The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Galileo the Great on September 09, 2008, 05:08:31 AM
-
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
Wacky disproving starts now!
PS:The moon IS made of cheese! ;D
-
The only one I saw that FET doesn't have an immediate explanation for is number 7, the planets. I've never seen anything either in the faqs or threads that could explain retrograde planetary motion.
-
I would love to see explanations 1 to 10 right here, as I don't find anything in theflatearthsociety.org (as well as the faq) better organized than what is in this link. Must be the government conspiracy! ::)
-
I've been around a bit in this forum, so I think I can speak for the FE'ers when I say...
1)Shadow object.
2)Faked, Telescopes, Bendy light.
3)Stellar gears.
4)Bendy light.
5)Bendy light.
6)Jet streams, Hallucinations, Bendy light.
7)TBA
8)Bendy light.
9)Causality defying constant upward acceleration.
10)Conspiracy.
-
"stupidity can be fixed but ignorance prevents it"
-
"stupidity can be fixed but ignorance prevents it"
Story of most REer's lives.
-
"stupidity can be fixed but ignorance prevents it"
Are you writing for readers digest? I don't think anyone asked for platitudes.
Seriously, I've seen far better arguments for FE than what was in the link. Other than 7, that's pretty much a primer on posts that will get you pounced on by FE'ers.
Heres some good arguments for this forum.
1)Even though the north star and south stars do not change their relative positions during the year, you still get significant changes in the stars visible in different seasons. How do you explain stellar precession?
2)Neither a spotlight sun nor a bendy light sun can adequately explain annual light patterns. What's up with that? This can be confirmed by sunrise/sunset data from cities in all inhabited nations, and a simple extrapolation of that data would show the curve for the uninhabited portions.
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/seasonprogressionxz9.gif)
3)The stellar gears theorem leaves almost 65% of the southern oceans devoid of stars in the sky. (blue portions) Multiple gears lead to continuity problems due to stars having multiple occurrences.
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/gearworkingssailors.gif)
4)Due to the stars using bendy light, you should observably be able to note differences in the distance between rim stars at different latitudes. This is not observable.
(http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo155/AmatureAstronomer/starlight.gif)
I'm sure other RE'ers can help me out with some more pertinent questions.
-
"stupidity can be fixed but ignorance prevents it"
Story of most REer's lives.
If you really were a FE'er, and not just an arguer, couldn't you argue that that is the story of most FE'ers lives as well?
If you say we are ignorant because we cannot adequately prove ourselves to you, how should we feel when FE'ers assert that they do not even feel the need to argue/explain/prove/show the reasoning behind whatever current assertion they are adamant about.
-
If you really were a FE'er, and not just an arguer, couldn't you argue that that is the story of most FE'ers lives as well?
If they were legitimately FEers, then yes.
If you say we are ignorant because we cannot adequately prove ourselves to you, how should we feel when FE'ers assert that they do not even feel the need to argue/explain/prove/show the reasoning behind whatever current assertion they are adamant about.
Depends on if they are claiming to know the shape of the Earth.
-
If you really were a FE'er, and not just an arguer, couldn't you argue that that is the story of most FE'ers lives as well?
If they were legitimately FEers, then yes.
If you say we are ignorant because we cannot adequately prove ourselves to you, how should we feel when FE'ers assert that they do not even feel the need to argue/explain/prove/show the reasoning behind whatever current assertion they are adamant about.
Depends on if they are claiming to know the shape of the Earth.
I agree 100% on both points.
-
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/
Wacky disproving starts now!
PS:The moon IS made of cheese! ;D
and the silly scientist referred to gravity. All FEers know that there is no such thing. ;)
-
I can't to see what a real FEr (none have responded yet) makes up in this thread.
-
I can't to see what a real FEr (none have responded yet) makes up in this thread.
Apparently you didn't read the article linked in the OP?
-
As for 7, I don't see a valid point. It just says "Jupiter is round, we must be too" which is an incredibly bad logic, because we're not Jupiter. Or has there been an "advance" in RET that we haven't heard about?
-
The list is shit.
-
The only one I saw that FET doesn't have an immediate explanation for is number 7, the planets. I've never seen anything either in the faqs or threads that could explain retrograde planetary motion.
The retrograde motion is caused by the fact that the planets are rotating around the sun, while the sun itself rotates around the Northern Hub.
-
As for 7, I don't see a valid point. It just says "Jupiter is round, we must be too" which is an incredibly bad logic, because we're not Jupiter. Or has there been an "advance" in RET that we haven't heard about?
We aren't Jupiter, but we are not such an special specie as FET wanna make us think (with I-dont-know-what-philosphy according to), we are only a bunch of bioquimical casualities that provoked something we call "life", and because we aren't special, all the laws in universe are applied to us normally, so what causes Jupiter, or any other planet to be round, it's suitable for us too.
-
The retrograde motion is caused by the fact that the planets are rotating around the sun, while the sun itself rotates around the Northern Hub.
Hmm, forgive me here, but that doesn't make sense. An observer in the northern hemisphere wouldn't see the same relative motion as an observer in the southern hemisphere if that was the case. What would be retrograde in one hemisphere would be the normal path for the other because they would be on opposite sides of the Sun.
-
Hmm, forgive me here, but that doesn't make sense. An observer in the northern hemisphere wouldn't see the same relative motion as an observer in the southern hemisphere if that was the case. What would be retrograde in one hemisphere would be the normal path for the other because they would be on opposite sides of the Sun.
You're right. Two far off observers on the Northern and Southern Hemisphere wouldn't see the same retrograde motion of the planets. The stars and constellations are also upside down between the areas. In RE this is explained by the observers being on different sides of the earth looking in different directions. In FE the observations are explained by the observers being on different sides of the sun looking in different directions.
-
The only one I saw that FET doesn't have an immediate explanation for is number 7, the planets. I've never seen anything either in the faqs or threads that could explain retrograde planetary motion.
The retrograde motion is caused by the fact that the planets are rotating around the sun, while the sun itself rotates around the Northern Hub.
This would cause retrograde motion, but not the same retrograde motion we observe. It would also mean the paths of the planets would look very different from different sides of the Earth, which isn't the case.
-
This would cause retrograde motion, but not the same retrograde motion we observe.
Evidence?
It would also mean the paths of the planets would look very different from different sides of the Earth, which isn't the case.
Actually it is the case, even on the Round Earth model. In RE different observers are standing at different angles to the planets.
-
This would cause retrograde motion, but not the same retrograde motion we observe.
Evidence?
It would also mean the paths of the planets would look very different from different sides of the Earth, which isn't the case.
Actually it is the case, even on the Round Earth model. In RE different observers are standing at different angles to the planets.
How can the sun cause such retrograde motion if when it is observed, the sun is nowhere to be seen? (i.e. It's night-time).
What I am getting at here is that the sun's position in the sky appears to have no obvious bearing on the motion of the planets in the sky; In a flat solar system you would expect the sun and planets' interaction to be pretty obvious and predictable.
-
Here is a diagram of the FE explanation for retrograde motion...
(http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/5814/retrogrademotiondiagramfe2.jpg)
An observer at point "S" would see one motion, one on the opposite side of the "orbit" would see a different motion and an observer at "A" or "P" would see yet a different motion.
So Jupiter, which is currently overhead when you are approximately 23° south latitude, would look different to someone at 15° south latitude and someone at 40° south latitude. This is something that doesn't happen.
-
This would cause retrograde motion, but not the same retrograde motion we observe.
Evidence?
Let me put it another way. This is what the motion of planets looks like. Can you provide a detailed, plausible explanation of how this is possible within FET?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Apparent_retrograde_motion_of_Mars_in_2003.gif)
It would also mean the paths of the planets would look very different from different sides of the Earth, which isn't the case.
Actually it is the case, even on the Round Earth model. In RE different observers are standing at different angles to the planets.
The left pictures show some group of stars from a location ("Location A") on the Earths surface where the stars are directly overhead. The right pictures show this same group of stars seen from another location ("Location B") in the other hemisphere.
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ghazwozza/FEstars-1.jpg)
Notice that while in RET the stars appear upside-down (as you correctly said), in FET they are distorted by perspective. Also, the path of the planet appears below where it should because the planets are at a lower altitude than the stars.
-
Those diagrams are better than anything I could have described with words. Good job.
-
number one way of telling the world is round and that space travel is possible. google earth.
-
number one way of telling the world is round and that space travel is possible. google earth.
Why?
-
because it is satellite images, meaning a satellite has been sent into space. Theres also no icey wall around the world, on the satellite. I do believe, ive just fucked over your theory.
-
Or, space-flights are impossible, thus Google Earth and those satellite images are altogether fake.
-
I do believe, ive just fucked over your theory.
That's because you've been here for 20 minutes and you're arrogant enough to believe that you have thought of something that no-one else would possibly have thought of in the 400 000 posts that have been made at this forum.
-
This would cause retrograde motion, but not the same retrograde motion we observe.
Evidence?
Let me put it another way. This is what the motion of planets looks like. Can you provide a detailed, plausible explanation of how this is possible within FET?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Apparent_retrograde_motion_of_Mars_in_2003.gif)
It would also mean the paths of the planets would look very different from different sides of the Earth, which isn't the case.
Actually it is the case, even on the Round Earth model. In RE different observers are standing at different angles to the planets.
The left pictures show some group of stars from a location ("Location A") on the Earths surface where the stars are directly overhead. The right pictures show this same group of stars seen from another location ("Location B") in the other hemisphere.
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ghazwozza/FEstars-1.jpg)
Notice that while in RET the stars appear upside-down (as you correctly said), in FET they are distorted by perspective. Also, the path of the planet appears below where it should because the planets are at a lower altitude than the stars.
Bumped past the Google Earth posts by the new guy.
-
Bumped past the Google Earth posts by the new guy.
Thanks.
-
Or, space-flights are impossible, thus Google Earth and those satellite images are altogether fake.
What about these guys then? http://www.digitalglobe.com/index.php
Custom fake satellite imagery. Reasonable rates.
-
Custom fake satellite imagery. Reasonable rates.
Oh, look. There's my house. These guys are good.
-
Custom fake satellite imagery. Reasonable rates.
Oh, look. There's my house. These guys are good.
By the resolution at which you're able to see your house the pictures can easily have been taken from a regular plane.
You can't see your house from the height at which we'd have to bring satellite imagery into the picture so it's a straw man.
-
By the resolution at which you're able to see your house the pictures can easily have been taken from a regular plane.
You can't see your house from the height at which we'd have to bring satellite imagery into the picture so it's a straw man.
My house is wider than the two lane street running past. You have to know where to look, and it isn't very big, but it is visible.
-
By the resolution at which you're able to see your house the pictures can easily have been taken from a regular plane.
You can't see your house from the height at which we'd have to bring satellite imagery into the picture so it's a straw man.
My house is wider than the two lane street running past. You have to know where to look, and it isn't very big, but it is visible.
I'll have to see what you're talking about in order to form an argument against it. What's your address?
-
I'll have to see what you're talking about in order to form an argument against it. What's your address?
Hopefully you will forgive me for not posting my address. But here is the image...
(http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/6837/eppingox7.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Houses, and even cars, are clearly visible. The description says that the image has resolution of 0.3 meters.
-
Or, space-flights are impossible, thus Google Earth and those satellite images are altogether fake.
And yet they accurately show the same things I see from the ground by.... wizards?
-
This would cause retrograde motion, but not the same retrograde motion we observe.
Evidence?
Let me put it another way. This is what the motion of planets looks like. Can you provide a detailed, plausible explanation of how this is possible within FET?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Apparent_retrograde_motion_of_Mars_in_2003.gif)
It would also mean the paths of the planets would look very different from different sides of the Earth, which isn't the case.
Actually it is the case, even on the Round Earth model. In RE different observers are standing at different angles to the planets.
The left pictures show some group of stars from a location ("Location A") on the Earths surface where the stars are directly overhead. The right pictures show this same group of stars seen from another location ("Location B") in the other hemisphere.
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ghazwozza/FEstars-1.jpg)
Notice that while in RET the stars appear upside-down (as you correctly said), in FET they are distorted by perspective. Also, the path of the planet appears below where it should because the planets are at a lower altitude than the stars.
Notice the huge ignore by the FEs?
And a nice ignore of the daylight patterns too.
-
Or, space-flights are impossible, thus Google Earth and those satellite images are altogether fake.
And yet they accurately show the same things I see from the ground by.... wizards?
Image manipulation has certainly gotten sophisticated enough that they could easily have just strung together pictures taken from regular airplanes and shrunk them so they look like they were taken from a higher altitude.
-
Or, space-flights are impossible, thus Google Earth and those satellite images are altogether fake.
And yet they accurately show the same things I see from the ground by.... wizards?
Image manipulation has certainly gotten sophisticated enough that they could easily have just strung together pictures taken from regular airplanes and shrunk them so they look like they were taken from a higher altitude.
Yeah, and they also cloned headless pigs with superhuman powers to take over McDonalds.
-
Or, space-flights are impossible, thus Google Earth and those satellite images are altogether fake.
And yet they accurately show the same things I see from the ground by.... wizards?
Image manipulation has certainly gotten sophisticated enough that they could easily have just strung together pictures taken from regular airplanes and shrunk them so they look like they were taken from a higher altitude.
There's a problem with that, and it is parallax yet again.
If you look at google earth and see what sides of hte building you can see, you will see it is always hte same side, at the same angle for a large area. for a plane, it would not be far between it seeing on side of a building to it seeing to opposite side a few buildings along. With satellite images, all hte building show hte same visible side for a long distance.
Another problem is time between pics, an aircraft flying overhead would take hours to photograph an area of a few hundred square miles, you can see the various chunks that are taken at the same time, some of them are massive. If you look at the shadows, you can use them as sundials, pick a nice unpopulated area that is done with satellite photos, and compare it to one over a city where it is done with aerial photos. You can see that in the satellite pic, all the shadows face the same way, where as if you look at different places in the aerial pics, the shadows are all different, and there are different side of houses showing.
Although I know you response already, either magic wizard planes that fly super fast, of magic conspiracy computers that recognise every shadow and house, and perfectly realign it.