Some Inconsistencies that cannot be resolved.

RET is pretty well diverse too if you take out the "round earth" part.

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 01, 2008, 01:54:25 PM

Take a look at the conduct of FE'ers and RE'ers on these forums. Compare the two, and then decide who lacks creibility.

I believe I've made my views more than clear on that issue. Admittedly, there has been bad conduct on both sides, not to mention the people who just register to say "hahaha, FET is dumb!", but from my point of view, the credibility of FET is close to zero compared to RET.

[/quote]

You know, you can get paid to research RE supportive science. Find me an organisation that's willing to fund research into FE science, and you'll find people willing to do it. Everyone has to put bread on the table; the kind of organisation you're looing for requires a commitment of time and finance.

And no-one here is searching for 'credibility', in your eyes or anyone elses. Just the truth.

And no-one here is searching for 'credibility', in your eyes or anyone elses. Just the truth.

Truth is for philosophers.

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 01, 2008, 02:34:31 PM

And no-one here is searching for 'credibility', in your eyes or anyone elses. Just the truth.

Truth is for philosophers.

My thoughts exactly.

RET is pretty well diverse too if you take out the "round earth" part.

You're right. There are many different approaches that are trying to explain gravity, for example. But there are major differences. RET is basically assumed to be universally true, because it has been observed and proven repeatedly and consistently over the past few decades. So people are just trying to figure out, why stuff behaves like it does. To summarize: RET knows what is happening, but wants to know how.

FET, on the other hand, discards all evidence for RET provided so far and declares that only experiments and observations that can be performed by any individual count as proof. The problems here are firstly that the individial has a very limited perspective on the world, and secondly that the hardcore FET proponents are attempting to bend evidence against FET into their theory instead of accepting it as proof for RET. To summarize: FET neither knows what is happening nor how it is happening, but will accept any explanation as long as it does not assume a round Earth.

That is the main reason why RET proponents such as myself feel like we're arguing against brick walls. Whenever we provide evidence against FET or for RET, we recieve one of the following prefabricated answers:

- "That picture/video could have been faked. Therefore it is not valid proof."
- "You cannot perform that experiment yourself. Therefore it is not valid proof."
- "I cannot perform that experiment myself. Therefore it is not valid proof."
- "That phenomenon could be an illusion. Therefore it is not valid proof."
- "That account/statement was made by [insert evil conspirator here]. Therefore it is not valid proof."

Not to mention that personal accounts are simply discarded as false.

And no-one here is searching for 'credibility', in your eyes or anyone elses. Just the truth.

Wrong. FE'ers redefine the "truth" to suit their own purposes. Mountains of evidence that the Earth is round are discarded as fake, because of an alleged government conspiracy. Personal accounts from people are ignored, or laughed off as lies or false perceptions. Visible evidence is forced into FE theory by any means possible.

The way I see it: No one here is looking for the truth. RE'ers know the truth. FE'ers deny it.

The way I see it: No one here is looking for the truth. RE'ers know the truth. FE'ers deny it.

So I guess the debate is religious in nature...

The way I see it: No one here is looking for the truth. RE'ers know the truth. FE'ers deny it.

There was once a wise man named Socrates, and he was wise for a very good reason.

For the clowns, here again:

RET has a working model that perfectly fits the observations on the mechanics of the univers.
RET has possible explanations for the mechanics of the universe.
RET has photographic proof.

FET has no fully working model of the univers.
FET explains just about every mechanic of the universe with magic.
FET has no photographic proof.

There is more photographic proof from more sources for a flat earth than for a round earth.
Round earth uses 'magic' all the time.

There is more photographic proof from more sources for a flat earth than for a round earth.
Round earth uses 'magic' all the time.

No. Just all photographic evidence for RE is dismissed as conspiracy. FE assumes that because the Earth looks flat, it is flat. Anyone who thinks this has a very distorted perception of fundamental geometry.

Quote from: Ski on July 01, 2008, 03:19:53 PM

There is more photographic proof from more sources for a flat earth than for a round earth.
Round earth uses 'magic' all the time.

No. Just all photographic evidence for RE is dismissed as conspiracy. FE assumes that because the Earth looks flat, it is flat. Anyone who thinks this has a very distorted perception of fundamental geometry.

Actually the observation that the surface of standing water doesn't curve is based entirely on fundamental geometry.

For the clowns, here again:

RET has a working model that perfectly fits the observations on the mechanics of the univers.
RET has possible explanations for the mechanics of the universe.
RET has photographic proof.

1) Because they have a number of different theories, many of which are incompatible,

2) Well, anything is possible.

3) I have photos where the earth appears flat.

Quote from: MadDogX on July 01, 2008, 03:16:45 PM

For the clowns, here again:

RET has a working model that perfectly fits the observations on the mechanics of the univers.
RET has possible explanations for the mechanics of the universe.
RET has photographic proof.

3) I have photos where the earth appears flat.

Do you have photos of the entire earth being flat? Or are you just basing your opinions on what your eyes or a camera would see in a comparatively small radius around them?

I'm pretty sure I understand geometry.

Quote from: Zotoaster on July 01, 2008, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 01, 2008, 03:19:53 PM

There is more photographic proof from more sources for a flat earth than for a round earth.
Round earth uses 'magic' all the time.

No. Just all photographic evidence for RE is dismissed as conspiracy. FE assumes that because the Earth looks flat, it is flat. Anyone who thinks this has a very distorted perception of fundamental geometry.

Actually the observation that the surface of standing water doesn't curve is based entirely on fundamental geometry.

Absolutelly correct... aslong as you ignore the sinking ship effect, but lets just swipe that off as a smal peculiarity. Lets just say the waves make the illusion!

1) Because they have a number of different theories, many of which are incompatible,

2) Well, anything is possible.

3) I have photos where the earth appears flat.

1) String theory is doing very well thank you.

2) Well... yeah.

3) I can do better than that. I have pictures of people INSIDE MY TV! Well, they appear to be inside it, so I just figure they are.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 01, 2008, 03:24:23 PM

Quote from: Zotoaster on July 01, 2008, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 01, 2008, 03:19:53 PM

There is more photographic proof from more sources for a flat earth than for a round earth.
Round earth uses 'magic' all the time.

No. Just all photographic evidence for RE is dismissed as conspiracy. FE assumes that because the Earth looks flat, it is flat. Anyone who thinks this has a very distorted perception of fundamental geometry.

Actually the observation that the surface of standing water doesn't curve is based entirely on fundamental geometry.

Absolutelly correct... aslong as you ignore the sinking ship effect, but lets just swipe that off as a smal peculiarity. Lets just say the waves make the illusion!

Well, obviously the sinking ship effect is explained away as something of an optical illusion in both models.  It's an illusion in RE, it's an illusion in FE.  But REers must ignore the non-concavity of standing water to support their theory.  So in this case it's clear that FE has the edge.  Of course we weren't talking about the sinking ship effect, but I thought it important that you understand that it doesn't clearly support either argument.

1) String theory is doing very well thank you.

It's the one scientists are throwing their weight behind because it lloks like the only hope, but to my knowledge it has yet to conclusively (i.e. to any real degree) reconcile the diverging models of 'accepted' theoretical physics.

Quote from: Zotoaster on July 01, 2008, 03:43:23 PM

1) String theory is doing very well thank you.

It's the one scientists are throwing their weight behind because it lloks like the only hope, but to my knowledge it has yet to conclusively (i.e. to any real degree) reconcile the diverging models of 'accepted' theoretical physics.

Well, yes, there can only be one theory of everything, so how can there be more than one hope? And to your knowledge, you are wrong. It is supposed to unite relativity with quantum mechanics, and that is exactly what it is doing.

Well, obviously the sinking ship effect is explained away as something of an optical illusion in both models.

I've always wondered why it's considered an illusion in RET. I mean, how does it differ from what you would expect to see when watching something move away on a large sphere?

I've always wondered why it's considered an illusion in RET. I mean, how does it differ from what you would expect to see when watching something move away on a large sphere?

Probably because the ship isn't really sinking in the actual definition of the word.  It gives the illusion of a sinking ship.

It should probably be called the disappearance effect or something else equally undescriptive.

Hello again... I'd like to pull out some more things that are undeniable.

This youtube videa shows the launch of a shuttle orbiter:

The video is on one of the rockets, so it detaches, and if you pause the video at 2:19 you can see the curvature of the earth clearly... This couldn't have been blue-screened, it couldn't have been made on a computer program, because we have videos from earth of this launch. I also saw a video of the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavor (I think it was that one) on TV, and have taped it on VHS. It shows the curvature of the earth. This was public broadcasting TV. You expect public broadcasting to be in on the conspiracy? That's crazy. And notice that I have seen these myself. Me. ME. Not my pilot friend whom you guys demonize.

Also, I'd like to pull out those damning calculations again about the position of the sun in the sky.

In FE theory, the equator is a circle 12,450 miles in diameter. Now, the sun is also 3000 miles up (and don't try to change this distance. If it gets larger, it makes the sun more luminous. If the distance gets smaller, it becomes extremely easy to triangulate, even something FE'ers could do on a picnic) Now, on the other side of the earth on the equator, the sun should be 12,806 miles away, from our good friend Pythagoras (a^2+b^2=c^2.) Try this calculation out. Accept it or reject simple geometry you can simulate from that chair you fall out of so often. Now, what angle would we see it at? Use some simple trig functions (which you can also simulate with a protractor) and you have inversetan(3000/12450)=13.54 degrees. Hmmm... could it just be that trees are obstructing our view? No. If the largest tree is, let's say, 300 feet tall, just to make sure that you can see it, all you have to do is stand 1,245 feet back to see this (and I've been in clear fields larger than 1,245 feet pointing north.) So, we should be able to see it, right? Now, I love your calculations on it getting dimmer. The equation on luminosity is L=1/d^2. So the luminosity is 1/3000^2 when our good old sun is directly above you. So, when the sun is 12,806 miles away (as we've established), the new luminosity will be 1/12,806^2. Now, we divide that out and get the ratio as 3000^2/12806^2. Punch this into your Microsoft calculator, and you get the relative luminosity of .05, or 5%. Now tell me, when I'm in that clear field, looking 13.5 degrees into the sky, why don't I see a sun that's 5% the luminosity? This would outshine all the stars, and create a new moon-looking object.

There is one way I resolved this problem: by making the earth a cone instead of a circle! Wow! Take a breather, you can live another day against the scientific community! But wait! That worn out turtle pushing the earth up 9.8 m/s^2 will make gravity be stronger as you get further away from the north pole, and a river flowing north would be plain nonsense (forget the Nile!)

If you can't accept this argument, then you must reject all notions of geometry, which can be easily proven by a piece of paper and a high-school education.

Also, you have yet to explain Foucault's pendulum. The anamoles from the small test subject of solar eclipses shrinks in comparison with the evidence I saw right in front of my eyes (at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry) that can only be fully explained by the rotation of a spherical object.

By the way, ever heard of the D-Layer in the atmosphere that varies with day and night, making ham radio communication possible? http://dzabcik.home.texas.net/propagation.html

Since the shortest way to a place across the earth to send radio signals is naturally over the north pole in the FET, people will aim their radios (which send straight signals) to the north pole with no avail. That is because the north pole is always close enough to daytime to destroy that layer of the atmosphere. Needless to say, you don't point your antenna to the north pole... That's just ridiculous. You point it in the direction of the shortest path to somewhere on a spherical globe. Try this out, go buy a 400$ shortwave radio and disillusion yourself. Please.

Why doesn't anyone attack my mathematical argument or radio argument? We're arguing about others' intelligence, and yet none of us are doing anything productive.

Welcome to FES.

Hello again... I'd like to pull out some more things that are undeniable.

I am sure that there will be people that do deny your information.

I will probably be one of them. 

This youtube video shows the launch of a shuttle orbiter:

The video is on one of the rockets, so it detaches, and if you pause the video at 2:19 you can see the curvature of the earth clearly... This couldn't have been blue-screened, it couldn't have been made on a computer program, because we have videos from earth of this launch. I also saw a video of the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavor (I think it was that one) on TV, and have taped it on VHS. It shows the curvature of the earth.

It was hard to make out the curvature in the video that you chose, but I agree that it is there for a couple of seconds.  Why would this video be any more acceptable to people that deny the possibility of sustained space flight than video shot from the flight deck of the shuttle in orbit?

This was public broadcasting TV. You expect public broadcasting to be in on the conspiracy?

The stock reply is "it was probably produced days before the launch and broadcast on the correct day to support the illusion of a shuttle launch."

Also, I'd like to pull out those damning calculations again about the position of the sun in the sky...

...Now, we divide that out and get the ratio as 3000^2/12806^2. Punch this into your Microsoft calculator, and you get the relative luminosity of .05, or 5%. Now tell me, when I'm in that clear field, looking 13.5 degrees into the sky, why don't I see a sun that's 5% the luminosity? This would outshine all the stars, and create a new moon-looking object.

Lots of fancy math, but since the flat Earth theory states that perspective and refraction create the illusion that the Sun sets and rises, your "moonlike" Sun won't have a chance to be visible across the pole.


[/quote]There is one way I resolved this problem: by making the earth a cone instead of a circle! Wow! Take a breather, you can live another day against the scientific community! But wait! That worn out turtle pushing the earth up 9.8 m/s^2 will make gravity be stronger as you get further away from the north pole, and a river flowing north would be plain nonsense (forget the Nile!)[/quote]

Well, since you freely admit that your model can't support observed data (i.e. Nile river), I am going to say that your model fails.

If you can't accept this argument, then you must reject all notions of geometry, which can be easily proven by a piece of paper and a high-school education.

Which part, the fact that I can't see the Sun to the north across the pole or the fact that the true shape of the Earth is a cone?  That is to bad that I have to reject all notions of geometry because of this.  I was sort of partial to trigonometry.

Also, you have yet to explain Foucault's pendulum.

The anomalies from the small test subject of solar eclipses shrinks in comparison with the evidence I saw right in front of my eyes (at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry) that can only be fully explained by the rotation of a spherical object.

They have.  Their explanation is that some effect from celestial motion causes the pendulum to move.  It is the same effect that causes Coriolis Acceleration in the flat Earth model.

By the way, ever heard of the D-Layer in the atmosphere that varies with day and night, making ham radio communication possible? http://dzabcik.home.texas.net/propagation.html

Well actually, it is primarily the F-Layers.  HAM radio communication (and other uses) is possible on other frequencies (VHF or HF) at other times of the day and also at night.

Since the shortest way to a place across the earth to send radio signals is naturally over the north pole in the FET, people will aim their radios (which send straight signals) to the north pole with no avail. That is because the north pole is always close enough to daytime to destroy that layer of the atmosphere. Needless to say, you don't point your antenna to the north pole... That's just ridiculous. You point it in the direction of the shortest path to somewhere on a spherical globe. Try this out, go buy a 400$ shortwave radio and disillusion yourself. Please.

I regularly use MF/HF radios as a part of my job, so I have done this.  The layers that are most important to radio communications are the F-Layers (F1 and F2).  The frequency that is best reflected by the F-Layers vary over the course of the day.  During the day, the frequencies are in the 10-15 MHz range, but drop to around 3 MHz at night.  The combination of the height of the layer and the "opaqueness" of the layer is what determines the possible range of communication.

How are those for responses?  Hopefully you got the answers that you were looking for.

So, my other arguments, although valid, are dismissed by incredulity.

However, I would like to reference Snell's Law (I think) that determines the amount of refraction that takes place. Assume that the atmosphere just abruptly becomes the density of sea-level, that should cause the most refraction. Now, let's make it exactly where the sun is 3000 miles away. It says that the amount of refraction is sin(angle1)n_1=sin(angle2)n_2, where n is their indexes of refraction. Normal air has an index of refraction of 1.0003, while a vacuum is 1. Let's see what we get when we have angle1=.236 radians, n_1=1, n_2=1.0003. That gives us angle2=.2359 radians, which is equivalent to about 13.51 degrees, which is almost exactly the 13.5 degrees I talked about before. Refraction at this angle would make no noticeable difference. (And try it out! Refraction can easily be tested with a laser and some well-cut pieces of glass! I've seen this MYSELF)

So, my other arguments, although valid, are dismissed by incredulity.

I accepted all of your arguments that didn't involve the physics of a flat Earth.  I figured that I would also try and give you the "standard answers" to your points.  At least that way, you can have answers ready for them.

However, I would like to reference Snell's Law (I think) that determines the amount of refraction that takes place. Assume that the atmosphere just abruptly becomes the density of sea-level, that should cause the most refraction. Now, let's make it exactly where the sun is 3000 miles away. It says that the amount of refraction is sin(angle1)n_1=sin(angle2)n_2, where n is their indexes of refraction. Normal air has an index of refraction of 1.0003, while a vacuum is 1. Let's see what we get when we have angle1=.236 radians, n_1=1, n_2=1.0003. That gives us angle2=.2359 radians, which is equivalent to about 13.51 degrees, which is almost exactly the 13.5 degrees I talked about before. Refraction at this angle would make no noticeable difference. (And try it out! Refraction can easily be tested with a laser and some well-cut pieces of glass! I've seen this MYSELF)

Just remember, you are trying to convince people that post diagrams like this to explain sunset...

Quote from: mxmm on July 01, 2008, 07:20:45 PM

So, my other arguments, although valid, are dismissed by incredulity.

I accepted all of your arguments that didn't involve the physics of a flat Earth.  I figured that I would also try and give you the "standard answers" to your points.  At least that way, you can have answers ready for them.

Quote

However, I would like to reference Snell's Law (I think) that determines the amount of refraction that takes place. Assume that the atmosphere just abruptly becomes the density of sea-level, that should cause the most refraction. Now, let's make it exactly where the sun is 3000 miles away. It says that the amount of refraction is sin(angle1)n_1=sin(angle2)n_2, where n is their indexes of refraction. Normal air has an index of refraction of 1.0003, while a vacuum is 1. Let's see what we get when we have angle1=.236 radians, n_1=1, n_2=1.0003. That gives us angle2=.2359 radians, which is equivalent to about 13.51 degrees, which is almost exactly the 13.5 degrees I talked about before. Refraction at this angle would make no noticeable difference. (And try it out! Refraction can easily be tested with a laser and some well-cut pieces of glass! I've seen this MYSELF)

Just remember, you are trying to convince people that post diagrams like this to explain sunset...

But that's simply not the thing you see when you observe refraction... Let me try to come up with a calculus equation to describe it with varying densities... I would expect that the outcome is even less gracious than the one above...

But that's simply not the thing you see when you observe refraction... Let me try to come up with a calculus equation to describe it with varying densities... I would expect that the outcome is even less gracious than the one above...

While you are at it, please calculate the density change that would be necessary to produce the graph that Tom Bishop posted.  It would be interesting to see just how that number compares to the density of glass.

Ok... I didn't want to do all the math that is required for a general proof, but I do think that this will kill everything.

I decided to do calculations with 3 indexes this time, all layered on one another. n_1=1, n_2=1.00015 (half of that of sealevel air), n_3=1.0003. I applied the equation 2 times to see the final angle. It gave me, exactly, .2359278779 radians, the exact value I got for the two layered calculation. you could argue that this could form a curved path, and it does, but the overall change is so small that it will be curved extremely minimally.

In short, if you guys are right, I should be able to look out and see the sun in the northern direction. There is virtually no denying it. I have just provided an objective proof that you guys can all demonstrate on your tabletop.

Somehow I don't think this will work with you guys, though.

EDIT: It wouldn't be nearly his model. For it to be his model, you have to find a quadratic equation that satisfies the observed degree (derivative at that point), starts at the sun and ends at the observer. These 3 criteria limit it to one, nearly straight parabola. Nice try, Tom.

I made this in paint, red is the real path between the sun and 7 o'clock, green is the lowest the sun can be seen with such a small angle change at the observer. The quadratic must be between those two lines...

EDIT: I've thought it over and, if the blocks of density change aren't linear, it isn't quadratic (e.g. there is more atmosphere that is less dense than sealevel than there is atmosphere at sealevel.) This is the case, and it can't be a quadratic. But this is actually worse for FE... It has a shorter path! The only criteria for a path through an atmosphere like that is that it is between those lines, and the longest path that is possible is the sum of the distance from the apparent sun to the real sun and the green line.

EDIT: I just calculated the maximum path, which is from the fact that we see this sun at an angle of .2349278779 radians, as I have proved. If the maximum path is calculated, it turns out to be 12,811.71792 miles, a mere 5.71792 miles longer than my original calculation that didn't include refraction. Apply the same luminosity formula, and you get 5% the luminosity still.

This is undeniable mathematics, not government conspiracy.

EDIT: I just calculated what Tom's illustration's density would have, and its index is 10.881, or the speed of light is 10.881x slower. To give some scale, the index of lead is ~2.6. (that's the highest the list I saw on the google search had... Although I've heard of technologies slowing it down to tens of meters a second experimentally)

There is more photographic proof from more sources for a flat earth than for a round earth.
Round earth uses 'magic' all the time.

If there were so much true photographic proof for a flat earth, I don't think 99.9999% of the civilized population of the Earth would be convinced that it is round. The only real photographic proof can be made from space, in photos that contain Earth in its entirety. When you look around on the ground you are merely seeing a very very small portion of the Earth's surface from a very close perspective:



This is a diagram of the Earth with an approximate scale of 1px=20km. The red pixel you see on the top edge could be you on the ground, or even a commercial airliner in 10km height, since the pixel represents roughly 20km. From that vantage point, even with a view distance of ~200km in any direction (blue circle) the portion of the Earth that you can see would appear to be flat.