1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment with sun sets

« on: February 20, 2018, 10:55:41 PM »

Im trying to use the zetetic method to discover for myself the shape of the earth. Ok, so starting point is that the earth looks flat. Occams razor would lead to the conclusion from only this information that the earth is flat. Ok, so far so good. Then, I watch a sunset and I see a bright disc disappear below the horizon. Again, Occams razor leads to the conclusion that the sun is moving below the horizon. But the wiki says it moves above the earth at all times.

So today I set up a mock earth with a flashlight as the sun all done to scale according to the wiki. My flashlight was 1" in diameter which mwant it had to be 93.75" above the mock earth, and I set my head on the floor about 30' away from the "sun". I could still see the face of the flashlight, so I backed up another 6' and could still barely make out the face of the flashlight but it was there. I also noticed the "sun" was still a considerable distance above the horizon of my imitation earth.

Now I have read in the wiki that thicker atmosphere can bend light and magnify it. This is completely counterintuitive. So, my question for you all is if you can give me an experiment I can carry out to prove this distortion.

Wouldn't you have to shrink your eyes as well and your site of view or am I missing something here ?

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment with sun sets

« on: February 20, 2018, 10:18:13 PM »

Knowing now, how perspective works; that the perspective lines will merge a finite distance away, we now move on to what is actually blocking the sun at the horizon. We know that it can get there, but what blocks the light? According to Samuel Birley Rowbotham it is the small imperfections on the earth's surface that blocks the sun. The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the earth near the horizon, such as a series of ocean waves, can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. That area is the solid line of built up ocean waves when you look out at the ocean's horizon, or the imperfections of the land when on land. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

The above remarks are made considering the water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit

p. 275

of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----


FIG. 97.

A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.

This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.

You yourself even acknowledge the tracks don't physically meet, which is all the math says. There is NOTHING in the math that says perspective lines won't meet, but this is due to the angular limits of sight. But we've been over this so many times now I've lost track. Go look at the math. The railroad tracks appear to meet due to perspective where the math says they should. The sun in the FE model is still well above those angular limits.

I don't see where your argument that things don't physically meet takes us. We know that perspective does not cause things to physically meet. That is not the argument. The perspective lines of a railroad track merge together, just as the sun merges into the earth. No one is saying that the sun is crashing into the earth, and no one is saying that the train tracks physically touch. They perspective lines merge together.

What does the "they don't physically meet" argument have anything to do with it? Where are we saying that the sun touches the earth?

The perspective lines merge in railroad tracks, at a FINITE distance. The conclusion to this is that perspective lines merge at a finite distance. Therefore it will not take an infinite distance for the sun to reach the horizon.

Very well said and thought out response.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

« on: February 20, 2018, 08:59:45 PM »

Hi everyone,

Very interesting topic which I'd like to add to it if this topic is still open.

Based on my research of the noble Qur'an, nowhere does it specifically say the Earth is flat or round but by reading the different verses and if you only had 2 options round or flat, flat seems to be the one that lines up more with the holy scripture.

On top of that, the Qur'an specifically mentions the Earth being immovable (mountains in it like pegs holding it down).

It also clearly states that the sun orbits above the Earth and not the other way around.

I welcome all discussions and let's keep it civil

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation

« on: February 16, 2018, 09:14:11 PM »

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

Firstly, Byrd did not fly 'past' the South Pole exactly. He flew to it and then back again, during which he might have indeed ended up 'past' it, but the intent was always to return the way they came. Which they did.
Secondly, he called it an 'unexplored' land on the other side of the Pole from Little America (the base they launched from). Which, at that time, the area was. That being what we now call East Antarctica. An area that is indeed 'Bigger than the United States' as he described it.

I don't know about you, but I would struggle to call approx. 30 years to be 'right after' his flight. Sounds like a strawman in an attempt to make it sound more conspiratorial.

30 years you say? So the second Antarctic expedition was 30 years after his first ? Stop with the misinformation

The treaty came years later I agree, but my post clearly said they increased all expeditions (you can read the rest)

Then word your posts better. I highlighted the relevant text, which without further context showing you're meaning something different, implies you're claiming the treaty as well happened right after his 'discovery' (flight to the pole) which happened in 1929. 30 years before the Antarctic treaty. I gave no misinformation. I suggest you ensure your posts are clearer in the future.

If that's the only thing you find issue with in my reply though, I don't see that Byrd presents a case for you.

LOL . At no point did Byrd or anyone associated with the expedition talk about Eastern Antarctica as being the land they reached. And he specifically mentions going to the South Pole then flying past it in his video. Sounds like your information is incorrect but keep up the good work.

That would be because it wasn't called East Antarctica at the time. Which is why I said it's 'what we now call' it. Please learn to parse the language if you're going to attempt to call others out on it. The remark about coming back the way they came was towards you wondering why they didn't reach Australia or something. They never left Antarctica...unless you're presuming the 'South Pole' is the continent, and not the physical location that is the pole. Which would be silly.

Now you're trying to sound smarter than you really are but that's okay you're allowed because hey after all, this is the internet.

Regardless, your claim that the land he found was just another part of Antarctica has no merit to it but you presuming things might make you sound smarter and therefore feel like you're correct. Keep it up pal, you my friend definitely know your stuff

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation

« on: February 16, 2018, 09:01:25 PM »

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

Firstly, Byrd did not fly 'past' the South Pole exactly. He flew to it and then back again, during which he might have indeed ended up 'past' it, but the intent was always to return the way they came. Which they did.
Secondly, he called it an 'unexplored' land on the other side of the Pole from Little America (the base they launched from). Which, at that time, the area was. That being what we now call East Antarctica. An area that is indeed 'Bigger than the United States' as he described it.

I don't know about you, but I would struggle to call approx. 30 years to be 'right after' his flight. Sounds like a strawman in an attempt to make it sound more conspiratorial.

30 years you say? So the second Antarctic expedition was 30 years after his first ? Stop with the misinformation

The treaty came years later I agree, but my post clearly said they increased all expeditions (you can read the rest)

Then word your posts better. I highlighted the relevant text, which without further context showing you're meaning something different, implies you're claiming the treaty as well happened right after his 'discovery' (flight to the pole) which happened in 1929. 30 years before the Antarctic treaty. I gave no misinformation. I suggest you ensure your posts are clearer in the future.

If that's the only thing you find issue with in my reply though, I don't see that Byrd presents a case for you.

LOL . At no point did Byrd or anyone associated with the expedition talk about Eastern Antarctica as being the land they reached. And he specifically mentions going to the South Pole then flying past it in his video. Sounds like your information is incorrect but keep up the good work.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation

« on: February 16, 2018, 08:05:51 PM »

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

Firstly, Byrd did not fly 'past' the South Pole exactly. He flew to it and then back again, during which he might have indeed ended up 'past' it, but the intent was always to return the way they came. Which they did.
Secondly, he called it an 'unexplored' land on the other side of the Pole from Little America (the base they launched from). Which, at that time, the area was. That being what we now call East Antarctica. An area that is indeed 'Bigger than the United States' as he described it.

I don't know about you, but I would struggle to call approx. 30 years to be 'right after' his flight. Sounds like a strawman in an attempt to make it sound more conspiratorial.

30 years you say? So the second Antarctic expedition was 30 years after his first ? Stop with the misinformation

The treaty came years later I agree, but my post clearly said they increased all expeditions (you can read the rest)

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation

« on: February 16, 2018, 07:28:44 PM »

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Government Cooperation?

« on: February 14, 2018, 09:20:43 PM »

I received a question that I don’t quite know how to answer, and I was wondering if you guys had any answers.
If different governments don’t get along in general, why would they all cooperate together convincing everyone the earth is round?
Logically, I doubt this is an exception to our disagreements. It makes sense to me that our government would hide it, but why would they all cooperate? 

All you would really need is 1 or 2 people in each big government (which is about 10 countries or so) to cooperate together. Those running the space programs are for the most part all educated in the same places with the same education system. It's not really hard for them to all be part of one big cover up. The rest of the governments are either left in the dark or compartmentalized so no one really knows what's going on.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation

« on: February 14, 2018, 05:24:42 PM »

Well based on the theory, everything points towards true north. So if you're circumnavigating it'll only be east or west not north or south. To go south and keep going south you wouldn't be able to circumnavigate the Earth using that method since you'll be going in a straight line away from the true north position

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Circumnavigation

« on: February 14, 2018, 04:13:21 PM »

Has there been any proof of North South Circumnavigation yet ? Whether on a boat or a plane ?

Circumnavigation based on my research has always been going West or going East.