121

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Any one here "in" on the "Conspiracy"?

« on: April 17, 2018, 11:23:10 PM »

I think the forum is moderated well: personal attacks aren't tolerated so the discussions are generally pretty cordial, but still allowed to get a bit heated and frustrated some times which is understandable for something so polar: both sides think the other side is completely ridiculous. The "tone" set is remarkably good, compared to how quickly you tube comments descend in to completely ridiculous ranting from both sides. Topics are "usually" kept on point.

Of course the idea of a global conspiracy from the space industry is one of the most ridiculous concepts required for flat earth belief... But if you WERE a member of such a conspiracy, and you wanted to "whistle blow", you wouldn't do it here: you'd go straight to 60 minutes for millions of dollars. Hence why the conspiracy theory is so ridiculous: there's little motivation for someone to keep it a secret (i.e. if the world was flat, who would give a crap? if it's flat, it's flat. I mean it ISN'T, quite clearly, but who would care if it was? Certainly not scientists, they would WELCOME any opportunity to have a "greater understanding" of the world. A flat earth pretty much proves the existence of god (i mean, how else would something so ridiculous be possible?) so that's an explosive revelation, but again, why would that motivate people NOT to tell anyone?? A religious person would have every reason to reveal that! So 1) huge financial motivation 2) huge religious motivation, not to mention the prestige of such a leak 3) huge fame motivation, 4) huge motivation just based on the fact that people don't "like" to keep secrets.

Interesting article I found on the manhatten project, probably one of the biggest things kept secret by thousands of defence force and private contractors (apparently about 130,000?). Still, there were 1500 reported investigations in to leaks. That project ran for what, 4 years? Imagine how many leaks in 70 years of space industry...
https://io9.gizmodo.com/secrets-of-the-manhattan-project-were-leaked-a-staggeri-1626524763?IR=T

The HUGE advantage the manhatten project had, was that people were at war: who in their right mind would knowingly leak something to someone who might literally destroy them, their families, their way of life... If flat earth were revealed tomorrow, the only thing people would care about is "why the hell did you keep that a secret?" it doesn't change peoples lives one bit. If a bunch of people then believed in god because of that revelation: big whoop. The only way to keep a secret with NO motivation to keep, and A LOT of motivation to leak, is with a hell of a lot of money and a hell of a lot of violence. Ironically that activity would be the thing that gets peoples attention and unravels the leak.

122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth

« on: April 17, 2018, 03:31:42 AM »

Besides, once you start making claims of "magnetism effect rays of light" then you AT LEAST have to accept a basic understand of perspective and the direction of light from distant objects... and a basic understanding of perspective ALSO proves the flat earth wrong... i.e. there are very simple formulas for working out the angle above the horizon that distant objects will appear (Angle = Arctan(Height Of Sun / Distance of Sun)). That's also the very simple formula which explains how an object approaching the vanishing point can not stay the same size... the "size" of an object can be thought of as the gap between the top and bottom of the object...so if both the top and the bottom of the object are approaching the horizon, then the object size changes. Basic stuff.

So the "sun sets at different distances" argument proves that your idea of perspective is wrong, and if your idea of perspective is wrong then you need a new way to explain a sun set...

If your answer is now "magnetism" to both phenomenon... then we go back to the original point: it would follow that there would have to be a force gradient between the north and south hemisphere to explain how the sun could set at a different distance... If that's the basis of your argument I look forward to clearly showing how that wouldn't work once you start to consider distances to the sun that criss-cross that magnetic radial gradient

123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth

« on: April 17, 2018, 12:18:56 AM »

That map is used for illustration purposes only. You wasted your time. No one put effort into designing it.

The exact details of the map are irrelevant: a belief that the sun follows an expanding and contracting path, and a belief that the sun sets due to perspective, means that southern summer days are shorter than northern summer days.

Also, if you read the writings of the early Flat Earth research society, the Universal Zetetic Society, they believed that there were two poles and that light on large scales didn't behave according to Elucid's ancient predictions.

This is a "debate forum": an answer of "go and read something" is not in line with how debate forums work

We try to tell you these things, but you aren't listening or reading any of the material we tell you to read. The wiki says this too. I guess we need to start spelling out these disclaimers in capital letters in the material?

If you can link to the material you're talking about that would be great. Even if you believe light curves, this can not explain the observation. If the sun is exactly the same distance in the southern summer as it is when it sets in northern summer, EXACTLY the same distance... then any phenomenon you believe in such as "flat earth perspective" or "flat earth light curving" would ALSO be applied in the exactly same manner yes? It is completely illogical. In a system with two objects, an observer, a sun, a horizontal and a vertical distance... If ALL of those are equal, then how do you explain how the image of the sun can change? You mentioned the poles: are you implying that magnetic forces affect light to such a degree that they "pull" the image of the sun at longer distances so it sets at the same time?

124

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of The Sun

« on: April 16, 2018, 11:56:02 PM »

The problem with "measuring the speed of the sun" is it requires maths and instrumentation, and we know that flat earth believers are often sceptical of maths and instrumentation. I think we should focus on the simpler ways to prove the model wrong.

For example, some positions on the earth experience the sun rising and setting pretty much 180 degrees in terms of azimuth, and almost 90 degrees zenith. If the sun takes a circular path overhead, that's impossible (i.e. path between sun rise and sun set is around 12 hours at such a point: that would =  a half turn on the circular path, and a very sharp 90 degree difference in azimuth between sunrise and sunset)

Plus for their model to work, the sun must set due to an incorrect understanding of perspective: if the path the sun takes expands and contracts, and the distance between an observer and sun set can not change, then we would end up with shorter summer days in the south than we have summer days in the north, regardless of the exact dimension of those circular paths and the exact flat earth map.

Until the flat earth can explain the simple flaws, I don't think there's much point debating the more complex points

125

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth

« on: April 15, 2018, 05:17:52 AM »

Yeah the problem is that flat earthers say there is no agreed map of the flat earth... So you have to return to the core principle of the argument: if summer is defined by two circles of different length, then summer days must be shorter in the south, and winter days must be longer in the north.

As you know there's a wealth of data available on sun set/sun rise at every location on earth at different times and people to confirm that, so every single way they think of to draw either a different map or different circular paths, it will not match the known sunrise/sunset times. If they can't explain sunrise and sunset, that's a very very important part of believing in the flat earth... If they can't explain how that works I can't see how they can believe in a flat earth.

126

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth

« on: April 15, 2018, 03:33:24 AM »

Hi Tontogary you are absolutely right, however we know that flat earthers say that "perspective" causes the sun to vanish, and therefore discredit any angular calculations you have shown.

So the beauty of my method, is it's simplicity: I am saying that if we accept the flat earth explanation for perspective as true (it is not) then there can be no explanation for how the sun can set at different distances in the northern summer compared to the southern summer. The simplicity of my argument is it's strength.

And so then it follows that they would have to come up with another explanation for how the sun can set. Because Rowbotham does not address this problem, I suspect most flat earthers will have a hard time answering that question. It will require a NEW theory from a flat earther, and although I wouldn't be so arrogant as to assume I am right (ha!), I have a hard time thinking of any possible explanation that will not be itself easily debunked by being inconsistent with reality.

127

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth

« on: April 15, 2018, 12:20:30 AM »

Two days later and noone has debated this (either for or against)?

Does this mean no one understands what i'm saying, or does this mean this is finally a very simple way to prove the flat earth model doesn't work? If there is no debate for this can we please pin this as a topic? There may be an aswer in the future but there doesn't seem to be an answer today.

Ignore the actual map and the actual path of the sun for a second: ENAG clearly explains the seasons as the sun moving in a larger circle or a smaller circle. If a larger circle: then obviously the distance covered from mid day to sun set is going to be different. So this is in DIRECT contradiction of the explanation that the sun sets due to perspective... if it sets due to perspective then it sets at a CERTAIN DISTANCE... It is impossible to have a longer or a shorter distance in certain places and certain times

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm

128

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Math Evidence (calcs and data) corroborating turning torso and radius 6371km

« on: April 14, 2018, 07:13:59 AM »

I directly combat the information in enag in a previous post and have had no response (distance to sunset). This is something that isn't explained in enag, and seems to be a huge oversight. How can the distance to the sun at sunset in the northern summer, be half the distance to the sun at sunset in the southern summer? This is not debating the flat earth understanding of perspective, it is accepting it as true. Enag shows that the sun sets when it reaches a certain distance because there is a diagonal line down to a vanishing point. Ergo, when the sun sets, then the sun has reached a certain distance. How can the distance required be different in northern summer vs southern summer???

https://i.imgur.com/TLTCwYj.jpg

129

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 13, 2018, 12:27:07 PM »

Perspective is like the thought experiment of a frog trying to cross a river. It is able to jump half the distance to the bank each time. First jump is half the river width... Next jump is quarter the river width etc... How many jumps does he have to take to reach the other side?

Answer: he will never reach the other side. When he's really really really close, he jumps half that distance...

This is how perspective works. When a road gets narrower in the distance, and it forms angled lines towards a vanishing point, think of the two sides of the road. They get closer together, like the frog gets closer to the shore, but the never meet. The eye might think they have, but they haven't. They just keep jumping at the shore. As they get further away, the angle to your eye decreases, until it's really really close to zero degrees.... But it can never be zero. Similarly, the angle between the ground and your eye gets closer and closer to zero, but it can never reach zero... So the horizon "rises" to eye level but it never actually makes it... It just gets really really close so it looks like it does.

P Brane draws a perspective line from a side view which doesn't make any sense. He chooses an arbitrary vanishing point for where the sun sets in front of a viewer and draws a like: a vanishing point is entirely imaginary. It is the bank that the frog will never reach. The angle between the horizon and the sun, and the angle from the top to the bottom of the sun, gets smaller and smaller as it goes away from you but nothing ever vanishes, it's just too small to see. A grain of sand on the moon has not vanished has it? It's too small for me to see but it still hasn't reached a vanishing point. Drawing perspective lines from the side is not sensible. One of these days I'll get around to drawing how perspective ACTUALLY works I.e. How you can accurately draw and therefore model exactly where an object appears in your field of vision, and why, including how you can calculate it, and actually replicate in a drawing exactly what you see from your eye or a camera. Drawing a diagonal line on a side view is a falsity.

130

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The distance to sunset

« on: April 13, 2018, 11:38:20 AM »

If enag says the sun is even further south than Rockhampton in south summer, that just further strengthens my argument. Does it also say the northern summer is further north? I'll look that up!

131

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The distance to sunset

« on: April 13, 2018, 06:52:28 AM »

As a follow up: this from "Earth not a globe" http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_120

In the Cook's Strait Almanack for 1848, it is said:

"At Wellington, New Zealand, December 21st, sun rises 4 h. 31 m., and sets at 7 h. 29 m., the day being 14 hours 58 minutes. June 21st, sun rises at 7 h. 29 m., and sets at 4 h.

Obviously that section is completely out of context of what we're discussing above: but it is showing how Rowbotham accepts that the length of a day in the southern hemisphere is greater than 12 hours in the summer

And on page 125, he describes the common flat earth alternative for perspective, but indeed draws a diagram showing from the side the distance to the sun setting. He does not make any mention of how that distance can be different at different points of the earth.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm#page_125

132

Flat Earth Theory / The distance to sunset: a new simple way to debunk the flat earth

« on: April 13, 2018, 03:07:11 AM »

Hello, I believe it is not up for debate that "as an object gets further away, it's perspective/apparent height above the horizon decreases". It's been said (and it follows) that the reason the sun sets on the flat earth (i.e. moves towards the horizon, and then appears to go below the horizon) is "due to perspective". It is also said that the sun circles closest to northern countries in the northern summertime, and it circles closest to southern countries in southern summertime. And in the time in between, it slowly changes from one to another in a spiral. The sun makes one rotation every 24 hours at a constant speed, so it follows that it travels half way around the circle in 12 hours, a quarter in 6 hours etc. Any time during the day can be easily translated in to a position on that 24 hour rotation.

So accepting all of that as true, then can you please explain the image below? In Durango, the sun sets around 9pm on June 21 each year, and the sun is overhead at mid day because Durango sits more or less along the path that the sun takes. "Length N" shows the horizontal distance between where the sun was above the observer at 2pm, and where the sun is at 9pm when it disappears due to perspective. So that Length N, should be the same distance the sun sets EVERYWHERE on the earth yes? If the sun is that far away from you horizontally, then it will disappear below the horizon at sun set. But from Rockhampton on Dec 21 (i.e. a point where the sun will be above the observer at mid day, for a fair comparison with Durango), using that same distance (Length N), the sun SHOULD set at around 3:45pm in the middle of summer? So the explanation that the sun travels in a larger diameter path for southern summer compared to northern is in conflict with the time the sun sets (and rises), by around a factor of two in this example.