Flat Earth Theory

[rvmb]

I can't try it this exact moment (no sun here - it's on the other side of the globe/disk ), but I imagine the shadows easily wouldn't be the same length of each other.

Are you by chance setting up to propose this following experiment?

1. Hypothesis: If earth is a globe (If X), then poles will produce different lengths of shadows (Then Y).
2. Experiment: The poles produce different lengths of shadows (Y).
3. Conclusion: Therefore, the earth is a globe (Therefore, X).

Simple basic geometry, not trickery.
If a light shines squarely on the EQUATOR of a sphere with shafts extending perpendicularly from the poles then there will not be shadows on the sphere at the poles
If the light shines squarely on a TROPIC then one pole will cast a shadow on the sphere while the other does not

 

[rvmb]

I wouldn't know, I haven't performed a test on it. Have you? Or have you perhaps read someone's supposed test results?

Might the answer depend on the size and location of the sun and poles?

It's plain & simple geometry that you can easily do yourself.
Get a plate and a ball of similar size eg soccer ball and a dinner plate
Use birthday candles - light a few then use the wax to hold them in position.
Place 3 or more of them SQUARELY to the surface ANYWHERE on the plate then put them in the sun, their shadows will be ALL the same length no matter what angle the plate is to the sun.
Now do the same with a ball :)

 

[Rudometkin]

Simple basic geometry, not trickery.

I'm not accusing you of trickery, I presented what your test might look like as a scientific experiment. I asked you if that's where you are taking it.

I'm just looking for clarity. Unfortunately, you are not one to answer basic questions with basic answers!

If a light shines squarely on the EQUATOR of a sphere with shafts extending perpendicularly from the poles then there will not be shadows on the sphere at the poles
If the light shines squarely on a TROPIC then one pole will cast a shadow on the sphere while the other does not

I'll look into this. I'm not confident I fully understand your language here, so please clarify if possible.

Is this intended to prove a globe earth? If so, how?

Were you by chance setting up to propose this following experiment?

1. Hypothesis: If earth is a globe (If X), then poles will produce different lengths of shadows (Then Y).
2. Experiment: The poles produce different lengths of shadows (Y).
3. Conclusion: Therefore, the earth is a globe (Therefore, X).

 

[Rudometkin]

It's plain & simple geometry that you can easily do yourself.
Get a plate and a ball of similar size eg soccer ball and a dinner plate
Use birthday candles - light a few then use the wax to hold them in position.
Place 3 or more of them SQUARELY to the surface ANYWHERE on the plate then put them in the sun, their shadows will be ALL the same length no matter what angle the plate is to the sun.
Now do the same with a ball :)

I see, so you intend to reveal a difference in shadows between a plate and a ball?

This does not in itself prove a globe earth. This would prove a ball and a plate can cast different shadows lengths from each other. So what?

For the sake of furthering the discussion, I'm happy to grant that shadows do perform the way you say they will on a dinner plate and a basket ball (it's too dark for me to perform it myself at the moment). So this way you can get to explaining how a plate and a dinner ball (Edit: LOL, I mean dinner plate and basket ball ) somehow work to prove a globe earth.

 

[rvmb]

I see, so you intend to reveal a difference in shadows between a plate and a ball?

This does not in itself prove a globe earth. This would prove a ball and a plate can cast different shadows lengths from each other. So what?

For the sake of furthering the discussion, I'm happy to grant that shadows do perform the way you say they will on a dinner plate and a basket ball (it's too dark for me to perform it myself at the moment). So this way you can get to explaining how a plate and a dinner ball (Edit: LOL, I mean dinner plate and basket ball ) somehow work to prove a globe earth.

Great, so far so good.
If the earth is FLAT then using the same LONGTITUDE eg South Africa, Chad, Poland Sweden, they would all be dark or all light at the exact same time as each other, so why in winter when the sun sets in Sweden is Chad still sunny AT THE EXACT SAME TIME ?

 

[Rudometkin]

Great, so far so good.
If the earth is FLAT then using the same LONGTITUDE eg South Africa, Chad, Poland Sweden, they would all be dark or all light at the exact same time as each other, so why in winter when the sun sets in Sweden is Chad still sunny AT THE EXACT SAME TIME ?

1. You haven't proven the earth is a globe. You have just proposed an experiment with a dinner plate and a soccer ball, and then you asked a question while ignoring my questions.

2. I don't know whether Chad is sunny when the sun sets in Sweden. I haven't been in Chad and Sweden at the same time before. How do you know? Or are you just trusting that is the case?

3. With the flat earth, it is proposed that the sun and moon are smaller and local - the sun wouldn't light up the entire earth at once. Being much smaller and closer, it would act as a spotlight. This would create sunlight in some areas, dusk and dawn in other areas, and night in other areas.

4. We are said to be spinning at about 1,000mph, and orbiting the sun at 66,000mph. Yet Polaris (the North Star) always appear still to us. That is a lot of complex movement to be seeing something stable in the distance. Also, we happen to sense no movement of the earth. It is possible we are not moving at all, and it is the system moving around us.

 

[Gottservant]

What are your thoughts on the idea the earth isn't a globe, but instead more of a flat plane?

The Earth is flat when you stand on the Earth - the same way the Sun is flat when you stand on the Sun.

 

[marks]

3. With the flat earth, it is proposed that the sun and moon are smaller and local - the sun wouldn't light up the entire earth at once. Being much smaller and closer, it would act as a spotlight. This would create sunlight in some areas, dusk and dawn in other areas, and night in other areas.

Why do not the sun and moon change their apparent size as they come overhead, then receed in the distance?

Why does it not take 2-3 times longer to fly accross the "southern hemisphere" then the "northern hemisphere"?

Why can I see from a mountain islands I can't see from the beach?

These are things that have to do with my personal observations.

Much love!

 

[TLHKAJ]

Why do not the sun and moon change their apparent size as they come overhead, then receed in the distance?

Actually they do, in my view.

 

[TLHKAJ]

Why can I see from a mountain islands I can't see from the beach?

This is a terrain issue, not a globe vs "flat" issue. When one says the earth is flat, that doesn't mean there is no terrain.

 

[marks]

This is a terrain issue, not a globe vs "flat" issue. When one says the earth is flat, that doesn't mean there is no terrain.

I'm talking about the global horizon. Not terrain. There are no obstructions from the beach, only the height of the waves, which are easily overcome by making observations from the bluffs. And no, no observable islands. But from 10,000 feet, I can see much farther out to see, verifiable by the visual observation of islands.

If the earth were flat, you've have line of sight.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Actually they do, in my view.

You can do an experiment. When the moon rises, hold up a dime at arm's length, it should appear about the same size. Then repeat the experiment when the moon is overhead. You will see that the apparent diameter remains the same.

Much love!

 

[Rudometkin]

Why do not the sun and moon change their apparent size as they come overhead, then receed in the distance?

Perhaps they do. People even explain size differences with "light refraction".

Why does it not take 2-3 times longer to fly accross the "southern hemisphere" then the "northern hemisphere"?

I don't even know if it does. How do you know it does?

Also, "hemisphere" implies a globe. Surely you're not looking for the globe theory answer?

Why can I see from a mountain islands I can't see from the beach?

To answer your question simply, a flat earth does not have to erase the way basic 3-dimensional perception works. If you are elevated higher, you can see further/different angles of objects.

As for view perception, the way it seems to me, what is below you climbs up, appearing smaller and smaller the further away it is, until it meets what seems to be in the middle which seems to make up the horizon. What is above you climbs down, appearing smaller and smaller the further away it is, until it meets in the middle as well. So whatever is closer to the horizon (basically the end of what you can see, which sits at your eye level?) is harder to distinguish, as it gets smaller and smaller. Do you disagree? If so, then on what exactly?

1. When you stand on the mountain, you are higher, which seems to raise the horizon. Thus the islands wouldn't necessarily be lost in the horizon anymore. By climbing the mountain, you are pulling the islands downward within your perception (because as you climb, the horizon seems to climb with you - but the islands remain where they are). You might see the islands better from the mountain because you raised the horizon above the islands, so they are no longer lost in the horizon.

2. The higher you are above the islands, the more surface area of the islands you might see. Put a pancake on a table. Kneel so the pancake is at eye level. Then stand up so you are looking downward at the pancake. You should see more pancake from this higher point of view.

However, it seems the globe earth theory is the one that has a bigger problem with visuals. People are claiming (apparently with video proof) that we can see too far. Way, way too far. Structures that should be far hidden by the curvature of the earth are apparently visible, precisely as one would expect on a flat earth.

These are things that have to do with my personal observations.

Much love!

That's fair. My personal observations are far too limited for me to conclude the shape of earth, haha

 

[rvmb]

1. You haven't proven the earth is a globe. You have just proposed an experiment with a dinner plate and a soccer ball, and then you asked a question while ignoring my questions.

2. I don't know whether Chad is sunny when the sun sets in Sweden. I haven't been in Chad and Sweden at the same time before. How do you know? Or are you just trusting that is the case?

3. With the flat earth, it is proposed that the sun and moon are smaller and local - the sun wouldn't light up the entire earth at once. Being much smaller and closer, it would act as a spotlight. This would create sunlight in some areas, dusk and dawn in other areas, and night in other areas.

4. We are said to be spinning at about 1,000mph, and orbiting the sun at 66,000mph. Yet Polaris (the North Star) always appear still to us. That is a lot of complex movement to be seeing something stable in the distance. Also, we happen to sense no movement of the earth. It is possible we are not moving at all, and it is the system moving around us.

Hey Rudo, not avoiding just simply trying to see if we agree on the basics first.

Travel the globe with EarthCam

Use our interactive map to find a webcam location in your area, or anywhere in the world.

www.earthcam.com

On the same VERTICAL LINE from the Artic to the Antartic
Today Area 13 Norway had 7 hours daylight 854am - 319pm - GOOGLE
While Area 30 South Africa had nearly 14 hours daylight 507am - 648pm - GOOGLE
How can that possibly happen if the earth is FLAT ?

 

[HealthyShape]

Hey Rudo, not avoiding just simply trying to see if we agree on the basics first.

Travel the globe with EarthCam

Use our interactive map to find a webcam location in your area, or anywhere in the world.

www.earthcam.com

On the same VERTICAL LINE from the Artic to the Antartic
Today Area 13 Norway had 7 hours daylight 854am - 319pm - GOOGLE
While Area 30 South Africa had nearly 14 hours daylight 507am - 648pm - GOOGLE
How can that possibly happen if the earth is FLAT ?

Flat earthers do not believe even their own eyes regarding sunsets, moon phases, eclipses... On the top of that, crazy absurd conspiracies about everything, from space agencies to flights or even saying that some places like Antarctica do not exist.

They cannot be persuaded by a rational conversation, because they are not rational. They would want you to prove all the centuries of discoveries without them ever moving out of their homes. Prove that this or that photo is real, prove that this or that place exist etc. Such conversations have no end. They want to live in their own isolated world.

 

[David Lamb]

This is a terrain issue, not a globe vs "flat" issue. When one says the earth is flat, that doesn't mean there is no terrain.

But there is no terrain on the sea. I live on the south coast of England, but I cannot see France by looking out over the English Channel. There are no buildings in between to stop me seeing France, no mountains or other terrain, just the sea.

 

[TLHKAJ]

But there is no terrain on the sea. I live on the south coast of England, but I cannot see France by looking out over the English Channel. There are no buildings in between to stop me seeing France, no mountains or other terrain, just the sea.

Get a high powered camera and zoom in.

 

[David Lamb]

Get a high powered camera and zoom in.

That doesn't make France visible. (Or the sun once it has set, or a ship that has passed beyond the horizon).

 

[marks]

Perhaps they do. People even explain size differences with "light refraction".


I don't even know if it does. How do you know it does?

Also, "hemisphere" implies a globe. Surely you're not looking for the globe theory answer?


To answer your question simply, a flat earth does not have to erase the way basic 3-dimensional perception works. If you are elevated higher, you can see further/different angles of objects.

As for view perception, the way it seems to me, what is below you climbs up, appearing smaller and smaller the further away it is, until it meets what seems to be in the middle which seems to make up the horizon. What is above you climbs down, appearing smaller and smaller the further away it is, until it meets in the middle as well. So whatever is closer to the horizon (basically the end of what you can see, which sits at your eye level?) is harder to distinguish, as it gets smaller and smaller. Do you disagree? If so, then on what exactly?

1. When you stand on the mountain, you are higher, which seems to raise the horizon. Thus the islands wouldn't necessarily be lost in the horizon anymore. By climbing the mountain, you are pulling the islands downward within your perception (because as you climb, the horizon seems to climb with you - but the islands remain where they are). You might see the islands better from the mountain because you raised the horizon above the islands, so they are no longer lost in the horizon.

2. The higher you are above the islands, the more surface area of the islands you might see. Put a pancake on a table. Kneel so the pancake is at eye level. Then stand up so you are looking downward at the pancake. You should see more pancake from this higher point of view.

However, it seems the globe earth theory is the one that has a bigger problem with visuals. People are claiming (apparently with video proof) that we can see too far. Way, way too far. Structures that should be far hidden by the curvature of the earth are apparently visible, precisely as one would expect on a flat earth.


That's fair. My personal observations are far too limited for me to conclude the shape of earth, haha

I think you need some geometry lessons. This is simple stuff.

Much love!

 

[marks]

On the top of that, crazy absurd conspiracies about everything, from space agencies to flights or even saying that some places like Antarctica do not exist.

The conspiracy would have to include literally millions of people.

You know how many people want their 15 minutes of fame? Not 1 of them willing to break the conspiracy? No, I'm not buying it.

Much love!