rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[suda123]

I flew over the North Pole last year on my flight from LAX to Hyderabad, India.  I was actually shocked to see where we were on the GPS map and it felt a bit unnerving to know I was so far from civilization if we needed to make an emergency landing. 

I guess for some long haul flights going over the pole is a shorter distance though.

If what you said is correct and you actually flew directly over the north pole then this is huge news. They don't allow flights directly over the north pole, not even the satellites. It's speculated that there is a polar opening directly at the north pole. The north pole does not exist because there's a large entrance/exit hole inside the crust of the Earth. For example, google maps are obviously glitchy at the north pole, what are they trying to hide?

In the image below the tracks of satellites around the Earth are cautiously directed away from the opening in the North Pole. It necessarily produces frustrations amongst scientists as certain data is inaccessible as we can read on the NASA site: "The circular gap over the Earth's geographic pole is due to a gap in the satellite coverage."

source: http://thegreaterpicture.com/hollow-earth.html

Agree with you...sorta... , but you are defeating your own message by discussing a concave earth in any real sense other than one of many ideas.

We don't know the answers, however, we are not being purposely deceived, we are deceived by the arrogance of man's limited mind and by the sheeple mentality of the vast human population.

We want to have answers, we want "smart" people to provide them, we trust and build more answers upon their "facts". In the end we have a model of the world that is fiction but real enough for 99.99% of people on the planet.

well currently the concave earth model is my personal favourite but it does no way try to tell you that this is the most plausible one or whatever. If I left such an impression then it was not my intention. I just wanted to throw the concave earth model into the equation due to the fact that currently the flat earth model has gained a lot of popularity which makes people think that if you don't support the Copercnican system then you are automatically a flat earth believer, which is kind of dumb. There are shit load of theories out there and the flat earth theory is just one of them, with its own holes in it.

Wait I have a question if this is true what does it mean? Is there another species living there or? what is the conclusion of why there hiding it or reason?

[1714691806]

1714691806

[rpietila]

Biblioteca Pleyades - The Ultimate Resource of Thought-Provoking Stuff 

[Hyena]

Wait I have a question if this is true what does it mean? Is there another species living there or? what is the conclusion of why there hiding it or reason?

I don't know. The information on the matter suggests an alien race living on the other side of the North Pole's entrance/exit indeed. Perhaps that other world is like a paradise in comparison to our known Earth? If that's the case and if people all over the world knew about it, who would stop the Earth refugees from going to that paradise? You see what's happening to Europe due to sandnigger wererefugees swarming the whole place due to the activities of ISIS. They're destroying the Europe. Similar thing would happen to that "other world" beyond the North Pole opening when all earthlings started to travel there in hope of better life. It has to be kept in secret because human beings are so dumb that they wouldn't be able to populate a paradise-like place in a peaceful manner. They would just ruin it. At least here in the junk yard Earth which is actually a prison, we will just kill each other but out there we might harm something that deserves protection (unlike mankind).

[Fatman3001]

I don't believe in a magma filled ball Earth theory either. It simply has too many holes in it. When was the last time Copernicus'es model was proven with a physics experiment? It's funny how they demand you to prove your theory but refuse to prove theirs.

http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

I saw a hyena once. They're much bigger than I thought they were.

Oh, just curious. How do you explain the Northern and Southern lights (Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis)?

[toinew]

what is deceiving mostly is the title of this thread.

[Hunyadi]

[macsga]

what is deceiving mostly is the title of this thread.

I beg to differ. Depends on what "TA" means. It could very well mean "Trolling Anaphorically" which gratifies the title of the "Quality" in front of the abbreviation.

[aminorex]

IMO gravity is not a force after all. It's just a physical effect caused by something that is yet to be known.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2opz-6HWro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QboDTgped1E

I fear you will require that particle expansion accelerates with the inverse of particle separation, which will result in path-dependent anisotropic particle size variations.  I can measure the size of atoms after path variations, and compare them, to invalidate such a theory, on uniform curvature assumptions.  Something akin to general relativity might rescue it, however.  This is the path that leads to epicycles.

IMO this approach is a more interesting innovation: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1.pdf

[Hyena]

I don't believe in a magma filled ball Earth theory either. It simply has too many holes in it. When was the last time Copernicus'es model was proven with a physics experiment? It's funny how they demand you to prove your theory but refuse to prove theirs.

http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

I saw a hyena once. They're much bigger than I thought they were.

Oh, just curious. How do you explain the Northern and Southern lights (Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis)?

The sticks and shadows experiment was the only point I found interesting from that link. Is it really possible to calculate the circumference of the Earth like that? If so then it definitely kicks a hole into the flat earth theory. It doesn't puncture the concave earth theory though.

But unfortunately, many of the other ways listed there were crap. The webpage even lists some of the stuff that is used to prove that the Earth is not convex. So it's laughable. For example, ships that have disappeared behind the horizon are still visible with a telescope, NASA photos are fake, centre of gravity could very well be in the middle of the hollow earth's crust not in the centre of the planet.

Since I think flat earth theory is weaker than the concave earth theory, hollow earth theory and expanding earth theory, I would not bother to explain some northern and southern lights thing. I'm not a flat earth believer anyway. I'm just an opponent of the Copernican system.

I fear you will require that particle expansion accelerates with the inverse of particle separation, which will result in path-dependent anisotropic particle size variations.  I can measure the size of atoms after path variations, and compare them, to invalidate such a theory, on uniform curvature assumptions.  Something akin to general relativity might rescue it, however.  This is the path that leads to epicycles.

IMO this approach is a more interesting innovation: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1.pdf

Not so easy to dismiss the gravity by expansion theory. What if Planck length is not a constant? What if it is increasing in time but since everything is growing in size proportionally to the increase in Planck length we are unable to detect the change in that constant? Perhaps you should also have a look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd-QqKmVyfU

Seems that this guy has more explanations in his sleeve than I have.

As for Newton, I must admit I don't fancy his theories. He assumed astral bodies to be filled while in reality there's a good chance they are hollow, which would invalidate the calculations of their mass according to Newton's "laws".

According to the article you pointed out gravity is an entropic force. So the universe is intelligent enough to understand that for some reason it needs to increase its entropy? Interesting indeed, but also ridiculous. As a result, the god/universe just generates this force "gravity" out of thin vacuum to make everything look more chaotic in the macro cosmos while not affecting the flow of energy in the micro cosmos. This is the first time I see a theoretical physicist trying to explain the world with the help of god except that instead of god they cunningly use the term entropic force which equates to "system's statistical tendency to increase its entropy". So when a theoretical physicist is in trouble and doesn't know how to explain something, they will come up with a clever term such as entropic force and just use that term. Same goes to utterly religious people who explain everything with the word "god". I wouldn't say one is better than the other.

[jehst]

[Fatman3001]

I don't believe in a magma filled ball Earth theory either. It simply has too many holes in it. When was the last time Copernicus'es model was proven with a physics experiment? It's funny how they demand you to prove your theory but refuse to prove theirs.

http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

I saw a hyena once. They're much bigger than I thought they were.

Oh, just curious. How do you explain the Northern and Southern lights (Aurora Borealis and Aurora Australis)?

The sticks and shadows experiment was the only point I found interesting from that link. Is it really possible to calculate the circumference of the Earth like that? If so then it definitely kicks a hole into the flat earth theory. It doesn't puncture the concave earth theory though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference

It's an old method and quite accurate.

But unfortunately, many of the other ways listed there were crap. The webpage even lists some of the stuff that is used to prove that the Earth is not convex. So it's laughable. For example, ships that have disappeared behind the horizon are still visible with a telescope, NASA photos are fake, centre of gravity could very well be in the middle of the hollow earth's crust not in the centre of the planet.

Since I think flat earth theory is weaker than the concave earth theory, hollow earth theory and expanding earth theory, I would not bother to explain some northern and southern lights thing. I'm not a flat earth believer anyway. I'm just an opponent of the Copernican system.

The reason I ask about the Northern and Southern lights is because in conventional physics it is believed that these phenomena are the result of the interplay between the Earths EM field and massive particles slung out from the sun. It is quite well understood and basically means that you can use solar "weather forecasts" (since light moves faster than particles with mass) to tell you if/when there will be northern/southern lights appearing. But in order for this to be true, something needs to create the EM field. A spinning liquid metal core; which doesn't fit well with your hollow earth assumption.

[suda123]

Wait I have some questions.

If bitcoin becomes mainstream and the collapse of the fiat currency goes down, what are the implications of it? Do the poor get poorer, bitcoiners rich? Middle class and high class wealth transfers to the people who got into bitcoin?

Will there be food banks for the poorer or people who missed out on bitcoin, or just really late?

 the gap between rich and poor are even worse?

What are the walmarts going to be used for? and fema camps?

[rpietila]

I did not catch sleep so I decided to think about Venus. As we know since we have been told and Wikipedia affirms, Venus is a spherical rock 12,000 km in diameter (about the size of the Earth) and it is between 38 and 261 million kilometers from the Earth.

It is easily visible by naked eye even in cities as its visual magnitude varies from -3.7 to -4.5, making it the 3rd most luminous object in the sky after Sun and Moon.

Now, the question is how can this be? Venus does not emit light of its own. Its relative size can be compared to having a marble of d=1cm in the distance of 32-216 m in the night. Venus' reflective index is 70% which is good, but it is still spherical, meaning that there are no reflective surfaces turned towards the observer (on Earth) and it anyway twists and turns, yet its visual magnitude stays roughly constant (which is also interesting given that the observed radiation from any other source decreases to 1:45 when it is taken 6.75 times further from the observer, yet Venus' brightness only changes about 1:2 in absolute terms).

The Sun in this example is actually no more than 90 m away (from Venus) so it can easily be introduced. It is 1.2 meter in diameter and for the sake of argument, you can select whatever luminosity and shield the "Sun" so that it cannot be seen from "Earth".

The next step is to give "Venus" the 70% reflection but you can do even better and give it 100% by wrapping it in tinfoil. Now you have the Earth, Venus and Sun in let's say triangular arrangement with Sun shining any desired amount of light towards Venus from 90 m distance and you watching it by naked eye from 200 m distance.

As you can see for yourself, no amount of "sunlight" is able to make the tinfoiled round marble Venus even visible from such a distance let alone so bright that it is surpassed only by Sun and Moon in brightness.

Surely there is an astronomer among you with an explanation to my riddle.

[sidhujag]

Wait I have some questions.

If bitcoin becomes mainstream and the collapse of the fiat currency goes down, what are the implications of it? Do the poor get poorer, bitcoiners rich? Middle class and high class wealth transfers to the people who got into bitcoin?

Will there be food banks for the poorer or people who missed out on bitcoin, or just really late?

 the gap between rich and poor are even worse?

What are the walmarts going to be used for? and fema camps?

Those with knowledge and expertise will excel those who leveraged work of others fall

[molecular]

I did not catch sleep so I decided to think about Venus. As we know since we have been told and Wikipedia affirms, Venus is a spherical rock 12,000 km in diameter (about the size of the Earth) and it is between 38 and 261 million kilometers from the Earth.

It is easily visible by naked eye even in cities as its visual magnitude varies from -3.7 to -4.5, making it the 3rd most luminous object in the sky after Sun and Moon.

Now, the question is how can this be? Venus does not emit light of its own. Its relative size can be compared to having a marble of d=1cm in the distance of 32-216 m in the night. Venus' reflective index is 70% which is good, but it is still spherical, meaning that there are no reflective surfaces turned towards the observer (on Earth) and it anyway twists and turns, yet its visual magnitude stays roughly constant (which is also interesting given that the observed radiation from any other source decreases to 1:45 when it is taken 6.75 times further from the observer, yet Venus' brightness only changes about 1:2 in absolute terms).

The Sun in this example is actually no more than 90 m away (from Venus) so it can easily be introduced. It is 1.2 meter in diameter and for the sake of argument, you can select whatever luminosity and shield the "Sun" so that it cannot be seen from "Earth".

The next step is to give "Venus" the 70% reflection but you can do even better and give it 100% by wrapping it in tinfoil. Now you have the Earth, Venus and Sun in let's say triangular arrangement with Sun shining any desired amount of light towards Venus from 90 m distance and you watching it by naked eye from 200 m distance.

As you can see for yourself, no amount of "sunlight" is able to make the tinfoiled round marble Venus even visible from such a distance let alone so bright that it is surpassed only by Sun and Moon in brightness.

Surely there is an astronomer among you with an explanation to my riddle.

Not an expert at all here, just food for thought:

• I would guess that the light density (something like "number of photons per angle of view and time") of venus is actually higher that that of the moon. The moon is just "brighter" because it's closer and thus perceived "bigger"). I may be wrong here, but maybe when people say "moon is brighter than venus", they talk about the aggregate amount of light received?

• Moon has reflectivity of 10%, venus of 70% (because of some kind of clouds in its athmosphere). You already mentioned the 70% value for venus.
• Why does received radiation decrease with distance? Seems to me the light coming from venus shouldn't be filtered by much at all on its way to our eye (except at the last couple of kilometers by earth's athmosphere).

[macsga]

^^
It's because of a phenomenon called Apparent Magnitude (ie: the brightness that a celestial body presents when observed from Earth). There's a set of calculations that determine how "bright" a planet seems, you might want to take a look there.

[Pruden]

Probably has something to do with the fact that when it is furthest it also is reflecting light most directly towards the Earth (being further means it is on the other side of the Sun).

EDIT: Galileo even documented the phases of Venus, IIRC.

[Hyena]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference

It's an old method and quite accurate.

Eratosthenes' calculations are not proof of any particular model, but based on an assumption of which earth model is correct.

reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Distance+of+the+Sun

The reason I ask about the Northern and Southern lights is because in conventional physics it is believed that these phenomena are the result of the interplay between the Earths EM field and massive particles slung out from the sun. It is quite well understood and basically means that you can use solar "weather forecasts" (since light moves faster than particles with mass) to tell you if/when there will be northern/southern lights appearing. But in order for this to be true, something needs to create the EM field. A spinning liquid metal core; which doesn't fit well with your hollow earth assumption.

the hollow earth theory has actually an answer for this. Inside the hollow earth there is a hot iron core which provides heat and light for the inner Earth and which also provides the protective magnetic field for the outer Earth.


http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/26/mind-blowing-research-suggests-that-earth-could-actually-be-hollow/

This central sun is not a conventional sun (there are no thermonuclear reactions taking place) but instead it is a hot ball of iron.

I would recommend you browse this blog for more answers regarding the hollow earth theory:
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.nl/

It is written by a scientifically minded person rather than by some religious lunatic.

[Fatman3001]

@BMB You're right. This well is too deep.

Edit:

@Hyena I've been in a plane. The sun was above me all the time.

I would recommend you browse this blog for more answers regarding the hollow earth theory:
http://hollowplanet.blogspot.nl/

It is written by a scientifically minded person rather than by some religious lunatic.

Is there a point to distiguishing between different brands of lunatics?

What I mean is, that site doesn't seem to be bothered with scientific rigour. It's just a collection of "facts" with varying degree of relevance or seriousness which is supposed to paint a complete picture in the mind of the reader without any attempt to provide consistency.

[rpietila]

^^
It's because of a phenomenon called Apparent Magnitude (ie: the brightness that a celestial body presents when observed from Earth). There's a set of calculations that determine how "bright" a planet seems, you might want to take a look there.

I subsequently checked that the 1.2 m ball "Sun" has a temp of 6000°C so above the boiling point of metals. It heats the marble to 460°C by radiation. So this causes it to glow brightly. It seems that despite my initial suspicion, the thing might work after all. The temperature was a key point in opening my eyes.

(The molten metal 3 weeks after 9/11 has not opened the eyes of all to see that issue though, but I see the things both ways when they are pointed out)