4201

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: January 04, 2018, 09:46:11 AM »

I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.

I am looking forward to the flat earth response to my post above although I suspect I won't get one.
And it should be noted that I haven't proved above that the earth is a globe, I have simply proved that for photos like this to occur:



Then:
EITHER, the sun has to be PHYSICALLY below the mountain
OR the light has to bend in some way so it appears to be.

One possible explanation for this of course is that light does travel in straight lines and the earth is a rotating globe.
But it doesn't rule out a flat earth. It just means that if light travels in straight lines then the sun cannot simply be circling above a flat earth. If it did then shadows could not be cast like this.

If they are going to cling to a flat earth model then they are going to have to rethink their circling sun or come up with some way for light to bend to explain photos like this.
I look forward to my Nobel (Ig Nobel?) Prize for contributions to Flat Earth...what I will charitably call "Physics".

4202

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics

« on: January 04, 2018, 09:18:16 AM »

It was, unless you're counting your unfounded opinion that the Earth is round and therefore all astronomical observations must align with RET as an argument.

Amused at the idea that the concept of a round (by which I mean roughly spherical) earth is unfounded.

4203

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.

« on: January 03, 2018, 11:39:20 PM »

As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

Dude. Seriously. That level of logic is about the same as me saying "When I close my eyes I can't see anything, therefore nothing can see me and I have thus become invisible".
You are basically claiming that if an object has a shadow cast by a light source then changing your perspective changes the angle of the shadow. That really isn't how shadows work.
The light source is PHYSICALLY somewhere. The object is PHYSICALLY somewhere. The shadow is cast because the photons from the PHYSICAL light source hit the PHYSICAL object at a certain angle. That angle depends on the physical relationship between the objects, not your perspective.
I did an experiment, so you don't have to. I suspended a Rubik's Cube from the ceiling and used a lamp as the light source. Here's the first photo.



The light source is physically above the cube so the top face of it is illuminated, as you would expect.
I then moved so that my perspective changed, here the light source now appears, from my new perspective to be UNDER the Rubik's Cube.
But guess what? The underside of the cube is not lit up.



Why? Because the physical objects have stayed where they are. The only way a shadow can be cast upwards if light travels in straight lines is for the light source (in this debate the sun) is PHYSICALLY below the other object (the mountain or clouds).

You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.

That seems extremely unlikely.

4204

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Apollo landing conspiracy

« on: January 03, 2018, 08:59:34 PM »

Unless you're claiming there are/were living things upon the moon, I'm not sure how this has bearing on the ones on the moon....

I'm not claiming anything. Pay attention.

Given that we haven't been to the moon, we don't know all that much about what there is on the moon. However, since retroreflectors have been observed in nature, it would be silly to conclude "There's a retroreflector there, therefore there's a man-made retroreflector there"

It's weird that none of the 3rd parties who were monitoring the Apollo missions have called NASA out on their fakery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

4205

Flat Earth Theory / Re: so this guy zooms into saturn & the ISS

« on: January 03, 2018, 08:53:39 PM »

And they have a live feed from it.

Oh, look, it's that fake live feed again.

Impressive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37778973

Fair enough. I guess it's just the "live" part you are claiming is fake?
And as others have pointed out there are live feeds.
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/iss_ustream.html
Not 24/7, admittedly.

And there's this site where you can find out when and where the ISS can be seen from earth:
https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/

If NASA are faking it then they really are going out of their way to make it hard for themselves by publishing something like this which is so easily testable.
I see you've ignored the rest of my post. Shouting "FAKE" at everything which proves you wrong is lazy.

4206

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellite Phones V2

« on: January 03, 2018, 08:19:34 PM »

I honestly think that the FE Society should raise some money to launch a CubeSat into space with hardened electronics, a rudimentary inertial navigation system to roughly detect altitude and location, and a camera of their choosing. You can use hardware security modules and some circuits to detect tampering with a clear chain of custody up to the launch company. It's not ridiculously expensive, and this should settle the debate once and for all.

If that happened and the curve was revealed they would find some way to explain it away and declare themselves right after all.
Probably using perspective which they repeatedly show they don't understand.
There's no helping some people.

4207

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: January 03, 2018, 10:36:56 AM »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42549687

We have two world leaders with nuclear weapons acting like kids in the playground.
I'm expecting the "Yo momma" insults to start any time now...

4208

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides.

« on: January 03, 2018, 09:19:43 AM »

I found the answer to my question in the Wiki. Celestial Gravitation.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
So the moon does have a gravitational attraction but, for no well explained reason, the earth does not.
You really couldn't make this stuff up...well, apparently someone could.

4209

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: January 03, 2018, 07:41:43 AM »

Anyone have a photo of a curved cloud?

As opposed to the regular cube shaped ones, you mean?

4210

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tides.

« on: January 02, 2018, 11:29:26 PM »

According to the Wiki, tides in the FE theory are due to gravity from the sun and moon.

How does this explain that there are TWO lunar tides in each 24 hour period?  In the RE model, the Earth/Moon system orbit around a point a little off-center from the center of the (round) Earth. The tide that happens when the moon is overhead is just gravity, same in FE and RE physics.  But the second daily tide (which happens in RE theory because centrifugal force produces that second tide due to the off-center rotation of the Earth.

What is the FE explanation for that second daily tide?

Easy.  Both the Sun and the Moon exert an influence on the water, thus there are two high tides each day since both the Sun and the Moon cross the dome once a day.  C'mon, ask a tough one. 

This isn't possible. If there is gravity between the Earth and sun/moon, they would all collide. Orbits work because the orbiting body is always falling over the horizon, so to speak. With no orbit around the Earth the Sun/moon would be drawn in by the gravitational pull.

Ha. Well, also. I thought gravity didn't actually exist and what we feel as gravity is actually only caused by Universal Acceleration.
If gravity does exist after all then as well as "well, why hasn't the moon or sun fallen on us then?", I guess the centre of gravity of the disc we live on would be near the centre so why aren't we all being dragged towards that?

4211

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellite Phones V2

« on: January 02, 2018, 09:13:58 PM »

Sorry to revive this thread, but i would still love a good answer .

You won't get one, sadly. They can't answer it, because Earth isn't flat.

I joined this board because I am genuinely fascinated by the Flat Earth Society. The very idea that such a thing exists now is interesting. A sad reflection on the post-truth world we find ourselves in but interesting none-the-less.

So I wanted to see what arguments were being put forward in favour of a flat earth. The answer seems to be there aren't any.
They just stubbornly stick to assertions made in a book written in Victorian times - things like "perspective makes things disappear below the horizon".
They keep repeating this lie despite a complete inability to explain how that would work on a flat plane or photographic demonstrations of it.
I don't know what they think is so special about this book anyway. Proclamations from it are treated as Gospel.

There isn't even an agreed map of a flat earth. There is no way sunsets can happen, no explanation of how clouds can be lit from below.
I posted a picture to demonstrate that in another thread. Ignored.
I've pointed out how perspective actually works several times. Ignored.
I posted a video of a sailing boat slowly disappearing over the horizon and no amount of optical zoom will "restore" it. Ignored.

Every debate on here goes the same way. Flat Earthers asked to explain something. They basically can't so after a bit of back and forth and being presented with facts which can't be explained any other way than on a round earth they run away. Facts just bounce off them.

4212

Flat Earth Theory / Re: so this guy zooms into saturn & the ISS

« on: January 02, 2018, 10:12:56 AM »

Why? What makes you think the earth isn't something unique? I just don't understand how people can credulously conclude earth must be categorized as a planet or some other "space object" when it could be truly unique and distinct.

Well, it could be. But what is your basis for thinking it is?
We have a model of the earth as a globe which orbits the sun as do the other planets. That model has come about through observations.
Over time that model has changed - from geocentric to heliocentric, for example, when retrograde motion of the other planets couldn't be made to fit with the geocentric model.
But we now have a model which seems to work well and matches our observations. We have GPS and Satellite TV, we have a global airline network and cruise line industry.
All these things demonstrably work. The flat earth model doesn't even have an agreed map. It can't explain sunset (as I said to Tom elsewhere, perspective doesn't cut it, on a flat plane perspective just makes things smaller, it doesn't make them disappear behind the horizon). Can the flat earth model explain the retrograde movement of the other planets? Or the fact different constellations are seen and move in opposite directions when viewed from the different hemispheres? Or the Coriolis effect which makes weather patterns rotate differently in each hemisphere?
The flat earth model doesn't work on any level. If a model doesn't work then you change it to one which does. And we have one which does.

Why are you sure it's not a plane or some misidentified object? Or a balloon?

Come on. You are reaching here. NASA publish a website which tells you when you can see the ISS from your location. That is how people know how to photograph or film it.

And they have a live feed from it.



If they are trying to fool people then they are going out of their way to make it difficult for themselves.

4213

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What if flat earth theory was widely accepted

« on: January 01, 2018, 10:09:49 PM »

We don't believe that there is a Globe Earth cover up. We believe that they are merely mistaken. Scientists and astronomers are likewise merely mistaken. Everyone is merely mistaken about the shape of the earth, and it all has to do with the educational system's culture of holding its authorities dating back to Aristotle as unimpeachable.

So NASA are mistaken. I guess the Russians and the European space agency are too?
I wonder why they keep sending people to the ISS and making videos from it and have live feeds from it. So much effort, so many more people to keep quiet.
And they have a website where you can see details of when you can see the ISS from your location, something so easily testable.
If they are trying to cover up all this then they do seem to be going out of their way to make it difficult for themselves.

And scientists are mistaken.
And astronomers.
And I guess the entire airline industry and cruise line industry have to be too?
What about polar explorers? Meteorologists who use weather satellites?

If the idea of the earth being a globe came from some bloke a couple of thousand years ago and observations increasingly didn't match that model then that model would have been replaced. That's how the heliocentric model came to be accepted, the geocentric model didn't work with the retrograde movement of the planets, various attempts were made to fix it and in the end the heliocentric model came to match the observations and so became the accepted one.

The thing is, GPS works. Satellite TV works. Google Earth works. The airline industry works. These things, all based on the earth being a globe, demonstrably work.

The flat earth model doesn't even have an accepted map. It can't even explain a sunset (no, perspective doesn't make things sink below the horizon on a flat plane, it just makes thing smaller and the flat earth model of the sun cannot explain how clouds can be lit from below). Flat earth proponents seem to be split into two camps. Some are just very ignorant of science and their argument boils down to "I don't understand it, so it can't be true". And others have staked their reputation on flat earth theory and so cling on to it in a mess of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

4214

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What if flat earth theory was widely accepted

« on: January 01, 2018, 08:17:09 PM »

I'm fascinated by your argument that realizing the Earth isn't the only planet has reduced wars. I've just spent the whole afternoon and evening collating wars (Note: with more than 20,000 fatalities) and the years in which they happened against global population into a spreadsheet, and it made my eyes open, I can tell you.

Until 1591 we never had more than 5 such wars on the go at once
Until 1947 we never had more than 10
Since 1981 we have had at least 20.

The last year with no wars of more than 20,000 fatalities was 1797.

Top 6 deaths per year (approx 5.5million) go to WW2, but top 9 deaths per mil population (almost 10,000 per million per year) goes to the An Lushan Rebellion in 755-763.

PM me and I'll email my spreadsheet. Swaps?

I'm not sure how valid that analysis is.
Remember that conflicts a long time ago would have been more localised with very rudimentary (by today's standards) weapons.
Conflicts now are on bigger scales and because we've got better at killing each other when they do occur they are more likely to kill more people.
I'm not arguing that the world has got more peaceful over time by the way, just not convinced your metric is valid for demonstrating it has got more violent.

4215

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me your physics

« on: January 01, 2018, 11:21:00 AM »

Interested to know how UA accounts for the differences measured in gravity in different parts of the world.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24068-gravity-map-reveals-earths-extremes/

The general answer from Flat Earthers is "FAKE!", but that is a pretty lazy response and note that multiple agencies in different continents have all reported this.

4216

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: January 01, 2018, 09:25:32 AM »

To that end, the proof is self-evident. There are no NASA employees who have come out in support of the flat earth movement or commercial pilots.

Let's throw in the cruise line industry while we are here. I guess they must be "in on it" too.
Was talking to a friend yesterday. I was saying how I've recently become fascinated with the Flat Earth Society, I'm somewhat bemused that it still exists in this day and age.
He is a keen sailor and was telling he how you can often see the reflection of light house light reflect off clouds before you can see the light itself before it emerges from the horizon.
I guess flat earthers will shout "perspective" but that really isn't how perspective works.

4217

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Regarding Pendulums

« on: December 31, 2017, 06:52:52 PM »

Interested in this part of that page:

"Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum."

I didn't think gravitation existed in flat earth "theory".

4218

Flat Earth Theory / Re: polar orbit satellites

« on: December 31, 2017, 06:45:00 PM »

Satellites aren't real. They are debris from the Firmament, which float in currents on the ether, which creates the illusion of ordered flight. NASA simply claims that these objects are satellites, when in reality they are completely natural.

So I guess GPS, Satellite TV, weather satellites are part of the "conspiracy" too?

4219

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun

« on: December 31, 2017, 09:29:36 AM »

The flat earth answer seems to be "perspective"

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun

"A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them."

This is actually true of course, objects in the sky do indeed appear to get closer to the horizon as they move away from us. BUT they also get smaller because that's what perspective does. The further an object is away from us, the smaller it gets. But that is not what we see with a sunset, we don't see the sun getting smaller and smaller till it disappears, it just sinks slowly below the horizon. Because the sun isn't getting further away, the globe is rotating.

The article I linked to above goes on to say:

"This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point"

That is just plain wrong. That is not how perspective works. Perspective just makes things smaller. The further something gets away the smaller and less clear it will be but so long as there is clear line of sight all the object will still be visible and optical zoom will make it clearer. If the above were true and the reason for sunsets then zooming in to sunsets should show the whole of the sun but it doesn't.

I have seen photos posted on here with clouds clearly lit from below which clearly demonstrates that the sun really is below the level of the clouds.
This one for example where the mountain is casting a shadow upwards and either side the clouds are illuminated:



I have yet to see a flat earth explanation of that.

I've also seen video (annoyingly I couldn't find it on YouTube, it was in a recent BBC series) where they took a plane capable of moving faster than the earth spins, travelled towards sunset, went fast enough so the sun was still relative to the horizon (because they were going as fast as the earth spins) and then went faster so the sun appeared to rise because they were catching up with it. Again, I don't believe any flat earth model could explain how that worked.

4220

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: December 30, 2017, 11:25:24 PM »

I'd suggest clicking the link, as this topic has been covered ad nauseam.

Ok. Fair enough, I hadn't noticed that's a link.
I have read it now, it's a very silly page.

I'd suggest that the idea of a global conspiracy to pretend the earth is a globe and orbiting the sun which would have to include all the space agencies around the world, the airline industry and many branches of science is far more complicated than the idea than it is in fact a globe.