1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Removed to nonsense

« on: May 20, 2018, 10:27:25 AM »

I was about to reply to a post here, explaining how certain topics (I was going to list and explain in detail) are considered no go for RE and explain how if these are touched on the post gets moved to nonsense or ranting by the FE moderator (note: moderators are only flat earthers and they reserve the right to decide what is nonsense and what isnt, something which in any debate isnt fair)

but the post was moved to nonsense..................and this one probably will be.

To be honest there is no reason to move things to different folders. If someone posts it here, unless it is rude or abusive, they have a point they would like answered or discussed. If the majority are not interested or feel it irrelevant it will disappear down the list rapidly and if it doesnt, then people want to discuss it. It seems unfair of a FE moderator to remove topics only they feel should be removed, they are not impartial. However this is their website and it is up to them to decide if they want to be fair.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 14, 2018, 09:25:16 AM »

Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.

OK imagine standing on a flat earth, the horizon at eye level then going up 1 light year, how could the horizon still be at eye level now the flat earth is 1 light year below you. The horizon is going to be straight down.

Quote from 9 out of 10 doctors
jimbob is the best person on this site. No, seriously, jimbob is why I stay on this site.           I was going to say Junker is, but OK

3

Flat Earth Theory / Attainable Height

« on: May 13, 2018, 01:58:14 PM »

Bobby Shaffto raises an interesting point in relation to the "horizon" thread that is integral to many calculations

Quote
"I imagine a flat earth advocate will say that you can't go up 1 light year from the flat earth.
How high could you go before being able to see the edge of a finite disc-shaped flat earth?

Having been through the info in wiki and found no solution to the question, I will pose it here, How far up can you go from the current Flat Earth model. Commercial airliners travel at around 35000 ft and we have all been on those. How much higher is it possible to go before one meets some sort of barrier (if there is one).

Quote from 9 out of 10 doctors
jimbob is the best person on this site. No, seriously, jimbob is why I stay on this site.           I was going to say Junker is, but OK

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: True Horizon Level

« on: May 12, 2018, 09:45:04 PM »

I thought that we had established that the horizon dips for both a RE and FE model, its just the amount that differs. It would be impossible for it not too, unless the FE is infinatley long and I dont think the FE's are claiming that.

I don't think so. Any FE advocates want to agree that's been established?

I think not since a principle claim of FE is that the horizon never dips. It always rises to eye-level. I agree, I don't understand how that works, but I can't make the argument for them. I'm just accepting it on face value since, if true, it should be a distinguishing feature between flat and convex.

OK imagine standing on a flat earth, the horizon at eye level then going up 1 light year, how could the horizon still be at eye level now the flat earth is 1 light year below you. It is going to be straight down.

Quote from 9 out of 10 doctors
jimbob is the best person on this site. No, seriously, jimbob is why I stay on this site.           I was going to say Junker is, but OK

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: True Horizon Level

« on: May 12, 2018, 09:16:00 PM »

I'm not defending the rationale used in Earth Not a Globe.
But I'm also not going to critique it because that's proved to be fruitless.

Whatever explanation FE model wants to propose for it, sound or not, the bottom line is that it claims the horizon is always level from the vantage point of the observer. There's no rationalization for that in a globe model because a globe model refutes that claim. The horizon will dip below eye level with elevation.

So, the horizon reasoning is supplemental. Just measure it and see which it is. If the horizon dips, the surface is convex. If not, then the surface is flat.

I thought that we had established that the horizon dips for both a RE and FE model, its just the amount that differs. It would be impossible for it not too, unless the FE is infinitley long and I dont think the FE's are claiming that.

Quote from 9 out of 10 doctors
jimbob is the best person on this site. No, seriously, jimbob is why I stay on this site.           I was going to say Junker is, but OK

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: True Horizon Level

« on: May 12, 2018, 06:38:53 PM »

I can’t say I really understand how it would work on a flat earth, but I’ll take the flat earth claim that the horizon always stays level to the eye as truth, only because I know that should not be the case on a sphere. So it ought to at least be a discriminator between a surface that curves away from the observer and one that doesn’t.

The way it would work on a flat earth is that tan(angle)=(Distance from observer to edge of earth)/(Height of observer)
As you can see, the angle would greatley depend on how close the observer is to the edge of the earth and obviously the size of the flat earth. Since there are no estimates as to the diameter of the flat earth, calculation stops here im afraid.

That's not how Samuel Rowbotham explains it (or how his disciples understand it). The best I can make out is this conventional flat earth explanation is that the horizon is an apparent one; one of perception. It's not a geometric calculation of surface shapes and sight lines. Somehow, the ground plane rises and all planes above eye level descend, meeting at an apparent vanishing point/line, the distance of which is contingent on height above the ground plane, and resolution of the image receptor (eye, camera, telescope)...all merging in something called a convergence zone of atmospheric effects and obscurants. In other words, the horizon isn't an actual calculated line. It just is, and depends on the observer and anything that might be blocking.

I don't know. That's the best I can do. But I do know that trying to explain it geometrically isn't how the flat earth defense does it.

Yes, had a look at Rowbothans theory, one primary problem is that he requires light rays to bend. Now this can happen at the boundary of two different types of material with a differing refractive index but the light ray leaving the horizon only passes through air so I think his theory needs to be revised. Because the light ray cant be bent sufficiently that means geometry can and should be used in calculation. The refractive index of air only varies between 2.5 - 2.85 at the earths most extreme temperatures. It is orders of magnitude too small with even the assumption of the most ridiculous temperature gradients.

Quote from 9 out of 10 doctors
jimbob is the best person on this site. No, seriously, jimbob is why I stay on this site.           I was going to say Tom is, but OK

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: True Horizon Level

« on: May 12, 2018, 03:06:45 PM »

The phenomenon of the horizon extending with observer elevation seems to point to the earth beinf some sort of ball, does it not?

It does not. It’s “phenomenon” because we don’t have necks or eyeballs calibrated to detect the small angular drop in the horizon due to the size of the sphere. But if we can measure accurately and the phenomenon persists, it would not point to a ball earth. A ball earth should not present such a phenomenon when measured.

I can’t say I really understand how it would work on a flat earth, but I’ll take the flat earth claim that the horizon always stays level to the eye as truth, only because I know that should not be the case on a sphere. So it ought to at least be a discriminator between a surface that curves away from the observer and one that doesn’t.

The way it would work on a flat earth is that tan(angle)=(Distance from observer to edge of earth)/(Height of observer)
As you can see, the angle would greatley depend on how close the observer is to the edge of the earth and obviously the size of the flat earth. Since there are no estimates as to the diameter of the flat earth, calculation stops here im afraid.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: True Horizon Level

« on: May 12, 2018, 03:01:07 PM »

Surely if you look UP at the sun, it implies that if you were standing on the sun and looking at the “plate” if the earth were flat, you’d be looking down?!

Lol this whole “horizon rises to eye level” thing makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, what does it actually mean, and what would it actually prove even if it happened? If it did always rise to meet eye level, it’d have to physically actually MOVE as I ascended, OR the plate would actually be concave like a shallow pudding bowl! That’s not flat either.

The phenomenon of the horizon extending with observer elevation seems to point to the earth beinf some sort of ball, does it not?

Here is a sketch showing "eye level" and simple geometry to calculate viewing angle. Eye level would be 90 degrees. This relates to a sphere and an observation point above the sphere's surface, not necessarily the earth.
https://pasteboard.co/HkQHe0b.jpg
This is the simple formula by which I made the previous calculations.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: True Horizon Level

« on: May 12, 2018, 09:36:59 AM »

Flat Earth explanation for the horizon is different from that Globe Earth. You can't use one claimed mechanism to refute the other. (I suppose you can in a contest of rhetoric, but that gets nowhere if the sides can't agree on what manifests a horizon.)

Bottom line is Flat Earth claims horizon is always at eye level, which I understand to be 90 degs from perpendicular, parallel to earth surface. Height above surface won't change that angle. Globe Earth to the contrary says horizon will always be below eye level (vantage angle less than 90 degs from perpendicular). Just at low elevations it's difficult to detect due to size of globe. But with rise in elevation, a "dip" in horizon below eye level is observable.

You can argue forever and make no progress. But observing whether or not the horizon actually does always rise to eye level ought to resolve which explanation for a horizon is more sound.

If we assume a round earth with its accepted radius, here are some calculated angles for different heights (remember 90 degrees is eye level)
2m 89.95 degrees
10m 89.89 degrees
100m 89.67 degrees
1000m 88.98 degrees
10000m 86.79 degrees
So you see the horizon is always close to eye level even at 10 km height (only 3 degrees different at 10km above earth surface). It is difficult to detect a change of 3 degrees.

Now for a flat earth, the horizon would be at the edge of the world so you would need to know the diameter of the flat earth. Anyone care to estimate.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: True Horizon Level

« on: May 11, 2018, 06:56:48 PM »

Would someone explain to me why on a Flat Earth the horizon will not be the edge of the flat earth. This is A FACT if the Earth is Flat. It will only be untrue if the Earth isn't Flat. Isnt that what the Flat Earth society believes?

So it would seem that the argument about the horizon being at eye level proves round earth theory not flat earth theory if the earth was flat you would be right but you arent because it isnt.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: True Horizon Level

« on: May 11, 2018, 06:52:39 PM »

Here is whats on the wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Been through this, it isnt correct. The reason it is at eye level is because it isnt (not quite). However our height in relation to the distance to the horizon is small (a couple of meters in relation to many killometers hence the angle is nearly ninty (89.97 degrees)
Found from assuming a height of 2m which gives a horizon distance of 5.1km away.
This works with a spherical earth but with a flat one the horizon will be where the earth stops.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: True Horizon Level

« on: May 11, 2018, 06:36:08 PM »

Would someone explain to me why on a Flat Earth the horizon will not be the edge of the flat earth. This is A FACT if the Earth is Flat. It will only be untrue if the Earth isn't Flat. Isnt that what the Flat Earth society believes?

I went through this with my derived formula (see earlier), it is obvious the horizon will be at eye level if the earth is round. If on a flat disc then it will be at the edge of the earth but of course it isnt because the earth is round.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So what benefits for government lying to us?????

« on: May 05, 2018, 10:42:51 AM »

why do you all tell us NASA/Government are lying to us? What possible benefits are there to be gained? Don't tell me they are scared to admit they were wrong as science is always striving to better understand our universe.

Note: Not just our government but America's, Russia's and China's. This conspiracy would require tremendous cooperation between them and if the media is to be believed, they aren’t exactly all best buddies. Even if for the sake of argument they are all sleeping together, I doubt they would be competent enough to pull it off (with the exception of Putin). Our Government definately couldnt as they seem to be struggling to hold things together......dont get me started.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space travel conspiracy

« on: May 01, 2018, 07:03:07 PM »

I saw a shuttle launch one time, just happened to be in Florida on holiday at the right time.
Was absolutely amazing.

This is another opportunity for a flat Earth advocate to debunk space travel. Find out when a launch is planned, then go along to see exactly what is really happening.

I did mention that my neighbour and Tim Peake and his wife Rebecca(the british astronaught) are friends (my neighbour actually out ranks Tim). He showed me the picture taken from the ISS window by Tim. Neither of them are in on the conspiracy so how did Tim spend around 6 months on the ISS in zero g without knowing he was on earth and it was all a charade? No one could have tricked him like that.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: May 01, 2018, 06:41:59 PM »

I think that the FE'ers will say they're in on it.  The top 10% are part of the USA's elite, and I would assume that most likely they will say everyone in America's elite is in on it.

I did mention that my neighbour and Tim Peake and his wife Rebecca(the british astronaught) are friends (my neighbour actually out ranks Tim). He showed me the picture taken from the ISS window by Tim. Neither of them are in on the conspiracy so how did Tim spend around 6 months on the ISS in zero g without knowing he was on earth and it was all a charade? No one could have tricked him like that.

16

Flat Earth Theory / international conspiracy

« on: May 01, 2018, 03:14:16 PM »

In terms of space conspiracy what is the general FE perspective in relation to the three main space fairing nations. America, Russia and China. Are they all in this together? The cover up would require considerable cooperation between these nations and they aren’t exactly best buddies. It would require some unifying body between them to ensure the cover-up of all individuals involved in the Russian, Chinese and American space program. Even If they were best buddies and all sleeping together, I don’t believe that they are competent enough to pull it off. Russia and America couldn’t even rig one election without being found out and that didn’t involve anything like as many people. I just can’t imagine Trump and Putin as best buddies, and Trump not letting the cat out of the bag, when trying to impress some girl.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space Tourists

« on: May 01, 2018, 08:33:13 AM »

It is generally accepted that everyone that "has been to space" has been faking. This may be for own benefit mostly. She might not be covering up flat earth, but just following what everybody else said. Do you have evidence where she says earth is round?

I'm creating list of those publicly involved in space travel faking. Quite something.

Wouldnt that require an extreme level of cooperation between the Americans, Russians and Chinese. Are these, all secretly best buddies even though they appear to be enemies on the world stage? Do you think that Trump is best buddies with Putin. They cant even rig an election without people catching on. Even if they were all best buddies and sleeping together, non of them are competent enough to pull it off except for maybe Putin and even then, Trump would probably screw it up and let the cat out of the bag.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunset At Altitude

« on: April 30, 2018, 09:12:16 AM »

"Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase  in height at the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant." - Tom Bishop

I did an experiment to explore the idea that waves could be an explanation for sunset or ships sinking below the horizon. This is the set up



So I built a tower 3 Jenga blocks high and a row of blocks which represent waves. Let's see how much of the tower is hidden behind the waves depending on the eye height. If the eye is below the level of the wave then the amount of tower hidden is more than the height of the wave. More than one block of the tower is hidden. Couple of pictures, the first slightly to the side so you can see that we are looking below wave level, the second looking straight along the row of blocks:





This is explained by this diagram:



You're looking up at the wave so more than the wave height is hidden. Although if the wave that is higher than your eye height is nearer the tower then less of it would be hidden because the angle is shallower:



This is also a demonstration that these side on diagrams don't need to "account for perspective" and do reflect the reality of what you see.
Now let's look at wave height. Here you can see that the amount hidden is the same as the wave height:



Which makes sense. You're looking across the level of the waves so only the height of the wave is hidden:



If you are above the wave level though then less than the wave height is hidden.
Jenga blocks are all the same height but you can clearly see that less than one block is hidden:



And that's because you are looking down over the waves:



Ergo, if you're at altitude you will be looking over the waves so the sun can't be hiding behind them.



Discuss.

I fly microlights and consideration has to be given regarding sunset at altitude. You can be caught out if you dont allow for it. The sun sets later at altitude.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No sun

« on: April 28, 2018, 11:22:00 AM »

It's clearly answered in the Wiki: the Sun is farther away from the North Pole in the winter.

Actually, what I mentioned isnt in the wiki. I have been to these two places in the same winter (within a week and a half of each other), 1000's of miles apart (judging by the length of time of the flight) and experienced permanent dark. Since the distance between them precludes that they arent experiencing the same absence of sun (magic flying lamp) could this mean there are actually two suns.

20

Flat Earth Theory / No sun

« on: April 27, 2018, 01:14:22 PM »

I have been to two places, Lapland and North Canada that are thousands of miles appart (assuming the pilot of the plane didnt fly in circles for 11 hours-I probably would have noticed) in their mid winter and experienced 24 hours of dark (for quite a few weeks) and tryed to picture how this happens above a flat earth.