1261

Flat Earth Theory / Re: All planets are circular.

« on: July 07, 2017, 02:35:44 PM »

The human eye at night sees planets in our solar system as round, sphere like object, we can all agree on. How is this planet we live on any different and why?

The earth is not a planet.

Are you willing to back that up with any proof?

Yes. See: Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

What chapter contains the evidence for Earth not being a planet like nearly every other appropriately size object orbiting a star? Working through slowly, as I'm also doing my best to fact check various things as best I can.

1262

Flat Earth Theory / Re: For the love of all that is holy, read this.

« on: July 07, 2017, 04:42:29 AM »

Why would you be able to see where it is night?

Because of the time? Lol

I guess I don't understand your question. A round earth won't obscure your ability to see the horizon line, you can see this line from a 747 on a trans Atlantic flight. More to that point at that altitude you can see a slight curvature to the earth too.

I'm going to hazard a guess he means why would we be able to see the locations upon the world where it's night. To which I would say, quite simply, 'light radiation' from large cities should show up, as well as at times the moon likely should afford some illumination of night zones.

1263

Flat Earth Theory / Re: All planets are circular.

« on: July 07, 2017, 04:38:11 AM »

The human eye at night sees planets in our solar system as round, sphere like object, we can all agree on. How is this planet we live on any different and why?

The earth is not a planet.

Are you willing to back that up with any proof?

Yes. See: Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Here's a quote from Mr. Rowbotham, "There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."

Cairo, Egypt, at the mouth of the Nile has an elevation 75 ft above sea level. Khartoum, Sudan, also directly on the Nile is 1000 miles south has an elevation 1247 ft. About halfway between them is the Nile city of Aswan, Egypt, elevation 646 ft. The modern theodolite (a surveying tool) was invented in 1787, 29 years before Rowbotham's birth. He has no excuse for the inaccuracy of his statement. This gross error in his understanding of such simple geography absolutely disqualifies him from any serious participation in a discussion of the shape of the planet.

Sources: Google and Wikipedia.

Show me where he said that.

He is incorrect in who the quote is from, but it WAS from someone influence by Rowbatham's work. It's from "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe" which you helpfully have on your wiki. The noted statement is point number 4 as seen on this page. https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe Published in 1885, 100 years past the invention of the theodolite. William born in 1830, ~40 years after it's invention.

1264

Flat Earth Theory / Re: For the love of all that is holy, read this.

« on: July 06, 2017, 09:21:31 PM »

Another good argument is that, no matter where the balloon in launched from it always appears to be in the center,

What???

This has made my day, I'm off to work...

Sorry,

I should qualify this statement by asking why doesn't that above principal apply with a flat earth model.
Just stand still and do a 360 degree turn on the spot and tell me its because you are on a round earth that this is possible, are you not now the centre of all you survey?

Upon reaching the upper atmosphere's, where your vision allows you to see further, you should be able to begin to see the edges. A ballon launched in Australia should not see the world extend out beneath them equally in all directions on a flat Earth. Because the view would look past the 'ice wall' into nothingness. Actually now I'm curious what one launched from the Antarctic would see, if it's been done. Because it should see a long wall of ice curving off into the distance all along one side, would it not?

1265

Flat Earth Community / Re: I Made a 1:1 Scale Model of flat earth

« on: July 06, 2017, 08:07:56 PM »

That's interesting - in what way does it fail to represent the real world?

It suggests wildly inaccurate sunrise and sunset times for most of the world.

How so?
Beunos Aires, Argentina and Shanghai, China are approximate Antipodes.
According to http://www.sunrisesunset.com/ which I can attest are accurate for my location, the sun is rising in one, while it sets in the other. This would suggest the half circle of light is indeed a fairly accurate representation of sunrise/sunset times in the world. I would be curious to see your suggestion of a more accurate model, but a circular disk upon the Earth as suggested by the wiki, would not match this without creating daylight in places that are not in daylight at that time.

1266

Flat Earth Community / Re: Paradox Moon

« on: July 06, 2017, 05:22:13 PM »

And what about both the moon and the sun's light appearing localized, does anyone have an answer for that?

Rounder told you above it was due to Crepuscular Rays. An optical illusion, similar to what makes parallel railway lines appear to converge in the distance.

That's not what I'm referring to right now, why does both the sun and moon primarily illuminate the clouds and landscape appearing to surround them?
Where the sun and moon appear in the sky is also due to perspective, since they're so big/far, they're hardly anymore where they appear to be than where they don't appear to be.
If the sun and moon are as big as they say, and as far as they say, they should be illuminating everything evenly.

Furthermore, why don't the rays come from every part of the sky, I'm not talking about how the rays diverge, that in some, not all, but at least in some cases can be attributed to perspective, but how come all the rays come from where the sun appears to be in the sky, the rays should be coming from every point in the sky, regardless of whether they're appearing to diverge due to perspective or not.

I don't understand what you're talking about in the first bit here? Are you asking why the sun/moon appears to illuminate things directly between it and you brighter than anything else in the sky? Because I don't think that's a thing other than in some of the specific cases you are showing where they're illuminating through a hole in the clouds. Everything *is* being illuminated evenly, but the clouds in the sky are blocking some of it. Ever gone out on a clear moonlit night during a full moon? Everything is bathed evenly.

Why would the rays appear to come from the entire sky? The sun isn't that close to us. Take a normal light. Turn it on. Look at it. It takes up much more of your vision standing 2 feet from it than standing 20 feet from it. Same idea, the distances involved are simply much greater.

1267

Flat Earth Community / Re: Paradox Moon

« on: July 06, 2017, 03:20:18 PM »

And what about both the moon and the sun's light appearing localized, does anyone have an answer for that?

Rounder told you above it was due to Crepuscular Rays. An optical illusion, similar to what makes parallel railway lines appear to converge in the distance.

1268

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bishop Experiment

« on: June 30, 2017, 06:38:44 PM »

Ah, ok I was managing to miss the meaning of the subtraction step. Whoopsie. Corollary then, how does this equate to a 350 foot tall wall of water? Wouldn't the water follow the curve of the earth? So, if you stood on that beach, looked out along a perfectly level plane (for a perpendicular line) if it was a flat Earth, you would be looking directly at head level of the beach on the other side. If the Earth is round, you would be looking at a point, roughly 350 feet up. Right? What do you see when you do this? The notes in the wiki don't suggest he's using any kind of measuring device, instead implying this 'wall of water' that he can't see (but which shouldn't be there to begin with right?).

1269

Flat Earth Theory / The Bishop Experiment

« on: June 30, 2017, 04:38:40 PM »

Been starting to read some things and it finally struck me what was bugging me with this one. Where's the right angle? If the Earth is a sphere, walking any distance away from a starting point would leave you no longer at the same level as where you started, thus no longer at a right angle to your starting point. Right? What am I missing here?

P.S. Not sure if right forums, taking a guess.