[Dr_WynSCH]

If someone in Japan wanted to take a holiday to the US they would take an air plane right? They take a flight and they go west (round the globe). Judging by your flat earth model if you took a flight west you would reach the edge and subsequently die. Therefore you must take a plane east and go over Europe. But the thing is.... you don't. When you fly, you don't fall off the edge. Tell me, how is it possible to take a plane from Japan to the US without falling off the edge? 

[retlaw]

Both are in the northern hemisphere and not even close to the edge.
The Arctic Circle is the center circle which is small and the outer circle is Antarctic circle which is massive.
Ask your self this question.
Why do flights fly from Canada to Europe fly over the North pole but from South Americas tip they have no flight to Australia over the South Pole?
The flights they do have follow the round the world yacht racers course.
Which I believe is the 60 parallel. (Off the top of my head so it might be wrong) 
The true around the world is the yacht race course.
Place the race coarse over the flat earth map and you will see what I am talking about.

[Dr_WynSCH]

Both are in the northern hemisphere and not even close to the edge.
The Arctic Circle is the center circle which is small and the outer circle is Antarctic circle which is massive.
Ask your self this question.
Why do flights fly from Canada to Europe fly over the North pole but from South Americas tip they have no flight to Australia over the South Pole?
The flights they do have follow the round the world yacht racers course.
Which I believe is the 60 parallel. (Off the top of my head so it might be wrong) 
The true around the world is the yacht race course.
Place the race coarse over the flat earth map and you will see what I am talking about.

What countries border this "edge" of the "flat earth." Please tell me, I would love to know.

[Dr_WynSCH]

Both are in the northern hemisphere and not even close to the edge.
The Arctic Circle is the center circle which is small and the outer circle is Antarctic circle which is massive.
Ask your self this question.
Why do flights fly from Canada to Europe fly over the North pole but from South Americas tip they have no flight to Australia over the South Pole?
The flights they do have follow the round the world yacht racers course.
Which I believe is the 60 parallel. (Off the top of my head so it might be wrong) 
The true around the world is the yacht race course.
Place the race coarse over the flat earth map and you will see what I am talking about.

@retlaw A hemisphere is half a sphere by the way.

[retlaw]

Yes it is sir. I was told it was that for over 50 years so it takes a long time to deprogram. But I am working on it.

Lets take a closer look at the words origin.
I like to go back as far as possible when defining words to get to the closet meaning.

hemisphere (n.)

late 14c., hemysperie, in reference to the celestial sphere, from Late Latin hemisphaerium, from Greek hemisphairion, from hemi- "half" (see hemi-) + sphaira "sphere" (see sphere). Spelling reformed 16c. Of the Earth, from 1550s; of the brain, 1804.

Lets look up "celestial sphere" since that is what a hemisphere is described as.

celestial (adj.)

late 14c., "pertaining to the sky or the visible heavens; pertaining to the Christian or pagan heaven," from Old French celestial "celestial, heavenly, sky-blue," from Latin caelestis "heavenly, pertaining to the sky," from caelum "heaven, sky; abode of the gods; climate," which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from PIE *kaid-slo-, perhaps from a root also found in Germanic and Baltic meaning "bright, clear" (compare Lithuanian skaidrus "shining, clear;" Old English hador, German heiter "clear, shining, cloudless," Old Norse heið "clear sky").

The Latin word is the source of the usual word for "sky" in most of the Romance languages, such as French ciel, Spanish cielo, Italian cielo. Transferred sense of "heavenly, very delightful" in English is from early 15c. Celestial Empire "China" is from 1808, translating native names.

So "celestial" = heaven or blue sky.


sphere (n.)

mid-15c., Latinized spelling of Middle English spere (c. 1300) "cosmos; space, conceived as a hollow globe about the world," from Anglo-French espiere, Old French espere (13c., Modern French sphère), from Latin sphaera "globe, ball, celestial sphere" (Medieval Latin spera), from Greek sphaira "globe, ball, playing ball, terrestrial globe," a word of unknown origin.

From late 14c. in reference to any of the supposed concentric, transparent, hollow, crystalline globes of the cosmos believed to revolve around the earth and contain the planets and the fixed stars; the supposed harmonious sound they made rubbing against one another was the music of the spheres (late 14c.). Also from late 14c. as "a globe; object of spherical form, a ball," and the geometric sense "solid figure with all points equidistant from the center." Meaning "range of something, place or scene of activity" is first recorded c. 1600 (as in sphere of influence, 1885, originally in reference to Anglo-German colonial rivalry in Africa).

Wow. Not what I expected to see. Hollow crystalline globes that revolves around the earth.
Only one mention that a ball could resemble a sphere.
"solid figure with all points equidistant from the center." looks like the flat earth map to me more then the globe because there is no one center on a globe. 

[Dr_WynSCH]

Yes it is sir. I was told it was that for over 50 years so it takes a long time to deprogram. But I am working on it.

Lets take a closer look at the words origin.
I like to go back as far as possible when defining words to get to the closet meaning.

hemisphere (n.)

late 14c., hemysperie, in reference to the celestial sphere, from Late Latin hemisphaerium, from Greek hemisphairion, from hemi- "half" (see hemi-) + sphaira "sphere" (see sphere). Spelling reformed 16c. Of the Earth, from 1550s; of the brain, 1804.

Lets look up "celestial sphere" since that is what a hemisphere is described as.

celestial (adj.)

late 14c., "pertaining to the sky or the visible heavens; pertaining to the Christian or pagan heaven," from Old French celestial "celestial, heavenly, sky-blue," from Latin caelestis "heavenly, pertaining to the sky," from caelum "heaven, sky; abode of the gods; climate," which is of uncertain origin; perhaps from PIE *kaid-slo-, perhaps from a root also found in Germanic and Baltic meaning "bright, clear" (compare Lithuanian skaidrus "shining, clear;" Old English hador, German heiter "clear, shining, cloudless," Old Norse heið "clear sky").

The Latin word is the source of the usual word for "sky" in most of the Romance languages, such as French ciel, Spanish cielo, Italian cielo. Transferred sense of "heavenly, very delightful" in English is from early 15c. Celestial Empire "China" is from 1808, translating native names.

So "celestial" = heaven or blue sky.


sphere (n.)

mid-15c., Latinized spelling of Middle English spere (c. 1300) "cosmos; space, conceived as a hollow globe about the world," from Anglo-French espiere, Old French espere (13c., Modern French sphère), from Latin sphaera "globe, ball, celestial sphere" (Medieval Latin spera), from Greek sphaira "globe, ball, playing ball, terrestrial globe," a word of unknown origin.

From late 14c. in reference to any of the supposed concentric, transparent, hollow, crystalline globes of the cosmos believed to revolve around the earth and contain the planets and the fixed stars; the supposed harmonious sound they made rubbing against one another was the music of the spheres (late 14c.). Also from late 14c. as "a globe; object of spherical form, a ball," and the geometric sense "solid figure with all points equidistant from the center." Meaning "range of something, place or scene of activity" is first recorded c. 1600 (as in sphere of influence, 1885, originally in reference to Anglo-German colonial rivalry in Africa).

Wow. Not what I expected to see. Hollow crystalline globes that revolves around the earth.
Only one mention that a ball could resemble a sphere.
"solid figure with all points equidistant from the center." looks like the flat earth map to me more then the globe because there is no one center on a globe.

The initial crust of the earth or the mantle below is equidistant. If you remove mountains or not take into account minor changes in altitude it is a sphere. There is a centre. Centre of gravity? The centre that we can measure? It is not a perfect sphere. If the Earth was flat, where would the centre be? What location on Earth would be the centre? Is there a hemisphere around the earth resembling an atmosphere? A "hollow crystalline globe?" Also the definition of a sphere shows the shape of a ball or a rounded object, for example the Earth. When I say half of a sphere I mean the area of the entire sphere split into two. I was saying half a sphere because you said the northern hemisphere. That suggests you are talking about a sphere. Also, I wouldn't rely on old definitions because we have evolved in terms of knowledge since then. In ancient Greece they discovered that the sun did not orbit us. When great pioneers sailed the seas they found no edge, showing the Earth was round. Rely on the definition I looked up yesterday. 

[retlaw]

The center is the north pole.
Have you even looked at the flat earth map?
If you had you would know where the center is.

My mentioning of the word northern hemisphere is the public school indoctrination coming out.
Relearning everything I was taught as a kid is hard work. Brainwashing takes time to erode.

Flat earth can be measured as well.

Gravity is a good point to bring up.
If the world spun then gravity would be much stronger at the equator then the pole.
Technically the exact point of the poles would be zero gravity or darn close to it.

[Dr_WynSCH]

The center is the north pole.
Have you even looked at the flat earth map?
If you had you would know where the center is.

My mentioning of the word northern hemisphere is the public school indoctrination coming out.
Relearning everything I was taught as a kid is hard work. Brainwashing takes time to erode.

Flat earth can be measured as well.

Gravity is a good point to bring up.
If the world spun then gravity would be much stronger at the equator then the pole.
Technically the exact point of the poles would be zero gravity or darn close to it.

Gravity at the poles being zero. Nah.  The gravity is in fact stronger at the poles due to the equatorial bulge. The equator bulges because a spinning body has a force exerted on it due to its rotation. This cause it to form a oblate spheroid rather than a sphere. Therefore the distance from the equator is slightly larger than the poles. Gravity weakens with distance so this variation in distance causes a slight variation in the gravitational pull on objects in that area. This difference is very low but can be measured (It has been measured). The gravity is slightly stronger at the poles compared to the equator. This has been measured and the measurements show that. How is it possible if the Earth is flat?  Doesn't the flat Earth mean the equatorial bulge doesn't exist? This means that the gravity is the same. But it isn't. Also the gravity is not zero at the poles because of spin. Gravity is a warping of space-time due to the mass of an object and all the observers would feel gravity from that object. Gravity is felt at the poles otherwise people who visited the poles would have jumped for joy and never returned. They would have just floated off. They didn't by the way. The poles are at a point where spin doesn't really make a change of scenery but this doesn't mean a change in gravity. What evidence do you have to show that it is zero or close to it.

You say the north pole is at the centre. You do know that a compass follows this. So if I go from my home in England and follow a compass north I will go over Antarctica and reach the USA ( I looked at a flat earth map for that). The USA is west of England. So if I reach the north pole and kept going north ignoring the compass I could go on a nice vacation in the US. Good tip.

Finally, a "public school indoctrination." Society is not that messed up. I mean if someone were to grow up dreaming of becoming a NASA employee as a physicist, they would learn all this stuff in university and school and find it all to be a lie. Someone would have said by now through anger.

[retlaw]

"Society is not that messed up." Yes it is. And it has been for a long time.
I was regularly beaten by teachers in school and even locked up in a chair closet for a week and that was in the 70's, Even fist fights in grade 7 fighting back because i was tired of getting the beatings.
Do you know how many native Canadian Indians where killed in schools by the government? Close to 6000.

The school text books have been taken over by the controlling elite.
 
“I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.” – John D. Rockefeller,



    “In our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand.  The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.  We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science.  We are not to raise up among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters.  We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians.  Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."

            - Rev. Frederick T. Gates, Business Advisor to John D. Rockefeller Sr., 1913 [1]


The Truth About The School System In A Two Minute Video
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/24/the-truth-about-the-school-system-in-a-two-minute-video/


Compass don't point to the north pole, they change all the time because they point to the magnetic pole. Big difference between the two.

People go to the magnetic pole.

As you mentioned the distance is greater at the equator then the poles. So why do pictures of earth not show it?
Print a global picture and take a compass to it and look at see, no differences.

Global Earth speed, 460 meters per second at the equator and zero at the pole. And only a tiny bit of gravity difference as you mentioned. Doesn't add up.

[Dr_WynSCH]

"Society is not that messed up." Yes it is. And it has been for a long time.
I was regularly beaten by teachers in school and even locked up in a chair closet for a week and that was in the 70's, Even fist fights in grade 7 fighting back because i was tired of getting the beatings.
Do you know how many native Canadian Indians where killed in schools by the government? Close to 6000.

The school text books have been taken over by the controlling elite.
 
“I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers.” – John D. Rockefeller,



    “In our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand.  The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk.  We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science.  We are not to raise up among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters.  We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians.  Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply."

            - Rev. Frederick T. Gates, Business Advisor to John D. Rockefeller Sr., 1913 [1]


The Truth About The School System In A Two Minute Video
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/24/the-truth-about-the-school-system-in-a-two-minute-video/


Compass don't point to the north pole, they change all the time because they point to the magnetic pole. Big difference between the two.

People go to the magnetic pole.

As you mentioned the distance is greater at the equator then the poles. So why do pictures of earth not show it?
Print a global picture and take a compass to it and look at see, no differences.

Global Earth speed, 460 meters per second at the equator and zero at the pole. And only a tiny bit of gravity difference as you mentioned. Doesn't add up.

What doesn't add up? There maybe is no difference to the naked eye because earth is pretty big. I cannot see a difference with my eye on a picture but the shape of a sphere changes relative the the speed of its spin. The earth spins relatively slow but there is a bulge. There is a small difference so what doesn't add up? I don't understand what you are unsure about.

Also I understand problems with the school system because, well, I'm 15 and I go to school. There aren't as many problems now though. I don't want to discuss problems with society because we would be here forever. They didn't indoctrinate every student because someone would have proved it wrong by now. I am sorry for your experiences at school and fortunately we have policies to try and prevent students going through that now. I believe in the flaws in the school system and that they should be fixed. Enough of that though. Let us focus on other things.

The north magnetic pole would still take you north as well so my point about going from the UK to the US through the north pole still stands.

But please tell me what doesn't add up. I don't understand what you are misunderstanding.

[retlaw]

I don't want any sympathy young man. I am not a snowflake.
My experience in life which is over three times longer then your is I don't trust people in power.
They lie cheat and steel none stop.
Family is all one can trust.

What is the value of gravity?
G is referred to as the acceleration of gravity. Its value is 9.8 m/s2 on Earth. That is to say, the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.8 m/s2.
They claim the earth moves at 460 meters per second.
At 460 meters per second standard gravity is 46.91.
That doesn't add up.

[Curious Squirrel]

I don't want any sympathy young man. I am not a snowflake.
My experience in life which is over three times longer then your is I don't trust people in power.
They lie cheat and steel none stop.
Family is all one can trust.

What is the value of gravity?
G is referred to as the acceleration of gravity. Its value is 9.8 m/s2 on Earth. That is to say, the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.8 m/s2.
They claim the earth moves at 460 meters per second.
At 460 meters per second standard gravity is 46.91.
That doesn't add up.

Only if one doesn't understand that we wouldn't (and don't) feel anything from a constant velocity. Your statement of "At 460 meters per second standard gravity is 46.91" makes no sense, because we aren't talking about acceleration. We're talking about a steady velocity. That said, if either of you wish to discuss this more I suggest making a thread in one of the other sections. Q&A is typically reserved for Questions and Answers about the FE and the FES.

[retlaw]

Only if one doesn't understand that we wouldn't (and don't) feel anything from a constant velocity.

Correct until there is a variable. We have variables on earth.
The equator moves at 460m per sec and the pole doesn't move at all.
That is beyond a huge variation with little consequences.

The speed of sound is 343 m / s which is slower then the speed of the earth so why is it that sound can travel faster then the earths speed of 460 meter per sec?

[Curious Squirrel]

Only if one doesn't understand that we wouldn't (and don't) feel anything from a constant velocity.

Correct until there is a variable. We have variables on earth.
The equator moves at 460m per sec and the pole doesn't move at all.
That is beyond a huge variation with little consequences.

The speed of sound is 343 m / s which is slower then the speed of the earth so why is it that sound can travel faster then the earths speed of 460 meter per sec?

If you want to get into this, I suggest posting in either a science forum (where you will get far better answers than I can give you) or a question forum such as Quora. In brief: The move between equator and pole is gradual. But this is part of why we see such things as the jet stream, and hurricanes. Speed is relative. Everything where you are is moving at the same speed in relation to itself. When you break the speed of sound, you are going that speed in relation to the air/ground around you. This is relatively basic Relativity and physics.

[Dr_WynSCH]

I don't want any sympathy young man. I am not a snowflake.
My experience in life which is over three times longer then your is I don't trust people in power.
They lie cheat and steel none stop.
Family is all one can trust.

What is the value of gravity?
G is referred to as the acceleration of gravity. Its value is 9.8 m/s2 on Earth. That is to say, the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.8 m/s2.
They claim the earth moves at 460 meters per second.
At 460 meters per second standard gravity is 46.91.
That doesn't add up.

It doesn't add up because it doesn't add up. Standard gravity? That makes no sense. Your weight is 9.8 N/kg, that is what is pulling you down because of gravity. We spin at a constant rate. Rotation doesn't really influence gravity that much apart from the equatorial bulge. The earth spins fast but we have proved that gravity is only slightly impacted.

Also, gravity is felt as a force that pulls us toward an objects centre of mass. That is correct. If the Earth were flat does that mean people in the countries close to "the edge" would be leaning toward the centre of mass. So at some point you would feel a force of gravity perpendicular to, well, up. (I looked at a flat earth map by the way) People in the very south of South America would basically be almost horizontal because gravity would pull them toward the centre of mass.

[retlaw]

We spin at a constant rate. Rotation doesn't really influence gravity that much apart from the equatorial bulge. The earth spins fast but we have proved that gravity is only slightly impacted.

So rotation does not effect gravity to much yet it is claimed to make the earth bulge 22km bigger in the center?
I would hate to see what you think an influence is them.

Also, gravity is felt as a force that pulls us toward an objects centre of mass. That is correct. If the Earth were flat does that mean people in the countries close to "the edge" would be leaning toward the centre of mass. So at some point you would feel a force of gravity perpendicular to, well, up. (I looked at a flat earth map by the way) People in the very south of South America would basically be almost horizontal because gravity would pull them toward the centre of mass.

If the earth is flat there is no gravity so the people on the far south wouldn't have an issue like they don't right now.

What makes sense is what you refer to as gravity is the speed the earth mass is traveling up. If free fall is 195km per hr then it makes sense that is the speed the earth is ascending at, 195 km per hr.
If gravity doesn't exist as you know it. then no matter where on the earth you are the same effects will apply.
Look at a model of the globe earth flying through space and then look at one of a flat earth.
Which one is far more simpler?
The best designs in the world are simple ones.
Complicated one seem to fail a lot.

[nickrulercreator]

Both are in the northern hemisphere and not even close to the edge.
The Arctic Circle is the center circle which is small and the outer circle is Antarctic circle which is massive.
Ask your self this question.
Why do flights fly from Canada to Europe fly over the North pole but from South Americas tip they have no flight to Australia over the South Pole?

Flights from Canada to Europe rarely fly over the North pole and if they do, they do not fly to exactly the pole, but somewhat south of it. Take this map, type in Vancouver as your departing location, and it will show you the routes taken to destinations. Not all airports fly to Europe, but as of right now there are flights out of Vancouver going to Europe. They do not fly over the North pole.

Flights do not go over the South pole because they can't. The routes between the southernmost points of Australia, Africa, and South America do not cross over the South pole. this is a good article on polar flight routes, including a diagram showing why very few flights actually cross over Antarctica.

[JohnAdams1145]

We spin at a constant rate. Rotation doesn't really influence gravity that much apart from the equatorial bulge. The earth spins fast but we have proved that gravity is only slightly impacted.

So rotation does not effect gravity to much yet it is claimed to make the earth bulge 22km bigger in the center?
I would hate to see what you think an influence is them.

Also, gravity is felt as a force that pulls us toward an objects centre of mass. That is correct. If the Earth were flat does that mean people in the countries close to "the edge" would be leaning toward the centre of mass. So at some point you would feel a force of gravity perpendicular to, well, up. (I looked at a flat earth map by the way) People in the very south of South America would basically be almost horizontal because gravity would pull them toward the centre of mass.

If the earth is flat there is no gravity so the people on the far south wouldn't have an issue like they don't right now.

What makes sense is what you refer to as gravity is the speed the earth mass is traveling up. If free fall is 195km per hr then it makes sense that is the speed the earth is ascending at, 195 km per hr.
If gravity doesn't exist as you know it. then no matter where on the earth you are the same effects will apply.
Look at a model of the globe earth flying through space and then look at one of a flat earth.
Which one is far more simpler?
The best designs in the world are simple ones.
Complicated one seem to fail a lot.

Now that junker has kindly moved this mess over to Flat Earth debate, I'll essay an answer here.

retlaw, I don't mean this in a mean way, but you lack a fundamental understanding of physics. You cannot claim that someone is wrong without understanding exactly what that person is saying. In the same way, you cannot claim that modern physics is incorrect if you don't even understand Newton's laws and basic kinematics, because you don't even know what it is claiming. I suggest you look at https://goo.gl/H8zBjW and see how many questions you can answer; this will somewhat gauge your understanding of physics at an introductory level. I urge you to give it a legitimate try; part of learning is having an open mind and understanding what you don't know. If you see that you can't correctly answer most of the questions, you should ask here or on a science forum or even go to a local community college and take a physics course there; otherwise, this "debate" will be Round Earth people telling you you're clueless and you blindly asserting that you're not.

Now I'll address your primary misconceptions, and why you're totally and obviously wrong.
1. Rotation does affect the normal force of the Earth on you (what you feel as apparent weight). If you take (460 m/s)^2 / (radius of the Earth) you get a whopping 0.03 m/s^2 difference, even at the equator. It gets roughly linearly smaller as you approach the poles. This is just a 0.3% change, and imperceptible without a precise electronic scale. This causes the bulge in the Earth.
2. There is gravity. Read about the Cavendish experiment. Even FE people introduce a force just as mysterious called "celestial gravitation," which has even less justification than gravity.
3. Sure, the Flat Earth is "simpler" on its face. Then you realize it doesn't line up with experiments, like ships disappearing over the horizon. Then you realize that the corrections needed are extremely complex, while the Round Earth explains it in stride. I encourage that you take a lab-based physics course to really see how science is conducted.
4. Round Earth clearly isn't failing. Look at all the technology around you built by people who believe in a round Earth.
5. A point on Earth's surface moving at 460 m/s does not imply a standard gravity of "46.91" (what are the units, anyway?). No idea where you got this from; acceleration and velocity and speed are completely different things. If you don't recognize the difference between acceleration, velocity, speed, energy, momentum, and force, then you don't know basic Newtonian physics. See above for my recommendation on assessing your physics knowledge.
6. Sound waves propagate by the statistical movement (I don't know the best way to describe it) of air molecules or whatever other medium, but since you gave its speed in air, I'll stick to that.  What's key here is the relative motion, not the absolute speed. You must always give speeds/velocities with a reference frame. This is one of the fundamental ideas in physics.
7. Gravity would be weaker at the equator than at the poles. Clearly you don't know how to calculate circular motion.