4221

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a flat Earth there would be no horizon

« on: April 08, 2018, 12:55:29 PM »

Fine about the image. I used it originally to demonstrate why the horizon dips at a measurable angle and why that angle increases with altitude.
I’ve seen some suggestion that the horizon would be the same on a flat earth but I’m not sure about this. Why would you get such a sharp line? Nothing other than environmental conditions stops you seeing further so wouldn’t it just fade out more gradually?

4222

Flat Earth Community / Re: 1/3 of millennials not sure if earth is round

« on: April 08, 2018, 12:48:56 PM »

It's 'science' and the stuff they brainwash... sorry, 'teach' in schools that is the problem.

The actual problem is people aren’t taught to think critically or logically.
And with the internet allowing any crazy to broadcast their nonsense to a wide audience it’s increasingly hard for people to know what to believe.
It’s all a bit worrying and there are consequences, one of which being Trump ending up in the White House despite an alarming amount of what he says being demonstrably untrue.

4223

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Math, and what you should see, shall the Earth be round

« on: April 08, 2018, 07:09:06 AM »

There are numerous references to Rowbotham CLAIMING to be a doctor. That isn’t quite the same thing.
Fun fact: Dr. Dre doesn’t have a PHd either.
I don’t know or care whether Rowbotham really had one, but he was clearly a conman, seems quite plausible that he would like about this to give some authority to his crazy claims.

4224

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve

« on: April 07, 2018, 09:30:35 PM »

The silliest thing about this Nile claim - aside from the fact it is demonstrably untrue - is it doesn't make any sense on a flat earth either.
What would cause the water to flow on a flat earth if the gradient was really that shallow?

4225

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve

« on: April 07, 2018, 08:59:00 PM »

The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.

Fun fact: repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

As for the original comment, the horizon should curve on a globe earth. If earth is a globe  then the horizon would curve, instead it does not.

Why would the horizon curve on a globe earth? At ground level the horizon would be the same distance from you in every direction so the horizon would be a horizontal circle which is exactly what you can observe when out at sea.

Proof is the fact the horizon always rises to eye level, only on a flat earth would this happen.

Fun fact: repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

4226

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve

« on: April 07, 2018, 04:45:18 PM »

I see Tom was peddling this lie ten years ago

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25083.0

Weird.

Anyway...original post. Had to think about this but I think that's correct. If we were on a globe (  ) then although, as we have shown recently, the horizon dips you are, from your perspective, "on top" of the ball so it should dip equally in all directions and thus the horizon would be a circle. By coincidence this is what is observed when you're out at sea.

4227

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve

« on: April 07, 2018, 04:22:27 PM »

...  the Nile should dip but it falls only a foot. This is proof earth is not a globe.

Various sources I've looked suggest the elevation at its headwaters and tributaries is over 1000 metres (above sea level)

What's the source for "only a foot" ?

I've seen this "only a foot" thing too. Seems to be a flat our lie so I don't know why it keeps getting repeated:



Source:
http://www.warrencountyschools.org/userfiles/3338/Classes/91227/Ch.%2019%20readings.doc

4228

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the diameter/radius of the Earth? How wide is it, essentially?

« on: April 07, 2018, 08:38:42 AM »

I find it hard to believe people would think earth is hollow, yet there are people who believe it. I don't brand them trolls or try to make out like they are crackpots though, because they are entitled to their (incorrect) beliefs

Why are we "entitled" to incorrect beliefs? If I chose to believe that grass was made of beef and thus all cows were cannibals would you defend my right to believe that? I hope not because it would be ridiculous! Facts are facts and our opinions don't change them!

Because nobody can tell you what to believe, that's why we are 'entitled'. People choose to research things and come to their own conclusions, it's not for someone else to tell them they should believe their opinions instead, and brand them trolls if they don't.

There is a difference between, say, believing that The Spice Girls are the greatest musical group in history and believing that the earth is flat.
It may be your opinion about the Spice Girls, I may disagree, we can discuss it but we both are entitled to an opinion about that. It is subjective.

The shape of the earth is not subjective, it is not a matter of opinion. It is what it is.
As a species we figured out that the earth is a globe thousands of years ago.
Generation after generation of scientists have reaffirmed this. We have a coherent model which matches and explains observations.
There are some debates in science, this is not one of them.

And in the last century we finally had the technology to see it for ourselves.
We now have loads of satellites in space which can take photos of the earth. We have GPS and satellite TV which demonstrably works.
We have sent quite a lot of people in space who have seen the earth as it is for themselves.
High altitude pilots can also observe the curve.

As Ricky Gervais laments in his Humanity show, it used to be "my opinion is as good as your opinion", now it seems to be "my opinion is as good as your fact".
This is obviously not true. The earth is a globe. That is not my opinion. Yes, you are entitled to a different opinion just like you're free to believe in fairies at the bottom of your garden and that the moon is made of cheese, but you ARE wrong and have been proven wrong.
If you want to put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la, can't hear you" and ignore the mountain of evidence proving you wrong then there's nothing I can do about that, but don't go around pretending that this is just a matter of opinion and that all opinions about this are equally valid.

4229

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 06, 2018, 03:34:59 PM »

If perspective puts the sun at the horizon, then the photons are illuminating the observer and sticks from 90 degrees, and will therefore create long shadows.

Cool. Can you show a diagram indicating how photons can travel in a straight line from a sun 3000 miles above the plane of the earth and arrive at my eye horizontally so the sun appears on the horizon and casts long shadows.
Thanks.

There are diagrams of the sun intersecting with the horizon in the p-brane video.

OK. But it only appears to because of perspective, yes? In reality it is 3000 miles above the plane of the surface.
I'm struggling to understand how a ray of light from 3000 miles above the earth can travel in a straight line and end up coming at me horizontally and therefore parallel to the ground, which it has to in order to cast the long shadows.
To understand why this is impossible you only need to think what parallel means, if I shoot a missile at the sun at sunset, the bullet is 4 foot off the ground and I fire it perfectly parallel to the ground, where the sun appears to be, then (assuming the missile doesn't lose any height) the missile will stay 4 feet off the ground.
How then can it hit an object 3000 miles high?

Some diagrams would be helpful to help me understand. Thanks.

4230

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Radii of Certain Circles of Latitude

« on: April 06, 2018, 09:29:19 AM »

The horizon "attempts" to stay with eye level.
Lamps on the horizon are "looking up" at your hand.
Do you actually think the horizon and lamps are sentient? The way you use language is very strange.

It's almost impressive how you manage to claim victory in debates where you have clearly shown to be wrong.
Rowbothamesque. I guess if he was living today he'd be an Internet Troll too.

I've been up tall buildings. I've been on planes. I know that you are not looking down at a significant angle to see the horizon when you're up high. The reason for that is the earth is really big. In my diagrams obviously I significantly exaggerated the curve of the earth to demonstrate the effect but I showed that whether you're on a flat earth or globe the horizon level is BELOW eye level.



Even on a flat earth the horizon would be below eye level as you can see in the diagram.
It's a triangle.
The vertical side is from the ground to your eye.
The base is from you to as far as you can see - which we agree is a finite distance.
The hypotenuse is from your eye to that point as far as you can see.
So there HAS to be an angle downwards and that angle gets bigger with altitude.
And no, I haven't "accounted for perspective". I don't need to. That is not how perspective works, you've repeatedly shown you don't understand perspective.

The angle the horizon is below eye level increases with altitude. I showed you a graph which plots horizon angle dip against altitude:

https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/

Even at the height of a commercial airline the dip angle is only about 3.5 degrees. So it is hard to discern, but it can be measured and you were shown a video of an experiment you could do to check this. It is telling that you have so far refused to even though it would cost you virtually nothing.

Your claim was that the horizon is AT eye level. Your evidence for this was a quote from someone which said it remained "practically" at eye level - which is true it does, but practically at and exactly at are not the same thing. Your other evidence was some drone footage. Even in that footage you CAN see some horizon drop.
Here are two stills from the video, one when it's low, the other when it's high. I've drawn a line across the two frames and you can clearly see that there HAS been some drop in the horizon height.
 


That empirical enough for you?

4231

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Math, and what you should see, shall the Earth be round

« on: April 05, 2018, 09:57:59 PM »

That link is giving me a 404.
Compelling evidence as always.

4232

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Radii of Certain Circles of Latitude

« on: April 05, 2018, 09:56:47 PM »

Is something as simple as measuring the angle of the sun from different locations at different times to start producing a model of the shape of the earth beyond your ability?

We dispute your ideas about how perspective works.

Really? But in this diagram from your Wiki you take no account of perspective.
Correctly, as it happens, so when it suits your argument you do understand how perspective works in the real world:



If you're going to use that argument and that diagram explaining that argument then you can do the experiment which has been suggested to you.

You are not helping when you keep coming up with tests that depend on those Ancient Greek assumptions. You are not working with me, you are working against me. That's where the problem is.

You made a claim the other day about the horizon always being at eye level. A claim which is not true.
The best you could come up with as evidence was a video from a drone which you admitted was not stabilised and thus useless to testing that claim.
You were shown a video of an experiment which clearly showed your claim to be incorrect, an experiment you could repeat at minimal cost.
That test is nothing to do with perspective. It's a simple thing you could do to test part of your theory.

You are making all kinds of assertions based on Rowbotham's writings.
You claim to be an empiricist but you have taken no empirical measurements on anything.

4233

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 05, 2018, 06:13:33 PM »

If perspective puts the sun at the horizon, then the photons are illuminating the observer and sticks from 90 degrees, and will therefore create long shadows.

Cool. Can you show a diagram indicating how photons can travel in a straight line from a sun 3000 miles above the plane of the earth and arrive at my eye horizontally so the sun appears on the horizon and casts long shadows.
Thanks.

4234

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 05, 2018, 08:26:55 AM »

Read Earth Not a Globe for the mechanism of the sun's descent. Youtube author p-brane describes the same mechanism here:

I've dealt with this in this thread, which you ignored.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8672.msg140039;topicseen#msg140039

One key thing to note from my post in that thread is how you use perspective here (wrongly) to explain sunset but ignore it when reinterpreting the stick experiment to show a close sun.
You can't have it both ways.

I've suggested a simple experiment you could do in your home which would cost approximately 0$ - so all of your annual budget, but I'm sure you'll agree that it will be worth it - to verify what I've said about shadows. You ignored that too. I've also suggested an experiment you could do to verify the distance to the sun and you've ignored that too. This is a key part of your theory, if the sun is distant then it would show your interpretation of the stick experiment wrong, it's strange then that you refuse to do any empirical experiments to test that.

4235

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 04, 2018, 08:22:13 PM »

In order for you to be a flat earther you have to think that a flat earth model is possible.
I do not, so I can't make you one.
You as a society are claiming it is possible, the onus is on you to make one.

It's weird that you say above that you don't have a model - that's what I thought a lot of your Wiki was.

I don't understand how you can say that you don't know how many poles there are and that not bother you.

If there's one pole and Antarctica is a wall of ice then there is no way to explain 24 hour sun in Antarctica - something which has been testified to by many people, something you can easily find video of on YouTube. Heck, you can even GO TO ANTARCTICA if you have the money.

If there are two poles and the sun somehow changes from circling one to the other then I can't think of any way that could explain sunlight patterns anywhere else.

When massive gaping flaws are pointed out it would be rational to consider whether the premise of a flat earth is correct given how many empirical observations (something you say is important to you) show it to be impossible.

4236

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 04, 2018, 08:02:12 PM »

You are the one who is interested in it. You make some kind of model. You make some theories.

Wait...you want me to make a model of a flat earth which matches observations...even though that has been shown to be impossible...
It's impossible because the earth is a globe, not flat.
What a strange thing to request.

You're the guys (pretending to) believe in a flat earth.
When you're shown how many ways your current model is wrong and bears no resemblance to reality the onus is on you to either:
1) Alter your model
2) Admit that you're wrong

Your Wiki says:
"A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes"

I don't see any searching, examining or inquiring going on.

4237

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 04, 2018, 07:39:08 PM »

We study what we think is interesting, on our own time, if we even want to study anything at all. This is a leisure activity.

Apologies for the double post but really? You (say you) think that the earth is flat - something which flies in the face of all scientific knowledge and would mean a massive global conspiracy to hide the truth and you don't think this is important? If you had any proof of this, any experiments which actually stood up to scrutiny then this would be revolutionary, it would literally change the world. It's weird that you're not trying a little harder to find some proof to present.

4238

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Universal-ish Acceleration

« on: April 04, 2018, 07:02:49 PM »

Gravity is real, even Dr Rowbotham didn't disprove it. But the way it works, the earth is flat so instead of pulling down from a 'core', it pulls downwards all along the underside of the planet, proving that earth cannot be a globe.

Why doesn't it make all the planets and sun and moon fall on us then?

4239

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 04, 2018, 07:00:31 PM »

This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement.

You should put that on your home page 

No one is demanding that you do any specific research. I have suggested some things you could do, others have too.
If you don't follow up on any of those then so be it but it's hard to take seriously someone writing a chapter on "the importance of Empiricism" who seems to refuse to do any empirical measurements at all.
We have free, global communications these days. All you'd need to do is get some people to take some observations and measurements of the sun in different places, if the sun is circling (it isn't) a flat plane (it isn't) then that would start to give you some idea of where places are.
If you could form a flat earth model which in any way matched observations then maybe it would be taken more seriously and wouldn't just  be "just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time."

4240

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Radii of Certain Circles of Latitude

« on: April 04, 2018, 05:23:13 PM »

If you are looking for a well funded and organized organization that studies the shape of the earth you will be disapointed. I think you do not realize that this entire thing is based on a few people who individually contribute their time to think about it on what little free time they have away from their work.

But even when you're shown simple experiments which would cost you do virtually nothing to do you refuse to do them.
Stop making excuses. There's plenty you could be doing. What ARE you doing to test your models and theories?