9081

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 21, 2016, 11:30:29 PM »

We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.

Please explain how this actually occurs?
If the sun/moon are spheres (as declared by your wiki), but do not sink, how are they both observed to sink, illuminate the underneath of the clouds and appear as circles as they sink below the horizon?

The sun is also going behind a lot of atmosphere as it recedes. When it is near the horizon it is already dimmed by an order of magnitude than when it overhead at noonday. You can look directly at it without squinting. After it merges into the horizon the sky is still relatively illuminated. It takes several hours for the blackness of night to set in, which indicates that the opacity of the atmosphere has increased significantly.

The clouds appear to illuminate from the "bottom" because the sun's rays are hitting the backside of that cloud at a more horizontal angle. You are standing beneath the cloud, so you are only seeing that back end which is illuminated, which looks like the "bottom" since the backside is further from you than the frontside of the cloud.

9082

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 21, 2016, 11:19:17 PM »

Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!

Well, that's what we're saying too! We are not claiming that the sun is actually crashing into the earth every day.

You claimed "Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!"

Can't you see the difference! You said "perspective lines appear to merge" sure they do appear to converge!
But then you go on to say "in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge"!

There is no contradiction! The "math", as you call it, does not say that they will never appear to merge it says they will never merge. So no I do not agree at all. That word "never" is so crucial.

I think you are still trying to prove those Greek Philosophers wrong! But, guess what, the only things that have survived are those that have stood the test of time, and Euclid has been one. He hasn't been proved wrong in this area, but different geometries (spaces) have been developed. So much else from that era has dropped by the wayside.

Seems that your philosophy is a bit like

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'

Look, you agree that perspective lines can appear to merge, but in actuality have not merged.

We agree. The sun can appear to merge with the horizon, but in actuality not have merged.

What do you disagree with?

9083

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 21, 2016, 05:53:10 AM »

Railway tracks disappearing into the distance "appear to converge" but they certainly "do not converge"!

Well, that's what we're saying too! We are not claiming that the sun is actually crashing into the earth every day.

9084

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 21, 2016, 05:50:45 AM »

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!

How do we agree? Your take is the sun/moon sink below the surface of a FE. This is mathematically impossible. You can keep playing at semantics, but the math proves prospective as applied to FE will NEVER be possible. You know it, I know it and the rest of RE knows it.

We believe that the sun/moon will appear to sink, but actually does not.

You agree that perspective lines will appear to merge, but actually do not.

I do not see where the contradiction is.

9085

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 20, 2016, 10:36:49 PM »

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

You're playing games with semantics. The math proves the lines APPEAR to merge, but in reality do not. The I can find no reference that the Greeks nor anyone else has ever claimed otherwise.

Well, yes, that's our position, that the perspective lines appear to merge in contradiction to the math which says they will never merge. Glad you agree!

9086

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 20, 2016, 03:11:41 AM »

I'm asking for some sort of evidence that perspective works the way the Ancient Greek math says it works. Will two parallel lines really recede forever into the distance and never appear to touch? That seems extraordinary.

Why should we believe that just because an ancient greek philosopher said that a perfect world would be that way?

9087

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 19, 2016, 10:08:31 PM »

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away.

Of course the sizes and distances aren't to scale, but the angles are to scale. That's what matters.

How do we know that's all that matters?

No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

Does it matter? We absolutely know what perspective does to objects inches away, miles away, tens of miles away, hundreds of miles away. Why would it be any different for thousands of miles? And why would perspective cause the moon to appear to turn? Have you ever observed perspective to cause ANYTHING to appear to turn? Perspective causes things to appear smaller, not turn.

How do we "know" what happens to perspective tens or hundreds of miles away? Who studied that?

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone.

By "ancient geometric theories" do you mean basic highschool-level trigonometry? Because trig is extremely easy to prove.

In high school they also teach that Christopher Columbus discovered that the earth is round, that deoxygenated blood is blue, that an apple fell on Newton's head and helped him prove gravity, and that Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.

Are you really dismissing the entire theory of perspective just because it hasn't been tested at every possible distance? What happens if we test it at 1000 miles? Will you still claim it is invalid at 1001 miles? What about 999 miles? What about 1000.0001 miles?

Learn to extrapolate data. It's a valuable tool.

Perspective hasn't been tested at any large distance at all. At what distances has it been tested? Who studied it? Please name names and cite studies rather than claiming that it has been proven.

9088

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 19, 2016, 05:02:42 PM »

The actual moon is not several feet above our heads like in your diagram, but very far away. No one has ever tested what perspective does to objects thousands of miles away or how much they would turn.

What you are proposing are ancient geometric theories by a civilization that is long gone. We operate from experiment to experience here, and do not tolerate merely imagining how things would be in a perfect world. You have provided no experiment or example to tell us how objects behave at such a distance, and so there is no reason to amuse your assumptions of how things should be.

9089

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 19, 2016, 04:28:39 PM »

That's merely a theory. The Ancient Greeks never actually put that math to the test at the extremes. According to that type of math it is also predicted that two parallel lines pointed into the distance will forever recede from the observer but never meet. Where is the evidence for that, or any other example of what happens at really long distances?

The math of the OP has yet to be refuted, by  you or anyone else.

FE relies on prospective, which of course has its math and formulas which now you seem to ignore. Why? Could it be that the formula proves the the sun can touch the FE but never be seen to set below it? OR that the math proves the angles and distances involved, even with refraction prove it is impossible for the sun or moon to appear lower that the 26.50 degrees above the surface of a FE?

But I have to laugh at your;

That's merely a theory.

That is FET in a nutshell. Except that FET has nothing what so ever in observation, experimentation, and math to back it up.

And before you attempt to take the feeble fully discredited "We observe no curve, therefore..." The only way that "observation" works is deny all science, and all photographic proof.  You'd have an easier time proving Middle Earth was real.

Our theory is backed up with observation.

The theory of the ancients that two parallel lines pointed away from the observer will appear to recede forever and never meet is based on, well, nothing at all.

9090

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 19, 2016, 04:17:30 PM »

The variations I was showing (using the same method used by Voliva and essentially the same as the Wiki) had nothing whatever to do with any possible variations over the course of a year, but measurements which can be taken at any one time.

Would that be the method of not actually observing the sun at these different places for your estimate of its position?

9091

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 19, 2016, 07:33:28 AM »

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations.  Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

You don't know that Rowbotham's observations were real or hypothetical.

It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.

The whole point we are all trying to make is that the method used by Voliva and Rowbotham (they are essentially the same) cannot ever give valid results.

The height you get depends on the baseline used!

Whenever we ask the height of the sun, either we told it a bit over 3,000 miles or "Look up the Wiki!", we do that and clearly the answers are quite inconsistent.

Now, surely the sun must at one height. I know why the answers vary, but since the answer might cause you cognitive dissonance problems, I will refrain from pointing that out!

Over to you. What is the height of the Flat Earth sun?

I think the height of the sun changes over the course of the year, but I am unsure of what the heights might be.

9092

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 19, 2016, 07:31:30 AM »

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations.  Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

Rowbotham states, "The foregoing remarks and illustrations are, of course, not necessary to the mathematician; but may be useful to the general reader, showing him that plane trigonometry, carried out on the earth's plane or horizontal surface, permits of operations which are simple and perfect in principle, and in practice fully reliable and satisfactory."

Why do you think Rowbotham would be endorsing "that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities?" Was he not "assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world."?

Yes, Rowbotham is using Trigonomety. No, he didn't read my post written over 150 years later. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham does question some elements of trigonometry, however, specifically what happens at very long distances with perspective.

Why can't we doubt the Wiki? Those writings come from a number of sources. It's a user editable online encyclopedia.

Why do so many (including yourself) point to it as the end all be all?

Does it come down to a matter of convenience?  If it supports your argument it's fine and valid.  If it doesn't it's questionable and invalid.

FE apologists and Christian apologists.  Is there really any difference?  Both groups rely on the same tactics and logic.

Of course the similarity is not surprising considering that FE ideas sprung, whole cloth, from the bible in the first place.

I link to the Wiki because it would be tiring to write pages of text over and over again when someone asks a question. As a user contributed resource it's as right or wrong as any user who posts to this forum may be right or wrong.

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

Do you really want to defend his results?  He calculated the sun to be a mere 700 miles up, and the subsolar point only 400 miles away.  The Wiki, so beloved by FE proponents, has the sun over four times as high, and the nearest the subsolar point EVER gets to London is over the Tropic of Cancer, some two THOUSAND miles away, more than five times as far.

Rowbotham may be ultimately incorrect, sure, but it is the only measurement backed up with explicit observations I've seen. That makes it the strongest claim for now.

As far as discrepancies go, your criticism is misplaced. On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.

9093

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't Polaris been seen at the coast of Antartica?

« on: April 19, 2016, 07:21:34 AM »

That's merely a theory. The Ancient Greeks never actually put that math to the test at the extremes. According to that type of math it is also predicted that two parallel lines pointed into the distance will forever recede from the observer but never meet. Where is the evidence for that, or any other example of what happens at really long distances?

9094

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 16, 2016, 08:28:49 PM »

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations.  Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

You don't know that Rowbotham's observations were real or hypothetical.

It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.

9095

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 16, 2016, 08:03:30 PM »

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations.  Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

9096

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 16, 2016, 07:59:29 PM »

The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

As real as Voliva's were!

No one said Voliva was an unimpeachable god.

My point is why did Voliva "happen" to chose 45˚ for his measurement and
you might have noticed that your Wiki contains"
Finding your Latitude and Longitude the Wiki says:

Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.

So this quote from the Wiki tells how far we would be from the equator and what the sun's angle would be at any latitude.

If I took the measurements you would only doubt them, but surely you cannot doubt your own Wiki!

Why can't we doubt the Wiki? Those writings come from a number of sources. It's a user editable online encyclopedia.

9097

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 16, 2016, 07:57:13 PM »

The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

He is using angles of the sun from the horizon for various latitudes at noon on the equinoxes. These angles are well known, and easily observable. This is an easy to use website that you can get this data from. Do you have reason to believe that any of this data is wrong? If so, feel free to present it...

The only thing that is reasonably controversial from a flat-earther's perspective is the distance from the equator that he gives (since flat-earthers can't agree on an actual map). Do you have reason to believe that the distances from the equator are wrong? If so, feel free to present it...

The figures on that website do not claim to come from observations.

9098

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki".

« on: April 16, 2016, 02:14:35 AM »

The sun's height, calculated using this method for a number of latitudes is shown in the following table:

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

9099

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A refutation of RE that RE-ers will accept - experiment at home on 20th March

« on: March 26, 2016, 11:15:44 PM »

The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!

But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."

If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.

Only if you completely ignore:
Satellites
Planets
The sun
The moon
Orbits in general
Maps
Satellite imagery
Videos of rocket launches
Basic physics
Anything having to do with NASA
All the other space programs
Third party evidence for NASA
Geodesy
Tides
Plane flights
Astronomy
Stellarium
Neutrino astronomy
Neutrinos in general
Particle accelerator measurements
Weather
Navigation
Surveying
Every single expert in each of these fields (including myself)


But yeah, the horizon is totally the most trustworthy piece of evidence.   

You are merely waving your hand and assuming that those things show that the earth is a globe. You will need to present specific evidence which shows that the earth is a globe. A lot of that is addressed in Earth Not a Globe, the Wiki, and other places.

9100

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A refutation of RE that RE-ers will accept - experiment at home on 20th March

« on: March 26, 2016, 04:49:34 PM »

The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination.  This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N.  If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all. 

Anything else?

Rama, surely you aren't that dense. Stellarium isn't experimental or observational evidence. It's a computer program.

The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!

But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.

So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."

If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.