The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: FLboy on May 05, 2022, 04:53:04 AM
-
Hello Everyone!
I first heard about Flat Earth when Vice News went to the conference in 2017. Even though I am still a Round Earther, after reading news articles and exploring TFES forum and wiki, I began to wonder what made the shape of the Earth obvious. I am not sure why people, including myself, think (thought?) it was obvious that the Earth was round.
This year I decided to write a paper for class about this. I wanted to hear from the Flat Earth community. Since you made the jump from Round to Flat Earth, I would love to hear your perspective about what makes the shape of the Earth seem obvious to Round Earther types, and if that feeling of obviousness carries over to Round Earth. I'd also love to hear about how you felt or thought about this.
Thank you all for your thoughts!
-
Hey FLBoy,
Welcome to Science! Like you suggested, I was a "Round Earther" until about five years ago when I started looking into Flat Earth. Ultimately, I had to draw my own conclusions on what the world looks like.
In my view, it looks pretty flat from the surface, but as you go higher in the sky it looks rounder as seen from planes and satellites. Why the earth doesn't look "flat" from space is a bit complicated, but I included a few pictures below to help explain:
In picture 1 (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/goes-16-sends-first-images-to-earth) you see a satellite photo of earth . In picture 2, I tried to replicate this image by taking a flat earth map and putting a glass dome above it to represent the atmosphere and give it a spherical look. Picture 3 illustrates what I think the earth looks like from far away at the time of this satellite photo. I don't know if satellites are high enough to get this view or if the dark side of earth can be seen at all. I suspect when people see earth from space, they assume darkness is caused by earth's curvature rather than the suns lighting effect. Either way, everyone's shooting in the dark :P
(https://i.imgur.com/JY1FRE3.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/2Iad2zb.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/IzY6ivU.jpg)
To get more fancy, here is another photo from space showing half the earth illuminated by the sun (https://www.met.ie/tracking-hurricane-lorenzo). I posted my versions next to it.
(https://i.imgur.com/pb0sF2a.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/abhVQLl.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ks4iD08.jpg)
And keep in mind the flat earth map I used needs to be edited in order to properly reflect all the land mass seen in the satellite images.
Here's a better view of the materials I used. The map with a dome is on the left and without a dome on your right.
(https://i.imgur.com/fRQVlCs.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/28RpgDr.jpg)
Like you said, it may not be so obvious as to what the shape of the earth is from different perspectives.
-
Hello MetaTron!
That's a neat experiment! I can clearly see how the dome "refracts" (I'm not a science expert, I think that's the term?) what part of the earth is visible from a high distance.
I also think it is very illuminating that you flipped my premise: what's intuitive is not the roundness of the earth but its flatness. This is because every day we encounter the earth as being flat. If I may put words in your mouth (please correct me if I'm wrong): a round earth is only intuitive because we are taught that by society, especially through pictures from space looking back down.
(I also noticed that your model takes Antarctica as the center of the disk. I think there is some internal debate within the community about what exactly the arrangement of the flat earth is? I still need to look into that particular set of threads.)
-
Yeah, you pretty much grasped the concepts.. There was a discussion here about distance and flight paths on a modified flat earth map I made which needs more revision.. https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18429.msg255127#msg255127
-
But MetaTron. You're using a solid glass dome. That does not have the same refractive properties as our atmosphere.
And there's no evidence of a dome above us anyway, there's the infamous "Rocket Hits the Dome" video but that's just a yo-yo despinner being activated. If a rocket going at that speed had really hit a dome it would have been obliterated.
-
I understand your objection.. But the atmosphere is pretty dense - liquid almost - and shares many if the refractive properties of glass..
-
The other issue with all the dome pictures and videos you find out there is that the views being presented are always from outside the dome. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that everything, sun, moon, stars, satellites all exist within the dome. That makes any view from outside a dome pointless.
-
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that everything, sun, moon, stars, satellites all exist within the dome.
This is one of those things that FE'ers massively disagree about. Not ideal, I know, but it is what it is.
-
Hello AllAroundTheWorld and WTF_Seriously!
I would be curious to hear your thoughts about my original question: what makes the shape of the earth obvious, whether round or flat? I'm wondering if my statement "what's intuitive is not the roundness of the earth but its flatness" because "every day we encounter the earth as being flat" makes sense to you?
-
I don’t think the shape of the earth is obvious. I mean, we have enough satellites orbiting it taking photos of it and enough astronauts have seen it to know what shape it is. But from the ground I’d say the intuitive thing is to think it’s flat, hence ancient civilisations believing that.
I’d suggest observations of the horizon are a good clue to the earth’s true shape though. Firstly, why is there a horizon at all? For an average height person it’s about 3 miles away. Why? Why is there an arbitrary defined line beyond which you can’t see the ground? It isn’t the limit of your vision, you can see ships and other objects which are further than that but you can only see the top of them. Why are they sinking below the horizon? What are they sinking behind? Furthermore, as you ascend the distance to the horizon increases and the angle you have to look down to see the horizon does too. The latter effect is subtle, but is measurable.
All this is a clue to the shape of the earth, or can certainly be explained if you hypothesise we live on a ball. There’s a horizon because that’s the edge of the earth. The ground slopes away from you out of sight after that. Ships are going over the curve. And ascending means you can see further over the curve and have to look down further to do so.
FE has mechanisms to explain these observations but RE doesn’t need any mechanisms, these are all expected properties of living on a globe. So while I wouldn’t say the earth’s shape is obvious, you can make observations which give good clues as to what it is.
-
The Sinking Ship Effect might be a good argument for a RE if it was a consistent effect. However, it's not - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
-
The Sinking Ship Effect might be a good argument for a RE if it was a consistent effect. However, it's not - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
Don't worry, they have an ad-hoc mechanism that explains this inconsistency. AATW likes ad-hoc mechanisms when they help him defend RET.
-
The Sinking Ship Effect might be a good argument for a RE if it was a consistent effect. However, it's not - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
Incorrect, as you like to say.
We have an atmosphere which refracts light. The atmospheric conditions do change which affects the distance to the apparent horizon. And that does mean you can see further over the curve sometimes than you would if we didn’t have an atmosphere. But we always have a horizon, ships always sink below it, the bottoms of other distant objects are always hidden behind the curve. Maybe by not as much as they would be if we didn’t have an atmosphere, but we do. Ships always sink below the horizon, the distance to the horizon always increases with altitude, as does the angle of dip to the horizon. The only inconsistency is the distance to the apparent horizon. None of this would happen on a flat earth, which is why EA has been invented to explain it all.
-
The Sinking Ship Effect might be a good argument for a RE if it was a consistent effect. However, it's not - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
Don't worry, they have an ad-hoc mechanism that explains this inconsistency. AATW likes ad-hoc mechanisms when they help him defend RET.
I’ll simply say the same thing I said the last time you said this. Refraction is a well understood phenomenon which at school you do experiments to demonstrate. EA is at best a hypothesis, the only thing which is a vague attempt at formalising it is the equation which has no derivation - or none shown on the Wiki - and which contains a constant with an unknown value. Compelling…
-
I’ll simply say the same thing I said the last time you said this. Refraction is a well understood phenomenon which at school you do experiments to demonstrate.
The same experiments can be interpreted to prove EA, which is also well understood (despite your empty assertions to the contrary). Saying it again will only get you corrected again.
You choose the interpretation that makes you warm and fuzzy inside, ignoring any attempts at honest consideration.
Compelling…
Are you really incapable of having a discussion without bringing your fEeLiNgS into it? It undermines your position to the point of being laughable.
-
The same experiments can be interpreted to prove EA
Not the one I did. We used 2 pins to define a straight line then looked through a glass block so they lined up and put 2 more pins the other side so that the 4 pins apparently lined up. You can trace the path of the light through the block to show how it refracts through the block. That isn’t a prediction of EA which simply says that light bends upwards because reasons.
which is also well understood
Oh cool. So what causes it? Where’s the finished equation with the value of the Bishop constant? What predictions does it make which have been verified experimentally?
It’s not about my feelings. Refraction IS well understood, I did experiments at school which demonstrated it, and retraction is not just about atmospheric effects, those are just an example of it. EA is a placeholder which is used to explain why the observations better match a globe earth. Why would there be a horizon on a FE? Why a clear well defined line beyond which you can’t see? It’s not visibility, you can see things beyond the horizon, just not the bottoms of them. That is expected on a globe, on a FE a mechanism is needed to explain it.
-
Oh cool. So what causes it? Where’s the finished equation with the value of the Bishop constant? What predictions does it make which have been verified experimentally?
I will not entertain your trolling. We've had this discussion many times before, and you've heard the answers. You're trying to stir shit for the sake of stirring shit. Again. Get tae fuck.
That is expected on a globe
Except when the observation contradicts RE's prediction, in which case an ad-hoc mechanism is needed to drag it out of its grave, and even then it's not particularly reliable. Sorry, buddy, stating the same lie twice rarely makes the second time successful.
-
The WGS84 model is the answer.
-
We've had this discussion many times before, and you've heard the answers.
I haven't heard any straight answers to the questions I posted above. Unless the answer is "we don't know".
Which is actually a pretty reasonable answer - that's still the answer from mainstream science for many things.
Just don't pretend that EA is "well understood". It is a hypothesis. And don't get me wrong, it works a million times better than the nonsense about perspective, but it's not a well formed theory which has any predictive power.
You're trying to stir shit for the sake of stirring shit. Again.
I am not. We have certainly had that discussion many times before...
Except when the observation contradicts RE's prediction, in which case an ad-hoc mechanism is needed to drag it out of its grave
Again, refraction is not an "ad-hoc mechanism" and is not equivalent to EA. I have outlined an experiment above which I clearly remember doing at school which was used to demonstrate the way light refracts through a glass block. That result would not be a prediction of EA.
And let's be careful what you mean by "RE's prediction". If you mean the prediction given by a simple mathematical model where the earth is a perfect sphere with no atmosphere then sure, observations generally don't match that model. But that isn't the RE model as you well know. We have an atmosphere, the exact refractive properties of which are difficult to account for and as Tom has noted above are not consistent. Which surely shows that it is refraction and not EA, wouldn't the latter be constant and therefore yield consistent results?
Sorry, buddy, stating the same lie twice rarely makes the second time successful.
And yet you keep referring to refraction as an "ad-hoc mechanism" when you know it isn't. As you said, repeating it doesn't make it true.
-
I have outlined an experiment above which I clearly remember doing at school which was used to demonstrate the way light refracts through a glass block. That result would not be a prediction of EA.
It's also completely irrelevant here. Refraction as a wave (not necessarily light!) passes through different media does nothing to explain away the inconsistencies that you try to explain which occur within one medium. It's also noteworthy that this explanation contradicts reality on occasion.
That is that makes it an ad-hoc mechanism - and one that doesn't even fit. If RE'ers had the sincerity to admit they simply don't fully understand what's happening there, we'd all be in a much better place. Instead, you take such an admission as a weakness when others make it, so logically you choose to avoid it.
This messed-up way of thinking is why the world is in the shitty state it is.
Which surely shows that it is refraction and not EA, wouldn't the latter be constant and therefore yield consistent results?
You're doing the thing again. You're pretending that EA exists in a vacuum and no other factors could possibly be present. Don't do the thing.
-
Hello Everyone!
I first heard about Flat Earth when Vice News went to the conference in 2017. Even though I am still a Round Earther, after reading news articles and exploring TFES forum and wiki, I began to wonder what made the shape of the Earth obvious. I am not sure why people, including myself, think (thought?) it was obvious that the Earth was round.
This year I decided to write a paper for class about this. I wanted to hear from the Flat Earth community. Since you made the jump from Round to Flat Earth, I would love to hear your perspective about what makes the shape of the Earth seem obvious to Round Earther types, and if that feeling of obviousness carries over to Round Earth. I'd also love to hear about how you felt or thought about this.
Thank you all for your thoughts!
Hi FLboy,
I am a Round Earth believer and would highlight a few of my own observations as "feelings of obviousness" for a Globe Earth.
1) The first being what I observed on a regular basis when I lived right off of Lake Michigan. Cargo ships leaving port in a northern direction disappearing over the horizon bottom first and eventually out of sight. Also, cargo ships in the far off distance appearing top first before being able to see the hull of the ship. Additionally, on very clear days and nights, being able to only see the tops of at least two of Chicago's tallest skyscrapers from about 50 miles away (The Sears/Willis Tower and The Hancock Building)
2) Not being able to see stars in the sky (like the North Star) from Pretoria, South Africa, yet being able to see the North Star from the mid-west of North America. A rationale explanation being by an obstruction in the sightline from Pretoria due to Earth's curvature.
-
I wanted to hear from the Flat Earth community. Since you made the jump from Round to Flat Earth, I would love to hear your perspective about what makes the shape of the Earth seem obvious to Round Earther types, and if that feeling of obviousness carries over to Round Earth.
What you appear to ask for here is Flat Earther views on how Round Earthers think about the shape. I can tell you directly, as an RE, how I feel about it, without this being filtered into an FE view on how I feel.
Tom refers to the sinking ship effect, but it's perfectly possible to determine the seas are Not Flat without reference to ships or other objects on or over the horizon. I've determined this from my own observations, and from those of others. This, allied with all the other "textbook" determinations of Earth shape, 60+ years of orbital space flight, etc. will suffice for me.
-
Refraction as a wave (not necessarily light!) passes through different media does nothing to explain away the inconsistencies that you try to explain which occur within one medium.
Wait. Are you claiming that the atmosphere is one medium? You surely understand that the atmosphere is more complex than that, the density changes with altitude which causes refraction. Temperature, pressure and humidity affect the amount of refraction and these things change all the time - hence the timelapses you see which show how refraction varies through the day.
Results are inconsistent because refraction is, that's easy to demonstrate.
It's also noteworthy that this explanation contradicts reality on occasion
Could you give an example?
That is that makes it an ad-hoc mechanism - and one that doesn't even fit. If RE'ers had the sincerity to admit they simply don't fully understand what's happening there, we'd all be in a much better place. Instead, you take such an admission as a weakness when others make it, so logically you choose to avoid it.
I don't regard the atmosphere being complex as a weakness. Are you saying it's an ad-hoc mechanism because it's used to explain the difference between predictions made by a simplified mathematical model and reality - and that difference can vary between observations? I mean, it would be nice if the amount of atmospheric refraction was consistent but it just isn't and it's not hard to demonstrate those variations.
-
Wait. Are you claiming that the atmosphere is one medium?
It is as consistent as your school experiment you've done in the bronze age or whenever you were young.
You surely understand that the atmosphere is more complex than that, the density changes with altitude which causes refraction.
All miniscule and insignificant. That's why your observation involved air and glass, rather than air and air.
Also, out of curiosity, what do you think the change in altitude is when you're looking at the fucking horizon?
Could you give an example?
Considering that I've already given countless examples, this is just another case of you starting shit for the sake of starting shit. Get tae fuck.
I don't regard the atmosphere being complex as a weakness.
If you aren't willing to address what's been said, please consider saying nothing. This degree of dishonesty just doesn't suit you.
There is a gaping hole in your logic, and you know it well. The only question is whether you have enough dignity to acknowledge that; and we both know you don't.
-
All miniscule and insignificant.
You have timelapses on your Wiki which demonstrate how refraction varies over the course of a day.
It is not admittedly that big an effect, but over the distance of miles can yield quite variable observations.
Also, out of curiosity, what do you think the change in altitude is when you're looking at the fucking horizon?
When I was talking about change of altitude I was talking about change in viewer height. If we are on a globe then that would mean you can see further over the curve, which is why the distance to it increases with altitude.
Considering that I've already given countless examples
Cool. Then it shouldn't be hard for you to pick one. You are notoriously unwilling to answer a straight question with a straight answer. If you have countless examples then just pick one. Come on. One specific example. We both know you wont because you do this sort of thing a lot. Avoid giving a straight answer and providing specific examples and then pretend you did. It comes across as gaslighting.
There is a gaping hole in your logic, and you know it well.
As usual you're speaking in riddles. You claim there's a hole in my logic, don't say what it is and then say I know what it is. ???
But OK, let me guess. Is it that I'm claiming EA is an ad hoc mechanism and then using refraction to "fix" problems in inconstant observations when they don't match a RE? If that is it then all I can do is repeat you are drawing a false equivalence between refraction and EA in terms of how well understood and well formed a theory they are. And observations "not matching RE" is pretty much always because the RE model which observations are compared to is the simple one where we live on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere. Or, at best, an atmosphere with "standard" refraction. As I've said, that isn't the RE model. In real life the atmosphere is turbulent and chaotic and refraction varies over the course of a day - you literally have timelapses on your Wiki which demonstrate that.
-
You are notoriously unwilling to answer a straight question with a straight answer.
I refuse to entertain your shitty trolling - this is very deliberate and intentional on my part. If you didn't want that response, you could have chosen not to engage in it to begin with. You're an OK guy sometimes, but it doesn't give you a free pass on trying to turn every thread into "ga-hyuk, BiShOp CoNsTaNt". Sort your shit out and get back to a serious discussion, or go back to CN where this style of posting belongs.
As usual you're speaking in riddles.
Darn yer riddles, ya saucy female! What d'ya mean?
You claim there's a hole in my logic, don't say what it is and then say I know what it is.
I literally just finished explaining it to you.
If that is it then all I can do is repeat you are drawing a false equivalence
I am not drawing an equivalence at all.
-
There seems to be assumptions that we have satellites. Yet, no real proof that all communication isn't groumd based. I think its foolish to try and prove flat earth using theories. There's no real science or evidence that supports satellite orbits.
Hey FLBoy,
Welcome to Science! Like you suggested, I was a "Round Earther" until about five years ago when I started looking into Flat Earth. Ultimately, I had to draw my own conclusions on what the world looks like.
In my view, it looks pretty flat from the surface, but as you go higher in the sky it looks rounder as seen from planes and satellites. Why the earth doesn't look "flat" from space is a bit complicated, but I included a few pictures below to help explain:
In picture 1 (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/goes-16-sends-first-images-to-earth) you see a satellite photo of earth . In picture 2, I tried to replicate this image by taking a flat earth map and putting a glass dome above it to represent the atmosphere and give it a spherical look. Picture 3 illustrates what I think the earth looks like from far away at the time of this satellite photo. I don't know if satellites are high enough to get this view or if the dark side of earth can be seen at all. I suspect when people see earth from space, they assume darkness is caused by earth's curvature rather than the suns lighting effect. Either way, everyone's shooting in the dark :P
(https://i.imgur.com/JY1FRE3.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/2Iad2zb.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/IzY6ivU.jpg)
To get more fancy, here is another photo from space showing half the earth illuminated by the sun (https://www.met.ie/tracking-hurricane-lorenzo). I posted my versions next to it.
(https://i.imgur.com/pb0sF2a.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/abhVQLl.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/ks4iD08.jpg)
And keep in mind the flat earth map I used needs to be edited in order to properly reflect all the land mass seen in the satellite images.
Here's a better view of the materials I used. The map with a dome is on the left and without a dome on your right.
(https://i.imgur.com/fRQVlCs.jpg) (https://i.imgur.com/28RpgDr.jpg)
Like you said, it may not be so obvious as to what the shape of the earth is from different perspectives.
-
I understand your point... But apparently you can see the ISS from you home using a camera... Haven't done this myself admittedly.
-
There's no real science or evidence that supports satellite orbits.
Please clarify what you mean by "real science or evidence".
-
There seems to be assumptions that we have satellites. Yet, no real proof that all communication isn't groumd based. I think its foolish to try and prove flat earth using theories. There's no real science or evidence that supports satellite orbits.
Well.
We have GPS and satellite phones, both of which can be shown to work in the middle of the ocean when ground based systems do not.
There’s satellite TV, dishes can be observed to be angled upwards in countries nearer the equator which is consistent with geostationary satellites above the equator, I have observed that myself. What are they pointing at up in the sky?
There’s satellites which can image things in real time and can be compared with ground based observations.
And then there’s the ISS which can be seen with the naked eye and which with some decent equipment you can make out the shape of. Ham radio operators have spoken to people on the ISS and several “space tourists” have made trips there.
I’d suggest all that is evidence. What would you accept as evidence if none of that is good enough?
-
There seems to be assumptions that we have satellites. Yet, no real proof that all communication isn't groumd based.
You should be looking for positive proof of ground-based transmission, not negative.
I have on a number of occasions invited CTs and FEs to actually PROVE that satellite TV broadcasts ARE ground-based, as they claim. The experimental method is simple; find a portable satellite reception rig, a battery-powered one, such as would be used by a mobile home / RV / caravan owner, and take it to your ground-based transmitter of choice. Walk around the transmitter, pointing the satellite dish at it, from North, South, East and West, or angles inbetween. With a direct line of sight, and close proximity, the receiver should receive satellite broadcasts in the highest possible quality from all directions. Optionally, you can look for programming that is exclusive to the satellite broadcaster's channel selection, and which cannot be found on regular terrestrial broadcasting.
If you don't get a signal, when you're looking directly at the transmitter from a few yards away, that would appear to suggest the satellite broadcasts are not coming from your ground-based transmitter of choice, and you need to look elsewhere.
Anecdotal comment;
I'm old enough to remember the days of exclusively ground-based TV transmission in the UK, and I know where my local transmitter is. I also know the direction in which my satellite dish is pointed, and that's in the opposite direction to the local transmitter. Whilst every terrestrial aerial I have ever used at this house has been pointed North-West, my satellite dish points roughly South.
Look at google street view for any of the towns on the Southern coast of the UK, and look at their satellite dishes. They all point South, out to sea. Where will the ground-based transmitters be? They will be further inland, on high ground, to the North of these towns. So they're not pointed at the transmitters either.