1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A hermit comes down from the mountain...

« on: April 03, 2024, 10:37:54 AM »

Stop avoiding the question with technicalities in the wording. It's there is nothing that we can observe about earth that can't be explained by FE theory. While this is also true about a theoretical round earth, it comes down to our own senses. What do we observe about earth? Do we see earth as a ball or as a plate? It's obvious, our own eyes can show us that the earth is not if fact round but flat.

The hermit replies -

"Can you be more specific please? What specific observations will confirm to me that the earth is flat, as you claim?"

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A hermit comes down from the mountain...

« on: April 01, 2024, 01:58:37 PM »

The hermit may not have made the best choice of whom to ask, but so be it. Let's see what the answers are...

How would you persuade the hermit of your choice of shape of earth ?

Life consists of making a whole range of decisions every day. How to make this one is no different from any other.
Accepting advice on a subject you know nothing about from another party can be difficult. This is when their standing, experience, qualifications and credibility come into play. The word which many on this forum hate for some inexplicable reason is ‘expert’ which is odd. If you have a bad tooth and are in pain would you seek help from any random person or would you consult a dentist who is expert in all things to do with teeth. This problem is no different despite what some would have you believe. I had a friend just recently who had contracted a very rare medical condition as a result of a viral infection that had serious neurological ramifications. To get an accurate diagnosis and treatment an expert in neuroscience had to be consulted as only they had the required knowledge.
The question your hermit has is no different. If he wishes a definitive answer then an expert in that field should be consulted. In this case an astronomer. Teeth problems consult a dentist. Neurological problems consult a neurologist. Problems relating to the earth and its place in the cosmos consult an astronomer. Its pretty simple and pretty obvious.

With respect, my aims with the OP seem to have passed you by. My concern was not that the hermit should necessarily get the 'right' answer. Rather, the hermit was a device by which to elicit from the good folk here some explanations of how they might argue for their chosen earth shape using direct observation and reasoning, without third-party evidence.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A hermit comes down from the mountain...

« on: March 27, 2024, 03:47:07 PM »

A hermit comes down from the mountain and says to you -

"I have lived in a cave my entire life. I know nothing of this world. I trust only my own senses and reasoning.
Tell me, what shape is the earth and what can I observe that I will know this to be true?"

What do you tell him?

I tell him:
"Look around everywhere! Does the earth look spherical to you?"

The hermit replies:

"Inland it is difficult to tell, but when I go to the coast I see the oceans have a convex surface. So yes, the earth looks spherical to me. Thank you for your help."

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A hermit comes down from the mountain...

« on: March 27, 2024, 03:33:19 PM »

It could be a gigantic LED screen. What can the hermit observe to tell him that it's not?

Going down this path, we can just through out all forms of evidence.
Anything they see could just be a gigantic LED screen, which people secretly move around.

That's a good point of course, but I'd say limited to observations of the sky since its nature can't readily be ascertained from the ground. Observations of stuff on the ground can be checked out more thoroughly.

Can I move them around?

Absolutely, within the limits of practicality.

If so, quite simple, take a look at the night sky, ideally using a pair of cameras, and observe the north and south celestial pole.
From multiple locations.
Then move around keeping on of these to one side.
We also observe that they are always 180 degrees apart.
And by moving north and south we see it changes apparent position up and down, without distortion.

Okay, I agree the celestial poles are a good strategy whatever the nature of the sky (LED or otherwise) since they can be observed to be stationary from any given location. Plotting change of elevation of a celestial pole against north-south distance travelled would give a linear relationship on a round earth, but non-linear on a flat earth.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A hermit comes down from the mountain...

« on: March 25, 2024, 02:54:09 PM »

Go north, watch the rotate around the North Star, the go south and watch the stars spin round the southern axis point.

Would that show the shape of the earth? Couldn't it just be the sky moving?

Well explain how a rotating plane or a rotating sky above a flat plane has a central rotation axis observable above and below the equator?

Without knowing the nature of the sky, it could appear any which way. It's not constrained to be a rotating this or that. It could be a gigantic LED screen. What can the hermit observe to tell him that it's not?

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A hermit comes down from the mountain...

« on: March 25, 2024, 02:45:29 PM »

A hermit comes down from the mountain and says to you -

"I have lived in a cave my entire life. I know nothing of this world. I trust only my own senses and reasoning.
Tell me, what shape is the earth and what can I observe that I will know this to be true?"

What do you tell him?

Generally speaking if you wish to know something about a subject you yourself know little or nothing about you would go and consult an expert on that subject rather than asking some random person. Walk through any city or town and you will see that very thing in operation. Everything from hairdressers to psychiatrists and other medical practitioners each advertising their own particular expertise. While you can cut your own hair people who generally want to it done properly and with style choose one of these expert services. If you were having a baby sure you could ask your next door neighbour to lend a hand but if you were looking to have a birth that safeguarded your and your baby’s health you would seek the assistance of a whole range of experts who are each skilled in certain areas and have certified knowledge  that allows them to make both rational and safe decisions. It only sensible to take this approach.
Your question should be treated in the same way. You wish to know about things that are cosmic in nature, then the choice is clear ask someone who is an expert in that area such as an astronomer. That would be your best bet for receiving an accurate and validated answer that is backed by the position and qualifications they hold. You would think that would be it, then think again.
The elephant in the flat earth room does not allow for that kind of approach for that particular question. That question alone is ‘ring fenced’ barring any recourse to expert help. They wish it only be answered by the rank ignorant who give ignorant answers. In the flat earth world ignorance rules and anything that may shine a knowledgable light on that ignorance is severely frowned on.
I could also say to you if you wished for confirmation of any expert answer to go watch the latest footage from the Starship launch of last week it will reveal all and dismiss much of what flat earthers hold to be true.



That elephant however gets angry when such pieces of everyday knowledge are offered as it bursts their illusionary bubble in one pop, which of course they don’t like.
Your choice is either to ask some ignorant individual from whom you will most likely revive an ignorant response or ask someone who has detailed and accredited knowledge of that area you wish to know about.

The hermit may not have made the best choice of whom to ask, but so be it. Let's see what the answers are...

How would you persuade the hermit of your choice of shape of earth ?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A hermit comes down from the mountain...

« on: March 25, 2024, 02:42:55 PM »

Would that show the shape of the earth? Couldn't it just be the sky moving?

The shape is different to what is moving.

This visual observation doesn't show if Earth is spinning or the sky is spinning, but if done well enough can show that Earth is round.

So, how might observations of the sky show the earth is round? Convince the hermit !

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A hermit comes down from the mountain...

« on: March 22, 2024, 07:16:25 AM »

Go north, watch the rotate around the North Star, the go south and watch the stars spin round the southern axis point.

Would that show the shape of the earth? Couldn't it just be the sky moving?

9

Flat Earth Debate / A hermit comes down from the mountain...

« on: March 21, 2024, 03:39:38 PM »

A hermit comes down from the mountain and says to you -

"I have lived in a cave my entire life. I know nothing of this world. I trust only my own senses and reasoning.
Tell me, what shape is the earth and what can I observe that I will know this to be true?"

What do you tell him?

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity, just understood it existed

« on: March 19, 2024, 02:56:53 PM »

Since Albert Einstein, we conceptualise gravity as a bended time-space, but under non relativistic circumstances we can call it a force, because it acts like one.

"Again, no actual forces are ever proportional or vary in strength to each object, it’s completely ridiculous."

Okay, let's do a thought experiment.
Imagine one cube of lead, 1*1*1cm. When you drop it, it accelerates downward by 9.81 m/s˛. Take another identical cube, it gets accelerated downwards by the same amount. Hold both cubes together, they get accelerated by the same amount. Cast them together. Why should they now accelerate at a different speed? And actually they don't. Gravity does not have to sense the weight of an object before it applies a certain force to it. It just applies the same force to a certain mass and by it accelerates it at the same amount.

The problem here is that the gravitational 'force' on an object is necessarily proportional to its inertial mass. Why should that be? It's easy to see why Einstein (and Newton, I think) was uneasy with this idea.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature (and the lack of it)

« on: April 04, 2023, 02:29:08 AM »

Your claim that this is a constant figure is incorrect. For the same surface distance travelled, the corresponding distance along the N-S axis (what you call 'descent') is smaller near the pole and greater near the equator. The arrows in your own diagram illustrate this quite well.

It is a constant. Do the maths. Instead of travelling a quarter of the circumference travel an eighth (1/8) ie 3,113 miles. From 3,113 miles draw a line parallel to the equator line (E1 - E2) to intersect the N-C line. Then measure the distance from that intersect to N (the north pole). You will find it is 1,982 miles ie half the distance between N and C or 1 mile descent for every 1.57 miles travelled . You could choose any point between N and E1. Measure it from N then draw the parallel line to join the N - C line. The distance from the intersect to N will be 1 mile for every 1.57 miles of the arc.
Regarding my arrows not sure if thats just a cheap shot but they are not to scale am sure you must have noticed and are for illustrative purposes only - perhaps i should have mentioned that for the odd person that didnt realise that.
What you fail to accept is a circle is one continuous curve. Any of the infinite points on the circumference is at the 'top' of the curve that lies behind it and in front of it. If you take any 2 arcs from anywhere on a circle and overlay one with the other the arcs will be exactly the same  -one wont be higher or lower than the other. Instead of debunking with hearsay why not try it yourself?

Honestly, this seems so obvious that I suspect you may be trolling. Anyway:

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature (and the lack of it)

« on: April 03, 2023, 02:17:03 PM »

Please see attached image below. I came across an idea recently and would appreciate anyone's comments. The more positive the better.
Imagine a global non-rotating stationary earth with the north pole fixed at the top and the south pole fixed at the bottom. The 'C' on the image refers to the Centre of the diagram.

If I started at the north pole walked directly towards the south pole by the time I reached the equator I would have travelled 6,225 miles. I would also have dropped in 'height' from the north pole by 3,963 miles. Which is equivalent to the radius of the earth (ie half its diameter). If I divide 6,226 by 3,963 I get a figure of 1.57. And this figure is the relationship to miles travelled against height of descent. And it means that for every 1.57 miles travelled there will be a descent of 1 mile.
This is a constant figure for a perfect circle. So if I travelled 1,570 miles from the north pole heading south I would have descended by 1,000 miles. Or if I travelled 15.7 miles I would descend by 10 miles. It works for any unit of measurement; metres, inches, feet, kilometres.

Your claim that this is a constant figure is incorrect. For the same surface distance travelled, the corresponding distance along the N-S axis (what you call 'descent') is smaller near the pole and greater near the equator. The arrows in your own diagram illustrate this quite well.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Weightlessness During Freefall

« on: January 10, 2023, 05:31:21 AM »

Weightlessness is an inaccurate term anyway. Aside from fallacious discussions about gravity (where somehow weight on the moon relates to weight on Earth), a person/object's weight is their mass. You cannot be weightless, you can only be in a state whereupon weight doesn't matter because they are floating.

I'm looking at the guy dropping this water container, and at no point am I seeing weightlessness. What I am seeing is the water falling at a different rate than the bottle.

Stop using inexact terms like weightlessness. Objects have mass.

Mass is mass, but weight is a force. Specifically, the force an object exerts on the ground, or scales, etc.

An object with no force acting on it is therefore weightless as it does not exert an opposite force on anything.

Ignoring air resistance, the falling container and the water it contains are weightless as (in General Relativity) there is no force acting upon them.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How high is the sun?

« on: January 10, 2023, 05:04:53 AM »

Finding the true height of the sun is not easy due to the layer of water in between, but still, accepting a value between 4000-5000 miles as correct will give the least erroneous result. I think you might have started this thread to troll the believers because you are the sleeper cell. No problem. Finding the truth here may be still possible. The rest is not important. I won't respond to citations, most of them are already on the block list. You're not on the block list but it doesn't matter, This answer is sufficient in every way. Objections are not important.

I hope you got the most appropriate answer from all perspectives.

Thank you for your interesting response O Wise One!

The layer of water is obviously important in this question. Do you think it would be possible to determine its thickness or will that remain forever unknown?

By the way, not trolling at all. I deliberately raised this question in Q&A to avoid any debate.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How high is the sun?

« on: January 08, 2023, 07:22:59 AM »

If the sun were 32 miles across and a few thousand miles high the Eratosthenes experiment where you place sticks in the ground at some distance and observe the shadows has the math check out

Also have a read about this dude. The flat earth teaching was enforced

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilbur_Glenn_Voliva

Thanks for that link. I love his reasoning - "God would not have placed the light far away" !

So, he put it at no more than 3,000 miles. Any other offers?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / How high is the sun?

« on: January 07, 2023, 01:28:44 PM »

Just curious as to whether there is any kind of consensus among flatists as to the altitude of the sun above the flat earth.

And, if so, how high is it and how has this height been determined?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The dip of the horizon

« on: January 07, 2023, 12:03:39 PM »

What height would the arc be in the middle of a 200 mile long horizon, as seen from planes?

According to YOUR rate of 'curvature', it would be quite a pronounced arc in the middle of that horizon, right?

But the horizon is entirely flat, there is NO arc at all to be seen, in the slightest.

Why is there no arc at all? It WOULD be there, if 'curvature' existed, no?

No, it wouldn't be there. Over water, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions and the same height in all directions. In that sense, it is indeed flat.

When viewing from an increasing height it will at some point become apparent that you are looking at the edge of a circle, but the horizon will still be the same height in all directions. There is no reason why one direction would look different from any other.

This is entirely consistent with a round earth. A flat earth wouldn't have a distinct horizon at all.

18

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: SLS launches in 4 days

« on: November 16, 2022, 07:11:49 AM »

Holy crap. It actually launched and did not blow up!

That was the second most powerful rocket to ever launch and the most powerful rocket to reach orbit.

This record will hold about a month before Starship launches, its WAY more powerful.

I thought it was a bit underwhelming compared to the old Saturn V launches. I'm guessing that's because most of its power comes from the solid rocket boosters, whereas the 5 F-1 engines on the Saturn were what really impressed.

The commentary too was lacking, it didn't convey the same drama that Jack King used to conjure up.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?

« on: November 13, 2022, 12:54:50 PM »

When we fly above Earth, and see a horizon that is over 200 miles across the Earth, it is always perfectly flat, and horizontal from end to end.

If Earth were a ball, we would see it arc up in the middle, using your own argument, and rate of 'curvature' on Earth, which would show an arc of over 50 miles high, in the middle of that horizon, and it WOULD be seen, beyond any doubt.

You cannot have a ball Earth that doesn't curve as a ball, or ever INDICATE any curve at all.

 horizons are perfectly flat and horizontal across the flat surface of Earth, they are not ARCS across the surface of a ball Earth. If you draw a horizon of 200 miles in length, scaled to a paper, with an arc in the middle of it that is about 50 miles higher than at each end of that horizon, this would give you an arc, rising up to 1/4 of it's total length across the Earth.

But the horizon above a ball Earth, 200 miles across, arcing 50 miles up in the middle, would also curve down from you, at the same time, all around your position above it, away from you, downward from your position. So the horizon would arc up 50 miles high in the middle, and curve downward from you, over that 200 miles away from your position, as well.

This is why your side cannot make a model of it. as it would be seen from the ground, and above the ground, until we see it as a ball in 'space'.

What happens is, the horizon will curve, more and more, with more height above that ball Earth. If you try to make the horizon appear 'almost' flat across, it will not form into a ball, without making a radical, sudden curve appear before it is seen completely from a distance.

A 200 mile long horizon WOULD curve, it would arc up 50 miles high in the middle, while each end of it would be 50 miles lower than the mid-point of it.

Mountains and stuff notwithstanding, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions. It forms a circle around the observer. Its distance depends only on the height of the observer.

So, why would the horizon look any different in one direction than in any other direction? Why would it appear at different heights in different directions? That makes no sense.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Makes the Flat Earth Hypothesis Believable in the First Place?

« on: November 01, 2022, 01:47:49 PM »

I'm sure if we convert the sphere to make it flat, the total area for the sphere would be more than the flat disk.
Therefore, less area= less money spent on fuel/energy.
Seems reasonable to me.

You'd have to convert it first.

Yeah, sorry about that bud.
I have to do my homework instead of spending an hour converting sphere and the flat disk.
Maybe one day when I have more time I will do it but not today.

Well... Flat earth 'maps' seem to imply an earth radius equal to the distance between the poles. This is approx. 20,000 km. Calculating from that gives a flat earth area of about 1.26 billion km².

This is considerably larger than the accepted earth surface area of 510 million km². A discrepancy which might have been noticed...

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Water always finds level...or does it?

« on: September 08, 2022, 02:10:52 PM »

But have you ever found a ball shaped planet out there with a liquid surface? Of the many thousands of planets our telescopes have looked at, none are confirmed to have liquid surfaces. On the balance of probabilities it would appear that you cant have a ball shaped planet with liquid. That alone is a slam dunk proof that Earth is not a ball shape

Saturn's moon Titan has seas and lakes of liquid methane and ethane: Lakes of Titan

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 03:55:08 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?

The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?

Because there isn't a hump ? Show me the hump.

As explained, the 'hump' is in front of you and all around. The top of the hump is the horizon. Stuff far behind the hump (e.g. ships) can't be seen.

Your lack of engagement with what I've written suggests you're trolling. Good luck.

So why is the horizon pretty much horizontal? I can't see any hump looking to the horizon at all .

Over water, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions. It is therefore the same height in all directions. Hence it is horizontal. This is exactly what would be expected on a round earth.

You have contradicted yourself,  how can the horizon be horizontal if there is a hump?

I've never said there was a hump in the horizon. I've been very consistent in saying that the curvature is along the line of sight, not along the horizon.

Fairly sure you're trolling here. That's a shame, but I won't be replying further.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 03:42:56 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?

The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?

Because there isn't a hump ? Show me the hump.

As explained, the 'hump' is in front of you and all around. The top of the hump is the horizon. Stuff far behind the hump (e.g. ships) can't be seen.

Your lack of engagement with what I've written suggests you're trolling. Good luck.

So why is the horizon pretty much horizontal? I can't see any hump looking to the horizon at all .

Over water, the horizon is the same distance away in all directions. It is therefore the same height in all directions. Hence it is horizontal. This is exactly what would be expected on a round earth.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 03:30:00 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?

The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?

Because there isn't a hump ? Show me the hump.

As explained, the 'hump' is in front of you and all around. The top of the hump is the horizon. Stuff far behind the hump (e.g. ships) can't be seen.

Your lack of engagement with what I've written suggests you're trolling. Good luck.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 03:08:07 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?

The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

So where is this hump? Why can't you raise altitude and see this hump?

The 'hump' is perfectly visible, directly in front of you, whichever way you look. What makes you think you can't see it?

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 02:57:45 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

Ok cool, so when we are at the beach and we see a ship fully disappear over the curvature so now it's fully gone can't be seen anymore your saying we can't see this curvature it's hidden behind right? If so can you please show me how this works on a small scale?

The curvature is along your line of sight. The top of the 'hump' is the horizon. The ship is behind the hump.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Curvature

« on: November 10, 2021, 02:18:42 PM »

If boats or any object go over the curvature of earth how comes we can't see this curvature they are going over or hidden behind?Go to this website with earths curve calculator https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/earth-curvature scroll down and find the diagram with the curvature and an object hidden from curvature,  where is the big hump of curvature hiding the bottom of objects? Or whole objects? I know you are going to say earth is too big to see the curvature but then objects ain't going over the curvature you can't have it both ways.

The curvature is along an observer's line of sight and over water is the same in all directions. Hence the horizon is the top of the 'hump' from an observer's point of view. The horizon itself is flat as in all directions it is the same distance away and so appears at the same height.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: The Candle Experiment

« on: August 26, 2019, 02:09:29 AM »

If John's 'experiment' is capable of showing anything it is that roundies are too easily trolled..

29

Flat Earth General / 'Globe Lie' convention UK

« on: August 18, 2019, 02:07:18 AM »

https://feconvention.com/kidderminster/

13-15 September. Is anyone from here planning to go?

I'm thinking about dropping by. Very curious to see some genuine flat-earthists 'in action'. I suspect it may not always be easy to keep a straight face, but we'll see...

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UA

« on: July 09, 2019, 12:46:20 AM »

The point is that the accelerometer would show that objects on the ground are being accelerated at approx. 9.8 ms^-2 upwards.

Now you know that’s not quite true as the reading would depend on where you happened to be standing.

That's why I wrote approx.

However what has that got to do with UA on a flat disc. The problem is the two are interwoven and have to be taken together. SR GR, Newtonian physics and any other law of physics you care to mention would not apply on a disc world either finite or infinite.

The Question is what evidence is there for UA on a flat plane.

Fair enough, and apologies. My thought experiment didn't concern a flat plane, but the real world.