61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me

« on: July 10, 2020, 07:42:42 AM »

I'll make a list of statements related to longitude and latitude. Hopefully each statement is simple enough to make it easy to find out possible disagreements.
* The elevation of the celestial pole is constant for any given location

Location? Did you mean latitude?

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me

« on: June 30, 2020, 04:08:19 PM »

I think you are probably right, FE and RE should be able to agree on the latitude (and longitude) for any point on the earth.

Not even 'probably'. For those who dislike the theory of declination, here is a neat video showing how to locate the southern celestial pole.

It’s the pure Zetetic method, i.e. working directly from observation rather than supporting the observations, partly or wholly, on some theory.

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me

« on: June 30, 2020, 01:16:10 PM »

Doesn't the altitude of the sun at its highest point during a day depend on the time of the year ?

It does, and is known as the Declination. You can get that number from tables, but again it does not depend on any assumption about the shape of the earth. You can simply observe the declination each day at local noon (i.e. at zenith) and note it down, so you have a number for each day of the year.

Then take a sighting with the sextant to find the altitude of the sun at local noon. Latitude then given by the following formula:

    LAT  =  90 - ALT + DEC

Simple. Involves no assumptions about the shape of the earth, so FE and RE should agree on the latitude for any point on the earth. Likewise, if they know London (Greenwich) time, they both agree on the longitude.

Where they will profoundly disagree is on the distance implied between two points on the earth's surface. This will depend on the chosen map, about which FE will internally disagree. But assuming FE likes the AE map, and RE the globe, they will compute the distances differently, radically so the further south they get.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me

« on: June 28, 2020, 03:56:33 PM »

Coming to this rather late. As people have noted, there are two separate questions. (i) Is it possible to make celestial observations that uniquely identify our position on the earth, (ii) can we use these observations to infer the distance between two different positions.

Regarding the first, Polaris can be used, but is not necessary. The standard method is to observe the time when the altitude of the sun as at its highest (zenith), which requires knowing the time at any place in the world. (Knowing the time was a famous problem of longitude).

This tells us the longitude. Then determine (using a sextant) the altitude of the sun at zenith. This tells us the latitude. The method works equally well in the Southern hemisphere.

Latitude and longitude make no assumptions about the shape of the land. Flat Earth believers could use the method. 

Question (ii) is whether, knowing the latitude and longitude of two different points, we could mathematically determine the distance between the points. FE navigators could work this out also, if they used the standard model used by RE navigators. They could just say “well it’s a model, and it works, we don’t really know why”.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 12, 2019, 12:43:21 PM »

Correct, given that a hypothetical plane is transparent. You will see the sun pass below the plane, assuming nothing is in the way.

You cannot make that assumption, because the physical world actually exists. Therein lies your obvious troll. I will ask you one last time to drop it. Stop derailing upper fora threads.

But given that the flat-but-irregular corporeal earth lies on that plane, you will perceive the Sun apparently (and indeed actually) obscured by the very corporeal Earth.

Congratulations. You have stated the obvious after multiple posts of contesting this.

No, that was my position all along. Glad we are agreed at last. After the sun has set, we cannot see it because the earth is in the way.

Metaphysical "reality" which somehow doesn't match observable reality ...

You clearly failed to understand what I said, but never mind.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 12, 2019, 12:07:36 PM »

No, you will never observe the Sun disappearing below a hypothetical infinite plane.

Correct, given that a hypothetical plane is transparent. You will see the sun pass below the plane, assuming nothing is in the way.

But given that the flat-but-irregular corporeal earth lies on that plane, you will perceive the Sun apparently (and indeed actually) obscured by the very corporeal Earth.

And what if I concede that the sun only appears to pass below the plane? There is still the problem for Zeteticism in that some criterion is needed to distinguish appearance from reality. The foundation of FE is that the earth appears flat. OK, but is it flat? What observation would confirm that the reality matches the appearance? Over to you.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 12, 2019, 11:46:14 AM »

It's also completely irrelevant with regards to the distance of the horizon under the FE model.

But if you don't know that distance, which you don't, how can you say it is irrelevant?

You are still failing to engage with my point that there must be a plane uniquely defined by the flat-but-irregular surface of the FE. That is a geometrical fact. Then what we see when the sun sets is the sun disappearing below that plane. That is not an interpretation, but what we really see. That observation is perfectly consistent with globe earth (because the plane is uniquely defined by a unique small circle). It requires considerable theoretical manoeuvring to explain in FE. I am perfectly serious.

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 12, 2019, 11:28:12 AM »

Are you saying that the location of the horizon is a finite distance away? That assumes a globe-earth model.

Not at all.

You said above “You can travel to the location you originally perceived as the horizon line, and confirm that the Sun doesn't literally sink there.” That logically implies that the location originally perceived as the horizon line is a finite distance away, at least assuming I cannot travel infinitely fast.

If you are suggesting that the Earth is a literal flat plane with no irregularities, there is no helping you. Please let me remind you that blatant trolling won't be tolerated in the upper.

What I actually said was that if the earth is flat, then there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat surface. That is a perfectly correct hypothetical statement. If on the other hand the flat earth has irregularities, it is nonetheless true that there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat-but-irregular surface. I fail to see why what I say is ‘blatant trolling’.

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 12, 2019, 10:39:43 AM »

… You can travel to the location you originally perceived as the horizon line, and confirm that the Sun doesn't literally sink there.

Are you saying that the location of the horizon is a finite distance away? That assumes a globe-earth model.

What I actually said was that if the earth is flat, then there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat surface. That plane is infinite in extent. The FE claim (look up the wiki) is that all known celestial objects lie above that plane. (Where ‘above’ means, the side on which we live).

But what we see at sunset is the sun disappearing below the horizon line. This is consistent with globe earth, where the horizon is a small circle lying on a plane which the sun really does sink below. For an observer further West there is a different small circle, of course, so it is perfectly possible that the Sun disappears below my horizon, but remains above theirs.

But the same observation is difficult to reconcile with FE, for obvious reasons, hence FE requires some theory to explain the observation of the sun (apparently) disappearing below the horizon. (Which leads to the question, how does Zeteticism deal with the distinction between appearance and reality?)

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 11, 2019, 06:25:14 PM »

-Aether,
-Universal acceleration,
-Ice wall,
-Rotation of the "celestial spheres" and "luminous elements" above the plane of a flat earth,
-The dome,
-The map(s) of flat earth,
-The very claim itself that the earth is flat,

Not forgetting Flat earth 'perspective'.

Also light-bending, which is a great example of a Popper unfalsifiable thesis. We can design a light-bending model that is perfectly consistent with standard astronomical models, but where the earth is flat (one astronomer has designed such a computer model*). Impossible to strictly prove it is false, any more than we can prove that the earth is not controlled by a giant blue unicorn. And every piece of evidence whatsoever could be cited in support of such a model.

[edit] http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 11, 2019, 05:20:35 PM »

The areas past the ‘ice wall’

Okay, so the Ice Wall has been surveyed. How does that constitute going very far past the Ice Wall?
 

What I actually said was:

The areas past the ‘ice wall’, including the Ross and Ronne ice shelves have been extensively surveyed, and there is a selection of maps as witness to those surveys. I met Felicity Aston a few months ago who told me of her 2012 solo journey to the South Pole and across a significant part of Antarctica.

The Ronne ice shelf is the largest in Antarctica, about 200,000 sq m. The first stage of Felicity Aston’s journey was from McMurdo to the South Pole. She travelled by plane to the base of the transantarctic mountains, then walked solo the approx 550km to the South Pole station. I don’t know your definition of ‘very far’, but seems far to me. And she was one of many to make that journey. Note the McMurdo–South Pole Highway follows the same route (995 miles).

If I told you that I'm drinking a Red Bull right now, would you demand that I present you with peer-reviewed sources that demonstrate that I am indeed doing so, or that drinking Red Bull is even possible? I sincerely hope not, and I hope you can see why such extremism would be silly.

Of course, since there is nothing unusual about your claim. Yet the wiki states “To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey”. That is an extraordinary claim, so I can reasonably demand the evidence for it, i.e. that we do not know of anyone who has been ‘very far’ past the ice wall (specifically the Ronne shelf), given the weight of evidence that we do know of many such people – including Felicity, who have travelled what any reasonable person would regard as 'very far' past the ice wall.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 11, 2019, 11:21:45 AM »

From the wiki again.

The Earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica. Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#Geography_and_Related_Phenomena

The areas past the ‘ice wall’, including the Ross and Ronne ice shelves have been extensively surveyed, and there is a selection of maps as witness to those surveys. I met Felicity Aston a few months ago who told me of her 2012 solo journey to the South Pole and across a significant part of Antarctica.

I myself will be visiting Antarctica in 2021 and will report back if possible.

Of course any ‘to our knowledge’ type of claim is possibly true, but any robust method of enquiry would seek first to determine the limit of our knowledge.

[EDIT] To my knowledge, the first successful attempt to penetrate far beyond the ice shelf was the 1901-04 Discovery Expedition.

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 11, 2019, 11:09:54 AM »

By 'do not really set', I mean, the sun and stars do not set below the surface of the flat earth, but remain above it, obscured by perspective.

This is true regardless of the shape of the Earth - the Sun does not sink below the Earth's surface, and indeed doesn't come close to ever touching it (that would be bad). It only appears to be doing so. It baffles me that this apparently requires explaining.

Surely you understood what I meant. If the earth is flat, then there exists a (geometrical) plane defined by its flat surface. According to the wiki, the sun and stars always lie above that plane. The appearance of setting, i.e. the sun appearing to move to a place below that plane, must therefore be deceptive. Or (what is equivalent) at sunset the sun appears to move “below the horizon line”.

Why would an increased reliance on observation and experimentation exclude something as basic as accepting something someone else claims to have seen? Your proposals here are bizarre. Did you really expect a method of inquiry to tell you to disregard every other human and walk around checking everything by yourself?

I am simply trying to understand the Zetetic method. The wiki is silent about whether testimony is allowed, or not. And recall that the significant testimony of space travellers is disregarded in the wiki.

People have been into space. How have they not discovered that the Earth is flat?

The most commonly accepted explanation of this is that the space agencies of the world are involved in a conspiracy faking space travel and exploration.

I’m not disputing whether the wiki is correct or not. My question is, if some testimony (travellers to Antarctica) is allowed, and some isn’t (travellers to space), by what criterion do we distinguish the true from the supposedly false testimony?

edby's objection that I'm addressing here is a thinly-veiled accusation of us theorising without basing it on observation.

Yes, FE perspective being a case in point. What I see is the sun going ‘below’ the horizon line. That’s my observation, and the observation of many others. FE perspective is a fairly complex (and to me unintelligible) theory to explain why that observation is illusory.

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 10, 2019, 10:14:41 PM »

What direct observation supports the claim of the ice wall, by the way?

Antarctica has been observed, and is observed, regularly by countless individuals. I don't see how one could reasonably question its existence in this day and age.

So Zeteticism does not exclude testimony? I.e. reliance on things that others have observed, but you yourself have not witnessed. I assume you personally haven't been to the ice wall.

From the wiki

How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.

It is claimed that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice."  What evidence is there for that claim? Testimony, e.g. from Scott's two expeditions in the 1900s, when ingress was achieved, suggests otherwise.

Likewise, what direct observation supports the claim that the sun and the stars do not really set

What makes you think that the sunset doesn't "really" occur? This is not so much a false statement as it is a meaningless one.

By 'do not really set', I mean, the sun and stars do not set below the surface of the flat earth, but remain above it, obscured by perspective.

I will check the wiki.

Sunrise and Sunset refers to the time of the day when the light of the Sun rises from or sets into the horizon. The Round Earth model describes sunset as a rotating spherical earth that obscures the Sun. The Flat Earth model describes sunset as the light of the Sun setting into the Flat Earth.

Although the sun is at all times above the earth's surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west.

So if I interpret correctly, the sun does not really set, i.e. pass under the surface of the flat earth, but only appears to do so.

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 10, 2019, 08:39:21 PM »

What direct observation supports the claim of the ice wall, by the way? Have any flat earth researchers personally verified its existence?

Or is it a theory put together to explain how no one has explored the rim of the world?

Likewise, what direct observation supports the claim that the sun and the stars do not really set, and that the celestial sphere is not a sphere at all? Or is the claim more a theoretical construct to explain why people in other time zones can still see the celestial objects that have 'set' from our point of view? 

Again, what direct observation supports the claim of bendy light? Direct observation surely contradicts any such claim. Or is bendy light a theoretical construct?

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 10, 2019, 08:33:59 PM »

What is it that Popper said were myths?

I was making a light-hearted reference to the following quote from Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge:

Ah right. From my parsing of your statement below, I thought that your 'myths' was referring back to 'statements with scientific meaning that can be falsified '.

he argued that the only statements with scientific meaning are those that can be falsified with respect to some prior theory or framework

Or, as he more succinctly put it himself, myths.

Popper thought that ideas such as the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology, though posing as science, "had in fact more in common with primitive myths than with science; that they resembled astrology rather than astronomy". Such theories "appear to be able to explain practically
everything that happened within the fields to which they referred."

By contrast, Newton's and Einstein's theories could be falsified.

If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation—in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected. This is quite different from the situation I have previously described, when it turned out that the theories in question [i.e. Marx, psychoanalysis etc] were compatible with the most divergent human behavior, so that it was practically impossible to describe any human behavior that might not be claimed to be a verification of these theories.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zeteticism

« on: December 10, 2019, 10:03:52 AM »

he argued that the only statements with scientific meaning are those that can be falsified with respect to some prior theory or framework

Or, as he more succinctly put it himself, myths.

What is it that Popper said were myths?

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 26, 2019, 09:33:39 AM »

edby, you really have to take some time to try and understand how discussion fora work.

Well I don't understand how they work. My experience of discussion for the last 30 odd years has been through the standard process of peer review by experts. I fully understand how that process works.

Since I have no need to 'take time' to understand discussion fora, indeed I need to spend much time currently with the reviewers of the current book, and with the managing editor, plus another paper in preparation, I will bow out of this 'discussion'.

Regards

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 25, 2019, 09:08:33 PM »

I may as well give the second step of the reasoning. Suppose we have a 1 kg mass on the table, and suppose (as hypothesised) that Newton’s theory is true. Then the purely gravitational force exerted is

   F1  = ma  =  1kg x 9.86 m/S^2  =  9.86N

Then suppose also that UA is accelerating the table upwards by 9.86 m/S^2. Then

   F2  = ma  =  1kg x 9.86 m/S^2  =  9.86N

The principle of resultant force says that the two forces are equivalent to a single force equal to the sum of the forces. Thus

   F  =  F1 + F2  =  9.86N + 9.86N  =  19.72N

And forgive me but there is a third step. What is the total acceleration caused by the two forces. Well

   a  = F/m  =  19.72N/1kg  =  19.72 m/S^2

Hence, if both UA and Newtonian gravitation are acting upon our 1kg weight, it would accelerate by 19.72 m/S^2 if taken from the table and allowed to fall. But we observe no such thing. QED.

In summary: step 1, understand the idea of resultant force, step 2 understand how UA and Newtonian gravitation exert two separate forces, step 3, understand the resulting acceleration.


[EDIT] And remember this proof is in support of my claim above, that

If the earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 m/s^2 and the objects upon it are affected by Newtonian gravitation in addition, then the observed downward acceleration would be greater than 9.8 m/s^2. But it isn’t.

Which was precisely the claim that Pete asked me to provide evidence for.

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?

« on: August 25, 2019, 08:52:13 PM »

• Personal attacks do not advance your argument. Indeed, they make you look like the kind of person who needs to resort to personal attacks to self-validate.
• You're posting on an open online forum. My personal competence should be the least of your concern. You are presenting your argument to everyone.

My apologies. No personal attack was intended. But I don’t know how much mathematics you understand, and forgive me again, but if you understood the mathematics, you wouldn’t be asking me to explaining the reasoning, as you did here.

There are a few steps, but they are not difficult. The first thing is to understand the idea of resultant force. This website explains it very well.

It’s not highly mathematical. The idea is that if you apply two forces, say of 10 Newtons each, then the effect is exactly the same as if you had applied one force of 20 Newtons. Or if you apply 10N in the forward direction and 5N in the backward direction, it’s as though you had applied a forward force of 5N. The site gives three other examples.

You are bound to say, ‘what has this to do with anything’. Fair enough, but you asked me to explain the reasoning behind my post here.

Understanding resultant force is the first step in helping you to understand. There is only one more step, but I need to be sure you understand the first step. It’s all about resultant force.

I am here to help.