1

Flat Earth Community / Re: I think I have proof the earth is not flat, would like to know what you think.

« on: October 18, 2018, 09:17:36 PM »

3 configurations? You proved "mathematically" that there were 2.

Ah, thank you, this was a typo. The three configurations are
Two neighbor circles on the same plane,
Sun outside the equator but on the same plane,
the sun inside the equator on the same plane.

I would love to know how you got "appears as a straight line" from literally any field of mathematics though.

Phat's not from maths, that's from observation, applying math to that observation and the other two premises leaves only the possibility that the path of the sun and the equator ore on one plane. I'll recheck my phrasing to clear that up, thanks.

the circle can be anywhere within the other to appear as a straight line.
Wait, the 2 rings can be outside of each other entirely to still appear as straight lines.

Yes, that is my conclusion, I eliminate neighbor circles because that's trivially easy to understand why that's not the case, and eliminate the sun's path being the inner circle. Either are trivially easy to dismiss. Leaving only the equator as the inner circle as a possibility. again, thanks for showing me where i can be more clear and concise.

"Concentric circles are circles with a common center." From google.

I did mean concentric, not equidistant, though I think now were using those interchangeably.

1. The path the sun moves, relative to a person watching, is a curve. It goes up, it goes down. It is not easy to observe further from a personal perspective without losing sight of the sun.

This is what i'm trying to illustrate with the hula hoop, imagining the rest of the curve, the part that can't be seen at night. In order to continue it's regular circular path, it must go below you.

The flat earth theory is that it is caused by the sun orbiting a point above the north pole, with it's light both acting as a cone, and curving.

that matches with premise 1 and 2, but defies observations. If that were the case, people on the equator would never not see a curved sun path, but twice a year every year the path of the sun appears straight to us.

I am unsure how you would show the [sun](corrected typo?) going directly overhead,

Observationally. Every point within the tropics has a moment when the sun passes overhead (for the equator, this moment is on the equinox), a perfectly leveled vertical pole will have no shadow at this time. Apparently it can be quite surreal.

This is where light bending and refraction are used liberally to describe sunrise and sunset as mirages.

I hope you're wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised. Hence why I pointed out the FAQ's insistence on an empirical approach and rely on your own senses.

You accused me of coming at this from a flat perspective, how did you think I would come at proof of a round earth on a flat earth forum?

I want readers to assume no world shape model and allow the proof to speak alone, for itself.

To save you worrying, I know the earth is round.

I appreciate the effective devil's advocate.

2

Flat Earth Community / Re: I think I have proof the earth is not flat, would like to know what you think.

« on: October 18, 2018, 07:49:39 PM »

"A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true"

From the first result in google on mobile.

which for flat theory means the north pole. I look away from the north pole, so looking south.

I think this may be your problem. You're starting from a flat earth model assuming it's true, where Im starting with no model and using only my premises to reach my conclusion. Is one of my premises wrong? is my conclusion wrong (that there are three configuration for two circles in which one appears as a straight line from every point on the other)? I wouldn't think it's that difficult math.

Feet pointed toward the centre of both circles... I don't know what the other circle is

Concentric circles both have the same center:


I suppose it's possible for the circles to not be perfectly concentric, but that would imply the sun is closer to the equator during one part of it's daly equinox orbit which I'm sure you agree would be far too noticeable.

I would be looking south

Again, youre presuming the flat earth. Ignore any shape model, use only the premises and the conclusion, or dispute one. You would be looking straight up your neck craned upward. You would be standing erect with your feet pointed down, as any observer can on the equator on the equinox.

If I stand still for 12hrs, the sun is under me... errr.

Well you don't need to stand perfectly still, just model it as if you did. During the equinox the sun appears to travel in a perfectly straight line. In order for it to do so, it would need to keep traveling down, under your feet, back up towards the east until it rises there. In 6 hours from noon, it would have traveled in a straight line from your perspective, and be on your horizon, having traversed 1/4 of the way along its path. You'd now be facing due West. An observer 1/4 of the way along the equator would be looking straight up at the sun. Because the sun's path is a straight line from your perspective, and this path is on the same plane as the equator, the equator would viewed as a straight line from your perspective too, if you could view the whole thing. Further along the equator, the person now viewing a noon would appear to you, if you could see them, to be laying down, but they are in fact standing up. Another six hours, continuing along it's straight path, and the point directly across the equator from you would be experiencing noon, and them and the sun would be directly below your feet. they would appear to you as upside down.

Basically, the sun can't be on a different plane than the equator and be seen as a straight line from every point on the equator, if it travels in a circular path. This is impossible.

The hula hoop is a circle, so I tape opposite ends for some reason

The path of the sun, I assume you agree, is a circle when viewed from Earth. The hula hoop models this circle. During the equinox there are 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of night, ergo half the hula hoop is marked for night, half for day. On the sun's path, sunrise would be directly opposite sunset, hence why the tape marks modeling where on it's path sunrise and sunset are, are opposite each other.

Match this to the horizon, with the "day part" of the hula hoop overhead...

to model at the equinox...

Then imagine that someone is on the other side of the sphere... Proof?

It's a model to illustrate the above proof. the hula hoop is a model for the sun's path during the equinox as if you were at the equator. Halfway between the sunrise and sunset on the 'day' side of the hula hoop would be mid day, in which the sun is directly overhead and you have nearly no shadow. Halfway around the hula hoop,' a modeled 12 hours later, would be where the sun is, relative to you, at midnight on the equinox, directly below your feet. For someone on the opposite end of the equator at that time, the sun would be directly overhead, their up would be your down, and their feet would be pointing at yours. They wouldn't be laying down, just as you aren't.

I am unsure what this proves. Roundness of hula hoops?

The hula hoop is a circle. The sun's path is a circle. Modeling the sun's path on the equator at equinox using a hula hoop, using no pre-supposed model, proves the round equator wraps around a round earth, not sits on top of it. the only way to view the hula hoop as a straight line is to either hold it up above and away from you, which i'm entirely sure you aren't asserting is the path of the sun, or around you with half above your personal horizon and half below your personal horizon.


We can drop the hula hoop model if it's confusing, im interested in what you think of my premises and my conclusion. Restated and truncated:

P1) The sun travels in a circular path
P2) The equator is a circle.
P3) During the equinox, from any and every point on the equator, the sun appears to travel in a straight line.

C) The path of the sun and the equator are on the same plane during the equinox.

3

Flat Earth Community / Think I've proof the earth is not flat, like to know what you think (sincere).

« on: October 18, 2018, 06:18:28 PM »

Now, when i say proof, im being careful not to conflate it with evidence or demonstration; proof as in 100%, non subjective, not up for interpretation, mathematical, syllogistic, proof.

This relies on two very simple, I'd imagine indisputable, premises, and one trivially easy to confirm premise:

1) The path the sun takes in the sky, when viewed from earth, is a relatively regular circle. In about 24 hours the sun will be in the same spot it was yesterday in the sky, with no teleporting, drastic speeding up, slowing down, or overt change in direction.

2) The equator is also a mostly circle shape (considering the equator could be defined as the path which the sun travels directly overhead on both equinoxes), with no particular beginning or end.

Those two I don't expect anyone to disagree with. Neither need be a perfect circle, just reasonably describable as a circle.

3) Twice a year, from every point on the equator, during the spring and fall equinoxes, the sun travels in a path directly overhead in a perfectly straight line, east to west.

The FAQ says you use an empirical approach and rely on your own senses, so I would be surprised if any of you disagreed with this premise.


For clarity, my premises restated and truncated:

P1) The sun travels in a circular path
P2) The equator is a circle.
P3) During the equinox, from any and every point on the equator, the sun appears to travel in a straight line.

C) The path of the sun and the equator are on the same plane during the equinox.


NOTE: this proof pre supposes no world model shape and needs none to reach it's conclusions.

Now, mathematically, there are exactly three ways to arrange these two circles so that one appears as a straight line from every point on the other:

Both on the same plane, laying next to each other as so:    OO

I think we can agree that that can in no way describe the path of the sun.

The only other two possible configurations are for both circles to be on the same plane, either the path of the sun iside the equator, or the equator inside the path of the sun. They would also be concentric circles (if they aren't concentric, then the sun would be closer to the equator at some point during the equinox, a phenomenon I think we can agree doesn't happen). I think we can agree that for the sun's path to be the inner circle (a concave earth with the sun on the inside, viewable from every point on the equator at all times) is ridiculous, so that leaves us with exactly one possible configuration:

The path of the sun is the larger of two concentric circles on the same plane, with the equator being the inner circle.


A viewer from any point would be standing on the equator, looking up, their head pointed directly toward the path of the sun, the outer circle, directly away from the center of the circles. His head would be pointed away from the center of the circles, his feet pointed toward the center of the circles. He would also be oriented on the plane of the equator-sun system as if he were lying on it, though he is in fact standing. The sun would start in the east, travel in a straight line until it is overhead, continue in a straight path down toward the horizon, continuing downward. Being on a single plane, it can not turn, so would continue in a straight path down below the horizon. If he stood still, 12 hours later, the sun would be directly under his feet, an a viewer at the opposite end of the equator would be looking up directly at the sun. Their feet would be pointed toward each other, they would each think the other is upside down. Down for each of them would be toward each other, toward the center of the circles. in fact, every person on the inner circle would see 'up', directly toward the apex sun, as away from the center of the circles, and down as toward the center. Because this is describing people encircling a three dimentional Earth with a perceived downward force toward the Earth's center, the earth can therefore not be flat.

For a more hands-on model of the same proof, one that you need not be on the equator or during an equinox for, take a hula hoop and mark two opposite ends with tape (a trick is to mark one end with tape, hold it up by that end with one finger, and hang a coat hanger on the other end, the hanger will slide to the exact opposite end). Denote it as you so please, but one half will represent the day, the 12 hours we can see the sun during the equinox, and one half will represent the night, the 12 hours we can not see the sun during equinox. The tape will represent sunrise and sunset, 12 hours apart from each other on the sun's equinox path. Now hold the hula hoop in such a way that both pieces of tape lie on the horizon from your point of view(as the sunrise and sunset would), and the day part of the hula hoop is directly overhead from your point of view (as the midday sun would be(depending on the size, you may have to bend your torso in silly ways)). You need not orient east / west for this experiment. The hula hoop is relatively a circle, just like the path of the sun. The important part to notice is what happens to the 'NIGHT' side of the hula hoop if you align the sunrise and sunset at the horizon and the midday sun directly overhead. The path of the sun can only pass below you, your local midnight it would be directly below you, directly above someone else on the opposite end of the equator, who would be relatively upside-down to you.

I curious what you think. I'd love feedback on how to clarify what I'm saying or someone pointing out where some of my logic is flawed, though, it's syllogistic logic, so I'm not sure where I could have possibly erred.

Thanks for your time.

Edits: minor grammar, spelling, and phrasing for clarification.

Edit 2: Image added and some formatting to address Mysfit's confusion.

Edit 3: more formatting and rephrasing, and a correction to address Mysfit's valid criticisms.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about flat earth

« on: October 18, 2018, 05:35:01 PM »

The only model of flat earth that i'm able to relate to is the infinite repeating plane flat earth model (no dome, no ice wall, no firmament). It's not very popular around here.
[/quote]

I'm a little confused. You think the earth is a repeating series of identical continents? If so, are there multiples of people as well?