3941

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun work?

« on: February 26, 2018, 04:21:16 PM »

Modern Astronony works by making up a mechanism or interaction as the explanation and then considering it to be the true cause until it is shown to be impossible or unlikely. Hardly any of it is experimentally determined.
What experiments did Stephen Hawking conduct on the universe before coming up with his theory of the metric expansion of space?

No, it absolutely does not work like that. Science works now like it always has. Theories are formed which explain observations and generally have predictive powers. Future observations are checked against that theory, if observations don't match then the theory is amended or, if needed, discarded. Thousands of years ago we probably did think the world was flat because if you look out to sea you do just see a flat horizon. But that is not a sufficient observation to conclude definitively you live on a flat earth. Other shapes, like a sphere for example, can look flat locally if they are big enough. This is not your "eyes playing tricks on you" any more than merging perspective lines are your eyes playing tricks. Your visual acuity is only so good. A small enough curve and a straight line are not distinguishable.

The famous stick experiment can be explained in two ways, a close sun or a curved earth.
Your response is "the earth is flat, ergo the explanation must be a close sun". That is not a rational.
What experiments have you done to determine whether that is the correct explanation? If you haven't done any then it is you who have made up something (a close sun) because it reinforces your flat earth belief and are assuming it to be true without trying to verify it in any way.
A distant sun has been long established in different ways, I'll leave you to Google how.

I can't sensibly talk about metric expansion of space. I did Google it and the Wiki article doesn't mention Hawking. Some of modern physics is, admittedly, highly theoretical. But they aren't just making up stuff. Take the fact that stars are moving apart. Clearly one cannot directly measure this, but if you understand spectroscopy (elements have different and consistent "signitures") and the Doppler effect (the apparent frequency of waves is altered by velocity) then you can work out that stars are moving away from us. Both of these concepts can be tested by experiment. We can't go and measure the velocity of a star directly but you can calculate it. Just like if you know the resting pitch of a sound source and drove it away from (or towards) an observer at a certain speed then the observer could measure the change in pitch and calculate the speed without directly measuring it. Experiments like this can be done to build confidence in the science behind all this which gives confidence in the conclusion that the stars are moving away from us.

You call things like this "rationalisation" simply because they don't fit in with your world view.
But you apply different standards to things which do. You say you don't, but your "shadow object" is made up. What experiments have you done to determine whether it even exists? You say "there's a shadow on the moon so there must be something which casts it". Fairly sound logic, but no less sound than "Doppler shift is observed in starlight so the stars must be moving away from us". Both start with an observation and result in a conclusion without direct observation of the explanation.

I will have a look at that Rowbotham chapter and I'll look at starting a thread about those experiments I mentioned, but if you claim you are an empiricist it seems strange that you have concluded the sun's distance or what the horizon is when these things can be so easily verified by experiment and I see no evidence that any experimentation has been done.

3942

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun work?

« on: February 25, 2018, 08:00:12 AM »

How would we know? That doesn't sound like something that could be emperically observed abd determined. We have higher standards than making a wild guess at things

You think that modern science basically boils down to "making a wild guess"?!
Wow.

You don't have higher standards, you just start with the premise of a flat earth and then try and work everything around that.

If you are keen on empirical observations then I have suggested experiments you can do to prove the sun is as close as you suppose (spoiler: it isn't), the horizon is "where perspective points meet" (it isn't) and that shadow length and angle is affected by perspective (they aren't).

Feel free to post your findings if I'm wrong, and some documentation of the Bishop Experiment would be good while you're there.

3943

Flat Earth Theory / Re: This is a serious, curious question.

« on: February 24, 2018, 09:30:26 PM »

Yes. I am a big fan of accepting that some things are sufficiently evident as to not require evidence in conversation. For example, I would not demand evidence of you having lungs, or that you have consumed some food within the last 5 months.

Well, I agree with that principle and of course what is self evident is subjective. But the facts that people live on good and breathe using lungs are not controversial and do come under that category.

The "fact" that there is an ice wall circling the earth which is unknown to conventional cartography or science does not, in my opinion.

3944

Flat Earth Theory / Re: This is a serious, curious question.

« on: February 24, 2018, 06:53:37 AM »

Why from a distance and not closer?

It doesn't look particularly impressive up close (unless you like images of nothing but ice), but it has of course been seen up close.

By whom and did they not attempt to scale it to see what is beyond? How do know it goes around the whole earth?
There seem to be a lot of claims about this wall with very little evidence.

3945

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun work?

« on: February 24, 2018, 06:51:37 AM »

That deals with sunrise and sunset. Incorrectly, as I have explained, but at least it's an answer.

But how does it WORK? That is the question? In conventional physics it is powered by nuclear fusion, far enough away that we are not burnt to a crisp and massive enough that it has enough fuel to keep it going.

In your model what powers it?
If it is as small as you suppose how does it have enough fuel to keep shining for millennia?
What keeps it orbiting above the plane of the earth?
What makes it keep changing orbit to cause seasons and moon phases? It must have to keep changing height and speed, what makes that happen?
What causes the spotlight effect and if it is a spotlight how does it also illuminate the moon?

I've not seen answers to any of these questions on here or in the Wiki.

3946

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few questions about the Sun from a novice

« on: February 24, 2018, 06:45:32 AM »

You are nowhere near as good at physics as you think you are.

Refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Last warning, next one is a few days off.

Ha. Ok, I'll give you that one.
But honestly, he is posting a load of pseudo-scientific gibberish. What is that adding to the debate?

But ok, let's imagine that the sun is a spotlight because of...reasons. I'm assuming from the above what I will charitably call "science" the other beam would be going in the opposite direction out into space. So what is illuminating the moon? Unless the claim is that the second spotlight is going sideways, I'm not clear what science (I mean real science, not made up science) could explain that.

3947

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A few questions about the Sun from a novice

« on: February 24, 2018, 03:08:04 AM »

You are nowhere near as good at physics as you think you are.

3948

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment with sun sets

« on: February 24, 2018, 02:03:12 AM »

From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.

The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.

Or at any other distance. That isn't how perspective works and it isn't what the horizon is.
I have suggested an experiment you can do to prove that. Get a couple of friends with boats, get them sail away from the shore.
You will notice that they are a discernible distance apart when they disappear over the horizon.
I've also suggested an experiment to help you understand how long shadows can be cast only by a light source PHYSICALLY low  to the ground.
And I've suggested a few times doing some observations of the sun or moon and triangulating to prove they are as close as you suppose.

I look forward to your results.

3949

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment with sun sets

« on: February 23, 2018, 04:04:13 PM »

Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.

I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.

The horizon can be anywhere around you, and is not defined by the surface of an object.  The horizon is the area where the perspective lines meet. If there were a skyscraper that was infinitely high, looking up from the base of the skyscraper would also create the effect of the perspective lines merging to a point. You would be looking at the skyscraper's horizon. If the skyscraper were not there, that horizon would still exist. It is just the area where the lines meet.

I see. Well, no it isn't. The horizon is simply where the earth meets the sky.
To be honest, I don't know what a horizon would look like on a flat earth.
On a globe it's a sharp line when looking out to sea because the earth curves away from you. Look along the edge of a ball - sharp line where the surface curves away from you.
That's why the horizon is further away when you get higher and the horizon line dips further below eye level with height.
These are observable and measurable and prove we live on a globe.

I guess a good way to prove that the horizon is not just where perspective lines meet would be to sail two ships maybe a mile or two apart away from you. Before they dip over the horizon they should still be a noticeable distance apart. This is an experiment you could probably organise as you live near the ocean.
If perspective points met at the horizon then the horizon would be a dot, not a line. If the horizon is what you say then why do only the horizontal lines meet and not the vertical? Do you actually think that horizontal perspective lines work differently to vertical perspective lines?

To respond to your other points:

All zoom does is make things bigger. So if a ship is truly half sunken then no amount of zoom will restore it. If the ship is not over the horizon but it's simply too far to see distinctly then optical zoom will make it clearer, that's all optical zoom does. It's not about "unmerging" perspective lines. They aren't merged in the first place any more than distant train tracks are merged. It's just that the limitations of your eye makes them harder to distinguish.

Once more: Shadow length and angle are determined by the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and object. Not your or anyone else's perspective. Otherwise in your "row of lamps" thought experiment I as an observer from the side would see the shadow cast downwards as I can see the light is physically above your hand, you with your raised hand would see it cast upwards because of your perspective. That is not what is observed. The shadow is cast downwards for both people.
Again, do an experiment with a torch in a dark room. The only way you can cast long shadows is if the torch is PHYSICALLY near the ground.
At a distance of 6000 miles you are seriously suggestion that a gap of THREE THOUSAND MILES can't be seen?

For the beach to be obscured by waves then a close wave would simply have to be taller in apparent size than the people on the beach's apparent size. And I think we both agree that things get smaller with distance. As you keep saying, a dime can hide an elephant. But the only way a dime can hide an elephant if you're looking at ground level is the dime to be VERY close and the elephant far away. So actually closer waves are more likely to hide the distant beach than ones on the horizon which will be too small to discern - that's why the horizon at sea looks flat, yes there are waves but they are too small at that distance to notice.

So if you're 20 inches above the water then close waves are pretty likely to block distant beach or building unless you're higher than them - the video posted of the distant building being hidden by the curve of the earth was clearly done from above the waves level.
I've yet to see documentary proof of your experiment. You don't take "this is what I observed" as good enough evidence from anyone else (apart from Rowbotham, strangely, who as I may have mentioned thought the moon was translucent which some would think invalidates his other "proofs".

3950

Flat Earth Community / Re: New to the flat earth??? Please explain....

« on: February 23, 2018, 12:45:09 PM »

I believe in a globe earth, you believe in the flat earth. Who is part of the conspiracy. You or me?

Both of us because we are both casting seeds of doubt.
If we don't believe each other then we don't trust each other then me and you both lose.
United we stand, divided we fall.

But we can't both be right, can we? We are fundamentally disagreeing about the shape of the earth. There is an objective truth about this.
It isn't flat because you think it is, nor is it a globe because I think it is.
The only way for us to be "united" about this is for one of us to change our opinions and neither of us are going to.
But people don't have to agree about everything to get along.

3951

Flat Earth Community / Re: What would it take to convince you that the earth is round?

« on: February 23, 2018, 12:41:18 PM »

I was admittedly being somewhat simplistic. There are other factors. But they generally go as directly as they can because it's all about efficiency.

3952

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment with sun sets

« on: February 23, 2018, 08:14:37 AM »

I think by eye level he means the horizon is...horizontal.
So the height doesn't matter, the horizon is always straight in front of you.

Except it isn't. It's just the dip is quite small and hard to see, certainly at most normal heights.
The horizon dips more as you get higher, you can see further away when you get higher - the horizon is further away.
Which proves we live on a globe.

EDIT: Some measurements of horizon dip are given here, with some details about how to measure it
https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/
As can be seen, the dip is very hard to discern at "normal" altitudes, even from a plane.

3953

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: February 22, 2018, 06:49:20 PM »

Isn't the round earth route just over 7000 miles and the flat earth one 7800, or am I missing something?
And if the earth is flat then why would the airline take such a weird curved route? An airline is trying to minimise costs, going longer routes uses more fuel and takes more time, why would they do that? Unless they are "in on it" too.

3954

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do you guys explain the global positioning system.

« on: February 22, 2018, 11:05:05 AM »

It's true the wiki doesn't talk about GPS per se, but it does discuss the NASA hoax.

It does. But the satellites which make my TV work were not launched by NASA.
And if that doesn't really work by satellites then they must be "in on it" too, and what's their stake in this?

3955

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment with sun sets

« on: February 22, 2018, 10:22:54 AM »

Did you see the sun go below the horizon, or did you see the sun intersect the horizon?

If you're looking out to sea on a clear day what you see is the sun slowly dropping in the sky until the bottom of it appears to touch the water and then the disc of the sun slowly sinks behind the horizon.
Now, you can say that "behind" is a rationalisation but in every other experience of observing things, that is what is happening. If you look along the top of a table and someone drops a small ball from above the far edge of the table to below it then you see the ball "set", like a sunset. Rotate the ball above the plane of the table as in your sun model and you will be able to see it all the time, it will just get bigger and smaller.
And note, a table is flat. Sunset doesn't necessarily prove a globe earth, it could occur on a flat earth. But then the sun would be below the plane of the earth and it would be dark everywhere.
Long shadows prove that the sun is physically low in the sky. Shadow length does not depend on perspective.

Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.

I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.

Look out at the world and notice that perspective lines will meet in the distance. Straight lengths of railroad tracks will eventually seem to meet each other, as an example. The railroad tracks appear to meet a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

Correct, but I've highlighted the flaw in your thinking. They only appear to meet and they do so because of the limitation in your vision. If you zoom in you will still see a gap between the tracks because there IS a gap between them.

From observations such as the above we can conclude that perspective lines will meet in the finite distance (even if the objects do not physically meet). The sun will therefore eventually meet the horizon, a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as predicted by some mathematical models.

Again, appear to. Not actually. All perspective does is make distant objects smaller and distances between them seem shorter. Zooming in will make them more distinct and the gaps apparent. Perspective doesn't make items "merge", but when they are far enough away they will become indistinguishable. That is a limit of your vision. So just like railway tracks if you zoomed in on a sunset you should be able to just make out the THREE THOUSAND MILE GAP between the earth and the sun.
If you had two railway tracks 3000 miles apart are you suggesting that the gap between them would be indistinguishable at 6000 miles away?

There is no way that perspective can explain the sun intersecting the horizon. And even if you think it can somehow, long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is physically low in the sky. Shadows angle and length depend on the physical relationship between light source and object.
And if it is not crashing into the earth - I agree it isn't - then it must be going below the earth (from your point of view)
On a flat earth that would mean it would then be night everywhere, which is not what we observe.
On a spinning globe it would mean it gets dark where you are but people living further round the curve of the earth would be in daylight which is what we observe.

I don't know why you're still citing Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent and whose proofs are pretty much always "This is what I saw". If a build up of waves is blocking things, I've seen you claim this to explain how distant buildings are occluded by the sea, then how does the "Bishop Experiment" work then? Why are waves not blocking your view of the distant beach? You can't have it both ways.

3956

Flat Earth Community / Re: New to the flat earth??? Please explain....

« on: February 22, 2018, 05:47:53 AM »

Conspiracy just means two or more people getting together to make an evil plan.
So you are part of a conspiracy targeting flat earth believes with the attention of belittling and grandstanding to show intellectual superiority. The issue with that is its not working for you.

Why is convincing people the world is a globe an "evil" plan. Not that I am trying to do that really. I'm fascinated by the fact that people still believe in a flat earth in this day and age. It's a sad reflection on this post truth world we live in now. But if you want to believe it then go nuts. I'm just interested in the debates and what the flat earth responses are to the glaring holes in their theory.

I believe in a globe earth, you believe in the flat earth. Who is part of the conspiracy. You or me?

3957

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Just what everybody can see and understand.

« on: February 22, 2018, 05:01:25 AM »

I did this exact experiment to scale, scale flat earth, scale spotlight sun, scale height of sun. I could still see the sun well beyond the halfway point of the earth's diameter, and it was still very high in the sky. I don't think this proves the earth is round, but it does prove, in my opinion, that the sun does not behave according to the wiki on this site. Im not even sure what zetetic principal would bring you to that conclusion

Long shadows at sunset prove the sun is physically low in the sky at sunset (or light is bending so it appears to be).
The flat earth model as presented in the Wiki demonstrably doesn't work.

3958

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do you guys explain the global positioning system.

« on: February 22, 2018, 04:45:17 AM »

This has been discussed a bunch of times even since I've been looking here, which isn't that long.
But I have searched the Wiki and GPS is not mentioned at all, neither are satellites.
Satellites are used in so many arenas - GPS, Weather satellites, Satellite TV - that if there is a Flat Earth stance on how all this works then it would be good to add it to the Wiki.

3959

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotations of the stars?

« on: February 22, 2018, 04:03:10 AM »

Proof is that the earth and north star stay aligned.

1) That isn't proof. A distant star positioned "above" the north pole of a globe would not appear to move either
2) I literally just posted a link showing the north star's position does wobble slightly, just not enough to be a problem for navigation.

3960

Flat Earth Community / Re: What would it take to convince you that the earth is round?

« on: February 22, 2018, 04:00:44 AM »

They prefer the shortest route.
Which if you look at flight paths projected on to a map are curved.
Because we live on a globe.