6921

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Very simple question for flat earthers

« on: March 05, 2018, 12:25:59 AM »

FES members talk about using principles like the Zetetic method which is an empirical and scientific question and answer approach, but then they subscribe to believing in hoaxes which is the total opposite approach as the Zetetic method intended.

Sure, if we just claimed a hoax and cited nothing to support it, you might have a point. But that is not what we have been doing.

6922

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 04, 2018, 06:52:42 AM »

I don't see any observations

OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.

All you have to do is dig.

All you have to do is dig a hole through the earth vs all you have to do is watch the sunrise/sunset with a friend?

You do realize you are being beyond ridiculous?

You have provided no observations or reports of that scenario. Until then it is a mere thought experiment no better than mine.

6923

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 04, 2018, 03:12:09 AM »

I don't see any observations

OK. Well I can see why you come to such ridiculous conclusions. Like I said, you can make these observations any time you want to know. All you have to do is look.

All you have to do is dig.

6924

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 03, 2018, 11:26:50 PM »

And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

No one has ever dug a hole and fell into space nor did it ever appear like that had happened. The sun rises and sets every day. The OP is not proposing a thought experiment but a literal one. You can do it with a friend tomorrow if you like.
 
Your post does nothing to address the OP.

I don't see any observations or records. Therefore it is a thought experiment.

Until you are willing to explain the results of my thought experiment, I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

6925

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 03, 2018, 06:23:08 PM »

And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

There's overwhelming evidence that this would happen.

If there is so much of it, why not link it for us then, that proves this case in the OP?

6926

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 03, 2018, 04:55:53 PM »

And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

6927

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 03, 2018, 12:16:11 AM »

(Responding to  "Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further.  Even if you DID reach the other side ...)

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

You're the one who introduced the case scenario. I point out that you wouldn't fall out of the other side (due to gravity), but you ask me to explain falling out of the other side. Why?

Why not? You guys post "How do you explain this thought experiment I came up with?" all the time. Every day. See: This thread. Why not explain my thought experiment?

6928

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 02, 2018, 10:07:15 PM »

There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?

Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.

What is there to be explained?

First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.

Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.

No?

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

6929

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 02, 2018, 06:16:24 PM »

How about we stick to the topic. There is no way to explain the case I described using a flat earth so I don't expect much discussion other than some that are honest to concede that it can't be done.

There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?

Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.

6930

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 02, 2018, 05:54:55 PM »

Where did I say anything about shadows in perspective? 

You said this:

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

This is one of your declarations about what would happen without showing it would happen. You are claiming that a light source which is physically above an object can cast a shadow angled upwards and when I showed you how ridiculous that is you said I hadn't accounted for perspective. So you seem to think that perspective can affect how shadows are cast. I am looking forward to your demonstration of that. As I said in my "long shadows at sunset" thread, the only way for long shadows to be cast like that is with a light source physically close to the horizon (or the light bending so it appears to be). If you think you can demonstrate to the contrary then let's see it.

Are you challenging me to show that a light source located at 90 degrees to Zenith would create a shadow pointing 180 degrees in the opposite direction?

6931

Flat Earth Community / Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series

« on: March 02, 2018, 06:07:58 AM »

All of these points are in Earth Not a Globe. Whether you believe it to be right or wrong, I don't understand why you guys don't dive into our literature to see what our actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making Youtube videos and debunking websites. Its not like that book isn't one of the first things that comes up when one starts researching this subject.

Why do I have to be here regurgitating the book every day? The book is free and online. If you are going to make an attack you should address the actual source material, not your personal idea of what FET is.

6932

Flat Earth Community / Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series

« on: March 02, 2018, 05:20:28 AM »

The street lamps in the photograph at the end of that link are clearly not shrinking in size in the distance as they should be. The street lights in the distance are all the same size. How do you explain that? What aspect of "lens flare" causes light to appear at the same size regardless of distance?

those lights look as they do because of pixel saturation, not lens flare.  that's why they all have the same sort of shape.  light from saturated pixels in the ccd is spilling over to adjacent pixels.  and probably mie scattering, too.

also, those lights do get smaller with distance.  open up photoshop and measure them.  the background lamps are at least half the size of the foregound lamps.  since you don't know the real distances, i'm not sure how you can say they're not shrinking as they "should be."  how small "should" the background lamps be?

Yes, the Wiki addresses why the lights in the foreground are larger.

The effect only applies to the far field street lamps, not the near field street lamps. A street lamp once centimeter away from your eye ball will, of course, be much larger. The street lamps in the near field may be too close to catch on to the atmosphere or are larger than the projection.

The far field street lamps are all the same size, showing that there is an enlarging effect. The street lights in the distance are not appropriately shrinking.

Per your argument of "pixel saturation" as an explanation for these scenes, if the pixels were bleeding into the pixels near them, the lights should still shrink as they recede into the distance, not stay the same exact size. A smaller light would cause a smaller diameter of pixel bleed around it.

6933

Flat Earth Community / Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series

« on: March 02, 2018, 05:04:27 AM »

The street lamps in the photograph at the end of that link are clearly not shrinking in size in the distance as they should be. The street lights in the distance are all the same size. How do you explain that? What aspect of "lens flare" causes light to appear at the same size regardless of distance?

The street lamps in the photo may not be shrinking, but the headlights sure are (I'm talking about this photo: https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Streets_at_night.jpg). The headlight of the close car is huge, the headlights of the cars way far back in the street aren't. I'm skeptical as to where you found this image, and its original source. If you have it, would you mind providing it for me?

You ask what aspect of lens flare causes the light to appear the same size regardless of distance, and I unfortunately cannot answer that. Lens flare, as far as I know, does not have any method of calculation. Light divergence, on the other hand, does. Do you have any calculations.

I'd like to present these images that clearly show the flare of the lights of lamps getting smaller as they get further from the camera:
http://www.capetowndailyphoto.com/uploaded_images/_MG_5125-750184.jpg
https://3kpnuxym9k04c8ilz2quku1czd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/IMG_8681R.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNmF_rO7ZaSYHYQ3BVkMd_uHzJZMXwwecEvfg4eYIrWXRmajT3xQ
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUGZJSN_uc2jv6h8mC2o0CMGiZ6QOxHDr8exUL5eLfYN3Qr0HkiQ
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/CN3AJ7/boy-standing-on-pavement-at-night-with-street-lights-CN3AJ7.jpg
http://www.harlow.gov.uk/sites/harlow-cms/files/files/street%20lights%20-%20cropped%20-%20small.jpg
https://www.menshealth.com/sites/menshealth.com/files/styles/article_main_custom_user_phone_1x/public/articles/2016/07/warning-about-led-streetlight-glare1.jpg?itok=V8sm4ug7&timestamp=1467990851
http://media.istockphoto.com/photos/6th-st-bridge-picture-id514233304?k=6&m=514233304&s=612x612&w=0&h=stEVNCk4QiCuD8WQ2MsHQ1YSU7rj9MJzJ6nfzdRhxsY=
https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/streetlights-lighting-up-an-empty-street-picture-id489955440?k=6&m=489955440&s=612x612&w=0&h=Z5_U_jptj7Vh4UCcHBSyOrSJUCXYgZlv_F726NfeNLM=
https://fthmb.tqn.com/PsymxRVjoegqc9QiIjkvjW6TATQ=/768x0/filters:no_upscale()/sli-phenomenon-56a6ee3f5f9b58b7d0e5956e.jpg
https://clf1.medpagetoday.com/assets/images/resource-center/cs-led-street-lights-63502.jpg
http://covermyfb.com/media/covers/thumb/5616-street-lights-at-night.jpg (look at the ones way behind the trees)
https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1408304306/348/10394348.jpg
https://s3.amazonaws.com/images.pdpics.com/images/7099-night-street-lights.jpg

Which such a large number of images that actually show a decrease in the apparent size of the lights, I'm a bit skeptical of your image on the wiki.

If you read the Wiki it says that only lights of sufficient intensity are able to catch onto the atmosphere and enlarge. It does not apply to all light. Otherwise everything would be enlarged. In the headlight highway example on that link the tail lights of the cars in the opposite lane are not being enlarged.

Any picture which shows lights shrinking only means that the lights are not sufficiently intense.

half sunken ships on calm standing bodies of water can be restored by viewing the scene with a telescope

Most of the objects never actually were far enough away. What about this, though: https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/dscn3193-comparison-jpg.24254/ or this: http://stupidconspiracies.org/misc/Toronto_across_lake_Ontario_from_Olcott.gif, this: http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/084/627/58d.jpg, this: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/F5Gl28xuvnI/maxresdefault.jpg, this: https://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6155192949_68fa85794e_o.jpg, this: https://deadconfederates.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/hull-down-03.png, this: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a04c6df7269268394ce2348d6476bf22-c, or this: https://i.imgur.com/11xysiz.png

The "Great Lakes" are actually inland seas, and have waves and swells on them. The rest of those images are on the sea. This is what is causing the sinking effect in many of those images.

When there are waves and swells the ship is not restorable.

I never knew some lakes and nearby coastlines got waves of several dozen or hundred feet, without a change in the wave and the waves dropping or rising, as they normally do.

The waves don't need to be all that big. Perspective is bringing them the horizon to your eye level, and the waves on the horizon are providing an area which other more distant objects can shrink behind. A small object can obscure a large object, much like if you hold a dime out in front of you it can obscure an elephant.

The land drops a little at great altitudes because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. You are looking through more fog at greater altitudes. You can see in that video that the horizon is foggy and indistinct rather than sharp, as it is at sea level.

Fair point, but, is there any evidence to show that it does actually remain at eye level, even on planes?

The evidence is that if you start at sea level and slowly increase your altitude the horizon will rise with you. Your perspective changes and you are able to see more distant lands, with the horizon rising as you rise. The fact that the horizon rises to stay at eye level, rather than lowers, as you increase altitude, is evidence that there is an effect going on which keeps the horizon at your eye level.

At a very high altitude you are looking through so much atmosphere the horizon just seems to be faded with fog. At that point the lands may seem to drop as you go higher -- but that is because of atmosphere.

6934

Flat Earth Community / Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series

« on: March 02, 2018, 01:08:34 AM »

On why the sun does not change size, we have created this article to supplement ENAG's explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Your argument relies heavily on lens flare in images, though, not the divergence of light. There is also a large difference between a few hundred feet, as seen with street lamps, and the sun, which, according to you, is many thousands of miles away (even further at sunsets and sunrises). What math have you done to determine that it really is the divergence of light that causes the sun to appear the same size?

The street lamps in the photograph at the end of that link are clearly not shrinking in size in the distance as they should be. The street lights in the distance are all the same size. How do you explain that? What aspect of "lens flare" causes light to appear at the same size regardless of distance?

On why the sun does not act as if the perspective lines meet an infinite distance away, this is discussed in Earth Not a Globe. The perspective lines actually meet a finite distance away

Then I should be able to take a telescope, point it at the sun after it sets, and see it again.

Make sure that there is nothing on the eye level horizon between you and the sun blocking your view.

In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham shows that half sunken ships on calm standing bodies of water can be restored by viewing the scene with a telescope. When there are waves and swells the ship is not restorable.

watch:

The higher you go, the lower the horizon drops. This is measurable.

The land drops a little at great altitudes because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. You are looking through more fog at greater altitudes. You can see in that video that the horizon is foggy and indistinct rather than sharp, as it is at sea level.

6935

Flat Earth Community / Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series

« on: March 02, 2018, 12:52:35 AM »

I suggested in another thread that this is an optical illusion, but I don't recall seeing you answer.

Yes, the sun merging with the horizon is an illusion. Any other questions?

6936

Flat Earth Community / Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series

« on: March 01, 2018, 11:56:35 PM »

As someone asked earlier, why is the observer (apparently) in a ditch?

And why does the illustration look as though it comes from a volume from the 1600s?

It looks like a ditch because the horizon appears to you as if you are standing on the inside of a bowl. The ground beneath you rises to eye level. The Ancient Greek version also says that perspective is like a bowl. The difference is that the Ancient Greeks assumed that the perspective lines meet an infinite distance away. Rowbotham shows that the perspective lines meet a finite distance away. Things on the horizon are not at infinity. Read Earth Not a Globe for more.

6937

Flat Earth Community / Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series

« on: March 01, 2018, 11:39:59 PM »

It really makes some good points. Why don't we see any noticeable change in the sun between the summer and winter solstices, except for its position? No change in size, no change in its speed across the sky, nothing. Why is everyone able to see it move about the same distance across the sky per hour(15 degrees) as mentioned in the video, when it should vary wildly depending on your location if the earth was flat? How does the sun not violate conservation of angular momentum as it moved over the plane? If momentum is conserved, as it is, then the days should increase as the sun moved further out, and decrease as it moved further in toward the north pole. The sun cannot magically speed up and slow down without some outside force. What is this force, if it exists?

Why not read Earth Not a Globe to find out?

On why the sun does not change size, we have created this article to supplement ENAG's explanation: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

On why the sun does not act as if the perspective lines meet an infinite distance away, this is discussed in Earth Not a Globe. The perspective lines actually meet a finite distance away, as so:



Where the perspective lines meet (in this case the lands ascend to eye level) is not infinity. This occurs a finite distance away. The reasoning is discussed in Earth Not a Globe.

As an example, a long length of straight rail road tracks will ascend to eye level, despite the rail road tracks not being an infinite distance away. Under the traditional Ancient Greek model is would be impossible for rail road tracks to ascend to the horizon unless the rail road tracks were an infinite distance away. Since things can ascend and descend into the horizon, that means those assumptions are wrong.

6938

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Notes on The Importance of Empiricism

« on: February 28, 2018, 10:41:27 PM »

The debates between rationalists and empiricists on the nature of the earth can be exceedingly difficult. If the opponents are unwilling to meet on an agreed playing field, reasoned debate is all but impossible. The empiricist will demand a reexamination of facts and first principles, while the rationalist counters and dismisses that need with 100 different arguments ranging from appeals to authority to strawman fallacies. The rationionalist knows that he is right, and considers the underlying science a settled matter.

To be fair to the rationalist, he is put into a tough situation. The rationalist is not only asked show that his theory is correct, but to also show that the underlying science itself is correct.

It is of great importance to guide the reader to understand that empericists, at their essence, are driven to question the fundamental assumptions of our universe to seek greater understanding.

Rationists claim to also seek greater understanding, but go about it in a far different way. Rationalists pride themselves on "standing on the shoulders of giants," creating theory that supplants theory, content with explanations that seemily describe the workings of things, but is ultimately founded on a house of cards. The rationalist may deny this, but in many areas it is easily demonstratable.

6939

Earth Not a Globe Workshop / Re: Notes on The Importance of Empiricism

« on: February 28, 2018, 10:33:05 PM »

You are right to value empiricism. You're wrong about everything else.

That is what the rest of the book is for, to demonstrate that FET is the most empirical conclusion.

6940

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Feeling of Motion

« on: February 28, 2018, 07:23:08 PM »

Flat earthers say that the earth isn't spinning because we can't feel it spinning. Why can't we feel the earth infinitely accelerating if it is?

You don't feel the earth pushing up against your body?