The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Emily Ames on April 15, 2014, 11:20:25 PM
-
Hello all!
I heard about your site from one of my students that I teach at Harvard. It's all very interesting! I am a planetary scientist as you can probably tell from my signature. That means that I study planets, not only the curvature of planets, but also the possibility of extraterrestrial life on other planets. I have devoted my whole life to this science and I currently teach it at Harvard. Not to brag, but I have a PHd in Education and teach Round Earth theory for a living, for the most part.
It surprises me that people still cling to the old fashioned notion that the Earth is flat when there is so much evidence to the contrary. In the following few paragraphs I will detail some points that provide clear evidence that the Earth is indeed round.
1) Aristotle (who made many observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s great irrefutable evidence that the Earth is round.
2) Back to Aristole: Returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” The farther you move from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not happen at all if the Earth was flat, like your site claims.
3) Here's a more interesting point: If you stick a stick in the ground outside it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow.
4) And for my final point, I would just like to point out that every observable planet and celestial body in our solar system and the known universe (as far as we know) is spherical. This is mostly due to gravity. We can observe these planets with telescopes and other devices... so we know that they exist. If every other celestial body in space is round, then why would the Earth be flat? That goes against almost all our accepted beliefs about space and the universe itself. What makes our Earth so different from the spherical bodies hanging in space all around us? Why are we so special?
Anyways, I hope that this promotes some real serious debate and that some of you will step away from the FE theory and come back to the Dark side (Haha), we do have cookies!
-
1) Aristotle (who made many observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s great irrefutable evidence that the Earth is round.
That isn't Earth, it is the anti-moon.
2) Back to Aristole: Returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” The farther you move from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not happen at all if the Earth was flat, like your site claims.
I can't view the top of skyscrapers in a dense fog. This isn't because the skyscraper disappeared behind curvature.
3) Here's a more interesting point: If you stick a stick in the ground outside it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow.
This has nothing to do with the Earth's curvature, even in RE science. The Sun and the Earth move in relation to each other. In RE, the Earth moves, in FE the Sun moves.
4) And for my final point, I would just like to point out that every observable planet and celestial body in our solar system and the known universe (as far as we know) is spherical. This is mostly due to gravity. We can observe these planets with telescopes and other devices... so we know that they exist. If every other celestial body in space is round, then why would the Earth be flat? That goes against almost all our accepted beliefs about space and the universe itself. What makes our Earth so different from the spherical bodies hanging in space all around us? Why are we so special?
Those other planets are not Earth. Go ahead, wave to the humans on those other celestial bodies, I don't think they'll be waving back.
You know, you don't have to pretend to be someone else to post here, just a thought.
-
1) Aristotle (who made many observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s great irrefutable evidence that the Earth is round.
Hi Emily! Welcome aboard. I'll get us started.
Aristotle assumed that the shadow he saw was earth's shadow. The idea that the earth was round was popular among ancient Greeks because they believed all the celestial bodies to be perfect spheres, and that the earth shouldn't be any different. They sought observations to support that notion.
2) Back to Aristole: Returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” The farther you move from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not happen at all if the Earth was flat, like your site claims.
This can and does happen on a flat earth, for several reasons - which vary depending upon which model you use. At any rate, it is well known that some stars are visible in the southern hemisphere (or hemidisc, if you prefer) and not in the northern, but there are many explanations of this including electromagnetic acceleration, perspective, lensing by the aetheric whirlpool, and celestial gears. I'm a celestial gears supporter, but in a more esoteric sense than some.
3) Here's a more interesting point: If you stick a stick in the ground outside it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow.
Certainly not. Observe: the floor of your kitchen is flat. Assuming you have a single ceiling light, a vertical stick positioned perpendicular to the floor will produce shadows of different lengths depending upon how far away they are from the center of the room. This is pretty simple trigonometry, and this phenomenon works just as well on a flat earth as a round - in fact, they show the "true" altitude of the sun, which is much closer than it needs to be in order to satisfy a spherical planet.
4) And for my final point, I would just like to point out that every observable planet and celestial body in our solar system and the known universe (as far as we know) is spherical. This is mostly due to gravity. We can observe these planets with telescopes and other devices... so we know that they exist. If every other celestial body in space is round, then why would the Earth be flat? That goes against almost all our accepted beliefs about space and the universe itself. What makes our Earth so different from the spherical bodies hanging in space all around us? Why are we so special?
Don't fall for the Greek fallacy! Just because everything else seems to be roughly spherical doesn't mean earth is. What makes earth special? I don't know the answer to that for sure. I'm sort of in the minority here because I don't discount "deliberately engineered" as a rationale for why the earth (and humanity) is here at all - and please don't confuse that with creationism or "intelligent design," because I'm not a theist.
-
If the earth is flat then all stars should be visable from anywhere.
Any thoughts on why flat earth distances do not agree with reality?
Please show the different fe models.
-
What makes earth special? I don't know the answer to that for sure. I'm sort of in the minority here because I don't discount "deliberately engineered" as a rationale for why the earth (and humanity) is here at all - and please don't confuse that with creationism or "intelligent design," because I'm not a theist.
I'm not confused by your views being "creationism" or "intelligent design" because that's exactly what they are: creationism & intelligent design. This website is supposed to be a channel for scientific debate and you just answered my question with: "Maybe a creator did it". You obviously have a problem with people calling your views "creationism", if that's the case then maybe you should switch to a viewpoint that actually makes sense? Maybe that would solve your cognitive dissonance.
I'm sorry, but that's a turn off for me. What you just did was admit that you don't know the answer to any of my questions, and of course... that's fine, but at least admit it like a man. Don't beat around the bush and expect me to be strung along just because I'm a woman.
I would post more examples of how the Earth is round, but I'll wait until someone can refute my original points, because no one has done so as of yet.
-
It may be worth pointing out that Intelligent Design does not require a deity, merely sufficient technological advancement to perform deeds we attribute to deities.
-
It may be worth pointing out that Intelligent Design does not require a deity, merely sufficient technological advancement to perform deeds we attribute to deities.
You're theorizing without evidence. What's the point of discussing something that you couldn't possibly prove in this lifetime? I'd rather focus on real debate, thank you.
-
It may be worth pointing out that Intelligent Design does not require a deity, merely sufficient technological advancement to perform deeds we attribute to deities.
You're theorizing without evidence. What's the point of discussing something that you couldn't possibly prove in this lifetime? I'd rather focus on real debate, thank you.
There are two components of Intelligent Design. Intelligence and Design. If you have those two things then you have intelligent design. What evidence is required to create a qualifier?
-
What makes earth special? I don't know the answer to that for sure. I'm sort of in the minority here because I don't discount "deliberately engineered" as a rationale for why the earth (and humanity) is here at all - and please don't confuse that with creationism or "intelligent design," because I'm not a theist.
I'm not confused by your views being "creationism" or "intelligent design" because that's exactly what they are: creationism & intelligent design. This website is supposed to be a channel for scientific debate and you just answered my question with: "Maybe a creator did it". You obviously have a problem with people calling your views "creationism", if that's the case then maybe you should switch to a viewpoint that actually makes sense? Maybe that would solve your cognitive dissonance.
I'm sorry, but that's a turn off for me. What you just did was admit that you don't know the answer to any of my questions, and of course... that's fine, but at least admit it like a man. Don't beat around the bush and expect me to be strung along just because I'm a woman.
I would post more examples of how the Earth is round, but I'll wait until someone can refute my original points, because no one has done so as of yet.
Wow, have I really just been accused of sexism? So much for "friendly." I'm female, so if I don't know something I'll admit it like a woman, thanks very much. I have no interest in stringing anyone along (for any reason, including gender) and was merely participating, quite candidly, in your friendly discussion which has quickly become hostile and needlessly antagonistic. I've said and implied nothing about your gender (or mine) anywhere in my post, so I find your accusation of sexism very offensive. I'm a mathematics student and I applaud women in science, whatever conclusions they may draw about the reality of earth and the universe around us.
To be frank, I am of the opinion that we exist in a simulation, and that the earth is an infinite flat plane that loops back onto itself, because that's the simplest way to render it. All the observed evidence and measurements that support a spherical earth do so because that's the way our reality has been structured. This is why arbitrary limits such as Planck length, electron (and neutron) degeneracy, and the speed of light exist. They're the constraints of our simulation. That's not something I discuss openly a lot here because it's all highly hypothetical and ventures into philosophical realms, but I drew the comparison to creationism as I didn't want you to get the mistaken impression that I adhere to religions that support a flat earth.
-
I had no idea that you were female and in the sciences like myself. I may have overreacted to your post and I am sorry for that. I hope that you can forgive my outburst and that we can get on with the discussion.
However, I have not changed my opinion on this topic and I find the idea of a designer to be silly and unprovable. Like I said in my previous posts: I normally don't engage in discussion about theories that have no basis in reality and no evidence behind them, especially ones that roam into the realm of science-fiction. However, I will indulge myself this one time because your claims are interesting to say the least.
How does an infinite flat plane that loops back onto itself work, exactly? Do you have any science or diagrams to help me better understand your theory?
-
1) Aristotle (who made many observations about the spherical nature of the Earth) noticed that during lunar eclipses (when the Earth’s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon, creating a shadow in the process), the shadow on the Moon’s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth’s, and it’s great irrefutable evidence that the Earth is round.
Accept its not. Several chapters of earth not a globe are dedicated to explaining 'eclipses'.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm
2) Back to Aristole: Returning from a trip to Egypt, Aristotle noted that “there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions.” The farther you move from the equator, the farther the ‘known’ constellations go towards the horizon, and are replaced by different stars. This would not happen at all if the Earth was flat, like your site claims.
Why would this not be the case on a flat earth? Just for a second consider earth to be flat (hold your puke in). If you start moving south, but keep looking North, the stars will appear to move towards the horizon due to parallax. That holds true whether the earth is round or flat. You also now need to factor in a slant angle and atmospheric refraction. The air is much thicker looking through it horizontally, than straight up. As the stars near the horizon they are subject to mirage effects, and you can no longer see them.
(http://finland.fi/finfo/images/mirage/mirage7_tn.jpg) (http://finland.fi/finfo/images/mirage/mirage25_tn.jpg) (http://finland.fi/finfo/images/mirage/mirage4_tn.jpg)
an example of what happens to the sun near the horizon. How is Aristotle going to recognise a constellation that low in the sky?
3) Here's a more interesting point: If you stick a stick in the ground outside it will produce a shadow. The shadow moves as time passes (which is the principle for ancient Shadow Clocks). If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow.
This is just factually incorrect. In your bed room position two things on the floor with the room light in the centre of them. Do the shadows point the same way? Why would they on a flat earth? The two objects are at different positions relative to a sun circling overhead.
4) And for my final point, I would just like to point out that every observable planet and celestial body in our solar system and the known universe (as far as we know) is spherical. This is mostly due to gravity. We can observe these planets with telescopes and other devices... so we know that they exist. If every other celestial body in space is round, then why would the Earth be flat? That goes against almost all our accepted beliefs about space and the universe itself. What makes our Earth so different from the spherical bodies hanging in space all around us? Why are we so special?
And every observable planet doesn't have life on it. Just this one. The earth is special. Maybe a flat planet is a pre-requisite for life, and once we discover some other flat ones, we may find life in abundance.
-
Before I typed this debate I did not have a full grasp on the theories of Flat Earth. Now that I have a better understanding of the basics, I can see how some of my points are easily refutable (in theory). One basic question I still have however, is that you accept there's a horizon and that the sun "goes down", correct? Why does it appear as if the sun is "going down", when in your model of Earth, the sun is actually just moving out of view as it circles above Flat Earth? Optical illusion? Magic?
Also, Not every observable planet (to us) has life on it, but theoretically there are many planets in the universe with life on them and they too are most likely round. Since many of you have acknowledged the existence of other planets in this thread and you seem to agree that they are spherical (because they are observable to the naked eye with a telescope; its hard to refute).... then the method in which these other spherical planets were formed is in question under Flat Earth theory, and frankly causes a large hole in the FE theory. As we all know from basic Middle School science class: The force of gravity pulled molten material inwards towards the planet's center into the shape of a sphere. Later, when the planets cooled, they stayed spherical, of course planets are not perfectly spherical because they also spin, but... for these to exist then gravity must exist. I have read in the FAQS that many of you stand by the theory that the Earth itself is moving upward at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). If gravity exists (since we know it does because of the existence of other spherical planets), then why is the Flat Earth not affected by gravity's influence? Once again, what makes Earth so special that it exists outside laws that obviously effect every other planet in our solar system?
-
Before I typed this debate I did not have a full grasp on the theories of Flat Earth. Now that I have a better understanding of the basics, I can see how some of my points are easily refutable (in theory). One basic question I still have however, is that you accept there's a horizon and that the sun "goes down", correct? Why does it appear as if the sun is "going down", when in your model of Earth, the sun is actually just moving out of view as it circles above Flat Earth? Optical illusion? Magic?
No, the sun is a spotlight. It shines a down illuminating a set area. If you are outside the spotlight, you can't see the sun ie it is night. Light is two-way. If you can't see it, it can't shine on you. Sunset is merely the sun no longer shining on you.
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/tempwn0.gif)
Excuse the crudity of the diagram. The spotlight would be much larger and the moon does not track directly opposite all the time.
Also, Not every observable planet (to us) has life on it, but theoretically there are many planets in the universe with life on them and they too are most likely round.
Theoretically? According to whose theory? According to flat earth theory there are many planets out there that must be flat. But they are just as hard to find as ones with life on them.
Since many of you have acknowledged the existence of other planets in this thread and you seem to agree that they are spherical (because they are observable to the naked eye with a telescope; its hard to refute).... then the method in which these other spherical planets were formed is in question under Flat Earth theory, and frankly causes a large hole in the FE theory.
Flat is a very good shape for celestial things. The solar system is a flat disk. The rings of Saturn form flat disks. In fact the entire universe is flat (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2000/apr/26/the-universe-is-flat-official). Flat is a great shape for anything that forms with high inertial energy. We know that the earth was hit by another body early in its life (its thought that is what created to moon). Its entirely possible that impact caused a huge amount of spin which flattened the earth out due to centripetal forces (much more powerful than gravity as the solar system shows. Its not ball shaped either).
As we all know from basic Middle School science class:
Yes, round earth indoctrination starts early. :(
The force of gravity pulled molten material inwards towards the planet's center into the shape of a sphere. Later, when the planets cooled, they stayed spherical, of course planets are not perfectly spherical because they also spin, but... for these to exist then gravity must exist. I have read in the FAQS that many of you stand by the theory that the Earth itself is moving upward at a rate of 32 feet per second squared (or 9.8 meters per second squared). If gravity exists (since we know it does because of the existence of other spherical planets), then why is the Flat Earth not affected by gravity's influence? Once again, what makes Earth so special that it exists outside laws that obviously effect every other planet in our solar system?
When you look at theories on gravity not existing, you need to look at what drives the heavens instead. If you go back to your hero Aristotle, he theorised that the universe consisted of 47 prime movers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover). Celestial gears if you will, that drove the planets, moons, sun, etc this ties in with a theory of a clockwork universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwork_universe), a metaphor for determinism and also spawns theories such as deism. I am a deist, and so this theory is close to my heart. Its a good fit for me.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Flammarion_Woodcut_1888_Color_2.jpg/743px-Flammarion_Woodcut_1888_Color_2.jpg)
I'll add that above is a very famous print called the Flammarion woodcut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammarion_engraving). Legend has it a monk found his way to the edge of the earth some time in the early middle ages. This image shows him lifting the curtain of the sky to see the workings of the universe. the gears if you will top left. what is interesting is the gears are depicted as a wheel in a wheel. This iconography ties in with religious texts spanning thousands of millennia. a wheel in a wheel is actually a type of Angel. an Ophanim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophanim). Apparently they are pretty high up the order.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Ezekiel%27s_vision.jpg/240px-Ezekiel%27s_vision.jpg)
They appear everywhere. they are even the wheels of God's own chariot.
(http://members.dodo.com.au/~astroqab/pics/ezekiel_vision.gif)
Now I'm not saying 'god dunnit', but I find it fascinating that one can tie Aristotle's theories to monotheist religious texts, to art of the renaissance, to Isaac Newtons believes on Deism, to stories from the middle ages and they all fit together to give a coherent tale that the universe is put in motion by some divine force and that the universe will play out that motion forever more. I think its a bit better than "There was nothing and then something came from nothing in a big explosion". Something never arises from nothing. Nothing is nothing and it does nothing. It certainly doesn't go bang.
-
Aristotle died in 322 BCE. While he did give us some insight and helped create the foundation science works with today, he was not always right and at times he was simply a raving madman. Anything you've said about "religious texts" or "ancients murals" I have disregarded and purged from my mind. Those examples are not productive to our debate, in fact they are actually counterproductive and derail our conversation (like now).
With that being said, I have disregarded most of your points (all of them) in your last two posts because of the reasons stated above. This is a scientific debate, not Sunday School. If you want to talk about God, go to church. If you want to talk about Sun discs and shadows, then please bring some science into the conversation. You answer questions with unverified statements presented as fact.
So far you have not answered my questions about gravity. Please refer to my previous post if you need a refresher, and please think carefully when you respond because I am this close to ignoring your responses completely.
-
Aristotle died in 322 BCE. While he did give us some insight and helped create the foundation science works with today, he was not always right and at times he was simply a raving madman.
That's not very scientific. You are guilty of picking and choosing. Confirmation bias is strong in this one.
Anything you've said about "religious texts" or "ancients murals" I have disregarded and purged from my mind. Those examples are not productive to our debate, in fact they are actually counterproductive and derail our conversation (like now).
Religious texts are a mixture of political doctrine at the time and facts from history. An example being almost all ancient texts tell of a huge flood. It is likely that flood occurred, but we only know about it from those texts. Disregarding them because you have a bigoted view denies you the opportunity to examine what they do contain of value.
With that being said, I have disregarded most of your points (all of them) in your last two posts because of the reasons stated above. This is a scientific debate, not Sunday School. If you want to talk about God, go to church. If you want to talk about Sun discs and shadows, then please bring some science into the conversation. You answer questions with unverified statements presented as fact.
You asked about flat earth theories. I not only explained the theories, I took the liberty of giving them context. I apologise for trying to introduce interesting source information and enabling you to explore for yourself so you could ask more insightful questions. Only you claimed to be an academic and I thought you may be interested to learn about our theories rather than just argue the toss over shadows and stars.
From my point of view, teenage kids come here to ask about shadows and tides and eclipses and sunsets. Its very tedious. Academics usually come here to learn.
So far you have not answered my questions about gravity.
I have, if you could have been bothered to read any of it.
Sadly I do not think I will get an interesting debate from a planetary scientist. I'm being driven down the route of internet babysitting an adolescent with a poor grasp of physics. To that end, I'm going to bed. Good night.
-
Goodnight, Thork. Maybe next time you can bring something to the table that's actually worthwhile. :)
-
Oh Thork. Such misguided thinking. Almost all mythologies have a virgin birth, a descent to the underworld, a resurrection and some token of immortality. Must all of these be likely to exist? In fact almost any superstition or myth you can think if is ubiquitous, it was the basis of Joseph Campbell's academic career. Are all of them likely to be true?
-
Goodnight, Thork. Maybe next time you can bring something to the table that's actually worthwhile. :)
See, already we're finding things we can agree on. :)
Regarding the simulation hypothesis, yes, it's unprovable, which is why, as I said, I don't bring it up here very often. And while an architect ostensibly has to create said simulation, the sim itself seems to be a closed universe with no deities. All our science can only see to the edge of our universe, outside that could be anything - but you're right, that's not scientific. Still, artistotle was a philosopher as well as a mathematician, so perhaps there is merit to such diversions.
As to the nature of the closed-loop infinite plane, I need to make a representation of it but it's difficult in two dimensions. Imagine a transverse mercator projection, except instead of rolling along a single direction, it expands in all directions (meaning it doesn't display the distortion along the edges seen here, as there are no edges)
(http://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/transverse_mercator.jpg)
-
No, the sun is a spotlight. It shines a down illuminating a set area. If you are outside the spotlight, you can't see the sun ie it is night. Light is two-way. If you can't see it, it can't shine on you. Sunset is merely the sun no longer shining on you.
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b382/qpiine/Flat%20Earth/tempwn0.gif)
Excuse the crudity of the diagram. The spotlight would be much larger and the moon does not track directly opposite all the time.
Hello Thork,
My first post here. The funny spotlight drew me in. Did you come up with that yourself, or...?
Commendably, the spotlight is revolving the correct direction...
The trouble is, the sun does not look like a spotlight. It just looks like a ball radiating in all directions. The other trouble is, the arbitrariness of the concept. Is there flat earth theory that might tell us what makes the sun revolve in such a way, tracking the equator? Actually the sun would have to follow various latitudes during the year, slowly changing track with the seasons.
The moon also looks like a ball, not a spotlight. Especially when I point my telescope at it. I see mountains with shadows that point away from the direction of the sun. If the moon is lit up by the sun, how does the sun spotlight it at the same time it's spotlighting earth? Or is there some other spotlight for the moon? Is the moon also flat like the earth?
Educate me! ;-)
t
-
Great question, what shines light on the moon? Obviously, in that diagram, the sun's rays do not reach the moon...
-
Actually the sun would have to follow various latitudes during the year, slowly changing track with the seasons.
Indeed it would. It was just a basic diagram. Getting it to move in and out on a diagram to show diurnal change would be confusing. It of course would migrate between the tropics as in the diagram below.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig60.jpg)
I did ask that you excuse the basic nature of the diagram.
Excuse the crudity of the diagram.
The moon also looks like a ball, not a spotlight. Especially when I point my telescope at it. I see mountains with shadows that point away from the direction of the sun.
This I highly doubt. What kind of a telescope do you have? A Mauna Kea?
If the moon is lit up by the sun, how does the sun spotlight it at the same time it's spotlighting earth? Or is there some other spotlight for the moon? Is the moon also flat like the earth
Classical flat earth theory tells us that the moon is self-luminating. My own suspicion is that it is the bright light of the earth that illuminates it. The crescent shapes are made from the spot-light effect of the sun. Obviously as the moon and sun are both above earth and adjacent, it cannot be light directly from the sun.
-
I can excuse the crudity of the diagram, but I can't excuse the arbitrariness of the hypothesis. What flat earth theory explains why the sun would circle around in the sky, precisely following such a complex, migrating track? What keeps it in place? You forgot to answer that part...
I see moon mountains with my garden variety 8 inch Newtonian. The Montes Appeninus range is quite pretty during the waxing gibbous phase, casts great shadows. The shadows always point away from the direction of the sun. Likewise the crescents always face the sun direction, just as you can simulate by holding up a ball to one side of a bright light behind it. So my own suspicion is that the sun is illuminating the moon from far away.
I further suspect that the geometry of round balls (sun, moon, and (gasp!) the earth) explains the evidence far more simply than your diagrams, whether crude or complex. With round earth theory, the diagrams can stay simple. Parsimony, man, parsimony! :)
t
-
Round earth is easy to explain? Ok, without Markjo jumping in to have this same debate with me for 8 millionth time, I'd like you to explain with a diagram how you get a full moon. Use the sun, earth and moon.
Draw them in a little line. And tell me where the sun has to be, I have to be and the moon has to be for me to get a full moon. Then draw a second picture showing again where everything is for a lunar eclipse. If your pictures look identical when one has a full glowing moon and one has no light on the moon at all, maybe you should consider your model as inadequate?
Go, draw. :D
-
Do you seriously think only in 2 dimensions Thork? That could be the only explanation for your flaccid "gotcha" post.
-
Do you seriously think only in 2 dimensions Thork? That could be the only explanation for your flaccid "gotcha" post.
This particular conundrum has nothing to do with only 2 dimensions. A full moon is not possible with round balls. The earth is in the way when the sun is directly below you to produce a full moon. Ergo a full moon is impossible. Despite me witnessing one 5 days ago and my calendar telling me the next one is due on 14th May.
-
Do you seriously think only in 2 dimensions Thork? That could be the only explanation for your flaccid "gotcha" post.
This particular conundrum has nothing to do with only 2 dimensions. A full moon is not possible with round balls. The earth is in the way when the sun is directly below you to produce a full moon. Ergo a full moon is impossible. Despite me witnessing one 5 days ago and my calendar telling me the next one is due on 14th May.
It has everything to do with two and three dimensions. Let me ask you this pointed question. Do you think a full moon is only when a full hemisphere of the moon is lit?
-
Round earth is easy to explain? Ok, without Markjo jumping in to have this same debate with me for 8 millionth time, I'd like you to explain with a diagram how you get a full moon. Use the sun, earth and moon.
Draw them in a little line. And tell me where the sun has to be, I have to be and the moon has to be for me to get a full moon. Then draw a second picture showing again where everything is for a lunar eclipse. If your pictures look identical when one has a full glowing moon and one has no light on the moon at all, maybe you should consider your model as inadequate?
Go, draw. :D
The sun/earth/moon system is three-dimensional, Thork. It's not easy to depict a three-dimensional situation in a two-dimensional drawing. Since the moon's orbit is tilted about 5 degrees from the earth's, usually the moon will pass under or over the earth's shadow. Sometimes it just grazes the shadow, so that it only darkens a little.
Hope that helps or hinders.
t
-
Do you seriously think only in 2 dimensions Thork? That could be the only explanation for your flaccid "gotcha" post.
This particular conundrum has nothing to do with only 2 dimensions. A full moon is not possible with round balls. The earth is in the way when the sun is directly below you to produce a full moon. Ergo a full moon is impossible. Despite me witnessing one 5 days ago and my calendar telling me the next one is due on 14th May.
In one sense, you are correct. The moon is never "really" full. When the moon passes above or below the earth's shadow, we're not seeing a tiny portion of the lit-up side. When the moon passes under the shadow, we would miss a tiny sliver on the bottom, and vice-versa. But this effect is so small that we don't notice it. Just like people don't notice if the moon is one day before or after full, it just looks full.
Even at full moon, in a telescope you can still see a terminator at the very edge (dividing line between night and day). Here's a page that explains this to some extent... from NBC no less! After all, I'm sure you place full trust in the mainstream media ;-)
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4402294/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/full-moon-merely-fallacy/#.U1MlMlVdWSo
t
-
Even at full moon, in a telescope you can still see a terminator at the very edge
I am so sorry.
(http://i.imgur.com/JsGTKEu.jpg)
-
Even at full moon, in a telescope you can still see a terminator at the very edge
I am so sorry.
(http://i.imgur.com/JsGTKEu.jpg)
Yep, you better be sorry... trivializing our earnest discussion! >o<
t
-
Seriously though, Thork's objection did get me thinking... usually that's a good thing :)
So the moon is never actually full during a "full moon"... except, oddly enough, during a total lunar eclipse. At that time, the moon is lit up only by the rays of the sun being refracted through earth's atmosphere. Looked quite dark up there last week...
But that's the only time when the illuminated face is directly facing the earth, with no terminator at all. Hasta la vista, baby!
t
-
@ the risk of having Miss Emily rip out my eyeballs, I'll introduce myself. I'm a Rounder, & a Traditional Jew. Interestingly enough, the Ancient Hebrews perceived the Earth as flat. I wish this dumbphone could display images, as I've got a few good ones of the Ancient Hebrew perspective. If I can get to a wi-fi hotspot, I'll see about displaying some of those. When you think about it, in a time when people didn't travel further than 50-100 miles from their birthplace, it shouldn't be surprising that they would imagine the world as flat. Why wouldn't they? I'm no scientist. My degrees are in history & philosophy. I won't try to debate the science/math of the thing. But purely by logic, Miss Emily is right. Why would every celestial body but this one be round? & arguing that only Earth has life is simply unverifiable. We don't know that. The universe of round planets may be teeming w/ life, w/ our technology being just too primitive to find it. Unlike Miss Emily, I'm prepared to have a discussion that
-
includes sacred literature & religion. But you FEers need to stop relying on a book that is 133 yrs old w/ experiments of doubtful value. I mean, come on people, its time to get past ENaG if you want to be taken seriously.
-
So the moon is never actually full during a "full moon"
Indeed. On a round earth model, a full moon is impossible. Just another example of how the flat earth model is superior.
-
But you FEers need to stop relying on a book that is 133 yrs old w/ experiments of doubtful value. I mean, come on people, its time to get past ENaG if you want to be taken seriously.
ENaG is an important and valued part of our society's history and a testament to the spirit of zetetic inquiry. It is also by no means infallible.
-
Well, I've got a copy, & have read a large part of it. I'm reading it again now. But reputable scientists reject the findings of ENaG as a case of SEVERELY misinterpreted data. The experiments have never been peer reviewed, @ the time they were performed, or since, to my knowledge. What does that say for their value, then? EDIT Please note I am texting from a dumbphone w/ character & space limitations. Some of my posts will be broken into 2 or 3 parts for that reason.
-
So the moon is never actually full during a "full moon"
Indeed. On a round earth model, a full moon is impossible. Just another example of how the flat earth model is superior.
You quoted me out of context, Thork. Left out "... except, oddly enough, during a total lunar eclipse". That's when the moon really IS full, though poorly illuminated because of the shadow. So a full moon is quite possible from this nicely rounded planet ;D
t
-
The experiments have never been peer reviewed, @ the time they were performed, or since, to my knowledge.
Actually they have.
[Rowbotham, Samuel B.] Zetetic astronomy. A description of several experiments which prove that the surface of the sea is a perfect plane, and that the earth is not a globe. Being the substance of a paper read before the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. By ‘Parallax' [pseud.] Birmingham, W. Cornish, 1849. 16 p. illus.
-
The experiments have never been peer reviewed, @ the time they were performed, or since, to my knowledge.
Actually they have.
[Rowbotham, Samuel B.] Zetetic astronomy. A description of several experiments which prove that the surface of the sea is a perfect plane, and that the earth is not a globe. Being the substance of a paper read before the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. By ‘Parallax' [pseud.] Birmingham, W. Cornish, 1849. 16 p. illus.
The results of which were obviously not compelling enough to persuade the scientific community. Perhaps this presentation is where it was first noted that his set up introduced too great a source of error to be reliable, namely superior refraction mirage?
-
That, Rama Set, is what I have read to be the case. Apparently refraction is precisely what caused Parallax to obtain the results he got. Not being a scientist, I don't claim to entirely understand the process, but there you are.
-
The experiments have never been peer reviewed, @ the time they were performed, or since, to my knowledge.
Actually they have.
[Rowbotham, Samuel B.] Zetetic astronomy. A description of several experiments which prove that the surface of the sea is a perfect plane, and that the earth is not a globe. Being the substance of a paper read before the Royal Astronomical Society on the evening of Dec. 8, 1848. By ‘Parallax' [pseud.] Birmingham, W. Cornish, 1849. 16 p. illus.
The results of which were obviously not compelling enough to persuade the scientific community.
But you haven't actually bothered to find out what happened on that day. Until you learn how to use google, I guess you are going to keep making these stupid statements about something not being peer reviewed or something not having any impact or the earth being a ridiculous round shape.
-
I never said anything about it not being peer reviewed. I recall searching for the information in the past and not finding anything worthwhile. It seems like you have not availed yourself of google either on this matter (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=871.0) so I do not know why you are being so righteous about it. I would be happy to see what the RAS had to say on the matter. How about we both look?
-
I have exhausted Google. I'd have to get off my arse and actually visit them I suppose. Maybe Pizzaplanet would like a road trip?
-
Sounds like fun. Hope you do it.
-
I don't see the issue with a round shape though
-
Are you referring to a specific objection in this thread or in general? If something specific, could you please quote it?
-
Are you referring to a specific objection in this thread or in general? If something specific, could you please quote it?
in general I know that this is sort of discussing the shape but you make it sound like it changes everything but really what does it change in terms of everyday life, it still means I go to work fix cars and come home it really doesn't matter that much the shape when you think about it
-
Are you referring to a specific objection in this thread or in general? If something specific, could you please quote it?
in general I know that this is sort of discussing the shape but you make it sound like it changes everything but really what does it change in terms of everyday life, it still means I go to work fix cars and come home it really doesn't matter that much the shape when you think about it
I make it sound like what now? Please reference specific comments, you are becoming very confusing.
-
Are you referring to a specific objection in this thread or in general? If something specific, could you please quote it?
in general I know that this is sort of discussing the shape but you make it sound like it changes everything but really what does it change in terms of everyday life, it still means I go to work fix cars and come home it really doesn't matter that much the shape when you think about it
I make it sound like what now? Please reference specific comments, you are becoming very confusing.
ok so say we found out that we are both wrong and the earth is a pyramid, what will that mean for us, will it suddenly change the world, will we all go nuts what does the shape on the earth affect
-
Global telecom?
-
Global telecom?
well what is said is that on a flat earth apparently theres a heap of towers that do the same thing as global satellite based communication, the only thing is we can see satellites not the towers