1

##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: No Religion= Peace

« Last post by**Boodidlie**on

*»*

**Today**at 02:58:13 PM(after 3 days)

**then explain why you do not always have a direct straight line of sight to the Sun**1

(after 3 days) **then explain why you do not always have a direct straight line of sight to the Sun**

2

Do you enjoy arguing with yourself? No one here is a proponent of this density model. I think you have the wrong forum.Looking at his other thread, it doesn't look like he's bothered to even read the basics. It's quite sad.

3

1. You have chosen to ignore Electromagnetic Acceleration and instead assume that light travels in a straight path. Your argument is valid, but you're not arguing against the Flat Earth Theory, but rather a strawman that you've invented by yourself.

2. Again, EA is not refraction.

3. It appears that you've assumed Cartesian co-ordinates when calculating the supposed Flat Earth distance. Again, not strictly a faulty argument, but you're attacking something different from FET.

Conclusion: If you make up a theory that's designed to fail, it will be easy for you to show how it fails.

2. Again, EA is not refraction.

3. It appears that you've assumed Cartesian co-ordinates when calculating the supposed Flat Earth distance. Again, not strictly a faulty argument, but you're attacking something different from FET.

Conclusion: If you make up a theory that's designed to fail, it will be easy for you to show how it fails.

4

Now, the topic of this post is going to be about...

1. The sun

2. Startrails

3. Flat Earth maps, and the distances of the flat earth

My next post is going to be about balloon launches, and fixing the problem of fish-eye lenses. (Spoiler: Fish eye lenses don't distort anything, IF the object passes through the CENTER OF THE FRAME....I will prove that later)

1. The sun

One of the earlier problems of the Flat Earth model was that the timezones simply don't work on a flat Earth. So, flat earthers and in their infinite wisdom, decided to solve the problem by making the sun into a "spotlight" shape, so it only illuminates a part of disc world. Unfortunately for the flat earthers, this "solution" just seems to dig a deeper hole for their "model".

One of the first things I'd like to focus on, is the angle of elevation of the sun on a flat Earth. Since the flat earthers have yet to come up with with an official value of the distance away from the sun, I'll use the value that I see the most...3000 miles. And, in order to determine the angle of elevation, I will use the equinox, where the sun is directly above the equator.

Now, if the sun is 3000 miles away, and at 0 degrees latitude, we can set up an equation to determine the angle of elevation at any given latitude on the flat earth. That equation would be...

a=arctan(3000/70d)

Where

a=angle of elevation of the sun

d=Distance (mi) from the North Pole to the equator

Keep in mind that the distance from the North Pole to the equator on a flat earth would be about 6,300 mi. By dividing 6,300/90, we can get the value of the angle of elevation of the sun, per degree of latitude. (Or about 70 mi/degree of latitude)

Now, on the globe Earth the angle of elevation is easy...It's dependent on your latitude. So on one of the equinoxes, the angle of elevation of the sun is simply your 90-x, where "x" is your latitude, in degrees, in the Northern Hemisphere .

Let's plot and compare the two angle of elevations of the sun on a flat Earth, vs. Globe Earth. (Yellow line is globe Earth, while the green curve is the Flat Earth)

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/abatw4xxpt

Ok, so the flat earthers are WAY off. What's more, is that the yellow line is what we see in reality.

This is one of the things that outright DEBUNKS the flat earth.

That is just one of the simple consequence of basic geometry and trigonometry. If a sun is circling around a flat earth, then the angle of elevations is going to be wildly inconsistent than what we would see if the sun was overhead on a sphere. And unfortunately for the flat earthers, the latter is what we see in reality.

Now I know what the rebuttal of this is going to be....

"Well, this doesn't DISPROVE the flat earth because other factors could be causing the angle of elevation of the sun to be skewed...such as refraction"

I honestly find this ad-hoc excuse to be laughable at best, and worrying for humanity at worst.

If it were refraction were somehow playing a role in the apparent angle of elevation of the sun, Then why is refraction so precisely dependent on the latitude of the Earth?! Why do the gasses of the atmosphere care, when to exactly portray the sun to be dependent on latitude? Refraction simply cannot be the case. And if it somehow were, then the flat earthers have to explain why an observer at point "b" is seeing a refracted sun PERFECTLY as s/he would see at their relative latitude, and an observer at point "b" is seeing the refracted sun PERFECTLY as s/he would see at their relative latitude. Because if that were the case, then refraction can't be distorting the sun equally, to that degree.

This ad hoc excuse simply does not work.

At this point flat earthers can either accept reality, deny reality, or come up with a mechanism to defend their belief. If flat earthers want to keep on beating a dead horse, and keep parroting "Refraction! Refraction! Perspective! Refraction!", then they must show a pattern of the gasses of the atmosphere that are somehow refracting the sun to the point that it is EXACTLY dependent on an observe's latitude.

Startrails

This is another thing that outright debunks the flat earth, and flat earthers will parrot "refraction" for this once again. But as I've stated earlier, saying that refraction is causing objects to be viewed according to their latitude is just plain wrong. Latitude and refraction are two very different concepts, and are not correlating with one another in any way. Gasses of the atmosphere are chaotic, and random, they cannot show the apparent position of the stars in such a precise and predictable manner.

What's more is that stars in the Northern hemisphere rotate counterclockwise around the North Celestial Pole, and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere around the South Celestial Pole.

Believe it or not, I've actually heard some flat earthers simply deny the previous statement, but you can literally either take photos of startrails, or take some time lapsed videos of the stars in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere.

If there was some magical sky dome that was rotating around a flat earth, then we would not see stars rotating different directions around 2 celestial poles.

Now, I've heard some flat earthers say that

Well, star trails do not necessarily prove the globe. Saying "star trails therefore globe" is non sequitur

This, again, is quite laughable. Take a camera and plant it on a spinning ball. The trails of the surrounding environment is exactly what we would see on a globe. Now before you copy and paste some random logical fallacy on wikipedia, please read this....

1. Startrails we observe can occur IF AND ONLY IF the observer was on a sphere, with either a rotating sky or sphere

2. Startrails occur exactly as stated in #1

3. Therefore, we live on a sphere

Sure, just looking at star trails alone doesn't prove whether we are spinning or not, but I would love to debate on geocentricm some other time.

Now, most flat earthers are going to attack the If and only if part, probably stating that its a false premise. However, the "if and only if" works BECAUSE of geometry. As you move North or south, the stars drop relative to your horizon by each degree depending on your latitude. There is no other geometrical shape that can give this effect besides a sphere. If flat earthers are truly going to say "it's a false premise", then it is up to them to show how exactly a flat earth (or any other shape) can produce these types of trails.

If not, then till then, The idea of a flat earth is simply NONSENSE

Flat Earth Map, and distance on a Flat Earth

This is my final proof, and while this does not directly prove the globe, it certainly disproves the flat earth.

So, the flat earthers love using the Azimuthal Equidistant projection (AE) as their go-to map to display the flat earth. Unfortunately, by projecting a sphere onto a Polar Coordinate system, there are going to be some major distortions. These distortions will get bigger and bigger the more you go South. Now, bear in mind, EVERY PROJECTION is quite distorted because no matter how you try to display a globe onto a flat piece of paper, you are going to have some major discrepancies. Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)

So, let's focus on a couple distances. From the two costs of Australia (Red Rock to Leeman), the distance is measured to be about 2281 mi.

Let's see how that would look like, if we were on a flat Earth.

So, the distance between those two point's can be determined by the length of an arc, which is

a*pi*r/180 (This statement is equivalent to s=r(theta), but that requires radians, so we'll use the previous formula for simplicity's sake)

"r" is the distance from the North Pole to the two points. Since the Longitudinal lines are the same on a flat earth, and a globe earth, "r" turns out to be 8278 mi. While the longitudinal separation between the two points is about 39 degrees. Using the formula, the length of the two distances turns out to be

5941 miles.

In reality the distances between the coasts of Australia is about 2281mi, but the flat earth map shows us that the distance is 5941 miles.

Yep. That's how inaccurate the flat earth map is. We can input some more distances using the law of cosines, and show how planes would somehow have to be going faster than the speed of sound over great, fuel-impossible distances and going over some sights that you would never see in reality. But, this post is already really long, so I would like to keep it more simple.

But, I already know the reply of the flat earthers.

Just because we haven't completely solved the map problem yet, doesn't debunk the flat Earth

Actually, it does. Here's why....

You can adjust the degree of separation of the flat earth, but then your latitudinal lines would be skewed. Because if you somehow fixed Australia's size to fit the distance, then the latitudinal lines from the coasts of Australia won't match up with the points that we see in reality. No matter how you try fixing the distance of one point, all other points will then be skewed.

And here's why this is important....

If your model is supposed to REPRESENT THE CORRECT DISTANCES OF REALITY, and your model does not, THEN YOUR MODEL IS WRONG

There is NO rebuttal that could work here, because then you would have to be saying that proportions don't work in reality!

If 1 inch on a map is supposed to represent 10 miles on a map, then that should be the case EVERYWHERE on your map. 1in/10 mi should work in Greenland, and in Australia. Because a/b=a/b no matter where you are. That is simply not the case on a flat Earth Map! Meaning your map is FALSE. And if your map is supposed to represent your model (the flat earth) THEN YOUR MODEL IS FALSE.

It really doesn't get any more simple than that. This is really the final nail in the coffin for the flat Earth, because in order to ad-hoc your way out of this, you would have to be saying that proportions are wrong. So good luck with that.

Lastly, I need to give a boatload of credit to Cool Hard Logic. He runs a great youtube channel, and I highly recommend you check him out.

Thanks a lot for reading, and let me know what you think.

Very clear and concise arguments. I would love to see some point by point rebuttal.

5

I tried to find a way to rationalize his comment so that it made sense, but I will have to leave that to Tom.

6

The paths of both massive objects do not make simple circular orbits. The earth does not make a circular orbit around the sun, it makes an elliptical one.

no orbit is perfectly circular. the eccentricity of earth's orbit is 0.0167. that's very circular.

And the mass of the moon is hardly negligable. The examples in the circular restricted problem pdf have the earth-moon system as the two large masses the spaceshop interacts with.

earth-moon-spaceship is also a cr3bp, yes. your source uses that as an example, but it doesn't say that e-m-s cannot be understood as a cr3bp. my sources are explicit that it can be.

also your own source explicitly describes the equations of motion for these systems, contra your claim that they don't exist because saros cycles or whatever.

You are so dishonest.

oh yeah well your ugly.

srsly tho your own sources explicitly agree with me. and none of them say what you claim they do, that saros cycles are the only way to predict eclipses.

7

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/887302632687251456

[/size]

[/size]Basically: Trump blams 8 dems in the senate for a failed health care bill cause he thought they needed 60 votes and all 52 senators voted yes.

[/size]Also, dems control the senate.

[/size]

[/size]Basically: Trump blams 8 dems in the senate for a failed health care bill cause he thought they needed 60 votes and all 52 senators voted yes.

[/size]Also, dems control the senate.

8

Do you enjoy arguing with yourself? No one here is a proponent of this density model. I think you have the wrong forum.

9

This is incorrect. The Circular Restricted 3 Body Problem assumes that one of the bodies has negligible mass and that the two massive bodies make circular orbits about its center mass of the system. Neither attributes apply to the earth-moon-sun system.

both apply to the e-m-s system. the moon is ~1% the mass of the earth and has a circular orbit around the earth-moon barycenter. the earth is like negative infinity times less massive than the sun and has a circular orbit around the earth-sun barycenter. both conditions are fulfilled.

The paths of both massive objects do not make simple circular orbits. The earth does not make a circular orbit around the sun, it makes an elliptical one.

And the mass of the moon is hardly negligable. The examples in the circular restricted problem pdf have the earth-moon system as the two large masses the spaceshop interacts with.

I will respond the the rest of it later. The things you mention are not applicable and not in line with the actual methods involved. You are so dishonest.

10

The decline of the wristwatch.