21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "The stars are not light-years away"

« on: January 27, 2018, 03:35:32 AM »

If you are claiming that a specific observation that favors your model of the earth will be seen if some specific experiment is performed simultaneously from three different location on earth, it is your responsibility to organize that experiment. Why would you expect me to do your work for you? Are you funding me?

It has been done.  All over the world there are equatorial sundials erected in steel, stone, concrete, and wood.  These demonstrate the azimuth angle to the sun at not merely three cities but hundreds of cities, perhaps thousands, each at different latitudes.

Representing Steel is this stern piece from the socialistic era, at the Hungarian Geographic Museum in Érd, Hungary


Representing Stone is this five foot diameter granite specimen in Bloomington, MN, USA:



Representing Concrete is the Larkin Memorial Sundial in Claremont, CA, USA.  I particularly like this one for its inclusion of the analemma in the gnomon:


Representing Wood is the Equatorial sundial at the Blue Mountains Botanic Garden Mount Tomah in New South Wales, Australia:

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar noon Sun altitude tool, to help with Zetetic approach

« on: January 24, 2018, 02:24:39 AM »

One of my "someday if I have time" project ideas is to compile a list of webcams at various latitudes pointed at tall objects of known height.  Traffic cameras are where I started looking, since they often have vertical objects like streetlights, signs, etc in the image.  Ideal would be to find a bunch of them along the same longitude so they all have solar noon at the same time (give or take a little bit).  It shouldn't be difficult to figure out the shadow length within a reasonable margin of error.  Then an individual could check the sun angles at a wide range of latitude for oneself, without relying on anyone else for data.

Someday, if I have time.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Death of Heliocentricity

« on: January 21, 2018, 04:05:23 AM »

You’re seeing the trees but not the forest.  Each of the models you find so ridiculous to even suggest?  THAT’S THE POINT.  Demanding a computer model of a thing, then rejecting that the thing exists when no model is presented, is ridiculous.

24

Flat Earth Community / Re: Damning evidence against the heliocentric model...

« on: January 15, 2018, 04:28:48 AM »

Before computers existed such a model would have been impossible, right?

Before that, the models were clockwork devices called orrery.  For example, from 1568:

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2+2

« on: January 15, 2018, 04:11:00 AM »

I could say *childish vulgarity removed*

Or that you regularly engage in some *more childish vulgarity*

You could do that.  Or you could follow the rules.  In particular:

Rule 1. No personal attacks. Keep your posts civil and to the point, and don't insult others. If you have run out of valid contributions, simply do not post.

26

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: lists with spoilers

« on: January 15, 2018, 04:01:18 AM »

Rama Set got it to work in a post today.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity confirmed - UA dead?

« on: January 12, 2018, 08:06:18 PM »

Now that LIGO has detected gravity waves warping space-time on multiple occasions (and once again confirming that Einstein was right), where does that leave UA?

I don’t think the LIGO results will have any impact on a flat earther.  A big government project “proves” gravity in a way that we can only take their word for it, unverifiable and unrepeatable by anybody who doesn’t also have billions of dollars to spend?  This leaves UA exactly where it has been.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth Sun

« on: January 10, 2018, 04:04:53 PM »

Plus, the area around the mountain in question (Rainier, in the State of Washington) has a great deal of freshwater, saltwater, and snow, surrounding it all times of the year.

Cool story.  Too bad it isn't true

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2+2

« on: January 10, 2018, 01:51:12 PM »

Are you not seeing the explanations of why that paper does not mean what you think it means?....You are not right about 2+2. It is universal that 2+2=4....And honestly, I'm confused about why this even appears in your repertoire. Something about reexamining axioms? How about reexamining Rowbotham's perspective and its broke-ass errors

It complements his earlier work on the “true” value of pi, which (present discussion notwithstanding) somehow DOES always equal 4.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Project ESDR

« on: January 10, 2018, 01:35:07 PM »

We’re in their house.  Don’t like it?  Create your own forum, where roundies can rant and flatties get banned.

Besides, if you want to convince the casual “I just heard about this flat earth thing and wonder if it’s true” reader, maybe you accomplish that more often by sounding like the voice of reason instead of just another shouting troll?

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: January 10, 2018, 01:28:47 PM »

Don't you only need 2 measurements? If they're from a known distance apart then you've got your base of the triangle and the angles, trig should do the rest.
Obviously more measurements would corroborate and be helpful.

There is a growing list of debates I notice they've just stopped contributing to when they've been clearly shown to be wrong. They don't seem very serious about developing a flat earth model which actually works and can explain observations.

You want 3 points. At 3 points you will show that both there is no 'standard' height of the sun, as well as you can thus show that there can't be a 'standard' size of the sun without introducing a fudge factor. 2 points (as Eratosthenes uses) isn't 100% definitive. But once you add that third point, the sun's necessary height will vary, potentially on the order of a thousand miles or so, depending on where your points are.

Not only the height, but the location north to south as well.  Here, I've plotted the sunward vectors for three cities using values contributed by the artist formerly known as Intikam:

• If you consider only observations from Buenos Aires and Estonia, you get a figure of about 3000 miles, but pair either city with Baghdad and you get different heights, even though all three cities are looking at the same sun
• Even worse, each city pair yields a different latitude for the sub-solar point, even though all three cities are still looking at ONE sun
• Worse still, the apparent location of the sun as estimated from Estonia and Baghdad is actually SOUTH of Buenos Aires

All of this put together is pretty convincing.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth Sun

« on: January 10, 2018, 01:16:21 PM »

Your pretty picture is simply the rays of the Sun reflecting off the Earth casting a shadow on the clouds underneath.

Preposterous.  Dirt, rocks, grass, trees....these are not reflective surfaces.  If they were, clouds would always be lit from underneath.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun Rising

« on: January 06, 2018, 01:09:17 AM »

All of your points are valid, and none of them matter.  The FE side discards too much of the science you are basing your points on.  Lawson Criterion and stellar fusion?  These depend on gravity, which is rejected by a lot of FE.  Illumination of objects millions of miles away?  In the FE world, those objects are not millions of miles away, not even thousands of miles.  Cassini?  Space flight is impossible and any evidence claimed to derive from it is part of The Conspiracy (their capitalization, not mine).

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides?

« on: January 05, 2018, 06:26:25 PM »

From the Wiki:

using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question

No Zetetic worthy of the name would give any consideration to this ‘under moon’ idea, because it doesn’t come from observation.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun Rising

« on: January 05, 2018, 06:18:09 PM »

The black body radiation issue is moot because the FE sun is MUCH smaller.  I did the math in a post some time ago.  The problem isn’t that we would get too much solar energy, it’s that it would fall off much more sharply than it actually does as distance from the sub solar point increases.  We get far more infrared at the poles than we would if the sun were actually small and close.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Chapter XI of Rowbotham

« on: January 04, 2018, 07:31:52 PM »

I doubt that Rowbotham looked at the moon through a telescope.

I agree.  He devotes a portion of ENaG to discussing the danger of moonlight, it would be unwise to use a telescope to focus moonlight on one's eyeballs, if one believes it to be a danger.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Apollo landing conspiracy

« on: January 03, 2018, 04:36:42 AM »

The few posts I’ve seen on the topic (here is the most representative sample I found) seem to hold that there are no such objects on the moon (since nobody landed there to deploy them) and that anyone claiming to have done the laser ranging experiment using the retroreflectors is either mistaken about their results or lying about it.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics

« on: December 31, 2017, 02:20:23 PM »

You still don’t fully understand it.  This replaces gravity.  It is the same amount of force.  The legs you have are already adequate to withstand 9.8 m/s/s acceleration.  That’s 1g, after all.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics

« on: December 31, 2017, 01:38:15 PM »

and for the OP i have understood we are travelling at the mentioned 9.81m/s, not continually accelerating at this rate.  Though I may be wrong.

Yep, you are wrong; you have misunderstood their model.  The “A” in their term “UA” stands for Acceleration.  In some versions of FE this replaces mass-attracts-mass gravity.  The “U” term is for “Universal”, which means the sun, moon, planets, and stars are accelerating too, which is why we don’t fly past them as we accelerate upwards.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Regarding Pendulums

« on: December 31, 2017, 09:39:03 AM »

Here’s a link to the answer from the wiki.