1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 03:23:08 AM »

This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.

First, where is the "official Flat Earth model?"  I'd like to see it in one place, and I'd like to know who forms the consensus.  This would make my research a lot easier.

Second, the Bi-Polar model has been debunked: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59769.0

What I'm looking for is an answer that matches direct observation.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 03:10:36 AM »

Are you guys lazy or ignorant? Google is your friend no?

There's no need for name calling.  Every place I look there is a bunch of nonsense and nobody ever clearly explains it.  Also, there are multiple hypotheses, so I wanted to know the answer from someone here specifically.

For RealEarth there is generally one, simple, clear model.  I'm sorry that we have to ask questions here in a manner that frustrates you, but maybe it would help to create a single, clear model that doesn't differ from one FakeEarther to another.

{EDIT}
I was able to finally watch that video and it doesn't address why Sigma Octantis stays still--in the South--with the stars rotating around it, it just talks about sun rays in the east and west.

Also, this doesn't match what Tom was talking about, and provides an example of why you guys make this so hard to understand for someone like me trying to learn this stuff.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance debate based on poll results

« on: August 28, 2017, 02:35:24 AM »

Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:

- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system

If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.

You are incorrect.  It is up to you to prove GPS is not accurate, that Boeing does not know how fast the planes they make fly, and that Lat Lon is not an accurate measurement of the earth.

Actually, both of you have a burden of proof.  You claim those three statements are true, and Tom claims they are false.  The only way to dodge the burden is to remain unconvinced of either conclusion, i.e., you have to not believe the statements are true and not believe they are false.  (Obviously, it would make more sense that Boeing knows the specs of their planes, and the fact that Tom won't answer is evidence that he knows he's being overly pedantic.  I should know, I'm pedantic about nearly everything.)

That said, I have hard time understanding why the FakeEarthers (FE proponents) are so worried about the city distances in the OP.  They are so defensive and ready to stick with their flat Earth presupposition than none even bothered to produce a simple flat map showing those distances.  Your circle method seems like the most straightforward way.

Here's a link to an interactive model.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sigma Octantis, The Other Pole Star

« on: August 28, 2017, 12:19:15 AM »

I also have this question, but it would appear that nobody has an answer.  Even Samuel Birley Rowbotham couldn't answer it.

(By the way, do the forum admins prefer muddying the forum by creating duplicate posts, or is the better practice of searching and replying to existing posts preferred?)

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Stellar parallax

« on: August 27, 2017, 11:34:11 PM »

For what it's worth, the FE hypothesis is that the stars are merely a few thousand km from the earth.  That means that two observers on Earth separated by about 5,000 km can simultaneously take a picture of the Moon and the parallax should show the Moon appear shifted by 13.8 arcmin (78.5% of the FE Moon's angular width) as compared to the background stars (assuming the stars are right behind the Moon).  The actual apparent shift of the Moon that we should observe empirically is about 44.7 arcmin (143.9% of the observed angular diameter).

This observer separation is approximately the distance across the US and the experiment could be easily performed.  I hope to actually perform this experiment.

Interactive diagram here.

To answer your question though, my guess is they would make up a pure speculation about refraction or something.  All without any prior empirical evidence or models to back it up.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.

« on: August 25, 2017, 10:37:12 PM »

If the earth were a globe (convex) we should expect to see more than 180 degrees when the interior angles are added between any three connecting flight routes which create a triangle.
...
Therefore the earth is flat.

Tom, do you believe spherical objects exist on earth?  Like basketballs, for example?  If so, then take a fully inflated basketball (standard circumference 75 cm) and measure the distance from a point on top to its "equator."  Should be 18.75 cm.
Next, measure 1/4 away around along the ball's "equator."  Again should be 18.75 cm.
Finally, measure back up to the "pole" where you started.  Same thing: 18.75 cm.

Now, take those measurements and plug them into the SSS triangle calculator you mentioned earlier.

A: _____
B: _____
C: _____

What angles do you get, and do they add up to 180º?  More?  Less?  Therefore the basketball is flat?

Lastly, measure the angles on the line you traced out on the basketball.  Do they equal the angles quoted from that website?  Are they each ~90º?  Does 3 * 90 = 180?