Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
In the Flat Earth FAQ, I read this.
"In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered."
So I'm just wondering what exactly this man trying to accomplish. Verbal confirmation? Regrettably, RE's wouldn't accept this if FE's didn't accept NASA's statements.
Somebody better tell George Lucas he wasted all that money on those special effects!
The earth looks flat. The horizon is flat. The bottoms of the clouds are flat. A better question would be why do others believe with such ferocity that it is not? The answer is, of course, because they have been told. Perhaps read some Descartes, and consider what you know, rather than what you have been taught, and see what conclusion you come to. Let's start there, and get to your other questions later.
how do planes know how far they have traveled if there is no such thing as an odometer for airplanes?
[/quote/]
When you are near land you can get speed by looking directly at it and measuring your position against it at set times. When farther from land, out of site, radar (if you don't trust radar than well...) but with radar you can check your relative position to land and calculate your speed
Navigation is based on patterns that are not exclusive to a Round Earth. Lets start from the top:
The Round Earthers of antiquity who came up with the "latitude" devised their latitudes for various cities and locations based on the angle of the North Star in the sky from that particular location.
Longitude is based on time offsets from GMT. To calculate your longitude, you therefore simply need to work out the time difference between noon at your location and noon at the Prime Meridian. It was not possible to calculate latitude easily until the invention of accurate clocks.
The early navigator simply needs to know his own Latitude and the Latitude of Britain to know that he needed to sail Northwards or Southwards until the North Star was at a certain angle in the sky. Once this was satisfied he had knowledge that he needed to travel either Eastwards or Westwards to reach Britain (although it was generally unknown how far Eastwards or Westwards he had to travel until accurate clocks were invented). Both of these can also be satisfied when traveling in a diagonal route.
Major locations were given "Latitude" and "Longitudes" based on this; and the distance between those major locations are estimated based on the assumption that the earth is a globe and it had a certain size. No one actually placed a tape measurer between New York and Paris. The Navigator simply knows that he has to get to a certain Latitude and Longitude point. The distance is estimated.
Great summary until the last paragraph. The distance between locations can be predicted using Round Earth geographic coordinate calculations. But the distance between locations is also known because of abundant commerce travel between them. This applies to any two major locations on earth thanks to the existence of missiles and airplanes. The fact that know travel distances and modeled Round Earth distances agree is probably the biggest validation of the Round Earth model.
Think about how a ship or an airplane would measure its distance traveled.
Don't be foolish and underestimate the power of satan. These astronutz could have gone thru all this you say and one day near the end, a couple men in black explain to him or her that their daughter will be tortured and raped in front of his wife then the same for her before being shot in the head with a nail gun. Whether it's JFK, Bobby, Martin or the 1,000's before and after who went against evil only to pay, God alone cut the cards for us and made it so even the brightest scientists who sold out can't figure out 95% of what makes up the skies. Thats because you can't see beyond the dome and gravity doesn't exist now does it. It's a make believe formula.
So the Nutz are chosen just like the scientist....no return to normalization once you sell out to satan. Run along skippy. The Earth is flat.
So I have heard about the Sinking ship proof, but I have sailed on several Tall ships before and have used a telescope out on the open ocean. I have never experienced the situation that is described. For me, once a ship disappears over the horizon, I can no longer see it. telescope or not. Another thing, if it were true that a telescope could make it so that you can see over the horizon then theoretically, if I had a good enough telescope, I could see across the Atlantic ocean to Spain? I live in Maine.
I'm glad I'm not the only offshore sailor here as you have found the same as me and every other sailor. I think that it is highly unlikely that any sailor would be a flat earth believer. Perhaps we should ask the question as to why all ocean going ships had crows nests in the highest position until the invention of radar.
Roger
Water drains the way you start it draining. The Coriolis effect on a global scale does not affect local whirlpools because other momentum effects predominate.Did you watch the linked video? Water drains rotating in different directions from a standing pool in different hemispheres.this is exactly due to the rotation of the earth.
But on this subject, the Coriolis Effect applies not only on a global scale, but to any rotating system. So when you hear Coriolis, keep in mind it may have nothing at all to do with the Round Earth (although it usually does).
If you have a video, it is a hoax. This has been abundantly debunked. Please do not muddy the waters with spurious arguments. Stick to obvious stuff like commercial airline flight times.
If you were in space and your open faced rocket ship were accelerating at 1g against an asteroid, pinning your body between the rocket and asteroid, you would be crushed to death. If it was a small feather instead of an asteroid you would not be crushed to death.
Do you have any proof of this Tom?? This is exactly the type of statement that you refute when presented to you and demand evidence to support it, so let's turn the tables. Prove it.
I would love to see Tom's answer to this. But primarily I am confused as to why devil's advocate is asking the question. Isn't the reality of Tom's assertion obvious? I won't answer yet. I will let Tom B. But if he doesn't answer, I hope to do it.