Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Mock

Pages: [1]
Basically, I wanted to draw some attention to this:
(I figured this might merit its own topic, since it's more of a theoretical question and doesn't have anything to do with high altitude balloon videos)

The question the FE'ers don't like you to ask is how the moon is lit by the beam of spotlight sun at night...and if it isn't, how the hell are there phases of the moon?
The sun has two beams of light?

Well - it needs another one to cast light on Venus, and another on Mercury, and...well, one for every planet, moon, asteroid and comet that shows "phases" when viewed through a telescope.

In the "unipolar" map - the beam that lights up the Earth would have to be semi-circular in order to light up just the half of the world that is in daylight.

In the "bipolar" map - the beam would have to have little curved tails and change shape continually through the day and through the year in order to track the weird shapes of the lines of longitude.  The data from solar panel plants on clearly demonstrates how that shape must be changing.

Can the Flat Earth Society explain why the Sun, as postulated by both FE models, only illuminates part of the Earth, while at the same time illuminating other objects, such as the Moon (which is definitely being illuminated)?

So, TFES' counter-argument for the Quadrilateral Proof is that we don't know if the distances are correct. All right.
What if we prove that for any FE map configuration that does get the angles right by using other distances, therefore avoiding the proof, those other distances will still not match up with the flight times and speeds?

If the Earth is flat, there MUST be a constellation where BOTH

1.   The Quadrilateral Proof gives identical angles
2.   The times that it would take planes to fly the distances matches those given by airlines like Qantas, calculatable by dividing the distances by the cruise speed of the planes used / Alternatively: The cruising speed the plane would need to have in order to complete its journey in the given time matches the one that is given for each plane type and flight
3.   (optional) The angles between the cities would have to remain roughly the same (not sure, since FET seems to question those angles anyway)

If there is no such constellation, then the Earth cannot be flat. Shouldn't be too hard.

I will be using for the angles.
Flight distances will be taken from WorldAtlas (all in km). The corner points are New York (NY), Paris (PA), Buenos Aires (BA) and Cape Town (CT).

NY - PA 5919
NY - BA 8383
NY - CT 12472
CT - PA 9148
CT - BA 6938
BA - PA 10930

Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 98.201°
Result for angle at NY calculated by adding: 31.814° + 43.611° = 76° => Difference of ~22°

Okay, so as we all can see, with the data we get from WorldAtlas, Earth cannot be flat. So let’s just change those numbers up a bit. At this point I’m not sure yet, but I think in order for the second angle to get closer to the first one, we’ll have to make NY – CT and BA – PA a bit shorter. Shall we? Let's say NY – CT 10000; BA – PA 8000, the other distance figures stay the same.
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 65.401°
Result for angle at NY calculated by adding:  43.24° + 64.294° = 108° => Difference of ~43° in the other direction

Okay, seems like I went a little bit overboard, but the angles did go into the direction I wanted them to. We can change the relevant angles by changing those two distances. Let’s try NY – CT 11000 and BA – PA 9500. The rest stays the same.
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 81.272°
Result for angle at NY calculated by adding: 56.248 + 39.092° = 95°

We’re getting closer to distances that would work on a FE, but NY – CT and PA – BA still seem to be a little too short. Considering the huge effect it had before, let’s just add 500 km to each figure. NY – CT 11500 and BA – PA 10000.
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 86.993°
Result for angle at NY calculated by adding: 36.8° + 52.115° = 88.915°

We’re getting really close now – so close that the digits after the dot will soon get important, so I stopped rounding the sums out of laziness. Our added angle is two degrees greater than the first one. I’m going to add a smaller bit of length: NY – CT 11550 and BA – PA 10050.
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 87.513°
Result for angle at NY calculated by adding: 36.561° +  51.695° = 88.256°

The two angles are now less than a degree apart – a mere 0.743°. I’ll try adding just 30 km more to both distances. NY – CT 11580 and BA – PA 10080.
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 87.862°
Result for angle at NY calculated directly: 36.417° +  51.442° = 87.859°

(I have proof for those angles and distances - 87.862°, 36.417° and 51.442°)

As you can see, the difference between the angle calculated from NY – PA, NY – BA and BA – PA is now only 0.003 degrees smaller than the one added up using the other distances. If the distances were like this in the real world, then mathematically the world could be flat.

Summing the first part up, our distances could be:

NY - PA 5919
NY - BA 8383
NY - CT 11580 – now 892 km less than before
CT - PA 9148
CT - BA 6938
BA - PA 10080 – now 850 km less than before

Note that we could also have done this by increasing the other distances, instead of decreasing those two – or a combination of both, which would probably give more accurate results, but I don’t think it matters. If anyone wants to put in the extra work (I’m looking at you, Flat Earthers – this might actually be a method to create a more or less accurate flat map!), you’re very much welcome to do that. I'll edit my post accordingly.

Now, before I start calculating with the flight times and velocities of the planes, does anyone have objections to how I'm doing this? Because I don’t want to do all that work without making sure it doesn’t get discredited again.

Flat Earth Theory / What about World's End?
« on: August 11, 2017, 03:14:50 PM »
In the Ice Wall model, you obviously have the Ice Wall. But why has no one ever explored it? Surely we would be capable of that - at least we would be able to gather more information about it. Also, why not just fly a plane over it - even just to see how far it goes?

And in the bipolar map, there's usually no Ice Wall, meaning that nothing would stop ships from just going over the rim - or at least seeing that rim. Planes could also fly over it anytime. And wouldn't the oceans just drain down there? And, I've always wondered, if it's there, why has no one ever stumbled upon it?

Since some kind of rim at the edge seems to be one of the defining features of a Flat Earth model, it seems like the best way to confirm its veracity without a doubt would be to find said rim - since on a RE, there obviously would be nothing like it. It seems like there would also be tremendous scientific potential, with all the UA and dark energy stuff. So why has no one in the history of the FES ever tried to find it?

Summed up, if the Earth is in fact flat, why has no one ever seen its edge, nor tried to find it? If it has been tried, why could it possibly not have been discovered?

Please, before commenting, at the very least read the summary and below. I know it's a lot of text, but it's important.

So, on the Ice Wall map / Azimuthal Equidistant Projection map. I'm sure y'all know which one I mean.
People have flown over Antarctica, and the flight distances on the southern hemiplane are way too big - let alone the fact that if it were true, planes wouldn't fly the routes they fly, but shorter ones without unnecessary arcs. It's been discussed in countless of threads.

Then there's the newer, bipolar map with Antarctica as an actual continent - yay! But with this model, there's absolutely NO explanation for people travelling from the USA to Japan in the comparatively small amount of time that is observed, since they would have to fly over the Atlantic, Europe and most of Asia.

Also, the map clearly shows there is something "south" of the South Pole, which is contradictory. It's also not how magnetic fields work. There would be large spaces of sea where a compass needle simply would do nothing at all, or just point away from the South Pole - but in this model, the direction opposite south apparently doesn't have to be north. This is in direct contradiction to what is observed everywhere on Earth. And yes, I know the geographic and magnetic South Pole are two different locations, but this problem arises no matter where specifically locate the south pole, as long as it is a fixed point. Compass readings would never be accurate whenever you are east or west of 0° longitude.

To summarize:
The Antarctica as Ice Wall model cannot be true because (among other reasons, I'm sure I'm missing some)
 - there would be bizarrely unrealistic flight durations and routes on the Southern Hemiplane, no matter where specifically the continents are located. If anyone can come up with a map where routes and distances actually behave even roughly like they do in real life, by all means enlighten us.
 - Antarctica is an actual continent, not a huge ring of ice. You can visit it, and you can fly over it, and it's all been done before. If Antarctica is observed to NOT be an Ice Wall along the edge of Earth, then where could it possibly be located in this model so that everything (compass needles / the magnetic south pole; distance from other places) still approximately matches up? It's just not possible. Again, if you disagree, give me evidence (read: a map where it works).

The Two Pole model I've seen around lately cannot be true either, because
 - There's stretches of sea (and islands) "south" (further down on a map) of the South Pole. Where does a compass needle point? North? In that case, the other readings on the compass are not correct, which is not what is observed in real life in those places. Does it just point straight away from the south pole because of magnetic repulsion of the magnetized needle? In that case, again, it doesn't point north, which is not what is observed, either. And don't tell me it's because the actual magnetic south pole is somewhere else, because we know where it is, and it's on (or extremely near) Antarctica, not far off at the South End of the World.
 - There's the unfixable issue that you have to fly over the Atlantic and Europe to get to Japan, and even if you relocate stuff on the map (because people repeatedly say those are just models of how it could be, not maps), there's always the issue of planes on the west end of the Western Hemiplane having to fly over all of the rest of the world to reach the eastern edge of the Eastern Hemiplane. This is the case with all FE maps where neither of the Poles is in the center, and no amount of relocating continents can fix that, so the Bipolar Model CANNOT POSSIBLY be accurate. You should stop using it.

Please note what I am arguing here. This post is NOT trying to disprove FE theory. What I wanted to convey is that both models FE theory has at this moment for what the world roughly looks are not compatible with our observations of this world. My conclusion out of this is NOT that the Earth is round, but that your top priority at this moment should be finding a model of the Flat Earth that is actually in accordance with the real world. Again, I am not talking about specific distances and traveling times and stuff that can be fixed by relocating the continents. I am pointing out fundamental flaws in the very nature of the existing models.

Light travels in straight lines, doesn't it? And I've read multiple times on here that refraction is minimal in our atmosphere / plane / whatever. (It doesn't seem to be an argument FE theory uses to explain weird perspective stuff either. Everytime I've read about it, people like Tom Bishop just say we don't know how perspective works on large scales, and then stop explaining.)

So, do we all agree light travels in straight lines?
And if that is the case, what do y'all mean by "we don't know how perspective works at big distances"?
I seriously do not understand it. Please explain.

Flat Earth Theory / Sun and Moon floating above us - I don't get it
« on: June 19, 2016, 06:06:32 PM »
So you claim the sun and the moon are two (compared to the earth) rather small orbs circling above us. On some wiki page (not sure, but probably the FAQ), I also read that you explain gravity with the Earth being accelerated upwards by dark energy or aetheric winds or something like that. It doesn't even matter, as long as when I drop objects, they "fall down" and land on the ground - which they obviously do.
Now I was wondering: How can sun and moon levitate in the air above us without falling down, the same way a stone I drop will fall down? If we apply gravity to a flat Earth like you say it is, sun and moon will be accelerated downward and crash into the Earth. If we use your concept of the earth being carried by some sort of aetheric wind or whatever, the Earth will be accelerated upwards and crash into the sun and moon, which gives us the exact same results.

What am I missing? It seems like such a stupid question that I'm sure there must be a mistake, but I can't find any ???

Riddle me this:
How does a Full Moon appear full for everyone?

Imo, this is a really good question, regardless of the correctness of the OP's diagrams or anything else he has said. I have read countless of FE-believers' posts about how what rabinoz, totesnotreptilian and everyone else say in that thread is wrong, inaccurate and whatnot, but you FE-ers haven't come up with a valid explanation, either.

So if it's not because we live on a spherical earth with the moon rotating around it, how can the full moon appear full for anyone?

Pages: [1]