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 - APenNameAndThatA

Pages: [1]
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Ask a Physicist anything.
« on: May 11, 2013, 07:44:36 AM »
So I'm a physicist. I am finishing off a Masters in general physics and am currently applying to PHDs. Hence I know lots of science. If any of you have questions (which is why most people come to this forum) I will try to answer them and explain them. I should clarify, I am a round earth believer so I believe main stream physics. If any parts of main stream science confuse you / to you there seem to be holes in theory I will try to explain the confusing jargon / explain what modern science's answer to that hole in theory is.

When I look in the mirror, I am back to front but not upside down.  Why? 

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is the Truth Knowable?
« on: May 11, 2013, 07:43:11 AM »
The issue at the centre of it all is that false things can be true;  Mutually exclusive things can both be true.  Once you see that, the rest falls in place.

Do you have an example?

Eating animals is good.  Eating animals is bad. 

I am a good person.  I am a bad person.

You are a good person.  You (the same you, btw) are a bad person.

Do I have an example? Yes.  Thank you for asking. 

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Another hitch with bendy light?
« on: May 11, 2013, 07:35:54 AM »
It's reasonably well know that you can determine your latitude by taking a measurement off the sun. There's even a page about it in the wiki. Thing is though, for this to work in a flat earth model, light has to do some pretty funky bending.

I'm going to use the circular, north pole centered FE model, with the sun at an altitude of 3,000 miles, as this seems to be the most commonly used model, and all measurements are based on the position of the sun at local midday on the equinox unless stated otherwise.

For an observer on the equator, the sun appears directly overhead. This is fine, it fits in with everything.

For an observer at 22.5 degrees latitude, the sun should appear to have an angular elevation, relative to the horizon, of 67.5 degrees for the latitude shot to work, which it does. But, in the FE model, it's actual angular elevation is ~63.4 degrees. Okay, so maybe we can explain the 4.1 degree difference with bendy light. Let's continue.

For an observer at 45 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 45 degrees. Again, as it should be. Um, except that this means that light is bending back again from it's 4.1 degree deviation before. Hmm. Never mind, push on.

For an observer at 67.5 degrees latitude, the sun appears to have an angular elevation of 22.5 degrees above the horizon. In the FE model, it's actual angular elevation would be ~33.7 degrees above the horizon, so now we have an 11.2 degree deviation the other way. WTF? Anyway, let's finish the data set.

For an observer at 90 degrees latitude (the North pole, or the Southern equivalent), the sun appears to be setting (or rising) for the entire day, as it is partially obscured by the horizon. But in the FE model, it's actual position would be ~26.6 degrees above the horizon. Now we have a 26.6 degree shift!

Like I said, some pretty funky bending! Of course, the straight line distances to the sun may have some influence, so I'll leave you with some calculated FE data (for the model used in this example) which someone more mathematically minded can have some fun with.

Latitude: 0, Apparent Angular elevation of sun (AAE for the rest of this data): 90, Actual: 90, Distance: 3,000 miles
Latitude: 22.5, AAE: 67.5, Actual: 63.4, Distance: 3,354.1 miles
Latitude: 45, AAE: 45, Actual: 45, Distance: 4,242.6 miles
Latitude: 67.5, AAE: 22.5, Actual: 33.7, Distance: 5,408.3 miles
Latitude: 90, AAE: 0, Actual: 26.6, Distance: 6,708.2 miles

Oh, wait, that's not all! It's not just latitude shots at midday, but sunsets as well. For someone at the equator, the sun would be about 8485.3 miles away (line of sight) when it appears to set, with an actual angular elevation of 19.5 degrees, which means that light has to change direction a second time! If you head down to 45 degrees South latitude, the sun is 10,816.7 miles away with an actual angular elevation of 15.5 degrees when it appears to set.

If anyone can explain how that works in FET, I look forward to it! Especially if the explanation is supported with working formulas.

EDIT: I just realised, it gets even worse! If you were at the South pole (or the FE equivalent thereof) at midnight on the summer solstice, the sun would be nearly 20,000 miles away, at an actual elevation of 8.8 degrees, but an apparent elevation of 23.5, AND on the opposite side of the North pole, which should be in darkness!

Of course, RET covers all of this quite gracefully and without any convoluted BS explanations.

The fact that you say that you should stop feeding trolls AND that you start threads speaks volumes.  As for light doing, "funky beding", well, of course it does.  Really, with most energy and matter in the universe being unaccounted for, using WRONG physics to try to prove WRONG points is just silly. 

No.  I did not read past the first two lines of your post. 

That's actually a good point against FET.

During the cold war, URSS was launching stuff into space too (you know, race for the moon, ...).

The US beat them at going upper, so why the URSS did not discredited the US by saying that space travel is impossible because earth is flat ?

Even the globulars of this site know that the Russian people were globular before the USSR came into being.  Convincing the people the true shape of the disc was going to be a hard sell.  Much better and CHEAPER to go along with the charade.  The charade suited BOTH the USSR and the US.  This is such an obvious point, I feel embarrassed for you. 

Goodness, this post is naive.  Millions of Russians believed that Communism was correct and that the West wanted to annihilate them.  Millions of Americans believe that Israel should invade Palestine.  There is no conspiracy, people have been brainwashed.  I have flown all over the world and know that the results show that the earth is flat.  Others would have flown around the world and continued with their delusion that the earth is globular.  Big deal.  When people appear to be in a conspiracy or evil, it is more likely that they are complacent and incompetent.

You really like your communism analogy. Too bad the information about the planet is not exclusively controlled by the government because then it would be an analogous situation.

Your post illustrates a problem that many of the globular set have.  On the one hand, you claim to be scientific and evidence based.  On the other hand, you make silly claims about knowing the mental state of someone you have never met.  This undermines any credibility that people on this forum might have thought that you had.  If you post anything in the future, from my point of view, you will need to provide references for primary sources, please. 

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Clouds vs Mountains
« on: May 11, 2013, 07:19:49 AM »
Thanks Rama. Yes, I was showing that, even with lower cloud cover, the FE theory still doesn't work.

Pretty much everything does. Can't believe people like Daniel Shenton is still not convinced. There are so many ways to disproof the flat earth in general. Surely some parts of the theory, like a wall keeping in the water in the oceans could exist, but then again this contradicts a whole lot of other things.

The simplest way for Daniel Shenton to actually see the curvation of the earth is to send a camera up into the sky using a weather balloon like so many amateurs already did. Then he would hold raw footage of the curvation of the earth he knows no one could have tampered with.

Surely it will be explained by some unknown phenomenae, but then again there is so much other proof, including your explanation. As long as the flat earth theory contradicts itself, where the spherical earth has all the answers, it is proven to me we live on a spherical earth.

You know perfectly well that most people do not have the resources to do this.  If you paid the cost of the balloon, then I'm sure that he would do it.  But you will not, will you?  It is clear that you are saying that it is only reasonable for someone to do something that you would not assist them to do.  I am disappointed in you.  At the risk of being impolite, I must confess that I am not surprised by you.  Such is human nature. 

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Theodolite Tangent"
« on: May 11, 2013, 07:12:08 AM »
This is a short one, so I'll quote the whole section.


IF a spirit-level or a theodolite is "leveled," and a given point be read on a graduated staff at the distance of say 100 chains, this point will have an altitude slightly in excess of the altitude of the cross-hair of the theodolite; and if the theodolite be removed to the position of the graduated staff, again leveled, and a back sight taken of 100 chains, another excess of altitude will be observed; and this excess will go on increasing as often as the back and fore sight observations are repeated. From this it is argued that the line of sight from the theodolite is a tangent, and, therefore, the surface of the earth is spherical. The author has made experiments similar to the above, and found it to be as stated; but the cause is not that the line of sight is a tangent, but the same "collimation" as that referred to in the section on "Spherical Excess."

So, despite having seen evidence of curvature himself, the author again dismisses it as being a result of what he calls "collimation". Theodolites would not be much use if they were as inaccurate as the author implies, and collimation is actually a part of ensuring that accuracy, not a cause of inaccuracy.

In fact, both your scientific methods are wrong.  I have done that experiment, too.  I used a 1 km length of polythene pipe that was to being used for irrigation works.  The height/altitude was the same for all three points on the pipe.   

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ENaG Chapter XIV: "Spherical Excess"
« on: May 11, 2013, 07:05:59 AM »
On reading through Earth Not a Globe, I've spotted a few misunderstandings and faulty assumptions. I plan to start up individual threads on some of these, so that they can be discussed and, hopefully, clarified.

I've decided to start with the section on spherical excess, found here.

Spherical excess is the theory behind the 'triangle with three 90 degree angles' thought experiment, which has been proposed on this forum before. This experiment is a bit impractical, due to the distances involved, but "...the excess of three spherical angles above two right angles..." has been observed and recorded on smaller scales already.

Rowbotham contends that this excess is due to collimation, which he mistakenly compares to refraction: "...the influence of refraction or "collimation" in their instruments...". Apparently, he did not know that collimation is "the accurate adjustment of the line of sight of a telescope". Even then, if there were an error present in the measurements being made, it would be either left or right, but always the same way, and always the same amount, which would mean that the angles would still be accurately measured, and any excess found would be real.

So, given that spherical excess has been accurately measured as long as 150 years ago, despite Rowbotham's assertions to the contrary, I would consider it a reasonable contribution to the evidence supporting a round earth.

What are your thoughts?

Your argument is based on semantics and the definition of a word.  The meaning of the word is clear from the context in which it is meant.  Please move on. 

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Debunking the Flat Earth Theory
« on: May 11, 2013, 07:04:17 AM »
Hello, people of the Flat Earth Society. I have debunked the flat Earth theory. Please read it here. If you have any questions, feel free to reply.

There is an internet acronym: TLDR.  It stands for too long, didn't read.  Or too long, don't read.  Even though you are on the other side of the disc and I will never meet you, etiquette still applies.  Please provide appropriately-sized posts.  Thank you.   

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How does GPS determine your Altitude?
« on: May 11, 2013, 07:01:41 AM »
Ok Guys,
I'm bored and up for another round.
Let's say the Earth is Flat, and although GPS works,
there's no machinery in space, so it must be ground based.

The relatively poor GPS hardware in an iPhone can provide an Altitude with estimated accuracy of 5 mtrs without waiting long.

It is my position that in order for GPS to determine your Altitude,
the transmitting antennas must be above the receiver at all times.
So how does the GPS determine Altitude?

The earth is not COMPLETELY flat.  There are hills and vallies.  The GPS equipment is located at different altitudes and will be different distances from your phone.  The fact that it actually stays still makes the calculations much easier than the idea of having "satellites" in "geo-stable" "orbit". 

Flat Earth Debate / Re: why I think the Earth is flat
« on: May 11, 2013, 06:58:02 AM »
the point is, if moonlight shares no characteristics with sunlight, how can you claim its the same light? Its not scientifically demonstrable.

Science. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

I'm a bachelor in physics.

Don't involve black body radiation unless you know what it means.

Your name is icanbeanything or "I can be anything".  And you state that, "I'm a bachelor in physics".  Based on the evidence that your own name says that you pretend, and that no one with a degree actually calles them self "a bachelor" of anything, I conclude that you have come here to just irritate us with incorrect stories about how the earth is globular.  Like God was blowing bubbles one day.  Its laughable. 

Flat Earth Debate / Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« on: May 11, 2013, 06:52:50 AM »
For the life of me, I can't figure out if you are apologizing, or trying to justify your use of a fallacy in a debate.  I am hoping that you are admitting that you were wrong so we can move on to the important discussion of the topic.

I admit, I used the fallacy. I still don't think you should dismiss it to mean it's not true or else it's a reversal argumentum ad populum as I explained.

It is relevant that everyone thinks the earth is round especially since humanity has evidence that supports the assertion.

OK, I accept your apology.  However, I just want to say that a few hundred years ago, most people believed that you could tell if someone was a witch or not based their buoyancy.  Also, you could cure many diseases by blood letting.  And, magots spontaneously were born from flesh.

So, maybe the popular train of thought is not just a fallacy.  In certain cases, it can be flat out wrong.

Not an apology. An admission, I explained that it was still relevant, which was the point in bringing it up.


A few hundred years ago, most people believed the earth was flat. Turns out they were flat out wrong.
Haha, rottingroom.  You made a funny.  You will make a good flat Earther one of these days.  You will turn to the dark side.

Well not everyone is born crazy, I bet you used to have the ability to reason once too.
Yes, I did.  Until I found out that I had been lied to all this time, that is.

You didn't find that out. You lost your mind bud.

I like you, rootingroom.  You don't take shit off of us FE'rs.  It would be nice, however, if you could give us conclusive proof that supports your stance on the shape of the Earth.

Like I said, we both have the BOP. Here is how each of us (not you and me, but round-earthers and flat-earthers) has handled this task:

Earth is Round
What do you want me to do? This is a forum and unless I hold your hand and take you on a fantastic voyage on the seven seas or in a rocket ship myself you're not gonna accept that as fact. Tons of crap has been brought up to flat earthers on these forums over and over again including photographs, observable facts and mathematics that are consistent with a globe, personal accounts of circumnavigation and accounts of how the methods to successfully do this are only compatible with a round earth and showing exactly why that is... really this list can go on and on and on and on. You've seen all of this. As I've mentioned our burden of proof has been met. We have provided a TON of evidence and so from there the BOP shifts to you to prove that all that evidence is wrong... and I've yet to hear a good case on why any of it is false.

Earth is Flat
Much like round-earthers make the assertion that the Earth is round, you flat-earth are making an equally assertive claim that it is flat and have not provided a SINGLE piece of evidence. N-O-T O-N-E P-I-E-C-E. The Burden of Proof does not shift and you are burdened.

So not only do you have the BOP to prove the Earth is flat but you also have the BOP to disprove the evidence Round-Earthers have presented.

I disagree entirely. 

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A bit ridiculous?
« on: May 11, 2013, 06:50:50 AM »
For every single bit of proof that someone throws at you guys you just add onto the conspiracy something even more ridiculous, I went to the very beginning and saw a post about this guy Sailing around Antarctica in 40 days and your explanation  is that they probably sailed around some island! If all companies that offered said cruise where in on the conspiracy (Why should they be?) and all other people who work in places that can unmask this conspiracy then i believe only a small  proportion of the earth wouldn't know the earth is flat, which is of course a lie, And it would mean this isn't a conspiracy at all.

This cant be disproven because this flat earth universe you made up doesn't allow any explanations! Everything that proves it's wrong has been removed like a tumor.

Ridiculous. Seriously you guys need to leave the house, Maybe go to the psychiatrist, or is he in on this conspiracy too?

Well, do you have a counter argument, or have you give up?  The earth is flat.  If you can do something other than tantrum, then we can hear it.  As far as I can see, you have just said that your arguments have been counters. 

Goodness, this post is naive.  Millions of Russians believed that Communism was correct and that the West wanted to annihilate them.  Millions of Americans believe that Israel should invade Palestine.  There is no conspiracy, people have been brainwashed.  I have flown all over the world and know that the results show that the earth is flat.  Others would have flown around the world and continued with their delusion that the earth is globular.  Big deal.  When people appear to be in a conspiracy or evil, it is more likely that they are complacent and incompetent.

I have flown all over the world and sailed it as well. It's a globe and you are lying to yourself.

You must provide a better argument.   Attacking me does not prove that you are right.  It proves that you have no valid argument.   

Flat Earth Debate / Re: relative travel times in hemispheres
« on: May 11, 2013, 06:42:56 AM »
"The calculated distance on the north pole centred (NPC) FE map would be about 8300km (they are about 35 degrees apart in longitude, and about 13,700km South of the North pole, you can confirm the maths yourself). This is straight line distance too, not following any kind of curve (which would go further). I'm ignoring the bipolar FE map, as it is utterly useless, and has been debunked."

We have your word for that.  I am sure you are being truthful.  Please post confirmatory images of your calculations.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: relative travel times in hemispheres
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:28:19 AM »
Has anyone actually traveled directly from between NC and Spain?  No?  You are making the classic mistake of assuming what you are trying to prove.  The website you used presumed the earth is globular and the same shape as the globe.  Big deal if they agree with each other.  Like two old-time Russians saying the USSR will soon crush the USA.  I suggest you ACTUALLY TRAVEL from one place to the other and then post again.  No offence, but your life experience is a little like that Jim Carey movie where he was trapped in a director's set. 

My apologies in advance if you have ACTUALLY TRAVELED between the four points.   

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A bit ridiculous?
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:23:03 AM »
There is no cruise line offering cruises around Antarctica.  That in itself should torpedo (geddit) your main argument.  It is no more difficult to circumnavigate Antarctica than it is difficult for an ant to crawl around the rim of a dinner plate. The only question is, "why?".  The weather is very treacherous towards the edge of the disk - that is not just a "coincidence".       

Goodness, this post is naive.  Millions of Russians believed that Communism was correct and that the West wanted to annihilate them.  Millions of Americans believe that Israel should invade Palestine.  There is no conspiracy, people have been brainwashed.  I have flown all over the world and know that the results show that the earth is flat.  Others would have flown around the world and continued with their delusion that the earth is globular.  Big deal.  When people appear to be in a conspiracy or evil, it is more likely that they are complacent and incompetent. 

Flat Earth Debate / Re: canal example: proof of flatness
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:15:35 AM »
"Very near where I live, there is a 3km section of rail that has been made exactly straight, as in, like a laser beam (well, an un-refracted, no 'bendy light' laser beam at least ;) )."

This comment is disingenuous.  As if anybody would build a 3 km long track with a gentle bow in the middle for the fun of it.  There is no use coming on this forum unless you can propose a SERIOUS reason why the earth might be globular.     

Well, what you actually should have said is, "millions of people have flown around the disc, and the flight times proved that the earth is flat". 

Pages: [1]