5541

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 13, 2018, 09:42:42 PM »

I do agree that they are probably craters. I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.

My analysis is that if that puffer fish had craters of mixed material instead of spines, that those craters would probably have shadows; and that those shadows could be created by the light of the pufferfish itself.

Perhaps those craters or other elements might be enhanced a bit by other light sources around the puffer fish, or even light that travels though the puffer fish, if the puffer fish were semi-transparent, as described in the chapter Moon Transparent.

I am reminded of this section in Shadows on the Moon of Earth Not a Globe:

The following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon.

5542

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 13, 2018, 09:24:49 PM »

ICST, I didn't have any bowl-moon theory in mind, although I have heard of such theories in these Flat Earth discussions. My example was meant to show that the mind is prone to seeing and interpreting what it expects to see. I do believe that Rowbotham is expressing that the moon is spherical in his work.

Consider this blue-glowing pufferfish:



The glowing pufferfish makes its own light, but there are erranous darkened features on its surface that come from serveral sources:

- Solid pieces on the surface
- The pufferfish is also being illuminated by a secondary lightsource
- It is also not a stretch to see that the pufferfish could create its own shadows, considering the texture of its surface.

5543

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 13, 2018, 08:03:56 PM »

Rowbotham does have a point. Since as terrestestial investigators we don't know enough about the moon to say what it is, what shape it might be, or what it is made out of, the author makes a good point that we are assuming a lot with our most basic assumptions.

As an example, depending on skewed view, vertical perspective flipping, or other effects, a lunar pothole could easily be interpreted to be a lunar pimple.



Rowbotham is not expressing the above in particular in his work, but it shows the fallacy of assumption.

Since ICST brought up the idea of projections, another chapter of interest is Moon Transparent.

5544

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 13, 2018, 07:59:13 PM »

Lets consult Earth Not a Globe: Moon's Appearance

ASTRONOMERS have indulged in imagination to such a degree that the moon is now considered to be a solid, opaque spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, or seas, volcanic craters, and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has this fancy been carried that the whole visible disc has been mapped out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though they had been carefully observed, and actually measured by a party of terrestrial ordnance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the fact that whoever, for the first time, and without previous bias of mind, looks at the moon's surface through a powerful telescope, is puzzled to say what it is really like, or how to compare it with anything known to him. The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces. It is in this way that persons may fancy that the moon's surface is broken up into hills and valleys, and other conditions such as are found on earth. But that anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere visible upon the moon is altogether fallacious. This is admitted by some of those who have written on the subject, as the following quotations will show:--

     "Some persons when they look into a telescope for the first time having heard that mountains are to be seen, and discovering nothing but these (previously described) unmeaning figures, break off in disappointment, and have their faith in these things rather diminished than increased. I would advise, therefore, before the student takes even his first view of the moon through a telescope, to form as clear an idea as he can how mountains, and valleys, and caverns, situated at such a distance ought to look, and by what marks they may be recognised. Let him seize, if possible, the most favourable periods (about the time of the first quarter), and previously learn from drawings and explanations how to interpret everything he sees." 1

     "Whenever we exhibit celestial objects to inexperienced observers, it is usual to precede the view with good drawings of the objects, accompanied by an explanation of what each appearance exhibited in the telescope indicates. The novice is told that mountains and valleys can be seen in the moon by the aid of the telescope; but on looking he sees a confused mass of light and shade, and nothing which looks to him like either mountains or valleys. Had his attention been previously directed to a plain drawing of the moon, and each particular appearance interpreted to him, he would then have looked through the telescope with intelligence and satisfaction." 2

     "It is fresh in our remembrance that when showing a friend the moon at an advanced phase, 'Is this the moon?' he said, 'why I see nothing but clouds and bubbles!'--a very graphic description of a first view by an uneducated eye. None of the wonderful beauties of the landscape scenery that are so striking to the beholder, can either be recognised or appreciated under such circumstances. It is only after a careful training of the eye, that the peculiarities of the full moon can be truly apprehended." 1

Thus it is admitted by those who teach, that the moon is a spherical world, having hills and dales like the earth, that such things can only be seen in imagination.

"Nothing but unmeaning figures" are really visible, and "the students break off in disappointment, and have their faith in such things rather diminished than increased, until they previously learn from drawings and explanations how to interpret everything seen."

But who first made the drawings? Who first interpreted the "unmeaning figures" and the "confused mass of light and shade?" Who first declared them to indicate mountains and valleys, and ventured to make drawings, and give explanations and interpretations for the purpose of biassing the minds, and fixing or guiding the imaginations of subsequent observers? Whoever they were, they, at least, had "given the reins to fancy," and afterwards took upon themselves to dogmatise and teach their bold, crude, and unwarranted imaginings to succeeding investigators. And this is the kind of "evidence and reasoning" which is obtruded in our seats of learning, and spread out in the numerous works which are published for the "edification" of society.

Lets next read Shadows on the Moon

THERE seems to be a thorough conviction in the minds of the Newtonian theorists that many of the dark places on the moon are the shadows of mountains, and very graphic descriptions are given of the manner in which these dark places lengthen and shorten, and change their direction, as the sun is high or low, or on the right or left of certain parts. Hitherto, or in the preceding pages of this work, a spirit of antagonism has been maintained towards the Newtonian astronomers. The Zetetic process has forced a direct denial of every part of their system; but in the present instance there are certain points of agreement. There is at present no reliable evidence against the statements of the following quotation

"As the moon turns towards the sun, the tops of her mountains being the first to catch his rays, are made to stand out illuminated, like so many bright diamonds on her unilluminated black surface. And if watched with a pretty good telescope the light of the sun may be seen slowly descending the mountain sides, and at length to light up the plains and valleys below; thus making those parts which but a short time before were intensely black, now white as the snows of winter. And in those basin-like mountains (the craters) the shadows on one

p. 342

side may be seen descending far down on the opposite side, thereby revealing their vast proportions and mighty depths. As the time of the full moon approaches the shadows shorten, and when the rays of the sun fall perpendicularly on her surface (as, at full moon) they cease altogether. But now, if still watched, just the opposite appearances will take place, as the enlightened face of the moon begins to turn from the sun the lower parts are the first to lose his rays and pass into darkness, which will be observed to creep gradually up the mountain sides, and at last their tips will appear to pass out of the sun's light as the last spark of a lighted candle. The enlightened parts of the moon, however, no sooner begin to turn from the sun than the shadows of the mountains again come into view, but on the opposite side to that on which they were seen when the moon was on the increase, and gradually to increase in length so long as the parts up which they are thrown are in the light of the sun." 1

That such changes of light and shade in the varying positions of the moon, as those above described, are observed may be admitted; but that they arise from the interposition of immense mountain ranges is of necessity denied. If the Newtonians would be logically modest, the only word they could use would be that prominences exist on the moon's surface. To say that mountains and valleys and extinct volcanic craters exist, is to insult the understanding and the common sense of mankind. What possibility of proof exists that such is the character of the moon? Let them be content with that which is, alone warranted by the appearances which have been observed--that the moon's surface is irregular, having

p. 343

upon it prominences and indentations of various forms and sizes, and running in many different directions. This is the common property of all observers, and is not to be seized and perverted, or interpreted by any one class of philosophical arrogants as proving an essential part of their illogical hypothesis.

It has been demonstrated by more than sufficient matter-of-fact evidence that the moon is self-luminous, semi-transparent, admitted to be globular, observed to have prominences and irregularities upon her surface, and moves in a path always above the earth, and at a distance less than that of the sun, and, therefore, that she is a comparatively small body, and simply a satellite and light-giver to the earth. If we choose to reason at all from the facts which appear in evidence, we must necessarily conclude that the moon is a cold, semi-transparent, crystalline mass, more like a spherical ice-berg than anything else, shining with a peculiar delicate phosphorescent light of her own, but, in certain positions, her own light is overcome by the stronger and more violent light of the sun, which causes her protuberances to darken the various indentations adjoining them. This is all that any human being can possibly say without presuming on the ignorance of his fellow men, and daring to obtrude his own wild imaginings where only fact and reason and modest anxiety to know the simple truth ought to exist. This said and submitted to, we are able to illustrate and corroborate it by corresponding facts on earth. It is a well-known fact that often, when passing over the sea during a summer's night, the wake of a vessel--of a steam-ship in particular--is strongly

p. 344

luminous as far as the eye can see. It is also a fact often observed that some kinds of fish will shine with a peculiar light for hours after they are taken out of the water; and it is known that, collect this light by concave reflectors to what extent we may, it will not, to whatever degree of brilliancy we may bring it by concentration to a focus, increase the temperature, as indicated by the most delicate thermometer. This is precisely what we find as to the character of moon-light. The following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon. Hence, it is repeated, that observation, fact, experiment, and consistent reasoning, all lead us to the conclusion that the moon is a comparatively small body, only a few hundred miles above the earth, that her surface is irregular, that her substance is crystalised

p. 343

and semi-transparent, and that she shines with a delicate phosphorescent light of her own, but is subject to the action of the light of the sun, which, when in certain positions, causes those peculiar manifestations of light and shade which dreamy and prepossessed philosophers have assigned to the interposition of immense and peculiar mountain structures. Surely the night of dreams is coming to an end, and the sleepers will awake ere long to open their eyes and apply their talents, not for the interpretation of what they have for so long a period been simply dreaming, but for the discovery of the real and tangible causes of the numerous beautiful phenomena constantly occurring in the world around them.

Also see Moon's Phases

5545

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 12, 2018, 04:22:17 AM »

According to the NOAA website the calculator is based on a book called Astronomical Algorithms (PDF) by Jean Meeus. The following is found:



Funny, I was able to even delete the AU column entirely from the worksheet, and the worksheet still gave the same results, even when the year and day was changed after it was removed. In some areas of the book the author likes to pretend that he is using Heliocentric theory for his algorithms.

Reading closely, the book admits that the algorithms are just using statistical (pattern-based) methods:

5546

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 12, 2018, 02:50:07 AM »

Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks

The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon. You are thinking about the Solar Eclipse.

To find the positions of the sun on July 27, we can use the NOAA Sun Calculator. The NOAA has provided an Excel spreadsheet version of their online calculator here:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/NOAA_Solar_Calculations_day.xls

Feel free to look at the formula sources in that spreadsheet and try and find where the Round Earth Theory is expressed or where we see keplerian orbital mechanics. The calculations are simple equations that are based on the pattern of previous observations and occurrences, as all of the astronomical calculators are.

A light perusing of the source material for those equations suggests they are derived from/using the RE Heliocentric model. But I'm not 100% on this, as the listed source is in fact more of a secondary source, that has created/condensed this information. They are under no requirement to say how the formula is derived in that page, when they list the source. While I can't say what would need to change to reflect a FE model, if what I'm reading is correct the original derivations are indeed dependent on a model.

We can reverse engineer it. Find the columns that you think have something to do with the Round Earth model and put zeros into the fields and see what happens.

For instance:

O: Sun Rad Vector (AUs)

The default is 1.000001018.

Put 0 in those boxes and see what happens. It doesn't affect the predictions at all. I also tried 9.5 AUs. No effect. It gives the same result whether the calculator is operating under the assumption of 0 Astronomical Units or 9.5 Astronomical Units.

Looking at the equations shows that these are very simple formulas, and certainly not orbital mechanics.

5547

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 12, 2018, 01:55:51 AM »

Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks

The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon. You are thinking about the Solar Eclipse.

To find the positions of the sun on July 27, we can use the NOAA Sun Calculator. The NOAA has provided an Excel spreadsheet version of their online calculator here:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/NOAA_Solar_Calculations_day.xls

Feel free to look at the formula sources in that spreadsheet and try and find where the Round Earth Theory is expressed or where we see keplerian orbital mechanics. The calculations are simple equations that are based on the pattern of previous observations and occurrences, as all of the astronomical calculators are.

5548

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Additions to the Library

« on: July 12, 2018, 01:46:11 AM »

I reviewed this list and I could not find any more to add at this time.

5549

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 11, 2018, 10:13:16 PM »

Yes. the altitude of the moon would have to be a MASSIVE distance above the sun. During a new moon the moon would have to be below the sun. Either the sun, moon, or both would have to make massive altitude changes in their orbits in the flat earth full moon caused by sunlight model that i'm able to visualize.

It's either that or the Moon creates its own light which is a totally different ball game that I've only ever just heard about in this thread.

It's my opinion that a full moon is possible on the round earth and one of the many flat earth models. I believe that the wiki is incorrect in it's hypothesis just like I believe that you are incorrect in yours.

Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe. A self-illuminating moon can be added as an alternative, sure. However, I am only one person, and there are not many people working on the Wiki.

The description in the Wiki uses the finite perspective ideas where the perspective lines do not extend infinitely as believed by the Ancient Greeks, and will instead meet a finite distance away, like railroad tracks appear to meet in a perspective scene. A rewrite is in order to explain it better.

See: Why we see the same side of the moon

5550

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 10, 2018, 08:26:24 PM »

Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

This reply is about finite geometry. It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.

That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof

This reply is about perspective.  It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.

Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you. None of your complaints are valid, and the OP's approval for where a thread ends up going is irrelevant.

He is complaining because he asks a question about flat earth models and gets 30 answers from people who either believe the earth is round or are undecided and the response from people who believe the earth is flat does nothing to help him understand a full moon.



Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,


I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon.  Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?


Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.

From the wiki:
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon






Here is one where the moon could be at an equal or lower altitude if the light is refracting/bending back upwards

Can anyone help clear this up for me? And get back to the original post instead of debating if the moon rotates or not. The Wiki says that the moon is a higher altitude than the sun, the bendy light model says that the moon is a lower altitude than the sun and now there is a self lighting moon model. Isn't there a way that we can disprove one of these? I feel like so many different answers just makes things much more confusing.

should the self lit moon be added to the flat earth wiki? why is the bendy light model not at all represented on the flat earth wiki? Why has no one other than me attempted to diagram where the moon is in relation to the sun during a full moon.

The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.

5551

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module

« on: July 10, 2018, 07:15:15 PM »

How many innocents continue to believe sweet fictions like Neil Armstrong hobbling about on the moon after climbing out of a capsule made of tin foil?

In itself, this statement is a lie.

Incorrect. The cabin was very thin, barely thicker than tin foil.

From http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum14/HTML/001072.html

A quick look at my reference data shows that the pressurized cabin web thickness was specified as thin as "0.015 to 0.025" inches thick. About every 3-4 inches the thickness increased to "0.055 to 0.065" inches, centered on ribs of 0.812 inches depth, 0.04 inches wide.

then..

As a further follow-up, I wanted to verify a few dimensions and get a true sense of perspective on how thin 0.012-0.015 inches really is.

According to this ALCOA source, US aluminum beverage can walls were approximately 0.015 inches thick in the 1970s. According to this excellent Scientific American article from September 1994, The Aluminum Beverage Can, can wall thicknesses were reduced even further to 0.003-0.006 inches. This study shows that US aluminum soda cans with walls 0.005 inches thin can contain internal gas/liquid pressure loads of 50+ psi.

Moving away from aluminum pressure vessels, I wanted to check relevant dimensions of aluminum sheet and foil. According to this Aluminum Industry document, aluminum sheet is a product 0.008-0.249 inches thick (previously 0.006-0.249 inches), and aluminum foil is a product 0.0079 inches or less thick (previously less than 0.006 inches). Reynolds Wrap Aluminum Kitchen Foil varies in thickness from 0.00064-0.00137 inches as you progress from the standard product to the extra heavy product. So while the aluminum skin of the Apollo LM crew cabin may have been, in certain areas, the equivalent of 3 (very thick) layers of aluminum foil, that foil was not thin modern-day kitchen foil grade. Perhaps kitchen foil of the 1960s-1970s was an awful lot thicker!

Overall, the chem-milled aluminum skin was sufficiently robust for the lunar landing missions. While you may not have been able to push your finger through the side walls, a sharp pointed object or a stray foot may have resulted in disaster so care was needed. Andrew Chaikin wrote in A Man On The Moon (p156):

    "In the ascent stage, the walls of the crew cabin were thinned down until they were nothing more than a taut aluminum balloon, in some places only five-thousandths of an inch thick. Once, a workman accidentally dropped a screwdriver inside the cabin and it went through the floor."

5552

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 10, 2018, 07:02:19 AM »

Well, maybe you need to get some that are 110% polarized then. If I understand right, light can be polarized in 2 directions so polarized filters will cut out half the light. But if the light source is bright enough that even half of the light causes lens flare or glare - and it clearly does in the photos you're giving as examples - then that is not enough filtering to demonstrate your point.

Polarized lenses cut out the light that is coming in straight on, so that only light that comes in at an angle is seen. It is those direct light rays that cause the lensing effect in the eye known as "glare."

That Wiki page is just another example of you not understanding something and thinking that you have discovered a problem in RE. You haven't.

It is a problem in RE, and it is well admitted. Astronomers can't really explain how it works to have outer layers of the sun 30% dimmer than the body.

They had to make the outer visible layer of the sun, the Photosphere, super cold... at only about 6000 degrees Celsius compared to the much hotter Chromosphere, the sun's atmosphere, which is seen as a wispy cloud at total Solar Eclipse, at up to several million degrees Kelvin, and compared to 15 million degrees Kelvin for the inner center. They also had to make the outer Photosphere layer transparent or semi-transparent so that the radiation from the core could pass through it to the observer.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170803091936.htm

The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona -- best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses -- is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics. The solution will help scientists better understand the heating of other stars.

"Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense!" —Dr David H. Brooks (George Mason University)

Also: The Mystery of the Chromosphere

5553

Flat Earth Media / Why I'm a Flat Earther—37 Must-See Experiments

« on: July 10, 2018, 04:57:46 AM »

A great collection of experiments which create a compelling argument that the earth is flat.

5554

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 10, 2018, 02:07:42 AM »

But the area per pixel/arcsecond increased at the edges, so the intensity should increase when you are looking at more area. You are looking at more area of the sun when you are looking at its edges.

Photons are additive. See the following from physics.stackexchange.com:

However, the amplitude of a light wave depends on the number of photons per second being emitted. The greater the amplitude of a certain type of light, the greater the number of photons per second of that type of light. So if you want to compare intensity of similar types of light, the amplitude is the variable of choice.

When light waves interfere with each other, areas of greater intensity result when photons pile on top of each other, and this is measured by the greater amplitude.

Since you are looking at more area per pixel/arcsecond near the edges, the photons should build up there.

5555

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 10, 2018, 12:55:41 AM »

no, you wouldn't.  the sun is a sphere.  draw a box on a sphere (this represents some area of the sun emitting flux).  now rotate the sphere.  from your perspective, what happens to the box?  the projected area of the box shrinks.

here's an example.  notice that the green area representing some dumb african nations gets squished when we rotate the sphere.  if that sphere were emitting flux in all directions, it would appear brighter at the center of the sphere than the edges. 

Then the sun should be brighter at the edges, which it is not.

what?  that doesn't make any sense at all.  smaller area means less flux.  you are seeing less area at the edges.  look at the image i posted.

I looked at the image. The countries get smooshed together at the edges. Around the edges you are seeing more miles per pixel.

If the sun is a sphere then we are seeing more miles per pixel near the edges of the sun, and so that is where it should be the brightest.

5556

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 10, 2018, 12:52:04 AM »

no, you wouldn't.  the sun is a sphere.  draw a box on a sphere (this represents some area of the sun emitting flux).  now rotate the sphere.  from your perspective, what happens to the box?  the projected area of the box shrinks.

here's an example.  notice that the green area representing some dumb african nations gets squished when we rotate the sphere.  if that sphere were emitting flux in all directions, it would appear brighter at the center of the sphere than the edges. 

If we are seeing more miles of the sun's surface per pixel near the edges, then the sun should be brighter at the edges, which it is not.

5557

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 09, 2018, 11:56:38 PM »

The Wiki does have a couple of examples of the effect seen through polarized lenses.

Those examples clearly show a load of lens flare.
The examples I'm talking about of the sun show it as a clear disc, filtered such that all glare and lens flare is not present.
Your examples are not filtered enough to show that.

What so you mean not filtered enough? The manufacturer says that those glasses are 100% polarized.

The filtered images of the sun as a disc that you are talking about are not consistently bright, suggesting that it is not a solid body.

A recent addition to the wiki article:

Sun Brightness Inconsistent

Additionally, it should be noted that the sun appears to be inconsistently bright. This is curious, since in the Round Earth model the sun is a solid object where every point from the sun's surface is reaching the eye of the observer. As a solid body, one should expect to see all parts of the sun with equal intensity.

Take a photo of a Solar Eclipse, which are often taken through a solar filter, and then modify the brightness and contrast settings in order to bring out the areas of the image which are the brightest:



Compare that to the hotspotting seen in a projector's image on a screen:



Source: Hotspotting or brightness inhomogeneity

5558

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Flat Earth FAQ on Gravity is completely wrong

« on: July 09, 2018, 08:25:29 PM »

What do you think evidence is? I don't think there is a single scientific theory for which the evidence isn't "It explains those observations."
If you can think of a single counterexample, I would love to be corrected.

But it doesn't just explain observations, it can predict what the results of other experiments should be. Relativity has become accepted because it explained observations and decades later the predictions of it were being verified.
There's a difference between saying:

"The sun should get smaller as it goes away from us"
"No, because there's an atmospheric effect which magnifies it as it goes away such that it appears the same size"
"Where is your evidence for that?"
"Well...the sun stays the same size..."

Now, if that's a straw man then tell me how. What other evidence is there for this atmospheric magnification? In the Wiki there's a picture of some lights which is clearly has a load of lens flare in, let's see some examples of lights through a filter which recede into the distance and yet stay the same size because you can find pictures of the sun which do just that.

The Wiki does have a couple of examples of the effect seen through polarized lenses.

5559

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: July 06, 2018, 11:57:15 PM »

A separate question on this theory. The sun and the moon appear the same size wherever they are in the celestial sphere/plane. So their angular distance is the same for any observer.

EA can just use the standard explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

5560

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bi-Polar Model: YouTube movement catching on

« on: July 05, 2018, 08:34:56 PM »

This bipolar flat Earth model has at least one problem: the distance between a star in the "northern track" and one in the "southern track" would decrease until the middle of the night, and increase from that point (until local noon, but daylight invalidates such observations).  From someone at the equator, constellations overhead would appear to converge into a smaller shape until midnight, and then "explode" as they pass above them.

Such shape changes would frustrate ancient astronomy (and especially astrology), and would have serious implications for nautical navigation at night.  No such distance changes have ever been observed.

Having said that, it solves some AE problems, and possibly has fewer problems than any other FE model.

That is more of a general topic, and not one which deals with this model specifically. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun