The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Just in it for the lols on July 20, 2017, 04:36:29 AM
-
Now, the topic of this post is going to be about...
1. The sun
2. Startrails
3. Flat Earth maps, and the distances of the flat earth
My next post is going to be about balloon launches, and fixing the problem of fish-eye lenses. (Spoiler: Fish eye lenses don't distort anything, IF the object passes through the CENTER OF THE FRAME....I will prove that later)
1. The sun
One of the earlier problems of the Flat Earth model was that the timezones simply don't work on a flat Earth. So, flat earthers and in their infinite wisdom, decided to solve the problem by making the sun into a "spotlight" shape, so it only illuminates a part of disc world. Unfortunately for the flat earthers, this "solution" just seems to dig a deeper hole for their "model".
One of the first things I'd like to focus on, is the angle of elevation of the sun on a flat Earth. Since the flat earthers have yet to come up with with an official value of the distance away from the sun, I'll use the value that I see the most...3000 miles. And, in order to determine the angle of elevation, I will use the equinox, where the sun is directly above the equator.
Now, if the sun is 3000 miles away, and at 0 degrees latitude, we can set up an equation to determine the angle of elevation at any given latitude on the flat earth. That equation would be...
a=arctan(3000/70d)
Where
a=angle of elevation of the sun
d=Distance (mi) from the North Pole to the equator
Keep in mind that the distance from the North Pole to the equator on a flat earth would be about 6,300 mi. By dividing 6,300/90, we can get the value of the angle of elevation of the sun, per degree of latitude. (Or about 70 mi/degree of latitude)
Now, on the globe Earth the angle of elevation is easy...It's dependent on your latitude. So on one of the equinoxes, the angle of elevation of the sun is simply your 90-x, where "x" is your latitude, in degrees, in the Northern Hemisphere .
Let's plot and compare the two angle of elevations of the sun on a flat Earth, vs. Globe Earth. (Yellow line is globe Earth, while the green curve is the Flat Earth)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/abatw4xxpt
Ok, so the flat earthers are WAY off. What's more, is that the yellow line is what we see in reality.
This is one of the things that outright DEBUNKS the flat earth.
That is just one of the simple consequence of basic geometry and trigonometry. If a sun is circling around a flat earth, then the angle of elevations is going to be wildly inconsistent than what we would see if the sun was overhead on a sphere. And unfortunately for the flat earthers, the latter is what we see in reality.
Now I know what the rebuttal of this is going to be....
"Well, this doesn't DISPROVE the flat earth because other factors could be causing the angle of elevation of the sun to be skewed...such as refraction"
I honestly find this ad-hoc excuse to be laughable at best, and worrying for humanity at worst.
If it were refraction were somehow playing a role in the apparent angle of elevation of the sun, Then why is refraction so precisely dependent on the latitude of the Earth?! Why do the gasses of the atmosphere care, when to exactly portray the sun to be dependent on latitude? Refraction simply cannot be the case. And if it somehow were, then the flat earthers have to explain why an observer at point "b" is seeing a refracted sun PERFECTLY as s/he would see at their relative latitude, and an observer at point "b" is seeing the refracted sun PERFECTLY as s/he would see at their relative latitude. Because if that were the case, then refraction can't be distorting the sun equally, to that degree.
This ad hoc excuse simply does not work.
At this point flat earthers can either accept reality, deny reality, or come up with a mechanism to defend their belief. If flat earthers want to keep on beating a dead horse, and keep parroting "Refraction! Refraction! Perspective! Refraction!", then they must show a pattern of the gasses of the atmosphere that are somehow refracting the sun to the point that it is EXACTLY dependent on an observe's latitude.
Startrails
This is another thing that outright debunks the flat earth, and flat earthers will parrot "refraction" for this once again. But as I've stated earlier, saying that refraction is causing objects to be viewed according to their latitude is just plain wrong. Latitude and refraction are two very different concepts, and are not correlating with one another in any way. Gasses of the atmosphere are chaotic, and random, they cannot show the apparent position of the stars in such a precise and predictable manner.
What's more is that stars in the Northern hemisphere rotate counterclockwise around the North Celestial Pole, and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere around the South Celestial Pole.
Believe it or not, I've actually heard some flat earthers simply deny the previous statement, but you can literally either take photos of startrails, or take some time lapsed videos of the stars in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere.
If there was some magical sky dome that was rotating around a flat earth, then we would not see stars rotating different directions around 2 celestial poles.
Now, I've heard some flat earthers say that
Well, star trails do not necessarily prove the globe. Saying "star trails therefore globe" is non sequitur
This, again, is quite laughable. Take a camera and plant it on a spinning ball. The trails of the surrounding environment is exactly what we would see on a globe. Now before you copy and paste some random logical fallacy on wikipedia, please read this....
1. Startrails we observe can occur IF AND ONLY IF the observer was on a sphere, with either a rotating sky or sphere
2. Startrails occur exactly as stated in #1
3. Therefore, we live on a sphere
Sure, just looking at star trails alone doesn't prove whether we are spinning or not, but I would love to debate on geocentricm some other time.
Now, most flat earthers are going to attack the If and only if part, probably stating that its a false premise. However, the "if and only if" works BECAUSE of geometry. As you move North or south, the stars drop relative to your horizon by each degree depending on your latitude. There is no other geometrical shape that can give this effect besides a sphere. If flat earthers are truly going to say "it's a false premise", then it is up to them to show how exactly a flat earth (or any other shape) can produce these types of trails.
If not, then till then, The idea of a flat earth is simply NONSENSE
Flat Earth Map, and distance on a Flat Earth
This is my final proof, and while this does not directly prove the globe, it certainly disproves the flat earth.
So, the flat earthers love using the Azimuthal Equidistant projection (AE) as their go-to map to display the flat earth. Unfortunately, by projecting a sphere onto a Polar Coordinate system, there are going to be some major distortions. These distortions will get bigger and bigger the more you go South. Now, bear in mind, EVERY PROJECTION is quite distorted because no matter how you try to display a globe onto a flat piece of paper, you are going to have some major discrepancies. Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)
So, let's focus on a couple distances. From the two costs of Australia (Red Rock to Leeman), the distance is measured to be about 2281 mi.
Let's see how that would look like, if we were on a flat Earth.
So, the distance between those two point's can be determined by the length of an arc, which is
a*pi*r/180 (This statement is equivalent to s=r(theta), but that requires radians, so we'll use the previous formula for simplicity's sake)
"r" is the distance from the North Pole to the two points. Since the Longitudinal lines are the same on a flat earth, and a globe earth, "r" turns out to be 8278 mi. While the longitudinal separation between the two points is about 39 degrees. Using the formula, the length of the two distances turns out to be
5941 miles.
In reality the distances between the coasts of Australia is about 2281mi, but the flat earth map shows us that the distance is 5941 miles.
Yep. That's how inaccurate the flat earth map is. We can input some more distances using the law of cosines, and show how planes would somehow have to be going faster than the speed of sound over great, fuel-impossible distances and going over some sights that you would never see in reality. But, this post is already really long, so I would like to keep it more simple.
But, I already know the reply of the flat earthers.
Just because we haven't completely solved the map problem yet, doesn't debunk the flat Earth
Actually, it does. Here's why....
You can adjust the degree of separation of the flat earth, but then your latitudinal lines would be skewed. Because if you somehow fixed Australia's size to fit the distance, then the latitudinal lines from the coasts of Australia won't match up with the points that we see in reality. No matter how you try fixing the distance of one point, all other points will then be skewed.
And here's why this is important....
If your model is supposed to REPRESENT THE CORRECT DISTANCES OF REALITY, and your model does not, THEN YOUR MODEL IS WRONG
There is NO rebuttal that could work here, because then you would have to be saying that proportions don't work in reality!
If 1 inch on a map is supposed to represent 10 miles on a map, then that should be the case EVERYWHERE on your map. 1in/10 mi should work in Greenland, and in Australia. Because a/b=a/b no matter where you are. That is simply not the case on a flat Earth Map! Meaning your map is FALSE. And if your map is supposed to represent your model (the flat earth) THEN YOUR MODEL IS FALSE.
It really doesn't get any more simple than that. This is really the final nail in the coffin for the flat Earth, because in order to ad-hoc your way out of this, you would have to be saying that proportions are wrong. So good luck with that.
Lastly, I need to give a boatload of credit to Cool Hard Logic. He runs a great youtube channel, and I highly recommend you check him out.
Thanks a lot for reading, and let me know what you think.
-
Now, the topic of this post is going to be about...
1. The sun
2. Startrails
3. Flat Earth maps, and the distances of the flat earth
My next post is going to be about balloon launches, and fixing the problem of fish-eye lenses. (Spoiler: Fish eye lenses don't distort anything, IF the object passes through the CENTER OF THE FRAME....I will prove that later)
1. The sun
One of the earlier problems of the Flat Earth model was that the timezones simply don't work on a flat Earth. So, flat earthers and in their infinite wisdom, decided to solve the problem by making the sun into a "spotlight" shape, so it only illuminates a part of disc world. Unfortunately for the flat earthers, this "solution" just seems to dig a deeper hole for their "model".
One of the first things I'd like to focus on, is the angle of elevation of the sun on a flat Earth. Since the flat earthers have yet to come up with with an official value of the distance away from the sun, I'll use the value that I see the most...3000 miles. And, in order to determine the angle of elevation, I will use the equinox, where the sun is directly above the equator.
Now, if the sun is 3000 miles away, and at 0 degrees latitude, we can set up an equation to determine the angle of elevation at any given latitude on the flat earth. That equation would be...
a=arctan(3000/70d)
Where
a=angle of elevation of the sun
d=Distance (mi) from the North Pole to the equator
Keep in mind that the distance from the North Pole to the equator on a flat earth would be about 6,300 mi. By dividing 6,300/90, we can get the value of the angle of elevation of the sun, per degree of latitude. (Or about 70 mi/degree of latitude)
Now, on the globe Earth the angle of elevation is easy...It's dependent on your latitude. So on one of the equinoxes, the angle of elevation of the sun is simply your 90-x, where "x" is your latitude, in degrees, in the Northern Hemisphere .
Let's plot and compare the two angle of elevations of the sun on a flat Earth, vs. Globe Earth. (Yellow line is globe Earth, while the green curve is the Flat Earth)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/abatw4xxpt
Ok, so the flat earthers are WAY off. What's more, is that the yellow line is what we see in reality.
This is one of the things that outright DEBUNKS the flat earth.
That is just one of the simple consequence of basic geometry and trigonometry. If a sun is circling around a flat earth, then the angle of elevations is going to be wildly inconsistent than what we would see if the sun was overhead on a sphere. And unfortunately for the flat earthers, the latter is what we see in reality.
Now I know what the rebuttal of this is going to be....
"Well, this doesn't DISPROVE the flat earth because other factors could be causing the angle of elevation of the sun to be skewed...such as refraction"
I honestly find this ad-hoc excuse to be laughable at best, and worrying for humanity at worst.
If it were refraction were somehow playing a role in the apparent angle of elevation of the sun, Then why is refraction so precisely dependent on the latitude of the Earth?! Why do the gasses of the atmosphere care, when to exactly portray the sun to be dependent on latitude? Refraction simply cannot be the case. And if it somehow were, then the flat earthers have to explain why an observer at point "b" is seeing a refracted sun PERFECTLY as s/he would see at their relative latitude, and an observer at point "b" is seeing the refracted sun PERFECTLY as s/he would see at their relative latitude. Because if that were the case, then refraction can't be distorting the sun equally, to that degree.
This ad hoc excuse simply does not work.
At this point flat earthers can either accept reality, deny reality, or come up with a mechanism to defend their belief. If flat earthers want to keep on beating a dead horse, and keep parroting "Refraction! Refraction! Perspective! Refraction!", then they must show a pattern of the gasses of the atmosphere that are somehow refracting the sun to the point that it is EXACTLY dependent on an observe's latitude.
Startrails
This is another thing that outright debunks the flat earth, and flat earthers will parrot "refraction" for this once again. But as I've stated earlier, saying that refraction is causing objects to be viewed according to their latitude is just plain wrong. Latitude and refraction are two very different concepts, and are not correlating with one another in any way. Gasses of the atmosphere are chaotic, and random, they cannot show the apparent position of the stars in such a precise and predictable manner.
What's more is that stars in the Northern hemisphere rotate counterclockwise around the North Celestial Pole, and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere around the South Celestial Pole.
Believe it or not, I've actually heard some flat earthers simply deny the previous statement, but you can literally either take photos of startrails, or take some time lapsed videos of the stars in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere.
If there was some magical sky dome that was rotating around a flat earth, then we would not see stars rotating different directions around 2 celestial poles.
Now, I've heard some flat earthers say that
Well, star trails do not necessarily prove the globe. Saying "star trails therefore globe" is non sequitur
This, again, is quite laughable. Take a camera and plant it on a spinning ball. The trails of the surrounding environment is exactly what we would see on a globe. Now before you copy and paste some random logical fallacy on wikipedia, please read this....
1. Startrails we observe can occur IF AND ONLY IF the observer was on a sphere, with either a rotating sky or sphere
2. Startrails occur exactly as stated in #1
3. Therefore, we live on a sphere
Sure, just looking at star trails alone doesn't prove whether we are spinning or not, but I would love to debate on geocentricm some other time.
Now, most flat earthers are going to attack the If and only if part, probably stating that its a false premise. However, the "if and only if" works BECAUSE of geometry. As you move North or south, the stars drop relative to your horizon by each degree depending on your latitude. There is no other geometrical shape that can give this effect besides a sphere. If flat earthers are truly going to say "it's a false premise", then it is up to them to show how exactly a flat earth (or any other shape) can produce these types of trails.
If not, then till then, The idea of a flat earth is simply NONSENSE
Flat Earth Map, and distance on a Flat Earth
This is my final proof, and while this does not directly prove the globe, it certainly disproves the flat earth.
So, the flat earthers love using the Azimuthal Equidistant projection (AE) as their go-to map to display the flat earth. Unfortunately, by projecting a sphere onto a Polar Coordinate system, there are going to be some major distortions. These distortions will get bigger and bigger the more you go South. Now, bear in mind, EVERY PROJECTION is quite distorted because no matter how you try to display a globe onto a flat piece of paper, you are going to have some major discrepancies. Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)
So, let's focus on a couple distances. From the two costs of Australia (Red Rock to Leeman), the distance is measured to be about 2281 mi.
Let's see how that would look like, if we were on a flat Earth.
So, the distance between those two point's can be determined by the length of an arc, which is
a*pi*r/180 (This statement is equivalent to s=r(theta), but that requires radians, so we'll use the previous formula for simplicity's sake)
"r" is the distance from the North Pole to the two points. Since the Longitudinal lines are the same on a flat earth, and a globe earth, "r" turns out to be 8278 mi. While the longitudinal separation between the two points is about 39 degrees. Using the formula, the length of the two distances turns out to be
5941 miles.
In reality the distances between the coasts of Australia is about 2281mi, but the flat earth map shows us that the distance is 5941 miles.
Yep. That's how inaccurate the flat earth map is. We can input some more distances using the law of cosines, and show how planes would somehow have to be going faster than the speed of sound over great, fuel-impossible distances and going over some sights that you would never see in reality. But, this post is already really long, so I would like to keep it more simple.
But, I already know the reply of the flat earthers.
Just because we haven't completely solved the map problem yet, doesn't debunk the flat Earth
Actually, it does. Here's why....
You can adjust the degree of separation of the flat earth, but then your latitudinal lines would be skewed. Because if you somehow fixed Australia's size to fit the distance, then the latitudinal lines from the coasts of Australia won't match up with the points that we see in reality. No matter how you try fixing the distance of one point, all other points will then be skewed.
And here's why this is important....
If your model is supposed to REPRESENT THE CORRECT DISTANCES OF REALITY, and your model does not, THEN YOUR MODEL IS WRONG
There is NO rebuttal that could work here, because then you would have to be saying that proportions don't work in reality!
If 1 inch on a map is supposed to represent 10 miles on a map, then that should be the case EVERYWHERE on your map. 1in/10 mi should work in Greenland, and in Australia. Because a/b=a/b no matter where you are. That is simply not the case on a flat Earth Map! Meaning your map is FALSE. And if your map is supposed to represent your model (the flat earth) THEN YOUR MODEL IS FALSE.
It really doesn't get any more simple than that. This is really the final nail in the coffin for the flat Earth, because in order to ad-hoc your way out of this, you would have to be saying that proportions are wrong. So good luck with that.
Lastly, I need to give a boatload of credit to Cool Hard Logic. He runs a great youtube channel, and I highly recommend you check him out.
Thanks a lot for reading, and let me know what you think.
Very clear and concise arguments. I would love to see some point by point rebuttal.
-
1. You have chosen to ignore Electromagnetic Acceleration and instead assume that light travels in a straight path. Your argument is valid, but you're not arguing against the Flat Earth Theory, but rather a strawman that you've invented by yourself.
2. Again, EA is not refraction.
3. It appears that you've assumed Cartesian co-ordinates when calculating the supposed Flat Earth distance. Again, not strictly a faulty argument, but you're attacking something different from FET.
Conclusion: If you make up a theory that's designed to fail, it will be easy for you to show how it fails.
-
1. You have chosen to ignore Electromagnetic Acceleration and instead assume that light travels in a straight path. Your argument is valid, but you're not arguing against the Flat Earth Theory, but rather a strawman that you've invented by yourself.
2. Again, EA is not refraction.
3. It appears that you've assumed Cartesian co-ordinates when calculating the supposed Flat Earth distance. Again, not strictly a faulty argument, but you're attacking something different from FET.
Conclusion: If you make up a theory that's designed to fail, it will be easy for you to show how it fails.
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
1. So, you're saying that light is being affected by electromagnetism, and it is responsible for the incorrect angle of elevation of the sun as well as star trails. This is pretty laughable. Feel free to share the mechanism how light is magically being bent to show star trails EXACTLY as we would on a globe, with stars going around 2 celestial poles and in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. And also, feel free to show how the angle of elevations for the sun, differ so much from reality as plotted here:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/abatw4xxpt
See the error between the yellow line (what we see in reality AND SHOULD be seeing on a globe earth), and the green line (what we should be seeing on a flat earth)? So, please let me know the mechanism that light is somehow bending to the point that the green line matches EXACTLY the yellow line.
3. I don't think you've read my entire argument. That's fine, it was pretty long. But here's what I said there...
"So, the flat earthers love using the Azimuthal Equidistant projection (AE) as their go-to map to display the flat earth. Unfortunately, by projecting a sphere onto a Polar Coordinate system, there are going to be some major distortions. These distortions will get bigger and bigger the more you go South. Now, bear in mind, EVERY PROJECTION is quite distorted because no matter how you try to display a globe onto a flat piece of paper, you are going to have some major discrepancies. Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)
Now I already know what flat earthers are going to say....
'Just because we haven't completely solved the map problem yet, doesn't debunk the flat Earth'
Actually, it does. Here's why....
You can adjust the degree of separation of the flat earth, but then your latitudinal lines would be skewed. Because if you somehow fixed Australia's size to fit the distance, then the latitudinal lines from the coasts of Australia won't match up with the points that we see in reality. No matter how you try fixing the distance of one point, all other points will then be skewed."
Yea, EVERY projection of the continents on a flat piece of paper are going to have major distortions. Show me ONE that doesn't.
-
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
Have you considered discussing this with the people who actually hold those beliefs? We're not even on YouTube.
This is pretty laughable.
Great rebuttal.
stars going around 2 celestial poles and in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
Oh, so now you want me to talk about celestial gears? I wonder why you keep jumping between such vastly different subjects like that.
Why don't you just, like, learn the very basics of the subject matter first and THEN come here proclaiming you've found the "final nail in the coffin".
Right now, your arguments are the literal equivalent of "if the earth is round and gravity pulls everything down then AUSTRALIANS WOULD HAVE FALLEN DOWN CHECKMATE HAHA" - they rely on a woefully poor understanding of what's being proposed.
3. I don't think you've read my entire argument.
I have. You assumed that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere, and therefore posited that nobody could project it onto a plane without significant distortion. In other words, your argument can be reduced to "If the Earth is round, then it isn't flat." While correct, it doesn't particularly help us establish much.
Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)
Yes, when I was 7 years old.
Yea, EVERY projection of the continents on a flat piece of paper are going to have major distortions. Show me ONE that doesn't.
The Earth is flat. The following is not a projection:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
-
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
-
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Yes, Round Earthers like to call it that. Your point?
-
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Yes, Round Earthers like to call it that. Your point?
So do lots of FEers though? Because if you want to claim that's an actual map of the flat Earth, I'm game to use it to show that it can't work. Otherwise we're back to square one, that the image shown there is in fact a projection of a RE map onto a flat surface, thus all of the distortions. Alternatively, if you think it's neither a projection, nor an actual map of the flat Earth, what would you call it?
-
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
Have you considered discussing this with the people who actually hold those beliefs? We're not even on YouTube.
This is pretty laughable.
Great rebuttal.
stars going around 2 celestial poles and in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
Oh, so now you want me to talk about celestial gears? I wonder why you keep jumping between such vastly different subjects like that.
Why don't you just, like, learn the very basics of the subject matter first and THEN come here proclaiming you've found the "final nail in the coffin".
Right now, your arguments are the literal equivalent of "if the earth is round and gravity pulls everything down then AUSTRALIANS WOULD HAVE FALLEN DOWN CHECKMATE HAHA" - they rely on a woefully poor understanding of what's being proposed.
3. I don't think you've read my entire argument.
I have. You assumed that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere, and therefore posited that nobody could project it onto a plane without significant distortion. In other words, your argument can be reduced to "If the Earth is round, then it isn't flat." While correct, it doesn't particularly help us establish much.
Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)
Yes, when I was 7 years old.
Yea, EVERY projection of the continents on a flat piece of paper are going to have major distortions. Show me ONE that doesn't.
The Earth is flat. The following is not a projection:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
But if it is a true flat earth map, is it accurate in all areas ?
-
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
Have you considered discussing this with the people who actually hold those beliefs? We're not even on YouTube.
This is pretty laughable.
Great rebuttal.
The Earth is flat. The following is not a projection:
Why did you skip over the math and pluck the one thing out you could defend against?
So you claim this is an accurate map? Would be nice to have a baseline for debate.
-
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
Have you considered discussing this with the people who actually hold those beliefs? We're not even on YouTube.
This is pretty laughable.
Great rebuttal.
The Earth is flat. The following is not a projection:
Why did you skip over the math and pluck the one thing out you could defend against?
So you claim this is an accurate map? Would be nice to have a baseline for debate.
Using this map, how would you measure the distances of width of The United States and Australia ?
Both are about equal.
But on the flat earth map the width of Australia is shown as being much greater than that of The United States.
If this is an accurate map how do you account for this discrepancy ?
By saying the map is not a projection are you saying this is just because you deny it ?
-
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
Have you considered discussing this with the people who actually hold those beliefs? We're not even on YouTube.
This is pretty laughable.
Great rebuttal.
stars going around 2 celestial poles and in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
Oh, so now you want me to talk about celestial gears? I wonder why you keep jumping between such vastly different subjects like that.
Why don't you just, like, learn the very basics of the subject matter first and THEN come here proclaiming you've found the "final nail in the coffin".
Right now, your arguments are the literal equivalent of "if the earth is round and gravity pulls everything down then AUSTRALIANS WOULD HAVE FALLEN DOWN CHECKMATE HAHA" - they rely on a woefully poor understanding of what's being proposed.
3. I don't think you've read my entire argument.
I have. You assumed that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere, and therefore posited that nobody could project it onto a plane without significant distortion. In other words, your argument can be reduced to "If the Earth is round, then it isn't flat." While correct, it doesn't particularly help us establish much.
Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)
Yes, when I was 7 years old.
Yea, EVERY projection of the continents on a flat piece of paper are going to have major distortions. Show me ONE that doesn't.
The Earth is flat. The following is not a projection:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
Can you prove that "the following" map is not a copy of the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the globe ?
If you can, cite the source for verification.
You can't prove that is anything other than a projection any more than you can prove the size and shape of Australia is an accurate depiction.
-
Sure, I just put together an argument going against I've seen most popular flat earthers say on Youtube.
Have you considered discussing this with the people who actually hold those beliefs? We're not even on YouTube.
This is pretty laughable.
Great rebuttal.
stars going around 2 celestial poles and in OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS.
Oh, so now you want me to talk about celestial gears? I wonder why you keep jumping between such vastly different subjects like that.
Why don't you just, like, learn the very basics of the subject matter first and THEN come here proclaiming you've found the "final nail in the coffin".
Right now, your arguments are the literal equivalent of "if the earth is round and gravity pulls everything down then AUSTRALIANS WOULD HAVE FALLEN DOWN CHECKMATE HAHA" - they rely on a woefully poor understanding of what's being proposed.
3. I don't think you've read my entire argument.
I have. You assumed that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere, and therefore posited that nobody could project it onto a plane without significant distortion. In other words, your argument can be reduced to "If the Earth is round, then it isn't flat." While correct, it doesn't particularly help us establish much.
Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)
Yes, when I was 7 years old.
Yea, EVERY projection of the continents on a flat piece of paper are going to have major distortions. Show me ONE that doesn't.
The Earth is flat. The following is not a projection:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
Again, I can tell that you're not reading ANYTHING that I'm saying. My argument is that...
If that AE map is supposed to represent reality, then the distances and proportions should line up with what we see IN REALITY. It doesn't
Again, if you looked over my math, it isn't hard to demonstrate. A flight from the two coast of Australia would last about 3.8 hours, since the two coasts are 2281 miles apart. But if we look over the flat earth map, and do the math (like I did before)...
a*pi*r/180 (This statement is equivalent to s=r(theta), but that requires radians, so we'll use the previous formula for simplicity's sake)
"r" is the distance from the North Pole to the two points. Since the Longitudinal lines are the same on a flat earth, and a globe earth, "r" turns out to be 8278 mi. While the longitudinal separation between the two points is about 39 degrees. Using the formula, the length of the two distances turns out to be
5941 miles.
So the flat earth map is showing Australia to be 2x as large as it really is. So if the plane is traveling 600mph, it would have to land somewhere in the middle of Australia. Or, the plane is traveling 1200 mph. Something that no commercial jet can physically do. Now you could adjust Australia's size to be smaller, but then the longitude lines won't line up relative to other land masses.
Meaning that map is *wrong*. There's a lot of other examples I can give as well...
-
That map is just one type of many projections made from the globe.
It is simply a Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection.
It is as simple as that.
Nothing more and nothing less.
-
Just in it for the lols: I've already criticised you for nonsensically assuming Cartesian geometry. It would help if you tried responding to your debate counterparts. Repeating your error over and over again does not make your argument any more convincing.
Gecko: Yes, we know you think the Earth is round, you've said it about 1027 times at this point.
-
Just in it for the lols: I've already criticised you for nonsensically assuming Cartesian geometry. It would help if you tried responding to your debate counterparts. Repeating your error over and over again does not make your argument any more convincing.
Gecko: Yes, we know you think the Earth is round, you've said it about 1027 times at this point.
Thanks for the count ! Does that "we" include yourself ?
But I think it has been said close to 7 billion times "around" (if you'll pardon the pun) the world !
-
Just in it for the lols: I've already criticised you for nonsensically assuming Cartesian geometry. It would help if you tried responding to your debate counterparts. Repeating your error over and over again does not make your argument any more convincing.
Gecko: Yes, we know you think the Earth is round, you've said it about 1027 times at this point.
"nonsensically assuming Cartesian geometry"
What?!
So does a/b in Australia suddenly not equal to a/b in Greenland? If your map represents reality, than the proportions have to hold true. A plane going at a constant speed going 600mph in Australia should take under 8 hours to complete a flight, it takes half that time. If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true. It's that simple.
And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails, as well as a constant angular size for the sun/
-
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)
And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.
as well as a constant angular size for the sun
Once again, I already replied - there's a whole article about that in the Wiki. What is it with you and failing to read the basics?
-
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)
And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.
as well as a constant angular size for the sun
Once again, I already replied - there's a whole article about that in the Wiki. What is it with you and failing to read the basics?
"Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)"
You repeating something doesn't change the math. Australia's size is 2x as large as it should be. What that means is that planes should be going 1200 mph, not 600 mph. Are you going to say that commercial planes go faster than sound? And how can your model explain the 24 hr Antarctic sun? Feel free to give the specifics of the mechanism on how light magically bends to cover the entire Antarctic continent, while not shining anything in between.
"I already replied. Celestial gears."
Why not just use "rainbow unicorn poop"? It has as much credibility as the reply you gave, and it sounds more fun.
"Once again, I already replied - there's a whole article about that in the Wiki. What is it with you and failing to read the basics??
Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.
-
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)
And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.
Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one. Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?
-
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)
And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.
Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one. Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?
I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?
-
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)
And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.
Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one. Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?
I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?
Its run by a giant pendulum and much like the dark object it can't be seen.
-
If your model doesn't represent....REALITY, then the model doesn't hold true.
Excellent news, given that my model does represent.... REALITY. Does.... YOURS? (hint: no)
And I'm still looking forward to your reply on the specific mechanism that enables Southern star trails
I already replied. Celestial gears.
Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one. Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?
I suppose those celestial gears must also be something like an automatic transmission. There must be some way to shift the gears to change the sun from its summer orbit to its winter orbit and then back and forth ?
Its run by a giant pendulum and much like the dark object it can't be seen.
Just like the ice wall it can't be seen. ???
Cars have planetary gears. Why can't the flat earth ?
-
Australia's size is 2x as large as it should be.
You repeating this over and over does not make it true. You've made a flawed and unsubstantiated assumption.
Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.
That's nice, dear. I'm still not here to lecture you. If you'd like to read the basics, read up on them.
-
Australia's size is 2x as large as it should be.
You repeating this over and over does not make it true. You've made a flawed and unsubstantiated assumption.
Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.d
That's nice, dear. I'm still not here to lecture you. If you'd like to read the basics, read up on them.
Assuming that if you are looking at the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, it IS true that Australia DOES appear to be 2x the width that it actually IS, which IS obvious to the most casual observer.
-
Thanks for the count ! Does that "we" include yourself ?
But I think it has been said close to 7 billion times "around" (if you'll pardon the pun) the world !
Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one. Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?
Please refrain from off-topic, and low-content posting in the upper fora, especially Flat Earth Debate. Gecko, you already know better.
Consider this a warning to you both.
-
Thanks for the count ! Does that "we" include yourself ?
But I think it has been said close to 7 billion times "around" (if you'll pardon the pun) the world !
Celestial gears: Oh man, that's a great one. Does anyone have to lube the gear bearings or is there a celestial grease gun?
Please refrain from off-topic, and low-content posting in the upper fora, especially Flat Earth Debate. Gecko, you already know better.
Consider this a warning to you both.
Noted. I replied to a low content post with one of my own. Celestial gears.
-
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Yes, Round Earthers like to call it that. Your point?
You know that Tom doesn't believe in this map. (Apparently.) He believes the Antarctica is a continent. (Apparently.) How do you reconcile these wildly differing, mutually exclusive hypotheses as to the fundamental shape and form of the Earth? Which one are we to believe, and/or debate?
-
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Yes, Round Earthers like to call it that. Your point?
You know that Tom doesn't believe in this map. (Apparently.) He believes the Antarctica is a continent. (Apparently.) How do you reconcile these wildly differing, mutually exclusive hypotheses as to the fundamental shape and form of the Earth? Which one are we to believe, and/or debate?
Tom's "new" map is actually even harder to reconcile with the facts that we know from the real world than the old one. Consider that in December, the antarctic (which Tom now admits exists) has 24 hours of continuous sunlight. Which means that sometimes, the sun is somewhere between the "bottom" coast of antarctica and the "bottom" edge of the map. (Using compass directions on Toms new map hurts my head!). This would mean that in South America, the sun would be setting on the southern horizon. Needless to say, this doesn't happen.
So that map is *BUSTED* for sure!
-
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
Yes, Round Earthers like to call it that. Your point?
You know that Tom doesn't believe in this map. (Apparently.) He believes the Antarctica is a continent. (Apparently.) How do you reconcile these wildly differing, mutually exclusive hypotheses as to the fundamental shape and form of the Earth? Which one are we to believe, and/or debate?
Tom's "new" map is actually even harder to reconcile with the facts that we know from the real world than the old one. Consider that in December, the antarctic (which Tom now admits exists) has 24 hours of continuous sunlight. Which means that sometimes, the sun is somewhere between the "bottom" coast of antarctica and the "bottom" edge of the map. (Using compass directions on Toms new map hurts my head!). This would mean that in South America, the sun would be setting on the southern horizon. Needless to say, this doesn't happen.
So that map is *BUSTED* for sure!
I'm sure Tom has some hand-wavy ad-hoc explanation for that perpetual antarctic daylight. (And I'm genuinely interested out of morbid anthropological curiousity - unless it's the tired old "massive global conspiracy" one, refitted to antarctica-as-a-continent)
And we know that one of the biggest problems with the azimuthal equidistant projection / ice-wall model, is that in order for the southern hemisphere to see only southern hemisphere constellations, would require that everyone on the outer edge of the disk be able to see the "lower" constellations - including those all the way across the disk - but not the ones in between, in the middle. (The northern hemisphere constellations.) But again, they get around it with nonsensical hand-wavy ad-hoc assertions.
-
Last time I checked, this is a forum, not the wiki, and I'm asking YOU.
That's nice, dear. I'm still not here to lecture you. If you'd like to read the basics, read up on them.
That would be a fine response, if every time someone quoted your wiki, you guys didn't dismiss it with, "but I don't believe that part of the wiki". That's what you guys say every time. There is objectively no point in reading your wiki. That is why Just in it for the Lols was "asking YOU". If you don't care to answer, that's your prerogative, but at least be honest about it.
-
That would be a fine response, if every time someone quoted your wiki, you guys didn't dismiss it with, "but I don't believe that part of the wiki". That's what you guys say every time.
Nice claim. Please provide evidence to support it.
-
That would be a fine response, if every time someone quoted your wiki, you guys didn't dismiss it with, "but I don't believe that part of the wiki". That's what you guys say every time.
Nice claim. Please provide evidence to support it.
So to be clear - do YOU believe everything that's in the Wiki?
Who is responsible for fixing errors in it by the way?
-
Who is responsible for fixing errors in it by the way?
No one is "responsible" for it, but I'm the one that generally does it. Bear in mind that I'm generally uninterested in RE'ers whining about how they don't like FET, but if you've found any clerical errors, hit me up.
-
Who is responsible for fixing errors in it by the way?
No one is "responsible" for it, but I'm the one that generally does it. Bear in mind that I'm generally uninterested in RE'ers whining about how they don't like FET, but if you've found any clerical errors, hit me up.
Well, the one error I found (which isn't really that important) is that it says that a photo is of the ice cliff - when in fact it's a photo of a free-floating iceberg. But it's hardly worth fixing.
My point being that if you personally believe in what it says - then you should be able to explain some of the things that it says that don't match reality.
The difficulty with debate here is that no two FE'ers seem to believe in the exact same set of things - so when an RE'er tries to prove a point - and you say "Go look in the Wiki" - it's typically explaining a point of view that even many FE proponents don't agree with.
For example, the map that's in the Wiki isn't remotely similar to the one that Tom Bishop currently proposes. Many of the explanations for things such as motion of sun and moon and that kind of thing don't work for Tom's map.
But it's hard to pin these things down when one person (you mostly) say "Look in the Wiki" and other FE'ers are (in effect) saying "The Wiki is wrong".
I myself run a couple of Wiki's (one for a car club) and I know how much work it can be to try to keep everything up to date - and although I mostly disagree about what the Wiki says, it is at least tidy and easy on the eyes...and for that you deserve a degree of respect.
-
That would be a fine response, if every time someone quoted your wiki, you guys didn't dismiss it with, "but I don't believe that part of the wiki". That's what you guys say every time.
Nice claim. Please provide evidence to support it.
So to be clear - do YOU believe everything that's in the Wiki?
Who is responsible for fixing errors in it by the way?
How did you possibly come to that train of thought based on what I said? I literally just asked someone to provide evidence for a pretty absolute claim they made.
-
[...] in fact [...] reality [...]
You present opinions as fact. The Ross Ice Wall is often believed to be a floating "ice shelf" by RE'ers, but this does not make it inaccurate within the scope of the Flat Earth Wiki. We are not trying to document the Round Earth model there. Since you (incorrectly) consider "Round Earth Model" and "reality" to be synonymous, nearly anything that you think is "reality" has no place in the FEW.
Yes, there are some FE'ers who are working on alternative models. This is a good thing. If their models become mainstream, we'll make sure that the Wiki reflects that. It's also no secret that some of the articles are simply old and could do with a review. However, rest assured that every time I say "go look at the Wiki", I first take a quick look at the article in question to make sure I'm not directing you to something I believe to be wildly inaccurate. Repeatedly demanding that someone writes the same content out is just a poor attempt at gaming the debate. "Oh, you didn't have the patience to re-explain the same subject for the umpteenth time? That must be because you know you're wrong!"
-
[...] in fact [...] reality [...]
You present opinions as fact. The Ross Ice Wall is often believed to be a floating "ice shelf" by RE'ers, but this does not make it inaccurate within the scope of the Flat Earth Wiki. We are not trying to document the Round Earth model there. Since you (incorrectly) consider "Round Earth Model" and "reality" to be synonymous, nearly anything that you think is "reality" has no place in the FEW.
Yes, there are some FE'ers who are working on alternative models. This is a good thing. If their models become mainstream, we'll make sure that the Wiki reflects that. It's also no secret that some of the articles are simply old and could do with a review. However, rest assured that every time I say "go look at the Wiki", I first take a quick look at the article in question to make sure I'm not directing you to something I believe to be wildly inaccurate. Repeatedly demanding that someone writes the same content out is just a poor attempt at gaming the debate. "Oh, you didn't have the patience to re-explain the same subject for the umpteenth time? That must be because you know you're wrong!"
I absolutely, 100% agree that you should not spend your time reiterating things that are indeed fully explained in the Wiki.
But when someone brings up an interesting point that is clearly NOT covered in the Wiki - and you say "Go look in the Wiki" - that's not a great response.
You then go on to say that it's been mentioned a bunch of times in these forums - but expecting someone to search through thousands of posts for the particular answer YOU had in mind is more or less impossible.
The way to fix that is that when a good argument appears that's not explained in the Wiki - is go update the Wiki. That's a well-organized body of knowledge that anyone can easily read from beginning to end. Expecting people to trawl though the forums is not going to work...and expecting you to re-re-re-explain the same point over and over isn't going to work.
But a one-time coherent effort to update the Wiki and distill the wisdom of the forums into an organized body of knowledge would be a very good thing for everyone. I'd offer to help with that - but somehow I don't think you'd like the results! :-)
-
But when someone brings up an interesting point that is clearly NOT covered in the Wiki - and you say "Go look in the Wiki" - that's not a great response.
I can't say I've ever witnessed that happening.
You then go on to say that it's been mentioned a bunch of times in these forums - but expecting someone to search through thousands of posts for the particular answer YOU had in mind is more or less impossible.
It's really not. You type in a couple of keywords in the search bar, and you glance through the posts. It works for most people, bar the extremely lazy and those with entitlement issues.
The way to fix that is that when a good argument appears that's not explained in the Wiki - is go update the Wiki. That's a well-organized body of knowledge that anyone can easily read from beginning to end. Expecting people to trawl though the forums is not going to work...and expecting you to re-re-re-explain the same point over and over isn't going to work.
But a one-time coherent effort to update the Wiki and distill the wisdom of the forums into an organized body of knowledge would be a very good thing for everyone. I'd offer to help with that - but somehow I don't think you'd like the results! :-)
I don't disagree in principle, but I don't believe there are many subjects that are both:
- Sufficiently set in stone so that they could be written down in the Wiki as opposed to a discussion thread
- Not yet described in the Wiki
For issues that break the first condition, it's best that there is a single forum thread, and that others with questions or comments join in there instead of creating multiple redundant threads that dilute communication. That's why we expect people to search first, post later.
-
[...] in fact [...] reality [...]
You present opinions as fact. The Ross Ice Wall is often believed to be a floating "ice shelf" by RE'ers, but this does not make it inaccurate within the scope of the Flat Earth Wiki. We are not trying to document the Round Earth model there. Since you (incorrectly) consider "Round Earth Model" and "reality" to be synonymous, nearly anything that you think is "reality" has no place in the FEW.
Yes, there are some FE'ers who are working on alternative models. This is a good thing. If their models become mainstream, we'll make sure that the Wiki reflects that. It's also no secret that some of the articles are simply old and could do with a review. However, rest assured that every time I say "go look at the Wiki", I first take a quick look at the article in question to make sure I'm not directing you to something I believe to be wildly inaccurate. Repeatedly demanding that someone writes the same content out is just a poor attempt at gaming the debate. "Oh, you didn't have the patience to re-explain the same subject for the umpteenth time? That must be because you know you're wrong!"
I find it hard to believe anyone is seriously working on an alternative model. Alternative to what and based on what data?