Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rounder

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27  Next >
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newbie Questions~
« on: May 27, 2017, 05:50:43 PM »
are there any large/popular "facts" that the society does not believe in?
The society is a big tent, with no uniform set of beliefs, making this somewhat of a trick question.  Any popular fact one might offer in answer to your question will have a spectrum of acceptance/rejection among the FES.  For example, many of the FES here reject gravity, but by no means all of them.  Many hold to some variation of the Gleason map found in the wiki, but by no means all of them. 

That said, I think it is fair to say that anyone who holds to a flat earth must reject both the commonly taught sizes and distances of objects in the solar system, and the moon landings along with space flight in general (as those simply cannot work as described, if the earth is flat and the moon and sun are both small and close)

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Looking at different planets...
« on: May 26, 2017, 05:10:51 PM »
I think this can be self proven. Look through telescope, and focus it on a certain planet. Look at it another day, and you can see it has rotated, just like a sphere. This is because of the fact that all mass has gravity, proven by Newton's law of universal gravitation. Therefore, can we not deduce that Earth would also be round?
In a different discussion thread, too long ago for me to remember which one it was, the answer I was given to this was that the planets are a different thing than the earth, which means that the nature of those other things tells us nothing about the nature of the earth.  That is a valid objection to your premise.  By analogy: suppose you are driving along and begin to notice that every vehicle on the road with you, as far as the eye can see, is a red pickup truck.  Does it follow that YOUR vehicle must also be a red pickup truck?  Another one: Six of the seven pieces in your dining room set are chairs.  Does it follow that the piece those chairs surround is also a chair?

I agree with you that the earth is round, but you can't prove it based merely on the observed sphericity of Mars and Jupiter (for example)

Don't forget who your disputants are: they claim that the sun is a tiny (~30 miles across) and nearby (~3000 miles away) object, which necessitates planets that are even smaller still.  Their planets are not the enormous and majestic Saturn and Jupiter that captured our imagination when Voyagers I and II visited; they are tiny little whatsits in the sky. 

It's actually kind of sad, thinking about the wonders they miss out on.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica Moves
« on: May 26, 2017, 04:38:39 PM »
I'm sure you can find a forum somewhere else on the vast interwebs to debate about fossils, but this isn't that forum.  Fossils offer nothing one way or the other on the topic of flat vs round.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« on: May 26, 2017, 04:34:51 PM »
Perhaps - but I'm guessing the FE'ers would say that the shadow object comes closer to the observer during lunar eclipses than during solar eclipses...this makes little sense - but clearly the complex motions of sun, moon, stars and shadow object are all cunningly designed by "The Creator" to make it look like the world is round.

(I can imagine no other explanations for the astounding series of coincidences that make FE theory produce observations that are so incredibly similar to RE theory).

In the end, if you believe in Almighty God, you believe in a being who is able to control every single photon in the universe (because that ability is of course a part of his almightiness), up to the point that he is able to create photons right in your eyes, and thus make you see whatever he wants you to see. And so, the laws of physics can be anything and whatever you claim of them can never be disproven, because "unknown are his ways".

Did I already mention that I usually try to not discuss science and religion at the same time? This is why.

I've always had a problem with the whole "The truth is X, but God makes it appear like Y" argument.  Fossils vs Young Earth, Flat vs Round, etc.  If God actually is what His faithful say he is, He wouldn't fake things!  Look what it says on the topic in His book:

Quote
Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”

1 Samuel 15:29: “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”

Psalm 92:15: “To declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.”

Titus 1:2: “In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.”

Hebrews 6:18: “It is impossible for God to lie.”

If the evidence appears to conform to round earth predictions, it cannot be because God has arranged a deception to make a flat earth appear round to the heathens, because God doesn't do deception.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the Sun is close...
« on: May 26, 2017, 04:21:00 PM »
A full round takes 24 hours ON AVERAGE.  On only four days a year will the sun's full circuit across the sky take exactly 24 hours, the rest of the year the sun 'moves' across the sky in less than 24 hours or more than 24 hours. 



That's important to include in speed calculations.  It means that the sun does not smoothly accelerate from the slowest Tropic of Cancer speed up to the fastest Tropic of Capricorn speed while spiralling outward/southward, and then smoothly decelerate back down to the slowest Tropic of Cancer speed as in spirals inward/northward.  I'm not going to try and create the graph on my iPad, but once I'm back at my computer I will create a spreadsheet to illustrate the speed and acceleration curves for a flat earth's sun.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ironic
« on: May 23, 2017, 12:49:48 PM »
I agree with TomInAustin.  If you meant something different, please tell us how that was supposed to be understood.

Honk never said they fake pictures to make it seem like it's what they believe. They have their pictures portray a round Earth because it's what they expect to be the Earth's shape (in other words because it's what they do believe, not "to make it seem" like it's what they believe). They fake pictures to make it appear they've been in space. I hope that makes it clearer.

Thank you, that cleared it up.  I see how I misunderstood it.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance between the sun and the earth
« on: May 22, 2017, 05:03:41 PM »
a simple study one day over 100 years ago in London and at the beach 50 miles away revealed two angles to the sun; 61 and 64 degrees which calculates to a distance to the sun of 1000 miles. 
If you want to refer people to Rowbotham, you should link to the freely available online version of the book instead of Amazon, and more importantly, you should quote him accurately.  He didn't say 1000 miles.  He gave an even more preposterous figure of 700 miles.


i have not yet verified this myself
You will find that you get more respect when you DO verify things for yourself.  Let us know your results, please.

I plan to duplicate the michigan to chicago pictures in another location....joshua nowicki's pictures of chicago should not be possible!
And under normal conditions, they're not.  Are you familiar with the atmospheric phenomenon called a mirage?  That's what's going on there.
If you are interested, there is a good video on YouTube in which a guy shoots video of Sweden's Turning Torso skyscraper from six different distances across the bay.  As expected on a round earth, the farther away he got, the more of the skyscraper was obscured by the earth's curvature.


8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ironic
« on: May 22, 2017, 03:31:27 PM »
I agree with TomInAustin.  If you meant something different, please tell us how that was supposed to be understood.

9
Continuing refutation of Tom's "they're using the Babylonian method" idea.  I took from their website the data for all 19th, 20th, and 21st century eclipses and isolated the data for the Saros cycle of the upcoming August 2017 eclipse.  Here is that data:



Notice the 4th column, which gives the difference between consecutive eclipses in this Saros cycle.  If NASA were truly calculating it by simply adding 8 years, 11 days, and 8 hours, then that column would all have the same number in it.  The reason it does not: the Saros cycle is a convenient way to categorize eclipses and to ESTIMATE their timing.  To get timing accurate to the second, and a corresponding geographic accuracy, one must calculate by understanding the orbital ephemeris of the bodies involved.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: New here
« on: May 21, 2017, 06:43:14 PM »
Just ask any one in any Navy if they have ever "restored to view with a telescope a ship which has passed out of view, over and beyond the horizon."
If I ever meet someone from the Navy, I will be sure to ask them. I am not sure how that is remotely relevant, however. Do people in the navy regularly use telescopes?
Ooh, pick me!  Pick me!

Yes we do, in fact! 

There is a device called a telescopic alidade that is a navigational tool.  As the name implies, it contains a telescope used for picking up landmarks, and a prism in the eyepiece displays the relative bearing (or sometimes the compass heading) to that object across the bottom of the user's field of view.

Here's an example from a ship still in active service, lest you think it's a technique from the past and not the present:

A more obvious telescope: lookouts posted on a high deck use a dual telescope (an instrument known as the "big eyes" to any sailor) all the time.  Big Eyes are a pair of alt-az mounted binoculars with properties better than entry level telescopes.

US Navy example, again from a ship sailing today:


Canadian Navy example:


Civilians do this too. Here's a researcher from NOAA:

11
For the first question about eclipses, the eclipses are predicted by finding the patterns where they occur in the sky and predicting when the next pattern will occur. This is how it has been calculated for millennia. In fact, if we go to NASA's Lunar Eclipse Website -> Resources ->  Eclipses and the Soros we will find that NASA is using a method created by the Ancient Babylonians, a society of people who believed that the earth was flat. NASA is using a method created by Flat Earthers. This is the only method NASA describes for finding the eclipse on that website.
Lots of things wrong here.
  • You say "...the Ancient Babylonians, a society of people who believed that the earth was flat" but Wikipedia says the opposite: "The only surviving planetary model from among the Chaldean astronomers is that of Seleucus of Seleucia (b. 190 BC), who supported Aristarchus of Samos' heliocentric model."  It may be possible that the uneducated common person of the time believed in a flat earth (if they bothered to think about it at all) but the people who discovered the Saros cycle were not among them.
  • You say "we will find that NASA is using (the Saros cycle) method", but we don't find that they "use" that method to calculate eclipses at all.  There is a lot more going on that merely counting the days from one eclipse in a given Saros cycle to the next.  There is mention of ascending and descending nodes, whether the umbra is passing below the earth, crossing the earth, or passing above the earth, ellipticity of orbits giving different numbers of eclipses for different Saros cycles (all of the above being completely meaningless on a flat earth) plus the distance between moon and earth; all of this requires a whole lot more than just counting the days as the Babylonians would have done.
  • The Saros cycle was discovered by observing the LUNAR eclipse.  It wasn't known to apply to SOLAR eclipses at the time it was discovered.  This is because lunar eclipses are observable for more of the planet's surface than solar eclipses are, so the Babylonians had more data points.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance between the sun and the earth
« on: May 21, 2017, 06:31:15 AM »
In fact, the sun is behind of a water barreer and This causes it to appear in a different place than where it is. When you see  the moon at daylight, the bright side of the moon is not usually turned to the sun. The reason is that the sun is not actually where it appears. It is because the sun is in the place where the light hits the moons face. From here, we arrive a result of the objects we see are not in the place, we see in different places. And this illusion is causing calculation errors. Frankly, rounder or flatter, "all of the" calculations made on the moon and the sun's distance are all "wrong". The refractive indices in the "dome" of the light must be calculated by using the differences between the possible change of the sun's angle and the actual change, and these "indices of refraction" must be accounted for. Otherwise it is impossible to get the result right.
It shocks me to say this, but Well done, İntikam!  This is a key problem with many people's FE models.  IF the earth is flat (and I do not agree that it is) then it follows that the sun must follow a flat-ish path above it.  But the sun does not appear to follow such a path, which means that if it actually does, there must be all manner of optical illusion going on in order for the sun to appear to be one place in the sky when it is actually somewhere else.  From which it also follows that nothing we measure about the sun is true, it is all warped by whatever effect is creating the optical illusion.

I am frankly surprised that the first FE who I have seen acknowledge and accurately describe the problem turned out to be İntikam!  Who would have guessed?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: according the Flat Earth Model ...... what
« on: May 17, 2017, 07:17:21 PM »
Boodidlie, your posts are difficult to read.  Please use the Quote button to differentiate the text you are quoting from the text you are writing, instead of font color and italics. 

Take a look at how Gecko and Junker did it, their posts are clear as to who said what.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the Earth were really round...
« on: May 17, 2017, 12:58:52 PM »
If the Earth were really a ball... How come they faked six moon landings?
I don't believe the moon landings were faked, and I don't believe the earth is flat.  However, I want to point out that even on a round earth one might propose reasons to fake a moon landing.  Maybe it was beyond the capabilities of 60's tech.  Maybe it was too expensive.  Maybe it was window dressing while the real money appropriated by Congress was spent on something else.  Maybe this, maybe that, maybe several things...the point being that believing the moon landings to be fake is not enough to prove the earth to be flat.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proving flat earth by using online maps
« on: May 17, 2017, 12:50:03 PM »
Simply, understandable and repeatable by everybody.

I've got some more math that is "simple, understandable, and repeatable" using the data YOU provided us, and working from your flat earth assumption.  Your North-South legs are measured from 66° north to 56° north latitude, right?  So those legs are 10° long.  Averaging them gives a figure of 111.221 km/degree.  The lengths of the northern East-West leg and the southern East-West leg can easily be calculated then, since on a flat earth each should be 1/36th of the flat circle of 2*pi*radius (or maybe a little bit less, if the measurement cuts across the circle and takes the shorter 'polygon side' route).  Radius at the northern line is (90°-66°) * 111.221 km/degree, or 2669.304 km, and the leg should be 465.88 km.  Not 451.33 km.  The calculated value is 3.2% larger than your measured value.  Let's check the southern leg.  (90°-55°) * 111.221 = a radius of 3892.735.  Multiply that by 2 pi and divide by 36: 679.41 km, not 621.33, for an error of 58.08 km, an even larger 9.3% error. 

Notice how the flat earth error grows the further south we get?  This is because the radius of the latitudinal circle grows by the cosine of the angle times the earth's radius, not linearly with the angle.  Let's do the math again, using my round earth assumption.  Radius at the northern line is cos(66°) * 6371 km, or 2591.32 km, and the leg should be 452.27 km.  Much closer to your measured value of 451.33 km, only 0.2% error!  Let's check the southern leg.  Cos(55°) * 6371 km = a radius of 3654.25.  Multiply that by 2 pi and divide by 36: 637.79 km, again much closer to your measured value of 621.33 km, only a 2.6% error.  The errors in the round earth method are there because the math was done for a perfectly circular cross section, but in fact the cross section is larger the further south you get (to a point), so the surface distances will measure longer than the calculations.  Which is what you found for us.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proving flat earth by using online maps
« on: May 17, 2017, 04:40:16 AM »
Your two North-to-South legs: why are they not the same distance?  You appear to have a measurement error of more than a half kilometer there.
Your measured diagonals: why did you write it as '1232 km' instead of reporting that value to the 10 meter (1/100 kilometer) accuracy you used for ALL the other numbers in your post?  Is it maybe because doing so would reveal that your measurement falls almost exactly between the "flat" and "curved" expected value (missing the exact middle by less margin than the measurement discrepancy seen in your North-to-South values) and is therefore inconclusive?  It's certainly too close to call it in your favor.

17
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: May 12, 2017, 05:03:36 AM »
When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.

You will have to take my word for it.

Nope, that's never been good enough for you, it's not good enough for me.  And why should it be?  You're just some random stranger on the internet, what good is your word?

18
Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?



So the roundness of the ocean, and the Earth in general is caused by surface tension?
No, it is caused by gravity.  You didn't ask for gravitationally curved water, you asked just for curved water.

I'm sure he would have shown you water curved gravitationally, except that it curves over much too large a scale to show it to you.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Solar Eclipse of 8/21 August
« on: May 11, 2017, 05:19:43 PM »
I will be observing and photographing from Madras, OR.

(The Pacific Northwest is making a strong showing in this thread)

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« on: May 11, 2017, 05:17:58 PM »
Spending per capita isn't necessarily the relevant measure.  It could be that spending less per capita is enough for us to remain in the lead (whatever that might mean) if our total outlay is higher due to a larger population.  Consider an analog: suppose California and Wyoming each decided to embark on a state-level space program.  California could spend much less per capita and still end up with many multiples of Wyoming's budget.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27  Next >