The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: nickrulercreator on March 01, 2018, 10:12:09 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI
It really makes some good points. Why don't we see any noticeable change in the sun between the summer and winter solstices, except for its position? No change in size, no change in its speed across the sky, nothing. Why is everyone able to see it move about the same distance across the sky per hour(15 degrees) as mentioned in the video, when it should vary wildly depending on your location if the earth was flat? How does the sun not violate conservation of angular momentum as it moved over the plane? If momentum is conserved, as it is, then the days should increase as the sun moved further out, and decrease as it moved further in toward the north pole. The sun cannot magically speed up and slow down without some outside force. What is this force, if it exists?
-
It really makes some good points. Why don't we see any noticeable change in the sun between the summer and winter solstices, except for its position? No change in size, no change in its speed across the sky, nothing. Why is everyone able to see it move about the same distance across the sky per hour(15 degrees) as mentioned in the video, when it should vary wildly depending on your location if the earth was flat? How does the sun not violate conservation of angular momentum as it moved over the plane? If momentum is conserved, as it is, then the days should increase as the sun moved further out, and decrease as it moved further in toward the north pole. The sun cannot magically speed up and slow down without some outside force. What is this force, if it exists?
Why not read Earth Not a Globe to find out?
On why the sun does not change size, we have created this article to supplement ENAG's explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
On why the sun does not act as if the perspective lines meet an infinite distance away, this is discussed in Earth Not a Globe. The perspective lines actually meet a finite distance away, as so:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig97.jpg)
Where the perspective lines meet (in this case the lands ascend to eye level) is not infinity. This occurs a finite distance away. The reasoning is discussed in Earth Not a Globe.
As an example, a long length of straight rail road tracks will ascend to eye level, despite the rail road tracks not being an infinite distance away. Under the traditional Ancient Greek model is would be impossible for rail road tracks to ascend to the horizon unless the rail road tracks were an infinite distance away. Since things can ascend and descend into the horizon, that means those assumptions are wrong.
-
As someone asked earlier, why is the observer (apparently) in a ditch?
And why does the illustration look as though it comes from a volume from the 1600s?
-
As someone asked earlier, why is the observer (apparently) in a ditch?
And why does the illustration look as though it comes from a volume from the 1600s?
It looks like a ditch because the horizon appears to you as if you are standing on the inside of a bowl. The ground beneath you rises to eye level. The Ancient Greek version also says that perspective is like a bowl. The difference is that the Ancient Greeks assumed that the perspective lines meet an infinite distance away. Rowbotham shows that the perspective lines meet a finite distance away. Things on the horizon are not at infinity. Read Earth Not a Globe for more.
-
It looks like a ditch because the horizon appears to you as if you are standing on the inside of a bowl.
I suggested in another thread that this is an optical illusion, but I don't recall seeing you answer.
-
I suggested in another thread that this is an optical illusion, but I don't recall seeing you answer.
Yes, the sun merging with the horizon is an illusion. Any other questions?
-
Why not read Earth Not a Globe to find out?
Because in the many threads on this site, as well as others, ENAG has been proven wrong.
On why the sun does not change size, we have created this article to supplement ENAG's explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Your argument relies heavily on lens flare in images, though, not the divergence of light. There is also a large difference between a few hundred feet, as seen with street lamps, and the sun, which, according to you, is many thousands of miles away (even further at sunsets and sunrises). What math have you done to determine that it really is the divergence of light that causes the sun to appear the same size?
On why the sun does not act as if the perspective lines meet an infinite distance away, this is discussed in Earth Not a Globe. The perspective lines actually meet a finite distance away
Then I should be able to take a telescope, point it at the sun after it sets, and see it again.
As an example, a long length of straight rail road tracks will ascend to eye level
Tracks do not ascend to eye level, nor does the horizon. If tracks are longer than how far you can see to the horizon, then the tracks will appear to meet the horizon. Most images of straight tracks are also taken very close to the ground, meaning you can't see as far as if you were standing straight up. Many rail tracks run for miles, so they will meet the horizon.
The horizon does not ascend to eye level, as you claimed here:
The ground beneath you rises to eye level.
watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFj7gNh3yOM
The higher you go, the lower the horizon drops. This is measurable.
-
On why the sun does not change size, we have created this article to supplement ENAG's explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
Your argument relies heavily on lens flare in images, though, not the divergence of light. There is also a large difference between a few hundred feet, as seen with street lamps, and the sun, which, according to you, is many thousands of miles away (even further at sunsets and sunrises). What math have you done to determine that it really is the divergence of light that causes the sun to appear the same size?
The street lamps in the photograph at the end of that link are clearly not shrinking in size in the distance as they should be. The street lights in the distance are all the same size. How do you explain that? What aspect of "lens flare" causes light to appear at the same size regardless of distance?
On why the sun does not act as if the perspective lines meet an infinite distance away, this is discussed in Earth Not a Globe. The perspective lines actually meet a finite distance away
Then I should be able to take a telescope, point it at the sun after it sets, and see it again.
Make sure that there is nothing on the eye level horizon between you and the sun blocking your view.
In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham shows that half sunken ships on calm standing bodies of water can be restored by viewing the scene with a telescope. When there are waves and swells the ship is not restorable.
watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFj7gNh3yOM
The higher you go, the lower the horizon drops. This is measurable.
The land drops a little at great altitudes because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. You are looking through more fog at greater altitudes. You can see in that video that the horizon is foggy and indistinct rather than sharp, as it is at sea level.
-
The street lamps in the photograph at the end of that link are clearly not shrinking in size in the distance as they should be. The street lights in the distance are all the same size. How do you explain that? What aspect of "lens flare" causes light to appear at the same size regardless of distance?
The street lamps in the photo may not be shrinking, but the headlights sure are (I'm talking about this photo: https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Streets_at_night.jpg). The headlight of the close car is huge, the headlights of the cars way far back in the street aren't. I'm skeptical as to where you found this image, and its original source. If you have it, would you mind providing it for me?
You ask what aspect of lens flare causes the light to appear the same size regardless of distance, and I unfortunately cannot answer that. Lens flare, as far as I know, does not have any method of calculation. Light divergence, on the other hand, does. Do you have any calculations.
I'd like to present these images that clearly show the flare of the lights of lamps getting smaller as they get further from the camera:
http://www.capetowndailyphoto.com/uploaded_images/_MG_5125-750184.jpg
https://3kpnuxym9k04c8ilz2quku1czd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/IMG_8681R.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNmF_rO7ZaSYHYQ3BVkMd_uHzJZMXwwecEvfg4eYIrWXRmajT3xQ
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUGZJSN_uc2jv6h8mC2o0CMGiZ6QOxHDr8exUL5eLfYN3Qr0HkiQ
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CN3AJ7/boy-standing-on-pavement-at-night-with-street-lights-CN3AJ7.jpg
http://www.harlow.gov.uk/sites/harlow-cms/files/files/street%20lights%20-%20cropped%20-%20small.jpg
https://www.menshealth.com/sites/menshealth.com/files/styles/article_main_custom_user_phone_1x/public/articles/2016/07/warning-about-led-streetlight-glare1.jpg?itok=V8sm4ug7×tamp=1467990851
http://media.istockphoto.com/photos/6th-st-bridge-picture-id514233304?k=6&m=514233304&s=612x612&w=0&h=stEVNCk4QiCuD8WQ2MsHQ1YSU7rj9MJzJ6nfzdRhxsY=
https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/streetlights-lighting-up-an-empty-street-picture-id489955440?k=6&m=489955440&s=612x612&w=0&h=Z5_U_jptj7Vh4UCcHBSyOrSJUCXYgZlv_F726NfeNLM=
https://fthmb.tqn.com/PsymxRVjoegqc9QiIjkvjW6TATQ=/768x0/filters:no_upscale()/sli-phenomenon-56a6ee3f5f9b58b7d0e5956e.jpg
https://clf1.medpagetoday.com/assets/images/resource-center/cs-led-street-lights-63502.jpg
http://covermyfb.com/media/covers/thumb/5616-street-lights-at-night.jpg (look at the ones way behind the trees)
https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1408304306/348/10394348.jpg
https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.pdpics.com/images/7099-night-street-lights.jpg
Which such a large number of images that actually show a decrease in the apparent size of the lights, I'm a bit skeptical of your image on the wiki.
Make sure that there is nothing on the eye level horizon between you and the sun blocking your view.
Next time I go to a lake or ocean and watch the sun setting, I'll try that.
half sunken ships on calm standing bodies of water can be restored by viewing the scene with a telescope
Most of the objects never actually were far enough away. What about this, though: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/dscn3193-comparison-jpg.24254/ or this: http://stupidconspiracies.org/misc/Toronto_across_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott.gif, this: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/084/627/58d.jpg, this: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/F5Gl28xuvnI/maxresdefault.jpg, this: https://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6155192949_68fa85794e_o.jpg, this: https://deadconfederates.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/hull-down-03.png, this: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a04c6df7269268394ce2348d6476bf22-c, or this: https://i.imgur.com/11xysiz.png
When there are waves and swells the ship is not restorable.
I never knew some lakes and nearby coastlines got waves of several dozen or hundred feet, without a change in the wave and the waves dropping or rising, as they normally do.
The land drops a little at great altitudes because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. You are looking through more fog at greater altitudes. You can see in that video that the horizon is foggy and indistinct rather than sharp, as it is at sea level.
Fair point, but, is there any evidence to show that it does actually remain at eye level, even on planes?
-
The street lamps in the photograph at the end of that link are clearly not shrinking in size in the distance as they should be. The street lights in the distance are all the same size. How do you explain that? What aspect of "lens flare" causes light to appear at the same size regardless of distance?
those lights look as they do because of pixel saturation, not lens flare. that's why they all have the same sort of shape. light from saturated pixels in the ccd is spilling over to adjacent pixels. and probably mie scattering, too.
also, those lights do get smaller with distance. open up photoshop and measure them. the background lamps are at least half the size of the foregound lamps. since you don't know the real distances, i'm not sure how you can say they're not shrinking as they "should be." how small "should" the background lamps be?
-
The street lamps in the photograph at the end of that link are clearly not shrinking in size in the distance as they should be. The street lights in the distance are all the same size. How do you explain that? What aspect of "lens flare" causes light to appear at the same size regardless of distance?
The street lamps in the photo may not be shrinking, but the headlights sure are (I'm talking about this photo: https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Streets_at_night.jpg). The headlight of the close car is huge, the headlights of the cars way far back in the street aren't. I'm skeptical as to where you found this image, and its original source. If you have it, would you mind providing it for me?
You ask what aspect of lens flare causes the light to appear the same size regardless of distance, and I unfortunately cannot answer that. Lens flare, as far as I know, does not have any method of calculation. Light divergence, on the other hand, does. Do you have any calculations.
I'd like to present these images that clearly show the flare of the lights of lamps getting smaller as they get further from the camera:
http://www.capetowndailyphoto.com/uploaded_images/_MG_5125-750184.jpg
https://3kpnuxym9k04c8ilz2quku1czd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/IMG_8681R.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNmF_rO7ZaSYHYQ3BVkMd_uHzJZMXwwecEvfg4eYIrWXRmajT3xQ
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUGZJSN_uc2jv6h8mC2o0CMGiZ6QOxHDr8exUL5eLfYN3Qr0HkiQ
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CN3AJ7/boy-standing-on-pavement-at-night-with-street-lights-CN3AJ7.jpg
http://www.harlow.gov.uk/sites/harlow-cms/files/files/street%20lights%20-%20cropped%20-%20small.jpg
https://www.menshealth.com/sites/menshealth.com/files/styles/article_main_custom_user_phone_1x/public/articles/2016/07/warning-about-led-streetlight-glare1.jpg?itok=V8sm4ug7×tamp=1467990851
http://media.istockphoto.com/photos/6th-st-bridge-picture-id514233304?k=6&m=514233304&s=612x612&w=0&h=stEVNCk4QiCuD8WQ2MsHQ1YSU7rj9MJzJ6nfzdRhxsY=
https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/streetlights-lighting-up-an-empty-street-picture-id489955440?k=6&m=489955440&s=612x612&w=0&h=Z5_U_jptj7Vh4UCcHBSyOrSJUCXYgZlv_F726NfeNLM=
https://fthmb.tqn.com/PsymxRVjoegqc9QiIjkvjW6TATQ=/768x0/filters:no_upscale()/sli-phenomenon-56a6ee3f5f9b58b7d0e5956e.jpg
https://clf1.medpagetoday.com/assets/images/resource-center/cs-led-street-lights-63502.jpg
http://covermyfb.com/media/covers/thumb/5616-street-lights-at-night.jpg (look at the ones way behind the trees)
https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1408304306/348/10394348.jpg
https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.pdpics.com/images/7099-night-street-lights.jpg
Which such a large number of images that actually show a decrease in the apparent size of the lights, I'm a bit skeptical of your image on the wiki.
If you read the Wiki it says that only lights of sufficient intensity are able to catch onto the atmosphere and enlarge. It does not apply to all light. Otherwise everything would be enlarged. In the headlight highway example on that link the tail lights of the cars in the opposite lane are not being enlarged.
Any picture which shows lights shrinking only means that the lights are not sufficiently intense.
half sunken ships on calm standing bodies of water can be restored by viewing the scene with a telescope
Most of the objects never actually were far enough away. What about this, though: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/dscn3193-comparison-jpg.24254/ or this: http://stupidconspiracies.org/misc/Toronto_across_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott.gif, this: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/084/627/58d.jpg, this: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/F5Gl28xuvnI/maxresdefault.jpg, this: https://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6155192949_68fa85794e_o.jpg, this: https://deadconfederates.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/hull-down-03.png, this: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a04c6df7269268394ce2348d6476bf22-c, or this: https://i.imgur.com/11xysiz.png
The "Great Lakes" are actually inland seas, and have waves and swells on them. The rest of those images are on the sea. This is what is causing the sinking effect in many of those images.
When there are waves and swells the ship is not restorable.
I never knew some lakes and nearby coastlines got waves of several dozen or hundred feet, without a change in the wave and the waves dropping or rising, as they normally do.
The waves don't need to be all that big. Perspective is bringing them the horizon to your eye level, and the waves on the horizon are providing an area which other more distant objects can shrink behind. A small object can obscure a large object, much like if you hold a dime out in front of you it can obscure an elephant.
The land drops a little at great altitudes because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. You are looking through more fog at greater altitudes. You can see in that video that the horizon is foggy and indistinct rather than sharp, as it is at sea level.
Fair point, but, is there any evidence to show that it does actually remain at eye level, even on planes?
The evidence is that if you start at sea level and slowly increase your altitude the horizon will rise with you. Your perspective changes and you are able to see more distant lands, with the horizon rising as you rise. The fact that the horizon rises to stay at eye level, rather than lowers, as you increase altitude, is evidence that there is an effect going on which keeps the horizon at your eye level.
At a very high altitude you are looking through so much atmosphere the horizon just seems to be faded with fog. At that point the lands may seem to drop as you go higher -- but that is because of atmosphere.
-
The street lamps in the photograph at the end of that link are clearly not shrinking in size in the distance as they should be. The street lights in the distance are all the same size. How do you explain that? What aspect of "lens flare" causes light to appear at the same size regardless of distance?
those lights look as they do because of pixel saturation, not lens flare. that's why they all have the same sort of shape. light from saturated pixels in the ccd is spilling over to adjacent pixels. and probably mie scattering, too.
also, those lights do get smaller with distance. open up photoshop and measure them. the background lamps are at least half the size of the foregound lamps. since you don't know the real distances, i'm not sure how you can say they're not shrinking as they "should be." how small "should" the background lamps be?
Yes, the Wiki addresses why the lights in the foreground are larger.
The effect only applies to the far field street lamps, not the near field street lamps. A street lamp once centimeter away from your eye ball will, of course, be much larger. The street lamps in the near field may be too close to catch on to the atmosphere or are larger than the projection.
The far field street lamps are all the same size, showing that there is an enlarging effect. The street lights in the distance are not appropriately shrinking.
Per your argument of "pixel saturation" as an explanation for these scenes, if the pixels were bleeding into the pixels near them, the lights should still shrink as they recede into the distance, not stay the same exact size. A smaller light would cause a smaller diameter of pixel bleed around it.
-
All of these points are in Earth Not a Globe. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites. Its not like that book isn't one of the first things that comes up when one starts researching this subject.
Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day? The book is free and online. If you are going to make an attack you should address the actual source material, not your personal idea of what FET is.
-
Is there Moon of sufficient brightness to avoid shrinkage? The planets? Because they also don't shrink.
Note also the distance between lights does shrink with distance, so why when the Moon is near Venus do they not appear to get closer as they get to the horizon?
-
All of these points are in Earth Not a Globe. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites. Its not like that book isn't one of the first things that comes up when one starts researching this subject.
Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day? The book is free and online. If you are going to make an attack you should address the actual source material, not your personal idea of what FET is.
We are discussing the actual measurements of the earth, not your idea that somehow the earth changes depending on your position.
Still waiting for details of your mapping plan.
-
In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham shows that half sunken ships on calm standing bodies of water can be restored by viewing the scene with a telescope. When there are waves and swells the ship is not restorable.
Why do you keep repeating lies like this?
Rowbotham doesn't SHOW that, he merely claims it.
And his "proof" is just him saying "this is what I saw" to which my equally valid riposte is "no it isn't".
-
... the sun merging with the horizon is an illusion.
How do you reach this conclusion? From what evidence?
Why have you, in the last week or so, described the sun as "intersecting" and "merging" with the horizon? Do you regard these as meaning the same thing? If so, could you actually describe what you mean?
-
The street lamps in the photograph at the end of that link are clearly not shrinking in size in the distance as they should be. The street lights in the distance are all the same size. How do you explain that? What aspect of "lens flare" causes light to appear at the same size regardless of distance?
I don't know, but it's clearly an effect due to the photography process used, for the lamp POSTS clearly diminish in size as their distance gets greater.
Make sure that there is nothing on the eye level horizon between you and the sun blocking your view.
Is the "eye level horizon" something different from any other kind? Do we have different horizons?
The land drops a little at great altitudes because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. You are looking through more fog at greater altitudes. You can see in that video that the horizon is foggy and indistinct rather than sharp, as it is at sea level.
...but it's still clearly below the level of the wing. Which is below the window. Which makes it lower than the observer's 'eye level'.
No?
-
The evidence is that if you start at sea level and slowly increase your altitude the horizon will rise with you. Your perspective changes and you are able to see more distant lands, with the horizon rising as you rise. The fact that the horizon rises to stay at eye level, rather than lowers, as you increase altitude, is evidence that there is an effect going on which keeps the horizon at your eye level.
What is this 'evidence'? If it's in the form of imagery, then - how can a camera have an 'eye level'?
-
Its not like that book isn't one of the first things that comes up when one starts researching this subject.
Actually, I had never heard of it until you mentioned it here
Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day? The book is free and online. If you are going to make an attack you should address the actual source material, not your personal idea of what FET is.
So .. is this book a definitive statement of FET? An 'official' FET, if you like? Or are there other versions of FET out there?
You're here because you choose to post all manner of stuff that people disagree with, or find so vague that they need to question you to find out what you actually MEAN.
If you want to step away from the computer and have a quiet life away from this questioning, just hit the Off switch and do so. But you keep coming back.
-
It really makes some good points.
No, it doesn't. CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions. He shares this quality with many unobservant RE-ers - if the information wasn't spoon-fed (or force-fed, in some cases) to them, they'll assume it doesn't exist and fill in the blanks with their imagination.
You're here because you choose to post all manner of stuff that people disagree with, or find so vague that they need to question you to find out what you actually MEAN.
If you want to step away from the computer and have a quiet life away from this questioning, just hit the Off switch and do so. But you keep coming back.
You're a bit confused. You're the guest here. You're not gonna be telling the hosts to go away. Unless you plan on no longer being lazy, actually doing your research, and becoming a contributing member of the community, then you'll be leaving shortly anyway. And that's fine by us.
-
If you read the Wiki it says that only lights of sufficient intensity are able to catch onto the atmosphere and enlarge. It does not apply to all light. Otherwise everything would be enlarged. In the headlight highway example on that link the tail lights of the cars in the opposite lane are not being enlarged.
Were you able to measure the intensity of the lights in your photo on the wiki then? Or did you just cherry pick a photo? The headlight example doesn't show enlarged lights, it simply appears larger because there are more cars in that area of the photo. More cars = more headlights = brighter.
The "Great Lakes" are actually inland seas, and have waves and swells on them. The rest of those images are on the sea. This is what is causing the sinking effect in many of those images.
And do these waves and swells reach several tens or hundreds of feet at all time, without ever going down?
Perspective is bringing them the horizon to your eye level
They are not being brought to eye level, because the horizon is not at eye level.
A small object can obscure a large object, much like if you hold a dime out in front of you it can obscure an elephant.
Correct, but only if the small object is MUCH closer to you than the big object. How much closer are the waves to the observer than the ships?
The evidence is that if you start at sea level and slowly increase your altitude the horizon will rise with you.
But you're only claiming this. Do you have any real evidence? Did you use any sort of tools to determine this?
The fact that the horizon rises to stay at eye level, rather than lowers, as you increase altitude, is evidence that there is an effect going on which keeps the horizon at your eye level.
This would be true if you could provide evidence that it is rising to eye level.
At a very high altitude you are looking through so much atmosphere the horizon just seems to be faded with fog. At that point the lands may seem to drop as you go higher -- but that is because of atmosphere.
So does this cause the horizon's position relative to your eyes to become un-measurable? How could one counter this so that they could determine where the horizon actually is? If it is un-measurable, how then do you know that the horizon rises as you rise?
Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day?
That's a very good question. ENAG is entirely claims, though. It's proponents made up by Rowbotham, no actual evidence. It's entirely hearsay.
-
It really makes some good points.
No, it doesn't. CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions.
He makes these assumptions based on the model that you push. He shows what reality would be like if Earth was flat, mainly using geometry for subjects like the sun's position, or the distances between two places, and then shows this doesn't match our observations. Instead, they match the math that is based on a spherical earth (or oblate earth).
if the information wasn't spoon-fed (or force-fed, in some cases) to them, they'll assume it doesn't exist and fill in the blanks with their imagination.
And that's why burden of proof exists.
-
You're a bit confused. You're the guest here. You're not gonna be telling the hosts to go away. Unless you plan on no longer being lazy, actually doing your research, and becoming a contributing member of the community, then you'll be leaving shortly anyway. And that's fine by us.
Apart from Junker, whose profile clearly says "Moderator", how is one to recognise the hosts? Are you a host?
Tom's profile pic says he is a Zetetic Council Member. Does that mean he is a host, or not? How does one tell? I've looked in the FAQ, if I've missed something there, please advise. The member list is 60 pages, so you'll forgive me if I don't read it all ....
-
how is one to recognise the hosts?
It's in the name - the Flat Earth Society. You don't need to be able to identify each and every member of the society to know that we'll expect you to follow the rules and simple conventions. If you can't do that, find a forum that's more suited to your, uh, posting habits. I'm always happy to recommend Reddit to the likes of you.
He shows what reality would be like if Earth was flat, mainly using geometry for subjects like the sun's position, or the distances between two places, and then shows this doesn't match our observations. Instead, they match the math that is based on a spherical earth (or oblate earth).
If you do not have anything to contribute to the conversation other than "Actually, the Earth is the shape I consider correct," please refrain from posting. Most everyone here thinks they're right, so there's no need to emptily state that.
He makes these assumptions based on the model that you push.
I'm sure he thinks he's doing that, but unfortunately he has yet to release a video "debunking" anything without grossly misrepresenting his opponent. His homeopathy videos are particularly illustrative of this issue. And no, I am not a proponent of homeopathy.
-
If you do not have anything to contribute to the conversation other than "Actually, the Earth is the shape I consider correct," please refrain from posting. Most everyone here thinks they're right, so there's no need to emptily state that.
I never said anything like this. I was refuting your claim that he cherry picks easy subjects. I never asserted that I believe it to be round. I was asserting that the evidence that CHL brings up show it to be round.
I'm sure he thinks he's doing that, but unfortunately he has yet to release a video "debunking" anything without grossly misrepresenting his opponent. His homeopathy videos are particularly illustrative of this issue. And no, I am not a proponent of homeopathy.
How does he grossly misrepresent the FE? His model uses the numbers you provide in the wiki.
-
The effect only applies to the far field street lamps, not the near field street lamps. A street lamp once centimeter away from your eye ball will, of course, be much larger. The street lamps in the near field may be too close to catch on to the atmosphere or are larger than the projection.
The far field street lamps are all the same size, showing that there is an enlarging effect. The street lights in the distance are not appropriately shrinking.
(https://i.imgur.com/mzCh05f.png)
by my very rough approximation, the lamps do get progressively smaller. although measuring them is somewhat subjective basically impossible. how did you measure them? scattering + saturation are causing lots of flux to bleed into adjacent pixels, which is why it looks like one contiguous white blob. this image is worthless for proving what you're trying to prove.
there's also no way for you to know how large the lamps "should" be. you don't know how far they are from the camera or from each other; you don't know the pixel scale, so you don't know if you can resolve the change in angular size from lamp-to-lamp, so looking at adjacent lamps is worthless; you don't know the exposure settings, atmospheric conditions, or anything else about this image beyond "there are some white blobs here."
and that's to say nothing of the fact that the human eye is not a ccd sensor. while i'm stating the obvious, it's worth pointing out that cameras are capable of producing many different sorts of images that do not represent physical reality. cameras are actually kinda bad at representing reality as we see it.
Per your argument of "pixel saturation" as an explanation for these scenes, if the pixels were bleeding into the pixels near them, the lights should still shrink as they recede into the distance, not stay the same exact size. A smaller light would cause a smaller diameter of pixel bleed around it.
how did you determine that? are you just assuming it? flux drops off with the square of the distance. surface brightness doesn't depend on distance at all. it's not always a linear relationship.
btw have you not noticed that the only images you can find to support your hypothesis are dark/dimly lit? that's not a coincidence.
-
I was refuting your claim that he cherry picks easy subjects.
That is not a claim I made, so good job. Perhaps try responding to things people actually say?
I never asserted that I believe it to be round.
Yeah, I'm gonna call BS on that one. The moment you pompously contrast your opponents' viewpoint with "reality", you make an assertion.
How does he grossly misrepresent the FE? His model uses the numbers you provide in the wiki.
And he ignores large chunks of the theory that make his claims inconvenient for him. This is just as bad as the FE'ers who say things like "if the Earth were spinning at 1000mph, people would get flung off into space!" Sure, it uses the opponent's numbers. It also uses them in wildly inappropriate ways, rooted in the lack of even a basic understanding of the subject matter. Simply by making this assertion we can clearly see that the video is [BOLLOCKS]
-
That is not a claim I made, so good job. Perhaps try responding to things people actually say?
You said: CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions.
Is this not saying he cherry picks easy subjects?
Yeah, I'm gonna call BS on that one. The moment you pompously contrast your opponents' viewpoint with "reality", you make an assertion.
Fair point
he ignores large chunks of the theory that make his claims inconvenient for him
such as?
we can clearly see that the video is [BOLLOCKS]
Why? His principles are still correct. The math is correct.
-
And he ignores large chunks of the theory that make his claims inconvenient for him. This is just as bad as the FE'ers who say things like "if the Earth were spinning at 1000mph, people would get flung off into space!" Sure, it uses the opponent's numbers. It also uses them in wildly inappropriate ways, rooted in the lack of even a basic understanding of the subject matter. Simply by making this assertion we can clearly see that the video is [BOLLOCKS]
This is probably a lost cause (as explanations are rarely handed out on this forum) but could you please inform me as to which chunks of the theory he is leaving out?
-
You said: CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions.
Is this not saying he cherry picks easy subjects?
No, or at least this was not my intention. What I'm saying is that he strawmans his opponents, regardless of which opponent we focus on. He selects a subject (homeopathy, creationism, FE, whatever), and then he concocts a mix of things people actually propose, and things he made up on the spot, because he's too lazy to read on and would rather trust his intuition. When this is combined with his presupposed notion that his opponents are wrong, the results can often be... off the charts.
such as?
Electromagnetic acceleration, for one.
-
You said: CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions.
Is this not saying he cherry picks easy subjects?
No, or at least this was not my intention. What I'm saying is that he strawmans his opponents, regardless of which opponent we focus on. He selects a subject (homeopathy, creationism, FE, whatever), and then he concocts a mix of things people actually propose, and things he made up on the spot, because he's too lazy to read on and would rather trust his intuition. When this is combined with his presupposed notion that his opponents are wrong, the results can often be... off the charts.
such as?
Electromagnetic acceleration, for one.
One of the most convincing arguments that he presents (in my opinion) is the capability scientists have to predict things that work within the RE world and then prove them to be true later on. The exact time and path of totality of a solar eclipse, for example, or gravitational waves (discovered 100 years after they were hypothesized).
Are there any examples of FE scientists doing the same?
And before you say it, I realize there is a post in the wiki regarding lunar eclipses. I am asking very specifically about solar eclipses for a few different reasons.
-
No, or at least this was not my intention.
Then I apologize for my misinterpretation.
Electromagnetic acceleration, for one
You're going to have to explain this one. Is it like UA at all?
-
No, or at least this was not my intention.
Then I apologize for my misinterpretation.
Electromagnetic acceleration, for one
You're going to have to explain this one. Is it like UA at all?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator
That doesn't explain much, but there are certain posters here that helpfully suggest you "check the wiki."
Pete, if you could kindly answer my question regarding predictions in a flat earth model it would be appreciated.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator
Interesting. I'd love to know what this equation is saying, or how it was derived, what experiments were done to verify it, etc.
-
All of these points are in Earth Not a Globe. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites. Its not like that book isn't one of the first things that comes up when one starts researching this subject.
Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day? The book is free and online. If you are going to make an attack you should address the actual source material, not your personal idea of what FET is.
Because we find huge flaws in observation and comprehension in 'the book' and unfortunately a book is unable to respond to criticism itself.
You appear to be pretty eager to jump in and waffle on, so why bother pretending it's a chore when it's clearly your self appointed mission?
-
All of these points are in Earth Not a Globe. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites. Its not like that book isn't one of the first things that comes up when one starts researching this subject.
Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day? The book is free and online. If you are going to make an attack you should address the actual source material, not your personal idea of what FET is.
Because we find huge flaws in observation and comprehension in 'the book' and unfortunately a book is unable to respond to criticism itself.
You appear to be pretty eager to jump in and waffle on, so why bother pretending it's a chore when it's clearly your self appointed mission?
The person who made the video in the OP isn't criticizing Earth Not a Globe. He apparently did not even read Earth Not a Globe.
-
Can we get a split, please
-
Can we get a split, please
Done. Since there was debate going on (albeit off-topic), I have split/moved those posts to:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9257.0