1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Transparent Moon... really?

« on: December 15, 2018, 08:20:59 AM »

I’m surprised Sandokhan takes notice of any of the scientists he quotes. Take the last one for example Stuart Bale;

http://physics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/stuart-bale

He specialises in Astrophysics and gets a great deal of his data, like many who study the sun, from STEREO, a dual solar observatory launched in 2006. I don’t think Sandokhan believes in space travel! or anything else Dr. Bale believes in, so why quote him?

Dr. Bale, if you read his website would disagree with almost everything Sandokhan believes in. Why doesn’t Sandokhan quote flat earth astrophysics?...........

The thing that puzzles me is none of the scientists he quotes belive in a flat earth, small near sun, transparent moon or none of the other things that Sandokhan obviously believes in.

His belief in elements lighter than hydrogen! .....I think we can put that one down to an overactive imagination.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude

« on: December 15, 2018, 07:21:39 AM »

Longitude and Latitude isn't used by Google Maps/WebMercator to measure distances.

Have a read: The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections

Latitude and Longitude are useless for measuring distance and area because the unit of length, degrees, is not held constant for longitude, except along parallels -- individual perfectly east-west lines.

...

Web Mercator's significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable. Where accurate distance and area calculations are needed, web-mercator GIS data must be temporarily reprojected to a more suitable coordinate system (UTM NAD83).

It is admitted that the latitude and longitude coordinates of the spherical earth model is completely unusable, and that the data must be reprojected onto a local state plane coordinate system for accuracy.

You are trying to compare lat/long coordinates which are said to be "completely unusable."

Indeed mapping a spherical surface on to flat paper is a tricky prospect with plenty of room to introduce errors. Interesting web site. How do you feel Tom that the link you provided is basing all its prime data on the earth being a sphere? If you accept all the information on this web site it follows you will have to ditch Rowbotham and all your flat earth beliefs.
Thanks for the link as it reinforces how ludicrous the idea of a flat earth map is. One true data set equals the possibility of onetrue map.

Based on the article he quotes, Tom seems to be willing to trust a map generated from a UTM NAD83 projection, but he can't have it both ways. Earlier on I posted a map of the Falklands which is also generated via a UTM NAD83 (Zone 12N) projection (exactly the same one used in the article), so it should by Tom's reasoning be acceptably accurate. The problem is it shows a degree of longitude to be less than 70km wide, which means it's shorter than a degree of longitude on the equator, which means Rowbotham, by his own statements, faced with that evidence, would have had to admit that the earth was "globular" as he put it.

Whether Tom accepts or understands that a UTM NAD83 projection is entirely based on a globe earth or whether he does not, if he trusts that a map produced via this projection is accurate, then OK, here's just such a map and it shows the earth is at the very least "globular".

As I have mentioned previously, the production of accurate maps is much more complex than one would imagine. Here is quite a good guide from the OS in the UK that explains about how they use their GNSS data sets.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/support/guide-coordinate-systems-great-britain.pdf?awc=2495_1472758581_2be7907c343c32b09a8d5171103197d7

Once you have some inkling into the complexity of map production, it really makes you realise how ludicrous some flat earthers are when they claim to be working on producing a flat earth map!

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a Flat-Earth map I can use to actually navigate from A to B to C?

« on: December 14, 2018, 09:21:56 AM »

Ummm, pretty much all maps are flat for ease of use/transport. And, as we've gone over this before, as to X-Y coordinate system:

"By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations. Second, the system is highly accurate within each zone (error less than 1:10,000). Outside a specific state plane zone accuracy rapidly declines, thus the system is not useful for regional or national mapping."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

Is that statement based on theory or experiment?

And the reason why their accuracy rapidly declines when made larger is that they are "projections", as from a Globe, which introduces distortion.

You keep trying to use State Plane maps as some sort of evidence for "flat earth maps" when, as stated above and before, many times, they are, in fact, derived from a Globe.

I don't see how it is possible to argue that the maps are flat, but they are based on a globe.

Among other reasons, "Most state plane zones are based on either a transverse Mercator projection or a Lambert conformal conic projection."

The operative word is "projection".

That flat map looks something like the maps we are proposing with the northern or southern centers.

You are saying that the state plane maps are illustrated on a small part of that flat map, or alternatively another type of flat map? And that the whole map is called a "projection" because we live on a globe? I truly do not see how this trivia helps the meat of your argument in any way.

Tom you need to go check your really helpful link again;
https://gis.utah.gov

It’s a really interesting look at how the state of Utah goes about producing highly accurate maps.
It illustrates  quite a few things;
How complex producing accurate maps are
Where they acquire their data sets from
How impossible it would be for an individual to produce a map on their own without using pre-established data sets.
How ludicrous the idea of producing a flat earth map is
How tricky it is producing accurate convenient flat maps of an area that is part of a curved surface.

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude

« on: December 14, 2018, 09:07:44 AM »

Longitude and Latitude isn't used by Google Maps/WebMercator to measure distances.

Have a read: The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections

Latitude and Longitude are useless for measuring distance and area because the unit of length, degrees, is not held constant for longitude, except along parallels -- individual perfectly east-west lines.

...

Web Mercator's significant weakness is that measurements of distance and area in its native coordinates are completely unusable. Where accurate distance and area calculations are needed, web-mercator GIS data must be temporarily reprojected to a more suitable coordinate system (UTM NAD83).

It is admitted that the latitude and longitude coordinates of the spherical earth model is completely unusable, and that the data must be reprojected onto a local state plane coordinate system for accuracy.

You are trying to compare lat/long coordinates which are said to be "completely unusable."

Indeed mapping a spherical surface on to flat paper is a tricky prospect with plenty of room to introduce errors. Interesting web site. How do you feel Tom that the link you provided is basing all its prime data on the earth being a sphere? If you accept all the information on this web site it follows you will have to ditch Rowbotham and all your flat earth beliefs.
Thanks for the link as it reinforces how ludicrous the idea of a flat earth map is. One true data set equals the possibility of onetrue map.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 10:37:49 PM »

Tom? Perspective is perceptual. The land doesn't physical rise. H values don't physically change.

As the apparent angle of the sun changes, so does the angle of the plane of the bottom of the clouds. Never does the plane of something higher descend below a parallel plane below it. They both appear to descend, but the sun's angle will and can never decrease greater than the plane of the clouds.

What you're depicting isn't even what Rowbotham's describes as the Law of Perspective.

Try it. Set up a model and show me how perspective accomplishes what you describe. It won't work.

I can make it work by "cheating," or by invoking methods other than perspective. But the perspective explanation is sleight of hand. It doesn't work that way.

Consider a rail road track perspective scene. Do you agree that the rail road tracks in such a scene appear to get so close together that they eventually become one, for all intents? And, do you agree that those tracks have not really become one?

That is what is happening with perspective; the sun is merging into the earth/atmosphere/etc via perspective.

Elucid imagined that this would not happen for an infinite distance away; but he never really demonstrated his ideas.

No... the sun is from the perspective of that viewer looking at the sunset, dipping below the horizon. For someone 2000 miles to the west it’s still high in the sky. Just to reinforce the point, the output of light levels from the sun does not change, as far as we are concerned.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 10:34:22 PM »

If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?

You'd see a reddish sunrise, since I took the picture this morning, but yes.

Then it seems that your question has been answered. Those clouds are seeing a reddish sun at the horizon

Not my point. The clouds are illuminated from the bottom, which means that, if the Earth is flat and the sun is thousands of miles above it, then it must be something other than the sun. The reddish sun at the horizon is the RE explanation.

If those clouds were a mirror, would you see the sun at the horizon?

That's what the clouds are in this case; a mirror. Those clouds a little higher up in altitude are seeing a sun that is higher above the horizon, and which is not sending out as much red light.

Sorry Tom but that is clearly false. The sun is sending out a constant level of light 24/7 it never changes. It is we who change constantly by virtue of our position. The colour is due to red light having a shorter wavelength and less prone to scattering. It has absolutely nothing to do with decreased output from the sun if that’s what you are implying.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 10:27:22 PM »

San Diego, 40 minutes before sunrise on the morning of November 14th..

According to TimeandDate, the sun was over the South Atlantic off the coast of Brazil.

That's over 6200 miles away from San Diego.
The sun had risen in El Paso, TX. (600 miles to the east)
The sun was just about to rise in Tucson, AZ. (365 miles to the east)

The clouds being illuminated were at an altitude of ~15,000 ft., 50-100 miles SE of San Diego. 

In answer to Tom's question, someone at the altitude and location of the illuminated clouds would have seen the sun, risen above the horizon.

Nice shot Bobby.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position

« on: December 11, 2018, 10:25:27 PM »

Can you explain some more about the premise of this thread? Why would the latitude or longitude coordinates of New Zealand have changed since the mid 1800's?

That’s quite an interesting statement to come from you Tom, with quite serious implications for your beliefs.
The maps made of sothern latitudes, NZ, and Australia in the 1700, particulary those by James Cook have been shown to be pretty accurate when compared to more modern cartographic techniques. The mapping accuracy clearly puts a final nail in the coffin for any idea of a flat earth map, which as you know would require some jiggling around of land masses from their current locations. It’s a problem that FE thinkers, like yourself have failed to address.

Not quite. The accuracy experiment shows that the 18C navigators understood their position very well. Says nothing (so far) about the distance between those positions. Longitude can be measured on Flat Earth by the sun literally circling overhead, and measuring the time it is overhead compared the time at Greenwich. Latitude is an even simpler measurement. So the accuracy of latitude and longitude as a position measurement does not require a globe earth.

The question is how accurately the early navigators were able to measure distance travelled, which I will come to as the next part of the experiment.

No....not quite. The relative positions of all major land masses was firmly established toward the end of the late 1700s early 1800s, with the possible exception being the extent of Both the Artic and Antartica. This was the age of exploration driven partly by colonial expansion. The East India company and the British navy new exactly how far and exactly where all it’s strategic ports and colonies lay. As was previously mentioned the invention by Harrison of a very accurate naval chronometer made a huge difference in establishing precise locations, hence the value of the prize he eventually won.

The very fact that we know the relative precise locations of every port, town, city, river, lake, loch, mountain etc....in the world makes it impossible for any alternative arrangement of the land masses.....so no alternative flat earth map possible.

If you don’t agree which continental real estate would you wish to relocate and on what grounds?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 11, 2018, 08:31:31 PM »

If you were at the altitude of the reddish areas in the clouds, at that moment, do you think that you would be seeing a reddish sunset at the horizon?

It’s actually a sunrise if you read the post correctly. For his perspective give the horizon would indeed be red. For someone 1000 miles to the east I would be late morning and bright, while 1000 miles to the west it will still be dark. Same sun at a constant brightness but different perspectives due to location.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: December 11, 2018, 08:42:23 AM »

His publications (nothing published with any co-authors, seems he was a complete outsider of the scientific community from the beginning), went more and in the direction of obvious pseudo-science, speculation and even parapsychology.

Then, you'll be enthralled to find out that the existence of ether was proven mathematically by one of the top scientists of the 20th century: E.T. Whittaker.

FRS
Copley medal (the most prestigious honorary award in British science)
Sylvester medal

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059 (five consecutive messages)

The achievements of the 1903 and 1904 papers published by Whittaker:

A scalar potential is comprised of a lattice of bidirectional longitudinal waves (ether/Tesla strings).

Electromagnetic or gravitational fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions.

The unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, ether theory into one single subject: ELECTROGRAVITY.

How to construct a scalar interferometer: a standing scalar wave structure.

An extended version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

The discovery of the fact that internal EM is generally completely inside the scalar potential, existing as “infolded” harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs.   This internal EM was in Maxwell’s original quaternion equations.

The superluminal speed of gravitational waves.

"Whittaker proved the existence of a "hidden" set of electromagnetic waves traveling in two simultaneous directions in the scalar potential of the vacuum -- demonstrating how to use them to curve the local and/or distant "spacetime" with electromagnetic radiation. This key Whittaker paper thus lays the direct mathematical foundation for an electrogravitic theory/technology of gravity control.
 
In the second paper, Whittaker demonstrated how two "Maxwellian scalar potentials of the vacuum" -- gravitationally curving spacetime -- could be turned back into a detectable "ordinary" electromagnetic field by two interfering "scalar EM waves"... even at a distance."

Whittaker accomplished this by demonstrating mathematically that,

"the field of force due to a gravitating body can be analyzed, by a spectrum analysis’ as it were, into an infinite number of constituent fields; and although the whole field of force does not vary with time, yet each of the constituent fields is an ondulatory character, consisting of a simple-disturbance propagated with uniform velocity ... [and] the waves will be longitudinal (top) ... These results assimilate the propagation of gravity to that of light ... [and] would require that gravity be propagated with a finite velocity, which however need not be the same as that of light [emphasis added], and may be enormously greater ..."

“Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as "light."

"In 1903-1904 E.T. Whittaker published a fundamental, engineerable theory of electrogravitation (EG) in two profound papers. The first (W-1903) demonstrated a hidden bidirectional EM wave structure in the scalar potential of vacuum, and showed how to produce a standing scalar EM potential wave -- the same wave discovered experimentally four years earlier by Nikola Tesla.

W-1904 shows that all force field EM can be replaced by interferometry of two scalar potentials, anticipating the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 55 years and extending it to the engineerable macroscopic world. W-1903 shows how to turn EM into G-potential and directly engineer the virtual particle flux of ether. W-1904 shows how to turn G-potential back into force-field EM, even at a distance."

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

"In his 1903 paper Whittaker showed that a standing scalar potential wave can be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave.

The very next year, Whittaker's second paper (cited above) showed how to turn such G potential wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's original theory.
 
Specifically, any EM force field can be replaced by two scalar potential fields and scalar interferometry. The combination of this paper and the 1903 Mathematische Annalen paper not only includes the Aharonov-Bohm effect, but specifies a testable method for producing a macroscopic and controlled Aharanov-Bohm effect, even at large distances."


One of the greatest experts on advanced electromagnetism of all time, Dr. Terence W. Barrett has proven that the Sagnac effect can only be explained in the context of the Whittaker potential scalar waves, using advanced topology.

Dr. Terence W. Barrett (Stanford Univ., Princeton Univ., U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, Univ. of Edinburgh, author of over 200 papers on advanced electromagnetism)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2039636#msg2039636

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2044039#msg2044039

Fields can be described by a U(1) group transformation: the modified Maxwell equations (actually, the Heaviside-Lorentz equations).

Potentials (ether theory) can ONLY be described by SU(2) group transformations (and higher).

The group algebra underlying the commonly used Maxwell equations is U(1): but this only relates to the ripples in the sea of ether.

The Sagnac effect, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Maxwell-Lodge effect can only be described by SU(2) group transformations (the quaternion formulation of the Maxwell equations).

Whittaker managed to show the hidden structure of the potential: the set of bidirectional longitudinal waves which rule electromagnetism and terrestrial gravity.

The interferometer of the Sagnac experiment is a MULTIPLY-CONNECTED region and is an example of a topological obstruction.

That is, the Sagnac experiment can only be described by the SU(2) group of transformations, by the original set of the Maxwell equations, by potentials (ether).


There is only one thing left to do: to safely and strongly flush the toilet with the RE video right into the sewer system.

Your constant appealing to authority cuts both ways.

Name just one Nobel prize winner in physics who would agree with your claimed distances to either the sun or Polaris.

Name one Nobel prize winner in physics since it’s inception who has published a paper that agrees with your belief in a flat Earth?

Name one astronomer dead or alive, from the last 200 years, who would agree that the sun is not 93,000,000 miles
from Earth or would agree with you in regards to the earth being flat?

How many of the scientists you love to quote believed in a flat earth? Did Sagnac?

Cherry picking, distorting facts and making things up does little for your case. Scientists are not abandoning relativity in droves. Saying it, does not make it so. LIGO, for example, recently confirmed one of Einstein’s last unproven predictions. Relativity has been proved to be pretty solid time and time again through experimentation. It may we’ll be the case as with Newton, that additions may have to be added as our knowledge increases.

Your continued assertions regarding the outcome and conclusions regarding the Sagnac effect are in direct conflict with historical and science fact.

11

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position

« on: December 11, 2018, 08:12:12 AM »

Can you explain some more about the premise of this thread? Why would the latitude or longitude coordinates of New Zealand have changed since the mid 1800's?

That’s quite an interesting statement to come from you Tom, with quite serious implications for your beliefs.
The maps made of sothern latitudes, NZ, and Australia in the 1700, particulary those by James Cook have been shown to be pretty accurate when compared to more modern cartographic techniques. The mapping accuracy clearly puts a final nail in the coffin for any idea of a flat earth map, which as you know would require some jiggling around of land masses from their current locations. It’s a problem that FE thinkers, like yourself have failed to address.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?

« on: December 10, 2018, 10:46:11 PM »

some people say god created everything, such as life, the earth, and every living creature. but who created him? did he create himself? what do you fine intellectuals think?

Which god are you reffering to?

Since the dawn of time the estimate of the number of God’s created or believed in by man is around 2500 or there about, take your pick.

As to who created god, some would say it’s purely a human construct. The world and the cosmos at large appeared to get on quite happily before we humans came along, invented all these gods, and made up all the stories to go along with them. For most of the age of the universe the gods that most people believe in at the present time didn’t exist,  so obviously they had no hand in the creation of the universe, as it was here before the idea of them was.

Gods...who needs them?

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who created god?

« on: December 10, 2018, 10:34:04 PM »

The universe has always existed and it always will. It has no beginning or end.

Only in your opinion, as you have no definitive proof of either.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Oceans & Clouds

« on: December 10, 2018, 10:28:17 PM »

As a round-earther, I always thought the flat-earth theory was a bunch of nonsense. However, after reading articles on this website I found my beliefs challenged. I have one question for round-earthers. We say that the oceans are held to a spherical earth by gravity, but how do we explain clouds being suspended in the air? Wouldn't gravity work equally on clouds since they are also water? Clouds are denser and heavier than air, therefore they should not be able to stay suspended in mid-air according to the round-earth theory.

Clouds are not denser than air, neither are the heavier. Have you ever watched a kettle boil?  or watched a wet road steam as it’s heated by the sun?  Have you ever seen clouds form over a forest?
It’s no mystery it’s the water cycle in a action. The fact that clouds float is perfectly in line with science. Your making something out of nothing while at the same time demonstrating how a lack of knowledge and understanding about a subject can cause people, like yourself to start believing in things which really don’t make sense.
Thane your post for example you start off making two statements that aren’t true that lead you to a false conclusion.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rowbotham Inaccuracies

« on: December 09, 2018, 09:00:50 PM »

Rowbotham poorly tries to play 'sailor' a lot and uses a few things he sees as 'proof' of the flat earth.  One example from his book is the example for not seeing the horizon lower while going higher above the level of the sea as proof that the earth is flat.  I will freely admit that seeing the effect is very somewhere between difficult and impossible to see on a moving ship.  However the 'height of eye' correction is always a factor in adjusting your sextant when making a sight of a 'heavenly body'.  The correction isn't much on a sail boat and probably of the ships of Rowbotham's time, but becomes significant on a large container ship where the bridge can be 150 feet above the water line. 

My guess would be that if Rowbotham was doing his 'research' today he might see his mistake and correct the erroneous statements he made in his book.  On the other hand if his observations were intentionally made with the idea to foster controversy then they can't be counted on to be accurate for that reason as well.  Since Rowbotham seemed to make a living arguing the flat earth paradigm in front of audiences (somewhat successfully) I can understand that any of his research was not aimed at furthering any scientific understanding, but to enhance the thickness of his wallet.  There's nothing at all wrong with someone making a living doing something they like but it's not the best idea to believe any of their research or experiments because their motivations are certainly not in the interests of science, but in the interests of money.

I would suggest given the tone of his book and the relatively poorly educated population at the time allied with the fact that NZ was a colony, it strikes me he was ‘chancing his arm’ hoping to pull some wool and fool his readership.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rowbotham Inaccuracies

« on: December 09, 2018, 04:49:17 PM »

....sorry I should have included this in the main post but forgot!

Wellington latitude is 41.2865 south; day length on shortest day 21 June is 9hrs 11 mins 24 sec.
Barcelona latitude is  41.3851 north; day length on shortest day 21 Dec. Is 9 hrs 11 mins

I think this is a slam dunk!  The very argument Rowbotham tried to use to disprove the globe actually ends up trashing his claim of it being flat, while verifying its globular nature.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about Mount Everest

« on: December 09, 2018, 04:34:43 PM »

All good, you guys - though one question:

Imagine you were able to position people at regular intervals, say one every hundred miles along a line of latitude.

How will they know where the line of latitude is?

It’s just a thought experiment! Though your phone would do it, as to who would supply the chairs and boats, that I’m not sure, though we could ask people to bring their own.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: December 09, 2018, 04:32:27 PM »

Sun behind the clouds!.....simple editing. Two shots on a time line, mask over the sun, invert, select appropriate blending mode! in other words total fake! You did notice that clouds were going both in front and behind the sun at the same time.

I don't think that's it. More likely the brightness of the sun/moon overwhelming the camera and rendering everything in front of it invisible, like so:


https://www.metabunk.org/explained-why-clouds-appear-behind-the-sun-and-moon.t7084

Oooo. You shoot on film! Retro man ;-)

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: December 09, 2018, 04:31:06 PM »

Sun behind the clouds!.....simple editing. Two shots on a time line, mask over the sun, invert, select appropriate blending mode! in other words total fake! You did notice that clouds were going both in front and behind the sun at the same time.

I don't think that's it. More likely the brightness of the sun/moon overwhelming the camera and rendering everything in front of it invisible, like so:


https://www.metabunk.org/explained-why-clouds-appear-behind-the-sun-and-moon.t7084

Look again. In the shot clouds go in front and also behind the sun. What I think as the shot is steady. Locked off on a tripod. Then either the one clip duplicated dragged above and then the process as I described. Possibly?

20

Flat Earth Theory / Rowbotham Inaccuracies

« on: December 09, 2018, 03:29:40 PM »

A post by our good friend Tom Bishop got me wondering about this other book that much of flat earth doctrine is based on ; The Earth is not a Globe. by Samuel Birley Rowbotham Mr.

Incidentally Rowbotham is not a doctor nor does he have a PhD as has been claimed from Edinburgh University. I live in Edinburgh and I am an alumni and worked for the medical school for a couple of years. A few years ago in relation to an argument in another place I checked out the records of alumni and there is no mention of the name Rowbotham. They have a lot of records going back to the 1580s......I can categorically state he does not have a PhD from Edinburgh University Scool of medicine. A little known fact Charles Darwin did enrole as a medical student at Edinburgh, but only lasted a couple of months as he fainted at the sight of blood. I mention this as they were contemporaries Darwin being 7 years older.

Tom posted this on another thread that apparently comes straight from said book.

It does get darker. Look at the sun when it is directly overhead, and then look at the sun when it is near the horizon.

I went straight to; Section 6, Causes of Day and Night and the Seasons and straight away an error from Rowbotham leap off the page. One of his claims centres around Wellington in NZ being on a similar latitude to England.  Look this up if you will.  Like all of his claims its totally wrong. Wellington IS on a similar latitude to Barcelona in Spain around 41 degrees The latitude of London for example is around 51 degrees, a difference of 10 degrees from Wellington NZ.

Refer to pp 81.

Due to his error and false claim his whole chapter falls flat on its face. Why?  Because he maintained that London and Wellington should share the same length of daylight hours! ( which they don’t) as they shared a similar latitude (which they don’t) His argument for a flat earth in this section is based on a false premise. The interesting question is, how many more inaccuracies can be found?