Flat Earth?

[Bobbie Bobster]

I was going to say PGW's playing a good trolly mctrollface game, but I've reconsidered in mid post.

China's not really directing his posts *at* PGW'S troll efforts, he's countering the general flat earth woo with some nice posts refreshing the techniques he's posted about before - a good refresher and an interesting read.

I was just messin with his head about the silly fake monster photos.

But I think it's time to stop. In light of Ans's post this afternoon, I think we owe it to each other to try and raise the standard of discussion and behaviour on MF and so I disengage from troll baiting in this instance.

But not before saying. PGW - please stop posting crap videos. No-one watches them, it's not a coherent argument and the earth isn't flat. Put your efforts into something more constructive. Please.

[Bobbie Bobster]

@gerry Thanks for your contribution and I can see how it advances the discussion.

Intuitively I think the points you made are easily debunked, the orbital mechanics one perhaps easiest. But I think China will probably have more patience and skill in composing a rebuttal.

[Chinahand]

5 hours ago, gerrydandridge said:

Probably my most compelling proof that has convinced me that the earth is not  a flat surface is the elevation of the sun at various points on the Earth, only a roundish object can explain this in my humble opinion.

YEAH!

However things are far from what we have been told because:

Do you all remember the recent eclipse,

I travelled thousands of miles, drove for hours through the night to stand on an extinct volcano and watch its shadow race across the scrub desert in front of me.  I can describe it as one of the most visceral experience of my life.  Your entire body reacted as the sun died.

and the shadow of the moon travelled from the west coast of the USA to the east coast, well how does that work when the earth is supposed to rotate to the east, would you not expect the shadow to travel east to west?...

I had to draw a sketch to work it out - you're right the earth rotates from west to east - creating the relative motion of the sun moving from east to west.  If you draw a miniature solar system looking down with the north pole of the earth visible, the earth rotates anti-clockwise.

The moon apparently moves to the east in its orbit, but so fast as to cancel out the logical east to west direction of the shadow (that the spin of the earth should cause) and reverse it to west/east......This makes me consider that the earth is a stationary object with no spin whatsoever and the moon is simply travelling over a static body.

Huh?  You do have some very strange beliefs .  Where to start - each night the position of the moon against the stars moves from west to east.  Ie if on one night the moon was roughly to the south, and Beetle Juice was to the east of the moon (ie to the left of the moon; ie looking south and moving your head from east to west (left to right) you'd see Beetle juice then the moon) the next day at a similar time the moon might have moved towards the east and now the order has reversed to, from east to west (left to right) the moon then Beetle juice.

If you think about this, it shows that the moon also orbits from west to east, but slower than the earth's rotation.  

So, you have the Earth and moon both rotating anti-clockwise when looking down from above - and guess what the earth also rotates about the sun in an anti-clockwise direction looking down from above.  This is pretty common in planetary dynamics - everything is spinning in the same direction, unless there's been a huge collision which has knocked things out of kilter.

So the Earth and moon are both rotating anti-clockwise about their axes and the moon is rotating anti-clockwise around the earth.

Now think of a clock hanging on a wall with one hand rotating anticlockwise about it.  The centre of the clock is the earth and at the end of the hand is the moon rotating around it.  The sun is sending (effectively) parallel beams light from the floor up and so the moon's shadow is a line going straight up from the end of the clock hand.

Now imagine the clock hand is pointing to seven o'clock.

The shadow goes straight up and so is missing the centre of the clock, hitting the top of the face at 11 o'clock (7 to 11).  Now think what happen as the hand moves around anti-clockwise.  How will the shadow hit the earth in the centre of the clock, as the hand moves from the 31 position to the 30 positon to the 29 position?

Think about that and how that shadow moves from right to left across the centre of the clock - can you now apply that to the earth?

Also the sun is classed as an infinite light source being 93 million miles away, the moon is ¼ million miles away, why then when the moon approaches the sun from our perspective can we not see the moon until it crosses the path of the sun, would you not expect to see an object in the sky being backlit by an infinite light source, it is invisible whilst it approaches the sun until it starts to block out the sun.

You are really asking why can't we see the dark side of the moon.  During an eclipse the moon is a new moon and so the only part of it that is visible is the dark side of the moon.  The dark side of the moon isn't very bright - it is only lit up by starlight and the glow of the full earth.  I presume you've seen the old moon in the new moon's arms:

Even at night it is very dim and only just visible.  In the daylight the scatter of light through the atmosphere emits more (blue) light than the dark side of the moon emits and so it is totally lost: its like trying to see a candle put in front of a car headlight, though that analogy doesn't really work as the scatter comes from the earth's atmosphere which is glowing more brightly than the dark side of the moon behind/above it.  So no, you can't see the moon at all until it actually hits the sun's disc.  If there was no atmosphere the sky would be entirely black, other than the sun, if you could escape from the glare, you could see the stars, but on earth the glow of the atmosphere basically obscures them, though you can see, just, Venus and maybe Sirius if you've a telescope and know where to look.

Also with an infinite light source my understanding is that the shadow cast by an object that gets in the way of the light source is the same size as the object, however the shadow of the eclipse on earth was only 72 miles in diameter? NASA tells us that the sun back lights the moon and the shadow cones down to 72 miles when it hits the earth, this is not how this kind of light source works, the shadow should be the size of the moon, therefor the moon is not the size we are told it is.

This is a problem you could solve with a bit of mathematics, why don't you give it a go.  The sun isn't an infinite source - it only approximates to one.  It is a 1.3914 million km diameter ball, 149.6 km away.  While the moon is a 3,474 km ball 384,400 km away.  Surely you've seen the classic drawings explaining the umbra and penumbra.  Why not look up a hybrid eclipse and learn about how during it the surface of the earth moves from the antumbra to the umbra something that can only be explained with epicylces on a flat earth, but which is totally understandable on a globe.

Halley was able to predict the shape of totality in 1715, something I find give's me shivers - the man would have worked it out with pencil, paper and patience.  Oh the dedication of science:

Nowadays we can do it with a lot more precision:

Hopefully the above is understandable and I did not mix up my Easts and Wests, there are many many problems with the consensus model, and these are just a couple more to add.

 

[Chinahand]

5 hours ago, gerrydandridge said:

 

Double post.

[Bobbie Bobster]

Knew it!

Nailed it, me old China!

[paul's got wright]

5 hours ago, Neil Down said:

I have no need of researching this as I am not daft enough to believe the earth is flat. What I do believe however, is that your posts are nothing more than pure wind up. As far as I am concerned, no matter what evidence is offered up to you, you will still attempt to argue. For that reason, I'm out of here. Time is too important to lock horns with quarrelsome posters

condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. i have explained the reason i post here and, enjoy having the freedom of expression here, more than once in this thread neil. if you had bothered to read it you might have noticed. i am not here to wind anyone up, although i do tend to reply in kind, depending on the behaviour of my fellow posters. the difference is i have the decency to keep my manners about me, unlike some people. and i've put more time into this thread than most people so i think its a bit rude of you to come in chattin nonsense about me. again, if you had read the content, you would have seen time and time again that i have stated that i accept all evidence for review, to be taken into consideration in my research. its called doin science neil, dont you even science bro?  please show me a single time i have argued with anyone in 177 pages, or just grow up, wake up, and realise the brevity of the thread you have joined. its a place where extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. if you think you live on a spinnin ball flyin through space with all the water stuck to it then good for you. but you cant force your long held faith based beliefs onto others who do not share your views or beliefs. its called freedom of religion, freedom of choice whatever suits you. if you have the irrefutable proof of the oblate spheroid, that you would like to provide, i would be happy to review it. thanks

[Declan]

6 hours ago, paul's got wright said:

read the posts kneale thats how you know whats been said mate. i'm not your guide am i, come on you can do it. research into the subject if you have such basic questions x

It was me asked the question and to be honest all the research I’ve ever read points to the fact that ships that sail east and keep going arrive in the west because the world isn’t flat. 

Also my personal experience  of shapes is if you start writing left to right on a piece of paper you don’t get back to where you started, but you do if you write on a ball. 

 

[paul's got wright]

5 hours ago, Bobbie Bobster said:

I was going to say PGW's playing a good trolly mctrollface game, but I've reconsidered in mid post.

China's not really directing his posts *at* PGW'S troll efforts, he's countering the general flat earth woo with some nice posts refreshing the techniques he's posted about before - a good refresher and an interesting read.

I was just messin with his head about the silly fake monster photos.

But I think it's time to stop. In light of Ans's post this afternoon, I think we owe it to each other to try and raise the standard of discussion and behaviour on MF and so I disengage from troll baiting in this instance.

But not before saying. PGW - please stop posting crap videos. No-one watches them, it's not a coherent argument and the earth isn't flat. Put your efforts into something more constructive. Please.

bobby dont try an dictate to me how to post or what to say. you are the last person i would take advice from about how to behave. how dare you contrive my honest opinions as to be trolling. the very behaviour the moderators frown upon. you can appeal to any fallacy you like but it will not remove you from the position that you as an individual are in. you do not know for yourself what the shape and size of the earth is, and as you can tell from the huge amount of information that has been posted, between me china gerry etc, it's not as simple to solve as some might think. if you doubt that, then please go an read about what gravity is and look at the actual amount of subjects and historical information, that one would need to have a handle on, just to have a view about it. nevermind KNOW about it. your post is typical of someone who is disturbed by their beliefs being challenged. dont dare try to censor me due to your own insecurities you absolute mitty. like it or not people are questioning the heliocentic model and for you to cry like a little girl an try to shut that down is below the belt in my opinion. the naysayers said it didnt even exist as a real thing yet i update the thread to prove to the contrary. let the people see the show and we will see what happens. if its a ball then what you so scared of? it will be proven to be wont it? 

[Bobbie Bobster]

PGW, please stop trolling.

[paul's got wright]

how can i stop doing something that im not doing you ignorant fool. for gods sake bobbie, the links i posted are from the bbc! bloody national radio and news, international news reported on it. freddie flintoff and robbie savage discussing the subject and had an interview with a flat earther. so its hardly trolling now is it. stop being a little weakling because the fundamental tenets of your belief system are being challenged, and once again, how dare you try to impose on the free will of others. its against the ethos of this forum. mods please can i be offered equal rights and due protection from such illegitimate claims. ive made it clear that my views are valid as is my content in relation to this thread. thanks x

[TheTeapot]

I'm confused. Are you saying Paul that Robbie savage discussing something, anything, gives it legitimacy? That might be the most crazy thing in this thread.

[Chinahand]

Actually thinking about it, I basically agree with Gerrydandridge - and that isn't a sentence I expected to type in this thread - the simplest and most direct proof that the earth is a sphere comes from something as simple as a shadow.

The length of a shadow at noon in any particular location is dependent on only 3 things - the length of the object casting the shadow, the season, and its latitude.

PGW can you understand why on the Island (54 degrees north) if you hold a metre rule vertically  on the ground you'll never get a shadow shorter than 58.9 cm long along the ground and that will be on the 21st of June?

Think about it.  The length of shadows around the world is irrefutable proof that the earth is a sphere.

[paul's got wright]

10 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I'm confused. Are you saying Paul that Robbie savage discussing something, anything, gives it legitimacy? That might be the most crazy thing in this thread.

i'm saying that the subject is a legitimate scientific discussion. that is now being reported in the mainstream news. and for bobbie blobster or anyone else to try and shut it down here, is ludicrous, given the nature of the forums. so in bobbies logic, if he thinks his beliefs are solid, no one can challenge them! what kind of forum is that gonna be? isnt that a blog?  and i have taken an interest in the subject matter, leading me to a much greater knowledge about the earth we live on over the last 3 yrs. so how dare anyone disrespect someone so willfully, just for questioning a claim that was made to all of us.  so for me to update the thread of relevant events, like the recent flat earth conference in america, is perfectly acceptable is it not? if its good enough for mainstream news its good enough for a thread update. i posted the links feel free to listen to freddie flintoff question the model and even said he would bet on it bein flat. no need to shoot the messenger im just researchin the subject and keeping up with what is a hot topic on the net. millions of search results on youtube  proving the current trending subject is big. and i'll ask again for my due protection and equal rights from the mods against false accusations about my content. thanks x

[paul's got wright]

15 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Actually thinking about it, I basically agree with Gerrydandridge - and that isn't a sentence I expected to type in this thread - the simplest and most direct proof that the earth is a sphere comes from something as simple as a shadow.

The length of a shadow at noon in any particular location is dependent on only 3 things - the length of the object casting the shadow, the season, and its latitude.

PGW can you understand why on the Island (54 degrees north) if you hold a metre rule vertically you'll never get a shadow shorter than 58.9 cm long on the ground and that will be on the 21st of June?

Think about it.  The length of shadows around the world is irrefutable proof that the earth is a sphere.

yes i can china. not irrefutable proof for me. we agree to disagree as always x

[Chinahand]

Science is about justifying your opinion: explaining why you do or don’t accept something.  

tomorrow morning I’m going to give you predictions for shadow lengths cast by a one metre stick at noon tomorrow for locations every 10 degrees from the equator to the poles.

A flat earther will not be able to predict or explain why they are  these lengths.  

All you will be able to do is claim because you’ve not done it yourself you don’t believe it.

That isn’t good enough. Go and get a meter long stick and be prepared to measure it at noon tomorrow (and noon isn’t 12:00 it is when the sun is highest in the sky).

Pick any day of the year and I can predict its length a flat earther can’t.