1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment with sun sets

« on: February 22, 2018, 06:51:52 PM »

Knowing now, how perspective works; that the perspective lines will merge a finite distance away, we now move on to what is actually blocking the sun at the horizon. We know that it can get there, but what blocks the light? According to Samuel Birley Rowbotham it is the small imperfections on the earth's surface that blocks the sun. The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the earth near the horizon, such as a series of ocean waves, can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. That area is the solid line of built up ocean waves when you look out at the ocean's horizon, or the imperfections of the land when on land. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

The above remarks are made considering the water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit

p. 275

of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----


FIG. 97.

A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.

This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.

I have a HUGE problem with the imperfections on the earth type explanation. Firstly, if you were to stand on a hill next to an ocean facing the setting sun, it would set. According to the theory, the imperfections on the Earth should block the sun. But when there is no imperfection to block it, where does the sun go?

You may argue that the sea will block the sun, but "water is always flat" is one of the arguments I always see for the FET. So again, where will the sun go? Are there massive waves hundreds of meters high out there? Has the government built some wall to 'hide the truth'?

Even if this theory were true, I believe from my own lived experiences that night would not be possible. Get a lamp or light source, for example, and put it on a table. If you get yourself below the table and look the opposite direction, the light will still shine on the wall or object. Even in the diagram shown, from D to H the sun would illuminate that ground. I know from experience that a setting sun isn't a black line travelling up a hill, its a gradual change.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Questions about the Flat Earth Theory and the Eclipses

« on: May 18, 2017, 08:45:25 PM »

Just found this gem of a video asking all the right questions on Youtube


Maybe the FES could answer a few.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here

« on: May 18, 2017, 01:44:16 PM »

1. Because the simplest of questions are answered in the wiki.
2. It is not necessarily the case that the perpetrators of the Conspiracy are aware of the Earth's true shape.
3. My opinion is that what was important wasn't the reality of the situation so much as public perception. Clearly both sides were putting on a show in a crazy game of chicken; who would actually have the balls to say that we actually accomplished the seemingly impossible feat of putting a man on the moon first?

So the 'space race' between the USSR and USA was only a group of people in each government saying "Should we say we've reached the moon?", "Nah, let's give it another month."

There are so many questions that come from this like they were practically racing to get the next big achievement: get to space, get a man to space, visit the moon, etc. Sputnik 1, the first manmade satellite reached space in 1957. Apollo 11, the first manned landing on the moon, happened 12 years later in 1969. Why the long gap? They were trying to get there as fast as possible, so clearly either side would have waited a few months, launched a rocket and sad "We got there first". It doesn't make any sense!

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Upcoming Solar Eclipse in USA

« on: May 06, 2017, 02:59:29 PM »

Yea, 68 years of infrared astronomy and we just keep on missing it.

Who is looking for it?

No one, but is kind of odd that in all the infrared pictures taken of the sun, this object is still undiscovered.

If we could not see the stars or celestial bodies with the naked eye, and our only access to the heavens were through observatory telescopes, we would have never discovered the planets.

How come we have found that there are thousands of planets outside of our solar system? We can't see them with the naked eye.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Angles of the stars on Earth

« on: May 02, 2017, 07:20:05 PM »

Ok, so my last topic about distances got next to no responses on it, so I'm going to bring up another glaring issue with the Flat Earth theory.

So the star of Sadalmelik lies directly on the celestial equator and is a good marker for the equator. The Polaris star is directly above the north pole and thus is a good marker for that aswell.

These facts must be the same on the flat earth, meaning that Sadalmelik rotates directly above the equator and around the pole (somehow). The radius of this circle is 40 arc minutes.

So what would observers on different latitudes see? This does depend on how far away the stars are and unfortunately the flat earth theory does not know this.

What we do know is that someone on the North Pole would be able to see both Polaris and Sadalmelik above them, as would someone on the equator and every observer in between and south of the equator.


This is different to reality. in the September equinox, when Sadalmelik will be visible at night, an observer at the north pole couldn't see much as its too bright to see it.

So we must move down to 80° north. That person would see Polaris 10° from his zenith (point in the celestial sphere directly above him) Sadalmelik will be 10° from his horizon.

70° North will see Polaris 20° from his local zenith and Sadalmelik 20° above the horizon.

Skipping a bit, a observer on the equator will see Polaris on the horizon and Sadalmelik directly above them. It makes sense as a observers night sky consists of the 180° that they can see from horizon to horizon .

Polaris is ~434 light-years away and Sadalmelik is ~523 light-years away. The angle of elevation off Sadalmelik above the horizon is the same as the angle between their zenith and Polaris, or 90° - their latitude.


This makes sense on a spherical planet, but not a disc. Well, if Sadalmelik is above the equator and Polaris is above the pole, but we know that their angular separation is 90°.

If we place a observer at every 10° and use the same 90° -  latitude,, we find that each time the star would be situated at different heights.


Thus, this presents us with a paradox that proves that the earth being flat is geometrically impossible. And don't even get me started on the southern hemisphere.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do flat earthers believe in nuclear weapons and nuclear power?

« on: April 27, 2017, 06:37:24 PM »

Wait, so the reason you think ICBMs are fake is because they require a round earth?

Doesn't the fact that they exist prove the earth is round?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances

« on: April 27, 2017, 03:23:46 PM »

30 degrees south of the equator on the east coast of australia is the small town of red rock. If we take that point of 30 degrees south and 153 degrees and 13 minutes east. Then, if we take a point on the west coast of australia, it has the coordinates of 30 degrees south and 115 degrees east. The difference in longitude is 38 degrees and 13 minutes.

If you were to travel directly from the point in Red Rock and travel directly west until you reached our second point, you would cover a distance over land of 3,687km.

So what happens if you travel along the same 30 degrees south latitude line for 38 degrees and 13 minutes on the flat earth map?

The 30 degree south line is 13,322km away from the geographic north pole and thus if distances are the same, it is the same on the flat earth map. We know the longitudinal and thus angular separation between our two points at this latitude: 38 degrees and 13 minutes, or 38.217 degrees.

The length of an arc on a circle subtended by an angle, alpha, is:
L = a  π r /180
When we put in our numbers:
L = 38.217   π  (13,322)
                180
L = 1,599,469/180
L = 8,886km

We find that the two points on the flat earth surface 30 degrees south of the equator and separated by 38 degrees and 13 minutes are 8886km apart. This is 2.41 times greater than the real distance between the two points.

But you say that distances are the SAME as in real life. In this case, 3,687km. In that case, you must say that separation in longitude on the flat earth must be considerably smaller than in real life. Thats how geometry works. If we make L 2.41 times smaller, we must make alpha 2.41 times smaller which means on the flat earth the difference in longitude between our points would be 15.85 degrees .

But it isn't.

The distances cannot be the same. Its basic geometry.

8

Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Continents

« on: April 27, 2017, 11:55:51 AM »

Ok, so your using flight paths to determine distances. But, the thing is, did you measure it yourself or believe everything you see on the internet?

Have you ever thought that it would not help the airlines to lie about distances? What good would google get from using 'incorrect data'? Does google just pluck up a random number? Are you aware that not all flights are in a streight line? Why with Asia did you use a flight path that clearly wasn't straight? How does you saying "it's possible " validate it?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distances

« on: April 27, 2017, 10:12:10 AM »

Yeah , it doesn't really make any sense

10

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Alternative seismology

« on: April 26, 2017, 08:03:29 PM »

What?

Your "Ship theory" has a couple of major flaws and is very vague into how waves cause earthquakes. Is all landmass the ship? If so, why would the water effect it if it's connected to the ocean floor? How come most of the energy everywhere is transferred via erosion? Why isn't every coastal country experiencing major earthquakes? How do you explain the Eurasian weak-point? How are the waves generated?

I'm going to come onto that last question as it poses really big issues. Waves are formed mainly by wind which itself is formed by high and low air pressure. If you look at global water currents, you can see a general pattern along the world. This is caused by the equator being in a band of high pressure. Around the tropics lies bands of low pressure. As air rushes to fill this low pressure, it creates strong winds. AKA, the trade winds .

Thus, as wind creates waves, there is no way that the waves can come up from the south pole.

Secondly, you make a point of the countries at most risk of earthquakes are not on the fault lines. Well, actually, California is directly on the San Andreas fault line
But, most countries cannot as the fault lines are underwater. The Marianas trench off the coast of Japan is an example of a destructive fault line and is one of the most active fault lines. Earthquakes are hardly ever directly over the fault, but occur around it. If you look at a tectonic map and your list, next to all lie near a fault line.

There is physical evidence supporting the existing hypothesis, whereas your 'ship theory' is difficult to prove.

I know this is an old-ish post but i had to do it.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Earth were really round...

« on: April 26, 2017, 04:41:45 PM »

If the earth was flat, why would they hide it? What would they gain?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: sun rising below the clouds

« on: April 26, 2017, 04:39:03 PM »

I swear to god, people are like "Where's your evidence for a round earth?" and you show them multiple pictures of a setting sun, pictures from space, pictures at the north pole, the moon, planes, evidence of gravity and all they spurt out is "but you didn't take that photo, CGI, perspective!" even though it makes literally no sense for a community of people to stop people thinking the earth is flat. Like how would it help them? How?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Distances

« on: April 26, 2017, 04:30:33 PM »

So if the earth is supposedly flat and it is a 'Azimuthal Equidistant projection', yet distances are the same as in real life, then how come a completely horizontal distance across Australia which, in real life, has a distance of 3,687km, according to the proposed map has a distance of 8,886km.

This number is 241% of the actual value. How do you explain that?