1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 09, 2019, 09:04:15 PM »

@wise

I understand. You may call yourself "professor" and "flat earth scientist", but your mission is not to provide clear answers. You simply want people to accept what you are saying without question. I'm sorry, but I'm not that stupid.

To make your life easier: since you refused to answer my questions, I'll now stop monitoring this question, as I no longer expect any information.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 09, 2019, 03:26:42 AM »

@wise
I understand the tactic: just use bullshit to force your point across, even if it doesn't address the question. And if you don't have anything to say at all, just spout some irrelevant crap.

So you are alt of somebody denying to continue the discussing, but insulting instead, right

I asked a simple question: how can we see the sun set if, by the figures obtained from your website, the sun never gets near the horizon. I have not had one single reply which addresses that point. I've had some rubbish about how the sun supposedly looks larger away from the horizon. However, my point is that it does not even come close to the horizon. So what am I seeing when I see the sun sink below the horizon?

Care to address that?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 08, 2019, 09:04:13 PM »

I looks as if I may as well give up expecting an answer to my question. It appears that FEers only reply with irrelevant points, or with their own "wisdom", as in the immortal words of @wise:

Perhaps since your thoughts are bullshit so that FE'rs don't interest to deal with your bullshits. Although we don't reply you it all you have started to insult by provocating youself. I don't have an idea if any of us start to reply your what will be your reaction other than more insulting.

And, for anyone who can't understand this mangled English, it's obviously because you're not as intelligent as @wise.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 07, 2019, 03:22:44 AM »

Perhaps since your thoughts are bullshit so that FE'rs don't interest to deal with your bullshits. Although we don't reply you it all you have started to insult by provocating youself. I don't have an idea if any of us start to reply your what will be your reaction other than more insulting.

Thanks for the snarky reply @wise. I didn't really expect anything intelligent from you.

BTW, you might try using a spell (and grammar) checker.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 07, 2019, 03:17:51 AM »

Quote from: JackBlack on May 06, 2019, 02:23:28 PM

Could I ask how you calculated that angle?

I tried to use measurements that would give the smallest possible angle. With any more realistic ones I do indeed get much larger angles. For example, if the sun is 4000 km high, and you're viewing it from a (horizontal) distance of 4000 km, it would be seen to "set" 45 degrees high in the sky!

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 06, 2019, 03:11:28 AM »

It's not even a matter of perspective. By my calculations, at sunset the sun stays at least 3 degrees above the horizon, and under most circumstances much more. Perspective or not, how can we possibly see the sun sink below the horizon?

Also, why is there no change in the apparent size of the sun between high noon at the equator or sunset in the Arctic? By their maps, the distances are very different.

Surely some FEer believes in their theory enough to attempt an answer? Or are they REALLY only interested in bullshitting?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: distance between santiago de chile and melbourne on a fe?

« on: May 06, 2019, 03:04:01 AM »

@wise

Are you ignoring me because you don't have an answer? How could I see Antarctica when flying from Perth to Jo'burg? What was the speed of our 747

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: distance between santiago de chile and melbourne on a fe?

« on: May 04, 2019, 11:06:19 PM »

Captain is never captain. It may be "captain pilot", "first pilot", "leader pilot", pilot but not a captain. Captains only use the ships technically. I can get your captain as the captain in Istanbulsport football team. Its with an additional word can mean many things but alone only means captain.

Instead of all the bullshit about what a captain does or does not do, how about replying to the point I was trying to make about the flight from from Perth to Jo'burg? How could we see Antarctica if the FE view of the world is correct?

Was the plane (pilot, captain, autopilot, airline,... you name it) just wasting fuel to prove a RE? And, as according to you we were flying an enormous detour, what speed were we flying at? Remember that a 747 only flies at around Mach 0.85. Or is that a lie as well, and were we really going Mach 2?

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: distance between santiago de chile and melbourne on a fe?

« on: May 02, 2019, 09:05:51 PM »

Nope. Because pilots but not captains drive the aircrafts, you liar.

Actually, at that point the autopilot was probably flying.

But, if you re-read my comment you may notice I did not state the captain was "flying" (or "driving"). Instead I said that he "alerted us". Captains do have a habit of making announcements to passengers - which you'll know if you have ever flown.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: distance between santiago de chile and melbourne on a fe?

« on: May 02, 2019, 05:14:15 PM »

I have personally flown from Sydney to Johannesburg, with a stopover in Perth. While I cannot remember exactly, it took around 12 hours from Perth. And, while the FE map would have us flying over Europe and Asia for the shortest distance, we flew over water the whole way. On top of that, at one point the captain alerted us to the fact that, due to prevailing winds, we were far enough south to see Antarctica on the horizon. To avoid any confusion, that was on the *left* side of the plane, i.e. towards the south. On the longer trip from Australia to South America, Antarctica is routinely visible, as great circle routes (for minimum fuel use) curve further south.

Would FEers accept my experience as "evidence" for a round earth?

11

Flat Earth Debate / How is it possible to see the sun rise or set?

« on: May 02, 2019, 04:55:29 PM »

I cannot figure out how the sun can rise or set with the version of a flat earth as accepted by this website.

From what I have been able to gather, the earth is a flat circular disc with a diameter of approximately 20,000 km. I get to this number by assuming that the equator is 10,000 km from the North Pole, and the southern ice wall is the same distance from the equator. At least, that is how your published maps look.

On this website I have seen various figures for the altitude of the sun, ranging from 1,100 km to 6,400 km. For the rest of this question I will assume 1,100 km as that is the best case for FE; any higher figure makes sunset even more impossible.

Now let us consider how the sun looks for someone at the North Pole. The furthest that the sun can possibly be away from the North Pole is 20,000 km, assuming it ever got near the southern ice wall. No FE maps show the sun that far south, but again, this is the best scenario for FE. Now, if the sun is 1,100 km high at a distance of 20,000 km, the angle between the horizon and the sun is given by simple trigonometry, as follows:

A = atan(1100/20000) = 3 degrees

If we assume the sun sits at an altitude of 6,400 km then we get

A = atan(6400/20000) = 18 degrees

In other words, even in the best (for FE) case, we can NEVER see the sun less than 3 degrees above the horizon. If the observer is farther south, or if we look at the sun at sunset instead of midnight, the observer will be closer to the sun, and hence the sun will appear even higher above the horizon.

Hence my question: please explain how we can ever see the sun sink below the horizon.

For people who live in the US (most FEers?) and do not understand my new-fangled metrics, here are (approximate) conversions:
20,000 km = 12,430 miles
6,400 km = 4,000 miles
1,100 km= 700 miles

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Re: Sunsets

« on: July 29, 2018, 03:11:45 AM »

Are you telling us that there are hills and valleys on the ocean as well?

Yes: Waves & tides.

Get real, mate.

While I can clearly see the sun sink below the horizon, the horizon does not move up and down like waves do. In fact, using a telelens, I can see the wave action and it does not obscure and reveal the sun.

And how do you explain how it happens that way EVERYWHERE, as long as the weather is clear. It implies that everywhere else is higher than I am, regardless of where I am on earth. Or are you saying we're not living on a flat earth, but inside a bowl-shaped earth?

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunsets

« on: July 28, 2018, 03:04:52 AM »

@THEREALDILL23

Are you telling us that there are hills and valleys on the ocean as well?

I have certainly seen the sun halfway below the horizon at the beach. As this seems to happen regardless of where you are, does that imply that the horizon is always higher than your location? In that case, we should be able to see the other side of the world, up in the sky. And the Antarctic ice wall should be visible from anywhere on earth.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunsets

« on: July 20, 2018, 03:16:05 AM »

Rabinoz, are you telling us that, no matter where I am on earth, I am below the horizon? That is what your tabletop demonstration shows: if I am below the level of the tabletop, sliding a coin or flashlight towards the back edge of the table will make it disappear.

With a flat earth, where we're all at the same level of the tabletop, this is impossible. Please explain the logic of this.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunrise and sunset

« on: July 19, 2018, 03:08:31 AM »

I have a problem envisioning sunrise and sunset in Flat Earth theory (FET).

Consider that, in FET, the sun is a spotlight, about 5000 km above the flat earth, and about 50 km in diameter - I know you guys always talk in miles, but if you want to approach the rest of the world, you should go metric.

Now consider a nice sunset with a clear sky, either over the ocean or over a large area of level ground. When the sun is setting, you can clearly see that part of it is above the horizon, and another part already below. If you are patient, you can see all of the sun slowly disappear below the horizon. The reverse happens. in the east rather than the west, at sunrise.

No matter how I think about this, I cannot see of perspective foreshortening can explain this. Perspective would cause the sun to get smaller, and closer to the horizon, as it gets further away. It would never cause the sun to disappear, bit by bit, below the horizon.

How does FET explain this?

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Great Circle route

« on: April 07, 2018, 10:52:27 PM »

As we can obviously check our own watches before and after the flight, the flight times must be correct, unless all watches get adjusted (without anyone noticing) during every flight. Maybe they can explain how that's done. Do they use physics or magic? And the flight times match the departure and arrival times - although that takes more of an effort to check.

And it also does not explain why we flew so close to Antarctica - unless airlines try to waste fuel on every long flight.

17

Flat Earth General / Great Circle route

« on: April 07, 2018, 03:20:59 AM »

There has been at least one other question about this, which never received a sensible answer, instead degenerating into things like "prove you're a pilot".

So I'll ask it again, with some real life examples: how do the flat earthers explain the routes flown by aircraft? For long distance flights, aircraft fly a "great circle", the shortest distance between 2 points - ON A SPHERE.

I have personally flown from Sydney to Santiago, and during the flight I saw the Antarctic ice. Why did the plane not fly a straight line (either as on a Mercator map, or as on a F.E. map)? Why did it make this huge curve down south? Note that this flight goes the same way every time, this was not an aberration.

When Singapore Airlines fly direct from Singapore to New York (starting later this year) the flight will take 18 hours. The current flight from Singapore to San Francisco takes 16 hours 35 minutes. Yet flying from SF to NY takes more than twice as long as the approx 2.5 hour difference between the two flights from Singapore. Why is this?

About the only reason I can see for this is that the airlines are in the same conspiracy as the space agencies. While most space agencies are government owned, and could thus be conspiring, airlines are not (nor is SpaceX). Are we to believe that commercial airlines are burning extra fuel, and thus wasting money, just to please the conspiring governments?

Can any FE believer please explain?

18

Flat Earth General / Re: "Sensorial" evidence

« on: February 22, 2018, 04:37:53 PM »

I can see electromagnetic radiation with my own eyes.

That's why my question specifically said radio waves and X-rays. Unless you have X-ray vision, like superman

19

Flat Earth General / Re: "Sensorial" evidence

« on: February 21, 2018, 07:34:15 PM »

I know FE is  delusion. I just want to see how far they can carry their delusion.

To put it bluntly, can they deny the existence of radio waves and electric currents, and yet happily use PCs, mobile phones and GPS?

20

Flat Earth General / "Sensorial" evidence

« on: February 21, 2018, 04:26:02 PM »

I have noticed in posts on this forum that FE believers claim that the only acceptable evidence is "sensorial evidence", i.e. what we can experience with our own senses. Hence the earth must be flat because we cannot see it as being curved. The sun must go around the earth, because that's what we see.

In light of this, I would like to know where FE believers stand on other matters that we cannot directly experience. Here are just a couple of examples:

• Radio waves
  X-rays
  Electric current

I could add plenty more to this list. None of these can be experienced directly. With all of them we need specialised equipment (radio receiver, TV set, x-ray film, multi-meter, etc). Without that equipment, we would not in any way be aware of their existence.

Hence my question: do true FEers believe these things are real? Do electromagnetic waves really exist if we cannot "feel" them?

If you do believe that using equipment is acceptable in these instances, why do  when deducing the shape and movement of the earth? Why do you not allow photos and other measurements taken by spacecraft? What equipment is allowable, and what is not? Where do you draw the line?

Conversely, if you don't believe radio waves or electric currents exist, why are you on this forum, using a computer/mobile phone in the first place? Their operation obviously depends on unproven ideas.