1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 23, 2023, 05:06:26 AM »

Look, that image isn't going to get you anywhere. Someone saying they worked on a photo for 5 days is at least enough for it to be disregarded as mostly photoshop. I say that as a Round Earther who's read quite a few threads that went down the same way.

If I were to guess as a Flat Earther, I'd say it's semi-random noise map with colors applied, which was then wrapped onto a sphere and lit juuuuuust right. 5 days is definitely enough to do all that, especially if you're skilled. As for the wispy looking things, I'd honestly just guess smoke wisps rotated and shifted around to look like funky glare/solar radiation/cosmic scary thing of the week.

Fair enough Pete. I now realize that was both a strawman and bad faith, and inappropriate.

2

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Size of the Sun

« on: March 18, 2023, 02:49:39 AM »

Okay, I am out of any further discussion with you going forward.  Peace.

I'll take that as a win

In no way is that a win. There's just no point in arguing with someone who will handwave away valid issues with their theories by just saying "Heaven mumble mumble will of God mumble some things just can't be explained." Given debate is about arguing facts (despite what you may see from both sides on these forums), why spend time debating someone who denies the necessity of facts? (I'm sure God is a fact in your belief system, but faith is by definition not basis for facts.)

3

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question for my research

« on: March 16, 2023, 05:30:17 PM »

Sounds like you just identified a fantastic reason to do it 👀

Yeah, fair enough. That was a poor argument against FE.

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question for my research

« on: March 15, 2023, 06:39:58 PM »

See, the problem with this prompt is that every corporation lies and hides something, even if it's part of the government. Confidential projects buried, senior staff corrupted, that sort of thing. However, this evidence is lackluster for NASA, especially given certain events that wouldn't make sense for a conspiracy. For example, the moving of the Endeavor.



This was a huge project, caused massive disruptions, and was a giant pain. Even if we assume this is a fake shell, as it would be in a conspiracy, why do any of this? It doesn't prove authenticity, because people will take videos and photos of the (in this scenario) fake launch. On a purely logisitical level, this is a lot of effort for something that wouldn't prove anything.

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: experiment earth spinning or stationary

« on: March 01, 2023, 05:49:29 PM »

If the earth is spinning , and de drone films an object the object should move/spin.
The drone because it is airborn would not spin.

You missed a critical factor here: in any model in which the earth moves, the air moves with it. The reason is that as the air hits the Earth, it gains the Earth's momentum, being pushed along with it. The air moves with Earth. If air didn't move with the Earth, it would create wind speeds in the thousands of miles per hour. For a good source here, check out What If? (This specific question is only in the first book, and wasn't posted online. Long story short, everything not next to the poles is wiped off the map.) The drone would hang in the air, but the air is stationary relative to the earth, because of friction.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why is Earth a magnet?

« on: March 01, 2023, 03:27:38 PM »

Y'know, you never addressed a pretty big issue with this model: the compass points are pulled to the same point. You refuted this by saying that the poles are far away, [like in the round Earth model, but they aren't. The lack of thickness of the Earth means that the poles are incredibly close to each other, and from ground level you would be standing incredibly close to the center of this metaphorical bar magnet, unlike what happens with a globe. On this model, compasses do not work.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?

« on: December 30, 2022, 01:10:21 PM »

I've been digging through the proposed FE maps recently, and have noticed that every single map I've seen is a circle.

It's hard to comment on what you have and haven't seen. However, while many maps of the Earth are circular, most come with a prominent proviso: we're only covering the extent of the known Earth. There are exceptions to that, too, with some more extreme wings of the movement trying to expand past that (though that seems to be done based on nothing but the authors' imagination).

So, most maps with Antarctica acting as a rim around the known Earth are drawn as circles for simplicity, and you're overthinking is massively.

That said, I'm surprised that your years of wiki-binging didn't lead you to Rowbotham's or Ferguson's maps, both of which are square in shape.

I should've specified; I've been looking through the forums at the threads for years. I only recently started digging through the wiki. My bad!

8

Flat Earth Theory / Why are all FE models discs?

« on: December 30, 2022, 05:40:05 AM »

I've been digging through the proposed FE maps recently, and have noticed that every single map I've seen is a circle. What I don't understand is why.

If the Earth is flat, why not a rectangle? Or a square? Why not any other shape? Things like flying over the north pole could be explained with simply going to the ice wall on that edge, flying for a while, then coming back south. If we're allowing conspiracies (which is a given for FE to be true), then we can explain any of these models. Plus, then the whole distortion issue could have an actual solution, with the Earth just being a wonky shape.

To be clear, I'm a Round Earther. I'm not proposing these things to be true, I'm wondering why I haven't seen any discussion on this topic in my years of looking at arguments in these forums, and some more recent, and admittedly shallower, digs through the wiki.

Edited for clarity. Thanks Pete!

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do FE meteors work

« on: December 30, 2022, 05:31:22 AM »

I have a question pertaining to this topic as well: do meteors curve in FE?

What I mean is, are their paths straight as we perceive them, or do they curve as they fly, thus moving over the Earth's surface how we measure them moving. In this case, assume the standard refraction shtick to explain why they appear straight. That's an argument for another day.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus & Lunar Eclipses on Other Planets

« on: December 30, 2022, 05:28:02 AM »

I am a 15-year-old ... A lot of people insult my knowledge based on my age, and I do not wish for that.

If you don't want people to insult your intelligence based on your age, why would you tell us your age?

Plus, giving internet strangers your age could end poorly in a myriad of ways.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why is Earth a magnet?

« on: December 09, 2022, 04:58:54 PM »

Evidence that the atmosphere is shaped like a dome is in its ability to explain everyday observations like sunsets and star trails from a flat earth perspective.

Wait, so the atmosphere's a dome? But your model is double sided! The only way THAT works is if there are two domes, or just a spherical atmosphere. Either way, you now have a new problem to address:  How does the atmosphere work at all on the rim? Air isn't thinner near the equator, yet it would have to be in this model, because the domes don't reach it. Even if you use the sphere theory, there would still be less air around the rim, and air would constantly get thinner as you moved away from the pole until you hit the rim.

.

you posit that what we recognize as hemispheres are the two sides of the flat earth, with the equator on the rim.[/b]

That's not what I believe. I believe in a conventional South Pole centered AE map with a few alterations...   

The point i was trying to make earlier is that you can think of a flat earth like a round earth when it comes to magnetism....   The magnetic field lines of each model lie along the axis of rotation. 

BS. You said this:

The north pole as we know it on a spherical world (90'N Latitude) would be on the underside of a flat earth below the south pole / Antarctica.   Imagine your standing at the north pole on a spherical earth and the world is squished a little into a disc shape.  The south pole would still be beneath your feet on the other side of the world.   The only difference is that on a flat world we would only live in one particular hemisphere, or one side of earth, but the magnetic lines do dip under. 

If you had just mentioned poles I'd ignore it, but you mentioned living on one flattened hemisphere of the earth. That goes from an analogy to a new theory, which, as I've shown, doesn't work. And if the hemispheres are on opposite sides, then the equator must be on the rim.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why is Earth a magnet?

« on: December 09, 2022, 03:11:05 AM »

So, I have a new problem with your model, that has to do with a double sided Earth having any thickness; you posit that what we recognize as hemispheres are the two sides of the flat earth, with the equator on the rim. Here's the problem: that means there must be a ton of land on the rim, and thus a large area both on and off the rim where you would expect to see the earth curve (relatively)  sharply downward, with no horizon. You estimate the earth to have a thickness of about 1/4 the flat earth's circumference. Turns out, I didn't need that estimate, because no estimate works. If the Earth is thin, there isn't be enough iron in the earth's core to create the magnetic field, plus the view on the rim would be incredibly peculiar, with ground sharply dropping off before the horizon, even on the equator. If the earth is thick, then much more land is on the rim.

That's a problem for one big reasons: measurements. I know that this chapter of FE doesn't trust all the measurements we get for the world, especially at sea, but this would take it to a whole new level. The thinner the rim is, the less land is on it, so it works. But as previously mentioned, this would lead to perspective issues. But if it's thicker, than the circumference of the earth shrinks, because the contiguous landmasses over the equator mean that we can't fudge it: there's less surface area on the disk part. If you DID fudge it, and you would have to fudge it pretty heavily for this to work, than measurements on land, which can be verified much more easily, would be so incredibly far off it would be impossible to keep under wraps. So, the circumference logically must shrink.

But if the circumference shrinks, that brings up all kinds of new and exciting issues with the landmasses near the equator. See, the circumference of the cylinder would be in line with measurements for things near the edge of the rim. As you get farther though, things start shrinking fast. Think about it; the landmasses near the equator would have to be much smaller, because they now have less latitude to work with than in both the globe model and most FE models. Once again, though measurements can be fudged, this would take a LOT of fudging.

And isn't the whole reason FE doesn't have one conclusive model because none of them line up with measurements?

Oh, and the good ol' Coriolis effect has come back once more! See, this effect just wouldn't work on the rim. like, at all.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why is Earth a magnet?

« on: December 08, 2022, 01:46:56 PM »

I need some more info before my next rebuttal:

Tron, How thick would you say this flat Earth is? (I don't need precision here, just give me a rough idea.) To get it out of the way, if you think the Kola Superdeep Borehole really happened, it has to be at least 12 km.

Also, in your model, do we pass over the edge to get to the other hemisphere?

And finally, do you have a rebuttal to my magnet points? These ones:

Okay, so when you go to the south pole, you are not also going to north pole because that is located beneath Earth on the other side. 

So a compass will only respond to the polarity of a magnet near your location.

No. A compass is attracted to both the north and south pole, because it's a magnet. If these poles are both in the same place, then it will be attracted to both equally.

Here's why: take a look at this image.


The compass in the middle is pointing both ways, with the north pole of the compass facing the south pole of the bar magnet. Now, if we rotate the magnet 90 degrees to be vertical, the compass will change direction unpredictably; it might follow the north pole or the south pole. But once the magnet is vertical, the compass is equally attracted to both poles again, so it balances back out to pointing east-west.

There is a much simpler problem though; if you buy an unweighted compass(they weight them for accuracy reason to due with latitude) and hold it vertically in the southern hemisphere, the southern end points down. In your model, we would expect the opposite, because the North pole is upwards. This happens in RE because the magnetic pole is technically through the earth.

(Edited after confirmation of south pole map from Tron, also to add clarity)

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why is Earth a magnet?

« on: December 08, 2022, 12:41:57 AM »

I don't fully understand how magnetism is generated in this way, but I think the Earth spins the same as in RE anyway so..  Am I off the hook?

I'd like to come back to this comment for a sec here: I have never seen anyone else in the FE community posit that a flat Earth is spinning constantly. I'd love to hear more about this. (Seriously, I'm not shitting on you here.) How does this work? Is the sun stationary in this model? Does this model use the sun-spotlight model, the flat Earth in a universe of spheres, or another model? I want to hear about this new branch of FE! (Admittedly, partially so I can critique it.)

As to how this works magnetically, good news! This would indeed work with your axially magnetized model. Bad news is, I still have some hanging critiques about that model. I await your rebuttal of those critiques.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why do the magnetic poles exist?

« on: December 07, 2022, 04:17:29 PM »

Okay, so when you go to the south pole, you are not also going to north pole because that is located beneath Earth on the other side. 

So a compass will only respond to the polarity of a magnet near your location.

No. A compass is attracted to both the north and south pole, because it's a magnet. If these poles are both in the same place, then it will be attracted to both equally.

Here's why: take a look at this image.


The compass in the middle is pointing both ways, with the north pole of the compass facing the south pole of the bar magnet. Now, if we rotate the magnet 90 degrees to be vertical, the compass will change direction unpredictably; it might follow the north pole or the south pole. But once the magnet is vertical, the compass is equally attracted to both poles again, so it balances back out to pointing east-west.

There is a much simpler problem though; if you buy an unweighted compass(they weight them for accuracy reason to due with latitude) and hold it vertically in the southern hemisphere, the southern end points down. In your model, we would expect the opposite, because the North pole is upwards. This happens in RE because the magnetic pole is technically through the earth.

(Edited after confirmation of south pole map from Tron, also to add clarity)

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why do the magnetic poles exist?

« on: December 07, 2022, 02:43:31 PM »

I think the earth is an Axial Disc Magnet...  Here is a picture...    I can't really speak about a Ring Magnet setup..

But in the left model, a compass wouldn't work, because both poles of the compass' magnets would be pulled towards the (geographic) north pole, thus resulting in a compass that points east-west (or vice versa) when you face north. I assume the right one is meant to be the round earth version.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why do the magnetic poles exist?

« on: December 07, 2022, 02:26:49 PM »

Here's a source for that previous post:
https://www.magnet-sdm.com/radially-magnetized-magnet/
This is from a magnet manufacturer.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why do the magnetic poles exist?

« on: December 07, 2022, 02:15:19 PM »

I don't fully understand how magnetism is generated in this way, but I think the Earth spins the same as in RE anyway so..  Am I off the hook?

No, because there's another problem at play here: you can't radially magnetize a disc, cylinder, or any other solid circular magnet. It can only be diametric (along the diameter), or axial (through the center). The wiki claims that the earth is, but that's not possible, unless we've all missed a giant hole at the north pole. Neither the mono or bipolar models work because of this.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why do the magnetic poles exist?

« on: December 07, 2022, 01:58:50 PM »

It's the same process as round Earth I assume except it's a flat disc magnet.   Lava, dynamos, all that stuff I don't understand and have no reason to question.

The problem is that it can't be the same as round Earth, because in RE, it's cause by phenomenon that only apply to RE. Things like the Coriolis effect occurring throughout the entire planet, if at all. The RE explanation isn't applicable with FE, because as far as I can tell the Coriolis effect isn't even a thing in (this chapter of) FE theory.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE, why do the magnetic poles exist?

« on: December 07, 2022, 12:59:34 PM »

I don't really understand your question...  Why do magnets have poles?

Let me rephrase: We know why the earth is a magnet in RE, why is it a magnet in FE?