Kevin Alfred Strom -- 5d Looks like obfuscation of the obvious with ten jiggers of needless complexity added. When traveling from the northern hemisphere across the equator into the southern hemisphere, Polaris sets, still-visible constellations become inverted, and new constellations rise and come into view. None of that could possibly happen on a flat Earth. reply [1 reply]Looks like obfuscation of the obvious with ten jiggers of needless complexity added. When traveling from the northern hemisphere across the equator into the southern hemisphere, Polaris sets, still-visible constellations become inverted, and new constellations rise and come into view. None of that could possibly happen on a flat Earth.
thread · root 7bc79190…b110 · depth 5 · · selected 770dc979…742e
thread
root 7bc79190…b110 · depth 5 · · selected 770dc979…742e
😂😂😂 I would love to see that too
I don't buy into flat earth because:The time it takes to fly from London to New York to Tokyo to London is significantly shorter than the time ittakes to fly Dubai to Miami to Hong Kong to Dubai, and that time is longer than the time it takes to fly Sydneyto Sao Paolo to Johannesburg to Sydney.This only makes sense if the earth is round and thicker near the equator. If the earth was flat with the northpole in the middle, the Sydney circumnavigation would be the longest, London the shortest. I can't think of anyother explanation.
I am a former broadcast engineer. If the Earth were flat, FM radio stations in Oahu could be heard clearly inLos Angeles 24/7. But they can't be heard there at all. The signals are blocked by the curvature of the Earth.Radio broadcast and communications engineering coverage calculations have to take that curvature into account inorder to be accurate. The Earth is not flat.
The celestial theodolite experiment is hard to reconcile.It eliminates common variables that tend to be disputed.It is data heavy so feel free to have an llm break it down.https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/Celestial_Theodolite/Celestial_Theodolite_Index
Looks like obfuscation of the obvious with ten jiggers of needless complexity added. When traveling from thenorthern hemisphere across the equator into the southern hemisphere, Polaris sets, still-visible constellationsbecome inverted, and new constellations rise and come into view. None of that could possibly happen on a flatEarth.
I don't buy into flat earth because:
The time it takes to fly from London to New York to Tokyo to London is significantly shorter than the time it takes to fly Dubai to Miami to Hong Kong to Dubai, and that time is longer than the time it takes to fly Sydney to Sao Paolo to Johannesburg to Sydney.
This only makes sense if the earth is round and thicker near the equator. If the earth was flat with the north pole in the middle, the Sydney circumnavigation would be the longest, London the shortest. I can't think of any other explanation.
Kevin Alfred Strom -- 8d [parent] | reply [1 reply]I am a former broadcast engineer. If the Earth were flat, FM radio stations in Oahu could be heard clearly in Los Angeles 24/7. But they can't be heard there at all. The signals are blocked by the curvature of the Earth. Radio broadcast and communications engineering coverage calculations have to take that curvature into account in order to be accurate. The Earth is not flat.
Sovereign Being -- 5d [parent] | reply [1 reply]The celestial theodolite experiment is hard to reconcile. It eliminates common variables that tend to be disputed. It is data heavy so feel free to have an llm break it down. https://publish.obsidian.md/spaceaudits/Celestial_Theodolite/Celestial_Theodolite_Index
I think you're ignoring the experiment and moving to a different example because it's uncomfortable to address. Whenever the topic comes up the goalposts are always moved.
The perceived 'complexity' is not that complex on the face of it.
Predicting the position of stars using globe based data for when a star is occluded by a mountain peak across over 40 data points is a pretty comprehensive way to test the hypothesis. The complexity is to eliminate the typical "you didn't control for x or y".
It's simple - does globe or 'flat' geometry produce the expected observations.
It has to be comprehensive so that it can't be picked apart with silly talking points like refraction.
People don't want to address this because of the potentially uncomfortable conclusions. And falsification of the claims requires no further proof.