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 - AATW

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 213  Next >
I enjoyed the fact he did it outside in the pouring rain and then some troll started blaring out "Things Can Only Get Better" (for you Yanks, it was the theme song of "New Labour" back in the 90s).

Labour will win of course, although if there is one person who could mess it up it's probably Starmer. I don't have any real issue with him other than he doesn't seem to stand for much other than "not being the Tories". Which might be enough for now.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 21, 2024, 10:57:10 AM »
A good explanation for this:
That post is a load of word salad, no evidence is provided for any of the claims for it.

The Moon and a sphere have the same orientation as the terminator, they had to state that the Sun is super far away and is too big to explain this on the globe, because this observation is not predicted on a spherical earth.
However, it is predicted by the theory of light bending:
Wrong way round.
The sun was known to be distant - you can look up yourself how that was determined. So the observation of the moon and a close sphere having the same "phase" is expected and predicted. If the sun is close then that observation doesn't make sense, light bending is a hypothesis introduced to explain it.

Celestial sphere and Moon tilt illusion are also predicted much better by the bending of light
This is incorrect. In the moon tilt illusion the light appears to be bending downwards, in the opposite direction to the way EA claims light bends.
And, more importantly, it's an optical illusion, hence the name. You can use a string lined up perpendicular to the terminator on the moon and show that the string points to the sun. I have done this myself. The apparent misalignment is simply an optical illusion.

Scientific articles on the bending of light
No-one disputes that light bends, it bends because of refraction and there are relativistic effects. It just doesn't bend in the way claimed by EA.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: May 21, 2024, 10:19:51 AM »
In this case for "The Final Experiment" they say that they welcome guests and if you want to go then to contact them to find out how much it will be. There are some rumors that they want $30K or something of that nature.
The company they're using charge $30k for the trip, yes. It's unclear whether they're asking you to pay them the money to pass on to that company. If so then I'd agree that's pretty fishy, but I don't know that's the case.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: May 21, 2024, 10:18:15 AM »
How is a couple of RE'ers embezzling investing $60k going to change anything here? Please, be as specific as you can. I'd be fascinated to learn what the endgame here is!
I've already outlined a couple of things that could happen. Neither would actually change much in the grand scheme of things, I never claimed it would.

In the meantime, no matter how much you try to idealise your friends here, they're going to accomplish very little here, other than personally get richer.
Friends? I don't know any of these people, nor do I have much opinion of them. I was asking for your opinion.
Although how will they get richer? I can't see any way to donate to this. You may be right about this, but their financing is not at all clear.

Earnest FE'ers. There are plenty of them, and plenty of places to find them.
And how does one determine who the earnest ones are? I'm not super convinced you lot are earnest.

You keep clinging to this idea that there needs to be an "authority" in an expressly anti-authoritative movement.
I guess the point is there is no FE model about which there is consensus. YouTubers this bloke is engaging with are saying a 24 hour sun in Antarctica would be an issue for their FE model, which is the basis on which he picked that experiment. You're saying it's not an issue for your model. Well OK. Which model is right? It's a similar question to the above, who are the earnest ones and how does anyone tell?

RE doesn't have "an authority" either but there is a lot more consensus in mainstream science - about the basic stuff at least. No-one is debating how many poles there are, for example. Your Wiki outlines the monopole model in the FAQ but there's also a page about the bi-polar model. There's no debate about the layout of the continents or what Antarctica is.

Does it, though?
Yes. You've got two groups of FE people both claiming that they are the "real" FE'ers and the other group aren't. You're calling them grifters, they're calling you controlled opposition. Who is right? How does anyone tell? I have my doubts about you lot, or certainly some of you. I have my doubts about them too.

Would you like me to start fishing out the stupidest people RE has to offer and pointing out that "welp, it's not like there's an authority on RE, so we should just treat these people as equal to everyone else 🤷‍♀️"? Let's face it - you would be very quick to decry it unfair.
There is a difference. Most people don't even regard themselves as REers. I don't really. I'm not a Round Earther any more than I'm a water is wet-er. Most people believe the earth is a globe because that's what they were taught and don't really think about it, or need to. So sure, some very stupid people believe in RE but couldn't explain why. If you're a FE'er then by definition you have thought about it and come to a different view. It's more reasonable to ask a FE'er to explain how the earth can be flat and how all the technologies which (it is claimed) require a globe earth work than it is to ask the random man in the street how the earth can be rotating at 1,000mph at the equator without us feeling it.

That's what the glass dome model is for - visualisation. You already saw it. You're perfectly capable of recalling that visualisation.
I don't know what this means. None of the glass dome videos on the Wiki show a 24 hour sun going in a circle around Antarctica.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: May 20, 2024, 06:55:44 PM »
Yeah, I'm just suggesting that that's a critical flaw in the decision-making process, without claiming to be an authority myself. They'll run their experiment, they'll reach their conclusion (we both agree what it will be), and... what happens then?
Well, I guess what happens is either the YouTubers concede the point and stop being flat earthers - they're the ones who agreed this observation would be a problem for their version of FE. Or, more likely, they don't and are exposed as grifters. I think either outcome is potentially useful. And I don't think this experiment is a bad one. It's an expected result in RE, it's not in (some versions of) FE - to the point that I've seen FE people deny the 24 hour sun in Antarctica occurs.

And I guess the point is who should this bloke have approached? Who is the authority in FE? Is it fair to say there isn't one? Your whole philosophy seems to be "don't ask me, you make your own observations and figure it out for yourself". While I think people should be encouraged to check things for themselves - which they are, throughout science classes you do experiments and make observations - you seem to have a "every man for himself" philosophy which I would suggest is why there seems to be so little consensus in the FE community. Not that I even know what "FE community" really means. You are sneering at YouTube FE'ers, questioning their sincerity. Don't some of them call you "controlled opposition"? It all feels a bit Judean People's Front vs the People's Front of Judea, from the outside.

And where is it coming from?
This is a good question but as I said I couldn't see a "donate" button on the website. So why it could be an attempt at embezzlement, it's very unclear who they are embezzling from if so.

People get confused by the glass dome, I get that. As a visualisation, it has the same problem as trying to use a massively scaled-down ball to demonstrate gravity. The scaled-down FE model makes adjustments (replacing the atmolayer with a glass dome) to make it visually equivalent to the real efects of EA combined with internal reflection.
I guess the issue is it doesn't seem to be a particularly good model of the reality. There are a couple of videos on the Wiki. One he shines a torch through the glass dome and from certain angles it illuminates half the "earth". But is a torch a good representation of a sun which shines in all directions? Is solid glass a reasonable approximation for the atmolayer in terms of the way light through the medium. And isn't the FE sun inside where the dome is and above and circling the earth - he seems to have to shine the light more from the side to get the effect. I get it's just a model, I'm just not sure how valid it is.
In the second video it claims to show how stars could rotate in different directions, but no rotation is actually shown, just a static shot - which does admittedly look like how star trails may look near the equator but they're not shown rotating.

In terms of the 24 hour sun at Antarctica, I'm struggling to visualise how that would work. In the monopole model:

So A is the north pole, the sun circles it. When it's going round the red circle then it can't be seen because of EA. Fine.
When it's going round the yellow circle it can be seen at all times and goes in a circle. Also fine.
But if you're at B or C then the red circle is your summer. I can't see how that circular route would be seen from those points going in the opposite direction to the circle it's actually tracing. A common FE approach to that has been to simply deny it occurs at all. You seem to be saying it could but I can't see how that would actually work.

The bi-polar model may solve that but it seems to me it would introduce a load of other problems in terms of matching observations.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: May 18, 2024, 05:02:03 PM »
You watch too much YouTube. Seriously.
This is certainly true, although I don't actually watch that much FE stuff on there.
I quite like Dave McKeegan, I've gone off SciManDan. Don't watch much of anyone else.

It wouldn't, though. It's only an issue for the YouTubers' understanding of FE.
Well, firstly I'd note that there is no FE authority. The basis of this being chosen as the experiment was FE YouTubers agreeing that this observation would be problematic for FE.
So they might not understand your version of FET, but they would presumably say the same about you not understanding their version. Who is the authority here?
Secondly, I'd be interested how a 24 hours sun rotating in one direction around the observer at or near the Northern pole, and in the other direction at or near the Southern pole would work in the Monopole model. There's some stuff on the Wiki with light shining through a glass dome but I don't think that would actually explain this. The Bi-polar model may explain it better but creates a load of other issues in terms of how the sun moves and how that would match observations.

It's an extremely low bar to set, and one that can be met without wasting a ton of donation money. Like, yeah, those guys are gonna see the Sun for an entire day, and it's gonna accomplish nothing.
I vaguely agree it won't achieve anything - my gut feel is the YouTubers who are conceding that this would be an issue for (their version of) FE would not actually concede the point if they made the observations, because cognitive dissonance.

Now, what would be interesting is to see how much money they embezzle out of the scheme
The finances are interesting and unclear to me. Maybe the answer is in one of their YouTube videos but how this is being financed is unclear to me. There's no "Donate" button on the website, or if there is I couldn't see it. Maybe there's something about it in one of the videos but I'm not sure how they're raising the money. I agree that some scrutiny of that is appropriate.

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment
« on: May 17, 2024, 03:24:00 PM »
Dunno about this, AATW.  Yes, the ultimate experiment in theory, but the website makes Jeran look like George Lucas by comparison; no pages at all except a bunch of You-Tube links.  If this thing gets as far as the equator I'll eat my tinfoil hat.
I saw an interview the bloke behind this did with FTFE. He sounded pretty serious. Agree the website isn't great though. One to keep an eye on.

Flat Earth Community / The Final Experiment
« on: May 17, 2024, 11:43:50 AM »
I think this is the right place for this.
Are you aware of The Final Experiment?

The aim is to send one globe earther and one flat earther to Antarctica to observe the 24 hour sun - which would be an issue for the monopole model. Or, if it doesn't occur would be an issue for the globe.

They have invited high profile people from both sides to participate - I didn't actually see anyone from here on the list, I think they're mostly going for YouTubers.
They say they're going to provide the funding for one person from each side, but others can join at their own expense - it was something like $30,000, so not cheap.

Any thoughts on this? Would any of you have liked to be invited or would be interested in going? Do you think this is a good experiment? If you observed the 24 hour sun in Antarctica would that change your mind about FE or would it just steer you towards a different FE model like the bi-polar one?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 15, 2024, 02:19:36 PM »
All of this is true of this effect though, and you have even admitted that the effect exists before in past conversations. See this past admission from 2022 from you
What "effect"? That things get smaller as they move away from you until you can't see them? ???
I'm not sure that's something that needs to be "admitted". Obviously that's true, it's just nothing to do with the sinking ship effect.
In the conversation around the post you quoted I demonstrated that by showing how the "hull" of a ship I drew disappeared from across the room even when it was at the top. Angular side can, of course, make objects not visible. And with optical zoom they can be restored. No-one disputes that. But when an object is properly occluded by the horizon you can zoom in and you only see the top of the object, the rest is hidden by something, it's not just too small to see.
Rowbotham claimed that things disappear bottom first on a flat plane - like a path. They don't.

Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.
I wasn't wrong, I never denied that things can be too small to see. But that's true whether the thing is at the bottom of an object or the top. Your experiment is the same as the one I posted the results of in the thread you quoted. The hull disappears if it's at the top of the boat. Nothing to do with the sinking ship. Your claim that "Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship" is simply untrue.

The railroad references are here:
That's just a box set of people not understanding that "level" is defined with respect to your up/down direction. A spirit level shows when something is level. If you were at a different location on earth then the spirit level would be in a different orientation but still show level as horizontal to the local up/down direction. There's also a sprinkling of not understanding that elevation above sea level is also with respect to your orientation. I'm not sure if the curve of the earth is really a factor in the construction of railway as rails are laid in such small sections. The curve of the earth is absolutely a factor in larger scale engineering projects. It's explicitly mentioned on the LIGO web page:

Yes, Lady Bount also verified Rowbotham's water convexity experiments with the then-new technology of long distance photography. Near the surface of the water, for at least the span of six miles, the light created a path which contradicted Round Earth Theory.
Amazing. Can we see the proof then? Then we can put all this globe earth nonsense to bed. Because I found one picture and it was some grainy mess in which I couldn't really make out anything. Please tell me there's something better? Or the results of the Bishop experiment would do. If you can see the beach all the way down to the shoreline from 23 miles away and a viewer height of 20 inches then I'm sold. Could you present the evidence you gathered?

A hypothesis typically does not have supporting evidence. However, the pages show that there is supporting evidence for celestial-scale, and possibly celestial-specific, bending of light
No-one disputes that light bends. There's refraction of course, light bends in relativistic ways. But EA states that light bends "upwards".
But in the moon tilt illusion you show the light bending downwards.
The test of a good theory is its ability to make predictions which can then be verified experimentally. How can you make specific predictions using EA when you have no working FE map and the equation governing EA is one Parsifal made up, shows no derivation and contains an unknown constant ???

People sitting in a plane have a difficult time telling how much the winds and the jet stream are adding to the journey.
OK, but you could plot your expected flight path on a FE map and check that against observations. Basic stuff like are you flying over land or sea. If land are there any identifiable landmarks.

Planes have a hard time determining their true speeds because they are propelling themselves in pockets of fluids which itself is traveling through larger scales of fluids.
They absolutely don't have a hard time doing that. Go on any long haul flight and you can put the flight map on the screen showing exactly where you are, how fast you're going and when you'll arrive. You can cross reference that against observations to determine whether the data it's showing is accurate. I was flying back from Cairo recently, I did this for a bit. The map said we were flying over some mountains. I looked out the window and there they were. The idea that this is all possible without planes knowing where they are at all times and therefore how fast they're going is ludicrous.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 03, 2024, 03:40:26 PM »
With the sun circling above, along with the celestial sphere, why would you not expect it to disappear from the view of persons in varying locations.
Because the sun remains above the plane of the earth at all times.
In ancient flat earth models the sun went up and over the earth in the day and underneath at night. Day was day everywhere, night was night everywhere. They didn't know that when it's day in the UK it's night in Australia. With a sun which is always above a flat earth it should illuminate the whole of the disc. Unless there's some reason it can only be seen for a certain distance, which is plausible, but then you'd get the sun slowly fade in and out as the distance to it decreased or increased. That isn't what we observe.

Aspects that would cause the light of the sun to be visible in some locations and not to be visible in others.
That's just a bunch of words. Give some details. You can't just reject the notion that the sun sets because we live on a rotating globe and then replace that with something vague about "aspects of the aether" with no details about what you mean by that.

Why on earth would you claim the luminosity of the sun does not change throughout the day? Of course, it does
During sunrise and sunset the light scatters through more of the atmosphere so yes, that does affect the luminosity, but not in a way consistent with your theory of a sun rotating above us. That would mean the distance to the sun constantly changing and that would surely affect the luminosity. Again, if visibility is the reason we can't see the sun at night then it would fade out, not set.

Why on earth does the angular size of the sun actually appear larger to the naked eye at dawn and dusk? Of course, it does.
I've bolded the word appear. Yes, there is a known optical illusion which makes this happen, in reality it's not actually bigger. And if that were true then that's the exact opposite of what you'd expect on a FE where the sun is at a significantly greater distance from you at sunset than at midday. That would make it appear smaller at sunrise and sunset. Again, I don't feel I need to provide any evidence for the assertion that things get smaller as they get further away from you.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 03, 2024, 08:50:38 AM »
You should be able to model it on scale to back up your claim.
I could draw you a diagram I guess, but you can surely imagine this yourself. If an object is above a flat plane the all points on that plane are looking up at that object at an angle so have line of sight to it. Walk around a room illuminated by a lightbulb on the ceiling. Where in the room can you not see the lightbulb? Obviously in real life there will be things occluding the sun at times, which I'll come on to.

Lots of things...distance for one, physical aspects of the aether for two, occluding objects for three
Taking those one by one
Distance - when you can't see things because they're too far away they don't just go from "you can see them" to "you can't". They get smaller and smaller until you can't see them any more. Or if the issue isn't angular size but visibility then they gradually fade out, like someone walking away from you on a foggy day. That isn't what we observe at sunset. The disc of the sun is dimmer because of the angle, but it doesn't just slowly fade out. It disappears behind the horizon. In all other experiences of something disappearing like that it's because it's going behind something. So no, us not being able to see the sun because of distance does not match what we observe.

Physical aspects of the aether - you're going to have to explain what that means. What aspects of the aether?

Occluding objects - Obviously the sun is occluded all the time, at the moment I can't see it because it's cloudy. And when the sun is low in the sky then you might not be able to see it because of nearby hills or buildings or whatever. But it doesn't go dark. The sunglight is still hitting the atmosphere and scattering and illuminating the ground. What is stopping that happening on a FE? I've explained why distance and visbility aren't the issues.

It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.
Just another baseless statement based on your inability to envision alternate and, certainly possible, modes of operation.
It's "baseless" to state that objects get smaller in angular size as the distance between you and the object increases? ???

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: May 02, 2024, 04:41:30 PM »
Not even in the top 300? What a loser!

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 02, 2024, 04:39:50 PM »
The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times.
Do you have evidence to back up this outright lie?
Yes. The evidence is that if the sun is a few thousand miles above a flat earth then you would have a clear line of sight to it at all time. What would stop you seeing it? It would also change significantly in angular size, angular speed and luminosity throughout the day as your distance to it varies. None of that happens.
All that is in the context of the mainstream physics. You may have other mechanisms to explain this - EA, some magnification effect and I'm not sure about the luminosity one - the sun does admittedly change at sunset, but not during most of the day as it surely would if the sun was at a significantly different distance.

As I said, EA is a reasonable explanation. It's better than "perspective" which makes no sense at all. But it is at best a hypothesis, not a well formed theory.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What is the true map of the earth?
« on: May 02, 2024, 01:38:31 PM »
Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship.
Did it, though? He spends some time in ENaG claiming that things like ladies dresses disappear bottom first on a flat path, which they don't. And then he claims that ships which have gone over the horizon can be "restored", which they can't.

Lady Blount's society collected the professional surveyor and railway proofs.
Did they? Well where are those then? I looked her up and found something about some photo they took. It's here:,_Lady_Blount#/media/File:Blount-photo-bedford-level.jpg
What the hell is that supposed to be?!

EA and UA are admittedly pretty good explanations for certain observations BUT they are just that.
The sun can't set on a FE where the sun is above the plane of the earth at all times. So EA is used as an explanation. It's not a bad one, but it's at best a hypothesis that "light bends upwards", and the formula shown in the Wiki has no derivation and an unknown constant.
The model mainstream physics has of gravity can't work on a FE so UA is used as an explanation. Again, not a bad one but it doesn't explain variations of gravity so those have to be hand-waved away.

This is an issue with your way of enquiring. You form a theory which explains observation rather than forming a hypothesis and then making observations which test that hypothesis - which then becomes a theory as observations build confidence. I know this is deliberate, and working the other way around could lead to the same conclusions. The issue though is when observations are presented which show your theory to be wrong you just claim they're wrong/flawed/fake. That's not a way to make progress.

If you ask me what is happening on earth thousands of miles away, there will be less research there. The total world model is a topic for the next generation of FE to figure out.
Is it, though? There are flat earthers all around the...disc, right? And we have instant communications now.
There are surely ways you can do large scale experiments reasonably cheaply. I'm sure you could club together and get a ticket for a Santiago to Sydney plane ticket, a FE person on that flight could gather a load of data which would help you advance things.

Are you now leaning towards the bi-polar model? That does solve some issues - like how there are jobs in Antarctica, sailing races around it and so on. But I'm not sure how the 24 hour sun works in the Arctic and Antarctic AND the other observed patterns of light and motion of the sun would work. It solves some problems which the monopole model has in the southern hemisphere, but it seems to create some equally big ones.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 20, 2024, 05:43:14 AM »
Do they want to train and equip the prison guards to provide secret service level security? That is the only way your argument makes sense that they are genuine in this.

The answer is no. They do not want guarantee Trump the same level of security.

Why should they?
If someone ends up in prison then they lose certain rights. Which is something I imagine you generally support. Unless it affects your cult leader.

It’s all moot anyway. There’s no way Trump will end up in prison

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: April 20, 2024, 05:39:17 AM »

The star is close enough to those two locations to be in range so that the star could be visible at the same time from both locations.

As seen above, it is possible in some situations for two locations to see the same star at the same time. If the star is encircling the Earth like the Sun, then different observers will observe that star when it is night for that observer.

When each observer South America and Africa in the above diagram looks in a general sense to the south, they see the that star swirling around a southern celestial pole. The true star is displaced from due South for each observer, but it could be shifted to be more due South for the observer through the below light mechanism.

General sense to the south? In South America they'd be looking East to see that star, in Africa they'd be looking West.

And as the stars rotate the star would move west to east, it wouldn't be a static star above the pole as it would be on a globe. The bi-polar model may solve some of this but then I've no idea how the sun is supposed to move in that model.

Logically it makes more sense that there is only one mechanism for multiple phenomena, rather than multiple mechanisms for multiple phenomena.
Well, I agree. This is where the simplicity of the globe model is quite elegant. It explains day and night, the seasons, the consistent angular size of the sun, etc, etc. In FE you need multiple mechanisms to explain all this - you need some magnification effect to explain the consistent angular size, you need EA to explain sunset. The way the radius of the sun's orbit keeps changing, and the corresponding speed changing to maintain a consistent 24 hour day/night cycle, why the radius is increasing for 6 months and then starts decreasing. All those things  need other mechanisms which have no real explanation.

When Andrew Wiles solved Fermat's Last Theorum his initial version had a problem in which I doubt many people in the world understand. I saw a documentary in which he described his efforts to fix it, he said it was like trying to fit a carpet in a room it's too big for - every time you flatten down one corner, it pops up in the other corner. He eventually sorted it out, but FE feels a bit like that. Overall the monopole model seems the one which works best, certainly in the northern hemisphere. But it causes problems in the south - the lines of longitude should keep increasing, but they don't. Antarctica has been explored and circumnavigated. Flights in the southern hemisphere which you can track in real time make no sense on the FE map. The Bi-Polar model may solve some of these issues, but then you get into a whole world of other problems about how the sun and stars move.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I am wondering why I do not see...
« on: April 12, 2024, 01:42:17 PM »
In Round Earth Theory, during the Total Solar Eclipse the Moon is in alignment with the Sun and Earth, on the Ecliptic, so I would expect the shadow to appear on the line of the Ecliptic upon the Earth -- the plane of the Sun-Earth system.

Right. I see what you're saying. This is all horribly out of scale but I think it illustrates the principle of how eclipses can appear at different latitudes:

In the top diagram the sun, moon and earth are exactly aligned. In that case yes, the shadow appears on that plane.
In the second diagram I've moved the moon up a few pixels - that represents a tiny misalignment but small enough that the shadow still hits the earth, just at a different latitude. In that example it's hitting the north pole and you'll note that the shadow covers a far larger area - the width of the shadow cast by the moon in a vertical direction isn't different, it's just because of the angle of the ground with respect to that shadow it coverers a wider area.
In the third diagram I've moved the moon up further and that's when the shadow misses the earth completely, which is what happens most of the time.

Then you have the complication of the earth spinning. The speed of the ground varies with latitude of course whereas the shadow moves at a constant speed, so that complicates how the path moves. Again, you're mapping a 2D disc of the shadow path on to a 3D spinning object. There is some complexity here.

Your attitude seems to be if you don't understand something then it can't be true. You've said that eclipse paths make more sense on a FE, but all you have to back that up is a series of arcs drawn on a FE map, but you've agreed elsewhere that there is no definitive FE map. I mentioned the Santiago to Sydney flight which was in the air as I was typing, the route of which makes no sense on that map. I note those images come from the Wiki, I had a look at the page about it and it gives no details about how eclipses work on a FE - there's no diagram which explains it like there is for RE.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I am wondering why I do not see...
« on: April 11, 2024, 04:57:13 PM »
That's not an explanation for why it travels North-South. This is an explanation for why a line might appear straight on a globe and make those curves on a map projection. You drew the North-South line there, not explained how that could occur in RE with a Moon which moves East to West.
OK. But why is North-South movement an issue? The rotation of the earth is at an angle so while the shadow may go in a straight line in the East-West direction, that angle means the shadow isn't going to hit the earth at the same latitude as it does so. Plus as I said the earth is rotating as it does so, the ground speed varies by latitude so that adds some complication.
And as I said you get very wide shadows when eclipses appear near the poles - it's not the size of the shadow that's different (although that does change a bit as the moon's distance from us varies - hence annular eclipses when it's too far away to completely obscure the sun), it's the angle of the ground with respect to that shadow that changes.

There is some complication here, admittedly, but a lot of your issues with RE seem to come from you not understanding them and thus concluding they must be impossible.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I am wondering why I do not see...
« on: April 11, 2024, 03:00:18 PM »
That video is titled "Why Do Eclipses Travel WEST to EAST?" and does not attempt to even explain the North-South movements.
It mentions it just after 3 minutes in. To understand this just put Google Earth in Globe mode, define some straight lines across the globe and then go back in to map projection mode. Voila:

Basically, it's a 2D line - the shadow path - mapped on to a 3D object - the globe - which is also spinning. And the rate of that spin varies with latitude.

It's a bit complicated, but if you look at the example at just after 3 minutes in to that video you can have a go yourself to help you understand it. A lot of your FE belief seems to stem from you not understanding the RE model and thus declaring it impossible.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 213  Next >