81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reconciling Velikovskianism with the theory of the Flat Earth

« on: December 01, 2022, 10:04:44 AM »

I may have misinterpreted this but are you suggesting the earth is a sphere or have I misread this?

I am saying that if magnetism creates the same effect as gravity, then magnetism would eventually cause the earth to collapse into a sphere...because that is the effect of gravity.  Any large enough mass will eventually collapse into a sphere due to their own gravity.

That's interesting. Is there any way this has been or can be demonstrated as it would be interesting to watch something like this happen?

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Reconciling Velikovskianism with the theory of the Flat Earth

« on: November 29, 2022, 10:43:38 PM »

One thing that he did do, though, was suggest that gravity was not what it seemed to be and what we perceive as such is actually just electromagnetism.

I think you'd have to start with explaining why electromagnetism wouldn't result in the earth collapsing into a sphere the same way that gravity would if you want to merge the two theories.

I may have misinterpreted this but are you suggesting the earth is a sphere or have I misread this?

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation

« on: November 27, 2022, 06:59:08 PM »

Yes  - to scheduled times.

Following on from my last post, let's take an example. You can fly with Qantas from Perth to Johannesburg direct. It takes 9:55 hours from Johannesburg, and 11:15 hours travelling from Perth. As per my suggestion, let's split the difference and call it 10:35 hours on average. Now allow 30 mins for arrival and departure, so 10:05. The jet will average around 500mph, so that's a touch over 5000 miles.

The round earth great circle distance between those two places comes in at just under 5200 miles, so the estimate is pretty good on that basis.

Now take a look at, for example, the monopole FET map. According to the wiki, the diameter of the earth is 25,000 miles. What would you say is the distance between Perth and Johannesburg on that map? I'd say roughly 80% of the radius maybe? So about 10,000 miles?

So our aircraft is going to have to fly at roughly twice the speed. We know there aren't any supersonic airliners anymore, so what does that leave us? Either magic 'anomalous winds' that blow at 500mph in both directions or the map is hopelessly wrong?

The existence of that flight alone should be enough to completely falsify the monopole FET map. Would you agree?

I don't have any thoughts on the FE map. It isn't proof of anything. And nor are flight times - they don't prove the earth is a globe. Especially when its quicker to fly one way than the other.  As it should technically be the same as one presumes the plane travels the same route on its return?

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation

« on: November 26, 2022, 09:51:16 AM »

They have never convinced even one flat earther to believe the Lies.

Not one flat earther has convinced a glober that the Earth is flat. Touche.

No one has seen the curvature of the earth.

Au contraire mon frère...Capt. James T Kirk has...

In this exclusive excerpt from William Shatner’s new book, “Boldly Go: Reflections on a Life of Awe and Wonder,” the “Star Trek” actor reflects on his voyage into space on Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin space shuttle on Oct. 13, 2021.

"I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing. I turned back toward the light of home. I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her."
    - William Shatner

Thats obviously conclusive then he is obviously having flashbacks to an earlier life. 

On a similar note it amazes me how many globalists refer to the sun as 'rising' and 'setting' in the sky. Sorry to spoil the party but scientifically it doesn't rise or set. According to you we orbit it therefore it cannot 'rise'.

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation

« on: November 24, 2022, 01:07:50 PM »

Yes  - to scheduled times.

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation

« on: November 23, 2022, 09:57:06 PM »

I told my software engineer friend about FE. He told me he was the programmer who wrote the routing software for the Canadian Air Traffic Control System. The US uses airways, set routes like interstates. The Canadians wanted to route their planes straight from departure airport straight to the destination for each airplane (routing around collisions, of course). He wrote the program that figured out the distance and direction. He said he used the spherical geometry equations straight out if a textbook and they worked perfectly. Obviously, they did much qa, and the system has been in use for decades, many planes arrive where they intended to go daily. If the earth was flat, the equations would be wrong and the pilots would not find an airport where the software sent them. The longer the route, the more the difference.

You can do this yourself, actually. Do the spherical trig math to calculate the distance between two cities, for Tom Bishop, make that two cities on the same land mass, perhaps Beijing and Madrid. For some reason, Tom Bishop thinks gps doesn't work over water. The RE 3d trig answer will match google maps, airline schedule, time/speed/distance of airliner flight, lat/long per wikipedia, etc, and no evidence at all for the FE distance calculation, whatever that might be.

Find a discrepancy between any RE info sources or the math calculations and prove FE! I will be your disciple. And I will make a lot better video than the one you just posted. His production values, scripting, delivery, etc is just bad regardless of the truth of his content. FYI, this maybe shouldn't matter, but it does. People are more likely to believe well made videos, at least most people. Perhaps FEs perceive truth in amateurish, clearly non-expert videos.

Its fine saying that software was written for plane flights. Yet its so weird that on an out journey a plane can take longer than expected to get there and on the in journey it gets back quicker than expected. of course we blame tail winds or head winds for this. Isn't it remotely possible that the estimated distances were miscalculated and relying on a round earth? It never ceases to amaze me how frequently many people get off a flight an hour before they were due to land. Its actually quite worrying given the consequences of a plane taking off and no one knowing when it will eventually land.

87

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: November 23, 2022, 05:01:27 PM »

Technically, if the earth were round, wouldn't the horizon take a spherical shape?

Only if you were 30 - 50 miles above its surface. At ground level it would be a straight line.

88

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: November 23, 2022, 04:58:32 PM »

And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

Apparently, not that big...

Was the curvature put in for good measure or just a wide angle lens proving that these days the camera always lies? 

No. It's a fish-eye lens. And the video has nothing to do with curvature. The intent of the video, which you have completely missed, is to show that cruise ship wakes aren't monstrously large as suggested by another poster. You might want to actually read the posts and understand the context before launching into something completely irrelevant.

I think if you reread my post you will see that it was an incidental comment and coincidentally it is relevant as the topic was concerned with curvature of the earth. And fish eye lenses don't help with proving that theory. I completely accept you were videoing the wake and found it humorous that a false curvature was incorporated into the images.

You're still missing the point and strawmanning your way though this. The video was never intended to visually represent the curvature of the earth. It simply was showing the much smaller size of the wake from a cruise ship than previously asserted by another poster. That's all.

Just to satisfy your strange need, here's another one:



Flat horizon, tiny wake. Feel better now?

I never said anything like that. It was an incidental almost rhetorical question. And I am still tickled as the use of fish-eye lenses for whatever reason on a FE site have the propensity to cause the person viewing the resultant photos (depicting curvature of the earth) to subconciously have an image of a global earth imprinted on their brain.
That's all. I apologise if it didn't appear that way. And I also apologise to the Moderators if it was wrong to inject a little bit of humour into a topic.

89

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: November 23, 2022, 04:50:22 PM »

If you watched three sail boats sailing away and slowly disappearing because of the earths curvature, then wouldn't you need to assume that the tops of those ships wouldn't be parallel to one another? 



Sorry to hijack this post, but it is similar.

Great question.

Yes…sort of. For a typical situation out at sea, for example, the horizon is usually single digit or low double digit numbers of miles away - it depends on your elevation above the water, and on the atmospheric conditions. For those kind of distances, the difference in angle between the masts wouldn’t be noticeable. If you elevated yourself tens of miles above the surface, then you would notice a difference, not just in the left / right angle of the masts as per your diagram, but also the ‘dip’ as the ships are tilting forwards away from you.

In reality though sailing boats bob up and down and tilt from side to side. Unless the sea was a flat calm (millpond-like) and there was a Force Zero wind then it would be impossible to prove.

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 23, 2022, 09:49:43 AM »

A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?

This is a weird question.  Science doesn't look for reasons why things don't happen unless there is a reason to think they should happen.  If there was no gravity, why would anyone think something was preventing us from falling?  The obvious answer to why we don't fall would be there was no cause or force to make it happen.

That's exactly my point. You state that science doesn't look for reasons why things don't happen unless there is a reason to think they should happen. So what made science go looking for reasons why things fall to earth? Its no different to science looking at reasons why we would float and not fall to earth.

91

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: November 22, 2022, 01:34:45 PM »

And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

Apparently, not that big...

Was the curvature put in for good measure or just a wide angle lens proving that these days the camera always lies? 

No. It's a fish-eye lens. And the video has nothing to do with curvature. The intent of the video, which you have completely missed, is to show that cruise ship wakes aren't monstrously large as suggested by another poster. You might want to actually read the posts and understand the context before launching into something completely irrelevant.

I think if you reread my post you will see that it was an incidental comment and coincidentally it is relevant as the topic was concerned with curvature of the earth. And fish eye lenses don't help with proving that theory. I completely accept you were videoing the wake and found it humorous that a false curvature was incorporated into the images. 

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about EA wiki page leading to a fundamental question

« on: November 22, 2022, 01:29:49 PM »

The concept of a FE did very well for about 25,000 years until people realized it was no working too well.  About 2,500 years ago they left it behind along with the kind of thinking that nurtures it and developed such things as reason and science.  Those got us much further and faster such that now we can freely disseminate strange old ideas over a global network using devices that would not be 'real' according to zeteticisim.

There is no FET.  The 'T' is supposed to refer to "theory".  In science, theory requires much more than just conjecture.  What the modern FE movement has is a lot of conjecture of which a small amount could possibly, with some stretch of the imagination, be considered hypothesis.  Not theory though.  Theory requires a mathematical model that is repeatable and falsifiable and it requires both positive peer review and experimental confirmation.  By that measure you will find no theory here.

I would love to go into the issues with the EA wiki but when I have in the past I was sanctioned.

Hi - you mention above that theory requires a mathematical model that is repeatable and falsifiable. If something is not falsifiable (i.e. cannot be proved wrong) does that mean it is therefore 'true/accepted'? And if so does that mean a theory is not accepted if it can be proved wrong?

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 22, 2022, 10:21:33 AM »

Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.

Actually, the earth was known to be round for around 1500 years or more before Newton came up with gravity.  Before that, people believed that things fell for much the same reasons that you explain: because that's what heavy things do.  Newton's version of gravity describes, with pretty good precision, how heavy things fall the way they do.

And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.

Science doesn't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.  It uses the "preponderance of evidence" standard, and that standard is much higher than you probably think.

Incidentally re preponderance of evidence. It is actually a low barrier and is based on the balance of probability. Therefore if that is what science relies on a 'theory' would only have to scrape over the half way line for it to be accepted. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high barrier almost bordering on certainty.

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 22, 2022, 10:16:42 AM »

Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.

Actually, the earth was known to be round for around 1500 years or more before Newton came up with gravity.  Before that, people believed that things fell for much the same reasons that you explain: because that's what heavy things do.  Newton's version of gravity describes, with pretty good precision, how heavy things fall the way they do.

And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.

Science doesn't use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.  It uses the "preponderance of evidence" standard, and that standard is much higher than you probably think.

A couple of questions if you don't mind. From a science perspective; if gravity did not exist and as a consequence let's say that everything floated 'on air' so to speak. Would it be fair to say that science would then want to know why things floated and why they did not fall to the ground (as opposed to why things do not float and do fall to the ground)? And if so why would we think there was something preventing us falling (as we seem to wonder why we don't float for example)?

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 21, 2022, 06:04:22 PM »

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.

Well, if your contention is that gravity doesn’t exist, then rivers flowing south to north is a tiny, tiny thing compared to some more fundamental issues. Clearly, the earth can’t be round without gravity.

At first glance, you are correct. The earth appears flat. It’s a reasonable starting point. But then you look a bit closer, and things aren’t so simple. As per another thread running at the moment…why are there visible horizons? What is a horizon, given that we can see tall distant objects beyond it? Why does the elevation of stars vary with our latitude? Indeed, why can I know how far north I am simply by measuring the elevation angle of the north star? That wouldn’t work unless the earth was round and the star was a long, long way away.

And, as you make more and more of these observations, you realise that the only credible explanation is a spherical earth, orbiting the sun, with a gravitational force acting between objects according to the product of their masses and the inverse of the squared distance between them.

That model, an explanation for what we observe, works perfectly to explain what we see and detect.

Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.
And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 21, 2022, 06:01:19 PM »

As science only uses gravity to explain things.

Oh, I think you'll find there's a lot more to "science" than gravity.

What if there was no such thing. And we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down?

Humankind has already been through this "what if" stage. Then a guy called Copernicus came along and stood the "what if" on its head. And guess what? Everything since then has tied in with Copernicus' version.

would it's 'head' be at the top or the bottom as I am being advised it can be both (or was there a pun intended)?

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 21, 2022, 05:56:43 PM »

we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down?

But what force is holding us down?
There has to be a force.
You said things fall because they are “heavier than air”. But why would they fall downwards? They’re heavier than the air above them and to the side of them, why down?

Why does there need to be a force holding us down? In case we fall off the globe?

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 21, 2022, 05:55:20 PM »

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

... which depicts, represents, or illustrates, the textbook scientific explanation/description of our globe Earth and how gravity fits in with it.

Taking issue with the illustration BECAUSE it's an illustration, and not ... something else other than a 'cartoon', is not, in itself, a disproof of the science.

No  -but an illustration is not proof of anything.

99

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 21, 2022, 05:54:21 PM »

Objects fall to earth due to them being heavier than air.

They're heavier than the air above them too. And the air beside them.
Why don't they fall sideways or up?

Why does a helium balloon float? Where is gravity then?

100

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic

« on: November 21, 2022, 04:03:38 PM »

And as far as the ship video is concerned, how large a wake do you propose a cruise ship would make?

Apparently, not that big...

Was the curvature put in for good measure or just a wide angle lens proving that these days the camera always lies?