41

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

« on: March 02, 2018, 11:17:38 PM »

There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?

Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.

What is there to be explained?

First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? 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, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.

Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.

No?

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.

Tom, unlike your world view that trusts only things you have personally seen, mainstream science constantly repeats hundreds or thousands of rigorous experiments to fully and completely describe phenomena. The Zetetic approach may see an apple fall from the tree and leave it at that, maybe at best measuring that it seems to happen at 9.8 m/s^2 at least some of the time. But the scientific method just takes that as a starting point to create new experiments to delve deep into gravity and really figure out how it works. Then, slowly, through these thousands of experiments, starting with Galileo dropping objects off the tower of Pisa to the Cavendish experiment to modern day advances in gravitational waves, the scientific community develops incredibly sophisticated and robust mathematical models that can explain all observations and, most importantly, predict new ones before they happen.

The prediction bit is important because it's something ad hoc reactionary models like FE can't do. The current FE model is made up of a million different rules all meant to explain one or two phenomena. Lunar eclipses happen? Well there must be some invisible shadow object. You're 0.3% lighter at the equator than at the poles (the exact amount predicted by centripetal force of the Earth's rotation)? Well, there must be some "celestial gravitation." Flights from place to place in the southern hemisphere aren't drastically longer than their northern counterparts? The airlines must be lying. Australia gets significantly more sun in the summer than the spotlight model predicts? We'll get back to you on that one.

All of these were tacked on to the model to deal with problems. Mainstream science always does the opposite. A scientist will come up with a hypothesis, describe how it could be tested or observed, and then look for it. Einstein predicted gravitational waves in 1916, and the technology didn't exist to find them until 100 years later, when they were discovered in 2016. The Higgs Boson was hypothesized in the '60s before being found by the LHC in 2013.

All this is to say your point about the Earth seems to suggest scientists either can't know what would happen or are mistaken about what would happen is completely incorrect. Science has absurdly refined mathematical equations to describe gravity that are so good they accurately predicted the existence of black holes and gravitational waves long before the evidence existed. With these it's easy to plug in what would happen to a ball dropped through the center of the Earth. If you'd like to see that worked out, here it is: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Mechanics/earthole.html

In short, assuming the absence of atmosphere or Coriolis effects the ball would accelerate (though not at a constant 9.8 m/s^2) until it hit the center point, at which time it would begin decelerating all the way up until it barely reached the other side. Then it would fall back down and complete this again and again forever. If you add atmosphere and the Coriolis effect then the ball would have friction from the air and side of the shaft and slowly slow down over time until it came to rest at the very center of the Earth.

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hey Flat Earthers, Just wondering...

« on: March 02, 2018, 06:55:58 AM »

Your close family lied to you and you are perpetuating that lie here on a forum.

There are no commercial flights that take place within the Antarctic Circle.

There are no commercial flights that fly within a few thousand miles of the Ice Wall.

Dude.
You can literally go there. To the actual South Pole. It's very expensive, because it's niche, to say the least, but there are companies who will take you there.

https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole

Shouting "fake" and "lies" at everything which doesn't match your world view is not being a skeptic, it's just denial.

Listen, this is certainly not a case of shouting "fake and lies."

The OP made a statement (people on flights from Australia to South America can see Antarctica) that was patently untrue.

How is that untrue? Here's a video of flying from Australia to South America on a commercial jet and seeing Antarctica:

Lots of snow and ice does not equal Antarctica.

It is a fact no commercial flights take place within any portion of Antarctic airspace.

Could you point to another place that looks like that between Australia and South America? (It'll make my day if you say Greenland)

Also any source on that hot claim about commercial flights? It's not common for pure transport since great circle routes rarely cross it and there are additional safety requirements for flights that do, but it's certainly happened before. If I booked one of these flights would they surreptitiously stick us in a wind tunnel with HD TVs over the windows? http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronauts return from ISS

« on: March 02, 2018, 02:49:15 AM »

actually we post video after video where astro nuts drown in the swimming pool they live in and cgi screens galore busted time after time.

I can't remember, did I see stars? or pass thru the Van Belt? I got a nice pension. $21 trillion that we know of, is wasted on millions of hoaxsters. do the math.

I've never understood how publicly-released pictures of astronauts training in pools for microgravity spacewalks is proof that they never went to space. No one is claiming that they were never on Earth or that they went up without any training. It's like posting a picture of Neil Armstrong's diploma from Purdue and saying "Oh, so now Purdue has a satellite campus (heh) on the MOON?"

Also the stars thing is my favorite. It genuinely gives the impression that you've never been outside during the day since without fail people are whining about a brightly daylit picture of the Earth. If you could see stars it would be better evidence that it's all fake because that would mean the creator doesn't know how basic optics works, the way you apparently don't.

44

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

« on: March 01, 2018, 12:38:16 AM »

I think you are right and the arc will not be detected at that high.

Lets go to the last picture from NASA. I measured roughly maybe you can measure more accurate with pixels.

Measure the atmosphere then you get the 60 mile perspective.
With that perspective the minimum horizon length shows to be 1320 miles.
I simply divide the atmosphere longest distance as 60 miles into the horizon length to get 1320 miles.
Not 100% but close.

Then measure the arc distance the earth has on the photo by placing a flat edge from horizon to horizon.
The distance you get of the arc is roughly 4 times the distance of the atmosphere.
60 miles divided by 4 gives you 15 miles.
So the arc in a distance of 1320 mile long horizon is 15 miles as the map shows.
But at 8 in per mile at 1320 miles give you an arc of 880ft. That is .1666 of a mile.
That's to big a difference.

This NASA picture has made the arc to big.

Last one I'll do because it's time consuming and I can't imagine it's convincing anyone:


This one isn't high enough resolution for fine pixel counting, but that 2.9% looks about right from what we can see.

Anyway, moving away from that, why do you think the flat Earth movement hasn't been able to provide a single universally agreed upon flat Earth map? All round Earthers have agreed on one single globe for hundreds and hundreds of years. Yet even the most popular FE model has huge discrepancies (see my post here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8995.0)

45

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

« on: March 01, 2018, 12:01:09 AM »

Does that picture have an elevation and a location that it was shot at?
I am not computer smart enough to access it if it had. maybe you are. I am old.

If we can find those then maybe we can figure out how long that horizon is.
At 8 in drop per mile then 10 miles of horizon should have a 6.66ft drop. (number of the beast)

I would think that the horizon in the photo is at least 100 miles long.
If it is then that is a 66.6ft difference.

We can estimate it pretty easily. The horizon is 950 pixels long, with 6 pixels of drop on either side. That picture appears to be from low Earth orbit, which means the distance to the horizon is about 1,400 miles.

Breaking out the simple geometry, you can find the radius of an arc based on height and width via:

r = H / 2 + W^2 / 8H

Plugging in my pixel-counting values:

r = 6p / 2 + (950p)^2 / 8(6p) = 18,805 p

This lets us turn pixels into distance since we have the radius in both values:

1,400 mi / 18,805 p = length / 950 p

Length = 70 miles

We should then see about 815 ft of curvature on either side of the picture away from the center given that both are 35 miles away from the middle. 815ft / (70mi*5280ft/mi) = 0.2% of the total distance.

That's why it's barely visible.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the "spotlight" sun FE model explain long summer days in Australia?

« on: February 28, 2018, 09:35:31 PM »

Sorry to double post but do any FE believers have anything else to add to this discussion? From our side this seems to be pretty hard evidence against the most popular FE model that can be seen easily by laymen. It'd be great to hear the other side of the argument. As it stands it looks like at least a new FE model is needed that accurately represents the length of days around (or across) the world.

47

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

« on: February 28, 2018, 09:23:12 PM »

I captured the back ground photo of the satellites tracking site.
Put a flat edge on the horizon. Dead flat.
At a claimed 8 inch per mile on the curved earth surface there should be a curve visible to the eye.

I grabbed a higher quality picture from the website and got out photoshop to do some pixel counting to prove it to you. This is only a tiny percentage of the horizon so it's hard to see, but the curve is still there.

Also notice, if this were the whole Earth it would be incredibly small. Either that or that's the world's largest and tallest cloud.

48

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

« on: February 28, 2018, 09:08:56 PM »

That explains the wave on a ball earth.
Interesting how a ball and flat earth can still maintain an objections obit.

The math was done on a global ruler so why should it not be accurate? They state it accounts for the curvature of the earth.

Why does google earth portray Greenland 1500% bigger then in real life?
If I hired a map maker and they gave 1500% inaccuracy they would be fired a long time ago.

Why is it when I go to WIKI and punch in Greenland that they have a global earth giving the accurate size of Greenland to the rest of the world yet the satellite tracking systems don't?

WIKI having more accurate information them the space program is a giant joke all in itself.

I have a slow old grandpa of a computer with windows xp and it only has days to go before being replaced.
When I clicked on the site link you posted above I got the back ground picture under the worded script first for a few seconds before it loaded the wording on top of the picture of the earth as the underlay.
Believe it or not the picture was of a flat earth.

As I explained above, it's impossible to create a flat map that's completely accurate in every way, because the Earth isn't flat. Cartographers instead have to chose one or two things to do accurately and accept that the rest will be skewed.

Do you want area to be accurate like you've been mentioning? You can use a Mollweide projection:

In this areas are right but the shape of landforms at high latitudes is pretty skewed.

Do you want easy determination of latitude and longitude? You can use an equirectangular projection which maps longitude to the x-axis and latitude to the y-axis:

But this also skews the shapes pretty drastically.

Google and many others use a Mercator projection which conserves straight lines. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection

You're trying to use the inability of a 2D map to accurately show the whole Earth as a knock against the globe Earth theory, but honestly it's huge evidence for it. Ever wonder why there's no universally agreed upon flat Earth map? It's because one is physically impossible.

Last thing: I know you purposefully chose an image with as little horizon showing as possible to try to prove your point, but even still you can see a faint curve if you put up a straight edge. The edges here are slightly further away from the red line than the middle.

49

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

« on: February 28, 2018, 08:01:11 PM »

I just watched the ISS do a orbit around earth on http://www.n2yo.com/

I printed out a FE map and then marked the ISS orbit on a FE.

If you look at the orbit of the ISS on an ball earth you will see it does waves. Why and how it does it I don't know.
If you look at the obit of the ISS on the flat earth then you will see it does a oval/circle type orbit.

What I also want to point out is that both the satellite tracking google earth maps are not accurate and the FE map is not accurate.
I make these conclusions based on square km's of land mass.

Australia – 7.69 million km2
Africa - 30.37 million km2
South America - 17.84 million km2
North America - 24.71 million km2
Greenland - 2.166 million km2

Africa and South America are relatively close, google search states 2,575 km apart from closest points.
If I use google earth ruler I get 2859.5 km.
9.94% difference

Both maps show sizing errors based on the land sq. km.
The ball earth shows more drastic errors then the FE maps.



My guess here is the FE map orbiting cycle of the ISS would be more of a perfect circle if the FE maps are corrected to size and scale.

Here you go friend: http://www.satflare.com/track.asp?q=25544#TOP

Here's the ISS's orbit projected over a globe: it's a perfect ellipse. The sin wave on a map is the result of this phenomenon:


And as mentioned above, trying to take measure accurate distances on a flattened out version of the surface of a sphereoid is obviously going to have some distortion. Try your math again on a globe (or a 3D model of one) and it'll all add up.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronauts return from ISS

« on: February 28, 2018, 07:49:05 AM »

Interesting news this morning: http://www.newsweek.com/watch-live-nasa-astronauts-soyuz-roscosmos-iss-land-822523

So, what is TFES thoughts on this?

Our FE friends haven't been posting much recently so I'll step in and field this one for them:

They're actors. Not because there's any evidence of them being actors (sidebar: it must be expensive to find an actor with a masters degrees in applied science on the books at Stanford University) but because any evidence that disagrees with my personal worldview can't be real and has to be the result of a massive conspiracy.

P.S. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronauts_by_name Here's a list of all 560 accomplished, multi-national scientists who """claim""" to have been to space, the vast majority of which are still living and so NASA is currently paying off. Incredible how not one of these people took the infinite fame and money available to them if they were the one to blow it all open.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the "spotlight" sun FE model explain long summer days in Australia?

« on: February 27, 2018, 07:43:56 PM »

It should not be surprising that humanity would settle in places offering "equality," in terms of seasonal exposure to harsh elements or even choose predominantly favorable conditions. So most every place on the Earth maintaining year long habitation over the history of humanity should experience roughly the same environmental conditions.

Further South of these points however is a different story...

"The Royal Belgian Geographical Society in their “Expedition Antarctique Belge,” recorded that during the most severe part of the Antarctic winter, from 71 degrees South latitude onwards, the sun sets on May 17th and is not seen above the horizon again until July 21st!" - 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

This is actually proof the Earth is round. Regardless of what "200 Proofs" says, the arctic also experiences this for the exact same amount of time. A polar night at a location around 71 degrees North (North Cape, Norway) lasts from November 20th to January 22, 9 weeks just like your example. For another eyewitness example, see Ratboy's post. This evidence speaks to the perfect symmetry between North and South

"At places of comparable latitude North and South, the Sun behaves very differently than it would on a spinning ball Earth but precisely how it should on a flat Earth. For example, the longest summer days North of the equator are much longer than those South of the equator, and the shortest winter days North of the equator are much shorter than the shortest South of the equator. This is inexplicable on a uniformly spinning, wobbling ball Earth but fits exactly on the flat model with the Sun traveling circles over and around the Earth from Tropic to Tropic." - 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball

This doesn't mean anything and doesn't provide any evidence. It's also just demonstrably false. The longest summer day North of the equator would be the polar day at the North Pole, which lasts from the Vernal Equinox to the Autumnal Equinox, which matches up *exactly* with polar night at 90 degrees South, and vice versa. There's never been a single case in human history where we've found the length of day and nights across seasons of two locations on opposite latitudes didn't match up.

Right now for instance, I am at 41 degrees north of the Equator and will experience just over 11 hours of sunlight.

Birmingham, Alabama, also at 33 degrees (North, however), will also experience nearly 12 hours of daylight.

Seems the latitudes in the northern regions do experience quite a bit more of sunlight.

Good news, friend. Tasmania lies on the 41st parallel South. Let's look at the day and night length of Launceston. https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/australia/launceston

Sunrise: 6:50 AM
Sunset: 7:56 PM

That's 13 hours of day length, so that checks out. Timeanddate also lets you see historical data so we can check out August 30th, 182 days from now (22 days before the Autumnal Equinox).

Sunrise: 6:40 AM
Sunset: 5:44 PM
Total day length: 11:04

Well there it is.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The domed theory is heresy and here is why.

« on: February 26, 2018, 07:42:15 PM »

They didn't need telescopes as either the information came with those who fell or they were engaged in caertain practices that gave them abilities.

It's pretty funny that the aliens came down and then trolled them by telling them the wrong number of planets then. Also, weird choice to teach this primitive culture bad astronomy over almost anything else that would have been infinitely more useful: calculus, physics, chemistry, economics, material science, medicine, civil engineering, et cetera, et cetera.

Anyway this is a board for debating the flat Earth hypothesis in a grounded, evidence driven way. If you want to discuss all your favorite secret societies and ancient aliens, I'm sure there are tons of other forums elsewhere that would welcome that.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The domed theory is heresy and here is why.

« on: February 26, 2018, 11:28:19 AM »

And I have no idea what you're trying to say about Solomon.

Was the scripture itself not clear enough for you?

1 Kings 10:14 King James Version (KJV)

14 Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold,


Revelation 13:18 King James Version (KJV)

18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.


I like the way you claim you're not an F.E. but argue just like them calling anything fiction or nonsence.

I'm sorry, I guess I was looking for a cogent connection to anything else we've been talking about in this thread. I see now that was a mistake.

Ok the why do the sumerians also have Utnapishtim in place of Noah and the Adamu in place of Adam?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim

And Romulus was of a holy virgin birth like Jesus, what's your point? The Sumerians still didn't have ancient telescopes with which to see Uranus and Neptune.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The domed theory is heresy and here is why.

« on: February 26, 2018, 10:58:35 AM »

Also lol at that Sumerian carving, that's obviously just the sun and some stars. There are only 5 planets visible to the naked eye so even with the benefit of the doubt including the Earth and Moon, that's too many orbs to represent the planets.

It has nothing to do with what is visible to the naked eye in regards to the knowledge of the ancient world as the dogon (an african tribe) knew about Sirius B
http://www.unmuseum.org/siriusb.htm

BTW
What was solomon up to he seems to have been a very bad man as well as from the bloodline line that I posted earlier?
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/b0110cks/1%20Kings%2010King%20James%20Version_zpsqxu37swh.jpg

The Dogon thing is an obvious myth, asking members of the tribe today will get you a whole range of answers on what the "star" refers to. The Sirius B nonsense is a complete fabrication.

And I have no idea what you're trying to say about Solomon. Quick tip, in the future use imgur over photobucket, it's easier, more reliable, and doesn't take 5 minutes to load.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The domed theory is heresy and here is why.

« on: February 26, 2018, 10:17:28 AM »

By some of the counter points given.  I am just supposed to take the word of someone that because their priest that they cant prove even exist said somehing I am supposed to take it as viable.  The next thing is just because something is not written of directly in scripture does not meake it heretical because of all the FACTUAL historical records that support scripture and by your method of thinking they should all be thrown out also.  By that line of thinking you could also be condemed as a witch for using technology (Your computer) that would be imediately deemed as demonic magic. 

Now that meteorite that fell at the foot of Adam is recorded by another abrahamic faith and you can actually go and see it.  I wonder if you knew that?
Here is the scriptural clue.
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/b0110cks/Genesis%2016King%20James%20Version_zpslovwuqgw.jpg

No I don't think that there is one universally accepted doctrine at all and I am aware that the Bible was writen with the understanding of the time.

But it wasn't the greeks that were the first to figure out the Earth was round or the place that it occupied in the solar system.  It was the ancient sumerians
https://ancient-code.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/VA243.jpg

I'm a Presbyterian (hence the example above) so yeah, I do think all the apocrypha should be thrown out theologically. They are fascinating historical documents, but that's it. And yes, I'm very aware the Black Stone in Mecca is the same alleged meteor. I'd even entertain that a worldview that didn't allow meteors would be heretical to Islam on that basis. However until you find the verse in Genesis that mentions it, it's not a part of almost all Protestant canon.

Also lol at that Sumerian carving, that's obviously just the sun and some stars. There are only 5 planets visible to the naked eye so even with the benefit of the doubt including the Earth and Moon, that's too many orbs to represent the planets.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The domed theory is heresy and here is why.

« on: February 26, 2018, 07:28:26 AM »

I'm not sure what you're even talking about and I've been to catholic school my whole life. I'm not going as far to say that you were bluntly wrong, but what does any of this have to do with Flat Earthers? Like, don't get me wrong, I actually learned some stuff from your post. Stuff that I didn't know about Christ. But what does any of this have to do with the earth being flat or round or doomed, or anything. I mean, the question was: "Is the Earth round(yes)?" And you answered: doomed. Look I'm sure that your opinions are important to you, and I get that, but you turning this into a religious thing, when it's really more of a scientific thing. But at the end of the at least your not a Flat Earther.

These aren't posts in your thread, friendo. This is a whole new topic. And it's relevant because many (but not all) flat Earth believers came to those beliefs through a literal reading of the Old Testament (which was written by and initially for Israelites who lived long before the Greeks discovered the Earth was round in the 6th century BC). If the Bible made mention of a meteorite it would be noteworthy, but it doesn't.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The domed theory is heresy and here is why.

« on: February 26, 2018, 04:08:36 AM »

OP, you seem to be under the impression that there is one universally agreed upon orthodox doctrine and everything else is heresy. While this may have been an okay assumption 1,500 years ago, the Great Schism and Protestant Reformation put an end to that long ago. For example, in Presbyterianism anything that's not explicitly spelled out in the Bible can't be considered orthodox. Therefore: no meteorite at the foot of Adam and certainly no side adventures of the spear in the Gallic wars.

Also I'm surprised the Commentarii de Bello Gallico make no mention of Caesar's holy spear handed down through a line of ancient Eastern kings given that it was all war propaganda written by Caesar himself. This was the same period where the guy's contemporary and fellow triumvir, Pompeius Magnus often paraded around publicly in the cloak of Alexander the Great so bragging about owning such a thing would be a very Roman behavior.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the "spotlight" sun FE model explain long summer days in Australia?

« on: February 26, 2018, 01:47:29 AM »

Not to mention that Antartica has long periods where ALL of it has 24 hour sunlight...

As some FE'ers point out, how do we know Antarctica is not a hoax, other than the movie "March of the Penguins" since Morgan Freeman might be in on the conspiracy.  We do know that people living in Southern Chile have 17 hours of daylight in the summer.  So I think other than to get into conspiracy stuff, the flat earth sun model would have to give Chile the 17 hours of daylight, 16 hours to Christchurch, and only 14.5 hours in Cape Town. It would still be tough model to replicate.

The FE theory pretty well guarantees that there will be some kind of asymmetry between North and South. The Southern hemisphere should have four times the area of the North. The weather and sunlight patterns should be entirely different. It should take twice as long to circumnavigate the Tropic of Capricorn compared to the Tropic of Cancer.

As it is, the experience of billions of people shows us that the seasons in the Southern hemisphere are the same as in the North, merely happening at opposite times of the year. The Sun in the FE model somehow covers four times the area in the same time, giving the same light. And we now live in a connected society where the head of flat Earth Australia can communicate with the head of flat Earth USA and tell him that yes, it's nighttime for him, and summer when it's daytime and winter at the antipodes.

I've noticed that bringing up this stuff, along with twice-daily tides, always shuts down the conversation with flat Earth supporters completely beyond personal attacks or a feeble "well we don't really know what the map looks like," which is pretty interesting. Like look at Pete's defensive response to this topic in the second post.

Honestly, I'm surprised no enterprising FE believer has invented anything like the "shadow object" in lunar eclipses to explain this huge discrepancy. I guess it's because Rowbotham never visited the southern hemipshere.

The general debate style of a Flat Earther typically starts off with a clever and short question from a question (i.e. Pete's typical "I know you are but what am I?" type style), then progresses to an attempt at using some type of (generally faulty and not well thought out) science / physics / and experiment, and then a duck and run when pushed further to clarify or explain at a richer and deeper level.

Folks like Pete and Tom Bishop likely know that there are major issues with the FE model; but confirmation bias and getting caught up in the Zetetic way of life tends to override common sense and facts. FE also see the world much different than a RE; i.e. one that is rife with conspiracy, hoaxes, technological advances that cannot possibly be true, and the need to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe.

I'd ask any flat Earth supporter who's reading this topic to keep an open mind and really dig into why your model can't explain such a common and widely reported phenomenon. Remember the most important part of science is to draw conclusions from the evidence, not the other way around. It's easy to ignore evidence that doesn't agree with you, but truth comes from instead rejecting hypotheses that don't agree with the evidence. This evidence doesn't necessarily prove mainstream science right but it appears to prove the FE hypothesis wrong.

Don't continue to fall prey to every conspiracy theorist Twitter account's favorite Mark Twain quote: "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."

Of course if I'm the one who's wrong and in real life the southern hemisphere's seasons don't actually behave this way and instead act like the FE model predicts, I'd love to see it for the reasons posted above. I just haven't been swayed so far.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the "spotlight" sun FE model explain long summer days in Australia?

« on: February 25, 2018, 11:45:07 PM »

Not to mention that Antartica has long periods where ALL of it has 24 hour sunlight...

As some FE'ers point out, how do we know Antarctica is not a hoax, other than the movie "March of the Penguins" since Morgan Freeman might be in on the conspiracy.  We do know that people living in Southern Chile have 17 hours of daylight in the summer.  So I think other than to get into conspiracy stuff, the flat earth sun model would have to give Chile the 17 hours of daylight, 16 hours to Christchurch, and only 14.5 hours in Cape Town. It would still be tough model to replicate.

The FE theory pretty well guarantees that there will be some kind of asymmetry between North and South. The Southern hemisphere should have four times the area of the North. The weather and sunlight patterns should be entirely different. It should take twice as long to circumnavigate the Tropic of Capricorn compared to the Tropic of Cancer.

As it is, the experience of billions of people shows us that the seasons in the Southern hemisphere are the same as in the North, merely happening at opposite times of the year. The Sun in the FE model somehow covers four times the area in the same time, giving the same light. And we now live in a connected society where the head of flat Earth Australia can communicate with the head of flat Earth USA and tell him that yes, it's nighttime for him, and summer when it's daytime and winter at the antipodes.

I've noticed that bringing up this stuff, along with twice-daily tides, always shuts down the conversation with flat Earth supporters completely beyond personal attacks or a feeble "well we don't really know what the map looks like," which is pretty interesting. Like look at Pete's defensive response to this topic in the second post.

Honestly, I'm surprised no enterprising FE believer has invented anything like the "shadow object" in lunar eclipses to explain this huge discrepancy. I guess it's because Rowbotham never visited the southern hemipshere.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the "spotlight" sun FE model explain long summer days in Australia?

« on: February 24, 2018, 06:53:32 PM »

I'm curious as to why the sunlight is in an oblong shape whIle the sun is round. This has confused me for a while now. The region lit by the sun should be circular not an oval. It moves as if there is a big bulge in the middle where the north pole is, like it's a half sphere.

I think it's an attempt to make the model look more reasonable so the southern hemisphere doesn't appear to get less than 5 hours of sun per day. I don't think the creator thought any more about it since there's no real explanation.