Bishthebosh

Let’s assume the Earth is flat. All the explanations we have been given by the globe Earth folk are wrong, it’s all a conspiracy etc etc.

Now, let’s indulge in a thought experiment.

What would we experience if we took a trip to an Earth like place that is actually a gigantic sphere, with a radius of 3959 miles (6371 km) I mean totally fudging huuuge, revolving a steady one revolution every 24 hours (so slowly that if you could watch it from a great distance it would look stationary unless you sat very patiently and watched it move 15 degrees every hour), with a tilt in the axis of 23 odd degrees etc etc that orbited a star some 93 million miles away. Would it look anything like a flat Earth? How would it be different?

Warm wishes.

Jimmy McGill

I think it would look remarkably similar to the world we live in right now. In fact it would look identical.

Bishthebosh

I think it would look remarkably similar to the world we live in right now. In fact it would look identical.

Thank you, Jimmy.
I live in hope that at least one FEer might indulge me by engaging in this thought experiment. As has been commented elsewhere (by you, I think), if we were only a few micrometers tall (actually around 17 if you assume a human is 2m for arguments sake and ease of calculation) and were standing on a beach ball, our senses would tell us that we were standing on an enormous colourful plastic plain, stretching on for miles and miles - flat as the proverbial pancake; no curve in sight.


manicminer

Your analogy with the beach ball has been mentioned a few times now. I remember stating once that the surface of a snooker ball undoubtedly looks flat to any one of the bacteria that live on it.

The zetetic way of thinking seems to be 'seeing is believing' so if the world looks flat to the human eye as we walk around on it then it must be flat.  Take that simplistic notion as gospel and now reinvent the universe to make it fit in with that belief. Everything you read in FEW for example is true and real to FE believers even if it makes no sense to the rest of us. RET theory is based on accumulated scientific knowledge from all over the world. FET is based on what one Samuel Birley Rowbotham believed back in the early 19th century.


I leave it to you to make up your own mind...

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Thank you, Jimmy.
I live in hope that at least one FEer might indulge me by engaging in this thought experiment. As has been commented elsewhere (by you, I think), if we were only a few micrometers tall (actually around 17 if you assume a human is 2m for arguments sake and ease of calculation) and were standing on a beach ball, our senses would tell us that we were standing on an enormous colourful plastic plain, stretching on for miles and miles - flat as the proverbial pancake; no curve in sight.

I know I'm not exactly the kind of FEer you're looking for, because I'm honestly investigating these claims. Already getting myself into quite a bind trying to disprove gravity, I think it's an experiment out of my league, and I'm really needing some help from fellow flat earther's my self: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13661.msg183727#msg183727

But mathematically speaking, if we were on a 8k mile diameter ball.. well I guess mathematically speaking it would look similar to a flat one.
There would be subtle differences, however.

For example, on a flat earth, the horizon would essentially rise to eyelevel for observer elevations up to a few miles because perspective: If the observer goes up a mile, the horizon goes down a mile compared to the observer. But since the distance where the sky meets the water is so far away, the change in angle is so small that the eye cannot resolve it - so the horizon still appears to be at eye level. (By that I mean a water level would still show the horizon to be level with the eye.)
On a ball of the NASA size, the apparent angle of the horizon would go down slightly as the observer went up.
Basically, on a ball earth, if you were 1 mile above sea level, the horizon would be 89 miles away, and the curve would dip down 1 mile in those 89 miles.
So compared to local level, you would be seeing the horizon at 89 miles away and 2 miles below your eyelevel (Remember, you're up one mile, and the earth has curved down a mile, so that's two miles above the horizon.)
arctan(2/89)=1.3 degrees -- so we would see the horizon 1.3 degrees down.
If your water level was 4 foot long, the horizon would be an inch below level at the far end of your level, if you were at 5280 feet elevation. Absurd!

Also, if you were 1 mile up, looking at the horizon, you could observe a very slight curve, but you would need to hold up a straight edge or a super tight string as a straight edge.
The math is as follows:
First, the horizon is 89 miles away, and forms a circle around you.
Let's say your eyes clearly see a 90 degree field of view. Some people are a little more than that, but let's keep it simple.
So your eye is seeing part of a circle, that's 89 miles away and 70 miles long, and 2 miles below you.

You could approximate this if you drew a 90 section of a 35" radius circle on a flat board then held your eye 1" above the center of it and looked out at the curve.

So it would be a very slight curve, but I suspect you would be able to see it if you held up a straight edge.

Another thing that would be different is the angular height of distant  mountains.
A mountain that is 75 miles away would appear 3750 feet lower then actual height on a curved earth. At 100 miles away, it would appear 6700 feet lower than the actual height..
According to round earth math, if you were 1 mile up and looking at a mountain that was 2 miles high but 100 miles away, it would actually be below eyelevel even though it's twice as tall!

We could easily check this either with a surveyor's theodolite or a water level.

So if the earth really were a 8000 mile diameter ball, distant mountains would appear lower than they are the further you are from them we go, the horizon would be below eye level if the observer was a mile up or more, and a very slight curve could be seen on the horizon if the observer was at least a mile up.

Of course all of these things are absurd, we know that the horizon rises to eyelevel, and we know that we can see mountains in the distance that would be hidden by the curve, and we know that we don't see a curve on the horizon, but I'm just telling you what the round earth math says!

Let’s assume the Earth is flat.

Now, let’s indulge in a thought experiment.

What if the Earth was round?
Do I understand this correctly? You want the Flat Earth Society members to describe to you Round Earth Theory?
You don't think I'm going to post here sober, do you?  ???

I have embraced my Benny Franko side. I'm sleazy.

Bishthebosh

Let’s assume the Earth is flat.

Now, let’s indulge in a thought experiment.

What if the Earth was round?
Do I understand this correctly? You want the Flat Earth Society members to describe to you Round Earth Theory?

No. If you genuinely believe in FE, I’m suggesting you try the thought experiment I describe.

I have tried a thought experiment for a flat Earth. I find a number of very obvious things simply don’t fit.

For me the most obvious is the ‘local sun’ shining down lamp-like only over the area of Earth it is currently above. Why do mountains light up at dawn from the top? Surely the beam of sunlight would strike the base of the mountain first as it approached. Secondly, why do I see the moon upside down, lit up from the opposite side and a completely different set of stars in the Southern Hemisphere? Also, how come I can see spherical planets, some with moons, through my friend’s telescope, and watch the ISS passing overhead. And where do the rockets actually go to?

The other thing that just does not seem right is: How come in 70 years no-one of any credibility has whistle-blown about all the space agencies lying? Has absolutely no-one got any integrity, all those thousands of science students with long held dreams of working for NASA or the ESA etc are willing to collude  once they get there? Seriously? All of them? Every single one for seven decades? Human nature tells me that just cannot be the case. There are currently over 50 agencies. Many are funded by their governments. Some of these countries are sworn enemies! So many people in history have been willing to suffer torture to keep a principle. People can be corrupted, sure, but people are also good, honest and decent and brave. Someone would talk. Whatever you may think of him, consider Ed Snowden. Consider the Monica Lewinsky case. Only she, him and her best friend knew. The most powerful man on Earth couldn’t keep that from getting out. Thousands would know about this. Thousands.


Warm regards.

How about we accept the Earth is level. Every one of the clarifications we have been given by the globe Earth people aren't right, it's each of the a scheme and so forth and so forth.

Presently, how about we enjoy a psychological test.

What might we experience whether we traveled to an Earth like spot that is really a monstrous circle, with a sweep of 3959 miles (6371 km) I mean absolutely fudging huuuge, spinning an unfaltering one insurgency like clockwork (so gradually that in the event that you could watch it from an incredible separation it would look stationary except if you sat in all respects persistently and watched it move 15 degrees consistently), with a tilt in the pivot of 23 odd degrees and so on and so on that circled a star exactly 93 million miles away. Would it look anything like a level Earth? How might it be unique?

Warm wishes.

Jhon Willams

Bishthebosh

How about we accept the Earth is level. Every one of the clarifications we have been given by the globe Earth people aren't right, it's each of the a scheme and so forth and so forth.

Presently, how about we enjoy a psychological test.

What might we experience whether we traveled to an Earth like spot that is really a monstrous circle, with a sweep of 3959 miles (6371 km) I mean absolutely fudging huuuge, spinning an unfaltering one insurgency like clockwork (so gradually that in the event that you could watch it from an incredible separation it would look stationary except if you sat in all respects persistently and watched it move 15 degrees consistently), with a tilt in the pivot of 23 odd degrees and so on and so on that circled a star exactly 93 million miles away. Would it look anything like a level Earth? How might it be unique?

Warm wishes.

Jhon Willams

Yeah, I can imagine that. What would that be like? As water always finds its level, the sea would pour off the edge due to the 23 odd degree tilt...
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 09:32:11 AM by Bishthebosh »

SeaCritique

For me the most obvious is the ‘local sun’ shining down lamp-like only over the area of Earth it is currently above. Why do mountains light up at dawn from the top? Surely the beam of sunlight would strike the base of the mountain first as it approached. Secondly, why do I see the moon upside down, lit up from the opposite side and a completely different set of stars in the Southern Hemisphere? Also, how come I can see spherical planets, some with moons, through my friend’s telescope, and watch the ISS passing overhead. And where do the rockets actually go to?

The other thing that just does not seem right is: How come in 70 years no-one of any credibility has whistle-blown about all the space agencies lying? Has absolutely no-one got any integrity, all those thousands of science students with long held dreams of working for NASA or the ESA etc are willing to collude  once they get there? Seriously? All of them? Every single one for seven decades? Human nature tells me that just cannot be the case. There are currently over 50 agencies. Many are funded by their governments. Some of these countries are sworn enemies! So many people in history have been willing to suffer torture to keep a principle. People can be corrupted, sure, but people are also good, honest and decent and brave. Someone would talk. Whatever you may think of him, consider Ed Snowden. Consider the Monica Lewinsky case. Only she, him and her best friend knew. The most powerful man on Earth couldn’t keep that from getting out. Thousands would know about this. Thousands.

You're not the first to think of many of those points. As well, I'd suggest you make a devoted thread for each of those points in the upper-fora, so long as you check the Wiki first and use the search function here to make sure none of your questions have already been answered.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 12:28:54 PM by SeaCritique »