Show Posts


Messages - Solarwind

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55
Flat Earth General / Re: North star proves flat earth
« on: Today at 01:29:22 PM »
The NS (Polaris) lies within 1 degree (40') of the NCP and so it moves around the NCP once every 23h 56m in a circular path that covers 80' or just over 1 degree or two Moon diameters.

You won't notice the difference unless you measure it so essentially Polaris will appear to be in the same place night after night.  Over much longer timescales as I said in previous post, Polaris will move away from the NCP and be replaced by other stars. But since that is not going to be noticeably over our lifetime, we can essentially ignore that.

Flat Earth General / Re: North star proves flat earth
« on: Today at 11:21:16 AM »
If earth was round and spinning around the sun then how come the NS is in the same place every night?
I've heard some interesting so-called 'proofs' about the Earth being flat but yours is a new one on me.

You know the Earth is tilted on an axis that passes through the NP, centre and SP right?  We call it the polar axis. It so happens that the direction that this axis points in space is always the same. So all the time the Earth is orbiting the Sun, the axis is always tilted in the same direction. That is what causes the annual pattern of the seasons ultimately. It so happens that the polar axis also points very nearly (but not quite) directly towards a reasonably bright star in the constellation Ursa Minor.  We call it Polaris.  Observers in the southern hemisphere don't have such a luxury and must rely instead on a much fainter star called Sigma Octantis.

The Earth is also spinning around its polar axis as well in a west to east direction. That gives us on the surface the impression that the sky is rotating from east to west.

The Earths axis is also wobbling over a much longer time scale than a human life. We call it precession.  This wobbling is a consequence of a collision early on in the Earths history with another forming planetoid which also went towards forming the Moon. The wobbling completes a cycle in just over 26,000 years and means that other stars such as Vega will replace Polaris in a few thousand years time as the NS. Star positions are shifting  very slowly over time which is why star charts have to be updated every so often. Astrometry is the branch of astronomy which deals specifically with measuring stellar positions very precisely.

None of that actually provides any evidence at all for the Earth being flat so I would be interested to know how you reached your conclusion.

Flat Earth General / Re: Other Planets
« on: Today at 01:54:02 AM »
I don't think I said anything about John 'inventing' fictitious forces' did I. I am simply pointing out that I have several high level physics textbooks which mention about the principle of equivalence but none of which mentions anything about fictitious forces when describing it.

So where's the connection? 


Do you notice a pattern that is going on with your posts?  Platonius21 told you he completely understands the Madgeburg experiment. If you missed that bit here's where he said it.
I completely understand the Magdeburg hemispheres experiment.

Then I explain that a friend (who is a radio amateur and lives less than a mile from me) and I got together and used his own equipment to send a radio signal towards the Moon and time the arrival of the bounce signal. SO you reply with
I'm taking it you've done this experiment yourself and re not reliant on just being told it was done....right?
So I have just TOLD you that I HAVE DONE this experiment and so I am not reliant on just being told it was done.

Do you EVER read what people tell you properly?

Then we get ridiculous comments like this from you
The speed of light is a fantasy.
This is probably one of the most well established science FACTS there is now. It might be a fantasy to you but then everything in science that you don't accept is a fantasy to you. Have you got the means to prove as true anything you say?

The speed of light has been checked so many times and in so many different ways the world over. So declaring that the speed of light is some sort of fantasy is just plain stupid on your part. 

With you it seems to be pretty simple.  If it fits in with your own fantasy then it is real. If it doesn't then its fantasy or just nonsense.  I guess if you set a filter in your mind which is programmed to dismisses anything that doesn't fit in with something you believe in then all that is left is what you believe in and so that must be true.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 20, 2021, 05:12:47 PM »
How do you work that one out John given that you have already claimed that gravity is a fictional force.

Where is the gravity coming from in an infinite plane? Especially if the infinite plane only had a finite gravitational pull.


Flat Earth General / Re: Other Planets
« on: September 20, 2021, 05:02:16 PM »
Yes John to repeat myself one more time for you, I am familiar with the principle of equivalence.

I have several U/G and P/G physics textbooks which refer to it and all describe it in the same way. What they don't mention is anything about a fictitious force. So that must be something that you have come up with by yourself.

Now going back to the OP how does any of that help us answer the question about whether other planets are round.

How would you answer that rather than picking holes in my (what you obviously think is) vastly inferior knowledge of physics compared to yours.

I've been studying physics for many, many years but this is the first time I have ever had anyone accuse me of being a poor student. Many have taken the opposite view  so I think I'll stick with the majority.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What are meteors, if space doesn't exist?
« on: September 20, 2021, 03:15:31 PM »
You question me about the sun and moon and you think your sun is 93 million miles away and your moon is apparently a big rock nearly 250,000 miles away...both operating in a vacuum of space as we're told. And you think that's logical.
Any radio amateur with a basic setup can now aim a signal at the Moon and measure the time it takes to receive the echo or reflection of that signal. A friend of mine has done it many times and each time the result is around 2.5 seconds. Since radio waves travel at light speed we are effectively using the principle of radar to measure the distance of the Moon. That is what is called evidence. We are not lying to ourselves are we?!?

We do the same experiment aiming out antenna at the Sun.  We receive no echo signal. Conclusion: the Sun must be much further away than the Moon. If they were both 'projections' off an ice dome we would receive an echo signal off the Sun as well wouldn't we? In fact we would receive an echo signal regardless of where we aimed our antenna on the sky. If we did that would be evidence for some sort of 'container' surrounding the Earth.

So how is any of that not logical?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 20, 2021, 01:00:10 PM »
Ok so setting aside those so-called 'dome' models, what is you explanation for air retention if you assume a flat surface for the Earth?

« on: September 20, 2021, 12:13:47 PM »
It's frozen hydrogen/helium/other elements. In my theory.
Just what leads you to that 'theory'? Other than your total and utter contempt for any aspect of the mainstream science explanation.   You haven't got the slightest piece of evidence to support your theory. So rather than a theory its just something that you have come up with in your mind. Let me ask you this. How does frozen hydrogen or helium or any other element for that matter create what we see as a meteor? 

Every theory (even yours I would think) have a starting point somewhere.  So what's the starting point for you? And how do you collect evidence to find out if you theory has any mileage in it?

The freezing points for helium and hydrogen are both not that far off absolute zero. So how do they achieve that up there near your 'ice dome'?  Given that the surface temperature of Pluto is actually warmer.

« on: September 20, 2021, 09:11:17 AM »
but you're part of the group and that makes everything legit...right?
You mean just like you are part of a much smaller group, some of whom believes the Earth is flat and that makes it true... right?

Instead of simply trying to belittle and dismiss everything I post as quickly as you can, why don't just produce the evidence that shows conclusively to everyone here how you are right and I am wrong rather than simply saying I am wrong just because you think (or in your mind believe) I am. Prove it.

« on: September 20, 2021, 09:09:17 AM »
Why do you find it so impossibly difficult to believe that the Sun is 93 million miles away or the Moon is nearly 250,000 miles away?  Explain to me just why.

« on: September 20, 2021, 08:52:39 AM »
as far as I'm concerned.

In my theory.

This is all we get from you isn't it.  As far as I am concerned and in my theory.  Well time to substantiate your 'theory' with a bit more than just what you think or as far as you are concerned. That's what everyone needs from you.  E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. 

There you go I have made it a bit bolder and bigger like you sometimes do. Perhaps you will see it then.

Here is a link that explains in detail how we can record the spectra of meteors and what we can learn from them.

Now I haven't done this myself but can you explain what motive the Society for Popular Astronomy (a group that I am personally part of) could possibly have or gain in lying to anyone?

This is what you call evidence to support that supports theory that meteors are fragments of rock and metallic dust from space. I don't have to have done this personally (although I have all the equipment described to do it myself) to accept it.  I accept it because I have no reason to believe anyone would want to or need to feed me with misinformation.

What evidence have you got that your theory that they are icicles is correct and the conventional theory is wrong?

« on: September 20, 2021, 08:39:17 AM »
JB HAS done it. He has tried repeatedly to explain everything you have asked him and others to explain. But because all of these explanations do not fall in line with anything you personally believe then you completely dismiss everything that has been said.

There is nothing nasty about providing explanations that are true and correct to the best of OUR belief is there??

« on: September 20, 2021, 07:52:28 AM »
I am not sure what the difference is between 'hypothesizing' and 'questioning'. Sceptimatic seems to find reason to question pretty much everything in mainstream science. Then he comes out with these outlandish ideas which in his mind alone apparently provides a more logical explanation.

But how you can get around saying that is it more logical to propose that the Sun and Moon are somehow 'projected' onto any ice dome by a means that no human could ever confirm for themselves, over the mainstream explanation that the Sun is simply a star around which the Earth orbits and the Moon its only natural satellite I'm not sure.

There is questioning where questioning is needed.  And there is questioning just for the sake of it when you have nothing better to do.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 20, 2021, 05:40:07 AM »
A dome for which neither he nor anyone else seems to be able to provide any evidence that it actually exists either.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 20, 2021, 04:52:12 AM »
How come you are 'decking out' then Scepti?  I thought you had an answer for everything.. right?!?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 20, 2021, 02:30:35 AM »
everyone knows that we don't lose our atmosphere and from that easily deduce the gas is contained.
Actually Earth is gradually losing its atmosphere all the time. It is just happening very, very slowly. Compared to a human lifetime at least.

Equally though gases which exist naturally in the atmosphere are being regenerated through a number of different natural (as well as manmade) processes at surface level and these gases are then rising up to replace what is lost into space. The balance of the atmospheric gases present in the atmosphere naturally varies over time though and at present more CO2 for example is being added into the atmosphere than is leaking away into space or being absorbed my trees at ground level. That is at the root cause of global warming and climate change. Obviously you wouldn't call it 'global' warming as you don't accept the Earth is a globe but that's a matter for you. I'm just telling you the facts which science has established.

There simply is nothing to 'contain' any part of the atmosphere from leaking off into space. That is why Mars lost the majority of its atmosphere so much quicker than Earth did. Because it is smaller than Earth the effect of gravity to keep the martian atmosphere from leaking off into space has always been much less.  There is some left still but it is mostly heavier elements. Which is why the martian atmosphere is mostly CO2.

If you want to pretend or prefer to think of the Earth as having some sort of 'container' (for which there is no evidence to support its existence) surrounding it to keep the atmosphere 'in' then that's up to you.

Think of it in these terms. We live mainly at sea level. Let's call it around midway between the bottom of atmosphere and the bottom of the oceans. Where is atmospheric pressure greatest?  At sea level.  Where is the water pressure greatest in the oceans? At the bottom or ocean bed.  Water is much denser than air which is why people are consciously aware of increasing pressure underwater when they dive but we are not directly conscious of the air pressure pushing down on us at the Earth surface. So we need to artificially lessen the underwater pressure as we go down and why we need to artificially increase the air pressure in aircraft cabins when when we fly. At least above 10,000ft or so.

The common element here is that the pressure gradient is such that it is always increasing with decreasing distance from the Earth centre. Which coincidentally also happens to be the centre of gravity. No matter where we are on Earth this is always the same. The smallest and most efficient volume for the largest surface area results in a sphere. A finite but unbounded surface. And all of this seems to fit in nicely with our real world experience.

« on: September 20, 2021, 01:58:37 AM »
Because it started as icicles as meteors if you've read the topic.
I don't think you could really get much further from the truth than to use the word meteor and icicle in the same sentence. We have been able to record the spectrum of many meteors up to now and identify what they are through analysis of such spectra.

How do you get the spectrum of an icicle? 

So to declare that meteors (streaks of LIGHT) in the night sky are related in any way to frozen water is just fantasy.  Beyond fantasy really. Bordering on the plane ridiculous.

Through radio scatter observations we can also detect meteors that are happening in broad daylight. 

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 20, 2021, 12:16:08 AM »
The container/dome is merely the end product of that stacking.
Tell me more about this container/dome. I can't find out much about it anywhere so where did you find about it?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 19, 2021, 02:21:38 PM »
There is no gravitation, and even if there were - it demonstrably doesn't apply here.
That's a pretty bold statement to make there jack. Would you care to post such a comment on other, mainstream physics forums as well as this flat Earth forum? If so be prepared for quite a barrage of replies and demands for evidence to back your claim up.

The force effect on any two objects with mass that we call gravity is I would suggest real enough. It is something we observe everyday. We call it weight. But exactly what gravity is at the physical level is perhaps a bit more complex to explain. What I do know is that we can mathematically find a value for the gravitational force that exists between two masses a certain distance apart.

What are we calculating then if there is no gravity. Perhaps you could elaborate?

He has also self-proved that people will believe (or disbelieve) anything depending on how their mind in works.  It matters not what evidence exists in the real world. Their mind is conditioned to only see evidence that supports their belief. So automatically they believe they are right.

« on: September 19, 2021, 07:21:40 AM »
This push and pull argument is a classic example of getting down to basics to understand where I'm coming from and not to to be influenced by ******** like JB and others.
Weird you should say that because from where I'm standing the smell of BS seems to be coming from your direction rather than anybody elses.

That forces consist of either a push or a pull, and the fact that the two compliment each other (Newtons 3rd law) is about as near to getting down to basics as you can get.  So if anyone is trying to complicate something doesn't need complicating here its you by your simple refusal to accept the basics.

What any of that has got to do with what meteors are I don't know.

« on: September 19, 2021, 04:33:56 AM »
JB, one thing that occurs to me is that in the professional circles of science, scientists working either individually or in teams spend their careers in effect trying to prove themselves wrong. That is the purpose is it not of experiment. To analyse the results in fine detail and try and fine the exceptions to any previously identified trends or patterns. Each run of an experiment changes one or more variables in order to try and learn more about whatever it is that the experiment concerns. If the data shows that the theory or existing models could be wrong then this is declared very early on.  For example there were experiments carried out which initially suggested that it is possibly for particles with mass to exceed the speed of light.  But the reasons for this were down to systematic errors rather than any new scientific discovery.  All of those relativists could breathe again!

You can find the details of these experiments in published papers that are then posted on the internet for anyone interested to read about.

Yet the whole of Sceptimatics 'alternative' view of what he loosely calls 'science' exists entirely and only in his mind. So the results of his own 'simple' experiments which somehow according to him prove that the rest of the science community has got it all wrong are hidden from view to everyone else except him. Contrary to his repeated protests otherwise. Normal practice is to try and independently confirm such revolutionary results because no new discovery in science can be officially confirmed by only one source.. And then he has the nerve to accuse everyone else of being part of some kind of cover up!

Classic case of Pot and kettle if ever I heard one...

« on: September 19, 2021, 01:24:21 AM »
The way you're going on you were wasting your time, so stop acting like you're hard done by.
I tell it the way I see it just like you tell it the way you see it.  You won't change and nor will I so don't go trying that hard done by stuff on me. Cos it won't work.

« on: September 19, 2021, 01:02:45 AM »
You once had it but are fast losing it.
It's a shame you feel like that because I am one of a small few people around here who actually knows what I am talking about. The only problem is that I think a lot differently to the majority here. As I would expect.

I did want to try and help you learn something but never mind. I won't waste my time anymore.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 18, 2021, 03:58:19 PM »
The bit I don't understand Jack is how flat Earth believers try to re-invent physics just to try and make their beliefs work. Yes I know that we don't lose our atmosphere and the reasons for that are quite simple and obvious to understand if you accept the model of a spherical Earth. Our atmosphere will be a lot thinner in the future as it is around Mars today.  Mars today is effectively a view of what the Earth will like long into the future.

I believe I understand that very clearly indeed.

Now what about those lights in the sky you think we have been misled about? My own observations tell me that the stars at least are exactly what we have been led to believe they are.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Air on a Flat Earth
« on: September 18, 2021, 03:17:53 PM »
Because the lights in the sky aren't what you believe, and have been told, they are.
Lights in the sky can cover a lot of different things. Which ones are you talking about and what have we been led to 'believe'? I have to say that my own studies of the stars through my own telescopes and spectroscopes seems to match pretty closely to what I have read so why should I be drawn to think they are any different? Could you identify the differences in the spectra between say an A type star (we use the strong Balmer lines in A type stars to calibrate spectroscopes) with an O type or an M type for instance?

What efforts have you gone to in order to collect your own data on starlight to make you believe differently?

It is contained one way or another, we ALL know this from deduction and established scientific law
Wow Jack.. one way or another eh.. that is pretty precise isn't it..  How do we all know from deduction and which established scientific law tells us the Earth is flat?

@John Davis
I've discussed it with physics professors and they agree my interpretation is correct.

Have you also discussed all the below comments about air on a flat Earth with your physics professors as well John?

Some reasons I've seen:

It's kept in by the dome.
It's kept in by the icewall.
It's kept in because the earth is an infinite plane.

If so I'd find some different professors if I were you.

Flat Earth General / Re: Other Planets
« on: September 18, 2021, 11:39:50 AM »
You clearly don't know about the equivalence principle
But I do... I just said I did.  Perhaps you know a different version to the one I am reading about here.  I have just checked in the Physics textbook I used for part of my degree (Physics for Scientists an Engineers by P.A Tripler) and it talks about the equivalence principle in the way that I am familiar with. In other words the results of experiments in a uniformly accelerated reference frame cannot be distinguished from those carried out in a uniform gravitational field if the acceleration and gravitational field have the same magnitude. It goes on to explain about how the behaviour of light in both of these situations cannot be distinguished.

It doesn't seem to mention anything about his providing evidence that the Earth is flat though.

I have now checked several of my books on physics and maths and while all the physics books mention about the principle of equivalence and uniformly accelerated reference frames and gravitational fields, none of them mention anything remotely about how that provides any evidence that the Earth is flat.

So what can I conclude from that? That my textbooks are all wrong?

Flat Earth General / Re: Other Planets
« on: September 18, 2021, 11:30:32 AM »
O I have heard about the equivalence principle.  Yes I know about that one.  I just haven't heard any scientist mention about the Earth being flat that's all.

Obviously you have. I have always been a 'round Earther' and always will be but hey, I'm always open to learning about new and alternative theories. I have vaguely heard about a few who prefer to believe the Earth is flat (you will no doubt claim that it is more than a few, I would expect that) so I thought the only way to investigate that fairly is to visit some flat Earth websites and listen to what some of those 'flat Earthers' have to say.

I admire your passion, your commitment towards what you belief is the 'real truth' or whatever you call it. I really do. Has it changed my view of the Earth or what shape it might be, obvious or otherwise?  Not one bit.

« on: September 18, 2021, 07:09:25 AM »
Anyway, tell me how this centrifugal force works with the Earth in a so called vacuum.
And also tell me why we're told its spinning so fast that this happens but when we argue about water not flying off we're told it's spinning so slowly at one revolution every 24 hours.
Tell me...tell me... tell me... O if only it was that simple. Why do you want anyone to tell you anything?  Because you genuinely don't know and are interested in learning (I don't believe that for a moment!) or simply because you are inviting another opportunity to dismiss anything anyone tries to tell you because you have already decided that the idea of us living on a spinning globe is just nonsense? Another chance to further feed that scepti-ego of yours.

I look back through various discussions where you have repeatedly asked for explanations of this or that. Each time whatever they have said you have simply stuck your nose up at them and said fair enough, that doesn't tell me anything new so that don't prove nothin!  So I will stick to my original idea thank you very much!

So what is different about this time round?

I found this link on the BBC website Bitsize page.  Given your dismissal of a pulling force, I assume you disagree with all of it?

So how is this an example of anyone trying to gain wealth, power or control rather than simply educating kids?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55