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 - stevecanuck

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
I guess you didn't read my post carefully enough.

I did.  From a high enough altitude you can certainly tell the difference between a disk and a sphere.  Disks don't cause things (boats, buildings, continents) to vanish below the horizon when you or they move.  Spheres do.

Which is why I said, "if you went high enough, the earth would take on relative basketball proportions and your depth perception would kick in".

The boat and building thing is a given. This was meant to address those who think curvature alone prove sphericalness.

2
If you were on a raft in the middle of a perfectly calm ocean, and spun around to view all 360 degrees, it would all look exactly the same. It would be like being in the middle of a large hoop that arcs around you at a constant distance and then attaches back to itself after describing a perfect circle. There would be exactly zero appearance of curvature in the dimension that would prove sphericalness. You can't see the 3rd dimension you're looking for because you can't see past a horizon that is equidistant from you at all times.

I hate to bring up the boring sinking ship effect, but that would show the difference between being on a flat plane or circle, and being on a globe.  It wouldn't sink on a flat Earth.

The other effect is altitude letting you see further.  On a flat Earth, climbing up and down the mast of a ship wouldn't cause other ships to sink hull first into the water, but would on a flat earth.

There are a large number of visual effects you get on a sphere that you would not on a disk, and those allow you to indeed see the difference.

Correct. My point is that looking for curvature is one of the go-to methods, but it shouldn't be.

I'm not sure I know anyone who thinks standing at sea level and looking for curvature is a go-to method for showing the Earth is round.   

Looking for it at 30,000 feet, sure.  Or 400 miles up on the ISS, of course.  Or from a million miles out it's pretty clear.  I just don't see many people arguing you can see an actual curve from the ground, so I wouldn't call it a go-to method at all.

I guess you didn't read my post carefully enough.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking for curvature is a fool's errand.
« on: March 01, 2021, 10:41:27 PM »
If you were on a raft in the middle of a perfectly calm ocean, and spun around to view all 360 degrees, it would all look exactly the same. It would be like being in the middle of a large hoop that arcs around you at a constant distance and then attaches back to itself after describing a perfect circle. There would be exactly zero appearance of curvature in the dimension that would prove sphericalness. You can't see the 3rd dimension you're looking for because you can't see past a horizon that is equidistant from you at all times.

I hate to bring up the boring sinking ship effect, but that would show the difference between being on a flat plane or circle, and being on a globe.  It wouldn't sink on a flat Earth.

The other effect is altitude letting you see further.  On a flat Earth, climbing up and down the mast of a ship wouldn't cause other ships to sink hull first into the water, but would on a flat earth.

There are a large number of visual effects you get on a sphere that you would not on a disk, and those allow you to indeed see the difference.

Correct. My point is that looking for curvature is one of the go-to methods, but it shouldn't be.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Looking for curvature is a fool's errand.
« on: March 01, 2021, 09:07:18 PM »

Trying to disprove that the earth is flat by looking for curvature is a fool's errand, because a circular shape is not proof of sphericalness. Hold up a flat, round placemat, and you will see a circular outline. Hold up a basketball, and you will also see a circular outline. So, what is it that allows you to perceive that the basketball is a sphere but the placemat is not? Depth perception - but only up to a certain distance. For a basketball that is only a few feet away from you, your depth perception can see that the sides of the ball curve away from the center of it and away from your face. This allows your brain to interpret it as a sphere (It probably helps that your brain already knows this and is predisposed to interpreting it as such).

If you were on a raft in the middle of a perfectly calm ocean, and spun around to view all 360 degrees, it would all look exactly the same. It would be like being in the middle of a large hoop that arcs around you at a constant distance and then attaches back to itself after describing a perfect circle. There would be exactly zero appearance of curvature in the dimension that would prove sphericalness. You can't see the 3rd dimension you're looking for because you can't see past a horizon that is equidistant from you at all times.

Now, magically levitate and repeat the process. No matter how high you go, nothing changes in terms of not being able to see proof of sphericalness due to curvature. The horizon is farther away (the hoop is bigger), but that's all. Perhaps if you went high enough, the earth would take on relative basketball proportions and your depth perception would kick in.
 
To be able to see sphericalness, you would have to be able to see farther to the left and right than you can in the middle (you could only do this with a transparent globe). So, the irony is that the spherical nature of the earth is the very thing that prevents you from seeing the spherical nature of the earth.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: February 28, 2021, 12:22:39 AM »
How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?

I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.

I think if any Flat Earth model is to get any lift at all, it will have to accept a few given things.

A flat Earth model will have to accept that we do indeed know the size and shapes of the major continents and incorporate that into their model. I've crossed North America professionally a couple of times and I know my gas consumption and mileage. Many, many everyday people are intimately familiar with the size and shape of the continent they live on.

A flat Earth model will have to embrace the idea that Antarctica does indeed exist as a continent. I have seen Flat Earth models that have a complete map of the North Pole and the South Pole inside the edge of the disk. Of course, the travel distances over the oceans were then massively distorted by orders of magnitude but fewer people are as intimately familiar with crossing the ocean. It would be easier to sell the idea of some Pac-Man effect or navigational hoax in the middle of the ocean.

Regarding the underlined, I don't see how that's possible considering:
  • The area of the earth (according to RET) is 510.1 million sq km.
  • If the size and shape of continents are agreed upon, the distance from the north pole to the equator is therefore agreed to be 10,000 km.
  • That would create a flat earth disc with a radius of 20,000 km.
  • The area of said disc would be 1,256.637 million sq km.
  • Therefore a flat earth would have 746.537 million sq km more area (2.4635 times) than a globe earth.
  • Because the size and shape of land masses is agreed upon (I assume the shape and size of islands is also agreed upon), ALL of the extra area would have to be ocean.
  • The area covered by ocean according to RET is 361 million sq km. The area in your scenario of FET would therefore be 361 million plus 746.5 million, or 1.107 billion sq km.
  • That comes to slightly more than 3 times as much ocean on a flat earth.
  • Accounting for such a spectacular amount of extra ocean is simply not possible without it creating equally spectacularly changed distances between continents compared to those of RET
The size of land masses, the distance between them, and the direction between any two points of earth can never be reconciled between FET and RET.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: February 27, 2021, 05:15:59 PM »
I don't think there is a standard RE map. There seem to be several different ones if you look for them. Many of them offer a very euro-centric view of the world with Europe given greater space than is accurate. How can RE maps be assumed "accurate" if they have these inbuilt biases? FE maps should avoid this pitfall I think.
BTW I'm new so go easy on me!

The ‘standard RE map’ is a globe.

Everything else suffers from some sort of error, and which errors you choose to live with depends on what you need the map for and, yes, bias certainly creeps in - witness the fact that we choose to orientate the earth north-up, for example.

However, the fact that it is impossible to accurately represent a globe earth on a flat map is not in any way an argument to support the contention that the earth isn’t a globe.

Flat earth, on the other hand, shouldn’t have any such problem - it should be easy to create a map of the world, with distances and bearings all accurately represented. The fact is that it can’t be done, and there’s a very good reason for that.

How are you so confident that the "standard" round earth map is so accurate?

I've seen this baseless and shallow argument pop up countless times in these forums.

How many millions of intercontinental flights based on RET would it take to convince you?

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?
« on: February 25, 2021, 05:32:57 PM »

You need to understand that cartography is not for determining the shapes of things.

Yes it is. That and placement on the earth as well as the size of continents and islands. That's the very definition of cartography.

Quote
It is for direction

Direction from any point on earth to any other point is a byproduct of placement.

Quote
and (estimated) duration.

Duration? Duration of what?

Quote
That is how they (maps) are built, and why.

There are small amounts of topographical maps of course,

No, maps exist by the millions.

Quote
but we don't do these for the ocean's surface (only land, sometimes including some of the land beneath the ocean).

Yes we do. Every airline that flies overseas uses maps to determine distance and direction. (I'm assuming you meant "use" rather than "do").

Quote
Making a map, and determining the shape of something (especially something that you are standing on, and is too large to measure in one go) are fundamentally different challenges.

No, making a map IS determining the shape. It's two ways of saying the same thing.

Quote
Inferring the shape of the world because you took trips on or above it, is stupid.  To determine the shape of the entire world, it must be rigorously and repeatedly measured (no, just riding on a vehicle to get there and timing it is not adequate).

You just described surveying. Untold millions of surveys have been done. Reducing the concept to driving a vehicle around is absurd.

Quote
Maps are a military asset, which is one of the many reasons that the maps in the average citizen's hands are always incorrect, historically.

Uh, no. Any time I've used a map it's been accurate.

Quote
This was a large part of keeping poor european slaves/"commoners" from going to north america during/on from the middle ages.

The middle ages started in the 5th century. Nobody in Europe knew America even existed.

Quote
I know of no one on either side (FE or RE) seriously involved in topographical cartography and I agree that it is an oversight.  In any case, it is a large undertaking and there are bigger fish to fry currently (especially for independent researchers).

I worked in the oil industry and it has to know EXACT locations and topography - all the time. They employ surveyors - all the time. They create maps containing location and topographical information - all the time.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Many questions, can you help?
« on: January 21, 2021, 08:55:46 PM »
Thanks to both of you! You are of course right that one has to understand issues first and listen to both sides before making a decision. For example, I told my doctor that I would like to try homeopathy, although he thinks little of it, because my girlfriend has had good experiences with it and so do many others. But is there a “middle ground” with round vs. flat? Either do I believe my old geography teacher and the media or do I believe the experiments and evidence of the Flat Earth followers?

If you have studied geometry, then here is something to consider. The surface area of a flat earth would be 2.46 times that of a round earth. Does it make sense to you that for every square metre of land and ocean that round earth theory says exists there is actually another 1.46 square metres that nobody has ever seen?

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Short summary of the creation of Islam
« on: January 20, 2021, 09:00:42 PM »

About 20 years ago (do the math) I decided to read the Qur'an to see just how much 'Islam' there is in 'Islamic terrorism'. The short answer is - a lot. For those who have no idea what Islam is or where it came from, here is a my bare-bones summary:


Overview:

In 610 CE, a 40-year-old illiterate merchant named Mohamed announced to the pagans of the Arabian Peninsula city of Mecca that he had received a message from God, via the angel Gabriel, stating he had been chosen to become God's final prophet.

He began exhorting the pagans to abandon their gods and to follow him in submission (Islam) to the "one true god".

He claimed to receive such revelations, collectively called the Qur'an, for the remaining 23 years of his life and preached them from memory.

Therefore, to be a Muslim is to believe that the Qur'an is a verbatim sermon from God that created and defined a new religion called Islam.  

The first 86 surahs (chapters) were revealed from 610 to 622 while Mohamed lived in Mecca.

The remaining 28 surahs came from 622 to 632 when he lived in Medina.

By the time of Mohamed's death the Qur'an had grown to 6,236 verses.

It was not compiled into written form until after his death. It was compiled roughly by order of size of surah rather than chronologically.

   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mecca:

These surahs are little more than repetitions of Old Testament stories of Moses, Adam, Noah, Lot, etc. The story of Jesus and Mary is told, but while denying Jesus is the son of God.

The five pillars were defined - faith, prayer, fasting, alms, pilgrimage.

The only other discernable difference between Islam and Judaism in terms of theology to that point was that Mohamed was to be the Abrahamic world's new spiritual leader.
  
No mention of fighting (armed jihad as opposed to personal jihad) appeared during this period.

The greatest sin/crime was defined as disbelief in God.

The oneness of God, the promise of Heaven for believers, and the threat of a literal Hell for unbelievers were the primary tenets of the Meccan period. They were repeated hundreds of times.

This period can be summarized by the following verses":

39:62 - "Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the Guardian and Disposer of all affairs".
17:111 - "He has not begotten a son and has no partner in His Kingdom".
41:30 - "Those who have said, 'Our Lord is God.' ... rejoice in Paradise that you were promised'".
29:68 - "Who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allah or rejects the Truth when it reaches him? Is there not a home in Hell for those who reject Faith?".    

   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medina:

Mohamed claimed to have uncovered a plot to kill him, so he and the few followers he had managed to attract sought refuge in the largely Jewish city of Yathrib. This migration is known as the Hijrah, and is the start of the Islamic calendar.

The tone and message of the Qur'an changed immediately.

All rules regarding daily life (diet, marriage, inheritance, etc.) in the Islamic community were introduced.

Fighting "in the cause of God" was introduced.

Hostilities began against the pagans of Mecca when Mohamed began raiding their caravans.

Three major battles were fought against the pagans resulting in the Muslims claiming final victory.

Two of the three major Jewish tribes were expelled from Yathrib and their property confiscated.
   
The men and youths of the third Jewish tribe were beheaded, and the women and children were taken as slaves.

Mohamed renamed Yathrib to Al Medinat Al Nabi (The City of The Prophet), and became known as Medina.

Control of Mecca and the Kaaba were ceded to Mohamed.

The Arabian Peninsula steadily came under Mohamed's control via military conquest and bloodless capitulation.

He initiated military campaigns against Yemen and the Byzantine empire.

The last verses of the Qur'an were revealed.

Mohamed died in 632.His successors continued the military campaigns he started, resulting in the creation of a vast Islamic empire.

One of the last verses revealed describes the final, militaristic turn that Islam took in its evolution:

9:111 - "Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain".

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?
« on: December 16, 2020, 03:30:05 PM »
Okay, I can't really miss my opportunity to chime in here.  To answer the threads creator, it's not an easy answer.   It's almost a little sad really.  Why aren't all people and all children told the truth about everything and everybody all the time?  Because sometimes that may not benefit the well being of the child or everyone at large.

   It's my belief that the round earth phenomenon was propped up after WW2 in an effort to separate two warring bodies of people.  The great thing about science is that you don't really need a textbook to get to the truth.   And the better news is I think the world is ready for the truth and anything held "top secret" no longer needs to be hidden.  The knee jerk reaction we all share when first learning about flat earth theory is slowly fading and a more intelligent/friendly conversation can commence.

I can just also say, learning about other science ideas has not changed me.   It's just made me a more understanding person.

People have been successfully navigating their way around the world based on RET for over 500 years. WWII has nothing to do with it.

11
Anything that's accelerating is being pushed. Do FE'ers ever speculate as to what's pushing the universe upward.

... or pulling?

Yes, I should have said pushed or pulled.

12
...the Earth is not stationary but travelling upwards at by now immense speed, since it is claimed Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms-2. Apparently everything else we see - sun, moon and stars - is also accelerating at the same rate with the Earth. This is called Universal Acceleration and is this site’s explanation of what the rest of the world calls gravity.
If everything is accelerating at the same speed and direction then this 'acceleration' would not be discernible, just like when you are traveling in an airplane at 400 mph along with the plates, napkins, and chairs.  There is no sense of motion, thus there would be no 'force' and you would still have to explain gravity.    BTW, 'up' would have no meaning. 



You may be confusing "acceleration" and "velocity".  Humans have no means of detecting velocity (although we sometimes think we can, from clues such as perception of relative movement, engine noise, wind on our face etc).  We can, however detect acceleration, using our sense of feeling, sense of self and our inner-ear thingies.  When the aeroplane, passengers, chairs and napkins are all travelling at 400 mph then, yes, there is no perception of velocity.  When the First Officer bounces the thing onto the runway, however, that is an acceleration of the aeroplane, and all the passengers, chairs and plates feel it. 

The FE concept is that UA is accelerating the Earth, and celestial objects at 9.8 m/s/s but not (for some reason) people, animals, buildings, chairs and napkins.  So the FE concept of what we Globies call gravity, is that everything on the planet is being pushed up by the earth and that is the effect we feel as gravity. 

And as Longtitube said, don't think that everyone who posts on this site is a Flattie; its a forum.

Anything that's accelerating is being pushed. Do FE'ers ever speculate as to what's pushing the universe upward.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Line of sight question
« on: December 08, 2020, 05:37:52 PM »
No. The reason the horizon is below eye level is that the person is at a higher altitude. Up is higher than down.


This very well could be true. The problem that I have with that is that there have been documented observations which suggest that the horizon can go up or down with the same altitude. You have to have an open mind. I'm not asking you to believe the earth is flat. I'm not asking you to believe the earth is not round. In this instance, I'm asking that you at least admit that things like refraction, or the path the light takes,  can have an effect on the perceived height of the horizon. Once you admit that then any sort of claims about the perceived height of the horizon really should have detailed light path/refraction analysis done to go along with those claims.





See the video below? Notice how, throughout the video, the horizon goes up and down with the altitude staying the same? Time and time again people have some and said that our human perception of the horizon, it going up, it going down, or things disappearing behind it are because the earth is round. Based on that kind of flawed thinking watching the video below would lead you to believe that the earth is changing shape. It goes from being flat to being round. Which i have not found one FE or RE person who believes.




That video shows the shimmer caused by moisture in the air. If you look at the buildings, you will see them 'changing shape' and appearing to move up and down. Light moving through moist air causes that phenomenon. Same with the hills and cliffs on the right. They appear to be moving like a major earth quaked was going on. Easy Peasy.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An inconvenient hemiplane.
« on: December 05, 2020, 10:15:40 PM »

I'm willing to try this again if you're interested. First, I would like to apologize for anything I posted that sounded smug or condescending, including the title of this thread. I'm also going to stay away from exact measurements because they're a distraction. My question can be expressed purely in terms of relative size.

For a circle, the area (A = pi times radius squared), starting from the middle and going to the halfway point of the radius, describes an 'inner circle' that is one quarter the size of the whole circle. So, subtracting the inner circle from the whole circle shows that the outer circle is three times the size of the inner circle (the area of a doughnut with these dimensions is three times the size of the hole).

Therefore, in FE terms, the southern hemiplane would have three times the surface area of the northern hemiplane, and my question is whether that is claimed to be so in FET.

15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An inconvenient hemiplane.
« on: December 02, 2020, 03:10:57 PM »
No. Pick any number other than 10,000 km, and the math still holds.
Yes, that's how proportionality works, congratulations. How does that resolve your issue of simply making up the currently-unknown factors?

But wait, there's more inconvenience to discuss
Nah, we'll deal with your failures one at a time. There will be no need to discuss further consequences of your incorrect assumptions once you've corrected those.

The question still stands. Does FET recognize that the southern hemiplane is 3 times the size of the northern hemiplane. Again, this is simple geometry. We could be taking about a dinner plate or a circular throw rug and the question is the same. The actual measurements need not be known.

Same with the Margaret River to Port Elizabeth question. Actual numbers are not needed, just relative distance. Does FET believe they are 2.44 times farther apart than, and in a different direction from each other than RET? Your method of denial causes me to reiterate that this is purely a geometric relationship that does not require actual measurements.

Also, the mocking tone you take is unbecoming the moderation of a serious forum.

16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An inconvenient hemiplane.
« on: December 01, 2020, 10:30:40 PM »
But wait, there's more inconvenience to discuss:



The cities of Margaret River, Western Australia (34S, 115E) and Port Elizabeth, South Africa (34S, 25E) are a quarter of the way around the world from each other whether looking at a RE globe or a FE map. Of that there is no argument. What is in contention is the distance and the most direct line between them.

When I measure the RE distance on maps.google.com, it tells me they are 7,980 km apart, and that a straight-line between them runs as far south as 43 2/3 degrees, and lies about 600 km north of Kerguelen Islands.

FE distance and direction differ greatly. Given it is 10,000 km from the North Pole to the Equator, plus 34/90 of 10,000 km from the Equator to the south, the distance from the North Pole to each city is 10,000 + (34/90 x 10,000) = 13,778 km on lines that are 90 degrees apart.

Therefore, on a flat earth, a straight line between the 2 cities would be the hypotenuse of an equilateral right angle triangle with sides of 13,778 km. Therefore the distance between them would be 19,485 km, which is about 2.44 times farther in FET, and the line between them (the hypotenuse) would nearly touch the southern tip of India. This example can be duplicated for any two points on earth, and such a difference will occur every time.

Given that every shipping company in the world for the last 400+ years, and every airline in the world since their inception, have been successfully plotting course and distance based on RET, and that literally zero companies of any kind rely on knowing how far and which way it is from A to B by using FET, the only conclusion any rational person can come to is that the world is round.

To pile on further, the shape of every continent is known, their size is known, and the distance and direction from any point on earth to any other point is known. The only way they can exist as such is on a round earth.

17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: An inconvenient hemiplane.
« on: December 01, 2020, 07:14:21 PM »
we can easily calculate the area of each hemiplane using A = pi*r squared
This relies on you substituting many unknowns within FET with your imagination. In conclusion:

Does that agree with FE theory?
Probably not.

No. Pick any number other than 10,000 km, and the math still holds. Going from the center of a circle half way to the edge will always define an area exactly 3 times less than the area defined by going from said half-way point to the edge. This is not RE vs. FE; this is simple geometry, and I want to know if FE theory recognizes this.

18
Flat Earth Theory / An inconvenient hemiplane.
« on: December 01, 2020, 06:46:35 PM »

Assuming the distance from the North Pole (NP) to the Equator (E) is 10,000 km whether speaking of FE or RE, and that the Equator to the southern edge (or South Pole) is an additional 10,000 km, we can easily calculate the area of each hemiplane using A = pi*r squared.

Where r = 10,000 km from NP to E, the area of the northern hemiplane = 314,159,265 kmsq.
Where r = 20,000 km from NP to SP (or southern edge) the area of the world = 1,256,637,061 kmsq (which, btw, is about 2.46 times the area in RE theory).
To calculate the size of the southern hemiplane, simply subtract the northern hemiplane from the total, which = 942,477,796 kmsq.

Therefore, the southern hemiplane is exactly 3 times the size of the northern hemiplane.

Does that agree with FE theory?

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?
« on: November 22, 2020, 07:34:08 PM »
I'm still waiting for an FE believer to explain the purpose of this massive lie that the earth is round.
If you do not have anything to add to a thread, do not post in it. Warned.

?????

I started this thread. I named it. It's about a question that nobody who believes in FET has even attempted to answer. How is that being off-topic? It IS the topic. Please rescind the warning.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions regarding gravity
« on: November 22, 2020, 07:30:02 PM »
Apologies if I misnamed it. Let me try again. FET does explain the effect known as gravity by the fact that the flat earth is accelerating upward. Correct?
Partially.

Thank you for the partial answer.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >