« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Uniform theory

  • 53 Replies
  • 15378 Views
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2009, 11:16:04 AM »
Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 18, 2009, 10:48:23 AM
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 18, 2009, 09:38:13 AM
Quote from: djrelc on July 18, 2009, 09:33:49 AM
can someone please tell me what EA, UA, Rowbotham stand for and mean, thanks


Please read the FAQ; the answers you are looking for are in there.

I'm quite sure that "EA" is not in the FAQ.

Quote from: Jack on December 12, 2008, 11:24:52 PM
Q: "Please explain sunrises/sunsets."

A: It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it's disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

UPDATE: The Electromagnetic Acceleration (aka "bendy light") theory is currently being developed and reviewed by members. Once completed, the theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration will be used as an alternative in explaining sunrises/sunsets and horizons for the general model only. The theories of perspective laws and vanishing points from E:NaG will still be the accurate representations of the FET.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2009, 02:45:36 PM »
Quote from: Lord Wilmore on July 18, 2009, 11:16:04 AM
UPDATE: The Electromagnetic Acceleration (aka "bendy light") theory is currently being developed and reviewed by members. Once completed, the theory of Electromagnetic Acceleration will be used as an alternative in explaining sunrises/sunsets and horizons for the general model only. The theories of perspective laws and vanishing points from E:NaG will still be the accurate representations of the FET.
[/quote]

Thanks!

I searched for "EA" but didn't find it.
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2009, 02:47:53 PM »
No problem. I might consider your proposal and ask Jack to add some of the other common abbreviations to the FAQ.
Logged
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
?

Maxus

  • 114
  • +0/-0
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #33 on: July 19, 2009, 03:51:58 AM »
Still asking - is it possible that All conntinents except Antarctica are streched or shrinked more than 2 times(less? more?) referring to RE measurements ?
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #34 on: July 19, 2009, 03:53:37 AM »
Quote from: Maxus on July 19, 2009, 03:51:58 AM
Still asking - is it possible that All conntinents except Antarctica are streched or shrinked more than 2 times(less? more?) referring to RE measurements ?

Could you phrase your question more clearly and precisely?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #35 on: July 19, 2009, 03:55:45 AM »
Quote from: Maxus on July 19, 2009, 03:51:58 AM
Still asking - is it possible that All conntinents except Antarctica are streched or shrinked more than 2 times(less? more?) referring to RE measurements ?

How do you know how big the continents are on the supposed Round Earth?

Did a government-employed surveyor tell you? Or a cartographer at NASA?

Given that there is a Grand Round Earth Conspiracy at play here, how do we know that we can trust what is in our atlasses?
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
?

Maxus

  • 114
  • +0/-0
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #36 on: July 19, 2009, 04:19:43 AM »
Because a lot of people in the world uses atlasses, and i'm asking about degree of atlasses error possible, if it would be too big people would notice, some part of them are using it to travel ;)
Logged
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #37 on: July 19, 2009, 05:17:39 AM »
Quote from: Maxus on July 19, 2009, 04:19:43 AM
Because a lot of people in the world uses atlasses, and i'm asking about degree of atlasses error possible, if it would be too big people would notice, some part of them are using it to travel ;)

The thing with classic Victorian "Zeteticism" - the prevailing phiolosophy in the Flat Earth Community - is that if you haven't detemined information for yourself then it is not to be believed.

That may be somewhat anti-scientific, but it is what it is.
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
?

Maxus

  • 114
  • +0/-0
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #38 on: July 19, 2009, 06:50:22 AM »
After confiming that by some FE'er, i'll accept that. (Either way - i'm asking how stupid are people that are using maps for travels so they can't see divergences ;) )

EDIT: because of damn arguing, i didn't noticed Robosteve's post. My question:
we have set of all points A and B on the earth that A!=B and that they are on same continent. We have for every pair of these points a set of curves that are connecting these points(if there is no any - we are not considering that points) touching earth in every of it's point. now, lets say that a is the real distance between these points(on FE) and b is the distance that is claimed by maps. lets sat that k=a/b. whats the biggest and smallest k for considered points?
That is complicated. but you wanted me to ask question more precisely, and that is one of the few ways that i can do that. if you want, i can try to do this precise and easy way, but it will take some time.
Next - Is there any theory that claims that sun is not a flat disc(simpler and generalized - what's shape of sun)? next, Is there any non-lightbendy-FET that claims that Earth-Sun distance is different than ~3,000miles? (Eratosthenes' experiment)
« Last Edit: July 19, 2009, 07:46:35 AM by Maxus »
Logged
?

Maxus

  • 114
  • +0/-0
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #39 on: July 19, 2009, 08:23:13 AM »
If that is true, even more basical question - what is the source of sun's energy?
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #40 on: July 19, 2009, 12:02:10 PM »
Quote from: Maxus on July 19, 2009, 08:23:13 AM
If that is true, even more basical question - what is the source of sun's energy?

It's different? Since when?
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #41 on: July 19, 2009, 12:52:14 PM »
Quote from: KillaBee on July 19, 2009, 12:24:40 PM
It has to be.

It doesn't. This has been a topic that has come up before and it seems people are mistaken.

Quote from: KillaBee on July 19, 2009, 12:24:40 PM
I think Dogplatter says something about electric sparks or something like that...

Photoelectric effect.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #42 on: July 19, 2009, 01:02:18 PM »
Quote from: KillaBee on July 19, 2009, 12:54:21 PM
It does. Read my post above.

Mhmm. The big thing people mistake is thinking mass = size. How does your idea rectify that?

Quote from: KillaBee on July 19, 2009, 12:54:21 PM
Which, last time I checked. Was quite different from nuclear fusion. Thanks for playing.

No shit, I just listed the name of what Dogplatter calls it.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

Maxus

  • 114
  • +0/-0
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #43 on: July 19, 2009, 01:49:26 PM »
To make nuclear fusion possible, if sun is small, it would have to have higher density. density which is unobtainable within it's emission spectrum observed. So, small size == small mass == sun's not generating energy through nuclear fusion. So, what is it?
« Last Edit: July 19, 2009, 01:53:44 PM by Maxus »
Logged
?

Maxus

  • 114
  • +0/-0
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #44 on: July 19, 2009, 06:01:30 PM »
I'm not going to recieve anything this way, so i will ask - What can all FE'ers say about Flat earth theory except it is flat?
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45161
  • +98/-138
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #45 on: July 20, 2009, 06:57:56 AM »
Quote from: divito the truthist on July 19, 2009, 12:52:14 PM
Quote from: KillaBee on July 19, 2009, 12:24:40 PM
I think Dogplatter says something about electric sparks or something like that...

Photoelectric effect.

And RoboSteve seems to think that matter-antimatter annihilation is a more logical explanation.  I guess there seems to be some differences of opinion within the community.
Logged
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
?

Maxus

  • 114
  • +0/-0
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #46 on: July 20, 2009, 07:15:07 AM »
Annihilation can't be source of energy - it wouldn't give observed emission spectrum.
Logged
*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #47 on: July 20, 2009, 07:45:23 AM »
Quote from: Maxus on July 19, 2009, 01:49:26 PM
To make nuclear fusion possible, if sun is small, it would have to have higher density.

Exactly.

Quote from: Maxus on July 19, 2009, 01:49:26 PM
density which is unobtainable within it's emission spectrum observed.

What would the spectrum be for the higher density?

Quote from: Maxus on July 19, 2009, 06:01:30 PM
I'm not going to recieve anything this way, so i will ask - What can all FE'ers say about Flat earth theory except it is flat?

What else are you expecting it to say?

Quote from: markjo on July 20, 2009, 06:57:56 AM
And RoboSteve seems to think that matter-antimatter annihilation is a more logical explanation.  I guess there seems to be some differences of opinion within the community.

There always has been; such is life.
Logged
Quote from: Proleg on April 22, 2009, 08:50:08 AM
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good
?

Maxus

  • 114
  • +0/-0
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #48 on: July 20, 2009, 08:06:18 AM »
Quote
Quote from: Maxus on July 19, 2009, 01:49:26 PM
density which is unobtainable within it's emission spectrum observed.

What would the spectrum be for the higher density?
Spectrum of neutron star. Also, i don't know why i forgot that - neutron star can't sustain nuclear fusion.
EDIT:
Quote from: divito the truthist
Quote from: Maxus
I'm not going to recieve anything this way, so i will ask - What can all FE'ers say about Flat earth theory except it is flat?
What else are you expecting it to say?
<irritation mode on>For example, how signal can be received 180 degrees opposite to the angle of transmission(HAM Radio topic), or, what is the source of sun's energy<irritation mode off>
I would expect any description of world and it's phenomenas.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 08:12:26 AM by Maxus »
Logged
*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #49 on: July 20, 2009, 08:24:24 AM »
In order for a theory to be valid it must explain all phenomena with as little magic as possible.

FE Disk model would have to explain why there is 24 hour daylight in Antarctica,
FE Azimuthal equidistant model would have to explain how timezones would make the sun's spotlight difficult to be contiguous. (Though it does explain Midnight sun in Antarctica)

This, among other things.
Logged
?

Maxus

  • 114
  • +0/-0
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #50 on: July 20, 2009, 03:27:08 PM »
Last FET issue i will ask about on that forum.

Andromeda galaxy is approaching to earth, according to it's blueshift, 300 kilometers per second. now:
now, i'll calculate maximal earth-star distance (so star cannot voliate c speed limit). linear velocity = angular velocity*radius, let's say that linear velocity = 3*10^9 m/s, angular velocity = 2pi/day, which is 7,27*10^-5 rad/sec, thus radius = ~4.125*10^13 meters. = 4.125*10^10 km. checking when Andromeda will be about to hit earth: 4.125*10^10/300= 137500000 seconds, 1591 days that is 4 years, and, Andromeda blueshift was measured much more than 4 years ago.
How can any kind of FET explain that?
Logged
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #51 on: July 21, 2009, 01:13:14 PM »
Quote from: Maxus on July 20, 2009, 03:27:08 PM
Andromeda galaxy is approaching to earth, according to it's blueshift, 300 kilometers per second.

All astronomers work for NASA therefore ...

You can guess the rest.
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #52 on: July 21, 2009, 01:24:09 PM »
Quote from: Maxus on July 19, 2009, 06:50:22 AM
we have set of all points A and B on the earth that A!=B and that they are on same continent. We have for every pair of these points a set of curves that are connecting these points(if there is no any - we are not considering that points) touching earth in every of it's point. now, lets say that a is the real distance between these points(on FE) and b is the distance that is claimed by maps. lets sat that k=a/b. whats the biggest and smallest k for considered points?

A question about surveying, in essence.

Imagine you survey the land from Cairo in Egypt to Cape Town in South Africa - a survey starts and ends at sea-level.

If you were to plot out all of the distances, bearings and elevation angles from Cairo to Cape Town you would end up with Cape Town being several thousands of km below the elevation of Cairo, yet both are, in fact, at the same elevation: sea-level.

How can this be true unless The World is a sphere?

I am sure that this was done an awful lot during the 1800s by The Royal Geographical Society (just read some of their proceedings online as I have done) amongst others.

Please try explaining this from a Flat-Earth point-of-view without using the word "conspiracy".
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Uniform theory
« Reply #53 on: July 21, 2009, 01:37:31 PM »
Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 21, 2009, 01:24:09 PM
I am sure that this was done an awful lot during the 1800s by The Royal Geographical Society (just read some of their proceedings online as I have done) amongst others.

Possibly by The Royal Astronomical Society too:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29767.msg722656#msg722656
Logged
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »