141

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?

« on: May 15, 2020, 01:15:13 AM »

I've been out sailing off shore on a sail boat too.  However I was a professional merchant marine officer for the last 20 years of my career.  In those 20 years at least 10 of them were spent living & working an ocean going ships transiting the oceans of the world.  If you make a trip say from Shanghai, China to Long Beach, CA countless times you know within a small margin of error what the variables are.  Distances are very well known.  When you leave port you start the ship's engine.  The ship has a propeller with a known pitch.  That means for every turn of the propeller the ship travels a known distance.  There's a counter on the propeller shaft and at noon every day the shaft count is recorded.  You can use those figures to easily calculate a distance.  Of course there's some margin for error but if you are making the same trip over & over again you know what to expect.  If the distances traveled in a day don't match the known speeds it will quickly become apparent that something is wrong.  You can get within a mile or two with a sextant and closer than that with GPS so any good merchant marine navigator will know when things aren't correct.  I can say, in the Zetetic fashion, that the earth is proven to be spherical and can't be flat from countless ocean trips of over 5000 miles.  You are wasting your time to think anything else.

Fascinating.   I do have a question about the shaft count.  Wouldn't that only measure speed in water (and air) that are completely still?  In other words, air can push the ship a little, and water currents can also push the ship a little, right?  Wouldn't this affect the measurement, or is it too insignificant?

142

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 15, 2020, 12:46:14 AM »

I agree, and imo that’s the entire issue with current FE status. It seeks to provide a descriptional account for its claims - which it has yet to fully do. While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework.

As you have been unable to find a single physicist who says that the three body problem is solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system, this is false. You are unable to contradict the many sources and physicists who say that the Three Body Problem is insoluble except for some symmetrical solutions.

Your model can't even keep the Sun, Earth and Moon together.

I am new to this site (but have read the seven or eight most recent threads in two of the forums in their entirety). I have no background or expertise that really applies - I have English and history degrees (though not scientific or cartographic history, etc.), I have taught 9th and 10th grade HS English, and now I work for a very small tabletop game publisher.   Luckily, it seems that no expertise is really needed - just clear thinking and reasoning.  (As an aside, I'm here because the apparently growing FE belief is fascinating to me, much more so than traditional conspiracy theories). 

I have a point (at least I believe I do!  ), but it will take a teeny bit to get to. Bear with me.

First, I need to summarize/characterize this discussion up to your comment if I may (I am sure I'll be savaging some of your words as I rephrase and summarize them, so let me know if I misrepresented anyone) -

GoldCashew: The observation that the same face of the moon is seen by people standing in different continents is a big problem for FET. The Wiki doesn't provide an answer.

Pete: That's not actually a problem for FET

Me: [with limited knowledge of physics, astrophysics, geomatics, climatology, or really any physical sciences], well, actually, it's quite an obvious problem that should be readily apparent even to a layman like me. [Reads several sections of the Wiki to make sure I didn't miss something] Also, in looking at this animation further, two more problems arise: 1) A "spotlight" sun is not what we observe, and 2) the moon and sun do not dramatically distort in size as they travel their course, which would clearly be the case if the FE animation were accurate. [Re-checks the Wiki, still finds no answer to these issues.]

JSS: The claim is that light can bend (electromagnetic acceleration), but there's no actual formula or claim for sizes - all the things required to use a scientific claim to resolve these problems with the FE model.

BRollin: That's the entire issue with FET: there's no actual explanatory framework. Instead, each separate FET claim creates more burdens of proof that aren't met.

Tom: [Super out of the blue] The three body problem isn't solved; therefore the RE model can't "keep" the Sun, Earth, and Moon together.

[Various others]: the 3 body problem isn't really a problem. Here's some science links!

....

Wait.  What?  Again, I really don't know much about physics. But let's say for the sake of argument that the 3 body problem is totally unsolved by "science" up to today.  How could that matter?  (I'm not trying to obliquely say that it's outside the scope of this thread).  I'm saying that a failure to fully describe one particular phenomenon with math is hardly a refutation of the RE model and framework.  I would guess (again, no background) that there are loads of phenomena that modern physics has yet to fully describe, making it a "problem" in the same way, and that some of these may have to do with the RE model.  But this doesn't help the argument for the FET in the context of simple observations (such as the one that launched this thread and the two I've added to it, none of which have yet to receive answers). 

Let me put it in other words:
You're saying we don't know how to use algebra (apparently?) to solve an exceptionally complex math problem (apparently). I would conclude that it must be really damn complex!
I'm saying there are three simple, basic observations that even a total non-physicist (like me!) can make about the FE model that kind of destroys it.  Can I have a coherent answer to these?  It would help convince me that the FET has a figment of legitimacy among thinking people (which I consider myself a part of!).


The reason I wanted to summarize this thread is to point out how weak the FET claim is even if you have almost no knowledge of physics and science (as I do).   Talking about a super complex algebraic problem that most folks (like me) don't understand is one thing. Making simple observations that show the FE model doesn't match reality is quite another.  And it's something I can do! So, can you answer these three problems with the FE model?  I'd really like to know.

You see, I cannot do the RE experiments and proofs myself to know that the earth is a sphere (or oblate spheroid or whatever).  My background is in English.  So I have to rely on experts, NASA, my teachers. You know - all those folks who must be in on the conspiracy, since they DO know how to make the experiments. But if you cannot even refute the simple observations that I can make by myself regarding the FE animated model, well, FET has some serious problems.  Don't bring the 3 body problem into this. Answer my three observations...

Thanks for reading!

143

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 14, 2020, 09:14:39 PM »

For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It doesn't follow from FET.

I assume he is referring to the animation of the sun and moon circling overhead from the FAQ:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif

Based on this, what GoldCashew is saying absolutely follows from FET.  Pick his first example that he is in South America.  Attached is a screenshot of the animation.  Suppose the moon is at this point, and he is in S. America looking up at it.  Now, say that I am in North America. We are far enough apart, and the moon is close enough to the earth (as depicted by the animation) that we would see different parts of the moon at the same time.  But that's not what is observed. So, it's a problem for FET.  I cannot see it addressed on the wiki, though I admit I have not read all of it.

Only if the moon were very far away, would those in N. AND S. America see the same side (the "bottom" side of the moon from this model of a FE).  But if it were far enough away that both would see the same part of the moon at once, then ALL humans on the planet would see the moon at the same time. And they don't - only half (geographically) of the world can see the moon at a time.

Additionally, this animation brings up far more questions for which I cannot find answers in the wiki. Two of them come immediately to mind:

1. What causes the sunlight to stop its shine from covering the whole earth, regardless of where it is on its course above? Even when it is directly over the Phillipines (as in my screen capture of the animation), on an actual FE light should trivially still reach S. America. The Wiki reads "its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth."  But this doesn't make sense - imagine you are in a big circular field with a spotlight in the relative proportions and distances as the flat earth animation capture I've attached. The people in this field in the relative area where S. America is would not be under the direct spotlight. But they would SEE the light and that part of the field that is directly illuminated. There is nothing on the Wiki that explains this which I can find.

2. Why do the sun and moon not drastically change size as they move across the sky? As it moves around, if it were traveling within this system, and this much closer, it would obviously become much smaller as it travels over thousands of miles across the earth.  (EDIT: Yes, I know there is a section on the Wiki that addresses why the sun doesn't shrink when it sets. But this is a much bigger problem that seems unaddressed to me. The sizes of both the sun and moon would be visibly changing in size just about every single hour, if it were anywhere close to proportional as depicted in this animation).

In the past few days, after discovering this forum, I've read through several threads and been fascinated and enlightened by the clear reasoning and sophisticated understanding of math that I do not grasp. I'm new, and while I've read the forum rules, I don't believe I've broken any of them.

If these questions have been answered by the Wiki, please point them out to me.  They seem like glaring errors.

existoid,

Your exactly correct in re-summarizing my query about the Wiki animation model.

It presents a problem with the FE model in that if the moon is moving INSIDE of the perimeter of the Earth and moving INSIDE the tips of say South America // Africa // Australia (as the Wiki model shows), than folks living at these locations would see the "bottom face" or a portion of the "back side face" of the Moon which doesnt occur in real life. Hence, the potential flaw. For the FE model to be consistent with how people at every location on Earth actually see the same face of the Moon, the Moon would have to be moving about the flat Earth outside of the Earth's perimeter. The dome firmament that contains the Moon would look kind of funky, like a large expanded Jiffy Pop bag, if viewed from the side. So. I am just trying to get clarity on the FE model as depicted in the Wiki.

"you're" (sorry, I used to teach HS English) 

Thank you!  Do you have any thoughts on my other two questions?  I can't find anything about them anywhere in the Wiki, but it seems like those would really need to be addressed.  How is at least SOME light of the "spotlight" not seen anywhere at night?  And the sun and moon, if moving around a perimeter as depicted, would have to be constantly shrinking and growing as they get closer and further to where you are on the flat earth. But they don't.  I have read about the sunset solution, but as described that can only explain it at sunset, not at all other times, right?  Or am I missing something.

144

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Around-the-World Sailing Races?

« on: May 14, 2020, 08:13:32 PM »

I disagree that it would be so easy for the sailors to notice that they're traveling a greater distance than expected; there are so many x-factors involved with sailing. I suspect they rely primarily on navigation equipment to determine what kind of distances they've covered and just trust what they're told just like everyone else; for all we know innumerable sailors involved in this race were surprised that they covered as little distance as their equipment tells them, but because RE is so ingrained, they just don't question it.

Can you suggest a few x-factors that aggregated would account for double or triple the length required (the outside lines of longitude on the Azimuthal FE model are easily twice the circumference of the inner ones where the UK is that the race starts)?   I find it very hard to believe it would be "so easy" to be mistaken about going two to three times more than expected.  That would require having to go two to three times the average speed since they can literally just count the days the trip takes, right?  And this would mean that lots of sailors - who are so experienced at sailing that they can travel for thousands and thousands of miles - cannot tell the difference between about 15mph and 30 or 45mph.  It's trivial to tell the difference between those two speeds in a car, but then again there are things to look at on the ground.  Even so, the surface of the ocean is not placid, so you can gauge it, if you've spent years on sailing boats . Plus, a great deal of the trip must be within sight of land, based on the description (certainly not all of it).

Additionally, if even a single person, out of the many who have done this since 1973 does not use sophisticated navigation equipment relying on the conspiracy, then that disproves the FE model in one fell swoop. Seems like kind of a high bar?  Isn't the zetetic model all about seeing for yourself?  It appears that literally anyone can do this. The website reads "Anyone, even if they have never stepped on a boat before, can join the adventure."
https://www.clipperroundtheworld.com/about/about-the-race

145

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 14, 2020, 07:05:39 PM »

For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It doesn't follow from FET.

I assume he is referring to the animation of the sun and moon circling overhead from the FAQ:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif

Based on this, what GoldCashew is saying absolutely follows from FET.  Pick his first example that he is in South America.  Attached is a screenshot of the animation.  Suppose the moon is at this point, and he is in S. America looking up at it.  Now, say that I am in North America. We are far enough apart, and the moon is close enough to the earth (as depicted by the animation) that we would see different parts of the moon at the same time.  But that's not what is observed. So, it's a problem for FET.  I cannot see it addressed on the wiki, though I admit I have not read all of it.

Only if the moon were very far away, would those in N. AND S. America see the same side (the "bottom" side of the moon from this model of a FE).  But if it were far enough away that both would see the same part of the moon at once, then ALL humans on the planet would see the moon at the same time. And they don't - only half (geographically) of the world can see the moon at a time.

Additionally, this animation brings up far more questions for which I cannot find answers in the wiki. Two of them come immediately to mind:

1. What causes the sunlight to stop its shine from covering the whole earth, regardless of where it is on its course above? Even when it is directly over the Phillipines (as in my screen capture of the animation), on an actual FE light should trivially still reach S. America. The Wiki reads "its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth."  But this doesn't make sense - imagine you are in a big circular field with a spotlight in the relative proportions and distances as the flat earth animation capture I've attached. The people in this field in the relative area where S. America is would not be under the direct spotlight. But they would SEE the light and that part of the field that is directly illuminated. There is nothing on the Wiki that explains this which I can find.

2. Why do the sun and moon not drastically change size as they move across the sky? As it moves around, if it were traveling within this system, and this much closer, it would obviously become much smaller as it travels over thousands of miles across the earth.  (EDIT: Yes, I know there is a section on the Wiki that addresses why the sun doesn't shrink when it sets. But this is a much bigger problem that seems unaddressed to me. The sizes of both the sun and moon would be visibly changing in size just about every single hour, if it were anywhere close to proportional as depicted in this animation).

In the past few days, after discovering this forum, I've read through several threads and been fascinated and enlightened by the clear reasoning and sophisticated understanding of math that I do not grasp. I'm new, and while I've read the forum rules, I don't believe I've broken any of them.

If these questions have been answered by the Wiki, please point them out to me.  They seem like glaring errors.

146

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 13, 2020, 11:11:58 PM »

When you play the old Doom video game, the world you play in simulates 3D to an extent (in that you can walk around objects with length, width, height). But items you pick up and dead demons only show one face no matter how you circle it (unlike walls and doors). It always shows the same image, because these items are not simulated 3D, they are just flat images.

Maybe the moon is like that - a flat image projected by some entity.

Oh, wait.  The moon also rotates a full circle about once per month.  I guess I'm wrong.