1

Flat Earth General / Re: Final nail in the FE theory

« on: November 24, 2011, 10:23:46 AM »

Distortion. Also, BTW, we get a couple of these every week.

Please clarify. Yes, the video is unclear, mainly due to cloud cover, but if the experiment was repeated several times with high quality cameras, one would be able to get a clear view of the Earth from space. I'm not talking about the curvature from the lense-that's indecisive. But the shape of the continents, slight movement of disc, and most of all the lack of a spotlight sun and moon, can be used as conclusive evidence.

This particular video suffers from using a fish-eye or wide-angle lens. You can see at 2:35-36 and 3:30 (and several other places), for example, that the horizon becomes convex. I do not doubt that some curvature might be seen from great altitude as would be expected over a disc.
It is, nevertheless, stunningly beautiful, and a fantastic father-son project.

I know that, but that's why I asked for the experiment to be repeated to get some conclusive results.

It wouldn't matter. Certain branches of the theory would expect curvature (EA), and others believe that the atmolayer would cause limited distortion.

Again, I'm not trying to find curvature of the earth with this, but rather the shape of the continents, which would be quite different under the FET. Similarly, the "disc" that the camera would show, if we got a clear view of it, would be able to tell us whether the scale of the Earth matches the FET.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Final nail in the FE theory

« on: November 23, 2011, 05:29:12 PM »

Distortion. Also, BTW, we get a couple of these every week.

Please clarify. Yes, the video is unclear, mainly due to cloud cover, but if the experiment was repeated several times with high quality cameras, one would be able to get a clear view of the Earth from space. I'm not talking about the curvature from the lense-that's indecisive. But the shape of the continents, slight movement of disc, and most of all the lack of a spotlight sun and moon, can be used as conclusive evidence.

This particular video suffers from using a fish-eye or wide-angle lens. You can see at 2:35-36 and 3:30 (and several other places), for example, that the horizon becomes convex. I do not doubt that some curvature might be seen from great altitude as would be expected over a disc.
It is, nevertheless, stunningly beautiful, and a fantastic father-son project.

I know that, but that's why I asked for the experiment to be repeated to get some conclusive results.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Final nail in the FE theory

« on: November 22, 2011, 06:01:57 PM »

I know FEers dispute Space Flight images as part of the conspiracy, but here's something anyone can do with a bit of money: . The video clearly displays an Earth quite different from the FE model (yes, I know the lense is curved), and, at 90,000 ft, I see no spotlight Sun. Anyone can repeat this experiment for more conclusive results. I dare a FEer to get a picture of the edge of the Earth, or of the spotlight Sun.

Distortion. Also, BTW, we get a couple of these every week.

Please clarify. Yes, the video is unclear, mainly due to cloud cover, but if the experiment was repeated several times with high quality cameras, one would be able to get a clear view of the Earth from space. I'm not talking about the curvature from the lense-that's indecisive. But the shape of the continents, slight movement of disc, and most of all the lack of a spotlight sun and moon, can be used as conclusive evidence.

4

Flat Earth General / Final nail in the FE theory

« on: November 20, 2011, 12:32:51 PM »

I know FEers dispute Space Flight images as part of the conspiracy, but here's something anyone can do with a bit of money: . The video clearly displays an Earth quite different from the FE model (yes, I know the lense is curved), and, at 90,000 ft, I see no spotlight Sun. Anyone can repeat this experiment for more conclusive results. I dare a FEer to get a picture of the edge of the Earth, or of the spotlight Sun.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Spinning World causing Equal Motion

« on: November 20, 2011, 09:33:55 AM »

I do not remember reading any theories that claim the flat earth rotates.  The night time phenomena is caused by the sun being too far away from you for the light to be seen, and the bendy light makes the sun appear to go over the horizon.  And, the sun rotates in a circle around the northern pole.
The stars rotate with the gears in the sky.

Bendy light was disproved in 2010. Sky gears does not explain stellar rotation around the south celestial pole, which itself disproves the rotating sky theory. Continuous sunlight during Antarctic summer disproves the sun rotating round the northern pole if Antarctica is a rim around the edge. None of FE actually works, a made up theory to explain one observation leaves massive gaps in all the others.

ITT: noob pretending he's not a noob

There are actually a bunch of theories explaining all of these phenomenon, which you'd know if you lurked as much as you pretend to.

Oh, I don't lurk or know anything? Let's see:
Bendy light disproof - I have linked to this at least twice, I believe the original post is from January 2010. Check my post history and follow the trail, if you can be bothered.
Sky gears - despite repeated requests from RE'ers for an explanation of how this would work without leaving gaps between the stars and affecting the angular distances between them, and why they don't show up in star trail pictures, no adequate reply has been forthcoming.
Sun travelling 360 degrees round Antarctica - the ONLY explanation offered for that map was the ridiculous sky mirror, which not only doesn't even work to explain the phenomenon, it also introduces even more problems. The map which has Antarctica as a seperate continent does not suffer from this problem, but does suffer from problems of light distribution and the sun having to travel at varying speeds. That map has been thoroughly disproved.

Argumentum ad ridiculum is still a logical fallicy, no matter how many times you use it.

And you forgot to mention Aether. I can't seem to find any spectroscopy tests from the Antarctic...

When exactly did he use Argumentum ad ridiculum?

6

Flat Earth Debate / Equitorial problems

« on: November 20, 2011, 09:31:12 AM »

At the Round Earth's magnetic equator, to travel east or west, one can simply move in one straight direction, without having to make slight curves or anything that you would on another part of the globe. However, on the Flat Earth, to travel around the equator one would have to constantly move in a curve. Thus, we can pretty accurately test the Flat Earth Theory by sailing or flying part way around the equator.

In addition, the geographic equator, according to the Flat Earth model, would be 31,473 km. However, its measured length is much larger, at 40,030 km.

Finally, the Sun, according to the FE model, travels in a circular motion around the equator. What force provides the centripetal acceleration? Especially considering the center of the circle that it makes would be some 300 miles above the North Pole, which is empty space. 

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica

« on: November 20, 2011, 09:13:33 AM »

Whoops. I'm a bit new here, so yeah I'm prone to mess up sometimes.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Spinning World causing Equal Motion

« on: November 19, 2011, 09:07:22 PM »

I think I can adapt KristaGirl's argument so that it is aimed towards the FEers and their model. If the Earth is a disc with the North Pole at the center and the sun as a "spotlight" above the equator, the area lit up should appear from space like a wedge of a circle. By FEers own standards, this does not work. Why is the range of light along the lines of longitude larger than along the lines of latitude? And if the Sun is at the equator, why does its range increase as the light moves South, but decrease as it move North?

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: R.I.P. Antartica

« on: November 19, 2011, 08:58:34 PM »

OK, there have been OBSERVED and RECORDED Antarctic journeys across the South Pole. People have died trying to reach it and I honestly find it offensive for them that you guys are calling it all a "conspiracy". Let's actually list off the problems Antarctica shows for FEers.

• Countless journeys and bases constructed at the Geographic South Pole. I'm pretty sure tourists (or at least college researchers) are allowed to travel there. In addition, the Magnetic South Pole (the place where all compasses go haywire, which should not exist under the FE map) does exist and has been discovered.
• Others have actually crossed the Antarctican continent and approximated its distances, which do not match up with the FE map.
• Sailors have navigated around the Antarctican Continent. Under the FE model, they would have to go a hell of a longer distance, and in a different direction.
• Somewhat unrelated to Antarctica but relevant to the above, loxodromes would measure differently under the FE model, and RE loxodromes have worked perfectly for the last 500 years (seriously, you guys would get a spark of credibility if you found a single sailor who expressed trouble navigating the world with RE loxodromes).
  

10

Flat Earth Debate / Scientific observations of the Flat Earth

« on: November 19, 2011, 04:49:13 PM »

Hello, I am Mr. Anon, and I'm kind of new here. I am familiar with many experienced physicist, and as a result here are some scientific observations I have made about the Flat Earth notion.

Gravity

First off, this is the biggest thorn in the FET in existance. Gravity has been proven; I have seen experiments that display very small forces between two masses. This poses a significant problem for the Flat Earth. Even a very thin disc the size of the Earth would have a mass large enough to fold itself into a sphere. The Flat Earth version of gravity, the proposed Universal Accelerator, simply does not work. Even at the creationist view that many Flat Earthers embody, where the Earth is only 6000 years old, the disc, accelerating constantly at 9.8m/s/s, would have long ago exceeded the speed of light. While this can be explained to an extent with relativistic effects, the result is that the rest of the universe would rapidly age compared to us, and as we approach the speed of light, the acceleration we feel would decrease. In addition, the energy required to maintain such an accelerator would be tremendous (I don't even want to calculate it, though I could, as I'd have to add the masses of the Earth, planets, and the Sun and Moons). In addition, the UA does not account for the observed slight decreases in acceleration that have occurred at higher altitudes.

Ice Wall/Antarctica

The Ice Wall also poses some challenges for the FET. There have been recorded journeys that have been made across the Antarctic continent, as well as some plane travels. In addition, the inside circumferance of such an Ice Wall would be far greater than the measured circumferance of Antartica, and also would contradict nautical journeys, where (going clockwise according to the North Pole) sailoirs would end up constantly turning West instead of East. I am aware of a second FET map, where Antarctica is still and island-continent, but this map severely distorts the Pacific Ocean, and also does not create any means of keeping water from spilling over the edge of the Earth.