Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - rottingroom

Pages: [1] 2
Suggestions & Concerns / Favicon for the forum.
« on: January 07, 2015, 08:50:37 AM »
Yes, I'm nitpicking but it would be nice.

Flat Earth Debate / Measure the FE distance to the sun.
« on: December 10, 2014, 06:35:52 AM »
So as we all probably know from the wiki, the sun is apparently 3000 miles from the earth and since the winter solstice is coming up, I invite everyone here to test whether or not the earth is actually flat. I propose that on the day of the Winter Solstice, Dec 21st, let's measure the angle to the sun from our various locations and plug in the proper trigonometry to see if we all come up with the same answers. If the FE theory is correct then we should arrive on or about the 3000 mile mark for the sun's distance (or if not 3000 then we should at least have a similar answer as Voliva could have simply been wrong). There will be some science to do so be warned. There will be 3 phases to this experiment:

Find your distance to the tropic of capricorn.

1. Do a Google search by typing "distance [your city] to tropic of capricorn"
2. It should return a result from, click the link
3. The link will show you your distance to the tropic of capricorn in km and miles. Record your distance to the tropic of capricorn in miles.

Measure angle of sun above horizon at noon on Dec. 21st.

1. There are many methods for measuring the angle of the sun but let's just use something you might already have, a protractor.
2. At solar noon on Dec. 21st, make the base of your protractor parallel with the earths surface and then point the other end of it toward the sun. Record the angle of the sun in degrees.

Here is a link that goes in a little more detail about how to measure an angle with a protractor.

Here is a link to help you determine when solar noon is for your location:

Calculate the distance to the sun.

This will just be some brief trigonometry but I will also provide a link to a trig calculator if you'd rather not do the calculation.

You will need to use the following formula:

where A is the angle you measured, b is the distance to the tropic of capricorn and a is the distance to the sun. Solve for a.

Here is the online trig calculator where you can just input the numbers above to obtain the length for side a.


Alright then. Let's see what happens.

Edit: removed misuse of the word azimuth, included solar noon calculator

Flat Earth Q&A / FE sun distance and trigonometry.
« on: December 10, 2014, 05:44:07 AM »
Can any mathematically inclined FE'r show me a trigonometric tangent function for the suns height above the equator for any location that isn't exactly 3000 miles from the equator?

Flat Earth Debate / Orion launching in minutes
« on: December 04, 2014, 05:56:08 AM »

Flat Earth Q&A / The dim side of the moon
« on: November 26, 2014, 05:35:49 PM »
Fe quiz and fe answer please.

Every now and then the dark side of the moon, in its crescent phase, is visible. The light on the dark side of it is subtle, but clearly visible. This, of course, does not always happen but there is a perfectly reasonable re explanation for the cause of this, and the same explanation tells us also why the dark side is usually completely dark and not visible. I will be more than happy to share the explanation later but I want to hear the fe explanation first.

Every month I will try to put together this poll to honor the most ludicrous members of this site for their conspiratorial claims. Because sceptimatic is such a shining example of how to win the award, the award will be named after him and he will be exempt from nomination. In the future I will be willing to accept nominations for who will be up for vote but in general the criteria for nomination will be the level of outlandishness in the claims they are making, the number of threads about their claims (whether they made the thread or not), and the length (# of pages) and longevity (length of time that thread remained active) of their threads. In other words, the more scepti a member is, the more likely they will win.

First up today is Cikljamas who was involved in these gems:

"Equator" problem
Is Flat Future a moot point?

Our third nomination goes to Saros, really just an honorable mention as he just tags-along and follows the great thinkers above.


It is flat and circular and here are it's flight paths.
The Earth is bigger than currently thought. It may be infinite.

Last on this months list is PNemoNickYAHU, who threw his hands up in the air, covered his ears and told everyone in all his threads that they are "shills":


This forum exists soley to harber round earther shills.
It is flat and circular and here are it's flight paths.

If anyone can point out any other threads that this month's best conspiracy theorists were actively involved in, then please point those threads out.

Flat Earth General / The conspiracy is real!!!
« on: November 26, 2014, 11:18:21 AM »

Oh yes, that's right. This whole moon denial idea. You've been lied to.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Oops, I, did it again!
« on: November 21, 2014, 02:13:15 PM »

Flat Earth General / projections. projections everywhere.
« on: November 19, 2014, 09:47:14 PM »
For the discussion of interesting projections of a globe, contained is an album of a multitude of them including, but not limited to, the ones stolen by the flat earth society.

Bask in all you don't know about maps.

Technology, Science & Alt Science / My bad.
« on: November 18, 2014, 01:10:09 PM »
Whoops. Sorry everyone.

It has been sometime since I have brought up these papers but we now have a new slew of FE'rs who are incorrect about the claims that they object. I have seen, in the last few days, many claims that boast empirical evidence that the Earth is flat simply by assuming that RE'rs claim that curvature should be detected at such-and-such height and by some, even as low as the surface. RE'rs are mistaken if they claim that and I want to make it clear that if they [RE'rs] do make that claim, they are wrong. Curvature most certainly can be detected, if you know what you are looking for. 

Here is an excerpt of an introduction and a link to a paper by David Lynch which goes into detail about the subject:

Quote from: David Lynch
Reports and photographs claiming that visual observers can detect the curvature of the Earth from high mountains or high-flying commercial aircraft are investigated. Visual daytime observations show that the minimum altitude at which curvature of the horizon can be detected is at or slightly below 35,000 ft, providing that the field of view is wide (60°) and nearly cloud free. The high-elevation horizon is almost as sharp as the sea-level horizon, but its contrast is less than 10% that of the sea-level horizon. Photographs purporting to show the curvature of the Earth are always suspect because virtually all camera lenses project an image that suffers from barrel distortion. To accurately assess curvature from a photograph, the horizon must be
placed precisely in the center of the image, i.e., on the optical axis.

I'd also like to bring up the FE'rs err and what I believe to be the crux of their misinterpretation of what they see. This paper by Isaac Asimov is food for thought but may help you come to terms about why you may be wrong about the Earth's shape.

Quote from: Isaac Asimov
Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.


The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth.

Mind you, even a tiny difference, such as that between 0 and 0.000126, can be extremely important. That difference mounts up. The earth cannot be mapped over large areas with any accuracy at all if the difference isn't taken into account and if the earth isn't considered a sphere rather than a flat surface. Long ocean voyages can't be undertaken with any reasonable way of locating one's own position in the ocean unless the earth is considered spherical rather than flat.

Furthermore, the flat earth presupposes the possibility of an infinite earth, or of the existence of an "end" to the surface. The spherical earth, however, postulates an earth that is both endless and yet finite, and it is the latter postulate that is consistent with all later findings.

Flat Earth Debate / Video: All 135 Space Shuttle Launches.
« on: August 02, 2014, 07:44:44 AM »
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Any FE'r willing to try and debunk all of these launches?

Flat Earth Q&A / RE Q&A
« on: July 31, 2014, 10:24:26 AM »
ITT, I'm giving FE'rs the grand opportunity to ask me RE questions with an important caveat. FE'rs are not allowed to respond or rebut my responses. They must allow me to respond and to just leave it at that. This thread is not for debate. Only RE questions and RE answers.

Because I want the RE answers to be very good, I would appreciate if the RE answers are only given by myself, Rama Set or Schmeggley. I may be forgetting other RE'rs that may be just as capable of giving good answers and If I am then I apologize. If a RE'r feels they would give great answers then PM me.

Isn't this great, FE'rs? What an honor for you.

Flat Earth Debate / A grave situation
« on: July 31, 2014, 09:29:20 AM »
Gravity is slightly less at the equator how is this possible on a flat earth.

The Lounge / I like debating you. Is the sentiment mutual?
« on: July 30, 2014, 05:21:42 PM »
This question is for flat earthers. It is appropriate to put here, I think.

First, a compliment! I totally enjoy debating flat earthers.

So my question for you is, do you [flat earthers] like it too?  :-*

Flat Earth General / MH17 related conspiracy theories already...
« on: July 19, 2014, 10:50:54 AM »
This site lists 7 of the top theories that are already running wild in discussion forums on the internet.

My favorite is the idea that MH17 is actually MH370...

Quote from: Washington Post
After all, they’re both Boeing 777s — and the plane that disappeared in March still hasn’t been found! “Yes the plane was boarded in Amsterdam,” reads one post on the forum Above Top Secret. “This does not prove the case that it must be the MH17. It could be the MH370 rigged with explosives.” According to that particular strain of the MH370 theory, the disappeared plane was planted to start World War III.

There is a smell of 911 here…

1. In March, a Malaysian aircraft (MH370) had been hijacked. NOBODY could find it, even the small broken parts of it.
2. Then, it was taken to the Netherlands. Now it takes off from there full of dead bodies.
3. It was blown up over the Ukraine by a bomb planted inside the plane beforehand.
4. The passports which have been found after the crash a very new and undamaged, while everything else, including the heavy metal plane engines are smashed and burned out.
5. The Pro-Russian rebels told that there was bad smell after the crash, as if the dead bodies have been dead for quite a long time. Not fresh.

For goodness sakes.

Flat Earth Debate / Watch a spacewalk from Earth with a telescope.
« on: July 15, 2014, 09:44:34 AM »
We all know that you can see the ISS from earth with a good telescope. What if you could watch it do more than simply fly by? How about watching something like the Space Shuttle docking or Astronauts doing a spacewalk? There are images of this in action available such as these:

Anyway, on Sunday, a rocket was successfully launched. Specifically, it is called Orb-2 and attached to it is a cargo capsule called Cygnus. It is carrying food and scientific equipment to the International Space Station. It won't actually arrive at the station until early on Wednesday morning. Commander Steve Swanson will grapple it, with Alexander Gerst as his backup.

So, with that in mind, tomorrow presents an interesting opportunity. If you have a telescope or if you can visit an observatory, then you can see these astronauts do their space walk and watch the capsule attach to the ISS. I'm not 100% sure when this takes place but I at least know that it happens tomorrow morning.

You can visit this site and input your location and it will tell you when you can view the ISS and also when you can see Cygnus.

Flat Earth General / A zetetic world.
« on: July 10, 2014, 03:21:53 PM »
Imagine if the scientific world wasn't scientific and instead opted for nothing but zeteticism. Speculate on which scientific discoveries and inventions would have not happened.

If possible, also speculate on which zetetic discoveries/inventions we would have had instead.

Why would zeteticism be better?

Remember, this would mean no testing. The only things we can make conclusions about are direct observations.


Flat Earth Debate / FE'rs, Refraction Is Not Your Friend
« on: June 21, 2014, 10:47:19 AM »
Some words are inappropriately thrown around on these forums by FE'rs and I want to put the improper use of these terms to rest.

These terms are:

atmospheric lensing
bendy light

It has become a huge problem simply because FE'rs do not seem to be able to grasp the explanation about why refraction does not help their arguments. It is often used as a vague argument to describe why we have sunsets on a FE or why we have the sinking ship effect and so on.

The simple explanation is that when refractions occurs, it causes object to appear higher than they actually are and not lower.

In this image we are seeing what happens when a ray of light is refracted from lighter medium into a denser medium, such as air to water:
  • The ray of light which travels through the incident, or first, medium and strikes the boundary, or interface, is called the incident ray.
  • The ray of light which travels into the refracted, or second, medium and leaves the interface is called the reflected ray.
  • A line perpendicular to the surface is imagined at the point of refraction. This line is called a normal. In this context the word normal means perpendicular. In the above diagram the normal is colored blue.
  • The angle between the incident ray and the normal is called the angle of incidence, or the incident angle.
  • The angle between the refracted ray and the normal is called the angle of refraction, or the refracted angle.
  • Here light bends toward the normal.

In this image we are seeing what happens when a ray of light is refracted from denser medium into a lighter medium, such as water to air:
  • Here light bends away from the normal. The red arrow is meant to show what we mean by the phrase 'bending away from the normal.

In all cases, a ray of light coming toward the earth from the sun will be traveling from a lighter medium into a denser medium. Remember, in this case a refracted ray bends toward the normal (the normal is the line perpendicular to the line between the two mediums).

Here is a diagram depicting how air is more dense near the surface of earth and less dense with greater altitude:

In light of these basic rules about refraction and how it works, I have put together two diagrams. One of the sun on a FE and the other on a RE.

On this FE diagram:
  • Notice that as the ray of light passes from the lighter medium of air into the denser medium of air, it refracts downward. In other words, the apparent position of the sun is higher than it actually is.
  • As this sun would appear to get closer to the horizon as it gets further away, it's actual position is lower and lower. By the time sunset occurs (an event after which the sun has been completely removed from the observers view), the sun would actually be lower than what appears.
  • Since it appears to be at the horizon at this time, then if a FE'r invokes refraction, then this means that the sun should actually be lower than it appears, not higher, as it would need be for all FE models.

On this RE diagram:
  • Notice that as the ray of light passes from the lighter medium of air into the denser medium of air, it refracts downward.
  • All of the same rules for refraction apply here as they do in FE diagram but in this diagram we actually can observe a sunset.
  • We can see how the sun can actually be below the horizon, while also appearing to be on the horizon to give us a sunset.
  • Even though refraction is in play, the apparent position of the sun is higher than it actually is and it's apparent position CAN be at the horizon.

So please, stop using refraction as an excuse.

Flat Earth General / NASA to launch a telescope made out of lego's.
« on: June 20, 2014, 12:45:52 PM »

Flat Earth Debate / Is this a wind farm or a hydroelectric plant!?!?!
« on: June 12, 2014, 09:29:00 AM »
From the image below it appears that these wind farms fans are plowing through the ocean. Is this a new model of hydroelectric generators that looks just like a wind farm or....

...or is it just that the earth is round?

Flat Earth Debate / Noctilucent clouds
« on: June 11, 2014, 02:26:52 PM »

Noctilucent or night clouds are composed of tiny crystals of water ice and are at an altitude of about 76 to 85 km (47 to 53 mi), higher than any other clouds in Earth's atmosphere.

They are normally too faint to be seen, and are visible only when illuminated by sunlight from below the horizon while the lower layers of the atmosphere are in the Earth's shadow.

Why are we seeing "lit" clouds at night time?

How are the bottoms of these clouds lit? Are these clouds at a higher altitude than the sun!?


In this image, the bottoms of the foreground clouds are not lit, but the noctilucent clouds are? How is this possible? Of course we know that is because the noctilucent clouds are much higher and farther away than the foreground clouds and are therefore still on an illuminated section of earth. It would seem that they are lit on the bottom though.... hmmmm.


In image 3 there are clouds even closer to the horizon than the noctilucent clouds. According to FE laws of perspective this means they are farther away. If they are farther away then why aren't they lit up? Aren't they 'closer' to the sun?


Notice the reflection in the water of the last 2 pictures? Where else could that sun be but below the horizon?

Such an obvious RE explanation for this phenomenon.


Suggestions & Concerns / Tapatalk forum app
« on: June 11, 2014, 09:28:58 AM »
Tapatalk is a forum app available for all major mobile operating systems. Many popular forums can be used in the app. You can monitor, post, and add photos to all your favorite forums, all in a single app. You can even elect to receive push notifications on your favorite threads.

Tapatalk can be activated for just about any forum very easily.

Just go to and follow the instructions. It only takes 15 minutes.

Tapatalk can be activated for the FES forum because FES uses the SMF 2.0 which is compatible with Tapatalk. The plugin can be found here. There is simple instructions there on how to install the plug-in so that people can easily view and participate on these forums from a mobile app.

You can even easily build your own forum app with a personalized app icon, look and feel, branding, plus additional features including Google AdSense, Google Analytics, Admob, DoubleClick for Publisher, iAd, Push Notifications and more - 100% under your own brand with full control. In other words the Play Store and App Store can have a personalized FES forum app and it can even be a money making opportunity for the administrators of this site.

Click here for more info on how to build a personalized Tapatalk app.

I strongly urge the administrators to enable tapatalk for the FES society so that users can enjoy FES while on the go.

For the purposes of this demonstration, we will define a sunset as it is in the dictionary ("the time in the evening when the sun disappears") but with one important distinction that must fit with an important observation. That is, the manner in which the sun appears to disappear bottom first and become obscured by the horizon.

On a round Earth with a circumference of 24,901 miles, it is possible for a sunset to occur because we "turn" away from the sun. It is easy to see why this happens when we use this model.

On a flat Earth, it isn't so easy.

In this topic, I will perform some simple geometry/trigonometry to show you where the problems lie.

Now, I am aware that a common argument by flat earther's is to simply say that the atmosphere is not transparent and that we cannot see forever through the atmosphere. This is a non-sequitur given the definition above. If we were to dismiss the observation of the sun actually disappearing bottom first then this would be a valid explanation, but I don't think we should do that. The sun does not simply fade away. It is not important that the sun simply disappears, what matters is the manner in which it does so.

I have used the common sun height used by flat earthers of 3000 miles. That height is often cited as the correct height and flat earthers have been so kind to offer diagrams showing how they attained this number. Here is a common one that is thrown around:

For the distance from the observer to the sun, please observe the following image, taken from the flat earth wiki, which depicts the sun's trajectory about the flat earth:

In some detail, the FE Wiki also goes on to explain the following

"On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator. "

If the earth is flat then I would have to agree with the quote but despite the image of a flat earth above, which depicts the sun at about the equator, I will exaggerate in favor of FE and "pretend" that the sun follows a path around Antarctic ice ring. If this is the case, then the diameter of the flat earth should be about equal to the round earth circumference of 24,901 miles.

So, now let it be understood that we use the following numbers:

3000 miles for the height of the sun.
24,901 miles for the maximum possible distance between the observer and the sun's location above the earth. (Reminder: This is an extremely gratuitous exaggeration that should only help to support the FE'rs argument.)

With that in mind, consider the following diagram:

If you do not know how to do trigonometry with a scientific calculator then feel free to use this online right triangle calculator.

As you can see from the diagram, if the earth is flat then it is impossible for the sun to dip below the horizon as we all know it does. Therefore, it is safe to say that the earth cannot be flat because we experience sunsets.

Flat Earth Debate / BLOOD RED MOON
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:01:17 PM »
I understand that there is already a thread about tonight's TOTAL LUNAR ECLIPSE but I needed to post this to make sure you FE'rs do not forget and see it for yourselves.

Use this chart to find out when YOU can see it.

Here is a video of a previous total lunar eclipse:

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

We will have a blood red moon.

If you still think the earth is flat after watching this with your own eyes, then there really is no hope for you.

Flat Earth Debate / Project Loon
« on: April 12, 2014, 07:06:31 AM »
You know, FE'rs like to say that circumnavigating a flat world can be done by taking any circle route. This is incorrect. To circumnavigate a disc one would need to move about the CIRCUMFERENCE of the entire disc. If the monopole model of the earth is correct then a a circle about the circumference (which would be called circumnavigation) would be much larger than a circle around the equator.

Currently, a project by Google to bring the internet to the next 1 billion customers is underway. They are testing balloons to see if they would be a feasible way to provide internet to countries where being connected isn't commonplace. More recently, they began testing by launching the balloons and seeing how it's trajectory would fare when faced against the elements that it [the balloons] would surely face on a free circumnavigation around the planet. Here is an excerpt from the project loon team about that test:

"One of our balloons has had quite a journey over the past few weeks. It did a lap around the world in 22 days, and has just clocked the project’s 500,000th kilometer as it begins its second lap. It enjoyed a few loop-de-loops over the Pacific ocean before heading east on the winds toward Chile and Argentina, and then made its way back around near Australia and New Zealand. Along the way, it caught a ride on the Roaring Forties — strong west-to-east winds in the southern hemisphere that act like an autobahn in the sky, where our balloons can quickly zoom over oceans to get to where people actually need them.

Traversing the stratosphere is particularly challenging this time of year because the winds actually change direction as the southern hemisphere moves from warmer to colder weather, resulting in divergent wind paths that are hard to predict. Since last June, we’ve been using the wind data we’ve collected during flights to refine our prediction models and are now able to forecast balloon trajectories twice as far in advance. In addition, the pump that moves air in or out of the balloon has become three times more efficient, making it possible to change altitudes more rapidly to quickly catch winds going in different directions. There were times, for example, when this balloon could have been pulled into the polar vortex – large, powerful wind currents that whip around in a circle near the stratosphere in the polar region – but these improvements enabled us to maneuver around it and stay on course. We can spend hours and hours running computer simulations, but nothing teaches us as much as actually sending the balloons up into the stratosphere during all four seasons of the year."

via Google+

The 500,000 km noted in the quote is describing the total amount of km's logged since the project started. What's important here is that it was about to take the following track in just 22 days:

According to project loon, the balloon can travel at speeds ranging from 2 to 75 knots (4 to 139 km/h) depending on wind conditions.

I used the ruler tool on Google Earth to determine that the circumference at about 45° S would be a little over 28,000 km.

22 days is 528 hours. 28,000 km divided by 528 hours is 53 km/h.

These are all the details that I was able to get about this project. Any FE'rs care to chalk this up to conspiracy with any contentions other than blatant incredulity?

Flat Earth General / The media criticizes the FES again. (and I lol'd)
« on: March 25, 2014, 07:39:59 AM »
This time by Neil Degrasse Tyson.

"I think the media has to sort of come out of this ethos that I think was in principle a good one, but doesn't really apply in science. The ethos was, whatever story you give, you have to give the opposing view, and then you can be viewed as balanced," Tyson said, adding, "you don't talk about the spherical earth with NASA and then say let's give equal time to the flat-earthers."

I love that the FES is often used to emphasize paranoia and stupidity. You guys suck.

Flat Earth Debate / Relativity explained.
« on: January 23, 2014, 09:50:04 AM »
I think people on these forums have a hard time understanding inertia, gravity, momentum, relativity and pretty much everything concerning Newton and Einstein so I found this cheesy video with anime characters which does a good job explaining nearly all of these concepts. Let the arguing begin.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Pages: [1] 2