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 - FEScientist

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Q&A / What is the Sun?
« on: September 18, 2015, 11:44:40 AM »
Hi all!

I'm still in the process of developing my FE model. Can anyone provide me a summation of FE explanations for the Sun?
I'm happy to just be linked to threads where the topic is discussed: the search site on this site is abysmal, and with my already slow internet, unusable.
However, if you have more time, please do type out explanations, especially if you can list strengths and weaknesses of those proposals. (And yes, round Earthers, that is an invitation for you to poke holes in the models: I've seen the moderation in this section be harsh on that, but part of my question is to know the weaknesses as well as the strengths).

Thank you!

Flat Earth General / The Papa Legba Replacement Thread
« on: September 15, 2015, 05:37:15 PM »
I believe the world is flat, I'm ambivalent about the possibility of space travel, and I know that rockets would definitely work in vacuum. Papa Legba is just very irritating for all involved. A lot of you seem to enjoy his abuse though, so in the interests of boring our local Loa, please come here for all your needs that involve arguing with an intentionally obtuse person making terrible arguments, having the problems explained,and refusing to listen to a word you say.
Why you enjoy that, I don't know.

Thread rules
If the original Papa posts, no acknowledging, no responding. Ideally block him, let him shout at the empty air.
Feel free to join in the Papa-ness: arguing in the Legba style.
No good arguments allowed. Good counter-arguments are encouraged, but no good arguments must be made by the Legbas.

Argue for FE or RE, it doesn't matter. This is just a thread for people to get their Legba fix without feeding our angry Loa.

To start off, here's a nice terrible argument for you all:


Orbital velocity is 8km/s! The only way to stay in orbit is to move that fast!!

The moon is travelling at 1km/s according to NASA shills!!


The moon can't be in orbit! How's it staying up there huh?!


*washes mouth*
I hope this impression was passable. have fun all!

Flat Earth General / Fundamental Attractive Forces
« on: September 05, 2015, 03:21:50 PM »
One of the major puzzles in Physics is the idea of a Unified Theory: these often relate to the four Fundamental Interactions (electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces). Notably, three of the four (electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong nuclear force) explicitly function as attractive forces: and the weak and electromagnetism forces are themselves unified as the 'electroweak force' at sufficient temperatures, so there is a connection there.

Long story short, attraction is a crucial, fundamental aspect of nature and the physical laws. Similarly, there is the expectation of a Grand Unified Theory, where the forces are all linked (save gravity). The cliche Theory of Everything supposes an epoch where gravity too was connected to them.

The point is, attraction is fundamental to everything. It seems only logical for this to be included in any working theory.

My hypothesis involves combining the electromagnetic force, and gravity. They may be the same force, only varying in what it is they effect. Magnetism holds for particles with charge, gravity for those with mass: the two may be analogous. If so, this would alter gravity somewhat: perhaps not noticably, but if you examine the magnetic fields of two magnets nearby, the fields alter one another: gravity may behave similarly. (We observe the Allais Effect also: when the Sun and moon are in line, both being of comparably size and closeness on a FE, it is possible the gravity on the Earth varies subtly. The evidence is mildly ambiguous, but far from non-existent: any other theory that didn't go against such a fundamental would likely be at best accepted, at worse a common supposition).

This would also cause gravity to not inherently favor spherical shapes; the Earth might form between two orbs (perhaps two Suns, though of course we only see one: the other would no doubt cause geothermal energy).
If electromagnetism and gravity are indeed related, it follows they may be related to the other fundamental forces: other attractive forces, which makes clear that the range and strength of gravity can vary from object to object. While this is pure speculation, that observation likely holds in any case. It is meant only to demonstrate that a ToE may be more approachable under a FE model.

While this is, of course, speculation, it is where my mind is currently going. The theory is clearly full of holes currently: clearly incomplete, but it would allow for what we call gravity, for geothermal energy, for the movement of the Sun, and may also explain some of the odd behavior of light. It also explains the origins of a disc-Earth.

This is currently mere speculation: I can offer no evidence (I am not at that stage yet: a working hypothesis must be formed first), but this feels both neat, and somewhat practical. It is odd to consider that the fundamental forces may vary from that which is commonly taught, but this is unavoidable when rethinking science. I am not adding complications: rather, I am replacing them.

Tl;dr: there are not four fundamental forces, there is one: an attractor. it simply manifests different when dealing with masses, charges, and possibly quantum particles.

Flat Earth Debate / The Tropopause
« on: September 04, 2015, 02:28:17 PM »

I was researching jet streams to determine how they would impact my attempt to find a FE map, and I came onto an interesting fact. There is something known as the tropopause: it is the border between the troposphere (in which we live), and the stratosphere. It serves as a form of 'lid' to a lot of air flow (for example, if air flows over mountains, it can often end up somewhat compressed, to fit between the tops of the mountain range, and the tropopause. Apparently this is used in a lot of meteorological prediction.
Essentially, this marks a discontinuity. While we would expect the smooth decrease in pressure, and the smooth (if uneven with respect to time) application of heat to the atmosphere, to result in a continuous change, this very much isn't the case. if we examine just temperature:

There is quite a sharp, jagged zigzag: the opposite of what we'd expect. A change in direction might be expected, but not quite so sharp, and not quite so often.

What this means, is that there is a very clear division present in the atmosphere (or atmoplane), so much so that air struggles to reach those heights even though there should be far less up there.
While boundaries are to be expected at certain points, these are far more defined by what we would expect in any situation exposed purely to continuous impulses.

(Please don't ask me to explain more about this topic: if all you have to offer is what you research, that's how I unearthed this problem. There are no clear answers to be found like that, I'm hoping someone's studied the topic.

Flat Earth General / Designing a Flat Earth Map
« on: September 02, 2015, 11:23:21 AM »

For those who haven't read my introduction, I'm Claire. I seek to develop a Flat Earth model and show that this is indeed a feasible theory. Whether or not I'm successful remains to be seen, but one important first step will be a working map.

(Once the map is done, it will be possible to draw things like the Coriolis Force and star movements etc, to see if there is a visible pattern).

Of course, it may turn out that this is an impossible aim. Round Earth projections are certainly inaccurate. For that reason, I am starting from scratch. To do this, I will be using air flight times, and a compass (of the geometrical variety). From this, I can sketch out possible relationships between multiple cities: and from that, position landmasses in a way that works on a flat surface.

To do this, I will need your help. My internet is unfortunately very slow, and I am attending a university, which uses up much of my time.
All I need from you is links. I want to start with New York, as it has multiple airports, and it's as good an origin as any.

At minimum, please suggest certain cities I could fly to. At most, what I will do with those cities is look up the flight times to and from New York with respect to them: both is necessary. if they are particularly different, the value is useless: jet streams would be to blame. If the time taken is similar, however, we can assume distance is the prime variable. If you have the time, if you could provide this information as well, I would be very grateful.

This may not be practical. I hope it will be, however.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Why do Photons Exhibit Quantum Behavior?
« on: September 02, 2015, 11:00:37 AM »
I don't know how many people here are familiar with quantum physics, so I'll focus on the basic double slit experiment. The experiment in question shows that certain particles behave both as a particle, and as a wave.
For example, an electron will provide a wave pattern (the same pattern as a wave) when fired through the double slits, while we know that they are particles (and if an instrument interferes to observe, they exhibit the same behavior as a particle).

It is also known that light does the same: it acts as a wave, but we also know that light is composed of particles called photons. My question is why: electrons, for example, possess a mass. It is very small, but they do possess it: the fact electrons may act as a particle is then not surprising.
How can a photon exist, then, if it does not have mass (which it must not to travel at the speed of light)? All known particles, however small, have some mass.

I first came upon this question while studying the concept of 'Solar Sails', which are propelled by the light from the Sun. This initially puzzled me, as how could a massless particle impart momentum, but it was quickly answered once the idea of a particle moving at light-speed and the relative formulae were used. (Momentum appears in another involved formula, for those interested, and can be calculated separately to find it would indeed have a value for a relativistic particle).

However, this doesn't seem to explain a non-mass exhibiting the behavior of a particle. What, for example, would compose a photon if it is not made of any substance involving mass?
I realize this question sounds bizarre, as fundamental particles like quarks and electrons and photons are not thought of to be made up of anything, but the fact remains that, as a particle, it occupies some position in space, and does so as an actual, tangible thing, and even if it can sometimes behave as a wave (as electrons, entities with mass, do) it still exists as some form of particle. If it can have a volume, however miniscule, which it must if it is a particle, how could it not also possess mass?

This is not to question the results of the experiments: simply to query. Why does a non-mass still behave enough like a particle to exhibit quantum behavior?

Flat Earth Debate / Three Questions on Gravity
« on: September 02, 2015, 06:11:57 AM »
This is a simple little idea that's always bothered me. It may just be a misunderstanding on my part, but if accurate it is quite a severe blow to RET.
There are three questions: but first, we just need two to be answered.

  • What value (approximately) does the gravitational constant of Earth take (including units)?
  • What kind of thing do those units refer to?

(To clarify the second question, if the units were, say, kg/ms2 then that would refer to a pressure).

The Lounge / A New Scientist on the Forum
« on: September 02, 2015, 05:40:52 AM »

My name's Claire, I believe the world is flat, and my concern is on working out how. RE science has had many centuries to determine a model, and explain away observations. I doubt I can manage the same level of depth in the limited time that I have, but I hope to be able to at least make a start.

If I'm wrong, we'll find out together. I hope you will be willing to at least discuss with respect, however. You may not believe that the world is flat, but I hope you may be able to objectively analyze which theories work, and which fail.

Pages: [1]