Recent Posts

1
Technology & Information / Re: Apple Event 12 September 2017
« Last post by Hollocron on Today at 07:06:51 AM »
 If you lower the price of the iPhone X, then the Note will probably have a comparable price adjustment. See how that works? Value is determined by the market, not your fanboy whims.
2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Who do you serve?
« Last post by J-Man on Today at 06:27:47 AM »
While this video is extremely long, it is done touching all points to the conspiracy that ultimately leads us to why? who? wouldn't want us to know the Earth is flat. We must start the learning process here. Enjoy this video, it is spot on and done very well.



3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Last post by UzZIBiKeR on Today at 06:12:12 AM »
Wrong. The flat earth logo itself shows an entire earth bathed in sunlight. Lets try this for a change. How big is the diameter of the earth? Answer approximately 8,000 miles. How big is sun's diameter? Approximately 1,000,000  miles. The earth is 93,000,000 miles from the sun so by scientific measurements the sun cannot be a flashlight on the earth but must cover the earth entirely at the same time. If not there would be no seasons as the earth's axis, which is 23.5 off center. The flashlight shows that the little sun can only cover part of the earth at a time meaning the rest of the earth would be freezing. There would also be no need for time zones as the sun comes around and goes away without causing any temperature differentials. By the way where is Antarctica. It is a continent with a very large land mass that is weighted down by ice. Your logo and thought processes state that if we don't like it it doesn't exist. Laying down in a hallway is not laying down with the earth. If in fact the earth was flat everyone would see the same stars at the same time overnight forever. Why doesn't this happen? I leave you to figure out the last falsehood in your prehistoric reasoning.
4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is the Bishop experiment scientifically valid?
« Last post by UzZIBiKeR on Today at 06:02:27 AM »
You have to realize what the great circle route is in the first place. Please look this up before posting something like this. The shortest route on a globe is a straight line if you can grasp this common concept. To debunk the Flat Earth theory, you can just use Sydney to Santiago, Chile, Quantas flight 27, 7000 miles. 12 hour flight. This flight would be impossible on the Flat Earth model, requiring the plane to travel at twice the speed of sound.
It's funny you can't post maps of the earth here so I'll give you the web address;


https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/

This continuous claim without scientific backing gets old really fast. Why do you persist in this craziness. Don't put up YouTube videos that I can shoot holes through in the first 10 seconds. Don't give me any off the wall comments from someone who doesn't know what he/she is talking about. I was a reactor operator on a nuclear submarine in the United States Navy defending people like you who give no thought to those who would have died if you're supposed truth had been accurate. We would not have the air force, navy, marines, army or coast guard if what you believed was true because we could never sail around the world to get  to the trouble spots that need us. Besides common sense what are you folks laking. Education or friends or both. I feel sorry for all of you. If you're here because you think it's just a joke, remember there are people who believe this and need someone with an education to dissuade these poor soles. If Shak believes the earth is flat he has just had the biggest joke pulled on him. I don't care what percent he shot. He is no better than those who perpetuate this lie.
5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Last post by Curious Squirrel on Today at 05:51:10 AM »
So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.

We are approaching this from the idea that we do not know what the earth is. But we do know that there is a horizon. Therefore any model should support the existence of the horizon. If you are designing a Flat Earth model, you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is reality.
Ah, but you see we're not attempting to make a model that fits the flat Earth. We're checking to see if the flat Earth can even exist in a way that reflects reality. What this is showing us is the impossibility of sunset on a flat Earth, as described by the viewing angles we know exist. We are NOT attempting to have this model FE. We are attempting to see if the Earth could even BE flat. If the reality doesn't match the number, there is no flat Earth. YOU have to show how perspective or the horizon, or what have you, makes up for the sun ACTUALLY being at a 20 degree angle when it should be at a zero degree angle.
6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is the Bishop experiment scientifically valid?
« Last post by Rounder on Today at 05:03:12 AM »
Scientific validity requires repeatability.  Despite repeated requests, Tom has never identified the specific beach from which he conducted the observations, so we cannot repeat it.
7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The sun
« Last post by Rounder on Today at 05:01:01 AM »
I *suspect* that the "Universal Accelerator" idea came from a time before the infinite flat earth became popular.   But these days, with an infinite flat earth, I don't know why the FE'ers still need UA.
They need UA because:
  • Not all FE are "infinite plane" FE
  • No good reason for Sun and Moon and stars to stay above an infinite flat earth, if that FE has gravity
8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Burden of proof
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 04:25:06 AM »
As junker has stated, the burden of proof is on the claimant. When you come to this forum and start making claims, we expect that you work to demonstrate your claims.
9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Last post by Tom Bishop on Today at 04:02:59 AM »
So, just realized something/had a thought. I know where Tom is going wrong, and why he continues to claim our math must be wrong because it 'doesn't match reality' because it doesn't take perspective into account. He's right IF you approach every single one of these diagrams with the preconception that the Earth is flat. If you assume the Earth to be flat, then of course none of the diagrams are right, because they don't match what is seen. Therefore the math has to be wrong, because the Earth is flat and the math is showing something we don't see. Whereas if you approach them from the perspective of the world is round, or "we don't know what it is, let's figure it out" the math is correct and simply rules out a flat Earth. That's my hypothesis now at any rate.

We are approaching this from the idea that we do not know what the earth is. But we do know that there is a horizon. Therefore any model should support the existence of the horizon. If you are designing a Flat Earth model, you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is reality.

Thank you Tom - you just helped to disprove the flat earth!

In a FLAT earth - you're right, the peak of a mountain cannot ever be on the horizon...and my diagram elegantly demonstrates that.

In a ROUND earth - my diagram has to have a curved "ground" - and in that situation, the top of a mountain can indeed be on the horizon (or below it).

I do not claim my diagram proves that the earth is flat...to the contrary, it disproves it...which does not make it "wrong" - it makes it "right".

If you are attempting to draw a Flat Earth model you must include the capability of a horizon, since the existence of the horizon is the empirical reality.

You can't just pick and choose how and what you want to include in your model. The horizon exists and must be included.

Quote from: 3DGeek
Your claim that "the ground rises to the horizon" is an oft-stated thing in FET - but it's not true.   If you fly a military fighter airplane with a heads-up-display, you see that the "artificial horizon" is considerably higher than the actual horizon at high altitudes - yet perfectly aligned with it at sea level.

The higher you go the farther the horizon would be, but unfortunately you do not listen very well. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. At extreme altitudes, such as from a military fighter jet in your example, you cannot see all the way to where the horizon would be due to the opacity of the atmosphere.  The true "horizon" at very high altitudes is farther than what you see.

You can tell that this is happening because at high altitudes where the artificial horizon on a plane's instrumentation is above the observable horizon, the horizon is no longer sharp or defined, and is seen as a gradual gradient. It should be no surprise, then, under such conditions basically absent of a horizon that the artificial horizon would be above the level of the land.
10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking "Altered perspective"
« Last post by xenotolerance on Today at 03:39:46 AM »
That's been the true irony of this whole back and forth... Tom has been pointing out that the flat earth explanation for the way the sun sets does not and can not match observations. Just, over and over again, seemingly oblivious to it.

The crux of the argument is here:

Quote from: 3DGeek
* If the earth is flat then your objections to the diagram are entirely valid...and YOU need to explain to US what's wrong with it...because the only three assumptions it makes are:

   a) The earth is flat.
   b) Light travels in straight lines.
   c) The sun is a long way above the ground.

Because (as you VERY correctly say) the diagram doesn't agree with reality - then one of those three assumptions I made when I drew it must be incorrect.

There's still the '3rd person diagrams can't model it correctly' cop-out, so I thought of a 1st-person way to model a sunset on flat earth. I don't have a diagram, for lack of preparation and resources, but maybe one can be made or found.

+ Lie down at one end of an infinitely long, very tall hallway. The floor and ceiling are perfectly straight, forever.
+ Directly above your head is a light fixture on the ceiling, 10 meters high. The viewing angle is 90 degrees, straight up.
+ Every ten meters along the ceiling is another light, identical to the first. The viewing angle decreases for each light in proportion to its distance away.
+ What are the angles from your eyes to the light on the ceiling that are 30m, 300m, and 3 km away?
+ How far along the ceiling is the closest light for which the viewing angle is 0 degrees?

For those paying attention at home, you will notice that this is the same exercise as the sideways diagrams, no surprise. But answering these questions will be revealing; the proportions of the "3000 mile high, 6000 miles away" sunset are met at the light that is two steps away, 20m out and 10m up, twice as far as it is high; the viewing angle is 18 degrees. For reference, try this at home: Find a doorframe that has two door-height-lengths available on the floor in front of it. Lie down on your back, so your toes are the horizon facing towards the doorframe, and your head is at the 2:1 position. Look at the top of the door... huzzah, it's an 18 degree viewing angle!

[I double checked my math - it's actually 26 degrees]

Anyway... the angle for 300 meters is 2 degrees, and for 3000 it is 0.2 degrees. And because light travels in straight lines, these proportions remain true. 10 up, 3000 away... 1:300.

So on a flat earth, in order for the viewing angle from the ground to get within a fraction of a degree i.e. close to the horizon, given that the sun is 3000 miles high, it must then be 900,000 miles away. How far away is Baghdad from New York, again?