931

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Is UP! Challenge

« on: March 01, 2020, 08:58:44 AM »

What is loosely called flat Earth 'theory' should really be called flat Earth belief. Which itself is based on nothing more than a rebellion against mainstream science.  Because that seems to be all it is based on. Flat Earth people are nothing more than rebels who for reasons best known and only known to themselves chose not to accept the mainstream view. Seeming just because they want to be different. They base their beliefs on a twisted, alternative explanation of what is otherwise well established evidence. Their attitude is 'we will only believe it if you can prove it'. But proof is only proof if you are willing to accept it as such and obviously no flat Earther will accept anything as proved which counters their belief. 

The heliocentric model as it stands is the best model to explain everything that we witness around us. Day and night, the variation in the length of day and night during the year at different latitudes, the length of the year, the behaviour of the Moon each month, the distance of the Sun and Moon and the variation in the constellations visible with each season. In that respect everyone on the 'RE' conforms to the same model since it explains everything satisfactorily and it predicts future events correctly as well.

On the FE side there are several 'models' which just leads to confusion on all sides since no single model seems to be able to singularly explain or account for everything we witness in nature. As a result whenever as question is asked about how does FE explain this or that, invariably the answer comes back as 'that is currently unaccounted for' or 'it depends on which model' you choose.

So until FE can sort themselves out with a universally accepted model (which I predict they never will) they are hardly in a position to criticise anything else.

932

Flat Earth General / Re: What is on the other side of the earth?

« on: March 01, 2020, 08:09:42 AM »

If you pick up a rock, it is solid. It also has an 'underside'. The Earth is just a really huge rock.

I agree. But if you pick up a rock how do you distinguish between which is the overside and which is the underside? Relatively few rocks that I pick up are what you would describe as flat.  Most are just irregular in shape.

933

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge

« on: February 29, 2020, 01:21:58 PM »

Measurements of what?  Showing that the Moon is just 3000 miles away?  I don't have any because everyone (well the vast majority of people) knows that the Moon is a lot further away than 3000 miles.   Even you know that I'm sure secretly!

You cannot go through life only being willing to believe things you can prove to yourself. There are some things in life where you have to rely on others with the right equipment to do the measuring for you and accept as valid the results they get. Measuring the distance to the Moon is one of those. I am not someone who refuses to accept anything that I cannot prove or verify myself as you appear to be.

I suppose I (or indeed you) could try this

https://www.universetoday.com/91120/do-it-yourself-guide-to-measuring-the-moons-distance/

The problem with the first method for FE believers is that the FE version of how lunar eclipses happen is different to the 'mainstream' view so you probably won't accept it.

The other method uses lunar parallax.  But that also relies on established what you could call 'RE' figures that you won't accept either.  Plus I (or you) would need a friend on the other side of the world to take some measurements as well.

One thing is for sure. If you had two people standing 3,200km apart or a little less than 2000 miles and the Moon is (as FE claim) just 3000 miles away then you would see a much, much bigger parallax than I predict you actually will when you do the experiment.  So my hypothesis is that the Moon is a lot further away than just 3000 miles!

934

Flat Earth General / Re: Follow up to 'What is on the other side' from Q&A

« on: February 29, 2020, 01:09:49 PM »

A typical response from a flat Earther.   Can't you do better than that?!?

I spent a week at the said observatory which is very near Fort Davis in Texas back in the 1980s. A group of us were there as participants of the annual Texas Star Party (look it up if you don't believe it) at the time when the Moon was up. The staff on duty at the time carried out the laser experiment there and then.  In front of us. Only takes just over 3 seconds so not hard to do.

So you think what you like but when you see something done right in front of you, that represents quite good evidence. Of course you will dismiss it by saying they could have put any old data on the screen.  But why would they feel the need to do that? They were not there to deceive anyone.  That's the problem with flat Earthers. They are constantly obsessed by the assertion that anyone who does anything that counters their flat Earth belief or anything related to it is a deliberate lie or deception.

So if there is any desperation going on around here it is coming from you.  The show lost its appeal because it was demonstrating something you didn't want to believe was true. If it supports or appears to support your belief you accept it. Anything else is dismissed.  Typical flat Earther reaction.

935

Flat Earth General / Follow up to 'What is on the other side' from Q&A

« on: February 29, 2020, 12:00:00 PM »

Under this thread, JD links us to this

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/03/a-conversation-with-a-flat-earth-believer.html

And in that he states

It is easy to believe the Earth is round—you just have to accept what everybody else is saying.

My reaction to that would be why would you base a belief on something just because it is what everyone else is saying? I certainly don't. I take the trouble to look at the evidence for and against and then form my own judgement based on that. There are of course certain observations and certain measurements that I cannot do myself but there are plenty of other trusted individuals who can.  The astronomers at the McDonald Observatory for example who took regular laser ranging measurements of the Moon over some forty years. Flat Earthers will dismiss all of that because of its links with NASA.

The flat Earther version of this sentence would go something like...

'It is easy to believe the Earth is flat - you just have to look around you and see that the world looks flat'.

So on the same basis would you then also conclude that the Sun and Moon are the same size just because they look the same size in the sky? A flat Earther would probably say yes because you have no means of directly measuring how far away the Sun and Moon are from Earth simply by their appearance in the sky.

Fortunately there are many others who take a slightly more scientific approach to this problem and have actually developed methods which have allowed us to make measurements that tell us how big the Sun and the Moon really are.  Once distances have been established we can use simple maths to calculate their size. Unfortunately that sort of approach doesn't seem to be favoured by the flat Earth community. Possibly because it reveals that their preferred 'it looks therefore it must be' direct assumptions are actually wrong.  Very wrong.

936

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge

« on: February 29, 2020, 11:33:18 AM »

Yes let me be more specific than just 'RE'. Over many years astronomers and 'scientists' and 'engineers' have made accurate measurements of the Moons distance. From their measurements we have identified that the Moon is receding from Earth at an average rate of about 2cm per year. That is entirely supportive of the model we have of the early solar system formation where a large body collided with the Earth and the Moon formed from the resulting debris.

Where is the description of your own measurements which tell you that the Moon is only 3000 miles away?

937

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Alien Life

« on: February 29, 2020, 09:46:48 AM »

It would be foolish to think intelligent life doesn't exist. It would be equally foolish to think it does.

I agree on both counts but according to your earlier claim it is 'well known' that the Moon is apparently teaming with life.  Yet as far as I know we are still waiting on the first official announcement of the discovery of life beyond Earth.  Or do you know something the rest of world doesn't?

938

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Challenge

« on: February 29, 2020, 09:39:37 AM »

So given that the distance of the Moon has been measured very accurately by RE using a variety of methods including lasers radar ranging from a variety of sources, could you run it by me again as to how FE reaches a figure of 3000 miles please.

939

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me.........

« on: February 29, 2020, 04:05:54 AM »

Your anger it seems is just aimed at anyone who holds a different view to your own.  That's the purpose of debates isn't it?  In a debate people should be allowed to have and to voice different views without expecting to have insults fired at them.  If you need to resort to that sort of language to get your opinion over and fire insults off at anyone who has the audacity to express a different view to yours then AR is the place for that surely.

940

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me.........

« on: February 29, 2020, 01:30:44 AM »

Yes its well known that well known facts are not factual.

Really?   Please give me an example of a well known fact which is actually not factual.  Because surely if it is well known that a well known fact is not actually factual then that makes it by definition not a well know fact?

You mentioned about figures such as those quoted in the BAA handbook as suiting only the model they refer to.  Can you point us towards a flat Earth model which has figures quoted to the same level of accuracy?  In fact can you point us towards a single FE model which all FE believers accept?  No of course you can't because no such single model exists. You are all too busy arguing among yourselves about which one to adopt.

You go on about Einstein and Newton.  Well it is a 'well known fact' that neither of them were right all the time.  Of course they weren't because they were human beings and therefore not infallible to making mistakes and errors.  Even scientists make mistakes. But at least they are willing to recognise and accept they have made a mistake and do something about it. I have never yet seen an instance when a FE believer has held their hands up and said.. 'actually I could be wrong..'.  What is it like to be super human and to be right all the time?

941

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Alien Life

« on: February 28, 2020, 03:58:39 PM »

It is well established that the moon is teaming with both life that this life poses a risk to man through its defensive mechanism of bioluminescence

Is it?  Since when?  If it is true then someone had better contact SETI to let them know they are wasting their time and effort in looking for ET life since it has apparently already been found.

942

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me.........

« on: February 28, 2020, 03:27:45 PM »

OK. The BAA (British Astronomical Association) have been publishing their handbook for many years. It is published annually and is a highly respected source of astronomical data and used by astronomers the world over.  In the back of the handbook (p114 of the 2020 copy) it has a list of astronomical and physical constants. The Earths radius (equatorial) is listed as 6,378,136.6m and the polar radius as 6,356,751.9m That gives a ratio of 0.0033528197.

Now that is pretty accurate and not the sort of figures that could simply be made up.  I don't think the BAA is the sort of organisation to 'make things up' or deliberately deceive its paid members do you?

So while it is true to say that there is a degree of flattening due to the Earths rotation it is certainly not true to say that the Earth is flat. Of course if you want to believe otherwise then that is up to you but I would want to see figures from you to the same degree of accuracy that evidence your 'flat' Earth belief.

I don't know the methods used to reach these figures and I cannot make the measurements myself.  However given the nature and stature of the BAA as an organisation I respect their quoted figures and accept them as true.

You can also find the data contained in the handbook here:

http://britastro.org/computing/pdf/Constants.pdf

943

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me.........

« on: February 28, 2020, 03:12:57 PM »

So you are only willing to accept something if you can measure it yourself are you?

944

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain this to me.........

« on: February 28, 2020, 03:01:20 PM »

By 'first hand evidence' what do you mean exactly? What about evidence contained in scientific journals or handbooks?  My experience of flat Earth believers is that they dismiss any evidence that does not explicitly support their FE ideology regardless of where it comes from.

FE claim that the Moon is just 3000 miles away without any real explanation for why. RE have repeatedly measured it over many years to be 238,855 miles away using lasers and radar. FE don't accept this simply because it doesn't conform with their own, unverified claims.

Time zones are explained by Shenton via the spotlight sun.

Isn't the RE explanation of time zones (i.e. its rotation) not equally valid in the sense that it works?

945

The Lounge / Re: RIP Mike Hughes

« on: February 23, 2020, 01:45:22 PM »

I think it is distasteful how people are joking about someone's death.

I hope that comment is not aimed directly or otherwise at me.  I might not agree with what were obviously his passionate beliefs but I certainly wouldn't post anything distasteful or disrespectful about the death of a fellow human being. My sincere condolences go out to his family and friends.

946

The Lounge / Re: RIP Mike Hughes

« on: February 23, 2020, 12:21:13 PM »

Obviously the rocket was destroyed by 'globalists'. Absolutely no possibility that it just failed due to a technical malfunction is there?!? 

947

Flat Earth General / Why is the FE 'library' so small?

« on: February 23, 2020, 04:31:47 AM »

The link from the FES home page to the Library takes you to a list of just 14 books. The most recently published being over 30 years ago now and the oldest taking us back to 1854.

Despite this list of just 14 publications, the page describes it as being:

The largest collection of flat earth literature. We have searched far and wide to provide you with the most complete listing of literature about the Flat Earth anywhere on the internet.

14 books... is that really the best you can do with the Internet at your disposal?  A quick search on Amazon has come up with more.

948

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Planes Below the Horizon

« on: February 15, 2020, 11:34:16 AM »

I wonder why John Davis tries to muddy the waters with his meaningless statement?

Because flat Earthers will give answers that suit their flat Earth agenda.

949

Flat Earth General / Re: WHY?

« on: February 15, 2020, 09:07:12 AM »

What is the benefit to whoever it shall be of maintaining the pretence that the earth is a globe? How do people make money out of it?, how do people gain power by it?

If you replace the word flat then this sentence makes complete sense and poses a sensible question. As for the questions about money and power... perhaps when you find out you can enlighten please.  As it is with the word 'globe' the sentence is nonsense.

950

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dark Moon

« on: February 10, 2020, 02:14:57 PM »

I hear what you are saying (interpret that as you will) but I would be careful if I were you otherwise the next time I log on this discussion will have been moved to AR if the mods are watching.... just saying!

951

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dark Moon

« on: February 10, 2020, 05:07:52 AM »

To reply #6, surely FET is not just about "raging against the establishment, and denying everything the establishment says."

That is just be like being a rebellious, adolescent teenager who thinks he knows better than anyone else just because it makes him feel important. However this 'dark Moon' idea is pretty far fetched I must say. 

When you look at an image of the Moon such as that posted, what explanation could you possibly give for its illumination that is better than some thing very bright and distant (such as the Sun for example) shining on the Moon from the direction (as portrayed in the photo) of lower left?

952

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Little bit confused

« on: February 08, 2020, 01:21:03 AM »

Well first up, the sun is certainly not yellow. It is white. If it really were yellow, snow would look like it was pissed on. I can assert this with a very high degree of confidence

In so far as the solar spectrum shows that the photosphere emits light all the way across the visible band (400-700nm) I agree with you that sunlight is technically white.  That's why astronomers talk about observing the Sun in white light when they use a filter which merely scaled down the intensity of light entering the telescope.

However in common with other stars the Sun does not emit light with equal intensity across the full range of visible wavelengths. The peak of emission depends on temperature (Wiens displacement law) and for the Sun that corresponds to a wavelength which we recognise as yellow.  Colours of course are just the human brains way of distinguishing different wavelengths. Also our eyes have evolved during the day at least to be most sensitive to light in the yellow part of the spectrum. Hence we note that sunlight has a yellow hue.

953

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Little bit confused

« on: February 07, 2020, 03:45:00 PM »

I've also tried to believe that my house cat was a tiger.

I have a house cat as well. For home security it would be useful if he was a tiger but can you imagine the vets reaction when I take him for his jabs every year!

954

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Little bit confused

« on: February 07, 2020, 02:47:48 PM »

If you wish to be content in your ignorance then your knowledge will never expand.

O I wouldn't say that. If I compare what I know now against when I was younger I can appreciate how much my knowledge has expanded. 10 years ago for example I didn't have the knowledge about certain topics to get a degree in astronomy.  Now I have.

But then knowledge is a strange thing because according to you we don't 'know' anything. At least not with 100% certainty. So I would say if anyone is being ignorant it is you and with that approach your knowledge will never expand. What in your opinion is the difference between knowing something and believing something?  Belief is surely a matter of choice (you can choose whether to believe the Earth is flat or not) while knowledge is a matter of fact.  Afterall you cannot alter what is true can you but you can change your beliefs... the main mechanism being expanded knowledge.

It comes down to a simple decision.  Have we gathered enough evidence not necessarily to be 100% certain about something but to be certain enough to put it beyond reasonable doubt? That is something you can only decide for yourself and seems to be something that you cannot do.  To make progress we have to reach a point of acceptance that something is true or known and then move on from there. Otherwise you will enter an eternal loop of uncertainty which will get you nowhere. RE is a model that has been developed over a (long) time and is entirely based on our best interpretation of observations over time.

RE can now explain those observations easily and logically while it is my opinion that FE struggles. Why does it struggle?  Because it is based on an fundamental assertion which is wrong. FE can make claims but struggles to explain the mechanisms behind those claims.  That is not to say RE can explain everything.  Of course it can't. But then that is the purpose of science is it not... to turn the unknown into the known.

Most people would agree that the Sun looks yellow for example but is that just a human perception or is a fact of nature? I could write a whole essay on that one.

955

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Little bit confused

« on: February 07, 2020, 10:18:24 AM »

Can you be sure there really are 3 dimensions?

In so far as I can move forward and backward, left and right and upwards then yes I can be pretty sure there are three spatial dimensions. I wouldn't call time a spatial dimension.

You must surely question the map of the Earth as shown as a flat plane then as well.  Remember you question everything.. That's what you said. 

956

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Little bit confused

« on: February 07, 2020, 06:47:19 AM »

Or the globe map is simply nonsense.

But you question everything remember so why would you assert that the globe map is simply nonsense?

957

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Little bit confused

« on: February 07, 2020, 01:21:05 AM »

I'm still waiting for Wise to explain how you get a distance of over 20,000km between S America and New Zealand.  The real value of about a third of that.

958

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bible doesn't prove the Earth is flat.

« on: February 06, 2020, 02:17:58 AM »

I would just be grateful if someone could give me a single, definitive explanation as to when, why and how this whole flat Earth idea came from in the first place.  So far no one seems to be able to or willing to.

959

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Little bit confused

« on: February 06, 2020, 12:00:33 AM »

Distance is more than 20,000kms between south america and new zealand

How do you come to that conclusion?... explain your method please.  Because at the moment that is just a figure that could have been plucked out of thin air.

I have just used Google maps to measure the distance between the western point tip of Southern Argentina and New Zealand and the figure quoted is 7600km approx.  Bit of a difference!  I have heard of margins of error, but an unqualified figure which is nearly three times the actual value is more than just a 'margin' of error!

960

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Explain

« on: February 05, 2020, 01:14:09 PM »

I'm not really sure this is true. In fact, there are several studies that suggest it is not.

So that would be why sciene recognised over time some limitations of Newtonian gravity which were subsequently refined by applying Einsteins GTR is it?  Einstein moved away from considering gravity as a simple force and instead considered it as a curvature woven into the fabric of space-time.  GTR predicted the amount of apparent displacement of stars around the Sun, and measurements subsequently made during solar eclipses found those predictions to be correct.