2881

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 05, 2019, 12:10:31 PM »

You do say quite a lot without really saying anything.

Likewise, my friend.

Your question should not be answered, because it's not a fair question. You're asking us to substantiate a negative without providing any evidence to the positive other than "lots of people said it".

This is a reversal of burden of proof, and we shouldn't be engaging it. I can't tell others what to do, but I'm not falling for it, personally.

The question in the initial post was maybe unfair as it presupposed the FE stance on this, so let me try again.

China claim to have landed a spacecraft on the far side of the moon. What is the FE reaction to this claim?

Is that a fair question? China have just claimed something which potentially affects FET. To have no reaction to that at all would be bizarre.
The 3 possibilities I see are:

1) China have done what they claim - ergo the earth is round.

2) China have faked the whole thing - I'm not sure that has any implications for the shape of the earth, if this hasn't happened then I'm not sure how an event not happening adds weight to either side of the FE/RE debate. You could say they have had to fake it because the earth is flat but I'd suggest it's equally plausible they've done it for the kudos the achievement had brought them.

3) China have done what they claim but have done so despite the earth being flat - I'm not quite sure how that's possible given the FE model presented here and without them discovering in the process that the earth was flat (unless they did and are suppressing that for some reason) but I've listed it as a possibility for completeness.

I'm not claiming to have proof of veracity of their claim, I'm not expecting you to have proof of fakery. This isn't a trap or a trick question.
But asking whether there is any thoughts from FE people about a claim from China which potentially has an impact on FE is a reasonable one.

2882

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 05, 2019, 10:36:25 AM »

Unless you are standing on the far side of the moon in a space suit looking at the landed equipment, how can it be proven?

I have never physically seen with my own eyes a polar bear, or visited the Grand Canyon or the Great Barrier Reef but i don't need anybody to 'prove' to me that they exist.  Same principle isn't it.

There’s a good article about this here

http://theconversation.com/-to-reason-with-flat-earthers-it-may-not-help-though-95160

FE operates in the sceptical context.
How do we know the earth is round?
Well, lots of reasons but let’s look at one: we have photos of earth from space. Lots of them. That kills FE stone dead. So FE swings into sceptical context: Question everything. How do you know the photos are real?
Note that no actual evidence of fakery is presented. Lots of supposition, some out of context quotes from NASA about Photoshop and composite photos, a dash of misunderstanding about why photos appear inconsistent and voila - they have introduced an element of doubt.

But you can do that about anything. I’m told that kangaroos live wild in Australia. How do I know? I’ve never been there. Maybe all the people who tell me this are lying, maybe all the photos and film taken of them in the wild are really taken elsewhere. And so on.

The telling thing is this sceptical context is used very selectively - only for things which prove a globe earth. Rowbotham’s book, full of anecdotal “evidence”, is accepted without question.

That’s why I started this thread to see if there was any FE response or thoughts about this. And we see the sceptical context at work. Lackey and Pete basically asking how we can prove this is real, knowing that is impossible as it is impossible for pretty much any news story if you operate in the sceptical context. But no actual evidence of fakery is provided or felt to be needed. It contradicts FE, ergo it’s false until proven otherwise to a standard of proof impossible to achieve. It’s a mix of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

I’m still waiting for an actual FE response giving their actual thoughts about this. Do they even have any? If one believes in a flat earth and was serious about seeking the truth of the matter then every space mission is another opportunity to examine one’s beliefs.

2883

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: January 05, 2019, 12:08:22 AM »

Bother.
I just realised I have made an error.
I was drawing circles where the *diameter* in pixels was the distance between cities in miles when that should have been the *radius*. So each circle should be twice as big as it is. As I have done this consistently the error actually cancels out, the whole diagram is simply half the size it should be, it’s 2 miles to the pixel instead of one.
Just thought I’d mention that in case anyone else notices.

2884

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 04, 2019, 05:19:05 PM »

I’m not asking for proof.

The phrase burden of proof is fairly well-understood, and bickering about the semantics of the word "proof" won't change that. Sort of like how the United States of America having some territories outside of the Americas doesn't make it any less the USA.

You do say quite a lot without really saying anything. This has been widely reported as something which happened. China have produced photos from the surface. My questions are

What is the FE response to this story?

If the response is that this has all been fabricated then do you have any evidence for that? (Obviously this second question is not relevant if your answer to the first question is different to the one I have suggested it might be)

2885

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 04, 2019, 05:13:49 PM »

So your not asking for proof of anything?

*You’re
Proof is not possible on either side.
I can’t prove the Chinese have landed a craft on the moon. You can’t prove they haven’t.

So let’s look at the evidence.

Do you have any evidence the events the article depicts have actually taken place?

Firstly, you could ask that about any news article. Unless you personally witness the events what evidence do you have that they happened?

The evidence here is that every major news source has reported this as something that really happened. I’ve not heard anyone casting any doubt on the claim from the Chinese. Photos have been provided from the craft, I’ve not heard any claims that those are faked.

The technology to get craft in orbit around the moon has existed since the space race, the Russians (crash) landed Luna 2 on the moon in 1959. There have been multiple manned and unmanned missions since from multiple countries since.

So I have no reason to suspect this has been faked. Do you have any reason to and, if so, do you have any evidence of specific fakery in this instance?

2886

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 04, 2019, 04:26:08 PM »

Do you have any evidence of fakery?

Surely you're beyond such an obvious reversal of burden of proof? You and your Chinese friends are the claimants here.

I’m not asking for proof. Proof is not possible on either side. Absolute proof is only possible in the limited language of mathematics.

I’m just asking what the FE take on this claim from the Chinese is. I am anticipating that your stance will be that it’s faked. If that isn’t your stance then what is it? If your stance is that it is fake then do you have any evidence for that? It’s not a difficult question.

2887

Flat Earth Investigations / Flat Earth Map

« on: January 04, 2019, 12:36:29 PM »

As there is no flat earth map I thought I'd have a go at making one
I had a look on Google Maps and used that as my source for distances between places.
Obviously if you don't accept those distances as accurate then that's going to be a problem from the start but given that Google Maps is used by millions of people to get around you'd think we'd know about it if their maps were wrong.

I took some US Cities - I used mainland US partly because it's continental so we get away from complexities about measuring distances across oceans. I picked them fairly arbitrarily but I wanted them far apart as this is where we should see most difference between a flat earth and a globe.

I started with Seattle. Final image is at the bottom of this post.

The distance between Seattle to New York is 2405 Miles
So I drew a black circle diameter 2405 pixels. Seattle is the centre. New York must be somewhere on that circle.

New York to Dallas is 1368 miles. I picked an arbitrary point on the circle surrounding Seattle - to the right of the circle as New York is due East of Seattle. I called that point New York and drew a red circle 1368 pixels around that point.
So Dallas must be somewhere on that red circle.

Seattle to Dallas is 1684 miles so I drew another blue circle around Seattle of diameter 1684 pixels. Dallas must be somewhere on that blue circle

So, Dallas must be on the intersection between the red and blue circles.
There are 2 possibilities as the circles intersect in 2 places. Dallas is south of both New York and Seattle though so I've picked the lower one and called that Dallas.

So now we know where Seattle, New York and Dallas are in relation to one another.
I've marked the cities with rough X's and labelled them.
Now what happens if we add a 4th city?

I picked Minneapolis as it is fairly central to the above 3 cities.
The distance from Minneapolis to
New York is 1020 miles
Seattle is 1384 miles
Dallas is 1389 miles.

So I've drawn green circles with the corresponding number of pixels around those 3 cities.
Minneapolis must be somewhere on each of those green circles so it must be at the intersection of them.

The problem is the three green circles don't all intersect at any point. So either:
1) The distances on Google Maps are wrong
2) I have made an error somewhere in my reasoning or method
3) The earth isn't flat.

Are there any other possibilities?

2888

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 04, 2019, 12:28:56 PM »

Do you have any evidence of fakery?

2889

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 04, 2019, 08:06:09 AM »

On the Flat Earth map the paths seem to be perfect arcs:

What flat earth map? You keep saying there isn't one.

2890

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Stars main page in FE Wiki

« on: January 03, 2019, 06:44:03 PM »

If you are rejecting anything that disagrees with your theory, why should there be?

Pretty poor attempt at trolling.
Your claim is that negative parallax is an issue for astronomy, you said it was a “mystery”. Your source is the Internet equivalent of a crazy person shouting on a street corner...

Edby and myself have provided a more credible source - as it’s in an actual professional astronomy publication -which explains negative parallax and why it is not a mystery.

If you don’t understand the explanation then I’ll add that to the list, but just pointing out an article about negative parallax contains the words “negative parallax” adds nothing to this discussion.

2891

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Stars main page in FE Wiki

« on: January 03, 2019, 03:45:14 PM »

Edby, from your source on p.1:

You may want to read that source again carefully.

I did. I saw the words "large negative parallax".

You seem to have missed the words

"Essentially there is no mystery about negative parallaxes"

2892

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Stars main page in FE Wiki

« on: January 03, 2019, 02:57:54 PM »

So you are questioning his credentials, which you admit to have no knowledge of, but have no issue otherwise that negative parallax is a mystery to astronomy, as I provided reference in sources above?

I already provided a source which suggested several explanations, one was error but there are other explanations.
You actually think this is some big mystery secretly in astronomy and "they" are hushing it all up in case we discover their terrible secret that they don't know what they're doing?

Can we all agree that pretty much any viewpoint can be found somewhere on the internet?
Just scouring the internet to find someone who says something you agree with isn't helpful, it doesn't move the debate along at all.
The caveat to that is if the someone actually has some credentials which make their opinion worth considering.
Yes yes, I know, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Just because someone says something and the someone is an expert in a certain field it doesn't make them correct.
But expertise in a certain field gives them more credence than loonies shouting in corners of the internet.
Anyone can write a blog. Unless the person demonstrates some knowledge in the field they are talking about, has some qualifications or some professional experience then it's just someone shouting on a street corner. If that's the first source you came to then it's not giving much weight to your claim. And it's notable that your starting point in this discussion was "lack of parallax", something which would demonstrate distant stars, not close ones. I note you've failed to address that...

2893

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: January 03, 2019, 02:49:46 PM »

That's aligned but not level.

Not clear what point you're making here? The dotted line - light of sight - isn't level, it's sloping slightly upwards because the mountains get progressively taller so you'd be able to see Adams over Hood and Hood over Jefferson. On a flat earth.
But that isn't what the photo shows.

2894

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Stars main page in FE Wiki

« on: January 03, 2019, 12:47:50 PM »

As I said, verification is a few Google searches away.

I found this

http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1943AnDea...4....1L/0000013.000.html

So now what?

2895

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Stars main page in FE Wiki

« on: January 03, 2019, 11:56:59 AM »

By "the author" you mean a man who says about himself

I’m 42, a high school drop out and autodidact in everything.

and

I aim to raise the level of the conversation out there, which seems rather pertinent. Not with ‘facts’ (these are overrated), but with opinion.

(both from https://migchels.wordpress.com/about/ )

So he has no scientific training and admits he writes opinions and doesn't take much notice of facts because they are "overrated".

The article is him just saying stuff, there's no detail, no backing up of anything he claims. There is only one link to a source in the entire article and it's a broken link.

Dude, seriously? This your source to back up your point?

2896

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Stars main page in FE Wiki

« on: January 03, 2019, 11:29:40 AM »

Ha. The URL "heliocentricity-is-dead-there-is-no-stellar-parallax" makes me already excited about the nice, unbiased, scientific content I will find.
It's good confirmation bias, isn't it?

I'm reading it. I've got to the bit where he says
"By explaining away the lack of stellar parallax, Copernicus was in fact not in accordance with Occam’s razor, which claims that the simplest solution is usually best."
That made me giggle, as though Occam's Razor was an immutable property of the universe rather than a vague principle which doesn't necessarily always hold.
I'll keep reading.

I don't know what this guy's qualifications are to talk about this by the way, he hasn't provided a single reference so far. I will read on.

Disappointing. I've got to his first reference and it's a dead link...

2897

Flat Earth Investigations / The Dark Side of the Moon

« on: January 03, 2019, 11:21:02 AM »

China have landed a craft on the "dark" side of the moon

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46724727

I guess the FE response is to call this fake, do the society have any evidence of fakery?

2898

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Stars main page in FE Wiki

« on: January 03, 2019, 11:01:07 AM »

- Lack of parallax

This is a weird one because it's wrong in so many ways. Well, 2 really.
Firstly, a lack of significant parallax would indicate distant stars, not close ones.
I have said on here multiple times that were the sun, moon and stars as close as you suppose then you could easily measure the distance using parallax with viewers taking observations at different locations.
Secondly, although the parallax is small, there is some and it is used to determine the distance of some stars

https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html

2899

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: January 03, 2019, 10:47:33 AM »

Eye level must be close to the summit of Mt Jefferson (10,497) given that the photo was taken at a similar height. All distant points of that height will also be at eye level, if the earth is flat.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that if something is above your eye height then you look up at it, it remains above "eye level".
And if something is below your eye height then you look down at it, it remains below "eye level".
This is true no matter how far away the objects are, this can be easily confirmed by observations and explained by simple geometry.

So taking a few of the mountains and doing a very, very rough diagram of how they should look on a flat earth:



These 4 peaks should be very roughly in a straight line. Actually you'd be looking slightly up along the line of mountains but given the distances involved the angle would be very shallow.
But that isn't what we observe in that photo.
Adams is clearly lower than Hood and Hood is clearly lower than Jefferson despite Adams being taller than Hood and Hood being taller than Jefferson.
On a flat earth this is not what we should see.

I'm struggling to explain it.

2900

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 02, 2019, 09:17:53 PM »

What's the source of the shadow?

Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.

How does the sun have a satellite if gravity doesn't exist?

Apparently celestial gravitation does exist, but terrestrial gravitation doesn't exist.  And before you ask why celestial objects can have gravity but the flat earth can't, just remember that the flat earth is not a celestial object and therefore does not need to obey the same rules as celestial objects.

Yes, I did look at the Wiki page about that. It says

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation

So it's one of the FE fudges used to try and explain certain things, I guess it could be used to explain how objects orbit one another.