1

Flat Earth Debate / FET FAQ and gravity (and acceleration as its suggested equivalent)

« on: April 13, 2018, 02:14:09 PM »

The FET FAQ states, that gravity does not exist, at least not in the form we were taught in school. Instead:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0
“The earth is constantly accelerating up at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). This constant acceleration causes what you think of as gravity. Imagine sitting in a car that never stops speeding up. You will be forever pushed into your seat. The earth works much the same way. It is constantly accelerating upwards being pushed by a universal accelerator (UA) known as dark energy or aetheric wind. This acceleration does not violate physics and according to Einstein's theory of special relativity, we can accelerate forever without reaching the speed of light.”

I have a few question/remarks on it:
- How big is the system, which is constantly accelerated up:
— Only earth? Hopefully not, otherwise there is risk, we will (or would have) sooner or later collide with sun, moons, planets, comets, stars, etc. As long as they are no holograms.
— Other planets? Then they all have 1g, which makes terraforming easier if we might visit them in the future. As long as they are no holograms.
— The whole universe? In that case we might not experience any acceleration at all.
— If there is only the flat earth and a holographic display dome above it to accelerate and the universe is otherwise empty, then it might be possible.
- Why does the universal accelerator (UA) only accelerates in one direction?
— Shouldn’t it be called unidirectional/unilateral accelerator?
— Dark energy (if it exists) is expected to be a universal accelerator. It expands space in all directions. But it currently has only effects on space itself and maybe large (with capital letters) scale structures. “Small” systems like galaxies, galaxy groups, clusters and superclusters are not affected by it. The force behind the dark energy is way too small for it. Only in a Big Rip scenario of the fate of the universe will the force be high enough to even rip atoms apart on a subatomic level.
— Therefore the earth and the holo-dome must be accelerated by something else. What?
- On different places on earth you could meassure a different acceleration. It varies about 0.5% between north pole and the equator circle. This is way to much to be a measurement error.
— How could this be simulated with a uniform acceleration?
— And if the earth is accelerated differently in different places it would have been ripped appart long time ago.
- Why does FET persist on acceleration instead of gravity?
— Acceleration alone does not explain all observations. Maybe a combination: gravitational effects of masses for slight differences (e.g. bending of light by large masses, variations in earth’s gravitational field, etc.) and uniform acceleration for the overall effect.
— But why accelerate the earth disk and the holo-dome in slightly under a year to (almost) the speed of light inside an otherwise empty universe? This system must be artificial. The holo-dome is necessary, because no other optical arrangement could otherwise explain size, distance, movement and appearance of all (capital letters) celestial bodies. Who builds such a system? Magrathea? And why?

2

Flat Earth Debate / Total solar eclipse

« on: April 13, 2018, 10:34:22 AM »

As written in the FET FAQ the sun is like a spotlight. Otherwise the light from the sun won’t be as parallel as we experience it.

According to FET both sun and moon are nearer to the earth (in yet unspecified distances) and are smaller (with yet unspecified diameters) than with RET.

With parallel sunlight and smaller and nearer sun and moon how could the penumbra of the moon at a total solar eclipse have a diameter of a few thousand kilometers and even the umbra a diameter of about (in best cases) 250 km?

I do not need to rely on satellite images as proof for this. Two persons (or better four for east-west and north-south dimensions) at different places inside the to be expected umbra with a known distance from each other (let’s say 100 km) could measure (e.g. via cell phone and wristwatch):
- the difference in seconds of both seeing the start of the penumba
- the difference in seconds between start and end of the penumbra
- the difference in seconds between start and end of the umbra

With these values the speed of the moon’s shadow and the diameters of umbra and penumbra could be calculated.

How does the FET model look like to satisfy these observations?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Forces

« on: April 12, 2018, 09:14:45 AM »

What FET forces are:
- keeping sun and moon near earth?
- keeping sun and moon from crashing into earth?
- keeping sun and moon circling above the earth?
- responsible for the peculiar movement of the sun to generate seasons?

This seems to be a rather complex and more importantly fragile 3 body system, which has very little chance to survive billions of years.

What FET forces are:
- responsible for tides? Not only at the region below the moon but also on the opposide side of the north pole (antipodal). With the moon very near to earth why is the tide effect not much greater directly below the moon? Or why is the effect not much lower more distant from the moon? How are tides possible with the moon being a hologram (see: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=75128.msg2047268#msg2047268 )?
- preventing the sun - which is not much farther away from earth than the moon - from causing tide effects as well?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Sunrise/sunset, distances, eclipses

« on: April 11, 2018, 04:11:28 PM »

I don’t know, if this argument was posted in a different post. If so, I am sorry.

According to FET the sun is much nearer to the earth and much smaller in size. It circles above the earth. Sunrise and sunset are explained by FET with distance and dimming. The sun in fact never moves below the plane of the earth surface.

Given the following scenario: it is the middle of either spring or fall. So the sun circles near the equator circle above the earth. I am at a lattitude, where the sun shines at noon directly above me (somewhere between 23° south and 23° north).

About 6 hours after noon I have the experience of a “sunset”. The sun is about 90° longitude to the west. The place on earth, where it is noon now, is about 10’000 km away from me. To experience a sunset, the sun must be from my point of view less than - let’s say - 10° above the horizon. 10° and 10’000 km lead to that the sun is less than 2’000 km above earth.

When it is noon at my location it is about 11:00 at a place about 18° longitude to the west. But because this place is about 2’000 km away the sun appears at an angle of only 45° above the horizon, meaning it should only be 09:00.

To solve this, the sun must be much farther away than 2’000 km from the surface. But then there won’t be a sunrise/sunset and no night, because then the whole earth surface would be illuminated by the sun the whole day and “night”. Or other more complex physical FET specialities must be involved to explain this.

The moon must be even nearer to earth than 2’000 km because total solar eclipses at local noon are possible, meaning sun and moon are almost directly above the given location. At least they are at the same longitude.

If the moon is nearer to the earth surface it could not be illuminated by the sun. It must radiate light of its own. Otherwise the illumination of the moon phases would look different with these small distances. Also with the moon that near to earth we should see more of its surface, than only about 50-60%. It should be almost 100%. Except, the moon is a hologram.

With sun and moon that near and that small they must look different in size at noon (2’000 km distance) and at sunrise/sunset (10’000 km distance).

The sun must radiate energy with different intensity: vertical to earth much less than radial. Otherwise either the area directly below the sun would be toasted or the area far away would freeze.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Whirlpool direction

« on: April 02, 2018, 12:55:18 PM »

How does FET explain that inside the equator circle water whirls down a sink in one direction and outside the equator circle in the opposite direction?

How about ocean water and wind currents inside and outside the equator circle?

6

Flat Earth Debate / North and South Star

« on: April 02, 2018, 12:29:36 PM »

FET states that the stars are less far away than with RET. Therefore, e.g. the North Star moves towards the horizon as I move away from the North Pole and other stars come into view as e.g. the South Star, when I cross the equator.

But how is it possible that I can see the South Star on different continents on the outside of the equator, like South America, South Africa and Australia, but not on the inside of the equator?

How comes a South Star comes eventually into view when I travel from North America to South America, and at the same time two friends of mine also see a South Star coming into view when they travel from North Africa to South Africa and from Indonesia to Australia, likewise?