1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther

« on: February 14, 2018, 12:32:12 AM »

For the most part RET proponents rely on theories and axioms that are incredibly rationalized, and are unjustifiable at their foundations. You are fighting with swords made of jello, and this is what prevents you from making conclusive arguments.

Just for clarification, Tom;
Classic physics = Sword made of jello?

Yes. It goes further than physics, however. Astronomy, Geometry, Physics, many more fields; the foundation of which is all built on a house of cards at a fundamental level.

And yet you are comfortable wielding these same swords to explain FE phenomenon? Geometry to describe the path and position of celestial bodies, physics to explain the Atmolayer Lip, etc?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther

« on: February 14, 2018, 12:14:18 AM »

For the most part RET proponents rely on theories and axioms that are incredibly rationalized, and are unjustifiable at their foundations. You are fighting with swords made of jello, and this is what prevents you from making conclusive arguments.

Just for clarification, Tom;
Classic physics = Sword made of jello?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another Gem from the Wiki

« on: February 13, 2018, 10:41:15 PM »

Lesson #3
While standing on the tundra, you draw back on a syringe. You have just created a vacuum in the barrel of the syringe. Does the super-cold air fill the barrel, or is the vacuum maintained?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another Gem from the Wiki

« on: February 13, 2018, 10:37:07 PM »

Lesson # 2
Tom, re inflate your balloon (imagining it to be constructed of a material that will withstand the cold) out in the tundra with your super cooled air. Will that air try to escape if you don't tie off the balloon? 

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another Gem from the Wiki

« on: February 13, 2018, 10:30:37 PM »

OK, let's take this back to basics.

Tom, what causes atmospheric pressure? Why do we see areas of high and low atmospheric pressure side by side?

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another Gem from the Wiki

« on: February 13, 2018, 07:41:49 PM »

If warm air rushed into the icy tundras of the earth to fill the void it would also get cold and stop moving. It would just result in an accumulation of cold, heavy, non-exited, air, which is in fact what exists in places like Antarctica. The air is heavier there. At some point the columns of air would be so dense with the slow atoms that the excited atoms could not rush in to fill it to equalize the surrounding area.

With lower temperatures outwards into the tundra we would see slower movement of those atoms, and if the atoms are moving very slow in very low temperatures, it is not a given that they would rapidly explode off of an edge leading into the vacuum of space.

In order to quickly move or "rapidly explode" from such a state of extremely low temperature that inhibits its movement, those atoms would need to be moving into a higher temperature environment; and lacking any heat sources near the hypothetical edge of the earth, there is no necessitating conclusion that there is any mechanism for those atoms to move anywhere.

Tom, I believe you are incorrectly equating density and temperature. To be drawn into the vacuum of space, your very cold atoms would only have to exist at a higher pressure, not necessarily a lower temperature, than the surrounding vacuum. Your hypothesis above suggests that there are external forces being exerted against these super-cold atoms, suggesting that they are indeed  under pressure.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another Gem from the Wiki

« on: February 13, 2018, 02:49:55 PM »

Just for clarification, when you say infinite do you mean that literally, or just in the sense that we presently have no way of determining the actual boundaries?

I do not mean it literally, but it would be impractical to elaborate without stretching too far away from the thread subject. I'm already pushing the boundaries here, and I'd rather step back than press on.

Thanks Pete. Looks like this is going to end up being a wash, as we're heading to a discussion involving thermal mass, heat loss, radiation, and a whole other pile of physics that I don't think anyone is going to be able to present in a clear, concise manner that the entire audience can comprehend. Not to mention areas of high and low atmospheric pressure existing in conditions unrelated to atmospheric heating, etc, etc etc.   

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon Orbit

« on: February 13, 2018, 01:12:30 PM »

Additionally, there needs to be an accounting of the force required to change the velocity of the sun as its orbit changes in the single pole model, no? Since it's traversing a larger circle during a daily orbit during winter, the speed of the sun must gradually accelerate between summer and winter equinox, then decelerate as the circle becomes smaller once again.

You're unlikely to get a cogent reply to the original question, much less to this one, which is much more difficult to explain away.

This is yet another example of why the flerfers should stay away from using Occam's Razor to support their stance. Theirs is a much too complex and unwieldy theory, having to constantly introduce new and always "unknown" sources of energy to jury rig an explanation for the next flaw in their theory which should crop up. It is entertaining, though.

Quite honestly I had come to TFES in the hopes of finding some intelligent conversation, robust theory, and good science in support of their position. I've been fairly disappointed so far having found only a strange, single-minded fixation on an atmospheric parlor trick (The Bishop Experiment) as modern experimental "proof", some maps that are so far removed from what is experienced in the real world that I find it hard to believe they even have them posted (while admitting they are "flawed"), a woefully sparse FAQ and wiki that primarily refer to dated and inaccurate texts, and a flat refusal to accept any photographic evidence presented that runs contrary to their beliefs. They'd be much better off developing a sense of humor and at least having a little fun with their visitors. Then perhaps those guests would be compelled to buy some merchandise in the shop, and TFES would at last have some funds to conduct proper research.   

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Another Gem from the Wiki

« on: February 13, 2018, 12:44:39 PM »

This is far from accurate, but for brevity I'll say that I believe in a de facto infinite plane. In my view, the atmolayer is just that - a layer that stretches throughout. The Earth's acceleration and the dispersal of the atmolayer are more-or-less in equilibrium.

Just for clarification, when you say infinite do you mean that literally, or just in the sense that we presently have no way of determining the actual boundaries?  Not nitpicking, as this has great bearing on the original question of atmosphere equalizing between high and low pressures.

Thank you

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon Orbit

« on: February 13, 2018, 08:14:35 AM »

Additionally, there needs to be an accounting of the force required to change the velocity of the sun as its orbit changes in the single pole model, no? Since it's traversing a larger circle during a daily orbit during winter, the speed of the sun must gradually accelerate between summer and winter equinox, then decelerate as the circle becomes smaller once again.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Law of Perspective - Distance to Horizon

« on: February 13, 2018, 01:23:50 AM »

Perspective places the horizon at eye level. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Umm sorry Tom, this is some serious unscientific nonsense (especially when you're not at sea level), and even at sea level, it doesn't help you prove anything. You can keep posting links to your silly wiki all you want, it's not gonna convince anyone. In the meantime, check out my other thread which clearly demonstrates the exact opposite of what you're trying to say, maybe you'll learn something: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8832.0

Now, now, let's not be so hasty. The idea of the horizon being at eye level isn't in itself unscientific nonsense, it's just not relative to the current conversation. Mr Bishop has been given opportunity to clarify his statements and provide examples of how his theory applies in this particular instance. It's only fair to Mr Bishop and to those participating in this thread to allow him the opportunity to reply before insisting that he pursue another topic/thread.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Law of Perspective - Distance to Horizon

« on: February 13, 2018, 12:51:05 AM »

Mr Bishop,
You are quite clearly the authority on the subject here. Would you please tell us, based on the ideas set forth in Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe, just how tall the waves (or the "dime") would have to be in order to produce the effect seen in the video? Of course, we will have to make some assumptions, primarily as to the location of the waves relative to the viewer and the building. Since the waters in the foreground of all of the video shots are quite calm, we'll have to assume that the waves are more distant, closer to the building that the observer, agreed? Since this is video we can also gather some clues regarding the sea state by referring to the Beaufort Scale http://ggweather.com/101/beaufort.htm and by observing general weather/atmospheric conditions. I very much look forward to receiving your reply and gaining valuable insight as to how physics behave in the FE model.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Bishop Experiment

« on: February 12, 2018, 10:47:54 PM »

I did a thread about this, not just about this but I touched on the Bishop Experiment in a slightly different way to your angle.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8448.0

There was no FE response.

That's unfortunate. Perhaps Mr. Bishop's schedule prevents him from taking the time required to respond to serious queries?

I gather from other posts that I have read that Mr Bishop has been unable to photodocument his experiment. I'm wondering others have been able to replicate it? Of greater interest would be if Mr Bishop has made any attempt to replicate Wallace's work on the original experiment, ie raising the height of the observing instrument significantly and seeing if the effect was still observed. It would seem a simple way to negate any question of diffraction being the cause. In a FE model, the height of the observer should make no difference in distance to the visible horizon on the small scale of tens of feet in altitude, correct?

14

Flat Earth Theory / The Bishop Experiment

« on: February 12, 2018, 07:45:26 PM »

I'm puzzled as to why there is any significance attached to the Bishop Experiment. My confusion arises from the fact that the Bishop Experiment is essentially a repeat of the Bedford Level Experiment of 1838, yet there is no new methodology or evidence put forward to address the flaws in the original highlighted by the subsequent work of Alfred Russel Wallace. Indeed, everything points to a perfect replication of atmospheric distortion that was well known to surveyors in 1838 and is even better understood by science today. If anything, these experiments help to prove the RE model, for if you raise the height of eye above the level of the atmospheric lens as Wallace did (a matter of elevating the observation instrument 12' 4"), or conduct the experiment outside of the narrow physical conditions required, then everything behaves exactly as the RE model predicts.

Am I missing something?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the Sun during night time? Need horizon clarification

« on: February 12, 2018, 05:11:42 PM »

Let us also not forget that the sun is a mere 2000 miles above the surface of the plane when directly overhead, a distance representing less than 1/10th the diameter of the known FE world. This means that not only would the shape of the spotlight's beam have to change asymmetrically seasonally to satisfy what is observed in terms of length and intensity of sunlight, the orbital speed of the sun itself would have to increase as it described a larger circle through the sky during winter. And please stop with the vanishing point/atmospheric distortion arguments. What nonsense. Try this at home:

Go outside in after dark. Have a helpful assistant hold an illuminated flashlight, pointing straight down, out a second story window. Stand directly below the flashlight and look up at it. Might want to squint. What shape is the illuminated portion of the flashlight? Round, right? Move off a distance so that the light is at about a 45 degree angle relative to the horizon. Flashlight still pointing straight down? Looking at the flashlight, not the light it is casting, what shape is the illuminated area? It's not round anymore, is it? It's elliptical. If we were on a flat earth you would see this same effect with relation to the sun as it moved across the sky throughout the day. When it first hove into view in the morning, it would be elliptical in shape, possibly so narrow as to appear as a straight line. As it "rose" in the sky through the day it would appear to become progressively more circular, only presenting itself as a perfect circle when directly overhead (at the equinox), then narrowing again as it receded. This effect would be most noticeable at high southern latitudes, I should think.

And then there's the problem of having a rather large, hot, nuclear-fusion-driven ball of plasma only 2000 miles away... 

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Still don't understand why anyone would want to hide a flat Earth if it was flat

« on: February 12, 2018, 03:40:00 PM »

I mean, really? Who would care to hide something like that? I don't buy the hiding God theory that many espouse. It doesn't make sense.

That's the rub, isn't it? "Why?" All these arguments about science needing to save face, bowing to social norms and pressures and the like I might be able to buy for the short term, but not for the generations and generations we're talking about here. If for no other reason than there's no money in it, no real money, anyway. The only reason to stage such a huge cover-up, the only way to motivate the large and diverse number of people necessary to pull such a thing off in this day and age, is greed or fear. If there's a massive RE hoax being staged by every government on earth, it's because they've discovered what's on the other side of the "Ice Wall", and they've decided that it's so wonderful/dangerous that only a select few should have access to it. Which is ridiculous. Seriously. We're talking about the human race here. Some nation would have tried to claim it by now, in bloody battle most likely, either to have the wonderfulness all to themselves or to weaponize the horror.

There are a few, simple ways to verify the accuracy of the RE model over FE that can be done with simple observation. One of the easiest, real-world examples has to do with distances. The flat projection of the FE world causes huge distortions in distances between given points when compared to what can be observed and measured in the real world. The RE model puts the diameter of earth at 7926 miles at the equator. The FE model puts the diameter of "the known world" at 28,769 miles. This would result in a FE diameter at the equator (if you place the equator midway through the known world, an assumption on my part) of 14,384 miles, which is nearly double that of which has been directly observed and measured. The further south you travel, the larger the distances become. So what should be a 4265-ish mile (observed) trip between Buenos Aires and Cape Town suddenly becomes an epic 10,304 mile journey!

I welcome all corrections to any erroneous assumptions or calculations I have made.

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: February 11, 2018, 10:49:02 PM »

You (or the Flat Earth Society if you are just representing their wiki article) have misrepresented Occam's razor. It doesn't prefer the simplest explanation, it prefers the explanation that is no more complicated than necessary.

Indeed, much of what I have seen consists of not even the simplest explanation, but the easiest. Simple does not mean that it requires no thought. 

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to get to the other side?

« on: February 10, 2018, 06:05:25 PM »

If you guys truly believe the earth is flat and it isn't a big joke, then explain this. If the earth is flat as if it's depicted on a map, lets say a plane flew east until it reached the "edge" of the world. How does it instantly get to the west side of the flat earth?

To elaborate on Pete Svarrior's not very helpful reply, in order to reach the "edge", the plane would have to fly a southerly course. If you're not familiar with the FE (Flat Earth) map, take a look and all will become clear. The North Pole is at the center of the disk, and the continents flow outward from it, so flying east or west traces a circular path on the face of the disk. Round and round you go. Traveling North lands you in the center of the map. South is the problematic direction. This is the path that results in you encountering an insurmountable wall of ice followed by an indeterminate area that no one has ever been able to explore. Link to the map - https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Map.png

Cheers

19

Flat Earth Theory / Southern Ocean Circumnavigation

« on: February 10, 2018, 05:37:52 PM »

Good Day,
I'm hoping that someone might be able to point me to an intelligent, conclusive discussion, here or elsewhere, that addresses the drastically shorter distance required to circumnavigate the Southern Ocean (along the Ice Wall) than is predicted by the FE map? Or even sailing between two points such as the Southern extremes of the South American and African continents?

Thanks