Flat Earth

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Allison »

anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 6:08 pm Very interesting verse I recently read in the Book of Mormon,

1 Nephi 12:4

4 And it came to pass that I saw a a mist of b darkness on the face of the land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were c broken up; and I saw many cities that they were d sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof.

The part that really caught my attention is where it mentions that many cities were sunk. The video that I recently posted also mentioned cities that were sunk. Interesting to say the least.

Can you post it again? Not sure I saw the one you are talking about.

anonymous91
captain of 100
Posts: 649

Re: Flat Earth

Post by anonymous91 »

Allison wrote: December 13th, 2022, 7:35 pm
anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 6:08 pm Very interesting verse I recently read in the Book of Mormon,

1 Nephi 12:4

4 And it came to pass that I saw a a mist of b darkness on the face of the land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were c broken up; and I saw many cities that they were d sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof.

The part that really caught my attention is where it mentions that many cities were sunk. The video that I recently posted also mentioned cities that were sunk. Interesting to say the least.

Can you post it again? Not sure I saw the one you are talking about.
Sure, It's a very long video though, I'd suggest watching it at 1.5 - 2 speed to get through it faster.

Here's the video:

anonymous91
captain of 100
Posts: 649

Re: Flat Earth

Post by anonymous91 »

anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 8:12 pm
Allison wrote: December 13th, 2022, 7:35 pm
anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 6:08 pm Very interesting verse I recently read in the Book of Mormon,

1 Nephi 12:4

4 And it came to pass that I saw a a mist of b darkness on the face of the land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were c broken up; and I saw many cities that they were d sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof.

The part that really caught my attention is where it mentions that many cities were sunk. The video that I recently posted also mentioned cities that were sunk. Interesting to say the least.

Can you post it again? Not sure I saw the one you are talking about.
Sure, It's a very long video though, I'd suggest watching it at 1.5 - 2 speed to get through it faster. It talks more about the lost history of the earth for the most part, not so much about the flat earth. There are some misunderstandings by the author of the video, but there is a lot of very interesting info. in the video. I was especially fascinated with the moon map it talks about later on in the video.

Here's the video:

User avatar
NeveR
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1252

Re: Flat Earth

Post by NeveR »

anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 8:12 pm
Allison wrote: December 13th, 2022, 7:35 pm
anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 6:08 pm Very interesting verse I recently read in the Book of Mormon,

1 Nephi 12:4

4 And it came to pass that I saw a a mist of b darkness on the face of the land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were c broken up; and I saw many cities that they were d sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof.

The part that really caught my attention is where it mentions that many cities were sunk. The video that I recently posted also mentioned cities that were sunk. Interesting to say the least.

Can you post it again? Not sure I saw the one you are talking about.
Sure, It's a very long video though, I'd suggest watching it at 1.5 - 2 speed to get through it faster.

Here's the video:
I don't want to be rude but this video looks designed to discredit and ridicule by association.

The guy's voice is so textbook "uneducated conspiracy theorist", and he starts out by conflating flat earth hypothesis (lacking any coherent model apparently) with legit questions about the age of human civilization.

I am wondering what other reasonable lines of inquiry he also introduces in order to associate them in the public mind with flat earth non-science. But I'm not watching five hours of this guy's Essex man nasal drone in order to find out!

Are there no better vids than this? If not that tells us something right there.

User avatar
gradles21
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1325
Location: Weimar

Re: Flat Earth

Post by gradles21 »

anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 8:12 pm
Allison wrote: December 13th, 2022, 7:35 pm
anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 6:08 pm Very interesting verse I recently read in the Book of Mormon,

1 Nephi 12:4

4 And it came to pass that I saw a a mist of b darkness on the face of the land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were c broken up; and I saw many cities that they were d sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof.

The part that really caught my attention is where it mentions that many cities were sunk. The video that I recently posted also mentioned cities that were sunk. Interesting to say the least.

Can you post it again? Not sure I saw the one you are talking about.
Sure, It's a very long video though, I'd suggest watching it at 1.5 - 2 speed to get through it faster.

Here's the video:
Just as a fyi, Aewar recently walked back a lot of the tartarian/lost history stuff that he talks about in this video.

anonymous91
captain of 100
Posts: 649

Re: Flat Earth

Post by anonymous91 »

NeveR wrote: December 13th, 2022, 8:32 pm
anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 8:12 pm
Allison wrote: December 13th, 2022, 7:35 pm
anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 6:08 pm Very interesting verse I recently read in the Book of Mormon,

1 Nephi 12:4

4 And it came to pass that I saw a a mist of b darkness on the face of the land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were c broken up; and I saw many cities that they were d sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof.

The part that really caught my attention is where it mentions that many cities were sunk. The video that I recently posted also mentioned cities that were sunk. Interesting to say the least.

Can you post it again? Not sure I saw the one you are talking about.
Sure, It's a very long video though, I'd suggest watching it at 1.5 - 2 speed to get through it faster.

Here's the video:
I don't want to be rude but this video looks designed to discredit and ridicule by association.

The guy's voice is so textbook "uneducated conspiracy theorist", and he starts out by conflating flat earth hypothesis (lacking any coherent model apparently) with legit questions about the age of human civilization.

I am wondering what other reasonable lines of inquiry he also introduces in order to associate them in the public mind with flat earth non-science. But I'm not watching five hours of this guy's Essex man nasal drone in order to find out!

Are there no better vids than this? If not that tells us something right there.
There are definitely things I didn't agree with in the video either. I did watch the entire video at double speed (I work on some boring menial tasks, and listening to videos helps to pass the time). If the author of the video is spreading misinformation intentionally or unintentionally would be the question. Sometimes, people spread misinformation because they aren't aware that is what they are doing, and others do it intentionally, it is not for me to say.

I'm not sure if there are other videos that cover this, I find it interesting enough to listen to occasionally. It is an interesting subject, but not one that I take a position on one way or another.

I've decided a while ago that I am not willing to spend the time and energy to find out the truth of the flat vs heliocentric model. To do so, I would have to spend an inordinate amount of time learning and being educated in several areas including science, math, astrology, and history at the very least. Even after all of that, I assume there is still room for various opinions.

I've just concluded I would rather spend my time pursuing other things that matter more to me than this does. Still working on being productive and not getting sucked into all of these multiple rabbit holes. My curiosity gets the better of me sometimes, and I find myself watching videos like this, lol.

Being of an analytic mind, I am always curious and things like this intrigue me. I have had the tendency to allow these curiosities to distract me, from things I ought to be doing instead. I am still learning to better use my time, and to spend less time being distracted by such things.

My best guess is that if the flat earth model is legit, the truth was buried long ago. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to think that TPTB Reverse engineered the Heliocentric Model using what they knew of the true reality of our world. I sure don't believe in the heliocentric model (it has a lot of holes in it), but so does the flat earth theory. They sure know something that they aren't telling us. Why do all maps use Cancer and Capricorn, when we are in the age of Aquarius? This would make me speculate that this was Reverse Engineered and going on for a long time. I've got more questions than answers that is for sure.

My current working theory is that they want us to believe in aliens and space for some reason. I personally think that there is a firmament over the earth and that we are being manipulated and lied to for their own reasons. When you start learning about things like Operation Fishbowl, Admiral Byrd, Hollow Earth, and other various tidbits of information it makes you wonder what is the truth? What are the lies? Why the misdirection, and what are they trying to hide? Too many questions, but ultimately ones that don't really need to be answered by me.

Some people enjoy spending their spare time learning and studying these things, and if that is what they enjoy doing that is fine with me. As I get older, I realize that taking a position on these types of things is not always wise, since it is almost impossible to prove one way or another.

Obtaining knowledge is important, but I believe learning to walk in faith is even more important. The natural tendency is to seek knowledge, but the wisest pursuit is to exercise our faith.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Niemand »

NeveR wrote: December 13th, 2022, 8:32 pm But I'm not watching five hours of this guy's Essex man nasal drone in order to find out!
I've got to admit I'm pretty prejudiced against that particular accent. Which is probably hypocritical since I've a fairly strong accent myself... a lot of people in southern England are beginning to sound like that and it occasionally gets onto TV/radio. There is a particularly ugly "multicultural" accent which is popping up which sounds like someone regurgitating their food.

I've said above that I'm sick and tired of watching five or six hour long videos with relatively little to say. I'm glad that when I was at high school, we were made to do "précis", which is where you take a long passage of text and boil it down. I wish some of these folk could "précis" their videos – get it under an hour or something... – but it needn't be Tik Tok level.
Are there no better vids than this? If not that tells us something right there.
To be fair, YouTube is rigged these days so it is hard to search. There is very little in the way of proper Scottish history documentaries I'm afraid... if you search you usually get this tour guide (I forget his name, but he's biracial as I think the pc term is now – that probably boosts his credit points), who is pretty good in his own way but a) he shouldn't be the only show in town and b) he has his own style. Most of the ones you can get out there are so basic, it's embarrassing.

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13997

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Niemand »

anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 9:13 pm My current working theory is that they want us to believe in aliens and space for some reason.
Project Bluebeam according to some people. I'm sure you're probably aware of it already.
When you start learning about things like Operation Fishbowl, Admiral Byrd, Hollow Earth, and other various tidbits of information it makes you wonder what is the truth? What are the lies? Why the misdirection, and what are they trying to hide? Too many questions, but ultimately ones that don't really need to be answered by me.
Here's the thing, we barely learn anything with this. You mention Admiral Byrd there. Now I've seen that story repeated over and over in various books, websites etc. It's not very detailed, it's always the same description, which would fit within this entire thread quite easily, with dubious sources and possibly some friend-of-a-friend type detail. It's a great folktale from oral accounts and no real further detail forthcoming.

It's like those hack WW2 documentaries which show the same footage of Hitler over and over. Often from "Triumph of the Will".

The short version is that he flew over the pole and saw a warm new land with mammoths etc in it.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Allison »

anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 8:12 pm
Allison wrote: December 13th, 2022, 7:35 pm
anonymous91 wrote: December 13th, 2022, 6:08 pm Very interesting verse I recently read in the Book of Mormon,

1 Nephi 12:4

4 And it came to pass that I saw a a mist of b darkness on the face of the land of promise; and I saw lightnings, and I heard thunderings, and earthquakes, and all manner of tumultuous noises; and I saw the earth and the rocks, that they rent; and I saw mountains tumbling into pieces; and I saw the plains of the earth, that they were c broken up; and I saw many cities that they were d sunk; and I saw many that they were burned with fire; and I saw many that did tumble to the earth, because of the quaking thereof.

The part that really caught my attention is where it mentions that many cities were sunk. The video that I recently posted also mentioned cities that were sunk. Interesting to say the least.

Can you post it again? Not sure I saw the one you are talking about.
Sure, It's a very long video though, I'd suggest watching it at 1.5 - 2 speed to get through it faster.

Here's the video:
Thanks for posting it again. For some of reasons, I cannot get it to play. The screen just stays black and there is no audio. Would have liked to hear it after all of the fuss.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Allison »


jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Flat Earth

Post by jdt »

Shawn Henry wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 12:06 pm
jdt wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 8:45 am - What is the radius of the flat earth?
- What is the distance of the sun from the earth (closest point)?
I wish I knew. First off, how do you presume a radius when we don't even know the shape. I don't mean shape as in flat. I mean shape as in a flat disk, a flat rectangle, a flat triangle, a flat plane. If none of us has any data about where the edges are or even if there even are any, how would we answer that. The perimeter of Antarctica is locked down militarily, no one explores beyond except the government.

As far as the height of the sun in the sky, other than basic triangulation, I don't know, 50-100 miles is my worthless guess.
Hi Shawn, sorry I have been out for so long. I asked the radius part to get some rough estimates, to do some basic triangulation calculations at the extremes. Something that creates a model that could actually be tested in some fashion. With 50-100 miles as the height, it is actually shorter distances that matter. And you can probably do a pretty gross (meaning inaccurate) test to verify at a gross level if your height makes sense. All you need is a friend that is about 50-100 miles away on the phone. Both of you can go outside around noon and both estimate the angle of the sun in the sky. Sadly, this works better in the summer in the northern hemisphere because the sun is more overhead. But the math works out like this. If the sun is roughly overhead for person A at midday, person B that is 50 miles away on a flat surface at the same time looking at the same sun 50 miles away would see it about 45 degrees in sky (somewhere half-way from horizon to directly overhead). Again this is pretty gross, we would be looking for the differences between a human estimating 45 degrees vs say 80 degrees, not 80 vs 82. Please do the test, I can tell you it will not be anywhere near 45 degrees in the sky.

So of course you back off and say "hey that was just a guess". Well why can't you do some simple searches to find out what it is actually is? It is better if you answer this question, but I will claim it is because they can't. Once someone puts a number down to paper it becomes verifiable and testable through triangulation. Yes, you can always cherry pick and back-calculate values that match at one given moment in time for 2 points. But one you add a third point, or different times, the whole things comes crashing down. Rather than be confronted with that, everything is instead couched in unquantifiable terms like "the sun is close". No one can do tests against "close". In counter point, the round earth people have incredibly detailed models, covering things like equatorial bulge, the elliptical orbit of the sun, and so on to make pretty complicated calculations (way more precise than 45 vs 80 degrees). If you ask me to calculate using a spherical earth model, the shadow cast by an object (both height of the shadow and the angle off of north), by giving me the height of the object, the date and time, and the location, I can give you one. And then you could test it pretty easily. Can you do the same for me using a flat earth model? Even if you can't personally (which is fine), is there anyone out there who could? And if not (which they can't), does the fact that they can't bother you at all?

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: Flat Earth

Post by h_p »

The position of the sun in the sky at any given moment in time is well-known and very predictable, so this kind of experiment should not be controversial. Anybody who doubts these numbers are welcome to measure themselves and discredit. You can use the NOAA's solar calculator to find the exact angle in the sky from anywhere in the world, and figure it all out yourself with a little geometry and trig.

I did two tests, using right triangles with a point on the equator, the sun, and another point north of the equator to create the triangle. The solar calculator tells me the angles, and I can find the distance between the two landmarks, and, assuming the earth is flat, I can use this formula to calculate the height of the sun above the equator: tangent(Sun Elevation) = Height of Sun / Land Distance

September 23, 2022 is the fall equinox, so the sun is directly overhead at the equator. My two points are 0N -100W at the equator, and 45N -100W (South Dakota). The calculator gives me these angles at 1:32:18 South Dakota time:

Date-Time: Sep 23 2022 1:32:18 PM
Distance between 0N -100W and 45N -100W: 3097 miles

0N -100.00 W (equator)
azimuth: 180
elevation: 89.72

45.00N -100.00W (South Dakota)
azimuth: 180
elevation: 44.73

tan(44.73) = Height / 3097
Sun height above the equator = 3068 miles

Midway between is 22.5N -100W, in Mexico, 1546.84 miles north of the equator.
22.5N -100.00W (Mexico)
azimuth: 180
elevation: 67.22
tan(67.22) = Height / 1546.84
Sun height above the equator = 3683 miles

If the sun were only 100 miles above the earth and directly above the equator, the angle of the sun in the sky from South Dakota at 1:32PM would be a mere 1.8 degrees. That's barely above the horizon. It would look like dusk.

User avatar
Subcomandante
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Subcomandante »

jdt wrote: December 15th, 2022, 8:22 am
Shawn Henry wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 12:06 pm
jdt wrote: December 2nd, 2022, 8:45 am - What is the radius of the flat earth?
- What is the distance of the sun from the earth (closest point)?
I wish I knew. First off, how do you presume a radius when we don't even know the shape. I don't mean shape as in flat. I mean shape as in a flat disk, a flat rectangle, a flat triangle, a flat plane. If none of us has any data about where the edges are or even if there even are any, how would we answer that. The perimeter of Antarctica is locked down militarily, no one explores beyond except the government.

As far as the height of the sun in the sky, other than basic triangulation, I don't know, 50-100 miles is my worthless guess.
Hi Shawn, sorry I have been out for so long. I asked the radius part to get some rough estimates, to do some basic triangulation calculations at the extremes. Something that creates a model that could actually be tested in some fashion. With 50-100 miles as the height, it is actually shorter distances that matter. And you can probably do a pretty gross (meaning inaccurate) test to verify at a gross level if your height makes sense. All you need is a friend that is about 50-100 miles away on the phone. Both of you can go outside around noon and both estimate the angle of the sun in the sky. Sadly, this works better in the summer in the northern hemisphere because the sun is more overhead. But the math works out like this. If the sun is roughly overhead for person A at midday, person B that is 50 miles away on a flat surface at the same time looking at the same sun 50 miles away would see it about 45 degrees in sky (somewhere half-way from horizon to directly overhead). Again this is pretty gross, we would be looking for the differences between a human estimating 45 degrees vs say 80 degrees, not 80 vs 82. Please do the test, I can tell you it will not be anywhere near 45 degrees in the sky.

So of course you back off and say "hey that was just a guess". Well why can't you do some simple searches to find out what it is actually is? It is better if you answer this question, but I will claim it is because they can't. Once someone puts a number down to paper it becomes verifiable and testable through triangulation. Yes, you can always cherry pick and back-calculate values that match at one given moment in time for 2 points. But one you add a third point, or different times, the whole things comes crashing down. Rather than be confronted with that, everything is instead couched in unquantifiable terms like "the sun is close". No one can do tests against "close". In counter point, the round earth people have incredibly detailed models, covering things like equatorial bulge, the elliptical orbit of the sun, and so on to make pretty complicated calculations (way more precise than 45 vs 80 degrees). If you ask me to calculate using a spherical earth model, the shadow cast by an object (both height of the shadow and the angle off of north), by giving me the height of the object, the date and time, and the location, I can give you one. And then you could test it pretty easily. Can you do the same for me using a flat earth model? Even if you can't personally (which is fine), is there anyone out there who could? And if not (which they can't), does the fact that they can't bother you at all?
To be honest I have done that test.

The sun on May 21st is at the zenith position where I live. I mean, DIRECTLY overhead.

At solar noon in Salt Lake City, that same sun is located 22 degrees off zenith. In other words 68 degrees.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Flat Earth

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Fred wrote: December 12th, 2022, 6:55 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: December 12th, 2022, 4:44 pm
Niemand wrote: December 12th, 2022, 3:03 am We have seen the following claims:
* The Earth is rushing upwards which creates the gravitational effect.
You should be banned from all social media for making such an ignorant strawman.
Oh, please.
Democrats believe in dismembering children while still alive, and you haven't called for them to be banned from social media.
Append the first letter of Nazi to the first four letters of said political persuasion.

And what do you get? :lol:

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Allison »

h_p wrote: December 15th, 2022, 2:08 pm The position of the sun in the sky at any given moment in time is well-known and very predictable, so this kind of experiment should not be controversial. Anybody who doubts these numbers are welcome to measure themselves and discredit. You can use the NOAA's solar calculator to find the exact angle in the sky from anywhere in the world, and figure it all out yourself with a little geometry and trig.

I did two tests, using right triangles with a point on the equator, the sun, and another point north of the equator to create the triangle. The solar calculator tells me the angles, and I can find the distance between the two landmarks, and, assuming the earth is flat, I can use this formula to calculate the height of the sun above the equator: tangent(Sun Elevation) = Height of Sun / Land Distance

September 23, 2022 is the fall equinox, so the sun is directly overhead at the equator. My two points are 0N -100W at the equator, and 45N -100W (South Dakota). The calculator gives me these angles at 1:32:18 South Dakota time:

Date-Time: Sep 23 2022 1:32:18 PM
Distance between 0N -100W and 45N -100W: 3097 miles

0N -100.00 W (equator)
azimuth: 180
elevation: 89.72

45.00N -100.00W (South Dakota)
azimuth: 180
elevation: 44.73

tan(44.73) = Height / 3097
Sun height above the equator = 3068 miles

Midway between is 22.5N -100W, in Mexico, 1546.84 miles north of the equator.
22.5N -100.00W (Mexico)
azimuth: 180
elevation: 67.22
tan(67.22) = Height / 1546.84
Sun height above the equator = 3683 miles

If the sun were only 100 miles above the earth and directly above the equator, the angle of the sun in the sky from South Dakota at 1:32PM would be a mere 1.8 degrees. That's barely above the horizon. It would look like dusk.
If it were 3000 miles high? That’s still not a very high dome if the plane were, say, 25K miles wide. 3K miles has been speculated before, fwiw.

User avatar
BeNotDeceived
Agent38
Posts: 8960
Location: Tralfamadore
Contact:

Re: Flat Earth

Post by BeNotDeceived »

Allison wrote: December 15th, 2022, 10:52 pm
If it were 3000 miles high? That’s still not a very high dome if the plane were, say, 25K miles wide. 3K miles has been speculated before, fwiw.
A plane begins descending with a slant range of 545 NMI and a lateral range of 544 NMI.

Who owns the plane?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

jdt wrote: December 15th, 2022, 8:22 am
Hi Shawn, sorry I have been out for so long. I asked the radius part to get some rough estimates, to do some basic triangulation calculations at the extremes. Something that creates a model that could actually be tested in some fashion. With 50-100 miles as the height, it is actually shorter distances that matter. And you can probably do a pretty gross (meaning inaccurate) test to verify at a gross level if your height makes sense. All you need is a friend that is about 50-100 miles away on the phone. Both of you can go outside around noon and both estimate the angle of the sun in the sky. Sadly, this works better in the summer in the northern hemisphere because the sun is more overhead. But the math works out like this. If the sun is roughly overhead for person A at midday, person B that is 50 miles away on a flat surface at the same time looking at the same sun 50 miles away would see it about 45 degrees in sky (somewhere half-way from horizon to directly overhead). Again this is pretty gross, we would be looking for the differences between a human estimating 45 degrees vs say 80 degrees, not 80 vs 82. Please do the test, I can tell you it will not be anywhere near 45 degrees in the sky.

So of course you back off and say "hey that was just a guess". Well why can't you do some simple searches to find out what it is actually is? It is better if you answer this question, but I will claim it is because they can't. Once someone puts a number down to paper it becomes verifiable and testable through triangulation. Yes, you can always cherry pick and back-calculate values that match at one given moment in time for 2 points. But one you add a third point, or different times, the whole things comes crashing down. Rather than be confronted with that, everything is instead couched in unquantifiable terms like "the sun is close". No one can do tests against "close". In counter point, the round earth people have incredibly detailed models, covering things like equatorial bulge, the elliptical orbit of the sun, and so on to make pretty complicated calculations (way more precise than 45 vs 80 degrees). If you ask me to calculate using a spherical earth model, the shadow cast by an object (both height of the shadow and the angle off of north), by giving me the height of the object, the date and time, and the location, I can give you one. And then you could test it pretty easily. Can you do the same for me using a flat earth model? Even if you can't personally (which is fine), is there anyone out there who could? And if not (which they can't), does the fact that they can't bother you at all?
The point is, there are numbers that you could be given that work out. Many top physicists have already stated that a geocentric earth is indistinguishable observationally from a heliocentric universe, meaning the numbers can work for both. It seems like you are arguing against your side here.

I personally don't even think any numbers are that accurate, because none measure the humidity across their field of view. If you can't tell me how water in the atmosphere you are looking through, how can you tell me by how many degrees your measurements are off by? Would you have even thought to consider that an overhead view of the sun has a fraction of the water in the atmosphere as a sun on a plane that is, say, 8000 miles away at 100 miles in height? You would have to add 10's of thousands of gallons of water to your view and be proficient at knowing what whether conditions change your angle of view and which way do they change it. I know you can't do this, first you never even thought to do this, and secondly, what if the majority of water is in the first half of the distance as opposed to the latter half.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Flat Earth

Post by jdt »

Shawn Henry wrote: December 16th, 2022, 7:55 am
jdt wrote: December 15th, 2022, 8:22 am
Hi Shawn, sorry I have been out for so long. I asked the radius part to get some rough estimates, to do some basic triangulation calculations at the extremes. Something that creates a model that could actually be tested in some fashion. With 50-100 miles as the height, it is actually shorter distances that matter. And you can probably do a pretty gross (meaning inaccurate) test to verify at a gross level if your height makes sense. All you need is a friend that is about 50-100 miles away on the phone. Both of you can go outside around noon and both estimate the angle of the sun in the sky. Sadly, this works better in the summer in the northern hemisphere because the sun is more overhead. But the math works out like this. If the sun is roughly overhead for person A at midday, person B that is 50 miles away on a flat surface at the same time looking at the same sun 50 miles away would see it about 45 degrees in sky (somewhere half-way from horizon to directly overhead). Again this is pretty gross, we would be looking for the differences between a human estimating 45 degrees vs say 80 degrees, not 80 vs 82. Please do the test, I can tell you it will not be anywhere near 45 degrees in the sky.

So of course you back off and say "hey that was just a guess". Well why can't you do some simple searches to find out what it is actually is? It is better if you answer this question, but I will claim it is because they can't. Once someone puts a number down to paper it becomes verifiable and testable through triangulation. Yes, you can always cherry pick and back-calculate values that match at one given moment in time for 2 points. But one you add a third point, or different times, the whole things comes crashing down. Rather than be confronted with that, everything is instead couched in unquantifiable terms like "the sun is close". No one can do tests against "close". In counter point, the round earth people have incredibly detailed models, covering things like equatorial bulge, the elliptical orbit of the sun, and so on to make pretty complicated calculations (way more precise than 45 vs 80 degrees). If you ask me to calculate using a spherical earth model, the shadow cast by an object (both height of the shadow and the angle off of north), by giving me the height of the object, the date and time, and the location, I can give you one. And then you could test it pretty easily. Can you do the same for me using a flat earth model? Even if you can't personally (which is fine), is there anyone out there who could? And if not (which they can't), does the fact that they can't bother you at all?
The point is, there are numbers that you could be given that work out. Many top physicists have already stated that a geocentric earth is indistinguishable observationally from a heliocentric universe, meaning the numbers can work for both. It seems like you are arguing against your side here.

I personally don't even think any numbers are that accurate, because none measure the humidity across their field of view. If you can't tell me how water in the atmosphere you are looking through, how can you tell me by how many degrees your measurements are off by? Would you have even thought to consider that an overhead view of the sun has a fraction of the water in the atmosphere as a sun on a plane that is, say, 8000 miles away at 100 miles in height? You would have to add 10's of thousands of gallons of water to your view and be proficient at knowing what whether conditions change your angle of view and which way do they change it. I know you can't do this, first you never even thought to do this, and secondly, what if the majority of water is in the first half of the distance as opposed to the latter half.
Shawn, if the point is the numbers exist, then give me the numbers! (Not about geocentric, but about flat earth, one thing at a time)

Why should I care about the water vapor if the spherical earth model gets me within the accuracy of my measuring equipment without considering it?
It seems that the flat earth model *requires* a confounding factor like water vapor, because it has no predictive power. You need the water vapor factor as a reason why you can't test shadows, I can predict shadows accurately without needing it as a factor.

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: Flat Earth

Post by h_p »

Allison wrote: December 15th, 2022, 10:52 pm If it were 3000 miles high? That’s still not a very high dome if the plane were, say, 25K miles wide. 3K miles has been speculated before, fwiw.
The observed and expected change in angle of the sun's elevation on a flat earth increasingly diverges the further north you go. By the time you're at 90N latitude, the sun is observed at 0.23 degrees--basically at the horizon. Given the distance from 90N to 0N (6211 miles), if the sun were at 3683 miles altitude, the expected elevation should be around 30 degrees. That's a significant disparity. To get a 0.23 degree angle of the sun on a flat earth with the sun at 3683 miles altitude would require you to be more than 228 million miles away from the equator. Even a 1 degree elevation above the horizon would require you to be about 211 thousand miles away.

It's trivially explained by a curvature of the earth and a distant sun, though. If the sun's rays are coming in perpendicular at the equator, and the sun were, say, 93 million miles away, the rays hitting the top of the ball would be essentially parallel, and an observer would be seeing them coming in at the horizon.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Shawn Henry »

jdt wrote: December 16th, 2022, 8:29 am Shawn, if the point is the numbers exist, then give me the numbers! (Not about geocentric, but about flat earth, one thing at a time)

Why should I care about the water vapor if the spherical earth model gets me within the accuracy of my measuring equipment without considering it?
It seems that the flat earth model *requires* a confounding factor like water vapor, because it has no predictive power. You need the water vapor factor as a reason why you can't test shadows, I can predict shadows accurately without needing it as a factor.
There are too many things wrong with your premise. It doesn't matter if your math matches your observations. That doesn't prove your observations, it just allows for them. Watch the Greg Reese InfoWars video if you want to hear from some of them. Once your own scientific high priests admit the possibility, the math is irrelevant. Secondly, the rotation of what is above can never prove the shape of what we are standing on, either way. If you want to see it how it all works on a flat earth, just download David Weiss' app.

The Flat Earth Sun, Moon & Zodiac Clock app
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClWTBN ... GTg/videos

Not sure what you're talking about with shadows, but yes, the flat earth can tell you shadows will fall.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Allison »

h_p wrote: December 16th, 2022, 11:06 am
Allison wrote: December 15th, 2022, 10:52 pm If it were 3000 miles high? That’s still not a very high dome if the plane were, say, 25K miles wide. 3K miles has been speculated before, fwiw.
The observed and expected change in angle of the sun's elevation on a flat earth increasingly diverges the further north you go. By the time you're at 90N latitude, the sun is observed at 0.23 degrees--basically at the horizon. Given the distance from 90N to 0N (6211 miles), if the sun were at 3683 miles altitude, the expected elevation should be around 30 degrees. That's a significant disparity. To get a 0.23 degree angle of the sun on a flat earth with the sun at 3683 miles altitude would require you to be more than 228 million miles away from the equator. Even a 1 degree elevation above the horizon would require you to be about 211 thousand miles away.

It's trivially explained by a curvature of the earth and a distant sun, though. If the sun's rays are coming in perpendicular at the equator, and the sun were, say, 93 million miles away, the rays hitting the top of the ball would be essentially parallel, and an observer would be seeing them coming in at the horizon.
Is this your zinger/mic drop proof? If so, I’ll pull my husband in and have him crunch your numbers with me. He lost patience long ago with the many specious arguments that were being made on the other thread for the globe, so I have to choose carefully now. Just to clarify, this is your irrefutable proof of a globe, right?

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Allison »

Meanwhile:

User avatar
h_p
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2811

Re: Flat Earth

Post by h_p »

Allison wrote: December 19th, 2022, 9:06 pm Is this your zinger/mic drop proof? If so, I’ll pull my husband in and have him crunch your numbers with me. He lost patience long ago with the many specious arguments that were being made on the other thread for the globe, so I have to choose carefully now. Just to clarify, this is your irrefutable proof of a globe, right?
Is there such a thing?

I'm not making any claim that my evidence is irrefutable, and I am fully aware of the fact that nobody is going to change their mind against their will. I've just been trying to keep an open mind myself, explore the arguments on both sides and apply my own reasoning to what I'm finding. I haven't been able to do any direct experiments on any of this, but based on the math, science, and engineering training I have, what I've found is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for a round earth.

Other people see the exact same things and come to a completely opposite conclusion. C'est la vie

Bronco73idi
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3623

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Bronco73idi »

“This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live.”

Joseph Smith
William Clayton recorded that Joseph Smith uttered those prophetic words to a group of Saints in Nauvoo on January 5, 1841. Well, Joseph at least uttered something close to those words. Brother William McIntire, who was also there, recorded him saying it a bit differently: “Earth has been organized out of portions of other Globes that has ben Disorganized.” Whatever words he actually used to say it, what Joseph told the congregation that day was absolutely amazing and way ahead of its time. He said that our planet was formed from the parts of other, dismantled planets or globes. According to the Prophet, our earth was made out of other worlds. (1)

Now, a statement like this makes our imaginations run wild. Where in the world did that come from? What was Joseph Smith thinking? What was he trying to say? What does science today have to say on the subject? I’ll attempt to answer those questions. No, this post is not about the theory that dinosaur bones came from other planets–an erroneous theory we’ll discuss at another time. The truth packed into Joseph’s statement about other planets is so much more compelling and beautiful than that. No, this post is about how the planet Earth actually formed around 4.5 billion years ago. And it’s about a man claiming to be a prophet of God who seemed to have known how the earth actually formed, over a hundred years before scientists figured it out. Yes guys, Joseph was right on the money with this one—our earth was definitely made out of other planets.”

Jospeh Smith was not a flat earth believer……

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: Flat Earth

Post by Allison »

h_p wrote: December 20th, 2022, 2:14 pm
Allison wrote: December 19th, 2022, 9:06 pm Is this your zinger/mic drop proof? If so, I’ll pull my husband in and have him crunch your numbers with me. He lost patience long ago with the many specious arguments that were being made on the other thread for the globe, so I have to choose carefully now. Just to clarify, this is your irrefutable proof of a globe, right?
Is there such a thing?

I'm not making any claim that my evidence is irrefutable, and I am fully aware of the fact that nobody is going to change their mind against their will. I've just been trying to keep an open mind myself, explore the arguments on both sides and apply my own reasoning to what I'm finding. I haven't been able to do any direct experiments on any of this, but based on the math, science, and engineering training I have, what I've found is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence for a round earth.

Other people see the exact same things and come to a completely opposite conclusion. C'est la vie
I may be a little more open-minded than you think. If I am wrong, I don’t mind eating crow, because it has been super fun and fascinating and has shown me first hand why STEM subjects could be fun and challenging, like a set of puzzles, rather than dry and boring. But all through this journey of debating some really talented people, there have been some surprising and amazing discoveries, such as the (rather obviously) fake space narrative we’ve all been told. Also, I’ve been amazed how weak some of their arguments have been (not necessarily this one).

But to stop rambling, thank you for your honesty. In order to not unduly wear out my husband’s patience, would you be willing to just save this calculation as a possible topic to bring up again? I’ll concede that you may be right (though not necessarily), and if it comes down to it later, we can dig in and look at the pros and cons of your conclusions with my much more math-minded husband involved. Do you mind if we put it on hold for a while and look at some other aspects?

Post Reply