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 - KristaGurl

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Debate / Priority of Perception
« on: August 21, 2012, 12:08:49 PM »
I have a question...

In the FAQ, it says that you believe the earth is flat because it looks that way up close.  Okay, fair enough.

When I look off into the horizon at sunset or sunrise, and I see the sun straight ahead, it looks to me like I'm looking at the sun while half of it is on the other side of the Earth.

My contention is that the earth looks flat because you're so close to such a large mass, it only looks flat. 

Your contention is that when I look at the sun, my field of vision is bending upwards, so I'm actually looking at the sun above me while it appears to be ahead of me.

Let's pretend like your contention makes as much sense as mine for a second.  If they were, what makes your perception right and my perception wrong?  If the perception that the sun is in front of me is wrong, how can you conclude that the earth is flat, in the face of all the evidence otherwise, that the earth is flat because "it appears to be up close?"

The Lounge / Pizza Planet????
« on: August 11, 2012, 08:01:48 PM »
What happened to Pizza Planet???

Flat Earth Q&A / Could FE Math Prove an RE World?
« on: November 18, 2011, 11:51:16 AM »
If you observe the distortion in the southern continets in an FE map, a FE'er explains those distortions by explaining that as you traverse outwards towards the edge, measurements become distorted.  They claim that this phenomenon causes the normal laws of geometry to not apply, and calls for a substitution of measurements they call "flat earth math."

As I started to think about what "flat earth math" would entail, I started to think about ratios in the flat earth map.  I started looking at the given lines of longitude in the flat earth map:

Notice how they're all straight and in equally distributed degree of separation all the way out.  However, when you look at the actual distances between landpoints going outwards, you notice that once you pass (what RE'ers consider) the equator, all of a sudden the ratios begin to get a lot more drastic (points of reference that do line up in geographic coordination don't line up with lines of longitude in a flat earth map).  In fact, if you drew a line between actual 1:1 distances on a flat earth map all the way towards the edge, you would see that the lines of longitude should actually curve backwards until they meet at a central point on the other side of the map.

Below, a very rough example of two lines of theoretic longitude that roughly retain 1:1 integrity:

This tells me that the outside of hypothetical flat earth doesn't actually conclude at a dropoff (or, "end of the world"), rather a point of circumfrencial unity where, one partcle located at the extreme edge of the world would actually wrap around the circumfrence of the Earth.  Meaning, if you stood on the south pole, and I pushed you away from Australia, rather than fall off the face of the earth, you would actually find yourself being pushed towards South America on the other side of the world.  This also means that, if you stand on the very outer rim of the earth, you would actually be surrounding the world.

The problem with this map is that every line of longitude would need to be split into two lines.  One wrapping around one way and one wrapping around another way.  Otherwise, there would be a split in the world somewhere to compensate for the distortions.  But, if this were the case, crossing lines of longitude would indicate that land masses would overlap.  This isn't the case.

Another problem with this map is that as the lines of longitude would curve, they would even out with the lines of latitude.  Eventually, on the other side of the earth from the point where the lines of longitude traversed perpendicular the lines of latitude, they now run parallel.  In order for them to stay perpendicular, lines of latitude would have the opposite effect.  They would curl upwards into the north pole to stay perpendicular.  This would result in the same condition of either overlapping land mass (which isn't happening), or a split planet.  This would cause the planet to be cut into 2 circles rather than 1.

There are 3 possibilities when it comes to fixing this error:

1. You split the earth into 2 circles like a figure 8.  This way, the continents retain their known distances and compensates for the integrity of longitude and latitude.  This doesn't work because the gap created by the split would still cause an inconsistency in proven geographic distance.

2. You put the meeting point outside of South America on the other side of the map so that the North pole is at one side, the equator in the middle and the South Pole on the other side.  This doesn't work because, in order to keep it flat in a 3-dimensional sense, you also have to keep it flat in a 2 dimensional sense, causing the earth to be a straight line.  Of course then, in order to keep geographical distance consistent, you also need to keep it flat in a 1 dimensional sense, which would then result in a purely non-existent object.

3.  You give the earth a third dimension.  You take the meeting point outside of South America and pull it downwards so that it's below the North Pole.  As a result, rather than a single point in the north pole and relying on skewed geometry to create circumfrencial unity on the edge, you simply have a mirroring point underneath the north pole.  This would also account for me pushing you away from Australia, and you being pushed towards South America on the other side.  And, it would also account for the multiple places currently at the north pole that are exactly that... one point.

It's important to note that it would be impossible for anything to exist on the edge of the world.  If flat earth math reconciles geographic coordination with the coordinates given on a flat earth map, the outermost rim would have to prove to be smaller than a particle (the rim of the earth carries a geographical measurement of a single point).  So, moving around on the earth would be much like the reflection of a concave mirror.  As you move across the mirror, objects go from wide to small to wide again, much like it does on the flat earth map.  However, when you stick an object INTO the curve of the mirror, things look more evenly distributed.  Of course, once you consider this map being pushed inwards into a concave mirror that was an exact semi-sphere, from the perspective of the mirror, you get the exact image of the earth... a spherical earth... with consistent geographic coordinates.

So, from what this logic tells me... is that in order for the flat earth map to even work if that IS the shape of the earth, it would have to at least APPEAR spherical.  And, it does.  The earth behaves exactly the way I've mentioned above.  There have been explorers who have gone across the south and ended up on the other side.  Even commercial flights... they don't have to go across the southernmost point to prove that you end up on the other side.  From the point I've argued above, you COULD, on this flat earth map, go southward from Sydney to end up at South Africa, and it would end up at the same point.

The problem is, in order for that to work, you have to assume that the earth is in a HIGHLY circumstancial, otherwise proven and unlikey shape, and that (otherwise correct) geometry does not apply in this case alone.  For this reason, the most likely scenario is that the earth is the spherical shape that has been proven and documented for over 2,000 years, and geometry consistent with the natural world proves it and backs up the claim.

Flat Earth Debate / Spinning World causing Equal Motion
« on: November 15, 2011, 07:36:06 AM »
I have a question to those who believe that the Sun goes around in circles over what logical people call "the equator."

How come when we watch the world spinning, the top half doesn't spin slower than the bottom half?  It seems like, if the earth were flat and we were watching the lighted part as the sun spun in circles, we would see the southern half moving faster.  It's like, if you spin a disk, you'll notice that the outsides of the disk appear to move faster because there is more surface area.  Instead, what we actually see is the equator moving faster than the poles.  Which suggests to me that we're watching a spinning sphere rather than light moving around on a flat surface.

Pages: [1]