The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate

  • 191 Replies
  • 50486 Views
The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« on: December 14, 2015, 11:46:28 AM »
Hi all,

my first contribution to this forum based on a just recent interest in Flat Earth.

I want to outline some impossibilities of the Flat Earth idea here and would like to debate them:

1 - misrepresentation of spherical Earth as postulated by Flat Earth believers
2 - geometrical impossibilities of the Flat Earth map
3 - trigonometrical impossibilities of Flat Earth
4 - illumination & climate impossibilities of Flat Earth
5 - geological impossibilities of Flat Earth


1 - I've seen that one of the foundational arguments for Flat Earth seems to be the curvature in a spherical Earth model. It is stated that there would be a kind of squared relation that makes the curvature increase (a drop due to curvature in the first mile of 8 inches suddenly increases over the next mile to 16 inches?). That cannot be true for a spherical Earth; if the Earth is a near-sphere, every slice of it becomes a circle and circles have constant curvature by definition. So if the drop over the first mile is 8 inches, the drop over the next mile is still 8 inches and cannot increase nor decrease. Variable curvature is only possible in ellipses (the slice of an ellipsoid) and the Earth is not an ellipse, in none of the models.

2 - the Flat Earth map cannot represent the continents in the right way. Due to the distortion at the edge of the Flat Earth (or the southern hemisphere in spherical Earth) the size of Australia is extremely boosted. Also the size of North America becomes too small, Africa suddenly becomes bigger than Asia. This makes it an impossible map to hold.

3 - there are multiple problems with the trigonometry and the movement of the Sun in the Flat Earth idea. In Flat Earth the Sun is supposed to be tiny (some 32 miles across?) and very close by (only 5000 miles). It makes the Sun about 100,000 times smaller than the Earth and very close to the surface.
On 21st of June the Sun is roughly in zenith above Dubai (tropic of Cancer).
On 21st of December the Sun is roughly in zenith above Rio de Janeiro (tropic of Capricorn).

This makes that the Sun is only 5000 miles away on 21-Jun/21-Dec in Dubai/Rio. This means the Sun is supposedly much closer to Dubai on 21 Jun than in Rio on the same day. Yet, the apparent size of the Sun is the same. That is impossible if the Sun is so tiny as the slightest variation in size is noticed immediately. That the Sun looks equal in size from wherever you are on Earth points to a big Sun and far away and not to a tiny Sun (smaller than the island of Bali!) close by.

This effect is even enhanced when we look at Oslo/Ushuaia (~55 deg North/South). From those places the Sun on 21 Dec/21 Jun is 10,200 km away; more than twice as far as the Sun is from Dubai/Rio on the same day. Yet the Sun does not look twice as big from those places.

On top of that the supposition that the Earth is flat makes that the Sun has a much bigger circle ("orbit") on 21 Dec than on 21 Jun. The angular velocity of the Sun across the sky however is the same (1 Earth day). It would mean the Sun moves much (almost 70%) faster on 21 Dec than on 21 Jun to keep holding this idea.

Yet the same amounts of light and heart are produced per surface area, something which is impossible with variable circling velocities (to not use "orbital velocity").

4 - in a Flat Earth situation the center of the circle/North Polar region receives much more heat than the edge/southern hemisphere. Yet we do not observe any climatic biasing pattern based on that flat idea on Earth. The arctic region is much colder than the equatorial region while in a Flat Earth the latter receives much less heat (per time and per area).

The illumination of the arctic on 21st June is all-day, while the same effect happens on Earth on 21st Dec in the antarctic region. In a Flat Earth model it is impossible to illuminate Antarctica 24/7; so it does not coincide with the observations making it an impossible 'model' for the Earth.

5 - I am very curious to hear any explanation of plate tectonics on a Flat Earth. What happens; are continents "falling off the Flat Earth" or how are continents moving through geological time? In a Flat Earth idea, what is causing the Atlantic coastal shapes of Africa and South America to fit so perfectly?

The question is also where the magma producing volcanic areas is coming from in a Flat Earth and how come it is so restricted to the well-studied volcanic provinces and chains on Earth, with the most notable example the circum-Pacific Ring of Fire.

I am all ears to your reactions!

Cheers, Gaia Redonda
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 07:19:06 PM by Gaia_Redonda »
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2015, 12:20:06 PM »
Hiya, and welcome to the trenches. I think the biggest problem with flat earthers is that they misrepresent the round earth and basically make straw man arguments.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2015, 12:26:23 PM »
Hiya, and welcome to the trenches. I think the biggest problem with flat earthers is that they misrepresent the round earth and basically make straw man arguments.
Hi, thank you for the welcome.

To avoid making straw man arguments myself I'd like to hear those points from the Flat Earthers themselves and not speak about them in 3rd person, if you don't mind.  ;) Also because of the section I placed the topic; a real debate rather than throwing accusations and silly words to each other.

But indeed, the misrepresentation of spherical Earth with regards to the curvature is a key problem. Especially because it seems the basis for the whole Flat Earth idea.

If the foundation is flawed, everything built on top of it, rapidly disappears in the quicksand...
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2015, 12:28:53 PM »
Hiya, and welcome to the trenches. I think the biggest problem with flat earthers is that they misrepresent the round earth and basically make straw man arguments.
Hi, thank you for the welcome.

To avoid making straw man arguments myself I'd like to hear those points from the Flat Earthers themselves and not speak about them in 3rd person, if you don't mind.  ;) Also because of the section I placed the topic; a real debate rather than throwing accusations and silly words to each other.

But indeed, the misrepresentation of spherical Earth with regards to the curvature is a key problem. Especially because it seems the basis for the whole Flat Earth idea.

If the foundation is flawed, everything built on top of it, rapidly disappears in the quicksand...

You're right, let the horse speak for himself.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2015, 12:38:02 PM »

1 - misrepresentation of spherical Earth as postulated by Flat Earth believers
2 - geometrical impossibilities of the Flat Earth map
3 - trigonometrical impossibilities of Flat Earth
4 - illumination & climate impossibilities of Flat Earth
5 - geological impossibilities of Flat Earth


The first does not even begin to falsify FET, 2-4 are flaws with the uniplanar FE model only (DET works fine), and tectonics are murkier but there would seem to be no issue between that and DET.

You note that FEers can misrepresent RET, I urge you to be cautious of the opposite as well. It is incredibly common for REers to misrepresent FET, especially DET. Luke is one of the more notable offenders. You can use the search function to see he repeat certain questions all over the forum in multiple threads, is answered every single time, and still persists in asking the exact same question with no acknowledgement. Then there's Sokarul who inexplicably insists, despite repeated correction, that DET must involve teleportation, or EarthIsRound who denies the existence of the explicitly titled section 'evidence' for DET, or Jadyyn who loved to spam the forum with one argument he refused to justify...
Don't put it all on the shoulders of FEers. There's some dishonesty in both camps. I try my best, but please, make up your own mind on FET: don't rely solely on the mocking of other REers. Too often, they refuse to offer anything more than jeers.

On DET, the link is in my sig. As with any scientific theory, it would take too long to explain from first principles. 2 and 4 would seem to be answered trivially, the sun is addressed, and while tectonics aren't explicitly mentioned, I hope the lack of an issue is clear. If you take the time to read the model, I hope you find it makes sense.
Also, pay no attention to the REers. I'm almost certain this message will be met with mocking yet stranegly they'll inevitably offer nothing except assertion in response. Unjustified claims, baseless smearing, verifiably false lies.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2015, 01:08:32 PM »
I've read your model and your responses and I never got a legit response at least from what I remember.

Tell you what, you give me the post number in which thread where you gave a specific experiment to prove that Aether exists and if its legit I will publicly apologize to you for refusing the evidence.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2015, 01:20:55 PM »

1 - misrepresentation of spherical Earth as postulated by Flat Earth believers
2 - geometrical impossibilities of the Flat Earth map
3 - trigonometrical impossibilities of Flat Earth
4 - illumination & climate impossibilities of Flat Earth
5 - geological impossibilities of Flat Earth


The first does not even begin to falsify FET,

Point 1 is not about falsify, it's about a misrepresentation of spherical Earth which is the basis for Flat Earth; the curvature. If one attacks a theory, model or idea, one should with the best of efforts represent at least the idea well. If not, it's a straw man, a fallacy.

Quote
2-4 are flaws with the uniplanar FE model only (DET works fine), and tectonics are murkier but there would seem to be no issue between that and DET.

I registered and opened a topic to have an intellectual debate. A comment "works fine" is not an argument, explanation nor anything else of intellectual value.

Quote
You note that FEers can misrepresent RET, I urge you to be cautious of the opposite as well.

That is also a fallacy; irrelevant. And yet at the same time I may be culpable of it; I may represent Flat Earth (a new idea, not widely described, so it may be I got the wrong perception) ideas wrong, but then I ask for clarification of the points I accidentally misrepresented. However, the spherical Earth model is so well established, studied and information is freely available to everyone, that misrepresenting that model and a misrepresentation of Flat Earth cannot be rationally equalized.

Quote
It is incredibly common for REers to misrepresent FET, especially DET.

The term Round Earth(er) is silly. Even the Flat Earth idea is a Round Earth. Round is a description of an object in 2D. Circles are round. And the Flat Earth edge seems to be represented as a circle. Other possibilities than Round Earth would be Square Earth, Rectangular Earth, Hexagonal Earth, Elliptical Earth or whatever other 2D descriptive term.

The correct term to use is Spherical Earth; the widely accepted model of the Earth is that it's a near-sphere (3D) with only some slight difference from a perfect sphere due to the rotation around its axis. Other 3D spherical terms like "Ball Earth" or "Globe Earth" would also be correct.

Quote
Luke is one of the more notable offenders. You can use the search function to see he repeat certain questions all over the forum in multiple threads, is answered every single time, and still persists in asking the exact same question with no acknowledgement. Then there's Sokarul who inexplicably insists, despite repeated correction, that DET must involve teleportation, or EarthIsRound who denies the existence of the explicitly titled section 'evidence' for DET, or Jadyyn who loved to spam the forum with one argument he refused to justify...

I don't know who those people are and when they come here to debate my points, I am happy to talk to them. I am not going to use search functions to look up how other people are reacting to topics; completely irrelevant for this debate, this topic, these points and that is what I am interested in. I also have no interest in disputes about people who cannot even respond.
 
Quote
Don't put it all on the shoulders of FEers.

Is this "the Flat Earth Society" or not? I put the points on the shoulders of those who made them in the first place, nothing more.

Quote
On DET, the link is in my sig. As with any scientific theory, it would take too long to explain from first principles.

Until an hour ago I didn't even know what Dual Earth "Theory" was. I've clicked your link to the forum and saw some really really sketchy sketches. You really want to publish those as basis for your ideas? Why not make them better, nicer and easy to understand for everyone? Why stick to some sketches made on the back of a napkin?

Please refrain from calling your ideas "Theory". Theory is a specific term within science. Your ideas are merely a hypothesis, if even.

Quote
2 and 4 would seem to be answered trivially, the sun is addressed, and while tectonics aren't explicitly mentioned, I hope the lack of an issue is clear. If you take the time to read the model, I hope you find it makes sense.
Also, pay no attention to the REers. I'm almost certain this message will be met with mocking yet stranegly they'll inevitably offer nothing except assertion in response. Unjustified claims, baseless smearing, verifiably false lies.
I read a lot of harsh words, not any argument, explanation or other intellectual content.

The 5 points I made are left completely unaddressed.

What is your purpose here? Do you want to market your DE"T" or are you interested in the intellectual debate the section and topic title asks for? I've read the guidelines for this section of the forum and liked the focus on content and arguments, so can you please address that?

Thanks, Gaia
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 01:25:13 PM by Gaia_Redonda »
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2015, 01:26:16 PM »
Quote
1 - I've seen that one of the foundational arguments for Flat Earth seems to be the curvature in a spherical Earth model. It is stated that there would be a kind of squared relation that makes the curvature increase (a drop due to curvature in the first mile of 8 inches suddenly increases over the next mile to 16 inches?). That cannot be true for a spherical Earth; if the Earth is a near-sphere, every slice of it becomes a circle and circles have constant curvature by definition. So if the drop over the first mile is 8 inches, the drop over the next mile is still 8 inches and cannot increase nor decrease. Variable curvature is only possible in ellipses (the slice of an ellipsoid) and the Earth is not an ellipse, in none of the models.
You are a little confused about what is being show by the ((milesXmiles)X8)/12
wiki diagram


Nice page here with explination and sheet.
http://flatvsround.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-to-calculate-distance-to-horizon.html

wiki horizon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon


If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2015, 01:30:10 PM »
Wow, you're on the ball OP.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2015, 01:34:34 PM »
Quote
1 - I've seen that one of the foundational arguments for Flat Earth seems to be the curvature in a spherical Earth model. It is stated that there would be a kind of squared relation that makes the curvature increase (a drop due to curvature in the first mile of 8 inches suddenly increases over the next mile to 16 inches?). That cannot be true for a spherical Earth; if the Earth is a near-sphere, every slice of it becomes a circle and circles have constant curvature by definition. So if the drop over the first mile is 8 inches, the drop over the next mile is still 8 inches and cannot increase nor decrease. Variable curvature is only possible in ellipses (the slice of an ellipsoid) and the Earth is not an ellipse, in none of the models.
You are a little confused about what is being show by the ((milesXmiles)X8)/12
wiki diagram


Nice page here with explination and sheet.
http://flatvsround.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-to-calculate-distance-to-horizon.html

wiki horizon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
Thanks for the image and links.

Looking at the image you see that there's a horizontal line drawn going from the North Pole to the right (line "d"). That line is completely imaginary. It doesn't exist. The only line that exists is the line "s"; the surface of the Earth where we do all our observations.

When going along that line (the only possible path we have) from the North Pole to R, the curvature of the circle is constant; so the drop from horizontal is also constant. The same holds for the next step, from R to R2/R', another distance "s".

Point O is another imaginary point and not a really existing one.

If one says that "from point A (observer) to the horizon 100 miles farther away (B) the drop is 100*8" = 800 inches (or ~20 meters), then that same effect needs to happen over the next 100 miles (to C); so from A to C the drop would be 2x800/20 = 1600 inches or 40 meters".

Trying to fiddle in a squared relation here is incorrect; the curvature along a circle doesn't change. By definition.

What about the other points? You seem to think the Earth is Flat, so I am curious about what you think of them.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2015, 01:42:34 PM »
Welcome to the forum Gaia. Its nice to have another RE who isn't a troll.
Just a couple of quick tips-if Jrow comments on anything about DET, don't bother asking him to clarify or explain. He'll just tell you to read 10 pages of rubbish or get angry because you've got better things to do.
Also anything from the government or any scientists is part of the conspiracy and thus is disregarded.
Part of the conspiracy. Illuminati, Lizard men or just plain crazy. Take your pick, all three are on this forum.

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2015, 02:14:47 PM »
Welcome to the forum Gaia. Its nice to have another RE who isn't a troll.
Just a couple of quick tips-if Jrow comments on anything about DET, don't bother asking him to clarify or explain. He'll just tell you to read 10 pages of rubbish or get angry because you've got better things to do.
Also anything from the government or any scientists is part of the conspiracy and thus is disregarded.
Hi Cake, agreed with your user name, it doesn't even need to be "space-" to be true  8) .

And thank you for the warning. Any other "Flat Earth idea" ("model" would be too generous) suffers from the same problem as "classical" Flat Earth does; the huge inconsistency between the shapes of the objects.

In the spherical Earth model + the to us, the public, observable universe (Sun, Moon, stars, planets, planet moons) all shapes align: they are all (near-)spheres.

A Flat Earth model has all kinds of shapes combined which makes it a (cake) mix of concepts:
- Earth - flat, round dish
- Moon - ? - also flat? round definitely
- Sun - ? - round definitely but it cannot be a flat dish as it looks round from wherever you are on Earth - so must be a sphere
- skies - some kind of dome? - a dome is not a shape which is common in nature
- stars - points? round? spheres?

Complicating the Flat Earth idea with a "Dual Earth" (when I read the term I though he advocated 2 Earths) makes that already mishmash of shapes even more challenging to explain. And, like I said, if you want to present an idea (incorrectly called "Theory"), I'd say it's only in the best interest of the presenter to have proper images, video or animations and not present napkin sketches. So it's only in JRoweSkeptic's interest to improve his own work.

Needing "10 pages of rubbish" to present your ideas would be muddying waters, trolling, not to be taken seriously and less in just that section of a forum which intends to have proper debates rather than childish behavior.

So, Flat Earth cannot function without spheres; the Sun must be a sphere to explain the observations around Earth. Every shape other than a sphere would mean that the Sun from different positions has a different shape than round (the circle which is a slice of a sphere).

Why suppose the Earth is a flat dish while the Sun (tiny tiny as I understand in Flat Earth) needs to be a sphere?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2015, 09:49:41 AM by Gaia_Redonda »
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2015, 02:15:49 PM »
Quote
1 - I've seen that one of the foundational arguments for Flat Earth seems to be the curvature in a spherical Earth model. It is stated that there would be a kind of squared relation that makes the curvature increase (a drop due to curvature in the first mile of 8 inches suddenly increases over the next mile to 16 inches?). That cannot be true for a spherical Earth; if the Earth is a near-sphere, every slice of it becomes a circle and circles have constant curvature by definition. So if the drop over the first mile is 8 inches, the drop over the next mile is still 8 inches and cannot increase nor decrease. Variable curvature is only possible in ellipses (the slice of an ellipsoid) and the Earth is not an ellipse, in none of the models.
You are a little confused about what is being show by the ((milesXmiles)X8)/12
wiki diagram


Nice page here with explination and sheet.
http://flatvsround.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-to-calculate-distance-to-horizon.html

wiki horizon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
Thanks for the image and links.

Looking at the image you see that there's a horizontal line drawn going from the North Pole to the right (line "d"). That line is completely imaginary. It doesn't exist. The only line that exists is the line "s"; the surface of the Earth where we do all our observations.

When going along that line (the only possible path we have) from the North Pole to R, the curvature of the circle is constant; so the drop from horizontal is also constant. The same holds for the next step, from R to R2/R', another distance "s".

Point O is another imaginary point and not a really existing one.

If one says that "from point A (observer) to the horizon 100 miles farther away (B) the drop is 100*8" = 800 inches (or ~20 meters), then that same effect needs to happen over the next 100 miles (to C); so from A to C the drop would be 2x800/20 = 1600 inches or 40 meters".

Trying to fiddle in a squared relation here is incorrect; the curvature along a circle doesn't change. By definition.

What about the other points? You seem to think the Earth is Flat, so I am curious about what you think of them.
You are incorrect. Did you even read the information at the links I provided? Your invalid assumptions are casing miscalculation on your part. You cannot just make up your own version of math to use it to make a point.
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

*

JustThatOneGuy

  • 193
  • Expect to see activity bursts and stops.
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2015, 02:27:28 PM »
Quote
1 - I've seen that one of the foundational arguments for Flat Earth seems to be the curvature in a spherical Earth model. It is stated that there would be a kind of squared relation that makes the curvature increase (a drop due to curvature in the first mile of 8 inches suddenly increases over the next mile to 16 inches?). That cannot be true for a spherical Earth; if the Earth is a near-sphere, every slice of it becomes a circle and circles have constant curvature by definition. So if the drop over the first mile is 8 inches, the drop over the next mile is still 8 inches and cannot increase nor decrease. Variable curvature is only possible in ellipses (the slice of an ellipsoid) and the Earth is not an ellipse, in none of the models.
You are a little confused about what is being show by the ((milesXmiles)X8)/12
wiki diagram


Nice page here with explination and sheet.
http://flatvsround.blogspot.com/2015/10/how-to-calculate-distance-to-horizon.html

wiki horizon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
Thanks for the image and links.

Looking at the image you see that there's a horizontal line drawn going from the North Pole to the right (line "d"). That line is completely imaginary. It doesn't exist. The only line that exists is the line "s"; the surface of the Earth where we do all our observations.

When going along that line (the only possible path we have) from the North Pole to R, the curvature of the circle is constant; so the drop from horizontal is also constant. The same holds for the next step, from R to R2/R', another distance "s".

Point O is another imaginary point and not a really existing one.

If one says that "from point A (observer) to the horizon 100 miles farther away (B) the drop is 100*8" = 800 inches (or ~20 meters), then that same effect needs to happen over the next 100 miles (to C); so from A to C the drop would be 2x800/20 = 1600 inches or 40 meters".

Trying to fiddle in a squared relation here is incorrect; the curvature along a circle doesn't change. By definition.

What about the other points? You seem to think the Earth is Flat, so I am curious about what you think of them.
ronxyz is someone I find sketchy at best. Uh, to bring you up to speed, he doesn't believe in the following
Gravity
An Earth with Curvature
The ISS/NASA/Space Travel
Welcome to the forums, I don't know much about ronxyz, but... ronxyz, in answer to your signature, we don't fall off the bottom of a ball Earth because universal gravitation attracts us to he center, and there is no true "Bottom" in relation to space.
Nah, I'm just here to correct your grammar. The Earth's still round, though.

*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2015, 02:32:42 PM »
Welcome Gaia, I am subscribing to this thread for my own education. Be well.
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2015, 02:33:38 PM »
You are incorrect.

"I am incorrect"? What is that supposed to mean? Only my words may be "incorrect", but then I challenge you to point out where, why and how those words are incorrect.

Simply saying "incorrect" (either about me -non-sensical- or my words) has nothing to do with an intellectual debate, or reasonable content.

Quote
Your invalid assumptions

Invalid assumptions? I haven't even assumed anything. So show me the invalidity of what I said...

Quote
are casing miscalculation on your part. You cannot just make up your own version of math to use it to make a point.
There is no "own version of math". Math is universal, at least the basic math we all learnt in school. Where is the math I used "incorrect"?

Do circles not have constant curvature? So from point A to B with equal distance "s" the curvature (and hence drop from horizontal) is not the same as from B to C with equal distance "s"? So from A to C and distance 2s the drop is 2x that of A to B and not 2^2=4 times?

Welcome to the forums
Welcome Gaia, I am subscribing to this thread for my own education. Be well.

And thank you both.  :)
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 02:38:01 PM by Gaia_Redonda »
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2015, 02:46:24 PM »
Quote
2 - the Flat Earth map cannot represent the continents in the right way. Due to the distortion at the edge of the Flat Earth (or the southern hemisphere in spherical Earth) the size of Australia is extremely boosted. Also the size of North America becomes too small, Africa suddenly becomes bigger than Asia. This makes it an impossible map to hold.

The exact same thing can be said fro the ball Earth maps. There are many versions with there being no standard map. When real world data is applied to a ball there is a lot of distortion at the poles. The only place on the ball Earth map that is not distorted is the equator.
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2015, 02:53:29 PM »
Quote
2 - the Flat Earth map cannot represent the continents in the right way. Due to the distortion at the edge of the Flat Earth (or the southern hemisphere in spherical Earth) the size of Australia is extremely boosted. Also the size of North America becomes too small, Africa suddenly becomes bigger than Asia. This makes it an impossible map to hold.

The exact same thing can be said fro the ball Earth maps. There are many versions with there being no standard map. When real world data is applied to a ball there is a lot of distortion at the poles. The only place on the ball Earth map that is not distorted is the equator.

No, not the "exact same thing can be said from spherical Earth maps".

It is true that it's hard to present a map projection of a 3D sphere on a 2D surface. That is also the reason so many different projections have been proposed through history.

But for a Flat Earth it should be a piece of cake as there are no problems to project a Flat Earth on a Flat Surface. It means a Flat Earth map would be much easier to construct than a spherical Earth-to-2D map.

If even the base map of an idea (Flat Earth) does not represent the correct shapes and surface areas of known, measurable continents, how can you claim your idea is correct?
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #18 on: December 14, 2015, 02:59:17 PM »
Quote
3 - there are multiple problems with the trigonometry and the movement of the Sun in the Flat Earth idea. In Flat Earth the Sun is supposed to be tiny (some 32 miles across?) and very close by (only 5000 miles). It makes the Sun about 100,000 times smaller than the Earth and very close to the surface.
On 21st of June the Sun is roughly in zenith above Dubai (tropic of Cancer).
On 21st of December the Sun is roughly in zenith above Rio de Janeiro (tropic of Capricorn).

This makes that the Sun is only 5000 miles away on 21-Jun/21-Dec in Dubai/Rio. This means the Sun is supposedly much closer to Dubai on 21 Jun than in Rio on the same day. Yet, the apparent size of the Sun is the same. That is impossible if the Sun is so tiny as the slightest variation in size is noticed immediately. That the Sun looks equal in size from wherever you are on Earth points to a big Sun and far away and not to a tiny Sun (smaller than the island of Bali!) close by.

This effect is even enhanced when we look at Oslo/Ushuaia (~55 deg North/South). From those places the Sun on 21 Dec/21 Jun is 10,200 km away; more than twice as far as the Sun is from Dubai/Rio on the same day. Yet the Sun does not look twice as big from those places.

On top of that the supposition that the Earth is flat makes that the Sun has a much bigger circle ("orbit") on 21 Dec than on 21 Jun. The angular velocity of the Sun across the sky however is the same (1 Earth day). It would mean the Sun moves much (almost 70%) faster on 21 Dec than on 21 Jun to keep holding this idea.

Yet the same amounts of light and heart are produced per surface area, something which is impossible with variable circling velocities (to not use "orbital velocity").

You are already living on the flat plane of the Earth so everything is already working as it should. You seem like a clever person maybe you could further define what is going on and the relationships you address.
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2015, 03:03:03 PM »
Quote
4 - in a Flat Earth situation the center of the circle/North Polar region receives much more heat than the edge/southern hemisphere. Yet we do not observe any climatic biasing pattern based on that flat idea on Earth. The arctic region is much colder than the equatorial region while in a Flat Earth the latter receives much less heat (per time and per area).

The illumination of the arctic on 21st June is all-day, while the same effect happens on Earth on 21st Dec in the antarctic region. In a Flat Earth model it is impossible to illuminate Antarctica 24/7; so it does not coincide with the observations making it an impossible 'model' for the Earth.

The same could be said about the ball Earth theory. The sun energy over the year is about the same between the north and the south, but the north is moderate in climate and the south is frigid with extreme cold. Why?
If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2015, 03:09:36 PM »
You are already living on the flat plane of the Earth so everything is already working as it should.

I don't understand this comment, I am sorry. It smells like circular reasoning, but even that I am not sure of. Would you care to elaborate?

Quote
You seem like a clever person maybe you could further define what is going on and the relationships you address.
Define what is going on? My basis is basic physics, basic math, basic observations. I don't care about theoretical physics, "relativity theory" and other areas of science which are impossible to the general public to understand without solving 666th order Fourier transforms and other advanced mathematical stuff.

Another example; the curved shadows on the Moon and Sun with lunar resp. solar eclipses. We just had one recently which was observable in the Western hemisphere.

The spherical Earth + Keplerian elliptical orbit universe model explains those shadows and eclipses quite satisfactorily I would say.

What are lunar and solar eclipses meant to be in a Flat Earth model?
And more importantly (in order to call your idea a "theory" it even needs to happen, otherwise you fail by definition), which Flat Earther has ever predicted those eclipses using their "models"?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2015, 07:20:26 PM by Gaia_Redonda »
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

ronxyz

  • 414
  • technologist
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2015, 03:12:50 PM »
Quote
5 - I am very curious to hear any explanation of plate tectonics on a Flat Earth. What happens; are continents "falling off the Flat Earth" or how are continents moving through geological time? In a Flat Earth idea, what is causing the Atlantic coastal shapes of Africa and South America to fit so perfectly?

The question is also where the magma producing volcanic areas is coming from in a Flat Earth and how come it is so restricted to the well-studied volcanic provinces and chains on Earth, with the most notable example the circum-Pacific Ring of Fire.
Nothing in your point 5 has any bearing on anything.
The tectonic theory is far far being a proven thing. There are places were the supposed plates are move in two directions. The placement of the land masses and their ever fitting together is mere speculation. How the continents look on a map has to do with high the water is, not very long ago the water was some 300 feet less and the land mass looked much different.. The same could be said about the ball Earth, why don't the continents fall off the bottom of the Earth.

If the Earth is a ball why don't we fall off the bottom?

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #22 on: December 14, 2015, 03:18:22 PM »
The same could be said about the ball Earth theory. The sun energy over the year is about the same between the north and the south, but the north is moderate in climate and the south is frigid with extreme cold. Why?
The solar energy over the year is about the same in a spherical Earth model? Well no. The inclination of the Earth's axis causes the variation in seasons.

And the south is frigid with extreme cold? The Kalahari, Australian and Atacama deserts are all on the southern hemisphere and are very hot places indeed.

Climatic variation is well explained in a spherical Earth model; the "bands" of climatic zones going from Arctic over temperate, hot desert (Sahara), equatorial, again hot desert (mentioned above) and again temperate (Buenos Aires) and again cold, Antarctic do make sense in a spherical model.

In a Flat Earth idea those do not make sense and the North Pole would be illuminated much more than the southern hemisphere.

It's the distribution of land masses versus oceans that creates the difference between northern and southern hemisphere. Has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth, but with the effects based on thermal properties of land versus water.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #23 on: December 14, 2015, 03:21:31 PM »
Quote
5 - I am very curious to hear any explanation of plate tectonics on a Flat Earth. What happens; are continents "falling off the Flat Earth" or how are continents moving through geological time? In a Flat Earth idea, what is causing the Atlantic coastal shapes of Africa and South America to fit so perfectly?

The question is also where the magma producing volcanic areas is coming from in a Flat Earth and how come it is so restricted to the well-studied volcanic provinces and chains on Earth, with the most notable example the circum-Pacific Ring of Fire.
Nothing in your point 5 has any bearing on anything.
The tectonic theory is far far being a proven thing. There are places were the supposed plates are move in two directions. The placement of the land masses and their ever fitting together is mere speculation. How the continents look on a map has to do with high the water is, not very long ago the water was some 300 feet less and the land mass looked much different.. The same could be said about the ball Earth, why don't the continents fall off the bottom of the Earth.
I am sorry to see that you lack knowledge about tectonics and the Earth.

Two solutions:
1 - keep quiet about things you don't know and refrain from calling well-studied subjects "mere speculation"
2 - educate yourself and come up with proper answers

The idea that things can "fall off" a sphere is too ridiculous to address.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #24 on: December 14, 2015, 10:20:46 PM »
This is what I have learned after 1.5 months of presence here.

1 - I've seen that one of the foundational arguments for Flat Earth seems to be the curvature in a spherical Earth model. It is stated that there would be a kind of squared relation that makes the curvature increase (a drop due to curvature in the first mile of 8 inches suddenly increases over the next mile to 16 inches?).
This "8 inch per mile squared" is often used as a simplification. For small distances it "works". I fail to understand why some people use it as a general rule...


2 - the Flat Earth map cannot represent the continents in the right way. Due to the distortion at the edge of the Flat Earth (or the southern hemisphere in spherical Earth) the size of Australia is extremely boosted. Also the size of North America becomes too small, Africa suddenly becomes bigger than Asia. This makes it an impossible map to hold.
One of the biggest flaws of the entire FE model (yes, I call it a model, not a theory...). I can only see excuses and dropped projects. No actual FE map can be found based on my experience. Any existing "FE map" is just one of many existing projections of globe to the plane.

3 - there are multiple problems with the trigonometry and the movement of the Sun in the Flat Earth idea. In Flat Earth the Sun is supposed to be tiny (some 32 miles across?) and very close by (only 5000 miles). It makes the Sun about 100,000 times smaller than the Earth and very close to the surface.
On 21st of June the Sun is roughly in zenith above Dubai (tropic of Cancer).
On 21st of December the Sun is roughly in zenith above Rio de Janeiro (tropic of Capricorn).

This makes that the Sun is only 5000 miles away on 21-Jun/21-Dec in Dubai/Rio. This means the Sun is supposedly much closer to Dubai on 21 Jun than in Rio on the same day. Yet, the apparent size of the Sun is the same. That is impossible if the Sun is so tiny as the slightest variation in size is noticed immediately. That the Sun looks equal in size from wherever you are on Earth points to a big Sun and far away and not to a tiny Sun (smaller than the island of Bali!) close by.

This effect is even enhanced when we look at Oslo/Ushuaia (~55 deg North/South). From those places the Sun on 21 Dec/21 Jun is 10,200 km away; more than twice as far as the Sun is from Dubai/Rio on the same day. Yet the Sun does not look twice as big from those places.

On top of that the supposition that the Earth is flat makes that the Sun has a much bigger circle ("orbit") on 21 Dec than on 21 Jun. The angular velocity of the Sun across the sky however is the same (1 Earth day). It would mean the Sun moves much (almost 70%) faster on 21 Dec than on 21 Jun to keep holding this idea.

Yet the same amounts of light and heart are produced per surface area, something which is impossible with variable circling velocities (to not use "orbital velocity").
This is how they explain it. The atmosphere acts like a magnifying glass (though they cannot explain what creates that effect), which makes the Sun always the same size.

There is yet another problem with this. FE model cannot explain/describe, how far the Sun is. So any "theory" about seasons, day/night cycles are based on unsupported/unproven claims. As we all know, from false assumption everything can follow...

4 - in a Flat Earth situation the center of the circle/North Polar region receives much more heat than the edge/southern hemisphere. Yet we do not observe any climatic biasing pattern based on that flat idea on Earth. The arctic region is much colder than the equatorial region while in a Flat Earth the latter receives much less heat (per time and per area).

The illumination of the arctic on 21st June is all-day, while the same effect happens on Earth on 21st Dec in the antarctic region. In a Flat Earth model it is impossible to illuminate Antarctica 24/7; so it does not coincide with the observations making it an impossible 'model' for the Earth.
How does the Sun illuminate what it should within different seasons remains unexplained. There are just two random nonsenses.
1. Atmosphere can bend the light so southern hemisphere is illuminated as it should be druing the summer. However, this bending looks so ridiculous and has no scientific support. At all.
2. The dome. Light can reflect from the dome and travel further while the Sun is closer to the dome (summer time for the southern hemisphere). This causes, as always, problems, like two Suns visible at the same time...

5 - I am very curious to hear any explanation of plate tectonics on a Flat Earth. What happens; are continents "falling off the Flat Earth" or how are continents moving through geological time? In a Flat Earth idea, what is causing the Atlantic coastal shapes of Africa and South America to fit so perfectly?

The question is also where the magma producing volcanic areas is coming from in a Flat Earth and how come it is so restricted to the well-studied volcanic provinces and chains on Earth, with the most notable example the circum-Pacific Ring of Fire.
This is the first time I see this question, so I am looking forward for the answer as well...

Sorry If I did not help as much, but FES does not allow me to expand my knowledge about FE model and clarify things that make no sense for me. See my signature for two interesting topics.

*

usnfc

  • 14
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2015, 10:57:04 PM »
I love this! An actual debater!

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2015, 02:41:07 AM »
Quote
I've read your model and your responses and I never got a legit response at least from what I remember.

Tell you what, you give me the post number in which thread where you gave a specific experiment to prove that Aether exists and if its legit I will publicly apologize to you for refusing the evidence.
You just ignore every answer. An experiment to prove aether is given in the evidence section of the model itself, but that was never your claim. You persisted in asking for justification forthe deduction, were given the answer, and spent ages refusing to say what was wrong with it, before ultimately admitting you don't accept Relativity. There's no discussing with someone who rejects science.

Quote
I registered and opened a topic to have an intellectual debate. A comment "works fine" is not an argument, explanation nor anything else of intellectual value.
I gave you the source of the model, and explained the issues with giving a full explanation here at the end of my post. What is of intellectual value is the fact I gave you the means to learn a working model. What you ask is for me to explain it from first principles to give an understandable response: individual snippets, in direct answer to your questions, wouldn't make any sense. the same is true for every scientific model.

Quote
Please refrain from calling your ideas "Theory". Theory is a specific term within science. Your ideas are merely a hypothesis, if even.
I thought you were after intellectual discussion. Instead you attack my resources, and spend no time on the substance of the theory: and then you make a claim with no justification whatsoever.

I have addressed the arguments. You simply ignored the source.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2015, 02:43:57 AM »
I love this! An actual debater!

A Master Debater?  :o

*

usnfc

  • 14
Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2015, 05:15:17 AM »

Re: The impossibilities of Flat Earth - intellectual debate
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2015, 05:36:55 AM »
This is what I have learned after 1.5 months of presence here.

This "8 inch per mile squared" is often used as a simplification. For small distances it "works". I fail to understand why some people use it as a general rule...

Curvature is irrespective of distance. That's the whole point.

The "curvature" that is observed at "small distances" is nothing more than the irregular shape of my own skin.

Quote
One of the biggest flaws of the entire FE model (yes, I call it a model, not a theory...).

It's neither.

A theory needs to adhere to specific characteristics and a (working) model needs to be predictive. Flat Earth does not fall in either category.

It's an idea, nothing more.

Quote
I can only see excuses and dropped projects. No actual FE map can be found based on my experience. Any existing "FE map" is just one of many existing projections of globe to the plane.

Yes and a very poor one. If their basis is such a huge Australia everything built on top, or down under, is nothing more than dust.

Quote
This is how they explain it. The atmosphere acts like a magnifying glass (though they cannot explain what creates that effect), which makes the Sun always the same size.

 :D :D :D

A "magnifying glass" that makes things "always the same size"? Made by The Mad Hatter?

Quote
There is yet another problem with this. FE model cannot explain/describe, how far the Sun is. So any "theory" about seasons, day/night cycles are based on unsupported/unproven claims. As we all know, from false assumption everything can follow...

I heard a Flat Earther say "@ around 5000 km/3000 miles" so used that number. But it's even worse then?

Quote
How does the Sun illuminate what it should within different seasons remains unexplained. There are just two random nonsenses.
1. Atmosphere can bend the light so southern hemisphere is illuminated as it should be druing the summer. However, this bending looks so ridiculous and has no scientific support. At all.

I don't get what you are saying here at all. But it sounds ridiculous.

Quote
2. The dome. Light can reflect from the dome and travel further while the Sun is closer to the dome (summer time for the southern hemisphere). This causes, as always, problems, like two Suns visible at the same time...

Yeah, this "dome". Domes are not common in nature, so the only dome would be over the Earth.  And what about meteors? Yesterday the Geminids were observable from Earth; meteor showers; extraterrestial material burning up due to the friction of the atmosphere (I guess they didn't have one of those magical NASA 'heat shields'...), did anyone observe them crashing on the dome? Or do they come from within it and do we need to worry about the cohesive strength of it? Is it falling apart?

Maybe we can send Brucie Willis or Tommy Hanks to fix the problems up there...  :-\

Quote
This is the first time I see this question,

That's shocking. My questions are simple and straightforward. That I would be the first one to ask this question since 1800 is beyond comprehension.

Quote
Sorry If I did not help as much, but FES does not allow me to expand my knowledge about FE model and clarify things that make no sense for me. See my signature for two interesting topics.

No worries, you did great.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)