Recent Posts

11
Flat Earth Theory / Australia
« Last post by ScienceDisprovesThat on August 19, 2018, 11:59:05 PM »
Hey, I am new around here and I was wondering what are your viewpoints on Australia. I have read the wiki and I have seen a few YouTube videos about Australia being fake but I would like to know wether you guys accept this belief.
12
No ALL CAPS in titles, please. I've edited it out of your post.
13
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« Last post by Crudblud on August 19, 2018, 10:37:42 PM »
Been playing Witcher 3, I'm not having much fun with it yet. The combat is taking some getting used to, I can't quite put my finger on what it is that's bothering me exactly, it just feels "floaty". And the story, setting etc. are not drawing me in. The setting seems to be the same bland Mediaeval fantasy I've seen a few hundred times already. I don't have any history with these characters, and while the writing does a good enough job of establishing relationships and so forth, I don't find them particularly compelling. I understand that one of the big draws of the game is the sheer amount of content packed into it, and I'm definitely not giving up on it already, but so far... ehhhhh...

Also what the fuck is up with people saying the same thing every time you go past them? If I hear the recording of the kid singing about Emhyr pissing himself one more time...! On the plus side, it's nice to look at and it runs very smoothly, for an open-world-ish game it's quite refreshing in my experience to see time and care put into optimisation. Oh, also the sudden outbursts of extreme violence in some of the cutscenes is hilariously slapstick-y, which is a definite plus.
14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Last post by Bobby Shafto on August 19, 2018, 10:37:11 PM »
Still planning to perform this experiment today, but yesterday I was at the Griffith Observatory in the afternoon. And it was a little before sunset when we were leaving when I decided to just take out my shoelace and give the string test a preliminary try. The sun was getting low to the Hollywood Hills, but it was still high enough and bright enough to cause sighting problems.

So I used a sign to block the sun, had my son hold one end taut at where the sun was occluded behind the sign, and I stretched it straight to line up with the moon (now in its 1st quarter).

This wasn't ideal since I found it very hard to capture the scene. Even in the fullest view, the sun and moon are at too wide an angle to get in a single shot without a distorting wide angle lens. Also, when zoomed out to show the length of string, it makes the moon too small to see its terminator.  Zooming in, and you lose simultaneous focus on the string and moon. I tried different aperture settings and focal lengths, but I was limited in time so this is the best I could do. Hoping for better performance this evening under a more controlled setting, but this might serve as a precursor as to what to expect.

Here's a crude "panorama" of the moon-to-sun, which formed an angle greater than 90°



I added a little inset zoom of the moon to help make the terminator line more visible. But lacking index/reference points between images, I can't be sure I've aligned the separate images correctly. In fact, I'm almost sure I haven't since the moon should be higher relative to the flat lateral span traced from the sun. Still, even when skewed lower I think the illusion is still there since the shadow line on the moon still looks like it is perpendicular to a line that points higher than the sun. Right? Looks like it's pointing toward the upper right hand corner of the "panoramic" composite. And that's how it looked in real life too. I needed to explain to several curious people who asked what I was doing and all agreed that it did look like the moon's terminator wasn't aligned with the sun. So the illusion is real.

But looking across the stretched string, which I avow was straight and taut:



That's my hand holding the string aligned with the moon straight out and up in front of me. My son's hand is holding the other end which was about level with my head and off my right shoulder.

It lines up:


15
Flat Earth Theory / Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« Last post by Bobby Shafto on August 19, 2018, 10:07:53 PM »
First step (if possible) is to fill out this table:



We all know how to calculate (or how to use online calculators) to come up with how much of a target height will be hidden on a sphere of earth's claimed radius, not accounting for surface irregularities or atmospheric effects on optics.  I used a popular calculator found on GitHub to fill out the table for a spherical earth.

What I don't know for sure is how to fill out the flat earth column. I would be inclined to put 0 all the way down, but I don't want to presume and potentially skew the challenge. So I ask any willing flat earth advocate (not "globetards" playing devil's advocate) to step forward and propose values for the flat earth column.

We are to ignore atmospheric effects like refraction, which has been disparaged as a "magic wand" used to salvage spherical calculations.

Step 2 will be to examine a series of images taken of a target at these ranges/heights and see if we can assess actual hidden/not hidden values. I can promise up front that the values in the spherical earth column above will not match what we will deduce from the images. Since I have no values for the flat earth column, I can't yet make the same declaration for that camp, but I predict that whatever values flat earth calculation might produce will likely be "ballpark" and not perfectly match what we find in the images either. That's okay.

Step 3 will likely and unavoidably occur coincident with the process of Step 2 since it is human nature to want to analyze with an eye on the desired conclusion. But, if we can, the step will be to assess whether the evidence is more supportive of a flat earth of FET (flat earth theory) or a spherical earth of the size that is the consensus in RET (round earth theory). 

Finally -- and since I predict the measured/derived values will be less than Step 1 calculated values of RET's but greater than FET's, we can then debate using "magic wands" to argue for adjustments that could swing the raw values closer to your supported model and away from the opposing model.  That is if we actually get that far.

This might not even get out of the blocks.  To do that, we need some flat earth numbers to fill in the table.  Anyone?
16
Chapter IV in Earth not a Globe http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za22.htm
great R. deduces distances to the north pool by measuring the circumference of earth using "eternities" or similar.
The first example looks quite promising. Numbers appear to be reasonable.
Quote
The superficial extent or magnitude of the earth from the northern centre to the southern circumference, can only be stated approximately. For this purpose the following evidence will suffice. In laying the Atlantic Cable from the Great Eastern steamship, in 1866, the distance from Valencia, on the south-western coast of Ireland, to Trinity Bay in Newfoundland, was found to be 1665 miles. The. longitude of Valencia is 10° 30´ W.; and of Trinity Bay 53° 30´ W. The difference of longitude between the two places being 43°, and the whole distance round the earth being divided into 360°. Hence if 43° are found to be 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles, 360° will be 13,939 nautical, or 16,262 statute miles; then taking the proportion of radius to circumference, we have 2200 nautical, or 2556 statute miles as the actual distance from Valencia, in Ireland, to the polar centre of the earth's surface.
In RET distance to north pole at 52°N should be 2280 nm (nautical miles, 60*(90-52))

Some paragraphs later:
Quote
In the Australian Almanack for 1871, page 126 2, the distance from Auckland (New Zealand), to Sydney, is given as 1315 miles, nautical measure, which is equal to 1534 statute miles. At page 118 of the Australian Almanack for 1859, Captain Stokes, H.M.S. Acheron, communicates the latitude of Auckland as 36° 50´ 05″, S., and longitude 174° 50´ 40″, E.; latitude of Sydney, 33° 51´ 45″, S., and longitude 151° 16´ 15″, E. The difference in longitude, or time distance, is 23° 34´ 25″, calculating as in the case of Valencia to Newfoundland,

p. 94

we find that as 23° 34´ 25″ represents 1534 statute miles, 360° will give 23,400 statute miles as the circumference of the earth at the latitude of Sydney, Auckland, and the Cape of Good Hope. Hence the radius or distance from the centre of the north to the above places is, in round numbers, 3720 statute miles.
In RET distance to north pole at 33°S should be 7380 nm (nautical miles, 60*(90+33)), circumferenc at 33°S should be 18115 nm = 20851 statute miles

But the issue is not alone the calculation of the radius from the circumference:
Didn't great R. know that there's no direct course possible from Auckland to Sydney? As Auckland is on the east side of New Zealand, You have to round the north of New Zealand, which gives an extra millage of about 200 nm (nautical miles).
using 1125 nm (1315-200): 23°34' represent 1125nm, so 360° are 17185nm or 19781 statute miles, according his calculation Sydney is 3148 statute miles from north pole...
So Valencia/Ireland is only 600 statute miles (3148-2556) north of Cape Town... You would not even cross the equator at that distance.

I found another good example: The Trans-Australian Railway
This railway is known for world longest dead-straight track 487km, 297 statue miles, 258.1nm
between
Loongana   Coordinates: 30°56′46″S 127°02′17″E
Ooldea         Coordinates   30°27′33″S 131°50′08″E

Difference in longitude is 4.795° for 258.1nm, gives a total circumference derived from the railway track at 30.7°S: 19377nm (22303 statute miles)
It's not exactly what RET would predict but close, about 5% error: 18572nm
17
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Sunsets -- A Projection Effect?
« Last post by QED on August 19, 2018, 08:27:01 PM »
The sunlight doesn't shine evenly over the earth. When the sunlight is angled one square foot of sunlight covers more than one square foot of earth.



But surely you accept that IF the Earth is a globe, and one side of that globe points toward the Sun, the part of the globe nearest to the Sun would receive one square foot of sunlight straight-on, and not at any angle?

So at any one time, some area in the equatorial region is this point?

Well, almost. Since the Earth's rotation axis is tilted relative to its orbital axis, the locations which receive direct sunlight vary over a calendar year. This is, of course, how we get seasons.
18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?
« Last post by QED on August 19, 2018, 08:21:03 PM »
No one in the government is actively lying about the Earth's shape (as far as we know). They genuinely believe it to be round. The lie is the act of having advanced space travel capabilities. Back in the late 1940s, the 50s and the 60s, governments were just beginning to understand the properties of mass propaganda and how it can shape the reality of their people.

The USSR always existed on the fundamental idea that they were working towards some glorious, super-industrial future that never came to fruition. What better motivation than to tell their people and their enemies, that they have sent man-made objects into space? Amazing, finally their glorious technological future will come to pass! Except it didn't. They never sent anything into space. They lied to their own people. However, the West couldn't just sit idly by because their own people believed the lie too. "Look at the USSR!" they said, "they're so advanced!" The West couldn't allow such a thought to start purveying their own populace. Something had to be done.

The West couldn't simply say the USSR is lying. The USSR would continue to lie and people would start to ask "well why aren't we sending things to space?" Therefore it was decided that the West would lie as well. "Look, we've sent stuff too!" Then it became a big game of who can con their own people into the biggest lie. It became a game of "let's get Kubrick to televise our lies on national television". The USSR couldn't compete with Hollywood. They lost the lying game.

The Earth not being round is just a part of the big lie, it's not even an intentional lie. If the US thought the Earth was flat when it faked the moon landing, the Earth would appear flat in the movie. It's just an artistic backdrop picture. Space travel still is, and will continue to be, a silly lie, which is why NASA will fade into irrelevance, why SpaceX only exists because of government contracts, and why every company who ever uttered the phrase "space tourism" is doomed to failure. Eventually the government, and schools, will tell us all that there's nothing interesting in space, don't bother thinking about it, and they'll hope faking the moon landing is no big deal when it's declassified in a century or so.

I can completely understand why nations would lie about going to space, and to be honest, I am not sold on our supposed trip to the moon. I don't, however, understand why all of this is grounds to believe the earth is flat. There is evidence that the moon landing was faked, although, it could be debated on what they consider "evidence" is not actually a lack of understanding of physics and mechanics in space, however there is no evidence the earth is flat. This conspiracy is only used as an argument to invalidate the images seen from space of a globe earth.

It doesn't invalidate images taken from satellites, though. Even a FET can entertain the notion of satellites, so why wouldn't they be able to capture pictures of earth from high enough elevation to see whether or not there is a curve? In fact, most of the images we see that contain the entire globe were not taken as a single photograph, but rather as several (possibly hundreds) of photos taken by high-flying satellites and parsed together (much like google maps). This is why there is a discrepancy in the apparent sizes of continents from one Earth 'photo' to the next, and why some photos have repeating cloud patterns.

I dunno..maybe. I try to get into this whole faked moon thing, but every video I find about it uses these weird arguments about shadows and stuff. It's like they never went into their backyard and played around with shadows to see how they work. Every moon landing video I have ever seen adheres to basic optics that I learned in undergrad.

You'd think that if there was a problem, then physicists would have discovered it right away and blown the whistle.
19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?
« Last post by timterroo on August 19, 2018, 08:05:34 PM »
No one in the government is actively lying about the Earth's shape (as far as we know). They genuinely believe it to be round. The lie is the act of having advanced space travel capabilities. Back in the late 1940s, the 50s and the 60s, governments were just beginning to understand the properties of mass propaganda and how it can shape the reality of their people.

The USSR always existed on the fundamental idea that they were working towards some glorious, super-industrial future that never came to fruition. What better motivation than to tell their people and their enemies, that they have sent man-made objects into space? Amazing, finally their glorious technological future will come to pass! Except it didn't. They never sent anything into space. They lied to their own people. However, the West couldn't just sit idly by because their own people believed the lie too. "Look at the USSR!" they said, "they're so advanced!" The West couldn't allow such a thought to start purveying their own populace. Something had to be done.

The West couldn't simply say the USSR is lying. The USSR would continue to lie and people would start to ask "well why aren't we sending things to space?" Therefore it was decided that the West would lie as well. "Look, we've sent stuff too!" Then it became a big game of who can con their own people into the biggest lie. It became a game of "let's get Kubrick to televise our lies on national television". The USSR couldn't compete with Hollywood. They lost the lying game.

The Earth not being round is just a part of the big lie, it's not even an intentional lie. If the US thought the Earth was flat when it faked the moon landing, the Earth would appear flat in the movie. It's just an artistic backdrop picture. Space travel still is, and will continue to be, a silly lie, which is why NASA will fade into irrelevance, why SpaceX only exists because of government contracts, and why every company who ever uttered the phrase "space tourism" is doomed to failure. Eventually the government, and schools, will tell us all that there's nothing interesting in space, don't bother thinking about it, and they'll hope faking the moon landing is no big deal when it's declassified in a century or so.

I can completely understand why nations would lie about going to space, and to be honest, I am not sold on our supposed trip to the moon. I don't, however, understand why all of this is grounds to believe the earth is flat. There is evidence that the moon landing was faked, although, it could be debated on what they consider "evidence" is not actually a lack of understanding of physics and mechanics in space, however there is no evidence the earth is flat. This conspiracy is only used as an argument to invalidate the images seen from space of a globe earth.

It doesn't invalidate images taken from satellites, though. Even a FET can entertain the notion of satellites, so why wouldn't they be able to capture pictures of earth from high enough elevation to see whether or not there is a curve? In fact, most of the images we see that contain the entire globe were not taken as a single photograph, but rather as several (possibly hundreds) of photos taken by high-flying satellites and parsed together (much like google maps). This is why there is a discrepancy in the apparent sizes of continents from one Earth 'photo' to the next, and why some photos have repeating cloud patterns.
20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?
« Last post by QED on August 19, 2018, 08:04:50 PM »
No one in the government is actively lying about the Earth's shape (as far as we know). They genuinely believe it to be round. The lie is the act of having advanced space travel capabilities. Back in the late 1940s, the 50s and the 60s, governments were just beginning to understand the properties of mass propaganda and how it can shape the reality of their people.

The USSR always existed on the fundamental idea that they were working towards some glorious, super-industrial future that never came to fruition. What better motivation than to tell their people and their enemies, that they have sent man-made objects into space? Amazing, finally their glorious technological future will come to pass! Except it didn't. They never sent anything into space. They lied to their own people. However, the West couldn't just sit idly by because their own people believed the lie too. "Look at the USSR!" they said, "they're so advanced!" The West couldn't allow such a thought to start purveying their own populace. Something had to be done.

The West couldn't simply say the USSR is lying. The USSR would continue to lie and people would start to ask "well why aren't we sending things to space?" Therefore it was decided that the West would lie as well. "Look, we've sent stuff too!" Then it became a big game of who can con their own people into the biggest lie. It became a game of "let's get Kubrick to televise our lies on national television". The USSR couldn't compete with Hollywood. They lost the lying game.

The Earth not being round is just a part of the big lie, it's not even an intentional lie. If the US thought the Earth was flat when it faked the moon landing, the Earth would appear flat in the movie. It's just an artistic backdrop picture. Space travel still is, and will continue to be, a silly lie, which is why NASA will fade into irrelevance, why SpaceX only exists because of government contracts, and why every company who ever uttered the phrase "space tourism" is doomed to failure. Eventually the government, and schools, will tell us all that there's nothing interesting in space, don't bother thinking about it, and they'll hope faking the moon landing is no big deal when it's declassified in a century or so.

Thank you for the detailed response! So, if we had a telescope of sufficient magnification, and pointed that telescope at the Moon, would you change your mind if you could see with our own eyes the equipment on the surface of the Moon left by astronauts?