4221

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Regarding Pendulums

« on: December 31, 2017, 06:52:52 PM »

Interested in this part of that page:

"Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum."

I didn't think gravitation existed in flat earth "theory".

4222

Flat Earth Theory / Re: polar orbit satellites

« on: December 31, 2017, 06:45:00 PM »

Satellites aren't real. They are debris from the Firmament, which float in currents on the ether, which creates the illusion of ordered flight. NASA simply claims that these objects are satellites, when in reality they are completely natural.

So I guess GPS, Satellite TV, weather satellites are part of the "conspiracy" too?

4223

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun

« on: December 31, 2017, 09:29:36 AM »

The flat earth answer seems to be "perspective"

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Setting+of+the+Sun

"A flock of birds, when passing over a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them."

This is actually true of course, objects in the sky do indeed appear to get closer to the horizon as they move away from us. BUT they also get smaller because that's what perspective does. The further an object is away from us, the smaller it gets. But that is not what we see with a sunset, we don't see the sun getting smaller and smaller till it disappears, it just sinks slowly below the horizon. Because the sun isn't getting further away, the globe is rotating.

The article I linked to above goes on to say:

"This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to ascend into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point"

That is just plain wrong. That is not how perspective works. Perspective just makes things smaller. The further something gets away the smaller and less clear it will be but so long as there is clear line of sight all the object will still be visible and optical zoom will make it clearer. If the above were true and the reason for sunsets then zooming in to sunsets should show the whole of the sun but it doesn't.

I have seen photos posted on here with clouds clearly lit from below which clearly demonstrates that the sun really is below the level of the clouds.
This one for example where the mountain is casting a shadow upwards and either side the clouds are illuminated:



I have yet to see a flat earth explanation of that.

I've also seen video (annoyingly I couldn't find it on YouTube, it was in a recent BBC series) where they took a plane capable of moving faster than the earth spins, travelled towards sunset, went fast enough so the sun was still relative to the horizon (because they were going as fast as the earth spins) and then went faster so the sun appeared to rise because they were catching up with it. Again, I don't believe any flat earth model could explain how that worked.

4224

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: December 30, 2017, 11:25:24 PM »

I'd suggest clicking the link, as this topic has been covered ad nauseam.

Ok. Fair enough, I hadn't noticed that's a link.
I have read it now, it's a very silly page.

I'd suggest that the idea of a global conspiracy to pretend the earth is a globe and orbiting the sun which would have to include all the space agencies around the world, the airline industry and many branches of science is far more complicated than the idea than it is in fact a globe.

4225

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: December 30, 2017, 10:56:55 PM »

If we enlarge the photo we see that some of those buildings are floating in the air above the water. How can you present it as any kind of evidence with a straight face?

Bad example, maybe. This one is better.



No floating. Happy now?

And I see you ignored the point about perspective. Perspective on a flat plane does NOT make the bottom of objects disappear.
If you think it does then please provide some evidence. No matter how far away I am from you, if we are on a flat plane there will be a clear line of sight between us.
All of me should be visible. With distance I may become unclear and optical zoom would then make me clear again but that is all.
On a curved surface then the bottom of me will become visible till only the top of my is visible. At that point no amount of optical zoom would allow you to see the rest of me.

4226

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earthers what are you thinking? please explain :(

« on: December 30, 2017, 10:22:52 PM »

 
I think most of us here, and I can speak certainly for myself, would change our minds about the earth being flat if there was some way to explain everything we can see that fits a flat earth model better than a round earth.

Well, quite.
And this is the problem. The earth IS round. That really isn't a theory, even the ancient Greeks worked that out by noticing things like how shadows are angled differently when measured at the same time in different places - not possible on a flat surface. You mentioned plate tectonics. Again, this isn't a vague theory, the edges between plates are well known and it explains earthquakes and the fact the Himalayas are still growing as the plate India is on  slowly pushes north.
The way people in the different hemispheres see different constellations and see them rotating in different directions. The Coreolis effect and the way that makes weather systems rotate differently in the different hemispheres.
And of course the fact that we have PHOTOS and VIDEO showing a globe. And not just from NASA, we have plenty of pictures and video from space agencies in multiple countries showing this going back 50-60 years.
We have GPS and satellite TV which demonstrably work. We have an airline industry which use great circles to plot their routes.
All of this clearly demonstrates we live on a globe, none of this can be explained by a flat earth.

It seems to me the only way of being a flat earther is to assume a flat earth and then try and explain all this evidence away with phoney science and shout FAKE at everything else or just ignore it.

4227

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Occam's razor

« on: December 30, 2017, 09:41:43 PM »

According to Occam's Razor, it is more legitimate to believe that the Earth is round than flat.

Incorrect.

Well I'm glad we sorted that out.
Care to elaborate?

4228

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: December 30, 2017, 05:16:27 PM »

Yes, we've seen them. But anyone with who has looked at our material would know that those observations were addressed many years ago by the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective on the Sea.

Is this the idea that the bottom of objects disappear first as objects recede on a flat plane?
I have no idea how you think that would work. Can you provide any proof of this?
If I'm walking away from you on a flat plane then no matter how far away I get you have a clear line of sight to all of me.
Perspective makes things smaller and distance makes things less clear but on a flat plane the bottom half of me isn't going to disappear first.
I might become hard to see, optical zoom will then make me visible again because you have  clear line of sight to me.
In another thread you said that items only appear to sink beneath the horizon but optical zoom can restore them. But this image is already zoomed in



It's clear you can only see the tops of the tallest buildings, the buildings in between cannot be seen as they are hidden by the curve of the earth.
I guess you're probably going to claim that it's waves hiding the rest although it's clear the water is pretty calm in this photo.

4229

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is earth special?

« on: December 30, 2017, 02:38:13 PM »

1: The Cavendish experiment is popular among globeheads, but has not yet been reproduced. There are a thousand ways to disprove it, here is just one:

Every one can witness, that no matter how large and massive of two balls, of steel you make and place them close together, that there never, ever was a perceptible attraction by Newtonian gravity of one for the other. But everyone can build the tiniest of bar magnets and notice that as you bring the two closer together, that the snap at one another in attraction.

That does not disprove the Cavendish experiment. It's as simple as magnetism is a much stronger force than gravity. When you lift a paper clip with a magnet you are indeed overcoming the gravity of the entire earth pulling down on the paper clip. That doesn't prove that gravity does not exist, it simply shows how much stronger a force magnetism is.
The key word in the above is "perceptible". You are correct in that because the force of gravity is so week the experiment has to be designed carefully to detect it. That doesn't mean it is impossible to do so. It took me 2 minutes to find some demonstrations on YouTube.

I reckon that one would be immediately stopped if one tries to go further into the continent than the Pole.

And what is your basis for that? You can't just "reckon" stuff, you have to have some evidence.

While we're here, I'd be interested to know what you believe powers Universal Acceleration.

4230

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Night Skies.

« on: December 30, 2017, 01:50:31 PM »

I am really struggling to understand why the night sky is different in the Northern Hemisphere vs the Southern Hemisphere.  Since the Earth is flat, the sky should be (for the most part) the same in both hemispheres with small variations based on a person’s exact location on the Flat Earth.

It's interesting that your first sentence is something which can be easily explained by a rotating globe and your second sentence concludes that the earth is flat.

But I know this can’t be true unless the earth is round, which is obviously impossible.

Why is it obviously impossible?

4231

Flat Earth Community / Re: Doesn't the bible say the sun and moon are IN the firmament?

« on: December 30, 2017, 08:58:52 AM »

Yes, Galileo was condemned by the Catholic church...who have since apologised and admitted he was right

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460.600-vatican-admits-galileo-was-right-/

4232

Flat Earth Community / Re: Doesn't the bible say the sun and moon are IN the firmament?

« on: December 29, 2017, 10:47:42 PM »

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go." - Galileo Galilei

I don't believe that the Bible should be read scientifically. My understanding of the Bible is informed by science, just as my understanding of the word "sunrise" is. I've not been to a church which teaches flat earth theory, much less it been the "first thing they told me".

4233

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free Will disproved

« on: December 29, 2017, 11:54:16 AM »

If we really have no free will then why should anyone be accountable for their actions?
This whole premise is based on the idea that your thoughts are not controlled by you.
What is the basis for that?
Who else would they be controlled by? God? Christianity certainly doesn't teach that God controls our every thought, I'm less sure about other religions.

4234

Flat Earth Community / Re: Anyone for a public discussion?

« on: December 29, 2017, 10:18:20 AM »

If you were challenged to show proof of the rules of the same model that two horizontal parallel perspective lines will approach each other for infinity but never touch, or that a body thousands of miles away will appear a certain number of degrees above the horizon, or that perspective behaves the same at all scales, you will be embarrassingly unable to do so.

Aren't you 'embarrassingly unable' to produce a map of a flat earth?

4235

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is the dome around earth even real?

« on: December 29, 2017, 10:15:32 AM »

Some flat earth theorists believe in a physical dome, some in a type of forcefield, and some in no dome. I personally believe there is no physical dome, but there is a forcefield-type dome (possibly electromagnetic).

Can I ask what mechanism you think powers that forcefield and what evidence you have for it existing?

4236

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Flat or Round?

« on: December 23, 2017, 03:38:21 PM »

Flat Earth research requires you to think for yourself, and search for yourself. There is a lot to it and no one is going to personally spoon feed everything Flat Earthers have ever debated and discussed to you.

Honestly, that is a cop out.
I have seen you request other people to provide proof for their assertions (which you always ignore when provide or claim is faked).
What Flat Earth requires is a large slice of confirmation bias and a fair bit of cognitive dissonance.

4237

Flat Earth Community / Re: Trump signs NASA bill today..

« on: December 23, 2017, 03:35:33 PM »

LMAO - I think you've forgotten the original point. It wasn't worth the cost to keep going to the moon. History and science is on my side. If you think winning an debate is running your mouth, not providing any evidence, and forgetting the point, you win. Congrats.

The answer to "why have we not been back to the moon" is informed by the answer to the question "why did we go to the moon in the first place"?
And that wasn't just in the spirit of discovery, it was largely motivated by the cold war. Basically it came down to beating the Russians.
I'll be honest, I'm disappointed we haven't been back in my lifetime, I'm disappointed we don't have a lunar base. But the fact is those things would be crazy expensive and exploration of space has moved on - the ISS, putting Curiosity on Mars. But NASA's budget isn't what it was in the 60s when the space race was in full swing.

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg_.png

Technology does always move on but as you say that doesn't mean everything gets faster. Concorde was developed in the late 60s and we still don't have any other commercial airliners going at over Mach 1. Going faster is expensive. Basically, F=ma. And you have something to provide that F. So airline technology has moved on in different ways, more comfort, better entertainment systems and so on.

It's unclear why us having not returned to the moon is in some way a smoking gun for flat earth theory. If the claim is that all the missions were faked then they could have just faked more. Actually would be much easier these days with the CGI available. Is the theory that NASA are instead pumping money into faking the ISS instead? Ludicrous really.

4238

Flat Earth Community / Re: Things I owe Tom Bishop

« on: December 21, 2017, 04:07:07 PM »

I recall that Tom wants proof that parallel lines will continue for infinity without ever meeting.

Parallel:
adjective
1.
extending in the same direction, equidistant at all points, and never converging or diverging:
Geometry.
2. (of straight lines) lying in the same plane but never meeting no matter how far extended

Absolutely, but like I said Tom actually wants proof that it's true. A large part of his belief in flat earth depends on there being some ambiguity with perspective.

Probably stating the obvious here but that's like asking for proof that a square has 4 equal sides.
That is the definition of what a square is. The definition of parallel lines is ones which don't meet (well, "meet at infinity" is the textbook definition, I believe).
If he thinks he can prove they do meet then I'd like to see his explanation.

4239

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What happened with the Space Shuttle Columbia.

« on: December 21, 2017, 02:30:48 PM »

It’s yet another example of Tom’s double standard of evidence. He accepts something that agrees with his worldview readily, like this, Miles Mathis or Rowbotham; but scrutinizes well established sources as if they are homeless people shouting on the corner (e.g. his treatment of Euclidean geometry, NASA and the Cavendish experiment). Par for the course really.

Well, quite.
All the pictures of earth showing it to be round are declared to be "fake" with no backup to that assertion at all.
But these pictures which fit the agenda are clearly real and these are definitely the same people as "died" in the Challenger disaster.

The confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance are strong with this one.

4240

Flat Earth Community / Re: Help this student understand the society!

« on: December 21, 2017, 01:59:06 PM »

If you don't want to fill in the questionnaire then don't, but a question about education level is a reasonable one in assessing the demographics of the members.
I'd say gender, age, country of original are all reasonable questions in assessing that.