Testing the Round Earth Hypothesis

If you'll do a search for them, I think I recall Tom Bishop mentioning that people have observed lunar eclipses when the Sun and Moon are both significantly above the horizon, something RET fails to explain.

Thanks for that.

Edit: you are right in that RET would fail to explain this effect, if substantiated.

I used Google and it linked back here (neat!).

See, for example:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21105.msg410605#msg410605

Quote from: 3 Tesla on September 18, 2008, 07:36:37 AM

Interesting!

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse

A selenelion or selenehelion occurs when both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time.

This can only happen just before sunset or just after sunrise, and both bodies will appear just above the horizon at nearly opposite points in the sky.

Although the Moon is in the Earth's geometrical shadow, the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can appear in the sky at the same time because the refraction of light through the Earth's atmosphere causes objects [i.e. the setting/rising Sun and the rising/setting Moon] near the horizon to appear higher in the sky than their true geometric position.

A perfectly reasonable scientific explanation.

So, no, Selenelions don't disprove The Round Earth Hypothesis.

If you'll do a search for them, I think I recall Tom Bishop mentioning that people have observed lunar eclipses when the Sun and Moon are both significantly above the horizon, something RET fails to explain.

You will also notice that Tom (or anybody else) never provided any verifiable references to back up those claims.

You will also notice that Tom (or anybody else) never provided any verifiable references to back up those claims.

I have Googled "flat earth", and selenehelion or selenelion or "horizontal eclipse".

Very few hits with no useful information.

You will also notice that Tom (or anybody else) never provided any verifiable references to back up those claims.

I think that is due to the fact that selenelions can only happen when the Sun and Moon are near the horizon.  It will make it difficult to find evidence or references to a high altitude (height above the horizon) selenelion.

I think that is due to the fact that selenelions can only happen when the Sun and Moon are near the horizon.  It will make it difficult to find evidence or references to a high altitude (height above the horizon) selenelion.

It would be good, though; wouldn't it?

Just one well-documented case?

Please?

It would certainly liven up the debate which is pretty much dead now.

(Round Earth Model: no significant objections; Flat Earth Model; several significant objections such as 24 hour Sun Antarctic Summer; Coriolis Force; etc.)

If you'll do a search for them, I think I recall Tom Bishop mentioning that people have observed lunar eclipses when the Sun and Moon are both significantly above the horizon, something RET fails to explain.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Ask Tom to cite what reference he used for that example. Does his reference still exist? Did it ever exist?

If his statement can't be confirmed, it should be disregarded. We should not see FE'ers citing it at a later date.

If you'll do a search for them, I think I recall Tom Bishop mentioning that...

*stops reading*


I recall Tom Bishop mentioning that the Earth is flat. Funny how I'm still not convinced.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 18, 2008, 07:40:12 AM

If you'll do a search for them, I think I recall Tom Bishop mentioning that...

*stops reading*


I recall Tom Bishop mentioning that the Earth is flat. Funny how I'm still not convinced.

You should have kept reading... Tom cited as fact something that is by RET impossible, so I personally am looking forward to his showing his citation. If Tom can't cite reference it gives another notch in the belt of all us RE'ers. By which I mean it shows he was lying.

Quote from: MadDogX on September 19, 2008, 04:36:44 AM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on September 18, 2008, 07:40:12 AM

If you'll do a search for them, I think I recall Tom Bishop mentioning that...

*stops reading*


I recall Tom Bishop mentioning that the Earth is flat. Funny how I'm still not convinced.

You should have kept reading... Tom cited as fact something that is by RET impossible, so I personally am looking forward to his showing his citation. If Tom can't cite reference it gives another notch in the belt of all us RE'ers. By which I mean it shows he was lying.

As I indicated, Tom isn't the most reliable source of information. Perls of wisdom like "stars have been observed to zig-zag across the sky" and "mainstream astronomy cannot explain planetary movements" (both paraphrased) are the kind of baseless claims that don't exactly add to his credibility.

You should have kept reading... Tom cited as fact something that is by RET impossible, so I personally am looking forward to his showing his citation. If Tom can't cite reference it gives another notch in the belt of all us RE'ers. By which I mean it shows he was lying.

I wouldn't hold your breath.  Citations are hard to come by.

Have no FE believers traveled on aeroplanes?
I have been to Beijing severl times, and at 30,000 Km the curvature of the earth is observable to the naked eye through the plexi-glass window. Also, during the flight, after a while, Brisbane (my home city) went under this curved horizon, thus proving that a rounded surface is being tavelled over by the plane. Also add the effects of the tropics, and the fact that Suoth Africa, Antartica, South America and Australia are only a few thousand kilometers apart, as the many tens of thousands  that they would be if the Earth where flat. We ad that several air, sea, land (almost) and space craft have gone around the Earth in many different directions using many different courses, and have all arrived where they started without falling off anything.
The ancient Egyptions, Chinese, Koreans, Zimbabweans, and many others proved the Earths roundness before the Christian, and in the case of the first two, Jewish Bibles where written.
I suggest you all use your money to go see if the Pacific is flat, because I've seen that it certainly is not.

...and at 30,000 Km the curvature of the earth is observable to the naked eye through the plexi-glass window.

I would hope that from that altitude you should be able to see curvature.  I am not sure how you are getting to that altitude on a simple intercontinental flight.

Jihad is another Criss Angel follower; hooray!

Sorry, I meant feet, I usually talk in km, as I'm from Australia. I failed to convert the unit designation.

Have no FE believers traveled on aeroplanes?
I have been to Beijing severl times, and at 30,000 Km the curvature of the earth is observable to the naked eye through the plexi-glass window.

Flat Earthers will dispute this fact.

They will argue that what you are actually seeing is a circular portion of the flat Earth which is illuminated by the "spotlight Sun".

The darkness beyond isn't Outer Space it is simply that part of the flat Earth which is in darkness.

the fact that Suoth Africa, Antartica, South America and Australia are only a few thousand kilometers apart, as the many tens of thousands  that they would be if the Earth where flat.

Again Flat Earthers will dispute this fact.

They maintain that it is impossible to measure the vast distances over the oceans either by boat or airplane.

space craft have gone around the Earth in many different directions using many different courses, and have all arrived where they started without falling off anything.

Flat Earthers say that satellites do not exist.

They are a figment of the imagination dreamt up by evil people who work for NASA - an evil organisation which exists to defraud the public out of billions of dollars for its supposed space programmes.
 

The ancient Egyptions, Chinese, Koreans, Zimbabweans, and many others proved the Earths roundness before the Christian, and in the case of the first two, Jewish Bibles where written.

Again Flat Earthers will dispute this science as being fundamentally flawed.
 

I suggest you all use your money to go see if the Pacific is flat, because I've seen that it certainly is not.

When a Flat Earther looks at the sea they see that it is flat.

If it looks flat then it must be flat.

That is the kind of simplistic (in a bad sense) thinking that goes on in their heads.

I have seen this again, and again, and again, in only 2 hours of reading...
Thank you 3 Tesla.

Back to the point of the original post:

What observations exist which contradict the hypothesis/model that the Earth is round?

(Selenelions are not a good example.)

If there are no objections then a Round Earth is a perfectly adequate model.

(The Flat Earth Model, on the other hand, is flawed: 24 hour Sun in Antarctc Summer, Coriolis force, etc.)

Agreed
I may never come here again, this battle is won.

The ancient Egyptions, Chinese, Koreans, Zimbabweans, and many others proved the Earths roundness before the Christian, and in the case of the first two, Jewish Bibles where written.

They inferred a spherical Earth; not proved.

And then travelled 40,000 km around infered spheroid to observe, that loe and behold, it's almost exactly a sphere!
Then did that trick day in, day out thousands of times a day in aeroplanes, boats, balloons, space-craft, God only knows what else.

And then travelled 40,000 km around infered spheroid to observe, that loe and behold, it's almost exactly a sphere!

Well, that part is disputed by FE of course.

Of course it is! But none of these FE's admit that people fly direct from Brisbane to New York, the to London, on to Beijing, and then home, all within same cardinal direction, ie. east. North East, East, South East, South- South East. Hmm, no wall, no edge, and oh look home again!

Well, that part is explained in the FAQ.

Not really, the logic is incredibly flawed.

Not really, the logic is incredibly flawed.

Expand.

Quote from: Jihad Joe on September 22, 2008, 04:53:35 AM

The ancient Egyptions, Chinese, Koreans, Zimbabweans, and many others proved the Earths roundness before the Christian, and in the case of the first two, Jewish Bibles where written.

They inferred a spherical Earth; not proved.

Told you so !!!

:-)

Eratosthenes did indeed start from the assumption that the Earth was a globe ...

But that was a valid assumption given that The Sun is a very long distance away from us and its rays are, therefore, effectively paralel. The fact that The Sun doesn't get bigger or smaller as it moves around in the sky supports this assumption.

It is possible to re-interpret his experiement with a flat Earth model, but this is flawed for the above reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Classical_Mediterranean

If a helicopter is hovering above another helicopter, and 'copter 2 took off, copter 1 would NOT rise with 2, 2 would hit 1 and several Australian soldiers died in an accident were something very similar happened. If the Earth were a rising disk, lift would not exist.

Quote from: divito the truthist on September 22, 2008, 06:49:30 AM

Quote from: Jihad Joe on September 22, 2008, 04:53:35 AM

The ancient Egyptions, Chinese, Koreans, Zimbabweans, and many others proved the Earths roundness before the Christian, and in the case of the first two, Jewish Bibles where written.

They inferred a spherical Earth; not proved.

Told you so !!!

:-)

Eratosthenes did indeed start from the assumption that the Earth was a globe ...

But that was a valid assumption given that The Sun is a very long distance away from us and its rays are, therefore, effectively paralel. The fact that The Sun doesn't get bigger or smaller as it moves around in the sky supports this assumption.

It is possible to re-interpret his experiement with a flat Earth model, but this is flawed for the above reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Classical_Mediterranean

Here is another link about the experiment:

http://www.millersville.edu/~physics/exp.of.the.month/58/

If the Earth were a rising disk, lift would not exist.

Yes, it would.

If a helicopter is hovering above another helicopter, and 'copter 2 took off, copter 1 would NOT rise with 2, 2 would hit 1 and several Australian soldiers died in an accident were something very similar happened. If the Earth were a rising disk, lift would not exist.

Can we keep this thread on track, please?

Observations which contradict a Round Earth only.

Please start another thread if you have any other thoughts.