4541

Flat Earth Community / Re: Could someone clarify on how globers and flat earthers prove their theory?

« on: January 11, 2018, 10:01:56 PM »

Why? It is wrong about perspective. You demonstrated that you don't understand how perspective works in the real world in the thread about clouds being lit from below.
I even did an experiment and provided photographic proof that you are wrong about it.

You need to come up with a rebuttal to Earth Not a Globe, not post an observation we performed a study on over 150 years ago.

To be honest, I don't know what there is to rebut. I did look at those pages, they are full of quite wordy claims, things like:

"In a long row of lamps, standing on horizontal ground, the pedestals, if short, gradually diminish until at a distance of a few hundred yards they seem to disappear, and the upper and thinner parts of the lamp posts appear to touch the ground, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 77."

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with that. It is a claim he makes, his evidence is "this is how it seems" and then he draws a little picture of how he saw it. Is that really the level of proof which is good enough for you? Quite bizarre given the level of proof you demand for things which don't fit in with your world view. In another thread on here you said

"That seems to be a statement rather than evidence."

The pages you directed me to are full of "statements". The only "evidence" is him saying that is what he saw. I'll be kind and concede that photography was in its infancy then so it would have been difficult for him to provide photographic proof but some could be provided now of the things he claims. Things obviously get smaller and less clear as they get further away but they don't disappear bottom first on a flat plane. So my rebuttal is "No they don't". Is that OK?

The bottom of the object never disappears if the two objects are on a plane (assuming no refraction or other atmospheric conditions, but if that were a factor then zooming would not "restore" the bottom, all optical zoom does is make things bigger). The whole object is just less clear as it recedes. The only way I can think of proving that is to think about how we see things at all. Light bounces off objects and in to our eyes. So long as there is clear line of sight between me and all of an object then I will be able to see all of it which, on a flat plane, there should always be. The only limiting factor would be atmospheric conditions. I've drawn a diagram showing how the light travels from the bottom of a distant person and the top of the person into my eye:



So I should be able to see the whole person, just less clearly as the person gets further away. Perspective is NOT a factor here. If photons can physically travel from both the bottom and the top of the object then I see the whole object,

If I was on a curve though then I would see less of the object because the curve in between me and the object and physically blocks the photons from the bottom, so in this diagram I only see the person's head:



I honestly don't know why you put so much stock in the writings of some bloke from the Victorian age who believed things like the moon is self-illuminated (emitting "cold light" and semi-transparent). His ideas have not revolutionised the scientific community because they are demonstrably not true.

4542

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 11, 2018, 07:05:23 PM »

Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.

Well, there's the famous stick experiment. There are admittedly two possible interpretations of that. The traditional one assumes a distant sun so the rays are parallel which means the earth must be curved. The FE response is that a much closer sun could explain the different angles of the shadows. OK. But then if the sun really is that close then it would be easy to prove by observing the angle of the sun from a few different locations. I asked in my thread about the FE sun whether that had been done. No response yet. You could also do that with the moon if you want to prove the moon's distance. Do that and congratulations, you've got a Nobel prize. I pointed out a few other obvious issues with a closer sun, those haven't been addressed either.
Then there's things like the Coriolis effect which makes weather systems spin in different directions in different hemispheres.
The fact the sun traces an arc across the the sky.
The fact that the stars rotate around the poles and different stars can be seen in each hemisphere and rotate in different directions.
It all points to us being on a spinning globe.

Then there's fact we have a GPS system which demonstrably works/ Satellite TV. An airline industry which demonstrably gets people where they need to go (mostly) on time and uses great circles to plot its routes around the earth. Cruise line industry too.
The fact that multiple polar explorers from multiple countries have been to both poles.
The fact that distant objects can be seen to be partially occluded by the curve of the earth and the amount of occlusion varies by distance.
The fact there is an ISS orbiting the earth which can be seen from earth - NASA publish a website which tells you where and when you can. If they are faking it then they are going out of their way to make it difficult for themselves by doing that, something so easily testable.
Which brings me on to the fact we have photos of earth from space. Not just from NASA, multiple countries have done this.

Meanwhile the flat earth model can't even agree a map which works.

4543

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 11, 2018, 05:00:56 PM »

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.
In the same way that looking at white swans may lead you to think that all swans are white (see Black Swan theory).
But we worked out as a species millennia ago that we are living on a globe.
The next natural assumption is that the earth is the centre of everything and the sun and moon and stars all go around us.
But then through observations of retrograde motion of planets it was realised that we aren't.
Our understanding of the universe and our true place in it has evolved over time as we have made more observations and developed better instruments to do so.
Some dude writing in the Victorian era who thought that the moon is semi-transparent and emits cold light hasn't, amazingly, rocked the scientific community to the core.

4544

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question regarding the spotlight sun theory

« on: January 11, 2018, 04:02:57 PM »

Also, if the sun was hovering above us, would it's speed in the sky not change? The closer an object is to you, the faster it appears to move. So, from sunrise to noon, it should be increasing its speed toward us, and vice-versa for noon to sunset.

Yeah. And it keeps changing orbit to a tighter circle and a bigger one, it must keep changing speed when it does so otherwise the 24 day cycle would vary throughout the year.
I believe the FE idea is it keeps changing heights too which causes the phases of the moon, or maybe it's the moon which changes height, maybe both.
And, of course, what keeps it up in the sky at all? Why doesn't it just fall on us?

Asked all these questions in another thread, there has been no flat earth response.

4545

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hemispherical star differences?

« on: January 11, 2018, 12:22:37 PM »

Polaris has been observed south of the equator though...

It can be seen 1 degree below the equator but not further south than that.
If you believe you have evidence to the contrary then please present it.

4546

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How would mountains work?

« on: January 11, 2018, 12:20:16 PM »

Oh I'm not disputing they exist, but I thought that was using a round earth model.

Why would the view of mountain formation remain exclusive to the RE model?

What makes the current views of mountain exclusive only to RE?

I don't think some of these ideas are exclusively RE.
The Himalayas are caused by the plate India is on slowly pushing north. That is why Everest is still growing.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900917&slug=1093659
In the RE model the tectonic plates fit together like a jigsaw but there is no "edge" to a globe.
In the flat earth model the plates would be the same but that would mean the entire edge of the disc has to be the edge of those plates.
And what happens at that edge? In the RE model a subduction zones are boundaries where two plates converge, and one plate is thrust beneath the other.
But in the flat earth model there is no other plate because this is the edge. So what happens?
Subduction zones in RE are areas prone to earthquakes and volcanoes, if the edge of the disc is one big subduction zone then we're lucky the ice wall doesn't melt or crack.

I guess the question is if plate tectonics is accepted in the FE model then that does raise questions about what happens at the edge.

4547

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How would mountains work?

« on: January 11, 2018, 10:19:56 AM »

I guess my question would be what is your basis for thinking it inaccurate?
I mean, GPS works. It demonstrably works. I just had a look on my phone and it told me where it thinks I am and it's right, that is where I am.
At the weekend we took a trip to see some family, my phone told me how long it would take based on the distance, traffic conditions and I presume it takes into account stuff like speed limits.
And it did pretty much take that long.
These aren't very scientific tests admittedly but some could be done. A lot of people use GPS to get around these days and as a system it demonstrably works.
What would be the cause for doubting it?

4548

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 11, 2018, 09:56:40 AM »

The Flat Earth is easy to demonstrate. Look out your window.

Your own Wiki agrees that if the observer is high enough then you can see a curve

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

The FE explanation is "Curvature results from the fact that at the edge of the atmosphere we are looking down at the illuminated circular area of the sun's light. The observer is looking down at a circle".
The real world explanation of course is that the earth is a globe.

Point being, if even in your model you accept that you see a curve from high altitude so why can't you see it from the ground? Why in your model can't you see the "circular area of the sun's light"?
The answer is obvious: scale.

So looking out of my window even if I could see the horizon (which I can't, I can see Big Ben and the London Eye if you're interested) it wouldn't demonstrate a flat earth.
It wouldn't demonstrate a globe either. The earth could be a cube. Looking out of my window doesn't demonstrate anything. I have to look at other evidence.

4549

Flat Earth Community / Re: Could someone clarify on how globers and flat earthers prove their theory?

« on: January 10, 2018, 10:41:28 PM »

Why? It is wrong about perspective. You demonstrated that you don't understand how perspective works in the real world in the thread about clouds being lit from below.
I even did an experiment and provided photographic proof that you are wrong about it.

4550

Flat Earth Community / Re: Could someone clarify on how globers and flat earthers prove their theory?

« on: January 10, 2018, 10:32:52 PM »

That's deep!

Was watching The Orville last week - the story was about a race of people who lived on a massive space ship which had been made to look like a natural environment.
Their leader refused to believe there was anything outside the ship but there were a group of dissenters. They were trying to persuade the leader and he was stubbornly refusing to budge. One of the characters said:

"Many people refuse to accept an irrefutable truth simply because that truth puts them in the wrong"

Pretty apt for some people on this place.

4551

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How would mountains work?

« on: January 10, 2018, 08:32:00 PM »

Oh I'm not disputing they exist, but I thought that was using a round earth model.

4552

Flat Earth Community / Re: Could someone clarify on how globers and flat earthers prove their theory?

« on: January 10, 2018, 08:27:58 PM »

Well. Multiple space agencies from different countries have taken photos of the globe from space.
You'd think that would be enough.

The accepted scientific model is of a (roughly) spherical earth orbiting a sun which is 93 million miles away and we have the moon orbiting the earth at a distance of about a quarter of a million miles away.

The test of a good model is that it works, it reflects reality and explains what we observe.

So what it boils down to whether you believe the entire scientific community over the last few hundred years whose model explains eclipses and seasons and sunsets and tides and the Coriolis effect and the observations of stars in different hemispheres.

Or do you believe some book written in the Victorian era by some bloke who believed crazy things like the moon generating its own cold light. The fact is the flat earth model doesn't work on any level. It cannot explain observations and attempts to make it do so always involve fudging things like inventing a "shadow object" to explain lunar eclipses or misunderstanding perspective to explain sunsets and boats disappearing over the horizon, and buildings.

The fact is GPS works. Satellite TV works. The ISS is visible from earth. The poles have both been explored. The airline industry gets us around using great circle routes which take account of the earth being a sphere. The flat earth model doesn't even have an agreed map.

You can never prove anything to people who have their mind fixed on a certain belief system of course.

4553

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth Sun

« on: January 10, 2018, 08:05:11 PM »

Implausible? I do not think so.

If you have ever been subject to the Sun's reflected rays off of water or snow, not only can you be permanently blinded by these reflected rays (just as you would by direct exposure), you can suffer severe burns just as you would by direct exposure, with no change in severity.

Well, as I said your theory is at least possible and it's a better answer than Tom shouting "PERSPECTIVE". I got my threads mixed up earlier, my demonstration of why perspective isn't possible is in this thread
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.160

BUT while your theory is at least possible
1) That is quite specific conditions, there would have to be a very reflective surface and this surely can't explain every single photo of underlit clouds
2) If the sun is in the sky then we should expect light from it to be shining down too, not just reflecting upwards, that isn't what the photo shows.

Noctilucent clouds can easily be explained on a round earth - the sun has gone down from ground level but the clouds are high enough that there is still an unobstructed line from the sun to them, so they are illuminated. Can this be explained with the flat earth model?:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/owq48cciThU/maxresdefault.jpg

That is a common misconception and, unfortunately, the answer lies in the way you choose to word things.

You claim below, I choose the word beyond.

I am not under some delusion I can see all things above my head at all times. Sometimes they still remain above the flat plane but are beyond my visual acuity for any number of reasons.

OK. But what I don't understand is why the sun which is perfectly large and bright at sunset can sink slowly below or behind the horizon. Surely it would just shrink or fade out. I think I'm going to need some diagrams to understand how you think sunset works on a flat earth. Tom's response is perspective, I have proved that cannot be the explanation, I'm still not clear how this could actually work.

4554

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question regarding the spotlight sun theory

« on: January 10, 2018, 07:18:49 PM »

The moon is actually fairly uniform in appearance

It really isn't.

4555

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Apollo landing conspiracy

« on: January 10, 2018, 07:16:52 PM »

People should be derided for both. There are reflectors on the mood because we put them there.

4556

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hemispherical star differences?

« on: January 10, 2018, 07:07:56 PM »

Hmm. But they rotate in different directions in the different what "round-earthers" would call hemispheres.
Almost as though we're on a sphere. Almost.

4557

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why are there so few atheists among flat-earthers?

« on: January 10, 2018, 04:18:59 PM »

Some people think the earth is flat because of their (mis) interpretation of Scripture.
I think that accounts for a lot of this.
Not all do although ironically some do treat this as a religion.

4558

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth Sun

« on: January 10, 2018, 04:03:32 PM »

I just thought of a simple experiment.  Hold your hand horizontally near a lamp post at night.  The top your hand is light and the bottom is dark.  Move your eyes to different heights and see the light "above" and "below" your hand.  When it appears below, the bottom of your hand does not light up.  It stays dark.  If you line up your hand and lamp and eye in a straight line, you will see that you are looking up.  When you stand on a mountain (or other high place) and line up your eye, that tree below you in the distance and the setting sun (or moon) you will see that you are looking down.

Yes, that is basically the experiment I did above with the lamp and the Rubik's cube. I changed my perspective so the light appeared below the cube but the underside of the cube didn't light up because a shadow's angle is dictated by the PHYSICAL relationship between objects, not your perspective.

4559

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth Sun

« on: January 10, 2018, 03:53:54 PM »

And the whole issue of perspective eludes your mental grasp.

Yes. I remember one time I couldn't work out why a frisbee I could see kept getting bigger.
Then it hit me...

On any certain day of observation, I can watch a jet pass overhead, exceeding the ceilings of the clouds. As that jet passes further down range, the cloud (which the jet obviously passed over the top of just seconds prior) now appears lower in the sky to me than does the cloud, yet the jet made no change to altitude.

Yes. I literally showed how that could work with the photo of the row of lamp posts above.
But "perspective" was Tom's answer to how SHADOWS can be cast upwards. I have explained above, with proof, how that is impossible.
In your scenario if someone on the plane was to shine a light on the clouds which is powerful enough that the cloud casts a shadow then even though FROM MY PERSPECTIVE the jet appears below the cloud it is still PHYSICALLY above the cloud and so the shadow would be angled downwards. That is how shadows work. If you don't understand that then I'd suggest it is not my mental grasp which is being eluded.

Reflection is a better answer but the ground would have to be pretty much be mirror-like to produce that amount of brightness and cast shadows like in that photo so it's implausible.

While we're here, perspective also cannot explain the photo above which only shows part of the disc of the sun. If the sun is 3,000 miles above the plane of the earth then it cannot be seen to slowly disappear below the horizon as it does every single day.

4560

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 10, 2018, 12:50:59 PM »

totallackey, shouting "CAN'T, CAN'T, CANT!" really isn't a counter-argument.