1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sunset

« on: June 30, 2017, 01:38:05 AM »

The electromagnetic spectrum is very broad and visible 'light' only makes up a tiny fraction of it.

If I had said visible light then you would have a point (Edit: if you wanted to seem really smart you could have mentioned particles that come from the sun). But this light vs electromagnetic spectrum issue is useless and irrelevant. You are only looking for superficial things to say "gochya" at and then call me dumb.

If you think its a stupid question then it should be easy for you to answer or explain yourself. If the sun is thousands of miles above us, then why do I see it cross the horizon at a constant angular speed twice a day?

Sigh. The Sun is approximately 150 million km away from us. We are on a spinning rock that orbits the Sun. In addition, the sun also orbits the galactic core which takes roughly 250 million years to complete. In addition to this, our local galactic cluster is heading towards a region in the universe dubbed 'The Great Attractor'.

You should not be looking at internet forums as educational institutions. No one here that will answer your questions will be properly accredited so treat everything you see online (including me) as BS until you are able to verify it yourself.

I'm trying to argue that flat earth theory is wrong and that these questions are basically unanswerable because the earth is obviously round. And I definitely didn't come to a flat earth forum for education.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sunset

« on: June 30, 2017, 01:00:04 AM »

I have seen it. And sunrise, also. The sun being cut neatly into a semi-circle by the sea. The diameter of that semi-circle seemed to be pretty much the same as it is for the full circle sun any time of the day.

This is indeed very hard to explain with perspective, as we know that phenomenom. I have seen someone explaining how the sun "appears to be" equally large any time of the day because of the atmospheric magnification that occurs near the horizon; however, so far no one here (as far as I have noticed) has explained why it turns into a semi-circle before disappearing completely.

Hmm, how could some sort of 'atmospheric magnification' cause the sun to occupy more of my vision, thus also causing the rest of the sky to occupy less of my vision? Somehow the magnification would have to always be 'pointed' at the sun, but I can't imagine how that could possibly work.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sunset

« on: June 30, 2017, 12:26:33 AM »

The electromagnetic spectrum is very broad and visible 'light' only makes up a tiny fraction of it.

If I had said visible light then you would have a point (Edit: if you wanted to seem really smart you could have mentioned particles that come from the sun). But this light vs electromagnetic spectrum issue is useless and irrelevant. You are only looking for superficial things to say "gochya" at and then call me dumb.

If you think its a stupid question then it should be easy for you to answer or explain yourself. If the sun is thousands of miles above us, then why do I see it cross the horizon at a constant angular speed twice a day?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sunset

« on: June 29, 2017, 10:37:56 PM »

An intellect for one

Shifter, first you try to point out a flaw in my argument that ultimately stemmed from your own misunderstanding, and so you say I have no intellect?

I meant what else is lacking in the original post.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sunset

« on: June 29, 2017, 10:16:59 PM »

You really thing I don't know what I'm talking about because I said light instead of electromagnetic radiation? What else is lacking?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sunset

« on: June 29, 2017, 10:11:39 PM »

Who here has seen the sun set?
Along with every other object in the sky, it moves across the sky at a constant angular velocity and then clearly crosses the horizon, weather you are on the sea, atop a skyscraper, or in a valley. (or on the iss)

How can this be? It clearly does not spin around above us or else we could almost always see it!

The attempts to explain this seem to often talk about "perspective" or "refraction" as if the word itself completely explains the unusual nature of light that would be necessary for the bottom half of an object to be blocked by something that isn't in between the object and observer. Any artist or projective geometry will be able to show you exactly what it would look like for a sun to move in circles above us, and any experiment you can do about refraction will show that it is negligible, and only a black hole or giant planet sized lens could make the sun appear such an odd way.

Also, I'm aware that this doesn't say much about the shape of the earth, because a sun could still orbit a disk earth.

If you think the sun is fake/digital, then think about this:

All the sun does for us besides gravity is give light. Any image/hologram that can be created is done so by a light that you have to be looking at. So in order to create a fake sun you have to actually build a giant fake light in the sky that moves around. You can't just project it up there, so the above argument still sort of applies to a fake sun, although I don't know if anyone who believes in the circling sun theory also thinks the sun is fake.

I guess the heat is irrelevant then? Or the radiation? Good luck arguing with people when your opening post is so arrogant and ridiculously lacking

Sorry, I thought saying Electromagnetic radiation instead of simply light would sound even more arrogant

7

Flat Earth Theory / The sunset

« on: June 29, 2017, 09:44:10 PM »

Who here has seen the sun set?
Along with every other object in the sky, it moves across the sky at a constant angular velocity and then clearly crosses the horizon, weather you are on the sea, atop a skyscraper, or in a valley. (or on the iss)

How can this be? It clearly does not spin around above us or else we could almost always see it!

The attempts to explain this seem to often talk about "perspective" or "refraction" as if the word itself completely explains the unusual nature of light that would be necessary for the bottom half of an object to be blocked by something that isn't in between the object and observer. Any artist or projective geometry will be able to show you exactly what it would look like for a sun to move in circles above us, and any experiment you can do about refraction will show that it is negligible, and only a black hole or giant planet sized lens could make the sun appear such an odd way.

Also, I'm aware that this doesn't say much about the shape of the earth, because a sun could still orbit a disk earth.

If you think the sun is fake/digital, then think about this:

All the sun does for us besides gravity is give light. Any image/hologram that can be created is done so by a light that you have to be looking at. So in order to create a fake sun you have to actually build a giant fake light in the sky that moves around. You can't just project it up there, so the above argument still sort of applies to a fake sun, although I don't know if anyone who believes in the circling sun theory also thinks the sun is fake.

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: I Made a 1:1 Scale Model of flat earth

« on: June 24, 2017, 11:02:40 PM »

the camera is NOT calibrated to resemble a human's vision

I don't understand, what exactly is different about human vision that could be calibrated other than field of view?

Also your map appears very distorted around the edges, especially Australia which looks super stretched out.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Google Earth

« on: June 22, 2017, 02:46:16 AM »

This is my first post, so greetings everyone!

I think the earth is round, and I have a strong background in conventional physics/engineering, but of course I'm open to the idea that it is all wrong, if you have a compelling alternative.

As for google earth - I think the existence of google earth (any atlas/highly detailed map of the globe really), along with so many people able to verify its accuracy at their home, is the strongest evidence for a round earth. I will assume that the earth is flat, or any other non spherical shape (so technically this reasoning doesn't disprove a hollow earth), and that google is in on the conspiracy and has practically infinite capabilities. They would have to build a false spherical model of the earth that is locally accurate everywhere that there are people who can search up their own address. They would find that it is impossible to stretch a flat surface around a round one without creating discontinuities like stretching and incorrect scaling in different places. There would end up being ripples or folds that have to be cut out of the model or moved around, and detail everywhere would have to be made up. Even placing a single small continent on the globe would be challenging because the perimeter would be too big to fit on a sphere without stretching it around.


This stretching problem I think is the same reason that there are no good detailed maps of the flat earth. It is impossible to create because every continent has a spherical surface, and would result in stretching if you tried to put it on a flat map. The existence of a map of the flat earth with road or maybe even town border level of detail would be proof of a flat earth, if the earth were flat. If you were to set off and start building a digital 3d map of the world, you would eventually find things not quite lining up, for example distances between landmarks far away from the center of your map would appear farther apart from each other.

I would like to know if anyone has a FET explination to how google has accomplished this global model if it is fake yet still lines up everywhere locally.