The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tontogary on April 03, 2018, 12:33:54 AM
-
Can any Flat Earthers please provide me a link to a chart of the world? If you dare.
I would be very interested to see what they think is the North Pole, lines of longitude and latitude, and relative positions of the continents.
It will help me understand your claims better, and try to resolve where i have been misled all my adult life regarding Navigation.
-
Can any Flat Earthers please provide me a link to a chart of the world? If you dare.
I would be very interested to see what they think is the North Pole, lines of longitude and latitude, and relative positions of the continents.
It will help me understand your claims better, and try to resolve where i have been misled all my adult life regarding Navigation.
This is the one big hole in flat Earth "theory". No map will be provided, as no map can be provided. It's always "a work in progress", implying that there's a big team of flat Earth geographers working tirelessly on tidying up the last loose ends.
Nobody is working on a flat Earth map, because as soon as they try, the whole thing falls apart. We live on a world where we know how long it takes to get from one place to another. These travel times work perfectly on a globe, but fall apart totally on any possible flat Earth map. The only way to hold onto the belief system is the idea that there's a wonderful perfect flat Earth map just around the corner.
We all know how long it takes to fly to South America or Australia or Japan. Millions of people take intercontinental flights every year. We know that when Parallax, say, claims that distances are twice as long in the Southern Hemisphere, he's talking nonsense, because we can tell how long flights take. We can look out the windows of the plane and know that we're following Great Circle routes, not the straight lines on a flat Earth.
-
Yes i can see that no FEers would be brave enough to put a map here that can be looked at and challenged. They seem to skirt around providing some form of evidence to us who can easily prove them wrong.
However i am willing to look at any evidence and see what they can show me, and make my informed comments. I can back up my comments with experience and mathematics, which is probably more than FEers can.
I notice on the Q&A section there is a map, with the comment, “this is a possible map, but not definitive”
Maps have been produced since the Middle Ages, not always to the best detail, and not always accurate, but they were produced.
Surely FEers must have some idea what the world looks like, as they all seem to agree there is a great ice wall to the south, all the way round the edge, so how hard can it be to fill in the details?
They seem to agree that the North Pole is at the Center of this map, otherwise their flashlight sun theory wont work, so we have 2 important points there, the Center, and what is there, and the edges.
Surely they have a better knowledge of cartography than people from the dark ages did? Or are they more backwards than that? They certainly claim to be more sophisticated in the arguments, so i challenge someone to point a FE map, Please?
I await with anticipation.
-
Our total annual budget is $0. The allocated cartography budget is $0.
We are already giving out our little free time away from work to discuss a few matters. You aren't paying us. Why do you guys complain so much?
-
Our total annual budget is $0. The allocated cartography budget is $0.
We are already giving out our little free time away from work to discuss a few matters. You aren't paying us. Why do you guys complain so much?
Where are these discussions being had? Does it involve a map of the flat earth? What's the progress?
-
Our total annual budget is $0. The allocated cartography budget is $0.
We are already giving out our little free time away from work to discuss a few matters. You aren't paying us. Why do you guys complain so much?
It doesn't actually require a massive budget, since the distances between the various places on the Earth can be shown to an approximation by air travel times. Obviously this is quite loose, since aircraft have different cruising speeds, and there are issues with the windspeed, but it would be a reasonable sanity check.
One could just spend an occasional afternoon sketching map layouts, and seeing if any of them fit with what is known - or at least, fit nearly as well as with a globe. It involves the expenditure of slightly more than $0, but it shouldn't run over $20. Certainly cheaper than running a computer, which one assumes the people posting here at least have access to.
As to the "complaining" - this is a forum explicitly labelled "Flat Earth Debate". The idea of a debate is to compare ideas and to show the relative strengths and weaknesses of them. There would be little point in a debate forum where nobody ever pointed out the weak points of an opponent's arguments.
And the lack of a map of the flat Earth, after having several thousand years to produce one, is a massive hole in the theory. It's an obstacle because without a map, it's not possible to test the theory at all. Meanwhile, we trace distances and routes on the globe, and find that yes, they work.
-
Our total annual budget is $0. The allocated cartography budget is $0.
We are already giving out our little free time away from work to discuss a few matters. You aren't paying us. Why do you guys complain so much?
I didnt ask about your budget. I asked for a map, or a sketch that resembles a map. You are not answering the question.
You claim there is mountains of research to back up your ideas, and i am asking you to show me the proof in a picture form of what the earth looks like, and you claim no one has paid for one yet? Or is it because you cant make any money out of it?
Rowbotham only reprinted his ludicrous theories to make a quick buck, and it seems like that is where the FEers have stopped, if it cant make money, or is not defensible, we wont discuss it, or claim we have not been paid for it.
I tell you what, describe it to me and i will draw your map for you for free, i just need some idea of what it actually is you are claiming the earth looks like.
I keep the copyright and when you are proved right I will donate half the proceeds to the FE Society. Can’t say fairer than that can I? If you are right the FES gets rich, and i get rich as well, but of course you have to be proved right 1st.... i take the time to draw your map, and you dont have to spend any dollars....win win for you Tom!
-
You wanted it, I'm just providing it, not interested to be in the conversation your about to have, too early in the morning for me. This it the more "correct" version. (http://www.flat-earther.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/airagemap.jpg)
-
And just to clarify, this is a "Air Map" created by a round earther, but the map is more accurate for flat earth study.
-
And just to clarify, this is a "Air Map" created by a round earther, but the map is more accurate for flat earth study.
I was about to point out that you obviously did not read the notes on either side regarding Mercator projection map as, as well as the handy note and scale on the right hand side regarding distances!
However if this is what FEers believe the world to look like flat, then let me study it, and i will have some observations and questions.
-
Our total annual budget is $0. The allocated cartography budget is $0.
We are already giving out our little free time away from work to discuss a few matters. You aren't paying us. Why do you guys complain so much?
You keep saying this. We are well aware. We are also well aware that if rocket guy can dupe FE'rs out of 7k, Dr. Tom Bishop can get even more.
All you need to do is describe what you would use the budget for, how you would go about completing the goals and put up a kickstarter.
-
And just to clarify, this is a "Air Map" created by a round earther, but the map is more accurate for flat earth study.
It's a good start. So let's look at flight times. (N.B. this didn't cost me much more than $0 to do the research).
Flight time Los Angeles - London - about 11 hours.
Flight time Santiago - Melbourne (non-stop) - about 15 hours.
However, the distance between Santiago and Melbourne appears to be about three times as far as between LA and London.
N.b. I know that these are just example times, and that this is well-trodden ground.
-
Our total annual budget is $0. The allocated cartography budget is $0.
We are already giving out our little free time away from work to discuss a few matters. You aren't paying us. Why do you guys complain so much?
How is asking for some sort of research complaining? You should be thanking us for doing the work of disproving FEH and asking questions. That is an important step in proving a hypothesis correct. If you can't answer the questions, you should seek to find the answers. If you can't, then your hypothesis needs to be revised or scrapped.
-
Ok looking at the chart, the further south you go, the longer the distance round the circumference is, right?
At the North Pole, if you are 1 nautical mile from it and walk east or west, you will travel 6.283185 Nautical miles to get back to your starting point. (PixD) this i am sure everyone agrees upon. FE and RE advocates alike.
Now in that journey you will go through 360 degrees of longitude, or a circle. I am assuming we all agree on that as well!
I think everyone agrees that 1 minute of lattitude equals 1 mile of distance.
At the southern edge of the worl, as described, you are about 70 degrees south, so a total of 160 degrees of lattitude from the North Pole.
Take this calculation further means that you will have 9,600 miles of radius of the circle, so a diameter of 19,200 miles, multiplied by Pi, gives a circumference of 60,318 miles, or 111,710KM! That means from South America to New Zealand, which is shown as an arc of about 110 degrees, or 30.555555556% of the circumference of the world, or to put it another way 18,430 miles. Which is an awful lot further than any commercial airliner flies.
A commercial airliner flies up to about 500 knots, which would mean that the flight time from chile to New Zealand is something in the order of 36 hours according to FE theory!
I have made that voyage, and it is around 4,500 miles in reality, and on a ship doing 17 knots, took us around about 11 days.
If the distance was, as the FEers map might suggest 18,430 miles, it would have taken us 45 days, or to do it in 11 days, would mean we travel at approaching 70 knots, which for a 300M long ship is pretty much impossible.
So i am left with the conclusion that the FE map cannot be correct, as i think i would know if we were doing 70 knots instead of 17.
There are also available on line, and on board, tables of distances between hundreds of different ports, and hundreds of thousands of ships use those tables every year. I use them on a regular basis, and they give me accurate (within 2%) distances when travelling the globe, plus they bear out what we do by multiplying our speed with time taken.
It all adds up to the right answers using a RE model, and Nothing adds up using a FE model. So in practice, we have evidence, experience, and repeatable experiments, using the RE model, yet the FE proponents cannot even show me what the world looks like!
-
It doesn't actually require a massive budget, since the distances between the various places on the Earth can be shown to an approximation by air travel times. Obviously this is quite loose, since aircraft have different cruising speeds, and there are issues with the windspeed, but it would be a reasonable sanity check.
One could just spend an occasional afternoon sketching map layouts, and seeing if any of them fit with what is known - or at least, fit nearly as well as with a globe.
Contribute something then, and let your work be critiqued by anyone willing.
It involves the expenditure of slightly more than $0, but it shouldn't run over $20. Certainly cheaper than running a computer, which one assumes the people posting here at least have access to.
Time is money, and we have very few flat earth proponents. We have very little time or desire to do whatever research you personally want done. If you want any research done you will have to do it.
This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement.
If you want anyone to dedicate entire days to perform your own personal experiment or research, that is just not going to happen. We study what we think is interesting, on our own time, if we even want to study anything at all. This is a leisure activity.
this is a forum explicitly labelled "Flat Earth Debate". The idea of a debate is to compare ideas and to show the relative strengths and weaknesses of them. There nobody ever pointed out the weak points of an opponent's arguments.
I am sorry that you were deceived into thinking that you were going to be able to debate or see substantial content. But this is literally just me giving up my 30 minutes a day and a few others who want to do that.
If you want anything done you are going to have to do it.
And the lack of a map of the flat Earth, after having several thousand years to produce one, is a massive hole in the theory. It's an obstacle because without a map, it's not possible to test the theory at all. Meanwhile, we trace distances and routes on the globe, and find that yes, they work.
You are assuming that there have been people trying to make a map for “thousands of years”. That is not so. I don’t think you have looked into what the history of this actually is. There was just Rowbotham who tried to study a map, collected some data showing that Africa was wider than it was long in contradiction to Round Earth Theory, and that’s it. There is no big organization studying a map, or any of this in general. There never was. If you want any study or research it will have to have to come from you.
-
This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement.
Really? You want to draw a line under every post you've made here with this?
Why should anyone place any store, any reliance, any credence on what you've said, when you freely admit to not spending any significant time or effort upon it?
-
There was equinox nearly ten days ago.
How much would it cost to roughly measure azimuth of sunrise and sunset and compare values with what would be seen on Flat Earth?
Not so easy to compare, for emotional reasons.
(http://i63.tinypic.com/2zspc87.png)
-
This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement.
You should put that on your home page :D
No one is demanding that you do any specific research. I have suggested some things you could do, others have too.
If you don't follow up on any of those then so be it but it's hard to take seriously someone writing a chapter on "the importance of Empiricism" who seems to refuse to do any empirical measurements at all.
We have free, global communications these days. All you'd need to do is get some people to take some observations and measurements of the sun in different places, if the sun is circling (it isn't) a flat plane (it isn't) then that would start to give you some idea of where places are.
If you could form a flat earth model which in any way matched observations then maybe it would be taken more seriously and wouldn't just be "just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time."
-
We study what we think is interesting, on our own time, if we even want to study anything at all. This is a leisure activity.
Apologies for the double post but really? You (say you) think that the earth is flat - something which flies in the face of all scientific knowledge and would mean a massive global conspiracy to hide the truth and you don't think this is important? If you had any proof of this, any experiments which actually stood up to scrutiny then this would be revolutionary, it would literally change the world. It's weird that you're not trying a little harder to find some proof to present.
-
You should put that on your home page :D
The point is that no one is here to research for you. We are not funded or organized for that.
No one is demanding that you do any specific research. I have suggested some things you could do, others have too.
If you don't follow up on any of those then so be it but it's hard to take seriously someone writing a chapter on "the importance of Empiricism" who seems to refuse to do any empirical measurements at all.
We have free, global communications these days. All you'd need to do is get some people to take some observations and measurements of the sun in different places, if the sun is circling (it isn't) a flat plane (it isn't) then that would start to give you some idea of where places are.
Its you and the entire world across all platforms, websites, and media sources demanding experiments of every type. It's just not going to happen unless you make it happen. I'm just here for a little while every day as an act of service and education.
If you could form a flat earth model which in any way matched observations then maybe it would be taken more seriously and wouldn't just be "just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time."
You are the one who is interested in it. You make some kind of model. You make some theories. I'm putting in the effort I've decided to put in based on my level of interest.
-
There was equinox nearly ten days ago.
How much would it cost to roughly measure azimuth of sunrise and sunset and compare values with what would be seen on Flat Earth?
Not so easy to compare, for emotional reasons.
http://i63.tinypic.com/2zspc87.png
What Flat Earth? There is NO model. No research has ever been put into a model. We don't know how many poles there are, or what the continental layout looks like. We only have preliminary research on a model that was completed 150 years ago.
-
You are the one who is interested in it. You make some kind of model. You make some theories.
Wait...you want me to make a model of a flat earth which matches observations...even though that has been shown to be impossible...
It's impossible because the earth is a globe, not flat.
What a strange thing to request.
You're the guys (pretending to) believe in a flat earth.
When you're shown how many ways your current model is wrong and bears no resemblance to reality the onus is on you to either:
1) Alter your model
2) Admit that you're wrong
Your Wiki says:
"A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes"
I don't see any searching, examining or inquiring going on.
-
You are the one who seems to be really interested in all of this. You are the one who wants it. Its really up to you to make models, theories, and perform research. We have provided a platform to do so. Our users are the resource. You are the resource. You are clearly more interested in maps, continents, and whatever, than I am.
-
In order for you to be a flat earther you have to think that a flat earth model is possible.
I do not, so I can't make you one.
You as a society are claiming it is possible, the onus is on you to make one.
It's weird that you say above that you don't have a model - that's what I thought a lot of your Wiki was.
I don't understand how you can say that you don't know how many poles there are and that not bother you.
If there's one pole and Antarctica is a wall of ice then there is no way to explain 24 hour sun in Antarctica - something which has been testified to by many people, something you can easily find video of on YouTube. Heck, you can even GO TO ANTARCTICA if you have the money.
If there are two poles and the sun somehow changes from circling one to the other then I can't think of any way that could explain sunlight patterns anywhere else.
When massive gaping flaws are pointed out it would be rational to consider whether the premise of a flat earth is correct given how many empirical observations (something you say is important to you) show it to be impossible.
-
You are the one who seems to be really interested in all of this. You are the one who wants it. Its really up to you to make models, theories, and perform research. We have provided a platform to do so. Our users are the resource. You are the resource. You are clearly more interested in maps, continents, and whatever, than I am.
We have a model, WGS-84. End of story.
-
And there's a map (WGS84)
Open source, produced by independent, voluntary crowd workers
4.3 millions users (2017-11-08)
4.1 billions nodes (2017-11-08) (GPS-Coordinates)
3 millions changesets/day (2017-11-08)
1 million contributors (2018-03-18)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats)
-
In order for you to be a flat earther you have to think that a flat earth model is possible.
I do not, so I can't make you one.
You as a society are claiming it is possible, the onus is on you to make one.
There is no society. Haven't you been listening to what I have been saying? If there were meetings of the Flat Earth Society that talked about Flat Earth science, I would know about it. It's not you vs us. It's mostly just you here.
It's weird that you say above that you don't have a model - that's what I thought a lot of your Wiki was.
The Wiki just gives a basic overview of a few things and mentions that there is no consensus on the map and pole layout.
I don't understand how you can say that you don't know how many poles there are and that not bother you.
Why should it bother me? Our chief concern is whether the earth is flat. The Flat Earth experiments you usually see online are just testing the flatness of the earth.
Magnetic pole theory is less tangible and may come up under a number of different interpretations. Non-local phenomenons are difficult to study; and require a budget.
If there's one pole and Antarctica is a wall of ice then there is no way to explain 24 hour sun in Antarctica - something which has been testified to by many people, something you can easily find video of on YouTube. Heck, you can even GO TO ANTARCTICA if you have the money.
If there are two poles and the sun somehow changes from circling one to the other then I can't think of any way that could explain sunlight patterns anywhere else.
That is not enough. You are going to have to collect or cite the real observations and reports to show what is and isn't possible, and show what the sun actually does, before conclusions can be drawn.
You need to show, not tell, if you want public consensus on what should be changed.
-
Public consensus is that the earth is round anf that our current theories are correct.
-
In order for you to be a flat earther you have to think that a flat earth model is possible.
I do not, so I can't make you one.
You as a society are claiming it is possible, the onus is on you to make one.
There is no society. Haven't you been listening to what I have been saying? If there were meetings of the Flat Earth Society that talked about Flat Earth science, I would know about it. It's not you vs us. It's mostly just you here.
There was FE meet up just a few months ago. Didn’t you know about that? It was discussed on this site.
-
I don't understand how you can say that you don't know how many poles there are and that not bother you.
Why should it bother me? Our chief concern is whether the earth is flat. The Flat Earth experiments you usually see online are just testing the flatness of the earth.
So are you saying you're unsure of whether the earth is flat or not? I thought one of starting points of FET was the earth being flat is an obvious truth.
Also while I'm at it, if flat earth debates/discussions are just a past time for you all then where does the "promotion of the flat earth theory" come into play? How are you actively promoting something that you spend little time actually researching (other than regarding EnaG as irrefutable evidence) and expecting others to accept it? Unless you all don't really care about pushing the theory of flat earth since it's an obvious truth and whether or not anyone accepts that truth matters not.
I have to say I'm a little disappointed. I've been lurking here for a while trying to figure out what makes every FEr such firm believers in a theory that has yet to make any sense to me. But all I ever see from the FE side is denials, diversion tatics, baseless assumptions, and appeals to authorities who have no authority on the subject matter (Shaq anyone?). And any time effort is put forth to prove a flat earth or refute common round earth theories they are immediately debunked and the there's a attempt to stir the conversation in a completely different direction to avoid answering further questions.
I don't think I'll ever understand this theory, and after this admission it feels like I've wasted my time in trying to understand it.
-
There was FE meet up just a few months ago. Didn’t you know about that? It was discussed on this site.
Sure, that was the second organized meeting between this forum and the other .org forum in about 10 years. Dioysios personally organized it himself and gave a good presentation on the topic of Flat Earth History (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8976.0).
That doesn't mean that this is an organized or funded society, though. I'm just telling you guys how it is.
Also while I'm at it, if flat earth debates/discussions are just a past time for you all then where does the "promotion of the flat earth theory" come into play? How are you actively promoting something that you spend little time actually researching (other than regarding EnaG as irrefutable evidence) and expecting others to accept it? Unless you all don't really care about pushing the theory of flat earth since it's an obvious truth and whether or not anyone accepts that truth matters not.
I'm doing my part to promote it by logging on here every day for a little while and basically just telling you what Earth Not a Globe says, since you guys are so reluctant to read it yourselves.
I have to say I'm a little disappointed. I've been lurking here for a while trying to figure out what makes every FEr such firm believers in a theory that has yet to make any sense to me. But all I ever see from the FE side is denials, diversion tatics, baseless assumptions, and appeals to authorities who have no authority on the subject matter (Shaq anyone?). And any time effort is put forth to prove a flat earth or refute common round earth theories they are immediately debunked and the there's a attempt to stir the conversation in a completely different direction to avoid answering further questions.
I don't think I'll ever understand this theory, and after this admission it feels like I've wasted my time in trying to understand it.
If you are disappointed in whatever it is your are looking at then please either leave or help improve the quality yourself. You are a non-contributing presence.
-
Tom, i must say i am a bit disappointed, I was hoping for some real scientific debate, and exchange of views, and understanding of the reasons why some may believe in FE.
From your recent comments it appears that you are only here to further the EanG writings, with little attempt to engage otherwise.
Surely that is not contributing to the forum in any great way either is it? Repeating the work of an originally 16 page pamphlet? There were many written during that time, with other fanciful ideas.
Surely you must have some ideas of your own, or experiences that you can call upon to try to add something to the debate?
-
I believe that what I have been doing has been working. I have been logging in every day doing the same thing since 2007 when the old Flat Earth Society website first appeared online. I have almost 20,000 posts total, in which I am basically doing the same thing. It has attracted world wide attention. Those discussions created the Wiki and have inspired people to look into it themselves.
The Flat Earth Society isn't any bigger (since we are not really organized and don't have real membership). But the world-wide Flat Earth movement is. All of the Flat Earth Youtube channels are based on our initial efforts. It would be nice to bring them all under one umbrella and create a real organization, instead of this flimsy one, but that would take leadership and effort. I only have a limited amount of time.
-
There was equinox nearly ten days ago.
How much would it cost to roughly measure azimuth of sunrise and sunset and compare values with what would be seen on Flat Earth?
Not so easy to compare, for emotional reasons.
http://i63.tinypic.com/2zspc87.png
What Flat Earth?
The one with the Sun too close to be seen from all locations under same angle.
Was there ever any Flat Earth model with Sun far enough?
Which one would that be?
There is NO model. No research has ever been put into a model. We don't know how many poles there are, or what the continental layout looks like. We only have preliminary research on a model that was completed 150 years ago.
Exactly.
People tried, saw there was too many discrepancies, and ceased futile attempts.
Globe model has those and other answers.
EDIT: We do know the configuration of longitudes, and places on them.
We know it from reality, not from model.
Places having solar noon at the same time are surely at the same longitude.
Latitude measurement is not disputed in any model, Flat of Globe.
-
The one with the Sun too close to be seen from all locations under same angle.
Was there ever any Flat Earth model with Sun far enough?
Which one would that be?
Read Earth Not a Globe for the mechanism of the sun's descent. Youtube author p-brane describes the same mechanism here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
We do know the configuration of longitudes, and places on them.
We know it from reality, not from model.
Places having solar noon at the same time are surely at the same longitude.
Latitude measurement is not disputed in any model, Flat of Globe.
I question it. Where can those observations be found?
-
The one with the Sun too close to be seen from all locations under same angle.
Was there ever any Flat Earth model with Sun far enough?
Which one would that be?
Read Earth Not a Globe for the mechanism of the sun's descent. Youtube author p-brane describes the same mechanism here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
We do know the configuration of longitudes, and places on them.
We know it from reality, not from model.
Places having solar noon at the same time are surely at the same longitude.
Latitude measurement is not disputed in any model, Flat of Globe.
I question it. Where can those observations be found?
Look it up!
As asked before, do you have any issues with the WGS-84 model?
-
The one with the Sun too close to be seen from all locations under same angle.
Was there ever any Flat Earth model with Sun far enough?
Which one would that be?
Read Earth Not a Globe for the mechanism of the sun's descent. Youtube author p-brane describes the same mechanism here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
Good example of using partly his version of perspective where needed and discarding the same perspective where it exposes him.
He is showing how gap under the sun shrinks with distance and sweeping under the carpet the fact that the Sun doesn't shrink together with the gap.
Which mechanism filters out part of the image (having Sun in it) while shrinks only the other part (having the gap in it)?
Also, was he the one saying "after vanishing point lines diverge"? LOOOL
We do know the configuration of longitudes, and places on them.
We know it from reality, not from model.
Places having solar noon at the same time are surely at the same longitude.
Latitude measurement is not disputed in any model, Flat of Globe.
I question it. Where can those observations be found?
All around us.
For longitudes see the Flat Earth explanation of Time Zones.
For latitudes, see the same distances from Polaris (places with same latitudes have same Polaris elevation).
Polaris, and stars in general, had much more attention 200 years ago without this much light pollution.
-
Not sure how to put an image in the post, so have attached it.
If the earth is flat the sun can never go below the horizon, just disappear due to perspective as Tom would say.
If that is the case why am i able to take a picture of the sun half below the horizon? This was at sunrise last week, in Australia, with the sun bearing North East.
Refraction is towards the horizon, so in fact the sun is actually below the horizon.
For nautical calculations the sun is said to be on the horizon when the Center is on the horizon. Taking into account dip and refraction that is when the sun has it lower limb at 1/2 its diameter above the horizon.
-
Not sure how to put an image in the post, so have attached it.
I hope this explanation can help:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8805.msg145894#msg145894 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8805.msg145894#msg145894)
-
Read Earth Not a Globe for the mechanism of the sun's descent. Youtube author p-brane describes the same mechanism here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
I've dealt with this in this thread, which you ignored.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.msg140039;topicseen#msg140039
One key thing to note from my post in that thread is how you use perspective here (wrongly) to explain sunset but ignore it when reinterpreting the stick experiment to show a close sun.
You can't have it both ways.
I've suggested a simple experiment you could do in your home which would cost approximately 0$ - so all of your annual budget, but I'm sure you'll agree that it will be worth it - to verify what I've said about shadows. You ignored that too. I've also suggested an experiment you could do to verify the distance to the sun and you've ignored that too. This is a key part of your theory, if the sun is distant then it would show your interpretation of the stick experiment wrong, it's strange then that you refuse to do any empirical experiments to test that.
-
You should put that on your home page :D
The point is that no one is here to research for you. We are not funded or organized for that.
No one is demanding that you do any specific research. I have suggested some things you could do, others have too.
If you don't follow up on any of those then so be it but it's hard to take seriously someone writing a chapter on "the importance of Empiricism" who seems to refuse to do any empirical measurements at all.
We have free, global communications these days. All you'd need to do is get some people to take some observations and measurements of the sun in different places, if the sun is circling (it isn't) a flat plane (it isn't) then that would start to give you some idea of where places are.
Its you and the entire world across all platforms, websites, and media sources demanding experiments of every type. It's just not going to happen unless you make it happen. I'm just here for a little while every day as an act of service and education.
Its already been done Tom, the globe has been mapped for many years and continues to be made more accurate. You need to just admit it's not possible to come up with a flat map that accounts for know travel times and distances.
-
I've dealt with this in this thread, which you ignored.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.msg140039;topicseen#msg140039
One key thing to note from my post in that thread is how you use perspective here (wrongly) to explain sunset but ignore it when reinterpreting the stick experiment to show a close sun.
You can't have it both ways.
I've suggested a simple experiment you could do in your home which would cost approximately 0$ - so all of your annual budget, but I'm sure you'll agree that it will be worth it - to verify what I've said about shadows. You ignored that too. I've also suggested an experiment you could do to verify the distance to the sun and you've ignored that too. This is a key part of your theory, if the sun is distant then it would show your interpretation of the stick experiment wrong, it's strange then that you refuse to do any empirical experiments to test that.
Your rebuttal seems to be "how does the sun setting to perspective explain long shadows at sunset". The answer to this query is that the horizon is at 90 degrees from zenith, parallel to the observer. If perspective puts the sun at the horizon, then the photons are illuminating the observer and sticks from 90 degrees, and will therefore create long shadows.
Its already been done Tom, the globe has been mapped for many years and continues to be made more accurate. You need to just admit it's not possible to come up with a flat map that accounts for know travel times and distances.
You need to show that all distances are accurate, not just tell us.
When we looked at the transatlantic cable journal logs, they admitted that the laid cable was over 15% longer than expected by spherical coordinates.
Once many world wide distances are verified, it will be possible to start creating a map and model. Nothing can be done until we have all information.
-
I've dealt with this in this thread, which you ignored.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.msg140039;topicseen#msg140039
One key thing to note from my post in that thread is how you use perspective here (wrongly) to explain sunset but ignore it when reinterpreting the stick experiment to show a close sun.
You can't have it both ways.
I've suggested a simple experiment you could do in your home which would cost approximately 0$ - so all of your annual budget, but I'm sure you'll agree that it will be worth it - to verify what I've said about shadows. You ignored that too. I've also suggested an experiment you could do to verify the distance to the sun and you've ignored that too. This is a key part of your theory, if the sun is distant then it would show your interpretation of the stick experiment wrong, it's strange then that you refuse to do any empirical experiments to test that.
Your rebuttal seems to be "how does the sun setting to perspective explain long shadows at sunset". The answer to this query is that the horizon is at 90 degrees from zenith, parallel to the observer. If perspective puts the sun at the horizon, then the photons are illuminating the observer and sticks from 90 degrees, and will therefore create long shadows.
Its already been done Tom, the globe has been mapped for many years and continues to be made more accurate. You need to just admit it's not possible to come up with a flat map that accounts for know travel times and distances.
You need to show that all distances are accurate, not just tell us.
When we looked at the transatlantic cable journal logs, they admitted that the laid cable was over 15% longer than expected by spherical coordinates.
Once many world wide distances are verified, it will be possible to start creating a map and model. Nothing can be done until we have all information.
Tom, this is just a leisure activity for us. We don't have the funding to get the data you want.
15% over? Man, it's almost like the ocean floor isn't completely flat. ::)
-
You need to show that all distances are accurate, not just tell us.
When we looked at the transatlantic cable journal logs, they admitted that the laid cable was over 15% longer than expected by spherical coordinates.
Once many world wide distances are verified, it will be possible to start creating a map and model. Nothing can be done until we have all information.
You keep saying this, but it was clear that you misinterpreted the excerpts provided.
-
If perspective puts the sun at the horizon, then the photons are illuminating the observer and sticks from 90 degrees, and will therefore create long shadows.
Cool. Can you show a diagram indicating how photons can travel in a straight line from a sun 3000 miles above the plane of the earth and arrive at my eye horizontally so the sun appears on the horizon and casts long shadows.
Thanks.
-
You need to show that all distances are accurate, not just tell us.
When we looked at the transatlantic cable journal logs, they admitted that the laid cable was over 15% longer than expected by spherical coordinates.
Once many world wide distances are verified, it will be possible to start creating a map and model. Nothing can be done until we have all information.
I don't have to show anything beyond the commonly known data. I know that when I get on Boeing 787 leaving Austin direct to London and magically the plane arrives within a few minutes of scheduled time.
We have all heard your silly nonsense about distances, airlines not knowing how fast a plane is, how much fuel it needs, how long to get somewhere. Stop being ridiculous and try to have an adult debate.
-
If perspective puts the sun at the horizon, then the photons are illuminating the observer and sticks from 90 degrees, and will therefore create long shadows.
Cool. Can you show a diagram indicating how photons can travel in a straight line from a sun 3000 miles above the plane of the earth and arrive at my eye horizontally so the sun appears on the horizon and casts long shadows.
Thanks.
There are diagrams of the sun intersecting with the horizon in the p-brane video.
-
I've dealt with this in this thread, which you ignored.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.msg140039;topicseen#msg140039
One key thing to note from my post in that thread is how you use perspective here (wrongly) to explain sunset but ignore it when reinterpreting the stick experiment to show a close sun.
You can't have it both ways.
I've suggested a simple experiment you could do in your home which would cost approximately 0$ - so all of your annual budget, but I'm sure you'll agree that it will be worth it - to verify what I've said about shadows. You ignored that too. I've also suggested an experiment you could do to verify the distance to the sun and you've ignored that too. This is a key part of your theory, if the sun is distant then it would show your interpretation of the stick experiment wrong, it's strange then that you refuse to do any empirical experiments to test that.
Your rebuttal seems to be "how does the sun setting to perspective explain long shadows at sunset". The answer to this query is that the horizon is at 90 degrees from zenith, parallel to the observer. If perspective puts the sun at the horizon, then the photons are illuminating the observer and sticks from 90 degrees, and will therefore create long shadows.
Its already been done Tom, the globe has been mapped for many years and continues to be made more accurate. You need to just admit it's not possible to come up with a flat map that accounts for know travel times and distances.
You need to show that all distances are accurate, not just tell us.
When we looked at the transatlantic cable journal logs, they admitted that the laid cable was over 15% longer than expected by spherical coordinates.
Once many world wide distances are verified, it will be possible to start creating a map and model. Nothing can be done until we have all information.
Have you seen a chart of the ocean floor?
It is made up of valleys and mountains flat areas, and a whole lot of other features.
Do you really think the ocean is a few metres deep across the whole expanse, flat as a pancake and uniform?
I can tell you with certainty that the distance from Lands End (Bishop Rock) UK to New York is 2,933 miles, across the surface of the water. I know, I have made this voyage, at a certain speed, and guess what? It took me the calculated estimated time to arrive there. I know how fast i was travelling, because we have machines that tell us, they are called speed logs, and are accurate.
When you tell me that cable companies have used extra cable length, you can of course provide proof, its your claim, prove it. I want evidence, testimony and logs. You cannot just make wild claims like that without backing it up.
What is the coefficient of expansion for an underwater cable per degree of temperature? Do you know? What type of cable, Fibre optic? Electrical cable? Telephone cable? What was the water temp? What was the method of measuring the length of the cable? When were these cables laid? Telegraph cables from Victorian times perhaps?All things you will no doubt have to hand to substantiate your claims. I looms forward to seeing your evidence.
-
If perspective puts the sun at the horizon, then the photons are illuminating the observer and sticks from 90 degrees, and will therefore create long shadows.
Cool. Can you show a diagram indicating how photons can travel in a straight line from a sun 3000 miles above the plane of the earth and arrive at my eye horizontally so the sun appears on the horizon and casts long shadows.
Thanks.
There are diagrams of the sun intersecting with the horizon in the p-brane video.
He doesn't say how far it would have to intersect if the Sun'r trajectory was parallel to ground.
But we can calculate for him:
In most common flat model the height of Sun (gap between Sun and ground) is 5005 km.
To make it disappear from human eye it has to reduce to one arc minute (0.0167 degrees).
It would happen at the distance of 5005 / tan(0.0167) = 17 171 578.94 km.
We all know (and can verify any time) that angular speed of Sun is 15 degrees per hour.
We also know that it is constant from any observation point, making it impossible to create model where Sun has variable speed.
If the Sun is constantly at 5005 km above ground, then same length segments of Sun's trajectory will have different angular lengths seen from different angles.
One hour of Sun's movement will cover 15 degrees at noon above our heads and only 5 degrees some distance away at 5 pm.
P-brane pretends that such change in angular speed wouldn't exist, hoping nobody will ask.
Sao Gabriel de Cachoeira, Brazil, place directly on Equator.
Equinox, Sun directly overhead.
At 30 minutes before solar noon Sun is 7.5 degrees to the east.
It is 5005 * tan(7.5) = 658.92 km east of zenith.
At 30 minutes after solar noon Sun is 658.92 km west of zenith.
It makes it 1317.84 km/h.
Was Sun travelling faster/slower this morning?
Will Sun travel faster/slower this afternoon?
More or less than those 1317.84 km/h?
Ok, if not, then from 6:30am to 7:30am Sun swept 5.537 degrees across the sky, and from 6:30pm to 7:30pm will sweep 3.44 degrees.
We can go out and measure angular speed of Sun at 7 am and 7 pm.
If we care to be "zetetic" (inquisitive).
Don't tell me you couldn't see this for yourself?
(http://i65.tinypic.com/rub6sx.png)
-
If perspective puts the sun at the horizon, then the photons are illuminating the observer and sticks from 90 degrees, and will therefore create long shadows.
Cool. Can you show a diagram indicating how photons can travel in a straight line from a sun 3000 miles above the plane of the earth and arrive at my eye horizontally so the sun appears on the horizon and casts long shadows.
Thanks.
There are diagrams of the sun intersecting with the horizon in the p-brane video.
OK. But it only appears to because of perspective, yes? In reality it is 3000 miles above the plane of the surface.
I'm struggling to understand how a ray of light from 3000 miles above the earth can travel in a straight line and end up coming at me horizontally and therefore parallel to the ground, which it has to in order to cast the long shadows.
To understand why this is impossible you only need to think what parallel means, if I shoot a missile at the sun at sunset, the bullet is 4 foot off the ground and I fire it perfectly parallel to the ground, where the sun appears to be, then (assuming the missile doesn't lose any height) the missile will stay 4 feet off the ground.
How then can it hit an object 3000 miles high?
Some diagrams would be helpful to help me understand. Thanks.
-
If perspective puts the sun at the horizon, then the photons are illuminating the observer and sticks from 90 degrees, and will therefore create long shadows.
Cool. Can you show a diagram indicating how photons can travel in a straight line from a sun 3000 miles above the plane of the earth and arrive at my eye horizontally so the sun appears on the horizon and casts long shadows.
Thanks.
There are diagrams of the sun intersecting with the horizon in the p-brane video.
You are using your own meaning for the word perspective which makes zero sense. I see the sun set in the west, what does someone 1000 miles west of me see at the same time?
-
Perspective is like the thought experiment of a frog trying to cross a river. It is able to jump half the distance to the bank each time. First jump is half the river width... Next jump is quarter the river width etc... How many jumps does he have to take to reach the other side?
Answer: he will never reach the other side. When he's really really really close, he jumps half that distance...
This is how perspective works. When a road gets narrower in the distance, and it forms angled lines towards a vanishing point, think of the two sides of the road. They get closer together, like the frog gets closer to the shore, but the never meet. The eye might think they have, but they haven't. They just keep jumping at the shore. As they get further away, the angle to your eye decreases, until it's really really close to zero degrees.... But it can never be zero. Similarly, the angle between the ground and your eye gets closer and closer to zero, but it can never reach zero... So the horizon "rises" to eye level but it never actually makes it... It just gets really really close so it looks like it does.
P Brane draws a perspective line from a side view which doesn't make any sense. He chooses an arbitrary vanishing point for where the sun sets in front of a viewer and draws a like: a vanishing point is entirely imaginary. It is the bank that the frog will never reach. The angle between the horizon and the sun, and the angle from the top to the bottom of the sun, gets smaller and smaller as it goes away from you but nothing ever vanishes, it's just too small to see. A grain of sand on the moon has not vanished has it? It's too small for me to see but it still hasn't reached a vanishing point. Drawing perspective lines from the side is not sensible. One of these days I'll get around to drawing how perspective ACTUALLY works I.e. How you can accurately draw and therefore model exactly where an object appears in your field of vision, and why, including how you can calculate it, and actually replicate in a drawing exactly what you see from your eye or a camera. Drawing a diagonal line on a side view is a falsity.
-
Tom, this is just a leisure activity for us. We don't have the funding to get the data you want.
15% over? Man, it's almost like the ocean floor isn't completely flat. ::)
The effort required to verify that distances were correct would be enormous. We'd have to schedule literally tens of thousands of flights going back and forth and ensure that the time and speed estimates consistently matched with the distances... oh, wait, we've done that.
So there's actually no possible way to measure distances that would satisfy FE proponents. The detailed maps of the entire inhabited world which are used every second of the day to allow people to seamlessly move around the globe - they aren't real evidence of anything at all.