41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shadow Object and empyrical demonstration against total eclypses.

« on: July 06, 2014, 10:02:42 AM »

the Shadow Object passes between the sun and the earth, which is impossible unless the shadow object has a orbyt perpendicular to the sun's plane of movement and perpendicular to the earth surface

Incorrect.

Defend your criticism if you want it to have any validity.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shadow Object and empyrical demonstration against total eclypses.

« on: July 06, 2014, 09:07:55 AM »

You have an error in your understanding of FET and the Shadow Object.

No, I don't have any error in understanding.
Please read further:

A Lunar Eclipse occurs when the moon, shadow object, and sun perfectly align. The shadow object is rotating around the sun as a satellite and projects a shadow on the moon when all three object align. When we look at the moon we are seeing a shadow projected upon it. This is why the Lunar Eclipse can be seen by anyone who can see the moon in their sky.

I never mentioned lunar eclipse at all, so I don't know why you are talking about it in this thread.

A Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the observer on earth and the sun, and is the reason why a Solar Eclipse can only be seen on narrow strips of land along the earth's surface and why it happens for different locations at different times during the day.

This is what I was discussing above.

According to your FE model, the Solar Eclipse happens when the Shadow Object passes between the sun and the earth, which is impossible unless the shadow object has a orbyt perpendicular to the sun's plane of movement and perpendicular to the earth surface, which I already took into account in my demonstration.

Also, if you state that a Solar eclipse in the FE happens thanks to the moon instead of the dark object, then Solar Eclipses won't happen for you, since the moon is always in the opposite zone of the sun's orbyt.

So please, explain better where is my error in understanding your FE model.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shadow Object and empyrical demonstration against total eclypses.

« on: July 05, 2014, 09:04:04 PM »

I suggest that you work more on simpler proofs that the Earth is not flat. For example, the post above relies on the distance the Sun is from the Earth. I suggest that rather build on FET's calculation of that distance, you show that calculation to be clearly wrong.

You can even use Rowbotham's EnaG to do so. See: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?quote=28217;topic=1493.60. Yes, that's right:  Rowbotham's own experiment shows that the Earth is not flat!

I'm experienced in the optics and astrophisics. I can't give a proper oppinion about other fields of the physics science. Not even have adecuate equipment to develop experiments to do so. Plus, I didn't read Rowbotham's book since it seems a book that doesn't depicts a real universe, but a fantasy world.
Also, demonstrating that the earth is round using only optics and astrophysics can be challenging for a forum where some people doesn't take as truth previous discoveries (i.e. Newton's Laws, Galileo's Discoveries, etc...). Thats why I'm limited to show where the FE fails to demonstrate common and simple events from the nature, that are not dependant on any previous scientific discovery, and that can be observed by anyone without being questioned.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: This can't happen if earth is flat

« on: July 05, 2014, 06:33:56 PM »

From the same site:

the·o·ry
Synonyms
hypothesis, proposition, supposition, thesis

Your sources of information are wrong. I encourage you to choose better ones:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml



If you want to discuss Hypothesys and Theory definitons and differences, please open a new thread for that purpose.

If you don't have any answer to the questions that I posted in the first message of this thread, then there is no reason why you should be writting anything here.

Thanks.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Shadow Object and empyrical demonstration against total eclypses.

« on: July 05, 2014, 06:22:02 PM »

Next in my series of empyrical demonstrations about FE failing to explain common events in the nature, let's demonstrate that full eclipses that project a shadow umbra over a region of the earth, are impossible with the FE model.


I'm talking about this: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0106/tse1999_kobusch_big.jpg

Not about this: http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/total-eclipse-allen-lefever.jpg


If you didn't noticed, when the Moon/Shadow Object moves between the Sun and the Earth, it proyects a shadow, but a shadow has different parts, that you can see in the next diagram:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Diagram_of_umbra,_penumbra_%26_antumbra.png


I will demonstrate that eclipses where the whole Solar disc is hidden by the Moon/Shadow Object, are impossible according to FE model, but the real thing is that we can see a lot of eclipses of this type along the history of the earth, as well as predicting when, where and how they will happen.


So, lets get into matter.

First, let me pressent you a simple diagram of how FE illustrates the Earth, Sun and Shadow Object.



In this image, you may note that the Shadow Object (blue small circle) is not in the same plane as the Sun (yellow circle) orbyts around the Arctic.
This is because if the Shadow Object is in the same plane as the Sun, then eclypses won't be possible at all since we will be seeing the Sun from a lower angle that the Shadow Object can cover part of the Sun.

Now, for umbra eclipse (we will call "umbra eclipse" to those eclipses where the whole solar disc is hidden by the Moon/Shadow Object), we need to stay observing from the umbra zone.

Everyone can agree that if we have a source of light and an object obstructing the light (this object is smaller than the source of light) rays falling upon a surface, we can change the umbra, penumbra and antumbra by moving closer and further the blocking object.

Actually, when the blocking object is close to the light source, the umbra length becomes smaller, and when we move farther from the light source the blocking object, the umbra length becomes longer.
You can experiment this in your own house using a light bulb and a iron marble or any other similar opaque object tied to a thin thread.



So, translating this to a Sun-Moon-Earth scale, the Earth is our "wall", the Moon/Shadow Object is the obstructing object and the Sun is the source of light.
To see an eclipse where the Moon/Shadow Object covers the whole Solar disk, we need to stay in the Umbra zone.

Let's then calculate, using the FE model sizes and distances, the length of the Umbra zone, to see if it is possible that the Shadow Object predicted by the FE, allows or not a Umbra Eclypse in the earth surface.

From now on, lets call "Moon" to the Shadow Object, for the sake of abbreviaton.

What we need to calculate is B distance, in the previous image (note that the previous image may not be at a correct scale).
Using some basic school trigonometry, we know that:

B = R_Moon/Sin(α)

Where R_Moon is the Radius of the Moon/Shadow Object.

R_Moon (remember, Shadow Object), we know it's value according to FE theory: from 4 to 8 kilometers. Because FE scientists doesn't seem to reach an agreement, lets take the medium size: 6 kilometers.

But we need to calculate the angle "α".

For this, we will use again simple school maths:

α = Arcsin(R_Sun - R_Moon / D_Sun - D_Moon)

Where R_Sun is the Radius of the Sun (25.74 Km in the FE model), D_Sun is the distance from the Earth to the Sun and D_Moon the distance from the Earth to the Moon (obtaining here the distance from the Sun to the Moon, again basic school Maths).

According to FE model, the distance Sun-Earth is 4828 kilometers.
The distance from the Shadow Object to the Earth or the Sun is unknown, so we need to "invent" a distance. Since we know "the Shadow Object is very close to the Sun", then lets say the Shadow Object is at 4728 Kilometers from the Earth (which is then 100 kilometers from the Sun. Please note that "very close" is a subjective description, but for a 4828 Km distance, it could be agreed that 100 kilometers is very close.

So giving numbers to all of this, we get:

α = Arcsin(25.74 - 6 / 4828 - 4728) = Asin(0.19) = 10.95º

Now, we can calculate the length of the umbra zone for the FE model, given the case that the Shadow Object is 100 kilometers away from the Sun:

B = 6 / Sin(10.95) = 6 / 0.18 = 33 Km

So, we have that the umbra zone is only 33.33 kilometers long.

But according to the FE model, the Sun is at a distance of 4828 kilometers above the earth surface, and given the Shadow Object that is "very" close to the Sun (we supposed 100 kilometers), then we have an umbra zone that goes from 4728 Km to 4694.67 Km above our heads.

So actually, this means that we will have to travel 4694.67 Km up in the sky and firmament to enter the umbra zone, or what is the same, the distance from the Shadow Object to the Sun is so low that the umbra zone projected doesn't even come any close to the Earth Surface.


In either case, this calculation we just made, is actually invalid, since we don't know the distance from the Shadow Object to the Sun. It was stated as "very close", but this is a subjective description. I can say very close when it is 1 milimeter away, and other may say very close for 1 centimeter away.

So what we need to find is a distance A (in the image above) that gives a distance B enought to reach the earth surface.

Getting back to α (alpha), we have:

α = Arcsin(25.74 - 6  / 4828 - Y)

Being X the distance from the Shadow Object to the Earth, which we want to find.

If we take Y as 1000 Kilometers above the Earth Surface, we have:

α = Arcsin(25.74 - 6  / 4828 - 1000) = Asin(0.0051) = 0.29º

And finally: B = 6 / Sin(0.29) = 1185 Km


So having the Shadow Object at a distance of 1000 Km above the Earth Surface, will be slightly enough to allow the surface to enter the umbra zone.

We can conclude then that the Shadow Object must be roughtly 3828 Km away from the Sun, which, for me and most of the humans in the earth is not a "very close" to the sun, if we compare that "very close" with the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

Actually, if we draw an illustration to scale, we have the next (Sun and Shadow Object diameters are not at correct scale respect distances, it would be impossible to draw in a small image like the next):




Which for the Flat Earth model, seems wrong.


Conclussion: following the FE model, and even when there is no a complete source of distances information, the FE models seems to fail when explaining Solar eclipses, since in a FE world won't exist full solar disk eclipses.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: This can't happen if earth is flat

« on: July 05, 2014, 02:13:39 PM »

Let me quote "Hypothesis" for you using your same source of information:
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis)

hy·poth·e·sis
noun \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\

: an idea or theory that is not proven but that leads to further study or discussion


So the FE model is "hypothesis" not "theory" because: (according to your previous definition of theory)

the·o·ry noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

Flat Earth model fails to explain this or this, and many other events from the nature, which, in fact, Round Earth model can do successfully and without possible further discussion.

So if you cannot explain a fact or event, then you don't have any theory, but an hypothesys, assumption or even faith in your ideas.

Apparently, some RE'ers need to read the dictionary more often.

In either case, no matter how you clasify your ideas. It's doesn't mind if you call them theories, hypothesis or flying giraffes. They are against observed phaenomena and they can't universally and successfully explain the behaviour of the nature.

Also, and again, being my theories/hypothesys/flying giraffes wrong doesn't make yours correct.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Sun and empyrical demonstration against FE

« on: July 05, 2014, 11:31:16 AM »

Today I'm going to demonstrate that according to everyday's observation made myself and by every human over the Earth surface, the Sun, Moon and Planets orbyt around the north pole in the flat earth, is wrong, contradictory with the reality.
Due to this, every hypothesys in the FE model derived from (or using as base) the orbyt of such bodies, becomes automatically invalidated, such as the Shadow Object, the Time Zones, the Seasons, the Close Planets Elongation, etc...

So, lets get into matter.

First we will start reviewing what the Flat Earth model teaches us about the Sun orbyt.

According to the most accepted model of the FE, the Sun (and the Moon and Planets) rotates around an axis that is perpendicular to the Arctic. He (the Sun) rotates in a fixed plane that is parallel to the Earth Surfate in their Flat Earth.

The TFES wikia depicts it with the next animation graphic:



According to this, the Sun will be moving in the same movement plane respect to the earth surface along the day and year. The only change is the radius of the orbyt, explaining the seasons this way, but other that this, the Sun's orbyt doesn't have any other change.
What this means is: no matter the time of the day or the day of the year, we will always see the sun at the same height respect to the surface (or respect to any given point in the surface) and respect to the horizon.

But also we can clearly deduct that from a tall mountain, for example the topmost part of the Everest, where there are no buildings or any other obstruction interrupting our horizon view, we will be able to see the Sun when it is midday in the Everest, but also when it is midday in New York.
It is possible that someone can argue that the atmosphere thickness and low transparency, as well as the weather conditions or the atmosphere distortion or other similar effects, doesn't allow us to see the sun even with a normal telescope or our unaided eyes, but even if we couldn't see it, we can observe other sun radiation like X-Rays or any other radiation, which is unaffected by atmospheric distortion or low transparency, so with any appropiate equipment, we will be able to observe the sun from the Everest when it is in New York.

If we take the previous animation and change the perspective, we get the next:



Here, the white thick line represents the supposed flat earth, the red line is the orbyt of the sun around the North Pole movement axis.

If we accept as truth the FE theory about the Sun's orbyt, now it is clear that an observer located in the left of the Earth surface, can see or detect the Sun when along its whole orbyt, without changing his observation possition.


But actually, the FE model states as universal truth this hypothesys without any kind of proof, not even photographs, radiation scanners, radio receivers, not even any kind of mathematical model that explains not only the circular movement of the Sun, but also explains why this movement is round, by which force or mechanism the Sun keeps "tied" to the orbyt instead of being thrown by centrifugal force, or even by which force or mechanism the Sun orbyt radius changes along the year to produce the seasons.

But anyway, if we accept that hypothesys without any proof because "yes", then again, the reality is showing us a Sun's behavior that clearly contradicts what the FE hypothesys says about the Sun orbyt.

Demonstrating this is as easy as tracking the Sun movement respect  the horizon, which anyone can do from his/her home:

Lets check the next image:



Here, we can see how everyday the sun appears from low in the horizon, seems to go up respect the horizon, and then starts descending towards the horizon.
Of course, we don't know if the sun is closer or farther respect us, because we cannot directly see the change in size of the Sun (it can be measured with other methods, but this is not the matter of this topic now). What we see is that the Sun, along the day, seems to be closer or farther from the horizon line, instead of being closer or farther from just us.

So, the Flat Earth model predicts a Sun possition and orbyt that doesn't matches what we see everyday.

Conclussion: due to what I demonstrated before, the Sun's, Moon's and Planet's Orbyts predicted by the FE model are incorrectly defined, besides that, every hypothesys that needs the FE Sun/Moon/Planets orbyts for its explanation or demonstration, is now invalidated too since they start from an invalid hypothesys.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon

« on: July 04, 2014, 08:38:21 PM »

Interesting, if slightly naive questions.

Solar/Lunar eclipses are caused by the anti-moon. It's a disc that covers the moon/sun during said eclipse, some also call it the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane.

The Shadow Object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.

It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.

What is the exact distance from the Shadow Object to the Sun?
What is its diameter in arcseconds (or Arcminutes), if it was observed from the earth?

Also, I read somewhere in this thread that the Shadow Object is made of dense Aether. I require an explanation about what mechanism allows the Aether to be more dense in that exact spot than on the rest of the universe, and which mechanism allows this dense Aether to orbyt around the Sun, knowing that the Sun in your flat earth model doesn't have gravity force.

Thanks.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: "Empirical" Evidence

« on: July 04, 2014, 04:45:15 PM »

Part of the essential problem I find both REers and FEers suffer when they debate in these fora, myself included, is that no one here really has any true expertise in most of the relevant fields of knowledge, especially the sciences.

No one?
Even given the case, do you need personal information to make a theory more valid?

50

Flat Earth Community / Re: EnaG Critique

« on: July 04, 2014, 02:53:44 PM »

I'm back, and I'll respond to a few points.

Rapid does not mean 'accelerate.'  For example: The car traveled at a constant speed of 100mph as it rapidly approached the cliff face.  This sentence is not confusing because I described something as moving rapidly and constantly.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapid

rap·id adjective \ˈra-pəd\
: happening in a short amount of time : happening quickly
: having a fast rate
: moving quickly

Your quoted definition does not say that 'rapidly' refers to a constant pace. It says that it refers to something happening quickly in a short amount of time. Ie. accelerate.

No.
Something can move rapidly and yet, do have a constant speed. Rapid, doesn't imply that you must chage your velocity.
Photons move rapidly when they cross the air in my telescope's tube, are them accelerating? Please, explain.

Under the Copernican model, an annual parallax is predicted. The fact that annual parallax is not observed forces astronomers to place the [...]

I can easily observe star parallax. Anyone can.
Also, paralax is not predicted, it is demonstrated.

Firstly, redshift does not indicate speed or relative distance.

Secondly, no one has ever tested the hypothesis of stellar doppler shift to demonstrate that bodies at super luminal speeds, approaching or receding, will appear a certain color.

Thirdly, some stars may simply be red or blue.

With all respect, and without trying to insult you at all, you really need to learn a lot more about physics and astronomy.

Firstly, redshift implies speed and relative distance. There can't be redshift if those two bodies are always at the same distance (i.e. not moving one respect another). Redshift becomes stronger the farther the objects are from each other. And Redshift becomes stronger the faster the objects are moving away from each other. So your first conclussion is just the opposite as how doppler's effect work.

Secondly, bodies moving at superluminal speeds? I bet you (or anyone in this planet) can't show me any photo of such bodies!!!

Thirdly, again, please study Doppler's Effect and basic astrophysics. You have here a serious concept error. You are confusing and mixing concepts, as well as ignoring and unknowing a lot important ones.

When would any heavenly bodies be at superluminal speeds?

When/where gravitational force is infinite.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything

« on: July 04, 2014, 01:08:24 PM »

Sorry, but yes.

If the earth is a plane, I would be able to see polaris with a telescope from anywhere in the surface, the same as I would be able to see the clouds in New York from Berlin with a telescope, excluding the obstruction of buildings and mountains, as well as the atmospheric distortion.

FEers use both of those reasons to explain the limited view of the stars.

[/quote]

With "obstruction of buildings and mountains" i was talking about "the obeserver being just next to a mountain or building", and with "atmospheric distortion" i was talking about "polluted areas or areas with poor seeing".

In either case, if the earth was flat, observing from the Everest would let us see all stars from the firmament.

Many northern stars are visible from SA at 30^o S.

You can't see Polaris from Australia.
Of course you can see some constellations that are far away from the rotation axis, but not the closest ones.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Rory Cooper and Celestial movement

« on: July 04, 2014, 12:08:44 PM »

Found in this thread, pizaaplanet points us to a video made by Rory Cooper that explains about how the stars move (or seem to move) in the firmament.

The video is the next one:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyNPWFz40XeHT2pWAwoSD3g


Most of the video is wrong because it has some terrible errors that doesn't match what we observe everyday.

First, the video assumes that the earth is flat, which is an assertion that cannot be demonstrated, making the rest of the video invalid (you cannot state something as truth if you start from a hypothesys that you cannot demonstrate).

But even if we don't have this into account, Rory Cooper commits a serie of errors that made the video invalid no matter what you try to accept, since those errors aren't, by far, what the reality shows us.

First, at 0:44 he asumes that the earth is standing still, which is, again, an assertion that isn't demonstrated, making again the whole video invalid.

Next, in 0:58 he shows us several hypothesys why the stars move or seem to move. The only possibilities are that the observer is over a spinning earth or the stars are spinning. But since he stated before that the earth is standing still, he is contradicting himself by saying now that the earth can spin.

But now, at 1:16 negates something that is actually happing, and can be evidenced by anyone: he states that the stars must be spinning around the earth's rotation axis, which is what we can see if we travel to the north pole.

If we travel to the north pole and record the stars movement above our heads, we will see this:




Which is perfectly correct and doesn't represent any contradiction between our round earth theories and what we can observe.


But now, if we travel closer to the equator, but still in the northern hemisphere, the thing changes.
If we look at Polaris from our new location, we well see the next:





And actually, this is truth since if you travel from, lets say, Sahara Desert to North Sweeden, you will clearly see that Polaris (and every star) seem to be higher (or lower) above the horizon.

I was not in Sahara Desert, nor in Sweeden, but I was in Morocco and in North of UK, and the diference between the possition of stars in both places are clearly noticeable.

Now you may guess how this can happen.
The most plausible answer is this, which, in fact, matches all observations:




Let me explain what this diagram means:

We are first observing the night sky in the north pole. It doesn't mind if the earth is standing still or rotating, or are the stars who move.
If we look to polaris, we will see it just above our head because we are just in the movement axis, and everything star will seem to rotate around Polaris (actually not exactly Polaris).

Now, lets travel to closer to the Equator but still in Northern hemisphere (the red astronomer in the diagram). To see Polaris, we will need to face towards the movement axis, which is in the North Pole. Now, we can observe that Polaris appears way lower in the horizon.
We will see the stars spinning anyway, so I can't see any contradiction between a Round Earth and how stars seem to move in the sky.



Now, at 2:15 Rory Cooper says that some people stated that it is possible to see stars from the north and south hemisphere from the equator. The only possible way is the earth being a plane. But in this case, I will be able to see south stars from anywhere above the equator, which is not possible.
But, if you travel to the equator in a round earth, thanks to different earth movements, it is possible that the most southern stars and northern stars are visible during different seasons, of course, not during the same day.


At 2:47, Roory Cooper starts to talk about the universe as a time piece to measure the months, years, etc.., but you cannot universally measure something that is relative.

Also without having into account that the concept of time is something abstract that was created by the humans to measure and take account of events that happen regularly. Talking about time is completely and utterly pointless.

I can even say that time is just a concept like "love" or "hate", that doesn't have any impact in the reality, nor it is related to any universal physical fact or object, not even can be measured by any means.



At 3:09 Rory Cooper states that the moon is too far to see any kind of detail, which is an statement without demonstration or any other kind supporting data.


So, taking all those true facts I exposed before, Rory Cooper's video is wrong, away from the reality and terribly confusing.

53

Flat Earth Media / Re: Rory Cooper: Interesting Flat Earth animations

« on: July 04, 2014, 10:23:42 AM »

It would appear that Rory Cooper has been illustrating evidence of FET for quite a while now. His videos are well worth checking out.

Actually, what is stated in that video is absolutely wrong and nobody should trust what he is saying in that video. The person that made that video also made terrible mistakes, and he stated as wrong some facts that can be proven as truth by anyone from his/her own home.

I will prove this tomorrow with veracious data.

Sorry, for the confusion, but I don't think pizzaplanet posted that video here to invite a debate. This forum FEIR is just an FE repository regardless of vetting.

I will discuss it in the discussion place then, with a reference to this thread and video.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and empyrical demonstration against FE.

« on: July 04, 2014, 10:16:41 AM »

• the brand name "Stargazer" is overused in the market. You would do better making your case with the actual model of the scope.

Stargazer = amateur astronomer. That's the meaning, unless I'm wrong.
And that was exactly what I wanted to mean. Not professional astronomer.

• In general, I recommend inserting more hyperlinks to spec sheets, sources of instructions or formulas, and other references. Remember it a debate, and we battle both simple ignorance and willful ignorance.

Spec sheets:
Telescope: TAL 100RS: http://www.talteleoptics.com/tal100rs.html
Camera: Luna-QHY 5L-II CMOS: http://qhyccd.com/en/left/page3/qhy5-ii-series

Formulae: you will need to study optics and informatics. I'm not here to explain this kind of basic things. Think of it like previous theorical knowledge you must have to discuss.

• I would encourage "bit-size" attacks. I was encouraged (wisely) to chew through Earth not a Globe in morsels.

I don't need to read a book that depicts a reality that can't explain a plethora of events that doesn't have a satisfactory explanation.

• I would encourage you to link to FEers' own claims more often. For example, EnaG argues that the human eye can't discern an object that takes out less than 1^o of the FoV. When you "[h]oist [the FEer]with his owne petar". (Noise included.) Of course, you'll need some experience here to do that well.

Link to the thread please?

• Finally, and this is really an important style point, avoid unneeded words. "tl;dr" happens way too often here. I even needed a couple of runs at this OP. Telling the reader how many meters in a kilometer, for example, can be removed. But I think you could have done without some of the examples, culling the post down to just two measurements.

For me it is easier to understand 150 meters than 0.15 kilometers. But for illustration purposes, I included the measure in kilometers too.
The same as you say "the food is done in 1 minute" rather than "the food is done in 0.000... days".

I can't sumarize it since some things need to be explained and it is required a base for what I wrote there.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: This can't happen if earth is flat

« on: July 04, 2014, 09:51:43 AM »

"Can cross" does not mean "did cross".

How, then, have you established that he can cross it?

Flat Earth theorists seem to have forgotten how science works:

First: you state an hypothesys. An hypothesys is a fact or event you observe and you give an initial explanation, but it may be false or true.
Second: I say "your hypothesys can't work because this fact, which I or other scientist observed"
Third: you must find a solution or explanation to my criticism.
Fourth: if you can't find a solution to the problem i proposed, your hypothesys is just an hypothesys, not a theory. If you can find a solution, then your hypothesys is a valid theory (until discovered a weak point again).

But the problem is that none of the flat earth supporters seem to reach the 3rd step and beyond. They instead return the problem to us, asking us to demonstrate our theories.
But given this, being our theories/hypothesys wrong, doesn't make your hypothesys correct, so your hypothesys are just hypothesys, not theories that match the reality because there it doesn't solve the problems that me or other scientits can/have observed.

Now, you may say "you were not in the south pole to cross it". Which is true, I was not in the south pole. But other scientists or explorers were. And I (must) trust what they say. Otherwise, I would have to discover the wheel and the fire.
And here you can't also know which of your flat earth hypothesys are truth or fake because if you don't trust what round earth scientists say, why you then trust what flat earth scientists say?

Also, note that we are here to ask you about your hypothesys, not to question our theories.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything

« on: July 04, 2014, 09:12:48 AM »

...if the Earth were a flat surface, everyone in the earth would see the exact same stars and constellations...

Sorry, but no.

FET also includes (the incredible) shortening of distances to the stars, etc. Consider that you can't see the same clouds right now that I can, and I think you'll see how they manage to make a bit a sense.

I hope that helps.

Sorry, but yes.

If the earth is a plane, I would be able to see polaris with a telescope from anywhere in the surface, the same as I would be able to see the clouds in New York from Berlin with a telescope, excluding the obstruction of buildings and mountains, as well as the atmospheric distortion.

But from South Africa, I can't see polaris or any othe star in the northern hemisphere, according to my observations or anyone else's observations.

If the flat earth model proposed is a semi-spheroid over a flat ocean, then you are not talking about a flat earth, but rather a semi-round earth. In this case, all your model from its foundations loses its validity since you are applying plane theories and maths to a curved surface.

Also, given your argument that the distance to the stars noticeabely change, I must ask what method is used in the flat earth model to measure the distance to each star.

57

Flat Earth Media / Re: Rory Cooper: Interesting Flat Earth animations

« on: July 03, 2014, 10:58:05 PM »

It would appear that Rory Cooper has been illustrating evidence of FET for quite a while now. His videos are well worth checking out.

Actually, what is stated in that video is absolutely wrong and nobody should trust what he is saying in that video. The person that made that video also made terrible mistakes, and he stated as wrong some facts that can be proven as truth by anyone from his/her own home.

I will prove this tomorrow with veracious data.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ask a Flat Earth Theorist Anything

« on: July 03, 2014, 10:43:05 PM »

We needed another one of these threads, and the upper fora need more FET focused content.  Ask, and I shall endeavor to enlighten.

A long standing question I have that's never been answered sufficiently:

How does FET explain how stars appear to circle around a central point in the sky, in opposite directions depending whether you are North or South of the equator?

With respect for the question and effort in posing it, I offer the following replacement.

In both the "mono-pole" and "bi-pole" models of FET, please explain how every observer, not on either pole, simultaneously see the celestial objects, in general, rotate as though on a sphere with an axis co-linear with the RE axis; that is, in shorter circles from the Celestial Equator toward the both poles and around the nearer pole. The basic period of this rotation is 24 hours. The apparent motion of each object is at a constant speed, east to west.

To add evidence here are several links: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap071208.html
http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html
http://www.allthesky.com/various/trails24.html
http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/StarMotion.html

New attributed, reproducible evidence published today: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/19/time_lapse_planetary_panorama_by_vincent_brady.html

There is no needed for any kind of complex theory or even checking NASA's website to note an important fact: if the Earth were a flat surface, everyone in the earth would see the exact same stars and constellations, but the fact is that people that is below/beyond the equator sees a completely different firmament than those above the equator.

I can ensure this is true since I was in both Earth hemispheres, and the stars are different, not only the distribution, but also the stars themselves.
This can only happen if the earth is a spheroid object OR in the case of a flat Earth, if I can travel to the opposite face of the surface, which, according to your non-proven theories, is physically impossible.

So, please, explain how this contradiction can happen in your flat earth model.

Thanks.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?

« on: July 03, 2014, 10:26:40 PM »

Moon is coming closer to the earth each day (this movement is very small, you need special equipment to measure it)

Actually, no. It's moving away. See: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html

Yes. It was my fault being enthusiastic with copy-paste mechanics.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: This can't happen if earth is flat

« on: July 03, 2014, 08:32:09 PM »

[...]

And also, this is incompatible with the rotation of the other planets, moon and mostly with the sun.