Recent Posts

11
Quote
Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?

In this question of "more accurately represented" you are making assumptions about how the light from the celestial bodies behave. This is the very thing in question. Hence, no scheme can be discarded because of what you are assuming in your head.
12
It's a model which seems to fit the patterns of light. A model is a proposed possible construct which explains occurrences, which may exist as a purely mathematical scheme, or a physical example as above. No one is proposing that the atmosphere is made of glass. There could be a number of mechanisms for this that are not glass. If you can find where I stated that the atmosphere was made of glass, please point it out.

Desktop and physical models are used all the time, to demonstrate that a pattern of phenomena exists with a consistent mechanism. The task here is to show that this model does not explain it. Pointing out that the atmosphere is not made of glass is not sufficient for this, as the behavior of light through the heavens and atmolayer are unknown variables for our purposes. No one has studied large area light paths in a controlled setting (except for arguably Samuel Rowbotham). The interest here is that there is a configuration of light bending that can explain this. You should attack this by showing that this configuration of light bending does not explain it.


Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?

Do you think the updated model would show the same patterns of light?
   
13
It's a model which seems to fit the patterns of light. A model is a proposed possible construct which explains occurrences, which may exist as a purely mathematical scheme, or a physical example as above. No one is proposing that the atmosphere is made of glass. There could be a number of mechanisms for this that are not glass. If you can find where I stated that the atmosphere was made of glass, please point it out.

Desktop and physical models are used all the time, to demonstrate that a pattern of phenomena exists with a consistent mechanism. The task here is to show that this model does not explain it. Pointing out that the atmosphere is not made of glass is not sufficient for this, as the behavior of light through the heavens and atmolayer are unknown variables for our purposes. You should attack this by showing that this configuration of light bending does not explain it, as this model could be expressed by a series of equations as equally as a physical glass magnifying dome.
14
The above YouTube video re-posted by Tom (and within the Wiki) is a highly inaccurate model to reference as any kind of mechanism or basis for atmospheric phenomena:

- The model uses a solid glass dome magnifying lens; Earth's atmosphere does not consist of solid magnifying glass material.

- The local spotlight Sun is being represented by a flashlight whose diameter is about 1:1 scale the size of the Earth. If the flat Earth plane is let's say 8,000 miles in diameter and the size of the local Sun is 30 miles in diameter, than the scale of the small spotlight Sun to the flat Earth plane should be 1:266.

15
In the Bi-Polar model this is explained by the existence of two poles.

However, the Monopole model persists, and it would be interesting to try to debunk the explanation for it.

There might be a time when two of the three southern continent locations such as South America and Africa see the night stars at the same time, but never all three (South America, Africa and Australia) at the same time.

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html

Here is summer on June 21, 2021 with added green marker for "a star":



Translating it to a Flat Earth Monopole map, with relative location:



The star is close enough to those two locations to be in range so that the star could be visible at the same time from both locations.

As seen above, it is possible in some situations for two locations to see the same star at the same time. If the star is encircling the Earth like the Sun, then different observers will observe that star when it is night for that observer.

When each observer South America and Africa in the above diagram looks in a general sense to the south, they see the that star swirling around a southern celestial pole. The true star is displaced from due South for each observer, but it could be shifted to be more due South for the observer through the below light mechanism.

Logically it makes more sense that there is only one mechanism for multiple phenomena, rather than multiple mechanisms for multiple phenomena. In the Monopole model the appearance of the South Celestial Pole could be related to the seasons. On a Monopole Model the seasonal daylight patterns, where wide extents of the Earth receive daylight when the Sun moves to the South, can be explained with a magnifying dome model where the light creates broad shapes at different positions. Since we do not live in a perfect world, it does not necessarily follow that the Sun's area of light will make a circular shape at all times, or that the light of the Sun will necessarily engulf all of the Earth at once. If the light is shining through imperfect affecting phenomena it may bend upwards and widen into a non-circular shape. The upwards bending of light here also explains the general phenomena of night and day.



In the above, the seasonal daylight patterns of the Flat Earth Monopole Model are satisfactorily, and coincidentally, simulated with a magnifying dome.

If light behaves as if it were coming through a dome magnifying glass, another interesting aspect is that it is seen that the view from the underside of the dome can create an effect which could create a southern celestial system.




The Southern Celestial system is artificial, and only encompasses the stars around the true area of stars.

Since the stars are rotating over the Earth like the Sun, the night sky is over South America and Australia at different times, observers in those areas will see the same stars spinning around their observed South Celestial Pole when it is night for those areas. In the case of Africa and South America, they may be close enough together that the stars they see are the same stars, except moved more towards the South for each observer and located on one part or side of the apparent ring of stars than the other.
16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations
« Last post by foobar on April 14, 2024, 04:11:42 PM »
Relative to earth.
That seems rather impossible under the RE model, and if it were true, it would directly conflict with your proposed outcome.

In RE a star directly in line with earths axis of rotation would not appear to move (e.g., Polaris in the northern hemisphere).

Quote
On FE, I don't see how your experiment accounts for EA.

EA only affects the attitudinal angle not the compass bearing; EA proposes that light bends up (towards zenith) relative to the disc not Eastward or Westward. Is this correct?
17
Relative to earth.
That seems rather impossible under the RE model, and if it were true, it would directly conflict with your proposed outcome.

On FE, I don't see how your experiment accounts for EA.
18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations
« Last post by foobar on April 14, 2024, 01:19:48 PM »
If Sigma Octantis does not move at the night time
Relative to what?

Relative to earth.

The angle between compass South and Sigma Octantis and the angle between Sigma Octantis and the horizon (altitudinal angle) doesn't change appreciably within one night. It doesn't rise or set; it just gets brighter and dimmer, fading to nothing when the sun is out.
19
If Sigma Octantis does not move at the night time
Relative to what?
20
Flat Earth Theory / New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations
« Last post by foobar on April 14, 2024, 12:26:29 PM »
I propose the following experiment:

  • If Sigma Octantis does not move at the night time, can we assume it does not move appreciably in 24-hours (although it does move a bit with the seasons).
  • Suppose a South American observer notes the compass bearing towards Sigma Octantis. Sigma Octantis is hard to find, but it should be obvious in a 15 minute long-exposure photo, as the only star that doesn't move. Once that is located by both observers, they can compare the other constellations to make sure they "match up".
  • Suppose the same night (but not the exact same time) a South African observe also makes the same measurement using the same method.

Could we use this to test a monople flat-earth? If both measurements are due south and we assume Sigma Octantis never moves (has anyone ever seen it move?) then South America and South Africa can't be at the edge of a disc earth. This would provide evidence for a bipolar flat-earth or a round-earth.