in the sky - 10 sun-widths up from the horizon). The sun has an angular size, RE and FE, of 0.52 degrees.

3. It is assumed in FET that sunset occurs by the sun moving further away, and, as Rowbotham said, apparently 'sinking' as a result of perspective.

4. Using an angle of 5 degrees to the horizon and 4828 km vertical elevation, we may deduce that when the sun is at this angle, the horizontal distance to it (the distance to the point at which it is directly overhead) is 4828/tan5  (opposite side divided by (opposite over adjacent) equals adjacent).

5. This places the sun at a horizontal distance of 55,184.3 km from the observer during sunset.

6. 55,184.3 km is well in excess of the diameter of the entire flat earth (around 40,000km - the pole-to-pole distance doubled), let alone the sun's supposed above-equator orbital path.

7. The sun must, during sunset, have moved at the very least 15,000 km away from the edge of the earth (assuming the sunset is over the FE from some point on the ice wall, in most cases e.g. USA the distance is much greater).

8. If it is this far away it is clearly not following a regular orbital path, as all countries must observe sunset once per day (excluding north pole/ice wall) and it cannot be this distance away from one country while being directly above another.

9. Two possible conclusions: the Earth is not flat, or the model of the sun, especially its rising and setting, is totally wrong.

These are cross-posted from some other threads, and were either ignored or ineffectively argued against. I understand that not all FEers agree the Earth rotates, so if you are not of that disposition please ignore Two.

The second one has been edited following the discovery of an inaccuracy (a lack of metres-kilometres conversion during the process) in the calculations, and is now correct.

If anyone can show mathematically why these are wrong, or in some scientific way show faults in them or their assumptions then that would be cool. Otherwise, the Earth is starting to look awfully round....

Edit: Please try to stay on topic to the arguments presented here, the threads these were in descended into discussion of magnetic fields and solar wind etc While those are perfectly good topics for debate, they are less clear cut than the above, which I would like to see a real FEer have a go at.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Narcberry Proves A Round Earth
« on: April 23, 2007, 01:28:01 PM »
A curve is the sum of it's parts, says Narcberry, confusing everyone. Ok then, so a Flat surface is also the sum of it's parts, being a special kind of curve. When I step out of my door on the way to a friend's house, I walk over a curved hill. How can a flat surface have a curve as a part? The sum of it's parts equals the whole thing, and one of the parts is curved, therefore the Earth is not flat.

Narcberry is a genius, we should totally get him on our side!

19
Flat Earth Debate / Current Unanswered Questions - FEers Please!
« on: April 22, 2007, 04:45:15 PM »
These are in other threads but have not received any answers, resulting in the thread dying and going unnoticed. If any FEer can give the answers to these questions, bearing in mind what has been said in the other threads about them (use the search function  ;D) then I would be grateful, and I'm sure we'd have things a lot clearer.

1. What source of energy powers the sun?

2. How do sunrise and sunset work?

3. What causes the sun to have a 'spotlight' effect.

4. (Bishop Only) How does the centripetal force caused by the Earth's rotation go unnoticed by inhabitants of the South?

Before anyone bounces these questions back, let me answer them in the view of RE. Please answer the questions from the FE perspective before trying to refute RE explanations.

RE Answers:

1. The nuclear fusion at its core, caused by the heat and huge pressure created by the suns gravitation.

2. The earth rotates, and the sun is hidden behind the horizon, shining on the other side of the world.

3. There is no spotlight in RE.

4. The reduced distance from centre of rotation RE's shape allows makes the force less, and what is there it is counteracted by the force of the Earth's gravitation. The effects are, however, measurable.

20
Flat Earth Debate / The Nature Of Tom Bishop
« on: April 20, 2007, 08:49:09 PM »
What's the forum opinion on him? I've heard lots of theories. Tom, please vote also!

21
Flat Earth Debate / A Zetetic Conspiracy
« on: April 20, 2007, 07:28:49 PM »
1. Zetetic thought relies on the evidence of DIRECT OBSERVATION.

2. FE theory requires a giant international conspiracy to operate for it to be valid.

3. There is not DIRECT OBSERVATION for such a conspiracy.

4. Conclude either:
     a) There is no conspiracy, and the Earth is round.
     b) The zetetic method does not operate in FE theory.
     c) Both.

Not a watertight argument, but if you FEers wanna try shoot it down I'd be interested to see how you do it. This is debate and discussion after all, not just war WAR WAR!

22
I know this (probably) isn't relative to the mainstream of FE theory, but I just though we better clear up the whole thing about light not being affected by the Earth's acceleration and 'falling into' the Earth. This is their (Tom and Narc's) explanation for the mast of a ship still being visible above the horizon after the hull has disappeared: the hull's emitted light has 'crashed' into the upwardly accelerating Earth. This is disproof by contradiction, so for all these calculations the assumption is that Tom and Narc's theory is accurate, and they are done in those terms.

In relativistic terms the Earth can be considered to have 0 initial velocity but 9.8m/s upward acceleration and a beam of light 3,000,000 m/s velocity parallel to the Earth (what we shall define as the x direction, with perpendicular to the surface being the y direction) and no acceleration or velocity in the y direction.

So, taking the Earth as our reference frame, the light is effectively accelerating downwards at 9.8 m/s relative to the earth (just as all other things on it are).

If the hull of the ship is a mere 1 metre tall, this would mean light would have to travel 1m in the y direction starting at velocity zero and acceleration 9.8 m/s/s

Using simple mechanics equations s = u*t + 0.5*a*t2

s=1  u=0  a=9.8  t=unknown

so 1 = 0.5*9.8*t2

Rearranging gives t2 = 0.204 so t = 0.45 seconds

This tells us it takes 0.45 seconds for the light to reach the ground, in which time it has traveled a horizontal distance of 0.45*300,000,000

So for the hull of a ship 1 metre high to disappear below the flat earth 'horizon' by this light crashing you would need to stand around 135,000 kilometres away, which is well over three times the diameter of the flat earth. Marvellous.

Working the same equations backwards shows us that for a horizon perhaps 20km away the only crashing light would be that emitted 0.3mm above ground level. Oh dear.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Rotation Of A Flat Earth - Bishop Owned
« on: April 15, 2007, 09:49:36 PM »
1. FE rotates once every 24 hours, as Foucault's pendulum appears to indicate (even you must agree here Tom, in the Northern hemisphere the experiment demonstrates as much).

2. The North Pole is the centre of this rotation.

3. Melbourne is latitude 37.5 degrees South, putting it approximately 14,000 km from the North Pole.

4. The circle around the North Pole described by Melbourne is then approximately 88,000 km in circumference.

5. Melbourne travels 88,000 km in 24 hours, which is around 1 km/s or 3600 km/h.

6. On a flat Earth this would mean a 75 kg person in Melbourne leaning against a wall facing north would feel a force of around 5360 N pressing him to the wall, as in any rotating system there is constant acceleration toward the centre and it is natural in any reference frame for a body to resist acceleration (it is the basis of FE gravitation). If he was not leaning against anything, he would fly off the side of the Earth.

7. This does not occur.

8. Either:
    a. The Earth is not flat.
    b. The Earth does not rotate.

9. We have shown (b) to be false in part 1.

10. The Earth is not flat.

On a round Earth this is not a problem, but it has a visible effect. The 'bulge' around the equation is a demonstration of the effect, but those who live there, rotating fastest, experience this only as reduced gravity as it acts in the opposite direction to Earth's gravity. It should also be noted that in the RE the people at the equator aren't nearly as far as the people in an FE Australia so the effect is much less. If you dispute Australia's distance from the North Pole, I suggest you explain how you can fit the land that verifiably exists in between the two places into a space too small for it. If you dispute the Earth's rotation (listed in your own FAQ), go find a Foucault pendulum (a northern hemisphere one will do just fine).

Responses welcome.

Edit: A force of this size would launch the man towards the horizon at around 270 km/h....

24
Flat Earth Debate / Evidence In Favour of A Round Earth
« on: April 15, 2007, 08:59:56 PM »
Evidence the Earth is round:

1. Photographs from space.
2. Modern Astronomy (all calculations use RE and are consistent).
3. The size of the sun (a FE sized sun is impossible).
4. Gravitation by mass (it would collapse to a sphere).
5. The horizon and it's effects (ships going 'down' etc)
6. Flight times.
7. Foucault's pendula worldwide, Coriolis effect.
8. Antarctic exploration.
9. Curvature apparent from high altitude.
10. Seasons/Day&Night (FE explanations sketchy or inadequate).
11. Formation theories (none can produce FE).
12. Mass of the Earth (consistent with Gravity observed)
13. Uniformity with nature (celestial bodies are spherical and have orbiting moons/planets).
14. Communication times (light must travel round RE, all measurements shorter on FE).
15. Total scientific consensus (no modern scientist supports FE).
16. Total lack of evidence to the contrary (competing theories not verifiable by experimentation).
17. Agreement with/foundation for other theories which are also demonstrably accurate (e.g. Tectonics, gravitational lensing by the sun).
18. Sunrise and sunset.
19. Lunar eclipses.
20. The internal consistency of all of the above.

Many of these have had half-hearted theories thrown at them before, but if any flat earther can demonstrate (not theorise) why any of these is actually 'wrong' or provide a truly credible alternative then he/she/it might gain some scientific credibility. I anticipate your eager and scientific responses.

Reminder: Explaining how it might be wrong without showing that it actually is is not good enough, but it's a start if you can't do better...

25
Flat Earth Debate / Upside-Down Earth
« on: April 15, 2007, 05:29:48 PM »
Have you FEers all made a colossal mistake? How do you know that the 'Ice Wall' is at the "south pole" and not the north one? If the government prevents us getting near the wall, it could be anywhere, but more reasonably it could be at either north OR south. As there is no evidence for an ice wall at all apart from conjecture and speculation (I can provide pictures of icy shit at north and south poles so Ross Ice Shelf doesn't count) can you tell me you know for sure which way up the Earth is? THis question has been asked before but Franc was here. Needless to say it descended into a massive flame war within minutes.... If any genuine FEers would like to respond I'd be interested to hear how they are so sure their worldview is right...

By the way, where is Narcberry?

26
Flat Earth Debate / The Sun
« on: April 15, 2007, 03:37:54 PM »
If the sun is 32km wide, it cannot have a fusion reaction at its core, as this would simply blow it apart. We know the Sun is made of hydrogen and helium by astronomical spectroscopy (falsified readings on thoroughly reproduced experiments? hundreds more astronomers to pay off...). So two big questions arise:

1. How does the Sun remain a coherent body, as it is made of gas? If it isn't made of gas what is it made of and how does it fool our spectrometers?

2. Where does the energy on the Earth come from? Solar energy is being considered and it already used on a small scale as a power source, and all plant and animal life depend on the suns radiation to survive either directly or indirectly. How could this be possible if the sun is not carrying out fusion?

The reason the sun does not blow apart in RE theory is that it's mass which REers know to cause gravitation is providing a counterbalancing force keep it from exploding while its fusion prevents its collapse. If it is only 32km across it would not have enough mass to produce this gravitation, and as you don't believe mass produces this effect anyway, what's going on?

Anyone?

27
The Lounge / Where Are You?
« on: April 11, 2007, 08:03:54 PM »
Flat or round we're all somewhere on it, just curious to see the geographical distribution of debaters here...

28
Flat Earth Debate / 'Proof'
« on: April 06, 2007, 05:47:29 PM »
You can't prove the Earth is flat. Neither can you prove it is round. In fact, no self respecting scientist would ever claim to have 'proved' anything. All you can do in the real world (i.e. not the world of pure mathematics etc) is show that something is somewhere on the scale between possible and very very likely. But how is this important to a flat or round earth theory?

Well you could argue that what makes a good scientific theory (and Flat Earth and Round Earth both claim to be scientific) is one that is useful in some way, for example theories of voltage, current etc giving rise to modern electronics and its sister disciplines. The theory of gravity is useful because we can use it along with some classical mechanics to predict the behaviour of heavy objects in structural engineering and the forces experienced by aircraft. These theories are (relatively) simple, and give us accurate and useful predictions about what might happen in an as yet untested theoretical situation, like if we built a building with no supporting structure on one of the walls (gravity decrees: crashshhhhhh).

The point of this thread is just to ask, as a scientist whose round earth/flat earth alignment is irrelevant, which, if either, of the two proposed theories are of use to us? If we have two models that both explain current events, which is better in terms of fewest axiomatic assumptions and fewest unknown quantities? (Occam's Razor slices again!)

Btw sorry for the long longness but I have just invented an exciting new theory about particles I call conspiratons. They are invisible, immeasurable and have no mass, but they account for all unknown things in the universe due to their strange properties...but wait, how does it help that I know that?

Pages: [1]