1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the moon face

« on: February 20, 2020, 03:04:33 PM »

Wow, is this really what these forums are? endless posts on whether some scientist's innocuous quote meant one thing or another? Surely there are more interesting things to debate - like the fact that the wiki has a page om Foucault's pendulum yet totally glosses over the fact that the formulae that predict the movement of the bob can only work on a sphere, not on a rotating flat earth? What about the fact that if there really was a conspiracy, the number of engineers, scientists, pilots, astronauts, space related industries, academics, etc, etc, that would need to be involved makes it pretty much an impossibilty? When that question is answered with "compartmentalisation", is there any rigourous questioning of how that works?

One of the more convincing proofs of a globe model are southern hemisphere flights and antipodean flights, but from what I can see on this forum, not one satisfactory explanation is given for these - there are a number of threads on the topic, but every single one of them peters out into nothingness. For example, thread https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9794.0 it is explained that a bipolar model is the answer, but then when you look at the wiki page for the bipolar model, you get this gem: "The continental layout is unknown and has yet to be fully researched" So on a daily basis we travel from country to country, from town to town, more than a 100,000 flights A DAY, yet we manage this without even knowing where the continents are?! The mind truly boggles!

But carry on debating whether this scientist was talking about Earth-bound satellites or space satellites. You know that googling "Pauline Barmby email" brings up her email address quite easily? So you could ask her what she meant? Or is that too much common sense?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the moon face

« on: February 20, 2020, 01:48:13 AM »

The quote has nothing to do with NASA's space technology. We have established that, and you refuse to disagree with the fact that the statement applies to all telescopes.

Really don't understand what's difficult here. There is plenty of evidence that has been provided that shows the context under which the statement is made. If you wish to use it in a different context, then surely the onus is on you to provide an example of when this quote is used in the context in which you are applying it, i.e. when referencing ground based telescopes?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the moon face

« on: February 17, 2020, 04:33:08 PM »

That sounds right.

Thanks. Actually, I didn't choose those distances completely at random. I actually performed this experiment with a friend that was in Cairo at the time, 2,400 miles from London. Neither of us was in a well, I was in a stairwell that had a large skylight (2mx2m) , and he was in an old tower that didn't have a roof. At the same time, in a video call, we were able to see the moon from our respective positions. Given that at for at least one us, the light waves would be travelling fairly parallel to the ground, the moon shouldn't have been visible for one of us.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the moon face

« on: February 15, 2020, 02:31:28 AM »

Ok, cool. So if I'm in a well, that's let's say 10 foot deep and 3 feet across, and I have a friend who is 2000 miles away, also in a well that's 10 feet deep and 3 feet across, so that we both have a fairly wide angle view of the sky above, at any one point in time, only one of us would be able to see the moon - the one who is physically below the moon. For the other, the light rays would be at too shallow an angle, and would just pass over the mouth of the well, right?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the moon face

« on: February 14, 2020, 11:07:07 PM »

Thank you for that explanation. So if I've understood it correctly, the light from the moon cascades straight down, and then arcs as it gets close to the earth, so that at any viewpoint, we see the face of the moon that is facing straight down? I'm fairly new to this - so I hope my understanding is correct?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: February 14, 2020, 06:55:43 PM »

That’s fine, I’m too lazy to fly for 14 hours to prove my point.

What Tom did was flatten out a non Euclidean triangle, and then proved a flat triangle has 180 degrees. In reality, the triangle between 3 cities, if you can call it that, is a non-Euclidean shape, and the sides are not lines but arc lengths with a 3 dimensional vector, so you can’t just plug that into a triangle angle calculator online. You need to find the vectors for each arc at the ends and find the angles that way. I could do that and take a picture of the math, but alas, laziness. I will if you ask.

I think you have the right idea, but it’s not fully explored, iamcpc.

As you investigate these you will find that there are many different FE models. A flat disk FE model with a great ice wall and a north pole center is significantly weakened by measured and known flight times, measured and known flight paths, measured and known travel times/paths and measured and known shipping times/paths. Also I believe this specific flat disk model really struggles with the phases of the moon. I am of the opinion than there are FE models which are significantly more accurate.

So which FE model is the one we should consider? You mention that there are some that are significantly more accurate, can you tell us about those?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Appearance of the moon face

« on: February 14, 2020, 02:34:37 AM »

Hi,

First time poster here, so go easy on me... 

I have a friend who is a strident Flat Earther, and we have had many debates around this.

The one point that we are completely unable to get past is whether the moon is local. My point is that of the moon were local, then we would see different faces of it.

As an example, the moon in its orbit, passes pretty much directly over Manaus, in central Brazil. It is visible on Bogota around 2000 miles to the west, and Salvador, 2000 miles to the east of Manaus. Now if the moon is 3000 miles up, as the wiki states, then the view from the two locations should be different, but it's not. This borne out by a Google search, which shows that every single photo of the moon shoes the same hemisphere, only rotated.

He has been unable to explain this, I was going that someone here could?