1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flying from UK to New Zealand - Possible experiments?

« on: September 25, 2018, 02:39:59 PM »

A simple experiment would be to take pictures of the moon in both the UK and New Zealand and compare the images to the different models.

On a globe earth you would expect to see the exact same face of the moon, except it would be inverted - as you're looking at a distant object, but upside down relative to each other.

On a flat earth you would expect to see different faces of the moon, as you would be looking at a close object, but from different directions.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Feeling of Motion

« on: March 01, 2018, 06:43:49 AM »

Flat earthers say that the earth isn't spinning because we can't feel it spinning. Why can't we feel the earth infinitely accelerating if it is?

You don't feel the earth pushing up against your body?

Tom, can you describe the feeling of earth pushing up against your body? I can’t say I feel that. It feels more like I am pressing against earth.

I am familiar with your chair analogy, but how do you explain the feeling of falling? That feeling differs significantly from the feeling of a object coming towards you at speed. Then again feelings are rather subjective...

Feelings are subjective but accelerometers aren't.

I'm not an expert and I'm happy to be proved wrong here, but if an accelerometer measures change in velocity then surely if UA was real then an accelerometer placed on the floor would measure a constant acceleration upwards? On the other hand if gravity is real then an accelerometer placed on the floor would measure nothing as it would not be moving.

Right?

Incorrect actually. Relativity. You cannot tell the difference between a uniform field of gravity, and uniform acceleration. This is the reason the UA idea can even exist. Whatever Tom wishes to proclaim (or an REer for that matter) you cannot measure or detect a difference between the two. His chair proclamation and comparing it to anyone's question about an outside observer are both equally irrelevant. An evenly accelerating Earth and a gravity field would both produce the same two results.

Thanks - I was trying to get my head around that for a while. After posting I thought actually the accelerometer would still show some force being applied by gravity even if not moving. I'm still curious though how things like a feeling of falling can exist in the UA model.

Let's say I'm standing at the top of a tall building and I jump off.

Under the UA model as I leave the building I'm no longer being accelerated along with the earth. Instead, I'm travelling at constant velocity. However, the earth is accelerating up to meet me.

So what causes a feeling of falling in this model?

Or in reality, for that matter?  I thought in the real world a falling sensation is when you feel that you're being accelerated downwards. When you reach terminal velocity, you don't feel like you're falling anymore. It's like you're floating in the air, albeit with a 100mph wind in your face.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Feeling of Motion

« on: February 28, 2018, 09:48:51 PM »

Flat earthers say that the earth isn't spinning because we can't feel it spinning. Why can't we feel the earth infinitely accelerating if it is?

You don't feel the earth pushing up against your body?

Tom, can you describe the feeling of earth pushing up against your body? I can’t say I feel that. It feels more like I am pressing against earth.

I am familiar with your chair analogy, but how do you explain the feeling of falling? That feeling differs significantly from the feeling of a object coming towards you at speed. Then again feelings are rather subjective...

Feelings are subjective but accelerometers aren't.

I'm not an expert and I'm happy to be proved wrong here, but if an accelerometer measures change in velocity then surely if UA was real then an accelerometer placed on the floor would measure a constant acceleration upwards? On the other hand if gravity is real then an accelerometer placed on the floor would measure nothing as it would not be moving.

Right?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth map is wrong

« on: February 27, 2018, 05:50:59 PM »

So i have just read all of this and i still dont have a definitive understanding on how the flight paths work.. between australia and south america...  can i have more info and also as a newbee why do we advocate the flat earth and debunk the round earthers but yet they are the only ones that can supply a true map of the earth or at least a satellite image that we say is not true... why dont we provide them with the true satellite image of the word being flat...

I'd start out by saying I don't believe the earth is flat.

But the answer to your question is because, simply, there is no map of a flat earth which corresponds to the world you see around you. No-one in the FE community seems particularly interested in building a model of how the world works which ties in with actual, observable data - such as distances between places, flight times, the shape of places, countries, islands, the length of the day and direction the sun appears to be at any given time of the day etc.

Which is strange because if the world was flat, then creating a map of it would be simple, from a cartographical perspective.

Problems arise when you try and project a 2D image onto a 3D surface, or vice versa. This is why all maps of a spherical earth, when viewed on a bit of paper or a screen, are distorted. Look at Google Maps - countries closer to the poles are stretched and appear far greater in area than they are in reality.  Similarly the map on this website of the flat earth is hugely distorted - Australia is stretched out very thin, for example.

If you want an example that's easier to envisage, imagine taking a square bit of paper and wrapping it around an orange. By the time you get to the back, the paper is all crumpled up and distorted. Similarly if you tried to peel the orange and form a flat image, you wouldn't be able to. Gaps would appear where the peel has been split open and laid out flat - or you would have to stretch the skin to make it work.

The only time a map of the world actually appears to correspond with reality is when it is projected onto the outside of a sphere.  Then, it ties in with things like flight times.

Now, what does this tell us about the shape of the earth?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: February 27, 2018, 11:55:00 AM »

All maps are already flat.

Why do people continue to ask this non-sensical question?

Maps have a single purpose, in that they serve to help you navigate from point A to point B.

Actually maps have a number of purposes.

They show features of geography.

They show the extent of territory and political entities.

They allow you to navigate.

They therefore need to be accurate - otherwise, for example, planes would run out of fuel and fall out of the sky.

More importantly they tell us a lot about the shape of the earth. It's not possible to accurately project the surface of a 3D object onto a 2D plane. There will inevitably be distortion.

Similarly it's not possible to accurately project a 2D image onto a 3D surface. Imagine wrapping a ball with a bit of paper - it crumples up and distorts the image.

But - it is absolutely possible to project a 2D surface onto another 2D surface without any distortion.

So, why can't FE proponents come up with an accurate map of what the flat earth looks like? Why has this never been achieved even accidentally in all the years humans have been mapping our planet?

How do you know it has not been done?

Has it? Can you show me the map? If it has why hasn't the map been publicised? The Flat Earth Society should be all over it, as it would provide definitive proof.

However, the FE wiki indicates there is no accurate map - it talks about a "generally accepted model" and provides a map which is "proposed, but certainly not definitive".

But if you can show me otherwise I would be very interested in seeing it.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: February 27, 2018, 11:18:28 AM »

All maps are already flat.

Why do people continue to ask this non-sensical question?

Maps have a single purpose, in that they serve to help you navigate from point A to point B.

Actually maps have a number of purposes.

They show features of geography.

They show the extent of territory and political entities.

They allow you to navigate.

They therefore need to be accurate - otherwise, for example, planes would run out of fuel and fall out of the sky.

More importantly they tell us a lot about the shape of the earth. It's not possible to accurately project the surface of a 3D object onto a 2D plane. There will inevitably be distortion.

Similarly it's not possible to accurately project a 2D image onto a 3D surface. Imagine wrapping a ball with a bit of paper - it crumples up and distorts the image.

But - it is absolutely possible to project a 2D surface onto another 2D surface without any distortion.

So, why can't FE proponents come up with an accurate map of what the flat earth looks like? Why has this never been achieved even accidentally in all the years humans have been mapping our planet?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: February 27, 2018, 07:26:31 AM »

Has TFES done any fund raising for the purpose of creating a map? There are certainly a handful of celebrities that support FEH. Perhaps they would donate?  Sadly, I won't be making any donations. We already have highly accurate maps that get us where we need to be on the globe. Don't see much point in recreating the wheel.

Since you are here asking that certain research is done, which may cost a significant amount of money, then we expect you to put up or shut up.

Basic surveying techniques don't involve longitude and latitude. At the simplest level it simply involves measuring the distance between two fixed points and then using basic equipment to map an area using angles and trigonometry. You start with a blank slate and just map out what you see.

In fact, and I'm happy to be proved wrong here, but using an electronic theodolite, measuring vertical and horizontal angles, and plotting the results into a 3D image you would be able to very simply prove the curvature of the earth (or lack of) by surveying no more than a long, thin strip of land.

There are other options - you could map out areas in the northern and southern hemispheres to give yourself an idea as to the shape of the world.
 
If the earth is indeed flat then it can be proven. It can be done relatively inexpensively. It can be verified using other inexpensive methods such as getting your many supporters across the globe to plot the location and angle of the sun at specific times on specific days.

The reasons that you give for not doing this (or anything like this) are very revealing. You claim lack of funds. Fine. Buy why are you not actively fundraising? Why are there no proposals to prove your case? Why do you insist that everyone else does your research for you? You are the ones challenging the existing viewpoint.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: February 26, 2018, 10:44:04 PM »

In which case your answer begs the question, why don't you propose an alternative?

For example, why not use standard surveying techniques and trigonometry to map out areas?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: February 26, 2018, 09:11:12 PM »

Hi Tom

I'm sorry, I don't understand your answer. What methods are you referring to?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: February 26, 2018, 06:28:16 PM »

Genuine question.  Why is there no map of the flat earth?  Mathematical and cartographic techniques which allow us to accurately map the world have existed for centuries.  Why is it then that no map exists of a flat earth which accurately depicts the world? 

For example, the map in the wiki shows the Arctic in the centre of the world, with the Antarctic as a ring of ice around the edge, with the continents arranged around the centre.  However, the land masses are completely distorted and simply do not correspond with reality.

If the earth is indeed flat then a map on a 2D object (such as paper, or a screen) should show no distortion, whereas any attempt to depict the world as a 3D object would show significant distortion.

Indeed the converse is true - any attempt to show a map of the world on a 2D surface results in distortions, depending on the projection used.  Distances and areas no longer accurately represent the earth itself.

It is only when a map of the earth is depicted on a sphere does the map correspond with reality.

Which, combined with other data such as flight times and routes, leads to the inescapable conclusion that the earth is, indeed, spherical.  Are there any FE proponents who can explain why this would not be the case?