I have now decided : The Earth is actually FLAT...!

Post Reply New Topic

Quantum-Physics actually manages to be able to support such concepts as possibilities. Even if rejected by main-streamists.


This needs to be clarified/quantified. Completely naked eyes would be from, say, whilst riding in a hot-air-balloon at 40K+ feet in the air. Were you in a hot-air-balloon at that altitude ? Otherwise the eye cannot be regarded as naked if viewed through a window or other type of transparent-barrier.


Have you ever considered that, anything that gives off a light-source, will always appear round from a distance, even if the object itself is not a sphere ? I have seen plenty of aero-planes fly through the sky at night before, and possible other things, and the light that it gives off certainly appears spherical, but the air-craft itself from which the light-source is originating is not itself a sphere. Just because you see a light at a distance does not automatically make the object emitting said light into a round sphere.


I have heard plenty of claims ranging from globe, ball, sphere, egg-shaped, including that of pear-shaped, elongated spheroid, hollow, concave, etc. Pear-shaped and elongated spheroid comes from "official" sources by the way. Not only that, I forgot to mention, but Physics has also made this "official" declaration that the Universe is Flat...


Alas, I have also come across sea-farers who have come to conclude that flat-earth theory (some of it anyway), actually has more validity than globe-earth theory (assuming that they are not sock-puppet accounts of course). Additionally, I have come across comments from star-gazers, who have observed the skies since they were little, and they have pondered the evidence, and have become skeptical that this earth is a ball that is spinning as fast as claimed by the so-called science-books (combine the speeds/rotations of earth, orbits, galaxies, stars, solar-systems, etc., then compare what it's supposed to look like when you're watching the distance from out the side of the window of an air-plane that's flying in a straight line, versus how the surroundings/distance actually looks like when spinning from the edge of a merry-go-round).


I have also "traveled around the world" a minimum of a dozen times (the circling of the globe as they say). I am actually no longer so certain of this planet's shape myself, and I would rather not adhere to any ideas of certainty anyway, nor have I been able to find any individual on any of the on-line forums or elsewhere who has been willing to address the discrepancies of the photos/images of Saturn, provide footage of satellites or the ISS from weather-balloon cameras, but I digress.


Believe it or not, many people have taken it as fact, but then many of them, for whatever reasons, decided to leave it after attempting to debunk some of the flat-earth evidences (they are, how-ever, apparently a mix of both over-zealous fundamentalist-style debate-tactics, with some genuine investigations/experiments that actually give compelling reasons to put the globe-earth model to question). I, personally, like hopping fences. Reality and the very laws of physics could suddenly change on us without our knowing for all I know...

There's a local islamic cult who believes that earth is flat.

My neighbor is one of them - I have asked him to show me photos of the edge.

Gosh!

If the earth is a flat disk (like all of these modern flat earthers claim) then....

Whats on the flip side?

Is there a whole nother world on the tail side?

Give him a compass and tell him to head north.


Probably been reading the Qu'ran

And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.

(Yea, the same that) has made for you the earth (like a carpet) spread out, and has made for you roads (and channels) therein, in order that ye may find guidance (on the way);

And the earth- We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and produced therein every kind of beautiful growth (in pairs)-

And Allah has made the earth for you as a carpet (spread out),

And the earth/Planet Earth after that He blew and stretched/spread it.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Flat_Earth_and_the_Quran

Actually- from the point of view of a neutrino generated at the Sun's core the Earth IS flat because neutrino's move at the speed of light so earth moves relative to them at the SOL which means Earth would appear flat to them because of the Fitzgerald Contraction that results from Relativity.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 06 May 2016, 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Just to point out, it's trivial to track the phases of Venus & via a telescope verify that the termination line is curved, just like one can watch the same phenomenon occur with the moon. Also, the motions of the four visible planets (along with the other known objects) are only predictable using the known equations if they follow round/elliptical orbits around the sun. Science works.

And with a telescope one can see the ISS against the moon, as my daughter and I have done. We've also timed the transit as well as timed its passage across the sky, to calculate the orbital height. And, it reappears exactly whenever it should based on calculations that only work if the assumption of a round(-ish) Earth were correct. Again, Science works.

To entertain these other theories, it's not enough to simply come up with "alternative" explanations. One must *also* be able to make alternate predictions that work as well or better than the current ones. Flat Earth and the others have failed miserably in that endeavor, thus they *must* be relegated to the dustbin barring some significant change in their predictive results.

Two questions.

1) How does day-and-night work if the earth is flat? Where does the sun go at night if the earth isnt really spinning?

2) What is the motivation? What do they (whoever "they" are) gain from this centuries long vast conspiracy to deceive us all about the true shape of the Earth?

The surface of a sphere is locally flat, but is globally curved. At each point for a sufficiently small patch around that point the patch is homeomorphic to a finite region of the the Euclidean Plane. But there is no global homeomorphism...

That is why it is possible to have flat maps of limited portions of the earth's surface but there is no flat map that is faithful over the entire surface of the earth. That is why maps of very extensive areas have to distort shapes and sizes.

Re: the moon landings

When the astronauts took off from the moon they had to meet with a module that was orbiting the moon and dock with it,
this doesn't seem possible,especially with 60's tech, to launch at the exact time and do all the manouvers.

Why? Do you actually understand the dynamics or are you just speculating?

Of your Saturn pictures only two or three are actually photographs, and the Voyager 2 one was shot with a television camera, which is crappy. (Back in the 70s the technology that is used today for digital camera was still in it's infancy and as they likely will never come back to Earth the Voyagers probes couldn't use film, so they had to use television camera to sent back data.) At least two of the pictures are artistic interpretation. As for the last picture the sunlight is going through rings made of ice rocks, thus the pretty glow and part of it been reflected on the dark side of the planet.

How? And do you really know what is quantum physic? Outside of quantum woo.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo Not that it matter anyway, as physicians are still trying to figure out how to mix quantum physic with gravity; so quantum physic has nothing to say on the matter.

The glow of aircraft seen during night come from spotlights; it's not like the entire aircraft is glowing.



I have heard plenty of claims ranging from globe, ball, sphere, egg-shaped, including that of pear-shaped, elongated spheroid, hollow, concave, etc. Pear-shaped and elongated spheroid comes from "official" sources by the way. Not only that, I forgot to mention, but Physics has also made this "official" declaration that the Universe is Flat...[/quote]
Doubtful you understand what a flat Universe mean...




Some astronomical phenomenon like retrograde motion are hard to visualise, thus some peoples may be confused by them; yet only a round Earth orbiting the Sun can properly explain them.


We are simply not ready for the horrors on the other side...

I see a distinct lack of math, experiments, or sources of any kind explaining the assertions they made that go against every known rule of photography and optics. The reason you can't see small things form far away is because they are too small in your field of view, it's not because light from them stops reaching you. In theory it's possible to read the markings on a penny form across a city with a phone camera given a long enough exposure (which would have to be pretty darn long), and I could prove my reasoning using real science which you yourself can replicate and calculations that you yourself can check if you want me to.

Also, explain this:



Your definition of a "fisheye lens" appears to be any camera that causes distortion, in which case every camera ever made or that ever could be made is a fisheye lens. The closest thing to a non-fisheye lens under that definition is a narrow angle lens, and one could argue that it's deceiving because it makes the subtle curvature harder to see and makes the Earth look more flat. Again though, it's possible to figure out the true curvature given a bit of knowledge about optics.


Why a PBS documentary? You are not making sense.


The camera doesn't move around much in that image, so unless I knew the exact specifications of the camera I couldn't determine the horizon's true curvature. If the horizon intercepts the center of the image then we know that it's true curvature is shown because the lens only adds or removes curvature if the horizon is above or below the center. Also, if the camera is pointing strait forward 90 degrees from down then the horizon will always look flat no matter what it's true curvature is, and that is also the only time the horizon would ever appear flat regardless of the shape of the Earth. In your video the horizon looked flat yet it was below "eye level" as flat earthers like to call it, and this means that there is likely true curvature present, although again I would need to know the exact specifications of the camera to be sure.

The middle Saturn pic is obviously a painting, and obviously meant to be taken as an artist's conception.

The bottom one is actually a composite of 165 photographs taken over a three hour period by the Cassini probe in 2006 that takes in infared, and ultraviolet, as well as, visible light. Not meant to be understood as a normal snapshot of how the planet looks to the human eye at a given moment. So there is no point in studying "it's shadows".

This is an artist conception, and nobody ever said it was real. Even the URL makes it clear that it's a screenshot from some software.


I will address this one in a moment.


Again, this is an artist conception. At least provide images that NASA claims to be photos, don't just google "Saturn" and post the first few images that pop up. Just because fake images of Saturn exist (and are openly called fake by the creators) doesn't mean that all images of Saturn are fake. If you can provide any evidence of NASA calling this image real then I will become a flat earther on the spot.


This looks different from the second image because the two were taken with different cameras. Just look at these two image of the white house:




They look about as different as those Saturn images. I know that the white house is real though because I have been to Washington DC and seen it in person. Different cameras with different color balances and different amounts of quality can change a lot.


This makes a lot of sense if you know some stuff about light. I don't know about you, but sometimes when I'm board I study the lighting in the room I'm in and try to understand why every shadow is the way it is by tracing where the light is coming from and what it's bouncing off of. This makes perfect sense to me though, and I will explain why.

Light can bounce off of things and light up other things, this is something that any non-blind person should know. The Moon can reflect light from the Sun and light things up a bit here on Earth. It happens all the time. The planet is being lit up because light is bouncing off the rings, which clearly diffuse a lot of light. The lighting patterns on the "surface" of Saturn is consistent with this.

The haze around Saturn is always there, it's just that it's usually not visible with the exposure times used to photograph the lit side of the planet. It's the same reason why stars are not visible in images of planets like the three genuine ones above. It's the same thing going on when you can't see many stars in a city yet when you are in the middle of nowhere you can see them better, all that changes is the lighting in your environment and your eyes adjust accordingly.

As for the light going through the rings, Saturn's rings are actually translucent. In most images they appear opaque but that's because they are being brightly lit and what's behind them is dark. The best way to demonstrate this yourself is by using a window. In the day when it's bright on both sides of it you can see out just fine although you can make out your reflection, in the night when you have the interior lights on you can barely see out though because your reflection is overpowering the light coming in even though the reflection is the same absolute brightness as it was before. If you turn off the interior lights then you can see out again. The same thing is going on here, the rings are hard to see through because the light they diffuse overpowers anything behind them but a lot of light still does cruise right through them undisturbed, which is why you can see the light coming through them.

I've pulled it off in multiple different realistic space flight simulators before, it's really rather easy once you know what your doing. They didn't have to be too exact, in fact I have done maneuvers like that with very minimal flight instrumentation before by eyeballing it. It takes longer and uses more fuel then doing it with the proper instrumentation, but I could create a (rather rudimentary) program to do that kind of thing myself if I wanted to with my current knowledge and skills.

What are you basing your assumption off of? I have been obsessing over such things for 12 years now and I have a very in depth knowledge on how stuff like this works, so I think I am more qualified then you. If you want I could go through all the math behind it and prove how it's possible (and rather easy) given only Newtonian laws of motion and gravity, but it would take a while.

You keep trying to say that using a fisheye lens is just as good as any other, but this goes against every source of information on the subject

wikipedia:

http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/fishe ... underwater



Looks like there is another type of lens which is known for a lack of distortion
http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/fishe ... underwater


The fact that youve been trying to tell me that a fisheye lens is just as good as any other when every source of information contradicts you and is easily available with a few seconds of research tells me you have an axe to grind and are trying to defend an ideology.

Last edited by slenkar on 07 May 2016, 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.