Flat Earthers: What They Believe and Why

[prodromos]

Your "personal dome" is simply the visual space from one's point of view. Nothing strange about it at all, and it accords exactly with our observation.

The only reason it would have to be fiction for someone is if they are committed to a belief in helio-globe.



If the model is matching exactly what a person observes, then it is observationally correct by definition. No way around that.

This means it is challenging the axiom of how we interpret visual space.

You've reminded me why it is futile to argue with an idiot.

 

[lifepsyop]

As I have stated multiple times on these threads, atmospheric refraction is an extremely well understood phenomenon. We know how the pressure gradient of the atmosphere bends light. We know that apart from anomalies caused by warm air above a hot surface, the refraction of light by the pressure gradient of the atmosphere is consistent. Surveyors account for it when measuring elevations at a distance of greater than 120m from their survey point. For Bislin to be able to project the globe view into a flat earth 'personal dome', he had to ignore the reality of atmospheric refraction and calculate entirely different values depending on the location of the viewpoint chosen.

Do you have an argument? "we know refraction" ... and?

The problem for you is:

Any scientific investigation of light refraction is based directly off our observation of apparent light sources within our visual space. (sun, moon, stars)

You can't use knowledge derived from our observed visual space as evidence against that same observed visual space. It makes no sense.

Whether we view the vault of the heavens in Euclidean or spherical / hyperbolic geometry, both perspectives are entirely self-consistent with all observation.

In other words, they are axiomatic and depend only on your philosophical preference for cosmology.

As far as celestial observations are concerned, the flat earth model is entirely consistent with what we see.

I think this is what is disturbing Globe defenders so much. Their axioms are being challenged and they're beginning to realize that they have no way of defending them scientifically. I suppose that's why you keep resorting to name-calling...

 

[prodromos]

Do you have an argument? "we know refraction" ... and?

The problem for you is:

Any scientific investigation of light refraction is based directly off our observation of apparent light sources within our visual space. (sun, moon, stars)

You can't use knowledge derived from our observed visual space as evidence against that same observed visual space. It makes no sense.

Whether we view the vault of the heavens in Euclidean or spherical / hyperbolic geometry, both perspectives are entirely self-consistent with all observation.

In other words, they are axiomatic and depend only on your philosophical preference for cosmology.

As far as celestial observations are concerned, the flat earth model is entirely consistent with what we see.

I think this is what is disturbing Globe defenders so much. Their axioms are being challenged and they're beginning to realize that they have no way of defending them scientifically. I suppose that's why you keep resorting to name-calling...

You are just repeating your same false claims. I've said my piece, I'm not going to keep repeating myself for your sake.
We can continue this discussion when you figure out how non-stop flights between continents in the Southern Hemisphere can work in your flat earth model.

 

[lifepsyop]

What is the more far-fetched assumption?

A limit to our vision on the level of the earth....

or a wobbling spinning ball flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour?

 

[lifepsyop]

We can continue this discussion when you figure out how non-stop flights between continents in the Southern Hemisphere can work in your flat earth model.

as I understand it, well over 99% of plane flights on earth pose no significant challenge to a flat earth model, which I think means it is generally very well supported by the data.

you are fixating on a couple of outliers, more importantly, they are outliers of which we do not have full access to the data,

e.g. the exact flight route taken. (GPS systems are not actual proof of exactly where someone is. They simply show that someone has reached a certain point somewhere, at whatever location on a map the GPS signal is calibrated to.)

if we are on a level earth, then the plane flight parameters are simply not what you imagine them to be.




as a side note, to gain some broader perspective:

most of modern mainstream cosmology would have been shattered a hundred times over if we allowed it to be falsified in that way.

for example, the fact that science demonstrated that there was no detectable motion of the earth. for this blasphemy the entire nature of the universe was reframed within the theory of relativity.

"In physics, spacetime, also called the space-time continuum, is a mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum."

^^^ That is the kind of weird stuff that your side does when the evidence does not go their way. Flat Earth theory has done nothing so crazy.

 

[prodromos]

as I understand it, well over 99% of plane flights on earth pose no significant challenge to a flat earth model, which I think means it is generally very well supported by the data.

The great circle routes for flights in the Northern Hemisphere don't line up with the flat earth map. I'd say that poses a significant challenge.

you are fixating on a couple of outliers, more importantly, they are outliers of which we do not have full access to the data,

That is your baseless claim. We have access to all the same data as flights all over the world. These flights are not 'outliers' but occur multiple times every week. The only reason I am 'fixating' on these flights is because they are utterly impossible on your flat earth, and yet despite this they continue to operate multiple times a week. You, on the other hand will not address these flights at all because they are devastating to your model. You keep making weak and dishonest excuses.

e.g. the exact flight route taken. (GPS systems are not actual proof of exactly where someone is. They simply show that someone has reached a certain point somewhere, at whatever location on a map the GPS signal is calibrated to.)

You keep making this false claim.

if we are on a level earth, then the plane flight parameters are simply not what you imagine them to be.

Imaginary is what they would be..

 

[lifepsyop]

The great circle routes for flights in the Northern Hemisphere don't line up with the flat earth map. I'd say that poses a significant challenge.

That is your baseless claim. We have access to all the same data as flights all over the world. These flights are not 'outliers' but occur multiple times every week. The only reason I am 'fixating' on these flights is because they are utterly impossible on your flat earth, and yet despite this they continue to operate multiple times a week. You, on the other hand will not address these flights at all because they are devastating to your model. You keep making weak and dishonest excuses.

This is just an argument from incredulity with something you have very little to zero direct knowledge of.

It's unimpressive because you are unable to verify anything. Have you made some kind of independent verification of every leg of the flight's path over southern ocean? I doubt it.

You're putting absolute faith in GPS coordinates that were calibrated to fit a globe model... over lots of deep southern ocean with no landmarks.

 

[prodromos]

This is just an argument from incredulity with something you have very little to zero direct knowledge of.

That does seem to be "your" approach to this subject.

It's unimpressive because you are unable to verify anything. Have you made some kind of independent verification of every leg of the flight's path over southern ocean? I doubt it.

Air speed and flight times, in both directions, averaged over many flights, gives distances that are impossible on your flat earth model. No GPS tracking needed to verify that.

You're putting absolute faith in GPS coordinates that were calibrated to fit a globe model... over lots of deep southern ocean with no landmarks.

Sydney to Johannesburg on your flat earth map would take you up over Indonesia and Thailand, across India, just South of the Arab peninsula and down across most of Africa. On the globe it is ocean all the way. No GPS needed to confirm which is the reality.
Sydney to Santiago on your flat earth map would take you over California in the USA followed by Central America, yet the flight takes less time than it takes to fly Sydney to Los Angeles, a flight I have taken several times. On the globe it is ocean all the way. Again, no GPS needed to confirm which is reality.

I have to assume though, that you never use GPS for navigation, otherwise you would know for yourself how accurate it actually is.
I posted the great circle routes here and the equivalent flat earth routes here

 

[prodromos]

@lifepsyop I'll make it super easy for you.
How is it possible on your flat earth model for a flight from Sydney to Santiago to take less time than a flight from Sydney to Los Angeles?

 

[lifepsyop]

That does seem to be "your" approach to this subject.

Air speed and flight times, in both directions, averaged over many flights, gives distances that are impossible on your flat earth model. No GPS tracking needed to verify that.

The only known you have is that a plane takes off one place and lands in another and the time in between.

You don't know the actual route, or actual speeds factored for wind conditions.

You think you do, but you don't. That's why you previously said "of course we know, we have GPS"...

Sydney to Johannesburg on your flat earth map

I don't think anyone has an accurate map, particularly of southern ocean lattitudes. I certainly do not claim that any flat earth map is perfect geographic reality.

That is the premise of the debate to begin with, that the mapmaking of southern lattitudes have been erroneously conformed to globe geometry.

I have to assume though, that you never use GPS for navigation, otherwise you would know for yourself how accurate it actually is.

GPS is very accurate when it is calibrated against many accessible landmarks which it can be tested against.

When those landmarks become little more than imaginary lines of longitude over ocean, lines that are mistakenly imagined to be converging towards a south pole... I imagine this introduces all sorts of bad data into the coordinate system.

Of course, the primary means of sea navigation is celestial, but it's already been explained how globe believers could be completely misinterpreting geometry derived from the stars.

 

[prodromos]

The only known you have is that a plane takes off one place and lands in another and the time in between.

You don't know the actual route, or actual speeds factored for wind conditions.

You think you do, but you don't. That's why you previously said "of course we know, we have GPS"...

Again, air speed and flight times, in both directions, averaged over many flights, gives distances that are impossible on your flat earth model. No GPS tracking needed to verify that.
The flights take the shortest route for economical reasons.

I don't think anyone has an accurate map, particularly of southern ocean lattitudes. I certainly do not claim that any flat earth map is perfect geographic reality.

This is the only map flat earthers have ever presented, and other flat earthers have used it to 'prove' flat earth based on emergency landings (all debunked BTW).

That is the premise of the debate to begin with, that the mapmaking of southern lattitudes have been erroneously conformed to globe geometry.

What!? Your flat earth brethren derived their map from a globe? The fact is you don't have an accurate flat earth map because you can't make an accurate flat earth map because the Earth is actually a globe.

GPS is very accurate when it is calibrated against many accessible landmarks which it can be tested against.

And it is pretty accurate without calibration. It is not wildly inaccurate as you wish to imply.

When those landmarks become little more than imaginary lines of longitude over ocean, lines that are mistakenly imagined to be converging towards a south pole... I imagine this introduces all sorts of bad data into the coordinate system.

That's the problem with your argument, it is based on what you "imagine". It must be blind luck that every flight across the Southern oceans actually arrive at their destinations, every time.

Of course, the primary means of sea navigation is celestial, but it's already been explained how globe believers could be completely misinterpreting geometry derived from the stars.

LOL. You made some assertions of equivalence, but didn't explain anything.

 

[lifepsyop]

Again, air speed and flight times, in both directions, averaged over many flights, gives distances that are impossible on your flat earth model. No GPS tracking needed to verify that.

Air speed is relative to the wind the plane is traveling through, which you do not know.

Ground speed is relative to the distance over the earth being traveled, another thing you do not know.

And of course, the actual flight route, you do not know.


If you want to wrap a globe earth belief around these unverified unknowns, then have at it.

This is the only map flat earthers have ever presented, and other flat earthers have used it to 'prove' flat earth based on emergency landings (all debunked BTW).

What!? Your flat earth brethren derived their map from a globe? The fact is you don't have an accurate flat earth map because you can't make an accurate flat earth map because the Earth is actually a globe.

The globe earth model was constructed from royal decree and billions of dollars over centuries.

With that kind of governmental and financial support you could have a concave earth model fabricated for you if so desired, all the math you need to support it, and the state education to teach it.

Of course, we are stuck in the situation of deconstructing a globe model. It's what we inherited. You act surprised by this.

You made some assertions of equivalence, but didn't explain anything.

Assertions of equivalence would be easy to disprove if they are false.

Does the model explain celestial observation or not?

It does, of course. It accords perfectly, and rather elegantly, with reality. This is why you deflect to talking about Bislin, or you yourself make the unsupported assertion that "light doesn't work that way", trying to completely skip over the fact that everything we learn about light is through our observation of it in the first place.... then comes the name-calling naturally...

 

[prodromos]

Air speed is relative to the wind the plane is traveling through, which you do not know.

We do know the cruising speed of these aircraft.

Ground speed is relative to the distance over the earth being traveled, another thing you do not know.

Once again, flight times in both directions averaged over hundreds of flights gives us pretty reliable data, but even if we include a margin of error, it doesn't make those flights any less impossible on your flat earth.

And of course, the actual flight route, you do not know.

Flight transponders give regular updates on speed, heading and position. How do you think websites like flight tracker work?

If you want to wrap a globe earth belief around these unverified unknowns, then have at it.

They are only unverified unknowns in your imagination because you lack intellectual honesty.

The globe earth model was constructed from royal decree and billions of dollars over centuries.

With that kind of governmental and financial support you could have a concave earth model fabricated for you if so desired, all the math you need to support it, and the state education to teach it.

Just frame your funding request in terms of "gender studies". You'll get all the funding you need. Trouble is you guys can't organise a wet blanket in a thunderstorm. You've had the Universal Zetetic Society established since the 1890's and the International Flat Earth Research Society since the 1950's and no one has produced a single working flat earth map in all that time

Of course, we are stuck in the situation of deconstructing a globe model. It's what we inherited. You act surprised by this.

We have had accurate maps of each of the continents for over a century. Why can't you guys figure out a way of arranging them that works? The answer is obvious.

Assertions of equivalence would be easy to disprove if they are false.

You haven't given any 'proof' to disprove.

Does the model explain celestial observation or not?

It does, of course. It accords perfectly, and rather elegantly, with reality.

Not even remotely.

This is why you deflect to talking about Bislin, or you yourself make the unsupported assertion that "light doesn't work that way", trying to completely skip over the fact that everything we learn about light is through our observation of it in the first place.... then comes the name-calling naturally...

Naturally, if an idea is brain numbingly stupid, it follows that it will be identified as such. Amazing how flippantly you dismiss the entire study of optics so that you can hold on to a fictional model that deliberately distorts light from the globe model in order to get the same appearance in a flat earth model.

 

[prodromos]

And still you have made no attempt to explain how flights between Sydney and Santiago take less time than flights between Sydney and Los Angeles.

 

[HantsUK]

I don't think anyone has an accurate map, particularly of southern ocean lattitudes. I certainly do not claim that any flat earth map is perfect geographic reality.

It is the Flat Earthers who lack accurate maps.

Of course, the primary means of sea navigation is celestial, but it's already been explained how globe believers could be completely misinterpreting geometry derived from the stars.

Ah, the 'crepuscular' rays argument. It looks impressive and will certainly trick many people. But it is nonsense.

Crepuscular rays are parallel rays of light from the sun shining through gaps in the clouds. They appear to be converging when facing towards the sun and again converging when facing the opposite direction. Similar to railway tracks converging into the distance when looking in either direction. This is due to perspective.

However, the slight of hand, intended to deceive: crepuscular rays have noting to do with the motion of the sun or stars across the sky.

This YT video claims that 3965 miles is the limit of visibility. Let's do some basic maths to check whether this makes any sense. The height of the sun above the earth is 3940 miles**. With the sun directly above the equator, then the furthest north which will see the sun before it is too far away will be 10deg. And those fortunate enough to live directly under the sun, would get 51 minutes of daylight.

In mid summer (for the northern hemisphere), the sun will be above the tropic of Cancer (23deg latitude). This will be more than 3965 miles from the UK.

In fact, the UK would always be in the dark; 24 hours of night per day, 365 days a year.

(If the sun was lower to the earth, it would light a greater distance within the limit of 3965 miles maximum.)

Really?

** based on the Eratosthenes method, for an angle of 7.2deg and distance of 500 miles, but assuming a flat earth.

 

[lifepsyop]

Crepuscular rays are parallel rays of light from the sun shining through gaps in the clouds. They appear to be converging when facing towards the sun and again converging when facing the opposite direction. Similar to railway tracks converging into the distance when looking in either direction. This is due to perspective.

Correct. Now imagine railway tracks receding away in every direction 360 degrees around you, beyond every degree of the horizon. This should give you an idea of the hyperbolic visual space with which we view the stars.

 

[prodromos]

Correct. Now imagine railway tracks receding away in every direction 360 degrees around you, beyond every degree of the horizon. This should give you an idea of the hyperbolic visual space with which we view the stars.

The constellations that are viewed directly overhead from one place on the earth's surface are exactly the same size and shape when they are viewed near the horizon from another place on the earth's surface. There is no convergence of stars towards the poles or to the East or to the West. As I have stated before, there is no correlation between crepuscular rays and how the stars appear, except, as someone with the mental acuity of a three year old once stated, "they are both in the sky".

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how flights between Sydney and Santiago take less time than flights between Sydney and Los Angeles on your flat earth, or failing that, an admission that such is impossible on your flat earth.

 

[HantsUK]

Correct. Now imagine railway tracks receding away in every direction 360 degrees around you, beyond every degree of the horizon. This should give you an idea of the hyperbolic visual space with which we view the stars.

As prodromos replied, there is no connection between crepuscular rays and how the stars appear.

In the above illustration, the parallel railway tracks should be radiating from the position of the sun, not you the observer. Further, using railway tracks could also be misleading in implying that the sun would be following these track. A better illustration would be a trank with a turret with powerful parallel light beams which can be pointed in any direction. However, the direction that the tank moves is independent of the direction the turret is facing.

In the real world, the sun is large and bright. When there are clouds between the sun and observer, then any gaps in the clouds will allow rays of light to pass through.

However, stars are much dimmer than the sun and you will only see light from the stars that comes directly towards you. You will never see rays of light from stars passing across the sky lighting up clouds.

The other claim that this video made was that 3965 miles is the limit of visibility. What is the reasoning or justification for this?

If this is the limit of visibility, then that would mean we would never see the sun in Britain. Or most of America. Not because we have too much cloud cover but because the sun is never closer than 3965 miles (using flat earth geometry).

 

[lifepsyop]

As prodromos replied, there is no connection between crepuscular rays and how the stars appear.

the connection is visual.

anticrepuscular sun rays do not actually physically converge. they only appear to converge at the limit of our vision. (yellow highlight)

when we look at the stars in the south (the Celestial South Pole / CSP ), the stars do not actually physically converge, they only appear to converge.

In this mockup, the setting sun would appear to be disappearing below the horizon line on the left, casting crepuscular rays over the observer, which appear to converge in the opposite horizon (anticrepuscular) The actual sun is simply moving away from the observer, but it appears to be sinking below the horizon because of perspective.

Likewise, as the actual position of the star (dark purple) in the south rotates closer to the observer, it appears to rise up from the southern horizon in the observer's limit of vision, and then fall back below the horizon as it travels further away. This is only its apparent position from the observer's point of view. ( color pink) Really the star is just rotating out of the observer's limit of vision.

source video

The other claim that this video made was that 3965 miles is the limit of visibility. What is the reasoning or justification for this?

That limit is derived from the same geometry that gives us the imagined radius of a globe earth. In reality, nothing is disappearing behind an imaginary "earth curve", it is simply getting so far away that it seems to vanish below the horizon, our limit of vision.

It is the celestial 'dome' of stars, and our spherical limit of vision that has sphericity. That celestial spherical geometry was erroneously projected onto the shape of the earth.

It's a mathematical inversion of reality. Like if someone were flying in an airplane, and then they used all observations and calculations to deduce that they were physically motionless, and the entire earth was physically rushing past them at hundreds of miles per hour.

 

[prodromos]

the connection is visual.

anticrepuscular sun rays do not actually physically converge. they only appear to converge at the limit of our vision. (yellow highlight)

when we look at the stars in the south (the Celestial South Pole / CSP ), the stars do not actually physically converge, they only appear to converge.

View attachment 353820

In this mockup, the setting sun would appear to be disappearing below the horizon line on the left, casting crepuscular rays over the observer, which appear to converge in the opposite horizon (anticrepuscular) The actual sun is simply moving away from the observer, but it appears to be sinking below the horizon because of perspective.

Likewise, as the actual position of the star (dark purple) in the south rotates closer to the observer, it appears to rise up from the southern horizon in the observer's limit of vision, and then fall back below the horizon as it travels further away. This is only its apparent position from the observer's point of view. ( color pink) Really the star is just rotating out of the observer's limit of vision.

View attachment 353821

source video

View attachment 353822



That limit is derived from the same geometry that gives us the imagined radius of a globe earth. In reality, nothing is disappearing behind an imaginary "earth curve", it is simply getting so far away that it seems to vanish below the horizon, our limit of vision.

View attachment 353824

It is the celestial 'dome' of stars, and our spherical limit of vision that has sphericity. That celestial spherical geometry was erroneously projected onto the shape of the earth.

It's a mathematical inversion of reality. Like if someone were flying in an airplane, and then they used all observations and calculations to deduce that they were physically motionless, and the entire earth was physically rushing past them at hundreds of miles per hour.

From Walter Bislin's blog

Important Note
I know some Flat Earthers misrepresent and misuse this model and claim having a working Flat Earth Model. They are lying about how it works and deliberatly don't show the following description.

How the Flat Earth Dome Model works
This Flat Earth Dome Model can only make correct predictions for some observations, because:

This Flat Earth Dome Model is based on data from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Development Ephemeris (JPL), a physics simulation of the Heliocentric Model using Newton's Laws of Gravitation and Motion and General Relativity. It is based on measured 3D Orbits, Constellations, Inclinations, Axial Tilts, Distances and Velocities, and the correct Sizes and Masses of Sun, Moon and Globe Earth, see Source Code: FE-Dome App and search for constants. The heliocentric values used in the code of this App are the result of JPL's measurements and physics simulations.

The results from the calculations using the Heliocentric 3D-Model are then projected onto the Flat Earth and the Dome. To optically connect a Flat Earth Observer with Celestial Objects on the Dome, visible from his location at the right Azimuth and Elevation, light has to bend in ways, which can not be observed in reality. This Model fails already for Observers at an altitude and has many other flaws.

This Model requires that light bends different depending on the observers location. There is no known physics that explains how this could happen. How does your "azimuthal grid of vision" know the location of the observer so it knows how to bend light as required for the personal observation, Witsit, Shane, any flat earther?

For the Globe and Heliocentric Model however no projections and no weird location dependent light bending is required to match all observations for any observer on earth and in space without any flaws, because in reality the earth is a rotating Globe orbiting a distant Sun with a Moon orbiting the Earth.