1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: I wanted to ask people about this

« on: June 19, 2019, 10:27:57 AM »

The horizon would be a circle even if the earth were flat. Assuming visibility distance is consistent and nothing obscures your view, the horizon would be the limit of visibility. If the distance you can see is the same in all directions then that's a circle, isn't it? The difference on a flat earth is there's no reason you'd get a sharp horizon line. The earth would simply fade out as it does on a foggy day when visibility is less than the distance to the horizon. I can't think of any reason there would be a sharp horizon line a few miles from your position, what stops you seeing further?

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?

« on: June 19, 2019, 09:31:45 AM »

It's not unreasonable to imagine that a company would fake videos of their products in order to try to raise capital. Try to convince a bunch of investors that you're way farther along than you really are. There have been cases of fraud like that in recent years.

I think it's a bit unreasonable. Yes, I'm sure they are showing the robots in their best light and cutting out the times they fall on their arses (do robots have arses?)
But it's quite a leap to assert that the whole video is fake or composite...I think that mindset is interesting.
No actual evidence of fakery has been provided. Just a vague assertion that it "looks fake". What does that mean? That's completely subjective. On what basis is that being claimed? Where's the evidence?
This is my issue with the people claiming that space travel/the moon landings are fake. It's always people who clearly have no understanding of the subject and no qualifications or experience in photo/video editing or effects. They just make vague assertions that it "looks fake".

Boston Dynamics do seem to have some impressive kit and they clearly haven't seen any of the Terminator documentaries, but I suspect the tech they show off in their videos is nowhere near ready for commercial use, let along in people's homes. The robot butler is still a pipe dream for now.

3

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?

« on: June 18, 2019, 11:09:51 AM »

You've gone full Tin Foil Hat on this one, Thork.
To what end do you think this is all being faked?

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette

« on: June 18, 2019, 09:50:57 AM »

I think the difference is as much as I think Rugby is boring, I wouldn't bother going on to a Rugby forum to tell everyone how stupid they are and how rubbish the sport they follow is. [...] The idea that anyone would believe in a flat earth [...] is mind-blowing to me.

I don't like football but I don't waste my time saying so. I wonder why you do about FE?

I'm not hugely into golf but I did watch the last day of the Masters - Woods' win was amazing and it was a great day of sport.
I loved it. But yeah, you could say "A man used a stick to hit a ball into a hole and everyone lost their shit, how ridiculous".
You can deconstruct any sport like this.
But while there are some sports I like, others I don't, sport is, in general, very popular. Over a billion people watched the last World Cup Final.
You might not like it, maybe you don't understand why people do but you are aware that it is a very popular sport.
Till recently I wasn't even aware that FE was a popular sport, so to speak.

And, fun fact: taste in sport/music/tv/films is subjective. The shape of the earth is not subjective. It is what it is.
Scientific ideas are not subjective. They can be tested. For example, Galileo said that objects of different masses fall at the same rate on earth (I know I've expressed that poorly, please don't nit pick!).
And he was right. That is not my opinion. It can be tested.
Of course, ideas may evolve over time as we learn more - two cannonballs of different mass may hit the ground at the same time if you drop them at the same time, a hammer and a feather do not. Other forces are at work on earth which don't have a significant effect on cannonballs but do on feathers. So that slightly changes the original assertion.
As David Scott showed during Apollo 15, drop a feather and a hammer at the same time in a vacuum and they do fall at the same rate.

So, having discovered that this was a thing, FE piqued my interest and when I saw Tom saying stuff like sunset can be caused by perspective then I felt the need to chip in. I think it's important that stuff which is demonstrably wrong is challenged. He is demonstrably wrong about perspective, and horizon dip. That doesn't mean the earth is a globe of course. Does it matter if people believe wrong stuff? Not in this case, maybe. But there are other examples - I gave one above - where this sort of woolly thinking has consequences.

And coming back to the point I'm trying to make, if you did go to a football forum to tell them how rubbish football is and you found every thread was from Rugby fans telling them why Rugby was brilliant and football was a game for pansies then wouldn't you find that odd? It's a football forum but none of the football fans on it are on there discussing who their best player is, whether the manager should be sacked, their hopes for next season. Every thread is Rugby fans telling them how rubbish their sport is. Wouldn't you wonder why they don't either kick them out or create their own threads? And if they did create their own threads and those threads were hijacked by the Rugby fans then maybe they should create their own section of the forum where they could just discuss football. Maybe they'd let some of the Rugby fans in but not the ones who only want to say how rubbish football is.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette

« on: June 17, 2019, 03:38:58 PM »

We're veering massively into the realms of personal judgement here, so please take everything I say here with a pinch of salt. My view is that anyone who comes here to talk about how they think the Earth is round is at least a little bit misguided. In a way (though I readily acknowledge this is a poor analogy), it feels like going to a football fans' forum to complain about one's dislike of football.

You admit it's a bad analogy, but I think the difference is as much as I think Rugby is boring, I wouldn't bother going on to a Rugby forum to tell everyone how stupid they are and how rubbish the sport they follow is. Because it's subjective. I like football, I don't like Rugby. But if people want to watch a sport which I find boring then fine, doesn't affect me. And the idea that someone might like Rugby isn't mind-blowing to me, it's a very popular sport.

And that's the difference. The idea that anyone would believe in a flat earth in this day and age - particularly in the era of space travel, GPS etc - is mind-blowing to me. Does it do me any harm if people believe  that? I guess not. But when I heard this was a thing and found this place (Nice SEO by the way, kudos) and saw Tom saying things like planes don't know how fast they travel or no-one knows how far Paris is from New York or sunset is caused by "perspective" I couldn't help but sign up and chip in rather than shouting at the screen. I don't expect Tom to ever change his opinions but maybe others who see the debates will. Why do I care? Because I do think this "post truth" world we live in is damaging. No-one's going to die because they believe in a Flat Earth but it is linked with a conspiracy theory mindset and distrust of authority which leads people to believe one rogue report about MMR being linked with autism, a load of kids not getting vaccinated and some dying from measles. There's obviously a middle ground, blind faith in "authority" is harmful too.

I don't know which of your RE categories you think I'm in. I'd place myself in the second. I don't create endless threads about how round the earth is but I don't acknowledge any other possibilities. I mean. In the literal sense sure, anything is possible I guess but your Wiki and the arguments I've seen on here have failed to sway me. If your retort is "but you haven't done any tests for yourself" then I guess that's fair. But I have done a few small things to show that shadows being lit from below isn't because of perspective and neither is it waves occluding tall buildings. I've done a bunch of diagrams to explain concepts too. My contributions have been mostly about how certain FE ideas in the Wiki don't (in my view) hold much water. And if Tom (it's usually Tom) misrepresents or fails to understand the heliocentric model then I'll join in to correct or explain.

Many do. You just happen not to be one of them. Every time I point out to you the unprecedented growth of the FE movement, you mistake it for starry-eyed pride

I think you get a bit over-excited, you have generated a lot of interest and deserve credit for that. Have you swayed some people? Of course. Some people believe Elvis is still alive, or that they've been abducted by aliens and so on. Niche beliefs will always be believed by some and the internet makes it easier to spread them. I can see how some people who have a certain conspiracy theory mindset and are pretty ignorant of science could be swayed or at least interested. It's pretty much the mother of all conspiracy theories.
But anyone with decent knowledge of science will see the theories for what they are unless, he says, dragging this kicking and screaming back to the point I'm trying to make, you have a more coherent theory. And that will only come by discussion amongst yourselves and I see none of that going on here. I take the point that this place is not the entirity of the FE Community, but it's still a place where I would expect to see (and would like to see) those sorts of discussions take place, even if you feel the need to limit RE access to them (which would be sensible)

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God sent Gandhi to Hell

« on: June 17, 2019, 09:56:18 AM »

I know a guy who believes the earth is 8,000 years old and the bible is literal fact.
Trust me, they exist.

Welp, that's terrifying.

Dude, you understand that some of the FE Movement - even some people on this site - is based on a certain interpretation of some Bible verses?
I never understand why some people believe the Bible to be a science book.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think I can disprove everything

« on: June 14, 2019, 08:52:24 AM »

Yeah. I'm going to give Tom this one. Newton says that an object will remain at rest or continue at a constant velocity (velocity includes direction in physics, that's the distinction between velocity and speed) unless acted on by a force.
But in real life there are all kinds of forces acting on a car or other vehicle, friction, bumps in the road, mechanical factors.
And, fun fact, if you blindfold someone and ask them to go in a straight line they end up going in a circle. Without a point of reference we aren't able to go in a straight line.

When it comes to circumnavigation East to West this actually works on a FE. You'd actually be going round in a big circle but so gradually you wouldn't actually notice.
The issue for FE is North to South circumnavigation. Much less common as it involves going over both poles which is obviously problematic, but it has been done.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: God sent Gandhi to Hell

« on: June 13, 2019, 01:27:11 PM »

Ask yourself: what kind of being is God if he sends Gandhi to Hell?

The kind that gives us a choice whether to accept His gift of salvation.
Other religions expect you to "earn" your way to salvation, Christianity recognises that none of us can, the law is given as a straight line to show us how crooked we are. As humans we may think of some people as "bad" and others as "good", God doesn't see it that way, but he offers us a way out:

Romans 3:
"23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus

« on: June 12, 2019, 12:39:21 PM »

I believe most RE adherents exhibit the urgent "need," for certainty.

It is expressed by statements such as, "This [insert example here] demonstrates spherical earth perfectly..."

FE adherents seldom engage in this type of behavior.

If anyone says "perfectly" then I agree that is over-stating it. But what we can say is that these observations:



Are consistent with the globe earth model. Part of the building is hidden by the curve and the further you are from the building the more of the building is hidden.
That is as we would expect.

The FE behaviour I see is people then get very excited if they use curve calculators and can show that the observations don't exactly match what the calculator says.
But that's a bit unreasonable. Those calculators are fairly obviously using a simplified model. Some do take refraction into account but they have to use a standard model of that, the calculators can't possibly know what the atmosphere was like at the location on the day the observations were made.
The more important point is not whether the observations exactly match the calculators but whether they are within a reasonable degree of accuracy.
And on a FE we wouldn't get this observation at all. There should be nothing stopping you seeing the whole building no matter the distance - so long as the atmosphere is clear enough.

The FE explanations for that are things like EA or "waves" or some weird version of perspective. All these explanations are basically claiming that the earth is flat but there are various effects which make it appear as if it was curved which feels like a bit of a cheat.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Suns Motion, Concentric with the Polar Centre.

« on: June 12, 2019, 09:02:03 AM »

On discharging the gun, the ball … invariably (during several trials) descended within a few inches of the gun. ….  [T]wice it fell back upon the very mouth of the barrel.  The average time that the ball was in the atmosphere was 16 seconds …

Yeah. I call bullshit on that. Even without anyone repeating that and finding it to not be true, the idea that a bullet would be in the air for 16 seconds and then plop back into the barrel has to be nonsense.

The initial speed of the bullet can be calculated with:
v = u + at

v = 0, that's the final speed of the bullet at the top of its path. u = the initial speed. a = 9.8, acceleration due to gravity, t = 8 seconds (the bullet is in the air 16 seconds so takes 8 seconds to get to the top of its parabola and then falls for 8 seconds)

0 = u + -9.8 x 8

u = 9.8 x 8 = 78.4m/s (175mph)

So that's the initial speed of the bullet. What height does it reach? This is given by:

r = r0 + vt - 1/2at2 (r0 is 0, it starts at ground level. v is 78.4 from above, t is 8 seconds. a is 9.8, the gravity again:

r = 0 + 78.4 x 8 - 0.5 x 9.8 x 8 x 8
= 0 + 627.2 - 313.6
= 313.6m

Are we seriously expected to believe that a bullet fired directly upwards - even if the gun was perfectly aligned - at a velocity of 78.4m/s and reaching a height of 313.6m (please someone check my maths!) would plop back into the barrel of the gun? If there were no atmosphere maybe, but there is.

If you're doing simple mechanics then you ignore the atmosphere, in that simple model then yes, the bullet would plop back into the barrel if the gun was perfectly aligned upwards and stationary (with a rotating earth I'm not sure how to calculate it, obviously the initial rotational momentum is a factor but how that changes as the bullet rises and descends and the earth rotates is a bit beyond my maths/physics ability). In the real world though it's incredibly unlikely. I don't understand why Rowbotham's accounts of experiments are taken at face value where other experiments are scrutinised to within an inch of their lives.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 11, 2019, 03:01:01 PM »

The reason it appears circular when viewed from distance is the existence of a different index of refraction of ether for each latitude.

Even if it was conceded that there was some magic effect which bent light in such a way to make a disc appear as a circle no matter what your location or altitude (which is ludicrous, by the way), the video above doesn't just show a 2D circle, you can clearly see from the way that the shape of features change that it's a rotating sphere. Things moving across a flat disc just don't look like that.
In your world how is a disc generating enough light and heat to power the earth?

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette

« on: June 11, 2019, 01:35:45 PM »

I don't think this is a phase. Or, if it is, then it'll mean when it's past that interest in FE is dying out.

Meh, it is. We've been at it for more than a decade now. Every now and then we get a spike in media attention which brings the RE zealots over, and eventually they get bored.

Fair enough. You've been at this longer than me so I'll accept you know the patterns better than me.
But it comes with the territory of trying to promote yourselves. And wouldn't you prefer if RE people came here and thought "Hmm, maybe these guys are on to something"?
Or don't you care?
If you do then you need a more coherent model.

And who would the gatekeepers for that be

It would have to be you I guess. You plural, you "the mods". You run this place.
One option is to have the section read only for Members but then allow only FE people in to post. Personally I'd find that frustrating, I signed up because I saw some of the things Tom in particular was posting, thought it was nonsense and wanted to chip in. Having a section where even as a member I couldn't participate would be annoying and would most likely lead to people creating spin off threads in the other sections.
The other option - one I would recommend - is you let selected RE people in. And yes, we have different views about who those people are but I don't see a huge risk here. If you let someone in who isn't behaving you can always kick them out again.
I'd say the ideal is these conversations happen on the existing boards but a FE "safe space" with RE access carefully limited may encourage more FE on FE debate on here, which is probably the intention of this place.

Indeed, this is why I think the ball needs to be in RE's court here. We get an excessive amount of threads from regulars who just discuss among themselves about how round they think the Earth is, and how much they agree with one another.

That's fair comment, although I don't agree it's entirely in our court. It would be good if there were more threads from FE people to discuss bones of contention within the community, it's not up to RE people to start those.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Would it be possible for a satellite to rotate around a FE

« on: June 11, 2019, 08:59:31 AM »

That is not how you reach definite conclusions about the shape of the Sun: a discoidal Sun also has a rotating atmosphere.

I'm interested in the idea that a disc can have an atmosphere...

And the concept that a sun which is a disc 12km above the surface of the earth can be seen as a circle of the same angular size by people thousands of miles apart and at different altitudes.
Dress it up in as much word salad as you like, there is no way a disc can be seen that way.

The argument that <x> cannot be explained by science isn't an argument at all. Even if you're correct (you ramble so much I honestly can't tell), simple observations of the sun being a circle of consistent angular size as it goes across the sky, moving at a consistent angular speed, and being seen as a circle simultaneously by people in different places show it can't be a disc and it can't be close to the surface of the earth.

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette

« on: June 10, 2019, 12:26:26 PM »

This forum will be what its regulars make of it, for better or for worse.

Spot on. Any forum is only as good as its members.
But while you're going to get some fly-by "lol, erf is rund" people, most of us who have been here a while are not like that.
Yes. I think the earth is round. But I am interested in your ideas and why you believe them. I am interested in your attempts to make a more coherent model.
I'm disappointed I see so little of that on here.
Right now it's like the Wiki is your "manifesto" and you're like "Come and have a go if you think the earth is round enough".
You want growth and publicity but given how few people subscribe to a FE belief, most of the people who hear about FE and are interested enough to visit you will be RE believers.
I don't think this is a phase. Or, if it is, then it'll mean when it's past that interest in FE is dying out.

We do have that. But if we let the RE crowd in, we'll be back to square one. The alternative is to go full Eric Dubay and start banning people for disagreeing with us - which is completely contrary to our ideals.

There is a middle ground here, you allude to it yourself when you say "get the RE crowd to start being constructive"
You say there are places where you discuss FE ideas amongst yourself. Are those places on here? Are there sections that the great unwashed can't see?
If not then adding some would be an option. And the middle ground is people earn their place into those sections. And they don't do that by saying they believe the earth to be flat, they do that by showing they can debate sensibly in the sections they can see. If you genuinely don't want RE input into those discussions then that's your prerogative of course, but then it does become somewhat of an echo changer.

15

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: South Pole as the FE center?

« on: June 10, 2019, 11:02:27 AM »

There is no "need" for the world to be the way it is - it just happens to be.

Sort of. But this is a weakness with your model.
You can't explain why the earth is flat, in your model it just happens to be so.
But mainstream science can explain the shape of the earth.
The earth does have to be a sphere because of gravity.
This is why all objects above a certain mass are spherical.
And science can explain the oblateness too, when a non-rigid body (as the earth was when it was forming) is spinning the centripetal force will make it bulge around the middle.

The original question should be not why does the north pole "need" to be in the centre - as you say, it doesn't need to be, it just happens to be. Like the UK doesn't need to be separated from Europe by water, it just happens to be (although hasn't always been). A better question is why do you believe that the north pole is at the centre of the flat earth. And I'd suggest the answer to that is because Rowbotham lived in the northern hemisphere. From that vantage point one can observe Polaris stationary (more or less) above the North Pole and other stars rotating around that point. So it makes sense, if you're going to create a FE model, to make that the centre. But if you're in the Southern hemisphere you'd see stars rotating in the opposite direction around some southern point.

It's speculation, but not baseless, to suppose that had Rowbotham lived in Australia he might well have made a FE model with a southern hub in the middle. The problems your model has with distances and observations of sun movement in the southern hemisphere would then exist in the northern hemisphere. This would be a bigger problem given that 68% of the land mass and 90% of the population is in the northern hemisphere, but that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist with the North Pole being at the centre.

The fundamental problem is the same one cartographers have. How does one represent a globe earth on a flat plane? And the answer is there is no way perfect way of doing so. The projection most often used makes Greenland the same size as Africa, which it isn't. You can fix that with other projections but you're trying to fit a too big carpet into a room. You can flatten down (pun not originally intended, but I'll take it) one corner of it, but another corner is going to pop up somewhere.

16

Flat Earth Community / ISS Open For Business

« on: June 07, 2019, 03:11:09 PM »

Interesting

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48560874

Nasa is to allow tourists to visit the International Space Station from 2020.
The US space agency said it would open the orbiting station to tourism and other business ventures.
There will be up to two short private astronaut missions per year, said Robyn Gatens, the deputy director of the ISS.

I imagine it'll cost millions so out of the reach of the average Joe, but maybe some crowd-funding effort could be made in the FE Community, it's the ultimate chance for one of you to make personal observations.

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette

« on: June 07, 2019, 02:26:51 PM »

To those genuinely interested, this sort of stuff is why FE'ers debate amongst themselves in places you won't be admitted to.

So, out of interest, what are these forums for?
They seem to be mostly used for RE people to ask the same questions over and over again and/or claim that various parts of FE Theory don't work.
Is that what you guys want this place to be?
Don't you want some forums where you can discuss your ideas and try and move towards consensus on some of the issues which are in dispute?

I can't imagine your intention was to have FE forums where people who don't subscribe to FE beliefs come on here to tell you why you're wrong.
I mean, you're going to get that if you're going to open these boards up to the public, but it's not all this place should be, is it?

The forum I run is lamentably quiet now but back in the day it was pretty busy, we used to get a couple of thousand posts most days. Lots of threads and chat.
Often though I'd find that debates were often ruined by a few idiots who were there more to troll than debate.
I think you guys are too strict in the way you moderate but I must admit we probably went too far the other way and were far too lenient. Always a difficult line to tread I find.
Anyway, I did at times contemplate a part of the forum where people could have more serious debates and we'd moderate that part more strictly. Never did it, but it's something to consider.
Maybe there should be a section for FE people to debate and only FE people and carefully selected RE people would be allowed to post?

It just seems a bit odd to have public FE forums mostly dominated by RE people and then have debates amongst yourselves in private.

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: Does the lay Flat Earther understand Physics? Or are just in to conspiracies?

« on: June 07, 2019, 11:07:07 AM »

There's is a lot of ignorance on both sides. People, in general, suck at understanding science.
So the answer to the question "does the lay Flat Earther understand Physics" is no, but neither do many lay RE people.

I think the difference is the RE model is well established and accepted amongst scientists.
People may not understand it, but the basic concepts of the earth orbiting the sun, the moon orbiting the earth and the earth rotating but tilted on its axis are not still being debated in the scientific community.
In the FE community there are still quite fundamental debates going on - is there a physical dome? Is UA a thing? How high is the sun? Are there two poles or just one?
These are quite fundamental things which there doesn't seem to be much consensus about.

19

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette

« on: June 07, 2019, 10:56:05 AM »

Over on the other site they have a "Flat Earth Believers" forum where only approved FEr's or FE 'supporters' are allowed to post. Coincidentally there's a discussion right now about using that area for more FE2FE discussions/debates. Which, in theory, it already is. However, it's not really being used in that manner I guess due to a low number of participants. I'm not sure how it would play out anyway. One example to look to is maybe Dubay's http://ifers.123.st/ site. Only FEr's are allowed to post. Participation as a whole seems to be spotty at best there.

What do you propose?

I'd like to see more FE on FE discussion. I don't know whether that discussion should be restricted to FE people though.
I don't understand why there is not more discussion on here between FE people, given how many different FE models there are or certainly major parts of the model which there is no consensus about.
Pete hinted elsewhere that some of this discussion goes on in private, I'm not clear why that is.
I'm sure they're sick of the repetition of threads from fly-by RE people on here, I am too. More threads started by FE people would mix things up a bit.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Investigating FE Jupiter

« on: June 06, 2019, 08:30:37 AM »

Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Sun, Moon, Black Sun, Shadow Moon. It is discoidal in shape, as are its satellites.

If the Sun orbits at some 12 km above the surface of the Earth, then Jupiter must orbit somewhat at a higher altitude, perhaps some 25 km, if not more.

The RE cannot explain the basic features of Jupiter: its angular momentum and its IR anomalous radiation.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55860.0

12km = 39k'. I've flown commercially at 42k' and the Sun was still well above me.

If the Sun orbits at some 12 km above the surface of the Earth, I have flown in a commercial flight above the Sun's orbital position? Yet the sun was still well above me? How does that work?

You know, I thought you'd got your maths wrong, but you haven't. Commercial airlines do fly above 12km. How they hell do they not hit the sun?! And how come the sun is the same angular size from a plane, in day time it should be absolutely huge from a plane as you'd be pretty close to it.

Coming back to Jupter, if that is about 24km up then we're lucky no weather balloons have hit it as they go far higher than that.

Sandokhan, honestly, what kind of nonsense is this?!