161

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is Greenland as big as Africa?

« on: August 21, 2018, 04:45:34 PM »

Hey everyone,

So, I am pretty sure that everyone here has agreed at some point that Google Maps works. You can select a and b and get between them using your transportation of choice.

Google have recently changed their web version of maps to a globe. I am not saying the Earth is a globe because Google says so, so please read on...

On Google's flat version of maps, it shows that Greenland is huge. Like really huge. on their flat version (still available on Android) Greenland is almost the same size as Africa. On their new version of web maps, Greenland is dwarfed by Africa.

As I understand it, this is an issue with transposing round Earth to a flat surface. The way Google chose to do this was to have a scale that changed depending on where you were looking on the map at the time, therefore making things further from the equator appear bigger than they are.

So, why am I posting this? Good question sir! I wanted to find out how it is possible that, assuming the Earth is flat, Greenland appears to be as big as Africa when the scale could not possibly change.

If scale changes then it shows that there is a difference in curvature.

Please note that I am not trying to start an argument here, I am trying to understand. This is just something that has triggered my interest lately.

If you're referring to the size differential of northern hemisphere countries vs southern hemisphere countries, you're probably looking at the Mercator projection of the earth.  Since there is no way of accurately reproducing a spherical map onto a rectangle without distortion, different projection formulas will produce different distortions.  The Gall-Peters projection distorts the shapes, but maintains correct sizes relative to one another.

I'm still waiting for a flat planet to be projected onto a flat map, for which there should be no distortion.

162

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?

« on: August 21, 2018, 01:29:51 PM »

I am brand new to the flat earth society but i have always believed there was something fishy about the earth being round. it just didn’t make sense. my school teachers ridiculed me for not believing in “science”. i hope my journey here on this site will be a supportive community as we fight for the truth to come out.

My previous reply was deleted, so I'll reword it.  I'd love to hear your thoughts on the conspiracy to fake space travel.

163

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is it irrational to believe Flat Earth?

« on: August 21, 2018, 04:28:51 AM »

With all the evidence of a round earth present, I would think that blindly calling such evidence fake because it contradicts what you believe is irrational.

164

Flat Earth Theory / Re: RET - The Single Biome Universe

« on: August 21, 2018, 12:34:16 AM »

If you delve into the scientific properties of the other planets, it might give a bit of logical insight to why this may be.  I'm no astronomer, but too close to the sun, you won't find grass or leaves or water.  Too far from the sun, you won't get liquid water on the surface, so no trees, grass, mud, greens, etc.  Weak magnetic field in the planet, less solar wind deflection; irradiated surface.  Not all planets are made of the same junk, so they don't all display the same properties.  Why should they?

Our planet is perfect to support life.  Other solar systems may have similar layouts.  Star Wars planets are probably built like that so that the solar systems are easily distinguished from one another.  Star Trek has their planets far more diverse, if we're going into fiction.  The flat earth might as well be Asgard.

I see logic and common sense the solar system.

165

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?

« on: August 20, 2018, 04:13:55 PM »

No one in the government is actively lying about the Earth's shape (as far as we know). They genuinely believe it to be round. The lie is the act of having advanced space travel capabilities. Back in the late 1940s, the 50s and the 60s, governments were just beginning to understand the properties of mass propaganda and how it can shape the reality of their people.

The USSR always existed on the fundamental idea that they were working towards some glorious, super-industrial future that never came to fruition. What better motivation than to tell their people and their enemies, that they have sent man-made objects into space? Amazing, finally their glorious technological future will come to pass! Except it didn't. They never sent anything into space. They lied to their own people. However, the West couldn't just sit idly by because their own people believed the lie too. "Look at the USSR!" they said, "they're so advanced!" The West couldn't allow such a thought to start purveying their own populace. Something had to be done.

The West couldn't simply say the USSR is lying. The USSR would continue to lie and people would start to ask "well why aren't we sending things to space?" Therefore it was decided that the West would lie as well. "Look, we've sent stuff too!" Then it became a big game of who can con their own people into the biggest lie. It became a game of "let's get Kubrick to televise our lies on national television". The USSR couldn't compete with Hollywood. They lost the lying game.

The Earth not being round is just a part of the big lie, it's not even an intentional lie. If the US thought the Earth was flat when it faked the moon landing, the Earth would appear flat in the movie. It's just an artistic backdrop picture. Space travel still is, and will continue to be, a silly lie, which is why NASA will fade into irrelevance, why SpaceX only exists because of government contracts, and why every company who ever uttered the phrase "space tourism" is doomed to failure. Eventually the government, and schools, will tell us all that there's nothing interesting in space, don't bother thinking about it, and they'll hope faking the moon landing is no big deal when it's declassified in a century or so.

You'd think that if countries are lying to each other about who made it to space, the other could call them out on it.  Why would NASA acknowledge the existence of Russian spacecraft if this were the case?  Better to say Russia failed but America will succeed.  Who controls space controls the world....so is the ISS fake?  Was Mir fake?

If Russia launched a fake space station in 1986, why did it take 12 years for America to launch their fake space station?  For the purpose of the conspiracy it makes absolutely no sense.  Was this Russian collusion version 1.0?  How far back does Russian collusion with USA go back?

The ISS can be seen through a telescope.  What sorcery is used to fake what is seen through telescopes?

Another scenario is that space travel is real.  Mir was real, the ISS is real (and observable), and we live in a world where knowledge is real (in most places).  Technology has advanced to a point where we have been able to send spacecraft beyond this rock.  Quite silly, really.

166

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?

« on: August 19, 2018, 05:58:26 PM »

I didn't think the thread needed to be split.  A simple "don't derail the thread...let's get back on point" would have probably sufficed.  Do you split every thread that wavers slightly off topic just once?

For those reading wondering, the thread started here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10479.0

167

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?

« on: August 19, 2018, 03:00:23 AM »

It's not just that a powerful organization lied.  It's about the world as you knew it being a lie.  If you don't think that would fundamentally change your life, than I'd say you're lucky.  Perhaps that's why real flat earth believers (not just the trolls on the forums) are so quick to dismiss any evidence of a round planet.

Pick anything you strongly believe in and replace flat earth belief with that.  Imagine a devout christian, he spends his whole life in the service of God and the bible only to find that it was in fact written by the devil for some nefarious purpose.  I think his life would fundamentally change.

Although, I'm sure flat earth believers are happy to be living in our round world as our conspirators have given them efficient flight around the world, GPS, Star Trek, pi that doesn't equal "something closer to 4", a known distance from New York to Paris (3161 nautical miles), and most conveniently a map of the earth (something that doesn't exist on a flat earth).

Thank you very much for this feedback. So if I am hearing you correctly (and please do correct me if wrong), then the issue is that your reality as you know it is a lie, fed to you by liars. Is this right?

I think I can see how that would result in you not caring so much about the motivation behind the lie, but rather the fact that you are being lied to in the first place. Jez, I would be pissed if I thought that was happening. So I am sorry that you are in that situation.

If I may ask a follow up question: what initially led you to think your reality was a lie?

I hope I am not overstepping or making you feel uncomfortable. If so, then I apologize a million times. I truly find this conversation helpful.

You may have misunderstood me.  I forgot to quote curious26 when they said "I don't think my life would change dramatically if I knew the powerful organizations lied, would yours?"

Personally, I don't believe I'm being lied to.  Nor do I believe the world is flat.  Though, I could only imagine the world that flat earthers must believe they're in.  I can't understand what the motivation behind the conspiracy would really be?  A round earth has been around for over 500 years.

The space travel conspiracy also seems like complete BS.  NASA isn't the only space agency in the world, so where's Russia in the conspiracy?  Where's China?

No apologies necessary, QED.

168

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Motivation of the Conspiracy?

« on: August 19, 2018, 02:05:06 AM »

It's not just that a powerful organization lied.  It's about the world as you knew it being a lie.  If you don't think that would fundamentally change your life, than I'd say you're lucky.  Perhaps that's why real flat earth believers (not just the trolls on the forums) are so quick to dismiss any evidence of a round planet.

Pick anything you strongly believe in and replace flat earth belief with that.  Imagine a devout christian, he spends his whole life in the service of God and the bible only to find that it was in fact written by the devil for some nefarious purpose.  I think his life would fundamentally change.

Although, I'm sure flat earth believers are happy to be living in our round world as our conspirators have given them efficient flight around the world, GPS, Star Trek, pi that doesn't equal "something closer to 4", a known distance from New York to Paris (3161 nautical miles), and most conveniently a map of the earth (something that doesn't exist on a flat earth).

169

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What does it matter?

« on: August 18, 2018, 05:10:39 PM »

My opinion....

If indisputable proof came out that the earth is flat, I think it would be significant in exposing the veil that has been cast over us by the powerful organizations of the world.  Would we know what to believe anymore?

If there's indisputable proof that the world is round, then TFES would call it fake.  And, I believe that's the current situation we're in.  TFES needs a reason to exist, and accepting evidence that the earth is round would put an end to that.

...obviously biased as a RE believer.

170

Flat Earth Theory / Re: CMEs and Sun's Distance from earth

« on: August 18, 2018, 12:44:08 AM »

I see.  So everyone with a hydrogen-alpha solar telescope is in on the conspiracy? 

It's faked is not a valid answer.  It's a way to dodge existing scientific proof based on observation and analysis to validate a belief (not theory) that the earth is flat.

The forum may be examining the shape of the earth, but the sun has a section in the wiki that is lacking much detail.

171

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Atmolayer lip hypothesis and its incorrectness

« on: August 17, 2018, 06:21:02 PM »

Yes, the atmosphere does decrease in pressure and temperature until it literally drops out of the air. Yes, that is what is happening in this demonstration. It is already happening wherever those scientists are on Antarctica, and is generally the case in the Arctics as well.

As the atoms move outwards into the thousands of miles of fridged tundra, and temperatures gets colder and colder, they will freeze and drop.

And what force is stopping the gas molecules over the earth from moving to this area, freezing and dropping?
Pressure will try and equalise. You have a heat source over the earth, the sun, you don't have a heat source elsewhere. So the pressure over the earth will be higher than in the " thousands of miles of frigid tundra" around it. What is stopping that high pressure from leaking into the low pressure?

Also, you have no evidence for this thousands of miles of frigid tundra even existing. By definition it's not something which has been explored or observed in any way.

Antarctica is already a much higher pressure than the inward latitudes. This acts as a "wall." As pressure decreases and atoms slow down due to the temperature, it also causes the atmosphere to collapse and squish. Look at the Polar Highs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_High

Polar highs are a RE phenomenon.  Can you explain how you can get a polar high in the south pole?  Is there a polar vortex rotating around the entire south pole ice wall?  What's the height of the atmoplane at the ice rim?  How can cold air descend at the south pole if it's a dome?

172

Flat Earth Theory / CMEs and Sun's Distance from earth

« on: August 17, 2018, 02:24:49 PM »

I've briefly searched threads for an answer on this, but couldn't find anything.

CMEs, or coronal mass ejections (different from solar flares) happen all the time.  When Earth-directed CMEs occur they are recorded and affect the Earth around 3 days later (varies, but has never been less than a day).  If the sun is only a few thousand miles from the earth's surface would that mean that the CME is traveling at less than 50mph?  Or substantially slower since the northern lights are up in the sky.

Furthermore, if the sun is within earth's atmosphere that means that every visibly recorded CME must be directed at some part of the Earth.  If this is the case, why do we not see northern lights for those other CMEs?

Why the 3 day delay if the sun is so close?

Is there a FE scientific definition of a CME that differs from the current definition?  Didn't see anything on the wiki.

173

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A question for flat earthers: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: August 14, 2018, 03:36:39 AM »

2. When pictures are posted of distant skylines obscured by water, such as this one:

I really appreciate the perspective of this picture; it really looks like the earth is curved.

But there's a problem with this picture. Based on RE theory, the super-imposed tower that you see there would have to have been taken at a much closer distance than the overall picture since you would have to get closer to get over the curve (unless of course the earth is flat). The relative size of the tower taken at a close distance should be a different size than the very distant tower in the overall picture. How is it that they are aligned so perfectly in this picture? I'm not buying it. The super-imposed picture appears to have been modified to fit the size of the overall picture.

You would need to use a camera with a higher zoom and aspect ratio to see closer to the base of the tower in order to determine if you can, or cannot actually see its base.

What is it about the picture that you don't buy?  If it's been resized without modifying the proportions it shouldn't change the results by any significant margin (at least not enough to bring the base up to the horizon.

174

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Nasa LIVESTREAMS Fake?

« on: August 14, 2018, 03:14:08 AM »

Oh, you don't have to convince me.  I'm RE all the way.  I was stating that while it's theoretically possible, there would be too many factors to consider to make it plausible and convincing.

I find the thought that somehow the entire population of the planet is being deceived by some globally coordinated effort with CGI, math that works in all RE scenarios, a global layout of continents which makes sense, not to mention objects outside of our planet which have been observed, photographed, traveled to, etc.... quite amusing.

If we're being fooled, then it has certainly made life easier.  Thanks NASA!

175

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Nasa LIVESTREAMS Fake?

« on: August 14, 2018, 01:13:43 AM »

Given enough funds and a good team of CGI artists, I don't think it would be too difficult to make multiple 24/7 "live streams" of a camera pointing to earth.  Keeping the CGI accurate to weather patterns that we can see when we look outside or on the weather channel (assuming they're not in on the "conspiracy") would be considerably more difficult.  My PS3 could probably fool my kids. 

Since a CGI feed wouldn't technically live and would be generated by a computer, I don't think a 24/7 feed would be an issue.  The problem is duplicating with extreme precision that which people observe on the planet from multiple feeds in perfect sync. 

Another problem is replicating events such as lightning storms or large scale power outages in real time. 

176

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Atmolayer lip hypothesis and its incorrectness

« on: August 13, 2018, 05:27:24 PM »

Wait. You think the balloons deflated because the atoms inside them dropped to the bottom of the balloon?
Wow...

They did drop to the bottom of the balloon. How could you say that they did not?

Hi Tom.  I have no scientific background, so I'm a blank slate for learning.  If the atoms drop to the bottom of the balloon, then what takes their place at the top?  Since nothing can come in or go out, what are the atoms heavier than?