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 - rabinoz

Pages: [1] 2 3
Flat Earth General / Sandokhan and Gravitation etc
« on: November 25, 2019, 12:34:05 AM »
Sandokhan has been continually spamming of the "Radar ranging in the Solar System" thread with completely irrelevant material.

So I'll try to answer his posts here.

"Four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere" by exactly the same thing that stops YOU flying off into space and that is gravitation.

Please describe the attractive mechanism by which a molecule of water is attracted by the Earth's iron/nickel core.
Who says it does? But I'm still waiting for your explanation the attractive mechanism that stops YOU flying off into space.

Quote from: sandokhan
When velocities become appreciable compared to c or when close to huge masses Einstein's General Relativity gives the best current solution.

You still seem not to understand what is going on.
No,  that's you!
Quote from: sandokhan
Quote from: sandokhan
General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.
No matter how deep you go there are always are deeper levels. In your hypotheses please explain exactly why there is a far higher density of aether around Venus than the Moon. Careful how answer because there might be a trap.

Quote from: sandokhan
Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.
That's totally wrong! General Relativity describe's precisely in which way mass and energy affect spacetime but maybe it does not answer why - ask a physicist.

Quote from: sandokhan
General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.
No GR does not rely on Newtonian Gravitation. 
Part the background of GR was Einstein noting that there were two definitions of mass for the same object.
                One is the inertial mass as in force = massinertial x acceleration
and the other is the gravitational mass as in force = (G x Mgrav x massgrav) / d2..
Yet in every case  massinertial = massgravmassgrav.
Having two definitions for the one mass seemed incorrect to Einstein and so to cut things short he saw that the force that we call gravitation is really an inertial force and not an attractive force as Newtonian Gravitation appears to be.

Here's  some entertainment for you:

General relativity explained in under three minutes

Quote from: sandokhan
This is what you wrote earlier:
The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime
Explain to your readers HOW mass bends spacetime. You haven't done so at all.
You refuse to answer the simplest question so why should I bother with that? Go ask a physicist!

Quote from: sandokhan
No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.
Have you asked everybody, including Einstein?

Quote from: sandokhan
Feynman resolved the energy-momentum tensor problem by the field approach: the gravity force between Newton's apple and the Earth is caused by the exchange of gravitons. Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.
I seriously doubt that Feynman went further than suggesting that gravitons might be the gravitational analog of photons in electromagnetism and could tie gravitation into quantum mechanics.

But to date General Relativity and Quantum mechanics are not compatible for a number of reasons.

Quote from: sandokhan
Then, you have a huge problem: how do gravitons produce curvature?
Nobody says that they do.

Quote from: sandokhan
Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.
No they do not "rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model".
They use Newton's Laws of motion an universal gravitation where it is sufficiently accurate simply because it is so much simpler to work with.

But Cosmologists and particle physicist certainly use relativity in many situations.

The bottom line is that however much you wriggle and squirm General Relativity is by far the best explanation of gravitation and mechanics that we have to date.

But that does not mean that it will not be modified,  updated or changed in some way.

Do you have a better theory that let's you do real calculations for things like, say, the propagation time for light or other EM radiation  to and from the Moon, Venus and Mars at any specified date?

In New South Wales and up here in Queensland, we've had rather devastating bushfires for quite a while.

So I wake up this morning to:

Sun through Smoke on November 11, 2019 at 5:56 AM
Sun's Disc through Smoke on November 11, 2019 at 5:55 AM

There's no need for a solar filter here this morning. The exposure was ISO 160 f8.0 at  1/2000 sec but no sunspots ;).

And recent evening news showed a time-lapse of the images from the Himawari 8 weather satellite. This is a satellite image for this part of Australia at 5:50 AM this morning:

Himarwai 8 image on BOM Satellite Viewer - Australia East Coast on November 11, 2019 at 5:50 AM.
This is a link to the satellite viewer for this region Satellite Viewer: Hi-resolution satellite imagery of Australian weather by Himawari.

I'm just south of Brisbane and no fires are very close to here but there are fires to the north, west and south leading to a very smokey morning here.
One thing that has surprised me is that California has fires that are probably much worse than here but we've had firefighters come from the USA to assist here - for which we are very grateful.

So if these images do not come from a satellite just where do they come from?

This is simply a reply to a post by Sandokhan in the thread: Flat Earth General   Re: how to know the altitude of a DirecTV satelite where it is quite off-topic.

Georges Sagnac derived the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula, which features the AREA.
Look, YOU cannot arbitrarily define what is Coriolis Effect and what is Sagnac Effect. That has been decided long before YOU came on the scene!

No! Georges Sagnac derived the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, which bears HIS name and features the AREA.
Go and read:
Regarding the Proof for the Existence of a Luminiferous Ether Using a Rotating Inteferometer Experiment by Georges Sagnac
Abstract: This is English translation of Georges Sagnac’s second paper, which presents his “rotating interferometer experiment” where
the phenomenon known as the Sagnac effect manifests itself. This paper was originally published, in French, as: Sur la preuve de la realite de l’ether lumineux par l’experience de l’interferographe tournant. Note de G. Sagnac, presentee par E. Bouty. Comptes rendus, 1913, tome 157, pages 1410 –1413. Translated from the French in 2008 by William Lonc, Canada. The Editor of The Abraham Zelmanov Journal thanks William Lonc for this effort, and also Ioannis Haranas, Canada, for assistance.
Special thanks go to the National Library of France and Nadege Danet in person for the permission to reproduce the originally Sagnac paper in English.

Quote from: sandokhan
The definition of the Sagnac effect is applied to a closed loop (either circular or a uniform path).
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
Thus, from a mathematical point of view, Michelson did not derive the Sagnac effect formula at all, since he compared two open segments, and not two loops.
No! Whatever YOU CLAIM, Michelson derived the Sagnac effect formula!

How can you ever claim that this is "two open segments, and not two loops"?

Quote from: sandokhan
The definition of the Sagnac effect.
Using the correct definition, we recover not only the error-free formula, but also the precise velocity addition terms.
For the Coriolis effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the area; only the phase differences of EACH SIDE are being compared, and not the continuous paths.
No! The Coriolis effect is completely different and is not related to area in the slightest!

The theory was originally developed by Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis and applied to water-wheels. His original paper is the second in:

Quote from: sandokhan
For the Sagnac effect, one has a formula which is proportional to the velocity of the light beam; the entire continuous clockwise path is being compared to the other continuous counterclockwise path exactly as required by the definition of the Sagnac effect.

Experimentally, the Michelson-Gale test was a closed loop, but not mathematically. Michelson treated mathematically each of the longer sides/arms of the interferometer as a separate entity: no closed loop was formed at all. Therefore the mathematical description put forth by Michelson has nothing to do with the correct definition of the Sagnac effect (two pulses of light are sent in opposite direction around a closed loop) (either circular or a single uniform path). By treating each side/arm separately, Michelson was describing and analyzing the Coriolis effect, not the Sagnac effect.

Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
No! The Sagnac loop can be any shape at all! And, of course, you would analyse any straight edged loop one edge at a time! Whyever NOT?

Quote from: sandokhan
Connecting the two sides through a single mathematical description closes the loop; treating each side separately does not. The Sagnac effect requires, by definition, a structure, the end of which is connected to the beginning.
No! The Sagnac loop can be any shape at all! And, of course, you would analyse any straight edged loop one edge at a time! Whyever NOT?

Quote from: sandokhan

Two pulses of light sent in opposite direction around a closed loop (either circular or a single uniform path), while the interferometer is being rotated.
Quote from: sandokhan
Loop = a structure, series, or process, the end of which is connected to the beginning.

A single continuous pulse A > B > C > D > A, while the other one, A > D > C > B > A is in the opposite direction, and has the negative sign.

Let's ignore your derivation and use the result from what appears to be the source of your diagram: The Michelson-Gale Experiment by Doug Marett (2010)

Look at this from what appears to be the source of your diagram:
Quote from: Doug Marett
Conspiracy of Light, The Michelson-Gale Experiment
In refining his argument, he proposed that it was not necessary for the light to go all the way around the globe - since there should be a velocity difference for any closed path rotating on the surface of the earth. He presented the following equation to calculate the time difference expected, using the shift in the interference fringes when the two beams overlap at the detector as a measure of the time difference:
where:  Vo = the tangential velocity of the earth's rotation at the equator (465m/s)
              A = the area of the circular path
              R = the radius of the earth (6371000 m)
              c = speed of light (3E8 m/s)
              f = the latitude in degrees where the experiment is conducted.
              l = wavelength of the light
And those 2's should be 4's because even Michelson didn't initially get it quite right and it was corrected by Silberstein:
Quote from: Doug Marett
   The experiment remained in abeyance for several years, until Silberstein published a paper in 1921 on the theory of light propagation in rotating systems. In this article, Silberstein discusses Michelson's proposed experiment and through calculations of his own demonstrated that the time difference expected in such an experiment would be double what Michelson suggested.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
After taking all these factors into account, the expected fringe shift becomes:

Quote from: sandokhan
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein, a physicist on the same level with Einstein and Michelson, partially inspired and supported the Michelson-Gale experiment.

In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
<< Let's ignore all that for the moment - I simply do not have the time! >>

He proved that the real cause of the phenomenon measured by Georges Sagnac was the CORIOLIS FORCE EFFECT.
No! Dr. Ludwik Silberstein did not "prove that the real cause of the phenomenon measured by Georges Sagnac was the CORIOLIS FORCE EFFECT."
He showed that the light paths deviated from straight lines due to the Coriolis effect but by a negligible amount and so that was completely left out of his final result!

Malykin and Pozdnyakova do say:
Quote from: Grigorii B. Malykin and Vera I. Pozdnyakova
Siberstein [798, 799] suggested an explanation of the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of effect of the Sagnac forces on the counterpropagating waves. . . . . The areas of the triangles are different."
Now, while "the areas of the triangles are different" Dr Siberstein had previously shown "Thus, even for a ≈ 10 or 20 km the difference would certainly be too small to be measured directly.
So Dr Silberstein certainly does not "derive the Coriolis effect" and on the contrary, he shows that its effect is "certainly be too small to be measured directly."

And again: Malykin and Pozdnyakova say:
Quote from: Grigorii B. Malykin and Vera I. Pozdnyakova
Siberstein [798, 799] suggested an explanation of the Sagnac effect based on the direct consideration of effect of the Sagnac forces on the counterpropagating waves. . . . . The areas of the triangles are different."
Now, while "the areas of the triangles are different" Dr Siberstein had previously shown "Thus, even for a ≈ 10 or 20 km the difference would certainly be too small to be measured directly.
So Dr Silberstein certainly does not "derive the Coriolis effect" and on the contrary, he shows that its effect is "certainly be too small to be measured directly."

Quote from: sandokhan

The formula derived by Dr. Silberstein, peer reviewed in the IOP article, and described by the author as the "effect of the Coriolis forces" is this:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
Excuse me but is it described by the author as the "effect of the Coriolis forces"? Silberstein explicitly neglects the "effect of the Coriolis forces"!

So dt = 4ωA/c^2 is simply the Sagnac Delay, nothing more!

Quote from: sandokhan
Here is the Maraner-Zendri formula:

What Maraner and Zendri did is to derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula with relativistic corrections which are dependent on the center of rotation, and NOT the SAGNAC EFFECT.
No, they did not "derive the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula" but they did "derive the Sagnac Effect formula with relativistic corrections which are dependent on the center of rotation".

And that "dependence on the center of rotation" is only part of the relativistic corrects and in any case he showed that in practical cases the relativistic corrections are negligible.

If those corrections are neglected it reduces to the usual Sagnac expression which is independent of the shape of the loop and the centre of rotation.

Quote from: sandokhan
They used the SAME derivation as did Michelson based on a comparison of two sides, AND NOT THE TWO LOOPS as required by the definition of the Sagnac error, a huge error on their part.
Nope, that's just your incorrect interpretation.

Quote from: sandokhan
For the uninformed RE: here is the correct definition of the Sagnac effect.
You mean the one that goes on to say:
2.7  The Sagnac Effect
This phenomenon applies to any closed loop, not necessarily circular. For example, suppose a beam of light is split by a half-silvered mirror into two beams, and those beams are directed in a square path around a set of mirrors in opposite directions as shown below.
Just as in the case of the circular loop, if the apparatus is unaccelerated, the two beams will travel equal distances around the loop, and arrive at the detector simultaneously and in phase. However, if the entire device (including source and detector) is rotating, the beam traveling around the loop in the direction of rotation will have farther to go than the beam traveling counter to the direction of rotation, because during the period of travel the mirrors and detector will all move (slightly) toward the counter-rotating beam and away from the co-rotating beam. Consequently the beams will reach the detector at slightly different times, and slightly out of phase, producing optical interference "fringes" that can be observed and measured.

Quote from: sandokhan
No, you have never shown that "THE SAGNAC EFFECT DOES NOT REQUIRE AN AREA" and the CORIOLIS EFFECT is quite unrelated to an area.

Go and read what the Coriolis Force is! Here is the expression for it

Flat Earth General / Mountains on the Moon
« on: August 19, 2019, 08:19:00 PM »
The projection of the Sun onto the atmoplane is official explantation in Earth Not a Globe and both Wikis on both FES websites. You can read about it here:

Take a magnifying glass to text on a piece of paper. The lens rebroadcasts the photons to a slightly different position. It's as if an image is projected upon the surface of the magnifying glass.
No, it is not "as if an image is projected upon the surface of the magnifying glass".
It is as if a real image is projected on the far side of the lens (from the object) or a virtual image on the near side of the lens (the same side as the object).

See Images, real and virtual
and The Physics Classroom: Refraction and the Ray Model of Light - Lesson 5 - Image Formation by Lenses, Converging Lenses - Ray Diagrams

So where is there any lens to bend the light up by tens of degrees of to magnify the size on the sun, moon or constellations to that same apparent size they were when near overhead.

Who's coming up with unsupported hypotheses now?

For those who might be interested this is a long interview in Australia with Neil Armstrong by CPA Alex Malley:

An Audience with Neil Armstrong (2011 interview) by Slartibartfast
In this interview, the first man to walk on the moon gives a personal commentary on Apollo 11’s historic lunar landing along with his thoughts on leadership and taking risks to innovate for the future.

Neil Armstrong is a household name, yet, in contrast to his crew-mate Buzz Aldrin, he has studiously stayed out of the spotlight in the decades since he walked on the Moon. He frequently passed on interview and advertising requests, all the while beating back unwelcome advances on his legacy.

So it was a coup of sorts for Certified Practicing Accountants organization of Australia to score an extended interview with Armstrong, a connection that seems about as natural as a two-headed kangaroo. (CEO Alex Malley had developed the relationship, sharing his concerns about long-term strategic planning both in business and politics with Armstrong. The interview was a part of CPA Australia’s 125th anniversary celebration.)

Armstrong shows flashes of the rationality and equanimity that made him an ideal astronaut candidate in the first place. He confesses that he gave Apollo 11 a 90% chance of returning home safely, but just a 50% chance of landing on the Moon successfully. He expresses a sense of fate about his dangerous work as a test pilot and astronaut, refusing to worry about future tasks because he figured something would go wrong first and he’d be otherwise engaged firing the ejection seat or scrambling to repair a valve. Of his time on the Moon’s surface: “we weren’t there to meditate, we were there to get things done.”
A few comments on that interview:
Quote from: Randy Crew
The most enjoyable and delightful interview I’ve ever watched with Neil Armstrong. Alex Malley set pleasant atmosphere and held a relaxed and humble demeanor with Neil... such a wonderful change from most other interviewers.

Neil Armstrong held the position for me as the one person I put at the very top of a list of those I want to meet before I depart.

Thank you Alex for a great interview.
Quote from: Jet 82
What a fantastic interview, conducted with such respect and integrity. It resulted in the most detailed and thorough account I have ever heard from the man himself.
Quote from: Paul Stan
I think this was the most interesting and best interview I’ve seen in my 66 years.

Quote from: C GMP2
Great glimpse from a modest professional who remained focused throughout his life and achieved great things with logical mind, true grit combined with humility.

QANTAS QFA 63 flies non-stop from Sydney, Australia to Johannesburg in South Africa.  The given route is close to this:

FlightAware QANTAS QFA63 Sydney to Johannesburg

Earlier this year Jerry Williams, Greater Sapien on YouTube flew to Johannesburg on that flight.
He videoed and tracked the whole flight.
Rather than showing a video over 13 hours long he forwarded all the material to WheresWa11y  who post this sort of thing.
WheresWa11y reduced it to the following 17 minute video which shows the highlight with UTC timestamp and compares the track with the ADS-B track where available.

GreaterSapien - The Day The Sun Stood Still - QF63 SYD-JNB by WheresWa11y

The shortest distance between Sydney and Johannesburg on the usual Flat Earth map would overfly India and be around 23,700 km - quite impossible non-stop.
The route taken by the real flight initially heads almost south.
The flight took off about 1:06 UTC and landed at about 14:17 UTC - an elepsed time of 13 hours and 11 minutes.

How would such a flight be possible on the flat earth where the shortest distance would be about 23,700 km?
And note that the flight started out flying nearly south!

Flight distances on the usual Flat Earth Map. If someone has a different map maybe they could show the distance on it.

1892 - Gleasons Map - Air Routes

Tom Bishop posted this in the "Suggestions & Concerns" forum where it should not be debated.

I think that there should be a forum where the RE get together and try to figure out the nonsense in their model.
Rather than relying on a video by Jeranism, it would be better to read the article referred to, so here is the link: Cosmology Has Some Big Problems by Bjørn Ekeberg

Firstly even the question of a Heliocentric Solar System vs a Geocentric Solar System or even a Geocentric Universe is almost irrelevant to the question of the shape of the earth.
There is virtually no way without modern instruments or good astronomical telescopes that an observer could know whether the earth rotates and orbits the sun or not.

And up until the early 20th century few astronomers gave any thought to the Universe extending past the stars then visible.
Andromeda was just considered a spiral nebula but Edwin Hubble in 1923, using the new 100" telescope, was the first to see it as another Galaxy outside the Milky Way.
Quote from: Discovery
1923: Other galaxies exist
In the early 1900s, astronomers were debating the makeup of spiral nebulae — cloudy, spiral-shaped objects found throughout the night sky. Were they gas clouds located within our Milky Way galaxy, or were they vast groups of stars located far beyond our galaxy?

In 1919, American astronomer Edwin Hubble tackled the question. His keen astronomical knowledge was combined with a powerful tool – the Hooker telescope with its 100-inch mirror, on top of Mount Wilson in California. Hubble used the telescope’s resolution and light-gathering power to take a series of photographs of the great nebula in Andromeda. For the first time, the images revealed faint stars in the nebula.
Until as late as 1923 Cosmology involved only the relative nearby stars.
So I would rather call Cosmology involving anything outside our easily visibly range "Modern Cosmology".

But even the basic theory of the Heliocentric Solar System need involve nothing outside the solar system except that observations of even nearby stars provides solid evidence that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice-versa.

So I fail to see why we need defend anything outside the Solar System as part of the Globe model.
There is at least one member here, cikljamas, and quite a number outside, including Robert Sungenis, who are Geocentrists (or neo-Geocentrists) and are very opposed to the idea of a Flat Earth.

So, in my opinion, Tom Bishop's claim "that there should be a forum where the RE get together and try to figure out the nonsense in their model" is quite unnecessary.

While Modern Cosmology might by interesting it is still in quite a state of flux but is totally irrelevant to the Flat Earth vs Globe Earth question.

What do others think?

Suggestions & Concerns / Something mysterious has happened.
« on: May 01, 2019, 04:05:08 AM »
There was a recent thread "Earthquakes and ocean tides" which quite a number of us, including Tom Bishop and myself, put quite a deal of effort into.
But just today, Stash, noticed that it was missing, apparently without trace other than 7 posts split off into "Angry Garbage Dump" for "reasons".
But I tried to find Wise's post quoted in:
these questions are not questions that can be answered immediately. I can deal with it at a more suitable time, not for now.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But all I got was this:

So, I would like to know what happened to the thread without any explanation left behind. How is that possible?
I, for one, would like to know at least where these posts went.

Can anyone offer an explanation and if possible retrieve those "lost posts".

Here, posting as odiupicku, you post a video supposedly "proving" that there is no "mid-night sun" in Antarctica":

FLAT EARTH - ANTARCTICA 24 HOURS DAYLIGHT HOAX by odiupicku, Published on Jan 11, 2016

After a great long intro, finally from 1:50 it caterogorically states that, "Antarctica does not have 24 hours of sunlight, Proof from the Amundsen-Scott South Pole station".
And you finally end with,
"This is only one video out of about 20 and they are all timelapses throughout an entire month. All of these videos skip periods of around 10 hours everyday, with 6 hours being the minimum."
And you get plaudits from your adoring Flat Earth Fans as:
Quote from: Ashlee Webster, 3 years ago
Amazing work!! Another one debunked!! Great video thank you!!

Then looking for recent videos about 24-hour daylight in Antarctica I find this one:


And under it you make the comment:
Quote from: odiupicku, Published on Jul 22, 2018
Only at the Pole - the sun circles around the horizon in 24h here is a time-lapse of nearly 5 days from March 08-13, 2017. So only a few days until sunset so in the course of 360° the sun moves a bit closer to the horizon.
In that more recent video you "prove" that the South Pole does have 24-hour sun yet in 2016 you claimed, "FLAT EARTH - ANTARCTICA 24 HOURS DAYLIGHT HOAX".
Of course, your previously adoring Flat Earth Fans are not very happy now and you deserve some credit for enduring their ire.

I understand that you might have changed your views from the earth being flat when you made the first video (and a since deleted one from Casey Station, I believe).
That might be commendable but what I fail to understand is how you managed to prove that the South Pole did not have 24-hour sun back in 2016 yet
in 2018 you show that the South Pole has "MIDNIGHT SUN" even over March 08-13, 2017.

You do, I hope, see my problem with this. My question to you, cikljamas/odiupicku, is:
In the period from 2016 to 2918 are you claiming that the sun changed its path so that now there really is 24-hour sun at the South Pole?


Water finds its level but is still curved? by Olivier Joseph

Submersible aircraft anyone? Where did the A340 go?

Airbus A340 Air Madagascar - Height: 17 m
Airbus A340 Air Madagascar - part 'under'
Airbus A340 Air Madagascar - almost 'under'

Or another slight variation in presentation with the Brainy Beaver:
Flat Earth Debunked Again , Starring The Incredible Submersible Aircraft! by Brainy Beaver ;D

"Could I be excused for thinking that Eric Dubay does not approve of" Mark Sargent's approach to the "Conspiracy".

Read this from Eric Dubay's "pen":
Quote from: Eric Dubay
The Atlantean Conspiracy: Flat Earth Shill Wall of Shame
Mark Sargent: About six weeks after my flat Earth book, videos and articles started going viral, this character showed up on YouTube making a series of well-presented "Flat Earth Clues" videos, uploading a new one every day.  Next he started getting several radio interviews per week, got his very own radio show, and even went on Coast 2 Coast AM all in the name of exposing his "Flat Earth Clues."  These "clues," however, instead of revealing actual scientific evidence/experiments which prove the Earth to be flat like myself and all genuine flat Earthers do, Mark's "clues" are always merely his personal speculations.  For example Mark's first "Flat Earth Clue" is that Hollywood hasn't really made many movies about the Moon landings, and this gives him a raging clue that Apollo was fake and Earth is flat.  His second clue was claiming with no evidence whatsoever that Freemason Admiral Byrd had reached the "dome."

The unfounded claims only got more ridiculous as Mark began doing radio interviews.  Suddenly he began saying that "the Moon and stars are not there, they are holographic projections," and recommending at least once per show that everyone must visit fellow shill Crrow777's YouTube channelI called Mark out on this at IFERS (of which he is still a member, but refuses to post) giving abundant evidence that the Moon/stars are natural luminaries and NOT holographic projections, to which he responded only once and did so not personally, but through another fellow shill, Acenci.  Acenci relayed Mark's message which said, "Of course I don't have evidence that everything in the sky is a projection of some kind. The look, and opinion I'm taking is strictly from a design standpoint."  And herein lies Mark's method of muddying the waters of truth and poisoning the flat Earth well.  Everything he has to say on the flat Earth subject is based on "his model"; not science, evidence, experiments, proof, or reason, but rather what he thinks works best from "a game design standpoint" (because he used to be a video game designer).

So he claims without evidence the celestial bodies are "projections"; He claims without evidence that Admiral Byrd reached the "dome"; He also claims without evidence that heat is NOT caused by the Sun (in his model) but by unknown processes underneath the flat Earth!; He has claimed more than once that "gravity is something we can prove obviously exists" when all genuine flat Earthers know gravity does NOT exist, has never been proven, and is just density; He even recently introduced his own untested theory of "molecular magnetism" to explain gravity in his "enclosed flat model."

In interviews, Mark regularly lies about me saying things like "Eric thinks the Moon is 2-dimensional while (he) thinks it is 3-dimensional," when the truth is that I have always said the Moon is a natural luminary while he says it's a holographic projection.  He claims "Eric considers himself a flat Earth purist" another lie I've never said, nor do I even understand what a "Flat Earth purist" is supposed to be.  In one interview Mark had the audacity to lie and claim that I purport that the Flat Earth disc is constantly rising to account for gravity when I have exposed in my articles/interviews repeatedly that this is a FALSE Flat Earth argument put forward by the controlled opposition Flat Earth Society, and that gravity doesn't even exist!

<< etc, etc, etc. >>
Mind you, having Eric Dubay for an enemy might be a mark in Mark Sargent's favour.

Flat Earth Debate / What Exactly is the Celestial Gears Model?
« on: March 13, 2019, 02:55:35 PM »
This was question was prompted by an "explanation" put forward by Jane:
Or it's just affected by the same force that makes the stars move. With the celestial gears model for example, and the basic fact that distances between stars don't vary, that much wouldn't be at odds with what is already observed. Whether what is already observed is justifiable is a whole other matter, but even so we would expect it to stay lined up, at least approximately.

Exactly what is "celestial gears model" and what are these "celestial gears"?

There is no mention of "gears" in the "FAQ" and this is all I could find in the "Wiki":
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
The Coriolis Effect
Water Currents
The rotation of small scale liquids in opposing hemispheres was debunked by Snopes.

As for water currents on a large scale; they're simply gradually put into motion by the winds. Water currents in the Northern Hemisphere will tend to rotate in one direction while currents in the Southern Hemisphere will tend to turn in another direction.

Wind Currents
The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears.

The Wiki only seems to discuss the Ice-Wall model, where as far as I could see, there is no possibility of there being "Northern and Southern Celestial Systems".

The "heavens" seem to be described as simply rotating about the Polaris, over the North Pole.

One of the earliest threads is: Celestial "Gears" « on: November 20, 2007, 02:28:43 AM » and that is followed by this "explanation":
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The dynamics of a multiple stellar system demand that every body of a swirling star system move in tandem with each member body as if the entire system were a solid disk. The underlying cause for the rotation is due to vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of mass - an imaginary point completely compliant with the Newtonian system. This is an extrapolated and more complex binary star movement, where the stars move around around a shared gravitational influence.

Each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through a shared gravometric influence. Formation is created through gravitational capture - at least three objects are actually required, as conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing another. The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

The stars in the night sky trace almost perfect circles around the hub of the earth because by necessity the mechanics of a multiple system rely intimately on the movements and vectors of every member body. Circular movement is the most perfect, stable movement. If one celestial body is out of place or moves in a different fashion than the other bodies of the group the entire system becomes inherently imbalanced. Eddies, or stars that move out of tandem, will either leave the system entirely or are compelled by the stellar system to move back into its locked pace and apogee. This is why there are no elliptical orbits, and why an entire cluster moves at a set uniform speed.

Galaxies also actually rotate at a set uniform speed and apogee throughout its disk. Galaxies move as if they were a solid disk. Describing the movements of galaxies have been a challenge to astronomers, requiring the dynamics of multiple star systems we know today.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Therefore, since galaxies rotate in the same fashion as the stellar systems over our heads, we see that there is a pretense for the multiple systems I've described.
To me that seems to say nothing concrete about what is so simple to observe:
    Looking north in the Northern Hemisphere the stars seem to rotate anti-clockwise about the North Celestial Pole, near Polaris, and
    looking south in the Southern Hemisphere the stars seem to rotate clockwise about the South Celestial Pole, near the tiny barely visibly Sigma Octantis.

And in a later thread Tom Bishop posts:
I could ask one of the scientists at the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base to repeat it, if you like.

First off, the Scott-Amundsen South Pole base is an American Military Base funded by the Department of Defense, the same guys who maintain our fleet of GPS satellites.

Secondly, it's not inconceivable that the sun might "switch gears" once it moves past the equator into the realm of the Southern Gear, circling around Sigma Octantis in the winter.

This would give the Northern Hemisphere its short winter days and the Southern Hemisphere its long winter days.
But that could only apply to a Bipolar Model such as Tom's.

So without having to read voluminous posts mainly ridiculing "Celestial Gears" can anybody answer:
exactly what is this "celestial gears model" that seems to be raised so often as the explanation of the "Southern Star Rotation?

It's not quite that "scientists admit they don't know" but rather that scientists cannot find a quantum mechanical explanation for gravitation without "holes in it".

And there are excellent reasons why "they don't know".
Einstein recognised that "Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system".
And that is all that is needed in anything we need on earth or even in the solar system, unless the velocity or needed precision are extraordinary.

See this reference where GR is required to "return Newtonian results for ordinary conditions".
Quote from: John D. Norton
Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity, Assembling the Pieces: The "Entwurf" Paper of 1913, Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity, John D. Norton
This quantity is almost the Einstein tensor. Grossmann is so close to the modern Einstein field equations that one could now scarcely imagine how the final steps could not be taken.

But they are not taken. One condition the new equations must satisfy is that they must return Newtonian results for ordinary conditions.
For Newton's theory works extraordinarily well for the weak, static gravitational fields of our solar system. The sentence highlighted in red says:

"However it turns out that this tensor does not reduce to the [Newtonian expression] Δφ in the case of infinitely weak, static gravitational fields."
That is, Grossmann declared the equations under consideration not to merge nicely back into Newton's theory in this essential case.
Einstein's General Relativity is an excellent explanation of gravitation but it is a "classical theory" but there are reason's that indicate that gravitation should also be quantised.

Quantum theory has "force carriers" for the other fundamental forces, for example, the "photon" is the "force carrier" for "electromagnetic forces".
By analogy many of the properties of the "graviton" can by hypothesised but:
  • Some of these properties lead to severe inconsistencies and
  • On an atomic scale gravitation is some 1040 times weaker than the electromagnetic force.
    Hence the energy of a graviton is far less than that of a photon and hence the graviton (even if it exists) might never be individually detected.
Here is an introductory video on quantum gravity:
Quote from: Dr. Don Lincoln

Quantum Gravity, Fermilab
While there are many challenges facing modern particle physics, perhaps the ultimate one (and certainly among the most difficult) is to describe the nature of gravity in the quantum realm.  Despite a century of effort, scientists have had only the most cursory of success.  In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln talks about the idea of quantum gravity and sketches out the need for this difficult advance.

General Relativity provides an explanation of gravitation but it does not fit with quantum theory.

Suggestions & Concerns / Doesn't this bother any administrator?
« on: January 04, 2019, 08:13:55 PM »
Try a Google search for "Is Qantas killing the passangers?"

Then search for "Qantas fake airline just fooling the world".
I knew what to search for so that they came at or the top but I'm certain that others will find these links soon enough.

Who wants the society associated with accusations like that?

Flat Earth General / Does scripture teach a Flat Earth Cosmology?
« on: December 22, 2018, 03:11:27 AM »
Many try to argue that the Scriptures do not really contain flat earth cosmology. Strangely I believe Scriptures do contain flat earth cosmology.
But not being an expert in such matters, I'll keep an open mind.

Nevertheless I do not believe that the Scriptures teach a flat earth cosmology and I believe that there is a difference between "contain" and "teach".

Let's put it this way:
  • The Scriptures were written to a people whose cosmology was that the earth was flat and probably as presented on the apocryphal Book of Enoch.

  • Hence many believe that the Bible was never intended to teach "Cosmology" and simply contains the cosmology of the time.
Now just imagine what the ancient Hebrews would have thought if their scriptures had tried to "bring them up-to-date" in "modern science".
They would have been totally confused and probably quite unable to grasp the real message of the Scriptures.

And there is another big problem, just what "modern science" would it present?
  • That of Ptolemy as believed by the early Church and the Reformers, John Calvin and Martin Luther?
  • That of Nicolaus Copernicus or of Tycho Brahe?
  • That of Galileo, Kepler and Newton etc?
  • That of "Modern Science"?

"Modern Science" is not yet complete anyway and any Scientist or Cosmolologist knows that.
To cover any of that the scriptures would exceed the Encyclopædia Britannica many times over and the real message would be totally lost.

You might read Science and Faith, Perspectives on Christianity and Science, Essays Table of Contents
 and especially III: DOES THE BIBLE TEACH SCIENCE? Robert J. Schneider

Flat Earth General / Where in World is Johannesburg?
« on: November 23, 2018, 09:06:19 PM »
If the earth is layer out like in Gleason's Map where is London?

Distances Between 4 Cities
Checking distances is a fairly simple way to show it is impossible to map our Earth to a flat plane.

Just pick 4 cities that are all fairly distant from one another (8000 km or more is perfect).  The distances don't even have to be all that accurate, as we will show in our example.  If you pick 4 cities that are closer to each other then you need more accurate distances.  I don't want to have to care that much about having super accurate distances, I want something that is glaringly obvious.

For my example I've used Sydney, Johannesburg, Buenos Aires, and London:

But that's just one Flat Earth map.  Let's make it more general...

The Method
What I did is pick the cities with the three longest routes and placed those first three cities that distance apart on a flat plane (Sydney, London, Buenos Aires) using a scale of 10 km to 1 pixel.

Then you draw an arc from each of those cities with a radius equal to their distance to the fourth city (Johannesburg in this case).  If the Earth is flat, then the distances from Sydney, Buenos Aires, & London to Johannesburg will all cross at just one point.  This is simple plane geometry.

But as you can see below, the triangulation doesn't even come close to fitting on a flat plane.  They are many thousands of kilometers off - ridiculously far off.  This isn't because we don't know the distances, these distances only fit on a Globe.

And this doesn't use any particular map or rely on compass directions, angle measurements, or anything else.  Just the distances.
There are no direct flights between some of those cities but there are plent of other sets of four to chose from.

The Usual Suspects
The excuse that we don't really know the distances is absurd but if you doubt them in many cases accurate enough distances can be estimate from direct flight times.

And within a continent they have been surveyed so verifying distances from say Google Earth. And in many cases you can drive it.
There is no excuse for such profound ignorance when you can pretty easily verify this for yourself.

See another version using Cities in the US though better accuracy is needed for the shorter distances.:

"Borrowed" from Flat Earth Insanity, Distances Between 4 Cities.

Flat Earth General / Why do clouds stay up?
« on: November 01, 2018, 06:04:12 PM »
Sandokhan seems to want to pursue the issue of "Why do clouds stay up?". So let him do it here.

Let's start with a repeat of part one of my posts where I claim that clouds stay up by simple buoyancy because they are less dense than the surrounding air.

Quote from: sandokhan
Here are the correct calculations:
Official science: typical cumulus cloud has some 1/2 g per cubic meter of water density
Typical cumulus cloud = one cubic kilometer in size = one billionkm3 in volume
total water content of the cloud = 500,000,000 grams of water.

A cloud is not as heavy as than the air it displaces!  In other words clouds are floating! as described in:
This Is How Much a Cloud Weighs.

So now the real question is, how does all this massive weight stay afloat in the sky? What's stopping it from collapsing on our heads at any moment? *Looks up nervously*.

To start with, this weight isn't all concentrated in one point, it's obviously spread out over a huge space. Clouds are also made up of water droplets that are sometimes so tiny that gravity has hardly any effect on them. And because of condensation, clouds are actually buouyant.

Perhaps even more surprising is the fact that a cloud is actually less dense than dry air, so that keeps them floating, as as Soniak explains.

Find out more in the episode of It's Okay To Be Smart below, and never think of clouds the same way again.
And read it all in: This Is How Much a Cloud Weighs, FIONA MACDONALD 19 FEB 2015
Yes, as I showed before and you ridiculed, clouds are lighter than the corresponding volume of dry air or even air at 50% relative humidity.

But yes, I agree, your little cloud will contain about 500,000 kg of liquid water. Now:
For example air at an altitude of about 1800 m typically has a pressure of 812 hPa and temperature of about 3°C.
Under these conditions dry air has a density of 1.024 kg/m3 and fully saturated air has a density of 1.0204 kg/m3 from Air Density Calculator by Dominik Czernia.
Note that these calculations are just examples because the temperature and pressure varies throughout real clouds.

The air within a cloud has a relative humidity of 100%.
Hence that little 1,000,000,000 m3 cloud also has 1,020,400,000 kg of air at 100% humidity so its total mass is 1,020,900,000 kg.

Now that 1,000,000,000 m3 of dry air would have a mass of 1,024,000,000 kg or 3,600,000 kg more than the cloud and its water.
Exactly as I said before and as Fiona Macdonald wrote.

And that is how clouds stay up there - they float in the air!

Now "updraughts" still come into the picture in two ways:
  • Clouds are formed when an updraught of warmer more humid air, which is less dense than cooler drier air partly because water vapour is much lighter than air, forms an updraught.
    As that updraft rise, it cools raising its humidity. When that air becomes fully saturated some of the water vapour condenses into minute water droplets forming the cloud.

  • Now within the cloud these minute water droplets would slowly sink because they are some 800 x more dense than air.
    Being so small their sink rate is very slow, of the order of 1 cm/sec so a very slight updraught can keep them suspended in the cloud.
    There are known to be large updraughts in cumulus and cumulo-nimbus clouds and these updraughts are to cause of the billowy shape of cumulus clouds.
    I'm not going into the processes in the cloud as I'm no meteorologist but any interested could read:
    A Measurement of the Velocity Field of a Cumulus Cloud, J. Levinea, M. Garstangb, and N. E. LaSeur
    A 3-hr flight of a constant-volume balloon which is entrained into a cumulus congestus cloud and lifted to an altitude of nearly 3 km provides an opportunity to determine the trajectory and vertical velocity of the balloon and, in turn, relate these to the circulation of the cloud. Simultaneous supplementary observations by radar, cameras, satellite, and other ground based instruments provide the meteorological context for the event. Computations show that the vertical velocities of the cloud may approach 10 m sec−1, and sustained upward velocities of 3–5 m sec−1 are maintained for considerable periods of time and height. Comparison with a “jet” model shows remarkable agreement, while the “bubble” model would require unreasonably large values of the radius to generate the observed vertical velocities.

    The .pdf document is to be found at: A Measurement of the Velocity Field of a Cumulus Cloud, J. Levinea, M. Garstangb, and N. E. LaSeur

So updraughts are still very relevant to cloud formation and to internal to the cloud but no updraught needs to "follow the cloud around" as one has foolisly suggested!

If there is any dispute over this please present rational arguement and not claim that massive numbers or accusations about my sanity carry any weight!

In the Wiki we find:
The Sun
The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
But clearly as the "flat-earth" sun circles above the earth its distance from the observer must change so the apparent size of the Sun should change..

Simple observation of the sun through a suitable solar filter, however, shows that the angular size of the Sun does not change throughout the day as this video demonstrates:

The smart Flat Earthers know the Sun does not change size.
This following deals with that apparent problem:

On Flat Earth Theory
Now how do you explain this?

Most flat earthers here and on YouTube claim that Antarctica a ring around the earth blocked by and Ice-Wall about 112,000 km long. As in:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
The Flat Earth is laid out like the United Nations logo. The North Pole is at the center while Antarctica is at the rim. The continents are spread out around the North Pole.

Circumnavigation on an FE is achieved because on a compass East and West are always at right angles to North. Thus traveling Eastwards continuously takes you in a circle around the North Pole. East and West are curved.
Now that might explain East-West circumnavigation but:
As noted there have been quite a number of circumnavigations the went through both poles and here are more details of those and more
Flat-Earthers think there hasn’t been anyone who has circumnavigated the Earth by traversing both the north pole and south pole in the process. All we have are explorers who have circumnavigated the Earth to the east or west, parallel to the equator; explorers like James Cook or Ferdinand Magellan. They don’t really have the choice, because if polar circumnavigation is possible, then the flat-Earth assumption falls flat.

But, like a lot of assumptions in the flat-Earth community, it is simply not true. There are in fact many people who have done a polar circumnavigation, and the information can be easily found on the Internet.
  • November 14-17, 1965, Capt. Fred Lester Austin, Jr. and Harrison Finch took off from Honolulu, the United States to circumnavigate the Earth through both the poles.
    Route: Honolulu, United States – North Pole – London, England – Lisbon, Portugal – Buenos Aires, Argentina – South Pole – Christchurch, New Zealand – Honolulu, United States.

  • In 1977, PanAm Flight 50 circumnavigated the Earth through the North and South Pole in order to celebrate PanAm’s 50th anniversary.
    Route: San Francisco, United States – North Pole – London, England – Cape Town, South Africa – South Pole – Auckland, New Zealand – San Francisco, United States.

  • In 1979, Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Charles R. Burton set out from Greenwich, England to the South Pole, and then headed north to the North Pole and back to Greenwich. This journey is recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records as the first surface polar circumnavigation.
    Route: Greenwich, England – Cape Town, South Africa – South Pole – Auckland, New Zealand – Sydney, Australia – Los Angeles, United States – Vancouver, Canada – Yukon River, Canada – North Pole – Greenwich, UK.

  • In 1988-1989, Dick Smith circumnavigated the globe through both poles using a Twin Otter plane.

  • In 1992, Michael Palin made a documentary for the BBC featuring his travel from the Arctic to the South Pole.
    Route: North Pole – Nord Base, Greenland – Svalbard, Norway – Norway – Helsinki, Finland – Leningrad, Soviet Union (now St. Petersburg) – Kiev, Soviet Union – Odessa, Soviet Union – Istanbul, Turkey – Limassol, Cyprus – Cairo, Egypt – Khartoum, Sudan – Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – Nairobi, Kenya – Serengeti, Tanzania – Lusaka, Zambia – Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe – Cape Town, South Africa – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Santiago, Chile – South Pole.

  • In 2009, the TAG Transpolar08 flight circumnavigated the Earth through the North and South Pole, at the same time breaking the speed record, with an average speed of 822.8 km/h.
    Route: Farnborough, England – North Pole – Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada – Majuro, Marshall Islands – Christchurch, New Zealand – South Pole – Punta Arenas, Chile – Sal, Cape Verde – Farnborough, England.

  • At the time of this writing (February 2018), Mike Horn is attempting the same feat. He had already traversed the South Pole and is on his way to the North Pole. It is estimated his trip will be completed by Dec 2019.
And see here for references: Polar Circumnavigation.
           8. And just recently: One More Orbit Attempts World Circumnavigation Speed Record, Update 11 July: A new record, Total flight time: 46:39:38

The "One More Orbit" flight did not land at the pole so there is little evidence that it crossed the pole, other than from the FAI scrutineers.

One of these pole-to-pole circumnavigations disproves that "Ice Wall map" but above there are six completed and one in progress.

Can we declare that "Ice Wall map" dead and arrange a funeral service?

<< "One More Orbit " added 28 Sep 2019 >>

Flat Earth Debate / FAQ: What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
« on: October 11, 2018, 05:26:17 AM »
In a recent thread I asked what evidence the FES has that the earth is flat and was told to look in the FAQ, OK:

The FAQ at FAQ:: The Flat Earth Society answers it this way:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society FAQ
What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?
There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness. The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth. The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case. There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes. We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space! One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?

Our Library also has a great selection of books that further detail proof of the planar Earth.
The points claimed are:
  • The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth.

  • The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level. If the Earth was a Globe, this would not be the case.

  • There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes.

  • We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space!
Then adds, "One almost has to ask - is there any real evidence the Earth is a Globe?"

Before I "weigh in" with my tuppence worth would anyone else care to comment on the validity or otherwise of the pieces of evidence.

Flat-Earthers simply have to claim that all photos from space are fake.
Even one genuine photo of earth from space provides evidence against FET that is hard to refute so according to the Wiki must be fabricated.
See: THE FLAT EARTH Wiki, Place of the Conspiracy in FET, which clearly states that
"The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth" and "If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated".

But is there any real evidence that all claimed genuine photos from space are fake?

Flat Earth Falsities - Photo Fakery Challenge by VoysovReason
This video presents a challenge to identify one (non-space) "fake" photo from a set of genuine photos, then apply the same criteria to space photos. And here are the Photo Fakery Challenge higher resolution images.

The answer is on YouTube, so you can "cheat" if you like :).

Flat Earth General / Moon Hoax Theory dead - killed by rabbit!
« on: September 28, 2018, 01:22:23 AM »

Moon Hoax Theory dead - killed by rabbit! BertieSlack
The images were taken by the Yutu lunar rover, more commonly known in the West as the 'Jade Rabbit', which touched down on the Moon on December 2013 as part of the Chang'e-3 Moon mission.
Of course ;) any good conspiracy theorist will simply claim that the 'Jade Rabbit' is more evidence of the conspiracy.

Sorry, but there is no other way to out it, Bart Sibrel Lies in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!

And this is going to be long and almost all copy-n-paste. For those that don't like that, tough!
But moon hoaxers, and there are plenty here, just mention bits and pieces as though everybody believes the errors and deception from Bart Sibrel and the earlier material from Bill Kaysing.

Even though this post is long, it still only covers a little of that film but it might be a start.

This is for those who use any of Bart Sibrel's material as their evidence for the Lunar Landing being a hoax.

Be warned, this is why I named my blog “Science Doesn’t Work That Way.” Or “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.”
Eric Schwertfeger

Bart Sibrel is a well known figure in Apollo hoax claims. In recent times, he’s mostly known for getting punched by Buzz Aldrin. For the record, I don’t support assault, but given Sibrel’s approach, I can’t blame Aldrin either. However, one of his earlier claims to fame was when he created the documentary A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. This documentary claims to contain a smoking gun that proves that the Apollo missions were faked. Mind you, you have to wait through half an hour of hype, fear mongering, insinuation, and very poorly supported arguments before you reach some highly edited snippets from the supposed leaked video.

I may get into the rest of the documentary some day, but for now, you can read critiques of the documentary at or (thanks for putting work into the critiques, guys). The first one is more detailed, but I think the author was getting tired of it all by the time he got to the so called smoking gun video, because he really didn’t give it the ripping it deserved. On this entry, I’m going to correct this, and focus entirely on Sibrel’s analysis of the video. I won’t link to it because that would just increase his SEO, but it’s easy to find if you look.

The narrator starts of saying talking about the “never-before-seen footage” just about 33 minutes into the documentary. The narrator states that there are three parties on the audio, these being the astronauts, ground control, and a “third confidential party.” They state that the third party tells them what to say, when to say it, and how to fake certain effects with the camera.

The narrator then mentions them talking about blocking out the other windows to prevent too much sunlight inside the capsule while they film the earth. The narrator goes on to say that the astronauts are using the inner and outer bezel of a circular window to crop the earth and make it look smaller, which is why they needed the inside of the capsule to be dark. The narrator further goes on to say that a piece of felt was added to the window to cover part of the earth to make it look like the terminator (technically the dividing point between light and dark parts of the earth, but in this case the entire dark crescent).

Then, the narrator says that Neil Armstrong falsely explains that they’re 130,000 miles away from Earth, lying because they’re still in low earth orbit. Finally, they say that the camera can’t be in the window because otherwise an astronauts arm wouln’t be able to “come between the camera and the window, as it does here.” The narrator then goes on to say that the astronaut holding the camera tries to shift to the side so that the arm is out of the way.

Where to begin? At no point in the video does the narrator say what the evidence is that the astronauts are fudging the results. Nothing is said as to why it’s assumed that they used felt for the terminator. They’re suggesting how it could be staged without showing any evidence that it was staged. What they’re doing here isn’t remotely related to anything that could be called science. They’re not presenting evidence, just making accusations. Then, they talk about Neil Armstrong lying, which he must be because it’s all fake. I’ll get back to this later.

Now, lets get back to how they were saying the shot was faked, and why it would be impossible on multiple levels to fake the shot that way. First, there isn’t a window on an Apollo capsule that fits their description. There is one window with a round bevel on the inside. However, the outside bezel for that window was trapezoidal, so they couldn’t use it to trim the earth the way they suggested.
As you can see, none of the outer window bezels are circular. The inner bezel on the hatch window is circular, which is probably where Sibrel got the idea that this would be possible.

The problems with this explanation don’t end there, however. If you’re reading my blog in order, then you remember what I said about the minimum speed required in order to stay in low earth orbit in my previous entry, Going to orbit. It might not work the way you think. The minimum speed to be in low Earth orbit is about 4.8 miles per second. Sibrel either isn’t aware of this or didn’t think through what that would mean for his hypothesis. I will estimate that the earth is taking up a 15 degree field of view in that video. That’s a rather generous estimate, as the actual math says that at the distance claimed by the astronauts, Earth would take up less than four degrees of the field of view. Now, the narrator claims that Apollo 11 was actually only a few hundred miles up. At 200 miles up, a 15 degree field of view would result in a visible width of just under 50 miles wide. Not bad, probably not enough to result in the cloud formations we see, but I won’t quibble with that. No, the issue here is getting back to the orbital velocity. At 4.8 miles a second, anything that enters one side of that 15 degree field of view would be exiting at the opposite side of the field of view less than 11 seconds later. Any movement in that video is imperceptible, so it couldn’t be Earth filmed from low Earth orbit.

Now, so far, everything that I’ve mentioned was also covered in the Clavius breakdown, though they didn’t break down the math to show just how fast the world would be flying past that window. It’s also possible that Sibrel wasn’t aware of these facts as they’re not widely known. There’s three more points that the Clavius breakdown didn’t cover, however, and two of them aren't at all small.

First, the one small part. The narrator says that the “third party” voice is telling the astronauts what to say, when, and how to use the camera to achieve the intended fraud. Well, having watched the video, if the voice actually said all that, why did they edit it out? Seriously, watch the video again, the voice never told anyone what to say or how to use the camera. If they had video of that, it needed to be included.

Next is the part about the astronaut’s arm. If their description about what was happening was accurate, then the portion of the earth revealed through the window would have shifted when the camera was moved so that the “arm” didn’t obstruct the view. Think about it, if the “Earth” in the video is just a portion of the Earth visible through the window, then shifting the camera to the side would have meant that the portion of the Earth that was visible would have shifted. There was no shift in the video, so the explanation dies another death. However, this death is a little different. The previous issues would have only been noticeable if Sibrel had bothered to have his hypothesis checked by someone that knew the actual science behind this. This, however, is basic geometry, and indicates that Sibrel didn’t bother applying any critical thinking skills to his hypothesis, giving credence to this whole thing being less than intellectually honest. NOTE: I need to make a diagram of this and insert it here to visually show what I’m talking about.

If you’re starting to feel annoyed at Sibrel, it’s about to get worse. You see, contrary to his claims, this video has been released to the public since before he made his documentary. Youtuber GreaterSapien managed to line up parts of the “smoking gun” video with the actual publicly released video. It shows that Sibrel edited the footage, inserting parts of other videos to achieve his video. And it gets even worse. In the original, unedited footage, it shows the astronauts move from one window to another window to shoot the Earth from a different point of view. As they pull back from the window, you can see that the window they were filming out of wasn’t even the window with the round inner bezel, but was one of the rectangular windows. There is no way Sibrel edited this out without seeing it, meaning that he knew at the time he made the documentary that they hadn’t filmed that footage out of a round window. And because I like to provide evidence when I make accusations:

The only thing left of the smoking gun video is the “third party” voice that doesn’t do most of what the narrator claims it’s doing, and without an actual fake video recording, is quite likely what NASA presented it as, a TV station coordinating with the astronauts to record some video with the astronauts doing a little voice work for the video. To assume it’s anything other than that is to use the hypothesis that the Apollo missions were faked as your assumption to try to prove that the Apollo missions were faked. That would be what’s referred to as circular reasoning. Don’t try it in school, kids, you will get marked down for it.

So, where does this leave the video? You’d think that it started with the narrator making accusations without explaining what evidence they based this accusation on, there wouldn't be much room to go down from there. You’d be wrong. If you paid for the video (Sibrel sells DVDs of it on his web site and on Amazon, and is probably his motive for faking the video), congratulations, you just paid for fraudulently presented conspiracy theory fanfic, and I feel guilty calling it that because it’s an insult to fanfic.

Regardless, this means that the smoking gun video at the very least completely fails to prove that they faked the shot and that Sibrel either wasn’t capable or wasn’t willing to apply any level of critical thinking to his hypothesis. At worst, it shows that Sibrel knew that his claim was totally fake to begin with. As for the rest of the video, I’ll do that some other time, but basically, every part of it has been refuted. Someone even took the same type of camera that was used on the surface of the moon and took shots showing all the strange shadow effects that conspiracy advocates insist are impossible. I’ll include that link when I cover the rest of this video.

I may not look down on people that buy into the theories, but Sibrel manages to be an exception, and that’s ignoring the fact that he probably deliberately edited the video knowing that his hypothesis was wrong. For that kind of intellectual dishonesty, I can’t find any sympathy.

Addendum: I’d just like to thank Del de la Haye for finding a link to the original footage that Sibrel used to edit together his “smoking gun” video.

From: “A Funnier Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.” Eric Schwertfeger

If anyone likes to bring up other things like, the van Allen belts, moon rocks, the waving flag, the silent ascent rocket, the thermosphere and other points - bring it on.

But I won't listen to subjective ideas or those that take a few words out of context.

In closing:
  • If you insist that the Lunar Landings were faked make sure that your own facts are correct and not fake facts from Bill Kaysing or Bart Sibrel.

  • Please realise that many of the arguments used by both Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel rely on information from space missions and they certainly believe in the reality of LEO satellites. Remember that Bill Kaysing had earlier worked for Rocketdyne!

  • And even if the Lunar Missions could be proved a hoax - what effect does that have on the shape of the earth? Most proponents, even dutchy, give reasons for that that have nothing to do with the flat~Globe question.

Flat Earth General / Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!!
« on: September 15, 2018, 02:02:10 AM »
Have a look at this and see what you think:

Flat Earth "Leader" Gets His Best 5 Points Ruined!! SciManDan

Mark Sargent claimed that the scientists folded and could not answer.
It's far more likely that they were so ;D doubled up with laughter ;D that they simply could do nothing.

Or maybe just couldn't be bothered wasting their time with such ridiculous questions!

I really did think that Mark Sargent was smarter than that but, as they say in the classics, "you live and learn"!

Flat Earth General / Why NASA?
« on: September 09, 2018, 01:24:31 AM »
It seems that to many flat-earthers that NASA is the epitome of evil and by disproving NASA's accomplishments they prove the earth to be flat.

But why NASA?

Flat-earthers seem to ignore the fact that Russia had the:
  • First manmade satellite in orbit - Sputnik I.
  • First human in space - Yugi Gagarin.
  • First human to orbit the earth - Yugi Gagarin.
  • First woman in space - Valentina Tereshkova.
  • First crew of three astronauts in one spacecraft - Konstantin Feoktistov, Vladimir Komarov and Boris Yegorov.
  • First space walk - Alexey Leonov.
  • First spacecraft to reach the vicinity of the Earth's Moon - Luna 1.
  • First spacecraft to be placed in heliocentric orbit - Luna 1, accidentally but it still happened.
  • First surface impact on the moon - Luna 2.
  • First photograph of the far side of the moon - Luna 3.
  • First soft landing on the moon - Luna 9.
  • First lunar orbiter - Luna 10.
So please explain why NASA are the big bad boys on the block and not the Russians?

This question was asked on the site "Why are space agencies and governments lying to us about the existence of a flat Earth?".

One of the many answers was:
Quote from: Steven Cowart, works at NASA
I may be guilty of many shortcomings, but I am not a liar, especially about truths that stand on their own without my help.
If I knew the Earth was flat, I would tell you so, even if my agency (employer) disagreed. It would be a matter of personal integrity.
You are calling me a liar, me and all my co-workers are liars, according to you. Yes, this is personal, and it’s an outrageous accusation. All of the science that points to a round Earth is available for the reading. Where is your scientific evidence of a flat Earth? You hide behind anonymity and publicly label my peers and I as liars, without demonstrating a shred of evidence. Are our careers and livelihoods not worth any effort on your part to support your position? I work with men and women who have circled the Earth from orbit, who have seen our round world from a perspective that puts all your words to naught. Are they liars too? You should be ashamed.

From:, Why are space agencies and governments lying to us about the existence of a flat Earth?

Why do flat-earthers believe that they have the right to accuse so many of lying?

Flat Earth Debate / What is that Shadow Object? A reply to RoundGuy.
« on: July 28, 2018, 05:35:27 AM »
You, flat earthers, believe in the existence of some kind of celestial body that you call Shadow Object, that sometimes moves in front of the moon to create eclipses and other events.

I don't want to debate it's existence.

I am only curious about the physical and chemical properties of such object. I suppose you guys did proper research on that and have scientific evidence and data gathered. With the current scientific tools, it is very easy to discover it's properties, but I cannot find such data anywhere.

I am looking for data such as (but not limited to) what kind of radiation it emits or absorbs with corresponding spectrograms, overall molecular density, ultraviolet and/or infrared data, as well as chemical composition such as percentage of carbon, iron, magnesium, silicon, or whatever chemical elements are present in such object. Also I would like to know the exact radio or diameter of the object, speed of movement respect the moon and also respect the surface of the planet.
Finally, I want to know the geological or cosmic process/es that led to the creation of this object.

Where I can find all this data? (I already searched the wiki, FAQ and google, but found nothing).

Thank you.

I don't know about that "shadow object" but some big round thing thing sure ate our moon this morning!

Lunar Eclipse 20180728 0425 1/160 sec f/6.4 ISO 100
Lunar Eclipse 20180728 0506 1/125 sec f/6.4 ISO 400
Lunar Eclipse 20180728 0543 1/4 sec f/6.4 ISO 3200
Sorry about the quality of the last one, but that moon was a very dull red. At the time the moon was almost due west and only about 27° down to 11° above the western horizon.

But about that "shadow object", according to "the Wiki", the shadow object is the cause of lunar eclipses.
If you want more "elucidation" on this "read all about it" in "the Wiki" ::) How does a lunar eclipse work on a flat earth? ::)
Since the sun and moon are supposedly at "about the same height" and a lunar eclipse occurs only at the time of a full moon,
I think they must be arranged as:
But it is completely impossible because such a small shadow object could not cast any shadow on the whole moon that distance.
The sun and moon are supposedly about 30 miles in diameter and "it is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter."
How could this five to ten miles in diameter shadow object possibly cast a shadow to cover much more than the diameter of the moon?

The shadow on the moon this morning looks as though it was cast by some object considerably larger than the moon itself - not a tiny "shadow object".

Agreed the thread needed splitting up and it is more a Technology, Science & Alt Science issue that a Flat Earth vs Globe issue, so here it is:

This thread needs to be split up.

Any comments?

A physics illiterate has the audacity to challenge me on the double forces of gravitation paradox?
No, I made no mention of any "double forces of gravitation paradox", but I do have "the audacity to challenge" you to the properties of an ideal rope.

Quote from: sandokhan
Somebody tell me this is a joke.
There is no such thing as an ideal rope: THE IDEALIZATION OF THE ROPE is AN as yet unaccounted for problem in modern physics.
The physicists who wrote up that paragraph need to wake up and do some experiments in the real world.
Did you do any experiments in the "real world"? I did!
I did not have a spare ship handy, but I had a 10 kg concrete block and a spring balance (a force measuring device).
I found the sliding friction of that block on a smooth concrete surface is 5 kg (so that's the one weak man in some of your analogies) and
I found that I can pull somewhere over 20 kg with one hand, let's call it 25 kg (I'm not strong, let's call that the strength of the strong man).

Now when I pull that 10 kg concrete block along as smoothly as I can with the spring balance at the block end of the rope it reads about 5 kg (a bit hard to keep it steady) and
when I pull that 10 kg concrete block along with the spring balance at my end of the very light rope it reads the same 5 kg.

I wonder why it doesn't read 25 kg on my end, after all, I can pull 25 kg with one hand!

Quote from: sandokhan
From one of the best texts ever on mechanics:

That quote you give does not give any experiments, it's only a "thought experiment", though I have no disagreement with it.

It's a bit old, but so is Newton's work.
I won't argue and in fact, though a bit dated, that book seems to agree with what I've been saying all along.

You could, however, got a text version of that book, "A System of Natural Philosophy" by John Lee Comstock and actually quoted your reference.
And you might in fairness quote a bit more of you reference:
Quote from: John Lee Comstock
    109. It is easy to conceive, that if a man in one boat pulls at a rope attached to another boat, the two boats, if of the same size, will move towards each other at the same rate;
but if the one be large and the other small, the rapidity with which each moves will be in proportion to its size, the large one moving with as much less velocity as its size is greater.
    110. A man in a boat pulling a rope attached to a ship, seems only to move the boat, but that he really moves the ship is certain, when it is considered, that a thousand boats pulling in the same manner would make the ship meet them half way.
    111. It appears, therefore, that an equal force acting on bodies containing different quantities of matter, move them with different velocities, and that these velocities are in an inverse proportion to their quantities of matter.
    112. In respect to equal forces, it is obvious that in the case of the ship and single boat, they were moved towards each other by the same force, that is, the force of a man pulling by a rope. The same principle holds in respect to attraction, for all bodies attract each other equally, according to the quantities of matter they contain, and since all attraction is mutual, no body attracts another with a greater force than that by which it is attracted.
    113. Suppose a body to be placed at a distance from the earth, weighing two hundred pounds; the earth would then attract the body with a force equal to two hundred pounds, and the body would attract the earth with an equal force, otherwise their attraction would not be equal and mutual.
Another body weighing ten pounds, would be attracted with a force equal to ten pounds, and so of all bodies according to the quantity of matter they contain; each body being attracted by the earth with a force equal to its own weight, and attracting the earth with an equal force.

From: A System of Natural Philosophy by John Lee Comstock pages 31,32 or A System of Natural Philosophy by John Lee Comstock pages 31,32

Para 112. Seems to sort out the equal forces.

But I realise now why you selected that little bit from John Lee Comstock's book - the rest of it totally ruins all your arguments against Newtonian Gravitation, etc, etc.
And remember that this is "From one of the best texts ever on mechanics"!
So please read the chapter on GRAVITY from p. 24, the very chapter you quote from!

Quote from: sandokhan
No, the rope will not transmit two different forces. Let's leave it here till you digest the material in your reference, "one of the best texts ever on mechanics".

May I use other parts of that splendid reference in future debates.

So, any comments. Do you still want to carry on with "Andre the Giant and Shirley Temple", etc.

This might have been better in Angry Ranting,
          but I am not angry, just saddened, and want the material, not the personalities debated by some other than sandokhan, JackBlack and I.

JackBlack and I have been castigated, and called all sorts of names for daring to argue against Sandokhan's "Theories", so here is a post of his from "Suggestions & Concerns, Tactics to be to an admin, a moderator or curator".

The additional moderators are fine, but we need technical FE moderators who can put an end to rabinoz and jackblack's trolling in no time at all. Of course, each decision would be discussed first in the mods section, and only then it would be applied in the upper forums.

If Andre the Giant and Shirley Temple each pull on the different ends of a rope, obviously the forces applied will be different.

However, now the FE have to deal with this:

Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2017, 04:25:46 AM: Re: Sandokhans BS ideas and how they relate to boats and ropes « Reply #568 on: May 11, 2017, 08:36:40 PM »

If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.
<< I have added actual links, hopefully to the intended posts >>
For a massless rope, it must be.

That is why the FE are deserting this forum.
The "big" issue is that sandokhan claims that the static forces on the two ends of an ideal (massless) rope can be different,
whereas JackBlack and I claim that, in agreement with elementary mechanics, that they must be the same.

Somehow, sandokhan claims that this is a massive issue and "that is why the FE are deserting this forum".
And "we need technical FE moderators who can put an end to rabinoz and jackblack's trolling in no time at all. Of course, each decision would be discussed first in the mods section, and only then it would be applied in the upper forums."

Any comments?

Quora Can the rotundity of the Earth be proven without using NASA’s, the government’s, or the military’s data?

Answer: Bill Hazelton, PhD from University of Melbourne (1992)

Let’s be as clear as possible. NASA IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING THE SHAPE OF THE EARTH. Neither is it responsible for propagating information about the shape of the Earth.
Did you get that? What part of that is not clear or understood?

There are two models of the shape of the Earth, derived in different ways and used for different purposes. These are the latest and most precise and exact representations of the general shape of the planet we have.
NASA is involved in neither effort! Are you 100% clear on that? Are you sure?

Model 1. This is the ellipsoidal model, based on having a single, simple mathematical representation that provides the best fit to the ‘sea level’ shape of the planet. This model is termed the International Terrestrial Reference Frame, and defines exactly where the center of mass of the Earth is, the orientation of the various axes (X, Y and Z, a geocentric cartesian co-ordinate system) and is managed by an international agency (based in France) that is independent of government, military and NASA.

If NASA wants to use the latest model of the shape of the Earth, they get the data from the same place everyone else gets it from: The International Terrestrial Reference Frame (ITRF).

This work gives us the ITRF, currently at ITRF2014. The ITRF is the basis for the WGS84 model, used as the fundamental reference frame for GPS, and WGS84 is updated when there is sufficient difference between the current WGS84 instantiation and the the latest ITRF determination. ‘Sufficient difference’ tends to mean a difference up to 0.01 m at the center of the Earth, and hence at the surface.

Model 2. This is the geoid model, based on trying to represent an equipotential surface that gives the best fit to ‘sea level’ across the planet as a whole. This is also based on the idea that ‘sea level’ continues under land masses, and leaves out a lot of other factors that effect ‘sea level,’ such as prevailing winds, currents. The mathematical modeling for this, at the global level, was first carried out by a group working with Prof. Richard Rapp at The Ohio State University, and released in 1996 as the Earth Gravitational Model 96 (EGM96). Prof. Rapp retired at this point, and the work was continued by some of his students, primarily Dr. Nikolaos Pavlis, now with NGA. Their latest effort was released in 2008 and is EGM2008. It is publicly available to anyone who wants to use it, and you can get the details here: Earth Gravitational Model 2008 (EGM2008).

Most of the work behind EGM2008 is based on terrestrial gravity measurements, as well as a lot of geodetic measurements. Some is based on airborne gravimetry, although this is relatively recent, and tends to have a slightly coarser resolution. Satellite gravimetry, is also more smoothed, and the data is mostly from the GRACE satellite system. Yes, this is a NASA mission, but it is actually run by a consortium of universities from Germany and the US, among other places, and NASA is the contractor who launched the satellites and deals with getting the data down, etc. The results are processed away from NASA. After over 15 years, the mission has ended when GRACE-2’s batteries reached their end of their life.

Because EGM2008 is a global model, it is not used where additional information enables a better local determination of the geoid, e.g., in North America, Europe, UK, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. Local geoids for those specific regions are available on-line, e.g., US: The official NGS GEOID Page. Canada: Height Reference System Modernization. Australia: Geoid - Geoscience Australia UK: OSTN15 - the new geoid for Britain - Ordnance Survey Blog. Europe: [url]International Service for the Geoid[/url]. NZ: [url]New Zealand Quasigeoid 2016 (NZGeoid2016)[/url]. South Africa: GeoID and Vertical Reference Frame.

Note 1: The ‘rotundity’ of the Earth was established long before NASA was even thought of, by the Ancient Greeks, as others have noted. It also predates any government currently in power, the US, the US government, and the US military. It also predates NASA. You got that? The ellipsoidal shape was determined pretty well about 300 years ago, and the idea of the geoid about 150 years ago. All this was long before most of the world’s current governments and militaries were formed, long before aircraft and space flight, and long before NASA. All that has been done in recent times is make the results progressively finer and more precise, and discover all manner of interesting applications for the methods and data.

Note 2: ‘Sea level’ is not level, nor an equipotential surface, so it isn’t used much as a datum or reference surface. It hasn’t been used seriously in that way for several decades. It is subject to so many odd effects that it is unreliable compared to the precision with which we can measure it. So we measure elevations from the geoid, as the ‘zero-level’ datum. We measure location (2-D, e.g., latitude and longitude) using the ellipsoidal model of the Earth and the reference.

Note 3: NASA has nothing to do with the determination of the shape of the Earth and the dissemination of this information.
Are you 100% clear about that?

From: Quora Can the rotundity of the Earth be proven without using NASA’s, the government’s, or the military’s data?
Just thought NASAphobics out there needed reminding again!

Pages: [1] 2 3