1

Flat Earth Debate / To Alaska and back (Hopefully!)

« on: June 27, 2019, 05:27:36 AM »

Howdy!

I know it's been a while since I've posted here but I've just been very busy.

I recently went on a voyage by ship from Washington to Alaska.

It was over 2500 miles long (about 4000km) and it took nearly a couple weeks.

I gotta say, the earth sure doesn't seem flat when you are navigating on long journeys.

(And yes I drove the boat some of the way when Captain and first mate needed a break!)

The weather has been lovely, and it never gets dark this time of year - you get a nice sunset which then turns into a nice sunrise - no night here!

Sorry to those of you who think Alaska and the north is around the outside of the flat earth - the days are just way too long here!

Anyway I'm supposed to be flying home soon (In a week or so?) - are there any particular things I should check for on the way home?

I have the theodolite app for starters. I'm also thinking of videoing ocean and land masses moving below the plane to check GPS/groundspeed to see if they match up or not.

(Of course there's only a small chance I get a window seat.)

Anyway, let me know any ideas I can do to help show the shape of the earth.

I'll try to check back here before taking to the air and see what I can learn!

2

Flat Earth Debate / Seeking Danang's best proof of the dome

« on: March 23, 2019, 06:44:04 AM »

Flat earth has transparent dome(s). It's been proven with various experiments: by rockets, baloons, photograpghs etc.

Danang,

What would you consider the top one, two, or three strongest proofs that the earth has a transparent dome?
I'm assuming that since you say "it's been proven" that you have some pretty strong proofs, definitely more than just an M.S. Clue.

If anyone else also has something they consider the single best proof of a dome I'd be interested in hearing that as well.

Thanks!

3

Flat Earth Debate / Apparent motion of sun impossible on flat earth

« on: March 22, 2019, 04:58:36 PM »

I'm having great difficulty trying to  understand how it is even possible for the apparent movement of the sun on a flat earth.

Specifically, when it rises and sets.

Geometrically, on a flat earth the sun would, for most of the earth, appear to rise and set *drastically* north of due east/west, even on the equinox.

This simply is not observed.

Some say that the sun is only visible for a few hundred miles, but that's so much crock because it's often visible for 12 hours, and we know that as it goes around it's daily pattern, it is many thousands of miles away at times during which it is clearly blindingly visible.

And even if it were just fading out into the fog, it would fade dimmer and dimmer -- not slice off bottom first over a few minute's period.
It just can't go from entirely obscured to blindingly bright in a few minutes, then be fully visible for 12 hours, then again completely vanish in a few minutes.
And what about slicing off bottom side first.?

I would be most grateful if someone could give me the best explanation for this issue.

The PHEW map does not solve this problem.
The Bipolar map does not solve this problem.
The AZ map doesn't solve it.
I don't see how any flat map could solve it. It's a geometry problem that is inherent to all flat surfaces.

I guess the basic components of this problem are these:

1: How can the sun possibly appear below eyelevel at any time if it's actually always above eyelevel?
2: How can the sun vanish or appear in just a few minutes time while being visible for 12 hours?
3: How can the sun possibly appear half-obstructed by the horizon?
4: How can the sun appear near due west/east at the equator on the equinox on a flat earth?

We can't get by with an answer just for one of those. Each answer for each of those has to also be compatible with all the others.

What am I missing? How can the earth possibly be flat as long as we've got the sun up there doing it's thing?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Observed sunset location impossible for flat earth

« on: March 20, 2019, 11:18:39 PM »

I'm trying to work out how it is possible for those outside the equatorial ring to see the sun rise and set close to due east or due west.

Per my diagram below you can see that on a flat earth, during the equinox for observers in Australia, the sun will be 6 hours away by the time it sets.
This will cause it to appear 40 degrees north of due west when it sets.
This is clearly not even close what is observed.

In fact, even for people on the equator, during the equinox, the sun would appear to rise and set far north of due east/west. So don't throw the PHEW map at me, unless you can actually explain how it solves this problem. But if you're promoting the PHEW map, you know who you are, and you know you can't explain how it solves this problems.
The PHEW map is so much even more brokener-er. Not only does it not fix this problem, it creates numerous other problems.

I cannot see how it is possible for the sun to be circling above the equator, and appearing to set due east/west when it's actually 40 degrees north for them Australians at the moment it sets.
(In fact, there's just one latitude where the sun *would* appear to set in the correct place. For the whole rest of the world, it'd be drastically in the wrong place!)

And if you're going to tell me I drew the sun the wrong size, save your breath: I drew it the size it needs to be to reach Australia 6 hours after high local solar noon there, because there's no dispute that the sun sets 6 hours after high solar noon in Australia on the equinox.

How does this not disprove flat earth?

EDIT:
Before any more of you either post a dubious link which claims -- or personally claim -- that you cannot see the sun over a hundred miles away, note that during the equinox  in Australia the sun is about 8600 miles away during sunset and sunrise and you can still see it very well. So if you have a source which claims you can't see the sun more than a few hundred miles away, it is bogus and you're silly.
I've updated my diagram to include the length to the sun at sunset in Australia during the equinox.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Is square inverse force orbit possible in reality, and mathematically?

« on: March 17, 2019, 10:26:53 AM »

I just heard in another thread of a different topic that gravitational orbit is not mathematically possible due to it's square inverse component.

Aside from the "Bumble bee cannot mathematically fly" type of joke, I am exploring the two questions:

1: Is gravitational orbiting mathematically possible

2: Is any orbit physically possible under a force which is squarely inverse to the distance.

There do seem to be orbit simulators which indicate that orbits are mathematically possible with an inversely square gravitational force.

I'm also trying to think of ways to physically demonstrate an orbit with a square inverse attractive force between two bodies.

The only idea I've had so far is a large magnet mounted solidly and a small magnet hanging above it on a long strong string.

The attractive force between the two magnets should be essentially squarely inverse to the distance, so it should essentially orbit. It should be able to take on any number of the real orbits that the planets are said to adopt.

I'm sure some folks will respond with 32 pages of formulas, which I'm afraid I've been kind of glossing over.

But if you good people could also do either or both of the following, I would be most grateful:

1: Explain how an inverse  square force orbit is mathematically impossible *in your own words* and in simple terms, to show that you actually understand it.

2: Come up with suggestions how we could physically demonstrate whether a square inverse force orbit is possible in the real world.

EDIT:
Had another idea:
Take a large pane of glass, put a large magnet under it, and a large weight with a strong magnet on top, with ice cube feet.
Since magnetic attractive force also reduces with the square of the distance, and ice cubes slide real nicely on wet glass, we should be able to see of the free moving weight can orbit on any of the traditional orbital paths.

6

Flat Earth Debate / I proved gravity

« on: March 15, 2019, 09:47:26 AM »

I wanted to know whether gravity exist.

So I performed the Cavendish experiment.

I believe I've proved to myself that gravity exists.

Naturally I don't want to be a victim of confirmation bias -- hey, I heard about gravity all my life, right? -- so I'm opening up my experiment to public critique.

It took a number of refinements from my initial attempt, but eventually I eliminated the affect of air currents, magnetism, and static electricity.

I had a pair of 11.5lb (5.2 kg) lead weights on a rotatable platform, and a pair of 1.5lb (680 g) lead weights attached to a copper tube beam, suspended on 13ft (4m) of mono-filament clear fish-line.

The hanging weights had a brass wire that dipped into a metal can of water to provide some damping against swinging, and to provide an electrical connection to make sure the big and small weights were all at the same electrical potential to rule out static attraction.

I had a string rigged up so I could rotate the platform without opening the box.

I had an IR wireless webcam inside to make time lapse videos.

There was a very weak but also very clear unmistakable attraction between the fixed and moving lead weights.

If this isn't gravity, what is it?

Any insight as to what I may have been detecting other than gravity would be most appreciated.

The following video plays at 60x realtime, so one second is really one minute of activity. One minute is really one hour of activity.

Isn't this pretty good evidence to me that gravity exists between terrestrial masses?

7

Flat Earth Debate / How long is Australia?

« on: March 12, 2019, 08:52:40 PM »

Australia spans 3 time zones. That kind of makes it big. Around 4000 miles long.
However, people drive the length of it in 35-41 hours, or fly the length of it in 5 hours.

I don't care if you say the map is just a place holder or whatever, while it helps to see it on the map, this isn't about the map.
Australia spans 3 time zones. So we know it's big. It takes the sun ~3 hours to go from start to finish on Australia.

And yet, numerous routine flights from one end to the other are in the 5 hour range, which means those flights are all flying faster than the speed of sound.
All those jets that aren't designed to fly at the speed of sound are playing it fast and furious.
And all those cars are going a hundred miles an hour.

As I said, you can't draw Australia smaller on the flat map, or it won't span 3 time zones anymore.
And please don't say Australia isn't there, because if it wasn't them, some other country would be there. And it'd still be 3 time zones long (or longer) and planes and cars would be breaking land world land speed records.
And please don't just invert the map to put Alaska around the edge and Antarctic in the center, the same geometry problem exists.

You'd have to either move Australia north of the equator, or agree that the earth isn't flat.

What is the solution to this  dilemma? 

8

Flat Earth General / An Australian Summers night in Alaska

« on: March 09, 2019, 09:26:44 PM »

I'm trying to reconcile the sun's path above a flat earth.

It seems Australia has over 14 hours of sunlight on their longest day of the year.
In other words, the sun sets for them 7 hours after high local solar noon that day.

Considering that the sun takes 24 hours to complete a circuit around the circle approximately above the equator, 7 hours after high solar noon in Australia, the sun will be over sort of behind Alaska.

And the sun, as it is setting on this day in Australia, will be closer to Alaska, than to Australia.

The problem is that on the longest day in Australia, it's the shortest day in Alaska - and in fact Northern Alaska will be right in the middle of 69 days of darkness.

So how can the sun be still shinning in Australia and not in Alaska when the sun is closer to Alaska?

Now look, this question isn't specific to Alaska and Australia. Saying those regions are actually incorrectly shown on the map doesn't help.

The point is that anything at the latitude of "25 degrees" south will have over 14 hours of sunlight on the longest day, and will have sun during a time when the "north pole" will be closer and yet in total darkness.

As a side note, on the longest day in Australia, the sun would set and rise about 53 degrees north of due west or due east, which based on reports from people living there, is not even close to true.

What are some of the best ideas on how this works?

See this diagram to better understand.