The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: rubberbands on January 13, 2016, 09:25:16 AM
-
My last post didn't get many responses, potentially since I put way too many things in it to be addressed at once. I'll focus on just one point in this thread, which is related to some of the points I made in the last.
How big is the Pacific ocean? According to all the FE maps I've seen, the part of the Pacific ocean in the southern hemisphere would need to be much larger than RE would have us believe.
So are you guys suggesting that it's actually farther from say, Australia to South America than any of our measurements would indicate? If so, do you have any idea why the measurements would be so inaccurate? (And if they are accurate, how could they be consistent with a flat earth?)
Many people have traveled around the southern hemisphere quite successfully using the RE model -- see the Vendeé Globe yacht race, as well as commercial shipping and airplane routes. If RE inaccurately predicts the distances they need to travel, how can they do this?
-
They flat-earth map is a not a definitive document. It's merely a tool to illustrate the concept. The world has never been mapped without a round-earth bias.
It's also important to note that for the vast majority of human existence, people didn't think the earth was round and they got from place to place just fine.
-
They flat-earth map is a not a definitive document. It's merely a tool to illustrate the concept. The world has never been mapped without a round-earth bias.
How would a round-earth bias cause people to mistake how far away South America is from Australia? And even if they did mess that up somehow, once people started making that trip regularly, wouldn't they have figured that out pretty quickly?
Also, I've definitely seen many RE'ers develop complicated theories about the movement of the sun and moon, for instance, which depended on something like the Azimuthal Equidistant projection being an accurate representation of the earth, so there's at least a sizable fraction of you guys who take that as more than just an illustration of the concept.
It's also important to note that for the vast majority of human existence, people didn't think the earth was round and they got from place to place just fine.
And for the majority of human existence, there weren't large-scale shipping routes crisscrossing the southern hemisphere, which is where this actually comes into play.
-
They flat-earth map is a not a definitive document. It's merely a tool to illustrate the concept. The world has never been mapped without a round-earth bias.
It's also important to note that for the vast majority of human existence, people didn't think the earth was round and they got from place to place just fine.
Actually, they knew for a long time that the earth was round.
-
I've heard that gravity is not real and the Earth is just moving up really fast if this is true if you were not touching the Earth at all for even a second you would be moved to a different area as the Earth spins under your feet.
-
They flat-earth map is a not a definitive document. It's merely a tool to illustrate the concept. The world has never been mapped without a round-earth bias.
It's also important to note that for the vast majority of human existence, people didn't think the earth was round and they got from place to place just fine.
Actually, they knew for a long time that the earth was round.
How long?
-
My last post didn't get many responses, potentially since I put way too many things in it to be addressed at once. I'll focus on just one point in this thread, which is related to some of the points I made in the last.
How big is the Pacific ocean? According to all the FE maps I've seen, the part of the Pacific ocean in the southern hemisphere would need to be much larger than RE would have us believe.
So are you guys suggesting that it's actually farther from say, Australia to South America than any of our measurements would indicate? If so, do you have any idea why the measurements would be so inaccurate? (And if they are accurate, how could they be consistent with a flat earth?)
Many people have traveled around the southern hemisphere quite successfully using the RE model -- see the Vendeé Globe yacht race, as well as commercial shipping and airplane routes. If RE inaccurately predicts the distances they need to travel, how can they do this?
Actually, if you will check it out, you will find that the only flat earth map I have seen is just a copy of The Azimuthal Equidistant Projection....Of the globe. Which accounts for the distortion south of the equator.
-
They flat-earth map is a not a definitive document. It's merely a tool to illustrate the concept. The world has never been mapped without a round-earth bias.
It's also important to note that for the vast majority of human existence, people didn't think the earth was round and they got from place to place just fine.
Actually, they knew for a long time that the earth was round.
How long?
Way before Columbus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
-
I've heard that gravity is not real and the Earth is just moving up really fast if this is true if you were not touching the Earth at all for even a second you would be moved to a different area as the Earth spins under your feet.
False. If you're going to argue against something, at least try to have an understanding of the belief you subscribe to.
-
They flat-earth map is a not a definitive document. It's merely a tool to illustrate the concept. The world has never been mapped without a round-earth bias.
It's also important to note that for the vast majority of human existence, people didn't think the earth was round and they got from place to place just fine.
Actually, they knew for a long time that the earth was round.
How long?
Way before Columbus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
How long before Columbus? I'm looking for a number, but we are all friends here, I'll accept a rough estimation.
-
They flat-earth map is a not a definitive document. It's merely a tool to illustrate the concept. The world has never been mapped without a round-earth bias.
It's also important to note that for the vast majority of human existence, people didn't think the earth was round and they got from place to place just fine.
Actually, they knew for a long time that the earth was round.
How long?
Way before Columbus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
How long before Columbus? I'm looking for a number, but we are all friends here, I'll accept a rough estimation.
Since the Greeks at least.
-
They flat-earth map is a not a definitive document. It's merely a tool to illustrate the concept. The world has never been mapped without a round-earth bias.
It's also important to note that for the vast majority of human existence, people didn't think the earth was round and they got from place to place just fine.
Actually, they knew for a long time that the earth was round.
How long?
Way before Columbus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
How long before Columbus? I'm looking for a number, but we are all friends here, I'll accept a rough estimation.
Since the Greeks at least.
Okay, great, the dawn of the Ancient Greeks was in the 8th century BC. The dawn of humans I'll conservatively place at 100,000 years ago (some say as far as 200,000 years ago). So again, I postulate that for the vast majority of human existence, people thought that the earth was flat and they got around just fine.
-
They flat-earth map is a not a definitive document. It's merely a tool to illustrate the concept. The world has never been mapped without a round-earth bias.
It's also important to note that for the vast majority of human existence, people didn't think the earth was round and they got from place to place just fine.
The so-called "Flat Earth Map" that the FES usually uses is simply a copy of The Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the globe with its inherent distortion south of the equator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
There has never been an accurate "flat earth map" simply because the earth is not flat but is a globe.
-
Of course the Earth is a globe. I doubt that anybody here truly will refute this fact. But this site is about see things from different perspectives and challenge sciences, which is kind of interesting and entertaining. Or am I completely wrong about this?
-
They flat-earth map is a not a definitive document. It's merely a tool to illustrate the concept. The world has never been mapped without a round-earth bias.
It's also important to note that for the vast majority of human existence, people didn't think the earth was round and they got from place to place just fine.
Actually, they knew for a long time that the earth was round.
How long?
Way before Columbus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth
How long before Columbus? I'm looking for a number, but we are all friends here, I'll accept a rough estimation.
Since the Greeks at least.
Okay, great, the dawn of the Ancient Greeks was in the 8th century BC. The dawn of humans I'll conservatively place at 100,000 years ago (some say as far as 200,000 years ago). So again, I postulate that for the vast majority of human existence, people thought that the earth was flat and they got around just fine.
I believe that the earth is only six thousand years old, but that aside, for most of human history people didnt drive cars as well. This is a bandwagon fallacy and a tradition fallacy. Who cares what ancient people thought of the earth. They had limited resources for the most part. What evidence you have that the earth is flat (besides Kansas)?
-
I believe that the earth is only six thousand years old, but that aside, for most of human history people didnt drive cars as well. This is a bandwagon fallacy and a tradition fallacy. Who cares what ancient people thought of the earth. They had limited resources for the most part. What evidence you have that the earth is flat (besides Kansas)?
I don't even know where to begin with this one, but that's never stopped me before, so here we go.
How is it a bandwagon fallacy?
How is it a tradition fallacy?
"Who cares what ancient people thought of the earth?" Well, we are trying to determine if people got from place to place just fine for the majority of human existence. Are we to exclude anything before Antiquity because you don't care about them?
Look, this one's simple. Just say, "I'm sorry, I didn't consider the vast time periods involved. People did think that the world was flat for a long, long time (regardless of the exact length)." It's all right, you dropped the ball on this one. I can't speak for other flat-earhers, but I'll respect you much more if you admit your error rather than spewing these, frankly, ludicrous arguments. Admitting fault won't make the earth flat, but it will considerably help your platform.
-
How does determining if people have gotten from place to place since the dawn of existence prove that the Earth is flat? For the vast majority of human existence, nobody had any idea what the whole world really looked like. But ever since we've had relatively accurate world maps (which is when the shape of the earth actually starts to matter), there's been pretty unanimous agreement that the world is round.
Really, the fact that people are able to get from place to place in airplanes and ocean liners using spherical-Earth maps is a much stronger argument for a round Earth than a flat one, I would think.
-
How big is the Pacific ocean?
It varies.
How can anybody be confident that the continents do not drift? For all we know, the oceans expand and contract as the continents float east and west.
Can any of you shills prove the continents do not float? Show us proof your maps are true.
-
I can't show you proof -- that would require actually mapping the world with you, which neither of us is going to do. I can show you extremely strong evidence, though, which is that round-earth maps work , as I've said. We have vast amounts of international trade, all of which uses RE maps to get from one place to another, as well as various other professions that rely on accurate maps of the world.
I see absolutely no reason to entertain the idea that the continents are moving at a rate appreciate enough for us to notice on a practical level. If you're making that claim, contrary to the preponderance of evidence that I'm aware of, you're going to need to provide some actual support.
-
I've heard that gravity is not real and the Earth is just moving up really fast if this is true if you were not touching the Earth at all for even a second you would be moved to a different area as the Earth spins under your feet.
This is not correct, and a simple experiment serves to illustrate it. The surface of the round earth at sea level on the equator is moving roughly 1000 miles per hour due to rotation. But so is the air at the surface, give or take some wind, and so are you. If you jump up into the air, which should meet the definition of "...not touching the Earth at all for even a second..." you have jumped into a volume of air moving at the same speed as the ground you just left, and you yourself have the same 1000 miles per hour speed as the surface you just left. The end result is that from your frame of reference, everything is moving the same speed and you appear to move straight up and down. The same result is achieved if you jump (or toss an object in the air) inside a moving vehicle. As long as your windows are not open and creating a rush of wind from the outside, you will find that no matter your speed, you can toss an object straight up and catch it, instead of having it suddenly fly to the rear of the car as the vehicle moves beneath it.
None of which is relevant to FE vs RE anyway.
-
But so is the air at the surface, give or take some wind, and so are you. If you jump up into the air, which should meet the definition of "...not touching the Earth at all for even a second..." you have jumped into a volume of air moving at the same speed as the ground you just left, and you yourself have the same 1000 miles per hour speed as the surface you just left.
This is slightly misleading -- even if there were no air, we still wouldn't be able to jump and see the Earth rotate beneath our feet. Again, it's easiest to illustrate this by thinking of someone inside a train moving at a constant speed of say, 60 mph, going past a station at full speed. Someone at the station would see you moving past them at 60 mph. If, during this time, you decided to jump, you would see yourself go straight up and straight down, exactly where you landed. But the person in the station would see you still moving forward at 60mph as you jumped, so you would appear to trace out a parabola as you moved. From their POV, you wouldn't land in the same place you jumped from. (If the train were to suddenly stop at the station while you were in mid-jump, then you would continue moving at 60 mph relative to the ground and the train, so you might collide forcefully with one of the walls.)
The same is true for the Earth. If you establish some coordinate grid where the position of the Sun is fixed, then you when you jump you would land at a different point than where you started -- but that's only because the whole Earth has shifted along with you. If you're familiar with vectors, you can imagine, just like in the train scenario, having a velocity vector of around 1000 mph pointing tangential to the Earth's surface, to which you're adding a tiny bit of upwards velocity. The net result is that the "x-component" of your velocity vector hasn't changed, so you won't move with respect to the Earth.
-
If the train were to suddenly stop at the station while you were in mid-jump, then you would continue moving at 60 mph relative to the ground and the train, so you might collide forcefully with one of the walls.)
I have played with this effect in the z axis. I spent six years in the US Navy, four of those years on a ship at sea. In specific sea conditions, my ship would develop a violent up-and-down motion in which the bow would rise, rise, rise as it crested a wave, them suddenly drop like a stone into the trough behind the wave. Those of us who weren't seasick would play a game. Just as the ship reached the top of its path, you hop lightly off the deck. If you timed it right, while you were in the air the ship would drop away from you, and you could find yourself ten feet or more off the deck! At this point you would grab ahold of the ladder (always pull this stunt at a ladder) and hold on for dear life so the ship doesn't smash into you on its subsequent rise. The most fun, and challenge, was to take a running jump and if your aim was true you would sail through the open hatch some fifteen feet above and pop out on the next deck when the ship fell past you. If your aim was NOT true the ship would smack you on the head as it fell. (We were young and foolhardy)
-
If the train were to suddenly stop at the station while you were in mid-jump, then you would continue moving at 60 mph relative to the ground and the train, so you might collide forcefully with one of the walls.)
I have played with this effect in the z axis. I spent six years in the US Navy, four of those years on a ship at sea. In specific sea conditions, my ship would develop a violent up-and-down motion in which the bow would rise, rise, rise as it crested a wave, them suddenly drop like a stone into the trough behind the wave. Those of us who weren't seasick would play a game. Just as the ship reached the top of its path, you hop lightly off the deck. If you timed it right, while you were in the air the ship would drop away from you, and you could find yourself ten feet or more off the deck! At this point you would grab ahold of the ladder (always pull this stunt at a ladder) and hold on for dear life so the ship doesn't smash into you on its subsequent rise. The most fun, and challenge, was to take a running jump and if your aim was true you would sail through the open hatch some fifteen feet above and pop out on the next deck when the ship fell past you. If your aim was NOT true the ship would smack you on the head as it fell. (We were young and foolhardy)
That sounds dumb and yet for some reason I want to do it.
-
Of course the Earth is a globe. I doubt that anybody here truly will refute this fact. But this site is about see things from different perspectives and challenge sciences, which is kind of interesting and entertaining. Or am I completely wrong about this?
Directly from the Flat Earth Wiki:
This site is not a joke. We are actively promoting the Flat Earth Movement worldwide. There are, admittedly, several non-serious flat earth posters, but they are fairly easy to identify.