Definitions, Physics and the Model

  • 6 Replies
  • 1860 Views
?

SphericalEarther

  • 237
  • Programmer. I believe in logic.
Definitions, Physics and the Model
« on: April 13, 2018, 04:53:59 AM »
DEFINITIONS

Atmosphere: the air on the surface of the earth, moving along with the earth with slight local deviations called wind.
   The atmosphere becomes less dense and colder as we move to higher altitudes, resulting in needing extra oxygen when climbing high mountains and providing snowy mountaintops.
Perspective: perspective is a law, a precisely defined mathematical equation defining how a single point (eye/camera/ect.) views the world.
   A basic explanation is to say that an item at twice the distance will look approximately half the size, since the angular size of the item will be almost halved.
Reflection: a property of light hitting a reflective surface, making it bounce off the surface at the opposite tangent of its entering direction.
Refraction: a property of light moving through matter of different density, taking into account the direction of the change in density and the difference in density to change the direction of the light towards the denser matter.
   Basically when the temperature of air above water is hotter and less dense than the air further above, light will bend up creating mirages (compressing and mirroring)
Gravity: a defined force where all mass attracts all mass. The heavier the mass, the more it attracts. The further the distance, the less it attracts.
   It is a tug of war, where the most massive and closest object wins, resulting in the moon orbiting the earth and the earth orbiting the sun.
   Basically the earth is massive, attracting us towards it and defining our concept of up and down.
Centrifugal force: a defined inertial force which uses speed and rotation to provide outwards momentum.


MODEL

Here are some things you should realise about the flat earth:
You have no way to predict the suns horizontal and vertical angle during the day.
You have no way to predict the angle to the stars via your model.
You have no way to model where the sun lights the earth.
You have no way to model the stars, where the southern stars are seen from locations south of the equator.
You have no way to model the phases of the moon.
You have no way to model solar and lunar eclipses.
You have no way to explain the water tides.
You have no way to explain the sun and moon staying in the sky or how they move.
You have no way to explain flight times in the southern hemisphere or why flights do not fly straight on your model.
You have no way to test that the dome exists.
You have no way to model actual sizes and shapes of countries, as your map shows australia to be 3 times as wide compared to its height.

Here are some facts you might not know:
We CAN visit the antarctic.
We CAN model, predict and simulate everything (though weather is really hard).
We CAN measure gravity.
We CAN measure the rotation of the earth.
We CAN measure the curve of the earth.
We CAN send satelites to space.
We CAN and HAVE made many computer programs which show how everything works.
We CAN explain everything you use as proofs against a globe earth, you just dont understand it
    (example: you are using 'perspective' as the explanation by giving it properties it doesn't have, which you cannot define properly).


FINAL WORDS

Gravity is a force, it can be measured, it cannot be seen and has no substance, think of it as sound or magnetism.
   We do not know how gravity works, as we do not know how atoms work or magnetism work, but we have a theory which explains exactly what happens in every single situation.
   Just because we haven't been able to know exactly what they are, which we are clearly stating, we do know exactly how they react.
Perspective is a law, as in a mathematical equation which perfectly explains and shows how a thing at twice the distance is approximately half the size due to your sight depending on angles.
   When using the word 'perspective', this law is all it represents, not in any way or form does it bend light or sight, and by itself you would always draw straight lines to the objects observed, and use the angles to determine their relative size. And when looking at an object from the same angle at different distances, it will always shrink and expand uniformly (as in vertically and horizontally equally).
Refraction is indeed a way to bend this light, and uccors everywhere light travels through matter of changing density. The atmosphere is indeed matter that the light travels through, but the change in density is normally negliable.
   We mostly see refraction above water on sunny days, as the sun heats the surface more than the air, creating warmer air (less dense) at the surface than above, this makes the light bend up allowing for squished mirages and mirroring mirages above the surface of the water at longer distances, but this bend will uccor up or down, and will not make items shrink or grow horizontally in the atmosphere (it does not explain the sun never changing size throughout the day).
Due to all observations made and everything we see, I have no doubt in my mind that the earth is a globe purely based on logic. Nothing on the flat earth makes sense in reality, and it is so purely conceptual that it has no explanations that can predict anything we can observe, but rather makes explanations without definitions on observations.
The globe earth explains everything. The angle to the sun and moon, their sizes, the stars rotation around the earths axis, the sun and moon phases along with eclipses, both lunar and solar (all these things are explained using geometry alone).
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 05:26:03 AM by SphericalEarther »

?

SphericalEarther

  • 237
  • Programmer. I believe in logic.
Re: Definitions, Physics and the Model
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2018, 03:47:01 AM »
Wow, it went through the entire first page without a single response.

I know its a bump, but I would really like any flat-earther to refute any claim I made or make corrections to my definitions if they believe the definitions are incorrect (I know you refute gravity, but that does not refute the definition of how we believe it works).
Also, I am not completely certain about my wording of the definitions (though I know how they work), so anyone with better knowledge is welcome to help me clarify them.

And just to put perspective into perspective:

We know Mount Everest to be 8,848m tall
If we make a right angle triangle to be 8,848m tall and 8,848m wide, our other angles would be 45 degrees each.
So by standing at a distance of 8,848m horizontally from the mountain, it would take up 45 degrees of our vision (this is how perspective works)
We know that at twice the distance, the observed object would be half the size, so at 17,696m, it would be 22.5 degrees of our angular vision.

Now lets do the numbers:
8.848km = 45 degrees
17.696km = 22.5 degrees
35.392km = 11.25 degrees
70.784km = 5.625 degrees
141.568km = 2.8125 degrees
283.136km = 1.40625 degrees
556.272km = 0.703125 degrees
1,132.544km = 0.3515625 degrees
2,265.088km = 0.17578125 degrees
4,530.176km = 0.087890625 degrees
9,060.352km = 0.0439453125 degrees
18,120.704km = 0.02197265625 degrees
36,241.408km = 0.010986328125 degrees

We know that the moon and sun takes up approximately 0.5 degrees of our sight.
So as observed from between 556km and 1132km distance to Mount Everest, its height would be around the same size of the moon from the horizon.
On the globe earth model, at this distance, it would still be the size of the moon, but it would already have dissappeared behind the horizon at 340km distance.
When viewed from 18.120km, which is almost the opposite side of the earth, it takes op 0.02 degrees of our vision, which is 22.8 times as small as the sun/moon (though bigger than the biggest star you can see), and on a flat earth you should always be able to see it above the horizon (and on the flat earth, the distance would be way shorter when viewed from the northern hemisphere, since its location is also within the northern hemisphere).

PS: For those who are not on the metric system. 1km (kilometer) = 1,000m (meter). 1km = 0.62miles

PPS: I've seen a P900, using maximum optical zoom (83x), be able to put the entire sun into frame taking up all its 4608x3456 picture height. Using the same zoom level, you should on a flat earth be able to see mount everest from 18,120km distance be about 150 pixels high from the horizon using the law of perspective.

PPPS: Fixed issue with multiplication.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 05:32:58 AM by SphericalEarther »

*

JackBlack

  • 18071
Re: Definitions, Physics and the Model
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2018, 05:06:25 AM »
We know that at twice the distance, the observed object would be half the size, so at 17,696m, it would be 22.5 degrees of our angular vision.

Now lets do the numbers:
8.848km = 45 degrees
17.696km = 22.5 degrees
35.392km = 11.25 degrees
70.784km = 5.625 degrees
141.568km = 2.8125 degrees
283.136km = 1.40625 degrees
556.272km = 0.703125 degrees
1,132.544km = 0.3515625 degrees
2,265.088km = 0.17578125 degrees
4,530.176km = 0.087890625 degrees
18,120.704km = 0.0439453125 degrees
36,241.408km = 0.02197265625 degrees
This only holds for small angles, where tan(x)~=x.
As a simple example, what happens if you are half the distance away? By your reasoning the angular size should double, all the way to 90 degrees.

(Also, in your numbers you times the distance by 4 instead of 2 once).

This is what it should be (where x indicates a multiple of the height):
1x=45
2x=26.5651
4x=14.0362
8x=7.125
16x=3.5763
32x=1.7899
64x=0.8952
128x=0.4476
256x=0.2238
512x=0.1119
1024x=0.056
2048x=0.028
4096x=0.014

?

SphericalEarther

  • 237
  • Programmer. I believe in logic.
Re: Definitions, Physics and the Model
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2018, 05:22:36 AM »
We know that at twice the distance, the observed object would be half the size, so at 17,696m, it would be 22.5 degrees of our angular vision.

Now lets do the numbers:
8.848km = 45 degrees
17.696km = 22.5 degrees
35.392km = 11.25 degrees
70.784km = 5.625 degrees
141.568km = 2.8125 degrees
283.136km = 1.40625 degrees
556.272km = 0.703125 degrees
1,132.544km = 0.3515625 degrees
2,265.088km = 0.17578125 degrees
4,530.176km = 0.087890625 degrees
18,120.704km = 0.0439453125 degrees
36,241.408km = 0.02197265625 degrees
This only holds for small angles, where tan(x)~=x.
As a simple example, what happens if you are half the distance away? By your reasoning the angular size should double, all the way to 90 degrees.

(Also, in your numbers you times the distance by 4 instead of 2 once).

This is what it should be (where x indicates a multiple of the height):
1x=45
2x=26.5651
4x=14.0362
8x=7.125
16x=3.5763
32x=1.7899
64x=0.8952
128x=0.4476
256x=0.2238
512x=0.1119
1024x=0.056
2048x=0.028
4096x=0.014

Thx, that makes sense. I'll correct it in the first post.

Also, it was only 27% off at 18,120km on the positive side, so Everest should actually look a bit bigger that I calculated at all distances =)
PS: also fixed the 4x issue.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 05:34:03 AM by SphericalEarther »

Re: Definitions, Physics and the Model
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2018, 12:54:55 PM »
The gravitational theory is one of the most inaccurate theories in modern physics. We have solid prove that the 1/r^2-Rule doesn't work especially on large scales.

?

SphericalEarther

  • 237
  • Programmer. I believe in logic.
Re: Definitions, Physics and the Model
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2018, 01:22:38 PM »
The gravitational theory is one of the most inaccurate theories in modern physics. We have solid prove that the 1/r^2-Rule doesn't work especially on large scales.

That is true, but just to clarify, large scale in this context is galaxy / universe scale.
I do believe we will figure out this issue, or at least have a working theory about it within years from now, maybe even proof of it within decades. At least I hope.

*

JackBlack

  • 18071
Re: Definitions, Physics and the Model
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2018, 02:06:39 PM »
The gravitational theory is one of the most inaccurate theories in modern physics. We have solid prove that the 1/r^2-Rule doesn't work especially on large scales.
No, we don't.
We have evidence that it works up to the scale of stellar systems.
At larger scales we don't know if the law itself no longer holds of if there is dark matter affecting the result by having mass we can't see.