1
Flat Earth Theory / Shadows on clouds
« on: April 23, 2016, 04:34:52 AM »
How are these shadows being cast if the sun remains at or close to the same altitude over the Earth?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Flat Earth Community / Transit of Mercury
« on: March 03, 2016, 06:00:59 PM »
May 9th of this year Mercury will transit and can be observed from 11:12-18:42 UT.
IMHO if it happens as predicted it is a very good validation of the RE model.
IMHO if it happens as predicted it is a very good validation of the RE model.
3
Flat Earth Theory / Tide Predictions
« on: February 05, 2016, 12:26:16 PM »
This seems like a good validation of what we think we know.
Would someone be able to predict tides if they assume they are on a RE and they are actually on a FE?
This is an example of how we are told it is done:
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/10_tides/activities/predicting_tides.html
Would someone be able to predict tides if they assume they are on a RE and they are actually on a FE?
This is an example of how we are told it is done:
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/learning/10_tides/activities/predicting_tides.html
4
Flat Earth Theory / Predictions; Lunar Eclipses
« on: February 03, 2016, 12:50:55 PM »
Ancient astronomers got pretty good at predicting lunar eclipses and had trouble predicting solar eclipses.
One person was said to have predicted a solar eclipse in 585 BC, but his method was abandon since it was not reliable.
In 1715 Sir Edmund Haley was able to predict a solar eclipse. I will not tell you how, but he used something rhyming with mewton's slaw of fravity.
Creating a map that people could navigate with has been proposed. Unfortunately it is something beyond the current capabilities of FES.
I trip to Antarctica is out of the question. Who ever went would be meet by a naval blockade and if they managed to slip by them would die horrible deaths in the harsh environment.
Buying a ticket for any flight between Australia to South America and verifying the flight time seems something beyond reach.
Why not just work on a FE model where you can predict lunar eclipses? Seems kind of where our ancient ancestors started. Once you get a reliable model with that you can use it as a foundation to build on and figure out other stuff.
http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html
Once you can do something like what is in the link you will know you are on the right track.
One person was said to have predicted a solar eclipse in 585 BC, but his method was abandon since it was not reliable.
In 1715 Sir Edmund Haley was able to predict a solar eclipse. I will not tell you how, but he used something rhyming with mewton's slaw of fravity.
Creating a map that people could navigate with has been proposed. Unfortunately it is something beyond the current capabilities of FES.
I trip to Antarctica is out of the question. Who ever went would be meet by a naval blockade and if they managed to slip by them would die horrible deaths in the harsh environment.
Buying a ticket for any flight between Australia to South America and verifying the flight time seems something beyond reach.
Why not just work on a FE model where you can predict lunar eclipses? Seems kind of where our ancient ancestors started. Once you get a reliable model with that you can use it as a foundation to build on and figure out other stuff.
http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html
Once you can do something like what is in the link you will know you are on the right track.
5
Flat Earth Theory / Bishop Experiment Debate
« on: February 02, 2016, 04:01:44 PM »
If you do not want to read the whole thing:
The Bishop Experiment states the distance being about 33 miles. On navigation charts and google maps the distanced I measured is about 23 miles.
I think it should be removed as evidence in the wiki , edited, or removed until the distance is verified.
My Argument:
I would like to openly debate the validity of the conclusions made by the Bishop Experiment. Preferably with the person who conducted the experiment. Not on any other topic but the distances claimed in the experiment. I think we can all agree a mile is a mile.
From the wiki under experimental evidence:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
I am assuming Tom Bishop is the person who conducted this experiment. He states,"I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles."
http://imgur.com/a/BMQht
The above link is images taken from google. I have also measured the distances on navigation charts that I will make available upon request or can guide you where you can acquire your own charts.
The distance I measured in the link provided was from about the furthest point south of Lover's point to north of the boundary of the Light House park as indicated on the charts and google maps.
It is reasonable to assume between those two sight lines would be obstructed. For the sake of argument I selected those points from what is described in the quote below would be within the distance claimed.
"With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse."
The measurement was 23.6 miles in the link provided. I got similar results on the navigation charts I used. Both using google maps and the navigation charts the distance between what is stated in the experiment and what the charts and google indicate the distance as is about 10 miles shorter.
My argument the conclusions from the experiment are flawed since there seems to be an error in calculating the distance.
I would also like the argue that this be removed from the wiki or edited if I am correct. If edited the distances and calculations should be removed and leave just the observations allowing the reader to make their own judgement of the distance
From the wiki:
http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki
The soldiers of truth and reason of the Flat Earth Society
The understanding I have of what I will call your mission statement is that TFES values truth and honesty. If I am correct and the distance stated is wrong it is misleading and in my opinion not the truth.
I will please ask again to keep this about the possibility of an error in determining distance, possible flaws to the conclusion as a result and not methodology of the experiment. As I stated before I think it is something we can agree on.
The Bishop Experiment states the distance being about 33 miles. On navigation charts and google maps the distanced I measured is about 23 miles.
I think it should be removed as evidence in the wiki , edited, or removed until the distance is verified.
My Argument:
I would like to openly debate the validity of the conclusions made by the Bishop Experiment. Preferably with the person who conducted the experiment. Not on any other topic but the distances claimed in the experiment. I think we can all agree a mile is a mile.
From the wiki under experimental evidence:
http://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
I am assuming Tom Bishop is the person who conducted this experiment. He states,"I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles."
http://imgur.com/a/BMQht
The above link is images taken from google. I have also measured the distances on navigation charts that I will make available upon request or can guide you where you can acquire your own charts.
The distance I measured in the link provided was from about the furthest point south of Lover's point to north of the boundary of the Light House park as indicated on the charts and google maps.
It is reasonable to assume between those two sight lines would be obstructed. For the sake of argument I selected those points from what is described in the quote below would be within the distance claimed.
"With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse."
The measurement was 23.6 miles in the link provided. I got similar results on the navigation charts I used. Both using google maps and the navigation charts the distance between what is stated in the experiment and what the charts and google indicate the distance as is about 10 miles shorter.
My argument the conclusions from the experiment are flawed since there seems to be an error in calculating the distance.
I would also like the argue that this be removed from the wiki or edited if I am correct. If edited the distances and calculations should be removed and leave just the observations allowing the reader to make their own judgement of the distance
From the wiki:
http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki
The soldiers of truth and reason of the Flat Earth Society
The understanding I have of what I will call your mission statement is that TFES values truth and honesty. If I am correct and the distance stated is wrong it is misleading and in my opinion not the truth.
I will please ask again to keep this about the possibility of an error in determining distance, possible flaws to the conclusion as a result and not methodology of the experiment. As I stated before I think it is something we can agree on.
6
Flat Earth Theory / When did the conspiracy start?
« on: February 01, 2016, 10:21:22 AM »
From 100 proofs the Earth is not a globe on the TFES wiki:
2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.
The answer to this was given prior the claim man made it to space.
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
People have been getting to where they need to go with maps created based on the assumption the world was round prior to the 1960's.
Claudius Ptolemaeus A.D. 85-165). His "world map" depicted the Old World from about 60°N to 30°S latitudes. He wrote a monumental work, Guide to Geography (Geographike hyphygesis), which remained an authoritative reference on world geography until the Renaissance.
The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection presented by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569. It became the standard map projection for nautical purposes because of its ability to represent lines of constant course, known as rhumb lines or loxodromes, as straight segments that conserve the angles with the meridians.
9. As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well - and only tolerably for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we speak - that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be, whether the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of "plane sailing," a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.
See 8 above
This is suggesting at least a large percentage of ship wrecks were the result of maps being based on a round Earth. Would some of the reasons for the wrecks have to be covered up?
10. That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Lets assume 1885 was when this information was decided to be withheld from the general populace.
17. Human beings require a surface on which to live that, in its general character, shall be LEVEL; and since the Omniscient Creator must have been perfectly acquainted with the requirements of His creatures, it follows that, being an All-wise Creator, He has met them thoroughly. This is a theological proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Hard one to get a start date for. Lets assume some time after 300 BC some people figured out and proved several Greeks made wrong conclusions from their observations of the world around them and solar system.
18. The best possessions of man are his senses; and, when he uses them all, he will not be deceived in his survey of nature. It is only when some one faculty or other is neglected or abused that he is deluded. Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give him one in name which is not one in fact! Since this is the best that astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow creatures - deceive them - it is clear that things are not as they say they are; and, in short, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Similar to 17 above
At some point in history someone had to decide to withhold discoveries. As stated above it should be simple to prove the Earth is flat. Unless you believe throughout history such a simple thing to prove was never done by anyone else. So again we are looking at some point in time after 300 BC.
Just curious why focus on the space travel? The above is a small sample from the TFES wiki that suggest that the Conspiracy may have started prior to 1885. The proofs above suggest some or all people involved with cartography and general science may have been withholding information the Earth was flat.
2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.
The answer to this was given prior the claim man made it to space.
8. If the Earth were a globe, a small model globe would be the very best - because the truest - thing for the. navigator to take to sea with him. But such a thing as that is not known: with such a toy as a guide, the mariner would wreck his ship, of a certainty!, This is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
People have been getting to where they need to go with maps created based on the assumption the world was round prior to the 1960's.
Claudius Ptolemaeus A.D. 85-165). His "world map" depicted the Old World from about 60°N to 30°S latitudes. He wrote a monumental work, Guide to Geography (Geographike hyphygesis), which remained an authoritative reference on world geography until the Renaissance.
The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection presented by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569. It became the standard map projection for nautical purposes because of its ability to represent lines of constant course, known as rhumb lines or loxodromes, as straight segments that conserve the angles with the meridians.
9. As mariners take to sea with them charts constructed as though the sea were a level surface, however these charts may err as to the true form of this level surface taken as a whole, it is clear, as they find them answer their purpose tolerably well - and only tolerably for many ships are wrecked owing to the error of which we speak - that the surface of the sea is as it is taken to be, whether the captain of the ship "supposes" the Earth to be a globe or anything else. Thus, then, we draw, from the common system of "plane sailing," a practical proof that Earth is not a globe.
See 8 above
This is suggesting at least a large percentage of ship wrecks were the result of maps being based on a round Earth. Would some of the reasons for the wrecks have to be covered up?
10. That the mariners' compass points north and south at the same time is a fact as indisputable as that two and two makes four; but that this would be impossible if the thing, were placed on a globe with "north" and "south' at the centre of opposite hemispheres is a fact that does not figure in the school-books, though very easily seen: and it requires no lengthy train of reasoning to bring out of it a pointed proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Lets assume 1885 was when this information was decided to be withheld from the general populace.
17. Human beings require a surface on which to live that, in its general character, shall be LEVEL; and since the Omniscient Creator must have been perfectly acquainted with the requirements of His creatures, it follows that, being an All-wise Creator, He has met them thoroughly. This is a theological proof that the Earth is not a globe.
Hard one to get a start date for. Lets assume some time after 300 BC some people figured out and proved several Greeks made wrong conclusions from their observations of the world around them and solar system.
18. The best possessions of man are his senses; and, when he uses them all, he will not be deceived in his survey of nature. It is only when some one faculty or other is neglected or abused that he is deluded. Every man in full command of his senses knows that a level surface is a flat or horizontal one; but astronomers tell us that the true level is the curved surface of a globe! They know that man requires a level surface on which to live, so they give him one in name which is not one in fact! Since this is the best that astronomers, with their theoretical science, can do for their fellow creatures - deceive them - it is clear that things are not as they say they are; and, in short, it is a proof that Earth is not a globe.
Similar to 17 above
At some point in history someone had to decide to withhold discoveries. As stated above it should be simple to prove the Earth is flat. Unless you believe throughout history such a simple thing to prove was never done by anyone else. So again we are looking at some point in time after 300 BC.
Just curious why focus on the space travel? The above is a small sample from the TFES wiki that suggest that the Conspiracy may have started prior to 1885. The proofs above suggest some or all people involved with cartography and general science may have been withholding information the Earth was flat.
7
Flat Earth Theory / Was the wiki fact checked?
« on: January 31, 2016, 07:29:44 AM »
A very quick example that it may need to be reviewed and facts checked:
Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace won the bet. Hampden, however, published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel, but the court also determined that Wallace had, indeed, cheated.
VOL XXIV The Weekly Reporter May 6, 1876 pages 607-611
Court Ruling:
"One question which presents itself is whether this agreement amounts in effect to a wager; and, if so, whether the plaintiff, by the effect of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, a. 19, is prevented from maintaining this action.
We will in the first instance proceed with the case on the assumption it is a wager. It is well established by numerous authorities, which would be superfluous to cite, that at common law a wager, being a contract by A. to pay money to B. on the happening of a given event, in consideration of B. paying money to him on the event not happening..... " You can read it yourself it goes into mentioning a lot of precedences and mentioning laws. The ruling was based on wagers are not legally enforceable contracts.
Nothing about because Wallace failed to offer proof or cheated.
According to the court transcripts and evidence provided witnesses said that Wallace proved it in a satisfactory manner. No where in the transcript does it say that Wallace cheated and that is why the court ruled against him. Well except being accused by Walsh.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9wFHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA608&lpg=PA608&dq=alfred+wallace+vs+john+hampden+court+ruling&source=bl&ots=679I6encMk&sig=xI5XTDd4I0fo6S1REb7uHs15uu4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid6tnksNPKAhVC72MKHX0aDAEQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&q=alfred%20wallace%20vs%20john%20hampden%20court%20ruling&f=false
You may also want to remove the link to this since it can be misleading:
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
You have it under further evidence. What was done what I assume was a little fun by Professor Mark Fonstad was not proving that Kansas was flat like as I think you want people to think. What he was doing is basically comparing which would be flatter if either were the same size.
Evidence from the article:
One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio. The length of an ellipse’s (or arc’s) semi-major axis a is compared with its measured semi-minor axis b using the formula for flattening, f = (a – b) / a. A perfectly flat surface will have a flattening f of one, whereas an ellipsoid with equal axis lengths will have no flattening, and f will equal zero.
For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.
They are using calculations based on a RE model.
This article in no way supports your theory except it has the word flat. The conclusion of the experiment is Kansas would be flatter then a pancake the same size laid on the globe. Simply because the math used assumed Kansas is located on a spherical planet and the theoretical pancake would also be.
If you would like I will volunteer to do fact checking for your wiki. Seriously I would do it and remain objective. I have no problem with you believe it, but do have a problem when you direct people to it as a source of reliable information that the information on it can be misleading or wrong. You are presenting yourselves as having the truth and facts. That should be reflected in the information you make public and use to inform people.
Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace won the bet. Hampden, however, published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel, but the court also determined that Wallace had, indeed, cheated.
VOL XXIV The Weekly Reporter May 6, 1876 pages 607-611
Court Ruling:
"One question which presents itself is whether this agreement amounts in effect to a wager; and, if so, whether the plaintiff, by the effect of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, a. 19, is prevented from maintaining this action.
We will in the first instance proceed with the case on the assumption it is a wager. It is well established by numerous authorities, which would be superfluous to cite, that at common law a wager, being a contract by A. to pay money to B. on the happening of a given event, in consideration of B. paying money to him on the event not happening..... " You can read it yourself it goes into mentioning a lot of precedences and mentioning laws. The ruling was based on wagers are not legally enforceable contracts.
Nothing about because Wallace failed to offer proof or cheated.
According to the court transcripts and evidence provided witnesses said that Wallace proved it in a satisfactory manner. No where in the transcript does it say that Wallace cheated and that is why the court ruled against him. Well except being accused by Walsh.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9wFHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA608&lpg=PA608&dq=alfred+wallace+vs+john+hampden+court+ruling&source=bl&ots=679I6encMk&sig=xI5XTDd4I0fo6S1REb7uHs15uu4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid6tnksNPKAhVC72MKHX0aDAEQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&q=alfred%20wallace%20vs%20john%20hampden%20court%20ruling&f=false
You may also want to remove the link to this since it can be misleading:
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
You have it under further evidence. What was done what I assume was a little fun by Professor Mark Fonstad was not proving that Kansas was flat like as I think you want people to think. What he was doing is basically comparing which would be flatter if either were the same size.
Evidence from the article:
One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio. The length of an ellipse’s (or arc’s) semi-major axis a is compared with its measured semi-minor axis b using the formula for flattening, f = (a – b) / a. A perfectly flat surface will have a flattening f of one, whereas an ellipsoid with equal axis lengths will have no flattening, and f will equal zero.
For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.
They are using calculations based on a RE model.
This article in no way supports your theory except it has the word flat. The conclusion of the experiment is Kansas would be flatter then a pancake the same size laid on the globe. Simply because the math used assumed Kansas is located on a spherical planet and the theoretical pancake would also be.
If you would like I will volunteer to do fact checking for your wiki. Seriously I would do it and remain objective. I have no problem with you believe it, but do have a problem when you direct people to it as a source of reliable information that the information on it can be misleading or wrong. You are presenting yourselves as having the truth and facts. That should be reflected in the information you make public and use to inform people.
8
Flat Earth Theory / Why No Standard Flat Earth map?
« on: January 30, 2016, 02:57:04 AM »
Seems to me this would be necessary to advance and prove the theory the world is flat.
The measurements are already done of land masses, oceans and distances between them. At least some of the distances would have to be incorrect if the Earth is flat. For the same reason you can not make a flat map based on the RE model with out using a projection. Things would be distorted and the measurements would not add up.
If the distances between places do not reflect what is on the RE model then it is evidence the RE model is wrong.
The FE Society or any group wishing to prove the Earth is flat could start out similar to how it happened in history. Start charting small areas and continue on from there.
I would suggest using data already available, but think many people who believe the world is flat would say it is false. I would argue I have used that data successfully when I have sailed places using dead reckoning. By which I mean keeping track of my direction, time, and speed of travel. This suggest at least some of the data is accurate. I would imagine regularly used shipping lanes and air routes would need to be correct also. If not fuel use, locations of landmarks and travel times would be inaccurate making pilots and ship captains question the validity of the information on their charts.
As for why I think the FE Society or any similar group should do this and not go myself or any other group or person who believes the Earth is round? I just wanted to answer that since I have seen many responses basically saying,"Why should we do _________ to prove the Earth is flat, you go do it". Well we are not making the claim the available data is false so that is the data we use to support the Earth is round.
The measurements are already done of land masses, oceans and distances between them. At least some of the distances would have to be incorrect if the Earth is flat. For the same reason you can not make a flat map based on the RE model with out using a projection. Things would be distorted and the measurements would not add up.
If the distances between places do not reflect what is on the RE model then it is evidence the RE model is wrong.
The FE Society or any group wishing to prove the Earth is flat could start out similar to how it happened in history. Start charting small areas and continue on from there.
I would suggest using data already available, but think many people who believe the world is flat would say it is false. I would argue I have used that data successfully when I have sailed places using dead reckoning. By which I mean keeping track of my direction, time, and speed of travel. This suggest at least some of the data is accurate. I would imagine regularly used shipping lanes and air routes would need to be correct also. If not fuel use, locations of landmarks and travel times would be inaccurate making pilots and ship captains question the validity of the information on their charts.
As for why I think the FE Society or any similar group should do this and not go myself or any other group or person who believes the Earth is round? I just wanted to answer that since I have seen many responses basically saying,"Why should we do _________ to prove the Earth is flat, you go do it". Well we are not making the claim the available data is false so that is the data we use to support the Earth is round.
9
Flat Earth Theory / Some what I think are simple questions to answer.
« on: January 29, 2016, 02:14:45 AM »
So here are my questions and I will try to keep with in what I have personally experienced:
1. Why can some from a higher vantage point see things I can not? When sailing someone up on the mast can see islands other boats, etc when on person on deck can not.
2. How was Erastosthenes able to calculate the circumference of the Earth in 300 BC? Simply by measuring shadows at different locations, the method he used would not have been accurate if the Earth was not round.
3. Why when sailing do I see objects rise from the horizon and not just appear?
4. How can I or sailors in the past successfully navigate with celestial navigation when it is based on a round Earth? It would simply not be accurate with a flat model.
5. What causes lunar eclipses and phases? What is casting a shadow on the moon? With a Flat Earth model I do not see how the Earth would end up between the Moon and Sun.
6. Why can I see different constellations depending on my distance from the equator? With a flat earth model this would not change. I can measure the distance from the horizon using a sextant. Depending on my direction of travel they will either move closer or further away from the horizon.
7. Why is it dark in one location of the planet and light in another?
Thanks in advance for your time answering these questions.
1. Why can some from a higher vantage point see things I can not? When sailing someone up on the mast can see islands other boats, etc when on person on deck can not.
2. How was Erastosthenes able to calculate the circumference of the Earth in 300 BC? Simply by measuring shadows at different locations, the method he used would not have been accurate if the Earth was not round.
3. Why when sailing do I see objects rise from the horizon and not just appear?
4. How can I or sailors in the past successfully navigate with celestial navigation when it is based on a round Earth? It would simply not be accurate with a flat model.
5. What causes lunar eclipses and phases? What is casting a shadow on the moon? With a Flat Earth model I do not see how the Earth would end up between the Moon and Sun.
6. Why can I see different constellations depending on my distance from the equator? With a flat earth model this would not change. I can measure the distance from the horizon using a sextant. Depending on my direction of travel they will either move closer or further away from the horizon.
7. Why is it dark in one location of the planet and light in another?
Thanks in advance for your time answering these questions.
Pages: [1]