41

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Fixed Planetary Mass and Dark Matter

« on: July 09, 2018, 06:37:58 AM »

A key tenet of RET is dark matter; without such an entity the whole model falls apart.

LOL

RET doesn't need dark matter to tell if the earth is spherical.

If the earth was truly flat, and 'they' lied about it, why would they even invent the concept of dark matter that normal people would be unable to notice anyways?

Dark matter hasn't been figured out yet, and is only a theory which we can use to predict with. We have not been able to verify dark matter to any degree, and it is still an unknown, just like it is unknown but theorized that our universe is just 1 of an infinite amount in the cosmos.

But really, why would dark matter make any difference towards the spherical nature of earth?

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 08, 2018, 09:32:24 PM »

Is there anything in FE to account for this difference when using any FE model?

Again, CG. The correlation between latitude and measured discrepancies in gravity does not necessarily imply a causal relationship.

CG from what I can read, isn't really defined.
It says that celestial objects attract objects on earth causing things to happen, but that is like saying that wind happens because of the breath of the people. It explains it a little without explaining anything.

It doesn't explain the tides happening both under the moon and the other side of he earth.
It doesn't explain the latitude difference in gravity.

It feels like an excuse not to think.
You made it up, but all the unexplained phenomenon in it, and just left it as an unexplained answer to anyone questioning those phenomenon.

Wait, you basically do this with everything, adding properties to perspective because you can't explain them, and more.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 08, 2018, 07:27:05 PM »

The force of Gravity would change due to distance and due to other massive objects, while UA would always stay the same.

UA alone, perhaps, but the changes in perceived gravity (not to be confused with gravitation) are down to Celestial Gravitation, and not UA.

As mentioned later, the spin of the earth also applies force, and this is also measurable as a difference of roughly 0.03m/s² between the poles and the equator.

Is there anything in FE to account for this difference when using any FE model?

If not, then simply being able to measure this would work against those models, and in favor of the globe.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 08, 2018, 07:00:39 PM »

Because Einstein’s work assumes that gravity is a real thing and is a property of mass, which is rejected by many FE.  In fact, the UA model is an attempt to explain how objects fall to earth explicitly without mass-attracts-mass gravity.  If UA is the true physics, its proponents cannot appeal to gravity for anything, and cannot use gravity-based science either.

wow, try again.  you literally have no idea what you are talking about.  Einstein would agree with the aspect of UA that you absolutely could not tell the difference between gravity on earth vs a gravity-less earth being accelerated at 1g

Gravity is a force, UA is a force, to an observer they behave the same.

BUT

The force of Gravity would change due to distance and due to other massive objects, while UA would always stay the same.
We have already easily measured the difference, so gravity is real.
Gravity would even be counteracted a little by the spin of the earth (which we have also measured and found to be true)

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 08, 2018, 05:57:18 PM »

I don't think you are getting it.

1: Use any day where the sun shines and the moon is visible.
2: Hold a small ball in front of you in the direction of the moon (so that it is just in front or besides the moon for comparison)
3: Observe
Result: The small ball is exactly lit just like the moon, showing the same pattern of shadow as the moon.

I've done this myself aswell, and it ALWAYS shows this result.

I get it, it's not complicated, it is still objectively rubbish. If you hold a ball up at sunrise the, say, left side of it will be lit. If you hold it up at sunset, the right side will then be lit. Meanwhile name one time the side of the moon that's lit changes over the course of a day. Am I seriously going to need to repeat this again? To say nothing of the only significant part of Tumeni's claim, that the 'pattern of illumination' rather than mere direction would match. Feel free to show me a ball illuminated like a full moon or a new moon at sunrise, noon and sunset.


Yes, there is some correllation between the Sun and the moon (the same basic force is responsible for their movement, long story) but not to the degree you are proposing, and that experiment is nonsense.

You are not getting it.

The moon like the sun, moves in the sky.
You are not simply looking at a ball.
You are looking at a ball in the direction of the moon...

Just like you can look at the ball from any other angle, the ball lit from the left while looking from 1 side, and the ball lit from the right when looking from the opposite side...

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 08, 2018, 05:42:22 PM »

The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.

Yes, the angle of the sunlight on the Moon, as seen from Earth, will vary, but the phase of the moon will not noticeably change.

Do this at any time you can see the sun and the moon, and the light on the ball matches the light on the moon. I've done this personally, twice over the last three days. Quite a coincidence, for a non-illuminated superheated cylinder, wouldn't you say?

Doesn't it suggest to you that the ball and the moon are being illuminated by the same light source?

No, you haven't done that, this whole line of inquiry is ludicrous. The moon does not magically change from having its left side lit to having its right side lit over the course of a day, while that would obviously happen with a ball lit by the Sun. Are you kidding me?! Seriously, what the actual thork are you talking about?

I don't think you are getting it.

1: Use any day where the sun shines and the moon is visible.
2: Hold a small ball in front of you in the direction of the moon (so that it is just in front or besides the moon for comparison)
3: Observe
Result: The small ball is exactly lit just like the moon, showing the same pattern of shadow as the moon.

I've done this myself aswell, and it ALWAYS shows this result.

If we use this observation, and construct an explanation that the moon is lit by the sun, it makes perfect sense.
If we then apply this explanation to all observations of the moon, we can easily conclude that the sun goes below the horizon and below the ground we stand on, especially on a full moon, where it should be opposite the direction of the moon.
It also explains why there is never a full moon when the sun is up and why the new moon is only present when the sun is up.

Everything points to a globe with these observations, but as all FEers, you will either reject the observations, try to make some weird magical FE logic for the observation, or ignore it completely.

47

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Empirical Validation of Perspective

« on: July 05, 2018, 10:30:12 AM »

I gave you an example. You agreed with the example. You then pulled the Ancient Greek perspective theory out to tell us something about how perspective operates or scales in the distance and basically shook your finger and pointed at an equation.

Very weak.

You are constantly pulling the Ancient Greeks into this, why?
We live in the modern age and have a perfect understanding of perspective.

You however are pulling out flat earth perspective, you claim that the sun shouldn't change in size because it is beyond the apex of perspective lines, you however have no proof of this, no math to support it, it is simply a claim made by flat earthers because they can't explain why the sun doesn't change in size.

Meanwhile, you claim that we have no proof of perspective lines receding to infinity, which is just a bullocks claim as it is impossible to provide an empirical proof of this.

We know how perspective works, it is extremely simple, all you need are straight lines from the observer to the viewed objects and the angles of those lines in 3 dimensional space. From this we can calculate and simulate every observable perspective.

Now how does your perspective work?

48

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Stars Slowing as they Approach the Horizon

« on: July 05, 2018, 09:30:24 AM »

The stars movement:
The earth rotates at a constant speed.
The stars will therefore move in the sky at a constant speed due to perspective.
Near the horizon, the stars will seem to slow down / compress due to refraction being way higher when looking through atmosphere near the surface of earth.

Perspective:
Perspective is extremely well understood and extremely simple, and I do not get why you constantly bring up ancient greeks...
We know that parallel lines will never touch (simple geometry), and we know that perspective will only let them seem to converge at a point at infinity (but they never will)
We also know that with our eyes and cameras limited resolution, parallel lines will seem to converge much earlier depending on their closeness and the closeness of the observer.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 05, 2018, 07:36:10 AM »

Finite geometry is easily illustrated:



Click to enlarge.

I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?

In your provided image, I hope you will agree that the purple horizontal lines are the same distance apart if we viewed them in a top down view or in reality?
In perspective view, as in your image, we see the distance between the lines become shorter and shorter, where you now have 10 horizontal lines further away in the same space as 1 line close to you.
The thing you probably do not realize and can't comprehend, is that if you continue this shortening of distance between the lines, in accordance with perspective, you would be able to continue to draw an infinite amount of lines and never reach the presented horizon line.
We have simple trigonometry math which can be used for this (since perspective is based upon straight lines and angles), which can calculate the exact position of every line. It really is as simple as that, and shows that the lines recede to infinity (even though it is hard to grasp).

I will note however that the lines will be extremely close to the horizon line not that far away from an observer. 100 meters away and it would almost look to be at the horizon.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eye level horizon

« on: June 16, 2018, 08:17:28 PM »

Recently, the certainty level of that claim has started to pull back a little.

It's never been proven, per se.  It's affirmed in the book "Earth is Not a Globe," but the experimental observations done to demonstrate it are vague and otherwise unconvincing due to the execution.

On the other hand, we've had some recent topics (last couple of months) discussing this very thing and how to test it. (like the one I'm most vested in.)

Is it not as simple as standing on a skyscraper with a spirit level?
Or again on a skyscraper, place 2 equally heighted objects and looking straight aligned with them?
I fail to see the difficulty.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Eye level horizon

« on: June 16, 2018, 07:04:16 PM »

The claim that the horizon is always at eye level, is a fundamental basis for flat earth perspective and reasoning, yet I have never seen any flat earther prove this claim.

I've seen flat earthers point the camera at the horizon and move the camera up/down to show that the horizon seems to follow the cameras level, but never seen a flat earther show and prove that the horizon is at eye level at higher altitudes.

So my questions:
Has it ever been proven?
Would it not be easy to prove this claim?

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictions

« on: June 14, 2018, 04:02:29 PM »

You'll also want to define what you mean more. Because I can't come up with any day other than the equinox where it will be 180 degrees from it's rise point to it's set point. Even if we're talking about 180 degrees in arc across the sky, that isn't true as we've been looking at in another thread.

180 degrees will always be exactly the opposite direction of where it rose, doesn't matter which arc.
But I can see your point, since on the poles, it would be way different directions and sometimes the sun will always shine. So I stand corrected, you are completely right.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictions

« on: June 14, 2018, 03:47:15 PM »

Using a model and theory, we can make predictions. This is the basis for a theory and we can do a lot of these for the heliocentric model.

Predictions made by the earth orbiting the sun once a year, and the earth rotating relative to the sun once a day:
...
I predict, the sun will always rise east and always set west and always set 180 degrees from where it rose.

At equinox again, right? Because this isn't true any other day.

It will always set 180 degrees from where it rose, which is true for every day. I might need to word it better =) I didn't mean that it would rise and set directly east/west, which only happens at equinox.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Predictions

« on: June 14, 2018, 08:22:37 AM »

Using a model and theory, we can make predictions. This is the basis for a theory and we can do a lot of these for the heliocentric model.

Predictions made by the earth orbiting the sun once a year, and the earth rotating relative to the sun once a day:
I predict, the stars to come around in the sky exactly 366.25 times in a year compared to the sun coming around 365.25 times.
I predict, the angle between any 2 stars will be the same no matter which day or time of day.
I predict, the visible constellations in the night sky will be opposite at night when half a year apart.
I predict, there to be 2 poles due to earths rotation, and the poles would be exactly 180 degrees apart.
I predict, the angle from the north pole star (Polaris) to the sun, adding the angle from the south pole star (Sigma Octantis) to the sun, will be exactly 180 degrees.
I predict, at equinox, the sun is at a 90 degrees angle to both the pole stars.
I predict, since the earth is spinning, star trails would be almost completely circular.
I predict, at equinox, the sun will always set in due west 180 degrees from where it rose due east.

Predictions made by perspective on a spherical earth:
I predict, objects will disappear bottom first over the horizon at large distances.
I predict, the sun and moon, due to their distance, will not change in apparent size.
I predict, the sun will always travel at the same perspective angular speed throughout the day (15 degrees/hour).
I predict, the moon will always travel at the same perspective angular speed throughout the day, slightly faster than the sun (15.5 degrees/hour).


I'll add more later.


These are all very basic predictions, which we should observe in reality when using the heliocentric model.

Ancient and past civilisations used their history to predict future events, but using history is like using stone age tools when compared to using a model to predict future events.
I would like to know what the FE model can predict, not through the method of using knowledge of past events, but simply using the model and theory of FE.

55

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Neil Armstrong Gave Her A Vial Of Moon Dust. She's Suing So NASA Won't Take It

« on: June 13, 2018, 11:37:17 AM »

What are your thoughts on this article on Lunar dust vial?

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/neil-armstrong-gave-her-a-vial-of-moon-dust-she-says-shes-suing-so-nasa-wont-take-it-1866564?pfrom=home-topstories

Nasa obviously looking to get evidence the moon dust is fake.  If she took that to a real lab they would tell her it's just earth dirt.  Would be very embarrassing to Nasa.

The dust was already tested to have the same composition as moon dust should have, and also a test which it resembles earth crust. But who says moon dust doesn't resemble earth crust in composition?

How would a lab know the dust is from the moon? It would have a certain composition of materials, but NASA could easily have created this composition to anything they wished.

The only way to properly test the dust, is to have a comparison to another sample of dust which is validated to come from the moon. And since all samples come from space agencies you can't trust anyway, you have no way of knowing.

It makes no difference if a private person has a vial of supposed moon dust, but it is a historical artifact and it could be considered stealing if Neil Armstrong stole the vial and dust from NASA at the time.

56

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

« on: June 13, 2018, 09:38:20 AM »

I feel like flat earthers don't understand perspective and refraction.

Perspective works using light as travelling in straight lines from a light source or from an object which the light has bounced off. It is very simple to understand, simulate, calculate and does explain almost all our observations on a spherical earth, apart from when refraction is involved and light bends over long distances mostly just over the surface of earth, and very slightly when viewing up through the atmosphere.

Refraction bends light as it travels through mediums of different density, which is easily demonstrated.

The atmosphere can cause refraction when there is a high gradient density difference, this shows easily in videos and pictures as moving blur, and will result in either light bending upwards (when the density is lower close to the surface), and bending downwards (when the density is higher close to the surface).
The amount of bending is minuscule, and it is only noticeable over long distances, primarily over water watching from a beach or harbor.

The result of light bending upwards, will result in a vertically compressed visual of the objects near to the horizon, or in more extreme cases a vertical flip (mirroring effect) which can be compressed, normal or even stretched in even more extreme cases. The viewing distance to the horizon is also shortened due to light bending upwards.
Normally hot weather will result in this behavior above water.

The result of light bending downwards, which happens less frequently, will result in a vertically stretched visual of the horizon, and will result in a further viewing distance than normal as light will bend with the spherical earth.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Simulation

« on: June 13, 2018, 06:31:01 AM »

Can you model and simulate the flat earth model using 3d software?

To be more specific:

• After modelling it, can you show the suns movement in the sky as it rises east and sets west exactly 180 degrees from where it rose?
• After modelling it, can you show the constellations as seen from earth from both the northern and the southern hemisphere?
• After modelling it, can you show the lunar phases as we see them from earth, including the full moon?

I would say it not possible with existing software, because the laws of optics, light propagation, perspective etc. the flat-earth explanations of all this are based on are not implemented in existing software. 

So first of all, you would have to write some code, to implement all this. But the next problem is, that more less all this flat-earth models are just qualitative descriptions of how it might work, you rarely find any formula that could be used as a basis for your code.

Of course, if you use standard software just taking a flat earth into account, the result will have nothing to do with our visual perception of the world around us. But that's somehow unfair...

So, your saying it is not possible without first defining the flat earth perspective laws, I understand that clearly.

But is there anyone actually trying to research this? As I find perspective to be probably the most fundamental tool in figuring out our observations. Without it, it seems flat earth theory will never be more than it is now.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Simulation

« on: June 12, 2018, 12:52:49 PM »

Can you model and simulate the flat earth model using 3d software?

To be more specific:

• After modelling it, can you show the suns movement in the sky as it rises east and sets west exactly 180 degrees from where it rose?
• After modelling it, can you show the constellations as seen from earth from both the northern and the southern hemisphere?
• After modelling it, can you show the lunar phases as we see them from earth, including the full moon?

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Garlic bread and the curve of the earth.

« on: June 12, 2018, 11:05:12 AM »

On the ground at sea level, the amount of curvature we would see is not noticeable due to the size of the earth. The horizon would be basically flat, no matter which direction you are looking.

Why would you expect to see further to your left or right than you can straight ahead?



The horizon has to curve if you can always see the same distance in every direction. This is pretty basic geometry. There is no 'basically flat'.

False.

You are trying to apply a top-down view to show perspective.
Just like your previous images showed a very high position of the camera/eye, this will of course not show a flat line when looking down on it.

Real life demonstration example:
If you have a hoola-hoop, hold it horizontally, and place your eye inside the hoop at the same level as the hoop, you will see a completely flat line.
If you move your sight further up, then of course you will see curve, but if you compare your altitude to the hoops, and scale that to the giant earth, you will see how far up we need to be to properly see curvature.
Comparing our height above the earth, to the height you would be over the hoola hoop, would probably be 1 millimeter up, resulting in seeing a 'basically flat' line from the hoola hoop.

This is basic geometry and perspective. Easily calculated, simulated and observed.

I can easily show this too you with 3D models, but I do not have time for that today.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Garlic bread and the curve of the earth.

« on: June 12, 2018, 10:44:36 AM »

Of course the horizon curves, you idiot. The horizon wraps around you in a large circle 360 degrees. If the horizon was dead straight you'd have to be able to see further away from you at 45 degrees than you would looking straight ahead and there would be no horizon behind you ... it would be parallel to you. Does the earth fall away at the edges? Your garlic bread doesn't convince me that it does. You want ball like curvature, not dish like curvature.

You sure are hostile...

On the ground at sea level, the amount of curvature we would see is not noticeable due to the size of the earth. The horizon would be basically flat, no matter which direction you are looking. This is one of the primary arguments of the flat earth that the horizon is always at eye-level and the horizon is flat (exactly as we see it when viewed at sea level). This observation holds true on both the flat and globe earth, yet when rising to extreme heights, we expect a drop in the horizon and a visible curvature on the horizon on a globe earth, which should not be there on a flat earth.

We can accurately predict and simulate the amount of curvature we would expect on a globe earth at any given altitude, and we can actively observe that the predictions adhere to reality.
Meanwhile, the flat earth can predict nothing, it is impossible to simulate, math doesn't work with it, you need to invent new methods for perspective and ignore common sense in regards to observations, you can't make a proper map, or even a concept model which can explain the stars clockwise rotation in the south without making a whole new model only used in this single case.

I'll make it simpler.

Imagine the earth was a flat square ... what shape is the horizon?


Something like this? With a straight horizon?

Now imagine it is a flat disc. Still got a perfectly straight horizon?


Nope.

Only a lunatic would say "the horizon bends and therefore the earth must be a ball".

Here is me looking out over the edge of a dinner plate.


Its not a ball, is it? But it has a horizon, a curved one.

If you scale your imagery to the size of earth, you would be hundreds of kilometers above the earth. If however you were straight above the surface on the gigantic earth, you would see a flat line.
Besides, in both your examples, you are looking down towards the horizon, which also indicates that the horizon is not eye-level in your examples, also a clear violation of the FE 'the horizon is always at eye-level'.

The idea of this topic is to disprove one of the primary beliefs in the FE, that the horizon is always flat.
Since you already seem to believe that the horizon should curve due to geometry, this topic isn't meant to persuade you.