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.

Messages - Balls Dingo

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated
« on: March 24, 2019, 01:35:11 AM »
That only holds true geometrically if you only use two points. Once, you introduce a 3rd point or more, FE can no longer correctly predict the length of the shadow (or angle).

I made a diagram of this so that everyone could understand this critical point. I chose three locations along the same longitude: Washington DC, Cayo Redondo in Cuba and Lima in Peru (actually the suburb Surquillo because it lined up the best). These are the assumed elevations at the same minute in all three locations (solar noon):,-77.0146,12/2019.03.23/13:15/1/3,-77.0192,16/2019.03.23/13:15/1/3,-77.012,16/2019.03.23/12:15/1/3

The distances between the locations are 2061.424km for Washington to Cayo Redondo and 3585.03km for Cayo Redondo to Surquillo.

When FE technology gets advanced enough to verify the distances between these locations (there's not too much water so shouldn't be that hard), they'll find that the elevation of the sun measured at all three places points to two different locations in the sky. And the difference is immediately obvious. The reason is because the Earth is not flat.

Here's the diagram so you can check (1 pixel equals one kilometre):

Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE
« on: March 24, 2019, 01:09:24 AM »
FET can explain everything RET can

I think you'll find this is something that the RE'ers here are in serious disagreement with you about. I've read the Wiki and gone back through many, many threads here and I haven't found satisfactory FET explanations for almost all easily observable phenomenon. Just a sample:

1. Doing Eratosthenes experiment at three places along the same longitude. The elevation of the sun always points to two different places in the sky. Responses: none worth mentioning.
2. Stars rotating around North and South Celestial poles (the latter to observers in Australia, South America, and Africa over 24 hours). Responses - some sort of mirror-ball projection onto a dome that can't possibly work for all observers.
3. The sun rising at 120° SE where I live (Melbourne, Australia) in summer. I'll throw in almost 15 hours days here too, 17 hours in Punta Arenas (easily accessible), and 24 hours in Antarctica. Responses - none worth mentioning.
4. Lunar eclipse. Responses: otherwise invisible Antimoon - cannot take seriously.
5. Constant size of the sun during the day when viewed through any number of solar filters. Responses: perspective - invalid, projection onto atmolayer - invalid (impossible to maintain circular shape to all observers), producing shots of light sources out of focus with obvious glare to debunk - invalid (because we have controlled for those).
6. Edmund Halley's Transit of Venus experiment for determining distance to Venus. Responses: none worth mentioning.
7. Full moon (impossible on FE/close moon models). Responses: none that make sense.
8. No map (should be a far, far easier task on FE than RE). Responses: none worth mentioning.
9. Aligning satellite dishes for TV at three different locations. Elevation used always points to an object 36000km above the Earth. Responses: something about fake dishes.

And on and on and on...


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?
« on: March 24, 2019, 12:34:22 AM »
Your arguments are reasonable, but are littered with ignorance fallacies. Just because you can’t think of how sometime could happen is not evidence that it cannot. Also, you present sufficient conditions but treat them as necessary.

I partly agree. I guess it depends on whether we are opening the discussion up to physical phenomenon that we haven't observed anywhere else in the universe. That is possible but I think, and you may disagree, that the burden of proof to provide evidence of that phenomenon then falls on the one proposing it. Otherwise my theory of lunar glow worms is just as valid as any other and I don't accept that. I know you don't accept that either because you have admitted that some things have already been definitively demonstrated, which would be impossible in a worldview where an explanation could be valid just by the mere act of proposing it.

So far you appear to have agreed that on a flat Earth:

1. The moon doesn't emit it's own light.
2. The sun can't be illuminating the moon.
3. Starlight can't be illuminating the moon.

But perhaps you disagree with this?

1. To illuminate the full face of the moon on a flat Earth, the source of the light must be between the observer and the moon.

I can only conclude that that is what you disagree with because it is clear that there is no such source of light visible to the observer. However, if you agree with this, then I think the burden of proof falls on you to propose a source of light that is not visible to an observer below, that illuminates an object above, and does not block the view of other stars. Because I don't believe there is an existing physical phenomenon that can explain this.

One last point, I am assuming that the moon is close in accordance with most flat Earth models, as in thousands of miles away rather than hundreds of thousands of miles away. This can be challenged but I believe it opens up FET to more serious issues and is worthy of a separate discussion. I'm happy to accept that one explanation is that the moon is a distant object and the light source is not visible on the other side of the flat Earth but I'm hoping we can restrict this particular debate to the more common flat Earth/close moon theory. Or you can rule out a distant moon on a flat Earth right away if you choose, there's many different ways to do it ;)

Nice job on identifying dispersion as the evidence. You even used the correct word.

Thanks :)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?
« on: March 23, 2019, 06:07:11 AM »
Wait - I thought you just said that the source has to be between the moon and the Earth to make a full moon. So how can the Sun do it if it is on the other side of the Earth?

No, I didn't actually. I qualified that statement with "on a flat Earth".

You appear to claim that a Sun can illuminate the moon when the earth is between it and the moon, but other stars cannot.

Again, a flat Earth has different rules. Right now, for example, the moon is East of Lima, West of Recife, South of Paramaribo, and North of Montevideo. If the moon was close and the size of the flat Earth was even the minimum required to contain all known continents, it's obvious that nothing on the other side of the flat Earth could illuminate the full face of the moon. How could some places see a full moon if they're closer to the edge than other places (i.e, the rest of the Earth to the "North" would be blocking the starlight to that part of the face)? Even ignoring that, given the dispersion of the stars, I don't see how it's possible for the light from the stars to have enough "directionality" to cause predictable, definitive phases of the moon. How could there ever be a new moon? Starlight stops for a while? You could never have a lunar eclipse because that requires a single source of light. And clearly starlight is not causing part of the moon to be illuminated at times when both the sun and moon are visible unless all the stars are coincidentally concentrated in an area in the same direction as the sun. I'm sure I could think of others if there was some agreement about the path that the moon takes over the flat Earth too.

I do not find your argument valid even for a RE explanation, let alone being sufficient to disprove a FE one.

A valid RE explanation is not required to disprove the FE one. And I disagree, I believe I have disproved all FE theories that I've ever encountered. But if you want to put the final nail in the coffin by conclusively disproving the starlight theory, I'm not going to stop you ;)

Can you think of a good reason why starlight could not illuminate the Moon in RE theory? I’ll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with what you previous said.

If you get stuck, go watch Behing the Curve. That documentary actually contains the answer, although it is in an entirely different context.

I provided a few more above. The lunar eclipse is probably the strongest but the others combined are sufficient too. And I'm not sure I could sit through that ;)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?
« on: March 23, 2019, 02:11:35 AM »
Yet if all the starlight in the universe failed to touch the Moon I'd find that somewhat illogical. We see all the stars in our cosmos because their light travels to us. If it travels to us, then it travels to the Moon too.

I think you might be misunderstanding the problem. In a full moon, the side of the moon that is illuminated is facing us. We know that the stars are further away than the moon because they never, ever cross in front to it (just to name one of many reasons). While they may be illuminating the moon to some degree, it's the wrong side to be relevant to this situation. On a flat Earth, to illuminate the side of the moon facing the observer, the source of light has to be between the observer and the moon. You might think of this as "below" the moon on a flat Earth. It can't be the sun because that is overhead to observers on the other side of the Earth. And we can't see it in the sky at that time of course. It's not anything else because obviously we don't see another powerful light source in the sky at this time. Even if some imaginative theory was invented where this mystery object/light source was completely dark to us but projecting light up at the moon, we'd still know it was there because it would be blocking the light from other stars that we normally see. Lastly, when the sun and moon are both visible in the sky, it looks very much like it's the sun that's illuminating the moon (See

In summary, a full moon is impossible on a flat Earth so the Earth is not flat. I don't personally think that any other additional proof is required to disprove FET than this.

In case there's any confusion, on a spheroid Earth the explanation is simple. A full moon occurs when the sun is on the other side of the Earth to the moon. The light goes past the Earth and hits the moon. Occasionally the Earth is right in the way and you get a lunar eclipse which can only happen on a full moon (which is yet another proof). This is perfectly consistent with the observed orbit of the Earth around the sun and the moon around the Earth and perfectly matches up with the fact that the sun is always observed to be overhead on the other side of the spheroid Earth when there's a full moon.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: March 23, 2019, 01:41:17 AM »

But he aligns the sundials with MAGNETIC north. That's the offset. Magnetic north is not some point in the infinite distance. It is a place on earth. If I point my sundial in London to the same place as you point yours in California ... are those sundials aligned parallel, round earth or flat? The guy is in Canada for Pete's sake. That's going to give him quite an offset. He needs to make sure they are pointing to the same place.

Not true north. Not magnetic north. Not grid north. They all bend around to face a point. Pointing with respect to a place infinitely far away in the same direction. He could have line them both up with a star for an instantaneous money shot, for example.

Of course finding a star during the day is going to be a problem ... but its round earth's problem. Maybe you could line them up the night before ... and then do the experiment the next day.

But then I might challenge if the stars are really billions of miles away ... because round earth has the distance of the sun wrong too.

You are right and I am wrong. At 5:40 in the video he says the sundials are lined up with the road and lined up with each other. I assumed that was what he had done but he hadn't. He didn't try to line the sundials up with the road. If he had, he would have found that the compass bearings were different for the reasons you have stated. I humbly submit that I was wrong and consider myself schooled ;)

What I have found though is that you can still do Eratosthenes' experiment if the road is completely straight. But you have to throw away the compass. You don't need an external reference. If the two sundials are perfectly parallel to the road and the shadow goes down the middle of the base of one, it does go down the middle of the base of the other. Not surprising because light from the sun travels in a straight line, at least horizontally. At any time of the year, when this happens next to that road, the difference in elevation is 1.22°. For example, these are two points on that road 135.596km apart (according to GPS):,-104.5336,14/2019.06.23/10:57/1/3,-103.0324,16/2019.06.23/10:57/1/3

According to Eratosthenes' formula, this makes the circumference of the Earth:

360 / 1.22 * 135.689 = 40011km.

Very, very close to the accepted number. Unfortunately for me, the shadows go down the middle of the bases at the same time on a round Earth too so my proof of a round Earth, as you already know, is garbage.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?
« on: March 21, 2019, 07:33:52 AM »
That, my friend, is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The claim was made that there are only two options. The burden of proof is with you making that claim. Until you demonstrate that these are the only two options, the claim is unjustified.

I have no obligation to prove you wrong, you must prove the claim correct.

I accept that. I cannot prove that those are the only two options and you are not obligated to provide one for the reasons you give.

I concur that the light must be reflected and would go further and say that during occasions when the moon and the sun are both visible, it is always the case that the light reflecting off the moon is coming from the direction of the sun. I'd also say that at those times the light from the sun appears to be reasonably isotropic, or at least insofar as the moon's face doesn't seem to be illuminated in areas that would be unexpected given the position of the sun. Also, the sun's light can clearly radiate "down" to cover a large area of the known Earth, and the moon can be illuminated from both sides.

So rather than rudely demanding a third option from you, can I politely ask a couple of questions?

1. Do you think it's possible, without pushing our current understanding of physics too far, that the light reflected off the moon is not coming from the direction of the sun during night, but it is during the day?
2. If it is coming from the direction of the sun, that sun would need to be "below" or somewhere roughly between the observer and the moon on a flat Earth to illuminate it's full face for those below. So how is it possible for the sun be directly overhead somewhere on the other side of the Earth at that exact moment?

I'm trying to think like FE'er but finding a reasonable explanation for something so commonplace is surprisingly difficult. But I have faith that you will succeed where I have failed!

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: March 21, 2019, 06:24:24 AM »
Well then all you end up with is an argument about whether the road is flat or curved with the shape of the earth ... you are no further forward.

I'm not sure why this is hard for you. The experiment outlined in the OP was first done to show earth's size ASSUMING it is round. It is not to decide what shape earth is. To add insult to injury the guy makes the fundamental mistake of taking the exact same time instead of waiting for the sun to be in the same relative point of the sky for both sticks (local noon). In other words its the wrong experiment and he performs it wrong as well. Double bad-science.

I'm not defending the experiment. He botched it. His experiment to measure the circumference of the Earth failed. But he actually did prove the Earth was not flat during the experiment! That is the point I'm trying to make.

He thought the shadows were going to go down the middle of the bases of both sundials at the same time because they were both parallel to a straight road. They didn't. You see it in the video. You've admitted that that is what happened. You've been quite clear that they won't in the experiment as designed. But there's no flat Earth explanation for this. The shadows absolutely should go down the middle of the bases of both sundials at the same time on a flat Earth. Ergo, the Earth is not flat.

What I've proposed is a different, simpler experiment requiring only two mobile phones and two sticks next to that road to prove the Earth is not flat. I've not proposed a different experiment to measure the circumference of the Earth. My apologies for not being clear on this but I though it was obvious from the description of my experiment.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?
« on: March 20, 2019, 04:53:34 AM »
This is only the case if you believe the radiation of light from the Sun is isotropic. FE never makes this claim.

Also, there is a very easy observation anyone can make which demonstrates diffinitively that the Moon cannot be emanating light. Can you guess which this is?

Lastly, your question is an example of a false dichotomy fallacy. Those are not the only two options.

That seems like a dodge. What are these other options? Honestly, just one feasible one will do. Can we agree that these criteria are commonly met all at once:

1. The moon is full to an observer, and other observers within a certain range of latitudes. In other words, the entire face is illuminated. At other times, the illumination of the moon is crescent, gibbous, etc. An intuitive explanation would be that the full moon is being illuminated from "below" or the source of illumination is between the observer and the moon on a flat Earth, but I accept that other explanations are possible.
2. No light from the sun is otherwise visible, and no celestial body of similar size to the sun is visible that is partly illuminated or that appears to be projecting light (eg. visible beams in the sky).
3. At other longitudes observers are seeing an almost perfectly round sun (viewed through a solar filter if necessary) and are in daylight. It is doubtful that a cone sun would meet this criteria as some of the top or bottom would be obscured for some observers.

If I recall correctly, you believe that lunar phases demonstrate definitively that the moon cannot be emanating light. I find that a very odd statement for this site. Theories explaining this wouldn't be any more ridiculous than most others here. Someone could propose an army of highly-trained lunar glow worms and that wouldn't surprise me. I can only assume that whatever explanation you can come up with the full moon phenomenon will be more believable than that. Personally, I'm particularly fond of theories where there is at some form of evidence to back them up. Theories that are proposed simply because a model doesn't work are pretty unsatisfactory.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: March 20, 2019, 03:19:24 AM »
You see the sun is closer on flat earth models ... so we also get different shadow lengths ... exaggerated in my diagram above.

So you only want to talk about the second diagram and not what my post was actually about? I know you know that the shadow won't go down the middle of the base of the second sundial - because it's the reason why you said he botched the experiment - even though it absolutely should on a flat Earth.

Let's just simplify the experiment then. Two observers standing right next to that same straight road at either end. They both put sticks in the ground. When the shadow of the stick at the South Eastern end is perfectly parallel with the road, that observer calls up the second observer to ask if their shadow is parallel with the road. If the second observer says no, the Earth is not flat.

You know that the second observer will say no. But let's just ignore that, shall we?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?
« on: March 19, 2019, 01:35:57 PM »
Why would it have to be closer than the moon? I suppose you could predict where it will be, if you somehow know exactly where the Sun is when you can’t see it.

Well, the moon can't be illuminated by the sun on a FE because then you could never have a full moon at night. The sun would have to be illuminating the moon from somewhere between the observer and the moon. That would look a lot like daytime...

And if the moon is emitting it's own light, then the shadow object has to be between the observer and the moon in a lunar eclipse.

Which is it?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do all FEs agree on?
« on: March 19, 2019, 02:57:48 AM »
1) Also: prohibited Antarctic exploration; Antarctic Treaty USAP and NASA all founded in 12 month period, among many other points.

This one comes up a lot and it's nonsense. 45000 tourists visit Antarctica every year. Many offer camping trips. There's a yacht race around it. Two guys just had a ski race across it. Anthony Bourdain even shot an episode from the South Pole. It's not off-limits, just regulated. If you can sail round it, and ski over it, what exactly do you think is being hidden?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?
« on: March 19, 2019, 02:44:02 AM »
A shadow moon is a poor explanation for causing the lunar eclipse. Now this is literally an ad hoc explanation. It's a great theory that can never be proven false or true, due to the fact the FE Wiki says it cannot be seen. Lol ok...

Also, we should be able to bounce radio waves off this object - like a "moon bounce" - seeing that it's closer than the moon. Unless this mysterious shadow moon is randomly zig-zagging across the sky, surely we can predict where it will be in the hours leading up to the lunar eclipse?

How come they didn't have the microwave experiment in that show?
People can do this one. Microwaves travel in straight lines.

The only evidence that they didn't place the towers on two elevated areas, which of course you'd naturally do, is a YouTube comment from someone called "Joe Mama". Sounds pretty conclusive.

Maybe you'd like to read some pages of the manufacturer's archived website? Like this quote:

An impressive and popular range claim is 124 miles. The reader will discover that no assumptions are provided to support such claims. Such a range truly would be impressive if it did not require the use of two 2000 foot (600 meter) towers in order to clear the Earth’s curvature. Assuming that small hurdle could be overcome – if the radios were operating in space, for example – then many microwave radios, including Exalt radios, could communicate at this distance, assuming adequately sized antennas and no requirements for throughput or throughput availability.

That page has a nice diagram with "Earth curvature" too. But what would the manufacturer know about the operation of their own product?


Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)
« on: March 18, 2019, 06:46:47 AM »
In the model of sunset it is described, that after the sun rays travel through a certain amount of air it stops being visible.

Also note in those models the stars are nearly always further away, possibly projected onto a dome, but for some reason the light from those travels longer distances through the same air.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: studying sun using zetetic
« on: March 18, 2019, 05:08:24 AM »
So it is a case of draw the conclusion first from the outset 'the Earth is flat' and now make whatever you observe fit in with that presupposition whatever it takes?

That is precisely my problem with the invocation of zetetic methods in support of flat Earth theory. It seems if you make ten zetetic observations, the one that "the Earth looks pretty flat" is given priority over all others and you have to disregard those or invent magical theories for them. Why wouldn't you assume that the other nine that have obvious explanations are the ones to base your model on and that the Earth looks flat is the illusion (or, more accurately, exactly what you expect from an observer with a low POV on a huge sphere).

For example, if I did this experiment, I would assume that the two objects were being illuminated by the same light source.

But some people will argue that the moon is emitting it's own light and it's just a big coincidence that it's phases always match the golf ball. It's also a coincidence that the stars rotating around on the dome at the North and South Celestial Poles exactly match what would be expected by observers on a spinning globe Earth, and so on and on and on.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mercury/Venus transiting the sun
« on: March 18, 2019, 04:56:24 AM »
We've been bouncing radio waves off Venus since 1961. We know that it's tens of millions of kilometres away because of the time taken for the signals to bounce back. And if you think only governments with big budgets have the capabilities to do this, even amateur German astronomers have managed it:

Besides, for centuries before we could do this, Edmund Halley's Transit of Venus experiment allowed us to determine a similar distance. Even schoolkids do that experiment now (although there's a bit of a wait until the next Venus transit).

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: March 17, 2019, 01:46:05 AM »
Nope. You are wrong. Come on then Mr 33 posts. School me with a diagram.  ::)

OK, let's look at a flat Earth first. The road is at 127° azimuth. So on a flat Earth, I should be able to put the two sundials parallel to the road at the same distance to the road, and when the shadow goes exactly down the middle of the base of one (for example on 1st May, 2018 at 10:30am), it should go down the middle of the base of the other. And at that time, we should be able to get the length of the shadows and thus the elevation.

If the shadow doesn't go down the middle of the base of the second sundial, then FE theory must have some explanation for light bending horizontally. In other words, it must explain why if I'm looking directly at the sun at that time, the atmosphere to the left of the sun has a higher refractive index than the atmosphere to the right of the sun (if bending to the South in my diagram). Assuming this is observed consistently day after day in all seasons and weather conditions, this would be very problematic.

What do you think will be observed and if the shadow doesn't go down the middle of the base of the second sundial, what is your explanation?

Edit: Ha! I just realised I made a mistake and drew the experiment the way it would be at a location where I am in the Southern Hemisphere. You'll have to spin the sundials 180° for a Northern Hemisphere experiment. Same logic applies on a flat Earth though for the shadows on the sundials lining up.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: March 16, 2019, 01:11:30 PM »
Why round earthers keep suggesting this proves earth round, I have no idea.

You don't understand the experiment then. Latitude and longitude are not variables in this experiment. The experiment only works if the bases of the sundials are aligned on the same azimuth. If the shadow runs down the middle of the bases at exactly the same time, then you know that you can draw a line through the sundials and it will point in the direction of the sun. That also means that you can draw a diagram of the experiment from the side with the 1m sundial poles, the shadow lengths, and a distance of 138km between the sundials. You can draw a line from the shadow tips through the tips of the poles and into the sky. Latitude and longitude are not relevant when the experiment is designed this way. You can actually work out the height of the sun on a flat Earth with this experiment. Do you get it yet or do you need a diagram?

So with this experiment you can do two things: if the sun is considered to be far away and it's rays are parallel, you can work out the circumference of the Earth. If you don't consider this, you can do the experiment in other locations and if the height of the sun doesn't match - which it won't - you will know that the Earth is not flat.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?
« on: March 16, 2019, 05:21:35 AM »
I kinda think if he had recorded solar time for each location, 6 minutes apart, they would both have been at 66.1 cm shadows. Or at least really close together. If that assumption true, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not finding the experiment worthy.

What am I missing peoples?

Maybe close together but it wouldn't be the same. The simpler experiment is to measure the elevation at solar noon in both of those places. One location is 50.4586825° latitude, the other is 49.6772586°. Difference in kms between those latitudes is 86.89km. If he'd used more precise equipment to measure the elevation at that solar noon at both locations, he should have measured 61.09° at 12:55pm at Regina and 61.87° at 12:49 at Stoughton on 28th May, 2018 (I've reverse engineered to find the most likely day he used from the information in the video but it's not really relevant).,-104.6351,12/2018.05.28/12:55/1/3,-103.0261,16/2018.05.28/12:49/1/3

Based on those values, circumference of the Earth would be 86.89 * (360 / (61.87 - 61.09)) = 40103kms. Very close to accepted value of 40075km.

Or using his measuring device arranged North-South, should have given shadow lengths of 55cm and 53cm, so elevation of 61.19° and 62.08°, and a circumference of 35147kms.

Edit: OK, now that I'm thinking about this, this is a really good experiment after all. Differences in solar noon or differences in latitude and longitude are not relevant to this experiment. The time of 11:15am when he takes the measurement is significant - the shadow has hit both sundial bases which are arranged at the same azimuth at the same time. If you drew a line through both bases, it will go directly to the sun. The shadow should run down the middle of both bases at the moment of measurement. So he can take a relevant shadow measurement at that time and he can use his cycled distance of 138km.

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >