The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Globus Cruciger on January 03, 2016, 06:34:40 PM
-
If one is standing at a point at which they can see the horizon as flat, 360 degrees around them, then this does not prove the earth is flat. One would simply be looking at the 'circle of a sphere' on a globe earth. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_a_sphere)
-
If one is standing at a point at which they can see the horizon as flat, 360 degrees around them, then this does not prove the earth is flat. One would simply be looking at the 'circle of a sphere' on a globe earth.
Yes. Your point?
-
What this fact does is refute one of the main false assumptions of FEers, namely, that one can tell what shape the earth is from ground level. For positive proof of a globe earth, one need only look at a horizon distance chart (http://www.table-references.info/earth-table-distances.php). The fact that one can see significantly further from a higher altitude proves the earth is a globe, for this is observable from any point on earth. Engineers factor this effect into their surveying by C+R formulas (http://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html).
-
What this fact does is refute one of the main false assumptions of FEers, namely, that one can tell what shape the earth is from ground level.
No one makes that assumption - RE'ers just like to think that we do. In reality, it is merely a supporting piece of very anecdotal evidence.
-
Actually, my basis for believing that the Earth is flat has nothing to do with the appearance of the horizon. That the horizon can be used to determine the shape of the Earth, under any circumstances, seems to be a chiefly RE assumption.
-
Actually, my basis for believing that the Earth is flat has nothing to do with the appearance of the horizon. That the horizon can be used to determine the shape of the Earth, under any circumstances, seems to be a chiefly RE assumption.
Have you ever viewed the horizon from ground level and compared what you can see on the horizon on the ground level compared with the view from the top of a building or an observation tower ? Have you ever been to sea and observed how things appear or disappear over the horizon ? If the earth was flat, what would you expect to see, but what do you really see ?
-
Actually, my basis for believing that the Earth is flat has nothing to do with the appearance of the horizon. That the horizon can be used to determine the shape of the Earth, under any circumstances, seems to be a chiefly RE assumption.
Which of these do you believe ?
Re: The horizon :
(1)The horizon is an indistinct blur which fades away in the distance. The height of the observer makes no difference.
(2) The horizon is a distinct line where earth (or sea) meets the sky. The observed distance to the horizon depends on the height of the observer. The higher the observer is, the farther the observed distance to the horizon is.
(3) Or something else.
-
Which of these do you believe ?
You can not ask that question.
You are asking for a definition not a belief.
Your question makes no sense. Stop trolling.
How about YOU define the word and stop talking past everybody??
or
Tell us what YOU believe you are seeing.
Note to honorable true earthers:
Do not let the shills confuse debate. Put the onus on them to define their words with accurate scientific terminology. Be nitpicky in your demands for precision. Do not accept any of their axioms that do not make sense to you.
They will always fail or run away from the challenge because it will obligate them to admit truth.
-
One would simply be looking at the 'circle of a sphere' on a globe earth. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_a_sphere)
You could also be looking down from the top of a tall wide mountain.
You could have poor eye sight.
You could have small eye balls which would not allow you to physically discern much very far.
Heck, you could be standing on your head inside a deep crater for all we know.
There are lots of possibilities because the "horizon" is not a physical object. It is a product of perception.
-
Well....It is simply a well known fact that the earth is the globe that it is.
But this website is interesting for the imaginative and weird ideas that make absolutely no sense that are posted by so-called "flat earth believers".
Keep it up and thanks for the entertainment.
-
Well....It is simply a well known fact that the earth is the globe that it is.
Historically, it was also a well-known fact that homosexuality causes AIDS. Funny, that, it's almost as if "many people believe it, therefore it's true" is not a very strong line of reasoning.
-
Just subscribing.
-
Actually, my basis for believing that the Earth is flat has nothing to do with the appearance of the horizon. That the horizon can be used to determine the shape of the Earth, under any circumstances, seems to be a chiefly RE assumption.
Have you ever viewed the horizon from ground level and compared what you can see on the horizon on the ground level compared with the view from the top of a building or an observation tower ? Have you ever been to sea and observed how things appear or disappear over the horizon ? If the earth was flat, what would you expect to see, but what do you really see ?
Well, I would certainly expect the horizon to appear curved from very high above the Earth (for example, from an airplane), but the fact that it still appears flat from such a height has nothing to do with my belief in a flat Earth (to reiterate, the fact that I am able to directly observe that the Earth is flat is reason enough for me, and there has never been presented the sort of extraordinary evidence that would overturn such a view).
As to the illusion of a ship sinking as it disappears over the horizon, this is adequately explained by the presence of the aether, which causes the appearance of curvature over long distances. It is the same reason as the moon appears spherical from Earth despite being just as plainly flat on its surface as the Earth is. Obviously, that such an illusion should appear over long distances is nothing surprising, and certainly not enough to overturn the far more immediate evidence based on direct observation that the Earth is flat.
-
So apparently the reason we think it is flat is because the government is lying to us if so... What are they gaining from it. Why would they do that. All it does is hold back scientific discoveries???
-
Actually, my basis for believing that the Earth is flat has nothing to do with the appearance of the horizon. That the horizon can be used to determine the shape of the Earth, under any circumstances, seems to be a chiefly RE assumption.
Have you ever viewed the horizon from ground level and compared what you can see on the horizon on the ground level compared with the view from the top of a building or an observation tower ? Have you ever been to sea and observed how things appear or disappear over the horizon ? If the earth was flat, what would you expect to see, but what do you really see ?
Well, I would certainly expect the horizon to appear curved from very high above the Earth (for example, from an airplane), but the fact that it still appears flat from such a height has nothing to do with my belief in a flat Earth (to reiterate, the fact that I am able to directly observe that the Earth is flat is reason enough for me, and there has never been presented the sort of extraordinary evidence that would overturn such a view).
As to the illusion of a ship sinking as it disappears over the horizon, this is adequately explained by the presence of the aether, which causes the appearance of curvature over long distances. It is the same reason as the moon appears spherical from Earth despite being just as plainly flat on its surface as the Earth is. Obviously, that such an illusion should appear over long distances is nothing surprising, and certainly not enough to overturn the far more immediate evidence based on direct observation that the Earth is flat.
So someone made up aether (which it was called in historical experiments that later proved that they were wrong) to conveniently explain how its magical abilities makes ships look as if they disappear below the horizon? How convenient. And not at all a zetetic approach.
-
So, by observation, I can conclude that the atmosphere is curving because I've taken photos of it from 24km altitude, or do you have yet another far fetched explanation that tries to convince me that my electronics aren't up to par even though I have nearly 10 years of practical engineering and programming experience?
-
So, by observation, I can conclude that the atmosphere is curving because I've taken photos of it from 24km altitude, or do you have yet another far fetched explanation that tries to convince me that my electronics aren't up to par even though I have nearly 10 years of practical engineering and programming experience?
We know know nothing about the equipment you allegedly used to take photos. Assuming you did take photos, any perceived curvature was likely due to lens distortion. Even if earth were round, you'd need a lot of specific conditions to even hope to see curvature at an altitude that low.
If you want to post the specifics of your equipment, along with the photos and the data supporting your altitude claim we can certainly dive into this further.
-
So, by observation, I can conclude that the atmosphere is curving because I've taken photos of it from 24km altitude, or do you have yet another far fetched explanation that tries to convince me that my electronics aren't up to par even though I have nearly 10 years of practical engineering and programming experience?
We know know nothing about the equipment you allegedly used to take photos. Assuming you did take photos, any perceived curvature was likely due to lens distortion. Even if earth were round, you'd need a lot of specific conditions to even hope to see curvature at an altitude that low.
If you want to post the specifics of your equipment, along with the photos and the data supporting your altitude claim we can certainly dive into this further.
Deal.
You can start by reading about Dave Akermans experiments here : www.daveakerman.com
We use a lot of the same equipment. In particular, you can read his log of one of his launches here : http://www.daveakerman.com/?p=1154 and http://www.daveakerman.com/?p=592
-
Even if earth were round, you'd need a lot of specific conditions to even hope to see curvature at an altitude that low.
Doesn't that speak against the 'zetetic' approach (to conclude that the Earth is flat)?
-
In a previous post here I even posted the data sheets of the electronics, the camera in particular (can't be bothered to search for it via tapatalk)
-
Deal.
You can start by reading about Dave Akermans experiments here : www.daveakerman.com
We use a lot of the same equipment. In particular, you can read his log of one of his launches here : http://www.daveakerman.com/?p=1154 and http://www.daveakerman.com/?p=592
Are you Dave Akerman?
Doesn't that speak against the 'zetetic' approach (to conclude that the Earth is flat)?
No? What in the world are you talking about? I am going off of assumptions of your flawed RE model for the sake of discussion. I am not making conclusions based on flawed RE logic.
(can't be bothered to search for it via tapatalk)
Me neither.
-
Deal.
You can start by reading about Dave Akermans experiments here : www.daveakerman.com
We use a lot of the same equipment. In particular, you can read his log of one of his launches here : http://www.daveakerman.com/?p=1154 and http://www.daveakerman.com/?p=592
Are you Dave Akerman?
Thats a pointless question really.
If I were, would it make a difference?
-
Deal.
You can start by reading about Dave Akermans experiments here : www.daveakerman.com
We use a lot of the same equipment. In particular, you can read his log of one of his launches here : http://www.daveakerman.com/?p=1154 and http://www.daveakerman.com/?p=592
Are you Dave Akerman?
Thats a pointless question really.
If I were, would it make a difference?
It's absolutely not a pointless question. You made a claim of things that you personally have done. I don't care to read the write up of someone else to backup your personal claims. If you aren't interested in talking about it, that's fine.
-
Again, would it make a difference if I were Dave Akerman? A lot of the technical challenges with Habs are because of the earth's curvature.
-
Again, would it make a difference if I were Dave Akerman? A lot of the technical challenges with Habs are because of the earth's curvature.
Yes, it would make a difference. If you were him, I would be talking to someone who has at least documented something and explained his process. Instead, I am talking to you who as far as I can tell have only made claims to things you have done.
-
Deal.
You can start by reading about Dave Akermans experiments here : www.daveakerman.com
We use a lot of the same equipment. In particular, you can read his log of one of his launches here : http://www.daveakerman.com/?p=1154 and http://www.daveakerman.com/?p=592
Are you Dave Akerman?
Thats a pointless question really.
If I were, would it make a difference?
It's absolutely not a pointless question. You made a claim of things that you personally have done. I don't care to read the write up of someone else to backup your personal claims.
How should this be interpreted? Does scientific results die with the person who produced them?
-
I never stated that. Your comment is irrelevant to the conversation.
-
I never stated that. Your comment is irrelevant to the conversation.
You'll see that it's a question and not a comment, if you read it again ;-) And it is very relevant question. You're saying that you can't referee to an observation made by others. Many other Flat Earthers state that they'll not rely on observations you have not done yourself.
How do you make consensus in the zetetic 'scientific' world?
Your turn.
-
I never stated that. Your comment is irrelevant to the conversation.
You'll see that it's a question and not a comment, if you read it again ;-) And it is very relevant question. You're saying that you can't referee to an observation made by others. Many other Flat Earthers state that they'll not rely on observations you have not done yourself.
How do you make consensus in the zetetic 'scientific' world?
Your turn.
Your question fits the definition of 'comment.' Regardless, I may have interpreted it as rhetorical aided by your subject-verb disagreement.
Of course valid results do not "die with the person." It is still irrelevant within the context of our discussion. A claim was made regarding first hand evidence obtained from experimentation. All I asked for were details. That would allow me to recreate the experiment if I chose to validate for myself. Instead, all I see is people sidestepping the issue.
-
Again, would it make a difference if I were Dave Akerman? A lot of the technical challenges with Habs are because of the earth's curvature.
Yes, it would make a difference. If you were him, I would be talking to someone who has at least documented something and explained his process. Instead, I am talking to you who as far as I can tell have only made claims to things you have done.
Where is all of your documentation and explanation of your processes?
Can it be taken as true that you and you alone wrote all of the wiki and faq pages that you joyfully point people to? If you did not how are we supposed to know that you actually have any knowledge of that which you speak and are not simply repeating the words and works of others?
Or do you acknowledge that everything that you've posted on this site has been posted from a position of zero knowledge of the subject you are speaking of?
-
I never stated that. Your comment is irrelevant to the conversation.
You'll see that it's a question and not a comment, if you read it again ;-) And it is very relevant question. You're saying that you can't referee to an observation made by others. Many other Flat Earthers state that they'll not rely on observations you have not done yourself.
How do you make consensus in the zetetic 'scientific' world?
Your turn.
Your question fits the definition of 'comment.' Regardless, I may have interpreted it as rhetorical aided by your subject-verb disagreement.
Of course valid results do not "die with the person." It is still irrelevant within the context of our discussion. A claim was made regarding first hand evidence obtained from experimentation. All I asked for were details. That would allow me to recreate the experiment if I chose to validate for myself. Instead, all I see is people sidestepping the issue.
Christer Fuglesang is making a very good point IMHO. You direct people to the wiki to be informed.
If you have verified the experiments and observations yourself how do you know you are guiding people to valid information.
I assume you have read my threads pointing out discrepancies, Bishop Experiment and wiki fact checking. It took me about 20 minutes to verify the information. Those were the only experiments, evidence and statements made that gave me enough information to check. The rest lacked any data that would allow me to check into them myself.
The wiki is where YOU guide people to go to seek the truth.
I do not think Samuel Rowbotham is around what makes him a more honest and trustworthy source of information than Dave Akerman? Have you met either to personally judge their character?
It really does seem your line of reasoning is that knowledge and experience dies with the person. Then the next generation needs to backtrack and relearn.
-
Well, a high altitude balloon is a quite simple experiment, and the reason I mentioned Dave Akerman is because his experiments inspired me to try it out for myself.
I think it's fair to refer to a source like him, since he includes instructions for everything he does, including the code used for his projects. And it's cheap as well.
I promise you though, for my next launch I'll provide more technical details, so you can reproduce 1:1 what I build.
-
What this fact does is refute one of the main false assumptions of FEers, namely, that one can tell what shape the earth is from ground level.
No one makes that assumption - RE'ers just like to think that we do. In reality, it is merely a supporting piece of very anecdotal evidence.
Really? It is my observation that FE use the naked-eye appearance of flatness quite often here. In fact, don't take my word for it, take theirs:
Our positive claim can be satisfied by looking down.
Look out your window.
Anyway, the point is that I can see with my own eyes that the Earth is flat. You can too.
FET predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see.
"look out your window" does hold water, considering there are thousands of photos of large spans and great distances that show zero proof of curvature.
In the area around us that we can perceive, the earth appears flat. Therefore, in trusting our own senses and observations, we can logically conclude we are on a flat surface, and thus a flat earth.
-
Yay I made it into a quote repository lol... Love how I am a certified member of the flat earth society now eventhough I've never said the earth was flat. All I've ever done is talk about the inconsistencies in the heliocentric model. I'm honestly not sure what the shape of Earth is, which is a big difference to about 2 months ago when I "knew" it was round. The fact something that was so whole heartedly accepted by me can be debated makes me really call into question a lot of things I've taken for granted, and at the end of the day, if nothing else, I'm glad to actually engage in more critical thought then I have previously.