21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Viewing Carlsbad from La Jolla

« on: December 09, 2018, 09:41:28 AM »

This has been discussed ad nauseum on this site.

And it has been answered again and again and again.

We agree that when you have a body of water, it bulges in the middle. It does this for the following reason. Pressure. But that does not mean the world is round. A curve on a localised surface does not mean you can extrapolate a circle.



This is well known to everyone.


Where the evaporation occurs ... over the water ... you get lower pressure.







This is precisely why Rowbotham (who was a better scientist than you), isolated this error by using canals instead of huge bodies of open water that would be susceptible to localised pressure issues. And the Bedford Level Experiment has been repeatedly conducted and always shown the earth flat. Stop with all the lakes and sea examples. It is telling us nothing.

I'm not interested in your pictures of blurry buildings and ships with arrows and lines all over them. You aren't addressing the issue scientifically. You must remove errors like localised sea swell before you can say "oh look a curve, ergo an entire ball". How can you possibly extrapolate a circle from a small localised curve?

Yours is a classic case of making up facts to fit your argument.

Why?

You have no data on the weather conditions for that day to make any prediction of the height of any swell either real or imagined . You also conveniently make your imagined  bulge right in the middle of the area of sea. Your post is no more than made up wishful thinking. The originator of the thread, Bobby, supplied some pretty convincing photographs with other supporting data. All you supplied was wishful thinking with no data grossly distorted to support your view point.
I think you need to up your game and present some real evidence if you want your posts to carry any weight.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about Mount Everest

« on: December 09, 2018, 08:27:54 AM »

As with all these discussions what appears to be forgotten is reality.

Imagine you were able to position people at regular intervals, say one every hundred miles along a line of latitude.
Each person in a comfy chair looking at the sky for 24 hours. Ok some may have to be in boats....but let’s go with it. For everyone it’s a bright blue sky with no clouds. What are they going to see?

A few facts.
Every person will see the same sun.
Every person will see it rise and then set.
Not everyone will see the sun at the same time.
For some it will be full sunshine while for others it will be pitch blackstrap the same time.

The question is what is accounting for the changing levels of illumination that each observer experience during the 24 hour period?

(a) the brightness of the sun varies during the 24 hour period
(b) the relative position of the observer in relation to the sun accounts for changes in perceived light levels

All those who selected (a), that’s John and Rowbotham have unfortunately failed!

As for the Mount Everest question, get out more and go look at some mountains at sun rise or sun set.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: December 09, 2018, 08:08:55 AM »

I’m sorry I’ve read some way out stuff on this site but your post really wins the prize. I hope you’re joking.

I think the moral here is don't look to YouTube for an education, try school, then college...then university.

See with your own eyes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U-IoOlDi3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnOjYt2ba2U

(Note: I don't believe this myself. I'm just presenting the flat earth argument.)

Simple explanation

Idiot + camera= total nonsense

Sun behind the clouds!.....simple editing. Two shots on a time line, mask over the sun, invert, select appropriate blending mode! in other words total fake! You did notice that clouds were going both in front and behind the sun at the same time.

Hotspot, easily explained by the person with the camera being a total idiot.

Moral of the story for every idiot with a camera there are a never ending supply of gullible fools who are ready and willing to swallow any old tasty bullshit.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If Rowbotham is correct, why does the Sun not get darker throughout the day?

« on: December 09, 2018, 07:57:32 AM »

I think it all comes down to either what is actually there, or what you believe is there.

I’m sure the brightness of the sun fluctuates, but not so we would ever notice. Of course the brightness of the sun doesn’t change, that is a ridiculus concept. While the sun may be setting for me and light levels are dropping, it’s high in the sky andbecoming brighter for someone else.......at the same time!

It’s not the sun changing Tom, it’s us. If you can’t understand that pretty basic conceptthenthere is no hope!

Im in Scotland, it’s morning and it’s dark outside.....no Sun. if you asked someone living in Istanbul they would say the opposite as it’s late morning and sunny! For those in The USA, it’s the middle of the night and pitch black. In Peking it’s late afternoon and sunny! How is this happening Tom? One sun different light levels around the planet.

This deliberate twisting and misrepresentation of known facts is pointless. Rowbotham and his ideas are plain bonkers, particularly those relating to the sun, which we can all see. Of course it gets darker in the evening, but that’s nothing to do with any changes in light output from the sun!.....does Tom think it has a dimmer switch fitted?

Let’s not talk about changes in size,as that doesn’t happen either!

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about UA

« on: December 09, 2018, 07:28:20 AM »

I am trying to look at this from the FE point of view. In conventional RET it is all easy and straightforward. FE Wiki says that the Earth has a diameter of 25,000 miles in accordance with their interpretation of Eratosthenes shadow experiment. Lets put further discussion about that aside for now here as it has been more than adequately debated elsewhere.

So we have this 25,000 mile diameter disk accelerating at 9.8m/s through what exactly? If the answer is space then up means nothing as there are no real directions in space.  Constant acceleration in a circle is fine since any change in speed or direction constitutes acceleration.  But the only way UA would work to simulate the same effect as weight on Earth is if the disk of Earth is moving along a direction perpendicular to its surface. That means it is being driven by a force acting from underneath effectively.  What is causing that force?

This isn't evidence of the force but evidence of what the force of UA causes according to FET published in FES wiki

"Mountains are created over long periods of time by tremendous forces within the Flat Earth. Below the crust there is tremendous pressure due to acceleration,..."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Formation_of_Mountains_and_Volcanoes

I think you have illustrated one key aspect of FE thinking, the monumental changes in established knowledge required. UA for example would require a different universe with quite different physical laws. Just not this one. UA requires not only different laws regarding, planetary formation, movement of planets, motion in general, but is also calls for the overturning of all the earth sciences. It not only contradicts the basic tenants of physics but also calls for the re-writing of earth tectonics and geology at large.

If you did an online search for scientific papers on plate tectonics, mountain formation, planetary movement, gravity.....etc how may hits do you think it would throw up? My guess would be in the thousands. These would be scientific papers backed by hard research. Of course not all of them would be on the money, not all research comes up with the goods, but it does eventually show the way. If it didn’t yield anything, I wouldn’t be typing on this tablet connected to a world wide network.

Now do a search on scientific papers on UA in relation to planetary or mountain formation and how many hits might you get, other than references to their own Wiki? The answer would be none! There has been no research, they have no evidence. What they do instead is talk about it as though it’s on par with main stream scientific concepts, which its most certinally not. It’s no more than wishful thinking and as real as a flat earth map. Not a flat map, as all maps are flat, but a flat earth map derived from flat earth data.

Why do you think there are no flat earth physicists, geologists, cartographers, metarologists.....etc? All they have is Tom Bishop and his two books.

What they appear to forget is how interlinked the world and knowledge is. They approach it as though it’s discrete non interacting components. Which of course it’s not, change one fundemental thing like gravity and the knock on effect is immense.

One interesting point to note is the figure Pete quoted earlier for UA. Look familiar? I wonder where he came by that number? Perhaps he could share the FE experiment from which that number was derived.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about UA

« on: December 08, 2018, 11:34:37 PM »

If an observer is located on Earth Pete they are being carried along with it. So the observer and the Earth would be stationary with respect to one another.

Indeed. However, this does not preclude them from otherwise experiencing their interaction with the Earth, which, by your own admission, defines the colloquial concepts of up and down.

Your failure is assuming that "up" is a standalone term, which needs to be separable from the human experience. It isn't. The direction of "up" just happens to be the direction in which the Earth is accelerating, and it's already well understood by anyone who interacted with their surroundings. If you prefer, you can simply think of it as an arbitrary direction which just happens to be perpendicular to the Earth's surface. It makes no difference how you choose to describe said direction, so long as we both know what it is. And, shockingly, we do.

You made a statement that (a) you haven’t or can’t prove experimentally  (b) no physicist on planet Earth would agree with you.  That pretty much puts you and your case in a very difficult position. I think the best you can say is you imagine it to be the case.
I think saying someone else has failed is rather another bold statement to make especially when you yourself are in  no credible position to pass judgement.

You could change my mind and everyone else’s for that matter by offering a strong case backed by some hard experimental evidence rather than a few cobbled together words.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the altitude of the North Star above the flat plane?

« on: December 08, 2018, 11:09:41 PM »

I was watching a video where a guy showed birds flying behind the sun, and another that showed clouds behind the sun.

I guess this means that the sun is something like 5-7 miles high - which seems reasonable.

Maybe the north star is only about 4 or 5 times higher than that?

Though that still doesn't explain why my Texas and UK measurements are so wrong.

I’m sorry I’ve read some way out stuff on this site but your post really wins the prize. I hope you’re joking.
I think the moral here is dont look to YouTube for an education, try school, then college...then university.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Based on what?

« on: December 08, 2018, 11:06:41 PM »

The methods of astronomy described in the book Kings Dethroned are still in use today. It goes over the 93 million mile sun, the 240 thousand mile moon, et cetera, that are all still the methods used today. Nothing about those methods in astronomy have changes since 1920; and so those depictions are still valid. Feel free to have a look.

Per the state of the wiki, we work on one subject at a time. If you do not have any constructive or contributive input then I will find that there is nothing to discuss with you

Again many thanks for the reference;
https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich/page/66

It’s difficult to know where to start as the whole content of the book can not really be taken seriously. I skimmed through it in disbelief. Though it does explain where yourself and other flat earth believers get not only their astronomical information from but their whole approach when dealing with scientific facts. Not wishing to appeal to authority, but in all honesty we have on the one hand the whole of modern science and on the other a badly written book by an obscure nobody written soon after the First World War. On the balance of probability who is more likely to be correct?

For example if pp 70-73 are read where he deals with the speed of light dismissing Einstein and a good deal of physics with a wave ofhis hand saying ‘so much for Einstein’s second law’
The book is no more than a pseudo scientific hatchet job using a series of baseless dismissals.

Can you honestly say that the speed and indeed the nature of of light has not been verified by experimentation time and time again? He did no experiments, conducted no science, instead all he did was write a series of chapters debunking the parts of science he didn’t like.

I’m really astonished how a whole belief system can be built on such dubious foundations. One would have to work really hard to swallow the contents of that book.

It isn't a baseless dismissal, it is a dismissal based upon a series of arguments and you haven't refuted any of the arguments:  you're the one making the baseless dismissal.  One doesn't necessarily need to conduct any experiments to dismiss Einstein's theories; one only needs to demonstrate logical contradictions or fallacies behind the theories.

One other thing we need to clear up George. The onus is very much on you and other flat earth thinkers like John to refute the whole of present day science. Let’s remember the consensus of opinion is very much opposed to any of Hickson’s claims. He is a lone voice with no  credible scientists or anyone of note willing to agree with him or back him.
What’s to refute? You need to try and prove what’s he says is true, not by sniping at main stream science, which makes the world go around, but by attempting to prove Hickson right. By the way good luck with that.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stars in FET

« on: December 08, 2018, 10:26:51 AM »

How does FET explain the different brightness, diatance and (to a lesser extent) colours in the stars? Also are they all fixed relative to one another?

I would imagine this would be a very difficult question for them to answer as none of the ground based observatories in the world are owned orrun by FE astronomers. To have any valid view on the subject I’m sure a background of research and observation would be a prerequisite. How could anyone meaningfully comment on star colour, size, age, distance or position if they didn’t have access to the necessary equipment and the skills and know how? There is only so much you can infer just using the naked eye.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Based on what?

« on: December 08, 2018, 10:18:17 AM »

The methods of astronomy described in the book Kings Dethroned are still in use today. It goes over the 93 million mile sun, the 240 thousand mile moon, et cetera, that are all still the methods used today. Nothing about those methods in astronomy have changes since 1920; and so those depictions are still valid. Feel free to have a look.

Per the state of the wiki, we work on one subject at a time. If you do not have any constructive or contributive input then I will find that there is nothing to discuss with you

Again many thanks for the reference;
https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich/page/66

It’s difficult to know where to start as the whole content of the book can not really be taken seriously. I skimmed through it in disbelief. Though it does explain where yourself and other flat earth believers get not only their astronomical information from but their whole approach when dealing with scientific facts. Not wishing to appeal to authority, but in all honesty we have on the one hand the whole of modern science and on the other a badly written book by an obscure nobody written soon after the First World War. On the balance of probability who is more likely to be correct?

For example if pp 70-73 are read where he deals with the speed of light dismissing Einstein and a good deal of physics with a wave ofhis hand saying ‘so much for Einstein’s second law’
The book is no more than a pseudo scientific hatchet job using a series of baseless dismissals.

Can you honestly say that the speed and indeed the nature of of light has not been verified by experimentation time and time again? He did no experiments, conducted no science, instead all he did was write a series of chapters debunking the parts of science he didn’t like.

I’m really astonished how a whole belief system can be built on such dubious foundations. One would have to work really hard to swallow the contents of that book.

It isn't a baseless dismissal, it is a dismissal based upon a series of arguments and you haven't refuted any of the arguments:  you're the one making the baseless dismissal.  One doesn't necessarily need to conduct any experiments to dismiss Einstein's theories; one only needs to demonstrate logical contradictions or fallacies behind the theories.

Classic.
If you wish to use logic fine.
Let’s stand back a fair distance and examine the situation as though we are new to it and have no vested interest.

The Situation
A man in the early 1920, Gerard Hickson, neither scientist or astronomer wrote a book, dismissing the work of every notable astronomer to have lived along with the work of many notable men of science including Albert Einstein.
Almost 100 years later members of the FE society use this one book as a cornerstone of their beliefs.

Before and since then, possibly thousands of books and scientific papers have been written, many by Nobel prizewinners, whose findings contradict Mr. Gerard Hickson. There is an extensive network of ground based observatories around the planet that observe the heavens on a constant basis. Every observation ever done from these facilities disagree at a fundemental level with Hickson and his book. If interviewed every living astronomer would also disagree with Hickson. Walk into any astronomy class in any university in the world and what we would find being taught is very different from Hickson and his book.

Evidence
In the 1960s a direct measurement was made of the distance to Venus using radar. This measurement confirmed earlier distances which were made using observations. The known distance to Venus along with transit observations and measurements also confirmed the earlier Earth Sun distances.

Away from professionals to everyday people. In 2011 thousands of people all over the world took part in measuring the distance to the moon during a lunar eclipse using the “Shadow Transit Method” and the “Lunar Parallax Method”. None of the calculations done that evening agreed with Mr. Hickson.

The situation is no astronomer either in the past or present agree with Mr Hickson and his book. Is it likely That Hickson is right? Never mind the Chinese lander speeding toward the moon at this moment and the host of other satellites all in various orbits around different planets, moons and asteroids.

You brought logic into it. On the grounds of probability how likely is it for a single lone wolf like Hickson to be right given the overwhelming evidence against?

If this were a court of law, who would you put your money on being right, assuming all vested interests were laid to one side?

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The physical impossibility of its creation.

« on: December 07, 2018, 10:17:47 PM »

I’m refering of course to a flat earth map that is an alternative to the current world map. According to my extensive research the production of a flat earth ‘alternative map’ is an impossibility rendering the flat earth also impossible.

(Let not get bogged down in discussing all the various projections used as these are just  convienient ways of pictorially representing the 3D globe  on a 2D sheet of paper, which is a tricky thing to do to avoid distortions. Most maps used for travelling deal with smaller sections of the earth’s surface rendering any distortions negligible.)

The main problem is that for a flat earth map to exist something would have to give, and by that I mean land masses including towns cities, mountains and rivers would have to be relocated, which as we all know is an impossibility.

If we start with the Americas, this continent is criss crossed with a vast and complex network of both road and rail with known and fixed start and end points. The 30,000 Km long Pan American Highway being a vast road network stretching from Alaska to Chile albeit with a smallish gap of 100Km. The upshot is the geography of this continent is known and fixed with the location of every town, mountain river and forest known. Using commercial maps you could drive anywhere on this continent, like I did driving Route 66 in the late 80s, and be confident about both distances covered and the exact location of your final destination.

The same could be said of all the other continental land masses. I could take trains, as you all could, from London in the West to Vladivostok in the East, a distance of over 8,500 Km. The track is fixed securely to the ground and passes through all the stop offs acording to published maps.

International communications by land sea and air where the exact locations of both start and end points are known make it impossible for the geography of the planet to be reinterpreted. With the layout of all the major land masses established the positional relationship of an island like Australia can be established by the intricate sea lane connections with major ports in Asia, Europe and the Americas. These sea lanes are travelled every day of the year by a vast armada of container ships carrying both finished goods and raw materials.

To reiterate. Given how the location of every point on earth is accurately known relative to many other points it’s just not possible for the geography of the earth to be reinterpreted rendering the production of a flat earth map alternative as an impossibility.

Put short:

If Earth is flat, why aren't there mapmakers and astronomers and pilots and navigators stumbling all the time over the simple fact that the Spherical Earth-numbers don't add up?

Maybe, because the numbers of Spherical Earth do add up?

....and that’s the basic rub that no flat earth thinker has an answer to, even John.
A simple thing like the accuracy of all commercial maps renders their whole idea of a flat earth version null and void and with it a flat earth.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earths molten core

« on: December 07, 2018, 10:13:58 PM »

It's more likely to be a molten layer in FET.

What would hold all the hot stuff in John?

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Wiki and the Sun.

« on: December 07, 2018, 10:10:53 PM »

Was that a proton-proton chain reaction? As I am aware, the "brief fusion" processes that have been claimed were quite different.

Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.

Hey Tom...you’re going to give me a complex! You keep avoiding answering my questions! I thought this was just a friendly debate, chewing the fat and that?
The trouble is there are more than just a few fusion reactors that have been built and are being built. You price tag however is way out....millions!......more like billions.  Why? Because it’s the energy holly grail , it’s E=MC^2 in action. That little bit of lost mass going from hydrogen to helium is what it’s all about. It’s a big price tag but it may we’ll be worth it.
Which the haunting spectre of global warming it’s more important than ever, plus it would sure ‘fuck’ the Saudi Arabia which may not be a bad thing.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Based on what?

« on: December 07, 2018, 08:56:17 AM »

This former astronomy major doesn't seem to have an issue with it:

https://books.google.com/books/about/Kings_Dethroned.html?id=xnu4AAAAIAAJ

This book is very thought-provoking! I couldn't put it down! Now I am looking everywhere for the promised sequel, "The Universe as it Is". As a former astronomy major, it seems so clear to me that the blunders that Mr. Hickson so ably describes have indeed been made the flawed foundation for a very grand and deadly edifice of error in the subject of astronomy. And yet the world laughs at 'crackpots' like Gerrard Hickson, and condemns his work to MIT's 'Library of Useless Research' because it dares to challenge the underpinnings of this whole imaginary astronomical philosophy. Highly recommended!

Another review by Forgotten Books:

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/books/KingsDethroned_10031911

At the turn of the twentieth century, Gerrard Hickson stumbled upon a discovery which convinced him of something shocking. The giants of astronomy had miscalculated the distance of the sun from the Earth, it was closer than we ever thought. The popular estimate of approximately ninety-three million miles appeared to be a mistake, as inconceivable as it seemed.

Hickson pored through the methods that his predecessors had used to calculate the distance and the accounts of their work, searching for the means to disprove his theory but instead he found a mistake in Dr. Hailey’s diurnal method. Invented by Hailey in the nineteenth century and used as a basis for many other calculations about our solar system.

We can only imagine that Hickson must have gritted his teeth when he set himself the challenge of proving Dr. Hailey’s error. Kings Dethroned is the result of his research, and through his retracing of the steps of astronomers from the Roman Empire all the way up to the present day, we can see an accurate representation of the planets and our sun.

Gerrard Hickson, unlike his predecessors, took his findings to the general public and published this book for the consumption of all. Having been rejected or ignored by experts and scientific societies across the western world, he chose to trust in the public. He felt that the truth and his discovery were the wealth of the whole human species and in this modern age it does the reader only good to contemplate the necessity of constant and honest scientific enquiry.

It seems strange to be relying on almost 100 year old "science"! Perhaps it would be advantageous to have a look at how far Astronomy and Physics have come in the last 96 years?? Now that we know about black holes, the cosmic background radiation, red shift, gravitational wave events (caused by Neutron star collisions) and we have new optical telescopes which make use of interferometry and can improve resolution by combining images from separate telescopes. Or are we approaching another Middle Ages? Where virtually no new knowledge is gained by mankind for 500 years!!!

I'm so glad the cardiologist that operated on my heart, the motor mechanic that services my car, and the pilot of the Boeing 787 I flew in a month ago did not get their qualifications in the early 1920's, and then refuse to learn anything new !!

There sits the rub.....quietly steaming away in the corner beside the elephant. It’s not just a question of accepting 100 year old science, as it’s not even science! From the research I’ve carried out on the very scant resources the the flat earth community refer to as ‘gospel’ none of them have been written by what could be described as working scientist.

The book in question that John linked to is just a series of groundless rebuttals. The speed of light for example. Did the aurthor carry out his own experiments? No. Did he publish scientific papers with his own findings? No. He just rubbished the work of scientists and that was that.

The real problem here regarding Flat Earth Theory is that it really should be considered a belief system akin to a religion rather than something that is underpinned by science. If that were the case I would say it’s a pretty legitimate position to take, as people should be free to believe in what ever takes their fancy. I think John has every right in believing all the things that go along with  Flat Earth doctrine.

What I take issue with is when John and others try to justify their beliefs using pseudo scientific arguments while claiming both conspiracy and the world of science is wrong in much of what it believes, all based on their couple of slim 100 year old non scientific volumes. Claiming space travel is fake really holds no water, with hardly a week going by without some major launch or space probe landing on a passing asteroid. The Chinese are sending a rover to the dark side of the moon tomorrow, the Americans landed a new rover on Mars just the other week, while the ISS zooms by overhead with monotonous regularity! That’s not even mentioning the 100s of satellites in all sorts of orbits for all sorts of uses. For this there is no debate. All the believers can do is pick over the footage looking for the slightest slip of the tongue or video artefact to use as ‘proof’ to support their case.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Wiki and the Sun.

« on: December 06, 2018, 11:33:32 PM »

Was that a proton-proton chain reaction? As I am aware, the "brief fusion" processes that have been claimed were quite different.

Fusion power research should be looked at skeptically, as a general rule, because it's a bunch of people asking for millions of dollars to build a machine that can generate more energy than is put into it.

All I can say John is why don’t you turn your skeptical eye on your book ‘The Kings Dethroned’ with the same degree?
I agree with you that being skeptical is good, but it strikes me you go about it in rather a cherry picking sort a way, where you will quite readily accept a non-scientific critique, like your book, then take research projects, that in all honesty are way beyond you in their scope, and then offer a critique as to their authenticity based on no more than your uninformed opinion! I say uninformed because most of us will share that label with you. Let’s not kid ourselves you along with everyone on this forum are in no position to comment on the authenticity of current fusion research unless you or anyone else have recently completed a Phd on the subject, such is its complexity.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The physical impossibility of its creation.

« on: December 06, 2018, 11:15:17 PM »

Going back to the original statement. If all the maps are correct it leaves no space for a flat earth alternative.

I’ve asked the question a number of times, which of our current commercial maps are wrong. If none of them are wrong then, no flat earth map, and no flat earth.

It’s an issue that is totally fundemental for flat earth believers, yet none can answer the question.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Earths molten core

« on: December 06, 2018, 08:36:43 AM »

Having glanced through the FE Wiki on Form and Magnitude I can't find any mention let alone explanation for how the Earths molten core was formed.  This was discovered back in 1936 of course following a study of Earthquakes in New Zealand. The molten core is what produces the Earths magnetic field which in turn produces the aurora displays that we all know and love.

Surely if the Earth was flat there couldn't be 'core' as such?

Actually recent experiments have shown the inner core is not actually molten, but solid. The outer core however is molten apparently!

It’s not the core that produces the Auroras, rather its the interaction of charged particles from the sun with the earth’s magnetic field, which as you say is produced as a result of the earth’s metallic core.

But you are correct it’s just one of the many natural phenomena that go to prove the spherical nature of the earth.
Though while we have all these facts the FE movement do have a book from 1922, so let’s not forget that!

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Based on what?

« on: December 06, 2018, 08:26:26 AM »

The ever present elephant really does render this discussion null and void. We know from both experimentation and observation both from orbiting satellites and ground based telescopes exactly how far away the sun, moon and the other planets are from the earth. John’s position is based on the dual pillars of an obscure 1920s book and a conspiracy.

What I find so hard to belive is disputing some of the distances to say the moon for example, is just pointless when it can be proved by a pretty basic experiment that anyone with a mind to could carry out. Go look it up! If the FE society really had an inquiring mind there is a classic Zetetic experiment that could be carried out. Why don’t you do it John? You could publish the results here.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Wiki and the Sun.

« on: December 06, 2018, 07:59:53 AM »

Not all types of fusion are Stellar Fusion. There are multiple types and theories. While they may have briefly created a type of fusion in a lab, I do not believe they are of the same type said to be found in the sun -- proton-proton chain reactions.

Also, some of those experiments and articles that have been posted in the past were touting to have to have recreated a star, as in "created the environment of a star", in terms of temperature and pressure, not actual fusion.

As I mentioned before Tom, what you say is just not true. You may well wish it not to be true or just not believe it, but I’m afraid it’s just not the case.

Fusion is not only possible on earth, it has been carried out many times. One of the most notable and well-documented deuterium-tritium (D/T) fusion reaction took place in the Joint European Torus (JET) reactor in the UK this year. The reaction took place, but the amount of energy needed was more than was generated by the fusion; the “gain” was about 0.7, while 1.0 means balance and more than 1 is needed for net energy output. It’s also been repeated at facilities, in the USA, China, Germany and Korea.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Based on what?

« on: December 06, 2018, 07:48:31 AM »

The methods of astronomy described in the book Kings Dethroned are still in use today. It goes over the 93 million mile sun, the 240 thousand mile moon, et cetera, that are all still the methods used today. Nothing about those methods in astronomy have changes since 1920; and so those depictions are still valid. Feel free to have a look.

Per the state of the wiki, we work on one subject at a time. If you do not have any constructive or contributive input then I will find that there is nothing to discuss with you

Again many thanks for the reference;
https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich/page/66

It’s difficult to know where to start as the whole content of the book can not really be taken seriously. I skimmed through it in disbelief. Though it does explain where yourself and other flat earth believers get not only their astronomical information from but their whole approach when dealing with scientific facts. Not wishing to appeal to authority, but in all honesty we have on the one hand the whole of modern science and on the other a badly written book by an obscure nobody written soon after the First World War. On the balance of probability who is more likely to be correct?

For example if pp 70-73 are read where he deals with the speed of light dismissing Einstein and a good deal of physics with a wave ofhis hand saying ‘so much for Einstein’s second law’
The book is no more than a pseudo scientific hatchet job using a series of baseless dismissals.

Can you honestly say that the speed and indeed the nature of of light has not been verified by experimentation time and time again? He did no experiments, conducted no science, instead all he did was write a series of chapters debunking the parts of science he didn’t like.

I’m really astonished how a whole belief system can be built on such dubious foundations. One would have to work really hard to swallow the contents of that book.