100 proofs
« on: June 21, 2019, 06:51:57 PM »
I wish to start a conversation about some of the 100 proofs from the link below, text written year: 1885.
I have a list here I selected as good conversation points, 16, 33, 34, 37, 44, 49, 54, 55, 57 and 71.
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe

But first, I want to ask if FEs agree with the 100 items posted on the file, and if not, which numbers should I eliminate?

Anyhow, I wish to start with numbers 33, 37 and 44, but pay attention to 44 first, and answer my question: If you fire 3 bullets, no, no bullets, just a baseball by hand, inside an airplane flying at 500 miles per hour, front to back then back to front, the last sideways. If you timed each ball to travel 1 meter, they would present different times?, meaning different speed?  Just remember, the airplane is the frame of reference. To confuse you a little bit more, remember that the "sideways" ball travel is in a real diagonal if observed from a stationary observer on the ground, but on board, it moves neatly sideways.  Try to calculate the 1m distance time/speed, from the point of view of a airplane passenger and from the observer on the ground.  Then read again the #44 below.

44) It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in, a second of time, "from west to east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.

And no, the flight attendant does not walks the corridor in different speeds when going back or front in reference to passengers... that would be ridiculous to think.  In 1885 the world was different, ignorant, lacking tools, technology, instrumentation.  In 1880 only 19.5% of the population COULD READ. How this people could understand the world? They could not research, just believing on what the other ignorant say. And even the ones literate, what they read?
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy

So, how many of the 100 can we discard now?

« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 08:07:19 PM by spherical »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 651
    • View Profile
Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2019, 08:24:35 PM »
I wish to start a conversation about some of the 100 proofs from the link below, year: 1885.
I have a list here I selected as good conversation points, 16, 33, 34, 37, 44, 49, 54, 55, 57 and 71.
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe

But first, I want to ask if FEs agree with the 100 items posted on the file, and if not, which numbers should I eliminate?

Anyhow, I wish to start with numbers 33, 37 and 44, but pay attention to 44 first, and answer my question: If you fire 3 bullets, no, no bullets, just a baseball by hand, inside an airplane flying at 500 miles per hour, front to back then back to front, the last sideways. If you timed each ball to travel 1 meter, they would present different times?, meaning different speed?  Just remember, the airplane is the frame of reference. To confuse you a little bit more, remember that the "sideways" ball travel is in a real diagonal if observed from a stationary observer on the ground, but on board, it moves neatly sideways.  Try to calculate the 1m distance time/speed, from the point of view of a airplane passenger and from the observer on the ground.  Then read again the #44 below.

44) It is in evidence that, if a projectile be fired from a rapidly moving body in an opposite direction to that in which the body is going, it will fall short of the distance at which it would reach the ground if fired in the direction of motion. Now, since the Earth is said to move at the rate of nineteen miles in, a second of time, "from west to east," it would make all the difference imaginable if the gun were fired in an opposite direction. But, as, in practice, there is not the slightest difference, whichever way the thing may be done, we have a forcible overthrow of all fancies relative to the motion of the Earth, and a striking proof that the Earth is not a globe.

And no, the flight attendant does not walks the corridor in different speeds when going back or front in reference to passengers... that would be ridiculous to think.  In 1885 the world was different, ignorant, lacking tools, technology, instrumentation.  In 1880 only 19.5% of the population COULD READ. How this people could understand the world? They could not research, just believing on what the other ignorant say. And even the ones literate, what they read?
https://ourworldindata.org/literacy

So, how many of the 100 can we discard now?


I went through 1 through 22. There are so many. Instead of just making a giant list then asking it to be reviewed it would be better to let us discuss each individual issue before they go on the master list.


The numbers listed below I either disagree with, or believe they do not present compelling evidence which weakens the round earth model:


 number 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,

7, 19, 20, 21 are confusing to me

the ones not listed i felt were valid points


Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2019, 09:26:30 PM »
In 1885's magnetics were not a great playful toys as we have 130 years later.  Today any 7 years old kid buying any kind of magnetic balls and such at eBay can answer #11, #12 and #13 smiling.  Mr. William Carpenter in 1885 had a vague idea about magnetic fields, and worse, his readers (the ones that can read and the others that can not even read) had even less knowledge.   

#16 is a proof that people are free to state as truth whatever they want, without hard evidence, in 1885 letters and mail traveled over horses, so nobody could contest fast some untrue statements, like we can do now over internet in seconds.  Mr. Bill Carpenter statements wound't survive 30 minutes in 2019.  "since it is found by navigators to be twice the distance", Mr. Carpenter, please, what is the name and email address of these "navigators", please, if you state it as truth, you have the information.  Like people would say 135 years later, without evidence your words are just dust in the wind.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6472
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2019, 05:08:31 PM »
Alexander Gleason, in his "Is the Bible from heaven? Is the Earth A Globe?" has some letters from navigators which suggest longer distances in the South. The book is available online from archive.org and the letters appear around p.365.

Eric Dubey's "IFERS" group claims to have some research on that topic.

Some say that the naval shipping companies use a Flat Earth Monopole map: https://www.favosity.com/blog/naval-shipping-map-is-ae-flat-earth-map

For the most part I have always preferred the Bi-Polar model and haven't really looked into collecting those claims.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 05:27:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1249
    • View Profile
Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2019, 05:52:55 PM »
Alexander Gleason, in his "Is the Bible from heaven? Is the Earth A Globe?" has some letters from navigators which suggest longer distances in the South. The book is available online from archive.org and the letters appear around p.365.

Eric Dubey's "IFERS" group claims to have some research on that topic.

I skimmed the Gleason book and the Map section of IFERS and didn't find anything that suggests longer distances in the South other than the properties of an AE-like map itself.

Some say that the naval shipping companies use a Flat Earth Monopole map: https://www.favosity.com/blog/naval-shipping-map-is-ae-flat-earth-map

For the most part I have always preferred the Bi-Polar model and haven't really looked into collecting those claims.

From the site quoted:

"(AE) ..."provides a better understanding of the way the routes curve around the planet."

and

"This map shows shipping routes from the perspective of the north pole, which falls roughly at the map’s center. Called a polar-azimuthal map, it was created by flattening the globe from the top, which provides a better understanding of the way the routes curve around the planet."


Curve around the planet. Then proceed to show an AE map with great circles on it which would be unnecessary and longer routes if the earth was flat.

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2019, 04:02:45 PM »
I really don't know why everything related to flat earth must be based on more than 130 years old literature, and, observations without modern instrumentation and measurement, largely based on unknown navigator through his cousin, friend, etc.

Why not rely on actual modern documents, as this ships navigation real time maps below?  I really don't understand why very old and dubious documents are more valid and more believable.  Why FEs have this fixation about old books and old questionable information?

The marinetraffic is a real time transport sea ships position information, with thousands of ships, routes, etc.  All of them are mistaken about the fuel they need to travel the distances?  I don't think so.  If the distances from the actual map were wrong, I guess few thousand of those ships captains would have reported the problem already.  A 1800'sh book is more reliable?  It would be funny for a captain knowing the ship needs "x" gallons of oil per mile, fitting "y" gallons in the tanks, making "z" miles, being z double or triple what he expects? Nah. It doesn't happen.  Perhaps a simple (many thousands of) ship trip log could demonstrate it.  A 1800'sh book is more reliable, based on a "say" from few letters from sailors, that "suggest" longer trips?

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:29.4/centery:30.1/zoom:2



Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2019, 08:04:23 PM »
The invention of A. Gleason:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US497917A/en

His "invention" was a simple way to calculate time differences using two arms and a flat map of the earth.
Read on the invention text, he never mentioned a "map of the flat earth", but "a flat map of the earth".

Interesting, isn't it?

Most amazing, patents office in 1893, calling such thing an invention, can you imagine the average knowledge and intelligence level of the common Joe?
Patented granted 1893, expired 1910, never reclaimed.

I understand, at that time a simple shoe laces hard tips could be considered an invention, and patented.
I went through some patent applications during my life, right now it is not an easy task to make sure it would be accepted and patent granted.
Of course, if you are rich with well paid lawyers, you can register a hard drive with words like "in general magnetic surface, in general a very small magnetic flying read/write head...", and locks the way for everybody else trying to do the same.


*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 816
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2019, 02:53:54 PM »
I really don't know why everything related to flat earth must be based on more than 130 years old literature


Well said.   Let's discount 100+ years of science as conspiracy and hang our hats on a know con man's work(delusions?)?  Makes sense to me.
I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2019, 04:56:44 PM »
I wonder why all dubious highly contested old text from Alexander Gleason and Samuel Rowbotham should be considered way above and over Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, for example.  When you just discard and completely ignore the best brains of our history, in favor to your own obscure agenda, you are showing where and how your foundations are built, this by itself states the colors of your flag and where and how far you will go with such shoes.

55. The Newtonian theory of astronomy requires that the Moon "borrow" her light from the Sun. Now, since the Sun's rays are hot and the Moon's light sends with it no heat at all, it follows that the Sun and Moon are "two great lights," as we somewhere read; that the Newtonian theory is a mistake; and that, therefore, we have a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Just try to follow and compare the intelligence reasoning of the above text (#55) and Stephen Hawking text about black holes in 1974, what became known as "Hawking Radiation", below link:
https://www.livescience.com/65683-sonic-black-hole-spews-hawking-radiation.html

In case of difficulties, just google about the temperature of the universe presented to the surface of the earth at night under clear skies, try to understand about dew point and condensation caused by this extreme low temperature, causing your car's windshield get wet but no the side windows.  At clear nights, the universe presents an extreme low temperature blanket, and there, in the middle a weak low reflective (albedo = 0.136, 13.6% reflection) moon, with a charcoal dark grey color surface - oh, you didn't know it was dark grey?, the full moon receives solar radiation enough to heat its surface to 127°C, but it represents only 0.5° of the 150°+ super cool blanket.  I imagine if when you open your home freezer door you can feel the warmth of the internal lamp.  Yeah.   Try to read about why we astronomers need to produce a small heat around the primary lens/glass of telescopes to avoid condensation due sky super-cool temperatures at night, with or without Moon (doesn't change a thing).



"...since the Sun's rays are hot...".  Are they? really? did you ever measured the temperature of the green or blue rays from the Sun?  They may be packed with energy, but not thermal as essential.  Infra-red radiation is the most responsible for the temperature we feel from the Sun.  What burns your unprotected skin under Florida's Sun is UV, in real it doesn't burn by temperature, but by its packed energy damaging your dermal cells. If the energy pack is big enough it causes ionization in the cells, damage DNA, cancer, you don't even feel the ionization happening, no temperature really.  Ask any radiologist about "what is the temperature of X rays?"  It can cook you, give you cancer by it, you don't feel a thing when exposing yourself to a x-ray.

In 1880, the complete lack of knowledge about most scientific facts we have today, could lead people to believe and assume things like "Sun's rays are hot", and "the moon light cools down earth", people also think martians are green small creatures with big dark eyes, later they changed the color to grey... yeah.

Mr. Gleason didn't use any spectrograph+thermometer on his telescope to measure Moon's temperature when stating the #55, not even declared the temperatures involved from the Sun, Moon or the universe, but wait, he never touched a telescope, all he has was a printing machinery and wanted to sell his cardboard flat maps of the earth.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 03, 2015, 05:23:07 PM
4 The Flat Earth Society is a bastion of disobedience, a shining buoy of rebellion on a dark sea of compliance, a declaration that we must not blindly accept a truth without compelling evidence. We are skeptics, and rightly so. The role of the skeptic is to examine both the claims and the evidence, to expose any internal or external inconsistencies, and to prefer those conclusions that are more consistent with real-world facts than competing claims, rejecting any that are manifestly inconsistent with themselves and with the truth.

5 To accept blindly is to live in ignorance. To question the world around you is to be free. So we seek to question -- to endlessly question and question again -- to unravel the mysteries of reality for ourselves, allowing truth to be our compass and to follow it wherever it leads us.

I personally strongly agree with Mr. Bishop on #5 above.  That is the fundamental basis of science, and all the scientists are doing for long time, including Mr. Newton, Hawking, Sagan, Einstein and so many others.  Unfortunately Mr. Bishop beliefs don't rely on those fantastic minds and their life of research and discoveries.  Unfortunately his own words "endlessly question and question again" is different from "endlessly being contrary and contrary again".  You can question society/science and their statements, that is accepted and is parte of the evolution.  Being contrary without evidences is to work blindly and to live in a revolutionary ignorance.

But everyone is free to choose to draw the lines of his/her own future.  And live by that.

Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2019, 02:24:31 PM »
I have certain difficult to understand the text from the item #53 below, I would appreciate someone with native English language to explain it to me.  What he means by "travels quicker as he goes further south"?   AFIK, the angular speed of the globe Earth is exactly the same at any latitude, 15°/hour.

53.   Every year the Sun is as long south of the equator as he is north; and if the Earth were not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region being, in consequence of the fact stated, - far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2019, 05:29:17 PM »
I have certain difficult to understand the text from the item #53 below, I would appreciate someone with native English language to explain it to me.  What he means by "travels quicker as he goes further south"?   AFIK, the angular speed of the globe Earth is exactly the same at any latitude, 15°/hour.

53.   Every year the Sun is as long south of the equator as he is north; and if the Earth were not "stretched out" as it is, in fact, but turned under, as the Newtonian theory suggests it would certainly get as intensive a share of the Sun's rays south as north; but the Southern region being, in consequence of the fact stated, - far more extensive than the region North, the Sun, having to complete his journey round every twenty-four hours, travels quicker as he goes further south, from September to December, and his influence has less time in which to accumulate at any given point. Since, then the facts could not be as they are if the Earth were a globe, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.
I think I understand it. Let me try.
On the AE map, the circumference of the Sun's path over the Tropic of Cancer (northern summer) is shorter than the path over the Tropic of Capricorn (northern winter).
Since we've observed that the length of a day is the same in the summer as in the winter, that means the Sun must move faster when it's down south than when it's up north.
Simply put, on the AE map, the southern "hemisphere" has a lot more surface area than the northern "hemisphere". That means the sunlight must be more spread out in the south.
So with the sunlight so much more spread out in the south, one would expect the south to be colder than the north.
Here's where the important part seems to have been left out. I THINK he's saying that since it's colder in the South than in the North, this is evidence for the flatness. He doesn't actually SAY that in the quote, but it's fair to say that Antarctica is colder than the north pole.

If you're curious, the science and math behind this can be investigated. I think you'll find reality wins again. Here's AB science geeking out on this:

Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2019, 08:12:06 PM »
On the AE map, the circumference of the Sun's path over the Tropic of Cancer (northern summer) is shorter than the path over the Tropic of Capricorn (northern winter).
Since we've observed that the length of a day is the same in the summer as in the winter, that means the Sun must move faster when it's down south than when it's up north.

Well, that I think I understood in the first place, the problem is, he really assumed the Sun runs faster (distance/time) in December over the Southern Hemisphere than on June on the North?  That does not match any actual measurements.  This is why I asked for explanations, since I don't believe it was saying the Sun find a way to accelerate substantially to keep the exact radial speed of 15°/h, this assumption would create lots of more questions and disbelief than anything else, I mean, about the solar speed mechanics and downpour carpeting radiation.

According to statistical measurements, the NH is warmer about 1.25 ~ 1.5°C than SH, what is very very little compared to what it would be if the Sun accelerates over SH.   The main reason for that is the larger oceans water mass in SH than on NH, and if the solar energy is lower than 1kW/m² (as it is on NH), the temperature difference would be much more, follows after the weblink:

http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Kang_Seager_subm.pdf

Total FE area = r²xPI = 20000²xPI = 1256636000 km²
NH area = r²xPI = 10000²xPI = 314159000 km²
SH area = TotalArea - NHArea = 1256636000 - 314159000 = 942477000 km²

Total FE Area = 1.256 E+9
NH Area  = 3.141 E+8
SH Area  = 9.424 E+9

FE SH area is in fact 30 times larger than NH
How come NH can be only 1.25 ~ 1.5°C warmer than SH?

For FE SH temperature to be the almost the same as FE NH, the FE Sun would need to be 30 times hotter in January.   

For the ones that didn't get it yet, if you pass your hand very close over a candle flame it may burn, or not, it only depends on how fast your hand moves.  In the FE January, the Sun needs to cover 30 times more km² per second than it covers the Northern Hemisphere in July, so it moves faster, radiating less energy per km² to the land on January than on July when it moves slower.  Even needing to cover 30 times more land, the land temperature is almost the same on both hemispheres.

Lets calculate:
FE say on July the Sun is circling Earth every (lets round to) 24 hours, right over the Tropic of Cancer, at 23°26' North.
FE say on January the Sun is circling Earth during the same period of time, over the Tropic of Capricorn, at 23°26' South.

Considering FE disc to have 180° from North Pole to Ice Wall:
Tropic of Cancer is at 23°.26' (23.4333°) North from Equator, means 66.566° from North Pole.
Tropic of Capricorn is at 23.4333° South of Equator, means 113.433° from North Pole.

The circumference the Sun must travel when over the Tropic of Cancer on July will be the radius x 2 x PI.
The Tropic of Cancer radius is FE radius x 66.566/180, 20000 km x 66.566 / 180 = 7396km
Tropic of Cancer circumference = 7396 x 2 x 3.14159 = 46471 km.

The circumference the Sun must travel when over the Tropic of Capricorn on January will be the radius x 2 x PI.
The Tropic of Cancer radius is FE radius x 113.433 /180, 20000 km x 113.433 / 180 = 12603km
Tropic of Capricorn circumference = 12603 x 2 x 3.14159 = 79191 km

Now;
the speed of FE Sun rotating over FE Tropic of Cancer is 46471 km / 24h = 1936.3 km/h
the speed of FE Sun rotating over FE Tropic of Capricorn is 79191 km / 24h = 3299.6 km/h

The speed difference is 3299.6 / 1936.3 = 1.7x
(I will not even question what makes the Sun accelerate or break speed and change circling diameter)

Means, the FE Sun runs 1.7x faster over the Tropic of Capricorn than over the Tropic of Cancer.
It simply means that the Northern Hemisphere solar speed would spread 70% more radiation per second than to Southern Hemisphere.
This is not true in the real world, the NH is NOT 70% hotter than SH, it would be much more than just 1.5°C.
Also, the above calculations should take in consideration just radiation per second, not radiation per squared area of land.

On the top of this post, I considered squared area land, and came to 30x less radiation per km² in the South than in the North.
What it is again, not true in the real world. 

The actually measured solar radiation energy in average, between tropics to be 1kW/m². Based on the 70% difference of solar radiation per km² on FE, if measured 1kW/m² in Rio de Janeiro (what is real), then a person living on Central Florida would receive 1.7kW/m², that is not true, it will be cooking everything on land.

Other important thing, consider the sun speeding 1.7 faster on the Tropic of Capricorn, it means people on the Southern Hemisphere would notice the Sun moving 70% faster on January sky, shadows on ground moving 70% faster, etc.  This is also not true.

Based on FE perspective, vanish point and "can not see far due atmosphere not being transparent", the Sun would disappear from southern sky on January 70% faster than on July on North.   If on the North we can see the Sun during 12 hours on July, then on the South we will see the Sun only for 3.6 hours on January, what is also not true.

So, this is why I don't understand the text on item #53, it is just one paragraph, without any calculation, thermal per area, nothing.  How can people take seriously a vague statement floating in the air like that?  I also don't believe that on 1885 people didn't use numbers to state scientific thoughts or ideas.

Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2019, 03:18:28 PM »
56.   The Sun and Moon may often be seen high in the heavens at the same time - the Sun rising in the east and the Moon setting in the west - the Sun's light positively putting the Moon's light out by sheer contrast! If the Newtonian theory were correct, and the moon had her light from the Sun, she ought to be getting more of it when face to face with that luminary - if it were possible for a sphere to act as a reflector all over its face! But as the Moon's light pales before the rising Sun, it is a proof that the theory fails; and is gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

Well, the above statement give me a headache by imagining that the author thinks Globe Earth to be so much bigger than the Sun, in order for the Sun be hidden "in the other side" during the night, and can not illuminate the Moon during that time.   The thing is, even not believing in certain things, I am able to imagine those things in the "what if" world.  Why the author can not even imagine Earth, Moon are so much smaller than the Sun, in order to the Moon being blocked by solar radiation only in the few Moon eclipses when Earth blocks it in the middle?  I can imagine the universe with and without god, for example, fanatics can not, or want not, to imagine the "other way".

I understand the author says the Moon is lit in the sky even without the Sun being present (so it must have own light), and when the Sun comes out the Moon pales out, reduces its brightness.  It is interesting to imagine someone lacks so much knowledge about the atmosphere ionization, reducing Moon's and other planets and stars glare visibility, also, about the Sun radiating energy all over the space within the solar system volume and even beyond, illuminating all bodies all the time, except during the rare obstructions by a larger body, typical case of eclipses of natural satellites, some asteroids and space debris in the way.  By other way, I can imagine the author uses the lack of knowledge (innocence) of the readers to force them to believe in his words that the "theory of global Earth fails" because the Moon becomes pale in the presence of the Sun.


57.   The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of. the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

I wish the world to be a place where you would need to prove with evidences all you say or write and be responsible for such sayings.
"... since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon..."
That is a strong lie, it never happened, never will be.  I will not even ask for evidences, because they don't exist.
It is exactly using this kind of absurdity statements as support, that put the whole FE theory into discredit and disbelief.

85.   There are rivers which flow east, west, north, an south - that is, rivers are flowing in all directions over the Earth's surface, and at the same time. Now, if the Earth were a globe, some of these rivers would be flowing up-hill and others down, taking it for a fact that there really is an "up" and a "down" in nature, whatever form she assumes. But, since rivers do not flow up-hill, and the globular theory requires that they should, it is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

This is another example of the absurdity of lack of knowledge and imagination.  Even being a FET you obsiously CAN imagine a global planet with gravity in the center, thus, no matter where the rivers are, water will always flow towards the lower point in reference to the globe core, following gravity attraction.  The author again shows he simply CAN not (or want not) to open space for imagination.  Another attempt to force very biased information in the mind of the innocent uneducated readers.

Am I wrong thinking like that?

I wish, please, we could discuss this three points, mostly FEts supporting them with evidences or further clarifications.

*

Offline Salviati

  • *
  • Posts: 17
  • I don't have a personal text.
    • View Profile
Re: 100 proofs
« Reply #13 on: July 10, 2019, 04:38:34 PM »
57.   The Newtonian hypothesis involves the necessity of. the Sun, in the case of a lunar eclipse, being on the opposite side of a globular earth, to cast its shadow on the Moon: but, since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon, it follows that it cannot be the shadow of the Earth that eclipses the Moon; that the theory is a blunder; and that it is nothing less than a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

I wish the world to be a place where you would need to prove with evidences all you say or write and be responsible for such sayings.
"... since eclipses of the Moon have taken place with both the Sun and the Moon above the horizon..."
That is a strong lie, it never happened, never will be.  I will not even ask for evidences, because they don't exist.
It is exactly using this kind of absurdity statements as support, that put the whole FE theory into discredit and disbelief.

Am I wrong thinking like that?

I wish, please, we could discuss this three points, mostly FEts supporting them with evidences or further clarifications.

This phenomenon exists and is named selenelion. Famous is the one happened in Paris the 19 June 1750. It is mainly explained by athmosphere refraction. It's easy to understand. Imagine to be on the terminator in the moment of a lunar eclipse with the setting sun at west and the raising moon at east (or the other way around). If you are high enough (Paris average altitude is about 100 meters), with a little aid by refraction you can see sun and moon at the same time.

This is one of the strong points of the supporters of the flat earth (this contradicts the round earth !! blah blah blah ...) but the irony is that this phenomenon instead completely refutes the flat earth! If I am in the middle, to my right I see the sun grazing the horizon and to my left I see the moon grazing the horizon, what is it that casts a shadow on the moon? ...