Disproving strong Round Earth arguments

Hi, this is my first post and I think all this Flat Earth discussion is quite interesting because it shows that people accept many things without thinking and even scientists sometimes make bad arguments and don't listen to the other side. Of course the same happens with flat earthers, so to me one has to avoid tricky arguments that are not strong enough (I'm tired of the Eratosthenes shadows argument, clearly does not disprove a flat earth with a close sun but scientists love it anyway) and I will leave a couple of arguments I cannot possibly explain with a flat earth. I've lived all my life in the southern hemisphere, so these things I can attest, and you could come and see.

1) There are flights from South America to Australia that last less than 15 hours and you see only water and sometimes Antarctica. I've seen this discussed lately but no satisfactory answer yet.
2) In the South we have also a celestial pole, a region around where all stars revolve (in the opposite direction than in the northern hemisphere), you cannot possibly explain this with a dome, so I've observed the 2 celestial poles myself.

I won't mention sunsets, satellites and eclipses, which are very strong round earth arguments, but I've seen flat earth answers to them that are very bad since require warping reality basically, but I'll leave them out anyway, for now.

Question: if you were to send some flat earther you trust to go to the South Pole and observe/record the 24h sun cycle around him/her, would you stop believing the earth is flat? If that is so, you should start some kind of crowdfunding...

Why would a flat earther with vested flat earth interests have any desire to start a crowdfunding effort to disprove flat earth?

I would think anyone honest would like to put their ideas to the test. If for someone the point is not finding what is right or not but just keep ignoring facts and believing who knows what, then something would be very wrong inside that mind.

Question: if you were to send some flat earther you trust to go to the South Pole and observe/record the 24h sun cycle around him/her, would you stop believing the earth is flat? If that is so, you should start some kind of crowdfunding...

A Flat Earther you can trust. Let's see, that would have to be someone who believes all pictures of the earth from space are fake, as are weather satellites and global positioning satellites, all part of an impossibly large grand conspiracy by all the governments, thousands of scientists and engineers, news organization and on and on.

Who would trust such a loon?

Hi, this is my first post and I think all this Flat Earth discussion is quite interesting because it shows that people accept many things without thinking and even scientists sometimes make bad arguments and don't listen to the other side. Of course the same happens with flat earthers, so to me one has to avoid tricky arguments that are not strong enough (I'm tired of the Eratosthenes shadows argument, clearly does not disprove a flat earth with a close sun but scientists love it anyway) and I will leave a couple of arguments I cannot possibly explain with a flat earth. I've lived all my life in the southern hemisphere, so these things I can attest, and you could come and see.

1) There are flights from South America to Australia that last less than 15 hours and you see only water and sometimes Antarctica. I've seen this discussed lately but no satisfactory answer yet.
2) In the South we have also a celestial pole, a region around where all stars revolve (in the opposite direction than in the northern hemisphere), you cannot possibly explain this with a dome, so I've observed the 2 celestial poles myself.

I won't mention sunsets, satellites and eclipses, which are very strong round earth arguments, but I've seen flat earth answers to them that are very bad since require warping reality basically, but I'll leave them out anyway, for now.

Question: if you were to send some flat earther you trust to go to the South Pole and observe/record the 24h sun cycle around him/her, would you stop believing the earth is flat? If that is so, you should start some kind of crowdfunding...

The simple answer is that most flat Earth answers are based on the so-called " Flat Earth Map."
And the simple answer to that is there is no "Flat Earth Map."
And the simple answer to that is the earth is not flat.
And the simple answer to that is the earth is a globe.
And the simple answer to that is the North Polar Azimuthal Projection is just one of many projections of the globe.
This Projection does not show Antarctica as a distinct continent which contains the South Pole.
This Projection is so distorted south of the equator that Antarctica is shown as the so-called "ice ring."

Quote from: andresb on February 26, 2019, 01:10:27 PM

Question: if you were to send some flat earther you trust to go to the South Pole and observe/record the 24h sun cycle around him/her, would you stop believing the earth is flat? If that is so, you should start some kind of crowdfunding...

A Flat Earther you can trust. Let's see, that would have to be someone who believes all pictures of the earth from space are fake, as are weather satellites and global positioning satellites, all part of an impossibly large grand conspiracy by all the governments, thousands of scientists and engineers, news organization and on and on.

Who would trust such a loon?

And most sane and intelligent people just can't understand why there are some people who call themselves "Flat Earth Believers"
who say they don't believe in well known facts and why they say they believe in such nonsense.

Why would a flat earther with vested flat earth interests have any desire to start a crowdfunding effort to disprove flat earth?

Not necessarily disprove, but test.
If Earth is flat, and based upon the standard NP centred map, then you would not be able to see a 24 hour sun in Antartica. So verifying if it happens or not would be reasonable.

The only reason they wouldn't is if they knew that Earth wasn't flat and knew they wouldn't get the results they want.

Phew FE map is....

Phew FE map is....

Please show me where this map is. I want to know how it addresses my points, particularly the second one.
I cannot imagine a flat earth that can account for how our sky looks from all parts of the world.
Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A"?

I would think anyone honest would like to put their ideas to the test. If for someone the point is not finding what is right or not but just keep ignoring facts and believing who knows what, then something would be very wrong inside that mind.

Hahaha
Go look at the denp thread for your answers.

I would think anyone honest would like to put their ideas to the test.

"Well, there's your problem right there!"

24 hour daylight has been discussed and answered many times. Seeing it in person would do nothing.

Interestingly, I noticed published sunset and sunrise times were inaccurate when I visited near the rim. I guess there must have been a typo in the almanac (lol.)

24 hour daylight has been discussed and answered many times. Seeing it in person would do nothing.

Interestingly, I noticed published sunset and sunrise times were inaccurate when I visited near the rim. I guess there must have been a typo in the almanac (lol.)

The sunset and sunrise obviously wouldn't be to the second if one is near the edge of a time zone or in a deeper valley, but more likely you needed a new watch. Only a flat earther could think it more reasonable to invent torturous maps, celestial mechanics, conspiracy theories, laws of motion, etc than to question their watch.

You're so right! It's not round, its a donut!  glazed donut to be exact. I love a good glazed donut. So creamy and gooey! Ughhh so good!

Yes, obviously there are a lot of things that could account for the error; inaccuracy in the position of the ship, incorrect times, etc. Nobody invented "torturous maps, celestial mechanics, conspiracy theories, laws of motion." You just made that up to feel smarter than us.

24 hour daylight has been discussed and answered many times. Seeing it in person would do nothing.

Interestingly, I noticed published sunset and sunrise times were inaccurate when I visited near the rim. I guess there must have been a typo in the almanac (lol.)

How inaccurate?
Better safe to throw out all of science due to inaccuracy.
Apparently an anolog world is no good for johndavis.
Digital/ step or nothing.

Yes, obviously there are a lot of things that could account for the error; inaccuracy in the position of the ship, incorrect times, etc. Nobody invented "torturous maps, celestial mechanics, conspiracy theories, laws of motion." You just made that up to feel smarter than us.

Great jorb mighty kabool!

24 hour daylight has been discussed and answered many times. Seeing it in person would do nothing.

Where? from the Flat Earth map I don't see how could you stand in the South Pole and see the sun go around you.
But you are not addressing any of my 2 points.

Quote from: Danang on February 27, 2019, 04:11:52 AM

Phew FE map is....

Please show me where this map is. I want to know how it addresses my points, particularly the second one.
I cannot imagine a flat earth that can account for how our sky looks from all parts of the world.
Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A"?

The center is on south pole. The difference is, the grids are curved.



"Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A"?"

>> I have posted my concepts in previous posts. But if you wanna ask further questions at that section, that's quite all right.

(I'm tired of the Eratosthenes shadows argument, clearly does not disprove a flat earth with a close sun but scientists love it anyway)

Did you read my thread regarding a modified Eratosthenes experiment.

I certainly agree that doesn’t disprove a flat Earth of The Sun were closer, but if you add more than two points of measurements, there should be a difference in shadow lengths.

Hop over to that thread if you agree or disagree with that premise.

24 hour daylight has been discussed and answered many times. Seeing it in person would do nothing.

Interestingly, I noticed published sunset and sunrise times were inaccurate when I visited near the rim. I guess there must have been a typo in the almanac (lol.)

How did you know you were near the rim? Did you see it? where exactly were you? How did you determine your location? Did you use stratalites?  Do you have any photographs with credible metadata to prove your claim?

The center is on south pole. The difference is, the grids are curved.

I guess you could explain the flights problem distorting grid lines (distorting reality), but I don't see how do you explain the sky, since Northern stars go around Polaris, thing that should be impossible on a dome centered on the south.

I certainly agree that doesn’t disprove a flat Earth of The Sun were closer, but if you add more than two points of measurements, there should be a difference in shadow lengths.

Totally agree, but here we have people that are distorting the euclidean space metrics to argue that the earth is flat, they would attribute the results of your experiment to some atmospheric effect (even when you would be obtaining what exacly is expected from a round earth).

Interestingly, I noticed published sunset and sunrise times were inaccurate when I visited near the rim. I guess there must have been a typo in the almanac (lol.)

I don't know what you noticed, but I know people that went to Antarctica and they haven't noticed anything like that, and it's important to know when the sun rises and sets there, or you will freeze. Anyway, I don't know what the rim is now, some people seem to think that the rim is in the much more explored and accessible north...

Andresb says:
"I guess you could explain the flights problem distorting grid lines (distorting reality), but I don't see how do you explain the sky, since Northern stars go around Polaris, thing that should be impossible on a dome centered on the south."

>> The northstar and the surrounding stars are just reflection of the actual bodies that are situated at extremely high altitude above the south pole. The lights are vertical.

It takes two domes to produce such sight. From the light sources to to 1st dome to the 2nd dome. What people on northern hemiplane see is the reflection from the second dome.

Globe assumption gives wrong angle of the position of the seen northstar and surounding stars.
The face angle should be similar to the north latitude position, e.g. at 45° of latitude you should lift up the face 45° up. 70° face angle for latitude 70°, 90° face angle for latitude 90° etc.
In reality it isn't the case.

The flight?? Hahaha... research on flights will kill globe model as well as conventional FE. ~

The northstar and the surrounding stars are just reflection of the actual bodies that are situated at extremely high altitude above the south pole. The lights are vertical.

It takes two domes to produce such sight. From the light sources to to 1st dome to the 2nd dome. What people on northern hemiplane see is the reflection from the second dome.

I will need some kind of drawing, cannot make much from what you say.

Globe assumption gives wrong angle of the position of the seen northstar and surounding stars.
The face angle should be similar to the north latitude position, e.g. at 45° of latitude you should lift up the face 45° up. 70° face angle for latitude 70°, 90° face angle for latitude 90° etc.
In reality it isn't the case.

Of course this is the case. Where do you get this easily falsifiable misinformation?

Quote from: Danang on February 28, 2019, 04:07:21 PM

The northstar and the surrounding stars are just reflection of the actual bodies that are situated at extremely high altitude above the south pole. The lights are vertical.

It takes two domes to produce such sight. From the light sources to to 1st dome to the 2nd dome. What people on northern hemiplane see is the reflection from the second dome.

I will need some kind of drawing, cannot make much from what you say.

Quote from: Danang on February 28, 2019, 04:07:21 PM

Globe assumption gives wrong angle of the position of the seen northstar and surounding stars.
The face angle should be similar to the north latitude position, e.g. at 45° of latitude you should lift up the face 45° up. 70° face angle for latitude 70°, 90° face angle for latitude 90° etc.
In reality it isn't the case.

Of course this is the case. Where do you get this easily falsifiable misinformation?

I am at outside home now. Hopefully a few days later I'll draw the diagram.

Here's startrails at Norway as my argument:

Here's startrails at Norway as my argument:

What are you trying to prove with that?

Quote from: Danang on February 28, 2019, 04:54:41 PM

Here's startrails at Norway as my argument:

What are you trying to prove with that?

I might stick around here because it’s fun, but I’ve noticed very quickly how things operate around here.

We have people trying to disprove RE by buying an extremely sensitive gyroscope saying it should move 15 degrees every hour if the Earth is a globe—so giddy to prove once and for all it’s flat.

They see it move 15 degrees every hour and instead of maybe, just maybe, the Earth is round, they say, “oh.....gee.....I don’t know what’s going on.....perhaps some effect we don’t know about and we will create out of thin dome air.”

>> The northstar and the surrounding stars are just reflection of the actual bodies that are situated at extremely high altitude above the south pole. The lights are vertical.

It takes two domes to produce such sight.

Yet you have been unable to show how that works at all.

Globe assumption gives wrong angle of the position of the seen northstar and surounding stars.

Nope. The globe conclusion gives the correct position.

So as I see it, none of my points have been given a satisfactory Flat Earth alternative, I'm still waiting for some good answer and I might have to add a third point if no alternative is given:

1) Explanation of established flights that go close to any of the two geographical poles.
2) Explanation of the observation of two celestial poles.

3) What do you think about artificial satellites? Their observed trajectory coincide with what is expected from them going around a Round Earth and following traditional gravitation, and they are put there by the "conspiracists".