Today in retardville.......
(planetarysunshade.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (20)
sorted by:
You can talk with me. I'm not a FLat earther. Like Jesus faggy shit, no flat earth community. I just use basic observations and math to determine without a doubt that the theory that we are actually on a globe and moving is impossible.
It takes weeks to unlearn and relearn. I can help, but there is no way I will waste my time with trying to convince someone who doesn't want to be open.
The map of the earth is best measured by the Gleason map. Though, of course, the mainstream would not support that. Australia looks wider than we are used to seeing. I drove across it back when I was still a glober, I remember it feeling much longer than we expected and now I wish I had measured my kms to the stated kms on the maps. Anyway, I digress.
It's easier to approach the problem of FE if you take logic and scienctific method seriously. Meaning, the theory is that we are on a globe. It's not the known. Don't try to prove it's flat, prove it can't be moving, or prove it cannot be a globe by trying to measure curvature. You can also do a proof if you have a friend that lives a long ways away from you. And you both measure observed angles to the sun (or star, or moon) and use trig to figure out that the earth could not be a globe. There are hundreds of ways to see how obvious it is, once you know what you're looking it (tides, sonar, the time of daylight in winter and summer, reflections of moon on the ocean, just using binoculars to see distant buildings or boats, then there are experiments like Airey's failure, back in the early 1900s the debates of FE in the science community were palatable, nobody thought the earth was a globe except the power backed institutions that eventually won. What people believe is good as the truth....but again, first have to unlearn
The shit they put in the air will be for something other than blocking the sun, that is just the excuse they will use. And ya, it probably will make it darker, but the real reason won't ever be know to the test subjects.
Are you saying the Gleason map represents distances correctly? That is an interesting anecdote about driving Australia. I think the globe claims Australia is about 2500 miles wide while the US is about 2800. Are you saying it seemed big like bigger than the US? On a Gleason, Australia is substantially wider than the US, so that would be testable.
I'm surprised you are recommending using remote friends to do astronomical observations. I have long thought the best argument in FE was the great difficulty in unambiguously seeing the curvature, and that fitting astronomical observations was a large difficulty for them.. What observations are you saying will prove the earth is not a globe?
What argument regarding tides, sonar, daylight times in winter / summer, etc. are you referring to?
Well, that's gonna be a lot of typing. Can't answer everything, plus, it's hard to explain without visual aids. I started by watching videos until I could grasp the concepts and do it myself. Yes, looking for the curve, super easy to see, but difficult to understand what you're seeing because of the programming, we have a hard time accepting what we see. If you look across a large body of water, and you know the distance between you and some buildings on the other side. Then you can calculate how much curve there should be, and then you use binoculars or zoom camera to see the bottom of buildings that should not be possible. Refraction is the excuse people use, but that doesn't explain how you can see a perfect clarity of objects that are supposedly behind a curve and don't have direct line of sight
So, using trig. You can observe the sun or moon. You and friend. The concept is best visualized when you're several times zone apart.
You have to know how far apart you are. The base. And each of you take a measurement of the angle of the moon from your horizon.
What you will find is that you can use those angles and the known distance to approx the elevation (height) of the moon. It works. But if you assume there is a curvature, then the angles don't make sense because it would mean there are two moons, the single object could not convervge with the angles you observe. Really hard to explain on text.
As for tides. So, there are 4 tides per day. But not everywhere. If the moon was causing tides, then we would have two tides every day. Think about it. Also, tides would be everywhere, but there are tidal nodes all over the world.... places where the ocean doesn't change tides. The globe tards struggle and jump through whatever hoops they need in order to keep their beliefs alive, but when you look at a tidal nodes map, you can see there are just too many places that are not affected by tides. The moon and gravity supposed to be consistent, so why some places not affected?
Gravity is not a force and doesn't exist. It's just magnetism and boyanct forces at play. Gravity isn't needed for any physics calculation, because you can just use acceleration. Gravity is actually just an observation of an average rate that things fall. It's a man made concept that hides the actual forces at play.
I don't know how this is gonna work. I'm not trying to convince you. I can answer questions, sure, but you have to have some momentum of figuring it out yourself first
Yeah, fair enough. If there is a high quality video or website I am always willing to check them out. I do agree that it is not reasonable to ask you to actually write out the experiment and expected observation in this forum because it requires diagrams and mathematical arguments. I don't mind physical and mathematical arguments at all. I prefer them and generally I look down on the various FEers because they won't make these arguments. But yes, a Reddit style forum is not the place for them.
Regarding the long distance observations over water, yes I am aware of that and I actually consider this FEs strongest argument. The fault is squarely the various "science ambassadors" who claim (falsely) that when ships sail away we see them disappear bottom up over the horizon. This is a ludicrous claim which people can find demonstrations falsifying all over the place, as you are stating here. In reality, without further information, we have no idea what we will see when we look at a ship 3+ miles away.
The thing is, the appeals to refraction are not really wrong. We have all seen on hot days what aerial refraction does to light rays within 10s - 100s of feet, so it is anyone's guess what can happen in normal weather over scales of miles, especially when your target of study is a 1/4000mi curvature claim. It takes painfully little refraction to render observations of the curvature impossible. If you are interested in details about all this, it is generally findable in books with names like "atmospheric optics."
I would look at someone claiming a sun or moon observation that violates standard astronomy. I generally view astronomical observations as an area that FE has a hard time dealing with, while conventional astronomy has all such observations (certainly within the solar system) down to incredible precision. That does not mean their model is right, of course. Any model can be wrong but get certain predictions correct. But I would love to see a sun / moon observation that violates the Newtonian / heliocentric / globe model.
I assume by "four tides per day" you mean "high - low - high - low" and by saying "if the moon were causing tides, there would be two" you mean "high - low." This is absolutely true if the tidal mechanism is the bullshit you see in pop science videos where they put iron shavings on a table and hover a magnet overhead, causing a bulge that follows under the magnet. However, the globe / Newtonian / gravity explanation of the tides is not a flat earth with a magnetic moon and ferrous water.
The naive / simplified demonstration of tides under Newtonian mechanics predicts four per day. I know you are saying "think about it, it would be two" and I can assure you I have. As a young student this question really bothered me. I obviously got the tide under the moon, but why is there one on the other side? This bothered me for such a long time (I am a little embarrassed about it now, tbh). Anyway, you can read about it if you want, but any text with a name like "celestial mechanics" will demonstrate the 4 tide per day result.
As for why real tides are so irregular, the simplified tidal analysis is just predicting the equilibrium orientation of level surfaces on earth due to lunar influences using a very simplified math model. Oceanic tides are not mediated through a magical substance that just arranges itself according to this level surface. It is mediated by water that must flow according to the mechanical properties of water within a container with a very complicated boundary (the ocean). Why some areas of the earth have nearly no tide while others have 3x or more the naively predicted tidal swing, and some areas have tides at times that would not be expected, is a very complicated area of study. It is not something I have really studied myself, but if you are interested this sort of thing is in books with names like "geophysical fluid dynamics."
I hear this thing about gravity / magnetism / and buoyancy all the time but no one ever develops a rigorous system that we can do anything with. If someone has a detailed explanation for the behavior of falling or planetary motion or the tides, I will check it out, but I never see one. Some physicists also claim that gravity does not exist, or at least is not a force (I guess they will say it exists). I find people who say this pedantic, because they are using the fact that we have a geometrical explanation for gravity to say it is not a force. This sounds silly to me.