Flat earth "nonsense"

Discussion in 'Drama Zone' started by Sibelius19, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. Craig Duke

    Craig Duke Member

    111
    72
    Dec 12, 2004
    Chicago
    From your roof! What are the chances of that? I'd like to go to Matatlan, Mexico for the next North America eclipse in 2024. On the beach -- with no camera. The experience brought tears to my eyes (didn't expect that). I used to consult for NASA and they would give me special passes to get close to Space Shuttle launches at Cape Canaveral. That was also unexpectedly breathtaking, especially being completely enveloped by the low frequency sound in the air and in the ground. Hans Zimmer eat your heart out ;)
     
    monomox and Joe Maron like this.
  2. chimuelo

    chimuelo Star Of Stage & Screen

    10,615
    1,907
    May 14, 2007
    Between 120-150bpm
    I was on the mouth of the Cumberland and the Ohio for the big one in August last time it came right overhead while we grilled fresh Crappe and Yellow Bass, it was quite an event.
    I’m a Flat Earther since I saw the Pai Tuesday @ CES.
    I’ll finally ditch my Waterproof ancient Flip top to get this and become a bender of space like Einstein.

    https://www.royole.com/flexpai

    [​IMG]
     
  3. d.healey

    d.healey Music Monkey

    2,500
    1,249
    Nov 2, 2011
    England
    This is due to tidal locking. Actually we see a little around the edges of the moon too due to a wobble effect (can't remember the name of it).

    When we see light from a distant star we are only seeing the small amount of light that actually managed to reach us, and that light has been travelling for many years (possibly millions) towards us. The sun is pretty close to us in astronomical terms so we get a lot more light. You could test this yourself using a flash light and a long street, the further away you are from the light the less light will reach your eye and the less bright it will appear.

    As magic as it seems I think we almost certainly did. The astronauts put mirrors on the moon in precise locations that scientists on Earth have been using since to bounce lasers off for taking measurements. If they weren't put there by people then they must have been placed by a robot but that seems even more unlikely since we haven't had robots with such capabilities in any other space mission until fairly recently. Also you'd think the Russians, Indians, and Chinese would have tried to prove it was fake but they haven't.
     
    Craig Duke likes this.
  4. Craig Duke

    Craig Duke Member

    111
    72
    Dec 12, 2004
    Chicago
    Or you could be a robot manufactured by Deep State, Inc. working to subvert public dissent. Would you be willing to submit to a test where you identify buses, traffic signs, and storefronts in a set of low resolution photos? ;)
     
  5. Quasar

    Quasar Senior Member

    2,044
    1,840
    Jun 26, 2012
    I'm just an amateur physics buff, but this covers the perceived uniformity perfectly in a concise, simplified form. Well-said.
     
  6. Quasar

    Quasar Senior Member

    2,044
    1,840
    Jun 26, 2012
    There is something called Olbers' Paradox, which considers that if the universe is infinite in all four dimensions (IOW both spatially and temporally) then the night sky should appear bright, since we would expect stars to fill every point in the entire area, and their light will have had an infinite amount of time to reach us.

    The current, best explanations as to why this is not so relates to the Big Bang and the supposed finite age of the universe, approx, 13.8 billion years. Light that is further than 13.8 billion years away from us (the result of both early inflation and subsequent expansion) has not only not reached us yet, but never will due to dark energy and the ongoing, accelerating expansion of space. Also, as objects move away from us their light red shifts, and can red shift to the point of simply becoming invisible, even if contained within our light cone.

    Current mainstream physicists believe that the universe is finite in age, but whether it is finite in size remains an entirely open question due to the inherent limitations imposed by the speed of electromagnetic radiation which limits empirical data collection to the "observable universe", about 46.5 billion light years long in any direction.
     
    d.healey likes this.
  7. OP
    OP
    Sibelius19

    Sibelius19 Music is just color and rhythm --Debussy

    741
    634
    Dec 12, 2015
    Michigan USA
    I get it guys. But it still seems like filling in and theorize based on already assumed information. You can use math and equations to "solve" any , because any math or equation can be used in order to solve any distance, etc, assuming that the foundational information to begin with is correct. If the assumptions are wrong, then everything else needs to change. How does one even know how far away Polaris is? On what basis? I think that they just use big numbers like that so that there is no way to confirm it.
    Wait...wait. Do we really use the colors of stars to measure their distance?
     
  8. Polkasound

    Polkasound Senior Member

    837
    1,534
    Apr 20, 2016
    Milwaukee, WI
    Parallax is a method used to measure the distance to nearby stars. Using the earth's orbit around the sun, we can view the near star against a distant starfield from two points 186,000,000 miles apart, determining its approximate distance.


    Recorded history only goes back so far. In order to try piecing together anything that happened before recorded history, you have to gather evidence and make assumptions. For example, the age of the earth, the origin of the moon, the beginning of the universe, etc. are all assumed based on evidence. But the same evidence can lead to different assumptions, with none being able to be proved or disproved. So the answer you come up with will depend not on the evidence, but on your foundation. Do you believe in the Big Bang and a 14 billion year-old universe? There's your foundation, and there's plenty of evidence to support it. Do you believe in divine creation 7,000-8,000 years ago? There's your foundation, and there's plenty of evidence to support it.

    Regardless of your foundation, what can be measured using physics and mathematics is considered sound information: the speed of light, the distance to planets and other stars, the universe's rate of expansion, etc.
     
  9. Craig Duke

    Craig Duke Member

    111
    72
    Dec 12, 2004
    Chicago
    Speaking of astronomy and photography. Check out the work of Joel Schat. This time-lapse technique sequences 10,000s of individually shot photos from a DSLR. Milky Way photos are usually shot with 25-30 second exposures (else the stars blur because of earth rotation). I read an interview with him a while back. He said he had a hard time finding music to accompany his videos. Hmmm.
     
  10. OP
    OP
    Sibelius19

    Sibelius19 Music is just color and rhythm --Debussy

    741
    634
    Dec 12, 2015
    Michigan USA
    It all seems like circular reasoning to me though. You explained how we tell how far away Polaris is...but that's based on our belief of how far away we think the sun is...and that's based on our belief that we are orbiting the sun....etc...etc. How do we know how far away the sun is? Well, if we assume it's orbiting us, then we can extrapolate that it would be this size, and therefore it would have to be this distance. These things have actually been debated for a long time. It's only that established science has changed from time to time. I'm just wondering why we can't seem to debate these foundational things anymore. You say there is evidence of the big bang. Where is it?
    They've recently discovered soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. So that gives evidence that dinosaurs may actually be far younger --10-30k years old....not millions. But what did they do to the scientists who've discovered this? They ostracized them and shamed them. I'm just a little suspicious when the established sciences dismiss anything that doesn't match their beliefs, or when they simply change theories around in order to match current assumptions. I think it's uncomfortable to not be certain of things. So that may be one of the motivations to not allow dissent.
     
  11. OP
    OP
    Sibelius19

    Sibelius19 Music is just color and rhythm --Debussy

    741
    634
    Dec 12, 2015
    Michigan USA
  12. Polkasound

    Polkasound Senior Member

    837
    1,534
    Apr 20, 2016
    Milwaukee, WI
    In a nutshell, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, there are knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. Using physics and mathematics, we've established many knowns. For example, the earth's position in the solar system was known long before we sent up satellites and sent out probes to confirm and expound upon what we already knew. Flat-earth and other conspiracy theorists, however, choose to refute such knowns. Everyone chooses to believe what they want despite any amount of empirical evidence, but that's not scientific, it's philosophical. If someone wants to think the sun is a flat triangle, which, through unknown warped laws of physics appears round and takes on the gravitational properties of a spherical mass, that's their prerogative. If they want to think the moon landings were faked, or that the stars we see above us are actually a gigantic moving shield created by alien technology to hide a spacecraft, they're more than welcome to.


    Most people have this misconception that science and anything written in the Bible cannot support each other, and it's gotten to the point where any evidence that supports divine creation/a young universe is immediately cast off as bad science and shunned from the mainstream scientific community. That is why theories like the Big Bang and evolution receive public funding and get printed in academic textbooks as facts, while creation theories do not.


    The evidence is in the expansion of the universe, but you could also see the same evidence as [Isaiah 45:12] It is I who made the earth _ and created mankind on it. _My own hands stretched out the heavens; _ I marshaled their starry hosts. Biblical references also support how the universe is expanding like a rubber band, whereas secular science uses the theory of dark energy to explain this physics-defying phenomena. Like I said in my previous post, the evidence is the same. It's our foundation that changes how we see it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
    mikeh-375, Quasar and Joe Maron like this.
  13. monomox

    monomox New Member

    14
    12
    Nov 13, 2018
    I was too young to understand how lucky I was.
    Man, Mazatlan is such a great idea. I hope that wish materializes.
     
  14. timprebble

    timprebble Sound designer, Composer, Sound library developer

    For anyone who is genuinely a flat earther, a friend of mine (& talented director) is offering a free return trip to Antartica if you can prove your theory! He has spent many winters in Antartica & completed a documentary A Year On Ice which features a lot of his incredible timelapse including a 24 hour daylight timelapse.... which would could not exist according to flat earthers, who call the video fake... So he has offered to reimburse anyone who travels to Antartica and prove their claim. Strangely no takers so far...

     
    chimuelo and patrick76 like this.
  15. wst3

    wst3 my office these days

    3,690
    938
    Apr 2, 2010
    Pottstown, PA
    might sound strange, but I would live to winter over in Antarctica. A friend did so twice, and his descriptions were compelling!
     
  16. timprebble

    timprebble Sound designer, Composer, Sound library developer

    I'm the same - would be an amazing experience...
    Highly reccomend Anthonys doco - scored by Plan 9/ModWheel (i did sound design)

    A Year On Ice
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/antarctica-a-year-on-ice/id970773723
     
    chimuelo likes this.
  17. funnybear

    funnybear Member

    57
    45
    Dec 5, 2016
    I think you are well served to be questioning everything. You are a scientist!

    Science can look rather authoritative, but in the end, our species simply looks for the best framework to explain our world the best we currently can.

    Any scientist that pretends to have final answers is a fool and the biggest minds will gladly concede that knowledge is evolving. Science is an evolving attempt to make sense of things.

    Maybe watch a few videos on YouTube of the late Noble Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman. He was one of the best educators in science and takes a very humble view on knowledge.
     
    Sibelius19 likes this.
  18. vagar

    vagar New Member

    5
    6
    Monday
    By those in knowledge, I would say. You can be one of them. If you live in a free democratic country no one in power is preventing you to put the hours and test for yourself how the best theories we have found so far (what we like to call science) do ckeck out.


    Well, there's always Intelligent Falling. Rather than "explain", science describes those phenomena that surround us and tries to find recurring patterns that allow us to make predictions, thus gaining control over our environment. "We made such and such measurements and our experiments show that this formula (and no other) can be used to accurately describe and predict new experiments, so you can now accurately point a cannon and blast the Bad Guy's troops or gently land a space probe on an asteroid more than 500 million km away from the Earth (w00t! Hole-in-one! If only we could be able to apply this brainpower and cooperation spirit to other matters...)"

    Huge-ass masses.

    Gravity can be measured and is a force, not energy:

    http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/01...d-can-we-use-it-as-an-infinite-energy-source/

    However, it is dam-useful (see what I did there? :) ) to transduce Sun's energy into more usable forms, like electrical or mechanical.

    Maybe you are approaching this from a mistaken point of view. You are looking for a reason, a cause for why things work like they do. Current science can't give you that. Science is not supposed to give you a right, easy to understand for any layman answer to any possible question right now, nor does it pretend to. It is, no more and no less, an intelligent and reliable way of organizing the knowledge and experience we as a species have been able to gather so far. The proof is in the pudding, you are reading this thanks to a technology no Holy Revelations have been able to produce. Just the accumulated hard work of many brilliant and dedicated men and women.

    Why gravity decreases with the square of the distance, instead of the cube? Well, I believe I read somewhere that if you postulate alternate theoretical gravity formulae, most of them seem to lead to non-viable universes, but there were indeed viable alternates. Why the square, indeed?
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019 at 5:37 AM
    Sibelius19 likes this.
  19. wst3

    wst3 my office these days

    3,690
    938
    Apr 2, 2010
    Pottstown, PA
    I can answer this one, although it may be kind of crude without diagrams.

    Inverse square law applies to lots of things, the one I am most familiar with being sound pressure level, but light works the same way. The explanation is for travel in an unbounded space - when you travel some distance X you create a sphere that is R^2 larger. It's a lot easier to picture... and I can't seem to attach an image.

    Let's try this:

    [​IMG]
     
    vagar likes this.
  20. vagar

    vagar New Member

    5
    6
    Monday
    Indeed, but I think nuclear forces, for instance, don't follow the inverse square law. Could gravity perhaps behave differently in another hypothetical universe? Perhaps become short range, instead of long range? Maybe repulsive, instead of attractive, or maybe bipolar? Crazy stuff to consider, eh? Cosmologists must speculate with really weird scenarios. :geek:
     

Share This Page