The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: h0dgep0dge on September 09, 2017, 10:21:19 PM
-
One of the marks of a good theory or hypothesis is being able to come up with experimental results that would prove you wrong. Do you know of an experiment that would prove the Earth is a globe? If so, what is it?
-
Well, my knee jerk reaction would be to tell you that they aren't likely to provide you with an honest answer. From my limited observation, they seem intent on not having a testable hypothesis scenario because they're afraid of what will happen when the data comes in. It's much safer to attempt to throw shade on any data that the rest of us supply and when out of other options, claim some magic variable that no one can measure is critically important in explaining why the round earth support data is woefully wrong. I would love to see an honest answer from the flat Earth community to your question, however, I would recommend that you don't hold your breath.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Well, my knee jerk reaction would be to tell you that they aren't likely to provide you with an honest answer. From my limited observation, they seem intent on not having a testable hypothesis scenario because they're afraid of what will happen when the data comes in. It's much safer to attempt to throw shade on any data that the rest of us supply and when out of other options, claim some magic variable that no one can measure is critically important in explaining why the round earth support data is woefully wrong. I would love to see an honest answer from the flat Earth community to your question, however, I would recommend that you don't hold your breath.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
This is so true. Look at a lot of these fringe groups and they all operate similarly. They attempt to poke little holes in established theory based on their lack of understanding without offering anything substantive in return. They ignore the big picture in hopes that "proving" one little point wrong will convince some fools to listen to them.
-
Earth photo is enough proof..but there is none
-
The FE faithful will simply dismiss anything you provide with as faked/staged/CGI/part of vast conspiracy etc.
-
Does anyone of notable intelligence believe the earth is flat? If so who and what are there supporting facts?
-
Does anyone of notable intelligence believe the earth is flat? If so who and what are there supporting facts?
Refrain from low content posts in the upper fora. Warned
-
mtnman, what if the evidence would be with some data and details?
-
mtnman, what if the evidence would be with some data and details?
Ok, here are two examples:
What about using a laser to measure the distance to the moon? I know that test has been performed over the years, the data should be available somewhere.
What about the predictable and observable orbit of the ISS?
-
The angle to the horizon is close to zero at ground level, but if you are 10000 feet above the ground at the horizon it should make a measurable angle. If we measured that there is 180 degrees of sky at sea level but 182+ degrees of sky on top of a 10000 foot tall mountain, would that do it?
-
What about using a laser to measure the distance to the moon? I know that test has been performed over the years, the data should be available somewhere.
What about the predictable and observable orbit of the ISS?
I like that you put the moon and ISS in one post...Are they both fake, holograms textures?
-
What about using a laser to measure the distance to the moon? I know that test has been performed over the years, the data should be available somewhere.
What about the predictable and observable orbit of the ISS?
I like that you put the moon and ISS in one post...Are they both fake, holograms textures?
No
-
xenotolerance, the moon is more obvious to be artificial than the ISS, but how do you know whether they aren't both orbs flying around, and sometimes cloaking? I'm not even sure, if i'm being right.
How do you know, if what you state can be proven by real world observations(not only just logical conclusions, based on mainstream science lies)?
-
xenotolerance, the moon is more obvious to be artificial than the ISS, but how do you know whether they aren't both orbs flying around, and sometimes cloaking? I'm not even sure, if i'm being right.
How do you know, if what you state can be proven by real world observations(not only just logical conclusions, based on mainstream science lies)?
I really don't know how to take this answer, but I think you are saying that data relating to those is not acceptable to you, without seeing it or giving any consideration. Typical.
Orbs flying around? Well, both are things orbiting the Earth, not technically flying, but close enough I guess.
Cloaking? When does the moon cloak, are you talking about eclipses?
-
One of the marks of a good theory or hypothesis is being able to come up with experimental results that would prove you wrong. Do you know of an experiment that would prove the Earth is a globe? If so, what is it?
Alright, here's one. Along the way, I would smile upon people who discover error in the process of my experiment. Please feel free to abase me, bash my ideas, and condemn fallacious reasoning. If I am wrong, I'd like to know it. If I'm not wrong, then take strong consideration of my relevant experiment. And please, do not comment on what you make of my English. I don't take dynamic English seriously in a mere post. Here goes.
Note: This is the entire Earth we are talking about. I hope that we can all agree that it should be treated as a colossal mass. Please question me on this fact before reading on if there exists a flaw, so that it would not be disregarded unfairly.
Another Note: When I refer to a flat Earth, I am making the assumption that the Earth looks like a circle with very little thickness. Of course, there must be thickness; otherwise, it would not be three-dimensional, an otherwise very disturbing sight indeed.
The Earth, as it is, is too big to conduct a practical experiment in; with this in mind, my experiment is simple; take a plane flight across the globe, and continuously look at the altitude meter. Record it periodically, say every 5 minutes. Make sure your plane is at a constant altitude at all times, or at least roughly constant. Designate the point of take-off, and make sure to fly around the full length of the Earth, and upon approaching the designated spot, land. If your the rate of change of the altitude meter has shown up as relatively the same value the entire time, for this ~24 hour flight, you can safely assume that the Earth is round. Liek a circle, a sphere could begin and end at the same point, depending on (where you begin and end), and in a smooth (otherwise known as consistent) fashion.
In a flat Earth, the difference between 5-minute altitudes will not remain consistent. Make a graph of records if you need to. If there was no degree of roundness in the Earth, there would be abrupt changes in the altitude. But as long as the rate of change of the altitude meter remains relatively consistent, the Earth must be round, with no sudden, jagged edge. Consider my experiment very carefully. Do not miss any piece of logic.
Here's another case in point: the Earth is so huge, that the human could not directly see how much the shape of its terrain changes on average. If we were to walk from one point of a circle, or oval, and cover the smallest imaginable distance, that is very akin to walking about a mile around the Earth. The difference could hardly be found. For people who have studied basic Calculus techniques: When you zoom in enough on the curve of a graph, you see a tangent line appear. The tangent line, by definition, is a line, which is flat. But you know that this flatness is a simplification derived from a curve. It appears flat, but it is already known to be a constituent, an infinitesimal section, of the curve. Likewise, the human eye, with such a small distance observed, sees flat land where it is truly a super small section of a round planet. If I made a mistake with my reasoning, inform me.
Here's another case in point: the Earth, flat or round, does not have smooth terrain regardless of its overall shape. It has mountains, gorges, crevices, like a sharp, confusing, disproportionate graph. But I am using averages, nevertheless, to determine whether or not the Earth is flat. How do I get these averages? With the experiment I suggested already.
If you guys would like me to conduct a deeper analysis on the topic, with or without the notion of experimentation (i.e., common sense, logic), reply.
If anyone spots a flaw in my current analysis, again, reply, and make sure to criticize me at your leisure. I don't give a damn about my "feelings." I am not being sarcastic, I promise that my emotions are never affected by insult.
-
xenotolerance, the moon is more obvious to be artificial than the ISS, but how do you know whether they aren't both orbs flying around, and sometimes cloaking? I'm not even sure, if i'm being right.
How do you know, if what you state can be proven by real world observations(not only just logical conclusions, based on mainstream science lies)?
You can look at them with telescopes. (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s)
-
Earth photo is enough proof..but there is none
There's more than just a picture to support it. There exist calculations with a low margin of error to prove it, Galileo's research, and common sense.
That's right, guys. China is below the United States.
-
xenotolerance, the moon is more obvious to be artificial than the ISS, but how do you know whether they aren't both orbs flying around, and sometimes cloaking? I'm not even sure, if i'm being right.
How do you know, if what you state can be proven by real world observations(not only just logical conclusions, based on mainstream science lies)?
You can look at them with telescopes. (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s)
More importantly - you can position two cameras a long distance apart and have them take simultaneous photos of the moon (say one just after moon-rise, the other just before moon-set). If the moon is where FET says it is - then they should be seeing opposite sides of the thing - and therefore the pictures they take should show radically different patterns of craters and marea...and they should also show different moon phases.
They won't.
The End.
-
In a flat Earth, the difference between 5-minute altitudes will not remain consistent. Make a graph of records if you need to. If there was no degree of roundness in the Earth, there would be abrupt changes in the altitude. But as long as the rate of change of the altitude meter remains relatively consistent, the Earth must be round, with no sudden, jagged edge. Consider my experiment very carefully. Do not miss any piece of logic.
Why do you think that the altimeter on an airplane would have jagged changes in readings on a flat earth? I don't understand the thinking behind this experiment.
Here's another case in point: the Earth is so huge, that the human could not directly see how much the shape of its terrain changes on average. If we were to walk from one point of a circle, or oval, and cover the smallest imaginable distance, that is very akin to walking about a mile around the Earth. The difference could hardly be found. For people who have studied basic Calculus techniques: When you zoom in enough on the curve of a graph, you see a tangent line appear. The tangent line, by definition, is a line, which is flat. But you know that this flatness is a simplification derived from a curve. It appears flat, but it is already known to be a constituent, an infinitesimal section, of the curve. Likewise, the human eye, with such a small distance observed, sees flat land where it is truly a super small section of a round planet. If I made a mistake with my reasoning, inform me.
Here's another case in point: the Earth, flat or round, does not have smooth terrain regardless of its overall shape. It has mountains, gorges, crevices, like a sharp, confusing, disproportionate graph. But I am using averages, nevertheless, to determine whether or not the Earth is flat. How do I get these averages? With the experiment I suggested already.
If you guys would like me to conduct a deeper analysis on the topic, with or without the notion of experimentation (i.e., common sense, logic), reply.
If anyone spots a flaw in my current analysis, again, reply, and make sure to criticize me at your leisure. I don't give a damn about my "feelings." I am not being sarcastic, I promise that my emotions are never affected by insult.
There may be a language barrier, but I don't understand your proposals. In the "walking around in a circle" experiment, what observations are we meant to make?
-
xenotolerance, the moon is more obvious to be artificial than the ISS, but how do you know whether they aren't both orbs flying around, and sometimes cloaking? I'm not even sure, if i'm being right.
How do you know, if what you state can be proven by real world observations (not only just logical conclusions, based on mainstream science lies)?
Have you any real world observations of objects sometimes cloaking?
-
If the moon is where FET says it is - then they should be seeing opposite sides of the thing - and therefore the pictures they take should show radically different patterns of craters and marea...and they should also show different moon phases.
As always, 3DGeek chooses to lie about FET. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this never works.
Here, let me try.
If the Earth was really round, the moon should be green when viewed from Australia but pink from Dallas, Japan. This doesn't happen. The end!
Do you yet understand why these sort of arguments do not help your case?
-
Pete, good see you. Do you also espouse Tom's magic perspective(TM)?
Because TMP is the only reason I can think of, for considering what you quoted a misrepresentation.
-
mtnman, what if the evidence would be with some data and details?
What about using a laser to measure the distance to the moon? I know that test has been performed over the years, the data should be available somewhere.
Instead of that, to do a simple test, a laser must ALWAYS be straight, so if there was a flat Earth, it would touch the end, but, there are already tests showing that a laser cannot be seen in a different part of the Earth, under the curvature of it. If the Earth is flat, why does this happen?
-
xenotolerance, the moon is more obvious to be artificial than the ISS, but how do you know whether they aren't both orbs flying around, and sometimes cloaking? I'm not even sure, if i'm being right.
How do you know, if what you state can be proven by real world observations(not only just logical conclusions, based on mainstream science lies)?
You can look at them with telescopes. (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s)
More importantly - you can position two cameras a long distance apart and have them take simultaneous photos of the moon (say one just after moon-rise, the other just before moon-set). If the moon is where FET says it is - then they should be seeing opposite sides of the thing - and therefore the pictures they take should show radically different patterns of craters and marea...and they should also show different moon phases.
They won't.
The End.
I actually kinda feel bad for you. If only you could understand simple...anything! Do you know anything about size and distance? Earth and the Moon, are both drastically bigger than you (and your brain ^^). Take this for example: <img src="http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/view-of-caribbean-from-airplane-window-aerial-barbados.jpg?w=800&h=600" alt="Related image"/> Take a telescope and look through a plane's window. What do you see? Is it the other side of the Earth? No! It's nothing, because of the curvature of the Earth. Listen to yourself!
-
Any image you see online can and is probably FAKED. There is a simple thing called PHOTOSHOP that can edit ANY picture to make it seem like ANYTHING. I'll do a live stream, which prevents me from editing the video, and I'll prove your theory about "The Earth is flat and NASA and thousands of years of science are lying to you" is FAKE. Just stop and take a minute to think about it, do you REALLY believe in this, or are you just making yourself believe in this because you wanna be "different".
-
If the moon is where FET says it is - then they should be seeing opposite sides of the thing - and therefore the pictures they take should show radically different patterns of craters and marea...and they should also show different moon phases.
As always, 3DGeek chooses to lie about FET. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this never works.
Here, let me try.
If the Earth was really round, the moon should be green when viewed from Australia but pink from Dallas, Japan. This doesn't happen. The end!
Do you yet understand why these sort of arguments do not help your case?
Ah - the "changing the font to comic sans" to make it seem like your opponent's argument is a joke tactic...COMBINED WITH mocking the argument while not even trying to actually address it.
Stylish debate tactics! Socrates and Plato would be proud of you.
So why exactly don't we see opposite sides of the moon from distant locations?
(https://renaissanceinnovations.com/MoonSet.png)
(Ack! Where it says "Noon in Morocco" - it should say "Moon overhead in Morocco" - sorry!)
* If light travels in straight lines (blue lines) then the moon cannot set behind the tree.
* If light travels in straight lines (pink lines) but does some weird kink at the horizon to keep Tom happy(?!?) then if the orange guy sees the moon like every photo of it you've ever seen - then the purple guy sees a whole side of the moon that you can never see from Earth.
* If light travels in curves (orange lines) per the "Electromagnetic Accelerator" FE theory (that Tom doesn't like) then they're both looking at the underside of the moon - but from opposite directions...so the purple guy sees the moon "upside down"...which DOES happen in the extreme southern hemisphere - but not from north of the equator.
So - take your pick - or give us a better explanation. Feel free to post in any font you like - it won't help your argument in the tiniest bit.
-
If the moon is where FET says it is - then they should be seeing opposite sides of the thing - and therefore the pictures they take should show radically different patterns of craters and marea...and they should also show different moon phases.
As always, 3DGeek chooses to lie about FET. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this never works.
Here, let me try.
If the Earth was really round, the moon should be green when viewed from Australia but pink from Dallas, Japan. This doesn't happen. The end!
Do you yet understand why these sort of arguments do not help your case?
Ignoring his point (as he demonstrated just above this post) doesn't help your case either. Simply claiming "You're wrong you idiot" without explaining why or how means nothing. He's wrong. Ok, what about how things work means he's wrong? What's happening that keeps the moon the same on it's trip over the Earth? What position is he assuming of FE that is incorrect? I would note his position appears consistent with the wiki at any rate, but if you have your own stance on some of these things that are different it would be appreciated for you to lay them out. Just claiming he's incorrect and attacking him isn't useful when you ignore the thrust of his post.
-
Drifting gently back towards the subject of this thread, I found the perfect photo:
(http://toucanmoon.com/wp-content/uploads/adventure-network-internationals-top-10-reasons-for-flying-to-the-south-pole.jpg)
-
One compelling argument is center of gravity. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you, i.e. same distance to the center of mass.
Now consider a flat plane, the center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience.
I have never been to Australia, but I am pretty sure that when a person drops an object, it does not fall toward the center of the flat plane.
-
We need to figure out how to shoot something straight and parallel to the ground and hopefully other people around the world will see it too.
-
We need to figure out how to shoot something straight and parallel to the ground and hopefully other people around the world will see it too.
The trouble is that gravity overcomes that straight motion and bends the motion into a curve.
The only way to avoid that would be to apply some sort of thrust to the object to precisely counter gravity - but FE'ers and RE'ers disagree fundamentally on how gravity works - so there would be accusations of "fudging" the gravitational adjustment to fit whatever pet theory.
A better solution would be to use light - a laser, for example. Light travels in straight lines (with a couple of caveats that are unimportant here).
So one could shoot off a laser beam that's accurately levelled and see whether it ends up 8 inches further above the ground after a mile, 64 inches after two miles and so forth. But how do you know that the ground is level? You really don't - so you have to use water. But close to water, there are sharp temperature and humidity gradients that are one of the "caveats" I referred to - that causes refraction and screws up your experiment - also tides and other effects can make the water not be perfectly flat on these large scales.
But there is another experiment using light that works just as well - and that's to look at the sun at sunset or the moon at moonset.
You're still using the straightness of a light beam and comparing it to the straightness (or curvature) of the Earth.
This is an EXCELLENT experiment - but unfortunately, the Flat Earthers just answer with "It's Perspective" - and when you try to probe deeper, they panic and stop talking about it. (Tom Bishop said he'd start a new thread to answer this key question on the subject 12 days ago - and still hasn't done so).
-
One compelling argument is center of gravity. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you, i.e. same distance to the center of mass.
Now consider a flat plane, the center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience.
I have never been to Australia, but I am pretty sure that when a person drops an object, it does not fall toward the center of the flat plane.
This excellent line of reasoning is worthless against most forms of FE, because they have recognized this issue and “solved” it by rejecting the existence of gravity. They explain the observation of things falling by appealing to Universal Acceleration (https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration) (UA), or denpressure (which has fallen out of favor here, but is alive and well in another FE forum), or universal repulsion (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5321.0) (which was pretty much an “Intikam only” theory and thus it’s not fair to ascribe it to FE at large), to name a few alternatives I’ve seen.
-
One compelling argument is center of gravity. The force of attraction (gravity) between two objects depends on their mass and the distance between them. Simply said, gravity will pull toward the center of mass of the objects. To find the center of mass, you have to examine the object. Since a sphere has a consistent shape, no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you, i.e. same distance to the center of mass.
Now consider a flat plane, the center of mass of a flat plane is in its center (more or less), and the force of gravity will pull a person toward the middle of the plain. That means that if you stand on the edge of the plane, gravity will be pulling you toward the middle, not straight down like you usually experience.
I have never been to Australia, but I am pretty sure that when a person drops an object, it does not fall toward the center of the flat plane.
Also, a lot of people believe that the Flat Earth is infinite in extent. This conveniently gets rid of the problems of "falling off of the edge" - but it also allows conventional gravity to work reasonably well.
If the flat earth is infinite - then the lateral pull from distant parts of the FE will all cancel out and you'd get a perfect downward force.
Putting it in your terms: "no matter where on it you stand, you have exactly the same amount of sphere under you" - then in an infinite disk, no matter where you stand, you have exactly the same amount of disk around you in all directions - so there is no "preferred direction" in which you'd get pulled.
-
I think you people are missing the point here.
If I use a flight model that assumes a flat and stationary Earth, I never 'proved' the Earth is flat and stationary but rather used it in a particular situation.
If I launch a satellite using a rotating round earth model, I never proved it was round and rotating, I simple used a representative model to get my achievement.
There isn't a 'correct' model and that doesn't matter in science.
The moment you start thinking you can prove things true in science, you've jumped to philosophy, and have left science.
There isn't an objective model that must apply to every situation.
We apply concepts and models to a universe we seek to understand in terms of applying conceptual understanding to our surroundings.
-
In a flat Earth, the difference between 5-minute altitudes will not remain consistent. Make a graph of records if you need to. If there was no degree of roundness in the Earth, there would be abrupt changes in the altitude. But as long as the rate of change of the altitude meter remains relatively consistent, the Earth must be round, with no sudden, jagged edge. Consider my experiment very carefully. Do not miss any piece of logic.
Why do you think that the altimeter on an airplane would have jagged changes in readings on a flat earth? I don't understand the thinking behind this experiment.
Here's another case in point: the Earth is so huge, that the human could not directly see how much the shape of its terrain changes on average. If we were to walk from one point of a circle, or oval, and cover the smallest imaginable distance, that is very akin to walking about a mile around the Earth. The difference could hardly be found. For people who have studied basic Calculus techniques: When you zoom in enough on the curve of a graph, you see a tangent line appear. The tangent line, by definition, is a line, which is flat. But you know that this flatness is a simplification derived from a curve. It appears flat, but it is already known to be a constituent, an infinitesimal section, of the curve. Likewise, the human eye, with such a small distance observed, sees flat land where it is truly a super small section of a round planet. If I made a mistake with my reasoning, inform me.
Here's another case in point: the Earth, flat or round, does not have smooth terrain regardless of its overall shape. It has mountains, gorges, crevices, like a sharp, confusing, disproportionate graph. But I am using averages, nevertheless, to determine whether or not the Earth is flat. How do I get these averages? With the experiment I suggested already.
If you guys would like me to conduct a deeper analysis on the topic, with or without the notion of experimentation (i.e., common sense, logic), reply.
If anyone spots a flaw in my current analysis, again, reply, and make sure to criticize me at your leisure. I don't give a damn about my "feelings." I am not being sarcastic, I promise that my emotions are never affected by insult.
There may be a language barrier, but I don't understand your proposals. In the "walking around in a circle" experiment, what observations are we meant to make?
On the topic of the jagged edge, I am referring to the outer circle of the flat Earth. If the Earth is flat, it should one circular shaped "edge" per se, right? Think about it: If it's not a sphere, and it it has two flat sides, on the top and bottom, then the jagged edge would be between both flat sides, as in a circle's visible circumference. So: if the plane were to circumnavigate around the entire Earth, flat or not, then surely, it would cross over this jagged edge. Readings of altitude would change drastically if the path of the plane were to maintain a constant, circular pace while crossing this edge.
Walking around in a giant circle, one would not notice that great a change, depending on how much of the circle was covered. If you covered, say, a quarter of the circle, it would be obvious that you are walking in a circle. If you were to around 1/720 of the circle, or half a degree, or pi/360 radians of the circle, next to no difference could possibly be observed. The second situtation is the case when it comes to the Earth. Many people claim that the Earth is flat because they do not notice this change; this, however, does not justify a perception of the world as flat, since the Earth is merely too big to observe without measuring longer distances. In a practical case, it is impossible to observe walking distances to prove that the Earth is flat. It is still plausible to say that the Earth is round if you cannot detect such walking changes in a planet that is huge and spherically-shaped.
-
If the moon is where FET says it is - then they should be seeing opposite sides of the thing - and therefore the pictures they take should show radically different patterns of craters and marea...and they should also show different moon phases.
As always, 3DGeek chooses to lie about FET. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this never works.
Here, let me try.
If the Earth was really round, the moon should be green when viewed from Australia but pink from Dallas, Japan. This doesn't happen. The end!
Do you yet understand why these sort of arguments do not help your case?
So, Pete. What's wrong with Geek's logic? You make yours understandably deficient, but let's hear the rationale for your stance on his.
-
If the moon is where FET says it is - then they should be seeing opposite sides of the thing - and therefore the pictures they take should show radically different patterns of craters and marea...and they should also show different moon phases.
As always, 3DGeek chooses to lie about FET. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this never works.
Here, let me try.
If the Earth was really round, the moon should be green when viewed from Australia but pink from Dallas, Japan. This doesn't happen. The end!
Do you yet understand why these sort of arguments do not help your case?
So, Pete. What's wrong with Geek's logic? You make yours understandably deficient, but let's hear the rationale for your stance on his.
Pete's problem is the same as Tom's, he is afraid to acknowledge anything that could prove him wrong. He makes an arrogant statement and he's gone.
-
WATER IS A BALL IN ZERO GRAVITY. FREE FALL IN A PLANE AND POUR SOME WATER. NEXT QUESTION?
-
A question first.....at which point do we escape the spin? I would guess a particular height, once we are out of the spin I assume we can see the whole earth rotate under us in 24 hours. If we go up and it doesn't then the earth is not following the model which was described in school
It makes little sense to travel by plane over the spinning ball, why not just go up wait there for how ever long then come back down when the rotation has completed, would make more sense to have waiting platforms in the region where the spin is not present. we could be catapulted upto the platform to wait the required spin time then jump down.
Maybe ive missed something but it makes little sense to fly 22 hours from the uk to Australia when the earth can spin you there in 12. hmm :)
-
A question first.....at which point do we escape the spin? I would guess a particular height, once we are out of the spin I assume we can see the whole earth rotate under us in 24 hours. If we go up and it doesn't then the earth is not following the model which was described in school
It makes little sense to travel by plane over the spinning ball, why not just go up wait there for how ever long then come back down when the rotation has completed, would make more sense to have waiting platforms in the region where the spin is not present. we could be catapulted upto the platform to wait the required spin time then jump down.
Maybe ive missed something but it makes little sense to fly 22 hours from the uk to Australia when the earth can spin you there in 12. hmm :)
Hope you're a troll and this isn't serious...
You are traveling at the same speed as the Earth. If you're in a plane and jump in the aisle, does the plane move ahead without you??
-
A question first.....at which point do we escape the spin? I would guess a particular height, once we are out of the spin I assume we can see the whole earth rotate under us in 24 hours. If we go up and it doesn't then the earth is not following the model which was described in school
It makes little sense to travel by plane over the spinning ball, why not just go up wait there for how ever long then come back down when the rotation has completed, would make more sense to have waiting platforms in the region where the spin is not present. we could be catapulted upto the platform to wait the required spin time then jump down.
Maybe ive missed something but it makes little sense to fly 22 hours from the uk to Australia when the earth can spin you there in 12. hmm :)
Hope you're a troll and this isn't serious...
You are traveling at the same speed as the Earth. If you're in a plane and jump in the aisle, does the plane move ahead without you??
Not a regular forum guy, to me a troll is that thing in cartoons with the club that lives under the bridge trying to scare kids :) nope im just a regular guy trying to make sense of all this, again apologizes if my science level is too low and I make mistakes, just trying to wrap my head around this so here goes again,
if I were to take a rocket up at the point I left the ground I should start decelerating slightly, in the air on the way up I will still be dragged along (as the air is being dragged) however I should slow slightly, my question is when you get to the magic height when your neither in the air / atmosphere you are floating in space traveling still at some speed with the spin because you didnt slow completly, so we could use some kind of jet to slow yourself from the spin you could watch the earth rotate under is that right?
If your on something traveling at 1000mph with no wind Shields you feel the wind, why on the earth can we travel at 1000 and not feel this wind, we can travel at the pole and the winds the same, does the equator have a windshield, im not taking the piss im actually trying to understand it :)
-
A question first.....at which point do we escape the spin? I would guess a particular height, once we are out of the spin I assume we can see the whole earth rotate under us in 24 hours. If we go up and it doesn't then the earth is not following the model which was described in school
It makes little sense to travel by plane over the spinning ball, why not just go up wait there for how ever long then come back down when the rotation has completed, would make more sense to have waiting platforms in the region where the spin is not present. we could be catapulted upto the platform to wait the required spin time then jump down.
Maybe ive missed something but it makes little sense to fly 22 hours from the uk to Australia when the earth can spin you there in 12. hmm :)
Hope you're a troll and this isn't serious...
You are traveling at the same speed as the Earth. If you're in a plane and jump in the aisle, does the plane move ahead without you??
Not a regular forum guy, to me a troll is that thing in cartoons with the club that lives under the bridge trying to scare kids :) nope im just a regular guy trying to make sense of all this, again apologizes if my science level is too low and I make mistakes, just trying to wrap my head around this so here goes again,
if I were to take a rocket up at the point I left the ground I should start decelerating slightly, in the air on the way up I will still be dragged along (as the air is being dragged) however I should slow slightly, my question is when you get to the magic height when your neither in the air / atmosphere you are floating in space traveling still at some speed with the spin because you didnt slow completly, so we could use some kind of jet to slow yourself from the spin you could watch the earth rotate under is that right?
If your on something traveling at 1000mph with no wind Shields you feel the wind, why on the earth can we travel at 1000 and not feel this wind, we can travel at the pole and the winds the same, does the equator have a windshield, im not taking the piss im actually trying to understand it :)
I'll try to be more specific - EVERYTHING on Earth is rotating at roughly the same speed. The air, land, water, plants and animals.
Keep in mind that at the poles the rotation is very slow. If you stood on the south pole (north is ice and water), it would take you 24 hours to make a complete circle.
-
So, Pete. What's wrong with Geek's logic? You make yours understandably deficient, but let's hear the rationale for your stance on his.
3DGeek emptily asserts that FET dictates something which it doesn't. This is equivalent to me emptily asserting something nonsensical about RET. The only difference is that you're familiar enough with RET to spot the nonesense, whilst you're willing to take 3DG's word for it
Pete's problem is the same as Tom's, he is afraid to acknowledge anything that could prove him wrong. He makes an arrogant statement and he's gone.
Eh. Normally I'm just busy. I spread myself too thin and so I lose track of things. If you really crave my input on something, or if you feel that I've left a discussion prematurely, you could just PM me and ask what's up.
-
I mean, he doesn't though. if the Earth were flat, and the moon 3000 miles above it, observers from different continents would see different sides of it.
Him pointing this out is not equivalent to you basically saying "ur retarted" but in a way that passes the low content test.
-
I mean, he doesn't though. if the Earth were flat, and the moon 3000 miles above it, observers from different continents would see different sides of it.
Clearly, we disagree strongly about this. I wish your personal FE model the best of success, but it won't affect us.
-
bro
this is the thing we were on about in the other thread. it is incorrect and misleading to claim that the 3000-mile altitude moon doesn't represent this website overall. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon) and looking into the details just makes it worse. (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon)
Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon.
Make the floating arrow green on bottom, red on the right side, and blue on the left side. From directly underneath, it's all green. From a few feet to either side, you can see both green and another color evenly split. The higher up it is, the farther to either side you would have to go to see 50/50 another color. If it's 3000 miles high, you would see different combinations of colors based on your position, within the scale of the Earth. (If it's 240,000 miles high this is obviously still the case in theory, but you have to go farther to one side than is possible on this planet.)
Disagree strongly with me all you like. It doesn't change how wrong your site's model is.