41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Math, and what you should see, shall the Earth be round

« on: March 30, 2018, 08:05:11 PM »

I ask that if you're going to edit the OP and change the topic like that, please start a new thread instead of muddling the one.

There exist full-disc photographs of the Earth that are not composites. E.g. https://gizmodo.com/5909215/this-is-the-definitive-photograph-of-planet-earth

In the meantime, I'm abstaining from further participation in this thread.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Math, and what you should see, shall the Earth be round

« on: March 30, 2018, 06:53:30 PM »

Pretty sure kasai and parallax are alts, possibly the same person as Treep, who I had suspected was SexPlanet. Not super important

Anyway the OP is incorrect; as stated already, curvature is observed in the line from a person to the horizon, and in the fact that the horizon appears at all. The rest is waste

I refer anyone who hasn't read it to the Burden of Proof thread linked to in my signature. Kasai and parallax illustrate the problem super well: after a brief disagreement about curvature, the argument tilts towards science being untrustworthy and people being brainwashed, but none of it actually matters, at all. It's a pointless diversion from the actual problem: We have photos of the planet that show its true shape, and these cats deny the photos are real.

Discussing curvature and perspective is neat and fun, but if you want to talk brainwashing, let's get to the point

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Law of Perspective - Distance to Horizon

« on: March 30, 2018, 06:40:34 PM »

Macarios is right, as usual

Atmospheric perspective is a totally real thing, and it affects visibility without influence from the shape of the Earth. E.g. yesterday was pretty foggy where I live, and I couldn't see the World Trade Center from 6th & 8th. On a clear day with low humidity and clean air, atmospheric perspective has a negligible presence: With a decent telescope you can see the very top of WTC1 from Philly.

If the Earth were flat, there would be no such thing as a horizon. We see a clear horizon line strictly because we can see clearly all the way until the curvature of the Earth hides distant lands. Boats and skyscrapers do not gradually get hazy and disappear, they remain visible and disappear from the bottom up. Without curvature, the only thing that keeps us from seeing literally everything is atmospheric perspective; which involves getting bluer and hazier with distance, and never a clear horizon.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Trying to Understand FE

« on: March 30, 2018, 03:32:35 AM »

I ask for clarity of reference because he wrote more than one book. Not asking for a full quote, just something more specific than 'the book.'

Okay, I looked through the first one credited to Rowbotham in the library, Experimental Proofs, that reviews the wager about the Bedford canal. He addresses refraction in a paragraph at the top of page 20, after quoting a Britannica article on levelling. Unsurprisingly, he says it can be ignored.

It's clear he did not, in fact, take refraction into account. Quite the opposite; he claims he didn't need to.

Did you not read this?

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Trying to Understand FE

« on: March 29, 2018, 09:12:15 PM »

Please refer to the specific piece of writing you're talking about, where Rowbotham explained in detail how he accounted for refraction.

46

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

« on: March 29, 2018, 03:28:52 AM »

No, it's unedited video.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why doesn't satellite radio work between buildings?

« on: March 22, 2018, 03:24:02 PM »

Oh yeah, totally right. Satellites used for tv are geostationary, according to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_television, so one dish can point in one direction to one satellite and get signal.

I made a couple of bad inferences before. There are multiple satellites, but any given dish is pointing at just one.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 22, 2018, 01:57:25 PM »

first, Occam's razor isn't actually that the simplest explanation is the best. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

second, yes the curved surface satisfies Occam, because the best available evidence shows the Earth is spherical. challenging this evidence requires making loads of assumptions

third, I mostly just meant that Occam probably knew the Earth was not flat

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 22, 2018, 01:41:16 PM »

that's not what Occam would say

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 22, 2018, 01:38:45 PM »

yes, we know, and we also predict that you shouldn't be able to see the curve from commercial flights in general

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why doesn't satellite radio work between buildings?

« on: March 22, 2018, 01:37:26 PM »

the short answer for satellite tv is, there are multiple satellites, and the dish isn't super directional

see wiki to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_dish

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm confused: How have we gotten it wrong for so long?

« on: March 22, 2018, 01:31:32 PM »

now is probably a good time to remind everyone that videos like this exist:


the field of view is not as wide as human vision, so any curve in the horizon will be subtle compared to what you would see yourself at the same altitude

see also: this thread

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Orbiting International Space Station visible from Telescope

« on: March 22, 2018, 01:08:14 PM »

mercator map is a cylindrical projection of a sphere

circles around a globe map to waves on a cylinder



and now you know

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Equinox!?

« on: March 21, 2018, 08:35:07 PM »

itt: Thork doesn't know what a tangent line is. that whole post purposefully confuses tangents with surface directions to try and make bendy light voodoo sound reasonable. it doesn't; Thork, you never came close to 'showing it's the same for flat earth'

on the equinox, tangent lines pointing east from the terminator line at sunrise point at the sun.

if the Earth were flat, only tangent lines pointing east from intersections of the terminator and the equator would point at the sun. in the southern hemisphere, the sun would appear to rise in the southeast, and in the southern hemisphere it would appear in the northeast.

hence the bendy light rationalization, which holds no water. that's another argument that's been done to death

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 08:19:34 PM »

This is a terrible argument from Tom. We do have data for going 'the long way around,' and you get it by connecting flights together like pz says. In another current case, Santiago to Cape Town to Sydney. It doesn't help his cause at all; again, the work has been done and it is a complete debunk of flat Earth belief. He's starting you all on a wild goose chase to retread an argument he already lost. Don't fall for it.

56

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 06:59:09 PM »

Plus, astronomy 101 isn't usually a lecture class. It involves making observations and reproducing calculations of old. The whole 'they just accept what they're told and assume past work is done' is misrepresentation. I say it's a lie to call astronomy a closed question, a lie from ignorance.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 21, 2018, 06:54:49 PM »

Thing is, there aren't discrepancies in how far you can see, or whatever. Sounds like a case of not knowing what he was looking at, mixed with a chip on the shoulder and bad philosophy.

How far do you think you should be able to see from the top of a mountain, given the Earth is a globe? Or from a commercial flight? Figure it out, using WGS84 and other public info. Make a prediction. Test it against what you actually see. Share your methods with your peers.

You don't have to trust NASA to know the Earth is not flat, just use that big brain of yours

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 06:45:34 PM »

Tom is claiming that flight arguments are not conclusive simply in denial that they actually are. Look up 3DGeek and Rounder's posts from a few months ago on the subject.

Incidentally, I just looked up flights between Santiago and Sydney. They exist. I'm not sure what Tom means by the long way around, but there isn't reference to a long way in any previous argument that I'm aware of. Strikes me as a potential strawman

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?

« on: March 20, 2018, 09:39:25 PM »

from the Wired article, referring to a numerical solution:

But the most important note—BOOM, we just solved the three-body problem and wasn't even that difficult.

from abstract of this paper:

We describe the general and restricted (circular and elliptic) three-body problems, different analytical and numerical methods of finding solutions, methods for performing stability analysis, search for periodic orbits and resonances, and application of the results to some interesting astronomical and space dynamical settings.

If you think that because there isn't a closed-form solution to the general three body problem, it can't be solved and it's a stain on classical physics or whatever, you are wrong. If you think that every source says it can't be solved, you are not reading them. If you think that the supposed unsolvability of the three body problem means the Saros system is the only way to predict eclipses, you are willfully misconstruing the information shared in this thread. If you think Ptolemy's and Columbus's predictions are equally accurate to NASA's computer simulations, you are wrong.

This isn't a 'well believe what you want' impasse, this is flat Earth belief at its purest. A believer made an assertion that turned out to be wrong, but conceding the point means admitting that flat Earth belief is wrong. Distract, divert, avoid; do not concede at any cost, or flat Earth is debunked.

well it's debunked in the first place, but that's how this place works

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do Flat Earth believers decline to engage with certain FE debates?

« on: March 20, 2018, 05:31:39 PM »

So we're to Thork just sticking his fingers in his ears and proclaiming he's correct? Is that what this is?

don't forget naming me liar and putting a picture of a donkey in the thread, that was pretty neat

The math doesn't work, we don't use it, can't use it, etc., then he links to an article about people using it. I think we're done here