1341

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Some what I think are simple questions to answer.

« on: January 31, 2016, 11:54:46 PM »

I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.

Try reading harder.  I have faith in you!  And try the wiki too.  There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.

Just why was "Eratosthenes' crackpot observation" so crackpot. He used his eyes and senses, with a bit of help from others. He had very primitive measuring tools! Yes, he paced out (probably paid someone) the distances, and measured shadow angles by measuring the lengths of the shadow and the pole. Surely that's as Zetetec as you can get!

Why you call him a "crackpot" was he based his result on a spherical earth, but that had been accepted for hundreds of years!

Yes, if the flat earth was the accepted model at the time I guess he would have come up with a figure for the height of the sun.

But, I challenge you to repeat Eratosthenes experiment but with a number of very different spacings of the measuring points.  Say 7.5° (almost the same as Erosthanes), 15°, 30°, 45° and 60°.  I am sure you can find members that live in suitable locations.  I think you will find great differences in the height of the sun - mind I have seen some weird explanations for this!

But, please don't label these old observers as "crackpots" because they disagree with you.  Up until the telescope they had little more in the wasy of measuring instruments than eyes and angle measuring instruments that could be constructed with the tools available - mind some very amazing instruments were constructed.

1342

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why No Standard Flat Earth map?

« on: January 31, 2016, 11:23:31 PM »

...............................................................

The answer to the OP is simply that we have very limited time and resources, and can't be sending out expeditions to properly measure the continents and so on.  It would be great if we could, but for now, the best we can offer are our rough hypothetical maps.

Mapping the Earth

You say that the TFES "can't be sending out expeditions to properly measure the continents and so on." That is understandable, but I simply cannot see why this is needed.

The early European seafarers from say Vasco da Gama and Ferdinand Magellan on, gradually built up data on the coordinates (latitude-longitude) of the various continents. Before 1900 most of the earth's coastlines were accurately mapped, ie the lat-long of enough locations was determined to enable accurate maps to be drawn of the continents. In addition to this surveyors accurately mapped the interiors of many countries.

Now, this data represents the shape and locations of most places on the real earth (flat or globe).

What I simply cannot understand is why the flat earth believers feel the need to repeat this huge amount of work in order to draw a "flat earth map". The locations have moved (more than an insignificant amount) since they were mapped?

With this data I would think that a rudimentary map could be fairly readily produced. I imagine the databases for this data is available.

In all this discussion,
I have assumed that locations on the flat earth are still identified by latitude and longitude and that these can still be determined by celectial and solar fixes. That is certainly the impression that I get from Rowbotham and from Tom Bishop's writings in the resurrected "archives".

1343

Flat Earth Community / Re: If the sun was 93,000,000 miles away lol!

« on: January 31, 2016, 01:13:07 PM »

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers.

I know I am very late on replying to the OP, but so many answers seem to be getting nowhere.  My simple answer is that I have never seen the sun 4 to 5 times larger at sunset.
I have seen it appear a little larger when very close to the horizon, but that is a simple optical illusion and any measurements have shown no change. 
This is the well known "Ponzo Illusion", see http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/exmoon.htm, though this is for the moon.

Also the sun is often quite distorted and sometimes "bloated" when just on the horizon, simply due to diffraction in heated air near the earth's surface.

So, what about some evidence that it really is 4 to 5 times larger before any further ideas are hatched on either side.

1344

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A question for all round earthers

« on: January 31, 2016, 03:08:24 AM »

*cracks my brain knuckles*

Alrighty, flat Earthers. I have a challenge for you. If you don't take my challenge, go home. Start where you're at, and move east. Keep moving east until you arrive at your starting point. Then explain to me why you were able to do that if the earth is flat. Quantum portal bordering the edges of the earth? A magic force, looping you to the other side? This is legit, I'm not flaming you guys, just challenging you. If you can explain this to me and back it up scientifically, I'll become a flat Earther.

Oh, that's easy - mind you it is actually a circle you traverse, but then I guess it is on the globe too!
But, try that on the FE map in a North-South direction.
Yes, it HAS been done a couple of times, via both poles.  Haven't got time to chase up reference right now!

More important things on the table, like a light late lunch!

I nearly spelt that "lynch", and if I delay too much that is what it might be!

1345

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why No Standard Flat Earth map?

« on: January 31, 2016, 02:53:02 AM »

There is a standard map, the one that I have brought to the FES years ago, the global Piri Reis map: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732 However, the UAFE will only use it when it suits their purposes (namely the southern circumpolar star map threads), and even then, they do not realize that it is incompatible with the solar orbit data posted in the official faq. Your map would be a lot easier to follow if some latitude-longitude lines along with the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and the Arctic and Antarctic circles. After that is how navigation is done, and with GPS is how we define a point on earth. Without these showing it seems that a flight from say Singapore to Los Angeles over the Pacific would take a weird route as would a flight from Sydney to Santiago.  These might be clarified if lat-long and some distance scale were provided.

1346

Flat Earth Community / Re: Pictures in space?

« on: December 25, 2015, 10:36:35 PM »

Rabinoz Where do you get off on talking to newbies like that? Do you feel superior now? Well done, im so pleased for you.

Mathias, of course the pictures took from so called outer space are fake. Its obvious these pictures are being used as proof for globe earth which is no proof at all. Other than these photos there is no proof that the earth is round. There is plenty of proof that the earth is flat and not moving.

Is there a shill infestation in this forum?

When someone makes a statement like this:
"If you believe the Earth is round than it would be a pear shaped, A earth spinning fast is like dough of a pizza spinning and eventually it would flatten out, than people could really see the curvature of the earth."
He did not come up with words like this himself, clearly he read if from quotes taken out of context elsewhere!
This bit: "it would be a pear shaped", is just a scrap taken from Neil deGrasse Tyson, with the following explanation left out. 
Likewise "A earth spinning fast is like dough of a pizza" is such a stupid statement.  Again I don't blame Jarimee, but the general approach of making completely incorrect and misleading statements about the globe.
Don't blame me, the blame rests squarely on flat earth supporters (probably on Youtube) that take quote out of context try to make the "spinning ball" look ridiculous.

No, I don't feel superior, but how can I let silly statements about the globe stand?

1347

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon

« on: December 25, 2015, 12:37:02 PM »

Let me know (flat-earthers) how you think I can improve this illustration.

This is what I get:

The text is so small I cannot make any of it out.  I must admit I am not a flat earther, but if I cannot read it I cannot get any information from it.

1348

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Newtons Laws of Motion

« on: December 25, 2015, 12:13:31 PM »

I don't know. And welcome to the trenches. This site isn't as active as the other forum I'm in.
www.theflatearthsociety.org

I've seen you there often - do you think "Dear Papa" will find us here?

1349

Flat Earth Community / Merry Christmas, Happy Holiday or however you wish to celebrate

« on: December 24, 2015, 11:24:27 PM »

Whatever the shape of the earth, we all live in the same one,

So from "Down Under", a Merry Christmas to you all!

And to the many who might celebrate differently, happy Holiday and Peace of Earth!

1350

Flat Earth Community / Re: Pictures in space?

« on: December 24, 2015, 12:10:42 PM »

Hi Matthew,

I think I replied to your question, but maybe there was a technical issue.

Maybe you have the change to talk to an astronaut who can tell you his experience. Or you could try to become an astronaut yourself! Then you can find out reality for yourself.

But, honestly, according to my knowledge and experience, the earth is round!

If you believe the Earth is round than it would be a pear shaped, A earth spinning fast is like dough of a pizza spinning and eventually it would flatten out, than people could really see the curvature of the earth.

You come up with "If you believe the Earth is round than it would be a pear shaped".  It looks like you picked up a bit of a requote from Neil deGrasse Tyson that left out some important information - yes, slightly pear shaped, but since the polar diameter is 7899 miles and the equatorial diameter is 7926 miles it would look almost perfectly round in any photo you are likely to see.

Then you go on and come out with "A earth spinning fast is like dough of a pizza spinning".  Well maybe an "earth spinning fast" might, but the earth is really spinning quite slowly - one revolution in about 23.93 hours (one sidereal day), or 0.000696 rpm!

We can calculate the centripetal acceleration from the earth's rotation by using A_cent = (v^2)/R_E.  Easiest in SI units, so: The surface velocity at the equator is about 1671 kph, or 464 m/s.
The earth's equatorial radius is around 6,366,000 m.  Hence the centripetal acceleration is A_cent = (v^2)/R_E = 0.034 m/sec^2.
Compare this with g of at the North Pole of 9.83 m/sec^2.  So the centripetal acceleration is almost neglible compared to the gravitational acceleration!

Really, I think you need a better script writer.  If you are thinking these up fro yourself, learn a bit more about the globe before coming out with more half-baked ideas!

1351

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Newtons Laws of Motion

« on: December 24, 2015, 01:47:34 AM »

The force moving up is 'universal acceleration'. Not 'universal velocity'. I hope you can piece together why that answers the question.

I see two major problems with 'universal acceleration'.
The first is that measured values of 'g' vary with both latitude and elevation.
The variation due to latitude from the poles to the equator amounts to about 0.5%, quite measureable.
The variation due to altitude is a reduction in g from sea level to 9000 m (roughly the height of Everest) is almost 0.29%.
There are lesser variations due to local 'gravity anomalies' that are used in mineral exploration.
It would appear that 'universal acceleration' would have to result in exactly the same acceleration at all locations.

The other problem is that 'universal acceleration' from the time of 'creation' (whatever age that is taken to be) would have the earth travelling an essentially the speed of light (relative to what - I don't know).  To me it would seem that an almost infinite amount of energy would be required to accelerate the earth (and all the observed universe).
The source of that energy seems to be a mystery.