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.

Topics - 3DGeek

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Q&A / Moon inversion.
« on: July 06, 2017, 03:58:33 PM »
Aha!  I found the pictures I've been looking for so I can ask my question about the appearance of the moon at different places on the earth.

Here are two time-lapse images of the moon - both shot through the month of October 2007.  The top image was shot in France, the bottom was taken in Argentina:

As you can see, the moon phases are crossing the moon in opposite directions and the moon itself is the opposite way up in the two hemispheres.

This matches observations that I've personally made - so I know they aren't "faked" - and there are tens of thousands of online images of the moon that were taken in the southern hemisphere that show the effect clearly - they can't all be fakes!

So how does FET explain these phenomena?

Flat Earth Debate / Seeing France from the UK.
« on: July 05, 2017, 06:25:41 PM »
In a flat earth, far distant objects would only disappear due to mist and other atmospheric effects - and because perspective would eventually hide distant mountains behind relatively small bumps in the ground that were closer to you.

On a calm day at sea - if the world (and therefore, the ocean) is flat - you should be able to see as far as the atmospheric clarity allows…which is usually at least 25 to 30 miles on a clear day.

So on a flat earth, the distance at which objects would become impossible to see would only be limited by atmospheric clarity - and the distance you could see wouldn’t vary with how high you are above the ground.

Let’s take a concrete example:

As a kid, I lived near the town of Dover, on the south east coast of England - at a point on the English Channel that is closest to France.

Dover is the site of the famous “White Cliffs of Dover” - and equally famously, from the top of the cliffs, on a clear day, you can see all the way across the English Channel to the coast of France - which is 20.7 miles away. This is well known to be the only place in mainland UK from which you can see “Foreign Soil” - and the White Cliffs are famous for that exact reason.

However, if you stand at the base of the cliffs - you can’t see France, no matter how clear the air is - and no matter whether you employ binoculars or even a telescope.  If you could, then you'd be able to see France from St.Margret's bay - which is a little closer to France and has a broad sandy beach.  But you can't.

If the world was flat, then on a clear day, it wouldn’t matter whether you were standing at the base of the cliffs or on top of them - you’d be able to see just as far either way. So this is a good demonstration that the Earth is indeed curved.

We can even crunch the math (or cheat and use the online: Distance to the Horizon Calculator) to verify the plausibility of this claim.

If you’re standing at sea level (on a beach, at the bottom of a cliff, for example) - then with your eyes being about 5 to 6 feet above sea level - the horizon is a mere 2.7 to 3.0 miles away. The white cliffs are around 350 feet tall. If you stand on top of a 350 foot cliff (and assuming you’re 5 to 6′ tall), then the horizon calculates out to be is 23.1 miles away…which explains why you can see the 20.7 miles across the channel to France…when the air is clear enough…but ONLY from the tops of the cliffs.


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.

Flat Earth Debate / Question about perspective.
« on: May 18, 2017, 12:52:05 PM »
So I was reading in the Wiki about the FE "perspective effect" - as shown in this diagram:

It's an interesting concept.

It says (in effect) that perspective isn't a "symmetrical" effect - it forces things downwards toward the horizon with increasing distance - right?   I say not "symmetrical" because it evidently doesn't push things that are below the horizon upwards.

Then we're told that this is a defect of human vision - but that can't be the cause because cameras produce the same perhaps cameras have the same effect built into them so they take "natural" looking photos?

Trouble with that is that if I turn my camera upside down and take a photo - the same effect happens - the depression happens downwards.

For that to be the case, then this has to be caused by the Earth/Atmosphere - and not by the camera/eye.

So I think the Wiki could use some correction here.

Flat Earth Debate / Tides.
« on: May 17, 2017, 04:09:20 AM »
According to the Wiki, tides in the FE theory are due to gravity from the sun and moon.

How does this explain that there are TWO lunar tides in each 24 hour period?  In the RE model, the Earth/Moon system orbit around a point a little off-center from the center of the (round) Earth. The tide that happens when the moon is overhead is just gravity, same in FE and RE physics.  But the second daily tide (which happens in RE theory because centrifugal force produces that second tide due to the off-center rotation of the Earth.

What is the FE explanation for that second daily tide?

Pages: [1]