161

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On circumnavigation.

« on: April 26, 2018, 01:26:31 PM »

And stars are the same way.  They move in the sky anyway, regardless of round or flat earth model.  Round earth they rotate in the sky around a central point (cause the earth rotates) and they move aross the sky at the same time because the earth revolves around the sun, thus moving it's position relative to the Earth.

Actually, they move around 2 central points.

In other words...

You can totally travel in a giant circle while thinking you're going straight.

What if I'm traveling in a circle around Antarctica? You haven't answered that.

162

Flat Earth Theory / The Milky Way

« on: April 25, 2018, 10:02:47 PM »

In a flat Earth, would the Milky Way be billions of discrete points of light (like in Round Earth) or would it be a continuous, luminous gas?

163

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 25, 2018, 09:40:29 PM »

Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.

Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?

Yes. Again, the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented. They claimed that the u-tube wasn't at eye level.

164

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: April 25, 2018, 09:20:30 PM »

Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.

165

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: April 25, 2018, 07:31:27 PM »

..and why isn't the FE side "winning" a single thread in the Debate forum?

Scrolling through pages after pages of the forum, I see the remains of many great threads that utterly destroy the FE myth. In most of them all the FE questions, misunderstandings, and objections have been addressed. I get that there are only a few flat-heads left here to reply to forum posts, and we're all very grateful for your efforts, but you'd at least hope to see some threads where the RE side is losing...

It's very ignorant for you to even say we lost most. Threads that have been utterly destroyed? You mean threads like a bridge that proves the curvature of the Earth? (Debunked). I mean we have threads like the one in my Signature down below that literally takes the studies of a round-head called Eratosthenes and literally use his "Circumference math" to prove the flat earth. (I recommend reading it)

Such a shame that, as discussed every time Eratosthenes comes up, if you take measurements from any other point, you get different results for the height of the sun. Not to mention that, every time, it's pointed out his experiment by itself proves nothing either way. But I suppose you like to count what amounts to a draw as a win then? Cool.

You clearly didn't read my thread... I use his exact measurements to prove flat earth.

Your evidence was faked, that is obvious.

My Evidence was fake? Go back and watch the SpaceX stream. Clearly not my evidence, SpaceX provided the evidence for me to prove that fake stream.

Guess what: I've seen their stream, and I can definitely say that if there is evidence in the stream, it's not obvious. If you want me to scrutinize it, give me a place in the video to start with.

Oh, and I have Astronomy Club in twenty minutes, so as an avid Kerbal Space Program player I say: bring it.

166

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: April 25, 2018, 07:25:42 PM »

We've won like 80% of them. But for ignorant round-heads like you, you guys just end up quitting the debate in frustration.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. How about this: you can list threads where the flatties won. For each one, I'll try to find another thread where the round-heads won.

People like you kill my braincells

What? I was inviting you to back up your statement, what's wrong with that?

In fact, I'll go first: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9402.0

Dude the SpaceX footage is fake it doesn't take a flat earther to realize it either, as long as your ignorance doesn't the best of you, you'd realize how fake the SpaceX footage is, so that thread isn't one that you can say is a winning round earther thread.

Believe what you will, the thread went like this:

FE claims it was faked.
RE presses for evidence proving that claim.
FE repeats their assertion without really responding to RE's request.

You want to say that it's a loss for RE? Then give evidence.

167

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pangea and continental drift

« on: April 25, 2018, 04:40:14 PM »

When did it become the ice wall then?

I do not know.

Perhaps a better question is: how did it become the ice wall? What happened to the ice wall before it? What did it look like before it was the ice wall?

168

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pangea and continental drift

« on: April 25, 2018, 01:53:25 PM »

However, you are likely to be corrected on an important technical point: The Ice Wall as we know it now is a somewhat arbitrary delineation of the known Earth. What lies beyond is largely unknown. Thus, even if Antarctica were not always part of the Ice Wall, it's likely that there still was an Ice Wall.

When did it become the ice wall then?

As for proof: we've found fossils of tropical plants in Antarctica, and geological indicators give a pretty good idea of where it was.

169

Flat Earth Theory / Pangea and continental drift

« on: April 24, 2018, 07:40:14 PM »

300 million years ago, Antarctica was not at the South Pole. It was not frozen, either; it was actually more like tropics.

So clearly not a gigantic ice wall.

170

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On circumnavigation.

« on: April 24, 2018, 06:53:45 PM »

There's been a little bit of conversation about this topic in this thread.

Ah, I see. To respond to that thread:

• If I were traveling west around Antarctica, I'd make course corrections to the left. Would I actually be turning to the right?
• By asserting that I can't go in a straight line for that long, you are rejecting an axiom of not only Euclidean geometry, but nearly every geometric system in existence.
• Give me a long enough rope, and I can go in a straight line for miles.

171

Flat Earth Theory / On circumnavigation.

« on: April 24, 2018, 06:22:30 PM »

Earth not a Globe asserts that circumnavigation is possible on a flat Earth, saying that if one keeps going west, they can return from the east. I won't debate the validity of the experiment Rowbotham gives to prove this; I can prove that the results will be consistent.

As usual, however, the proof here is being gravely misunderstood. The proof is not that you can leave to the west and return from the east. The proof is that a ship can leave in a straight line and return in the complete opposite direction.

So tell me once more, how can the earth be circumnavigated if it's flat?

172

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question from a physicist

« on: April 24, 2018, 05:01:36 PM »

The problem is not the sufficient acceleration, it's the force that leads to this acceleration. If you take relativity theory serious, the mass of the earth would continuously increase with its speed. If the force is constant, according to F = m*a, the acceleration is inverse proportional to the mass. But if the acceleration is constant, the force has to increase in the same way as the mass. And with this the energy that is needed maintain the force is also increasing... And now think about how fast the earth would be already, how large the mass would be and therefore the force and therefore the energy...

From our perspective (and due to relativity), the force (and the mass) would remain the same.

Even so, that is still a metric shit-ton of force though to accelerate a mass the size of the earth at 9.8m/s/s

Just a comparison: if the Earth was propelled by rocket engines, then the least amount of fuel needed to maintain Earth gravity for the 6000 years since God allegedly created it would be around 10²⁷⁰⁰ kilograms. Plus or minus a few dozen orders of magnitude.

173

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: April 24, 2018, 04:45:29 PM »

We've won like 80% of them. But for ignorant round-heads like you, you guys just end up quitting the debate in frustration.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. How about this: you can list threads where the flatties won. For each one, I'll try to find another thread where the round-heads won.

People like you kill my braincells

What? I was inviting you to back up your statement, what's wrong with that?

In fact, I'll go first: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9402.0

174

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are flat-heads willing to admit that they are wrong?

« on: April 24, 2018, 03:18:45 PM »

We've won like 80% of them. But for ignorant round-heads like you, you guys just end up quitting the debate in frustration.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. How about this: you can list threads where the flatties won. For each one, I'll try to find another thread where the round-heads won.

175

Flat Earth Theory / Atmolayer lip hypothesis and its incorrectness

« on: April 21, 2018, 07:36:35 PM »

https://wiki.tfes.org/Atmolayer_Lip_Hypothesis

While Amonton's law makes clear the relation between temperature and pressure, a lack of pressure also can't keep in the normal atmosphere against diffusion. So how exactly does this "lip" hypothesis work?

Simple: it doesn't. There is no way for a finite flat Earth to contain an atmosphere that's 100 miles high without a physical barrier that's also 100 miles high. The nature of gases doesn't allow it.

176

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal

« on: April 21, 2018, 02:24:17 AM »

Explain to me a model of perspective that allows a sunset then. Right here, right now. Or else you have no argument.

177

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Refraction and the Bedford Canal

« on: April 20, 2018, 07:49:03 PM »

In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham describes perspective as the cause for the sunset, not bending light rays. Light travels in straight lines.

The problem being, as explained on many other threads, that the sun actually touches the horizon. Refraction+magnification is the only solution I've seen for that from the FE side.

And no, light doesn't travel in straight lines. I am wearing something right now that soundly disproves the notion.

178

Flat Earth Theory / Refraction and the Bedford Canal

« on: April 20, 2018, 06:38:56 PM »

For should the enemy strengthen his van, he will weaken his rear; should he strengthen his rear, he will weaken his van; should he strengthen his left, he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right, he will weaken his left. If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak.

Flat Earthers claim that refraction makes the sun set, curving light upwards something like this:



Hold on… optical systems are reversible. Let's try this one out with the Bedford level experiment. According to Dr. Rowbotham's observations, light passes through all three poles:



Now let's go to Round Earth. Under Round Earth's refraction model, a simple temperature inversion might give this path for light:



Flat Earthers, I have just taken your flagship proof, and shown that, by your own model, it actually proves the Earth's convexity. The ball is now very definitely in your court.

179

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The "Google Maps background"

« on: April 20, 2018, 04:52:18 PM »

Ah, okay.

Now that the origin is confirmed, I can move to explanations that don't sound ridiculous.

Now that I think about it, the image is likely a zoomed-in shot from far away. I'd make a diagram if asked, but right now I don't have the time to.

The EXIF data of the image shows that the photo was taken with a NIKON D2Xs, using a standard 35.0 mm Focal Length. The Digital Zoom ratio is 1, showing that it is not zoomed in digitally either.

It's hard to find data on the FOV that would give, but the largest figure I could find was 55°. By my calculations, that makes the background somewhere around 200km on the horizontal edge. The agricultural fields are maybe 1/20 of the width, making them ~10km. That's very large, but it's not too large for a massive corporate farm.

Meanwhile, an Earth curvature calculator gives me a horizon distance of ~1600km, plenty enough for the comparison photos which show entire countries.

180

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Eötvös Effect

« on: April 18, 2018, 01:36:44 PM »

I already asked about that here, and yes, they cited celestial gravitation.