Flat Earth

[WashYourWorld]

The Balls Out Physics series by Brian Mullin is by far the best Ball Earth physics debunking I have come accross.
Brian's Channels are no longer available, but the videos have been reuploaded by many users.

Please tell me what you think of his explanations. Please post any similar video explaining Flat Earth physics in this thread.

The serie is composed of :

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.0 - Planes Flying on a Spinning Ball​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.1 - A Spinning Atmosphere​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.2 - Flying Over the North Pole​

Ball's Out Physics : Episode 2.0 - The Gravitational Constant​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 3.0 - Centripetal Force, Gravity, and the Sun​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 4.0 - The ISS, Satellites, and the Thermosphere​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 4.1 - Virgin Galactic, Telecom, and Thermal Radiation​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 5.0 - Propulsion in Space​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 5.1 - Propulsion in a Vacuum​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 5.2 - Conservation of Momentum in Space​

 

[grav]

My response to a Guest on another forum (Banned-Talk) who posted this

Rockets hitting the dome

https://newtube.app/phiroc/9bvQqGU

- - - - - -
to which I replied:

I couldn't find an image or meme with photos of rockets hitting the dome
Remember, kids do NOT waste your time trying to research with Google. Google is the devil

On Stolen History we are discussing southern star trails, which circle counter to northern ones.
It's a matter of perspective. And very hard to visualize. Some stars in the northern "hemisphere" are not visible in the southern "hemisphere" and vice versa.

Another problem we have is word use. We don't live on a sphere. We live on a plane, a flattish surface.
We use the azimuthal_equidistant map (Gleason) which has a circular shape.

What would be a better term to refer to the land between the North Pole and the equator? hemi-plane?
No, that's silly.
All I can come up with is this -- inner circle. Lands beyond the equator would be the outer circle, between the equator and the Antarctic.

Antarctica is also where the dome touches the earth.

You have to see a picture of how the dome reflects light to make sun dogs. Words just can't come close to illustrating the effect.
P-brane may be the best researcher who explains our position on perspective.


View: https://youtu.be/m7aEZqA3Huk



Gravity is density.

 

[davtash]

The Balls Out Physics series by Brian Mullin is by far the best Ball Earth physics debunking I have come accross.
Brian's Channels are no longer available, but the videos have been reuploaded by many users.

Please tell me what you think of his explanations. Please post any similar video explaining Flat Earth physics in this thread.

The serie is composed of :

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.0 - Planes Flying on a Spinning Ball​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.1 - A Spinning Atmosphere​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.2 - Flying Over the North Pole​

Ball's Out Physics : Episode 2.0 - The Gravitational Constant​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 3.0 - Centripetal Force, Gravity, and the Sun​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 4.0 - The ISS, Satellites, and the Thermosphere​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 4.1 - Virgin Galactic, Telecom, and Thermal Radiation​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 5.0 - Propulsion in Space​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 5.1 - Propulsion in a Vacuum​

Ball's Out Physics: Episode 5.2 - Conservation of Momentum in Space​

So how do we get access to these uploads

 

[Jd755]

So how do we get access to these uploads

Use a search engine!
Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.0 - Planes Flying on a Spinning Ball at DuckDuckGo

 

[davtash]

Use a search engine!
Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.0 - Planes Flying on a Spinning Ball at DuckDuckGo

Thank you
Old age creeping in

Use a search engine!
Ball's Out Physics: Episode 1.0 - Planes Flying on a Spinning Ball at DuckDuckGo

videos easily found on you tube

 

[grav]

How can we understand the stars if we don't even know how big our world.

Globe theory puts the diameter at ~ 8000 miles. gee, it`s a small world after all.
How wide is the US? ~2000 - 2500 miles?


[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

....

[Image: zzzflatearthd645994bd83c2fb1a931d1e45af4256a.jpg]

I don't see a preview option since the site was updated.
How can we understand the stars if we don't even know how big our world.

Globe theory puts the diameter at ~ 8000 miles. gee, it`s a small world after all.
How wide is the US? ~2000 - 2500 miles?


[Image: maxresdefault.jpg]

....

[Image: zzzflatearthd645994bd83c2fb1a931d1e45af4256a.jpg]

I don't see a preview option since the site was updated.

 

[grav]

What percentage of scientists are honest? How about journalists?

Astronomers, lol. Scientists, yeah, sure.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › PMC4796290

Quote:Richard Feynman famously wrote "Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts". He meant, and explained that "science - a.k.a. research - is in the making, belongs to the (unknown, yet to be discovered) future, while expertise is based on the past, with in-built obsolescence".

haha, as if.
This reality thingie is all a big Disneyland party for a spoiled rotten stupidass kid (humans).
The f-masons lie, cheat, and rob us blind every damn day. And when they get caught with their britches down, they make fun of the truthers who expose their crimes.

How do y'all like that image ^? Oo, la la.
Someone is calling us anti-experts. Right on, brother!
I enjoy satire as much as the next cockeyed skeptic. Even when I am the target. Chuckle How did they know I want a degree in homeopathy? Which actually works, btw, unlike the pills the Pharma doctors give ya.

Gravity is density.

 

[Prolix]

What percentage of scientists are honest? How about journalists?

Astronomers, lol. Scientists, yeah, sure.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › PMC4796290


haha, as if.
This reality thingie is all a big Disneyland party for a spoiled rotten stupidass kid (humans).
The f-masons lie, cheat, and rob us blind every damn day. And when they get caught with their britches down, they make fun of the truthers who expose their crimes.

How do y'all like that image ^? Oo, la la.
Someone is calling us anti-experts. Right on, brother!
I enjoy satire as much as the next cockeyed skeptic. Even when I am the target. Chuckle How did they know I want a degree in homeopathy? Why actually works, btw, unlike the pills the Pharma doctors give ya.

Gravity is density.

Damn, I was about to look for a copy in WH Smiths.

 

[grav]

I tend to wander off into the jungle of occulted (hidden) science, myth, and speculation.

Rothbard, my mentor of yore (Lunatics Outpost forum), is more down-to-earth. haha. I mean that figuratively and literally.

He is a downright dedicated specialist, whose videos clearly and irrefutably prove that there is no curve.
does the math in this Black Swan video, and he offers new formulas that arrive at the same drop from sight of the apparent horizon.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JGYfg8taZY4&feature=youtu.be


2:03

 

[Worsaae]

@grav What is the difference between apparent and geometric horizon?

He calculates the geometric horizon of RE. He measures the apparent horizon of RE. He then says that the geometric and the apparent horizon is not the same, which he uses as a proof that the geometric horizon of RE does not exist.

This is faulty logic.
If you want to reject the apparent horizon of RE, then you need to measure and calculate both. If the measurement of the apparent horizon does not match the calculated apparent horizon, then you can reject RE, but that is not what he does.

 

[Silent Bob]

@grav What is the difference between apparent and geometric horizon?

He calculates the geometric horizon of RE. He measures the apparent horizon of RE. He then says that the geometric and the apparent horizon is not the same, which he uses as a proof that the geometric horizon of RE does not exist.

This is faulty logic.
If you want to reject the apparent horizon of RE, then you need to measure and calculate both. If the measurement of the apparent horizon does not match the calculated apparent horizon, then you can reject RE, but that is not what he does.

I don't get why you think this is faulty logic, seems pretty straight forward to me - we shouldn't be able to see further than the calculated geometric horizon, but clearly we can see much further. The geometric horizon has been calculated and compared to the measured one, which clearly don't match - what am I missing here? This is a simple case of comparing a model to reality and finding that the model doesn't agree with reality.

 

[Worsaae]

I don't get why you think this is faulty logic, seems pretty straight forward to me - we shouldn't be able to see further than the calculated geometric horizon, but clearly we can see much further. The geometric horizon has been calculated and compared to the measured one, which clearly don't match - what am I missing here? This is a simple case of comparing a model to reality and finding that the model doesn't agree with reality.

We have a geometric horizon and an apparent horizon.
We can measure either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
We can calculate either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
In the video, he calculates the geometric, but measures the apparent, and it should come as no surprise that he see a difference between the two.

If you want to calculate the apparent horizon, then you need to take into context other factors such as refraction. He does not do this.

 

[Silent Bob]

We have a geometric horizon and an apparent horizon.
We can measure either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
We can calculate either the geometric horizon or the apparent horizon.
In the video, he calculates the geometric, but measures the apparent, and it should come as no surprise that he see a difference between the two.

If you want to calculate the apparent horizon, then you need to take into context other factors such as refraction. He does not do this.

Ah, I see your confusion now. You can't measure the geometric horizon, you can only calculate it and you can't calculate the actual horizon, it has to be measured. The whole point is to compare the theoretical calculated horizon from the globe model with the actual reality that we see. So in this case the geometric horizon is the calculated, theoritcal value and the actual horizon is, as the name suggests, the actual horizon we see in reality. The actual horizon, when measured, should equal the theoretical one if the globe model is correct, which clearly it doesn't.

As for refraction, this is the only explanation offered to try and explain this very well known discrepancy between what we should see under the globe model and what we actually see in reality. I have lost count of the times I have asked someone to explain how refraction could affect what we see in the way that it does, and I have never had a satisfactory response. This goes way back to the Bedford Flats experiment back in the 1800's.

So, just to summarise the refraction argument. Normally refraction only occurs at the junction between two different materials, which we can see and measure by shining a light beam through a glass block. We see clearly that the direction of light changes, all fine so far. However, in all of our observations the light is not passing from one material into another, so standard refraction does not apply. So, then we get told about graded refractive index, which can occur within one medium, such as air, if their is a temperature differential. That shimmer we see on the road during a hot day is often used as an example. However, this argument is very hand wavy and has no real substance to back it up. First the refraction would be very small in these cases, not enough for us to see as far we do. Second, the graded refractive index caused by the temperature difference in air just above the water line would have to be just the right amount to match the curvature of the earth. In other words, in every single case where we see this effect the temperature difference between the air just above the water and the air just above that would have to be the same - does this seem likely?

Overall the refraction argument really bores me now, if you want to quote this argument then you should be able to back it up - you would need to calculate and demonstrate what the temperature difference would need to be to create just the right refractive index, which in turn would create just the right change in direction of the light to perfectly match the curvature of the earth for however far you are able to see. It really is a far fetched theory, grasping at straws - prove me wrong!

 

[Worsaae]

What we have here is a debunking of a strawman model. The video is debunking a RE model that no one uses.

If you want to debunk refraction, then you need to measure refraction, so that you can correctly calculate the apparent horizon of the RE model. One way to do this would be to have different intervals of length, to see the curvature of the light. If there is no or insufficient curvature/refraction between the intervals, then your proof works.

 

[Silent Bob]

What we have here is a debunking of a strawman model. The video is debunking a RE model that no one uses.

If you want to debunk refraction, then you need to measure refraction, so that you can correctly calculate the apparent horizon of the RE model. One way to do this would be to have different intervals of length, to see the curvature of the light. If there is no or insufficient curvature/refraction between the intervals, then your proof works.

Now you've really lost me - are you saying that the equation to calculate curvature is a model that no one uses? If so then what model do they use for RE?

You can't debunk refraction, it's real as I explained in my previous post using the glass block illustration. Also the burden of proof here is on those that wish to use refraction as an explanation for why the earth looks flat when it should look curved, something that so far no one has done. Until someone comes up with a realistic mathematical explanation for how this is even possible then it is an argument which does not merit discussion for the reason I gave in my previous post. In your proposed experiment, how would you measure light refraction over these distances? what equipment would you need and how would you set it up?

 

[Worsaae]

Yes, no one is saying that the geometric horizon is the same as the apparent horizon. The burden is not on me to prove anything. I'm merely pointing out that this video is flawed and intentionally so. He is trying to debunk a model that no one uses.

 

[E_V_]

Yes, no one is saying that the geometric horizon is the same as the apparent horizon. The burden is not on me to prove anything. I'm merely pointing out that this video is flawed and intentionally so. He is trying to debunk a model that no one uses.

Which is the model that no one uses?

 

[Worsaae]

Which is the model that no one uses?

That the geometric horizon = apparent horizon.

 

[grav]

Wiki:
Terrestrial refraction, sometimes called geodetic refraction, deals with the apparent angular position and measured distance of terrestrial bodies. It is of special concern for the production of precise maps and surveys.[24][25] Since the line of sight in terrestrial refraction passes near the earth's surface, the magnitude of refraction depends chiefly on the temperature gradient near the ground, which varies widely at different times of day, seasons of the year, the nature of the terrain, the state of the weather, and other factors.[26]
. . .
Although the straight line from your eye to a distant mountain might be blocked by a closer hill, the ray may curve enough to make the distant peak visible. A convenient method to analyze the effect of refraction on visibility is to consider an increased effective radius of the Earth Reff, given by[11]

..............

I contacted TC (Taboo Conspiracy) to ask him to address refraction in future videos.
As for the optical illusion called the horizon, Silent Bob has pretty well expained the problem with definitions. The globe model fails the math test. Therefore, the world is not a globe.

I don't know how many times we have to go down this unpleasant road.
FE researchers show time after time that distant objects are visible well beyond the fictitious curve. Not only do we see cities and drilling platforms whose distances are verifiablly measurable and mathematically impossible -- but we see even more land or water beyond that.

The horizon is actually the vanishing point of human optics, where all lines of convergence meet. Zoom lenses extend that range of vision.
Yes, water vapor does interfere with clarity. So far, I see no way to calculate the percentage of distortion.
But most models show that refraction bends light down, not up.
This works against the globe and favors the plane.

Lastly, the atmosphere itself can only exist over a motionless surface, not one spinning 1000 mph and spiralling 66,600 mph. Globe defenders tell us that's due to "gravity drag" -- yes, gravity.

Gravity, refraction, relativity. These are the magic words that freemasons use to replace science with pseudoscience.

 

[Worsaae]

Wiki:
Terrestrial refraction, sometimes called geodetic refraction, deals with the apparent angular position and measured distance of terrestrial bodies. It is of special concern for the production of precise maps and surveys.[24][25] Since the line of sight in terrestrial refraction passes near the earth's surface, the magnitude of refraction depends chiefly on the temperature gradient near the ground, which varies widely at different times of day, seasons of the year, the nature of the terrain, the state of the weather, and other factors.[26]
. . .
Although the straight line from your eye to a distant mountain might be blocked by a closer hill, the ray may curve enough to make the distant peak visible. A convenient method to analyze the effect of refraction on visibility is to consider an increased effective radius of the Earth Reff, given by[11]

..............

I contacted TC (Taboo Conspiracy) to ask him to address refraction in future videos.
As for the optical illusion called the horizon, Silent Bob has pretty well expained the problem with definitions. The globe model fails the math test. Therefore, the world is not a globe.

I don't know how many times we have to go down this unpleasant road.
FE researchers show time after time that distant objects are visible well beyond the fictitious curve. Not only do we see cities and drilling platforms whose distances are verifiablly measurable and mathematically impossible -- but we see even more land or water beyond that.

The horizon is actually the vanishing point of human optics, where all lines of convergence meet. Zoom lenses extend that range of vision.
Yes, water vapor does interfere with clarity. So far, I see no way to calculate the percentage of distortion.
But most models show that refraction bends light down, not up.
This works against the globe and favors the plane.

Lastly, the atmosphere itself can only exist over a motionless surface, not one spinning 1000 mph and spiralling 66,600 mph. Globe defenders tell us that's due to "gravity drag" -- yes, gravity.

Gravity, refraction, relativity. These are the magic words that freemasons use to replace science with pseudoscience.

The globe model doesn't fail the math test, because you are calculating geometric horizon, not apparent horizon, but you are observing the apparent horizon. No wonder that your test fails if you compare the geometric horizon and the apparent horizon. No one thinks these should be the same. It is a strawman argument.

As for vanishing point of human optics. Please do a test and see if the horizon is at 90 degrees directly in the middle of the picture when you are at a height and when you are close to the ground. If the horizon is lower than the exact middle, then your model of perspective fails.