1

Announcements / Re: Flat-Earth Theory Rockets Forward

« on: December 03, 2017, 07:14:13 AM »

Sorry - I don't normally pull this excuse, but put this one down to me speaking English as a second language. What I meant to emphasise is not what 3DG has or hasn't personally said (I don't follow him closely enough to know either way), but rather my frustration with RE'ers who keep asking if we've ever been on a plane. I wish that someone could tell RE'ers to quit bringing this subject up, because it doesn't earn them any points.

You cannot see the curvature of the horizon at 40,000 feet - but if you have a good forward view, it's very clear that objects in front of you are curving away with perspective.  Sadly, this is rarely the case for passengers on commercial airlines.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of light

« on: November 30, 2017, 02:43:15 AM »

As for gravity, when something goes up it must come down. Every day the sun goes up and then it comes down. Simple gravity. (From a simple observational point not a literal point)

Nonsense.  Voyager 1 (for example) "went up" - and for 100% sure it's ain't ever coming down again.

Did it really go up? Relative to my location it kinda went to the left. I'm sure by now its all down.

Yes - it receded from the center of the Earth, that's "UP".  The direction it travels relative to you varies as the earth rotates and orbits.

A man made contraption, can use things like fuel - to allow it to defy things like gravity.

It used fuel initially - just as when you toss a ball, the initial speed is initially produced by muscle power.   But just like the ball, it's in free fall one the energy source goes away.

There are a set of rules... physics that determine what you would need to be ably to not fall back to the ground, like for example helicopters.

I hope this is simple enough for you, and that you wont mistake a 'general' comment for some kind of sorcery again.

It's not a matter of "simplicity" - these are facts.    Voyager 1 exceeded the escape velocity of Earth, Earth/Moon and Sun.  It is most certainly NOT going to fall back EVER.  If you doubt this - Google "Escape Velocity".   It is the velocity at which one object can completely escape the other.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An experiment I want every single one of you to explain

« on: November 27, 2017, 01:40:19 PM »

May I make a suggestion to anyone trying to disprove FET to Tom Bishop?

Advice: Quit now. You could put him into a rocket ship and send him to outer space with a camera and he would come back with pictures of a round earth in his hands and claim its still fake somehow...just give up...the guy can not even conceed that facts are facts..when you cant agree that 2+2 is 4, you will never convince a moron that 2 FErs plus 2 FErs equal 4 Idiots.

We may never convince him - and if we did, he'd probably still continue to deny it.

However, we can (and indeed are) making him look more and more stupid and less and less credible to other people who might come here.

He's been driven to deny basic math, basic science and to claim that diagrams cannot represent reality (right before he uses a diagram of his own).  He also contradicts himself left and right.  So "convincing Tom" is not the goal here.

Demonstrating, and doing so as clearly as possible, that FET does not, nor cannot work is all that is required.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Coriolis Force

« on: November 27, 2017, 01:33:10 PM »

I'd like to propose a relatively simple experiment that could be done to prove the Earth is indeed round. Enter the Coriolis Force, close relative to the centrifugal force, apparently a real force (if you believe in that sort of thing) that snipers have to account for. It causes a small but certainly measurable projectile deflection that varies depending on your latitude and the direction you're facing. Assuming a round Earth model for a moment, the force disappears entirely at the equator.

In the case of a flat and rotating Earth, the Coriolis Force at the equator should not be zero, so in order to prove (or disprove) a round Earth model, all one needs to do is find the Coriolis Force at the equator.

In the case of a flat and non-rotating Earth, the Coriolis Force shouldn't even exist (since it arises as a result of rotation), and so in order to prove a round Earth model, all one needs to do is observe the Coriolis Force at any point not along the equator.

This is easier said than done, since you have to measure the effects of a force that's 1000 times weaker than gravity, but if it's that or shoot yourself into space and take a picture, this method is clearly more feasible.

You don't have to reproduce a coriolis force and measure it - you can simply observe the force in nature.

Every single hurricane spins one way - and every single typhoon spins the other way.   Hurricanes ONLY happen North of the Equator and Typhoons only happen south of the equator.

Both are spun up by Coriolis forces.

Neither hurricane nor typhoon can survive crossing the equator.

In a Flat Earth, there is no reason why any of these things should be true...yet every year we watch the weather reports and see the same exact patterns.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Non flat earther with some questions

« on: November 25, 2017, 02:07:53 AM »

I’ve never spoken to a flat earthed before and I have some questions. First up, what does a flat earth look like geographically? Is it round or square? Is it basically Alaska in  top left, New Zealand in the bottom right etc

The Flat earther's SEEM to be pretty empirical in their approach; if they can't see it they don't believe it and thus until they can SEE the entire earth they will never be satisfied what shape it is.

[/quote]

Oh - it's much worse than that!   We DO have the ability to see the entire Earth - photos from Apollo, live streaming video from that cool Japanese weather satellite, clear photos of the earth curvature taken from an amateur high altitude balloon flight, live streaming video from SpaceX launches...Indian and Chinese rocket launches.   Photos taken by robots on Mars and by the Voyager probes from beyond the edge of the solar system.

There are literally hundreds of ways that we can see that the Earth isn't flat.

If the FE'ers had to do more than merely open their eyes - we'd be a bit more sympathetic.  But because EVERY piece of solid evidence that cannot possibly be denied is immediately dumped into the giant "CONSPIRACY THEORY" bucket - I have little sympathy.  They aren't just ignorant - they are WILLFULLY ignorant.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Join me in an experiment

« on: November 25, 2017, 01:50:18 AM »

You can really do this experiment on any day when the moon is visible - but instead of picking someone on the opposite longitude to you - just pick someone at a very different latitude.   If you live in Europe - almost anyone in Africa will do - if you live in the USA, then anyone in South America will do.

7

Announcements / Re: Flat-Earth Theory Rockets Forward

« on: November 25, 2017, 01:47:02 AM »

Once Hughes launches himself high into the air, it will be yet another piece of evidence for our flat-earth.

Keep in mind that the flight he plans for this weekend will not exceed 2000 feet, so don't get your hopes up that he is going to prove anything. This is just a test flight.

...And in order to show the (lack of) curvature of the Earth, he knows that he'll have to exceed 100,000 feet - which (as he, himself says) - means that he'll have to launch his rocket from a balloon.   Of course, he COULD just do away with the rocket and just go up in a balloon...which has been done many times in the past, and never once shown the Earth to be anything but round...but that wouldn't produce all of this hooplah and publicity, would it?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of light

« on: November 24, 2017, 09:13:16 PM »

'Spatial Relativity is an interactive installation exploring how our bodies and minds can develop a dialogue with the surrounding environment. '

As individuals, 'we' singular - not as a group, attempt to convey an understanding of our understanding of what we percieve around us.  When I used 'spatial' in lou of special, I was not intoning special relativity was not a correct account. I meant that the discussion was about exploring our reality as we exist in it.

As for gravity, when something goes up it must come down. Every day the sun goes up and then it comes down. Simple gravity. (From a simple observational point not a literal point)

As for disproving 'UA' spatial relativity can do that.

Cheers.

Nonsense.  Voyager 1 (for example) "went up" - and for 100% sure it's ain't ever coming down again.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Seasons. How do they work on flat earth?

« on: November 23, 2017, 04:24:01 PM »

By what mechanism does the sun shift its orbit? How does it speed up and slow down to account for the dramatically different orbital sizes?

Unknown.

Need worries. The sun doesn't move like that model shows. It can't.

If the FE'ers could settle on a map - figuring out the motion of the sun would be fairly easy.   We know that the sun crosses 15 degrees of latitude per hour - starting at 12:00 GMT at the prime meridian...then all you need to know is the longitude at which the sun is vertically overhead for every hour through the year and you'll be able to plot 24 points for every day and 6,360 points for the year.

Finding out the positions where the sun is vertically overhead would be a painful exercise - but you can just cheat and assume that the FE sun is somehow programmed to behave *precisely* as if the Earth was round...which is a surprising coincidence - but must be true or lots of people would have noticed by now!

I really can't be bothered to do it...but if you wanted to - you doubtless could.

However, we can easily to a few specific places without much effort: eg we know the sun is vertically overhead at the equator on the two equinox days - so we know it follows the line of the equator on that day.   Plot those points on the bipolar map and start thinking about the places where the sun must be setting on the northern or southern horizon...and you'll soon understand that the bipolar map is junk.

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are your thoughts about scientists and Christopher Columbus?

« on: November 23, 2017, 04:07:54 PM »

1. Who are your fave scientists / philosophers?
    Richard Feynmann is "my fave scientist" - I believe that all philosophers are a waste of quarks...so no favorites at all there!

2. What are your thoughts about Christopher Columbus and Columbus Day?
    We should be honoring Leif Erikson (the first European to discover America) and not "Christopher Columbus"...who's name was Cristoforo Colombo.  If we're going go to all the trouble to name a day after him, it would have been nice if we could at least spell it correctly!  The archeological evidence is VERY clear that there were Viking colonies in North America 300 years before Colombo got there.  Colombo was an idiot.  There was PLENTY of knowledge around at the time that his trip to reach Japan would require a 20,000km voyage - but he only had supplies for a 3,500km voyage - so it's just as well he hit America first!  Many of the people who agreed to fund his trip knew the true distance and that he couldn't make it with the ship technology of the day.   Even after four trips to the Americas - and despite mountains of evidence and expert opinions - Colombo STILL believed he'd reached Asia.

   It's ridiculous to keep up the farce that "Columbus discovered America"  or that he was some hero...it's nearly as bad as the nonsense that's said about Thanksgiving.

3. What needs to happen for everyone to believe in FET?
    I don't see how this is even remotely possible.  There is simply too much evidence against it and zero for it.

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth rocket launch this weekend

« on: November 23, 2017, 03:45:24 PM »

If he manages to do that without dying (unlikely)

Johnny nearly died first attempt (rocket blowout) and then he only managed sixty feet.

 

Well, this next flight will be harder - but the one he's supposedly building up to do (launch from a balloon - get high enough to *NOT* see the curvature of the Earth) will be impossible.

Once he's up over 100,000 feet - he won't be able to parachute out.  The world record parachute jump was 135,000 feet - but that guy was wearing a full-on space suit and jumping from a STATIONARY balloon.

He won't be able to wait to jump from a more reasonable altitude because his rocket is pretty streamlined and will very soon be heading downwards at a thousand miles an hour - and parachuting at that speed is suicide.

Honestly - if he really wants to do this - all he has to do ("all"!) is to replicate that world record balloon jump.  Float up to 100,000 feet - take the photograph - then jump/parachute back down again (or maybe just let a little gas out of the balloon and float gently back down...or maybe don't even go up with the balloon - just send a GoPro camera...or maybe just BELIEVE THE FRICKING VIDEOS from dozens of such experiments already done (which clearly show the Earth is round).

The steam-powered rocket is just an unnecessary encumbrance.

Unless, of course this is all just some huge publicity stunt...just maybe!

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 03:35:37 PM »

So to shorten your response to my early questions - you're denying that ANYONE can ever see stars during the daytime during a solar eclipse?

That would be a surprisingly dumb thing to claim.

Ordinary people didn't photograph stars because cheap cameras can't capture stars when there is light from around the edges of the sun...the contrast goes to hell (same reason that there aren't stars in photos taken on the moon during the Apollo missions).

But with the right kind of camera - you certainly can capture stars in daylight at the eclipse...and plenty of people have.

But you're seriously claiming that not a single person saw stars?   Despite HALF A MILLION web pages that say that either they did or that they would?

If you want PROOF that stars can be seen in the middle of the day during a total solar eclipse, here is the famous photo taken by Sir Arthur Eddington on Principe Island during the May 29th 1919 total eclipse - that trip was done precisely BECAUSE astronomers know that stars are visible close to the sun's disk during an eclipse.  Other observers at locations in Brazil and Sao Tome (West Africa) reproduced that observation.



Those experiments (which DEPEND on stars being visible in daytime) have been repeated in 1922, 1953 and most recently, in 1973 by a team at the University of Texas. (You can read their paper here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1976AJ.....81..452T ).

It's hard (even for you) to deny that stars are visible during a solar eclipse.   Yet you are saying that nobody - in NONE of the 600 solar eclipses during the last 1000 years ever once thought to mention that they saw a circular patch of stars (at least as big as the sun - and much larger in my estimation) being blotted out?

Why does the shadow object need to be huge.  Well, as anyone who has seen a lunar eclipse will tell you, you see the edge of an obviously large shadow being cast over the moon.  You can see from the evident curvature of the shadow that it's MUCH bigger than the moon.  Now, if (as you claim) the shadow object is close to the sun then it has to be larger than the sun in order to cast a fairly hard-edged "umbral" shadow that's larger than the moon.  If the shadow object was smaller, it would need to be much closer to the moon than it is to the sun (as indeed it is in RET).  A small shadow caster, close to the sun would produce a VERY soft penumbral shadow...and that's not what we see.

You are making certain assumptions about how light emanates from the sun, and that would require knowledge of the nature of the sun. If the sun projects its light outwards like a point light source then a body smaller than the sun can cast a large shadow.

And if the sun's light does not emanate like a point light source, then the shadow object needs only to be a little bigger than the sun to cast large shadows, not "a huge sphere 300 to 500 miles across".

I think you got confused midway through that!   IF the sun was a true point source THEN the shadow object could be quite small...that's true...but it's not, so this isn't relevant.

Because the sun is NOT a point source, the shadow object hast to be LARGER than the sun.  How much larger depends on how close to the sun it is...but if you figure the math then for the angle subtended by the umbral and penumbral shadows on the moon to be as they are - and the sun and moon to be around 12,000 miles apart (maybe) when the lunar eclipse happens around midnight - then the shadow object has to be considerably larger than the sun...not just a little bit larger.

Well, the sun, moon and shadow object have to be in an almost exact straight line in order for a lunar eclipse to happen - and if that is the case then any single planet forms a plane with those three objects lying on one edge and the planet defining the orientation of the plane.   So, yeah - they're all in the same plane - by definition. Again, I don't see the relevance of that comment.

The relevance of the comment is that if the planets are on a different plane than the sun and the Shadow Object, the shadow object will have a hard time casting a shadow on them.

OK - but I already explained that they ARE all in the same plane (although I still don't see why that matters)...please read my paragraph quoted just above yours.

And while you're pondering those:

f) Why does the moon turn that gorgeous shade of orange/red as it approaches totality in a lunar eclipse?

The Shadow Object is not sufficiently dense: https://wiki.tfes.org/Why_the_Lunar_Eclipse_is_Red

I would like you to tell me how the sun can shine through the 100 mile tall slimmer of atmosphere around the earth and widen out the light to fill the entire 2,159 mile diameter of the moon if the sun is not a point light source in the Round Earth model.

Oh - it's not obvious?   OK...well, here is the RET explanation:

Imagine you are standing on the (RET) moon during an eclipse.   From the perspective of that person, the Earth would be moving in front of the sun.  So when there is a "lunar eclipse" here on Earth - it is a "solar eclipse" if you're standing on the moon.  Unlike a solar eclipse here on Earth, where the moon is just about the right size to accurately cover the sun - a solar eclipse seen from the moon would have the MUCH larger Earth covering the sun...also, the Earth has an atmosphere.

During the first moments of totality - when the Earth has just covered up the sun - the person on the moon can look at the edge of the Earth that just covered the sun and they'll be looking at a tangent to the Earth's surface towards the (just hidden) limb of the sun.

What they are seeing is a sunset (or maybe sunrise) happening on Earth...and as we all well know - you can still see orange skies for quite a long time after the sun has set.

So the moon is being lit by: "all of the Earth's sunrises and sunsets at once"...I think that's a rather poetic thing...but then I'm an RE'er.

Since the light at sunrise/sunset is filtered through all that atmosphere - the only light the moon is still getting is a rich orangey-red.

And *THAT* is why the moon looks that color during a lunar eclipse.

By then, the Earth is blotting out all of the direct sunlight - but all of those sunrises and sunsets produces enough light to make the moon visible against a very dark sky.

However, having watched several lunar eclipses - the red/orange moon effect only exists soon after and just before the end of totality - when the moon is completely covered.   Over the next few minutes, the color fades from red/orange to black.

That effect wouldn't happen with your shadow object though...right?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun Eclipse "Caused & Effects"!

« on: November 23, 2017, 02:46:53 PM »

How do eclipses relate to flat earth theory though? Those explanations seem to be for globes.

Eclipses really do happen.  Even the FE'ers cannot deny that.   Nearly everyone will have seen a Lunar eclipse - they happen frequently.   Millions of people across the USA saw the 2017 total solar eclipse.

The RET explanation for them is very simple.

* In a solar eclipse, the moon goes in front of the sun and hides it.
* In a lunar eclipse the Earth gets between the sun and moon and the Earths' circular shadow is cast onto the moon.

The FET explanation is (as usual) considerably more tortured!

* In a solar eclipse, the moon goes in front of the sun and hides it - but because sun and moon are claimed to be identical in size - the moon must be implausibly close to the sun at the time.
* In a lunar eclipse, the Earth isn't involved (can't be because both sun and moon are above the plane of the earth so it can't cast a shadow onto the moon) - so they've invented a third body called "The Shadow Object" (or some say "The Anti-Moon") which is orbiting close to the sun and casts it's shadow onto the moon during a lunar eclipse.   The shadow object somehow manages to be 100% indetectable by all possible means for the rest of the time.   It doesn't create tides, it doesn't block out stars or planets like Venus and Mercury, it never gets in front of the sun, it doesn't cast a shadow onto stars or planets during the lunar eclipse.  But the claims required to make it be so perfectly hidden at ALL other times get very complicated and hard to swallow.   It seems like a really contrived thing...which, of course, it is!

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of light

« on: November 23, 2017, 02:36:11 PM »

Naw, because the speed of light is unattainable by anything that has mass. The Earth is wayyyy too big to accelarate that much

also earth is round

Please go and learn about relativity before you say things like that.

ONE...MORE...TIME...

SPECIAL RELATIVITY SAYS:

* Relativity is called that because "everything is relative".  Technically, you have to examine things consistently from a specific frame of reference.

* So from the "frame of reference" of someone standing on the Flat Earth, the speed of the Earth relative to us is...ZERO!   So from OUR perspective, we never reach light speed...we never even reach 10 mph.

* From the perspective of some hypothetical "outsider" who is not being accelerated by this weird FET "Universal Acceleration" - they would see the Earth going faster and faster - BUT as it goes faster, special relativity says that the rate at which clocks tick on Earth would go slower and slower (from the perspective of the outsider).   This means that from the outsider's perspective, the Earth gets closer and closer to light speed - but never *QUITE* reaches it.   From their point of view, it the Earth has been accelerating like this for a billion years (say) then time is passing insanely slowly on Earth...but the Earthlings don't notice that because for them, EVERYTHING is going equally slowly.

GENERAL RELATIVITY:


* GR says that there is no possible experiment within a closed system that can distinguish a uniform gravitational field from a uniform acceleration.  LITERALLY no experiment.
* Since UA is a uniform acceleration, it's indistinguishable from a uniform gravitational field...in every possible way.
* HOWEVER: When we measure the gravitational field of the the Earth - it isn't *quite* uniform.  There are differences of less than 1% due to three things:
   a) Being at the pole versus the equator.
   b) Being on top of a tall mountain versus a deep valley.
   c) Being above a denser rock formation (like granite) versus a lighter one (like pumice).

So - PLEASE stop this stupid argument.

The reason that Universal Acceleration is complete and utter bullshit is because EVERYTHING to do with the Flat Earth hypothesis is complete and utter bullshit.   In this case, you know it's bullshit because gravity isn't the same everywhere on Earth and UA would be the same everywhere.

You CANNOT, however, use relativity (either Special or General) to disprove UA...you just can't, OK?

If you still think you can - then you don't know enough about Einstein's theories to comment intelligently on the subject - so you should probably shut the hell up and stop embarrassing yourself.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 05:57:32 AM »

So I have lot's more excitingly difficult questions here:

a) Why doesn't it block other objects such as Venus which is clearly visible in the daytime sky either just around dawn or just around dusk?  If Venus were mysteriously to vanish from the sky - I'm pretty sure someone would have mentioned it!

Venus is not seen when it is close to the sun, it disappears into the brightness of the sky just like the moon does and anything else.

We can see Venus transiting the sun - a simple, improvised pinhole camera allows you to see Venus as a black dot in front of the sun.

b) Why doesn't it block out stars during a midday-ish total solar eclipse when it would DEFINITELY be above the horizon and the sky is dark enough to see stars?  There ought to be a huge circle of blotted out stars...and there aren't.

Who says that all stars are visible during a Solar Eclipse?

What makes you think that this Shadow Object would need to be a "huge"?

Google the phrase: "stars visible during 2017 eclipse" - and you'll see approximately half a million hits - mostly from the estimated 5 million people who saw it -
 and some large number of people who are eclipse experts explaining what would be seen during the eclipse.  Yeah - stars and planets are quite visible during the minutes of totality of a total eclipse.   In fact, the famous first ever confirmation of Einsteins' theory of relativity came from measuring the position of a star during a total eclipse.

If stars were "missing" that would be expected to be visible - you could be REALLY sure that an astronomer or someone else who was familiar with the skies would have mentioned it during one of the 635 total eclipses that have happened over the past thousand years.   If that had happened then the existence of the shadow object would be an accepted part of mainstream science...but it's not.  There appears to be no record of anyone seeing this immense, mysterious dark circle hiding the stars.

Why does the shadow object need to be huge.  Well, as anyone who has seen a lunar eclipse will tell you, you see the edge of an obviously large shadow being cast over the moon.  You can see from the evident curvature of the shadow that it's MUCH bigger than the moon.  Now, if (as you claim) the shadow object is close to the sun then it has to be larger than the sun in order to cast a fairly hard-edged "umbral" shadow that's larger than the moon.  If the shadow object was smaller, it would need to be much closer to the moon than it is to the sun (as indeed it is in RET).  A small shadow caster, close to the sun would produce a VERY soft penumbral shadow...and that's not what we see.

I'll try to get around to drawing you a diagram...but it's late and tomorrow is Thanksgiving.

c) Why does it never block out the sun itself if it's orbiting around the sun?

We never see the sun from its side, for the same reason we never see the moon from its side.

I don't see the relevance of that remark.

d) If it's close to the sun and casts a HUGE shadow over the moon during a lunar eclipse (the shadow is MUCH larger than the moon), then this object has to be much MUCH bigger than the sun.  Not 30 miles across - but (rough estimate) between 300 and 500 miles across.   We'd be able to see something that gigantic blotting out stars LONG after sunset and LONG before dawn.

Does a giant hand puppet shadow projected onto a wall mean that a giant hand must be creating that shadow?

No - but the hand has to be bigger than the light source or else the shadow will be very soft-edged...blurry.   The shadow of the Earth...er "shadow object" is quite sharp - so either the object is close to the moon - or close to the light source AND larger than it.

e) During a lunar eclipse - the shadow cast by this object doesn't completely cover the moon - it's MUCH bigger than that - so the light blocked by the shadow object would also prevent sunlight from reaching naked-eye-visible outer-planets - Mars, Jupiter and Saturn...anything that's lit by the sun that happened to be close enough to the moon during a partial lunar ecllipse.

You are assuming that the sun, moon, shadow objects and planets are all on the same plane.

Well, the sun, moon and shadow object have to be in an almost exact straight line in order for a lunar eclipse to happen - and if that is the case then any single planet forms a plane with those three objects lying on one edge and the planet defining the orientation of the plane.   So, yeah - they're all in the same plane - by definition. Again, I don't see the relevance of that comment.

And while you're pondering those:

f) Why does the moon turn that gorgeous shade of orange/red as it approaches totality in a lunar eclipse?

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth rocket launch this weekend

« on: November 22, 2017, 11:45:30 PM »

He says that his plan is to launch his major "Flat Earth Proving" mission from a balloon.   So he'd float up to god-knows-what height - then fire his steam rocket to get high enough to take a photo of the (Flat?) earth.

If he manages to do that without dying (unlikely) the question will be whether anyone believes his altitude claim.   If he gets his photo much below about 100,000 feet - it'll look flat anyway...so without some fairly impressive proof that he was up at higher altitude - we'd have to say "FAKE".

Of course calling any suspect photos "FAKE" is just a part of the FE playbook - so it's hard to see why this guy would expect round-earthers to be convinced anyway.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Non flat earther with some questions

« on: November 22, 2017, 11:40:56 PM »

Since Pete and the Wiki are misleading/useless for the question you asked, I'll try to help. Flat Earthers do not have a working map, so they can't answer questions about geographic locations. One of their main contributors is somewhat famously quoted as saying the distance from New York to Paris is unknown.

The shapes I've seen them try to use are either round or an infinite plane. Hope that helps.

The problem the FE'ers have is that literally ANY flat earth map that they claimed to be correct would be ridiculously easy to disprove just by looking at travel times and the way the stars look from different locations.

So it's a fundamental part of their belief system that they must **NEVER** be pinned down to admitting a particular map as "TRUE"...because it would instantly be debunked.   However, with some subtle math - we Round-Earthers have proven conclusively that no POSSIBLE Flat Earth map can ever reproduce distances that we're quite sure about...so their deniability itself is actually debunked.

Since most of them seem to live in the Northern Hemisphere - and specifically Europe and N.America - the maps that they do tentatively publish are carefully arranged to minimize mapping errors in those locations - while throwing the Australians and New Zealanders under a bus by piling all of the (inevitable) distortions down into the Southern Hemisphere where they hope nobody will notice!

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the moon

« on: November 22, 2017, 11:35:17 PM »

I understand that FE calculated the distance to the sun via bastardizing Eratosthenes's experiment. How was the distance to the moon calculated in the FE model? How far away is the moon in FET?

They could (in principle) calculate it the same way they do with the sun.  On a bright moonlit night, you could see the shadow it cast.

My best guess is that they'd argue that it has to be closer than the sun (because solar eclipses)...but not by much.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 22, 2017, 11:32:55 PM »

The Shadow Object is thought to be a satellite of the sun that is always on the "day side" of the earth. We don't see any celestial bodies near the sun. Everything is washed out by the sun's light. Even when we see the moon in the daytime sky, we can only see it when it is far from the sun where daylight is not as intense.

Oooh!   I'd hoped someone would talk about the mysterious shadow object...and it's Tom!  That's a bonus!

So let me see if I have this right.

This "thing" orbits the sun...and you're saying that it does so sufficiently closely that it's always in the daytime sky.   So you're saying that it would NEVER block out stars or planets because the only time it would get between stars/planets and us would be during daylight when we can't see the stars/planets anyway.

Is that a correct summary?

So I have lot's more excitingly difficult questions here:

a) Why doesn't it block other objects such as Venus which is clearly visible in the daytime sky either just around dawn or just around dusk?  If Venus were mysteriously to vanish from the sky - I'm pretty sure someone would have mentioned it!

b) Why doesn't it block out stars during a midday-ish total solar eclipse when it would DEFINITELY be above the horizon and the sky is dark enough to see stars?  There ought to be a huge circle of blotted out stars...and there aren't.

c) Why does it never block out the sun itself if it's orbiting around the sun?

d) If it's close to the sun and casts a HUGE shadow over the moon during a lunar eclipse (the shadow is MUCH larger than the moon), then this object has to be much MUCH bigger than the sun.  Not 30 miles across - but (rough estimate) between 300 and 500 miles across.   We'd be able to see something that gigantic blotting out stars LONG after sunset and LONG before dawn.

e) During a lunar eclipse - the shadow cast by this object doesn't completely cover the moon - it's MUCH bigger than that - so the light blocked by the shadow object would also prevent sunlight from reaching naked-eye-visible outer-planets - Mars, Jupiter and Saturn...anything that's lit by the sun that happened to be close enough to the moon during a partial lunar ecllipse.    While you might argue that stars shine by their own light - we know that the planets show clear phases - even when viewed through binoculars...so they must be lit by the sun just as the moon is.   So if (say) Mars were next to the moon during a lunar eclipse - it OUGHT to be blotted out by the shadow of the shadow object...but it's clearly not...to the contrary - it's a "full Mars" for the same reason that the moon is always (nearly) full during a lunar eclipse.

...OK - I have LOTS of other problems with "The Shadow Object" - but that's enough typing for one day.

Any ideas Tom?   Magic perspective tying light rays into pretzels again?

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of light

« on: November 22, 2017, 11:02:27 PM »

Very true... congrats on 1000th post!

Woah - that's a horrifyingly large number!  Thanks for pointing it out!