1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Does light naturally travel in curved paths?

« on: December 27, 2024, 02:43:59 AM »

any point made about it only happening when one photon acts upon another or a photon acting upon itself, is fairly irrelevant.

It doesn’t only happen with one photon. That’s not what I said. It’s the fact it STILL happens with one photon at a time which is the weird thing, and that it stops happening if you observe which slit the photon goes through

Light travels in curved paths.

Incorrect. The interference pattern only happens because of the slits and the wave behaviour of light when going through small apertures.

I noticed that as a kid with bad eyesight. I discovered that if I looked through a pin-prick hole in a piece of paper, it brought things into focus.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 29, 2024, 11:46:10 PM »

If you take a compass and draw a circle on a sphere you are correct the higher you are above the center point, the farther away the horizon will be ...... What you would see above a sphere could be different than what you would see above a flat disk. (Snipped to highlight salient point.)

The higher you go from the surface of a sphere, the greater will be the distance to the horizon, BUT that horizon will ALWAYS be the same distance away in every direction. In other words, you will always be at the center of that visible circle.

However, if you elevate yourself above a flat circle such that you could see the entire edge, the distance to the edge would vary unless you were in the center.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 29, 2024, 12:21:39 PM »

As for the pictures out of the window of an airplane...The solution is to take a series of pictures.  Start at something like 10,000 feet and then 20,000 and so on up to the max cruising altitude.  Then you can compare all the pictures when you get home.  If there's a little more curvature in the max altitude picture than the one at 10,000 feet you can use that for your proof and the aircraft window factor would be compensated for.  It would be difficult to conclusively show much curvature below 40 or 50 thousand feet.  Most airliners don't usually get that high very often.  There are pictures out there from military aircraft that do show curvature, but they don't usually show the series of pictures and that gives the flat earthers a little wiggle room and they shout, 'aircraft window distortion every time'.

Good starting point Ron, but 2 considerations;

1.  You'd need a mechanism to ensure that your camera is in precisely the same position and centre-of-image for each exposure, and ensure that your camera (phone, whatever) is using precisely the same focal length. 

2.  The focal length of the aircraft window is not constant.  If you've never seen an aircraft undergoing a pressurisation test on the ground, you'd be surprised at how much the windows bulge and distort.  The higher the pressure differential, the greater the distortion. 

And just another point on Everette's suggestion about the shape of the wing as a reference.  It's a non-starter.  There is no way that a passenger (or even the pilot, for that matter) can know the present curvature of the wing.  The wing is constantly flexing due to normal acceleration ("g") and as the auto flight control system moves the ailerons and spoilers for gust alleviation.

You're answering as though it's possible to determine if the earth is round based on the OP. It isn't. The 'curvature' is simply the arc that is described around a center point. Put a compass (not the type that points north, but the geometry tool used to draw circles) on a globe and use it to draw a circle. That circle represents the distance to the horizon from the center of the circle. The higher you are above the center point, the farther away the horizon is, but it will always have the same feature, which is that it's an arc - and that is what you see when you see 'curvature'.

Nobody on this forum seems to understand that - be they an RE'er or an FE'er.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 29, 2024, 04:51:26 AM »

Hello,

Although I'm a fellow roundy, such photos do not prove that the earth is a ball. If the earth were flat and round (like a circular throw rug), your picture would look the same.

To see what I mean, take a basketball and a picture of a basketball and have someone hold them up. The profile will look the same.

Thanks, but I don’t really understand how your basketball analogy makes much sense here. On a flat, circular plane, as you get to higher altitudes, you wouldn’t see a consistent curve everywhere you look. You’d start to see the edges of the disc coming into view, which would create an outward-curving effect, maybe even elliptical distortion as you looked toward the edge. At high enough altitudes, you’d essentially be looking at the entire flat circle from above—basic geometry. My photo shows you a clear downward curvature that is perfectly consistent with a spherical Earth. It matched the predictions for Earth on the Walter Bislin tool when I typed in the altitude and FOV. It’s not just a visual artifact. I’m sorry, but if the Earth were flat, the measurements and my curvature here simply wouldn’t align with reality. And I think your basketball analogy is problematic because basketballs are 3D spheres, so naturally, their profile will always show consistent curvature. But if you compare this to your throw rug and view it from any angle other than directly above, you’ll notice that the curvature rate doesn’t behave the same way. The rate of curvature would change depending on where you were and how you were looking at it. It doesn’t curve downward and uniformly like the horizon in my photo. A flat surface, or even a circular one, cannot produce the consistent, measurable curvature I have here. If the Earth were flat, you would need to explain why this curvature is visible at all and why it aligns so precisely with spherical models. Sorry if I misunderstood anything you were saying, please correct me if I did. The way I interpreted your response didn’t quite add up.

Let's try a different tack.

• If you have a globe, take a bowl, turn it upsidedown, and place it on the globe such that the rim touches the globe all the way around.
• Get a marker and describe a perfect circle around the rim of the bowl.
• Remove the bowl.
• Place a micoscopic person (keeping things to scale as if a real person were on the globe) at the center of the circle.
• Levitate the little person until they're high enough to see the circle, but not beyond it.
• Rotate him/her 360 degrees (but not too fast, or they'll get dizzy).
• What they will see is the circle on the globe (but not beyond it) at every angle.
• Once you get that image in mind, you will realize that that is what you saw at 33,000 feet, except you were unable to see it all 360 degrees.

Let me know what you think if you actually give this a good long think.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 27, 2024, 06:58:34 AM »

Hello,

Although I'm a fellow roundy, such photos do not prove that the earth is a ball. If the earth were flat and round (like a circular throw rug), your picture would look the same.

To see what I mean, take a basketball and a picture of a basketball and have someone hold them up. The profile will look the same.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I am wondering why I do not see...

« on: April 13, 2024, 10:21:32 AM »

Why is the Moon's shadow at the time of the Total Solar Eclipse placed elsewhere other than the plane of the ecliptic upon the earth? The time of the Total Eclipse should be where the Moon intersects the Sun on the Ecliptic.

The "Path of Totality", where the Moon completely completely covers the Sun in Total Solar Eclipse, and the point where the Moon crosses the Ecliptic in the sky to the observer, is often visible to observers from a very odd shape upon the Earth. All of the observers on this darkened path see the Moon completely covering the sun in complete totality:

https://www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/2024-total-solar-eclipse-guide

If you plot that path on an actual globe, you will see it's a perfect RE-based arc (in 3D that is). If you look at that line straight on, it will be straight, and in perfect sync with RE theory.

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I am wondering why I do not see...

« on: April 09, 2024, 11:03:26 PM »

Saw it today. Transcendent experience, I'm so glad I traveled to Texas to see it. I don't think it really proves anything about the shape of the Earth, but it's definitely a potent reminder of how awe-inspiring (and, dare I say, magical) the universe can be.

It could be used to create a juxtapostion map between moon and sun to be superimposed on a FE map to see if it makes sense. RE explains it perfectly. Can a FE model be created that does so?

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Islamic veil debate.

« on: October 07, 2022, 07:50:37 PM »

Hamza told a male audience in Sydney: 'Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?'

He added that wives must immediately respond to their husbands' sexual demands.

That comes from verse 2:223, "Yusuf Ali: Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will".

Consent not required per Allah.

So men can legally rape women?
Fuck Islam, fuck religions, and fuck you.

I'm with you on 2 out of 3, but what's your problem with me? Do you think I'm endorsing marital rape?

For a sec I thought you were spreading terrorism on this forum like a guy on the other forum.
Sorry about that.
STOP PROMOTING TERRORISM.

I'm not promoting it. I'm showing where Muslims get this crap from so you'll be informed.

I'm saying that to people who are promoting it.

Okay. All good.

I gotta say that they saw what Mohammad (piss be upon him) was doing with little girls and thought "hey, we should legalize child rape and pedophilia".

The sad fact is that if Mohamed did it, then it's already defacto legalized.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Islamic veil debate.

« on: October 07, 2022, 07:43:09 PM »

Hamza told a male audience in Sydney: 'Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?'

He added that wives must immediately respond to their husbands' sexual demands.

That comes from verse 2:223, "Yusuf Ali: Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will".

Consent not required per Allah.

So men can legally rape women?
Fuck Islam, fuck religions, and fuck you.

I'm with you on 2 out of 3, but what's your problem with me? Do you think I'm endorsing marital rape?

For a sec I thought you were spreading terrorism on this forum like a guy on the other forum.
Sorry about that.
STOP PROMOTING TERRORISM.

I'm not promoting it. I'm showing where Muslims get this crap from so you'll be informed.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Islamic veil debate.

« on: October 07, 2022, 07:39:43 PM »

Hamza told a male audience in Sydney: 'Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?'

He added that wives must immediately respond to their husbands' sexual demands.

That comes from verse 2:223, "Yusuf Ali: Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will".

Consent not required per Allah.

So men can legally rape women?
Fuck Islam, fuck religions, and fuck you.

I'm with you on 2 out of 3, but what's your problem with me? Do you think I'm endorsing marital rape?

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Islamic veil debate.

« on: October 07, 2022, 07:33:59 PM »

Hamza told a male audience in Sydney: 'Amazing, how can a person rape his wife?'

He added that wives must immediately respond to their husbands' sexual demands.

That comes from verse 2:223, "Yusuf Ali: Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will".

Consent not required per Allah.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Islamic veil debate.

« on: October 07, 2022, 06:44:18 PM »

Imagine basing societal decisions on an ancient text written by a child raping warlord.

.... as is done is several Islamic theocracies.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The Islamic veil debate.

« on: October 07, 2022, 06:07:02 PM »

The death of Mahsa Amini in Iran and resulting demonstrations have people yet again debating what the Qur'an says about veiling. I had a closer look at two verses on the subject, and although a less ambiguous directive from Allah would have saved a lot of uncertainty, it looks to me as though the Qur'an does indeed encourage full-body covering, as opposed to merely 'modest' dress.

The word for word translation of verse 33:59 (The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran) says that believing woman should "draw over themselves their outer garments" so that they "should be known and not harmed".

The first underlined phrase seems to define an extra, outer layer of covering, and the second supports that interpretation by indicating that the degree of body coverage should be obvious enough to make Muslim women stand out from others.

Verse 24:31 is long-winded and harder to follow, but it also commands Muslim women to cover themselves to a greater degree than they do at home. They are told to, "draw their headcovers over their bosoms", and to not "display their adornment" except to family members and household staff. The inclusion of non-blood male relatives, such as fathers-in-law and nephews, in the list of those to whom a woman may "display her adornment" is crucial to defining the difference between acceptable dress in the home vs. when out. I think it's safe to assume that a Muslim women would already be modestly dressed in her father-in-law's presence, so to insist on even further coverage when outside the house is consistent with saying that she must bring her head covering down as far as her already covered bosoms, which, by definition, would also cover her face.

IMO, those verses are more suggestive of full-body veiling than not.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 01, 2022, 12:13:27 AM »

Forget maps for second. Get in a car, and drive from one coast of Australia to the other. How far does the odo say you've travelled?

Or ask anyone in charge of buying materials for building such roads, laying pipe, stringing phone lines, etc. They base the amount the asphalt, pipe, and line on known mileage which just happens to comply with RE distances.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?

« on: January 30, 2022, 07:05:11 AM »

The only reliable distance measurement method is an odometer, and people haven't measured large portions of the earth with it.

I drove from Perth to Darwin, and every single leg of that trip complied exactly with RET-based predictions. Just sayin'.

(Btw, same with Calgary - Key West - Toronto - Calgary).

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Will Inspiration4 convince Flat Earth believers?

« on: October 03, 2021, 03:49:41 PM »

I thought that was a pretty neat shot...  It doesn't say much to me about the overall shape of the earth..

If there are sufficient landmarks or other geographical features, and a reasonably cloudless sky, then, as with the Red Bull Space Jump footage, it can be determined whether or not the landmarks are within the viewing scope of a spherical cap, based on the orbital height or altitude of the craft. 

What I've seen of the Inspiration footage thus far seems plagued by cloud, though...

Couldn't the same test be done from a Cessna 150 or the top of the Empire State building? The math would work just as well, and landmarks would be easier to see.

17

Flat Earth Projects / Re: We are your friends from Russia and Europe

« on: September 29, 2021, 03:08:35 PM »

Do you have a launch date?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Building a map of the flat earth using "sunrise" and "sunset".

« on: June 26, 2021, 03:56:37 PM »

FEers and REers agree on just about nothing. However, I don't see how "sunrise" and "sunset" times can be disputed. They are documented and easily verifiable. For example, I randomly googled sunrise times for Sunday, June 27, 2021 for Helsinki and got 3:57 a.m. (GMT+3), and Cape Town and got 7:52 a.m. (GMT+2). World-wide times for both "sunrise" and "sunset" could be gathered and input to a spatial interpolation algorithm to create a light/dark demarcation line for the entire world at any given time.

Another point of agreement is probably that the dark/light demarcation line is smooth as opposed to a zig-zag. The RE model is pretty clear on that. For FE, the spotlight effect is also shown to have a smooth radius creating a circular demarcation line.

Given those two points of agreement, the locations associated with each time could then be plotted on a map with various spotlight radii to create test FE maps. This process could be repeated as many times as necessary, and at all times of the year, and tested with digital cross-correlation until only one scenario fits all locations at all times, thus creating an accurate FE map.

Comments? 

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about flat earth model, sunsetband sunrise

« on: June 17, 2021, 10:51:20 PM »

I highly recommend perusing the wiki here!  Just keep in mind it is a wiki, and not a bible.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

In my view the distance the light from the sun can travel (all light in general) is finite.  The two main reasons for this are light’s natural attenuation (because it is a pressure wave) and the typical density gradient in our air which causes light to curve convexly towards the ground.

The bolded bit is dead wrong. Light is NOT a pressure wave.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/introduction-11/    From the link:

Many people confuse sound waves with radio waves, one type of electromagnetic (EM) wave. However, sound and radio waves are completely different phenomena. Sound creates pressure variations (waves) in matter, such as air or water, or your eardrum. Conversely, radio waves are electromagnetic waves, like visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. EM waves don’t need a medium in which to propagate; they can travel through a vacuum

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where does the Earth's energy come from? (genuine question)

« on: June 06, 2021, 12:13:43 AM »

The Earth's energy comes from heat deep underground the surface. The deepest we have drilled on record is about 7 miles at the Kola superdeep borehole. Boy that lava must be really deep. No one knows how deep because we can't stick a tape measure down there.

Where is the energy "from heat deep underground the surface" released? For it to contribute to heating the surface of the earth it must vent somewhere.