1

Flat Earth Media / Re: Pete Svarrior and MCToon friendly chat

« on: Today at 01:54:03 AM »

Thanks McToon, and thanks Pete for taking part.
I do have some thoughts, I might create a new thread for those though.

2

Flat Earth Media / Re: How Einstein Made the Earth Move

« on: Today at 01:49:30 AM »

Here is the correct global SAGNAC EFFECT formula:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2117351#msg2117351

What Michelson did is to SUBSTITUTE the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula for the SAGNAC EFFECT formula: a light interferometer can register/record BOTH these effects.

You can't just declare something correct and reference your own work.
Try publishing a paper and getting it peer reviewed, then we can talk.

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Satellite Dishes

« on: Today at 01:47:47 AM »

I'm in India right now on a work trip and I noticed that the satellite dishes point noticeably up more than they do in the UK.
On a previous work trip to Sri Lanka I noticed the angle was even more pronounced there, they almost point straight up.
This makes sense if the dishes are all pointing at geostationary satellites above the equator. The nearer the equator you are the steeper the angle would need to be.
Just wondering if between us as we have members all round the globe (haha, lol, sorry Pete) on here, we could take measurements and see which model they fit best.
Would this show anything? I guess the FE claim could be the dishes are all pointing at different things.

Just thought I'd raise this as a possible line of investigation.

4

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated

« on: Today at 01:39:06 AM »

I see you keep ignoring the question about why projection is necessary if the earth is flat

5

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated

« on: March 25, 2019, 06:18:32 PM »

Other way round, chap.
It’s talking about the best way to map the real world 3D globe onto a flat surface.

You keep saying there isn’t a map and you don’t have the resources to make one. Now you’re arguing the flat earth maps are more accurate?



The article talks about projection.
Why is projection necessary if the earth is flat? Were it so you’d just need scale to make an accurate map. We only need projection because there is no way to represent the curved surface of the globe earth onto a flat map.

6

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Eratosthenes Experiment Duplicated

« on: March 25, 2019, 05:31:40 PM »

If it was an article telling us that the systems were using round earth distance the title of the article would be "The Earth is Round!," markjo.

Then why does the article state that the earth is best described as an ellipsoid?  The article is using "round" to mean "sphere".  An ellipsoid is not a sphere.

Only Tom could link to an article which says

3D surface of the earth, which is of course, best modeled as an ellipsoid, not a sphere

and

Web Mercator ... has become, and will likely remain for some time, the de facto coordinate system standard for web mapping applications, because, as mentioned above, it works well for maps depicting the portions of the globe we care about most, and because it performs coordinate conversion faster.

And think the article is evidence for a flat earth 

The article is literally about projections from the real world 3D surface of the globe earth and 2D maps. Were the earth flat you wouldn't need projections, only scale.

7

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: March 22, 2019, 07:12:52 AM »

The daily changing nature of the effect was proof that an illusion was occuring.

Yes. Refraction is a thing. It is complex and difficult to account for to make observations perfectly match a simple model of a globe earth with no atmosphere. There will be some margin of error.

Your excuse of "it's curvature of the earth + illusion" is not evidence. It is an assertion, and a baseless one.

The photos above demonstrate we live on a globe. They don’t in any way match a FE model. If you are disagreeing and saying the photos don’t demonstrate a globe then it is YOUR excuse of “flat earth + illusion” which is a baseless assertion.

If you want to post a video of mountains showing a flat earth for review then that would help move things on.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: March 21, 2019, 02:30:30 PM »

The timelapses of the sinking ship effect cast doubt on all sinking photos. You need an experiment that controls for refraction.

It can sometimes get close to what a Round Earth predicts, but not exact. A member of our forums, Bobby, was taking pictures of a sinking effect that changed every day he looked, providing further evidence that this effect is an illusion.

Why do you keep repeating this lie?

It provided evidence that the atmospheric effects are complicated.

Honestly, the way you hop around from explanation to explanation about this effect is ridiculous.
First it doesn't exist at all, ships can be restored with magnification.
Then when clear evidence is provided of ships zoomed in and not restored it's "waves".
And now it's all an illusion.

9

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?

« on: March 20, 2019, 10:38:35 PM »

He didn't exactly recreate the original experiment but his version is equally valid and gives the same result.
The version this dude did wouldn't have been possible at the time of the original experiment because it would have been difficult to synchronise over long distances.
But I agree this result doesn't by itself prove the earth is a globe, but the alternative explanation requires a close sun which is problematic for other reasons.

10

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth proof - comments?

« on: March 20, 2019, 10:03:26 PM »

The experiment outlined in the OP was first done to show earth's size ASSUMING it is round.

No, it assumes a distant sun.
And you keep saying they needed to take the measurements at different times, that is you just not understanding the experiment that was done.
As has been pointed out, a local sun and a flat earth is a possible alternative explanation for the result - although that is you making an assumption about the shape of the earth - but if you do this experiment at 3 points then you'd expect different results on a FE or a Globe:

https://flatearth.ws/eratosthenes

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: Your Path to FE

« on: March 20, 2019, 02:54:37 PM »

For a claim as extraordinary as an enormous, spinning globe Earth hurtling through space

Why do you deem that an extraordinary claim? All the other bodies we observe are spherical, gravity explains why all bodies above a certain size (mass really) are spherical.
I'd suggest it's an extraordinary claim that the earth is somehow different from every other body we can observe.
Especially given our observations are indicative of being on a globe

12

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One of these things is not like the others

« on: March 19, 2019, 03:56:03 PM »

Read the FAQ since it's clear you haven't or you would know by now why horizons look curved.

I do know. It's because we live on a globe.
But I do enjoy these pieces of "heads I win, tails you lose" FE logic.
One of your pieces of evidence is "The world looks flat". Except when it doesn't and you're all "A curve! Exactly as we predicted!"
As someone else said, this thread really belongs in CN.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: zetetic vs atmolayer

« on: March 19, 2019, 03:47:44 PM »

There is no coherent theory explaining why the atmolayer/atmoplane doesn't just leak over the sides.
There are a few halfhearted attempts here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer

One idea is a massive ice wall but we would surely have observed that - and if we can't then the whole idea of empirically observing something goes out the window.
There's some mumbo-jumbo about dark energy which, had RE proposed that, would be dismissed as "magic"
And then there's the Lip Hypothesis which has it's own page:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer_Lip_Hypothesis
But I don't believe there is any empirical evidence that declining temperatures and pressures could contain a higher pressure. The flow is always from higher pressure to lower pressure.

The only hope I see is an infinite plane or a physical dome - I know both these theories are involved in some FE models but the first seems preposterous and can't be observed so no evidence could be provided for it, the second - what material could the dome be made of that it wouldn't break and what evidence is there for it even existing?

14

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: One of these things is not like the others

« on: March 19, 2019, 07:32:42 AM »

And the rebel graphic designer seems to have made the horizon curved.

What does it all mean?!

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?

« on: March 16, 2019, 10:41:07 PM »

Are you arguing that the bible does not say and teach those things about the earth? It clearly does say some thing about the earth being flat

Does it, though? Clearly?
Personally, I’ve not been in or heard of a church which teaches a flat earth. Yes, there are verses like the “circle of the earth” one you lot love so much. You could go “Aha! Circle! You see? Flat!”. But what shape would you say the photos of the earth from space are? Forget whether they’re real photos, what shape do you see? If you’re looking down at a sphere what you see is a circle. If it was so clear that that verse was talking about a flat earth and scripture was so clear about this then why does the church not teach a flat earth?

The Bible is not a science book. People get so bogged down by early Genesis. Are the days literal 24 hour periods, etc. My take - honestly, it doesn’t matter. I don’t believe Genesis is trying to teach me science, it contains deeper truths - that we are a creation. It tells us who we were created by and what we were created for. That’s the important message of early Genesis, not the age of the universe.

Some of the language in the Bible is clearly poetic. I never understand why some Christians feel so threatened by science. If scientific ideas contradict their understanding of Scripture then they always assume it must be the science that is wrong rather than consider that their understanding of Scripture might be wrong.

16

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat Earth Map

« on: March 16, 2019, 09:40:16 AM »

You know what? You’re right.
I’ve used the KM distance for that one and miles for the others.
Wow.
As you say, it shows how little anyone else bothered to check things!
Thanks for pointing this out.
I’ll have another look later and correct my mistake. Maybe I’ll accidentally prove the earth is flat after all!

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?

« on: March 16, 2019, 09:11:18 AM »

Rowbotham’s agenda is pretty clear in that chapter, he rails against science because he says it leads people away from scripture, but we’ve had that conversation. It’s ironic that he champions the idea of a method which doesn’t pre-suppose a theory but it’s clear that his starting assumption for the whole book is a literal and incorrect interpretation of Scripture.

As for Victorian experiments indicating cold moonlight, the Victorians did do some pretty impressive things but they did a lot of crazy stuff too and made some pretty wild claims:

https://listverse.com/2016/10/19/10-ridiculous-things-the-victorians-did-in-the-name-of-science/

(My favourite one is the bloke who claimed he’d taught his dog to read!)

Evolution works because changes which give an advantage are more likely to be copied and built on. Scientific progress is the same. Some of the ideas from the Victorian era (and before) were correct and have shown to be and have been built on, other ideas have been shown to be wrong and have been discarded.

I did physics up to A-Level and I never learned about “cold moonlight”. Because that isn’t how light works. The fact he didn’t know that and the people he was quoting didn’t just shows their collective ignorance and is another reason why the pontifications of this scientific illiterate religious zealot should be ignored.

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?

« on: March 15, 2019, 10:43:22 PM »

Science also demonstrated the cooling effects of moonlight through experiment. In order to show those things to be incorrect, contradictory experiments to those of science would need to be given.

I like how you think science is a “thing”
But anyway, I’d be interested to see a link to a peer reviewed paper in a serious scientific publication which shows that moonlight is cold.

Light is a form of energy, as is heat. That’s why powerful lamps can heat things. If you discover a form of light which has negative energy and so can cool things down then congratulations on your Nobel prize.

This video explains the supposed result of cold moonlight. He gets the exact same result using sunlight and he explains why:



Is sunlight cold?

This is the trouble with cherry picking.
You can’t just look at the result in isolation, you have to understand the result.

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why just Rowbotham?

« on: March 15, 2019, 06:07:48 PM »

It was science which claimed to have performed experiments that moonlight cooled thermometers through a telescope and that stars were seen to occult the moon. Rowbotham just reported on it. Look into what quotations and references are.

Science also claimed there were only 4 elements and that the earth was the centre of the universe and all kids of things we now know to be wrong.
Just cherry picking bits of science which back up your ideas and ignoring all the bits which don’t is disingenuous. Especially when the bits that don’t often supersede the bits which do.

20

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: People have been into space. How have they not discovered that the earth is flat

« on: March 15, 2019, 05:44:30 PM »

My 8th graders have determined that you are using the Burden of Proof logical fallacy.

I humbly disagree with your 8th graders.
NASA are claiming they have landed on the moon. It’s a pretty extraordinary claim and the burden of proof is on them.
BUT, what SeaCritique is doing is operating in the sceptical context. More info here:

http://theconversation.com/how-to-reason-with-flat-earthers-it-may-not-help-though-95160

How do we know they went to the moon?
Well, 12 astronauts walked on the moon, most of them are still alive and none have ever confessed to fakery.
Ok, but they all could be lying as could all the people in mission control etc (although I guess those people could have been fooled, they might not have had to be “in on it”.)
But the whole thing is all on film, we have countless photos, hours of film footage of the Apollo missions.
But those could all be fake (you then get into sub arguments about shadow angles, flapping flags etc).
But they brought back lots of samples of moon rock.
Those could be from anywhere (from what I understand the rocks being on the moon and so in a vacuum for billions of years does actually make them distinct from earth rock, but that’s beyond my knowledge)
But the Russians were tracking them and they never called the Americans out on the fakery.
Maybe they were fooled too, or they knew that exposing the US would implicate themselves and their own fake space programs.
We could go on and on. The amateurs who tracked the Apollo missions, the fact Australia relayed signals to the moon, that recent missions launched by other counties have produced photos at high enough resolutions to see the original landing sites - the tracks of the lunar rover are clearly visible.
Every piece of evidence can be dismissed as fake or wrong or whatever.
If you operate in the sceptical context then you can refuse to believe anything which doesn’t fit your world view. FE does this with the moon landings and have to extend it to satellites and all space travel despite the number of people, countries and private countries involved and the fact that the technologies which use satellites demonstrably work.
The FE trick is to operate in this context selectively. Notice how things which purport to show a flat earth are accepted unquestioningly, when things do not it’s back to the sceptical context and the burden of proof is turned up to a level impossible to satisfy.

So while I do thing NASA has the burden of proof, they have more than met it to any reasonable strandard. If you call any evidence which doesn’t fit your world view wrong or fake then you can dismiss anything. For some people that’s easier than changing their beliefs.