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.

Messages - msu320

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Q&A / NASA into space
« on: October 27, 2006, 10:35:51 PM »
Quote from: "fathomak"
Find a place with low light pollution and low pollution on a clear, moonless night and you can see satelites with unaided eyes.

yep, and you can also see the same satellite each time it orbits (im forgetting what the average time is between orbits). It's best to view it when it's below freezing outside. (when theres low moisture in the air).

Flat Earth Q&A / Moon issues...
« on: October 27, 2006, 10:24:42 PM »
you may want to check up on the law of cosines.

you apply it to an scalene triangle (observer B), when the theorem applies to right triangles only.

BUT, the law of sines can handle non right triangles.

Also, a reliable way to measure the arc length of objects with eye sight would help.

Flat Earth Q&A / NASA into space
« on: October 27, 2006, 09:47:15 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Geostationary satellites orbit at about 20,000 miles.  These satellites are much harder to observe, but it can be done in principle.

Sounds difficult.

... that the fixed stars are higher than previously suspected?  Yes.

Which part is difficult? viewing the sat, or keeping it in orbit?

Flat Earth Q&A / Reason
« on: October 26, 2006, 07:07:44 PM »
Saw it on the colbertnation forums.

Flat Earth Q&A / Scientific Proof? Where?
« on: October 26, 2006, 03:57:33 PM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
 Ironically, there is a link to his works in the FAQ

You know, even that link disputes the accuracy of his works, heres the preface/disclaimer to the table of contents:

Samuel Birley Rowbotham, under the pseudonym 'Parallax', lectured for two decades up and down Britain promoting his unique flat earth theory. This book, in which he lays out his world system, went through three editions, starting with a 16 page pamphlet published in 1849 and a second edition of 221 pages published in 1865. The third edition of 1881 (which had inflated to 430 pages) was used as the basis of this etext.

Rowbotham was an accomplished debater who reputedly steamrollered all opponents, and his followers, who included many well-educated people, were equally tenacious. One of them, John Hampden, got involved in a bet with the famous naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace about the flat earth. An experiment which Hampden proposed didn't resolve the issue, and the two ended up in court in 1876. The judge ruled against Hampton, who started a long campaign of legal harassment of Wallace. Rowbotham hints at the incident in this book.

Rowbotham believed that the earth is flat. The contients float on an infinite ocean which somehow has a layer of fire underneath it. The lands we know are surrounded by an infinite wilderness of ice and snow, beyond the Antarctic ocean, bordered by an immense circular ice-cliff. What we call the North Pole is in the center of the earth.

The polar projection of the flat earth creates obvious discrepancies with known geography, particularly the farther south you go. Figure 54 inadvertantly illustrates this problem. The Zetetic map has a severly squashed South America and Africa, and Australia and New Zealand in the middle of the Pacific. I think that by the 19th century people would have noticed if Australia and Africa were thousands of miles further apart than expected, let alone if Africa was wider than it was long!

The Zetetic Sun, moon, planets and stars are all only a few hundred miles above the surface of the earth. The sun orbits the north pole once a day at a constant altitude. The moon is both self-illuminated and semi-transparent. Eclipses can be explained by some unknown object occulting the sun or moon. Zetetic cosmology is 'faith-based', based, that is, on a literal interpretation of selected Biblical quotes. Hell is exactly as advertised, directly below us. Heaven is not a state of mind, it is a real place, somewhere above us. He uses Ussherian Biblical chronology to mock the concept that stars could be millions of light years away. He attacks the concept of a plurality of worlds because no other world than this one is mentioned in the Bible.

Rowbotham never adequately explains his alternative astronomy. If the Copernican theory so adequately explains planetary motions, why discard it, and what would he use in its place? What is the sun orbiting around once a day and how does it work like a spotlight, not a 'point source'? If the moon is self-luminous, what creates its phases? If gravity appears to work here on earth, why doesn't it apply to the celestial objects just a few hundred miles up?

To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).

Zetetic Astronomy is a key work of flat-earth thought, just as Donnelly's Atlantis, the Antediluvian World is still considered required reading on the subject of Atlantis. If you ever have to debate the flat earth pro or con, this book is a complete agenda of each point that you'll have to argue.

--John Bruno Hare, June 16th, 2005.

Flat Earth Q&A / NASA into space
« on: October 23, 2006, 01:02:41 PM »
The image provided as a mock-up of the earth shows that the lit area resembles a circular area.

Flat Earth Q&A / NASA into space
« on: October 23, 2006, 01:00:02 PM »
The faq states this:

Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitiude?"

A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.

What if there is a certain altitude, say the altitude at which the sun and the moon orbit above the earth, there is a small region where the force of acceleration is nuetralized by the stars gravitational pull. Although the failure rate may be very high, I would say some rocket payloads may be able to persist in this "sweet spot" for extended periods of time.

Flat Earth Q&A / The geological layers
« on: October 22, 2006, 09:25:02 PM »
right, now if we equate that the magma (accounting for magma being different in viscosity) I would imagine the same thing happening to the bottom layer (although taking longer than water as seen to form a sphere.)

Flat Earth Q&A / The geological layers
« on: October 22, 2006, 09:06:05 PM »
ack, didn't get the post edit quick enough, see above link222. (metadisscussion?)

Flat Earth Q&A / The geological layers
« on: October 22, 2006, 09:00:23 PM »
It's my best guess that it is solid ground, otherwise fluid dynamics would take into effect.


Using the vomit comet to examine fluid dynamics:

Flat Earth Q&A / The geological layers
« on: October 22, 2006, 08:23:20 PM »
(Erasmus: Thats a bit off topic.)

From Neemans explaination, the other side is molten iron (not really hospitable.)

From my second picture, you can derive that anybody on the other side would probably suffer the same fate as the lava.

Either way it looks uninhabited.

Flat Earth Q&A / The geological layers
« on: October 22, 2006, 07:38:20 PM »
Mistake in the labeling (you'll notice that grey is core, yellow/red mantle, brown is dirt/rock)

Flat Earth Q&A / Tides due to vibrating Earth
« on: October 22, 2006, 07:32:23 PM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"

...I was thinking about this the other day and was going to propose a model for the sun and moon's orbit above the earth.  As we seem to conclude, the earth may not have a gravitational field, itself, but that doesn't mean that other objects don't.  ...

I like that, selective exclusion between similar types of objects.

Flat Earth Q&A / The geological layers
« on: October 22, 2006, 07:20:31 PM »
My guess is that an approximation of the FE model would be like this:

I am wondering, that if say a volcano erupted, say like mount saint helens, except if its on the other side. that something like this might happen (or could even be happening!)

sorry to paint such a dark picture...

Flat Earth Q&A / The geological layers
« on: October 22, 2006, 06:38:59 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
I'll just assume that article is a fascinating work of fiction; it is too long for me to read.

way to keep an open mind.

Flat Earth Q&A / Why is the flat earth always protrayed as round?
« on: October 22, 2006, 06:30:22 PM »
Well, it's funny though, if it's round on 2 dimensions, why not 3?

Flat Earth Q&A / FAQual error:
« on: October 15, 2006, 07:32:54 AM »
Well now:

The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year.

Now heres a whole other thing to pick on. Not only does the sun orbit, the radius of it's orbit changes!

how does the sun:
a. Manage to light up approximate half of the world at any given time.
b. manage to stay in orbit.
c. manage to change the radius of the orbit in comparison to the earth's "axis of symmetry" (aka north pole.)

It goes back to the original question.

Flat Earth Q&A / FAQual error:
« on: October 14, 2006, 08:02:47 PM »
You say satellites (man made) don't orbit the earth.
Q: "What about satellites? How do they orbit the Earth?"

A1: They don't, satellite signals come from radio towers.

But you say other objects can orbit the earth:

Q: How do seasons work?

The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus.

Here are some very good diagrams of seasons on the flat Earth. The first is by thedigitalnomad:

What is the governor of what can orbit and what cannot?

The Lounge / lost : the best tv show in the history of mankind
« on: October 14, 2006, 07:48:56 PM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
I'm a huge Firefly fan, but hands-down BSG is the superior show.

BSG is awsome.

Flat Earth Q&A / Wowzers. This sure is convincing.
« on: October 14, 2006, 06:39:45 PM »
hey.. speaking of photos of earth, has anyone seen google earth?

Flat Earth Q&A / Wowzers. This sure is convincing.
« on: October 14, 2006, 06:36:22 PM »
If there was just those 2 photos, i would of imagined they would be on the faq page as "these photos do not count as proof".

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The sun at midnight; and neutrinos
« on: October 14, 2006, 06:10:29 PM »
Heres a question:
wheres the neutrino image of the moon?

Flat Earth Q&A / Wowzers. This sure is convincing.
« on: October 14, 2006, 05:52:54 PM »
Quote from: "beast"
omg the same two fucking photos.   aaaaaaaaaaaaargh.  If they're both real why are the oceans different colours?  In any event, I'm probably going to go to university, study computing for 3 years as well as spending all my spare time doing the same then hack the internet and destroy all copies of those photos so that people have to post other photos of the Earth from space instead of the same ones over and over.

how about launching a EMP bomb into orbit. :)

Flat Earth Q&A / Wowzers. This sure is convincing.
« on: October 14, 2006, 05:50:58 PM »
check out Madagascar, they're not the same photos..

edit - you were meaning the blue marble ones :)

Flat Earth Q&A / Wowzers. This sure is convincing.
« on: October 14, 2006, 05:19:07 PM »
Getting back on topic, sort of.

unimportant used this post in a nonsensical proof of earth being round:

the image is 3D generated

the source:

Heres a more accurate view:

Image taken by the apollo 17 crew (NASA.. dun dun DUN!)

Flat Earth Q&A / missing information.
« on: October 14, 2006, 04:51:26 PM »
well thats what my thoughts are:

Well, the sacred text site has the main elements of FE theory. And in it theres this rebuttle to that idea:
An argument for the earth's rotundity is thought, by many, to be found in the following facts:

"Fluid or semi-fluid substances in a state of motion invariably assume the globular form, as instanced in rain, hail, dew, mercury, and melted lead, which, poured from a great height, as in the manufacture of small shot, becomes divided into spherical masses."

"There is abundant evidence, from geology, that the earth has been a fluid or semi-fluid mass, and it could not, therefore, continue in a state of motion through space without becoming spherical."

In the first place, in reply to the above, it is denied that hail is always globular. On examination immediately after or during a hail-storm, the masses present every variety of form, and very few are found perfectly globular. Rain and dew cannot so well be examined during their fall, but when standing on hard surfaces in minute quantities, they generally appear spherical, a result simply of "attraction of cohesion." The same of mercury; and in reference to the formation of shot, by pouring melted lead from the top of a very high tower into cold water, it is a mistake to suppose that all, or even a large proportion, is converted into truly spherical masses. From twenty to fifty per cent. of the masses formed are very irregular in shape, and have to be returned to the crucible for re-melting. In addition to which it may be remarked, that the tendency in falling fluids to become globular is owing to what, in chemical works, is called "attraction of cohesion" (not "attraction of gravitation "), which is very

p. 252

limited in its operation. Its action is confined to small quantities of matter. If, in the manufacture of shot, the melted metal is allowed to fall in masses of several ounces or pounds, instead of being divided (by pouring through a sieve or "cullender" with small holes) into particles weighing only a few grains, it will never take a spherical form. Shot of an inch diameter could not be made by this process; bullets of even half an inch can only be made by casting the metal into spherical moulds. In tropical countries the rain, instead of falling in drops, or small globules, often comes down in large irregular masses or gushes, which have no approximation whatever to sphericity. So that it is manifestly unjust to affirm, of large masses like the earth, that which attaches only to minute portions, or a few grains, of matter.

Without denying that the earth has been, at some former period, or was, when it first existed, in a pulpy or semi-fluid state, it is requisite to prove beyond all doubt that it has a motion through space, or the conclusion that it is therefore spherical is premature, and very illogical. It should also be proved that it has motion upon axes, or it is equally contrary to every principle of reasoning to affirm that the equatorial is greater than the polar diameter, as the inevitable result of the centrifugal force produced by its axial or diurnal rotation. The assumption of such conditions by Sir Isaac Newton, as we have seen when speaking of the measurement of arcs of the meridian, was contrary to evidence, and led to and maintains a "muddle of mathematics" such as philosophers will, sooner or later, be ashamed of. The whole matter,

p. 253

taken together, entirely fails as an argument for the earth's rotundity. It has been demonstrated that axial and orbital motion do not exist, and, therefore, any argument founded upon and including them as facts is necessarily fallacious.

In the rebuttal to semi-fluidity:
It fails to mention the period of time of the fall to earth by the liquids.

It fails to mention that the hail ceased to be in a liquid state by the time it fell to the ground (by definition hail is frozen water.)

It fails to prove that if given virtually unlimited time, that in a liquid state, matter would still fail to make a spherical object.

Last but not least, it fails to show cases of severely non-spherical objects that where previously fluidic in nature (namely in the shape of a disk.)

Now, I present to you this site:

looking at the fluid in the experiments, how quickly does the water attempt to form into a sphere?

Flat Earth Q&A / missing information.
« on: October 14, 2006, 04:12:22 PM »
I am looking for what is the theory of the formation of the flat earth on this site, and I am not finding it.  

Entering "formation AND earth NOT information" (check syntax) into the handy search function is not helping.

Pages: [1]