1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mercury/Venus transiting the sun

« on: March 17, 2019, 04:46:50 PM »

I've seen some forum threads here and elsewhere that claim that FE proponents have never answered this, when there are several answers:

1) According to Aristotelian and Ptolemaic models, Moon Mercury and Venus are below Sun. All astronomers of antiquity seemed to believe planets were far smaller than Earth. If this is so, transit is explained.
2) If planets are all around the same altitude, M and V could just have different orbit paths that involve Sun crossing, where the others don't. Heliocentric assumption that all planets must be of same nature and have same kind of orbit.
3) It could easily be faked, and would only involve doing so for a few hours once every 5 or 10 years. Just google image 'airplane venus in front of sun' and you will see how easy it would be.

First off, let me thank you for the reply.

First, I'll counter your first point which states Mercury and Venus are below the sun. When either of these planets pass through our vision of the sun, they only transit a portion of the time. Sometimes they pass where the sun is and are still not visible, suggesting that they are further away. If you question how we could ever know that a plane tis behind the sun, planets move in a predictable pattern that we can track even in the day.

For your second hypothesis, my first argument works as well. We can track those planets' movement during the day and they never transit the sun even when they occupy the same space in our POV.

Please also consider the phenomenon of elongation, which is where mercury and venus had a maximum angle or separation from where the sun is at any given time (Mercury having a smaller angle because it is closer to the sun). Do you have a hypothesis of why the two planets with a maximum elongation also are the two planets that also transit the sun? Or is it just an amazing coincidence?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Mercury/Venus transiting the sun

« on: January 23, 2019, 06:07:03 PM »

In a flat earth reality, what is the explanation for when mercury and venus transit the sun (are visibly in between the sun and earth)?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn

« on: November 17, 2018, 02:33:22 PM »

First, I would like to address the idea that there's not a singular map to disprove. If we could prove that concentric circles moving further away from a single point (the north pole is simple, but it can be any point) start to get smaller in circumference, then that would disprove a flat earth, regardless of how the map is drawn. I hope we can agree on that before we even get to the measuring phase. If not, I could try to flesh out a proof.

For the measurement, I'm not sure what method would be the most convincing for you, but I'm open to suggestions. I propose the following: have a central reference point, ie the north pole. Draw an imaginary ray in one direction and another perpendicular to it. Measure the shortest possible distance between the two rays every 500 miles. If the distance between the rays starts to slow down and then shrink, then that would disprove flat earth. If you agree with the method, then we can try to figure out a satisfactory way to get the measurements. If not, please help me understand where I'm wrong.

There is no flat earth measurement system which could be used to measure such distances.
There is no flat earth circumference measurement system.
You would need to use something like a yard stick.

Before we talk about how to obtain the measurements, I want to know if you at least agree that if the circles do start to shrink in size as they radiate out, then that would disprove flat earth. If we agree on that, then we can talk about the reliability of the measurements without backtracking.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn

« on: November 17, 2018, 04:02:26 AM »

Thanks for the lengthy supply.

A quick summation of your argument would be that 1) there is no singular flat earth map to prove wrong and that 2) the distances between places are measured incorrectly because they are based off of a round earth assumption. Correct me if that's a misrepresentation of your argument.

First, I would like to address the idea that there's not a singular map to disprove. If we could prove that concentric circles moving further away from a single point (the north pole is simple, but it can be any point) start to get smaller in circumference, then that would disprove a flat earth, regardless of how the map is drawn. I hope we can agree on that before we even get to the measuring phase. If not, I could try to flesh out a proof.

For the measurement, I'm not sure what method would be the most convincing for you, but I'm open to suggestions. I propose the following: have a central reference point, ie the north pole. Draw an imaginary ray in one direction and another perpendicular to it. Measure the shortest possible distance between the two rays every 500 miles. If the distance between the rays starts to slow down and then shrink, then that would disprove flat earth. If you agree with the method, then we can try to figure out a satisfactory way to get the measurements. If not, please help me understand where I'm wrong.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance of Tropic of capricorn

« on: November 16, 2018, 09:58:45 PM »

No responses?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Distance of Tropic of capricorn

« on: November 16, 2018, 01:57:28 PM »

In a flat earth, how can the Tropic of capricorn have less circumference than the equator?

If you think that the latitudes in the southern hemisphere (assuming north pole is the center of the earth) are actually larger than the equator, then that's easily testable. (you can look at flight times in the southern hemisphere).

Is not possible for concentric circles to get bigger then smaller on a flat plane.