21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 06:22:51 PM »

The sun demonstrably does not travel 15 degrees across the sky per hour as viewed by all observers. That is an irrefutable fact regardless of the shape of the earth. So lets not start from a junk premise that you think will help you prove earth is a ball.

No, BT. A 15 degree per hour apparent sun travel is observable reality at all points on earth on all days and times. And a globe-shaped sundial pointed at the north celestial pole works everywhere at all times. See http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/NorthStar/Unit6/unit6_sub2.htm



If you have something that works better, please share.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 18, 2017, 03:23:52 AM »

1. 1.9 seconds.

I got 29.2 seconds. Do I need to check my math?

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sundial

« on: December 17, 2017, 11:52:30 PM »

Thanks for your answer, BT.

I'm sorry, if you can't see how the flat earth makes the concept of a clock even easier, I'm not going to be able to point that out to you. You even show an animated sun keeping time as it travels around a flat earth's face. The sun even goes the same direction as a clock ... clockwise! North and south hemisphere. On a round earth, people in the southern hemisphere's clocks should go backwards! FET 4 the win.

BT, I don't want to get into a boasting contest with you. But in this case, I better verify before proceeding. How good is your working knowledge of basic trigonometry? Can you answer the following math questions pretty easily?

1. If you are standing 100 meters from a straight road facing straight toward a car that is traveling past you on the road at 10 meters per second, how long will it take for you to turn as you follow the car from 80 degrees left of perpendicular to 70 degrees left of perpendicular?

2. If you are standing 100 meters from a straight road facing straight toward a car that is traveling past you on the road at 10 meters per second, how long will it take for you to turn as you follow the car from 20 degrees left of perpendicular to 10 degrees left of perpendicular?

We really need to make sure to have this discussion among people who can answer those two questions correctly. Real answers. Correct numbers.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Sundial

« on: December 17, 2017, 11:41:56 PM »

A quick search of the site for the terms "sundial" and "dial" reveals little "dial"ogue on the subject. But this site's model of the sun cannot operate all sundials correctly. I'm including the following images:

1. A working sundial located in Singapore

2. An animation of a generic equatorial sundial with a flat dial.

3. The FES Sun animation.

4. The FES seasons illustration

To make a sundial work the way it works, the Sun must be apparently traversing a constant speed arc across the sky. For a given point on earth, there are various ways this could work, including a) the sun orbiting the earth, b) the earth rotating on its axis, and c) the sun passing overhead at variable speed. But for all points on earth, this cannot work by method c.

The FES Sun animation does not make the sun apparently traverse a constant speed arc across the sky. And of course undulations necessary for the moon phases complicate the problem.

Sundials come in many designs, and sundials have been used for over 3000 years. Consider this sundial with a curved dial located in Singapore, almost at the equator. Also consider the generic equatorial sundial animation. Both required the Sun to traverse the apparent constant speed (tangential or angular) arc.

1. A working sundial located in Singapore


2. An animation of a generic equatorial sundial with a flat dial.


3. The FES Sun animation.


4. The FES seasons illustration

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What I have seen

« on: December 17, 2017, 10:37:06 PM »

Ask someone you know to blind fold you and drive you to a strange location. Once there, with blindfold still on, spin round and round and round until you are dizzy. Then, blindfold still on, stand up and point to north. If you can do it 3 out of 3 times, ring up your local hospital and get a brain scan. They'll want to document the freak that you are.

This exercise would be of limited value. Ratboy didn't say he can sense north blindfolded. For all he knows, sight is the major component of his ability to sense north. Related to this, while I am sympathetic to the aims of the debunkers of things like dowsing, I disagree that the debunkers are demonstrating that dowsing in the field has no value. It may in fact be impossible to devise a meaningful measurement of Ratboy's and his family's north-finding ability.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET

« on: December 17, 2017, 07:15:44 PM »

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

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

Thank you for kindly sharing the link. The problem with reading Zetetic Astronomy Chapter IX, CAUSE OF SUNRISE AND SUNSET is that the reasoning is very poor:

1. The explanation of a horizontal trajectory does not square with the hourly trajectory I see. His explanation would have the first degrees of sunrise and the last degrees of sunset taking a very long time, and then the movement at noon being relatively very fast. But instead, a sundial sees the sun proceed in regular angular hourly increments. The sun would have to be speeding up and slowing down for me in Arizona. But then that would ruin the effect for Rowbotham in England.

2. His mention that "ALTHOUGH the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west" does not square with what I see from Mesa, Arizona in the winter. No matter where he thinks the sun goes, I am not seeing that from Mesa, Arizona in the winter. The sun chart I use for gardening has this charted very accurately for Mesa.

To quote the mind-controlled slaves in "Meet the Robinsons", "I'm just not sure how well this plan was thought through. Master?"

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mars is Round?

« on: December 17, 2017, 06:42:36 PM »

Did you just say that the Earth is not a planet?

Yes. That is what they say.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET

« on: December 16, 2017, 06:05:26 PM »

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

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

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

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions on the FET

« on: December 16, 2017, 05:45:07 PM »

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

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

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a reason to prefer one pole over the other as the center?

« on: December 16, 2017, 05:05:55 AM »

From what I can tell, a North Pole centered map is more common than a South pole centered one. Even the local wiki promotes it. Is there any evidence-based reason to prefer one over the other?

Probably not as far as I understand so far. History and science are dominated by people in the north, and that's probably the real reason. Any other answer is probably just smoke.

31

Flat Earth Community / Re: Things I owe Tom Bishop

« on: December 16, 2017, 04:04:41 AM »

Absolutely, but like I said Tom actually wants proof that it's true. A large part of his belief in flat earth depends on there being some ambiguity with perspective.

I guess "owe" is relative or debatable, since in the case of perspective, he's totally misusing the term and the concept. It's nothing but an artistic device, not a physical theory.

32

Flat Earth Community / Re: Eric Dubay’s YouTube Channel Has Been Removed

« on: December 16, 2017, 04:02:46 AM »

Roger, that was a great hypothetical. (Now why doesn't Simple Machines Forum just add a "Like" button so I don't have to clutter the thread?)

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What I have seen

« on: December 16, 2017, 03:57:07 AM »

Great human interest story. And great personal observations of distances, travel times, and positions of the sun in unusual combinations of circumstances.

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”

― Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad/Roughing It

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: December 16, 2017, 03:46:26 AM »

I did not suggest that the railroad tracks physically met. They meet in perspective.

Fair enough. Reasonable. And as always, thank you for your civility.

Everything merges to perspective at the horizon.

1.
I am not sure this means anything to me. What's confusing is the phrase "merges to perspective" and in particular "to perspective". Am I detecting an esoteric meaning of perspective? My understanding was that "perspective" was a system devised for projecting things onto a canvass. And I don't understand how anything can merge to a system.

2.
Making some assumption about what you may be saying, I think it may be false. The mountains and the sun are not merged into anything in the drawing below.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Out Of Phase

« on: December 15, 2017, 06:08:02 PM »

They are short-handed. Discussing among ourselves is a work of love. If we self-curate, it reduces their (actually pretty much just TB's) work load.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earth not a globe - floating Earth

« on: December 15, 2017, 06:03:39 PM »

I haven't checked for Geoid contours as I wouldn't have even thought of it. The entire region though is reclaimed marshy land on very peaty soil, so whether that has any bearing on Geoid contours I wouldn't know. I do though have a friend who is a survey that I will rope into taking part, so I'm sure he would have access to that information.

Could be important. We don't know enough about subsurface geology to know what causes the geoid anomalies, and they could be anywhere. You ought to Google the Indian Ocean depression. The ocean south of India is actually depressed as much at 100 meters! I haven't yet done the calculation to predict how far you would be able to see across this ocean depression. Ignorance of a depression can lead to misleading interpretations of results. I have NO information to confirm or debunk the following hypothesis, but I have wondered whether Tom Bishop's Monterrey Bay observation may have been affected by a geoid depression.

Bottom line: Earth is Not A Globe. :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D  Who knew?

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: December 15, 2017, 05:55:24 PM »

Reality is on our side. Lines meet in the distance. You are the one claiming that it there is an illusion occurring and that there are hidden pockets of infinity in such scenes.

No, TB. They are "scenes", drawings, renderings, conceptions, approximations. They are not reality. You are the one who needs to prove that perspective exists outside the canvas, the human mind, and the observer.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airplanes on a Flat Earth.

« on: December 15, 2017, 05:46:59 PM »

I'm just trying to see how you guys think.

Look at this section of the FAQ page.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: December 15, 2017, 06:27:13 AM »

Prove that the rules of perspective operate on that continuous model where perspective lines descend into the horizon for infinity.

First of all, there is really nothing to prove with perspective. It is simply an invention designed to help artists make drawings look pleasing. A pleasing drawing is all the proof you can get with perspective. And that is all I gave you.

Second, there is nothing on my drawing that requires you to conclude that the "perspective lines descend into the horizon for infinity". Infinity is not labeled and it is not implied. Assume what you want to assume. Perspective was only invented to aid your intuition and to help artists communicate. Maybe your intuition is saying "infinityyyyyyyyyyyyyyy". 

All I have done is apply real world geometric calculations to help me produce a perspective rendition. The rendition is not reality. The calculations aren't either. But with the calculations, you can make predictions. With perspective you cannot; it's only an artist's trick.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: December 15, 2017, 05:36:23 AM »

Tom, if you do insist on referring to perspective, this is how you do it correctly. The below is a perspective time lapse drawing of a receding flat earth sun on a stick. Everything is both in perspective and mathematically accurate for a sun that passes its zenith to your left and recedes just to the right of where you are looking.