1

Flat Earth Theory / Southern midnight sun

« on: May 21, 2017, 10:06:16 PM »

Here's one thing I didn't find in the Faq nor Wiki.

The flat theory usually claims that the south pole doesn't exist – despite the fact that tourist trips for public are being arranged there every year. Surely those trips are expensive, starting from several tens of thousands of euros/dollars, but still, they are being made.

While the exact position of the "south pole" (the Scott-Amundsen base with the nice shining metal ball and whatever there is) could be faked – assuming that the tourists cannot find their exact coordinates by themselves – the midnight sun is harder as it is not limited to the pole, but actually covers a large part of the entire continent. According to the flat theory, there is simply no place on earth where the midnight sun could be visible in December; and still it is clearly seen there.

Sure, the share of population that can afford tens of thousands for one holiday trip is surely small. Maybe it's possible to call all those part of the conspiracy. But... there is more than that: one does not need to travel to Antarctica. Ushuaia, Argentine is relatively south as well. It is possibly to visit Ushuaia with a reasonable amount of money, without visiting Antarctica – and actually tens of thousands of people live there to begin with.

Ushuaia is not south enough to experience midnight sun, not even on the day of the southern summer solstice, which means that the sun actually sets. However, it is possible to observe the sun as it sets. It doesn't set directly in the west: according to the flat theory, it sets somewhere in the northwest, and according to the globe theory, it sets somewhere in the southwest. Furthermore, according to the globe theory, there will be no "astronomical night" but a mere twilight. A certain section of the sky remains lighter (or "less dark") even after the sun has set: and that less dark section moves further towards to the south, never really disappearing, and being in the south by midnight; and after midnight, it moves further towards the east, until the sun rises from the southeast. (Or, according to the flat theory, it rises from the northeast.)

As usual, I'm open to speculations. At best, maybe someone has even been there. I haven't and unfortunately cannot afford right now.

2

Science & Alternative Science / What makes one theory better than other?

« on: May 20, 2017, 08:32:48 PM »

In science there are different kinds of theories. While some theories may peacefully coexist, some can not. When two (or more) theories conflict with each other, we may need to decide (assuming we are interested in the topic in the first place), which theory is better.

So, what methods do you actually use to determine, which theory to believe in? There may be several different answers, but I'll put my criteria here.

In order for theory A to be better than theory B, one of the following three conditions must be met:
1) B is proven false and A is not.
2) Neither is proven false, but A explains things better than B. (That is: it explains a greater number of things or more important things relevant to the topic.)
3) Neither is proven false, and both explain things equally well, but A is simpler than B. (This is also known as the Occam razor.)

It is worth noting that if a theory is false, it might be proven false: but if a theory is true, it can never be proven true. If a theory is true, we can test it, and we will have the results that are predicted by the theory: but if we test a theory a million times and every time get the right result, that doesn't prove that the million-and-first test will also give the right results, instead of failing because of some reason that the first million tests didn't take into account.

Let's have an example. First, a problem: why does a flashlight work? And then four theories to answer it:
1) It has normal fireflies in it.
2) Strawberries are red.
3) It has fireflies in it, and those fireflies are so small that they cannot be detected, only their light can be detected, and they have friends in the switch that telepathically tell them when the switch is pressed and it's time to start glowing, and other friends in the battery who telepathically tell them that the battery is old enough so then don't need to glow anymore. We don't yet know where the fireflies get their energy and what that has to do with the battery.
4) The switch closes an electic circuit, and the resulting electic current causes a reaction in the material used in the light bulb, making it glow.

Theory 1 is the worst. It fails at step 1 when compared to all others: we can prove it false by breaking up the light bulb and seeing that there are no normal fireflies.
Theory 2 is slightly better. It cannot be proven false, but it fails at step 2 when compared to theories 3 and 4: it doesn't explain things.
Theory 3 is an improvement of theory 1. It takes into account what caused theory 1 to fail in the first place. However, it fails at step 3 when compared to theory 4: it is more complex.
And so, theory 4 is the best one here.

3

Flat Earth Theory / The distance between the sun and the earth

« on: May 19, 2017, 09:09:31 PM »

Hello.

I'm new to this forum and – let's be honest – have quite strong a certainty concerning the spherical shape of the earth. If that is a problem, we can avoid wasting everyone's time if the admin tells me so at the first moment possible, in which case this will be my first and last post.

And my actual question is here: what is the distance between the sun and the earth, assuming the flat earth? I really have tried to find this information on various sources but haven't so far succeeded. Also I'm not aware whether or not that distance is supposed to be constant or not. Some ancient flat earth cultures apparently believed that the sun went around the earth so that during the night it went below it, and that the thing supporting earth from below – whatever that was – allowed it to do so. However, it seems like this isn't the case with the modern flat earth theories.

In the globe theory it is widely accepted that the distance is about 150,000,000 km – or on average slightly less, but this is a good enough approximation, and twice a year it is exactly correct anyway. I learned this while in kindergarten. If the flat earth theory were true, wouldn't such fundamental things so important for understanding our universe be taught to children then, as well? And still, this information is so hard to find.

I made a diagram showing two different ways to calculate the distance (a). What we need is two points on the surface of the earth, one exactly below the sun that obviously needs to be in tropic (P₁) and one somewhere far enough (P₂), and we need to know the distance between them (b). We then need to measure the apparent height and the size of the sun in P₂ (α and β₂ respectively) and the apparent size in P₁ (β₁). The height in the latter is obviously 90°, but this can be measured anyway in order to be sure that we have the right spot. These measurements need to be made at the same time, which means that at least two persons are needed to make them.



If there is something wrong with the mathematic part, I'd be glad to know.

I don't ask you to actually make these calculations. If the flat earth theory were true, I'd assume they have already been made several times, and the results published. The problem is: I don't find the results.