So, I understand the general concept that if you stretch an object, it will measure the same if you also stretch the unit of measure by the same rate. Consider:
If you widen an object, and then widen the unit of measure by the same ratio, you get what appears to be a wider object that measures the same. So, if you increase a pencil x2 and then increase the size of an inch by 2, voila... the pencil appears bigger, but mathematically measures the same. So here, what we've done is changed science to give a disproven theory credence.
The problem with that is this:
Now, you have a situation where a unit of measure changes depending on its orientation.
Nobody has ever recorded this to be the case under any natural circumstance on the planet. Now, if things grew "wider" in the South Pole, things should grow more "narrow" in the North Pole. So, the distortion should have the opposite effect in the Northern Hemisphere. However, like the Southern Hemisphere, an inch is the same size whether it runs N-S or E-W.
Flat Earthers attempt to explain this phenomenon with something called Electromagnetic Acceleration... which is the same principle that powers a rail gun. Basically, their theory states that there is an electromagnetic force that gets stronger (or weaker) towards the edge of the world, which causes light to bend, giving off the illusion that something is wider than it is long.
One problem is, more than likely light can not be bent by electromagnetic acceleration.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-4125.htmlhttp://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2009This is mainly due to the theory of relativity. Some physicists believe it
could be
possible, but it has never been proven. One reason is that nobody has ever had the resources to produce an electromagnet with the kind of power a physicist would consider necessary in bending light in that fashion. Theoretically, the Earth could provide that vehicle in the way FE Theorists suggest. If the world is flat, the ice shelf would provide a sufficient enough size to house that kind of force. But, there is no proof of that force, there is no proof that anything like this is happening, and there is no proof that it would even work. Essentially, using EAT to explain FE Theory is to explain a debunked myth with an unproven phenomenon... in contradiction of a proven fact reinforced with proven science. It's like saying, "Santa Clause can fly without upwards propulsion because he gives his reindeer magic dust. That proves that your parents didn't buy your Christmas presents at the store."
Some FE Theorists suggest that in the dark, objects in the southern hemisphere shrink to the normal size we see when we look at satellite images of the earth. That phenomenon is completely advocated in the FE community. However, nobody in the FE community has explained why satellite images of land mass in the southern hemisphere more closely resemble the RE Model, nor have they explained what fills in the gaps that this supposed shrinking would create. If the Earth is one solid object (which is one thing we can ALL agree on), if Australia, South America and Africa shrink, somewhere the ocean would need to either stretch or split to accommodate for the redistribution of volume. Somewhere along the lines, you still have an unexplained distortion, or something has to give.
My question is,
why would the continents change shape because of the absence of light? The whole thing about light bending shouldn't have anything to do with a luminous source like a "light bulb," but the overall concept of appearance. A flat Earth map should "look" the same in the night as it would in the day. None of this matter though. FET hinges on the idea that the continents are actually wider. It's the only way to explain the southern hemisphere having more surface area, but the same measure of ratio. Thus, the distortion wouldn't be an illusion, it would be an actual physical phenomenon.
Another curious aspect about FE Theory is flight path in the northern hemisphere. As shown in a previous post, a flight from NY to Tokyo would go over the top of the Earth rather than around it like a line of longitude. This phenomenon holds water in FE Theory. The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line. On a flat version of a RE map, this would appear as a curved path. However, on the round earth, it ALSO appears as a straight line. So, this particular flight path doesn't prove OR disprove FE or RE. However, flights that take place in the Southern Hemisphere (say, a flight from Johannesburg to Melbourne) arches downward:
Flight paths in the Northern Hemisphere curve in the opposite direction than flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere simply because the Southern Hemisphere is a geometric mirror of the Northern Hemisphere.
Even when you go from Northern Hemisphere to Southern, your flight path takes an "S" pattern because a straight line across a sphere depicted on a RE Map changes direction at the equator. That's because the equator is the divide between the halves:
If it were a conspiracy, not only would NASA be lying about it, but every commercial airline employee and every crop-duster on the planet would have to be in on it, too.
What Zogg is trying to prove is that you
can't come up with a map that depicts a Flat Earth [and] accurately explains the proven geometry and geography of the Earth, as well as modern aviation methodology. You're creating a speculated map that has never been proven, then providing a lot of circumstantial, unproven and very unlikely explanations to justify it.
A flight from Sydney to Australia is 14 hours non-stop, which is
well short of the time needed to fly the 6,843 miles from point A to point B on a Flat Earth map, and WAY short of the time needed to fly the distance that the used flight path would actually take on the a flat earth. Or, you could pay attention to REAL science, and assume that the flight path and the flight time DOES make sense, and that it DOES make a straight line by considering the following picture. It is the ONLY way the geometry makes sense, and we've got pictures to prove it on top of everything else! Or, you can choose to believe in a lot of flimsy debunked bull backed by a lot of junk science and conspiracy theories.
