1

Flat Earth Theory / Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH

« on: July 20, 2017, 04:36:29 AM »

Now, the topic of this post is going to be about...

1. The sun
2. Startrails
3. Flat Earth maps, and the distances of the flat earth

My next post is going to be about balloon launches, and fixing the problem of fish-eye lenses. (Spoiler: Fish eye lenses don't distort anything, IF the object passes through the CENTER OF THE FRAME....I will prove that later)

1. The sun

One of the earlier problems of the Flat Earth model was that the timezones simply don't work on a flat Earth. So, flat earthers and in their infinite wisdom, decided to solve the problem by making the sun into a "spotlight" shape, so it only illuminates a part of disc world. Unfortunately for the flat earthers, this "solution" just seems to dig a deeper hole for their "model".

One of the first things I'd like to focus on, is the angle of elevation of the sun on a flat Earth. Since the flat earthers have yet to come up with with an official value of the distance away from the sun, I'll use the value that I see the most...3000 miles. And, in order to determine the angle of elevation, I will use the equinox, where the sun is directly above the equator.

Now, if the sun is 3000 miles away, and at 0 degrees latitude, we can set up an equation to determine the angle of elevation at any given latitude on the flat earth. That equation would be...

a=arctan(3000/70d)

Where
a=angle of elevation of the sun
d=Distance (mi) from the North Pole to the equator

Keep in mind that the distance from the North Pole to the equator on a flat earth would be about 6,300 mi. By dividing 6,300/90, we can get the value of the angle of elevation of the sun, per degree of latitude. (Or about 70 mi/degree of latitude)

Now, on the globe Earth the angle of elevation is easy...It's dependent on your latitude. So on one of the equinoxes, the angle of elevation of the sun is simply your 90-x, where "x" is your latitude, in degrees, in the Northern Hemisphere .

Let's plot and compare the two angle of elevations of the sun on a flat Earth, vs. Globe Earth. (Yellow line is globe Earth, while the green curve is the Flat Earth)

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/abatw4xxpt

Ok, so the flat earthers are WAY off. What's more, is that the yellow line is what we see in reality.

This is one of the things that outright DEBUNKS the flat earth.

That is just one of the simple consequence of basic geometry and trigonometry. If a sun is circling around a flat earth, then the angle of elevations is going to be wildly inconsistent than what we would see if the sun was overhead on a sphere. And unfortunately for the flat earthers, the latter is what we see in reality.

Now I know what the rebuttal of this is going to be....

"Well, this doesn't DISPROVE the flat earth because other factors could be causing the angle of elevation of the sun to be skewed...such as refraction"

I honestly find this ad-hoc excuse to be laughable at best, and worrying for humanity at worst.

If it were refraction were somehow playing a role in the apparent angle of elevation of the sun, Then why is refraction so precisely dependent on the latitude of the Earth?! Why do the gasses of the atmosphere care, when to exactly portray the sun to be dependent on latitude? Refraction simply cannot be the case. And if it somehow were, then the flat earthers have to explain why an observer at point "b" is seeing a refracted sun PERFECTLY as s/he would see at their relative latitude, and an observer at point "b" is seeing the refracted sun PERFECTLY as s/he would see at their relative latitude. Because if that were the case, then refraction can't be distorting the sun equally, to that degree.

This ad hoc excuse simply does not work.

At this point flat earthers can either accept reality, deny reality, or come up with a mechanism to defend their belief. If flat earthers want to keep on beating a dead horse, and keep parroting "Refraction! Refraction! Perspective! Refraction!", then they must show a pattern of the gasses of the atmosphere that are somehow refracting the sun to the point that it is EXACTLY dependent on an observe's latitude.

Startrails

This is another thing that outright debunks the flat earth, and flat earthers will parrot "refraction" for this once again. But as I've stated earlier, saying that refraction is causing objects to be viewed according to their latitude is just plain wrong. Latitude and refraction are two very different concepts, and are not correlating with one another in any way. Gasses of the atmosphere are chaotic, and random, they cannot show the apparent position of the stars in such a precise and predictable manner.

What's more is that stars in the Northern hemisphere rotate counterclockwise around the North Celestial Pole, and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere around the South Celestial Pole.

Believe it or not, I've actually heard some flat earthers simply deny the previous statement, but you can literally either take photos of startrails, or take some time lapsed videos of the stars in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere.

If there was some magical sky dome that was rotating around a flat earth, then we would not see stars rotating different directions around 2 celestial poles.

Now, I've heard some flat earthers say that

Well, star trails do not necessarily prove the globe. Saying "star trails therefore globe" is non sequitur

This, again, is quite laughable. Take a camera and plant it on a spinning ball. The trails of the surrounding environment is exactly what we would see on a globe. Now before you copy and paste some random logical fallacy on wikipedia, please read this....

1. Startrails we observe can occur IF AND ONLY IF the observer was on a sphere, with either a rotating sky or sphere
2. Startrails occur exactly as stated in #1
3. Therefore, we live on a sphere

Sure, just looking at star trails alone doesn't prove whether we are spinning or not, but I would love to debate on geocentricm some other time.

Now, most flat earthers are going to attack the If and only if part, probably stating that its a false premise. However, the "if and only if" works BECAUSE of geometry. As you move North or south, the stars drop relative to your horizon by each degree depending on your latitude. There is no other geometrical shape that can give this effect besides a sphere. If flat earthers are truly going to say "it's a false premise", then it is up to them to show how exactly a flat earth (or any other shape) can produce these types of trails.

If not, then till then, The idea of a flat earth is simply NONSENSE

Flat Earth Map, and distance on a Flat Earth

This is my final proof, and while this does not directly prove the globe, it certainly disproves the flat earth.

So, the flat earthers love using the Azimuthal Equidistant projection (AE) as their go-to map to display the flat earth. Unfortunately, by projecting a sphere onto a Polar Coordinate system, there are going to be some major distortions. These distortions will get bigger and bigger the more you go South. Now, bear in mind, EVERY PROJECTION is quite distorted because no matter how you try to display a globe onto a flat piece of paper, you are going to have some major discrepancies. Even the infamous Mercator Projection has some major distortions the further North you go. (Ever wonder why Greenland looks almost as large as the continental U.S?)

So, let's focus on a couple distances. From the two costs of Australia (Red Rock to Leeman), the distance is measured to be about 2281 mi.

Let's see how that would look like, if we were on a flat Earth.

So, the distance between those two point's can be determined by the length of an arc, which is

a*pi*r/180 (This statement is equivalent to s=r(theta), but that requires radians, so we'll use the previous formula for simplicity's sake)

"r" is the distance from the North Pole to the two points. Since the Longitudinal lines are the same on a flat earth, and a globe earth, "r" turns out to be 8278 mi. While the longitudinal separation between the two points is about 39 degrees. Using the formula, the length of the two distances turns out to be

5941 miles.

In reality the distances between the coasts of Australia is about 2281mi, but the flat earth map shows us that the distance is 5941 miles.

Yep. That's how inaccurate the flat earth map is. We can input some more distances using the law of cosines, and show how planes would somehow have to be going faster than the speed of sound over great, fuel-impossible distances and going over some sights that you would never see in reality. But, this post is already really long, so I would like to keep it more simple.

But, I already know the reply of the flat earthers.

Just because we haven't completely solved the map problem yet, doesn't debunk the flat Earth

Actually, it does. Here's why....

You can adjust the degree of separation of the flat earth, but then your latitudinal lines would be skewed. Because if you somehow fixed Australia's size to fit the distance, then the latitudinal lines from the coasts of Australia won't match up with the points that we see in reality. No matter how you try fixing the distance of one point, all other points will then be skewed.

And here's why this is important....

If your model is supposed to REPRESENT THE CORRECT DISTANCES OF REALITY, and your model does not, THEN YOUR MODEL IS WRONG

There is NO rebuttal that could work here, because then you would have to be saying that proportions don't work in reality!

If 1 inch on a map is supposed to represent 10 miles on a map, then that should be the case EVERYWHERE on your map. 1in/10 mi should work in Greenland, and in Australia. Because a/b=a/b no matter where you are. That is simply not the case on a flat Earth Map! Meaning your map is FALSE. And if your map is supposed to represent your model (the flat earth) THEN YOUR MODEL IS FALSE.

It really doesn't get any more simple than that. This is really the final nail in the coffin for the flat Earth, because in order to ad-hoc your way out of this, you would have to be saying that proportions are wrong. So good luck with that.

Lastly, I need to give a boatload of credit to Cool Hard Logic. He runs a great youtube channel, and I highly recommend you check him out.

Thanks a lot for reading, and let me know what you think.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Common Flat Earther Claims DEBUNKED

« on: July 20, 2017, 04:34:53 AM »

1. "The horizon always rises to meet eye level - which is impossible on a ball earth"

Except it doesn't. To anyone who makes this claim, it's clear that you haven't done any measurements for that. What surprises me is, how easy it is to make the measurement and see for yourself by using a regular smartphone theodolite app. I've actually managed to do the measurement myself, something you can find here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1bP0G7nxCnFRGZISnlCc2RkVFE/view

Another friend of mine, "Epistemology for the Truth" did the measurements, of which you can find here, on his google plus:

https://plus.google.com/113346108947766797502

What's even more is, if you ever even bothered working out the trigonometry, it comports almost exactly of what we would see if the Earth had a radius of 3959 miles. If any of you are interested, I did the math right here, and I apologize if it’s a little messy. "h" is in miles.

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/6hfoyy7xpj

What's really ironic is that this is pretty much definitive proof that we don't live on a flat earth....

2. "The surfaces of bodies of water has been shown to be level"

Yes, and level doesn't equal flat. Those are two very different geographical terms. Now I understand this is just pesky semantics, but please use the term correctly, if you are going to use it as an argument. But more than semantics, defining sea level is actually a fairly difficult task....If you are interested on finding out what level ACTUALLY means, I recommend watching this one video by minute physics....



But for the sake of argument, let me explain what sea level actually means on a ball....Flat Earthers often say "have you ever seen water curve"? The answer is "YES". A great example would be a RAINDROP!

Now, why does a raindrop curve? Because the intermolecular forces (hydrogen bonds) holding it together. (Now in order for a raindrop to form in the first place, the water molecules must cling to a dust particle, but that's something for sometime else). The raindrop is CURVED because there's a force that allows it to be in its most stable resting position with the least potential energy. Now what does this mean on a spherical Earth?

The water molecules would be on a curved surface, BUT THEY WOULD FIND THEIR OWN RELATIVE LEVEL. Now the force that defines this relative level, is gravity. (Which is something we will cover some other time....) Before, the intermolecular forces allow the water to find their own level, which is a curved raindrop. This is more or less the same concept that is being applied on a curve earth.

3. "There is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes"

Well, this is a little more simple. You can just graph a circle, and with the correct proportions, you can zoom out to the point where it would be proportional to 35k feet. Then tell me how much curvature you see. As seen earlier, the drop in the horizon from eye level at airplane altitude is around 3 degrees. Depending on your field of view, the “dip” in the horizon is going to be 1 degree every 69 miles, from side to side.

4. " We don't even have a full shot of the Earth rotating from space!"

Again, this is also really simple if you actually bothered to do any research. The Himawari 8 satellite offers a great view of earth, and it takes a shot every 10 minutes. Now whether you believe this is real or not is irrelevant to the statement... (Not to mention, the Himawari 8 satellite offers a live view of Earth with a resolution of 11000 x 11000 pixels that accurately predicts weather and cloud patterns....If anyone can tell me how exactly that can be faked, please tell me)

3

Flat Earth Theory / Flat Earth DEBUNKING BUOYANCY/DENSITY NONSENSE.

« on: July 20, 2017, 04:30:14 AM »

Here's the thing about gravity:

It's nothing more than something to describe why things fall down. In order for ANYTHING to move, or have any acceleration, you need a force to act upon it. So when an object experiences ANY change in velocity, there WAS a force that was acts upon it. In the case for gravity that force is MEASURABLE at 9.8 m/s^2 or about 10 newtons.

Now, the disagreement between science and flat earthers is that what is this force dependent on. The rest of the world says "mass" while the flat earthers say buoyancy and density. Here's the problem with the latter explanation....

Density isn't a FORCE. It's a measure of how much "stuff" there is per unit of volume. Density can never be a force. If an object were to be pulled in the direction where an area is less dense (e.g object falling from air), the flat earthers must explain, WHY IS DENSITY ONLY ACTING DOWN. Why doesn't a bowling ball fall in some other direction, if there is less dense air 360 degrees around that ball? Why is density so selective? What's the mechanism behind that?

What I find really funny and ironic is that flat earthers would often complain "how come gravity is so selective while a bowling ball can fall, while a feather or bird floats in the air", while being foolishly ignorant, that there can be a significant amount of force being exerted on the atmosphere. YET, their explanation somehow makes density act ONLY IN ONE DIRECTION! When you ask THEM why density is so selective, they NEVER have an answer!

Other times flat earthers would say "well, its buoyancy...A basket ball floats in water, but a bowling ball sinks. Same with the atmosphere".

This never fails to really crack me up. This explanation is PROOF how flat earthers NEVER look into a scientific concept, without quote mining it first.

The equation for buoyancy is

Fb=p(fl)*V*g

Where
p(fl)=density of the fluid
V=volume of the object
g=force of gravity (9.8 m/s^2)

Yep. YOU CAN'T HAVE BUOYANCY WITHOUT GRAVITY. If you say that the BUOYANT force is the CAUSE of the gravitational force, well then that literally explains NOTHING! Where's the "9.8 m/s^2" coming from?! OF COURSE there's gonna be a buoyant force in the atmosphere because there's a fluid to exert pressure on!

But here's the thing. The mechanism behind buoyancy is that you need to exert a PRESSURE on a fluid, and that fluid will exert an OPPOSITE force (Newton's 3rd law) that we would call buoyancy.

Now, WHERE IS THAT PRESSURE COMING FROM...?

Hint hint....(its from the 9.8m/s^2)

GRAVITY!

Anyone who actually understands buoyancy in the most basic sense of the word, knows that you can't have buoyancy without gravity, because there was never a force to exert the pressure in the first place!

Depending on the shape or DENSITY of the object, the force of buoyancy can be great enough so that the object would float on the fluid. Flat earthers only focus ON THAT PART ("Depending on the shape or DENSITY of the object") BUT NEVER THE FIRST PART (You need to exert a PRESSURE on a fluid). It would be easier, however, just to describe that in math.

And here's a fairly simple example that describes what I'm saying.

The flame of a candle rises due to the buoyant force from the surrounding cooler air. Go in a 0g airplane, and the candle's flame doesn't rise, but it goes in all directions. Showing how you can't have buoyancy without acceleration IN THE FIRST PLACE. There's other examples I can also give, but this seemed to me to be the simplest. And this shouldn't be too surprising when you look at the equation of buoyancy, it INCLUDES the acceleration due to gravity.

So using buoyancy to explain why there's gravitational acceleration is the definition of circular logic.

Thanks for reading. Would love to see alternative theories to gravity (e.g electromagnetism...oooh can't wait to write about that!)