The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Explain_me on May 27, 2008, 12:51:05 PM
-
Hello.. I'm a physicist, but an open-minded one. I believe in RE theory because it is a basic fact (not a theory) in scientific community. All gravity theory, astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, geology, atmospheric physics, and who knows what else, would be an hoax if RE were false. Nevertheless I find quite interesting this site. You people perhaps are insane but have critical reasoning...
I've just read the FAQ's thread and noticed that the offered explanation of sunrise/sunset phenomena it's quite poor. If the sun were a disc 3000 miles above you could see it anytime. Suppose you are on the Equator (during Auntum or Spring), by midnight the sun would be only 20000km north and 4800km above. You would see the sun 13š (impossible not to see it) above the horizon (and that would be its lowest altitude!) . It's just crazy guys... And it is not only the sun, you now have to explain the motion of everything in the sky!. In southern hemisphere the stars moves in circles around a point called the south celestial pole, its altitude is equivalent to the latitude where you are. How can you explain this?
According to your theory any celestial object would rise or set only because of an optical illusion... WTF?! 13š its too much..Perhaps you think we see an object whose altitude is 30š as it were setting or rising..
Sorry for my English. I'm form Argentina...
Cheers
-
Thank you for not coming on here and shouting about how they're (I'm RE) all crazy, it's annoying after a while. Their answer to your question will have something to do with atmospheric refraction and all that jazz, to save you some time. Also they will want some sort of proof that you are a physicist, and not just some troll.
Cheers to you too.
-
Right, everyone who comes here is "a physicist" or has performed some experiment which is demonstrably impossible.
The sun path explanation can be found here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm
Note that the motion of the sun does not in itself have anything to do with the shape of the Earth. Some have believed it to pass under the flat earth.
-
Once again, thanks for not trolling. But also, I'm not quite sure, but I think the answer is in the FAQ.
-
Why are they always Physicists from South America?
-
Cheap college combined with sunny weather for outside observations perhaps?
-
Makes sense to me.
-
Regarding the celestial spheres, we do notice that the pattern rotation appears to be a geared action, mirrored on opposite sides of the Suns path. Quite probably similar forces are involved with rotating the sun and the celestial spheres.
-
Hi.. Thanks for your welcome.. so there are another physicists from South America here, who are they?
I've read that text about sunrise and sunset and I found it foolish. The sun, in general, would appear high above the horizon, just basic trigonometry guys. That explanation would work only if the earth were much bigger, or the sun much closer ..
According to your map, south celestial pole canīt be the center of any gear just because observers in Australia, South Africa and South America would place it at entirely different directions. Where the fuck are the stars of the southern celestial hemisphere? The directions pointing towards any southern star (considering simultaneous observations at different parts of the world) would not converge to any point.. Are they illusions?
I can't imagine how do you explain paralax, precession, nutation ... OMG! too much for a single post and this is just the beginning..
You now have to build an entirely new science...
Cheers
-
Hi.. Thanks for your welcome.. so there are another physicists from South America here, who are they?
I've read that text about sunrise and sunset and I found it foolish. The sun, in general, would appear high above the horizon, just basic trigonometry guys. That explanation would work only if the earth were much bigger, or the sun much closer ..
You answer is in bold
According to your map
The map isn't accurate. Its a concept based on the facts we know (earth is flat).
-
you said once:
Case 4: You use Eratosthenes experiment to prove a round earth, when in fact this experiment requires the assumption of a round earth. When you correctly assume the Earth is flat, the same experiment demonstrates the true distance to the sun.
So, if the sun is much closer than 3000 miles, how do you explain the Eratosthenes experiment?.. I thought that you would say something related to atmospheric refraction and all that jazz..
-
I've quoted myself from another thread ..
Actually the stars provide a good reason to think that the earth might be round. The stars seem to be rotating around us as if they were attached to a giant celestial sphere rotating around us. Just trace out their paths all night, and they make perfect circular arcs across the sky with the north star at its pole. In addition, as every navigator knows, the north star appears to raise one degree for every 69 miles traveled northward. This suggests that the earth must be a sphere.
This observation is quite related to mine expressed in the thread I started. If the polar star were in some place above the flat earth it would be just above the north pole. Therefore, as you go south the star would reduce its altitude but not at a constant "angular velocity", its altitude would be arctan(h/d) where h is its elevation above north pole and d is the your distance from north pole. As you go further south the polar star would reduce its astronomical altitude at a lower rate. We do not see that, it appears to reduce its altitude one degree for every 69 miles traveled in a very precise way...
.. You need a very complicated cosmology and atmosphere to explain all this stuff..
-
Excuse me, i am not a physicist, but i am also not a moron.
Can you please explain to me what studies you have participated in to give you sufficient qualifications to come out and claim that the earth is flat and deny the simple facts. Like Evangelists you believe that science is out to destroy you and the world, but it is simply the pursuit of logically based facts. Where are your facts, where's the hard evidence to back up your claim, all i see is misenturpreted pictures and gassey unfulfilled explanations followed up by more than inadequite diagrams.
-
Like Evangelists you believe that science is out to destroy you and the world, but it is simply the pursuit of logically based facts.
Unlike an evangelist, but like a "congregationist", you believe in the hagiography of scientific mouthpieces and the authority of your government, and do not practice the pursuit of logically based facts on your own.
Read this: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
-
That is not at all how i consider myself. I have seen enough evidence and have enough faith in my understanding of human behavior to say that your conspiracy theory is total crackpot nonsense. In REALITY people dont spend (what would be an enormous part of a societal economy) on covering up what would ultimately be a very widely known, open, and harmless truth about our planet. What is the danger of people knowing the earth is flat???
-
Can you please explain to me what studies you have participated in to give you sufficient qualifications to come out and claim that the earth is flat and deny the simple facts. Like Evangelists you believe that science is out to destroy you and the world, but it is simply the pursuit of logically based facts. Where are your facts, where's the hard evidence to back up your claim, all i see is misenturpreted pictures and gassey unfulfilled explanations followed up by more than inadequite diagrams.
For your logically based "facts," you do seem content on committing logical fallacies.
-
ok people.. You didn't aswer my questions.. What should I do? Should I suppose that you don't have any answer?
C'mon.. I suggest you try something related to refraction..
-
The sun path explanation can be found here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm
Note that the motion of the sun does not in itself have anything to do with the shape of the Earth. Some have believed it to pass under the flat earth.
-
Didn't you understand my questions?
Hi.. Thanks for your welcome.. so there are another physicists from South America here, who are they?
I've read that text about sunrise and sunset and I found it foolish. The sun, in general, would appear high above the horizon, just basic trigonometry guys. That explanation would work only if the earth were much bigger, or the sun much closer ..
According to your map, south celestial pole canīt be the center of any gear just because observers in Australia, South Africa and South America would place it at entirely different directions. Where the fuck are the stars of the southern celestial hemisphere? The directions pointing towards any southern star (considering simultaneous observations at different parts of the world) would not converge to any point.. Are they illusions?
I can't imagine how do you explain paralax, precession, nutation ... OMG! too much for a single post and this is just the beginning..
You now have to build an entirely new science...
Cheers
-
you said once:
Case 4: You use Eratosthenes experiment to prove a round earth, when in fact this experiment requires the assumption of a round earth. When you correctly assume the Earth is flat, the same experiment demonstrates the true distance to the sun.
So, if the sun is much closer than 3000 miles, how do you explain the Eratosthenes experiment?.. I thought that you would say something related to atmospheric refraction and all that jazz..
-
Once again...If the sun were much closer than 3000 miles (this is the only way to make sunsets and sunrises possible in FE theory) the Eratosthenes experiment would remain unexplained..
....
.....
......
-
If the sun has to be closer than 3000 miles to explain sunrises/sets, doesn't that prove RE wrong?
-
.. Supposing a flat earth and the sun moving in circles above .. just basic trigonometry.. just read the first post
-
If we are supposing the earth to be flat, why are we questioning it?
-
OMG.. I'm just pointing out that FE theory leads to contradictions. The sun can't be 3000 miles above and much closer than that at the same time.. don't you think so?
-
Is there a possibility of it being observed?
-
If we are supposing the earth to be flat, why are we questioning it?
He was supposing it not saying it was you fucking twit!
-
Once again...If the sun were much closer than 3000 miles (this is the only way to make sunsets and sunrises possible in FE theory) the Eratosthenes experiment would remain unexplained..
Eratosthenes made a number of assumptions in his experiment. He assumed that the sun was very far away and he assumed that the earth was a sphere.
The Flat Earth Society actively uses Eratosthenes' experiments to explain features of the FE model. Here's a link which explains the idea. (http://www.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/58/) The explanation is at the very bottom. Scroll all the way to the bottom to the "Alternate Model" section. You will find that we can use Eratosthenes' data, in conjunction with the assumption of a Flat Earth, to confirm that the sun is very near to the earth. We can calculate an exact figure for the sun's distance, showing that it is very close to the earth.
-
Once again Tom.. That page says that the sun is approximately 2000 miles above. That's not close enough (by the way differs from Erastothenes experiment FE result by 1000 miles) to explain properly sunrises an sunsets. I'm busy at the moment, but perhaps next week I will start a thread about how we can realize that earth is not flat taking into account simultaneous measurements (from different parts of earth) of celestial objects' positions in the sky.
Cheers
-
Once again Tom.. That page says that the sun is approximately 2000 miles above. That's not close enough
Yes it is. The sun continually changes its altitude over the year. It can be anywhere from 700 miles above the earth to 5100 miles above the earth. the figure of 3,000 miles is simply the average distance and the height the sun is over the earth during equinox.
-
Also, the flat earth model has some complicated refraction effects. Once you measure the Earth's surface directly and find it to be flat, that necessitates a deeper understanding of the true celestial world above us.
The celestial spheres are likely not vacuum, but a lumiferous aether which refracts at a higher index rate proportional to the degree of angle one views the sun and other objects.
As one moves away from the sun, for example, it will lower in apparent position exactly proportional to the distance one moves away. This makes distance calculations rather difficult. 3000 miles is a good approximation, however.
-
Hi all, I'm new here and have found this place rather fun.
I've read the original text and this post on sunrise/sunset, and will like to pose this question:
Perspectives can explain the ascending/descending position of the sun. However, perspectives also affect perceived size. If it was because of perspectives, then the sun would be a tiny dot at sunrise/sunset (when in real life we can see it's not):
(http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/1489/vanishingsuniz4.jpg)
How will FE explain this?
-
How will FE explain this?
Please read Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe. How the sun maintains its angular size of .5 degrees or 30 arc minutes over the course of the day was described over 150 years ago by the late Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham. It's a known magnification effect. As the sun recedes and shrinks its magnification is caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere.
From Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe we read:
"IT is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium it appears larger, or rather gives a greater magnification of its image at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Anyone may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun's light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour."
The next time you observe the sunset notice how the sun is much hazier, diluted, and less intense than it is overhead at noonday. This is a telltale sign that its rays are passing through a thick atmosphere, much like the light rays from a distant street lamp.
If you've ever seen a city at night you would know that distant light sources appear magnified from afar because they are shining though a dense medium. The farther you get from the source the more magnified they appear. As you move towards the source the magnified lights shrink in appearance. As you move away the lights grow in diameter again.
For example, here is a picture of an average bustling city at night. (http://i17.tinypic.com/2e1hg04.jpg) You will immediately notice upon looking at the image that the distant lights in the scene appear magnified and intense, particularly the white ones in the upper left of the image. You should note that most of the the orange lights in the background are about as big as the orange lights in the foreground. This is entirely contradictory to what one would expect. The background lights are much farther away and the distant bulbs are all smaller than a single pixel of the screen. The orange lights maintaining their size is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmosphere balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective.
As an analogy for the enlarging of the sun at sunset, lets imagine that we are in a dark room with a flashlight. We shine the light upon the wall, creating a distinct circle of light. If we walk backwards and recede away from the wall the spot of light grows in diameter. When we walk towards the wall the spot of light becomes smaller again. The same effect happens with the distant sun at sunset. Instead of a solid surface, however, the rays of light are shining upon the semi-transparent fog of the atmosphere between the observer and the sun. The natural shrinking of the sun due to perspective is counteracted by the enlarging effect of its light upon the horizontal strata of the atmosphere. This is how the sun's diameter is maintained throughout the day.
-
Thanks for the reply. I've looked up sunrise photos and found many of them still very sharp with a defined curve, e.g. these
http://www.jmcwd.com/redirected-images/sunrise-autumn-trees.jpg
http://www.freefoto.com/images/45/01/45_01_29---Sunrise_web.jpg
Even when you hold a torch light against a solid wall and walk back a few meters, the curve gets significantly more blurry. We're talking thin air instead of the wall, and thousands of miles instead of a few meters. I'm curious how the sun outline is still that sharp in those photos.
-
For example, here is a picture of an average bustling city at night. (http://i17.tinypic.com/2e1hg04.jpg) You will immediately notice upon looking at the image that the distant lights in the scene appear magnified and intense, particularly the white ones in the upper left of the image. You should note that most of the the orange lights in the background are about as big as the orange lights in the foreground. This is entirely contradictory to what one would expect. The background lights are much farther away and the distant bulbs are all smaller than a single pixel of the screen. The orange lights maintaining their size is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmosphere balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective.
Or.... Could it be (and it's a long shot) that the camera/lens/file cannot distinguish the size of objects once they go beyond the limits of resolution?
"The orange lights maintaining their size is a great example of" ... the limits of resolution and lens flare !!
Another great piece of FE misdirection.
-
For example, here is a picture of an average bustling city at night. (http://i17.tinypic.com/2e1hg04.jpg) You will immediately notice upon looking at the image that the distant lights in the scene appear magnified and intense, particularly the white ones in the upper left of the image. You should note that most of the the orange lights in the background are about as big as the orange lights in the foreground. This is entirely contradictory to what one would expect. The background lights are much farther away and the distant bulbs are all smaller than a single pixel of the screen. The orange lights maintaining their size is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmosphere balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective.
Or.... Could it be (and it's a long shot) that the camera/lens/file cannot distinguish the size of objects once they go beyond the limits of resolution?
"The orange lights maintaining their size is a great example of" ... the limits of resolution and lens flare !!
Another great piece of FE misdirection.
There is also the phenomenon of burn-in (very common in long exposure photography).