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 - Hortensius

Pages: [1]
1
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Olbers' paradox
« on: August 18, 2010, 02:42:55 AM »
I always found this a nice one:

If the universe is infinite and filled with stars, you would expect that whatever direction on the sky you are looking at, each line of sight would eventually end at the surface of a star. Or in other words; the sky should be completely filled with stars, causing the night sky to be extremely bright instead of dark. Why is the night sky dark?

http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/olbers.html

2
Flat Earth Q&A / FE experts, please explain: Spotlight Sun
« on: July 23, 2010, 02:41:58 AM »


This is what day and night looks like on a Flat Earth map on December 23rd, 11.30 CET; basically all of Antarctica illuminated by the sun for 24 hours a day. It doesn't look like a spotlight, rather some kind of spot shadow. How does the 'spotlight' Sun cast its light on the Earth?

This is what it looks like on a spherical earth:


3
Flat Earth Q&A / FE experts, please explain: Gravity
« on: July 09, 2010, 03:40:39 AM »
From the FAQ:

Q: "How is it that the Earth does not have a gravitational pull, but stars and the moon do?"

A: This argument is a non-sequitur. You might as well ask, "How is it that snakes do not have legs, but dogs and cats do?" Snakes are not dogs or cats. The Earth is not a star or the moon. It does not follow that each must have exactly the properties of the others, and no more.


Although no argument against gravitational pull of the earth is made here, this statement is deeply incorrect as I will explain now:

In this statement, and in the discussion on tidal forces (and in many other discussions that I have read on this site), the gravitational pull of stars and the moon, acting on the earth (or at least the oceans on earth) is acknowledged, whereas the gravitational pull of the earth is (often) denied. This is in direct contradiction with Newtons third law, which states that any body which exerts a force on a second body experiences an equal but oppositely directed force from the second body. This means that if the earth (or any other body) experiences a gravitational force from whatever celestial body, the earth will exert the same gravitational pull to that particular celestial body. Hence, if the earth experiences gravitational pull, it will exert gravitational pull.

This is a very fundamental law of nature and without it, a simple game of billiards will make no sense at all.

4
In the Q&A forum I have posted some physics questions regarding FET over the past days. I am hoping to discuss these issues with some experts on FET here. I'm an astrophysicist, and I am really open to your suggestions and views on these matters. I can't post in the FE believers forum, so my only hope is that you can respond to my questions in the Q&A section.

I'm not here to defend or attack any theory, neither RE or FE. But I would like to discuss general physics issues that are involved in these theories, and I am open to share with you my knowledge and insights. Perhaps this could be usefull in your quest for truth.

Thank you.

5
Flat Earth Q&A / FE experts, please explain: Coriolis force
« on: July 08, 2010, 04:48:41 AM »
This is what the FAQ section says:

Q: "How come when I flush my toilet in the northern hemisphere it goes counterclockwise but I have this friend in Australia and when he flushes it goes clockwise?"

A: You are mistaken. The Coriolis effect adds at most one (counter)clockwise rotation per day, and fewer as you get closer to the equator. The water in your toilet spins much faster than that (at least once per minute, or 1440 times per day), so the additional or lost rotation from the Coriolis effect would not be noticed.


Ok, what about hurricanes. On this large scale we DO observe the Coriolis effect. Why do hurricanes in the southern and northern hemispheres rotate in opposit directions? And why is it that this can be fully and easily explained with the spherical spinning earth model?
And if you are sceptical about the existance of oppositely spinning hurricanes, what about foucaults' pendulum?



6
Flat Earth Q&A / FE experts, please explain: Tidal effects in FET
« on: July 06, 2010, 08:30:19 AM »
Astrophysicists explain tidal effects (such as bidaily tidal floods) as an effect of the moons gravitational pull on the earth.

Question 1: In FET it is unlikely that the moon exerts a significant gravitational pull to the earth, because it is small, probably flat, and thus cannot contain a significant amount of mass. So if it is not the moon, what is it?

Question 2: In astrophysics, the concept tidal forces are a direct consequence from the fact that Newtonian gravity is stronger close to a massive object, than it is far away from the massive object. The FE concept of Universal Acceleration does not allow for this property (attraction in an accelerating frame of reference should be uniform), and thus cannot explain the effect of tidal force. So if the tides on the earths oceans are not caused by tidal forces, what is it?

Thanks

7
Flat Earth Q&A / FE experts, please explain: The distance to the moon
« on: July 06, 2010, 07:58:24 AM »
This is how astronomers measure the distance to the moon, the method is called parallax. It is based on the difference of perspective on distant objects which are observed from two seperate locations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

During a clear moonlit sky night, one person in Los Angeles takes a photograph of the moon. At the same moment another person in New York, some 3800 km away, takes a photograph of the moon at the exact same moment. The next day, the two photographers meet and compare their pictures, and notice that the moon in the LA picture appears to be shifted (wrt the NY picture) by a couple of degrees with respect to the stars in the far background. A quick calculation shows that the distance to the moon must be of the order of 380000 kilometers. (We don't mention the fact that the moon in LA appears to be viewed from another perspective here. Clearly some craters from the NY picture are not visible on the LA picture... This could be considered strong evidence for a spherical shape of the moon)

Conclusion 1: The moon and the stars cannot be at the same distance, the stars are in fact much farther away.
Conclusion 2: If the stars are indeed much farther away than the moon, the moon should be on a distance of about 380000 km.
(Conclusion 3: The moon is spherical.)

Isn't 380000 km far too much for FET? How do you guys calculate the distance to the moon?

Thanks

8
I would like some FE experts to respond here.

Lets say, the oceans are kept on earth by an icewall. Ok, but then what about the atmosphere? We know that the atmosphere consists of molecular particles, gasses, and are therefore subject to gravitation (whatever you call it; the force that pulls us down). That's the reason why the air pressure drops as you go up in the atmosphere. So, if there exists an edge, why doesn't the atmosphere just fall off the earth?

Thanks.

9
The Lounge / Ask an astronomer...
« on: July 05, 2010, 09:23:56 AM »
Hi all,

My name is Hortensius and I'm new to this forum. I found the Flat Earth Society after reading an interview with the president of FES in the Guardian. I was really surprised that apparently there are still people who believe the Earth is flat. However, being a professional astrophysicist, I can absolutely respect people who dare to think 'outside the box' and that are sceptical about 'commonly assumed truths'. These are great qualities that any scientist should have and therefore I respect their way of thinking. However, I believe that anyone who argues for one theory or the other has the burden of proof, whether you're are RE person or a FE person. Let me be clear; I myself am very much convinced that the Earth has a spherical (or nearly spherical) shape, and I believe the arguments and proofs are abundant.

I am here to discuss these matters in a respectful manner...

Cheers,
H

Pages: [1]