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 - DataOverFlow2022

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Debate / Flat earth solar eclipse sun/moon data
« on: April 09, 2024, 03:15:59 PM »
So.  How does modeling a flat earth solar eclipse work?

What’s the size of the sun?

What’s the size of the moon?

What’s the altitude of the moon?

What’s the altitude of the sun?

How does the speeding up and slowing down of the sun for the seasons change eclipse times?

Does the moon speed up?  Or stay the same speed?

Why would these be the paths of the shadows for a flat earth?

Quote
https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/how-did-the-ancients-predicted-eclipses-the-saros-cycle/



This article mentions the next eclipse is 120 degrees off from the previous eclipse to change the region the eclipse will occur.  From eclipse to eclipse.

Quote
HOW DID THE ANCIENTS PREDICT ECLIPSES? THE SAROS CYCLE

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/how-did-the-ancients-predicted-eclipses-the-saros-cycle/

If we take the eclipse date of Oct. 14, 2023, and add one saros cycle to it, we get Oct. 25, 2041. A check of the eclipse catalog above confirms there is indeed a solar eclipse on that date. Add another saros to this date to get Nov. 5, 2059, and again there is an eclipse on this date. The biggest difference between these three eclipses is the extra 8 hours (beyond a whole number of days) in each saros cycle. Also note that because Earth rotates an additional 120 degrees between each eclipse, the eclipses are visible from different geographic regions.




Yes.  I understand there are patterns for different sets of eclipses.  I think they are referred to Saros series.

What I’m asking is how you can use a flat earth as a model with what specs for the sun and moon with both changing speeds through the seasons?  To achieve the same accuracy of a spherical earth where the earth rotates an additional 120 from the last eclipse to push the next eclipse in a different region. 


2
When I get time, I like to watch the night sky.  Watch meteors, comets, satellites, and the ISS.  Things I have witnessed for myself.  And the big obvious one, the moon.

It’s obvious there is no physical dome.  And it’s obvious things fly through space.  And it’s obvious when things are outside earth’s atmosphere.  And it’s obvious when something like a meteorite enters earth’s atmosphere.

So.  It’s obvious objects can move through space which is outside earth’s atmosphere.

So, why would the equal and opposite reaction thing not work by a rocket through a controlled explosion of hydrogen and oxygen out the rocket nozzle of expanding gas and actual mass not result in the rocket traveling in the opposite direction in the near emptiness of space? 

3
So.  There are these simple but relatively accurate star atlases for the night sky.  They are based off month and time.  They are dial types that show the night sky for a certain time of year.

Northern hemisphere





Southern hemisphere



I would find it hard to believe that standard Star Atlas for the southern hemisphere would be accurate for a flat earth?


4
Flat Earth Debate / Gravity as a navigation aid.
« on: February 21, 2024, 07:36:19 AM »
Pretty neat that advances in gravity detection and mapping is leading to advances in navigation.  And may be a substitute for GPS.


5
For a flat earth, the sun would orbit the northern celestial pole like this…



So time lapse photography should result in the sun making a circle around the celestial North Pole like one nights worth of star trails?  Similar like this?


https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg

The sun should circle the celestial North Pole on a FE.

But the sun does this…. For six months…


media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg


Again.  Flat earth soundly debunked…




6
Flat Earth Debate / Why is there a measurable dip to the horizon?
« on: February 12, 2024, 03:31:18 AM »
There is a measurable dip to the horizon which flat earth fails to explain.

Flat earth debunked.  Sorry.

😉

7
Flat Earth Debate / Gravity, just understood it existed
« on: January 25, 2024, 03:54:22 PM »
A thread made me think of my world view while growing up.  I just always understood gravity exists.  Not saying I understood the physics. But It was pretty clear why one can roll faster down hill than up hill.  Why you accelerate down when jumping up off a tree house or diving board. It’s pretty obvious you feel a force working on you peddling up hill.  It’s pretty obvious you feel the force pulling you down hill.  Even when you peddle a bike down hill in a western direction, and the wind is coming from the west up the hill at you head on.  The wind blows, but you still have weight. 


By the way. 

Quote
Etymology
edit
Learned borrowing from Latin gravitās (“weight”) (compare French gravité), from gravis (“heavy”). Doublet of gravitas. First attested in the 16th century.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/gravity

In Latin, as long as it has weight gravity exists. 

8
I was divided on making this its own thread. Or post it in response to the old lie “the curvature can’t be measured”.

I decided this it is a stand alone thread.  Unfortunately, it probably with be ignored by the people who claim a “laser should measure curvature.”  And probably too much background.  Especially on subjects that deserve their own threads. 

So.  The earth is huge, and the amount of curvature is slight to us small humans.

For the claim a laser level should measure curvature?  Not sure how that works on the scale of the earth?  And would be much different than surveying and using line of sight and correcting for the horizontal line? 

The laser does go straight except if bent by atmospheric conditions?  Then you have to somehow measure drop perpendicular to the laser.  But line of sight works the same way in surveying. So the laser level is really a moot point anyway. 

And level surface as defined in surveying follows the sphere of the earth anyway. 



https://gcekbpatna.ac.in/assets/documents/lecturenotes/Surveying_Mod2_Levelling.pdf

So the definition of level surface brings us to the world of surveying.  It was long understood the earth is too big to measure with a flat edge. And the earth can accurately be measured with line of sight (which arguably has the same strengths and problems as “a laser level”), and tweaking with adjusting for refraction.

So surveying ties into the long known dip of the horizon.

Using surveying and the dip of the horizon, it’s long been known that you can calculate the curvature of the earth.



Which can be verified.

Quote

Rainy Lake Experiment: Conclusion

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion

Summary
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.
The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment

 that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.
Only one conclusion remains:
The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!

Almost to the point of this thread…. Hold on

So I guess this photo a few years ago caused quite the buzz?  Who knew?

A photo by:
Quote
Kevin Jackson, of Birkdale, Southport, captured the amazing view of the seaside resort from the Sefton coast.

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/stunning-picture-blackpool-thats-set-19719171.amp



https://i2-prod.lancs.live/incoming/article19719194.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/0_blackpooljfif.jpg

As presented by Dave McKeegan in this video.



Now the point of all this.  Blackpool tower looks relatively taller than the background hills because the earth is spherical.



We can model the view of Blackpool Tower relative to the distance hills for a flat earth vs spherical earth.

1. The height of the Blackpool Tower is known.
2. The position of the photographer is known.
3. The radius of the earth is measured and known.
4. The distance to the background hills and their height are known.



If the earth was flat.  The background hills would be taller in the photo than the tower.



A rough model of how the photo should look for the tower relative to the background mountains on a flat earth. 



The evidence is pretty clear. And even supposedly converted this person,Ranty-Flat-Earth, back to spherical earth

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/odpjrm/this_image_converted_me_from_a_very_prominent/

9
I see lots of word salad in this thread’s future, and no FE’r rising to the challenge.  Lots of trying to change the subject,  Or the thread will just be completely ignored, just more evidence the heliocentric model is correct.

Anyway.  The challenge is to draw out and post a working model how solar and lunar eclipses as witnessed would be possible on a flat earth. 

10
The sun would have to turn relative north and travel roughly parallel to the west coast of the North America after passing over flat earth California.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.
« on: October 12, 2023, 11:44:14 AM »
Flat Earth Sunsets - Should the Sun Shrink?




Not sure what this is all about?



Paraphrase from the video, “When we see parallel lines side on we don’t see any apparent change in distance?  “

All one has to do is watch the sun rise, arc over the sky, and sink bellow the horizon.  It’s pretty obvious the sun is a set distance above a rotating earth.  It’s not coming in a straight line at a fixed altitude of 3000 miles then passing over head to go away from you.

Besides.  Many models show the sun wouldn’t set on a flat planet of earth’s dimensions.

The bases of the video seems to be the sun gets cut off by the horizon before we can see it change size.  The problem with FE is, the sun would be coming at you after sunrise, it’s changing distance. There is no “cut off” of the sun that would prevent seeing a change in size because on a FE the sun would be constantly changing the distance from the viewer the entire day.


So the video is based on a falsehood.  The video is wrong. 

12
Flat Earth Debate / Flat Earth Sun A’Moving
« on: August 19, 2023, 01:21:43 PM »
So you don’t think the earth is rotating.  But you think a sun 32 miles in diameter is moving 500 to 1000 miles an hour or more?  Speeds up in the winter. Doesn’t leave some sort of tail in the non-vacuum of FE space like a comet zooming around?  You think a 1000 pound man made satellite can’t orbit the earth.  (Just ignore the hundreds of lights added to the night sky the last 70 years.  And what is normally the third brightest object in the night sky, the international space station?) But the sun can?

With no consequences of the FE sun orbiting in atmosphere?  At high speeds.  Because FE’rs don’t believe anything can rocket around like a comet in a vacuum.

FE’rs seem to believe in the Van Allen Belts when convenient.  But the flat earth sun would have to be radiating well within the Van Allen Belts vs the reality the sun radiates charged particles from outside the belts that range from 400 to 30,000 plus miles above the earth. 

With no explanation that works why the sun is physically blocked from view and the earth is shielded from its radiation at night.

13
At the end of this video, a light is placed on a trolley and slowly backed up to represent a flat earth sunset.

Quote
Shadows under clouds PROVE Flat Earth







Notice as the trolley backs up, the light never goes below the horizon. Never appears to sink below the horizon.  Never sets.  The light source is never physically blocked from the video camera by the “horizon”.

Hmm.  I guess it would be impossible for a sun to set on a flat earth. 

Also from the video, if it’s a critique on the shadow by Mount Rainier.  The shadow by the mountain is cast in the morning during sunrise.  The shadow is cast while the sun is below the horizon.  Before the body of the sun becomes visible.




Every setup in the video, the sun is always  visible.  Or always above the “horizon”.   This is not a fair comparison of a Mount Rainier sunrise and the shadow that is visible before the body of the sun becomes visible.  A shadow created while the sun is still physically blocked from view. 

The set up is a little sketchy too.  There are many imagines of deep clouds stretching towards the sun for the Mountain Rainier shadow.  In the experiment of the video, the box used as cloud cover ends right at the cutout used for the mountain.



As far as scale, who knows.

For the video. Even with the light 6 foot above the ground, and 30 feet away from the cutout.  The light is always visibly there above the mountain cutout.  The guy in the video can’t make the horizon physically block the light acting like the sun.

So this scale thing bleeds into the next part.

An individual tried to use the referenced video that ignores the shadow of Mount Rainier is visible before sunrise to “debunk” this cloud shadow.


The photo was before 7:47 am.

The actual sunrise time was 8:00 am.

The brightest spot in each photo was a shaft of light.  Not the actual sun as it was still below the horizon.

Tha shaft of light radiating up from the sun below the horizon was seen in real time.  It’s not from my lens nor cellphone case. 





So.  This shadow is was made while the sun was below and physically blocked from view by the horizon.

Now.  For flat earth that would have to be from a sun 300 to 3000 miles above the clouds for my photo. In the video compared to a light 6 feet off the ground for a six inch mountain.  Hmm scale is off a bit.  For my photo, a good amount of clouds between the horizon and shadow.  Vs the video where the “sun” is anyways above the cardboard mountain cutout. With no “overhang” of clouds between the cutout and the light source.

But… the sun wasn’t above the clouds when I took the picture of the cloud shadow angling up into the sky.  The sun was relatively below the clouds illuminating them from bottom to top, and creating a shadow before sunrise.

The picture was taken about 1500 miles off the east coast somewhere in the Midwest.  So the sun was a good bit up in the sky for the east coast while I saw the clouds illuminated from the bottom up.

On the flat earth, you would get into this situation.



For this to happen on a flat earth.  How does the video account for on a flat earth one person close to the cloud would see the cloud illuminate top down with the cloud’s shadow on the ground.  But a father away person would have to simultaneously see the cloud illuminated bottom up with no cloud shadow on the ground.

The video.  If light source is low enough to a relatively large object that has light “cloud” cover between it and the light source, you can get this.



A large mass shadow from the base to the overhang with the light source visible in the background.

Which isn’t really like this.



The bulk of the shadow projected upward with the base of the mount in equal twilight as the tree line before the sun is even visible and below the horizon.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Gravity waves anyone? Or gravity waves hello?
« on: July 14, 2023, 02:32:52 PM »
Just thought it was an interesting phenomenon.

Quote
Written by David Moran (RadarScope)
Jan 24, 2018 10:09:43 AM

Weather can be thought of as the result of gradients in various atmospheric properties such as temperature, moisture, and pressure. The atmosphere is continually working to eliminate these gradients and restore itself back to equilibrium. Gravity waves are one of the mechanisms that the atmosphere utilizes in an attempt to restore itself to an equilibrium state. While these waves typically do not influence large-scale weather patterns, they can affect smaller scale weather events. They can sometimes be seen on radar images and produce some characteristic cloud patterns



https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/Miscellaneous/gravity_wave/gravity_wave.html#:~:text=In%20a%20gravity%20wave%2C%20the%20upward%20moving%20region%20is%20the,stable%20layer%20of%20the%20atmosphere.




Quote
For a gravity wave to maintain itself, the vertical atmospheric structure is essential. A key feature of this arrangement is a deep low-level inversion (a layer in which the temperature increases with height). This layer is characteristically very stable and is typically located to the north of a warm front. The inversion itself plays two roles in the propagation of the wave. First, it enables the wave to continue horizontally spreading while maintaining its strength. Secondly, the inversion prevents the wave's energy from propagating vertically, which in turn, prevents the wave from dissipating.

Its most interesting to think people think “atmosphere” is the force.  When in reality atmosphere is under the influence of gravity. 



15
Flat Earth Debate / Drum implosion vacuum pressure gravity work
« on: July 09, 2023, 12:17:02 PM »
I was thinking through creating a vacuum in a drum by cooling steam, then the drum imploding.  Something carried out by Mythbusters.

Quote

How to Make a Train Tanker Implode | MythBusters





I was working through the argument, “does a vacuum draw in pressure?  Or does pressure flow in to vacuum?”

The answer is you need a difference in energy. The high pressure with more energy will equalize, or attempt to equalize with the lower pressure.  Flow from high pressure to low pressure.  From a higher energy state to a lower energy state.  But flow is initiated because there is lower pressure. A difference in stored energy. 

If you think there is no such thing as vacuum.  Remember we live in an atmosphere, and that is our point of reference.  If a tank has pressure and fails, it will spray out it contents or even explode.  A tank at vacuum fails, it will do the opposite of a pressurized tank.  It will draw in atmosphere or even implode.


So the Mythbusters filled a vented drum with a little bit of water. Heated the drum so it fills with steam. The drum is sealed air tight and removed from the source of heat. The steam cools.  The steam takes up roughly 1000 times more space than water. The cooling steam condenses, creating a vacuum in the drum. Once the pressure differential is great enough to overcome the strength of the steel drum, it implodes.

Think about that.  An open atmosphere caused the drum to implode.


I had a drum handy. Sat on it with my 200 plus pounds.  It held its integrity.  Maybe because the drum was air tight?  I removed the two inch bung plug.  Sat on top of the drum, and it held its integrity.  So I laid it on its side and sat on it, it held its integrity

I put the plug back in. Then shot some compressed air at it.  The sides, then the top.  The drum wobbled about a bit from time to time. But the drum held its integrity.  It was still in the same shape of a drum with no dents.
 
Now.  Think about that.  The drum was hit with compressed air, and the air flowed around it.  The compressed air never getting the advantage because it’s energy was equalized or consumed by the lower pressure of the atmosphere around the drum.

My weight didn’t harm or change the integrity of the drum.

But if a vacuum is drawn in the drum to cause a great enough differential pressure, the drum implodes.  And implodes in a fluid atmosphere with decreasing pressure with altitude.  The compressed air flowed around the drum without harm to the drum. 

How does the atmosphere gain the advantage to implode the drum.  To have the energy to do the work to move the walls of the steel drum inward?

I can take items of different densities and set them by each other.  A thing of lead and aluminum, and no work is done.  But use gunpowder to release energy to impart kinetic energy to a lead bullet, the moving bullet can do work on the aluminum block.

So what caused work to be done to move the walls of the steel drum.  Density in not a force. 

The atmosphere is fluid, and the flow of compressed air didn’t do work on the drum where the steel was failed.  The energy of the compressed air was “sunk” into the lower energy of the atmosphere.

How did the atmosphere have the energy to work on the drum to make it implode.

Well, there is pressure.  To have pressure, you have to expert a force to overcome the tendency of gas molecules to dissipate from each other to equalize with lower pressure.

Gravity exerts enough force to cause enough gas molecules to overcome their tendency to dissipate from each other to equalize to lower pressure to build pressure at sea level. Gravity causes individual molecules of N2, O2, CO2, and argon atoms to bunch up at sea level to create pressure. 

In the context of the implosion of the steel drum, gravity causes the air molecules to bunch up with enough force to cause a great enough pressure differential with enough energy to move the walls of the steel drum inward. 

16
Able to “hang” in air indefinitely?



The magnet would not need a tether if I could find the sweet spot.

Something like this.

Quote

K&J Magnetics - Levitating Top





Move a steel ball from a standstill across a table with no mechanical prime mover.






If magnets exhibit a fundamental force, why can’t there be a fundamental weak force mass attracts mass?



17
I believe that den pressure is at odds with hydrogen bonds found in water.  And den pressure is at odds with the reality that water can hang from a ceiling as a water droplet.  Not falling.  Until the water droplet gains enough mass from condensation to have gravity overcome water’s properties of adhesion and cohesion. 

Quote
Detailed Description
Cohesion: Hydrogen Bonds Make Water Sticky
Water has an amazing ability to adhere (stick) to itself and to other substances. The property of cohesion describes the ability of water molecules to be attracted to other water molecules, which allows water to be a "sticky" liquid.
Hydrogen bonds are attractions of electrostatic force caused by the difference in charge between slightly positive hydrogen ions and other, slightly negative ions. In the case of water, hydrogen bonds form between neighboring hydrogen and oxygen atoms of adjacent water molecules. The attraction between individual water molecules creates a bond known as a hydrogen bond.

https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/strong-polar-bond-between-water-molecules-creates-water-cohesion#:~:text=In%20the%20case%20of%20water,known%20as%20a%20hydrogen%20bond.


Water stuck on a window?  Not running down?

Water stuck to the ceiling not dripping?

Water can stick to windows and overhangs and not fall because of “Hydrogen bonds are attractions of electrostatic force”.


Let’s take a water drop on a ceiling.  The hydrogen bond that makes water “sticky” allows it to hold on and not drip. The forces of cohesion and adhesion with the water drop and the ceiling is greater than the force of gravity on the water droplet.

  If the water drop continues to accumulate mass through say condensation, gravity
will finally have enough force to overcome the water droplet’s cohesion and adhesion with the ceiling, and the water drop will fall.

So.  In den pressure.  How can a water droplet stick to the underside of a ceiling.  Then when the water droplet is massive enough, what in den pressure overcomes the forces of cohesion and adhesion with the water droplet and ceiling to make it fall?  There is no atmosphere between the water droplet and ceiling.


Note.  Added.  In den pressure there can’t be free space.  So as the water droplet starts to fall and pull away from the ceiling.  In den pressure how can it fall.  I guess den pressure everything is occupied by something.  So how does the water droplet pull away from the ceiling to fall? 

18
So.  More was posted in another thread that got me thinking again.

Den pressure seems to ignore the atmosphere is primarily moisture, diatomic nitrogen, diatomic oxygen, and argon.


This is their molecular weights.

Quote
Nitrogen – 28.0134 g/mol

Oxygen – 31.9988 g/mol

Argon – 39.948 g/mol

https://unacademy.com/content/question-answer/chemistry/what-is-the-molecular-weight-of-air/#:~:text=Air%20is%20a%20mixture%20of%20several%20gasses%20where%20the%20two,carbon%20dioxide%20of%20about%200.03%25.&text=We%20get%2028.96%20g%2Fmol,the%20molecular%20weight%20of%20Air


It seemed strange in the den pressure delusion that makes claims about things with different densities should fall at different rates and atmospheric stacking where on earth the atmosphere has a uniform mixer of gasses of different molecular weights for a given volume?

Then I started to think about the molecular weight of water. 

Quote

18 g/mol

https://www.cmu.edu/gelfand/lgc-educational-media/polymers/what-is-polymer/molecular-weight-calculation.html#:~:text=Using%20the%20periodic%20table%20of,)%20%3D%2018%20grams%2Fmole.



18 g/mol seems relatively light compared to N2 at 28.0134 g/mol and O2 31.9988 g/mol.

Never really made the connection before. 

In round earth, water is liquid at room temperature because of hydrogen bonds? 

(In den pressure where there are no nuclear forces, no gravity, and work can be done without displacing anything, wonder what the madeup replacement for hydrogen bonds will be?)

In den pressure:

One: why doesn’t the atmospheric gasses layer out by molecular weight/densities? Instead of the witnessed uniform mixture? 

Two:  why is water being lighter per molecule liquid at room temp while heavier molecules like diatomic nitrogen and diatomic oxygen are gasses at room temp.

And while water is solid ice, why are the heavier diatomic nitrogen and diatomic oxygen still gasses?

I would think in den pressure, items with heavier molecular weights would be liquids before items with less molecular weight? 

Three: How are lighter water molecules in the oceans “held” down by heavier molecules like N2 and O2?

19
Flat Earth Debate / Den Pressure vs Pin Art Board Please Explain
« on: May 07, 2023, 02:23:09 PM »
So… Something like this toy was posted in another thread concerning den pressure.



But not as frightening in appearance.

And it got me thinking about den pressure.

Why are the pins holding their positions?  Den pressure should be working to move them?  I need help understanding the “theory” of den pressure on this. 

If you take the pin art and tilt the board down, the pins start to slide down towards earth.  At about 45 degrees almost all the pins move to their stop.



I understand with gravity the motivational force is at first perpendicular to the pins, and why the pins move as tilt towards the earth increases.  The force of gravity goes from being perpendicular to inline with how the pins move.


I don’t get the alternate den pressure.

To me, “pressure” can get things to move when an air current from high pressure to low pressure is created and things are “carried along” in the movement of gasses to equalize.

Or for a liquid in a hydraulic jack.  A plunger is pushed on one side, the hydraulic fluid displaces and pushes the other plunger out. 


Back to the pin art board and den pressure.  How are the pins holding their position before tilting?  It’s surrounded by den pressure. 

And if you tilt, how does pressure cause the pins to move with no current flow down with low pressure pressing the pins into higher pressure.   When gas laws show when gasses are in sealed containers when connected with a flow path high pressure will flow and equalize with low pressure.  Supposedly the earth is in a sealed container with a dome? 

Anyway.  A slight tilt, no real change in pressure with no means as defined by fluid power, and the pins start to move. 


With the pin art board vertical and stationary.  In den pressure, why aren’t the pins at least gradually pushed farther and farther out as the rows get closer to earth? 

The board being vertical, the pins are stationary.  But as a tilt is induced with no downward air current flow, the pins supposedly move down by a less dense atmosphere into a more dense atmosphere?  With the bottom rows of pins moving with no real change in height? 




20
The Lounge / Not everyday you go for a walk and get hissed at!
« on: April 29, 2023, 10:57:33 AM »
Any idea what snake this is?  I thought maybe a hog nosed snake.  But I think they just do the rattle thing with their tails to imitate a rattle snakes.  Then they play dead.  And make a funny smell?

  This guy was all too happy to hiss, and had no interest in playing dead.  And wasn’t humored at all.




21
Flat Earth Debate / Experiment ideas to prove Denpressure?
« on: April 24, 2023, 09:57:50 AM »
What type of experiment could prove denpressure?


Any items to help those that believe in denpressure? 

Since it goes in hand usually with a domed earth. My bet would be on the ideal gas law and gasses tend to take the shape of their container? 



22
Why on a rocket is there a center of gravity and a separate center of pressure?

Quote
The center of pressure is the average location of where the pressure force is applied. Think of it like the center of gravity, the location where the average weight of an object is, except this time it is the location of average pressure. The center of pressure is where the forces of lift and drag are exerted. It is important for engineers to know the center of pressure since it allows them to evenly balance the lift on aircraft.

https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/what-center-pressure

If there is no gravity, how can a rocket have a center of gravity that is different than center of pressure?

23
Too much information for one thread?  Or does it show how knowledge leads to knowledge.

Probably another thread that will be largely ignored.  I guess spice up the title.  Who makes who dance…..

Anyway.

I guess the best way to organize this thread is in four parts.

A quick example of refraction.  Old proof the earth is curved. Modern proof the earth is curved.  What to me is the classic proof the earth is curved.

Part one. First refraction. 

Refraction over simplified leads to how much of a distance target can be seen through mirage.  The new well known example is Chicago.

Quote

Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

Flat earther’s ignore certain factors when using the Chicago skyline.  Such as, the pictures used are often from Tower Hill.

Quote
The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

And atmospheric conditions that change the amount of atmospheric refraction will change how much of the Chicago’s skyline that can be seen.  Seen as in the visible length of buildings. 

Quote

On a normal sunny day, say in summer you can only see a dozen or so of Chicago’s tallest buildings from southwest Michigan. Yes, you can see Chicago, just not all of it.
“Anything more than that, especially when you get above 10 or 12, something's happening, because that's not usually there," Nowicki said.
That something is a strong temperature inversion, warmer air above colder air, that causes light to bend.
“A mirage is just a case of atmospheric refraction, it’s caused by the fact you have temperature variations in the atmosphere and these cause density variations.”  says Doctor Mark Rennie, an associate professor in areo-optics at the University of Notre Dame. “So literally the speed of light varies within the air. And this variation of the speed of light has the effect of bending light rays."

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage


The fact you need to stand on a 250 foot hill, and the changing visibility of building lengths is strong evidence the earth is curved.    And refraction is a factor that can’t be ignored, and most be factored for. 

If you doubt refraction, do you believe this is a real double decker ship?



Part Two.  Henry Yule Oldham and his take on the Bedford Level experiment.

Quote

In 1901, Henry Yule Oldham, a reader in geography at King's College, Cambridge, reproduced Wallace's results using three poles fixed at equal height above water level. When viewed through a theodolite, the middle pole was found to be about 6 feet (1.8 m) higher than the poles at each end.[10][11] This version of the experiment was taught in schools in England until photographs of the Earth from space became available, and it remains in the syllabus for the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education for 2023.[12][13][14][15]

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


Seems reasonable proof the earth is curved.  If you understand refraction, how it’s mitigated. And a reasonable experiment that can be replicated.  I tried to find the original photos.  But could not find them.  This is all the original documentation I could find.

https://ia600902.us.archive.org/35/items/reportofbritisha01scie/reportofbritisha01scie.pdf









Part three.  Modern proof.

I came across this video.  I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.

Quote

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km







The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.

Part four, the classic.  Ships disappearing bottom up.

During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.



Then a ship farther away.




If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon.  There is always my go to ship video.

Quote








So.  There you go.

Proofs the earth is curved.  The Chicago skyline.  The 1901 take on the Bedford experiment published in British Association for the Advancement of Science.  The video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km” published on YouTube.  And the classic boats disappearing bottom up as a bonus to the video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”.  And in the video “Huge container ship eclipsing the horizon. Nikon Coolpix P900.”

24
The Lounge / Trouble igniting AEROTECH 29MM - rocket motors.
« on: April 01, 2023, 09:01:04 AM »
I was using Aerotech 29 mm rocket motors with First Fire JR. starters (igniters)

The first try was with AEROTECH 29MM PROPELLANT KIT - F62T-14 and First Fire JR. starter (igniter).  The igniter made an audible phhhttt.  And didn’t ignite the motor.  It burnt itself up without setting off the rocket motor. 

I swapped out to another rocket with a AEROTECH 29MM LOADABLE MOTOR - G77R-7 with a FIRST FIRE JR. STARTER.

I only had the two igniters with me.

This attempt went phhht. Quiet fizzle.  Phhhtt.  Quiet fizzle.  Then finally ignited.  I had the button for the ignition system mashed down the entire time.



I was using two 6 volt lantern batteries in series to make 12 volts.  RAYOVAC Heavy Duty Lantern Battery, 6 Volt Screw Terminals, 945R4C



https://www.acehardware.com/departments/lighting-and-electrical/batteries/specialty-batteries/32760?store=18171&gbraid=0AAAAADtqLJGozWdzwsFmPu7GZvNS0zIG2&gbraid=0AAAAADtqLJGozWdzwsFmPu7GZvNS0zIG2&gclid=CjwKCAjwrJ-hBhB7EiwAuyBVXWusTS4FYZEy5KvWPa-oxKyo4T5-uw5isoOPoHOC24tD2EtyLdLAlxoCxqEQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

I was wondering with the First Fire JR. starters if it would be better to put three 6v batteries in series for 18 volts? 

Or I could use two sets of batteries.  Make two sets of batteries in 12 volt configuration, and then place them in parallel? 

Or buy a good rechargeable 12v battery.  I only launch two to three times a year.  And keep a battery maintainer on it?

Or use my cordless tool batteries by rigging something up?  However, the igniter when triggered is effectively a short.  A igniter will draw around 8 to 10 amps.  I didn’t know if this would damage my cordless tool batteries? 

25
When I want to go play in tidal pools at low tide, does FE offer better and more accurate predictions to schedule when I should go?

For a costal river.  When I row down river to get to sea.  Can FE offer better modeling and predictions when the tide will be going out?  So I don’t have to row against the tide coming in.

When I want to see a solar eclipse, does FE offer accurate predictions of when and where? 

When I want to see a comet,  does FE offer accurate predictions of when and where? 

When I want to see a lunar eclipse,  does FE offer accurate predictions of when and where? 

As pointed out by others, accelerometers are a thing.  Does Flat Earth offer better explanations and predictions on how and why they work?

If I want to photograph geostationary satellites holding their positions vs the trails stars leave in a night time long exposure, does FE offer better modeling and explanations.

Does flat earth make better predictions on the course of the sun throughout the day? Funny?  Looks like the sun on a FE would have to turn and travel north once over the USA?




What use is flat earth to me?  What use is FE in modeling and predicting with accuracy and dependability natural phenomena? 

26
The last photo was at 7:47 am.

The actual sunrise time was 8:00 am.

The brightest spot in each photo was a shaft of light.  Not the actual sun as it was still below the horizon.

Tha shaft of light radiating up from the sun below the horizon was seen in real time.  It’s not from my lens nor cellphone case. 

From the way the clouds are illuminated bottom up.  To the way the lower clouds cast shadows upward.  Just don’t get how a sunrise as seen is a product of FE.  It shows the reality of spherical earth.











27
Flat Earth General / Pics of the sun, just felt like posting ‘em
« on: March 15, 2023, 03:32:50 PM »








Old one of the moon for extra fun



While I’m at it. How about a rainbow?  Or a few?













Lightning?





Anyway.  That’s all I got.




28
Note.   Since the site let me.  Changed title to eliminate confusion over trying to keep title information but short.



So.  In the context what is common sense in knowing something is real vs when science is needed.  I thought about sunsets.

To me.  It’s obvious the sun sets. It becomes physical blocked from view because it goes relatively below the horizon.  The science part is needed to prove if the earth rotates about it axis as it orbits about the sun. Or does the sun circle around a stationary earth.

Then I started to wonder how this idea come about the sun is always above the earth?

From my limited knowledge.  I believe some religions and ancient cultures believed the sun disappeared or was physical engulfed by the underworld? 

Anyway.  The point being many religions/cultures believe the sun was lowered or veiled from view in trying to explain where it is clearly witnessed the sun is physically blocked from view.  It’s light and radiance physical shielded from the earth. 

So I started looking up Hebrew astronomy.  I found this.  Not sure how “mainstream” it was back in the day.  It could be like an internet archeologist digging through internet archives 300 years in the future looking up 9/11 and believing the mainstream belief was the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. Just from the shear number of videos and webpages.  Why are the extremes always more likely to creat a website or YouTube video.  Anyway.  I digress.


Here is a condense version of what I found concerning the sun and Hebrew astronomy.

Quote

The Days of the Sun.
The sun ascends by means of 366 steps, and descends by 183 in the east and 183 in the west. There are 366 windows in the firmament, through which the sun successively emerges and retires. These windows are arranged so as to regulate the sun's movements with a view to their concordance with the "teḳufot," Nisan, Tammuz, and Ṭebet. The sun bows down before God and declares its obedience to His commands (Pirḳe R. El. ). Three letters of God's name are written on the sun's heart; and angels lead it—one set by day, and another by night (ib.). The sun rides in a chariot (ib.). When looking downward its face and horns are of fire; when turned upward, of hail. If the sun did not periodically change its face, so that heat and cold alternate, the earth would perish (ib.).

https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tje/s/sun.html

So. One school of thought that seemed most prevalent? And Hebrew astronomy should be the roots of Christian fundamentalist beliefs? Was the sun raised and lowered by steps?  And winks in and out of view by windows in the firmament?  But turns it face? 

I am just baffled by where the idea comes from the sun is always above the earth where it never rises and sets in anyway.  With nothing to account for why its light and radiance are blocked.  (In modern terms, where it’s heat and solar radiation like X-rays are blocked from detection by modern instruments).

I keep thinking some FE’er will post the sun has a hood of some sort.  By that doesn’t seem very well embraced.  The whole perspective thing seems to be the leading explanation here?  On this website. 

So.  Why do modern FE’s embrace the sun never lowers in anyway and is never blocked by the earth in anyway?  They refer to the firmament from ancient texts. But seems to totally ignore the sun in relation to the firmament.  And the old beliefs why the sunsets? 

29
It’s time for FE’s to stop the word games.

For the northern hemisphere summer’s smallest circuit of the sun above the earth.  Where the sun is always above the earth. 

(But doesn’t block the views of starts for the dark side while up there circling??? Or evidently doesn’t emit detectable radiation???)





Anyway.   Draw or sketch how a sunset works on a flat earth.


No long rants about NASA supposedly lying, the NWO, or how spherical earth is “evil”. 

Show why the horizon physically blocks the sun from view, and the sun’s radiation.

30
Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific satellite, EchoStar 16.


EchoStar 16 was launched into space Nov 20, 2012, from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

The satellite was built by Space Systems/Loral.

The launch of EchoStar XVI was conducted by International Launch Services, using a Proton-M carrier rocket with a Briz-M upper stage.

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

Here’s the set up.  Myself, and a cousin both served in the Pacific Ocean.

From the middle of the Pacific Ocean, hundreds of miles from any landmass, we both used satellite based email and sat phones to contact home when allowed.

We both have a subscriptions that allows us to view programming broadcasted From EchoStar 16.

  We understand that EchoStar 16 is broadcasting in frequencies that are line of sight transmission. J band (IEEE Ku band)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

One of us lives on Ocean Isle Beach North Carolina.  The other one lives in Port Fourchon Louisiana.

Here is the data to position the satellite dish at each location to receive the broadcast from the geosynchronous satellite Echostar 16.

https://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-usa.htmSatellite






Provide evidence, not speculation, that EchoStar 16 is not in earth’s orbit.

Provide evidence, not speculation, that individuals aiming their dishes at EchoStar 16 are receiving a broadcast from something other than a geostationary satellite.

Pages: [1] 2