The map you base your theory on, is WRONG.

incorrect.  Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.

But the shadow has no edge. It is a gradient.

The line in the op could represent the position where an observer will see the sun with half of it hidden behind the horizon.

Irrelevant. Bendy light exists in both FET and RET, and thus the results would be inaccurate.

I don't see a pink trail either.

Then perhaps you need to zoom in. It's a fairly simple task. Then again, I'm not surprised you have failed.
Here, for your convenience:

This is a fragment of the picture in question, enlarged 10 times.

I'm willing to listen to your explanation.

An explanation of Sun rising and setting? The Sun rises and sets. There you have it.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on October 16, 2011, 04:14:37 AM

The results aren't put into doubt. The method of deriving them is.

I'm certain you have evidence to back up this claim.

Of course. Behold, the search function: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

This is covered in basic art class. Read this, Page two:http://www.huevaluechroma.com/021.php

Why are you changing the subject like this?

You can do better than simply claiming I'm wrong. Providing a FE map that matches the prediction of sunrise and sunset across the world will be good enough.

Any map for any model does that, be that FE or RE.

Better, in the form of being a more consistent, Less Hole-ridden explanation. It also happens to be true, unless you can provide evidence to the contrary?

Of course I do. Or, in fact, Wikipedia does. Elementary, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

Find the CGI Borders in a film made almost entirely in CGI:" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

The fact that one piece of CGI is good doesn't mean all CGI in history was good. Conversely, just because one piece of CGI has obvious boundaries implies nothing about other pieces of CGI.

Color distortions were quite common back when Film was still used instead of digital photography.

Of course. Black or white would often become colourised. However, random magic pink borders generally do not occur in analogue photography.

Kindly shut up and let me debate my own points.

I am arguing your points. You may not like it, but you can't shut me up. If you'd like not to discuss with FE'ers, feel free to go elsewhere.

I suggest you make a separate thread for this argument, so we can continue debating this subject there.

No. Feel free to make a separate thread for your arguments, which are not related to the topic at hand, though. Otherwise, face the fact that they may be ignored and/or mixed with other arguments.

This is the Flat Earth Society. This is our ground. You will not dictate the rules here. Love it or leave it.

Pizza Planet knows so little about photography it's hilarious. I wonder why he hasn't addressed the strange pale pixels rising in rectangular shapes above the moon's horizon? After all, everything you see in a photograph must be really there, right?

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 07:37:30 AM

incorrect.  Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.

But the shadow has no edge. It is a gradient.

The gradiant has to start and end somewhere.  wherever it does this is what I refer to as the edge.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 15, 2011, 11:48:03 AM

The line in the op could represent the position where an observer will see the sun with half of it hidden behind the horizon.

Irrelevant. Bendy light exists in both FET and RET, and thus the results would be inaccurate.

The bendy light theory that FET must use is not the same as the refraction in RET.  Even so, refraction will cause the illuminated area to be slightly larger, but it will still appear straight when viewed from the right angle.  The results would however have inaccuracies that are consistent, so RET based sunrise/sunset time calculators could take this into account, producing accurate times for sunrises and sunsets.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 07:43:18 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 07:37:30 AM

incorrect.  Each edge of the shadow forms a line, the halfway point between the edges forms a line, in fact there are an infinite number of possible lines you can derive from a boundary between light and dark on a sphere.

But the shadow has no edge. It is a gradient.

The gradiant has to start and end somewhere.  wherever it does this is what I refer to as the edge.

Quote

Good luck deciding where that is...

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 15, 2011, 11:48:03 AM

The line in the op could represent the position where an observer will see the sun with half of it hidden behind the horizon.

Irrelevant. Bendy light exists in both FET and RET, and thus the results would be inaccurate.

The bendy light theory that FET must use is not the same as the refraction in RET.  Even so, refraction will cause the illuminated area to be slightly larger, but it will still appear straight when viewed from the right angle.  The results would however have inaccuracies that are consistent, so RET based sunrise/sunset time calculators could take this into account, producing accurate times for sunrises and sunsets.

I am sure the same could be said of FET.

It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.

It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.

It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

I am sure the same could be said of FET.

Sure.  We have a circular lit portion for round earth that covers slightly more than half the planet which can appear straight from the right angle.  And we have a circular lit portion for flat earth that covers slightly more than only a quarter of the earth.  Lets start gathering data points to see which is right.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 08:34:49 AM

It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.

It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture.  They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 08:36:01 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 08:34:49 AM

It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.

It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture.  They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.

So what do you suggest? Flying up into space, taking a photograph of the earth and then zooming in on the pixels to try and find some mystical shadow-border? This idea is absurd, and I maintain that the argument falls apart because of it.

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 08:41:58 AM

Quote from: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 08:36:01 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 08:34:49 AM

It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.

It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture.  They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.

So what do you suggest? Flying up into space, taking a photograph of the earth and then zooming in on the pixels to try and find some mystical shadow-border? This idea is absurd, and I maintain that the argument falls apart because of it.

We can measure light levels quite well on the surface.  I'm not sure why a trip to space is necessary.

Quote from: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 08:58:02 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 08:41:58 AM

Quote from: Lord Xenu on October 16, 2011, 08:36:01 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 08:34:49 AM

It starts 70 pixels from the top, and ends at the very bottom.  These areas are straight line boundaries beyond which the gradiant no longer changes.  Thank you for the support.

It was just an illustration. Pixels don't exist in the real world, silly.

They do in the picture.  They happen to also be a useful measuring unit for something on a computer screen which your gradient was, and therefore my analysis is valid.

So what do you suggest? Flying up into space, taking a photograph of the earth and then zooming in on the pixels to try and find some mystical shadow-border? This idea is absurd, and I maintain that the argument falls apart because of it.

We can measure light levels quite well on the surface.  I'm not sure why a trip to space is necessary.

Light levels are affected by clouds, bendy light and such.

Well, assuming bendy light is consistent, then if we get consistent inaccuracies we can then account for bendy light.  As for clouds, we'll just have to test on sunny days.

Well, assuming bendy light is consistent, then if we get consistent inaccuracies we can then account for bendy light.  As for clouds, we'll just have to test on sunny days.

It's been proven inconsistent by virtue of not affecting stars.

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 14, 2011, 04:22:04 PM

Heres a straight line boundary.

This is hardly a straight line.

Pretending that you are not aware that if you view the line from the same plane that it is bisecting the sphere will make it appear straight, is intellectually dishonest

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 11:49:20 AM

Well, assuming bendy light is consistent, then if we get consistent inaccuracies we can then account for bendy light.  As for clouds, we'll just have to test on sunny days.

It's been proven inconsistent by virtue of not affecting stars.

or the angular width of the moon.  Interestingly, in all this bendy light discussion has no flat earther realized that something has to account for why the moon always appears the same width. Due to distance the moon should appear smaller.  Bendy light actually compounds this problem due to the fact that light would have to travel even further along an arc rather than in a straight line.

will continue this idea here where it belongs
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51294.20;topicseen

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 01:08:38 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on October 16, 2011, 11:49:20 AM

Well, assuming bendy light is consistent, then if we get consistent inaccuracies we can then account for bendy light.  As for clouds, we'll just have to test on sunny days.

It's been proven inconsistent by virtue of not affecting stars.

or the angular width of the moon.  Interestingly, in all this bendy light discussion has no flat earther realized that something has to account for why the moon always appears the same width. Due to distance the moon should appear smaller.  Bendy light actually compounds this problem due to the fact that light would have to travel even further along an arc rather than in a straight line.

Then this probably accounts for the huge variation in the apparent size of the moon, something that many people will have observed:

Give me a break, you cant possibly be unaware of The moon illusion

I don't see any angular measurements to show that those moons are in fact different angular size.

However, I'm sure the first one is fake.  I've made images like that myself.  Still mathematically possible however.

Besides, I thought I tried to shift this discussion into a thread where it's more relevant.  Please respond in that thread.

Webcams from rim-continent bases run by imagination?

No...You can call it the 'Rim continent ' if you want, but the bases are maintained by the Australian Government, as far as I can tell. The department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Antarctic Division To be precise.

An explanation of Sun rising and setting? The Sun rises and sets. There you have it.

Now I'm curious as to how a Flat Earth Produces Sunrise and Sunset identical to that of a Round Earth, as you have just explained. Elaborate a little further, if you will?

Of course. Behold, the search function: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

As a Zetetic Observer, I see no evidence here. You're conceding this point?

Why are you changing the subject like this?

You asked about this. I answered. I assume you concede this point as well?

Any map for any model does that, be that FE or RE.

Not according to the OP. And I see you've failed to provide a map, or other evidence to demonstrate the contrary. Are you conceding yet another point?

Of course I do. Or, in fact, Wikipedia does. Elementary, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

How does this disprove Round Earth Theory? Does FET have an explanation for these Anomalies? Lastly, how are a few Gravitational Anomalies comparable to an inability to produce a proper map?

The fact that one piece of CGI is good doesn't mean all CGI in history was good. Conversely, just because one piece of CGI has obvious boundaries implies nothing about other pieces of CGI.

You didn't even address my claim on why there are no stars? I take it you concede that point as well? I'll accept your point on CGI, since it wasn't even the main part of my argument.

Of course. Black or white would often become colourised. However, random magic pink borders generally do not occur in analogue photography.

They do, and it's called Chromatic Aberration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_Aberration


Note the "Random Magic Pink Borders."

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 16, 2011, 06:08:50 AM

Kindly shut up and let me debate my own points.

I am arguing your points. You may not like it, but you can't shut me up. If you'd like not to discuss with FE'ers, feel free to go elsewhere.

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 16, 2011, 06:08:50 AM

I suggest you make a separate thread for this argument, so we can continue debating this subject there.

No. Feel free to make a separate thread for your arguments, which are not related to the topic at hand, though. Otherwise, face the fact that they may be ignored and/or mixed with other arguments.

This is the Flat Earth Society. This is our ground. You will not dictate the rules here. Love it or leave it.

Not even addressed at you. Not even addressed at FE'ers. This was addressed at some idiot who was arguing for me. And very poorly at that, which is why I asked to him to stop. Why are you mad?

By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?
If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.
Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?
If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.
Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad? I merely asked you to refrain from arguing my points for me. Create your own argument rather than hijacking someone elses, please.

Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight. Though it certainly puts you on par with the average FE debater here.

Lastly, I considered the debate on the picture of the moon as merely tangential to the argument in this thread. Hence why I asked you to make a different thread for it.

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 05:20:37 PM

By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?
If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.
Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad?

Because you called me an idiot. Reasonable grounds to be annoyed, I think.

Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight.

Er... what research should I do to ask another poster a question in order to assess his understanding of a topic, and what research should I do to back up my (true) statement that I could not see the pink line?
Tell the guy who asked about the stars and the pink line to make a new thread, not me.

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 16, 2011, 06:20:14 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 05:20:37 PM

By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?
If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.
Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad?

Because you called me an idiot. Reasonable grounds to be annoyed, I think.

Quote

Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight.

Er... what research should I do to ask another poster a question in order to assess his understanding of a topic, and what research should I do to back up my (true) statement that I could not see the pink line?
Tell the guy who asked about the stars and the pink line to make a new thread, not me.

Alas, while Zeteticists stand shoulder to shoulder against the evil of untruths, globites cannot even agree whose side they are on, let alone which theories they back. You should come over to FE - the side of reason!

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 17, 2011, 05:08:08 AM

Quote from: CidTheKid on October 16, 2011, 06:20:14 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on October 16, 2011, 05:20:37 PM

By "some idiot who was arguing for me" do you mean me? Fine. Come on here and answer all the stuff about photography that none of the FE'ers undertand before I do, then. I have no idea whether or not you are going to post, I'm not psychic. Shall I refrain from addressing other posters just in case you want to do it?
If that's your attitude, piss off out of the public forum and conduct your corrections by private message.

Edit: just looked back to see what you thought my "poor argument" on your behalf was, and it's a question asking why another poster would expect to see stars (perfectly reasonable, to assess his understanding of the photographic process since that was his standpoint for argument) and the true statement that looking at the original unmagnified image I could not see a pink line.
Hardly poor arguing on your behalf.

Why are you so mad?

Because you called me an idiot. Reasonable grounds to be annoyed, I think.

Quote

Failure to perform proper research, and failure to provide proper evidence makes you about as helpful to my argument as a lead weight.

Er... what research should I do to ask another poster a question in order to assess his understanding of a topic, and what research should I do to back up my (true) statement that I could not see the pink line?
Tell the guy who asked about the stars and the pink line to make a new thread, not me.

Alas, while Zeteticists stand shoulder to shoulder against the evil of untruths, globites cannot even agree whose side they are on, let alone which theories they back. You should come over to FE - the side of reason!

Great Idea! 

But I'm afraid I'll pass. RE'ers have Sugar Puffs and Caramel apples.

Alas, while Zeteticists stand shoulder to shoulder against the evil of untruths, globites cannot even agree whose side they are on, let alone which theories they back. You should come over to FE - the side of reason!

Man you need to Lurk more. I know you posted this being funny, but damn. You are missing out on some major lines in the sand drawn between FE Proponents. You guys cant agree about the most fundamental things. Light, Gravity/gravitation, size, basic map, navigation, tided, the moon, the sun, I could go on.

This is a prime example of the malfunctioning FE mind. A couple RE guys start arguing with eachother and you jump right to that they cant figure out what theory to back. Maybe its possible that you were looking in a mirrow when you saw those things. 

Pretending that you are not aware that if you view the line from the same plane that it is bisecting the sphere will make it appear straight, is intellectually dishonest

A straight line can only have one common point with a sphere if it's touching it, or two if it's intersecting it. Pretending that anything that's projected on a sphere in its entirety might be a straight line is not so much intellectually dishonest, but simply unintellectual.

Now I'm curious as to how a Flat Earth Produces Sunrise and Sunset identical to that of a Round Earth, as you have just explained. Elaborate a little further, if you will?

Why must it be identical to that of a Round Earth? It merely has to match up with reality, not your model.

As a Zetetic Observer, I see no evidence here. You're conceding this point?

Right. If you're going to pretend you're a retard, I'm going to treat you as one.

You asked about this. I answered. I assume you concede this point as well?

You need to assume less, and derail less. Then you might actually have a conversation (something you've been complaining about recently).

Not according to the OP.

The OP simply happens to be entirely baseless.

And I see you've failed to provide a map, or other evidence to demonstrate the contrary.

The map (or, rather, the closest you'll ever get to a map, seeing how it's entirely impossible of creating a map of any other scale than 1:1) happens to be in the FAQ. It's fairly simple to find it. Then again, you've found the search function baffling. Let me know if you need any help locating the FAQ. I'll be happy to help.

Are you conceding yet another point?

I see your grammar is at slight fault here. It's okay, I'm not native either. You'll be up to speed in no time.
You see, you can't really say "yet again" when you refer to the first object in a group.
Now, to answer your question: No.

How does this disprove Round Earth Theory? Does FET have an explanation for these Anomalies?

RE'ers claim their model explains gravity. Wikipedia shows it doesn't. A direct contradiction with the facts is, by definition, a disproof.

Lastly, how are a few Gravitational Anomalies comparable to an inability to produce a proper map?

Oh, yeah, that's a good point. No, wait, my mistake, it actually isn't. A universe that would be expanding several times as fast as it is now, and orbits that would cause all planets to crash into the Sun by now are easily comparable with an inability to produce a map. Note that it is impossible to produce a map, as explained many times here before. On the other hand, it's also quite impossible for the Earth to be currently inside the Sun, which is what the RE gravitation model suggests.

You didn't even address my claim on why there are no stars? I take it you concede that point as well?

Ah, so many assumptions, and so many of them wrong.
You see, I'm in no way obliged to address any of your claims; and since you're acting like an inconsiderate twat, I'm abusing this liberty. Think what you may of it.

I'll accept your point on CGI, since it wasn't even the main part of my argument.

Oh. Well, if you agree on that, then we might as well leave the stars alone.

Of course. Black or white would often become colourised. However, random magic pink borders generally do not occur in analogue photography.

They do, and it's called Chromatic Aberration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_Aberration

The link you've provided shows that purple (nb. not pink, and definitely not magic pink) borders would appear on a white background. I'm afraid that purple on white isn't very relevant to magic pink on black.

The map (or, rather, the closest you'll ever get to a map, seeing how it's entirely impossible of creating a map of any other scale than 1:1) happens to be in the FAQ.

I'd love to see a decent explaination of that!

Not quite pizza planet. Gravity would not cause the Earth to plummet into the sun, lurk moar on angular momentum and educate yourself.