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 - digitalartist

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / The Moon - Clear evidence of a round Earth
« on: February 21, 2012, 07:12:51 AM »
I was visiting some friends who got back about  recently from a visit to Australia and like all good tourists took photos.  He prefers his old 35mm camera to digital ones.  I was there and he even let me watch when he developed the film rolls since he has his own darkroom.  Once completed and dry, we took them out to the living room to have as look at them.  In one was a picture at dusk of the skyline (local buildings) and the moon rising in the background.  I looked at it and it looked strange.  After checking some old photos he had from the U.S. we both could see that the moon shows upside down in Australia (the Southern hemisphere) as opposed to how it shows in the Northern Hemisphere.  Something that can only happen if the Earth is a globe and not flat.

Flat Earth Debate / The problems with bendy light
« on: September 19, 2011, 01:36:15 PM »
If bendy light exists, what bends it? 

If it is the atmosphere that bends the light why isn't laser light affected equally? 

If bendy light exists, Rowbotham would have never seen the ship in the distance in his experiments as the light from the ship would have bent away before reaching him.

If bendy light exists then light that never reaches the ground but bends back into space would allow someone in a plane to look at the ground and see the sun.

Flat Earth Debate / The problem with UA
« on: September 19, 2011, 08:33:14 AM »
First the basics and some FE'r can coorrect me if I'm wrong.

UA is a constant acceleration of 9.81m/s2.  With no counter force acting in the opposite direction the Earth's speed is constantly increasing.  UA does not directly affect anything on Earth which is why if you hold and release a rock or ball or if you trip it gives the appearance of the object/person falling to the Earth.

If that is correct then UA is it's own worse enemy.  With increasing speed the force of the impact with a stationary object would be greater in the future than it is now.   

Take a tennis ball to a flat surface such as a basketball court.  Hold it at a measured height above the court and release it noting how high it bounces.  That distance would be based on the impact of the stationary ball being hit by the moving Earth.  Now repeat the same experiment with the same ball in the same place on the same court releasing it from the same height above the court.  Notice again the height of the bounce.  It should be greater because the speed of the Earth would have increased over that weeks time.

Take a 5 pound stone outside and release it over dirt.  Measure the impression it leaves in the ground.  Repeat the experiment 1 month later then compare the depth of the impressions you recorded both times.  The second impression should be much deeper because the speed of the Earth would have increased in that month making the impact greater.  In fact over time the rock should become so deeply embedded in the ground you would not be able to retrieve it without equipment to excavate it.

Now look at the injuries a person who is standing still receives when they are hit by a car.  The faster the car is going, the greater the impact and the more serious the injuries.  Since the Earth has been constantly accelerating since day one, it's speed is so many more times faster than a car that the impact with a person whose feet have gone out from under them and who we say is falling should be so great as to pulverize them on the spot.

Flat Earth General / You need to correct the wiki
« on: March 01, 2011, 08:41:52 AM »
I'm starting to look through the wiki more thoroughly and have found an error that needs to be corrected

In the section on foucault's pendulum, found at:  It says:

Summarily, the line of the pendula must be 25 meters in length to get the minimum effect, and so by necessity, Leon Focault's original experiments between latitudes were conducted outside hung from a tree exposed to the elements. Dr. Rowbotham finds that the variations of the pendulum by latitude are caused entirely by the contraction and expansion of its line due to temperature variations upon the earth's surface in relation to the nearness of the Sun. These variations match up perfectly with the official published results of Focault's experiments.

Please compare that with the information found on page 90 of Moving the Stars by Christian Doppler

As you can clearly see, of the 3 experiments, none were conducted from a tree, none were exposed to the elements and 2 of the 3 experiments had lines shorter that what is declared as the necessary length.

Flat Earth Q&A / Please explain what changes the suns speed
« on: January 14, 2011, 07:40:39 AM »
In the FE model, the spotlight sun, covers the Earth in a 24 hour period.  In the northern hemisphere the circumference of the earth is smaller than it is in the southern hemisphere.  So as the sun moves directly over the southern hemisphere during the change of seasons, it's speed would have to increase to finish in the same 24 hour period.  Please explain to me what force speeds up the sun as it moves over the southern hemisphere and slows it down again as it moves over the northern hemisphere.

Flat Earth General / a bit of advice for flat earth believers
« on: November 12, 2010, 06:31:30 AM »
You need to update your documentation.  It's one thing to advance and attempt to prove a theory but it is another when documentation is contradictory or erroneous.  By way of examples, when comparing the wiki and the faq, one refers to the moon as a sphere and the other a spotlight.  Also in the hundred proofs, #49, the author refers to the planet earth in the RE model as revolving at 19 miles per second.  If we take a 25,000 mile circumference round world, divide it by 24 hours gives 1041 miles per hour then divide by minutes gives 17.35 miles per minute then by seconds give .29 miles per second or 1531 feet per second thus showing the author had problems with even simple math.

It is of course your prerogative to leave such contradictions and errors in place, but in the long run they will hinder any attempts to prove your theory.  Just my 2 cents.

Flat Earth Q&A / UA, Dark Energy and weight
« on: November 08, 2010, 09:56:31 AM »
I have a couple of questions.

As I understand the FET UA model, Dark energy is constantly pushing the earth upward to maintain 1G at the surface of the earth.  I also understand that dark energy is not pushing individual objects that leave the earths surface until they reach an appropriate height above the earths surface.  This is born out by the FET sun maintaining a distance of 3000 miles from the earth.

1 - How does one of the large passenger balloons rise above the surface of the earth?  If dark energy is not pushing it up, it's rise is too slow to escape the earth as the earth should catch up quickly

2 - On a balloon that is at a stationary height above the earth, neither rising nor falling, unassisted by dark energy and not in contact with earth, why doesn't a person standing on a scale register zero weight?  (my friend performed just such an experiment during a local balloon rally to see if his weight changed and he saw no change)

Flat Earth General / Simple experiment proves the UAT faulty.
« on: October 27, 2010, 10:20:45 AM »
Here is a very simple experiment that can be used to prove that the Universal Acceleration Theory is faulty.

What you need:

2 people
1 rock
1 stopwatch
as much height as you can get but no more than 300 feet.

The experiment:

One person stands at the highest point they can with the rock, perhaps a tall multi story building.  The other person stands on the ground with the stopwatch.  The person on the building holds out their hand with the rock in it ready to release it.  On a count of three it is released and the stopwatch started.  When the rock hits the ground the stopwatch is stopped.  Look at the watch, if it shows a time of greater than 1 second for the rock to hit the ground you have proved UA is faulty.

Wait now, true believers will say.  That doesn't prove anything?  Well according to UAT the earth is rising at 9.8 meters per second squared which works out to 96 meters per second or 315  feet per second.  If you are at a height of 300 feet or less it would take less than a second (per UAT model) for the earth to catch up to the rock so the rock would hit the ground in less than a second.  Anything greater than that proves the UAT model is faulty.

Flat Earth Debate / EAT is Flawed
« on: October 20, 2010, 07:48:01 PM »
In reading the wiki about EAT I find some fatal flaws in it.

If sunlight does make a parabolic curve then it would be possible, if in the right position to see the sun while looking at the ground.  Also sunlight bending away from the earth would light anything in the sky from clouds to planes to birds from the underside with bright light.  Neither effect has been observed

If I recall right, the explanation for the sinking ship using EAT is that the light from the hull hits the ground or bends upwards before it reaches the person so they can't see it where as the mast, being higher still reaches the person before it has time to bend away.  This is negated by the experiments of Rowbotham.  If light from the hull was bending away and didn't reach Rowbotham he would never have seen the hull when looking through a telescope as the light would never have reached him.  Since he did see it then it negates the claim.

Flat Earth General / I had to laugh
« on: September 27, 2010, 10:17:10 AM »
Yes I had to laugh at one part in the wiki...Burden of proof.  There it claimed that those who said space travel was possible had the burden of proof.  Unfortunately, since the FES makes the claim that the Earth is flat and not spherical, then the burden does fall there and not those that believe otherwise.  If I were to claim that santa existed, it would not be up to those who didn't believe reindeer could fly to prove me wrong it would be up to me to prove i was right.  The same goes for FET and the FES.

Flat Earth Q&A / Problem with the FET assertion concerning plane flight
« on: September 17, 2010, 09:57:17 AM »
According to the FAQ

Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"

A: The airline pilots are guided by their GPS. Remember that satellites do not exist. The replacement data given from pseudolites deliberately throwing distorting all the paths to make it the flights take different times. The curvature of these paths can add or subtract great distances without the overall turning being obvious to someone traveling it.

Not all planes, including some commercial liners,  have GPS and those without them would not be affected even if there were pseudolites altering GPS systems.  Non GPS planes have taken the same routes as GPS planes and there has been no difference in distances between which should not be if GPS planes are taking different routes because their GPS systems are being affected.  Some of these same routes were used by planes prior to the invention of the GPS system and there is no major differences between then and now.  A clear indication that no such tampering with GPS systems is occurring.

Flat Earth Q&A / Problem with the FET assertion concerning satellites
« on: September 17, 2010, 09:43:34 AM »
According to the FAQ

A: Since sustained spaceflight is not possible, satellites cannot orbit the Earth. The signals we supposedly receive from them are either broadcast from towers or any number of possible pseudolites. However, temporary space-flight is possible.

If the sun, according to the FET model is a mere 3000 miles above the earth and isn't pulled to earth by our gravity, then it is logical to conclude that satellites could be launched to a sufficient height that the earth's gravity would not pull them back either.  If satellites are totally impossible, then so too would pseudolites be as the same forces that prevent satellites would prevent pseudolites.

Some questions to go with this.  Using the FET model of the Earth, how far above the Earth would a camera have to be to get the whole Earth in the picture?  Second if the transmissions are coming from towers, why are the pictures from say England so sharp and clear in the U.S. considering that with increasing distance there is increasing signal loss and natural terrain tends to disrupt and/or block signals.  Third  How does the FET model explain real time images from various parts of the world exactly when they are needed since say in the instance of a fire or explosion, there is no way to know ahead of time about the disaster?

Flat Earth Q&A / Problem with the FES sun model
« on: September 17, 2010, 03:58:21 AM »
The Faq says this

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

The problem with this model is that as the sun goes from sunrise to sunset, the shape of the sun would change as the spotlight would be seen from more edge on at sunrise to full at mid day and back to edge on at sunset.  This change would also be evident in the different seasons based on the FES seasonal model (see map).  As the sun moves to a different path, those farther away would see the sun more edge on and the shape would not be the same as when it was directly over their part of the world.  The fact that the suns shape does not change in this fashion basically negates this model.

NOTE:  This is the map from the FAQ

Pages: [1]