[devils advocate]

I'm also more than happy to trust a simple navigational device, as long as I get to put one together myself. It wouldn't take much - hook up an accelerometer, magnetometer and gyroscope to a Raspberry Pi or Arduino, do a tiny bit of data processing, and you're golden. Maybe throw in GPS for good measure. I already own most of the components and the programming aspect would be trivial. [/quote]

Thanks for your answer Pete, this whole thing is starting to make sense now. Are you able to elaborate on the navigational device aspect? Forgive me if I am tarring you with the standard FE brush but from what I've read on Wiki there is no FE map thus I don't see how one could be sure of our place on the ground (if we don't know the location/dimensions etc)

Also the navigation aids such as position of the sun/starts etc or compass readings seem to be at odds with FE theory as these constants are not known are they?

And GPS: would this work on FE as this would have to trust that the satellites are where they say they are; 12,550 miles up in medium earth orbit? And they do use a RE model:

https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_globe.php?year=2017&month=9&day=21

Appreciate your help in my understanding 

[StinkyOne]

StinkyOne, please either use quotes appropriately, or not at all.

I missed nothing.

Oh no, you're doing that thing again.

You said a flight over Antarctica would potentially change your mind. A link was then posted showing a company already doing this. I asked for comment because this seems like it could potentially impact your views on a flat Earth.

So you're somehow drawing an equivalency between me personally flying over the Ice Wall and there being a website that claims to let people already do that for extortionate amounts of money. If you expect me to change my views every time someone points out that a website exists, well, that's par for the course for you.

^^Quotes for peter

The cost is irrelevant. The website is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that there are already people doing the very thing you said might change your mind. I'll try to spell things out more clearly so you can keep up.

[Pete Svarrior]

the fact that there are already people doing the very thing you said might change your mind

Not only is it not a fact at this stage (it's a claim), they also don't do the very thing I said might change my mind. I said my mind might be change if I, personally, were sent on such a flight. Their existence, even if true, is meaningless by itself.

Once again you struggle to understand what's being said. If instead of focusing so much on abusing forum features you spent more time reading posts, you could stop embarrassing yourself.

Thanks for your answer Pete, this whole thing is starting to make sense now. Are you able to elaborate on the navigational device aspect? Forgive me if I am tarring you with the standard FE brush but from what I've read on Wiki there is no FE map thus I don't see how one could be sure of our place on the ground (if we don't know the location/dimensions etc)

You are correct that, in some ways, we couldn't know our location for sure. However, careful data collection may (or may not - I don't want to speak with too much certainty here) help us overcome that hurdle in the future. If I were to embark on such a flight, it would only make sense for me to try and collect as much information as is possible.

Also the navigation aids such as position of the sun/starts etc or compass readings seem to be at odds with FE theory as these constants are not known are they?

Compass readings are not at odds with FET. You are correct about the rest.

And GPS: would this work on FE as this would have to trust that the satellites are where they say they are; 12,550 miles up in medium earth orbit? And they do use a RE model:

https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_globe.php?year=2017&month=9&day=21

Well, for starters, if we're performing an experiment, we should remain open to either model turning out to be correct in the end. Regardless of which model would prevail, it is a simple case of having more data to reinforce the proof. For example, if I did take a GPS with me and (for some bizarre reason) it told me that I was actually flown to the North Pole, not the Ice Wall, it would raise some questions. Similarly, if we collected data that's consistent with RET, it would make the RE'ers' job easier in the future.

[Curious Squirrel]

When taken further I think that there is absolutely nothing that could change your mind which is the genius of this site and the FE debate.

I disagree, but I will admit that it would take an extraordinary piece of evidence to convince someone like myself. This is because I've performed numerous experiments to confirm FET for my own benefit, and continue to do so in my spare time.

Like what? This is a genuine, honest question. I asked you on another thread, but I suspect you simply missed the question as it was a bit of a busy thread at the time. I see a lot of you guys saying stuff like this, but I've never gotten an actual, legitimate response when asked exactly what these experiments entail so far. Please, explain one or two for me/us, and go into exacting detail as though you were writing for a scientific journal. This should include:
1) Precise notes on the details of how to set it up, such that anyone else could do it without further input from you.
2) Exactly what it is you are seeing, or what is happening.
3) Something either explaining some of what's happening, or at least lay out why what has just been seen can only happen on a flat Earth, and never on a round Earth.
I would love to see some of these things that have so thoroughly convinced some of the smarter sections of the FE crowd.

[Pete Svarrior]

Like what? This is a genuine, honest question. I asked you on another thread, but I suspect you simply missed the question as it was a bit of a busy thread at the time. I see a lot of you guys saying stuff like this, but I've never gotten an actual, legitimate response when asked exactly what these experiments entail so far. Please, explain one or two for me/us, and go into exacting detail as though you were writing for a scientific journal.

The reason you do not receive a response is because of your standards of what is "actual" and "legitimate". When I go out to test things out for my own benefit, I hardly keep notes. I set up a small-scale experiment (which is patently not scientific or rigorous), play around with things, and then move on with my life. I have stated many times, for example, that I reproduced experiments similar to the Bishop Experiment/Bedford Level Experiment/Sinking Ship Experiment, but I have neither will nor notes to write scientific papers about them. Plus, I'm already busy enough writing journal papers in my primary field. Make no mistake - while I'm a thoroughly convinced FE'er, this is certainly not my main occupation.

I'm an empiricist, and many RE'ers here are too, whether they realise this or not. That's why when we claim we've seen things, they simply say we must be lying. The only way for them to accept things is to attempt the experiments themselves. This is something I will always encourage FE'ers and RE'ers alike to engage in.

[devils advocate]

Thanks for your answer Pete, this whole thing is starting to make sense now. Are you able to elaborate on the navigational device aspect? Forgive me if I am tarring you with the standard FE brush but from what I've read on Wiki there is no FE map thus I don't see how one could be sure of our place on the ground (if we don't know the location/dimensions etc)

You are correct that, in some ways, we couldn't know our location for sure. However, careful data collection may (or may not - I don't want to speak with too much certainty here) help us overcome that hurdle in the future. If I were to embark on such a flight, it would only make sense for me to try and collect as much information as is possible.

Also the navigation aids such as position of the sun/starts etc or compass readings seem to be at odds with FE theory as these constants are not known are they?

Compass readings are not at odds with FET. You are correct about the rest.

And GPS: would this work on FE as this would have to trust that the satellites are where they say they are; 12,550 miles up in medium earth orbit? And they do use a RE model:

https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_globe.php?year=2017&month=9&day=21

Well, for starters, if we're performing an experiment, we should remain open to either model turning out to be correct in the end. Regardless of which model would prevail, it is a simple case of having more data to reinforce the proof. For example, if I did take a GPS with me and (for some bizarre reason) it told me that I was actually flown to the North Pole, not the Ice Wall, it would raise some questions. Similarly, if we collected data that's consistent with RET, it would make the RE'ers' job easier in the future.

Thanks for your reply Pete, that has really helped me start to make sense of this issue, I appreciate your time in explaining it to me 

[Curious Squirrel]

Like what? This is a genuine, honest question. I asked you on another thread, but I suspect you simply missed the question as it was a bit of a busy thread at the time. I see a lot of you guys saying stuff like this, but I've never gotten an actual, legitimate response when asked exactly what these experiments entail so far. Please, explain one or two for me/us, and go into exacting detail as though you were writing for a scientific journal.

The reason you do not receive a response is because of your standards of what is "actual" and "legitimate". When I go out to test things out for my own benefit, I hardly keep notes. I set up a small-scale experiment (which is patently not scientific or rigorous), play around with things, and then move on with my life. I have stated many times, for example, that I reproduced experiments similar to the Bishop Experiment/Bedford Level Experiment/Sinking Ship Experiment, but I have neither will nor notes to write scientific papers about them. Plus, I'm already busy enough writing journal papers in my primary field. Make no mistake - while I'm a thoroughly convinced FE'er, this is certainly not my main occupation.

I'm an empiricist, and many RE'ers here are too, whether they realise this or not. That's why when we claim we've seen things, they simply say we must be lying. The only way for them to accept things is to attempt the experiments themselves. This is something I will always encourage FE'ers and RE'ers alike to engage in.

Actually you've given me plenty. I have a thorough distrust of the Bishop/Bedford Level experiments. NOT because I don't think they have seen what they claim to be seeing, but because they (along with the sinking ship) are not solely proof for FE. They show we might not understand the optics of things properly, as well as the simple fact there are FAR too many variables when sighting over water. Sinking ship is awash, because the explanation from each side work to enough of a degree I don't see it as proof for either side.

I don't think you're lying in what is being seen when you guys do the sight experiments and such. I just think you're attributing to 'the Earth isn't round' what can be explained by other phenomenon. Beyond that, a single example of something not working right, does not disprove something. It only shows there might be room to experiment and explain that aspect better. I've seen what looks like too much of an opposite shore or something. But there are far more interesting issues that I see with a FE, that I can observe and they match perfectly with what RE says I should see. You've surely seen a number of them brought up by 3DGeek recently, but things like sunset/rise, distances, and time of day are all things I cannot explain with any FE mapping/explanation attempt I've seen. If such simple things can't be explained, how can I believe a hypothesis?

[3DGeek]

The reason you do not receive a response is because of your standards of what is "actual" and "legitimate". When I go out to test things out for my own benefit, I hardly keep notes. I set up a small-scale experiment (which is patently not scientific or rigorous), play around with things, and then move on with my life. I have stated many times, for example, that I reproduced experiments similar to the Bishop Experiment/Bedford Level Experiment/Sinking Ship Experiment, but I have neither will nor notes to write scientific papers about them. Plus, I'm already busy enough writing journal papers in my primary field. Make no mistake - while I'm a thoroughly convinced FE'er, this is certainly not my main occupation.

I'm an empiricist, and many RE'ers here are too, whether they realise this or not. That's why when we claim we've seen things, they simply say we must be lying. The only way for them to accept things is to attempt the experiments themselves. This is something I will always encourage FE'ers and RE'ers alike to engage in.

I fully agree and encourage people to do experiments of their own.   But the key to good science is whether other people can reproduce your experiments - or perhaps offer alternative explanations for them.

So if you keep them to yourself - and become convinced by them - then any experimental error you made - or any alternative explanation you might have missed - becomes a flaw that you've now built firmly into your psyche.

So...maybe you see a ship NOT disappear over the horizon.  OK - that's an experiment.   You take that and say "Now I've done the experiment - the ship DIDN'T disappear as expected - so the Earth Is Flat - and I'll base the rest of my life on that conclusion."

But the trouble is - that if you look at other people's efforts to do the same experiment (such as my own) - they both fail to reproduce your results (Yep...my ship vanished over the horizon, hull-first) - AND have alternative explanations for the results you obtained.   (Refraction through temperature inversions over the ocean at grazing angles...to pick just one).

But you've now blinded yourself to those other results.

Personally - having seen convincing-looking experiments that both do and do not show FET/RET to be true - I'm inclined to say "This experiment is inconclusive - so I'll seek other explanations instead".

When I do that, I look toward the sun to see if sets in the evening...it certainly does.

I look for other experiments that show that it doesn't...and there are none.  100% of people agree that the sun sets.

But there are alternative explanations...Tom's "alternative perspective", the "electromagnetic accelerator", etc.

So in this case, it's not the experiment that's problematic - it's the explanation of it.   So I examine all of the alternative explanations ("The Earth Is Round",  "Perspective is...um...something different", "Light travels along curved paths because of...I dunno...unicorn farts maybe").

Now I look at which of those explanations holds water.   Well, "The Earth is Round" certainly works.   The others really don't.   They both require that light doesn't travel in straight lines...and that's not a tenable argument because if you apply it to all of the points on the circle of the sun, they don't preserve it's circularity.

So right now - I ignore the "ships over the horizon" experiment as "inconclusive" - and pay great attention to the "sunset problem" because that does not seem to have more than one possible conclusion.

But to do an experiment yourself - and then base all future belief on it's result while ignoring other people's efforts at doing the same experiment - and ignoring alternative explanations - that's a ridiculous way to run your life.

[Pete Svarrior]

3DG, as always, you decided to entirely ignore the point of my words and chose to focus on a strawman instead. I suggested the very opposite of "running my life" through these off-hand, quick-check experiments. We have already tried discussing documented experiments with you, and we both know how that ended.

You also presented a ludicrous hypothetical for the Sinking Ship Experiment - the ship is expected to sink under FET - it's one of the strongest proofs that the Earth is flat when combined with restoration through a telescope.

Stop wasting everyone's time.

Curious Squirrel - what you've described is why I remain open-minded. I'm personally convinced that the Earth being flat is the simplest, most elegant explanation for these inconsistencies, but it's not the only one, naturally.

[zp0okii]

3DG, as always, you decided to entirely ignore the point of my words and chose to focus on a strawman instead. I suggested the very opposite of "running my life" through these off-hand, quick-check experiments. We have already tried discussing documented experiments with you, and we both know how that ended.

You also presented a ludicrous hypothetical for the Sinking Ship Experiment - the ship is expected to sink under FET - it's one of the strongest proofs that the Earth is flat when combined with restoration through a telescope.

Stop wasting everyone's time.

It seems my comment last time this got brought up was ignored. The ""law of perspectives"" is NOT a FET proof because it has been thoroughly debunked (both on this forum and other places online) by professional scientists and amateurs alike.


"Here is how 3D perspective works in reality.

Each 3D coordinate is mapped into a 2D planar view using the following relationship:

3D [x,y,z] -> 2D [x/z, y/z] (with 0,0 being the center of our view).
You'll notice that this is exactly the same as our previous formula where the apparent size equals the height (x for horizontal and y for vertical here) divided by the distance (z).

That's ALL that perspective is.  Things get smaller with distance.

Let's say we have a distant building (simplified to just one vertical line here) that goes from [0, 0, 100] to [0, 50, 100] (so it's 50 y units tall, at 100 z units distant) and some water in front of it that covers [0,0,50] to [0,20,50] (so the water is closer to us at z = 50 units and only 20 y units high).

These coordinates map to:
[0, 1/2] << top of building (50/100)
[0, 2/5] << top of water, which begins to hide the more distant building
[0, 0] << bottom of water AND bottom of building

Because the water was closer it will occlude the more distant building.

So we see water up to 2/5 and then building up to 1/2 in our projected view.

But if that water is FLAT then it's ALWAYS at [0,0,*] -- every Z distance is 0, so it's ALWAYS at [0,0] along that line of sight. So now we get a mapping of:

[0, 1/2] << top of building (50/100) -- we see the ENTIRE building - just smaller because it's more distant
[0, 0] << water AND bottom of building

What if we move that building to be ten times further, at 1000 z units away?

[0, 1/20] << top of building (50/1000) -- we STILL see the ENTIRE building - just equally smaller because it's more distant
[0, 0] << water AND bottom of building

No matter how far away you move that building, every single foot of the entire building is going to be the same angular size from our view. You will never see only the top of the building and have the bottom missing due to "perspective" smashing it into the ground.

So this means that otherwise parallel lines receding from our view get closer to together but never actually converge and, AT NO POINT, would an object that is above some line of sight be hidden by an object BELOW it.

So if your eye is above the ground and you are looking straight out, the ground could NEVER hide part of a building at any distance.  That would violate the actual Law of Perspective.   If you change the angles then sure, something closer can hide something further away but it has to be IN your line of sight to do so -- it cannot be a plane that lies BELOW your line of sight."

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.0

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/10/flat-earth-failures-perspective-and.html

[TomInAustin]

3DG, as always, you decided to entirely ignore the point of my words and chose to focus on a strawman instead. I suggested the very opposite of "running my life" through these off-hand, quick-check experiments. We have already tried discussing documented experiments with you, and we both know how that ended.

You also presented a ludicrous hypothetical for the Sinking Ship Experiment - the ship is expected to sink under FET - it's one of the strongest proofs that the Earth is flat when combined with restoration through a telescope.

Except for the fact that doesn't happen. 

[Curious Squirrel]

Curious Squirrel - what you've described is why I remain open-minded. I'm personally convinced that the Earth being flat is the simplest, most elegant explanation for these inconsistencies, but it's not the only one, naturally.

I would not argue with you on that for this one specific experiment point. The Earth being flat is a wonderfully elegant and simple explanation for the sinking ship and the Bedford Level type experiments and results. Personally though, those alone aren't enough when there are FAR larger and more problematic issues that need to be solved for a flat Earth. Ranging from how does the sun set/rise in the way we observe, to the whole NASA issue. Again, one type of experiment being out of place with what is easy to answer, does not make it so one must swallow everything else. At least for me. FE *requires* that we haven't gone into space for instance, or at a bare minimum every single shot of Earth from space is fake, no matter who it comes from. Sorry, not buying it.

[3DGeek]

It seems my comment last time this got brought up was ignored. The ""law of perspectives"" is NOT a FET proof because it has been thoroughly debunked (both on this forum and other places online) by professional scientists and amateurs alike.

Even if you could somehow twist your brain into Tom's crazy-perspective view, it fails for another reason.

If it can moosh the center of the sun to the horizon (from 3,000 miles down to zero) - then how come it doesn't also moosh the TOP of the sun to the horizon (from 3,030 miles down to zero)?

What would happen if the alternate perspective idea was true would be that the Sun (and also the moon) would slowly squish down into an ellipse - and then into a horizontal line as we approached sunset.

A few minutes before sunset, you'd see a thin horizontal bright line lowering towards the horizon.

Since this doesn't happen - we can say that the alternate perspective thing doesn't work without having to go to the trouble of debunking it.

Another problem is that if it's an optical effect, it should operate symmetrically in all axes.   So if I stand on my head and look at a sunset then the sun should be higher in the sky...not lower.   If I lay on my side and watch the sunset - it should move closer to my line of sight in a horizontal direction.

This also doesn't happen.

How come the stars - which are at similar distances to the sun don't get denser around the horizon line as they get further away from us?

The proponents of it can't even draw a simple diagram showing how the rays of sunlight travel from the sun to our eyes.

Even if you fully accept it - it cannot explain how clouds get illuminated from below just as the sun is setting.

The video that everyone seems to use (by Mr P-brane) is just ridiculously wrong.  He says "You can't use this 2D diagram to represent the real world" and then within 30 seconds does exactly that!   He double-counts perspective (so it happens twice) and then he fails to notice how near-to-far distances are compressed as well as vertical distances.

Alternative perspective is busted in so many obvious and silly ways...but for some reason, people seem to simply accept it.

[zp0okii]

It seems my comment last time this got brought up was ignored. The ""law of perspectives"" is NOT a FET proof because it has been thoroughly debunked (both on this forum and other places online) by professional scientists and amateurs alike.

Even if you could somehow twist your brain into Tom's crazy-perspective view, it fails for another reason.

If it can moosh the center of the sun to the horizon (from 3,000 miles down to zero) - then how come it doesn't also moosh the TOP of the sun to the horizon (from 3,030 miles down to zero)?

What would happen if the alternate perspective idea was true would be that the Sun (and also the moon) would slowly squish down into an ellipse - and then into a horizontal line as we approached sunset.

A few minutes before sunset, you'd see a thin horizontal bright line lowering towards the horizon.

Since this doesn't happen - we can say that the alternate perspective thing doesn't work without having to go to the trouble of debunking it.

Another problem is that if it's an optical effect, it should operate symmetrically in all axes.   So if I stand on my head and look at a sunset then the sun should be higher in the sky...not lower.   If I lay on my side and watch the sunset - it should move closer to my line of sight in a horizontal direction.

This also doesn't happen.

How come the stars - which are at similar distances to the sun don't get denser around the horizon line as they get further away from us?

The proponents of it can't even draw a simple diagram showing how the rays of sunlight travel from the sun to our eyes.

Even if you fully accept it - it cannot explain how clouds get illuminated from below just as the sun is setting.

The video that everyone seems to use (by Mr P-brane) is just ridiculously wrong.  He says "You can't use this 2D diagram to represent the real world" and then within 30 seconds does exactly that!   He double-counts perspective (so it happens twice) and then he fails to notice how near-to-far distances are compressed as well as vertical distances.

Alternative perspective is busted in so many obvious and silly ways...but for some reason, people seem to simply accept it.

I want to add that the fact that FE'rs keep citing this "law" as a "proof" of FET only lends to their discreditation - citing things that are so thoroughly debunked is counterproductive. I'm looking at you, Pete.

Also, on the point RE: everyone's photos of space needing to be fake for FET to be true... this is what's wrong with almost every conspiracy theory ever. The people who think they've been "red-pilled" presume that there are thousands of people conspiring together to keep the truth from getting out. The logistics of doing this are hard enough for the government on minor issues. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to keep everyone quiet about the Earth actually being flat. Furthermore, why would anyone put forth the effort required to organize such a massive conspiracy, especially regarding the shape of the Earth? This is all a paranoid delusion of kids who didn't get enough hugs growing up, IMO.

[Pete Svarrior]

Personally though, those alone aren't enough when there are FAR larger and more problematic issues that need to be solved for a flat Earth. Ranging from how does the sun set/rise in the way we observe, to the whole NASA issue. Again, one type of experiment being out of place with what is easy to answer, does not make it so one must swallow everything else. At least for me. FE *requires* that we haven't gone into space for instance, or at a bare minimum every single shot of Earth from space is fake, no matter who it comes from. Sorry, not buying it.

That's fair enough - I appreciate your thoughts behind this, and I understand your reasons for disagreeing.

[Obviously]

Pete, I would be curious to hear your thoughts on FE's favorite word, "perspective"! Do you actually subscribe to Tom's gobbledygook excuses for sunset and sunrise?

You seem like a fairly intelligent individual, you demonstrate actual reasoning abilities, and your vocabulary seems to indicate that you have an actual education, unlike most flerfers (my theory is that you're probably on the FE team just for fun - maybe you were on a debate team in high school and perhaps this is your way of keep your skills sharp). I strongly believe that no one actually reasons themselves into becoming a flathead; it basically has to be a faith thing, given the overwhelming amount of evidence against it.