Jump to content

Hard to find evidence that the earth isn't flat


Recommended Posts

On 11/22/2020 at 9:21 PM, Steph said:

What causes the sun to go retro when its over australia?

I never claimed the Sun went retro. Are you referring to what @Grumpy Owlpointed out with its slight movement to the left? If so, I responded on page one. I explained how this is exactly is what is expected and predicted by the basic FE model as the vast majority of Australia is below 23.4 south latitude and is clearly not possible in spinning ball world.

 

@Eldnahare you still ignoring multiple examples of r being falsified? If so, why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

By 'scientific minded', I meand natural philosophers who look at nature and observe it for the love of the wisdom it provides.   You have mistaken my words to mean 'scientifically minded' in

The only thing I could see that looked 'odd' to me was that the sun appears to be setting in the 'wrong direction'.   From my perspective, here in the northern hemisphere (UK), the sun rises

I knew someone who could recall summers so hot that asphalt melted. The same person believed in global warming. Empirical data says global freezing. Observable data says no change at all. Television s

Posted Images

2 hours ago, amy G said:

never claimed the Sun went retro.

The topic of the thread refers to a sunset video from Australia where the sun sets in a down left direction. I acknowledge the curvature bulge for a ball earth doesn't exist but the sun direction for oz is weird. I dont think flat or round models fit the data.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 4:42 AM, Steph said:

The topic of the thread refers to a sunset video from Australia where the sun sets in a down left direction. I acknowledge the curvature bulge for a ball earth doesn't exist but the sun direction for oz is weird. I dont think flat or round models fit the data.

What do you expect for viewers 'below/south of' where the Sun ever moves?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure now the lack of curviture is pointed out but the sun appears to be going right to left in oz and this from a video that doesn't look manufactured. At the same time another video points out the earth has no curviture. These are videos and from my own eyes I can say in Britain, the sun goes left to right and it appears like a circular motion which is in fixed position with most of the stars which go in a counter-clockwise rotation around a point near the star called polaris. They and the sun travel at the same speed doing one cycle per day (this isnt chronometered and protracted but the general look of it from observations). The planets can be identified as the stars that move at different speeds from the other stars. The moon travels at its own speed and the reflection on its spherical looking surface doesn't appear to come directly from the sun but from a point in its general direction. This latter aspect may be evidence that light has a finite speed and the reflection we see was from where the sun was earlier. There may be other explanations. Lets distinguish the difference between theories (which can include 'everyone believes it') and theorems where it is shown that nothing other than that theorem can explain the phenomenon.

 

Here's a theory: Man descended from ape like creature's because it would explain things a bit.

 

Here's a throrem:

 

Pythagoras's Proof

triangle-vK6HGJAmjD.png?width=1200

Given any right triangle with legs a a a and bb b and hypotenuse c cc like the above, use four of them to make a square with sides a+b a+ba+b as shown below:

csquared-8TWIMHX0sg.png?width=1200

This forms a square in the center with side length c c c and thus an area of c2. c^2. c2.

However, if we rearrange the four triangles as follows, we can see two squares inside the larger square, one that is a2 a^2 a2 in area and one that is b2 b^2 b2 in area:

asquaredbsquared-ONOvtHou7l.png?width=12

Since the larger square has the same area in both cases, i.e. (a+b)2 (a+b)^2 (a+b)2, and since the four triangles are also the same in both cases, we must conclude that the two squares a2 a^2 a2 and b2 b^2 b2 are in fact equal in area to the larger square c2 c^2 c2.

Thus, a2+b2=c2 a^2 + b^2 = c^2 a2+b2=c2. □ _\square

 

 

 

Are we agreed that there's a lot of hard to shift beliefs that may be incorrect that people won't want to even see the proof of so important is their ignorance. Away with ignorance, what can we learn from it. Who could dispute pythagorahs reasoning by ignoring it and they will believe Darwin without question and find the likes of the above unimportant. Maybe Darwin's wrong. Maybe some of us haven't evolved at all. Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Shows yer ditties!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2020 at 1:58 AM, amy G said:

I explained how this is exactly is what is expected and predicted by the basic FE model as the vast majority of Australia is below 23.4 south latitude and is clearly not possible in spinning ball world.

 

Amy G - "I'm sorry but explanations are not demonstrable science."

I request you supply with us the basic 'FE model', otherwise you are pulling rabbits from out of your rear end. The model should show how Australia is fitting on the map.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steph said:

I'm not sure now the lack of curviture is pointed out but the sun appears to be going right to left in oz and this from a video that doesn't look manufactured. At the same time another video points out the earth has no curviture. These are videos and from my own eyes I can say in Britain, the sun goes left to right and it appears like a circular motion which is in fixed position with most of the stars which go in a counter-clockwise rotation around a point near the star called polaris. They and the sun travel at the same speed doing one cycle per day (this isnt chronometered and protracted but the general look of it from observations). The planets can be identified as the stars that move at different speeds from the other stars. The moon travels at its own speed and the reflection on its spherical looking surface doesn't appear to come directly from the sun but from a point in its general direction. This latter aspect may be evidence that light has a finite speed and the reflection we see was from where the sun was earlier. There may be other explanations. Lets distinguish the difference between theories (which can include 'everyone believes it') and theorems where it is shown that nothing other than that theorem can explain the phenomenon.

 

Here's a theory: Man descended from ape like creature's because it would explain things a bit.

 

Here's a throrem:

 

Pythagoras's Proof

triangle-vK6HGJAmjD.png?width=1200

Given any right triangle with legs a a a and bb b and hypotenuse c cc like the above, use four of them to make a square with sides a+b a+ba+b as shown below:

csquared-8TWIMHX0sg.png?width=1200

This forms a square in the center with side length c c c and thus an area of c2. c^2. c2.

However, if we rearrange the four triangles as follows, we can see two squares inside the larger square, one that is a2 a^2 a2 in area and one that is b2 b^2 b2 in area:

asquaredbsquared-ONOvtHou7l.png?width=12

Since the larger square has the same area in both cases, i.e. (a+b)2 (a+b)^2 (a+b)2, and since the four triangles are also the same in both cases, we must conclude that the two squares a2 a^2 a2 and b2 b^2 b2 are in fact equal in area to the larger square c2 c^2 c2.

Thus, a2+b2=c2 a^2 + b^2 = c^2 a2+b2=c2. □ _\square

 

 

 

Are we agreed that there's a lot of hard to shift beliefs that may be incorrect that people won't want to even see the proof of so important is their ignorance. Away with ignorance, what can we learn from it. Who could dispute pythagorahs reasoning by ignoring it and they will believe Darwin without question and find the likes of the above unimportant. Maybe Darwin's wrong. Maybe some of us haven't evolved at all. Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Shows yer ditties!

You liked the post above and I still don't understand yet what your confusion is as the Sun must appear to set to left below about 23.4 degrees south as it never makes it any farther south. The setting to the right between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn (about 23.4 degrees n and 23.4 degrees s) is likewise exactly what is predicted in the most basic FE model.

 

gleasons-map-high-resolution-restored-1-638.jpg?cb=1552026946

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, amy G said:

You liked the post above and I still don't understand yet what your confusion is as the Sun must appear to set to left below about 23.4 degrees south as it never makes it any farther south. The setting to the right between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn (about 23.4 degrees n and 23.4 degrees s) is likewise exactly what is predicted in the most basic FE model.

 

 

Your 'most basic FE model' may correctly predict this, but equally on the 'globe model', in the southern hemisphere the sun will appear to 'rise' in the east and 'set' in the west, but will traverse the sky across the north, rather than the south, as we see here in the northern hemisphere.

 

As I've said before, I've never been to the southern hemisphere to see this for myself, but I would trust the observations of those who DO live there and have seen this for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The model of the earth must account for no (or much less) curviture and it must account for n apparent change of direction of the sun. If I am standing on the northern tropic during summer solstice, the sun is travelling from the east to the west directly above me. If I unbutton my shirt and reveal my superman cape and fly north a thousand miles, the sun continues travelling 'apparently' left to right in the south. I fly south 2000 miles and look north and the sun continues travelling but 'apparently' now from right to left in the north. Theres an 'apparent' change of direction that the curved earth model accounts for but since theres no (or much less) curviture, something else must be going on. The sun is also roughly fixed to the position of the stars, which are going around in circles in what appears (apparently) to me as a sphere rather than a disk. If the earth is a sphere its much larger if a 70 foot bulge cant be seen across ten miles. Dont ask me for the answers. I may be made in the image of god but I'm not the almighty, I didn't make it. I'm thinking maybe Nasa made something though that looks like the earth but cant be if their model is more curvy than what can be shown to be the truth without the need for a spaceship. (I'm off to the nearest telephone booth to put my shirt back on - people would be shocked where I keep my clothes while flying - that bulge isn't a globe map of the air certified by Nasa).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

11 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

Your 'most basic FE model' may correctly predict this...

It does perfectly. We agree. 🙂

 

11 hours ago, Grumpy Owl said:

...but equally on the 'globe model'

No! It absolutely does not. We experience a sunset in the man made construct of heliocentrism because we are on a ball that is spinning away from the sun. The apparent leftward movement is simply impossible and if you would like to prove this to yourself, you can.

 

Take a real close look at the CGI cartoons of the supposed real life sunsets behind our supposed ball that nasa gives us from the iss or their international pantomime stage.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by amy G
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, amy G said:

  It does perfectly. We agree. 🙂

 

Which model fits? You are coward troll who is avoiding my questions and polite requests. Show the forum the map of the flat earth.

 

4 hours ago, amy G said:

 No! It absolutely does not. We experience a sunset in the man made construct of heliocentrism because we are on a ball that is spinning away from the sun. 

 

This is a crazy and stupid claim, we are not spinning away from the sun, we are in elliptical orbit together with all planets, observed by simple astronomy. 

 

4 hours ago, amy G said:

 The apparent leftward movement is simply impossible and if you would like to prove this to yourself, you can.

 

There are no words to show how ignorant this claim. You are like the drowning man who denies the tide.

 

4 hours ago, amy G said:

  

Take a real close look at the CGI cartoons of the supposed real life sunsets behind our supposed ball that nasa gives us from the iss or their international pantomime stage.

 

 

 

The 'proof' for your claim lies in your own head. Your own head sees what it wants and is frequent pure BS. CGI takes long time to create and there is 24x7 channel of ISS. You must be young person and have no memories of Skylab, Salyut and Mir. This is may years ahead of CGI!

 

Russian Mir space station operated in low Earth orbit from 1986 to 2001: Archives - YouTube

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ailsa Craig 30 miles away google street view

 

This is an island off the west coast of Scotland famous due to its outstandingness on a seascape the people in the west central belt of Scotland take days out to sunbathe at. There will be few in the west of Scotland who haven't seen this sight.

 

In the photo its a silouette but you still see the familiar shape with the dramatic change in the contour of the silouette on its right where at 180m above sea level, the rocks steepnes shallows. 180 metres roughly according to the google terrain map.

 

The peak is 330 metres or there abouts, and if you do the maths the ridge is 6/11ths the way up. About just over half way. The photo in the first link shows just under halfway (!)

 

180m is 590ft, 330m is 1080ft, the vertical distance from peak to ridge being 490ft

 

The bulge equation for 30 miles says a bulge of 150 foot meaning we should only be able to see the top 930 foot causing an apparent above ridge ratio of 49/93 - just under half (!!).

 

Erastothenes presumption looks legit from here.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Darn! I was sure I found the evidence as not only these vehicles, but also entire roads were not visible from the observation point. It turns out, yet again, it was just an issue with perspective and understanding how a vanishing point works.

 

 

 

FE = 33,000,000 ----- GE = 0

 

Edited by amy G
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2020 at 6:09 AM, Grumpy Owl said:

Your 'most basic FE model' may correctly predict this, but equally on the 'globe model', in the southern hemisphere the sun will appear to 'rise' in the east and 'set' in the west, but will traverse the sky across the north, rather than the south, as we see here in the northern hemisphere.

that is exactly what happens

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...