21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel

« on: March 09, 2021, 09:04:09 PM »

That entire point of that experiment is that the laser travels through a medium with varying refractive index. See here for a more detailed explanation:

https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/bouncing-light-beam

And yes, the experiment elegantly demonstrates atmospheric refraction. But the reason we get refraction is because the air has, as you say, a density gradient - if you draw a straight line through a curved air mass it encounters different densities at an angle, and so refraction happens. If the world was flat that wouldn’t happen - as per my previous comment, if you’re at 10 feet, and the thing you’re observing is at ten feet, the density is constant, regardless of the gradient in atmospheric pressure.

So, again, where in your model of what’s going on is there a gradient that could cause refraction?
[/quote]

But in this experiment the line is not being drawn through a curved mass, the tank is flat and the line still curves? If he was shining it through a globe goldfish bowl then I would concede your point, but here the experiment seems to back up the hypothesis of the curvature of light through a flat densiity gradient.

22

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth

« on: March 09, 2021, 08:54:37 PM »

It is perfectly possible for Antarctica, the continent, to exist in a FE model. In fact if you bothered to read the wiki, there are plenty of articles dedicated to precisly the field of research. The South Pole can not exist in a FE model, nor does it need to to sustain its arguements.

Satellite tracking stations could function on a FE model, but have you ever been inside one?

You still haven't given any concrete examples. And given two very unspecific examples you have cited (satellites - there are plenty of reasons these can still work in a FE model, and places that don't exist - can you name one?[])

This is interesting...

What FE model can accurately predict the locations of multiple satellites tracked from multiple stations throughout the Earth? Because the only way to do this is to know where those tracking stations are. And the only way to do that is to have a working map of the flat Earth, which is what this thread has been asking for but no FE supporter is able to provide.

Oh, and the place that FE claim does not exist is Antarctica. Because the South Pole is incompatible with every FE model so the South Pole and the continent around it cannot exist.

23

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth

« on: March 01, 2021, 01:00:13 PM »

You still haven't given any concrete examples. And given two very unspecific examples you have cited (satellites - there are plenty of reasons these can still work in a FE model, and places that don't exist - can you name one? If you are referring the "Australia controversy" then you are buying into an anti-FE discourse that is both outdated and innacurate.)

Well I haven't seen this at all, so I must be reading the wrong posts. I do have many friends whose work relies on there being an extremely accurate model of the motion of the Earth, Sun, and stars, and there has never been any mention of inconsistency with that model.

Just because there hasn't been any mention of inconsistency, doesn't mean that there hasn't been! People see what they want to see and ignore data that does match their presuppositions.

I really don't think that a few presuppositions are going to cover the fact the satellite you are using doesn't actually exist, or that a place you visited isn't really there.

If the Earth is flat it is not a minor tweak to existing models, it is a fundamental re-write. It isn't the sort of thing that can slip through without being noticed, or fudged because of existing presuppositions. FE makes fundamental claims about large areas of science; claims that have not even been properly made let alone proved.

24

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth

« on: February 28, 2021, 09:53:12 PM »

Well I haven't seen this at all, so I must be reading the wrong posts. I do have many friends whose work relies on there being an extremely accurate model of the motion of the Earth, Sun, and stars, and there has never been any mention of inconsistency with that model.


Just because there hasn't been any mention of inconsistency, doesn't mean that there hasn't been! People see what they want to see and ignore data that does match their presuppositions. A working model can be designed to fit within certain parameters which then leave out margins of error. The error is ignored becuase it doesn't appear within the data and the myth is perpetuated. Can you give some more conrete examples of your friends' work?

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: February 26, 2021, 09:26:11 PM »

I don't think there is a standard RE map. There seem to be several different ones if you look for them. Many of them offer a very euro-centric view of the world with Europe given greater space than is accurate. How can RE maps be assumed "accurate" if they have these inbuilt biases? FE maps should avoid this pitfall I think.
BTW I'm new so go easy on me!