The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Danang on February 11, 2018, 11:40:39 PM
-
In this random footage (just because it's explained so fast, doesn't mean it's right) America's first sunlight in the morning Comes from *South East*.
Hah? So do you believe in local sun or what?? And who says the boundary between dark and bright places has vertical line? Never. This boundary line is always inclined east due north.
Yes, that's a common reality all year long. So the north is useless, even hoax. The noon sun path is curved in the shape of "reversed U" not "U".
So the lattest score is...
Phew FE : 95346786433567484
Globe : 1
-
Been waitin' for reply for some time... At this time the globers are suddenly 'quiet' ~
-
Been waitin' for reply for some time... At this time the globers are suddenly 'quiet' ~
We aren't quiet. Right now we have a crack team of scientists working around the clock to unravel these mysteries of the Universe, for which you have a natural - perhaps supernatural - ability to uncover. But please slow down. We can't even hope to continue fooling the world when you expose all of our lies with such frequency and intellectual vigor.
-
We're quiet because you first post is just too ridiculous to take seriously.
-
We're quiet because you first post is just too ridiculous to take seriously.
Don't you see man?! He is beating us! Now shut up and get back to the laboratory where we cook up our evil experiments.
-
In this random footage (just because it's explained so fast, doesn't mean it's right) America's first sunlight in the morning Comes from *South East*.
Hah? So do you believe in local sun or what?? And who says the boundary between dark and bright places has vertical line? Never. This boundary line is always inclined east due north.
Yes, that's a common reality all year long. So the north is useless, even hoax. The noon sun path is curved in the shape of "reversed U" not "U".
So the lattest score is...
Phew FE : 95346786433567484
Globe : 1
I think it is funny how you actually think you are "winning" something. Your only accomplishment so far is showing the exact magnitude in which a seemingly functional brain can be completely misused so that any effort put forth creates stupidity instead of intelligence.
I am guessing, being as though your mind is as simple as it is, you are going to be confused and think I am insulting you. I assure you, it is just an accurate conclusion based on repeated observation.
-
This boundary line is always inclined east due north.
Yes, that's a common reality all year long. So the north is useless, even hoax. The noon sun path is curved in the shape of "reversed U" not "U".
Nope. Just during the southern summer.
During the northern summer, the sun comes from north east.
-
Been waitin' for reply for some time... At this time the globers are suddenly 'quiet' ~
We aren't quiet. Right now we have a crack team of scientists working around the clock to unravel these mysteries of the Universe.
Awesome. Sounds independent. Then I wonder for whom you guys work. Government or private? Why not sharing those subjects in this forum?
-
Jack, why does the RET count earth rotation by 360.986° ??
Phew FE never does such a silly math. ~
-
Jack, why does the RET count earth rotation by 360.986° ??
It doesn't.
Why can't you honestly respond to RET?
Why do you need to continually lie about it?
Phew FE never does such a silly math. ~
It uses completely different silly math, like completely rejecting pi and having cos(60 degrees) not equal to 0.5.
-
We're quiet because you first post is just too ridiculous to take seriously.
I also felt this way frequently. The difference is, I came up with new stuff, not questioning a thing repeatedly while the answer has been posted. :o
-
Jack, why does the RET count earth rotation by 360.986° ??
It doesn't.
Why can't you honestly respond to RET?
Why do you need to continually lie about it?
Phew FE never does such a silly math. ~
It uses completely different silly math, like completely rejecting pi and having cos(60 degrees) not equal to 0.5.
Okay, if you didn't know what I meant. If you want free point, okay now the score becomes
Me: 953577533356789755433
You: 1
-
Rarely people call a spade a spade.
Here is one of the most epic quotes I've ever read:
"We can't even hope to continue fooling the world when you expose all of our lies."
-
I also felt this way frequently. The difference is, I came up with new stuff, not questioning a thing repeatedly while the answer has been posted. :o
No, this is the same old crap we have already been over countless times.
Both poles experience long periods of daylight and long periods of night.
This is incompatible with the vast majority of FE models.
It is entirely consistent with the globe.
Okay, if you didn't know what I meant. If you want free point, okay now the score becomes
I don't need any free points from you. You have repeatedly failed to provide any rational argument to justify your claims.
As for not knowing what you mean, you frequently use values in places they do not belong to try to confuse the issue and pretend you are right.
It seems you are trying to confuse the sidereal and solar days.
In a sidereal day, Earth turns 360 degrees. In an average solar day, Earth turns close to 360.986 days.
There is no problem with this at all.
A sidereal day (just less than 24 hours) is the amount of time it takes for Earth to turn once on its axis.
The solar day (roughly 24 hours) is the amount of time it takes for the sun to reach the same azimuth in the sky (e.g. the time between 2 solar noons).
These are not the same because Earth orbits the sun.
Just what do you think is the issue and how does this relate to your OP?
-
We're quiet because you first post is just too ridiculous to take seriously.
I also felt this way frequently. The difference is, I came up with new stuff, not questioning a thing repeatedly while the answer has been posted. :o
You imagine "new stuff". You have no basis for your claim. Millions of people live above the Arctic Circle. You don’t think they know about the area where they live. There are flights over the arctic every day. It’s the preferred route between North America and Asia. The polar routes save time and fuel. All of which makes you claims about the north pole just plain silly.
Mike
-
@Jack
Your free point is cancelled.
@Mike
What about somewhere outside Arctic circle? There is still polar day?? >> "Because the sun light bends". Thumbs up!
"From Geometry to Novel" ~
-
<snip>
@Mike
What about somewhere outside Arctic circle? There is still polar day?? >> "Because the sun light bends". Thumbs up!
"From Geometry to Novel" ~
What about outside the Arctic circle? I don't understand your point.
Mike
-
I'm disappointed. From the title, I thought that this thread was going to discuss the differences between true north and magnetic north.
-
<snip>
@Mike
What about somewhere outside Arctic circle? There is still polar day?? >> "Because the sun light bends". Thumbs up!
"From Geometry to Novel" ~
What about outside the Arctic circle? I don't understand your point.
Mike
By geometry, Sweden can't possibly undergo 24 hours of sun(light). Yet RET made up the explanation by stating "sunlight bends".
-
I'm disappointed. From the title, I thought that this thread was going to discuss the differences between true north and magnetic north.
Magnetic fields looks random shaped lines. The common 'north' has no base except the globe assumption (which is non existence).
The true north are the edges of first sunlight lines. Different places point the north with different azimuths and mostly fail to point the right direction due to the longitude lines have the shape of curve. And all are based on the first sunlight lines
This is actually Phew FE map's property.
No boast, just telling as it is.
-
Perhaps for the shake of true earth map -which is flat- there should be another definition of "north".
This map has to be pure square grided (Euclidean) to make it easy to point a location, including distances by the accurate scaling. The math will be much simple but accurate.
While for astronomy, time, etc. the non-euclidean map is the best option.
-
<snip>
@Mike
What about somewhere outside Arctic circle? There is still polar day?? >> "Because the sun light bends". Thumbs up!
"From Geometry to Novel" ~
What about outside the Arctic circle? I don't understand your point.
Mike
By geometry, Sweden can't possibly undergo 24 hours of sun(light). Yet RET made up the explanation by stating "sunlight bends".
Well there’s just so many things wrong with your post. First, I’ve never heard a single REer state that Sweden undergoes midnight sun because "sunlight bends". Anyone who does say that is wrong.
You need to look at the geometry again because it’s a stone-cold fact that Sweden, and many other places have 24 or more hours of sunlight. AAMOF, Svalbard, Norway is in sunlight for several weeks in the summer time. Many locations have a tourist industry built around the midnight sun.
These are places you can visit and see for yourself so this is verifiable fact.
Approximate dates when you can see the midnight sun from a Norway tourism site.
| Where | When |
| The Arctic Circle | 12 June - 1 July |
| Bodø | 4 June - 8 July |
| Svolvær | 28 May - 14 July |
| Harstad | 25 May - 18 July |
| Bardufoss | 23 May - 19 July |
| Andendes | 22 May - 21 July |
| Tromsø | 20 May - 22 July |
| Bossekopp | 19 May - 24 July |
| Vardø | 17 May - 26 July |
| Hammerfest | 16 May - 27 July |
| Berlevåg | 15 May - 28 July |
| The North Cape | 14 May - 29 July |
| Longyearbyen | 20 April - 22 August |
Link to the page with the above table: https://www.visitnorway.com/things-to-do/nature-attractions/midnight-sun/
Mike
-
What about somewhere outside Arctic circle? There is still polar day?? >> "Because the sun light bends". Thumbs up!
Outside the arctic circle there is still day, but not at midnight, until you go to the Antarctic circle.
By geometry, Sweden can't possibly undergo 24 hours of sun(light). Yet RET made up the explanation by stating "sunlight bends".
Not all of it undergoes 24 hours of sunlight.
Just the region inside the Arctic circle.
The common 'north' has no base except the globe assumption (which is non existence).
No, it is based upon the stars.
Polaris stays fairly still in the sky, always due north of every observer (that can see it). The point directly underneath is the north pole.
All the stars in the northern celestial hemisphere rotate around this point.
It is just as real as the south pole.
A globe model is merely the best explanation for it and for why there is a north and south pole always 180 degrees apart.
No boast, just telling as it is.
No, you're just making stuff up as usual.
Perhaps for the shake of true earth map -which is flat- there should be another definition of "north".
This map has to be pure square grided (Euclidean) to make it easy to point a location, including distances by the accurate scaling. The math will be much simple but accurate.
While for astronomy, time, etc. the non-euclidean map is the best option.
People have been making maps for thousands of years. They have failed to produce a flat map of Earth without distortion.
However, they did manage to produce a "map" which doesn't have distortion. It is called a globe.
The reason the non-Euclidean map is the best option is because Earth isn't flat.
-
From Vienna with Phew 8)
-
From Vienna with Phew 8)
What point are you trying to make with this?
-
A new born baby knows that the sun path is like moon & stars path. It's counter clockwise. Stop lying. :o
-
I meant it looks clockwise from the earth.
-
A new born baby knows that the sun path is like moon & stars path. It's counter clockwise. Stop lying. :o
No. A new born baby knows basically nothing.
However rational adults realise the sun's apparent path changes throughout the year as its apparent position moves between the northern and southern hemispheres.
-
A new born baby knows that the sun path is like moon & stars path. It's counter clockwise. Stop lying. :o
Your still not making sense but as i posted above you're wrong.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=74272.msg2025050#msg2025050
-
???
So sad ....
Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html
In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.
-
Moon: "Hey Sun, why are you turning to the right? Please turn to the left as usual."
"No, I'm not a sun. I'm a fake sun, made up by Jack & Mike." ~
-
???
So sad ....
Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html
In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.
Sorry about that. I didn't realize you were talking about basic refraction.
Interesting that you don't believe in refraction because it's a staple in FE theory relating to sunrise/sunset. That's why I didn't think you were going there.
So are you saying that atmospheric refraction is impossible?
Mike
-
Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree.
The "bending" here is well known, causes the light to bend down, and be seen for another 0.5 degrees or so.
It does not help your model at all.
Now how about you explain how the northern pole gets a midnight sun?
-
All this promise of a phew FE model, but he spends his days creating pointless threads on here. Danang, hurry up and change our perception of the Universe!
-
???
So sad ....
Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html
In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.
Sorry about that. I didn't realize you were talking about basic refraction.
Interesting that you don't believe in refraction because it's a staple in FE theory relating to sunrise/sunset. That's why I didn't think you were going there.
So are you saying that atmospheric refraction is impossible?
Mike
What I critique is their inconsistency. When Arctic circle has been defined, stick to it so that people can get the concept clearly. Otherwise the RET looks joking. (In fact, it does). ~
-
Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree.
The "bending" here is well known, causes the light to bend down, and be seen for another 0.5 degrees or so.
It does not help your model at all.
Now how about you explain how the northern pole gets a midnight sun?
Scroll down.
-
All this promise of a phew FE model, but he spends his days creating pointless threads on here. Danang, hurry up and change our perception of the Universe!
What makes you to explore the physics realities? And did you already verify my concepts? To be frank most of them are just 'logics game' based on known data. My concepts might change later in case I find new evidences. Though I predicted it won't change its supposedly "firm basic ideas".
To be specific, what universe did you mean? Of course reality is a huge huge huge complexity. Too many labyrinths in it. I wish I could hurry to unlock it. But I'll do my best.
-
???
So sad ....
Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html
In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.
Sorry about that. I didn't realize you were talking about basic refraction.
Interesting that you don't believe in refraction because it's a staple in FE theory relating to sunrise/sunset. That's why I didn't think you were going there.
So are you saying that atmospheric refraction is impossible?
Mike
What I critique is their inconsistency. When Arctic circle has been defined, stick to it so that people can get the concept clearly. Otherwise the RET looks joking. (In fact, it does). ~
What is inconsistent of the definition of the Arctic circle?
Mike
-
What I critique is their inconsistency.
There is no inconsistency.
Otherwise the RET looks joking. (In fact, it does). ~
Perhaps to you, not to any sane, rational person.
And did you already verify my concepts? To be frank most of them are just 'logics game' based on known data.
Games, perhaps. Logic, definitely not.
I have shown numerous of your concepts to be fundamentally flawed or complete nonsense.
My concepts might change later in case I find new evidences.
Really?
You seem to be ignoring all that evidence.
Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?
-
Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?
North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.
-
Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?
North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.
How many north stars are there?
Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere. Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? :o
Mike
-
Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?
North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.
How many north stars are there?
Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere. Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? :o
Mike
There was people claiming to see north star from mount Bromo, Java island (southern hemisplane). Scandinavian people saw it. Canadians/Alaskans saw it.
By logic, these are different north stars.
If those people think the earth is a globe, they regard the north star they saw is a single star, and it lies above the "north pole". Up to now, most people still think this way.
-
Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?
North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.
How many north stars are there?
Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere. Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? :o
Mike
There was people claiming to see north star from mount Bromo, Java island (southern hemisplane). Scandinavian people saw it. Canadians/Alaskans saw it.
By logic, these are different north stars.
If those people think the earth is a globe, they regard the north star they saw is a single star, and it lies above the "north pole". Up to now, most people still think this way.
Using some real logic...if we take the hypothetical that everyone around the world is seeing a different North Star; then it would stand to reason they are also seeing different versions of the constellations around the North Star.
It would also stand to reason that would have to be a point where someone can see both “versions” of the night sky.
You’ll have to explain this to me. How far do those different sets of constellations extend and why can’t anyone where the different versions meet?
Mike
-
North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.
North is just as relative as south.
North is always 180 degrees away from south.
They think the north star is a single resolvable point of light as it is by the naked eye, due to it being observed due north for everyone.
This shows the north pole is a point, not a ring.
If the north pole was a ring like your model needs, then Polaris would be a ring of light, not a point; or there would be multiple "north" stars, which were only due north for some people, with them being north east or north west (even going to the west or south west and east or south east) for others.
This has all been explained to you before.
-
Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?
North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.
How many north stars are there?
Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere. Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? :o
Mike
There was people claiming to see north star from mount Bromo, Java island (southern hemisplane). Scandinavian people saw it. Canadians/Alaskans saw it.
By logic, these are different north stars.
If those people think the earth is a globe, they regard the north star they saw is a single star, and it lies above the "north pole". Up to now, most people still think this way.
Using some real logic...if we take the hypothetical that everyone around the world is seeing a different North Star; then it would stand to reason they are also seeing different versions of the constellations around the North Star.
It would also stand to reason that would have to be a point where someone can see both “versions” of the night sky.
You’ll have to explain this to me. How far do those different sets of constellations extend and why can’t anyone where the different versions meet?
Mike
The stars ain't go circling the "north pole". That's a hoax.
Since the stars go circling the north pole, each north star has multiple sets of constellation depending on time.
-
The stars ain't go circling the "north pole". That's a hoax.
No, that is a verified fact, one you could easily verify yourself.
Since the stars go circling the north pole, each north star has multiple sets of constellation depending on time.
Except the constellations are the same for everyone in the north.
-
Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?
North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.
How many north stars are there?
Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere. Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? :o
Mike
There was people claiming to see north star from mount Bromo, Java island (southern hemisplane). Scandinavian people saw it. Canadians/Alaskans saw it.
By logic, these are different north stars.
If those people think the earth is a globe, they regard the north star they saw is a single star, and it lies above the "north pole". Up to now, most people still think this way.
Using some real logic...if we take the hypothetical that everyone around the world is seeing a different North Star; then it would stand to reason they are also seeing different versions of the constellations around the North Star.
It would also stand to reason that would have to be a point where someone can see both “versions” of the night sky.
You’ll have to explain this to me. How far do those different sets of constellations extend and why can’t anyone where the different versions meet?
Mike
The stars ain't go circling the "north pole". That's a hoax.
Since the stars go circling the north pole, each north star has multiple sets of constellation depending on time.
That’s just wrong. Another situation where you could have done some research and it seems you fall short again.
IIUC, you live in the northern hemisphere. You could easily look northward as see that what you said is false. Take a time lapse picture of the North Star. Did you even try or did you just assume?
Mike
-
Now, can you explain the midnight sun, or explain how all places north of the equator can see Polaris due north?
North is relative. People from different places on northern hemisplane point north by their own version of north.
They think the north star is single, it's because they think the "north" exists. They think the "north pole" is a definite coordinate.
How many north stars are there?
Why is the location of the stars in the northern hemisphere identical everywhere. Are you saying there are multiple non-overlapping versions of the same night sky? :o
Mike
There was people claiming to see north star from mount Bromo, Java island (southern hemisplane). Scandinavian people saw it. Canadians/Alaskans saw it.
By logic, these are different north stars.
If those people think the earth is a globe, they regard the north star they saw is a single star, and it lies above the "north pole". Up to now, most people still think this way.
Using some real logic...if we take the hypothetical that everyone around the world is seeing a different North Star; then it would stand to reason they are also seeing different versions of the constellations around the North Star.
It would also stand to reason that would have to be a point where someone can see both “versions” of the night sky.
You’ll have to explain this to me. How far do those different sets of constellations extend and why can’t anyone where the different versions meet?
Mike
The stars ain't go circling the "north pole". That's a hoax.
Since the stars go circling the north pole, each north star has multiple sets of constellation depending on time.
Typo:
It should be "Since the stars go circling the South pole,..."
-
Typo:
It should be "Since the stars go circling the South pole,..."
No, it shouldn't.
If your model just has them "circling" the south pole, your model is wrong.
In reality, they appear to circle both poles.
As such, it should be "since the stars go circling both poles..."
If it doesn't, your model is wrong.
-
???
So sad ....
Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html
In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.
Just to clarify, you are stating that refraction of light isn't possible?
-
Jack, why does the RET count earth rotation by 360.986° ??
Can I answer that? "The RET" does not "count earth rotation by 360.986°".
Care to try again? You might get it right next time around!
PS The earth rotates exactly 360° in very close to 23.9344699 hours.
-
???
So sad ....
Here is another "explanation" about "sunlight bends" that Mike didn't agree.
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/midnight-sun.html
In this case your IQ is higher than timeanddate.com's.
Just to clarify, you are stating that refraction of light isn't possible?
Possible, but to their theory 90 degrees sun distance/position at equinox period is the boundary between bright & dark. It contradicts reality.
Certain lower latitude places -from north pole - undergo 24 hours daylight for 46 days. (At this (initial) period "they should still have night time") While north pole undergoes afterwards. It's a reversed logic. It cannot apply on globe model.
-
Jack, why does the RET count earth rotation by 360.986° ??
Can I answer that? "The RET" does not "count earth rotation by 360.986°".
Care to try again? You might get it right next time around!
PS The earth rotates exactly 360° in very close to 23.9344699 hours.
You meant February 14th should be removed? *%^=×(^*@#=_^=#/&
-
The car's shadow is lazy LOL
-
Antarctic is cool and Macho. :') It's verified with many similar timelapses.
Arctic circle?? LOL
-
Possible, but to their theory 90 degrees sun distance/position at equinox period is the boundary between bright & dark. It contradicts reality.
No that isn't.
That is an approximation which ignores refraction and discusses the centre of the sun.
You typically get roughly 0.5 degrees extra from refraction, and 0.25 degrees extra from the size of the sun itself.
So no, while your pathetic straw-man contradicts reality, the actual models based upon a round Earth do not.
Certain lower latitude places -from north pole - undergo 24 hours daylight for 46 days. (At this (initial) period "they should still have night time") While north pole undergoes afterwards. It's a reversed logic. It cannot apply on globe model.
On what way can't this apply on a globe model?
They have a period of 46 days where the sun remains above the horizon. That is perfectly fine.
Meanwhile, it makes absolutely no sense on your model.
The car's shadow is lazy LOL
And what do you mean by that?
This is just another video showing conclusively that you are wrong.
You can tell from the shadow which way the sun appears to be moving.
It appears to be moving in a clockwise direction from above or counter-clockwise direction from below.
This is completely opposite what your model claims.
Hence your model is wrong.
But it is entirely consistent with a globe model.
Antarctic is cool and Macho. :') It's verified with many similar timelapses.
Arctic circle?? LOL
Guess what? So is the Arctic circle.
It's verified with many timelapses.
Face it, your model is wrong.
So going to admit your model is wrong yet?