### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Messages - nametaken

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: East and West point South on FE Map.
« on: November 19, 2016, 04:27:58 PM »
A similar thing happens in regard to heading (navigation) on the globe. If you line up with a heading on a latitude line corresponding with your heading, you veer off course inevitably and constantly. Demonstrable on google Earth, as seen in this video. Latitude and heading are not the same thing.

Of course, there are no vast-cross-equatorial flights that I can find, so... that would be impossible to test anyway. Although many flights from Australia to Brazil work exactly like they would on the Globe, as can be seen with any booking agency.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: October 03, 2016, 01:46:12 AM »
If you are having problems with perspective while viewing your orthographic diagram, I suggest that you not use a sheet of paper the size of a football field. -_-

Can't help it, I'm a final solution kind of individual. I got tired of running out of toilet paper.

I get it with the infinities, I think now, and why they are running infinitely through this topic...

The fact that "they all visually go to the same place" is exactly what is predicted by the math. Notice that in the bottom perspective drawing that I made, the 3 objects are approaching a point on the horizon. They are following perspective lines.

1. 5:17 "These are true perspective lines, these are parallel lines, but the observer, which is this little guy down here, this what these parallel lines would look like."

Absolutely not. The "little guy down here" is not the observer. The camera is the observer.

I get this. It's kind of like back to the first image in this thread, we are looking at someone else's perspective, the 'tilted' middle piece.

However, when we are 'that little guy down there', with our face pressed against that wall, the lines still converge... but oh shi- I think I see where this is going.

Ok, instead of telling you how each statement is wrong or right, let me give you this challenge:

Using that diagram, how long would it take for an object to REACH the vanishing point by following the two bottom parallel lines?

Ugh. From wikipedia: When the image plane is parallel to two world-coordinate axes, lines parallel to the axis which is cut by this image plane will meet at infinity i.e. at the vanishing point.

That image makes my brain hurt.

3
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pluto/New Horizons/LORRI/Ralph
« on: October 03, 2016, 12:12:36 AM »

It's seeming more real every second!

Thanks again. This is really the main point I was trying to highlight; don't believe it if someone says 'everything is fake'. Sure some elements might be fake or comprised of 'translated data'. Sure do your own investigations if you want. Just like me, you never know what you might find!

As for the future of this original post, it looks like it will need a lot of work. I would prefer to categorize the topics; I mainly just listed the obvious points of contention. IE points 1, 3, 3b, parts of 5, and 10b can all be condensed into a single point, that you've already explained away anyway. I started this as a joke, then realized all the research that has to go into debunking a single aspect! Hahahahaha what does that say about the people who say 'it's all fake'? Have they made a book about how it is fake? I think not!

4
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Length of a day in the Southern Hemisphere in December
« on: October 02, 2016, 11:13:27 PM »
. . . . . . . . .
Any thoughts? I just remember in this thread someone said it was absurd that the sun is on the 'other side' of the world when it rises in Southern Hemisphere, and I had the time to mull it over and chew on it, and it makes sense now to me on a Flat Plane, if the sun is close it would be noticeable and observable in Southern Hemisphere. Tangentially, it would make sense that it is so much colder in AA; which it is. The global record low temperatures are all in the antarctic.

Anyway the shape of FE debates are always ad hoc, so improvised responses can be hard, I guess. Sorry for being so late with this, I had to put a lot of thought into it.

Remember that in mid-summer (21 Dec) McMurdo Station, Antarctica - (@ Lat, long of 77.8419° S, 166.6863° E) has daylight at around 1:50 AM on 21/Dec, with the sun due South,
Invercargill, New Zealand (@ Lat, long of 46.4132° S, 168.3538° E) is in complete darkness at the same time (sunset @ 9:39 PM, sunruse 5:50 AM).

Fits perfectly with the Globe, but please explain how this fits with your "musings".

Huh, I forgot to mention, this is impossible not only on the Flat Earth but the globe as well.

"Earth's obliquity oscillates between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees on a 41,000-year cycle. It is currently 23°26′13.6″ (or 23.43711°) and decreasing." - wikipedia.

Maybe my calculations are wrong (I'm using 2 balls as physical representation), but I checked in google earth as well. With a 23 degree tilt, there is no way the sun will ever be viewed as "in the south" much farther south than the tropic of Capricorn. This not only disproves Flat Earth sun mechanics, but Globe as well!

Maybe I'm wrong but this is what I'm seeing; the claim that the sun is viewed due south from Antarctica would require a near-full 90 degree tilt! From the other side of the ball, looking south, it matches up. McMurdo Station, Antarctica on the other side in December, I assume? Well obviously it must be. It matches up like that. In which case disregard. It does go south due to rotation on the 23 degree axis. I was going to delete this post but in case someone is responding, yeah I went there.

5
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pluto/New Horizons/LORRI/Ralph
« on: October 02, 2016, 09:31:49 PM »
As for the lighting, notice the huge aperture. They knew what the lighting conditions would be going into the mission, and designed the cameras accordingly. You can indeed see stars in the pictures that LORRI took trying to look at Pluto's smaller moons.

Great info here, thanks. This was one of the errors I realized I made. As soon as I saw 'photoshopped', at first I was scared for digging too far into conspiracy alley, then I realized d'oh they probably aren't even using cameras, it's probably all instrument observations being converted into an image we can perceive (vie PS).

Also thanks for correcting me on Ralph and LORRI. My original post only barely mentioned the former. I didn't find much info on the later, and kept moving. My fault, but I was trying to keep my stream-of-consciousness going, to get to cover all the topics. I wasn't planning as well as NASA obviously did

Anyway thanks for the response, sorry I ambushed by removing the post, but obviously I needed to re-write it. I included a reference to your post here in the top post; it's back up. As I find more info, and comments come in, I'll edit it to more accurately demonstrate all the facts; I did genuinely want this to convey just that, as a compendium to point to whenever someone says 'it's all fake'.

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Genuine Question
« on: October 02, 2016, 05:44:59 AM »
Good point. It was merely my assertion that it is dubious, which certainly doesn't make it true. Here is slightly fairer wording of the point I was trying to make that I think we can agree on:

Amateur science tends to stop during wartime, because the amateurs tend to get drafted. Flat earth "science" is quite exclusively an amateur pursuit. As you said, there isn't much money in it.

Understood. I just thought it was funny military industrial complex (or at least NASA) got that frustrated. That wording was exquisite They literally said "F it" as intellectually as possible in the Synopsis

Anyway, the linear aircraft manual isn't hinting that the earth is flat.

I know, didn't mean to apply it was. I was just illustrating even in war times FE geometry has practical applications, though I don't really know how to make any money on it otherwise.

Depth of field.

The trade off of course is the optical distortion. Since most people aren't trying to prove the shape of the earth with these videos, they don't really care about the distortion.

Dang it I've been trying to work DoF into an argument for a while. I don't know much about it (other than from a 'video game design standpoint'). I had a basic understanding of these principles, but never thought of it such explicit terms.

So you basically answered the initial question here. Hard to get stability up there, with all the rotating. Most use go-pros, which have fish eye lenses for focus at cost of accurate curvature. Then there's *boring* the math lel.

Anyway I've never seen that dark patch receding at that altitude before. That was still an interesting video for that. I didn't know the darkness peels back like a scab or something and hangs on the horizon at sunrise... Nor do I think I saw and sundogs or anticrepuscular rays at that altitude. Hmmm... that might have some bearing on that other theory of p-brane? I think you know to which I'm referring...

Thanks for clarifying the camera, I didn't even think to look it up. I assumed it was a sort of budget go-pro. 2:31:00 just for reference (look if you want). The 'ring of light' with the 'darker eye' above, might be an interesting and useful observation for later studies. I'm assuming this is the form 'crepuscular rays' or 'sundogs' take at that altitude for now, but I assume there is a simpler more obvious explanation.

7
##### Flat Earth Theory / Pluto/New Horizons/LORRI/Ralph
« on: October 02, 2016, 04:26:51 AM »
Disclaimer 1: I originally intended this topic to be playful joking around. Then I discovered some stuff I didn't expect to find; I immediately retracted the topic, realizing I made 2 major errors (maybe more on that later). My initial investigations covered 9 basic bullet points (14-16 if I include the topics I didn't even get to due to accidentally stumbling upon said unintentional observation; point 6 bellow). My initial 14-16 points were issues I already anticipated going in (with the exception of #6 and 7) due to my understanding of 'space science', and only took about 25 minutes to gather the data for. I tried my best to include everything I know, and consider everything; some parts of this data I either couldn't find (in the public), or haven't read yet from my provided sources. Examples: list of onboard measurement devices, what data came from their potential measurements, and how they are/were translated into the creation of these 'New Horrizon' images. I will edit these in as I discover them. Understandably, no business shows their whole hand; I give a free pass here for now, though I encourage anyone to correct me. Also, international laws may apply; I make no claim to ownership of any of this data. I am merely compiling all information freely available on the web (and providing sources) herein, such as to illustrate as many possible angles on the following argument:

Argument: I got tired of hearing 'all NASA stuff is fake', so I chose a completely random topic NASA has going on; New Horizons and Pluto. I assume you, on a Flat Earth forum, have heard this before. Moving on.

Notice: I was going to post this in Science and Alternative Science, but for the reasons outlayed in Disclaimer 1 above I placed it in debates instead. Discovery of point #6 bellow significantly changed the way I view this topic. I meant this to be a fun topic, but I stumbled upon #6 by sheer accident (while looking for the image megapixel resolution). I will leave [a modified for context version of the] original intro to this post intact, here:

Original intro:

Pluto/New Horizons/LORRI/Ralph

Okay, I'm just taking it slow with this. I see a lot of flat earthers say 'yo bruh everything from NASA is Fake, CGI, etc yo Cincinnati zoo did 9/11'. Okay maybe that last part is not true. But you get the idea. So I decided, hey, what the hell, it's the weekend, I'll take up this challenge I keep hearing about. I want to take just one random, recent topic NASA has put out, and analyze it with a fine tooth comb. I don't care if it's real or fake. I chose Pluto since it stood out and NDT already has a reputation with it. I'm just taking the data that's available on this topic and condensing it into one location. Whether it all adds up is anyone's guess. I don't know. Feel free to contribute or correct me, I just want to take it easy and brainstorm in this thread. It should have a relaxed, somewhat playful atmosphere here, I hope (accidental pun). When this image first came out, I saw it on livescience or something I got updates on my phone, I have no idea, I saw Pluto's face, and assumed it was a joke by NASA; which maybe it is meant to be? You decide! I'm just the messenger.

Everything here assumes "outer space" is real; I'm just presenting all the data that NASA and other agencies already claim is correct. Where you see a bold (1), (2), (3), (4), etc, that indicates the point comes from the corresponding reference, bellow. Simple, right? Like a game!

Okay, first off, here's Pluto!

And here's the The New Horizons!

And here is the path it took!

So right up front a few things stand out:

1) Atmosphere, Brilliant Lighting, No stars (1)
2) A Disney character - Pluto - on Pluto
3) The sun illuminates Pluto to get such a well-lit high resolution image, apparently; or NH has a really good flash!
3b) Pluto is 7.5 billion km away from Earth, yet the sun illuminates it as well as Earth apparently (7)
4) Does the observation distance NASA claims (280,000 miles/450,000 kilometers (1) away) match up with the apparent size of Pluto (Pluto's diameter (2) is 2374±8 km) in the image?
5) Do we actually have the ability to take such precise images (showing features (1) as small as 1.4 miles/2.2 kilometers) that large from that far away moving at the speed New Horizons is moving at (12,500 km/7,800 mi (1)) with no motion blur ([Ralph is] a 75mm lens at f/8.7 (4) with a 1 Megapixel Camera and 16GB storage using NASA deep space network and 88 years Plutonium-238 talk time (5, page 18)) and transmit over an internet connection between 29.658 AU (4,436.82 Gm) and 49.305 AU (7,375.93 Gm) - Perihelion and Aphelion - respectively back to Earth in practically real-time? The camera on my phone is 16 megapixel, and I can't zoom in and take a detail image very well. NASA claims Horizons only has a 1 Megapixel camera, which took these images.
5b) Update: See ToteNotReptilian's response to this here; I may have presented the wrong camera's data here (though it does have this camera).

6) This is the LARGEST image I could find related to Pluto. It comes in at 2690x3412, and under Details tab says was created by Adobe Photoshop CC 2015. (6)
6b) Update: Not sure why many of these images say they were generated in photoshop. Several images presented on NASA's New Horizon presentation and Pluto top 10 page don't have an 'image taken on' date tag filled out, but rather 'image created with an adobe product'.
6c) I assume these images are compilation of sensory data collected, and assembled into a false color image, rather than litteral pictures taken; as NASA has done in the past (Sounds of the Planets albums, which are quite good and I recommend a listen if you've never heard them).
6d) Failing 6c), maybe the images were just each touched up in adobe photoshop? To make features more visible, or add false color? But then why doesn't a single one say 'image taken on'? That property is missing on every single 'picture'. If I take a picture with my camera, then photoshop it, it will still say 'image taken on x date'. None of these images have 'image taken on' filled in.

7) The funny part about 6) that is unbelievable is that that image is a TINY spot on Pluto. Captured from 280,000 miles/450,000 kilometers away; though downloaded straight from NASA, says it was made in photoshop. ***
8 )  Distance and time traveled to Pluto. I remember the launch and updates, it was somewhat in vogue with youtubers as well on it's journey. Ref #5 should be the official PDF for departure/transit dates, to verify. From wikipedia: "it left Earth at 58,000 kilometres per hour (36,000 mph), faster than any other spacecraft to date." It had 'Gravity assist' from Jupiter.
9) There is extreme radiation 'in space'; just traversing the Van-Alen Radiation belts themselves is intense, but radiation is supposedly 'everywhere in space'. Not to mention extreme near-0 temperatures 'in space' and the solar winds. The shielding is real. Spent 3 years in these conditions and the cameras still work, apparently.
9)b The velocity of acceleration (g force) must put pressure on the sensitive devices, as it approaches 'escape'? Once traveling through space at a constant speed, any impact of minor particles of the supposed 'space debris' would prove fatal.
9)c No random chance accidents colliding with the hypothetical minor space debris (A massive amount of asteroids - particularly those tidally locked to the Jovian orbit - path's are well-known and logged by NASA, but not everything, for sure). Very fortunate and lucky!

10) View angle. The image is a 'frontal shot' it seems; the 'sun' (assuming that is where the image illumination is coming from) is hitting from behind the 'camera'. This means it is either a side-shot flyby (from the hip as it were), or else the approach angle is wrong. The camera is on the front right? Then this image is impossible, as it approached Pluto from behind/beside; not head-on. From wiki: "Part of the reason for the delay between the gathering of and transmission of data is that all of the New Horizons instrumentation is body-mounted. In order for the cameras to record data, the entire probe must turn, and the one-degree-wide beam of the high-gain antenna was not pointing toward Earth." Read more here about the science payload; I'm still working through this myself.
10b) Again, I assume these aren't real pictures, but rather the data compiled from sensors. In photoshop. That would make sense at least.
10b) Pluto is in a highly eccentric orbit compared to other planets. All gravity assists were planned out long prior to launch, obviously, years in advance. IE 'window of opportunity'. This is long since been known and advertised by NASA. Just including it here as it is part of the equation.

In conclusion: Most of this seems to check out; with a few caveats. NASA openly admits to using composites and false color, so I'm passing on criticizing any of that other than what I have already mentioned here. 'It's just the nature of the job', as it were. I can't do it, so I can't prove it myself. Assuming I made no errors (I'm not gonna hold my breath), there are a few glaring inconsistencies. I'm no expert in probability, but I mean we have car crashes constantly. Satellite crashes/impacts are so rare, practically unheard of. God forbid of course. I can't predict if I'll make it to the next town over safely. Let alone to the edge of the solar system. I mean, that's a lot of money and 'groundbreaking science'. I'd hate that to happen. But if you like probability, feel free to tell me off (or supplement me) here. I genuinely want to have fun with this, even realizing these are literally photoshopped, as admitted by NASA. I get so tired of hearing 'everything by NASA is fake', so I went straight for the facts. Though I can smell some bias that crept in to this post, particularly after my re-posting it after finding #6 on accident. Anyway, For Science!

Sources:
1) https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/pluto-dazzles-in-false-color
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Mass_and_size
3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons
4) http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/the-camera-behind-the-new-horizons-pluto-photos-ralph/398549/
5) http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~throop/files/GSW_NH_Feb12_talkonly.pdf
6) http://www.nasa.gov/feature/new-horizons-top-10-pluto-pics
7) http://www.space.com/18566-pluto-distance.html

*** above: Original post ended with this point. I got depressed, posted anyway, and then tried to delete the post, but couldn't. So I edited it all out, and began a re-write (what you are seeing now). The origina post went on to my speculation mentioned in points 6b-6d, which were not in the original post; I merely moved my speculation to these points. To quote myself from the original post:

"I honestly was surprised to see the photoshop bit; I accidentally found it while I was looking for the image resolution. I literally didn't go in looking for that. I decided to stop 'probing' when I realized this... literally go look for yourself right now. I downloaded that image here, opened it, right clicked it, hit properties, and details tab. It says: this image generated with Adobe Photoshop [...] this was supposed to be a place where I'd add info as I thought about it but well I really wasn't expecting that. The photoshop fact killed the mood for me... I thought I'd hit a brick wall, not knowing about image resolution potentials; I just didn't think a 1MP camera could take it from that far away. But [this is] plain black and white, it says it was made in photoshop. Any thoughts?"

8
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance from North Pole to Equator on FE
« on: October 02, 2016, 12:22:51 AM »
I don't have much to say about what has been said already in this topic, just thought I'd throw some random related facts that might prove interesting.

Flat Earthers might not agree upon the reliability of the distance from the equator to the North Pole. Not many flight paths come close enough to the North pole to be reliable in determining exact distance (the only modern way of verifying I can think of other than resorting to measuring on google earth); obviously equatorial circumference vs the distance between NP and EQ is a major telling point in the shape of the world.

The Metre was originally created around this distance. From wikipedia:

"The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre

"The Equator is about 40,075 kilometres (24,901 mi) long; some 78.7% lies across water and 21.3% over land."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator

Obviously, the distance to the Poles from any direction from the equator is good proof of the shape of the earth, though it can be hard to get reliable source info. Wikipedia, for example, is ominously quiet about it (from what I can tell). Also, interesting fun fact, is that our "North Pole" is actually magnetic south; the compass needle that seeks it is 'N' for north; it fell into common [miss]conception that the "N" of a compass meant 'this way to north'. And of course, the 'globe' is antipodal ('North and South' poles 'drift' somewhat independent of each other, neither do they exactly intersect the 'axis of rotation').

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Genuine Question
« on: October 01, 2016, 10:10:32 PM »
I suspect that is because during times of war, there is less time for pondering scientific theories of... ahem... dubious quality. The only research going on is highly practical stuff. One would think that if the earth were ACTUALLY flat, flat earth theories would receive a boon during wartime, considering how important maps are for successful military campaigns.

Who gets to say which scientific inquiries are dubious? Depends on who is financing what kind of research, for what reason and to what ends; the funding has to come from somewhere. If Oreo poured money into 'scientifically' proving Oreos were healthy, would that be dubious? I'm not going to argue that. It is impossible to tell if something is dubious without thoroughly investigating it in any case. Most wars in the [previous resurgences of FE movement] have been very localized, in small geographic pockets. Nowadays, with technology such as Aircraft Carriers, Fighter Jets, ICBM, etc, yes that makes sense to know the shape of the world a little better. Though without testing them on 'global' distances, you can't be sure. I'm not bringing VFR/IFR rules into this simple topic though, we already have some of those here discussing flight paths and nautical lines/ocean transport. I like to keep my options open for now until I understand this thing better.

As for practicality. You might have heard of a little Official NASA 1988 publication 1207, Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft manual, which contains the phrases:

"The lack of documentation and, occasionally, understanding of the derivation of linear models is a hindrance to communication, training, and application. This report details the development of the linear model of a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying over a flat, nonrotating earth. [...] By defining the initial conditions (of the nominal trajectory) for straight and level flight and setting the asymmetric aerodynamic and inertia terms to zero, one can easily obtain the more traditional linear models from the linear model derived in this report." - Introduction, p6.

"This report derives and defines a set of linearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth. Both generalized and standard linear system equations are derived from nonlinear six-degree-of-freedom equations of motion and a large collection of nonlinear observation (measurement) equations. This derivation of a linear model is general and makes no assumptions on either the reference (nominal) trajectory about which the model is linearized or the symmetry of the vehicle mass and aerodynamic properties." - Concluding remarks, p35.

Well, I guess investigating flat earth geometry isn't practical!

Care to link one or two? I've seen flat earthers make this claim before. Every time I actually measure, the claim turns out to be false. For example, the dogcam video. Speaking of measuring, did you bother calculating how much curvature you would expect to see if the earth was round, based on the given altitude and camera?

I was just offering an answer to the question. Youtube is so inundated with GoPro fish eye lense cameras now it's hard. I did look to try to find a few as an example, but the first 25 results I got were all fish eye lens. Literally. The first 25. I gave up. Feel free to search "High altitude balloon" and see for yourself. In any case, Field of View has to be taken into consideration, even if it appears 'flat'. Just because it looks flat doesn't mean it is. Though the overwhelming amount of fish eye lenses is somewhat odd.

Like I said, I'm not spoon feeding. I just offered what I offered, no more, no less. Though Kerbal space program is a nice tool to demonstrate how much curvature there should be. 8 inches to the mile squared is what wikipedia says for a spherical Earth. Most (decent human beings) show the altitude in their videos, or even mention it in the title. Not too hard to figure out the expected curve if you have (an accurate bearing on) the altitude. Though, to be fair, as I said, I don't know to what extent and Field of View mechanics should be included to interpret such an equation. I'm still learning about perspective.

I'm not one to say "this is how it is". I will kindly point the right way to find for yourself (though I may be snide), but I ain't gonna say "here's what you should think about it". Unless I happen to think it's funny at the moment.

Also, Watch the earth smile here @ 2:57! This is what I mean by 'fish eye lens cameras' for those who don't know. Understand if I sound frustrated this is why. Of course I could use a non-fish eye lens myself, though I'm beginning to think maybe you can't get a permit for that anymore!

EDIT: I think I found a non-fish eye lens clip here. It's a 2+ hour sunrise video, low quality camera, but I'm seeing what could be measurable curvature. This is a first for me! I learned something today, maybe. Check here. He claims it may have reaches at least ~117,000 (feet I assume). He also mentions that this launch had a 'top view' camera, which he is currently uploading (a 30 gb file). I'm not sure if it's non-fish eye, it doesn't seem to ever go low or high enough angle to tell. 2:28:57 there appears to be curvature. Shortly after, you see the 'mound' of darkness on the horizon, where the 'night time' is retreating. Also, note that your field of view is a circle. So, it is all too easy to write off the field of view as the 'curvature'.

10
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Genuine Question
« on: October 01, 2016, 07:10:44 PM »
Don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but this generation isn't the first to look into Flat Earth. Historically, in most relatively peaceful times, Flat Earth becomes a big thing; but it is always interrupted by war before it can get too far. Not saying WW3 is about to start, but *cough cough cough*

Here is a good example:
http://imgur.com/gallery/miXLb

Auguste Piccard set record heights in the 1930s. From an altitude of 23,000 m (75,459 ft), he reported that the Earth seemed "a flat disk".

And it is true, most videos are recorded with fish eye lens cameras; when the camera looks down, you see a 'frowning curve', when it looks level with the horizon, it is 'flat', and when it looks up, you see a 'smiling curve'.

Ultimately there is currently no real way to make money proving the Flat Earth. And it's no one's job to spoon feed you, whether or not you are genuinely interested. Education simply isn't free, someone has to pay for it somewhere along the line. There are a few high altitude cam videos out there shot without fish eye lens cameras; they all, without exception, show a flat plane.

11
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: October 01, 2016, 04:35:29 AM »
Okay, now that I got the apologies out of the way, I think p-brane makes some good points. I totally misconstrued your argument, thus mine was approaching the wrong way... Here is what I meant to say, had I not thought someone was saying parallel lines never converge due to perspective:

Now, again, I don't understand the math of the angles represented in the diagrams he is 'debunking'. But his point at 4:50 seems solid, right?

I mean, airplanes do seem to travel slower near the horizon, but they do emerge - and pass over - as it were. The higher the object, the more downward elevating is the angle. That's simple high school geometry. The sun should travel slower, 'but muh vanishing point'. Obviously the sun makes it there (it is night time in contiguous America right now), and p-brane seems to demonstrate how it can get there on a Flat Earth; perspective.

Which is what that video is about; showing how theoretical math predictions about where parallel line locations will be has nothing to do with where they actually are.

I don't know the angular math but I can see what he is saying. The vanishing point is the same for all parallel lines, no matter how high up you draw them; all parallel lines converge on the exact same location. Like so:

Again I find myself thinking that mathematical geometry is just a red herring for uninquisitive and under-educated minds. Which I guess I am. Claiming the sun is exempt from this rule because maths still sounds funny to me. I think he made good points, and I don't see how explaining how angles and perspective works changes the fact that all parallel lines converge in the same spot. Though I imagine I'll shortly be pulling my foot out of my mouth again; in which case I would apologize ahead of time, but I know you wouldn't have made this topic if you didn't already consider the nature of the vanishing point, and are already anticipating this type of response. I'm sure I'm just missing something. I swear it's like I can feel it coming already.

12
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: October 01, 2016, 02:26:59 AM »
Lol great post, I caught my error before you posted though. I thought you were trying to pull a fast one, but then I realized I was wrong. That is my fault for jumping the gun. I got some really good chuckles reading your post, though spot on. I deserved it.

Most of the 'arguments' I elaborated on, weren't presentations so much as me representing what's already been posted here my own way. I didn't mean to come off as arguing the infinities! Or the difference between parallel and perspective (though I thought it was being passed off that there wasn't a difference, is all; I realize my mistake).

Everything I am saying is extremely well known and understood by [...] pretty much anyone who didn't sleep through high school math, and has bothered to think about the subject for 30 minutes. It really is not a complicated subject.

Yes, and you provided an excellent crash course herein.

Quote
2. Parallel lines converge due to perspective; even those in a OP diagram, if drawn to 'infinity'.

No no no no no! A thousand times no! Parallel lines are always parallel in an orthographic projection, by definition. If the parallel lines converge, then it isn't an orthographic projection.

On a life-sized, really big, OP projection, they would converge that's why I stated 'due to perspective' and 'if drawn to infinity'. IE, the highway is a physical representation of it's OP. A orthographic projection of that scale would appear to converge, is all I meant; or, alternatively, if you traced the lines of an orthographic projection into the horizon, they would converge (ie god's eye view). That's all I meant here; I can see how that offends good taste - I did it deliberately to offend, thinking the "God's Eye View" was to assume that parallel lines don't converge (20,000 mile lines). I knew 20,000 mile lines would converge. I thought you were trying to say that they wouldn't.

And yet even at that absurd distance (3,000+ miles), the object still wouldn't come close to touching the horizon according to the math. The math that is testable. The math that works.

Yes, here is where the FE model begins to mathematically come undone, as best I have ever been able to tell. I only brought it up in relation, and to provide context for, the idea of Field of View; my only argument here is not about 'spooky mathematics', but rather that, how the sun disappears at the 50-mile mark, when it is supposed to be 12,000+ miles away. Not a typical Flat Earther question, I think.

This brings up another problem with the standard flat earth model: the sun doesn't always appear to be curving northward as it sets, like the flat earth model predicts.

Yup.

Quote
if you trace converging lines, they converge a great distance before 12,000 miles away; what the image here is depicting.

Oh really? And how did you calculate this? I assume you are referring to the vanishing point. If so, I can assure you that you are misunderstanding what the vanishing point is.

Most demonstrably shaky part of my argument (other than using 3D generated blueprints). Touche, I regretted typing that part and even omitted it several times in my rough drafts. I don't even know how to calculate the 'convergence point', even utilizing what you provided.

If you are going to make an argument about infinity, you will need to be much more specific than this.

I wasn't making this argument, but offering my speculation about the "infinities' I kept seeing repeated again and again in this thread, since they don't make sense to me. Also why I posted the Toy Story clip. Was meant to be considered tongue in cheek, though I do like the idea of a completed Flat Earth model, these topics make it seem rather bleak (to me, at least). Perhaps it's due to my (lack of) education   I have been skimming Gleason and Parallax's books, but I'm no closer to comprehension than I was when I first decided to pick this topic up (FE).

According to the standard flat earth model, the sun would get no farther away from us than the yellow ball. Therefore, the MINIMUM angle it would make with the horizon is 20 degrees. Since we can observe the sun going much lower than that every single day, this proves that the earth isn't flat. How is this not blatantly obvious?

Honestly, I thought I was most clever in the construction of this paragraph, glad someone pointed it out already. I knew I slid a silent 'checkmate' in there but wasn't sure if it would be noticed. Point 3 has been bothering me for a while now; it seems the sun shouldn't set on a flat earth with these dimensions. Although I admit p-brane did pull me in a bit with his 'perspective' as a solution to why it 'sets' on FE. This is one of my biggest problems with the [dimensions of the] FE model.

Also, how on earth did you calculate the slant of that line? Everything having to do with perspective in the bottom image was very carefully calculated. I did not place anything arbitrarily.

Short answer: MS Paint Magic. Long answer: No calculations were done. Shame on me on this one. My second major blunder in that post. I knew p-brane had his arbitrary position, and the top image was arbitrary as well, so I put an arbitrary line to demonstrate the 'convergence' of the two 20,000 mile lines on the top image. I felt this wasn't too much of a step, but yes I should have calculated I suppose.

My image was not intended to exactly represent the dimensions of a flat earth. I never said it was. If you remove the red and orange objects, then the distances are a good approximation of a flat earth.

Yes, you did say that in your first response to me. I missed it. That's my fault. I wouldn't have posted my previous post if I realized this. I thought about deleting it, but realized I was probably being responded to already (as I correctly guessed). So I'll let my stupidity stand, I figured, and I double-posted instead to point this out. I thought there was shady logic being passed off as math, then realized I was wrong. I owe an apology there, so sorry. My bad.

The difference between my image and p-brane's, is that the bottom image that I drew was carefully calculated according to the math I have been describing. Nothing about it was arbitrary

Again. Sincerest apologies. See above. You did a great job. I pooped on it. I'm ashamed.

The perspective effect portrayed in the bottom image arose naturally from the math. On the otherhand, the perspective lines that p-brane (and you) drew are completely arbitrary. They are nothing more than a vague guess based on a vague/poor understanding of how perspective works.

Again, above. I thought the top image was trying to convey something else, so I made something up to counter it. That's my own oversight at work there. I see now.

-------

Okay Everything bellow here is just a repeat of the points already corrected, I think. Like I said I'm not going to retract it, though I now see how it was wrong. I underestimated your presentation, didn't read it enough times, thought I saw a representation of what I thought was a deliberate lie, and went to work. I realize that now. Also, my math is terribly vague estimates. I thought about it, and the sun should be 'turning around' before the 12k miles point, I'm fairly certain. Though the fact you didn't bother addressing that speaks louder than I can say anyway. Thanks for the effort, and sorry for the potential aneurysm. I honestly got a great chuckle out of this, realizing how simple my misunderstand was. Still, I can't get it to add up without 'spooky mathematics', as you say, for FE. I feel really bad, but at the same time, this was very cathartic. I laughed pretty good, hope you will too.

13
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 30, 2016, 09:53:46 PM »
On top is a side view diagram of a camera and 3 round objects. On bottom is the same 3 objects as seen from the perspective of the camera. The top DOES NOT take into account perspective. The bottom DOES take into account perspective. So, how are they related?

Just realized I missed this. I'll already reconsidering my previous post. I'm still unsure how relation can be inferred from an impossible perspective, though I understand the hypothetical correlation and how it invalidates FE model. Consider me in 'Winnie the Pooh' mode right now...

As my whole argument in that wall of text relies entirely on the correlation of the two images, my argument may be invalid, I realize now. My apologies if this be the case, I'll probably have to sleep on it. Also apologies for however wrongly I may have referred to users here or my misinterpretation of framing their arguments.

14
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 30, 2016, 07:26:50 PM »
Key: (to avoid repeating myself and condense; nothing new is being stated in the KEY)
OP =  Orthographic Projection
Point 1/2 = Parrallel lines converge due to perspective.
FOV: Field of View
This is going to be long, so I'm working on explaining it in a youtube video. Funny (for me at least) I am typing this up on September 30, 2016; the day before Obama hands over the internet ICANN to international corporations and countries... so RIP internet, it was fun without censorship. Heregoes...

Totes, Great well written response, thanks; I think I get it better now, though I still take issue. The 2 images posted take into consideration perspective, with a caveat; in order to achieve the perspective of the OP 'side view' (the top image), you must be an impossible/unachievable distance away - Tom's - and partially, my - argument. Thanks for that response, your 3 recent topics here were 3 of my FE favorites prior to your posting them, as I put rather pathetically previously when I anticipated the SCP one the day before you posted it; these 3 recent topics (SCP, Perspective/Sun, Southern Hemisphere December) are really one and the same issue, just seen 'from different angles' xD lol

That said, I really don't know much about angles. My experience comes largely from simulated planes (video games), as mentioned above, I admit. From what I can tell, no new info is presented here, other than the mechanics of angles and perspective being more elaborated on. Which you do an honorable effort of, and somewhat improves my opinion of academic institutions everywhere.

SO lets get into the Meat (hopefully no hot potatoes slip in) of this post:

1. Parallel lines are parallel.
2. Parallel lines converge due to perspective; even those in a OP diagram, if drawn to 'infinity'.
3. We only see objects, at best, a few hundred miles in any direction at best from anywhere on Earth (FoV). Caveat: the sun and stars (more on this later).
4. The FE sun is ~3,000 miles above the Earth.
5. It is impossible to demonstrate perspective of 1-4 within the FoV of 3.
6. My 'few hundred' miles is quite generous. I have seen images where islands or mountains are visible over 125 miles away, but many sources cite 50-100 miles as the 'limit' of or FoV (2), (3). With Cameras/telescopes it is notably possible to see much further, ofc.
7. The image presented here has many flaws:
7a) Distance. 3,000 miles to the sun; this image covers many times that; over 12,000 miles; over half the actual equatorial distance.
7b) The perspective, viewing the sun traveling 'parallel' with the Earth, is impossible to achieve.
7c) The sun doesn't move in a straight line as depicted here on the FE model, but rotates East to West (clockwise as viewed from North Pole).
7d) The Orthographic Projection here does not accurately demonstrate the convergence of parallel lines; the top image is an impossible 'god's eye' perspective, for one; and for two, if you trace converging lines, they converge a great distance before 12,000 miles away; what the image here is depicting.
8 ) You can't understand the rest of this post without watching this (brief) youtube video.

You get the point from the video now? Okay...

At least, that is what I think Tom means about 'infinities' is that the image presented here is an impossible 'infinity' away from what we observe, looking at our observation on the FE model. Alternatively, there is also an 'infinity' in an OP as the sun gets 'further and further' away (a great point against the flat Earth, and what this topic was started to point out, and Tom and myself realize that, no one is arguing). But as stated above, we can't see anything beyond ~50-140 miles from the surface Earth (more on that later). But the mechanics here don't work, as the sun has to start coming back 'the other way' somewhere in the neighborhood of 12k-18k out on FE model (this is where I don't know the FE model well enough, but we can at least agree the sun doesn't literally travel in a straight line forever - well, you could, technically, but you'd have to create a whole other model for that).

So, lets look at the image. The common Flat Earth model shows the sun as being ~3,000 miles above the surface. This image illustrates an impossible phenomenon then (point 1 above); as Tom Bishop has already stated; no man has ever seen more than a few hundred miles in any direction; and the sun 'sets' either long before reaching, or as it reaches, that point. What Tom is saying here, is it is impossible to attain the perspective in that image, observing an observer observing the sun moving parallel to the ground, in a clockwise circle/spiral, not a straight line as depicted here. Illustration: (yes I borrowed it again sorry)

So, that image is not applicable to our observations; look at the 'ground' beneath the Red, Orange, and Yellow 'dot' or 'ball'; it is much farther than the distance from the ground to them; thus more than 3 thousand miles (even the globe states the circumference at the equator to be no more than 25,000 miles). I'll call this Point 3 for now. Keep in mind that half the circumference is roughly 12,300 miles; the limit of 'globular perspective', before the 'curve' is on 'the other side of the globe'. For FE, this represents approximately one-half the equatorial circle. The commonly agreed-upon 3,000 miles to the sun on Flat Earth is outmatched by the ground covered no matter how it is calculated; and Point 2, parallel lines converge due to perspective (assuming the sun moves parallel to the Earth in FE model). This image is WAAAAY out of proportion. The equator is only 12k miles across; this image goes way further! Up to 18k! The sun is going the other way at that point.

With that ridiculous 20k mile perspective taken into consideration, the line would be more like this:

Again that is generous at best.... as there is no way for us to know what a 20k mile line would look like, let alone 2 parallel ones, from being sandwiched between them.

Now, just as p-brane did, obviously your image is not meant to be to scale. But again, as Tom said, this 'several thousand mile perspective' is simply impossible. So, lets look at some common blueprints instead, which use principles of orthographic projection, and compare the actual buildings to the blueprints.

In this image the lines are parallel. But stand at the foot of the building to the left or right, and the roof and floor 'lines' will be 'converging', like this.

Alternatively....

Uh ooh... the parallel lines of the blueprints... converge... in reality... while the lines are drawn perfectly parallel in a schematic, you can't stop them from converging due to perspective, try as you may; esp. if you continue the line indefinitely; yes, it stays 'parallel' in reality, but it is impossible to see from any point (when continued 'indefinitely') without a 'god's eye view'; even navigating the parallel lines, from every point within it, they appear to converge. No amount of equations can defy that, though they may serve as a red herring to those unable to understand.

Additionally, maybe you can call the 'few hundred mile' FoV the 'Earth's curvature', but the higher you go, the wider the FoV gets, so there's that as well...

Anyway I'm no shill or whatever so I have no angle other than perhaps too much time on my hands. This is a very good topic, I hope I don't insult with my lack of understanding; this is just what I've posted based on how I think I understand it... I could be wrong, but it seems right to me.

15
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.
« on: September 29, 2016, 03:11:18 AM »
Okay I'm showing up way late to this topic, I only read most of the first page, but I already [think I] understand the misconception here. Note: I've never heard of an orthographic projection, had to google it; according to google:

a method of projection in which an object is depicted or a surface mapped using parallel lines to project its shape onto a plane.
a drawing or map made using orthographic projection.

I played Dwarf Fortress for a while, so I'm familiar with that type of design, though only from a very shrewd and limited engineer standpoint (no offense, Great Toady One).

The basic misconception I'm seeing here is.... the orthographic projection seems to be a tool for engineers to use, which doesn't typically deal with say, mile-long distances in everyday application. This is Point 1.

Now, P-Brane (the youtuber who made the video in question), is arguing that orthographic projection's are not applicable to reality on these scales, because all parallel lines converge at a specific distance, due to perspective; a detail omitted by the orthographic projection p-brane claims a 'glober' presented him with - sparking the creation of said video. This is Point 2; if all = lines converge, perspective must be taken into consideration - and by the nature of this debate, as Tom Bishop stated, it is impossible to get to a point where a orthographic projection would be possible on this scale, so we must rely on perspective, knowing that all parallel lines converge due to perspective.

Now, I'm only tentatively holding onto understanding of this at this point, so don't ask me to draw this; but seeing Point 2 (all = lines converge), that means that due to perspective, something moving parallel to a flat plane far (say a few thousand miles) overhead, would eventually reach that point of convergence, and 'disappear' beyond the horizon, before fading - though it may 'fade' somewhere thereafter - which would explain 'dusk' and 'night time' quite conveniently for a Flat Earth; the light source literally extinguished by mechanics of orthographic projection, beyond the horizon.

Now, yes, he does use 'arbitrary definitions' for lines @ 2 minutes 40 seconds; but that isn't an illustration of the argument, just an illustration of Point 2, to avoid having to make such a forum post instead.

Orthographic projections are useful for accurately portraying angles.
Perspective projections are useful for portraying what we see.

To understand the motion of the sun, both of these are needed. That is just basic geometry. The sun sometimes appears to move in straight lines, but that is just perspective. Globe science acknowledges this, that's pretty simple; the sun appears to move in straight lines, though we can be fairly sure (do to above mentioned points) that this isn't literally the case. The only way to know 'how it is really moving' is to realize that perspective isn't necessarily always 'what is really happening'.

Disclaimer: Ugh... also I am not a fan of youtube drama so I don't want to get dragged into that... lol...  if anyone sees this and claims credit for it (ie p-brane), fine take it I'm not claiming I put the ideas out there, I'm just clarifying a potential oversight I saw here. Feel free to use this as a resource if need be.

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: The South Celestial Pole
« on: September 29, 2016, 12:44:02 AM »
Totes, gotta hand it to you, you're right hitting all my favorite topics here. Also, I couldn't resist, since nobody has done it yet.

Eh, I'm not crazy for the gears myself, but I understand [the need for something like] it. There is a youtuber called p-brane who recently did a video about this, but I don't think he satisfactorily summed it up. He tries to demonstrate the 'diamond' shaped red lines depicted in the above image, as the 'lense' perspective we are familiar with from the ground; IE, in particular, crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays convergence point during sunset; which looks like 2 suns; the real one and it's opposite on the 180 degree opposite horizon (forming giant 'diamonds' in the sky). Of course, sundogs also exist which can be a useful tool in understanding 'flat earth celestial functions', but I'm still at a loss to bring it all together. I mention it simply because it is one avenue that isn't mentioned often.

Of course if you google 'sundogs' you are gonna get a load of "Nibiru" conspiracies. So do that at your own discretion. It is also interesting, that you cannot see a rainbow indoors, without the use of a mirror. It has been postulated that something in the atmosphere (ie flat earth dome) is acting like a mirror, enabling 'free rainbows' which shouldn't exist without a giant mirror somewhere overhead.

But like I said... I'm not tying all that together. The FE model isn't complete so far as I'm aware on this one topic you have presented here, that is obvious to anyone who spends a few days researching it. The devil, as they say, is in the details. And this one is still eluding me. Sorry for rambling but that's my \$.02. Hopefully this is a little bit better post quality than what I started here with; I like to think I understand these topics a bit better now, thanks in no small part to correspondence here.

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars
« on: September 28, 2016, 03:16:33 PM »
Sorry for double post and really late response; a different look. I answered the question I posited here and thought I'd share it ffs. Without any major scientific quotations, equations, or the like; simple since that's the way I came to understand it (again).

It might have been observed already here, but it hit me recently, maybe I can help someone else 'get it'.

Question: Where are the stars?
Emphasis/Context: Day-launch balloons, NASA photos, etc
Explicit: Why don't we see stars in "space" or "high altitude balloon footage"?
What is this guy on about: This Video is a good example (ignore the Flat Earth context for a second, it's the 'blackness' that I'm focused on IE no stars)

Answer: Simple misconception. During "Day Time" launches of high-altitude balloons or rockets, no stars are observable. Nevertheless, the sky is 'black'. This probably has something to do with the nature of light; specifically, it's concentration level (ie bleed - 'blackness'). So, this means, that stars are only visible when the sun is 'hidden' or 'occulted'. Exception: you can see the stars come in/out of focus in the evening/morning; a kind of 'fade effect'. A general rule; the more intense the sun's local presence, the more impossible it is to see stars (unless you pass out).

Now, this means that any 'satellites' should not see stars, outside of a few very rare circumstances; if the sun dictates that stars are not visible in it's presence, we shouldn't see stars (spoiler: we don't). Though the black expanse of day-launch high altitude balloons can be disconcerting, and is what led me to make the original post here. The idea that stars only appear in the 'shade' of the Earth, is very interesting in itself, with implications I can hardly fathom; though we all 'know' it already. This of course, also shifts the suspicion from NASA images that don't have stars in them, to any pictures of 'outer space' that DO have stars in them, as being potential hoaxes. Understanding the fundamental nature of light is something I am not sure I'm capable of achieving in a single lifetime, personally... but there are academic resources for that, if you are interested. For example, Hubble Deep Field (if not a hoax) shows what is possible through long-exposure. This is by no means a scientific explanation, just my own [belated] response to a question I happened to ask [over 120 days ago].

In any case I can see why The Flat Earth never really looses tract; [if even considered, it] calls for reevaluation of things you already 'know' and 'take for granted'. Anyway that was probably boring af, but thought I'd [embarrass myself and] share.

Edit: In sum, I realize the naivete of my original question; but I also understand where it came from - trying to understand (or make!) a flat earth model. To be more succinct with my answer: the 'blackness' of space is not indicative of an absence of light; it is the default form that an abundance takes. As for what I stated about 'the shade of the Earth that the stars hide in':

The Penumbra represents the 'evening' and 'morning'; the 'umbra' represents the 'night time'; the only place where we can see stars. Anywhere 'in space' outside of the ubmra of a planet, means... no stars. Not sure how this works on the Flat Earth (of course, without resorting to daoism); thats why I asked this initial question, I now realize. That's all.

18
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Length of a day in the Southern Hemisphere in December
« on: September 28, 2016, 02:25:10 PM »
. . . . . . . . .
Any thoughts? I just remember in this thread someone said it was absurd that the sun is on the 'other side' of the world when it rises in Southern Hemisphere, and I had the time to mull it over and chew on it, and it makes sense now to me on a Flat Plane, if the sun is close it would be noticeable and observable in Southern Hemisphere. Tangentially, it would make sense that it is so much colder in AA; which it is. The global record low temperatures are all in the antarctic.

Anyway the shape of FE debates are always ad hoc, so improvised responses can be hard, I guess. Sorry for being so late with this, I had to put a lot of thought into it.

Remember that in mid-summer (21 Dec) McMurdo Station, Antarctica - (@ Lat, long of 77.8419° S, 166.6863° E) has daylight at around 1:50 AM on 21/Dec, with the sun due South,
Invercargill, New Zealand (@ Lat, long of 46.4132° S, 168.3538° E) is in complete darkness at the same time (sunset @ 9:39 PM, sunruse 5:50 AM).

Fits perfectly with the Globe, but please explain how this fits with your "musings".

Well that's what that spare cloth you get with nice pants is for, I recently found out; to test wash and see how it reacts to washing. Always test that before throwing the whole thing in. Hard lesson for me it seems, but I'm getting there. Of course, would have to go there to verify. I prefer more warm and humid climates though, so I'll be setting this one aside for now. Can't find any more objections here. Nice strong impression.

19
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Length of a day in the Southern Hemisphere in December
« on: September 23, 2016, 01:53:24 AM »

Ofc shortly after my last post here, I realized that it makes sense for the sun (and moon) to rise 'further away' in Southern Hemisphere; the further away the more 'truly' you can see the orbit on a Flat Earth. Consider Antarctica; timelapses show the sun (and moon) moving horizontally; what you would expect to see in extreme Southern Hemisphere on a Flat Earth with a 'close sun'; you are seeing the actual orbit from an extreme angle, where the angle becomes apparent in the motion of the sun (and moon). Only in this manner does it make sense that you would see the 'sunrise' (and set) when the sun is 'farther away' in it's local 'geographical' center.

I'm having trouble finding all the examples I saw a few weeks ago online demonstrating the 'horizontal' orbit in AA, but here is one example:

I can't find the one that had a clear depiction of the sun and moon multiple times. There are famously a lot of hoax time lapses of Antarctica, and that further complicates research on the topic. I found several obvious hoaxes just searching 'Antarctica time lapse'; some having obvious splices (watch the shadows), others having the stars move in the exact pattern and speed as the 'moon', etc. Lots of hoaxes, all obvious.

Any thoughts? I just remember in this thread someone said it was absurd that the sun is on the 'other side' of the world when it rises in Southern Hemisphere, and I had the time to mull it over and chew on it, and it makes sense now to me on a Flat Plane, if the sun is close it would be noticeable and observable in Southern Hemisphere. Tangentially, it would make sense that it is so much colder in AA; which it is. The global record low temperatures are all in the antarctic.

Anyway the shape of FE debates are always ad hoc, so improvised responses can be hard, I guess. Sorry for being so late with this, I had to put a lot of thought into it.

20
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Length of a day in the Southern Hemisphere in December
« on: August 16, 2016, 11:59:38 PM »
First of all, there is no need to apologize. I suspect Rama misread your comment.

Okay I thought so my bad.

I think you still completely missed the point of my post. Yes, the sun is physically over a different continent/ocean when it rises/sets for these cities. The outer yellow circle represents the physical path of the sun over a 24 hour period on December 21. Each spot represents the physical location of the sun when the corresponding city sees a sunrise or sunset.

Bingo. This... this is what I wasn't getting. Physical location. Very interesting. I am prone to confusion about perspective and actual location/motion on FE model, that is my bad. I'll put some clothes on then.

I haven't the time or inclination (I feel a bit like "death warmed up" at the moment), but I beg to differ on degrees being different on the flat earth map.

Hey... I see what you did there.

I have not been misrepresenting the FE position at all.

As on the Globe, on the flat earth map "parallels" of latitudes are measured north or south of the equator with the North Pole being 90° N and the limit of the "Ice Rim" being 90° S.
The meridians of longitude on the flat earth map are straight lines radiating from the North Pole, with 0° through Greenwich, exactly as on the globe.

The co-ordinates of any point on that map are the same in degrees of latitude and longitude as on the globe.  The spacing of latitude lines (close to 111 km per degree) is the same as on the globe, though the spacing of the lines of longitude continually increases from zero at the North Pole to a maximum at the "rim".

Hmm... I thought there would be different degree functioning. I suppose it makes sense if it is based on true North.

On the diagrams, you gave, the shapes of the earth are quite different, but the lat, long of any location is exactly the same numbers on each.

I really though spherical and planar geometry would function differently for some reason. Nope, degree from true North is the same from what I can tell.

One of the major problems with the FE model is the fact that on a flat surface the angle of elevation to a fixed object in the sky would not be a constant mileage per degree.  The further away from zero one travels north or south, the further you should have to travel to get another degree of elevation change to the sun.

Way above my head. My attempt at pun.

And if I've understood their posts, nametaken agrees with you and me, to wit: the horizontal direction of sunrise/sunset observed in the real world does not match the direction predicted by the FE "solar spiral" model.

I don't understand the parabolic reflection theory well enough to argue it. But I understand some of the more basic inconsistencies of the FE 'spiral' model; however, I seem to stand corrected on one point I was [wrong] about; the difference in a FE degree vs a Globe degree. That's all. I shouldn't have tried to argue a point I only thought I understood.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >