4221

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Math, and what you should see, shall the Earth be round

« on: April 05, 2018, 09:57:59 PM »

That link is giving me a 404.
Compelling evidence as always.

4222

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Radii of Certain Circles of Latitude

« on: April 05, 2018, 09:56:47 PM »

Is something as simple as measuring the angle of the sun from different locations at different times to start producing a model of the shape of the earth beyond your ability?

We dispute your ideas about how perspective works.

Really? But in this diagram from your Wiki you take no account of perspective.
Correctly, as it happens, so when it suits your argument you do understand how perspective works in the real world:



If you're going to use that argument and that diagram explaining that argument then you can do the experiment which has been suggested to you.

You are not helping when you keep coming up with tests that depend on those Ancient Greek assumptions. You are not working with me, you are working against me. That's where the problem is.

You made a claim the other day about the horizon always being at eye level. A claim which is not true.
The best you could come up with as evidence was a video from a drone which you admitted was not stabilised and thus useless to testing that claim.
You were shown a video of an experiment which clearly showed your claim to be incorrect, an experiment you could repeat at minimal cost.
That test is nothing to do with perspective. It's a simple thing you could do to test part of your theory.

You are making all kinds of assertions based on Rowbotham's writings.
You claim to be an empiricist but you have taken no empirical measurements on anything.

4223

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 05, 2018, 06:13:33 PM »

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.

4224

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 05, 2018, 08:26:55 AM »

Read Earth Not a Globe for the mechanism of the sun's descent. Youtube author p-brane describes the same mechanism here:

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.

4225

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 04, 2018, 08:22:13 PM »

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.

4226

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 04, 2018, 08:02:12 PM »

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.

4227

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 04, 2018, 07:39:08 PM »

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.

4228

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal-ish Acceleration

« on: April 04, 2018, 07:02:49 PM »

Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.

Why doesn't it make all the planets and sun and moon fall on us then?

4229

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 04, 2018, 07:00:31 PM »

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 

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."

4230

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Radii of Certain Circles of Latitude

« on: April 04, 2018, 05:23:13 PM »

If you are looking for a well funded and organized organization that studies the shape of the earth you will be disapointed. I think you do not realize that this entire thing is based on a few people who individually contribute their time to think about it on what little free time they have away from their work.

But even when you're shown simple experiments which would cost you do virtually nothing to do you refuse to do them.
Stop making excuses. There's plenty you could be doing. What ARE you doing to test your models and theories?

4231

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: April 04, 2018, 11:59:25 AM »

Treep, the sinking ship effect is covered in ENaG. Please familiarise yourself with the theory you're trying to satirise.

It is, but his explanation isn't borne out by reality. He mixes up a ship which is a long way away and you can't distinguish a dark hull from a dark sea (yes, that can be seen by optical zoom but it isn't "restored", it wasn't hidden in the first place) and a ship which is actually going over the curve of the earth and only the top can be seen (no amount of zoom will restore it, you can find plenty of photos and video which clearly demonstrate this effect.

On a flat earth as a ship sails away you should be able to see all of it at all times:



But don't worry, there is a shape of earth which could actually explain why a ship disappears hull first...



Ta-daa!

I know there is some muttering about "waves", I've dealt with that in another thread.

4232

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: April 04, 2018, 11:42:58 AM »

Come (3), every satellite dish in the land points South, without exception. Even those on the south coast of the land.

Point of note; If this was being done from land-based transmitters, then it's clearly not being done from the existing transmitter network that took decades to build across the land. Satellite TV was, in practical terms, available overnight from the launch date, with no apparent construction of a new transmitter network, and, in marked contrast to the previous systems, no need to point dishes at either high ground, nor at the nearest local transmitter.   

And just to reiterate, on a recent trip to Sri Lanka which is significantly closer to the equator than the UK I noticed that the satellite dishes were pointed up at a significantly steeper angle than those in the UK. They're pointing at something. The something is in the sky. Anyone who has knocked their dish will know how precisely they have to be aimed.
So there is something up there...

4233

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Moon Landing.

« on: April 03, 2018, 08:22:29 PM »

FFS! It pretty much was a regular flag. The only difference is it was fixed to a rod along the top so it stayed upright rather than hanging limp as it would have done otherwise because of the lack of atmosphere.

4234

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: April 03, 2018, 01:18:23 PM »

The Flat Earth movement does produce "simple experiments" of the kind with zero budget. Have you seen Youtube lately?

There's all kinds of crazy stuff on YouTube. How am I to know which experiments you would stand behind so I can comment?
Do you have an official YouTube channel? If so then please post the link and I'll have a look.
In the thread in which we were discussing horizon dip the video you produced had no measurements, it was by your own admission not stabilised video, it was completely useless in terms of determining whether you claim that the horizon is always at eye level is true.
(Spoiler alert: it isn't true, and wouldn't been true even if we were living on a flat earth. I've already produced a diagram explaining why)
If that's your idea of a controlled experiment then I can understand why you're getting things so wrong. As someone else said, it's as valid as measuring wind speed by wetting your finger in the air and holding it up to the wind - fine for determining the difference between "gosh, it's very windy" and "it's very calm", utterly useless for a precise measurement which is what is needed when the horizon dip angle is only 1 or 2 degrees at normal heights.

Why are you here if this is nonsense? Do you also have a presence on unicorn websites telling people that unicorns are not real?

You're the guys trying to publicise the "truth" of the flat earth and seeking publicity. That is what has brought you to my attention.
I lurked here for a while, amused and bemused at the stupidity of some of the arguments you and other flat earthers were making.
In the end I decided to dive in and join in the discussion rather than shaking my head from the sidelines.
I'm mostly here for my own entertainment, I suspect you are too and I'm not convinced you really believe a lot of this stuff.
But also if there are other lurkers out there who are on the fence and I and other round earthers can show how detached from reality you are there I think there's some value in that, I do think the truth is important.

4235

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.

« on: April 03, 2018, 11:45:16 AM »

TBF the two claims are effectively equivalent.

They're similar but not equivalent. The FE claim is that the horizon is always at eye level.
It isn't, the dip to the horizon is measurable at different altitudes and changes with altitude.
The confusion here is that even at 10000 feet the angle of dip is less than 2 degrees because the earth is so big.
So it is hard to discern but it can be measured.
An experiment to do so has been shown, for people who claim to be empiricists they are amazingly reluctant to do any experimentation.

4236

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: so - I don't understand pictures of people parachuting . . .

« on: April 03, 2018, 11:34:26 AM »

If you can't see the earth's curve from a commercial plane you're unlikely to be able to do so while parachuting which, unless you're Felix Baumgartner, is from a significantly lower altitude.

4237

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.

« on: April 03, 2018, 08:32:34 AM »

I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea.

Actually, your original claim was

The horizon is always at eye level.

Your video doesn't support that at all. You admitted yourself that the video is:

from an unstabilized drone which might tilt up or down when moving vertically.

And therefore useless for demonstrating that original claim.
You have been shown an experiment which clearly shows that the horizon is NOT always at eye level, an experiment you can easily repeat with minimal cost.
You're an empiricist (allegedly), why not repeat the experiment? Or devise your own if you think that experiment is not valid for some reason.
We await the results...although we know we won't get any, because you know we are correct. 

The stupidest thing about all this is the horizon would dip on a flat earth too, my diagram in the initial post shows this clearly.
But you're so unwilling to concede any ground in any debate that you won't admit this even though it doesn't actually debunk the idea of a flat earth.
Which just reinforces the idea that you're actually just trolling and enjoy trying to argue indefensible positions for the fun of it.

4238

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: April 02, 2018, 09:22:03 PM »

Go beg Rocket Guy for some experiments then. We have an annual budget of $0. Zero. Nothing.

You don't need a "budget" to do simple experiments. When you were making ridiculous claims about shadows I did some experiments to show you were wrong. I didn't have a "budget", I just used a lamp and some string and a Rubik's cube, I just used things lying round my house. I've drawn diagrams to show you wrong about other things - again, I didn't need a budget, just some time and a simple paint package. I outlined some experiments you could do on shadows, literally all you'd need is an object to cast the shadow, a torch (flashlight, for you Americans) and a dark room. You don't need sponsorship to fund that.
Literally yesterday you were shown an experiment you could do to measure horizon dip. The equipment needed would cost a few dollars at a hardware store, you don't need a "budget".
You claim to be an empiricist, you're writing a chapter on "The importance of empiricism" and you have done no empirical measurements on anything so far as I can tell, even when you're spoon fed some ideas for experiments which would cost you pretty much nothing and would test part of your theories.
Some empiricist you are.

We rely on our users to contribute 100% of all content.

Well they're doing a splendid job. Pretty much every thread on here is round earthers showing what a load of nonsense your model of a flat earth is. In some there is no flat earth response, in others you and a few trolls flounder around trying to argue, generally try and derail the topic and then run away when you're shown to be wrong. You then retreat to your flat earth Batcave (The Flatcave?) and claim you won the argument.

We invited you to our potluck and you are the guy who came empty handed and just sits around complaining about the food other people brought.

No, we're the guys who brought the steak and chips to your pot luck supper which before we arrived consisted of some mouldy sandwiches.
You're the guys pretending our juicy steak is horrible and you much prefer your lovely mouldy sandwiches which are way better than our crummy old steak.

4239

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.

« on: April 02, 2018, 06:14:14 PM »

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

Unless it's from Rowbotham of course in which case him saying "this is what I saw" is cast-iron proof. No data required. 
How are your empirical measurements of horizon dip coming along? You're am empiricist so I'm sure you're keen to get going on that.
You've been given a suggested experiment to try, or you can devise your own.
Looking forward to seeing you studies and data...

4240

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Waves, Dimes and Elephants.

« on: April 02, 2018, 12:49:38 PM »

And yet... it seems that the people actually doing this experiment, and reporting it, and most importantly, telling other people to try it aren't FE advocates. Why is that? I mean, if it's true that the horizon is always at eye level, and that this proves Flat Earth to be true, then surely...

It is telling that they are so reluctant to try experiments. I guess at some level they know they're wrong. Or maybe they're just trolling. I note Tom has departed the thread as he so often does when shown up, the interesting thing is he probably thinks he won the debate. Again, I suspect he's just a troll and doesn't really believe any of this.

The particularly stupid thing about this example is that a horizon dip does not prove a globe earth
I showed in my diagram at the start of this thread that there would be a horizon dip on a flat earth too.
It's a right angled triangle - the ground is the base, the vertical side is from the ground to your eye and the hypotenuse is from your eye to the part of the ground which is the limit of your vision. We all agree this is finite so it has to be a triangle, there will be a horizon dip.

The difference is because we know the size of the globe earth we can calculate the dip angle at different altitudes and then check that experimentally. Maybe that is why they are so reluctant to experiment on this because they know it would prove the globe earth - not because of a dip, that would occur either way, but because the angle of the dip would match round earth predictions.