1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope

« on: May 03, 2017, 11:11:37 PM »

Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?

Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.

I'd agree with you if it was a 20 foot fishing vessel or something but when its a tanker over 100 feet tall that's over half obscured you can't use that logic.  The waves would have to be at least 50 feet in height in order to do that and we can clearly see in the foreground that the sea state is at MAXIMUM 5 foot waves (and I'm being very generous with that number.)

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles of the stars on Earth

« on: May 02, 2017, 10:22:45 PM »

I brought up a similar topic in one of my posts and didn't get a response either.  Based on their lack of response I can only assume that they have no way to explain it.

Link to my post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6120.0

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: May 02, 2017, 10:20:02 PM »

I don't know if this helps (I only had time to glance at your post) but it seems like you think that any latitude line bisects the Earth in the RE model. That is incorrect; it's true about longitude lines but not latitude. Only one line of latitude actually bisects the RE Earth, geometrically speaking: the Equator! I hope that helps clear things up.

Sorry, I may have misspoke or been unclear.  I didn't mean bisect in the sense that it cuts through the center of the earth.  I mean take a slice of the sphere that is parallel to the equator at a constant latitude.  The equations will calculate that circle for any latitude.  Does that clear things up?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope

« on: May 02, 2017, 10:14:13 PM »

I think somebody in the FES should talk to somebody in the Navy about this subject.
But that is probably against their rules....or against their nature.
After all the Navy is just one more member of The Conspiracy anyway. Most sailors have some degree of security clearance and they would get court martialed if they said they were hiding the fact that the earth is flat. That is probably part of Classified Information.

I have a theory for this part of the flat earth wiki.
Rowbotham was eiither short sighted ..... or had cataracts......or both.

I'm in the Navy.  In fact, I'm a submarine officer with 9 years in the Navy who has traveled over 50,000 miles at sea.  Believe me, if the earth was flat I'd know lol.  I've literally observed thousands of ships through a periscope either come over the horizon or go over the horizon.  Because our periscope is only a few feet out of the water our distance to the horizon is only about 5,000 yards so ships coming over or going over the horizon is very commonplace.  The phenomena is so well documented that we can actually calculate the distance to ships based on the known distance to the horizon and how much of the ship we can see over the horizon.  Its also an easy trick to approximate the range of ships near the horizon.  Furthermore, if we see the mast of a ship we can't identify we often stick our periscope more out of the water (by changing our depth) which changes our height of eye and therefore changes our distance to the horizon.  Sure enough, when we do this more of the ship comes into view.  We also have far more powerful magnification on our periscopes (along with night vision and infrared vision) then people have access to in the civilian sector and I can assure you that zooming does not bring the ship back into view if it goes over the horizon.  Likewise, if a ship goes over the horizon you can't pick it up with night vision on infrared.  If the earth was flat then we would be able to pick them up on infrared from pretty much any distance.  Helicopters with infrared can easily pick up contacts from a hundred miles away if they are high enough.

And the final nail in the coffin is radar.  The effective range of your radar is dependent on how high the radar is above the water line.  This is because the curvature of the earth limits your radar.  This is why ships always place their radar as high as possible.  You can even test this out if you have your own boat and you buy a portable radar.

However, no flat earther will ever believe my testimony.  I guess I'm a liar in their eyes lol.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: May 02, 2017, 09:57:20 PM »

I made a little video to clarify my point.

Thanks for the video.

This is definitely perplexing to me since I did the math and it doesn't support what you show in the video.  So, there are one of two options: 1) either I messed up the math (which is totally possible) or 2) whatever tool you're using in that program isn't displaying what you think its displaying.  I'll leave the math here, if you can figure out what I did wrong then I'll have learned something.

Initial assumptions
Initial velocity is due east (velocity only in the west-east direction)
No change in altitude (R remains constant)

Math sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_a_sphere
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_(geometry)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_(geometry)
(I also used some basic calculus so if you don't know how to do calculus I can walk you through it)

Variables
R = distance from us to center of the earth
d = radius of the circle that bisects the earth at our given latitude
Theta = longitude degrees
Phi = latitude degrees
WE = west-east distance
NS = north-south distance
dWE/dt = west-east velocity
dNS/dt = north-south velocity

Okay, so the first thing we need to do is figure out the radius of the circle that bisects the earth at our latitude.  From the first link we have the radius of a circle that bisects a sphere as:

BC^2 = AB^2 + AC^2

BC = R and AB = d in our example.  We can figure out that AC = R^2*sin(Phi) based on trigonometry.  Plugging in each of our variables we get:

R^2 = d^2 + R^2*sin(Phi)

Now solve for d

d^2 = R^2 - R^2*sin(Phi)
d^2 = R^2(1 - sin(Phi))
d = R*SQRT(1 - sin(Phi))

Ok, from here we can calculate distance traveled in the west-east direction and distance traveled in the north-south direction in terms of our spherical coordinates.  For both directions we'll use the equation for an arc.

WE = d*Theta (theta in radians)
WE = R*SQRT(1 - sin(Phi))*Theta

NS = R*Phi (phi in radians)

Lets look at the north south direction first.  Our initial condition is that our initial velocity is in the west east direction only.  Therefore, dNS/dt = 0.  We also know that R is constant (and non-zero.)  If we take the derivative of our NS equation we get:

dNS/dt = R*dPhi/dt

Since dNS/dt equals zero and R does not equal zero then dPhi/dt equals zero.  Since dPhi/dt equals zero then integrating will give us that Phi is a constant.

Now going back to our west east direction if phi is a constant than SQRT(1-sin(Phi)) is also a constant.  We'll call this constant C.  This simplifies our equation to:

WE = R*C*Theta (theta in radians)

therefore, our velocity in the west east direction is:

dWE/dt = R*C*dTheta/dt

Since spherical coordinates defines Theta and Phi as being orthogonal to each other we know that our initial velocity, which only has an west-east component, will result only in a change in Theta and not a change in Phi.  This results in only longitude changing but latitude remaining constant.

Like I said, maybe my math is off.  Alternatively, maybe you're using the computer program incorrectly or you have a concept error somewhere.  I'll try to figure stuff out in the program and you figure out if I messed up in the math.

And if we do find out my math is wrong I'd love to calculate how much change in latitude you see for every one degree of longitude.  That would be a fantastic experiment that people could test to give evidence for flat/round earth (of course you'd have to account for things like wind.)

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain airline travel in southern hemisphere?

« on: May 02, 2017, 09:24:28 PM »

The answer is main rounder argument: Jetstreams.

Flight time of Johannesburg to sydney is 11 hours 25 minutes. This is okey.

http://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA64/history/20170502/1710Z/FAOR/YSSY

But the opposite path:

Sydney to Johannesburg is 14 hours and 10 minutes.

http://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA63/history/20170502/0050Z/YSSY/FAOR

This is real flight time. The opposite route is manipulated by jetstreams

I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense to me.  I could run the flights going the opposite direction and the time to circumscribe the planet in the northern hemisphere would still be approximately the same as the time it takes to circumscribe the southern hemisphere (it might take a bit longer due to jet streams in one direction but the overall time would still be the same.)  If the world was flat then it would take you at least double (if not triple) the time to circle around the earth in the southern hemisphere as the northern hemisphere.

Also, did you look at the flight paths for the links you put in your post?  The flight paths don't match up for what is optimal for a flat earth.  In fact, if planes took those flight paths on a flat earth it would take even longer for them to reach their destinations.

Thank you for replying and at least giving me a possible explanation.  I think we all want to figure out the truth and the only way we can do that is straight forward discussions.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?

« on: May 01, 2017, 02:26:48 AM »

All of my questions are coherent and answerable, hence why we are having this conversation.

Okay. Well, since your core question relies on a number of false premises, I am unable to answer it meaningfully. Make of that what you will.

How do you think I found this place?

Our main acquisition channels are search engines and social media services, so I'd my guess would be one of those.

However, this does not answer my question. If you did meet someone like that here, could you quote them? It would be interesting to see.

So far the only ones I've heard is "the videos are fake" and "people are facing the wrong direction."

Quotes, please. Who on this forum said that?

You can't blame me that you don't have much material out there.  I did as much research as I could and I still have a lot of questions.

I can blame you for not bothering to read the basics, and I will do so.

You don't think going to sea and seeing ships going over the horizon would change your perspective?  I find that rather odd to say the least.

That's because you operate under the incorrect assumption that I haven't done it before. Much like with the core question of this thread, as soon as you accept a false premise, all logic goes out the window.

You'd think if the earth was flat the Navy would be your greatest supporters.  You'd think if the round earth model didn't work that the people who travel thousands of miles at sea would be the first people to point it out.  If the earth was flat then traveling along great circle routes would actually waste fuel rather than save it.  I'd love it if I could see ships from hundreds of miles away or if my radar wasn't limited by the curvature of the earth.  I'd love it if I didn't have to put the bridge or my lookouts at the highest points in the ship (since the higher you go the worse the swaying motion gets in a storm.)  But sadly the earth is curved and I do have to do all of these things.

Your image of the FE model is extremely inaccurate. It's almost difficult to figure out what you mean, because you focus so hard on ripping into a hypothetical FE model nobody here supports.

I'd never mock someone for their service to their country.  That's disgusting.  You really should be ashamed of yourself.

lol, this brand of "patriotism" will never cease to amuse me. But, for the sake of avoidance of doubt: I never mocked you for your service to your country. I mocked your insistence on showing off. This was clearly indicated in the original statement: "you took your time to brag about it"

Then I'm sure you've already published a master's thesis.

You would be wrong. Once again, you operate on a false assumption. I'm not American, and my Master's degree is not an MSc nor an MA. You also seem to be under the impression that I'd reveal my identity to a random person on the Internet.

I've already read all this stuff.  It didn't answer my questions.

Most of the glaring holes in your understanding of FET are covered there. Once you've read through these, you can start amending your questions.

Do you also suffer from short term memory loss?  Your response "doesn't even convey a coherent thought."  Unfortunately, "your fantasies...do very little to affect reality."  I hope that one day I can say "for the first time in forever, you managed to make an accurate observation."  I've been craving a debate and "I'd love to attack your arguments, but you have yet to make any."

All of these things relate to the things you said, not to your person. The key phrases there are "that" [the sentence quoted above], "your fantasies", "your arguments" [or lack thereof].

Yes, its a diversion.  Instead of answering the question you just resort to character attacks and insults.  All you do is ad hominem arguments.

Your question cannot be meaningfully answered, and your character has yet to be attacked.

Its a pretty simple question, I have no idea why it is unanswerable.

That would be due to your reliance on false premises and your unwillingness to review or explain them. 

Who is lying about the earth being flat?  Who knows that it is flat and yet continues to provide false evidence that it is round?

Finally, a question that's both coherent and which doesn't rely on a laundry list of assumptions. I can answer that one for you. Strictly speaking: probably nobody.

I already did......are you sure you don't have short term memory loss?

Yes, I am sure your personal attack doesn't hold much water. For example: I asked, multiple times, whether the people who you claim dismiss the apparent motions of stars as "fake" were from the Flat Earth Society. The closest you've come to answering this question is "How do you think I found this place?".

How am attacking you or your personality?

For one, you keep suggesting that I suffer from at least two mental deficiencies: a short-term memory loss and poor reading comprehension. You also said I should be ashamed of myself.

I am merely pointing out that when a person does not have any concrete evidence to support their claims it is very common for them to resort to misdirection or insults.

I agree, your "memory loss" schtick is very telling. 

If you had concrete evidence then you would have already presented it to me and this discussion would have been over several posts ago.

An interesting assumption, but there are many other reasons for which I might not want to waste my time on educating you.

I feel like we're going in circles.  You keep telling me that all of my comments are under false pretenses and false assumptions but you will never say how they are false.  You also insist that I don't answer your questions and yet also refuse to answer all of mine.  The only links and evidence you have provided me do nothing to disprove my arguments.  I can't have a logical debate with you if you don't provide examples of how or why I am wrong.  So either prove to me how I'm wrong or this is essentially a waste of our time.  I'm sitting here telling you 2 + 2 = 4 and you're telling me I'm wrong and not only will you not say what the "correct" answer is but you also wont' provide me with any mathematical proof to show that 2 + 2 equals any other number but 4.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: May 01, 2017, 02:18:15 AM »

It is a straight line over the surface of the sphere.

If you choose to use the name "straight line" to refer to great circles, how do you differentiate them from actual straight lines?

It all depends on the coordinate system.  That's why things are complicated once you get into three-dimensions, especially with curved surfaces.  If you have the right coordinate system the math can be simple and if you have the wrong coordinate system the math can seem impossible to solve.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: May 01, 2017, 02:12:00 AM »

If it makes it easier, try imagining following a compass due east when you are just twenty feet from the north pole.

Did you travel in a straight line or in a circle?

It's hardly a moot point from your position because the straight lines paths due east in the southern hemisphere in reality trend northward rather than southward.

That is an entirely different point from the one he was trying to make.

That's exactly my point.  When you are 20 feet from the north pole  the distance between you and the north pole is effectively flat and you see what would happen to your compass if the world was flat rather than round.  Its only with curvature that compasses can actually perform like they do in real life.  Its only with curvature that a compass will continue to point east if you travel in a straight line.

You are wrong on this one. I believe the earth is round.  I also know that the only place on a globe where you can travel a heading of true  east or west and have it be a straight line is at the equator.  Every other path with an east or west heading will result in a curved line.

Yes, the line will be curved because the surface of the earth is curved but you won't have to constantly change course.  You can effectively take your hands off the wheel and you will maintain a due east/west course.  This kind of behavior is impossible on a flat earth.  Sorry for the confusion, I was trying to simplify things for people who aren't familiar with navigation but I think I confused you in the process because you actually understand how travel over the earth actually occurs.

The only "hand off" perfectly straight courses are those that bisect the center of the earth.  The only straight course with constant headings would be east/west at the equator or true north/south courses.  Latitude constant courses other than the equator do not bisect the center of the earth.  They cannot be followed "hand off".  They require constant "hands on" to follow a heading because they are not straight paths.  If latitude lines where straight "hand off" courses then aircraft would use them to fly from LA to Tokyo.  They don't use that course because it's not a great circle route.  The shortest straight line path goes up near Alaska.  The latitude line isn't shorter because it's not "hands off" straight.  It's actually curved.  The challenge to "hands off" straight great circle routes is that they have constantly changing headings.

Like I said before, you've got some concept errors.  Even if LA to Tokyo was a "hands off" course the airline companies wouldn't fly it because its not a great circle route route.  A great circle route is the shortest distance between two points on a spherical surface.  Airline companies fly great circle routes because it saves gas, not because its easier on the pilots.  However, if you go due east on a course and you don't adjust your heading after 1,000 miles you will still be going due east.  Its pretty easy to prove this to yourself.  Simplify the sphere to a circle seen from the side.  Draw a horizontal line of constant latitude.  Now, draw a line that bisects the pole.  What angle do the lines make?  Its a 90 degree angle.  Now, rotate your globe any number of degrees and do the same thing again.  Its still a 90 degree angle.  You can keep going due east and it will always make a 90 angle with due north.  Thus, you can have a "hands off" course at any latitude and still maintain a constant course.

It seems like you're confusing "hands off", straight, and shortest course.  The shortest course is a great circle route.  This could also be argue as the "straightest" course since it is the shortest distance over a curved surface.  However, great circle routes are NOT hands off courses. 

What I am talking about is the route you would take if you didn't make any course corrections what-so-ever and how your heading would differ on a flat earth vice a round earth.  On a round earth if you begin by going due east and don't change your course for 1,000 miles you will still be going due east after 1,000 miles.  On a flat earth for every one degree of longitude you cross you will point one degree further south.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?

« on: April 30, 2017, 10:21:53 PM »

Sorry, I will not be doing that. I'm also much better at managing my own time than you are, so keep your assessments of what will and won't take me time to yourself.

But, once you're done amending your question, rendering it coherent and answerable, I'll do my best to help you.

If you aren't willing to provide any type of evidence to back up your claims then the only conclusion I can make is that your claims are false considering the magnitude of scientific evidence against you.  All of my questions are coherent and answerable, hence why we are having this conversation.

Thinking about those "plenty of people", have you met any of them here? What was their relation to the Flat Earth Society?

How do you think I found this place?  I'm still looking for a decent explanation for how the stars can rotate the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere.  So far the only ones I've heard is "the videos are fake" and "people are facing the wrong direction."  I wasn't able to find anything on your wiki or anywhere else that adequately explained the issue.

I respectfully disagree, but given the depth of your research thus far, I am not surprised.

well, to be fair it only takes a couple hours to read most of your "scientific" contributions.  You can't blame me that you don't have much material out there.  I did as much research as I could and I still have a lot of questions.

As a Round Earther, I'm sure you'd think that. It does not affect what actually happens, however.

You don't think going to sea and seeing ships going over the horizon would change your perspective?  I find that rather odd to say the least.

;_; mummy, the mean armed forces told me i was stupid

Not stupid, humorous.  You'd think if the earth was flat the Navy would be your greatest supporters.  You'd think if the round earth model didn't work that the people who travel thousands of miles at sea would be the first people to point it out.  If the earth was flat then traveling along great circle routes would actually waste fuel rather than save it.  I'd love it if I could see ships from hundreds of miles away or if my radar wasn't limited by the curvature of the earth.  I'd love it if I didn't have to put the bridge or my lookouts at the highest points in the ship (since the higher you go the worse the swaying motion gets in a storm.)  But sadly the earth is curved and I do have to do all of these things.

I have no counter-argument to your long paragraph about how you were totally in the Navy. Perhaps you were, perhaps you weren't. Frankly, it's of little significance either way. But, of course, you did think it is of significance, and you took your time to brag about it. Does it really surprise you that you got mocked for it? 

I talked about my Navy experience because it has relevance in this debate.  I have literally seen proof of a curved earth with my own eyes.  If you talk to anyone who has ever served in the Navy they'll tell you the same thing.

I'd never mock someone for their service to their country.  That's disgusting.  You really should be ashamed of yourself.

Give me a few more years, I've only started my PhD a few months ago

Then I'm sure you've already published a master's thesis.  I'll read that instead.

Start with the FAQ: https://faq.tfes.org/
The Wiki is a decent starting point after that: https://wiki.tfes.org/

I've already read all this stuff.  It didn't answer my questions.  Do you have any more resources?

Ah, excellent. So, since I never directly called you anything mean, I understand you will be withdrawing your complaint now?

Do you also suffer from short term memory loss?  Your response "doesn't even convey a coherent thought."  Unfortunately, "your fantasies...do very little to affect reality."  I hope that one day I can say "for the first time in forever, you managed to make an accurate observation."  I've been craving a debate and "I'd love to attack your arguments, but you have yet to make any."

Yeah, yeah, a "diversion". I'm very impressed by your ability to obstruct your own question. No, seriously, we never get your kind around here.

Look, your question is unanswerable until you've amended it. Get on with it or stop wasting my time.

Yes, its a diversion.  Instead of answering the question you just resort to character attacks and insults.  All you do is ad hominem arguments.

Its a pretty simple question, I have no idea why it is unanswerable.  Who is lying about the earth being flat?  Who knows that it is flat and yet continues to provide false evidence that it is round?  Based on the evidence you reject it seems like a lot of people are involved in the conspiracy.

Okay, so do that. Answer my original questions and the follow-ups.

I already did......are you sure you don't have short term memory loss?  Scroll up and you'll see the responses.  The problem is that you've yet to answer my questions from the original post.

Hold on, I thought you were against conflating personalities/persons and arguments? You keep changing your mind on that one, it's so hard to keep up with which position suits you at which time

How am attacking you or your personality?  I am merely pointing out that when a person does not have any concrete evidence to support their claims it is very common for them to resort to misdirection or insults.  Someone who is sure in their beliefs or has concrete evidence to support their claims does not have an issue presenting their facts and letting the facts speak for themselves.  Since all you do is change the subject and insult me then the only thing I can logically assume is that you have no concrete evidence.  If you had concrete evidence then you would have already presented it to me and this discussion would have been over several posts ago.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: April 30, 2017, 09:32:03 PM »

If it makes it easier, try imagining following a compass due east when you are just twenty feet from the north pole.

Did you travel in a straight line or in a circle?

It's hardly a moot point from your position because the straight lines paths due east in the southern hemisphere in reality trend northward rather than southward.

That is an entirely different point from the one he was trying to make.

That's exactly my point.  When you are 20 feet from the north pole  the distance between you and the north pole is effectively flat and you see what would happen to your compass if the world was flat rather than round.  Its only with curvature that compasses can actually perform like they do in real life.  Its only with curvature that a compass will continue to point east if you travel in a straight line.

You are wrong on this one. I believe the earth is round.  I also know that the only place on a globe where you can travel a heading of true  east or west and have it be a straight line is at the equator.  Every other path with an east or west heading will result in a curved line.

Yes, the line will be curved because the surface of the earth is curved but you won't have to constantly change course.  You can effectively take your hands off the wheel and you will maintain a due east/west course.  This kind of behavior is impossible on a flat earth.  Sorry for the confusion, I was trying to simplify things for people who aren't familiar with navigation but I think I confused you in the process because you actually understand how travel over the earth actually occurs.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: April 30, 2017, 09:28:54 PM »

The same thing happens on a spherical earth except at the equator.

Sorry but you fail basic geometry there.  If you are on a sphere and you circumscribe the sphere (which means traveling west-east or east-west on our planet) the top and bottom of the sphere (the poles) will always be perpendicular to the circumscribed route.  If you don't believe me grab a ball or a balloon, draw a circle around that object, and then draw lines to the pole of the object.

You won't go in a straight line though.  You will follow a curved path called a rhumb line. A great circle route is a straight path but the heading will constantly change.  It is quite possible to get from one location to another following a constant heading.  It is not the shortest route though because it will following a curved path.  The only place where a straight east or west path can be taken is at the equator.  Take a look at Google Earth for experimentation.  If you draw a straight path with a heading of 90° at 45 north latitude the line will trend south.  Google Earth uses great circle routes to draw the straight lines.

I have never heard how the flat earth explains being able to follow a straight great circle route heading east at the equator though.

Ok, I think the confusion here is that I'm referring to a straight line path as in "hands off the steering wheel."  I understand that the path will be curved over the surface to the earth.  What I'm saying is that if I maintain the same latitude and purely change degrees of longitude my heading will stay constant.  Does that make sense?  I also understand that maintaining the same latitude is not the shortest distance traveled and that its far more economical to travel via a great circle route.

My point is that if you take your "hands off the steering wheel" on a flat earth with an initial course of due east that you heading will change by 1 degree south of every 1 degree of longitude you travel.  In order to maintain a constant latitude (and therefore a constant heading) you would constantly need to steer left.  However, we know this doesn't happen in real life.  Does that make sense now?

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: April 30, 2017, 08:51:33 PM »

If it makes it easier, try imagining following a compass due east when you are just twenty feet from the north pole.

Did you travel in a straight line or in a circle?

It's hardly a moot point from your position because the straight lines paths due east in the southern hemisphere in reality trend northward rather than southward.

That is an entirely different point from the one he was trying to make.

That's exactly my point.  When you are 20 feet from the north pole  the distance between you and the north pole is effectively flat and you see what would happen to your compass if the world was flat rather than round.  Its only with curvature that compasses can actually perform like they do in real life.  Its only with curvature that a compass will continue to point east if you travel in a straight line.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: April 30, 2017, 08:46:29 PM »

Sorry but you fail basic geometry there.  If you are on a sphere and you circumscribe the sphere (which means traveling west-east or east-west on our planet) the top and bottom of the sphere (the poles) will always be perpendicular to the circumscribed route.

If you circumscribed a sphere, you did not draw a straight line. Is this geometry too complex for you?

It is a straight line over the surface of the sphere.  Obviously you aren't very familiar with coordinate systems.  I'd be happy to explain it to you if you'd like.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?

« on: April 30, 2017, 02:33:38 PM »

The culture of this community (in which you are a guest) is fairly harsh. If you haven't bothered to research the basics of FET, we're not going to rush through your aid and tutor you through it. The two threads you've presented are extremely old and tired tropes, and you decided to talk about them at great length. Honestly, I'd be surprised if anyone had the patience to entertain you there.

Then link me to where your community disproves my claims.  Should take you less time that it took you to make this response.

I didn't miss it, I just shortened my response for brevity. I've quoted the sentence I'm responding to, so I would hope this is fairly clear.

You said "Have you actually found a person here who claims that the rotation of the stars is, uh, "fake"? That doesn't even convey a coherent thought."  Obviously no one believe the rotation of the stars is fake but there are plenty of people who believe the stars rotating in the opposite direction is fake because it would be impossible for stars to rotate in the opposite direction if the earth was flat.

Eric Dubay is quite disrespected around here, and I believe the feeling is mutual. As far as we're concerned, he's much worse than a random crackpot. If you have any questions about Dubay's crackpottery, I suggest you take it up with him, not us.

Glad we agree on something.  However, a lot of the logic I've seen from people on this site lines up perfectly with what Dubay says so you can understand my confusion.  Its hard to separate one conspiracy theorist from another.

That's nice, dear. Unfortunately, your fantasies about who has and hasn't been at sea do very little to affect reality.

My point was that if you've been to see then you actually would have some concrete evidence that the earth was round.  I hope you guys know that your community has been become a running gag in the military, especially the Navy.  Anyone who has been to see has seen ships go over the horizon hull up.  Anyone who has been to see has seen ships appear mast first over the horizon.

I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills.

Really, you're resorting to internet memes now?  Not only is that extremely disrespectful to the people who have served in the military but it also shows how little of an argument you have.  I gave you some pretty concrete information and your response is a meme.  Hilarious.

Can't say I've ever seen a video of this being performed. I prefer doing my own experiments.

I'd love to see what experiments you've done.  Please provide me with some links to your esteemed journal articles.

For the first time in forever, you managed to make an accurate observation.

So you basically admit that your responses are just complete rubbish that are never actually designed to debate the point.  Glad we're getting somewhere.

I agree with you. Once again, you seem to be quoting random crackpots (or, worse, Dubay and his sycophants). I can't help you when it comes to arguing against these people, because I, too, think they're wrong.

Link me to the correct explanations then.  I am honestly trying to understand your point of view but its extremely hard when you all believe different things.

Well, if you're not willing to read our resources, there's not much we can do for you.

Links instead snide comments would be great.  Thanks.

I'd love to attack your arguments, but you have yet to make any. Your debating strategy is to loudly announce that you haven't studied FET but that you think it's wrong. My best response to that is "that's nice, dear". We simply have better things to do.

Actually, the whole reason why I made this post is I actually have been studying flat earth and the more I study the larger the conspiracy has to be in order for it to work.  I'm just looking for an explanation for all of it.  Once again, you flat earthers provide me with nothing.  Its quite hilarious actually.  I ask for an explanation and you respond with insults.  Why so defensive?

"Don't attack the person, attack the argument. ALSO YOU'RE STUPID AND WEAK HAHA - Silent Service, 2017.

Did I ever say that you are stupid and weak?  No, I didn't.  I said your arguments are weak.  Furthermore, I said that resorting to insults was hilarious, pathetic and ironic.  So yeah, thanks for misquoting me yet again.  Honestly, if you struggle this much with reading comprehension then I'm not exactly sure how much I can trust your experiments.  I'd still be happy to check them out though if you want to provide a link.

For this question to be answerable, you must first define what you mean by "the conspiracy". For this definition to be agreeable, we must first agree on which of your premises are true, and which are not. In order to establish this, I asked you some questions on the premises which are most glaringly false. I'm being patient with you, but you're making it very difficult.

If you'd like me to answer your question while assuming your false premises, then logically speaking any number will be correct. If P is false,then P−>Q is true for any Q.

Another diversion, how quaint.  See, if the positions were reversed by this point in the conversation I would have provided you with multiple links and arguments for every sentence of your original post explaining how you were wrong.  Furthermore, if any of your points were unclear I would have asked for amplification on your points to better explain yourself.  Instead, all your respond with is just misdirection and insults.  It speaks volumes on how concrete your evidence actually is.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: April 30, 2017, 01:53:41 PM »

The same thing happens on a spherical earth except at the equator.

Sorry but you fail basic geometry there.  If you are on a sphere and you circumscribe the sphere (which means traveling west-east or east-west on our planet) the top and bottom of the sphere (the poles) will always be perpendicular to the circumscribed route.  If you don't believe me grab a ball or a balloon, draw a circle around that object, and then draw lines to the pole of the object.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: April 30, 2017, 01:47:37 PM »

Well, even on a round Earth, you're not really tracing a straight line when you go east, you're traveling in a circle.  So it all seems like kind of a moot point.

See, east and west trace circles around the north pole while north and south trace circles that go through the north pole.  So the cardinal directions are as follows: North is Hubwards, South is Rimwards, East is Turnwise, and West is Widdershins.

How is a moot point?  The compass behaves as expected in a round earth.  If going east in a straight line on a round earth north I will actually go due east.  If I go east in a straight line on a flat earth I will go one degree southwards for every one degree of longitude I cover.  The point I'm trying to make is that if the world was flat then compasses and navigation would not perform like they do in real life.

18

Flat Earth Theory / How do flat earthers explain travel with cardinal directions?

« on: April 30, 2017, 01:16:41 AM »

So let's say I'm facing east on a flat earth.  North is 90 degrees to the left of me.  However, if I walk/run/drive/fly/etc in a straight line after a few hundred miles I will no longer be going due east.  In fact, the longer I go in that straight line the more south I will actually travel because north is always defined as the direction between an observer and the north pole.  In order to keep going due east I would routinely have to turn left.  However, we know this doesn't happen in real life.  So what explains this on a flat earth?

Red: straight line direction that starts off due east.
Green: Line showing that north is perpendicular to initial direction (proving that initial direction is due east)
Yellow: Line to north pole showing that after traveling on our straight line path for a significant distance that we are no longer going east but rather more southeast.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is the conspiracy?

« on: April 30, 2017, 12:57:33 AM »

Convincing people of things they already believe in tends to be easy. 

I'll give you that one, simple typo.

This is simply untrue. You lot just insist on presenting near-identical evidence over and over. It's very unsurprising that attempting the same thing multiple times yields fairly consistent results.

And yet that evidence is never refuted.  Furthermore, most of the time the evidence is just ignored.  Take for example these posts, not a single person has provided any counter arguments to either:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6133.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6120.0

Have you actually found a person here who claims that the rotation of the stars is, uh, "fake"? That doesn't even convey a coherent thought.

You missed the key word in that sentence.  What I said was "The stars rotating the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere: fake."  If you talk to many flat earthers about stars rotating clockwise in the southern hemisphere (as opposed to counter-clockwise in the northern hemisphere) the two most common responses are either 1) those videos are fake or 2) There's a conspiracy among compass manufacturers and people in the southern hemisphere are actually facing north when they see the rotation of the stars rather than south.  And this isn't just some random crackpots saying this, we're talking people like Eric Dubay making these kind of claims.

Actually, ships disappearing over the horizon and one's ability to recover them with a telescope is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for a Flat Earth. Again, I doubt that anyone here would call it "fake"

And that's how I know you flat earthers have never been at sea.  I've been in the Navy for 9 years with telescopes far more powerful than anyone has in the civilian sector and I can assure you that once a ship goes over the horizon there is no magnification that can bring it back.  I have literally observed thousands of ships come over the horizon or go over the horizon.  Ships always disappear hull up and the first thing that appears when a ship comes over the horizon is the mast.  We actually can calculate the distance to a ship based on how much of the ship is over the horizon and it matches up perfectly with radar, sonar and AIS.  Hell, you can even prove the earth is Round just by changing the location of your radar on a ship.  If you place the radar near the waterline then your effective range of the radar is much shorter than if you place it at the top of the ship.  That's why every ship ever build always places their radars as high as possible.  If that is one of your strongest pieces of evidence for a flat earth then I feel very sorry for you indeed.  If you look closely at every video of flat earthers performing this "experiment" you will notice that none of the ships are actually over the horizon nor do they ever appear to be over the horizon at any point during the zooming.

Again, that's not even a coherent thought. You lot get confused because you insist on interpreting the Flat Earth map as if it were a Cartesian plane. Can't help you with that one.

And you act like what you're saying is a coherent thought.  Its like people claiming that "perspective" accounts for the massive difference between actual angles to polaris and the angles that the flat earth model predicts.  In theory it sounds great but when you actually crunch the numbers its a load of rubbish.  The truth is that it is physically impossible for a flat earth to exist if it takes equal amounts of time to circumscribe the planet in the northern hemisphere as the southern hemisphere. I explained this pretty clearly in this post and I've yet to get a response:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6133.0

Y'know, the longer you list these, the longer I think that you haven't spoken to many people here.

I've seen some posts on the issue.  None that actually explain why snipers need to account for additional drift in their shot depending on what cardinal direction they face.  In fact, the only answer I've heard is "wind."  Yes, I'm sure that professional snipers forgot to account for wind and they are confusing that with the rotation of the earth (end sarcasm.)


That's literally all you people do here.  Instead of answering the question with some actual proof you just attack the person and call them stupid.  That's not debating and it shows how flimsy your arguments are.  If you want to disprove something then attack my arguments, don't attack me.

You flat earthers have really proven nothing. Your models cannot predict any stellar phenomena or explain literally anything about our physical world which proves how horrible of a model you have.  I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you know where your arguments are weak and instead of bolstering your arguments with actual facts, logic and reasoning you just resort to insults.  Its really quite hilarious, pathetic and ironic in a way.

Also, I love how you COMPLETELY avoided the question.  How big is the conspiracy?  Really, please tell me.  Because I'm doing the math and it looks like hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of people have to be involved in this conspiracy to fake everything that you claim is fake.

20

Flat Earth Theory / How big is the conspiracy?

« on: April 29, 2017, 01:37:31 PM »

I hear a lot of people who believe in a flat earth say that is should be "easy" to convince them of a round earth.  Then no matter what evidence they are presented with they claim its fake and part of a conspiracy.  Every photo taken from space: fake.  Every video from the International Space Station: fake.  Every single GPS, military and telecommunications satellite: fake. The stars rotating the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere: fake.  Ships shown disappearing hull up over the horizon: fake.  Airline flights taking just as long to travel similar longitudes in the northern hemisphere as the southern hemisphere: fake.  Snipers taking into account the Coriolis effect of the earth for long range shots: fake.

Apparently the conspiracy is so widespread that it includes:
All space agencies across the world
All private space companies in the world
All military intelligence agencies
All telecommunications companies
Anyone who has taken photos/video of the night sky in the southern hemisphere
Compass manufacturers
Anyone who has spent a lot of time sailing around the world (to include members of the Navy and all shipping companies)
All airline companies
All airline pilots
Military snipers and professional Marksmen
99% of the scientific community

So who exactly isn't in on this conspiracy?  Doesn't it seem far more likely that the earth is really round and all of these organizations are actually telling the truth?