[Westprog]

My claim, more specifically, is that you cannot claim to be an empirical researcher and then proceed to refuse to empirically research.

The southern hemisphere is within your reach. You can get there and see for yourself -- I have!

You were asked to make the trip because that is the only way you can find the evidence for yourself. Until you do (or until you realize that photographers aren't part of the conspiracy), you shouldn't be arguing here.

It's reasonable to say that travel to the Southern Hemisphere is expensive and time-consuming, and that there are some FE advocates who won't be able to do it. However, it's certainly possible for them to get together with other FE advocates who live in South America and Australia and Africa, and to do coordinated measurements.

Ideally this would involve predicting what the effect of a flat Earth should be, and then making observations and determining whether the results of said observations fitted with the predictions. Of course that won't happen. It should be possible for flat Earthers North and South of the equator to look into the sky and tell each other what they see.

Indeed, one would imagine that they'd be very keen to do so. It's a quirk of FE thinking that their confidence and belief in FE doesn't extend to actually taking a good look. One can only praise the rocket guy. True, his experiment was pointless, misleading, and very dangerous, but at least he had the courage of his convictions.

[stanlee]

i can't help thinking the rocket guy wudda done it anyway. to test global warming or something if not FE.
what were his conclusions anyway? any link?

[6or1/2Dozen]

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.

[Spycrab]

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.

Actually we have. The whole thing. Not all from earth, no, but here's a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon
Read up.

[Westprog]

i can't help thinking the rocket guy wudda done it anyway. to test global warming or something if not FE.
what were his conclusions anyway? any link?

Oh, it was spectacularly dumb and wouldn't prove anything, but at least he went out and did something, instead of providing links to antique books.

[Parallax]

i can't help thinking the rocket guy wudda done it anyway. to test global warming or something if not FE.
what were his conclusions anyway? any link?

Oh, it was spectacularly dumb and wouldn't prove anything, but at least he went out and did something, instead of providing links to antique books.

Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.

[Westprog]

Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.

I like to think I do.

[Parallax]

Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.

I like to think I do.

If you do then I apologise, but it didn't come across that way.

[Westprog]

Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.

I like to think I do.

If you do then I apologise, but it didn't come across that way.

FSV of "proper respect".

[AATW]

Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.

If he “proved” the theory correct then I’d have heard of him before I joined his place.
And his “proofs” wouldn’t make anyone who knows a bit of science laugh out loud.
Most of his “proofs” are him just claiming stuff, none of it is backed up.

[Parallax]

Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.

If he “proved” the theory correct then I’d have heard of him before I joined his place.
And his “proofs” wouldn’t make anyone who knows a bit of science laugh out loud.
Most of his “proofs” are him just claiming stuff, none of it is backed up.

Oh? So because you haven't heard of him then he must not have been important. Nice to see you've a high opinion of yourself. His 'proofs' were indeed that. Scientists will not accept it because its against what the religion of science preachers. If you bothered to read the book, you'd find he did back his experiments up with detail. Like the Bedford level experiment, he even explains how he accounted for refraction.

[Curious Squirrel]

Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.

If he “proved” the theory correct then I’d have heard of him before I joined his place.
And his “proofs” wouldn’t make anyone who knows a bit of science laugh out loud.
Most of his “proofs” are him just claiming stuff, none of it is backed up.

Oh? So because you haven't heard of him then he must not have been important. Nice to see you've a high opinion of yourself. His 'proofs' were indeed that. Scientists will not accept it because its against what the religion of science preachers. If you bothered to read the book, you'd find he did back his experiments up with detail. Like the Bedford level experiment, he even explains how he accounted for refraction.

Bedford Level he simply claims he did. Every one of his experiments is "I did this and saw this" or "I saw this, which means this must be what's happening!" with little to no corroborating evidence beyond his word. In fact the Bedford Level Experiment was done by no less than 4 people, and produced 3 different conclusions! A discussion of Rowbotham (again) however is quite off topic. If you wish I would be more than happy to create a post detailing the problems in a number of his 'experiments' or conclusions to discuss this in though. Or feel free to do so yourself.

[Parallax]

Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.

If he “proved” the theory correct then I’d have heard of him before I joined his place.
And his “proofs” wouldn’t make anyone who knows a bit of science laugh out loud.
Most of his “proofs” are him just claiming stuff, none of it is backed up.

Oh? So because you haven't heard of him then he must not have been important. Nice to see you've a high opinion of yourself. His 'proofs' were indeed that. Scientists will not accept it because its against what the religion of science preachers. If you bothered to read the book, you'd find he did back his experiments up with detail. Like the Bedford level experiment, he even explains how he accounted for refraction.

Bedford Level he simply claims he did. Every one of his experiments is "I did this and saw this" or "I saw this, which means this must be what's happening!" with little to no corroborating evidence beyond his word. In fact the Bedford Level Experiment was done by no less than 4 people, and produced 3 different conclusions! A discussion of Rowbotham (again) however is quite off topic. If you wish I would be more than happy to create a post detailing the problems in a number of his 'experiments' or conclusions to discuss this in though. Or feel free to do so yourself.

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.

[6or1/2Dozen]

Actually we have. The whole thing. Not all from earth, no, but here's a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon
Read up.

Now you are just being obtuse.

I think most people would realize I was implying 'as seen from Earth'.

Thanks for the link, but I am familiar with searching both Wikipedia and Google without assistance.

[Scroogie]

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. 

[Scroogie]

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.

[Parallax]

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.

I have. And it's pride of place on my shelf. The Dr Rowbotham presented many facts to back up his experiments, taking different situations into account yet each one proved the point that earth is not a globe.

And I'm not sure where other people get their information from, I can't speak for them. I do, however, trust Dr Rowbothams work.

[6or1/2Dozen]

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. 

I know, and you're the one playing the part of the FEer.

You keep demanding more proofs and taking materials out of context, without providing anything of you own. You're the one who complained I used a playing card to represent the Moon and then had me make a 3D cylinder for no good reason, only to come back and say "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".

I mean really, make me build a model in 3D than come back and say YOU'RE the one whose been "trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon".

8!tc4, please!

Still haven't heard you tender a guess at to which set of pics are from the FE model and which are from the RE model, BTW. But hey, that's a classic FE debate tactic, too - Avoid answering the questions that challenge your point ... by ignoring them.

I've understood that we can model the Moon as a 2 dimensional surface oriented so that all observers can only see one face. You're the one who wanted it mounted so one person would see the value and the other would see the picture, which doesn't happen in either model or in real life.

You're the one who keeps dis-believing all the evidence that I've put forth that this could work over a flat surface, but provided nothing to show it can't.

You're the one who is having trouble unfolding the RE mechanics of an orbit to visualize what amounts to a race track over FE.

Also, pushing the moon in the Z direction causes it to rotate on it axis (in reality it's the Earth rotating, the Moon essentially stays still over the course of a day) so it's continues to present only one side. This is the best 3D rendering I can do:



You should also note that the Moon also flips between rise and set. The red/green edge rising first out of the horizon, is the edge that will lead the moon setting on the other horizon. Go out and watch it tonight.

Nothing is wrong with anyone's understanding of how the works on RE. You're just not getting how it works when FE peels it out into basically what amounts to an overhead race track. (Which we can model as a below a blimp racetrack)

Imagine you're up in the Goodyear blimp over a stretch of racetrack, so high you're almost looking straight down on at the cars roofs, can't really see the sides at all. You watch the Number 6 car take the lead, but the people in the MetLife blimp, on the other side of the track, see the Number 9 car pulling ahead. How is this possible? Because the direction you are facing makes a difference.



On FE the image could flip, just not for the same reason as on RE. Still, on FE with it's fake horizon and with the inverted bowl effect (which exists on RE as well), the act of passing under the zenith and turning around could create a similar effect.

This Moon flipping thing between North and South, by itself, could be consistent on a FE (flat plane) model.

It's not consistent with the common FE model of a Moon 3000 miles away though. The Moon still needs to be much more distant and must remain tidally locked (in FE case the o part of the 6/9 always facing the North Pole and 1 side always facing Earth. (Not sure why the Moon would be tidally locked of on Fantasy Earth though, since gravity isn't really supposed to be a thing there.)

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).

[Frocious]

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.

I have. And it's pride of place on my shelf. The Dr Rowbotham presented many facts to back up his experiments, taking different situations into account yet each one proved the point that earth is not a globe.

And I'm not sure where other people get their information from, I can't speak for them. I do, however, trust Dr Rowbothams work.

You need to stop typing "Dr" in front of "Rowbotham."

[Parallax]

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.

I have. And it's pride of place on my shelf. The Dr Rowbotham presented many facts to back up his experiments, taking different situations into account yet each one proved the point that earth is not a globe.

And I'm not sure where other people get their information from, I can't speak for them. I do, however, trust Dr Rowbothams work.

You need to stop typing "Dr" in front of "Rowbotham."

And why exactly?