Round Earth Information Repository
« on: July 30, 2016, 09:33:09 PM »
Explanations for Common Misunderstandings


Proofs that the Earth is Round


Informative Forum Threads



Read the rules before posting please!


The point of this thread is to provide a poor-man's wiki for round-earth information. If you want to submit a topic, simply post a reply. If it is well done, I will add a link to it at the top of this post.

Rules for Posting

  • Be neat. Format it nicely. Use good grammar. Use good spelling. Organize it logically.
  • Don't just link to posts in other parts of the forum. Recreate the post as neatly as possible in this thread, and provide a link to the original post for reference. This will allow you to correct any mistakes in the post without the permission of the original author.
  • Tag the title of each post with the appropriate tag
  • Do not start a debate in this thread. This is just an information repository. If you want to debate one of the topics, start a debate thread and then link to it in a [comment] post.

Tags

  • Tag original posts with [topic] in the title.
  • If you want to comment on someone else's submission, tag it with [comment] in the title, and provide a link to the original topic at the top of the post.
  • If you just want to submit an informative forum thread to be listed, tag it with [link] in the title.
  • If you want to comment about something else on this thread, tag it with [meta] in the title.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2017, 11:49:52 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

[topic] Water always maintains a level. Water does not bend or curve.
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2016, 09:44:11 PM »
Original Post by Rabinoz

A common flat-earther misunderstanding is that "Water always Maintains a level, water does not bend or curve".

That is simply not, nor has it ever been a law, no more than the saying
"Water seeks its own level", but that does NOT say that the surface of water is always level, or straight.
There are numerous cases where, because of non-vertical forces being applied to water that the surface is not "straight".




A trivial case is a dew-drop. It is certainly not flat, why?
Simply because there are forces other that gravity acting on it.
In this case the force is "Surface Tension".       

There are other forces that can be applied, for example, we could rotate tank of water smoothly, as in this video



Of course, you will say that the water in that tank is not only subject to the downward acceleration of gravity (or whatever you choose to call it), but to an additional acceleration due its  rotation. EXACTLY! The nett acceleration is not in a single direction anymore and the surface aligns itself at right angles to this nett acceleration at each location, as illustrated below:



Now, please understand that the only reason I am showing this it simply to demonstrate that the surface of water need not be "straight". It simply depends on the local acceleration, here gravity (down) and centrifugal acceleration (outwards). So at the outside edge, the surface of the water is at about 45° to the horizontal. I am not suggesting that the rotation of the earth holds the oceans in place, it most certainly does not.

There are other examples such as in eddies and whirlpools, where again an acceleration due to rotation is involved.

On the Globe the gravitational acceleration is always directed towards the centre of the earth as in:



So the nett force is not towards the centre of the globe, so the water tries to go "down" as far as possible and follows the curve of the earth.

So while it may be true that "Water seeks its own level", that level need not be straight or flat.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 09:45:45 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

[comment] Water always maintains a level. Water does not bend or curve.
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2016, 10:26:36 PM »
Original Post by Rabinoz

A common flat-earther misunderstanding is that "Water always Maintains a level, water does not bend or curve"...

Demo of how to comment on a previously submitted [topic]. Notice the [comment] tag in the title.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 663
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
[topic] The sound wave from Krakatoa
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2016, 06:24:36 AM »
The sound wave from Krakatoa traveled around the globe seven times

On August 27, 1883 the volcanic island of Krakato suffered a cataclysmic eruption.  The sound was loud.  No, it was SUPER LOUD!!!  It ruptured eardrums 40 miles away.  It could be heard by actual human ears at distances of thousands of miles away, the most distant audible sound reported by an observer on an Indian Ocean island 3,000 miles away.  Point is, this sound was YUUUGE!

Sound is an air pressure wave.  Even as the sound level fell below the threshold of human hearing, the sound wave continued to propogate away from the source.  Hours after the blast, the barometers installed at weather stations around the world saw the spike in air pressure as the wave reached their location.  (This is why I used the term "actual human ears" above, to distinguish that observation from the subsequent instrument-based observations). Six hours and 47 minutes after the Krakatoa explosion, a spike of air pressure was detected in Calcutta. By 8 hours, the pulse reached Mauritius in the west and Melbourne and Sydney in the east. By 12 hours, St. Petersburg noticed the pulse, followed by Vienna, Rome, Paris, Berlin, and Munich. By 18 hours the pulse had reached New York, Washington DC, and Toronto.  Amazingly, for as many as 5 days after the explosion, weather stations in 50 cities around the globe observed this unprecedented spike in pressure re-occuring like clockwork, approximately every 34 hours. That is roughly how long it takes sound to travel around the entire planet.

There was great interest in these pressure observations in subsequent years.  In those days any subject of the British Empire who fancied himself to have a certain level of sophistication, especially if one was posted abroad in the Empire, had his own suite of weather instruments.  When it became known that this sound wave was observable in barometric recordings, everybody checked theirs.  And sure enough, from all over the world came reports of amateur observers who had captured one or more pulses. 

Now, the shape of world in 1883 was thought to be round.  These pressure observations from all over the Empire, caused by an event occurring at a known time, provided an opportunity to prove otherwise, were the world some other shape.  However, the timing of the pressure wave's arrival at each barometer corresponded to what one would expect for a globe.  Here is the plot of the first sound wave as it travelled around the globe.  The hemisphere illustrated on the right is the globe centered on Krakatoa, the one on the left is the other side of the globe centered on the antipodes of Krakatoa.  (FunFact: it is actually quite rare for the antipode of a given spot of dry land to also be on dry land, but this one is!)

The round and slightly-off-round lines represent simultaneous arrival times, in two hour increments.  The radial lines illustrate the great-circle path from Krakatoa to various recording barometers, and the dots show the locations of those barometers.  The sound wave diverges away from the point of origin, expanding at the speed of sound in all directions until it reaches the distance where the earth's diameter is greatest.  Then it continues propogating away from Krakatoa but in an ever shrinking diameter toward the antipodes.  The wave front becomes non-circular due to various effects such as geography and meteorology, but still shows a clear pattern of expansion on the near side and convergence on the far side. 

By way of analogy: the same pattern forms when immersing a ball in a pool.  The water/ball interface, which represents our sound wave, forms an expanding circle on the ball's surface as you submerge it to the halfway point.  After that, it forms a contracting circle as you submerge the ball fully, vanishing to a point as the last bit of the ball goes under.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2016, 06:28:05 AM by Rounder »
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 663
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
The amount of infrared radiation (heat) measured at the surface of the earth at various latitudes corresponds to a far-away sun shining on a round earth.

The Long Version.  Quite long, in fact, and I apologize for that.  But in order to adequately make the point, I need to cover a lot of ground that will be unfamiliar to most readers, so please bear with me.  I have broken the monologue up into smaller chunks.  Please, if you are going to quote from a section, EDIT IT DOWN to only the sentence or two you want to talk about, instead of quoting an entire post.

Infrared electromagnetic waves occupy the portion of the spectrum at lower energy (lower frequency and longer wavelength) than the visible light spectrum.  The 'infra' portion of the word is from the Latin word for 'below'.  All objects at temperatures above absolute zero emit infrared energy, and they emit across a range of frequencies: very little (essentially zero) energy at some minimum frequency, very little (essentially zero) at some maximum frequency, with a peak intensity somewhere between those two.  The hotter an object is, the more it emits.  This is known as Planck's Law.  "More" in this instance has two meanings: it refers both to intensity (in the same way that a 100 watt bulb is brighter than a 60 watt bulb) and also to energy (in the same way that visible light has more energy than infrared).  The relationship is illustrated by this image:

Each line represents the radiation profile of an object at a certain temperature, in Degrees Kelvin.  You can see that as temperature increases, the intensity (watts per square meter on the Y axis) increases at every wavelength, and you can also see that the curve shifts to the left, reaching its peak at lower and lower wavelengths (micrometers on the X axis).  Lower wavelength equals higher energy, and more watts equals higher energy, both at the peak and in the total of all wavelengths. 

Observations of the Sun have been performed with various infrared cameras over the years.  These cameras actually detect TOTAL energy, not the individual wavelengths and their individual intensity.  It is therefore necessary to know exactly how total energy and temperature are related, in order to determine an object's temperature from its infrared energy.  There is a formula for this: the Stefan-Boltzman Law.  Total energy is a function of the fourth power of absolute (Kelvin) temperature.  From this law we can determine the surface temperature of any object by observing the infrared radiation it emits, and at the same time we can determine at what rate it radiates energy.  This is how infrared cameras can “measure” temperature (I put “measure” in quotation marks because there is more to it than that, which we won’t get into here).  We can do the same for very distant objects, like the sun.  For the sun those numbers are: 5777 degrees Kelvin (the yellow line on the chart) and 63 million watts per square meter. 

We can calculate the amount of energy that arrives at the upper atmosphere using the inverse square law, if we know the distance to the sun and its diameter.  Doing the math for the one spot directly below the sun, and thus receiving the sun’s rays directly perpendicular, the energy arriving at earth varies with the distance from earth to sun as we orbit.  The earth is closest to the sun at perihelion in January, when the earth is 147 million kilometers out.  That works out to 211.1 solar radii, which results in an inverse square result of 1414 watts per square meter at the spot directly facing the sun.  The outermost point in the orbit, aphelion, happens in July.  We are at a distance of 152 million kilometers, or 218.3 solar radii.  The inverse square result that day is therefore somewhat less, at 1322 watts.  The quoted average on the internet varies; some sites use 1360 watts per square meter, some use 1370, while Wikipedia settles on the satellite-measured value of 1361.  The subsolar point lies exactly on the equator on each equinox.  Next, let’s move away from the subsolar point and consider Portland Oregon, just above the 45th parallel, also n equinox day.  Portland will be slightly further from the sun than the equator will be, as curving a little bit around the planet adds a little bit of distance.  That difference is only 1866 km, a vanishingly small fraction of the 5 million kilometer difference between aphelion to perihelion.  Therefore we can ignore the change in distance and need only consider incident angle of the radiation, which in effect takes a square meter of radiation measured perpendicular to the sun and spreads it out over a larger surface area due to the curvature of the earth.  This reduces the equinox day energy at Portland to 70% of the equatorial watts per square meter value.  This calculated value agrees with measured values, as illustrated in the chart below.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

The amount of infrared radiation (heat) measured at the surface of the earth at various latitudes corresponds to a far-away sun shining on a round earth.
...

Excellent, I was hoping someone would post these so I wouldn't have to go dig them up.

FYI, as more proofs are added, I will probably keep this one towards the bottom, due to it's relative complexity. I prefer that the easier to understand proofs that don't require much background knowledge be near the top. Please don't take this as a slight. It is very well done.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 663
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
FYI, as more proofs are added, I will probably keep this one towards the bottom, due to it's relative complexity. I prefer that the easier to understand proofs that don't require much background knowledge be near the top. Please don't take this as a slight. It is very well done.

No slight taken, I understand that decision.  I even acknowledge in the (much longer) original post that it is a lot of material to wade through.  That may be why it has drawn exactly ZERO discussion, LOL!
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 6000
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Round Earth Information Repository
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2016, 10:59:52 AM »
Surely this is a Science & Alternative Science thread than a Flat Earth Information Repository one? It does not include any Flat Earth information to date, merely RE'er hand-waving which fits under the description of "the discussion of theoretical, applied and alternative science".
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

[meta] Sex Warrior's compaint
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2016, 04:21:43 PM »
Surely this is a Science & Alternative Science thread than a Flat Earth Information Repository one? It does not include any Flat Earth information to date, merely RE'er hand-waving which fits under the description of "the discussion of theoretical, applied and alternative science".

I disagree. It isn't meant to be a discussion, which is what the alternative science forum is meant for. It is merely meant to be a place where we can store and organize information for quick reference. Sure it isn't an information repository in support of a flat earth, but surely a single thread can be spared for use by the opposition? After all, you have the entire wiki to use.

Ultimately, I don't really care what forum it is in, as long as we can reference it. This one seems to make the most logical sense to me though.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 663
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
[topic] Curvature visible looking across Lake Michigan and Lake Ontario
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2016, 04:35:10 PM »
The curvature of the earth can be demonstrated by looking across a body of water and observing that objects at great distance dissapear over the horizon, even though the intervening surface is "flat".  This has been observed for centuries by sailors at sea, but as most people today never have the opportunity to sail the ocean a more accessible demonstration is needed.  Presented here are two land-based observations, using immense North American lakes as the body of water.  In both examples, the far shore of the lake and the buildings thereon are over the horizon, and in both cases the bottoms of those buildings are not visible, hidden by the curvature of the earth.

Looking at Chicago across Lake Michigan:


Looking at Toronto across Lake Ontario:
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 6000
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: [meta] Sex Warrior's compaint
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2016, 11:11:02 PM »
Sure it isn't an information repository in support of a flat earth, but surely a single thread can be spared for use by the opposition? After all, you have the entire wiki to use.
To be honest, I'd personally be in favour of helping you guys get your own wiki if that's the intended purpose.

That said, I see your point and I also don't particularly care where the thread ends up going. Historically, FEIR was a "no dissent allowed, we just group up all FE information here" zone, but these things evolve over time, and if the others find the thread useful, that's fine by me.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!

[meta] location of thread
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2016, 12:45:46 AM »
Sure it isn't an information repository in support of a flat earth, but surely a single thread can be spared for use by the opposition? After all, you have the entire wiki to use.
To be honest, I'd personally be in favour of helping you guys get your own wiki if that's the intended purpose.

That said, I see your point and I also don't particularly care where the thread ends up going. Historically, FEIR was a "no dissent allowed, we just group up all FE information here" zone, but these things evolve over time, and if the others find the thread useful, that's fine by me.

I don't particularly want to go through the trouble of setting up a full fledged wiki, but it is a decent idea. Others might be interested.

Thanks for being understanding.

*

Offline Woody

  • *
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Information Repository
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2016, 05:54:19 AM »
These are pictures of Mt. Rainier casting a shadow on clouds either at sunset or sunrise.







Conducting simple experiments with a a light source like a flash light will reveal for Mt. Rainier to cast shadows on the clouds the light source needs to be below the mountain.

What would be expected on a flat Earth would be almost exactly what is pictured below:


[topic] The sun and moon stay the same apparent size throughout the day.
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2016, 06:41:04 AM »
One of the more common flat earth models describes a sun and moon circling clockwise above the earth.



In this model, the distance from you to the sun and moon will change significantly depending on the time of day.

Let's do some calculations:

Assuming:

  • The sun is 3000 miles above the earth. This seems to be the most commonly quoted figure by flat earthers.
  • The sun rotates around the earth with a radius of 4000 miles. Since there is no flat earth map to base this on, I am just using the actual spherical radius of the earth.
  • You are directly underneath the sun when it passes over at noon.

At noon, the sun will be 3000 miles away. (Directly over head.)
At 6pm, the sun will be sqrt(40002 + 40002 + 30002) = 6400 miles away

That's over twice as far away! This means that if the sun/moon are actually only 3000 miles away from us, the sun/moon should appear about half as big when they set as they do when they are directly overhead. But this does not agree with reality.

The apparent size of the sun and moon only vary by a few percent over the course of the day:

Measurements of the moon at 9 different altitudes

Timelapse of the moon as it sets with measurements

Flat earther graciously shows how little the sun changes size, even if you are measuring with a poor filter

This is extremely strong evidence that the sun is much more than 3000 miles away, and by extension, that the earth isn't flat.

To be fair, flat earthers have tried to refute this evidence:

The leading theory seems to be that glare conveniently causes the sun (and moon) to appear the same size regardless of distance. However, no evidence has been presented that supports this theory. The evidence provided in the Wiki directly contradicts this theory. Measure the size of the lights in the pictures presented in the Wiki carefully. You will notice that they actually do get smaller in the distance, despite the claims to the contrary.

Explanation from the Wiki

Refutation of the Wiki's explanation

Another thread that refutes the glare theory
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 06:53:15 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

[comment] Mountain casting shadows on the underside of clouds
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2016, 07:14:05 AM »
These are pictures of Mt. Rainier casting a shadow on clouds either at sunset or sunrise....

2 Requests before I add a link for this one:

1. fix the title to something like [topic] Mountain casting shadows on the underside of clouds
2. Flesh out the explanation a bit. Perhaps something like this:

The sun is casting a shadow of the mountain on the underside of the clouds. For this to be possible, the sun must be below the elevation of the mountain. On a flat earth, this is impossible, since Mount Rainier is less than 3 miles high. This is only possible due to the curvature of the earth.

Extra credit: diagram showing how this happens on a round earth.

Found one! (Sort of... just need to add a mountain)



« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 07:17:03 AM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 663
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
[topic] The Moon shows the same face to every point on Earth
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2016, 12:42:30 PM »
The so-called "Strawberry Moon" of June 2016 was photographed by people from all over the world.  I found a pair of photos taken at very far away locations and roughly simultaneously: Oregon and Tokyo.  The one from Oregon was taken between sunrise at 5:37 (or maybe very slightly earlier) and moonset at 7:00 local time (which would be 21:30 - 23:00 in Tokyo).  I compared it to one taken in Tokyo sometime between sunset at 19:00 and the closing of the Daikanransha ferris wheel at 22:00.  (There are riders visible in the gondola, so we know the photo was taken before the ride closed for the night.)  There is a roughly 30 minute overlap between the earliest the Oregon photo could be taken and the latest the Tokyo one could have been, meaning it is just barely possible that the two photos were taken within a half hour of each other.  However, given the fact that the Oregon moon is already dropping behind trees on the local horizon, I think it is more likely that the photo was taken near the end of their window of opportunity and therefore somewhat later than the Tokyo photo (could be as much as four hours later).

Moon setting at Williams Oregon


Moon rising over Tokyo Japan


I wish the Tokyo photographer had published a picture without the gondola obscuring part of the moon, but I guess that would be less dramatic.  What is published is still good enough for our purposes, however.  You can clearly make out some of the same prominent lunar features in both photos. Crater Grimaldi and its unlabeled little brother (Riccioli, I think) are visible at the 10:00-10:30 position in the Oregon photo and at the 7:00-7:30 position from Tokyo; Mare Crisium directly opposite.  In both photos the quite obvious bright dot of the Aristarchus crater jumps out at us.  To the right of that feature in the Oregon photo, at approximately the 1:00 position we see a limb of the dark Ocenaus Procellarum curving clockwise between two light colored regions of craters; this feature is visible in the Tokyo photo at about the 9:00 position, above Aristarchus.

The two photos were captured at locations that are approximately 4000 miles apart, which is more than the distance from earth to moon in the flat earth model.  If the flat earth model were an accurate representation of the world, Oregon and Tokyo would have a different side of the Moon pointing at the camera.  This is not what we observe.

Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 663
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
(Adaptation from several posts in this tangentially related thread about surveyors)

Occasionally someone will say that people thought the earth was flat until Columbus set out to prove this wrong, and discovered the New World in the process.  This is incorrect.  Among the educated classes, the earth was known to be round (or "thought to be round" if you like) hundreds of years before Columbus.  Evidence of this may be found at the Cartographic Images web site.  Of particular interest to this discussion is the section called Late Medieval Maps 1300 to 1500.  I won't litter the post with pictures, but I will include one: here is the Behaim Globe, currently the oldest known surviving globe anywhere in the world.  It was produced in 1492, before the discovery of the "new world", and is currently housed (but not displayed) at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum (Germanic National Museum) in Nürnberger (Nuremberg).  It depicts a round earth that is smaller than it turned out to be, with North and South America still undiscovered and Japan much closer to Europe than it truly is.  Japan is the grossly oversized island on the left, while on the far right limb of the globe you can see the British Isles, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and West Africa.


Even earlier than the Behaim Globe, but sadly lost to history, a globe is thought to have been produced by the Persian astronomer Jamal al-Din and presented to Kublai Khan in Beijing, all the way back in 1276.  (This is why I called the Behaim Globe the "oldest" instead of the "first" globe)  One historical reference, Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China, vol 3 is cited by David Woodward in his work The Image of the Spherical Earth, MIT Press, 1989.  The link takes you to a registration-required site, but it's free.  The work is a brief history of globe maps, worth a quick read.  For those who do not have the time to peruse the whole thing, I present some excerpts.

On page 9:
Quote
From the Christian Middle Ages we have direct literary allusions to the idea that the earth was viewed as spherical, but no allusions to the making of a globe before the 15th century.  Why is this? ... To the scholars who knew it was a sphere, and cared enough to write about it as such, the construction of a globe might have been an unnecessary elaboration
So, globe maps were not often produced, not because the earth was thought to be flat, but because a globe map was considered redundant.  The comment about "the scholars who knew" was meant NOT to compare those scholars (the ones who knew) against other scholars (with different ideas); "the scholars who knew" are being contrasted with the uneducated classes, the non-scholars, who did not know.  In fact the author states outright that if the uneducated of the time thought about the earth's shape at all, they would likely have thought that it was flat because it LOOKS flat to the eye.

In any case, the fact that a globe (may have) existed so long before Columbus' voyage reinforces the point: while it is true that the Behaim Globe in particular was produced too late for Columbus to have used it during his planning stages, globe ideas existed long before and there might have been other globe maps available to him.

On page 12 there is a quote from a letter by the cartographer Toscanelli, whose globe ideas were rejected by the royal navigators of Portugal and Spain as being too small a globe.  We know Columbus had opportunity to read this letter, as it appear in his personally owned copy of the flamboyantly named Historia Rerum Ubique Gestarum ("History of all things and all deeds"), a compendium of the scientific and geographical knowledge of the time published in 1477 by Cardinal Piccolomini (later Pope Pius II):
Quote
although I know from my own knowledge that the world can be shown as it is in the form of a sphere, I have determined to show the same route by a chart similar to those which are made for navigation.  The straight lines which are shown lengthwise on the said chart show the distance from west to east, the others which are across show the distance from north to south


Thus we see that at the time of his voyage to the New World, Columbus was an adherent of a minority opinion as to the dimensions of the round earth, and NOT a participant in some round-vs-flat debate.  Columbus thought the earth was smaller than it turned out to be.  He set out to chart an ocean route to India, a destination believed by most ocean navigators of his day to be much further away and more or less out of reach by ocean (or at least not worth the effort, since you could get there by land already).  It was only blind luck that the islands he found in the New World happened to be about as far from Europe as the distance he expected to cross to reach India.  Some historians (but not all) think that Columbus never did acknowledge the "New World" existed at all, despite visiting it several times, instead believing to his death that his landfall in the New World actually represented previously uncharted islands off the coast of Asia.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2017, 07:32:46 PM by Rounder »
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 663
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
[topic] Iridium Satellites produce predictable flares
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2016, 07:04:56 AM »
Idea stolen from a post on the other forum
Iridium flares - another very predictive phenomenon. At very high accuracy you can find when one of some 65 Iridium satellites will cast a bright splash with its antenna or solar panel. You can watch them almost everyday. check out: http://heavens-above.com/IridiumFlares.aspx (enter your coordinates in upper right corner)

Iridium Flares are a brief, even momentary, occurance.  It is a light reflected in antenna of Iridium satellites casting a small spot of light moving pretty fast on Earth surface. No natural small celestial bodies like asteroids have properties that would explain this phenomenon, and aircraft are not an adequate explanation either because there is no way to reliably predict the exact time and location that an airplane will be in a particular spot in the sky.

You can check out when you can see Iridium Flare near your home at this website.  I find that from my location there is a very bright (magnitudes in the -4 and brighter range) almost every single night.  Make sure you set your location before calculations.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

[topic] Time and Direction of Sunsets in the Southern Hemisphere in December
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2016, 06:42:30 PM »
Copied from this thread.

If you have ever been south of the Equator, you know that the seasons are reversed: December through January are the hottest months, and have the longest daylight hours. Flat earth theory has a halfway decent explanation for this. The radius of the sun's orbit above the earth increases and decreases with the seasons. During the southern summer months, the sun has a larger orbital radius:



This sort of makes sense for the Northern Hemisphere. But as they say, the devil's in the details. Let's look at a few cities during the December Solstice:

Northern Hemisphere:
New York City: 9 hours 15 minutes of daylight
Los Angeles: 9 hours 53 minutes of daylight

Southern Hemisphere:
Sao Paulo: 13 hours 35 minutes of daylight
Punta Arenas: 16 hours 57 minutes of daylight

I plotted the location of the sun at sunrise and sunset for each city on a Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection Map[1]:



Sao Paulo and New York City sunset:
Why does the sun set later for Sao Paulo than for New York City, even though New York City is much closer to the sun?

Punta Arenas and Los Angeles sunset:
Notice that the sun sets for Los Angeles before Punta Arenas, despite Los Angeles being directly between the sun and Punta Arenas at the time.

Punta Arenas and Sao Paulo sunrise:
The sun rises for Punta Arenas before it rises for Sao Paulo, despite Sao Paulo being directly between the sun and Punta Arenas at the time.

As you move farther south of Sao Paulo, the days become longer and longer, and the distance from the sun at sunset and sunrise gets farther and farther! In fact, according to this model, in the extreme southern latitudes, much of the northern hemisphere lies between the sun and the southern hemisphere at sunset, despite it being pitch black in many of those northern locations. How is this possible on a flat earth?

From Rounder's follow up post:

The direction of the rising and setting sun is problematic for FE as well.  Sao Paulo should see the sun rising 26° south of due east, and setting 26° south of due west, but that's not what is shown on the Gleason[2] map.



[1] Yes, I know this isn't an official flat earth map. But since there isn't an official map, I'll use this one since it seems to be the most commonly referenced.
[2] This is not the Gleason map, but it is very very close to the Gleason map.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2016, 06:56:25 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1155
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
[topic] Meteorological phenomenon implausible on a flat earth
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2016, 09:16:26 PM »
 Meteorological phenomenon implausible on a flat earth

Because the sun on the flat Earth never sets but stays at a height of 2.500 miles (the lowest figure according to the
wiki) there are two easily observable atmospheric spectacles that without invoking otherwise unobserved (to this
extent) processes, would be impossible, both hinge on the perennial problem FE has with the sun setting.

Sunset clouds (see https://cloudappreciationsociety.org/gallery/photo/photo-n-157440 or get outside) are lit from
the underside as the sun dips below the horizon (in the RE world) this is observable and makes sense (zetetic
almost). In FE the light Is bent to an alarming degree, the sun sets due to “perspective” and a non-transparent
atmosphere http://wiki.tfes.org/Sunset.

If we draw the FE world putting in the sun at its extreme distance from a 400-mile-long cloud (to make it visible but
not unreasonable, the thickness/depth of the cloud is not to scale), 2 miles from the ground (about that of
cirrocumulus clouds which make the best sunsets) we get;


You can’t see much here so to zoom in on the centre.


This is with the sun right out near the Ice wall (?) and the incoming light is at an angle of 12 degrees (ish) I suspect
that the cloud would be in darkness at this point and the 24-degree line is the relevant one but they are both there
to be sure. How perspective makes this angle at that distance seem to dip below the horizon is a mystery.

(note that the cloud base is tailored to the flat Earth line so at its edges it is 7 miles from the round earth).

I live 150 miles from the sea (on the setting sun side), so very little light would be reflected from any body of water,
the Cambrian Mountains would see to that, but I still see wonderful sunsets.

If you can take time to watch one from start to finish, and if there are two layers of cloud you should notice that the
lower layer lights up and fades quicker than the high layers (see cirrocumulus note above). This again makes sense,
as we zoom in further we begin to see just how narrow the angles and distances are, lower clouds not only have a
smaller window but due to the nature of their formation (upwelling air) and proximity to the ground, the air beneath
them holds more pollutants. high frequency blue light is scattered through the atmosphere, because air molecules,
although much smaller than the wavelengths of light are closest to the blue end of the spectrum, this gives us a blue
sky during most of the day.


(note the flatness of the purple hatching is a result of the rendering, the circle of the Earth is faint but there)

Pollution particles in the atmosphere are much larger and less uniform than air molecules, the scattering is not
wavelength dependent, a little gives a haze, a lot gives us the white/grey skies of smog seen over the worst of our
cities.

The distance light travels at twilight through the atmosphere (RE) is something around 15 times longer than at noon
(dependent on where you are and conditions) So the air is given a red bias, as the blue is scattered again and again
until much of it is lost from the beam, the red end of the spectrum having been scattered less. The higher clouds are
in much cleaner air therefore the red isn’t absorbed giving much better colours.


Even more of a problem for the bendy light horizon deniers are the noctilucent clouds


(Taken from my window 2014)

(http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/nlc1.htm), un-recorded in Rowbothams lifetime these Mesospheric ice clouds at
47-54 miles up seem to be a recent phenomenon related to pollutants in the upper atmosphere. Long after the light
from the FE sun has been swallowed by the “non-transparent atmosphere” these beautiful wispy blue clouds are an
increasing summer visitor too northern (and antipodean) skies, although their formation is still a matter for debate
the fact they are lit by a sun long set (see also satellites) is apparent to those of us who stay out to catch them.


If anyone is interested in observing the above, go to http://www.spaceweather.com/ scroll down the left hand bar,
there is an updated image of NLC coverage that switches to the southern hemisphere during their summer.


Earth shadow is something almost everyone has seen but relatively few realise what they are looking at. Visible at
dusk and dawn at the anti-solar horizon it is literally the shadow of the Earth cast against the atmosphere.


A dark blue rising (falling at dawn) line along the horizon (the shadow) opposite the sun, with a Pinky-red glow above
it (the belt of Venus), caused by the scattering we discussed earlier. Best observed on clear still evenings any-time of
the year.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2016, 07:34:26 AM by Jura-Glenlivet »
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, the unknown, and the incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science. Robert Green Ingersoll