1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Drone footage across a lake: flat earth explanation?

« on: December 16, 2018, 06:15:37 PM »

I have heard of Snell's Law, but that requires some kind of medium change.  Additionally the light will bend towards the normal.  In that case I would expect to see the opposite of what was observed.  Maybe there is a unknown Peyronies Effect on light that is illustrated in this video.  I will do some further research.

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude

« on: December 16, 2018, 05:24:25 PM »

The problem I had was determining two known locations in New Zealand and then determining the distances between them.  That's why I picked two airports.  If you ever take flying lessons after you learn to control the aircraft you must learn navigation.  Any flight you make between two points must start with knowing the distances and the known speed of your aircraft.  Then you must know what your expected fuel consumption will be.  Airport locations have been accurately surveyed and if there were any significant errors in that regard you can be sure that would soon be discovered and corrected.  Sure, you can have plenty of variables while flying between two points.  The wind can vary and you might have to fly at a different altitude that you originally planned, but the locations of the airports on your map can't be a variable.  It must be known exactly.  The next problem I had was determining an accurate way to measure the distances between two known locations.  Here's where math comes into play.  You can obtain a standard aeronautical sectional chart and simply measure the distance that way.  There might be a discussion about the accuracy of the chart, or how it was made, or all the other kinds of straw man questions that come up on here.  To short circuit all that I simply used spherical trigonometry and dot multiplied the two vectors representing the coordinates of the airports.  That procedure will accurately give you the distance on a sphere between the two points in question.  After having said all that, will the actual distances between my two airport locations on earth match my calculations?  The answer was a definite yes.  Errors were less than 1%.  What can be learned from this exercise?  You can very accurately determine the distance between two lines of longitude.  There can be little doubt as to the accuracy of those calculations and that they accurately depict the shape of the earth as it is.  My calculations also produced a result that showed that the earth is a sphere in the Southern hemisphere.  I actually used Rowbotham's own distance figures between longitude lines to show that. 

If there is any criticism of my methodology please let me know.  There's no sense in bringing up any of the common straw man arguments.  I could easily concede a 5% error and it wouldn't change the overall conclusion.     

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Titanic search in 1985 was a cover

« on: December 15, 2018, 01:36:44 PM »

What people don't generally know is that the ship used to discover the Titanic (R/V Knorr) was actually owned by the US Navy but operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI).  I worked on the Knorr myself (As well as the R/V Atlantis) for several years and was out of some scientific expeditions some of which were of a 'secret' nature involving the Navy.  Recently the Knorr was retired and was replaced by another ship.

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude

« on: December 15, 2018, 06:02:41 AM »

Here's another sample of measuring longitude between two points.  I got lucky.  There are two airports in Australia. The first one is in Adelaide and the other is in Rowra.

Adelaide   34 degrees 56' -- 50'' South |  138 degrees  31' -- 59'' East            Rowra   34 degrees 56' -- 30'' South   |  150 degrees  32' -- 40" East

Notice how there's only a 20 second difference in Latitudes.  That's about 1/2 mile difference at the most.  The distance was checked several different ways.  If you just went by the most verifiable way and drove the route you could expect a 715 Nautical mile trip.  If you flew airport to airport you could expect the distance to be about 591 Nautical Miles.  My spherical mileage calculations based upon the coordinates yielded the same 591 Nautical Miles.  Now, as Rowbotham says, let's do the math:  Difference in Longitudes is just a little over 12 degrees.  That means the worst case driving mileage 715/12 = 59.58 Nautical Miles per degree.  If you go the direct air route which is 124 Nautical Miles shorter you get:  591/12 = 49.25 Nautical Miles per degree.  That is very close to Rowbotham's prediction for a spherical earth. 

You can verify my figures yourself.  Airports have verifiable locations so pilots can do their flight planning and not run out of gas.  Maybe with a lot of work I could find some short cuts to reduce the driving mileage but this was just a simple example of what can be done.  If you went by Rowbotham's figure of 25000 miles of flat earth circumference at the equator figure, that would mean at 34 degrees South Latitude the distance between 1 degree Longitude should be around 90 Nautical Miles by the flat earth paradigm.  The worst case driving mileage calculations still comes out a whole lot closer to the globe earth rather than the flat earth paradigm.  If you go by the direct air mileages you are within 1 percent of the spherical earth figures even by Rowbotham. 

That's another one for Rowbotham ----  Round Earth: 3   Flat Earth: 0  (See the other examples in my posts above)         

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude

« on: December 15, 2018, 12:59:27 AM »

I illustrated the fact that the distance between 1 degree longitude lines South of the equator is less than 60 nautical miles in two of my posts above.  Both of the examples were given by Rowbotham in his book where he just made a measurement or calculation error.  After the errors were corrected the example clearly showed that the earth is a globe.  It's a very simple concept to understand that the flat earth paradigm simply can't tolerate converging longitude lines South of the equator.   

Google Earth was used and you could clearly observe and read road signs and distances.  I tried a couple of examples doing that, but my results were inconclusive.  You need a nice straight East-West road in Australia of about 100 to 200 miles.  If you could read the road signs you could get a mileage figure and maybe match it up with the calculated mileage based upon the coordinates you also get from Google Earth.  I have done that between a couple points and can confirm that my spherical trigonometric calculations match very closely to the mileage you get on Google Earth. 

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude

« on: December 14, 2018, 10:05:24 PM »

There are many points that use latitude and longitude on the earth. These points are accurately placed on a map and accurately depict how things are laid out on the earth.  Now I can take those same latitude and longitude coordinates and calculate accurate distances between them using spherical trigonometry.  That means either the earth is spherical because the results are accurate, or spherical trigonometry is an invalid mathematical procedure.  These are two mutually exclusive things.   It's a done deal.  Sailors and pilots have for a long time used charts based upon a spherical earth.  Navigational calculations are made every day based upon spherical trigonometry.  Sailors don't get lost at sea.  Planes don't get lost on long overseas flights and run out of fuel because they are lost.  You just can't argue with success.  You can discuss the fine points and debate getting the last little bits of accuracy from a chart, but the very basic, rock bottom, facts are that the earth is a sphere.

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude

« on: December 14, 2018, 06:38:27 AM »

Rowbotham makes another minor error in calculations as outlined below.

The second example in his book was a route between Melbourne, AU and Bluff Harbor, NZ.  I used the position for Melbourne as 37.8455 South --  144.9425 East and the position for Bluff Harbor as 46.59833 South – 168.345 East.  Using standard spherical trigonometry, I calculated the distance between the two ports at 1160 Nautical Miles.  Due to the fact that there was a southerly component to the route of 8.75 degrees it makes sense that there would be about a 526 nautical miles ‘southing’ on the voyage and the 23.4 degree ‘easting’ would be 962 nautical miles.  Rowbotham did say that he was allowing 50 statute miles for the angular or diagonal direction of the route.  Probably he meant to say 500 Nautical Miles and just made a mistake.  If you divide 962 NM by the 23.4 degree change in Longitude that comes out to a little over 41 nautical miles per degree longitude at 46 degrees South.  The chart in the book would confirm that the expected distance between a degree of Longitude in the spherical earth model is quite close to the calculated distance of 41 nautical miles.

Rowbotham also said that the ‘latitude of Sydney would be 49.74 nautical miles or 58 statute miles’.  If you do the calculation you find the figures above yield a 1.1666 conversion factor to convert Nautical Miles to Statute Miles.  The modern-day figure currently is 1.15078. That’s just another small discrepancy that I noticed.

I’m sure that it was quite difficult for Rowbotham to bring together all the data that he did and attempt the calculations with his limited education.  He didn’t have the nice computers and calculators that are available today.  If you make the minor error corrections and redo all the calculations, you find that the spherical earth paradigm is nicely confirmed by Rowbotham’s data.  Thank You Samuel Rowbotham. 

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude

« on: December 13, 2018, 07:49:56 PM »

Rowbotham actually goes a ways toward proving that the earth is a sphere.  That proof is by his own numbers and calculations. 

His first example in his book was to calculate the distance between Sydney and Nelson.  By his own quote “the two places are nearly on the same latitude”.  Rowbotham’s stated distance between the two ports was 1550 statue miles.  These statements are the crux of the whole problem and seems to be his basis for determining that the earth is NOT as sphere, but flat.  Now lets examine the statements for some discrepancies and apply proven and known modern day math to the statements. 
1st……..Sidney is at 34deg, 00’, 00’’ South by 151deg 11’, 00’’ East
2nd…….Nelson is at 41deg, 16’, 00’’ South by  173deg ,17’,00’ East

The difference in longitude is correct and I agree with that.  However, the difference in latitude is about 7 degrees.  It is true that Rowbotham did say that the differences are ‘nearly’ the same.  Now let’s apply “the whole matter now becomes a mere arithmetical question” quote from Rowbotham and calculate the distance 7 degrees of latitude makes.  That distance going straight North or South is 483 statue miles.  I agree that the route isn’t directly North or South so the whole 483 mile mistake won’t apply.  A modern day measurement between the two ports would yield a distance of about 1305 statue miles.  The difference between Rowbotham’s assumed distance and the corrected one is about 245 miles.

Split the difference between the two latitudes and do a calculation of the points 37.5deg S by 115deg, 11’E  to 37.5deg S by 173deg, 17’E and that comes out to 1208.57 statue miles or 1050.21 Nautical miles.  That’s about 47.7 Nautical Miles per degree longitude at the 37.5 degree South Latitude.  According to Rowbotham’s own chart provided so the reader could make calculations for himself I come up with pretty good agreement with a spherical earth. 

Now I agree that the calculations are a bit tricky.  I didn’t use Google Earth for any distances but effectively did a dot multiplication of two vectors and got the distance between the two coordinates using standard spherical trigonometric methods that would work on any sphere.  These methods are used each and every day by both the shipping companies and airlines so you know for sure that they are quite valid. 

My only assumptions were of the exact locations alluded to by Rowbotham.  I took an estimate and did the calculations with those figures.  If someone wants to provide the ‘official’ Rowbotham approved port coordinates I can re-calculate.

Having said everything above it is hard to determine if the minor calculation error above was intentional to make a case for a flat earth or just a wrong assumption.  The question now is can you trust anything  in Rowbotham’s book and his assumptions that the earth is flat based upon a mistaken assumption? 

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One degree of longitude

« on: December 13, 2018, 06:07:20 AM »

I don't want to get into an argument regarding a coordinate system because it's irrelevant in this case.  Rowbotham was pretty rough in his estimates of the distances involved.  Furthermore he made an assumption that was a little 'loose' as well.  In any even he can't be blamed too much because distance data may not have been the best in those days.

My modern day calculations revealed a distance between Botany Bay in Sidney to Nelson of about 1134 Nautical miles.  The two ports aren't quite on the same latitude as Rowbotham assumed.  One is about 34 degrees South and the other is about 41 degrees South latitude.  The change in longitude I can agree with.  If you do the calculation you will find that the earth should be about 18531 NM in diameter at that point yielding a 51.47 NM per degree longitude.  That seems to be a reasonable number for the distance between a degree longitude, at 33 degrees South, even for Rowbotham given all the rough estimates that were used. 

Rowbotham had the distance for a Nautical mile at 1.16 statute miles.  Today the correct value is 1.15078 statue miles.  With all the rough approximations of the distances, and the error in the latitudes assumed, I would say that Rowbotham just made a biased assumption that the world was flat.  His small errors and erroneous assumptions, if corrected, should prove that his conclusions were just wrong.



 

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 12, 2018, 09:58:15 PM »

Thank you, Bobby, for your excellent explanation for what it's like to see a bank of clouds appear on the horizon at sea. 

Of course the other thing that debunks perspective would be observing a mountain rising out of the sea.  A mountain gets wider as you go below the peak.  Therefore with perspective you could expect to see the wider, lower, portions first before seeing the peak.  The lower portions are even a bit closer as well.  Now imagine Mt. Fuji in Japan appearing out of the sea as we start nearing our port.  First you see the peak, then you start to see the clouds that often are around the mountain, then you slowly start to see the rest of the mountain rise out of the sea.  It's a very impressive sight.  You can be sure that a bunch of us were taking a good look at Mt. Fuji thru our telescope as well.  It meant shore time was getting close.   

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there a Flat-Earth map I can use to actually navigate from A to B to C?

« on: December 12, 2018, 07:42:19 PM »

A flat map depicting a flat earth would seem to me to be a rather straight forward process.  Of course the huge problem would be in getting any map to match the actual landscape especially South of the equator.  The flat earth folks could prove their model by just taking a small section of Australia and mapping it to flat earth standards.  Then anyone could compare that map to the actual land.  If everything matches up, like it does with a globe earth map, then the FET folks could say 'See it works'.  With the globe earth mapping system you can give me a couple of lat-long coordinates between two points and I can calculate the distance.  Then I can travel between those two points and my travel distance will match what the map says.     

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 12, 2018, 07:27:56 PM »

It's hard to say the distance exactly to a bank of clouds that's part of a moving weather front, but I would say about 50 nautical miles.  Typically we would be doing about 24 knots and would take about 2 hours to start going under any clouds.  Since this thread is about clouds at sunrise I hate to say anything about mountains or buildings at a known distances that were seen on a regular basis.  I've done that in past posts that confirms a globe earth.

I'm an engineer by training and experience. Showing something using math wouldn't be a problem.  It's difficult to prove much of anything by just observing clouds.  Just about any observation could easily have an explanation for either FE or RE.  Any picture that seemed to show a really definitive answer would just be called a 'fake'.  I'm still a licensed commercial pilot and have been flying above a bank of clouds and have seen the sun set and go below those clouds.  Again the argument would be perspective.  There are ways around the argument but would be a logistical problem.  Any pictures taken of cloud tops from two different points would just be deemed photo shopped as there's zero authentication standards on this website.   

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 12, 2018, 07:06:08 PM »

I can't ever post a photo on this site because I have no 'generally acceptable' authentication standards that would show that the photo wasn't altered.  Anything that I could show otherwise would just 'with a wave of the hand' be claimed to have been photo shopped.

Imagine yourself in the middle of the ocean on a globe earth.  There's a known frontal system ahead of you with the sun at your back.  You clearly see just the tops of Cumulonimbus clouds lit up by the sun appearing ahead on the horizon.  Slowly the clouds build higher & higher until you just start to see the tiniest of a gap between the bottoms of the clouds and the sea ahead. Then the ship progresses under the clouds and into a cloudy evening ahead. 

I've also seen a variation of that very same thing with Mt Fuji slowly rising from the sea, also with clouds around it as we approached Japan.  In this case the mountain was at a known distance because our position was known.  Perspective is no argument here because that argument presumes that you will see a wider object before you see a narrower one.  Since I could only see the tip of Mt Fuji first and not the wider part below at the same time, it proves that the wider part was invisible because it was hidden by the curvature of the earth.  If you did a little charting the view was pretty much what you would expect on a globe earth.  That's very hard to refute with the perspective argument.

You couldn't see any land around the mountain until we got a whole lot closer and finally approached & entered the port to discharge our cargo.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 12, 2018, 06:39:24 PM »

Your picture appears to show land ahead not just clouds.  The sun directly ahead makes it difficult to discern exactly.  What I've seen was in the afternoon with the sun behind and clearly lighting the tops of the clouds.  Even with a telescope you could see clouds all the way to the sea until we got closer.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 12, 2018, 06:24:42 PM »

Any photos or videos that I might have would just be claimed to be be altered so there's no point to showing them.  No one on here as ever written down acceptable photo or video authentication standards that everyone could accept.  It would just take one person to say 'fake' and then everyone would believe it.   

I tried to explain that perspective wasn't a factor in my observations.  We had a very good telescope on the bridge of the ship and we could only see the TOPS of the clouds at first.  As the ship progressed we could start to see more & more of the clouds until a small gap started to appear between the sea and the bottoms of the clouds.  What I was seeing couldn't be explained with the flat earth paradigm, but only with a globe earth one.   

What I saw was just a kind of a reversal of the 'sunken ship' effect that is so often 'debunked' on this site and I didn't really expect too many to believe me anyway. 

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise

« on: December 12, 2018, 04:16:51 PM »

From time to time I would see an interesting thing while at sea in the middle of the ocean.  The ship would be under a perfectly clear sky and heading towards a bank of clouds ahead.  Those clouds appeared to extend all the way to the surface of the ocean and you could see the tops of the clouds above that.  For sure you would assume that the ship was heading into some fog and we would have to be ready to operate in reduced visibility in a couple of hours.  Then as we progressed closer to the clouds, slowly the bottoms of the clouds would start to appear to rise above the level of the sea.  After a while we would actually pass under the clouds with about a 500 foot to 1000 foot ceiling.  This phenomenon wasn't all that unusual and would usually appear as we approached a weather front while at sea.  It illustrated the sunken ship effect only using clouds above the sea.  Perspective isn't an issue here because you would start by seeing the actual tops of the clouds at a far distance then slowly the side and then the bottoms would appear.  Finally the bottoms would appear to rise from the sea and then eventually the ship would pass under the clouds.  Only with a global earth would you expect to see something like this.   

17

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position

« on: December 12, 2018, 03:27:43 PM »

It's pretty much a done deal.  Nautical charts and any other workable charts are still based upon the longitude lines converging at the South Pole. 

While I was at the mall yesterday I checked with one of Santa's elves.  That elf assured me that he was updating the training on Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer and making sure that the WGS-84 charts will be used for navigation this Christmas.  Now you have Popeye and Santa Clause depending upon world charts that have the longitude lines starting off at the equator with 1 nautical mile per minute in the distance between longitude lines down to zero distance at the South Pole.  That means that the longitude lines are converging.  By definition that's a globe earth South of the Equator.

Anyone can prove that the earth is a globe North of the equator by doing a simple experiment with simple equipment using the North Star.  That would prove that the earth is a sphere North of the equator.  Probably the same could be done in the Southern hemisphere using the Southern Cross. 

The basic question is simple really.  All the charts out there used by ship's crews and aircraft crews are based upon a globe earth.  Those crews use those charts for navigation.  Those same crews don't get lost or even complain that their charts are inaccurate.  The difference between a flat earth chart and a globe earth chart would have to be radical and wouldn't accurately represent that actual surface of the earth.  Therefore since the charts used are accurate and work and the charts used are based upon a globe earth it is simple logic to assume that the actual earth is also a globe South of the Equator. 

18

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position

« on: December 12, 2018, 05:37:56 AM »

Latitude and longitude were not based on carefully laid locations. They were based on the apparent position of celestial bodies from various parts of the earth. The North Star will define your latitude, for example.

Is the altitude of the North Star perfectly constant when moving between latitudes? Never tested, but assumed so.

Interesting question.
You might say that the North Star changes very slightly in apparent location over the centuries but the difference is very, very small. In other words, the North Star can change it's apparent position over time. I don't think that the North Star is a 'smart' star and could intentionally change locations in the sky to foil a navigator as the navigator changes latitudes, even a flat earth one.  Besides you could have two navigators trying to navigate at the same time at different latitudes.  How would the North Star know where to be under those circumstances?  Of course with the current flat earth paradigm you have a 'smart' sun that can change orbits (somehow) to generate different seasons.  Why not produce a paradigm where the North Star can change it's apparent height to produce the correct apparent altitude when changing latitudes?  Currently the North Star is in the wrong spot and won't produce a proper sight except at the North Pole and a single other latitude depending on what the assumed position of the North Star happens to be above the North Pole. Maybe the earth is somehow spewing ions or dark energy straight up from the North Pole that is refracting the star light as a function of the observer latitude.  The apparent altitude of the North Star would have to vary from infinity at the North Pole to zero at the Equator.  I've tried a couple of exponentials and a tangent function, but haven't gotten anything that quite works yet.  That could fix the current measurement anomaly. 

19

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position

« on: December 11, 2018, 06:21:10 PM »

I did read thru some of the ship's logs pertaining to the effort to determine longitude.  The clocks used would be an important component.  John Harrison was an important player in that realm and I assume that his clocks were used on the voyages in question.  They were certainly of sufficient accuracy to make useful measurements of a position.  A 10 second error would produce a 2 to 3 mile error in a calculated position.  Additionally a sextant sighting of many heavenly bodies would also typically produce an error of 2 or 3 miles.  At sea I would expect a possible error of about 5 miles. 

Any position due to (DR) dead reckoning alone could be a whole lot more inaccurate.  A measurement of the ship's speed thru the water is an important component, but even more important for a sailing ship would be any currents.  I can tell you from personal experience that there are currents out there that could add or subtract 30% to a ship's sailing speed that the crew would have no way of measuring with thru the water speed alone.  A 2 or 3 knot current is not unusual and could make a 48 to 72 nautical mile difference in a DR position that couldn't be detected until the next celestial fix.  I have no idea about currents in the area that the voyage was surveying but it's certainly something to consider.

You could spend a lot of time studying the logs of the surveying voyage trying to make sense of everything.  I don't know if the Board of Longitude determined the actual distance between any two longitude lines South of the Equator or not.  Certainly the divergence of the longitude lines South of the equator in the FE paradigm would be something that modern day geodetic surveyors have already debunked years ago.  Again, there are no real viable flat earth maps available, but they would be interesting to see. 

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Pre-satellite measurements of position

« on: December 11, 2018, 03:45:37 PM »

You need to do some studying on just how celestial navigation works on a ship at sea.  First of all you are dependent upon the weather.  You can't take a sighting of a star with cloud cover.  Maybe it's just partly cloudy and the primary star or planet you need to get a really good fix is obscured so you use something else that isn't the best.  That could easily compromise the accuracy of your position.  Another possibility is that the seas were really rough while trying to take a sight.  When you are being jerked around you just do your best and take an average. 

There's no way that celestial navigation would work on a flat earth.  The nautical almanacs all depended on spherical trigonometry for an accurate determination of position.  Maybe you could get an idea of your latitude by observing the sun at local apparent noon, but that's about it.  If anyone has ever seen a nautical almanac based upon a flat earth paradigm it would probably be very valuable.  It would be equivalent to the upside down airplane stamp that the post office printed as a mistake once.   

Getting you longitude requires an accurate clock and a accurate nautical almanac.  If the clock's accuracy fades then your position accuracy could fade as well.  If it's been several days since you've been able to get a good star fix because of the weather then you are just dependent upon your dead reckoning skills and your helmsmen's skill at holding a steady heading in maybe bad sea conditions.  You also need to know your ship's thru the water speed compensated for possible tides & currents.  It's possible that your assumed position could be off by 25 miles. 

In the 1800's a ship's captain wouldn't go to sea unless he thought he could navigate and deliver the goods.  Often times the captain would own a portion of the ship as well.  A lot was on the line.  Forget flat earth navigation.  It can't work, there were no accurate flat earth maps available, no nautical almanacs for flat earth, no mathematical possibilities for it to work....... I've been over this subject before.

Popeye was a round earth sailor and didn't get lost.