2281

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of the Moon

« on: April 09, 2019, 06:43:06 AM »

If the moon emitted it’s own light, then that light would be viewable on the Earth irrespective of location. That is, every location where is was viewable, we would see the same moon. The fact that moon phases are location specific, as are eclipses, is direct evidence that the moon cannot be an emitter.

Then the hypothesis of the moon omitting it's own light would match what we see on earth then would it not? A full moon in the northern hemisphere is also a full moon in the lower hemisphere.

I guess back to the OP. If the moon emitted it's own light, what causes the phases, this:

2282

Flat Earth Community / Re: Dr. John D. Bedford Canal Experiments

« on: April 09, 2019, 06:30:34 AM »

Looking forward to what they come up with.

From ENAG, EXII:

"The above-named experiments were first made by the author in the summer of 1838, but in the previous winter season, when the water in the "Old Bedford" Canal was frozen, he had often, when lying on the ice, with a good telescope observed persons skating and sliding at known distances of from four to eight miles."

Wouldn't it be better from an atmospheric perspective to do this over ice, wait until the canal is frozen? Just curious.

2283

Flat Earth Community / Re: Koreshan Community and the Hollow Earth

« on: April 05, 2019, 10:08:18 PM »

It is my opinion that, due to this, the most compelling experiments are the ones which take refraction into account or provide multiple control points, such as Rowbotham's Experiment 2.

On analysis of Rowboham's second experiment, if the earth were a globe or concave, one important remark would be that it is quite the coincidence that the flags all experienced the flat earth refraction effect, one by one, all the way down to the end, which projected each flag into the air at the exact height they needed to be at in order to make things look flat in accordance with the distance looked across and the height of the observer.

I just re-read the experiment. To me, I read the flag experiment as "refraction free" simply showing that all the flag heights were inline down the canal = Flat earth. Or simply no convexity or concavity present. Did SBR take refraction into account in EX2? I'm thinking it should be take refraction & (not or) control points into account. I may just not be understanding your statement.

2284

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: April 05, 2019, 09:22:07 PM »

As for why use Google Maps, it's as good a source as any and is used by millions of people every day to get around reliably.

There are many many MANY sets of maps, which are used by millions and millions of people every day to get around reliably in which the earth is represented as a flat plane and NOT as a globe such as:

mapquest maps
bing maps
yahoo maps
suncalc.net
timeanddate.com
geology.com world map
https://satellites.pro/plan/world_map which has a Google TM on the search results
mapsofworld.com
mapchart.net
https://mapmaker.nationalgeographic.org/
https://24timezones.com/worldmap

All of which are based upon Globe projections. So it doesn't get someone out of the jam of not using Google maps just because it has a globe view and these layouts don't.

2285

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

« on: April 05, 2019, 09:05:42 PM »

New light path:

The vacuum of space,  the exosphere,  the thermoshpere, the mesosphere,  the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, a solar filter, more surface level chaotic atmospheric conditions after exiting the solar filter and finally the complex different layers of your eye.

Sounds pretty complex indeed. What's the specific point you're trying to make in regard to the topic: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

2286

Flat Earth Community / Re: Koreshan Community and the Hollow Earth

« on: April 05, 2019, 06:12:12 PM »

I find Hollow Earth theory hilarious! Don't get me wrong, it's a great scifi concept, but on a realistic level it just sends me spinning into a black hole.

Besides, only a round Earth could be hollow.

Not necessarily. The thickness and the shape of underside of the plane is unknown.

2287

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

« on: April 04, 2019, 09:01:27 PM »

Cool, obviously there is scattering, that's what light generally does. How much is dependent upon the given situation I suppose. All kinds of environmental factors.

Well since we both agree that there is light scattering to a degree depending on all kinds of environmental factors then you can see the FE points. This light scattering happens in both the RE models and the FE models.

Light scattering happens in any model, essentially it just happens on earth, light does that around these parts. But when a solar filter is put on your camera (or face), essentially on a clear eve or dawn, you basically remove this scatter=change in size business. So, no, I don't see FE's points.

No scatter, no size change (These are beautiful, btw) shots with sun filters - This one is insanely crisp and stunningly gorgeous:



Another crisp one:



This is a good one b/c it does a side by side w/filter and without, about halfway through:

2288

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: April 04, 2019, 04:44:58 AM »

In the case of the above device, it is questionable whether the front container is even level. There is a lip of lightness at the top, like we are looking down at it. In the case of the colored water, the upper surface might be entirely black, missing cues like this.

The thick meniscus in these devices cause the same issues as the colored water does. Questionable calibration and alignment. Steps to ensure accuracy are desired.

Rowbotham’s ENAG Experiment 11

"Another proof will be found in the following experiment. Select any promontory, pier, lighthouse gallery, or small island, and, at a considerable altitude, place a smooth block of wood or stone of any magnitude; let this be "levelled." If, then, the observer will place his eye close to the block, and look along its surface towards the sea, he will find that the line of sight will touch the distant horizon. Now let any number of spirit levels or theodolites be properly placed, and accurately adjusted; and it will be found that, in every one of them, the same sea horizon will appear in the field of view considerably below the cross-hair; thus, proving that telescopic instrumental readings are not the same as those of the naked eye.”

So this is essentially the kind of control, alignment, and calibrated rigor you’re looking for: placing one’s eye close to the block? Then comparing that to the accuracy of a locked down leveled and stationary theodolite? And then coming to the insanely obvious conclusion that "telescopic instrumental readings are not the same as those of the naked eye”? This is the type of solid experimentation you demand? Nose to a block of wood? Certainly no questionable calibration and alignment there...Seriously?

So I guess we’ll forget tubes/bottles of water and string cages, we’ll just move to eyeballing it with planks of wood. Is that acceptable?

2289

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

« on: April 04, 2019, 02:33:13 AM »

1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter


Sure it does, it points to 2.

Drawing a line through a point does not magically invalidate it.

I didn't mean any offense buy striking, just visually teasing out #2 as presented.

1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
1. We don't see the sun change size

 I've already presented evidence which shows that it DOES change size. I will present it again:



Notice how the sun DOES change size?

Sure, and I presented evidence which shows that it DOESN'T change size. But like I said, find sunsets/sunrises timelapses with a solar filter, (yours is not) you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Find one of those where it does and let's chat.

3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
3. I don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on, just a crisp, clear orb in the sky.

This claim was made based you seeing a video.

And so was yours.

Lets understand what's going on here:

Photons going from the sun, through the atmosphere, through a solar filter and hitting a camera. The Camera then makes it's best attempt to turn those collections of photons into a digital image/video.
That digital image being loaded onto a computer to a monitor which generates photons which hit your eye, your eye then tries it's very best to turn those new set of photons into an electrical signal and sends it to your visual cortex.

Now your visual cortex has this huge cloud of electrons and it tries it's very best to create some sort of an image out of it.

Just because you don't see it does not mean that it does not exist. It just means that your eye's limited ability to turn photons into a cloud of electrical signals and your visual cortex's limited  ability to translate that cloud of signals are both easily fooled. Allow me to give an example:

In the video below I see an arrow change direction and i don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on. Just because you SEE the arrow facing right does not mean that the arrow is facing right.

We don't live in a glass of water. Cool trick though.

4. There's no scattering of light otherwise we would see it all blurry, not like the crisp image we see here.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter

First off you didn't present any evidence that light scattering causes things to appear blurry. Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that the atmosphere does not cause any light from the sun to scatter?

I didn't present evidence, you did, with your car lights image, look blurry to me. Not defined like the orb in the video I presented. I never claimed the atmosphere does not scatter light. Just saying that a crisp clean seemingly low atmospherically interactive event like in the video I presented, the light didn't appear 'scattered' to me. I'm sure it is scattered, to what degree, I don't know, but the sun seemed crisp in the image/video.

Do you have any evidence that supports your claim that ANY time ANY light is scattered it will appear blurry in such a way that is perceivable to naked human eye?

Nope, and never said I did, just referencing you car light image. Again, just saying the image looks crisp, minimally 'scattered' and minimally subject to some perhaps more than usual refraction like miraging.

Second off yes there is scattering of light. Allow me to present my evidence:

"When light from the Sun passes through the atmosphere, it gets scattered by the large number of particles in the atmosphere".

Unless the entire path the light took from the sun to the camera was in a vacuum (which I highly doubt it was) then light was scattered.

Cool, obviously there is scattering, that's what light generally does. How much is dependent upon the given situation I suppose. All kinds of environmental factors.

2290

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

« on: April 03, 2019, 11:35:35 PM »

If you poke around for sunsets/sunrises timelapse with a solar filter, you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Like this:

This really does not affect the responses.

1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter

Sure it does, it points to 2.

1. We don't see the sun change size.
3. I don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on, just a crisp, clear orb in the sky.
4. There's no scattering of light otherwise we would see it all blurry, not like the crisp image we see here.

2291

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why isn't the sun visible all night?

« on: April 03, 2019, 11:07:14 PM »

If the sun were to be small and local, then:

first off not all flat earth models have a small local sun. The model supported by the wiki is definitely incomplete and struggles with answering many questions.

a) we would see the angular size of the sun constantly change]
b) we would see the sun get smaller as it sets

There are several responses to these. They all kinda touch on both topics.

1. We do see the size of the sun change (or change as it sets):
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. I would link you to tom's post about it by i'm lazy. Basically oncoming headlights appear much larger than they are.

notice how on some of the headlights which are futher away appear much larger light sources than ones up close?

If you poke around for sunsets/sunrises timelapse with a solar filter, you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Like this:

2292

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: April 03, 2019, 08:54:06 PM »

The experiment is subject to a number of possible systematic issues. For one thing, the experimenters are using colored water, which makes it difficult to see if the surface is level or not. The full upper surface is seen when the eye is above the water column, but when the column is above the eye one can't easily see through the colored water to see if it's level or not. This makes it more likely to be too high than too low.

Or this:

If we were to tilt the device, lifting the bottom lip of the water level in the foreground device up to match the bottom lip of the background device, it would be a different result.

Then don't go randomly tilting it. Use a spirit level as a control.

2293

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: April 03, 2019, 05:15:07 AM »

Sorry, he used 4, there's one on the camera too. And here's that Bobby experiment with no water tubes, if you like that method better.

I missed this one  This experiment is addressed by Rowbotham:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.

...

The theory which affirms that all parallel lines converge to one and the same point on the eye-line, is an error. It is true only of lines equi-distant from the eye-line; lines more or less apart meet the eye-line at different distances, and the point at which they meet is that only where each forms the angle of one minute of a degree, or such other angular measure as may be decided upon as the vanishing point. This is the true law of perspective as shown by nature herself; any idea to the contrary is fallacious, and will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice.

Notice that some of the line overlays seem forced in Bobby's picture. They don't all point to the same place, but slightly different places.

Also possibly related to the water leveling issues.

Rowbotham has a few correct ways to determine eye  level, which he describes in Earth Not a Globe

Nope, this is from CHAPTER XIV, WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD

We're not talking about vanishing points like looking down a railroad track. This is looking across the horizon and how it dips with elevation and does not meet the eye line.

There are no water leveling issues, they are strings. If you're talking about the spirit level inside the cage are you saying spirit levels have no control and should not be used?

If Rowbotham had a few ways to determine eye level, cite them and cite the chapter and verse so I don't have to keyword search through ENAG for the thousandth time only to find a completely irrelevant quote provided by you.

2294

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: April 03, 2019, 04:21:19 AM »

Wow, six pages in and we've landed on asking if someone is a surveyor coming from someone who I assume is not a surveyor. Fetching retort.

So the question in the OP, actually the title of the OP is, "What's the best tool for measuring eye level?"

So to FE, the society perhaps, what is the best tool for measuring eye level? Sounds like according to you, nothing is. Am I correct or could you actually answer the OP?

2295

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary orbits

« on: April 03, 2019, 02:15:04 AM »

If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.

I can't think of many Flat Earth astronomers who have studied the planets. I can think of many RE astronomers. One would think that RE would have a working model by now, with all of science behind that effort.

Maybe ask yourself why you can’t name one. But maybe some of these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Belief_in_flat_Earth

And one would think that FE would at least know where the planets are and how they move by now, with even a smidge of science behind that effort. But alas, nothing after thousands of years.

Some of those ancients who believed in a Flat Earth were able to predict the position of the planets with their pattern predicting methods -- methods that are independent of model and are still in use today

Great, independent you say. So where is Saturn in FET? Where is Mars? From an FET standpoint, where are they, how far away are they, what are there orbits? FET=crickets.

It is pretty disturbing that you guys are still using ancient pattern-based methods of locating the planets rather than an RET model, and walk around under the fantasy that you have a working model.

Math = Neptune.

Three Body Problem solutions were not posted in this thread. I don't think I will bother to look at those posts. When you can find an example of a Three Body Problem that has bodies of different masses, that doesn't ignore physics, and has something that looks like a sun with a planet that has a moon, you should probably post a new thread about that. Science has been searching for a way to get Copernicus' heliocentric system working for a long time!

Red herring galore. And yes, Copernicus' heliocentric system has been working for a long time. And quite well. Now when FET has an actual 'system', great. But to date, thousands of years later, the planets are unknown to your system as FET does not know where they are or how the move. At least helio does and demonstrates.

2296

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary orbits

« on: April 03, 2019, 12:04:37 AM »

If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.

I can't think of many Flat Earth astronomers who have studied the planets. I can think of many RE astronomers. One would think that RE would have a working model by now, with all of science behind that effort.

Maybe ask yourself why you can’t name one. But maybe some of these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Belief_in_flat_Earth

And one would think that FE would at least know where the planets are and how they move by now, with even a smidge of science behind that effort. But alas, nothing after thousands of years.

As been shown time and time again, we got that.

Post it.

Reply #52 & #58 in this thread for starters, though there are many more in various threads. Perhaps FET should locate and figure out how any body works before it tackles 3 body problems.

2297

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: April 02, 2019, 11:49:27 PM »

Unfortunately all of the water levels in Bobby's experiment were not level.



This viewer suggested that a control was needed verify that all sighting devices were level and in-line. Since they did not match up, they must not be.

Great, so you're anti water level. No water level in the string box. Seems to show the same disparity between eye-level and horizon as the water level experiment does.

2298

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary orbits

« on: April 02, 2019, 11:46:26 PM »

Why should I care about planetary properties as a topic of research? How many people have been studying and making theories about the planets in the lifespan of FET vs 2000+ years of RET?

If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.

Despite all the effort, it appears that the greatest minds of humanity have yet to come up with a model where a sun can exist with a planet that has a moon. 

As been shown time and time again, we got that. FET has had a few thousand years to figure out where the planets are and what they do, yet FET still doesn't know where the planets are and what they do. Fair enough.

2299

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?

« on: April 02, 2019, 11:32:08 PM »

The video you posted isn't the same experiment at all. Where do they attempt to align the water levels with something in the distance?

You obviously didn't watch the video. They align them by getting each tube to the same mark as they are measuring the slope of the hill. Same concept.

Bobby's water levels did not line up. According to your hypothesis they should line up. Therefore the hypothesis or application is incorrect.

Sorry, he used 4, there's one on the camera too. And here's that Bobby experiment with no water tubes, if you like that method better.

2300

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary orbits

« on: April 02, 2019, 11:13:39 PM »

The 3-Body problem in RE doesn’t seem to be even relevant to this topic. As usual, it's a red herring to draw attention away from the real issue. The real issue is FE’s Any-Body problem.

As it stands, FET has no knowledge of where the planets are, their size, distance from earth, let alone their orbits. So FE can attempt to poke holes in helio models and predictions and continue to fail or perhaps be better served by figuring out the FE models and predictions because right now, there are none.

I think, in a discussion about orbits of the planets, the near infinite complexity of the orbits and gravity in the round earth model is totally relevant.

I will agree with you that there are many flat earth models which don't even attempt to outline the orbit, size, or distance of the planets in our solar system.

I'm just saying, especially if you read QED's response here and in other threads regarding the helio 3-body problem, it is irrelevant. The real issue here is what you pointed out - The FET Any-body problem: No FET knowledge of the orbit, size, or distance of the planets in our solar system. That's essentially the focus of the OP: FE, what does your solar system look like, where are your planets, and how do they move about?

So far nada for answers from FE. Reason being, apparently, because there are none.