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 - Alex Tomasovich

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Sunrise Models for a Flat Earth
« on: September 12, 2013, 10:10:13 AM »
I recently did an experiment to see the direction of sunrise (will be repeated come the equinox). I took some photos of the sunrise and was pleased to notice that Mt. Adams, the subject of another experiment, was easily within the frame of the sunrise--just 20 degrees farther north.

The distance between me and Mt. Adams is a known 114.2 km. The height of Mt. Adams is also known at 3.74 km, which makes for an observable angular height of about 1.88° (actual observations were about .5° lower-- a difference of about the diameter of a full moon--but this isn't about that).

Below are some pictures I took late in the sunrise, followed by the model created using Rushy's numbers

Image 1: Full-frame of the sunrise and Mt. Adams

Image 2: A magnified image of Mt. Adams (4x zoom, I think)

Image 3: A magnified image of the sunrise (4x zoom, I think)

Image 4: Full-frame of the sunrise and Mt. Adams with horizontal line indicating the angular height of Mt. Adams, a blue circle indicating my estimates as to the position of the sun (diameter of the circle is 1/3rd angular height of Mt. Adams)

The following model was created to show the maximum distance from myself and the sun given Rushy's numbers. The angle shown is the angle of the sun at my solar midnight on the winter solstice, when the sun is as far away from me as it could ever be.

Image 5: Model of this sunrise according to Rushy.

Notice that the angular height of the sun predicted by the model is over 5 times greater than Mt. Adams, when in reality the sun was observed to be lower than Mt. Adams.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Diameter?
« on: September 12, 2013, 08:35:57 AM »
Okay, I just need a few data points for a little project I'm working on.

I know there are as many FE models as there are FE believers, but that just means the answers to this might vary. My question(s) is (are) this (these):

What is the diameter of the flat Earth?

Also, what is the altitude of the sun over the Earth?

Thanks a million!

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Polar Geometry
« on: September 11, 2013, 04:55:14 PM »
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. However, if you distort the surface on which the line is drawn, you distort the line.

One of the most popular maps of the Earth is the Equirectangular projection which makes for easy coordinate systems because latitudes and longitudes are all equally spaced throughout the map.

Lines, when placed upon a polar disk which is then distorted into an equirectangular-type map, are altered in a very predictable way. Due to the nature of the polar disk, lines will always tend toward the center of the disk--the upper part of the map.

This can easily be seen in an image such as this:
Here we see three straight lines on a polar disk traced out onto an equirectangular map. Notice how they all curve upward toward the north pole (point A)? (Note: the central vertical line on the rectangular map is the equivalent of the international date line)

Now, if you take a gander at this map, you'll see that airlines don't always do this.
In fact, they often appear to do the exact opposite--bending southward instead of northward.

My question is this: if the Monopole Model of the Flat Earth is correct, why do commercial flights not take the obvious shorter route, opting instead for routes that are much much longer than they need to be?

Edit:
Here's an animation showing the real flight paths across a polar model:

To iterate the question, why do commercial airliners take these routes when the straight line routes (see the first animation) are vastly shorter?

4
Flat Earth Debate / Willamette Level Experiments 2013
« on: September 10, 2013, 12:12:01 PM »
There exist several places near me where an 'is water convex' experiment could be performed. The most first and easiest place would be from a pier on the waterfront to Swan Island, a distance of 4.8 km (3 miles). That is beyond the horizon from a standing person, so it should be well beyond for near the water (exact measurements as to how high above the water will come forth when the experiment is performed.

Here could be tested the 'sinking ship' effect, as well as if objects are recoverable with a magnifying lens. Here could also be tested the 'Bedford Level'-style test, where a marker is raised to the exact same distance above the water as a theodolite. Note the proximity to cool water in a warm day would make refraction a very serious problem.

To counter that, the Waterfront Park has an elevated walkway that could be used to gain elevation (again, exact measurements will be forthcoming, but it's around 3-5 meters), avoiding most of the refractive influence of the water whilst still allowing a leveling experiment (though the sinking ship would be impossible from that altitude).

There also exist two bridges that allow a better leveling experiment. The Broadway and St. John's Bridges are within sight of each-other across 9.2 km (5.7 miles). A freight loading crane exists about 1/3rd along that distance, allowing for handy altitude checks.

I'm currently shopping for good theodolites, but I'll perform the sinking ship test this weekend as I currently have all the tools required.

Please post further suggestions I could test and/or point out errors in my current plans. Thanks!

5
Flat Earth Debate / Models of Drop at Various Altitudes
« on: September 10, 2013, 09:47:05 AM »
In addendum to this thread I have created a few examples of horizon drop according to the RE model.

I'll start with the highest altitude and work my way down, because the highest altitude is a very easy example of the diagrams.

The 'Ideal Horizon' is the horizon that would be if the Earth were a perfect sphere 6371 km in radius. The 'Absolute Horizon' is point directly above (perpendicular to the Earth's surface) that is at the same altitude as the observer (point C). 'Horizontal' is the line tangent to the Earth's surface at the altitude and position of the observer (imagine a laser mounted on a spirit-level). Once again the Y axis is measured in kilometers.

The two angles, Alpha and Beta, are the angular distance beneath horizontal for the Absolute and Ideal horizons respectively. Interestingly, Beta appears to be always about twice Alpha--something I didn't know until doing this little model.

The first diagram is that of the International Space Station, 415 km above the Earth:

Next we move down to Joseph Kittinger on his third jump of 108,000 feet:

Third, the altitude of your average long-range passenger jet at 35,000 feet:

Now we can get to the ground, where a spirit-level would actually be useful. Mt. Everest, 8,868 meters ASL:

Penultimately (I love that word!) we have 1 km. The Burj Khalifa is less than that, but this is a pretty good reference for a small mountain:

Finally, a tall building of 100 meters:

ADDENDUM of the ADDENDUM: A final image showing a height of 1.7 meters (or about eye-level for your average human). Note that Alpha is now Beta, and Beta is now Gamma. 0.02° is 1.2', which is just barely discernible with the naked eye (that is, if there were something just above the horizon that indicated your horizontal, you would just barely be able to tell that it might not be directly on the ground. If viewed through a telescope (that upper disk is the Absolute Horizon at about 3 miles; the flag on the bridge is the Absolute Horizon at 6 miles) you would be able to notice the drop.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Models of Curvature at Various Altitudes
« on: September 09, 2013, 03:55:44 PM »
Mods: I'm not sure where this goes. Feel free to move it wherever (well, within reason; this isn't nonsense nor is it ranting).

A combination of the recent arguments about whether and where curvature is visible and my possession of some neat geometry software has made me actually figure out what curvature is visible from what altitudes.

Note, the below pictures do not show tangents. Instead each one is scaled, and the horizon points calculated, to be equivalent to the horizons visible from the indicated altitudes and a 60° field-of-view. That's roughly equivalent to a camera (but MUCH less than the average human's vision).

The vertical axis is the distance in kilometers from the Earth's core. This model assumes the Earth is a perfect sphere of 6371 km radius.

Note, the pictures are more-or-less color coded, and the distances shown are the arc length of the horizon--that is the greatest land distance visible in the 60° field of view.

First, a human's eye-level above the ground.

Next, that person's horizon. Also visible is the altitude of the next step upward.

Now, the horizon from the Burj Khalifa.

Mt. Everest begins to have a little bit of curvature visible.

Penultimately, Joseph Kittinger's horizon on his third jump at roughly 108,000 feet.

And finally, a photo from aboard the International Space Station.

That's the limit for me, as beyond that there aren't many photos of the Earth, and none taken by anybody obviously outside The Conspiracy.

7
Flat Earth Debate / A Curved Horizon?!
« on: September 06, 2013, 07:40:41 PM »
I had a feeling that was going to go nowhere. Luckily there's still some form of rule and order up here.

Recently it was claimed that TFES only dismisses photographs taken with a fish-eye (or some other distorting) lens. Thus, I took 15 minutes to find a video, take some screenshots, and added some helpful lines, and posted them on the relevent forum. Sadly, that was down in Complete Nonsense and the thread was ... well, there's a thread down there consisting of hundreds of pages of a single emoticon....

So here are the pictures:

Begin the debate!

8
Flat Earth Q&A / What Evidence is considered Acceptable?
« on: September 06, 2013, 05:32:48 PM »
So I'll admit that Acceptable Evidence thread was made with a mostly joking manner. However, I am curious as to what evidence is acceptable to TFES.

Direct observation has, a few times, been disregarded as the observer just mistaking what they see. Often this has to do with people at extremely high altitudes, and even astronauts, mistaking the curvature of the Earth for the day-night terminator or some other thing.

Direct observation has also been thrown out in regards to satellites, specifically the ISS, where it's visible at roughly the same angular altitude from vastly different places, dozens of kilometers apart.

Repeatable Scientific Experiments have been thrown away, I think, as those threads on this forum that deal with very repeatable experiments are left abandoned by Flat-Earthers. Those that remain don't so much as attempt to discredit the experiment but the whole idea of the experiment. So that's off the list.

First-Hand accounts, as well as second-, third-, and nth-hand accounts are pretty often dismisses as "How do you know that's what they saw?"

Non-repeatable experiments are rightfully tossed away as well.

The Flat Earth Society has, on many occasions, dismissed accurate predictability as evidence for one model over another, so that's off, too.

Photographs, videos, and other visual media are frequently disregarded as being edited or change in some way or another, and thus should not be taken as evidence.

So, without any of those to work with, what does the Flat Earth Society take as evidence? What will you accept?

Relatedly, without any of the above, how do you even know the Earth is flat?

EDIT: I'd like to hear the answers from FE advocates. Sorry REers, but really only they can tell me what they'll accept. On the likely chance they'll debate the points, I wouldn't mind the help finding the relevant FE posts, though!

Thanks!

9
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Distance to the Sun
« on: September 04, 2013, 01:00:41 PM »
Hey, I just got a pretty cool idea, and it gives everyone another opportunity to do some observations.

The autumnal equinox is nearly upon us (18 days away), which gives us a very unique opportunity. For at least 24 hours on either side of the equinox the sun will be within a half-degree of the equator, which presents a unique (well, ish, it happens twice a year) opportunity for observations and calculations.

The equinox happens at 20:39 UTC on the 22nd of September. Between 20:40 UTC on the 21st and 20:40 UTC on the 23rd the sun will move only 46' southward. We can round this to 1° (60') for very conservative numbers.

But what are we measuring? The sun, of course!

There are a few records of various solar experiments done regarding the angle of the sun from cities directly north-south of each other and using this to calculate the altitude of the sun. We can do the same here, and the equinox provides very nice calculations!

What do you need to do? Well, here, I'll do a little write-up:

Distance to the Sun:

Materials:

Method:
At solar noon for your location on either the 21st, 22nd, or 23rd measure the angle of the sun. This can be done by measuring the length of the shadow of a vertical object. The angle of the sun is the arctangent of the height of the object divided by the length of the shadow:
arctan(h/s)

Post the results (your latitude and the angle of the sun) here for all to see.

During those three days the sun will be within at most 30' (0.5°) of the equator, meaning your latitude will be within 30' (0.5°) of your distance from the point at which the sun would be at zenith. Because a degree of latitude is 1/90th of the distance from the north pole to the equator our results will be in terms of this.

If you wish to do the maths yourself to figure out the height you get for the sun you can (post them with the other infos). You can use one of the below equations:
h = (latyou ± .5°) * tan(Φ)
h = (latyou ± .5°) * heightobject/lengthshadow

Once again, the answers will be in terms of degrees of latitude, each one is 1/90th the distance from the north pole to the equator.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Shifting Gears and the Bipolar Model
« on: September 04, 2013, 09:35:40 AM »
Hey, this question is for people who believe in / are working on the "Antarctica as a Continent" model where the sun, at the equinox, 'shifts gears' from the north pole to the south.

I'm assuming this happens when the sun transitions across the equator--that is, it passes 0° 00' latitude. The vernal equinox of 2015 happens at 10:39 PM UTC on 20 March. However, at that time, the sun is just south of Hawaii at 158° 26' West. On your map, that'd be around here:

Two hours later the sun is here:

My question is how does the sun get there? Does it teleport from one side of the globe to the other, or does it quickly zip around the southern circumference? If it's the latter, why don't people in New Zealand notice the sun flying across the sky?

11
Flat Earth Debate / End of the Bipolar Model
« on: September 03, 2013, 03:45:36 PM »
One of the FE models is that of a disk with two poles, also known as "Antarctica as a Continent" model. This better explains seasons, especially that of the areas south of the equator, but it, too, has an interesting problem.

That problem is this: during the southern summer many places north of the equator should see a very discernible backtracking of the sun. The sun has always been observed to rise in the east and make a steady westward progression until it sets (unless, of course, you're in one of those places during one of those times that the sun never sets).

The Bi-polar model clearly indicates otherwise. The to-scale diagram below is for the equinox, when the sun shifts 'gears' from the north pole to the south pole. The indicated angles around the point of observation are for bearings (away from north) for each position of the sun (except E, which is the point at which the sun 'switches gears').

From when the sun rises to Point R, the bearing of the sun is constantly increasing, as you can see. However, at Point R the sun switches direction and heads eastward until it sets. At the most it's only a few degrees, but at the very least it's unnoticeable.

However, the distance the sun travels in that time, from Point R to setting, is enough to take hours--2 hours and 47 minutes in my case--in which the sun would appear to not be moving across the sky.

I, living here a few years now, have never experienced such a thing--either the sun stopping nearly 3 hours before sunset or it backtracking for nearly 3 hours before sunset. Since this model is so far off observations, it can be safely thrown into the garbage.

P.S. Also, if sunsets and sunrises are caused, as FE claims, by distance to and from the sun, then it should be noted that the distance between me and the sunrise and the distance between me and the sunset (indicated by the red and blue dotted circles respectively) differ by 69.2% of the distance between the equator and the north pole

12
Flat Earth Debate / End of the Monopole Model
« on: September 03, 2013, 02:28:55 PM »
One of the FE models is that of a disk centered around the North Pole, with "Antarctica" circling the circumference as the Ice Wall.

The FE explanation for sunsets is that the sun gets far enough away such that it appears to sink into the horizon and/or it's light can no longer reach us. Since sunrise and sunsets happen at very predictable times then this distance needs to be constant. That is, sunsets are hardly dependent on atmospheric conditions if they're dependent on that at all.

However, if you actually map out sunrise and sunsets on this single-poled model, you find that this distance changes dramatically throughout a year. For me it changes by a whole 13.8% of the distance between the north pole and the equator!

Below you can see the to-scale diagram of this. The red is during the summer solstice, the blue during an equinox, and the green during the winter solstice. The dotted lines represent the distance from the sun to me during that time. Notice how they're all different sizes?

Thus, because this model is inconsistent with FE arguments (mainly sunset is caused by distance), it can be safely thrown into the garbage.

13
Suggestions & Concerns / Request a move
« on: August 31, 2013, 12:38:41 PM »
Don't know where to do this, so I'll do it here.

Can a mod move all the posts in the "Sunrise and sunset is in the wrong place" from this post onward into a new thread, maybe entitled "Verifying Latitude" or something?

Thanks. I can tell this is just going to go around in circles and I'd rather not have that happen in a thread based on experimentation.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Why?
« on: August 28, 2013, 12:39:18 PM »
Hey, FES, it's me again. Quick question. There's been a thread that's been in the Q&A for a while and, unlike what's said in the Q&A rules, nobody has even attempted to answer it. My question is simply why.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Arecibo and RADAR Astronomy
« on: August 26, 2013, 03:37:49 PM »
The Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico is operated by three organizations: SRI International, Universities Space Research Association, and Metropolitan University (UMET). Both the USRA and the UMET are private non-profit organizations, with SRI International is a nonprofit research institute.

Arecibo, besides being a radio telescope, can be and has been used as a RADAR astronomy platform. This means it can shine a light at, say, Mercury and see what comes back. With our knowledge of the speed of light in a vacuum (which can be obtained here on Earth using cavity resonance) and the Doppler effect one can use this information to obtain both the speed and distance of an object (speed via Doppler, distance via time).

This has been done quite a few times, and actually corrected some ideas about Mercury. But in addition it shows that Mercury is a long ways away (at least 90 million kilometers) from Earth and that it's velocity relative to the Earth varies dramatically depending on which side of the sun it is (lending a bit of credence to the "it's orbiting the sun" theory).

So, my question is this: how is their data so wrong? How can it be reading tens of millions of kilometers when it's really only a few thousand? How can it be reading, say, 17 km/s toward or away from Earth if it stays a few thousand kilometers away?

Or is everyone working at Arecibo part of the conspiracy?

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Gravity in Application
« on: August 21, 2013, 08:49:14 AM »
Gravity poses kind of a problem for FE for many reasons. Thus, I'm curious as to how y'all explain the various experiments and applications of gravity not being uniform across the surface of the Earth, as demonstrated by the Travelling Gnome experiment (among other things).

One of the tools to come out of this is the Gravity Gradiometer, which detects tiny variations in the gravitational field of the Earth. During the cold war it was used to navigate submarines covertly. A modern application is using them to detect oil deposits, as you're effectively measuring the density of the Earth beneath you.

If gravity wasn't a real force, then how do these things work? And if it is a real force, why is not the Earth a sphereoid?

17
Flat Earth Debate / Rowbotham's Perspective
« on: August 14, 2013, 11:30:07 AM »
The following is a summary of Rowbotham's perspective, using only quotes and logic. This should probably go in Information Repository, but I'm guessing a few FEers will get their panties in a twist and either debate this or ignore it. Mods, feel free to move at your pleasure.

Rowbotham's Perspective
Chapter 14 of Zetetic Astronomy

Quote from: Samuel Rowbotham, Zetetic Astronomy p. 203
"The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."
-- "Wonders of Science," by Mayhew, p. 357

The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.

From the above it follows:--

1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible.

2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to converge to the same point.

3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body.
Quote from: Samuel Rowbotham, Zetetic Astronomy p. 204
if a similar disc is coloured black, except a segment of say one inch in depth at the lower edge, on moving it forward the lower segment will gradually disappear, as shown at A, B, and C, in diagram fig. 74. If the

Fig. 74.

disc is allowed to rest on a board D, the effect is still more striking. The disc at C will appear perfectly round--the white segment having disappeared.
From these we can formulate the following rules for perspective:
• Any object, or portion of an object, less than 1 arcminute in size will be indiscernible to the naked human eye. This will happen when its distance to size ratio is roughly 3000:1 (actual number is just shy of 3438:1)
• A portion of a smaller object will vanish before the object as a whole vanishes.
• If a portion of an object reaches this distance, but the object as a whole has not, the portion will disappear but leave the object as a whole unchanged.

(Rowbotham's list is slightly different--His first and second are similar to the point of being the same, so I have combined them (and added the metric he quoted). I moved his third into slot 2 and added a third of my own, stated by Rowbotham in his disk experiment.)

Rowbotham illustrates this with the following diagram. On the left are three objects, two of identical size with one above and one below eye-level, and a third
larger object above the eye-line. The two identical objects both will vanish at point H, as that's where they reach a size of less than 1 arcminute, but the larger one would still be visible and not vanish until it's gone on to W.

Quote from: Samuel Rowbotham, Zetetic Astronomy p. 207
The theory which affirms that all parallel lines converge to one and the same point on the eye-line, is an error. It is true only of lines equi-distant from the eye-line; lines more or less apart meet the eye-line at different distances, and the point at which they meet is that only where each forms the angle of one minute of a degree, or such other angular measure as may be decided upon as the vanishing point. This is the true law of perspective as shown by nature herself; any idea to the contrary is fallacious, and will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice.

In accordance with the above law of natural perspective, the following illustrations are important as representing actually observed phenomena. In a long row of lamps, standing on horizontal ground, the pedestals, if short, gradually diminish until at a distance of a few hundred yards they seem to disappear, and the upper and thinner parts of the lamp posts appear to touch the ground, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 77.

Fig. 77.
This is another way of saying the First Law of Perspective, that being that the distance at which an object will reach this is related to its size, specifically a ratio of roughly 3000:1. The diagram also agrees with the Third Law, that being that even though the lower portion of the lamp has vanished, the rest of the lamp still recedes until it's full distance is 3000 times its full length.

However, the diagram also breaks the First Law. The upper bulb of the lamp, in the diagram, is about the same height as the base pedestals. Thus, the upper bulb, having roughly the same size, should vanish at roughly the same point--that is, point H in the diagram.

Rowbotham further demonstrates these laws with a woman on a street, a train engine, a series of flags on a canal, and a lighthouse on a wall. All of these demonstrate more of the same thing, so I shall skip them and move onto the final part of the chapter: a vanishing ship.

Quote from: Samuel Rowbotham, Zetetic Astronomy p. 211
The hull is a distinctive part of a ship.

Ergo, the hull of a receding or outward bound ship must disappear before the whole, inclusive of the mast head.

To give the argument a more practical and nautical character it may be stated as follows:

That part of any receding body which is nearest to the surface upon which it moves, contracts, and becomes in-visible before the parts which are further away from such surface--as shown in figs. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70.

The hull of a ship is nearer to the water--the surface on which it moves--than the mast head.

Ergo, the hull of an outward bound ship must be the first to disappear.
Quote from: Samuel Rowbotham, Zetetic Astronomy p. 212
Those who believe that the earth is a globe have often sought to prove it to be so by quoting the fact that when the ship's hull has disappeared, if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull again becomes visible. But this, is logically premature; such a result arises simply from the fact that on raising his position the eye-line recedes further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a degree, and this includes and brings back the hull within the vanishing point
I feel the need to point out to Rowbotham the First Rule of Perspective: "Any object, or portion of an object, less than 1 arcminute in size will be indiscernible to the naked human eye. This will happen when its distance to size ratio is roughly 3000:1." Or, as Rowbotham himself puts it "That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible."

Rowbotham has suddenly switched from the vanishing point being determined by the size of the object to it being determined by the object's height above the horizon. According to this theory, a kite 6 inches across, if flown 2000 feet away at an altitude of 350 feet above the ground would remain visible even though its angular size is only .85 arcminutes--well below the vanishing size.

Hence his assumption that the size of an object is equal to its distance above eye-level is completely false, and the First Rule of Perspective, as stated by Rowbotham himself, is correct--that the vanishing point is determined by the size of the object.

And that concludes the chapter. Just to iterate, the Three Laws of Perspective, as proposed by Rowbotham, are:

• Any object, or portion of an object, less than 1 arcminute in size will be indiscernible to the naked human eye. This will happen when its distance to size ratio is roughly 3000:1 (actual number is just shy of 3438:1)
• A portion of a smaller object will vanish before the object as a whole vanishes.
• If a portion of an object reaches this distance, but the object as a whole has not, the portion will disappear but leave the object as a whole unchanged.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Bedford Level?
« on: August 09, 2013, 12:12:52 PM »
Preface:

Once upon a time a fellow named Hampden offered a £500 bet to anyone who could prove the Earth was round. Another fellow named Wallace agreed and the two agreed upon an experiment that would show whether water was flat or convex.

Both sides picked a referee. Hampden picked Mr. Carpenter ("FlatRef"), and Wallace picked Mr. Coulcher ("RoundRef"). They agreed upon an experiment to take place at the Old Bedford canal (you already know the details of the canal, so I'll skip them). Upon one bridge was placed a flag such that its bottom edge was 13' 3" above the water and the center stripe of the flag would be level with a telescope set up on the opposing bridge. Between the two bridges was placed a pole with two disks. The top disk was level with the flag's stripe, and the bottom disk was 4' lower.

Both sides agreed upon the victory conditions of the experiment. If the flag, disk, and telescope were aligned one behind the other then the water was indeed perfectly flat. If the disks rose above the flag, then the water was convex. To this Hampden said "I am perfectly satisfied with your proposed plan. It cannot fail to be thoroughly convincing one way or the other"[nb]http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S179AA.htm[/nb]

Both refs looked through the telescope. RoundRef made a diagram, and FlatRef signed it as being correct. This diagram clearly shows the central pole rising above the flag such that even the lower disk is above it indicating a drop of a bit more than four feet (the calculated drop being around 5 feet).

At this point the bet should have been over as the observation exactly matches one of the victory conditions. However, Hampden argued that since the telescope wasn't leveled this particular observation was invalid.

A Troughton's level--a small inverting telescope with a bubble level, used for surveying--was brought forth and placed at the same height as the original telescope. The telescope was leveled to the satisfaction of FlatRef. Both refs looked through, and both drew diagrams, and both signed the other as being accurate. This was done in both directions, such that each ref drew 2 diagrams. FlatRef's diagrams are reproduced below.

These diagrams also clearly show the central pole rising above the flag about the same amount as before, but this time with the added benefit of providing a level horizon (the horizontal line) against which the observation can be compared. Once again it is clear that there is a convexity to the water as both pole and flag are beneath the horizon.

Once again, this not only matches one of the victory conditions exactly, but it is the same victory condition as the one shown in the first observation--specifically, the victory condition of the round earth.

Question:

My question to flat-earth advocates is this:

Why is the Bedford Level experiment so often touted as being a massive victory for a flat-Earth, which cannot be explained by a round one? It seems pretty clear that the experiment clearly showed a round Earth.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / C/2012 S1
« on: August 07, 2013, 11:09:22 AM »
On 21 September 2012 a new comet was discovered. Through various observations, astronomers have calculated that it will reach perihelion late this November. If it survives, they predict it might get about as bright as Venus--at the very least, it'll be visible through binoculars next month (before it even has a chance to get destroyed by the Sun).

Astronomers predict it will be near Regulus and Mars in Octrober, Spica and Saturn in November. In December they say it will be visible from both hemispheres, but moving north, and by 8 January it will be within two degrees of Polaris (should make it easy to find). That is, of course, if it survives the 28 November encounter with the sun.

I'm stating this for the record now for two reasons. One,because this is a new comet that has never been seen before and maybe never will be seen again, and thus these predictions are not from an kind of table. And two to point out that these predictions were made before the dates they're predicting--in 6 months nobody can say the papers were forged to match observations.

Question preface: The maths involved in predicting a comet's orbit rely on heliocentric models and a solar system that is much much larger than the flat-Earth's cosmos.

My questions:

So will these predictions come true?

If the predictions will/do come true, how do their maths work when based on a model that's completely false?

Does the Flat-Earth Hypothesis have maths that would predict the path of the comet/other celestial bodies?

20
Flat Earth General / A Question for the Flat-Earth Society
« on: August 02, 2013, 08:48:21 AM »
I'm not sure if this is just a special case or if it's indicative of flat-earth society as a whole, but one of the evidences for flat-earth is "look out your window" or something to that effect, implying that casual observation clearly shows a flat Earth.

When I pointed out that when I did some casual observation of Mt. Adams, it had appeared to be about a kilometer shorter than it actually was and that I had thusly deduces by "looking out my window" that the Earth was round, and that the volcano simply began a kilometer beneath my window.

To which I was told that I was "Doing it wrong."[nb]http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59326.msg1522637.html#msg1522637[/nb][nb]http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59413.msg1522492.html#msg1522492[/nb]

This would imply that the FES simply overlooks observations that don't agree with their worldview (while simultaneously refusing to do the observations themselves). Maybe this is just a trait of a few members, but I have one other mention:

In Wallace's account of the Bedford Level Experiment Hampden refused to look through the telescope and still claimed that it supported his belief (to the point of what appears to be slight insanity). So to me it seems this tenancy to at once refuse to partake in experimentation and claim that the experimentation confirms a flat-Earth.

My question is: is this trend a mere trait of a few individuals, or do most, if not all, flat-earth advocates believe that any observation contrary to their beliefs has been 'done wrong'?

21
The Lounge / SRB Camera
« on: August 02, 2013, 08:00:45 AM »

22
Flat Earth Debate / Distance of the Equator
« on: August 01, 2013, 02:41:46 PM »
A thought occured to me when doing the maths for my ladder experiment: the distance around the equator is drastically different between FE and RE models. Both models use the same equation: C = t*r, but each have a different radius. For RE, the radius is that of the Earth at 6371 km (3,959 mi); for FE it's the distance from the north pole to the equator, roughly 10,009 km (6219 mi).

Thus, RE says the equator is roughly 40,000 km (24,874 mi) while FE says it should be 62,888 km (39,077 mi). In 1986 an historical and well-documented flight took place wherein two people got into an airplane at Edwards Air Force Base and took off. Just over nine days later they landed at Edwards Air Force Base, having circled the Earth more or less about the Equator[nb]http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1987)068%3C1403%3AMSOWFD%3E2.0.CO%3B2[/nb][nb]http://makingmaps.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/makingmapsannotatedvoyagermaps.pdf[/nb] with a total flight distance of 40,212 kilometers (24,987 miles).

Was this a scam? Did the pilots fly a shorter, northern route for nine days instead of sticking to the equator? Or is the FE distance around the equator false?

23
Flat Earth Debate / Measure a Ladder
« on: July 31, 2013, 05:34:43 PM »
Preface - Explaining why a ladder models the sun

The flat-earth hypothesis states that the sun is 32 miles in diameter and about 3,000 miles (4828 km) away from the Earth[nb]http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Sun[/nb][nb]http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun[/nb]. It then states that the sun appears to set on the horizon because angles less than 1 arcminute are nearing impossible for human eyes to see, and thus as the sun gets farther away its lower edge gets less than an arcminute away from the horizon, and thus we see it sink[nb]http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Setting_of_the_Sun[/nb]. The flat-earth hypothesis also states that the seasons are caused by the sun moving closer or farther from the north pole[nb]http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Seasons[/nb].

If distances and travel times are to be believed, then the flat Earth has a radius of about 20,000 kilometers (12,450 miles). From a ship on the equator at the International Date Line to a ship on the equator just west of Africa is about that same distance: 10,000 miles to the north pole, and another 10,000 to the ship in Africa. Daylight observations of both northern South America and central Africa would indicate that while one is in daylight the other is always at night.[nb]http://kenyawebcam.com/cam.pl?cam=watamucam[/nb][nb]http://www.casasanblas.com/cuzco-cusco/webcams03.php
[/nb]

On the equinox, the sun's path is directly over the equator. The equinox would also cause there to be 12 hours of day and 12 hours of night for a person on the equator (in this case, our two people will be in Ecuador and western Africa). This means that each observer sees the sun for half its equatorial journey, or 20,000 km (12,450 mi) of it's trip around the north pole. That means it travels half of that--10,000 km (6213 mi)--from noon until dusk when the sun appears to touch the horizon.

The sun's position over the Earth in relation to our observer can be modeled by a triangle whose height is always the sun's height over the Earth and whose length is equal to the distance between our observer and the point on the Earth directly beneath the sun. At dusk, these values are 4828 km and 10019 km respectively (3,000 mi and 6226 mi respectively). The visible angle of the sun is therefore 25.73 degrees[nb]arctan(4828 / 10019)[/nb]. The sun's disk being constantly .5 degrees in diameter[nb]http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset[/nb], this means the lower edge of the disk is 25.48 degrees above the horizon. This angle is much greater than the 1/60th of a degree required for the bottom edge of the sun to merge with the horizon.

This can be shown the following diagram (click for full version). Note: in the full version, everything is to-scale with 1 pixel being 1 kilometer.

Now, similar triangles mean that if the ratio of lengths of the legs of a triangle is equal to the ratio of lengths of legs to another triangle, their angles will be the same. The ratio of height to length for this triangle is 0.48, or almost exactly 1/2. This means you can perform an experiment to show where FE predicts the sun to be upon setting. If you re-create a triangle with the 1/2 ratio you can see this 25.73 degrees for yourself.

The Experiment

Tools: Yourself, a ladder of known height greater than your own, a stretch of flat ground.

Method: Set up the ladder on your flat ground. Take the known height of the ladder and subtract your own height. Double that number. Walk that distance away from the base of the ladder. Observe the ladder. Where you see the top of the ladder is where FE predicts the sun should be upon setting.

Example: I have a 10' ladder. I am 6' tall. I set up the ladder in my driveway and walk 8 feet away from it. I look up at the top of the ladder.

It's so simple even a child can do it!

Footnotes:

24
The Lounge / A lesson might be in here.
« on: July 30, 2013, 02:41:18 PM »
Well I guess it just shows Shenton's unquestionable geniusness how he, out of billions of people on this flat planet, could see these are an obvz fake

There once was an elderly couple living together of her house. One day the old man decided to go to the store. After he leaves, the old woman occupies herself by watching the news. She soon sees breaking news that a car is driving the wrong way on the very same freeway her husband would be taking to get to the store. Panicking, she calls her husband. "Honey, be careful," she said, "there's a car going the wrong way on the road!"

"One car?" her husband replies. "There's HUNDRES of them!"

25
Flat Earth General / Apollo Conspiracy
« on: July 25, 2013, 10:36:47 AM »
I did a search for 'NASA' in the fora, and surprisingly didn't find much about any evidence. I have read the wiki about the space conspiracy (all the pages) and all of the arguments made are made from ignorance on the subject in question or are mis-interpreting what is being shown.

To keep this topic from being too broad, I want to focus on NASA at or before Apollo 17. My reasoning from requesting such information (that is, evidence of fakery) is that there would be no reason to doubt the veracity of the missions without evidence. Thus, if it is doubted, there must be evidence.

To avoid the 'burden of proof' topic, I will say that the evidence for the veracity of these claims is quite numerous. Specifically for the Apollo missions, modern astronomers with no affiliation to any government regularly bounce lasers off reflectors placed on the moon by the Apollo missions (note--they cannot bounce them directly off the moon's surface and must be aimed extremely well). For more information, see the "Independent Evidence for the Apollo Missions" thread.

The evidence for the veracity of NASA's claims thusly raised, it is now firmly in the court of doubters to provide evidence.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Groundhogs?
« on: July 17, 2013, 03:36:55 PM »
Placed in Flat Earth Q&A because I'd like to ask a question to Flat Earthers.

I recently made a topic about unanswered threads, hoping it was merely time and obscurity that had left these gems in the rough. Sadly, many are still ignored. Upon searching for a post to which I had thought of a good reply, I found many threads discussing the same topic, none of which have been answered. I'll post below:

The Southern Cross and Northern Star, last posted 2006-10-24: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,5911
Beneath the Southern Cross I Stand..., last posted 2007-02-27: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,10782
Stars and the Southern Cross, last posted 2008-1-13
Silver Bullet Against FET, last posted 2012-06-03
how can we see the Crux, last posted 2013-01-17

All of these final posts were by non-Flat-Earth advocates. None of them have been answered by Flat-Earth advocates.

The mood thus set up, my question about FET (and to Flat-Earth advocates) is this: why have these questions gone unanswered? Is there any plan to answer them in the future?

I'd like answers from Flat-Earth advocates only, as any answer from a Round-Earth advocate might only be speculation and is this detrimental to this question. Thank you.

********

Also, whenever I try to post more than three embedded urls (with the [ url ] tags) I get this error:
Not Acceptable

An appropriate representation of the requested resource /forum/index.php could not be found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

27
Flat Earth General / July 17 EVA
« on: July 15, 2013, 03:59:50 PM »
The ISS crew is preparing for another EVA session tomorrow. This live stream would be a perfect time for everyone to look for discrepancies in the video. Compare locations against where NASA/ESA says the ISS is, compare times, daylights, scour for bubbles and the like.

It's claimed to be streamed live, so finding evidence against that claim should be easy, right?

PS Mods, feel free to move this wherever. I put it here because it is related to the space conspiracy.

28
Flat Earth Debate / Refraction: real or contrived?
« on: July 13, 2013, 11:58:56 AM »
Throughout these forums I have seen refraction both denounced as a contrived explanation by RE to explain things like daytime lunar eclipses and as an explanation by FE to explain things like sunsets.

So I'd like to, once and for all, get a definitive position on refraction by both sides. I'll contribute presently:

Refraction Experiments and Maths

With a block of glass, a laser, and a protractor, I have many times performed experiments to show that light 'bends' as it enters and exits mediums. Experiments to measure the speed of light through various substances have allowed the formulation of an equation to predict how much light will be bent when transitioning from one to another:

n1 * sin(anglei) = n2 * sin(angler)

n1 and n2 are the 'index of refraction' of each substance (1 being where the light is coming from, 2 being where the light is going to), and the angles being degrees away from the normal (a line perpendicular to the surface of the border between the mediums at the point where the light crosses).

The index of refraction of an object is c/v, with c being the speed of light in a vacuum and v being the speed of light through the medium in question.

This tells us (and experiments have confirmed) that as light goes to a slower medium (air to glass, vacuum to air, air to water, etc.), light will bend toward the normal, and vice-versa.

29
Flat Earth Debate / "Weightlessness" and faked video evidence
« on: July 12, 2013, 09:20:34 PM »
Preface:

Orbital mechanics require a round Earth, especially for the orbits NASA claims to enter and NORAD claims to track. Thus, various photographs from the ISS (or other extraterrestrial missions) have been claimed to be faked, as have videos of extra-vehicular activity (EVA) around the ISS (or other extraterrestrial missions).

Now, this isn't the topic for defining 'zero-g' or 'weightlessness' so I'll use those terms to describe the appearance of no gravity that is claimed to be experienced in orbit (and orbital mechanics predicts).

We on Earth, with easily-seen and accepted technology (ie airplanes), can reproduce this effect for short periods of time, usually about 30 seconds (followed by a period of about 20 meter-per-second-per-second acceleration upward as the airplane prepares for the next 30-second stint of zero-g. This is how the zero-g scenes were produced in the movie Apollo 13

However, there exists a #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tour of the ISS, as of 2012, with obvious zero-g effects lasting much, much longer than 30 seconds.

My question is this: if the ISS is faked, how do they create this extended video with weightlessness? Alternatively, please point out the evidence for how this has been faked.

Note 1: this topic is not about the existence of or non-existence of gravity. In UA, the only way I can see this is if the video set were careening toward the flat earth at 9.8 m/s/s.

Note 2: this topic is not about the location of the video set / ISS. If it were at the bottom of the ocean, it would still experience 'gravity' as the rest of the Earth, no matter what model.

Note 3: this topic is not about what causes gravity: be it UA, see above. If it's atmosphere, there's obviously atmosphere in this set. If it's aether or whatever, and you want to use that to explain the above question, please explain how it could affect this video set differently than it affects the rest of the world (and maybe why haven't there been built weightless resorts in this awesome place).

Note 4: anything either not answering the above question or agreeing that this question need be answered should be considered either 'low-content' or 'derailment'. A statement saying 'I don't know, but I'll look into it' or the like is an attempt to answer the question, and I'll gladly accept it, so long as the matter isn't considered closed until answered properly.

Note 5: if a theory is posed, and you know that theory to be wrong, please reply with something more than "WRONG!" Moderators: please be diligent about low-content posts. I want this to be a true discussion, and any post that says "You're wrong" should contain an answering theory or explanation as to why the posed theory is wrong.

Note 6: if a reply to this topic is in violation of any of these, any reply containing simply a quote and the words "Note 4" (et al) should not be considered low-content, please. I want this to stay on-topic, and pointing out where a reply errs without feeding a troll is a method I'd like to test.

Thank you, and I apologize for the long post. You may watch the video below for quick access, or follow #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this link.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">International Space Station Tour 2012 (HD) ISS Tour

Pages: [1]