ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: AstroBrant on September 15, 2015, 02:49:44 PM
-
I have run into a lot of flat-Earthers lately. Along the way I have posted 16 illustrations and accompanying arguments on Photobucket. (I hope it's not as slow for you guys as it is for me on my portable wi-fi hotspot.)
I humbly request that anyone who is interested review as many of them as you like, and point out anything that you think should be changed. I don't mind PMs if you feel that would be warranted. In your responses, please include the number of the disproof along with your suggestions. This will make it easier for others to keep track of which ones have gotten feedback, in case they want to choose some others to look at.
http://s813.photobucket.com/user/astrobrant2/library/Disproofs%20of%20Flat%20Earth?sort=6&page=1
Clear skies,
Brant
-
I have run into a lot of flat-Earthers lately. Along the way I have posted 16 illustrations and accompanying arguments on Photobucket. (I hope it's not as slow for you guys as it is for me on my portable wi-fi hotspot.)
I humbly request that anyone who is interested review as many of them as you like, and point out anything that you think should be changed. I don't mind PMs if you feel that would be warranted. In your responses, please include the number of the disproof along with your suggestions. This will make it easier for others to keep track of which ones have gotten feedback, in case they want to choose some others to look at.
http://s813.photobucket.com/user/astrobrant2/library/Disproofs%20of%20Flat%20Earth?sort=6&page=1
Clear skies,
Brant
One aspect, and I'm not sure this is what you are looking for but..
A long time ago when tall ships sailed, they came into view from the top of the mast downward. How would a FE explain this?
EDIT: I see you have included this viewpoint in image #14!
-
You only need one.
Most of these are to complicated, it will just make the eyes glaze over of the kind of person who would fall for such B.S. in the first place.
-
Be careful not to cite videos of the earth's horizon from high altitude balloons. We've made a few of these ourselves (I help mentor a local high school ham club) and I've noticed that the shape of the horizon changes quite a bit as the camera moves. I.e., it's geometric distortion by the lens.
-
That said, one of the oldest is still one of the best: Eratosthenes' estimate of the diameter of the earth.
-
All your evidence presented is good as far I can see.
The thing that kill this model is the sunsets, sunrises and circumpolar stars. How can the sun go below the horizon without crashing on the surface? It surprises me that people still believe this.
You forgot about one thing, solar eclipses. If the moon is roughly the same angular diameter as the sun during a solar eclipse, that would mean that they are both that the same distance. That means the sun must collide with the moon at that time I guess.
If you havent seen this video from david, I suggest you to do it:
Anyways, good luck using math, logic and common sense with this people.
-
Anyways, good luck using math, logic and common sense with this people.
These people don't have any common sense.
-
They are an extreme form of the "I want to be special"-crowd.
-
Anyways, good luck using math, logic and common sense with this people.
These people don't have any common sense.
Yes, I know. When I argue with them, my objective is not changing their minds but to show the fence sitter how wrong they are. Meanwhile you get to learn some stuff about the earth.
They are an extreme form of the "I want to be special"-crowd.
They are very narcissistic if you want to put it that way.
-
They are very narcissistic if you want to put it that way.
Oh I agree, they "know" "facts" that no one else knows boosting/stroking their own egos.
-
They are very narcissistic if you want to put it that way.
Oh I agree, they "know" "facts" that no one else knows boosting/stroking their own egos.
Its quite funny if you look at them. Some of their gurus consider themselves as messianic figures and the others follow and repeat what they say without thinking twice.
And they dare to call you a sheep, lol.
-
Also, astrobrant, the picture explaining orbital mechanics in a flat earth is wrong.
Flat earthers dont believe satellites exists or that any kind of space travel does.
-
Out of all the things I've observed with my own eyes that prove a spherical Earth, the most obvious one (and the one that requires the least travel) is watching eclipses of the Moon. I've been watching them for 45 years. I have seen them when they are high in the sky and low to the horizon. The shadow is always, always, always circular:
(http://www.mreclipse.com/LEphoto/TLE2000Jan/image/TLE2000umbra2w.JPG)
What geometric shape always casts a circular shadow (as viewed from the ocluding object) no matter what direction the light comes from?
Btw, there's an eclipse of the Moon Sunday after next - September 27 - from which the Flat-Heads can hide their eyes.
-
Out of all the things I've observed with my own eyes that prove a spherical Earth, the most obvious one (and the one that requires the least travel) is watching eclipses of the Moon. I've been watching them for 45 years. I have seen them when they are high in the sky and low to the horizon. The shadow is always, always, always circular:
(http://www.mreclipse.com/LEphoto/TLE2000Jan/image/TLE2000umbra2w.JPG)
What geometric shape always casts a circular shadow (as viewed from the ocluding object) no matter what direction the light comes from?
Btw, there's an eclipse of the Moon Sunday after next - September 27 - from which the Flat-Heads can hide their eyes.
They have an explanation for that one.
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur. Despite the fact that there are more solar than lunar eclipses each year, over time many more lunar eclipses are seen at any single location on earth than solar eclipses. This occurs because a lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time, while a solar eclipse is visible only along a narrow path on the earth's surface.
Total lunar eclipses come in clusters. There can be two or three during a period of a year or a year and a half, followed by a lull of two or three years before another round begins. When you add partial eclipses there can be three in a calendar year and again, it's quite possible to have none at all.
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.
But is an ad hoc. Of course, they first need to provide evidence for this "object" existance other than the shadow it casts on the moon.
-
They have an explanation for that one.
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur. Despite the fact that there are more solar than lunar eclipses each year, over time many more lunar eclipses are seen at any single location on earth than solar eclipses. This occurs because a lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time, while a solar eclipse is visible only along a narrow path on the earth's surface.
Total lunar eclipses come in clusters. There can be two or three during a period of a year or a year and a half, followed by a lull of two or three years before another round begins. When you add partial eclipses there can be three in a calendar year and again, it's quite possible to have none at all.
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.
But is an ad hoc. Of course, they first need to provide evidence for this "object" existance other than the shadow it casts on the moon.
*sigh*
Such creative ingenuity in the service of such stupidity.
I wonder if it was a real Flat-Earther who came up with that explanation or one of those contrarian types...
-
I'm assuming Flat Earthers believe that there is a conspiracy to conceal the Earth's true nature, no doubt spearheaded by NASA, the Illuminati and the Freemasons.
Have any of them ever come up with an even halfway cogent argument as to how anyone would profit from this deception?
-
I'm assuming Flat Earthers believe that there is a conspiracy to conceal the Earth's true nature, no doubt spearheaded by NASA, the Illuminati and the Freemasons.
Have any of them ever come up with an even halfway cogent argument as to how anyone would profit from this deception?
To know /present the "truth" that we (most of us) have been programmed since early childhood.
-
I'm assuming Flat Earthers believe that there is a conspiracy to conceal the Earth's true nature, no doubt spearheaded by NASA, the Illuminati and the Freemasons.
Have any of them ever come up with an even halfway cogent argument as to how anyone would profit from this deception?
Flat earthers argue science is itself a conspiracy. They are from the anti-science crowd in nature and they usually take a very religious stance against it.
They say that every scientific discovery is made to remove our special biblical place in their universe (flat disk under a dome) since they think the bible the is only and only litteral truth.
So they must make this claims:
1)Space doesnt exists. There isnt billions galaxies and trillions of stars. The big bang is a hoax. Every picture from space is CGI, paints or composites(although their evidence for that is vague or nonexistent). Exoplanets dont exist. The sun is not 93 millions miles away. Photos from other planets are a hoax. Basically, astronomy, astrophysics, astronautics and several fields related to the study of space is made up or fake to deceive the masses.
2) Space travel is fake, therefore Apollo was fake too. Their hate on Apollo and NASA is so gigantic, that if there werent any laws to protect NASA staff, I dont know what would this people do but im pretty sure nasty things in my opinion. When they ask you if apollo was fake and you respond NO, they will take you for an indoctrinated sheep and laughing stock. ISS is a fake inflatable.
3) 400 year old science is wrong and its just fake experiments (unless its suits their arguments). Some of them argue Newton didnt exist (not surprising)
4) Biological evolution is a hoax and that fossills are a fake because it removes our special place in the universe.
5) That ancient cultures who believed the earth was flat go it right and the others are wrong.
6) Antartica is guarded by supersoldiers to prevent people to see the truth (although there are thousands of people who vacation in that place)
7) Physics and mathematics are just assumptions (they outright deny it unless it suits their arguments)
8) Every evidence against the flat earth is fake by default. So for them, southern stars dont exist, non-stop or long flights dont exist for example.
9) Every scientist, engineer, pilot, etc is paid to hide the truth. That means millions of people are part of it.
10) Education is a massive indoctrination program to brainwash the people.
11) Be geometrically illiterate.
All this while they use a computer to spread their nonsense, use medicine, use a car, use cellphone, use internet, eat food. Basically they are the biggest hypocrites ever to exist.
I dont know what there is to gain from this worldwide conspiracy other than "religious" reasons since an "elite" with this kind of power and resources have unlimited money.
This people, in my humble opinion, have very big egos. They are very narcissistic or they are so bored with their life that they must invent a fantasy to make it more enjoyable. This ridiculous movement has gained so much momentum this months that it went from being a few lonely paranoids on youtube to a full blown crowd of them.
Their gurus are liars and scammers. If you ever see their videos, be cautious because they are already milking out their gullible fanbase.
-
See what happens when they throw time zones at them.
-
One aspect, and I'm not sure this is what you are looking for but..
A long time ago when tall ships sailed, they came into view from the top of the mast downward. How would a FE explain this?
EDIT: I see you have included this viewpoint in image #14!
To answer your question about what would they say, I have seen three of them in the last few days who proclaim proudly that such videos prove the earth is flat! No, I'm not kidding.
-
I'm assuming Flat Earthers believe that there is a conspiracy to conceal the Earth's true nature, no doubt spearheaded by NASA, the Illuminati and the Freemasons.
Have any of them ever come up with an even halfway cogent argument as to how anyone would profit from this deception?
Haven't seen any claims about Illuminati yet, but NASA and Freemasons, yes. And Jesuits. It's amazing how many of them blame NASA for the whole concept of spherical Earth.
-
Looks like Gazpar has been around the block with these people. To add to the list, they also deny gravity. And they say the sun doesn't rise and set. It just gets too far away to see, and the rising and setting is due to "the law of perspective" or optical illusion.
For those who aren't aware of the "modern" flat Earth model, they believe in the UN flag style map, with the North Pole at the center, and all celestial objects circle around about 3000 miles above the earth. The sun orbits around the North Pole, going from tropic to tropic for the seasons.
-
You only need one.
Most of these are to complicated, it will just make the eyes glaze over of the kind of person who would fall for such B.S. in the first place.
I've pointed out that each argument, all by itself, is a disproof of flat Earth. One reason I included so many, and might include more, is as a resource for people arguing against flat-Earthers. But you're right, many flat Earthers just won't "get it" where most of those arguments are concerned. That's why I like the Octans argument being #1. If they're only up to absorbing one argument, that one is pretty simple.
-
Be careful not to cite videos of the earth's horizon from high altitude balloons. We've made a few of these ourselves (I help mentor a local high school ham club) and I've noticed that the shape of the horizon changes quite a bit as the camera moves. I.e., it's geometric distortion by the lens.
Good point, and I will certainly not use anything like that. I've pointed out several times to people on both sides of this argument, that those are no good as proof either way because of the wide-angle lenses that are usually used. I am trying to keep all of my arguments either geometrical or ground-based observational.
-
That said, one of the oldest is still one of the best: Eratosthenes' estimate of the diameter of the earth.
The only objection I would have to that is that he had to make an assumption of a very distant sun. Also, since these people believe the sun is only 3000 miles high, I would not be able to make a point with that.
I would prefer Al Biruni's calculations using a mountain and a plain and figuring out the degree of curvature trigonometrically. That turned out to be remarkably accurate and was done a thousand years ago.
-
It just gets too far away to see, and the rising and setting is due to "the law of perspective".
Thats wrong. For the sun to appear set or rise on the horizon it must be at an infinite distance from you but its degrees above the horizon never reaches 0.
I hate when they use perspective without knowing how it works.
or optical illusion.
Thats an excuse from them in my opinion. Everything that contradicts their delusion is an optical illusion. The same happens with their math: If it supports flat earth, they will use it. If it does not support the flat earth, they will deny it, call it BS, quote Tesla or Einstein or that is just assumptions.
-
You forgot about one thing, solar eclipses.
If you havent seen this video from david, I suggest you to do it:
Anyways, good luck using math, logic and common sense with this people.
I was also thinking about doing that. It should be a good one.
As for David's video, yes, I saw it when he first uploaded it. He does terrific work, both with his arguments and with his graphics. I'm jealous! Now he just needs to list the darn thing. I'm thinking about making a video using my Photobucket disproofs, as well. Not nearly as cool as his stuff, but pretty comprehensive.
-
Also, astrobrant, the picture explaining orbital mechanics in a flat earth is wrong.
Flat earthers dont believe satellites exists or that any kind of space travel does.
I know they don't believe in satellites, so I've wondered if that one would serve any purpose.
I may end up replacing that one, but I'm still curious about what was wrong with the orbital mechanics.
-
You forgot about one thing, solar eclipses.
If you havent seen this video from david, I suggest you to do it:
Anyways, good luck using math, logic and common sense with this people.
I was also thinking about doing that. It should be a good one.
As for David's video, yes, I saw it when he first uploaded it. He does terrific work, both with his arguments and with his graphics. I'm jealous! Now he just needs to list the darn thing. I'm thinking about making a video using my Photobucket disproofs, as well. Not nearly as cool as his stuff, but pretty comprehensive.
Very cool video, yes. Still, flat earthers are fact resistant to it. You should make one too since you know what you are dealing with.
I hope he finish it and get us a more detailed video. What would be hilarous is the amount of dislikes it would get if he makes it public.
-
Also, astrobrant, the picture explaining orbital mechanics in a flat earth is wrong.
Flat earthers dont believe satellites exists or that any kind of space travel does.
I know they don't believe in satellites, so I've wondered if that one would serve any purpose.
I may end up replacing that one, but I'm still curious about what was wrong with the orbital mechanics.
Well, ground based GPS still needs satellites...
-
Have you ever heard of the Electromagnetic Accelerator? Its basically magic bendy light, the ultimate ad hoc ever.
Also, dont forget of Quantas Flights from Sydney to Santiago of Chile which are impossible in a flat earth. Flatties claim they are fake, lol.
-
@Count Zero:
"Modern" flat-Earthers believe the sun and moon both remain on a plane roughly 3000 miles above the earth's surface. My argument states that the earth couldn't possible ever get between them. Not to mention that their model of the earth is about 260 times the diameter of the sun and moon.
@Gazpar:
I haven't run into this "shadow object" business before, but it figures that someone would come up with that, sooner or later. He decided to make it 5 to 10 miles in diameter and close to the sun, I guess so he could claim that's why we can't see it. But that doesn't work, either. At only 1/6 to 1/3 the diameter of the sun, nothing even close to a total lunar eclipse could ever occur. A penumbral eclipse is all we would see, and even that would only be a slight darkening of the moon. Let's remember that they say the moon and sun are about the same size, so this object would also only be 1/6 to 1/3 the diameter of the moon. So it could never cast an umbral shadow which covers the whole moon, no matter where you place it.
-
Have you ever heard of the Electromagnetic Accelerator? Its basically magic bendy light, the ultimate ad hoc ever.
Also, dont forget of Quantas Flights from Sydney to Santiago of Chile which are impossible in a flat earth. Flatties claim they are fake, lol.
Good old "bendy light." Concave-Earthers like that one. I want to see one of them use that to try to get out of a speeding ticket.
-
It just gets too far away to see, and the rising and setting is due to "the law of perspective".
Thats wrong. For the sun to appear set or rise on the horizon it must be at an infinite distance from you but its degrees above the horizon never reaches 0.
I hate when they use perspective without knowing how it works.
I've calculated that even from New Zealand, on the December solstice at midnight, (when the sun is at its greatest distance), it is still 13 degrees above the horizon in their model.
-
Thank you to all of you generous, helpful people for taking the time to review my work. I wanted to get feedback since I use it so much. I'll check back in a few days to see if there are any other comments.
Clear skies,
Brant
-
@Gazpar:
I haven't run into this "shadow object" business before, but it figures that someone would come up with that, sooner or later. He decided to make it 5 to 10 miles in diameter and close to the sun, I guess so he could claim that's why we can't see it. But that doesn't work, either. At only 1/6 to 1/3 the diameter of the sun, nothing even close to a total lunar eclipse could ever occur. A penumbral eclipse is all we would see, and even that would only be a slight darkening of the moon. Let's remember that they say the moon and sun are about the same size, so this object would also only be 1/6 to 1/3 the diameter of the moon. So it could never cast an umbral shadow which covers the whole moon, no matter where you place it.
I have never seen an debunk for that until now, thanks.
I have another idea. There are times of the day during sunset and sunrise where the sun is below the clouds. How does that happen if its 3000 miles above the surface?
Have you ever heard of the Electromagnetic Accelerator? Its basically magic bendy light, the ultimate ad hoc ever.
Also, dont forget of Quantas Flights from Sydney to Santiago of Chile which are impossible in a flat earth. Flatties claim they are fake, lol.
Good old "bendy light." Concave-Earthers like that one. I want to see one of them use that to try to get out of a speeding ticket.
The wont buy a ticket for that because they know it would destroy the model. The would rather milk their fanbase with expensive but useless experiments like balloons and lasers.
There is some youtuber that is asking for donations so they can buy a $3000-2500 balloon and send it to space when in reality they cost much much less (gee, I wonder where all the rest of the money will go). Some guys asked if he is going to launch it at night to see if the sun is there and all they got was silence.
-
Tell them to drive one of these longest straight roads in the world, one with mostly an east-west component, and compare their odometer to the distance dictated by the flat earth model:
http://www.dangerousroads.org/rankings23/3759-the-10-longest-straight-roads-in-the-world.html
The driving distance between the icons for the I-10 in the attached Google Earth file is 78.9 statute miles; the FE distance would be 92.5 statute miles.
For the icons marking the Eyre highway in Australia, the driving distance is 154 km; the FE distance would be 386 km.
https://sites.google.com/site/chewtansy/msfn/Straight%20roads.kmz
-
Thank you to all of you generous, helpful people for taking the time to review my work. I wanted to get feedback since I use it so much. I'll check back in a few days to see if there are any other comments.
Clear skies,
Brant
Are you aware of this?
http://www.skysailtraining.co.uk/dipping_distance.htm
-
AstroBrant, are you familiar with David Ridlen? He posted a massive FE debunk on metabunk a month ago: https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curvature-refraction-experiments-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/page-3#post-162542
-
One last thing astrobrant...
FEs argue that GPS, weather forecasts, etc... are pure ground based. The fact that sky waves and ground waves (which take into account the curvature of the earth) exist debunk that claim.
-
Also, dont forget of Quantas Flights from Sydney to Santiago of Chile which are impossible in a flat earth. Flatties claim they are fake, lol.
And for the pilots to keep the secret the Earth is really flat they would have to fly the route as if the world were a globe. Which means flying ridiculously out of the way if the world were flat. Using data from FlightAware for Qantas 28 I tabulated the distances between round and flat earth. On a globe the distance was 6500 nautical miles; on a flat earth it was 22,100 nautical miles.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28/history/20150919/1730Z/SCEL/YSSY/tracklog
-
Also, dont forget of Quantas Flights from Sydney to Santiago of Chile which are impossible in a flat earth. Flatties claim they are fake, lol.
And for the pilots to keep the secret the Earth is really flat they would have to fly the route as if the world were a globe. Which means flying ridiculously out of the way if the world were flat. Using data from FlightAware for Qantas 28 I tabulated the distances between round and flat earth. On a globe the distance was 6500 nautical miles; on a flat earth it was 22,100 nautical miles.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28/history/20150919/1730Z/SCEL/YSSY/tracklog
You could take into account the flights from Perth, australia to South Africa which are impossible in a flat earth.
-
Looks like Gazpar has been around the block with these people. To add to the list, they also deny gravity. And they say the sun doesn't rise and set. It just gets too far away to see, and the rising and setting is due to "the law of perspective" or optical illusion.
For those who aren't aware of the "modern" flat Earth model, they believe in the UN flag style map, with the North Pole at the center, and all celestial objects circle around about 3000 miles above the earth. The sun orbits around the North Pole, going from tropic to tropic for the seasons.
I take it that's their explanation for the coldest parts of the Earth being the circle at the centre and the outer perimeter, and the warmest part being the donut shape between them?
-
Looks like Gazpar has been around the block with these people. To add to the list, they also deny gravity. And they say the sun doesn't rise and set. It just gets too far away to see, and the rising and setting is due to "the law of perspective" or optical illusion.
For those who aren't aware of the "modern" flat Earth model, they believe in the UN flag style map, with the North Pole at the center, and all celestial objects circle around about 3000 miles above the earth. The sun orbits around the North Pole, going from tropic to tropic for the seasons.
I take it that's their explanation for the coldest parts of the Earth being the circle at the centre and the outer perimeter, and the warmest part being the donut shape between them?
Yes.
-
Rather than look for a visible curvature of the earth from altitude, I suggest measuring the angle between the local vertical and the horizon. This decreases from 90 degrees rather rapidly with altitude as shown by the "beam tilts" built into many broadcasting antennas on tall towers.
A UHF TV broadcast antenna pattern is typically a flat horizontal disc. The frequency is high enough (and the antenna tall enough) that the disc is very thin, ie., the antenna is very directional in the vertical plane. If the disc were exactly perpendicular to the tower, much of the radiated power would miss the earth and fly uselessly into space. So these antennas are usually constructed with a downward beam tilt.
As an example, the PBS TV station where I interned in the 1970s now has a digital transmitter on RF channel 29 (virtual channel 67). The antenna is 309 meters above average nearby terrain and 464 meters above sea level. It has an electrical downtilt of 0.75 degrees. I haven't done the calculations but I'm pretty sure they're consistent with an earth radius of approximately 6378 km...
-
As Alfred Russel Wallace's experience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_Earth_wager) showed, Flat-Earthers are remarkably good at not seeing anything they don't want to...
-
As Alfred Russel Wallace's experience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_Earth_wager) showed, Flat-Earthers are remarkably good at not seeing anything they don't want to...
This is a letter from the John Hampden directed to Russel`s wife soon after he lost the weager:
"Mrs. Wallace,—Madam, if your infernal thief of a husband is brought home some day on a hurdle, with every bone in his head smashed to pulp, you will know the reason. Do you tell him from me he is a lying infernal thief, and as sure as his name is Wallace he never dies in his bed.
"You must be a miserable wretch to be obliged to live with a convicted felon. Do not think or let him think I have done with him.
"John Hampden."
The worst thing is that flat earthers until today ignore the bedford experiment refutation and this letter in particular. They still come up with the same useless curvature calculation made by Samuel Rowboatham after it has been refuted a thousand times since we know he used a calculation that involves 0 height from the observers when that is not the case.
Rather than look for a visible curvature of the earth from altitude, I suggest measuring the angle between the local vertical and the horizon. This decreases from 90 degrees rather rapidly with altitude as shown by the "beam tilts" built into many broadcasting antennas on tall towers.
A UHF TV broadcast antenna pattern is typically a flat horizontal disc. The frequency is high enough (and the antenna tall enough) that the disc is very thin, ie., the antenna is very directional in the vertical plane. If the disc were exactly perpendicular to the tower, much of the radiated power would miss the earth and fly uselessly into space. So these antennas are usually constructed with a downward beam tilt.
As an example, the PBS TV station where I interned in the 1970s now has a digital transmitter on RF channel 29 (virtual channel 67). The antenna is 309 meters above average nearby terrain and 464 meters above sea level. It has an electrical downtilt of 0.75 degrees. I haven't done the calculations but I'm pretty sure they're consistent with an earth radius of approximately 6378 km...
I have been reading about that. FEs claim that GPS doesnt exist and is all ground based just like LORAN was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN
The thing is; Flat earthers ignore that LORAN worked with sky waves and ground waves that need to take into account earths curvature just like the example you gave. The higher the antenna is, the farther the radio signal will be since there is less ground between it.
But lets suppose the earth was flat. Shouldnt radio signals reach everywhere in the world since there is not ground to stop them? Radio towers would not need to be built very tall since there is no horizon. That would mean it is possible to see other cities thousands of miles away with a radio telescope.
Of course, the atmosphere could effect radio waves.
-
I have been reading about that. FEs claim that GPS doesnt exist and is all ground based just like LORAN was:
The problem with that claim is that you can point directional GPS antennas at the sky and see that the signals are coming from discrete, slowly moving points whose locations are accurately given by mathematical models that assume an ellipsoidal earth of a very specific mass, shape and size.
Also, GPS transmits on the L-band at 1575.42 MHz, far above the ionosphere's critical frequency so it passes right through it from space. LORAN-C transmits (or transmitted, in the US) at only 100 kHz, well below the AM broadcast band (535-1705 kHz in the USA) and far below the ionosphere's critical frequency so it is reflected back toward earth. Because of the much longer wavelength and the somewhat unpredictable, non-line-of-sight path, LORAN-C was much less accurate than GPS.
Shouldnt radio signals reach everywhere in the world since there is not ground to stop them? Radio towers would not need to be built very tall since there is no horizon. That would mean it is possible to see other cities thousands of miles away with a radio telescope.
Yup.
Of course, the atmosphere could effect radio waves.
And it does. Most analyses of tropospheric radio wave propagation model the earth as having 4/3 its actual radius to account for atmospheric refraction. The same thing happens at optical wavelengths, so sunset/sunrise appears to occur when the sun is actually slightly below the horizon. If the earth were flat, refraction as well as geometry would keep the sun from ever appearing to set anywhere.
-
As Alfred Russel Wallace's experience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_Earth_wager) showed, Flat-Earthers are remarkably good at not seeing anything they don't want to...
This is a letter from the John Hampden directed to Russel`s wife soon after he lost the weager:
"Mrs. Wallace,—Madam, if your infernal thief of a husband is brought home some day on a hurdle, with every bone in his head smashed to pulp, you will know the reason. Do you tell him from me he is a lying infernal thief, and as sure as his name is Wallace he never dies in his bed.
"You must be a miserable wretch to be obliged to live with a convicted felon. Do not think or let him think I have done with him.
"John Hampden."
Blimey....was he an ancestor of The Blunder???
-
I have run into a lot of flat-Earthers lately. Along the way I have posted 16 illustrations and accompanying arguments on Photobucket. (I hope it's not as slow for you guys as it is for me on my portable wi-fi hotspot.)
I humbly request that anyone who is interested review as many of them as you like, and point out anything that you think should be changed. I don't mind PMs if you feel that would be warranted. In your responses, please include the number of the disproof along with your suggestions. This will make it easier for others to keep track of which ones have gotten feedback, in case they want to choose some others to look at.
http://s813.photobucket.com/user/astrobrant2/library/Disproofs%20of%20Flat%20Earth?sort=6&page=1
Clear skies,
Brant
I note that pictures 2 and 8 show different views of illumination of the Earth as required by FE theory at equinox and southern summer solstice.
Just a thought, but is there a way to show how the Earth would be illuminated at a few other times of the year?
Ideally, would it be possible to create an animation showing the illumination of the FE over a 24 hour period for a bunch of dates through the year - say, on the first day of each month of the year? (Even better would be an animation showing it continuously for the whole year, but I assume that would be tricky to do.)
I'm currently finding it hard to visualise how the night-time shadow must be required to move around the Earth in a 24 hour period, particularly around the solstices. Just looking at these animations must surely raise some questions in some doubters' minds...
-
I have been reading about that. FEs claim that GPS doesnt exist and is all ground based just like LORAN was:
The problem with that claim is that you can point directional GPS antennas at the sky and see that the signals are coming from discrete, slowly moving points whose locations are accurately given by mathematical models that assume an ellipsoidal earth of a very specific mass, shape and size.
Also, GPS transmits on the L-band at 1575.42 MHz, far above the ionosphere's critical frequency so it passes right through it from space. LORAN-C transmits (or transmitted, in the US) at only 100 kHz, well below the AM broadcast band (535-1705 kHz in the USA) and far below the ionosphere's critical frequency so it is reflected back toward earth. Because of the much longer wavelength and the somewhat unpredictable, non-line-of-sight path, LORAN-C was much less accurate than GPS.
Shouldnt radio signals reach everywhere in the world since there is not ground to stop them? Radio towers would not need to be built very tall since there is no horizon. That would mean it is possible to see other cities thousands of miles away with a radio telescope.
Yup.
Of course, the atmosphere could effect radio waves.
And it does. Most analyses of tropospheric radio wave propagation model the earth as having 4/3 its actual radius to account for atmospheric refraction. The same thing happens at optical wavelengths, so sunset/sunrise appears to occur when the sun is actually slightly below the horizon. If the earth were flat, refraction as well as geometry would keep the sun from ever appearing to set anywhere.
Well, the sun cannot set or rise in a flat earth since it is 3000 miles up so you are right.
Here is a 3D model of it:
(http://i.imgur.com/HyW1QUy.jpg)
In this Image you can see the sun as a dot in the right above the edge of the earth.
(http://i.imgur.com/aQQXHig.jpg)
In this one you see the sun from the other edge.
It never sets and If it did, there would not be timezones.
Or it would not be possible for the sun to be under the clouds:
(http://www.birdwatchersdigest.com/blog/uploaded_images/MorningSunUnderClouds-746742.jpg)
There is so much wrong with this idea of flat earth...
As Alfred Russel Wallace's experience (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace#Flat_Earth_wager) showed, Flat-Earthers are remarkably good at not seeing anything they don't want to...
This is a letter from the John Hampden directed to Russel`s wife soon after he lost the weager:
"Mrs. Wallace,—Madam, if your infernal thief of a husband is brought home some day on a hurdle, with every bone in his head smashed to pulp, you will know the reason. Do you tell him from me he is a lying infernal thief, and as sure as his name is Wallace he never dies in his bed.
"You must be a miserable wretch to be obliged to live with a convicted felon. Do not think or let him think I have done with him.
"John Hampden."
Blimey....was he an ancestor of The Blunder???
Maybe.
Is he a flat earther? ;D
I have run into a lot of flat-Earthers lately. Along the way I have posted 16 illustrations and accompanying arguments on Photobucket. (I hope it's not as slow for you guys as it is for me on my portable wi-fi hotspot.)
I humbly request that anyone who is interested review as many of them as you like, and point out anything that you think should be changed. I don't mind PMs if you feel that would be warranted. In your responses, please include the number of the disproof along with your suggestions. This will make it easier for others to keep track of which ones have gotten feedback, in case they want to choose some others to look at.
http://s813.photobucket.com/user/astrobrant2/library/Disproofs%20of%20Flat%20Earth?sort=6&page=1
Clear skies,
Brant
I note that pictures 2 and 8 show different views of illumination of the Earth as required by FE theory at equinox and southern summer solstice.
Just a thought, but is there a way to show how the Earth would be illuminated at a few other times of the year?
Ideally, would it be possible to create an animation showing the illumination of the FE over a 24 hour period for a bunch of dates through the year - say, on the first day of each month of the year? (Even better would be an animation showing it continuously for the whole year, but I assume that would be tricky to do.)
I'm currently finding it hard to visualise how the night-time shadow must be required to move around the Earth in a 24 hour period, particularly around the solstices. Just looking at these animations must surely raise some questions in some doubters' minds...
Flat earthers argue the sun is a spotlight.
I think I have what you ask:
(http://i.imgur.com/uvwF7UP.gif)
Here is a test of that.
This is a picture of the sun at the Equinox that I made myself with model to scale:
(http://i.imgur.com/vGM0cOF.jpg)
As you can see, the sun rises first before south of the equator. This is wrong since the sun iluminates the hemispheres equally in the equinox.
-
Fairly related to the topic is the live feed from the Japanese Himawari 8 satellite.
http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
It gives a very nice full view of the Earth from a geosynchronous orbit.
-
Fairly related to the topic is the live feed from the Japanese Himawari 8 satellite.
http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
It gives a very nice full view of the Earth from a geosynchronous orbit.
Great link!
-
Fairly related to the topic is the live feed from the Japanese Himawari 8 satellite.
http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
It gives a very nice full view of the Earth from a geosynchronous orbit.
Even though thats great, its not good evidence because they will claim it is CGI/PAINT/FAKE.
These people are frustating
-
I didn't crosscheck the link but there may be a couple more ways to debunk flat earthers
http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/