1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Daylight / darkness in FET

« on: August 03, 2009, 01:54:08 PM »

I guess it's more fun to argue about gravitation, pseudolites, and the conspiracy.

It maybe fun for them but the way they don't like it when they can't counter an argument is much more fun for me.  They don't like having to confront real evidence.

Indeed.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Daylight / darkness in FET

« on: August 03, 2009, 01:46:37 PM »

You've got a southern hemi-disc of your earth that's actually triple the size of the northern counterpart, and no logical explanation for how it's heated to the same surface temp.  And no rational explanation for the length of days and nights, and their pattern etched on the face of the earth by the sun, observed by billions of people.

I really thought you FEers would be further along in the game of explaining away observations by now.  Something as simple as this and it's being ignored.

I guess it's more fun to argue about gravitation, pseudolites, and the conspiracy.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: can't you see?

« on: August 03, 2009, 01:30:06 PM »

"How can we believe that the earth is flat when we can observe spheric and rotating objects in the sky?"

How can we believe the Earth is round when we always observe a flat surface no matter how far we've traveled?

And yet our minds are capable of so much more than simply taking in what we observe.  Infants can observe.  As we grow up, we can learn to think and apply this cumulative knowledge to greater concepts than just simple observations that say "The earth must be flat".

Anyway, hum... I thought that the existence of spheric planets should support the gravity theory and, by the way, refute the FE theory

I don't think so.

And now here you are, thinking!

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scared of the Shadows?

« on: August 01, 2009, 11:07:10 AM »

Normally, when someone uses a number like that, they don't mean it exactly. So, no, at least one of them isn't 3000 miles away, in the same way the population of Wales isn't exactly 3,000,000, for example.

That might be acceptable if one were refer to one distance only.  But when you make a statement such as "The sun and the moon are both 3000 miles above the surface of the earth"  it's reasonable to believe the intent is to mean they are the same height, even if it's not exactly 3000 miles.  If the intent was to convey that one was higher than the other, the sentence would certainly be worded differently.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: August 01, 2009, 10:17:47 AM »

Oh come now, you think that's not occurred to us?  We all know what would happen.  History is on our side here.  There's no shortage of posts to back this up.  When we don't get the same results Tom did, it will be because we did something wrong.  Whether it be the type of telescope, the position at the beach, the time of day or of year...it could be anything.  It would be a waste of time.   Let's not pretend otherwise.  Remember how difficult it was to just find out what type of telescope Tom even owns?

If it's so simple for Tom, as he says to "Walk down to the beach", why not just do it the easy way and avoid all the miscommunications and get it over with?

What an opportunity for you guys!

I'm not saying that anyone here would believe or not believe your results. I'm saying that if you're so curious about it then you can go satisfy your own curiosity.

Ah, but my curiosity is more about Tom and his experience.

 I live near a large lake, one of the Great Lakes, in fact.  I have been on it in a boat many times, and I have looked across it both with the naked eye and a telescope.  I have satisfied that curiosity, but thanks anyways.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: August 01, 2009, 10:13:13 AM »

We're not here to satisfy you.  If you want to perform an experiment you can do it without Tom's help.  Most of you noobs totally disregard the intent of this website, it is a place to debate FET.

Exactly, or at least one section, is a place to debate FET.  And the intent of debate is to present evidence and findings in a clear manner and argue your side.  In effect, to win your argument through evidence and logical argument.

Well, I can't think of any more convincing evidence than Tom's findings.  His ability to see thirty miles across the surface of the bay from water's edge to water's edge is quite a feat, don't you think?   I'm simply saying that the general lackluster support among FEers for backing up Tom's findings seems rather odd for a place whose intent is to promote and debate FET.

Instead of making a clear argument, you and most other noobs prefer to make demands.  Thousands of threads demanding proof. 

Now you're just generalizing.  You are lumping all REers as noobs who demand proof.  Granted, many do, but certainly not all.  I am simply pointing out what I believe to be peculiar behavior.  I am not demanding anything.

And for the record, I have made what I feel are clear arguments on this forum.  I have one now over in Q & C about daylight / darkness in FET.  Feel free to join in.  I'm not demanding any proof, simply trying to get a better grasp of your FET.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: August 01, 2009, 09:37:32 AM »

Oh come now, you think that's not occurred to us?  We all know what would happen.  History is on our side here.  There's no shortage of posts to back this up.  When we don't get the same results Tom did, it will be because we did something wrong.  Whether it be the type of telescope, the position at the beach, the time of day or of year...it could be anything.  It would be a waste of time.   Let's not pretend otherwise.  Remember how difficult it was to just find out what type of telescope Tom even owns?

If it's so simple for Tom, as he says to "Walk down to the beach", why not just do it the easy way and avoid all the miscommunications and get it over with?

What an opportunity for you guys!

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: August 01, 2009, 09:27:40 AM »

We're not here to satisfy you.  If you want to perform an experiment you can do it without Tom's help.  Most of you noobs totally disregard the intent of this website, it is a place to debate FET.

Exactly, or at least one section, is a place to debate FET.  And the intent of debate is to present evidence and findings in a clear manner and argue your side.  In effect, to win your argument through evidence and logical argument.

Well, I can't think of any more convincing evidence than Tom's findings.  His ability to see thirty miles across the surface of the bay from water's edge to water's edge is quite a feat, don't you think?   I'm simply saying that the general lackluster support among FEers for backing up Tom's findings seems rather odd for a place whose intent is to promote and debate FET.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: August 01, 2009, 09:01:25 AM »

You're very demanding, aren't you?  

Actually, I don't think we're being very demanding at all. Seems a reasonable request. One that I'd think as FEers, you'd be more demanding of yourselves.  

I do find it peculiar/interesting that the rest of you FEers dont' have much interest in replicating Tom's findings here.  After all, Tom says it's simple.  Whenever he has any doubts about FET, "all he has to do is walk down to the beach with his telescope and he's convinced"!  

I mean, how great is that!  What more proof could anyone ask, and yet, Tom makes no offers to corroborate this.  And you Fers seem to be very disinterested, other than to quote Tom's post.  Actually, you don't even do that, you simply tell us to search for it.

You'd think you'd wave it proudly, like a giant flag, and be chomping at the bit to replicate it for yourselve, so you could all join in, in a giant chorus of jubilant song.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: July 31, 2009, 02:10:30 PM »

Well, there is that...

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: July 31, 2009, 02:03:22 PM »

Well, it's not like it's meeting in a dark parking lot in the middle of the night in a bad neighborhood, is it?  It's a public beach on Monterey Bay in broad daylight, and we're talking about looking through a telescope.

Seriously, if you guys are that paranoid, it really goes a long way to explain a few things.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Daylight / darkness in FET

« on: July 31, 2009, 01:02:50 PM »

Exactly.  Any model has to be able to show an equinox, as is observed all over the earth by billions of people.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: July 31, 2009, 12:56:28 PM »

Is there any record of any post where Tom invites anyone, anyone, to take a look with him through his telescope and corraborate his findings?  If not, does that strike you as odd as it does me? 

I mean, c'mon, what an opportunity for FE to move forward!  And so simple.  Just meet at the beach by the water's edge and have a look-see through a telescope at another beach 30 miles away and be able to see the distant shore!  Quite a feather if the ol' FE cap, I'd say.

Opportunity missed, or opportunity avoided?

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Daylight / darkness in FET

« on: July 31, 2009, 12:49:41 PM »

Thank you for the very nice animation.  I take it that what you have shown is the sun over the FE equator, correct?

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Daylight / darkness in FET

« on: July 31, 2009, 12:26:03 PM »

I think the problem with this question is that it's based on a RET mentality- the sun simply doesn't work in the same way in FET, so as far as I can tell, the two situations are incomparable. The sun simply shines on a given area of the Earth. The area being shined on by the sun at any one time is always the same.

Since, as you say, the area being shined on is always the same, does the FE sun increase it's energy output by a factor of three when in the southern hemi-disc?  If not, what accounts for its ability to heat the southern hemi-disc to the same relative temperatures as the north, since the south has three times the area?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: July 31, 2009, 11:32:26 AM »

Well...having read Tom's post concerning his little experiment at Monterey Bay, I have to say, it's been almost two years since that post.  Has anyone... anyone at all, besides Tom verified this?  FE or RE?  Anybody?  No?

Surely this would be big news if it's true, that you can see clear across a 30+ mile bay from an elevation just above the water all the way across the surface of the water to the opposing shore.

Why has no one verified this?  Surely someone here would be willing to meet Tom at the beach and look through his telescope. Hell, surely a reporter or scientist from the area would love this opportunity.   I have relatives living just south of San Francisco.  If Tom would be willing (and why wouldn't he?) I could ask them if they'd want to take a look through Tom's telescope and verify this.

Here is the post in question, where Tom explains his experiment:

Here it is again in case you've missed it:

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Here's the math:



Suppose that the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3,963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangle as in the diagram.

Looking over a distance of 1 mile, we can use the theorem of Pythagoras:

a² = 3,963² + 1² = 15,705,370

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.000126 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.000126 - 3,963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth.

0.000126 miles = 12 in * 5,280 ft * 0.000126 mi = 7.98 inches

Hence after one mile the earth drops approximately 8 inches.

-

Ergo, looking across 30 miles the Pythagorean theorem becomes:

a² = 3963² +30² = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.

-

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lighthouses (with apology)

« on: July 31, 2009, 07:39:34 AM »

There's nothing complicated about it.  If the ocean floor is lower between you and the lighthouse, there's less of a curve, or not one at all.

Are you suggesting that the depth of the ocean's floor has a noticable effect on the level of the ocean's surface above it?

There are places on the ocean where the geography of the ocean floor had an impact on the curvature of the water directly above it.  For example, if there exist very tall underwater mountain ranges, the water will tend toward the mountain range, causing a bulge of water to gather around the mountains due to a higher force of gravity from the mass of the mountains.  A deep ocean trench would cause the opposite phenomenon.
This is because the gravitational potential energy at the surface of the ocean needs to be equipotential due to the physics of fluids.

Which is exactly why I used the word "noticable" in my post.  The amount the surface would be affected by trenches and underwater mountains may exist, but it would hardly have a noticable effect on the topic at hand.

Especially when you consider the number of lighthouses that would have to be affected by such incredibly deep trenches/mountains so close to shore.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Coriolis effect.

« on: July 30, 2009, 10:43:27 AM »

Again I have to say my theory or any other theory can never be proven.

Conversly, theories only hold up until evidence suggests otherwise, no?

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lighthouses (with apology)

« on: July 30, 2009, 10:14:50 AM »

There's nothing complicated about it.  If the ocean floor is lower between you and the lighthouse, there's less of a curve, or not one at all.

Are you suggesting that the depth of the ocean's floor has a noticable effect on the level of the ocean's surface above it?

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Telescopes

« on: July 29, 2009, 02:27:36 PM »

You FEers do realize that planets as well as stars have been observed exibiting the 'doppler effect', right?

In other words, planets that are revolving around distant stars can be observed in their orbit around a star as they get closer and then farther from earth.  The light reflected from these planets exibits both a blue shift, and then a red shift as they get closer and farther from earth in their orbits.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: July 29, 2009, 01:14:35 PM »

As much as I appreciate your thoughts here, I feel that the net result of this place is positive.  For the most part, it encourages thought and debate.  I know this isn't always the case, as often FE posters will spout nonsense as though it's true.  To offset this, on the other side, there are REers who come in with a first post that often does nothing but draw attention to their lack of education or any real thought.

But on some level, it encourages an interest in science and logical debate, albeit in a roundabout way. And often in people who might not show any interest otherwise.

You just have to learn to ignore Tom.

I have mixed feelings about the issue.  On the one hand, there are the RE'ers whose OPs "draw attention to their lack of education or any real thought", and on the other hand there are RE'ers whose well thought out OPs are devastating to FET, and attract nonsensical, desperate  responses from FE'ers that are so lame and stubbornly ignorant that they actually wind up inadvertently doing even more damage to the credibility of FET and its proponents than the OP they are attempting to refute (DanielC, julianmartin, 3 Tesla, cpt btthimes, trig, Cdenley, for example).  I love those threads!

One of my concerns is that the FE'er's stubborn, irrational insistance on this vast, highly improbable and ridiculous "conspiracy" tends to give even serious criticism of governmental excesses and attempts to mislead the public a bad name, and can potentially make it easier for corrupt politicans and bureaucrats to get away with real malfeasance and fraud by merely characterising honest attempts to expose them as "just another one of those crackpot conspiracy theories."  This can be much like "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

We pretty much agree on all counts.  I certainly wasn't referring to all posters in my comment.  Simply that there are those who do much to embarass themselves on both sides of the fence.

And to the original poster:  Truly, anyone who comes in here seeking answers in a serious manner to that type of question (I don't think it was serious, btw) would have some mental issues to begin with, and that is out of anyone's control here.  One cannot design every website to the level that would be necessary to accomodate that sort of thing, unfortunately.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: BIG DISCOVERY: global warming consipiracy

« on: July 29, 2009, 12:23:14 PM »

Hey all loyal FE' rs

After reading all these posts on this forum i got interested, and i started thinking of this big thing about the global warming.
The earth is moving which is keeping us to the floor (and i pray it will never flip over), but this moving causes friction.
Friction makes energy and energy goes together with heat and thats how the global warming comes here.
The government wants us to believe it are the exhausts from the cars to keep the gravity theory in place, while we have been creating and burning gazes for ages.

Greetings

You may want to do a little research on the part I bolded.  I'm sure you'll find there is no shortage of evidence to indicate otherwise.  Unless by "ages" you mean what you have personally witnessed in your own limited time here on earth.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A very serious appeal to the flat earth theorists that are trollers.

« on: July 29, 2009, 09:55:34 AM »

As much as I appreciate your thoughts here, I feel that the net result of this place is positive.  For the most part, it encourages thought and debate.  I know this isn't always the case, as often FE posters will spout nonsense as though it's true.  To offset this, on the other side, there are REers who come in with a first post that often does nothing but draw attention to their lack of education or any real thought.

But on some level, it encourages an interest in science and logical debate, albeit in a roundabout way. And often in people who might not show any interest otherwise.

You just have to learn to ignore Tom.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The rotation of low pressure weather systems

« on: July 29, 2009, 09:11:25 AM »

your premises are not supported by any evidence.

Be specific.  What premise outlined in the original post do you feel is not supported by evidence.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Scared of the Shadows?

« on: July 29, 2009, 08:43:03 AM »

Nice post, but I fear that it will be ignored by FEers.  They either find some little thing they can argue and derail the thread, or ignore it altogether.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: On Thin Ice

« on: July 29, 2009, 08:29:27 AM »

I'm going to trust the engineer's word over yours.

Given that you trust the engineer's word, and the engineer says the earth is a globe, it would follow that you believe the earth to be a globe then, Tom.

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: On Thin Ice

« on: July 28, 2009, 02:08:23 PM »

I have used a regular compass in the north of Scotland and north of Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada both of which are more north than Seattle, Washington. I can assure you that no special compass was needed then or would be needed now.

Read the link.

Are you suggesting that link is factual, Tom?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newbie, Please explain the horizon view while on a jet liner

« on: July 28, 2009, 01:05:52 PM »

I think a dose of common sense would help here.  "Readily observable", to me at least, means just that.  You almost can't help but notice.  Perhaps obviously discernable might be another choice of words here.  It seems to me that the wider your horizontal field of vision is of the horizon, the easier it will be to notice any potential curvature.

I don't think there's a "magic" cutoff point where all of a sudden you can see curvature.  The higher up you go, the less of a field of view you would need to make any curvature readily observable.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some Questions

« on: July 28, 2009, 08:43:43 AM »

Sorry, I certainly don't mean to be thick, or derail a thread.  Perhaps I missed a point, and I'm sorry.  But I do agree.  32 mile diameter and 3000 miles up is impossible.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Some Questions

« on: July 28, 2009, 08:21:18 AM »

I'm not sure what point I'm missing.  I don't believe for one second that the sun and moon are the same or nearly the same distance above earth.  I agree with you on that.

I'm curious as to how whenever REers mention using parralax as a way to get these distances, and that we get 93,000,000 and 240,000 respectively for the sun and moon "assuming a round earth", how do FEers arrive at equal or nearly equal distances for the sun and moon using parralax "assuming a flat earth"?

Does this mean that everything is 3000 miles up using parralax and "assuming a flat earth"?