1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: July 03, 2019, 06:33:14 PM »

I know what you are trying to say here, but it still doesn't work without distortion. Take Wyoming for example. In Bing maps, Wyoming is depicted as a perfect rectangle (90 degree angles), no matter what zoom level you're at. But in reality, (looking straight down at it) Wyoming is actually trapezoidal, with an ever-so-slightly curved top and bottom. The northern border is 342 miles wide, while the southern border is 365 miles wide.

Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows wyoming as you describe

Looks trapezoidal to me.  There may be approximately 90 degree angles on the corners, but the north and south aren't straight lines.  They bow outwards and inwards, respectively.  That makes it possible to have a trapezoidal shape and have right angles.

Your claim was that the Wyoming border does not have 90 degree angles. Google maps which represents the earth as a perfect sphere also shows Wyoming with 90 degree angles. Do you have any map or globe that shows Wyoming as you describe?

I have to ask again because when i asked the first time you didn't reply with a map or glove which shows Wyoming without 90 degree angles.  You replied with your opinion about the angles.

I think it depends on the browser you use to view Google Maps. I noticed when using the Google Maps app on my iPhone, it is using a Mercator projection. I'm not sure what Android Google Maps uses. But when viewing it in a Chrome browser on a PC, it is on a sphere. So I don't know which projection will be shown in Google Maps in all situations, as I can only test a few.

However, Google EARTH should always use the spherical projection, so that would probably be the best one to use to compare.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mapping the Earth

« on: July 02, 2019, 06:06:00 PM »

Do you understand that when you zoom in on Bing maps, you're looking at a different map? It's not a zoomed-in version of the same image, it's a different image.

Much like when I look at a united states road atlas the scale changes based on what state you look at. If you put all of the states together and gave them an interactive scale would that make them distorted? I guess some people could say yes. It's my option that, as long as the scale accurately shows all of the individual states and USA as a whole correct then it's not distorted.

I know what you are trying to say here, but it still doesn't work without distortion. Take Wyoming for example. In Bing maps, Wyoming is depicted as a perfect rectangle (90 degree angles), no matter what zoom level you're at. But in reality, (looking straight down at it) Wyoming is actually trapezoidal, with an ever-so-slightly curved top and bottom. The northern border is 342 miles wide, while the southern border is 365 miles wide.

Why the discrepancy? Wyoming's borders line up exactly with longitude and latitude lines. On a sphere, longitude lines are not parallel; north of the equator, the space between lines gradually get closer together the further north you go (and in the reverse south of the equator). So, the space between the east and west borders will be wider in the south than the north, making Wyoming's southern border wider than the northern border.

The Mercator projection (which Bing maps uses) forces the longitude lines to be parallel...thus, trapezoids like Wyoming are projected as rectangles.

I should note that even though the distortions are there, they are still 'good enough' for navigation.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA

« on: June 26, 2019, 10:45:48 PM »

I don't see the need for UA to explain the downward force on an FE. Is it really any more fantastical to just say there's a giant 'artificial gravity generator', like something from Star Trek? UA describes a quasi-plausible scenario, but still requires an unknown power source and a designed origin...something purposely built and put into motion. Why not 'artificial gravity'? Accepting that is not even an extra step, just a slightly different path.

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction

« on: May 17, 2019, 08:37:13 PM »

Neither of those sources address how the moon can travel faster than the Earth's rotation and also set in the West.

Please point out the explanation.

Really?

I think you need to watch the first video again. And then again. It explains it very clearly.

Yes, the moon travels in its orbit around the earth faster than the earth rotates on its axis. But the moon has a LOT further to travel. The side of the earth you are on turns away from the moon almost 28 times before the moon completes a revolution around the earth. And as the earth turns, the moon appears to rise in the east and set in the west. The moon would need to travel 28 times faster for it to appear to set in the east.

You're just trolling, right? Like previous posters said, there are many, many resources online, in books, etc. that illustrate this. It's also a fairly easy experiment to set up at home. This has to be a troll.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: When they say its vanishing point.

« on: March 20, 2019, 04:05:30 PM »

And notice how the clouds touch the horizon, but you don't see a long deep line of clouds getting smaller and smaller before they disappear into a 'vanishing point'. It's almost as if they are 'behind' the horizon instead...as if the photographer was at the top of a gigantic hill or curve. That would be crazy, right? (no, not crazy)

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Jupiter

« on: January 17, 2019, 07:21:10 PM »

I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom.  Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?

Have you taken a course in astronomy in college? That's exactly how it works. Questioning is not encouraged.

What's that supposed to mean?  It's up to the student to be proactive and ask questions.  Are you suggesting that they actively discourage questioning in astronomy classes?  Did you take an astronomy course and had your questions denied?  Or did you just not like the answers because they went against your beliefs?


And again, your view on Jupiter.....flat or not?  Simple question.  I'll start.  I think it's round.

Ha! Took an astronomy class in college. I asked how it was demonstrably correct that stars are formed of gas. Instead of receiving an answer from the professor, I was mocked..."How could you ask such a stupid question?"

Never mind scientists continue to debate the reality of stars, just settle for the status quo and keep giving us your money.

It just sounds like you had a bad professor, and that's unfortunate. I had astronomy in college too, and we also studied the composition of stars. But instead of telling us to accept it blindly, he said '...don't take my word for it. See for yourself'. Instead of barking the answers and telling us to fall in line, he taught us spectroscopy. We experimented with real elements and spectrographs. We split sunlight with prisms and saw the spectral lines.

Our only homework for the class was to come up with three new questions each day. Some questions were able to be answered thru experiments in class, but of course some weren't. But when we couldn't, it still wasn't just a blind-faith answer. It was explaining how the answers are derived, and giving examples of ways or places the experiments could actually be done (visit a radio telescope, commit to long term observations, etc.).

Again,  I feel sorry for anyone who had a professor like you did. I really do. You really miss out on the true splendor of all this.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 15, 2018, 03:04:54 PM »

If you understand mathematically what a perspective line is, then you understand why mathematically they meet at an infinite distance.

I understand. I guess I just forgot to add "Tom's notion of perspective is absurd." to the end of my post.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sun in the sky

« on: June 14, 2018, 10:56:58 PM »

All the attention is being put to this concept of 'perspective lines'. But it's really just a side-effect, an optical illusion, of what's really going on: the field of view (or visual field) getting wider with distance. When Tom says things like 'The Ancient Greek depiction of perspective has perspective lines which approach each other for infinity', he refers to the field of view gradually getting wider...the further you go, the wider it gets..forever.

But what he's actually arguing is that the field of view has a distance at which it suddenly gets infinitely wide, giving everything at that distance an infinitely small viewing angle. But only vertically, because objects only disappear from the bottom (and supposedly the ground from the top), not from the sides. Or, the horizon would be a single point where ever we would look, right? I wonder what keeps that phenomenon only working at a perfect 90 degree angle from the ground. What should happen if I tilt my head?

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: March 05, 2018, 04:31:22 PM »

If there's a dome, how does heat escape the earth? It would trap the heat that's generated by the (supposedly 50 mile wide, 3000 mile high) sun. Is there an air-conditioning or ventilation system built into the dome? Or maybe the stars and moon zap us with ice rays?

The good preacher will explain the dome to you.

http://www.peterwallace.org/old/essays/flatearth.htm

Um...that essay explains how the ancient biblical authors were doing the best they could to interpret their environment. That while they may have taken the earthly descriptions somewhat literally, that we should by no means take it literally today. That 'general revelation' (no doubt meaning modern observations of the natural world) gives us new ways of interpreting scripture. That we should take these things figuratively and find the deeper meaning.

So yes, I like that essay. It does a good job of disproving your point.

10

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: February 28, 2018, 09:59:49 PM »

If there's a dome, how does heat escape the earth? It would trap the heat that's generated by the (supposedly 50 mile wide, 3000 mile high) sun. Is there an air-conditioning or ventilation system built into the dome? Or maybe the stars and moon zap us with ice rays?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the flat earth theory explain the moon?

« on: November 28, 2017, 03:08:52 PM »

I see that Lucifer has been whispering to you, which is sad, I will pray for you. I would explain to you the truth, but how can you accept what I have to say, when you can't even accept God into your heart? And do not listen him, Gonga, an 'oblate spheroid' doesn't even exist, God's Earth is a beautiful flat, flat has it always been, and flat will it always be, the moon is fake. Amen

I'm not making a comment on my own or anyone else's beliefs. I'm just saying you're not a very effective troll.

I mean, come on...Genesis 1:14-19. God created the moon on the 4th day. Even fundamentalist, bible-literalist, young-earth creationists believe there's a moon.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Fellow FE'ers important questions...

« on: November 08, 2017, 04:24:39 PM »

Okay...theodolites are out. So just use a straw, protractor, and a weighted string. No optics, no 'scary deceitful technology', just a hole to look through and a string to show the angle. Not as precise, but it will still show you the angles to the horizon change with elevation.

But to the whole 'horizon is always at eye level' thing. It is surely a biological, subconscious response to automatically orient your vision on the horizon, or what you perceive as the horizon. Sort of an evolutionary behavior of a species that learned to walk upright and look in front of themselves with binocular vision. "There's the line that helps my eyes tell my feet which way is forward. So put it in the middle of my vision." (there's probably already a name for it...my biology knowledge is limited)

So whether you realize it or not, your eyes will adjust the angle of vision automatically. 'Straight ahead' usually just means 'angled down to the horizon'.

Or as somebody much wiser once said, "Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them."

Here it is. 'Gaze Stabilization or Biological Image Stabilization. Excellent read. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216310041

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Fellow FE'ers important questions...

« on: November 08, 2017, 04:12:23 PM »

Okay...theodolites are out. So just use a straw, protractor, and a weighted string. No optics, no 'scary deceitful technology', just a hole to look through and a string to show the angle. Not as precise, but it will still show you the angles to the horizon change with elevation.

But to the whole 'horizon is always at eye level' thing. It is surely a biological, subconscious response to automatically orient your vision on the horizon, or what you perceive as the horizon. Sort of an evolutionary behavior of a species that learned to walk upright and look in front of themselves with binocular vision. "There's the line that helps my eyes tell my feet which way is forward. So put it in the middle of my vision." (there's probably already a name for it...my biology knowledge is limited)

So whether you realize it or not, your eyes will adjust the angle of vision automatically. 'Straight ahead' usually just means 'angled down to the horizon'.

Or as somebody much wiser once said, "Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them."

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Fellow FE'ers important questions...

« on: November 07, 2017, 06:00:36 PM »

The answer is, as long as the telescope is at the same height as your eyes, the horizon won't change, and what is visible won't change. It will just appear larger.

So, if your eyes are 6 feet above the surface, and the telescope has a mount that is 6 feet tall, the horizon on the ocean will be exactly the same, almost exactly 3 miles away (2.999547 miles, using the calculator mtmman linked to). You will see the same thing with both, it will just be magnified with the telescope.

So, for #1, the sun will set at the exact same time, bare eyes or telescope (and don't look at the sun with a telescope without filters).

And #2, how far out? With your eyes and the telescope both at 6 feet, 3 miles.

For there to actually be a change to these two things, elevate yourself. Or shrink yourself. Stand on a ladder, or on the 2nd floor of a building, and the sun will set ever so slightly later. And you'll be able to see a mile or two further away.

If you want a really good test of this, wait a few months and go to a large frozen lake in northern Minnesota. There are plenty of them larger than 3 miles across. You won't have waves to 'obstruct the view'. Just a flat sheet of ice (all but for the curvature of the earth, of course! ;-)

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Travel

« on: November 01, 2017, 10:09:25 PM »

I was merely replying to mntman's question about whether airline pilots had been asked about the shape of the Earth.  I don't happen to believe in any large scale conspiracy theories - but that is not relevant to the question asked.

I wish we could create a wiki page here, I think it would be interesting to make a list of everyone that has to be involved with the conspiracy to hide the flat Earth. It would be a pretty massive list, far too large to maintain in forum posts.

Taking every single thing that relies on a spherical earth into consideration, the degree of separation of knowing someone in the conspiracy would have to practically be one, right? Or maybe zero? For a conspiracy of this magnitude to be effective, we'd all have to be in on it. But then who would we be hiding the 'truth' from? The .000001% of the population that know it's flat? Seems like a gigantic effort for tiny returns.