1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: July 30, 2017, 03:56:00 PM »

Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere.

I still don't get the whole meaning of the South pole. What is it? Someone just pointed to a spot on the ground, "hey, let's give this spot a name, what about 'south pole'"?

(On a globe the answer is obvious: it is one end of the earth's rotational axis, the other being the north pole.)

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: July 10, 2017, 10:00:32 PM »

Sorry - 3/4's of an hour just to make THAT stupid elementary mistake?   Really?

This is why I don't watch these videos at all, unless the person linking them gives some kind of a summary using their own words, or the exact timing to a point that is relevant for the conversation (one or two minutes maximum).

It has always been a waste of time. Apparently it would have been this time, as well.

There are things I do for money. Argumenting in the internet is not one of them. I do it because it is partly interesting and partly fun, but in order for it to be interesting or fun I want to be in control of the speed in which I receive information. When reading text I can scroll as fast as I like, skip parts that seem irrelevant, even search for certain words easily. Video is a format of information that takes this control away from me.

Actually I think videos are a rude form of conversation, especially when they are not being made by the persons themselves. Even if there were one hour of total bullshit, it would only require a few seconds to put a link on it; for the other person it would require at least one hour to watch, and then even more to actually comment it. If the conversation consists of one person only giving links to videos and an another person explaining why those videos are wrong, that is simply not fair. I would still do this if I got paid for it, but otherwise no.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: July 10, 2017, 07:59:59 AM »

I see.

So, the answer to my question on whether there is a decent map is apparently no.

Also, whatever the layout of the continents may be, there should be something that would keep the oceans from falling off. And still we have had many reports of circumnavigating between all the continents.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: July 10, 2017, 04:03:26 AM »

Especially the shape of Australia differs quite a lot between these two, as well as it does between either of them and the globe model.

Australia has some roads that go through it, west to east as well as south to north, so these could be measurable.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: July 10, 2017, 03:20:30 AM »

That's because it doesn't. Antarctica is a continent in this model.

I may have asked this earlier but don't remember having an answer.

Is there any decent map of the earth that looks like you think it should? The map shown in the faq does not show Antarctica as a continent but rather as a circle around the rest of the earth. It seems to me that you enjoy a certain degree of authority among the flat earth believers on this forum, so it is remarkable if you and the wiki disagree in such an important question.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: Rescuing flat earth with Refraction

« on: July 08, 2017, 09:13:52 PM »

A simple requirement I have for a space agency is not to build their 6 billion dollar lunar landers with an assortment of junk yard parts held together with tape.

Ok. Well, we have ESA. It has never landed on the moon at all.

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Rescuing flat earth with Refraction

« on: July 08, 2017, 05:14:37 PM »

You are assuming that the density of space is zero. You are forgetting that we don't have a real space agency to tell us the density of space.

What are your requirements for a "real space agency", and how could you tell if some agency actually met them?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: July 08, 2017, 07:11:17 AM »

Can you answer using your own words rather than linking to a 44-min video?

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: Paradox Moon

« on: July 07, 2017, 12:25:19 AM »

That's probably the case, however, I wonder if that's true of other forms of light.
Like if you were to place some semitransparent objects around a lantern, would the ones in between you and the lantern appear more lit up than other objects, which're just as close to the lantern as the ones in between the lantern and your line of sight?

Like this? http://d3d71ba2asa5oz.cloudfront.net/22001044/images/sky1428lrg-2.jpg

Yes, the part of paper that is towards the photographer looks brighter than those parts that are more towards the sides (or that part that is behind the flame, which we can forget when talking about the sun).

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: Paradox Moon

« on: July 06, 2017, 08:54:11 PM »

Antithecystem: from your perspective, the sun illuminates things that are in the same general direction as you are. From someone else's perspective, it looks different.

Remember: the whole concept of you seeing things is that light waves hit your eyes. No matter how much the sun illuminates something elsewhere, if the light mostly scatters there to some other directions than towards you, then you won't see it.

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: Paradox Moon

« on: July 06, 2017, 06:55:40 AM »

All the photographs I've seen on the internet so far show sun rays fanned out, whether the rays looked like they were headed toward or away from the observer, or straight down.
Show me a photograph of parallel rays over a long distance.

The rays are parallel. They just don't look like so because of the perspective.

However, if you put a person to each of these spots where the rays hit the water at the same time and let them measure the angles, you will find out that the sun seems to be in the same direction from each one of those. Of course it is a little difficult, because this is water, and each of these persons should have a boat that stands perfectly still. (Or maybe the water freezes in the winter?)

Have you ever been in a city where a street rises up a hill? Then you have maybe noticed that the left edge and that right edge of that street seem to not be parallel, although they are.

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: Paradox Moon

« on: July 06, 2017, 01:15:03 AM »

How do you know they come in a certain angle if "you cannot measure that angle from that one photograph"?

If I were to ground my belief from one single photograph, then I wouldn't know it either.

But I see the sun very often, and I never see it straight up above me – that simply doesn't happen on my latitudes. (Well, I have seen it straight up when travelling in the tropics, but never in my homeland.) If the person who took that picture had taken a boat and gone himself to the point where the sunbeams hit the water – do you think he would have seen the sun straight up? No, he wouldn't.

While the photograph all by itself isn't proof positive, it looks as thou the rays are headed straight down, or a hell of a lot more straight down than towards the viewer.
It's not exact, it's not perfect, but it's still evidence.

If that is your opinion, then so be it.

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: Paradox Moon

« on: July 06, 2017, 12:23:14 AM »

There is no contradiction. The moon and sun are both very far away: the moon approximately 384,000 km and the sun approximately 150,000,000 km. (Even though the difference between these two is enormous, under normal circumstances it doesn't matter: in local and not-too-scientific observations, we can treat both of these numbers like infinity.)

Keep in mind these divergent rays can't be explained by perspective, as the rays are pointing downward, not at the viewer.

No, they are not pointing downward. They come in a certain angle. You cannot measure that angle from that one photograph, because a 2-dimensional photograph simply cannot give you an exact view of a 3-dimensional world.

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: Mind = Blown

« on: July 05, 2017, 10:21:10 AM »

I haven't seen any evidence for a flat earth that cannot be shortly explained away with grade school level physics.

Then again, there is a lot of evidence against a flat earth, a great deal of which being discussed on this forum.

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: Geocentric Round Earth

« on: July 04, 2017, 02:12:52 AM »

If the government and academia are lying to us about cosmology, perhaps it's more likely they're lying to us about the layout of the heavens, than they are the shape of the earth.

I don't see them lying about cosmology.

If you had no knowledge of academic science, and were to look up at the night sky, would you think the earth is spinning, or the heavens are?

I wouldn't call the knowledge about the earth spinning "academic". Most learn it in elementary school if not earlier. Well, I learned it from my mother for some time before school. I don't remember when.

If, for some reason, I didn't know about the shape of the earth, then I probably wouldn't know about the existence of England, nor the existence of the English language... which means that I wouldn't be having this conversation anyway.

And furthermore... if my mother didn't know about the shape of the earth, then she'd probably never had known about the existence of the place that actually was my father's home city... and this would obviously look very bad for me.

How can mainstream science prove any of this to common people?
I'm not taking their word for any of it, their word doesn't mean a whole lot to me, I require evidence.

Maybe you could start by looking up at the night sky from several parts of the world, far enough from each other. This doesn't give you all the answers you want, but it's a start.

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the best FE evidence?

« on: July 03, 2017, 07:45:11 AM »

Or is the problem that the sunbeams should be parallel with each other?

Well, they pretty much are. Just like the left edge and right edge of this road are parallel, even though they maybe don't look like so. https://www.google.fi/maps/@61.7299665,24.800672,3a,75y,5.86h,81.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjP2IpkkI_aZD1cvGEOpEcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

(I can tell, this is my home town. )

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the best FE evidence?

« on: July 03, 2017, 07:38:19 AM »

Those who hold to a heliocentric view ask us to disregard what we are seeing plainly with our own eyes.
I see it for what it is, a localised sun.

Sorry, I don't see what the problem is with this picture. The sun isn't even visible, so you can't even measure its (apparent) size. Even if you saw the sun and its apparent size, you can't tell the actuall size if you don't know the distance; but if you know one, then you can calculate the other.

But maybe you can tell something. Where is the picture taken, and how far do you think the sun is 1) from the surface, 2) from the photographer? And what are those assumptions based on?

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the best FE evidence?

« on: July 03, 2017, 02:11:11 AM »

When I see the sun, I see a localised light, the suns beams come out at angles through cloud formations.

What do you mean by "angles"?

Of course the sunbeam meets the earth in some certain angle – but is there something wrong with these angles, assuming the sun were 150,000,000 km away? Say, are they too large or too small?

Also, the sun leaves a sunspot on the oceans consistent with a close proximity.

Have you, or anyone you know, ever been to this actual "spot"?

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the best FE evidence?

« on: June 30, 2017, 05:33:11 PM »

I just look up at the sun and think, 149.6 million kms away Really

What's wrong with that, and what's the actual distance then?

There is actually a topic of its own for that question.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The sunset

« on: June 30, 2017, 12:41:59 AM »

I have seen it. And sunrise, also. The sun being cut neatly into a semi-circle by the sea. The diameter of that semi-circle seemed to be pretty much the same as it is for the full circle sun any time of the day.

This is indeed very hard to explain with perspective, as we know that phenomenom. I have seen someone explaining how the sun "appears to be" equally large any time of the day because of the atmospheric magnification that occurs near the horizon; however, so far no one here (as far as I have noticed) has explained why it turns into a semi-circle before disappearing completely.