1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?

« on: January 03, 2021, 06:02:42 PM »

I think this would serve as a basis for a story line that would make Lord of the Rings sound like "see Dick run".

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?

« on: December 16, 2020, 03:30:05 PM »

Okay, I can't really miss my opportunity to chime in here.  To answer the threads creator, it's not an easy answer.   It's almost a little sad really.  Why aren't all people and all children told the truth about everything and everybody all the time?  Because sometimes that may not benefit the well being of the child or everyone at large.

   It's my belief that the round earth phenomenon was propped up after WW2 in an effort to separate two warring bodies of people.  The great thing about science is that you don't really need a textbook to get to the truth.   And the better news is I think the world is ready for the truth and anything held "top secret" no longer needs to be hidden.  The knee jerk reaction we all share when first learning about flat earth theory is slowly fading and a more intelligent/friendly conversation can commence.

I can just also say, learning about other science ideas has not changed me.   It's just made me a more understanding person.

People have been successfully navigating their way around the world based on RET for over 500 years. WWII has nothing to do with it.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does the Earth rest on a solid foundation or does it float in space?

« on: December 12, 2020, 10:15:13 PM »

Anything that's accelerating is being pushed. Do FE'ers ever speculate as to what's pushing the universe upward.

... or pulling?

Yes, I should have said pushed or pulled.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does the Earth rest on a solid foundation or does it float in space?

« on: December 11, 2020, 10:56:33 PM »

...the Earth is not stationary but travelling upwards at by now immense speed, since it is claimed Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms^-2. Apparently everything else we see - sun, moon and stars - is also accelerating at the same rate with the Earth. This is called Universal Acceleration and is this site’s explanation of what the rest of the world calls gravity.

If everything is accelerating at the same speed and direction then this 'acceleration' would not be discernible, just like when you are traveling in an airplane at 400 mph along with the plates, napkins, and chairs.  There is no sense of motion, thus there would be no 'force' and you would still have to explain gravity.    BTW, 'up' would have no meaning. 

You may be confusing "acceleration" and "velocity".  Humans have no means of detecting velocity (although we sometimes think we can, from clues such as perception of relative movement, engine noise, wind on our face etc).  We can, however detect acceleration, using our sense of feeling, sense of self and our inner-ear thingies.  When the aeroplane, passengers, chairs and napkins are all travelling at 400 mph then, yes, there is no perception of velocity.  When the First Officer bounces the thing onto the runway, however, that is an acceleration of the aeroplane, and all the passengers, chairs and plates feel it. 

The FE concept is that UA is accelerating the Earth, and celestial objects at 9.8 m/s/s but not (for some reason) people, animals, buildings, chairs and napkins.  So the FE concept of what we Globies call gravity, is that everything on the planet is being pushed up by the earth and that is the effect we feel as gravity. 

And as Longtitube said, don't think that everyone who posts on this site is a Flattie; its a forum.

Anything that's accelerating is being pushed. Do FE'ers ever speculate as to what's pushing the universe upward.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight question

« on: December 08, 2020, 05:37:52 PM »

No. The reason the horizon is below eye level is that the person is at a higher altitude. Up is higher than down.

This very well could be true. The problem that I have with that is that there have been documented observations which suggest that the horizon can go up or down with the same altitude. You have to have an open mind. I'm not asking you to believe the earth is flat. I'm not asking you to believe the earth is not round. In this instance, I'm asking that you at least admit that things like refraction, or the path the light takes,  can have an effect on the perceived height of the horizon. Once you admit that then any sort of claims about the perceived height of the horizon really should have detailed light path/refraction analysis done to go along with those claims.





See the video below? Notice how, throughout the video, the horizon goes up and down with the altitude staying the same? Time and time again people have some and said that our human perception of the horizon, it going up, it going down, or things disappearing behind it are because the earth is round. Based on that kind of flawed thinking watching the video below would lead you to believe that the earth is changing shape. It goes from being flat to being round. Which i have not found one FE or RE person who believes.

That video shows the shimmer caused by moisture in the air. If you look at the buildings, you will see them 'changing shape' and appearing to move up and down. Light moving through moist air causes that phenomenon. Same with the hills and cliffs on the right. They appear to be moving like a major earth quaked was going on. Easy Peasy.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An inconvenient hemiplane.

« on: December 05, 2020, 10:15:40 PM »

I'm willing to try this again if you're interested. First, I would like to apologize for anything I posted that sounded smug or condescending, including the title of this thread. I'm also going to stay away from exact measurements because they're a distraction. My question can be expressed purely in terms of relative size.

For a circle, the area (A = pi times radius squared), starting from the middle and going to the halfway point of the radius, describes an 'inner circle' that is one quarter the size of the whole circle. So, subtracting the inner circle from the whole circle shows that the outer circle is three times the size of the inner circle (the area of a doughnut with these dimensions is three times the size of the hole).

Therefore, in FE terms, the southern hemiplane would have three times the surface area of the northern hemiplane, and my question is whether that is claimed to be so in FET.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An inconvenient hemiplane.

« on: December 02, 2020, 03:10:57 PM »

No. Pick any number other than 10,000 km, and the math still holds.

Yes, that's how proportionality works, congratulations. How does that resolve your issue of simply making up the currently-unknown factors?

But wait, there's more inconvenience to discuss

Nah, we'll deal with your failures one at a time. There will be no need to discuss further consequences of your incorrect assumptions once you've corrected those.

The question still stands. Does FET recognize that the southern hemiplane is 3 times the size of the northern hemiplane. Again, this is simple geometry. We could be taking about a dinner plate or a circular throw rug and the question is the same. The actual measurements need not be known.

Same with the Margaret River to Port Elizabeth question. Actual numbers are not needed, just relative distance. Does FET believe they are 2.44 times farther apart than, and in a different direction from each other than RET? Your method of denial causes me to reiterate that this is purely a geometric relationship that does not require actual measurements.

Also, the mocking tone you take is unbecoming the moderation of a serious forum.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An inconvenient hemiplane.

« on: December 01, 2020, 10:30:40 PM »

But wait, there's more inconvenience to discuss:



The cities of Margaret River, Western Australia (34S, 115E) and Port Elizabeth, South Africa (34S, 25E) are a quarter of the way around the world from each other whether looking at a RE globe or a FE map. Of that there is no argument. What is in contention is the distance and the most direct line between them.

When I measure the RE distance on maps.google.com, it tells me they are 7,980 km apart, and that a straight-line between them runs as far south as 43 2/3 degrees, and lies about 600 km north of Kerguelen Islands.

FE distance and direction differ greatly. Given it is 10,000 km from the North Pole to the Equator, plus 34/90 of 10,000 km from the Equator to the south, the distance from the North Pole to each city is 10,000 + (34/90 x 10,000) = 13,778 km on lines that are 90 degrees apart.

Therefore, on a flat earth, a straight line between the 2 cities would be the hypotenuse of an equilateral right angle triangle with sides of 13,778 km. Therefore the distance between them would be 19,485 km, which is about 2.44 times farther in FET, and the line between them (the hypotenuse) would nearly touch the southern tip of India. This example can be duplicated for any two points on earth, and such a difference will occur every time.

Given that every shipping company in the world for the last 400+ years, and every airline in the world since their inception, have been successfully plotting course and distance based on RET, and that literally zero companies of any kind rely on knowing how far and which way it is from A to B by using FET, the only conclusion any rational person can come to is that the world is round.

To pile on further, the shape of every continent is known, their size is known, and the distance and direction from any point on earth to any other point is known. The only way they can exist as such is on a round earth.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An inconvenient hemiplane.

« on: December 01, 2020, 07:14:21 PM »

we can easily calculate the area of each hemiplane using A = pi*r squared

This relies on you substituting many unknowns within FET with your imagination. In conclusion:

Does that agree with FE theory?

Probably not.

No. Pick any number other than 10,000 km, and the math still holds. Going from the center of a circle half way to the edge will always define an area exactly 3 times less than the area defined by going from said half-way point to the edge. This is not RE vs. FE; this is simple geometry, and I want to know if FE theory recognizes this.

10

Flat Earth Theory / An inconvenient hemiplane.

« on: December 01, 2020, 06:46:35 PM »

Assuming the distance from the North Pole (NP) to the Equator (E) is 10,000 km whether speaking of FE or RE, and that the Equator to the southern edge (or South Pole) is an additional 10,000 km, we can easily calculate the area of each hemiplane using A = pi*r squared.

Where r = 10,000 km from NP to E, the area of the northern hemiplane = 314,159,265 kmsq.
Where r = 20,000 km from NP to SP (or southern edge) the area of the world = 1,256,637,061 kmsq (which, btw, is about 2.46 times the area in RE theory).
To calculate the size of the southern hemiplane, simply subtract the northern hemiplane from the total, which = 942,477,796 kmsq.

Therefore, the southern hemiplane is exactly 3 times the size of the northern hemiplane.

Does that agree with FE theory?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?

« on: November 22, 2020, 07:34:08 PM »

I'm still waiting for an FE believer to explain the purpose of this massive lie that the earth is round.

If you do not have anything to add to a thread, do not post in it. Warned.

??

I started this thread. I named it. It's about a question that nobody who believes in FET has even attempted to answer. How is that being off-topic? It IS the topic. Please rescind the warning.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions regarding gravity

« on: November 22, 2020, 07:30:02 PM »

Apologies if I misnamed it. Let me try again. FET does explain the effect known as gravity by the fact that the flat earth is accelerating upward. Correct?

Partially.

Thank you for the partial answer.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight question

« on: November 22, 2020, 07:27:07 PM »

(Note: one sees 'farther', not 'further')

Not everyone speaks American English. If you'd like to get educated on the historical interchangeability of the two words, as well as the pointlessness of this American grammaranism, I strongly recommend this Merriam-Webster article.

No. The reason the horizon is below eye level is that the person is at a higher altitude. Up is higher than down.

If your only response is "NUH UH RET IS FACT", then I implore you to stop posting here. If you cannot make a coherent argument, stay out of the upper fora.

If a person is at a high altitude, then other things at lower altitudes will appear to be down. Again, up is higher than down. EA if true, would increase the effect of the other object appearing to be down, but it's not necessary.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight question

« on: November 22, 2020, 06:39:05 PM »

The horizon also dips a bit at high altitudes. There is a section on that on the EA page.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Horizon_Dip

From the link (emphasis mine):

The Electromagnetic Accelerator predicts that at high altitudes where one can see further (Note: one sees 'farther', not 'further') into the distance, the horizon will dip below eye level. Light which travels parallel from the limits of vision will be pulled upwards and miss the eye of the observer. The rays the observer will see are those rays which are transmitted at a lower angle and pulled upwards to meet the observer, resulting in a horizon which is slightly below eye level.

No. The reason the horizon is below eye level is that the person is at a higher altitude. Up is higher than down.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Surface area comparison

« on: November 22, 2020, 06:09:27 PM »

The surface area of a round earth is about 510 million square kms. A flat earth, with a radius of 20,000 kms (north pole to southern edge), is about 1.256 billion square kms. That would make the area of a flat earth about 2.46 times more than that of a round earth. I'm pretty sure we all know that simply isn't so. Distances from one side of the southern hemisphere to the other as well as the size of continents would be completely out of whack if that were true. Thoughts?

Area of a sphere = 4 x pi x radius squared (radius of a round earth = 6371 km.)
Area of a circle = 2 x pi x radius squared (radius of a flat earth = 20,000 km.)

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?

« on: November 22, 2020, 03:53:22 PM »

I'm still waiting for an FE believer to explain the purpose of this massive lie that the earth is round.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions regarding gravity

« on: November 22, 2020, 03:51:29 PM »

They don't believe in gravity. They believe in 'gravitation' cause by the earth accelerating 'upward'.

Lord, give me patience. If you're going to make statements like these, please try not to state the exact opposite of what's the case.

Once more, for those in the back row:

gravitation - a hypothetical attractive force between bodies with mass, a Round Earther favourite
gravity - the largely undisputed phenomenon of things falling down to Earth

Explained in more detail and in a RE context: https://byjus.com/physics/difference-between-gravitation-and-gravity/

Apologies if I misnamed it. Let me try again. FET does explain the effect known as gravity by the fact that the flat earth is acclerating upward. Correct?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions regarding gravity

« on: November 22, 2020, 12:45:33 AM »

They don't believe in gravity. They believe in 'gravitation' cause by the earth accelerating 'upward'. They even have an explanation for not exceeding the speed of light. It's convenient that the direction of this acceleration is perpendicular to the 'plane' of the earth. Otherwise it would like the entire world was built on a hill. I'm not sure how they explain that the atmosphere (atomsplane?) doesn't get swept away, but I do know they will have an explanation.

19

Flat Earth Theory / How far is it from Vancouver to Sydney?

« on: November 22, 2020, 12:19:47 AM »

The round earth distance, the one used successfully by Air Canada to plot direction and distance, says 12,500 km. What is the flat earth distance?

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?

« on: November 21, 2020, 07:10:56 PM »

For over 300 years, from the early 1500's to the mid 1800's, cartographers depicted California as an island off the coast of the United States. So I wouldn't be keen to bring up the ancient perfect practice of cartography if I were you.

What makes you think that between the mid 1800's and 1900 everyone in the world decided to stop plagiarizing and actually conduct an accurate exploration of the earth?



From the 1500's to the 1800's California was depicted as an island:

18 Maps From When the World Thought California Was an Island

GLEN MCLAUGHLIN WANDERED into a London map shop in 1971 and discovered something strange. On a map from 1663 he noticed something he’d never seen before: California was floating like a big green carrot, untethered to the west coast of North America.

He bought the map and hung it in his entryway, where it quickly became a conversation piece. It soon grew into an obsession. McLaughlin began to collect other maps showing California as an island.

“At first we stored them under the bed, but then we were concerned that the cat would pee on them,” he said. Ultimately he bought two cases like the ones architects use to store blueprints, and over the next 40 years filled them up with more than 700 maps, mostly from the 17th and 18th centuries. In 2011, he partly sold and partly donated his collection to Stanford University, which has digitized the maps and created an online exhibition.

The old maps represent an epic cartographic blunder, but they also contain a kernel of truth, the writer Rebecca Solnit argued in a recent essay. “An island is anything surrounded by difference,” she wrote. And California has always been different — isolated by high mountains in the east and north, desert in the south, and the ocean to the west, it has a unique climate and ecology. It’s often seemed like a place apart in other ways too, from the Gold Rush, to the hippies, to the tech booms of modern times.

The idea of California as an island existed in myth even before the region had been explored and mapped. “Around the year 1500 California made its appearance as a fictional island, blessed with an abundance of gold and populated by black, Amazon-like women, whose trained griffins dined on surplus males,” Philip Hoehn, then-map librarian at UC Berkley wrote in the foreword to a catalog of the maps that McLaughlin wrote.

Maps in the 1500s depicted California as a peninsula, which is closer to the truth (the Baja peninsula extends roughly a 1,000 miles south from the present-day Golden State). Spanish expeditions in the early 1600s concluded, however, that California was cut off from the mainland. Maps in those days were carefully guarded state secrets, McLaughlin says. “The story is, the Dutch raided a Spanish ship and found a secret Spanish map and brought it back to Amsterdam and circulated it from there,” he said.

In 1622, the British mathematician Henry Briggs published an influential article accompanied by a map that clearly showed California as an island. Briggs’ map was widely copied by European cartographers for more than a century.

The beginning of the end of California’s island phase came when a Jesuit priest, Eusebio Kino, led an overland expedition across the top of the Sea of Cortez. He wrote a report accompanied by a map in 1705 that cast serious doubt on the idea of California as an island. It took more exploration, but by 1747 King Ferdinand VI of Spain was convinced. He issued a decree stating that California was — once and for all — not an island. It took another century for cartographers to completely abandon the notion.

McLaughlin, who’s now 80, spent most of his career as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. He says the maps dominated his home decor for much of the past four decades. But no more. “I do miss them, but it’s time to let them go,” he said. “I’ve had a good long run with them.”

The vast majority of which were depicted on a round earth (I assume there are exceptions). The point of mentioning cartographers of old is that they plotted routes based on a round earth. Fast forward to now, and every single word-wide route be it by air, land, or water, is plotted on a round earth, and every single trip based on those routes accurately predicts distance and direction from any A on earth to any B.

Anyway, the question still remains - Why the hoax if the earth really is flat?