#### brainsandgravy

• 22
##### Polaris proves the earth is round.
« on: February 10, 2016, 08:19:32 AM »
The flat earth and heliocentric models are opposites in almost every way. Is it really that hard to tell which is correct?
The answer is NO. The earth is a sphere. It's obvious by the apparent positions of the celestial objects in the sky as observed from earth. By simple observation you can determine conclusively that the earth is round and that a flat earth is impossible.

One of the simplest examples illustrating this is Polaris. See why here:

http://debunkingflatearth.blogspot.com/2016/02/debunking-flat-earth-how-polaris-proves.html

« Last Edit: February 10, 2016, 05:32:10 PM by brainsandgravy »

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2016, 01:37:52 AM »
The flat earth and heliocentric models are opposites in almost every way. Is it really that hard to tell which is correct?
The answer is NO. The earth is a sphere. It's obvious by the apparent positions of the celestial objects in the sky as observed from earth. By simple observation you can determine conclusively that the earth is round and that a flat earth is impossible.
One of the simplest examples illustrating this is Polaris. See why here:
http://debunkingflatearth.blogspot.com/2016/02/debunking-flat-earth-how-polaris-proves.html
Yes, but did you look up the wiki?
You must realise how much information can be gained there, but please don't try to swallow it all or you might choke!
For example:
Quote from: Chapter 14, Section 6 of Earth Not a Globe
from:  http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za37.htm
DECLINATION OF THE POLE STAR
Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star sinks to the horizon as the traveler approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible. What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.
This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth.
Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars.
A bit wordy!
So, it's all "perspective"! Mind you it does seem strange the each 111.1 km we move south from the North Pole the elevation of Polaris decreases by (almost) exactly 1°, finally reaching 0° (+ a bit due to refraction) at the equator. So close is this that it has been used for navigation for many centuries!

Perspective simply cannot make an object at least 5,000 km high disappear below the horizon when we move only about 10,000 km away!
This is not possible unless the light bends in some peculiar way. More than about 0.5° is not likely under normal conditions!

One big problem with quoting "Earth not a Globe" is the sheer volume of material to wade through! Rowbotham states categorically, though takes lots of words to say it, that the "South Pole Star" (Sigma Octantis) and the Southern Cross (Crux) cannot be seen from all longitudes in the southern hemisphere!
Quote from: Earth not a Globe p 214,215
Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south–pole star included–sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is strangely not the case; Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8° south of the equator, and in longitude 30° W.
Saying "Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8°" (it being the Southern Cross) means nothing as we all (including Rowbotham) know full well that the Southern Cross is not at the South Celestial Pole, but some 30° away. In other words while the South Celestial Pole is visible every night everywhere (baring obstructions) over the whole of the Southern Hemisphere, the Southern Cross is only visible at all times south of 30° Latitude!

Yes, Rowbotham can never be accused of using one word when he can get away with 10!

#### brainsandgravy

• 22
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2016, 03:07:59 AM »
The flat earth and heliocentric models are opposites in almost every way. Is it really that hard to tell which is correct?
The answer is NO. The earth is a sphere. It's obvious by the apparent positions of the celestial objects in the sky as observed from earth. By simple observation you can determine conclusively that the earth is round and that a flat earth is impossible.
One of the simplest examples illustrating this is Polaris. See why here:
http://debunkingflatearth.blogspot.com/2016/02/debunking-flat-earth-how-polaris-proves.html
Yes, but did you look up the wiki?
You must realise how much information can be gained there, but please don't try to swallow it all or you might choke!
For example:
Quote from: Chapter 14, Section 6 of Earth Not a Globe
from:  http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za37.htm
DECLINATION OF THE POLE STAR
Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star sinks to the horizon as the traveler approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible. What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.
This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth.
Ergo, when I stand outside and look into the skies, the star constellations I do not see are simply invisible past the vanishing point, beyond my perspective. When I travel south I am moving to a new location, changing my perspective, rising up a completely different set stars.
A bit wordy!
So, it's all "perspective"! Mind you it does seem strange the each 111.1 km we move south from the North Pole the elevation of Polaris decreases by (almost) exactly 1°, finally reaching 0° (+ a bit due to refraction) at the equator. So close is this that it has been used for navigation for many centuries!

Perspective simply cannot make an object at least 5,000 km high disappear below the horizon when we move only about 10,000 km away!
This is not possible unless the light bends in some peculiar way. More than about 0.5° is not likely under normal conditions!

One big problem with quoting "Earth not a Globe" is the sheer volume of material to wade through! Rowbotham states categorically, though takes lots of words to say it, that the "South Pole Star" (Sigma Octantis) and the Southern Cross (Crux) cannot be seen from all longitudes in the southern hemisphere!
Quote from: Earth not a Globe p 214,215
Another thing is certain, that from and within the equator the north pole star, and the constellations Ursa Major, Ursa Minor, and many others, can be seen from every meridian simultaneously; whereas in the south, from the equator, neither the so-called south pole star, nor the remarkable constellation of the Southern Cross, can be seen simultaneously from every meridian, showing that all the constellations of the south–pole star included–sweep over a great southern arc and across the meridian, from their rise in the evening to their setting in the morning. But if the earth is a globe, Sigma Octantis a south pole star, and the Southern Cross a southern circumpolar constellation, they would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude, as is the case with the northern pole star and the northern circumpolar constellations. Such, however, is strangely not the case; Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8° south of the equator, and in longitude 30° W.
Saying "Sir James Clarke Ross did not see it until he was 8°" (it being the Southern Cross) means nothing as we all (including Rowbotham) know full well that the Southern Cross is not at the South Celestial Pole, but some 30° away. In other words while the South Celestial Pole is visible every night everywhere (baring obstructions) over the whole of the Southern Hemisphere, the Southern Cross is only visible at all times south of 30° Latitude!

Yes, Rowbotham can never be accused of using one word when he can get away with 10!

Thanks for the response, yes, "perspective" is an inadequate explanation and was actually addressed in the blog post I linked to.  You quoted, "It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it".
The question is how much lower and at what rate will the object appear to descend? Can this be determined?
Yes. It can. "Perspective" can be worked out using trigonometry. It's done all the time in real world applications. FEers don't seem to understand this.

The illustration below, which was shown in the blog, shows precisely the effect of perspective on the apparent position of Polaris above a flat plane.

As you can see, the effect of flat earth "perspective" cannot account for what is observed in reality.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 06:01:59 AM by brainsandgravy »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9275
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2016, 08:29:34 AM »
This is actually the same question as "If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?" question, for which the answer is here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

Quote
Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?

A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.

I plan on rewriting this article at some point, but you get the idea.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 08:31:37 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### brainsandgravy

• 22
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2016, 10:05:59 AM »
This is actually the same question as "If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?" question, for which the answer is here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

Quote
Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?

A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.

I plan on rewriting this article at some point, but you get the idea.

This is pure nonsense. The illustration I posted is to scale. The angles and distances are right there in front of you. I'll post it again below. Notice that the distance needed to see a change in altitude from 20° to 10° (9,040 miles) is greater than the distance needed for polaris to drop from 90° to 20° (8,557 miles). If the diagram were to continue, the distance needed for Polaris to drop from 10° to 5° is more than the distance needed for it to drop from 90° to 10°, about 17,835 miles (a total of 35,433 miles from 90° to 5°). To see Polaris at 0°, the distance needed is infinity.

It would therefore be impossible to see the apparent altitude of any celestial object drop at a constant rate due to perspective if it was moving away at a constant speed. You can draw it out and measure the angles for yourself if you like, or just use an online right triangle calculator.
Triangles don't lie.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 10:14:35 AM by brainsandgravy »

#### Woody

• 241
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2016, 11:56:54 AM »
This is actually the same question as "If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?" question, for which the answer is here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

Quote
Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it slow down as it approaches the horizon?

A. The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

When a body increases its altitude it broadens its perspective lines in relation to the earth and the observer, and thus appears to move slower and at a more constant pace into the horizon. In FET the stars and celestial bodies are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence the stars do not appear to change configuration and build up in the distance, nor does the sun or moon appear to slow as they approach the horizon.

The rate of descent of two bodies at different altitudes is more constant because it take a lot longer for a high altitude body to reach the horizon than it does for a low altitude body. The higher a body is, the broader its perspective lines, the longer and more constantly it will appear to approach the horizon to the observer.

I plan on rewriting this article at some point, but you get the idea.

The article IMHO is an example of one of the biggest problems the FES needs to overcome.  I will just compare illustrations.  One has data like distances, what you should observe from different points. The other only provides angles, does not provide any distances/heights or display what you should observe at different times and/or places.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9275
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2016, 05:00:14 PM »
Quote
This is pure nonsense. The illustration I posted is to scale. The angles and distances are right there in front of you. I'll post it again below. Notice that the distance needed to see a change in altitude from 20° to 10° (9,040 miles) is greater than the distance needed for polaris to drop from 90° to 20° (8,557 miles). If the diagram were to continue, the distance needed for Polaris to drop from 10° to 5° is more than the distance needed for it to drop from 90° to 10°, about 17,835 miles (a total of 35,433 miles from 90° to 5°). To see Polaris at 0°, the distance needed is infinity.

It would therefore be impossible to see the apparent altitude of any celestial object drop at a constant rate due to perspective if it was moving away at a constant speed. You can draw it out and measure the angles for yourself if you like, or just use an online right triangle calculator.
Triangles don't lie.

Under traditional perspective it is also impossible for the sun to ever set. However, Samuel Birley Rowbotham teaches us in Earth Not a Globe that we must adopt our concept of perspective from real world experience and observations, not some mathematical concept.

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2016, 11:16:36 PM »
Under traditional perspective it is also impossible for the sun to ever set. However, Samuel Birley Rowbotham teaches us in Earth Not a Globe that we must adopt our concept of perspective from real world experience and observations, not some mathematical concept.

Oh, I am so sorry, but now we must all accept the "bible" of all Flat Earthers!
For myself, I find all this bendy light, objects magnified 4 time due to the atmosphere and other absurdities a bit hard to swallow.

I would think that, even it Flat Earth circles, there could have been a few advances since 1885.

May a map that did not grossly distort half the earth, and all of it to a lesser extent would be a big advance in 230 years.
Oh yes, we have the Bi-Polar map that distorts everything, and somehow need teleportation (via aether I guess) to circumnavigate either on the equator of on longitude 0 deg.

Yes, big advances! One step forward and two steps back. Rowbotham I might understand with the lack of knowledge of polar regions in thw late 1800's, but for people in the 21st century, it is completely mystifying! Stuck in a time warp?

It almost sickens me to read a lot of Rowbotham and the 100 Proofs! I suppose if you start with a biased view of history and the world around you it might be understandable.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9275
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2016, 05:33:41 AM »
It absolutely makes more sense to base science off of the observed and experienced rather than the theoretical and hypothetical. What was provided was a model based on little more than an idea of how things should work under the theories of art school perspective and geometry, not how they actually work.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the physical world when coming up with Geometry. A lot of the assumptions turned out to be mistakes. For one, circles do not actually exist, since the universe is quantized, and any such related math is inaccurate. If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

I will be writing more on this topic of experience vs hypothesis in The 21st Century Edition of Earth Not a Globe, a modernized reboot of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which we are working on in the Earth Not a Globe Workshop.

#### Panzerfaust

• 25
• So You Think
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2016, 06:57:32 AM »
It absolutely makes more sense to base science off of the observed and experienced rather than the theoretical and hypothetical. What was provided was a model based on little more than an idea of how things should work under the theories of art school perspective and geometry, not how they actually work.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the physical world when coming up with Geometry. A lot of the assumptions turned out to be mistakes. For one, circles do not actually exist, since the universe is quantized, and any such related math is inaccurate. If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

I will be writing more on this topic of experience vs hypothesis in The 21st Century Edition of Earth Not a Globe, a modernized reboot of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which we are working on in the Earth Not a Globe Workshop.

Interesting thoughts about the differences between the physical and the theoretical world. I'll try to make this small experiment: I'll estimate the volume of an orange using pi= 4 or pi=3,1415, and then I'll submerge in water and see how much water it'll displace and compare the measured volume with the calculated ones. Does that make sense?

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2016, 07:47:52 AM »
It absolutely makes more sense to base science off of the observed and experienced rather than the theoretical and hypothetical. What was provided was a model based on little more than an idea of how things should work under the theories of art school perspective and geometry, not how they actually work.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the physical world when coming up with Geometry. A lot of the assumptions turned out to be mistakes. For one, circles do not actually exist, since the universe is quantized, and any such related math is inaccurate. If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

I will be writing more on this topic of experience vs hypothesis in The 21st Century Edition of Earth Not a Globe, a modernized reboot of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which we are working on in the Earth Not a Globe Workshop.
Many Flat Earthers (including Gotham in "the other place) seem to think that in a short while the Flat Earth Hypothesis might be accepted by the world in general.
Quote from: Gotham
It is baffling at times to understand just how REers can go on and on expressing their beliefs without opening their eyes and seeing what is past their text books and out the door of their lab.

It is writings like yours that convinces me it will never happen. Your ideas haven't the faintest chance of acceptance when the only real observation seems to be "The Earth looks flat" and everything else has to be bent to suit that one observation.
I open my eyes and what do I see!
• The Earth looks flat - it does, it's big!
• On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line (it is only about 5 km away!). On a flat earth it would have to fade into the distance with no distinct boundary.
• The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
• The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at sunrise and sunset.
• The sun always appears to be a disk, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset.
• Likewise the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.
• The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset.
• The moon always appears to show the same face wherever it is in the sky. (And from wherever we observe it - have to travel for this observation).
• The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset.
Note that none of this is claimed as direct evidence of a rotating earth, but I believe is strong evidence of a Globe with a distant (far further than the earths size) sun and moon. So many of these points are "explained away" by TFES using "perspective", "bendy light" (massive refraction), extreme "magnification" by the atmosphere or simply ignored. These explanations are simply quoted with no justification at all!
I could go on about the direction of sunrise and sunset etc.
Of these, number (1) might indicate a flat earth, but then when we try to work out what the sun and moon are doing, we get into big trouble.
The Flat Earth movement just takes (1) and says "The earth is flat", then gets into terrible trouble explaining away all of the others with fanciful ideas of perspective, bending light, "celestial gears", universal acceleration (powered by "dark energy") and on and on.
But all the other points are far more simply explained on a Globe Earth, though not necessarily rotating.
There are more points you can see around every day (like the movement of the stars at night!) that are hard to explain on any flat earth model without resorting to nothing more than guesswork about strange things like celestial gears and aetheric whirlpools etc.

Even the problems with the stationary Globe earth were found in the past from observations made without modern instruments. Largely eyes and simple (though large) angle measuring equipment.

Honestly, I find that the Globe Earth conforms far better to the Zetetic approach than all the imagination and guesswork needed to support any Flat Earth model!
I could go on and on but this is enough for now!
On top of the, TFES simply has no accurate map of the earth! Nothing that shows correct distances (as have been surveyed over hundreds of years) and the correct shape (and dimensions) of continents.
There is not the slightest chance that the idea of a Flat Earth will ever be accepted without an accurate map!

BTW I measure (with a tape measure) th circumference of a metal lid of diameter 111.4 mm and it comes to 351 mm. When I divide that out I get a 3.15 - (can't get 4 out of it) I'll take those Greeks over the rubbish Mathis puts out any day!

#### Daguerrohype

• 14
• ISBN-10: 0552133256
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2016, 08:33:47 AM »
If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

In addition to being used to calculate the circumference of a circle, pi is also used to calculate the area of the same shape. In order for pi to be of use in calculations, its value needs to remain constant. Disagree with that if you will.

If we compare the area of a circle of radius 10 cm using both pi = 3.142 (to three decimal places) and pi = 4.000

10 x 10 x 3.142 = 314.2 cm^2

10 x 10 x 4.000 = 400.0 cm^2

The difference is an area of 85.8 cm^2.

I cannot visualise a circle with radius 10 cm and area 400 cm^2. If anyone can draw one, then please do. It might be useful to compare it (to scale) with a square of side length 20cm, as they have the same area.
Big Smiley Face

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9275
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2016, 09:18:33 AM »
It absolutely makes more sense to base science off of the observed and experienced rather than the theoretical and hypothetical. What was provided was a model based on little more than an idea of how things should work under the theories of art school perspective and geometry, not how they actually work.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the physical world when coming up with Geometry. A lot of the assumptions turned out to be mistakes. For one, circles do not actually exist, since the universe is quantized, and any such related math is inaccurate. If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

I will be writing more on this topic of experience vs hypothesis in The 21st Century Edition of Earth Not a Globe, a modernized reboot of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which we are working on in the Earth Not a Globe Workshop.

Interesting thoughts about the differences between the physical and the theoretical world. I'll try to make this small experiment: I'll estimate the volume of an orange using pi= 4 or pi=3,1415, and then I'll submerge in water and see how much water it'll displace and compare the measured volume with the calculated ones. Does that make sense?

That would assume the orange is perfectly round. It is not.

Quote from: rainboz
BTW I measure (with a tape measure) th circumference of a metal lid of diameter 111.4 mm and it comes to 351 mm. When I divide that out I get a 3.15 - (can't get 4 out of it) I'll take those Greeks over the rubbish Mathis puts out any day!

You are assuming the circumference of a metal lid is perfectly round. It is not. If you were to actually trace in all of the imperfections of the circumference there would be additional length there.

If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

In addition to being used to calculate the circumference of a circle, pi is also used to calculate the area of the same shape. In order for pi to be of use in calculations, its value needs to remain constant. Disagree with that if you will.

If we compare the area of a circle of radius 10 cm using both pi = 3.142 (to three decimal places) and pi = 4.000

10 x 10 x 3.142 = 314.2 cm^2

10 x 10 x 4.000 = 400.0 cm^2

The difference is an area of 85.8 cm^2.

I cannot visualise a circle with radius 10 cm and area 400 cm^2. If anyone can draw one, then please do. It might be useful to compare it (to scale) with a square of side length 20cm, as they have the same area.

There is hidden area in the circumference of a non-perfect circle.

« Last Edit: February 12, 2016, 09:23:29 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### Daguerrohype

• 14
• ISBN-10: 0552133256
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2016, 09:35:34 AM »
It absolutely makes more sense to base science off of the observed and experienced rather than the theoretical and hypothetical. What was provided was a model based on little more than an idea of how things should work under the theories of art school perspective and geometry, not how they actually work.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the physical world when coming up with Geometry. A lot of the assumptions turned out to be mistakes. For one, circles do not actually exist, since the universe is quantized, and any such related math is inaccurate. If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

I will be writing more on this topic of experience vs hypothesis in The 21st Century Edition of Earth Not a Globe, a modernized reboot of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which we are working on in the Earth Not a Globe Workshop.

Interesting thoughts about the differences between the physical and the theoretical world. I'll try to make this small experiment: I'll estimate the volume of an orange using pi= 4 or pi=3,1415, and then I'll submerge in water and see how much water it'll displace and compare the measured volume with the calculated ones. Does that make sense?

That would assume the orange is perfectly round. It is not.

Quote from: rainboz
BTW I measure (with a tape measure) th circumference of a metal lid of diameter 111.4 mm and it comes to 351 mm. When I divide that out I get a 3.15 - (can't get 4 out of it) I'll take those Greeks over the rubbish Mathis puts out any day!

You are assuming the circumference of a metal lid is perfectly round. It is not. If you were to actually trace in all of the imperfections of the circumference there would be additional length there.

If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

In addition to being used to calculate the circumference of a circle, pi is also used to calculate the area of the same shape. In order for pi to be of use in calculations, its value needs to remain constant. Disagree with that if you will.

If we compare the area of a circle of radius 10 cm using both pi = 3.142 (to three decimal places) and pi = 4.000

10 x 10 x 3.142 = 314.2 cm^2

10 x 10 x 4.000 = 400.0 cm^2

The difference is an area of 85.8 cm^2.

I cannot visualise a circle with radius 10 cm and area 400 cm^2. If anyone can draw one, then please do. It might be useful to compare it (to scale) with a square of side length 20cm, as they have the same area.

There is hidden area in the circumference of a non-perfect circle.

Thanks Tom, now if you can show the most refined "circle" next to a square with side length 2 x radius [edited], we can see whether they have the same area.

In fact if you can (apologies, I cannot), overlay the two figures to show the difference in area. I wager the "circle" will fit inside the square with room to spare.

If that is the case, then where is the missing area from the "circle"? Very well hidden indeed!
« Last Edit: February 12, 2016, 09:53:43 AM by Daguerrohype »
Big Smiley Face

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9275
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2016, 09:46:15 AM »
Thanks Tom, now if you can show the most refined "circle" next to a square with side length 2 x diameter, we can see whether they have the same area.

In fact if you can (apologies, I cannot), overlay the two figures to show the difference in area. I wager the "circle" will fit inside the square with room to spare.

If that is the case, then where is the missing area from the "circle"? Very well hidden indeed!

Your logic needs a little work.

It is possible to draw a snake curled up inside of a square, with the length of that snake being longer than the circumference of the square it exists within.

A circle which contains curls of hidden area can easily fit in a square with the same circumference/perimiter.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2016, 10:08:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### Daguerrohype

• 14
• ISBN-10: 0552133256
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #15 on: February 12, 2016, 09:58:26 AM »
I'm talking about area, not circumference.

The area of the "circle" you describe with radius "r" is significantly less than the area of a square with side length "2r".

I raised this issue re the value of pi being constant. If pi is the same value for all calculations, the calculation of the area of a circle demonstrates that it cannot be 4.
Big Smiley Face

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9275
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #16 on: February 12, 2016, 10:08:36 AM »
I'm talking about area, not circumference.

The area of the "circle" you describe with radius "r" is significantly less than the area of a square with side length "2r".

I raised this issue re the value of pi being constant. If pi is the same value for all calculations, the calculation of the area of a circle demonstrates that it cannot be 4.

Why would to total area within the two shapes need to be the same?

Would the total area within a square and a triangle need to be the same if they have an identical perimeter?

#### Daguerrohype

• 14
• ISBN-10: 0552133256
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #17 on: February 12, 2016, 10:40:04 AM »
I'm talking about area, not circumference.

The area of the "circle" you describe with radius "r" is significantly less than the area of a square with side length "2r".

I raised this issue re the value of pi being constant. If pi is the same value for all calculations, the calculation of the area of a circle demonstrates that it cannot be 4.

Why would to total area within the two shapes need to be the same?

Would the total area within a square and a triangle need to be the same if they have an identical perimeter?

I see what you mean Tom. You are saying that even if pi = 4, a circle of radius "r" and a square of side length "2r" do not have to have the same area.

We must disagree on how to calculate the area of a circle. I use area = pi x r^2

Using my calculation, inputting pi as 4, then a circle with radius 10 cm has an area of 4 x 10 x 10 = 400 cm^2.

The area of a square with side length 2r is (2r)^2 = 20 x 20 = 400 cm^2.

So that is why I say, if pi = 4, then a circle and a square as described above will have the same area.

I don't see what triangles have to do with this, specifically.
Big Smiley Face

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #18 on: February 12, 2016, 01:00:07 PM »

And obviously the length of the "Black Perimeter" never approaches the circumference, so saying this proves π = 4 is completely fallacious!.

If you are going to be that fussy, why do you assume those "plancks" are orthogonal? Maybe they should be in random directions. You can carry it on from there!

Mind you if I was using a method like that to find the circumference I would want the length of my "increments" to approach the length of the circle segments more and more closely as the length segments approach zero (Easier to write a mathematical expression than put it into words!). Clearly that is not true in your case.

I think I'll stick to the real world, where we are not trying to count plancks, but measure a distance with a finite resolution!
Anyone knows that the perimeter of say a country with its fractal like coastline continues to increase indefinitely as we decrease the "ruler" length.

So, being more akin to an engineer and not a mathematician (and less still a philosopher) I did not "count plancks" around the circular lid, but measured length with a steel tape!

Mind you sometimes I think that certain people regard the Flat/Globe Earth question as a matter of opinion. It is clearly (whatever John Davis says) in practical terms one or the other.
I am sure there are some on these forums who have been trained at diverting attention away from the real issues!

#### Panzerfaust

• 25
• So You Think
##### Re: Polaris proves the earth is round.
« Reply #19 on: February 12, 2016, 03:36:17 PM »
It absolutely makes more sense to base science off of the observed and experienced rather than the theoretical and hypothetical. What was provided was a model based on little more than an idea of how things should work under the theories of art school perspective and geometry, not how they actually work.

The Ancient Greeks made a lot of assumptions about the physical world when coming up with Geometry. A lot of the assumptions turned out to be mistakes. For one, circles do not actually exist, since the universe is quantized, and any such related math is inaccurate. If one were to trace a line along all of the little pixilated plancks which make up the circumference of the most perfect "circle" in the universe one would find that pi is actually equal to 4, rather than the theoretical value of 3.14159...

I will be writing more on this topic of experience vs hypothesis in The 21st Century Edition of Earth Not a Globe, a modernized reboot of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which we are working on in the Earth Not a Globe Workshop.

Interesting thoughts about the differences between the physical and the theoretical world. I'll try to make this small experiment: I'll estimate the volume of an orange using pi= 4 or pi=3,1415, and then I'll submerge in water and see how much water it'll displace and compare the measured volume with the calculated ones. Does that make sense?

That would assume the orange is perfectly round. It is not.

Exactly Tom! That's why I choose an orange - because it's not perfectly round. I'll have water to fill up all of it's 'imperfections' so I can measure it's 'real' volume, and thereby estimate pi (which will be larger than 3,1415xx because of the orange's imperfections).

What's wrong with the experiment?