Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Maverick

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth interrogation
« on: March 04, 2017, 11:15:18 PM »
Not everything is counterintuitive either.  Get over yourself.

Most of the science that deals with the FE Theroy is, though. But, in all honesty what weight am I putting into the words of the man who is content to not even explore possibilities that could disprove the FE due to its complexity:

Quote
It would be interesting to be able to make sense of the absurdities of quantum mechanics, but there are just some things we can easily observe without understanding with our present level of knowledge.  Perhaps some day.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth interrogation
« on: March 04, 2017, 05:00:11 PM »
The Earth is flat.  Get over it.

The world is a big place and not everything is intuitive. A lot of the things that are true about the science of our world are counterintuitive. Not everything is the way you think it's going to be. What I've found in a lot of the wiki pages is that the foundation of these beliefs are in "if the earth was round than the buildings should be curving away from me, I should see this, it should be this way". Based on what? Just your belief that you should see it that way? The world does not accommodate you, me or anyone else. The Earth is gigantic and the Greeks were actually able to measure the curvature of the earth very close to exact over 2,000 years ago.

3
1. I can't see the image, sorry

2. Yes it does affect the horizon because refraction influences the apparent distance to the horizon, it also has an effect on the curvature. To visualize this, it might help to think in extreme cases, for example in the case where due to refraction the horizon is at an apparent distance of only 1 meter. In this case, the curvature of the horizon would be extreme (it would be a circle of radius 1 meter around you). In reality the curvature effect is much smaller than this example of course.

3. If I don't understand the FE theory well enough then educate me, I answered geeko's question now it's your turn. How is there a horizon on a flat earth? I explained how it would work on a round earth so now tell us how it would work on a flat one.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Simple Questions
« on: March 03, 2017, 03:03:58 PM »

There is some issue as to the actual meaning of night and day. According to some, just because the sun is visible does not mean it is necessarily day.

Regardless, even if day was taken to mean the Sun is visible, this does not mean the Sun would remain visible to everyone at all times over a flat earth.

Why would there not be seasons on flat earth?

Why would there not be solstices on the flat earth?

This is the time where the Sun can be located directly overhead at specific locations on the Earth at high noon.

1. If the Earth is flat, and the Sun is always circling above it, why do we see the Sun set? Even if its "spotlight" isn't shining on us anymore, it should still be overhead, albeit at an angle. But this doesn't happen. We see the Sun approach and pass below the horizon. For this to happen on a flat Earth, the Sun would have to actually pass below the plane of the Earth for us to see it pass below the horizon. But this isn't what the theory says. If the Sun actually were like a giant flashlight, and if we were about to pass outside of its light, shouldn't it appear to grow dimmer and eventually wink out somewhere in the sky?
Furthermore, what causes the Sun to move in a circle in the sky? Newton's first law says that an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. If there were no forces acting on the Sun, it should either sit still or fly off in a straight line. So, there has to be something causing it to move in a circle. The FE Theroy doesn't say what. Is it a massive, invisible object over the Earth's north pole that the Sun orbits around? No, because they don't believe in gravity. Is it some magnetic field that's causing the Sun to move in a circle? No, it couldn't be, because the Sun isn't solid, so there would be nothing keeping the particles in a perfect sphere, and they might stretch out to form some kind of a halo, and our compasses would always point in the direction of the field, which would have to be either towards the ground or towards the sky. Could it be some invisible electric charge above the North pole? No, because the Sun would still stretch out. Could it be the strong or weak nuclear forces? No, they don't act on a macroscopic level. Since there are no natural forces left, could it be a contact force? No, we don't see anything pushing the Sun, and if there were something, it would deform the Sun's spherical shape. Since there cannot be any natural or contact forces making the Sun orbit above the North pole, it is physically impossible for it to be happening. This means that the seasons can't be caused by the expansion and contraction of the Sun's orbit, which doesn't make sense in its own right, because the Sun can't orbit an invisible point above the North pole. So what really causes night and day on a flat earth?

2. The seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth's rotational axis away or toward the sun as it travels through its year-long path around the sun. The Earth has a tilt of 23.5 degrees relative to the "ecliptic plane" (the line formed by it's almost-cicular path around the sun). An Earth without a tilt would be stratified into climate bands that would get progressively colder as you moved away from the equator. Humans would never survive the continuous winter of the high latitudes, and so the only land we would live on would be the equator. The FE Wiki never mentions a tilt in their seasonal charts and rely on distance from the sun to explain seasons. It is a common misconception that seasons occur because of distance from the Sun, with winter occurring when Earth is farthest away from the Sun, and summer when it is closest to it. However, our planet's distance from the Sun has little effect on the onset of seasons. In fact, Earth is closest to the Sun around the Northern Hemisphere's winter solstice, while it is farthest away from the Sun around the north's summer solstice.

3. The tilt toward the sun is maximized during Northern Hemisphere summer in late June (the "summer solstice"). At this time, the amount of sunlight reaching the Northern Hemisphere is at a maximum. In late December, on the date of the "winter solstice", the Earth's tilt away from the sun is maximized, leading to a minimum of sunlight reaching the Northern Hemisphere. The seasons, of course, are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere. Without this tilt which would be impossible on a flat earth solstices wouldn't exist.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth interrogation
« on: March 03, 2017, 12:01:58 PM »
Is this a big size joke and the best hoax of thistory or do you really and genuinely think that earth is flat?

Yes, they do think the earth is flat. And there are so many of them they even have categories. You have those who believe it on a conspiractorial standpoint, those who believe on religious  grounds and finally you have those who believe in the flat earth on a "scientific" standpoint. The cool thing is that they come at the problem from very different perspectives. But even then you have people that come at it at all angles not unlike an octopus playing the drums flailing its arms around.

Tldr; Yes they do

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Simple Questions
« on: March 03, 2017, 01:41:33 AM »

And yet your reply regarding the wiki was simply that it's "unconvincing." You didn't specify any particular points you disagree with, nor did you lay framework for a discussion beyond the answer you were given.

Most people aren't too concerned with other people's perceptions about our community, especially when those perceptions are formed from a post such as this. You claim that it makes us look lazy; I would suggest you look in the mirror, as what you've posted here was incredibly low effort. I would also suggest trying a bit harder next time if you're interested in actual discussion.

I see how I could expand on how I was unconvinced by the wiki. The FES says that the Sun acts as a spotlight on the Earth and it circles overhead. However, the wiki completely fail to explain why the Sun is a spotlight, what causes it to rotate above the Earth, and why its orbit expands and contracts to cause the seasons.
The RE Theroy can explain all of the observed motions of the Sun, moon, stars, and planets, the day and night cycle, and the seasons. The FE Theroy doesn't seem to explain them well at all.
If the Earth is flat, and the Sun is always circling above it, why do we see the Sun set? Even if its "spotlight" isn't shining on us anymore, it should still be overhead, albeit at an angle. But this doesn't happen. We see the Sun approach and pass below the horizon. For this to happen on a flat Earth, the Sun would have to actually pass below the plane of the Earth for us to see it pass below the horizon. But this isn't what the theory says. If the Sun actually were like a giant flashlight, and if we were about to pass outside of its light, shouldn't it appear to grow dimmer and eventually wink out somewhere in the sky?

Furthermore, what causes the Sun to move in a circle in the sky? Newton's first law says that an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. If there were no forces acting on the Sun, it should either sit still or fly off in a straight line. So, there has to be something causing it to move in a circle. The FE Theroy doesn't say what. Is it a massive, invisible object over the Earth's north pole that the Sun orbits around? No, because they don't believe in gravity. Is it some magnetic field that's causing the Sun to move in a circle? No, it couldn't be, because the Sun isn't solid, so there would be nothing keeping the particles in a perfect sphere, and they might stretch out to form some kind of a halo, and our compasses would always point in the direction of the field, which would have to be either towards the ground or towards the sky. Could it be some invisible electric charge above the North pole? No, because the Sun would still stretch out. Could it be the strong or weak nuclear forces? No, they don't act on a macroscopic level. Since there are no natural forces left, could it be a contact force? No, we don't see anything pushing the Sun, and if there were something, it would deform the Sun's spherical shape. Since there cannot be any natural or contact forces making the Sun orbit above the North pole, it is physically impossible for it to be happening. This means that the seasons can't be caused by the expansion and contraction of the Sun's orbit, which doesn't make sense in its own right, because the Sun can't orbit an invisible point above the North pole.

7
1. Those brown lines are not at all the same length. Not sure what you're looking at.

2. An awful lot of mental gymnastics and meteorology to explain why the Earth looks flat, and is flat, for 99% of intents and purposes.

1. I intended for them to be the same size

2. So I give you the scientific accompaniment that you asked for behind optics and light creating the illusion of a flat earth and you call it too complex and just throw it out? What exactly are you trying to achieve here other than to pander the hugely discredited empirical evidence of "I see flat so it is" because you don't actually have an argument? Correct me if I'm wrong but I seems like that.

8
Quote from: geckothegeek link=topic=5862.msg112524#msg112524 date=1488425255
Whoever wants to take a stab at it ! LOL.
[/quote

Ok, I'll bite...
Take this picture for example:



You can see that the water stretches all the way out to the horizon. If the Earth were flat, and the water's surface was flat as well, shouldn't you be able to see the land on the other side? In fact, why is there even a horizon at all if the Earth is flat? Flat Earth theory can't explain it, but round Earth theory can. A horizon is caused by the curvature of the Earth. The reason that you can't see the shoreline in the picture is because it is being blocked by the water, due to the curvature of the Earth. Now to those who insist that the surface of the water is flat, you probably believe that the Bedford Level Expiriment is fake. This is a lie. Before I go into detail about how they lied, I will first explain the experiment. The experiment's purpose was to determine if the surface of the water was curved or flat. Three buoys with long vertical sticks attached to them were placed in a river with negligible water flow velocity and were separated by 5 miles. A telescope was set up perpendicular to the river a mile away from the center post. If the water, and consequently the Earth, was flat, the posts should all appear to be the same height. However, the telescope showed that the center post was five feet higher than the other two posts, thus proving that the water's surface was in fact curved, and giving strong evidence of a round Earth. However, the FES makes a bald-faced lie and says that the experiment was faked and that the poles were actually at the same height. They give no evidence that the experiment was faked, and they give no evidence that a court determined that it was faked. In fact, on their Bedford Level Experiment page (http://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment) there are no outside links at all, putting the page's credibility in question, especially since other reports by reliable sources conflict with it.

9
Let's make it simple.
On a flat earth :
Where is the horizon, or by the definition, where does the sky appear to meet the earth or sea on a flat earth ?
How far can you see to the horizon as defined above on a flat earth ?
How can you estimate the distance to the horizon on a flat earth ?
Just post the answer . A direct quote from the wiki would be sufficient.

Is this directed at me or TheTruthIsOnHere?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Simple Questions
« on: March 02, 2017, 03:20:51 PM »

These questions gets asked again... And again..... And again..... And again.   Nobody wants to take the time to answer them everytime.

I understand how repetitive things can get. But if no ones even takes the time to answer them, how does that effect other's views on TFES. It only reinforces the stereotype that TFES dodges questions and constantly redirects questioners to other sources, as if only reading the material once will undoubtedly convince anyone, I know I wasn't. It makes you guys look lazy and I doubt that's the impression that you as a community want to give.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Simple Questions
« on: March 02, 2017, 01:32:38 PM »
These questions are all answered in the wiki. I would post a link but I can't be arsed. It's easy to get there from the main page. Thanks for your interest and welcome to FES!

That's why I came here, the wiki was unconvincing. If the questions I ask are answered by simply going on the wiki page than why can't people just answer them instead of dodging the question? Besides, what's the harm in wanting things elaborated on by those who believe in it?

12
Flat Earth Theory / 3 Simple Questions
« on: March 01, 2017, 10:52:45 PM »
Hello, I am new around this forum and I am not completely sold on any sort of "Flat Earth Theroy". I would need these three questions answered before I would give any credibility to this theory.

1. How do we have night and day on the flat earth?

2. How do we have seasons on the flat earth?

3. How would we have the Winter and Summer Solstices if we live on a flat earth?

13


You completely missed the point with your illustration

Sorry, I accidentally replicated the latter image. I fixed it

You're still not addressing the increased line of sight you still achieve with increased altitude on the flat earth.

Also you're neglecting the fact that when looking towards the horizon the ground appears to come up and meet the sky. Trying to illustrate how light is actually perceived by the human eye with 2 dimensional stick figures is not at all an appropriate reflection of reality.

There is no increased line of sight in the flat earth, it impossible without the curvature of the earth, and the stick figures are just an example. I'm doing these exercises that don't need long hours of math and calculations so that you yourselves can do these at home. All these are impossible without a round earth and yet we see echoes of the results every day. In fact, the Burden of Proof is on TFES to showcase evidence disproving decades of scientific research that can't just be explained away as a "conspiracy". Tell me, how much does NASA have to gain from releasing fake photos to "lie" to us that the earth is round when the average American spends more money on pizza every year than their yearly budget (27 billion dollars worth of pizza). NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion represented about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion United States federal budget during that year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. These numbers are minuscule.

You say there is no increased line of sight on a flat earth... when I literally used your own illustration to show you that there is. That brown line is the line of sight. You can technically see objects that are further away than you could from the ground.

You didn't offer any mathematical or scientific accompaniment with your illustrations because you don't have any. You show us MS Paint sketches without any evidence that you have even a rudimentary knowledge how light or optics work.

1. The brown lines are exactly the same length.

2. When you are standing on the ground, you are in air at roughly one atmosphere of pressure; so are the points on the earth that you see on the horizon; and so is the whole path of the light from the horizon to you. In this case there is no significant boundary where the refractive index (RI) changes, nor is there an appreciable deviation in RI over the path of the light you are seeing. Therefore there will be no bending of the light rays, and no effect on the perceived curvature of the horizon. That's why the world seems flat at a glance.
When you are at significant altitude, you are in air at significantly lower pressure than the air at the surface of the earth. Therefore the light from the horizon moves through a region with a pronounced gradient in RI. This causes the light rays to curve, making the radius of the horizon appear larger (and thus the curvature smaller) than it otherwise would. The Earth curves at the rate of 157mrad per km travelled. The refractive index of dry air at sea level is 1.00029, but at a height of 1km, the air pressure is 12% less and (neglecting temperature density and humidity), the refractive index would be 1 + 0.00029 * 88%. The difference, 0.000035 means that light at 1km altitude travels 35mm further for every km, curving the path of light by 35mrad per km travelled, about 20% of the Earth's curvature.. allowing us to see past the theoretical horizon a bit .. an extra 20% distance at an altitude of 10km. On a flat earth this would be impossible, as light would not curve and you would see the same distance no matter where you were.






14


You completely missed the point with your illustration

Sorry, I accidentally replicated the latter image. I fixed it

You're still not addressing the increased line of sight you still achieve with increased altitude on the flat earth.

Also you're neglecting the fact that when looking towards the horizon the ground appears to come up and meet the sky. Trying to illustrate how light is actually perceived by the human eye with 2 dimensional stick figures is not at all an appropriate reflection of reality.

There is no increased line of sight in the flat earth, it impossible without the curvature of the earth, and the stick figures are just an example. I'm doing these exercises that don't need long hours of math and calculations so that you yourselves can do these at home. All these are impossible without a round earth and yet we see echoes of the results every day. In fact, the Burden of Proof is on TFES to showcase evidence disproving decades of scientific research that can't just be explained away as a "conspiracy". Tell me, how much does NASA have to gain from releasing fake photos to "lie" to us that the earth is round when the average American spends more money on pizza every year than their yearly budget (27 billion dollars worth of pizza). NASA's FY 2011 budget of $18.4 billion represented about 0.5% of the $3.4 trillion United States federal budget during that year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States. These numbers are minuscule.

15


You completely missed the point with your illustration

Sorry, I accidentally replicated the latter image. I fixed it

16
Here's something to continue our line of sight exercises:

The higher up you are the farther you will see. Usually, we tend to relate this to Earthly obstacles, like the fact we have houses or other trees obstructing our vision on the ground, and climbing upwards we have a clear view, but that’s not the true reason. Even if you would have a completely clear plateau with no obstacles between you and the horizon, you would see much farther from greater height than you would on the ground.
This phenomenon is caused by the curvature of the Earth as well, and would not happen if the Earth was flat:






17
Thanks for the doodles, but most people here know that optics is governed by an infinitely more complex model than you guy chart in Microsoft Paint

As TotesNotReptilian said, I'm talking about basic line of sight and elementary school level logic that disproves the Flat Earth Theory. It's not always complex Einstine level physics and math.

18
If you’ve been next to a port lately, or just strolled down a beach and stared off vacantly into the horizon, you might have, perhaps, noticed a very interesting phenomenon: approaching ships do not just “appear” out of the horizon (like they should have if the world was flat), but rather emerge from beneath the sea.
But – you say – ships do not submerge and rise up again as they approach our view (except in “Pirates of the Caribbean”, but we are hereby assuming that was a fictitious movie). The reason ships appear as if they “emerge from the waves” is because the world is not flat: it’s round.



Imagine an ant walking along the surface of an orange, into your field of view. If you look at the orange “head on”, you will see the ant’s body slowly rising up from the “horizon”, because of the curvature of the Orange. If you would do that experiment with a long road, the effect would have changed: The ant would have slowly ‘materialized’ into view, depending on how sharp your vision is.

If you are caught up on your Navigation history, old ship capitals used to navigate the seas by the stars. They relied on different constellations depending on where they were around the world. This observation was originally made by Aristotle (384-322 BCE), who declared the Earth was round judging from the different constellations one sees while moving away from the equator.



After returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and…Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” This phenomenon can only be explained if humans were viewing the stars from a round surface. Aristotle continued and claimed that the sphere of the Earth is “of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent.” (De caelo, 298a2-10)
The farther you go from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not have happened if the world was flat:


Pages: [1]