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.


Messages - SimonC

Pages: < Back  1 ... 4 5 [6]
101
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 02:31:11 PM »
Can science explain why we are travelling as fast, and as far in in the direction we are travelling (following the sun through billions of miles) Can anyone offer a reasonable explanation? Thats what I find hard to understand - so its logical to think of a flat earth and work feom that - not the other way round.

102
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 02:28:37 PM »

You could use that analogy to everything. Therefore our heads are not at the top as our feet could also be the top. Science does need tome constants and when someone writes up an experiment is it not reasonable to refer to something like 'it took the mixture 45 seconds to rise to the 'TOP' of the glass'? Do scientists use things that have a top and bottom or do they not?

Yes - we need datums to work from. Sometimes they are arbitrary - like which way we orientate north-south on a map. Sometimes they mean something. In normal life ‘top’ usually means the highest point of something, but the important point you seem to be missing is that height is measured with respect to the surface of the planet. Somebody at mean sea level in Australia is at the same ‘height’ as somebody at mean sea level in Europe. They would have the same gravitational potential energy per unit mass.

We do generally draw the earth north-up. It’s entirely arbitrary - we could draw it the other way round with the South Pole at the top. Globe models, like the ones you see on people’s desks, are normally tilted around 20 degrees to reflect the orientation with respect to the sun and our orbital path, but they too could just be flipped upside down - it’s completely arbitrary, but has now become an accepted convention.

I am not missing anything. I am doubting the round earth theory. As science only uses gravity to explain things. What if there was no such thing. And we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down? That's what this forum is about - correct me if i am wrong (Moderator) but the forum assumes a flat earth. Hence the nature of the discussions.

103
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 11:57:00 AM »
Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?
Planets spin, so that gives us an axis. We can define top and bottom with respect to that axis. We think of north as "top" and south as "bottom" because that's how we draw maps, but it's completely arbitrary. If you're holding a ball you can say the "top" of it is the bit at the...well, top. But then you can turn the ball over and then the "top" is the complete opposite to it was before.

You could use that analogy to everything. Therefore our heads are not at the top as our feet could also be the top. Science does need tome constants and when someone writes up an experiment is it not reasonable to refer to something like 'it took the mixture 45 seconds to rise to the 'TOP' of the glass'? Do scientists use things that have a top and bottom or do they not?

104
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 09:23:08 AM »
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.

Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.

I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?

Here's how it works on a Globe Earth:



Nice image. But thats all it is. A cartoon.

105
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 09:21:52 AM »
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)




Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.

If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?

If you dug such a trench in Sydney and it fell gradually 10 feet over (as an example) 6,000 miles to say Norway I understand what you say but I cannot imagine it It would be beyond ridiculous. Mainly because your  trench would have to be constructed on a perfectly level surface. But that will never happen. You will go through mountain ranges, and jungles and various other forms of topography. But if you believe the earth is a globe then maybe you have to believe that. However of course it would work if the earth was flat.



I think that you are getting hung up on a mistaken notion that land masses in the southern hemisphere of our globe earth are lower in height than land masses in the northern hemisphere and so therefore water must flow from "north" to "south" and anything other than that would be hard to imagine.     Rivers don't know what humans have labeled "northern" or "southern" on globe maps; rivers simply flow in the direction or path of least resistance due to gravity.

Only if the earth was a globe would I be getting hung up on the above. And perhaps too many people believe in gravity per se. Its a theory only and not even a very good one. Its a convenient way to explain something that we dont understand. Objects fall to earth due to them being heavier than air.

106
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 11:13:35 PM »
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)




Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.

If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?

If you dug such a trench in Sydney and it fell gradually 10 feet over (as an example) 6,000 miles to say Norway I understand what you say but I cannot imagine it It would be beyond ridiculous. Mainly because your  trench would have to be constructed on a perfectly level surface. But that will never happen. You will go through mountain ranges, and jungles and various other forms of topography. But if you believe the earth is a globe then maybe you have to believe that. However of course it would work if the earth was flat.

107
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 11:07:28 PM »
You realize that cardinal directions, East, West, North, South, are terms humans invented, right? If I'm in London, New York is closest to my left, West, if facing North. If I'm in Honolulu, New York is closet to my right, East, if facing North. The opposite if facing South. There is no hard and fast top or bottom or left or right.

Lastly, people in Australia are not hanging upside down. Just ask an Aussie friend.

I know they are not hanging upside down - I am using the scenario that if the world was a globe then they (or at least someone) would be hanging upside down.
Regarding top, bottom, left or right. Just because there are no hard and fast rules doesn't mean the earth (if it were a globe) would not have a top. Everything else in the natural world has a top and a bottom. Why not the earth and the planets? Do the planets not have a top? Who says they don't?

108
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 08:54:50 PM »
That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)

109
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 08:14:33 PM »
Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?

If the source of the river at Sydney was at a higher elevation than the end of the river in the Med, then yes, it would flow that way.



But it is not likely that the source will be higher on a globe earth - if we use the globe (north to south0 as height). height is a figure commonly used as 'above sea level'. I get what you say but can you picture it? A river flowing 4 or 5000 miles in a northerly direction? It only happens with 2 main rivers but the fact it does does make one think.

110
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Looking for curvature is a fool's errand.
« on: November 20, 2022, 08:12:17 PM »
If you were on a raft in the middle of a perfectly calm ocean, and spun around to view all 360 degrees, it would all look exactly the same. It would be like being in the middle of a large hoop that arcs around you at a constant distance and then attaches back to itself after describing a perfect circle. There would be exactly zero appearance of curvature in the dimension that would prove sphericalness. You can't see the 3rd dimension you're looking for because you can't see past a horizon that is equidistant from you at all times.

I hate to bring up the boring sinking ship effect, but that would show the difference between being on a flat plane or circle, and being on a globe.  It wouldn't sink on a flat Earth.

The other effect is altitude letting you see further.  On a flat Earth, climbing up and down the mast of a ship wouldn't cause other ships to sink hull first into the water, but would on a flat earth.

There are a large number of visual effects you get on a sphere that you would not on a disk, and those allow you to indeed see the difference.

Just out of interest. I hear so much about the disappearing ship and its like the name of one of those magic tricks you used to see on TV. And I wondered  -is there or has there ever been a (hopefully) recent experiment to prove this theory? And  I mean an official one done under verified 'lab' conditions (not in the dead of night on a mysterious land lake) and where there is a perfect flat calm on the ocean/mass of water (not even a ripple)?

111
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 08:03:56 PM »
I hope this post is in the right section. My sincere apologies if not.
Something struck me recently and am sure this must have been debated in the past. But the Congo and the Nile both cross the equator (the Congo twice). And generally speaking (at face value) there is something that does not seem quite right with this. And trying to visualise it from a round earth perspective just doesn't seem logical. If we imagine  people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?
Have I missed something here or does this in fact lend itself further to the flat earth theory?





The flow of rivers will generally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill, because of gravity. The Nile isn't defying gravity, it's flowing downhill or in the direction of the path of least resistance.

I think your misconception might be that you see the relationship between the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere in the same way that you see the relationship between up and down -- to someone living in the southern hemisphere, people living in the northern hemisphere would be "hanging upside down".       

Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?

112
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Where is Google Maps wrong?
« on: November 20, 2022, 07:53:17 PM »
An interesting experiment might be to start as far north as possible in Google Earth (in a version that allows such scaling) and zoom in on a human being and note the fact that they can either be seen from directly overhead or from a slightly side view/angle from above. Then work slowly in a southerly direction and observe the human beings as you near the equator. Are they stood at the same or similar angles? And when it comes to Australia the human beings should be stood at the opposite angle (to the ground) to those in the far northern hemisphere. And am sure they will not be upside down :-) This isnt a joke by the way but it would be interesting to follow the globe from north to south and if there is any evidence of this. And if there isn't  -well...:-)

113
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 07:43:34 PM »
Is that a good thing (for Flat Earth theory)? :-)

114
Flat Earth Theory / Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 07:21:36 PM »
I hope this post is in the right section. My sincere apologies if not.
Something struck me recently and am sure this must have been debated in the past. But the Congo and the Nile both cross the equator (the Congo twice). And generally speaking (at face value) there is something that does not seem quite right with this. And trying to visualise it from a round earth perspective just doesn't seem logical. If we imagine  people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?
Have I missed something here or does this in fact lend itself further to the flat earth theory?

115
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why I'm a Flat Earther... 37 Must-See Experiments
« on: October 28, 2022, 02:07:52 PM »
Some good points there thank you guys.

116
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Let's do ships again
« on: October 25, 2022, 08:59:50 AM »
Apart from the BBC explanation (much repeated elsewhere) you might find the local explanation interesting:–

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/ship-floating-clouds-cornwall-leaves-5070329

And I'll tell you a secret – the BBC don't get it right every time! You may remember another small mistake by a well-known BBC meteorologist: you might call it the Fish Effect.

You might also have seen another similar report from a Scot in recent days, with a similar explanation:–


Coincidentally the Cornish ship and the Scottish ship are very very similar. Same ship perhaps? Nessie springs to mind.


117
Flat Earth Theory / Why I'm a Flat Earther... 37 Must-See Experiments
« on: October 21, 2022, 10:30:59 PM »
Just watched this very interesting video. However 'experiment' 22 opens up a big question. The experimentor is supposedly at or as near as possible, sea level. Yet when he googles his 'height' he and the object bridge 23 miles away are 860 feet above sea level. Have I missed something here?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 4 5 [6]