A few questions

  • 271 Replies
  • 33028 Views
A few questions
« on: August 17, 2017, 10:26:31 AM »
I'd just like to ask you guys a few questions.

1: if the Earth is flat, then how does Kim Jong Un, leader of North Korea, located on the absolute eastern side of Asia, expect to bomb California, located on the absolute western side of America, via the Pacific Ocean?

2: if the Earth is flat, then how does a gravitational pull function?  Even if the world was flat a few million years ago, it would have been pulled into a spherical shape (because a sphere shape is the easiest to form) as a result of its immense size (See http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/zoom-grav.html
for more detail).

3: if the Earth is flat, why doesn't the law of parallax show?  Wouldn't the moon and sun shrink as it rises and sets since they would be moving farther away from the center?

4: if the Earth is flat, why is the Earth's shadow a perfect circle upon the moon during a total lunar eclipse?  Wouldn't the shadow be flattened only a small bit at the very least?  Why does the moon have phases?

5: if the Earth is flat, then Antarctica would surround the circle, correct?  Then how does, for at the most, 8 months at a time, Antarctica have the sun shining constantly, but when you move North (or inward, towards the center), the sun starts to rise and set normally?

6: if the Earth is flat, then how would you explain time zones?  Do American flat-earthers set their clocks forward in the spring and back in the fall?

7: if the Earth is flat, then how do explain the center being covered in snow?  How do seasons work?  How does the Equator work?  How does magnetism work?

8: consider visiting this page on Stack Exchange: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea

9: on your website, it addresses the issue of an infinite Earth.  If the Earth is just an infinite plane, why havent we found any other continents?  Why does CIA say Earth has a population of over 8 billion when it should be infinite?  How can people travel from America to Asia via the Pacific Ocean?  Please consider this website:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/top-15-earth-images-of-2015

10: if the Earth is flat, then how would you explain shadow clocks?  If two sticks were placed in the ground at the same angle, but in different places, the shadow should be the same on a flat Earth, but since the Earth is round, and not flat, the shadows are different.

11: on your website, it addresses the problem of day and night as The sun simply illuminates only a portion of the earth at a time. This also explains timezones as we can then see the path of the Sun, a circle above the flat earth.  But the sun does not act as a spotlight, it acts as a lightbulb, emitting light equally from all directions.  Could you explain?  Are you trying to say the sun is an infinite plane

Please answer these questions as best as you can, I'm curious to know how you guys think the Flat Earth Theory functions.


Re: A few questions
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2017, 10:54:30 AM »
You should probably ask one question at a time.  Also there are numerous threads discussing these questions ad nauseam.

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse.  And selenelion is bullshit.

Re: A few questions
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2017, 11:05:58 AM »

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse. And selenelion is bullshit.

Really?  When? I don't think many people would agree on that... could be wrong, I have seen some really funny stuff on this site...

Re: A few questions
« Reply #3 on: August 17, 2017, 11:30:06 AM »
You should probably ask one question at a time.  Also there are numerous threads discussing these questions ad nauseam.

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse.  And selenelion is bullshit.
Actually, a lunar eclipse is one of the clearest examples of a globe earth.  There's nothing magic about a penumbral lunar eclipse where both the sun and the moon are at or near the horizons.  Just basic physics that you can test out in your own house.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.

Re: A few questions
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2017, 11:33:08 AM »

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse. And selenelion is bullshit.

Really?  When? I don't think many people would agree on that... could be wrong, I have seen some really funny stuff on this site...

Lots of bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing going on in this article.  At least they got the title right, although they should have probably called it "Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include Impossible Sight - Now watch us dance"

https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html

Re: A few questions
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2017, 12:44:37 PM »

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse. And selenelion is bullshit.

Really?  When? I don't think many people would agree on that... could be wrong, I have seen some really funny stuff on this site...

Lots of bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing going on in this article.  At least they got the title right, although they should have probably called it "Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include Impossible Sight - Now watch us dance"

https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html
The only bending, twisting, fudging etc, etc being done is from flat earthers.  But I understand, you are really special, one of the few in the "know".  Whatever helps you sleep at night...

*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: A few questions
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2017, 12:47:14 PM »
You should probably ask one question at a time.  Also there are numerous threads discussing these questions ad nauseam.

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse.  And selenelion is bullshit.

Like the shadow object? Dark Sun? Or Moonshramp going on strike?
I think we can agree on that lunar eclipses are impossible on a flat earth until the invention of magic of some sort, what do you think?
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

Re: A few questions
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2017, 01:27:37 PM »

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse. And selenelion is bullshit.

Really?  When? I don't think many people would agree on that... could be wrong, I have seen some really funny stuff on this site...

Lots of bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing going on in this article.  At least they got the title right, although they should have probably called it "Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include Impossible Sight - Now watch us dance"

https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html
The only bending, twisting, fudging etc, etc being done is from flat earthers.  But I understand, you are really special, one of the few in the "know".  Whatever helps you sleep at night...

I know the earth isn't a spinning globe. Can you prove otherwise?

Re: A few questions
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2017, 01:31:34 PM »
You should probably ask one question at a time.  Also there are numerous threads discussing these questions ad nauseam.

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse.  And selenelion is bullshit.

Like the shadow object? Dark Sun? Or Moonshramp going on strike?
I think we can agree on that lunar eclipses are impossible on a flat earth until the invention of magic of some sort, what do you think?

I have a theory.  When its fully developed I will share it.

Re: A few questions
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2017, 01:34:25 PM »

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse. And selenelion is bullshit.

Really?  When? I don't think many people would agree on that... could be wrong, I have seen some really funny stuff on this site...

Lots of bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing going on in this article.  At least they got the title right, although they should have probably called it "Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include Impossible Sight - Now watch us dance"

https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html
The only bending, twisting, fudging etc, etc being done is from flat earthers.  But I understand, you are really special, one of the few in the "know".  Whatever helps you sleep at night...

I know the earth isn't a spinning globe. Can you prove otherwise?
I am not here to prove anything.  I want to see you guys actually give some proof.  I have yet to find any.  But, plenty of other posters here, have given proof that the earthi is not flat, and is a spinning ball, maybe you should re-read it.  Since you are so open-minded, it shouldn't be so difficult.  But you flat earth sheep are all the same...

Re: A few questions
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2017, 01:58:30 PM »

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse. And selenelion is bullshit.

Really?  When? I don't think many people would agree on that... could be wrong, I have seen some really funny stuff on this site...

Lots of bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing going on in this article.  At least they got the title right, although they should have probably called it "Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include Impossible Sight - Now watch us dance"

https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html
The only bending, twisting, fudging etc, etc being done is from flat earthers.  But I understand, you are really special, one of the few in the "know".  Whatever helps you sleep at night...

I know the earth isn't a spinning globe. Can you prove otherwise?
I am not here to prove anything.  I want to see you guys actually give some proof.  I have yet to find any.  But, plenty of other posters here, have given proof that the earthi is not flat, and is a spinning ball, maybe you should re-read it.  Since you are so open-minded, it shouldn't be so difficult.  But you flat earth sheep are all the same...
Sure is a bit shilly in here, gotta move on.

Re: A few questions
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2017, 02:00:20 PM »

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse. And selenelion is bullshit.

Really?  When? I don't think many people would agree on that... could be wrong, I have seen some really funny stuff on this site...

Lots of bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing going on in this article.  At least they got the title right, although they should have probably called it "Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include Impossible Sight - Now watch us dance"

https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html
The only bending, twisting, fudging etc, etc being done is from flat earthers.  But I understand, you are really special, one of the few in the "know".  Whatever helps you sleep at night...

I know the earth isn't a spinning globe. Can you prove otherwise?
I am not here to prove anything.  I want to see you guys actually give some proof.  I have yet to find any.  But, plenty of other posters here, have given proof that the earthi is not flat, and is a spinning ball, maybe you should re-read it.  Since you are so open-minded, it shouldn't be so difficult.  But you flat earth sheep are all the same...
Sure is a bit shilly in here, gotta move on.
Just what I thought, another flat earth shill!

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: A few questions
« Reply #12 on: August 17, 2017, 02:04:53 PM »
You should probably ask them one at a time, rather than all at once.
You also need to be aware of different models you might try and attack.

For example, your first question is pure nonsense based upon several of the common FE models now.
1 - They have Earth as a disc with the north pole in the middle. So the most direct route for NK to nuke the US is over the Pacific.
2 - They have several options regarding gravity. One is making gravity much weaker or entirely non-existent and replacing it (or adding to it) with something else like universal acceleration. The other is having it be an infinite plane which would be stable.
3 - That's perspective, not parallax.
4 - They don't have Earth's shadow causing lunar eclipses. They have some other magic.
5 - Some have a bipolar map instead.
6 - They have a magic spotlight sun.
7 - That is several questions. Seasons work by the sun moving over different parts of Earth.
8 - Not a question.
9 - Several options. One is the typical conspiracy BS that there are guards preventing people from exploring it. Another is that the sun's light simply doesn't reach there so it would be a cold barren wasteland (at least until you make it to the next sun).
10 - No they wouldn't. That is actually one of the big issues with a FE, the sun is in the completely wrong direction.
11 - If you already had that, why bother asking the previous questions?

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: A few questions
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2017, 02:20:10 PM »
You should probably ask one question at a time.  Also there are numerous threads discussing these questions ad nauseam.

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse.  And selenelion is bullshit.
These threads are discussing the solar eclipse, not the lunar one.
I am yet to see a single theory on how eclipses work on a FE. All I have found are pathetic attempts at explanations which do not hold up to any rational scrutiny.
We know that lunar eclipses are possible on a RE. There have been sightings from quite significant heights of the moon and sun just above the horizon at the same time, or a partial eclipse, which is completely possible with a RE.

There are several factors which contribute to it.

The first is that you don't need a perfect alignment for the eclipse. Earth's shadow is larger than the moon at that distance. As such, it can be slightly out of alignment, and thus still visible.
Another is refraction of light by the atmosphere, which causes objects (including the moon) to appear higher than a straight line would indicate.
And finally, you have the horizon not being at 0 degrees and instead being below it, with that amount increasing the higher up you go.

Regardless, at best all that would do is show the current explanation for an eclipse is wrong. That doesn't mean it would be impossible on a RE. Any BS explanation you think of for a FE would still hold for a RE. So if seeing them above the horizon makes it impossible on a RE that is an admission that Earth's shadow is required for a lunar eclipse and thus any lunar eclipse would be impossible on a FE.

Lots of bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing going on in this article.  At least they got the title right, although they should have probably called it "Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include Impossible Sight - Now watch us dance"
Well it does get one thing wrong.
During a lunar eclipse the moon does not need to be exactly 180 degrees from the sun.

If you want to talk about "bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing" then look at FEers trying to explain sun sets or moon sets, or basically any object dropping below the horizon.
The angle of elevation to various celestial objects simply do not add up on a flat Earth.
Taking Polaris as an example, it being observed at 90 degrees at 90 degrees N and 45 degrees at 45 degrees N puts it roughly 5000 km above the north pole. But then those at 90 degrees south, 20 000 km from the pole should be able to see it at 14 degrees. Instead it drops to 0 at the equator.

I know the earth isn't a spinning globe. Can you prove otherwise?
Yes, Foucault's pendulum.

I know Earth is a spinning oblate spheroid (roughly). Can you prove otherwise?

Sure is a bit shilly in here, gotta move on.
And of course, you run away rather than provide anything of actual substance.
Looks like you are just another FE troll/shill.

Re: A few questions
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2017, 05:25:23 PM »
You should probably ask one question at a time.  Also there are numerous threads discussing these questions ad nauseam.

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse.  And selenelion is bullshit.
These threads are discussing the solar eclipse, not the lunar one.
I am yet to see a single theory on how eclipses work on a FE. All I have found are pathetic attempts at explanations which do not hold up to any rational scrutiny.
We know that lunar eclipses are possible on a RE. There have been sightings from quite significant heights of the moon and sun just above the horizon at the same time, or a partial eclipse, which is completely possible with a RE.

There are several factors which contribute to it.

The first is that you don't need a perfect alignment for the eclipse. Earth's shadow is larger than the moon at that distance. As such, it can be slightly out of alignment, and thus still visible.
Another is refraction of light by the atmosphere, which causes objects (including the moon) to appear higher than a straight line would indicate.
And finally, you have the horizon not being at 0 degrees and instead being below it, with that amount increasing the higher up you go.

Regardless, at best all that would do is show the current explanation for an eclipse is wrong. That doesn't mean it would be impossible on a RE. Any BS explanation you think of for a FE would still hold for a RE. So if seeing them above the horizon makes it impossible on a RE that is an admission that Earth's shadow is required for a lunar eclipse and thus any lunar eclipse would be impossible on a FE.

Lots of bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing going on in this article.  At least they got the title right, although they should have probably called it "Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include Impossible Sight - Now watch us dance"
Well it does get one thing wrong.
During a lunar eclipse the moon does not need to be exactly 180 degrees from the sun.

If you want to talk about "bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing" then look at FEers trying to explain sun sets or moon sets, or basically any object dropping below the horizon.
The angle of elevation to various celestial objects simply do not add up on a flat Earth.
Taking Polaris as an example, it being observed at 90 degrees at 90 degrees N and 45 degrees at 45 degrees N puts it roughly 5000 km above the north pole. But then those at 90 degrees south, 20 000 km from the pole should be able to see it at 14 degrees. Instead it drops to 0 at the equator.

I know the earth isn't a spinning globe. Can you prove otherwise?
Yes, Foucault's pendulum.

I know Earth is a spinning oblate spheroid (roughly). Can you prove otherwise?

Sure is a bit shilly in here, gotta move on.
And of course, you run away rather than provide anything of actual substance.
Looks like you are just another FE troll/shill.

Why don't you provide a simple illustration of how the moon/sun can both be above the horizon and still be able to view an eclipse. I know that I'm asking for the impossible, because it is impossible.  You can just do this privately, and see for yourself how absurd the refraction argument really is.

Foucault's pendulum.  You've been here for a while, do you honestly think this is a proof?

*

Username

  • President Of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 17165
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: A few questions
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2017, 06:39:53 PM »
I'd just like to ask you guys a few questions.

1: if the Earth is flat, then how does Kim Jong Un, leader of North Korea, located on the absolute eastern side of Asia, expect to bomb California, located on the absolute western side of America, via the Pacific Ocean?
I'm not sure he does. If he was going to, I imagine he would use bombs.
Quote
2: if the Earth is flat, then how does a gravitational pull function?  Even if the world was flat a few million years ago, it would have been pulled into a spherical shape (because a sphere shape is the easiest to form) as a result of its immense size (See http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/zoom-grav.html
for more detail).
It would not necessarily have. Here is one counter example: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/infinite-flat-earth-mathematics

Or - get a bunch of friends and a parachute. Pull it as hard as you can from every direction.

Report on the results.

Quote
3: if the Earth is flat, why doesn't the law of parallax show?  Wouldn't the moon and sun shrink as it rises and sets since they would be moving farther away from the center?
You should ask Parallax about that. Read the deep cuts from Rowbotham, who chose Parallax as his pen name.

Quote
4: if the Earth is flat, why is the Earth's shadow a perfect circle upon the moon during a total lunar eclipse?  Wouldn't the shadow be flattened only a small bit at the very least?  Why does the moon have phases?
This is also disproved by example in counters provided by Rowbotham. There are of course other examples in newer theory. A complete disproof is available with non-euclidean flat earth. A non-complete would be the shadow object by Rowbotham.

Quote
5: if the Earth is flat, then Antarctica would surround the circle, correct?  Then how does, for at the most, 8 months at a time, Antarctica have the sun shining constantly, but when you move North (or inward, towards the center), the sun starts to rise and set normally?
Not necessarily. Michael Wilmore put forth a model that didn't match the UN logo. Others have as well. But historically, yes. I personally went to the antarctic. I noticed a difference between the 'farmers almanac' version of events you talk of, and the reality.
Quote
6: if the Earth is flat, then how would you explain time zones?  Do American flat-earthers set their clocks forward in the spring and back in the fall?
The light shines on different areas at different times. Springing back and forward isn't something I'm much into. Seems like a gimmick, but then again so does Operation Moonwatch. I'm sure we'll be more productive with these added daylight hours. Reagan.
Quote
7: if the Earth is flat, then how do explain the center being covered in snow?  How do seasons work?  How does the Equator work?  How does magnetism work?
In the Rowbothamic model, that you are assuming, it is further away from the sun. This is based off the same experiment the Taoist's performed and that Rowbtoham reperformed. Stay tune for Rock City.

Quote
8: consider visiting this page on Stack Exchange: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/27603/do-pilots-adjust-the-aircrafts-flight-path-to-allow-for-the-curvature-of-the-ea
We have a pilot as a member of our society. But thanks for that let me google it for you moment. Next time, think for yourself and skip the stack exchange or you'll end up with a stack overflow.

Quote
9: on your website, it addresses the issue of an infinite Earth.  If the Earth is just an infinite plane, why havent we found any other continents?  Why does CIA say Earth has a population of over 8 billion when it should be infinite?  How can people travel from America to Asia via the Pacific Ocean?  Please consider this website:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/top-15-earth-images-of-2015
We haven't found more continents, because traveling through an area not heated by a sun would be suicide. Many great men have died attempting to travel across the Antarctic. Some get by waking up on a nearby peninsula.
Quote
10: if the Earth is flat, then how would you explain shadow clocks?  If two sticks were placed in the ground at the same angle, but in different places, the shadow should be the same on a flat Earth, but since the Earth is round, and not flat, the shadows are different.
Eratosthenes' experiment creates at least two models.
Quote
11: on your website, it addresses the problem of day and night as The sun simply illuminates only a portion of the earth at a time. This also explains timezones as we can then see the path of the Sun, a circle above the flat earth.  But the sun does not act as a spotlight, it acts as a lightbulb, emitting light equally from all directions.  Could you explain?  Are you trying to say the sun is an infinite plane
If the earth is an infinite plane, then the sun must be also.
Quote
Please answer these questions as best as you can, I'm curious to know how you guys think the Flat Earth Theory functions.


Ok.
Quantum Ab Hoc

1 + 1 = 2
"The above proposition is occasionally useful." - Bertrand Russell

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: A few questions
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2017, 10:25:15 PM »
10: if the Earth is flat, then how would you explain shadow clocks?  If two sticks were placed in the ground at the same angle, but in different places, the shadow should be the same on a flat Earth, but since the Earth is round, and not flat, the shadows are different.
Eratosthenes' experiment creates at least two models.
Possibly "Eratosthenes' experiment creates at least two models" if only two locations are used,
but I challenge you to look into what would happen if you did the same type of experiment with more locations.

There are these four well spaced locations all very close to long 70 W:
Kimmirut, Canada, at 62.847N, 69.869W,
Bingham, Maine USA, at 45.059N 69.88W
Santo Domingo, at 18.486N, 69.931W,
Vaupes, Colombia, at 0.565S, 69.634W,   

Now actually visiting those locations on the equinox might be a bit of a drag,
         but the distances between places on tne same latitude is very close to 112 x the latitude distance
         and the as even the FES Wik claims that at an equinox the deviation of the sun's elevation from vertical is simply the latitude.
More accurate distances could be found from Google earth and
the sun's elevations from say, Suncalc for Bingham, Maine, USA on 22 Sep, 2017.
But of course, flat earthers wold never believe such sites. Though anyone can check the data from sites like that for themselves. 

So, is anyone prepared to very that the Eratosthenes experiment does really give a single value for the sun's height?
Most seem to prefer to remain in ignorance, rather than risk their belief in the flat earth.
       




*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: A few questions
« Reply #17 on: August 18, 2017, 03:32:06 AM »
Why don't you provide a simple illustration of how the moon/sun can both be above the horizon and still be able to view an eclipse. I know that I'm asking for the impossible, because it is impossible.  You can just do this privately, and see for yourself how absurd the refraction argument really is.
No. You are the one claiming it is impossible, you draw the picture showing that it is. Don't try to shift the burden of proof.


Foucault's pendulum.  You've been here for a while, do you honestly think this is a proof?
Yes I have, as I am yet to see an honest refutation for it or an alternative explanation which makes sense.

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: A few questions
« Reply #18 on: August 18, 2017, 03:34:54 AM »
Eratosthenes' experiment creates at least two models.
Only if considered in complete isolation.
As soon as you get 3 points, unless they are a certain set, it destroys FE models unless they appeal to bendy light and space to make their flat Earth look and function exactly like a round one.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: A few questions
« Reply #19 on: August 18, 2017, 04:48:55 AM »
Why don't you provide a simple illustration of how the moon/sun can both be above the horizon and still be able to view an eclipse. I know that I'm asking for the impossible, because it is impossible.  You can just do this privately, and see for yourself how absurd the refraction argument really is.
So sorry, but it is possible on the Globe.
Like it or not Mr Silicon, because of the small amount of atmospheric refraction of objects on the horizon,
the sun-earth-moon can be perfectly aligned geometrically, you both visible for a couple of minutes.
Read  but more in Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include 'Impossible' Sight, By Joe Rao, SPACE.com.

A very much "not-true-scale" diagram of a selenelion.
The amount of refraction needed is grossly exaggerated in this diagram.
If drawn true-to-scale, the sun would be alost 24,000 earth's radii to the left and the moon about 60 earth's radii to the right.

So the amount of atmospheric refraction needed to be able to see both for a few minutes is quite small.

Since you seem able to swallow the 20 refraction (the wrong way) to "make your sun set", you can hardly balk at a few tenths of a degree.

Now, maybe you can give a detailed explanation of how a lunar eclipse can occur on the flat earth .
:D Does something tell those bioluminescence moonshramp to all turn of at exactly the time of a full moon?  :D

*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: A few questions
« Reply #20 on: August 18, 2017, 05:28:44 AM »
You should probably ask one question at a time.  Also there are numerous threads discussing these questions ad nauseam.

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse.  And selenelion is bullshit.

Like the shadow object? Dark Sun? Or Moonshramp going on strike?
I think we can agree on that lunar eclipses are impossible on a flat earth until the invention of magic of some sort, what do you think?

I have a theory.  When its fully developed I will share it.

Hopefully one without magic of some sort, there are plenty already.
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

Re: A few questions
« Reply #21 on: August 18, 2017, 07:19:34 AM »
You should probably ask one question at a time.  Also there are numerous threads discussing these questions ad nauseam.

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse.  And selenelion is bullshit.
No, there is a claim by one guy that there have been 50 such sightings.
There is no flat earth model that explains the eclipse. 

Re: A few questions
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2017, 07:23:17 AM »
You should probably ask one question at a time.  Also there are numerous threads discussing these questions ad nauseam.

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse.  And selenelion is bullshit.
These threads are discussing the solar eclipse, not the lunar one.
I am yet to see a single theory on how eclipses work on a FE. All I have found are pathetic attempts at explanations which do not hold up to any rational scrutiny.
We know that lunar eclipses are possible on a RE. There have been sightings from quite significant heights of the moon and sun just above the horizon at the same time, or a partial eclipse, which is completely possible with a RE.

There are several factors which contribute to it.

The first is that you don't need a perfect alignment for the eclipse. Earth's shadow is larger than the moon at that distance. As such, it can be slightly out of alignment, and thus still visible.
Another is refraction of light by the atmosphere, which causes objects (including the moon) to appear higher than a straight line would indicate.
And finally, you have the horizon not being at 0 degrees and instead being below it, with that amount increasing the higher up you go.

Regardless, at best all that would do is show the current explanation for an eclipse is wrong. That doesn't mean it would be impossible on a RE. Any BS explanation you think of for a FE would still hold for a RE. So if seeing them above the horizon makes it impossible on a RE that is an admission that Earth's shadow is required for a lunar eclipse and thus any lunar eclipse would be impossible on a FE.

Lots of bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing going on in this article.  At least they got the title right, although they should have probably called it "Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include Impossible Sight - Now watch us dance"
Well it does get one thing wrong.
During a lunar eclipse the moon does not need to be exactly 180 degrees from the sun.

If you want to talk about "bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing" then look at FEers trying to explain sun sets or moon sets, or basically any object dropping below the horizon.
The angle of elevation to various celestial objects simply do not add up on a flat Earth.
Taking Polaris as an example, it being observed at 90 degrees at 90 degrees N and 45 degrees at 45 degrees N puts it roughly 5000 km above the north pole. But then those at 90 degrees south, 20 000 km from the pole should be able to see it at 14 degrees. Instead it drops to 0 at the equator.

I know the earth isn't a spinning globe. Can you prove otherwise?
Yes, Foucault's pendulum.

I know Earth is a spinning oblate spheroid (roughly). Can you prove otherwise?

Sure is a bit shilly in here, gotta move on.
And of course, you run away rather than provide anything of actual substance.
Looks like you are just another FE troll/shill.

Why don't you provide a simple illustration of how the moon/sun can both be above the horizon and still be able to view an eclipse. I know that I'm asking for the impossible, because it is impossible.  You can just do this privately, and see for yourself how absurd the refraction argument really is.

Foucault's pendulum.  You've been here for a while, do you honestly think this is a proof?
Both would have to be above the horizon for a solar eclipse.  That's sort of the point.  The moon blocks the sun.

Re: A few questions
« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2017, 10:52:24 AM »
Both would have to be above the horizon for a solar eclipse.  That's sort of the point.  The moon blocks the sun.

We're talking about a lunar eclipse. Get with the program.

Why don't you provide a simple illustration of how the moon/sun can both be above the horizon and still be able to view an eclipse. I know that I'm asking for the impossible, because it is impossible.  You can just do this privately, and see for yourself how absurd the refraction argument really is.
No. You are the one claiming it is impossible, you draw the picture showing that it is. Don't try to shift the burden of proof.

Ok, I tried to draw it.  Just as I thought, it's impossible.  I win.

Foucault's pendulum.  You've been here for a while, do you honestly think this is a proof?
Yes I have, as I am yet to see an honest refutation for it or an alternative explanation which makes sense.

Requirements for setup are very difficult, those with the proper setup failed to replicate results, it often spins the wrong way,  they use motors in museums to make it do what is required, gyroscopes never show rotation, on and on.



Why don't you provide a simple illustration of how the moon/sun can both be above the horizon and still be able to view an eclipse. I know that I'm asking for the impossible, because it is impossible.  You can just do this privately, and see for yourself how absurd the refraction argument really is.
So sorry, but it is possible on the Globe.
Like it or not Mr Silicon, because of the small amount of atmospheric refraction of objects on the horizon,
the sun-earth-moon can be perfectly aligned geometrically, you both visible for a couple of minutes.
Read  but more in Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include 'Impossible' Sight, By Joe Rao, SPACE.com.

A very much "not-true-scale" diagram of a selenelion.
The amount of refraction needed is grossly exaggerated in this diagram.
If drawn true-to-scale, the sun would be alost 24,000 earth's radii to the left and the moon about 60 earth's radii to the right.

So the amount of atmospheric refraction needed to be able to see both for a few minutes is quite small.

Since you seem able to swallow the 20 refraction (the wrong way) to "make your sun set", you can hardly balk at a few tenths of a degree.

Now, maybe you can give a detailed explanation of how a lunar eclipse can occur on the flat earth .
:D Does something tell those bioluminescence moonshramp to all turn of at exactly the time of a full moon?  :D

I don't know why you even posted this diagram.  Its very out of proportion. Not even close.  How tall is your man? 2500 feet? No.  It doesn't work.

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: A few questions
« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2017, 03:21:45 PM »
Ok, I tried to draw it.  Just as I thought, it's impossible.  I win.
Nope, you still lose.
You need to draw it and provide the drawing to show it is impossible.
Or you need to provide the math (with an associated drawing) to show it is impossible.

Requirements for setup are very difficult, those with the proper setup failed to replicate results, it often spins the wrong way,  they use motors in museums to make it do what is required, gyroscopes never show rotation, on and on.
No they aren't.
The requirements are very simple.
The times it "spins the wrong way" is when they are in the other hemisphere, when it should be spinning the wrong way.
The results are consistent when you compare them to what the model predicts which depends upon your latitude.

Claiming some are faked does not negate all the ones which are not. So unless you plan on proving they are all fake, it remains proof, proof I have used/verified myself, without any motors at all.

Gyroscopes do show rotation, even laser ring gyroscopes.

I don't know why you even posted this diagram.  Its very out of proportion. Not even close.  How tall is your man? 2500 feet? No.  It doesn't work.
Yes, it's not too scale. But it shows the concept, which is the important part.
Remember, it doesn't need to be the man that is 2500 feet, it can also simply be the man is on a mountain which is 2500 feet.

Do you know how ridiculous a scale drawing would be?
Using ball park figures, a person is roughly 1.5 m tall, while the distance between the sun and Earth is 150 000 000 km or 150 000 000 000 m.
So your picture would need to be over 100 billion times the size of the person.

Now, can you provide the drawing and/or math to show it is impossible, and then as you have clearly indicated the shadow of Earth is a requirement for the eclipse, tell us how it could ever be possible on a flat Earth.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: A few questions
« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2017, 05:35:48 PM »
Ok, I tried to draw it.  Just as I thought, it's impossible.  I win.
;D So your inability to draw something proves it to be impossible. ;D
Please draw the flat earth explanation for the lunar eclipse on the flat earth, because
I tried to draw it.  Just as I thought, it's impossible.  I win. just look!
Impossible because such a small shadow object could not cast any shadow on the moon.

But, back on track.

Why don't you provide a simple illustration of how the moon/sun can both be above the horizon and still be able to view an eclipse. I know that I'm asking for the impossible, because it is impossible.  You can just do this privately, and see for yourself how absurd the refraction argument really is.
So sorry, but it is possible on the Globe.
Like it or not Mr Silicon, because of the small amount of atmospheric refraction of objects on the horizon,
the sun-earth-moon can be perfectly aligned geometrically, you both visible for a couple of minutes.
Read  but more in Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include 'Impossible' Sight, By Joe Rao, SPACE.com.

A very much "not-true-scale" diagram of a selenelion.
The amount of refraction needed is grossly exaggerated in this diagram.
If drawn true-to-scale, the sun would be alost 24,000 earth's radii to the left and the moon about 60 earth's radii to the right.

So the amount of atmospheric refraction needed to be able to see both for a few minutes is quite small.

Since you seem able to swallow the 20 refraction (the wrong way) to "make your sun set", you can hardly balk at a few tenths of a degree.

Now, maybe you can give a detailed explanation of how a lunar eclipse can occur on the flat earth .
:D Does something tell those bioluminescence moonshramp to all turn of at exactly the time of a full moon?  :D
Quote from: Silicon
I don't know why you even posted this diagram.  Its very out of proportion. Not even close.  How tall is your man? 2500 feet? No.  It doesn't work.
You didn't even read what I wrote, did you? I wrote
Quote
A very much "not-true-scale" diagram of a selenelion.[/center]
The amount of refraction needed is grossly exaggerated in this diagram.
If drawn true-to-scale, the sun would be alost 24,000 earth's radii to the left and the moon about 60 earth's radii to the right.

So the amount of atmospheric refraction needed to be able to see both for a few minutes is quite small.
It is quite impossible to draw a scale diagram of the sun-earth-moon.
My tablet screen is 22 cm wide an 1920 pixels. The moon is 3474 km in diameter and the sun about 150,000,000 km away.
So if the moon was drawn 1 pixel diameter the sun would still be about 5 metres away.

So, please face reality!

But just to prove your total inability to grasp scale, you also ask "How tall is your man? 2500 feet?"
No not 2500 feet, but 2500 kilometres tall!
Diagrams of astronomical events cannot usually be drawn to scale, because the range of dimensions is astronomical - duh!
I have made a poor attempt at drawing just the earth-moon portion of a lunar eclipse:
Obviously I could no fit the sun in, even on that small scale.The diagram does not include any refraction and there is usually about 0.6 for each of the sun and moon.

But, just remember.
If you can't understand how the eclipse works that it does not prove that the Heliocentric Globe model is wrong.
It proves nothing more than that you don't understand the Heliocentric Globe model.

<< added closer to scale diagram  >>
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 04:03:47 AM by rabinoz »

*

Username

  • President Of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 17165
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: A few questions
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2017, 12:48:14 PM »
10: if the Earth is flat, then how would you explain shadow clocks?  If two sticks were placed in the ground at the same angle, but in different places, the shadow should be the same on a flat Earth, but since the Earth is round, and not flat, the shadows are different.
Eratosthenes' experiment creates at least two models.
Possibly "Eratosthenes' experiment creates at least two models" if only two locations are used,
but I challenge you to look into what would happen if you did the same type of experiment with more locations.

There are these four well spaced locations all very close to long 70 W:
Kimmirut, Canada, at 62.847N, 69.869W,
Bingham, Maine USA, at 45.059N 69.88W
Santo Domingo, at 18.486N, 69.931W,
Vaupes, Colombia, at 0.565S, 69.634W,   

Now actually visiting those locations on the equinox might be a bit of a drag,
         but the distances between places on tne same latitude is very close to 112 x the latitude distance
         and the as even the FES Wik claims that at an equinox the deviation of the sun's elevation from vertical is simply the latitude.
More accurate distances could be found from Google earth and
the sun's elevations from say, Suncalc for Bingham, Maine, USA on 22 Sep, 2017.
But of course, flat earthers wold never believe such sites. Though anyone can check the data from sites like that for themselves. 

So, is anyone prepared to very that the Eratosthenes experiment does really give a single value for the sun's height?
Most seem to prefer to remain in ignorance, rather than risk their belief in the flat earth.
       




Yes, the method you suggest, using more than 2 points, is how the common flat earth model was derived.

Quantum Ab Hoc

1 + 1 = 2
"The above proposition is occasionally useful." - Bertrand Russell

Re: A few questions
« Reply #27 on: August 19, 2017, 01:41:14 PM »
10: if the Earth is flat, then how would you explain shadow clocks?  If two sticks were placed in the ground at the same angle, but in different places, the shadow should be the same on a flat Earth, but since the Earth is round, and not flat, the shadows are different.
Eratosthenes' experiment creates at least two models.
Possibly "Eratosthenes' experiment creates at least two models" if only two locations are used,
but I challenge you to look into what would happen if you did the same type of experiment with more locations.

There are these four well spaced locations all very close to long 70 W:
Kimmirut, Canada, at 62.847N, 69.869W,
Bingham, Maine USA, at 45.059N 69.88W
Santo Domingo, at 18.486N, 69.931W,
Vaupes, Colombia, at 0.565S, 69.634W,   

Now actually visiting those locations on the equinox might be a bit of a drag,
         but the distances between places on tne same latitude is very close to 112 x the latitude distance
         and the as even the FES Wik claims that at an equinox the deviation of the sun's elevation from vertical is simply the latitude.
More accurate distances could be found from Google earth and
the sun's elevations from say, Suncalc for Bingham, Maine, USA on 22 Sep, 2017.
But of course, flat earthers wold never believe such sites. Though anyone can check the data from sites like that for themselves. 

So, is anyone prepared to very that the Eratosthenes experiment does really give a single value for the sun's height?
Most seem to prefer to remain in ignorance, rather than risk their belief in the flat earth.
       




Yes, the method you suggest, using more than 2 points, is how the common flat earth model was derived.
Details please of measurements from a number of places at the same time.

*

JackBlack

  • 18586
Re: A few questions
« Reply #28 on: August 19, 2017, 01:51:17 PM »
Yes, the method you suggest, using more than 2 points, is how the common flat earth model was derived.
No, it is how it completely and utterly fails as you end up with an impossible location for the sun.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3414
Re: A few questions
« Reply #29 on: August 19, 2017, 04:59:55 PM »

#4 for example.  There are like 10 threads discussing the eclipses right now. There are several theories as to how this happens on a flat earth, but I think we can all agree that a lunar eclipse is impossible on a globe earth model since there have been at least 50 sightings of the sun/moon above the horizon at the time of a lunar eclipse. And selenelion is bullshit.

Really?  When? I don't think many people would agree on that... could be wrong, I have seen some really funny stuff on this site...

Lots of bending, twisting, fudging, and tap dancing going on in this article.  At least they got the title right, although they should have probably called it "Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include Impossible Sight - Now watch us dance"

https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html
The only bending, twisting, fudging etc, etc being done is from flat earthers.  But I understand, you are really special, one of the few in the "know".  Whatever helps you sleep at night...

I know the earth isn't a spinning globe. Can you prove otherwise?
Yes,   Sunset/Sunrise