The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Nidecker on February 15, 2018, 05:50:54 PM
-
My case is very simple. Two stationary observers viewing the sun. One viewing the sunset where the sun is moving downwards below the horizon and the other viewing the sunrise where the sun is moving upwards coming over the horizon. In this case, because the observers are stationary and the sun is moving against the horizon as the frame of reference, you can be confident that the direction of the movement of the sun is the real direction. A flat earth cannot explain this case. Only a sphere can where one observer is on one side moving away from the earth (sunset) and the other observer is on the other side moving towards the sun (sunrise). There is no other physical model that can explain this case if you assume a single sun.
If you're going to reply, please stick to this specific case and video examples don't really make sense here.
-
I would contest your use of lexicon in your description. In my view, the Sun is approaching from a distance, reaching zenith to the viewer, and then receding into the distance. What the lenses of our eyes perceive as we view its course through the sky is also affected by atmospheric refraction (AR). AR is the amount of moisture in the air, or lack thereof, which also acts as a lens and further distorts the actual object (image) given to our brains through these two "lenses".
You did not ask any question, but rather instead pointed out something and then made a conclusion, so I am not sure if there is a question there.
The effect you described (using my lexicon) perfectly explains what people see... for those who believe they are on a ball and the ball is rotating... and for FE believers, that they are standing on a stationary plane and the object (the Sun) is circling overhead in ever tightening and widening concentric circles. The effect, at face value, is the same regardless, but how one interprets it is debatable.
Respect
-
I would contest your use of lexicon in your description. In my view, the Sun is approaching from a distance, reaching zenith to the viewer, and then receding into the distance. What the lenses of our eyes perceive as we view its course through the sky is also affected by atmospheric refraction (AR). AR is the amount of moisture in the air, or lack thereof, which also acts as a lens and further distorts the actual object (image) given to our brains through these two "lenses".
You did not ask any question, but rather instead pointed out something and then made a conclusion, so I am not sure if there is a question there.
The effect you described (using my lexicon) perfectly explains what people see... for those who believe they are on a ball and the ball is rotating... and for FE believers, that they are standing on a stationary plane and the object (the Sun) is circling overhead in ever tightening and widening concentric circles. The effect, at face value, is the same regardless, but how one interprets it is debatable.
Respect
Highly unlikely. Refraction as a result of moisture in the air would result in scattering, because the index of refraction is not even close to uniform across the space. The fact that we see crystal-clear images of the Moon and Sun suggests that your atmospheric refraction hypothesis is bunk.
This is not to mention the obvious problem: your hypothesis is neither specific nor falsifiable. I suggest you try to quantify exactly how the atmospheric refraction bends the light; I doubt you'll find it fits anywhere close to what you say it does. Start with Snell's Law. You can't just throw out the words "atmospheric refraction" to discredit optical observations.
-
Sydney, I stated a case that can't be explained by a FE model. So any reply would have to simply refute my claim. No question required.
Even if your theory of refraction actually did occur, it can't explain the consistent observations of simultaneous sunrises and sunsets all around the Earth because if that were the cause of one person seeing not seeing the real direction of the sun but simply the effect of refraction, then you would expect the effect to be somewhat random and not 100% consistent with what is predicted by a spherical Earth. Inconsistencies in the atmosphere from day to day and across the Earth would result in some variation to some observer at one of the points of observation yet we don't see that. We see consistent and predictable simultaneous sunsets and sunrises that is quite easily explained by a spherical Earth with no appeal optical illusions.
-
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.
-
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.
I have no idea what you are talking about but do you mean that would happen on a spherical earth?
If you mean on your imaginary disc earth then I guess you would if you could dig through to the bottom. Without gravity to stop you UA would accelerate the earth upwards as you remain stationary and the earth would fly upwards leaving you in space.
In real life we live on a globe and a universe which has gravity so even if you could bore through the globe you couldn't fall through the hole into space.
I feel a may have misunderstood your post, I have no idea which point you think you have scored here.
-
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.
I have no idea what you are talking about but do you mean that would happen on a spherical earth?
If you mean on your imaginary disc earth then I guess you would if you could dig through to the bottom. Without gravity to stop you UA would accelerate the earth upwards as you remain stationary and the earth would fly upwards leaving you in space.
In real life we live on a globe and a universe which has gravity so even if you could bore through the globe you couldn't fall through the hole into space.
I feel a may have misunderstood your post, I have no idea which point you think you have scored here.
The point is that we can't just go around making declarations of what will happen without showing that it would happen.
-
The point is that we can't just go around making declarations of what will happen without showing that it would happen.
Oh, cool.
I'm looking forward to your proof on shadows being affected by perspective then. That is something you simply "declared" would happen and not shown at all
(Because you can't, because it wouldn't happen). How are you getting on trying to produce long shadows without the light source being physically close to the ground?
I don't disagree that people should back up their assertions, but it's a bit rich coming from someone who pretty much never does.
-
The point is that we can't just go around making declarations of what will happen without showing that it would happen.
Oh, cool.
I'm looking forward to your proof on shadows being affected by perspective then.
Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective? ???
-
Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective? ???
You said this:
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.
This is one of your declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen. You are claiming that a light source which is physically above an object can cast a shadow angled upwards and when I showed you how ridiculous that is you said I hadn't accounted for perspective. So you seem to think that perspective can affect how shadows are cast. I am looking forward to your demonstration of that. As I said in my "long shadows at sunset" thread, the only way for long shadows to be cast like that is with a light source physically close to the horizon (or the light bending so it appears to be). If you think you can demonstrate to the contrary then let's see it.
-
Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective? ???
You said this:
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.
This is one of your declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen. You are claiming that a light source which is physically above an object can cast a shadow angled upwards and when I showed you how ridiculous that is you said I hadn't accounted for perspective. So you seem to think that perspective can affect how shadows are cast. I am looking forward to your demonstration of that. As I said in my "long shadows at sunset" thread, the only way for long shadows to be cast like that is with a light source physically close to the horizon (or the light bending so it appears to be). If you think you can demonstrate to the contrary then let's see it.
This idea that somehow the lamp post sees you is 'interesting'.
-
Yes. :D
That's one word for it.
As I said at the time, it's the same level of reasoning as:
"I have shut my eyes so now I can't see anything and therefore nothing can see me and I have thus become invisible".
This is why it's a bit rich Tom picking someone up for making declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen when he says silly things like this which are clearly untrue and doesn't back them up with anything.
-
Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective? ???
You said this:
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.
This is one of your declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen. You are claiming that a light source which is physically above an object can cast a shadow angled upwards and when I showed you how ridiculous that is you said I hadn't accounted for perspective. So you seem to think that perspective can affect how shadows are cast. I am looking forward to your demonstration of that. As I said in my "long shadows at sunset" thread, the only way for long shadows to be cast like that is with a light source physically close to the horizon (or the light bending so it appears to be). If you think you can demonstrate to the contrary then let's see it.
Are you challenging me to show that a light source located at 90 degrees to Zenith would create a shadow pointing 180 degrees in the opposite direction?
-
How about we stick to the topic. There is no way to explain the case I described using a flat earth so I don't expect much discussion other than some that are honest to concede that it can't be done.
-
How about we stick to the topic. There is no way to explain the case I described using a flat earth so I don't expect much discussion other than some that are honest to concede that it can't be done.
There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?
Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.
-
Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective? ???
You said this:
As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.
The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.
This is one of your declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen. You are claiming that a light source which is physically above an object can cast a shadow angled upwards and when I showed you how ridiculous that is you said I hadn't accounted for perspective. So you seem to think that perspective can affect how shadows are cast. I am looking forward to your demonstration of that. As I said in my "long shadows at sunset" thread, the only way for long shadows to be cast like that is with a light source physically close to the horizon (or the light bending so it appears to be). If you think you can demonstrate to the contrary then let's see it.
Are you challenging me to show that a light source located at 90 degrees to Zenith would create a shadow pointing 180 degrees in the opposite direction?
I believe he's challenging you to show how a light source at coordinates (2x,x) with respect to an object at (0,0) can create shadows longer than 2 times the height of the object casting them. In other words: What is your evidence that Euclidean geometry stops working at long distances? Please refrain from attacking a strawman when answering.
-
How about we stick to the topic. There is no way to explain the case I described using a flat earth so I don't expect much discussion other than some that are honest to concede that it can't be done.
There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?
Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.
Sorry, I wasn't following your off topic discussion. Carry on I guess.
-
There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?
Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.
What is there to be explained?
First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.
Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.
No?
-
There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?
Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.
What is there to be explained?
First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.
Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.
No?
No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.
-
(Responding to "Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further. Even if you DID reach the other side ...)
No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.
You're the one who introduced the case scenario. I point out that you wouldn't fall out of the other side (due to gravity), but you ask me to explain falling out of the other side. Why?
-
There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?
Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.
What is there to be explained?
First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.
Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.
No?
No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.
Tom, unlike your world view that trusts only things you have personally seen, mainstream science constantly repeats hundreds or thousands of rigorous experiments to fully and completely describe phenomena. The Zetetic approach may see an apple fall from the tree and leave it at that, maybe at best measuring that it seems to happen at 9.8 m/s^2 at least some of the time. But the scientific method just takes that as a starting point to create new experiments to delve deep into gravity and really figure out how it works. Then, slowly, through these thousands of experiments, starting with Galileo dropping objects off the tower of Pisa to the Cavendish experiment to modern day advances in gravitational waves, the scientific community develops incredibly sophisticated and robust mathematical models that can explain all observations and, most importantly, predict new ones before they happen.
The prediction bit is important because it's something ad hoc reactionary models like FE can't do. The current FE model is made up of a million different rules all meant to explain one or two phenomena. Lunar eclipses happen? Well there must be some invisible shadow object. You're 0.3% lighter at the equator than at the poles (the exact amount predicted by centripetal force of the Earth's rotation)? Well, there must be some "celestial gravitation." Flights from place to place in the southern hemisphere aren't drastically longer than their northern counterparts? The airlines must be lying. Australia gets significantly more sun in the summer than the spotlight model predicts? We'll get back to you on that one.
All of these were tacked on to the model to deal with problems. Mainstream science always does the opposite. A scientist will come up with a hypothesis, describe how it could be tested or observed, and then look for it. Einstein predicted gravitational waves in 1916, and the technology didn't exist to find them until 100 years later, when they were discovered in 2016. The Higgs Boson was hypothesized in the '60s before being found by the LHC in 2013.
All this is to say your point about the Earth seems to suggest scientists either can't know what would happen or are mistaken about what would happen is completely incorrect. Science has absurdly refined mathematical equations to describe gravity that are so good they accurately predicted the existence of black holes and gravitational waves long before the evidence existed. With these it's easy to plug in what would happen to a ball dropped through the center of the Earth. If you'd like to see that worked out, here it is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html
In short, assuming the absence of atmosphere or Coriolis effects the ball would accelerate (though not at a constant 9.8 m/s^2) until it hit the center point, at which time it would begin decelerating all the way up until it barely reached the other side. Then it would fall back down and complete this again and again forever. If you add atmosphere and the Coriolis effect then the ball would have friction from the air and side of the shaft and slowly slow down over time until it came to rest at the very center of the Earth.
-
There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?
Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.
What is there to be explained?
First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.
Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.
No?
No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.
How can he explain something that doesn't happen? There is absolutely no way that I would "fall out the other side" if I dug deep enough into the Earth. If I somehow dug a shaft through the center of the Earth and jumped in, I would fall until I reached the center of the planet and then stop. I would not fall through to the other side, because that isn't how gravity works.
For the sake of discussion, even if this worked the way you (completely irrationally) believe, I would simply fall all the way to the other side of the planet. I wouldn't make it into space unless I reached escape velocity during my travels.
There is no scenario of "digging through the earth fall out through the other side." If you think that's what happens, the burden of proof is on you big fella.
-
(Responding to "Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further. Even if you DID reach the other side ...)
No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.
You're the one who introduced the case scenario. I point out that you wouldn't fall out of the other side (due to gravity), but you ask me to explain falling out of the other side. Why?
Why not? You guys post "How do you explain this thought experiment I came up with?" all the time. Every day. See: This thread. Why not explain my thought experiment?
-
(Responding to "Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further. Even if you DID reach the other side ...)
No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.
You're the one who introduced the case scenario. I point out that you wouldn't fall out of the other side (due to gravity), but you ask me to explain falling out of the other side. Why?
Why not? You guys post "How do you explain this thought experiment I came up with?" all the time. Every day. See: This thread. Why not explain my thought experiment?
Tom, did you miss my several paragraphs explaining this though experiment? I linked to the math and everything.
-
Are you challenging me to show that a light source located at 90 degrees to Zenith would create a shadow pointing 180 degrees in the opposite direction?
I am suggesting that if you are as bothered about empirical evidence as you claim, doing some experiments and observations about how shadows work would be a good idea as you have shown a few times you don't understand it.
I've given more details here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.msg140197#msg140197
There was no flat earth response to that at all.
The only way you can produce long shadows is to have a light source PHYSICALLY on the horizon.
Note, physically. Not "appearing to be by perspective".
-
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.
Tom, is this what you're describing as your "thought experiment"?
-
The sunrise/sunset scenario described in the OP actually happens. Every day. No one ever digs through the earth and falls into space. Bishop's response to the OP is silly and does nothing to refute the point being made.
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
We should begin with you giving details of how you are going to determine the shape of the earth.
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen. Every single experiment performed since the Principia was published in 1687 has supported that the Law of Universal Gravitation is accurate on these scales. At some point when you have thousands of pieces of supporting evidence on one side and zero pieces of dissenting evidence and no evidence-based alternate hypotheses, you gotta accept it's real.
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen.
If there is so much of it, why not link it for us then, that proves this case in the OP?
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
You have stated without any backup what would happen in your thought experiment and then declared that because that would happen (which it wouldn't) that the RE model is wrong.
Someone above linked to the maths which explains why you wouldn't simply fall through the whole earth and into space. In brief, once you're past the centre of the earth the gravitatizonal force would then be working as a brake.
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen.
If there is so much of it, why not link it for us then, that proves this case in the OP?
We are confident about the angle of the sun enabling us to prove the shape of the earth, have you done some measurements?
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen.
If there is so much of it, why not link it for us then, that proves this case in the OP?
I was clearly referring to the hole-through-the-Earth thought experiment. I don't have anything to say about OP's thought-experiment, since unlike on gravity you guys have a fleshed out alternate hypothesis so straight logical positivism doesn't work because you'll just use your current framework to explain it. The FE theory of perspective and optics still obviously has huge holes, like being completely unable to explain seasons in the southern hemisphere whatsoever, but the fact that it exists and can provide an alternate explanation for at least some phenomena makes it different from the Law of Universal Gravitation which has no offered alternative whatsoever that explains anything besides the single case of 1g acceleration at Earth's surface.
-
I would contest your use of lexicon in your description. In my view, the Sun is approaching from a distance, reaching zenith to the viewer, and then receding into the distance. What the lenses of our eyes perceive as we view its course through the sky is also affected by atmospheric refraction (AR). AR is the amount of moisture in the air, or lack thereof, which also acts as a lens and further distorts the actual object (image) given to our brains through these two "lenses".
You did not ask any question, but rather instead pointed out something and then made a conclusion, so I am not sure if there is a question there.
The effect you described (using my lexicon) perfectly explains what people see... for those who believe they are on a ball and the ball is rotating... and for FE believers, that they are standing on a stationary plane and the object (the Sun) is circling overhead in ever tightening and widening concentric circles. The effect, at face value, is the same regardless, but how one interprets it is debatable.
Respect
The effect of an overhead sun circling in tightening and widening concentric circles does not, in any way, reflect what we actually see. What we see is the sun moving in the sky, and eventually going out of sight. It doesn't change size.
There are two reasonable explanations for this. Either the sun is circling the Earth, or the Earth is rotating. What we don't see is the Sun becoming ever more distant. We know what happens when objects move away. They appear smaller. This never happens with the Sun.
In order to explain this total contradiction, FE theory has had to come up with... well, I suppose one could call them theories, but they hardly qualify as such. More just words applied to the situation to say "The Earth is flat, and the Sun hovers above it. There are optical distortions, not observed in any other situation we've ever seen, which make it appear as if the Sun were rotating around a globe." The idea that atmospheric refraction or perspective could make a receding object remain the same size is ludicrous.
The main point is that though FE advocates claim to just believe what they see, in fact they adhere to a bizarre range of ideas relating to optical illusions.
-
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.
Was this 'thought experiment' intended as a disproof of the OP?
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
How many posts do you actually read in these threads? Your "thought experiment" has been answered to multiple times.
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
No one has ever dug a hole and fell into space nor did it ever appear like that had happened. The sun rises and sets every day. The OP is not proposing a thought experiment but a literal one. You can do it with a friend tomorrow if you like.
Your post does nothing to address the OP.
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
No one has ever dug a hole and fell into space nor did it ever appear like that had happened. The sun rises and sets every day. The OP is not proposing a thought experiment but a literal one. You can do it with a friend tomorrow if you like.
Your post does nothing to address the OP.
I don't see any observations or records. Therefore it is a thought experiment.
Until you are willing to explain the results of my thought experiment, I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
No one has ever dug a hole and fell into space nor did it ever appear like that had happened. The sun rises and sets every day. The OP is not proposing a thought experiment but a literal one. You can do it with a friend tomorrow if you like.
Your post does nothing to address the OP.
I don't see any observations or records. Therefore it is a thought experiment.
I am unwilling to explain the results of that thought experiment until you have explained the results of my thought experiment.
Still you avoid explaining how you would measure the earth to determine its shape.
-
I don't see any observations
OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.
-
Until you are willing to explain the results of my thought experiment, I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
Yet, barely two posts earlier - "Your "thought experiment" has been answered to multiple times."
I concur. More than one person has addressed your thought experiment. Have you read what they (and I) wrote?
-
And evidence that this actually happens?
If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
No one has ever dug a hole and fell into space nor did it ever appear like that had happened. The sun rises and sets every day. The OP is not proposing a thought experiment but a literal one. You can do it with a friend tomorrow if you like.
Your post does nothing to address the OP.
I don't see any observations or records. Therefore it is a thought experiment.
Until you are willing to explain the results of my thought experiment, I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.
The thought experiment has been explained.
-
I don't see any observations
OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.
All you have to do is dig.
-
I don't see any observations
OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.
All you have to do is dig.
All you have to do is dig a hole through the earth vs all you have to do is watch the sunrise/sunset with a friend?
You do realize you are being beyond ridiculous?
-
I don't see any observations
OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.
All you have to do is dig.
All you have to do is dig a hole through the earth vs all you have to do is watch the sunrise/sunset with a friend?
You do realize you are being beyond ridiculous?
You have provided no observations or reports of that scenario. Until then it is a mere thought experiment no better than mine.
-
So, once again, Tom has basically avoided the question.
And the difference between his thought experiment and the one in the OP is that what would happen in his scenario can be answered and has been answered.
The OP one cannot by a flat earth model.
A consistent angular speed of the sun over the day and the long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is not simply rotating above a plane of the earth.
Both of these things are observable and prove their model incorrect. I never understand why the FE community don't try and engage with this sort of thing.
-
You have provided no observations or reports of that scenario. Until then it is a mere thought experiment no better than mine.
Why didn't you say that in the first place?
I, for one, could make no connection between the two until now, and genuinely thought yours so unrelated to theirs that there was no connection between them. I genuinely thought you were throwing a random argument into the thread.
You have to tell everyone reading this what's going on in your head, not have them guess at it...
So ... all RE has to do is find a few sets of two observers at antipodal points and have them film or video sunrise and sunset with some verifiable proof of time and date in frame? Shouldn't be difficult. What will happen then? Will you assert that the T&D could have been falsified, or will you accept that the observers are simply showing you what's happening in front of them?
As for your thought experiment, I invite you to make preparations for, or commence when ready.
-
I don't see any observations
OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.
All you have to do is dig.
All you have to do is dig a hole through the earth vs all you have to do is watch the sunrise/sunset with a friend?
You do realize you are being beyond ridiculous?
You have provided no observations or reports of that scenario. Until then it is a mere thought experiment no better than mine.
All you have to do is watch the sunrise/.sunset with a friend which is entirely possible. What you are suggesting is entirely impossible. That's the difference, as I'm sure you know.
-
You have provided no observations or reports of that scenario. Until then it is a mere thought experiment no better than mine.
Why didn't you say that in the first place?
I, for one, could make no connection between the two until now, and genuinely thought yours so unrelated to theirs that there was no connection between them. I genuinely thought you were throwing a random argument into the thread.
You have to tell everyone reading this what's going on in your head, not have them guess at it...
So ... all RE has to do is find a few sets of two observers at antipodal points and have them film or video sunrise and sunset with some verifiable proof of time and date in frame? Shouldn't be difficult. What will happen then? Will you assert that the T&D could have been falsified, or will you accept that the observers are simply showing you what's happening in front of them?
As for your thought experiment, I invite you to make preparations for, or commence when ready.
The point is, of course, that if anyone other than FE believers were to do this experiment (which has of course been done a vast number of times, in different ways) then they would simply discount it. If they were to actually do it then we'd have an interesting spectacle as they'd have to claim that the people on the other side were actually CIA plants.
-
I don't see any observations
OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.
All you have to do is dig.
All you have to do is dig a hole through the earth vs all you have to do is watch the sunrise/sunset with a friend?
You do realize you are being beyond ridiculous?
You have provided no observations or reports of that scenario. Until then it is a mere thought experiment no better than mine.
All you have to do is watch the sunrise/.sunset with a friend which is entirely possible. What you are suggesting is entirely impossible. That's the difference, as I'm sure you know.
It would also be necessary to do what proponents of any theory would do - predict what the expected result would be, perform the experiment, and then adjust one's view of reality accordingly. Try to get a FE proponent to predict what the consequences of FE theory should be. It's a futile exercise. Whatever is observed is just part of refraction/perspective/<insert buzzword here>.
-
I don't see any observations
OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.
All you have to do is dig.
All you have to do is dig a hole through the earth vs all you have to do is watch the sunrise/sunset with a friend?
You do realize you are being beyond ridiculous?
You have provided no observations or reports of that scenario. Until then it is a mere thought experiment no better than mine.
All you have to do is watch the sunrise/.sunset with a friend which is entirely possible. What you are suggesting is entirely impossible. That's the difference, as I'm sure you know.
It would also be necessary to do what proponents of any theory would do - predict what the expected result would be, perform the experiment, and then adjust one's view of reality accordingly. Try to get a FE proponent to predict what the consequences of FE theory should be. It's a futile exercise. Whatever is observed is just part of refraction/perspective/<insert buzzword here>.
What you just described (i.e. performing emperical experiments) is the Zetetic method.
Sadley, the Zetetic method is applied by FES in an ad-hoc manner (whenever it suits and aligns to the Flat Earth model).
If the Zetetic method of experimentation were applied, than FES would reject the notion of hoaxes; hoaxes are speculation and don't align with the Zetetic approach.
The way that FES say they use the Zetetic approach VS. their propensity to subscribe to government and NASA hoaxes or fakery is a case study of hypocrisy.
-
Both of these things are observable and prove their model incorrect. I never understand why the FE community don't try and engage with this sort of thing.
I think that's asked and answered.
-
I just had a thought which may help the OP accomplish exactly what Mr. Bishop has asked for in terms of proof of his conjecture.
There are webcams all over the world with 24 hour real time feeds on the internet. You see what I'm getting at?
Of course, we would have to assume that the feeds aren't faked, the cameras are actually where they are purported to be, etc. As an example, though, I can personally vouch for the veracity of location and date/time accuracy of web cameras on both sides of the North American continent, if that would help. I have personally witnessed (seen) many on both the east and west edges of the continent.
-
If you dig a hole deep enough you will eventually fall out into space. How do you explain that? Checkmate.
Hi Tom
Since this is your statement, the burden of proof is on you that your statement is actually correct. When that has been successfully done, and only then, can you demand to know why this should be the case.
-
Let me get this straight Tom, are you actually trying to claim that there is no way one person can observe the sun going up while another, a large distance away, can observe the same sun going down? This is something that can be seen every minute of every day (given the right locations)...
The OP’s point is basically the same as many other threads on this forum, including my latest one that shows objects hidden behind the horizon: the FE hypothesis cannot possibly explain this scenario. The common flerfer responses of "perspective" and "atmosphere acts as a lens" are non-answers because they really don’t explain what we actually see, no matter how many times you say it. Sorry Tommy, the evidence against your silly beliefs is overwhelming. Maybe it’s time to give them up?
I don't see any observations
OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.
All you have to do is dig.
All you have to do is dig a hole through the earth vs all you have to do is watch the sunrise/sunset with a friend?
You do realize you are being beyond ridiculous?
You have provided no observations or reports of that scenario. Until then it is a mere thought experiment no better than mine.
-
Let me get this straight Tom, are you actually trying to claim that there is no way one person can observe the sun going up while another, a large distance away, can observe the same sun going down? This is something that can be seen every minute of every day (given the right locations)...
The OP’s point is basically the same as many other threads on this forum, including my latest one that shows objects hidden behind the horizon: the FE hypothesis cannot possibly explain this scenario. The common flerfer responses of "perspective" and "atmosphere acts as a lens" are non-answers because they really don’t explain what we actually see, no matter how many times you say it. Sorry Tommy, the evidence against your silly beliefs is overwhelming. Maybe it’s time to give them up?
I don't see any observations
OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.
All you have to do is dig.
All you have to do is dig a hole through the earth vs all you have to do is watch the sunrise/sunset with a friend?
You do realize you are being beyond ridiculous?
You have provided no observations or reports of that scenario. Until then it is a mere thought experiment no better than mine.
Are we saying that all the people around the world who watch a sunset or watch the moon and see that the same face is always towards us whereever you are in the world is simply a thought experiment the same as digging a hole straight through the world? Why bother digging a hole when you can hop on a plane and go the opposite point in the world cheaper?