1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 12, 2016, 08:29:04 PM »

As far as I'm concerned, this thread concluded with nametaken graciously accepting Rounder's explanation of relative motion in space. But to clear up the argument that cropped up afterwards...

In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.

In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

If you want to talk about velocity, length contraction, and relativistic mass, you need to establish the frame of reference of the observer.

Let's call the observer Bob. Bob can survive in space. Bob is moving at .99 c relative to earth. Bob is pretty darn bored, because he doesn't get Netflix in space, but I digress...

According to Bob, the earth is indeed experiencing length contraction. The earth also has a ridiculously high relativistic mass.

According to the good citizens of earth, Bob is the one experiencing length contraction. Bob is the one with ridiculously high relativistic mass.

According to the good citizens of earth, the earth is not experiencing length contraction, and its total mass is just its normal everyday rest mass.

In conclusion, no one is implying that anyone is holding a black hole in their hand.

BCGreenwood: I don't mind people being wrong. I myself am wrong all the time. Heck, there is a chance I'm wrong about this. But being smug and insulting is a one-way ticket to no-respect land.
junker: You are generally correct about this topic as far as I can tell. But at least try to explain to the poor guy why he is being wrong, instead of being smug and dismissive about everything he says... its no wonder this thread was going nowhere.

You've missed one important detail about the whole thing though, the twins paradox.
Yes Bob and Earth appear to each other to be moving very fast but only 1 of them is and that's the point I'm making.
Any observer would have to be travelling close to the speed of light for Earth to appear "normal".

Oh and Totesnotreptilian, I noticed you mentioned this on my other post I just couldn't be bothered to reply. You said 3 or 4 times that I didn't mention  that it was to an outside observer. To be honest, I thought it was kinda obvious.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 12, 2016, 07:19:02 PM »

Interesting that you direct me to a comments page.

Yes, a discussion among people who research and study physics. I've provided you several resources thus far. You've added absolutely nothing to the conversation, other than repeating the same thing that has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.

"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed - the higher the speed, the higher the mass. This effect is crucial for anyone operating a high-energy particle accelerator in which elementary particles are accelerated to speeds near that of light. "
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/emc

That's from Einstein online if you want to read up on it.

Alright, I've given up on assuming you have any understanding of the concept. It is blatantly obvious that you do not. Let's focus on the quote you posted first:

"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed

Looking more closely:

the inertial mass

As specific as it gets:

inertial mass

The link you posted literally says the same thing. I have to assume you are just trolling at this point. No one is this dense.

Interesting that you think the statement has been demonstrated to be inaccurate, the one written by the Max Planck Institute for gravitational physics.
But I shouldn't distract you, you seem to be a one thought at a time kinda person.

So simply my question is:
Does the intertial mass of a body increase as it's speed increases?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 12, 2016, 06:20:01 PM »

Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.

I am sorry if that is a difficult concept to understand, but yes, some percentage of c. I have no idea what our precise velocity relative to someone in an external frame of reference is.

But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).

What do you want to know? How to calculate the speed of earth? Sure thing:
v/c=tanh(at/c)

Yeah it was obvious you didn't know what the current speed was, that's what I was commenting on. I can't say that I'm surprised you didn't understand given your track record.

- According to the flat earth wiki the Earth's velocity is increasing at 9.8m/s every second.
- After a single year it would be travelling at 309052.8km a second (faster than the speed of light).
- Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible so the only way flat earthers can rectify the glaring problem is if they say the Earth and everything on it is experiencing length contraction.
- Length contraction occurs when an object is travelling close to the speed of light.
- E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth would be ridiculously massive because everything is travelling almost as fast as the speed of light.

So when a flat earther says they don't believe in gravity. It means they believe there is more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

Again, as discussed in the other thread, you are not applying the concepts correctly. Please take a bit to research a bit further so you don't continue to sound so foolish.

I apologise for making you look foolish, as discussed in the other thread.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 12, 2016, 06:17:28 PM »

Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.

I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.

lol
I think you've worked out where this is going, congratulations. You've earned that biscuit, even though it means you believe in something stupid.

In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.

In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

Again, that is not how it works. Inertial mass in acceleration within the context of SR refers to the energy required to keep accelerating an object, not that you literally gain mass. You are not applying E=mc² properly. I would suggest you read the resource I provided as well as reading this:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/91974/increase-in-mass-with-velocity

and this:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1686/why-does-the-relativistic-mass-of-an-object-increase-when-its-speed-approaches

You will see that there is not an absolute answer to the question at hand and you are grossly oversimplifying the situation.

Interesting that you direct me to a comments page.

"In special relativity, however, the inertial mass of a body directly depends on its speed - the higher the speed, the higher the mass. This effect is crucial for anyone operating a high-energy particle accelerator in which elementary particles are accelerated to speeds near that of light. "
http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/emc

That's from Einstein online if you want to read up on it.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 12, 2016, 05:54:23 PM »

Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.

I am sorry if that is a difficult concept to understand, but yes, some percentage of c. I have no idea what our precise velocity relative to someone in an external frame of reference is.

But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).

What do you want to know? How to calculate the speed of earth? Sure thing:
v/c=tanh(at/c)

Yeah it was obvious you didn't know what the current speed was, that's what I was commenting on. I can't say that I'm surprised you didn't understand given your track record.

- According to the flat earth wiki the Earth's velocity is increasing at 9.8m/s every second.
- After a single year it would be travelling at 309052.8km a second (faster than the speed of light).
- Travelling faster than the speed of light is impossible so the only way flat earthers can rectify the glaring problem is if they say the Earth and everything on it is experiencing length contraction.
- Length contraction occurs when an object is travelling close to the speed of light.
- E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth would be ridiculously massive because everything is travelling almost as fast as the speed of light.

So when a flat earther says they don't believe in gravity. It means they believe there is more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 12, 2016, 05:27:44 PM »

Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.

I really have no interest in continuing a discussion with someone who acts like a condescending prick. Especially when they don't understand the topic they are being condescending about. If at any point you want to have an actual discussion and can act like a reasonably mature adult, I will be around.

lol
I think you've worked out where this is going, congratulations. You've earned that biscuit, even though it means you believe in something stupid.

In simple terms flat earthers are trying to argue that the Earth is travelling close to the speed of light.
E=Mc2 so the mass of everything on Earth is ridiculously huge.

In even simpler terms flat earthers believe they have more mass in the palm of their hand than there is in a black hole.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 12, 2016, 05:12:14 PM »

If you're disagreeing with what I'm saying I would suggest YOU actually read that same entry on special relativity.

So, you didn't read it, then. Gotcha.

If you still think I'm wrong I'm more than happy to talk about where our understanding of special relativity differs but obviously you'll have to be slightly more specific than "that isn't how that works".

You are talking about mass in absolute terms. Saying something like "nearing infinity" in this discussion is irrelevant. You obviously don't have a good enough understanding of SR to try and debunk UA with it. The model certainly isn't perfect, and there are other ways to scrutinize or criticize it. I suggest you look into those.

Just so we're clear, you're taking the stance that the Earth is travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light right now. And right now we're experiencing length contraction because of the speed we're currently travelling.

Again, this is a meaningless statement.

So again you can't actually say where I'm wrong, I'm sensing a pattern here where you just repeatedly dodge the question.

Just because you don't understand the statement doesn't make it meaningless. Well maybe meaningless to you because you don't understand it.

I can try and help you understand it if you'd like. It is a pretty simple statement already but if you tell me which part you're struggling with I can explain it to you.

I've explained it to you. I don't know how much you know about SR, so I'm not sure where you want me to start helping you. It seems you'd rather just continue to make baseless claims, presumably because it makes you feel superior. It is clear you have little grasp on the topic, so instead of trying to discuss, you deflect and act like nothing is being said. It's bordering on being intellectually dishonest. Feel free to come back when you want to have an actual discussion.

And once again you just dodge the question, surprise surprise.

Okay then, I guess if I try to explain it in little baby steps for you, you might stand a chance.

Do you understand why flat earthers think the Earth can continuously accelerate but never reach the speed of light?

I can tell you are having a hard time, but please stop with your baseless claims. You didn't even ask me a question.

Explain what to me? I just pointed out your misunderstanding of how mass applies to SR in this particular case. But, please, feel free to continue being condescending to mask the fact that you really don't know what you are talking about.

I know why the flat earth can accelerate continuously and never reach the speed of light. I can't speak for others, nor will I attempt to.

Excellent, you've finally answered something. Baby steps seems to be working for you, have a biscuit.

You're claiming you know why the flat earth can accelerate continuously and never reach the speed of light.
Do you understand that the flat earth is travelling at over 99.9% of the speed of light?

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 12, 2016, 04:59:50 PM »

If you're disagreeing with what I'm saying I would suggest YOU actually read that same entry on special relativity.

So, you didn't read it, then. Gotcha.

If you still think I'm wrong I'm more than happy to talk about where our understanding of special relativity differs but obviously you'll have to be slightly more specific than "that isn't how that works".

You are talking about mass in absolute terms. Saying something like "nearing infinity" in this discussion is irrelevant. You obviously don't have a good enough understanding of SR to try and debunk UA with it. The model certainly isn't perfect, and there are other ways to scrutinize or criticize it. I suggest you look into those.

Just so we're clear, you're taking the stance that the Earth is travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light right now. And right now we're experiencing length contraction because of the speed we're currently travelling.

Again, this is a meaningless statement.

So again you can't actually say where I'm wrong, I'm sensing a pattern here where you just repeatedly dodge the question.

Just because you don't understand the statement doesn't make it meaningless. Well maybe meaningless to you because you don't understand it.

I can try and help you understand it if you'd like. It is a pretty simple statement already but if you tell me which part you're struggling with I can explain it to you.

I've explained it to you. I don't know how much you know about SR, so I'm not sure where you want me to start helping you. It seems you'd rather just continue to make baseless claims, presumably because it makes you feel superior. It is clear you have little grasp on the topic, so instead of trying to discuss, you deflect and act like nothing is being said. It's bordering on being intellectually dishonest. Feel free to come back when you want to have an actual discussion.

And once again you just dodge the question, surprise surprise.

Okay then, I guess if I try to explain it in little baby steps for you, you might stand a chance.

Do you understand why flat earthers think the Earth can continuously accelerate but never reach the speed of light?

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 12, 2016, 04:17:46 PM »

If you're disagreeing with what I'm saying I would suggest YOU actually read that same entry on special relativity.

So, you didn't read it, then. Gotcha.

If you still think I'm wrong I'm more than happy to talk about where our understanding of special relativity differs but obviously you'll have to be slightly more specific than "that isn't how that works".

You are talking about mass in absolute terms. Saying something like "nearing infinity" in this discussion is irrelevant. You obviously don't have a good enough understanding of SR to try and debunk UA with it. The model certainly isn't perfect, and there are other ways to scrutinize or criticize it. I suggest you look into those.

Just so we're clear, you're taking the stance that the Earth is travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light right now. And right now we're experiencing length contraction because of the speed we're currently travelling.

Again, this is a meaningless statement.

So again you can't actually say where I'm wrong, I'm sensing a pattern here where you just repeatedly dodge the question.

Just because you don't understand the statement doesn't make it meaningless. Well maybe meaningless to you because you don't understand it.

I can try and help you understand it if you'd like. It is a pretty simple statement already but if you tell me which part you're struggling with I can explain it to you.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 12, 2016, 05:07:51 AM »

The atmoplane is affected by acceleration. It is accelerating with us, all of those nitrogen and oxygen atoms. It is literally no different than gravity in RET.

Also, the earth has presumably been accelerating since its formation. It is traveling at a velocity that is some percentage of c.

Some percentage of c?
Well thanks for stating the obvious without actually stating anything meaningful at all.
Anything that exists, has existed or ever will exist is travelling at some percentage of c.

But by all means, please regale us with a more in depth description of special relativity.
You know, the part of it special relativity that actually backs up what you're saying (just to prove you understand it).

Not that I'm doubting you understand it of course. You certainly seem to have given that impression and I'm not calling you a liar.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 12, 2016, 04:55:45 AM »

I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.

So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?

(Our mass would have to be nearing infinity if we were travelling at the speed that we were experiencing length contraction.)

That isn't how that works. You know it depends on what you mean by "mass," right? Inertial mass increases, which requires more energy to continue acceleration. You are over simplifying the relationship between mass and energy in this instance. I would suggest checking out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

If you're disagreeing with what I'm saying I would suggest YOU actually read that same entry on special relativity.

If you still think I'm wrong I'm more than happy to talk about where our understanding of special relativity differs but obviously you'll have to be slightly more specific than "that isn't how that works".

Just so we're clear, you're taking the stance that the Earth is travelling at 99.9% of the speed of light right now. And right now we're experiencing length contraction because of the speed we're currently travelling.

I know that's pretty much given from your argument I just wanted that as a nice little base to work off.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How big is Australia? 99.9% proof one way or the other

« on: April 12, 2016, 01:22:12 AM »

Yeah you're right not all flat earthers use the same map of the world but the point I'm making is any map they choose to use should have the width of Australia at just over 3000km and then realistic NSEW (cardinal) directions comparing Australia to the rest of the world.

I'm 99.9% sure they can't do this unless they decide to use a spherical map.

13

Flat Earth Theory / How big is Australia? 99.9% proof one way or the other

« on: April 12, 2016, 12:42:37 AM »

I should start off by saying the only reason I say 99.9% proof instead of 100% is because you should always allow some leeway for a factor that is completely unknown.

An overview of my idea is easily seen when you compare the relative size of Australia to Asia between the flat Earth and the spherical Earth maps.
There is an obvious discrepancy here. Australia is much larger (or at least wider) on the flat Earth map than it is on the spherical Earth.

The length of Australia is something that can be checked though.
There isn't one road going completely horizontally, or I suppose on a curve that is equidistant to the North Pole, going completely across Australia this can be roughly judged without even needing people from Australia to get out and measure it.
It's not something I've done but a brief glance at the road map of Australia the actual length can be estimated for confirming whether it is closer to the spherical or flat Earth.

The reason why Australia needs to be larger on the flat Earth map is to fit with what direction North is on each side of it's coast. That's something that can easily be checked and then the flat theory falls apart.

Quick check on google, width of Australia 3.1km, width of Asia 8.8km.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 10, 2016, 05:59:47 PM »

Why do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all?  At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?

Again this is part of special relativity, the thing you're using to explain what is happening.
Briefly:
In order to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite.
In order to experience length contraction (the reason you give for not reaching the speed of light) you have to be travelling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light.
Therefore your mass is getting close to infinite.

If it's just the concept of infinity you don't like, I can explain things in a simpler way for you.
You're trying to argue that there is more mass in the palm of your hand than there is in a black hole.

Sounds crazy, I know.

I understand the concept of infinity well enough to know that it is impossible to ever reach it, therefore it is impossible to ever get close to it.  Sounds crazy, I know  , but if you really put some thought into that you might grasp it.  It is an extremely simple concept.

Accelerating at 1g for 100 years will get you to  0.9998192668726723 c. In my book that is close to infinite

No, it's close to c (which is not infinity).  And it's not a valid argument regarding the mass of the objects traveling at that speed because numbers don't work that way.  Whatever mass an object would be at that speed, it could be five times as much, it could be a thousand times as much.  And that goes for any speed.  The phrase "close to infinite" has no intrinsic meaning; it is an absurdity.

So you don't understand special relativity, that's ok and honestly it's what I expected.

Oh, the irony!

Great so you admit that the speed you think the Earth is travelling at is close to the speed of light.

Spoilers
In special relativity as an object's velocity (speed) approaches the speed of light the mass of that object increases. If it reached the speed of light it's mass would be infinite.

Congratulations, you've admitted the Earth's mass is approaching infinite.
Although not much of a congratulations because you're still wrong.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 10, 2016, 05:04:21 PM »

Why do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all?  At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?

Again this is part of special relativity, the thing you're using to explain what is happening.
Briefly:
In order to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite.
In order to experience length contraction (the reason you give for not reaching the speed of light) you have to be travelling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light.
Therefore your mass is getting close to infinite.

If it's just the concept of infinity you don't like, I can explain things in a simpler way for you.
You're trying to argue that there is more mass in the palm of your hand than there is in a black hole.

Sounds crazy, I know.

I understand the concept of infinity well enough to know that it is impossible to ever reach it, therefore it is impossible to ever get close to it.  Sounds crazy, I know  , but if you really put some thought into that you might grasp it.  It is an extremely simple concept.

So you don't understand special relativity, that's ok and honestly it's what I expected.
That's why I dumbed it down for you but for some reason you don't want to talk about it, I wonder what that reason might be.

Maybe you just like the idea of the palm of your hand having more mass than a black hole. I'm sure you don't have any proof of that but I doubt that bothers you, you strike me as someone that doesn't need proof for what they believe.

So are you going to back up what you believe or just dodge again?
Bear in mind I'm predicting dodge.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 10, 2016, 06:54:36 AM »

I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.

So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?

That's just silly.  It is a ridiculous impossibility for our mass to be "nearing infinity".

Then how do you explain that we've been accelerating for so long, but our velocity is less that the speed of light?

Because you can constantly accelerate without reaching the speed of light.  It is impossible to reach the speed of light.  I thought you had already grasped this.

The part you haven't grasped is that if we were moving so fast to experience length contraction (and therefore never reach the speed of light) our mass would have increased close to infinity. That's all part of special relativity.

Why do you keep using the phrase "close to infinity" as if it has any meaning at all?  At what point exactly does one reach "close to infinity"?

Again this is part of special relativity, the thing you're using to explain what is happening.
Briefly:
In order to reach the speed of light your mass would be infinite.
In order to experience length contraction (the reason you give for not reaching the speed of light) you have to be travelling at 99.9999999% of the speed of light.
Therefore your mass is getting close to infinite.

If it's just the concept of infinity you don't like, I can explain things in a simpler way for you.
You're trying to argue that there is more mass in the palm of your hand than there is in a black hole.

Sounds crazy, I know.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You wouldn't know how fast you're going

« on: April 10, 2016, 06:34:38 AM »

I had only read the part on gravity that I quoted, I never even imagined that Flat Earthers would believe in special relativity and that E=Mc2.

So you're saying you believe the explanation that our mass is nearing infinity?

That's just silly.  It is a ridiculous impossibility for our mass to be "nearing infinity".

Then how do you explain that we've been accelerating for so long, but our velocity is less that the speed of light?

Because you can constantly accelerate without reaching the speed of light.  It is impossible to reach the speed of light.  I thought you had already grasped this.

The part you haven't grasped is that if we were moving so fast to experience length contraction (and therefore never reach the speed of light) our mass would have increased close to infinity. That's all part of special relativity.

I'm glad you think the flat earth wiki is silly and ridiculous, I feel the same.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Small sun

« on: April 09, 2016, 07:39:21 PM »

Did the explanation change during the years or is this still in effect?

Nobody really knows.  Nobody pretends to have absolute proof either. 

I believe the sun is the focal point of energy rays that reflect down from the parabolic curvature of the firmament.  What we see as the transition from dusk to night to dawn to day to dusk again is a huge rainbow that is cycling over and above us. 
I also believe that the reflective surface of the firmament varies with the movement of the sun. 

By the way, the sun does more than rotate around the pole.  It rises up and down as well as in and out.

I think you're being a bit misleading there.
When you say nobody really knows you should say, flat earthers don't really know.
Flat earthers haven't been able to come up with something that actually fits reality yet but that hasn't stopped many of them claiming to have absolute proof.

When you say you believe that it's rainbows bouncing off the invisible moving reflecting shield in the sky, out of curiosity, are you actually basing that on anything other than the idea just popped in to your head? I mean any kind of experiment at all.

Oh and you should try to be consistent with your errr theory. It's not the sun that's going up and down in and out. It's just a different part of the shield in the sky that is currently bouncing rainbows off it.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why a sunrise and sunset?

« on: April 09, 2016, 08:59:13 AM »

Flat-earthers have answered questions like this to death. You even asked the same question in two different threads. If you want an interesting answer then ask an interesting question.

So you can't explain it either.

Not proving you an answer is not evidence of an inability to answer. You can read the FAQ or use the search function. Hell, you can probably just scroll down or page back to find your answer.

The point is there is NO answer in FAQ or Wiki that is mathematical. It is ALL of it fantasy that you cannot defend. So, your fall back position is to deflect the questioner to a part of the site that is equivelent to a gerbil running on a wheel; the faster he runs the faster he gets nowhere.

Well I am not running on that wheel. Provide a mathematical solution to why an object at a fixed altitude above a plain can be seen to go below that plain in violation of all known math and geometry.
[/quote

Oh, so you're mind is already completely made up? Well, I'm glad I didn't waste my time writing you a personalized and detailed answer. After all, all the info you seek is in the wiki.

I've read the flat earth wiki answer and it doesn't explain why the sun disappears from the bottom to the top.

If it's perspective then you'd expect the entire object to continuously get smaller.
If it's simply being blocked by clouds you'd expect the entire object to dim, more or less, uniformly.

This isn't what we see.
We see exactly what we would expect if we were on a spinning globe.


Oh and another thing. Your lack of an answer IS evidence that you have no ability to answer the question, it just isn't proof.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why a sunrise and sunset?

« on: April 08, 2016, 11:20:29 PM »

Light DOES travel
---SNIP---
 to the sun that my calculator says 0%

1 cloud blocks the sun's rays. 

Can you imagine what 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 clouds might do?

You mean how when you see someone walking into mist they disappear from their feet up to their head as they get further in. Oh wait, that's when they walk over a hill and down the other side.