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 - Lonegranger

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Flat Earth Debate / Central Pillar
« on: August 26, 2019, 05:33:07 AM »
The central pillar of flat earth belief is obviously the idea that the earth is a flat plane. On this site, it appears that their take on it is that the earth is not only flat but is an infinite plane. Sounds absurd but, recently on another thread, John Davis mentioned the existence of evidence:-

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82854.msg2197266#msg2197266

Now I have searched, but I found scant to no actual evidence to support the claim. As this is quite central to flat earth belief it would be interesting to have explained the 'compelling' evidence that has been said exists, particularly from John Davis as he counts himself as one of the acknowledged experts of this subject. If that is indeed the case then he should have all the answers. I look forward to hearing them.


2
Flat Earth General / Letís hear if for the Indians.
« on: August 23, 2019, 11:37:09 PM »
Well the Indian Satellite launched last month is now on orbit around the moon. Itís due to make a landing in early September to a pretty unknown region of the moon near its South Pole.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/22/spacewatch-india-moon-mission-lunar-orbit-chandrayaan-2

Chandrayaan 2 is on a mission unlike any before. Leveraging nearly a decade of scientific research and engineering development, India's second lunar expedition will shed light on a completely unexplored section of the Moon ó its South Polar region. This mission will help gain a better understanding of the origin and evolution of the Moon by conducting detailed topographical studies, comprehensive mineralogical analyses, and a host of other experiments on the lunar surface. While there, we will also explore discoveries made by Chandrayaan 1, such as the presence of water molecules on the Moon and new rock types with unique chemical composition. 

Quite an achievement, Iím sure youíll agree.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Where has it all gone?
« on: July 21, 2019, 02:28:27 AM »
Itís an interesting fact on the flat earth Wiki that rather than using their own flat earth maps for presenting their flat earth arguments they instead use regular projections of the globe.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry#Underground_Detection

In this case they are using maps to show the active earthquake zones that denote the various coming together of the tectonic plates that makeup the earthís surface. Plate tectonics, the moving around of the nine major plates and the ten or so minor plates is beyond dispute as their movements are being constantly monitored.

If you care to consider the mid Atlantic ridge which is forcing the plates that makeup the Americaís and Europe apart due to the formation of new rock, on a flat earth infinite or not, parts of continents would be being pushed over the rim as this new rock was being created.

At one time Scotland was connected to the North Eastern USA a time when there was no Atlantic Ocean, they are now over 3000 miles apart, is it the case that 3000 miles of continental crust have been pushed off the edge? If not a question to all flat earthers is where did all this crust go? If it was pushed off the edge it would have made a massive hole in the ice wall, resulting in all the oceans draining away.

So.....where is all the missing crust, given the age of the earth that would amount to a great deal of mantle, so where is it?

4
Flat Earth General / How many would agree?
« on: July 17, 2019, 05:19:52 AM »
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jul/17/greatest-photos-ever-moon-landing-shots-artistic-masterpieces

Its a pity how one of mans greatest achievements can be to some a red rag to a bull. With a new revived race to establish a permanent moon base within the next five years, I just wonder how people will feel the day the next man/woman steps onto the lunar surface?

this may help to explain the red rage.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2019/jul/17/why-do-so-many-people-still-believe-moon-landings-hoax-podcast

5
Flat Earth Debate / The infinite plane.
« on: July 07, 2019, 11:51:37 PM »
It would appear that some flat earth groups appear to think the earth is an infinite plane as apposed to just being flat.

I find this thought astonishing as the world has been mapped and been shown to be pretty finite, with its diameter, circumferences all being known pretty accurately.

Like it or like it not thousands of satellites whizz around the planet beaming back all sorts of data and it all confirms the earth is certainly  not infinite but very much finite.

Iím at a total loss to imagine why anyone, maths or no maths, could put forward such a clearly ridiculous idea. Though I did read a pretty cool sci-fi book recently where it allowed people to walk between planets using some kind of inter dimensional pathways, very cool, but fiction none the less.

The question is what proof is there that we live on an infinite plane?

6
Flat Earth Debate / UA
« on: July 07, 2019, 02:18:08 AM »
While there has been much debate on this forum about gravity there has been very little on its flat earth counterpart, UA.

With UA being one of the cornerstones of FE belief it would be interesting to find our why FE believers gravitate toward that explanation of why things fall.

In the FE Wiki on UA, which appears to spend most of its time discussing gravity rather than providing any evidence for UA, provides little or no evidence to convince the reader of the validity of UA.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#The_Basics

According to the WIki:

The are several explanations for UA. As it is difficult for proponents of Flat Earth Theory to obtain grant money for scientific research, it is nigh on impossible to determine which of these theories is correct.

I have to make clear the typo is on the Wiki and not due to my carelessness. The Wiki admits that there is no single explanation for UA and on exploring the Wiki there appears to be nothing in the way of supporting evidence. Though they do include these two experiments that we can all carry out at home!

Experiment 1: Step up onto a chair and step off of its edge while watching the surface of the earth carefully. The feeling of free-fall is the feeling of weightlessness. If you pay attention closely, you will observe that the earth accelerates upwards to meet your feet. Take note of any graviton puller particles or bending space that you observe during the experiment.

Experiment 2: Now find a ball and raise it into the air with your hand and let it go into free-fall. As it does this, as well as before and after, you should simultaneously feel the earth pressing upwards against your feet. This tells us that we are being pushed to be in the frame of reference of the earth, as the earth runs into the ball. Again, take note of any observed graviton puller particles or bending of space that you observe in this experiment.


......and Tom Bishop complains and nit picks the 200 odd precision experiments carried out under laboratory conditions to find the gravitational constant! While he presents jumping off a chair or throwing a ball as a way to prove UA!

It strikes me that the main argument for UA is based not on any evidence that may support it, as there is none, but rather on the grey areas that still exist in relation to gravity, which I am sure you would all agree is a rather feeble starting point.

The question is with so much evidence around to support gravity, why do flat earthers still reject it in favour of  its evidence free counterpart UA? Could it be due to the simple fact that gravity as we know it would  be impossible on a flat world, while UA Is a better fit  with their FE world?

Please discuss.

7
We all know the moon is real as everyone on the planet has seen it.

The problem is those who live on the Nothern Hemisphere have a completely different view of the moon than those who live on the Southern Hemisphere. Those who live in Australia, for example, see the moon upside down as compared to someone who views it from Europe.

Watch the video.....



Interesting timelapses..




Like many things, flat earthers will have a hard time explaining this and there will be little point crying fake as its something very easy to check out so there would be little point in trying to produce fake videos.

All one would need are a couple of images of the moon taken by two flat earth believers on the same night, one in Europe and one in OZ to either confirm or debunk this.

If flat earther cant disproved this easy to check proof the earth is a sphere is it time for them to pack up shop? It would be interesting to see what Tom Bishop has to say regarding this easy to verify fact.



8
Flat Earth General / Flat Earth Experiments
« on: July 05, 2019, 01:31:14 AM »
While there have been  200 recognised and controlled scientific experiments carried out  in recent years to determine the exact value of G

https://physicsworld.com/a/gravitational-constant-mystery-deepens-with-new-precision-measurements/

The question is how many flat earth experiments have been carried out recently to prove or confirm their belief in UA? It strikes me that main stream science has proved over and over again through experimentation the existence of gravity while all the flat earth community do is bandy about empty words with little to back them up.

When will the flat earth community carry out its own rigorous experiments to try to prove their belief in UA and reveal the results to the world? One would have imagined that with UA being a cornerstone of their beliefs they would have expended a great deal of effort in that direction.

9
Flat Earth General / Any Flat Earth Equivalents?
« on: July 03, 2019, 12:31:11 AM »
People on this forum often debate the true nature of the Cosmos coming up at times with fanciful ideas about objects such as the Sun and Moon which, using the right gear can be imaged quite easily. Here is a range of beautiful images of the Cosmos  taken by a number of photographers from around the world all of which clearly show the nature of both the sun and moon and other parts of the Cosmos. If flat earth believers have a different take on the nature of the universe why donít they go and take some photographs to support their beliefs? Why are there no images of the dome for example and why does every image of both the Sun and Moon contradict flat earth belief?

If flat earth believers have differing views and think all the images in the link below may all be fake why do they never publish images that support the flat earth view of the Cosmos?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/gallery/2019/jun/19/astronomy-photographer-of-the-year-2019-shortlist-in-pictures


11
Flat Earth General / Rowbotham A contemporary account
« on: May 10, 2019, 01:36:26 AM »
There are few contemporary accounts of Rowbotham and not much detail known about his life. There is however one interesting entry in A Budget of Paradoxes, by Augustus de Morgan. De Morgan was a contemporary of Rowbotham, a mathematician and logician.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan

In this book which aimed to explore the more unconventional, or crazy, ideas of the time De Morgan Included a small chapter on Rowbotham and his Zetetic Astronomy: Earth not a globe. 1857 (Broadsheet). Given it was written at the time Rowbotham was writing his book it makes interesting reading.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26408/26408-h/26408-h.htm#NtA_183

In it he describes how Rowbotham fled from a lecture he was giving, and how he falsely claimed to have presented a paper at the Royal Astronomical Society. The truth of the matter, as you will read, is that a member of the society read sections of Rowbothamís pamphlet for the amusement of the audience. Rowbotham stretched the truth somewhat claiming he had given a paper on the subject of his pamphlet!

While you can access the whole document, here is an extract.

Though only a traveling lecturer's advertisement, there are so many arguments and quotations that it is a little pamphlet. The lecturer gained great praise from provincial newspapers for his ingenuity in proving that the earth is a flat, surrounded by ice. Some of the journals rather incline to the view: but the Leicester Advertiser thinks that the statements "would seem very seriously to invalidate some of the most important conclusions of modern astronomy," while the Norfolk Herald is clear that "there must be a great error on one side or the other." This broadsheet is printed at Aylesbury in 1857, and the lecturer calls himself Parallax: but at Trowbridge, in 1849, he was S. Goulden.[183] In this last advertisement is the following announcement: "A paper on the above subjects was read before the Council and Members of the Royal Astronomical Society, Somerset House, Strand, London (Sir John F. W. Herschel,[184] President), Friday, Dec. 8, 1848." No account of such a paper appears in the Notice for that month: I suspect that the above is Mr. S. Goulden's way of representing the following occurrence: Dec. 8, 1848, the Secretary of the Astronomical Society (De Morgan by name) said, at the close of the proceedings,ó"Now, gentlemen, if you will promise not to tell the Council, I will read something for your amusement": and he then read a few of the arguments which had been transmitted by the lecturer. The fact is worth noting that from 1849 to 1857, arguments on the roundness or flatness of the earth did itinerate. I have [89]no doubt they did much good: for very few persons have any distinct idea of the evidence for the rotundity of the earth. The Blackburn Standard and Preston Guardian (Dec. 12 and 16, 1849) unite in stating that the lecturer ran away from his second lecture at Burnley, having been rather too hard pressed at the end of his first lecture to explain why the large hull of a ship disappeared before the sails. The persons present and waiting for the second lecture assuaged their disappointment by concluding that the lecturer had slipped off the icy edge of his flat disk, and that he would not be seen again till he peeped up on the opposite side.

It appears little has changed over the years as far as the presentation of flat earth ideas are concerned.





12
As it says, even my complaint about deleted posts got deleted.
Good work Boylover.

13
Suggestions & Concerns / Removal of posts
« on: May 05, 2019, 02:25:38 AM »
Iím wondering why my post(s) were removed from FE general? I though the whole point was to debate issues that by definition require differing points of view? Rather than just deleting my posts out of hand why not respond to them in an intelligent and measured way?

14
Flat Earth General / Stuck at home with nothing to do?
« on: April 27, 2019, 12:39:41 AM »
A great new series by the BBC is currently being broadcast which uses footage shot from orbiting satellites cut with more conventional footage. Rather than getting caught up in trying to disprove gravity or some other flat earth malarkey just sit back and go watch some tv, and wonder at the incredible images of our planet, enjoy it while you can.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072n2zr

Iím sure if itís not reached the USA or other parts of the globe it soon will.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

15
The Lounge / I wonder whatís happened to it?
« on: March 02, 2019, 01:54:41 AM »
Many of you may have read that very fine piece in the online magazine Paste, that features an interview with  John Davis:-

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/03/a-conversation-with-a-flat-earth-believer.html

If not, have a read. In the article the eminent flat earth guru that is John Davis, mentions he is working on a book on the flat earth that was due to be published at the end of 2016. Being as it is now 2019, Iím wondering what happened to the book and when we can expect it to hit the bookshelves?

Iím just finishing up my book on the flat earth and it should be available by the end of the year. In it rather than attempting to change peopleís minds through an account piece by piece of my model, I instead focus more on aspects that will lead one to find their own view of the world.

16
Flat Earth General / What would it take?
« on: January 30, 2019, 01:12:39 AM »
There have been a multitude of debates over the years on a whole array of different subjects and yet Iíve never seen a single flatino change their mind nor have I ever seen a regular person swayed by the arguments of a flatino.

The question is the same regardless of what side of the fence you are on and itís;

What would it take for you to jump ship, change sides and reject your current beliefs?

17
Flat Earth General / Which camp?
« on: January 24, 2019, 03:45:05 AM »
An interesting point emerged during one of the discussions on this section of the forum which might be worthy of farther exploration.

It has struck me that there are two main camps on this forum,

Camp A
Those that base their beliefs on the best available data or information on a particular subject knowing that their belief could be modified or even changed if new and better information becomes available. Camp A followers more often or not put great reliance on experts for their information that form their beliefs.

Camp B
These are people who have strong beliefs on a particular subject and look for evidence to support what they believe. Camp B followers tend to be distrustful of experts prefering to follow their own instincts.

I realise these are broad generalisations, but it would be interesting to see which Camp users of this forum see themselves belonging to.

I myself are very much of a camp A person.......which camp are you?

18
Flat Earth General / How so?
« on: January 20, 2019, 01:50:38 AM »
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jan/20/super-blood-wolf-moon-rare-total-lunar-eclipse-to-grace-northern-hemisphere-skies

How can this only be seen in the northern hemisphere if we are supposedly on a disc?

19
Flat Earth General / Why is NASA so rubbish at fakery?
« on: January 13, 2019, 03:34:30 AM »
All FE believers to a man/woman will claim the moon landings were a big hoax, pretty spectacular but a hoax none the less.


While NASA have done some stuff like Hubble, though why they chose to include in this piece of fakery a big mess up with the main mirror is a bit of a mystery!  I would have thought that the whole point in faking stuff is that you have complete control!  Just last week, according to FE believe NASA decided to fake problems with the main gyros and a system that controls the main camera?....why they decided to fake all these things is a mystery.......


......However, assuming for a moment NASA is big into faking, why have they never done something really big? Why did they let the Chinese fake the dark side moon landing first.


Why havenít NASA at least faked landing on Mars? The technology we have, all that cool CGI, why donít they do it? All they do is release mundane films of female astronauts with their hair floating around in zero g on the ISS, now thatís just plain boring....and why do they constantly make basic errors in filming their fake videos that flatinos pour over, examining every frame in detail, using their zero g expertise to point out all the mistakes.  Even fairly dim flatinos with limited intellectual ability appears to be able to find all the errors. Though how flatinos know about zero g is a bit of a mystery given they have zero experience of it and donít actually believe in it in the first place!


The ISS is a bit of a funny one. The thing is people can see it. Iíve seen it. I was on an Astro photography trip last year with my cool new A7R3 with 24mm f1.4, ok Sony did mess up with earlier firmware in the A7R2 making Astro shots not good, but they have now fixed it.......the guy who was running the course chose this location in Wales on that precise day as the ISS was to do a zoom by over our location.


He got some really cool time lapse images of the zoom by, but the thing is I seen it with my own eyes, itís there, itís not a fake. I would have thought if they were going to fake it, they would have made it a bit more spectacular, possibly bigger with  fins or a bit sexy looking like the Nostromo, now that would be cool. Instead they make the ISS look like itís made from left over bits from a childís construction kit! Not good.


The question for all flatinos, particulary Dutchy, is why have NASA never gone for the really spectacular manned Mars landing fakery? And why do they always mess up when they are faking? Dutchy knows all there is to know about NASA.....so what makes them so crap at fakery?

20
Flat Earth General / Letís examine the mundane
« on: January 13, 2019, 02:53:50 AM »
FE believers love to get to grips with the moon landings, NASA, the ISS(despite being able to see it quite clearly) What they are not so good on is the mundane and every day.


Satellites have long been a bug bear of flatino belief in that its one of the many things that puts the no into flatino. They, satellites that is, are now so common and due to technological innovations such as you find in your smart phone have become much much smaller. Launches that used to put one large satellite into orbit can now put multiple smaller ones into various orbits.


This company for example with its satellite imagery services, or photography from space is pretty mundane.


https://www.digitalglobe.com/products/earthwatch


How can flatinos still say no?

21
Flat Earth General / Indoctrination
« on: January 11, 2019, 02:00:50 AM »
indoctrination is a term often used on this website. Flatinos use it as a form of self elevation making themselves somehow superior to the Ďindoctrinated herdí.


Can any flatino explain what is the exact nature of this indoctrination, who carries it out and where does it take place?......and what do flatinos do to make themselves exempt from it?

22
Flat Earth Debate / What puts the no into flatino?
« on: January 09, 2019, 12:17:30 AM »
No one appears to be taking any notice of what the Chinese have been up to! What they have done could be argued to be pretty significant.......come on, putting a lander on the dark side, neat or what?


Not the best set of images to be honest as the highlights appear to be blown out in most of them and they are all a bit soft, though the fact they got there puts them up right up with the Russians and the USA. Though after all that effort you would have though they could have at least fitted a proper camera!


While flatinoes will give the whole show their typical Ď nooooooo, itís all a fakeí knee jerk response, it does make me wonder at their ability to keep it up, and keep going with their constant denials to all this never ending flow of space stories. So just what is it that puts the no into flatino?


Over the past year or so there have been so many significant Ďspace type eventsí for flatinoes to ignore that it must have put their individual denial circuits into overload. The Europeans, the Americans, the Japanese, the Chinese and even the Indians they have all been at it! No wonder they pay people to put up smoke! Quantas killing the homeless!, pi being wrong, denpressure, or the never ending pointless posting of dull photographs of some tedious distant horizon, take your pick.


The serious question is; if you look back at 2018 and the number of space events and all the nations involved it really does beg the question, what is it that puts the Ďnoí into flatino? Where do they get their immense stamino from? What drives them to reject all these great space achiements while at the same time believing an Australian airline is killing the homeless???











23
Flat Earth Debate / Is there a problem with our current maps
« on: December 31, 2018, 01:55:22 AM »
A number of FE posters have mentioned their intentions of producing an alternative world map.

Ive pointed out in a number of posts how I consider this to be a total impossibility for a number of reasons.

I know there are some FEers who would disagree with my position and I would like to know on what grounds?

Producing an alternative suggests there is something wrong with our current maps. What is allegedly wrong with our current maps and where is the evidence?

(This is not a question about differing illustrative projections as people often get confused about the number on offer. Different projections can result in distortions of different parts of the globe. Which is the reason why there are so many differing illustrative projections in the first place, its due simply to the inherent problem of mapping a spherical world on to a flat sheet of paper that can then be hung on a wall.)

24
Suggestions & Concerns / Bullwinkle
« on: December 19, 2018, 08:31:39 AM »
I thought the forum rules prevented foul mouthed misogyny on the strictly moderated debate forum? It looks like your pal Bullwinkle didnít read that rule or does he have special dispensation to throw around abuse when the fancy takes him?


25
Flat Earth Debate / A fundemental problem.
« on: November 27, 2018, 03:22:30 PM »
Preamble
Where ever you live in the world itís a good bet that you yourself have made some long distance road or rail journeys. The road ones most likely have used road maps if they were done back in the day or more recently sat nav. How many people during all those journeys have been let down by inaccurate maps? Thatís maps that have had glaring errors like putting cities in the wrong place?

Over the years Iíve driven a great deal in Europe, venturing into both North Africa and Asia Minor, and have driven both across the USA east to west and north to south from Canada down to California. In all these trips I donít remember ever being let down by grossly inaccurate maps.

Before I explain the topic for discussion I would like to define a few terms Iíll be using.

Model; in this context a model, or scientific model, is a idea that makes predictions about a system based on verifiable data and establish scientific principles that through experimentation and practice have become accepted truths.

Fact; a piece of knowledge that through unambiguous repeatable experimentation or through robust supporting corroborating evidence can be shown to be the case.

For example it is become accepted through experimentation that water is composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Experiments that involve either combining these two gasses into forming water or splitting water apart via electrolysis have shown that water without question is composed of two parts of hydrogen to one of oxygen.

Nodel; in this context a Nodel or unscientific nodel is an idea that makes predictions about a system based on no verifiable data nor does it have the support of any accepted scientific principles.

Nact; is a piece of debatable knowledge that has no supporting unambiguous repeatable experimentation nor robust corroborating evidence to support it.

Belief in the flat earth hinges around the possibility of all the land masses on the earth being arranged in a way different to that currently accepted. There are a number of flat earth Nodels that attempt to show such arrangements based on a number of flat earth nacts.

Letís start with some geographical facts.
The geographic layout of the continental USA is I think without doubt fully established with the location of all major towns and cities being known as is their precise latitude and longitude. The USA has a vast network of both road and rail, among them being the longest Ďhighway in the worldí the Pan American Highway. This road links all the nations of the Americas both North and south apart from a 100km gap. This road network of known length, by its existence, establishes the location and geographic layout of the American continent along with the hundreds of linked and visible islands such as Vancouver Island and Cuba. M

The same can be done with the larger land masses of Eurasia and Africa and the Indian sub continent which again are criss crossed with a known and vast and complex network of both road and rail networks. One  can take a train from London in the West to Vladivostok in the east, a distance of over 7,500 miles. If you were feeling adventurous you could drive from London to South Africa via the trans Sahara highway, a distance of over 8000 miles.

This exercise can be repeated with  journeys from Canada to Greenland and to Australia via Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Sumatra, Java, Island hoping all the way to Australia.

The location of everywhere in our connected world is known. Most of the developed world has been extensively mapped with all features having their own unique grid reference. You can in theory travel anywhere in the world using these maps and be confident in arriving at you destination.

Known and established sea lanes link Europe and the Americas with thousands of Atlantic crossings being carried out every month from a host of major ports.

Fact, the layout of the world is known and fixed, there is no room for other interpretations. There is Only one possible model or interpretation given all the geographical data our maps are based on.

While there are indeed a number of flat earth Nodels which gives revised layouts of the continents these are patently no more than wishful thinking based on no more than a few nacts and a requirement.

The idea that someone using a collection of flat earth nacts could then produce a flat earth map based on a flat earth Nodel is, in a word impossible.

The question is, given all the known facts about the geography of the world how is it that some flat earth believers imagine they could produce a revised Nodel of the world which involves changing not only the position of the continents but also their relative sizes?


26
Flat Earth General / If only all you had watched it too!
« on: November 20, 2018, 12:10:51 AM »
When I was a lad.....is I suppose a bit of a cliche, but when I was a lad I used to love watching the Sky At Night, one of the longest running tv progs in the world. It holds the record of having the longest serving presenter, Patrick Moore  1957-2013 only death prevented him from continuing his career.

The thing is I still watch it, though it is broadcast now only once a month as opposed to every week. I wonder what would have happened to all the FE believers had they been brought up watching , like me The Sky At Night.

[urls][/url]

The sun continues to be controversial for some reason, size and distance being an issue for many have a watch, and see what you think.

27
Flat Earth Debate / So who were they?
« on: November 19, 2018, 09:43:37 PM »
Michelson-Morley are for some reason often quoted by FE believers, and Iíve often wondered why. Like Sagnac these names crop up time and time again. For the record they  themselves neither believed in a flat earth or one that was stationary. In fact their experiments were based on the earth both rotating and moving through space at a known velocity. They did however believe in the aetheróthe invisible fluid thought to permeate the universe and which served as the medium through which light waves traveled. In the 1880s it was something widely believed in. But as we all know things change!
Like the true scientists they were they set up an experiment to prove it be way or another.
The experiment did not give the results they were after even after repeating it a couple of years later with better equipment. They found it difficult to accept the results and formulated alternative theories all of which were rulled out by experimentation. While Relativity gained ground, partly as a result, experiments that were carried out on Relativity itself appeared to show Einstein was correct. This was a final nail in the coffin for the aether.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy%E2%80%93Thorndike_experiment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IvesĖStilwell_experiment

By the 1920s the whole idea of their being an aether was dead as you like.

Relatively recently, there has been a resurgence in interest in performing precise MichelsonĖMorley type experiments using lasers, masers, cryogenic optical resonators, etc. Not to prove the aether but to investigate relativity.  This is in large part due to predictions of quantum gravity that suggest that special relativity may be violated at scales accessible to experimental study. The first of these highly accurate experiments was conducted by Brillet & Hall (1979), in which they analyzed a laser frequency stabilized to a resonance of a rotating optical FabryĖPťrot cavity. They set a limit on the anisotropy of the speed of light resulting from the Earth's motions. These experiments and others like them are carried out in physics labs around the world. A quick search will show the numbers. While there may well be amendments required for relativity under certain conditions the existance of the aether is well and truly dead.

So much of this history of science is quietly ignored by FE believers in their requirement for the aether to exist, hence the interest in Michelson-Morley, physicists who believed the earth was a sphere rotated, and moved through space.....why? Because thatís what the science showed.


28
Flat Earth Debate / Is it Legitamate?
« on: November 19, 2018, 12:48:11 AM »
During the course of debates on this forum sooner or later the word Ďfakeí will be used more often or not by a member of the FE community to support what they believe. The use of the Ďfakeí card appears to come when they are left with no alternative. I am sure you can think of examples. The question is, in a debate is the use of the word fake legitimate or just a cop out?

29
Flat Earth Debate / The distortion of science
« on: November 17, 2018, 03:18:15 PM »
Those who have been on this forum for some while may have noted the much quoted Sagnac effect, and how a certain individual uses it in a large percentage of his voluminous copy/pate posts to prove his anti-facts. Since then there have been numerous experiments that have confirmed relativity, a fact ignored by those who love cherry picking.

What needs to be remembered is there is indeed a Sagnac effect named after rather conservative French physicist Georges Sagnac. You can look him up and find out what he did back in 1913. It is important to note that the experiment was carried out in an effort to disprove Einstein and his new and revolutionary ideas on relativity while attempting to confirming the presence of the aether. Sagnac was very much old school and apparently resented the new kid on the block, Einstein. This is why it is latched on to by FE believers. The question is what is it  they are latching on to?

Certain FE believers claim not only that the Sagnac effect disproves relativity but also suggests that we live on a flat and stationary world!  In the context of relativity, the Sagnac effect  can be  explained. If anything, the Sagnac effect is a demonstration of the validity of relativity. The problem is the mathematics makes it a bit impenetrable for most and this is where the problems start as it allows certain people to confuse the issue, misrepresent the results and blind people with anti-science. This is the deliberate distortion of science to prove a fixed and unmoving position. Some people will go to any lengths to support their beliefs.

What we need to remember is that FEers have a list of requirements that must be met regardless of what science actually tells us. They need to misrepresent experiments like this to meet these  requirements. In this case itís the existance of the aether. Incidentally  I donít think for one moment Sagnac thought the earth was either flat nor stationary. He believed that light, like sound required a propagating medium. To be fair  up until the 1900 it was a view held by most scientists. But as we all know things move on as new discoveries are made.

To get to the actual truth to be honest is not easy as most of the journals that have the best explanations of Sagnac are, like most academic journals, pay to read. It is true to say itís interpretation has caused quite a stir in physics over the years some claiming it supports relativity and others disagreeing. What it doesnít do is suggest the Earth is either stationary or flat and there lies the problem. Some FEers have hijacked this confusion then misrepresenting it.

The bottom line is if you are going to use science to back your case you have to be honest, not cherry pick and be open to all what science offers.




30
Flat Earth General / Zetetic methods and the Flat Earth Sun
« on: November 11, 2018, 03:13:38 AM »
I donít really have any idea how far the sun is from the earth other than what Iíve read. Though from what Iíve seen of the sun with my own eyes I have to doubt the FE figures of 32 miles in diameter and a distance of 3000 miles for a number of reasons.
The first is the size of Venus. During the transit of 2012 many great photographs were taken of the event by lots of amature astronomers showing the tiny dot of Venus against the sun. Using a simple Zetetic approach I concluded based on their relative sizes from the images that the diameter of Venus is roughly 1/80 that of the Sun giving a size of 400 meters in diameter approx. This is a simple experiment that all can do. If a similar experiment is carried out with Mercury, this gives an even smaller diameter of approx 150 meters.
The other problem is the AU calculation (astronomical unit) using the transit of Venus which can be carried out in true Zetetic fashion using two observations a few thousand miles apart and some maths. It has been refined over the centuries due to technological advances, but all these calculations yield a figure a tad more than 3000 miles!
The third one is the sun itself and itís internal heat source. Iíve yet to see a proper FE explanation of how the sun manages to keep on pumping out all this heat given itís vey small size that precludes fission, given itís been burning away for 4.5 billion years, what is the process thatís keeping it going? The main stream opinion however has no such problems with all the observations fitting quite neatly with the known physics.
The problem is all the observations of both the sun and inner planets all point to them all being much bigger, so whatís going on. Did Rowbotham get his sums wrong? Given he had no astronomical pedigree unlike Christiaan Huygens, Kepler or Edmond Halley etc who would all disagree with his calculations, as would every astronomer both living and dead!
I am of course ignoring the Elephant in the room of the thousand of satelite based images and planetary probes.
Given all this evidence what do you think?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4