Question: If you have questions like this with fairly obvious answers, how can you still claim, with certainty, that you don't believe the earth to be round?
Hence, the obvious answer is that the sun doesn't move away from you, but sets as a result of standing on a spinning sphere.Question: If you have questions like this with fairly obvious answers, how can you still claim, with certainty, that you don't believe the earth to be round?
There are no obvious answers, you would be able to see the sun (a star) without a telescope, just as you can see the other stars if the earth were flat and day/night worked the way it is described in the wiki.
Imperfections on the earth's surface intersect the perspective lines of the sun once the sun is close enough to the geometric horizon of the plane earth.There's no geometric horizon on a flat plane in relation to the sun unless the sun actually sinks or otherwise lowers its altitude to the point it's behind, say, a mountain.
Imperfections on the earth's surface intersect the perspective lines of the sun once the sun is close enough to the geometric horizon of the plane earth.There's no geometric horizon on a flat plane in relation to the sun unless the sun actually sinks or otherwise lowers its altitude to the point it's behind, say, a mountain.
Imperfections on the earth's surface intersect the perspective lines of the sun once the sun is close enough to the geometric horizon of the plane earth.There's no geometric horizon on a flat plane in relation to the sun unless the sun actually sinks or otherwise lowers its altitude to the point it's behind, say, a mountain.
Perspective lines can shrink behind something in the foreground. Easily. Consider that if you hold a dime in front of your face you can obscure an elephant in the distance.
No matter how small of an imperfection above the surface of the earth, the sun can eventually get behind it as the perspective lines of the sun and the earth merge.
In the first place it is easily demonstrable that, as shown in the following diagrams, fig. 71, lines which are equi-distant(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig71.jpg)
FIG. 71.
"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."
The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following: when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.
From: Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' CHAPTER XIV. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)
That math doesn't really work when it comes to perspective. I refer you to the following video:No that video is wrong!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
No that video is wrong!
No that video is wrong!
Compelling.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Diamond%20Princess%204%20starting%20over%20horizon_zpsgi8odg8o.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sailing%20Boat%20nearer%20and%20Buildings%20behind%20Visible%20Horizon_zpsvtmrawto.png) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Valencia%20-%20tanks%20x20_zpseagmxe4u.jpg) |
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/08-Weipa%20Sunset_zpstd6ncc8x.jpg) 08-Weipa Sunset | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/13-Weipa%20Sunset_zpsvl5otrfj.jpg) 13-Weipa Sunset | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Horizon%20Zoom%20Boom%20Earth%20Flat_zpsgrsg64nz.jpg) Horizon Zoom Boom Earth Flat Video |
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%20%2009.30%2048xZoom_zpscotyaspw.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2010.00%2048xZoom_zps77dhvy0p.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2011.00%2048xZoom_zpspfb3vsiz.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2012.00%2048xZoom_zpsb3rppgyf.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom_zpsfpcdnvky.jpg) | |||||||
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2014.00%2048xZoom_zps1cshxmbj.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2015.00%2048xZoom_zpsgk51nozr.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2017.00%2048xZoom_zps3wayd4qo.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom_zpsvaiszxhy.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom_zpsewsphkoz.jpg) |
No that video is wrong!
Compelling.
Well, you asked for it. This is what I mean.Obviously you will explain it away, but I find it compelling because it agrees exactly with what I expect to see.Horizon Zoom Boom Earth Flat Video
And that sun at sunset and these other buildings (from a Flat Earth video) certainly look further than the horizon, yet are very visible.
As Rowbotham clearly states, the vanishing point for an object depends entirely on the size of the object - large objects can be seen when much away.
To me that ship, those buildings and those tanks certainly are further away than the visible horizon an none are at anywhere near their vanishing point.
That is why I claim that the video is wrong. It tries to show that the size of the should gradually reduce until it finally reduces to nothing at the horizon.
It does not do that! I did not want to clutter things up with this, but these are photos taken through a filter to remove the glare.
But from actual observations the angular size the sun does not change during the day. It certainly does not reduce in size as your video claims.
Have a look at this thread The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67791.0)
Here is a bit of the OP:
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.
The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!
Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!The "sun does not appear to change its size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!
But,Well, you asked for it. This is what I mean.No that video is wrong!
Compelling.Obviously you will explain it away, but I find it compelling because it agrees exactly with what I expect to see.Horizon Zoom Boom Earth Flat VideoAnd that sun at sunset and these other buildings (from a Flat Earth video) certainly look further than the horizon, yet are very visible.
As Rowbotham clearly states, the vanishing point for an object depends entirely on the size of the object - large objects can be seen when much away.
To me that ship, those buildings and those tanks certainly are further away than the visible horizon an none are at anywhere near their vanishing point.
That would be because there is stuff on the horizon to hide behind, if an object is far enough away behind it, just as a dime can obscure an elephant. The plane of the earth is not perfectly flat.
Yes, I have read and studied that, but there is no way that "known magnification due the glare . . . . . . " explains the sin's staying exactly the same size!QuoteThat is why I claim that the video is wrong. It tries to show that the size of the should gradually reduce until it finally reduces to nothing at the horizon.
It does not do that! I did not want to clutter things up with this, but these are photos taken through a filter to remove the glare.
But from actual observations the angular size the sun does not change during the day. It certainly does not reduce in size as your video claims.
Have a look at this thread The Constancy of the Angular size of the Sun. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67791.0)
Here is a bit of the OP:
Now on Youtube there is a video made by a the Flat Earther, Matrix Decode with very good photos of the sun through a filter (an arc welder's glass) showing the sun at a number of times of day from 9:30 AM to 7:00 PM on 9/March/2016 in Malaga, Spain.
The following screen shots from his video does an excellent job of proving that the sun size does not change!
Do I need to say more? Our kind Flat Earther, Matrix Decode, has said it all!The "sun does not appear to change its size until just before sunset" - a then only a little in height!
The size of the sun at sunset is described here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
To me that ship, those buildings and those tanks certainly are further away than the visible horizon and none are at anywhere near their vanishing point.That would be because there is stuff on the horizon to hide behind, if an object is far enough away behind it, just as a dime can obscure an elephant. The plane of the earth is not perfectly flat.
The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.However, in order for light from a tall animal like an elephant to hide behind a small object like a dime, the light would have to violate your rule, and instead dip down to dime level before rising again to eye level. Same with tall objects (like cruise ships, skyscrapers, and storage tanks) and waves; in order for a wave located a mile away from me to hide from my sight a cruise ship a hundred feet or more above the surface, the light must curve.
But,
1. The sun sets every night and at a very predictable time. Are you really going to claim that every night everywhere there just ahppens to be a convenient object to hide the sun?
2. There is no way that a sun some 3,200 miles high can get to anywhere near the horizon! Remember Rowbotham's Law of Perspective!
Yes, I have read and studied that, but there is no way that "known magnification due the glare . . . . . . " explains the sin's staying exactly the same size!
What "stuff" is on the horizon, exactly? Oh, you mean the ocean? The flat, self levelling, ocean? The ocean with (in these photos) tiny little waves on it? Is that the "stuff" hiding tall objects?
You keep repeating the "elephant behind a dime" analogy, you must think it's effective. ??? I don't understand why you think so. ??? If you stand a dime up on the ground a long ways off, the elephant cannot hide behind it no matter how far away he is. As you yourself have told us:The simplest explanation is that the photons simply traveled in a straight line.However, in order for light from a tall animal like an elephant to hide behind a small object like a dime, the light would have to violate your rule, and instead dip down to dime level before rising again to eye level. Same with tall objects (like cruise ships, skyscrapers, and storage tanks) and waves; in order for a wave located a mile away from me to hide from my sight a cruise ship a hundred feet or more above the surface, the light must curve.
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.
Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you? This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level. The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.
Here's a text about horizon line and eye level, from Chapter 5 from the Perspective Handbook:
Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.
You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level.
It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.
One easy experiment you can do for yourself is find a computer game which can render large 3D maps. Move your character to one end of the map, center your crosshair on the line of the horizon, and turn on noclip. Without moving the mouse, ascend in height and notice how the line of the horizon will stay centered on the crosshair until you run out of land to see.
While a game is not comparable to life, this easily observable perspective effect is enough to satisfy the observer as to its workings and should be apparent and visible in most modern computer games.
. . . . . . . . . . .Again I have to disagree!
Yes, but if you look out at the world you will notice that perspective causes the surface to ascend in height until the horizon is at eye level with the observer. And if you were to take a protractor you could see that the horizon is at a 90 degree angle to the ground.
It is far more accurate to say "that perspective causes the surface appear to ascend in height until the horizon appears to be almost at eye level to the observer."
When standing
on the seashore with the eye-level about 5' above sea-level, the horizon is about 3.2 miles away and about 10' below eye-level, but 10' in 3.2 miles is only about 2' of arc.
but when on a 1000' mountain, the horizon is about 45 miles away and about 10' below eye-level, now 2,000' in 45 miles is only about 29' of arc, not noticeable, but quite measurable.
An yes, this "dip angle to the horizon" is real, and quite easily measured. Al Biruni measured the radius by measuring the dip angle to the horizon as in Al-Biruni's Classic Experiment: How to Calculate the Radius of the Earth? (https://owlcation.com/stem/How-to-Determin-the-Radius-of-the-Earth-Al-Birunis-Classic-Experiment)
I gave an extract from that site in Re: Total area of Earth (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67814.msg1821959#msg1821959), but it would be better to read the original.
This reference gives a critical review of Al Biruni's work, including putting realistic estimates on his methods and accuracy in the light of modern knowledge:
AL BASAIR ISLAMIC MEDIA, AL BIRUNI’S MEASUREMENT ON THE EARTH (https://albasairislamicmedia.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/al-birunis-measurement-on-the-earth/)
This video shows measurements of the dip angle to the horizon up as far as 30,000 ft. I would prefer better equipment, but at 30,000 ft it is quite substantial.https://youtu.be/2-vRzQ_GDV0 (https://youtu.be/2-vRzQ_GDV0)
Flat Earth Debunked: The Horizon Always at Eye Level
Simply claiming, without evidence, "that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer." is not correct.
But, even if it was. It has nothing to do with the case. At sunset, the eye is at near enough to the same level as the horizon, give or take a few feet, but the sun is still 3,200 miles about your horizon!According to Rowbotham's Law of Perspective that 3,200 miles subtends an angle at the eye of around 20° (depending on where the observer is).[/i
In the following diagram, fig. 96:---
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig96.jpg)
FIG. 96.
FIG. 96.
Let A, B, represent a plane surface--say several miles over the sea, from the shore, and E, an observer's eye. It is evident that on looking directly downwards, as from E to A, the real and the apparent position of the water-surface will be the same. But if a transparent screen or a plate of glass be erected at some distance from the eye, as at C, D, and the sight be directed over the water to the distance W, the line of sight will cut the screen C, D, at the point 1, and the surface of the water will appear at 3, equal to the altitude of 1. If the sight
p. 274
is now directed to the point X, the line of sight, E, X, will cut the screen C, D, at the point 2, and the surface of the water will appear to be elevated to the point 4. It is evident, then, that the line of sight may be directed further and further over the water beyond X, and each further line of sight would cut the screen nearer to the line E, C, H, but could never become perfectly parallel with it. In the same way the surface of the water would appear nearer and nearer to the line E, H, at H, but could never come in actual contact with it: the angle H, E, X, becomes more and more acute as the distance increases; but, mathematically, the lines E, X, E, H, might be prolonged ad infinitum, the angle C, E, 2, infinitely acute, and the space H, 4, between the surface of the wafer and the line E, H, immeasurably small, but actual contact is mathematically impossible. Although there is always, at great distances, a minute space between the line of sight and the surface of the water at the horizon, still, for all practical purposes, and to the naked eye, there is no dip required.
The above remarks are made considering the water to be water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit
p. 275
of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig97.jpg)
FIG. 97.
A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.
This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.
Tom is either willfully ignorant, dishonest or FE is just like a religion to him. Probably a combination of all 3.1o1 psychology would establish that he would never give in for evidence. There's simply too much at stake. Like, in his own words, how his ex-wife is a "sheep" and the marriage probably ended because of his newfound "religion".
He demonstrates willful ignorance by refusing do any experiment that will offer evidence he is wrong. Like tracking satellites by taking advantage of doppler shift or simply buying a telescope to observe the ISS. Will not research anything like wave propagation to learn more about a subject that says he could be wrong.
The dishonest part is demonstrated in the errors he will change in the distances stated in his experiment. Both the distance to the beach from his observation point and the height of the telescope above the water.
Then there is more dishonesty here:
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=93430
Claims he went to Harvard and acquired a masters in sociology and minor in history. Anyone who has a masters degree will notice what is wrong with that statement. Also Harvard does not offer a Master in Sociology.
I also read somewhere I can not find right now where he claimed to have went to college in California.
The religious aspect is demonstrated throughout the forums on this site. Simply refusing to accept anything saying his beliefs could be wrong.
The above experiment is only applicable if the water is standing or frozen, and shows that the horizon is at eye level. However, if there are waves, Rowbotham shows that the calm or rough nature of the waves affects when the sun rises:QuoteThe above remarks are made considering the water to be water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit
p. 275
of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig97.jpg)
FIG. 97.
A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.
This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.
| Then, there is no way that "huge waves" can explain sunset at sea. For a start the biggest argument against must be that the time of sunset over the ocean is highly predictable. It hardly varies more than a couple of minutes and that is due to the unpredictable refraction near the horizon. If you think about it, the horizon distance might vary from 3 to 6 miles, depending on the observer's height. Now, I know that under storm conditions we can have very high heights, under normal conditions wave heights are more like 1.5 to 2 m (5' to 7'). The sunset photo I showed recently were taken from a beach at Weipa on the Gulf of Carpenteria, where 1.5 m wave are unusual. Now even a 7' wave 6 miles away has quite a negligible effect on the angle of the sun at sunset. And you not yet shown how it is even faintly realistic to claim that perspective can make the 3,200 mile high sun to appear to be partly hidden by the horizon. And, to me at least the sun in the photos on the seems to end up hidden behind the horizon. How could perspective cut off the lower edge of the sun. | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/08-Weipa%20Sunset_zpstd6ncc8x.jpg) 08-Weipa Sunset | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/13-Weipa%20Sunset_zpsvl5otrfj.jpg) 13-Weipa Sunset |
Tom is either willfully ignorant, dishonest or FE is just like a religion to him. Probably a combination of all 3.
He demonstrates willful ignorance by refusing do any experiment that will offer evidence he is wrong. Like tracking satellites by taking advantage of doppler shift or simply buying a telescope to observe the ISS. Will not research anything like wave propagation to learn more about a subject that says he could be wrong.
The dishonest part is demonstrated in the errors he will change in the distances stated in his experiment. Both the distance to the beach from his observation point and the height of the telescope above the water.
Then there is more dishonesty here:
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=93430
Claims he went to Harvard and acquired a masters in sociology and minor in history. Anyone who has a masters degree will notice what is wrong with that statement. Also Harvard does not offer a Master in Sociology.
I also read somewhere I can not find right now where he claimed to have went to college in California.
The religious aspect is demonstrated throughout the forums on this site. Simply refusing to accept anything saying his beliefs could be wrong.
Tom is either willfully ignorant, dishonest or FE is just like a religion to him. Probably a combination of all 3.
He demonstrates willful ignorance by refusing do any experiment that will offer evidence he is wrong. Like tracking satellites by taking advantage of doppler shift or simply buying a telescope to observe the ISS. Will not research anything like wave propagation to learn more about a subject that says he could be wrong.
The dishonest part is demonstrated in the errors he will change in the distances stated in his experiment. Both the distance to the beach from his observation point and the height of the telescope above the water.
Then there is more dishonesty here:
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=93430
Claims he went to Harvard and acquired a masters in sociology and minor in history. Anyone who has a masters degree will notice what is wrong with that statement. Also Harvard does not offer a Master in Sociology.
I also read somewhere I can not find right now where he claimed to have went to college in California.
The religious aspect is demonstrated throughout the forums on this site. Simply refusing to accept anything saying his beliefs could be wrong.
An obvious parody account.
http://forum.nationstates.net/search.php?author_id=91975&sr=posts
I would prefer to keep these topics in their respective threads so that we do not repeat ourselves.
Basically the Flat Earth has Gravitation but not Gravity. This Gravitation is what keeps the atmosphere on the Flat Earth.
As we know, the Flat Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle an accelerating frame of reference is exactly mathematically equivalent to a gravitational field at all points around an accelerating mass. This produces the same effect of Gravity, but without the need for a hypothetical undiscovered particle with zero energy and zero mass called the Graviton.
This point is confusing to most people, but the act of being pushed into an accelerating object and being drawn into an object with a gravitational field is EXACTLY the same thing. There is no difference. What you know as acceleration is really the bending of space-time around the accelerating object.
The Flat Earth does not only exert a gravitational field on the top of its surface, but it also exerts a gravitational field on it's sides and underside. In essence, it does not matter in which direction the Flat Earth is accelerating because it will create a uniform gravitational field as long as it is uniformly accelerating. The Flat Earth could be accelerating downwards and we would still be held to her surface by a gravitational pull.
Einstein's "acceleration = gravitation" conclusion may be hard to believe, but it a main tenant of General Relativity. Without the Equivalence Principle Einstein's theory on General Relativity falls apart.
Awhile back, I approached this forum firmly beleiving I could convince the community that our dear Earth was indeed flat. I'm back.
Here is a basic explanation of how the Flat Earth works:
Basically the Flat Earth has Gravitation but not Gravity. This Gravitation is what keeps the atmosphere on the Flat Earth.
As we know, the Flat Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s2. According to Einstein's Equivalence Principle an accelerating frame of reference is exactly mathematically equivalent to a gravitational field at all points around an accelerating mass. This produces the same effect of Gravity, but without the need for a hypothetical undiscovered particle with zero energy and zero mass called the Graviton. This point is confusing to most people, but the act of being pushed into an accelerating object and being drawn into an object with a gravitational field is EXACTLY the same thing. There is no difference. What you know as acceleration is really the bending of space-time around the accelerating object.
The Flat Earth does not only exert a gravitational field on the top of its surface, but it also exerts a gravitational field on it's sides and underside. In essence, it does not matter in which direction the Flat Earth is accelerating because it will create a uniform gravitational field as long as it is uniformly accelerating. Th e Flat Earth could be accelerating downwards and we would still be held to her surface by a gravitational pull. Einstein's "acceleration = gravitation" conclusion may be hard to believe, but it a main tenant of General Relativity. Without the Equivalence Principle Einstein's theory on General Relativity falls apart.
Now, The Flat Earth is walled up by an Ice Wall to keep the contents in. This wall is guarded by an organization formed by a majority of nations on our planet. The Ice Wall does not melt for it also contains rock. and one more thing. BENDY LIGHT, look it up before bothering.
Getting off topic, cocaine was founded at Kennedy space center. If NASA were a real space agency they would be hiring straight and narrow engineers and scientists instead of these lowlife cocaine addicts who sit around building fake space ships out of cardboard paper, scotch tape, and assorted junk yard parts.
You filly fool, who said the Illuminati would ever do that? They already have all the sheep in line. Completely induced into thinking our world is round.
They feed you lobster!
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=139159&p=7086690#p7086690QuoteYou filly fool, who said the Illuminati would ever do that? They already have all the sheep in line. Completely induced into thinking our world is round.
They feed you lobster!
When have I said anything like that?
I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.I honestly feel sorry for you.
Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.
I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.
I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.
Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.
I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.
I hold a Masters in Geology from Berkley.https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12652.msg182796#msg182796
I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.
Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.
I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.
I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.
Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.
I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.
Is that statement true?
So after the Greeks nobody like geodetic surveyors did anything like measuring distances and curvature?
How about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?
If you have a geology degree you must know about the many people now and throughout history whose research and work involve the shape of the Earth. An error about the shape would result in errors throughout many fields. If they are wrong about the shape things would not fit together and there would be holes like there is with the flat Earth hypothesis.
Again with the Northern Hemisphere chauvinism!QuoteHow about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?Actually Celestial Navigation mainly involves finding the North Star and basing your Eastwards or Westwards travel on that.
Is that statement true?
Yes.So after the Greeks nobody like geodetic surveyors did anything like measuring distances and curvature?
Geodetic surveyors tend to take measurements and assume that the earth is a globe. No one is questioning the shape of the earth anymore.
And if anyone does detect a Flat Earth over long distances, it's explained by an illusion like "Atmospheric Ducting," which is ridiculous explanation that em waves can bounce between the ground and the sky to reach far off locations they shouldn't.
(http://images.tutorvista.com/content/communication-systems/super-refraction-atmospheric-duct.gif)QuoteHow about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?
Actually Celestial Navigation mainly involves finding the North Star and basing your Eastwards or Westwards travel on that.QuoteIf you have a geology degree you must know about the many people now and throughout history whose research and work involve the shape of the Earth. An error about the shape would result in errors throughout many fields. If they are wrong about the shape things would not fit together and there would be holes like there is with the flat Earth hypothesis.
As I said, no one is studying whether the earth is round or flat. They are studying a Round Earth. If they happen to not see a Round Earth, they make up a phenomenon to explain it.
Again with the Northern Hemisphere chauvinism!QuoteHow about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?Actually Celestial Navigation mainly involves finding the North Star and basing your Eastwards or Westwards travel on that.
Plenty of celestial navigation takes place in the Southern Hemisphere, beyond sight of the North Star. I've been there, at sea, for months at a time, and I can tell you: You cannot see (or navigate from) the North Star from the Southern Hemisphere.
Celestial navigation uses math that assumes the Earth is round. It does not work for a flat surface.
You may well think celestial navigation is a dark science that calls for a lot of complex mathematics. In a way that’s perfectly true because it took the work of many brilliant mathematicians to perfect the techniques mariners use to fix their position on the open sea.
But to practice the art of celestial navigation today you really don’t need much mathematical skill. In fact you only have to be able to add and subtract – and maybe not even that now that we all have access to computers.
To explain the basic principles of celestial navigation let’s start with a crucial concept – the ‘geographical position’ of a heavenly body.
At any given moment every heavenly body is vertically above a precisely defined spot on the surface of the Earth. So if you imagine a straight line drawn from the centre of the Earth to a star, someone standing where that line passes through the surface of the Earth would see that star directly overhead – or in their zenith. That person will then be standing at the star’s geographical position (GP). Its GP can be defined by its latitude (degrees north or south of the equator) and its longitude (degrees east or west of the Greenwich meridian, a line joining the North and South Geographical Poles that happens to pass through the observatory at Greenwich).
Now if the Earth did not rotate about its axis all the stars (though not the sun, moon or planets) would appear to stand still in the sky. That would of course also mean that their GPs were fixed. So a very simple way of navigating would be to identify the star whose GP was closest to your goal and then sail (or walk, or fly – or whatever) until that particular star was overhead.
You may say that won’t work because the Earth actually does turn. But wait. There are two special places on the Earth’s surface that actually do remain stationary in relation to the sky immediately above them: the North and South Geographical Poles. So if you want to find your way to either Pole you only need to identify the star whose GP is closest to it and travel until it’s overhead.
Geodetetic surveyors now are just refining measurements and not trying to prove the shape of the Earth. Not true when we go back in time. It was geodetic surveyors that found more evidence of the Earth shape. Astronomers also were very interested in the shape. People in your claimed field also study the shape. Most people involved in the Earth sciences make predictions based on the Earth being round. Those predictions use calculation assuming the Earth is round and are reliable and accurate.
If the Earth was flat errors would resonate through many different fields. Your belief is these errors would go unnoticed.
If you recall I showed you paper where scientist were looking for the cause of 3-5mm errors for predictions. This was for only one part of the globe and involved models for tectonic plates, tidal loading, earth tide, gravity, satellite signal delay, and others I can not think of right now. If the Earth was flat these models would not work together and used to make fairly accurate predictions that are only 3-5mm off just for a part of the world.
I will tell you again I have communicated with people in North Carolina from Afghanistan and Iraq using a HF radio. If I was capable of doing this it depended on atmospheric conditions, the antenna, time of day and skip zones. Skip zones being the area between where the wave is either traveling up or down.
Celestial navigation uses math that assumes the Earth is round. It does not work for a flat surface.
Actually, there is no math necessary:
https://sextantbook.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/how-celestial-navigation-works-in-easy-steps-1/QuoteYou may well think celestial navigation is a dark science that calls for a lot of complex mathematics. In a way that’s perfectly true because it took the work of many brilliant mathematicians to perfect the techniques mariners use to fix their position on the open sea.
But to practice the art of celestial navigation today you really don’t need much mathematical skill. In fact you only have to be able to add and subtract – and maybe not even that now that we all have access to computers.
To explain the basic principles of celestial navigation let’s start with a crucial concept – the ‘geographical position’ of a heavenly body.
At any given moment every heavenly body is vertically above a precisely defined spot on the surface of the Earth. So if you imagine a straight line drawn from the centre of the Earth to a star, someone standing where that line passes through the surface of the Earth would see that star directly overhead – or in their zenith. That person will then be standing at the star’s geographical position (GP). Its GP can be defined by its latitude (degrees north or south of the equator) and its longitude (degrees east or west of the Greenwich meridian, a line joining the North and South Geographical Poles that happens to pass through the observatory at Greenwich).
Now if the Earth did not rotate about its axis all the stars (though not the sun, moon or planets) would appear to stand still in the sky. That would of course also mean that their GPs were fixed. So a very simple way of navigating would be to identify the star whose GP was closest to your goal and then sail (or walk, or fly – or whatever) until that particular star was overhead.
You may say that won’t work because the Earth actually does turn. But wait. There are two special places on the Earth’s surface that actually do remain stationary in relation to the sky immediately above them: the North and South Geographical Poles. So if you want to find your way to either Pole you only need to identify the star whose GP is closest to it and travel until it’s overhead.
Geodetetic surveyors now are just refining measurements and not trying to prove the shape of the Earth. Not true when we go back in time. It was geodetic surveyors that found more evidence of the Earth shape. Astronomers also were very interested in the shape. People in your claimed field also study the shape. Most people involved in the Earth sciences make predictions based on the Earth being round. Those predictions use calculation assuming the Earth is round and are reliable and accurate.
They are only interested in the shape so much as "these slight variations in g must mean that the earth is not perfectly round". They are not interested in the earth's true shape.QuoteIf the Earth was flat errors would resonate through many different fields. Your belief is these errors would go unnoticed.
They do go noticed. Only that it's explained away by an assortment of illusions. There have been times when the sun and moon have been above the surface of the earth during a lunar eclipse and it was called a refraction illusion.QuoteIf you recall I showed you paper where scientist were looking for the cause of 3-5mm errors for predictions. This was for only one part of the globe and involved models for tectonic plates, tidal loading, earth tide, gravity, satellite signal delay, and others I can not think of right now. If the Earth was flat these models would not work together and used to make fairly accurate predictions that are only 3-5mm off just for a part of the world.
Actually, a lot of prediction models for things like the tides and the appearance and path of celestial bodies are created by looking at historical records of past events and predicting when the next one will occur.QuoteI will tell you again I have communicated with people in North Carolina from Afghanistan and Iraq using a HF radio. If I was capable of doing this it depended on atmospheric conditions, the antenna, time of day and skip zones. Skip zones being the area between where the wave is either traveling up or down.
I was able to communicate with people on the other end of the world with my home phone under the assumption of a Flat Earth and the pseuodolite technologies involved. Where's my medal?