About the conspiracy

Quote from: JackBlack on April 08, 2021, 02:35:58 PM

Quote from: Ski on April 08, 2021, 09:06:57 AM

The Babylonians and other ANE cultures were famous for them. Chinese, as well. All flat earthers.

The FE models of the ancients have more in common with the RE model of today than the FE models of today.

Come now. That's very brazen.

Yes. Brazen, and 100% true. Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigated the Earth between 1519 and 1522. But don't let proven feats such as this, stop you from believing the Earth is flat.

I mean, every night after sunset, I watch the glowing sun continue on it's merry way, circling the rest of the world like an aeroplane, and letting them have a day time. That's what you do, isn't it? You must have tonnes of photos of the sun in the distance on the other side of the flat earth, on clear nights, wouldn't you?

I said they had extremely accurate star charts. The existence of accurate star charts does not confirm the shape of the earth in any fashion. Seeing stars where predicted by a chart simply confirms a chart is accurate.

They actually did not have accurate star charts. All they had was an idea of the relative positions of only the few stars that were visible from their own particular location.
They didn't have an idea what stars were.
They didn't have any notion of how far away the stars were.
They didn't have a notion that some of the visible star like objects were not indeed stars but galaxies, M31 for example.
They had no notion about our own solar system other than what could be observed with the naked eye.
The had no knowledge of the stars in the Southern Hemisphere.

In short their knowledge was in all reality next to nothing. What they did know was the positions of certain stars that were important to them for various reasons, mainly religious. The fact that they may have believed the earth was flat is neither here nor there given their state of relative ignorance of astronomy and much else beside. Their state of knowledge while important, as it formed a basis for both numeracy and literacy, was very limited.

Let's be clear about this until the invention of optical devices and later devices for measuring electromagnetic radiation other than visible light we were pretty ignorant about our own solar system let alone the cosmos at large. All our current knowledge we have about the cosmos is a result of professional astronomers none of which we're flat earth believers.

Thats the professional astronomers that for some reason you appear to have a problem with.

What needs to be remembered in any discussion surrounding a topic like science or astronomy is that unless you yourself are engaged in cutting edge research all your views and any understanding you may have are based on the work and discoveries of others. The other fact that needs to be remembered is that none of this extensive scientific or astronomical research is carried out by any flat earth academic institution as none exist. All flat earth believers have is the accumulated knowledge gained by main stream science and astronomy to go by. Any counter claim they may make, such as the existence of the aether for example, something that was dismissed and proved to be false, is not backed by any meaningful research. Any claims they make reference experiments carried out well over 100 years ago by main stream scientists such as those by Michelson–Morley, experiments that they re-purpose to suit their beliefs. No flat earther has actually repeated any of these experiments under controlled scientific conditions and published the results.
Any debate on such topics, science and Astronomy, by flat earthers is therefore reduced to them offering opinions rather than any validated scientific facts while denying the existence of many day to day technologies than run counter to what they believe.  A discussion with flat earthers is not done on a level playing field as they would have you believe: flat or round, simple enough question on the face of it. It’s only when you step back and look you see there is no playing field and it’s certainly not an even debate as all the facts are weighted to just one side.
Flat earthers should come clean and not pretend they are scientist and have proved their beliefs through their own work, they should just say they believe the earth is flat and leave it at that.

Yes, the Babylonians and Chinese both promoted the idea that the Earth was accelerating upward and gravity was caused by the resulting spacetime warping. 

Quite a lot in common. 

How droll.

Not really, ..

With the point of distinction between the models, it is really just the name, that Earth is flat in both.

Oh, is that all?

Yes. Brazen, and 100% true. Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigated the Earth between 1519 and 1522.

Are you lost?

They actually did not have accurate star charts.

At least JJA managed to be amusing in his ignorance. What are you contributing?

I mean, every night after sunset, I watch the glowing sun continue on it's merry way, circling the rest of the world like an aeroplane, and letting them have a day time. That's what you do, isn't it? You must have tonnes of photos of the sun in the distance on the other side of the flat earth, on clear nights, wouldn't you?

The sun doesn't move as the primary source of movement when it goes across the sky in conventional RE Theory. You appear to be observing something that doesn't happen in your model.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 08, 2021, 10:51:56 PM

I mean, every night after sunset, I watch the glowing sun continue on it's merry way, circling the rest of the world like an aeroplane, and letting them have a day time. That's what you do, isn't it? You must have tonnes of photos of the sun in the distance on the other side of the flat earth, on clear nights, wouldn't you?

The sun doesn't move as the primary source of movement when it goes across the sky in conventional RE Theory. You appear to be observing something that doesn't happen in your model.

"The sun doesn't move as the primary source of movement"

This is my new favorite Tom quote.  Or at the very least it makes the top 10.

Tom, he was talking about what YOU seem to think happens in FET.  The Sun doesn't circle overhead like a plane in RET, duh. Seems like his entire post went right over your head. Like that circling Sun of yours. 

I'm still trying to puzzle out how he watches the sun after sunset every night.

I'm still trying to puzzle out how he watches the sun after sunset every night.

Why are so many of you not realizing he is describing what Flat Earthers are claiming to see?

In FE theory the Sun does continue circling overhead 'after sunset' and he pointing out how silly this is. Detecting sarcasm is a lost art apparently.

0/2 so far. 

Quote from: Ski on April 13, 2021, 02:40:35 PM

I'm still trying to puzzle out how he watches the sun after sunset every night.

Why are so many of you not realizing he is describing what Flat Earthers are claiming to see?

In FE theory the Sun does continue circling overhead 'after sunset' and he pointing out how silly this is. Detecting sarcasm is a lost art apparently.

0/2 so far.

Maybe Ski means he’s still puzzling about where the sun is supposed be after all these years?  The finest  flat earther researchers seem to have given up on any more detail than “goes overhead vaguely east to west”.

I'm still trying to puzzle out how he watches the sun after sunset every night.

Exactly. How could I watch the sun after it sets? I could if the earth were flat, though, couldn't I?

I could if the earth were flat, though, couldn't I?

No, but this is a common misconception.

Due chiefly to refraction and the natural (requisite, even in "perfect vacuum") attenuation of light there will always be distance limits imposed.

However, if you get up higher (and lessen some of that obstruction) you can see it much farther - and un-set the sun.  Changing frequency of light can do the same to a degree as well.

This is not dependent on the shape of the world the way we are commonly mistaught.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 14, 2021, 07:56:34 PM

I could if the earth were flat, though, couldn't I?

No, but this is a common misconception.

Due chiefly to refraction and the natural (requisite, even in "perfect vacuum") attenuation of light there will always be distance limits imposed.

However, if you get up higher (and lessen some of that obstruction) you can see it much farther - and un-set the sun.  Changing frequency of light can do the same to a degree as well.

This is not dependent on the shape of the world the way we are commonly mistaught.

Wrong. The correct answer is yes, I could if the earth were flat. We are talking about the sun which illuminates half the planet at a time. That, we can all agree upon. On a flat earth, I would be able to watch this orbiting sun satellite on its circular journey every night.

Try again.

No, but this is a common misconception.
Due chiefly to refraction and the natural (requisite, even in "perfect vacuum") attenuation of light there will always be distance limits imposed.

Refraction goes the wrong way, allowing you to see further, not less.

As for attenuation, considering how bright the sun is, and the fact that with basically every modern FE model you can show that the sun is not visible in one location and is visible in a much further away location, and the fact it doesn't massively vary on a day to day basis, shows that attenuation by the atmosphere is not the problem either.

It seems more a common misconception among FEers, that the sun can just magically appear to set for those excuses.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on April 14, 2021, 07:56:34 PM

I could if the earth were flat, though, couldn't I?

No, but this is a common misconception.

Due chiefly to refraction and the natural (requisite, even in "perfect vacuum") attenuation of light there will always be distance limits imposed.

However, if you get up higher (and lessen some of that obstruction) you can see it much farther - and un-set the sun.  Changing frequency of light can do the same to a degree as well.

This is not dependent on the shape of the world the way we are commonly mistaught.

Again you are saying a bunch of things with no details and no sources and frankly none of that makes any sense.  No it's not a common misconception, no we are not 'mistaught' about the shape of the world.

The Sun does not get brighter or dimmer as I get higher or lower. This is easily verified by measuring the Sun's brightness at different altitudes, I could do this right now if I wanted to.  The fact that the Sun vanishes due to altitude only when near the horizon is a clear indication it has nothing to do with frequencies or distance limits. Before the Sun sets going up and down with a drone will show NO change in the Sun.

Please provide a diagram, formulas and some hard numbers on the location and size of the Sun that explains your version of how the Sun sets. Something we can use to test and make predictions with. At the very least, show us all the data and math you are using to come up with your claims.

Or is it all just guessing?

It's guesswork alright. By people who must wander about waking life wearing blindfolds.

I dare any of them to make for themselves a flat circular model of the earth, and then to try and work out the height and shape the sun must be from the flat earth surface. Remember, it must illuminate half the circle and no more and no less.

If they go for the glowing orb, or light bulb, the sun is visible from the dark side of the earth and the dark side is not that much darker, as a result. If they go for the lampshade, the sun creates dark shadows on the ceiling of the dome above it, during daytime, and is still clearly visible from the dark side.

In any circumstance, it is clearly visible during "night time" on the opposite side of the circle, regardless of what height is given to it.

Great idea for a video game featuring an alternate reality, but a shit idea for explaining this reality.