Flat Earth

[BroJones]

Steve, your thoughts?

I find this fellow VERY difficult to follow - bad mike I think is the main problem.

Does he explain why the North Star (pole star around which the stars are seen to rotate) is ONLY visible from the northern hemisphere?

Does he explain the presence of a SOUTHERN POLE STAR also?

Haha, sorry to inflict that on you, then! I tried to follow him twice while doing the dishes and simply assumed he would be over my head even if I was sitting on the couch. And OE was already in bed, so I thought I’d run it past you. Sorry, for wasting your time!

And actually I think he did address your question in a shorter video, which I will look for.

One reason my heart is not in this particular argument is simply because all of the ad hoc explanations in the world (on either side) do not prove nor disprove curvature. Not that I can tell, anyway. Am I missing something?

.

Yes, it works - but you have to individually think it through.
So here's a simple experiment you can do at home, to see the "globe" versus "flat" viewpoints.

You need, a round ball (baseball, basketball etc) , a plate, and a glowing bulb for the sun.

1 - North Star is simulated by holding the bulb above the ball in a darkened room. Up we'll call north, so this is the "North Pole star" Polaris. As you hold the light above the ball, you will see that only the upper part (N hemisphere) is illuminated - correct? Do you see this? Thus, folks in the southern hemisphere cannot see the North Star. This effect is clearly due to curvature of the ball.

2 - Now set the plate on the floor and again hold the bulb above it. We see that the ENTIRE top of the plate is illuminated, right? Do you see this?

We will go from there, but it is important that one can observe for oneself and "own" the observation.

[Pazooka]

Steve, your thoughts?

I find this fellow VERY difficult to follow - bad mike I think is the main problem.

Does he explain why the North Star (pole star around which the stars are seen to rotate) is ONLY visible from the northern hemisphere?

Does he explain the presence of a SOUTHERN POLE STAR also?

Haha, sorry to inflict that on you, then! I tried to follow him twice while doing the dishes and simply assumed he would be over my head even if I was sitting on the couch. And OE was already in bed, so I thought I’d run it past you. Sorry, for wasting your time!

And actually I think he did address your question in a shorter video, which I will look for.

One reason my heart is not in this particular argument is simply because all of the ad hoc explanations in the world (on either side) do not prove nor disprove curvature. Not that I can tell, anyway. Am I missing something?

.

Yes, it works - but you have to individually think it through.
So here's a simple experiment you can do at home, to see the "globe" versus "flat" viewpoints.

You need, a round ball (baseball, basketball etc) , a plate, and a glowing bulb for the sun.

1 - North Star is simulated by holding the bulb above the ball in a darkened room. Up we'll call north, so this is the "North Pole star" Polaris. As you hold the light above the ball, you will see that only the upper part (N hemisphere) is illuminated - correct? Do you see this? Thus, folks in the southern hemisphere cannot see the North Star. This effect is clearly due to curvature of the ball.

2 - Now set the plate on the floor and again hold the bulb above it. We see that the ENTIRE top of the plate is illuminated, right? Do you see this?

We will go from there, but it is important that one can observe for oneself and "own" the observation.

Next we should hold a ping pong ball a few feet from a basketball and see if gravity will hold it in orbit

[Shawn Henry]

Yes, it works - but you have to individually think it through.
So here's a simple experiment you can do at home, to see the "globe" versus "flat" viewpoints.

You need, a round ball (baseball, basketball etc) , a plate, and a glowing bulb for the sun.

1 - North Star is simulated by holding the bulb above the ball in a darkened room. Up we'll call north, so this is the "North Pole star" Polaris. As you hold the light above the ball, you will see that only the upper part (N hemisphere) is illuminated - correct? Do you see this? Thus, folks in the southern hemisphere cannot see the North Star. This effect is clearly due to curvature of the ball.

2 - Now set the plate on the floor and again hold the bulb above it. We see that the ENTIRE top of the plate is illuminated, right? Do you see this?

We will go from there, but it is important that one can observe for oneself and "own" the observation.

Hold that light above the plate, then make that plate 10 miles wide and walk 5 away to the outer edge. Do you think you'll see your light 5 miles away.

Or place the sun 100 miles high on the earth and make the distance of the earth 25,000 miles wide. Then give that light from the sun a range of about 12,000 miles.

[Allison]

Steve, your thoughts?

I find this fellow VERY difficult to follow - bad mike I think is the main problem.

Does he explain why the North Star (pole star around which the stars are seen to rotate) is ONLY visible from the northern hemisphere?

Does he explain the presence of a SOUTHERN POLE STAR also?

Haha, sorry to inflict that on you, then! I tried to follow him twice while doing the dishes and simply assumed he would be over my head even if I was sitting on the couch. And OE was already in bed, so I thought I’d run it past you. Sorry, for wasting your time!

And actually I think he did address your question in a shorter video, which I will look for.

One reason my heart is not in this particular argument is simply because all of the ad hoc explanations in the world (on either side) do not prove nor disprove curvature. Not that I can tell, anyway. Am I missing something?

.

Yes, it works - but you have to individually think it through.
So here's a simple experiment you can do at home, to see the "globe" versus "flat" viewpoints.

You need, a round ball (baseball, basketball etc) , a plate, and a glowing bulb for the sun.

1 - North Star is simulated by holding the bulb above the ball in a darkened room. Up we'll call north, so this is the "North Pole star" Polaris. As you hold the light above the ball, you will see that only the upper part (N hemisphere) is illuminated - correct? Do you see this? Thus, folks in the southern hemisphere cannot see the North Star. This effect is clearly due to curvature of the ball.

2 - Now set the plate on the floor and again hold the bulb above it. We see that the ENTIRE top of the plate is illuminated, right? Do you see this?

We will go from there, but it is important that one can observe for oneself and "own" the observation.

Steve, duh. And Shawn is right, all y’all are assuming the flat earth is a frisbee in the solar system/heliocentric model, with stars a bazillion miles away.

Just curious though, with the ball earth careening so very far around the 93 million miles away sun, speeding up at the ends of the elliptical path, and slowing down again in the middle, all while the tilt is changing to give us our seasons, how is it that Polaris stays locked in position no matter where the ball is, nor what it’s angle?

[h_p]

Steve, duh. And Shawn is right, all y’all are assuming the flat earth is a frisbee in the solar system/heliocentric model, with stars a bazillion miles away.

This is a very valid point that the round-earthers need to acknowledge. This is essentially what amounts to a straw-man argument, and needs to be dropped, and frankly, apologized for, in my opinion.

Just curious though, with the ball earth careening so very far around the 93 million miles away sun, speeding up at the ends of the elliptical path, and slowing down again in the middle, all while the tilt is changing to give us our seasons, how is it that Polaris stays locked in position no matter where the ball is, nor what it’s angle?

The change in tilt is relative to the sun, not the stars, as it moves around the sun. If the axis is not perpendicular to the plane of the earth's orbit, but does not wobble around relative to that plane, it's going to point towards the sun on one side of the orbit, and point away when it gets to the other side. The stars are much further away, so the earth moving a mere 186 million miles is just a rounding error compared to the distance to the stars. For example, the nearest star is 4 light-years away. 186 million miles is 1/126422 of that distance. So roughly about how much you'd expect to see a change in perspective of something 10 miles away if you move your head 5 inches. And that's just the nearest star. It is actually measurable, though, and is how astronomers measure the distance to celestial objects.

[larsenb]

Azimuth does not mean south. Any dumb arse knows that if you go south from anywhere, you get to the south pole. Where is south on your stupid map?

I didn't say it means south. I said all south is, is the back azimuth of North. And no, we do not know we are following an azimuth to the south pole. The people of Antarctica themselves have never been to the south pole. No private party is even allowed near the south pole or to even step foot on the continent.

The "people of Antarctica"?? Are they indigenous?

Too bad Roald Amundsen or Captain Robert Falcon Scott aren't still alive to dispute your contention. Both parties made it to the south pole and presented evidence that they had done so. Unfortunately, Scott's party didn't make it back alive, but the evidence they gathered for having met their goal was recovered. They were greatly disappointed to discover that Amundsen had beaten them by a few weeks.

[larsenb]

. . . . . The change in tilt is relative to the sun, not the stars, as it moves around the sun. If the axis is not perpendicular to the plane of the earth's orbit, but does not wobble around relative to that plane, it's going to point towards the sun on one side of the orbit, and point away when it gets to the other side.

Right. The earth's tilt is relative to the ecliptic plane (plane of the earth's orbit around the son). And it is relatively stable at 23 deg.

[BroJones]

Allison: "Steve, duh. And Shawn is right, all y’all are assuming the flat earth is a frisbee in the solar system/heliocentric model, with stars a bazillion miles away. "

NO!!! I made absolutely NO such assumption!! what a crock!
The plate has to be SOME distance from the bulb, such that it CAN be seen from the plate, that is the observation of the North Star from earth.

AND the constraint on the model (whatever you flat-earth model is, still wanting details!) is that folks in the Southern Hemisphere CANNOT see the same North Star - no matter how far you put it from the plate.

Another constraint is that folks in the Southern Hemisphere CAN see the South Polar star (much dimmer than Polaris in the North and in a different constellation, but still visible). while at the same time, folks in the Northern Hemisphere CANNOT see the South Polar star!

Whatever the distance to the flat earth from the North Polar Star AND from the South Polar Star, I do not specify a distance for you!!! Absolutely not!!

Ball is in your court to explain these observations - so easy to explain with the globe model!

[BroJones]

. . . . . The change in tilt is relative to the sun, not the stars, as it moves around the sun. If the axis is not perpendicular to the plane of the earth's orbit, but does not wobble around relative to that plane, it's going to point towards the sun on one side of the orbit, and point away when it gets to the other side.

Right. The earth's tilt is relative to the ecliptic plane (plane of the earth's orbit around the son). And it is relatively stable at 23 deg.

Right. And thus the change of Seasons (winter -spring-summer-fall) attest to the earth moving in orbit around the sun at a tilt of 23 degrees.
Indeed, how does one explain the change of seasons in a flat-earth model? Where is the 23-degree tilt in such a model?

[Subcomandante]

Then how could people on the outer part of the disk see a different rotation point?"

But how to explain with a flat-earth model? I don't see, I've never seen, an explanation for these observed, indisputable facts by flat-earthers.
(Start with the two numbered observations I listed above. Thanks.)

By different rotation point, you mean an entirely different set of stars without a center rotational point, right?

BroJones was actually quoting my question, so I can explain what I meant: There are clearly 2 (and only 2) different points in the sky, depending where you are on the earth, around which you see all the other stars rotating. We in the inner part of the disk see them rotating counter-clockwise around Polaris. People on the outer half of the disk see them rotating clockwise around Sigma Octantis. People both in Argentina and Australia, on opposite sides of the disk see Sigma Octantis when they look directly south (ie, along the shortest line to the edge of the dome)--in other words, almost in completely opposite directions on a disk.

Let's be generous and say the flat-earth map isn't entirely accurate, and Argentina and Australia aren't at exactly opposite sides. How could they possibly see the Sigma Octantis rotation point in the sky while both are looking directly towards the rim of the disk? And the explanation would also have to take into account the same thing for South Africa--and everywhere else on the outer rim.

How could they not see Polaris if the earth is flat? I am able to see both the southern sky, up to about 20 degrees of Sigma Octantis, and all the northern sky. That question was never addressed.

The more the flat earthers try to explain themselves, the more ridiculous the theory is.

The so called assumptions in the heliocentric model are not assumptions, they are real calculations that have been taken after observation.

[Subcomandante]

Yes, it works - but you have to individually think it through.
So here's a simple experiment you can do at home, to see the "globe" versus "flat" viewpoints.

You need, a round ball (baseball, basketball etc) , a plate, and a glowing bulb for the sun.

1 - North Star is simulated by holding the bulb above the ball in a darkened room. Up we'll call north, so this is the "North Pole star" Polaris. As you hold the light above the ball, you will see that only the upper part (N hemisphere) is illuminated - correct? Do you see this? Thus, folks in the southern hemisphere cannot see the North Star. This effect is clearly due to curvature of the ball.

2 - Now set the plate on the floor and again hold the bulb above it. We see that the ENTIRE top of the plate is illuminated, right? Do you see this?

We will go from there, but it is important that one can observe for oneself and "own" the observation.

Hold that light above the plate, then make that plate 10 miles wide and walk 5 away to the outer edge. Do you think you'll see your light 5 miles away.

Or place the sun 100 miles high on the earth and make the distance of the earth 25,000 miles wide. Then give that light from the sun a range of about 12,000 miles.

Both those assumptions are LAUGHABLY disproven.

If the sun were 100 miles up with the distances that we have, on a flat earth, basic trigonometry would render the flat earth ABSOLUTELY USELESS!!!

On May 21st, the Sun is at a Zenith position above us near Puebla, Mexico. Meaning, directly overhead. Salt Lake City is 1702 miles to Puebla in a direct line.

The arcsin of 100/1700 (for rounding purposes) comes to 0.058 or about 3 and a half degrees. Meaning that the sun would only be THREE degrees above the horizon when it is at the zenith position in Puebla or at Puebla's latitude. It is not. The sun is only about 22 degrees off zenith or SIXTY-EIGHT degrees above the horizon. Even in the middle of winter, when you don't receive near as much sunlight, the sun would be at 26 degrees above the horizon, still MUCH higher than 3 degrees.

Just by this ONE measurement, the FLAT EARTH theory is completely and utterly DISPROVEN!!!

[Subcomandante]

Someone also mentioned that people aren't allowed to even visit Antarctica much less go to the South Pole...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaezIhiB4QM

This is a Chilean town that is in Antarctica. Many people are soldiers and family of soldiers but there are people that have their specializations, including a bank manager that heads the only bank in Antarctica.

Video is in Spanish.

[Durzan]

Yeah, the nonsense about nobody being aloud in Antarctica is kinda BS, as there are cruises you can go on to reach the peninsula in western Antarctica. If you want to further in however, you need to join an Antarctic expedition, which is open to all, but requires a lot of time and preparation to do, and I’d imagine would cost a fair chunk of change as well.

Also, watch the Anime “A Place Further Than The Universe” to get a rough idea what it takes to actually travel there and go further inland. Also touched on some skills needed and some of the dangers there too.

[BeNotDeceived]

Yeah, the nonsense about nobody being aloud in Antarctica is kinda BS, as there are cruises you can go on to reach the peninsula in western Antarctica. If you want to further in however, you need to join an Antarctic expedition, which is open to all, but requires a lot of time and preparation to do, and I’d imagine would cost a fair chunk of change as well.

Also, watch the Anime “A Place Further Than The Universe” to get a rough idea what it takes to actually travel there and go further inland. Also touched on some skills needed and some of the dangers there too.

As a kid, I enjoyed reading about the race to the poles.

It only counts, if you survive the trip back too.

[h_p]

In my internet spelunking last night about this, I found the same things about being able to go to the south pole. Here's videos from people who chartered flights to the south pole and stayed there for a few days:
Geographic South Pole!
ANTARCTICA!! The South Pole, Emperorer Penguins, Ice Caves!! TRAVEL VLOG

Obviously very limited access. Sounds like it costs about $50k US for that trip.

And then these excellent time-lapse videos of the sun in Antarctica circling the sky (note it's moving in the opposite direction from what people see up north):
Frozen South: Antarctica 24 hour Sun 4K
Antarctica 24 hour Sun

And this one's a must-watch. It's right at the geographic south pole, so the sun doesn't even wobble in the sky, it just traces a flat arc around and around. You can see the big building from the first video in the distance, which is near the ceremonial south pole:
What does the Sun do at the South Pole? A 5 day time-lapse - 8th to 13th March 2017

Here's similar from the north pole for comparison: Midnight Sun in the Arctic (Time-Lapse)

It's too bad the only time you could see the south pole stars is in the winter. I'm sure the weather is an absolute beast, so it's probably next to impossible to get one of those rotating star videos with the camera pointed straight up.

And for what it's worth, since I'm sure none of this is going to change anyone's minds, here's the simulated sky at night from Rio de Janiero Brazil--so south of the equator--looking north. Notice that the stars are rotating around a point BELOW the horizon. https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/n ... de-janeiro Anyone from Brazil could attest to the accuracy by a trivial direct observation with the naked eye. So any claims of it being inaccurate or fake have to be immediately dismissed. No matter how far away you could get on a flat earth from Polaris, I don't care how far, this would be absolutely 100% impossible. The best you could do is see an apparent rotation centered AT the vanishing point, which is literally on the horizon.

The people who dreamed up a flat earth and enshrined it in scripture obviously never went south of the equator. All the explanations for astral phenomena only mostly work in the northern hemisphere. South of that, the distortions and contortions you have to go through to maintain the paradigm just become too great. How can the sun and the stars rotate around two different points on the earth, and in opposite directions? I can't think of a single explanation other than a round earth. No conspiracy big enough can contain all of this.

[Pazooka]

. . . . . The change in tilt is relative to the sun, not the stars, as it moves around the sun. If the axis is not perpendicular to the plane of the earth's orbit, but does not wobble around relative to that plane, it's going to point towards the sun on one side of the orbit, and point away when it gets to the other side.

Right. The earth's tilt is relative to the ecliptic plane (plane of the earth's orbit around the son). And it is relatively stable at 23 deg.

Right. And thus the change of Seasons (winter -spring-summer-fall) attest to the earth moving in orbit around the sun at a tilt of 23 degrees.
Indeed, how does one explain the change of seasons in a flat-earth model? Where is the 23-degree tilt in such a model?

Like this:

[ransomme]

Yes, it works - but you have to individually think it through.
So here's a simple experiment you can do at home, to see the "globe" versus "flat" viewpoints.

You need, a round ball (baseball, basketball etc) , a plate, and a glowing bulb for the sun.

1 - North Star is simulated by holding the bulb above the ball in a darkened room. Up we'll call north, so this is the "North Pole star" Polaris. As you hold the light above the ball, you will see that only the upper part (N hemisphere) is illuminated - correct? Do you see this? Thus, folks in the southern hemisphere cannot see the North Star. This effect is clearly due to curvature of the ball.

2 - Now set the plate on the floor and again hold the bulb above it. We see that the ENTIRE top of the plate is illuminated, right? Do you see this?

We will go from there, but it is important that one can observe for oneself and "own" the observation.

Hold that light above the plate, then make that plate 10 miles wide and walk 5 away to the outer edge. Do you think you'll see your light 5 miles away.

Or place the sun 100 miles high on the earth and make the distance of the earth 25,000 miles wide. Then give that light from the sun a range of about 12,000 miles.

But then how does everyone in the outer reaches of the plate/flat earth see the same "southern hemisphere" sky?

How could they possibly navigate by the southern cross?

Because of the increasing circumference the further out one is on a flat earth the sky would have move faster and faster in order to make one rotation in the same 24 hours.

The way the sun, the moon and the stars observably move could not happen on a flat earth.

Flat earth theory falls flat

[Pazooka]

Yes, it works - but you have to individually think it through.
So here's a simple experiment you can do at home, to see the "globe" versus "flat" viewpoints.

You need, a round ball (baseball, basketball etc) , a plate, and a glowing bulb for the sun.

1 - North Star is simulated by holding the bulb above the ball in a darkened room. Up we'll call north, so this is the "North Pole star" Polaris. As you hold the light above the ball, you will see that only the upper part (N hemisphere) is illuminated - correct? Do you see this? Thus, folks in the southern hemisphere cannot see the North Star. This effect is clearly due to curvature of the ball.

2 - Now set the plate on the floor and again hold the bulb above it. We see that the ENTIRE top of the plate is illuminated, right? Do you see this?

We will go from there, but it is important that one can observe for oneself and "own" the observation.

Hold that light above the plate, then make that plate 10 miles wide and walk 5 away to the outer edge. Do you think you'll see your light 5 miles away.

Or place the sun 100 miles high on the earth and make the distance of the earth 25,000 miles wide. Then give that light from the sun a range of about 12,000 miles.

But then how does everyone in the outer reaches of the plate/flat earth see the same "southern hemisphere" sky?

How could they possibly navigate by the southern cross?

Because of the increasing circumference the further out one is on a flat earth the sky would have move faster and faster in order to make one rotation in the same 24 hours.

The way the sun, the moon and the stars observably move could not happen on a flat earth.

Flat earth theory falls flat

And yet you have no trouble believing that a ball earth is spinning how fast?

A six minute visual on how the southern stars work:

[NeveR]

[

Ok, so the flat earth model requires there to be several "domes" of stars that cover the northern hemisphere? while in the Southern Hemisphere (which has no dome?) you can see the "actual stars" that are high above the earth?

Is this what the vid is claiming?

[Pazooka]

[

Ok, so the flat earth model requires there to be several "domes" of stars that cover the northern hemisphere? while in the Southern Hemisphere (which has no dome?) you can see the "actual stars" that are high above the earth?

Is this what the vid is claiming?

No. The smaller dome centered on the person illustrates what that person sees according to the Law of Perspective.

[Fred]

Why does the water swirl the opposite way south of the equator when you flush the sink or toilet?

Does the imaginary dome have an anti swirl device?

[h_p]

Perspective would dictate that objects shrink toward the horizon the further away you get from it. The constellations don't get smaller the further away you are from the center. They're the same size in the sky at the equator as they are in Canada. The northern constellations do drop toward the horizon, until you reach the equator, and then continue dropping until they're below it. What that video is describing is the sky literally warping around you as you move toward the edge, like you've got a giant lens bubble over your head.

[Pazooka]

Why does the water swirl the opposite way south of the equator when you flush the sink or toilet?

Does the imaginary dome have an anti swirl device?

Has to do with the shape of the receptacle

[Pazooka]

Perspective would dictate that objects shrink toward the horizon the further away you get from it. The constellations don't get smaller the further away you are from the center. They're the same size in the sky at the equator as they are in Canada. The northern constellations do drop toward the horizon, until you reach the equator, and then continue dropping until they're below it. What that video is describing is the sky literally warping around you as you move toward the edge, like you've got a giant lens bubble over your head.

Have you checked?

Ideally, you’d want to observe this is a dry climate since humidity will cause celestial objects to look larger than normal near the horizon - case in point: sunsets in the desert vs sunsets at the beach.

[Allison]

Allison: "Steve, duh. And Shawn is right, all y’all are assuming the flat earth is a frisbee in the solar system/heliocentric model, with stars a bazillion miles away. "

NO!!! I made absolutely NO such assumption!! what a crock!
The plate has to be SOME distance from the bulb, such that it CAN be seen from the plate, that is the observation of the North Star from earth.

AND the constraint on the model (whatever you flat-earth model is, still wanting details!) is that folks in the Southern Hemisphere CANNOT see the same North Star - no matter how far you put it from the plate.

Another constraint is that folks in the Southern Hemisphere CAN see the South Polar star (much dimmer than Polaris in the North and in a different constellation, but still visible). while at the same time, folks in the Northern Hemisphere CANNOT see the South Polar star!

Whatever the distance to the flat earth from the North Polar Star AND from the South Polar Star, I do not specify a distance for you!!! Absolutely not!!

Ball is in your court to explain these observations - so easy to explain with the globe model!

Crock, my foot. You design my model for me with a plate and a lightbulb, and ask me to observe that the lightbulb illuminates the whole plate. You even insult my intelligence by telling me to actually do those things.

And you never replied to Shawn who clarified that the plate for your experiment should be 10 miles wide, and the light not so very high and bright that it would illuminate the entire surface at once.

But you put no constraints on setting up the childish experiment, don’t say you did. How could you even compare a very large (perhaps 25K miles wide) plane to a dinner plate with a light bulb? Easy—by imposing your model’s assumptions on us.