1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: sun rising below the clouds

« on: April 16, 2017, 06:29:38 PM »

Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.

The Sun's rays are reflecting off of the Earth.

The kind of shadow being created by Mount Rainier is an "umbra" shadow. It can only happen with a point source of the light (i.e. the sun) and could not form from reflected light.

Your source?

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Umbra+shadow

Light reflected off any partially reflective surface (One that is not a perfect mirror), especially a diffuse one like clouds, is scattered and dimmed and usually takes on the colour of the object reflecting it, if it has any. The shadows cast by a diffusely reflected light source are nebulous and indistinct compared to the sharp edges of an "umbra" shadow coming from a direct light source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/Lesson-1/Specular-vs-Diffuse-Reflection
https://www.cheapjoes.com/artist-resources/artist-tips-and-lessons/artist-tip-1
(Treated from an artistry perspective, but essentially verifiable by any amount of experimentation, as seen below.)

You can perform an experiment to verify this yourself by taking a flashlight and shining it on a wall.
Any object you hold up where the reflected rays of the flashlight can shine on it will be lit far less and will have a much less defined shadow line both on the object itself, and in the shadow it casts on a far wall than if it were being shone on directly. In fact, there is no way you can angle the flashlight to produce the same shadow either on the object or behind it that would occur if the object were directly in line with the beam.

Now let's consider what has to happen for this reflection to occur.
In our little mockup here, the flashlight is the sun, the wall is the cloud and the object is the mountain.
For light to be reflecting off the clouds from the sun to hit the mountain, both the sun and the mountain would have to be on the same "side" as the clouds.
According to the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society, Earth: Not a Globe by S. Rowbotham, (pg 99 and fig 66 on pg 129) the sun is always above the surface of the earth and the upper layers of the atmosphere, well above where the clouds are.

There is no configuration of the Flat Earth, it's sun and it atmosphere that can account for the angle, intensity and colour of the light shown in the video, or any other video of shadows cast at sunrise unless said sun at some point is at an angle that throws light upwards at the clouds. To do that, it must be below a projected line thay the clouds are above. No amount of messing with perspective and using arbitrary distances can get around this - if there is a case where this is possible, then precise measurements of distance and relative angle to the observer need to be proposed.

There is only one way around this: contravene this argument with numbers.
Tell us the exact height of the sun, the size of its orbital circle and the angle it makes between its position, its orbital centre and the height of the cloud cover and then we might have something to go on.

Otherwise, reflection is not a plausible explanation. At all.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall

« on: April 16, 2017, 05:52:29 PM »

How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?

Do you really think that pointing out that he didn't do something that would be completely impossible to do is a solid debate tactic?  Try better.

Roundy, I hear that kind of tactic from FE people in almost every thread.  Any point made by RE and some FEer demands complete proof.  Look at the equinox thread thread that I started.  TomB, demanded that I prove that nearly entire earth experiences 12 hours of sun equinox.  He required data from every place on the earth.  He disregarded link after link that showed my claim. 

If there is an ice wall that encompasses the entire globe I would like proof of the milage and photo evidence.  I would like to see a surveyors coordinates and plots.  If you can't provide that then you are all spreading lies upon lies.

You all can't demand a standard from others that you are unwilling to hold yourselves to.

If we could confine things to what's happening in this thread and the people commenting in this thread, it would be swell.  Whatever Tom demanded of you in another thread is irrelevant.  Is Tom even in this thread anywhere?  You are free to stop taking Tom seriously if he really makes a demand of you that doesn't make sense; it is your prerogative; we fucking all do from time to time.  Similarly, if you are going to demand something that is blatantly impossible, why shouldn't we conclude that you've stopped taking the subject seriously?  What kind of response is that supposed to engender?  Ridicule for making such a dumb request is the only thing that makes sense.  If you want to give up on the debate that's fine, believe it or not you can do so without conceding that you are wrong, that's also your prerogative.

But if you and your cohort are going to demand something so dumb, a response like the one I just gave you is the only one you can reasonably expect.

What's going on in this thread is that you and Junker keep demanding proof of our claims while offering none of your own, while bitching about the fact that no proof has been offered. It's metahypocrisy at it's finest!

We have all of mainstream science, modern technology and human experience on our side, with entire databases of photos and the testimony of thousands of people over dozens of years of exploration - the best the Flat Earth side of the debate has been able to contribute is a bunch of photos with no scale and a whole lot of arm-flapping butthurt posts about the lack of evidence we don't seem to be suffering from.
Now please, if you are so staunchly opposed to the idea that there cannot, in any way shape or form, be a wall of ice surrounding the populated lands of the Earth, be so kind as to offer any speck of proof that supports this stance.
Either that or recant it. These are your options. Another deflecting attack will be forthcoming, I know, but bear in mind that every sidestep makes you and your cause look weaker and weaker.

Numbers, my dear chap. At least give us numbers.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall

« on: April 16, 2017, 05:27:45 AM »

How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?

Do you really think that pointing out that he didn't do something that would be completely impossible to do is a solid debate tactic?  Try better.

Roundy, I hear that kind of tactic from FE people in almost every thread.  Any point made by RE and some FEer demands complete proof.  Look at the equinox thread thread that I started.  TomB, demanded that I prove that nearly entire earth experiences 12 hours of sun equinox.  He required data from every place on the earth.  He disregarded link after link that showed my claim. 

If there is an ice wall that encompasses the entire globe I would like proof of the milage and photo evidence.  I would like to see a surveyors coordinates and plots.  If you can't provide that then you are all spreading lies upon lies.

You all can't demand a standard from others that you are unwilling to hold yourselves to.

We don't even need complete proof - even a partia proof with some reliable dimensions that would open the floor for debate. Something even remotely plausible to support the theory - and no, pictures of ice shelves with no inkling of scale, no measurements and no co-ordinates isn't plausible.
In terms of scientific basis, the Wall has none - every flat earth theorists is petrified of proposing even a single set of dimensions for the Wall, because they know that the mathematicians will tear it to shreds.
Then again, under the tenet of Deliberate stupidity required to shun all opposing proofs to the Flat earth theory, they'll probably just end up carving a nice little recess in the ice to bury their heads in.
Bet it looks like a wall from in there too.

Until even one person can even come close to proposing and defending plausible dimensions for the Wall, it will remain just another weak link in the terminally fallible chain of flat earth theories.

As far as I can see, rabinoz, "half" is a very generous fraction to express the amount of story lackey, or any other flat proponent for that matter, actually has.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall

« on: April 15, 2017, 05:29:58 PM »

There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.

Feel free to provide that evidence anytime now.

Once again, the burdening proof lies o  the ones proposing an opposing theory to whatbis considered the established facts.
As has been stated, Antarctica is visible from countless satellite photos, has been reported by thousands of explorers and tourists, and is even incorporated into some flat earth theories like the bipolar map.
The Ice Wall, on the other hand, has no direct proof of any kind whatsoever.

It is you, dear junker, that should feel free to provide something - anything, really - that defends your standpoint.

Otherwise, it would seem that it is your posts that are low in content.

I don't think you understand how burden of proof works, friend. The burden rests with the person making the claim. I know that is a tough concept for round earthers to grasp. All I did was ask someone claiming evidence exists to provide that evidence. I'm really not sure what's hard to understand about that, but I'm sure if you work on it, it'll make sense eventually.

Also, you aren't a moderator. So please stop trying to moderate. If you have an issue, there is a report button. I won't give you anymore warnings about it.

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Antarctica

https://www.britannica.com/place/Antarctica
http://www.coolantarctica.com
http://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/antarctica/
https://www.lonelyplanet.com/antarctica-1007062

So, just saying, you can find and and all of this informatiom in any encyclopedia on the planet, not to mention all those photos and testimonies.

And for the Wall we have...?
Oh? That flat earth map nobody can agree on. Ok, so... remember that whole burden of proof thing? Yeah, this is it's time to shine.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Earth were really round...

« on: April 15, 2017, 05:22:55 PM »

Just as an example, I checked this forum for the threads under "Flat Earth Debate" where this thread is located. On the first 2 pages of thread, 80-90% of the most recent comments on the various threads were by round earth proponents. Where are all of the flat earthers willing to debate or discuss?

The flat earth proponents here have simply grown tired of having the same debates over and over again. It seems each round of noobs that come by are more entitled with each iteration. Roundies make demands that they can rarely fulfill themselves, so over the years, regulars get tired of it.

Flat earthers simply have no factual information of a flat earth.

I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and doing some searching on the forum. Aside from that, your post is completely irrelevant and off topic. I am not sure what it will take to get you to follow very simple rules, but it seems that you refuse. Have a couple week vacation to review the rules.

And when you present that information to the Flat earth proponents, don't be surprised when they disavow it the moment it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The topic here is "why is it so hard to convince people the earth is round?"
I believe that gecko's post was right on topic and his ban should be lifted, since until the Flat Earth Society can agree on a reliable repository of information rather than an "unregulated mess" that gets chucked out in a heartbeat, then none of you have any concrete information to back yp the Flat Earth claims.

And our sources? Try and fucking encyclopedia on the planet, every geophysicist that has ever published and even a cursory Google search that will reveal countless images from space.
So unless you guys can stop being deliberately stupid, this is not a debate forum - it's a place where "roundies" get banned for pointing out baseless arguments.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Areas of daylight are impossible on a bipolar map

« on: April 15, 2017, 05:05:27 AM »

If yoy guys want new research done, you can paypal your funds into my Paypal account at tombishopenterprises@gmail.com. My time isn't free. I expect to be paid handsomely for this.

So, remember how you tried to invalidate an experiment because of the subject of compensation?
Yeah. That was a thing.

So either put up or shut up, Bish. You have nothing.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall

« on: April 15, 2017, 05:04:02 AM »

There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.

Feel free to provide that evidence anytime now.

Once again, the burdening proof lies o  the ones proposing an opposing theory to whatbis considered the established facts.
As has been stated, Antarctica is visible from countless satellite photos, has been reported by thousands of explorers and tourists, and is even incorporated into some flat earth theories like the bipolar map.
The Ice Wall, on the other hand, has no direct proof of any kind whatsoever.

It is you, dear junker, that should feel free to provide something - anything, really - that defends your standpoint.

Otherwise, it would seem that it is your posts that are low in content.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Areas of daylight are impossible on a bipolar map

« on: April 14, 2017, 08:54:38 PM »

Careful - don't get Bishop Tom started on  the analemma - last time he tried explaining it he said it was evidence that the sun traces a figure-8 in the sky because it switches directions and goes backwards over the south pole in winter.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6072.msg114202#msg114202

And I wouldn't hold your breath for any mathematically coherent model.
Once again, the tools needed to express the Flat argument for the movements of the sun in terms used by most debaters are these:

The height of the Sun
The size of the Sun
The luminosity of the Sun
The composition of the Sun
The orbital characteristics of the Sun
  - width of ellipse
  - speed in various seasons
The refractive index of the atmosphere
The speed of light
The rate at which light loses energy in the atmosphere (since it fades rapidly with distance)
The dimensions of the light cone (in the spotlight sun model)

All in an easily workable list. Should be no problem at all for a coherent cosmological model used to explain the realities witnessed every day by billions of people!

And if the answer is "I don't know" then so be it! We understand.
But it does mean you'll have to find some alternative explanation quick smart if you want to make your theory worth anything.

I suggest going from top to bottom, being very careful how each is answered. The wrong numbers could mean something fascinatingly disastrous for your model.
Have fun.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall

« on: April 14, 2017, 08:36:47 PM »

Flat Earth Theorists have a great wall. Its a beautiful wall. Nobody does walls better than Flat Earth, believe me. It protects the Southern border and they made the penguins pay for it.

The single greatest post about the Wall I have ever seen, and incorporating more science than most too!
I'm sure you'll get flagged for low content, and so will I for this reply, but since this is the best response about the actually nature of the Wall so far, this should probably be moved to the E:NaG workshop. Would you consent to being a primary source, Screamer?

(Mods, I promise we'll stop once someone comes around with some actual proof. But until then, this is a thing.)

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall

« on: April 13, 2017, 07:35:54 AM »

Lackey, if you're going to use the "have you seen it yourself?" tactic, it usually works better if the argument you're trying to refute isn't also asking for direct, observational proof - preferably proof that isn't a century and a half old.

So bring something to the table or go back to your corner.

You're right, facts totally have an expiration date. Obviously you don't trust Newton at all, given that his works are several centuries old. And it won't be too long before we can throw Relativity completely out the window too on the same basis!

Newton had years of research and a corpus of work to support his theories, not to mention most of the history of physics and mathematics to build on.
Since then, Newton's theories have been tried, tested and amended as our experience grows. This doesn't change the fact that his laws of motion still hold, just that they are the foundation on which we build newer and better theories.

In the same way, explorers and even tourists have been to and around Antarctica, observed it from space and seen the fact there is no wall - just a shelf of ice that makes part of the coast of a continent. Ross have us a primary observation upon which we built an image of what is really going on in the world. Thats how science works.

When a theory is outdated, it is discarded in the face of new evidence that proposes a new theory, as you say. Perhaps we can use it's original concepts to build a new theory, but if the evidence demands a new perspective then we interpret and go from there.

So if we're going to discard the theory that there is no ice wall, we will need evidence that there is one, right?
Where is it?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall

« on: April 12, 2017, 07:51:59 PM »

Lackey, if you're going to use the "have you seen it yourself?" tactic, it usually works better if the argument you're trying to refute isn't also asking for direct, observational proof - preferably proof that isn't a century and a half old.

So bring something to the table or go back to your corner.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment

« on: April 12, 2017, 01:36:47 AM »

The horizon is always seen clearly during clear days.

It doesn't matter how many times you'll state this - it will continue to be a lie, and one that's trivially tested. All you need to do is look at the horizon.

Of the horizon is a vanishing point at which the atmosphere becomes too dense to see through, we should never be able to see anything recede behind it. We would never see buildings or ships disappear from the bottom up, like the sun as it sun is below it at sunset.
It's not a lie - it is a fact observed by billions of people every day.

Anyone who has ever been to sea has noticed this. The atmosphere has little effect at these distances.

I've been to the sea. The atmoplane's effects are clear even to the naked eye. Again, your lie is laughably easy to verify.

Then verify it.

The horizon is a sharp line between earth/sea and sky obscuring the lower halves of objects that recede behind it, down the curve of the Earth.
If atmospheric density were the cause for it, it would fade out in a measurable way, eventually blurring indistinctly at the limits of perception. Objects approaching this limit would fade like it were moving into a fog bank even in the clearest of conditions.
This is not the case.

If you'd like, I can show you how the phenomenon we are referring to is observable from any point on the ocean looking towards a city with skyscrapers.

https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html?m=1

In fact, even a cursory Google search will bring up plenty of examples of this - plus the testimony of anyone who has ever stood on a ship watching a city or even another ship.
Yknow, the kind of people you would have met if you'd actually been to sea.

Or maybe you'd like to do this experiment for yourself in a larger scale. Show us all how it's done, Warrior. Bring us some pictures of a city skyline in its entirety, from the top of its tallest tower to the waves lapping at it's lowest docks, from a distance greater than, say, the width of Lake Michigan?
Especially if you can get a series of them showing the city at exactly the same height but fading slowly being the increasing density of the atmosphere.
I think that will suffice to prove your point.


It's either that or admit that the Bishop experiment isn't able to be replicated on sufficiently large scales to prove anything and its results are effectively meaningless.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: sun rising below the clouds

« on: April 10, 2017, 10:05:46 PM »

If you are going to discuss the entire flat earth theory, maybe you should start a new thread, so the discussion is not buried in this thread. I look forward to reading the debate/discussion

I agree.

Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: sun rising below the clouds

« on: April 10, 2017, 08:02:55 PM »

Step up, junker -  show me what you got.

What?

You want to defend the flat earth, defend it.
Show me your theory.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: sun rising below the clouds

« on: April 10, 2017, 07:13:30 PM »

Are you implying that the sun is literally ever underneath the clouds?

From just above the atmosphere*
Thank you for that - that was rather ambiguous.
The height if the sun is something that still has not been satisfactorily established by any flat model and, until it has a definite number, no assertions can be made about the angle of the light it casts.

And sorry, guys, but the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the Flat Earth society. You guys are the ones trying to propose a different theory, since ours has for all intents an purposes been proven by every scientist who actually understands science for the past few centuries, plus a decent handful of them before that.
Especially since the evidence you claim we don't have comes in the form of thousands of years of cosmological research, countless mathematical proofs of the curvature and location of the earth and a plethora of direct photographic evidence that even the simplest of Google searches can find.
If you would like me to post the entire corpus of modern cosmology, then I suggest opening another board.
Otherwise, the "you have no evidence" defense is rather akin to the "if I can't see it it doesn't exist" defense.

So let's get back to the debate rather than attacking my attacking of lack of evidence - since last I checked there's been nothing consistent from the other side.

Step up, junker -  show me what you got.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth map is wrong

« on: April 10, 2017, 06:23:35 PM »

What? Circumnavigation works just fine in FET.

Sure...

You should've stopped there. The rest of your wall of text is irrelevant. Did you actually read the thread?

I did - the flat earth map projection, no matter which one you choose, doesn't account for the similarity in flight times without using excuses like "non-euclidian space"

Take any flight in the northern hemisphere - find a flight in the southern hemisphere with similar flight time. Put them on a flat earth map and compare the distances.

If any map projection is going to accurately represent how the world actually looks, it need to somehow explain the flight times of similar routes that thousands of people take every day. Any one of them can tell you how long it took and any pilot can tell you where they flew and how they got there.

Where is your alternative? Do you have a map that explains this?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Wall

« on: April 10, 2017, 06:14:21 PM »

Lol this is what you started a thread over? Really Novarus?

Really, disputeone - there are a few things that are common to most Flat Earth theories that have little to no basis in fact:
The sun is always above the Earth
The southern sky at night is just a view of the same stars from the outer disc
The world is surrounded by an insurmountable wall of ice

Now, not all theories involve these things, but many of them do not plug any or all of these holes and I'm trying to find out what the actual view of the community on these issues.
Especially since any repository of information on these subjects (wiki, FAQ, E:NaG, other users) is immediately abandoned when they don't stand up to scrutiny.

These claims need to be defended or they need to be removed from the models. Simple as that.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: sun rising below the clouds

« on: April 10, 2017, 06:02:11 PM »

Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Or will you just keep dodging questions?

Photos and videos are never accepted by flat earth theorists, despite the fact that they use them to support their claims.
Their defense is not only weak, it's dishonest.
This very video was used to support a flat earth argument on another forum while it clearly shows a pattern not supported by the Flat Earth theory.

Now, assess the video and respond rather than attacking the evidence.

So you have no evidence, then. Gotcha.

Pretty sure that counts as low-content posting.

Next time a flat earth theorists posts a video as evidence, they should be flagged for that too, since they clearly mean nothing.
Or perhaps you'd like to go and observe a sunset on a mountain yourself and provide calculations for us.
Go ahead - we can wait.
Then maybe you can bring something to the table.

I guarantee you that the numbers you propose, if they actually resemble reality, will prove that the sun cannot possibly be casting those rays from above the surface of the atmosphere.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: sun rising below the clouds

« on: April 10, 2017, 08:03:02 AM »

Even your precious Rowbotham says that the sun is above the upper layer of the atmosphere (p. 129), which means that, given your assertion of atmospheric opacity, it is unlikely that the sun can appear to shine on the underside of the clouds before it had disappeared behind the thickening atmosphere.
You could give us some numbers to explain the exact distances, because some numbers will work here and others will not.

Do you dare giving some actual mathematics over to the scrutiny of the people who actually know what it means?
Or will you turn against your prophet?

How high is the sun? And how thick is the atmosphere? Where do the clouds lie? And what is the refractive index of the atmosphere?

These are the tools you need to refute my argument.
Be vary careful how you answer.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: sun rising below the clouds

« on: April 10, 2017, 07:28:39 AM »

I was sitting on my porch today, which has a wooden overhang to protect from the rain. I saw a plane fly over my house and off into the distance and apparently below the level of my overhang. It seems to be a little dangerous, I must say, for this plane to flying 10 feet above sea level.

As the plane got further still, it even got below the level of the deck railing, which was about 4 feet in height, the plane apparently crashing into the surface of the earth at the end of this whole ordeal.

But it got to the "earth crashing" part without fading into nothingness behind the atmospheric haze.
Interesting.

Also, it's quite brave of you to step up and say so proudly that, like your followers, you don't understand perspective.
I mean, we knew already, but to submit yourself to such a low-content post to be so honest is really touching.

Now back to the real point here - every flat earth model relies on the the sun being above the clouds - kilometers above the clouds - even the faq and the wiki say this.
Once again, you can't have it both ways.