Quote: (03-12-2017 08:24 PM)Hoser Wrote:  

Here's an example of the result not matching the theory:

San Clemente Island lies 70 miles off the coast of San Diego, but on rare days, the air is clear enough that it can be seen from the city. Note the caption of the photo of the island in this news article: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/mili...story.html ("San Clemente Island was visible from the San Diego County coastline on Christmas Day.").

According to the accepted earth-curvature formula, from 70 miles' distance, the curvature should make the horizon block everything shorter than 3,267 feet tall. The tallest point on San Clemente Island is 1965 feet above sea level.

Even if the photo in the link were taken from the top of the tallest building in San Diego, 500 ft tall, the first 1211 ft of the island would be hidden beneath the horizon. In other words, you'd be able to see little more than the top 1/3 of the island, but in the newspaper photo, which appears to have been taken from a height closer to only 100 - 200 ft (judging by the angle and the appearance of the waves), you can make out basically the entire outline of the island.

Island from San Diego:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-57cd69bc/turbi...39/739x416

From up close:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/Resources/...emente.jpg

Dunno about you, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of horizon in the way.

Can't really be sure about where this pic was taken, it might have been taken from a chopper, or from one of the high peaks pretty close to the coast like Mt St Miguel (altitude 2,500').

The whole premise of the Flat Earth theory is beyond ridiculous, but it's kind of fun to debunk as an exercise, and I was trying to help Mercenary see the light here. There are tons of huge gaps in FET that you can drive a supertanker through. Like the fact that you should be able to see the sun from pretty much anywhere on the earth disk, or the incredibly contorted mechanics of the sun setting into the land or water (gotta feel bad for all these people getting scorched under the setting sun! )

Quote: (03-12-2017 08:28 PM)Hoser Wrote:  

Mercenary: how would you (or if not you, Eric Dubay) use the vanishing point / perspective explanation to show those very wide buildings on the Toronto skyline? Shouldn't they appear much skinnier due to parallax effect before their lower portions become obscured?

I'm not an expert in land surveying and physics, nor am I am a full believer in flat earth, but I think it's important to be able to verify the stuff you are being taught, to check if it's really true.

Water does usually stay level no matter what kind of container you put it in, but that doesn't exclude the fact that you may be very slightly moving from a more higher altitude to a lower altitude, kind of like when a boat goes downstream on a river.

Flat Earth does not mean everything is uniformally totally flat...there may be very minor curvature in some places. I think it also depends on the difference in elevation between the 2 points you are trying to compare.

I wish I could give you a better answer, but I will have to improve my knowledge on these things.

Thanks, guys, for keeping it civil and thoughtful. TTYL

Quote: (03-13-2017 05:34 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Quote: (03-12-2017 08:28 PM)Hoser Wrote:  

Mercenary: how would you (or if not you, Eric Dubay) use the vanishing point / perspective explanation to show those very wide buildings on the Toronto skyline? Shouldn't they appear much skinnier due to parallax effect before their lower portions become obscured?

I'm not an expert in land surveying and physics, nor am I am a full believer in flat earth, but I think it's important to be able to verify the stuff you are being taught, to check if it's really true.

Water does usually stay level no matter what kind of container you put it in, but that doesn't exclude the fact that you may be very slightly moving from a more higher altitude to a lower altitude, kind of like when a boat goes downstream on a river.

Flat Earth does not mean everything is uniformally totally flat...there may be very minor curvature in some places. I think it also depends on the difference in elevation between the 2 points you are trying to compare.

I wish I could give you a better answer, but I will have to improve my knowledge on these things.

All planets are spherical, due to basic gravitational forces. A flat planet would violate Newton's law of universal gravitation, one of the most basic laws of physics. It's physically impossible.

Not a flat Earther, just playing devils advocate.

Can you prove that all planets are spherical, or they in fact even exist as anything other than a holographic projection on the firmament?

If governments and the space agencies (NASA / etc) were lying to us about Earth being a sphere to cover up for a flat Earth, then satellites / rovers / missions to the moon / etc could also be well orchestrated lies.

@Marmite

Even if you can't see them, the theory of gravity says that they are. So if you actually want to play devils advocate, you would start with disproving the theory of gravity.

Well, for starters, 911 calls gravity a law, and Repo calls it a theory. This suggests some disagreement, which weakens the argument.

Also, most Laws, as they're known, assume a 4D universe, but advanced Math and Physics suggest that there are many more dimensions than that. This raises possibilities that we understand the universe incompletely, to put things mildly.

Geometry is comparable: we all "know" that the sum of a triangle's inner angles is 180°. But this is true only in plane geometry. Place the triangle on the surface of a sphere (going from 2D to 3D), and the angles's sum will be >180°.

The Earth can be, in theory, flat and spherical at once.

Quote: (03-14-2017 01:31 PM)Marmite Wrote:  

Not a flat Earther, just playing devils advocate.

Can you prove that all planets are spherical, or they in fact even exist as anything other than a holographic projection on the firmament?

If governments and the space agencies (NASA / etc) were lying to us about Earth being a sphere to cover up for a flat Earth, then satellites / rovers / missions to the moon / etc could also be well orchestrated lies.

The planets were highly visible as spheres since the invention of the telescope, centuries ago, and the ancient Greeks, Persians and Arabs knew most of the planets and knew they were round. You can observe them through a telescope and see they're round, calculate their orbits and so on.

Kepler successfully calculated the elliptical orbits of planets around the sun, laying down the Law of Planetary Motion, which paved the way for Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Before their work, the Arabs knew that the earth was round, paving the way for great explorers of late renaissance. Here is the oldest surviving terrestrial globe, 1492, on display in Nurnberg (Germany):



Here are two easy ways to calculate the Earth diameter, you too can do it:

Eratosthenes' method, measuring length of shadows at different latitudes:





And Al-Buruni's easier way which doesn't involve travel and can be done at any time of the year, he nailed the Earth diameter down to 99% accuracy in a very simple and ingenious way at age 22:






More proofs for the scientifically challenged:






PS: I actually don't think we walked on the moon, though I'm not 100% sure about it, more like 75%, so this is probably a case where they tell you 90% of the truth, but your takeaway from this should be that just because a small part of it is a lie doens't mean you have to reject all of it. In fact guys like Dubay manipuate you into rejecting all of it just because NASA lies, don't fall for it, the guy is a paid shill.

Quote: (03-14-2017 01:31 PM)Marmite Wrote:  

Not a flat Earther, just playing devils advocate.

Can you prove that all planets are spherical, or they in fact even exist as anything other than a holographic projection on the firmament?

If governments and the space agencies (NASA / etc) were lying to us about Earth being a sphere to cover up for a flat Earth, then satellites / rovers / missions to the moon / etc could also be well orchestrated lies.

Despite all the claimed space exploration, there is not a single video of the full globe earth making a full 24 hour 360 degree rotation without interruption. Considering that NASA claims that the satellite voyager 1 made in the 1970s is millions of miles past Pluto yet is still able to send data back to earth, it seems really strange they cant give us a simple live shot of the ENTIRE globe earth rotating.


As for the missions to the moon. The only time humans allegedly landed on the moon was the 3 years from 1969 to 1972. Apart from those 3 years no other human has ever landed there.

Remember in 1969 to 1972 most people had low quality black and white televisions. If you rewatch the full videos of 6 separate Apollo missions, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 today in HD colour you will see how strange they look.


A few examples:

Apollo 14 (1971 - 3rd trip to the moon 1971)






Apollo 16 (1972 - 5th trip to the moon)






Apollo 17 (1972 - full video of 6th and last trip to the moon)

Quote: (03-14-2017 11:01 AM)911 Wrote:  

All planets are spherical, due to basic gravitational forces. A flat planet would violate Newton's law of universal gravitation, one of the most basic laws of physics. It's physically impossible.

Key assumption here from the flat earthers is that the universe as we know it does not exist. The stars and planets are simply lights moving around the dome or the firmament and have no physical solid existence. They are not arguing a flat planet but rather a flat plane -of existence. Al-beiruni's calculation already assumed a round earth so what does that prove?

I have watched Neil deGrasse Tyson struggle to explain gravity in layman's terms to an interviewer. Because beyond the mathematical formula it is an abstract idea and, as the flat earther will repeatedly mention, a theory. They argue for density and buoyancy instead, you can look that up.

Another point is that all of the globe earth assumptions that we take for granted are dismissed in the theory. You asked if it is a flat plane how can the sun not be visible in all the continents. The reason is because they say the sun is not as big as we think and not 92 million miles away. Instead it is roughly the same size as the moon and much much closer to earth. A small light in your living room will not necessarily light your bedroom.

It is important to make a distinction between the theories espoused by the flat earth society from the ones by the popular flat earth channels on youtube. The flat earth society is accused of being a controlled opposition with false premises ( such as that earth is disc in space floating upward).

I have gotten into the concept because I have watched some Eric Dubay's channel about the (((chosen people))). Hard for me to believe that someone who criticizes them openly like this can be a shill but then again I dont know how his videos manage to avoid censorship on youtube.

I got interested since a lot of the pillars of the theory resonate with me:
I am highly skeptical of Darwin's evolution which ties into the big bang (evolution of the universe)
I don't trust scientists on any issue as I believe global warming is a fraud
Nasa's landing on the moon is most probably a hoax with way too much circumstantial evidence to dismiss
ISS has ton of blooper clips online. This along with the complete lack of any non-CGI pictures of earth or the planets makes me suspicious.
The vatican church 180 degree switch on the subject
High representation of Jesuits (the jewish branch of christianity) and freemasons in astronomy.
Finally the war against christianity and God is pretty evident motive for science/atheism.

Do I believe in flat earth ? No, but I like to keep an open mind. The flat earth map has a lot of problems and shortcoming. Is it possible that shills are pushing the flat earth idea to dismiss multiple conspiracy theories at once? yes for sure. But had I not been told that earth is a sphere as a child, would I have concluded on my own that we live upside down on spinning ball in space with water curving star lights coming from billion of light years away ? Even around the world trips such as the one taken by Magellan actually don't actually prove anything. You can go in circles on a flat terrain too.

My questions for those familiar with Flat Earth movement:

1. Can you sail to the edge? If not, why?

2. What are stars and planets? Holograms or also flat objects that are tilted so we observe them like they are spherical?

3. What is the reason to conceal that Earth is flat?

4. What religions, philosophical movements say that Earth is flat?

Flat earth is easy to debunk; measure the angle between "straight up" and the north star. Now go 100 miles north (or south). Measure again. The Arab camel traders knew the earth was round ages ago, from this simple fact. The change in angle is one way if it is a round earth, another way if it is a flat earth. Now keep going north or south. Measure angle to the north star again. This gives you a second data point; the change in angle will again prove globe earth, not flat earth.

Also, with flat earth, you can't have a Pole star AND a southern cross. That is, you will only have a north pole on a flat earth, no south pole at all.

This thread has moved onto a much more mature phase of intelligent discussion.
I am really pleased about that.
Lets try to keep it that way.

Quote: (03-15-2017 02:31 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

My questions for those familiar with Flat Earth movement:

1. Can you sail to the edge? If not, why?

2. What are stars and planets? Holograms or also flat objects that are tilted so we observe them like they are spherical?

3. What is the reason to conceal that Earth is flat?

4. What religions, philosophical movements say that Earth is flat?

Here is what a flat earth theorist will tell probably tell you:


1. The edge is a huge high round ice circle all around the world which holds in all the water. To get to the "edge" you first have to climb on top of the ice wall and then start walking for hundreds of miles where there is no life. Without vast amounts of food and fuel supplies for a plane or vehicle, you cannot make it. Assuming you did make it, you would be destroyed as soon as you touched the firmament dome.

2. Star and planets are exactly what you see when you look at them with your eyes or zoom in with a high powered camera. Balls of flickering light in the sky. High powered telescopes often have curved lenses distorting true shapes. High quality photos of planets by NASA are fake. Whether you can actually touch planets or stars or even the sun or moon for that mater is another question. Circumstantial theories seem to indicate they are not made of physical matter. Kind of like trying to touch, capture or land on a cloud.

3. To prevent people from believing in devine origin. So that people do not believe there is a creator or God(s). When people are told they are on a tiny planet in an enormous universe where we came from water that turned into mucus that turned into animals that turned into monkeys that turned into humans, our existence becomes meaningless and without purpose. Essentially it is a satanic agenda. The people doing the work of the devil do not want you to believe in anything but the material, and make you think no one will see or judge you for the good or bad actions you do.

4. Most major religions in their origins said the earth was flat as do many mythologies of various ancient cultures throughout history in different parts of the world that had no contact with eachother.




The Flammarion engraving from 1888

Yep, those are the things the Flat Earthers would say. Is there any scholarly work about ancient civilizations believing a flat earth? I see these drawings, but they all look fairly modern. I'm not sure the ancient civilizations addressed the shape of the earth at all, or very much. The Egyptian picture for instance is clearly symbolic and not literal. Anyone can see the sky doesn't look like a naked woman bending over.

If you position the ancient chinese taoist ying yang symbol over a map of the flat earth you get the exact depiction of night and day, and sun and moon, and how they move.

Quote: (03-12-2017 07:16 PM)Hoser Wrote:  

My biggest (only)? sticking point is how the expected curvature seems absent in so many instances, for example how many towers and lighthouses are visible from many miles away, distances which should involve so much curvature that the towers should be completely beneath the horizon, yet there they are in plain sight.

It bugs me so much I've been thinking of ways to test it myself, but I no longer live near any large bodies of water.

Anyone know what I'm talking about and have an explanation that doesn't assume mirages?

I rented a telescope with 8 inch lens (that is an amazingly powerful telescope, friend) And then went to look at a point 6 miles away across a body of water. Of course, I saw the beach. But I learned something: even 5 miles away, it is bloody hard to focus a telescope onto an object the size of a person. Frikkin hard.

Secondly, I learned about the light phemenon called "refraction". Did you know astronomers throw away most observations if the angle is less than 30 degrees (or is that 15 degrees?) above the horizon? The earth's atmosphere acts as a giant lens, bending light. Once you factor in the index of refraction (2%), you'd have to aim at a point 600 miles away before earth's curvature makes a 6 foot tall object disappear.

And refraction changes depending on conditions, so you can watch a distant island appear and disappear as the temperature changes. Light bends around the earth.

Also, even the Hubble Telescope wouldn't be able to get a clear shot at sea level across 600 miles; too much smog and temperature variations messing things up.

So, if you look across water and see objects "impossibly" far away on a globe earth, just remember refraction. It is very possible, up to 600 miles away. Flat Earthers have never reported a sighting that far off, and mirage skips don't count.

So edge is basically flat and low in height near oceans, but when you get further in it, it becomes mountainous and ends in real wall (like in game of thrones) and you can't actually climb it.

Ok, but what is firmament made of that it can kill you? How did person on engraving saw through it and lived?

Quote: (03-15-2017 03:42 AM)TheMost Wrote:  

Also, even the Hubble Telescope wouldn't be able to get a clear shot at sea level across 600 miles;

From wikipedia:

The Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) is an 80/20 joint project of NASA and the German Aerospace Center (DLR)[1] to construct and maintain an airborne observatory. NASA awarded the contract for the development of the aircraft, operation of the observatory and management of the American part of the project to the Universities Space Research Association (USRA) in 1996.

Quote: (03-15-2017 03:46 AM)sterling_archer Wrote:  

So edge is basically flat and low in height near oceans, but when you get further in it, it becomes mountainous and ends in real wall (like in game of thrones) and you can't actually climb it.

Ok, but what is firmament made of that it can kill you? How did person on engraving saw through it and lived?

I don't know what flat earthers say the firmament is made of. Energy perhaps ? Also, I don't think the guy who made the engraving was alluding to a real person who physcially went through it but was trying to symbolise man's quest to figure out how the world actually works and possibly get into heaven.


Here are some photos and imagined images to visualize the concept and the edge







However, it may not be a perfect circle.
Other theories put forth maps like this showing where various south pole research stations actually are:





Some flat earther's believe that beyond the firmament there are multiple other "earths" like this




Apparenly in 1907 an "ancient" Japanese Buddhist map was found showng this same concept

The Hawaiian gazette - January 11, 1907,

That picture with multiple Earths divided by ice seems ridiculous. If they want to pursue this theory, why not simply space between them instead of thousands of miles of ice.

Quote: (03-14-2017 03:27 PM)Hoser Wrote:  

The Earth can be, in theory, flat and spherical at once.

Hoser, do you have a picture to help visualize this concept ?

Quote: (03-14-2017 02:00 PM)Repo Wrote:  

@Marmite

Even if you can't see them, the theory of gravity says that they are. So if you actually want to play devils advocate, you would start with disproving the theory of gravity.

Flat earther's I think believe in a specific kind of magnetism and that is what causes objects to cling to the earth, They tie that to the idea of the magnetic north and south poles and the way compasses work.

I read something many years ago about the magnetic pull of the poles having changed a few thousand years ago, but obviously now not sure how seriously I should take that now.

On a more interesting note various old cultures (especially Japanese and Chinese specifically) for many centuries drew their maps with south at the top and north at the bottom.

dupe

Quote: (03-15-2017 03:35 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Lol, nice try but light doesn't leave traces like that, it's practically instantaneous in such small scale as Earth, so only a perfect circle around Sun would be illuminated.

On flat earth with Sun moving like depicted only a quarter of the world would be illumined in the same time, most of the earth would be covered in darkness, which would mean night would be around 4 times longer then day north of equator and even longer south of equator. People living in south of Chile and Argentina would experience extremely long nights and short days.

Also what about moonless nights (phases) then?

Also on north pole there would exist a constant border between day and night. There would be a constant sunrise/sunset in north pole. Only the direction of the Sun would change but never it's height above horizon.

There would be no seasons.

In Europe and North America you could never observe Sun directly over your head, in fact the only place you could do that would be equator.

Quote: (03-15-2017 03:35 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  

This totally destroys geocentrism and the concept of our earth being unique, that most flat earthers like. Such a model of flat earth has the same philosophic consequences of us not taking any special place in universe as round earth.

Let's ignore "proof" for a minute...As my reasoning always defaults to "follow the money".

Assuming the Earth is in fact flat who benefits from the adumbration? And particularly...how?