[A_Dino_Thing]

So I'm doing a school project on the Flat Earth and I wanted to know a couple things:

How do you explain eclipses?
If gravity doesn't exist than what did Isaac Newton discover?
If the World is flat, then how do you explain ships on the horizon seeming to rise up out of the ocean as they come to shore instead of just appearing if the world was flat?

Thanks for the help.

[juner]

Please see the FAQ and the wiki.

[Tom Haws]

The Shadow Object that causes eclipses is unknown.

Universal Acceleration is proposed as a stand-in for gravity. It is the consensus of the round earthers on this forum that there is no way to distinguish Universal acceleration from Gravity. In other words, you cannot disprove Universal Acceleration for somebody who does not believe in space travel. It also appears to be the consensus of round earthers here that Universal Acceleration is unnecessary, since gravity lines would act nearly parallel downward on a flat Earth if the Earth were essentially infinite or large in size compared to the known world.

Your third question is the most obvious difficulty for flat earthers. And it appears that the only answer they are able to give is flat-out denials. Ships do not (appear to) arise. The sun does not rise and set. Cities do not rise revealing themselves beginning with the tops of the highest buildings as one approaches them on the ocean. There are no (apparent) risings and settings. Flat denials are all you will get.

[devils advocate]

The Shadow Object that causes eclipses is unknown.

To add: But it is definitely NOT earth and it must be capable of presenting a circular shadow the same size as the one that earth gives according to the RE model......

[Tom Haws]

I should clarify that "you cannot disprove Universal Acceleration" if you are not willing to accept the abundant proofs of the approximate spheroidal shape of the earth/world. It's actually quite easy to disprove Universal Acceleration by the following proof:

1. Postulate A, Universal Acceleration cannot "attract" people to the "bottom" of the earth, but would "repel" them.
2. Postulate B, if people are living all around an approximately spherical concave outward earth (Round Earth or RE), some are on the "bottom" relative to others.
3. Conclusion C, a Round Earth cannot exhibit attraction by linear or centripetal acceleration.
4. Assertion D, the apparent (observable) position of the sun, moon, and stars from every point in the world at every date and time cannot be predicted by any flat earth model, but can be predicted by a Round Earth model.
5. Assertion F, the measurable ground distances among any four remote points in the world cannot be approximately predicted by any flat earth model, but can be predicted by a Round Earth model.
6. Conclusion G, a Round Earth model is more completely descriptive than a Flat Earth model.
7. Conclusion H, Universal Acceleration does not fit the more descriptive model of the world, comparing between Flat Earth and Round Earth.

[Antithecystem]

@OP

If gravity doesn't exist than what did Isaac Newton discover?

People always knew what goes up from the earth must come back down to the earth, barring buoyancy, what Newton did, was extrapolate this.
He supposed that all matter possessed this power to attract objects to it, not just the earth, it's just that the earth's attraction was so great, the earthbound objects attraction was nearly impossible to observe.
Later some socially stunted fellow by the name of Cavendish supposedly proved Newton's theory correct by employing some sort of experiment.

Newton also said that the moon was attracted to the earth and the earth the sun, in exactly the same way a penny thrown off a rooftop is attracted to the earth, it's just that the moon happened to have just the right forward momentum, that it would continuously miss the earth it was falling towards, and this forward momentum would curve, kind of like the forward momentum of a tether ball curves as the ball moves around the pole.

And with that, it was possible to leave our stable and steady cosmos, where the earth was the earth, the moon the moon, and the sun the sun, forever and ever.
With that, for later scientists, who supposedly observed super novas, and sought naturalistic, evolutionary explanations for the origin and destination of everything, it became possible to think the sun may have formed from bits of matter clumping together over time.

Some of these bits of matter, being supremely lucky, eventually formed the planets, or so they thought, due to their forward motions, forward relative to the sun.
Somehow their forward motions were always just fast enough to keep them from colliding away from the sun, and just slow enough to keep them in the solar system, while the vast majority of the matter in the solar system was not so lucky, and either was thrown out, or collided with the sun.

And so the clockwork precision, order and harmony we have in our solar system today, was born of blind chance, chaos.
Dumb, dead gravitationally charged matter, unable to finish her job of devouring everything within range.

[Roger G]

@OP

If gravity doesn't exist than what did Isaac Newton discover?

People always knew what goes up from the earth must come back down to the earth, barring buoyancy, what Newton did, was extrapolate this.
He supposed that all matter possessed this power to attract objects to it, not just the earth, it's just that the earth's attraction was so great, the earthbound objects attraction was nearly impossible to observe.
Later some socially stunted fellow by the name of Cavendish supposedly proved Newton's theory correct by employing some sort of experiment.

Newton also said that the moon was attracted to the earth and the earth the sun, in exactly the same way a penny thrown off a rooftop is attracted to the earth, it's just that the moon happened to have just the right forward momentum, that it would continuously miss the earth it was falling towards, and this forward momentum would curve, kind of like the forward momentum of a tether ball curves as the ball moves around the pole.

And with that, it was possible to leave our stable and steady cosmos, where the earth was the earth, the moon the moon, and the sun the sun, forever and ever.
With that, for later scientists, who supposedly observed super novas, and sought naturalistic, evolutionary explanations for the origin and destination of everything, it became possible to think the sun may have formed from bits of matter clumping together over time.

Some of these bits of matter, being supremely lucky, eventually formed the planets, or so they thought, due to their forward motions, forward relative to the sun.
Somehow their forward motions were always just fast enough to keep them from colliding away from the sun, and just slow enough to keep them in the solar system, while the vast majority of the matter in the solar system was not so lucky, and either was thrown out, or collided with the sun.

And so the clockwork precision, order and harmony we have in our solar system today, was born of blind chance, chaos.
Dumb, dead gravitationally charged matter, unable to finish her job of devouring everything within range.

That's pretty much how it is, with the omission that scientific research is followed by setting up a hypothesis that seems to allow for what is observed, then experimenting and researching to see if it can be disproved. Which is why scientific ideas and explanations change and develop as ideas are either proven through experimentation and observation or disproved and an amended hypothesis developed.

Roger

[Dr David Thork]

Your third question is the most obvious difficulty for flat earthers. And it appears that the only answer they are able to give is flat-out denials. Ships do not (appear to) arise. The sun does not rise and set. Cities do not rise revealing themselves beginning with the tops of the highest buildings as one approaches them on the ocean. There are no (apparent) risings and settings. Flat denials are all you will get.

I'm pretty sure there is tons written about all these things. If saying flat earthers deny as opposed to explain makes it easier for you to ignore and move on, then that's your choice. But there is lots of literature to explain all of these. Ships for example ... http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

[Tom Haws]

I'm pretty sure there is tons written about all these things. If saying flat earthers deny as opposed to explain makes it easier for you to ignore and move on, then that's your choice. But there is lots of literature to explain all of these. Ships for example ... http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

Well, okay. I stand corrected. They make up their own physical laws for the rising and setting of ships, cities, and mountains; they call these laws "perspective". Is it correct, however, that they deny the rising and setting of the sun, moon, and stars?

[Curious Squirrel]

I'm pretty sure there is tons written about all these things. If saying flat earthers deny as opposed to explain makes it easier for you to ignore and move on, then that's your choice. But there is lots of literature to explain all of these. Ships for example ... http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

Well, okay. I stand corrected. They make up their own physical laws for the rising and setting of ships, cities, and mountains; they call these laws "perspective". Is it correct, however, that they deny the rising and setting of the sun, moon, and stars?

Still incorrect unfortunately. Rising and setting of celestial objects is also attributed to their perspective hypothesis. They remain the same size due to the "well known magnification of bright objects" that occurs.

[Tom Haws]

Still incorrect unfortunately. Rising and setting of celestial objects is also attributed to their perspective hypothesis. They remain the same size due to the "well known magnification of bright objects" that occurs.

And I suppose that doesn't count as denial either. And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?

Then it's most accurate to say they have a physical law they call perspective that has features to explain all the apparent risings and settings of sun, moon, stars, cities, ships, and mountains?

[Dr David Thork]

And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?

You could always just read a book of two on FET and find out for yourself. Cause Of Sunrise & Sunset

[Curious Squirrel]

Still incorrect unfortunately. Rising and setting of celestial objects is also attributed to their perspective hypothesis. They remain the same size due to the "well known magnification of bright objects" that occurs.

And I suppose that doesn't count as denial either. And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?

Then it's most accurate to say they have a physical law they call perspective that has features to explain all the apparent risings and settings of sun, moon, stars, cities, ships, and mountains?

It's certainly not inaccurate. I hesitate to cite the accuracy of the statement, only because I don't fully understand what they're saying. Perspective seems to both physically affect things, and not at the same time. It feels like a very solipsistic idea to me.

[Roger G]

And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?

You could always just read a book of two on FET and find out for yourself. Cause Of Sunrise & Sunset

I have read all that the conman Rowbotham has said on the subject. Unfortunately, constantly quoting a pseudo scientist with very flawed methods and who was proven to be unstable and dishonourable, is not going to get any serious thinkers falling for that nonsense. His experiments and ideas were formulated 150 years ago and none have stood up to serious examination. Try reading up on some of the more advanced scientific investigation and research carried out since. or better still carry out some research and experimentation of your own in the real world. My own experiences as a pilot and offshore sailor have already shown me beyond any doubt that Rowbotham's pseudo science is tongue in cheek humour to baffle the masses. In modern terms 'He's having a laugh'.

Roger

[Dr David Thork]

His experiments and ideas were formulated 150 years ago and none have stood up to serious examination. Try reading up on some of the more advanced scientific investigation and research carried out since.

Those ideas are 150 years older than Sir Isaac Newton's. Does an idea have to be wrong because it is old?

My own experiences as a pilot and offshore sailor have already shown me beyond any doubt that Rowbotham's pseudo science is tongue in cheek humour to baffle the masses.

An appeal to authority. You provide no examples of your 'insight'. Having suffered the training for an ATPL myself, I can assure you that there is nothing in there to convince one that the earth is round.

[Roger G]

'Those ideas are 150 years older than Sir Isaac Newton's. Does an idea have to be wrong because it is old'
Absolutely not, but it is wrong when it is proven so or when the theory cannot be substantiated. The wheel is an even older idea, but far from being wrong it has proved to be the best solution fore the problems it solves.

An appeal to authority. You provide no examples of your 'insight'. Having suffered the training for an ATPL myself, I can assure you that there is nothing in there to convince one that the earth is round.


No appeal to authority, just experience and observation. As a glider pilot and instructor with about 2500 flights in my logbook, I have had to use visual and gps navigation, observed large objects disappearing below the horizon, seen the sun disappear behind the horizon whilst making a descent from height in the evening. Seen it appear with height after a launch at dawn on too many occasions to count. As a sailor I have regularly sailed out of site of land and watched things disappear below the horizon and navigation markers appear above it. I have used GPS and radar to confirm my dead reckoning and bearing based navigation. I have used AIS to check course and speed of other vessels and confirmed them with radar and bearings and plotted courses using gps for confirmation that have been accurate to a few feet. I can give you more if you wish from a lifetime of observation and experience, none of which would work on a flat earth.

What is your own experience as a pilot that convinces you the earth is flat? Are you actually an experienced pilot or just done some basic training? If you are seriously telling me that you have an ATPL licence and have flown using the highest category of commercial licence available, I would have to say that you are either not a flat earther and are trolling or are not telling the truth. Who have you piloted for and what aircraft, how many hours?

Roger

[Dr David Thork]

'Those ideas are 150 years older than Sir Isaac Newton's. Does an idea have to be wrong because it is old'
Absolutely not, but it is wrong when it is proven so or when the theory cannot be substantiated. The wheel is an even older idea, but far from being wrong it has proved to be the best solution fore the problems it solves.

An appeal to authority. You provide no examples of your 'insight'. Having suffered the training for an ATPL myself, I can assure you that there is nothing in there to convince one that the earth is round.


No appeal to authority, just experience and observation. As a glider pilot and instructor with about 2500 flights in my logbook, I have had to use visual and gps navigation, observed large objects disappearing below the horizon, seen the sun disappear behind the horizon whilst making a descent from height in the evening. Seen it appear with height after a launch at dawn on too many occasions to count. As a sailor I have regularly sailed out of site of land and watched things disappear below the horizon and navigation markers appear above it. I have used GPS and radar to confirm my dead reckoning and bearing based navigation. I have used AIS to check course and speed of other vessels and confirmed them with radar and bearings and plotted courses using gps for confirmation that have been accurate to a few feet. I can give you more if you wish from a lifetime of observation and experience, none of which would work on a flat earth.

What is your own experience as a pilot that convinces you the earth is flat? Are you actually an experienced pilot or just done some basic training? If you are seriously telling me that you have an ATPL licence and have flown using the highest category of commercial licence available, I would have to say that you are either not a flat earther and are trolling or are not telling the truth. Who have you piloted for and what aircraft, how many hours?

Roger

I had a license to kill. I worked all over the world. My main job was as a stunt pilot working for a sports aircraft factory. I was actually their demo pilot / salesman. Rich old men would ring up and ask for a demo of the aircraft before they purchased, as would military organisations and flying clubs. I had an aircraft given to me by the factory that sat at my local airfield. I'd do airshows, turn on the smoke, do a few rolls and what not, and visit people at their private strips, side-slipping my machine into tiny microlight grass fields. If they bought an aircraft, I'd fly Ryan Air to the factory with them, and then help them fly the 2 day trip across Europe to get their new aircraft home, teaching them how to wring its neck on the way. I used to always fly back via Denmark, because you could avoid tax registering the aircraft there, but once that loophole closed so we'd go straight after that.

I flew with Airline Captains, Flight instructors and enthusiasts with thousands of hours. And I'd be teaching them. Even the military guys would throw me compliments on my execution and would ask me to show them the envelope before they tried to tear the wings off it.

I also had more hours on type of that aircraft than anyone else on earth, so I also worked for the CAA doing annual permit renewals and flight tests for them. I was rated to test and sign off any aircraft up to about the size of a spitfire on their behalf. I wrote the POH for that aircraft and had the factory change designs based on my feedback.

I don't know how many different aircraft I have flown, but my favourites include a Long-Ez, a Stearman and a Zlin 526. I also have a healthy dislike of glider pilots having nearly been cut in half by a climbing towplane that came from under me trailing a steel cable that I likely had a closure speed of over 300mph on. The guy just had his nose in the air and couldn't give a crap about anyone else, nor were their any notams or nearby glider areas.  All I saw from under my nose was whooosh - aircraft ... cable cable cable ... whoosh - glider. And was he on the radio to anyone? lol, no.

However due to the financial crisis, airlines bunching their knickers over oil prices at the time and a multi-year recruitment freezes, it was becoming a hobby more than a career as I hemorrhaged cash. I now own an IT company instead. But I still don't like glider pilots. 

[Roger G]

   Haaaaa. Nice one Thork, you nearly caught me with your porkies, and there was I thinking 'should I give him the benefit of the doubt'. Tow aircraft using steel cables to launch a glider, now that would be really interesting and illegal!! I'm glad you enjoy flying on flight sims on the computer, me too and of course if I discount my years of flying real gliders and light aircraft, I could also add all the aerobatic, military and civil aircraft I have flown all over the world just like you  If you want to have a go at flight sim gliding, try the Condor programme, it's the only one that gets anywhere near real soaring.

Getting back to the flat earth though, I don't tell lies and am perfectly happy to relate my real world experiences and observations while discussing flat or round earth theory. You may well say that you hate glider pilots to try to wind me up, but as you have never flown one or know any glider pilots, you won't be able to verify or disprove my own observations. One thing I hate, is folks who profess to be flat earthers, then make up total nonsense or lies to attempt to discredit genuine experience and discussion. Perhaps you would care to relate your own relevant experiments, observations and evidence to reinforce you flat earth views, or disprove spherical earth evidence.

I look forward to hearing from you 

Roger

[Dr David Thork]

  Haaaaa. Nice one Thork, you nearly caught me with your porkies, and there was I thinking 'should I give him the benefit of the doubt'. Tow aircraft using steel cables to launch a glider, now that would be really interesting and illegal!!

Well whatever this configuration is, that's what went past my window. Pretty sure they don't make those cables out of rope.

You may well say that you hate glider pilots to try to wind me up, but as you have never flown one or know any glider pilots, you won't be able to verify or disprove my own observations.

I have flown gliders, twice. I found it incredibly boring. You spent your whole time looking for fluffy clouds and hill sides so you can prolong your incredibly dull descent. I might add I was towed up by an air tractor using a steel cable!

If you want to have a go at flight sim gliding, try the Condor programme, it's the only one that gets anywhere near real soaring.

I don't play computer games. I'm an adult.

You may well say that you hate glider pilots to try to wind me up, but as you have never flown one or know any glider pilots, you won't be able to verify or disprove my own observations.

Well this going to really wind you up then. Before I became a pilot I did a degree in Aerospace engineering and I used to work in the Flight Physics department for a major manufacturer designing aircraft wings. Specifically I worked in both Loads and Aeroelastics and Aerodynamics departments. And the chances are, you have been on an aircraft that I did a small part of the maths on.

As for my own relevant experience, I have never ever in all my time flying or designing, had to account for curvature on the surface of the earth. All the design makes the assumption earth is flat
(indeed nasa do too if you bothered to check - http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890005752.pdf
The very first line of the summary (page 7 after the contents) sums up how NASA do their aircraft calcs.), and I don't ever remember modifying my altitude to fly a curve downwards as I traveled around a ball.

[inquisitive]

And I suppose that further they must invoke the same esoteric physical rule of perspective to explain the orderly and gradual daily veiling and unveiling of the sun and moon at the horizon?

You could always just read a book of two on FET and find out for yourself. Cause Of Sunrise & Sunset

That makes no sense, our observations and measurements prove a round earth.

Why not quote something written recently in modern text.