Recent Posts

91
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by Revel on October 16, 2017, 04:42:54 AM »
They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.

You've got to be kidding me. We do not see the world in a perspective form without assuming infinite distances. Your vanishing point assumes that we see parallel lines to the max extent of light reflected from our eyes. Where could this possibly be relevant? Clouds? Elaborate.
92
If the moon is where FET says it is - then they should be seeing opposite sides of the thing - and therefore the pictures they take should show radically different patterns of craters and marea...and they should also show different moon phases.
As always, 3DGeek chooses to lie about FET. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this never works.

Here, let me try.

If the Earth was really round, the moon should be green when viewed from Australia but pink from Dallas, Japan. This doesn't happen. The end!

Do you yet understand why these sort of arguments do not help your case?

So, Pete. What's wrong with Geek's logic? You make yours understandably deficient, but let's hear the rationale for your stance on his.
93
In a flat Earth, the difference between 5-minute altitudes will not remain consistent. Make a graph of records if you need to. If there was no degree of roundness in the Earth, there would be abrupt changes in the altitude. But as long as the rate of change of the altitude meter remains relatively consistent, the Earth must be round, with no sudden, jagged edge. Consider my experiment very carefully. Do not miss any piece of logic.


Why do you think that the altimeter on an airplane would have jagged changes in readings on a flat earth? I don't understand the thinking behind this experiment.



Quote

Here's another case in point: the Earth is so huge, that the human could not directly see how much the shape of its terrain changes on average. If we were to walk from one point of a circle, or oval, and cover the smallest imaginable distance, that is very akin to walking about a mile around the Earth. The difference could hardly be found. For people who have studied basic Calculus techniques: When you zoom in enough on the curve of a graph, you see a tangent line appear. The tangent line, by definition, is a line, which is flat. But you know that this flatness is a simplification derived from a curve. It appears flat, but it is already known to be a constituent, an infinitesimal section, of the curve. Likewise, the human eye, with such a small distance observed, sees flat land where it is truly a super small section of a round planet. If I made a mistake with my reasoning, inform me.

Here's another case in point: the Earth, flat or round, does not have smooth terrain regardless of its overall shape. It has mountains, gorges, crevices, like a sharp, confusing, disproportionate graph. But I am using averages, nevertheless, to determine whether or not the Earth is flat. How do I get these averages? With the experiment I suggested already.

If you guys would like me to conduct a deeper analysis on the topic, with or without the notion of experimentation (i.e., common sense, logic), reply.

If anyone spots a flaw in my current analysis, again, reply, and make sure to criticize me at your leisure. I don't give a damn about my "feelings." I am not being sarcastic, I promise that my emotions are never affected by insult.

There may be a language barrier, but I don't understand your proposals. In the "walking around in a circle" experiment, what observations are we meant to make?

On the topic of the jagged edge, I am referring to the outer circle of the flat Earth. If the Earth is flat, it should one circular shaped "edge" per se, right? Think about it: If it's not a sphere, and it it has two flat sides, on the top and bottom, then the jagged edge would be between both flat sides, as in a circle's visible circumference. So: if the plane were to circumnavigate around the entire Earth, flat or not, then surely, it would cross over this jagged edge. Readings of altitude would change drastically if the path of the plane were to maintain a constant, circular pace while crossing this edge.

Walking around in a giant circle, one would not notice that great a change, depending on how much of the circle was covered. If you covered, say, a quarter of the circle, it would be obvious that you are walking in a circle. If you were to around 1/720 of the circle, or half a degree, or pi/360 radians of the circle, next to no difference could possibly be observed. The second situtation is the case when it comes to the Earth. Many people claim that the Earth is flat because they do not notice this change; this, however, does not justify a perception of the world as flat, since the Earth is merely too big to observe without measuring longer distances. In a practical case, it is impossible to observe walking distances to prove that the Earth is flat. It is still plausible to say that the Earth is round if you cannot detect such walking changes in a planet that is huge and spherically-shaped.
94
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Relativity Model
« Last post by Revel on October 16, 2017, 03:38:01 AM »
Quote from: AstralSentient
1.   There is no accurate map projection that conveys the surface, since space is non-Euclidean in this model and therefore can’t be mapped on 2D to complete scale.

...

6.   Satellites, space travel, Apollo moon landings, astronauts, and modern space exploration are all consistent with this model, as opposed to the mainstream FE concept of “The Conspiracy” with the faking of space travel.

...

7.   This FE model is most consistent with modern mainstream science and with general relativity.

Your problem is that you are assuming that all of these things are true, and have not debated with enough Round Earthers to see that their arguments are not really all that defendable.
It shows a greater appeal to round earthers for sure, I would say it's an advantage if it doesn't 'depend' on there being a necessary faking of all space travel missions, considering that it doesn't apply an extra burden of assumptions.
Otherwise, I don't see an issue with this greater appeal to mainstream science than ordinary FE, it's just that these main premises that follow are quite unique to this model.

With all of these appeals to authority you seem more interested in following the herd than finding out the truth.

Interesting that you find a discrepancy between factual veracity and public consensus in this, of all other, case of cases.
95
Flat Earth General / Re: Chinese space station to crash soon "within months"
« Last post by gizmo910 on October 16, 2017, 03:34:32 AM »
Regardless of what fakery you believe occurred, there will be some crazy man-made (Chinese) stuff falling to earth soon. Just something to lookout for.
96
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by mtnman on October 16, 2017, 03:21:41 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.
What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?

Any tiny waves or swells that breach the flat surface.

The perspective lines may be perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. In Earth Not a Globe the author points out that the sunset happens sooner than expected if the conditions of the oceans are more disturbed.
Just to be sure that I'm understanding what you are saying.

Example scenario. I am standing on the coast of California, looking west, watching the sun set. Just using rough approximations for the sake of discussion only. If the sun is at its highest point at noon, it would be at the opposite side 12 hours later, so that would mean it would about 1/4 of the way around at sunset, let's say 6 pm. Based on your unipolar map that would be around eastern Australia.

You are saying the sun is at so low of an angle above the Earth, that tiny waves and swells are what block us from seeing the sun after it sets from out perspective.

Is that correct?
97
Flat Earth General / Re: Chinese space station to crash soon "within months"
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 16, 2017, 02:22:56 AM »
Are you talking about this incredibly phony Chinese space station?


98
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 16, 2017, 02:15:49 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.
What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?

Any tiny waves or swells that breach the flat surface.

The perspective lines may be perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. In Earth Not a Globe the author points out that the sunset happens sooner than expected if the conditions of the oceans are more disturbed.
99
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by mtnman on October 16, 2017, 02:11:02 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.
What things are causing the vanishing point (and blocking the sun) when I see a sunset over the ocean?
100
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The vanishing point
« Last post by Tom Bishop on October 16, 2017, 02:07:49 AM »

They do apply in all directions equally. If you are in a forest looking up at tall redwood trees you can also see that they seem slightly tilted at each other. The earth is a plane which stretches outwards from you until the lands reach the vanishing point. There are more things on the earth than high in the sky, so the effect is more visible.
If there are converging perspective lines in all directions, presumably they also have vanishing points. So why in your model is the sun visible when at it's highest in the sky mid day, but not after sunset? Are you saying that the sun is closer than the vanishing point at noon but past it after sunset?

If the trees in the above forest-perspective example extended hundreds of miles into the air, perhaps the trees would intersect and block out the sun.

Why are trees relevant to answering this question? I'm quite sure a tree can block the sun given proper combinations of height and angle. It's called shade.

Are you saying that vanishing points exist because things block the view?

Yes.