21

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: March 16, 2019, 02:14:49 AM »

I respect you putting in the time to do this but unfortunately you've made an error. The distance from Dallas to Minneapolis is around 864 miles. I guess that shows how many people actually checked this

I've done something similar with cities in Australia but with greater accuracy. The cities I've chosen are Sydney, Perth and Darwin. The city which is the variable is Alice Springs. I've used the measurements in kilometres from Free Map Tools (https://www.freemaptools.com/how-far-is-it-between.htm) with one pixel equalling one kilometre. The error is there - which supports you're conclusion because I believe the method is sound - but it's only around 7-8km at these distances.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My sunrise plane flight

« on: March 15, 2019, 08:54:25 AM »

Huh? Can you draw a diagram, your words do not communicate any possible way that flying a Cessna Cardinal could change your angle of view of something 3000 (or ?) miles away and far above you. At what angle will it ever be below the horizon?

I think what you want to know is how a subset can exist at all on a FE, right? So let’s just discuss that and leave the pond skipper out of it. The horizon is where the sky meets the limit of your visual acuity. I am not understanding why you want angles.

The same thing could be done at sunset, climbing higher in the plane (taking care not to fly in the direction the sun of course) and bringing the sun back above the horizon, proving that it's not the limit of your visual acuity, vanishing point, or whatever the FE explanation is for this phenomenon. So the angle is important.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain this Phenomenon

« on: March 15, 2019, 08:39:38 AM »

Both Earth Not a Globe and the Flat Earth Society Wiki says that the sun is a projection on the atmolayer. It can get to the horizon as easily as a cloud can.

Tom, have you ever seen a Hydrogen-alpha filter? Like this: http://www.astronomy.com/great-american-eclipse-2017/articles/2016/06/how-to-choose-a-hydrogen-alpha-filter

I'm not sure how this atmolayer concept works but are you saying when you look through a telescope with a Hydrogen-alpha filter you are not seeing the sun but a projection onto a mixture of gases? Can you tell me the likely composition of this mixture of gases or other examples of a projection onto any gas that maintains such a defined edge and intense detail? It almost seems unbelievable.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)

« on: March 13, 2019, 12:52:46 PM »

The second post in the thread has the bipolar model. The OP has asked for contributing content only.

My apologies. I didn't recognise your comment on changing azimuth to be contributing content. It appeared to be a misunderstanding on your part which I hope that I have helped clear up with some useful resources. I think most of my posts on this forum have been helpful - I've taken the time to create clear diagrams and I downloaded an app and took a screenshot of the azimuth of the sun at sunset at my location for the other Tom.

Do you agree that explaining the azimuth of the sun throughout the day as witnessed by observers in different locations on Earth is a necessary feature of a viable FE model? Do you know of any FE models that can explain this or even come remotely close? All those that I have seen are way, way off. Finding a model that explains this is critical to the success of this project. The sun rising at 118.39° ESE at Santiago on the 12th December is as good an example as any.

I did look at the video of the bipolar model in the second post. It suggested (at 1:27) that the sun travelled a daily clockwise path around the Northern Hemisphere for 6 months of the year and then crossed the Equator and travelled in a daily anti-clockwise path in the Southern Hemisphere for the remainder of the year. Does this match your observations or any online resources such as the NOAA Solar Calculator? I still don't know what that figure 8 path is meant to represent or how it relates to the daily path. Perhaps you could explain what that video contributes to the discussion?

25

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: People have been into space. How have they not discovered that the earth is flat

« on: March 13, 2019, 12:20:25 PM »

With governments and private companies launching satellites into space, that's a bit more complicated.

I just don't know how geostationary satellites exist in the FE model. Geostationary orbit makes sense with a rotating sphere because the satellites are constantly moving (in space, not in relation to a location on Earth). But to just sit stationary in the same place in space without drifting off? That defies all known physics. And we know they are there and we know that they are at an altitude of 36000km or we wouldn't get a TV signal when we point satellite dishes at the correct azimuth and elevation from different locations. Maybe they get stuck in the dome

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)

« on: March 13, 2019, 02:02:45 AM »

The NOAA Solar Calculator can show some extreme changes of position when the sun travels by. Compare the azimuth (no. of degrees from north) of the sun from 9am to 10am on June 12th, 2019:

Yes, that's exactly how it works on the RE model. If you use this site, you should be able to visualise it a bit better (note different timezone):

https://www.suncalc.org/#/29.993,-81.5625,10/2019.06.12/13:00/1/3
https://www.suncalc.org/#/29.993,-81.5625,10/2019.06.12/14:00/1/3

And this is the location of the sun above the Earth on a Mercator projection at those times:

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=12&month=6&year=2019&hour=13&min=0&sec=0&n=411&ntxt=Jacksonville&earth=0
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=12&month=6&year=2019&hour=14&min=0&sec=0&n=411&ntxt=Jacksonville&earth=0

And here's the arc described by the path of the sun at that location on the 12th December and it's location above the Earth:

https://www.suncalc.org/#/29.993,-81.5625,10/2019.12.12/12:00/1/3
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?day=12&month=12&year=2019&hour=12&min=0&sec=0&n=411&ntxt=Jacksonville&earth=0

Now we've cleared that up, can you tell me why the sun rises at 118.39° ESE at Santiago on the 12th December?

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can FE make a map?

« on: March 12, 2019, 01:59:50 PM »

They are accurate because the scale of the map changes. The map is interactive. It's been demonstrated many times in this thread that the interactive maps have a sliding scale.

Of course the scale changes but that doesn't fix the problem. Do you understand that if you do the experiments you suggested, zoom to Alaska so it's filling most of the mapquest window and zoom to Mexico so it's filling most of the mapquest window, that shape that you see for Alaska and Mexico is not their actual shape despite the scale in the bottom corner changing? Because there is no 2D representation of those states/countries that is not distorted. You have to stretch it or squash or distort it in some way to make a 2D representation. And the bigger the area you fill the screen with, the greater the distortion. While it's true that if you zoom right in to the highest level, the distortion becomes insignificant for practical purposes, that does not make it an accurate map.

Edit: Just to clear this up once and for all, I've used Mapquest and put in four Australian cities (Broome, Cairns, Perth, and Sydney) and then taken a screenshot. Distance between Broome and Cairns on the screenshot is 536.54 pixels (using the measure tool in Photoshop), in freemaptools, it's 2497.396kms. Distance between Perth and Sydney on the screenshot is 806.68 pixels, in freemaptools, it's 3290.287kms. So the former is 4.6546 km per pixel, the latter is 4.0788 km per pixel. In other words, km per pixel for Broome and Cairns is 14.17% greater than km per pixel for Perth and Sydney. I've also included a screenshot of the shortest distance between those points on freemaptools. It should be obvious that the bottom line is slightly more curved than the top. This is also another way of visualising the distortion on the map. Regardless, if it was possible to have a 2D representation of Australia, it should be possible for the software to make both of those straight lines and they would represent the distances accurately. But it's not. Also, if this was the case, pilots could also throw away their great circle mapping tools for domestic flights within Australia because they could use this amazing, accurate 2D map. But they can't.

Feel free to check my results.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can FE make a map?

« on: March 12, 2019, 03:20:44 AM »

From the Wiki page, "the projection does not qualify as equal-area because the method does not control area at infinitesimal scales or even within those regions".

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The effect FE has on me

« on: March 12, 2019, 01:04:33 AM »

When I explained I was there for 10 days, traveled to the Blue Mountains, and knew probably 20 Australians that worked for my company, they all thought they were in Australia (or threatened by NASA to lie?), etc etc etc, he changed the subject.

I find the hardest part of being Australian is getting that terrible accent right when tourists are around. Also sticking those duck bills on platypuses is really time-consuming. They never keep still.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can FE make a map?

« on: March 12, 2019, 12:41:19 AM »

2. Regardless there are accurate interactive maps which represent the earth as a flat plane which is the entire point.

Those maps are not accurate which is the entire point. Even the example you suggested, freemaptools.com, uses Google Maps which is based on a Mercator projection. It may not be immediately obvious to you but the cities at the top of the map near Stockholm are more spread out than the cities at the bottom of the map near Cairo, ie. their relative distances are incorrect. If you used the same tool I did, even the line between Stockholm and Cairo is slightly curved which indicates distortion.

An example - take a basketball and slice off the top. Now lay the slice flat. You actually can't - the rubber will keep popping up. You'll either have to use some force and stretch it around the edges, or maybe take a pen knife and cut some small slits. You might get something approaching a flat shape but it won't be very accurate. Now draw Australia to scale on that basketball, draw some dots for all the major cities, and cut it out with a pen knife. You'll have the same problem, the rubber will pop up slightly. You'll be able to flatten it out with a little force but that will distort the distances, especially around the edges of the country. There is no flat shape you can make with that rubber where the relative distances between the cities/dots are accurate. You cannot represent Australia on a 2D plane.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the sun and the flat earth model

« on: March 11, 2019, 11:51:40 PM »

Which is it?

Both, and I really think I provided sufficient detail in my comment to make that clear. On Antarctic bases which are near the South Pole, like McMurdo and Amundsen–Scott, the sun is in the sky for 24 hours. On the Antarctic Peninsula, which is where most tourists go due to its proximity to Southern Chile, the sun is in the sky for 21-22 hours. You can try to explain either from a FE perspective, they are both bordering on the impossible.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can FE make a map?

« on: March 11, 2019, 11:04:02 AM »

greenland still looks out of proportion to me in these compared to to Greenland on a globe.

Yes, it is. The bottom of Australia is always too wide on those projections too. There's a good site where you can see the true size of countries, which is, funnily enough: https://thetruesize.com/

One of the things you can do with that site is drag countries to the equator to see (roughly) their true size.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Suggestion to prove/disprove FET

« on: March 11, 2019, 07:31:16 AM »

No, because it wouldn't matter who that person was or what evidence that person provided that the journey took place, there'd still be many that wouldn't believe them. There's people on the ISS that see the shape of the Earth every day and they are not believed. The 24 hour sun in Antarctica is impossible on most FE maps. 45000 tourists visit Antarctica each year. Most go in the summer and experience this (or at least 21-22 hours of sun on the Antarctic Peninsula). They aren't believed either.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How can FE make a map?

« on: March 11, 2019, 05:13:23 AM »

Surveying local areas and short distances and then stitching those patches together seems, to me, to have no bearing on the shape of the Earth.

Of course it does. When you discover that it's impossible to stitch those patches together to make a 2D shape without distorting the individual patches, it suggests that the patches don't belong to a 2D shape. There is no Flat Earth map with accurate distances between Sydney and Santiago, Tokyo and Los Angeles, Perth and Johannesburg, and New York and London because it's literally impossible. And yes, it's even impossible within a single continent. Doesn't that tell you something?

35

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]

« on: March 11, 2019, 12:49:39 AM »

Flights from Nairobi to Sydney regularly go via Johannesburg. There's one justification for flights between J'burg and Sydney.

It's the same with the flights from Australia to South America. They used to go via Buenos Aries until 2012-13. Now they go to Santiago because that airport has better connections to the rest of South America. So those flights to Johannesburg and Santiago are really servicing the whole southern part of Africa and most of the populous countries in South America for Australians, and vice versa for people from those places wanting to come here. It's not really an excessive amount of flights when considered like that.

36

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Non-believer. Open-minded. Just need help to understand.

« on: March 11, 2019, 12:40:42 AM »

So we'd have to basically say that it was being holographically projected at a much much lower level.

And even that wouldn't work because people at different latitudes viewing the spherical holograph moon (I assume this is what you meant) simultaneously see the same features in the same places. For example, a crater near the edge will be near the edge for both (although it could be near the top or the bottom edge depending on the location of the observer). In other words, they wouldn't see the same "face" of the moon. That only works for a distant moon.

Actually, can we agree that:
1. Any shape projected onto any surface (flat or curved) can not appear circular to observers in Tokyo and Melbourne (or Warsaw and Johannesburg, etc) simultaneously at the distances proposed for the dome (thousands of kilometres rather than hundreds of thousands). One will always be an oval if the other is a circle.
2. If the same "face" of a spherical object/hologram appears to observers in Tokyo and Melbourne simultaneously, the object must be distant (hundreds of thousands of kilometres).

37

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Non-believer. Open-minded. Just need help to understand.

« on: March 10, 2019, 07:48:36 AM »

Specifically, if you look through a telescope, you can see mountains and craters on the moon, and it appears that the mountains and craters have shadows behind and in them, respectively.

Also, there's any number of apps and websites that can tell you where the sun, Earth and moon are in relation to each other in a heliocentric model at any time. You could use one of these to check where the sun is in relation to the moon and whether the angles of the shadows on the moon matches a light source from this direction.

If the position of the sun is correct in relation to observers on Earth at that time, and the position of the moon is correct in relation to observers on Earth at that time, and the angle of the shadows on the moon indicate a light source from the direction of the sun's location, that is quite a strong argument in favour of the heliocentric model, particularly for gibbous and full moons. Now let's also consider a partial lunar eclipse, and you confirm that the sun and the moon are supposed to be on opposite sides of the Earth at that time in the heliocentric model, and you see something that looks like the shadow of a large object on the moon at that time, and that shadow looks to be of a round object, and the other shadows match a light source from the direction where the sun is expected to be...

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the sun and the flat earth model

« on: March 10, 2019, 05:19:47 AM »

Hello, I've seen some pictures of a flat earth where the arctic is the middle and the sun going around it from above. But what about in the southern hemispheres summer (dec-feb) where parts of antarctica are in 24hr daylight? Do another 50 suns suddenly come into force? And do they only light up the outsides of the disc?

I agree that the 24 hour sun at Antarctica (McMurdo Antarctica station for example) is a fatal flaw in those models with the Antarctic continent around the edge and the sun moving in a circular orbit.

Some people claim that this is fake and has never been observed. It is actually quite difficult to prove otherwise. However, tourists can actually camp on the Antarctic Peninsula in summer where you get 21-22 hour days which should be sufficient to disprove those models:

https://www.oneoceanexpeditions.com/antarctica/antarctic-peninsula-adventure
https://theplanetd.com/camping-in-antarctica/

My personal opinion is that even the (just under) 15 hour days that I experience where I live in December (Melbourne, Australia) is a serious challenge to those models because at dawn, the sun is so far away on the "disc" and in totally the wrong direction from where I see it. If 15 hours is not long enough, Punta Arenas (Chile) gets 17 hour days and I found 189 properties on Booking.com there

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Theory: Formal Development (Part I)

« on: March 10, 2019, 04:30:10 AM »

I'm not sure I understood how his sun charts out its daily path in the video, just the yearly path.

I believe the daily paths are described from 1:27 in the video. From 10:52 is actually a decent summary of the difficulties you'll encounter if this project is based on an AE model too.

I have given some thought as to how I'd begin developing a FE model. I'd start with things that could be observed directly before going too far into experimentation (designing and conducting valid and repeatable experiments is surprisingly hard!). For me, that is firstly the observed azimuth of the sun throughout the day/year and the stars rotating around the celestial poles (the Southern Cross rotating around the South Celestial Pole in my case). That requires only a set of eyes and a compass. Of course, some trust must be placed in the datasets that plot the path of the sun in different locations but that is unavoidable without personally travelling the world with a compass. The good news is that if you can come up with a model that can describe both of these things with any degree of accuracy, that will be superior to any FE model that I've seen.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Aether

« on: March 09, 2019, 10:56:53 AM »

Four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC.

Do you agree that there's something that keeps the moons of Jupiter in orbit around it? Do you agree that there's something that makes most celestial bodies spherical? Do you agree that black holes exist and there's something about them that captures light? Do you agree that there is something that bends light as it passes very close to objects with large mass, as can be observed during a total eclipse by measuring the shift in the position of stars? Do you agree that there's something that redirected the trajectory of asteroid 2011 CQ1 as it passed by Earth in 2011?

If gravity is magic, what is this "something"?