21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Orbiting International Space Station visible from Telescope

« on: March 09, 2018, 04:41:43 AM »

Where there is a head there is a tail.
In other words the southern photo is the ass.
zin zang

Your NASA fake space photos proves nothing when NASA is the leader in RE conspiracy.
Any one on earth with a time lapse camera can take a photo showing every star going around Polaris yet you need a NASA photo which no one else
can duplicate to prove everyone on earths photo is wrong?

NASA them self claims they use Polaris as their guide. They don't use the sun.
Why would they not use the sun is it was the center?

Put a filter on your camera and do a time lapse of the sun and see what obits it.
 

You claim NASA is lying, yet you've provided zero proof of such whatsoever. Earlier in this thread you tried to claim Google maps didn't make sense because they couldn't represent a 3D object on a 2D plane, and then tried to use photos taken from the ISS that didn't *feel* right to you, but I showed that all of those were consistent with the standard round Earth theory with basic geometry.

So where is it? If NASA is lying, where's the evidence? You can't just make a claim and not support it.

By the way, you should reflect on how all of your pro-FE arguments are either heavily flawed when examined with math, are based on your intuition instead of real science, or rely on massive conspiracies when you can't provide any counter arguments to the heliocentric model. Could there be a reason all the support for one is so heavily flawed while the arguments for the other are air tight?

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Orbiting International Space Station visible from Telescope

« on: March 08, 2018, 08:30:47 PM »

In order for a photo to explain something you need to understand what it shows. We need to make sure that you understand what is in that long-exposure photo of Polaris -- do you think all of those objects are actually orbiting Polaris?

What I see is Polaris is not orbiting any of the millions of them.
I would like to see a photo of the sun doing the same thing Polaris is doing.
If everything obits the sun then a simple photo should show it so just please show me the photo.

If everything orbits Polaris, then why do you see this looking South from NSW, Australia?


The problem with the picture that you're asking for is that you'd need to have a camera dozens of AU "above" the Solar System to see it. Impossible right? Wrong. You're lucky, thankfully NASA is one step ahead of us here. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977, and by 1990 it was about 40 AU away at a pretty steep angle, shown here:

 

At this point, it turned its cameras and took a "family portrait" of the Solar System. This had to be done in multiple shots, because it was so far away that basically a telescope needed to be used to see each small planet, but here's the resulting collage:

It shows all of the planets in the exact locations the heliocentric model predicts:



Ok, we've answered all your questions and provided photo evidence, now answer us this. How do you explain that all the stars rotate around Sigma Octanis in the South. Surely the simplest explanation is that the stars are relatively static, and we're the one who's spinning? There's no other way to geometrically explain that.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Orbiting International Space Station visible from Telescope

« on: March 08, 2018, 01:27:58 AM »

Well I am asking.

There's are two very easy to see objects that clearly orbit the sun: Mercury and Venus. Because both orbit around the sun at a much closer distance than the Earth, they are always near the Sun in the sky. Specifically, Mercury is always within 28° of the Sun along the ecliptic and Venus (the 4th brightest thing in the sky behind the Sun, Moon, and ISS) is always within 46°. That's why you can only see these two shortly after sunset or shortly before sunrise. If you want to see them for yourself, I recommend downloading a free star-gazing app on your smartphone which makes finding them a breeze.

If they didn't orbit the Sun and merely orbited the Earth or Polaris or whatever, there'd be no reason for this to be the case. In fact, funnily enough, this lead to some serious confusion back in the good old days before we figured out the shape of the solar system since geocentric orbits couldn't explain Venus's locations. Because of this, the Greeks thought Venus was two planets: Phosphorus, the Morning Star and Hesperus, the Evening Star.

This is just another in a long line of examples where heliocentricism explains our observations perfectly while FE comes up short.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 06, 2018, 12:31:13 AM »

The whole point of those sources is they just list the time the sun rises and sets on a certain day. Are you really suggesting that The Sydney Morning Herald is wrong with what time the sun sets? And no one in a city of 5 million people has ever noticed? I'm in genuine disbelief that someone could think that, that's one of the most easily observable things imaginable. Plus you're not even saying they're just slightly off. The Morning Herald claims the daylight on the solstice lasts for nearly 14 and a half hours while at the very best the FE model can account for 10 of those, so you must think they're nearly 50% off.

Can you imagine if you checked the paper or online when planning a summer BBQ to find out when the sun would set and it set 2 hours before hand? You'd think it was the end of days. Ok, now imagine the entire southern hemisphere has the potential to do that for 6 months out of the year. Unless your stance is no one south of the equator owns a clock, I just don't understand how you could fool yourself into believing that. You don't seriously believe that this is possible, do you? Is this just a joke?

Flat earth theory explains why you get longer days. I already linked the chapter in ENaG where it expressly explains this. You are telling us we are making an argument that we aren't making, and then complaining that the argument you put forth makes no sense.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za25.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm

You are being ignored and passed over because you can't be bothered to even read the basics before you complain about it.

You already linked me that second one and I already read it. It still doesn't come close to explaining why the "spotlight" sun would have look like this to explain the sunrise/sunset times we actually see:

There's just no other geometric way for a spotlight to illuminate the southern hemisphere for >12h a day while keeping the northern hemisphere dark for >12h. Until you can explain that simple fact (which really shouldn't be that hard), you have to accept your model doesn't work and start over with a new one.
 

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Orbiting International Space Station visible from Telescope

« on: March 05, 2018, 08:22:52 PM »

Put the satellites path on a FE map and they to go around in big circles.

But here's the problem. There's no aspect of the FE theory that says they should have to go in circles. For heliocentricism, ellipses are the only stable orbits, so without fail everything needs to be orbiting in an ellipse unless it actively has some external force working on it. It's the mathematical byproduct of an object with some large fixed momentum constantly accelerating towards the center of a massive body. That explains why all satellites move like that.

FE on the other hand has no such rules. I've seen multiple explanations for visible satellites: drones flown by NASA, holograms, weather balloons, et cetera, and none of them need a circular orbit. It would be way better for you if you discovered their orbits weren't elliptical, since there's no reason for them to be in your model.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 05, 2018, 08:14:48 PM »

I have already addresses the credibility of multiple sources in the face of mass delusion, using the miracles of Christ as an example.

Specifically, looking at your sunset shenanigans is wildly off topic, hence the reason I skipped it.

The whole point of those sources is they just list the time the sun rises and sets on a certain day. Are you really suggesting that The Sydney Morning Herald is wrong with what time the sun sets? And no one in a city of 5 million people has ever noticed? I'm in genuine disbelief that someone could think that, that's one of the most easily observable things imaginable. Plus you're not even saying they're just slightly off. The Morning Herald claims the daylight on the solstice lasts for nearly 14 and a half hours while at the very best the FE model can account for 10 of those, so you must think they're nearly 50% off.

Can you imagine if you checked the paper or online when planning a summer BBQ to find out when the sun would set and it set 2 hours before hand? You'd think it was the end of days. Ok, now imagine the entire southern hemisphere has the potential to do that for 6 months out of the year. Unless your stance is no one south of the equator owns a clock, I just don't understand how you could fool yourself into believing that. You don't seriously believe that this is possible, do you? Is this just a joke?

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 05, 2018, 05:58:11 PM »

Baby Thork,

Is the Flat Earth Society a conspiracy group (like the Illuminati); that exists for reasons for profit and embezzlement of funds into the pockets of high ranking FES members?

TFES is not for profit. No money is made. The only money taken goes directly to cafe-press if you want a T-shirt or something (people request this a lot) and as a public service we make them available, but at zero mark up. TFES costs the administrators of this site. No one has ever made a penny from it.

- Flat Earther and rapper B.o.B. crowdfunded $1 million via GoFundMe to launch a satellite to see if he could detect for himself the curvature of the Earth. How do we know exactly where this money is going?

B.o.B. isn't a member of the flat earth society. Maybe he's using the money to buy diamond studded underpants ... but that is him as an individual and not TFES.

- For this years Flat Earth conference, full access tickets cost up to $349 (for a VIP ticket) to $299 (for only a 2-day pass). Where is all of this money going? Full access tickets to DisneyLand / DisneyWorld cost less than this.

Again, this is not the flat earth society. Personally I'd avoid these charlatans at all cost unless you have a morbid curiosity and are happy to set fire to your money.   

- "Mad Mike" Hughes is trying to raise capital through promotion of his steam-powered rocket and exploratory efforts to proven FE. How do we know that he isn't just going to pocket all of this money or squander all of this money for himself? Seems kind of fishy to me.

Mad Mike Hughes is 2 cogs short of a celestial gear and is going to boil himself to death, live on CNN. Again, not the flat earth society. Just a lunatic.

- FE Society exists to try and keep people like you and me from thinking they can go to space. If they have us believing that space travel is not possible, than FE believers will keep buying FE stuff and they will keep spending money to go to the FE conferences.

Again the flat earth society isn't making money. When an Indian tech scammer rings you up and says "Hello, I'm from Microsoft and we have detected you have a wirus on your dextop, and to fix it, do one simple thing. Send me your mastercard or Wisa details" do you assume that money goes to Microsoft?

- Some FE say that there exists pictures of the Antarctic Ice Wall. This has to be fakery and done with CGI graphics. They likely faked the picture of the Ice Wall in a studio, with paid actors, or they faked this in a backyard setting in Canada or Alaska.

Everyone is in agreement that there is an Antarctic ice wall. The question is does it wrap around into a continent or does it wrap around the edge of the world.

- Flat Earthers are simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth and think that it is Flat because that's what they assume it to be.

Well I could say the same about Round Earthers.

Any comment on my response to you here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298 ?

I can't help but notice you skipped right over responding to it for some reason.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 05, 2018, 01:20:43 AM »

FES members talk about using principles like the Zetetic method which is an empirical and scientific question and answer approach, but then they subscribe to believing in hoaxes which is the total opposite approach as the Zetetic method intended.

Sure, if we just claimed a hoax and cited nothing to support it, you might have a point. But that is not what we have been doing.

Hey Tom. Can I get your opinion on the issue I raised for the "spotlight" model, where it drastically underestimates the amount of sunlight we actually see south of the equator? I lay out my arguments here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143291#msg143291
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298

I'd genuinely like to get your opinion, I've raised it a few times now and never gotten a satisfactory counter-argument.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 04, 2018, 10:42:00 PM »

Yeah. That's very hard to debate with people like that.

I just watched a video (in french) with a very interesting introduction. I'll try to translate it :

Imagine you are a man coming home 2 hours late. Your wife was waiting for you, and she obviously asks: "Where have you been? You've been with another girl, don't you?".
You have now 3 answers possible :
- You just say that that was the case, you slept with another woman. So she just screams at you and leaves you. So you lost.
- You say that you were in a restaurant with colleagues, so she replies "That's exactly what you would say if you were seeing another woman. I'm leaving you, bye." You lost again.
- The last chance is to present a proof, you give her the restaurant bill, with the right hour, date, and everything. She replies: "This is obviously fake, you asked a friend to give you his bill. I don't want to see you again.". Oh noes, you lost again .

The morale is; whatever you say or show to someone, they can easily prove you that you're wrong, unless you have a solid hard proof of this thing.
- In this case, they were no hard proof. The only thing that you could have done is taking your wife to the restaurant so she can see for herself what you were doing.
- For this flat-earth theory, the ultimate proof would be to take a flat-earther into space and show them the globe earth spinning before their own eyes.

So basically, today, that's impossible to prove that they are wrong. And don't get me wrong, it's also impossible to prove that the earth is a globe without relying on modern physics and sciences. Because, yeah, obviously all those globe earth pictures and videos are fake. The government is paying infographists all around the world just to fake some pictures for some reasons that are yet to be discussed by any flat-earther.

I tried really hard to understand flat-earthers. I've seen a lot of videos explaining why the flat earth theory works, and I've seen most of those explanations debunked with modern sciences. I think I'm gonna stop here and just let them in their own disillusion. Ignoring people is the fastest way to get rid of them on the internet. I'm hoping everything will do that at some point.

At this point, this is exactly like a religion : You can not prove someone that god doesn't exist, and you can not prove that he (or she/it, whatever) exists. I just hope that all these flat-earther stay away as far as possible from the scientific and education world. I don't want my kids to be educated by one of them.

So please, I don't think this message will be seen by everyone but, just leave them alone with their religion. Your just giving them visibility if you try to argue with them.

So enjoy your religion with yourselves, flat-earther, and just let us "sheeps" helping building the actual future of the human race.

I'm with you. The only real reason to post here is if you get some perverse enjoyment out of it, like I do. Plus I think it's healthy and helpful to be asked justify and explain your own worldviews, but that only lasts so long.

However I'm with you with it mostly being futile. That's why I've been trying to set up debates where we start by strictly framing the problem first. If you can set up the problem and get all parties to agree that If A is true then flat Earth, if A is false then globe Earth, then you avoid the trap of all evidence proving a flat Earth, regardless of what it is.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 04, 2018, 09:28:26 PM »

So it seems that the discussion is not at all related to what I was first asked to a flat-earther, and I didn't even got a response x).

Just to recenter the debate:
The original question was, if you think "they" lie to us about the earth shape, why do you believe (if that's the case) the shape of the countries are right?

In other words, why would you believe anything that "they" told us from the first place? At this point, any flat-earther has to be a conspirationist (I don't know if that's the term for it but I hope you understand) from A to Z, like ALL flat-earther has to believe that everything is a conspiracy or else there is absolutely no reason to believe that "they" lie to them about something and not some other things. I mean, the first sentence you read when you go to their website is "It's true, I saw it on the Internet!" (should have been more like "I saw/learned it on <insert any media>!" but anyway...).

I'm not talking about scientific facts, timezones, proofs, or whatever. I just want to know the reasoning of a flat-earther on this particular topic.

Also, I saw a very good question in a comment on YouTube, can a flat-earther answer it? :3

The problem with this approach is anyone who already believes that every government, scientist, and professor is lying to them is just going to shrug it off. Their thought process isn't really I did some experiments and they showed that the Earth is flat, it's that the globe doesn't feel right intuitively at first glance and of course the government is lying about it, they lie about everything. They've already placed themselves in the opposite tribe as the experts, and so telling them what scientists say would be like trying to get a Bernie Sanders-voter to support something because Trump said it or a Tea Party-er to believe in Obama's new movement. Why did the UN put the flat Earth on their flag? It's because they're evil Jews who are laughing at the sheeple, and only me and my twitter feed know otherwise. Why has NASA forgotten to photoshop stars into every single brightly-lit picture of the ISS and moon landings? It's because they're stupid and lazy, and I'm the first person in 50 years to notice the mistake.

Instead, the best way to debate someone with such a different world-view is to stick to hard facts, get them to lay out their position ahead of time, and then use neutral unbiased sources to step-by-step disprove it. Any argument through psychology or statistics just won't stick because they're operating on an entirely different set of assumptions than you and me.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 04, 2018, 05:54:58 PM »

Yes.

Excellent

No. As soon as you do you end up in the same place as priests without faith. Deplatformed, ridiculed, branded an idiot, powerless. Welcome to the flat earth society.

That's because you guys have been doing it all wrong this whole time. Instead of asking where the stars are on pictures of the Apollo missions or whatever, all you need to do is bring up this one thing. Which, let's dive in shall we.

Ideally we'd both book just plane tickets now, but I know that's not going to happen, so let's get some primary sources.

Sydney
Sydney, Australia sits at a latitude of 33.8° S. And is home to the newspaper of record for Australia, The Sydney Morning Herald. Almost two years ago, The Morning Herald wrote this piece merely for the information of the locals, with nothing to do with the shape of the Earth: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sydney-welcomes-winter-solstice-the-shortest-day-of-the-year-20160620-gpnkyj.html

On or around June 21, the sun is at its furthest point from the equator, appearing lower in the sky.

This point of the sun's 'declination' will happen at exactly 8.34am AEST on Tuesday.

According to Geoscience Australia, the sun will rise in Sydney at 7am and set at 4.54pm.

So, unless you think The Morning Herald is mistaken, data point one puts Sydney at 9 hours, 54 minutes of sun on the winter solstice.

Another Australian news site wrote this article for the 2016 summer solstice: http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-12-20/summer-solstice-earliest-sunrise-and-latest-sunset/8097844

This piece announces the sunset on December 21st, 2016 to occur at 9:44 PM, for a day length of 14 hours and 25 minutes. So those are our two data points so far.

Los Angeles
Next let's find a city near 33.8° N. Los Angeles is probably the best option: the city center sits on 34.0° N so any differences will be minutes at most.

For LA it was harder to find articles in the LA Times talking about it, but here's Time magazine: http://time.com/5075624/shortest-day-year-winter-solstice-sunset-time/

Los Angeles’s winter solstice sunset will take place at 4:48 p.m. and will see nine hours and 55 minutes of daylight.

And here's the longest day: https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/los-angeles?month=6

This puts the longest day at 14 hours, 25 minutes and 4 seconds in LA.


In conclusion: across 4 entirely different sources I got the times of 9 hours, 54 minutes and 14 hours, 25 minutes for Sydney at 33.8° S, and the times of 9 hours, 55 minutes and 14 hours, 25 minutes for LA at  34.0° N. That seems pretty symmetric to me, it's not looking good for Rowbotham. Would you like for me to do more? Or are you ready to admit that the spotlight-sun flat Earth model doesn't work?

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 04, 2018, 04:45:10 PM »

Yes, there is a part on that, which is why I told you to read ENaG. You think I want to reiterate the book every time someone bring us an objection that the book covers? I've been at TFES for the better part of a decade. Read the ruddy book if you want the answers, and then come back if you want to critique its points.


http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za49.htm

Genuinely, thanks for the more specific response, it's a lot more than I've gotten the other times I brought up this topic. Upon reading this, this topic affords us a unique possibility: here is a case where heliocentricism and FE predict two entirely different and contradictory things that are also easily testable by the common man.

- Heliocentricism predicts that locations on the same latitude North and South will experience perfectly symmetrical seasons, with the exact same amount of daylight but flipped by 6 months (e.g. if a location on the Xth parallel North experiences 18 hours and 52 minutes of sunlight on June 21st, then one on the Xth parallel South will experience 18 hours and 52 minutes of sunlight on December 21st.)

- ENAG predicts that seasons are not symmetrical between North and South, and that the Southern "hemisphere," so to speak, will be darker than equivalent opposite day in the North (e.g. if a location on the Xth parallel North experiences 18 hours and 52 minutes of sunlight on June 21st, then one on the Xth parallel South will experience significantly less than that on December 21st.)

Do you agree with this premise? If so, this is something any layperson can test and we can use it to blow the whole conspiracy open. I fully admit that if I'm wrong on this one, I'll have to reconsider my viewpoint and take a look at the other options. Do you have that same conviction? If you agree too, then we can start experimenting to find the truth.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 04, 2018, 07:27:30 AM »

You need to read Earth Not A Globe.

What a surprise. No real counter-argument, just a deflection. Is there a part of ENAG that somehow explains how this could ever create a 14-hour daylight like Australians experience every December?


And no changing the shape of the coast of Antarctica doesn't change the path of the sun.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 04, 2018, 12:04:11 AM »

The round disc makes for a nice logo, but increasing evidence shows earth is more of a splat shape.


The map above is "A Constant-Scale Natural Boundary Map of Earth edged by Antarctic Valleys" showing the ocean currents in this example.


This is called 'splat earth theory'.

This still can't explain >12 hour days during the summer in the southern hemisphere. Come on, try to think a little critically.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scientific proof??

« on: March 03, 2018, 07:45:09 PM »

Flat Earth ... More Curve than you can Handle

There's something wonderful about a flat Earth video that starts off with showing satellite footage of an area to show what it should look like. Especially one that then repeatedly shows evidence the Earth is round over and over afterwards. My favorite bit here is the one where the video creator convinces himself that Washington state is the size of Europe because he the rest of the US and Canada is hidden below the horizon, or when he convinces himself stars and satellites don't exist because he can't see them during the daytime.

Also pretty convenient he used a fisheye lens to explain away any curve, eh?

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 03, 2018, 06:41:30 PM »

And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen.

If there is so much of it, why not link it for us then, that proves this case in the OP?

I was clearly referring to the hole-through-the-Earth thought experiment. I don't have anything to say about OP's thought-experiment, since unlike on gravity you guys have a fleshed out alternate hypothesis so straight logical positivism doesn't work because you'll just use your current framework to explain it. The FE theory of perspective and optics still obviously has huge holes, like being completely unable to explain seasons in the southern hemisphere whatsoever, but the fact that it exists and can provide an alternate explanation for at least some phenomena makes it different from the Law of Universal Gravitation which has no offered alternative whatsoever that explains anything besides the single case of 1g acceleration at Earth's surface.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 03, 2018, 06:00:51 PM »

And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen. Every single experiment performed since the Principia was published in 1687 has supported that the Law of Universal Gravitation is accurate on these scales. At some point when you have thousands of pieces of supporting evidence on one side and zero pieces of dissenting evidence and no evidence-based alternate hypotheses, you gotta accept it's real.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Orbiting International Space Station visible from Telescope

« on: March 03, 2018, 05:51:05 PM »

"460 miles leads to 26.7 miles of curve away from the center."

I am confused at that number.

460 miles @ 8 inch drop per mile works out to be 306.66 feet drop over 460 miles.

A flat 8" drop per mile would mean the horizon is a triangle. The high point at the center of your vision and a slight constant negative drop away. Instead you need to pull out a pen and do some simple geometry:



Here the circumference of the Earth is 24,875 mi. Thus:

a = (360° / 24,875) * d
h = 3,959 * (1 - cos a)

Then to find h, just plug and chug.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 03, 2018, 10:03:30 AM »

We already proved that this particular map doesn't work pretty conclusively in this thread here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8995.0

I guess that means most flat Earth believers will need to rely on "we don't know what the map looks like, we just know it's flat," which is convenient. Honestly if it were me on their side that would have been my line the entire time since it's so vague it's hard to argue against.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 03, 2018, 12:36:10 AM »

(Responding to  "Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further.  Even if you DID reach the other side ...)

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

You're the one who introduced the case scenario. I point out that you wouldn't fall out of the other side (due to gravity), but you ask me to explain falling out of the other side. Why?

Why not? You guys post "How do you explain this thought experiment I came up with?" all the time. Every day. See: This thread. Why not explain my thought experiment?

Tom, did you miss my several paragraphs explaining this though experiment? I linked to the math and everything.