dimanche 12 juin 2016

Against a Flat Earth Error

Commenting on:

A Biblical World View And One Man's Quest For Truth
© 2015 by Rob Skiba

"Reason # 2: The lunar eclipse is a really good argument, and so far, I don't have a good argument against it, which is one of the reasons I do still believe in a globe model myself."

I consider it inferior to Magellan.

OK, the one voyage of Magellan could have been a circular path on a circular surface in a flat or near flat plane. But the thousands of partial Magellans and a few full one's at different latitudes.

Lunar eclipses were mentioned by Aristotle, but Hindoo Flat Earthers have an answer: planet Rahoo causes all eclipses (Lunar and Solar), but it is hidden below the rim except when coming up to hide Sun or Moon.

"Globalist Argument #6: Many will point to the fact that there are some stars visible in the southern hemisphere that cannot be seen in the norhtern. Fair enough. But it seems to me that this is easily explained. Imagine an extremely large bowl over a massively huge plain. Now imagine you are under the central (northern) area of the bowl. You see Orion, perhaps the most recognizable of all the constellations, and one that is visible in both hemespheres. He looks quite big with his head facing upward toward the north. Then, you go toward the outer (southern) regions of the plain and look up again. Not only does Orion look inverted (because you are essentially now looking up his skirt), but you also see stars on the lower ends of the dome that were not visible to you when you were much further away, under the center of the dome."

You need at least a curvature on plain, mere distance will not hide stars. Supposing they were hidden because too far away, thus "too small" a telescope would fix that.

Also, there would be no Southern Cross, because no South Pole, if Earth were flat. It can bee seen from South tips of Argentina as much as from South tips of Australia. In each case at unvarying location, just like Polar Star on Northern hemisphere.

Above two visible on site since Nov 19, 2015 11:30am. Following posted yesterday and now not visible on site (perhaps just a temporary glitch), therefore taken from my FB wall:

Hi; Bob!

Globalist Argument #4: "What about time zones? How can you have time zones on a flat earth?" This argument presupposes a couple of things: 1) the earth is essentially a flat piece of paper with continents on it and 2) the sun is just shining straight down on the whole thing. The Flat Earther model refutes this by showing something like the following, depicting the sun and moon in an enclosed system, much smaller and much closer than where we consider them to be in our standard globalist view: In this model, the sun acts like a "point light" with a limited throw of light, leaving the unexposed areas in the dark. This effectively gives the same results as a rotating earth would in terms of time zones. It also helps to explain the vertical meter stick and shadow experiment. If the much smaller and closer sun is standing over one meter stick, the shadow will be straight down, whereas the one further away will be casting a longer shadow. It's not rocket science.

Except one problem.

I am supposing you take the view of a North mid dimple and a South rim, rather than reverse.

On this view, in June there is no problem for North Pole being light 24/24 and South Pole dark same time.

But how about December?

One part of "South rim" would clearly be lighted very easily, but if North dimple was screened from Sun light, so would other edge of "South rim" be.

// Here we have the impossible. The distance between Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville and Chicago is about 60 miles. At that distance, Chicago should be nearly a half-mile (2,400 ft) below the horizon - assuming we are on a ball with a curvature of 8" per mile!//

Your formula is correct for looking direction Chicago from sea level, eyes down at sea level.

Other formulas are correct for looking from a building, like Nowacki did.

Note to others:

I think flat earth is an error. I do not consider it heresy. I do not consider it madness. Phlogiston theory was an error in chemistry, I presume, but chemists holding it previous to Lavoisier were not excommunicated by the Church, nor mad. Nor would one be mad to defend it against Lavoisier, if one had a reason to be nostalgic about J J Becher./HGL

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire