1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« Last post by SimonC on Today at 07:14:06 AM »

Let's give you one shot at this. Define "fall of the curve".

I am not a scientist so please bear with me. My definition is the amount by which the curve 'drops' in 'height' on an assumed non-rotating global earth from any single point on that globe. And for illustrative purposes my example would be a person standing at the north pole on that globe (the north pole being at the 'uppermost' part of that globe) would see the curve fall in height by 1 mile for every 1.57 miles of circumference.

2

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Fallout series

« Last post by beardo on Today at 05:00:08 AM »

Related news https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/chris-avellone-awarded-seven-figure-payment-after-sexual-harrasment-claims-settled/

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« Last post by Realestfake on Today at 03:31:52 AM »

In several of those images the lights are not shrinking in a linear manner. The first few lights in the set appear to shrink faster than the last few lights at the end of the row. The cause for this is described at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

We all know how perspective works, and that particular page isn’t helpful to your argument. Angular size will continue to shrink even with diminishing deltas. Pluto cannot be seen nearly as easily as Io, despite being similar sizes.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 03:26:08 AM »

In several of those images the lights are not shrinking in a linear manner. The first few lights in the set appear to shrink faster than the last few lights at the end of the row. The cause for this is described at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« Last post by stack on March 28, 2023, 11:17:15 PM »

See bolded:

So what is the light source? The sun? Yes
Then what is projecting the sun image on to the atmoplane? The Sun does. The Sun "projects" light like the fire in the cave example.

Then take the moon projection. With your shadow puppet in a cave analogy, the Sun (which we don't know how it is projected The Sun projects it light upon the atmolayer) is the fire. Some sort of image of the Moon is the shadow puppet hands. And the shadow puppet hands/moon image is then cast on the cave wall/atmoplane.

- So where is the shadow puppet hands/moon image source located? The source is the physical body of the Moon, which also projects (reflected) light rays from it like the Sun
- And how does the projection create the moon wobble? Unrelated
- And how does the projection create the solar flares? Unrelated
- And depending upon where I'm standing on the plane, wouldn't these projected images look distorted in different ways. Much like if I'm way to the left in the front row of a movie theater as opposed to being in the middle of the back row? The projection is made on a section of atmosphere between your eyes and the Sun. It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle.

The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

Oops, sorry, I missed the Q & A at the end.

Yes, solar filters block a lot of light. Yes. Polarizing filters aren't just light blockers, per se. Polarized Filters are different than Solar Filters. They work by diffusing light waves in specific directions, like horizontally and vertically. That's why when you rotate one you get a different effect. This is referring to Polarized Filters, not Solar Filters. Polarized lenses are discussed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Polarized_Lens_Example

There are basically two kinds of Solar Filters, White Light and Hydrogen alpha (Ha). The former blocks like 99% of the light so you can see the sun surface and Ha filters block everything except for the wavelength created by hydrogen atoms. So you can see flares and such.

Even from the Answer in the Q & A, I still don't see how it's addressing the fact that with a solar filter the sun does not observably change size. In your analogy if the projection of the sun on the side of a car and that car is 20 meters away and there's another car with the same projection 2 meters away, the projected image will be smaller on the far away car than on the close car. That's not what we observe with the celestial bodies. The projected celestial bodies should get smaller as they move away from us. They don't. A Solar Filter cannot remove a projection or reflection of light, only dim it. If the projection is magnified it's not going to reveal the true size of the source light, just like a pair of sunglasses can't remove a projection of a movie projection. If the movie screen were a semi-transparent sheet, standing on the other side if the sheet with a pair of sunglasses would not reveal the true size of the light source. The projection could be of various sizes upon the semi-transparent screen, and the sunglasses will not reveal the true size of the light source.

I guess I still don't get it. When I'm looking at the moon is it not the moon, but a projection of the moon?

As for filters and such, the point being, whether magnified or not, the sun doesn't change size as it arcs from sunrise to sunset and it should if it's moving away from the observer. As well, the atmolayer isn't a 2D movie screen. It's a thick 3D soup filling the space above the earth.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« Last post by Pete Svarrior on March 28, 2023, 10:31:33 PM »

Let's give you one shot at this. Define "fall of the curve".

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« Last post by SimonC on March 28, 2023, 09:06:58 PM »

Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth.
What I am wondering is what sort of curvature would you expect to see... would it be in a north south direction? An east west direction?

If you expect to see curvature what happens when you are in the middle of the ocean (or somewhere else where you could see the horizon in all directions) and turn around 360 degrees? Would you expect to see the horizon at a lower level when you have turned 180 degrees and then rise up again as you complete your 360 degree rotation?

Just wondering what the flat earth believers expect to see when they look at the horizon and declare "It's flat, no curvature there". But especially what would you expect to see if you could turn around 360 degrees and see the horizon in all directions. Isn't a flat horizon as you rotate around 360 degrees what you would expect to see if the earth is a sphere?

Because the flat horizon is the major point which seems to persuade people that the earth is flat. But it seems illogical to me that people would expect to see a curve down to either side when eg viewing a picture of the horizon.
Yet in reality there is curvature, but just not side to side as we look toward the horizon, instead the earth curves away from you - in every direction - as you look toward the horizon and rotate 360 degrees. And the fact that you could climb the crows nest of a ship and see further is irrefutable - after all isn't that why they had crows nests in the first place? "Land Ahoy!" So that they could see further over the horizon to see other ships coming or land in the distance. And also the curvature over the horizon is the reason lighthouses are built very tall?

In the diagram I have attached below the following apply (assuming a round earth and approx. dimensions).
N = North Pole
S = South Pole
C = Centre
E1 – E2 = Equator
Circumference (N-E1-S-E2-N) = 24,901 miles
N – E1 = 6,225 miles
E1 – S = 6,225 miles
S – E2 = 6,225 miles
E2 – N = 6,225 miles
Diameter (E1 – E2) = 7,926 miles
Diameter (N – S) = 7,926 miles
Radius (E1 – C) = 3,963 miles
Radius (C – S) = 3,963 miles
Radius (N – C) = 3,963 miles
Radius (E2 – C) = 3,963 miles

Lets say I walk from the north pole (N) to the equator (E1) a distance of 6,225 miles. And when I get to the equator the curvature of the earth has fallen away by 3,963 miles (the radius of the earth).

6,225 divided by 3,963 = 1.57. Therefore for every 1.57 miles I walked the curve fell away by 1 mile. That’s an awful lot.

If I carried on to the south pole (S) I would have walked 7,926 miles (the diameter of earth) and the curve would have fallen away by 12,450 miles; which (divided by 7,926) is 1.57 0r rather every 1.57 miles the curve falls away by 1 mile.

These figures are consistent. A circle is a continuous curve. And If I divided the circumference (24,901 miles) by 360 degrees each degree would be 69 miles in length. And the fall of the curve over each 69 miles would be 44 miles; a ratio of 1 mile fall for every 1.57 miles travelled.

I would be interested to know if anyone disagrees with these figures (errors and omissions excepted) and if so for what reason?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« Last post by Tom Bishop on March 28, 2023, 07:34:26 PM »

See bolded:

So what is the light source? The sun? Yes
Then what is projecting the sun image on to the atmoplane? The Sun does. The Sun "projects" light like the fire in the cave example.

Then take the moon projection. With your shadow puppet in a cave analogy, the Sun (which we don't know how it is projected The Sun projects it light upon the atmolayer) is the fire. Some sort of image of the Moon is the shadow puppet hands. And the shadow puppet hands/moon image is then cast on the cave wall/atmoplane.

- So where is the shadow puppet hands/moon image source located? The source is the physical body of the Moon, which also projects (reflected) light rays from it like the Sun
- And how does the projection create the moon wobble? Unrelated
- And how does the projection create the solar flares? Unrelated
- And depending upon where I'm standing on the plane, wouldn't these projected images look distorted in different ways. Much like if I'm way to the left in the front row of a movie theater as opposed to being in the middle of the back row? The projection is made on a section of atmosphere between your eyes and the Sun. It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle.

The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

Oops, sorry, I missed the Q & A at the end.

Yes, solar filters block a lot of light. Yes. Polarizing filters aren't just light blockers, per se. Polarized Filters are different than Solar Filters. They work by diffusing light waves in specific directions, like horizontally and vertically. That's why when you rotate one you get a different effect. This is referring to Polarized Filters, not Solar Filters. Polarized lenses are discussed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Polarized_Lens_Example

There are basically two kinds of Solar Filters, White Light and Hydrogen alpha (Ha). The former blocks like 99% of the light so you can see the sun surface and Ha filters block everything except for the wavelength created by hydrogen atoms. So you can see flares and such.

Even from the Answer in the Q & A, I still don't see how it's addressing the fact that with a solar filter the sun does not observably change size. In your analogy if the projection of the sun on the side of a car and that car is 20 meters away and there's another car with the same projection 2 meters away, the projected image will be smaller on the far away car than on the close car. That's not what we observe with the celestial bodies. The projected celestial bodies should get smaller as they move away from us. They don't. A Solar Filter cannot remove a projection or reflection of light, only dim it. If the projection is magnified it's not going to reveal the true size of the source light, just like a pair of sunglasses can't remove a projection of a movie projection. If the movie screen were a semi-transparent sheet, standing on the other side of the sheet with a pair of sunglasses would not reveal the true size of the light source. The projection could be of various sizes upon the semi-transparent sheet, and the sunglasses will not reveal the true size of the light source.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« Last post by stack on March 27, 2023, 11:26:12 PM »

I read the wiki. I didn't see where it explained where the projector is and how it operates. Where is the mechanism located that projects an image of a celestial body on the atmoplane and how does it work?

A projection does not need a directional "projector". Consider a shadow puppet show in a cave by the light of a fire. The fire in the middle of the cave allows its occupants to project shadow puppets on the cave walls around them. The fire projects light, and is the "projector".

So what is the light source? The sun?
Then what is projecting the sun image on to the atmoplane?

Then take the moon projection. With your shadow puppet in a cave analogy, the Sun (which we don't know how it is projected) is the fire. Some sort of image of the Moon is the shadow puppet hands. And the shadow puppet hands/moon image is then cast on the cave wall/atmoplane.

- So where is the shadow puppet hands/moon image source located?
- And how does the projection create the moon wobble?
- And how does the projection create the solar flares?
- And depending upon where I'm standing on the plane, wouldn't these projected images look distorted in different ways. Much like if I'm way to the left in the front row of a movie theater as opposed to being in the middle of the back row?

The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

Oops, sorry, I missed the Q & A at the end.

Yes, solar filters block a lot of light. Polarizing filters aren't just light blockers, per se. They work by diffusing light waves in specific directions, like horizontally and vertically. That's why when you rotate one you get a different effect.

There are basically two kinds of Solar Filters, White Light and Hydrogen alpha (Ha). The former blocks like 99% of the light so you can see the sun surface and Ha filters block everything except for the wavelength created by hydrogen atoms. So you can see flares and such.

Even from the Answer in the Q & A, I still don't see how it's addressing the fact that with a solar filter the sun does not observably change size. In your analogy if the projection of the sun on the side of a car and that car is 20 meters away and there's another car with the same projection 2 meters away, the projected image will be smaller on the far away car than on the close car. That's not what we observe with the celestial bodies. The projected celestial bodies should get smaller as they move away from us. They don't.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« Last post by Tom Bishop on March 27, 2023, 07:39:26 PM »

I read the wiki. I didn't see where it explained where the projector is and how it operates. Where is the mechanism located that projects an image of a celestial body on the atmoplane and how does it work?

A projection does not need a directional "projector". Consider a shadow puppet show in a cave by the light of a fire. The fire in the middle of the cave allows its occupants to project shadow puppets on the cave walls around them. The fire projects light, and is the "projector".

The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

If they are an attempt to “create problems to get government money” they have utterly failed - Congress doesn’t really care about barren moons of Saturn.

Counter argument:

https://americansforprosperity.org/five-outrageous-ways-the-federal-government-has-wasted-your-money-pt-ii/

$1.5 Million Spent Studying Fish on Treadmills

University of California – San Diego study spent a $1.5 million grant from the National Science Foundation to measure the endurance of mudskipper and bluegill fish on a treadmill. . . .

$1.7 Million Spent on a Comedy Club Featuring Dead Comedian Holograms

The U.S. Department of Commerce spent $1.7 million to help construct a comedy museum in Jamestown, New York that will “resurrect” dead comedians – from Lucille Ball to George Carlin – in the form of holograms. . . .

$3 Million Spent Studying the Jaws Theme and People’s Perception of Sharks

In 2016, taxpayers funded a $3 million National Science Foundation grant to study the public’s fear of sharks in relation to the Jaws theme song and music played during documentaries. . . .

The Department of Defense Spent $2.4 Million to Learn How to Get More “Likes” on Social Media

The Department of Defense funded a $2.4 million study to “counter misinformation or deception campaigns with truthful information,” as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Social Media in Strategic Communications program. . . .

$3.4 Million Spent on Hamster Cage Matches

Over the past twenty years, the National Institutes of Health has spent $3.4 million studying aggression and anxiety in more than 1,000 male hamsters. . . .

https://commonplacefacts.com/2020/09/09/doggie-hamlet-brought-to-you-by-your-tax-dollars/

Doggie Hamlet Brought to You By Your Tax Dollars



In 2017, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) awarded a $30,000 grant for the purpose of staging an outdoor production of “Hamlet,” with animals as cast members. As is often the case with anything involving federal funding, this requires more explanation. Although it is classified as a production of “Hamlet,” there aren’t actually any lines from Shakespeare’s immortal play.

The 70-minute production by performance artist Ann Carlson includes five performers, three herding dogs, a dog handler, a dog trainer, and a flock of sheep. Carlson was inspired by David Wroblewski’s The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, which tells the story of a boy who can hear but not speak. He learns American Sign Language to communicate with people, but he also uses a gestural language with the dogs he raises. Carlson, however, does not retell that story, but instead, it explores what it means to be a citizen of the world, with nature included.