161

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: March 05, 2018, 09:10:08 PM »

I'm wandering:
If earth would be flat, it would be much easier to create an accurate map, as there would no projection needed, just "scaling".
A 2D world could easily be represented on a 2D chart.

Why should cartographers - since centuries - bother to apply complicated map projections and present us charts, that are not as accurate as these could be, but suffer from significant distortions (at large map scales).
... unless earth is not flat.

This is a good question once you can get past the poor English. It would indeed be much, much easier to show a map of a 2D (or flat) earth compared with projecting a globe onto a 2D surface. I would imagine some FE folks will find a way to disagree with that statement no matter how difficult it will be -- but in the off chance one of you would actually like to give it some thought it would be nice to know why you think cartographers would go through all of this trouble.

162

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Orbiting International Space Station visible from Telescope

« on: March 05, 2018, 07:07:03 PM »

Put the satellites path on a FE map and they to go around in big circles.

First of all, I think it's awesome the amount of work and thought you are putting into this. It seems like you actually want to find the truth!

There is a problem with your methods, however. Flat Earthers do not have a map of the flat earth -- they admit this freely.

The "FE map" you are using is a projection of a globe onto a 2D surface.

163

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Electromagnetic acceleration

« on: March 05, 2018, 06:52:16 PM »

EA is long abandoned by the FES in exchange for their perspective idea. The wiki should really be updated to reflect this.

Are you sure? It was invoked by one of the regulars (Pete) in another thread recently.

164

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Density and the replacement of gravity.

« on: March 05, 2018, 04:51:41 PM »

Could gravitational force just be replaced with Velocity?
Velocity (Speed) is a force that would depend on the mass, matter, volume, and density of the item like a baseball. You could throw a basketball from the same spot as the baseball but because of the mass, matter, volume, and density difference of it, the Velocity speed would be much slower and the basketball would land much closer.

That is due to friction in the atmosphere. There is no atmosphere in space, and therefore no friction.

Unless FET is claiming that there IS some sort of resisting force in space -- in which case I would like to see the proof and the math behind it.

165

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hey Flat Earthers, Just wondering...

« on: March 05, 2018, 04:45:21 PM »

That's not what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that these expeditions didn't take place. I do, however, question the view that following standard navigational equipment around the Ice Wall is in any way conclusive.

Can you just answer the questions? You know, those sentences ending with an interrogation point : "?" :

Why would flights travel in a massive circle around the edge of the flat world when they could simply pass over the north pole in a much more direct route, if your projection is true? Wouldn't it cost far more in fueling costs for the plane to travel in a massive circle around the world than simply over the curved surface of the world? Why would airliner companies be willing to spend so much more money on flights such as this than to show that the world is flat?

Those are good questions, but they are off-topic. Can we keep this thread focused on the OP's question? That way we might be able to get a real answer.

Here is the question: "How is it possible in FE to get from Australia to South America in a similar time to that taken to get to Western USA or the Middle East?"

Edit: I made a mistake. I did not realize the off-topic questions I saw were your signature.

166

Flat Earth Community / Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series

« on: March 05, 2018, 03:48:21 PM »

No, or at least this was not my intention.

Then I apologize for my misinterpretation.

Electromagnetic acceleration, for one

You're going to have to explain this one. Is it like UA at all?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

That doesn't explain much, but there are certain posters here that helpfully suggest you "check the wiki."

Pete, if you could kindly answer my question regarding predictions in a flat earth model it would be appreciated.

167

Flat Earth Community / Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series

« on: March 05, 2018, 03:07:52 PM »

You said:

CHL continues to do what he does best - pick a subject, decide what he thinks those loonies he disagrees with must think, and then disprove his own assumptions.

Is this not saying he cherry picks easy subjects?

No, or at least this was not my intention. What I'm saying is that he strawmans his opponents, regardless of which opponent we focus on. He selects a subject (homeopathy, creationism, FE, whatever), and then he concocts a mix of things people actually propose, and things he made up on the spot, because he's too lazy to read on and would rather trust his intuition. When this is combined with his presupposed notion that his opponents are wrong, the results can often be... off the charts.

such as?

Electromagnetic acceleration, for one.

One of the most convincing arguments that he presents (in my opinion) is the capability scientists have to predict things that work within the RE world and then prove them to be true later on. The exact time and path of totality of a solar eclipse, for example, or gravitational waves (discovered 100 years after they were hypothesized).

Are there any examples of FE scientists doing the same? 

And before you say it, I realize there is a post in the wiki regarding lunar eclipses. I am asking very specifically about solar eclipses for a few different reasons.

168

Flat Earth Community / Re: CoolHardLogic released the 4th part of his "Testing Flattards" Series

« on: March 05, 2018, 07:07:15 AM »

And he ignores large chunks of the theory that make his claims inconvenient for him. This is just as bad as the FE'ers who say things like "if the Earth were spinning at 1000mph, people would get flung off into space!" Sure, it uses the opponent's numbers. It also uses them in wildly inappropriate ways, rooted in the lack of even a basic understanding of the subject matter. Simply by making this assertion we can clearly see that the video is [BOLLOCKS]

This is probably a lost cause (as explanations are rarely handed out on this forum) but could you please inform me as to which chunks of the theory he is leaving out?

169

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: March 05, 2018, 07:05:10 AM »

why the hell are you even pointing a satellite dish towards the sky if they didn't exist?

This is a very good question. Have you, the OP, ever watched TV using Dish or DirecTV?

170

Flat Earth Theory / Re: in a 3-D model, what does the earth look like?

« on: March 05, 2018, 03:29:03 AM »

How would we know?

Have you considered launching spacecraft?

That's expensive and difficult, though -- how about using ground- or flight-based observations?

And once you've done that, how about getting your results peer-reviewed?

171

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 04, 2018, 02:05:01 AM »

And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

No one has ever dug a hole and fell into space nor did it ever appear like that had happened. The sun rises and sets every day. The OP is not proposing a thought experiment but a literal one. You can do it with a friend tomorrow if you like.
 
Your post does nothing to address the OP.

I don't see any observations or records. Therefore it is a thought experiment.

Until you are willing to explain the results of my thought experiment, I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

The thought experiment has been explained.

172

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 03, 2018, 09:15:04 PM »

And evidence that this actually happens?

If you guys are unwilling to explain the results of my thought experiment -- which clearly shows your model to be wrong, then I am unwilling to explain the results of yours.

How many posts do you actually read in these threads? Your "thought experiment" has been answered to multiple times.

173

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flight path

« on: March 03, 2018, 03:52:51 PM »

 A similar question is being ignored in another thread.

174

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to Flat Earth theory and need help

« on: March 03, 2018, 07:48:17 AM »

Reading the wiki would probably be your best bet.

Yes, the wiki is your best bet. It's chock full of great information that is backed up by sound logic and mathematics.

To wit:

Rotundity
Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

A. The earth is not a planet.

Size and Magnitude
Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?

A. Pretty small.

175

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No flat earth model can explain this case

« on: March 02, 2018, 11:52:11 PM »

There is no way to explain using the Round Earth model the case I described, where if you dig a hole deep enough you will fall out into space on the other side. How do you explain falling out into space on the other side?

Please be honest and admit that it can't be explained.

What is there to be explained?

First, why would you fall all the way to the other side? Surely a primary tenet of the globe model is that gravity attracts all to the centre, so you would fall to the centre and go no further, assuming you weren't boiled alive by magma, etc.

Even if you DID reach the other side, why would you emerge into 'space'. You descended into the hole from some point on land or sea within our atmosphere, and the globe model holds that the atmosphere surrounds the Earth. So you would emerge into a similar atmosphere to the one that you left when you entered the hole.

No?

No, you need to explain the case scenario of digging through the earth fall out through the other side. That doesn't make sense if the earth is round and gravity is as they claim it is. You need to explain the case of falling out through the other side if one diggs deep enough.

How can he explain something that doesn't happen? There is absolutely no way that I would "fall out the other side" if I dug deep enough into the Earth. If I somehow dug a shaft through the center of the Earth and jumped in, I would fall until I reached the center of the planet and then stop. I would not fall through to the other side, because that isn't how gravity works.

For the sake of discussion, even if this worked the way you (completely irrationally) believe, I would simply fall all the way to the other side of the planet. I wouldn't make it into space unless I reached escape velocity during my travels.

There is no scenario of "digging through the earth fall out through the other side." If you think that's what happens, the burden of proof is on you big fella.

176

Flat Earth Theory / Re: This is a serious, curious question.

« on: March 02, 2018, 06:49:05 PM »

The "edge" and the Ice Wall are two different things - so the answer to your question depends on what you meant.

The Ice Wall can be trivially observed from a distance, and plenty of photos are available.

The "edge" is a hypothetical concept proposed mainly by finite-plane FE'ers and (more commonly) RE'ers. It may or may not exist, and it is most likely undiscoverable either way.

Quick question: Have you seen the ice wall yourself? How do you know that those photos you have seen (share them if you would, I am very curious) are real and not doctored?

Does anecdotal evidence only apply to an argument when you agree with it? Are all pictures assumed to be faked unless they support your point of view?

177

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Quick question flat earthers...

« on: March 02, 2018, 06:40:03 PM »

I have a question, if the earth is flat, why is it every planet and star around us is a sphere? What makes us so special?

I was certainly expecting a stronger argument, but here it is:

Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

A. The earth is not a planet.

178

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hey Flat Earthers, Just wondering...

« on: March 02, 2018, 06:37:41 PM »

So instead of going round in circles with claim and counter claim, the question remains, how is it possible in FE to get from Australia to South America in a similar time to that taken to get to Western USA or the Middle East?

Is anyone going to answer the question at the heart of this thread?