221

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flying over the ocean

« on: January 31, 2016, 01:48:18 PM »

 This gives a good answer:

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/

222

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Was the wiki fact checked?

« on: January 31, 2016, 09:22:21 AM »

The whole reason I made this thread is because I noticed something was likely off with the Bishop Experiment distance that is stated and used in the calculations.

I have sailed in the area and was pretty confident that the distance stated from the observer to the objects and people they were seeing was off.

I spent some time trying to verify the range the observer in the experiment said he was seeing things.  I used several different maps, navigation charts, and google maps.

The distances I got being generous and even measuring further inland then the observer states he was at and was around 25 miles.  Trying to be more precise and picking points furthest away from each other from shoreline to shoreline I got 23.44 miles. This measurement began from the furthest point along the waterline from Light House Beach at Lover's Point to the furthest point North of Light House Beach as depicted on various charts and google maps.

This is a 10 mile discrepancy that most likely invalidates the experiment. 

How was distance determined in this experiment? 

What controls were in place to help insure unbiased observation? 

Has anyone else performed the experiment with the same results?

Do you feel comfortable leaving it up as evidence as proof to the FE theory?

Did any body do anything to validate the results of this experiment?

Many times people who want to conduct an experiment will have peers review it and look for flaws.  Have peers review the data and confirm it after it is done.  Does anyone in the FE Society do this?

223

Flat Earth Theory / Was the wiki fact checked?

« on: January 31, 2016, 07:29:44 AM »

A very quick example that it may need to be reviewed and facts checked:

Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace won the bet. Hampden, however, published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel, but the court also determined that Wallace had, indeed, cheated.

VOL XXIV The Weekly Reporter May 6, 1876 pages 607-611

Court Ruling:

"One question which presents itself is whether this agreement amounts in effect to a wager; and, if so, whether the plaintiff, by the effect of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, a. 19, is prevented from maintaining this action.

We will in the first instance proceed with the case on the assumption it is a wager.  It is well established by numerous authorities, which would be superfluous to cite, that at common law a wager, being a contract by A. to pay money to B. on the happening of a given event, in consideration of B. paying money to him on the event not happening..... "  You can read it yourself it goes into mentioning a lot of precedences and mentioning laws.  The ruling was based on wagers are not legally enforceable contracts.
Nothing about because Wallace failed to offer proof or cheated.

According to the court transcripts and evidence provided witnesses said that Wallace proved it in a satisfactory manner.  No where in the transcript does it say that Wallace cheated and that is why the court ruled against him. Well except being accused by Walsh.

https://books.google.com/books?id=9wFHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA608&lpg=PA608&dq=alfred+wallace+vs+john+hampden+court+ruling&source=bl&ots=679I6encMk&sig=xI5XTDd4I0fo6S1REb7uHs15uu4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid6tnksNPKAhVC72MKHX0aDAEQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&q=alfred%20wallace%20vs%20john%20hampden%20court%20ruling&f=false

You may also want to remove the link to this since it can be misleading:

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

You have it under further evidence.  What was done what I assume was a little fun by Professor Mark Fonstad was not proving that Kansas was flat like as I think you want people to think.  What he was doing is basically comparing which would be flatter if either were the same size. 

Evidence from the article:

One common method of quantifying ‘flatness’ in geodesy is the ‘flattening’ ratio. The length of an ellipse’s (or arc’s) semi-major axis a is compared with its measured semi-minor axis b using the formula for flattening, f = (a – b) / a. A perfectly flat surface will have a flattening f of one, whereas an ellipsoid with equal axis lengths will have no flattening, and f will equal zero.

For example, the earth is slightly flattened at the poles due to the earth’s rotation, making its semi-major axis slightly longer than its semi-minor axis, giving a global f of 0.00335. For both Kansas and the pancake, we approximated the local ellipsoid with a second-order polynomial line fit to the cross-sections. These polynomial equations allowed us to estimate the local ellipsoid’s semi-major and semi-minor axes and thus we can calculate the flattening measure f.

They are using calculations based on a RE model.

This article in no way supports your theory except it has the word flat.  The conclusion of the experiment is Kansas would be flatter then a pancake the same size laid on the globe.  Simply because the math used assumed Kansas is located on a spherical planet and the theoretical pancake would also be.

If you would like I will volunteer to do fact checking for your wiki.  Seriously I would do it and remain objective.  I have no problem with you believe it, but do have a problem when you direct people to it as a source of reliable information that the information on it can be misleading or wrong.  You are presenting yourselves as having the truth and facts. That should be reflected in the information you make public and use to inform people.

224

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

« on: January 31, 2016, 04:40:07 AM »

By data I mean simple observations like me being able to watch a ship seem to rise above the horizon as it approaches into my view.  Why is that.  In the RE model we have an answer the curvature of the Earth.  Is it a mirage, something weird with how my eyes work that has not been discovered yet?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Also again we have no data.  Here is what I am talking about:

Ignoring the effect of atmospheric refraction, distance to the horizon from an observer close to the Earth's surface is about

d \approx 3.57\sqrt{h} \,,
where d is in kilometres and h is height above ground level in metres.

Examples:

For an observer standing on the ground with h = 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in) (average eye-level height), the horizon is at a distance of 4.7 kilometres (2.9 mi).
For an observer standing on the ground with h = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).
For an observer standing on a hill or tower of 100 metres (330 ft) in height, the horizon is at a distance of 36 kilometres (22 mi).
For an observer standing at the top of the Burj Khalifa (828 metres (2,717 ft) in height), the horizon is at a distance of 103 kilometres (64 mi).
For an observer atop Mount Everest (8,848 metres (29,029 ft) in altitude), the horizon is at a distance of 336 kilometres (209 mi).

So what you linked are observations with no known distances, height of the observer, height of objects being viewed, conditions nothing reproducible.  That information is needed to validate the claims.
While with on the side of the round Earth model it took me less then 5 seconds to find information that I can use to go out and validate it.

Why can a see stuff from further away when I am at a higher elevation?  In a flat earth model this should not be true.  What phenonomon is happening that causes this if the Earth is flat?

It's a combination of a simple perspective effect and the fact that the atmoplane is not perfectly transparent.

Why can you not produce a theoretical map that matches up with known distances?

We can, and we did.

Can you link it?  Can I use your map to travel from place to place reliably using dead reckoning?  Has the distances been measured and verified?

Seems the maps that are based on a round earth have been getting people to where thy are going for a rather long time now.  If the earth is flat then the maps based on a round earth would not work.

That's completely untrue. Most navigators use the Robinson or Mercator projections, neither of which has anything to do with actually representing the Earth's real shape.

Maps based on a round Earth that need to use those projections because you can not just flatten a globe to make a usable map. If the globe was flat projections would not be needed.

Out of curiosity, though, which of the globes posted above by Thork would you use to get your distances from? Which one is the totally real one, and which ones are fake?

How if I am on a flat earth I can not see the sun all the time?  Should be something rather easy to answer with data.

Yeah, read the FAQ.

Lets consider Eratosthenes for example.  He was able to determine the circumference of the Earth.  He was able do this using simple observation and math.  I can shine a light on a globe, take two pins and stick them in it, measure the shadows and distance between them, and get an accurate measurement of the circumference.  I can do this time and time again. I can use different size globes, pins, move the light around and be able to get the circumference.  Somehow we can at least with the VERIFIABLE DATA support that he was right.  The math he used would not have returned to correct results if the Earth was flat.

How about explain to me how his method was flawed.  Prove him wrong.  Prove how the math would work both on a flat and round Earth.  Explain how on a flat earth shadows would also be different lengths. 

ok: https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter

Why were the shadows different lengths?  He did not get the circumference by measuring the distance between two places and noting where the sun was.  He measured the shadows and the distance between the two sticks.

Please explain the formula used.  Why is 25*500*2?

Why does is the sun only capable of illuminating a circle with a 25,000 NM diameter?

What causes the phases of the moon?  The answers I have seen it is hollow with light inside, it is a projection or hologram.  Proof?  Well if it was not then it does not support the Earth is flat.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

Take this information you linked and then explain why I can not see the sun all the time.  If the sun can illuminate the moon in your model then it stands to reason I should be able to see the sun at night.  Even if it does not illuminate where I am. Similar to when you see a car's headlights approach.  They may not illuminating the area I am at but I can see them as the car approaches.  In your model the sun illuminates the moon but I can not see it.

No idea who told you that the moon is hollow, or that it's a hologram. Perhaps you should read a bit about FET before going on a massive rant?

I will admit I do not know all the FE theories, but that is the answers I have been guided to so far said.

Why can I not see the sun all the time?  What we know about how far light can travel is wrong.

What the fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "how far light can travel". Again, off to the FAQ you go.

Of course the distance of how far light can travel and be observed needs to be determined.  In a FE model there has to be a limit it can travel or everyone would experience day and night at the same time.  If the earth is flat and it is light on one part of the world and dark in another light needs to behave differently then it does in the RE model and what is generally accepted.  Am I missing something?  There are several theories on different models is there a model where the sun is not about 3,000 miles above the Earth?  Is there a model where it would can be hidden by things like mountains or obstructed in any other way?

Part of the scientific process not only involves looking for things that make your theory right, but also at those things that make it wrong.  There is a whole lot of DATA proving the Earth is not flat.

Would you like to present some of that DATA, or do you just like to talk about how it totally exists?

Sure:

1. Can see varying constellations form different parts of the Earth

2. Gravity

4. Sunsets and Rises.  They do not happen in a FE model. No it is not explained because the Sun moves away it only appears to go below the horizon.  If that were true it would also appear to shrink in size or in your model the sun changes size.

5. Lunar and solar eclipses. Why not use one of your models and predict when the next one will be and where on the the planet it can be observed?

6. Observations of other planets and their moons. Why would Earth be different?

7. I witnessed the sun set today and only the bottom of the clouds were illuminated. Should not happen on a flat earth.

8. I use and have used celestial navigation successfully to determine my location as have sailors though out history.  It uses math based on on the earth being round if the Earth was flat it would not work.

9. The higher I am the further away I can see things as well as other people. That is why sailing ships had crows nest to spot land and other things further away then people on deck could.

10. Shadows getting longer and shorter at different times of the year. In the FE models I am aware of this should not happen unless the sun in one of those models changes altitude.

11. Seasons. I see the explanation for the FE model but no data again. Nothing supporting it except it would have to be something like this for Earth to be flat with seasons.

12. It is dark where I am right now and light somewhere else in the world. Have you witnessed someone use a flashlight?  You can see it regardless if it is illuminating the area you are in or not.  Which suggest that I should be able to see some hint of the sun right now if I look out my window.  Why can I not? Is what we are told about how far light is visible wrong?

13. I can use maps based on the RE model to reliably get distance and direction.  I can get estimated trip times and have that estimate be correct time and time again. Where is a FE map that I can use?

14. Space Flight I have observed the ISS and Satellites  through a telescope.  You can do the same thing. In your model these things would either need to holograms/projections or friction and what ever force you have that is like gravity would degrade their altitude. Actullay what is the theory that explains what is keeping the sun and mun from hitting the Earth in a FE model?  Is there one?

15. Observing weather patterns.  The FAQ has some of the things that effect weather listed but leaves out things that have a rather important affect on it.  Again ignoring things that do not fit the model of a FE.

16. Tides

17. Volcanoes.  Where is the data?  It exist for evidence the Earth is round with a molten core.
   
18. Seismic activity. http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm See how DATA is given in this summary? Why are there not more things like this for FE theory that show DATA and not speculation?
 

IMO certain fields are sacrosanct.  The science field is one of those.

Okay, enjoy your religion. We'll continue focusing on things which are actually verifiable, and not suppress healthy scepticism by calling what you were taught in school "sacrosanct".

OK then verify with DATA, EVIDENCE, RESEARCH showing how you came to conclusions and your theories,REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTS, offer evidence that NASA is part of a conspiracy.  Nothing you have linked me to is verifiable.  All it is we think the Earth is flat anything that does not support or theory is wrong.   Similar to the Bedford experiment and the wager with Wallace who correctly guessed why Rowbothan was getting the results he was.  Wallace being an experienced surveyor realized Rowobothan did not take density gradients of the air into consideration.  Wallace won the bet and lost a court case to get his winnings since wagers were not considered a legally binding contract.

Surveyors today still need to account for this and have very reliable tables to use.  You can go and do it yourself anyone can go out and give compelling evidence that the Earth is flat or round.  Why have there not been extensive research done by the FE society?  This would be a really easy and relatively inexpensive endeavor.  Go out side, do it, publish the results explaining your methods so it can be reproduced.  Viola you have evidence backed by real data that can be scrutinized and either supported or flaws pointed out with your method.  That is how you get a theory to be recognized and looked further into by others.  Just saying you are right, ignoring evidence to the contrary does not advance your theory.  It actually holds you back from discovery.

Seriously just publish one thing that supports a FE model that would also not be true for a RE model. 

ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

You linked me to something basically saying there is something that effects gravity and we are not sure what it is.  It does not refute gravity, suggest it does not exist or we are completely wrong about it.

I agree not everything is known, I do not even put a FE out of the realm of possibility.  There is a whole lot of data and evidence that suggest it is in fact round.  What I put faith in is God and data.

If you think the information provided in the wiki, on this forum, and other places is substantiated evidence worthy of being called fact IMO you really need to reconsider.

225

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hey. Im new to FE can you help me out? :)

« on: January 31, 2016, 01:12:42 AM »

Hey guys I'm new to flat earth theory. A little help please 

I've have spend many hours researching A LOT of conspiracy theories, some I believe and some I don't. And a couple of days ago I came across Flat Earth. I haven't done enough research to decide if I believe it or not. But I gotta say a lot of the Flat Earth stuff makes too much sense to let it go.
I only have 2 things I can't figure out or seem to find info on and that's what I'm hoping you guys can help me with

1. How can boats travel quickly between Russia and Alaska? 2. There are flights from the US west coast to Japan ect over the Pacific Ocean? How is this possible on a Flat Earth?

Thanks

PS. Sorry if my English is bad

Please, please take the time and do some critical thinking.  Look at the answers Flat Earthers'  give.  How many are basically,"What we are told can not be true because if it was then we would be wrong and the Earth is round."
At best Flat Earthers' have a theory that 2,000+ years of science and advancement suggest is wrong.

Some questions to ask:

1.  How could sailors and pilots successfully navigate, including times prior to the introduction of GPS, LORAN, radio direction finders, and get to where they were going using maps based on the earth being a globe.
If it were flat the distances would not add up.  The same reason to make a flat map of the Earth I need to use a projection.  Use google to look up map projections.

2.  Ask how sailors navigated using celestial navigation.  The math used would not work on a flat earth model unless they make a model specifically for it to work then other things they say are true stop being true.

3.  Why do you see sunsets?  The answer I have seen them give is it is a matter of perspective. It looks like it is setting because it is further away from you.  Which does not explain why the size of the sun appears to be the same as it moves away from you.  The only way sunsets work in their model is if the sun increases in size as it moves away from you.

4.  Why are there phases of the moon?  Their answers are it is hollow and lighted from inside, a projection or hologram.

5. How can you see things further away when you are at a higher elevation?  On a flat earth a person standing on the ground should be able to see the same distance as someone standing on a platform a 100 meters high.

6. Why can you not see the sun all the time? Think about lights you have seen.  Even if they are not illuminating you you can still see them. Their answer is either you can not see that far or light can not travel that far.

7. How far away is the sun?  Their answer 3,000 miles. See the answers to the question above.

8. Why can myself or other people use a telescope to view planets and moons orbiting them? Why can we observe them rotate?

9. Why are their seasons?

10. Why if you watch a ship approach do you see the highest parts first? Something that has observed by many people through out history.

226

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

« on: January 31, 2016, 12:15:30 AM »

The earth is flat. We're just here to help if anyone wants to find that out for themselves.

If you want to help I would start by answering questions backed by verifiable data obtained by reproducible experiments. 

By data I mean simple observations like me being able to watch a ship seem to rise above the horizon as it approaches into my view.  Why is that.  In the RE model we have an answer the curvature of the Earth.  Is it a mirage, something weird with how my eyes work that has not been discovered yet?

Why can a see stuff from further away when I am at a higher elevation?  In a flat earth model this should not be true.  What phenonomon is happening that causes this if the Earth is flat?

Why can you not produce a theoretical map that matches up with known distances?  Seems the maps that are based on a round earth have been getting people to where thy are going for a rather long time now.  If the earth is flat then the maps based on a round earth would not work.  I can take a globe of the earth and measure distances between any two places get a map projection and measure the distances and they match.  Why not offer proof this is possible if the world was flat.  All it would take is doing some math and while not proving you are right it will at least offer some evidence that you could be.

How if I am on a flat earth I can not see the sun all the time?  Should be something rather easy to answer with data.  I can buy navigation lights for my boat that have different ranges they can be seen from.  If a company that manufactures bulbs can figure out how far light can been seen and design lights based on data.  Data I am pretty sure the person designing the lights used. Using this data it will allow you to tell people how far away the sun should be visible.  If you are able to prove that if we would not be able to see the sun at a certain distance you just took a huge step in proving that a round Earth and the model of our solar system is just a theory.

How can I take some survey equipment and for some reason if I take measurements those measurements will show what I would expect them to show if I am on a round Earth?  I have seen one answer to this and it was light refraction does not exist, so when I take it into account the data I am getting is wrong.  The problem I have with that is I can conduct some rather simple experiments that prove at the very least light can refract.  I will also like to point out this is something Rowbotham failed to take in to account.

Lets consider Eratosthenes for example.  He was able to determine the circumference of the Earth.  He was able do this using simple observation and math.  I can shine a light on a globe, take two pins and stick them in it, measure the shadows and distance between them, and get an accurate measurement of the circumference.  I can do this time and time again. I can use different size globes, pins, move the light around and be able to get the circumference.  Somehow we can at least with the VERIFIABLE DATA support that he was right.  The math he used would not have returned to correct results if the Earth was flat.

How about explain to me how his method was flawed.  Prove him wrong.  Prove how the math would work both on a flat and round Earth.  Explain how on a flat earth shadows would also be different lengths. 

What causes the phases of the moon?  The answers I have seen it is hollow with light inside, it is a projection or hologram.  Proof?  Well if it was not then it does not support the Earth is flat.

Why can I not see the sun all the time?  What we know about how far light can travel is wrong.  Proof?  Well if what we are told is right then it would not fit into our theory.

Part of the scientific process not only involves looking for things that make your theory right, but also at those things that make it wrong.  There is a whole lot of DATA proving the Earth is not flat.  I have yet to have anyone supporting a flat earth model that was backed by any verifiable data.  The answers I get either just dismiss, call it a hoax, lie, conspiracy, flawed anything that does not support a Flat Earth model.

IMO certain fields are sacrosanct.  The science field is one of those.  It is where people should be able to turn to for answers and truth.  I think it is a crime what I see here.  Not that you think the Earth is flat.  It is when people call themselves an authority on the subject and calling it fact.  What you have is a theory that 2,000+ years of science and advancement suggest is wrong.  A good example most Scientist believe in evolution, yet evolution remains a theory.  Why?  Because they can not disprove or prove somethings.  It will remain a theory until VERIFIABLE answers are given for the questions that remain.

Seriously just publish one thing that supports a FE model that would also not be true for a RE model. 

227

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

« on: January 30, 2016, 05:19:48 AM »

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.

How, exactly, does one read harder?  Is that the same as reading between the lines?  Is that the same as reading something and then dismissing it in whole or in part and inserting what you believe or want to believe is true?

As to pointing to your FAQ or Wiki, you do understand that this is nothing more than circular logic don't you?  Why can you not point people to peer reviewed, repeatable and repeated experiments and theories instead?

You believe in a FE for your reasons and that is perfectly acceptable.  Do you believe all FE ideas equally or do you dismiss some as less valid or not valid at all?  If you dismiss all other FE ideas and maintain your chosen version of belief to be the correct one how did you come to that version of truth?

Please do explain this from a personal perspective as the FAQ's and Wiki are very general (and offer support for so many versions of FE truth) so referencing back to them does no good in supporting your personal belief.

I have not seen any information on these forums backed by data, math, verifiable experiments, etc except  by people arguing the Earth is round.  What I have seen for the FE model are basically,"We think the Earth is flat so it is", backed by theories with no supporting evidence,dismissing everything that does not conform with their theory as a hoax, conspiracy, flawed or wrong.  Even simple observations that everyone can do are given no weight unless it fits their model.

What I have read to support FE theory:

The sun is 3,000 miles away and smaller then what we are told.

The moon is hollow with 1/2 the surface being opaque and the other 1/2 being transparent to explain the phases of the moon.  The moon is a projection or reflection, even seen a couple saying it is a hologram.

The satellites and the ISS that can be observed with telescopes do not exist, holograms or closer then we are told they are.  Under the dome and I assume in the atmosphere with no regard that friction would continually degrade their altitude.

That all the pics, vids, and live feed from all of the space agencies on Earth are faked.  With the proof being that these people are not capable of creating these fake images as professionally and as of high quality as people in the film industry and make obvious mistakes rather frequently.  For some reason NASA fakes stuff in a pool while people in Hollywood manage to create the illusion of weightlessness without the use of a pool.  Seems if air bubbles are a problem for NASA they would adopt the methods film makers in Hollywood use.

Light would have to behave differently then we currently understand it.  Their evidence is since it would make no sense in their model the data we got so far must be wrong.  It can not travel as far as we say it can if it did then we would be able to see it all the time from anywhere on Earth.

I have not seen a single thing that at the very least gives evidence that it is plausible.  I can find a lot of the it has to be this way or the FE model does not work evidence though.

They seem to want to disregard that some rather clever people around and after 300 BC thought the Earth might be round from observing the movements of the planets and the world around them.  Then they decided to offer evidence they were correct by using things like math and reproducible and verifiable experiments.

The closest reproducible experiment I have been able to find information on is the Bedford Level experiment.  Which there is evidence that it is flawed. A surveyor named Wallace decided to accept a challenge to prove the Earth was round and assumed that the results that Rowbuthan got were caused by not taking into account density gradients in the air.  A bet was made, witnesses and judge decided on and the result was Wallace won the bet.

228

Flat Earth Theory / Why No Standard Flat Earth map?

« on: January 30, 2016, 02:57:04 AM »

Seems to me this would be necessary to advance and prove the theory the world is flat.

The measurements are already done of land masses, oceans and distances between them.  At least some of the distances would have to be incorrect if the Earth is flat. For the same reason you can not make a flat map based on the RE model with out using a projection.  Things would be distorted and the measurements would not add up.

If the distances between places do not reflect what is on the RE model then it is evidence the RE model is wrong.

The FE Society or any group wishing to prove the Earth is flat could start out similar to how it happened in history.  Start charting small areas and continue on from there.

I would suggest using data already available, but think many people who believe the world is flat would say it is false.  I would argue I have used that data successfully when I have sailed places using dead reckoning. By which I mean keeping track of my direction, time, and speed of travel.  This suggest at least some of the data is accurate.  I would imagine regularly used shipping lanes and air routes would need to be correct also.  If not fuel use, locations of landmarks and travel times would be inaccurate making pilots and ship captains question the validity of the information on their charts.   

As for why I think the FE Society or any similar group should do this and not go myself or any other group or person who believes the Earth is round?  I just wanted to answer that since I have seen many responses basically saying,"Why should we do _________ to prove the Earth is flat, you go do it". Well we are not making the claim the available data is false so that is the data we use to support the Earth is round.

229

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the dome

« on: January 30, 2016, 12:38:45 AM »

Certainty requires evidence,

Sure. 
The appreciation of evidence requires intelligence and integrity, in my opinion.  There is no sense throwing pearls before swine. 

You can't at one point say that there's a lot of uncertainties and that your standpoint changes every six months, and then at the same time day it's certain the earth is flat.

Yes, I can because the true form of the earthly is certainly not a globe. 
What do you expect?  Everything else is fun speculation.  Even you are having fun.  This discussion is about the dome. 

As of right now, I am willing to bet $100 that you know you are lying.  Unfortunately, I doubt you would be able to offer proof either way.

You really do not see how what you are saying is a contradiction?

Correct if I interpreted what you wrote is wrong, but this is how I understood it.

You are open to new ideas, theories and evidence except any that do not conform to prove the Earth is flat.

What if God created the universe and that is what he governs with us in it.  The limit we can travel is not our atmosphere but out into the cosmos. 

What if his design is a spherical Earth orbited by a spherical moon with both orbiting a spherical sun?

What if the Firmament, dome or what ever you believe is further out then you think it is? Maybe it is at the edge of our solar system?  Galaxy? Universe?

If you are not willing to accept the above possibilities IMHO you are also not willing to look at evidence that suggest your view of the reality of a flat earth is wrong.  There is plenty of compelling evidence that suggest the world is round.

Off the top of my head:

Lunar eclipses.  Explained away by some FE'ers by saying the moon maybe self-illuminating, a reflection, protection with no evidence, math, data, experiments that can be replicated to at least prove the possibility exist.

How I can see things when I climb the mast on my boat that someone on the deck can not.

Why is it dark some places and light in others?  On a flat Earth I should be able to see the sun all the time.  Which gets explained away by saying light can not travel as far as we think it can.  Again with no data or evidence this maybe true. Drawing from my experience with sailing there are rules how far navigation lights can be seen depending on type and size of the vessel.  There are different lights designed to meet these standards.  Which means there is data and test that can be done to determine how far a way a light source can be seen.  Where is the data that at least suggest I should not be able to see the sun from a certain distance?

How can I and sailors for hundreds of years successfully use celestial navigation?  The math is based on a round Earth, it would not work on a flat model.

Why are the length of shadows different for same size objects at the same time of day that are not located with in a certain distance to each other.  A very easy thing to test.  Get two people, two sticks the same size, have each person at a different location 50 to 100 miles apart.  Measure the shadows at the same time.  You then have more evidence the Earth is round.

Look at other planets through a telescope.  Observe one of them over time.  Keep track of the moons orbiting them and the planets location in the sky.  Why if other planets are round with moons orbiting them would Earth be different?  Why would planets like Mars move in a different direction at certain times?  It suggests that the Earth's orbit is closer to the sun and Mars is orbiting a further out.  More evidence that can be easily observed with a moderately priced telescope.  If people around 300 BC could make these observations so can you or anybody else.

Why can certain stars/constellations not be seen from certain parts of the planet?  With a FE model they should be visible all the time.  Which means like the sun evidence to suggest the reason needs to be presented.  One explanation for this is the curvature of the Earth.  Very easy to observe evidence that suggest the Earth is round.

Why do I not going flying off into space or hit the Firmament/dome when I jump up?  On the RE model there is gravity preventing this.  It can be measured, the value can be used by engineers in different fields to design things with predictable results.  What is the FE model's force keeping me from hitting the dome? Can it be measured?  Can I design and build things taking it into account and have them work reliably and with predictable results? Why discount this evidence?

Giving my opinion again, but if you do not at least take into consideration the above and accept that without answers to these things(some easily observed) without producing evidence you need to accept the fact the Earth may be round.

 

230

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Helicopter Quesrion

« on: January 29, 2016, 06:21:14 AM »

Gday chaps, Im a Re believer and ibam no genius, but I have a question for the RE, if I were in a helicopter and traveled directly upwards for an hour, with the rotational speed being around 1,600kmh, would I be that far away from my original position?

I am not sure if this site notifies you when people reply but I answered your question in the "questions for RE's" thread.

231

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

« on: January 29, 2016, 06:17:25 AM »

Gday chaps, Im a Re believer and ibam no genius, but I have a question for the RE, if I were in a helicopter and traveled directly upwards for an hour, with the rotational speed being around 1,600kmh, would I be that far away from my original position?

I assume you have already been told to jump up in a moving vehicle of some sort once it is at a constant speed.  I'll try a different approach.

When the helicopter is sitting on the ground it is traveling the same speed as the Earth.  I think we can agree on that, even if that speed is 0 to somewhere up to 1,600 Km/H.

If it lifts directly upwards with no deviation forwards, backwards, or to any side it will be traveling at the same speed as the Earth for at least for a very short time.  Another thing I think we can agree on.

Now for the stuff you may not agree with.

The atmosphere moves along with the rotation of the Earth the same reason ever thing else on Earth does.  Newton's 1st Law every object in a state of motion, tends to stay in that state unless force is applied to it.

Why does something like the air start moving at the same speed as the Earth?  Friction.  That is why anything traveling fast enough will begin to heat up.  Move your hand through the air then some water.  You will get more resistance in the water.  In this regard the only difference between air and water is how dense it is.  Even if the Earth started from a dead stop the air would eventually begin to move at the same speed.

The answer to your question is Newtons 1st law.

232

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

« on: January 29, 2016, 05:38:47 AM »

They are simple questions!  Please read the FAQ for the answers, and welcome to FES! 

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

Here is an answer to how Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the Earth. 



It is an experiment that can be recreated, only works if the earth is Round.  You can do it yourself.  A friend and yourself can measure the length of the shadows of two equally long sticks, measure the distance between the two, then do the math.  Please do not comment on the first part of the video when she talks about how we can view the Earth from space and have vidoes, pictures, etc.

Afterwards you can test the validity by doing the same thing in the video.  Do to human error you will be a little off unless you decide to use more precise measuring equipment than a hand held ruler or measuring tape.

I can not find a reliable answer to what is the length of the equator according to a flat earth model.  Basically if I traveled exactly along the equator and ended up back where I started how far did I travel?

What I observe is that when things do not fit into the flat Earth model they are either considered a hoax or are explained away with an unsubstantiated explanation.

I can present evidence from as far back as 300 BC as the video demonstrates.  It can be recreated, return predictable data and be verified to at least support the Earth is round.

The answers I am looking for to my questions is data, math, science that supports a FE model. The answers I found so far here tend to lack that.

The responses I was able to find about phases of the Moon and lunar eclipses are it is a projection.  With no evidence presented except the person said so. The only other answer I have seen is 1/2 is transparent and the other 1/2 is opaque. That person mentioned the fact that there were instances when people can witness a lunar eclipse during the day.  Under the RE model it can happen and all the pictures of this type of event depict the only conditions of when it can occur using that model.

I have not seen any answers to how I can navigate using celestial navigation which the math only works for a round Earth model. 

None of those questions were answered in the FAQ forum at least to my knowledge.  Unless the answers were basically because we think it is this way.

233

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

« on: January 29, 2016, 02:14:45 AM »

So here are my questions and I will try to keep with in what I have personally experienced:

1. Why can some from a higher vantage point see things I can not?  When sailing someone up on the mast can see islands other boats, etc when on person on deck can not.

2. How was Erastosthenes able to calculate the circumference of the Earth in 300 BC?  Simply by measuring shadows at different locations, the method he used would not have been accurate if the Earth was not round. 

3. Why when sailing do I see objects rise from the horizon and not just appear?

4.  How can I or sailors in the past successfully navigate with celestial navigation when it is based on a round Earth?  It would simply not be accurate with a flat model.

5. What causes  lunar eclipses and phases? What is casting a shadow on the moon?  With a Flat Earth model I do not see how the Earth would end up between the Moon and Sun.

6. Why can I see different constellations depending on my distance from the equator?  With a flat earth model this would not change.  I can measure the distance from the horizon using a sextant.  Depending on my direction of travel they will either move closer or further away from the horizon. 

7. Why is it dark in one location of the planet and light in another? 

Thanks in advance for your time answering these questions.

234

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

« on: January 28, 2016, 05:43:00 PM »

I will add my personal experience:

I have sailed between Hawaii and California two times.  The map I used was of course a projection of a round Earth.

I have sailed to other locations as well.

From time to time I enjoy using more traditional methods of navigation.  Using a sextant to get noon shots of the sun to get longitude and sighting stars to get my position.  Methods that are based on a round Earth. A method of navigation that has been successfully used for hundreds of years.

Using maps based on a RE I have always made port in the travel times I expected. The speeds, distances, and travel times always added up correctly.

I also witnessed something many times during my travels over the ocean.  I will focus on one experience at night watching a ship near me and several times I approached land at night. Which I find the most compelling argument against a flat or concave Earth I have experienced.  While on deck I saw I light on the horizon.  I got my binoculars and tried to determine what heading the other ship was on.  I will list my visual observations in order.

1. Saw one light.

2. Continued to see the one light which I identified as being on a mast along with now being able to see light from a lower location the Helm.

3. Previous lights still visible and light coming through several port holes that where slightly lower.

4. Navigation lights came into view.

1. Well as for approaching land pretty much the same as above I was able to see light from the taller things first.  Pretty much the same experiences during the day but I usually have to be closer to ships before I notice they are there.  It is just harder to spot them with the naked eye until they are closer.

These experiences do not support a flat or concave Earth.

235

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy is Too Big

« on: January 28, 2016, 05:13:31 PM »

I will add my personal experience:

I have sailed between Hawaii and California two times.  The map I used was of course a projection of a round Earth.

I have sailed to other locations as well.

From time to time I enjoy using more traditional methods of navigation.  Using a sextant to get noon shots of the sun to get longitude and sighting stars to get my position.  Methods that are based on a round Earth. A method of navigation that has been successfully used for hundreds of years that required astronomers to be in on the conspiracy during that time also.

Using maps based on a RE I have always made port in the travel times I expected. The speeds, distances, and travel times always added up correctly.

On a side note I also witnessed something many times during my travels over the ocean.  I will focus on one experience at night watching a ship near me and several times I approached land at night. Which I find the most compelling argument against a flat or concave Earth I have experienced.  While on deck I saw I light on the horizon.  I got my binoculars and tried to determine what heading the other ship was on.  I will list my visual observations in order.

1. Saw one light.

2. Continued to see the one light which I identified as being on a mast along with now being able to see light from a lower location the Helm.

3. Previous lights still visible and light coming through several port holes that where slightly lower.

4. Navigation lights came into view.

1. Well as for approaching land pretty much the same as above I was able to see light from the taller buildings first.  Pretty much the same experiences during the day but I usually have to be closer to ships before I notice they are there.  It is just harder to spot them with the naked eye until they are closer.

These experiences and seeing how the lights came into my view does not support a flat or concave Earth.