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 - gg1gamer

Pages: [1] 2
Flat Earth Q&A / Solar day vs sidereal day
« on: April 13, 2018, 02:39:58 PM »
How does any of the flat earth models explain the 4 minute difference between a solar and a sidereal (or star-)day? 

(If you want to know how it supposedly works in the mainstream model search for sidereal day. I've already asked the question with a full explanation on how it's supposed to work in the mainstream model.  I didn't get any answers tho.)

Flat Earth Q&A / Sidereal day vs solar day
« on: February 12, 2018, 06:23:29 AM »
Can someone explain the 4 minute difference between a sidereal day and a solar day in any of the flat earth models?

Thanks in advance  :D

Flat Earth General / Solar day vs star day
« on: January 28, 2018, 11:05:48 AM »
It's been a while but recently I've picked up coding.  And quickly found out that time is one of the worst nightmares of programmers.  Did you know that a solar day and a star day (sidereal day) aren't the same length?  There is 4 minute difference (roughly). 

For those who don't know what the difference is:
Stand on a certain spot at night, look straight up.  If there is a star straight above your head start your clock.  Now wait till the next night go stand on the exact same spot and look up. When that same star is above your head, stop the clock.  You just timed one star day, and it'll have taken roughly 23 hours and 56 minutes.

Now do the same for the sun.  Obviously not at night but say when the sun is at its highest point.  Start your clock then, wait 24 hours and stop your clock when the sun is at its highest point again.  You just timed 1 solar day, it'll have taken roughly 24 hours. 

Now depending on whether it's summer or winter those 24 hours won't actually be 24 hours and 0 seconds.  There will be anything between a -30 and +30 second. This because of the speed the earth is traveling around the sun on its elliptical orbit according to mainstream science.  Let's ignore that smaller time difference in favour of its own topic one day.

So why is a solar and a star day not the same length explained from a FEers point of view?

Technical Support / Database error: report to an admin
« on: January 28, 2018, 10:54:42 AM »

Got this message after searching the following:
"solar day star day -eclipse -eclipses"

Via the normal searchthingy next to your profile-thingy.  Not the full search page. 

Philosophy, Religion & Society / basic christian morals
« on: March 31, 2017, 04:47:37 PM »
So i was kinda raised catholic but no longer identify as catholic nor christian.  (it's complicated what i do identify as)  This however does not mean that i cannot agree with some of the basic morals of christians.  However i've noticed that i've gotten a bit rusty on that.  So could someone tell me a bit about basic christian morals?  And the christian ones, not the catholic ones.  (if you don't know the difference don't answer pls)

What i remember:
If an enemy hits you, turn your other cheek to him and forgive him.
Treat people like you want to be treated.
Do no harm?
And honistly that's all i can remember.
(someday i'm gonna look into the basic morals of other religions as well)

First of all an fyi: i'm a roundy and a 'scientist' myself (actually engineer but for this topic let's assume that that's the same as a scientist)

So i'd like to talk about the problems with the current scientific method.  Because there are problems, actually quite a lot of problems.

Let me first try to briefly but still completely explain the current scientific method.  I'd like to say: "right now we form a hypothesis, test it and conclude from that if something is true or false".  If i did i'd not be telling the truth.  I can't explain it this simple because reality isn't simple.  In order to write a good hypothesis you have to rely on other stuff, like other hypotheses and even on stuff that you don't even know about.  And once you wrote your hypothesis and tested it against reality you can either have a succes in which case you discovered something new or you have a failure.  This is where the fun begins.  What was wrong?  Your hypothesis? The hypothesis you relied upon?  Something you don't even know yet?
An example:  you're testing out the effects of gravity (or whatever you want to call it).  You write an hypothesis that says that heavier objects don't fall faster than lighter objects (in more scientific terms ofc).  You get onto a roof and simultaneously drop a feather and a kilogram of lead.  And surprise the lead hits the ground before the feather is even halfway there.  Now what went wrong?  You could think that your hypothesis was wrong, but we know that it isn't.  Seeing how you didn't really rely on any other hypotheses you now have no idea what went wrong.  Until years later someone introduces you to the concept airrecistance.  Now you know what you did wrong.  So with the same hypothesis of years ago you take 500 ml of Pb and 500 ml of Al, shape them identically and drop them again.  Even though the lead weighs significantly more you see both of them hitting the ground simultaneously.

Now this is actually only the tip of the iceberg of the problems of the current scientific method.  The thing is that we have some kind of eras in which certain hypotheses get relied upon.  And a drastic discovery is needed to move onto the next set of hypotheses.  An example: we moved from aristotle's physics to newtonian physics, to einstein's physics. 
Aristotle's thought that it was the purpose that objects had in them that made them act the way they did.  I don't think i need to explain newton and einstein. 

Also we have the problem of funding.  Even scientists have to make a living. So they search for sponsors to be able to do their research.  And those sponsors want to see results and not tomorrow, no no they want results yesterday.  So they force scientists to rush their research.  And scientist might hide some data that would contradict the outcome that would be favourable for the sponsor (fraud by the way).

These are just some of the problems i can think of from the top of my head.  Do you guys know any more problems?  Or do you guys think that some of these aren't really problems?

Note: what i said was in no way meant to discredit, abolish, ... any or all mainstream scientific knowledge that we have today.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / climate change
« on: March 25, 2017, 03:34:00 PM »
So after being not so active for a few weeks let's start again with something that's controversial within mainstream science.

So climate change, let me first share my views on the matter.

I don't believe that climate change is 100% caused by mankind.  I also don't believe that it's a 100% natural phenomena.  I believe that because off all of the greenhouse gasses1 we're, at least, speeding global warming (and thus climate change) up.
Of course there is stuff that we can't control, like our distance to the sun, the pitch of the earth's axis (or whatever the FE alternative is), solar activity, ...

(1: greenhouse gasses include, but are not limited to, H2O, CO2, CH4 (natural gas), Freon (used in fridges, as aerosol propellants, ...), etc.)

I don't think that people are debating what the effects of climate change are so i'm not gonna mention it further here but if you'd like to debate it feel free to mention it down bellow. 

I'm gonna keep this short to not bore you guys but there is one last thing i'd like to ask.  If you think that global warming is a scam set up by the chinese or anything that remotely resembles a conspiracy pls make your own thread somewhere else.  I'd like to keep it to science in here.

So do you guys think that climate change is manmade or natural.  And do you think that other factors apart from greenhouse gases play a role in this?

The Lounge / Call for all engineers
« on: February 24, 2017, 03:25:31 PM »
I was wondering who holds an engineering degree (or is an engineering student) in here?  For the record business engineers do not count.

I'll start:  I'm currently doing my first year of my engineering studies.  Halfway next year i'll have to chose 2 fields and from those 2 fields i'll have to chose 1 to master in at the beginning of my 4th year.   I'm thinking of choosing computer sciences and electromechanics.

So which flavour of engineer are you guys?

Flat Earth General / How old is the earth?
« on: February 17, 2017, 07:03:40 AM »
So as a followup to this topic i'd like to know how many people believe which suggestion.

If the age you believe in isn't in the list post it in the above linked topic and i'll add it as an option here as soon as possible.

Arts & Entertainment / ArmA 3
« on: February 16, 2017, 03:02:31 PM »
Anybody here play ArmA 3?

I'm not really a lot of people to play it, but anyone of those arma 3 players into scripting in arma?

(i hope this is the best channel to post it in)

Suggestions & Concerns / suggestion about warnings
« on: February 01, 2017, 03:59:57 AM »
So i received a warning for low content posting a while back.  Here is the exact message i got:


You have received a warning for low content posting. Please be contributive to the forums.

I'm proud to have finally gotten one.  But thing is, i looked at my previous posts and found several that qualify to be low content (even though they were all of a higher quality than a certain mod here.) And some might have seemed to be low quality, but they served a purpose (namely triggering a response that would hopefully let the OP realize how wrong he was)  (I'm definitely not referring to jroa here)
So my suggestion: add which reply a user get's a warning for in the message.  It shouldn't be that hard.  Seeing how i trust that it isn't an automatically generated message that is send after a complaint is filed, as that could easily be abused by regular members.

The Lounge / Day of remembrance
« on: January 31, 2017, 06:25:05 AM »
I saw this and thought, i'll honor those who have given their lives in the name of science by sharing this.

Flat Earth Q&A / How old is the earth?
« on: January 27, 2017, 02:24:08 PM »
Now i know a lot of topics have already been made about this.  However most of them seem to get off track with discussing.  The only numbers i could find where:
* 6000 years old (by Testify, his source: the bible)
* 2015 years old (by John87, post was made in 2015.  So the earth would now be 2017 years old.  No source/reason given)
* 4,543 x 10^9 +/- 1% years old (by wikipedia, and round earthers on this forum.  Also in some of my schoolbooks)
For the record i believe the last one

Now as i said before a lot of these topic got off track.  So what i'd like to ask is that if you answer you limit your answer to: the age of the earth, and the sources/reasons you have.  I'd like to ask people to not discuss ages with other people.  If you want to, there is a discuss subsection on this forum, please make your own thread there.

Answers from people in this thread:
-Very old (by a FEer)
-Billions of years old (by a FEer)
-4.5 billion years (by a FEer)
-500 years (by a FEer)
-less than 10,000 years old( by a FEer)

-Earth is older than time! (by someone with an, in my opinion, questionable mental status)

-The roundies are all liars.  They got it wrong.  (By a self proclaimed famous FEer)

-500 is a tad short (by a REer)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / God has no religion
« on: January 26, 2017, 07:05:12 AM »
I'm interested in your guys thought about a quote from Gandhi.
The quote: "God has no religion ~Gandhi"

IF 1 god existed i'd be inclined to believe what gandhi said.  If there was a god for each and every religion (and for some religions more than 1), well, i don't know what to believe then.

(I'm not trying to attack any particular religion here.  And i believe in the right to believe.  And yes i'm an atheist.)

Flat Earth Debate / Fjords & isostasy
« on: January 25, 2017, 12:22:49 AM »
So i was wondering how does FE explain the presence of fjords on the scandinavian peninsula?  And what about the fact that the scandinavian peninsula is rising out of the ocean (slightly) due to the isostatic effect of ice sheets that have molten away?  (which is perfectly measurable)

For a certain person who is going to ask me how it works in RE:
I'll begin with fjords:  once upon a time far, far away there was ...  Just kidding, during the last ice age the scandinavian peninsula was covered in land ice.  So there were glaciers all over the scandinavia.  These glacier slowly slided downhill, towards the sea.  In this process they carved out U-shaped valleys.  Now, when the ice-age is over, there is no more glacier but the U-shaped valley is still there.  And it has filled up with water, and we now call them fjords.
(more in depth explanation here)
Now because of the massive amount of ice that was on top of the scandinavian peninsula, the peninsula 'sinked' into the ground.  (Because of the pressure the lithosphere pressed so hard on the asthenosphere, which is plastic as we all know, the lithosphere 'sunk' into the asthenosphere.)  Seeing how the ice is now gone, the weight of this ice is also gone so the peninsula is, slowly, rebounding.  (The asthenosphere is pushing the lithosphere back up because it now weighs less).  This process is called isostasy and/or post-glacial rebound (click on them for more information).

So how does FE explain this?

(Edited some spelling mistakes and rephrased a question to make it more clear)

For more explanation about fjords and isostasy, look at the following post:

Flat Earth Q&A / coal
« on: January 15, 2017, 11:00:58 AM »
So i was wondering have any of you guys ever looked at a piece of coal?  Let's assume you all did more than once.  Now have you ever come across a piece of coal with a fossil in it?

A picture for those who didn't yet see this:

Here in belgium we have multiple sites where they (used to and some even still) excavate this coal.  When you looked at the pieces of coal excavated here in belgium you could see fossils of plants similar to modern tropical plants.  Now i have to say that it's not really tropical in belgium at this moment (about 0C).
So what would explain this in the FE theory?

The Lounge / Conspiracy at the lottery?
« on: January 08, 2017, 03:59:36 PM »
So here i was scrolling on facebook when i came across this article:

I'm sorry it is in Dutch, but i'll translate the most important things:

Title: This woman couldn't tackle never having won the lottery, so she took drastic measures

Intro (in bold): The police has issued an arrest warrant for a 47-year old woman from the american state Pennsylvania.  She has been employees of the lottery for months because she never won.

First paragraph:  The threads started in april last year.  What started as a few "difficult" phone calls, escalated quickly into a "ruthless" stream of hostile and sexually explicit messages to the address of the Pennsylvania lottery.

First sentence of the 2nd paragraph:  Towanda A. Shields (47) is convinced that the fact that she has never won the lottery is the result of a giant complot.

I wonder who's behind it, would it be NASA as well?  After all they are supposedly know for being out there for the money.

Flat Earth Q&A / Scientific data
« on: January 05, 2017, 10:45:17 AM »
So here i was feeling like reading a scientific study (yes i know it's weird, engineers are weird people so).  So i went to the homepage of theflatearthsociety and tried to open the wiki.  No luck, it's still hacked for me.  So i went to the FAQ, there i read:

What Is Some Of The Evidence You Have?

There are several readily apparent proofs of the planets flatness.
Our Library also has a great selection of books that further detail proof of the planar Earth.

So i went to the library and looked at those books.  To my disappointment not a single one contains a scientific study.  I don't know where else i could find a scientific study so:

Could someone post a link of a scientific study (in favour of FE)?

Technology, Science & Alt Science / SCIENCE Uranium 235
« on: January 03, 2017, 07:22:10 AM »
I wanted to share some scientific knowledge so here it is:
(yes that is my horrible handwriting)

For the people who know a bit about U-235: the energy of the fission of 1 U-235 is actually 3,244 10^(−11) J but seeing how i didn't calculate with really precise numbers it's of a bit.

That last number might not mean a lot to most people so let me make a comparison:
An average person needs 10 000 000 J (1x10^7 J) of energy a day.
Dynamite: 5.0 MJ/kg = 1*10^6 J

* Multiple wikipedia pages
* Smets, I. van Puyvelde, P. (2016). Algemene en technische scheikunde deel 1: de materie. Leuven:acco, s.p.
* Brady, J. Jespersen, N. Hyslop, A. (2005). Chemistry (seventh edition, international student version). s.L:Wiley, 1088p.

Flat Earth Q&A / Global warming
« on: December 28, 2016, 08:23:02 AM »
Whilst reading another Q&A and reading jroas really on-topic answers i came to wonder how global warming is supposed to work on a FE.  So could someone explain to me how it works?

(yes i did use the search function, it was working for once, and found some articles from 2007.  I believe the topic deserves to be readdressed because global warming is a hot topic in science (no pun intended) so a lot of research goes into it.)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / philosophy: Do we exist?
« on: December 22, 2016, 05:19:01 PM »
After the great *cough cough* philosopher *cough cough* Descartes:

I think all FEers will agree with me that the earth being round is at least questionable and even just plain wrong.  And we don't want to believe in stuff that isn't true right?  So let's first toss out anything that is questionable.

1:Modern science: you guys have tried to disprove it many times.  It thus is questionable, so toss it out.

2: sensory observations: take for example a stick in water, we see it break at the surface of the water.  But we know it doesn't, so sensory observations are also questionable, so toss it out.

3: Maths:  We've been leard maths by the government for example that 1+1=2.  You guys claim that the government spreads lies. So who says that 1+1 isn't in reality 3?  So questionable so toss it out.

Now this can be done for everything.  We can thus conclude we can't be sure of anything.  Not even our own existence.
Why do you guys even bother debating about the shape of the earth?  We don't even exist. For all we know we're living in something similar as the matrix.

I'd love to hear some reactions on this piece of philosophy.
(disclaimer: i don't support this theory, it's just a thought-experiment)

Flat Earth Q&A / The moon
« on: December 22, 2016, 10:49:30 AM »
Why do we have a full moon, a new moon and everything in between those two according to the FE theory?
Also why does the distance earth-moon vary according to the FE theory?

(I can explain how it supposedly works in the RE theory if you guys want me to.)

The reason i'm asking this here and not in the debate section is that i'm sure that you guys already have an answer ready for such a simple thing as our own satellite.  Also because i don't want to debate this (disclaimer: yet). But feel free to make your own thread in the debate section.

Flat Earth General / Why pluto isn't a planet any more
« on: December 21, 2016, 02:51:30 AM »
A little while ago i saw someone making a point in favour of a FE that had something to do with pluto no longer being a planet.  It seemed to me that he was uninformed (or misinformed?).  So here is some information:

Before we get into pluto itself, let's look at the definition of a planet (copy paste from wikipedia):

A planet is an astronomical body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that
- is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity,
- is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and
- has cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.

Now one of the reasons pluto is no longer a planet is point number 3 of the definition.  Pluto hasn't cleared its neighbouring region of planetesimals.  In fact there are other dwarf planets in its neighbourhood, some of which are estimated to be almost the same size as pluto. 

The reason people used to call it a planet is that there wasn't a clear definition of what a planet was.  After pluto's discovery scientist began arguing and came to the conclusion that they had to come up with such a definition.  The result is that pluto is no longer a planet.  It has been put into a new category: the dwarf planets. 

And here is the definition of a dwarf planet (again copied from wikipedia):
A dwarf planet is a planetary-mass object that is neither a planet nor a natural satellite. That is, it is in direct orbit of the Sun, and is massive enough for its gravity to crush it into a hydrostatic equilibrium shape (usually a spheroid), but has not cleared the neighborhood of other material around its orbit.
Examples of dwarf planets are: pluto, ceres, eris, haumea, ...

So i hope i managed to inform the uninformed. 

Flat Earth Q&A / How does my compass work?
« on: December 15, 2016, 02:53:49 AM »
So how are compasses supposed to work in a FE-theory?

In the RE-theory it's with the magnetism of the earth.
(Might seem a bit short but i don't know what else i should type.  And no, i'm not trying to be a troll)

Flat Earth General / Galileo
« on: December 15, 2016, 02:51:53 AM »
No, i'm not going to talk about Galileo galilei, the astronomer.

Now from today on galileo, an alternative for the american gps, is partially operational.  It is expected to be fully operational by 2020.  The project was started by the ESA (european space agency). It will provide better accuracy than the american GPS (1m instead of 5m).  Now the funny thing is, nobody saw them building any kind of new towers.  Many people have seen the satellites being launched.

Now for an actual question:  Is the ESA just as crooked as the NASA?  Does the European union put the money that is supposedly going into this project also in it's own pocket?

Flat Earth Debate / geocentrism
« on: December 13, 2016, 03:21:23 PM »
So do you FEers believe in a geocentric model?

To avoid being seen as a troll:
The Geocentric model (also known as Geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system) is a superseded description of the universe with the Earth at the center. Under the geocentric model, the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets all circled Earth.

I personally don't believe in a geocentric model, because it's physically impossible.  So what do you FEers think?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / sovereign citizens
« on: December 11, 2016, 07:52:52 AM »
I'm interested in what you guys think about sovereign citizens.

My view: they always claim they don't recognize US laws but always threaten to sue police.  Strange isn't it?  How can you sue someone if you don't recognize the law, and thus the judiciary?
Also receiving all the benefits of a police force (like protection from criminals, ...) and the benefits of driving a car without stuff like: taxes, driver's licence, registration, ... seems a bit utopian to me.

So what do you guys think about them?  (Is there someone here that considers himself a sovereign citizen? He/she might have some interesting thoughts.)

(Also before someone accuses me of entrapment again:
It's a rahter interesting article)

EDIT:  I just found this, it's a great explanation of what a sovereign citizen is:

Flat Earth Debate / Aurora
« on: December 08, 2016, 04:10:28 AM »
I was searching for a nice wallpaper for my computer and found these images:

Beautiful aren't they?

But i'm of course not here to simply tell you i find these images beautiful.  When i saw them it got me thinking.  In the round earth theory this phenomena is explained by charged particles (from solar waves) entering our atmosphere and when they do it they lose their excess energy in the form of light.  The reason you only see this near the poles is the (round) earth's (supposed) electric field.

Now i've been trying to figure out how this would work in the flat theory.  The best i can come up with is that the flat earth is a ring-shaped magnet.  I however don't see how this magnetism would suddenly appear.
So could someone tell me where this magnetism is coming from? Or give another explanation for the aurora?

(Oh yes, you guys are probably going to dismiss the 2nd photo as photoshopped, i know how you guys think about NASA, the ISS, ... so no need to make that point again.)

Flat Earth Debate / Water as proof for a FE
« on: December 05, 2016, 01:41:07 PM »
So i was reading in the Q&A section and came across a rather interesting answer in a thread about the main reason why FEers are FEers.  (thread is from observer)  As i said i read something rather curious:
2. Water level
3. it is flat because all water seeks the lowest form of energy. And in its lowest form, without any outside impetus, the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different.
The first reason (number 2) doesn't give much explanation as to how this would explain anything, so i'm gonne ignore it.

The second reason (number 3) is, how shall i say it, strange.  Whoever wrote this (originally) debunked his own argument, let me explain. 
The first part ("all water seeks the lowest form of energy") is correct, however not complete. The complete version: "Any type of matter (including water) seeks a state in which it has the lowest amount of energy IF this doesn't require a too high concentration of mass". 
Now saying this alone is misleading people, as this is only one of the rules of thermodynamics.  Another rule of thermodynamics is that: "Any type of matter seeks a state in which its mass has the lowest concentration IF this doesn't require too much energy."
(there are other laws of thermodynamics, but they're not important, google them if you want)
As everyone, hopefully, now understands these 2 laws will cause matter to seek a balanced state.

Now let's take this into practice for water.  Let's first look at a water molecule:

A water molecule is, as chemest call it, polar.  It has a slightly negative side (The side with oxygen) and a slightly positive side(s) (the one with the hydrogen atoms).
I hope everybody knows that positive charge and a negative charge attract each other.  This causes H2O to form, what chemists call, hydrogen bonds. 

Now because of these bonds H2O will have surface tension.  Because of this one can observe the following phenomena:

I know, a bad image. What you can hopefully see is that the water level reaches higher than the edge of the glass.  In other words there is more water in the glass then the volume of the glass. (For those who don't believe me, do it yourself. Take a glass fill it up and watch.)
Because of this there are certain insects that can walk on water.  Also because of this principle water will spontaneously form little bubbles when brought into an apolar mixture.
This is only 1 of the many forces that are applied to water at any given time. Seeing how many people don't know these forces exists one can, falsely, believe that water will always be leveled.

So we conclude that water will not always be perfectly level across the globe (earth, couldn't resist srry).

PS:"the surface of water is flat. Always has been. Always will be and nobody has, can, or will, ever show anything any different"
srry one beautiful example of how people should be cautious with the words always and never.

Flat Earth Q&A / g-force
« on: December 01, 2016, 03:01:00 PM »
Whilst reading another topic I came across someone making a valid point about the 'constant' g (as in F=m*g).  Now tried to do some research on already existing topics about g-forces/variations in gravity/...  But i found it rather hard to find a thread addressing the difference in the 'constant' g. (try typing in "g" in the search bar yourself, you'll get why it's difficult (Yes i did try other searchterms as well))  So does anyone know of a thread that already addressed this? 

The reason i'm asking this here and not making a new thread about this is because i recently read something i hadn't thought of before: you flat earther have to listen to the same arguments that are supposed to prove a round or disprove a flat earth over and over.  I get why some would eventually just reply in a troll-like way (an example being replying to a serious question with the question: "why do i have hair on my ass?"), however i do see the need to, in certain cases, reask the question anyways.  One of the reasons being that not every person that defends round earth has full knowledge of the entire round earth theory.  Therefore failing to address points that need to be addressed, not being complete in his explanations, ... (As i myself sometimes am, but as Rag'n'Bone Man said: "we're only human after all)
So anyone know about such a thread?

Pages: [1] 2