Rama Set

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2014, 10:48:18 PM »
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was  45,317km.

That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not?  Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too? 

Jroa did you know your intestines are about 40ft long? 


*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2014, 01:43:13 AM »
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was  45,317km.

That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not?  Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too? 

Jroa did you know your intestines are about 40ft long? 

That's more than the circumference of my stomach.  It makes no sense.   ;)

Rama Set

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #23 on: April 02, 2014, 04:10:41 AM »
What about the british arctic survey who measured the coast of Antartica and it was  45,317km.

That is more than the circumference of your round Earth, is it not?  Maybe the rest of the stuff you have been spoon fed is bullshit too? 

Jroa did you know your intestines are about 40ft long? 

That's more than the circumference of my stomach.  It makes no sense.   ;)

Open your mind bro.

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #24 on: April 02, 2014, 07:52:52 AM »
Morning,

No I don't for one second think that the Coriolis effect works on a small scale. Thats half your blurb wasted.

"Fuel is more efficient than people think" - Touche, didn't see that coming. The fuel flow figures for all aircraft are documented and you can actually watch the display in the cockpit and see fuel use per minute and the starting figure. So you can see what's burnt over what distance.

Heres more.
If the world is a disc, how thick is the disc? Even if its very thick it wont have the same mass as a spherical earth.
How do you explain the distortion values in space time around the world as observed by GP-B.
Also.
What causes the curvature of the earth as viewed from 52,000ft in a Gulfstream V or Challenger 605?
Also
Does God live on the back side of the disc?

Have a good day
T

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #25 on: April 02, 2014, 02:49:29 PM »
Morning,

No I don't for one second think that the Coriolis effect works on a small scale. Thats half your blurb wasted.

"Fuel is more efficient than people think" - Touche, didn't see that coming. The fuel flow figures for all aircraft are documented and you can actually watch the display in the cockpit and see fuel use per minute and the starting figure. So you can see what's burnt over what distance.

Heres more.
If the world is a disc, how thick is the disc? Even if its very thick it wont have the same mass as a spherical earth.
How do you explain the distortion values in space time around the world as observed by GP-B.
Also.
What causes the curvature of the earth as viewed from 52,000ft in a Gulfstream V or Challenger 605?
Also
Does God live on the back side of the disc?

Have a good day
T

I'll let those who subscribe to the disc model to weigh in on its thickness, but I don't see how you can make the claim that a monopole disc earth (or cylindrical one, I suppose) could never have the same mass as a spherical one.  Of course it could.  I also don't see why it would matter.  As I'm an infinite plane supporter, it matters even less to me how thick the earth is. 

The curvature of the earth as seen from 52,000 feet and above is probably a combination of effects, but I blame perspective for at least part of it.  Perspective and lensing through airline windows causes the apparent curve viewed on commercial flights at 30,000 feet or so.  However, you raise an interesting point.  You assert that spacetime above the earth is curved, and then you are surprised when the earth looks curved when viewed from the spacetime above the earth.  Could the one not account for the other?

As to "Does god live on the back side of the disc?" I've no idea where you even got that.  I'm atheistic, so no.

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #26 on: April 02, 2014, 03:07:37 PM »
Good afternoon,

I didn't say the curvature of space-time I said the distortion. Who said its curved?

No lensing through the cockpit windows, especially the uncurved side cockpit windows.
I've had a look at the horizon through the one sat on my desk here and it doesn't cause any curvature and i can see a very long way today.
Perspective is not the cause.

Does the earth revolve around the sun still? your arguments suggest not. how do you explain the values garnered from stellar parallax?

T

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16082
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #27 on: April 02, 2014, 05:05:09 PM »
No I don't for one second think that the Coriolis effect works on a small scale. Thats half your blurb wasted.
Oh, so your entire "blurb" had no point to it in the first place? Convenient.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #28 on: April 02, 2014, 06:20:22 PM »
hahaha,

Mine did.

OK interest lost for now. I'll be back another day. keep up the good work

T

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16082
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #29 on: April 02, 2014, 06:35:42 PM »
hahaha,

Mine did.
You are welcome to substantiate your claim at your convenience. Until then, it will be disregarded.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #30 on: April 02, 2014, 07:20:02 PM »
Does the earth revolve around the sun still? your arguments suggest not. how do you explain the values garnered from stellar parallax?

A quarter of Americans and 30% of Europeans believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. 

http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/

Rama Set

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2014, 07:28:47 PM »
Does the earth revolve around the sun still? your arguments suggest not. how do you explain the values garnered from stellar parallax?

A quarter of Americans and 30% of Europeans believe that the sun revolves around the Earth. 

http://time.com/7809/1-in-4-americans-thinks-sun-orbits-earth/

So what?

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #32 on: April 02, 2014, 07:33:42 PM »
"Fuel is more efficient than people think" - Touche, didn't see that coming. The fuel flow figures for all aircraft are documented

Who writes those documents? Was it peer reviewed? Where are the ships logs?

and you can actually watch the display in the cockpit and see fuel use per minute and the starting figure. So you can see what's burnt over what distance.

So you put a known quantity of fuel in a plane and then stayed in a cockpit and watched the fuel gauge for the length of the entire flight and then got out and recorded how much fuel was left in the tank?

Thork

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #33 on: April 02, 2014, 09:54:51 PM »
Firstly I would like to say I love this website.

Its mental and the guys answering the posts are very funny.

So here is my attempt at debating. Apologies if this is already asked. I couldn't be bothered to trawl the forum to find it.

Please can you tell me why airliners who fly from Heathrow to Florida Fly so far north over the Atlantic and come down closer to the east coast of the USA as opposed to going in a straight line direct?
A straight line (on a flat earth) would take them very close to the azores for this route, but alas they don't.

Why are fuel conscious airlines burning so much needless fuel??? unless they aren't and in fact the earth is a sphere.
I look forward to your response
Tom
You'll appreciate that flying in the northern hemisphere, the distances on a flat earth are much shorter than on a globular monstrosity. So, if they flew you direct in a straight line, you'd get there so fast and then there would be questions. Not least, why the hell are you charging me so much for a flight that is only so far, when you advertised it was much further. So it stands to reason they are going to fly you in a nice big arc up north to make it further and so it fits with globular propaganda. Airlines are making a killing from having you believe the earth is round. They aren't about to blow that by getting you from London to New York in just 4 hours.

Rama Set

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2014, 12:39:37 AM »
What a fantastic piece of propaganda.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #35 on: April 03, 2014, 02:42:36 AM »
Good afternoon,

I didn't say the curvature of space-time I said the distortion. Who said its curved?

No lensing through the cockpit windows, especially the uncurved side cockpit windows.
I've had a look at the horizon through the one sat on my desk here and it doesn't cause any curvature and i can see a very long way today.
Perspective is not the cause.

Does the earth revolve around the sun still? your arguments suggest not. how do you explain the values garnered from stellar parallax?

T

Lots of people say that spacetime is curved.  Indeed, spherical earth physics rely pretty heavily on the idea that mass curves spacetime, and as you seem to be a round-earther it seemed a safe assumption that you were talking about curvature.  If you were referring to something different then I misunderstood what you were referring to, but your snark is noted.  What sort of distortion are you talking about, then?  Educate me.

Re: aircraft windows.  So lenses don't function if only one side is curved?  Augustin-Jean Fresnel would like to have a word with you.

Thank you for your excellent efforts debunking the perspective argument by looking out your window by your desk.  Unfortunately, unless your desk sits at such an elevation that you can see an uninterrupted horizon all around you, this explanation is worthless.  It's the sense of being surrounded by the horizon that creates the illusion of curvature from perspective.  I've had many round-earthers agree with me here, so I'm not sure why you're arguing.

Does the earth revolve around the sun?  Certainly not.  The sun circles above the earth, as does the moon.  As for stellar parallax, the ancient Greeks surmised correctly that there isn't enough stellar parallax observed to show that the earth is moving.  Some of the object in the heavens do exhibit cyclic motion, often with regular periods.  Still others exhibit proper motion without a repeated cycle  Presumably, some indicate terrestrial motion while others are explained away as astrometric binary systems or some such.  All quite arbitrary.  Any star who wobbles with a period of six months is evidence of terrestrial motion and labeled parallax, while others are simply objects that move on their own. 

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2014, 03:21:09 AM »
As for stellar parallax, the ancient Greeks surmised correctly that there isn't enough stellar parallax observed to show that the earth is moving. 
Were these the same ancient Greeks who surmised that flies spontaneously emerge from rotten meat?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Rama Set

Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #37 on: April 03, 2014, 04:25:14 AM »
I've had many round-earthers agree with me here, so I'm not sure why you're arguing.
 

So when FEers have differences of opinion on FET it is a source of strength via intellectual diversity but when REers disagree with one another it is confusing.  Got it.

Offline Antonio

  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #38 on: April 03, 2014, 09:14:32 AM »
Re: aircraft windows.  So lenses don't function if only one side is curved?  Augustin-Jean Fresnel would like to have a word with you.
I think you misunderstood his point. He is explaining that side (and actually even front) cockpit windows on commercial jets are -very often- flat, like this:



.

And, if curved, are designed to minimize optical distortions.

*

Offline jroa

  • *
  • Posts: 3094
  • Kentucky Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: OK, got one. Straight lines
« Reply #39 on: April 03, 2014, 10:36:38 AM »
Commercial airplanes don't fly high enough to see the curvature of the Earth if it is curved.

commercial aircraft sel-
dom exceed altitudes of 40; 000 ft (1 ft 1⁄4 0:3048 m).
Interviews with pilots and high-elevation travelers
revealed that few if any could detect curvature below
about 50; 000 ft.