21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: May 03, 2016, 02:12:22 PM »

I heard this reason befor that "the moon is very far away". This means nothing. Because if it far away is not important for us because we're looking the "angle from earth". If the angle is 45 degrees then is it far away or close to us means same: It is at 45 degrees angle. 

Well, you don't understand how trigonometry works. One's distance relative to the moon due to the rotation of the earth doesn't matter because the distance from one side of the earth to the other is negligible compared to the distance to the moon. From any observer on the night side of the earth, you are not seeing the moon from a different angle(it's not visible, it's like a 6 minute change) that's why the percent of the moon illuminated is the same for every city. Also, on a flat earth, that percentage would change throughout the night, so you don't make a strong point for your case.

Anyway.

Look these cities for what i'll say.

http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/turkey/istanbul
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/uk/london
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/usa/los-angeles
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/japan/tokyo
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/china/beijing
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/australia/sydney
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/south-africa/cape-town
http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/chile/chillan

Now i'm doing a table take care here:

CITY NAME / SUN ALTITUDE  / MOON PERCENT ILLUMINATED

Istanbul 43 ° 17.5%
London 21° 17.5%
Los Angeles -47° 17.5%
Tokyo 30° 17.5%
Beijing 47° 17.5%
Sydney 2° 17.5%
Cape Town 17° 17.5%
Chillán (Chile) -54° 17.6%

You are saying that sun altitude is continuesly changing but moon percent illuminated continuesly same. You done a modelling to prove this. We are talking about a 3d world and everything is big and far away. So this impossible to think the system how perfect that you drawn.

The positions of the moon and sun relative to each other are not changing significantly. The earth is just rotating, that's why it seems to "change altitude. I hope you begin to understand that soon.

should I believe any of this bullshit?

Yes!

You are drawing this. Yes it is full moon but the earth and moon are rotating so the angle of the sunlight coming is continuesly changing a different way. How is it continue to see it full moon? It is impossible. Don't defend these nonsences.

This hurts to read. The moon rotates at the almost same speed it goes around the earth (Most likely due to the fact that it came from the earth, and therefore has an opposite, equal spin) so we primarily see the same side, with a little wobbling. How does the rotation of the earth or the moon have anything to do with the light shining on the moon anyway? That would depend on the revolutionary position. Also, yeah the moon is constantly moving around the earth, but it's moving very slowly, so you wouldn't detect any change in the phase of the moon in one night. Think about it like this, you have two spheres, you paint one half of one and put it on the ground. You put a dot on a point on the other one. Put the one with a dot on the ground far away from the other and turn it. The ball you are turning won't affect the "phase" of the other one, it will appear the same regardless of the rotation.

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: How we see the sun as setting while it has moving away?

« on: May 02, 2016, 05:27:43 PM »

Surely. I don't want somebody think about me " changing the truths according to his way". This is true shape showing about refraction. But here is not a water and the atmospher isin't only an gas. There is more areas on the atmospher acting light and refracting it to a lot of possible directions. The shape is true on the atmospher but the opposite is true in the atmospher true too.

Some areas has more intense, and some areas have less intense, after that again a more intense area and less intense area. Somewhere on the atmospher is cold and later the light enters a hot area and later again cold area. So there is rising and falling humidity areas more than one. we don't know if the light coming closer or is moving away. as i have guessed it has %50 chance the light is moving away.

this is like if the system it is, it describes.

Notice: I edited first post by adding the descriptive figure.

Good on you for thinking of possible differences throughout the atmosphere! However, for light to refract away from the normal in the atmosphere (what you're arguing), the value of the refractive index ("n") must be lower than that of a vacuum, or less than one. n is determined by c/v_p through a substance. Only high energy X-Rays can have a phase velocity higher than that of light. Visible light, however, cannot. This confines its n to be higher in any medium than 1. In summation, when passing to a higher medium not of significant electromagnetic tendency, visible light will bend towards the normal, making it's light source appear slightly higher, as defined by the equation n₁*sin(θ₁) = n₂*sin(θ₂).
(Basically that equation means, refraction is based on average atomic density, which in a vacuum is 1 atom per cm³, and in air is 5 * 10¹⁹ atoms per cm³)

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: May 02, 2016, 03:57:46 PM »

As we see that moon is saving it's lighting from all over the night and all over the world in same night. How a chance can do that? What kind of a chance is that? Nothing. This shows this is not the light of the sun.

I don't think you understand how the moon works, sir. The moon goes around the earth in synodic orbit, every 29.5 days, cycling through all it's phases in this period. As the earth rotates, it would appear to be the same shape and relative "percentage" of the moon illuminated, however according to your position above or below the equator, it would appear rotated around the face, hence the same shape and percentage. The moon phase does not change throughout the night! Also, the reason that the moon phase isn't different depending on your position because the moon is VERY far away, your relative position on the earth would not matter in relation to the distance from the moon to the sun. The reason a full moon is rarer than you would think is because it only happens approximately every 29.5 days;only when the inclination of the moon allows for it, as the moon's orbit itself rotates about the polar axis.

Two possibilities of the moon's crossing of the earth:



Change of the moon's orbit(apsidal procession):

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are there other known or visible flat planets with domes?

« on: May 02, 2016, 01:30:44 PM »

If the evidence from NASA is any actual indication of reality, then it appears that flatness is the normal shape for objects in the known universe.  We have observed both the moon and Mars from right at the surface and in both cases the surface is shown to be flat.  It is inconclusive as of yet, but (again, assuming NASA can be trusted) it seems that large objects tend to flatness as a general rule.

No, the lunar and Martian surfaces have not been shown to be flat. If the photos of their surfaces were incompatible with a round Mars and moon, every astronomer in the world would have had a WTF? moment, and they'd probably be still saying it.

They most certainly have.  If you google "surface of Mars" you will find plenty of images that show conclusively that the surface of Mars is every bit as flat as that of Earth, and a google search for "surface of the Moon" will yield similar results.  The most likely explanation is that those astronomers you mention are merely witnessing an optical illusion, possibly caused by EA, much like that viewed by NASA of Earth.

This would be true aside from the fact that any observer with a telescope can observe the rotation of Mars over the course of a month. Mars rotation takes slightly longer than a day and over long periods, a noticeable change on the surface relative to us is visible. Also, the moon cannot be flat, as the shadows cast on the surface of the moon are parabolic. It is impossible to cast a curved shadow on a flat surface, try it. So that is also implausible unless accounting for:

1: Some third, hyperbolic-shaped stellar object that blocks light from the sun

2: Extreme amounts of light distortion

3: The fact that the argument makes no sense.

Sorry if that was rude, I'm just saying.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it raining?

« on: May 01, 2016, 04:02:10 PM »

This is the mechanism of raining from the sky.

As you see on the graphic that the clouds aren't reason, the clouds are just result!

<nonsensical drawing>wtf.png</nonsensical drawing>

Intikam, even if this made sense, how is it that the ice wall hasn't entirely melted throughout the (at least, I don't know how long you think the earth existed) tens of thousands of years that humans have existed? If not, how does the water from the earth refreeze up there? And if it seriously is that thick how can we see celestial objects that aren't within the atmolayer?(if you believe that) Or, if you believe that celestial objects are the same level as the sun, how does this rain affect the planets and "clusters of stars" that are orbiting around the sun, if it's blatantly not observed that terrestrial rain affects other planets?

Q. What does the Solar System look like in FET?
A. In FET the planets are revolving around the sun, while the sun itself revolves around the Northern Hub.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: May 01, 2016, 06:42:13 AM »

Beam divergence occurs because light shines in every direction from a light source. Because it's confined to emit from a one sided light, the "laser beam" will actually be a very narrow cone that spreads out because all of the light in this cone is moving in a straight line. It's not as if the light will start bending midway through transmission. Say instead that I took a single photon and fired it in a direction, never will that photon change direction unless it is reflected or refracted by other outside influence.

The phenomena of beam divergence is certainly a curiosity, particularly because a laser beam is supposed to be straight due to photons between a series of mirrors and a glass amplifier to produce an extremely bright and straight beam of light. It may be argued that some of the photons are not straight, but then the divergence should have a central hot spot as the beam diverges.

It's not a curiosity, it's actually quite the opposite. It just appears that you don't fundamentally understand how light is emitted from a source. Much like sound, light, when produced from a source, moves in all possible directions from its origin point. The casing of a laser pointer isn't exactly dead focal, meaning that the "laser beam" is a uniform and extremely narrow cone. Because it is a narrow cone, it spreads out as it moves farther away from its point of origin. You cannot attribute this to light bending or not moving in a straight line, it's an invalid argument.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Calculating the center of the earth by using just a compass

« on: April 30, 2016, 11:03:38 PM »

L= 15cm = 150mm
H= 2,5mm

R= 5.091 kms (From Istanbul to Geographic North)

h (center of the earth) = 2,5*5091 / 150 = 85 kms

H (depth of the earth) = 2*2,5*5091/150 = 170 kms

Nice calculation considering the deepest trench in the world is 2550 kms deep, 15 times deeper than what you just calculated the flat earth to be. Therefore, either your method of calculation is flawed or compasses are made to account for this pointing directly towards the poles. ALSO you stated that there's only one pole. You cannot have a uni-polar magnet, basic law of physics.

May i learn Which proof do you offer about say the world 2550 kms deep.

My bad, I misremembered something, and I apologize. However, you still cannot have a uni-polar magnet.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: April 30, 2016, 10:56:33 PM »

The model the Greeks proposed is clearly wrong when it comes to things that are far away. The simple fact is that the lines touch. There may be varying explanations for why they touch.

It might have something to do with resolution. It might also be more than that. For instance, if we shine a laser beam at the point on railroad tracks where they appear to touch in the distance, the beam will widen and touch both of the tracks at the same time.

From http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset --

Beam Divergence

This phenomenon of enlarging rays is also seen in lasers. Supposedly "straight" rays of light will spread out when shining over long distances.



From the Wikipedia entry on Beam Divergence we read:

    "The beam divergence of an electromagnetic beam is an angular measure of
    the increase in beam diameter or radius with distance from the optical
    aperture or antenna aperture from which the electromagnetic beam emerges."

The light is broadcasted towards the small scene  in the distance and widens appropriately to cover that area it sees. Under a perfect universe the laser beam should only be able to touch only one of the tracks at a time when it reaches the destination. However, the beam is seen to widen significantly, easily covering both tracks and an area of landscape. It seems to suggest that the squishing of the tracks to a single point is more than a resolution limitation of the eye.

Beam divergence occurs because light shines in every direction from a light source. Because it's confined to emit from a one sided light, the "laser beam" will actually be a very narrow cone that spreads out because all of the light in this cone is moving in a straight line. It's not as if the light will start bending midway through transmission. Say instead that I took a single photon and fired it in a direction, never will that photon change direction unless it is reflected or refracted by other outside influence.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: April 30, 2016, 10:49:36 PM »

Well first of all, Greek math states that they DO appear to touch and that they don't physically touch, not the other way around.

No, they don't. We never learn that in Geometry class. The greek's geometry math assumes that we live in a continuous universe where resolution is infinite and where perfect circles could exist. The model says that two parallel lines should never touch in such a perfect universe.

That's because by definition, parallel lines will never intersect on any given plane. If we can show that over any finite distance two parallel lines will not touch, why wouldn't we assume that over longer distances approaching infinity that they would continue to not touch? They only seem to touch because we do not have eyes that can show extremely small distances, i.e infinite resolution.

Also, hey Totes, how you doin?

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment showed me Earth is round, please expose the lie

« on: April 30, 2016, 10:38:51 PM »

Eratosthenes performed his experiment under the impression sunshine IS perpendicular.

One, it isn't. The atmosphere refracts the light.

Two, I can make math demonstrate anything.

Eratosthenes understood that the sun was overhead at one of his locations, not both. That isn't even related to the actual topic at hand considering whether or not be understood it as perpendicular as that would only produce incorrect results for the radius and not a problem with the shape of the earth itself. The experiment doesn't prove FE or RE as the results are based on what you assume.

Also,

One, the light would refract closer to the normal anyway even if it wasn't a negligible amount to begin with.

Two, an objectively false statement.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it raining?

« on: April 30, 2016, 09:36:52 PM »

Yeah, you did. You claimed the atmosphere is the ROOF of the vehicle (and ipso facto, the windshield and the side windows, etc.)

Not to mention, you went with our "orbit," around the sun, rather than our REVOLUTIONARY DAY...

And our "travels," at 1000 MPH on the OUTSIDE of the Earth are NOT analogous to any travels we might take on the INSIDE of a moving vehicle.

The analogy is PURE BULLSHIT of its highest form! Disingenuous CRAPOLA!

Well, in my post before, I had addressed the rotational* day. In the second most recent post of mine, I was addressing the analogy that YOU brought up. Yes, the revolution around the sun and the rotation of earth are two different mechanics. The revolution of the sun is analogous to the car as I had said before. The rotation of earth, as I said before, is not felt due to the extremely slow ROTATION speed at which we are moving. Because of the radius of the earth, we are moving at .00417 degrees per second around the earth. Calculating rotational inertia for a point mass, you'll find that the acceleration against gravity (g is 9.81 m/s² in freefall) to be .03378 m/s², .3% the force of gravity, you cannot physically feel that. So what is the argument again?

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Calculating the center of the earth by using just a compass

« on: April 30, 2016, 06:21:10 PM »

L= 15cm = 150mm
H= 2,5mm

R= 5.091 kms (From Istanbul to Geographic North)

h (center of the earth) = 2,5*5091 / 150 = 85 kms

H (depth of the earth) = 2*2,5*5091/150 = 170 kms

Nice calculation considering the deepest trench in the world is 2550 kms deep, 15 times deeper than what you just calculated the flat earth to be. Therefore, either your method of calculation is flawed or compasses are made to account for this pointing directly towards the poles. ALSO you stated that there's only one pole. You cannot have a uni-polar magnet, basic law of physics.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some perspective on perspective

« on: April 30, 2016, 06:10:31 PM »

If we see that they appear touch, and the Greeks continuous universe math that they should not appear to touch, that is evidence suggesting that they are wrong in their theories of perspective. It is certainly not evidence that they are correct.

Well first of all, Greek math states that they DO appear to touch and that they don't physically touch, not the other way around.

I am not arguing that the lines physically touch, only that they appear to, which goes hand-in-hand with the belief that the sun can appear to touch the earth without it physically doing so. The effect of two parallel lines touching is more evidence towards a Flat Earth model where the celestial bodies can touch the earth than it is evidence for a Greek universe where parallel lines should never touch.

Second of all, it doesn't go "hand in hand" because even if this were true and we had enough distance from the sun for this to theoretically happen, it would appear only to touch the surface and not actually reach any vanishing point(vanishing points are a construct only possible in a 2 dimensional world). This means that if it were able to go any farther away(this distance is almost unfathomably far away at this point), it would uniformly disappear above the horizon due to Rayleigh scattering , which it doesn't do.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it raining?

« on: April 30, 2016, 05:56:51 PM »

HAHAHAHA!!! This is totally laughable...Claiming the atmosphere is just like impermeable matter is just talking out of the side of your neck... BUT WAIT!!! You write THIS:
"Well the earth is the same as the vehicle because of that "HEAVY" atmosphere, remember..."
And then DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!!!
Stating I need to have a shield ON TOP OF ME if I am on the top of the rail car:
"Not the same thing, it would be if you had some sort of shield on the top of rail car, however: the air would be continuing to move WITH the rail car."

So either the atmosphere IS OR IS NOT my shield, according to you Copernicus...

Talk about SCREWING THE POOCH!!!

You are either an imbecile or simply behaving as one...Either way, you are dismissed...

Sigh...I never said directly that it was a shield, you just assumed that's what I meant. I was just making the direct analogy between the earth and the car so you would understand better how the car relation is interpreted. The rail-car example and the globular earth are fundamentally different. On a rail-car, there is (relatively) static air that you are moving through, which would push you back, this means you would need something to hold the air so it would move with the rail-car to keep you from being launched off. The earth doesn't have a medium it's moving through. The rail-car example you brought up doesn't make sense in relation to movement through the vacuum of space. I don't understand what's so confusing to you.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it raining?

« on: April 30, 2016, 02:36:07 PM »

You got it Intikam...

Well this is going to be fun.

Do not forget, you are dealing with yahoos perfectly willing to tell you the Earth is rotating at 1000 MPH and not only that, it is dragging the heavy atmosphere right along with it...and AMAZINGLY we feel none of that

Calling the kettle black, damn. Well firstly, we don't feel the earth rotating because it's not accelerating, which is where one would feel gravitational effects, also we don't feel the centrifugal inertial force because it's related to the speed as well as the radius of the object. We're spinning at one rotation per day(.00417 degrees per second). I challenge you to take a plate and put something on it, spin it at that speed, and tell me if it flies off(or even moves aside from the initial acceleration). Also, you say HEAVY atmosphere, sure it's heavy relative to the earth but there's a problem with your reasoning. The atmosphere is still part of the earth. The earth is travelling at a constant speed in it's orbit around the sun, and there's nothing to slow it down based on it's weight: there's no medium for drag in the vacuum of space. It doesn't accelerate or decelerate. Therefore, "dragging" is not an applicable word.

...as PROOF, they offer up the RIDICULOUS example of "Imagine you are in a vehicle traveling along..."

And this is ridiculous because...?

Cool, except for the small fact I AM IN THE VEHICLE!!! I am OUTSIDE ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH...unless RE is declaring the wonder of HE...

Oh, this argument. Well the earth is the same as the vehicle because of that "HEAVY" atmosphere, remember? The chassis of the car is terra-firma and the roof is the atmosphere.

I dare any one here to get on top of the last rail car of the City of New Orleans and then jump straight up in the air...

Not the same thing, it would be if you had some sort of shield on the top of rail car, however: the air would be continuing to move WITH the rail car. Also, how does that even come close to globe earth? There would be nothing to "push" you as in the rail car example even if there were no atmosphere, THERE IS NOTHING IN SPACE TO CAUSE DRAG.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment showed me Earth is round, please expose the lie

« on: April 30, 2016, 02:11:29 PM »

It does not show the earth is round or a sphere.

The suns rays need to hit the supposed globe in a perpendicular fashion. They do not according to RE.

What does this even mean? Light rays do not need to hit the surface of a sphere in a perpendicular fashion, they just have to hit the surface with an angle less than tangent to the surface of the sphere, thereby illuminating slightly less than 50% of the globe. How did what you said make any sense, no offense?

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment showed me Earth is round, please expose the lie

« on: April 30, 2016, 01:59:43 AM »

city A, sun is 20 degrees (at a time).
city B sun is 22 degrees (at same time).
Find out the distance of city A to city B from internet.

Then you can calculate the position of the sun. We calculated it about 5.000 miles. This debunk some of their theories. You are a knower so you must calculate it yourself to learn how the sun is far away from us.

Well, no you're not "debunking" anything about a round earth with that one. You seem to not understand that those calculations were taken with the assumption that the earth was flat.

Imagine this, you are an observer of no height. You're on a line that is (for sake of math) pi miles long, you're in the middle of it. Above you, there's a light, so looking straight up it's in your line of sight. That's 90 degrees. Now you move a quarter mile in either direction, and you have to look at a 45 degree angle to see the light. You can calculate and find that the light is .25 miles away in this case.  Remember the angles.

Now let's imagine that you're on a circle pi miles in circumference (.5 miles in radius). The light is above you again, but we don't know how far the light is from you this time. You can look straight up at it, and this is 90 degrees again. You then move a quarter mile either way again (28.65 degrees around the circle) and we look up at 45 degrees again. With a little trigonometry, we can find that the light is .737 miles away. As we increase the circumference of the circle(and move farther away so that the sun is still 45 degrees in the sky), the sun is calculated to be farther and farther away. Continue to grow the circle until you reach the scale of the earth.

In short, "this debunk some of their theories" is not a true statement. The calculations you did depend on whether you are measuring from a globe or a flat surface.

As for the OP, it doesn't definitively prove either theory, sadly. It's just as useful as "calculating the distance of the sun" without using a single earth model. However, it does strengthen RET, as the figures for the experiment work with figures previous calculated pertaining to the earth, including radius and distance to the sun. Meanwhile the FE sun probably doesn't work with your 300km distance and shadows unless it's at a different height than previously stated.

Hope this helps to some degree!

38

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Debate

« on: April 28, 2016, 06:13:12 PM »

Honestly, this thread has just devolved into various personal attacks stemming from both parties(for the most part), there's no real point to continuation of this... conversation. It's most likely that most everyone who contributed is at fault to some degree, and no one will change their opinions on the advent of science. You don't have to slander each other, it's unnecessary.

39

Flat Earth Community / Re: Gravity

« on: April 28, 2016, 06:01:25 PM »

This thread is actually kind of pleasant to read because both FE'ers and RE'ers get along. I'm a RE'er myself and reading through this made me cringe a little at the incorrect usage of both Acceleration and Velocity, two completely different measurements of movement. Sputnik, if you still don't understand why both bullets would hit the ground at the same time on both a globe and an FE, go ahead and respond, I'm willing to "spar", I suppose.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 27, 2016, 06:44:57 PM »

I don't mean to impede on any discussion that could come right now, but to add on to the questions, how is it possible to see the full moon in Antarctica? I mean, no matter regarding the "Controversial 'altitudes' of the moon and sun", there is no orientation that allows for that phenomenon throughout an entire day. The only plausible train of thought is that the moon and sun are level with each other and that at one point during their revolutions, there are two incident angles that allow for full moons, directly to the west and east of the viewer. However the problem arises when, during the movement of these celestial bodies, the moon quickly loses the light from the sun, resulting in a new moon, and then regains it again, resulting in a full moon. I'm genuinely curious and if anyone could address this, I'd be grateful. Thank you