Debunking Flat Earth

[essentialsaltes]

Speaking of which. How do you explain the fact that there are total eclipses of the moon, by the shadow of the earth, while the sun is fully up in the eastern sky?

Like so.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Funny, it states that the changes in gravity are due to bulges in the earth

Let's quote it.

"Gravity changes around the world, partly due to bulges in our planet's shape. To prove it, a German scale manufacturer has sent a plastic figure on a journey around the planet."

I wonder what might also cause this effect?

"Kern the gnome is weighed wherever he goes. Kern was at his heaviest at the south pole, where the slower spin of the Earth adds 0.5 per cent to everyone's weight."

Oh!

 

[Kylie]

Oh yes.. the Foucault pendulum that needs a mechanical force to keep it moving and has been seen to reverse it's motion during an eclipse..

You do realise that no pendulum can ever keep going endlessly, right? There's a thing called friction that would slow it down.

As for it reversing motion during an eclipse, please provide a reliable source for this, and demonstrate that it is only during eclipses that such reversals occur, and that the reversals are caused by the eclipse.

The Foucault Pendulum is not the nail in the coffin of FE like many would like... It is the last bit that some have to hang on to though.

It is entirely consistent with a rotating globe earth. Can you show that it is not?

 

[46AND2]

Funny, it states that the changes in gravity are due to bulges in the earth... not the spin and all the other mathematical explanations.

essentialsaltes already addressed this...

I look forward to your results,however.

It will take me longer than a week (when I leave for Phoenix) to get everything prepared (supplies, location scouting, etc.), so I'll plan on doing it when I go back in December. But I will start a new thread and post updates during my preparation.

One other thing I will document that I forgot to mention -- I will return to my Washington location to measure it again, after the trip, to make sure the calibration was not thrown out of whack during travel.

 

[Kylie]

Here's a conundrum.....

The horizon is always at eye level. On the ground, at sea level, at 30,000 feet in an air craft.... even from high altitude. The horizon is always right there mid frame.

On a ball, the higher you go, the further you would see. This further horizon, on a ball, would be lower and lower and lower. You would need to continue lowering your line of sight to see the horizon..

This is not the fact that we see.

You ever been in a plane? Ever notice, particularly when you're down low, that things like the buildings you are flying over seems to zip past you, but things further away, like the clouds way in the distance, seem to be moving much more slowly? That's because how fast things appear to move relative to you is determined by how close they are. So let's say you're in a place and you look out directly to your right. Something may be ten degrees in front of you (or 80 degrees from dead ahead), but if it is close, then the plane is soon going to move past it and in only a short time it will be ten degrees behind you (100 degrees from the front of the plane).

But something way in the distance that starts out at 10 degrees in front of you will move a much smaller amount, say only one degree, in that same time.

So, if we have something that is very far away, like the horizon, then going a little bit higher in the sky won't make much difference. I found a calculator where you can enter the height above the ground and it will tell you what angle you have to tilt your eyes down to look directly at the horizon.

A person standing 1.8 meters is technically above the horizon, but not by much. They have to look downwards at an angle of 0.04 degrees. There's no way a person can notice that without some instrument to measure it.

Put that same person at an altitude of ten kilometers (just a little bit higher than the 30,000 feet you mentioned), and the angle you have to tilt your eyes downwards from horizontal is only 3.2 degrees. That's a tiny amount, and even though it's more than at sea level, a person still isn't going to be able to determine the difference without equipment to measure it. Even from the height of the ISS, about 400 kilometers up, the horizon is only twenty degrees or so below horizontal. That's still easy to miss.

For comparison, a standard 50mm lens on a camera has a field of view of about 45 degrees, so even taking photos from a plane you'd hardly see any difference.

Your ball analogy fails because of one big flaw. The earth is about 13,000 kilometers. If you get a shot put, that's about 13 centimeters. So going from sea level to 30,000 feet on Earth is the same as going from the surface of the shot put to 0.01mm above the surface. How much of a change in what you can see of the shotput do you expect to see by doing that?

 

[Kylie]

I'll assume that you are totally unaware of the FE model..... and the fact that this test, done by Eratosthenes, works on the FE model...

No it doesn't.

When the angles to the sun are measured, they should all point to the same single spot in the sky. But in a flat earth model they do not. So unless you are claiming that there are multiple suns, and only one of these suns is visible from any one location, then you've failed.

 

[JacksBratt]

You ever been in a plane? Ever notice, particularly when you're down low, that things like the buildings you are flying over seems to zip past you, but things further away, like the clouds way in the distance, seem to be moving much more slowly? That's because how fast things appear to move relative to you is determined by how close they are. So let's say you're in a place and you look out directly to your right. Something may be ten degrees in front of you (or 80 degrees from dead ahead), but if it is close, then the plane is soon going to move past it and in only a short time it will be ten degrees behind you (100 degrees from the front of the plane).

But something way in the distance that starts out at 10 degrees in front of you will move a much smaller amount, say only one degree, in that same time.

So, if we have something that is very far away, like the horizon, then going a little bit higher in the sky won't make much difference. I found a calculator where you can enter the height above the ground and it will tell you what angle you have to tilt your eyes down to look directly at the horizon.

A person standing 1.8 meters is technically above the horizon, but not by much. They have to look downwards at an angle of 0.04 degrees. There's no way a person can notice that without some instrument to measure it.

Put that same person at an altitude of ten kilometers (just a little bit higher than the 30,000 feet you mentioned), and the angle you have to tilt your eyes downwards from horizontal is only 3.2 degrees. That's a tiny amount, and even though it's more than at sea level, a person still isn't going to be able to determine the difference without equipment to measure it. Even from the height of the ISS, about 400 kilometers up, the horizon is only twenty degrees or so below horizontal. That's still easy to miss.

For comparison, a standard 50mm lens on a camera has a field of view of about 45 degrees, so even taking photos from a plane you'd hardly see any difference.

Your ball analogy fails because of one big flaw. The earth is about 13,000 kilometers. If you get a shot put, that's about 13 centimeters. So going from sea level to 30,000 feet on Earth is the same as going from the surface of the shot put to 0.01mm above the surface. How much of a change in what you can see of the shotput do you expect to see by doing that?

I understand your analogy.. however, even the ISS has it's fake fish eye horizon.. at eye level. Even at 100,000 feet, the horizon is the same...

On a ball, where your analogy fails.. is that you see farther and as you see farther, the horizon must curve down and away and get lower..

The rate of the curve is not as slow as I would have expected. In fact, I think everyone thinks that this earth is so huge that a rate of 8 inches per mile squared would take them by surprise... It is a very quick drop.

NASA used to say that you need to be about 35,000 feet to see the curve.. Then, people questioned it.. so it became 100,000 feet. But, people put hot air weather balloons up and couldn't see it even then...

Now, Neil DeGrass is saying that there is no way to get high enough....

Can you say "move the goalposts".

Here you are... horizon mid frame... high altitude.... no fish eye...

 

[JacksBratt]

No it doesn't.

When the angles to the sun are measured, they should all point to the same single spot in the sky. But in a flat earth model they do not. So unless you are claiming that there are multiple suns, and only one of these suns is visible from any one location, then you've failed.

Kylie... it does..

In the FE model, the sun is close and it's light behaves the same way due to its location.

Very sorry but with the new algorithms on Google.. I cannot find articles that were very easily found before...

I think it is very concerning that Google and other internet search engines are selectively changing what you can find when you search..

You may not find that to be a problem with the FE topic.. but... just wait, until you want to search for some other subject that you DO feel to be truth and it is basically censored out of your grasp...

That is probably not going to be much of an issue for you, however, as most things that I have found to be increasingly difficult are Christian or bible based. Being an atheist.. you're probably in the clear on this.

 

[Kylie]

I understand your analogy.. however, even the ISS has it's fake fish eye horizon.. at eye level. Even at 100,000 feet, the horizon is the same...

On a ball, where your analogy fails.. is that you see farther and as you see farther, the horizon must curve down and away and get lower..

The rate of the curve is not as slow as I would have expected. In fact, I think everyone thinks that this earth is so huge that a rate of 8 inches per mile squared would take them by surprise... It is a very quick drop.

NASA used to say that you need to be about 35,000 feet to see the curve.. Then, people questioned it.. so it became 100,000 feet. But, people put hot air weather balloons up and couldn't see it even then...

Now, Neil DeGrass is saying that there is no way to get high enough....

Can you say "move the goalposts".

Here you are... horizon mid frame... high altitude.... no fish eye...

View attachment 266705

You do realise that the way a camera sees things will not be the same as the way a human eye sees them, doncha?

Also, that image was taken from a balloon at about 121,000 feet. At that height, the horizon is only 6.15 degrees below horizontal. And guess what? The horizon in that image is below the middle of the frame. And you have no way of proving the orientation of the camera either. What if the camera was not perfectly level?

 

[Kylie]

Kylie... it does..

In the FE model, the sun is close and it's light behaves the same way due to its location.

Very sorry but with the new algorithms on Google.. I cannot find articles that were very easily found before...

I think it is very concerning that Google and other internet search engines are selectively changing what you can find when you search..

You may not find that to be a problem with the FE topic.. but... just wait, until you want to search for some other subject that you DO feel to be truth and it is basically censored out of your grasp...

That is probably not going to be much of an issue for you, however, as most things that I have found to be increasingly difficult are Christian or bible based. Being an atheist.. you're probably in the clear on this.

So you insist it works, but you can't find these articles you claim prove your point because conspiracy something something.

Sure. You've got a really good argument there.

By the way, this is what I was talking about. Don't tell me that the angles all point towards the sun. They do not.

And here's another video showing that the direction to the sun at the same instant is all over the place on a flat Earth, AND it shows how it works perfectly on a globe Earth! Your flat earth is destroyed.

 

[46AND2]

So you insist it works, but you can't find these articles you claim prove your point because conspiracy something something.

Sure. You've got a really good argument there.

By the way, this is what I was talking about. Don't tell me that the angles all point towards the sun. They do not.

And here's another video showing that the direction to the sun at the same instant is all over the place on a flat Earth, AND it shows how it works perfectly on a globe Earth! Your flat earth is destroyed.

Here's another animation, using an eclipse as a target:

Same youtuber.

 

[Strathos]

You are right... eclipses are an issue..

Speaking of which. How do you explain the fact that there are total eclipses of the moon, by the shadow of the earth, while the sun is fully up in the eastern sky?

Looks like both models have some issues with an eclipse, huh?

You cannot have a sun fully risen and the shadow of the earth, caused by the sun, over the moon while the moon is visible and up in the sky... But... there it is.

It's called a Selenelion.... and you will not believe the diagrams and explanatory gymnastics that the globe camp will do to tell you that it is not impossible......

That only happens right near sunrise or sunset, when the sun and the moon are at opposite positions in the sky, and refraction is enough to make both of them appear higher in the sky than they are.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Clearly most FEs have too little basic physics to be convinced by such explanations, but the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim - which should be relatively easy - they just have to demonstrate that there is a definite edge (and/or evidence of a dome) in all four directions of the compass (and not just some pictures of an ice-shelf).

One wonders why this has not been done...

 

[Strathos]

Clearly most FEs have too little basic physics to be convinced by such explanations, but the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim - which should be relatively easy - they just have to demonstrate that there is a definite edge (and/or evidence of a dome) in all four directions of the compass (and not just some pictures of an ice-shelf).

One wonders why this has not been done...

Because of the top-secret Illuminati UN Satanist Cabal patrolling Antarctica, obviously

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Because of the top-secret Illuminati UN Satanist Cabal patrolling Antarctica, obviously

D'oh!! Didn't think of that...

The edge is pretty long (how long, exactly?) - there must be a lot of them...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It is so EEEEEAAAASSSSYYYYY to prove the flat earth THEORY is untrue.

Just book a seat on one of the flights into space/ upper atmosphere, and go look for urself!

Done.

 

[A_Thinker]

Here you are... horizon mid frame... high altitude.... no fish eye...

We've seen this photo before. You know the image is distorted ... because you can see that the antennae is curved when you put a straight edge on it.

If you want to be taken seriously, don't keep using this photo ...

 

[pgp_protector]

How's the transit of Mercury work on a Flat Earth ?

Especially given that we've also see the Moon / Mercury Occultation ?

 

[Radagast]

The horizon is always right there mid frame.

The thing that you're looking at is always mid frame.

 

[Radagast]

Here's another animation, using an eclipse as a target:

All of these are great!