1

Flat Earth Theory / Vanishing Point

« on: February 14, 2018, 03:55:19 AM »

Browsing the tfes Wiki I came across the "Viewing Distance" subject, in which the concept of the "Vanishing Point", "beyond which no man can see", is discussed briefly. It is described thus:
"The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see."

I must assume that this "Vanishing Point" has a finite and measurable length, or distance from the eye of the observer, as it is evoked to explain, in part, our inability to perceive objects beyond the "Vanishing Point". This limitation, in turn, is invoked to explain why, no matter how high we ascend above the flat earth, we will never see the edge.

The effectiveness of the "Vanishing Point" in limiting our vision is explained thus:
"The vanishing point acts as the limi[ti]ng point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished into the surface to see with the naked eye."

Now, does anyone out there have the numbers associated with the "Vanishing Point"? IE, how far from my eye is it? It seems, strangely, to vary with altitude, according to the Wiki article, so I'll rephrase the question. How far from my eye is it when I am standing on the surface of the flat earth, not above it?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Another Gem from the Wiki

« on: February 13, 2018, 10:41:12 AM »

The following is from "Atmolayer Lip Hypothesis":
"In our local area the heat of the day comes from the sun, moving and swashing around wind currents between areas of low pressures and areas of high pressures with its heat. Beyond the known world, where the rays of the sun do not reach, the tundra of ice and snow lays in perpetual darkness. If one could move away from the Antarctic rim into the uncharted tundra the surrounding temperatures, and therefore pressures, would drop lower and lower. Defining the exact length of the gradient would take some looking into, but at a significant distance past the edge of the Ice Wall temperatures will drop to a point where barometric pressure nears the zero mark."

Atmospheric pressure in the habitable area of earth (here) is substantially higher than the atmospheric pressure beyond the "ice wall".

It has been observed that a gas will inevitably flow from a high pressure area to a low pressure area.

Where do you think our atmosphere is going to go under the proposed conditions?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Flawed view?

« on: February 13, 2018, 07:48:12 AM »

Could someone explain this to me?
From the Wiki:
Q. If a cable company put down a cable its length would have to be longer than predicted (by round earth geometry) if the world were flat. If somebody put down a bunch of cables and found that they were longer than they'd expected, wouldn't they tell somebody?

A. But the cables are always longer than expected. It's just explained by underwater currents, soil irregularity, winds and errors in placement, et cetera. And somewhere in that is lost a mistake caused by a slight misunderstanding of the Earth's shape.

If a cable is laid on either a flat or a spherical earth the same length of cable is required to cover a given distance. Cables are laid from point A to point B in a straight line, the shortest distance between the two. Bend, or curve, the line in a single dimension and the distance remains the same, ergo the length of cable required remains the same. 100 miles on a flat surface=100 miles on a cylinder=100 miles on a sphere.

Why would the Wiki go to such pains to say that "But the cables are always longer than expected..."? Is it that the writer's mental picture of the geometry involved is flawed?

4

Flat Earth Theory / If the Earth is Flat...

« on: December 14, 2017, 12:15:10 AM »

...as proponents of the Flat Earth Theory suggest, then all recorded data pertaining to the earth must necessarily be that of a flat earth. It follows that any map created employing said data would be a true and accurate map of a Flat Earth.

5

Flat Earth Theory / The Shadow Object Shown to be...

« on: December 11, 2017, 11:14:48 AM »

... well, goofy is the most polite description I can devise right now.

I started this as a response to another thread, the name of which I can't even remember, hit a wrong key, was taken two light years away and dropped wherever it is I am now. In any event, below is a quick & dirty rendition of the "Shadow Object", hereinafter to be referred to as the SO, at work. The image depicts, from left to right, the moon, SO and sun. Each is drawn to scale, the sun at 32 miles in diameter, the moon at 32 and the SO in the center of estimates given, at 7.5 miles in diameter. Necessarily, the SO is drawn as being quite close to the sun, a distance of about 40 miles.



From the WIKI:
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter.
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

A cursory glance at the image above will be sufficient to allow anyone to see that the writers of the pertinent Wiki page never even took the time to visualize or model their SO theory. I defy anyone to mentally move or reorient the three objects in question in such a way that a full eclipse of the moon by the SO becomes possible.

This is as far removed from science as the galaxy GN-z11 is from my garage.