What globe? Flat Earth and Flat-Earthers

trendsetter37

The Living Force
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Good find Buddy. Point #8 is what I thought about initially after watching about an hour of the video.

The time in New York, at the moment these words are written, is 12:00pm. The sun is in the middle of the sky (though it’s hard to see with the current cloud coverage). In Beijing, where Michael Phelps is likely getting ready for yet another gold medal, it’s 12:00am, midnight, and the sun is nowhere to be found.

In Adelaide, Australia, it is 1:30am. More than 13 hours ahead. There, the sunset is long gone – so much so, that it’s soon going to rise up again in the beginning of a new day. Here’s a list showing what time it is around the world when it is 12:00pm in New York city.

timezones12.jpg


This can only be explained if the world is round, and rotating around its own axis. At a certain point when the sun is shining on one part of the Earth, the opposite side is dark, and vise versa. That allows for time differences and timezones, specifically ones that are larger than 12 hours.

Another point concerning timezones, the sun and flat/spherical Earth: If the sun was a “spotlight” (very directionally located so that light only shines on a specific location) and the world was flat, we would have seen the sun even if it didn’t shine on top of us (as you can see in the drawing below). The same way you can see the light coming out of a spotlight on a stage in the theater, even though you – the crowd – are in the dark. The only way to create two distinctly separate timezones, where there is complete darkness in one while there’s light in the other, is if the world is spherical.

timezones22.jpg

I am not sure how we could experience day and night like we do if the Earth wasn't a sphere.
 

Richs

Dagobah Resident
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

DougEE said:
So maybe the Earth is flat, or saucer shaped, or a torus in the Objective Reality, but it doesn't really matter if we insist viewing it through the human eyes-brain complex because it will always transform into the globe or the plane (if you are a flat-earther).

The thing is, it does matter what the Earth actually is in the Objective Reality. One of our main objectives here is to see reality as closely as possible as it exists. ALL aspects of reality! As we do this and become more aligned with how reality is it causes the world to become 'less chaotic', and the opposite is also true, when we are less aligned with how reality actually is it makes the world tend toward 'disorder'. This is something Ark has discovered while doing his experimentation with EEQT.

Now if we want to start viewing it through other means (eg spiritually) we may 'see' something quite different.

'Spirituality' is generally very misunderstood. It is really what we do here: working to know as much as we can about 'what is true'.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?


Well, I've flown in planes and observed the ground underneath, and the curvature of the earth from very high up. Sure, that could be some kind of illusion or delusion, but not highly likely to be.

I've observed the moon and other planets through a telescope. They are globe-like. So is the sun.

I've spent time on boats and beaches and observed the appearing and disappearing of boats at the horizon.

I know that it is nighttime on the other side of the planet when it is daytime here. I've even talked to people on the telephone - or communicated via internet - at such times, confirming the phenomenon. I don't think my friends are lying to me about it.

I'm sorry, but I can only think that some kind of schizophrenic idiot would even take this sort of claim seriously. :headbash:
 

Duke

Jedi
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

I'm very surprised that nobody watched the whole video....I went on to have a look at some other stuff that he has done and was quite impressed. I don't agree or disagree because I haven't put the "work" into either point of view.
Yes, Laura I have seen the things you stated. And still I come back to ask myself why would a plane only fly north 'so to speak" If the earth is a globe { got no idea either way} why wouldn't you just fly across the Antarctic instead right around the top??
I found this interesting -- if nothing else. More information to keep in mind while learning and living........FWIW
 

Windmill knight

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Parallel said:
fig71.jpg
"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."

[...]

The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.

If this were so, and lines most distant to the eye-line converged further than lines closer to the eye-line, then if I were to stand on a mountain, and looked down at ships moving away on the sea, I would see the top of the ship disappear before the bottom, because my eye-line would be closer to the top of the ship than the bottom. But that's not what we observe.

Furthermore, for any object moving away from me, the first thing to disappear would be the center of the object, that is, the parts which are closer to my eye-line, and not the bottom, as we observe with ships. For a car moving away in the distance, it is the hood that should disappear first, since it is closer to my eye-line as I am standing up.

Finally, if the convergence of lines is determined by the angle they make with my eye-line, then I could make different parts of a ship in the distance disappear, depending on whether I moved my eyes and looked directly at the masts or the hull.

In short, I think that the author is confusing the angle of lines to the eye-line, with the actual distance of objects relative to their size, as the determining factor on when an object becomes invisible to the eye. The definition he quotes that states that an object disappears at one minute angle refers to the apparent space the object occupies in our field of vision, irrespective of the eye-line, the line of the horizon or any imaginary lines above the horizon, as well as any possible angles between these lines.
 

Duke

Jedi
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Oh and thank you ankhepiphan for posting this. Brave considering the bashing you may receive.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Duke said:
I'm very surprised that nobody watched the whole video....I went on to have a look at some other stuff that he has done and was quite impressed. I don't agree or disagree because I haven't put the "work" into either point of view.
Yes, Laura I have seen the things you stated. And still I come back to ask myself why would a plane only fly north 'so to speak" If the earth is a globe { got no idea either way} why wouldn't you just fly across the Antarctic instead right around the top??
I found this interesting -- if nothing else. More information to keep in mind while learning and living........FWIW

There are a lot of reasons for why airlines fly specific routes. Some of those reasons are weather, jet stream, EM issues. I'm sure that some of the airline pilots on the forum here can explain some of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_planning

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2013/06/24/ask-the-captain-why-dont-planes-fly-in-a-straight-line/2449729/

Something else to consider:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly

And differences in gravity:

http://www.universetoday.com/116801/the-potsdam-gravity-potato-shows-earths-gravity-variations/

Frankly, I can't even believe that this conversation is taking place.

Remember the skill of the schizoid psychopath to sell snow to Eskimos.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Duke said:
And still I come back to ask myself why would a plane only fly north 'so to speak" If the earth is a globe { got no idea either way} why wouldn't you just fly across the Antarctic instead right around the top??
Not sure what is meant by the question, but I guess it's related to the geodesic distance. If you take a sphere, the shortest distance isn't necessarily parallel to the lines of constant latitude.

Take the following image for example. If you have to fly from Scandinavia to Alaska, the closest route passes close to the north pole. From the point of view of longitudes and latitudes, the plane goes north.

Azimutalprojektion-schief_kl-cropped.png


Hope it's related to the question.

Added: Another illustration.

image.axd
 

Duke

Jedi
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

This "tweaked" my curiosity because I'm in the southern hemisphere { Aust.} and this seemed odd to make all planes fly the most indirect route from the S-H. i.e.- Perth to South Africa.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Duke said:
This "tweaked" my curiosity because I'm in the southern hemisphere { Aust.} and this seemed odd to make all planes fly the most indirect route from the S-H. i.e.- Perth to South Africa.

Do you know they do? For a fact?
 

Peam

Jedi Council Member
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

A plane can only hold so much fuel, it would make sense for flight paths to be as short as reasonably possible over large oceans even if it's a longer route, and sticking as close to land as possible both for refuelling and rescue if the plane went down. As well as reasons that Laura pointed out.

Flying straight across the Antarctic could be foolish considering how freezing cold it gets, which could freeze the engines and windscreen, not to mention total vision white-out.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

More:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route

Arctic polar routes are now common on airlines connecting Asian cities (Bangkok, Beijing, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, New Delhi, Mumbai, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Taipei and Tokyo) to North American cities (New York, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver and Washington, D.C.). Emirates flies nonstop from Dubai to the US West Coast (San Francisco, Seattle and Los Angeles), coming within a few degrees of latitude of the North Pole.

Few airlines fly between cities having a great circle route over Antarctica. Direct flights between South Africa and New Zealand would overfly Antarctica, but no airline has scheduled such flights. LAN Airlines flies nonstop between Auckland, Sydney and Santiago and Qantas flies nonstop between Sydney and Santiago, the most southerly polar route. Depending on winds, these reach 55 degrees south latitude, but other times 71 degrees, which is enough to cross the polar ice cap.

Depending on the winds, the Qantas flight QF 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg sometimes flies over the Antarctic Circle to latitude 71 degrees as well and allowing views of the icecap.

The FAA's policy letter Guidance for Polar Operations (March 5, 2001) outlines a number of special requirements for polar flight, which includes two cold-weather suits, special communication capability, designation of arctic diversion airports and firm recovery plans for stranded passengers, and fuel freeze strategy and monitoring requirements.

Jet fuel freeze temperatures range between -40 and -50 °C. These temperatures are frequently encountered at cruise altitude throughout the world with no effect since the fuel retains heat from lower elevations, but the intense cold and extended duration of polar flights may cause fuel temperature to approach its freezing point. Jet A grade with a maximum freeze point of -40 °C is used in the U.S., while Jet A1 grade with a maximum freeze point of -47 °C is used elsewhere.[17] Modern long-distance airliners are equipped to alert flight crew when fuel temperatures reach 3 °C above these levels. The crew must then change altitude, though in some cases due to the low stratosphere over polar regions and its inversion properties the air may actually be somewhat warmer at higher altitudes.

One of the problems with the Mercator projection is that it shrinks the Southern hemisphere. Sydney's actually at 33 degrees south (roughly the same equivalent of San Diego) and Rio's at 22 South (equivalent to Kolkata). Would you expect to fly over the North pole from San Diego to Kolkata?
 

Buddy

The Living Force
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Duke said:
I don't agree or disagree because I haven't put the "work" into either point of view.

Duke said:
This "tweaked" my curiosity because I'm in the southern hemisphere { Aust.} and this seemed odd to make all planes fly the most indirect route from the S-H. i.e.- Perth to South Africa.

Judging by the quotes above it appears to me that you do disagree with the video author. What you said in the second quote, belies your total acceptance and non-contradictory belief that Earth is spherical and that, in fact, you are not "equal minded" with respect to the issue. Non-contradictory thus far anyway.

Why? Having assimilated the views and teachings that you apparently have and considering that so far you report no discrepancies or contradictions in your experience of the world as such, you have accepted the common knowledge heuristically but somehow present as if there is a legitimate, unsettled scientific question here and that your view is balanced.

I can't believe you were being externally considerate to the "sphere believers" because if you were, I doubt you would have made that public comment to ankhepiphan: "Brave considering the bashing you may receive." Did you mean "bashing" from the forum members, because I don't imagine ankhepiphan running around telling everybody (s)he thinks the world is flat.

If I'm missing something, please feel free to correct me.
 

Duke

Jedi
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

I'm picking up on the points in the video AND some information about the MF370 plane i.e. - Went Off radar and never got picked up at the next expected position.....
In the video, He asks Why the planes go on and off the tracking system when they are flying over the oceans given they are being tracked by GPS.
I'm only picking up points from the presentation. If no one has watched it than I can see why my points/questions are hard to fathom {apart from being crap at asking without context}
I'm sorry, I'm very tired at the moment {12hr N\s} I'll stop now.....
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Re: Is the Earth an enclosed technologically created world, and NOT a globe?

Well, while I'm totally flabbergasted that any sane person in this day and age could even ask the question, much less go whole hog in believing that the earth is flat, I am also fascinated by what kind of mentality would go this direction. I mean, geezus! Getting over this ridiculous idea cost quite a few lives and some great scientific minds.

So, I found this on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_societies

Pseudoscientific flat Earth hypotheses originated with the English writer Samuel Rowbotham (1816–1884). Based on his conclusions derived from the Bedford Level experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment), Rowbotham published a 16-page pamphlet, Zetetic Astronomy, which he later expanded into a 430-page book, Earth Not a Globe, in which the Earth is a flat disc centred at the North Pole and bounded along its southern edge by a wall of ice (Antarctica), with the Sun and Moon 3,000 miles (4,800 km) and the "cosmos" 3,100 miles (5,000 km) above Earth.[1] He also published a leaflet entitled "The inconsistency of Modern Astronomy and its Opposition to the Scriptures!!", which argued that the "Bible, alongside our senses, supported the idea that the earth was flat and immovable and this essential truth should not be set aside for a system based solely on human conjecture".[2]

Rowbotham and followers like William Carpenter, who continued the belief, gained attention by successful use of pseudoscience in public debates with leading scientists of the day. One such debate, involving Alfred Russel Wallace, concerned the Bedford Level experiment (and later led to several lawsuits for fraud and libel).[3][4][5] Rowbotham created a Zetetic Society in England and New York, shipping over a thousand copies of Zetetic Astronomy.[6]

After Rowbotham's death, Lady Elizabeth Blount, wife of explorer Sir Walter de Sodington Blount, established a Universal Zetetic Society, whose objective was "the propagation of knowledge related to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based on practical scientific investigation". The society published a magazine, The Earth Not a Globe Review, and remained active well into the early 20th century.[7] A flat Earth journal, Earth: a Monthly Magazine of Sense and Science, was published between 1901–1904, edited by Lady Blount.[8]

The International Flat Earth Research Society (IFERS), the first modern Flat Earth society organization, was founded by Englishman Samuel Shenton in 1956[9] and was later led by American Charles K. Johnson, who based the organization in his home town of Lancaster, California. The belief lacked representation after Johnson’s death in 2001, until the name was reclaimed in 2004 by Johnson's self-proclaimed successor 'Daniel Shenton' (likely a reference to Samuel Shenton), a man claiming to live in Hong Kong.

In 1956, Samuel Shenton, a signwriter by trade, created the International Flat Earth Society as a successor to the Universal Zetetic Society and ran it as "organizing secretary" from his home in Dover, England.[7][14] Given Shenton's interest in alternative science and technology, the emphasis on religious arguments was less than in the predecessor society.[15]

When satellite images showed Earth as a sphere, Shenton remarked: "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool the untrained eye".[16]

It was not until the advent of human spaceflight that Shenton attracted wide publicity, being featured in The New York Times in January and June 1964, when the epithet "flat-earther" was also slung across the floor of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom in both directions.

The society also claimed that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax staged by Hollywood (a position also held outside the Flat Earth Society).

In 1969, Shenton persuaded Ellis Hillman, a Polytechnic lecturer, to become president of the Flat Earth Society; but there is little evidence of any activity on his part until after Shenton's death, when he added most of Shenton's library to the archives of the Science Fiction Foundation he helped to establish.

Shenton died in 1971; Charles K. Johnson, inheriting part of Shenton's library from Shenton's wife, established and became president of the International Flat Earth Research Society of America and Covenant People's Church in California. Under his leadership, over the next three decades, the Flat Earth Society grew from a few members to a reported 3,500.[19] Johnson gave newsletters, flyers, maps, and other publications to anyone who asked for them, and managed all membership applications together with his wife, Marjory. The most famous of these newsletters was Flat Earth News. Johnson paid for these publications through annual member dues costing US$6 to US$10 over the course of his leadership.[20] Johnson's beliefs were based on the Bible, and he saw scientists as pulling a hoax which would replace religion with science.

The Flat Earth Society's most recent world model is that humanity lives on a disc, with the North Pole at its center and a 150-foot (45 m) high wall of ice (Antarctica) at the outer edge.[21] The resulting map resembles the symbol of the United Nations, which Johnson used as evidence for his position.[22] In this model, the Sun and Moon are each 32 miles (52 km) in diameter.[23]

Flat Earth Society recruited members by speaking against the U. S. government and all its agencies, particularly NASA. Much of the society’s literature in its early days focused on interpreting the Bible to mean that the Earth is flat, although they did try to offer scientific explanations and evidence.[20]

Flat Earth News

Flat Earth News, was a quarterly, four-page tabloid.[20]

Some headlines from Flat Earth News during the 1970s and early 1980s:[24]

"Whole World Deceived... Except the Very Elect" (Dec. 1977)
"Australia Not Down Under" (May 1978)
"Sun Is a Light 32 Miles Across" (Dec. 1978)
"The Earth Has No Motion" (Jun. 1979)
"Nikita Krushchev Father of NASA" (Mar. 1980)
"Galileo Was a Liar" (Dec. 1980)
"Science Insults Your Intelligence" (Sep. 1980)
"World IS Flat, and That's That" (Sep. 1980)
"The Earth Is Not a Ball; Gravity Does Not Exist" (Mar. 1981)

Peak and decline

The group rose to 3,500 members under Charles K. Johnson.[19] Later, "Flat-earther" became a common epithet for someone who stubbornly adheres to discredited or outmoded ideas.

The society fell to 200 members by 1980. Eugenie Scott called them an example of "extreme Biblical-literalist theology: The earth is flat because the Bible says it is flat, regardless of what science tells us".[25] The society was further affected by a fire at the house of Charles K. Johnson which destroyed all of the records and contacts of members of the Society. Johnson’s wife, who helped manage the database, died shortly thereafter. Johnson himself died on March 19, 2001.

Modern Flat Earth Societies

In 2004, Daniel Shenton (not related to Samuel[27]) resurrected the Flat Earth Society, basing it around a web-based discussion forum.[28] This eventually led to the official relaunch of the society in October 2009,[29] and the creation of a new website, featuring the world's largest public collection of Flat Earth literature and a user-edited encyclopedia.[30] Moreover, the society began accepting new members for the first time since 2001, with musician Thomas Dolby becoming the first member to join the newly reconvened society. As of July 2014, over 500 people have become members.[31] Shenton has also conducted several interviews since the society's relaunch, including in The Guardian newspaper.[12]

In 2013, part of this society broke away to form a new web-based group also featuring a forum and wiki.[32] In 2015, an independent Flat Earther Eric Dubay started an online debate forum named after the first modern Flat Earth Society, The International Flat Earth Research Society (IFERS).[33] Eric did this out of his belief that all other Flat Earth societies are "controlled opposition". [34] Eric Dubay has published videos on YouTube claiming to prove the earth is flat.

Canadian society

Flat Earth Society of Canada was established on 8 November 1970 by philosopher Leo Ferrari, writer Raymond Fraser and poet Alden Nowlan;[35] and was active until 1984.[36] Calling themselves planoterrestrialists,[37] their aims were quite different from other flat earth societies. With obvious humorous overtones, they claimed a prevailing problem of the new technological age was the willingness of people to accept theories "on blind faith and to reject the evidence of their own senses."[36] They did not actually believe Flat Earth theories, considering their proponents cranks, and did not accept such people into their society, which was made of quite a few prominent members of Canadian literary and political circles.

They published a newsletter, The Official Chronicle and promoted their ideas more widely via television and press. Its main aims were "to combat the fallacious deification of the circle," "to restore man's confidence in the validity of his own perceptions", and "to spearhead man's escape from his metaphysical and geometrical prison."

As of 2003, Iris Taylor of I. Taylor Research has worked to reinstate the Canadian Chapter of the Flat Earth Society and recruit new members.
 
Top Bottom