Some incredible points about FET

1.

FE'ers say it is impossible to approach the edge of the FE because harsch weather conditions by the ice wall and conspiracists would make sure you don't get there - beside this, FE'ers are not even sure how the ice wall looks, as there are different theories among them.

Yet, FE'ers claime the diameter of the Earth is 40,073 km (according to the FAQ).

Did they use magic to measure it from edge to edge ?

2.

FE'ers claim the moon (and sun) are 3000 miles above Sea level.

If the moon was so close there would be notable apparent size differences, when you stand right under it or 3000 miles away (difference factor = 1.41) or 6000 miles away (difference factor = 2.23).

Fact is, the moon has the same apparent size from wherever on Earth you look at it, if you except the magnification (when it should be reduction!) effect when it's very close to the horizon.

3.

Dark Energy pushes the Earth upwards at an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2.
Since everything that's on the surface of Earth is not affected directly by the pushing force, it means the body of the earth casts a "force shadow" above it (yet moon and sun are affected...). This means DE pushes against the matter of under face of the Earth, which in turn pushes the rest of the matter of the Earth upwards.
According to most FE'ers (FAQ) the Earth is made of rock.
Rock has limited resistance and under such tremendous pressures, its behaviour tends towards the one of a fluid. So this pushing force would very slowly turn the cylinder-shaped Earth into a disc-shaped Earth by pushing its matter outwards (the inertial mass of the earth creating resistance against the push from below).

Wouldn't this make cataclysmic earthquakes happen  ? Or is there a kind of inwards "mould force" arround the cylinder, that is strong enough to widstand such a tremendous pressure?

Yea i really don't get it, the world works fine round as we know it, we have satellites, airplanes, ships, gps, space travels, gravity, eclipses, solar system etc, and suddenly, someone find a couple of "evidences" of a flat earth, and instead of just dismissing them because they doesn't make sense, they start dismissing everything else, and now we don't have space travel, airplanes and ships travel through a ridiculous time distortion (and in circles). we don't know how gps works, the sun is just the earth personal light bulb, the same with the moon, we are not sure how, we are not very sure about what eclipses are, a sunset is the sun getting farther away even though it doesn't get smaller, it just goes down. There's no solar system etc etc.
Instead of this flat earth theory answering questions, it just creates more, and things proven to work because we know the science behind, suddenly works because of something else, and some times we are not sure, but somehow, for some people it all makes sense now.
I don't see how can flat earth be seen as a good theory.

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about a historical point of view, i know fe didn't "suddenly" appear, I'm talking about a personal point of view.

Fact is, the moon has the same apparent size from wherever on Earth you look at it, if you except the magnification (when it should be reduction!) effect when it's very close to the horizon.

To further add to this, here's a nice video of a moonrise:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Rise Time Lapse 1300 mm

Other than some minor refractive distortion when near the horizon you can see that the moon not only maintains the same apparent size but maintains the same appearance altogether (ie, doesn't become less blurry) and moves throughout the sky at a constant velocity. If it were moving towards you at a constant velocity it'd appear to be accelerating as it moves away from the vanishing point, due to perspective. Its velocity would have to be decreasing to compensate for this rise, but no matter how you try to simulate it for one viewer it's impossible that it would appear to be moving at a constant velocity throughout the sky for all viewers.

The minor amount of distortion due to diffraction is also nowhere remotely close to what you'd expect were the moon being compressed against the horizon line to give the illusion of falling behind it. You see roughly the same features in the same proportions that you see much later in the video but cut off right at the horizon.

Uuuuuuh Randomism, don't use video as evidence, they will say it's photoshopped (sorry, Aftereffected)  .
Every FE'er can witness evidence that the apparent moon size doesn't change him-/herself.

Nice video nonetheless, thanks for sharing 

They probably won't say that the video is fake (or what ever you'd like to call it). It's obviously an amateur cameraman, and it's not taken from space (you can see the trees as the moon is coming up.)

Still no FE'er on this thread to contradict any my OP ? come on that's not serious 

Still no FE'er on this thread to contradict any my OP ? come on that's not serious 

They ignore the threads that stump them, out of pride. Take this as a compliment, and a conceded victory from the FEers.

i say we should keep bumping these threads so they're pressured to at least come up with a response.

My personal theory:
The majority of "FEers" don't actually believe any of it. They're just trolls.

My theory is that the flat earth society is here to cause a lot of debate, therefor luring more people in, slowly they will be able to mould certain people that are easily convinced and will therefor be able to make money from their Flat Earth Shop


So I'm guessing profits are the agenda here.

i say we should keep bumping these threads so they're pressured to at least come up with a response.

My personal theory:
The majority of "FEers" don't actually believe any of it. They're just trolls.

Agreed.

Say something about battle penguins guarding the edge of the flat earth... Some how always gets noticed

Damn.  You guys are very cynical and rude at the same time.  Thanks for telling me what I think and believe.

Damn.  You guys are very cynical and rude at the same time.  Thanks for telling me what I think and believe.

It's okay jroa, Jesus loves you.

Oh look, is this thread again. Please, use the search function. And lurk the FAQ and the wiki.
Even if I am a RE'r, I'll try to answer:

1: Measurement of stars path over the sky + plot of the explored RE map. The real magnitude is unknown. Some models defend an infinite earth.

2: That is the only relatively interesting question of OP's post. My guess is that Bendy Light makes light travel further than it should when looked from a side. Also, only Rushy, Jroa and the RE'rs that call themself RE'rs call EA Bendy Light.

3: Even if we forgot about what I heard about aetheric winds, that could have happened millions of years ago, and that's how our tectonical and disc shaped earth formed.

Yes, Please read the Wiki. Here are articles of interest for the first two points.

1. Eratosthenes on Diameter

2. Constant speed of the sun

My theory is that the flat earth society is here to cause a lot of debate, therefor luring more people in, slowly they will be able to mould certain people that are easily convinced and will therefor be able to make money from their Flat Earth Shop


So I'm guessing profits are the agenda here.

My guess is the T Shirt Money, after being doled out to pay the Mods for there hard work, there is only enough left for Daniels voyages across Europe to spread the word.

Yes, Please read the Wiki. Here are articles of interest for the first two points.

2. Constant speed of the sun

I was not talking about the speed of the sun / moon but about their apparent size. If they were as FET describes them, we would see important change of apparent size throughout the day. And this can't be nullified by some light distorsion or any other effect, as the apparent distance between Sun/moon and Earth indeed does change. Only sun's/moon's apparent size doesn't.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2012, 08:02:09 AM

Yes, Please read the Wiki. Here are articles of interest for the first two points.

2. Constant speed of the sun

I was not talking about the speed of the sun / moon but about their apparent size. If they were as FET describes them, we would see important change of apparent size throughout the day. And this can't be nullified by some light distorsion or any other effect, as the apparent distance between Sun/moon and Earth indeed does change. Only sun's/moon's apparent size doesn't.

In that case check out this article: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

So why does the rising moon as shown in the video I linked not look hazier, diluted, and less intense when near the horizon vs much higher up? Can you explain why it maintains the same size, preferably less vaguely than "it's being projected"? Would also appreciate at least some FEer attempting an explanation regarding the moon moving at a constant velocity through the sky.

Quote from: Olivier on November 15, 2012, 10:37:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2012, 08:02:09 AM

Yes, Please read the Wiki. Here are articles of interest for the first two points.

2. Constant speed of the sun

I was not talking about the speed of the sun / moon but about their apparent size. If they were as FET describes them, we would see important change of apparent size throughout the day. And this can't be nullified by some light distorsion or any other effect, as the apparent distance between Sun/moon and Earth indeed does change. Only sun's/moon's apparent size doesn't.

In that case check out this article: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

... seriously ? The magnification effect would make a sun 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above earth... to look as it was touching the ground?

I don't know what kind of stuff you're on but i want the same!

So why does the rising moon as shown in the video I linked not look hazier, diluted, and less intense when near the horizon vs much higher up?

It does. Have you never noticed that the moon near the horizon is yellow and diluted?

The fact that at sunset the sun changes color and you can easily look at it without squinting is proof enough the at the atmosphere greatly affects the sun and moon.

Would also appreciate at least some FEer attempting an explanation regarding the moon moving at a constant velocity through the sky.

The constant velocity question was answered above in my first post in this thread:

2. Constant speed of the sun

It does. Have you never noticed that the moon near the horizon is yellow and diluted?

The fact that at sunset the sun changes color and you can easily look at it without squinting is proof enough the at the atmosphere greatly affects the sun and moon.

Why not look at the video I posted here? Clearly this doesn't happen. There's some minor distortion very close to the horizon but nothing like what you describe. And certainly nothing that's remotely proportional to the alleged magnification the moon is experiencing.

The constant velocity question was answered above in my first post in this thread:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2012, 08:02:09 AM

2. Constant speed of the sun

... right, so it's done by invoking magic perspective arguments.

Clearly we can see that more distant objects move more slowly towards the vanishing point, even if you use Rowbotham's 1 degree of dipping behind the earth as a fudge factor eventually the velocity would have to be non-constant. Unless you look at a railroad track and don't see the rail boards getting closer and closer together in distance.

We're not talking merely at the start of its rise, it maintains the same velocity throughout the entire video.

The constant velocity question was answered above in my first post in this thread:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2012, 08:02:09 AM

2. Constant speed of the sun

Even in RET the speed of the sun in the sky is not constant. When you're with the woman you love it's much faster than when you're at work.

More seriously : it is constant throughout the day, at least the very little speed differences are not noticeable without accurate measures.
Tom Bishop according to the link you posted, an objet's apparent speed tends to be constant the higher it gets. But at an altitude of 3000 miles and see from the equator, its apparent speed varies like this :
At noon, the distance between observer and sun = 3000 miles.
When the sun will be 6000 miles away, its apparent speed will be only half as fast.
Question : at what time in the afternoon will it be 6000 km away ?
Answer : at 2 PM (basic geometry and pythagoras theorem needed).
So in only 2 hours, the sun loses half of its apparent speed, according to FET.
Hmm.... how can one explain this goes unnoticed ?

Why not look at the video I posted here? Clearly this doesn't happen. There's some minor distortion very close to the horizon but nothing like what you describe. And certainly nothing that's remotely proportional to the alleged magnification the moon is experiencing.

The moon is yellow and diluted in your video. The effect doesn't occur right when the moon gets to the horizon, it is occurring at all times.

... right, so it's done by invoking magic perspective arguments.

Clearly we can see that more distant objects move more slowly towards the vanishing point, even if you use Rowbotham's 1 degree of dipping behind the earth as a fudge factor eventually the velocity would have to be non-constant. Unless you look at a railroad track and don't see the rail boards getting closer and closer together in distance.

We're not talking merely at the start of its rise, it maintains the same velocity throughout the entire video.

Where does the Wiki page say that it applies only to the start of the rise? When a jet at 45,000 feet passes over you and is constant when it is over your head and when it is near the horizon.

The moon is yellow and diluted in your video. The effect doesn't occur right when the moon gets to the horizon, it is occurring at all times.

The wiki page says it's MORE diluted, hazy, blurry, whatever when it's nearer the surface to counteract whatever this mechanism is that makes it maintain the same apparent size.

... right, so it's done by invoking magic perspective arguments.

Clearly we can see that more distant objects move more slowly towards the vanishing point, even if you use Rowbotham's 1 degree of dipping behind the earth as a fudge factor eventually the velocity would have to be non-constant. Unless you look at a railroad track and don't see the rail boards getting closer and closer together in distance.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2012, 01:18:55 PM

Where does the Wiki page say that it applies only to the start of the rise? When a jet at 45,000 feet passes over you and is constant when it is over your head and when it is near the horizon.

It must be nice to cite wild claims on a wiki you wrote as authoritative.. I don't care what the wiki says, you can't make some claim that perspective just never works. But by all means, please show me a video of this jet at 45,000 feet altitude moving away from you into the distance but while maintaining a (nearly) constant velocity through the sky and not changing in size.

The wiki page says it's MORE diluted, hazy, blurry, whatever when it's nearer the surface to counteract whatever this mechanism is that makes it maintain the same apparent size.

If you look at the moon at the beginning of the video and look at it at the end, it has clearly changed color and brightness a bit.

on a wiki you wrote as authoritative.. I don't care what the wiki says, you can't make some claim that perspective just never works. But by all means, please show me a video of this jet at 45,000 feet altitude moving away from you into the distance but while maintaining a (nearly) constant velocity through the sky and not changing in size

A jet is not a powerful light source as the sun. The magnification effect only occurs when bright light passes through a medium, like a car's fog lights in fog.

Quote

The wiki page says it's MORE diluted, hazy, blurry, whatever when it's nearer the surface to counteract whatever this mechanism is that makes it maintain the same apparent size.

If you look at the moon at the beginning of the video and look at it at the end, it has clearly changed color and brightness a bit.

Quote

on a wiki you wrote as authoritative.. I don't care what the wiki says, you can't make some claim that perspective just never works. But by all means, please show me a video of this jet at 45,000 feet altitude moving away from you into the distance but while maintaining a (nearly) constant velocity through the sky and not changing in size

A jet is not a powerful light source as the sun. The magnification effect only occurs when bright light passes through a medium, like a car's fog lights in fog.

We've been here before... haven't we? Yes, I believe we have. The atmosphere does not magnify the sun. That is all.

And my post proving the speed of the sun can't appear constant in FET disapears.... so i'll repost :

The constant velocity question was answered above in my first post in this thread:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 15, 2012, 08:02:09 AM

2. Constant speed of the sun

Even in RET the speed of the sun in the sky is not constant. When you're with the woman you love it's much faster than when you're at work.

More seriously : it is constant throughout the day, at least the very little speed differences are not noticeable without accurate measures.
Tom Bishop according to the link you posted, an objet's apparent speed tends to be constant the higher it gets. But at an altitude of 3000 miles and see from the equator, its apparent speed varies like this :
At noon, the distance between observer and sun = 3000 miles.
When the sun will be 6000 miles away, its apparent speed will be only half as fast.
Question : at what time in the afternoon will it be 6000 km away ?
Answer : at 2 PM (basic geometry and pythagoras theorem needed).
So in only 2 hours, the sun loses half of its apparent speed, according to FET.
Hmm.... how can one explain this goes unnoticed ?

Care to give your opinion, Tom ?

And my post proving the speed of the sun can't appear constant in FET disapears.... so i'll repost :

It didn't disappear. He just ignored it. You'll notice that about Tom. He's either really dumb, or a very effective troll. I can't quite figure it out though.

We've been here before... haven't we? Yes, I believe we have. The atmosphere does not magnify the sun. That is all.

That doesn't seem like a convincing argument. The Wiki article gives two examples of where light has been magnified by the atmosphere.

Here's a video of a freeway. You will notice that the cars in the distance on the oncoming lane seem to have magnified headlights. The size is relatively constant as they approach us. The headlights of the car appear magnified in relation to the size of the car when they appear from afar, and are a constant size as they approach us because the rate the car grows in size with perspective is proportional to the shrinking amount of atmosphere between the observer and car.

The red tail lights of the cars in the lane going away from us do seem to shrink in the distance, however. The red tail light are not bright enough to catch onto the atmosphere as the headlights are.