3321

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about navigation and maps

« on: July 04, 2018, 10:21:33 AM »

We have maps that are accurate enough and those maps are flat the same as the earth you travel on.

Then why do so many flat earthers like Tom Bishop and Max_Almond say that there is no accurate map?

Because if the distances shown on those maps are correct then the earth cannot be flat. So they have to claim the map is not accurate.
If they produced a flat earth map then it would be immediately shown wrong because it wouldn't match distances or other observations like sunrise/sunset times.
So they don't.

It's a bit like me saying "I'm thinking of a prime number which is also a square number" and you saying "that's not possible".
So long as I don't tell you what number I'm thinking of, you can spend all day going "4 is a square number but it isn't prime, it divides by 2, 9 is a square number but it isn't a prime number, it divides by 3" or "7 is a prime number, but it isn't the square of any whole number"
And I can just say "I'm not thinking of 4, 7 or 9..."

The fact is the globe has been mapped very accurately. The proof of this is the global airline and shipping industry. They get people and goods around reliably, they don't drop out of the sky because Paris was a lot further from New York than they thought it was. They don't get lost. They know where they are accurately, they know how fast they're travelling accurately.
I was on a plane back from Dubai recently, on these flights they have maps so you know where you are at any given point, they have cameras if you're not near a window. Now, I didn't spend 7 hours on a plane checking out of the window to see if I could identify landmarks and see if I was where they're claiming, but someone paranoid enough is free to do so. The claim that airlines don't know how fast they're going, that cable laying ships don't know how much cable they're laying across oceans, that the whole history of cartography has got it wrong is crazy.

3322

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Euclid's parallel postulate

« on: July 03, 2018, 03:01:38 PM »

Merging perspective lines can be backed up empirically -- The horizon is certainly not an infinite distance away.

Sigh...

This is your circular reasoning I was picking you up on the other day
You're right, the horizon is not an infinite distance away. And in the real world we know why that is, we're looking at the edge of the globe earth which curves away from us.
That's why the horizon distance increases with altitude, you can see further over the curve. This is all observable.

You're claiming that the horizon is the "merging of perspective lines" (if it was then why would it be a line, not a point?) and because the horizon is observably a finite distance away you then conclude that this shows the perspective lines merge at a finite distance.

Your "proof" that perspective lines merge at a finite distance is that
1) The horizon is a finite distance - observation
2) The horizon is the merging of perspective lines - untestable hypothesis.

Your proof of 2 is 1, but your explanation of 1 is 2...

3323

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: July 03, 2018, 08:40:08 AM »

So...it seems to me that the conclusion of this is that the Wiki page claim that

"100% totality should be impossible"

is actually correct ...

I still disagree that 100% is 'impossible'. It will be possible in the situation where line from the 'bottom' of the sun passes in a tangent to the 'top' of the earth, then hits the 'bottom' of the moon. This is geometrically possible, but will only happen for an instant.

'Top' and 'bottom' here means perpendicular to the plane of the solar ecliptic.

Well, whatever. The general point is that most full moons are, in reality, not 100% full. But they're close enough that you can't discern the difference.
I don't know what that Wiki page is trying to demonstrate. If the point of it is to demonstrate a glaring flaw in RE then it doesn't, so what's the point of it?

While we're here, the FE explanation of moon phases:

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

would have the exact same problem. And you'd have the problem of what forces are acting on the sun and moon to make them wobble up and down although the FE model has no explanation of what makes the sun travel in the path they claim.

3324

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full moon impossible?

« on: July 03, 2018, 08:10:19 AM »

So...it seems to me that the conclusion of this is that the Wiki page claim that

"100% totality should be impossible"

is actually correct, but the reality is it's so close that it's impossible to discern the difference so websites claiming it's 100% are just simplifying. It's hardly the smoking gun which shows RE to be nonsense.

I can't really see the point of that Wiki page. It's like finding a website which claims there are 365 days in a year and going "ah-ha! they're up to something!"

3325

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Empirical Validation of Perspective

« on: July 02, 2018, 02:29:11 PM »

I gave you an example. You agreed with the example.

I agreed that:

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are.

Yes. True. My diagram shows why that's true. But the claim in the Wiki that the speed of the sun is constant because:

The sun moves constant speed into the horizon at sunset because it is at such a height that already beyond the apex of perspective lines. It has maximized the possible broadness of the lines of perspective in relation to the earth. It is intersecting the earth at a very broad angle.

Is nonsensical. It's actually just a complete gibberish sentence. I wouldn't even know how to go about trying to test that. What does it even mean? What you're doing is taking an observation and then making up some gibberish explanation which is impossible to test. It's like me saying that rainbows are created by invisible rainbow pixies which come out when it rains, but only if it's sunny too. And they line themselves up in a circle and shine their little rainbow lanterns. Prove me wrong! Well, how? How am I going to test that?

The way things are discovered in the real world are:
1) Make an observation
2) Create a hypothesis which explains that observation.
3) Devise some experiments to test that hypothesis. If the tests fail then back to step 2.

You lot never get beyond the second step. And your hypothesis are just things like "the sun stays the same size even though it's really getting further away because there's a magnification effect which by an amazing coincidence exactly counteracts the diminishing size".
Your "evidence" is then that the sun remains the same size! Well we know that, that's where you started! It's completely circular reasoning.

3326

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Empirical Validation of Perspective

« on: July 02, 2018, 12:51:03 PM »

You are claiming hidden pockets of infinity

I don't understand what that means.

As you are claiming that what we see is an "illusion" the burden is on you to demonstrate your concept.

I need to demonstrate to you that optical magnification can "unmerge" things which appear "merged" with the naked eye?
That objects which cannot be distinguished with the naked eye can be if you use binoculars or a telescope?
Really?

The fact that there is nothing you can easily point to; no studies, examples, or other types of evidence, shows the weakness of the argument.

You are making a claim about a consistent angular velocity of high altitude airplanes.
Where are your studies, examples or other types of evidence?

3327

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Empirical Validation of Perspective

« on: July 02, 2018, 11:55:04 AM »

You are the one claiming that geometry somehow randomly breaks down at some distance. Where is your evidence?

No. You need to prove that the infinite perspective theory is right in the first place, and that it needs to be disproved

So you want me to do an experiment over an infinite distance? I don't know how that would work.
My evidence for my claims is every observation of a receding body.
Now where's the evidence for yours?

The rest of your post is you not understanding the limits of visual acuity, or pretending not to.

3328

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Stars Slowing as they Approach the Horizon

« on: July 02, 2018, 11:47:02 AM »

In which case I agree. Using that model the stars' angular velocity should change as they recede into the distance.
They don't, ergo your model is wrong.

According to what evidence?

According to every observation of a receding body conforming to the predictions of the perspective model used by basically everyone.
You are the one claiming that a high plane's angular velocity doesn't change. You are an empiricist, I assume that claim is based on your own observations.
Can we see the results of those observations? How have you measured the angular velocity of a high plane over time and shown it to be consistent?

3329

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Stars Slowing as they Approach the Horizon

« on: July 02, 2018, 11:34:03 AM »

According to the Ancient Greek model of perspective they should slow by a much greater amount than demonstrated in the video.

Only if the stars are moving round above a flat plane.
If they are distant and the earth is rotating then that would perfectly explain the observations.
The slowing near the horizon is due to refraction.

I'm obviously talking about the Flat Earth model.

In which case I agree. Using that model the stars' angular velocity should change as they recede into the distance.
They don't, ergo your model is wrong.

3330

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Stars Slowing as they Approach the Horizon

« on: July 02, 2018, 11:26:09 AM »

According to the Ancient Greek model of perspective they should slow by a much greater amount than demonstrated in the video.

Only if the stars are moving round above a flat plane.
If they are distant and the earth is rotating then that would perfectly explain the observations.
The slowing near the horizon is due to refraction.

3331

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Empirical Validation of Perspective

« on: July 02, 2018, 11:24:38 AM »

BUT, there is still a difference in the blue lines and it's clear that the angular velocity will change no matter the height.
Ergo, that Wiki page is wrong. It claims that at some height there is no change in angular velocity. Not true.

You already know what I'm going to say. Where did the Ancient Greeks ever provide evidence for their perspective model?

Lets just agree not to have that conversation again for the 100'th time and agree that the Ancient Greek's Continuous Universe model is full of assumptions which have not been demonstrated.

You are the one claiming that geometry somehow randomly breaks down at some distance. Where is your evidence?
Show us your empirical measurements of a high flying plane which maintains a consistent angular velocity.
The conversation will happen again and again until you provide some evidence of your claims.
You don't have any. You're just rationalising to try and explain something to shoehorn observations into your model when they clearly don't fit.

And hilariously in the other thread you are arguing that stars slow down as they approach the horizon.
So which is it?

3332

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Stars Slowing as they Approach the Horizon

« on: July 02, 2018, 09:32:46 AM »

An interesting video about the stars slowing down as they approach the horizon. At the 1:15 mark the author states that "the stars get significantly closer together as they get closer to the horizon."

This contradicts the Round Earth Theory that says that the celestial bodies move at a constant speed across the sky as the earth rotates.

It also contradicts your FE claim that they do too...

https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

3333

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Empirical Validation of Perspective

« on: July 02, 2018, 09:30:51 AM »

Here is my comment:

It's widely observable that overhead receding bodies move at a more constant pace into the horizon the higher they are. For an example imagine that someone is flying a jet into the distance at an illegal altitude of 300 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move slowly across the sky, throughout its extent, despite that it is traveling at the same speed as the previous plane. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

Your demonstration with legos successfully shows the low flying jet example, but it does not go further than that.

We've had this page in our Wiki for many years now: https://wiki.tfes.org/Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun

Actually correct, the rate of change of angular velocity of something higher will be slower than something lower.
It's obvious why from a simple diagram:



I've made a bit of a mess of that but it's pretty clear that the difference in angle of the red lines is much more marked than the blue lines.
BUT, there is still a difference in the blue lines and it's clear that the angular velocity will change no matter the height.
Ergo, that Wiki page is wrong. It claims that at some height there is no change in angular velocity. Not true.

3334

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth at the Salton Sea

« on: June 20, 2018, 12:20:19 PM »

Rowbotham does a lot of this "heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning.
"The earth is flat, ships don't really sink behind a hill of water".
"Yes they do..."
"Er, those are hidden behind waves"
"What?!"

Waves can't hide a ship or building or anything else. If waves are your viewer height then they can only hide that height, my diagram above shows why.
Only if waves are higher than your eye height can they hide more of an object than their own height.

3335

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth at the Salton Sea

« on: June 20, 2018, 11:45:21 AM »

Dude. Rowbotham says that moonlight is cold and that the moon is translucent.

Rowbotham is quoting conventional science sources on those experiments and observations.

Well, he isn't. If he was then the current scientific thinking would be that moonlight is cold and that the moon is translucent.
And literally no-one believes that. Not even you.
At best he is quoting sources from the time, but the time being 150 years ago when our collective understanding of the world was nowhere near as advanced.
You can't just cherry pick sources which have long since been superseded and shown to be wrong.

We don't go around calling every study fake.

You pretty much do if it demonstrates a round earth. You spent two days not understanding a simple experiment with a laser and a boat trying all kinds of different ways of showing the result isn't what you'd expect on a round earth. When you finally understood it you just shouted "FAKE!" and ran away.

3336

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth at the Salton Sea

« on: June 20, 2018, 11:12:46 AM »

Dude. Rowbotham says that moonlight is cold and that the moon is translucent.
And I guess that doesn't mean he is wrong about everything but him just saying stuff and then backing it up by saying "this is what I saw" wouldn't be anywhere near good enough for you if anyone else did it (unless the "anyone else" was also a FE proponent).

3337

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth at the Salton Sea

« on: June 20, 2018, 08:57:25 AM »

There are waves present in the news clip.

Ripples at best. The viewer height is clearly higher than them which means that is not the explanation for the boat sinking



If your claim is that is the explanation then you are claiming that over a distance of 23 miles there was no wave or swell over 20 inches high in a bay open to the ocean (Bishop experiment). Does that seem plausible to you?

Sometimes there is a sinking ship effect on the sea. Sometimes there is not.

Is that true? What experiments have you done where you have observed a ship going further and further away and no sinking ship effect is observed?

In the book Zetetic Cosmogony the author Thomas Winship reports a number of Flat Earth sightings on the ocean that should not be possible.

OK. Some bloke said it in a book over 100 years ago and provided no proof apart from him saying so. So what? I thought you were an empiricist, interested in your own personal observations. What have you done to verify this?

Per The Bishop Experiment, there are some days when the opposite coast cannot be seen. The opposite coast can be seen on days when the day is clear and calm.

And yet you've provided no evidence of this apart from you saying so.

Why doesn't anyone read the material that was written for them? It is all there in black and white.

It would be nice if some of it was in colour...

3338

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Q. Sunset

« on: June 20, 2018, 08:08:20 AM »

What's contradictory? The sun remained the same size, as predicted.

The filter had no effect, as predicted:

You don't have any model which predicts anything, you're giving yourself way too much credit.
All your model says is that the earth is flat, everything else is rationalisation to try and explain away the problems that causes.
If the sun revolves around a flat earth then clearly it will keep getting bigger and smaller.
So you rationalise and claim there is some effect which by amazing co-incidence exactly counteracts that.
I'm not a huge fan of Occam's Razor but as you invoke it, what is the simplest explanation for the sun remaining a constant size?

1) That the sun is getting closer and further away but there is an effect which only works on the sun and exactly counteracts the effect of the distance variation
2) The sun is indeed a constant distance.

You cherry pick pictures which show lights with extreme glare where you really can't see the size of the actual light source. In most photos of a row of lights going into the distance it's clear the further away ones are smaller.



Sunset cannot work by perspective, EA is a better theory which would explain sunset. Probably has other problems but it fixes this.

3339

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 16, 2018, 08:20:08 AM »

- the light is moving in a straight line, and the mirrors are slowly moving away, and the angle of incidence continues to change.

My mind just can't quite make sense of this: you think the earth is flat, but you can also use the forces of a rotating earth as a way to nullify an experiment?

I think I finally understood the argument. So the light reflects off mirror A and hits mirror B but in the time it takes the light to get from A to B the whole set up has rotated slightly so while A and B are still parallel B is now at a slightly different angle with respect to A than it was when the light left A.
Is that it?
Except I'm not sure that's how light works. Or anything works. But this is where my knowledge of physics is starting to run out.
By the same reasoning though, on a flat earth what is accelerating upwards the light would escape out of the bottom of the mirrors wouldn't it because in between the light leaving A and reaching B the earth has accelerated slightly so the mirrors are higher with respect to the beam of light.

3340

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator

« on: June 15, 2018, 01:26:02 PM »

I don't know if that was directed at me or SiDawg. I don't think anyone knows what you are trying to argue.
You are maddeningly vague, you're either a terrible communicator or you're being deliberately unclear.
Maybe a diagram would help:



So in the top diagram the two mirrors are parallel. Not "FE parallel" or "RE parallel", there aren't different parallels. Parallel is a definition. Two surfaces are parallel if the distance between them is equal at every corresponding point on the two surfaces.

The light hits one mirror perpendicular to its surface and reflects back to the other mirror and back and forth. Because the two mirrors are parallel the light goes back and forth at the same height. There is no force acting on it which makes it go up or down. If you rotated the apparatus 180 degrees it would look the same and behave the same. This is how we in the RE community believe light behaves. Ergo, we don't believe that there is evidence for EA. If there was a force acting on light which made it rise then the light would not stay at the same level. It would rise no matter how the apparatus is oriented.

If the mirrors are not quite perpendicular then the light will escape. In the middle diagram the mirrors are angled slightly upwards and the light escapes out the top. If the apparatus is rotated 180 degrees now then the behaviour will change, the light will now escape out the bottom. If EA existed then in the middle diagram the light would escape more quickly than when the apparatus is rotated. In the middle diagram the force ADDS to the effect of the angle of the mirrors, in the bottom one it DETRACTS from it. I've not heard of any experiment which shows this effect.

What have I got wrong?