1

Flat Earth Theory / Sunset seems impossible in flat earth model

« on: March 03, 2019, 08:54:39 PM »

This diagram is a cross section of the flat earth model. Each grid square is 1000 miles. The sun is 3000 miles above the equator on the left side and the right side, where it would be at noon 12 hours apart. The longest vertical line in the middle is the north pole.

Here is the problem: the sun would never dip below an 18.43-degree angle on the horizon for an observer at 45-degrees lattitude.

If there was enough atmospheric distortion to somehow make the sun look like it went below the horizon, that same distortion would make the stars also look distorted because the light would have to pass through the same air. But the stars don’t look distorted.

I just cannot see how a flat earth model is believable considering that, in real life, we can clearly see that the sun sets. It goes down all the way over the horizon.

I do think there are a lot of ways in which the government is pulling the wool over our eyes, like claiming nuclear power is clean and safe while the nuclear waste keeps piling up in aging temporary storage facilities... just waiting for an accident to happen. Or how they covered up what really happened on 9/11 etc.

But guys. How can you seriously believe in the flat earth, when like, it does not even hold up to the most basic scrutiny? The primary claims of flat earth theory keep getting disproven (like the claim that commercial flights don’t cross directy between distant places like Bueonos Aires and Auckland... when in fact, they do).

I also just watched a bunch of documentaries on Antarctica. It’s just a bunch of science nerds down there looking at microbes,  oenguins, and soil cores. They’ve found fossilized leaves that are millions of years old, supporting the continental drift hypothesis. It’s easy to see where Antarctica used to connect with South America and Australia before the continents broke apart.

There are many other ways that we are being lied to but I think it’s time to give up on flat Earth. Even the “hollow earth” hypothesis is much more plausible.

As a Christian I don’t see why the “firmament” can’t refer to the rest of the universe. There is a lot of symbolic language in the Bible. To me it is a lot more wonderous that God created a huge universe with billions of planets to potentially explore, than the notion that this is some kind of Truman Show. At that point why not just say the whole thing is a simulation, like the Matrix?

Of course if someone can convince me how the sun could set while never going below 18 degrees on the horizon, and how a 777 can fly between Buenos Aires and Auckland in less than 12 hours on a flat earth, then I’d love to hear it.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Response to Mark’s clue videos (air travel aspect)

« on: March 02, 2019, 01:56:01 AM »

Hello RespectfulScienceNerd,

You might get more traction if you just pick one thing Mark Sargent says, and deal carefully with it, rather than a long list of brief mentions.

Mark is an interesting guy. He is a very nice guy, very easy to listen to and sounds very sincere and convincing - which is why he's so good at what he does, which is earn a living off of ad revenue.

But he does not understand much science, nor does he want to or try to.

His approach really isn't to claim what "is" but what "isn't."  He has no proof for a flat earth really, but lots of things to cast doubt on a globe earth.

He says "It's not that I can prove a flat earth in a court of law, but I can create so much reasonable doubt in the globe model that you have nowhere else to turn, but the flat earth model."
(See video below.)

Unfortunately, much of the doubt that he creates is based on ideas or claims that are demonstrably false, because he just really doesn't get into the science of things.

Mark Sargent is actually the first youtube personality to educate me in flat earth. When my real life friend put me onto flat earth earlier this year he said "Check out Mark Sargent" and so I did.

I was trying to focus on just one thing he said, which was that the reason that there were no direct flights between certain locations was because it was impossible, due (he claims) to the origin and destination cities’ distance on the flat Earth being much farther than on globular Earth.

However obviously there were other reasons why those flights were no appearing at that time.

And now, the flights do appear. And they take flight paths consistent with a globular Earth.

Based on that fact alone, the Earth cannot possibly be flat. Otherwise those flights would be impossible, like Mark said.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Response to Mark’s clue videos (air travel aspect)

« on: February 28, 2019, 02:48:36 AM »

Hello,

I just watched Mark’s first 10 clue videos and I would like to offer my analysis. I’m hoping some of you will respond to the numbered points below. Please provide links to your sources and use the numbers to respond to my points.

1) Mark seems to believe that no airplanes fly directly between cities that would be very far from each other if the Earth were flat. His evidence for this was based on two things:

1a) Common air travel websites (like Expedia, Kayak, etc.) did not list direct flights between two locations that are too distant from each other for a direct flight to reach if the Earth is flat.

1a-1) Rather, they had super long flights that connected through places like Dubai, making the trip take twice as long (or longer) than a direct flight should have taken, were the Earth globular.

1b) In online flight tracking maps, planes could not be seen travelling on direct flights between cities that would be so distant if the Earth is flat that commercial airliners could not possibly fly directly between them.

1c) In his 10th clue video, Mark stated that some flights would appear as taking off in the direction of a location unreachable by a direct flight if the Earth is flat—then they would disappear from online tracking maps shortly after takeoff, and reappear just before reaching their intended destination.

1c-1) Mark seemed to assume that the disappearance of flights from online tracking sites as they headed over the South Pacific meant that the planes either lost GPS coverage or that their real location was being deliberately hidden by “the Authority.” However he did not provide any evidence to support these notions.

1d) Mark went on to conclude that the reason why these online maps and travel sites do not show direct flights between two overly distant locations (1b) and why supposedly direct flights disappear on these maps (1c) is because the planes do not actually travel along the shortest route that would connect these locations on a globular earth, because, since (he argues) the Earth is flat, therefore such flights are impossible.

My Analysis

1e) I work in e-commerce, websites, and apps. I know for a fact that what is shown on an e-commerce page (like Kayak or Expedia) or tracking map (like any online flight tracking sites) is almost never a complete or 100% accurate source of information about reality or about product availability.

1f) In (1a), Mark did not appear to consider whether travel sites were leaving out certain flights due to relying on a data source that leaves out certain flights from certain smaller and less popular airlines due to reasons such as:

1f-1) - travel sites lacking a marketing deal with that airline (like how, for a long time, Southwest flights could only be bought through Southwest’s own site);

1f-2) - travel sites having an exclusive marketing deal with a rich airline like Emirates that pays sites like Expedia etc. a big bonus to show flights connecting through Dubai and hiding flights bypassing Dubai;

1f-3) - travel sites being restricted by the FAA from selling tickets for long, trans-oceanic flights between coastal cities where the airline does not comply with FAA safety regulations, such as that flights with twin-engine planes always having a diversion location within a certain distance so that they have a chance if an engine fails (for example, New Zealand airlines does not sell tickets for its direct twin-engine flight between Auckland NZ and Buenos Aires on its US site—it redirects you to its South American site, requiring you to click that you agree to go to that other site, before it allows you to purchase tickets for that flight);

1f-4) - airlines themselves being restricted from offering certain flights due to FAA safety rules concerning the aircraft they own—each model of commercial airline has a certain maximum distance from any airport that the FAA allows it be at any time, so it has landing options in case of an emergency—this is called the “ETOPS distance”;

1f-4a) see this 2014 Popular Mechanics article that says “Airbus was recently reported by the Wall Street Journal to be seeking an ETOPS of 420 minutes, or seven hours, to make possible non-stops on routes like Australia to Brazil or New Zealand to South Africa.” https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a11987/for-transoceanic-flights-are-two-engines-enough-16991135/

1f-4b) Also see this aionline.com news story from 2015 about how Air New Zealand finally got FAA approval for a 330-minute ETOPS flight allowing it to finally begin offering direct service from Auckland to Buenos Aires. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2015-12-02/air-new-zealand-777-makes-first-330-minute-etops-flight

1g) In (1b), Mark did not appear to consider whether some airlines were not technically advanced enough yet to have all their flight data shared through online mapping or e-commerce sites.

1h) (In 1c), Mark did not appear to consider other possible explanations for why flights seem to disappear from online maps.

1h-1) Maybe certain trans-oceanic flights did not send up their GPS coordinates because the satellites needed to transmit GPS coordinates from airplane to internet were not yet fully operational over certain remote areas—or the airlines did not want to pay exorbitant fees for this service.

1h-2) Maybe map tracking sites did not show certain long trans-oceanic sites because the airlines running these flights did not comply with FAA rules and so were not allowed to use American GPS technology on those flights and/or sell tickets for those flights to Americans. (I have no evidence of this being the case, but it seems like a much more plausible explanation for what Mark was seeing, than that the Earth is flat.)

1i) Nowadays you can see (on sites like flightradar24.com) the Air New Zealand flights going every day across from Auckland to Buenos Aires, using the same flight path that would be expected given a globular Earth.

1j) Nowadays you can purchase tickets from Air New Zealand for the aforementioned direct flight between Auckland and Buenos Aires, although it is only available through their own South American website.

...

I will add more responses to other of Mark’s clues in some future posts. Wife wants me to get off the internet now