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 - Nolhekh

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Relativity and Flat Earth
« on: June 16, 2014, 03:19:15 PM »
I would like to make an argument regarding John Davis' flat earth model.  In his Relativity & Flat Earth page, he says this:

Consider a theoretical object in a perfectly stable orbit around a theoretical planet in a traditional round earth manner. Remember from Newtons laws of motion: an object in motion tends to stay in motion and in the direction it is in motion. We can certainly say that the object in orbit that it feels no experimentally verifiable difference in force or pseudo-force - which is equivalent to saying it is experimentally not accelerating (and thus not changing direction or speed.) Remember, Einstein disillusioned our naive view of space based on the equivalence principle.

Our sight would lead us to believe this might be foolish, but if space is curved (and Relativity relies on the assumption that it is) it would be silly to not question our visual representation of space since by all accounts it appears as if our observational (and theoretical) language is ill equipped to deal with description of it.
(original page)

My understanding of this is that John Davis is saying that orbits are flat/straight relative to space time, and it is the curve of space time according to Einstein's theory of General Relativity which renders orbits as curved, and celestial surfaces as convex.  But in round earth terms, we don't truly consider a line drawn along the surface of a sphere to be perfectly straight, but as circles.  Inexperienced round earther's are often pedantically reminded of this fact.  It may be straight relative to the surface, but is really a geodetic curve.  Likewise, if a line in space-time is geodetic, it may be straight relative to space-time, but ultimately must be considered curved. 

Now to point out a complication with the above argument.  We can observe the true curve in a geodetic line drawn on a sphere or torus, because we observe in 3 dimensions, and our 3 dimensions are not constrained to the 2 dimensions of the surface of the sphere.  If our observation were constrained to the sphere's surface, the lines would curve differently because photons would be incapable of travelling parallel to one another.  The appearance of that curve, however would change based on our position.  The line would always appear concave, as if we were inside of it.  If you try to cross the line, the line will appear to change its bend to appear to bend around you.  If the surface was toroidal, on the other hand, geodetic lines would all appear straight, because photons could move parallel to one another in toroidal space.

If spacetime was indeed curved in such a way that the orbital paths and surface of the earth were geodetic to spacetime, for spherical space, they would appear to change magnitude relative to the 3 dimensional reference frame of our craft exploring the solar system, and for toroidal space, every orbit and planet would appear straight or flat.

The appearance of flatness of a round earth is explained easily.  The radius of a sphere can be so large compared to the distance of us, the observers, that it subtends a nearly 180 degree angle for us.  An infinite plane, coincidentally would subtend exactly 180 degrees for us.  This logically demonstrates the fallacy of assuming something is flat because it appears to be flat.

Flat Earth Debate / Advice to other Round Earthers
« on: January 11, 2014, 09:19:10 AM »
The idea of a flat earth, definitely flies in the face of everything we know and understand.  So on finding this website, it's only natural to feel like you've encountered a religious cult of closed-minded lunatics, and you might be inclined to treat them as such.  But if you have that inclination then may I direct you at this: #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 1 of 3)

In my opinion, there are two major kinds of "Flat Earther" that could possibly exist here.  Those that actually believe the earth is flat for some reason or another, and those who don't and are just trying to troll you.  Unfortunately I don't think there is an easy way to tell these apart, but think of it this way when you are ready to engage in debate and discussion (and the next bit applies to both sides).  If the person is trying to troll you, why bait them?  Emotional posts about how stupid and arrogant you think the opposition is only get in the way of those of us who wish to make a real argument, and give the troll what they want from you.  If they really do believe the earth is flat, then they may have a legitimate reason for doing so, and it's only polite to show respect for this, and they are entitled to their beliefs.  If you want to debate with anyone, do so with all the rationality and respect that you can. 

Also keep as open a mind as you can, because most of us Round Earthers don't come here knowing nearly as much as we need to about our own side of the debate as we should, and end up making completely false arguments against the Flat Earthers.  Quite often you'll see the Universal Acceleration hypothesis attacked by clueless people who don't fully understand how newton's laws of motion work, or cite the speed of light speed limit issue, despite the fact that the very same theory actually makes it possible.  So before arguing, research the subject first!

Another thing I see a lot here is that on both sides, the physics of either model comes under fire.  This, in my mind, completely loses sight of the debate.  The debate is whether the earth is flat, or round.  This is purely a matter of geometry, which falls under observation and measurement.  The earth was decided to be round and orbit the sun long before Newton and Einstein described the laws of the system.  It was decided to be round because this was the best shape that fit the observations of the astronomers.  If observations were consistent with a flat earth, then the earth is flat.  This is where I believe the debate should be constrained to.  Debates about how the earth formed, and how gravity works, I believe, are off topic.

The Lounge / User Name
« on: November 12, 2012, 05:24:16 PM »
Is there any way for me to change my user name?  It's based off of a language I made up in high school, and I'm starting to feel embarassed about it.

Dear Moderators

ThinkingMan needs to change his attitude in Happy Forever's threads.  His demeanor is aggravating my opponent, and filling the discussions with useless accusations and escalating into name-calling.  Could he perhaps be given a warning, and off-topic posts be removed?  The threads are getting long and difficult to read, simply because they mostly consist of his fight with Happy Forever.

Thank you.

Flat Earth Debate / Further Question Regarding Sunsets and Sunrises
« on: June 16, 2012, 07:25:49 AM »
One thing about FET that I'm still unable to accept is sunsets and sunrises.  FET holds that a 32 mile wide sun circles above the earth at an altitude of 3000 miles.  Rowbotham, Bishop, Thork, and some others still claim the sunset and sunrise are due to perspective, yet in ENaG, regarding the sinking ship phenomenon, Rowbotham believes the hull disappears before the masts because it is shallower and its angular size diminishes beyond human perception before the masts do.  If this is the case, how can 3000 miles of altitude disappear during a sunset, while the 32 mile diameter sun stays the same size?  3000 miles has a much larger angular size than 32 at the same distance, so why doesn't the sun diminish from a ball to just a bright point of light before the altitude does? If the sun is being magnified, why isn't the distance between the earth and the sun also magnified?

I've been reading through Earth Not a Globe's section on perspective, and came to the conclusion that there is nothing described here by Rowbotham that is fundamentally incorrect.

Before explaining the influence of perspective in causing-the hull of a ship to disappear first when outward bound, it is necessary to remove an error in its application, which artists and teachers have generally committed, and which if persisted in will not only prevent their giving, as it has hitherto done, absolutely correct representations of natural things, but also deprive them of the power to understand the cause of the lower part of any receding object disappearing to the eye before any higher portion--even though the surface on which it moves is admittedly and provably horizontal.

"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is
p. 203
[paragraph continues] 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . 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." 1
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.
The first and second of the above propositions are self-evident.

The majority of what is written here is correct.  It is true that art schools teach an imprecise version of the laws of perspective.  Artists are not generally good mathematicians, and so try their best with as little math as possible.  As a result, mathematical errors do occur in artwork.  However, due to the freedoms of artistic expression, such errors are mostly trivial.

It should be noted that what Rowbotham is describing as the smallest angle visible is not, in fact the same thing as the vanishing point which schools teach about.  The vanishing point as taught by schools, which I will refer to as the “standard” represents a direction, in which all lines parallel to that direction point to.  It does not represent a finite distance.  Rowbotham's vanishing point does represent a variable distance dependant on physical size of the object observed.  Objects will in fact always “vanish” at Rowbotham's vanishing point before reaching the standard vanishing point.  There really is no ground here to say that art schools have it wrong.  The only thing they really get wrong is where the vanishing points are placed within an image.  Beyond that there's nothing that Rowbotham describes that is incompatible with what art schools teach.

So to my final point, there is nothing about what Rowbotham describes here that is mathematically incorrect, and neither is there anything here that contradicts the math performed by Flat Earth Skeptics to analyze maps presented by FES.  So I find it confusing that Flat Earth supporters would refer to Rowbotham when presented with numbers.  If there is anything to question in an FE skeptic's argument, it's either his math or his logic.  Telling them to read ENAG won't help, as there is nothing here to correct their math or logic.

The Lounge / A question for Round Earth believers:
« on: September 24, 2011, 04:38:32 PM »
Is this a real photograph?

Click for full size:

Flat Earth Debate / Rowbotham's style of logic
« on: July 18, 2011, 03:09:05 PM »
I was reading Earth Not a Globe just now, and I came accross this statement:
"We cannot admit as evidence the calculated length of a degree of latitude, because this is an amount connected with the theory of the earth's rotundity; which has been proved to be false."

He claims to have proven the Earth's "rotundity" false, and bases his later argument on that "fact," but Rowbotham, being human, must be susceptible to errors.  In chapter 3, Rowbotham makes an argument where he tries to prove false, what is essentially the law of conservation of momentum, but fatally fails to take air resistance into account.  This removes any ground from arguments based on this proof.  That Rowbotham is unable to take into acount that any proof he makes may have errors, tells me that the entirety of ENaG's explanations for observations may not necessarily reflect reality.

A while back, Tom Bishop started a thread showing an apparent bell curve path that the sun appeared to make when captured using solargraphy, and claimed that this bell curve was inconsistent with the round Earth model.  I have since left this post refuting his claim that he has yet to counter.

I have a rendering of what shape the FE sun would make in a solargraphy image.  The Round Earth sun is in red, and the Flat Earth sun is white.  The OP image is placed next to the simulated image for comparison.

This is a wide shot of the model I used for this.  While the round earth sun does not represent true distance, it is set up so that it's angular position relative to bristol is exactly what it would be for round earth.

Here is the solargraphy camera.  A normal cg camera with a reflective hyperbolic surface, to simulate the cylindrical projection that the pinhole camera produces.

I think it clearly shows that solargraphy in fact supports the round earth theory more, as the Rowbotham model failed to produce a curve anywhere close to as accurate to the photograph as round earth theory did.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Who is Victorious?
« on: January 31, 2011, 02:27:31 PM »
If both sides of an arguement claim victory, then how do you conclusively know who really won?

Flat Earth General / Conspiracy fakes evidence of bendy light!
« on: January 22, 2011, 09:29:52 AM »

Yeah.  Light bending downward due to atmospheric refraction is part of RET.  It is also used as the explanation for the results of the bedford levels experiment.   So stop using this phenomenon as evidence of UA which in FET causes light to bend upward.

I opened up Stellarium and found the azimuth/declination of the sun and different times of the day on September 21 2010.  Using this data, I calculated the distances and altitudes the sun would have to be from Ottawa, Canada if it was following a path over the equator on Flat Earth.

Stellarium is a program that shows you exactly where in the sky any planet, or major moon or asteroid would be at any time from any place in the world, or on any other planet, major moon or asteroid down to the last 2 decimal places of an arc second.  Feel free to test the accuracy of it yourself, as it's a free download.

As you can see, the math shows that the altitude of the sun varies from 0 km at sunset or sunrise, to 5130km at 1:00 PM.  This is contrary to the idea that the sun maintains a constant altitude.

Another problem I notice is that throughout the 12 hour period, the sun covers less than half of it's total path, which would be impossible if it were supposed to travel at a constant speed making 1 revolution every 24 hours.

Also, if I were to attempt this diagram showing the sun's position as viewed from south of the equator, even more problems would arise.  Some of the vectors may not even coincide with the sun's alleged path.

Flat Earth Debate / The Moon does not appear flat
« on: July 25, 2010, 05:37:14 PM »
This post is to show those who think that the moon is flat that the way the light reflects off the moon is consistent with a rough globe.

I have created a model using Blender 3D showing sunlight distribution on a sphere, by having a particle emitter cast particles on a black sphere, and then having the particles stick to the surface of the sphere when they collide.  This shows us the apparent light distribution as viewed from different angles - the more concentrated the particles look, the brighter that part of the sphere would look.

Here I cast the particles on the sphere

Here I show the sphere from multiple angles, also labelling which lunar phases some views would represent. 

Here are some photos of the moon at various phases to compare.

This simulation, however applies only to a rough surface, as opposed to a smooth surface, as it assumes equal percentages of sunlight reflect in each direction from all parts of the moon recieving sunlight.  A smooth surface would have light reflecting away at the edges and making those parts of the moon darker.  But this is not so much what we see, so we can conclude that the surface of the moon is rough, and that it's shape is globular.

Flat Earth Q&A / Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« on: July 11, 2010, 07:57:14 PM »
On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of perception - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

The vanishing point is not created when perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree.  The vanishing point is a zero dimensional point on a two-dimensional surface,for example: the human retina, that represents a point where two parallel lines appear to meet.  Obviously parallel lines don't meet within any finite distance, therefore the vanishing point is an infinite distance away.  The reason it's called a vanishing point is because it is the point at which no object regardless of any size can be seen.  For this to be possible it's distance has to be infinite.  To say that the vanishing point must be a finite distance away leads to the misconception that objects can pass the vanishing point.  Since the vanishing point in fact represents infinite distance, this is not possible.  This prevents the theorized illusion that boats are 'sinking' behind a flat body of water because of perspective.

In the sinking ship example, we see the hull disappear before the masts.  Rowbotham claims this is due to the hull shrinking to invisible smallness.  However if this is the case, the rest of the boat has to appear to shrink proportionally to the hull!  Does this happen?  If the hidden part of the vessel can be visibly superimposed over what is hiding it, then it hasn't disappeared due to perspective.  If you can imagine the shape of the part of the boat that is invisible where it should be then it hasn't disappeared due to perspective.

During early childhood, I was raised being taught many things such as: Christianity (+ existence of other religions), Creationism, Evolution, Astrology, Astronomy, that Santa Clause brings presents to your Christmas tree via flying reindeer and entry through a chimney (which my house didn't have at the time, so I was immediately sceptical on this detail).  As may be known by the reader, some of these things contradict one another, and can have a certain effect on a growing individual.  With a stance of scepticism from early on, I questioned all of these things:  How is Christianity any more true than Judaism or Islam?  How did god create humans only a few days after the rest of the earth, when dinosaurs have been around millions of years before humans?  How can the positions of stars in the sky at your birth determine your fate?  Why can't I see nebulae with my bare eyes?  Has anyone really seen a black hole?  Why is the sky blue, when prisms split light into all colours?  Why do ALL of my presents seem to come from my relatives several days before Christmas?  As Evolution, and Round-Earth Astronomy produce models consistent with my experiences in everyday life, I logically deduce that they are closer to the truth than anything else.  Any alternative models will be rejected until they explain all and more than the ones currently accepted.

As you can see, my belief in a round earth is not the result of a blind following of what I read in the textbooks and hear from teachers, but the result of years of objective analysis of all theories presented to me.  So far all attempted explanations I have encountered here are mathematically unsound or unresolved, are questions regarding my inefficient use of language, or are confusing lines of wordplay which make no impression on my mental image of the universe whatsoever.

This is why I have yet to believe in the Flat Earth Theory.

Now, because of the lack of effective explanations, arguments, or visuals for Flat Earth Theory that I have encountered on this forum, I am losing patience and interest.  If this forum is here for legitimate Flat Earth Theorists to convince people, for example, me, that the earth is not round, then I must submit that their approach to doing so is inadequate.  I did not come here to convince anyone that the earth was round, I came here to be convinced that it wasn't, and honestly, I am disappointed to have not been convinced.  My mental image of the universe is indeed a developing one, and there is room for improvement, should any be provided.  I am not here to give math lessons, or to have to carefully explain how I define every word I type.  If no-one can post an intelligent response before Monday, at midnight, EST, I will quit the forum, and conclude that those who started it have failed in their goal (if it is sincere), and to suggest to those here sincerely arguing for Round Earth Theory to also quit, as without intelligent arguments, I am finding it to be a waste of time.

Pages: [1]