I'd like to talk about Earth as a Globe-Earther.

Also this quick one from Google: "If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow: But they don't. This is because the earth is round, and not flat: Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately."

I'm not sure if I've seen an explanation for this one yet... I'm so tired.

This is possible in several configurations. We show one here of the infinitely many possible ones. It was calculated by Rowbotham and again by others later - and it shares similarity with the model calculated by Taoist scholars:

Quote from: Aaurra on September 04, 2016, 12:49:37 AM

What about this one that literally shows continents receding into the curvature?

Also this quick one from Google: "If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow: But they don't. This is because the earth is round, and not flat: Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately."

What is so unexpected about distant objects receding into the horizon?  What do you expect things to do as they approach the horizon?
Eratosthenes assumed light from the sun arrives in parallel rays. Measuring a difference in the angles of shadows from salt and pepper shakers or glasses on my dining room table hardly proves my table is a globe.

Here's a different one... So, you look across Lake Michigan, you should be able to see Chicago, correct?
http://www.viralspell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/cg-4.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_b.jpg

Those buildings seem a little... Cut in half.

Since we can only see so far with our naked eyes maybe we're not seeing everything... We as humans are very good at seeing light from extremely long distances though, right? As we can all demonstrate by looking up at the stars. So what happens if you tested this experiment at night while Chicago was lit up all nice and bright?
https://lintvwood.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/milwaukee-lights-5-10-to-11-2012-superior-mirage.jpg

I kind of feel like there is still a good chunk of those buildings missing...

Well anyways, when it all comes down to it, I think us Globe Earthers and Flat Earthers can all agree on one thing... Those Hollow Earthers are damn fools. (I kid, I kid, I love you all.)

Goodnight for now.

Quote from: Aaurra on September 04, 2016, 12:49:37 AM

Also this quick one from Google: "If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow: But they don't. This is because the earth is round, and not flat: Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately."

I'm not sure if I've seen an explanation for this one yet... I'm so tired.

This is possible in several configurations. We show one here of the infinitely many possible ones. It was calculated by Rowbotham and again by others later - and it shares similarity with the model calculated by Taoist scholars:

What no Flat Earthed will face is that for the flat earth version on the right you get different heights for the sun for different pairs of observation locations. Now surely at one time the sun must be at one height. So why is only 45° used and not 60° or any other angle.

But on the Globe if the answer does not depend on the spacing.
Look at Re: Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball?

The data used in that post is from "the Wiki", so it has not been poluted by any Global contamination.

The air is held inside and pressurized by the firmament.
Exactly what would make the human body significantly more or less buoyant by gaining altitude?
Although I did state different locations may have altered effects, I did not state it was merely height.
Contemplating on your own what may be an alternative to modern "science" is what they stole from us.
Having an explanation different from what is "known" has become akin to a sin.
Even the deepest reaches of the ocean remain unexplored.
Rising underground currents from locations unknown could explain waves as well.

Air pressure drops significantly as you increase altitude.  If you are saying air pressure is what holds us down, I am asking why we are not lighter when the air pressure is measurably less?

Well the firmament could be made of an impermeable electric or magnetic anomaly.
As far as the sun, it could be just above it, attached through similar means.
Kept on an oscillating track, that is imperfect and wobbling, accounting for seasons.
Even accounting for the moon, though perhaps on a second track.

Unless I am mistaken:
Placing us stationary, surrounded by slow moving lights and objects like planets, is simpler than our model now.

A FE theory says that the sun runs in circles around the North Pole. During the summertime on nothern part of the flat earth the circles are smaller, closer to the North Pole, while during wintertime (summertime on the southern part of the flat earth), the circle is larger, farther from the north pole. Because of that, the sun constantly changes not only the distance from the north pole, it (the sun) also constantly must change its speed, since it must go through those small and large circles during the same time, which is 24 hours. What's the physics behind that? Another anomaly?

Since Globe Earthers have lying NASA, Flat Earthers have ANOMALY when they are stuck.
If you believe an anomaly is good explanation for FE, it sometimes can be also good for GE, right?

Aside from the above, the sun cannot be placed above the firmament, since (according to FE theories) the firmament has a dome-like shape and is created of a glass-like double wall, between which is an ocean of water.  So, if the sun's track is over the dome, it must constantly change its altitude as it changes the circles (the dome is rather not flat), but FE calculations don't mention such altitude changes.
Also, if the sun was above (behind) the dome, the concave surface of the transparent dome would give smaller picture of all objects being behind, including the sun, while we observe rather opposite effects, aspecially when the sun is in its extreme distances from the observer: during sunrise and sunset.
So, I continue my question: how the sun is attached to the firmament (on constant altitude)?

...

Quote

When "celestial light" reflects from pocket mirror it becomes "non-celestial" because of "blasphemy" of the mirror?

I honestly don't know what you are trying to express here, and I'm reluctant to presume an interpretation lest it be construed as aggressive.

I apologize.
Maybe I was sort of "selfish" when I said "Nothing any more".

I was talking about using "celestial light" to reflect it by pocket mirror from one mountain to another.
When it comes from the Sun, it is "curved celestial light", and when we deflect it further, it stops being curved and stops being celestial.

We also use the same light to see all the way to Wichita from balloon above Denver.
Sun light reflects from Wichita and curves only as much as "Orthodoxy" calculates on the way to the camera on the balloon.

Well the firmament could be made of an impermeable electric or magnetic anomaly.

Can you point me to an example of such an anomoly that has been observed somewhere?  An anomoly with the properties needed to keep the sun up there while also allowing it to move, or causing it to move?

As far as the sun, it could be just above it, attached through similar means.

"Simlar means"?  Similar to what means?  You've described no "means" yet.

Kept on an oscillating track, that is imperfect and wobbling, accounting for seasons.
Even accounting for the moon, though perhaps on a second track.

Can you point me to an example in the natural world of anything ever observed to be on a track?  "In the natural world" in this case means "not man made"

Unless I am mistaken:
Placing us stationary, surrounded by slow moving lights and objects like planets, is simpler than our model now.

I think you absolutely are mistaken: does a system of oscillating, wobbling, and criss crossing tracks in the firmament sound simpler to you than three round objects moving and rotating?  Not to me.  Just think what you would have to do if you wanted to create a mechanized scale model of each system.

I added the "criss crossing" feature.  I noticed you didn't mention that bit, but the tracks must cross, the positions of sun and moon change you know.  I suspect you left it out on purpose, since it goes against your "isn't this simple" narrative.

What definable evidence does one have of the sun is flying through space at 483,000 Mph?
Or please explain why, if gravity is so uniform, that it supposedly creates a FLAT galaxy?
At least recognize that not all globe theories are the same.

Quote from: Aaurra on September 04, 2016, 12:49:37 AM

Also this quick one from Google: "If the world had been flat, then two sticks in different locations would produce the same shadow: But they don't. This is because the earth is round, and not flat: Eratosthenes (276-194 BCE) used this principle to calculate the circumference of the Earth quite accurately."

I'm not sure if I've seen an explanation for this one yet... I'm so tired.

This is possible in several configurations. We show one here of the infinitely many possible ones. It was calculated by Rowbotham and again by others later - and it shares similarity with the model calculated by Taoist scholars:

Let's compare them.

~~~~~

Using FLAT assumption as starting point for measuring Sun's height above the ground,
and measuring at the moment during equinox when the Sun is directly above Mbandaka, Congo,
(say, noon in Mbandaka on March 20th)
observer from Koro Toro, Chad will measure 3851 mile,
observer from Brestovac, Croatia will measure 3095 miles,
observer from Upsala, Sweden will measure 2401 miles.

(Observer from north pole will measure zero.)

~~~~~

Using GLOBE assumption we get measurements that can be described as Ill-Conditioned System,
and can conclude that Sun is many times farther than the diameter of the Earth.

(At distance of 4000 miles between two almost parallel lines towards Sun from different spots on Earth
angle of 0.0024 degrees would give 95 million miles, angle of 0.0025 degrees would give 91 million.
That is roughly 4 million miles of difference.
Only error margin is about 500 times bigger than Earth's diameter.)

But Globe allows us to see Venus as existing planet.
We need the size of the orbit of Venus, distance between Earth and Venus (it was measured by radar)
in the moment of greatest angular elongation between Veus and Sun,
and then we calculate those 93 million miles to the Sun.

Like THIS.

~~~~~

Which one do you think describes reality better?

What makes you right?

You and people like you.

None of you would have found your way here if the earth was NOT flat.

Quote from: Aaurra on September 03, 2016, 05:16:23 PM

What makes you right?

You and people like you.

None of you would have found your way here if the earth was NOT flat.

That's unreasonable to say. I could just as easily find myself on a forum claiming the universe was underwater if it sounded interesting enough.

Sure, but you are not.

Sure, but you are not.

Doesn't make the Earth flat.

Quote from: Aaurra on September 03, 2016, 05:16:23 PM

What makes you right?

You and people like you.

None of you would have found your way here if the earth was NOT flat.

I have a question for you:
If every scientist at one point or another dreams of Nobel Prize,
what stops some independent serious scientific groups from deeper research of Flat Earth theory and facts connected with it,
and eventually proving the Earth is flat, and spitting in the face of the rest of scientific world?

They WOULD get Nobel Prize.

Governments stop them?
North Korea already "doesn't give a poop" for what other countries say.
The Great Leader could assign the best team of scientists to prove it, and to make it "his achievement".

Quote from: Aaurra on September 03, 2016, 05:16:23 PM

What makes you right?

You and people like you.

None of you would have found your way here if the earth was NOT flat.

We are here to convince you, that you, Flat Earthers are wrong.  And you prove this, whenever you start answer unreasonably, or just do not answer for questions; there are lot of such incidents in this forum.

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 04, 2016, 11:32:31 AM

Quote from: Aaurra on September 03, 2016, 05:16:23 PM

What makes you right?

You and people like you.

None of you would have found your way here if the earth was NOT flat.

We are here to convince you, that you, Flat Earthers are wrong.  And you prove this, whenever you start answer unreasonably, or just do not answer for questions; there are lot of such incidents in this forum.

Actually, the presence of so many round earthers here strengthens my belief on FET. If I believed 100% the earth was round, I would never waste my time on a forum trying to convince a minority of supposedly "crazy people" that they are wrong. To me, most round earthers here, with very few exceptions, are paid shills. Nothing justifies the amount of time you peeps spend, out of the goodness of your heart, to bring us "back to reality".

Quote from: Globetrotter on September 04, 2016, 03:53:43 PM

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 04, 2016, 11:32:31 AM

Quote from: Aaurra on September 03, 2016, 05:16:23 PM

What makes you right?

You and people like you.

None of you would have found your way here if the earth was NOT flat.

We are here to convince you, that you, Flat Earthers are wrong.  And you prove this, whenever you start answer unreasonably, or just do not answer for questions; there are lot of such incidents in this forum.

Actually, the presence of so many round earthers here strengthens my belief on FET. If I believed 100% the earth was round, I would never waste my time on a forum trying to convince a minority of supposedly "crazy people" that they are wrong. To me, most round earthers here, with very few exceptions, are paid shills. Nothing justifies the amount of time you peeps spend, out of the goodness of your heart, to bring us "back to reality".

I do it for the mental stimulation. Debating with fellow intelligent people, regardless of the topic, is an extremely valuable exercise to our brains. Whether the Earth is flat or not, doesn't really matter in the context of why some of us are here. Some of us enjoy a good, healthy debate with people who can challenge us or potentially even make us rethink our stance on a subject. This isn't about proving someone else wrong. It's about bettering ourselves.

What better topic to debate than one of such mass?

Quote from: N30 on September 03, 2016, 08:44:05 PM

The air is held inside and pressurized by the firmament.
Exactly what would make the human body significantly more or less buoyant by gaining altitude?
Although I did state different locations may have altered effects, I did not state it was merely height.
Contemplating on your own what may be an alternative to modern "science" is what they stole from us.
Having an explanation different from what is "known" has become akin to a sin.
Even the deepest reaches of the ocean remain unexplored.
Rising underground currents from locations unknown could explain waves as well.

Air pressure drops significantly as you increase altitude.  If you are saying air pressure is what holds us down, I am asking why we are not lighter when the air pressure is measurably less?

But, your own scientists say that we get lighter in weight as we gain altitude. 

It's a bit upsetting that no one has commented on this; I'm very curious to know a Flat Earther's perspective:

"Here's a different one... So, you look across Lake Michigan, you should be able to see Chicago, correct?
http://www.viralspell.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/cg-4.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VuqBe8otbL2RHP18oWj5poK1MToC0Zq8Xp3AxSpLrBQ=w600-h392-no
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_b.jpg

Those buildings seem a little... Cut in half.

Since we can only see so far with our naked eyes maybe we're not seeing everything... We as humans are very good at seeing light from extremely long distances though, right? As we can all demonstrate by looking up at the stars. So what happens if you tested this experiment at night while Chicago was lit up all nice and bright?
https://lintvwood.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/milwaukee-lights-5-10-to-11-2012-superior-mirage.jpg

I kind of feel like there is still a good chunk of those buildings missing..."

This reporter claims that we should not be able to see anything at all. So does every calculation of a globe.
http://www.abc57.com/story/28925566/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

Actually, the presence of so many round earthers here strengthens my belief on FET. If I believed 100% the earth was round, I would never waste my time on a forum trying to convince a minority of supposedly "crazy people" that they are wrong. To me, most round earthers here, with very few exceptions, are paid shills. Nothing justifies the amount of time you peeps spend, out of the goodness of your heart, to bring us "back to reality".

That's you. But I have just quite opposite experiences (and behavior).

Actually, the presence of so many round earthers here strengthens my belief on FET. If I believed 100% the earth was round, I would never waste my time on a forum trying to convince a minority of supposedly "crazy people" that they are wrong. To me, most round earthers here, with very few exceptions, are paid shills. Nothing justifies the amount of time you peeps spend, out of the goodness of your heart, to bring us "back to reality".

Ok, you feel better in crowd, but roundies have to help because
there's not enough flatties to create crowd big enough.

~~~~~

"Nothing justifies the amount of time you peeps spend, out of the goodness of your heart,"

If your kid starts believing in Flat Earth, starts thinking that science is worldwide conspiracy and lie,
and starts rejecting science classes and the whole education, you would find good lawyer and
sue Flat Earth society for every penny your kid would lose as worker with lower quallifications.
And for every risk caused by not having enough money for best doctors and best meds.

On the other hand, my heart might not be good, but there are others roundies here.
They can't ALL be bad.

Hi Aaurra,

I'll see what I can do to answer a few of your questions.  I'm not a flat earther but I like to study it.  I can see that you're a reasonable person and that you're just trying to get a feel for how it works here so I'm going to try to resist the urge to join an anti FE slug fest.

Gravity:  I have to say I don't understand why gravity is a problem here.  FE tends to disregard anything more than 10 miles above the earth, which seems to me that it would be easy to assume the Earth has whatever specific size and density you need to fit with gravity.  Two of the alternate theories are;
UA, which as you noted can't work by itself and so you'd need to at the very least hybridize it with gravity. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67515.0.
Denspressure, the idea that air pressure keeps us stuck to the ground.  There's a lengthy debate on this one.  https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67582.0

The NASA conspiracy: I'd like to give you a satisfying answer on this one but I have yet to receive one myself. 

The Ice Wall:  There doesn't seem to be any consensus about what's beyond it.  I've heard, infinite ice, the edge of the world, even more continents that NASA is hiding from us and that the world goes on infinitely.

Can a Flat Earther disprove a spherical Earth:  Hear me out.  No.  But it's lots of fun reading up on their arguments.  For example, http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html.  Not a single item on this list holds up to any scrutiny however you will learn so much about the world and the universe by figuring out exactly how each point is wrong.

Looking across Lake Michigan and seeing Chicago:  This is a close cousin to the whole ship sinking when it crosses the horizon thing.  To understand the FE explanation for this you have to start with Samuel Rowbotham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Rowbotham and read Earth Is Not a Globe http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/ .  Basically Rowbotham argues that this effect is an illusion caused by "perspective" and that by using a telescope with sufficiently powerful optical zoom you can "restore" the entire shape of whatever object has disappeared over the horizon.  I don't want to pass judgement on this here but there's lots of videos on Youtube covering this. 

Hope that helps.