View of Snowdonia From Dublin - Mirage?

[Viggo]

Hi guys, I've been directed here from @HoaxEye on twitter.

I'm relatively new to flat earth research and have been gripped by the fact that we see too far.

[Mod: Simplified post to single claim]

How we can see objects(mountains, ships, beaches, lighthouses etc) that should be obstructed by earths curvature when using spherical trigonometry.

I'm aware of atmospheric refraction and the thermal gradients that cause light to bend which can explain some shorter distances over water.

I've attached some photos/screenshots of the photo in question, taken over the Irish Sea from Dublin at 171metres above sea level, its shows the peaks of snowdonia very clearly. Two peaks to the right Gym Ddu and Gam Ganol at roughly 560m high should be obstructed behind the earths curvature.

Source: https://www.northwaleschronicle.co....photograph-snow-capped-snowdon-taken-ireland/

Niall O'Carroll captured the exceptional photograph on January 12 at about 2.30pm. The keen photographer took the snap from the Ben of Howth, the summit of a large peninsula in suburban North Dublin

Any help to decipher would be great. Just saying refraction wouldn't explain this. As superior mirages are typically inverted. Only in the last two years do we have any photographic evidence of none inverted superior mirages, so if it was that common, we would have more evidence of this. These views can be screen frequently from either side, whether looking from Wales to Ireland or Ireland to Wales. Looking forward to people's response. Thanks

 

[Mick West]

Just saying refraction wouldn't explain this. As superior mirages are typically inverted. Only in the last two years do we have any photographic evidence of none inverted superior mirages, so if it was that common, we would have more evidence of this. T

Superior mirages are ALWAYS inverted. They also have a gap between them and the horizon. This is NOT a superior mirage, or really any type of mirage. It's simply normal atmospheric looming.

Looming raises up distant objects because light in the atmosphere bends down, towards the more dense air (which has a higher refractive index.) This has the effect of slightly flattinging what the Earth looks like, allowing you to see things that would normally be hidden by the horizon.

Only in the last two years do we have any photographic evidence of none inverted superior mirages

This is false. You might be thinking of the "hovering ship" illusion, which is not a mirage. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-hovering-ship-fata-morgana-or-mirage-false-horizon.9112/

 

[DavidB66]

a. Stated distance of Snowdon from Ben of Howth: 85 miles
b. Height of Ben of Howth: 561 feet (Wikipedia)
c. Height of Snowdon: 3560 feet (Wikipedia)
d. 'Hidden' height at 85 miles from a viewpoint of 561 feet: 1646 feet (Metabunk Curve Calculator, assuming standard atmospheric refraction)

(c) minus (d): 3560 - 1646 = 1914 feet.

So if these figures are correct, it should not be surprising that in good visibility conditions quite a lot of Snowdon is visible from the Ben of Howth, even with normal amounts of atmospheric refraction. Other parts of the newspaper report do however suggest that refractive conditions were unusually favourable at the time.

 

[Mendel]

I'm relatively new to flat earth research and have been gripped by the fact that we see too far.

have you ever been gripped by the fact that we don't see far enough
we should be able to see much further if the Earth was flat

so you can compare what we usually see
with what we should see under ideal circumstances if
a) the Earth was globe that appeared at 4/3 of its normal size due to refraction, or
b) the Earth was flat

it gets even more interesting if you think about what we should see in the sky

 

[Mick West]

I've added this example to the refraction simulator
https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/?~(p~'Snowdonia*20From*20Dublin)_

This is the view with no refraction

And here it is WITH standard refraction

The inset with the rays shows a side view of lines of sight, vastly stretched vertically. In the "no refraction" they are straight. With refraction the lower lines bend down slightly, allowing you to see over the horizon a little.

Also, notice the magenta line, that's eye level. The horizon does not rise to eye level.

(note: this isn't going to be perfect, as it uses a 2D image for Snowdonia, which is quite a few miles inland and relatively shallow slopes - the best examples are steep and right next to the water)

 

[Ravi]

flat earth research

 

[captancourgette]

I was going to post this link but had to go somewhere for 15 mins and I see Mick has beating me with a much better Calcuator

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=48.28032000002595&h0=731&unit=metric

have you ever been gripped by the fact that we don't see far enough
we should be able to see much further if the Earth was flat

Yeah We should be able to see mt everest from any place on the planet, OK the atmosphere/pollution would prolly eventually block it out but still in theory with a flat earth you should be able to see very far. I wonder where on earth has the clearest view, antartica / a desert?

Some records can be found here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_distance_observations

 

[Viggo]

Superior mirages are ALWAYS inverted. They also have a gap between them and the horizon. This is NOT a superior mirage, or really any type of mirage. It's simply normal atmospheric looming.

Looming raises up distant objects because light in the atmosphere bends down, towards the more dense air (which has a higher refractive index.) This has the effect of slightly flattinging what the Earth looks like, allowing you to see things that would normally be hidden by the horizon.


This is false. You might be thinking of the "hovering ship" illusion, which is not a mirage. See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-hovering-ship-fata-morgana-or-mirage-false-horizon.9112/

Thanks for the reply.

I find it difficult to believe that every long distance sighting of land over sea (as per the photo in the original post) which should be hidden behind the horizon is atmospheric looming.

The detail witnessed and with what looks like no distortion seems impossible through poteintially inconsistent temperatures and air densities.

Like I said the light would need to travel upto 85 miles (on this occasion) to the viewer without distortion, you would need perfectly consistent tempreture gradient on the land and over the Irish Sea from Wales to Dublin to ensure that the light did not bend irregularly causing a distortion. I find this very unlikely.


If you have another other threads regarding atmospheric looming of long distance sighting of land over water, please link them.


https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-hovering-ship-fata-morgana-or-mirage-false-horizon.9112/ this was very useful and interesting, if scientifically accurate. Thanks

 

[Viggo]

a. Stated distance of Snowdon from Ben of Howth: 85 miles

b. Height of Ben of Howth: 561 feet (Wikipedia)
c. Height of Snowdon: 3560 feet (Wikipedia)
d. 'Hidden' height at 85 miles from a viewpoint of 561 feet: 1646 feet (Metabunk Curve Calculator, assuming standard atmospheric refraction)

(c) minus (d): 3560 - 1646 = 1914 feet.

So if these figures are correct, it should not be surprising that in good visibility conditions quite a lot of Snowdon is visible from the Ben of Howth, even with normal amounts of atmospheric refraction. Other parts of the newspaper report do however suggest that refractive conditions were unusually favourable at the time.

Yes agreed with regards to the peaks above 1914ft, my curiosity is with the peaks below that height, mainly Gym Ddu and Gam Ganol.

Also when comparing to the tallest peak of Yr Wyddffa (1085m), Gym Ddu (552m) in the original photo, Gym Ddu looks close to half the height of Yr Wyddffa, suggesting we are seeing most of the peaks not just a small portion of each.

 

[Viggo]

have you ever been gripped by the fact that we don't see far enough
we should be able to see much further if the Earth was flat

so you can compare what we usually see
with what we should see under ideal circumstances if
a) the Earth was globe that appeared at 4/3 of its normal size due to refraction, or
b) the Earth was flat

it gets even more interesting if you think about what we should see in the sky

I was going to post this link but had to go somewhere for 15 mins and I see Mick has beating me with a much better Calcuator

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=48.28032000002595&h0=731&unit=metric


Yeah We should be able to see mt everest from any place on the planet, OK the atmosphere/pollution would prolly eventually block it out but still in theory with a flat earth you should be able to see very far. I wonder where on earth has the clearest view, antartica / a desert?

Some records can be found here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_distance_observations

Yes with powerful enough optics, enough elevation and perfect atmospheric conditions, in theory you should be able to see mount everest on a flat plane earth. In reality these conditions are not attainable so shorter distances is all we have to try and find evidence of a curve.

Is there any tests conducted that somebody could point me to that measures the earths curve? Would save me some time in looking. Thanks

 

[Viggo]

Haha Believing is the enemy of knowing. Heliocentric model requires a great deal of belief with no possible 'grass roots' experiments to prove some of the theories. Thats why maybe I'm so drawn to geocentric earth theories, there's at least one experiment I do with my Nikon P1000 which I can say "I've seen with my own eyes."

 

[Mick West]

If you have another other threads regarding atmospheric looming of long distance sighting of land over water, please link them.

There are lots, just search this sub-forum for "looming"

https://www.metabunk.org/search/314962/?q=looming&t=post&c[child_nodes]=1&c[nodes][0]=51&o=relevance

 

[Viggo]

There are lots, just search this sub-forum for "looming"

https://www.metabunk.org/search/314962/?q=looming&t=post&c[child_nodes]=1&c[nodes][0]=51&o=relevance

Okay great, will give it a try, thanks.

How long do I as a new member have to wait for moderator to check all my posts before making them public. I've replied to a few other members in this thread but still waiting for my replies to register in the thread.
Will this feature be removed at all?

 

[Mauro]

Haha Believing is the enemy of knowing. Heliocentric model requires a great deal of belief with no possible 'grass roots' experiments to prove some of the theories. Thats why maybe I'm so drawn to geocentric earth theories, there's at least one experiment I do with my Nikon P1000 which I can say "I've seen with my own eyes."

Galileo would have loved a Nikon P1000

 

[Mendel]

The detail witnessed and with what looks like no distortion seems impossible through poteintially inconsistent temperatures and air densities.

have you checked that there is no distortion?
what conditions would need to apply for distortion to occur?

also, the most glaring problem is that you are looking at a single cherry-picked image
what is the view like on other days?

Is there any tests conducted that somebody could point me to that measures the earths curve? Would save me some time in looking. Thanks

https://jessekozlowski.wordpress.co...2015-2019-demonstrating-the-earths-curvature/

Jesse Kozlowski's videos 2015 – 2019 Measuring The Earth's Curvature.
For anyone interested, here are my videos demonstrating how to establish the horizontal reference line as the geometry required by the 8 inches times the distance in miles squared formula to measure the drop of the earth's curvature down from the tangent plane established perpendicular to the plumbline at the observer's location.

Jesse Kozlowski and George Hnatiuk have surveyed a frozen lake, you can also find that on youtube.
(Also, basically all geodetic surveys measure this all the time implicitly)

Haha Believing is the enemy of knowing. Heliocentric model requires a great deal of belief with no possible 'grass roots' experiments to prove some of the theories. Thats why maybe I'm so drawn to geocentric earth theories, there's at least one experiment I do with my Nikon P1000 which I can say "I've seen with my own eyes."

I've done the equinox sun shadow experiment at home: basically you make a primitive sundial (a pencil stuck in a pizza box in my case), expose it to the sun around one of the equninoxes (next chance is September 21st, doesn't have to be the exact day) and track the path that the tip of the shadow takes (I simply put a camera on a tripod and set it to do a time-lapse recording, and tracked the tip later)
on a sun moving in circles on a flat Earth, that path must be a circle; on a turning Earth globe, it's a straight line on the equinox

see also https://www.metabunk.org/threads/worldwide-eratosthenes-stick-experiment-may-14-15-16-2021.11730/

you can find someone on youtube who built their own gyrocompass at home
gyrocompasses have used on ships for 100 years to find true north, and they only work because the Earth rotates
I've also seen a Foucault's pendulum hung in the foyer of a university's science building

 

[Mendel]

Haha Believing is the enemy of knowing. Heliocentric model requires a great deal of belief with no possible 'grass roots' experiments to prove some of the theories.

The Flat Earth model requires a great deal of belief with no possible 'grass roots' experiments to prove some of the theories.
-- "water always find its level" contradicted on a daily basis if you live near the ocean
-- "Earth is flat" well nobody has ever measure that either
-- Flat Earth does not have a working map, when
---- it should be very easy to map a flat Earth on a flat piece of paper
---- most FEers have access to more information and better tools than Gerhard Mercator had in the 16th century when he produced his maps and globes
-- you ultimately also need to believe that nothing in the sky is even close to where we see it
---- especially if you consider sunrise and sunset in summer in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. New Zealand)
---- find a webcam in christchurch that is trained to the southern sky in December
---- or simply look up the directions for sunrise and sunset on timeanddate.com

 

[FatPhil]

I'm confused as to what FEers think now - do they think that these mountains have magically risen out of the water for this photo-op? Does their flat earth bend or something, and if so, is today a day when the welsh bit is unusally bent up, or is it flat today, and other times are when it's unusually bent down. Shouldn't someone tell the geologists their seismographs are broken?

 

[AmberRobot]

Is there any tests conducted that somebody could point me to that measures the earths curve? Would save me some time in looking. Thanks

Every day the motion of the Sun in the sky disproves the flat earth model so you could just watch the sun.
The flat earthers ignore this and focus on seeing over the horizon which is a harder thing because of refraction. Even if we lived on a planet so large these horizon experiments wouldn't work we could still look to the skies to tell our planet is a globe.
The flat earthers misrepresent or misunderstand perspective - just a little bit of geometry and trigonometry shows they are wrong.

 

[Scaramanga]

Having actually done a lot of mountain climbing in the UK, being able to see such large distances is not unusual at all. Even in the south east...on a clear day you can see ( and I have seen ) the Isle of Wight from Devil's Dyke ( 700 feet ), and that's 50 miles or so.....highest point on Isle of Wight is similar height. Furthest I have seen was Ben Hope from Ben Nevis...that's 112 miles...but that's looking towards a 3000 foot mountain from 4400 feet. Even at sea level, from Gairloch you can very easily see the outer Hebrides....40 to 50 miles away....not just the highest points but most of the Isle of Lewis. So being able to see Snowdonia from Ben Of Howth does not strike me as unreasonable at all. Here...centre of picture, is a view I have seen many times.....the outer Hebrides, 40 to 50 miles away, from sea level at Gairloch...

https://www.alamy.com/view-along-bi...dusk-gairloch-scotland-uk-image353657708.html

 

[Mendel]

from sea level at Gairloch...

the observer seems to be at least 8m above sea level
from personal observation, that difference in height already has a noticable effect on how much is obscured in the distance

 

[Rory]

the light would need to travel upto 85 miles (on this occasion) to the viewer without distortion, you would need perfectly consistent tempreture gradient on the land and over the Irish Sea from Wales to Dublin to ensure that the light did not bend irregularly causing a distortion. I find this very unlikely.

As you said, it is unlikely, which is why the photo made the news.

How many days per year is this view available? If you were to go there today and tomorrow and spend a few weeks looking towards Wales, how often would this be seen? Probably pretty rarely would be my guess: probably on most days the view (assuming it's not cloudy and rainy and grey) is more like what standard refraction predicts.

Are there any tests conducted that somebody could point me to that measures the earths curve?

There are lots, but most of them require a good understanding of how a flat/spherical earth would work.

The photo in the OP is a good flat earth disproof, since much more of Wales would be seen on a flat earth. But it doesn't strictly speaking measure the Earth's curvature, because of the issue with refraction.

Some of the simplest ones that anyone can do for themselves would be:

- Measuring the angle to the sun and noticing that it's only possible on a curved Earth
- Measuring the angular size of the sun and the moon and noticing that they stay the same throughout the day and the night, which is only possible on a curved Earth (ie, they remain more or less the same distance from the observer)
- Taking a flight across the southern hemisphere (there are lots to choose from) and understanding why flights from Chile to Australia go over ice
- Looking at views of distant mountains - I think this Rainier shot is the best, though San Jacinto is excellent also - and noticing that they're only possible on a curved Earth
- Taking a photo of the curve of the horizon
- Making a calculator that predicts where distant landmarks will appear in photographs and then noticing that it only works for a curved Earth, and fails for a flat one
- Measuring the angle you look down at to see the horizon (or simply noticing that the horizon is way below eye level when you get a decent elevation)
- Learning about stars and observing them
- Understanding the work of people like Walter Bislin
- Not disbelieving that space is fake and just looking at videos or pictures of the curved Earth

Lots more ways to observe and measure the Earth's curve than that, of course, but they should suffice for most people.

 

[Viggo]

have you checked that there is no distortion?
what conditions would need to apply for distortion to occur?

also, the most glaring problem is that you are looking at a single cherry-picked image
what is the view like on other days?


https://jessekozlowski.wordpress.co...2015-2019-demonstrating-the-earths-curvature/

Jesse Kozlowski's videos 2015 – 2019 Measuring The Earth's Curvature.
For anyone interested, here are my videos demonstrating how to establish the horizontal reference line as the geometry required by the 8 inches times the distance in miles squared formula to measure the drop of the earth's curvature down from the tangent plane established perpendicular to the plumbline at the observer's location.

Jesse Kozlowski and George Hnatiuk have surveyed a frozen lake, you can also find that on youtube.
(Also, basically all geodetic surveys measure this all the time implicitly)


I've done the equinox sun shadow experiment at home: basically you make a primitive sundial (a pencil stuck in a pizza box in my case), expose it to the sun around one of the equninoxes (next chance is September 21st, doesn't have to be the exact day) and track the path that the tip of the shadow takes (I simply put a camera on a tripod and set it to do a time-lapse recording, and tracked the tip later)
on a sun moving in circles on a flat Earth, that path must be a circle; on a turning Earth globe, it's a straight line on the equinox

see also https://www.metabunk.org/threads/worldwide-eratosthenes-stick-experiment-may-14-15-16-2021.11730/

you can find someone on youtube who built their own gyrocompass at home
gyrocompasses have used on ships for 100 years to find true north, and they only work because the Earth rotates
I've also seen a Foucault's pendulum hung in the foyer of a university's science building

Thanks for your response. I shall look into the sticks experiment, although on the FE model the outcome would be the same, as per the Eratosthenes experiment with sticks would too.

As far the Foucault pendulum this requires an electromagnet to keep it in motion. So I'm unclear on what this Foucault pendulum is supposed to prove.

Gyrocompasses I don't fully understand. As for absolute north thats in the same spot for both models.

 

[Viggo]

The Flat Earth model requires a great deal of belief with no possible 'grass roots' experiments to prove some of the theories.

"water always find its level" contradicted on a daily basis if you live near the ocean

Are you refuting that water always finds level? What you maybe be referring to is ocean tides which are more pronounced in the northern hemisphere.

"Earth is flat" well nobody has ever measure that either - agreed no one has claimed to.


-- Flat Earth does not have a working map, when
it should be very easy to map a flat Earth on a flat piece of paper- agreed there is not absolute accurate map in existence. FE maps fall short even further than globe maps, but since we've had the technology in the last 50 years to produce a more accurate map of earth, all the money and focus has been spent on globe maps so they have a running headstart on this topic.

---- most FEers have access to more information and better tools than Gerhard Mercator had in the 16th century when he produced his maps and globes- yes agreed, only difference is it was his life work, expertise and most likely funded.

-- you ultimately also need to believe that nothing in the sky is even close to where we see it- please elaborate on this?

---- especially if you consider sunrise and sunset in summer in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. New Zealand) -
---- find a webcam in christchurch that is trained to the southern sky in December
---- or simply look up the directions for sunrise and sunset on timeanddate.com --I shall look into this thanks.

 

[Viggo]

As you said, it is unlikely, which is why the photo made the news.

How many days per year is this view available? If you were to go there today and tomorrow and spend a few weeks looking towards Wales, how often would this be seen? Probably pretty rarely would be my guess: probably on most days the view (assuming it's not cloudy and rainy and grey) is more like what standard refraction predicts.


.

Yes thats a good point which I have considered. Without spending time there I can't know for sure.

 

[Viggo]

- Measuring the angle to the sun and noticing that it's only possible on a curved Earth- not sure how this is only possible on a curved earth?


- Measuring the angular size of the sun and the moon and noticing that they stay the same throughout the day and the night, which is only possible on a curved Earth (ie, they remain more or less the same distance from the observer) - Again on the FE model the moon and sun are in earths atmosphere, due to atmospheric refraction and perspective of the viewer I think this would be difficult to measure. Also full moon in Thailand is considerably smaller than a full moon here in UK from my experience.

- Taking a flight across the southern hemisphere (there are lots to choose from) and understanding why flights from Chile to Australia go over ice - there's equal info on both sides of the camp on this topic. Flight paths make more economical sense on a flat earth map it seems. And 99% of commercial flights from Chile to Australia are not direct.

- Looking at views of distant mountains - I think this Rainier shot is the best, though San Jacinto is excellent also - and noticing that they're only possible on a curved Earth
- Taking a photo of the curve of the horizon
- Making a calculator that predicts where distant landmarks will appear in photographs and then noticing that it only works for a curved Earth, and fails for a flat one - how does this prove curved and not FE?

- Measuring the angle you look down at to see the horizon (or simply noticing that the horizon is way below eye level when you get a decent elevation) - I'm under the impression that the Horizon always raises to eye level, no matter the elevation upto about 120 000 ft as thats the highest independent weather balloons have been. If the earth is curved, then at 35000 ft on a commercial aeroplane when considering spherical trigonometry you'd have to look down at the horizon, where In fact you look out.

- Learning about stars and observing them- i lack knowledge in this department especially the southern hemisphere star map. Northern hemisphere works on both models.

- Understanding the work of people like Walter Bislin - I will look into his work

- Not disbelieving that space is fake and just looking at videos or pictures of the curved Earth- space is not fake. What a lot of FErs are disenchanted with is all the nasa fakery, wires on ISS, augmented reality glitches, moon landing discrepancies and the heavy reliance CGi, artist impressions and composite images that nasa and other space agencies produce.

Lots more ways to observe and measure the Earth's curve than that, of course, but they should suffice for most people. - i don't see a valid way to measure earths curvature or any existing repeatable tests done. Hence why im here on this forum. All your suggestions are also emperical observations that show there's no measurable curvature. Southern star map is the only grey area that FE researchers have yet to give an acceptable explanation for.

 

[AmberRobot]

Thanks for your response. I shall look into the sticks experiment, although on the FE model the outcome would be the same, as per the Eratosthenes experiment with sticks would too.

That is false. It is easy to show that on a flat Earth the angle of the shadow of sticks at various latitudes will not obey the same functional form that it has on a globe Earth. One can construct a flat Earth model that works at two latitudes, with a near distance of the Sun (~3000 miles or so) but it will only work at those two latitudes. Calculating the angle to the sun at any other latitude will show discrepancies between the two models. You can then collect data from different latitudes and discriminate between the two models.

Further, the angular position of the Sun in the sky in the flat Earth model deviates from measurements. One can easily show that on a flat Earth model the Sun does not get near the horizon (so sunsets can't be seen in the flat Earth model) nor does it follow the azimuthal path that it does in reality.

One need not really go past observations of the Sun to disprove the flat Earth model. Though this is a discussion for a different thread, as this thread should focus on the view of Snowdonia presented in the first post.

 

[DavidB66]

Foucault's Pendulum doesn't require an electromagnet to demonstrate the rotation of the earth. If left to swing indefinitely it would gradually slow down due to friction and air resistance, like any ordinary pendulum, so in public museum examples it is often 'tweaked' by an electromagnet to keep it going, but if properly designed this does not affect its rate of rotation, and not all examples have one. According to Wikipedia: 'Air resistance damps the oscillation, so some Foucault pendulums in museums incorporate an electromagnetic or other drive to keep the bob swinging; others are restarted regularly, sometimes with a launching ceremony as an added attraction.' For comparison, in a pendulum clock, such as a long-case 'grandfather' clock, the swing of the pendulum determines the speed at which the hands rotate, but it would soon 'run down' if not given some help. This is usually provided either by a gradually falling weight (in a long-case clock) or by a wind-up spring.

 

[Viggo]

I'm confused as to what FEers think now - do they think that these mountains have magically risen out of the water for this photo-op? Does their flat earth bend or something, and if so, is today a day when the welsh bit is unusally bent up, or is it flat today, and other times are when it's unusually bent down. Shouldn't someone tell the geologists their seismographs are broken?

Flat earthers belive that these mountains are seen as they are, in situ. Flat earthers think that we humans are only limited by perceptive and atmospheric conditions when sighting long distances. This can be overcome with elevation and zoom optics.

Not sure what you mean regarding snowdonia bending up or down. Also what do seismograph do to measure the shape of earth?

 

[Viggo]

That is false. It is easy to show that on a flat Earth the angle of the shadow of sticks at various latitudes will not obey the same functional form that it has on a globe Earth. One can construct a flat Earth model that works at two latitudes, with a near distance of the Sun (~3000 miles or so) but it will only work at those two latitudes. Calculating the angle to the sun at any other latitude will show discrepancies between the two models. You can then collect data from different latitudes and discriminate between the two models.

Further, the angular position of the Sun in the sky in the flat Earth model deviates from measurements. One can easily show that on a flat Earth model the Sun does not get near the horizon (so sunsets can't be seen in the flat Earth model) nor does it follow the azimuthal path that it does in reality.

One need not really go past observations of the Sun to disprove the flat Earth model. Though this is a discussion for a different thread, as this thread should focus on the view of Snowdonia presented in the first post.

Not sure where you are getting your Flat earth information from, if its from the Flat Earth Society then many of their claims are false and intended to discredit the movement/research. I think the general consensus in serious flat earth groups is that the sun is a lot closer than 3000miles.

As for modelling its not in my skill set but will bear in mind your thoughts on this.

Most of the points people are making to prove globe theory also work for Flat earth if you have a good understanding of true flat earth arguments. Only the southern hemisphere observations of the sky are unexplainable currently.

 

[Viggo]

Foucault's Pendulum doesn't require an electromagnet to demonstrate the rotation of the earth. If left to swing indefinitely it would gradually slow down due to friction and air resistance, like any ordinary pendulum, so in public museum examples it is often 'tweaked' by an electromagnet to keep it going, but if properly designed this does not affect its rate of rotation, and not all examples have one. According to Wikipedia: 'Air resistance damps the oscillation, so some Foucault pendulums in museums incorporate an electromagnetic or other drive to keep the bob swinging; others are restarted regularly, sometimes with a launching ceremony as an added attraction.' For comparison, in a pendulum clock, such as a long-case 'grandfather' clock, the swing of the pendulum determines the speed at which the hands rotate, but it would soon 'run down' if not given some help. This is usually provided either by a gradually falling weight (in a long-case clock) or by a wind-up spring.

You seem to have a good understanding of the Foucault pendulum. Please could you explain in layman terms how this pendulum proves rotation? Because if you start a pendulum which stops, whether its friction/ air resistance or not, it seems a failed experiment, needing an electromagnet to keep it in motion. What does a pendulum which eventually comes to rest actually prove? Thanks

 

[AmberRobot]

Not sure where you are getting your Flat earth information from, if its from the Flat Earth Society then many of their claims are false and intended to discredit the movement/research. I think the general consensus in serious flat earth groups is that the sun is a lot closer than 3000miles.

As for modelling its not in my skill set but will bear in mind your thoughts on this.

Most of the points people are making to prove globe theory also work for Flat earth if you have a good understanding of true flat earth arguments. Only the southern hemisphere observations of the sky or unexplainable currently.

I have watched multiple flat earth videos attempting to ascertain a coherent model. There isn't one. The roughly 3000 mile height to the Sun I got from this diagram:

This shows a height can be determined from the angles seen at the equator and at +/-45 degrees latitude. It is trivial to show that the functional form for angle as a function of latitude will be incorrect. The problems with the movement of the Sun are not improved if the Sun is a lot closer.

If there's a definitive distance to the Sun in the flat Earth model I'd be happy to hear it and be directed to a source. When I used to argue with flat Earthers on Facebook I always asked for a distance and I never got consistent answers.

The sunset happens when the angle to the sun above the horizon is zero. The angle to the horizon is always zero on a flat Earth, so it is easy to show with a simple triangle that in order for the angle to the Sun to also be zero, the height of the Sun above the earth has to be zero, or the distance to the Sun has to be infinite. I define the angle to the Sun above a flat Earth to be arctan(h/d), where h is the height of the sun above the plane and d is the distance to the subsolar point on the plane. You can plug in whatever value of h you feel is appropriate, and d is physically constrained by the flat Earth model in that the Sun circles over specific spots on the plane during the year.

And that's just the altitude of the Sun. That azimuth follows a different path on a flat Earth too and that is very easy to show.

If flat Earthers have developed a new form of geometry, I'd be happy to be pointed to a source of that.

 

[Viggo]

I have watched multiple flat earth videos attempting to ascertain a coherent model. There isn't one. The roughly 3000 mile height to the Sun I got from this diagram:

This shows a height can be determined from the angles seen at the equator and at +/-45 degrees latitude. It is trivial to show that the functional form for angle as a function of latitude will be incorrect. The problems with the movement of the Sun are not improved if the Sun is a lot closer.

If there's a definitive distance to the Sun in the flat Earth model I'd be happy to hear it and be directed to a source. When I used to argue with flat Earthers on Facebook I always asked for a distance and I never got consistent answers.

The sunset happens when the angle to the sun above the horizon is zero. The angle to the horizon is always zero on a flat Earth, so it is easy to show with a simple triangle that in order for the angle to the Sun to also be zero, the height of the Sun above the earth has to be zero, or the distance to the Sun has to be infinite. I define the angle to the Sun above a flat Earth to be arctan(h/d), where h is the height of the sun above the plane and d is the distance to the subsolar point on the plane. You can plug in whatever value of h you feel is appropriate, and d is physically constrained by the flat Earth model in that the Sun circles over specific spots on the plane during the year.

And that's just the altitude of the Sun. That azimuth follows a different path on a flat Earth too and that is very easy to show.

If flat Earthers have developed a new form of geometry, I'd be happy to be pointed to a source of that.

Yeah most flat eathers I know concede the fact that they don't know what past 73miles(as per go fast rocket footage) or what's past the artificial south pole(due to antarctic treaty and difficulty in gaining a permit for exploration) its all speculation at the moment for flat earthers on them topics.

As for the the sticks experiment proving flat earth to be incorrect I will have to take your word on it until I have a better understanding of what you propose.

So from what flat earther videos you've seen, did you find anything compelling or interesting that made you question your beliefs?

 

[FatPhil]

Flat earthers belive that these mountains are seen as they are, in situ.

Why does the elevation change from day to day depending on the weather?

 

[AmberRobot]

So from what flat earther videos you've seen, did you find anything compelling or interesting that made you question your beliefs?

No. Not at all. The model fails so spectacularly at the movement of the Sun that there's no real reason to go beyond that. However, I did see one single video that seemed to understand that and suggested some weird light-bending effects to explain sunsets. I'd have to work through all the math to know what the consequences would be, but it's unlikely to work for all observations.

They mostly deny gravity, which makes zero sense because things do actually fall down and their explanation of "density" means they don't believe in forces and thus deny all of physics starting with Newton, which is basically all of physics. Space basically has to be fake in their model and all of astronomy fraudulent, which I obviously don't believe because I have had a career in astronomy and earth science for the past 25 years, working mostly on space-borne instrumentation.

Some of their claims are so obviously and demonstrably wrong that the fact they continue to use them suggests either a profound ignorance or deliberate deception (both are probably at play in the community, with the deceivers preying on the ignorant ones).

I think most of the members of the community have little knowledge or experience with mathematics, as only geometry and a little trigonometry is needed to disprove their model. I even had one flat Earther tell me that "math is a language like any other and therefore can be made to say anything", which definitely shows an ignorance of math and science that would be difficult to overcome.

There's definitely a psychological aspect at work there and it cannot be overcome with explanations of how physics works, no matter how calmly expressed. They seem to express this attitude of only believing that which they can directly experience or measure themselves, yet they believe many things that are simply told to them by videos, without learning how to explore the world scientifically themselves. They see believing scientists as akin to faith, rather than a trust in a methodology that has been utilized and honed for centuries by thousands and thousands of scientists.

I do not claim to understand how conspiracy thinking works. I haven't read Mick's book but that could be a good start to delve more into the psychological side of things. I delved into this for a bit about two years ago and spent a lot of time arguing with people on Facebook, until it became a bit of a mental health issue for me so I had to quit doing it altogether.

If you find it entertaining, you can watch the videos and participate in the arguments, but there's really nothing there that can't be reasonably debunked.

 

[FatPhil]

What do the Aussie flat earthers think of this arctic-centric model? Are they completely anti- it?

 

[AmberRobot]

What do the Aussie flat earthers think of this arctic-centric model? Are they completely anti- it?

It takes a lot of ignorance or severe cognitive dissonance to be a flat earther in the Southern Hemisphere.

 

[DavidB66]

You seem to have a good understanding of the Foucault pendulum. Please could you explain in layman terms how this pendulum proves rotation? Because if you start a pendulum which stops, whether its friction/ air resistance or not, it seems a failed experiment, needing an electromagnet to keep it in motion. What does a pendulum which eventually comes to rest actually prove? Thanks

If you had a hypothesis that a pendulum would swing indefinitely, then if it came to a stop the hypothesis would be falsified. Since no-one has proposed such a hypothesis the fact that it comes to a stop does not make it a failed experiment. But I think we have all spent/wasted enough time replying to you already. I have recently been pondering whether flat-earthers or UFO-enthusiasts are more annoying. I was inclined to think it was the latter, so thank you for reminding me just how annoying flat-earthers can be.

 

[AmberRobot]

I have recently been pondering whether flat-earthers or UFO-enthusiasts are more annoying. I was inclined to think it was the latter, so thank you for reminding me just how annoying flat-earthers can be.

The difference is that there is a finite probability that alien spacecraft exist.

 

[LilWabbit]

You seem like a sincere and kind-hearted guy, @Viggo. I am not saying this as a smarmy device for you to accept my position. I mean it.

From one sincere chap to another, I hope you set aside a moment to reflect on the following 4 questions. I wish that you would ask them from yourself in brutal honesty and not to rush with a reply. Neither do you have to provide the answer here in public. I am not interested in debates on matters of belief. Only truth.

(1) Is my mistrust of mainstream science fair, reasonable and based on real familiarity with the work and the personal integrity of its trained practitioners?

(2) Could my mistrust of mainstream science be unfair and unreasonable, based on exaggerated suspicion roused by fanatic believers whose arguments seem superficially smart and convincing?

(3) Could the mainstream scientific consensus consist of actual bread-winning scientists whose primary concern is establishing truth by evidence, rather than some sinister conspiracy to mislead everybody?

(4) Does the image of the Earth as a blue planet seem more compelling, beautiful and true in my own honest judgment despite what anyone else says?

I hope you find these questions helpful and that you and yours will enjoy a lovely summer season.

 

[Rory]

Hi Viggo, for all the different simple observations and experiments I posted probably the best thing to do if you have any questions is to go to the threads I linked, read everything that's previously been said, and then post your thoughts there so that everything stays nice and neat and on topic.

Also full moon in Thailand is considerably smaller than a full moon here in UK from my experience.

There's not any way that this can actually be true, though I also know from my own experience that the moon sometimes looks much bigger than at other times (horizon illusion, glare, etc) - even over the course of one night (see this Wikipedia entry for starters).

(NB The full moon's angular size does vary by around 14% depending on where it's at in its orbit.)