Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« on: June 07, 2017, 11:06:55 PM »
I'm new to this whole flat earth thing and am just trying to figure out what all the confusion is about. I don't believe either way but I find it fascinating that for some reason it hasn't been settled.

So what about this shadow argument I've seen I'm sure you guys know of. Is there any weight to it? I thought about it and could imagine different length shadows on a flat earth depending on the distance of the sticks to the sun. The closer it is shouldn't the shadow be longer?

Also, how come the sun loses it's shape, like it's being eclipsed by the horizon as it sets? All I've seen/heard/read is the perspective argument. If that was the case then it should just shrink rather than appear to be eclipsed by getting its underside cut off by the apparent edge of the visible earth that appears to move in front of the sun no?

So I'll just start with those two but the whole thing is confusing I can't help but assume someone with the right education should know better. I'm guessing I'm about to find it gets a whole lot more fuzzy and confusing or there is a case of mass ignorance taking place. You tell me.

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5779
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2017, 11:15:42 PM »
So what about this shadow argument I've seen I'm sure you guys know of. Is there any weight to it? I thought about it and could imagine different length shadows on a flat earth depending on the distance of the sticks to the sun. The closer it is shouldn't the shadow be longer?
It is extremely difficult to guess what you mean by "this shadow argument I've seen I'm sure you guys know of." Do not assume your conversation partners can read your mind. Use Google, for Christ's sake.

Now, I will assume you're trying to refer to Erathostenes's attempts at determining the diameter of the Earth, which he assumed to be round. In which case: https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter

Also, how come the sun loses it's shape, like it's being eclipsed by the horizon as it sets? All I've seen/heard/read is the perspective argument. If that was the case then it should just shrink rather than appear to be eclipsed by getting its underside cut off by the apparent edge of the visible earth that appears to move in front of the sun no?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

So I'll just start with those two but the whole thing is confusing I can't help but assume someone with the right education should know better.
You're going to have to do better than that. Research the subject before you come here crying for help. Read the FAQ, check the Wiki for the subjects you're interested in, and before you make a thread on the forum, for crying out loud, use the search function to see if it's not already being/been discussed. Exercise some elementary netiquette.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2017, 11:38:40 PM »
Calm down "sexwarrior". Sounds like someone hasn't had theirs today. But i feel ya. You're trying to keep the forum tidy. So I'll try to do more research before posting - FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! No cyber assault pls

Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2017, 11:47:16 PM »
Does that wiki link explain how the survey  loses its shape? I didn't catch  it if it did.

Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2017, 12:07:03 AM »
I mean personally I know a guy, very nice guy, he knows a lot about this type of stuff, he's the best guy and I believe that this is something important and topical and it has to be talked about more because it is such a strong advantage to break people free from this lie that the earth is round, its absurd like how can you believe the government.

Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2017, 12:45:16 AM »
"4. Shadows and Sticks
If you stick a stick in the (sticky) ground, it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:
...

But they don’t. This is because the earth is round, and not flat:
... "

It's from this page:

http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round#page-7

And I guess I've seen it elsewhere. I'm not sure if it's related to that wiki link posted above.

I don't know what to make of most of the points as I'm not the smartest scientist or mathematician so I can't really delve too deep into this stuff but I just trying to get comments from people who know better. OR... If you know specifically what I could check out to get me an answer to a particular question pls share a link. I don't want to be redundant with my question but I know so little I wouldn't know where to start with limited time. So I'd appreciate any comments particularly polite ones. But I'll take rude ones too.

*

Offline Dither

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2017, 06:09:49 AM »
If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:

Why do you say that?

The shadow effect works just as well on a Flat Earth, take a torch and hold it up in the air, now get some matchsticks and walk around in a sand pit, the shadows will depend on where the torch light is focused, they won't all be uniform or produce the same shadow effect. The torch, like the sun, is a lot closer than we are led to believe.
A lie will make it around the world before the truth has time to put on it’s shoes.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2017, 12:27:50 PM »
If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:

Why do you say that?

The shadow effect works just as well on a Flat Earth, take a torch and hold it up in the air, now get some matchsticks and walk around in a sand pit, the shadows will depend on where the torch light is focused, they won't all be uniform or produce the same shadow effect. The torch, like the sun, is a lot closer than we are led to believe.

It is true that Flat Earth Theory (FET) can produce different length shadows in different parts of the world at the same moment in time...and so does Round Earth Theory (RET).

The problem is that FET predicts shadow lengths that don't match what we really see.  This is actually the exact same problem as that FET predicts that the sun should never set...they aren't different problems - just different ways of thinking about it.

So the "fix" for this (mentioned in one of the many threads here just a few days ago) is that FET claims that the sun sets because of the effects of perspective...which in FET somehow behaves differently than in RET.

Furthermore - the reason the FE sun doesn't seem to change size as it gets closer and further from the observer is because it's so bright that the air "cannot grab it's light" and do the perspective thing to make it smaller.

Now...this is actually a completely untenable solution - but it's one of those things that's hard to convince flat-earthers of because they are somewhat math/geometry averse and when explanations get tricky, they simply stop responding to the discussions.   Just check the MANY threads on this forum where I'm the last poster...in almost every case, my final point could not be rationalized in FET...so it just hangs there, eternally awaiting an answer.   At no point does anyone say "Oh!  You're right!  The Earth must be round!!"...this NEVER HAPPENS here.  Which is...challenging.

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 141
  • Round
    • View Profile
Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2017, 02:45:38 PM »
I mean personally I know a guy, very nice guy, he knows a lot about this type of stuff, he's the best guy and I believe that this is something important and topical and it has to be talked about more because it is such a strong advantage to break people free from this lie that the earth is round, its absurd like how can you believe the government.

Have you ever considered writing a book?  It would be a joy to read.

Offline Oami

  • *
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2017, 03:37:53 PM »
The torch, like the sun, is a lot closer than we are led to believe.

Well, this is the problem.

The first topic I started on this forum was about the distance between the sun and earth. So far no one has given an answer that would even try to be accurate (say, for at least 3 digits). What the flat earth believers also seem to disagree upon is 1) whether light travels in relatively straight paths or not, 2) how perspective works, 3) whether there is a dome distorting our view or not.

These theories become so complex and have so much ad hoc explanations that it makes one wonder, why was the globe earth theory abandoned in the first place.

Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2017, 07:10:34 PM »
If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow:

Why do you say that?

The shadow effect works just as well on a Flat Earth, take a torch and hold it up in the air, now get some matchsticks and walk around in a sand pit, the shadows will depend on where the torch light is focused, they won't all be uniform or produce the same shadow effect. The torch, like the sun, is a lot closer than we are led to believe.

It is true that Flat Earth Theory (FET) can produce different length shadows in different parts of the world at the same moment in time...and so does Round Earth Theory (RET).

The problem is that FET predicts shadow lengths that don't match what we really see.  This is actually the exact same problem as that FET predicts that the sun should never set...they aren't different problems - just different ways of thinking about it.

So the "fix" for this (mentioned in one of the many threads here just a few days ago) is that FET claims that the sun sets because of the effects of perspective...which in FET somehow behaves differently than in RET.

Furthermore - the reason the FE sun doesn't seem to change size as it gets closer and further from the observer is because it's so bright that the air "cannot grab it's light" and do the perspective thing to make it smaller.

Now...this is actually a completely untenable solution - but it's one of those things that's hard to convince flat-earthers of because they are somewhat math/geometry averse and when explanations get tricky, they simply stop responding to the discussions.   Just check the MANY threads on this forum where I'm the last poster...in almost every case, my final point could not be rationalized in FET...so it just hangs there, eternally awaiting an answer.   At no point does anyone say "Oh!  You're right!  The Earth must be round!!"...this NEVER HAPPENS here.  Which is...challenging.

Sorry, that was a bit confusing. You think it's round? And just as I thought it gets confusing. I think you said, in answer to my question why does the sun appear to set behind the (round)earth, because the sun is so bright. Or not? And the shadow thing holds no weight? That flat or round we get different length shadows? That's what I would imagine.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 586
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2017, 03:41:14 AM »
And the shadow thing holds no weight? That flat or round we get different length shadows? That's what I would imagine.

Flat or round, you get different shadows at different latitudes, yes.  There is however a difference between the shadows you should expect at different latitudes on a flat earth, and the shadows you should expect at different latitudes on a round earth.  Have you taken ever any trigonometry classes?  We can explain why the shadows that are actually observed correspond to a round earth, and why the flat earth has to resort to hypothetical (and unobservable) effects of perspective to explain those shadows, but it will require some understanding of trig for it to make sense.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2017, 04:41:27 AM »
And the shadow thing holds no weight? That flat or round we get different length shadows? That's what I would imagine.

Flat or round, you get different shadows at different latitudes, yes.  There is however a difference between the shadows you should expect at different latitudes on a flat earth, and the shadows you should expect at different latitudes on a round earth.  Have you taken ever any trigonometry classes?  We can explain why the shadows that are actually observed correspond to a round earth, and why the flat earth has to resort to hypothetical (and unobservable) effects of perspective to explain those shadows, but it will require some understanding of trig for it to make sense.

Okay, that's good enough for now for that particular question. And no, up to some algebra only for me. Thanks tho. 'it's complicated' so I'll either have to drive in deep, which I don't have time for really or just let you guys hash is out and see what happens. Are you sure it's flat? Are most people in here for examine sure? I wonder if people just believe something to believe something. Are you absolutely convinced, and if so do you believe the rest of the world is so duped they can't bother to question the topic?

I can watch a couple fe videos and be convinced but at the same time I'm sure any RE'er could convince me of the contrary lol. But you guys seem so convinced which makes this thing so interesting to me.

What about the sun setting? What causes the bottom to be cut off?

And does this mean aliens are all CGI? Never mind that if I've gone too far.

Offline yash.paz123

  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Round Earth Scientist
    • View Profile
Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2017, 07:33:24 PM »
Never assume the sun will be shining at a different spot since the earth ROTATES!!!
F = m*a.
F = m*v^2/r.
F = -G*m1*m2/r^2.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Re: Two sticks equal shadow argument?
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2017, 04:13:33 AM »
Flat or round, you get different shadows at different latitudes, yes.  There is however a difference between the shadows you should expect at different latitudes on a flat earth, and the shadows you should expect at different latitudes on a round earth.  Have you taken ever any trigonometry classes?  We can explain why the shadows that are actually observed correspond to a round earth, and why the flat earth has to resort to hypothetical (and unobservable) effects of perspective to explain those shadows, but it will require some understanding of trig for it to make sense.

The problem with the FET idea for different laws of perspective is that you require DIFFERENT variations for different problems the theory faces.   In RET, we can explain almost everything with "Light travels in a straight line" - certainly sunsets and shadows cast by objects in different places.   But in FET, the concept for how light travels in order to make the sun appear to touch the horizon at sunset contradicts their explanation for why the sun doesn't seem to change size between zenith and horizon.   So they add a second rule - which is that sunlight is too strong to 'be caught by the air' - so the size isn't affected by perspective...but that doesn't explain why the (much MUCH dimmer) Moon doesn't change size either.   Neither of the two existing "laws of FET light propagation" can explain why the moon stays the same size but (for example) a tree or a mountain - which are of similar brightness to the moon - do not.

The when we layer on the demand that the shadows cast by sticks need to be pointing in different directions and have different lengths around the world - then yet a fourth rule has to be layered upon the one that explains the sun's position and the one that explains it's unchanging size and yet another one that must exist to explain the moon having unchanging size but not trees and mountains.   So now we must have at least FOUR FET rules for light propagation.

I guarantee, 100% that if some FET expert would come forward and explain all of those phenomena - then I could force them to come up with yet MORE ad-hoc rules to explain why the moon looks upside down in the southern parts of the Earth compared to the northern parts - and seems to be "on it's side" when viewed from the horizon.

When they've added more interesting and complicated rules to explain THOSE phenomena then we can ask again about how the rotations of the stars appear so different between (say) Europe and Australia...then we'll add explanations of how come the phases of the moon appear identical from all parts of the world...and then more to explain eclipses.

But they'll NEVER succeed in weaving those things together to make everything fit the simple observations that anyone can easily make...every new kludge that's applied to FET brings in more contradictions than it does fixes.

This is a sure sign of a failing concept.   No wonder some FE'ers throw in the towel and just say "The Sun and Moon are just holograms" - as if that somehow makes it all OK!

The world is round, light travels in straight lines (except when refracted by temperature gradients and such) and gravity exists - take those four simple facts as truth - and all of that spiralling complexity falls away - and you don't need to imagine gigantic conspiracy theories - everything falls into place really neatly and simply.

When you get a scientific principle "right" - it's almost always very much simpler than the wrong answers.