The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: huh? on September 08, 2015, 01:31:38 PM
-
For a flat Earth:
The Earth feels flat
The Earth does not feel like it is moving
Against a flat Earth:
Ships sink below the horizon
Time of day and sun angles do not work on the flat Earth map
No one has ever found an edge
We have hundreds of thousands of pics from space and hundreds of actual eye witnesses who have been in space and seen it.
It can and has been surveyed
Two plumb bobs spaced far apart are not parallel
The way the night sky moves is only possible with a round Earth
No one has actually seen the mysterious "anti-moon" which causes eclipses of the moon.
Every minute of the day we are circumnavigating the globe with planes boats and satellites
The distances between things do not work on the flat earth model
The horizon is visible as a sharp line and does not fade out.
The Coriolis effect is evident
The sky appears curved
The flat Earth model does not allow the sun to ever appear below 40 degrees from the horizon but the sun clearly sinks below it.
The shape of the Earth and it's orbit around the sun are proven because this model exactly predicts when and at what angle the sun will be visible from any point on Earth an any time. No flat Earth model could do that.
The distance to the Sun and Moon are far more than the 3000 miles estimated in the FE model
The distance to the horizon is measurable
Man made satellites can be seen with the naked eye and tracked with directional antennas.
About 40 nations have combined launched more than 6000 satellites into space with about 500 currently operational.
-
I guess that's it then. All these years and all we needed was for someone to come along and make a pro/con list off the top of their head. Can you make pro/con list on theories about what's on the other end of a black hole so that can be definitively proved as well? Thanks.
-
Except these are not theories because they are provable
-
The sky appears curved
So? No one said the sky was flat. This isn't the flat sky society.
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2s0k8bo.png)
-
yes,
but I still count it as evidence for a round Earth because there is no explanation of why the sky would be domed in the flat earth model whereas the round Earth model accounts for it.
-
Also there is no explanation in the flat Earth model as to what is keeping the sun from falling to Earth. Whereas the Round Earth model accounts for it.
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae, which means 'law of parsimony') is a problem-solving principle devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), who was an English Franciscan friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian. The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove to provide better predictions, but—in the absence of differences in predictive ability—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.
The key here is any models ability to predict. Any model which fails to predict is immediately invalidated by it's inability to predict. The round Earth model can predict with a very high accuracy. The flat Earth model can not.
-
yes,
but I still count it as evidence for a round Earth because there is no explanation of why the sky would be domed in the flat earth model whereas the round Earth model accounts for it.
Yes there is. It is called the firmament.
Also there is no explanation in the flat Earth model as to what is keeping the sun from falling to Earth. Whereas the Round Earth model accounts for it.
Just because you don't know the explanation doesn't mean there isn't one. Look up 'celestial gears'.
-
Simply giving something a name does not account for it.
A theory has to actually explain why/how something works
As far as Celestial Gears that theory works as long as you are only looking from one or more isolated spots on Earth and only for a short span of time.
When you take into account a record through the total orbit of the Earth and from multiple positions at the same time it becomes apparent that the "Celestial Gears" are broken.
I know you all really hate telescopes, observation, levels, and in general any other evidence than what you can see with your naked eye at any given moment but really it would save you a lot of misunderstanding if you would actually do what your great ancestors did and actually use science.
-
Simply saying our theories aren't correct, doesn't make that so either.
-
Simply giving something a name does not account for it.
I believe that's exactly how the theory of gravity came about.
-
they are not correct because you do not have a theory that actually predicts anything correctly
At any moment you want to come up with one that can not be proven wrong then you will have one worth keeping.
-
Newtonian gravity theory doesn't predict correctly on a quantum scale and quantum mechanics theories do not predict gravity on a macro scale. I don't see you dismissing those.
You are indulging in hypocrisy and cherry picking.
-
If you really get down to reality (Which is something you rarely see from flat earthers. LOL) There are really no "Pros" for a flat earth but all "Cons" for a flat earth.
The size and shape of the earth is really a moot point.
"Case Closed" (Clue of "End of discussion" in today's New York Times Crossword Puzzle )
Although it may not seem to be so in some of my posts I DO try to be tolerant of flat earther's beliefs....However false they may be. LOL. And best regards and best wishes to all flat earthers. Have fun ! Enjoy !
Another one for huh? to add to his list.:
How about the distances from the earth to the moon ? Is every one who has ever measured the distance that is different from the flat earth measurement liars ? Astronomical observatory laser measurements and amateur radio "Moon Bounce" measurements included ?
-
I believe that's exactly how the theory of gravity came about.
I do not know if there is a theory of gravity. There is an understanding of how it effects things but why it exists is unknown. But there are no paradoxes involving gravity it works the same on all objects and can be accounted for and predicted. It is an reasonable well understood characteristic of what we find around us.
This is not the same as saying well the Earth is flat and that is why we can stand on it but the sun is just up there traveling about and we have no idea why.
-
Newtonian gravity theory doesn't predict correctly on a quantum scale and quantum mechanics theories do not predict gravity on a macro scale. I don't see you dismissing those.
You are indulging in hypocrisy and cherry picking.
I do not think it is a valid requirement to say that since we do not know everything about gravity anything we do know is therefore invalid.
If we can use what we do know to predict how it will effect objects on the non-quantum level then our understanding of the non quantum level is pretty good. I would certainly not claim that we could not have a better understanding of gravity. It is just that the round Earth model does account for all observable phenomena we can see or detect around us.
-
Where as in order to make the Flat Earth Theory work most science and empirical evidence has to be ignored and or replaced with mysteries and conspiracies.
-
Newtonian gravity theory doesn't predict correctly on a quantum scale and quantum mechanics theories do not predict gravity on a macro scale. I don't see you dismissing those.
You are indulging in hypocrisy and cherry picking.
I do not think it is a valid requirement to say that since we do not know everything about gravity anything we do know is therefore invalid.
If we can use what we do know to predict how it will effect objects on the non-quantum level then our understanding of the non quantum level is pretty good. I would certainly not claim that we could not have a better understanding of gravity. It is just that the round Earth model does account for all observable phenomena we can see or detect around us.
I don't want to get into a Theological subject debate but I believe God made a lot of things.
Science is just figuring out how to discover them, make them work and how to put them to use. Pipe Organs for just one example. And Bach.
-
Where as in order to make the Flat Earth Theory work most science and empirical evidence has to be ignored and or replaced with mysteries and conspiracies.
It has been also pointed out that most flat earth "Ideas" don't really deserve to be called "Theories."
-
The shape of the Earth and it's orbit around the sun are proven because this model exactly predicts .....
..... great!!!!
Joke/Note to honest and honorable folks:
Do you know any RoundShillSociety forums? I would like to ask them when Mr.Gravity is going to pull the Sun/Earth into the Earth/Sun ---- whichever comes first. I hope their fantasy-model can exactly predict that schedule! They are so good at re-counting history, predicting the future and warping time! They must have all of the answers!
-
The shape of the Earth and it's orbit around the sun are proven because this model exactly predicts .....
..... great!!!!
Joke/Note to honest and honorable folks:
Do you know any RoundShillSociety forums? I would like to ask them when Mr.Gravity is going to pull the Sun/Earth into the Earth/Sun ---- whichever comes first. I hope their fantasy-model can exactly predict that schedule! They are so good at re-counting history, predicting the future and warping time! They must have all of the answers!
There are a lot of subjects which really do require a lot of study and research to understand them. That doesn't seem to be the order of work for flat earthers.
I don't think the so-called (by the flat earthers) "Round Earthers" claim to know all the answers. Do the flat earthers claim to know all the answers ?
-
They must have all of the answers!
No, I do not believe science has ever claimed to have all the answerers -they just happen to have many more answers than people who do not use or understand science
-
yes,
but I still count it as evidence for a round Earth because there is no explanation of why the sky would be domed in the flat earth model whereas the round Earth model accounts for it.
The flat earth illustration of where the dome and the earth meet seems to contradict the flat earth idea of the horizon as being at an infinite distance ? The dome would also have to be at a maximum distance or height at the center of the flat earth ? Above the North Pole ? And zero distance in height where the dome meets the earth ? Along the ice ring ? It would also seem that the dome would be lower in height over New York and Paris according to the illustration ? The height of the dome would have to decrease the closer you got to the ice (whatever it is) at the edge of the earth ?
-
yes it would seem that at the Antarctic things get pretty strange in FE theory
-
I believe that's exactly how the theory of gravity came about.
I do not know if there is a theory of gravity.
Christ, come back after you've had high school physics. I don't have much interest in teaching people the round-earth model. It never ceases to amaze me how people can defend something so completely that they clearly know almost nothing about.
-
As far as when the Earth will be pulled into the sun I believe that the prediction is that the sun will turn into a red giant when it has burned off enough fuel and will expand to engulf the Earth in several billion years.
But science definitely can predict that we will not be pulled into the sun by gravity this century.
Whereas in the flat earth model since you have no idea why or how the sun is up there you also have no idea what it will do tomorrow much less 85 years from now. The FE model is not even able to predict how it will travel across the sky.
-
[Christ, come back after you've had high school physics. I don't have much interest in teaching people the round-earth model. It never ceases to amaze me how people can defend something so completely that they clearly know almost nothing about.
Oh, now I really want to know -what is "the theory of gravity"?
-
I can definitely believe that.
You all come up with very inventive spins on things.
-
I can definitely believe that.
You all come up with very inventive spins on things.
I don't want to get ahead of "huh?" but I would be interested in the distance from the earth to the moon. It is one of my favorite subjects.
-
They must have all of the answers!
No, I do not believe science has ever claimed to have all the answerers -they just happen to have many more answers than people who do not use or understand science
Actually, science generally admits that it has no solid answers for any physical phenomena.
-
Scientist do not like to say they are 100% positive about much (particularly physicist's)
but I do not think many would go as far as saying that they have "no solid answers"
If we simply discounted all knowledge as not being 100% proven we would have no technology.
the fact that we do not know 100% about light or gravity I suppose can be defined as not solid but 95% is still pretty good.
-
I guess the problem with determining the distance to the moon is that it actual requires one use trigonometry and indirect observation.
I would guess that using homemade sextants spaced two hundred miles apart and simple geometry would reveal a distance far more than 3000 miles.
But still not very accurate -particularly if you assume a flat Earth.
But the FE rule seems to be:
Do not trust anything other than direct observation through one individuals own eyes and from a single point of view without using any sort of measuring device.
Given that baseline and the fact that a humans eyes are only a few inches apart it becomes very hard to judge distance.
-
Yeah I do not know about that.
A theory is an unproven idea so I suppose there could be paradox in some but it would prove a theory as being incorrect.
"The bottom line is that most observations with ultra zoom cameras or magnifying devices don't show the curvature that you would expect if you take the Round Earth Formula seriously. "
Since you actually witnessed a ship sinking as it moved away from you I have trouble understanding that conclusion. I think that you could add some precision in your measuring devices but your only talking about a slight discrepancy as to the amount of curvature based on inaccurate distance estimates, no understanding of expected refraction and low grade optics.
I think overall you are a standout and have done an excellent job of using science.
"1- Do you take the RE-formula seriously?"
-what formula are you referring too?
"2- Are you doing tests and experiments in the field?"
-well to be honest I take the lazy approach and just assume that people who know how to put TV satellites in space and rovers on Mars can figure out the shape of Earth. However, in the discussion about light reflecting off a spherical shape I did test it myself and have produced some models in sketchup which illustrate that the FE model does not work.
3- Do you accept that there are paradoxes regarding all theories and observations?
-what do you consider a paradox?
1.a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory:
given this definition No I do not think that all theories and observations have paradoxes.
If, on the other hand, you mean "do we know everything about everything" I would say No we do not know everything about everything.
For example take the Bedford Canal Level Experiment.
Is it a paradox when a boat can be seen from 5 miles away from a point just above the water surface when at the same time poles 12 feet above the water shows a curve?
That would be true if we could not account for the discrepancy in a repeatable way. But the fact is that refraction can be measured and predicted. So it is not actually a paradox.
The fact that gravity does not work correctly at the subatomic level demonstrates the fact that we do not know everything about gravity but that is not a paradox that is an abscense of knowledge.
So maybe I am missing something or defining something different than you -what paradox do you think there is which makes the spherical shape of the Earth questionable?
"4- Do you accept the possibility that the reality could be different than what science tells you?"
-Yes, to a point. No use in questioning the shape of the Earth because it is extremely well documented and proven.
Black Holes on the other hand are not. The size, age, expansion and origin of the universe, light, gravity are all either not proven or obviously missing pieces of knowledge
"5- Does every observation have to fit into the frame of science? And if not you will come up with an explanation, even if you cannot prove it."
-Yes -Although maybe I do not understand what you are driving at here.
I believe in cause and effect -in other words there is no magic and there is a reason for everything. A theory is an unproven explanation so yes I like theories. I am particularly interested in theories about matter and space.
-
Scientist do not like to say they are 100% positive about much (particularly physicist's)
but I do not think many would go as far as saying that they have "no solid answers"
If we simply discounted all knowledge as not being 100% proven we would have no technology.
the fact that we do not know 100% about light or gravity I suppose can be defined as not solid but 95% is still pretty good.
No, really, scienticians freely admit that they don't really know anything about anything. Pick any physical theory, and there is a competing theory to describe that phenomena.
Scienticians cannot even be certin that atoms even exist. There are alternative theories which describe matter as a series of waves: http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/matter.htm
The idea presented in the link is that sub-atomic particles do not exist, and what we believe are sub-atomic particles are actually just waves of varying properties. The function and operation of a wave-only electron is indistinguishable from a conventional electron. The operation of a computer chip does not demonstrate either hypothesis. A computer chip can work just as well with a wave electron as it can with a conventional electron.
Scienticians teach children that conventional atomic theory is fact, when it is not. There are competing hypothesis' of equal predictive capability. No version of atomic theory has been demonstrated to be true. Yet scienticians are all the happier to go on teaching and believing in the most popular fantasy. Truth does not matter to the scientician. Scienticians teach the most popular fantasy with the best media hype, not that which has been demonstrated to be true.
-
That is a bit of a misconception.
There is no doubt that there are atoms what is in doubt is exactly what they are made of.
But sure I think that people in general are guilty of simplifying answers and presenting the current best theory as fact.
And again we can always point to things we do not know
-that is not the same as saying that everything we know is invalid because we do not know everything..
Is there proof that the universe is expanding? No but there is some evidence.
Dark matter is just another way of saying -we don't know what that is
Certainly I believe scientist and media could do a better job and not be so "as a matter of fact" about everything.
-
We don't know anything. The matter-wave controversy in atomic theory is but one controversy of many.
Science cannot be relied on as an arbiter of truth. There are so many questions, so many inconsistencies, one is left to fend for themselves in a sea of uncertainty. The Flat Earth Theory is our interpretation of physical phenomena, and we have gathered supporting evidence to demonstrate it.
-
"We don't know anything."
I suppose this depends on ones definition of "know".
The old thought experiment - I think there for I am -is true and so we all know we are.
Again no doubt that there are a lot of things we do not know.
"There are so many questions, so many inconsistencies, one is left to fend for themselves in a sea of uncertainty"
Not really Tom, sorry but I think that you have an overabundance of paranoia that makes things seem more suspicious than they really are.
"The Flat Earth Theory is our interpretation of physical phenomena, and we have gathered supporting evidence to demonstrate it."
The Flat Earth Theory is built upon ignorance of science and extreme paranoia.
Flat Earth believers do not collect evidence they collect hearsay from other flat earth believers and then just accept it because it supports their world view.
If in fact you collected supporting evidence you would be creating a model which actually has predictive capabilities.
But as the discussion on the reflection off of a spherical surface demonstrated, FE'ers tend to say things that are relatively easy to disprove but keep saying them anyway. Then some other FE'er links to their statement and says hey this person said this so it must be right.
-
I doubt that Gabriel Lafreniere was anything more than a science hobbyist.
Although I think that he had some good points and I think that in recent years the science has headed his way some with string theory
-
"We don't know anything."
I suppose this depends on ones definition of "know".
The old thought experiment - I think there for I am -is true and so we all know we are.
Not even that is true. How do you know that you're not an NPC in some sort of video game simulation and your entire life is pre-programmed to lead a certain way? You can't truly say whether you have free will, or are thinking for yourself or not.
-
"How do you know that you're not an NPC in some sort of video game simulation and your entire life is pre-programmed to lead a certain way?"
-It would not matter what I was made of or if I was preprogramed -either way I still exist.
My existence does not depend on me having free will
Simply the fact that I can think proves my existence -what I think or what I am made of has absolutely no bearing on that truth.
Maybe God did not have to actually create us in a physical form maybe we only exist in Gods imagination. Even then I still exist.
If an hour from now, God decides to stop imagining me than I suppose I will stop existing at that time. For all I know God occasionally takes a break from imaging me and so I pop in and out of existence.
-
Only people who do tests and experiments outside the comfortable home will find out that the reality could be different than what mainstream science is telling you.
If you want to be a theorist believing that 'science' is always right, then that's what you are. A theorist.
Yes that is true. On the other hand if every human had to independently verify every bit of information than we would still be in the stone age. I do not need to be able to design and build a computer from scratch in order to use it.
I never said that science is always right so I guess I am not a theorist by your definition
although I do have some theories so by my definition I guess I am.
I do not really know what the implications of being a theorist would be. I suppose that would be a person who can create a plausible explanation for some phenomena so I guess that would be good.
I suppose the question comes down to what a rational person should take for granted and what needs to be independently verified.
So for me, the round earth model accurately predicts everything I need to know and much modern technology depends on it being correct. 40 different countries have combined launched more than 6000 satellites over the past 55 years of which about 500 are currently operational and are used to give GPS coordinates, TV, communications, weather forecasting, solar weather, science, etc..
The fact that I can see over the horizon a bit more than I would have thought does not really come into play because I can assume that I am only ignorant in my understanding of what I should be able to see.
When one can use Google Earth to predict where the sun will be seen from any spot on Earth I think most rational people would come to the conclusion that who ever made it knew what they where doing.
-
You don't know anything about life. You only have concepts.
The word' to exist' has no meaning. You can only come up with a definition, a concept.
And what about 'God'. You don't know what it is and if it 'exists'. You only have an illusionary idea in your mind.
I question even the concept of a mind. Does a 'mind' or 'thought' exist? Does an image of a building on your computer screen 'exist'?
I think that all words have meaning -otherwise they would just be sounds.
I do not see why it matters whether or not God is only my idea.
Does a 'mind' or 'thought' exist? -I enjoy thought experiments.
Well what does it mean to exist? we are here having a conversation so obviously something exists
If nothing existed than the universe would be empty and there would not be anything to have a conversation
So for the sake of discussion say we are both being imagined by God. Do we really exist or does just God exist? If we are in fact just Gods thoughts than would not that make us in reality, God?
That is a funny notion that God would imagine us not knowing that we are actually just imagination but anyway...
But the fact that we do not know what in reality we are is not important. If I think that I have freewill it makes no real difference whether I actually do or not.
If I believe I have a white shirt on than that is useful knowledge. The fact that there may be some one who comes along and says my shirt is actually black is irrelevant unless there is some relevant use. If I offer to pay $100 to everyone who comes to my door wearing a white shirt I will get a lot of people wearing white shirts. So in that case knowing is a mutual understanding of what white is.
-
"Only if you do tests and experiments yourself, you will find out if it is reasonable to question the concepts and information other people give you."
No there would not be enough time to test all possible information if I lived one million years. It simply is not a practical proposition.
Rationally, the only time I need to question knowledge is when the knowledge I have is giving me a problem.
For example, if I need to call someone in Australia and I look at Google Earth to determine an appropriate time and then when I make the call I find out that Google Earth is wrong then that would give me cause to question it's veracity.
-
[Christ, come back after you've had high school physics. I don't have much interest in teaching people the round-earth model. It never ceases to amaze me how people can defend something so completely that they clearly know almost nothing about.
Oh, now I really want to know -what is "the theory of gravity"?
Google it. Did you miss the part about me not wanting to educate round-earthers on the theories they champion?
-
"Google it. Did you miss the part about me not wanting to educate round-earthers on the theories they champion?"
I did.
I typed in: "The Theory of Gravity"
I was really expecting something grand but nope.
-
If you are not interested in doing outdoor tests and experiments regarding the earth, you will always remain a theorist and get stuck with your round earth belief system. Good luck with that.
I see no point in continuing your theoritical discussions with you or anyone else who are not doing the experiments.
Well that is not actually the definition of theorist.
A person who believes what they are taught are just called people. We all have to take for granted most of the knowledge we have otherwise we would not be able to function. Imagine before you open a door you have to experiment to see if the door is real, how it operates, why it is there, what is on the other side, etc..
Round Earth is not a belief system. It is a quantifiable property of the Earth and used everyday by nearly every person in the technologically advanced civilizations.
On the other hand a belief system is something which can not be quantified or explained.
Though as I stated earlier I did perform an experiment outside looking at a spherical shape in sunlight and I have done experimental modeling in Sketchup which demonstrates some of the problems with the proposed Flat Earth model.
I am not convinced one more verification that a ship sinks as it travels away will help anything.
-
I am not sure if your experiments are doing much good either for that matter.
I think that you need to investigate the existing knowledge and then if you find a discrepancy it would be a good time to question the knowledgebase.
A book on surveying would be extremely useful for your apparent interests and I am sure that you could find much information on the net.
here is something I just found:
http://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html
I used to hold the pole for my dad when he surveyed and think it is an interesting subject and useful skill.
-
What is wrong with you RE-guys/girls on this forum and on youtube?
You all think that you are so clever and that people who actually do outdoor experiments and question your theories are stupid.
And then you offer to give them information and help to understand your theories.
No thanks. Goodbye, mr or mrs huh.
I never said you where stupid but I saw some of your videos and it is pretty obvious that you are lacking in knowledge.
I only recommended you buy a book on surveying because you seemed to be interested in observing objects to find evidence of the shape of Earth.
But anyway whatever.
-
Somebody who acknowledged that he is too lazy to do any experiments himself is saying this. What a joke.
The information in my videos is correct. You are fooling yourself.
Hmm, I do not know why you would say that when I said that I have done one outside and others inside.
Perhaps you do not consider geometry studies as being valid?
No you made some incorrect assessments of the images in the "Flat Earth Experiment ship at sea" video
-
"Google it. Did you miss the part about me not wanting to educate round-earthers on the theories they champion?"
I did.
I typed in: "The Theory of Gravity"
I was really expecting something grand but nope.
I can't help your disappointment. It's not my theory.
-
Nonsense.
At the end the ship did not sink enough if you take the Round Earth Formula seriously. It kept its shape.
But I'm not saying in my videos that I found proof for a flat earth.
There is no theory here, just showing the viewer what I filmed. You can interpret it as you wish.
Yes except at the middle to end you began misidentifying what was visible and you did not mention the obvious refraction or attempt to account for it in any way.
At the top edge of the back hull is a white band maybe 10-11 ft above the water.
and there is a white number on the side just above the water
at 7:46 you say the ship should be sinking and it is.
8:26 you say it should be obscured 3.3 ft I think it looks like more but that is probably waves
8:46 you say the bottom is sinking -yes it is and the white strip along the rear hull is growing
at 9:11 you say should be 13.1 ft obscured at the same time most everything under the white strip is obscured
9:34 you say the back stern should not be visible -I would suspect that it is not but I can no longer see the white strip and at that moment it passes another further out object which for a moment makes it look like it has a back end.
10:06 you say 23 ft should be obscured and I can not see the front half of the ship
then the real amazing thing:
at 11:00 you say It seems the ship is keeping its shape!
at this point we can not see the front and only half of the tower on back -how exactly do you figure it is keeping it's shape?
11:03 only the top should be visible -only the top is visible
at 11:36 I like this part because another even larger ship passes in front and only the top is visible so looks like a little square chasing a big square
then at 12:10 it concludes with why is it keeping it's shape?
by this time we see only the top of the tower which has been very elongated by refraction and the hull disappeared at about 9:35
I can not say if any should have been visible or not or exactly how much was visible or exactly what speed it was going after the last buoy so it becomes rather hard to conclude anything at the end.
And then there is the whole problem with the horizon line that you do not mention. At 7:46 you observe it noticeably sinking on the horizon in the FE model there is no Horizon except at the edge of Earth.
What is the purpose of ignoring an easily observable fact?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObxiUMosj7o
This video thoroughly disproves the FE model yet you act like there is some "Paradox"
-
Getting back to the old "ship going beyond the horizon" subject.
But when I first discovered this website there were three "flat earth" things that struck me as being so absolutely erroneous that I couldn't believe them.:
(1) The distance from the earth to the moon.
(2) The horizon.
(3) The distance to the horizon.
All of these can be proven for a round, or globular shape word and none of the flat earth make sense when compared with the facts and evidence. I could go into detail on all of these but they have been gone over in detail several times on this website.
I still think it's just an act and it is useless to present any thing other that flat earth except on the debate section. But that is just the rules of the website and you have to abide with them.-
-
I have horizon listed as a con already.
I will add distance to sun and moon because with fairly crude triangulation it would be easy to show that it is over 3000 miles which may not prove that the Earth is round but that the FE model is flawed. The parallax method could get a closer estimate.
Good point on distance to horizon, I added it as well.
In the FE model the distance changes depending on "how clear the air is" (or something)
In the real world as long as the air is clear enough to see that far it will always be at the same place.
-
I did a model of what the sun would look like in a day from the FE model
This is from the point of view of a person at the tropic of Capricorn looking north in winter in the Southern (side?)
The size and perspective would cause the sun to appear like it is traveling out then making a big loop across the sky and then traveling inward at the end of the day. It would not go down below the horizon it would just simply fade out as it became to far away to see.
It would never be lower than 40 degrees (in the FE model that is as far as sun shines) and 3000 miles is way too high to ever appear close to the horizon from perspective unless one is actually standing many hundreds of thousands of miles away.
-
I did a model of what the sun would look like in a day from the FE model
This is from the point of view of a person at the tropic of Capricorn looking north in winter in the Southern (side?)
The size and perspective would cause the sun to appear like it is traveling out then making a big loop across the sky and then traveling inward at the end of the day. It would not go down below the horizon it would just simply fade out as it became to far away to see.
It would never be lower than 40 degrees (in the FE model that is as far as sun shines) and 3000 miles is way too high to ever appear close to the horizon from perspective unless one is actually standing many hundreds of thousands of miles away.
The sun would also appear as a bright dot at "sunrise" on a flat earth, gradually increase in size as it passed overhead and then gradually decrease in size at "sunset" until it disappeared as a bright dot.
But there is also the question of the shape as viewed . The sun would appear if it "acted like a spotlight". It would appear as an ellipse at "sunrise" and "sunset" and circular only when it passed overhead at "noon" on the flat earth.
And the question of the horizon and the distance to the horizon is one of the simplest fallacies of flat earth. So many others.
I have visited another website. They believe that the book of Isaiah (40:22) proves that the earth is flat. Biblical scholars explain that this was written in the time with what was known at that time . Sort of the mind-set of the "If I look out my window it looks flat."
But after visiting these websites I have come to the conclusion that no amount of explanation is going to change the mind set of a flat earther , so it's just a waste of time as far as posting any true facts and evidence any way. But they are interesting if you like to look at things from a realistic point of view to explain how things really work.
-
"A flat earth would have a horizon as well."
Yes, -that is why I said: "in the FE model there is no Horizon except at the edge of Earth."
To say something is too far away to see is very different than something sinking below the horizon.
The ship most definitely was no where near too far away to see when it past the horizon.
"This video indicates that the ship is keeping its shape (height and width) when it should disappear completely below the calculated RE-horizon."
The bottom half of the ship disappeared how can you interpret that as "keeping shape" ?
"Many observations indicate that there is no curvature."
This is simply b.s. and this video pretty much sums up all FE "observation" ability
A world where one minute a ship is sinking half way below the horizon and 10 seconds later it is "keeping shape"
A world where the horizon is filmed and then completely ignored.
A world where refraction is witnessed and then ignored
And by the way, at the end of your musings on the horizon video you ask:
"if anyone has some ideas on how to learn more about the horizon and refraction, please let us know."
Well I did, and all I got for it is this:
"What is wrong with you RE-guys/girls on this forum and on youtube?
You all think that you are so clever and that people who actually do outdoor experiments and question your theories are stupid.
And then you offer to give them information and help to understand your theories.
No thanks. Goodbye, mr or mrs huh."
What is wrong with you?
I do not think you are stupid because it obviously takes some intelligence to create the videos. But on the other hand you make observations and behave in a way that does not seem rational.
-
I've really given up on trying to explain obvious explanations and just visit these websites mostly for the fun and entertainment. You do get some valuable information but it is always from "round earthers."
Read my signature line. (On the other FES forum website.) LOL.
-
"The sun would also appear as a bright dot at "sunrise" on a flat earth, gradually increase in size as it passed overhead and then gradually decrease in size at "sunset" until it disappeared as a bright dot."
I partially disagree, I think the sun would appear as a gradual lightening of the sky in a radius around a point 40 degrees above the horizon.
It would steadily increase in size and brightness till noon and steadily decrease in size and brightness after noon.
Theoretically in the FE model light can only pass through so much atmosphere before it fades to dark.
I do think that using a light meter we could show that measurements to not support the current FE model.
-
"The sun would also appear as a bright dot at "sunrise" on a flat earth, gradually increase in size as it passed overhead and then gradually decrease in size at "sunset" until it disappeared as a bright dot."
I partially disagree, I think the sun would appear as a gradual lightening of the sky in a radius around a point 40 degrees above the horizon.
It would steadily increase in size and brightness till noon and steadily decrease in size and brightness after noon.
Theoretically in the FE model light can only pass through so much atmosphere before it fades to dark.
I do think that using a light meter we could show that measurements to not support the current FE model.
Right. Correction to my post. The brightness of the sun would also gradually increase and decrease as it passed from "sunrise" to "sunset."
There is also the question of seeing things through the atmosphere. There were reports from the Titanic survivors in life boats that they observed stars rising and setting on the horizon for example.
Of course the horizon would appear much closer to them since they were only a few feet above sea level .The horizon would appear to be much farther away to some one in the crow's nest. That is another fact that can not be disputed.
If the earth was flat why didn't Frederick Fleet ever report seeing the ice ring from the crow's nest on the Titanic ? If the air was so clear that night why didn't the people in the life boats report seeing the stars rising and setting above the ice ring ? LOL
-
Flat Earth Experiment the red ship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaPXH4GDNak
This does document the refraction effect pretty well
at 4:00 Notice the white lettering on the back of the ship.
AUTUMN
MAJURO
imo9416795
then look at around 9:36 and you will see them turning into a white vertical strip
At 11:26 all we see is the people standing on the deck and the back hull is completely below the horizon
when it is again improperly compared to the full ship
-
If you believe that the ship was not behind the CALCULATED RE-horizon, that's fine with me.
Believe what you want.
Huh?
The point is the ship IS behind the calculated horizon just as it should be in the RE model
My criticism is that you ignored the fact and then when on to describe the ship as "keeping shape"
here is another obvious flaw in the red ship video:
-
The point is that there is no real RE-horizon, as the ship does not sink below you imaginary RE-horizon.
What are you talking about?
You actually have it documented on your video.
at 13:46
I could see that after several ships had crossed the same path you had trouble identifying the ship you where following because all that is left in view is the red white and black top of the chimney stack
at 14:58 just the black top of the chimney is left
by 15:20 the ship is completely below the horizon.
-
There is no reason for me to believe that doing my own ship sinking on the horizon video would convince you
when in fact you did your own video that clearly shows a ship sinking after passing the horizon and you still do not believe it.
I have no doubt that we could find dozens of videos that document the fact.
-
I don't care what will convince you or not.
Do your own observations and you will find out. Good luck!
I am done here.
Actually you did a very good job of documenting a ship sinking on the horizon and I am now 100% convinced that the Earth is round.
I also have a much better understanding of the effects of refraction so thank you for the time and effort to post these.
-
I can not say you did as good a job on that "Flat Earth Experiment the horizon" video though
I did not really see any experiment that would either confirm nor deny a flat Earth.
Mostly it seemed to consist on a pan view of a bay with an horizon and a few questions.
But I can tell you how to set the experiment up if you still need some help with it.
-
The red ship video is a very good example of refraction
It has a nice high contrast paint job on the smoke stack with white below then a red band that is close to square, then a white band, then a black top.
Here is a frame from about 14:03 with a frame from earlier inserted at the top.
You can see that the red square is roughly 3-4 times longer than it is wide while the white and black bands have not stretched nearly so much.
Another interesting effect that you begin to see toward the end is the ship actually look like it is hovering off the water so we actually see a bit of sky underneath the stack. I would have to guess that this is very similar to what is happening with a mirage.
Throughout the video you can see that the part immediately above the horizon gets stretched the most and the part farthest from the horizon gets stretched the least.
Also the further away the more stretching occurs.
at 14:27 you see the red stripe disappear and the white strip suddenly becomes very tall
at 14:37 the white stripe disappears and the black top becomes very tall and looks like it is floating way above the water till it disappears at 15:14
-
It seems to me that in order to get a good handle on using low earth observation to measure curvature we would need to have a very good understanding of refraction.
In particular we need empirical evidence that some object that can be seen at a great distance is actually either over or under the horizon.
Of course in the flat earth model nothing can ever be obscured by the horizon and waves shrink proportionally with the ship so a small wave would never obscure a large ship.
Fe-experiments already showed that an object can be stretched 3-4 times its height at 12 miles distance so the question is: Can an object actually be behind the horizon but still be seen?
I suppose a survey could be made to establish the curve as in the Bedford Level experiment but I wonder if there is any other way to solve that.
-
The best answer I can come up with so far as that refraction is very dependent on air humidity, temperature, pressure, wind speed, temperature gradient, etc..
Therefore the same object looked at from the same distance should sometimes appear higher or lower depending on the conditions.
For example the "Flat Earth Experiment Windmills" proves that the Earth is round by observing the power building which is 23meters high and 16 meters above the water and in the video depending on the height of the observer the entire base is behind the horizon when the observer is close to sea level.
The only real question left is exactly what that curvature is.
Is the radius about 3959 miles like we often read? ..or perhaps it is actually 6000?
So at some observer height sometimes the base of the building should be visible and sometimes not.
While this would not tell us exactly how much of the object is actually below the horizon it would confirm that how much an object appears below the horizon depends on the level of refraction. And so it would confirm that refraction is bending light around the surface of the Earth.
-
Well at least it turns out that the solar system is kinda flat in this desert model:
'This is a scale model of the solar system like you've never seen before'
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-scale-solar-youve.html
-
Well at least it turns out that the solar system is kinda flat in this desert model:
'This is a scale model of the solar system like you've never seen before'
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-scale-solar-youve.html
Thanks for that link, very impressive.
Here is another attempt at a scale model of the solar system..
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
-
Fun, I did not actually scroll all the way (gave up after Saturn and clicked the links instead)
Lots of emptiness out there.
-
Fun, I did not actually scroll all the way (gave up after Saturn and clicked the links instead)
Lots of emptiness out there.
More than 3,000 miles ?
-
We don't know anything. The matter-wave controversy in atomic theory is but one controversy of many.
Science cannot be relied on as an arbiter of truth. There are so many questions, so many inconsistencies, one is left to fend for themselves in a sea of uncertainty. The Flat Earth Theory is our interpretation of physical phenomena, and we have gathered supporting evidence to demonstrate it.
No, you actually haven't.
-
I have developed my own theory.
Current string theory suggests that there are many more dimensions than we see and it is possible that more than one "reality" can exist at any point and time.
My theory is that the web has created an interdimensional bridge between alternate realities. Some people here live on a ho hum round world but others live on a flat world where physics works by seemingly arbitrary rules and 99.999 percent of the population is either, too ignorant to figure out they live on a flat earth, or are involved in a conspiracy to conceal that fact.
Or perhaps my alternate theory is that every persons reality is slightly different from anyone else's because of small differences in genetics and environment.
Personally I prefer the simpler round world so that makes me a simpleton.
-
Personally I prefer the simpler round world so that makes me a simpleton.
Actually, the simplest explanation is that the earth is flat.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam%27s_Razor
Occam's Razor asks us which explanation makes the least number of assumptions. The explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the simplest explanation. Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory. Several examples exist below.
What's the simplest explanation; that my experience of existing upon a plane wherever I go and whatever I do is a massive illusion, that my eyes are constantly deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or is the simplest explanation that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the solar system, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
When I walk off the edge of a three foot drop off and go into free fall while observing the surface of the earth carefully the earth appears to accelerate up towards me. What's the simplest explanation; that there exists hypothetical undiscovered Graviton particles emanating from the earth which accelerates my body towards the surface through unexplained quantum effects; or is the simplest explanation that this mysterious highly theoretical mechanism does not exist and the earth has just accelerated upwards towards me exactly as I've observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that when I look up and see the sun slowly move across the sky over the course of the day, that the globe earth is spinning at over a thousand miles per hour - faster than the speed of sound at the equator - despite me being unable able to feel this centripetal acceleration, or is the simplest explanation that the sun itself is just moving across the sky exactly as I have observed?
What's the simplest explanation; that the sun, moon, and stars are enormous bodies of unimaginable mass, size, and distances which represent frontiers to a vast and infinite unknowable universe teeming with alien worlds, black holes, quasars and nebulae, and phenomena only conceivable in science fiction; or is the simplest explanation that the universe isn't so large or unknown and when we look up at the stars we are just looking at small points of light in the sky exactly they appear to be?
-
Actually, the simplest explanation is that the earth is flat.
<snipped wiki>
Occam's Razor can be used to choose between two otherwise equivalent views, the flat earth view is not equivalent to the round earth view.
The flat earth view fails to explain many aspects of the world as we observe it. So, while it is simpler in some sense, it is certainly not equivalent.
Taking another example, of applying Occam's Razor ...
The geocentric view of the solar system is vastly more complex than the heliocentric view, and in that case they are in fact equivalent, the Ptolemaic solar system is mathematically equivalent to the Copernican solar system, but the heliocentric Copernican system is vastly simpler.
-
What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and they could predict cosmic events to precision.
In fact, Round Earthers are notorious for using Ancient Babylonian methods to predict stellar events, calling those equations as a part of the accepted model, when none of it is true and the equations have nothing to do with a round earth.
-
What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.
I'm not sure that's a relevant connection. After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth.
The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV, weather satellites. Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole. They hadn't even seen the southern skies, and, If they did, I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe, as the Greeks did.
-
What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.
I'm not sure that's a relevant connection. After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth.
The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV, weather satellites. Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole. They hadn't even seen the southern skies, and, If they did, I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe, as the Greeks did.
Many modern FE'ers support the bi-polar model, so criticisms about stars in the south and Antarctic bases are moot.
NASA's fraudulence is well documented. If the Babylonians had access to all of the sketchy and questionable errors in NASA's media, they would conclude that NASA is a fake, too.
Round Earth astronomy is hokey and appalling. Today if you go onto NASA's Lunar Eclipse website, the method given for finding when the next eclipse will occur involves looking at the Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle, a method created by Flat Earthers. Pathetic.
-
What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.
I'm not sure that's a relevant connection. After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth.
The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV, weather satellites. Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole. They hadn't even seen the southern skies, and, If they did, I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe, as the Greeks did.
Many modern FE'ers support the bi-polar model, so criticisms about stars in the south and Antarctic bases are moot.
NASA's fraudulence is well documented. If the Babylonians had access to all of the sketchy and questionable errors in NASA's media, they would conclude that NASA is a fake, too.
Round Earth astronomy is hokey and appalling. Today if you go onto NASA's Lunar Eclipse website, the method given for finding when the next eclipse will occur involves looking at the Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle, a method created by Flat Earthers. Pathetic.
I was hoping you'd bring the bi-polar model into the discussion, I've yet to hear how a flat earth can have two poles of rotation. Geometrically it makes no sense to me.
The other unanswered question for the bipolar model, is where is the edge? I did read Sandokhan's post with pictures of solar eclipses in Antarctica, but that's not the edge. The edge must surround the flat earth, and therefore be reachable by sailing in just about any direction, yet no-one has ever found it?
We can discuss NASA another day. :)
-
Tom, I see you use the words "well documented" every freaking time you enter a debate here, and yet, there's no documentation. Never, ever are you able to provide any hard evidence, other than the same stupid explanations and "excuses" for your fragile theories which are basically just a projection of your fragile mind.
Provide SOMETHING, please! Words just don't cut it in 2015.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAm2cagpsnk&list=PLHLnw5-2vMBQSKAQFGDMlmzAcO0RMc9zg&index=1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzYJ61EC9XI&list=PLHLnw5-2vMBQSKAQFGDMlmzAcO0RMc9zg&index=2
Have fun, and actually LISTEN.
-
And here's a little lesson in history as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6&v=VNqNnUJVcVs
-
Actually I think that the way it really is in my reality (round earth orbiting the sun) is much simpler
No need for a conspiracy, no mysterious and unfindable edge, gravity works predictably, the sun travels as observed, etc..
Simply hiding the true shape of the Earth with a population of over 6 billion would be next to impossible.
(at least in my alternate reality) In your reality where physics follows different rules it is most likely perfectly reasonable.
So in that light my alternate reality theory makes perfect since.
Ancient people could certainly add and subtract and that is pretty much the only science involved in predicting an eclipse.
Yes, modern science also uses addition and subtraction but I do not see how that validates a flat earth.
-
Well done vid, good find
And here's a little lesson in history as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=6&v=VNqNnUJVcVs
-
What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.
I'm not sure that's a relevant connection. After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth.
The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV, weather satellites. Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole. They hadn't even seen the southern skies, and, If they did, I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe, as the Greeks did.
Many modern FE'ers support the bi-polar model, so criticisms about stars in the south and Antarctic bases are moot.
NASA's fraudulence is well documented. If the Babylonians had access to all of the sketchy and questionable errors in NASA's media, they would conclude that NASA is a fake, too.
Round Earth astronomy is hokey and appalling. Today if you go onto NASA's Lunar Eclipse website, the method given for finding when the next eclipse will occur involves looking at the Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle, a method created by Flat Earthers. Pathetic.
please explain the use of satellites for communications and location information. With documentation.
-
What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.
I'm not sure that's a relevant connection. After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth.
The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV, weather satellites. Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole. They hadn't even seen the southern skies, and, If they did, I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe, as the Greeks did.
Many modern FE'ers support the bi-polar model, so criticisms about stars in the south and Antarctic bases are moot.
NASA's fraudulence is well documented. If the Babylonians had access to all of the sketchy and questionable errors in NASA's media, they would conclude that NASA is a fake, too.
Round Earth astronomy is hokey and appalling. Today if you go onto NASA's Lunar Eclipse website, the method given for finding when the next eclipse will occur involves looking at the Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle, a method created by Flat Earthers. Pathetic.
please explain the use of satellites for communications and location information. With documentation.
Both the unipolar and bi-polar flat earth "models" are simply copies of projections made from the globe and have inaccuracies in some areas.
-
We have hundreds of thousands of pics from space and hundreds of actual eye witnesses who have been in space and seen it.
Firstly, the pics from space are dubious at best (no moving clouds/clone-tooled clouds/overly-large continents, and so on). Eye witness accounts?.....anyone NOT affiliated with NASA to corroborate these NASA accounts? No!
Oh, and as far as going into space is concerned....please go to: BBC iWonder - What makes space travel so dangerous? Dara O-Briain (you know, Prof. Cox's side-kick) comments:
In Earth's orbit, astronauts might experience temperatures as low as -129C (-200F) and as high as 121C (250F). Spacesuits have been cleverly designed to protect us from these extreme
conditions. They also provide air pressure to prevent our bodily fluids from boiling in the hard vacuum of space. But astronauts can only travel so far in the spacesuits that exist today. Even
our best suits are limited to a ‘low-Earth orbit’. To push farther into the Solar System we will need a new suit – one that will shield us from the lethal hazards of deep space. But even then,
are we sturdy enough to survive a long mission?
Yet, we are expected at the same time to believe that humans have been to the moon??!! This moon business is a lie.....what else is? The moon-landings are real but we don't as of today have the space-suit tech to get us there!! What gives, Man; what gives?
So are these images genuine? If THE space body has lied about the singular most important space venture ever, do you believe everything else they tell you? WHY?
Cheers.
-
We have hundreds of thousands of pics from space and hundreds of actual eye witnesses who have been in space and seen it.
Firstly, the pics from space are dubious at best (no moving clouds/clone-tooled clouds/overly-large continents, and so on). Eye witness accounts?.....anyone NOT affiliated with NASA to corroborate these NASA accounts? No!
Oh, and as far as going into space is concerned....please go to: BBC iWonder - What makes space travel so dangerous? Dara O-Briain (you know, Prof. Cox's side-kick) comments:
In Earth's orbit, astronauts might experience temperatures as low as -129C (-200F) and as high as 121C (250F). Spacesuits have been cleverly designed to protect us from these extreme
conditions. They also provide air pressure to prevent our bodily fluids from boiling in the hard vacuum of space. But astronauts can only travel so far in the spacesuits that exist today. Even
our best suits are limited to a ‘low-Earth orbit’. To push farther into the Solar System we will need a new suit – one that will shield us from the lethal hazards of deep space. But even then,
are we sturdy enough to survive a long mission?
Yet, we are expected at the same time to believe that humans have been to the moon??!! This moon business is a lie.....what else is? The moon-landings are real but we don't as of today have the space-suit tech to get us there!! What gives, Man; what gives?
So are these images genuine? If THE space body has lied about the singular most important space venture ever, do you believe everything else they tell you? WHY?
Cheers.
If the Earth isn't a globe, how do you explain the picture in the bottom of this blogpost?
http://andruszkow.dk/blog/2015/10/09/aha-oplevelse-2/
(ignore the language)
I was following this HAB from start and until it landed, and you could easily see how the curvature got more and more clear the higher the balloon got. If it's not curvature, and the camera has no extended FOV settings applied, then what explains this?
-
If the Earth isn't a globe, how do you explain the picture in the bottom of this blogpost?
If it's not curvature, and the camera has no extended FOV settings applied, then what explains this?
Firstly, the Flat Earth idea does NOT mean a Square Earth. Try taking a circle, a dinner plate for example, look at the edge...what shape is it? It's curved!!
The image you present could either be a ball or a disc......?
-
If the Earth isn't a globe, how do you explain the picture in the bottom of this blogpost?
If it's not curvature, and the camera has no extended FOV settings applied, then what explains this?
Firstly, the Flat Earth idea does NOT mean a Square Earth. Try taking a circle, a dinner plate for example, look at the edge...what shape is it? It's curved!!
The image you present could either be a ball or a disc......?
Ok, so that at least rules out the "eternal plains" model of Flat Earth.
However, this picture is taken above the east coast of England at 24 km. If the Earth was a disc, I would have to be pretty close to the edge to get this sort of curvature, and according to Flat Earth, England is pretty close to the center of the so-called disc. If you would be able to see this much curvature from 24 km (almost 3 degrees), that would mean that the Earth would have a radius of a little less than 2000km, which isn't even close to the truth even according to Flat Earth models.
"The horizon is flat!" - "No, here's curvature" - "Oh, but it's because it's a disc" - "No, that would be mathematically incorrect" - "Oh, but it's something to do with perception" - "Yes, but that doesn't even fix your plothole with this particular picture" - "Oh, but that's because <insert new excuse here>".
Truth is, you're so set on your misguided beliefs that you will come up with any excuse or unsound mathematical or scientific fact to support an idea that's so firmly nailed to your very existence, that you reject to accept the one and only proven truth: The Earth is a globe.
-
If the Earth isn't a globe, how do you explain the picture in the bottom of this blogpost?
If it's not curvature, and the camera has no extended FOV settings applied, then what explains this?
Firstly, the Flat Earth idea does NOT mean a Square Earth. Try taking a circle, a dinner plate for example, look at the edge...what shape is it? It's curved!!
The image you present could either be a ball or a disc......?
Ok, so that at least rules out the "eternal plains" model of Flat Earth.
However, this picture is taken above the east coast of England at 24 km. If the Earth was a disc, I would have to be pretty close to the edge to get this sort of curvature, and according to Flat Earth, England is pretty close to the center of the so-called disc. If you would be able to see this much curvature from 24 km (almost 3 degrees), that would mean that the Earth would have a radius of a little less than 2000km, which isn't even close to the truth even according to Flat Earth models.
"The horizon is flat!" - "No, here's curvature" - "Oh, but it's because it's a disc" - "No, that would be mathematically incorrect" - "Oh, but it's something to do with perception" - "Yes, but that doesn't even fix your plothole with this particular picture" - "Oh, but that's because <insert new excuse here>".
Truth is, you're so set on your misguided beliefs that you will come up with any excuse or unsound mathematical or scientific fact to support an idea that's so firmly nailed to your very existence, that you reject to accept the one and only proven truth: The Earth is a globe.
I'm seeing more reliance on proof of concept science and math as gospel, giving a lot of weight to possibility, simply because it supports a theory.
A lot of the cited experiments and scientific theory seem to work well in a lab or on a smaller scale. Quick research though, finds that a lot of the relied upon experimentation to support a flat-earth theory have been flawed in execution, or disproved through repetition. (ie: Bedford-level experiement)
I very much like the idea that there's something we don't know, and that there's a possibility of some grand secret- that's why I'm here. But scope of the claims being made, the cherry-picking of data, and the refusal to cite real-world or large-scale application of these supporting scientific theories has been incredibly disappointing.
Some of the FE's make strong points, but as soon as they're pushed, you're called a troll, a shill, and a screwball.
-
"Yet, we are expected at the same time to believe that humans have been to the moon??!! This moon business is a lie.....what else is? The moon-landings are real but we don't as of today have the space-suit tech to get us there!! What gives, Man; what gives?"
The moon actually has an atmosphere -it is not "deep space"
-
To Andruszkow
YOU SAID:
Truth is, you're so set on your misguided beliefs that you will come up with any excuse or unsound mathematical or scientific fact to support an idea that's so firmly nailed to your very existence, that you reject to accept the one and only proven truth: The Earth is a globe.
(sorry, I'm still struggling with the quote part of the forum; I'm not technically minded)
However, I do find it offensive that, despite the ongoing debate here in this forum which is seeking to find the truth, you seem to know me so well that you know the TRUTH about what I actually believe and accept to be true or not. Please stick to the debate/argument(s) in question and don't attempt to make assumptions about me especially in a way that is insulting. I have lived a long and interesting and at times difficult life. I have had experiences that make the subjects discussed in this forum seem petty by comparison. I have seen things that most people (perhaps yourself included) would dismiss out-right, calling me a liar to boot, if not a deluded lunatic. Let me tell YOU, sir, that the world is not just what the 'experts' would have us accept as truth and final. So, please be aware that nothing is set, nothing is final, nothing is proven with absolute total certainty. If you believe that to be the case then you are no different to those that believe any other idea or concept as true and final. There has to be questions and the answers have to be sought and if you believe that you know all the answers because others have told you that those answers are true and final then you aren't looking for yourself and you certainly aren't asking the right questions.
Thank you for your time.
-
"Yet, we are expected at the same time to believe that humans have been to the moon??!! This moon business is a lie.....what else is? The moon-landings are real but we don't as of today have the space-suit tech to get us there!! What gives, Man; what gives?"
The moon actually has an atmosphere -it is not "deep space"
If the moon has an atmosphere could be please direct me to any link that verifies this. What kind of atmosphere?
Here's one for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon
-
You just linked to a reference
For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelopes surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system—less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level. Otherwise, the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its atmosphere is lost to space.
Although it is very little it is not "deep space".
-
Shouldn't this thread be in "flat earth general" ?
Is a debate on FE not to DEBATE the flat earth and
Not IF the earth is round Ball. ?
Maybe I'm understanding the rules wrong!
-
You just linked to a reference
For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity (compared to interplanetary medium), referred to as 'lunar atmosphere' for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelopes surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar system—less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth's atmospheric density at sea level. Otherwise, the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its atmosphere is lost to space.
Although it is very little it is not "deep space".
So called Deep Space is full of gases, but we couldn't go there in the space suits we currently have. Neither can we go to the Moon (lending assumption that it is what the official bodies say it is). Please refer to my earlier thread which included this:
BBC iWonder - What makes space travel so dangerous? Dara O-Briain (you know, Prof. Cox's side-kick) comments:
In Earth's orbit, astronauts might experience temperatures as low as -129C (-200F) and as high as 121C (250F). Spacesuits have been cleverly designed to protect us from these extreme
conditions. They also provide air pressure to prevent our bodily fluids from boiling in the hard vacuum of space. But astronauts can only travel so far in the spacesuits that exist today. Even
our best suits are limited to a ‘low-Earth orbit’. To push farther into the Solar System we will need a new suit – one that will shield us from the lethal hazards of deep space. But even then,
are we sturdy enough to survive a long mission?
So, writing this frustratingly, if we don't yet have the tech to go to the moon which despite it's leaking gases does not have a human atmosphere pray, tell me, how did we manage to get to and jump-around on the moon in the 60's....???
If you reply that we did go to the moon then answer including the BBC iWonder reference above. These guys are on TV pushing the whole space mission saga to millions of keen viewers so they must be telling the truth, right?
-
I suppose that would be valid if you can show that conditions on the moon are outside of the operating parameters of the suits.
"if we don't yet have the tech to go to the moon"
...except for the fact that we have been there proves that we have had the technology for 46 years.
"despite it's leaking gases does not have a human atmosphere"
-low Earth orbit also does not have a "human atmosphere.
No. Simply because someone says something does not make it true.
In the case of the moon landings we also have a large mountain of cooberating evidence.
-
To Andruszkow
YOU SAID:
Truth is, you're so set on your misguided beliefs that you will come up with any excuse or unsound mathematical or scientific fact to support an idea that's so firmly nailed to your very existence, that you reject to accept the one and only proven truth: The Earth is a globe.
(sorry, I'm still struggling with the quote part of the forum; I'm not technically minded)
However, I do find it offensive that, despite the ongoing debate here in this forum which is seeking to find the truth, you seem to know me so well that you know the TRUTH about what I actually believe and accept to be true or not. Please stick to the debate/argument(s) in question and don't attempt to make assumptions about me especially in a way that is insulting. I have lived a long and interesting and at times difficult life. I have had experiences that make the subjects discussed in this forum seem petty by comparison. I have seen things that most people (perhaps yourself included) would dismiss out-right, calling me a liar to boot, if not a deluded lunatic. Let me tell YOU, sir, that the world is not just what the 'experts' would have us accept as truth and final. So, please be aware that nothing is set, nothing is final, nothing is proven with absolute total certainty. If you believe that to be the case then you are no different to those that believe any other idea or concept as true and final. There has to be questions and the answers have to be sought and if you believe that you know all the answers because others have told you that those answers are true and final then you aren't looking for yourself and you certainly aren't asking the right questions.
Thank you for your time.
You can not talk about me making assumptions as a negative thing, when you yourself are making assumptions. You keep assuming I believe what I've been told, even though I've been linking to a blog I'm running plenty of times on this forum, where I document my experiments with HAB (High altitude ballooning), taking special care about NOT using devices that FE'ers can disregard as manipulated etc. Avoiding any and all effects of Lens abberation, so that FE'ers can't claim my images are faulty.
I'm doing EXACTLY the opposite of what EACH and EVERY Flat Earther is doing: Spending money out of my own pocket to observe the world around me, taking extra care that I dont post moronic images taken over water only accounting for Pythagoras as my main calculation to support my claims, cherry picking science to support my ideas, without taking EVERYTHING into account, delivering reproducable results for you guys to peer-review and try out for yourself.
Even then it always ends up with: "I wasn't there, so cant confirm" - "There's no evidence you didn't manipulate bla de bleh" etc.
Flat Earth Model isn't a theory, it's a religion. End of freaking story.
-
I am pretty much convinced that the earth is flat. I do however have a question . How do asteroids enter the earths atmosphere if the firmament is blocking anything from entering our atmosphere?
-
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64845.msg1729197#msg1729197
-
12-15km of attitude....? This is getting more and more crazy.
Get help, sir.
-
12-15km of attitude....? This is getting more and more crazy.
Get help, sir.
And yet Discoverer has now passed beyond the limits of the solar system.......
-
No Nasa mission has ever gone beyond some 12 km.
Here is the demonstration for the unmanned missions (Voyager included).
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=56042.msg1428881#msg1428881
Nasa managed to keep the true facts away from public view regarding its missions: that is, the crafts ran into a belt of resistance much quicker and at a much lower altitude (12-13 km) than previously thought. For example, in 1958, the Explorer, after sending back some data, not only slowed down, but it went hay-wire as all the electrical circuits on board, including the transmitter and receiver, literally 'fried' out, burned up in the strong electro-magnetic currents of the radiation belt.
The complete discussion on the true altitude of the Sun:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1499002#msg1499002 (summary)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1490014#msg1490014 (starts here, on pg. 7 of the thread, up to page 9)
As for the other commment, my advice to you is to first learn what a radio wave actually is:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80911#msg80911
In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."
Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment:
'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?' ’Certainly not’, I replied, ’these are radiations.’... "I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression.
The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only truly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly express his confidence in its success." N. Tesla
-
No Nasa mission has ever gone beyond some 12 km.
So, you are in all seriousness claiming, that the 3 HAB (High altitude balloons) that I've launched by now hasn't gone higher than 12-15 km?
Are you aware, that you, yourself, can buy a balloon and some helium, equip it with a small electronic device to track it, OR A SMALL MIRROR and measure it's distance from earth with a laser? You yourself can conduct this experiment for no more than $150 TOPS, and learn that your balloon (depending on which you buy), wont burst until it reaches 25-35km.
You're copy/pasting some shit off the internet that conviced you into believing in this fairytale, and completely ignore the fact that I just proved to you earlier how simple it is to go to +24km, with EASE, and take pictures of it all happen.
You are, per definition, an idiot.
-
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0
1. No personal attacks
Keep your posts civil and to the point, and don't insult others. If you have run out of valid contributions, simply do not post. The exception to this rule is in Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting, where personal attacks are par for the course. If you do not like this, then don't post in those fora.
Anyone seen personally attacking another member will be immediately warned. After two warnings, a ban with length determined by moderator discretion will be issued.
Hopefully, the moderators do not want to see the upper forum turn into an angry ranting type of exchange.
Why, then, was the content of the previous message left untouched?
I have not insulted that user in any way; he simply cannot accept the correct definition of a radio wave, and even has the audacity to call names Tesla's work on radio and radar.
-
Fine, my apologies.
I was wondering. I'm during a series of dismissing everything in the Eric Dubay fiction "200 proofs that the Earth is not a spinning ball", and it hit me:
With such a serious book, why did he, well, manipulate his images? :)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BRc7mIQg1io/Vb-AwcQF0pI/AAAAAAAAP60/8lOsr_yCIpQ/s1600/flat-earth-is-flat.jpg)
Look at the topmost example: The horizon on the right hand side is VERY clearly, and VERY poorly, edited to be straight.
-
Fine, my apologies.
I was wondering. I'm during a series of dismissing everything in the Eric Dubay fiction "200 proofs that the Earth is not a spinning ball", and it hit me:
With such a serious book, why did he, well, manipulate his images? :)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BRc7mIQg1io/Vb-AwcQF0pI/AAAAAAAAP60/8lOsr_yCIpQ/s1600/flat-earth-is-flat.jpg)
Look at the topmost example: The horizon on the right hand side is VERY clearly, and VERY poorly, edited to be straight.
And they accuse NASA of fudging the photos.
-
We don't know anything. The matter-wave controversy in atomic theory is but one controversy of many.
Science cannot be relied on as an arbiter of truth. There are so many questions, so many inconsistencies, one is left to fend for themselves in a sea of uncertainty. The Flat Earth Theory is our interpretation of physical phenomena, and we have gathered supporting evidence to demonstrate it.
If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?
-
If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?
Our approach is zetetic rather than scientific.
-
If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?
Our approach is zetetic rather than scientific.
Zetetic - Proceeding by inquiry; investigating.
Is this not what science does?
-
If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?
Our approach is zetetic rather than scientific.
Zetetic - Proceeding by inquiry; investigating.
Is this not what science does?
It is certainly what science purports to do, but its methods of doing so are flawed.
-
If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?
Our approach is zetetic rather than scientific.
Zetetic - Proceeding by inquiry; investigating.
Is this not what science does?
It is certainly what science purports to do, but its methods of doing so are flawed.
How are the zetetic methods of the FES not flawed?
I've seen numerous iterations of "I don't see a curve, so the Earth is flat.".
Where are the reports and observations of the zetetic study of the ice wall and what lies beyond?
This would be a very easy proof.
One degree of latitude is 60 nautical miles.
180 degrees of latitude in total.
A radius of 10,800 nautical miles from 90 degrees north to 90 degrees south.
The circumference of the flat Earth, at the ice wall, would be approximately 67,000 nautical miles (depending on variances of the ice wall coast line).
A group of zetetists (for lack of a better word, correct word?) and a group of scientists, using mutually agreed upon methods of measurement, board a ship (crewed equally with flat Earth and round Earth proponents) and set sail for the ice wall. Once they arrive at the ice wall turn east or west and measure the time it takes to make one complete circuit around the ice wall as well as measuring the distance around the same.
If this measurement is done and the circumference is proved to be approximately 67,000 nautical mile the FES would provide the best proof of their theory. If the measurement does not prove to be anywhere close to 67,000 nautical miles the FES theory begins to fall apart.
This is the core of inquiry and investigation. Why has this endeavor never been undertaken?
-
How are the zetetic methods of the FES not flawed?
I've seen numerous iterations of "I don't see a curve, so the Earth is flat.".
Where are the reports and observations of the zetetic study of the ice wall and what lies beyond?
This would be a very easy proof.
One degree of latitude is 60 nautical miles.
180 degrees of latitude in total.
A radius of 10,800 nautical miles from 90 degrees north to 90 degrees south.
The circumference of the flat Earth, at the ice wall, would be approximately 67,000 nautical miles (depending on variances of the ice wall coast line).
A group of zetetists (for lack of a better word, correct word?) and a group of scientists, using mutually agreed upon methods of measurement, board a ship (crewed equally with flat Earth and round Earth proponents) and set sail for the ice wall. Once they arrive at the ice wall turn east or west and measure the time it takes to make one complete circuit around the ice wall as well as measuring the distance around the same.
If this measurement is done and the circumference is proved to be approximately 67,000 nautical mile the FES would provide the best proof of their theory. If the measurement does not prove to be anywhere close to 67,000 nautical miles the FES theory begins to fall apart.
This is the core of inquiry and investigation. Why has this endeavor never been undertaken?
Believe me, if I had the budget I would be only too happy to perform your little experiment. I don't (and frankly I'm not convinced it would necessarily prove anything anyway as regards the shape of the Earth). Fortunately, I really don't need to to see that the Earth is flat. I see that the Earth is flat by looking out my window.
-
Believe me, if I had the budget I would be only too happy to perform your little experiment. I don't (and frankly I'm not convinced it would necessarily prove anything anyway as regards the shape of the Earth). Fortunately, I really don't need to to see that the Earth is flat. I see that the Earth is flat by looking out my window.
So your zetetic method of looking out the window, necessarily limited in scope, and making assumptions about the wider world is valid and flawless yet the scientific method is invalid and flawed.
How did you come to this conclusion if you're not even proceeding by the zetetic method to begin with?
Also I'm not asking you to perform or fund my little experiment. I'm asking why the FES doesn't perform or fund such an experiment. If the theory is correct they have absolutely nothing to lose from the endeavor and everything to gain. It seems only logical, if the theory is correct, that the society would be chomping at the bit to take on this experiment.
-
How did you come to this conclusion if you're not even proceeding by the zetetic method to begin with?
The zetetic method begins with experiment and builds from there. The scientific method begins with hypothesis (guessing) and is inherently biased. The zetetic method is far superior. Looking out my window is only a springboard. Without strong evidence to the contrary of what I observe, I have no reason to doubt what I observe. That is the cornerstone of zeteticism.
Also I'm not asking you to perform or fund my little experiment. I'm asking why the FES doesn't perform or fund such an experiment. If the theory is correct they have absolutely nothing to lose from the endeavor and everything to gain. It seems only logical, if the theory is correct, that the society would be chomping at the bit to take on this experiment.
I don't think you're quite familiar enough with our theories to make that kind of judgment, but I want you to know I value your opinion nonetheless. As I said, even if such an experiment were performed, it would prove nothing about the shape of the Earth. Please pay attention. :)
-
I am not one of the intellectual persons on this website, but in my limited studies of various phases of science, such as chemistry or physics for only two examples, that was what it was: Inquiry, Experiment and Investigation. That is how the studies in both the theory and laboratory sessions in those subjects are conducted.
What are your experiences and qualifications , Roundy ?
JFWIW..... Have you ever visited an astronomical observatory to back up your belief in a flat earth ? Many of them have nightly "Star Parties." You would get a much broader view of the universe than just looking out your window.
Or on the other hand, would you just consider those persons at those astronomical observations as a pack of liars and you wouldn't believe any thing they showed you or told you about astronomy ?
Just some questions for you to ask them.:
1. What is the distance from the earth to the moon ?
2. How did you measure this ?
Maybe there is an amateur radio operator or an amateur radio club in your town or city.
Ask them about "Moon Bounce" and how they measured the distance ?
Ask them if the distance is 3000 miles and the moon is 32 miles in diameter ?
Let us know what their answer was. It won't cost you a thing but the cost to get there and back to the observatory. There should be one not too far from your house.
There is a great big wonderful world out there beyond your window. Happy New Year!
2016 can be a year of discovery for you.
-
If science can't be relied upon as an arbiter of truth by what means do you come to the conclusion of a flat Earth and by what means do you support your conclusions?
Our approach is zetetic rather than scientific.
Zetetic - Proceeding by inquiry; investigating.
Is this not what science does?
It is certainly what science purports to do, but its methods of doing so are flawed.
How are the zetetic methods of the FES not flawed?
I've seen numerous iterations of "I don't see a curve, so the Earth is flat.".
Where are the reports and observations of the zetetic study of the ice wall and what lies beyond?
This would be a very easy proof.
One degree of latitude is 60 nautical miles.
180 degrees of latitude in total.
A radius of 10,800 nautical miles from 90 degrees north to 90 degrees south.
The circumference of the flat Earth, at the ice wall, would be approximately 67,000 nautical miles (depending on variances of the ice wall coast line).
A group of zetetists (for lack of a better word, correct word?) and a group of scientists, using mutually agreed upon methods of measurement, board a ship (crewed equally with flat Earth and round Earth proponents) and set sail for the ice wall. Once they arrive at the ice wall turn east or west and measure the time it takes to make one complete circuit around the ice wall as well as measuring the distance around the same.
If this measurement is done and the circumference is proved to be approximately 67,000 nautical mile the FES would provide the best proof of their theory. If the measurement does not prove to be anywhere close to 67,000 nautical miles the FES theory begins to fall apart.
This is the core of inquiry and investigation. Why has this endeavor never been undertaken?
Could it be because they would have no accurate flat earth to navigate to reach the ice wall ? What if they found that Antarctica really existed and found out it was really like the map of Antarctica ?
-
I am not one of the intellectual persons on this website, but in my limited studies of various phases of science, such as chemistry or physics for only two examples, that was what it was: Inquiry, Experiment and Investigation. That is how the studies in both the theory and laboratory sessions in those subjects are conducted.
Well I am sorry that you're so poorly versed in the scientific method. There are lots of books on the subject; perhaps you should visit your local library. You might learn something useful (or at the very least interesting)! :)
-
I am not one of the intellectual persons on this website, but in my limited studies of various phases of science, such as chemistry or physics for only two examples, that was what it was: Inquiry, Experiment and Investigation. That is how the studies in both the theory and laboratory sessions in those subjects are conducted.
Well I am sorry that you're so poorly versed in the scientific method. There are lots of books on the subject; perhaps you should visit your local library. You might learn something useful (or at the very least interesting)! :)
How many science courses such as chemistry or physics have you taken ?
How much experience have you had in a technical or engineering field ?
Have you ever been to sea ?
Have you ever visited an astronomical observatory ?