1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Out Of Phase

« on: December 15, 2017, 06:18:12 PM »

They are short-handed. Discussing among ourselves is a work of love. If we self-curate, it reduces their (actually pretty much just TB's) work load.

If I'm understanding your point, you're suggesting I should be fine with responses & discussion? I didn't mean to suggest that I'm not, but I've been through a fair bit of the forum and seen all the typical answers from the FES side. However, since I've made a case here that 1) is easily observed by anyone on their own and 2) mathematically disproves the FES model for moon phases, I wanted to be sure the original case wasn't lost by a trailing discussion.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Out Of Phase

« on: December 15, 2017, 03:58:24 PM »

They ALSO claim perspective is what keeps us seeing the same side of the moon.

But I'm not arguing that point. I'm arguing that (from a single point) you see the same crescent as it moves across the sky. That is, if you see the left side at moonrise, you also see the left side at moonset even though the sun is now to your right. (Across the north pole) Regardless, I'm more interested in hearing from them about the varying elevations of the sun & moon (required by trigonometry) and how a waxing-crescent can even make sense.

Please keep it on topic and let a rebuttal come through instead of positing what the expected excuses will be.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Out Of Phase

« on: December 15, 2017, 03:37:22 PM »

You're forgetting the magical effects of perspective.

I did mention it, as that is about the only way to explain it, and I find it odd that you quoted my round earth description to point that out. However, even a perspective effect cannot account for:

• At some point, even the perspective effect has to lose to the vanishing point.
  
• My perceived angle to the sun/moon. (Whichever one has to be >100,000 miles away for full/new moon angles to work)
• Seeing the same crescent of the moon in the same night, whether I look east at moonrise or west at moonset. (Really, a southern-facing lit side is impossible)
• The light that can't make it through the non-transparent atmosphere from the sun can bounce of the moon and make it through the same amount of atmosphere? (I'm thinking particularly of moonrise/moonset)

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Out Of Phase

« on: December 15, 2017, 03:04:20 PM »

Silence? Well I'll add that I didn't see this wiki page before posting that. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Full_Moon_is_Impossible_in_Round_Earth_Theory

There are a few things that page ignores about the Round Earth view of the moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon)

• The moon's average distance is 239,000 miles.
• On average, its orbit is inclined 5 degrees from "the ecliptic" (which I understand to mean the plane of Earth's orbit)
• Basic trig on that shows that the full moon is (on average) nearly 21,000 miles above the center of the Earth's orbital plane, where the Earth doesn't block it from the sun. (Given its radius of roughly 4,000 miles)
• But how is it the southern hemisphere can see a full moon then, if the moon is so high above our orbit? At 239,000 miles, there is less than a 2 degree difference in our viewing angle between the north pole and south pole.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Out Of Phase

« on: December 14, 2017, 08:05:52 PM »

I'd initially started on a detailed proof of one aspect of moon phases, when I realized the entire cosmology around the moon is a complete mathematical mess. Rather than just hit one of the issues, I put together a graphic and will walk through a number of problems as we visualize what must happen for the FET position to be correct.

TL;DR - While this can't (by itself) disprove the FET, it exposes some serious problems with the currently accepted explanations regarding the moon. The aim is that this disproof of the current cosmology can stand without any more evidence than simply looking up at the moon. We've all seen the phases, right? (If you really want evidence, I'd start here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon)


To begin with, a quick summary of the FET cosmology:

• The sun & moon are 30-mile diameter spheres.
• They rotate around the north pole at an altitude of  roughly 3000 miles, while 1) moving back and forth across the equator to make seasons and 2) "wobbling" (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon) up and down to make the moon phases
• A "perspective effect" maintains their apparent size throughout the day and as they rise/set.
• Like lights in fog, eventually the light from the sun & moon gets too far to see, and they actually set.

Okay, now to the graphic I put together:



For purposes of easing the explanation, let's walk through these phases as though I'm in the northern hemisphere, and seeing the moon in the same position every night, looking east. Assuming the FET cosmology is correct:

• For this first quarter, sun and moon are at the same altitude and so I see a quarter moon. The sun would be on the other side of the earth. Nothing wrong yet.
• In a full moon, the sun needs to illuminate most of the moon (at least enough as to be imperceptible). Where is the sun at this point? Either a) it's on the ground incinerating me or b) it's still at 3000mi and the moon (basic trigonometry) is a crazy number of miles above that. My math says at least 100,000 miles (and more like 300,000) for the trig to work. (more on this below)
• With a waning moon, the moon can stay at 3000mi while the sun has to (again, basic trig) have a much higher altitude. Even a generous 60degree angle (a nice crescent moon) puts the sun over 8000 miles. I'm not sure how big the angle can be before we'd see a "new moon," but it likely puts the sun at similar altitudes of the moon when it's full. So, 100-300k miles.
• With a waxing moon, the sun has to now be positioned on the same side of the earth as me. The math doesn't allow for anything else. It's not an issue that the sun and moon are both visible, but is clearly a problem that this is the only way for it to be waxing.

Let's walk through the problems:

• The sun (or moon) needs to be a lot further away to produce the kind of angles necessary for moon phases, not just a little "wobbling" around the 3000 mile mark.
• Even if a "perspective effect" could maintain the apparent size a) the vanishing point for a 30-mile object is about 90,000 miles and b) the object that's further away (than ~3,000mi) would be at all sorts of wrong angles relative to the ground.
• We clearly see both waxing and waning moons at night, and yet the requisite position of the sun doesn't support that possibility.
• I described the view as though I'm looking east, with the sun to my left on the other side of the world. On the same night as the moon heads towards setting, I'd be looking west with the sun to my right. This means we'd get both crescents in a single night.

Again, not enough to disprove FET on its own, but demonstrates the mathematical impossibility that is the current understanding of how the sun and moon relate to each other.

QED

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 11, 2017, 04:16:29 PM »

I found this on another thread:

If you wish to verify your predictions, fell free. Travel to Makokou on the day of your test and you can verify your prediction for us.

Tom does a fairly reasonable job in the first page of that thread laying out what is acceptable evidence

You think so, but....suppose I come on here the day of the equinox and say “I’m in Makokou, the test is conclusive, Round Earth for the win!”  Do you really expect anybody, round or flat, to simply accept that?  I don’t.  Any more than I accept the results of the Bishop Experiment just because Bishop says he performed it and he says the results mean what he thinks they mean.

Yeah, I really only meant "reasonable" insofar as he does more than simply demand evidence and expect that our research and/or divination comes to the same standard of proof.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 11, 2017, 05:59:10 AM »

I found this on another thread:

If you wish to verify your predictions, fell free. Travel to Makokou on the day of your test and you can verify your prediction for us.

We will be responsible for verifying our own predictions, and you will be responsible for verifying yours. Does that sound fair?

Tom does a fairly reasonable job in the first page of that thread laying out what is acceptable evidence, and expresses frustration with the multitudes of us who can't really track with what evidence is meaningful & valid. Maybe the Wiki or Forum guidelines could benefit from a summary like this? I haven't found a good description online as to what zeteticism accepts, and most of us probably don't have the resources to travel and verify our own predictions.

Accepting what evidence we can provide would create much more interesting conversations. At the very least, they could lay the groundwork for some experimentation that both sides could be happy with.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 11, 2017, 05:37:31 AM »

(like the one about a lunar eclipse with both sun & moon above the horizon?)

If anyone wants to discuss this further, it really should get its own thread (rather than distracting from the point on sunrise/sunset) ...but since I brought it up here, I thought it worthy of mention. I searched on it, and was surprised to learn that a "selenelion" is a real thing. Pictures are the only evidence though, so I guess you really can't know for sure.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 11, 2017, 05:20:27 AM »

Yes, and it's hard to take the "show me the evidence" demand seriously from people that claim a mystery shadow object is responsible for eclipses

Let's also be clear that those aren't my words. (@Moderator, I suspect a failure in formatting rather than an intentional "quote only" post.)

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 11, 2017, 12:47:19 AM »

It was fun, I only wish it could have sparked an actual discussion. I don't really have time to debate something that is just stonewalled. That said, it might be fun to take https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe and break each one down one by one. I wonder how many will just need a "show me the evidence." (like the one about a lunar eclipse with both sun & moon above the horizon?)

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 10, 2017, 06:15:31 AM »

Well, since Tom has chosen to not accept the provided evidence, I figure I'll wrap up my foray into the Flat Earth world with an explanation that would help people independently verify my claims with other examples.

First off, start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_longitude, and find examples of cities with longitude within 5-20' of each other. The fact they are a round-earth longitude is irrelevant, this is just a starting point. Look up their equinox sunrise/sunset on one of many websites (if you trust them), and you will find they are within a minute or two, depending on the initial difference in longitude.

• Provided your examples are notably different latitudes, the same case as the original post will work. Similar latitudes don't falsify my claim, they just don't help because the math *technically* works to support FE just as well at that point.
• My original post didn't strictly need Iquitos to demonstrate the point. However, having the 3rd data point ensures no circle/curve of the "spotlight" can possibly work for both sunrise & sunset. (As in a mathematical proof that 3 points can only be intersected by one circle.)

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 10, 2017, 03:50:45 AM »

I am not interested in engaging in this discussion further until evidence has been presented.

Tom, you have been asked several times to define (to us non-zetetics) what standard of evidence would be acceptable for this discussion to continue, beyond what has already been provided. Short of understanding that, it's no wonder that we can't continue a healthy debate. Or do I need to itemize my concerns about the flat earth "evidence?"

If you still aren't going to be clear, then I guess good day to you.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 10, 2017, 12:03:29 AM »

An online calculator isn't evidence for the claim. Those are not observations or experiences.

If you guys have no evidence for this then we have nothing to discuss.

Okay, then by all means explain what evidence is sufficient. If I had a picture or video, it's fake. If I travel there and write down a time, it's fake. (Nor can I be in all three places to validate the "same time" assertion.) You claim an external source is valid, until it isn't. A calculator works because the sun, in both models, travels a consistent & predictable path. You'll note that all 9 links are for March 2017 (rather than supposing that 2018 will be correct) so either they're just wrong or all 3 are making the same lie.

I would have preferred to see you debate this based on the position of TFES, rather than doubting any evidence I try to present. My case hasn't discounted your evidence, so if we're left with "nothing to discuss," then it isn't because I have no evidence.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 09, 2017, 11:40:43 PM »

I'm not asking for any impissible level of evidence. We don't reject all evidence we have not seen ourselves. Don't you see us quoting links in our discussions?

Alright, since external links are sufficient:
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/canada/montreal?month=3&year=2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/peru/iquitos?month=3&year=2017
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/chile/valdivia?month=3&year=2017
http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/canada/montreal/2017/march
http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/peru/iquitos/2017/march
http://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/chile/valdivia/2017/march
http://sunsetsunrisetime.com/Canada/Montreal_2412.html
http://sunsetsunrisetime.com/Peru/Iquitos_15460.html
http://sunsetsunrisetime.com/Chile/Valdivia_2783.html

...do I need to keep going? There's three separate websites with matching data. The last one (sunsetsunrisetime.com) even leaves the times in UTC, showing they actually are the same without trying to know the local time zone (and daylight savings) laws. (After all, there are over 500 variations)

On top of that, there's a combined 2.2 million people living in those 3 cities.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 09, 2017, 07:57:01 PM »

Have I personally been in all 3 cities to see their sunrise at the same time (and likewise for sunset the same day) and documented it in a way that isn't considered faked? No.

Do I trust other sources on which farming, industry, and society depend? Every time.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 09, 2017, 06:15:15 PM »

Firstly, before we engage with this, do you have any actual evidence, outside of a theoretical sun calculator and specious ad hominem fallacies, that these points really do see exactly 12 hour days at that time as proposed by the Round Earth model?

No personal attacks were intended, merely a general observation of responses I see from both sides. My intent was to head off any assumptions in either my own argument or any rebuttals. As to the specific post I mentioned, I will have to search my history for it, which I can't do at the moment.

I used timeanddate.com, and as no one has ever made the case that times of sunrise/sunset are inaccurate (just the mechanism by which it rises/sets) I will count that as evidence enough. (I'm sure I could find more if you really want it, but I expect the same data.)

17

Flat Earth Theory / Sunrise, Sunset, Swiftly Flow the Days

« on: December 09, 2017, 05:57:52 AM »

As I've been researching, it seems that we all make cases assuming we are right, then argue points from that standing. But few/none are independently verifiable when based solely on observation.

• You say UA, I say gravity.
• Light travels straight across Monterrey Bay, I say it refracts in the atmosphere.
• You say the sun is a spotlight, I say the dark side faces away from the sun.
• I say plane routes are the reported distance, you say planes must somehow fly faster in the southern hemisphere.
• I say the sun disappears behind the horizon, you say it gets too far to see.

...I could probably keep going, but I've made my point. We keep yelling arguments while never giving ground on our basic assumption. My favorite post to read so far was one from Tom Bishop, which used "might" and "possible" 8-10 times in a single paragraph. In effect, "the earth has to be flat so I must make a conjecture about everything that I can't explain," instead of, "you make a good point, maybe I should reevaluate my assumptions." (Tom's post is just an example, round-earthers do the same thing)


Now, at the risk of sounding hypocritical, I'd like to present a case where I believe observations can lead to only one conclusion. For a moment, I'm going to accept everything about the Flat Earth. Most importantly:

• Latitude is the angle of the sun at equinox.
• The sun rotates arund the north pole, and is centered between it and the north pole at equinox.
• The sunset is a result of the sun being too far too see (both size, and travel of light through the atmosphere)

Consider this map:

• I have not tried to place continents, as they are immaterial.
• Montreal, Iquitos, and Valdivia have been placed according to their latitude.
• On the day of the equinox, all three cities have the same sunrise, so I've positioned their longitude accordingly, given the circle/spotlight of the sun.

Now, those cities can't move. So let's see what happens when we advance the sun by 90 degrees (6 hours)



A few observations

• It's sunset in Valdivia, despite being 2:00PM. (Remember, the sun only moved 6 hours)
• It's still broad daylight in Montreal, even though it's supposed to have the same sunset time.
• Same story as Montreal for Iquitos. The sun sets at the same time as Valdivia, but the city is clearly still in broad daylight.

Conclusion: I would argue that the only reasonable explanation (other than a round earth) is the "spotlight" isn't actually a circle on the ground. Except that means the sun's rays don't follow a mathematically consistent vanishing point or dissipation in the atmosphere. So really:

• To have the correct sunrise & latitude on a flat earth, these cities must be at these coordinates.
• At these coordinates, they cannot also have the same sunset.
• Therefore, the earth cannot be flat.

QED

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inertia & A Cliff

« on: December 05, 2017, 12:28:20 AM »

While my intuition still suggests the equivalence principle isn't the complete answer, looking at Wikipedia's explanation did have more to support that conclusion. Particularly helpful was its discussion of free fall and an accelerometer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerometer As this was just a question and not a debate, I'd say it can be considered answered for now.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: QUESTION REGARDING SUNRISE

« on: December 04, 2017, 06:33:24 AM »

Typical of FE explanations. It's an answer. But it doesn't stand up to the slightest amount of scrutiny.

Oh, you don't need to tell me twice. I still have 2 feet solidly on a large sphere. But I've been intrigued by the FE arguments, and thought I'd help @darkgear out with consolidating a summary of the FE theory as it regards the sun. (at least, as I've understood it)

Adding to your list of things that fail scrutiny: If the sun & moon are the same size and same elevation, wouldn't they collide during an eclipse? (One of the eclipses is supposedly a "shadow object"? But that only explains one)  ...or even better: the sun's rays on a hill to the east after it's set. Bottoms of clouds would too easily point to "thinner air allowing light to travel further" but a hill can have a hardly-different elevation.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Inertia & A Cliff

« on: December 04, 2017, 06:21:41 AM »

Your organs spend your entire standing life squished against your pelvis by gravity. Remove gravity (or UA) and they are no longer squished. They move to assume the position accounted for only by your body tissues.

Plausible, and tough to really use as an argument for either gravity or UA, since we are both describing the impact of relative acceleration compared to surroundings. (Looks like this is called the "Equivalence Principle"?)

However, it seems to me that some experimentation around this might be in order. We're essentially describing the same fluid dynamics as this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/76222/accelerating-fluid-filled-container. (There may be better resources for the principles of physics, that's just the first I saw and had a nice chart)

Proposed Test (that is, what's being tested)
1. With gravity, my velocity starts at zero, and increases at 9.8m/s^2 as I start to drop.
2. Under UA, my initial acceleration is 9.8m/s^2. As I step off, velocity is the current velocity of the earth, and acceleration becomes 0.

Mathematically, these describe very different positions for my body in space (on its own, position relative to the ground is immaterial) and my gut says the fluid dynamics would play out differently as well. However, a physicist would need to 1) describe the expectations in equations 2) determine a test to confirm the behavior. (I'm envisioning dropping a half-filled 2L bottle in slow motion?)