61

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The suns pool of light on a FE

« on: August 05, 2013, 01:21:44 PM »

No, they aren't.

Cool, so were they 40 minutes early or late or was it 40 minutes in total? Was this just for sunrise or for both? What altitude where you at when you made the observations?

In fact maybe you could just answer the questions Markjo asked you in the thread you linked to

It doesn't really matter if it can be calculated or not if the calculations don't match reality.

A few years ago I checked the accuracy of the calculation in my local newspaper for the sunset time and it was 40 minutes off.

Was the prediction 40 minutes early or 40 minutes late?  Where were you at the time of the observation?  What was the local geography like?  Did the sun set over water or over land?  What was your elevation at the time?  Was the FET prediction for sunset any different from the RET prediction in the newspaper?

Just saying that the prediction was off doesn't mean a whole lot unless you can give us all of the details that could affect the observed sunset.

62

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The suns pool of light on a FE

« on: August 05, 2013, 08:31:48 AM »

If you can find some independent reports from people who do not post on this forum, that would be a start.

Tom, you obviously read both question and yet for some strange reason were only willing to answer the first of them. Is there any particular reason why you're unwilling to let us know if the calculators are accurate for your location?

63

Flat Earth General / Re: lets do some math!

« on: August 05, 2013, 08:30:47 AM »

Hi John,

If you don't mind can you just clarify a couple of things here?

1: Are you saying that you agree that basic observations are consistent with a Spherical Earth but given that you believe the Earth is flat then your assumption is that something more complex is happening?

I'm saying the basic observations are consistent with a Spherical and a Flat Earth.

2: Since when has maths cared about the shape of the Earth?

Not overtly, but it has been in the worldview of the majority of folks who have touched it in its modern form. Its been used countless times and ways to describe the earth and as such these have been taught in a large number of textbooks and original sources from which folks have learned from. It is deeply engrained in the social memory and the context of mathematics as a whole.

3: Can you give an example of when one mathematical statement can describe thousands of processes?

a = b*c

So what assumptions are you making for the maths to be consistent with a Flat Earth?

64

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The suns pool of light on a FE

« on: August 05, 2013, 08:20:32 AM »

Children posting here "yep, I confirmed it," seeking to win debates, is not a credible report. The reports must be independent and third party.

Who do you consider independent and third party?

Oh and do the calculators predict sunrise and sunset times for your location?

65

Flat Earth General / Re: lets do some math!

« on: August 05, 2013, 07:42:55 AM »

Not if the experiment falsifies that assumption.  If one assumes a round earth and the earth is really flat, then the math would not be consistent when performed from various locations.

Not necessarily true. The earth could be flat and the math could be consistent. A more complicated model may be at play given a flat earth that is accurately described in simpler terms in the round earth model.  Consider the more complicated Einsteinian Gravity compared to Classical Newtonian physics.  It is certainly elementary to show such a complex model could exist for any simpler model. Part of the issue is our math has ingrained concepts from years of studying round earth mechanics in physics and other fields. Given the assumption that the earth is round, it is natural we would make a language that could describe that very well, even if it was an incorrect assumption. In addition, it would likely seem more complicated to describe relationships that would mirror a flat earth and it would appear to be a "more complicated theory" rather than a simple theory described in complicated measures due to language constraints.

Equal part problem is that the tying language between the mechanics of a situation and our reality or belief of that situation is encased in these constructs. This is to say, we can describe thousands of processes with one mathematical statement, and thus that statement is vague in nature.

Hi John,

If you don't mind can you just clarify a couple of things here?

1: Are you saying that you agree that basic observations are consistent with a Spherical Earth but given that you believe the Earth is flat then your assumption is that something more complex is happening?

2: Since when has maths cared about the shape of the Earth?

3: Can you give an example of when one mathematical statement can describe thousands of processes?

66

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The suns pool of light on a FE

« on: August 03, 2013, 11:47:14 AM »

Do the calculators give accurate sunrise and sunset times for your location?

67

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The suns pool of light on a FE

« on: August 03, 2013, 08:58:35 AM »

As the OP I'll clarify this. No I didn't go around the world collecting times and I did use a Sunrise and Sunset calculator. I apologise if my original wording caused any confusion.

Now Tom if you're asserting that these calculators give an incorrect prediction for the sunrise and sunset times then please provide your evidence, else you're just denying them as they're inconvenient for your personal world view.

From my experience the times are accurate for South Africa, Cuba, Egypt, Britain, Bulgaria and Spain.

68

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance of the Equator

« on: August 03, 2013, 08:35:26 AM »

FET doesn't have a map. How can you say that the distance around the equator is wrong?

Are you saying that FET does not know any of the dimensions of the flat earth?  For example, does FET know the distance from the north geographic pole to the equator?  If so, can not someone use that distance to calculate the distance around the equator (circumference)?

As I recall, the traditional definition of a nautical mile is the distance covered by one minute of latitude.  This means that one degree of latitude is 60 nautical miles and the 90 degrees of latitude from the geographic north pole to the equator would be 5400 nautical miles.  Using this information, the circumference of the equator should be 33,929 nautical miles.

Quite simple, really.  A bit off from the accepted value of 21,600 nautical miles in RET, but it's still a quite simple process.

That assumes the FET with the north pole at the center. With this model once you get in the Southern hemisphere the difference between what FET and RET predicts starts getting silly. FET predicts that the distance between lines of longitude will get larger while RET predicts it will get smaller.

69

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance of the Equator

« on: August 03, 2013, 06:06:06 AM »

FET doesn't have a map. How can you say that the distance around the equator is wrong?

Depends on the model you believe in, is the FET you believe in a disc centered around the north pole or something else?

70

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ancient Hebrew Cosmology

« on: August 02, 2013, 05:57:08 AM »

My foundational belief is that reality is self consistent, and as such, can be understood through study, reason, and testing.

I believe that the same holds of the Christian Indoctrinated. Millennia of writings, discussion, and observation have developed the understanding of the Christian God. I've not talked to anyone that claims to know everything, but last I heard, they haven't stopped writing books on the subject.

To be honest, I'm tired of people getting on their "science" high horse. The Christian Indoctrinated have documented millions of observations, which are merely shrugged aside by "scientists" simply because they just don't believe it. In a similar way, the Round Earth Indoctrinated shrug aside the experiments of the Flat Earth Society, and are perfectly willing to reference other people's experiments and use them as "proofs". They even use thought experiments and think that they are valid arguments.

In other words, I'm not right just because you're wrong.

Which experiments would these be?

71

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Distance of the Equator

« on: August 02, 2013, 03:50:43 AM »

Nice find Alex.

I remember the article Scientific posted and to give him credit Jroe did answer but it basically came down to "how do you know that's the distance between the North Pole and the Equator".

It comes down to something more fundamental and measurable though. RET and FET make different predictions for the distance between lines of longitude based on your latitude, getting more pronounced the further south you go. This can be tested by Flat Earthers and would be very compelling evidence if their predictions were correct, this usually draws the FE response of "have you gone out and done this" which is a ridiculous argument as even if you do they ignore your results.

72

Flat Earth Debate / Re: No Curvature at 50K Feet

« on: July 30, 2013, 04:58:41 AM »

Well the horizon in the center of the image appears to be higher than at the edges, I'll leave the reasons/excuses why to others.

It looks like a bump near the middle, not a smooth curve.  As you are probably already aware of, clouds are not perfectly flat.

Indeed, maybe it was a bit premature to label it "another nail in the coffin for RET" then. Really could do with a picture of the ocean.

Strange though that the bump is in the middle where I would expect.

73

Flat Earth Debate / Re: No Curvature at 50K Feet

« on: July 30, 2013, 04:49:29 AM »

Well the horizon in the center of the image appears to be higher than at the edges, I'll leave the reasons/excuses why to others.

74

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat earth sun locations vs. Round earth sun locations at various times.

« on: July 29, 2013, 05:16:52 AM »

Standard geometric perspective (art school perspective) is not the correct form of perspective. Read Earth Not a Globe for further details.

I've read a large portion of ENaG, and even it cannot explain how ~84° (the overall angular difference between where the sun appears to set, and where it should be in the FE model, from my location on the December solstice) can appear to be 0°.

Pyrolizard, you can find a free, online version of ENaG here. Enjoy!

Again, art school perspective is not correct. This is all explained in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Do you mean this chapter http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm where he essentially says "as things move away from you they appear to get closer and eventually disappear behind the horizon at a rate which is consistent with a globe, my personal view though is that the Earth is flat therefore something else must be happening, I think I'll blame this on perspective."

75

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof earth isn't flat! (All you troglodytes read)

« on: July 29, 2013, 04:07:36 AM »

This might be of some use to help calculate distance to horizon etc

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

76

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: July 18, 2013, 05:59:42 AM »

Scepti, while you get back to me on OP 2, care to do a thought experiment? These are supposed to be slightly outrageous, so don't mind the impossible circumstances.

Andy, our test subject (and an even 50 kilograms), is floating in space (vacuum, no gravity, that kinda thing. Remember, thought experiment). Beside him is a ... school bus, not moving relative to Andy. Andy has in his possession 1 medicine ball of exactly 10 kilograms.

Andy throws the medicine ball away from himself at 5 m/s, perpendicular to the point of view of Garry, a kid in the school bus. What happens to Andy and his medicine ball?

Nothing, because it cannot happen. I know it's a thought experiment but I can't answer it, because it's unanswerable, except to simply say, it cannot happen.

In a Universe that only differs from our own in a way such that it could happen, what would happen?

It cannot happen. It's a pointless question, seriously.

The entire way you come up with your "theories" is through thought experiments, you then expect people to understand your ideas even though they are impossible as far as most people are concerned. Is it such a stretch to expect you to do the same for someone elses thought experiment?

I'd love to do the same but I cannot answer the question, except to say, it cannot happen. How can I say otherwise if I believe it cannot happen?

You can obviously imagine it as you imagine that there is a void outside the icedome. So it's the future like Star Trek and we've developed teleporters. So they use the teleporters to transport the experiment outside the ice dome. Can you imaging it now?

77

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: July 18, 2013, 05:38:44 AM »

Scepti, while you get back to me on OP 2, care to do a thought experiment? These are supposed to be slightly outrageous, so don't mind the impossible circumstances.

Andy, our test subject (and an even 50 kilograms), is floating in space (vacuum, no gravity, that kinda thing. Remember, thought experiment). Beside him is a ... school bus, not moving relative to Andy. Andy has in his possession 1 medicine ball of exactly 10 kilograms.

Andy throws the medicine ball away from himself at 5 m/s, perpendicular to the point of view of Garry, a kid in the school bus. What happens to Andy and his medicine ball?

Nothing, because it cannot happen. I know it's a thought experiment but I can't answer it, because it's unanswerable, except to simply say, it cannot happen.

In a Universe that only differs from our own in a way such that it could happen, what would happen?

It cannot happen. It's a pointless question, seriously.

The entire way you come up with your "theories" is through thought experiments, you then expect people to understand your ideas even though they are impossible as far as most people are concerned. Is it such a stretch to expect you to do the same for someone elses thought experiment?

78

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: July 08, 2013, 09:26:01 AM »

Sceptimatic, how about instead of just arguing with the mantra "I'm right because I know I'm right" you design some experiments to prove/disprove your ideas?

Do you have access to a fireman's hose, or a high pressure hose?
If you do, explain to me how it would work in pushing the person back and I'll show you why you are wrong.

No, I know your ideas on this and as far as I'm concerned at this moment in time they're just that, ideas. The way you go about convincing people is to come up with some experiments which prove those ideas are correct.

While the argument "I'm right because I'm right" is convincing for you it provides absolutely no reason for anyone else to believe you. Now if this is enough for you then that's fine but then what are you doing on a forum trying to prove those ideas correct as you must know that without experimental data backing you up no-one will be convinced. If you are on here trying to convince the brainwashed masses then this is the next logical step for you, take some of the time you spend on this forum and devote it to proving/disproving and refining your ideas.

79

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunrise and Sunset in the Falkland Islands

« on: July 08, 2013, 09:13:52 AM »

Considering this is a valid question, why hasn't anybody responded since last year? Perhaps another, more glaring example will be in order.

Having lived a short while in the Falkland Islands, I've seen the sun rise in the south-east (about midnight) and set south-west about fifteen hours later, which means the sun was visible for 225 degrees of it's 360 orbit above the north pole. Since the south pole doesn't exist, and the sun orbits the north pole, let's calculate my distance from the north pole. Stanley's about 5.7 Mm* from the equator, which is about 10 Mm away from the north pole, so I was, roughly 15.65 Mm from the point around which the sun orbits.

The Tropic of Cancer is roughly 7.4 Mm from the north pole, with the Tropic of Capricorn about 5.2 Mm from that. Since I was there in November, close to the summer solstice, let's say the sun's orbital diameter was the Tropic of Capricorn, at 12.6 Mm with me 3.1 Mm south of its path.

Plugging these numbers into the triangles so nicely drawn by Manarq**, I find that Flat Earth predicts the sun should have risen about 26 degrees east of north, about 90 degrees different from my observations.

_{*Mm is a 'mega-meter', or 1,000 kilometers. A kilo-kilometer, if you will. 1 Mm is roughly 621,000 miles
**I'm happy to spend the time to draw up my equations and diagrams, if you wish, though don't expect anything pretty. I'm not an artist, and I don't have fancy geometry software--just a pen, paper, and simple calculator.}

Hi Alex,

thanks for the post. Unfortunately stuff like this where you can make repeatable observations and measurements tend to be ignored, Flat Earthers seem to take a more philosophical approach in their world view as opposed to one based on pesky observations and measurements.

80

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: July 08, 2013, 09:02:50 AM »

Sceptimatic, how about instead of just arguing with the mantra "I'm right because I know I'm right" you design some experiments to prove/disprove your ideas?

81

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 21, 2013, 09:28:06 AM »

I've been thinking about space and it's makeup really hard, and using my logic I've decided it is a vacuum. What more proof do you need?

Ok, we will have space outside the dome as a vacuum, I'm happy with that.

Now using your logic what happens if you put a sealed container in a perfect vacuum?

It cannot be done.

So how can there be a dome covering the Earth creating a sealed environment with atmosphere on the inside and a vacuum on the outside?

82

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 21, 2013, 08:50:02 AM »

I've been thinking about space and it's makeup really hard, and using my logic I've decided it is a vacuum. What more proof do you need?

Ok, we will have space outside the dome as a vacuum, I'm happy with that.

Now using your logic what happens if you put a sealed container in a perfect vacuum?

83

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 21, 2013, 08:25:58 AM »

Sceptimatic I'm curious now, does this mean that in your view no-one can build a vacuum chamber?

Anybody can build a chamber to evacuate air from. You can build one out of a thin plastic bottle but you would only be able to evacuate a minute portion of air before the bottle creases.
What you cannot do, is make a chamber that you can evacuate all air molecules from.

Many people through this and other threads have told you that the vacuum of space isn't a perfect vacuum and that we can actually create a better vacuum here on Earth than actually exists in space.

You have never been in space. No one has, so that's a bold statement.
A perfect vacuum cannot be made on earth, which should tell you that everything man made to create it, would end up in disaster.

I've been thinking about space and it's makeup really hard, and using my logic I've decided it is a vacuum. What more proof do you need?

84

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 21, 2013, 08:09:19 AM »

Sceptimatic I'm curious now, does this mean that in your view no-one can build a vacuum chamber?

Anybody can build a chamber to evacuate air from. You can build one out of a thin plastic bottle but you would only be able to evacuate a minute portion of air before the bottle creases.
What you cannot do, is make a chamber that you can evacuate all air molecules from.

Many people through this and other threads have told you that the vacuum of space isn't a perfect vacuum and that we can actually create a better vacuum here on Earth than actually exists in space.

85

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 21, 2013, 08:04:18 AM »

If any person argues a point using the main stream view...it plays into their hands, because they baffle you with bull shit, using ridiculous equations that do not require them to simply grasp the logic of something.

Applying those forces to building stuff requires math. But figuring out the bullshit behind certain stuff, such as rockets working in a vacuum, requires common sense and logic in very simple terms.

The thing is that mainstream science realizes that what you think is logic isn't always the case.  Things are not always as simple as they seem.  When you explain something to a child, you often need to over simplify, and even tell little white lies.  When a small child asks where babies come from, do you explain the whole process of sperm and egg production, the copulation process, the relevant anatomy, etc., or do you say that babies come from mommy's tummy? 

It's the same thing here.  Rather than trying to understand the physics involved in Newton's laws and pressure dynamics, you are saying that we should just accept your "mommy's tummy" explanation.

You don't have to accept anything I say. Most never do anyway.
I don't care whether you accept it or not. All i know is, people who are viewing are appreciating my simple logical explanations rather than have their heads filled with bull shit equations to explain something that logically can be grasped in a simplified manner.

If there's no doubt in your mind that I'm wrong and you are right and that you know I will not be swayed, then your participation with me should be over for this topic.
It isn't because you do have doubt about it in your mind and you are questioning it, whilst trying to still make out that my logic is flawed, when I know 100% that I am correct.

Again how do you know you are 100% correct? What have you done to prove this apart from thinking about it?

86

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 21, 2013, 07:22:14 AM »

Sceptimatic I'm curious now, does this mean that in your view no-one can build a vacuum chamber?

87

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 21, 2013, 05:46:16 AM »

Hold on, I think I might have just had an epiphany in what Scepti is trying to say, if I'm wrong just tell me because I'm not trying to twist your words around.  It sounds like he is saying that a tire inflated to 100 psi has the same force both inside and outside acting on it.  That the local atmospheric pressure on the container, i.e. the air directly in contact with the outside of the container, has increased to counter the pressure inside the container.  Or maybe that the container expands and creates more surface area on the outside for the atmospheric pressure to work on.  Am I getting close to your thinking Scepti?

Thank you lord , finally someone with logic.
Absolutely correct Duck.

And what attracts these forces? Magnets? Magic? The Force? Why is the air suddenly thicker around the tire? Why is this not measurable?

Obvious nonsense.

You need logic to figure it out and you need to read and absorb everything I've said instead of discarding it as rubbish.
Once you get past that, you can learn how wrong you are about atmospheric pressure and it's strength.

This should be easy enough for you to test, a couple of gauges to measure the pressure being exerted on the outside surface of the tire by the atmosphere as you pump the tire up.

As usual I look forward to you posting the results.

88

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 21, 2013, 04:09:52 AM »

It's you that doesn't understand it all but you are too arrogant and mainstream viewed to even dare admit you are wrong and I'm right, because after all, I am scepti the tin foil hat nutter aren't I.

I'm correct and you are incorrect and I know this 100% not 99.9%......100%.

Out of interest what have you done, apart from thinking really hard, to prove that you are 100% correct?

Have you designed and conducted a single experiment with the aim of disproving your ideas and if so could you put the details here.

89

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 14, 2013, 08:07:58 AM »

You staying alive. Your lungs have to work against the atmospheric pressure to take a breath.
A vehicle requires air to work.
Anything 'on' earth, requires atmospheric pressure to enable it to work.
Basically, to use energy, we need an atmosphere.

What about an electric motor powered by solar power or a battery?

How does it stay cool?

Why would it overheat?

Come on man, are you being serious?
If the battery is doing work...it's creating heat and if air isn't there to cool it, then what do you think would happen?

You really need to build yourself a vacuum chamber.

90

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Space Flight

« on: June 14, 2013, 07:47:13 AM »

You staying alive. Your lungs have to work against the atmospheric pressure to take a breath.
A vehicle requires air to work.
Anything 'on' earth, requires atmospheric pressure to enable it to work.
Basically, to use energy, we need an atmosphere.

What about an electric motor powered by solar power or a battery?

How does it stay cool?

Why would it overheat?