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 - NTheGreat

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / The FE as a model.
« on: June 01, 2009, 12:48:10 PM »
Rather than looking at evidence for or against a FE or RE, I would like to point out a different problem with the FE idea. Regardless of whether it is reality or not, the FE model is incredibly poor when compared to the RE model

I cannot think of a single situation where the FE model has any kind of benefit over the RE model. Calculating the position of the Sun, for example. In a RE model, it is a simple task of putting an observer on the surface of a sphere that's rotating around it's axis and the Sun, which will provide sufficient accuracy for most things. In the FE model however, beyond the rotation and movement of the Sun towards and away from the North pole, you need to factor in atmospheric reflection, the height of the Sun, potentially bendy light, the density of the atmosphere blocking the light at sunrise/sunset, and the factors that lead to perpetual sunlight at the South pole. Most of these factors are completely unknown, meaning that working out where the Sun is, or even working out if you can see it at all, is practically impossible under a FE model. Even in areas where the FE model can provide a simple way of explaining and predicting what we experience, such as a consistent apparent downwards force, the RE model is able to explain and predict just as simply.

I consider the idea of a FE bad not because of a lack of evidence for it, or a belief that the evidence of a RE is correct, but simply because trying to use a FE model is hopelessly impractical. Even if the Earth really was flat, what would it matter? The RE models still work perfectly well for everything we do.

Flat Earth Debate / Transit of Venus
« on: February 24, 2009, 09:42:00 AM »
Now, Anyone can spend a little while watching Venus and see that it's going around the Sun. It shrinks and grows as it moves back and forth across the sun, and it undergoes phases as it moves round the Sun, letting you see which direction the sun is from it's point of view.

We'll use something well documented and observed by many to explain a problem with FE celestial mechanics. The transit of Venus of 2004. I'm sure at least a few of you observed it, and if you didn't there will be another on June the 6th, 2012. Be sure to catch that one if you can, as it will be the last for quite a while.

Now, the transit of Venus is where Venus passes in front of the Sun, meaning that we observe a small dark disc pass over the disc of the Sun. Given that the Sun in a FE model is a little thing 3,000 miles away, and Venus is this little fragment of stuff who knows where, you would expect that the transit would only be observable from a small area of he planet, where these two objects line up from an observers point of view.

Yet, the transit was observable everywhere that the Sun was observable. What's more, it was observed in much the same place on the Sun all over the planet, something that shouldn't happen in a FE model even if Venus was rolling up against the surface of the Sun.

Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

Flat Earth Debate / Earthshine.
« on: December 18, 2008, 11:36:31 AM »
A while ago, I had the opportunity to observe Earthshine on the crescent moon. It started me thinking on how the FE model explains why the dark side of the Moon appears so dark. Around the time of a crescent Moon, the reflected light from the landmasses, oceans and clouds on most of the day-side part of the planet would be shining on the Moon, and you would expect such a huge area to outshine a small 50 km wide ball of a sun.

The number of little phenomena and extra forces keeping everything in check in the FE model seems to be growing quite big, so I thought to collect all the ones I have seen so far into a single topic. If you feel that there are any that I have missed out, or you feel that one currently in here is explained by something else, then please feel free to point it out. I shall try to update this list occasionally as the models change.

RE specific unknowns

  • Gravity: An apparent attractive force exerted by all known mass. Possibly caused by warped space-time, but why mass warps space-time is unknown.
  • (RE model) Dark energy: A force that seems to be accelerating the rate of expansion of the observable universe. Not any really solid ideas as to what it is as of current.
  • Dark matter: A form of matter believed to explain why galaxies seem to contain more mass than they look like they contain. May be due in part to a lack of understanding about gravity over large distances.

FE specific unknowns

  • (FE model) Dark energy: A force that accelerates either:
    • Everything, in which case matter blocks the force and prevents it from accelerating objects on the surface of the planet, and rapidly spreads back across above the planet to accelerate the celestial objects above the planet, or;
    • Only accelerates certain forms of matter, which the base of the planet and the celestial objects are made of but not objects on the surface, which it passes through without affecting.
    Has no known cause.
  • (FE model) Electromagnetic accelerator: A force that acts in the same direction as FE model dark energy, and accelerates only light. No known cause, although it may somehow be related to FE model dark energy.
  • (no known name)Force rotating the heavens: Force that keeps the Sun, Moon, planets and stars rotating around the North pole. Becomes weaker as it approaches the North pole so that stars close to the Celestial pole are moved less than those near the equator. Also varies, moving the Sun closer and further from the North pole to account for seasons, although this may be due to a different force. Also may act to rotate the planet's core and produce the magnetic field that we observe. No known cause.
  • (no known name)Force operating Sun: Method of operation that allows the sun to generate large quantities of energy from such a small sphere. Either due to:
    • An undiscovered mechanism of fission that allows the sun to break up atoms into pure energy without any or very little waste products, or;
    • The sun being made of an unknown substance that can generate large quantities of energy.
  • Shadow object: A object made of an unknown material that blocks or reflects away all light coming from the Sun to cause Lunar eclipses, but allows light from the stars to pass through it. Note that this may not be needed if the moon produces it's own light.
  • Tidal forces Force raising and lowering the tides that acts upwards at the point where the Moon is and the point opposite from where the Moon is, and acts downwards at points 90 degrees in front/behind the former points. May be due to an attractive force generated by the Moon and a repulsive force generated by an anti-Moon on the other side of the planet, but is currently largely unknown. The sun also seems to have a similar, but smaller, effect much like this.
  • (no known name)Attraction between certain celestial bodies: This force is evident in the sun, keeping Mercury and Venus orbiting it, and is also present in some of the outer planets keeping their moons orbiting and in binary stars. Attraction acts between only certain objects, ignoring other objects if they pass close, suggesting that such objects are made of a different kind of matter to other objects that is only affected by this force.
  • (no known name)retrograde loop force: Force that explains why the outer planets seem to reverse their motion when they reach the point in their orbit that is furthest from the Sun. May be related to the force that keeps them orbiting in a circle above the planet, or to an attraction between them and the Sun.
  • (no known name)Force bending light near the Sun: The force or mechanism that explains why light from the stars behind the sun seems to be bent towards the Sun, as observed during an eclipse. May be related to the attractive force the Sun seems to have on certain objects.
  • (no known name)Mechanism delaying signals sent to celestial objects: Mechanism that causes signals that are bounced off of the Moon or other celestial objects to take so long to return to us. Measurements from the planets may have been somehow faked by NASA, but the extended length of time for a bounce to the Moon has been verified by at least one third party. No known cause, but may be due to a extremely dense, transparent flat object between the celestial objects and us.
  • (no known name)Mechanism causing galaxies to have very large red or blue shift: Mechanism that makes the galaxies to seem like they are travelling at a very high speed towards or away from us, when in actuality they have a very low radial velocity. May be due to a unknown substance between the galaxies and us that shifts the spectral lines of the light emitted by the galaxies, or due to the galaxies being made of a different kind of matter which happens to emit light with the same spectra as normal matter, bust shifted slightly to the left and right.
  • FE creation: Mechanism that lead to the various aspects of the FE model being as they are, for example the Sun an Moon forming as almost perfectly spherical objects and the Earth forming as a almost perfectly flat sheet of matter. Also may apply to why the stars, planets, galixies and other celestial objects formed as they did and where they are.
  • FE compisition: Form of matter, or forces in place that explain why the planet retains it's shape. May be due to unkown forms of matter that make up the base and sides of the planet, preventing it from changing shape, or due to unknown forces holding the planet in a disc shape. Form of matter or forces will have to not cause any earthquakes as to remain undetectable from our side of the disc.
  • behavior of earthquakes: Property of the inside of the planet to spread earthquakes in a certain pattern across it's surface. May be due to the waves being bounced back by unusual reflective properties of the matterthat makes up the inside of the planet, but is currently unknown.
  • Celestial gears: Mecanism that rotates groups of matching stars around certain points above Antarctica. Possibly due to some kind of interacction with the main rotation around the North Pole, but why is currently unknown.

Again, if there's anything you feel needs to be added, removed or changed, then feel free to discuss it.

Last edited 1:22AM GMT

Flat Earth Debate / How does it all stay together?
« on: November 20, 2008, 08:58:39 AM »
Something I have begun wondering about in the FE model is how everything stays together.

We will start with the Moon. According to the FAQ, it's 32 miles, or for simplicity's sake, 50 kilometres, across. Although there's no force of gravity under a FE model to keep it together I suppose it's possible for it to be a single large rock, held in once piece by molecular bonds. This does bring up the question of why it formed a perfect sphere. As there is no gravity to force it into a sphere, there's no reason why it should form such a shape. Perhaps, then, it cooled from a blob of liquid, as surface tension would cause it to form a sphere. But then, why does it have such an irregular cratered surface? Any kind of collisions would make such a huge sphere of rock shatter apart, and internal eruptions would spray out into space, resulting in long trails of cooled rock coming off of the moon.

Next is the sun. Observations of it suggest that it has a dynamic surface, so it must be made of liquid, as a solid would not change nearly as frequently. It would not be a gas, as it would then just dissipate, with nothing to hold it together. Of course, the sun is also in space, which seems to be a vacuum. A liquid cannot exist in a vacuum, so the sun would rapidly evaporate into a gas, and drift off into space. Perhaps then the sun is in a hollow transparent sphere made of a solid material? But it cannot be, as the Sun regularly throws out prominences and a solar wind giving rise to the Northern and Southern lights.

Lastly is the Earth. A huge sheet of fractured rock full of molten goo, much like a giant Jammie Dodger. Constantly pushed up from underneath by the FE model dark energy, pressed down unevenly on top by the weight of the continents, stirred around by whatever causes the tides, and held together with nothing beyond the surface tension of magma, as far as we are know.

Is there any explanation as to how all these things stay together in the FE model?

Flat Earth Debate / Light elements.
« on: April 26, 2008, 08:11:30 AM »
What happens to any light elements, especially something like helium, that we or some natural force puts into the atmosphere? In RET, such elements are light enough to exceed the escape velocity of the planet if given sufficient energy from the Sun, but in a FE model, the escape velocity is essentially infinite, so no gas should escape. The only alternative would be to have the elements drifting off towards the South Pole, but that just brings up the question of why the rest of the atmosphere doesn't follow it.

Flat Earth Debate / Size of the FE.
« on: April 20, 2008, 02:29:43 PM »
How do we know that the FE disc is 24,900 miles across? It's quite clearly stated in the FAQ, but I've never seen a study measuring it and a sufficiently accurate FE map doesn't exist to pull the measurement from. Considering the fact that the coast of Antarctica is not a perfect circle in either model, it can't be a measurement from one point on the Antarctic coast to the opposite point, as it would vary depending on where you were on the coast. Likewise with using the Magnetic pole, as it would drift over time. It could possibly be from one edge of the disc to the other, but a number of FE hypotheses suggest a much larger or infinite FE, which wouldn't have an edge near the given number.

The only place I can see this measurement coming from is the circumference of the RE in RET.

Flat Earth Debate / I need to get this problem cleared up.
« on: January 20, 2008, 03:07:32 PM »
There's a problem in FET which has probably plagued most REers. Satellites.

So far, I've seen two schools of thought, neither of which provides a good explanation. They don't exist, or they're planted by NASA

The main problem I have with this is that there's a lot more to satellites than NASA putting a few objects up there. A number of different groups have launched objects into space, including a few privately owned companies. Even more are involved in the manufacture of satellite parts and guidance systems. There's a vast number of Earth stations that listen to satellites, and I expect very few, if any, are controlled by NASA. No doubt thousands of people also have satellite dishes attached to their homes, pointing skywards.

GPS is also a small concern to me. I've seen the arguments that say you don't need a system of satellites to provide a GPS system, and I'm aware that you could run such a system without one. The system that's currently used, however, couldn't be. GPS receivers, in principle, generate a position based off of the delay between signals generated from the emitters. Trying to fool a civilian receiver into thinking that the objects it's receiving from are tens of thousands of kilometers up in the sky doesn't bear thinking about.

I really want to know how FE explains away satellites. Just dismissing them as part of the conspiracy gets a lot more people involved, and doesn't explain why dishes are pointed skywards.

Flat Earth Debate / The rest of the Solar System.
« on: January 08, 2008, 08:29:03 AM »
How does FE theory explain the other planets? RE theory suggests they are orbiting the same star we are, all held in their orbits by the suns massive gravitational field. It also allows us to predict the paths comets and asteroids take, and thus allows us to predict when comets will turn up, and when asteroids will get dangerously close to Earth. We can even use radar on some planets to find our distance from them, allowing us to produce a accurate map of the solar system.

in FE theory, there doesn't seem to be any real logic or predictability to the system. It would be logical to  expect the planets to follow the same ring path as the sun, but if they do, why do they appear to change direction when they reach the furthest point from the sun? Why does there distance determined by radar suggest they are millions of miles away, when they are in fact just 3,000 mile above us? Why does the radar based distance vary so wildly? Why does Mercury and Venus seem to oscillate around the sun, but none of the other planets do? What determines when a comet grows a tail, or when it turns up? As for asteroids, they must just seem to wander about randomly up there. What's keeping everything up there anyway?

Flat Earth Debate / Transpacific cables
« on: January 06, 2008, 05:19:55 PM »
How do the cables running between America, Hawaii, Japan and Australia work in a FE model? Wouldn't one of the several companies that have paid for and laid them notice that they are having to pay for far more cable than they should need to?

Flat Earth Debate / The rest of the universe.
« on: December 25, 2007, 02:42:00 PM »
What is the Flat earth stance on the rest of the Universe? I can see 3 possible models for it, each of which seem to have some flaws.

1) The universe is devoid of absolutely everything aside from Space time, UA/FE dark energy and our little system. Problems are the inability of meteors to exist, despite clear observations of them, along with evidence of past collisions with the planet from extraterrestrial objects.

2) The rest of the universe is being accelerated along with our planet. Problems are that the rest of the universe seems to operate on a sphere basis, with no obvious reason for our planet not to. The fact that our understanding of how stars works requires (gravity/gravitation/gravitational force/whatever you want to call the force that causes stuff to move towards each other, I know you're fussy about what you call it here) in order to form them and hold them together is also a small problem.

3) The rest of the universe is stationary and is unaffected by the UA/FE dark energy. This has the main problem of the fact we would observe the rest of the universe streaming past us at a fairly fast rate. Light would also be unpleasantly blue shifted above us, and red shifted around the horizon. Collision with anything is also very nasty in this situation.

Which situation is correct, and what explains away its flaws? Also, is there some kind of collection of the currently accepted FE models?

Flat Earth Debate / Metors and such.
« on: December 11, 2007, 04:13:13 AM »
How does the FE model explain the presence of metors and evidence of past meteorite strikes?

in the RE model, it's fairly simple. Earth's drifting around the sun at a fairly brisk 30km/s, so any small bits of rock it encounters are going to be moving a fair bit faster than terminal velocity (We even have reliable predictions of when metor showers are going to occur, based on when the orbit of the earth intersects comet trails). As they enter the Earth's atmosphere, they're going to slow down a lot, converting all that speed into friction induced heat, burning up and leaving a glowing trail across the sky. Meteorites are much the same, except they don't completely burn up and end up leaving an impact crater instead.

This doesn't really work on a FE model though. After about 4.6 billion years of accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2, We're going at an unpleasantly large fraction of the speed of light. Thus, anything that we encounter is, relative to us, going to me moving with a very, very large amount of energy.

Some quick calculations show that if you take a 10 gram lump of rock, provide it with the energy it would get from being accelerated at 9.8 m/s^2 for 4.6 billion years (what it would be  doing, relative to the earth), and then work out it's kinetic energy, it comes out at about 1 * 10^34 J, or the equivalent of 5 * 10^ 16 Tsar bombs (50,000,000,000,000,000).

And that's from 10 grams of rock.

This shows that nothing's going to be coming from space, and anything that we or NASA puts up there isn't going to move fast enough to burn up. So what is the FE explanation of such things?

Flat Earth Debate / Question regarding the layout of the Flat Earth
« on: December 07, 2007, 03:09:59 PM »
Out of interest, what evidence is there that the center of the earth is at the North pole? Wouldn't the idea of the south pole being the center be just as valid? The mechanics of the flat earth seem to be particularly effective at preventing people from detecting whether they are in the inner half or outer half of the circle, so why does every map suggest that the Northern hemisphere is the inner section of the circle?

Pages: [1]