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.


Messages - ichoosereality

Pages: < Back  1 ... 5 6 [7]
121
The night sky seen from the northern and southern hemispheres is radially different.  No matter how powerful your telescope you can not see stars that are on the other side of the planet from your position.  That is what we observe and it makes perfect sense for a ball earth.  But why would it be true for a flat earth?
Despite the height of an object above our heads, it will eventually be obscured by objects arising from the flat earth plane.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.    The objects in the night sky appear to rotate nighty around the axis of the earth (due to the earth spinning, not the universe spinning).
As you move north or south the sky also appears to rotate in the opposite direction, but that is due to your position on a globe changing and the globe obstructing or revealing a different segment of sky.
In the far north or far south the stars are completely different. How can you explain that for a flat earth?   

122
You folks seem to be forgetting bendy light.

So why do you enlighten us then?

123
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 05, 2021, 12:14:03 AM »
The first determinations of a circumference of the Earth, from the work of both Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission, were made in the 1600s and 1700s. Within reasonable bounds of error for the time, their results agreed, and further work since then has simply refined the figure.

The Greek astronomer Eratosthenes calculated the size within 5% of todays value in ~200BC.

124
The following comment I found online a while back might be helpful to you in explaining the stars question:

'2 people are standing on the opposite walls of a room, one wall is north, the other is south, and the moon is a picture on the ceiling. The top of the picture will be top for the one observer and the bottom of the picture will be top for the other observer...'

It is not a question of orientation, which should remain the same anyway (e.g. the FE model claims north points to the center of the flat earth and the entire universe rotates around that axis).  But even forgetting orientation, as you move from north to south (or south to north) previously unseen stars/constellations become visible and others are no longer visible.  The night sky in the northern regions is radically different from the night sky in the southern regions.   It's clearly due to the earth being in the way which can not happen on a flat earth.

125
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 04, 2021, 03:47:44 AM »
No conspiracy is required for humanity to be wrong.  One possibility, outlined in the faq, is that any "conspiracy" that NASA et al represent is for military/nationalistic reason and not to do with the shape of the world.
Wait, the claim is that the past 60 years or so of space exploration/industry is all fake.  Yet the services offered actually work (the 4 different GPS system, broadcast TV, telecommunications (some still remains), landsat, weather sats, all the imagery (of the earth as well as the other planets and their moons) and so on).  So for the real thing to be fake and for some other method to be provided for providing all that CORRECT (i.e. consistent with everything we know) data, it would take 10s, if not 100s of thousands of folks across many countries.  How is that not a conspiracy?  An impossible one I'd say (both due to fact that so many folks would not have any hope of keeping any secret so well and due to the need for some alternative to providing all the data).

The disk earth simply can not explain the universe we observe.

126
The Qantas Santiago Chile to Aukland NewZealand flight is pretty close.
It was (not is — Qantas has not operated that route in over a year) nowhere near close. At its southermost point, it passed around 4000 km from the south pole.

Why does that flight not fly due west?
Plus there are the many circumnavigations of Antarctica by ship that do not take nearly the needed time to go around the disk of the FE model.
There of course have been many expeditions to Antartica with no evidence of the ice wall that would have to be extremely high (100 mies?) to contain the atmosphere and hence be easy to see.
Irrelevant. If you want to discuss a different topic, you can create another thread for that. Do you have evidence for your claims regarding flying over the south pole or not?

Its exactly the same topic.  The route is what is needed for a round death, not a flat earth.  The fact that it did not go directly over the pole is irrelevant to question of geometry.

127
In reality you end up in what the FE model says is the other side of the disk
How do you know that?
The Qantas Santiago Chile to Aukland NewZealand flight is pretty close.  Why does that flight not fly due west? 
Plus there are the many circumnavigations of Antarctica by ship that do not take nearly the needed time to go around the disk of the FE model.
There of course have been many expeditions to Antartica with no evidence of the ice wall that would have to be extremely high (100 mies?) to contain the atmosphere and hence be easy to see.

128
I figured this would be frequently addressed but I couldn't find it (so if it has please just point me there).

Suppose you start out 1,000 miles north of the south pole (of for FEers the ice wall) and fly due south and continue on that same locked heading for 2,000 miles.
Where do you end up 2,000 miles laster?  In reality you end up in what the FE model says is the other side of the disk, but that can't be so ??   Even ignoring that
no one has ever seen this claimed ice wall, doesn't just overlying the pole prove it really is the bottom of the ball?

129
The night sky seen from the northern and southern hemispheres is radially different.  No matter how powerful your telescope you can not see stars that are on the other side of the planet from your position.  That is what we observe and it makes perfect sense for a ball earth.  But why would it be true for a flat earth?

130
How can a FE explain one observe seeing the sun rising in the east while another somewhere else on the planet sees it setting in the west at the same time?  There is only one sun, it can be doing both.

The leading edge of the spotlight sun looks like the rising sun and the trailing edge of the spotlight sun looks like the setting sun. There is only one sun but there is a leading and trailing edge in two distant locations.  Honestly, this concept of one sun seen differently in different locations is the same in both round and flat earth theory.  Shouldn't be hard to understand.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
Except the the sunrise or sunset line is not a circle but a north south line (ignore the slight tip due to tipped axis for simplicity)..  A straight line of dark to light or light to dark is what you get with a (comparatively tiny) rotating ball earth and a huge bright sun illuminating half the planet and that is what we observe.  A "spotlight" sun would cast a round illumination spot and thus a curved sunrise/sunet line, which we do not observe.

The claim of the sunrise and sunset being an illusion of perspective of distant objects appearing lower also does not work as that does not cause objects to appear to change shape.  But we clearly see the round sun being obscured behind the western horizon not just getting smaller or dimmer.  Likewise for sunset, we see the disk of the sun appearing, not an already round object getting larger.

131
Just the sunrise/sunset times clearly show that they move around the earth, not across some layout of continents on a flat earth.

Further making a little use of modern technology, find a buddy on the other side of the planet.  Call them up when the sun is rising or setting for you and it will be doing the opposite for them.
How can a FE explain one observe seeing the sun rising in the east while another somewhere else on the planet sees it setting in the west at the same time?  There is only one sun, it can be doing both.

I find the entire FE proposition nonsensical to be honest.   Science is a methodology not an ideology.  It is nonsensical to accept the results of that methodology in some domains but not others.  Doing so, like FE belief is an instance of ideology over facts (albeit an extreme one) and folks that have adopted that philosophy seem very unlikely to be swayed by pointing out facts.  Sadly this is a very bad thing for our civilization.

Pages: < Back  1 ... 5 6 [7]