81

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is this website a strange form of satire?

« on: January 04, 2015, 05:19:28 PM »

I mean, I understand why you would be skeptical. But FET is a legitimate scientific theory. Have you ever seriously thought about why everyone thinks the Earth is round? Nobody has any real reason for believing it, they just sort of do. In reality, the idea that the Earth is round was popularized by Aristotle. Other notable theories by Aristotle are that women have fewer teeth than men (they don't), eels spontaneously appear out of mud (they don't), everything it made out of a combination of the 5 base elements (it isn't), and the sun rotates around the Earth (RET disagrees, FET agrees). He isn't known for his accuracy and he certainly wasn't a scientist. No one ever performed an experiment to prove the Earth was round. We all just kind of accepted it on blind faith. In fact, experiments consistently suggest that the Earth is flat

How about observations and measurements of sunrise and sunset at different times and places.

We don't claim that the sun doesn't rise and set, and we don't claim that time zones do not exist.  We believe the earth is flat, because it is.

82

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of T-Shirts

« on: December 28, 2014, 08:27:27 PM »

I'm in!  Are we Cafe Pressing them, or something else?

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work

« on: December 28, 2014, 05:13:29 AM »

As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.

1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180^o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.

Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.

They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened.  I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment.  I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.

You do need then to stop presenting your evidence as anything close to rigorous. Thank you.

When did I do that?  I presented them as vacation photos.  I reported observations, which were backed up by photographs.  Nothing more.  Don't put words in my mouth.

For one example, here:

I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers).  RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees.  I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon.  There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all. 

That was not a full moon. When you're on vacation, do you expect us to know that you're not being rigorous in your claims?

If the moon is only full for about five minutes, then very few people actually see one, I suppose. 

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work

« on: December 27, 2014, 11:13:31 PM »

As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.

1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180^o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.

Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.

They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened.  I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment.  I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.

You do need then to stop presenting your evidence as anything close to rigorous. Thank you.

When did I do that?  I presented them as vacation photos.  I reported observations, which were backed up by photographs.  Nothing more.  Don't put words in my mouth.

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work

« on: December 27, 2014, 11:06:11 PM »

As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.

1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180^o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.

Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.

They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened.  I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment.  I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How many people really know the truth ?

« on: December 27, 2014, 11:04:40 PM »

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere.  Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."

No. It's rather easy, and the research is on-going. See a review at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

A peer reviewed paper and a web article are not the same thing.  As a web copywriter, I can tell you that web content is written with an eye to SEO and keywords, not for accuracy.  I've had clients literally tell me that what I write doesn't have to be true as long as it gets the Google hits.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere.  Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."

No. It's rather easy, and the research is on-going. See a review at:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

Or perhaps the Journal of Geodesy(http://link.springer.com/journal/190)?

A journal is more like what I was thinking.  I'll review.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work

« on: December 27, 2014, 10:06:43 PM »

As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.

There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior.  How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic?  I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work

« on: December 27, 2014, 06:29:33 PM »

I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers).  RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees.  I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon.  There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all. 

Just out of curiosity, are you sure that it was it the actual day of the full moon?  To me, at least, the moon's apparent fullness on the the day before, the day of and the day after the full moon all look pretty much the same.

Actually Tintagel already noted that his observation was the day after that full moon.

Also, I've repeatedly pointed out the straw man that FEers sometimes use that the moon orbits in a circle, ignoring Kepler's laws of planetary motion. They've been making that obvious mistake since EnaG.

Her observation, in fact. 

And yes, it was 24 hours after the actual full moon.  I know because the night before was a total lunar eclipse, one of those "rare" ones when the sun and moon are both visible in the sky, another violation of the RET moon model.  Moreover, if the moon's orbit subtends an arc of ~30 degrees in the sky in a mere 24 hours, then there should only be ~12 days between moon phases. There are photos elsewhere on the forum of this moon.

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How many people really know the truth ?

« on: December 27, 2014, 06:27:31 PM »

Typical RE avoidance maneuver.

No evidence. No refutations. Just "not true". Really amazing, Rama. You'd make a great scientist.

How about not responding if you don't have anything substantial to add? Ever thought of that?

make you a deal. You substantiate your multiple claims and I will rebut them.

Do you really need me to teach you how a plane's instruments work? Or a cell tower? C'mon now. This is basic stuff.

And do I really need to substantiate my claim that "not every scientist studies the shape of the Earth". Really? If you think every field of study has something to do with the shape of the Earth then you might  need to rethink your ability to argue with the big dogs here in the upper fora.

Nope, ok so show us a group of scientists, accredited ones that hold positions, have peer reviewed papers that say the earth is flat.

If my claim that all 8 million scientists is radically off, then you should be able to show me a significant portion of them that say so. I dont care what field they are in, could be fluffy bunny studies, you just have to show me they think the earth is flat.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any scientist with a peer-reviewed paper saying that the earth is a sphere.  Scientists operate on the assumption that the earth is round, they don't try to prove it because "everyone knows."

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonlight Models Don't Work

« on: December 25, 2014, 05:26:04 AM »

I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers).  RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees.  I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon.  There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all. 

To this end, I agree that the moon is a source of light in its own right.  The nature of this light, and why its cycles seem to follow its position in the sky relative to the sun (but as we see, not always as predicted) I do not know, but I can tell you that based upon this, and several other observations of the moon phases and sun's position not making sense, that  it is the situation that makes the most sense to me.

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 11, 2014, 04:49:37 PM »

Certainly I could, but it likely wouldn't satisfy you as it would appear to be a longer route than the 3473 km figure you cite.  There is zero evidence that this is the actual route taken, and I suspect it was much more like the shorter route I posted.

I can follow this, and I'm not even a supporter of the ring continent model.  It's not that difficult.

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: December 08, 2014, 08:17:20 PM »

Hello, I was just wondering if there is a theory on how my GPS could work if there are no sattelites to support the technology?

There are satellites, just not at the altitudes most people think they are.  GPS works as advertised thanks to them.

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Strong Evidence for Round Earth

« on: December 08, 2014, 08:16:13 PM »

If the earth were indeed flat, with the north pole in the center, and the south "pole" being a circle on the outside of this disk, then would Antartica not be bigger than any continent and circumnavigating Antartica be almost impossible? Don't go claim that all videos of people walking Antartica are fake. Go there and walk yourself.

Ok, let's suppose then the south pole and the north pole is opposite of each other, meaning that the south pole is on the other side of this disk. Then why can you not drill a hole directly from the north pole and the south pole? And what about the sun? Would there be two suns to make the northern "hemisphere" the same heat as the southern "hemisphere"? And if it were like that, what about gravity? As you guys claimed that the earth is accelerating upwards by 9.8 m/s/s, so the water on the southern "hemisphere" should just fall off. So only one side of this flat earth can be used. Then what does the other side contain? And what would you see if you continue to walk south when you arrive Antartica?

If you look at the actual travel routes of trans-Antarctican expeditions, it's easy to see that they work just as well on the disc model.  They generally look something like this one:


We all live on one side of the plane, no one knows what is underneath.

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explanation for South pole?

« on: December 08, 2014, 08:11:55 PM »

I just heard about Theory t'day (via VSauce) and the only thing in my head which didn't get a satisfying anwer was the problem with southern hemisphere and especially antarctica.

So there where basically 2 questions:
First of all the problem with SH.
I asked myself why flying from Southern Argentinia to South Africa takes the time RET suggests.
Second:
Why cant we go past the Ice Wall or why dont we fall off after passing it.

So in my (17yo) head I formed some theories:

There is a 4th dimension (really in space, like a direction, i dont mean time) and the earth spins around itself in this dimension.
Imagine a 2-dimensional beeing which gets taken "outside" of its dimension, turned 180° in 3rd dimension and gets out back inside its 2 dim. world. From its point of view left and right eg. changed. Turned by 90° every 2d object would get a line.
So why shouldnt our earth also get turned in 4th dimension without that we notice it bc our brain can only think 3dimensionally?
So this could mean antarctica is a circle in our brain but due the 4dimensional turning of our earth it is actually a point because 4dimensionality can turn circles into points somehow as 3dimensionality can turn circles into lines?
Imo its logical that when 3d can turn objects 1d down, 4d can turn them 2 down.
So assuming that we are 3d thinking beeings in a 4d world we could copy this to 2d thinking beeings in a 3d world like beeings living on a sphere eg a cylinder. Like they move only flat on the surface wihtout going into height.
To them distance from left to right (so opposite sites of the surface area) is kind of C-shaped like going around on the surface bc they cant move off or thru the surface. But in 3d reality the real distance is I-shaped, so just going straight thru the middle of the cylinder.
But going from the bottom edge to the point on the top egde right above (practically the height) would be the same distance in 2d and 3d. So distances can actually changes when switching to another dimension.
So in this theory it could also be possible that the distance we on earth go up with 9.81m/s/s is not actually the same as people on a disk 100km over earth but it SEEMS to be the same distance in 3d. This could explain why there is less gravitation in higher spheres: they move slower, so they pass less distance in 4d but it seems to be the same in 3d so the distance between us and higher spheres still looks constant for us.

Let me know whether some parts of that might be useful or wheter my brain was just creating some bull****.

Hi there, and welcome to TFES

I think I see where you're going with this but I suspect you may be overcomplicating things.  You'll find that most of our members tend to eschew ideas like extra dimensions and rely upon observable phenomena.  I've been known to venture into the theoretical from time to time, but the foundation of Flat Earth Theory is and has always been zetetic philosophy.  Focus on what you know - what you *really* know - and you'll be surprised how little it is.

Also, there are flat earth models that don't include an ice wall or south pole that surrounds us.  Some do render antarctica as a distinct continent.

Looking forward to future interactions!

95

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the notion of FES reunification

« on: November 23, 2014, 09:50:24 PM »

I think [TFES] should keep [its] logo and [ I ] should keep [mine].

I agree.

96

Flat Earth Community / Re: Possible ways to (dis)prove FET?....

« on: November 23, 2014, 02:24:17 PM »

Do you think that the Venus belt appears between the observer and the sun? It doesn't. The video is clearly at sunrise and the belt is to the west. The curvature of the belt is objective, verifiable evidence that the earth is a globe.

I'm just not sure why you'd leap to that last conclusion.  Convince me.

A round subject casts a round shadow. The sun must be below the horizon in order for the earth to cast that shadow, so the sun does not "orbit" above the earth, disproving, as the OP claims, FET. Everyone can see the belt during sunrise and sunset and see it move upward (downward) in the sky opposite the already set (risen) sun, so there evidence is both objective and verifiable. Only a globe could cast such a lengthy shadow, across the entire sky, at both sunrise and sunset.

All right, I see where you're coming from.  I just don't agree that what we're seeing is the earth's shadow.  Thanks for explaining, however.

You're quite welcome. I corrected and augmented my earlier response in red just above. I apologize for my mistakes.

I do ask that you tell us what the Venus belt, that anyone can readily observer at both sunrise and sunset, without special pleading (having to add post hoc to FET to explain it). Thanks!

If you can't then, let's move on to the shape of the terminator. Thanks.

I still suspect that rayleigh scattering contributes, but I'd like to observe the effect for myself, as I'm not certain I've ever seen the phenomena in reality, before I offer a definitive conclusion.

97

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the notion of FES reunification

« on: November 23, 2014, 12:42:55 PM »

Okay, a much-awaited update and a request for comments!

So far, Daniel agreed to pretty much all our demands, with the notable exception of which logo to use in the post-reunification forum. Our proposal was to hold a vote after the reunification to determine which logo should be used. Their stance is that we should firmly stick to their logo, claiming that it's an integral part of the society's visual identity, and that it's easy to use in one-colour screen printing.

For the time being, I've done my best to address their concerns and made another case for the vote. That said, if the community would prefer their logo, or doesn't care about being able to choose, then perhaps this isn't something that even needs to be discussed? What do you guys think: should we have a logo vote?

FWIW, I can easily create a 1-color version of the new logo, print quality for screen printing, so that's not an issue of the new identity.  I personally like this one more, I feel it's a little classier, but I'm not opposed to a vote.

98

Flat Earth Community / Re: Possible ways to (dis)prove FET?....

« on: November 23, 2014, 11:50:39 AM »

Do you think that the Venus belt appears between the observer and the sun? It doesn't. The video is clearly at sunrise and the belt is to the west. The curvature of the belt is objective, verifiable evidence that the earth is a globe.

I'm just not sure why you'd leap to that last conclusion.  Convince me.

A round subject cast a round shadow. The sun must be below the horizon in order for the earth to cast that shadow, so the sun does "orbit" above the earth. Everyone can see the belt during sunrise and sunset and see it move upward in the sky opposite the already set sun, so there evidence is both objective and verifiable. Only a globe could cast such a lengthy shadow, across the entire sky, at both sunrise and sunset.

All right, I see where you're coming from.  I just don't agree that what we're seeing is the earth's shadow.  Thanks for explaining, however.

99

Flat Earth Community / Re: Possible ways to (dis)prove FET?....

« on: November 22, 2014, 06:32:24 PM »

Do you think that the Venus belt appears between the observer and the sun? It doesn't. The video is clearly at sunrise and the belt is to the west. The curvature of the belt is objective, verifiable evidence that the earth is a globe.

I'm just not sure why you'd leap to that last conclusion.  Convince me.

100

Flat Earth Community / Re: Possible ways to (dis)prove FET?....

« on: November 22, 2014, 10:51:01 AM »

Do explain your wild idea that refraction creates the Venus belt. Thanks.

Likewise the video shows the terminator bounding the shadow from south to west to north.

Thanks for finding "terminator" and "Venus belt" in my question. I appreciate your accuracy.

I didn't say that refraction creates the venus belt.  I didn't say anything about refraction at all.  Perhaps you're thinking of diffraction instead?  I said that rayleigh scattering causes a the pink glow, and it has nothing to do with the earth's shape and more to do with the distance that light is traveling through the atmoplane.  Rayleigh scattering is the reason the rest of the sky is blue, but at dawn and dusk red light is scattered at the horizon from our POV, because it's traveling farther through atmoplane, or atmosphere if you prefer.  This explanation is the same in RET, so I hardly believe it's a "wild" idea.  I would fully expect it to appear in the western sky at sunset, as that's where the light is coming from, and to appear to curve out of sight in the north and south... again, because there's less light coming from those directions.  I'm not sure what this should imply about the shape of earth.

Similarly, could you explain the implication you're trying to make about the shape of the terminator?  I understand it exists, and I understand what you're saying, but I'm not following you to the conclusion that because it appears, the earth must be round.