Flat Earth

[otl2021]

Why can't you answer this, or are you worried that your Flat Earth will collapse?

No, not at all. It's that I don't argue with memes.

Now, if you could provide video evidence of this claim, then we could discuss it, fair enough?

Now you go... does the surface of large bodies of still water ever become convex or concave in your world?

Why can't you answer this, or are you worried that your inside of sphere Earth will collapse? Am I doing this right?

 

[Apollonius]

No, not at all. It's that I don't argue with memes.

Now, if you could provide video evidence of this claim, then we could discuss it, fair enough?

Now you go... does the surface of large bodies of still water ever become convex or concave in your world?

Why can't you answer this, or are you worried that your inside of sphere Earth will collapse? Am I doing this right?

It's sad that people like you who don't understand astronomy even comment on astronomy.

You have no knowledge, so you and people like you can be easily deceived.

Keep discussing the so-called Flat Earth nonsense among yourselves, my own model of the universe (based on the Concave Earth) continues to spread rapidly.

 

[Jd755]

Quiahutil here is a previous discussion about the concave easrth theory.
Concave Earth Theory

 

[Quiahuitl]

Quiahutil here is a previous discussion about the concave easrth theory.
Concave Earth Theory

'Startrails at the equator' is very interesting!

This was intended to be a separate post but combined automatically -
My recollection is that the main reason for the adoption of the Copernican model was because it explained the movement of the planets better than the Ptolomaic model. I can accept that on faith.

However there are a few things I've never been able to understand. For example I live in the UK and went to Australia one winter and was puzzled why Orion appeared the same way up in the sky. I still have no answer for that - although I do now understand why Orion appears in the sky during October to March in both Northern and Southern hemispheres.

Meanwhile the Moon appears a different way up in Mexico compared to the UK.

 

[chessquaker]

Let's stay on topic and build on previous posts. Let's minimize posts that do not contribute to the topic as it will make the thread difficult to navigate for newcomers.

In addition to empirical daily observation, several proofs of the earth being flat have been offered in this thread if you genuinely seek to understand and debate. Start by reviewing those proofs and then explaining how they do not work. Share with us why and where they are wrong.

Here are the ones I posted : there are many excellent proofs and observations by others in the thread if you go back further.
Flat Earth
Flat Earth
Flat Earth
Flat Earth

"I'm still waiting on the "Flat Earthers" to demonstrate.." xyz.
There is no point in asking for yet another proof of Flat Earth if you overlook what has already been provided in the thread as this will lead to an eternal "moving of the goal post" interaction and just clog up the thread with posts that do not genuinely contribute to the topic. Posting diagrams of mercury in a test tube is not a contribution to, or refutation of, the universal property of water finding its level. Similarly, the budget of NASA is not a proof of anything.

If you believe the earth is convex, concave or even torroidal, simply lay out your proof and rationale so others may review it and see if it makes sense to them. You can provide it here or in a thread for Concave Earth (as Ghost has done).

 

[otl2021]

It's sad that people like you who don't understand astronomy even comment on astronomy.

Ok, please help me here:



And I will admit to not being any kind of expert astronomer, but that right there is just basic math, friend.

 

[Apollonius]

Ok, please help me here:

View attachment 19769

And I will admit to not being any kind of expert astronomer, but that right there is just basic math, friend.

The sun is small and local.

My Concave Earth Post

 

[Quiahuitl]

The sun is small and local.

My Concave Earth Post

The sun being small and local explains crepuscular sunlight. If the sun was, say, 3km up then it would explain why we often see rays of sunlight coming through clouds at widely diverging angles. This crepuscular sunlight appears to refute the idea that the sun is 93 million miles away.

However you can also see crepuscular sunlight through trees. That would indicate that the sun was floating just above the tops of the trees.

Ok, please help me here:

View attachment 19769

And I will admit to not being any kind of expert astronomer, but that right there is just basic math, friend.

This data appears to validate the spherical earth model perfectly.

The Earth's circumference is 24,000 miles. 4000/24000 = 1/6.
Multiply by 360 to get degrees gives exactly 60.

 

[Jd755]

The sun being small and local explains crepuscular sunlight. If the sun was, say, 3km up then it would explain why we often see rays of sunlight coming through clouds at widely diverging angles. This crepuscular sunlight appears to refute the idea that the sun is 93 million miles away.

However you can also see crepuscular sunlight through trees. That would indicate that the sun was floating just above the tops of the trees.

This data appears to validate the spherical earth model perfectly.

The Earth's circumference is 24,000 miles. 4000/24000 = 1/6.
Multiply by 360 to get degrees gives exactly 60.

What came first the equation or the ball idea?
Who has measured said circumference and how did they do it?

 

[eitea]

The Earth's circumference is 24,000 miles. 4000/24000 = 1/6.
Multiply by 360 to get degrees gives exactly 60.

That rather is Sun's visible lightfield circumference? But not of Earth's surface.
Because Sun moves in circles, probably, relative to Earth's surface. And Earth does not move. So Earth is far bigger.

 

[Jd755]

How sad to see someone who has a lot to offer respond to a pair of questions with a laughing emoji.

Surely the information I asked about must be at the very base of every circular earth theory and therefore well known, tested and easily demonstrated or else everything that is stuck on an unknown is just hot air.

 

[Quiahuitl]

What came first the equation or the ball idea?
Who has measured said circumference and how did they do it?

The ball idea came first because it is a model. That's how scientific modelling works, by proposing models then testing them against observable reality. No scientific model is possible without an initial act of faith. For example unless you believe atoms exist, you can't prove they exist. However, once you've assumed matter is made of atoms you can then demonstrate many natural phenomena that are best explained by atoms for example the periodic table.

Likewise with Earth you can assume it is a ball in which case the observation of the azimuthal angle of the sun from opposite sides of the Atlantic at the same time makes perfect sense if the ball is 24000 miles in circumference. So that particular real world data validates the model. However if you assumed the Earth was flat you could instead use that data to calculate the altitude of the sun, which would be about 3000 miles in this case. (sin(60) x 4000 miles = 3464.

However you can observe crepuscular sunlight through trees which indicates the sun is only just above the height of the trees.

The crepuscular sunlight is not explained by either flat or ball models.

 

[Jd755]

The ball idea came first because it is a model. That's how scientific modelling works, by proposing models then testing them against observable reality. No scientific model is possible without an initial act of faith. For example unless you believe atoms exist, you can't prove they exist. However, once you've assumed matter is made of atoms you can then demonstrate many natural phenomena that are best explained by atoms for example the periodic table.

Likewise with Earth you can assume it is a ball in which case the observation of the azimuthal angle of the sun from opposite sides of the Atlantic at the same time makes perfect sense if the ball is 24000 miles in circumference. So that particular real world data validates the model. However if you assumed the Earth was flat you could instead use that data to calculate the altitude of the sun, which would be about 3000 miles in this case. (sin(60) x 4000 miles = 3464.

However you can observe crepuscular sunlight through trees which indicates the sun is only just above the height of the trees.

The crepuscular sunlight is not explained by either flat or ball models.

Thank you for your reply. It was as I was expecting..

 

[otl2021]

This data appears to validate the spherical earth model perfectly.

What sphere? We already have eliminated that possibility multiple times and in multiple ways.



I have shown this problem before using boats leaving for opposite shores across just ten miles on beautiful Lake Tahoe:

 

[Silent Bob]

I've just see this great video posted by Captain Kirk of an old interview conducted by well known atronomer Patrick Moor with a Flat earther. Even though he disagrees, as expected, he conducts the interview with respect and actually allows the guy to talk - shame today's TV scientists aren't like this anymore!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFuKxvMWFk

 

[Citezenship]

I've just see this great video posted by Captain Kirk of an old interview conducted by well known atronomer Patrick Moor with a Flat earther. Even though he disagrees, as expected, he conducts the interview with respect and actually allows the guy to talk - shame today's TV scientists aren't like this anymore!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFuKxvMWFk

I thought that turning towards the children to solve complex scientific phenomona was a modern thing.

I do often wonder if being at the south pole witha compass if it would point strait down.

Whilst at a friends for christmas his little boy got an orienteering compass as a gift and thought to put on my mobile phone app with the compass to check if the two were equal or there about, the next thought was to place the compass onto the sceen of the phone, this made the compass vere off angle by 90d in the clockwise direction, i don't know what that means other than the magnetic field caused buy the phone but felt like it meant something.

 

[chessquaker]

"you can also see crepuscular sunlight through trees. That would indicate that the sun was floating just above the tops of the trees."

It does not matter that the barrier is a tree or a cloud. The barrier is not the issue.

The angle of the rays allows triangulation back to the source. Also, the distance of the source is not "just above" the tree or subject to guesswork.

Triangulation is a geometric proof of the local sun. Triangulation allows us to determine the distance as the proof explains. The angles and the distance between the reference points on the ground are all you need to compute the distance of the local sun and to see that the Sun is not millions of miles away.

 

[Quiahuitl]

"you can also see crepuscular sunlight through trees. That would indicate that the sun was floating just above the tops of the trees."

It does not matter that the barrier is a tree or a cloud. The barrier is not the issue.

The angle of the rays allows triangulation back to the source. Also, the distance of the source is not "just above" the tree or subject to guesswork.

Triangulation is a geometric proof of the local sun. Triangulation allows us to determine the distance as the proof explains. The angles and the distance between the reference points on the ground are all you need to compute the distance of the local sun and to see that the Sun is not millions of miles away.

Triangulate the rays in these images and it appears the sun is just a few hundred feet away.

 

[eitea]

Triangulate the rays in these images and it appears the sun is just a few hundred feet away.

Possibly, likely probably, might be so in fact, that as light crosses so-to-say biome borders, then that border area or "gate" area acts as if true source for that light, and sort of makes light spread again. Similar to how tree branches branch out ever more. And so actual true sun, whatever it is, could perhaps be behind many different layers of worldly elemental or biomic levels, each taking what is suitable to theirs and rest of light passing onward to lower or thicker levels. Which hints at "Earth's" size... very very big. Modern map of Earth being only some tiny bit of whole.
Each layer or level also having their own so-to-say base color or tone, and source of light having something to do with "DNA" of this world... Meaning various qualities and aspects that translate into various colors and tones and qualities of light.
And lots more to this angle of approach, to trying to figure things out.
Certainly not flat... And concave alone is not enough, but is a good "beginning point" to begin figuring out. Because inside not outside, and if outside then that outside is in far bigger inside.
Our world as whole, not only this "Earth map" area, is one massive living being. Or perhaps was in case someone high up died long ago, and parasites and such began infesting resulting rotting body that is rather far beyond modern understanding god level.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

What empirical proof do you have that enables you to say "Certainly not flat" ?

Why do you say "concave alone is not enough, but is a good "beginning point" to begin figuring out" ?