### 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 - Isidor

Pages: [1]
1
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Voyager 1 - fake?
« on: November 09, 2013, 11:28:07 PM »
Clearly, neither the FES or the REr's understand what an orbit IS.

Allow me to clarify:

According to Round Earth Theory, what keeps a satellite in orbit is it's HORIZONTAL velocity, not its vertical velocity. It doesn't just get a rocket to fly it up, then it just hangs there magically like the Flat Earth Sun.

What an orbit is is constantly falling (accelerating towards the centre of the Earth at 9.8m•s-2), but moving so fast horizontally (normal to the direction of gravitational force) that the earth curves downwards by the same amount you've fallen.

When a rocket is launched, it flies vertically until it is out of the thickest part of the atmosphere, then turns  to face about 45ş to vertical and begin accelerating sideways.

To calculate orbital velocities using RET, we use a=v2/r. (derivation: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/matthew_van_eerde/archive/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula.aspx)

so, for a realistic altitude of 350 000m:

radius=r=350 000m + 6 400 000m (Earth's equatorial radius) = 6 750 000m

a=acceleration due to gravity=9.8 m•s-2
solving for v we get an orbital horizontal velocity of v=√(9.8*6 750 000)≈8100m/s

This is a ∆v of 8100m/s to get it going that fast.
For a 1,000 kg satellite, that is E=0.5•m•v2 = 32.8 GJ.
By comparison, the energy required to lift 1000kg 350 000m vertically is
E=m*g*h
h=350 000
m=1000
g=9.8
Evaluating, we get E=34 GJ.

As these two numbers are about the same, it shows that the orbiter will need about as much vertical thrust as it does horizontal.

Additionally, the further from the Earth you are, the weaker its gravitational pull is. It follows the inverse square law, which means that if you double the distance between yourself and the Centre of the Earth, the gravitational pull will be a quarter as strong. Explanation:" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Once one is in some kind of orbit (even a decaying one), you do something called a Hohmann transfer to raise your orbit and make it circular. Here is a video of such a transfer: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
This means that the most fuel is expended in the vertical stage, it requires relatively little to raise the orbit from 100,000 m to 350, 000m.

2
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: October 30, 2013, 07:15:34 PM »
Does nobody understand that the room rotating around a pendulum and a pendulum rotating in the room is the same thing

3
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Transit of Venus
« on: October 28, 2013, 12:39:33 AM »
Soooooo... No other explanations? Nothing?

4
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: October 27, 2013, 11:21:23 PM »
The main reason that a PENDULUM is necessary rather than a carousel is that only by changing the position of the centre of gravity to allow the Coriolis effect to process the pendulum:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">The Coriolis Force

If the centre of gravity does not move, then the Coriolis effect will not work and your hypothetical carousel will not turn.

Although I take it the FEr's will just take this as a sign that because nothing other than a pendulum moves, RET must be a hoax.
Which is like saying that Hooke's law relating to the extension of a spring cannot be true because it applies to nothing except springs.

5
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Transit of Venus
« on: October 26, 2013, 04:24:22 AM »
Well, for one, my brother saw it with his own eyes.
I think he made some pictures.
I'm not going to ask him for them because he'll just chastise me for arguing with "trolls" again.
Sorry for the late reply. What exactly did your brother see? You'll have to elaborate a bit more. He saw the whole pattern of visibility? I would doubt that.

Stop trying to change the subject. Of course one person can't see the whole pattern, but the reports from the hundreds of thousands of people that did make observations can be used to verify this.

6
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: October 19, 2013, 06:16:08 PM »
All I can do is pray to God that sceptimatic and EarthIsASpaceship are trolls. I Honestly do hope they are trolls.

7
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: October 19, 2013, 05:31:25 AM »
I do not even believe it is worth arguing about sceptimatic's theory any more; the theory is so stupid that even hardcore FEr's won't support him/her. By continuing to engage with sceptimatic we are demeaning both ourselves and the less insane flat-earth theories, so if we let this thread die now, that would be great.

Flat-Earthers: This theory fails to account for several glaringly obvious physics issues, and you know it. Please tell these shitty FEr's such as EarthIsASpaceship and scepti to sharpen up their act, to make FET look less insane to us REr's.

Round-Earthers- Please let this thread die. It is stupid.

8
##### Flat Earth Debate / Transit of Venus
« on: October 19, 2013, 05:23:20 AM »
Since most FEr's are a fan of the zetetic method, I will forego any hypothesis and approach a problem without any assumptions.

Let us examine the transit of Venus in 2012 that I was able to observe myself, as were the hundreds of thousands of people that pointed their telescopes at the sun on June 5. The pattern of visibility was as follows:
]

Which can be verified by any astronomers on the very edge of the transit, if you are going to argue that no-one in the "not visible" areas bothered to look.

Please elaborate: Why was this pattern of visibility observed rather than the expected arc that would appear on a Flat Earth?

9
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: October 18, 2013, 02:43:07 AM »
did you even watch the video of the hammer and feather in a vacuum? god.

Sceptimatic,
Your grasp of physics is clearly very limited.

You claim that the force that us "round-earthers" like to call gravity is in fact an illusion caused by air pressure.
In that case, may I ask, what prevents us from floating into the air when we jump up?
Your explanation of how air pressure functions as a gravity replacement is sorely lacking in several areas:

1. Air pressure acts in all directions equally. (think about blowing a balloon up). If air pressure acted in mainly the downwards direction, a balloon would change shape if you turned it. If this is true, then why do we fall back down if we jump, exposing the soles of our feet to the air pressure and equalising the forces?
Air pressure is strongest on us from above and we counteract that with our bodies and feet against a SOLID ground. It is equal all around us.
Also Scepti, why don't you try and carry out experiments to prove your ideas. If gravity is caused by air pressure, then shouldn't logically in a near vacuum things should accelerate much slower. Do you agree with this?
Why should anything accelerate slower in an partially evacuated environment?
It's the total opposite. Less resistance means faster acceleration. Oh and I know you will then say, "yes, gravity"...No, it's not, but you are hell bent on the word, so nothing else will suffice.

2. If pressure is the only force acting on an object at rest, then in an environment free of air (i.e. a vacuum) then an object released in a vacuum should surely stay suspended in the air, or at least fall at a greatly diminished speed as there are fewer particles colliding with it to push it. (check your year 11 chemistry for more details of the kinetic gas model).
Corract. In a VACUUM and object would, indeed be suspended, like suspended animation, like the earth is. This is what I've been trying to tell you all along.
3. If gravity does not exist, then how can phenomena such as the Eötvös effect (see dedicated thread), gravitational bending of light by the sun The ice dome..
http://phys.org/news162820004.html and the G measuring apparatus http://tikalon.com/blog/blog.php?article=big_G function?

No. "Air pressure is strongest on us from above and we counteract that with our bodies and feet against a SOLID ground. It is equal all around us." Not only does that make no sense whatsoever, it doesn't answer the question. If this were true:
Any walkways with holes in them (such as a grille on scaffolding) would allow more pressure to contact the bottom of our feet, making us feel lighter. But that doesn't happen.

Why is air pressure strongest above us? does pressure not affect the soles of our feet? please try to think through the behaviour of gasses more logically.

10
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: General rebuttal to FET
« on: October 18, 2013, 02:37:18 AM »
You offered several very vague hypotheses that did not sufficiently explain the phenomenon, as expeditions and ice core samples have come back from the station established at the south pole. Please do not try to cover the fact that this is a gaping hole in the theory by clutching at straws.

11
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: General rebuttal to FET
« on: October 18, 2013, 02:03:30 AM »
in what way is teleporting 80,000 km or accidentally walking four times the length of Russia, as you suggest, a slight detail that I am asking. More than a slight error, I'd say.

12
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sceptimatics theory
« on: October 18, 2013, 02:00:55 AM »
Sceptimatic,
Your grasp of physics is clearly very limited.

You claim that the force that us "round-earthers" like to call gravity is in fact an illusion caused by air pressure.
In that case, may I ask, what prevents us from floating into the air when we jump up?
Your explanation of how air pressure functions as a gravity replacement is sorely lacking in several areas:

1. Air pressure acts in all directions equally. (think about blowing a balloon up). If air pressure acted in mainly the downwards direction, a balloon would change shape if you turned it. If this is true, then why do we fall back down if we jump, exposing the soles of our feet to the air pressure and equalising the forces?

Also Scepti, why don't you try and carry out experiments to prove your ideas. If gravity is caused by air pressure, then shouldn't logically in a near vacuum things should accelerate much slower. Do you agree with this?
Why should anything accelerate slower in an partially evacuated environment?
It's the total opposite. Less resistance means faster acceleration. Oh and I know you will then say, "yes, gravity"...No, it's not, but you are hell bent on the word, so nothing else will suffice.

2. If pressure is the only force acting on an object at rest, then in an environment free of air (i.e. a vacuum) then an object released in a vacuum should surely stay suspended in the air, or at least fall at a greatly diminished speed as there are fewer particles colliding with it to push it. (check your year 11 chemistry for more details of the kinetic gas model).

3. If gravity does not exist, then how can phenomena such as the Eötvös effect (see dedicated thread), gravitational bending of light by the sun http://phys.org/news162820004.html and the G measuring apparatus http://tikalon.com/blog/blog.php?article=big_G function?

13
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: General rebuttal to FET
« on: October 18, 2013, 01:26:37 AM »
Oh, well, since you weren't there, and neither was I, then it CAN't be ruled out that it was faked.

Applying this logic means that ANY knowledge we ever gain by means other than pure observation cannot be trusted because we weren't there.

Moon Landings- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
Existence of indonesia-can't be proven, neither of us are there right now.
Nazi Germany was led by Hitler- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
William Shakespeare wrote "Hamlet"- can't be proven, neither of us were there.
New York still exists- can't be proven, neither of us are there. (assumption)
Obama is president of the US- can't be proven, neither of us are there.

To claim that something is fallible because neither of us were/are there is preposterous and counter-progress, as it means that anything we learn must be immediately disregarded as fallible.

So, on this line of logic, we must doubt everything except what we can reason ourselves.

So let us undertake a hypothetical line of logic.
Let us assume the Earth is flat.
most of the 7 billion inhabitants of the planet are mistaken, and have been kept in the dark about this by a conspiracy of some description.
So this conspiracy is very well-executed, as it encompasses 99% of the Earth's population.
How much would this conspiracy cost?
"Space Weightlessness": Average cost of hyper-realistic CGI in movies: \$45 000/min
Hours worth of ISS footage are beamed down daily, very rough estimated cost: \$4,000,000/day=1,460,000,000/year.
Not to mention that animation takes an average of 6 hours to create per minute of footage, but we'll ignore that.
To sum up all of the necessary costs would be futile, but my question is simple: what is the point?
How much profit can be made from convincing the people of Earth that the land is round, when it's really flat?

14
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: General rebuttal to FET
« on: October 18, 2013, 12:47:17 AM »
in 1956 a group of explorers (including Sir Edmund Hillary) set off from Shackleton Base in Antarctica, trekked until they reached the South pole, then kept on trekking to get to McMurdo base on the opposite side of antarctica. How does FET account for thi?

15
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Can we stop all this ignorance please?
« on: October 15, 2013, 10:37:44 PM »
Do you know what you call "Alternative Science" that's true?

SCIENCE

16
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: General rebuttal to FET
« on: October 15, 2013, 10:15:05 PM »
IGNORE THE STUPID MAP DEBATE

How do you explain the trans-antarctic expedition jroa? HOW

17
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: Phases of Venus
« on: October 09, 2013, 06:05:44 PM »
And please do not tell me that Venus orbits beneath the sun. If that is true, then why is the transit observed at different times in different places? this is mathematically impossible under FET as shown by this map of where the transit is visible from from 1874:

Pray tell how these shadows could be cast on a flat Earth.

18
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: General rebuttal to FET
« on: October 09, 2013, 05:46:45 PM »
Precisely. Also, in the interest of more information:
[url]http://www.coolantarctica.com/antarctica_video/antarctic_video_commonwealth_trans_antarctic_expedition.htm[\url]

A group of explorers set foot from one side of Antarctica, trekked across the south pole and ended up at... wait for it... the other side of antarctica. If you try to tell me that they went sideways, that would mean that they walked more than 12 times the length of the USA in the middle of freezing conditions. How is this possible?

Which brings up a new argument: Economics. If antarctica (or the so called "sea wall") has a landmass equivalent to all of the inhabited countries in the world, then why has no-one gone to special expense to claim it? it is divided up more or less like a pizza:

South America, Africa and Oceania should have an area 10 times that of Asia and North America, and the distance by ocean between Australia and South America should be greater than the distance to the US. Please elaborate how this makes sense considering the actual travel times and shipping costs between these regions.

19
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: General rebuttal to FET
« on: October 09, 2013, 01:26:42 AM »
"Lol.  You don't seem to understand the difference between the geographic and magnetic poles.  Please, do some research before posting."

I take offence at that.
Would that be that the geographic south pole is the axis of rotation of the Earth south of the equator, and the magnetic south pole is the point at which a freely suspended magnet's north pole will point?
It still doesn't answer my question: HOW COULD SCOTT FIND AMUNDSEN'S FLAG?

20
##### Flat Earth Debate / Re: General rebuttal to FET
« on: October 08, 2013, 10:13:45 PM »
"If the earth is round why does it look flat"
simple: because the curvature of the Earth is so slight that from a vantage point 2 metres above the ground, it is impossible to observe a curve. However, if one is at a very great altitude (such as in a plane), it is often possible to see: as one example.

"It's not the area they got wrong, it's the shape!!!111!!11!"
This argument simply makes no sense. Cartographers determine the area of a landmass by calculating its shape by triangulation, then applying mathematics to determine the area. If the shape is wrong, then so is the area.

"The gasses liquefy before they reach the edge"
The liquids  would still run over the sides.

"They just calculated the distance they needed to travel based on RET"
No. They figured it out when a magnetic compass spins around when standing at a point, and it still doesn't explain how Scott could find something left by Amundsen if they left from opposite sides of the world.

21
##### Flat Earth Debate / General rebuttal to FET
« on: October 08, 2013, 06:18:26 PM »
I plan to set forward a number of very simple rebuttals across several disciplines as to why FET cannot be true.

1. History: Several antarctic explorers have ventured to the magnetic south pole, and found articles left there by previous expeditions. THe most famous example is the Scott/Amundsen antarctic expedition. How is this explained by having a great ice wall? If it were only one expedition, I could believe it was a cover-up; but the sheer number of expeditions to the south pole make this explanation implausible.
17th century sailors reported seeing the masts of tall ships before the hulls. What is the explanation for this discovery?

2. Geography: If the world were distorted to account for the FET, then Australia's landmass would be several times larger than it has been measured to be, and Alaska would be smaller than Texas as it is closer to the North Pole. Is every cartographer ever part of a cover-up?

3. Physics: If the earth were flat and accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2, then what prevents the atmosphere from spilling out over the Ice Wall into the black abyss? Magic?
Lab experiments have shown that even at a small scale, gravitational forces exist: http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf What is driving this?
What forces keep the sun in the sky? What is cosmic background radiation's source? etc.

4. Logic: Much of the proof of round-earth theory has been discredited by flat-earthers as part of a government cover-up. I ask you: who is profiting from this cover-up? why would it be perpetrated for so long and so effectively?

Pages: [1]