Flat Earth Model - The First Tests!

[@ronnyskaar3737]

You are wrong. There are not two camps. It's just that there is a tiny group of strange people that have a fundamental misunderstanding about reality.

[@the_minimal_dm]

just playing devils advocate here... but regardless of size, shouldn't that tiny group be allowed to call themselves a camp? Not wanting to be size-ist or anything...

[@ronnyskaar3737]

@the_minimal_dm They can camp as much as they like. But the rest of us are all over the place.

[@censortube3778]

@@the_minimal_dm The correct word is Cult

[@EdwinDekker71]

You mean the folks that believe there is a vacuum next to the air we breathe..?😂

[@ronnyskaar3737]

@@EdwinDekker71No. Not next to the air you breath by far. You can breath up to ca 20.000 feet above sea level. After that oxygen molecules are simply too far apart to be of use for you. 33.000.000 feet above sea level the oxygen and other gas molecules are so few, they are close to non. And there is no pressure. Just space.

[@Wolfie6020]

Any model must also demonstrate how an Equatorial mount tracks the sun with a single axis of rotation from any location on Earth., This is physically impossible on a flat Earth and most flat Earthers cope by not thinking about it.

[@the_minimal_dm]

not sure what one of those is, I'd have to look it up sorry

[@FlatEarthMath]

I think in Star Wars, Obi-Wan Kenobi said, _"That's no cake stand... that's EARTH!"_ (I'm here from FE Peer Review)

[@the_minimal_dm]

Yeah... but look at the size of that thing!

[@ericlavender2111]

The sun to that scale... umm shouldn't everyone see the 24hour sun every day... nothing seems to be obstructing the view from the north pole... or the other way around.

[@the_minimal_dm]

I agree... its why I will be using the endoscopic camera in later videos to check that

[@radscorpion8]

@@the_minimal_dm I like how you are basically proving flat earth wrong in your videos lol

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

@@the_minimal_dm How does the camera help? If flat earth were true, the Sun would never set.

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

@@radscorpion8 David isn't trying to disprove flat earth, he's trying to model it. Flat earth has been disproven, recently by The Final Experiment in Antarctica. LOL!

[@stevewhite6861]

I think the idea is that you have to pretend you can't see the sun in the distance, flatturds certainly do that all the time.

[@truthcooperator4683]

Good attempt, but since the flat Earth is an impossibility, it doesn't exist, it will be impossible to make a functioning model. A model with the sun that doesn't work in reality can be made though 😅

[@the_minimal_dm]

still fun trying though! 😉

[@truthcooperator4683]

​@@the_minimal_dmyes, indeed, looking forward to it and shared! 😊❤

[@kokraymond205]

It is an impossibility only because science had not discovered it yet. Scientific discoveries had always been tentative - never conclusive. The reason for this is that the scientific methodology is blind.

[@FragTheFreak]

@@kokraymond205 We've been to space and have seen the planet is a sphere; you can't get much more conclusive than that

[@FragTheFreak]

@@kokraymond205 If we spend all our time arguing over something so simple we will only be holding ourselves back unnecessarily. It's like never being able to agree that water is wet. If that were the case we would still be living in caves and have a life expectancy of 25 - 30 years old .

[@warmachineuk]

The Sun 3000 miles above the surface of the flat Earth is the most common model. Alas, some flat Earthers will denounce your model as meaningless, claiming the altitude of the Sun is unknowable. A few even claim the Sun we see is an apparent object, an illusion, and triangulating its actual position is impossible.

[@the_minimal_dm]

I was wondering if that would be the case. From what I've seen of Joe Hanvey's model, it does appear to rely on a lot of reflection/refraction, which to be honest was what I was expecting and have set ups like laser pointers and camera set ups to get a bottom up view to get the "apparent" position right. I just wasn't expecting it to be that low to the ground

[@BouserWoW]

curious to see a 24hour antarctic sun displayed by this model

[@the_minimal_dm]

me too... especially seeing as Joseph Hanvey believes his own model has the proof of concept for exactly that. Problem is, I think I just demonstrated that he had his sun position or dome shape incorrect so that would mess with the optics of the model. And I haven't seen any footage from him as yet that gives a ground level perspective.... it is possible that he managed to crack the difference between apparent and actual height

[@SkullpunkArt]

Get used to disappointment.

[@BouserWoW]

@SkullpunkArt why would you say that, i trust it will be done by this man, atleast he will try XD

[@super_ficial]

I have a model of an Eagle from Space 1999 (but it's not real). Basic math works the sameway.

[@BouserWoW]

​@@super_ficial i get the reference... but just out of curiosity, how do you think basic math might handle the 24-hour sunlight in a flat earth model?

[@David-ru3gd]

I made a physical model of a Flat Earth utilizing a table. It was to scale along the 'Equator', looking 'West', with a 3000-mile-high sun (tried to get the scale of emitted light correct as well). At the very edge of the table the 'sun' is at 90 degrees. According to Flat Earth logic the sun hovers over the Flat and moves at ~1000 miles per hour, or ~6000 miles in six hours. The tabletop was thus marked off in scale 1000-mile increments. When moving the 'sun' along the 'Equator' I would note the elevation angles. I got frustrated when I discovered the 'sun' was about 26 degrees above the table at 6000 miles!!! How could this be? Observations suggest that the sun should be at the horizon, or 'setting'. Back to the drawing board (and the triangle calculator) with the following information: 3000-mile high sun; 90 degree angle: and 0.5 degree angle. Found out the for the model sun to be at the horizon at 3000 mile high I would need a longer table to the scale of 343,780 miles!!! One thing I haven't worked out yet is the radii of the sun at the Tropics and Equator as it magically swings around the North pole. This aspect wasn't included in my model at that time. PS, I liked the Jet engines!!!

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

"I got frustrated when I discovered the 'sun' was about 26 degrees above the table at 6000 miles!!! How could this be? Observations suggest that the sun should be at the horizon, or 'setting'." Uh, because the Earth's not flat. It will never work.

[@David-ru3gd]

@@DaveF-dw6mb I use this 'logic' on the Flat Earthlings that make the mistake of stating to me that the sun is 3000 miles above the Flat. In particular when it's pointed out to them that 343,780 miles is a long bloody way away!!! Math doesn't lie. I shouldn't have said 'frustrated', it's more like euphoria that those nubs haven't a clue about, well, anything!

[@WhotheHellknowsAnyway]

the sun does not set it merely moves away

[@bjornfeuerbacher5514]

@@WhotheHellknowsAnyway The sun vanishes from the bottom up at evening. That's an observation which has been made literally billions of times. How do you explain this observation by stating "the sun merely moves away"? Additionally, if the sun moves away, it should appear to become smaller, as all things which move away from you do. But it has the same size at evening as the one it has at midday. How do you explain this observation by stating "the sun moves away"?

[@markwood1159]

@@bjornfeuerbacher5514 Let me take a stab at answering that... "Nuh uh!"

[@NeoTheEnlightened]

Fun to try and see what you can do making something. You trying your best to make something using the distances flat earthers claims dose show how the flat earth as something in reality fails. The biggest criticism the flat earth faces is there is no way of making a model that can explain everything observed and tested in reality. Even looking at the size and shape of New Zealand and Australia on the Gleason's Map compared to the measured distances falsifys the flat earth hypothesis. However like I said, i enjoyed your video, and i look forward to seeing it completed. Just a note, the flat earthers can't decide if the sun and moon are inside or outside the dome, and they can't give measurements of the hight of the dome at any point, so just go with what you have mate, it is close enough 😅. If flat earthers can finally agree on some dome measurements, you can revise this one or make a more accurate model. Have fun and ejoy the build

[@the_minimal_dm]

yeah, the lack of agreement is certainly throwing a spanner in the works... ah well

[@kokraymond205]

The flat earth model would not be able to model the setting sun. The flat earth proponent said that the setting sun is due to the sun moving further away beyond our eyes angular resolution. Our eye angular resolution is 1 arcminute. If the sun's height is 3000 miles (4827 km) then the sun has to be 3000 / 0.00029 = 10,344,827 miles away for a setting sun. Note : 1 arcminute = 0.00029 radian. **** I posted this calculation on a flat-earther's post explaining the setting sun & it was deleted ***** A focused light source with the sun outside a dome may be a possible explanation. The dome shape could also impact on what we can observe as well. If you can build a model that allow us to tweak all of these parameters we may be able to unravel the earth's shape better. Just giving my 2 cents - jeran was treated very badly. If the "truthers community" were truly seeking the truth it must first seek good manners & proper respect of other people's effort. Sometimes truth is uncomfortable but it shouldn't make us lose our humanity and good manners.

[@David-ru3gd]

When I'm presented with the 3000 mile distances by a Flat Earthling, they have un-wittingly given up a third data point. When calculating the distance for the sun to 'set' it must be 343,780 miles away!!! A neat trick for sure. My mom left me with some easy advice...treat others as you want to be treated. Simple.

[@the_minimal_dm]

I agree that this would be extremely problematic. It is one of the next things on the list to be checked.

[@martinconnelly1473]

Here's something the flat earth model cannot do. Sun's elevation from level is 70°. This is 20° from the vertical. The Sun is about over the Tropic of Capricorn so we will say it is 23° south of the equator. Add 23° and 20° and you get 43° south. This is near the latitude of Christchurch. How does my globe model maths work out?

[@super_ficial]

ººIf you could prove that Earth is a globe then why are there so many that says it's not. We were all educated in the same schools. But somebody out grew the first grade and some are still stuck on dunce.

[@David-ru3gd]

@@super_ficial Define 'so many'. It appears that you haven't taken any schooling past 1st grade.

[@MadApplesWA]

Nobody can see the numbers on the ruler, when you were measuring. I am pretty sure the flerfs will use that as an argument.

[@the_minimal_dm]

I agree... but at least Dave McKeegan can rest easy in that I'm not going to be able to knick his day job. At least by doing it in a single take from the same angle you should be able to tell that the shadow length was around a third of the length of the block of wood so it puts those figures in the right ballpark. Or they can just pause the video and put a ruler up to the screen....?

[@cchc13]

If trying to us a flat Earth Model, Please show a scale that will show the correct distances between cities in both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. no Flat Earth Model has been able to come up with one yet.

[@the_minimal_dm]

it isn't going to work on a Gleason map, I can tell from the way that New Zealand is distorted. Its one of the reasons why I chimed in from down here.... since most of the big proponents are very Northern hemisphere-centric, poor old South of the equator seems to get brushed under the carpet

[@blaze1148]

Have you ever heard of Vibes of Cosmos....

[@gaetanoroccuzzo]

​@@the_minimal_dm Can't agree more. The majority of flat earth proponents are located in the northern hemisphere and they seem to be oblivious of the southern hemisphere. Both half are as real as each other. Whatever applies to one must apply to the other. Congratulations for your unbiased approach. I'm looking forward to the finished product (provided, of course, you will receive enough input and information on how a flat earth should be). BTW subbed to your channel already.

[@kokraymond205]

Initially the proof of concept is very important. Only later when we have to establish the veracity of the model do we need to collect data & see if it matches with real-world data and observations.

[@gaetanoroccuzzo]

@@blaze1148 ...Vibes of cosmos... Gravitational waves perhaps? or Singularity? What do you mean?

[@dchmurciak]

Just a question if you accelerate your cake stand aka flat earth 9.8 m/s2 upwards to replace earth gravity how much time would it take to reach the speed of light?

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

About a day.

[@the_minimal_dm]

theoretically it should be able to hit .5 past light speed, but that's only if the hyperdrive is working... haven't fitted that on the model yet

[@averageytuser1356]

This is where the theory of relativity would come in. To an outside observer, we would never reach the speed of light, only get closer and closer. To the outside observer, our rate of acceleration would slow down as we approach light speed. However, from our point of view, we would keep accelerating with 9.8m/s2.

[@dchmurciak]

@@the_minimal_dm maybe you should use Joseph’s SUPERFLUID to boost your hyperdrive … what a ride… go for it, go, go, go

[@warmachineuk]

It would be interesting to have a motorised light bulb and an endoscope, so the Sun can be seen from the point of view of a person on the ground. Alas, probably beyond budget.

[@Ohmanwhyyourfeelingshurt]

Where are the water currents and the continents that should be depicted?

[@the_minimal_dm]

haven't got to that part yet is the honest answer... and until somebody can point out an accurate map (not the debunked Gleason one) for flat earth, I don't know what to draw where...

[@floatymcboaty9851]

definitely the best flat earth model I've ever seen, also will keep flies out of your cake 👍

[@the_minimal_dm]

I hadn't thought of that use!

[@Urban_Spaceman]

Don't mind "Team Flat", they are a little emotional at the moment. Nice modelling 👍

[@the_minimal_dm]

thanks for the feedback!

[@pamiam9017]

One might even say they are feeling a little - flat?

[@ellayararwhyaych4711]

Now show what the angle of the sun should be on a northern hemisphere city or town AT THE SAME TIME&DATE&LONGITUDE (such as Khatyrka in Eastern Siberia). That should concretely prove a flat model is impossible, since it's a bit after midnight there.

[@the_minimal_dm]

my apologies, I may have misunderstood the question here, or is it a trick one? At the same time I took the sun reading in NZ (1.30pm), Khatyrka would have been 12.30pm... only an hour difference, not midnight

[@mechtheist]

Whether it's inside or outside the dome would require some consistency in their 'model' but since they absolutely refuse to commit to *any* model, and couldn't actually have one as the sane know is a fact.

[@the_minimal_dm]

definitely one of the problems I'm facing is a lack of consistent info... hence a lot of the trial and error stuff to work it out for myself

[@mechtheist]

@@the_minimal_dm Good luck, trying to make sense of incoherent nonsense can make you a little crazy.

[@nelsonsailor7524]

Ah mate. I know your from the old country but you know that in NZ we use the metric system. Half the time your talking inches.

[@the_minimal_dm]

acknowledged, and in modelling I do prefer to deal in metric... but I would point out that a lot of viewers are from the US, and one thing I love about NZ is that it is all about inclusivity

[@doranku]

Casual visitor 👋.

[@the_minimal_dm]

pleased to meet you!

[@censortube3778]

Can we expect Australia, North America and Africa all to have the correct size on this 'model' ? Seems flat earthers can't even do that, if you can do that, you can sell your model as the new 'flat earth map'. The flat earth grift is quite lucrative for some, maybe you should consider it ? ;)

[@the_minimal_dm]

LOL.. that would be something. But alas, I'm no cartographer; that would have to be for somebody else to come up with and I'd happily add it to the model. One thing I would say... at least those countries you listed actually appear on all maps... New Zealand keeps constantly getting left off a lot of them!

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

I have an idea. Since your experience is in miniature modelmaking and you want to make a new flat-earth model since the Gleason Map has been debunked. You should probably focus on one aspect of Earth and you correctly picked distance. Distance in the Southern Hemisphere is totally screwed up on the Gleason Map so I propose that you create a flat-earth azimuthal equidistant map centered on Antarctica with the Artic Ocean as the perimeter. Don't worry about water falling off the edge because all we're concerned with is distance. What do you think? Don't worry about things in the sky initially, like the Sun. Start with getting the ground right.

[@the_minimal_dm]

Just trying to get this clear in my head... so something like the Gleason, but with antarctic at the center point and the northern hemisphere at the perimeter? While it would make the Southern hemisphere distances a bit more palatable, wouldn't it just mess up the northern distances, kind of like Greenland is massively wrong on a Mercator Projection?

[@pamiam9017]

@@the_minimal_dm as an upside down dweller my entire life, I could have told you that we were the top/best

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

@@the_minimal_dm Yes, so that doesn't work. You choose to start with modeling the sky, but don't they say you can't model the earth by looking at the sky? They also say you can't model that which doesn't exist.

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

@@the_minimal_dm You could also make a flat model with the northern hemisphere on one side of the disc and the southern hemisphere on the other.

[@MrCuddlyable]

Your wish for an AE map centered on Antarctica is fulfilled here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection#/media/File:Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_south_SW.jpg

[@darkzim3872]

you can tell its wrong considering in the north we can see the sun in the summer for way more than 16 hours a day so over the course of the day the people in Europe can see the sun rise over Asia then overhead then finally sets over the USA we can see on charts where the sun is above is at 5 am and where it is at 9pm you would think a object which moves so far would change in size but it appears to be the same size all day even your scale model would show this have your sun 2 inches in front of you then move it 4 inches away take a picture and see if they are the same size

[@the_minimal_dm]

sun size/shape/illumination are some of the next steps for sure

[@rexgoodheart3471]

I don't understand the point of building a model of something you admit has been debunked? Hasn't that model already been constructed? Why would we need another one?

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

Because The Final Experiment debunked the Gleason's Map last month.

[@the_minimal_dm]

please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they saying it's only the Gleason's map that has been debunked? I'm pretty sure (and happy to be corrected) that Will Duffy and Austin have both said that and were very specific that it was only the map. Now, apparently there is a "coin map" that I haven't looked at yet, but until I have a better starting point, unfortunately Gleason is what I have to work with, even though it's known to be wrong. It's part of the reason I'm using erasable pencil marks and not bothering to draw in a whole map and just sort of exploring the "flat" part of the whole thing

[@andycocchia4202]

We’re only here to see the stupidity you come up with. Everything you just said can be debunked with middle school text book science.

[@andycocchia4202]

You can remove the stupidity in the videos instead of deleting the comments calling you out. Not throwing politics or religion. Just wanna talk basic science

[@FragTheFreak]

@@andycocchia4202 I can see your comments. Try sorting by newest to see your comments. KZbin doesn't have the best UI when it comes to comment management.

[@andycocchia4202]

I was replying to a statement he made on his video, he says he will delete comments that are negative.

[@truthcooperator4683]

He is just having fun with his hobby, he knows the Earth is a globe.

[@the_minimal_dm]

nope, no need to delete comments here, what you said was just a statement of fact... I do have one suggestion, if I may? Go back through the video, find the bit where I add the jet engines, keep that in mind, then look at it again from a different point of view... 😉

[@LisaAnn777]

Very interesting, but as someone who has been doing astronomy and astrophotography for about a decade i can say the Earth is definitely a globe. I don't understand why some people are against that, a sphere makes the most sense anyways if you believe in intelligent design. A flat model would only have one surface thats habitable and thats the top, but a globe 🌎 has the entire outer surface to sustain life. So ignoring the science that can show its round, a globe makes more sense practically. The greatest thing is that we arent the only globe, theres basically an infinite amount of planets out there and humans are gifted with the ability to visit them through our capability of using the environment and natural resources around us. But such a task will take us all working together and generations of knowledge🚀

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

Given that Gleason's Map shows the entire Earth and that the circumference of Antarctica is much greater than on the globe, I would venture to say that the flat earth map has more area.

[@LisaAnn777]

@DaveF-dw6mb depends on the size, but as I said it would still only be habitable on one side which seems like a waste of surface area.

[@kwimms]

Okay Mister NPC. There is currently NO proof the Earth is a globe, despite you saying so.

[@stephenpheonix6549]

How about put a small led inside the sun and put your camera inside the dome and see what it looks like when you look in different directions?

[@the_minimal_dm]

That's the plan... the endoscopic camera is at the ready and practical lighting was going to be included in the next test!

[@davidleeder9582]

Dear oh dear another one!

[@the_minimal_dm]

another... model maker? Bloke who plays with toy soldiers? I know, the wife sighs and rolls her eyes at me as well. Quick question though, are you quoting SciMan Dan at me? (just asking for clarity)

[@CarbonicHolyPally]

So funny Tides and Eclipses alone kill Flat Earth instantly. How would you model Tides and explain them. Eclipses?

[@the_minimal_dm]

honestly don't know, not that far down the track yet

[@TheJacov]

First a word on scaling accuracy. There ain't no such thing as a perfect model, period. So you set reasonable tolerance for your intended application and go with that, so no worries there. As for the model itself I do not believe that you will succeed in building a correct model of the flat Earth because the Earth is a sphere. Does this mean that you should not make the attempt? No. Why not? Because the failures of the model as you proceed will teach you things that you did not know. In fact we tend to learn more from our failures than we do from our successes. When you find out that something does not work you simply rethink your process and hopefully you will learn what does work. (In this case you will find out that the flat Earth does not work and the globe does). Just my two cents for what it's worth. 😁😁😁

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

He's not trying to create an accurate model, just one that's "just good enough".

[@the_minimal_dm]

agreed entirely!

[@SteveLaw-UK]

The Gleason map itself debunked flat Earth. It's a projection of the globe and the patent states such.

[@the_minimal_dm]

yes, I'm not sure why that was the one that was latched onto as the standard

[@SteveLaw-UK]

@the_minimal_dm because there isn't a map of a flat Earth. The Earth isn't flat.

[@pirotom2282]

I agree with you on the last part of your video. You have a very wrong idea of what the Sun's position is. Oh! And there is no dome at all

[@the_minimal_dm]

asking for info here, how so with regard to the position? If the earth is flat, I know where NZ and the tropic is so I have a lateral distance, and I measured the sun angle to get height... it was a surprising result, but if you can point out where I got it wrong from what I was working with I'm happy to try it again...

[@Rev03FFL]

You have another scale problem to resolve before you get too far. The Gleason map refers the user to the fact that 1 degree latitude is 60 nautical miles. From the North Pole (zero latitude) to the ice wall, is 180 degrees. That is 10,800 nautical miles, or 20,000 kilometers. This is the radius of the disk. Now calculate the circumference and surface area of the disk. You get a giant planet disk with almost 2.5 times the surface area of the globe earth. Hmmm, might need to scale down the definition of nautical mile. You've got to decide on this before scaling everything else.

[@averageytuser1356]

Indeed, you can't preserve all globe measurements at the same time. Another example: On a globe, the pole-equator distance is about 10'000km while the length of the equator is about 40'000km. They're in a 4:1 ratio. On the Gleason map, they're instead in a pi:1 ratio. Therefore, you can either preserve the pole-equator distance or the lenght of the equator but never both. If we choose to preserve the surface area, we would violate both the pole-equator distance and the length of the equator.

[@FutureWorldX]

Yes, this is how peer review works, testing the claims made and sharing feedback. Sorry if I forgot the Discord server in this debate that recommended your channel.

[@the_minimal_dm]

No problem... and I've never yet been on any project where an extra set of eyes and a Quality Assurance check was superfluous

[@AirwavesEnglish]

Why though...? Are you retired with nothing better to do? The earth IS NOT FLAT, so this is all just a total waste of time and effort. That said, I do wish you luck with your project "model"; it *may* explain one single thing but it will NEVER account for ALL the things like, seasons, eclipses, times of sunrises/sunsets, lengths of days in summer/winter, tides, etc etc etc...., and it will NEVER be able to accurately predict actual distances, times, dates etc... (which makes the entire thing moot.) The globe model/reality DOES account for all these things and the earth being a globe is NOT an "opinion", but FACT. Telling your viewers and subscribers to "be nice" and not argue against others' "opinions" is utterly ridiculous.

[@the_minimal_dm]

Last thing first... there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking folk to be nice and while I would prefer to not have arguments, I will absolutely not stand for anything I would consider to be obnoxious behavior in polite company. It is not in any way ridiculous, it is a statement of expectation of reasonable behavior, and if you feel otherwise then perhaps this is not the forum for you. No, I'm not retired, I am however a model maker who does this sort of thing for fun... which realistically is all the justification needed

[@radscorpion8]

@@the_minimal_dm I absolutely encourage you to create your model, because in so doing you are proving how much of a failure the flat earth hypothesis is. For instance, it has already been argued that a setting sun is geometrically impossible. But also the length of time it takes to travel from one continent to another, is utterly contradicted by flat Earth. On round earth you can fly from California to Japan in about 5 hours on a nonstop flight. In contrast you have to travel across the ENTIRE flat earth to get there, and moreover, fly over many continents which contradicts the fact that you can get there on a globe in a single, unidirectional flight across the ocean.

[@MrCuddlyable]

@@the_minimal_dm If you can get a flat earther sponsor to both approve your model AND pay to buy your fine model, then I would encourage that. Don't cut yourself short!

[@kwimms]

Give one single FACT that says the Earth is a ball... it is flat. obviously, and contained in a dome, obviously.

[@SteveLaw-UK]

@@kwimms sunsets.

[@WhotheHellknowsAnyway]

That is not where the equator is on a flat earth, maybe you should buy a flat earth map to find out the answer

[@the_minimal_dm]

I checked on the gleasons online and it was halfway between the poles... is there a different resource I should have used? If so, happy to scrub the markings and re-do

[@WhotheHellknowsAnyway]

@@the_minimal_dm Sorry, mate my mind was somewhere else, you got it, carry on.

[@Rev03FFL]

That dome of yours looks a bit tall but hey, it’s what you’ve got. I have yet to hear a flat earther say what the actual height of the dome is. But if you want to try and scale the dome properly, the height can be measured. Consider the pole star Polaris. It is directly over the North Pole, so it should be the highest part of the dome. And of course it is obviously visible to everyone under the dome. So, find Polaris, measure the angle to it. Then knowing your distance from the North Pole, you have a right triangle, an angle, and adjacent side. A bit of trig can get you its altitude. As always, have fun.

[@the_minimal_dm]

Um... really great idea, but a really huge problem with that, and it's one of the parts I would need some advice on... y'see, I can't actually see Polaris from New Zealand, so I can't get an angle to it. There appears to be.... something... in the way 😆

[@Rev03FFL]

@@the_minimal_dm That’s puzzling. No matter, perhaps you could ask some of your viewers who can find Polaris, to do the measurement for you. Get values from several different latitudes, they should all be the same within some margin of error. Just be sure everyone uses the same definition of a nautical mile when they estimate their distance to the North Pole on the Gleason map (see my other post on scaling the disk radius).

[@averageytuser1356]

@@Rev03FFL The problem is that on a flat earth, you would get a different Polaris altitude for each latitude.

[@donut2099]

I'm all for close enough

[@the_minimal_dm]

at this scale, its really all you can ask

[@alejandrovallejo4330]

Regarding the insulting comments... Just you wait. The flatties are playing nice because you are willing to engage and play their game, but just wait until you start contradicting their beliefs more and more with your videos and models. Also, from what I remember you seem to be pretty new to the discussion. Keep in mind that these are people that call everything and everyone that disagrees with them a lie, liars, stupid, shills, idiots. Regardless if whoi they are watching is an ctual scientist that has spent years researching a topic, they still believe they are smarter and more knowledgable at that topic than thiose experts. So yeah, naturally people get very pissed off at them out of years of watching them being unable to comp'rehend the most basic things about reality and being so arrogant about their ignorance and not to mention lying about basically anything they talk about. People tend to get mad at arrogant liars. Specially when it's so clear they know nothing of what they are talking about.

[@RancidDragonProductions]

The first problem you have to deal with is the sky. You've got to explain why a person standing on the ice wall, that we now know you CAN go to and isn't real, but anyway, near Australia can see the exact same sky I real life as a person standing on your ice wall directly opposite (however your countries are laid out) see the exact same sky. The people in the center won't. They'll see a different one, but all the way around the ring wall, exact same sky. That's a bigger problem than the sun and dome and distances.

[@pamiam9017]

IMO there is no need for any side to namecall, abuse or anhything else, the second anyone lowers themselves to that, they have automatically lost the debate, humans should be intelligent enough to share opposing ideals politely

[@alejandrovallejo4330]

@ yeah that’s a nice thought. But I can tell you haven’t spent much time listening to the flerts. You can try to be nice, but eventually they wear the nice down. It’s not that they have an opposing view. Is that they are repeated liars and arrogant about their ignorance. They lie and lie and lie and then keep lying about what they see, what they hear and what they read, they lie about themselves, about reality. And then they dare to accuse you of lying with the straightest, smuggest and most arrogant face you can imagine. If you can stay calm in the presence of someone like that, props to you. But not many people can.

[@sthurston2]

The engines were an instant LOL! I am imagining a world dock yard building the original, and staffed by humans who laid down synthetic strata with pretend fossils etc etc. So they built a generational starship where the occupants would completely forget where they came from and get a very nasty surprise when they finally invented powerful enough rockets to bounce off the dome. Your Flat Earth dimensions were mispoken as a factor of 10 out judging by the Sun height you depicted. You said diameter of 2400 and radius of 1200. The Sun was said to be 3000 up but that titchy stick was no way 2.5 radii high, but it was about a quarter of a radii which is right for 24,000 and 12,000. I have not seen Flat Earthers give any sources for the chosen shape of the dome. The old geocentric view of the stars embedded in an outer celestial crystal sphere seems to have been repurposed into a much smaller celestial hemisphere the same diameter as the flat Earth, and equated to a firmament referenced vaguely in the Bible. The Sun and the Moon are shown as closer than the dome in DITRH's Sun and Moon clock app, and in many physical models of flat Earth. So using them as the chosen source would let you continue with the existing cover. The Sun, Moon and planets appear to travel at different speeds to each other and the "fixed" stars so I suggest flat Earthers in general do not expect them to be stuck on the dome, and so can be floating inside the dome exactly like in DITRH's computer depiction, and the physical models others have made. If you continue with the idea of using triangulation, you are likely to come across a nasty issue though. ALL celestial objects change elevation at an observed rate of 1 degree per Nautical Mile (NM) distance away from the Ground Position (GP) of the object which is where it is perfectly overhead. If I do the triangulation for 1 degree away from GP then ALL celestial objects are exactly the same height above the flat Earth and the dome is a flat ceiling 3,856 miles up.

[@sthurston2]

FE Peer Review recommended this video in a community post on his channel.

[@chassetterfield9559]

Magrathea!

[@sthurston2]

@@chassetterfield9559 Thanks. I didn't remember that and found the fan wiki which says "Magrathea is an ancient planet located in orbit around the twin suns Soulianis and Rahm in the heart of the Horsehead Nebula. It was the home of a new form of specialist industry: custom-made, luxury planet building. Hyperspatial engineers sucked matter through white holes in space to form dream planets - gold planets, square planets, glass planets, platinum planets, soft rubber planets with lots of earthquakes, planets covered with fish - all lovingly made to meet the exacting standards that the Galaxy's richest men naturally came to expect. It was the Magratheans who constructed the planet-sized computer, Earth (for a race of hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings, the mice and designed by Deep Thought), to determine the ultimate question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, which is required to understand the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Unfortunately, the venture was so successful that Magrathea soon became the richest planet of all time and the rest of the Galaxy was reduced to abject poverty. The Magratheans went into hibernation, awaiting an economic recovery that could afford their services once more. Mostly everyone except Slartibartfast is seen to be in hibernation. Magrathea itself disappeared and its memory soon passed into the obscurity of legend. In these enlightened days, of course, no one believes a word of it."

[@chassetterfield9559]

@@sthurston2 Douglas Adams' creations were genius. 'Hitchhikers Guide... ' and 'Dirk Gently's ... ', as first parts of series were sublime. Unfortunately, as often happens, the follow ups were not quite as good, and gradually deteriorated in quality. Slartibartfast, who designed coastlines, and thought that fjords gave a " lovely baroque feel ", and loved them so much that he wanted to include them in Africa on the replacement Earth was a titanic figure.

[@the_minimal_dm]

Gah... thanks for pointing out the dimension error... (which proves I can't read my own writing)... the dimensions given to me were indeed 12000 and 24000 so the wording was indeed wrong. And yes, there are lots of nasty pitfalls to address, but thats half the fun of constructing/deconstructing each part piece by piece

[@1GODISNOWHERE1]

Joe Hanvey told Will Duffy that the globe has no model because the micro must match the macro. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So your next attempt, either you or Joe must have an ice wall, water inside the container, land to a reasonable scale and not to the AE Gleason projection specs since that was debunked by The Final Experiment, two suns since one won't work and no dome since that has never been observed and cannot be a part of any micro model. We will see how all that works out on your next video. If you get the ice wall on your model I'll buy you that cup of coffee.

[@the_minimal_dm]

LOL... I'm not going to hold you to that, because the ice wall is already there... In my very first video on the topic where I introduced the Flying Cake Stand, I said it already had a lip on the base which was a built in Ice Wall! I meann I could paint it white if that helps.... But my really big problem is getting the armed penguins to scale....

[@1GODISNOWHERE1]

@the_minimal_dm Thx for the brevity! Penguins😂 I was making the point that Joe Hanvey, and all flat earthers at this point, are demanding a model size earth where water sticks to it so I was merely demanding that Joe's model have real ice, water, and land with no dome(never observed) to show the micro scale model system as they claim it is in the macro. Oh yeah, and that second sun that stays only at Union Glacier Camp for 3-4 months during the southern summer solstice. They need that too. I wonder where that second sun goes in February?😊

[@MrCuddlyable]

Sir I believe you are a fine modeller with your attention to detail and to how accurate dimensions need to be "just good enough". With no flattery intended I may compare you to the architect Albert Speer who is renowned for his modelling of the city-to-be "Germania". Unfortunately regarding your flat earth model project I think you will choose to delete this comment. That saves me posting anything using the words "convenient idiot".

[@the_minimal_dm]

I don't see any reason to delete the comment... unless convenient idiot was an insult of some kind? (and believe me, the wife has used far worse on me..) I will say that out of the gate, comparing me to a war criminal is a bit on the nose, but I'll put that to one side and deal with the fact you said he was an architect. There is a difference between what I do and what an architect does. I make models for fun. If I'm out by 1cm on a model (which I actually was at one stage; I had the equator in the wrong place and had to re-do the footage because that was an error of around 923 miles from the dimensions I'd been using) I get to swear a lot and do it again. If an architect is out by 1cm on his plans and it gets through checks, a building could potentially collapse and people could get killed. So yes, in the grand scheme of things, close enough is good enough for me. At least I can rest easy knowing lives aren't at stake.

[@WhotheHellknowsAnyway]

Dear people of earth, please help me with this conundrum, I recently purchased a 30 inch globe model and 2 miniature model planes, I then placed them on the globe to visualize a flight pattern, from Greenland to Argentina, but to my dismay the plane in Argentina was upside down. How is this possible? On my flat earth map the planes are upright

[@MrCuddlyable]

Dear alien, we shall try to help. How large are your planes that are scaled the same as the globe? Is "down" on your planet the same as "down" in Greenland or in Argentina? Have you a bill of sale from whoever sold you a flat earth map? We ask because earth lawyers need that to bring a class action on your behalf.

[@SteveLaw-UK]

You are orientating yourself with the actual Earth but your globe would not be on Earth, it would be in space. Your globe is you looking at the Earth from space where there is no such thing as up and down. Down, on the Earth, is towards the Earth. If you are in Argentina you are the right way up and Greenland would be upside down _to you_ while you would be upside down relative to Greenland.

[@abcdefg5185]

Religion has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

[@DoctorX101]

Other than the texts of three major ones consistently describing the Earth as flat. . . .

[@the_minimal_dm]

I had been curious about that, as Joe Hanvey had used some measurements from biblical source to create his one

[@Notruthallfeelings]

Why waste your time with this foolishness?

[@the_minimal_dm]

because I find making models fun.... it's what the whole channel is about

[@ThoughtPoliceYouTubeDivision]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4ScmJlvmtxpga8

[@averageytuser1356]

So much wrong with that model but most importantly it still doesn't explain the 24hr sun in antarctica

[@coolice46]

Came for Sunday laughs.... Wasn't disappointed in first 3mins... I mean to call flers reasonable shows a blind eye to Oakley dubay and whole lot, cud have done without this biased view imo

[@the_minimal_dm]

I only call it as I see it... the flerfs (I think that's what you meant, there may have been a typo) that have left comments have been reasonable so far, people from the globe side have either taken the time to watch the video to see that I'm attempting to be neutral or have just... well, jumped to a conclusion from what I can see. As per your post about me being biased after watching 3 minutes... As for Mr Dubay, haven't spoken to him, haven't seen a lot of his content, he has his views but I can't say if he's nice, nasty or anything in between... I just haven't seen that much of him to form an opinion. As for Nathan Bell End Oakley... well, unless that is simply his internet persona and he's a really nice chap in real life... I think I may have just answered.

[@coolice46]

@the_minimal_dm thanks for taking time out to write the response, all I can say is decripting persona away from his personality is not a justification to spew Vile comments as one does. As far as model is concerned, it maybe at a risk of someone taking your intellectual curiosity out of context and using it to justify a reality that does no exist, 12 parsecs away there may exist a troll to use this endeavour as a means to an end. No, I chose to shorten the flat earthers to flers than the deregatory connotation of flerf. The 3min mark was point of my observation but I did watch thru the whole clip just to confirm. Cheers.

[@EdwinDekker71]

Do you believe there is a 10^-17 vacuum next to the air we breathe? And that seas are curved and masons played golf on the moon..? Sounds pretty silly doesn't it. Earth is not a watery spaceball in a vacuum my friend....do your homework first, before you dismiss the level stationary earth.

[@David_Lee379]

What’s the decimal equivalent of 10^-17?

[@averageytuser1356]

Air pressure changes gradually without the need of a container between different pressures. You can even verify that yourself by taking a barometer up a mountain.

[@averageytuser1356]

And seas are indeed curved which is proven by bottom up obstruction.

[@warmachineuk]

In a Boyles Law-like, ideal gas, gas spreads and evenly fills its container. Yet as you climb in altitude, air pressure drops. Therefore, it is incorrect to apply an ideal gas model to the atmosphere. There is some phenomena making air concentrate near the ground and it's plausible the same phenomena prevents the atmosphere escaping into space. I wonder what phenomena pulls things toward the ground.

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

"Do you believe there is a 10^-17 vacuum next to the air we breathe?" No, because there isn't. There is a pressure gradient.

[@super_ficial]

ººI've been to many beaches and surveyed the APPARENT horizon with a transit. It is ALWAYS 180º (flat & level). I have been seven miles high in an airplane and could see for hundreds of miles in all direct. There was never a trace of any curvature and remember the Earth is only suppose to have a 25,000 mile circumference (the Earth is really quite small). All flat earthers have already been all others are at now. We all knew from the first grade that the Earth was a spinning ball in infinite space. We all knew that only an idiot could believe in a flat Earth. But we outgrew the first grade and we started to think for ourselves (as I hope others will). It took me almost sixty years to see the obvious and break the spell. I feel like I wasted the best part of my life, but at least I won't die as an ignorant fool. I could never go back believing in a ball Earth anymore than I could go back believing in a Santa Claus. It takes a lot more blind faith to believe in modern science than it does to believe in a designer.

[@SkullpunkArt]

@@super_ficial wow, it took 60 years of not understanding how the world works for you to say “hey, if I don’t understand it, it’s not real!” Maybe you should try to comprehend that 25,000 miles is nowhere near “quite small” and how the scale of the earth might make it appear flat at first glance, especially when you’re that close to sea level.

[@MrCuddlyable]

We are bound to trust a member of the Mile High club because they get to handle curves more than most of us. Here we have the word of a seven-times mile high hero!

[@David-ru3gd]

Don't read much, do you. Never read about why ~2500 years ago the Earth was proven to be a sphere? Didn't take any courses in celestial navigation. Never been out to sea. Never watched the sun 'set'. Never been to the Southern hemisphere. What are you comparing the 'small' earth to? A human? Some other planets? How far should 'we' see if the Earth was Flat? Don't be lazy...figure out these distances, conduct some tests. Make the sun do what's observed every day, month, year over a Flat plane. 'We'll' wait.

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

@MrCuddlyable How is he a member of the Mile High Club?

[@SkullpunkArt]

@@DaveF-dw6mb cause he must be fucking high if he believes this!

[@blaze1148]

1. Why do you think water can stick to the side and upside down on a spinning ball - don't say gravity duh. 2. Why do you think your senses tell you the Earth is Flat and stationary plus there is no evidence of a curve or rotation. 3. Why all the deceptions from NASA if the Earth really was a spinning ball and we really went to the Moon. 4. Why logically and scientifically would anyone think the kinetic energy would be the same at differing latitudes on a spinning sphere. 5. Why logically would anyone think stars would remain in exactly the same positions and the stars above the North Pole would move in a perfect circle if the Earth was orbiting the Sun. 6. Why logically would anyone think that after billions of years the Earth hadn't flattened out into a disc especially as [supposedly] it spun faster in the past. 7. Why logically would rivers run up the side of the ball. 8. Why can we sometimes see stars through the Moon and 'Moon Waves'. 9. Why do plane flights make far more sense on a FE map than a Globe. 10. Why do ballistic engineers predict trajectories on a Flat Non rotating Earth model. 11. Why are there videos of the Sun 'shrinking' at sunset. etc etc etc.....

[@averageytuser1356]

1. No such thing as upside down in space. There is no force that pulls things "down" away from earth. 2. You feel acceleration, not speed. You don't feel the movement in a fast plane, except for turbulences. Also there is plenty of evidence for both curve and rotation. 3. That's just your claim. 4. Kinetic energy is reletive to the observer. 5. They don't. Look up parallax shift. It's actually evidence for the earth's orbit around the sun. 6. Because it's not spinning fast enough for that to happen. 7. See number 1 8. Evidence? 9. They don't. Flights from Australia to South America would take more than twice as long on a FE map, thus falsifying your map. 10. Depending on the range, they don't. Artillery often corrects for both curvature and coriolis force (a concequence of rotation). 11. There aren't. Those are videos of the sun glare shrinking, not the sun. Come back when you have a video taken with a sun filter.

[@MrCuddlyable]

1. Gravity, be civil. 2. Earth's curvature and rotation are quantified by instruments not feelings. 3. False conspiracy claims. 4. KE of rotating mass = m v**2/r 5. False assumption, learn about stellar parallax. 6. Learn what is known about planetary accretion, see Ward, William R. (1996) 7. False assumption of "up" on a ball. 8. False claim. 9. False claim. 10. Coriolis corrections are unnecessary for short trajectories. 11. Illusions abound. That seems to be all you have so have a nice day.

[@David-ru3gd]

Why are you people so lazy? As you believe the Earth to be Flat find the distance to the sun. This should be the EASIEST thing to do just by using triangles and known distances over the Earth...a slam dunk! DO something instead of whining all the time...get together with your Flat Earth brethren and conduct some experiments. Your influencers sound like a broken record..."the globe can't be whatever because of this or that..." It's old and stale.

[@DaveF-dw6mb]

@@averageytuser1356 Minor correction. We feel acceleration, not a constant speed.

[@averageytuser1356]

​@@DaveF-dw6mboops, I wrote that wrong

[@FragTheFreak]

@the_minimal_dm From what you have said I have a feeling that you are only doing this for the attention and clicks. If you think that poisoning the well of progress and understanding, and wasting your time confusing people that aren't science literate on KZbin is good because you benefit from it you should be ashamed of yourself. Take a look at lack of qualified engineers and and STEM professionals in the US and UK...

[@the_minimal_dm]

I appreciate your point of view... have you considered the following? Since TFE, people who believe in flat earth have been in a bit of a tizz, either trying to debunk the trip or just saying it doesn't matter. 1 fellow, Joe Hanvey, claims to have made a physical model that proves a 24 hour sun in Antarctica on a flat earth. Peer review (i.e. double checking) is something that STEM professionals and qualified engineers are used to. So far, by doing a very simple school grade experiment, I have called into question 2 aspects of Joseph's model.... Me, I have time on my hands. I'm pretty sure those guys you refer to have better things to do with their valuable time...

[@FragTheFreak]

Such a sad waste of time when you could be putting your time and creative skills into solving practical problems instead of trying to prove debunked dogma.

[@the_minimal_dm]

I'm just putting my time and creative skills into making a model that people seem to be talking about... if it proves something one way or the other (and I'm good with either way..) so be it

[@FragTheFreak]

@@the_minimal_dm I respect your creative ability. The point is, in all honesty, I think it's truly sad that in this day and age of having so much access to explore the planet, having so much access to quality technology, and having so much access to peer-reviewed information. That you are putting so much effort into trying to disprove one of the most well established realities of the modern age. It's almost like you're trolling civilized society itself.

[@truthcooperator4683]

Why? People can have their fun and hobbies. I'm sure you do too.

[@FragTheFreak]

@@truthcooperator4683 @the_minimal_dm My fun and hobbies don't include making a fool out of myself and dismissing reality. What's really troubling about this kind of thought process and "hobby" is that with all the science denial and conspiracy thinking going on right now it's shutting down real progress and causing a decline in educated people that could actually help us make progress in solving some of the huge problems humanity is facing like cancer, pandemics, and anthropogenic climate change!

[@MrCuddlyable]

There is a scene in "Schindler's List" where a rail train of cattle cars containing imprisoned jews who are begging for water stops at a station. Schindler arranges to spray water on the prisoners. Most of the antisemitic uniformed Nazis present are displeased except one who expresses admiration, saying "That is really torturing them by giving them a little hope".