41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 30, 2018, 10:07:52 AM »

ANY evidence can be refuted even if the objections are spurious or far fetched.
There is no such thing as irrefutable proof unless we are talking about mathemetical theorums which, in the limited language of mathemetics can be proven absolutely.

I'm pretty sure that there's a strong element of FE theory which involves disputing mathematical truths. It's not that difficult.

"Prove that Pythagoras' theorem is true."

"OK, here are several alternative proofs, all of which show that his theorem is objectively, irrevocably true."

"That's not a proof. You only believe it because you've been told by the government. I think for myself."

I'm sure that if you can believe FE theory, you can dispute mathematical theorems.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 30, 2018, 10:03:08 AM »

Nice.

I'm going low tech.



1. 3 rebar staked in-line at some distance x apart (x yet to be determined)
2. Leveling rig of clamped to rebar, one reservoir on each stake (two for sighting and 1 additional for leveling camera)
3. Fill with dyed water with some dish soap added.
4. Run twin from each rebar at level line; (double check with hanging line level)
5. Set camera on tripod and align with level line and sight line.

Sharp contrast of the horizon is a prerequisite.

Recommendations? Critiques?

I assume that there will be a general welcome for this experiment from the FE community, because it offers the opportunity to have a major theory confirmed. Perhaps a representative could inspect the equipment and observe it taking place.

I'm kidding, of course. There's something in the back of the mind of most people holding irrational beliefs than knows that they shouldn't be exposed to rebuttal. This experiment will be derided in advance, in favour of Rowbotham's objectively bad experiment with inconclusive results from which conclusions were drawn.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset At Altitude

« on: April 30, 2018, 06:09:51 AM »

That is only a small model. The end of it doesn't rise to eye level with perspective.

Please explain your continual use of the word perspective.

Replace "perspective" with "deep magic from the dawn of time" to get the proper impression of how it works. Flat Earth perspective has nothing to do with optics.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 29, 2018, 10:21:04 PM »

"Why don't you...."

Not good enough. Your claim. You brought it up, claiming it as something legitimate. Your burden to demonstrate so.

That's the hilarious thing. "You claim that there's such a thing as satellite TV. You seem to expect us to believe that you can just point a dish up in the sky and pick up Big Bang Theory on your flatscreen. Well, us independent minded people expect a bit more than an assertion."

There can never be and will never be any proof that will be accepted. Look at the "Horizon at eye level" thread. Actual pictures disproving the assertion. Are the picture accepted? Of course not. Will any flat Earth proponent do the experiments themselves? Of course not. There is no conceivable proof that will ever be accepted.

I actually admire the people who go out and demonstrate these things. It's important to inoculate young people against this kind of warped thinking. Let's not pretend it's going to convince the believers though. We're dealing with people with entirely closed minds - and the fact that they think they're open-minded makes it worse.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: April 29, 2018, 10:15:43 PM »

Since we're talking about signatures;

"I am a typical GENIUS girl who does NOT follow the masses and who does NOT blindly accept what is told to me without EVIDENCE"

I'll bet, in your daily life, you take hundreds of things at face value, with no expectation of evidence, and don't give them a second thought. 

You're just cherry-picking the flat-earth vs. globe-earth argument out of all this for the sake of the argument.

That and evolution and the Holocaust. Don't tell me - let me guess. Willing to look beyond what the corrupt media tells her about 9/11 and vaccines as well?

Oh, and crisis actors in mass shootings as well. Anyone smart enough to see through the Holocaust should know that all those dead kids were just fictional.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 29, 2018, 10:12:49 PM »

We have no idea about all of the details of your experiment. What brand of tools and what methods were done to ensure accuracy?

We have no idea about details of experiments, info on brand of tools and methods in ENaG, beyond the word 'clinometer'.

If I'm not mistaken, the measurements were taken from different floors of a building. No measurable difference could be expected.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space travel conspiracy

« on: April 29, 2018, 10:10:22 PM »

The absurdity of this is that I've done some minor work on the space programme myself, in a very peripheral way. Many years ago I helped install a computer system at the European Space Tribology Laboratory, in Hull. The whole thing might have been set up as a big fraud, but it shows me how absurd it is to suppose that these things are all a big front. I walked through the clean room looking at tests of hinges and catches designed to operate in a vacuum.

I recognise that people with The True Faith will never believe in this. They'll either believe that I'm making it up or that I was deceived. It requires a special kind of mind to think like that, though.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 28, 2018, 11:27:07 PM »

What's absurd is the notion that every single person in every one of these industries must be a liar for FET to hold up, but if y'all feel the need to resort to such hyperbole in defense of your ridiculing of our beliefs go ahead, it just underscores the invalidity of your argument.

So who is on it? Perhaps not everyone on a flight needs to be aware of the truth, but presumably the pilot and co-pilot? They must have access to the Real Charts in order to safely bring people to their destinations. The people in Air Traffic Control, the people planning air routes, the owners of airlines, the corresponding people in the shipping business, the ministries of transport, the people who design roads and railway systems across continents - just who does need to be in on it?

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 28, 2018, 11:22:38 PM »

... involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

Do you assert that this method is ... better? more accurate? something else? ... than the U-shaped pipes with coloured water?

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.

How did R determine his markers were at the known height and distances without "calibration"

See my guess - he lined them up with the horizon. Or he found a patch of ground that looked sort of level and stuck 'em in.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 28, 2018, 11:21:15 PM »

An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.

Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.

So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?

Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?

Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.

How on Earth do you verify that two markers are at exactly the same height? The only way to verify that two markers are at the same height is by calibrating devices and careful levelling.

I suspect that Rowbotham levelled his two markers by lining them up with the horizon, and then used them to verify that they were in line with the horizon.

This is another one of these situations where one starts to think that one is being made a fool of, and that this "Flat Earth" joke is just being pushed as far as it can go.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No sun

« on: April 28, 2018, 12:09:12 PM »

Unknown.

That's a major hole in your theory then, because RE has an explanation that can be explained to a 7-year-old.

The sun maintaining its size at different distances is explained in the Cosmos -> Sun section. What moves the sun and bodies in the sky is unknown.

I actually went to read the relevant section. There's absolutely no evidence that the atmosphere magnifies the Sun in the fashion described - coincidentally keeping the apparent size exactly the same as it moves away - but at least it's sort of consistent with itself. The next section - explaining why even though the sun appears the same size as it moves away, it somehow disappears because perspective - that's nonsensical gibberish. Try reading Sidawg's excellent explanation of how perspective actually works, and then read the section about how the Sun disappears from the bottom up when it reaches the vanishing point.

The difference between the Sidawg explanation of perspective and the idiotic explanation in Cosmos/sunset is that Sidawg actually shows how the light reaches the eye and how that produces the visual effect of perspective. No such explanation is possible to show a magnified Sun vanishing when it reaches a certain distance in the sky. None will be furnished. It's the big hole in flat Earth theory, and it's the point at which flat Earth ceases to become a kind of incorrect belief, and becomes a complete disconnect from reality.

52

Science & Alternative Science / Re: This Is How Perspective Works

« on: April 28, 2018, 11:48:41 AM »

True, except i am not sure it can actually work on a flat earth, not as shown, and it in no way can explain why we see half of the sun at sunset and sunrise.

Yes, that's the slight problem with it. But let's see!

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 28, 2018, 11:01:32 AM »

I wish this guy had've run the experiment in a colder/clearer climate. The final distance especially shows huge atmospheric effects. The important thing to remember is that the world IS a globe, it is not flat, and you're looking for ways to justify your confirmation bias

An important point is that because the horizon as seen from a height is much further away, it's likely to be fuzzier, because there's more atmosphere in the way. Note that this effect only happens on a round Earth, because on a flat Earth, the horizon is an effect of... well, I'm not clear exactly what it's an effect of. If the flat Earth horizon is due to atmospheric distortion, then it should always be fuzzy. If it's due to "perspective" then who knows?

It should also be noted that even though the horizon is fuzzy, it's still perfectly possible to see that it is below eye level.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No sun

« on: April 28, 2018, 10:53:47 AM »

When you say all surveying is in error, then the statement is invalid, as i am talking of navigation, not surveying.

Please state the accepted level of accuracy for navigation? And we will see if you know what you are talking about.

All measurements are within a degree of accuracy. It's a question of how accurate they need to be for a particular purpose. The difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is so vast that the accuracy of theodolites, sextants etc is entirely sufficient for purpose.

The insistence that a given measuring device is inaccurate is just obfuscation designed to confuse.

55

Science & Alternative Science / Re: This Is How Perspective Works

« on: April 28, 2018, 10:49:07 AM »

That's an excellent post, and it's quite easy to follow.

I'm sure that one of the experts on celestial perspective will be able to build on this to show how the view of the Sun works on a flat Earth in a similarly detailed and precise fashion. I've had some trouble following it and itt would be a great help to have it shown here. Then the FAQ could be updated.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The "Google Maps background"

« on: April 27, 2018, 04:48:28 PM »

They lend, at least in my mind, credence to at least one being an artists creation. The ISS is just too visually similar with such a difference in the look of the Earth behind it for me to really believe it's two photos from a camera.

What difference is there apart from the colour rendition?

None whatsoever. It's clearly the same picture, or taken almost instantaneously with slightly different settings.

Isn't it funny that NASA, as part of their conspiracy to pretend that space travel is possible, with their enormous budget, constantly produce photos which are "obviously fake" according to people with no knowledge or understanding of photography. I mean, given that they had the tech to fake transmissions from the Moon back in 1969, they must have a really good Photoshop lab by now. Why so many obvious giveaways?

Of course, the trick of making the ISS actually visible to the naked eye shows just how clever they are. They actually put a fake space station up there where they claim that the real space station is!

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: April 26, 2018, 01:07:14 PM »

Yes, but what goes on for an FE'er when presented with (what I think) is a sound argument?  Do they just dismiss it because they know better?  Do they roll their eyes and get annoyed that someone can be so seriously deluded?  I doubt they are cowering in fear that someone has finally caught them out.

What is the source of their belief?  It doesn't seem to be religious.  Do they all come to it the same way?

This is the useful and important part of being on this site. It's not to confirm to ourselves that the world is round - that's a given. It's to find out how people can hold irrational beliefs in the face of opposing evidence, because that has a big effect on the (round) world we live in. There's no "debate" going on here.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 26, 2018, 11:49:24 AM »

It's quite hard to argue people who literally refuse to concede a point when it is demonstrated so clearly.
For his next trick, to misquote Douglas Adams, he'll claim black is white and get killed on the next zebra crossing.

This is an example of just how things work in this kind of discussion. Clearly you need some kind of objective measure of level. Since it's generally known that water flows downhill, the u-tube with a coloured liquid is a good idea. It's not totally accurate, but it doesn't need to be. The point isn't to measure the drop to the horizon - it's to demonstrate that the drop to the horizon exists.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 26, 2018, 07:07:58 AM »

I confess I don't understand the horizon in a flat model. As I think I understand it, the FE "horizon" is a perceptual one (apparent) that occurs level to height of viewer (0° to the horizontal), but isn't a measurable distance. It depends on acuity (resolution) and obscuring factors in the air.



The horizon on a convex curved surface is a geometric point, calculated by height of viewer and radius of the curve, but it's always some angle below the horizontal, though appearing to be at horizontal for low values of h relative to r.



If so, then I think that if you can demonstrate that the horizon drops below horizontal eye level with increasing height, it supports a curved surface. If the horizon appears consistently at the horizontal at all values of h, it would support the flat earth claim.

Does that make sense?

If so, the next step is to find agreement on how best to measure and document the horizon vs. "eye level" at different heights above the surface. I have some ideas, and I have easy access to viewpoints from sea level to 1500' with clear views to an ocean horizon, though catching a non-hazy day for a good horizon contrast is hit and miss this time of year.

I like the idea of a water level that's not cumbersome to tote on a hike, but I'd want it to be set up on a stable platform or tripod rather than handheld as in that video. Plus the camera would have to be stabilized and aligned with the leveling site.

I think about it, but would appreciate input or feedback, particularly from "horizon always at eye level" proponents.

This is something that's really easy to test. I'd like to see an acknowledgement that

• "The horizon is always at eye level" is a testable proposition.
• Agreement on a test that can be readily carried out.
• Acceptance that if the test disproves the proposition, that it should no longer be put forward.

I don't expect people to reject flat Earth altogether when this test is proposed, but I would hope that the "horizon rises to eye level" idea could at least be addressed. If the FE proponents are confident that the horizon does rise to eye level then they should be demanding that such experiments take place.

I'll state my own POV up front. I'm interested in the cognitive dissonance of the FE movement, and I'm reasonably confident that the items on the above list wouldn't be accepted by any FE proponents. If I'm wrong, then a test will be devised, the experiment performed, the results accepted and the FAQ on this site amended accordingly.

It should be something performable with some kind of levelling device, a camera, and a hillside overlooking the sea.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset. Please explain the pictures.

« on: April 25, 2018, 09:32:11 PM »

One of the strangest claims of FE...what I'll charitably call "theory" is this idea that perspective causes sunsets.
The way we see things is simply that if there is clear line of sight between us and the object, we can see it.
There would be nothing stopping you seeing the sun at all times in the flat earth model unless something blocked your vision to it, but the something would either have to be very tall or very close. Waves out at sea doesn't cut it. In this diagram I've shown how a wave taller than your eye line could block out more of a distant building than your height:



but if you're up a hill looking out to sea there is no way that a wave could be higher than your eye line so it would be more like this:



The wave hides less of the building than its own height if your eye level is above the wave height. So the idea that a sun THREE THOUSAND miles above the surface of a flat earth could be hidden behind waves is crazy. Long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is PHYSICALLY intersecting the horizon. I've asked Tom, and I've seen others ask him, to draw a simple diagram showing how the photons could be coming from a sun 3,000 miles high and 6,000 miles away and be coming at me horizontally or even upwards, casting upwards shadows as it does sometimes in the right landscape. He has never done so.

That's the real killer about "celestial perspective". We can explain pretty much everything we see using side-on diagrams tracing the path of rays of light from the object to the observer. That includes perspective, refraction, magnification and obstruction. It's perfectly possible to derive our normal experience of perspective using side on diagrams tracing light rays. It's not possible to draw a diagram that shows how light from a Sun supposedly 3000 miles up is suddenly blocked.