1

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar & Lunar Eclipses? Who knew?

« on: April 24, 2018, 09:49:49 AM »

If the Sun shines it light in all points of interest and the Earth can see out at all points of interest; what is the practality of eclipse prediction when the Moon orbits the Earth every 27.322 days?  The Moon does not orbit the Earth perpendicular to the Sun's light because how can light coming from a sphere (from all directions) reach anything in a perpendicular state?  Hence why is there not more solar and lunar eclipses visible from given points on planet Earth?  Is it the pursuit of control to maintain confusion in others to prevent the basic use of geometry in the situation? Or in the pursuit of control and belief through confusion is evolution produced?  Are we creating our environment through a form of evolutionary chaos?

Reference regarding evolutionary chaos through the pursuit of control also known as the pursuit of knowledge which in turn is power to change an environment to produce a desired result.  If the results are produced to define everything around the problem at hand what else was produced than division in knowledge and direction that produces no unity for the sake of evolution without chaos?

 Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem. Martin C. Gutzwiller 1998

I now understand why there were no responses to this post.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 30, 2018, 07:46:30 AM »

Well Round Earthers, all I can say is this;

Give it up, you'll never get anywhere debating with a guy who thinks like this:

"If the earth is round, then the pilot would have to dip the plane to account for the earths curvature, and as a result the spirit level would have moved. It didn't, because the plane didn't. And if gravity keeps the plane curving instead, then why is it not strong enough to pull the plane down to earth? It's strong enough to pull the planet into a ball, but powerless to stop a plane flying? Please...

If the earth was round, and the pilot didn't dip the plane to account for the curvature, then the plane would fly in a straight line and would fly out of the sky into space."

There's absolutely no way that I can think of to reach a person whose mind works (or rather fails to work) like that.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 30, 2018, 07:33:33 AM »

Still, the only argument I'm making is:

If taken alone, that is not considering the other factors that make FE Moon conjecture laughable, the inversion of the image between North and South points in the FE model is consistent enough not to falsify the FE conjecture (i.e. it could be consistent with an FE model).

I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get what it is I'm trying to point out, so I give up.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seeing the Edge of the Earth

« on: March 29, 2018, 08:37:02 AM »

Aside from the atmosphere not being perfectly transparent, as has been said, remember that the further something gets the smaller it is.

That's why he brought his telescope...

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 29, 2018, 08:29:39 AM »

Not really trolling, it's a sincere question. And I'm not the first to pose it, there's lots of flat earth scholars that have questioned it too. That pic is routinely used in YouTube bids to demonstrate the point, for example.

"flat earth scholars" - Isn't that an oxymoron?

Incidentally, with regard to this remark - "however there's no evidence to suggest that gravity pulls the planet into a ball", there is much evidence that "gravity pulls the planet into a ball". Read up on your cosmology, with special attention to nebula and planet formation. Google will find lots of information on the subject for you. You don't even have to leave your easy chair.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 29, 2018, 08:26:22 AM »

I'm not. If they are underneath the ball, they are pointing downwards. So logically if they build something upwards it is, in fact, being built downwards. I don't know why this is so difficult to comprehend.

You're assuming a viewpoint from somewhere off the earth. Looking at the earth from, for example, the moon, your observations and comments are quite correct, to a point. But to the earthlings, no matter where they are on the earth, ground is down and sky is up. That pesky thing (I deign to call it a force, as I'm not yet convinced that gravity can be proved to be a force) known as gravity takes care of the up versus down problem that you perceive.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 29, 2018, 08:13:29 AM »

Have you read his book? He goes into extreme detail with regards to how his experiments were conducted and the various things he took into account. And I assume you were referring to Alfred Russell Wallace who claimed to take into account refraction, yet Dr Rowbotham himself went into extreme detail as to how he took refraction into account, thereby rendering Wallace's 'experiment' invalid. Dr Rowbotham produced many experiments and the conclusions were the result of the facts. Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth.

More importantly, have YOU read his book?

This remark by yourself seems more than a bit off the mark: "Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth."

The rest of the FE community is of the opinion that the sun is about 3,000 miles above the earth. Did they get that number from Rowbotham, or another source? If Rowbotham indeed believed the 700 mile number, then the community seems to believe him to be in error.

Incidentally, I DID read the book and passed it off as complete hogwash, which it is, and always will be. It's part pseudo science and part religious proselytizing. Scientifically, it is deserving of no respect whatever, in my opinion. The book was written by a man simply trying desperately to cling to his bizarre interpretation of the Christian religion in the face of all evidence to the contrary. To him, a flat earth was absolutely necessary because, in his interpretation, that's what the bible indicated it to be.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 29, 2018, 07:53:06 AM »

This image is perfect for illustrating my point.

First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers.
Assume the brown line to be the surface of a flat earth. From any viewpoint on that flat earth an observer will perceive the black half of the moon to be the top half, or "up".

On the spherical earth, the red fellow, near the north pole, will perceive the red half of the moon to be the top half of the moon, whereas the green fellow, near the south pole, will perceive the green half to be the top half of the moon.

To the green fellow the moon is upside down with respect to what the red fellow perceives. On the flat earth the moon is never perceived with the black half as the bottom of the moon. That is, on a flat earth the moon will never be perceived as being upside down with regard to what another observer on the flat earth perceives.

That is the core of this debate - the difference between reality and flat earth belief.

You post is a perfect illustration that you don't understand what you are looking at. This is still a 2D SIDE VIEW. The observer are on the same plane as the Moon. Just because I added the part of the Moon nobody see doesn't change that.

The BLACK half is the side of the Moon NOBODY can see, it faces directly away from the surface of the Earth. Since the Moon is so far away, it doesn't matter where you stand on the surface no matter what shape it is, that side is not visible. On Round Earth it can't seen because it's facing away from the Earth's surface. On Flat Earth, it facing away from the surface. From the angle they are viewing it at, only the red/green parts are visible to the observers.  There are sight lines and everything, you can see that from both the brown FE surface and the black RE surface that the red/green side is IN FRONT of the Black side.

Nobody is going to see 'black on top' because they can't even see the black half in the first place. They can only see the red/green half.

How are not getting this?

Remember that cylinder you had me make? Remember how none of the pictures show the TOP circle? Remember how they only show the BOTTOM circle? Remember how the bottom circle flipped between my pictures? Remember how I asked if you could tell the difference between the FE model pics and the RE model pics and you NEVER RESPONDED?

My best suggestion is for you is to find yourself another science teacher and have them explain this to you in person. You are having a really hard time understanding why we can only see one side of the Moon, and seem to think it's possible to see the back side, despite the fact that nobody on Earth has ever seen the back of it.

I began by saying, and THIS IS IMPORTANT, so PAY ATTENTION - "First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers". What I meant there is that, since we are dealing with a two dimensional illustration, for the sake of my argument it becomes necessary to mentally place the moon deeper into the illustration in the Z axis, thereby creating a "virtual" 3D illustration, so that the viewers in the illustration have essentially the same view of the moon as drawn that you and I have.

I get it, it appears that you're not getting it. I'm simply trying to show that flat earthers would never see the moon as "upside down", when compared to that seen by another viewer, from anywhere on their "flat earth". That should be obvious to anyone who gives it a modicum of thought.

As for "seeing the backside of the moon" I've consistently been trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, the face we see, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion. The amount of miscommunication here seems gargantuan. This is almost like kibitzing with an FEer. 

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How Flat Earth model explains twilight?

« on: March 28, 2018, 08:56:48 AM »

That's a rather interesting examination of the subject. Don't expect much involvement from the FE fraternity. though. There are too many pitfalls in this subject for all but the most daring of FE proponents.

Notwithstanding the inconsistencies you've introduced, I'm glad that you have included the moon in the presentation as it presents yet another problem I've yet to see addressed by any FEer. That is the question of how the sun, a spotlight shining predominantly downward, manages to illuminate the moon. Is the sun equipped with a second very narrow spotlight constantly focused on the moon? Is there a narrow 360 degree (azimuthal) component of its radiation whose elevation serendipitously happens to correspond to the elevation of the moon? Is the moon self luminous? Is it magic, or is the moon simply an hallucination?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 28, 2018, 08:02:17 AM »

I lost hope and interest in pointless arguing as soon as you said you dont understand how your approach was 2D. I came to this forum to actually find out whats the big deal, i thought theres a reason why a lot of people claim to believe in flat earth. What i found was dissapointing.

Thank you

If you were expecting brilliantly presented factual dissertations on flat earth theory, accompanied by voluminous documentation and incontrovertible evidence, I'm sorry to have to break the news to you, but such does not exist. Essentially, all you'll ever find here are a group of people of opposing views bickering over what is, in truth, a moot point.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 28, 2018, 07:52:40 AM »

This image is perfect for illustrating my point.

First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers.
Assume the brown line to be the surface of a flat earth. From any viewpoint on that flat earth an observer will perceive the black half of the moon to be the top half, or "up".

On the spherical earth, the red fellow, near the north pole, will perceive the red half of the moon to be the top half of the moon, whereas the green fellow, near the south pole, will perceive the green half to be the top half of the moon.

To the green fellow the moon is upside down with respect to what the red fellow perceives. On the flat earth the moon is never perceived with the black half as the bottom of the moon. That is, on a flat earth the moon will never be perceived as being upside down with regard to what another observer on the flat earth perceives.

That is the core of this debate - the difference between reality and flat earth belief.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 21, 2018, 01:26:38 AM »

Now you've got it. That is a correct representation of the real world. Now I have no idea what you were trying to demonstrate with the two dimensional stuff.

Looking back, though, I see that your initial statement was "The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model".

So let's try that thought experiment, but change the target, which should eliminate any confusion:

Take a long, thin strip of paper and, instead of Tom's arrow, write the word ARROW on it several times, enough to fill the strip from end to end. Now tape the ends of the strip together, with the words ARROW facing out, forming a stubby cylinder. Hang your cylinder from an imaginary skyhook, then travel to various points on a planar surface below the cylinder. When looking at the cylinder from any point on the planar surface you will find that the words ARROW will always be upright, never upside down.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Equinox!?

« on: March 21, 2018, 01:10:01 AM »

Look at the map above. If you looked East, would you expect to see things that are East of you? Or do you expect your vision to follow the curve of East?

If the former, you have to accept that things that appear East, can be some place other than East. It isn't the sun changing location. Its just the sun could look to be East when in fact it isn't.

"the sun could look to be East when in fact it isn't" - What?!?!?!

If that makes sense to someone here, could they please explain it to me? Where the hell is it going to be? North? West? South? North by northwest?

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 12:55:18 AM »

Well, this ought to be entertaining, if nothing else. I now wait with bated breath.

EDIT: And in response to Tom's post, typed while I was typing, I agree. I does look like another flat earth presentation.

The bit about the newly discovered continent ought to be especially entertaining...

In fact, I believe I'll go out on a limb here and predict that the B.S. meter is about to be pegged.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?

« on: March 19, 2018, 08:18:02 AM »

If I spend 5 hours in a thread to bring you up to speed on a subject, you guys will just make another thread on the same topic the next week.

So why is our time better spent debating with you than improving the wiki, making a youtube video, or writing a book?

Mostly because improving the wiki, making a youtube video, or writing a book are each a waste of time, even yours. The best thing you could do with the wiki would be to delete each page, one by one. At least then it wouldn't have any errors or misconceptions, which is about all it has at present.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?

« on: March 18, 2018, 06:18:21 AM »

@Junker: Sorry if this doesn't go in this forum, but this is something that's been frustrating me and I believe has been really detrimental to the quality of debate on this site.

Why are certain topics not being discussed? Shouldn't an apparent weak spot in the FE model be the most interesting new topic to debate and hash out? If someone showed me a large inconsistency in my worldview, my first priority would be to closely examine it and experiment until I figured out the problem or changed my view to something that works, but here many FE believers seem to be avoiding these topics. Is there a reason these aren't being discussed?

I couldn't help but reply to this post as I have been harbouring exactly the same question for some time now. Unfortunately, I feel that I already know the answer because of the non responses I've gotten to several topics. We all know that there are a vast number of problems with the theory overall, but I have in the past isolated a few which seemed a bit more obvious and totally unresolvable to me (maybe I'm just not thinking sufficiently far "out of the box") so I posed them on this forum, never getting a reply.

The only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that they appear equally unresolvable to any FEer who might have read them, so they choose to ignore them. Attitudes such as this will inevitably result in Flat Earth Theory remaining in exactly the same position it is at present, with no advancement whatever. To be brutally honest, I hold out little hope for any advancement in the theory at any rate, unless it can be taken it a totally different direction. What direction, I haven't a clue. The present theory is fraught with inconsistencies and "problems", but these have never really bothered FEers. They are quite adept at ignoring them, hoping they will go away, possibly to be resolved by a saviour, a Knight in Shining Armour.

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof the moon landings happened.

« on: March 18, 2018, 05:59:15 AM »

One aspect of the lunar landings that seems to have been missed here is the behaviour of the dust on the moon. It has been years since I've viewed footage of the astronauts on the lunar surface but there is one particular detail that struck me about the lunar dust. As the astronauts gamboled about they kicked up dust. That dust then settled back to the surface, just as one would suppose it might here on earth. The major difference is that it ALL settled back on the surface (a bit slower than we're used to seeing it happen here due to the lower gravitational force), large particles, medium sized particles, small particles and tiny particles, all settling simultaneously. There was never a dust cloud left behind after the larger particles had settled as would happen here on earth, in the presence of an atmosphere.

Why? Because there was no atmosphere with which the tiniest particles could interact, remaining suspended for a longer period that did the larger particles. This isn't proof that that footage was taken on the moon, but it is proof that there was no atmosphere in the place that those scenes were shot.

So, now the deniers need only go out and find a large sound stage which can be successfully evacuated of the great majority of its atmosphere and they will have an arguing point.

And totallackey - yes, you do need to research how a small reflector on a moving target can be hit with a laser and photons received back from it. I think it's just about time you did a bit of research of some kind. People tend to lend more credence to an argument when it is backed by more than a simple denial and absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject at hand. Just repeatedly crying FAKE or IMPOSSIBLE doesn't help your case one tiny bit.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why?

« on: March 18, 2018, 01:01:17 AM »

So the one question that i have not seen awnsered is WHY.

And Why is the scientific method discounted for proving things if some of its major parts are experimenting and recording the OBSERVATIONS of that experiment and then explaining how you achieved that for other people to test and make sure it works elsewhere.

The scientific method, and science in general, is only discounted when it counters FE beliefs. Any branch of science or any scientific theory which an FEer feels can be used to bolster their theory will be adopted. For example, many FEers are greatly enamoured with the general theory of relativity as they feel it tends to substantiate their wacky universal acceleration theory. This juxtaposition of science and wackiness is included somewhere in the TFES Wiki.

Let us not forget - all fields of science are interrelated. Each field is not necessarily directly related to each of the other fields, but the whole is interrelated. One simply cannot correctly discount a field they find philosophically objectionable while adopting another they find agreeable. It simply don't work that way. The creationists have tried that; for all I know they still are, to no effect, and certainly to no useful benefit to mankind.

Meanwhile our friends the FEers must reject cosmology, astrophysics, many earth sciences, optics, probably plate tectonics and more, while the religious fundamentalists in the group must also reject evolution, archaeology, paleontology, and biology, at a minimum.

Here's an interesting paradox which fundamentalist FEers have found themselves in. I no longer pay any attention to creationist claptrap, but at one time (and possibly still to this day) creationists adopted the second law of thermodynamics as being supportive of their beliefs. At the same time, another aspect of thermodynamics completely destroys an FE belief in the manner in which the atmosphere is contained on the flat earth, preventing it from simply flowing off the edges of the earth and into space. The old bromide "You can't have one without the other." seems appropriate here.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar System

« on: March 18, 2018, 12:26:13 AM »

Not a single word of this statement represents the Flat Earth Society's beliefs. It sounds like you got most of your FE information from Twitter. I'd recommend the FAQ and Wiki as starting points.

Just once in my life I'd like to hear what Pete Svarrior's views are. Ever notice that he studiously avoids revealing his personal views on the matter, even in the media? Yes, I have read some of the media articles to which Pete has "contributed", and nowhere was there a Pete Svarrior opinion to be found, only what the society, and others, believe.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: March 17, 2018, 08:31:43 AM »

Firstly, the times are not similar in each direction, since one way is in a jet stream and one is going against the jet stream.

BTW, guess what is responsible for the formation of jet streams... ...That's right, the earth's rotation!

Today, with relatively accurate prediction and mapping of the jet stream, it is possible to flight plan based on jet stream prediction, but many more planes fly outside a jet stream than within one.

Actually flight planning around jet stream predictions can increase a commercial jet's ground speed by nearly 50% under ideal conditions, saving huge amounts of fuel over time. Conversely, an airline will go out of its way to avoid coming near the core of a jet stream on east to west flights.

But they are far from ubiquitous, and the core, occasionally with speeds over 250 MPH, is pretty small.