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 - 3DGeek

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
1
Your results are consistent with the Flat Earth model. The apparent magnification of the Sun is nullified by the real change in distance between the observer and the Sun. The very fact that you can't perceive a difference attests to that.
Yes - as I explained - the results of my "coin-at-arms-length" experiment are identical for FE and RE.  Neither is proved nor disproved.

All I'm saying is that the vociferous debates about "How does the sun get bigger if it's setting" are entirely, 100% incorrect on both sides of the debate here...because the sun doesn't get bigger when it's setting - and you can do the experiment to prove it, yourself, tonight, very easily.

It is however, a very strong optical illusion and nearly everyone believes it's a real effect until they do the experiment for themselves.

2
The Sun DOES NOT get bigger at the horizon.  This is a variation of the extremely well known and documented "Moon Illusion"...and the answer is precisely the same in RE and FE theories - so nobody need argue about it!

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion

Let me describe a SIMPLE experiment that everyone here can do.   Since it's kinda dangerous to stare at the sun - do the experiment with the moon (the result, the reason and the answer to this question is exactly the same).

When the moon is high in the sky - grab a coin - a US quarter or something similar that's about an inch across.  Stretch out your hand as far as you can reach towards the moon - and compare it's size to the coin...unless you have very short/long arms - you should be able to just about cover up the moon with your coin at full arm stretch.   But get familiar with how big the moon looks compared to that coin.

Now wait until the moon is rising or setting - and repeat the experiment.

Same exact deal with the sun - except I'm not going to tell you to stare at it - but you can do the same experiment with appropriate eye protection and because the apparent size of sun and moon are almost exactly the same (in both FE and RE) - the results are also the same.

AMAZING though it seems - the size of the moon doesn't change.   In both FE and RE theory - it's an optical illusion.  When the moon is far away from other objects who's size you know, our brains assume that it's a long way away (which it is...although more so in RE than FE)...but because daily experience doesn't prepare us for looking at things that are 3000 miles away (FE) or 300,000 miles away (RE) - our subconscious vision system assumes that it must be closer than it really is - and therefore rather small.

When the moon is close to the horizon, we are suddenly able to compare it's apparent size to things like trees and houses out near the horizon...and now it's very clear that this thing is ENORMOUS - because it's so much bigger than a tree or a house.   Our brains adjust accordingly...and the sun/moon looks MUCH larger...some would say twice or even three times larger...but the coin experiment says otherwise.  It's the same exact size.

So in both RE and FE, the "change in size" of sun and moon when they're close to the horizon is an optical illusion - and one that you can check for yourself with two quick observations and no tool fancier than a coin.

We should put this one to bed - it's the same deal in RE and FE - it's explainable and testable by trivial means - it's not even worth further debate.  I beg you to do the experiment yourself before you argue *any* more!

(CAVEATS:

1) There is a TINY amount of atmospheric distortion/mirage that happens over about a 1/4 of the sun's diameter as it rises or sets in some weather conditions - which results in that bulge it seems to have right when it touches the horizon.
2) In RE theory - the sun and moon are about 1.2% SMALLER at the horizon because they are each further away by the radius of the earth than they are at noon...1.2% is too small to measure without instruments...so this isn't a way to easily dismiss FE theory...and in any case, the distance to the FE moon varies too.)

Do the experiment with the coin - and you'll see immediately what I mean - and we can perhaps put this thread to rest.

The Wiki is wrong though - and the coin test proves it.


3
It's not that I "dislike" his education - I'm just saying that his doctoral field is nothing to do with the FE/RE debate.  He's not in some way especially qualified to talk about this.

I actually respect his pursuit of education when he could easily have sat back and enjoyed his sports earnings and reputation.

But his endorsement of FE is decided shakey.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica Moves
« on: May 26, 2017, 01:52:48 PM »
I doubt that FE'ers believe in plate tectonics.

Most of them are in the "Religious right" - and believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

One of their main claims is that the Bible says that the Earth is fixed and unchanging...so tectonic plate motion is completely out of the question.

(Again, I hate to have to speak for them...but they're not talking to us anymore.)


5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the Sun is close...
« on: May 26, 2017, 01:50:31 PM »
No - not if it were 30 miles across and 3000 miles away and moving at a speed that made it *look* just like the RE sun.

At a single location - the FE claims for their sun looking convincingly like the RE sun - are plausible.

It's not until you start to look at it from multiple places in the world - the FE sun can't be in multiple places at once - hence their theories start to fall apart.

Debunking FE isn't as easy as it first seems.  FE proponents have been thinking hard about this stuff - and fending off all kinds of *simple* objections - for at least 200 years.

However, as the modern world reveals more and more evidence - and we can actually CHECK what happens in places like Australia in realtime - the FE theories start to get more and more holes.


6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the Sun is close...
« on: May 26, 2017, 01:29:27 PM »
If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.

Again - I hate to be an FE "apologist" - but the sun appears to move across the sky in RE theory too...very slowly...but at sunset and sunrise, especially near the equator - you can easily see the sun moving.   The motion of the FE sun is claimed to produce identical motion across the sky as we see in the real world...at identical speeds.

For one specific spot on the Earth's surface, there is indeed a route that both FE Sun and FE Moon might take to mimic the RE experience.

The HUGE problem is that no possible set of FE sun/moon/star/planet motions can explain the positions of those bodies at multiple locations simultaneously.

That may not have been a problem in the 1800's and 1900's - but here in 2017, we have instant communications around the world - with web-cams accessible in many cities.   This makes it MUCH harder for FE'ers to explain the motions of their sun and moon.

At this point, they usually appeal to "refraction" and various other distortions of the path of light from a straight line.

This is clearly needed because without that, there can be no sunrises and sunsets in Europe while it's midday in China or the USA.

If the FE'ers carefully explained how all of this works - you could tear their explanation down instantly - but they remain incredibly vague on the details...so we're back to nailing Jello to the ceiling.


7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides.
« on: May 26, 2017, 01:21:39 PM »
Indeed.

You'd hope that they'd all decided that FE theory was bogus and given up on it - however they are still giving talks at large religious gatherings, writing books, etc.

I've yet to see an FE'er openly admit to having been persuaded that they are wrong.

But it's definitely gone very quiet out there.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« on: May 26, 2017, 01:19:29 PM »
The standard FE explanation for eclipses (both solar and lunar) is that a mysterious "shadow object" - which is evidently round and opaque (maybe a disk, maybe a sphere) - gets between the observer and the sun or moon respectively.   This is intended to explain why there is a curved shadow on the moon during a partial lunar eclipse.

In RE terms, the shadow of the curved Earth cast onto the moon explains the curved shadow.

My new problem is how FE'ers can explain why this "Shadow object" or "antimoon" doesn't block out the stars - during a partial lunar eclipse or when moving across the sky between eclipses...that's not explained at all.

In RE theory - the stars are luminous and are clearly visible - even when we see them right next to the semi-eclipsed moon...which we clearly do.

In FE theory, during a partial lunar eclipse, the part of the Shadow object that does not overlay the moon should block starlight from stars in that small region of the sky...but it doesn't.  Furthermore, just before and after the eclipse, we ought to see a circular region of blocked-out stars moving towards and then away from the moon.  No such observations have ever been made...I've watched countless lunar eclipses - and I have not seen a blotting out of the stars close to the moon in the time leading up to, and following the eclipse.

I think FE proponents have to rethink their eclipse ideas...what's there right now doesn't fit with simple naked-eye observations.

I can further support this by stating that total solar eclipses would cover more area and why would they change paths?

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).

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Your maps size things wrong
« on: May 26, 2017, 01:16:34 PM »
I get that.

It has already been pointed out that the FE map doesn't give us the right distances between (say) Sydney and Perth, Australia.

We might forgive that because FE proponents may not have the time/skills/knowledge to produce an accurate map that would stand up to that degree of accuracy - but we can't easily forgive the fact that the Sydney to Santiago, Chile, Quantas flight 27 (which is flown non-stop by a 747-400 airplane) is a 12 hour flight - which would require the 747-400 to fly more than twice it's maximum speed.

In RE terms, Sydney to Santiago is around 7,000 miles - which is comfortably within the range of a 747-400 - and flying at a fuel-efficient speed of around 600mph, 12 hours is a reasonable flight time.

In FE terms, Sydney to Santiago is more like 18,000 miles - which would require to refuelling stops - and the ability to fly at speed in excess of Concorde to get the trip completed in 12 hours.

This is not the only Quantas airlines flight with problems for FE proponents.  The non-stop Johannesberg, South Africa, to Perth, Australia flight takes 9 hours...and again, that would require a Mach 2 version of the 747 with a refuelling stop someplace in between in the FE world.

The only explanation I've heard so far is "Jet Streams"...which are claimed to be very fast south of the equator...which speed the plane along.  Mmmm'k.

But a wind that strong (far in excess of the speed of sound) would make ALL long distance flights in the West-to-East direction completely impossible...so this doesn't work.

Even more at issue - the shortest distance routes on the Flat Earth take the Sydney-Santiago flight over North America and all down the coast of South America.   The RE "great circle" route takes you over open ocean almost the entire way.   You'd think that pilots would have noticed that they were flying over land for much of the trip...and that the rate of passage of that land beneath the aircraft was indicating ground speeds in excess of Mach II.

This is (I suppose) dismissable as the airline pilots being "in" on the conspiracy - and airline passengers not looking out of the window during much of the flight.

But I used to work making 747 flight simulators to train those pilots...and our simulations were "round earth" (trust me - doing it in flat earth would have been a hell of a lot simpler!)...so wouldn't I have had to be part of the conspiracy too?

Which means...well, I'm not sure what it means...but it doesn't make sense!

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If Antarctica is an ice rim...
« on: May 26, 2017, 12:52:15 PM »
If Antarctica is an ice rim then why can you see solid rock sometimes below and around the ice. Also can you explain the mapping of what's under the ice and what's in the ice?

Do you have a photo of this in mind?   I can't think of ever seeing rock in photos of the coast of Antarctica.

I'm not sure it makes a difference to FE vs RE though.


Good point, but would they answer if you ask them questions about it or if you try to get permission to study it?

"I'm sorry, the continent of Antarctica is closed today - we value your business, please fill out our customer satisfaction survey as you leave the antarctic."

11
Flat Earth Debate / Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« on: May 26, 2017, 12:47:54 PM »
The standard FE explanation for eclipses (both solar and lunar) is that a mysterious "shadow object" - which is evidently round and opaque (maybe a disk, maybe a sphere) - gets between the observer and the sun or moon respectively.   This is intended to explain why there is a curved shadow on the moon during a partial lunar eclipse.

In RE terms, the shadow of the curved Earth cast onto the moon explains the curved shadow.

My new problem is how FE'ers can explain why this "Shadow object" or "antimoon" doesn't block out the stars - during a partial lunar eclipse or when moving across the sky between eclipses...that's not explained at all.

In RE theory - the stars are luminous and are clearly visible - even when we see them right next to the semi-eclipsed moon...which we clearly do.

In FE theory, during a partial lunar eclipse, the part of the Shadow object that does not overlay the moon should block starlight from stars in that small region of the sky...but it doesn't.  Furthermore, just before and after the eclipse, we ought to see a circular region of blocked-out stars moving towards and then away from the moon.  No such observations have ever been made...I've watched countless lunar eclipses - and I have not seen a blotting out of the stars close to the moon in the time leading up to, and following the eclipse.

I think FE proponents have to rethink their eclipse ideas...what's there right now doesn't fit with simple naked-eye observations.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« on: May 26, 2017, 12:29:12 PM »
Quote from: BrightNextStep
ballers they claim gravity can do all these things just before they say we don't understand gravity!
ball-deniers understand gravity!
We probably don't know the ultimate cause of gravitation,
but would you please explain the ultimate cause of electromagnetic forces.
Opposite electric charges, q1 and q2, attract each other over a distance d with exactly the same form of expression as the gravitational force.

When it is said that "don't know the ultimate cause of gravitation",
what is meant is that we have never identified a "gravitational charge", nor the gravitation equivalent of a "photon"
and quite possibly never will because the energy involved is probably below any limit (Planck limit) of detection.

But, so what does the fact that you cannot explain "the ultimate cause of electromagnetic forces" mke them less real?
We do understand the way gravitation works, it has been directly measured dozens of time and it has been verified uncountable times.

We are making progress in gravitation - recall that we now have the ability to detect gravity waves coming from distant black hole collisions and other (very large!) changes in gravity.  We have now confirmed that gravitational changes are transmitted by waves that move at the speed of light.   Wave/particle duality must apply here too - so it's not unreasonable to presume the existence of the graviton as the force-carrier particle that's analogous to the photon and gluon.

Direct detection of the graviton is unlikely though because the equipment needed would have to be larger than the diameter of the Earth (flat or round!).

But (as you said) the fact that the same relationships apply as for electromagnetic forces - and the confirmation that we detect both as waves moving at the speed of light - STRONGLY hints that the graviton exists.

Science in general (flat earth or round earth) is not good at finding the most fundamental causes of things - we can observe how the universe functions - but the "why" behind things like the laws of physics and the values of the fundamental constants are things where we sometimes have to shrug our shoulders and say "Well, we've measured it - and that's how the universe is"...and then we're into weak arguments from the anthropic principle.

FE's problems with explaining how things fall to the ground when you drop them are rather severe though - it's not just that they can't explain (at the lowest level) how gravity works - it's that in an FE setup, no single, coherent, law of gravity (like F=m1 x m2 / r-squared) can explain all of the most basic observations we can make about the effect of gravity on falling objects.

My repeated requests for an explanation of why there are TWO high tides and TWO low tides every day seem to be completely ignored...the only response I got to my request was an explanation for why there would be only ONE of each in an FE world.

This does not speak well for FET.

13
Quote
"I do not go up and down a 360 degree angle"
...um - are you quite sure you want this on your front page?   It does rather convey a tone of complete nonsensicality that you might want to avoid.

(His doctorate is in Human Resources Development...not a strong math/physics requirement on that course, I suspect!)

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Your maps size things wrong
« on: May 26, 2017, 03:09:31 AM »
If your Flat Earth map is correct then why is North America smaller then South America? The difference is quite a bit too. Same with Australia. In reality North America is bigger then South America and Australia is smaller then you show it on a map. And before you start saying Round Earth maps on a flat surface are wrong, just consider that it is almost impossible to put a sphere's surface on a flat map.

It's not "almost" impossible to put a sphere onto a flat map without distortion...it's is actually, mathematically, totally impossible.

The FE maps *must* disagree with RE globes in one or both of the following ways:

  • The compass headings between places in the world must disagree between RE and FE.
  • Distances in RE and FE must disagree.

So the distortions in the FE map in the Wiki are not there in *all* FE maps - some work harder to keep the size discrepancies down to a minimum on land - at the price of making compass headings worse (so the shapes of familiar continents seem more distorted) - others try to eliminate angular errors, at the cost of increasing size discrepancies.   Most do a compromise - and by pushing the biggest size discrepancies into the ocean areas, try to make it harder for people to criticise their maps.

But no matter what they do - there WILL be situations where a well-documented real-world distance or heading will be different in the FE map - and then there are grounds for criticism.

The usual RE question is:  How come the Australian state airline "Qantas" can offer their non-stop Sydney to Santiago, Chile route, (Quantas flight 27)?   On an RE map that is a 7000 miles. 12 hour flight.   This is within the capabilities of the 747-400 flight.

However,  on the FE map - the shortest route is more than twice as long - far *FAR* beyond the range of the 747-400 - and requiring it to fly faster than Concorde to make the trip in 12 hours.

That's not a fluke - Quantas also fly the Johannesberg, South Africa, to Perth, Australia route - taking 9 hours - which also would require Mach 2 flight speeds and a fuel supply hugely larger than a 747-400 can possibly carry.

The only semi-plausible answers I've heard from the FE world say that the Jet Stream carries the plane along much faster and with far less fuel consumption...but handily fails to explain how the aircraft manages the return trip - same distance - fighting the Jet Stream every inch of the way.

Usually the debate collapses under a wealth of misunderstandings about "great circle routes" and how Quantas flight 27 would have to overfly China and a bunch of other places when passengers do not see anything but water beneath them for the entire journey...this of course is debated ferociously...carefully side-stepping the time and fuel matters.


15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Looking at different planets...
« on: May 26, 2017, 02:50:44 AM »
I guess you haven't read that bit in the Wiki.  FE proponents (mostly) claim that the moon is NOT illuminated by the sun (which casts it's light like a flashlight beam down onto the surface of the Earth).   Hence the moon is self-illuminated and a shadow could not be cast upon it.

The claim is that there is a THIRD body up there - along with the sun and moon - which some call "The Shadow Object" and others call "The Antimoon".   This small, dark disk sometimes gets between the viewer and either the sun or the moon and blocks out the light from it.

Since the antimoon is circular (unsure whether it's a disk or a sphere) - it blocks a circular chunk of light out of the sun or moon.

Because the sun and moon are both ABOVE the Earth plane at all times, there is no possibility of the Earth casting "flat" shadows on either of them.

Yeah - this doesn't make a whole lot of sense - but the amount of math you need to disprove it is hard to follow and makes a terrible debate point.   The motion of the antimoon would be an interesting thing to analyse - but details of the motion of sun, moon and antimoon are hard to nail down because the FE proponents don't get into that kind of detail.  (Wisely, if they don't want to be instantly debunked!)

The idea that planets, stars, sun and moon can be round - yet the earth be flat - doesn't really convince FE'ers because they don't exactly (necessarily, universally) agree that gravity even exists at all.   Those objects can be round without needing gravity - they are claimed to be pretty small (sun and moon are ~30 miles across) - so gravity wouldn't have any effect on their shape anyway.   They might be round just because God liked them that way.

Absent a god - the way that the Earth/firmament/etc would have formed is not investigated at all in FE theory...so "It was always there" or "God did it" are the only explanations you're gonna get.



16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If Antarctica is an ice rim...
« on: May 26, 2017, 02:40:28 AM »
I'm not an FE proponent - but if I were, I'd probably say:

Obviously there are some normal pieces of land that lie against the ice wall (indeed these are clearly shown on the FE map on the Wiki) - so one would expect that if you landed there and marched inland, you'd eventually run into the ice wall...unless a UN patrol caught you trying...and then...

You know that's an interesting question!

I don't know what the FE folks claim would happen to you if the UN patrol catches you trying to get to the ice wall...we're told there are a patrols - but not what they do when you're caught.  Do they politely say "Nothing to see here!  Head back the way you came please!"...or do they "disappear" people into jail...maybe brainwash them into thinking that they spent three months at the South Polar Research Station - then let them go?

Does anyone here know?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Physical Proof...
« on: May 26, 2017, 02:33:01 AM »
The "sinking ship" phenomenon seems to be such a "hot button" item for both FE and RE believers - I'm inclined to just drop that debate and call it a draw.

Shadows cast by the sun is a tricky one too - in RE you'd expect a row of identical sticks stuck in the ground along a meridian line to cast equal length shadows - but the tilt of the Earth's axis complicates that simple idea to the point where you need some fancy (and therefore unconvincing) math to unravel what happens.   Similarly in FE, the position of the tiny sun and it's motions are not well described by the available sources (the Wiki, for example) - and the arguments about how sunrises and sunsets can happen are also somewhat flakey.

So that too is an area of debate that's hard to nail down.

I think the proof here lies in things like travel times and ranges of aircraft in the Southern regions - which are all subject to easy examination and super-simple measurements on available maps.

The motion of the stars close to and south of the equator is similarly easy to examine - and produces serious problems for FE theory.   There are PLENTY of time-lapse videos made by private individuals - along with a wealth of personal experience which are hard to deny as evidence.

My personal favorite is the phenomenon of there being two high tides and two low tides per day in the oceans of the world - which FE theory simply cannot explain.

The phases of the moon - and the simple observation of shadows cast within lunar craters makes for VERY tough problems for FE.

These seem to be the places where "proof" is to be found.

Of course, the FE proponents are reluctant to discuss these things - and simply vanish from threads when they don't have a good answer - rather than admitting that their theory needs work in order to remain credible.   Some intellectual honesty about such matters would be refreshing.

Additional problematic things - such as how FE theory can explain how objects fall to Earth when you drop them, are tricky to address because there are MULTIPLE FE theories attempting to explain them...and until you figure out which of these theories each FE proponent follows, debate can be quite tricky.   Here, their common mantra of "READ THE WIKI" fails because that tends to present just one (or very rarely, two) theories to explain a particular phenomenon - and in reality, their members here and elsewhere do not seem to follow those theories unanimously.

That's fine - people will clearly have differing views - but it can make debate difficult.

Still - I'd very much welcome some simple, informed debate - with both sides being respectful of the other's views - and with both sides remaining engaged in the discussion until either one side or the other is demonstrated to be correct...and clearly difficult topics for one side or the other can be explored - and perhaps either FE theory or RE theory may be found wanting and demand further thought.

But good debate seems hard to find around here - which is unfortunate.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: If Antarctica is an ice rim...
« on: May 25, 2017, 10:53:26 PM »
If Antarctica is an ice rim then why can you see solid rock sometimes below and around the ice. Also can you explain the mapping of what's under the ice and what's in the ice?

Do you have a photo of this in mind?   I can't think of ever seeing rock in photos of the coast of Antarctica.

I'm not sure it makes a difference to FE vs RE though.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Tides.
« on: May 24, 2017, 07:42:49 PM »
So - at time of writing, 85 people have viewed this thread - and the only response so far can only explain ONE tide per day and not TWO.

Have FE'ers given up on this?


20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question about perspective.
« on: May 24, 2017, 07:35:47 PM »
Yes, I know.   I'm hoping someone in the FE world will explain why their diagram is wrong.

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >