|
Post by Randall on Feb 24, 2018 18:44:03 GMT
The Flat Earth Society was established in the early 1800s by the English inventor Samuel Birley Rowbotham and remains at the very forefront of 11th Century thinking. ‘Zetetic Astronomy’, as the society prefers to call it, has had to explain away many threats to its principles over the years. Things like manned missions to the moon, satellites, photographs of the (round) Earth from space, and endless series of Prof. Brian Cox’s inspirational TV shows. Still, they’ve got 121,000 likes on Facebook, and celebrities who’ve expressed anti-sphere sentiments include B.o.B, Shaquille O’Neal, and Freddie Flintoff.
|
|
j
New Member
Posts: 17 Likes: 0
|
Post by j on Mar 5, 2018 23:06:13 GMT
Flat Earth Theory is easy to justify with three basic observations. 1. The Earth is either round, or it is flat. This just comes from observation of nature. Certain shapes are preferred by natural forces, from the spherical shape of bubbles to the flat surface of water. Yes there are minor perturbations, but objects will tend towards least surface area or least irregularity; for example, a flat surface would arise when any two forces meet, along the plane of impact. 2. ""If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." -Isaac Newton Science is based on what came before. Certain things become so entrenched they are simply not questioned any more. At best you have half-hearted handwaves to placate the masses with no degree of rigor. Space travel was supposedly invented during the cold war, the propaganda of the US and Russia plainly cannot be trusted at that time. Since then were it a lie neither country would want to admit it; thus, scientifically, we need some actual way to choose between the two possibilities. What we get is suspect. For example, one popularized notion is that of reflectors on the moon's surface, the lunar laser ranger experiments, in which reflectors were placed on the moon during the Apollo missions. This is meant to indicate we must have been there. However we have no indication that this phenomenon is not natural, there are no records of lasers being directed at the same parts of the moon's surface before the Apollo missions. As such this fails to be evidence of anything actually being put there. Science has become an appeal to tradition, not to logic. 3. Gravity is a flawed hypothesis It is not understood in the slightest. A myriad claims are needed to be made about it to have a hope, culminating in the supposition of dark matter to explain celestial movements. This truly is the death knell, as if the majority of the mass of the universe was dark matter, how was it not noticed sooner? How did we not see that the mass of the Earth (as dark matter a) obeys gravity so should be attracted to the same locations as normal matter, and is meant to be present where we are) was several times that which its composition allows for? How has there not been a major overhaul of every single scientific discipline? When gravity is rejected as the unscientific dross that it is, the least surface area of the Earth may be rejected as the least likely. This is without touching issues like Occam's Razor, water levels, the traits of a force that keep us on the Earth's surface, etc etc. All of which directly favor a flat Earth. It is amusingly suspect that you choose to link to the FES as the bastion of Flat Earth Theory. It is swarming with round earthers, almost every active user on the site is, including the moderators, and the view advocated quotes Leo Ferrari, a satirist, as a scientist. Try IFERS.
|
|
|
Post by Randall on Mar 7, 2018 20:56:47 GMT
So you believe all of this below to be fake, not only the globe Earth the science involved all of it yes?
|
|
j
New Member
Posts: 17 Likes: 0
|
Post by j on Mar 8, 2018 14:08:14 GMT
I've no doubt the science more or less checks out, it's just based on false presuppositions. The claim that a random rocket reaches space is false.
|
|
|
Post by Randall on Mar 8, 2018 20:02:20 GMT
Random rocket?
If Gravity is a flawed hypothesis and it is not understood in the slightest then how does that rocket get into space?
|
|
j
New Member
Posts: 17 Likes: 0
|
Post by j on Mar 8, 2018 20:20:48 GMT
It doesn't. It goes up. Then it goes down somewhere else. It doesn't go into space any more than any random plane I could mention.
|
|
|
Post by Randall on Mar 8, 2018 20:22:04 GMT
Define space.
|
|
j
New Member
Posts: 17 Likes: 0
|
Post by j on Mar 9, 2018 2:06:53 GMT
The near-vacuum about 100km up, I doubt anything can get close. I'm skeptical of anything over 50km, not that it's impossible, just not too easy. The vicinity of 80/90km is my limit.
|
|
|
Post by Randall on Mar 11, 2018 18:01:06 GMT
The Karman line, why do you consider it a problem?
You doubt the ISS?
|
|
j
New Member
Posts: 17 Likes: 0
|
Post by j on Mar 11, 2018 19:03:08 GMT
You asked me to define space. The karman line isn't the bit I have a problem with, 80-90km is the range we observe meteors, it's where chunks of rock and metal that fall to Earth are torn apart by sheer friction. Depends what you're calling the ISS. I believe that light we see in the sky exists, I just don't find it any more remarkable than a typical plane, and I doubt it's anywhere near that high.
|
|
|
Post by Randall on Mar 11, 2018 21:04:32 GMT
Two amateurs can take photographs of the ISS at the same time from different places and go on to work out its hight.
|
|
j
New Member
Posts: 17 Likes: 0
|
Post by j on Mar 12, 2018 0:11:27 GMT
Do you have an account of that being done? It's pointless speculation if not.
|
|
|
Post by Randall on Mar 12, 2018 19:19:38 GMT
|
|
j
New Member
Posts: 17 Likes: 0
|
Post by j on Mar 13, 2018 2:19:22 GMT
I'm well aware of what trigonometry is, but giving a claim doesn't make it reality. Yes, that experiment could theoretically work, but it's useless to bring up unless you have figures to offer. To use the easiest example: This diagram comes form your second link. I am using it as it is easily the most explicit. You can calculate the height first by calculating the diagonal distance to the ISS via the sine rule (using the fact the sum of the angles in a triangle sum to 180), and second by the simple definition of sin. This does not give a height of 287, it gives a height of 343, substantially off from even the RE figure. You are welcome to try. If I am missing something, please do inform me, but it seems that these measurements are even by your own model bs. The sine rule gives us the hypotenuse of any triangle where the height of the ISS is the opposite side to the given angle. Given that the sin of the known angle is o/h, it's trivial to find o. Why is this? First of all, these figures are not accurate. Error is always a factor. There are factors with timing it is harder to account for in this (synchronising the measurements across both locations perfectly etc), so we would expect a departure already. Second is the distance between the two locations. You cannot reliably measure 370 miles, both in terms of measuring the distance and determining relative locations with that much accuracy. Let's suppose it's in fact closer to 375 miles; wholly reasonable. And then the angles. Measuring the azimuth of a star is not easy, at all. Even measuring angle with respect to a truly level surface cannot easily be done to within 0.05 degrees, and to go from that to measuring stars without clear landmarks can easily net you, say, 4 degrees of error, at least. If you switch links to your first link, you see that they correct for potential angle error to the lower bound figure I gave above, and a figure in the ballpark of 250 miles suddenly becomes less than 90 miles, and that's just the one factor. No mention of distance, timing...
|
|
|
Post by Randall on Mar 13, 2018 19:14:33 GMT
Ok, I see we are not going to get anywhere with you and mathematics so how about space tourism? Are people going to pay for tickets to fly past the Moon go less than 100 miles up and keep their gobs shut?
|
|